Serene Life

by garik

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

1,485 reputation
515
bio website
location Arizona
age 60
visits member for 4 years
seen May 30 at 22:51

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 trying to find time and opportunities to work with Python.

I have years and years of experience with Perl too, along with Java, SQL, Pascal, C, various assembly languages and interpreted BASICs.


Sep
30
awarded  Explainer
Sep
30
awarded  Yearling
Sep
24
awarded  Autobiographer
May
31
revised Which is faster for flashes, radio triggers or optical triggers?
edited for readability
May
30
suggested suggested edit on Which is faster for flashes, radio triggers or optical triggers?
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.