METRORail Green Line

[ricco67]

I am so confused with the aperture, shutter speed and ISO. They all deal with light but I'm having a hard time differentiating between them all.

maybe we should start a new thread on this, so mods feel free to do so:

The larger the aperture number the "smaller" the hole in which light gets in, a 2.8 is fairly wide open and allows me to shoot "fast" pictures at night.

Add a higher ISO number to the mix and you can speed up the picture a bit more.

a 2.8 with a 3200 ISO gave me a shutter speed at 1/15th of a second. with a 1600 ISO, it would have given me a 1 second (I think) exposure time. Same thing if I increased my aperture number but left my ISO alone.

I still get a bit tripped up occasionally. Like I said, I'm a relative newbie to this.

[samagon]

I shoot with a 28 2.8 at night because of speed, which is a bit of a necessity of where I shoot at night. It was shot with a 2.8 because I don't like the "starring" effect I get with a higher aperture number. I'm hoping to get a new 50mm 1.7 in a few weeks, though. If I have time, I'll give it another shot tonight.

It's all preference I hate it when people tell me that I have to shoot a specific way, because that's what looks best, no I meant to do it that way! Otherwise it's not art, but following a formula...

Now lighting (aperture; shutter speed; ISO; flash), that's more science, with art mixed in

My lowest Fstop lens is the Sigma 30mm 1.4, best lens for the money, if it comes in a mount that works for your camera. it makes great bokeh, although the focus motor isn't the fastest.

I'll start a thread in the photography forum for camera equipment questions/tips, that seems like the best place, rather than cluttering up other threads

here 'tis http://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/26156-photography-tips-tricks-and-equipment/

Edited February 29, 2012 by samagon

[lockmat]

It's all preference I hate it when people tell me that I have to shoot a specific way, because that's what looks best, no I meant to do it that way! Otherwise it's not art, but following a formula...

I know, that's what I didn't like about Flickr. In a way you appreciate people's opinions but when they bash you for the artistry you're trying to create, I don't like it either.

[infinite_jim]

[Andrew Broadfoot]

What is the building on the right of the image? I really hope it get revitalized.

[Houston19514]

What is the building on the right of the image? I really hope it get revitalized.

That is the old Texaco building. Slated to be turned into apartments. The latest information indicates work will start this fall. (I wonder if they delayed the work so that the opening roughly coincides with the completion of the rail constuction?)

[Andrew Broadfoot]

I just hope they leave the facade the way it is. Maybe pressure wash it.

[infinite_jim]

That's actually called a loggia

[RedScare]

That is the old Texaco building. Slated to be turned into apartments. The latest information indicates work will start this fall. (I wonder if they delayed the work so that the opening roughly coincides with the completion of the rail constuction?)

I can't imagine that they would screw with their financing just so that they could open at the same time as a rail line that will have minimal effect on their operation. If actual construction was a concern, I'd point out that the dirty construction (digging up the street and laying track) is completed long before the rail line actually opens. The Red Line was largely completed a year before service began.

[ricco67]

Finally got around to doing the east line update:

[TheNiche]

Interesting that they're so far along in some places and barely placing barrels in other places along the same line. Seems like it should've been done simultaneously and all at once instead of spending money on early segments that end up sitting unused for a period of time afterward. Neither the private sector or even TXDoT would typically allow this sort of thing to happen. Also, does anybody know when work will commence on the underpass? Seems like that would be on the project manager's critical path, but nothing is happening.

[mfastx]

Interesting that they're so far along in some places and barely placing barrels in other places along the same line. Seems like it should've been done simultaneously and all at once instead of spending money on early segments that end up sitting unused for a period of time afterward. Neither the private sector or even TXDoT would typically allow this sort of thing to happen. Also, does anybody know when work will commence on the underpass? Seems like that would be on the project manager's critical path, but nothing is happening.

According to the website, supposedly the plan is to construct the lines in segments, as opposed to all at once like the Main Street Line. Apparently METRO thinks that will mean that disruptions to local businesses etc. won't be as long as it was for the Main Street line, but I think that it's just as long.

A few things regarding the video: 1) the underpass was supposed to delay things from the beginning but I don't see why they aren't working on it now.

2) it's extremely annoying how long construction projects take in general (not just rail, but street repairs in general). I feel like it would be more cost effective to pay more workers for a shorter amount of time than to pay a smaller amount of workers for a longer period of time, no? I mean it seems like these projects could get done it half the time or less.

and 3) that station near the Dynamo Stadium looks like it was only long enough for one LRV. Are they not planning on running double trains on this route? I know initial ridership probably won't warrant it, but what's preventing them from leaving room for double trains? Am I wrong?

[IHB2]

Interesting that they're so far along in some places and barely placing barrels in other places along the same line. Seems like it should've been done simultaneously and all at once instead of spending money on early segments that end up sitting unused for a period of time afterward. Neither the private sector or even TXDoT would typically allow this sort of thing to happen.

mfastx has it right. Frank Wilson swore all new rail lines after the Red Line would be built in small segments so as not to devastate businesses along the entire route at once as happened downtown.

unamused merchants at the meetings referred to the policy as the death of a thousand cuts as opposed to the shock and awe Red Line project :-)

[TheNiche]

2) it's extremely annoying how long construction projects take in general (not just rail, but street repairs in general). I feel like it would be more cost effective to pay more workers for a shorter amount of time than to pay a smaller amount of workers for a longer period of time, no? I mean it seems like these projects could get done it half the time or less.

TXDoT was good enough to do that for the Katy Freeway and makes a habit of providing incentives to their contractors for the on-time completion of a project. I think that that is excellent public policy. My time is worth it. That's the whole point of relieving congestion in the first place, after all.

And yeah, I've never been especially receptive to the argument that the construction kills businesses. Retail dollars just get spent elsewhere. And it's not as though core employers are going to move out of town due to a temporary construction project. If there's an adverse impact that might constitute the moral equivalent of a public taking, then just compensate small business owners and let them close shop so that the project can be wrapped up sooner than later.

[IHB2]

And yeah, I've never been especially receptive to the argument that the construction kills businesses. Retail dollars just get spent elsewhere. And it's not as though core employers are going to move out of town due to a temporary construction project. If there's an adverse impact that might constitute the moral equivalent of a public taking, then just compensate small business owners and let them close shop so that the project can be wrapped up sooner than later.

Red Line + Lee Brown tearup of the downtown grid shut down a thriving downtown cafe scene and the collateral small businesses that scene created. most small businesses operate on margins so thin that removing a big % of customers for even a month is death. that some % of the projects that kill them are paid for with their own tax $$$ is ironic.

and it's all those small businesses that provide the fabric for general economic success in any part of town, so your "core employers" may survive but they alone can't create a thriving business culture.

IMO these big construction projects that make people avoid an area until it's finished have an effect more like a hurricane or some other natural disaster rather than being the moral equivalent of a taking.

[TheNiche]

Red Line + Lee Brown tearup of the downtown grid shut down a thriving downtown cafe scene and the collateral small businesses that scene created. most small businesses operate on margins so thin that removing a big % of customers for even a month is death. that some % of the projects that kill them are paid for with their own tax $$$ is ironic.

and it's all those small businesses that provide the fabric for general economic success in any part of town, so your "core employers" may survive but they alone can't create a thriving business culture.

IMO these big construction projects that make people avoid an area until it's finished have an effect more like a hurricane or some other natural disaster rather than being the moral equivalent of a taking.

Yeah, I know. So what? You've got to crack some eggs to make an omelette. Eggs are a finite resource that cost money. If the project is worth it (which I do not mean to imply that it is), then small business owners can be made whole for their government-imposed losses and move on...temporarily closing during construction, opening new businesses elsewhere, or whatever they please to do. Having been a small business owner myself, I can say that an opportunity to take some money and run might be quite a welcome circumstance to many people.

As for your comments regarding "business culture", I don't get it. People gotta eat somewhere. If not on Harrisburg, then on Canal or Navigation. It'd be the same story all over town. Even if spent differently, the money will be spent. It probably won't be captured by West U or anywhere like that, either.

[RedScare]

Red Line + Lee Brown tearup of the downtown grid shut down a thriving downtown cafe scene and the collateral small businesses that scene created.

No it didn't.

Source: I'm a former downtown cafe owner and small businessman.

