Why are there so few car photographs?
Discussion
The consensus from a couple of staff in my office is that I've over flashed it a bit too.
Too much light underneath the car especially at the front.
I only had one strobe with me at the time so it's a montage of 3-4 images.
Looks like I need to start again regarding the blending.
Too much light underneath the car especially at the front.
I only had one strobe with me at the time so it's a montage of 3-4 images.
Looks like I need to start again regarding the blending.
Edited by TheBlondeFella on Monday 18th July 17:54
Edited by TheBlondeFella on Tuesday 19th July 21:25
Rogue86 said:
Encounter a lot of natural studios do you?
I'm only having fun. You did me a favour pointing out my post production shortcomings.
Sometimes when you look at an image for a long time it starts to look right when its not. In these cases I find it helpful to show an image to people I don't know to help put me back on track again. It can often be far more helpful than showing an image in my office which is full of 15 other full time professional photographers.
As I said, you did me a favour and I'm just having fun as posters look more like cut & pastes / fake, so much more than mine ... but I guess they were supposed to be and mine certainly wasn't.
Oh .. and you'd surprised at what I encounter at work.
Edited by TheBlondeFella on Tuesday 19th July 21:32
Edited by TheBlondeFella on Tuesday 19th July 22:53
Rogue86 said:
Its OK, you dont have to explain that you're joking - I know it's difficult to tell mood just from plain text but I'm not that precious!
That advice there is spot on - one of the things I miss most about working as part of a good team is the honest advice of someone with no vested interest in what you're doing. When I first started my last job (which was predominantly all in-camera JPEG), the lad I worked under gave me the same advice - "its gash, the only reason you can't tell it's gash is because you've spent the last hour trying to make it look anything but gash". Best advice I think I've had in my whole career!
I spend a lot of time editing now because the constraints of my current job require it. My favourite shots in my portfolio though took almost no editing at all.
I had another go. Any better?That advice there is spot on - one of the things I miss most about working as part of a good team is the honest advice of someone with no vested interest in what you're doing. When I first started my last job (which was predominantly all in-camera JPEG), the lad I worked under gave me the same advice - "its gash, the only reason you can't tell it's gash is because you've spent the last hour trying to make it look anything but gash". Best advice I think I've had in my whole career!
I spend a lot of time editing now because the constraints of my current job require it. My favourite shots in my portfolio though took almost no editing at all.
Rogue86 said:
TheBlondeFella said:
I had another go. Any better?
Sorry dude - completely missed this the first time round!I'm not sure - I think the darker shadows work a little better (ignoring the highlights you cleaned in the first post) but it still looks like a comp. I think it's for a couple of reasons, like the lack of tread-marks in the gravel and the balanced lighting under the dramatic sky. I think most of it is still to do with the shadow looking fake though.
I think it's technically a great shot but for some reason I'm still not a fan, there's something about it that I don't think works. I hope you don't take that the wrong way - it's clear that a lot of work has gone into it! Maybe it just needs an overall colour-grading and warming up a bit? Do you mind posting up a couple of the frames that went into it? Completely understand if you'd rather not. I just think this may be a post-production issue rather than the photography which is clearly well done.
--Edit--
I didn't feel my explanation was doing your work justice, so I hope you don't mind but I opened it in PS to have a play with it myself. I'm happy to remove this if you like, I just thought it would help.
I started with the above, so increased the shadow, darkened the blacks and brightened the colours (levels, dodge/burn). I then added a couple of complimentary grads (cyan/orange). If I'm honest, it still didn't look right and then it clicked - it's the DOF. Having everything in focus with composition like that looks out of place, especially the foreground rocks. Is it focus-stacked?
Anyway, here it is. Please bear in mind that this is a very rough, quick edit. I appreciate it's subjective so I'm not trying to say "you should do this", this is really just to illustrate my original reply on what I think would help it:
Edited by Rogue86 on Tuesday 26th July 09:53
Ok ... here are copies direct form the RAW files.
As you can see the main shadow from the car is real
There weren't any tyre tracks in there gravel as it was very firm.
There's no focus stacking, all the images were shot at f11.
I used a circular polariser and a ND grad filter to balance the sky.
All constructive opinions are as always appreciated.
Some interesting and valid points have been made by numerous contributors. Here's 'two penneth worth'.
A basic photo of a flashy or prestigious car does not necessarily make for a good image just because the car in that image is nice.
A lot of photographs taken contain great cars but the final image produced is often mediocre and one which most people wouldn't give a 2nd look if the car in the image was ordinary or run of the mill.
In my mind a good / great photograph should be rated on the final image rather than the car that is shown within it.
I believe the concept of a great image is to make something ordinary or normal look interesting enough to warrant a 2nd look.
For me, a great and interesting image of a Ford Fiesta will always be better than an uninteresting basic image of a Lamborghini.
A great great and interesting image of a Lamborghini however and then you'll potentially have the perfect combination.
A basic photo of a flashy or prestigious car does not necessarily make for a good image just because the car in that image is nice.
A lot of photographs taken contain great cars but the final image produced is often mediocre and one which most people wouldn't give a 2nd look if the car in the image was ordinary or run of the mill.
In my mind a good / great photograph should be rated on the final image rather than the car that is shown within it.
I believe the concept of a great image is to make something ordinary or normal look interesting enough to warrant a 2nd look.
For me, a great and interesting image of a Ford Fiesta will always be better than an uninteresting basic image of a Lamborghini.
A great great and interesting image of a Lamborghini however and then you'll potentially have the perfect combination.
Without wanting criticise anyones work in any way ... but am i the only one who thinks a lot of the images posted on here now look like a screen grab from an animated movie?
It seems that there is more effort put into post production than the actual photography itself these days.
Don't get me wrong, i'm a huge fan of post production but I still want to see car photographs that look like car photographs rather than an image that doesn't look real and almost 'cartoonish'.
What does everyone else think, maybe I'm just getting old?
It seems that there is more effort put into post production than the actual photography itself these days.
Don't get me wrong, i'm a huge fan of post production but I still want to see car photographs that look like car photographs rather than an image that doesn't look real and almost 'cartoonish'.
What does everyone else think, maybe I'm just getting old?
kman said:
Pre-restoration shoot of this lovely Mercedes Benz W108 S-Class. Imported from California its had air suspension installed and about to go for a bodywork repair with new paint, roof cut out and full panoramic sunroof, new chrome, new interior with front bench and possibly RHD conversion.
Mercedes W108 classic 280SE
Mercedes Benz W108 S-Class
Mercedes Benz W108 shoot
Mercedes Benz W108 shoot
LOVE THOSE!Mercedes W108 classic 280SEMercedes Benz W108 S-ClassMercedes Benz W108 shootMercedes Benz W108 shootdamianmkv said:
TheBlondeFella said:
Great car but why are there 10 people taking pictures of it? Its a car in a showroom nothing more nothing less.
Because it is one of ( if not ) the first gt2 rs on the road in the U.K. and the guy was launching his YouTube channel too so most of the people in that photo, except my kids, are youtubersAs I mentioned earlier ... I must be getting old ...
LaSource said:
A friend's McLaren 675LT...
_DSC2988 by LaSource Images, on Flickr
_DSC2983 by LaSource Images, on Flickr
_DSC2974 by LaSource Images, on Flickr
_DSC2958 by LaSource Images, on Flickr
_DSC2921 by LaSource Images, on Flickr
_DSC2909 by LaSource Images, on Flickr
Does your friend own a white MX5, a red RS4 estate and one other car that sits in an air bubble by any chance?_DSC2988 by LaSource Images, on Flickr_DSC2983 by LaSource Images, on Flickr_DSC2974 by LaSource Images, on Flickr_DSC2958 by LaSource Images, on Flickr_DSC2921 by LaSource Images, on Flickr_DSC2909 by LaSource Images, on FlickrEdited by TheBlondeFella on Friday 20th March 19:55
Rogue86 said:
Sorry mate - I completely missed your reply (not spending much time on PH these days). Glad you like them!
They're actually shot in a messy/working garage using a cheap, portable studio-strobe and a big piece of white plastic as a reflector. The backgrounds are then created from scratch to suit whatever the client wants (or usually whatever I want).
You're definitely fighting more problems than you would be in a studio but to be honest that's the bit that still keeps me interested. The workflow is pretty nailed down now so it's not really any more time-consuming than a studio shoot too, although it's become a lot easier since I started paying an assistant to help me light the car more quickly. It makes the shoots a bit more accessible for clients as they're not having to worry about tying up a customers car and have it transported off-site either, which is good as it means more work.
Excuse the potato-quality screen-grab, but this is where the GT500 was shot. At least this one was indoors!
I'm working on a few others at the moment so if there's still the appetite for this thread I'll try to remember to post them.
I'd love to see your workflow and how you managed to create those great images from a car taken at that location.They're actually shot in a messy/working garage using a cheap, portable studio-strobe and a big piece of white plastic as a reflector. The backgrounds are then created from scratch to suit whatever the client wants (or usually whatever I want).
