From owner-fsj-digest-at-digest.net Tue Aug 19 22:11:00 2008 From: fsj-digest fsj-digest Wednesday, August 20 2008 Volume 01 : Number 3156 Forum for Discussion of Full Sized SJ Series Jeeps Brian Colucci Digest Coordinator Contents: RE: fsj: CNG - possible alternative? Re: fsj: Re: OT: digital cameras Re: fsj: Re: OT: digital cameras Re: fsj: Re: OT: digital cameras fsj: Re: OT: Hate to do this, but a test email RE: fsj: RE: [db] the next stage... cameras FSJ Digest Home Page: http://www.digest.net/jeeps/fsj/ Send submissions to fsj-digest-at-digest.net Send administrative requests to fsj-digest-request-at-digest.net To unsubscribe, include the word unsubscribe by itself in the body of the message, unless you are sending the request from a different address than the one that appears on the list. Include the word help in a message to fsj-digest-request to get a list of other majordomo commands. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:01:57 -0700 From: Jim Blair Subject: RE: fsj: CNG - possible alternative? I used to do CNG and LPG conversions in Canada. CNG biggest drawback is storage and it takes a LARGE volume for a small amount of fuel (until they get liquid tanks that won't erupt, it's only in compressed gaseous form) I did a van for a buddy and with 3 huge tanks, he got 100 miles on a fillup (much cheaper fill though). LPG takes less space than CNG because it's liquid. Properly dialed in systems run super clean. When they stink, it usually means time for an adjustment. I bought the whole LPG system off an XJ for $100 (guy took it off because he made it into a rock crawler and figured the steel tanks would smash open on the rocks before a thinner gasoline tank would.) Jim Blair, Lynnwood, WA '87 Comanche, '83 Jeep J10, '84 Jeep J10 > Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:58:27 -0700 > From: john-at-wagoneers.com > To: xj-at-digest.net > CC: fsj-at-digest.net > Subject: fsj: CNG - possible alternative? > > keep up the research, will cc this to the fsj list... > > I know mr. blair has a fascination with the smelly alternative, propane... > the deodorizer they put in propane is made from onions, of which I'm > allergic, but as long as the propane is burnt I'm fine... > > might be a way of justifying keeping the '99 WJ. ;) > > and possibly adding a 4.7L V8 to Superdawg... > > john > > ----- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold > * SAVE FUEL use AMSOIL synthetics: http://wagoneers.com/AMSOIL * > * SAVE ELECTRICITY use Linux: http://johnmeister.com/tmcp.pdf * > http://wagoneers.com http://wagoneers.com/johns-vehicles.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Daugherty, Bill W (E F PR GN) wrote: > > # I have been researching compressed natural gas (CNG) as an alternative > # to that stinky and expensive gasoline. Have any of you guys on this > # message board tried it in an XJ? The closest thing I can find for a > # conversion kit is here.... > # http://ewsews.com/cngprices.html > # Kinda generic and pricey.... There are guesstimates that the equivalent > # price you are paying is $.85 per gallon of juice with this method.... > # Sounds great doesn't it....?? But wait ! Not so fast ! Unless you > # live close to a refueling station (and they are rare in most parts of > # the country) you need your own compressor to squeeze the puplic utility > # natural gas into the tanks... Figure on aroune 4-5 grand for that > # toy.... Still, it might make good sense in the long run..... Anybody > # got any experience with this stuff....??? > # > # Bill-93XJ > # > # > # -----Original Message----- > # From: owner-xj-at-digest.net [mailto:owner-xj-at-digest.net] On Behalf Of john > # Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 6:55 PM > # To: xj-at-digest.net > # Subject: Re: xj: What size bearing puller? > # > # did you find any info on randy's site on how to do it? > # > # you could contact their tech guys via their website, they're quite > # helpful... > # > # looks like I'm down one jeep... omega just sold on ebay... > # > # heading over to eastern washington later this week to get the 4" exhaust > # system > # for my '94 blazer with the 6.5L TD... turns out that Heath Diesel is > # building a Bonneville salt flat type '94 pickup with the same engine as > # mine > # to set a world speed record... shooting for 150 mph. with a STOCK 6.5L > # TD... > # > # We may end up keeping the WJ... it's the best jeep we've ever had... > # lots > # of miles, but the thing is amazing... too bad it runs on gasoline. ;) > # > # john > # > # ----- > # ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > # - > # Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold > # * SAVE FUEL use AMSOIL synthetics: http://wagoneers.com/AMSOIL * > # * SAVE ELECTRICITY use Linux: http://johnmeister.com/tmcp.pdf * > # http://wagoneers.com http://wagoneers.com/johns-vehicles.html > # ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > # - > # > # > # On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Stephen Rigley wrote: > # > # # heh, I was going to.. I rang a garage which replaced the snapped off > # rocker > # # post bolt in the head a few months ago.. they rang me back insisting > # that > # # I'd have to order a new hub for about 400USD.. "I have the parts fax > # here > # # in front of me bud" ... I told him I'd sort it myself ;-) I bought > # the > # # bearing and seal for 32e on ebay. > # # > # # hmm.. am thinking I might get away with a slide hammer + block of > # wood now.. > # # > # # Steve > # # > # # On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 6:42 PM, john wrote: > # # > # #> you're welcome... this kind of stuff I leave to shops with big > # tools and > # #> presses... > # #> the labor involved is quite reasonable usually... > # #> > # #> I've done a lot of wheel bearings with blocks of wood, old sockets, > # big > # #> hammers and > # #> c-clamps... I prefer to let the folks with the right tools do it > # now. :) > # #> > # #> john > # #> > # #> ----- > # #> > # ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > # - > # #> Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold > # #> http://wagoneers.com john's 6.2L GW: > # http://wagoneers.com/FSJ/Omega/ > # #> SAVE FUEL use AMSOIL Synthetics: http://wagoneers.com/AMSOIL > # #> > # ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > # - > # #> > # #> > # #> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Stephen Rigley wrote: > # #> > # #> # Thanks John! > # #> # > # #> # > # #> # On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 6:17 PM, john > # wrote: > # #> # > # #> #> Steve, > # #> #> > # #> #> try randy's website, he's got info and tools/kits available: > # #> #> http://www.ringpinion.com/HowTo.aspx > # #> #> > # #> #> http://www.ringpinion.com/FAQ.aspx > # #> #> > # #> #> john > # #> #> > # #> #> ----- > # #> #> > # #> > # ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > # - > # #> #> Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they > # mold > # #> #> http://wagoneers.com john's 6.2L GW: > # #> http://wagoneers.com/FSJ/Omega/ > # #> #> SAVE FUEL use AMSOIL Synthetics: > # http://wagoneers.com/AMSOIL > # #> #> > # #> > # ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > # - > # #> #> > # #> #> > # #> #> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Stephen Rigley wrote: > # #> #> > # #> #> # Hi, > # #> #> # > # #> #> # I'm still walking around the Jeep with tools in my hands > # but > # #> haven't > # #> #> changed > # #> #> # the rear pass wheel bearing yet... "why?" I hear you ask.. > # #> #> # > # #> #> # A) I'm nervous as I haven't done a bearing before > # #> #> # and > # #> #> # B) I haven't got a bearing puller... > # #> #> # > # #> #> # So.. having started researching them.. I discover there are > # many > # #> sizes.. > # #> #> so > # #> #> # .. > # #> #> # > # #> #> # A) which do I need for this application.. > # #> #> # (something like this? http://tinyurl.com/6kr5j9 ) > # #> #> # B) I get how the legs attach internally.. but where is the > # leverage > # #> #> coming > # #> #> # from? > # #> #> # > # #> #> # Thanks > # #> #> # Steve > # #> #> # > # #> # > # # > # _________________________________________________________________ Talk to your Yahoo! Friends via Windows Live Messenger. Find out how. http://www.windowslive.com/explore/messenger?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger_yaho o_082008 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:08:45 CDT From: Dan Black Subject: Re: fsj: Re: OT: digital cameras Warning: Long rant. It's labeled "OT" already, so proceed at your own risk. Part of the reason I was willing to write this was because I very well might use clips of it as the start of a tutorial for friends... someday. john said: {- photoshop is NOT photography... I completely disagree on this one. And I'd bet heavily that a large majority of modern professionals would also disagree. Photography involves the entire development of the photo, including post-processing. In the film days, there were various tricks you could do in the darkroom, and Kodak and others eventually were able to automate much of it -- but whether you realized it or not, the snapshots you picked up after developing were usually tweaked, one way or another. (And if you're still using film, it's more true today than ever.) In modern times, if you're using jpg mode on your camera, it's doing similar tricks with digital processing. If you're a raw snob (like I admit to be), you're telling the camera to NOT do any of that processing, because you think you can do a better job yourself. Beyond even the standard automated post-processing, though, there are frequently a lot of things you can do to make photos look better (whether you're trying for more realistic or less). {- if you have to rely on photoshop then you are not in control of your camera. {- ;) Sometimes. Often, even. But it could simply mean you aren't in control of the _environment_ -- and/or you can't afford equipment that is more appropriate for the conditions. For outdoor, broad daylight, scenic shots, when I take a good shot, it typically takes me about 5min (maybe 10) to adjust everything the way I want it. (It would be a bit faster if I had a computer that was less than six years old, and bottom-of-the-line at the time!) I usually just do minor tweaks to the color/light balance, which jpg mode