More pics from VIR (Audi Club and Trackdaze)
11-24-2007, 03:21 AM
#131
New Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for making that clear. Whoever they were, they were mistaken...
I pasted the first link you showed, and I DO like those photos. IMO, tho they are way better than anything I saw shot at VIR this passed weekend. The level of detail & clarity are much better for one. If there were pics of my car that looked like those, I would have definately bought from you.
I guess after doing HPDE's every month since summer, all the pics tend to look the same, but once in a while you see some pics that are truly outstanding.
like these:
http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=18276
I'm going to leave it at that, so have a happy & safe holiday season, and I will visit your trailer again in the spring, despite my earlier statement of "nor will I ever". I was mad 'cause you were acusing me of being someone else, and trying to hide my identity by switching user-names. Which I hope you realize was not the case.
I guess after doing HPDE's every month since summer, all the pics tend to look the same, but once in a while you see some pics that are truly outstanding.
like these:
http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=18276
I'm going to leave it at that, so have a happy & safe holiday season, and I will visit your trailer again in the spring, despite my earlier statement of "nor will I ever". I was mad 'cause you were acusing me of being someone else, and trying to hide my identity by switching user-names. Which I hope you realize was not the case.
11-24-2007, 09:27 AM
#132
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for the comments and I hope you do visit out trailer again.
I will tell our opinion is that the photos you linked are honestly average snap shots.
Frozen wheels (no speed shown, no talent in exposure/lighting, etc), overexposed, heavily photoshop sharpened.
None of those are magazine/editorial, let alone advertising capable.
Perhaps you didn't look deep enough into the photos we took. There are photos very comparable to those from Laguna and Miller from VIR, especially the afternoon photos.
You have to consider the subjects and the late afternoon light of the images posted.
We don't have the luxury of shooting only in late afternoon or early morning light at track events, most images can't come between 8am and 9;30am or 3-5pm, purely due to time limitations.
Secondarily, the subjects are much better in pro racing. Colorful, cool, fast cars.
We don't turn off the talent or shoot with less effort at non-pro events. Our images of pro racing from VIR equal the ones we showed you from the our galleries. But the light and subjects simply are cooler.
Mike S
Frozen wheels (no speed shown, no talent in exposure/lighting, etc), overexposed, heavily photoshop sharpened.
None of those are magazine/editorial, let alone advertising capable.
Perhaps you didn't look deep enough into the photos we took. There are photos very comparable to those from Laguna and Miller from VIR, especially the afternoon photos.
You have to consider the subjects and the late afternoon light of the images posted.
We don't have the luxury of shooting only in late afternoon or early morning light at track events, most images can't come between 8am and 9;30am or 3-5pm, purely due to time limitations.
Secondarily, the subjects are much better in pro racing. Colorful, cool, fast cars.
We don't turn off the talent or shoot with less effort at non-pro events. Our images of pro racing from VIR equal the ones we showed you from the our galleries. But the light and subjects simply are cooler.
Mike S
11-24-2007, 09:33 AM
#133
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, Davey, you are correct and up on technology. As you and so many ACNA participants have seen
via our donated posters, our files go 30x40", sane grain, perfectly.
Either Leslie is right and Eric is mixing us up with someone else, or Eric must be making/needing prints over 60x90". Could also be something wrong with is printer or monitor, as if they are viewed on a quality or well working monitor, or printed on a quality, well working printer, they kick ***.
Good enough for huge enlargements for corporations, for retail posters, for advertisements, for huge signs.
I am waiting to here back from Eric to see what he meant or why he was under the false impression he was under.
Truth simply is, we run the state of the art and give customers full res (though most photographers don't).
Mike S
Either Leslie is right and Eric is mixing us up with someone else, or Eric must be making/needing prints over 60x90". Could also be something wrong with is printer or monitor, as if they are viewed on a quality or well working monitor, or printed on a quality, well working printer, they kick ***.
Good enough for huge enlargements for corporations, for retail posters, for advertisements, for huge signs.
I am waiting to here back from Eric to see what he meant or why he was under the false impression he was under.
Truth simply is, we run the state of the art and give customers full res (though most photographers don't).
Mike S
11-24-2007, 09:44 AM
#134
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think our email shows that we tried very hard to offer you credits, full refunds, etc and
- We sent you a proactive refund with your CD, as we knew you were low on total photos. You had no idea this was coming, but we did it up front as we always do for the few people in this situation, as an offering of sincere apology.
- We returned three emails and talked on the phone with you twice in 48 hours, offering full refund of all funds and our apologies. You declined the refund.
- We offered a free future CD.
