Gary_Yngve

I'm not shallow! There's more to a woman than being able to perform integral calculus or score high in a Scrabble game!

Suppose guys are mean 5'10", stddev 2", and gals are 5'5", 2". The bottom 5% of men are shorter than the top 5% of women. It makes sense that most guys will date shorter women.

She didn't like to practice multiplication? That reminds me of the joke about how Noah gathered all pairs of animals onto the Ark, and after the floods ended, he told all the animals to multiply. The two adder snakes said we can't multiply, only add, so Noah asked God what to do. God told Noah to chop down some trees and make a table for the adders. Noah did as told, built a log table, and the adders multiplied happily.

One time I broke up with a girl because she wasn't good enough at math. Or at least that was one of the tangible excuses I had for the intangible "not feeling attracted to her anymore."

Note on the front cover of Alpinist 14: "This photo was taken after the redpoint. A rope used to capture the image was removed from the photograph."

Translation for the ignorant?

I remember a big fuss raised a while ago because prisoners could get free/cheap viagra as part of their healthcare package.

I probably get 3-4 emails a day on that that sneak through the spam filter.

I still don't understand why the hell "bust a nut" is slang for male masturbation. That's like saying that "giving birth" is slang for female masturbation. And before I get jumped on, I'm not saying that busting a nut and giving birth are equal levels of pain.

Revisionist historian.

duh, i'm not talking about sexual pleasure. i'm talking about a stupid dog trick.

I understand it. It's not impressive. Now, five times in twenty minutes, or twice an hour for six hours, that would be.

That's not very impressive.

-1 = e^(pi i) (-1)^2 = 1 = (e^(pi i))^2 = e^(2 pi i) ln ((e^(pi i))^2) = ln (e^(2 pi i)) 2 * ln (e^(pi i)) = ln (e^(2 pi i)) 2 ln -1 = ln 1 2 pi i = 0 i = 0 i^4 = 0^4 1 = 0

please translate for the ignorant?

I think the happiest medium is a coed trip where there is enough critical mass for the less-represented gender. Guys likewise have a problem with this. All the gals start talking about how BCP affects their moods, and the lone guy is thinking "get me out of here."

Well, he did get arrested because they discovered he had an outstanding DUI warrant...

Ya, great fluffiness in the snoq area! Sadly I don't have anything to show of it because I caught a tip on a buried log and flipped upside-down. In the resulting struggle, my camera wriggled out of my partially zipped pocket. Didn't notice it was missing until about 20 minutes later.

Sorry to hear it, Pax. Wishing good vibes to your partner.

Distel, an alternative would be estimating a depthmap of the image and blurring far away, as if you had taken the shot with a narrower depth of field or closer focus. Although future, cameras will allow you to change the focus/depth of field *after* capturing the image (it actually captures a 4-d lightfield). I can't put an estimate on the number of years, but a prototype was made at Stanford for about $30,000. Sounds like we both agree that the image would be more aesthetic without those peeps. We have different styles, and as long as neither of us lie about it, then all is cool. Jon, I totally agree with you on those moments that pass without capturing the photo. I have many such images burned in my mind's eye, and I've wanted a way to express those images so I could share them with other people as well.

More NW than N (from Sunrise), but http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/gyngve/pano.jpg smaller version: Note that this image has been digitally enhanced. Aside from being a stiched panorama, a blend on the original shots would have looked like:

In general, I'm not opposed to this. I like looking through the notes of a Galen Rowell book to see the settings/film used to take each shot, as well as other comments. My main issue is when there's not room to add all those details, and you need to say your image is digitally altered, putting your saturation tweak in the same category as someone who produced the geoduck. If you digitally enhance your shots, you're immediately on the defensive, even if you're doing something that's the equivalent of a standard accepted film trick. In particular, being a graphics researcher, I can prove things about doing mathematical operations on images and the existence of a lens/filter that could have produced the same effect. I disagree though with the notion that a photo is not allowed to capture more than an instant of time. Certainly it does for motion-blur. I view a photo as a way of capturing what the eyes saw. When people are standing together for a group shot, nearly everyone has their eyes open, and if someone blinks, their eyes will be open soon. From our perception, we think everyone has their eyes open. But when we take a photo, we capture an instant, and very likely, someone is blinking. This photo, in my mind, is not capturing reality the way we perceived it. I think editing the eyes to all open is completely acceptable. Of all the images that I posted, my opinion is that the ski before/after, the deer, and the fog shot are not photographs, but I feel that the others, which have had digital equivalents of film tools applied to them, are honest photographs.

How do you feel about nature shots that required some form of staging (e.g. peeing on a rock to attract goats) or gardening (removing deadfall from a shot, pruning some plants, moving a rock, etc..)? Is this in-the-field making-of-the-image bad too?

Here's a webpage with some alterations I've done to images: http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/gyngve/alterations/