A few more.....

bp_me

Alright folks, after all the constructive critism from the last time, I thought I would show you some more recent efforts. Again, any "constructive" critism is appreciated.

I'm not sure about the exposure in No. 4, but it was that or ones with water on the lens.

cianclarke

A definite improvement over the last ones, the first one is quite good - I like the light trails, but it's all the little details that seem to nag... I'm not sure exactly what you're going for, but if it's for artsy / promo style car pictures (like in your sig') a few things I would avoid:
A cluttered background. (See picture one and three in particular - lampposts, signposts, fences, garage door).
The horrible tungsten glow. Has your digital camera got the facility to shoot "raw"? If not, can you control the white balance? I'm not sure how much you know about this, but in the above photos the colour from the tungsten streetlights above/around the car is seeping into the pictures, and giving them a yellowish colouring. To avoid this you either have to set the white balance on the camera manually (there may be a "tungsten" mode, check the manual) or else shoot raw - which, better still, will let you adjust the white balance when you get back home to get it perfect. This would give the photos a much more "cool" colour tone, and a cleaner more professional look.

Compositionally I think you're "on the ball", particularly in the last two - both are nicely framed. If you can just sort out the white balance and (maybe) find a better location you'd be all set.
Hope this helps!

bp_me

few more here...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bp_me/sets/72057594055813443/show/

Oriel

Look,
You're pointing a camera at a car and clicking. My dog could do it.
Take this to the Motor fourm.

Oh, and I doubt there's any need to copywrite them, I can see any reason why anybody would want to use them.


S.

Oriel

cianclarke wrote:

I'm not sure exactly what you're going for

I don't think he knows either.

cianclarke wrote:

I'm not sure how much you know about this,

:rolleyes:

cianclarke wrote:

Compositionally I think you're "on the ball",

Complete bollocks. The only photo coming close to being "OK" compositionally is the first one. Even that is debatable.

Blake

I don’t know why you bother posting these
they seem like very boring crappy photos of some crappy car

yeah I definitely don’t see any reason why you’d want to put your name on them, let alone copywrite them

Flipflip

Because whether you like them or not doesnt really matter. If the photographer is happy with the pic, then 90% of the time, thats all that really matters!

randombassist

sinecurea wrote:

Look,
You're pointing a camera at a car and clicking. My dog could do it.
Take this to the Motor fourm.

Oh, and I doubt there's any need to copywrite them, I can see any reason why anybody would want to use them.


S.

I don't think that's fair at all. While they may not be the best photographs they do show improvement from the previous set, and show that he was willing to take on board some of the constructive criticism that people offered him that time around. We've all got to get started somewhere, and as long as someone shows that they're getting better and listening to photographic input I think it's idiotic to think that it should be in the motor forum.

Oriel

I know we all started somewhere, I just don't get it - he's clearly more interest in the car than taking the photographs.

That said, there is a marked improvement in his linked photoset. The lighting and composition is a lot better composition, and one or two of the images are actually quite effective.

S.

jlang

Brendan, I bookmarked this a few months back. May be of interest to you.

Donncha's link to a page of tips for photographing cars.

bp_me

jlang wrote:

Brendan, I bookmarked this a few months back. May be of interest to you.

Donncha's link to a page of tips for photographing cars.

Thanks for that

Benster

Jesus lads, go easy. The man's only trying to capture his passion.

bp - they are def. an improvement, there's a Gran Tourismo feel to them this time with the trails. But I second what Cian said, you need a better location with less distracting clutter.

I know it's clichéd, but what about trying to capture a car like that with a sunset reflected off the bodywork? There have been a few good sunsets recently.

Or go all out on clutter and take it into the city centre at night (be careful!) and capture the street lights/car trail reflections. Ok, Liberty Hall ain't the skyscrapers of Miami, but you know what I'm getting at. Also try tilting the camera for a more active, dynamic look, not just straight-on shots.

hth,
B.

Fajitas!

Tbh honest Benster, it's in Waterford...ain't too many impressive places other than the old docks, and a few other industrial estates for clutterless shots that go with this style (Actually - hospital car park - down by the morgue, where they park the ambulances now that I think of it). Maybe the quay at night, or the bus station.

OP, I'd really advise putting you (c) in a frame and not the photo. Try using photoshop for blurring the background, taking the business away from them.

Since you're dealing with a static object, you have plenty of time for playing about with long exposures. Do something interesting with them, even if it means going out to the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night, setting a long exposure focused on the car and use a (white lighted) torch, highlight bits.


Tilting the camera as the above post says is a really good tip. Especially right up by the front grill, make the car look aggressive.

Er...and If the car is still...maybe ask the driver would he mind getting out while you take a shot...It's kinda distracting.

At the moment, they're pictures of cars. Do something different.

I think if you want to make the above photo's impressive... You're gonna have to use a bit of photoshop.

EDIT:

This is only after 7 or 8 minutes of photoshop. Wouldn't call it a huge improvement, but it does make it a tiny bit more striking.

bp_me

Fajitas! wrote:

Er...and If the car is still...maybe ask the driver would he mind getting out while you take a shot...It's kinda distracting.


EDIT:

This is only after 7 or 8 minutes of photoshop. Wouldn't call it a huge improvement, but it does make it a tiny bit more striking.

It was very cold and I just grabbed the camera. The driver isnt known for getting out of the car at the best of times.

Will deffo take the other advice on board though.

I should probably clear up a misconception......this wasnt an organised photoshoot or anything where we could go looking for somewhere to shoot. Was simply a case of a few of us parked up and I had the camera and tripod in the car.

FX Meister

Dump the copyright at the bottom. It serves no purpose. You still have the original flick if it comes to a court case. But that will never happen. What age are you by the way? Old enough to drive.

bp_me

FX Meister wrote:

Dump the copyright at the bottom. It serves no purpose. You still have the original flick if it comes to a court case. But that will never happen. What age are you by the way? Old enough to drive.

Yes, old enough to drive. Why do you ask?

FX Meister

You just come across as quite young. Just curious.

Rojo

FX Meister wrote:

You just come across as quite young. Just curious.

What do I come across as?

FX Meister

See the post above.

Shrimp

sinecurea wrote:

The only photo coming close to being "OK" compositionally is the first one. Even that is debatable.

exactly..

cianclarke

sinecurea wrote:

I don't think he knows either.


:rolleyes:


Complete bollocks. The only photo coming close to being "OK" compositionally is the first one. Even that is debatable.

Okay, I'll retract the "on the ball". They're "not that bad", certainly not "complete bollocks" - and I hate to sound arrogant, but I'm in a reasonable position to judge. The only thing *complete* bollocks is the tungsten lighting.

Everybody has to learn somewhere, and you're negative attitude is nothing more than completely unconstructive and insulting.