The Getaway...Crom's build and adventures

Thanks man!! I'll check it out!
And you installed a vent?!

 

Okay man! Thanks for the tip! Little scary drilling through it!

 

A. Still hard to say without seeing it. But, you may have an opportunity to install some sort of backing plate for reinforcement that ties into your window frame hardware, and add some more fasteners, in addition to the glass repair.

B. LOL. Dude, I have a 6-month old kid. I barely have time to wipe my ass, assuming, of course, I first found time to drop the kids off at the pool in the first place. I consider it incredible that I've already been able to accomplish what little I have since last June when I bought the truck.

The ongoing argument is 1. I had my old 01 Xcab 90% where I wanted it before I was coerced into selling it to accommodate the Newest Awesome Little Guy In The Universe. 2. We want to go farther faster and more comfortably with more stuff on our new adventures to show him the planet. (our awesome Utah odyssey in fall 2014 sucked her right in). 3. It is one of the few things that I feel I have control over right now, and I enjoy doing it. Wifey has her singing group which keep her sane, which is a big time commitment once a week and then for performances once every couple months that puts me on sole bambino duty, and I need my time too.

And she is good and patient with all this. And I am banking time for the suspension swap.

 

It's already damaged, so fuck it.

 

You can still get a permanent license for Lightroom, it is just hard to find on the Adobe website and while it includes updates for new cameras until the next version rolls around it does not include the "rolling" feature updates that go into the subscription plan.

I too am typically annoyed by the subscription model, but Adobe has gone out of their way to make the Lightroom one pretty darn compelling. You can get the standalone license for around $120-$150 which will be good until the next major update which usually are rolled out on an 18-month schedule. Obviously you don't have to get the next update and could just stop with that fixed expense. The subscription is $10 per month or about $180 over the typical major update period but it also includes a subscription to Photoshop which when standalone licenses for it existed was like a $600 application. So if you think you'd occasionally need to do fancier things that would involve Photoshop then the Lightroom subscription is actually a really good deal. If you will want to update every year and a half and want the rolling new features they release then again the subscription is actually well priced.

If you want to go standalone license and a couple years down the road you get a new camera not supported by your older standalone license you can actually still use your old copy of Lightroom by converting your new camera's RAW files to DNG files using Adobe's free converter for that. It is an extra step, but it is a way to avoid having to purchase a new license or use the subscription plan.

More and more stuff is going as "software as a service" these days. While there are pluses and minuses it seems the minuses usually "win" but in the Lightroom case I actually chose the subscription even though there is a standalone option still available.

 

I also use Lightroom and am not fond of the subscription method. Do you have a link to their stand alone license? Thanks.

 

https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/help/download-install-single-app-Lightroom-6.html

 

This is why I miss college. I studied graphic design and all the students in the design lab were always willing to help eachother. We would trade updated licenses for Photoshop and Illustrator all the time. I have the old stand-alone versions of these still, but they are super outdated and finding a PC with a compatible OS is a challenge in itself (I have since moved to MAC). I haven't touched those programs in years and now do any design work I need to by hand. I really wouldn't know what I'm looking at with the new software. I'm sure it would come back to me eventually though.

 

I guess I come from the old school of photography. In fact I used a 35mm Nikon for years before going digital. "If you have a good camera, lighting, and you know how to compose a photo there should be no need for post processing" - a quote from a pro instructor I knew. That said I do use PS (old version) for adjustments when necessary. Usually only cropping, shadow/highlight, slight adjustments. I used to shoot RAW + HQ at the same time but found I rarely used it and it used a ton of memory. I'd rather not spend the time unless it really needs it? My Canon PS SD4500 IS is a nice little camera as long as the lighting is good? 10X optical is nice but it cracks me up to put the little camera on a tripod. Thanks for the info guys. I'll expand my search. I would love to have a Canon 70D or now (80D) especially since I still have a tele zoom lens for it. We'll see.

 

If I ever mention a mod to my truck and you want to see it, navigate to the first page of build thread. Then using your web browser, search the page for the word your looking for.

