You are wrong; the sun is setting on the other side of the car. The reflection in the window is a result of the polarizer hitting a curved object.Originally Posted by #1 Mustang Fan
Supporting Admin
You are wrong; the sun is setting on the other side of the car. The reflection in the window is a result of the polarizer hitting a curved object.
If you should see a man walking down a crowded street talking aloud to himself, don't run in the opposite direction, but run towards him, because he's a poet. You have nothing to fear from the poet - but the truth.
(Ted Joans)
Supporting Member
the sun is setting at the right rear side of the car, judging from the shades from the distant mountains.
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams
Supporting Admin
The sun is still setting at the front of the car, otherwise the sky would not be that orange there.
If you should see a man walking down a crowded street talking aloud to himself, don't run in the opposite direction, but run towards him, because he's a poet. You have nothing to fear from the poet - but the truth.
(Ted Joans)
Supporting Member
but who knows what they did with the colours
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams
Novice
Allow all editing is my call. If they choose to do ridiculous/stupid editing, it just looks crap and won't get any votes...
Yeah so with that mo-fo argument out of the way... shall we get started with another comp?
Last edited by timehAndGod; 10-17-2007 at 01:39 AM.
Enthusiast
i concur. as i stated many times before, post processing is now integral part of digital photography. i played with analogue photographies as well.
anyway if a photo will look too unnatural it won't get any votes either right?
12 cylinders or walk!
Enthusiast
henk4, I disagree on the civic subject.
If this were a photography forum, we can proceed into that direction. This ain't. No good car, no good photo.
I will never vote a perfectly taken photo of a Toyota Unser over a okay-ish Ferrari.
The subject, the sense, the composition, the lighting, the post processing are all integral parts of making a wonderful photo. Splitting each out and have a debate over which has more importance over which is pointless IMO.
I suggest a Photography weekly competition. That's it, no rules. cept the 800x600. Then people who compete will not only share their ISO settings and apertures and stuffs, they'll share briefly what post processing methods they've used.
www.secondaryperspective.blogspot.com
Supporting Member
nonsense, in your view a lousy shot of an Enzo should win over a well executed one of a Smart....
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams
Super Moderator
What in the Hell are you on about? The car being perfectly in focus, is called Pat focused the camera perfectly on the car. It's not Photoshop wizardry, it's called depth of field. He then used that image to demonstrate how RAW and basic editing enhanced colours and contrast to really bring out the image. Are you implying that a good photo should be poorly focused, lit, and extremely dull? I'd love to see your shots then.
p.s. Pat's Murcielago was the best shot in the last comp, Lamborghini or not.
i was waiting on a moment, but the moment never came. all the billion other moments, were just slipping all away. i must have been tripping, we're just slipping all away. just ego tripping.
Supporting Member
less than 1/3 of the voters shared your opinion.....
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams
Rookie
Just to get back to the Dino for a second, the sun was actually rising (it was taken at like 6:15-6:30am) to the "right" of the photo/frame, so sort of to the rear of the car. I did use a polarizer, but that big black area on the glass was actually created by the sun being blocked by a mountain/hill. Which was awesome because it gave us like an extra 1/2 hour with that nice lighting. I didn't really remove any dust from the car as that was just off of a paved road and the guy keeps his car spotless. The colors and such aren't changed a whole lot, really. Here's the original unedited jpeg (I always shoot RAW+JPEG) and the color balance is off a little.
More shots of it here: Desert-Motors.com :: Automotive Photography - Phoenix, Arizona - 1971 Dino 246 GT
www.Desert-Motors.com - mag.Desert-Motors.com
Enthusiast
Some members here wouldn't vote for a photo of a Lambo only because there's a Lambo in it. It's for me just as stupid as people who vote only for the subject. I would say it's even more stupid, actually.
Super Moderator
Going back to this subject issue.. I think it's gone too far when considering this whole 'civic rule' thing. Female models are attractive for a reason.. they're photogenic, beautiful, and help 'sell' the picture. A beautiful car that is photographed well has better presence than a 1998 Toyota Camry with faded beige paint. For this same reason, you don't necessarily see unattractive/unphotogenic people as photo models.
I didn't vote for Pat's Murci photo last week, but it was still a good photo from my point of view.
Fanatic
I think the civic rules gone so far that people are afraid to vote for expensive cars, and end up voting for the one thats more "artsy" even if it's boring/not too good.
Super Moderator
oh well in that case i change my mind
i was waiting on a moment, but the moment never came. all the billion other moments, were just slipping all away. i must have been tripping, we're just slipping all away. just ego tripping.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote