Beesting aerial
- Thread starter Black_JPN
- Start date
I think much depends on the colour of the car.
Beaky had a redundant phone aerial behind the sun roof. I replaced this with a bee sting - it does nothing more than fill the hole as my windscreen aerial works fine.
IMHO it looks fine on my black car.
For what it is worth the standard square door mirrors do nothing for the car other than make it look old.
Beaky had a redundant phone aerial behind the sun roof. I replaced this with a bee sting - it does nothing more than fill the hole as my windscreen aerial works fine.
IMHO it looks fine on my black car.
For what it is worth the standard square door mirrors do nothing for the car other than make it look old.
berg944
New member
That was the main reason I changed the handles, they stood out too much and looked awful. The standard handles looked OK on my Sapphire (silver with a hint of blue) Lux. You don't notice them at all on a dark car like Lemons.
John, can we have a photo of that Bee Sting for reference.
Anybody with an early lux know how far I have to trace the roof aerial wire before I find a join............I bet its at the stereo!!!!!
Mike[:'(]
.JPG)
Hilux
New member
[blockquote]
Agreed, IIRC there is a requirement for a power supply. Some people do not realise and assume its an earth. It travels alongside the co-ax. Ensure its got power, the screen to amplifier connections are clean and the reception will be faultless. Mine was cr*p until I did that and now it really is good.
See the attached...........
[/blockquote]
Agreed, IIRC there is a requirement for a power supply. Some people do not realise and assume its an earth. It travels alongside the co-ax. Ensure its got power, the screen to amplifier connections are clean and the reception will be faultless. Mine was cr*p until I did that and now it really is good.
See the attached...........
ORIGINAL: Black_JPN
John, your car looks great in those pictures. I especially like the hired extras in the second photo, very 'Horse & Hound'!
...and it took ages to get the makeup right. [
] Was actually taken at 2006 Cotswold rally during the Blenheim Palace stop off. IIRC there was a point to point, or similar high brow horsey event, going on at the same time. Some of the fillies were particularly stunning.
"Photoshop!" [
] [:'(].I take all my pictures in RAW these days so will subsequently crop and adjust levels but that is (generally) as far as I go with post processing. I really don't see the point in producing imaginary scenes (pasting cars, people etc where they never were).
Thanks for your comments guys.
appletonn
New member
John, totally off-topic [8D] but I am just getting back into my photography with a baby Nikon DSLR but have yet to be brave enough to shoot in raw (as opposed to in the raw, which is obviously an everyday occurrence...[&o]!) and I was just wondering what software you used to convert the files on the PC?!!
Sorry 'bout the hijack, guys!!
Gets coat......
Nick
Sorry 'bout the hijack, guys!!
Gets coat......
Nick
Hi Nick,
Most of the time I use Canon Digital Photo Professional. This works well for me as it has white balance, cropping, sharpening, levels and noise reduction all readily at hand. It will also print directly from the RAW file and save changes to one image as a "recipe" which can be copied onto a batch of images to make multiple changes.
I recently acquired a copy of Phase One's Capture One LE - Apparently it is £99 to buy but I got a free licence with a Sandisc Extreme III CF. This looks very good, and probably better than Digital Photo Professional, but I haven't used it in anger yet - sticking with what you are used to is easier. It has had very good reviews in the photography mags and I would give it some serious consideration - particularly if you can get it for free.
If I want to get more involved I now use Adobe Elements 5.0. This gives multiple layers for adjustment, cloning, and infinite subtlety in rotation control. Adobe starts with the RAW file but seems to convert this to an intermediate Photoshop file fairly early on for subsequent manipulation. I don't believe this is detrimental to the image, as it doesn't compress in the same way as a JPEG, but I prefer to stick with the base file if I can.
JPEG is fine for snap shots but, it is a compressed file and any subsequent manipulation will cause further compression and ultimate image degradation. RAW works with the unaltered data from the camera but generally needs some post processing before it is ready to show or print.
Sorry guys for going off thread. I guess we should have started another post.
Most of the time I use Canon Digital Photo Professional. This works well for me as it has white balance, cropping, sharpening, levels and noise reduction all readily at hand. It will also print directly from the RAW file and save changes to one image as a "recipe" which can be copied onto a batch of images to make multiple changes.
I recently acquired a copy of Phase One's Capture One LE - Apparently it is £99 to buy but I got a free licence with a Sandisc Extreme III CF. This looks very good, and probably better than Digital Photo Professional, but I haven't used it in anger yet - sticking with what you are used to is easier. It has had very good reviews in the photography mags and I would give it some serious consideration - particularly if you can get it for free.
If I want to get more involved I now use Adobe Elements 5.0. This gives multiple layers for adjustment, cloning, and infinite subtlety in rotation control. Adobe starts with the RAW file but seems to convert this to an intermediate Photoshop file fairly early on for subsequent manipulation. I don't believe this is detrimental to the image, as it doesn't compress in the same way as a JPEG, but I prefer to stick with the base file if I can.
