![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
Why put all the effort into the description and then put 10 rubbish pictures in the listing
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![Think :-k](./images/smilies/eusa_think.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
I am not trying to say this is a bad car, just that the pictures are rubbish.
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1989-TOYOTA-AW11- ... .m14.l1318
Moderators: IMOC Moderators, IMOC Committee Members
waynestoyotamr2 wrote:Image Replaced With URL For Quote
![]()
http://i12.ebayimg.com/02/i/000/fa/4d/78c5_1.JPG
Gotta love that pic!
Especially when asking£3500 for the car!
waynestoyotamr2 wrote:
Especially when asking£3500 for the car!
kevin..in wrote:normaly digital photography makes cars look much better than they actually are
these clearly(no pun intended!!) make the car look worse than it obviously is
even through the blur you can see all the pinstripes are present on this one, would have to be special to ask£3K plus though
coverco wrote:kevin..in wrote:normaly digital photography makes cars look much better than they actually are
these clearly(no pun intended!!) make the car look worse than it obviously is
even through the blur you can see all the pinstripes are present on this one, would have to be special to ask£3K plus though
I think my eyesight must be going, I can not tell if all the pinstripes are there from those pictures, I can't even tell what the registration is![]()
![]()
I would love to know what he used to photgraph the car, even my first digital camera which was VGA or 0.3 Megapixels took better pictures than those![]()
pinklady wrote:HhmmPhone camera me thinks
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
jamiesi wrote:pinklady wrote:HhmmPhone camera me thinks
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
must be one of the first camera phones ever to come out if they turned out like that the pictures remind me of my sony ericsson t68 which was back in the 90's![]()
the worst thing about it hes been selling on ebay since 2001 with a 100% feedback score you would think he has a good quality camera to go with that
OwenK wrote:This one was pretty poor:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ... TQ:GB:1123
I emailed and asked him for some bigger pictures.
.
.
he sent me the same ones again.
He wants
£4,000 for it.
Erm, for that sort of money, cant you take the time to borrow a camera that takes pictures bigger than my fingernail?
Sharpfish wrote:
The pics are that bad it looks more like it's intentional(put in photoshop and gaussian filter applied) either to obscure the defects, the colour fade
(if it has it???), or the number plates.
.
.
if the later then it may have been tempting to blur the whole set of pics to make it look more like just a bad set of pictures.
![]()
kevin..in wrote:Sharpfish wrote:
The pics are that bad it looks more like it's intentional(put in photoshop and gaussian filter applied) either to obscure the defects, the colour fade
(if it has it???), or the number plates.
.
.
if the later then it may have been tempting to blur the whole set of pics to make it look more like just a bad set of pictures.
![]()
no they are just taken with a crap camera/phone
look at the engine bay one
the fore groung(coolant tank) is in focus but the engine is out of focus
its down to a tiny fixed focus lense with a depth of field of only a couple of feet
my money is on the car being OK just the seller is no marketing man/photographer
Image Replaced With URL For Quote
![]()
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l256/ ... appics.jpg