It's basically what lies under a railroad track, beams of wood, concrete, steel or other material.
You can see one in the picture used as a fence post. So you can see their shape at many railroads but also in gardens where wooden railroad sleepers tend to retire
But feel free to explain "sleeper shape" a different way as well, for instance as the shape of a sleeping person or animal.
@pegelli said:
It's basically what lies under a railroad track, beams of wood, concrete, steel or other material.
You can see one in the picture used as a fence post. So you can see their shape at many railroads but also in gardens where wooden railroad sleepers tend to retire
@lkbart said:
Moon shape (crescent sun during eclipse)
@lkbart: Lillian, if you don't mind sharing, what filter did you use for your eclipse photos? I used one from Thousand Oaks Optical and I got no cloud definition during the partial eclipse phases except when the clouds were in front of the sun. Then they just blocked out the sun. I tried lots of different exposures and got the same thing at all of them. There were plenty of clouds, they just didn't show up in my photos. I really like what you have in this shot. I plan on trying again (and practicing with uneclipsed sun shots) and if you are willing to share info I would appreciate it. Thanks.
@bfluegie - Was a StarGuy 86-117mm White Light Adjustable Solar Filter, got it from B&H & used it on a Sigma 150-600 lens. Played a lot with exposure & settings. Had the ISO at 200 for the most part, but the clouds seemed to show up better with a higher ISO. Settings on that shot were 5.6, 1/8, 1600 ISO (tripod). Was basically shooting in between cloud cover at Smithville Lake, north of KC. For the total eclipse we were totally clouded but it got really dark so you could tell when the total started and was over. Very cool experience & feel lucky to have gotten the shots I did, even though I would have loved to have seen the total eclipse without total cloud cover!
Thanks Lillian. I used the Thousand Oaks Optical SolarLite film. I bracketed the shutter speed a lot but I mainly shot at ISO 400 and f/5.6. I used a Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6G VR IF-ED at 300 mm. I got a 2x tele extender but I had problems lining up the camera and focusing so I didn't use it. Maybe I will play around with higher ISO before the next eclipse. I stuck with 400 because the D90 starts showing noise around 800. And I was thinking faster shutter speed would be good since my Manfrotto tripod is kind of an entry level model. I've had motion problems with it if the wind kicks up so I wanted to be shooting fast. This is what I got during the partial phase with clouds. Nothing except where the sun is exposed.
I was fortunate enough to see totality in Nashville, although the clouds started rolling in right before it. I couldn't see many of the magnetic field lines because of the clouds and my attempt at the diamond ring was pretty much swamped out by diffusion from the clouds. Still, it was an amazing experience. The weather is such a gamble almost anywhere you go. If interested, here are my totality photos and a slideshow of most of the eclipse: https://flickr.com/photos/11512969@N08/albums/72157698873176220
As an aside, I ended up retiring from my job working with weather satellites a month after the eclipse. As a retirement gift, my manager got a downloaded picture from one of the satellites showing the moon's shadow over Nashville and had it framed and signed by coworkers. So I know exactly where I am in that photo. Is that cool, or what!
Thanks for the info. I'll try different exposures with my current filter and will look into the StarGuy filter. I'm going to be so prepared for 8 April 2024.
That is an awesome retirement gift Barbara, very cool! & cool photos of the totality, and neat slideshow too! I'm looking forward to the next one too and hoping for clear skies!
I think you fell for the "next page" oversight (or bug)
Yeah, it had to be a glitch. Even when I hit send, it did not take me to a next page. It showed my post directly under the "N" post. I always check. Regardless, thanks for the heads up and drawing it to my attention. I have edited it to be a "T" image.
Thanks Denise, Ive never seen pelicans do that, so I watched this for quite some time and finally decided to take a picture because I thought: "picture or it didn't happen"
@pegelli said:
L is for Looking over Leiden (Netherlands)
Did you mean for this to be an N?
Sorry Denise, next page syndrom again. Don't know for sure if I looked if there was still a next page after the K but when it showed up it showed below the K and din't skip to the next page where it is showing now.
If the forum would immediately show the post in its final place (the way all other forums I participate in work) you would see it immidiately and can correct on the spot. Fortunately Sara restored the correct order again.
@pegelli said:
L is for Looking over Leiden (Netherlands)
Did you mean for this to be an N?
Sorry Denise, next page syndrom again. Don't know for sure if I looked if there was still a next page after the K but when it showed up it showed below the K and din't skip to the next page where it is showing now.
If the forum would immediately show the post in its final place (the way all other forums I participate in work) you would see it immidiately and can correct on the spot. Fortunately Sara restored the correct order again.
Perhaps she assumed (as I did) that you meant to call out the N in your title!
@JAG said:
Next: liquid texture (that is not actually water)
Question: would liquids like beer, wine, vinegar, etc. that contain mainly water be considered "not actually water"?
I'm actually looking for more of a liquid flow to like either fabric, chocolate, paint or oil or anything not made of water. But if no one can come up with something that looks like the texture of liquid, then a beer will suffice to move us along.
Comments
I have no tin!
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
I have edited my Next comment by saying any type of metal.
I'm confused. What is a sleeper shape?
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
It's basically what lies under a railroad track, beams of wood, concrete, steel or other material.
You can see one in the picture used as a fence post. So you can see their shape at many railroads but also in gardens where wooden railroad sleepers tend to retire
But feel free to explain "sleeper shape" a different way as well, for instance as the shape of a sleeping person or animal.
Hope this helps.
My SmugMug
It's good to learn new words, thank you!
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
I think I went into a sugar coma just looking at this.
We shared it with 5, and could easily have accomodated a few more at the table
My SmugMug
This is wonderful!
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
Thanks Denise, it's an office complex somewhere in Köln.
My SmugMug
@lkbart: Lillian, if you don't mind sharing, what filter did you use for your eclipse photos? I used one from Thousand Oaks Optical and I got no cloud definition during the partial eclipse phases except when the clouds were in front of the sun. Then they just blocked out the sun. I tried lots of different exposures and got the same thing at all of them. There were plenty of clouds, they just didn't show up in my photos. I really like what you have in this shot. I plan on trying again (and practicing with uneclipsed sun shots) and if you are willing to share info I would appreciate it. Thanks.
@bfluegie - Was a StarGuy 86-117mm White Light Adjustable Solar Filter, got it from B&H & used it on a Sigma 150-600 lens. Played a lot with exposure & settings. Had the ISO at 200 for the most part, but the clouds seemed to show up better with a higher ISO. Settings on that shot were 5.6, 1/8, 1600 ISO (tripod). Was basically shooting in between cloud cover at Smithville Lake, north of KC. For the total eclipse we were totally clouded but it got really dark so you could tell when the total started and was over. Very cool experience & feel lucky to have gotten the shots I did, even though I would have loved to have seen the total eclipse without total cloud cover!
A photograph is an artistic expression of life, captured one moment at a time . . .
http://bartlettphotoart.smugmug.com/
Thanks Lillian. I used the Thousand Oaks Optical SolarLite film. I bracketed the shutter speed a lot but I mainly shot at ISO 400 and f/5.6. I used a Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6G VR IF-ED at 300 mm. I got a 2x tele extender but I had problems lining up the camera and focusing so I didn't use it. Maybe I will play around with higher ISO before the next eclipse. I stuck with 400 because the D90 starts showing noise around 800. And I was thinking faster shutter speed would be good since my Manfrotto tripod is kind of an entry level model. I've had motion problems with it if the wind kicks up so I wanted to be shooting fast. This is what I got during the partial phase with clouds. Nothing except where the sun is exposed.
I was fortunate enough to see totality in Nashville, although the clouds started rolling in right before it. I couldn't see many of the magnetic field lines because of the clouds and my attempt at the diamond ring was pretty much swamped out by diffusion from the clouds. Still, it was an amazing experience. The weather is such a gamble almost anywhere you go. If interested, here are my totality photos and a slideshow of most of the eclipse:
https://flickr.com/photos/11512969@N08/albums/72157698873176220
As an aside, I ended up retiring from my job working with weather satellites a month after the eclipse. As a retirement gift, my manager got a downloaded picture from one of the satellites showing the moon's shadow over Nashville and had it framed and signed by coworkers. So I know exactly where I am in that photo. Is that cool, or what!
Thanks for the info. I'll try different exposures with my current filter and will look into the StarGuy filter. I'm going to be so prepared for 8 April 2024.
That is an awesome retirement gift Barbara, very cool! & cool photos of the totality, and neat slideshow too! I'm looking forward to the next one too and hoping for clear skies!
A photograph is an artistic expression of life, captured one moment at a time . . .
http://bartlettphotoart.smugmug.com/
I think you fell for the "next page" oversight (or bug)
My SmugMug
Yeah, it had to be a glitch. Even when I hit send, it did not take me to a next page. It showed my post directly under the "N" post. I always check. Regardless, thanks for the heads up and drawing it to my attention. I have edited it to be a "T" image.
You missed Y
Arghh! I did indeed, and I have corrected the post.
Dave Gillespie
https://dave-gillespie.smugmug.com/Daves-Favourites
https://www.flickr.com/photos/106721756@N08/
This is wonderful!
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
Thanks Denise, Ive never seen pelicans do that, so I watched this for quite some time and finally decided to take a picture because I thought: "picture or it didn't happen"
My SmugMug
Did you mean for this to be an N?
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
Sorry Denise, next page syndrom again. Don't know for sure if I looked if there was still a next page after the K but when it showed up it showed below the K and din't skip to the next page where it is showing now.
If the forum would immediately show the post in its final place (the way all other forums I participate in work) you would see it immidiately and can correct on the spot. Fortunately Sara restored the correct order again.
My SmugMug
Perhaps she assumed (as I did) that you meant to call out the N in your title!
I know it's frustrating when that happens...
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
Yes, I freely interpreted Pieter's post as an "N" entry so we could move along...
Now where's "P"??
I just posted a "P"!
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
This is gorgeous Jo!
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
@denisegoldberg - Thank you so much! This was the day that I really fell in love with my Tammy 150-600!
Photos: jowest.smugmug.com
Book1: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LUBMI1C
Book 2: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B079V3RX6K
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/jo.west.16
Question: would liquids like beer, wine, vinegar, etc. that contain mainly water be considered "not actually water"?
My SmugMug
I'm actually looking for more of a liquid flow to like either fabric, chocolate, paint or oil or anything not made of water. But if no one can come up with something that looks like the texture of liquid, then a beer will suffice to move us along.
P Q P
My SmugMug
thanks for your patience. no excuses.
Dave Gillespie
https://dave-gillespie.smugmug.com/Daves-Favourites
https://www.flickr.com/photos/106721756@N08/