longwait4gc
09-28 08:20 PM
I am EB2, Indian. Filed for PERM earlier this summer and waiting for approval which I don't expect for another 4-6 months. The situation is that my company is in a very shaky financial position but they have been very supportive and I am hoping to be okay for the next 6 mo to year. My strategy is (assuming I don't lose my job) to just sit out my I-140 approval and that way I get the 3-yr extension and lock in my PD. I don't see being able to file for I-485 at this job.
Soo -- 2 questions:
1) Do you think the financial position of the company will affect the I-140 approval? It's a financial services firm and we have had a bunch of layoffs.
2) Assuming I get my I-140 approved, could I, in theory, leave the US for a while (I am very interested in a one-year fellowship program in Europe) and then come back and go work for a new company using the 3-year H1-B extension and begin the green card process again with my current (2009) priority date?
Thanks very much!
For question 2: Answer Yes.
If your company had lay offs there is a good chance you might get audit. If you get an audit the Perm process might take upto 2-3 years. If you dont get an audit perm process could finish in a year. Plan accordingly. All the best.
Soo -- 2 questions:
1) Do you think the financial position of the company will affect the I-140 approval? It's a financial services firm and we have had a bunch of layoffs.
2) Assuming I get my I-140 approved, could I, in theory, leave the US for a while (I am very interested in a one-year fellowship program in Europe) and then come back and go work for a new company using the 3-year H1-B extension and begin the green card process again with my current (2009) priority date?
Thanks very much!
For question 2: Answer Yes.
If your company had lay offs there is a good chance you might get audit. If you get an audit the Perm process might take upto 2-3 years. If you dont get an audit perm process could finish in a year. Plan accordingly. All the best.
wallpaper hd nicki minaj pink friday.jpg
nhfirefighter13
August 7th, 2004, 06:02 AM
Like I said....I messed this one up and really had no intention of over-exposing it.
You think it would be better if I darken it? Hmmmm. I'll give it a try. I was looking at it and thinking that the really bright highlights gave a sense of heat.
I'll give dark and moody a shot. Thanks.
You think it would be better if I darken it? Hmmmm. I'll give it a try. I was looking at it and thinking that the really bright highlights gave a sense of heat.
I'll give dark and moody a shot. Thanks.
jliechty
June 18th, 2005, 04:14 AM
In general, macro lenses around 100mm are good for most kinds of macro photography. They have too much working distance for use on a copy stand, and not quite enough for skittish and/or dangerous insects or small animals. For general purpose stuff, the angle of view is such that you get enough background isolation to be worthwhile (you can rotate around your subject just a bit to get a highlight out of the background, while a 50mm macro takes in more background and makes this difficult).
I got a used Tamron 90mm, and let's just say that the build quality does not inspire confidence - however, the image quality is excellent. From what little I've seen of the Sigma 105mm macro (and from the many images that the members here have posted), it appears to have a bit better build quality and fine image quality as well. The Nikon macro is not going to be much better, if at all, in image quality than these, and you will pay dearly for the brand name. The one macro lens to avoid, however, is a "Phoenix" macro that only goes to 1:2 (that means that you can't get enough magnification for most small insects and flowers to fill the frame) and is most likely more cheaply built than my Tamron. Almost every other macro lens goes to 1:1 these days, and you can get the nicer ones used from KEH for not much more, so there's no reason to buy not-so-ideal lenses that you'll outgrow in no time anyway.
I got a used Tamron 90mm, and let's just say that the build quality does not inspire confidence - however, the image quality is excellent. From what little I've seen of the Sigma 105mm macro (and from the many images that the members here have posted), it appears to have a bit better build quality and fine image quality as well. The Nikon macro is not going to be much better, if at all, in image quality than these, and you will pay dearly for the brand name. The one macro lens to avoid, however, is a "Phoenix" macro that only goes to 1:2 (that means that you can't get enough magnification for most small insects and flowers to fill the frame) and is most likely more cheaply built than my Tamron. Almost every other macro lens goes to 1:1 these days, and you can get the nicer ones used from KEH for not much more, so there's no reason to buy not-so-ideal lenses that you'll outgrow in no time anyway.