Latest details, vLet's try this again

Dean-thanks for the tip on the rear window. I'll have to look into that. BTW, I have a customer with an LS430 and Ecru leather....it is amazingly soft!



Karen-Thanks for the good info. I took a lot of photography in college but I used an old Minolta that was all manual. This one is fully automatic but I can never seem to get it to work right in manual mode. I'll look into how the light metering is set. Sometimes I am in the shade taking the pic out into the sun because the lack of driveway length leaves me no choice. I know that can also fool the meter.



You are correct that the problem is most pronounced on very sunny days shooting a dark vehicle, especially since the vast majority of driveways and roads are concrete and very reflective under the full sun. I think you can see the difference between the black 740 on concrete and the black Tundra on blacktop.



I will also check with Wolf Camera who does my processing and see if they can find a problem with the camera.



Like I said, overexposure is a bad thing when photographing cars since it tends to wash out the depth of the paint. The 740 looks noticably better in person than it does in that picture.



Steve-I think I will try manual mode for a while (if I can figure it out correctly) and adjust the apeture accordingly.



DETAILKING-I can believe it. It can be tough to get good shots on partly cloudy days, especially when I am working out swirls. It seems by the time I finish, the sun is obscured by clouds so I can't be 100% sure I got them out. No way to get comparible pictures either.
 
I've gone through the thread and tried to delete only the juvenile back-and-forth crap, while keeping most of the photography info intact. If I deleted something you felt might have been useful, mea culpa. If you think I missed an inflammatory post, please PM me, and I'll edit or delete it. If I deleted one of your posts, consider this a warning: flame-baiting and flame-wars will NOT be tolerated. There's enough to do around here without cleaning up after you.



Now, stay on topic, or the thread gets deleted or locked.



Thanks,

Tort

(moderator)
 
Haven't been on here in a while, but are you still using Clearkote products? What about s100 and their polish?
 
I've been a long-time lurker here and do not post much, but the stuff going on here in this thread is simply unbelievable. Scottwax, are you pretending not to understand what all the people here are trying to insinuate? The only thing I’m going to say is that I’m sure you’re one heck of a detailer, but you are also one heck of a photographer.
 
Don't understand either. Scott says he has his camera on "auto" so what is there to doubt about his work?



Here are a couple of facts that I have seen about him:



1 - Scott knows how to detail

2 - Scott knows how to take pictures



PS: He may have something cooking too for everyone to see how he creates his "magic" - that should quiet some of the H8TERS down a bit. Lets just enjoy exceptional work/cars when we see them.
 
Ktulu said:
Haven't been on here in a while, but are you still using Clearkote products? What about s100 and their polish?
Click to expand...



Yes, I am still using Clearkote products, primarily Vanilla Moose and Quikshine. Problem is, the distributor who is near me is moving to a larger location and was waiting on the move to reorder more Clearkote products. I am almost out of VM, so I have been holding back on using it much until I get more. Mostly just using it on windows now. I may just have to bite the bullet and order some since I don't know when that shop will finish their move and order more product.



I also use S100 still but not all that often since I think #16 has a very similar look and is more durable.



astrogurl0-I know what they are insinuating, but I know I don't play around with my pictures to make them look better, so what they say doesn't really matter. If anything, resizing, compressing and reducing the jpg quality takes away from the pictures initial quality.



Those here who met me personally at the Meguiars/Autopia meet have seen me work in person and several saw my photoalbum with the original prints, so they know the truth as well.



tdekany-have something cooking? Not sure what you mean. :nixweiss
 
I can vouch for his work firsthand. It's unbelievable I know but there is no reason for all the hate that seems to be going around!



Excellent work Scott!!:xyxthumbs
 
Scottwax said:
If anything, resizing, compressing and reducing the jpg quality takes away from the pictures initial quality.
Click to expand...



You're right about that. My pictures start off at 3072x2048 and between 2.5mb and 3mb, then I reduce them down to 800x533 and between 70k and 80k. By the time they get reduced down to that level, I think they lose at least 50% of the "pop" they originally had. I looked at a picture of my Expedition after resizing it and asked, "where did my shine go?"
 
tdekany said:
the idea I had? remember?
Click to expand...



pat.gif
Oh, I thought you were referring to the pictures.



I am still trying to work that out with my brother since he runs my website and between his growing computer business and finishing up his Microsoft certification, he just hasn't had much time.
 
JDookie said:
You're right about that. My pictures start off at 3072x2048 and between 2.5mb and 3mb, then I reduce them down to 800x533 and between 70k and 80k. By the time they get reduced down to that level, I think they lose at least 50% of the "pop" they originally had. I looked at a picture of my Expedition after resizing it and asked, "where did my shine go?"
Click to expand...



most photos should look the same if not a bit more sharper when resized smaller..make sure the program you are using isnt also changed the quality in anyway.
 
I am using Dell Photo Editor (came with computer) and I always choose to save them at the highest quality level. What I think is happening is, when I reduce the picture down to 800x533, that actual picture size is very small, then I upload it to My Gallery and the picture then gets enlarged by almost 100-200% which is where I think I am losing the quality, but if I save them at say 1200x?, the file just becomes too big and my gallery fills up too quick. It's a give and take kind of deal, oh well. The pictures get the point across, so they'll have to do. It's just unfortunate that I am looking at WAY better pics here, than in my gallery.
 
Mazz said:
most photos should look the same if not a bit more sharper when resized smaller..make sure the program you are using isnt also changed the quality in anyway.
Click to expand...



Not really true, you loose pixels to display ranges of color and details. If that were the case high quality photos from digital cameras wouldn't be so large.
 
Very true. Most people don't realize that when you are referring to a picture that is say, 600x400, you are actually talking about 600pixels/400pixels. Converted to actual inches, that would be a 3.33x2.22 picture. Kind of makes you wonder, which would be better. Taking your pictures as large as possible, then shrinking them down or taking them smaller from the beginning? I think I might start taking my photos at a lower resolution since that might help retain the original quality.
 
Your screen resolution plays a big part in that too. If your screen resolution is set to 640x480 a 640x480 picture will take up the whole screen, but if your screen resolution is set for 1600x1200 as my laptop is, that 640x480 picture is but a small part of the screen.
 
Jason-download the free image optimizer from www.xat.com and see if that program for resizing works better for you. It is only a 1MB download and you can see both the origional image and compressed image as you compress and reduce jpg quality so you don't go too far. Even compressing 50% and reducing jpg quality from 95 to 88-90 still leaves an excellent image that won't choke dial up modems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top