Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 407
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

afternoon quickie. terrible photoshop. IMG_07272.jpg

Only been in this hobby for 2 months now (forgot to say in earlier post).

take a look at my DeviantArt gallery for all my pics. http://elementle.deviantart.com/gallery/

Edited by alex182

Been busy in meetings and training all day.

D90

80-200mm ED

EXIF

Lambo

1/80

F/16

ISO 100

Focal 105mm

Distance (Guess) approx 40m

Ferrari 1/2 shot

1/200

F/13

ISO100

Focal 200mm

Distance 30m

R35

1/60

No IS or VR, no mono.

hope it helps some how :blink:

You're own black heart owen. Next time i see u with ur mrs I'm gonna tell her you told us all you wanted to cut her back :blink:

I missed that sparkler graff shot from jay, it's mad! i like it. I'm plannin on going back to those walls and shooting them all for you when i head past them next time J.

Been busy in meetings and training all day.

D90

80-200mm ED

EXIF

Lambo

1/80

F/16

ISO 100

Focal 105mm

Distance (Guess) approx 40m

Ferrari 1/2 shot

1/200

F/13

ISO100

Focal 200mm

Distance 30m

R35

1/60

No IS or VR, no mono.

hope it helps some how :blink:

Thanks for that. Thats a decent effort to get the lambo THAT sharp at 1/80 with no IS

You're own black heart owen. Next time i see u with ur mrs I'm gonna tell her you told us all you wanted to cut her back :blink:

I missed that sparkler graff shot from jay, it's mad! i like it. I'm plannin on going back to those walls and shooting them all for you when i head past them next time J.

Haha, she knows how much I hate tattoos :)

(sorry to hijack thread, will take photos this weekend, that's the plan anyhoo)

I missed that sparkler graff shot from jay, it's mad! i like it. I'm plannin on going back to those walls and shooting them all for you when i head past them next time J.

cheers man, i need to get out and do more, but my car has no rego and im pretty slack, lol. and cant wait to see your graff shots. seen some from south sydney that absolutely rock.

and todays effort, lol. self portrait...

67477_1509403648139_1025781561_31174972_1026445_n.jpg

spent so much time trying to get my timing right that i forgot to make sure the ISO wasnt too high. doh! i really should have got the G11 out for this, but seems the Lumix is always my first choice. ive grown to love it, warts and all, haha.

No worries Serg, I got a few decent shots at 1/60 too, but the 80's and lower were sharper and nothing was really gained in the shot.

Jay, Try searching image galleries for 'Newtown' there's so much stuff there.

Owen, Hasn't she shown you her special tat? :blink:

A few more from the Creek, Pit shots this time.

R35 with great plates...

5122482095_8a37e52abc_z.jpg

The getaway car...

5122484175_040beb7401_z.jpg

More of the 430 Scud. This car gave me a hard on. Sounded so damn much like a ..... Ferrari, Tough Ferrari.

5123086142_d06335ac27_z.jpg

5123084840_ac012edac4_z.jpg

5123085272_2d7d1f7650_z.jpg

pr0n matty. So much pr0n.

Wow, i was right with the lambo :P Sif theres no gain by slowing your shutter past 1/80th! Massive gain. Go to 1/40th and you'll see the difference in motion blur and not want to go back to 1/80th :D

Sweet shots everyone!!!!!! Nick, some awesome shots there!

Thanks man, some of those shots were hard to do because I was using the articulated screen to compose them, and trying to hold the camera still while pressing the shutter was a bit awkward

afternoon quickie. terrible photoshop. IMG_07272.jpg

Afternoon quickie? You're doing it wrong!!! :D

Great subject for a photo, but try composing using the "rule of thirds" and you might get a slightly better result. I love the vibrance of the purple.

cheers guys! it was an awesome find :D i was very happy when i saw them running around the track. if only it was like that every day.

i got off a few shots at 1/60 at that location and there wasn't enough detail in the background to warrant the loss of clarity on the car vs 80. there's only grass and water and the extra back blur didn't do much. if there was more in the background it probably woulda been different. I don't think i'd be very successful at 1/40 with no IS. I'll give it a crack next time i head down though. :P Always up for a challenge.

I like both your shots. good work.

first one, the light flare is a bit to much, i'd either work to reduce or eliminate it.

2nd one is nice too, good spot and great idea! read up on your bracket function. you could have bracketed, or taken a few exposures so you could throw in a bit more detail from the sky.

I like both your shots. good work.

first one, the light flare is a bit to much, i'd either work to reduce or eliminate it.

2nd one is nice too, good spot and great idea! read up on your bracket function. you could have bracketed, or taken a few exposures so you could throw in a bit more detail from the sky.

Hey Matt thanks for the tips. i agree about the flare this was one of my concerns about the pic. is this something that could be eliminated while taking the photo or something i would fix when editing the photo?

in the second one i tend to agree with you,i think the sky needs a bit more detail, prob the only thing i would change. As im still so new to it all i need to getin the mind set that i can take more then one shot and edit them together to get the best result.

Im still thinking its a point and shoot and that close enough is good enough.

But hey still plenty of time for me to learn.

And once again. thanks for the tips.

John

I like both your shots. good work.

first one, the light flare is a bit to much, i'd either work to reduce or eliminate it.

2nd one is nice too, good spot and great idea! read up on your bracket function. you could have bracketed, or taken a few exposures so you could throw in a bit more detail from the sky.

not really sure why you have the or in there.. they are the same thing - or you mean he could have done the bracketing automatically or manually :P

ps dont think that photo even needs to be bracketed for more detail in the sky - if you want the clouds to be more visible just apply a gradient filter to that photo

Edited by ZENNON

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...