Car Picture... C&C please!

TheOtherBob · Jul 15, 2008

benp2k6 said:
Thanks for the feedback! Heck, I can agree with your argument, but it made me feel like I was doing something "bad", while I was just simply trying to take neat photos.

I left the shutter open that long on purpose, for the flags. After I got home I realized the trees were swaying as well.

Yeah -- I think it's a good thing to try, even if it didn't work out. No matter how bad it ends up (and this ended up ok), trying new approaches is always worth it. This one didn't do it for me, but maybe the next neat idea will turn out brilliant.

ownageplocks · Jul 15, 2008

im a noob but, i like it

, if it counts for anything

benp2k6 · Jul 15, 2008

Thanks for all the feedback. I guess I have been lazy & usually leave many of the settings on auto :gasp: !

prodigy2k7 said:
thats it? :S

edit: wrx right? you shoulda went for sti

It's not my car, but it is faster than a stock STI

MBasile · Jul 16, 2008

prodigy2k7 said:
thats it? :S

edit: wrx right? you shoulda went for sti

ahem, we all know the bugeye (2002-2003) was the best looking model and there was no USDM STi for that year range. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with a WRX

TamiyaGuy · Jul 16, 2008

I really like the first & last shots, and the second... wow. I wouldn't like to have to insure that!

In the first one, the car looks really flat, with hardly any shadows. At first it looked a bit odd to me, but I've grown to like it. The last one is a nice contrast, with definite highlights and shadows on the car. The electric cable is a bit distracting, but it's not too bad.

Fantastic photos! I just wish I could see a bit more of them in my browser. Darn 1024x768 resolution :grumpy:

.

nikonian2001 · Jul 16, 2008

benp2k6 said:
This is the general consensus thus far!

C&C on the pic below? I haven't taken out the electric line in the bg, so lets not consider that eyesore.

This is a great start! The car is a little dark but this is no big deal easy fix in ps. next time try to balance the photo a little more. All your visual weight is right over the car try staggering them. Like placing the car in the lower right of the image. Over all a great start.

bullitt453 · Jul 16, 2008

I really like the second pic. Wish we had locations like that local to me.

Village Idiot said:
If you're really interested in how to "properly" light a car just ask...it can end up with a really long reply though.

OK. I'm asking! The longer the reply the better!!!

prodigy2k7 · Jul 16, 2008

benp2k6 said:
Thanks for all the feedback. I guess I have been lazy & usually leave many of the settings on auto :gasp: !

It's not my car, but it is faster than a stock STI

sti has 300hp/300tq stock... Would be pretty close

prodigy2k7 · Jul 16, 2008

MBasile said:
ahem, we all know the bugeye (2002-2003) was the best looking model and there was no USDM STi for that year range. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with a WRX

I prefer 2006-2007 year

zandman · Jul 17, 2008

MBasile said:
ahem, we all know the bugeye (2002-2003) was the best looking model and there was no USDM STi for that year range. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with a WRX

one of the reason why i want to live in japan, not b/c of the wrx, but cuz of the cars and parts. (especially near kanjo)

Lunchbox · Jul 17, 2008

i guess it could be a little sharper?

they look good man.

Village Idiot · Jul 17, 2008

bullitt453 said:
I really like the second pic. Wish we had locations like that local to me.

OK. I'm asking! The longer the reply the better!!!

If you want to shoot a mode of transportation that has a reflective paint, then you'r not just shooting the subject, you're shooting everything else around you.

The surface of a car is generally reflective. A little test you can do is try shooting a picture of a car with a direct flash. You'll see a nice bright pin point where the flash fires and the car itself won't have had any major changes to the exposure than if you shot it without a flash. That's because you're just capturing the reflection of the flash and all the light is being wasted.

Same thing applies to the environment. If you find a really nice simple backdrop that faces a busy street that has a ton of businesses and a lot of traffic, you're going to have a car sitting on a nice backdrop that reflects everything on the street.

When trying to light a car it gets a little tricky, because you have to light the environment around the car. If you do some searching, you can find some setup shots for professional auto shoots. They usually entail multiple lights fired at whiteboards that are held by stands. The lit up white boards are reflected off the car and when the picture is taken, the car appears well lit. There's a lot more to it than that, that's just the basic run down.

Of course you don't have to have a ton of studio lights to do this. A few basic flashes and some additional cheap tools or a nice overcast day in a setting without a lot of clutter to reflect off the car can even do a good job.

Here's a flickr photo with the setup and end result for a model car. It's the ssame thing, just smaller.

setup:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/secgeek/2290719294/

Finish:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/secgeek/2290725922/in/photostream/

bullitt453 · Jul 17, 2008

Thanks for the informative post VI. I am the co-founder of a Mustang club here and take TONS of car shots at shows, cruises, etc. Of course, at shows and cruises, you really have no control over the surrounding enviroment.

I'm just now starting to do photoshoot-type shots of cars. Not trying to bogard the OP's thread, but here is a shot I took before I got my Alpha. This was taken with a 10 year old 3.2MP Olympus C-3020. lol. (click for fullsize version)