on the camera would have done somewhat, but I can still often do better. Maybe a slight sharpening, then crop and resize for whatever medium I'm going for. As the light fades, you have to use a larger aperture to avoid using the flash (which I avoid whenever possible), but larger apertures are usually not as sharp as the F9-F11 range for most lenses, so then I'll usually do a little bit of sharpening. (Not just the plain "sharpen" filter, which doesn't do a very good job at all; you have to learn to use the unsharp mask -- which is named that, actually, because of the method it mimics from darkroom film processing tricks -- more evidence that professionals have been relying on post-processing for decades!) But sometimes conditions are... less ideal. I took pics at a friend's wedding reception a couple months ago, and of course it was in a mood-lit (read "dark") reception hall (the basement of a church, though nicely done). Thus, I had to resort to using the flash. (I don't think they make a lens with the telephoto range I was using and the aperture I would've needed to avoid the flash, and probably not at _any_ focal length with that aperture for my camera, and _definitely_ not in the price range of anybody on this list.) Editing pictures from that batch has been taking about 20-30min per picture, and I've spent 45-60min on some individual photos. Part of that is extra effort because I want to make sure pics they'll want to keep from their wedding day are the best possible, but it's also because of the environment and equipment. I haven't yet bought an external flash or diffuser, which would've helped. Besides the color/light balance, I've been taking out redeye, removing "blemishes", selective sharpening (eyes, jewelry -- especially the wedding ring), slightly blurring the graininess in the poorly-lit background, and even taking the glare off people's faces (which would've been less of a problem with a better flash and diffuser). In most of these, I was in perfect control of the camera, but I was limited by equipment and environment. {- I use Lview Pro to adjust the gamma/brightness, rarely... and maybe to crop, {- both of which indicate I didn't have control of the camera... I must RT {- M. ;) Well, cameras _don't_ always get the right color/light balance, and even if you know how to adjust for each shot, you don't have time to do that (with test shots and grey cards and such) if you have any subject other than an inanimate object in an indoor studio. As for cropping, again, even your old film shots were typically cropped by the film developers. Ever notice that 3x5 and 4x6 and 8x10 are _not_ the same aspect ratios? Yeah, well, unlike some people with their HDTVs, I believe most film developers usually cropped rather than cramming and stretching. I typically try to get a bit more in my shots than I actually want to use in the end, because it gives me room to crop a bit -- and rotate a bit when I'm _not_ "in control" and haven't held the camera straight. (Most professionals will tell you to do this, too, but that one was easy enough to figure out myself.) But even ignoring that, I read something just the other day where a professional was saying that one tip (of many) to taking good photos (with print in mind, but even applies to web pages or screen backgrounds) is to crop it. He pointed out that your camera probably only has one aspect ratio -- usually 3:2 for SLRs, sometimes 4:3 for P&S - -- and not every subject is going to fit optimally in that aspect ratio. So pad the sides and crop it to what makes the picture look best. (Or, in my case, since custom frames are expensive, I've usually started from the other end: I still intentionally get extra stuff around the subject in my shots, and then I crop it to the right aspect ratio for a cheaper ready-made frame. For large sizes, it's the difference between a $20-60 frame and a $110-250+ frame.) ..... Besides all that, there's cloning/healing out stuff... The blemishes I mentioned earlier, or putting together the best parts of a few group shots (which I did for a family picture at another wedding a couple years ago -- took about two hours to clone the best shot of a 3-year-old into the best shot of everyone else), or just taking stray leaves or sticks or birds or bugs or cars out of various nature shots. Heh, I still remember when they made a big deal out of someone airbrushing out a walkie-talkie antenna from a shot of a security guy helping an injured runner at the Olympics or something -- from the angle of the picture, the antenna appeared to be jutting out of the runner's chin. (They were making a big deal out of modern editing technology, not saying it shouldn't have been done because it wasn't "realistic".) Must've been the mid-'90s, because I remember I was already using Photoshop's clone tool all the time and thinking, "Well, duh, _I_ can do that, very easily. They're just finding out about that?" Not too long after that, people taking high school senior pictures discovered it, and for a few years it was the rage to edit out the blocks they were sitting on, so, wow!, they're floating! (*Yawn.