ruwanb
03-09 07:14 PM
Hi,
I would really appreciate if anyone in Xerox here who could reply some specific questions. Therefore we could have privacy protected and still share some information.
thanks
I would really appreciate if anyone in Xerox here who could reply some specific questions. Therefore we could have privacy protected and still share some information.
thanks
wallpaper kabuliwala by rabindranath
Blog Feeds
07-27 03:40 PM
A Federal Judge has certified a nationwide class in a challenge to the USCIS's restrictive interpretation of the "automatic conversion" clause in the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) of 2002. This opens the way for children who have "aged-out" to be reunited with their parents. The USCIS has resisted implementing this important section of law for the past seven years. Just a few weeks ago, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), in Matter of Wang, adopted the government's restrictive interpretation of the automatic conversion clause. On July 16, Federal Judge James Selna (Central District, California), over government objections, made his...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/07/cspa-update.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/07/cspa-update.html)
Invis
06-27 01:15 PM
I first off apologize if there is already a thread pertaining to my questions. If so I would greatly appreciate being directed.
My situation is this...I came to the US as a visitor from Canada. As a result I did not need a I-94, a visa or a passport since i travelled by car. I am going to be married to a US citizen in a couple of weeks. I guess my questions are these...#1. Since I did not need any of those documents to enter the US, will this cause a problem while trying to prove status?
#2. I read somewhere about filing a I-30 prior to other documentation such as the I-485 and medical and so on. I was wondering if this is true or if i even need to file this document or if so if it can be filed in conjunction with the others.
My situation is this...I came to the US as a visitor from Canada. As a result I did not need a I-94, a visa or a passport since i travelled by car. I am going to be married to a US citizen in a couple of weeks. I guess my questions are these...#1. Since I did not need any of those documents to enter the US, will this cause a problem while trying to prove status?
#2. I read somewhere about filing a I-30 prior to other documentation such as the I-485 and medical and so on. I was wondering if this is true or if i even need to file this document or if so if it can be filed in conjunction with the others.
2011 hairstyles Kabuliwala by
Blog Feeds
06-10 01:00 AM
The July Visa Bulletin is out and there is really no good news. And there's terrible news for Mexicans and Chinese applicants. The Mexican 1st and 3rd family categories move backwards nearly two years. And Chinese EB-2 employment immigration applicants now join the Indian misery as priority dates retrogress five years (!) to January 2000. Here are the numbers: Family 1st - Advancement of worldwide, China and India numbers by one week to 15 NOV 2002. Mexico retrogresses nearly two years to 1 JAN 1991. The Philippines is stalled at 1 SEP 1993. Family 2A - Worldwide, India, China and...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/july-visa-bulletin-more-dismal-news.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/july-visa-bulletin-more-dismal-news.html)
more...
vaishnavilakshmi
10-08 03:52 AM
One of my friend got their Fingerprinting letter and the last name is misspelled. What should they do go ahead and take it to the FP office or call USCIS and get it corrected.
Anyone in similar sitaution? Please advise.
hi,
they can call uscis on 800-375-5283 and tell them that there is a typo in the fp notice and get corrected.
goodluck
vaishu
Anyone in similar sitaution? Please advise.
hi,
they can call uscis on 800-375-5283 and tell them that there is a typo in the fp notice and get corrected.
goodluck
vaishu
Blog Feeds
06-25 01:20 AM
Eweek.com reports that H-1B recruiting firms have filed suit against USCIS, DHS over changes to the H-1B presumably related to the Neufeld Memo. *The companies indicate that the government is overstepping its mandate and burdening these specialists with an intrusive and costly ruling that they estimate will cost more than $100 million.
Read article (http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Management/H1B-Recruiting-Companies-File-Lawsuit-over-Rule-Changes-428725/)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2010/06/24/h1b-recruiting-companies-sue-uscis-dhs-over-changes.aspx?ref=rss)
Read article (http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Management/H1B-Recruiting-Companies-File-Lawsuit-over-Rule-Changes-428725/)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2010/06/24/h1b-recruiting-companies-sue-uscis-dhs-over-changes.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
Macaca
06-25 07:21 AM
Democrats step up (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-mileage25jun25,1,1445539.story) First on gun control, now on energy, the Democrats are pushing Congress in a new direction. June 25, 2007
FIRST GUN CONTROL, now fuel economy. Congressional Democrats still have a lot of work ahead to get their groundbreaking bills past both houses and the president's desk, but you can't say they're not leading a radical change in direction.
On June 13, the House passed what could become the first major gun-control law in a decade, a bill aimed at strengthening a federal database used in background checks for gun buyers. A week later, the Senate approved an energy bill that would improve mileage for the nation's automotive fleet for the first time in nearly 20 years. Democrats still haven't forced a troop reduction in Iraq or put their stamp on the nation's backward immigration policies, but their surprising success in other areas is worthy of praise.
Not that Democrats deserve all the credit. The gun bill was a bipartisan effort that passed by acclamation after it won the blessing of the National Rifle Assn., while 20 Republicans � nearly half the 43 who voted on the measure � backed the fuel economy bill. Still, these measures would have been inconceivable while Republicans controlled both houses during the first six years of the Bush administration, a period characterized by the disgraceful decision to allow a decade-old assault weapons ban to expire in 2004 and successive energy bills focused on maximizing fossil fuel production at the expense of the environment.
It would be nice to think that the broad Republican support for a progressive energy bill signaled a pro-environment change of heart. Unfortunately, it probably has more to do with the high price of oil; Republicans are feeling pressure to bring gas prices down. They also rightly see dependence on foreign oil as a national security issue. The fuel economy bill would increase the average mileage requirement for cars sold in the U.S. from 25 miles per gallon to 35 by 2020, expected to eventually save millions of barrels of oil a day.
Regardless of their motives, Republicans' support for the energy bill will increase pressure on President Bush to sign it, assuming it gets through the House. Bush favors better fuel economy but wants it to come at a slower pace, with loopholes to allow more gas guzzling by SUVs. The Senate energy bill has its own regrettable loophole: A strong mandate was watered down in committee, allowing federal regulators to cancel the improvements if they decide the tighter standards aren't "cost-effective." But senators beat back furious efforts by the auto industry to weaken the bill further.
There was one sour note to last week's passage of the energy bill: An amendment that would have required the nation to get 15% of its electricity from renewable sources was defeated. Senate leaders should revive it in the future.
FIRST GUN CONTROL, now fuel economy. Congressional Democrats still have a lot of work ahead to get their groundbreaking bills past both houses and the president's desk, but you can't say they're not leading a radical change in direction.
On June 13, the House passed what could become the first major gun-control law in a decade, a bill aimed at strengthening a federal database used in background checks for gun buyers. A week later, the Senate approved an energy bill that would improve mileage for the nation's automotive fleet for the first time in nearly 20 years. Democrats still haven't forced a troop reduction in Iraq or put their stamp on the nation's backward immigration policies, but their surprising success in other areas is worthy of praise.
Not that Democrats deserve all the credit. The gun bill was a bipartisan effort that passed by acclamation after it won the blessing of the National Rifle Assn., while 20 Republicans � nearly half the 43 who voted on the measure � backed the fuel economy bill. Still, these measures would have been inconceivable while Republicans controlled both houses during the first six years of the Bush administration, a period characterized by the disgraceful decision to allow a decade-old assault weapons ban to expire in 2004 and successive energy bills focused on maximizing fossil fuel production at the expense of the environment.
It would be nice to think that the broad Republican support for a progressive energy bill signaled a pro-environment change of heart. Unfortunately, it probably has more to do with the high price of oil; Republicans are feeling pressure to bring gas prices down. They also rightly see dependence on foreign oil as a national security issue. The fuel economy bill would increase the average mileage requirement for cars sold in the U.S. from 25 miles per gallon to 35 by 2020, expected to eventually save millions of barrels of oil a day.
Regardless of their motives, Republicans' support for the energy bill will increase pressure on President Bush to sign it, assuming it gets through the House. Bush favors better fuel economy but wants it to come at a slower pace, with loopholes to allow more gas guzzling by SUVs. The Senate energy bill has its own regrettable loophole: A strong mandate was watered down in committee, allowing federal regulators to cancel the improvements if they decide the tighter standards aren't "cost-effective." But senators beat back furious efforts by the auto industry to weaken the bill further.
There was one sour note to last week's passage of the energy bill: An amendment that would have required the nation to get 15% of its electricity from renewable sources was defeated. Senate leaders should revive it in the future.
2010 of Rabindranath Tagore#39;s
Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
more...
jeevan
05-13 01:49 PM
I need your suggestions on my situation and below is the same.
1. Priority date (04Oct2006) is current in June bulletin
2. Applied labor & I40 with previous employer.
3. Applied I485 in July 2007 ( applied I 485 before marriage) with previous employer
4. Joined other employer on Sep 2009
5. Not applied AC21 portability to new employer.
Now my priority date is going to be current as of June 1st, so need to file I-485 for my wife. Based on my situation could you please suggest the best approach to apply dependent's I485. i.e Apply dependent I485 from previous employer or through my new employer asking for AC21 along with employment verification letter).
Appreciate your help in advance.
1. Priority date (04Oct2006) is current in June bulletin
2. Applied labor & I40 with previous employer.
3. Applied I485 in July 2007 ( applied I 485 before marriage) with previous employer
4. Joined other employer on Sep 2009
5. Not applied AC21 portability to new employer.
Now my priority date is going to be current as of June 1st, so need to file I-485 for my wife. Based on my situation could you please suggest the best approach to apply dependent's I485. i.e Apply dependent I485 from previous employer or through my new employer asking for AC21 along with employment verification letter).
Appreciate your help in advance.
hair Rabindranath Tagore Close
foobar2001
07-31 03:04 PM
hi,
i entered the US on AP in Jan 2010, and at the time of entry, my I94 validity was set for
1 year (viz Jan 2011) - and the AP also noted "AoS" status on it.
(a) Is the validity of my I94 (and thus my legal stay) 1 year, or as i have read elsewhere,
if AoS is pending, then its valid till the AoS case is decided?
(b) If the validity is 1 year, what is the process for extending the I94 validity?
thanks for your time,
-andy
i entered the US on AP in Jan 2010, and at the time of entry, my I94 validity was set for
1 year (viz Jan 2011) - and the AP also noted "AoS" status on it.
(a) Is the validity of my I94 (and thus my legal stay) 1 year, or as i have read elsewhere,
if AoS is pending, then its valid till the AoS case is decided?
(b) If the validity is 1 year, what is the process for extending the I94 validity?
thanks for your time,
-andy
more...
.jpg "rabindranath tagore")
dc2007
07-10 04:49 PM
Anybody has filed H1 or H1-transfer by himself ?
hot Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore.
prem_goel
05-07 06:09 PM
My wife has H-4 stamped on her passport based on my previous H-1B. Can she use that same stamp to enter US again?
more...
house of Rabindranath Tagore#39;s
admin
04-07 10:24 AM
This breaking news is about some really critical accomplishment by IV. We're preparing the content and should be out in another 15-20 minutes.
We're not sure which way the political proceedings will take us, but with this news you will rest assured that when we work together we can achieve a lot.
We're not sure which way the political proceedings will take us, but with this news you will rest assured that when we work together we can achieve a lot.
tattoo Rabindranath Tagore#39;s
Krilnon
03-09 02:57 PM
:P
more...
pictures Rabindranath Tagore#39;s life
schulde
August 25th, 2004, 05:52 AM
...man so much noise...
I'm finding the same thing with my D2H. Take a look at the auto photo I attached earlier today for the noise in the shadows there - yuck. I've also seen an exposure shifting problem during any kind of motordrive and autoexposure. If I select manual mode it seems to go away. But I've examined shot sequences where EXIF data indicates identical Aperture and Shutter and yet there is a shift. I wonder if these things have that much production variance to cause noise and calibration problems like this.
Rick
what do other d2h shooters think?
thanks
phat[/QUOTE]
I'm finding the same thing with my D2H. Take a look at the auto photo I attached earlier today for the noise in the shadows there - yuck. I've also seen an exposure shifting problem during any kind of motordrive and autoexposure. If I select manual mode it seems to go away. But I've examined shot sequences where EXIF data indicates identical Aperture and Shutter and yet there is a shift. I wonder if these things have that much production variance to cause noise and calibration problems like this.
Rick
what do other d2h shooters think?
thanks
phat[/QUOTE]