May's Car Magazine
Discussion
I'm new here, so forgive the intrusion - but I am a 300d owning car nut, so hopefully you'll let me in...!
Anyway, has anyone seen May's issue of Car Magazine yet? I'd always thought that they don't use any digital correction techniques - but I wonder if that's true now...
Take a look at the F430/Zonda/Murcielago story starting on page 70. This contains some stunning pictures - but how on earth did they do the two on page 74/75? One appears to be a panning shot - but with two cars going in different directions...
The other (F430) is an absolutely pin sharp picture taken from the outside of a sweeping bend, with a blurred background. That car must be standing still surely??
Would be good to hear what you experts out there think...
Anyway, has anyone seen May's issue of Car Magazine yet? I'd always thought that they don't use any digital correction techniques - but I wonder if that's true now...
Take a look at the F430/Zonda/Murcielago story starting on page 70. This contains some stunning pictures - but how on earth did they do the two on page 74/75? One appears to be a panning shot - but with two cars going in different directions...
The other (F430) is an absolutely pin sharp picture taken from the outside of a sweeping bend, with a blurred background. That car must be standing still surely??
Would be good to hear what you experts out there think...
I thought that as well (although I haven't read a car magazine for nearly 2 years now), when I asked I was told the cars where indeed moving, just very slowly (as in 1, 2 mph) and there was a longer than usual shutter speed.
Have a look at GravyMasters (or noMoreGravy as he is now called) site as there is a series with a Lambo which might shine some light.
Have a look at GravyMasters (or noMoreGravy as he is now called) site as there is a series with a Lambo which might shine some light.
I haven't seen the pictures, but with regards to the second one you describe it is indeed possible to get tack-sharp images of a moving car against a blurred background. This can be done from a leading car, from an accurate pan or from a static camera affixed to the car itself.
Also, remember they take a lot more frames than they publish, and the vast majority of photos they take (especially the technical ones above) will be duds.
I still remember the statistic for National Geographic magazine - for every photo published, about 4000 don't make the cut.
Dunno about the first photo you describe, but I certainly wouldn't put it past Car to use digital enhancement and manipulation. They don't come across to me as a magazine with a lot of journalistic integrity.
I know Evo magazine have a no-computer policy, except for the odd bit of touch up or basic manipulation (saturation, tone etc). Wherever they have done something drastic (like a full-on digital composite) they always say they did.
Other magazines on the other hand have no qualms about manipulating their images. One big motoring publication in particular who shall remain unnamed have a notoriety for lying about the circumstances in which their stories are about. I remember one example where they had a dud Ford or something either with no engine or a broken one, and they proceeded to write the whole story on the car, including handling dynamics, acceleration and brakes, which in a dead car is nothing short of proposterous. If I recall correctly they also made the car roll down a hill and took a motion blur photo of it to show that they had been driving it. It was in another car magazine that the story first surfaced, and from then on I stopped buying the aforementioned swindling publication.
Also, remember they take a lot more frames than they publish, and the vast majority of photos they take (especially the technical ones above) will be duds.
I still remember the statistic for National Geographic magazine - for every photo published, about 4000 don't make the cut.
Dunno about the first photo you describe, but I certainly wouldn't put it past Car to use digital enhancement and manipulation. They don't come across to me as a magazine with a lot of journalistic integrity.
I know Evo magazine have a no-computer policy, except for the odd bit of touch up or basic manipulation (saturation, tone etc). Wherever they have done something drastic (like a full-on digital composite) they always say they did.
Other magazines on the other hand have no qualms about manipulating their images. One big motoring publication in particular who shall remain unnamed have a notoriety for lying about the circumstances in which their stories are about. I remember one example where they had a dud Ford or something either with no engine or a broken one, and they proceeded to write the whole story on the car, including handling dynamics, acceleration and brakes, which in a dead car is nothing short of proposterous. If I recall correctly they also made the car roll down a hill and took a motion blur photo of it to show that they had been driving it. It was in another car magazine that the story first surfaced, and from then on I stopped buying the aforementioned swindling publication.
-DeaDLocK- said:Was that the same one who did a "group" test with all the cars present (and photos to prove it
Other magazines on the other hand have no qualms about manipulating their images. One big motoring publication in particular who shall remain unnamed have a notoriety for lying about the circumstances in which their stories are about. I remember one example where they had a dud Ford or something either with no engine or a broken one, and they proceeded to write the whole story on the car, including handling dynamics, acceleration and brakes, which in a dead car is nothing short of proposterous. If I recall correctly they also made the car roll down a hill and took a motion blur photo of it to show that they had been driving it. It was in another car magazine that the story first surfaced, and from then on I stopped buying the aforementioned swindling publication.
) and it turned out, they weren't Regarding the F430 shot -
a leading car could not have been used - it's on the outside of a hairpin
a pan looks unlikely - but *might" be possible
a static camera affixed to the car itself would only be possible if they've airbrushed out the rig, as you can see the whole of the car...
Interesting...
And I'm surprised you question Car's integrity - I'd always thought they're pretty above board.
a leading car could not have been used - it's on the outside of a hairpin
a pan looks unlikely - but *might" be possible
a static camera affixed to the car itself would only be possible if they've airbrushed out the rig, as you can see the whole of the car...
Interesting...
And I'm surprised you question Car's integrity - I'd always thought they're pretty above board.
Car magazine to me is the equivalent of pop motoring-journalism - all words and b/s but no substance. The same goes for Top Gear (both TV and mag). Auto Express fills a niche, so is ok (though I still don't buy it). Autocar is probably the only general all-round magazine with a mix of news, exotica and advice, but I don't buy it ().
The only ones I read regularly are Evo and Octane (and oh, Photography Monthly is the best photography magazine).
Once in a while Car comes out with an exclusive (like the Ferrari special they had some time last year) that makes the paper worthy of the asking price, but in my opinion generally speaking Car doesn't make the cut.
Your opinion is allowed to differ.
I was a bit harsh when I questioned their journalistic integrity - what I was referring to more was the impression of pretentiousness I get from them.
). The only ones I read regularly are Evo and Octane (and oh, Photography Monthly is the best photography magazine).
Once in a while Car comes out with an exclusive (like the Ferrari special they had some time last year) that makes the paper worthy of the asking price, but in my opinion generally speaking Car doesn't make the cut.
Your opinion is allowed to differ.
I was a bit harsh when I questioned their journalistic integrity - what I was referring to more was the impression of pretentiousness I get from them.
I believe the Ferrari shot is a composite of two pictures. The first is taken with a wide angle lens and a rig mounted to the front three-quarter of the car. The second is a static shot of the car from the same position minus mounting rig. Elements of the two shots are then combined using Photoshop.
The other panning picture of the Zonda and Murcielago is two different shots that look connected due to clever use of the magazine's gutter.
>> Edited by bad_roo on Wednesday 6th April 16:10
The other panning picture of the Zonda and Murcielago is two different shots that look connected due to clever use of the magazine's gutter.
>> Edited by bad_roo on Wednesday 6th April 16:10
bad_roo said:
I believe the Ferrari shot is a composite of two pictures. The first is taken with a wide angle lens and a rig mounted to the front three-quarter of the car. The second is a static shot of the car from the same position minus mounting rig. Elements of the two shots are then combined using Photoshop.
The other panning picture of the Zonda and Murcielago is two different shots that look connected due to clever use of the magazine's gutter.
Having looked again - I'm sure you're right about the Zonda/Lambo shot, and that somehow seems acceptable.
If you're right about the F430 picture, then I'm disappointed. I somehow feel that's "cheating" - taking two separate pictures and overlaying them. I mean, why not just have a whole library of landscape pictures and the overlay studio shots of the cars...
Mind you what is interesting is, that this is done very well - whereas a few months ago they did a group test inc a Ford GT, and the final group shot had such a rubbish overlay of the GT it was embarrasing. They might just have well used the tradational "cut and paste" method...
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff