2006 Toyota Celica

tmurphy0828 · Jun 27, 2013

My first attempt at shooting a car so constructive criticism would be much appreciated.

#1

#2

and does anybody know what's causing that yellowish blue orb of light to appear on the hood in #1?
Im assuming its some sort of reflection off my lens maybe?

Ballistics · Jun 27, 2013

That's a flare from the headlight in #1. I actually like these, but you should fix your white balance. They are both pretty yellow.

tmurphy0828 · Jun 27, 2013

thanks! and hmm I didn't notice that before. Ill go play with white balance in lightroom and see what I can do

ShooterJ · Jun 27, 2013

White balance aside, I really like #2

That's a nice angle and the background is great.

MLCIII · Jun 27, 2013

Yeah not bad! I'd retouch the paint chips on the bumper tho.

Alimac1 · Jun 28, 2013

Are those Work Emotion CR Kais? I want a set of gunmetal ones for my Altezza

cgipson1 · Jun 28, 2013

I'm bored.. so I did an edit with color and exposure correction. Just wanted to see what it looked like.... what'cha think? ( I was assuming the car was pure white)

Original on top

sleist · Jun 28, 2013

cgipson1 said:
I'm bored.. so I did an edit with color and exposure correction. Just wanted to see what it looked like.... what'cha think? ( I was assuming the car was pure white)

Original on top
View attachment 48802

Hard to tell on the small shot size, but it looks to me that you had a heavy hand with respect to the exposure correction.
The blown reflection on the door in your edit doesn't work for me. The whites are better.

cgipson1 · Jun 28, 2013

sleist said:
cgipson1 said:

I'm bored.. so I did an edit with color and exposure correction. Just wanted to see what it looked like.... what'cha think? ( I was assuming the car was pure white)

Original on top
View attachment 48802

Click to expand...

Hard to tell on the small shot size, but it looks to me that you had a heavy hand with respect to the exposure correction.
The blown reflection on the door in your edit doesn't work for me. The whites are better.

With the existing lighting, contrast, and underexposure... I chose to lose a tiny bit of detail and get the exposure up where it needed to be (Or at least much closer! It is a 30 second edit - If I have to spend more time than that on my images, I bin it and reshoot). Ever after correcting WB, it was still underexposed and not white. Working with small web images can be a pain, it is not like having the RAW file for the image.

Would love to see what you come up with?

sleist · Jun 28, 2013

With the existing lighting, contrast, and underexposure... I chose to lose a tiny bit of detail and get the exposure up where it needed to be (Or at least much closer! It is a 30 second edit - If I have to spend more time than that on my images, I bin it and reshoot). Ever after correcting WB, it was still underexposed and not white. Working with small web images can be a pain, it is not like having the RAW file for the image.

So basically, you agree with me.

Ballistics · Jun 28, 2013

With just a WB correction, seems like the exposure doesn't really need to be messed with.
I'm simply doing a WB correction in camera raw and it looks pretty good.

cgipson1 · Jun 28, 2013

sleist said:
With the existing lighting, contrast, and underexposure... I chose to lose a tiny bit of detail and get the exposure up where it needed to be (Or at least much closer! It is a 30 second edit - If I have to spend more time than that on my images, I bin it and reshoot). Ever after correcting WB, it was still underexposed and not white. Working with small web images can be a pain, it is not like having the RAW file for the image.

Click to expand...

So basically, you agree with me.

Sometimes you have to make a choice, what to keep, what to throw away! I agree that some detail was lost, but do not feel that the shot (as it is here) can be optimized without that loss! So yea.. I partially agree with you!

I prefer to lose a little detail (especially in an area that has little detail anyway), and have a more correct overall exposure.

Ballistics · Jun 28, 2013

cgipson1 said:
sleist said:

With the existing lighting, contrast, and underexposure... I chose to lose a tiny bit of detail and get the exposure up where it needed to be (Or at least much closer! It is a 30 second edit - If I have to spend more time than that on my images, I bin it and reshoot). Ever after correcting WB, it was still underexposed and not white. Working with small web images can be a pain, it is not like having the RAW file for the image.

Click to expand...

So basically, you agree with me.

Click to expand...

Sometimes you have to make a choice, what to keep, what to throw away! I agree that some detail was lost, but do not feel that the shot (as it is here) can be optimized without that loss! So yea.. I partially agree with you! I prefer to lose a little detail (especially in an area that has little detail anyway), and have a more correct overall exposure.

You don't have to lose detail in this image to increase the exposure though.

cgipson1 · Jun 28, 2013

Ballistics said:
With just a WB correction, seems like the exposure doesn't really need to be messed with.
I'm simply doing a WB correction in camera raw and it looks pretty good.

We all have different ideas as to what is correct... that is part of what makes it fun. But there is no one perfect choice, because we are all different. But the main difference is that I at least post edits, trying to help people.. most people don't bother.