Sounds of Travel 12: I’m Gonna Be (500 Miles)

by Jamie Rhein on

Here at Gadling we’ll be highlighting some of our favorite sounds from the road and giving you a sample of each — maybe you’ll find the same inspiration that we did, but at the very least, hopefully you’ll think that they’re good songs.

Got a favorite of your own? Leave it in the Comments and we’ll post it at the end of the series.

“King of the Road,” my first Sounds of Travel pick, evokes the spirit of independence. It’s an ode to the traveler who strikes out alone without a care in the world.

“500 Miles” by the Proclaimers, however, is a tribute to traveling with another. In my case, this travel often has been on foot– literally.

My husband is a walker. He has great big feet–size 14. When I met him when we lived in Albuquerque, New Mexico, one of the first things I noticed is his need to walk. He has a way of striking out into the world in great big strides wearing boots that could double as door stops. Not long after I met him, I was hoofing it to keep up.

One of our first forays into mega walk travel was on a camping trip into the Gila Wilderness in southern New Mexico.

“How far are we going, exactly?” I wanted to know when he suggested such a venture. It’s not the walking I mind– it’s the carrying stuff. “It won’t be that far,” he said. “By the way, there are a couple places we’ll have to cross a stream.”

“Okay, sure,” I said, not mentioning my phobia about wading through water–or rather, I did have a phobia about wading through water. After crossing the stream at least 14 times, I was cured.

That walk was just the beginning.

“How about a trek in Nepal?” he suggested as our first Christmas vacation while we were living in Singapore. “We’ll hire porters to carry our stuff.”

That trip took us from Jomsom to Pokhara. Two other couples went with us. It’s not the going up a mountain that hurts all that much if you go slowly. It’s the going down that is hell on knees.

Then it was the 9-day trek in Ladakh, India through the Markha Valley.

“There are pack-mules AND porters to carry stuff,” my husband said to entice me. The only time I whined a bit was when I noticed how dry my skin was becoming in the thin mountain air. “I don’t know if my skin can take much more of this,” I said, thinking that in another week I’d look one hundred.

“Why don’t you ask the women here what they do?” my husband said, casting his gaze towards a group of women in the distance who were wrestling with rubble and dirt while hoeing a field. He’s sympathetic that way.

Still, whenever he slips on those massive Red Wing boots of his to head out the door, calling for me to come with him, I know it will be an adventure–one that I wouldn’t be taking if I wasn’t willing to share the road.

The first time we heard “I’m Gonna Be (500 Miles)” we were on a date seeing the movie “Bennie and Joon.” The song was the movie’s theme song and Johnny Depp was one of the stars.

When we got married, three weeks before we moved to Singapore, this song was the recessional at our wedding. For a traveling pair who walks, it seemed to fit. Whenever I hear the Proclaimers belt out this song in their jaunty, Scottish Irish fashion, I see images of all the places my husband and I have passed by from the simple walk in the neighborhood to the expanse of a spectacular vista.

One of my two most favorite images of the miles we’ve traveled is of my husband winding through the streets of the Old Quarter in Hanoi with our daughter perched on his shoulders high above the crowd when she was three. My other favorite image is of him strolling through the streets of Bangkok swinging our then 3 month-old son in his Graco car seat carrier like our son was a purse.

Yep, he’d walk 500 miles–and 500 more. Honestly, I would too.

Click here for previous Sounds of Travel.

10 more stupid laws

by Annie Scott on

After finding so many outrageously stupid yet entertaining laws yesterday for my top 10 stupidest laws you may encounter abroad, I decided it would be foolish – no, negligent not to continue.

Here are ten more very stupid laws from countries all over the world:

  1. Singapore – If you are convicted of littering three times, you will have to clean the streets on Sundays with a bib on saying, “I am a litterer.”
  2. Sweden – You may only own half a meter down in the ground of any land you own.
  3. U.K. – Since 1313, MPs are not allowed to don armor in Parliament.
  4. England – All English males over the age 14 are to carry out 2 or so hours of longbow practice a week supervised by the local clergy.
  5. Cambodia – Water guns may not be used in New Year’s celebrations.
  6. Australia – It is illegal to wear hot pink pants after midday Sunday.
  7. Denmark – One may not be charged for food at an inn unless that person, by his or her own opinion, is “full”.
  8. France – No pig may be addressed as Napoleon by its owner.
  9. Israel – It is forbidden to bring bears to the beach.
  10. Bahrain – A male doctor may legally examine a woman’s genitals, but is forbidden from looking directly at them during the examination. He may only see their reflection in a mirror.

