What Mustang Should I Purchase?

[GreyDiesel]

Sorry, even though I like this image, it does not appear to me to be what I know and understand HDR to be. HDR should, in my opinion, just extend the tonal ranges in photos.

I understand this image does not look like what you may be accustomed to with HDR, but it is hard for me to avoid getting offended when you keep insisting it is not HDR. HDR opens whole new realms of a photography previously impossible. Look at the image. It has detail in the clouds, the dirt, the paint, the sky. There is no part of the image that does not have detail because it was outside of the range of exposure. That right there should tell you this is an HDR image, and not possible with anything other than HDR. It might be best to think of it as an image that has been severely dodged and burned. Generally, you can only get away with a little bit of dodging and burning because there is only so much range in your image, but with HDR, you can dodge and burn the crap out of an image because you do have all that info contained within the file. Furthermore, as I explained, most of the tones have been pushed toward the black, toward Zones 0,I,II,&III (if you prefer the Zone System), instead of Zones IV,V,VI,&VII as would be the more normal (realistic looking) thing to do.

 

[GreyDiesel]

Amen to side jobs! Are you full-time photographer or part time?

I do a great deal of engine tuning on the weekends to pay for my fun times.

Full time. I did not mean to imply that my photography work is a side job. I mean, my main job pays for my mortgage and my mods. I may just have to work extra hard to afford the mods.

 

[PSYKOSTEVO]

I still like your picture. I'm posting it on another car forum. I like how it looks like it's in 3D.

 

[GreyDiesel]

Brilliant, yes please post it wherever you think is appropriate. I would love to get more work doing these types of HDRs. Right now, it is just the standard photography that pays the bills.

 

[stanmckinney]

I did not mean to offend. With a photojournalism background, I have a different view of photography, perhaps. HDR to me was intended to more accurately reproduce reality.
I like your image. But it is not what I would want my students to turn in as reality.
Some people like modified Mustangs, some like original. There is room for all tastes whether it is cars or photos. Again, I like the image. It is not what I normally consider as HDR. That is all I intended to say.

 

[PSYKOSTEVO]

Brilliant, yes please post it wherever you think is appropriate. I would love to get more work doing these types of HDRs. Right now, it is just the standard photography that pays the bills.

What do you need to be able to make a photo look something like that?

Say I take a pic of my car. What next?

 

[GreyDiesel]

okay, point taken, thanks for the reply. I would agree this is not realistic in the least.

 

[GreyDiesel]

What do you need to be able to make a photo look something like that?

Say I take a pic of my car. What next?

Actually, Stans post on how to do an HDR summed it up quite well. You need to take at least 3 photos. One underexposed by at least one stop, one normal, and one overexposed by at least one stop. (That would be EV+1, normal, and EV-1 on your camera settings. Some cameras will not have this option, or it may be buryed in the nested menus). Try to hold very still while taking the photos, or use your cameras bracketing mode if youve got it. Or.. you can also use a tripod which is probably the best solution. The point is, the photos have to be layered on top of one another, and look the same, so there cant be any difference in their perspectives.


Then open all three files in photoshop and "Merge to HDR". If you dont have photoshop, you can buy the PhotoMatix Pro software found here:

HDR photo software & plugin - Tone Mapping, Exposure Blending & HDR Imaging for photography

If you do have photoshop, just buy the plugin. Once the files are merged in photoshop, you use the plugin (Filter: PhotoMatix ToneMapping)and fiddle with the settings to get the look you want. This will take practice, but you get a preview of your image as your working on it, so you can see what your doing.

Finally, and this is key, drop it down to an 8bit image before you can save it as a jpg and put it on the web for all your friends and family to see.

 

[Five Oh Brian]

Are you saying that 280rwhp on the auto is close to 350bhp? How much % loss do the mustangs really have? I haven't seen any definite numbers on it.

The guy who tuned my GT after installing the supercharger told me that the industry wide accepted drivetrain loss is 15% for a late-model Mustang with manual trans, and 20% for a late-model Mustang with auto trans. I have heard that from many other sources, as well, including MM&FF magazine. That, indeed, means that an auto with 280 rwhp is making 350 hp at the engine.

By this same logic, a 100% bone stock Mustang GT (300 hp at the engine) would dyno 255 rwhp with a manual trans or 240 rwhp with an auto trans. That must be assuming a Mustang chassis dyno, which reads lower than the more common Dynojets out there. Mine put down 351 rwhp on a Mustang chassis dyno after the supercharger install, which equates to 439 hp at the engine given a 20% drivetrain loss.

Those that have dyno'd on both machines report about a 10% difference - wow! That means that a 100% bone stock Mustang GT on a dynojet would likely put down around 280 rwhp with a manual trans or about 264 rwhp with an automatic. I've looked over enough S197 GT dyno sheets from 100% stock Mustangs to support those numbers, and most people tend to use Dynojets. Mine would likely dyno around 386 rwhp on a Dynojet, which would equate to about 483 hp at the engine.

The only real measure of power is through simple calculations straight out of a physics textbook. You can measure rwhp if you know how much weight you've moved over a given distance at a given speed. A 1/4 mile timeslip and a trip to the scales will provide everything you need to calculate real world rwhp...

Take your trap speed in mph and divide by 244. Then take that amount and cube it (raise to the 3rd power). Then take that amount and multiply by the total weight of the car + driver. The answer is your real world rwhp. For example, a stock GT manual should trap about 103 mph and weigh about 3650 with a driver. That yields a calculated rwhp of 275. A stock GT automatic should trap about 100 mph and weigh about 3750 with a driver. That yields a calculated rwhp of 258.

And the beauty of the formula above is that if you've never been to the track with your newest mods (or ever at all), but have dyno #'s and the weight of your car, you can predict quite accurately what your trap speed should be. ET is harder to predict as driver skill and traction really mess with ET's, whereas trap speeds tend to be consistent regardless of driver error or tire spin (within reason, of course).

 

[Hoboattacker]

Dyno numbers are pointless. The ONLY thing that matters is your timeslip. ***** the dyno queens.

Also, getting a Cold Air Intake and not a tune is just dumb. Get the tune and not a CAI and you will understand why. The tune alone opens up around 25rwhp. The CAI just makes sure you get enough air to the motor for the new power you are making.