TVR Sagaris pics

[ehasler]

I took the 1Ds II out for a spin on Sunday, and these two are a couple of the pics I got.

Still not 100% happy with the results from converting from RAW, but I'm getting there

[kojak]

Great pics. Great car.

[Stin Hambo]

1920 X 1200?

[beano500]

Nice shots (not sure what you're not happy about, it all gets a bit subjective in the final analysis, mind you my screen's not calibrated as well as some, I bet)

Far more photogenic than the black one at RG - not an easy thing to photo in bright sunlight. Would have been nice to whisk it off for a drive and to find a better location (might have taken a couple of hundred miles mind )

Reckon it's quite photogenic in that there pastel lemon.....


Bit "girlie" for you after a black one?

[ehasler]

beano500 said:

Reckon it's quite photogenic in that there pastel lemon..... Bit "girlie" for you after a black one?

It's actually Midas Gold, and unfortunately it's not mine



>> Edited by ehasler on Tuesday 15th March 08:14

[BrianTheYank]

Is it just me, or does the sagaris look very dissapointing from those pics? The 3/4 shows that the back half is basically that of a T350, and the new hood and such looks a lot less menacing than that of the concept Sagaris.

Hopefully it looks better in the flesh.

[beano500]

BrianTheYank said:

The 3/4 shows that the back half is basically that of a T350...

Well that's interesting. Reserving my judgement on this question, but all I overheard everytime I walked past the Sage at RG on Sunday was "...looks like a T350 with...", "...T350 this...","...it's just a..." et cetera. So you're not alone!

[ehasler]

beano500 said:

BrianTheYank said: The 3/4 shows that the back half is basically that of a T350... Well that's interesting. Reserving my judgement on this question, but all I overheard everytime I walked past the Sage at RG on Sunday was "...looks like a T350 with...", "...T350 this...","...it's just a..." et cetera. So you're not alone!

Not surprising really considering it's basically a wide track T350 with a few bodywork tweaks. Some of the changes are under the skin though, so it's not just a "Max Power T350".

[dcw@pr]

I don't really want a TVR - until I saw these pics. yum. does it have the funny perspex spolier?

those are good watermarks you have put on, I didn't even notice it when I first saw them yesterday, or did you put them on at a later time?

[ehasler]

I put them on about 5 minutes ago

[dcw@pr]

ehasler said:

I put them on about 5 minutes ago

well they are pretty decent ones, unobtrusive and effective - could be removed quite easily from the 2nd pic, but i wouldn't fancy having to do the first!

[dcw@pr]

sorry, I was bored

[dcw@pr]

that's really odd. the photo I just posted has a definate green hue to it which your ones don't. When I save mine back from the web and open in PS it looks correct, but when I open it in the browser it has the caste again. They all have sRGB profile embedded. I'm confused

edit - seems to be OK in Windows, must be a Safari thing

>> Edited by dcw@pr on Wednesday 16th March 23:39

[RickApple]

I reckon it needs some deeper side skirts and some sort of rear venturi; the front is so low that in contrast the rest looks somehow tacked on.

[ehasler]

dcw@pr said:

ehasler said: I put them on about 5 minutes ago well they are pretty decent ones, unobtrusive and effective - could be removed quite easily from the 2nd pic, but i wouldn't fancy having to do the first!

It's a fine line I guess between making them too hard to remove and them being too intrusive.

They're only 750 px wide, so even if someone removes the watermark, they won't be able to do too much with them...

[cliff123]

Why copyright these pics? Though fine, they're hardly pictures which people are going to download and print posters of for commercial gains. I understand why you might do this with commercial images but seems a little odd here, IMHO. You know your profile pic doesnt have a copyright on it.

[ehasler]

cliff123 said:

Why copyright these pics? Though fine, they're hardly pictures which people are going to download and print posters of for commercial gains. I understand why you might do this with commercial images but seems a little odd here, IMHO. You know your profile pic doesnt have a copyright on it.

Because you never know where these images will be used, and some people do download them for their own use. Having spent a large amount of money and time on my photography, I mark my images now to a) ensure that if anyone does want to use one of my images they contact me first for an unmarked version and b) if it is used elsewhere, I am credited for it.

I've had problems in the past when images of mine have been used uncredited and without my permission, hence the watermarks on these.

[_Dobbo_]

Indeed, checking my web server logs shows that images I have posted here and on my site have showed up all over the place on the internet. People can and do nick your images and post them up all over the web.

[custardtart]

Also, I guess that most people only have photography as an interest but if you were wanting to move into it full time then it makes sense to watermark images now even if they're not really ones you would consider selling at the moment.
Ed, I think yours are quite subtle and don't spoil the shot too much.
Having said all that it would be a shame if the time comes when we can't look at an image on t'internet without a watermark on it - F1 babes.com just wouldn't be the same!