Let’s be honest: The internet is awash in crappy photos of cool cars. You might have contributed some. We have.
We have shared tips from a pro on how to do a full, proper photo shoot of your car, but what about those pressed for time?
Can you bang out something passable in less than a minute? How about less …
If this isn't a reminder to go out and use my camera more, I don't know what is.
While the car does look good with the wheels straight I've always felt that in the classic front 3/4 view that cutting the wheels a bit towards the camera was even better. I think it looks, or maybe feels, more dynamic. Part of what makes cars so exciting is that they move and having the wheels turned provides a hint of that in a static image.
In reply to APEowner :
I think you can try both. Sometimes a bit too much tread looks weird. Sometimes too little tread looks weird. I say try all.
In this case, I've been happier with the car's looks with the wheels dead ahead.
Plus, I only had 20 seconds....
David S. Wallens said:In reply to APEowner :
I think you can try both. Sometimes a bit too much tread looks weird. Sometimes too little tread looks weird. I say try all.
In this case, I've been happier with the car's looks with the wheels dead ahead.
Plus, I only had 20 seconds....
Yeah, I've tried the wheels turned thing and I don't care for it. Looks too much like I'm trying to be Car & Driver. :)
Rather than the downspout pipe, the background thing that stands out to me is the little patch of blue on the wall just peeking over the hood.
In reply to APEowner :
I'm partial to this angle; the person who took this is a hobbyist professional.
"Our camera gear was in the trunk the entire time."
Some of my favorite random shots happen when all my stuff is neatly packed away and its too much hassle to get it all out . Nope, boom 20 seconds, phone shot, done.
In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :
I both like and don't like that patch of blue above the hood.
If I had another 5 seconds, yeah, I could have rolled the car forward or backward.
But note that we're discussing the fine points. The big stuff has been handled. Once you have the basics, now you can fine tune things. This is all good stuff.
Something I don't like about the final shot; there's medium blue on the building behind a dark blue car. Higher contrast would have resulted from just white building behind the car. I think the eye can be drawn to that odd junction point where medium and dark blue meet. If there was a section of just white wall available, that would have been nicer, I believe.
Kevin_at_BW said:"Our camera gear was in the trunk the entire time."
Some of my favorite random shots happen when all my stuff is neatly packed away and its too much hassle to get it all out . Nope, boom 20 seconds, phone shot, done.
Yup. If you didn't get the photo, you didn't get the photo. Be prepared and all that.
Along those lines, in school we had to carry our camera with us. All the time.
Once, while driving home from class, I came across an armored car that had gone off the road and flipped. Police and fire were already on the scene. Big mess.
I had my camera right there with me so I parked, got out of the car, and grabbed some photos.
Long story short, I made the cover of the next day's paper–both morning and evening editions.
See also: I'm okay with creating some tension if the overall image releases it.
For those using a camera phone: Tap the subject (car) on the screen so that the camera knows what the most important thing in the scene is. It will alter the exposure to make sure that the subject is correct - or come fairly close. If it still seems a little dark/light most phones have an exposure compensation slider on the screen after you tap it. Use that to get it where you want. It only takes a few seconds.
Also... while diffuse light is generally flattering, it can be a little dull, depending on where exactly the light source is. The light in the shadows is also cool (blue-ish) which is also not always flattering. With a car's shiny, reflective surfaces, you may want to shoot it in a place where you get some warmth and sparkle to make your photo pop.
I'm going to stop now before this is ten paragraphs long and way outside the scope of this article. :-)
Good point on tapping the screen. Yes, that helps.
Still, not a bad image for spending 18 seconds on the entire production. Hopefully the info helps.
Some tips from a friend of mine, Dick James, who has taken some iconic car pics and produced some amazing car "ads"..
Step back to about 50' to take your shots.. it minimizes distortion - look closely and the bimmer has some front to rear distortion.
turn the wheels in about 15 degrees on the side you're shooting (of course they have to be nice wheels)
his last nugget of advice when I sent him some shots I'd taken in front of a classic old barn.. "what are you selling? the barn?" Plain backgrounds.... he was the first to take shots on the wet salt flats..
several of these from the 70's are his: https://blog.consumerguide.com/classic-plymouth-ads/
I don't mind the downspout, but that blue paint on the wall right above the ... blue hood makes that pic a throw-away to me. Makes the car appear to have lines it doesn't (shaker hood anyone?).
russelljones48 said:Some tips from a friend of mine, Dick James, who has taken some iconic car pics and produced some amazing car "ads"..
Step back to about 50' to take your shots.. it minimizes distortion - look closely and the bimmer has some front to rear distortion.
turn the wheels in about 15 degrees on the side you're shooting (of course they have to be nice wheels)
his last nugget of advice when I sent him some shots I'd taken in front of a classic old barn.. "what are you selling? the barn?" Plain backgrounds.... he was the first to take shots on the wet salt flats..
several of these from the 70's are his: https://blog.consumerguide.com/classic-plymouth-ads/
Totally agree with the first suggestion. Using a zoom lens results in much less distortion and a more realistic representation of the subject. Granted that sometimes that distortion is an artistic choice. Also acknowledging that you may not have the room to back away from the subject. A second benefit of using a longer focal length (Fancy way of saying "zooming in") is that you can often hide things in the background (A blue piece of wall, for instance).