*) These days, you'll be hard-pressed to find any picture of a model or other celeb in a magazine that hasn't had major touch-up. (Except in gossip rags where they _try_ to make the celebs look bad -- and even then, they might be using it for the opposite effect!) Then there's other major editing, to get "artistic" pics: sepia tones, vignetting, adding film grain, selective (de)saturation, selective blurring, or various completely unrealistic filters or other tricks (which aren't _supposed_ to look realistic, but can still look nice, which is all that matters in most cases). ..... It's all about making the best photo you can -- the way you _want_ it to look, and the way you want to remember it. (If you don't believe me, let's ask the bride which version she prefers. ;) ) Basically, outside a studio, you usually have to get the shot NOW and worry about details later. The better technical photographer you are, the less work there will be to do later, and the more potential each shot will have... but you will still rarely have a photo that doesn't benefit from any Photoshop work at all. ..... Oh, and hey, why not do a quick example? I'll take one of your pics: http://wagoneers.com/fotos/SouthDakota_2006/WJ-lightning.jpg Great pic to begin with... but let's do a quick Photoshop tweak: http://dsblack.public.iastate.edu/temp-wj/ Not a major change, but literally two minutes of work made it a better photo, IMO. It took me longer to bounce the files among computers or to set up the web page (and I had already written the page and scripts for another comparison) than to do the Photoshop tweaks. Since you sell things -- like that very vehicle -- on eBay, I'd think you'd want it to look as good as possible (without doing anything dishonest, like "fixing" dents and rust, of course). ..... So there's my long rant for today (and hopefully the start of a good article sometime). If you swear against Photoshop -- well, chances are, you just haven't used it enough and don't understand it -- but your pictures probably won't be as good as they _could_ be. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nobody likes a blonde in a hamster ball. -- Veronica - -------------- Dan Black ------------------------- dan-at-black.org -------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:20:13 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: Re: fsj: Re: OT: digital cameras nice. what did you do to the image? anything beyond gamma? ----- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold * SAVE FUEL use AMSOIL synthetics: http://wagoneers.com/AMSOIL * * SAVE ELECTRICITY use Linux: http://johnmeister.com/tmcp.pdf * http://wagoneers.com http://wagoneers.com/johns-vehicles.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Dan Black wrote: # Warning: Long rant. # It's labeled "OT" already, so proceed at your own risk. # ..... # # Oh, and hey, why not do a quick example? I'll take one of your pics: # http://wagoneers.com/fotos/SouthDakota_2006/WJ-lightning.jpg # # Great pic to begin with... but let's do a quick Photoshop tweak: # http://dsblack.public.iastate.edu/temp-wj/ # # Not a major change, but literally two minutes of work made it a better # photo, IMO. It took me longer to bounce the files among computers or to # set up the web page (and I had already written the page and scripts for # another comparison) than to do the Photoshop tweaks. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:38:52 CDT From: Dan Black Subject: Re: fsj: Re: OT: digital cameras john said: {- what did you do to the image? anything beyond gamma? Umm, there are a few ways to change color/light balance, but I don't remember seeing anything actually labeled "gamma" in Photoshop. (I've seen it in other programs, like Irfanview, so I know what you're talking about, but I haven't done much with "gamma" tools, especially recently.) For basic tweaking -- like this one, or many of my outdoor daylight shots -- I don't even think much about what I do, because I do a lot of it automatically. I don't even remember the modifier keys for some of the keyboard shortcuts -- my fingers just hit keys and they work. In this case, I think I did both "auto levels" and "auto color" -- which were about the same in this case, but together were _very_ slightly better than one or the other alone. (BTW, those often get less reliable in extreme light/color outside, or in many cases inside, hence the need for manual tweaking.) Then I went into color "levels" manually and tweaked a couple channels -- I think I brightened the brighter levels (so lowered the "255" in input levels; RGB together) and darkened the darker bits (increased the "0" in input levels), and increased the darker greens (raised the "0" in output levels on the green channel). And I did a slight sharpening (filter -> sharpen -> unsharp mask: 100% / 0.5 pixels / 2 levels -- those settings vary with the quality of the picture and the resolution). Another way to mess with the RGB color stuff is color "curves", which I used to use a lot, but gradually switched to "levels" a few years ago. Probably because it was easier to manage using just the keyboard. But you'll find professionals who use one, the other, or both. I noticed that the auto-levels/auto-color (both