Orchid

Here's another macro flower shot that I took a while back. My florist allows me to shoot whatever he has in the store while he prepares my flowers.

Canon XSi, 100mm macro lens
f/2.8, 1/25 second
(Note: *Never* shoot handheld [as I did here] at 1/25 with a 100mm lens. You're going to get camera shake. I was *extremely* lucky that this shot came out as clear as it did. I shot this before I knew any better.)

As always, comments, criticisms and critiques are welcome and appreciated.

The Wolf

Previous Photos:
Floral Macro: How Close Can You Get?
Shutter Speed & Light Trails on the Brooklyn Bridge
On The Wings of Gerber Daisies
Sometimes, an Out-of-Focus Shot Works Well Too
The Ghosts Of Grand Central
Third Night
Shooting From A Different Angle
Duck!
Gargantua
Sunflower Arrangement (discussion of lens apertures and depth of field)
Empire (basic discussion of lenses)
Hovering Bee
Sunflower Macro
Statue of Liberty
Trinity Church, September 11, 2008
Manhattan Tulips
Dragonfly

A Step In The Right Direction

Ynet is reporting that a new college for Chareidi women will be opening in Netanya next year. The college will offer courses in accounting, bookkeeping, tax consultation and other subjects.

Personally, I think this is a step in the right direction. Someone in the Chareidi community is realizing that not every woman can be a schoolteacher or a secretary and that if the Hareidi community is to have any chance of surviving in it's present form, education opportunities for women need to be expanded. This is in sharp contrast to earlier times when, only a few short years ago, education opportunities were being taken away from women.

It will be interesting to see what (if any) opposition springs up to this college, how successful it will be and what (if any) effects it will have on the chareidi community at large.

In any event, expanding educational opportunities is usually a good thing and, as such, I'm happy to see that the chareidi community is taking a step in the right direction.

The Wolf

(As an aside, I find it funny that the picture that Ynet put up for this article is so clearly not a chareidi woman.)

Off Topic: Just Because I Hate Stupidity -- How To Win At The Lottery-- NOT!

I know this is off-topic for this blog, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to comment on this. Today's New York Daily News has an article called "Playing to win: Insider tips on winning the lottery." The article discusses some of the lottery games that are available in New York and gives tips on picking the right numbers to win.

I won't comment on the fact that the lottery is often correctly called a tax on those that are poor at math. I won't go on about how the odds of winning the lottery are so remote as to be practically nil. I just want to discuss the "tips" that the author provides and point out how stupid and illogical they are. The article gives nine tips and, sadly, of the nine, only one actually makes any sense. That one is the first one:

REDUCE THE ODDS

There are three lottery games in New York (aside from scratch-offs and the daily numbers games). Those are Mega Millions (with the highest odds and usually the highest payoff), Lotto and Take 5 (with a top pot of about $100,000 and much better odds of winning). The article notes that it's much easier to win $100K with Take 5 than to win millions of dollars with Mega Millions. This tip actually makes sense -- sometimes. If the Lotto or Mega Millions pot is large enough, it's possible that the expected value for those games could be greater than the Take 5. You have to do the math to find out which game will give you the best odds and the best return.

The rest of the tips, however, are worthless. As you read them, I want you to keep two principles in the back of your mind:

1. Assuming the game is not rigged, any set of numbers has exactly the same probability of coming up as any other set. 18-19-20-21-22 is just as likely as 2-8-11-23-38.

2. As the old investment adage goes, past performance is not an indicator of future results. Let's say you flip a coin (again, assuming the contest isn't rigged in some way) 100 times and, against all odds it comes up heads 100 times in a row. What are the odds of it coming up heads on the 101st throw? The correct answer is 1 out of 2. This is because the coin doesn't have a "memory" of previous flips. Each flip is independent of every other flip and the effects of one flip have no effect on any future flips.

So, keeping these two points in mind, let's look at the remaining eight tips offered by the article:

MIX IT UP

Quoth the article:
When it comes to picking numbers, you want as balanced a playing card as possible. Never play all one-number groups, like all 20s (21-23-25), nor all single-digit numbers, like 1-5-9. "If you play it that way, squishing all your numbers together, you're not playing a balanced game," Howard says. "You should give a relatively even mix between high numbers and low numbers, because the numbers are drawn across the number field."

The truth: It doesn't matter. All combinations have an equal chance of coming up on any one draw. The odds of getting any set of five numbers all in the 20s are exactly the same as getting any other specific set of five numbers.

EVEN IT OUT

Similar to the last tip, the article suggests not playing only even numbers or only odd numbers. Again, keep my first principle in mind.

DON'T COUNT ON 1-2-3-4-5

Quoth the article:
It's the absolute worst number combination to play in any lottery drawing. "It's guaranteed not to win," says Howard. Not only are these digits all at the tail end of the number spectrum, but the odds that consecutive numbers will ever be drawn are slim to none. Yet, it's the most popularly played number set. "Even after my 25 years of preaching against it, they (lottery retailers) still must sell 20,000 tickets every drawing with that combination," she says.

Again, see my first principle. 1-2-3-4-5 has just a good a chance of winning as any other combination.

It should be pointed out that, assuming the article is correct (that a lot of people play 1-2-3-4-5), then you may be at a disadvantage if you are playing a game where winners split the pot (such as Mega Millions or Lotto). But in Take 5, that is not the case. In addition, of course, if 1-2-3-4-5 are going to win, then it doesn't really matter how many people pick that combination... if you don't pick it, you're not going to win anything.

SPLIT FROM THE CROWD

Again, from the article:
Don't play patterns (picking numbers that make a line straight across or down, that make diagonals, or that make an initial) because, believe it or not, everyone else has the same idea. "There have been 150,000 tickets in just one drawing of people playing patterns," Howard says.

See my point on the last tip. The same thing applies.

AVOID ANNIVERSARIES

The article contends that becuase people tend to play birthdays and anniversaries, they often don't use numbers past 31. If you do this, the article contends, you are not playing a "balanced game."

Once again, let's repeat the mantra: Any single combination of numbers has the same odds as any other set.

NIX THE QUICK PICKS

From the article:

When playing Quick Pick, a computer generates the number combinations on your playing card — and it doesn't have your best interest in mind.

"Don't play them!" she says. "What the computer generated for me were the most awful combinations — all these things that I told you not to do. The computer would generate all lower numbers, or all higher numbers." Pick your own.

Again, it doesn't matter. The numbers the computer picks have the *exact* same odds as any other set of numbers. Your "best interests" are meaningless in a situation like this.

DON'T COPYCAT

This tip says that you shouldn't play numbers that have been drawn recently. The article even states that if you play numbers that have recently won, you will only make it more difficult for yourself to win.

To counter this bit of stupidity, I urge you to go to the second principle I stated above. It doesn't matter what happened in the past. Assuming the game isn't rigged, what happened in past drawings has absolutely no effect on future drawings. You have just as good a chance of winning by playing the numbers that won the last jackpot as by playing numbers that haven't won in three years.

DO THE MATH

Howard has, however, used winning numbers to come up with a mathematical formula to predict future winners.

"Were you to add up the five winning numbers for the last drawing, and do that for each of the drawings going back to the beginning of the game, you'll find that 70% of all the winning Take 5 numbers have a sum between 75 and 125," she says. "So when playing Take 5, the sum of the five numbers you pick should add up to between 75 and 125."

This is one of the stupidest pieces of advice I've seen. This would only matter if you were gambling on the sum of the numbers (as you might do in a game of dice). But you're not gambling on the sum of the sum of the numbers, you're gambling on the combination of numbers.

I'm sorry to take you all off-topic, but I can't help but try to fight stupidity whenever I see it, and this ranks right up there.

The Wolf

Still Homeless After Three Years? Can Someone Please Explain This?

Yeshiva World News is reporting that, three years after people were booted out of their homes in Gush Katif, at least some of the former residents are still homeless and without a livelihood.

Now, I'll admit that I'm certainly not familiar with all the facts on the ground. Perhaps there is some information that I am missing that would help to make this phenomenon explainable. But, on the surface, I can't see how otherwise healthy individuals and families can still be homeless three years after a forced evacuation. Is there something that is preventing them from getting jobs and renting an apartment somewhere? Is there some legal barrier to their moving into another city in Israel? Are there some exceptional circumstances that prevent them from moving on with their lives?

Barring some odd situation or legal barrier, I can't imagine why people would still be homeless three years later. Can someone please try to help me understand this.

The Wolf

Hey, Mr. Producer, How About Doing Ten Minutes Worth of Research?

This Sunday evening, CBS will be airing a TV movie called Loving Leah. It's a fictional story about a woman in the Lubavitch community who, recently widowed and childless, will now end up marrying her husband's brother. Of course, the brother is not Lubavitch (or even religious), but that's a separate issue.

Of course, the producers could have actually called up a rabbi -- any rabbi -- Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, whatever, and asked "hey, do Lubavitch Jews actually *do* that anymore? Do they really have widows marry their dead husband's brother?" Of course, no one performs yibum anymore -- in fact, we've pretty much outlawed it and mandated chalitzah. But no -- why let a few facts get in the way of a good story?

This reminds me of the episode of Grey's Anatomy where an Orthodox Jewish girl decided it's better to die than to receive a porcine heart valve transplant. Again, a simple phone call to any rabbi would have revealed that any rabbi -- from the frummest Orthodox to the most secular Reconstructionist would have told her that she is not only allowed to have the transplant but that she should actually do so.

What really annoys me about this is not so much the fact that they got it wrong -- heck, we all make mistakes. But the fact that they got something wrong in a community that 98% of the viewing knows nothing about (or worse, has gross misinformation about) only helps to perpetuate bad stereotypes about Lubavitch Jews and Orthodox Jews in general.

So, how about if, instead of making stupid mistakes and painting Orthodox Jews in a bad light, producers actually pick up a phone and run a thirty second plot summary by a rabbi -- any rabbi? Is that too much to ask?

The Wolf

Hat tip: Pesky Settler. (Go to PS's blog and see the YouTube clip of Susan Essman [one of the stars of the show] trashing Lubavitch Jews).

Floral Macro: How Close Can You Get?

This close:

Canon XSi, 100mm macro lens
f/4, 1/1250 second

As always, comments, criticisms and critiques are welcome and appreciated.

The Wolf

Previous Photos:
Shutter Speed & Light Trails on the Brooklyn Bridge
On The Wings of Gerber Daisies
Sometimes, an Out-of-Focus Shot Works Well Too
The Ghosts Of Grand Central
Third Night
Shooting From A Different Angle
Duck!
Gargantua
Sunflower Arrangement (discussion of lens apertures and depth of field)
Empire (basic discussion of lenses)
Hovering Bee
Sunflower Macro
Statue of Liberty
Trinity Church, September 11, 2008
Manhattan Tulips
Dragonfly

Kiryas Joel vs "Non Heimish" Cab Companies... This Story Doesn't Pass The Smell Test.

HaMercaz is reporting a story about the town of Kiryas Joel and their plans to deal with issues arising from cab companies in the city.

According to the article, Kiryas Joel has five "heimish" cab companies. However, lately, non-Jewish cab companies have been gaining market share in the village due to cheaper costs.

The story alleges that some of the drivers from the "non-heimish" companies are illegal aliens without driver's licenses and that many of the cars are not inspected.

One suggested solution is a requirement that drivers obtain a special permit/mediallion (requiring a background check).

The article concludes (bolding mine):

"The law will benefit the five heimish and responsible taxi firms operating in Kiryas Joel," the article concludes. "The law will strengthen the ability of Kiryas Joel residents to further patronize their own brethren."

Is it just me, or does anyone else think this stinks to high heaven?

The Wolf

(UPDATE: The original source for this story was Frum Factory.)

Shutter Speed & Light Trails On The Brooklyn Bridge

One of the keys to taking good pictures is to make sure that you allow the right amount of light into your camera. Your camera (whether film or digital) is, in essence, a light-proof box. A picture is taken when you press down on the button and allow the shutter in the lens to open. This allows some light into the box which then hits the film or the digital sensors, creating the picture.

