some crapy car pics from last night

[poah]

I seem to be getting worse lol

[UKBob]

They're really good Poah, some are very nice indeed

I particularly like the last two.

Edited by UKBob on Saturday 23 September 17:45

[Platinum]

Very nice; last one has stock potential (?)

Rather irresponsible not using a driver though.

[Andy M]

Platinum said:

Rather irresponsible not using a driver though.

I bet the car was travelling at all of 1-2mph at the time.

A bit chavtastic for my taste.

[UKBob]

Andy M said:

I bet the car was travelling at all of 1-2mph at the time.

I wondered as much myself

Andy M said:

A bit chavtastic for my taste.

The second last photo, as photography goes, is better (imho) than many magazine covers published this year. Praps the car isnt you're dream auto, but the photos are great.

[poah]

Andy M said:

Platinum said:

Rather irresponsible not using a driver though.

I bet the car was travelling at all of 1-2mph at the time.

A bit chavtastic for my taste.

I expected more from this forum to be honest. the car is largely irrelavent

[Andy M]

poah said:

I expected more from this forum to be honest. the car is largely irrelavent

Ok, despite the car being the focal point, I'll comment only on the photography aspect. In my humble opinion, which I very much urge you to take with a pinch of salt:

The positive:

I like the tones throughout and feel the location was well chosen for the car.
The final two shots are pretty good, though on the last I would have probably smoothened out the block paving on the floor to ensure the eye goes straight to the car.

The negative:

A relatively minor point, but the first shot isn't centered and this sticks out a mile.
The in-car shots (2, 3 and 4) do very little for me. They may have been done well, I can't comment as it's not something I've paid much attention to.
Shot 5 appears to have a large area of pixel artifacts (?) which I find distracting.

You should have more confidence in your titles if you don't believe your shots to be 'crapy car pics'.

Edited by Andy M on Sunday 24th September 10:55

[UKBob]

Andy M said:

You should have more confidence in your titles if you don't believe your shots to be 'crapy car pics'.

Its a british thing though isnt it? Most non british forums arnt bespeckled with the imho, imvho, iirc (dont shoot me) and overly humbled down way of communicating with others. Most of us are guilty as charged.

Ive never been keen on white cars, but I think the shots above all work quite well.

Edited by UKBob on Sunday 24th September 11:01

[Langweilig]

Shots 1 and 7 are good, well lit and in focus but try another shot with the headlights and brakelights lit. The shot with the wheel in motion is a great, imaginative shot as is the pic taken above and behind the driver. There's so much more potential wrapped up in the panel you've submitted. You could try a few close-up shots of the dashboard and the instruments, one showing the car at speed (even if you have to Photoshop the image). Don't worry about the car being off-centre. Remember if that was a car ad in a magazine or a billboard, you'd have captions added. There is nothing crappy about your pictures.

Edited by Langweilig on Sunday 24th September 20:00

Edited by Langweilig on Sunday 24th September 20:04

[UKBob]

Is the driver you Poah? Whose car was it, and was it a paid shoot?

[poah]

UKBob said:

Is the driver you Poah? Whose car was it, and was it a paid shoot?

friend. just some practice. people don't want to pay for getting pics of their cars for some reason.

[UKBob]

poah said:

UKBob said:

Is the driver you Poah? Whose car was it, and was it a paid shoot?

friend. just some practice. people don't want to pay for getting pics of their cars for some reason.

Wondered if it might have been a commercial shoot.

[doctorpepper]

Is that Crappy "car pics" or "Crappy car" pics?

I'd agree with one but not the other!

[bobfrance]

It's a bit off the mark to bitch about someone's car on PH don't you think?

Although it's not my thing - for a modified MR2 - that's very tastefully done; in fact the best I've seen.

[dfen5]

If there is such a thing as realism in car photo shoots - then the photo's that appear to suggest motion without a driver step outside realism, hence they don't really work for me. Also the rev' counter is at Zero on the shots with a driver..

Just out of interest, what camera?

Edited by dfen5 on Sunday 24th September 20:53

Edited by dfen5 on Sunday 24th September 20:54

[poah]

canon 20d + efs 10-22. engine running caused too much vibration. could not be arsed photoshopping the rev counter.

[UKBob]

poah said:

could not be arsed photoshopping the rev counter.

Thats the spirit

[poah]

UKBob said:

poah said:

could not be arsed photoshopping the rev counter.

Thats the spirit

well only picky people would actually care. suprised martin not commented on it TBH ha ha ha ha

[havoc]

Andy M said:

A bit chavtastic for my taste.

Personally, as has already been said, I think it's a VERY tidy and tastefully done MR2. I wouldn't own it, but I can see and appreciate the time and care taken in it.

And besides, we ARE commenting on the photos, not the subject...imagine if you put photos of your wife up (NOT like that!) and people made disparaging remarks?!?

[Andy M]

Sorry, but the subject is part of the photo, and so is open to discussion in my opinion; positive or negative. The comparison with posting a photo of ones wife is not really apt in my opinion, as general etiquette would rule that you don't comment on somebody's wife, even if you think she looks like a bullmastiff.

As it is, I knew this not to be Poah's car (I recall him posting a photo of his car a while ago, though may be wrong), and do not think it rude to post my thoughts on a car in what is essentially a car forum.

My comment wasn't meant to offend, and if it has that is regrettable, but I'm sure Poah and the cars owner are bigger than that and do not give a damn what somebody they only 'know' on the internet thinks.

If we can't comment on the subject of a photo, what's the use in having a forum?