Cars cars cars (and some bikes)
- Thread starter akiskev
- Start date
Cyclops said:
5DII 17-40L
I took this at a local cemetery, This is for a photo competition, the subject was Automotive & ominous. 5 exposure HDR. And what caught my eye, was the leading lines of the road, that bring you into the subject.
Nice pic! that has to be one of the best HDR car photo's i've seen, EVER. Usually HDR pics of cars make me want to be sick or at least have a siezure, but that is clean. what did you use to process it?
Upvote
0
wickidwombat said:
You mean to tell me that you don't like images that look like cartoons? What's wrong with you? Taking an all-around mediocre image, going all HDR crazy, and getting e-high-fives from your online cohorts is a rite of passage for any novice photog! It ranks right up there with shooting black and white images of your obese cat.
Upvote
0
C
Cyclops
Guest
V8Beast said:
I think that when it comes to cars, going overboard on HDR, has it's time and place. And it's so easy to want to push the photo to it's limits.
Here a pseudo HDR i did several years back. Printed this photo looks good, but in the last few years i would never make the mistakes I did.
1.) Tonemapped not true HDR
2.) Went to the extremes on every slider possible (all or nothing)
3.) Broke my first rule of automotive photography "GET THE WHOLE CAR!!" unless your focusing on one single part of the car.
4.) Halos in the background
But what i have learned is you need to make mistake, and recognize what mistakes you made, to make the next photo look even better.
Upvote
0
Cyclops said:
Personally, I despise any HDR that looks overtly HDR. If I submitted a cartoonish HDR image to any of my clients, they'd call me back asking "WTF is that $hit?" and that would be the last time they ever hired me for an assignment. I couldn't blame them, either. If I were in their shoes, I'd do the exact same thing.
Upvote
0
olemartin said:
Nice! That's one hell of a first post! I love how the backlighting really brings out the definition of the snow.
Upvote
0
V8Beast said:
I hear you there man, Car phototography is a lot harder than people think, I dont do much of it and never have done it paid but it is very easy to tell the best from the rest. love your work.
Upvote
0
A
Adrianwroth
Guest
An interesting thread. Not all HDR,s have to look unreal , careful use of different exposures and layers as opposed to default HDR rendering can look goog. Although I'm biased. Take a look at http://www.adrianwroth.com/album/automotive?p=1&s=UA-10244230-1%20-%20http://www.adrianwroth.com#1
Upvote
0
wickidwombat said:
Thanks for the kind words. I'm just trying to keep up with those that are better than me
Like you said, there's a lot more involved with automotive photography than meets the eye, but that can be said for every form of photography. It's just a matter of learning the specifics of each discipline, and adapting accordingly. For instance, a good friend of mine used to shoot super high end product/catalog work for all the big Chicago ad agencies. After getting laid off, he decided to transition to automotive work. There were some fundamental mistakes in his early work, but after just a few gigs, he started producing some of the best damn work in the industry. Ultimately, an artist is an artist.
I'd like to think I can hang with him on the automotive stuff, but he absolutely whips my sorry butt when it comes to portraits and landscapes. Over the years, I've developed a deep respect for photographers that can excel in multiples fields within the photographic world. I'm in awe of those than can shoot fashion, sports, landscapes, and portraits at a very high caliber, not just one specific specialty.
Upvote
0
Awesome work, Adrian! I'm getting hungry just looking at the food shots, and am quite envious that you got to shoot a McLaren.
I agree 100%. IMHO, layering in multiple exposures to extend the dynamic range of an image is a must in order to bridge the gap between what the camera sees and what the human eye sees. In other words, it should look so natural that people don't even know that it's HDR.
This isn't a particularly good image, but exposing for a dark car like this will often blow out the sky entirely. Furthermore, since the top of the quarter panels are white, they were blown out as well. Obviously, this isn't how my eye captured the image when looking through the viewfinder.
An easy fix was to layer in a second exposure that was properly exposed for the sky. An ND grad filter may have been used to enhance the effect, but I don't remember, as this shot was take five years ago.
This is far more representative of what the scene actually looked like. Technically, it's HDR, but it was done to make the image appear more natural, not like a cartoon. IMHO, overly processed HDR is a pathetic gimmick that's often used as a substitute for basic photographic skills, and it needs to go away Some people can pull it off, but they are the exception to the rule.
Adrianwroth said:
I agree 100%. IMHO, layering in multiple exposures to extend the dynamic range of an image is a must in order to bridge the gap between what the camera sees and what the human eye sees. In other words, it should look so natural that people don't even know that it's HDR.
This isn't a particularly good image, but exposing for a dark car like this will often blow out the sky entirely. Furthermore, since the top of the quarter panels are white, they were blown out as well. Obviously, this isn't how my eye captured the image when looking through the viewfinder.
An easy fix was to layer in a second exposure that was properly exposed for the sky. An ND grad filter may have been used to enhance the effect, but I don't remember, as this shot was take five years ago.
This is far more representative of what the scene actually looked like. Technically, it's HDR, but it was done to make the image appear more natural, not like a cartoon. IMHO, overly processed HDR is a pathetic gimmick that's often used as a substitute for basic photographic skills, and it needs to go away
Some people can pull it off, but they are the exception to the rule.
Upvote
0
I agree 100%. IMHO, layering in multiple exposures to extend the dynamic range of an image is a must in order to bridge the gap between what the camera sees and what the human eye sees. In other words, it should look so natural that people don't even know that it's HDR.
This isn't a particularly good image, but exposing for a dark car like this will often blow out the sky entirely. Furthermore, since the top of the quarter panels are white, they were blown out as well. Obviously, this isn't how my eye captured the image when looking through the viewfinder.
An easy fix was to layer in a second exposure that was properly exposed for the sky. An ND grad filter may have been used to enhance the effect, but I don't remember, as this shot was take five years ago.
This is far more representative of what the scene actually looked like. Technically, it's HDR, but it was done to make the image appear more natural, not like a cartoon. IMHO, overly processed HDR is a pathetic gimmick that's often used as a substitute for basic photographic skills, and it needs to go away
Great work and a beautiful car.
Upvote
0
O
olemartin
Guest
kubelik said:
Thanks for the kind words!
I tried to desaturate the blue snow, and in my opinion it looked a lot better (http://fullfartfoto.no/share/IMG_3091-2.jpg) Thanks!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
