|
fknlo posted:If you ever do get back into it Fuji is a good option for this as the out of camera JPEG's are usually top notch and the built in presets are really good too. I actually have an old Fuji X100 that I use for fun, otherwise I still have Canon gear so I'll probably stick with that. Looks like I'd have to get a drone too because anything real estate related wants drone pics and/or video now.
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 14:37 |
|
|
fknlo posted:If you ever do get back into it Fuji is a good option for this as the out of camera JPEG's are usually top notch and the built in presets are really good too. My X-T30 consistently sets auto white balance green as gently caress, really wish I'd just spent the extra $300 for an 80D or whatever is in the 80D spot these days.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 18:23
|
|
|
Applebees Appetizer posted:I actually have an old Fuji X100 that I use for fun, otherwise I still have Canon gear so I'll probably stick with that. Probably make good money as a wedding droner
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 18:54
|
|
|
Snackula posted:My X-T30 consistently sets auto white balance green as gently caress, really wish I'd just spent the extra $300 for an 80D or whatever is in the 80D spot these days. There's something wrong with your camera. I've had 3 X series cameras and haven't had that issue or anything even remotely close to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
captainOrbital posted:Probably make good money as a wedding droner They were most popular during the Bush & Obama era though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 19:15
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
Oh you mean like take photos at weddings with a drone lmao
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 19:30
|
|
|
Charles posted:They were most popular during the Bush & Obama era though. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 19:33
|
|
|
Like we're not going to find out in 10 years that Trump was e: sitting around eating steaks with ketchup while Miller was dronestriking Jewish weddings or something this whole time
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 19:37
|
|
|
Charles posted:They were most popular during the Bush & Obama era though. jesus
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 07:09
|
|
|
wait so are you telling me that all my photos that suck are simply because i was shooting in raw thinking it was going to be simlar to the jpgs (usually good but a bit noisy due to low light) and i could edit them in post to be better? gently caress!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 07:55
|
|
|
Raw is the uncompressed file so unlike jpg which is compressed and doesn't take much editing to ruin entirely, raw is pretty much endlessly tweakable. So yes, knock yourself out. For similar shots (bursts for example) you can run a batch editor to process loads at the same time so you're not endlessly clicking the same things a dozen times per shot. You can save presets and such too to make life easier. It's always best to get the shot in camera (or near as damnit) though than spending your life editing things because being sat in front of a computer is the least fun part of photography.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 09:59
|
|
|
If I'm doing Triathlon or MTB it's JPEG because the people paying money want JPEG of a certain size and you spray and pray. And given they pay good money and they want volume and speed, that's what they get. At an Ironman event I'll go anything up to 20,000 photos across 4 cameras over 17 hours. The agency can do whatever work they think needs doing IDGAF. If I am doing motorsport then it's RAW only. I have some presets, I do a batch conversion, look at the results, pick out a few good ones to do more correction work, send it. I aint wasting time beyond that. And yes, working with RAW makes that a drat sight easier to do. Those BMW photos look horribly like they were jpeg to start with before all the poo poo was done to them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 12:51
|
|
|
For me it was just speed, I was competing with 30+ other photographers to get images out and it was a hell of a lot faster in jpeg. Also back then CF cards were smaller capacity and expensive and RAW took up way too much space. These days I imagine RAW is much easier to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 13:23
|
|
|
Theory: the M3/4 are purposefully ugly so that the people they will inevitably be tailgating will pull over more quickly so as to not have to look at the grills in their mirrors. Does anybody have pictures of it without the front plate? I must see how bad it looks
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 16:33
|
|
|
I feel like the aftermarket bodykit industry although usually making everything worse, can only improve the looks of this car.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
The problem with the aftermarket bumper idea is that they're going to have to figure out how to integrate the lines in the hood that lead to the nostrils into the design or you're going to need a new hood too. On an M car that's gonna all be like 5 grand just for the parts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 16:56
|
|
|
Veilside kit when?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 16:57
|
|
|
My laptop doesn't have a decent mouse or photo editing software, hence my lovely ms paint attempt at the nissan grille a while back, but I wanted to try the BMW because I can't make it look any worse, right? I think it's better, but I'm still not happy with the lower grille- I've given it 4 openings instead of two giant ones. Getting rid of the outside rims on the lower grill (or maybe both openings altogether and just making it all grille) might make it better, but color manipulation is a bit tricky till I get something more capable. e: for comparison:  As Nero Danced fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Sep 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
As Nero Danced posted:My laptop doesn't have a decent mouse or photo editing software, hence my lovely ms paint attempt at the nissan grille a while back, but I wanted to try the BMW because I can't make it look any worse, right? I think it's better, but I'm still not happy with the lower grille- I've given it 4 openings instead of two giant ones. Getting rid of the outside rims on the lower grill (or maybe both openings altogether and just making it all grille) might make it better, but color manipulation is a bit tricky till I get something more capable. Honestly I think if you close off the upper ones entirely and keep a couple of smaller kidneys down below, kind of like the E31, it would look pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
I know they're trying something different because there's only so much you can do with the front of a car but the big kidneys look pap. https://twitter.com/ThatSamSmith/status/1308841159431720966?s=19
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
that looks Less Bad but it doesn't really look Good
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 23:16
|
|
|
Olympic Mathlete posted:I know they're trying something different because there's only so much you can do with the front of a car but the big kidneys look pap. Even without the huge nostrils, it still looks like a cross between a Honda Accord coupe and a Mustang in profile.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
I guess I'm squarely in the minority because I don't hate it. I'd never buy one, but they are just trying to differentiate it from the base 3/4 and make it look the part. How did this thread react to the new GT500?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 23:37
|
|
|
Bandire posted:How did this thread react to the new GT500? I only just joined this thread last week, but personally I've been a huge fan of everything they've done with the sixth gen Mustang across the board, at least in terms of looks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
Sab669 posted:I only just joined this thread last week, but personally I've been a huge fan of everything they've done with the sixth gen Mustang across the board, at least in terms of looks. I love the new GT 500 too, but I can imagine a significant portion of posters hated it. I have been following this thread off and on a long time, and I had no idea people actually missed station wagons and minivans until this thread. We certainly have an interesting mix of preferences here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 00:36
|
|
|
GT500 sucks because it's missing a pedal and it's cross plane crank
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 01:10
|
|
|
This thread is like 90% discussing how ugly every new car is and how much every new car looks like some other slightly older car that it often doesn’t look that much like except in the sense that they are both generally car shaped. Title should be “Read about a new car you like? It’s actually terrible”
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
Bandire posted:I had no idea people actually missed station wagons and minivans until this thread. We're a vocal minority on the internet  I've been lusting after used S4 Avantes on CarsAndBids lately. My Fiesta ST is fun but I want something a little nicer, and longer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 01:44
|
|
|
YOLOsubmarine posted:This thread is like 90% discussing how ugly every new car is and how much every new car looks like some other slightly older car that it often doesn’t look that much like except in the sense that they are both generally car shaped. It should be because that’s the truth
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 02:17
|
|
|
TheBacon posted:GT500 sucks because it's missing a pedal and it's cross plane crank I occasionally drive a manual 2016 Mustang GT, and it can be a handful. It is fun, but I'd gladly give up the stick for a well tuned dual clutch auto. Maybe I'm getting old, but they do seem better in every category but the nebulous "feel". I wish they stuck with the flat plane crank too, but its still a monster for what it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 02:34
|
|
|
I kinda wanted to try out the VW ID.4, but wtf..... "VW said the ID.4 would take 8.5 seconds when going from zero to 62 mph. " I'm not asking for sub 4 seconds. But Jesus maybe at least match the Rav4 Prime?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 02:44
|
|
|
Franco Caution posted:I kinda wanted to try out the VW ID.4, but wtf..... The RAV4 prime does 0-60 in 5.4s. It's the 2nd quickest Toyota after the Supra. Seems like a tall order?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 03:10
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The RAV4 prime does 0-60 in 5.4s. It's the 2nd quickest Toyota after the Supra. Seems like a tall order? It's also quicker to 60 than a 94 Supra Turbo lol Wtf.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 03:20
|
|
|
Franco Caution posted:I kinda wanted to try out the VW ID.4, but wtf..... The AWD model with 100 extra horsepower will be pretty close I imagine. In any case the base model is as fast as anyone actually needs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 03:21
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:It's also quicker to 60 than a 94 Supra Turbo lol A buddy at work has a SIX HUNNERT HOARSPAR supra and get gets all fanny flustered when I tell him his 0-60 is unchanged. Another buddy at work has a chevy SS with 979 HP set up for drag racing and supra guy only wants to race him from a roll (at least 30 mph) 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 12:24
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The RAV4 prime does 0-60 in 5.4s. It's the 2nd quickest Toyota after the Supra. Seems like a tall order? what a world we live in
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 13:43
|
|
|
At what point does 0-60 become a pointless stat if 'normal' cars are now quick? 2 second 0-60, cool but I'm never quite in that much of a hurry, lads
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 18:20
|
|
|
0-60 has always been pointless
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 14:37 |
|
|
Eyud posted:0-60 has always been pointless Does your country not have freeway onramps?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 18:27
|
|