References:
LawGuru.com
FunFacts.com.au
DumbLaws.com

Through the Gadling Lens: SLRs vs point-and-shoots, and how to edit photos without feeling like you’re cheating

by Karen Walrond on

One of the common statements I hear from people is, “well, of course your holiday images are great — look at that huge camera you use!” The truth is that with as much technology as is crammed into those tiny little point-and-shoots these days, it’s absolutely possible to take images with a point and shoot of close to equal quality to an SLR.

Don’t believe me? Then let’s try an experiment: take a look at the following three pairs of images, all taken in Bath, United Kingdom, during my recent vacation. In each pair, one of them was shot with my Nikon D300 digital SLR camera (a serious bad-boy, if I do say so myself), and the other was shot with my Nikon Coolpix (a very respectable point-and-shoot). See if you can guess which of each pair was shot with the SLR. Ready?

(A) The Royal Crescent, Bath


(B) Susannah, a local artist and photographer


(C) The Circle

Have you guessed?

Here, I’ll give you a minute.

Okay.

So, in each pair, the first image was taken with the digital SLR, and the second with the point-and-shoot. Now you might argue that the colours are warmer in the images taken by the SLR than the compact camera, or you find that you notice more contrast in one set, but I’ll wager that in each case, the clarity of the images is on par with each other, and in fact, in the pair of the Royal Crescent, I think the point-and-shoot resulted in a better image.

Besides, issues like colours and contrast can be taken care of with Photoshop.

I can hear some of you already gasping in horror, and I admit, when I first started shooting with a digital camera, I was very anti-Photoshop. “Hmph,” I sniffed, “Photoshop is used by people who don’t know how to take photos. Besides, the digital manipulation of photography is just plain dishonest.” And then I would turn my heel and vanish in a cloud of self-righteousness, all the while secretly lamenting the fact that every photo I shot didn’t look anything like I thought it looked like when I first framed it in the viewfinder of my camera.

Then one day, I was at my local camera shop, confessing to one of the guys that I worked there that I really wished I could get the kinds of images other people got. “Like that one,” I said, pointing to the display image behind him. “Why don’t my photographs look like that?”

“That?” he smiled. “It’s a great shot, agreed, but you realize that that’s been digitally manipulated, right?”

“NO!” I responded, in horror. “Seriously? That’s not just the shot he took? How… how… disappointing!”

“Why?” he asked, genuinely confused. “There’s nothing wrong with Photoshop, Karen. It’s just processing – similar to what we used to do with chemicals, back in the olden days. I mean, do you really think Ansel Adams really shot those beautiful pictures without dodging and burning and manipulating the processing of the photograph?”

That’s when it dawned on me: digital processing doesn’t have to be about deception, and it can be all about artistry. It can be a tool to help communicate what you saw or felt at the time you took the image. But if you were amazed by the colours, or the sparkle in someone’s eyes, or the moodiness of the sky, then why not make sure that people who see your images are struck by the same things?

Eventually, over time, I’ve come up with a few unofficial rules for myself when using Photoshop (or any other photo-editing software) that helps ensure I’m using the tool as honestly as possible. Understand that I’m not suggesting that others using the tool in a different way are being dishonest — again, art is in the eye of the beholder. I’m just saying that for my own warped sense of morality, using Photoshop in this way feels the most honest to me — and in fact, once you read the following, you might feel that I’m the cheatingest cheater who ever cheated. I just offer these as a jumping-off point of discussion.

1. I don’t delete pixels. I was admiring the image a friend of mine shot when coming out of a Tube station in London a few years ago. “This is great,” I said. “Thanks!” he responded. “And the best part? There was a person standing right over here,” he motioned to a substantial portion of the image, “and I just Photoshopped him out!”

