SI images

Got some more

So this one is obviously passing over a tree
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f2...ps1c52e8db.png

Here I am running down a rock bank
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f2...psa4966c33.png

This one beside all the obvious fish, it appears to be a tree in the water in the upper right corner
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f2...psdbfe0c16.png

This one has fish in it, but came out grainy when I transferred it.
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f2...psa88cb326.png

Any help on interpreting images is appreciated.

The shallower the water is the less contrast you need. Most of the time mine is set in the 55-64 range. Lowering the contrast takes away the washed out moonscape look.

http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/r...pslqenj1k6.png

Rickie

http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/r...psa6jfwupw.png

Rickie

Ricky
Where you say transition to hard bottom, it's also the beginning of a hill or up slope.
That would also create a stronger return. Correct?

I thought it was a drop off.

I was looking at it backwards

As the water column is also indicating getting shallower...I would say we're either coming up a rise or crossing a point ...

That brighter return can also be associated with that rise in the bottom by reflecting the sonar better than the surrounding flatter bottom...

Good catch guys...

Rickie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zummy

I thought it was a drop off.

---

It would be a drop off...but we were in the deeper water (history part of the screen is older data)...
Now we're coming up the slope into shallower water....(newest data at the top of the screen)...

Rickie

Yeah poor wording on my part. When I first saw it, I figured it was a finger of an old submerged ridge.

A ridge would be indicated by the water column starting to get deeper just on the other side but your on the right track zummy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justinp61

The shallower the water is the less contrast you need. Most of the time mine is set in the 55-64 range. Lowering the contrast takes away the washed out moonscape look.

---

so I tried lowering to contrast and in my opinion the picture got much worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zummy

so I tried lowering to contrast and in my opinion the picture got much worse.

---

It's all personal preference, settings that appeal to one person may be unacceptable to another. One thing I noticed it seems that screen shots are brighter on the computer than when you actually take them.

IMO the contrast is to high in this image.

http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/...61/shot2-1.png

A little better but still hot IMO.

http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/...pseda9f422.png

Almost there.

http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/...ps4a001b43.png

Pretty close.

http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/...ps0293b15a.png

It seems you are zooming in as well.
Are you merely cropping for the post?

A lot of info in those pics. Were you only adjusting the contrast.

No zooming or cropping. Images 1, 2 and 4 are kinda a time line, a progression in my learning and image preference. The first being one of the first images taken after getting my HDS 8 and LSS-1. As you can see over time I kept lowering the contrast to get rid of the white wash look. The third image is from the Touch 12, it was in auto and I was playing with the SS overlay.

In the third image, look at the top half. In the center brush the vertical piece on the left there appears to be (I think) two fish or maybe two limbs. Now look at the bottom half, the 2D with the DS overlay. There are two partial arches where the fish are. With all the talk about "chirp" and target separation, I think this shows what regular 2d is capable of.

Good stuff , well done