1197 Pics

[jemyers10lber]

This is my first attempt at putting some pics up so bear with me!


















Modified by jemyers10lber at 8:45 AM 7/30/2010

[jemyers10lber]

didn't work. Someone please explain it again. Apparently I can't do it.

[dward51]

If you are using photobucket, under the image thumbnail there is a window with a few different code options. Click on the bottom one (should be the "IMG" code) and copy this to you clipboard and then paste directly in the post. It should already have the "[img]" and "[/img]" commands added in front of and behind the url link when you paste it (no need to click on the image icon on the BBC post reply page).

Just get the code and then edit your original post.

[jemyers10lber]

Thanks!

[Doug Vahrenberg]

THose are pretty good images for Day 1 really like what your finding!

[T Mike]

<table width="90%" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 align=center><tr><td>Quote, originally posted by Doug Vahrenberg &raquo;</td></tr><tr><td class="quote">THose are pretty good images for Day 1 really like what your finding!

</td></tr></table>

Day 1 on the water?? I'm impressed!! Your durn near there!!

[jemyers10lber]

Do you guys have any advice on my settings to make the pics better. I believe it is the 3rd pic, but it is an old cellar on the lake I live by. I'm going to get a good image of it on the down imaging and post it too.

[T Mike]

Honestly Jeremy what looks good to me might not look good to Doug so the old saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As long as you can decipher what you are seeing thats all that matters. Granted if I am taking "internet" images I try to be more anal but in your images to make them "perfect" would be a simple up or down in sensitivity. Everything else is there. I'm fixing to post a bunch of images here in a sec that are not perfect images but you will be able to decipher what you are seeing on the screen. The fishing was a fire drill so I didn't take the time to drill everything down pat.

The 1st 2 images are whited out. A little too much sensitivity. Same for the 3rd one from the bottom. In additon to Dougs comments below keep this in mind. The wider your SI beams are the less detail you will get and the smaller the object will appear. The shorter your beams the more detail and bigger the object will appear. For my water a happy beam width is 125ft.
Mike

[Doug Vahrenberg]

If your bank to bank I would reduce area of coverage to make the data larger only thing I really see. Instead of covering 150 to each side shoot 100' and you will get all the water data and less land in the images in these narrow passages and you will increase the size of the data.