Now, obviously, this didn’t change the fact that the photograph he’d taken was still beautiful; however, for me, the fact that he’d removed an item from the image made the photograph feel a bit more contrived. So my rule is that I don’t remove objectionable objects from my images — I’d much rather check through the viewfinder before I take the shot to see if it there are people or things in the way, and fix it that way, before I squeeze the shutter.

2. I don’t blatantly change colours. Let me clarify: I do sometimes bump up the hue of a colour, or accentuate the contrast in an image — because frankly? Sometimes my camera just can’t capture how amazingly blue-green the ocean is, or how shockingly yellow the fall foliage happens to be without a little help. I won’t, however, change someone’s red sweater to blue, just because I think she’d look better in that colour. All colour-clashes remain as-is.

3. I do sharpen and increase the contrast of almost every image I shoot. Not a lot, you understand, but I think it pretty much enhances every image.

4. I sometimes manipulate the lighting so that the viewer focuses on exactly what I want them to focus on, creating a “vignette” effect.

To help illustrate my point, here’s how I processed a couple of images, step-by-step:

Ellie:

This is Ellie, my niece, sitting on a large rock on Maenporth beach, in her native Cornwall, England. This image was taken right out of the camera, with no processing whatsoever:

This is a perfectly acceptable image; however, the thing is, I know that in real life, when you see Ellie, you can’t help but notice her piercing blue eyes, possibly more than any other physical characteristic. For this reason, I think a bit of tweaking might help make this point.

First, as I do with every shot, I enhanced the sharpness and the contrast a bit:

The changes are subtle; however, the added sharpness shows a bit more detail in her hair, and her eyes are starting to look more striking — more like she actually looks in real life.

Finally, I’ll use a gradient tool to “burn” the colours around her face a bit more (i.e., warm up the colours around her):

The final result, while not drastically different from the original image, communicates a bit more about her spirit-filled eyes and the warmth of her personality. In my opinion, therefore, this is a far more “accurate” image of Ellie than the original.

One more, more elaborate example:

St. Ives:

Again, the following shot of the little town of St. Ives, Cornwall, was taken straight out of the camera:

Again, not a bad photograph, but really nothing special. Still, what I remember about the moment I took this picture is that after a really beautiful day, the clouds were beginning to accumulate, and we could tell we were on the verge of seeing the last of the sun, as the rain settled in for the rest of the day. The moment actually seemed rather magical, as we watched the weather in transition. And so, in processing the image, I wanted to capture the mood of that transition.

First, as with almost every shot I take, I enhanced the sharpness and the contrast:

Already, this photograph is starting to look a bit better to me — the clouds are beginning to capture the transitional mood, and the additional sharpness has brought out the detail in the windows of all the little buildings in the town.

But watch what happens when I pull out the gradient/colour “burn” tool again:

Now the image, with the deepened hues of the sky and the ocean, really communicates the moment when the image was taken: the sky was beginning to get gloomy, the sea was mirroring the sky’s atmosphere, and the town was dearly hanging on to that last bit of sunshine. It’s exactly as I remember.

The tweaks I’ve done above are relatively minor, but for me, they make a world of difference in honing the feeling I was trying to communicate with the images. In certain cases, I modify the images even more; however, the final results still feel very honest and true. So if you’ve been reticent about trying Photoshop (or Lightbox, or Picnik — which is free! — or any other photo editing tool), perhaps what you’ve seen here will make you consider trying to add some digital magic to your photos. And once you’ve handled that, if you start to feel like you’ve finally found the artist in you, there are some really wild things you can do with textures and filters and all kinds of other treatments — go nuts!

In the meantime, if you have any questions you’d like to ask, please e-mail me at karen.walrond@weblogsinc.com, and I’ll do my best to answer them in future posts.

Karen is a writer and photographer in Houston, Texas. You can see more of her work at her site, Chookooloonks.
And for more Through the Gadling Lens, click here.

Amazing Race 13 recap 10: People in Moscow sure are generous

by Jamie Rhein on

At the end of last week’s episode of Amazing Race 13, Andrew and Dan were penniless and in last place, but still in the race. Moscow almost did them in. Because it was a non-elimination round, they were granted a second chance. Luckily, with the Amazing Race and reality television, each new day brings a new beginning and more money.

When these frat boys opened their first clue, they found $326 to keep them solvent.

Of all the episodes this season, this particular day in Moscow evoked experiences similar to what it really is like to travel in another country. Most of the tasks involved traveling from one point to another while navigating signage written in the Cyrillic alphabet. For anyone who has tried to navigate another country in a hurry when the written language is unrecognizable, the teams’ experiences may have looked familiar.

Travel Tips:

  1. Check to make sure you have all your belongings with you when you get out of a taxi
  2. When trying to catch a taxi, notice which direction the traffic flow is greater. If need be, cross the street to up your chances of finding one. You can always get a taxi to turn around.
  3. If you loose all your money, don’t be embarrassed to ask for help.
  4. If possible, use a taxi with a GPS system. It can save time and money.
  5. The metro system in Moscow has a map that looks similar to other metro system maps which makes taking the metro look fairly simple to navigate. Try it if you’re in Moscow. It will be much cheaper than taking a taxi and you’ll be out of the quagmire of Moscow traffic.
  6. Do not let one person carry all the money. Each person should at least carry some of it.

Recap and Cultural Highlights-

This episode was one of buzzing about Moscow in taxis, trains and trolleys to sites that play tribute to Russia’s political, literary and dance traditions.

First stop was to the sonar room of a retired Russian nuclear submarine to find the actor who had a role in the movie “The Hunt for Red October.” So far so good in the lack of mishaps department. No one had trouble here. Then it was off to the Graveyard of Fallen Monuments where one of the team members had to find statues of Lenin and Stalin among statues of other people who were also involved with Russia’s complex past. Once the team member found the number of the statues of each dictator, it was off to an antique book store in order to pick up the next clue.

This is where Toni made two big mistakes.

Mistake 1–For some reason, she let Dallas do this task. Of the two of them, she would have known what the dictators looked like. Dallas was clueless. It was a guessing game for him. Mistake 2- Toni gave him the bag with the passports and money–all the money– while she headed to the spot where they would be meeting back up.

Nick quickly figured out the statue riddle and promptly stole Tina and Ken’s taxi. Their taxi had a GPS system and Nick did not have one qualm about taking it from them. Is this guy going into banking or what?

There were 6 of Lenin and 2 of Stalin (62). At the bookstore, Dallas, still not knowing the number combo, was helped out by Tina. In the meantime, Dan & Andrew were once again behind the pack because their taxi driver took them to the wrong park.

At the book store, once the teams told the owner the correct number “62,”–a numbers guessing game for everyone but Nick, the owner handed them a book by Russian writer Mikhail Bulgakov. On page 62 was the address of the apartment building on Sadovaya Street where there was another clue and their teammate. From the apartment building, the teams were to take a taxi to Sokol’niky Park to find a woman with a Shetland pony.

The apartment building was this episode’s pivotal point. Andrew & Dan were able to catch up after a guy in the park took Dan to the various statues and then led him to the bookstore and the apartment complex.

Dallas, unfortunately, did the very thing that creates the worst traveler’s nightmare. He left his bag in the taxi when he got out. There went the taxi into Moscow traffic with the money and the passport. Horrified, Dallas tried to chase it down, but to no avail. Toni behaved much better than I would have. She took the high road as the two of them decided they would set off to the next destination on the metro.

I can’t imagine what it would have been like to be the cameraman filming that taxi drive off. Certainly, the people who film the Amazing Race must become attached to the teams they are following all over the world.

For their money woes, Toni and Dallas did find out just how generous people in Moscow are. People helped them over and over again by giving them money for metro fare.

Unfortunately, rules are rules, so when they showed up at the park to find the woman with the Shetland pony, the woman wouldn’t give them the clue because they hadn’t taken a taxi. That meant bumming more money from complete strangers so they could go back to their last location in order to take a taxi. That involved bumming an even larger sum.

In the meantime, Andrew & Dan were off doing their Speed Bump which was learning a Russian dance with a dance troupe. Luckily, they didn’t have to be perfect before they were allowed to proceed. The marching in the last episode was a hopeless endeavor for Andrew, and both of them equally stunk at Russian dancing. Watching them try was a hoot.

As the teams picked up their clue from the woman with the pony, they had to decide if they wanted to Ride the Rails (the metro) or Ride the Lines (the trolley system) to their next destination. On Ride the Rails, the first destination was a snack shop near Ulitsa 1905 where they were to pick up a traditional snack food called a samsa. On the wrapper was the clue to their next destination, a statue of the man who invented the Cyrillic alphabet. This involved a ride to another station where a woman gave them a postcard with the picture of VNDKh Park Station, their next destination, in exchange for the samsa.

The Ride the Lines involved taking a street car to a station where they would find a key maker who would give them a key to unlock a locker at another station. In the locker was a postcard of VNDKh Park Station.

The metro was the most confusing, but quicker. Tina & Ken ended up taking a bus first, but then found out they were on the wrong system. They also made a mistake at VNDKh Park Station because they didn’t look for the clue box that told them where to head to the Pit Stop. Instead, they ran after Andrew & Dan who miraculously came in 2nd.

At the Pit Stop in VNDKh Park, Phil told Tina & Ken to go find the clue. In the meantime, Dallas & Toni valiantly tried to make up time despite their lack of money handicap.

Ken & Tina found the clue box, thus their ticket to the Pit Stop. In a sad, sad scene, Phil found Toni & Dallas to tell them that they had been eliminated.

Who won this round?: Nick and Starr. I have absolutely no interest in these two. I’m wondering when they will be able to take all these vacations they keep winning. With this win, they’re heading to Anguilla if they can find the time to squeeze it in.

Toni & Dallas’s words of travel wisdom: Travel can make bonds stronger. “This had been the best experience of my life,” said Toni through her tears. “Everything I am is because of my mom,” Dallas said.

I’m sure he really feels blessed because she didn’t throttle him for losing that bag.

Next week is the final push as the three teams of Nick & Starr, Ken & Tina and Andrew & Dan race towards the finish line and a million dollars. I’m hoping Ken & Tina win. If they don’t my vote is that they stay married anyway. When they see the footage of this show, I can’t imagine that they won’t see how well they actually get along.

I would have equally pushed for Dan & Andrew, but Andrew said he wouldn’t have lent Toni & Dallas $10 if he had it. Although, if he had, Toni & Dallas would have been ahead of them. He didn’t have the money anyway. Dan had it.

Unfortunately, I bet Nick & Starr will win which makes me think that it’s a dog eat dog world after all.

It’s a Wonderful Life Festival

by Jamie Rhein on

With Thanksgiving over and the Tryptophan feeling from eating turkey waning, these are the days to turn towards one of the next holiday opportunities—Christmas. Each year I look for somewhere new to head. With my son still thoroughly engaged and enthralled by any tinsel and glitter, festivals and events that offer something the rest of my family would enjoy capture my attention most.

Here’s one.

The It’s a Wonderful Life Festival (Dec. 12-14) in Seneca Falls, New York offers a true nostalgia boost. Seneca Falls is the town that Bedford Falls– the name of the town in the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life,” was patterned after.

Not to let an opportunity for some holiday cash pass them by, the people of Seneca Falls began the festival 62 years ago to pay tribute to their ties to the movie and warm fuzzy, hopeful feelings.

If you go, you can attend a screening of the film narrated by Karolyn Grimes. She’s the actress who played ZuZu in the movie. There are the other trimmings and trappings of a Santa-train, horse drawn wagon rides, and I imagine plenty of opportunities to buy “It’s a Wonderful Life” themed gifts. If you buy a snow globe, remember that you can’t take it on a plane in your carry-on. Check it in your luggage.

This year with the economic forecast not looking particularly sunny, a festival called It’s a Wonderful Life that turns on a movie about a guy who almost lost everything during the Depression somehow seems apropos.

Here is the event’s website that examines the similarities between Bedford Falls and Seneca Falls along with providing festival details. Also, here’s an article by Joan McDonald that was published in The Buffalo News . McDonald has been to Seneca Falls and experienced the It’s a Wonderful Life experience.