Jump to content

Warm Day At The Pond


2000DV4.8

Recommended Posts

Posted

It got to about 50 today, so I got a chance to shoot outside for a change. :D

 

I'm open to any criticism.

 

1.

3245351849_215f0e0c15_o.jpg

 

2. (I just liked the footprints, the rest didn't come out how I wanted it to)

3245355261_511cbd04ae_o.jpg

 

3. Not sure if I like this one, but I'll post it anyway.

3246185532_27cba4dd6d_o.jpg

 

4.

3246181438_94146a2c12_o.jpg

 

5.

3246182888_5606e481e5_o.jpg

 

6.

3245356091_55041653a0_o.jpg

 

7. Didn't focus where I wanted to, but I still kinda like it.

3246181888_57b1d6d8c8_o.jpg

 

And some panos.

8.

3245564655_038faeafc2_o.jpg

 

9.

3245349975_4b8767b130_b.jpg

 

10.

3245350613_a7a836bebb_b.jpg

 

Going to the Philly Auto Show tomorrow, hopefully I'll come back with some good stuff.

Posted

hey Dan...

 

I like #4 the best myself. The wide shots are cool too. Number 1 ain't bad either.

 

Nice shots!

Posted

I think #3 would be better if the lighting was a little different on the barn, maybe a little brighter. Other than that I agree, 1 and 4.

Posted

Those are some great shots, Dan! One of these days, I want to pick up a new camera and get back into photography. I have a Nikon film SLR that I used to take some awesome shots with, but I'm ready to upgrade to a dSLR.

 

Oh yeah.. awesome avatar, man!

Posted
It got to about 50 today, so I got a chance to shoot outside for a change. :nono:

 

I'm open to any criticism.

 

1.

3245351849_215f0e0c15_o.jpg

 

 

I have an odd sensation to fall to the right with this one...

 

Nice pics! :jester:

Posted

Really good pictures there Dan! :jester:

 

1 and 4 did turn out the best I'd say. The pan shots are really good too. :nono:

 

With 2 you'd need to to manually adjust for light on the scene, which is usually needed when the sun is out front. With 3 it's hard to tell what you were trying to achieve. In all it's not bad at all, the lighting is just off a bit. 6 would have been really good, just need a bit more depth of field. With 7, manual focus is the way to go with objects like that.

Posted
Really good pictures there Dan! :bs:

 

1 and 4 did turn out the best I'd say. The pan shots are really good too. :D

 

With 2 you'd need to to manually adjust for light on the scene, which is usually needed when the sun is out front. With 3 it's hard to tell what you were trying to achieve. In all it's not bad at all, the lighting is just off a bit. 6 would have been really good, just need a bit more depth of field. With 7, manual focus is the way to go with objects like that.

 

I got the exposure I wanted for number two (the camera hasn't been out of manual mode for about a month), I wanted the eye to be drawn to the footprints in the snow. It just didn't turn out how I wanted it too. It looked a lot cooler in person.

 

Yeah 3 just sucks, the lighting was ass, but when I was editing them, my Mom told me to keep that one. :lol:

 

For 6, I was trying to completely obliterate the background, that came out exactly how I wanted it to, it's just a little boring. And for 7, I'm pretty sure I did focus it manually, I just missed. :lol::lol:

 

EDIT: Oh, and thanks everyone. :D

Posted

Thanks. :lol:

 

Yeah it was really nice out, it was my first time outside without a sweatshirt on in months. :bs:

 

Today is awful though, it's been snowing (which is good), but it's above freezing, so it's just wet sloppy snow, and it's not sticking on any paved surfaces.

Posted

You are quite creative with the lens Dan. Some people have that and some don't. I think you are developing a real talent here. Don't stop!

Posted
You are quite creative with the lens Dan. Some people have that and some don't. I think you are developing a real talent here. Don't stop!

 

Thanks Jim. :D And I'm definitely not stopping any time soon, which isn't a good thing for my wallet. :D I have too damn many expensive hobbies (mountain biking, skiing, music, my truck, and now photography).

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • I had a boat for many years, never had a problem even with a 2 wheel drive 93 Silvy for 20 years. Good tires, proper use of the gas pedal worked.
    • I read through that and I won't lie, my eyes rolled at some of the quirks about how it can turn off the trailer braking for example but I can see how it could help control or even up the torque applied to the ground with each wheel in a boat ramp scenario. But of course what it can't do is increase the torque to the wheels if the need is there as it ends up being like driving the four wheel drive version of a two wheel drive ( high range that is ). So far the neighbor that ended up with the 3.0 duramax with the max tow package which meant the 3.73 gears and high range only, I think its been doing ok for what he has been towing but doubt he ventures off into the soft stuff with his holiday trailer. He may have towed his dads river boat locally with it ( he always used his 6.6 duramax before ), I'll have to ask him sometime if he got into a lack of power to the wheels situation as after all that engine produces a lot of torque at low speed once the turbo winds out a bit and I think it has the 10 speed and if so they have a pretty good first gear ratio at 4.70 I see which is vastly better than the 3 or four speed overdrive models of years ago. 
    • I did shorter OCI"s for many years without an issue, fights sludge and wear IMO. Recently started using Amsoil, will not do the recommended/advertised miles between changes. 
    • It definitely seems quite evident that emissions and fuel economy targets rule above the best case scenario of what the engines best health and life could be otherwise. Items like DI and turbo DI engines with their LSPI issues as well as cats being reduced in life if the proper levels of certain additives were allowed to be utilized and so something has to be compromised and as you point out that is the engine protection from sludge, acid and wear which isn't in the manufactures best interest regardless to worry about in this race to profits from higher sales and so if the engines wear out sooner the next sale is closer at hand.    I am hearing that its likely the two new 2027 GM half ton truck engines will call for a 0W-30 oil, now if that is an existing oil I would have to think so but we will see in the coming months. Sadly as you've pointed out to me, over the last number of years the push has been on to reduce the actual operating temperature viscosity within each designated viscosity grade so that 11.5 to 12 range for a 30 weight for example is more in that just above 10 range at 100c along with that temporary viscosity sheer dropping it even further down as per that "energy conserving" designation, not to mention how some oils are not as sheer stable as would be ideal and that mixed with a long OCI paints a picture with a little too much glitter shall we say !.    All that and the warranty gods scaring the vehicle owner into sticking with that watery wine or risk loosing their warranty coverage if they go and use an oil that is of a higher viscosity even if it meets the emissions and LSPI requirements and would never damage the engine but may very well allow for an engines longer life depending on engine use scenarios ... high ambient temps, towing etc that push oils to their limits.
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...