There are two ways to control how much light gets into the camera when you press down on the shutter. The first way is to control wide the opening is. Some lenses allow you to create a very wide opening, while others force you to use a more narrow opening. I discussed one of the effects of choosing the appropriate aperture (that's the fancy word to describe how wide the opening is) in a previous post.

Another way to control the amount of light is to control how long the opening in the lens is kept open. Some high end cameras have a minimum shutter speed of 1/8000 of a second. That means that the lens is kept open for only 1/8000 of a second. My camera's fastest shutter speed is 1/4000. Of course, for some shots, you'll want to use a very quick shutter speed. If you're taking a still picture of Derek Jeter swinging a bat, you'll want a very quick shutter speed, because his bat is moving at high speed. If you hold the lens open for a long time (such as 1/30 of a second), then the bat will appear as a blur.

The shutter speed that you choose for your picture is crucial. The reason is because if you choose a shutter speed that's too quick, you might not get enough light into the camera to make the shot work. If you choose a speed that's too slow, your subject will appear blurry. Even if your subject stands completely still (suppose it's a building), you can still have a blurry subject if your shutter speed is too slow. The reason for this is camera shake.

Most people are unable to keep their hands perfectly still. Hands have a tendency to involuntarily shake. As a result, even if you think you're holding your camera perfectly still, chances are that you are not. Your shaking hands may not make a difference if your shutter speed is 1/4000 of a second (unless your hands shake very quickly!), but at slower shutter speeds, you begin to notice the blur in your pictures. At what point does camera shake start to become an issue? Well, the rule of thumb is that you should never shoot at a speed slower than 1/focal length. So, if you're using a 50mm lens, don't shoot at speeds slower than 1/50 of a second. That means that if you're using a lens with a longer focal length, the effects of camera shake become more pronounced. With a 300mm lens, you shouldn't shoot anything slower than 1/300 of a second.

So, what happens if your lens is opened up as far as it will go, and you still can't get enough light into the picture without shooting slower than the recommended speed? The best solution to this problem is to use a tripod. By using a tripod, you eliminate most of the problems associated with camera shake. Since you're not physically holding the camera anymore, you can now shoot at slower speeds.

While the technical aspects of shutter speed are all fine and well, I suppose you're wondering what you can do with it creatively? Well, there are some things you can do. A few weeks ago, I posted a picture of Grand Central Station. In the picture, I left the shutter open for 30 seconds. During that time, some people moved and some didn't, creating some "ghosts" in the picture.

Another fun thing to do with shutter speeds is to create light trails. I took these two shots on the Brooklyn Bridge last April, shortly after I purchased my camera.

Canon XSi, 18-55mm lens at 21mm
f/22, 4 seconds



Canon XSi, 18-55mm lens at 23mm
f/16, 2 seconds

There are two plazas on the bridge where you can stand and walk out over the vehicular traffic that is moving on the bridge. I didn't have my tripod with me, so I held it very firmly against the railing of the bridge* and snapped the picture. Because I had the shutter open for so long (2 and 4 seconds) and because the traffic on the bridge was moving at a normal rate, the light trails remained, even after the cars themselves had moved on.

If you have a camera where you can control how long the shutter remains open, I encourage you to play around with it. There are lots of fun things you can do with the shutter speed.

Have you done anything creative with shutter speeds? If so, let me know and post a link to it in the comments.

In the meantime, as always, comments, critiques and criticisms about the pictures I posted are always welcomed and appreciated.

The Wolf

* Having a tripod wouldn't have helped so much anyway. One major problem that I have about taking pictures on the Brooklyn Bridge is that the *entire* bridge shakes!

Previous Pictures:

Previous Photos:
On The Wings of Gerber Daisies
Sometimes, an Out-of-Focus Shot Works Well Too
The Ghosts Of Grand Central
Third Night
Shooting From A Different Angle
Duck!
Gargantua
Sunflower Arrangement (discussion of lens apertures and depth of field)
Empire (basic discussion of lenses)
Hovering Bee
Sunflower Macro
Statue of Liberty
Trinity Church, September 11, 2008
Manhattan Tulips
Dragonfly

Because We All Know That An Ipod + Kid Can Only Have One Outcome...

