Why are there so few car photographs?

Why are there so few car photographs?

Author
Discussion

kman

1,108 posts

210 months

Sunday 5th November 2017
quotequote all
Ken Figenus said:
"removed" wtf? Its a hugely useful tool and makes hot overexposed clouds fluffy again smile
not removed just renamed to 'highlights', and you have a white point slider as well called 'whites'. You can also use the curves panel to make these adjustments.

GIYess

1,311 posts

100 months

Monday 6th November 2017
quotequote all
Anyone got any tips on overcoming hand shake with using a dslr? Got a Nikon d50 but every pic is blurred due to my stupidly shakey hands. Apologies for the elementary question

trackdemon

12,149 posts

260 months

Monday 6th November 2017
quotequote all
Ken Figenus said:
trackdemon said:
Wow! Difficult shot straight into a low sun. Bet those fill light and recovery sliders were way up. Fab result.
Cheers! Sliders were fairly normal tbh, I use Lee Grad filters to hold the sky, and a separate exposure with sun blocked to reduce flare. Car looks spot on pretty much RAW

trackdemon

12,149 posts

260 months

Monday 6th November 2017
quotequote all
GIYess said:
Anyone got any tips on overcoming hand shake with using a dslr? Got a Nikon d50 but every pic is blurred due to my stupidly shakey hands. Apologies for the elementary question
It's all about shutter speed. generally speaking you need the shutter speed to be faster than the focal length; e.g. if you're shooting @ 50mm the shutter speed needs to be 1/50th or faster. Tripods always a good shout but not always practical; also try bracing yourself (and/or the camera) against a solid object when shooting

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Monday 6th November 2017
quotequote all
trackdemon said:
GIYess said:
Anyone got any tips on overcoming hand shake with using a dslr? Got a Nikon d50 but every pic is blurred due to my stupidly shakey hands. Apologies for the elementary question
It's all about shutter speed. generally speaking you need the shutter speed to be faster than the focal length; e.g. if you're shooting @ 50mm the shutter speed needs to be 1/50th or faster. Tripods always a good shout but not always practical; also try bracing yourself (and/or the camera) against a solid object when shooting
Tripod or equivalent sort of device - Gorillapod, "sandbag" type support, tabletop small tripod

Monopod for out and about walks.

Maybe Image Stabilisation via lens or body of both BUT clever as they are if you are really starting out with significant shake I am not sure how much they could compensate for it. You would need to try things out. I suspect something more recent that the D50 would be desirable as capabilities, of bodies and lenses, have advanced in recent times if chosen carefully.

Higher shutter speeds but then that limits exposure options. Only you can decide whether that would be limiting for your purposes.

There are a lot of devices on the market often aimed at Video creators. Some of them may be worth investigating - Google will turn up a lot of references.

This one has been around tor a while as a low cost diy aid that might work very well for some people, especially in conjunction with Image Stabilisation options.

https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2010/04/make-a-chest...

Commercial options for buying similar products are available.

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Monday 6th November 2017
quotequote all
I use a monopod for both video and stills. Despite image stabilisation in my camera, the difference is apparent, especially of course on enlargement. I bought a solid one, Manfroto, years ago.

It is easier to put up in a crowd, you can hold it above your head with a timer or remote and, for some strange reason, people seem to move out of the way for you more so than with a tripod.

For video it is excellent especially when zooming. I have problems keeping it horizontal, but that's probably just me.

I've got a decent quality tripod with fluid head, but it is bulky so limited in application.

On Sunday I walked a mile and half to video the London to Brighton run, and the same distance back. No problems.


Ken Figenus

5,680 posts

116 months

Monday 6th November 2017
quotequote all
trackdemon said:
Cheers! Sliders were fairly normal tbh, I use Lee Grad filters to hold the sky, and a separate exposure with sun blocked to reduce flare. Car looks spot on pretty much RAW
Top tip mate - block the sun to grab the car!

I do split exposures sometimes for video (if shooting a static shot against a blown window) - but never use a tripod for stills only a monopod. Maybe time to give up some of that freedom - you used a tripod right so the exposures would align and register?

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Monday 6th November 2017
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
I use a monopod for both video and stills. Despite image stabilisation in my camera, the difference is apparent, especially of course on enlargement. I bought a solid one, Manfroto, years ago.

