Alberto

iTrader: (14)

Nicely done Z, good pics.

ctwentytwo

iTrader: (9)

OK. OK. I'm a beginner, but I'm not GREEN in photography. I have read, am reading books. I have read internet FAQs. I have read about lenses, lens choices, Aperture, DOF, IQ, image stabalization, shutter speeed, breathing and squeezing, etc... I bought an B+W MRC circ polarizer and the canon lens work book, along with a remote for the night shots. I am a tinkerer at heart. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the comments though, but as you can see, I am a proactive kind of guy.


But during my course in car photography, I find that the situation is not always ideal. I cannot wait for the sun to be behind me and be 3-5 o'clock when the sunlight is better diffused. I know there's reflectors and whatnot, but I don't want to stand out and seem like a crazy dude taking pics of my car at the beach.

Whatever adjustments I made in post process were either to compensate for the contrast of the tires... I hate having the wheel wells and tires blend right together all the way to the rim. I hate losing tire detail. Those beach shots were really dark because the sun wasn't out yet. It was 8:30 in the morning, and that area was darkend further, because the sun is blocked by the mountains. Adjusting the shot during PP exposed all the noise.

Also, noise at night is usally introduced because people usually compensate for the low, less than ideal light with higher ISO. Higher ISO introduces noise. But the noise seen with the bimmer was not due to ISO, but rather to a bumping up of exposure and lowering shadows compensate for the detail in the front grill being lost. I used Apple Aperture photo program to isolate these. The high JPEG compression introduced artifacting only further exagerrated the problem. I try to 750x500 most of the time, as I try to keep the 3:2 aspect ratio of the pic, and the pixel and file size conserves my low server space.

Other things like the settings of computer screens and quality of screen you're viewing images on differ from user to user. I have an iMac Core 2 Duo running in desktop extension mode (using 2 screens at once) with a Gateway 21" high-res widescreen. The iMac screen is alot brighter than the Gateway. The pictures look a little underexposed on the Gateway compared to the iMac.

Sorry for the long post... but again, I'm a beginner, but I'm not green. The choices I make during Post Process sometimes adversely affects IQ, but if it helps with the overall image, I'll take it. I appreciate the critique BTW Here's some of the pics without Post Processing, and with lower JPEG compression (although if you look, you can still see artifacting). Wait for them to load, there's 5 huge pictures below.

NA350Z

iTrader: (2)

Gorgeous pics, absolutely gorgeous.

gr?

Shoot RAW and you'll never go back to JPEG. It's much easier making various adjustments, especially the white balance, with the RAW format.

gr?

Shooting in RAW will give you +/- 2 f/stops of exposure compensation, so even if you don't get the settings correct when you take the shot, the post processing can band-aid the image and not lose any image quality (as you have seen by shooting in JPEG and then making adjustments to brighten the shadows).

ctwentytwo

iTrader: (9)

I actually shoot in RAW... yeah, finding out the ins and outs of Post Processing. All the pics in this thread is shot in RAW. Apple's Aperture is pretty cool as it lets you adjust high tone, mid tone, and low tone contrast separately, which I have been fiddling with. Adjusting things like contrast, especially when you lighten contrast, exposes and heightens already present noise when trying to save shots that have been really underexposed. Also, what may be mistaken as noise, is actually JPEG compression artifacting. Notice that the 750x500 images average about 65-86kb only. I need to conserve server space and bandwidth.

Again, I found out about a month and a half ago, when you shoot in RAW, that Canon's included Digital Photo Professional lets you actually change In-Camera settings for white balance, sharpness, contrast, etc as if you changed them on the actual camera... so if you changed the settings with the software, you would get the exact same image as if you changed them in hardware (the camera).

My actual problem is waiting for the right time for the time of day to be sunny, but not high noon sunny (too bright). Just don't have the time to be there on the most ideal time for ambient, diffused light.

BTW, I started shooting RAW when you suggested about 1-2 months back in that other thread

noodleman

iTrader: (13)

i think it would be a great idea if we had a DSLR sub forum to discuss these DSLR techniques. I'd hate to lose a thread like this under mountains of other threads.

If I had the money, i'd jump on the DSLR wagon too...but alas right now my car is too much of a money pit haha.

ctwentytwo

iTrader: (9)

There is actuall a good write up of car photography here: It's been stickied up to on this "Picture Share" section. Camera techniques, whether SLR, DSLR, point and shoot, or film, pertain to all.

https://my350z.com/forum/showthread.php?t=232538

Look into the NIKON D40, which is just $559 with lens (at B&H photo). The kit lens on the Nikons are better than the Canons. Hold off on those car parts, like I did, and you'll soon be like me... going out everyday, taking pics of your car after a hard days work, and shelling out $600 more for more equipment to enhance your new camera. Be careful.

This thread, which is supposed to be a Wide Angle VS Telephoto discussion

Are there any more anybody can add to this? Maybe somebody can show a shot at 150-250mm and how much more different it can look compared to one at 50mm?

kdogg24

Great shots!

Ed 718

iTrader: (32)

Awesome thread.....Learned a few tricks I will try on my Rebel XTI

DaveZ06

iTrader: (3)

is this you?

gr?

on shots like this, leave a little more space underneath the vehicle:


Framing the car in the lower 2/3rds generally works out the best.

One thing I like to do during post processing for vehicle shots is desaturating the yellow and green hue by 15-20%. It makes the asphalt more grey and removes some of the yellow cast you get when shooting closer to sun set. Here's a quick 3 minute PS:


Compare it to the original:


I copy the background layer, make the desaturation adjustments for the Yellows and Green, then I use the eraser tool on the wheels to erase to the background to get the original yellow wheel color.

ctwentytwo

iTrader: (9)

You mean like this?



Really though, it is in the lower 2/3 in that crop. I studied art long ago... yeah, I was one of them gifted and talented folk that picked up a pencil/brush, and could naturally draw, paint, mold... In painting class in college though, my teacher said even though there are "rights" and "wrongs" in art, as long as you think it's all good, then it is. I think Impressionism is a perfect example. The art big wigs of the time dismissed the style as rubbish, now, impressionist paiters are considered revolutionaries and geniuses.

I realize this is just critique to "get better" and "improve," but what if I wanted to crop the tires? The car still follows the "thirds" rule, does it not? What if I think cropping the tires look better? Beauty is subjective to the individual, is it not? I just think the picture looks better with the tires cropped... which is an viable option I think. Sorry, I just like to discuss these types of ideas, and looking at things from "outside the box." Yeah, that's why I prefer Macs. Even though I have a PC desktop and laptop also.

BTW, I don't intend this to seem like I'm pissed or take to criticism badly. Great tip on the photoshop. Unfortunately, I don't have photoshop Thanks again for the critique.

My cousins Subaru WRX shot at 70mm. Lens is the Sigma 17-70, which is performing quite well all around.

gr?

The above image is still bottom heavy. If you crop off about 2" from the top, then it'd be more balanced. It's personal preference so you can crop it however you wish.

bisdakr

iTrader: (1)

allright i'm just took the next step and bought me a cannon xti eos, so what's the best bang for the buck when it comes to upgrading the lense? I feel the stock lense being to restricting.

gr?

depends what you plan on shooting most. for the average person, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 goes for about $430-440 new. It's still wide at 17mm even on a 1.6x crop body and has some reach at 50mm. The lens is sharp, AF is average, build quality is average.

ctwentytwo

iTrader: (9)

I just got the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 for $385. It also has a super close minimum focus length, while not true macro, lets you dab in up close shots.

I may return it for the Canon 28-135mm IS. Image Stabilization is something I want to see for myself as I've got shaky hands, and I like to shoot at dusk, so alot of blurred images handheld. Of couse, this argument is mute if you use a tripod, but sometimes, you just don't want that restriction.

But... the best deal, again, is the Canon 50mm f1.8 for $69. f1.8!!! Super bright! It gives wonderful shots of cars... at 50mm, you'll be about 20ft back to fill the frame, but again, it flattens out the perspective nicely. GET!!!

vince1611

iTrader: (9)

---

gr?

heat up the sensor?

You won't get any noise for night shots if you use a lower iso. The noise becomes evident at higher iso due to amplifying the image signal to increase the light sensitivity.

ISO 200, 4 second shutter speed, f/2.2

Tenac1ousZ

iTrader: (2)

MR X,

Awesome thread and pictures.


gr?,

Very nice pix as well. I agree with you on turning the wheels towards the camera and the tires away, when taking a picture. I often see people take a picture of a very nice car, with a beautiful background, very good lighting, and have the front tire pointed straight at the camera . I'm sure the Yokahama or Eagle F1 have nice thread patterns, but the rims look much nicer pointed at the camera!

Pix: a couple of examples of what I mean, and a few photos to share with this thread.