under "image" -> "adjustments", btw) kind of diminished the fog, which is actually a nice component of the image. But in this case, I thought it did a good job of making the trees and peaks on the left clearer, while still leaving the fog between the hills. (Not sure what to call them; they're too big and sharp for hills, but not big enough to be separate mountains... Anyway, those things.) I'd also use the healing brush to take the red reflection flares off the fenders right behind the wheel wells, but I was actually running Photoshop on a remote machine, and I can't figure out how to alt-click to set the source point... Alt-clicking through the remote desktop program thinks I'm alt-dragging, which moves the entire desktop window - -- i.e., Photoshop never sees my alt-click. At home, that would add another 30sec of work to clone those out. ;) Now, start with the original, especially the raw version, and spend 5-10 minutes, and I could probably make it look just a little bit better. ;) That's a nice enough photo that it wouldn't make much more difference, especially for a smaller web version, but if you wanted to have it professionally printed at poster size (or even 8x10), it's usually worth the extra 5-10min before spending actual dollars to print it out. (I also have one of my monitors calibrated very nicely, so when I do the colors and levels on there, it really does come out just like that in print. (My other monitor is intentionally set too bright, so I can see every level of brightness during fades for video editing.)) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is no "off" switch on a tiger. - -------------- Dan Black ------------------------- dan-at-black.org -------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:54:21 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: fsj: Re: OT: Hate to do this, but a test email I only got this once... john ----- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold * SAVE FUEL use AMSOIL synthetics: http://wagoneers.com/AMSOIL * * SAVE ELECTRICITY use Linux: http://johnmeister.com/tmcp.pdf * http://wagoneers.com http://wagoneers.com/johns-vehicles.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Nathaniel Butts wrote: # Hate to do this in public and all, but I need to see if fsj-at-digest.net is accepting my emails or not. If not, I'm afraid it could be my sendmail masquerading the hostname that is doing it :/ # # A quick radiocheck would be appreciated if you see this. # # Thanks, # # Nathan Butts # 85 GW, 360, 727, 229, 80467 # ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:02:11 -0700 From: Jim Blair Subject: RE: fsj: RE: [db] the next stage... cameras Can't hold onto it to aim while driving. It's a $1,000 fine now (Yes, big brother IS watching!) Jim Blair, Lynnwood, WA '87 Comanche, '83 Jeep J10, '84 Jeep J10 > Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:45:30 -0700 > From: john-at-wagoneers.com > To: carnuck-at-hotmail.com > CC: mbalea-at-hotmail.com; fsj-at-digest.net; xj-at-digest.net > Subject: RE: fsj: RE: [db] the next stage... cameras > > I like my treos, but their not flip phones... > > I have yet to see a camera phone that can take a decent picture... your best > bet is to buy a nice Digital camera... Panasonic/Lumix, Olympus, both make nice > units... lots of options, ALL better than a cell phone camera. :) > > john > > ----- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold > http://wagoneers.com john's 6.2L GW: http://wagoneers.com/FSJ/Omega/ > SAVE FUEL use AMSOIL Synthetics: http://wagoneers.com/AMSOIL > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Jim Blair wrote: > > # > # And now for something completely different (sort of a nod to MP) > # > # I'm looking to replace my aged Samsung cellphone. It takes pictures, but has gotten to the point I can't download them anymore. (I'd like to have mini-movie option anyways) Going Bluetooth (since we are now handsfree by law here) I prefer a flip phone (saves the screen when I forget I have it in my pocket), but internet capable and I/R keyboard compatible would be best. > # I'd also like to get an earpiece with built in camera (buddy of mine who was in Iraq showed me the military version) as I tend to see some unbelieveable stuff on the highways and want proof. (I tried a hand held camera but it was too shaky and didn't show the semi going sideways across the highway because of the idiot that cut him off and locked his ebrake to initiate a "hit" to collect insurance) > # Saw a bear that was hit by a truck yesterday. Didn't have any way to put it down but fortunately it didn't thrash around too long. > # > # _________________________________________________________________ > # See what people are saying about Windows Live. Check out featured posts. > # http://www.windowslive.com/connect?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_connect2_082008 _________________________________________________________________ Get thousands of games on your PC, your mobile phone, and the web with Windows.. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108588800/direct/01/ ------------------------------ End of fsj-digest V1 #3156 **************************