=guinness=
04-04 07:21 AM
uh i may be new but isn't ivyleaf's just a rip of a blizzard file, where the background is a little more impressive than the phrase thats all reflected?
wallpaper My Lada 2107 Racecar Project
learning01
02-25 05:03 PM
This is the most compelling piece I read about why this country should do more for scientists and engineers who are on temporary work visas. Read it till the end and enjoy.
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
needinfo80
09-11 11:10 AM
But if your form is signed with today's date then doctor might want you to take blood work again as they are no longer invalid if they are more than 1 yr old.
Again this are grey areas.There are no concrete answers.
Again this are grey areas.There are no concrete answers.
2011 The LADA 110 2.0 cars have
![lada 110 tuning. 1996 Lada 110 [2110]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_voIlLk_Z6oeXo0pSmDFoeRd7sXw3tsGiZTb8a2grqRJYGewRJXULWIlm-FOkn2q-VBAdqdAIiwjt8aaGX0wPE=s0-d "1996 Lada 110 [2110]")
txuser
03-10 01:31 PM
You can apply for L2 with COS online using form I-539. I'm not sure about applying for L2 without COS though. You can probably apply for L2 with COS now, and if your H1B goes through fine, withdraw the L2 petition.
Make sure that you attach copies of your prior employer's H1B Approval Notice, recent paystubs, new employer's H1B receipt notice, paystubs, your I94 along with the other documents to substantiate that you are currently in status and in the country. This is required for the USCIS to grant COS and I-94 with your L2 approval notice.
Also, in the above case, you don't have to go out of country - you will get a new I-94 along with your L2 approval notice.
Please note that this is just my opinion based on my recent transition from H1B to L2. Please get the advice of an Immigration Attorney (probably your new employer's attorney?) before taking any decision.
Make sure that you attach copies of your prior employer's H1B Approval Notice, recent paystubs, new employer's H1B receipt notice, paystubs, your I94 along with the other documents to substantiate that you are currently in status and in the country. This is required for the USCIS to grant COS and I-94 with your L2 approval notice.
Also, in the above case, you don't have to go out of country - you will get a new I-94 along with your L2 approval notice.
Please note that this is just my opinion based on my recent transition from H1B to L2. Please get the advice of an Immigration Attorney (probably your new employer's attorney?) before taking any decision.
more...
gcpain
07-24 02:24 PM
Hello Guys,
My attorney send I485,AP, EAD application to USCIS with my present passport. This passport expires on August 08, 2007. Will there be any problems for this? Please let me know. Thanks......
My attorney send I485,AP, EAD application to USCIS with my present passport. This passport expires on August 08, 2007. Will there be any problems for this? Please let me know. Thanks......
Jaime
09-05 04:53 PM
You are OK, the backlog is for Indians, Chinese, Filipinos and Mexicans
You can expect to get your green card in less than a year. Good for you!
What is amazing for example, is China! China-mainland can expect between 5-10 year wait times for a green card while China-Taiwan, China-Hong Kong and China-Macau can expect their green cards in less than one year, just like Egypt, and everyone else!
You can expect to get your green card in less than a year. Good for you!
What is amazing for example, is China! China-mainland can expect between 5-10 year wait times for a green card while China-Taiwan, China-Hong Kong and China-Macau can expect their green cards in less than one year, just like Egypt, and everyone else!
more...
seemashah
02-21 04:17 PM
Hi:
I was working for Company A from 2000 to 2004. Company A applied for my GC in 2002. However, the company was not doing well until I left it. It was not paying me the salary which came out in PW. Company A continued with my GC processing and I filed for I140 and 485 last year in June. Now received the following RFE for I140:
Please submit documentary evidence that you, the petitioning employer, have the financial
ability to pay the wage/salary you offered the beneficiary. This evidence must show that you
have this financial capability on the date you fied the ETA with the Department of Labor and
cover up until the visa is issued. The petitioner may submit evidence that their net income is
equal to or greater than the proffered wage, evidence that the petitioner's net current assets
are equal to or greater than the proffered wage, or evidence that the petitioner not only is
employing the beneficiary but also has paid or is currently paying the proffered wage. The
service wil also consider copies of audited annual reports of the employer, or copies of
audited financial statements of the employer. Evidence is needed for 2002-2003.
Does anyone have some idea how to get the audited financial statements or audited annual reports?. I know that the company never had any audited reports. I had submitted the bank statements of the company and the tax returns with my I140. However, it seems that they want the audited reports. The company was not doing well in 2002/2003. However, it is doing well now. So any input will be highly appreciated.
