bye

... intentially made the difference between unfinished and finished). The unaccusitive takes to be; the unergative (the agent case) takes to have. Since it can fall either way, both sound good (and English isn't as fussy about unaccusative as other European languages anyway).

Finished, here, is unaccusitive; it's the state that the I in the sentence is in. That it's associated with some sandwich-related activity matter not a whit, since we are left with zero knowledge about the state of the sandwich (particularly if you throw in with, since that allows that the sandwich may have been for looking at or for use as a temporary personal flotation device without context). However, finished is only weakly unnacusative since the subject can be either a patient (when finished is achieved simply by having nothing left to do) or an agent (a specific action...

Ah, but there are red-heads, and then there are red-heads, as anyone who has read the tale of Mr. Jabez Wilson (as related by Dr. John Watson) can attest.

Redhead was usually hyphenated prior to about 1900, and the hyphen was pretty much gone by 1960 or so. Proportionally, that is; we do seem to have developed a bit of an obsession for classifying humans by hair colour since the late 19th/early 20th century (using X is a Y rather than X has Y-coloured hair).

Apart from poking the SO/SE admins, this is the last communication here.

And I've wandered off to cool down a number of times, hoping things might have changed while I was gone. Never been the case.

Well, not positive rep, in any case. But I don't want my name associated with the place anymore. Period.

I have never, at any time (well, at any time after the basic functionality of the site was unlocked at any rate) given a crap about the reputation thing.

@jrista I'm actually rather upset about how long this is taking.

@MichaelNielsen At the expense of "putting on weight". (Compared to the first picture you posted, that is. I was prepared to let the passage of time explain it, so I wasn't going to mention anything. Babies change a lot in their first year or two.) Forget about pixels. This game isn't even remotely about pixels. 45mm is at the long end for babies and APS-C.

Again, getting just slightly above eye level tends to work best. I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with the distance, but the angle of view of her face could be better. Life would be easy if babies posed.

Newborns are like that (red & blotchy). I'll usually fix it a bit without killing the "new car smell", so to speak. The light's the real problem; too low, too direct. Good snapshot, but you wouldn't want to call it a capital-P Photograph.

Yeah, that would be the stuff. Be careful around fans.

Get 'em top-down and you get them alien-huge eyes. That's never wrong.

That's "approaching".

Only if you're too close to the wrong end. pproaching a baby from the bottom almost always means unpleasant work ahead.

@MichaelNielsen Little ones look best at cuddling range. An 85 would have left it too "cold", and it would be hard to tell why. It's all about the distance.

Now, that li'l doggie is truckin'!

You're nowhere near RGB's "blown yellow" levels, which would be 255, 255, 0.

If the gamut ever actually is a worry, you can always convert to the target colour space using relative colorimetric or, depending on the picture, perceptual rendering intent, then convert back (don't undo, reconvert).

@MichaelNielsen It's only "blown" in the sense that it's out-of-gamut for the default CMYK colour space (which is pretty narrow). RGB can be much yellower or redder than process colour. Four-colour process inks (that's printing press process colour, not printer process colour) don't offer much of a range at all, and you won't be actually using that colour space unless you're prepping for the magazine trade.

@jrista Depending on the camera, yes, sometimes you must use it since the manual option isn't there.

@user1207217 Pretty much. ISO 1600 is just silly noisy anyway (and CCD noise doesn't clean up well at all) so it's best to avoid it altogether, but feeding +0.7 into ISO 800 (which is, I suppose, really only ISO 500 when all's said and done) is pretty much necessary unless the scene is really flat and at mid-tone. Give the D70 lots of light, though, and it's still a nice camera.

In any case, that's not typical for the 50/1.4.

In mechanical terms, that's maybe a degree or two of rotation error, which isn't very much at all for closer focus distances. So it may be an adjustment/calibration problem mating the lens to the camera, or it may be that the lens has a very slight mechanical mis-alignment.

@user1207217 - Yeah, that's nowhere near infinity. You actually run out of focus before you run out of boat. I'd be surprised if the actual point of focus is farther away than 6-7m or so.

@user1207217 ...but his will sync with studio strobes at 1/8000s. That said, the D70 (S or not) really needs to be overexposed at marked ISOs above 400 -- the midtones will register okay, but the highlights will be way down without compensation. There isn't a lot of dynamic range to work with.

The point is that with scene-priority EVFs (essentially auto-exposure), you will never see everything, and with exposure-priority EVFs you need to futz around to see everything while the moment escapes. An OVF plus experience will be better until displays have a high enough resolution and a high enough dynamic range. We're nowhere close yet.

@EsaPaulasto - Lowering the camera doesn't help unless the lens is about the same length as your eye normally sees. And it's not about WYSIWYG (exposure-priority EVF), it's about dynamic range.

Experience will tell you how exposure will affect what you're seeing when you take the picture; no amount of experience will tell you what's there that you can't see through the viewfinder.

I'd much rather have a pentamirror than an EVF for hand-held work if those were the only choices.

@AJHenderson - They also prefer the stability of hand-holding with a proper eye-level viewfinder (as opposed to a rear screen, which is pretty much tripod-only as far as I'm concerned) and may not like having to don reading glasses to see the screen. EVFs will eventually solve the problems, but there's not a one at the moment that turns my crank.

Portraits and products (for showrooms) mostly, from 8x10 negs or chromes. The chromes were a bugger—total darkness, a need for speed, and if you lose spatial orientation, your 40-inch paper gets less blixing than you do. Denoise and upscale won't get you wet and stinky (unless you're doing it really wrong).

I've always been more of a studio guy (when I could), so DR wouldn't be an issue, but I've got this big print fetish and I love that daguerreotype-sculpted look. (I used to develop in fiberglass bathtubs. Fun the first few times, then it's like a bad addiction you'd give up if you could.)

That's one of the reasons I would go medium format in a flash if I could -- it would make everything else feel like pocket change. Like cars.

Think of it as a cheap accessory for the lens now :)

@jrista - Well, now, that doesn't suck very much at all, does it?

@jrista - I was glad to see the unboxing post myself. I've never had to apologize for pointing anyone to Vistek, but when there's more than $10K on the line, there's always going to be a bit of breath-holding involved. It's got to be a bit freaky, though, when the markings on the box say "lens" but the size of the box says "microwave".

The problem being that, while older (and current) PCs will continue to fill the needs of the vast majority of "knowledge workers" for the foreseeable future, the needs of we media production types will continue to grow. I lived through (and paid for) the last generation of niche workstations (SGI, Sun), and when Aunt Betty isn't subsidizing your tech, it gets expensive in a hurry.

@jrista - That sort of thing used to be Kodak's and Polaroid's stock in trade. I'm glad somebody's still doing blue-sky stuff. (And in ten years or so we should have computers that can run Lr and Ps on images that size... if tablets haven't taken over altogether.)

It lets you get a more natural transition from highlight to shadow. Basically, colours in the gradient are assigned to luminance values in the image, so you can have warmer highlights and cooler shadows (or vice versa). It's a lot more natural-looking than a solid colour.

@MichaelNielsen - Yes, particularly when the light is unfortunate. (Or the complexion is really unfortunate.) But you don't need to work with anyone else's tones either -- just create a custom gradient from "good" tones in the existing picture. The idea isn't to replace the skin tones altogether, but to achieve some sort of consistency.

@MichaelNielsen - If 'twere me, I'd go for the best compromise, then fix it in my pixel masher of choice (PS, in this case). A gradient map in Color mode using reference skin tones, masked to the face and transparency adjusted to taste should do the trick.

s/pilgramages/pilgrimages

@jrista - I used to make pilgramages to the place when there was only one Toronto location and I lived in Nova Scotia. They're good. The staff all get the passion, you know?

In fact, it'll be USPS delivering it.

It's basically the same up here and down there (modulo customs and vast tracts of empty land in much of the country). City-to-city, expect it to be the same as USPS Express.

@jrista - Vistek can. I know you don't get a lot of Canadian news down there, but the southern half of Alberta was thoroughly flooded (like national disaster flooded) over the past couple of days. Calgary probably won't have power till sometime next week. T'ronna's okay, though.

@jrista - CAD 11,350 is the normal price at Vistek (which actually carries it). It's CAD 11,400-ish at The Camera Store (Which also actually carries it), but since that's in Calgary and Calgary is currently underwater, there would have been some delays. Sometimes I think we get a slight pity break because of the sales taxes you won't have to pay.

Artistic photography has always been about using the tools to produce the result you want, not just photocopying what's in front of the lens.