This is a reasonably easy to understand article on the topic:
https://www.diyphotography.net/definitive-guide-focal-length-perspective-zooming-feet-nonsense/
The higher angle shots showing a bit of the grandstands were good for defining the location - a race track, not a storage rental site. Also at this angle, the blue panels look like they are meant to be there and are therefore less distracting in my view. Fun exercise and discussion!
Another possibly hidden tip: You can find some cool places to shoot a car at the race track, even if it's not on the race track.
And, yes, have fun with it.
I never owned a camera when my car looked good enough to photograph, but when I took some photos, during the first shoot, I had the seat back pushed forwards into the steering wheel (fail) and the second shoot, I didn't have the door fully closed (fail). Lately, I cut off part of the car trying to use a smart phone because I can't see anything through the view screen (multi fail).
In reply to VolvoHeretic :
Yeah, composition matters. Our photojournalism professor didn't allow any cropping. We had to print the entire negative, including the raggedy edges.
Why? It forced us to compose in the viewfinder.
David S. Wallens said:Yeah, composition matters. Our photojournalism professor didn't allow any cropping. We had to print the entire negative, including the raggedy edges.
Why? It forced us to compose in the viewfinder.
I have read that this is considered important for journalism because cropping the photo is considered "doctoring the image" and thus violates a code about ethics and truth. I'm not sure I agree, but maybe that's why I'm not a photojournalist. :)
If one is shooting digital photos for fun/art/commerce/etc, then I would argue that it's better shooting a little wider than needed for the finished product and then cropping it slightly during processing. That trades off a little bit of resolution (which modern camera bodies have far more of than you actually need for virtually anything) for an increased chance of getting a shot that contains all of the important things. It's the same reason why I rarely take only ONE photograph -- digital storage is so cheap that grabbing 2 or 3 frames (or more!) is good insurance against getting stuck with an image that had some transitory problem with it.
Oh, yes, take a ton of photos. I used to joke that film is cheap–and it is compared to travel and everything else involved in getting there for the shot.
Today, yes, storage is crazy inexpensive. We keep everything on a server that is then backed up to the cloud. We're talking zillions of photos. The whole rig would fit in the trunk of a Miata. Our slides and prints sit in lateral files that take up so much space–and if you lose a neg/slide, then it's gone forever.
Likewise, I don't delete photos. What if you do need it later? What if you accidentally delete a good shot? And why take that much time to save a tiny bit of storage?
I don't recall cropping being considered unethical. We cropped in journalism class. A proportion wheel was standard issue. (I have mine here–photo of it to come soon.)
But what about about phone photos? My photojournalism friend doesn't allow his students to use them for class. Why? Too much internal doctoring and manipulation. Was the sky really that blue? Was his skin really that clear? You can argue that you can do all that stuff in Photoshop, but figure you have to draw the line somewhere.
Before Photoshop, before InDesign, we used this to resize images.
Now to see if I remember how to use it...
And with my parents' rally computer. 
David S. Wallens said:Oh, yes, take a ton of photos. I used to joke that film is cheap–and it is compared to travel and everything else involved in getting there for the shot.
Today, yes, storage is crazy inexpensive. We keep everything on a server that is then backed up to the cloud. We're talking zillions of photos. The whole rig would fit in the trunk of a Miata. Our slides and prints sit in lateral files that take up so much space–and if you lose a neg/slide, then it's gone forever.
Likewise, I don't delete photos. What if you do need it later? What if you accidentally delete a good shot? And why take that much time to save a tiny bit of storage?
I don't recall cropping being considered unethical. We cropped in journalism class. A proportion wheel was standard issue. (I have mine here–photo of it to come soon.)
But what about about phone photos? My photojournalism friend doesn't allow his students to use them for class. Why? Too much internal doctoring and manipulation. Was the sky really that blue? Was his skin really that clear? You can argue that you can do all that stuff in Photoshop, but figure you have to draw the line somewhere.
Have you ever noticed how much room there is around the subject of many automotive press photos theses days? I assume that's to give each publisher some flexibility in how they want the image cropped for their particular publication. It makes sense for that usage but if you're just downloading the image to look at it's a little annoying that the subject often takes up so little of the composition. Zooming in still yields a nice quality image though.
Totally agree with the comment about the reality of what's coming out of phone cameras these days. I feel like they often help WAY too much. I try to shoot something like a sunset image and the AI messes with things in ways I don't like or agree with, in terms of what I'm seeing with my eyes compared to what the image looks like. I'd really like a slider or buttons that allow me to adjust the amount of processing that AI does before it's final rendering of the image. I also think that everyone talking about how phone camera images are approaching the quality of DSLR/mirrorless camera images is high. Blow them up on a computer screen at full resolution and they fall apart in comparison. They often look fine on the phone but that's not really how they should be judged.
You'll need to log in to post.
