2005 Lamborghini Gallardo : Interesting Perspective

[TheoGraphics]

Working through, adding a little more depth to the windows.

 

[MLeeK]

the whole right side of the car looks fake.

 

[amolitor]

It takes a huge amount of photoshop work to make it look that fake!

Essentially, he's re-rendering the car using an actual photograph as a template, and photoshop instead of an actual renderer. He seems to like it, though, so, more power to him!

 

[MLeeK]

Well, in that case the front windshield and rear window he's succeeded on too!

 

[TheoGraphics]

It takes a huge amount of photoshop work to make it look that fake!

Essentially, he's re-rendering the car using an actual photograph as a template, and photoshop instead of an actual renderer. He seems to like it, though, so, more power to him!

no, that's not what i am doing, actually.

i'm still confused by you guys. other than some curves and selective color adjustments there have been NO changes to that side of the car. the hood is the only part of the car that is touched. the other panels have no rendering, no brushing, nothing. other than a slight change in color the car is the same as the original (minus the hood).

 

[amolitor]

I dunno how you got the right side window to do that with curves and selective color adjustments. That plus the fact that you've popped the colors to cartoonish levels and buried the lower half of the car in completely unrealistic darkness given the light on the rest of the car is pretty much what's going on. The color and tonality adjustments on the right-side door, plus probably some help from JPEG compression, make the door look like it's two long skinny polygons, each painted with a different shade of orange.

I know you're not actually *rendering* anything, but what you're removing is all the stuff that separates a cheap render from a real photograph, and you're adding enough unreal looking elements to the point that it doesn't "sell" as a real photograph any more. So, when I look at it, I think "well, the light's all wrong to be real, the car is reflecting nothing whatsoever except itself, and the windows just look silly, I guess it's a render. I wonder what video game?"

Partly, too, the car itself looks like a lazy in-game car design, designed to be trivial to render being made out of a couple dozen easily shaded polygons.

 

[o hey tyler]

I think it looks good, Theo. It could probably be used as an advertising piece, really. It's a very clean (almost too clean, but not quite) edit. I like the fact that your last iteration has the brick, I think it lends to a more realistic feeling.

Not sure if you've checked out his work, but Tim Wallace is a car photographer that I admire: Tim Wallace Photographer: Portfolio

 

[MLeeK]

It takes a huge amount of photoshop work to make it look that fake!

Essentially, he's re-rendering the car using an actual photograph as a template, and photoshop instead of an actual renderer. He seems to like it, though, so, more power to him!

no, that's not what i am doing, actually.

i'm still confused by you guys. other than some curves and selective color adjustments there have been NO changes to that side of the car. the hood is the only part of the car that is touched. the other panels have no rendering, no brushing, nothing. other than a slight change in color the car is the same as the original (minus the hood).

Perhaps you should place the two side by side. The original has a bit of a green reflection, a reflection of the mirror, etc in the side. The front windshield had a reflection of trees in it. Those things don't go away with curves and selective color adjustments.

 

[TheoGraphics]

I dunno how you got the right side window to do that with curves and selective color adjustments. That plus the fact that you've popped the colors to cartoonish levels and buried the lower half of the car in completely unrealistic darkness given the light on the rest of the car is pretty much what's going on. The color and tonality adjustments on the right-side door, plus probably some help from JPEG compression, make the door look like it's two long skinny polygons, each painted with a different shade of orange.

I know you're not actually *rendering* anything, but what you're removing is all the stuff that separates a cheap render from a real photograph, and you're adding enough unreal looking elements to the point that it doesn't "sell" as a real photograph any more. So, when I look at it, I think "well, the light's all wrong to be real, the car is reflecting nothing whatsoever except itself, and the windows just look silly, I guess it's a render. I wonder what video game?"

Partly, too, the car itself looks like a lazy in-game car design, designed to be trivial to render being made out of a couple dozen easily shaded polygons.

It takes a huge amount of photoshop work to make it look that fake!

Essentially, he's re-rendering the car using an actual photograph as a template, and photoshop instead of an actual renderer. He seems to like it, though, so, more power to him!

no, that's not what i am doing, actually.

i'm still confused by you guys. other than some curves and selective color adjustments there have been NO changes to that side of the car. the hood is the only part of the car that is touched. the other panels have no rendering, no brushing, nothing. other than a slight change in color the car is the same as the original (minus the hood).

Perhaps you should place the two side by side. The original has a bit of a green reflection, a reflection of the mirror, etc in the side. The front windshield had a reflection of trees in it. Those things don't go away with curves and selective color adjustments.
View attachment 17165

guys, since it had already been well established, i figured that it was understood that the windshield and other windows were altered. thanks for the sarcastic comments, though.

Mleek, i still see the reflection of the mirror in the side of the car on the finished edit. i'm not sure what you're referring to?

amolitor, i suppose our vision of photography and quality of work are on completely different levels. i imagine you are a fan more of classic, unaltered photographs, and that is just fine. i am more about capturing specific feeling or mood that i envision while taking a photo. sometimes that's achieved right away in camera, and other times (such as this) it is achieved through heavy editing. my question is this: why does it NEED to look like a photograph? where in the rules does it say that? what you see as a cheap rendering, i see as a vision that i had in my head when i snapped the photo originally.

i also find it odd, that for someone with such strong opinions and apparent deep knowledge of photography, you offer very few examples for me to base your critiques off of. I cannot find more than one example of your work. i would value your opinion much more if you would produce something that shows you can actually come through with images as striking and thoughtful as your critiques.

 

[jfrabat]

I don't want to shoot a countach. I want to drive one... like I stole it. Which I probably will have to in order to drive one!

I drove one once (many a year ago); a friend's dad had one. Trust me on this one, they are better to look at than they are to drive. Don't get me wrong, that engine sounds AWESOME, but the car has NO visibility, and is VERY difficult to handle (touch the throttle while cornering, and you are going to loose control). I do hear the new ones drive MUCH better, though...

 

[littlemt]

guys, since it had already been well established, i figured that it was understood that the windshield and other windows were altered. thanks for the sarcastic comments, though.

Mleek, i still see the reflection of the mirror in the side of the car on the finished edit. i'm not sure what you're referring to?

amolitor, i suppose our vision of photography and quality of work are on completely different levels. i imagine you are a fan more of classic, unaltered photographs, and that is just fine. i am more about capturing specific feeling or mood that i envision while taking a photo. sometimes that's achieved right away in camera, and other times (such as this) it is achieved through heavy editing. my question is this: why does it NEED to look like a photograph? where in the rules does it say that? what you see as a cheap rendering, i see as a vision that i had in my head when i snapped the photo originally.

i also find it odd, that for someone with such strong opinions and apparent deep knowledge of photography, you offer very few examples for me to base your critiques off of. I cannot find more than one example of your work. i would value your opinion much more if you would produce something that shows you can actually come through with images as striking and thoughtful as your critiques.

You need to take the critiques with a grain of salt, if you have a style and like it, thats all that matters. You should know if you post a image here, you will get varying opinions, some you might like, some you won't. I think you are letting emotion get the best of you here and explaining yourself too much.

Lucille

 

[MLeeK]

I guess I just don't understand why you want it to look fake. The brick and lights I love the work you did. The fake look... just looks fake on the windows and the side. Sorry