Wyoming B.S. Thread

You're in the beta group? Fun. I sort of doubt Adobe listens that much anyways. Kind if an asshole company haha

And thanks for the votes. Will reveal all later today.

 

Yeah, so far the only benefit I've gotten out of it is free Lightroom Classic since I only pay for the cloud version of Lightroom. They seem receptive, at least in their beta group forum with a lot of feature requests and bug fixes being discussed.

 

Hm well get busy and contribute! Haha

 

Posted her back up. @Blackdawg I know you need another Tacoma.

https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/2012-6mt-trd-offroad-dcsb.620842/

 

HA!

Yeah I do. But...too rich for my blood. be a strong contender though for the start of a project that's for sure. if I was moving to 2nd gen.

 

Yeah, it checks all the boxes as far as a 2nd gen goes. I really love the thing, I just don't drive it enough - especially in the summertime to justify paying for it...Or I just enjoy selling vehicles that I love to regret it later on.

 

All 4 have compromises that are not ideal. Of the first two, I like the way the sky is treated in #1, but not the shadow detail. Detail is better in #2 but not the sky.

For 3 and 4, meh, can I chose neither? Definitely not a fan of the highlights in #4. That far wall in the sun is blown out on my uncalibrated monitor.

I might look at these again on the other computer to see what role the monitors are playing.

 

@Blackdawg

Interesting. I'm with you (Mike) 100% on all having compromises. My opinions were:

First set:

• Nicer colors in the land in #1 than #2 - the reds come out better.
• Land is sharper in #2 than #1
• I like the sky better in #2 than #1 - more definition of the low clouds vs. high

Really, it's like the sharpness/clarity/dehaze has been turned up in #2 compared to #1, and saturation/vibrance is up in #1 compared to #2. Or shadows are up in #2 compared to #1. Something like that.

So, personally, I'd choose #2, but bump the red saturation a bit to get some of the coloring from #1 into the cliffs.

Second set:

• Almost the opposite of the first set.
• Everything is sharper in #1 than #2
• Highlights in both on the south cliffs are too bright/washed out. Hard to deal with in that situation for sure - likely requires a specific filter to that area to bring those down and in line with the rest of the exposure by reducing exposure/whites.

Here, I'd choose #1

But - ultimately, I don't think either is "better enough" than the other to say that one either is worth significantly more processing time than the other, especially at web/sharing resolutions. (Not that I know how much time you spent on either, but I find myself using LRs pano because it is so much faster/more efficient). I'm not super happy with LRs HDR though - I feel like I can often take a single dark image and get just as good a result through processing.

 

The later part I think is very true How many vehicles have you owned in the last 4 years. 7? haha

17s are heavier because most all or Load E and because the side walls are shorter due to the taller rim you have to beef up the side wall more than on a 16 to give it the same strength. So that's not a surprise. This also contributes to the higher cost. And worse ride..

the major problem with 16s is they are a dying size, worse than 15s I think.

Interesting insight. Thanks. Will say what's what later.

 

Nice. Thanks. This has been a fun experiment. Im sure I'll do more as I work through these photos as I took a lot of panos and HDRs this trip to see.

I did screw up one thing with the Pano for this experiment and that was that I chose different stitching setups. One as Cylinder and the other was...whatever it's call..I use it often..

Anyways will compile this all and post the results!

 

Industry is just moved away a lot to 17/18s really fast. Sizes have expanded a lot for 17s in the last 2 years and shrunk in 16s. I don't think theres as much flexibility in future on 16s.

Lighter eh? they your math sucks for screwing it up the first time but that is interesting. Not what i'd expect.

I still wish more C loads were available in both wheel sizes. Because of that I'll stick to 15s for the big rig. It such a huge difference in ride quality it's annoying.

 

Why did you skip the Kenda Klever 35X10.5X? 68lbs and about

Why not include the Kenda Klever 35X10.5X17? Too narrow? 68lbs and about $170 each. Also the printed diameters are not accurate, the KO2s are a great example of this, they measure much smaller than claimed.

 

I'm a big fan of the Duratracs, so I think it's good you included them. I'm surprised to not see Coopers on there. STMaxx at least, since it's basically a better version of your KO2's . STT Pro's if you want to get into the "replace all the time" mode.

Seems like there are a lot of other brands though, when you say "data set" what do you mean? tiresize has a lot more "data."

 

I really wish there were more true 35x10.50 options out there. That’s really where I’d like to be, but I still love my 315/75R16s for now.

 

In what way? I've had them for years. Grant I don't love them either but I'm not a fan of at tires anyways for what we do. Not sure I can think of a time when you or Zane when he had his Kos did better than me or Dan or Mike.

I like the duratracs out of all the at tires. But not the right size. Mtr are still the best I've run excluding most winter conditions.

 

Get DC extremes

 

I had bad wear because of alignment haha that has nothing to do with the tire.

Mine broke in over time. But they are strong side walls. I didn't get a flat in the same place Mike did doing the same thing. So it's like everything a compromise.

Plus the side wall thing is much more related to load range which is why I wish I could get a C load tire for my next set.

 

There is plenty of info on the web about what all those tires actualy measure and weigh. You may want to keep it in mind if you want to end up with a tire that is close to a true 35. There was a thread on here someplace that had actuals measurements and weights. Good luck with your selection. Im living on the edge and going with an unknown 35' tire that cost me $825 for 5 delivered to my local Walmart and messures 34.5" mounted and on the truck. The tire weighs 67.5 on my bathroom scale. Tires are a way personal choice

 

Agree, but if we don't show interest my buying the size we will never get a bigger selection. One of the things that have kept me going to 35"s was the lack of a narrow 35".

 

bunch of wusses. 35x12.5 is where it's at!