It is easier to put up in a crowd, you can hold it above your head with a timer or remote and, for some strange reason, people seem to move out of the way for you more so than with a tripod.

For video it is excellent especially when zooming. I have problems keeping it horizontal, but that's probably just me.

I've got a decent quality tripod with fluid head, but it is bulky so limited in application.

On Sunday I walked a mile and half to video the London to Brighton run, and the same distance back. No problems.
It is possible to find units, typically intended for travellers, that combine a tripod and a monopod as a single unit and, of course, sharing the head.

I bought one for a trip a few years ago and it proved remarkable capable although I found I mostly used the tripod rather than monopod functionality.

Extremely cheap tripods are available, sometimes not so cheaply when a "brand" name is added. For very light work they may do a job but I would not recommend them.

Inexpensive monopods are a little more viable being quite simple but the heads need to be chosen carefully IMO. Using them is something of an acquired skill if your pleasure is action shots but for camera support to take non-moving or barely moving subjects they are easy to get used to and adaptable for a few other tasks in some circumstances.

Rumblestripe

2,916 posts

161 months

Monday 6th November 2017
quotequote all
GIYess said:
Anyone got any tips on overcoming hand shake with using a dslr? Got a Nikon d50 but every pic is blurred due to my stupidly shakey hands. Apologies for the elementary question
Firstly, are you holding the camera properly?

Both hands on the camera, tuck your elbows in against your body. Use the optical viewfinder not the screen to compose your shot, when you are ready to shoot exhale gently then gently depress the shutter. (A technique also used by snipers!) This is really critical most camera shake is caused by jabbing down on the shutter.

Secondly, stand in a stable position. Feet shoulder width apart, one foot slightly forward of the other, turn the rear foot 45 degrees out and transfer about 70% of your weight onto your front foot, bend your knees slightly. This is a technique I learned from Tai Chi but other martial arts teach similar stances.

Practice. Take loads of shots to get a feel for your shutter release. It costs nowt in digital.

If you are still having problems increase the "speed" of your exposure by increasing the ISO/ASA setting (the bigger the number the faster the exposure, the less chance of blur/shake but more "noise" in the image)

NewNameNeeded

2,560 posts

224 months

Tuesday 7th November 2017
quotequote all
Some really lovely shots. Here's one of mine.


Craigwww

853 posts

168 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
RenesisEvo said:
A bit of searching shows that the feature has been removed in LR5. Although there is a means to get it back, experimenting with it didn't yield what I was looking for. It was hard to get to 'white' without blowing out the detail on the bonnet. Bear in mind this car was pearlescent white, which to my eyes at least, is a few shades removed from a typical solid white. Here's about as far as I'm willing to push it (top).


It's a photo of a stationary car, in a car park. It's never going to be much more than a snap. Stop worrying about blowing out details and start thinking about how to make images people are want to actually see, photos people are impressed by, moved by, absorbed by. Automotive photography is one of the hardest types of photography. So many people spend countless hours taking photo after photo at car shows and sharing them online... it's not 'photography'. The image is boring, sorry but that's the truth, don't spend time polishing it... spend that time creating something different, find locations to shoot in, develop a style, experiment with lighting and lenses.. that is where your time will be worth most. For example, see the photo of the Aventador above... that is an image people want to see. It's well thought out, it's composed and framed correctly with a effective use of light. The car itself doesn't make the photo, if that was a old Fiesta, the image would still work.

Edited by Craigwww on Wednesday 8th November 06:51

Rogue86

2,008 posts

144 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
Any image has potential, it just depends how much work you are willing to put into it. The truth is that an image of a more attractive car will always receive more feedback than one of a regular car in the same way that a photo of an attractive man/woman will. The background is fairly average on the BMW shot for sure, but the angle is effective and by using simply ambient light the shot looks uncomplicated. An easy starter point for a composite.

The problem is that too many car photographers are either scared to use photoshop or scared to admit it.


trackdemon

12,149 posts

260 months

Thursday 9th November 2017
quotequote all
Rogue86 said:
The background is fairly average on the BMW shot for sure, but the angle is effective and by using simply ambient light the shot looks uncomplicated. An easy starter point for a composite.

