@thedirtyknapkin
@lemmy.worldeh, as a photographer that works weddings, any wedding without a planner is hell for me. i might actually just say no if that's the case.
if you hire people to work it you should have a person who can be their go to while you are getting married.
if you go for an event like you describe people will be unhappy at the lack of food and leave after not long. if that's what you want, good for you. go for it. if you want people to stick around and have a good time, you need to feed them. that's expensive, even if you somehow make it all yourself with food from the farmers market, it's still going to be over a thousand dollars for most people. again, unless you only invite like five people, but most people care about more than 5 people. throwing a big party of any kind isn't cheap unless you throw a terrible party.
you don't have to have a traditional wedding at all though. my sister got married during COVID in her backyard on video call. it was lovely. a big beautiful wedding with lots of people is also lovely and uniquely fun. just don't let you relatives pressure you into things you don't want. there's where it always goes wrong.
loose gunpowder* but yes, gunpowder actually burns very slowly. in fact, we have designed gunpowder to burn slower than old blackpowder from the musket days. it's the containment and pressure that makes it work in a gun. but it's also why it's not uncommon to actually shoot some amount of unburned powder from many guns. a thing that was difficult to know or prove before high speed cameras.
eh, i think in photography you actually learn better habits and skills on older, more limited gear. it's easy to nail exposure when your camera can handle work at 3,000 iso, but then when you're at the edge of what your camera is capable of you'll be less able to tease out the performance you need. it's why i will keep my old canon rebel t2i. whenever someone wants to learn a little i toss them that thing. it can still take great pictures , you just have to work within its limitations. it's why my broadcast school made me learn to do reel to reel tape editing. when you know how much tape you have and how much of a pain it is to edit you will be way way better about getting your shot right the first time and every time.
these days, instead of using these tools as a crutch to shoot sloppier knowing that the gear can handle it now, i use them as a booster to do when more than i would have been able to before. i still shoot at the minimum viable iso every time on my a7siii, the difference is now i can keep shooting until the stars are plainly visible without needing a tripod.
ironically, this doesn't seem to hold quite as true for video now that i think about it. video is so tech and tool based. often it's newer guys that embrace the new tech and techniques that the old heads snub their noses at that end up doing the best. maybe not in Hollywood, but Hollywood is a totally different animal from what 99% of videographers do. I'm talking about video outside of Hollywood. often these newer tools will be lower quality less professional tools for quick turnaround. the kind of thing that corporate America is all about these days. quantity over quality is the name of the game in today's video world more often than not.
a video camera from 15 years ago is likely almost useless today for any real work, a stills camera from 25 years ago could be used to make a billboard ad right now.
yeah IDK how the fuck tabs overtook bookmarks as the way to save websites. i got into the bookmarking before tabs were even a thing. seeing people with 6 year old tabs amongst the thousands makes me dizzy. there's so so much better of a way...
it might be more useful to a newer photographer trying to learn about that, but it would just add confusion to the layperson. this is meant explain this neat concept clearly to non photographers.
it's true though, these kinda of graphics can lead to people misunderstanding this effect as a natural part of the focal length of the lens and less about how far you are from the subject. i had that misunderstood once 😅.
i think the ideal middle ground is probably keeping graphic the same, but adding a comment that explains that detail about it for those who care. a bit like how this all played out actually.
I'm pretty sure I've heard steve-o say himself that they couldn't probably pull off much more jackass without like... dying. also i think the vibes have been off for them as a crew since bam went off deep and Ryan died.
there may not be a correlation between race and length, but there is a correlation between race and percentage of spongey tissue.
this is basically what creates the difference between what people call a "grower" vs. a "shower". black people are slightly statistically more likely to be "showers" having a larger flaccid size. I bet this is where the idea stems from. the extreme examples is this will, however, achieve a less hard erection. so it's not all bad for the growers. that said, porn stars have tricks to achieve longer harder erections. Viagra is the absolute norm on professional porn sets. meth and other stimulants also run rampant. it's generally not actually pleasant work.
the racial statistical correlation is weak, and not really worth much. it's about as significant as some peoples being taller on average. in fact, much less so, because "black" isn't a distinct population. i have no idea if there have been better more detailed and representative studies done on this. the only one I've seen just went off of general demographic data sets like "non Hispanic white" or "black". maybe you could argue it's not worth studying, but damnit, everyone kinda wants to know. it's all talked about often enough. we should really get to the deepest bottom of it just to end the argument. even though proving things with data never ends arguments.
oh it's very true! generally when a bullet enters the body the damage it does spreads out like a cone from entrance to exit as more displaced material is accelerated and the shockwave travels outward. that's why the exit wound is generally many times larger than the entrance wound. a large enough round at a high enough velocity will start taking chunks out of people. that's why many were concerned the m16 wouldn't have enough stopping power when it was first being brought to the battlefield, it used a smaller round than the ak-47. it's not about the size of the bullet, it's about the amount of energy it can impart into the target. a heavier, wider round will create a much larger wound channel. the difference in damage done is much greater than the difference in the size of the bullet.
there are also a variety of specific types of bullets that can affect the wound created and the damage done internally. for example, in smaller, slower rounds that might struggle to create this expanding wound channel effect, they might use hollow point bullets. bullets that are made to expand and/or break apart after impact. creating a larger wound and transferring the energy of the round into the target's organs better.
generally, you can expect that anyone using guns designed to kill humans to be able to damage an area at least 4 times the size of the bullet with every shot. often more, sometimes less. so when you think about getting shot and whether it will hit your internal organs imagine the bullets are more like softballs. because that's the size of the exit wound they'll create. that is why i say it's generally unlikely that you won't fall when shot with intent to kill. i do specifically man using a weapon of war, not a .22 backpack rifle. honestly, people get shot with small caliber handguns often enough. they probably usually don't need to fall over. might feel like it though. i know i tend to sit down when I'm hurt badly enough.
uhh... I'm not a gun nut btw. i generally support sensible gun control and would even like to see something like Australia's method thought about for here (America). I'm just autistic and blame mythbusters for sending me down that rabbit hole when i was younger.