I was working for Company A from 2000 to 2004. Company A applied for my GC in 2002. However, the company was not doing well until I left it. It was not paying me the salary which came out in PW. Company A continued with my GC processing and I filed for I140 and 485 last year in June. Now received the following RFE for I140:
Please submit documentary evidence that you, the petitioning employer, have the financial
ability to pay the wage/salary you offered the beneficiary. This evidence must show that you
have this financial capability on the date you fied the ETA with the Department of Labor and
cover up until the visa is issued. The petitioner may submit evidence that their net income is
equal to or greater than the proffered wage, evidence that the petitioner's net current assets
are equal to or greater than the proffered wage, or evidence that the petitioner not only is
employing the beneficiary but also has paid or is currently paying the proffered wage. The
service wil also consider copies of audited annual reports of the employer, or copies of
audited financial statements of the employer. Evidence is needed for 2002-2003.
Does anyone have some idea how to get the audited financial statements or audited annual reports?. I know that the company never had any audited reports. I had submitted the bank statements of the company and the tax returns with my I140. However, it seems that they want the audited reports. The company was not doing well in 2002/2003. However, it is doing well now. So any input will be highly appreciated.
2010 This is Lada 21099 with some
sk.aggarwal
03-19 01:50 PM
Still waiting for PWD. My 6th year on H1 including recapture time will end on May 1st 2011. I dont think I will be able to file perm before May.
more...
gcgonewild
08-15 02:16 PM
Unless:
i) Has company A paid you all your wages?
If there is a window when you were not paid, they wouldn't even think about suing you.Become a whistle blower, Complain to the DOL if you were not paid prevailing wages.
ii) Content of Non-Compete agreement:
If the Non-Compete agreement is overly restraining, it is not valid. Check the statements. If it says more than 2 years, and no geographical limits, it is not valid. Does it say you cannot join B or you cannot join any end-client ?
iv) LCA for new work location:
If you work for more than 6 months in a county, new LCA should be applied for that location.
Try to negotiate with A. Usually these lawsuits don't run their course.
Attorney fees are: minimum 2k just for consultation. 5k if A comes to negotiation after lawsuit. 10-15k if it goes to trial. So instead of paying the attorney , you could pay A and get away.
If all fails, You MUST consult an attorney.
IMHO, you should've consulted before you took the job.
i) Has company A paid you all your wages?
If there is a window when you were not paid, they wouldn't even think about suing you.Become a whistle blower, Complain to the DOL if you were not paid prevailing wages.
ii) Content of Non-Compete agreement:
If the Non-Compete agreement is overly restraining, it is not valid. Check the statements. If it says more than 2 years, and no geographical limits, it is not valid. Does it say you cannot join B or you cannot join any end-client ?
iv) LCA for new work location:
If you work for more than 6 months in a county, new LCA should be applied for that location.
Try to negotiate with A. Usually these lawsuits don't run their course.
Attorney fees are: minimum 2k just for consultation. 5k if A comes to negotiation after lawsuit. 10-15k if it goes to trial. So instead of paying the attorney , you could pay A and get away.
If all fails, You MUST consult an attorney.
IMHO, you should've consulted before you took the job.
hair 1996 Lada 110 [2110]
milind70
07-24 02:39 PM
Hello Guys,
My attorney send I485,AP, EAD application to USCIS with my present passport. This passport expires on August 08, 2007. Will there be any problems for this? Please let me know. Thanks......
I think you are okay ,please apply for a new passport as soon as possible.
My attorney send I485,AP, EAD application to USCIS with my present passport. This passport expires on August 08, 2007. Will there be any problems for this? Please let me know. Thanks......
I think you are okay ,please apply for a new passport as soon as possible.
more...
meda
05-13 08:40 AM
Just got response for my SR saying there is a RFE on my case and the letter is sent to my attorney. No update or no SLUD, LUD online. No RFE on spouse case but still waiting.
hot Tuning Car Different Brand
va_labor2002
09-25 03:12 PM
I see no harm in contacting him; but your excitement about Chandrasekharan seems curious to me. When people who have themselves immigrated from India (who now have GC/citizenship) are so indifferent about us, how can you expect a second generation indian journalist to "understand" our problems ? He does not seem to have done any articles on immigration; so there is no objective way for us to say whether he is really sympathetic to us or not.
Remember that even anti-immigration organizations like numbersUSA have lots of members who are immigrants themselves or have immigrant parents.
I totally agree with you. But there is no harm in trying with him.He may be or may not be sympathetic to us.We don't know that ! He sees to be a smart journalist. If he is nice and sympathetic to legal immigrants,you may see a front page article about legal immigrants in Washington Post. Hope for the Best !
Remember that even anti-immigration organizations like numbersUSA have lots of members who are immigrants themselves or have immigrant parents.
I totally agree with you. But there is no harm in trying with him.He may be or may not be sympathetic to us.We don't know that ! He sees to be a smart journalist. If he is nice and sympathetic to legal immigrants,you may see a front page article about legal immigrants in Washington Post. Hope for the Best !
more...
house Tuning amp; It is a little
mkolp
07-07 11:51 AM
Good idea
tattoo Lada (ВАЗ): 110: 112
WillIBLucky
06-21 12:08 PM
Congratulations!!!!!
Would you plz confirm us on the Birth Certificate?
Me & my husband got our Birth Certificates in 2005 with all the correct birth details. Do you think we might still need affidavits for Late Registration of Birth?Please throw some light on this as there's lot of confusion going on this.
You would need afidavits from your parents and a close relative. IF you dont have a birth certificate with your name, registered on the day you were born and the certificate is dated close to your dob then you WILL need afidavits.
It very simple, just send the format by mail to your parents and ask them to buy stamp papers and get it typed and then sign in front of notory and notory will attest and sign. Then ask them to scan it and send it to you. You just take a print out and give it to your lawyer including your birth certificate you took in 2005.
Good Luck!
Would you plz confirm us on the Birth Certificate?
Me & my husband got our Birth Certificates in 2005 with all the correct birth details. Do you think we might still need affidavits for Late Registration of Birth?Please throw some light on this as there's lot of confusion going on this.
You would need afidavits from your parents and a close relative. IF you dont have a birth certificate with your name, registered on the day you were born and the certificate is dated close to your dob then you WILL need afidavits.
It very simple, just send the format by mail to your parents and ask them to buy stamp papers and get it typed and then sign in front of notory and notory will attest and sign. Then ask them to scan it and send it to you. You just take a print out and give it to your lawyer including your birth certificate you took in 2005.
Good Luck!
more...
pictures Tuning Lada 110 » CarTuning
sathishkrish
08-13 10:33 PM
Does filing of dependent's I-485 anything to do with LUD on approved I-140/I-131 of Primary applicant? Anybody having similar experience?
Thanks
I got an LUD too for 8/12 but not on my underlying 140 petition but on a differant I140 petition. I have two I140's - I applied 485 thru my current employer on 8/3 at TSC.
Thanks
I got an LUD too for 8/12 but not on my underlying 140 petition but on a differant I140 petition. I have two I140's - I applied 485 thru my current employer on 8/3 at TSC.
dresses car kit for Lada 110,
UKannan
01-18 03:50 PM
Chances for an audit are 95%:(
How u know that the chances are 95%? Why can't it be 5%? :D
How u know that the chances are 95%? Why can't it be 5%? :D
more...
makeup Image: screenshot of the scene
payur
03-10 07:37 AM
I guess I should agree with Jerrome because I am going to India 2 weeks from now and My friend who recently had been to India mentioned the same. I have asked the same question to my immigration lawyer, I will post it when I get a reply.
In mean time I have another question, My flight is from Chicago to Delhi, but I have to take a loacl flight from Miami to Chicago, all my international baggage check in's are at the Miami. My question here is should I surrender the I-94 at Miami since I am doing all my International baggage check in's or should it be in Chicago.
Please let me know if anybody had this situation.
-Success.
In mean time I have another question, My flight is from Chicago to Delhi, but I have to take a loacl flight from Miami to Chicago, all my international baggage check in's are at the Miami. My question here is should I surrender the I-94 at Miami since I am doing all my International baggage check in's or should it be in Chicago.
Please let me know if anybody had this situation.
-Success.
girlfriend HISTORY - Maltese Lada Club
bidhanc
02-01 10:28 AM
Hey Shana,
I hv sent you a PM.
If you could check that.
Thanks
I hv sent you a PM.
If you could check that.
Thanks
hairstyles Por cierto, el Samara de
jliechty
May 19th, 2005, 05:16 AM
Could you post a similar crop of a problem image?
First idea: put the lens to manual focus, and try that on a tripod. Perhaps the focus point got moved, and the camera is attempting to focus on black sky? This test would attempt to eliminate that.
On the other hand, with the changing size of the moon, the camera could be overexposing more than it did in your first example (if that turns out to be the case, I'll explain why, so you can avoid it in the future). :)
First idea: put the lens to manual focus, and try that on a tripod. Perhaps the focus point got moved, and the camera is attempting to focus on black sky? This test would attempt to eliminate that.
On the other hand, with the changing size of the moon, the camera could be overexposing more than it did in your first example (if that turns out to be the case, I'll explain why, so you can avoid it in the future). :)
Madness
01-24 10:06 PM
Perlin Circles (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/../contests/fx09/e20.htm)
wow!
wow!
txh1b
04-15 10:51 AM
Loooong road ahead! Good luck. Hope it gets approved as it might be tough to get a labor approved in this economy.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire