Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Nice work ian :D

I think with the tight headshots - it needs more fill and esp fill under the chin and nose. Guess you were just using normal flashes than strobes (so understandable). Just something i learnt from another photographer to do.

With the 3rd last shot the focus is on her nose rather than the eyes. Maybe you were going for that, but im not to sure. Just thought i mention it.

1st shot is great!!

Here's one I took last night (unedited) - I was taking shots of a small fire my cousin had built on his makeshift verandah, and the unexpected extended shutter opening made kind of a "wave"effect with the fire...

IMG_4253.jpg

Here's another one where the fire was burning through the middle of a termite-infested log - the camera didn't quite capture the blue flames that we could see, but meh...

IMG_4266.jpg

I had the dslr out on the weekend when i was out for a ride in the leaves here in Ottawa, Ontario. Canada. Nothing special, just my Stinky with some mods. I've only had my 450D for a few weeks now and haven't really experimented with it too much. Any tips or criticism is welcome!

4007681520_2da86e0f77.jpg

4007682734_c98e0c7348.jpg

7529_154604093755_504263755_2600498_2399118_n.jpg

7529_154604198755_504263755_2600513_2441916_n.jpg

7529_154604213755_504263755_2600514_2123049_n.jpg

First pana attempt

4009627396_290e041aef_b.jpg

Kyle.

Edited by Lv2exlr8

First of all Kyle - cool bike!

Secondly - as for tips/criticism - I'm no pro so don't take this too heart but IMO:

1st one is a bit under exposed/dark, and plant in foreground is a little distracting

I like the 2nd one!

bottom three pics: colours are a bit too intense I think

5th one: whats the smudge? rain drop on lens?

like the pano

here is a hint for anyone doing panoramas,

shoot it portrait instead of landscape, you have more room for error (top and bottom), plus you get a larger picture size once you stitch them all up........

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...