lol... post the word "white" enough times, and this is what the ad bot throws up:

Those are sexyteeth.

Let me guess...you own a E36 BMW?

hrm....

Marital Aid Vagina Silicone Oversized


Anything?

Yepp. Both me and ItBeStrider drive E36 sedans.

From what i know.. that is something you might need to ask leader. But the current bb is one of those external bearing ones, dont know the specifics but so far im enjoying it, its a very direct feel with no play like my old bottom bracket.

The Crank right now is a feeler type thing right now.. so if you guys like it you should let them know, and to my understanding the price would be very reasonable for crankset and bottom bracket.

too many doors, otherwise hotttt

E30's are my fav, more specifically the evo3 m3

Sweet spost on the purp.
Didnt know Leader made external BBs. How much with crank?

I guess the white does look white, but the whole picture is off. It can easily be corrected if shot raw or even just in camera. how many of you are photographers?

Very nice! I could tell from the clear corners you had on the work bench and the Mann Filters.

As a fellow BMW freak, I own a e46 330i, e39 540i, and 2002tii myself all manual of course.

blue one is rad.

did you really have to quote that string of photos?

Those 725s really look great.

does purple and yellow sound like a horrible idea?

The bike would look like it had a theme going on.

awww its the lakers colors hahahah

Didn't have to but I did anyways .

i am. you could just pull it up in ps and click auto color and auto levels if you wanted to be really lazy.

Yeah you could do that too. What do you shoot with? Can I see some of your work? Here's some of mine. Http://www.flickr.com/alas26

I'd go with raw, I don't trust in-camera color correction.

If it ain't RAW it's wrong.

or if you are SMART have a GOOD camera you can preset your whitebalance because you always carry one of these with you:

https://www.amazon.com/WhiBal-White-B.../dp/B000ARHJPW

Shooting in RAW is for people who print big(feet big) pro quality photos where they need to do optimization later and/or have the time to extend their post processing workload from any shoot from a matter of minutes to days. If you're posting pictures on the internet and shoot in raw you either can't use your equipment or don't have an SLR that is meant for anyone other than soccer moms... and even a lot of soccer moms are better photographers than people who shoot in raw because they are worried about getting the wb wrong. if you're in changing whitebalance conditions(cloudy days with patches of sun constantly moving overhead, buildings with lots of rooms to shoot in that have different light sources, a disco...) then raw is a good choice but other than that it's the 'penny wise dollar foolish' approach to whitebalance. you either balance the shot in the camera or you shoot in raw, make unnecessarily large files, extend your processing times tenfold, and decrease productivity. real, successful pros don't simply 'shoot in raw to worry about wb later.' they weigh that approach with the time it takes to adjust whitebalance manually after the opportunity to preset has passed.

Also included in the exempt-from-my-criticism bunch are photojournalists who don't have time to whip out a wb card before they need to make a shot all of the time.

Shooting raw gives you the most options to your picture. To each their own, but your criticism is pretty ignorant. I shoot raw and adjust white balance if needed. It's usually not necessary with my type of work, but if I'm not using off camera lighting I do it anyway. If I can, at least.

P.s. whoever pays 30 bucks for a white/grey card is a tool. Just a little criticism from yours truely. You can make that for free, and yes, I have.

yes.

no.