The problem is that too many car photographers are either scared to use photoshop or scared to admit it.
At the risk of stirring up a hornets nest, if someone is relying on photoshop & compositing to create an image, they are not really a photographer but a digital artist. Now there's nothing wrong with that per se, but using a straightforward/boring shot as a basis doesn't make sense to me. Learn photoshop, sure, but pushing yourself photographically will raise the whole game, even if the resulting image is intended for use in a composite.

GIYess

1,311 posts

100 months

Thursday 9th November 2017
quotequote all
Great. Thanks for advice. I'll look into the monopod and will practice the holding techniques etc. Now I just need time to get at it!

RenesisEvo

3,602 posts

218 months

Thursday 9th November 2017
quotequote all
Craigwww said:
It's a photo of a stationary car, in a car park. It's never going to be much more than a snap. Stop worrying about blowing out details and start thinking about how to make images people are want to actually see, photos people are impressed by, moved by, absorbed by. Automotive photography is one of the hardest types of photography. So many people spend countless hours taking photo after photo at car shows and sharing them online... it's not 'photography'. The image is boring, sorry but that's the truth, don't spend time polishing it... spend that time creating something different, find locations to shoot in, develop a style, experiment with lighting and lenses.. that is where your time will be worth most. For example, see the photo of the Aventador above... that is an image people want to see. It's well thought out, it's composed and framed correctly with a effective use of light. The car itself doesn't make the photo, if that was a old Fiesta, the image would still work.
Interesting comments, thank you. Of course if you have a visually-arresting supercar and a great background/location, you are always going to get a better image. I don't have access to that - does that mean I can't be a photographer? You often have to work with what's in front of you, otherwise I'd post lots of pictures of a dull silver Mazda that no-one wants to see regardless of what area of outstanding natural beauty it might be parked in. What if I want a really dull, un-interesting background, to force the viewer to focus solely on the subject? (Not saying that's the case here, but clearly my focus was the car, and nothing else).

I disagree with saying it's not photography. What about journalism or documenting - are these, by inference, invalid forms of photography? Is simply taking photos of what's there, rather than staging or creating (before or after the shutter is released) something, which removes a layer of honesty I feel, not acceptable anymore? So if most do it badly - isn't it good that I'm at least trying to do it well? Yes I'd love to spend my time with light modifiers and agonise over framing, and spend hours scouting for that perfect spot. Meanwhile back in the real world where my resources are very finite, I was meant to be driving on the track, so I simply had a quick walk around the car park with my camera and made the most of what I could find in the time I had. I liked the car and found it interesting enough to stop and take a picture, and was pleased with for once how it came out - I often struggle to make what I see translate onto the camera. Interestingly whilst that Aventador picture is technically very good, it does nothing for me to draw attention or stir emotion, because there are many many photos of Aventadors in nice places. This will always be a problem with the internet and the proliferation of photographic devices. Standing out from the crowd is always going to be a challenge. Like there will always be someone with a better car, there will always be someone with a better photo.

Edited by RenesisEvo on Thursday 9th November 22:44

Rogue86

2,008 posts

144 months

Thursday 9th November 2017
quotequote all
trackdemon said:
At the risk of stirring up a hornets nest, if someone is relying on photoshop & compositing to create an image, they are not really a photographer but a digital artist. Now there's nothing wrong with that per se, but using a straightforward/boring shot as a basis doesn't make sense to me. Learn photoshop, sure, but pushing yourself photographically will raise the whole game, even if the resulting image is intended for use in a composite.
As a photographer I am essentially paid to get the shot in any scenario. If that means shooting the bare, technically-accurate essentials to create the image I want, knowing I will be limited on the shoot itself then thats my problem and not the clients. If its for a portfolio image then a potential client will have no idea what went into the shot (and shouldnt) so time spent creating it really isnt an issue. You never know what that could be worth to you professionally.

The only time that getting something spot on in-camera is important is if you're a journalist (where you wont have the safety net of shooting in raw) or for a magazine, where the rates are so pitifully low that Im shocked anyone still actually does it.





Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Friday 10th November 2017
quotequote all
Image manipulation has gone on for years, even before digital. When enlarging and image, a mask was used, this time thin card, cut to wave in front of the paper so it was not overexposed. Images were projected onto ground glass screens so imperfections could be removed by hand and then reimaged. Coloured filters are used in the printing stage.

Images are cut and trimmed, sometimes - speaking personally here - to remove errors or distractions.

