Camillo Sitte

Hello, Yes, low-light photography is still tough with digital, even with the best equipment. Keeping noise low and maintaining contrast is difficult. Some newer camers though [both point-n-shoot and DSLR] have really credible 400, 800, and with some even 1600 ISO settings [low noise, good contrast]. As for my images, with my moniotrs, the images I see likely look completley different than what anyone everyone else sees as I manually color balance my monitors [special software and a monitor color meter] thus my images would not have much 'pop' on non-calibrated monitors, they would likely lok a bit washed out. Because of this [and being limited to displays of 72dpi] I added some 'curves' and color saturation in post. On my monitros the altered images look a bit artificial but I imagine that they look "OK" on a typical LCD or CRT screen. As for post in general I try to do as little as possible [levels, a bit of color, curves, and some sharpening] though sometimes an image really needs more attention to shadows and highlights, etc. Here is one pretty much straight out of the camera [very accurate, likely a little 'dull']. And the same image with a bit of post-processing [a bit artificial but with more 'pop'].

Hope you don't mind, I did a little PS on one of your images as I thought it was pretty nice and wanted to try and pull some more detail out...at the expense of noise and a bit of contrast of course.

No "glamour" shots by any means; still just testing out a new camera.

Thanks. I am trying out a new, more compact and lightweight 'travel' camera. I am getting tired of hauling around Europe a D2X or Bronica ETRSi just for memory-type snapshots. It is a Nikon D50 digital SLR. I have to say that for the money Nikon has made very few compromises here. Noise is lower than the D100/D70 [and probably a bit lower than the D2X as well] and all other image parameters are great as well.

A Fall [?] evening in Orlando...

Considering that the previous contractor has filed a lien against the developers and the developers have yet to ink a new general to the project I don't see how it is possible for any actual 55W construction to be taking place right now.

Still vapor-ware...nothing more. Lawsuits? Contractors? Liens? Sounds like just a countdown until at least some of the depositors start demanding their money back. And the city; are they good for another extension of the deadline? I would not be surprised if the Trump Tower in Tampa sees first-owner turnover before 55W is thirty-feet above the ground.

Still vapor-ware...

I did not read it that way but I see now that it could in fact be so. My sincere apology if this is the case. Goes to show that one should not post when they are, perhaps, a bit hot under the collar [i am speaking of myself here ]. I will edit my posts accordingly. Cheers.

Lovely personality, and it appears as well that you cannot read... First, where did anyone say that a project would or could go forward without a 'Determination of no Hazard' certificate? Nowhere, that

Lets hope. It almost seems that there really is the beginning of an effort to push the boundaries so-to-speak. It seems that 55W really wants to have the new "tallest" building, perhaps the same for EA. Hey, it really is simple economics; if you want to make a greater profit off of a fixed piece of land you go up, simple as that. I see it all as eventually being down to the economics of supply and demand. If the demand for a 'presence' in the CBD continues, and as plots of actual land become scarcer, it

Not to try and pick too many nits here but the developer does not have to get a "height permit" from the FAA, GOAA, or any other body save [if they choose to regulate such things] the Orlando City Council/Planning Board, regardless of the report quoted. What the developer does need to get from the FAA, as I mentioned earlier, is a 'Determination of no Hazard' certificate and there is much more than a subtle difference between the two. Statutorily speaking the developer just needs to satisfy the FAA that his/her project does not create any safety hazards for ops at KORL. The primary reason for having to obtain this certificate is not to "limit height" specifically but rather to control things like ham radio towers, antennae on tops of buildings, proper lighting for building tops, signage, etc. Now, the FAA might try to argue that a building over 'x' feet high "creates" a safety concern but this is not true. Taller buildings within the Orlando CBD just make the FAA's job at KORL more difficult in that they would have to draw up new approach and departure patterns. The FAA resists taller buildings in the Orlando CBD because of cost and effort, not because of safety. So, say that the FAA does claim a specific height/safety issue for a given project [which to my knowledge they have never officially done before in Orlando]. It would then be incumbent upon the developer to make his or her case that it is in fact not a safety issue that concerns the FAA but rather an economic one. They could/would argue that taller buildings in the CBD are simply a natural progression of development in this area and that the greater public good is served by forcing the FAA to redesign the approach/departures patterns at KORL. To date no developer has done this, as it could possibly require a trial where the developer has to "prove" that no real safety hazard exists. The reason that the height of the SunTrust tower is always cited is not because there is an "official" 441' height limit imposed on the Orlando CBD but simply because that is the tallest building yet given a 'Determination of no Hazard' certificate by the FAA. To my knowledge the original SunTrust developers didn