[samagon]

Interesting that they're so far along in some places and barely placing barrels in other places along the same line. Seems like it should've been done simultaneously and all at once instead of spending money on early segments that end up sitting unused for a period of time afterward. Neither the private sector or even TXDoT would typically allow this sort of thing to happen. Also, does anybody know when work will commence on the underpass? Seems like that would be on the project manager's critical path, but nothing is happening.

IIRC, this was planned.

They chose to learn from the red line and do construction in segments so as not to have the entirety of the line in shambles for the whole project.

I'm sure it can be found somewhere on this forum, or on the metro site.

edit: here ya go, they reference it on the progress page:

http://www.gometrorail.org/go/doc/2491/1327987/

see 'phase two'

limit construction to 3-5 block segments

I'll keep looking for where it was mentioned by metro that this was an appropriate way to minimize impact to the areas, but as I recall, it was decided that this is the faster than the way they did the original red line, and creates less impact to the community.

Edited August 28, 2012 by samagon

[editor]

Changed the name of this thread because it's not the Brown Line, it's the Green Line on Metro's maps.

[luciaphile]

When may we expect Peak Eggs? And when will Peak Omelette-Cliches be?

[IHB2]

No it didn't.

Source: I'm a former downtown cafe owner and small businessman.

then what in your opinion did?

[IHB2]

Yeah, I know. So what? You've got to crack some eggs to make an omelette...Having been a small business owner myself, I can say that an opportunity to take some money and run might be quite a welcome circumstance to many people...As for your comments regarding "business culture", I don't get it. People gotta eat somewhere. If not on Harrisburg, then on Canal or Navigation. It'd be the same story all over town...

having been a small business owner myself - and I still am one - I'll just respectfully disagree. with everything you said in the post.

travelers used to stop for bbq, gasoline, whatever in Hempstead. then the 290 bypass got built. travelers still ate bbq, stopped for gasoline, whatever. just not in Hempstead.

[KinkaidAlum]

Might want to do some research on the average life span of a small restaurant. The life span for a club/bar is even shorter.

[TheNiche]

having been a small business owner myself - and I still am one - I'll just respectfully disagree. with everything you said in the post.

travelers used to stop for bbq, gasoline, whatever in Hempstead. then the 290 bypass got built. travelers still ate bbq, stopped for gasoline, whatever. just not in Hempstead.

No, I agree completely with your assessment. Its just that I don't care whether consumers' road trip expenditures are made in Hempstead or Chapel Hill. The localities might care, but the statewide agency that sponsors and funds the project should only really concern itself with the possibility that those expenditures might go to somewhere like Louisiana instead...which it won't in your example.

Otherwise you find yourself in a situation where localities, neighborhoods, and special interests can dictate terms to a larger entity, holding even well-conceived projects hostage. And that's ridiculous, too, because the best interests of the few (i.e. restaurateurs) are often poorly aligned with the best interests of the many (i.e. travelers). Not always, but often enough. Allowing special interests that latitude or codifying veto rights into statute would be absurd.

[Slick Vik]

No, I agree completely with your assessment. Its just that I don't care whether consumers' road trip expenditures are made in Hempstead or Chapel Hill. The localities might care, but the statewide agency that sponsors and funds the project should only really concern itself with the possibility that those expenditures might go to somewhere like Louisiana instead...which it won't in your example.

Otherwise you find yourself in a situation where localities, neighborhoods, and special interests can dictate terms to a larger entity, holding even well-conceived projects hostage. And that's ridiculous, too, because the best interests of the few (i.e. restaurateurs) are often poorly aligned with the best interests of the many (i.e. travelers). Not always, but often enough. Allowing special interests that latitude or codifying veto rights into statute would be absurd.

Afton Oaks?

[RedScare]

then what in your opinion did?

Well, considering that the "heyday" of the downtown club and cafe scene occurred from 2004 to 2006, I wouldn't say that anything killed it, at least during the time of the rail construction. If you look at the evolution of the Main Street scene, it began in the late 90s with a few restaurants and bars. It grew when the "see and be scene" crowd decided downtown was the new thing. From 1999 through the early 2000s the white scenesters flooded the bars and niteclubs. Then, the first clubs began opening on Washington, causing the scene to shift. The clubs began to shift in demographic to a 50/50 white/black crowd, and the music trend toward hip hop and other popular black music. By the mid 2000s, the club scene largely catered to black club goers. However, while whites may claim that it died...and blame METRO...the Main Street crowds were far larger during this time than when the hip white scene occupied Main Street. Eventually, the clubs had run their cycle and began closing in 2006 and later, long after the rail construction was completed.