Photography is all about the final image. Nothing else matters or has ever mattered except in reporting.

I saw a professional car photographer at work. He took hundreds of images of one particular arrangement of the cars, this despite the attention to detail being fanatical.


Nik da Greek

2,503 posts

149 months

Friday 10th November 2017
quotequote all
RenesisEvo said:
Craigwww said:
It's a photo of a stationary car, in a car park. It's never going to be much more than a snap. Stop worrying about blowing out details and start thinking about how to make images people are want to actually see, photos people are impressed by, moved by, absorbed by. Automotive photography is one of the hardest types of photography. So many people spend countless hours taking photo after photo at car shows and sharing them online... it's not 'photography'. The image is boring, sorry but that's the truth, don't spend time polishing it... spend that time creating something different, find locations to shoot in, develop a style, experiment with lighting and lenses.. that is where your time will be worth most. For example, see the photo of the Aventador above... that is an image people want to see. It's well thought out, it's composed and framed correctly with a effective use of light. The car itself doesn't make the photo, if that was a old Fiesta, the image would still work.
Interesting comments, thank you. Of course if you have a visually-arresting supercar and a great background/location, you are always going to get a better image. I don't have access to that - does that mean I can't be a photographer? You often have to work with what's in front of you, otherwise I'd post lots of pictures of a dull silver Mazda that no-one wants to see regardless of what area of outstanding natural beauty it might be parked in. What if I want a really dull, un-interesting background, to force the viewer to focus solely on the subject? (Not saying that's the case here, but clearly my focus was the car, and nothing else).

I disagree with saying it's not photography. What about journalism or documenting - are these, by inference, invalid forms of photography? Is simply taking photos of what's there, rather than staging or creating (before or after the shutter is released) something, which removes a layer of honesty I feel, not acceptable anymore? So if most do it badly - isn't it good that I'm at least trying to do it well? Yes I'd love to spend my time with light modifiers and agonise over framing, and spend hours scouting for that perfect spot. Meanwhile back in the real world where my resources are very finite, I was meant to be driving on the track, so I simply had a quick walk around the car park with my camera and made the most of what I could find in the time I had. I liked the car and found it interesting enough to stop and take a picture, and was pleased with for once how it came out - I often struggle to make what I see translate onto the camera. Interestingly whilst that Aventador picture is technically very good, it does nothing for me to draw attention or stir emotion, because there are many many photos of Aventadors in nice places. This will always be a problem with the internet and the proliferation of photographic devices. Standing out from the crowd is always going to be a challenge. Like there will always be someone with a better car, there will always be someone with a better photo.
Well said!

For me, that reply you replied to (errrm) is typical of the sort of snobbery and bks that surrounds photography on-line. I agree that the BMW photo is not fascinatingly composed, but it's what I'd want to see if I was looking for photos of a BMW... the actual car.

And I for one (though I know for a fact I'm not alone, just maybe on the wrong forum) love seeing endless photos of cars at shows because I like looking at photos of cars rolleyes

Conversley, purely because that photo of the Lambo is framed as a piece of art rather than a photo of a car, I notice its flaws more than if were a snapshot straight out of the camera. Why post-process it to within an inch of its life but leave the really distracting eyeline of the telegraph wires? The car is badly "posed"... just sat in one lane without reason or alignment to anything else. And it's far too one colour for me. Things I wouldn't even notice in a "lesser" pic, but if you present perfection then it has to be perfect*


* whilst none of that is intended of criticism of the photographer and goes without saying is miles better than anything I could ever achieve

DavidY

4,458 posts

283 months

Friday 10th November 2017
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
Photography is all about the final image.
No. Photography is about 3 images-

1) The one in your head
2) The one The camera takes
3) The final edited version

Most photographers strive to make 1 and 3 the same image!

_dobbo_

14,327 posts

247 months

Friday 10th November 2017
quotequote all
RenesisEvo said:
lots of pictures of a dull silver Mazda that no-one wants to see

I don't disagree with much of what you've posted, but this bit stood out to me.

Anyone can take a photo of a supercar as you pointed out - Aventador pictures everywhere. Make a photo of a Mazda stand out and you've really achieved something. So practicing with a car like that is better than practicing with a supercar as it forces you to be creative and different in a way you don't have to be with a more interesting vehicle.