jcolwell wrote:
In the northern hemisphere, spring officially starts on 20 March. Just sayin.
That got me curious, as I have never heard of it. This is in norwegian, but you can find three different definitions of winter (vinter), spring (vår), summer (sommer) and autumn (høst), and none of them has spring starting on 20 March. It is however, in the middle of the spring according to the astronomical definition.
jcolwell wrote:
In the northern hemisphere, spring officially starts on 20 March. Just sayin.
alundeb wrote:
That got me curious, as I have never heard of it. This is in norwegian, but you can find three different definitions of winter (vinter), spring (vår), summer (sommer) and autumn (høst), and none of them has spring starting on 20 March. It is however, in the middle of the spring according to the astronomical definition.
The definition of 'Spring' varies. There is a fixed astronomical definition, and there is a meterological definition. And there are cultural ones. Per the meterological definition, this is Spring (NH).
jcolwell wrote:
I guess Norway is in a different astronomical zone...
Thanks, Jim! I found out that the article I referred to is controversial, and the astronomical spring starts at Equinox here in Norway too.
Whenever there is cultural spring or meteorological spring where the poster lives, I will not use astronomy against anyone posting images, as long as it is not astro-images
This morning I've been exploring a newly built (and still very much under construction) suburb. The weather and the conditions on the ground were miserable, lending an outright dreary and dismal look to the entire location. That, and the user behind the camera was not the best there is. So look at your own peril (I'm certain that if it had been a different kind of forum, it would've fed nicely into the common (mis)conceptions of my country...
Anyhow, meet New Ockervil (a presumably Swedish name originally so should I say Åkkervil?) http://pp.vk.me/c633927/v633927358/1b5b3/ERGSMAM0M0Y.jpg
Its peculiarity among some other areas of residential build-up in and around St. Pete's is that it's not in St. Pete's officially. The railroad in shot #1 (it's only got sporadic freight traffic, so its derelict appearance should be no surprise to you) separates the city (code 78, a Federal city) on the right - western - side from the Leningrad region (code 47, an Oblast) on the left... http://pp.vk.me/c633927/v633927358/1b5d8/dVuOWdg5j_c.jpg
This raises a few difficulties for the inhabitants. Since they are officially living in the #47 region, they count on the facilities present there, not in the city - which is, paradoxically, much more important to them due to both the geographic proximity and the fact that these residential areas are built for those who are/will be working in the city, not in the Oblast. These facilities have been sparse - for some the locals have had to travel some 30km to the nominal district center. There has been a petition calling for the separation of these areas from the Oblast and the transfer to the city. To top it all off, this place is even within the city's ring road - but since the delimitation was carried out long before the RR even appeared, it does not coincide with the actual border in many places. http://pp.vk.me/c633927/v633927358/1b5c6/ZtKp0VL3_dY.jpg
Some parts of the district look almost normal, but this was definitely not one of them. I saw a couple of jovial men from the Caucasus on the other side of the fence, standing by a car marooned amid a totally flooded parking lot. I asked them what was going on, and the one on the right said just "It's been rainin' man!" Looks like the space was built in such haste that nobody even thought of adding storm drains. That, or they've frozen over in the winter time. Well, either way here's the result. http://pp.vk.me/c633927/v633927358/1b5cf/A921IQnal2U.jpg
Disclaimer: I can understand that the weather and the time of the year (march's thawing) can make any place look bad, but this one was genuinely horrible. Again, this is not how it should be, and probably in the future, when the large scale construction is over, the area is going to be tidied up (as it has been the case with most new blocks I've seen). But in the interim, it looks exceedingly ugly. I can only hope that if I return in a year, I'm going to see something very different.
Gear: Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 @ 300mm (#1), Sigma 14mm f/2.8 (#2 and #3), Canon 16-35/4 L IS @ 16mm (# 4).
Snopchenko wrote:
Gear: Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 @ 300mm (#1), Sigma 14mm f/2.8 (#2 and #3), Canon 16-35/4 L IS @ 16mm (# 4).
Didn't you have a 24L II ? and 1D IV ?
how's the Sigma 14mm 2.8 ? (doesn't it overlap a bit with 16-35 F4L? I know there is a bit of difference in FOV between 14mm and 16, but it's worth owning both?
Shot with 5DS R and TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II.