The rail construction did not kill anything. The scene simply morphed from white centric to black centric, and self-centered whites think that it died off. It didn't. Hence, my statement.

[samagon]

Well, considering that the "heyday" of the downtown club and cafe scene occurred from 2004 to 2006, I wouldn't say that anything killed it, at least during the time of the rail construction. If you look at the evolution of the Main Street scene, it began in the late 90s with a few restaurants and bars. It grew when the "see and be scene" crowd decided downtown was the new thing. From 1999 through the early 2000s the white scenesters flooded the bars and niteclubs. Then, the first clubs began opening on Washington, causing the scene to shift. The clubs began to shift in demographic to a 50/50 white/black crowd, and the music trend toward hip hop and other popular black music. By the mid 2000s, the club scene largely catered to black club goers. However, while whites may claim that it died...and blame METRO...the Main Street crowds were far larger during this time than when the hip white scene occupied Main Street. Eventually, the clubs had run their cycle and began closing in 2006 and later, long after the rail construction was completed.

The rail construction did not kill anything. The scene simply morphed from white centric to black centric, and self-centered whites think that it died off. It didn't. Hence, my statement.

This is absolutely true. And I'd also say that in addition to Washington, some blame can be put on the Superbowl, I was there on one of the nights of the big parties and it was a crush of people of all colors and races the likes of which I have never (and never will again) see downtown, and I'm sure that more than one or two of them said to themselves "self, this is a rockin' party, lets come back in a few months and have some more fun!".

[TheNiche]

Afton Oaks?

Sure, that's a good example. If there would've been a substantial adverse impact, then it should be litigated and they should've been paid off for it if doing so would've brought the project cost down from the alternative or made the trip substantially more convenient for riders.

[TheNiche]

Well, considering that the "heyday" of the downtown club and cafe scene occurred from 2004 to 2006, I wouldn't say that anything killed it, at least during the time of the rail construction. If you look at the evolution of the Main Street scene, it began in the late 90s with a few restaurants and bars. It grew when the "see and be scene" crowd decided downtown was the new thing. From 1999 through the early 2000s the white scenesters flooded the bars and niteclubs. Then, the first clubs began opening on Washington, causing the scene to shift. The clubs began to shift in demographic to a 50/50 white/black crowd, and the music trend toward hip hop and other popular black music. By the mid 2000s, the club scene largely catered to black club goers. However, while whites may claim that it died...and blame METRO...the Main Street crowds were far larger during this time than when the hip white scene occupied Main Street. Eventually, the clubs had run their cycle and began closing in 2006 and later, long after the rail construction was completed.

The rail construction did not kill anything. The scene simply morphed from white centric to black centric, and self-centered whites think that it died off. It didn't. Hence, my statement.

Well see, now that just opens a pandora's box of racially-charged hypotheses involving mass transit and the presence of black people, including some broader implications thereof. What HAIF really need at this particular moment is someone like TexasVines to say what we're all thinking in order to kick off a fun series of arguments.

[luciaphile]

Otherwise you find yourself in a situation where localities, neighborhoods, and special interests can dictate terms to a larger entity, holding even well-conceived projects hostage. And that's ridiculous, too, because the best interests of the few (i.e. restaurateurs) are often poorly aligned with the best interests of the many (i.e. travelers). Not always, but often enough. Allowing special interests that latitude or codifying veto rights into statute would be absurd.

No doubt you could construct a truth table to establish the validity of what you've said here, and I'm no logician and couldn't hope to dispute it; but I'm confused about the composition of the "many" -- travelers -- whose interests are held captive. Why privilege travelers over other "manys"? Such as the set of property owners: is it not in the collective best interests of that many, so defined, for governments to struggle to exercise their power of eminent domain?

It may be obvious that my concern for the many is provisional. It goes to the core of my few convictions that what is worth preserving is generally not in the hands of the many.