2009 Detroit Autorama - the great 8

[Toeslider]

We'll I applied some of the advice I got here to my indoor car show shooting and did better overall, but still room for improvement.

These are the 8 cars that were up for the Ridler Award this year. For those that don't know, this is probably considered the most prestigious award in the world of car customizing. Some of the work done to these rods is truly amazing.

I shot about half of these with my XTi, and the other half with my Sigma SD14. I won't say which are which just yet.


1. Chris Conly - 1933 Ford Cabriolet:

http://www.tmcarphoto.com/rid1.jpg


2. Harold and Rhea Schrader - 1935 Ford Coupe

http://www.tmcarphoto.com/rid2.jpg


3. Keith Hulin - 1941 Willys Coupe

http://www.tmcarphoto.com/rid3.jpg


4. Nick Pinto - 1940 Ford 2 Door Sedan

http://www.tmcarphoto.com/rid4.jpg


5. Gordy Peters - 1939 Ford Convertible

http://www.tmcarphoto.com/rid5.jpg


6. Paul Ryckman - 1941 Willys Coupe

http://www.tmcarphoto.com/rid6.jpg


7. Alton Love - 1956 Chevy 210

http://www.tmcarphoto.com/rid7.jpg


AND THE WINNER IS:

8. Doug Cooper - 1932 Ford B400 - "DEUCENBERG"

http://www.tmcarphoto.com/rid8.jpg



Somehow I only ended up with two shots of the blue Willys, and both were out of focus. I posted the better of the two. By the second day I was getting over my fear of shooting at ISO 800, but by then I was down in the basement shooting pictures of "Rat Rods".

[lClutchl]

Great shots - nice job capturing the color of #2.

I love going to that show, but it always makes me pay for my lack of winter exercise... my back and legs will be reminding me of it for at least the next few days! :)

[PhotosGuy]

Good coverage of it!

[mlav]

Is it my laptop or are they all underexposed, some quite a bit?

Did you have an umbrella in Cobo? (no, not a lighting unbrella)

[Toeslider]

Is it my laptop or are they all underexposed, some quite a bit?

Did you have an umbrella in Cobo? (no, not a lighting unbrella)


The blue Willys is dark, but it was the only picture of it I had. The rest of them look ok on my monitor, given the conditions. I was using a bounce card on my flash because I don't like the look of direct flash on cars. I did not have a diffuser that would allow me to point the flash directly at the cars. They could be underexposed but they look ok to me. Maybe other people could chime in?

[Jon Foster]

They are a bit on the dark side for me too. Nice shots, just a bit underexposed.

Jon.

[PhotosGuy]

They could be underexposed but they look ok to me. Maybe other people could chime in? You need to do two things:
1. Calibrate your monitor:
Monitor Calibration (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=158158)

Color problems? [work in progress?] (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=296149)

2. Did you use manual mode on the flash? It would have given you more control over the combined exposure.

[Toeslider]

2. Did you use manual mode on the flash? It would have given you more control over the combined exposure.


This is something I need to experiment more with. I believe all the above images were shot with the flash set to ETTL. I wondered if the flash does anything to compensate when it is set to a 45 degree angle and bouncing off a card. I would imagine you would have to make a similar compensation if you use a diffuser on the flash, which is what I wish I had.

[Toeslider]

Part of my problem is I read all this information, but I still can't remember it all in the field, or things I think I understand, I have remembered wrong. I suppose it will come to me in time.

For instance, I did not remember that P mode and AV mode are metered differently when using flash. That might have caused me to under/over expose some shots that I thought would turn out.

[sevanseriesta]

I am not a fan of the cars but good pics, I am more of a modern car guy!

[sastein]

Look underexposed to me.

[PhotosGuy]

I wondered if the flash does anything to compensate when it is set to a 45 degree angle and bouncing off a card. One pro described it to me as "The cam talks to the strobe, which talks back to the cam, which talks back...", so sometimes they get confused & he only shoots on full manual.

It helps to test, learn your equipment, & standardize some preset conditions like the distance you'll be shooting at IF you're willing to learn to shoot manual with both the cam & strobe. You know what the effect of the strobe will be at that given distance, so you can adjust your shutter speed to either properly expose the background, or even make the background lighter or darker.
Now you can stay at that pre-tested distance & use the zoom to frame your shots & your exposure should be very close. If you have to shoot at a greater distance, there's only one stop difference in light output at 11', & one stop more difference in light output at 16'.
Why?
Probably more than you want to know, but take a look at this: Fill light at sunset. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=66353)

And, re: my comment... & use the zoom to frame your shots
Some flashes allow for you to set the angle of coverage. You should test your flash to see how much of the frame it covers on wide angle at whatever distance you chose to standardize at. Just stand that distance from a white wall & shoot a frame. See if the light across the wall is even. If not, then zoom in a bit & try again.
The light fall-off at the edges can actually be an advantage at an auto show if you'd like to darken the surrounding environment.

[Toeslider]

I'll have to go back through the EXIFS, but like I said (at least for the Canon) I made a big mistake thinking ETTL worked the same for P mode and AV mode. In P mode I thought it exposed for the scene and added fill from the flash, but it looks like it meters the scene based on the flash exposure. If I took a shot with the camera in P mode with the flash set to ETTL and angled 45 degrees with a bounce card it would make sense that the pictures would be underexposed to a certain degree. (I think.)

[PhotosGuy]

That's why I like M mode. Nothing changes that I don't change myself.

[fsubassoon]

Cool show, and nice shots. I like the composition of them, just underexposed, as others have said.

[Toeslider]

Now I'm anxious to go look at this thread on someone elses computer, because on both my laptop and my external LCD, and an old CRT I have hooked up to my "utility" computer they all look "ok", as in slightly underexposed. They way you all talk it sounds like people can hardly see them.

The interesting part is that if I take the RAW images and start bumping up the exposure, even a little bit, they start to look washed out, as in the blacks aren't truly black anymore. I guess I'll have to play around with the settings a little more.

On my external LCD I went to the test page mentioned above, and it seems to check out ok with the tests. I can see a difference in the two darkest blacks and the two whitest whites. But on that monitor these shots don't look drastically underexposed, except for maybe the blue one.

[izthistaken]

Just so everyone knows. Cobo hall (where this took place) has the worst lighting in the planet I think.

[Toeslider]

How does this look? Better? (I'll attach both versions here so it's easier to compare)

[PhotosGuy]

Cobo hall (where this took place) has the worst lighting in the planet I think. That's a big 10-4! And the roof leaks... the Detroit city councils answer to low humidity.

[izthistaken]

That's a big 10-4! And the roof leaks... the Detroit city councils answer to low humidity.
Yes. Thanks for agreeing. I hate events that happen there. I actually question taking my camera in there. :confused:

[PhotosGuy]

They way you all talk it sounds like people can hardly see them. The 3rd one is really dark, maybe 3 stops in IE. Browsers need to be calibrated, too:
Firefox (3.0.4) + add ons (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=602787) Now I'm anxious to go look at this thread on someone elses computer, If they aren't calibrated, you're just chasing your tail?
One thing you could do is use the Eyedropper tool [I] in PS & the Info Palette to check a unblown white like the wheel in #1 or the printed matter in #3 & see how close it comes to RGB 255, 255, 255, to get an indication of how close your exposure is.

[Toeslider]

The 3rd one is really dark, maybe 3 stops in IE. Browsers need to be calibrated, too:
Firefox (3.0.4) + add ons (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=602787) If they aren't calibrated, you're just chasing your tail?
One thing you could do is use the Eyedropper tool [i] in PS & the Info Palette to check a unblown white like the wheel in #1 or the printed matter in #3 & see how close it comes to RGB 255, 255, 255, to get an indication of how close your exposure is.


In the "fixed" image I posted last the wheels are coming up in the 220, 220, 220 range, give or take 10, but the interesting thing is the wheels are actually cream-colored on that car, so they really look more correct in the underexposed version.

I did adjust my monitor a bit more using some online tools and got it tuned in a little better, and I can see what people are saying now.

Unfortunately the blue one was not shot in RAW, so it may be more challenging to fix.