Matzav.com is reporting that a new poster (viewable from the link) is being used to highlight the inherent dangers in modern technology. The poster shows two pictures of a kid -- the first a typical yeshiva bachur in a white shirt, with a kippa and a nice smile.

The second picture shows a kid with a baseball cap on backwards, wearing a T-shirt, presumably in the act of yelling something and making an "L" with his fingers.

The two pictures are accompanied by a letter which reads as follows:

Dearest Abba and Mommy,

Just wanted to thank you for the iPod touch you got me for my birthday. It’s the coolest thing! Seriously. I use it all the time to access the most disgusting stuff in the world! You would like totally faint if you knew. Anyway, OMG! It’s like the sickest thing ever. And the internet is WAY fast. It only takes me a few seconds to download the WORST videos and photos imaginable. I can literally get anything I want and talk to anyone I want. Bet you had no idea when you bought it. That’s too bad, cuz, you know, I was just an innocent 7th grader full of potential. You probably had high hopes for me - sorry, but that’s history now. I don’t really care much about learning - or anything else - anymore and I’ll probably drop out of school pretty soon. So long and thanks for ruining me. You rule!

Love, Chaim (a.k.a. “tank”)

Of course, a more reasonable approach isn't possible, right? After all, it never occurred to them that this might be a possible outcome:

Dearest Abba and Mommy,

Just wanted to thank you for the iPod touch you got me for my birthday. It’s the coolest thing! Seriously. I use it all the time to listen to music!

I know that deep down you wouldn't give me something that could potentially be dangerous if you didn't think I could handle it responsibly. I know that if you didn't think I could handle it, you wouldn't let me have it. And I thank you for giving me the education and grounding to know how to use it responsibly. I've always appreciated that you were the types of parents of whom I could ask almost any question without fear. I'm so happy that we have the type of relationship where I can ask you, without fear of getting in trouble, if a particular song or video is appropriate for me. And because you've shown me that you're reasonable and not overbearing parents and that your opinion is trustworthy, I know that you have my best interest at heart if you say that something is not for me.

I know it must be very hard to let go and trust me to use this Ipod. I know that you're proud of me and because I know that you have such high hopes for me, I will do my best to make sure that I don't disappoint you.

Oh yeah, and I also know that you'll be watching over me as I use this Ipod. So I'd better not mess up if I want to keep it. :)

Thanks for showing so much trust in me and for being good and understanding parents.

Love, Chaim

How about, instead of demonizing the technology, educating kids in the responsible usage of it; and allowing parents to determine whether or not their children are capable of using a tool responsibly?

The Wolf

Are Labels Inherently Bad?

Over at the Coffeeroom, someone began a discussion about the practice of labeling that goes on in the Orthodox Jewish community. The OP began with a very reasonable question:

I was always wondering... if we are supposed to have ahavas chinam, why do people constantly label different people? Labels mean different things to different people, so there really is no point, is there?

The majority opinion seems to be that labels are a bad thing. I, on the other hand, seem to be not so convinced.

I agree with the idea that labeling is bad when people use it to form rejectionist attitudes. And perhaps, in practice, it's bad because those attitudes inevitably form as a result of the labels. But what if we could somehow eliminate that? Are labels, in and of themselves, a bad thing?

I don't think so. Labels do serve for identification purposes. Since our nation's founding, people have used labels for identification -- this one's from Yehudah, this one's from Z'vulun, etc - and there is no inherent disadvantage to being from one shevet or another. Likewise, there should be no inherent disadvantage to being MO, Chabad, Chareidi, Breslov or whatever. As long as you are Shomer Torah U'Mitzvos, it shouldn't make a difference. The label simply shows that you identify with one particular hashkafah. But as long as no one is putting you down because of it, why is it bad?

Who knows? Maybe I'm totally off the mark on this. But I'd like to hear what you have to say.

The Wolf