Automotive Photography Competition #163

[henk4]

yup, Testarossas have always been considered to be a bit vulgar....

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by henk4

yup, Testarossas have always been considered to be a bit vulgar....

actually it is a 512 TR, but it's the upgrade of the Testarossa, so for this time you are safe
btw, it's one of my favourite cars

[zeppelin]

Originally Posted by pat_ernzen

pat_ernzen
"Bad Taste"
Friend's House, AZ
April 1, 2008
Canon 20D, Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, C-PL
Post-Processing: YES

Lovely shot, however keep an eye out for the editing police.

[pat_ernzen]

Originally Posted by zeppelin

Lovely shot, however keep an eye out for the editing police.

They're actually why I selected that shot, hence the bolded "YES" and title (from henk's comments). I wasn't planning on entering anything this week.

[kvisser]

kvisser
speed
may 3, 2007
fuji S3 pro NO PHOTOSHOPPING

[Kitdy]

Originally Posted by pat_ernzen

They're actually why I selected that shot, hence the bolded "YES" and title (from henk's comments). I wasn't planning on entering anything this week.

I for one, care very little about how you generated that shot pat. You have quite a talent and your website is full of gorgeous pictures. Great shot of the Testarossa (such a unqiue colour as well).

Also of note were your shots of the 246 GT Dino. They were absolutely stellar.

You gotta coax more of these photo shoots from owners somehow.

EDIT: As much as I appreciate the art of the raw capture, even as a complete layman to photography, I generally prefer the look of edited pictures.

Yeah henk4, they may not be natural, and you may deride them all you want, but the results simply look fantastic.

The photo competitions now allow editing, so the point is moot anyways. Maybe it will change in the future but zeppelin runs these competitions (with input from others) and it seems to me that things are peachy with the competitions right now and there is a lot of quality and quantity in these competitions so things are going well.

Can't we put this issue to bed or at least save it for the thread dedicated to it?

[Manik]

I agree with pat ernzen on this argument, editing has now established itself as common place in the photography world and has proven very successful. Countless images have come out stunning with digital input, whether they look natural or not.

[zeppelin]

It's simply a method brought to us by the modern world to create more interesting final pieces. And with techniques like HDR and so forth, more interesting and realistic scenes that couldn't be achieved conventionally.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by zeppelin

It's simply a method brought to us by the modern world to create more interesting final pieces.

I hope I have the permission to actually think that this method results in LESS interesting final pieces...

[Rockefella]

Originally Posted by henk4

I hope I have the permission to actually think that this method results in LESS interesting final pieces...

To each his own. I like both sides of the fence here. Wouter's photographs are usually minimally edited from what I can tell, and they're stunning additions to both the website and these competitions. It makes me feel like I have a first hand view of a racing event or concourse. On the other hand, edited photos like those of pat.ernzen bring photography into an almost surreal aspect. Obviously, you can't see a Testarossa in that kind of contrast/lighting/etc but through post-processing such effects can be realized.

Best not to defend one side to the death but in essence, agree to disagree.

[Gt1Street]

Originally Posted by Rockefella

To each his own. I like both sides of the fence here. Wouter's photographs are usually minimally edited from what I can tell, and they're stunning additions to both the website and these competitions. It makes me feel like I have a first hand view of a racing event or concourse. On the other hand, edited photos like those of pat.ernzen bring photography into an almost surreal aspect. Obviously, you can't see a Testarossa in that kind of contrast/lighting/etc but through post-processing such effects can be realized.

Well put, and thats my view exactly.
Plus I see no harm in edited photos as long as its clearly stated.

On the other hand I would see logic in making the Photography comeptitions strictly for non-edited photos since that is whole point, to testout your photography abilities not your Photoshop skills...

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by Gt1Street

On the other hand I would see logic in making the Photography comeptitions strictly for non-edited photos since that is whole point, to testout your photography abilities not your Photoshop skills...

i am with you.

[pat_ernzen]

Originally Posted by Gt1Street

Photography comeptitions strictly for non-edited photos since that is whole point, to testout your photography abilities not your Photoshop skills...

My view on that is that post-processing is part of photography (even with film) and it doesn't matter how good you are with Photoshop, you still need a good starting point to get good results.

[LeonOfTheDead]

true, but a lot of people use post-processing to create simply something strange or weird (see the bad taste spreading) with absurd light condition and too high contrast. the subject of the photo loses of important in favour of the colour/contrast/light/etc conditions, see post processing.
a good part in photography is also the ability to catch the right moment. for example last general competition winner, i don't want to despise it, it's just my opinion, but it's weird, has absurd colours and it has a pretty standard subject. it's better than a lot of pix i took, for sure, but i guess a lot of people voted it just because of the photochops. personal tastes.

[pat_ernzen]

Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead

true, but a lot of people use post-processing to create simply something strange or weird (see the bad taste spreading) with absurd light condition and too high contrast. the subject of the photo loses of important in favour of the colour/contrast/light/etc conditions, see post processing.
a good part in photography is also the ability to catch the right moment. for example last general competition winner, i don't want to despise it, it's just my opinion, but it's weird, has absurd colours and it has a pretty standard subject. it's better than a lot of pix i took, for sure, but i guess a lot of people voted it just because of the photochops. personal tastes.

I find that to be a very narrow-minded view. I'm not a journalist and I'm not shooting subjects for a catalog or something. I take a photo to create a quality/beautiful/striking image. Nothing more, nothing less. As for the last general comp, I would've personally voted for Manik's shot, but it's no more "accurate" than Dary's.

And I don't know if there is a word or two missing here or something, but I really don't understand this: "the subject of the photo loses of important in favour of the colour/contrast/light/etc conditions, see post processing."