pics of my laser red FD and white sti
Thread Starter
Olympic Muff Diver
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
From: Boston, MA
pics of my laser red FD and white sti
I'm selling my FD so here are some pics of it for all of you to look at for the last time as my car. the other car is my friends 2005 sti that he just got. https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.php?t=665064
Last edited by blueskaterboy; Jun 27, 2007 at 11:20 PM.
Looking for Touring FD
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: Ellicott City, MD//Portland Oregon
mannnn my car looks like a ****** mini van next to Jesse's FD.
Bump for a great friend and trustworty seller! I will miss this thing.... and would've bought it myself if i didn't go to school across the country. Someone buy this thing in MD so i can still see it some time!
Bump for a great friend and trustworty seller! I will miss this thing.... and would've bought it myself if i didn't go to school across the country. Someone buy this thing in MD so i can still see it some time!
Thread Starter
Olympic Muff Diver
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
From: Boston, MA
i do have gunmetal powdercoated wheels, but the front wheels are actually my friends, which are just spraypainted black, he has smaller tires so we were trying to see how the car looks lower. i guess thats kind of lame.
my girlfriend (avatar in case you wondered) used a nikon d200, 10.2 mp, however its not so much the mp as the light sensor and chip that the camera uses, many inferior cameras have some static in the pictures and not as sensitive to color, less rich, such as the d70 that she used to have, d70 pictures looked slightly better than my casio exilim.
the ones that have no glare and look like they are from a video game are with a polarizing filter over the lens. this car looks good in sunlight because of the gold flake, the yellow is brought out by the sun and in the sunset it looks more golden. the stock red just looks pink in bright light. which is what first drew me to this car.
my girlfriend (avatar in case you wondered) used a nikon d200, 10.2 mp, however its not so much the mp as the light sensor and chip that the camera uses, many inferior cameras have some static in the pictures and not as sensitive to color, less rich, such as the d70 that she used to have, d70 pictures looked slightly better than my casio exilim.
the ones that have no glare and look like they are from a video game are with a polarizing filter over the lens. this car looks good in sunlight because of the gold flake, the yellow is brought out by the sun and in the sunset it looks more golden. the stock red just looks pink in bright light. which is what first drew me to this car.
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
Olympic Muff Diver
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
From: Boston, MA
poly from rotaryextreme. the lip is jdm. when i bought it, it had a glass bumper that was very pretty but the lip kept getting owned. i gave it to my friend when i got the 99, and he shattered it in a series of accidents.
Thread Starter
Olympic Muff Diver
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
From: Boston, MA
its a very nice color, not as expensive as some of the more premium colors. in less light its more of a wine color, as you can see here and also in the first few pics on my sale thread.
Last edited by blueskaterboy; Jun 28, 2007 at 08:03 PM.
Under the right circumstances, these things can take an already beautiful picture, and make it even better. I bought a Canon EOS Elan IIe about 4 years ago and I still can't get myself to use a digital camera when it's something important (weddings, my kids, etc) as I know that Canon will destroy most any digital camera in quality.
What I like is taking pictures of extremely small things, like say an ant, bee, fly, etc and with it's macro setting and you can get pretty damn close and still have crystal clear quality.
If I ever repaint my car, I am seriously considering that color.
DOWNSTAIRS MIXUP
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,723
Likes: 0
From: Lampasas, TX
Haha, you know what I just realized? My mom's '99 Mercury Cougar is the same color!!! Thats pretty funny.
Oh, and the clear coat- is it tinted? Because your car has a much richer, more saturated look than my mom's car or that stang. Or is it just the filter that makes it like that?
Oh, and the clear coat- is it tinted? Because your car has a much richer, more saturated look than my mom's car or that stang. Or is it just the filter that makes it like that?
Thread Starter
Olympic Muff Diver
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
From: Boston, MA
the filter helps take out some glare and make it a bit richer, but its mainly dependent on how sunny or what kind of lights at night because of the gold underneath, also the meguiars 3 step really makes the car look like liquid. if you have the money, house of kolors or some other premium paint brand will look even better, but for a ford stock color, this does pretty well.
Love me for my car
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
From: california
Also keep in mind, we dont' want to play a biased role here, and turn it into a "canon vs. nikon" ordeal. The photographer makes the exposures, not the cameras. When you're dealing with a D70, D80, D200, or a XT, XTi, 20D, 30D (350D, 400D) then it's really up to the photographer. I mean personally I've had some experience with the pictures. If the camera uses compression or anything other than RAW, then you can do some adjustments to the color: hue/saturation, image sharpening, contrast control, etc.
But most photographers would want to shoot in raw and leave the processing to photoshop as photoshop is MUCH MORE powerful than in-camera processing (even though they are doing the same thing).
And it's never about the megapixels... in fact, if you have a megapixel that's too large, then you'll actually get worse picture quality as each pixels on the sensor will be smaller, which translates to being that the pixels are less sensitive to light, which will cause you to loose detail. So the sensor size compared to the megapixel count is what matters the most. No camera measures color, they only measure light. Canon has their "L-series" lens which uses a professional grade glass in their lens to give a higher natural contrast and image sharpness, with minimal post-processing. Nikon has their "ED series" lens which also is a standard for professional grade glass. So in the end, it's really up to the photographer and their artistic view. Technicals can be achieved easily when the photographer knows what he/she is doing.
But most photographers would want to shoot in raw and leave the processing to photoshop as photoshop is MUCH MORE powerful than in-camera processing (even though they are doing the same thing).
And it's never about the megapixels... in fact, if you have a megapixel that's too large, then you'll actually get worse picture quality as each pixels on the sensor will be smaller, which translates to being that the pixels are less sensitive to light, which will cause you to loose detail. So the sensor size compared to the megapixel count is what matters the most. No camera measures color, they only measure light. Canon has their "L-series" lens which uses a professional grade glass in their lens to give a higher natural contrast and image sharpness, with minimal post-processing. Nikon has their "ED series" lens which also is a standard for professional grade glass. So in the end, it's really up to the photographer and their artistic view. Technicals can be achieved easily when the photographer knows what he/she is doing.