JPEG is fine for snap shots but, it is a compressed file and any subsequent manipulation will cause further compression and ultimate image degradation. RAW works with the unaltered data from the camera but generally needs some post processing before it is ready to show or print.
Sorry guys for going off thread. I guess we should have started another post.
sawood12
New member
Good stuff, i've just invested in a Digital SLR with the intention of getting into photography a bit more. I must say I find it mind boggling. While I understand how each feature and function of the camera works and what effect it has, i'm at a loss to begin to understand when and in what circumstances to choose any particular set of parameters. I realise it is probably a case of suck it and see, but I think it's down to Waterstones for a copy of 'Photography for Dummies' this weekend!! Having said that a few people I know who are keen amatures have produced some stunning photos so while the race for MegaPixels may be impressive and all well and good - you still can't beat good optics.
Hilux
New member
*cough* silly old git mode on
Worth considering that if there`s a black 944 chavscummer looking at this site they `might` copy the number plate???????????????????
I recommend all plates are obscured to prevent (car) identity theft cos if the plod are suspicious the plate will be on the `right` car IYSWIM or the speed camera photo will look like yours (initially) and you`ll get the fine.
......................silly old git mode off
Worth considering that if there`s a black 944 chavscummer looking at this site they `might` copy the number plate???????????????????
I recommend all plates are obscured to prevent (car) identity theft cos if the plod are suspicious the plate will be on the `right` car IYSWIM or the speed camera photo will look like yours (initially) and you`ll get the fine.
......................silly old git mode off
Perhaps Paul, but Beaky and others, are so frequently at events, in Porsche Post, on various web sites that there is little point in trying to disguise the fact. When you think about it, Beakys number plate is in the public domain every time I drive him out of the garage.
Digital photography is no more complex than normal photography when you take the picture - It deals with X amount of light and you either choose to gather the light quickly through a big hole or slowly through a small hole. Both have advantages but, in this respect, it is the same as film.
In the same way as film, optics are very important. It doesn't matter how good the camera is, if you throw badly prepared light at it the picture will never be good.
After that is when digital gets clever but (mostly) has film equivalents. You can get faster film - it needs less light to make a picture but compromises on image quality. Digital cameras are the same. They will produce an image in less light (you specify a higher ISO like you do with film) but the compromise is a grainier image (or more "noise") just like you have with film.
White balance - you have the same with film - black and white/tungsten/IR/green tint etc. - it is just the same with digital except you can have all the films at once. If you take in JPEG you have to choose what "film" you are using when you take the picture. If you take in RAW you choose the film when you get back to your computer, and you can change it. If you choose a black and white JPEG image it will never have colour information stored in it. A RAW file maintains all of the information so, next time you can print the black and white image in colour or with a green cast, or remove the orange cast produced by tungsten light etc.
There are specific digital image things like "sharpening" principally because digital is a square grid but most other things have darkroom equivalents.
As you can perhaps appreciate I can talk for hours on digital photography
Digital photography is no more complex than normal photography when you take the picture - It deals with X amount of light and you either choose to gather the light quickly through a big hole or slowly through a small hole. Both have advantages but, in this respect, it is the same as film.
In the same way as film, optics are very important. It doesn't matter how good the camera is, if you throw badly prepared light at it the picture will never be good.
After that is when digital gets clever but (mostly) has film equivalents. You can get faster film - it needs less light to make a picture but compromises on image quality. Digital cameras are the same. They will produce an image in less light (you specify a higher ISO like you do with film) but the compromise is a grainier image (or more "noise") just like you have with film.
White balance - you have the same with film - black and white/tungsten/IR/green tint etc. - it is just the same with digital except you can have all the films at once. If you take in JPEG you have to choose what "film" you are using when you take the picture. If you take in RAW you choose the film when you get back to your computer, and you can change it. If you choose a black and white JPEG image it will never have colour information stored in it. A RAW file maintains all of the information so, next time you can print the black and white image in colour or with a green cast, or remove the orange cast produced by tungsten light etc.
There are specific digital image things like "sharpening" principally because digital is a square grid but most other things have darkroom equivalents.
As you can perhaps appreciate I can talk for hours on digital photography
appletonn
New member
Thanks for that John (and others).
I shot 350 frames of candid shots at a wedding last weekend, but all in JPEG format. I have a copy of Elements, but am awaiting my new PC to load it onto as the current one is dying. Leap of faith time, RAW here I come!
I have spent most of my money on the 'glass' and now have some decent lenses, but the weekend showed up some shortcomings in the slightly simplistic focussing system in the body - just need to save up for a d300...!
Off topic mode switched off!!
Nick
I shot 350 frames of candid shots at a wedding last weekend, but all in JPEG format. I have a copy of Elements, but am awaiting my new PC to load it onto as the current one is dying. Leap of faith time, RAW here I come!
I have spent most of my money on the 'glass' and now have some decent lenses, but the weekend showed up some shortcomings in the slightly simplistic focussing system in the body - just need to save up for a d300...!
Off topic mode switched off!!
Nick
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