Yes I cut a beautiful hole and installed a custom vent into my shell. It was mandatory given the thermonuclear temps back there.

Custom Vent for shell, July 2014

I lost proficiency with Photoshop around version 5. It was so much fun!

Here is some funny shit I made back in 2010. It started in some random thread where someone called this hitch accessory, "the viking crippler", and in the usual TW fashion, we all piled on with funny shit.

 

Actual LOL. Haha!

 

Thanks man, sorry Im stupid and failed you

 

this is epic man! Clean and looks like a ARB diff breather but for the shell lol. Got a link to the actual vent? or did I miss that aswell?

 

Those crippler shots are great. I shot 35mm for the majority of my life so far. Took me a longtime to accept digital and post processing. With film it really wasn't that much different since filters were carried with you and used when the photographs were taken. More changes were made in the darkroom. Now these tools are mainly used after the photographs are taken with pp software. Photography has become much more accessible to the general public.

 

No. That was not my intent. I was only sharing knowledge about how the thread is organized and how you can search the forum / posts more effectively. Just information for the taking, use it, don't use it. It's all good.

Thank you. It's a Canplas ABS vent pipe cap, made in Canada.

Canplas 133070GN Vent Pipe Cap

Here is a link.

 

Okay Nick you got me thinking. I'm partial to Canon's and my budget for a camera is limited so what do you think of this one. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...owershot_sx530_hs_digital.html#customerReview

It got very good reviews? The features and price are amazing it seems?

 

My camera doesn't even have batteries:
Ebony 45SU. Ebony, titanium, calf skin. Bam.

 

The Fire Extinguisher

Every off-road rig should have one. Especially if cooking or camping in the outdoors.

I found mine one day while shopping at Costco for $28.99.

First Alert Heavy Duty Fire Extinguisher 5-lb unit.

• UL (Underwriters’ Lab) Rated 3-A:40-B:C. These are the classes of fire that the unit can be used for. In the U.S., Class A are Ordinary Combustibles, Class B are Flammable Liquids and Gases, and Class C are Electrical Equipment.
• Rechargeable; after using the fire extinguisher, it can be refilled for additional uses.
• Built-in Pressure Gauge. Know at a glance if your unit is ready to go or needs service.
• Mounting Bracket included. Mount on a wall, inside a cupboard, etc.

I tried the included metal mounting bracket, but I was not impressed.

I ordered an 8-piece set of quick fist clamps

$40 END OF ROAD 8 piece Quick Fist Clamp Mounting Kit - 90010

8 piece Quick Fist® Clamp Mounting Kit In the kit were two

$12 END OF ROAD - 20020 Super Quick Fist Clamp for mounting tools & equipment 2-1/2" - 9-1/2" diameter

Super quick fists, I only needed one to secure the fire extinguisher.

Each Super Quick Fist has provisions for three screws. You must supply your own screws. I drilled holes into the storage bin bezel and turned screws to put the quick fist clamp into it's new home.

The weight of the fire extinguisher is completely supported by the floor, and the clamp merely secures it to the wall. I have been very pleased with the quick fist products. Quality all the way around.






I read an old thread on ExPo regarding fire extinguishers and two posts from former Firefighters stood out and made me think about my vehicle mounted fire extinguisher.

The take away for me was with dry chem, one should maintenance the powder inside on regular intervals by rolling them on their side and inverting them while tapping them. The issue was that the dry chem dust can become compacted from repeated vehicle vibrations. And if this happens and when you go to use it, it may not work as intended.

I found a rubber mallet worked great!

 

Quote from a pro instructor who obviously only ever used color slide film. And that isn't even "old school" that is just "one particular old school".

I didn't do any "post processing" when shooting slide film because that was a limitation of that emulsion. When you know you are going to shoot with out any post work then you compose and expose as such. You often end up doing "pre-processing" by using a graduated neutral density filter or various color compensation filters which in digital are now "post-processing" steps. And of course many of the most favored emulsions for landscape, like Velvia and Kodachrome, boosted saturation to clown makeup levels that most people today would consider "over-processed" if you were to hit the saturation slider that hard in Photoshop. Similarly the contrast curve of many popular slide emulsions would be considered extreme by many photographers today. So it isn't at all that there is "no need for post processing" but rather you have a fixed post processing already baked into the emulsion and you are forced to work with that and thus compose and expose with that single processing option in mind. For LF photographers you did have the option to easily shoot with more than one emulsion and so you could choose from a few different baked in processing choices depending on the composition. Many people enjoy working within these constraints because it is one less thing to worry about in the creative process and can help focus the mind on other parts of the creative process. Accepting and working within those constraints is something many famous photographers chose to do.

On the flip side most B&W negative shooters, including of course Ansel Adams and Ed Weston, did extensive "post processing" in the darkroom because that process allows for extensive work in post via dodging, burning and altering contrast. With the advent of poly contrast papers many B&W landscape shooters even moved into doing local contrast adjustments by dodging and burning under both blue and green filtered light from the enlarger. In B&W you also often needed to "pre-process" using a red, yellow, green or blue filter when exposing the negative (and that selection is now a "post-process" choice in digital). Ansel Adams of course took this perhaps further than anyone with his "zone system" in which negative exposure and development was optimized for the scene contrast range in the field. Adams was teaching that the photographer should already be thinking through the entire post-processing process in the darkroom at the time of negative exposure and actually altering the negative exposure based on that plan. A good color slide shooter was doing the same thing of course but instead of the creative process at shooting including a variety of possible post processing steps the slide shooter just thought through the only possible processing step they possessed which happened to be chosen not by them but instead by a chemist at the film manufacturer. The point is both the B&W negative and color positive photographer had to understand how "post processing" interacted with composition and exposure but one of them had the option to make a lot of different choices about that processing while the other had to work within a limited or even single choice mostly outside their control.

Neither approach is "better" than the other. In digital you can emulate the experience of shooting a color slide film by selecting a specific set of parameters for the JPEG engine in your camera and then learn over time how best to work with that specific set of processing parameters. You'll get shots straight out of the camera that require little or no processing and you will forgo taking shots of scenes which won't fit well into those parameters - just like when shooting with color slide film. In digital shooting RAW and post processing is of course the analogy to B&W printing in which a wide variety of post processing tools are at your disposal. Nearly every slider in Lightroom has an analogy in the darkroom, the difference being in digital you have much finer control, can reverse your "mistakes" and do everything a lot more quickly (e.g. "sharpening" was done in the darkroom either with choices in developer chemistry and agitation schedule for the negative or using an unsharp mask when printing, "clarity" would be a different unsharp mask at printing, "local editing" was dodging and burning). Darkroom techniques were so advanced that many photographers worked with a dedicated printer or darkroom assistant as their equivalent to Photoshop or Lightroom. The other huge difference is that most complicated darkroom techniques were only applied to B&W because the more advanced techniques were prohibitively difficult to execute in a color darkroom process. In digital of course you can to it in either.

Post processing in digital can take on a life of its own just as darkroom printing could resulting in far more hours spend processing at home rather than shooting in the field. Some people hate that. Choosing to not make post-processing a part of your creative processes is perfectly valid and one that many successful photographers have made for decades. Going the other path and including post in your creative process has also been used by successful photographers for decades. Both approaches are very much "old school".

 

That would be a bridge camera. The best advice I can give to you is try it and see if you like it. If you don't like it, take it back and find a different one.

I tried a Nikon from Costco that had similar specs and price to the Canon you linked to. I used it for one weekend and took it back for a full refund, and ponied up a few more dollars for the Sony HX400 I have now.

Some excellent features I have come to really enjoy with the Sony are automatic GPS geo-tagging and WiFi transfer out of the camera. I also like the carl zeiss glass. The one shortcoming is, at certain zoom focal points, I have detected significant distortion. I only have experience with the Sony, and they are doing it well. They also are staying on top of application updates in the Google play store.