Automotive Photography Competition #145

[whiteballz]

Whiteballz
F6 sedan
5th/1/08
Nikon D50 - 18-55 lens
Minor editing (contrasts/levels/blur)

[henk4]

Originally Posted by basman007

IMHO, this is about making an image the way you find it the most beautifull.

and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I just mentioned that I found Pat's picture "unreal". The next step will be allowing pictures of real paintings in the competition....

[basman007]

Originally Posted by henk4

The next step will be allowing pictures of real paintings in the competition....

why not?

[pat_ernzen]

Originally Posted by henk4

and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I just mentioned that I found Pat's picture "unreal". The next step will be allowing pictures of real paintings in the competition....

Dude, this is the 100% untouched, straight off the camera JPEG (which I only use to browse through the RAWs quickly). All I did is crop and resize so that it's more of a direct comparison. Just because it looks "unreal" to you doesn't mean it isn't real.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by pat_ernzen

Dude, this is the 100% untouched, straight off the camera JPEG (which I only use to browse through the RAWs quickly). All I did is crop and resize so that it's more of a direct comparison. Just because it looks "unreal" to you doesn't mean it isn't real.

Mr. dude for you. Compare the two pics and you see what I mean...

[Wouter Melissen]

Originally Posted by henk4

Mr. dude for you. Compare the two pics and you see what I mean...

What is the problem? I have seen dozens of shots entered that were nowhere near as good as his usual entries.

[pat_ernzen]

Originally Posted by henk4

Mr. dude for you. Compare the two pics and you see what I mean...

I did. I could get 90% of what I did through RAW editing alone. The edited version is basically just more vibrant/striking/bold/etc... which is absolutely a good thing. Post-processing can really bring a shot to life and in this case, it makes a huge difference. IMO, in this day and age, NOT post-processing/editing your photos is a problem.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by pat_ernzen

I did. I could get 90% of what I did through RAW editing alone. The edited version is basically just more vibrant/striking/bold/etc... which is absolutely a good thing. Post-processing can really bring a shot to life and in this case, it makes a huge difference. IMO, in this day and age, NOT post-processing/editing your photos is a problem.

I looked for a pic with some orange in my files. Here is one, and subsequently "excessively reworked" to make the orange stand out. (I use Office Picture Manager,which offers not too many options)
Having obviously been present when I shoot the picture, I have to say that the totally unedited picture is much more natural.
Your picture appears to have been taken during sunshine after a heavy rainshower, which can produce very nice contracts in the air, but by highlighting those contrasts you are actually overdoing it.
PS: Neither pic is an entry as the shot is too old.

[pat_ernzen]

Originally Posted by henk4

I looked for a pic with some orange in my files. Here is one, and subsequently "excessively reworked" to make the orange stand out. (I use Office Picture Manager,which offers not too many options)
Having obviously been present when I shoot the picture, I have to say that the totally unedited picture is much more natural.
Your picture appears to have been taken during sunshine after a heavy rainshower, which can produce very nice contracts in the air, but by highlighting those contrasts you are actually overdoing it.
PS: Neither pic is an entry as the shot is too old.

First of all, that is in no way comparable to my pic. I would absolutely agree that that is far too saturated. If it were my pic I wouldn't take it nearly that far. Yes, the unedited pic is obviously more natural as the second one is just weird looking.

However, photography is an art form. Like all art, the artist should take their personal vision and go with it. I imagine you're the type of guy that hates Salvador Dali's paintings... Afterall, they're not very "natural" looking and a hair on the "unreal" side. My editing is far from extreme or "excessively reworked" IMO. Sure, it's pretty damn bold, but again, compare it to the original and clearly it's no where near as extreme as what you did. Besides, who are you to say I'm "overdoing it"?

[Kitdy]

Originally Posted by henk4

I looked for a pic with some orange in my files. Here is one, and subsequently "excessively reworked" to make the orange stand out. (I use Office Picture Manager,which offers not too many options)
Having obviously been present when I shoot the picture, I have to say that the totally unedited picture is much more natural.
Your picture appears to have been taken during sunshine after a heavy rainshower, which can produce very nice contracts in the air, but by highlighting those contrasts you are actually overdoing it.
PS: Neither pic is an entry as the shot is too old.

Did he fully spin out in that turn or did he recover?

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Kitdy

Did he fully spin out in that turn or did he recover?

he spun

[henk4]

Originally Posted by pat_ernzen

First of all, that is in no way comparable to my pic. I would absolutely agree that that is far too saturated. If it were my pic I wouldn't take it nearly that far. Yes, the unedited pic is obviously more natural as the second one is just weird looking.

However, photography is an art form. Like all art, the artist should take their personal vision and go with it. I imagine you're the type of guy that hates Salvador Dali's paintings... Afterall, they're not very "natural" looking and a hair on the "unreal" side. My editing is far from extreme or "excessively reworked" IMO. Sure, it's pretty damn bold, but again, compare it to the original and clearly it's no where near as extreme as what you did. Besides, who are you to say I'm "overdoing it"?

first, I was at the track and waiting for the car to pass me but it did spin before that, so it is not "positoned" too far away, I simply had not enough lense to get it full frame....

Your comparison with Dali is out of order, personally I am a great fan of Jeroen Bosch's paintings.....

What I am trying to convey here is that we are a community with (semi) amateur photographers (or semi pros at best), who want to show what they see in front of their camera, and not what they would like to see.

[pat_ernzen]

Originally Posted by henk4

first, I was at the track and waiting for the car to pass me but it did spin before that, so it is not "positoned" too far away, I simply had not enough lense to get it full frame....

Your comparison with Dali is out of order, personally I am a great fan of Jeroen Bosch's paintings.....

What I am trying to convey here is that we are a community with (semi) amateur photographers (or semi pros at best), who want to show what they see in front of their camera, and not what they would like to see.

I wasn't talking about the pic itself, but what you did with the pic. I wasn't trying to imply it's a bad pic or anything. As for the Dali thing, I was just try to convey a point. I just think that someone who has any respect for art at all should realize that post-processing is in no way, shape or form a bad thing. The more creativity allowed, the better. Post-processing is just another tool that allows the photographer to achieve what they're trying to achieve and in the modern world, a very important tool.

And this is why the debate goes on and on... "not what they would like to see" makes no sense to me. If you do any significant amount of photography (which you seem to do), you should be well aware of the fact that what you see and what the camera captures is very rarely the exact same thing. Whether it's white balance, exposure, DoF, etc. Take for example shooting something at dusk. The vast majority of the time either the object or the sky are going to be under/over-exposed. In reality, this is not the case. Cameras and eyes are not the same.

[LotusLocost]

I, as some of you know, agree in full with Pieter on this subject.
The computer is not there to show what the camera didn't see.

I don't enter these competitions anymore now. I used to, but compared to the high tech editing many of you are very good at, I can't bother to enter anything. You feel like you have lost 2 sec after you have looked through the competitors photos.
We had two competitions a while back, one for edited photos, and one for non-edited.
The non-edited had a good amount of entries always, 8-15 every time.
The editing allowed competition never really kicked off, and i don't think it saw more than a couple of rounds.
Now our photo competitions have turned into that competition that a couple of the same guys enter every time.
Sub 5 entries a couple of the last comps guys!
Congrats people, and I say again what I have said earlier: R.I.P Photo competitions.

I feel that a competition with high amounts of editing allowed, would fit better on a photography forum than a car forum where the majority of semi good hobby-photographers with small editing skills.

But of course, someone will always seek the arena where they find themselves on the top.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by pat_ernzen

The vast majority of the time either the object or the sky are going to be under/over-exposed. In reality, this is not the case. Cameras and eyes are not the same.

with this you hit the nail on the head, because I am pretty sure that your specific picture does not show what the eye would see......