Robert Pence

Nice pic if not for all the trash cluttering up the foreground.

Gorgeous shots. I think West Virginia has some of the finest scenery east of the Mississippi.

I think there already may be a dormant one lying around somewhere.

Shush, Boy! In this case, anyway, C-Dawg is right. Second only to my camera, a polarizer is the most useful piece of gear in my camera bag. It's almost always on my lens when I'm shooting on bright days. It blocks reflected light from non-metallic reflective surfaces like glass, foliage, and water, as well as providing more saturated blue skies. It's also somewhat effective in reducing the appearance of haze on sunny days. It's easiest to use a polarizer on an SLR camera, because the filter comes with a mount that allows it to be rotated while on the lens in order to determine the position that gives the desired effect. It's easiest to do that if you can look through it as you turn it. A polarizing filter is most effective on skies when you're shooting with the sun at your shoulder, and less effective as you shoot more directly toward or away from the sun. That accounts for the change in sky intensity from one side of the image to the other in some photos. A polarizing filter for a 35mm or digital SLR costs around $40 - $100 depending on the size and the brand. Third-party filters from companies like Hoya cost about half the price of camera-brand ones like Nikon, but I choose to spring for the extra bucks because in my opinion there's a difference. I think the Hoya polarizer imparts a warm cast to colors, whereas the Nikon doesn't. It's mostly correctible in Photoshop, but why bother with something that has to be fixed, when there's an alternative. I usually keep equipment, especially accessories, for many years, so the cost differential isn't that significant when I spread it out. Polarizing filters aren't new technology, either. I bought one with my first SLR in 1962, and it was on the advice of someone who had been using one for years before that. </ :speech: > Oops! Too Late! :oops: BTW - Kodachrome 10 (pre-1963) + polarizer > anything invented since. :whip:

Also note that on both the left and the right, the illustration appears to show horse-drawn vehicles unloading from the carriers.

Pretty neat, looks like an appealing downtown in the making. When you add the details, don't forget the little things that make it an authentic urban scene. There should be at least one panhandler, somebody with all their possessions in plastic 30-gallon bags piled in a grocery cart, and some forty-five-year-old in frayed bell-bottoms and a mullet, smoking a cigarette while he rides a beat-up bike on the sidewalk. :wink: Don't mind me. I've been bingeing on caffeine and sugar this afternoon. :oops:

I was thinking after Part II that downtown looks a lot better from a distance than it does up close. This part shows, though, that if you get away from the broad arterials and onto the smaller downtown streets, there are some gorgeous buildings that look in good condition.

Neat shots! I haven't been in Lexington in a longlong time, and it sure has changed and continues to change. It looks like having a university facility in the urban fabric is a big plus. Were you using a filter to produce the stars, or are they a product of the lens/aperture selection? I like the effect, and I've gotten it once in a while but haven't really paid attention to how to get them. These inspire me to get out and do some night photography before the weather turns bitter cold.

Neat stuff, interesting-looking area.

Thanks for the map, seicer, and the historic info, radiohio - and welcome to the forums. It's amazing how much knowledge these boards have drawn together in the past few years.

In the illustration, it appears to work that way. Either the person who wrote the article wasn't paying attention to the detail in the drawing, or the paper assigned some knucklehead with no technical comprehension to write about a technical subject. I'm sure glad that never happens nowadays.

Maysville is looking very good. It seems to me I saw photos a few years ago that didn't look so good as it does now. Good news.

I continue to defend the Ohio Statehouse against the detractors who try to compare it with the Beaux Arts-inspired buildings that most states have now. The Ohio Statehouse is much older than most of the others; its cornerstone was laid in 1839 and it was essentially completed in the late 1850s, before the Civil War, when Greek Revival was very much in style. Although there were arguments over the design during the long period of its construction, and many changes while it was in progress, it stands an outstanding example of what a lot of states thoughtlessly discarded decades ago. I've been in the Texas State Capitol in Austin, and I think it's a beautiful, elegant building in its own right. As historic architecture, though, the Ohio Statehouse beats it hands down.

Some sad losses, but more signs of optimism than in the past, too. Some very good things are being done.

Thin walls? Just punch through, throw the alarm on the floor, and stomp it into a million pieces. Or maybe he's dead in there. Tell the building super you haven't seen the guy in a few days, and he'll most likely check it out in a hurry.

Those sound like good suggestions; both Skoropowski and Busalacchi understand transportation and the railroad industry, and they'd be able to work for a balance between the industry's and the customers' needs. As I commented earlier, I can't see David Gunn agreeing to come back, at least with the present board in place. While I can't quite see him flipping them a bird in the literal sense, maybe figuratively ... Regarding the board, it occurred to me last night that if there were confrontations between two consecutive capable Amtrak CEOs and board members, maybe the CEOs weren't the cause of the confrontations. If the same thing happens a third time, it could poison the waterhole, at least until the board members change.

That's true. He produced good results despite public expectations that he would be a Bush tool for dismantling the system. I think his aggressive stance toward preserving and improving Amtrak took a lot of us by surprise. The firing of David Gunn was a disappointment but not a surprise. He was an experienced operations man who understood the financial end of the business too. He was aggressive and outspoken and in his case I think everyone saw what was coming even though we hoped it wouldn't happen. He's turned the page, and unfortunately it's very unlikely the board would be able to bring him back. People of his stature and pro-passenger attitude are rare in the railroad industry

The Youngstown photos sure are different from the ones I posted earlier! Nice job!

I was posting the same info simultaneously, from a NARP email, but you beat me to it by a couple of seconds. How long before we find out what really happened? Within the past week, it seems, I read something about how well everything was going and how great Kummant was as a Amtrak's CEO. It looks like the CEO's career is as vulnerable to political wind changes as Amtrak's funding. I'd think that would serve as a warning to any really qualified candidate who might consider the job. "Confrontational" is a useless label. Any public figure who tries to reach a consensus in policy formation is branded as weak or wishy-washy. Anyone who adjusts his position based on changing circumstances or new information is tagged with "flip-flopper." Anyone who does neither of the above, taking a stand and refusing to yield, is labeled intransigent or confrontational.

Sweet composition and patterns!

Strange and other-worldly, if I let my imagination play. I see a half-machine, half-monster emitting a ray of death and destruction. Striking photos. Several abandoned farmhouses stood near where I grew up, including one half-burned that stood in a spooky woodlot back off the road, surrounded by snaggy dead trees festooned with poison-ivy vines. All of them were open, most so termite-ravaged that they were dangerous to enter. I always intended to take photos of those places, and procrastinated. As a consequence of the consolidation of small family farms into big industrial-scale operations, there's no longer a trace of any of them, or even the semi-wooded plots they often stood in. A bulldozer and a backhoe take, at most, three or four days to turn a big farmhouse, barn and assorted sheds on a couple of tree-shaded acres into an unremarkable part of a tilled and planted 80-acre field.

Haha! An ex-bf. He had an excuse, though; he grew up in the Cleveland 'burbs. He was still wearing it when I last saw him in '04. He was 48 then! :laugh:

I was about to say, The little engine that didn't have a clue. :laugh:

Very beautiful and historic.

I've never visited Pittsburgh in autumn. Looks like a beautiful time of year. This looks like a photo of someone's extremely detailed model railroad layout: