Please Take Photos

[Tinster]

Sure, it's not $600 camera quality.

But no one has any doubt what the
$10 image contains.

To me, it's worth ten bucks.

d

 

[Aldwyn]

Dale,

I will have you know that after that thread, I went out and bought a Fujifilm 4.1mp digital on ebay for $34. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif It's sitting next to my chair in the living room as we speak!

But my garage is at a balmy 20 degrees F, so I havnt even ORDERED any parts to do my brakes yet! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

But I will get pictures once we start warming up a bit for my little heater to heat up my garage, and I get at 'em. Same deal for the rebuild of my front & rear end!

- Aldwyn

 

[swift6]

I say "what's a pixel?"....

In the simplest terms, the "pixel" is a measure of resolution. The sensor on the digital camera is made up of an array of very tiny sensors. On a 1.3 Mpixel camera there would be 1.3 million tiny sensors. More pixels give more points of information to the picture. Of course 35mm would have 100millions of pixels if we were to try and compare them directly!

Going a bit astray from the original topic but some other good info below for the curious. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

If you were to try and cover a surface area equal to the exposed area of 35mm film, yes it would. But the sensors are all much smaller than that. Which causes some othe anomalies between digital and analog. Such as the way it affects depth of field.

FWIW, anything above 5-6 megapixels can pretty much replicate 35mm negative film. Which is limited by the grain size and structure for enlargment purposes. The average consumer would be hard pressed to see much of a difference.

Positive film though, aka slide film, aka transparencies, have much higher resolution capability. (Which is why they were the mainstay of commercial photography. Film scanners were also first designed to scan positive film over negative film.) A 35mm slide has a resolution equivalency of about 20 mega-pixels. Current top Digital SLR's still don't qual 20 mega-pixels but they don't necesarrily need to for their applications. The streamlining of the workflow process, no longer needing to buy or process film etc... make up for the lower resolution capabilities of Digital SLR's over 35mm transparency film.

Some of us still work heavily in analog based photography formats though. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Like Yisrael, my digital camera is a 3.2mp camera that does fine up to about 8x12. I really only use it for snapshots or web only stuff. I guess I'm just slow to convert to new things. My daily driver is a TR8 afterall. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

 

[gsalt57tr3]

In terms of quality of photo, this one was taken with my cellphone:

Depending on what you want, there are a wide variety of devices out there.

 

[AweMan]

gsalt57tr3:
Awesome 57!
I was wondering what my 56 would look like with tan cap railings. Now I know!

Ret: Aircraft Welder

56 Tr-3 TS 12909 L.O.
Kerry

 

[gsalt57tr3]

I originally had Black interior and rail caps

I really like the tan better.

Note the return to the proper front grill...

 

[Aldwyn]

I donno... I dig it with the black interior!

 

[kc_doyle]

I like the black also.

 

[AweMan]

Wasn`t 57 the year Triumph changed the apron and grill? As I understand it, early 57`s had the small mouth apron then in late 57 they went to the exterior door handles and wide mouth apron and added the trunk handle along with the two extra lights on the rear. early 57`s had but one brake/tail light in the center where as the late ones had the brake lights incorporated in with the tail/turn signal lights. This is what I was told by other TR nuts I have met.
I do know for sure that some TR`s manufacture date and title date do not coinside. For instance my TR-3 was manufactured in 1956 Yet it is titled as a 1957.
Kerry
56 TR-3 TS 12909 L.O.
P.S. I was thinking red for my car but I am also considering a deep forrest green with tan interior. . I am deffinatley NOT painting it the original Ivory {ICK ICK ICK}