|
Camera accessories I highly recommend: air blower. I got this "Rocket" hand-pump thing, and it means I was able to remove some flecks of dust or something which I noticed yesterday had attached themselves to the surface of my 50mm lens before I put the UV filter on - without touching the lens with anything except air. *puff puff puff* Clean! *replace UV filter, sealing against further particles*
The UV filter lives on there because if something hits the front of my camera, somehow, and breaks the glass at the front of the lens? I want it to be hitting the $30 UV filter, not the $785 lens. Ditto if some idiot decides to touch it - rubbing fingerprints off the UV filter with an appropriate cloth is no big deal, but ideally, in my worldview, the optical components of lenses should NEVER BE TOUCHED BY ANYTHING EVER AT ALL. (And, hey, it's not impossible I could get a bit fumbly and clumsy when putting the polarising filter on - again, better I touch the UV filter if my fingers slip.)
It's kind of freaky that I own a "professional grade" lens at all, but the thing was that, just this once in my life, if only this once, buying both guitar and camera, I decided to spend the money necessary to get exactly what I want, so that I can be absolutely satisfied and delighted and not wistful about things I wish I could have but don't. Both the camera and the guitar are things I expect to last me a very long time if I take care of them - which I will - and to bring me much joy and satisfaction in the meantime, including being good for my mental health, because creative endeavour is like that.
This didn't mean I bought the Most Expensive things - my camera is an amateur enthusiast/semi-pro model, mid-range in price, and my guitar is a Gibson Les Paul, yes, but a Studio, not a Standard. The Studio model is less than half the price of the the Standard - which still weirds me out, somewhat.
Because the Studio is a version of the Les Paul Standard in which every acoustic element is retained, but the binding and decorative elements are left off.
In terms of sound quality and performance and whatnot, it is just as good, even, I've seen it argued, marginally better. But without the binding it is, admittedly, less resilient if you bash it on things, and it's single-colour, without spectacular paint jobs or anything like that.
Since my aesthetic preference tends to be towards clean, elegant, minimalistic looks, the perfect unity of form and function (in design terms, I rather believe in the adage that perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away), I actually think the Studio is a more beautiful design, and I am careful with my guitar to avoid bashing it on stuff anyway, so I really like that the Studio is thousands of dollars cheaper than the Standard, but I still find it strange that what amounts to decoration makes such a price difference on a musical instrument.
I paid a lot of money for my guitar, but I was paying for acoustic and build quality. I recognise that guitars are also aesthetic objects, chosen for their beauty - I did, after all, reject the first Gibson Les Paul Studio I tried on the grounds that it was black with gold furniture, and I didn't want a plain black guitar and have a vague dislike for gilt, but for all I think my wine-red-and-chrome guitar is one of the most beautiful objects I have ever seen, I wouldn't have bought it if I hadn't loved the sound the moment I touched the strings.
The only real problem I have with all my new gear is that the camera bag and strap are a little too rough for my skin. Tomorrow I plan to buy a cheap, soft black shirt or similar at the charity shop down the road, cut pieces out of it, and sew those pieces as a softening wrap around the chafey straps - and also use bits to make non-ugly covers for my guitar stand.
My first thought was a fabric shop, but then it occurred to me I only really need a few small scrap-ish bits, and I can get that from cutting up something from the thrift shop, which would almost certainly be cheaper and the money I paid would be going to charity. Everybody wins.Current Mood:  tired
|
|
Have plan to spend a couple of hours with Rob and Layanna on Sunday morning. Layanna is still getting used to me again, so a vague plan that would have involved her spending the afternoon alone with me was postponed.
Ah, age gaps. I was over twenty when we were close, so I remember her well, and still love her; she was three, so she doesn't really remember me at all.
Fortunately, her parents do remember me perfectly well, so my giving their child who barely knows me a guitar for a present doesn't seem as weird as it might otherwise. (I may also go through with her father's suggestion of showing her some old photos of the two of us.)
It's not that children's guitars are hugely expensive, and certainly this one wasn't expensive for me, but it's still something that qualifies as a "big" present, so.
Meanwhile, some investigation online has revealed that it will actually be a much more practical and economical option for me to replace my printer than just replace the toner cartridge. This is bizarre and weird and wrong to me. Chas says it's pretty common - printers are sold as a loss leader.
Except they're not going to be getting any profit at all, at this rate, because trying to replace the toner cartridge is so much hassle, and so expensive, that I'm just going to go to Officeworks tomorrow morning and buy a new printer. (A better printer, as it turns out, despite the "more economical" aspect.)
*considers*
*checks*
Huh, the cheapest option for colour laser printers is relatively inexpensive these days. On the other hand, if I wanted colour, it would probably be a better idea to get an inkjet printer that can print photos, since I'm getting Into photography now, and still use a black and white laser printer for my article/document/essay-printing needs. That would cost less than ten dollars more than just buying the cheapest colour laser printer, while giving me much better colour printing. Only real downside being that it would mean having two printers.
Wait, no, if I get one that doesn't print CDs and DVDs - which I'm fine with - it's cheaper.
I am suddenly tempted by the printer that can do photo-quality up to A3 size, but that's an investment for when I'm much better at photography. Unsurprisingly, it's rather a lot more expensive. As in, over $500 more than a printer that can only do A4.
Definitely a no.
*sighs*
Okay, so, the part where I'm almost out of toner I can resolve at Officeworks tomorrow. And I need a new external hard drive - the one I have is full.
After that, maybe, I hope... I'll be done with shopping. *sigh*Current Music: Natasha Bedingfield - Unwritten
|
|
This is my psychologist's dog.
( He's actually kind of adorable. )
|
|
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}