Car photography

GSXRMovistar · 22 Jul 2008 at 00:48

Raikiri · 22 Jul 2008 at 07:48

#3 (HDR), #5 (looks kind of like a lomo effect sans vignetting) and the last one you posted are all good imo. Good composition and post processing.

I think some of them are a bit over the top, for example #1 seems over saturated on my screen and the sky is completely blown out in #7. Composition however is still good in those.

SteveOBHave · 22 Jul 2008 at 11:34

Not too bad at all - I think I personally rate #2 over the rest. It's a surprisingly photogenic car as long as it's not side on. Front and back look great.

Confused · 22 Jul 2008 at 16:26

For the love of God, next time put the darn aerial down!!

GSXRMovistar · 22 Jul 2008 at 22:13

Confused said:
For the love of God, next time put the darn aerial down!!

Aerial doesn't go down

gord · 22 Jul 2008 at 22:35

Ronseal Aerial Remover!

A.N.Other · 22 Jul 2008 at 23:05

gord said:
Ronseal Aerial Remover!

Does exactly what it says on the tin

Confused · 23 Jul 2008 at 09:47

Much better!

MuGeN · 10 Aug 2009 at 22:06

could i revive this? #6 looks so damn sharp and pleasing to the eye (the b&w one) - what lens and post processing is this? is it simply a 10-20 sigma and then saturation reduced?

Snapshot · 11 Aug 2009 at 06:19

GSXRMovistar said:
Can't say it was no, but seeing as it's easily identified as a pylon I wasn't expecting anyone to actually think it was attached to the roof.

It's usually considered to be a basic composition error like photographing people with plants apparently growing out of their heads. Shooting it in portrait format draws attention to the pylon and implies it's meant to be part of the car.

GSXRMovistar · 11 Aug 2009 at 12:25

MuGeN said:
could i revive this? #6 looks so damn sharp and pleasing to the eye (the b&w one) - what lens and post processing is this? is it simply a 10-20 sigma and then saturation reduced?

The B&W one was taken with a 24-105 L lens at 24mm so that helps sharpness. Processing wise it was a low contrast B&W conversion, a little fill light was added and upped the recovery slider to bring out detail.

Snapshot said:
implies it's meant to be part of the car.

I agree it was a shame it was in the background like that, but can't see anyone being stupid enough to believe it was part of the car or that the intention was to imply that.

MuGeN · 11 Aug 2009 at 14:57

GSXRMovistar said:
can't see anyone being stupid enough to believe it was part of the car or that the intention was to imply that.

Rob200sx · 11 Aug 2009 at 16:21

Ok lets re-phrase the original pylon comment to....

It's a shame the pylon is there in those shots, with the angle you've shot at it's leading the viewer into the pylons, thus creating an unfortunate distraction.

There we go