56 Minutes with a 2002 Peterbuilt.

The title says it all. These guys have about 80 trucks, all 2-3 years old. They keep this one because it belonged to their father.
I shot some for them...


1. Lots of power lines, & this is one of the better backgrounds where the truck hid most of the houses, but the trees shaded the light from the front...

#1 is not a bad shot, but there is not enough movement conveyed. is it a static or a panning shot? i can't really tell.

#2 is easily the strongest of the set as it showcases the entire rig from front to rear. Very nice shot.

#3 is a botched PP job in my opinion, as the blacks of the tires and the black of the pavement do not come even close to matching, which gives off the illusion that the rig is floating! also, the background appears to be artificially darkened as it has no bearing with the light on the rig whatsoever - the rig looks pasted in. i'd scrap that one or retry the editing.

#4 i can tell this is the same photo used in #2. why all the artificial blur? i would leave at least the front of the rig sharp. the exhaust stacks are a bit off too, and look cut out. if you said you were going for a "feeling", though, i'll trust that's what you were looking for!

#5 also a re-shoot, this one isn't bad. just not a flattering angle of the rig, in my opinion. i really don't understand why you'd add in artificial noise in the "night" photos.

#6 not digging the fake purple/blue in this shot. maybe sunset colors would be more fitting?

#7 not a bad shot. i kind of wish the truck itself was angled more towards the camera so we could see more of it. just a nitpick though.

#8 i like this one. colors are more appropriate and i get the feeling of speed. nice shot!

2 & 7 are my favorite.


See the links in my Sig, and...

http://img.photobucket​.com …Welcome-ChargerRT_020.gif

:p

p27rpy wrote in post #13250313
#1 is not a bad shot, but there is not enough movement conveyed. is it a static or a panning shot? i can't really tell.

As I said, the first group was shot for them. The idea was to get a reasonably sharp large shot for their wall & not to shoot my usual motion blurs.

I did say that these were shot for print? On an 18" wide print, there's just enough separation so that the tires don't merge into the pavement. You can see the original shot link posted in #3.

Well, NO, you can't. If you look closely, there are clear differences that they're two different shots. At the very least, you could have checked the EXIF to see the different file numbers.

Again, no. ISO 1600 + flare.

You're right, it doesn't look all that good here. But in the print, it's a deep blue. Different viewing media... go figure.

"Night", remember? I kept the sunset colors that defined the tractor. The others I knocked down to = night.

Thanks for the opinion!

sigma pi wrote in post #13250351
2 & 7 are my favorite.


See the links in my Sig, and...

Cute! And a clear violation of the IMAGE POSTING RULES
:p back atcha!
;D

PhotosGuy wrote in post #13251193
A
Cute! And a clear violation of the IMAGE POSTING RULES
:p back atcha!
;D

Touche

I was reasonably sure you didnt get welcomed here

PhotosGuy wrote in post #13251193
As I said, the first group was shot for them. The idea was to get a reasonably sharp large shot for their wall & not to shoot my usual motion blurs.

I did say that these were shot for print? On an 18" wide print, there's just enough separation so that the tires don't merge into the pavement. You can see the original shot link posted in #3. Well, NO, you can't. If you look closely, there are clear differences that they're two different shots. At the very least, you could have checked the EXIF to see the different file numbers.
Again, no. ISO 1600 + flare.
You're right, it doesn't look all that good here. But in the print, it's a deep blue. Different viewing media... go figure. "Night", remember? I kept the sunset colors that defined the tractor. The others I knocked down to = night.

i stand corrected! looked like the same shots for the quick look i gave them.

maybe the full manual mode is hurting you? see sigma pi's post #1 and ...

RadAL wrote in post #13251879
maybe the full manual mode is hurting you? see sigma pi's post #1 and ...

Got to give frank a good ribbing.

Really like 2, 6 and 8.

#2 would look great, just lacking sharpness. Looks like lighting was against you though. Some of the others looks to have a little too much shadow/highlight, just maybe imo.

Shooting something that is over 60' long is surely different though.....

Sorry Frank , not feeling any of the first 7 , very flat , no contrast , and no blacks. Not to be rude , but for all the advice & criticism you give , I sort of expect better images.

last one however , is a keeper , its interesting.

I like the shot of the Kenworth.

Not to offend but based on your "tutorials", critiques, and stated know-how these images just don't do anything for me.

They look extremely artificial. I have never shot something that large and chrome and imagine it can't be easy but I think the lighting on the trucks overpowers the BG or is drastically different in nearly all of them.

It also bugs me that the truck doesn't look level in any of them particularly number 3.

#8 works....can't get real excited about the first 7.....perhaps they print better than they display, but I've looked at them on a variety of monitors and they look funny on all.

Editing doesn't do much for me unfortunately.