- We offered to focus on you at a next event and make up for the rough 60 photos we provided via getting you 150+, as well as getting you tons of Oak Tree.
- We offered sincere apologies and did everything within our power. We don't own a time machine and couldn't go back to the respective event and redo what you wanted of us.
Only after we talked, you went online and inaccurately reviewed the situation, as to how you were treated and how many photos you had from oak tree. This action is the only reason we even replied.
What more could we have done?
The linked letter above is far from being berated. On the contrary, considering the efforts and lengths we had gone to and considering you were not accurately reflecting what you were provided or relating our efforts, I find my letter very fair.
I am genuinely sorry I apparently hurt your feelings with that letter, I just don't understand how or where I did so.
Mike S
- We returned three emails and talked on the phone with you twice in 48 hours, offering full refund of all funds and our apologies. You declined the refund.
- We offered a free future CD.
- We offered to focus on you at a next event and make up for the rough 60 photos we provided via getting you 150+, as well as getting you tons of Oak Tree.
- We offered sincere apologies and did everything within our power. We don't own a time machine and couldn't go back to the respective event and redo what you wanted of us.
Only after we talked, you went online and inaccurately reviewed the situation, as to how you were treated and how many photos you had from oak tree. This action is the only reason we even replied.
What more could we have done?
The linked letter above is far from being berated. On the contrary, considering the efforts and lengths we had gone to and considering you were not accurately reflecting what you were provided or relating our efforts, I find my letter very fair.
I am genuinely sorry I apparently hurt your feelings with that letter, I just don't understand how or where I did so.
Mike S
11-27-2007, 06:18 AM
#135
All of my files have been 1.7 - 1.9mb (2464 pixels wide), so I assumed
you must have a better file. I didn't think you would print a 24"x30" at 60 to 80 dpi. Plus the pics I got from another vendor a few years back were all over 4mb, supporting my (incorrect) assumption.
Sounds like I was wrong, sorry.
For the record, I do like the 24x30's we've got from you!
Sounds like I was wrong, sorry.
For the record, I do like the 24x30's we've got from you!
11-27-2007, 09:51 AM
#136
AudiWorld Expert
Mike, I just recalled this comment I had made 4 years ago....
Just now did I put together the link between that post, you, your company at the VIR event, etc.
)<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/1502859.phtml">https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/1502859.phtml</a</li></ul>
)<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/1502859.phtml">https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/1502859.phtml</a</li></ul>
11-27-2007, 04:02 PM
#137
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Eric. Thanks for the reply and correction. You can get higher MP files out of many DSLR's, but
as I noted, that costs you frames per second.
Like all good things, their exists a trade off.
This really changed in the end of October with the D3, which shoots 9fps at 10+ MP.
The files you received from us from Dec of 2003 on are from D2H series cameras, which as you noted and have seen, will print a kick *** 20x30, 30x40 and larger, sans grain.
There is no such thing as a 24x30, really.
The prints you've seen are also not printed at 60-80dpi, as you noted. We simply upload the file to our printers and they interpolate it, or we it in advance ourselves.
A simple change to 20x30 at 300dpi will make an unreal 20x30. Same for larger sizes up to 60x90" with the D2 files.
The files are so clean, interpolation (with quality software like Photoshop or Genuine Fractal) will make for unreal large enlargements.
Again, megapixels aren't megapixels. It's like comparing beer, tires, etc (things you and I both know well!).
A 2.47 MP pro DSLR file shot through a larger sensor, with a $10-12K lens will crush a lot of 6pm point and shoot images all day long.
Don't get hung up on size! ; )
Cheers and thanks for the note.
Mike S
Like all good things, their exists a trade off.
This really changed in the end of October with the D3, which shoots 9fps at 10+ MP.
The files you received from us from Dec of 2003 on are from D2H series cameras, which as you noted and have seen, will print a kick *** 20x30, 30x40 and larger, sans grain.
There is no such thing as a 24x30, really.
The prints you've seen are also not printed at 60-80dpi, as you noted. We simply upload the file to our printers and they interpolate it, or we it in advance ourselves.
A simple change to 20x30 at 300dpi will make an unreal 20x30. Same for larger sizes up to 60x90" with the D2 files.
The files are so clean, interpolation (with quality software like Photoshop or Genuine Fractal) will make for unreal large enlargements.
Again, megapixels aren't megapixels. It's like comparing beer, tires, etc (things you and I both know well!).
A 2.47 MP pro DSLR file shot through a larger sensor, with a $10-12K lens will crush a lot of 6pm point and shoot images all day long.
Don't get hung up on size! ; )
Cheers and thanks for the note.
Mike S