Time to be with your loved ones

Time to be with loved ones

by sat

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

1,473 reputation
413
bio website
location Arizona
age 59
visits member for 3 years, 6 months
seen Nov 7 '13 at 5:34

Long time developer in lots of different fields on different hardware using different languages for different reasons.

Greatly enjoying Ruby, Sequel, Nokogiri, Rails, Sinatra/Padrino, and thinking Python is perversely interesting, similar to pulling off a scab. :-)

I have years and year of experience with Perl too.


Sep
30
awarded  Yearling
Jul
26
awarded  Nice Answer
Sep
30
awarded  Yearling
Jun
8
awarded  Constituent
Jun
8
awarded  Caucus
May
15
awarded  Nice Answer
Apr
12
awarded  Nice Answer
Oct
8
awarded  Yearling
Jun
29
awarded  Nice Answer
Jun
28
comment Why is 1:1 desirable for a macro lens?
I understand what you are saying, but it depends on the goal. My intention is grabbing the overall image and super fine detail is secondary; often fine detail isn't possible because of wind or constant movement and skittishness. A 65mm is great in a controlled situation or when you are not dealing with insects that have learned to flee at the first sign of movement, and that won't be in one place for more than a few seconds anyway, simply because that is how they eat. There have been times I've reverted to using a 200mm with an extension tube because of that skittishness.
Jun
28
comment Why is 1:1 desirable for a macro lens?
@jrista, From personal experience, not based on what others have done, in the field trying to work with butterflies and spiders, a 105mm has a lot better chance of success than 65mm. You can't get on top of a butterfly, except in the early hours when they're cold because they are skittish. All the photos I've taken of them were from several feet away and took a lot of patience and very slow movement. Flies, beetles and other insects might be happy to cooperate with a 65mm lens next to them but active flying ones don't like it.
Apr
19
awarded  Nice Answer
Apr
14
comment Should I shoot underexposed photos?
It used to matter with films like Velvia because it was super-saturated. Some people pushed it a bit to lessen the contrast, others pulled it a bit to improve color saturation. If I remember right, the early digitals had less latitude than color print film, but the current ones are better latitude than film. The increased latitude should mean there is less reason to under/over expose especially when shooting RAW. I haven't cared much since switching to digital and moving from Velvia/Provia because my RAW images were plenty good when exposed correctly.
Apr
14
comment Should I shoot underexposed photos?
There is a huge difference in creatively underexposing, and in under/over exposing it all the time thinking it will result in better quality photos.
Apr
14
comment Should I shoot underexposed photos?
+1. Well said. I trust my light meter more than the LCD histogram, but the LCD is a close second. Of course, the old open sky trick, metering 45 degrees up with my back to the sun works well in a pinch too.
Apr
14
comment Should I shoot underexposed photos?
+1. Once pixels are blocked out or burned in there's nothing that can be done with them. I shoot RAW 99% of the time, and even then noise creeps in when I start bumping up the exposure. I've never heard any big name shooters say to under or over expose to get better photos, nor do Canon or Nikon recommend it, but I have heard several pros and reps say to NOT do it.
Apr
14
comment What workflow or tools can be used for tagging of a large number of running race photos?
This is Sportsshooter.com's thread about the guy. At the time he was sending cease and desist letters to any photographer who had event photos on their site claiming it was a patent violation. Since I'd written all my own processing code and wasn't using anything like his system I laughed him off, but, from the thread, you can see some big companies got involved.
Apr
14
comment What workflow or tools can be used for tagging of a large number of running race photos?
'I hate to bring this up, but you should also google "photocrazy patent"'. I agree. That guy is law-suit happy, and this question would walk right into the domain he claims his "patents" cover. I don't know if he's had them revoked yet, but there were people trying.
Apr
14
comment Should I shoot underexposed photos?
Just expose correctly, and save yourself time having to adjust in post production.
Apr
12
comment Were lenses for film designed to focus different colors at different depths, and what does that mean for digital?
I declare shenanigans on that book's author. Canon and Nikon didn't replace their lens lines when they came out with digital bodies. The lenses remain interchangeable, and neither company has ever suggested any such foolishness. Matter of fact, Nikon still lists the F6 and FM10 on their website; Do they advertise ANY "film" lenses? Nope.