The Photography Discussion Thread

[henk4]

I think it does.

this is probably why I took a shot of the 18th hole at Pebble Beach this year, with no car in it

[Kitdy]

I was not beating, I was asking how.

No, not that, I'm talking about the instances in the actual competition threads of you arguing with pat over his (and others) modification of photos with image editing software.

The current question is completely understandable.

[Sauc3]

Does this imply that the actual car was never at the shown location at all?

Sorry, didn't completely read the original post through.

This is the general setup I'd expect for this shoot, using a couple different shoots as examples.

Rig shot - unedited.


Rig Still attached keeping camera in same position to allow for easier editing.


Camera moved from a rig to a tripod so even less editing is necessary.


Lights added to the previous step to light up the car in a studio setup (can be from as little as one flash to shooting in an actual studio)


Final editing is applied to remove all signs of the rig.


Body with lighting is inserted, possible blended in with the body from the rig shot to give location reflections whilst maintaining the commercial look.

I hope that explains is a bit more.

[henk4]

Thank you,
so basically the only shot of the moving car is the first one, with the rig attached. The second shot shows the car stopped, the third shot is the car in the same position as the second, but now with a tripod replacing the rig, (I don't understand the shot of the orange car), and the final shot is where you put the spinning wheels of shot number 1 and merge it with the tripod shot.

[henk4]

No, not that, I'm talking about the instances in the actual competition threads of you arguing with pat over his (and others) modification of photos with image editing software.

The current question is completely understandable.

so then do not refer to other instances. People seem to like such pictures and I am interested in the way they are constructed.

[Sauc3]

Thank you,
so basically the only shot of the moving car is the first one, with the rig attached. The second shot shows the car stopped, the third shot is the car in the same position as the second, but now with a tripod replacing the rig, (I don't understand the shot of the orange car), and the final shot is where you put the spinning wheels of shot number 1 and merge it with the tripod shot.

The shot of the orange car shows a different lighting setup. Notice how the reflections of the car don't reflect it's environment much, the external flash lights overpower natural light and give the car a studio-like look. Because the shoot of the Audi did not have this step I included this as an example of the lighting that would have been used in the BMW shot.

Along with the spinning wheels of shot 1 you have to remember the background AND reflections have to match up. A car with spot highlights doesn't reflect a moving background with striped highlights of motion blur at night like in the first image. During the day you have to remember moving shrubbery, lamp posts and the like that in a slow shutter speed rig shot are not perfectly sharp and motionless.

I hope that made sense...

[henk4]

The shot of the orange car shows a different lighting setup. Notice how the reflections of the car don't reflect it's environment much, the external flash lights overpower natural light and give the car a studio-like look. Because the shoot of the Audi did not have this step I included this as an example of the lighting that would have been used in the BMW shot.

Along with the spinning wheels of shot 1 you have to remember the background AND reflections have to match up. A car with spot highlights doesn't reflect a moving background with striped highlights of motion blur at night like in the first image. During the day you have to remember moving shrubbery, lamp posts and the like that in a slow shutter speed rig shot are not perfectly sharp and motionless.

I hope that made sense...

yep, it does in the case of the Audi, you explained who shot number 1 got the additional front light. But now in the case of the BMW, what would have been the sequence? I am asking because the shade in front of the car is still there.

[Sauc3]

A rough breakdown in the attached image.

The studio lighting selection would have been superimposed on it's own, the entire background would most likely have been as it was shot as in example no.1 with the Audi. So with the natural sun coming from the rear, the shadow fell on the road naturally. Using an external light setup on the front to balance out the exposure, perhaps just the nose of the car was masked onto the rig shot, leaving the background intact.

I know what's in my head, I just hope it's coming out right.

[henk4]

so everything around the car, including the front shades together with the wheels is composed from the rig shot?

[Sauc3]

Correct, including a large amount of the reflections.

[henk4]

Correct, including a large amount of the reflections.

which answers the earlier question whether the car had actually been in that place or not. It has a German license plate and the background looks rather Nevada or so...

[f6fhellcat13]

Thanks Sauc3, I assumed that they photoshopped everything. Its good to know there might be a car driving somewhere in that picture.

[henk4]

Thanks Sauc3, I assumed that they photoshopped everything. Its good to know there might be a car driving somewhere in that picture.

it is always beneficial to ask about things

[basman007]

How do I go beyond the 30 second shutter time? I've been trying night photography lately, just trying things in the park and forest near my house, but it was so dark tonight that with 30", ISO 800, 1 camera flash and a maglite the image was still very dark. And on top of that the ISO made the pics look ugly.

[henk4]

How do I go beyond the 30 second shutter time? I've been trying night photography lately, just trying things in the park and forest near my house, but it was so dark tonight that with 30", ISO 800, 1 camera flash and a maglite the image was still very dark. And on top of that the ISO made the pics look ugly.

Hm, in the old film days, you could expose a film more than once on the same position, so without transporting the film, is it not possible with digital cameras to re-expose a jpeg?