You're definitely fighting more problems than you would be in a studio but to be honest that's the bit that still keeps me interested. The workflow is pretty nailed down now so it's not really any more time-consuming than a studio shoot too, although it's become a lot easier since I started paying an assistant to help me light the car more quickly. It makes the shoots a bit more accessible for clients as they're not having to worry about tying up a customers car and have it transported off-site either, which is good as it means more work.
Excuse the potato-quality screen-grab, but this is where the GT500 was shot. At least this one was indoors!
I'm working on a few others at the moment so if there's still the appetite for this thread I'll try to remember to post them.
Rogue86 said:
Sure, I don't mind sharing. Starting off in-camera, this is how the initial shot looks without any 'extra' lighting.
I'm not sure how much you'll see on this web-res crop, but the bodywork is peppered with environmental reflections. In terms of lighting then, it's a case of eliminating these while giving the sculpted car some shape. I shoot an exposure that is essentially lit entirely by the studio head with no ambient light. Generally, this can take anywhere from 5-15 frames depending on the colour/complexity of the bodywork itself. In most cases, the bare bulb itself is enough but I'll often use a reflector for smaller details or hard-to-see body lines. In terms of shooting, this process usually takes less than 2 minutes to get those frames. If there are lots of small details (like on this 720S) that might take 10mins.
Using the reflector, I can hit the plastic itself which will be reflected with a gradient of light down the bodywork.
I will usually shoot more than I plan on using as that allows me to revisit the image later on and create something entirely new. Often that allows me to resell a licence to an image which has not been seen before even though it may have been shot years ago.
It's then just a case of combining the frames in PS - masking the layers and choosing what I want to keep. I always use a real shadow which I path out once the frames are combined, then I clean the bodywork up of the hot-spots the light has created. At this point I usually drop in a larger background which I'll create from scratch depending on what the client wants. The current trend at the moment seems to be studio-esque backgrounds, but can also be a composite or CG environment. At this point I'll also often do the darkroom edits to tie the image together as one.
Then it's just on for a final colour-grade and any effects I might want to apply (usually bits that have been on the frames in-camera such as ground reflections, atmospheric shadows/flares etc, though not always).
As I say, it's a pretty straightforward workflow. With a bit of practice you soon pick up where you're likely to need the light and what you're likely to want in terms of frames to combine afterwards. It's fun too because you really don't need expensive kit to give it a go. I always retouch with the intent to print, so I do it at a level that's wasted on web use but there's plenty of detail in the images.
Hope that helps.
Thats an impressive start to finish workflow considering what's at the start and the finished image. I'm not sure how much you'll see on this web-res crop, but the bodywork is peppered with environmental reflections. In terms of lighting then, it's a case of eliminating these while giving the sculpted car some shape. I shoot an exposure that is essentially lit entirely by the studio head with no ambient light. Generally, this can take anywhere from 5-15 frames depending on the colour/complexity of the bodywork itself. In most cases, the bare bulb itself is enough but I'll often use a reflector for smaller details or hard-to-see body lines. In terms of shooting, this process usually takes less than 2 minutes to get those frames. If there are lots of small details (like on this 720S) that might take 10mins.
Using the reflector, I can hit the plastic itself which will be reflected with a gradient of light down the bodywork.
I will usually shoot more than I plan on using as that allows me to revisit the image later on and create something entirely new. Often that allows me to resell a licence to an image which has not been seen before even though it may have been shot years ago.
It's then just a case of combining the frames in PS - masking the layers and choosing what I want to keep. I always use a real shadow which I path out once the frames are combined, then I clean the bodywork up of the hot-spots the light has created. At this point I usually drop in a larger background which I'll create from scratch depending on what the client wants. The current trend at the moment seems to be studio-esque backgrounds, but can also be a composite or CG environment. At this point I'll also often do the darkroom edits to tie the image together as one.
Then it's just on for a final colour-grade and any effects I might want to apply (usually bits that have been on the frames in-camera such as ground reflections, atmospheric shadows/flares etc, though not always).
As I say, it's a pretty straightforward workflow. With a bit of practice you soon pick up where you're likely to need the light and what you're likely to want in terms of frames to combine afterwards. It's fun too because you really don't need expensive kit to give it a go. I always retouch with the intent to print, so I do it at a level that's wasted on web use but there's plenty of detail in the images.
Hope that helps.
Edited by Rogue86 on Wednesday 14th April 20:28
Thanks for sharing its very much appreciated.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff