Opinion please.. kinda OT and OT

Page 2 of 3  
"Robatoy" wrote:

Cosmetics are strictly small potatoes compared to skin care.
Can still remember buying a lipstick for $1.50, selling for $15.00 and it was not worth wasting time selling them. That was almost 20 years ago.
I'm with you, soap and water is the best cosmetic going.
As far as Scotch is concerned, if it's 86 proof, I'm good to go.
Vodka needs to be 100 proof or else it makes lousy martinis.
I'm not much for either whiskey or bourbon, but when it comes to sippin liquor, Wild Turkey and Rebel Yell are tough to beat.
Won't touch gin.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ahh - those repeatable, scientific tests that inconveniently intrude on cherished beliefs. The fear that one might have wasted many thousands of dollars might also be a factor. The really difficult task is to actually change minds, instead of having the "Golden Ears" (or whomever) walk away muttering about unfair test conditions, bias, or trickery. The Bob Carver vs. Stereophile challenge/tests ended up in nasty litigation.
You mentioned scotch - the wine industry also has its share of "Golden Calves". There's still a lot of money made peddling snake oil.
I do not imagine you being either reticent or unprepared. -- JeffB remove no.spam. to email
Robatoy wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Last time I heard anything from Anthony Cordesman was when he was waxing eloquently about the 'upside' of using depleted uranium in artillery shells.
Who can forget Bob Carver? Or Harry Pearson? "Life is a minestrone, Bob!"
I am oh-so glad that all this is oh-so yesterday.
"The bass was a bit plummy, but not in chocolate-y way. The mids were decidedly gravelly" cooed Pearson whilst tugging on his flight engineer's suit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

"What? You can't hear that artifact of the cone material?" <G>
You are so right.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As long as it is linear crystal oxygen free.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:25:22 -0800 (PST), Robatoy

I put Dr. Bose at the top.
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

placed well. Their little radio is kinda cool insofar that it sounds bigger than it is, but the price is totally ridiculous. That thing could sell for a quarter of the price and they'd still make out like bandits. The noise canceling headphones also have some merit, but again, stupid money.
But, if it is all legal if you can get away with it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

At least Bose offers a great money back guarantee.
I had a set of the QC2's that I returned, based on a value to performance. They were very underwhelming, but I didn't get any push back when I brought them back for a full refund.
However, you'd have to shoot me to take my Bose Aviation headset away. Stupid money, but I still think they were worth it over every other set I've flown with.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I recently had a problem with 901s from the 70's. I called Bose to find a repair center. They asked me to describe the problem and they immediately knew that it was caused by an adhesive breaking down. They sent me a new pair, along with prepaid returning shipping.
How is that for stupid money?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...

Still sound like crap.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maybe true, but what other audio companies would have sent free replacements, including shipping, on a product that is 30 years old?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

18 x $ 2.00 = $ 36.00... I suppose that's not too bad for PR, considering the money they made on that profit in the last 30 years is probably thousands.
Sorry, I don't have a kind word for them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

18 x $ 2.00 = $ 36.00... I suppose that's not too bad for PR, considering the money they made on that profit in the last 30 years is probably thousands.
Sorry, I don't have a kind word for them.
I am confused. What does "18 x $ 2.00 = $ 36.00" mean?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Honestly, I think that you'll do better with leaving the 3 minute option off the table. I've learned that if you give people to many options, often they'll get into some kind of decision gridlock and can't make up their mind. You're trying to sell them a product, and they're not going to sit around making a decision every 3 minutes while your computer churns away at fancy ass digital effects.
Keep it simple, keep it quick, and when everything's ready to go, you can fancy it up if you want. In this particular case, you're considering more than tripling your presentation length for an extremely marginal improvement in something that is, at best, a tangent to your overall presentation.
Just use the quick and dirty option and don't use the other one unless you're preparing for the meeting, and want your bid to stand out a little bit. The extra time may pay off, and it doesn't waste the customer's time, only yours.
-Nathan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

The one on the right has too low gamma and/or contrast and saturation. When tweaked to more closely resemble the one on the left the painted wall has considerably more detail than the left.
As is, I'd use the one on the left. I still would even if the one on the right is fixed.
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The one on the right looks better to me ... and I couldn't figure out why until I looked closely at the sink base on both. The one on the right has the correct shadowing, the one on the left looks overexposed. While the color on the left is more saturated, you seem to be losing contrast, which is part of what a rendering needs to give you.
Hope this helps,
Rick

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:45:31 -0800 (PST), Robatoy

First glance, the one on the left, however, if your potential client is going to sit and study the plan, the right picture is much more realistic and seems to "settle" in the mind better.
Frank
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote

Strictly personal preference, for visual appeal with a decidedly un-technical eye, is the one on the right.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Swingman" wrote in message

Went back and took another look in an attempt to quantify the "why" of my above.
Providing I assume correctly that the subject/focal point is supposed to be the pedestal sink, and not the checkerboard wall, the increased contrast of the checkerboard wall in the background on the left frame definitely pulls my eye away from the pedestal ... this despite the fact that the pedestal in the left frame has a sharper focus on this monitor.
Muddled or not, that's my story and I'm sticking to it ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.