56 Minutes with a 2002 Peterbuilt.

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


See the links in my Sig, and...

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

:p

WIN!!!!

sigma pi wrote in post #13251896
Got to give frank a good ribbing.

No big surprise there!

Snydremark wrote in post #13252079
Really like 2, 6 and 8.

Thanks. Isn't it interesting how someone will like one image & someone else will hate it? I expected that, especially with this series, but it does leave me scratching my head at times.

kit lens wrote in post #13252312
#2 would look great, just lacking sharpness.

Maybe because I only sharpened the first third of it.

JTW_Jr wrote in post #13252320
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.

No need to be sorry. As I said, I expected this. But the, "very flat , no contrast , and no blacks." part of your comment makes me question what's going on with your system.

Mr. Pick wrote in post #13252586
I like the shot of the Kenworth.

Thanks. You either know your trucks, or used an EXIF reader!

wfarrell4 wrote in post #13252977
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.

Don't sweat it. I'm not at all offended.

Woolburr wrote in post #13252985
#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.

"They look funny on all?" That's interesting. I would have expected at least one set in your system to look at least acceptable. Given the wide range of systems in use on this forum with various levels of calibration employed + browser variances + work light levels, I long ago stopped trying to process to suit everyone. Like JTW_Jr, above. Which is why I used the print files to make the web images.
But even prints will show variances unless they're viewed under a calibrated light source. Isn't this a great business to be in?

Kentaro wrote in post #13253834
Editing doesn't do much for me unfortunately.

Win some, lose some, I suppose.

Fricks wrote in post #13253857
WIN!!!!

It's SO nice to see a well reasoned response!

Thanks for all the comments, everyone! Love them or hate them, someone will learn something from them.

What you seem to miss though Frank is this is online , we are not printing them , we are viewing them. I have images I use for online and different ones I use for print.

Looking at this thread on 10 different monitors , ranging from the laptop 17.1 to the 24's here at the house and at work , they all look flat. Like the images were pushed in post a bit too much trying to bring back detail that was lost.

Good masking on # 3, but it just doesn't look real.

JTW_Jr wrote in post #13254076
What you seem to miss though Frank is this is online , we are not printing them , we are viewing them. I have images I use for online and different ones I use for print.

Considering the radical PP done on some of these images, I didn't see the point of doing that.

this guy sure does love to criticize everyone's photos, but can't seem to take the criticism back, seems for all the input given to improve his photos or what was wrong with them, he had some BS excuse to why his photos look horrible and un-interesting. sorry but i can't be the only one who sees this guy post something on everyone's photos ,which are 99% of the time way better than anything he's ever posted.

I agree greatwhites2k.....

Frank , care to share what " radical PP" was done on these ? Are you referring to saving them from being under or over exposed ?

greatwhites2k wrote in post #13255757
this guy sure does love to criticize everyone's photos, but can't seem to take the criticism back, seems for all the input given to improve his photos or what was wrong with them, he had some BS excuse to why his photos look horrible and un-interesting. sorry but i can't be the only one who sees this guy post something on everyone's photos ,which are 99% of the time way better than anything he's ever posted.

Yesss!!! I don't need to say anything as this guy said it for me.

#8 for the win. #6 a distant 2nd, and I just don't get #3 at all!

greatwhites2k wrote in post #13255757
this guy sure does love to criticize everyone's photos, but can't seem to take the criticism back, seems for all the input given to improve his photos or what was wrong with them, he had some BS excuse to why his photos look horrible and un-interesting. sorry but i can't be the only one who sees this guy post something on everyone's photos ,which are 99% of the time way better than anything he's ever posted.

Stepped on your toes, have I? Looking at your record, this isn't the first time that you've gone off on a poster in this forum & commented on the individual & not the images. Let me refer you to your own sig.

And for the record, I don't see what I've said as excuses. I gave reasons for posting as I did. Love them, or hate them, they are what they are.

JTW_Jr wrote in post #13256160
I agree greatwhites2k.....

Frank , care to share what " radical PP" was done on these ? Are you referring to saving them from being under or over exposed ?

Did you check the links on image #4? Pick an image & I'll post that original image just as it came out of the camera so you can see the difference.

Agged wrote in post #13256785
#8 for the win. #6 a distant 2nd, and I just don't get #3 at all!

Thanks for the comment, anyway.

I checked the links , but don't feel that those you posted look believable. Could be a matter of taste , but I see quite a few others who feel the same.

#3 looks the worst of all to me.

I'd like to see the original of #3, if you don't mind.

thanks!

p27rpy wrote in post #13257184
I'd like to see the original of #3, if you don't mind.

thanks!

I posted it here the other day after RAW processing:
https://photography-on-the.net …?p=13250065&pos​tcount=362

Here it is converted with no changes except resizing, including no USM.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

a rough 10 minute edit, but this is probably the direction i'd go with it. obviously more work is needed, but you get the idea.

greatwhites2k wrote in post #13255757
this guy sure does love to criticize everyone's photos,

actually he links to a few posts that are not his shots and said they did a good job

I disagree I think this one is better than most I see posted here.
https://photography-on-the.net …hmentid=8920&d=​1114616025

Do you think his critique is off?

Im curious to find out what you are shooting with as i am too lazy to search and look through EXIF data

Aside from image 2 the rest are just....well..poor attempts at automotive photography which are made even worse with an attempt to edit them. I will agree that sure, they will look different depending on the lighting, media, person, etc, but, with all due respect, not THAT much drastically different to take a poor PP image and make it look good. Simple as that.

I remember my first very post on here, and from that post on I remember not agreeing with the way you feel about automotive photography. It is very different. You have some very good suggestions, like with shooting with late late, moving around the car to get the angles that are more apealing, using highlights to bring out the bodylines, etc. but overall a lot of the tutorials, links, etc are just meh.. they dont do much for me.

you say people are commenting about the poster rather than the images, and that is not true. However, it doesn't help when you have suggestions for every other thread that comes through here.

I like image 2, it has potential, seems like you burned out the background a little and it doesnt look right to me. I have 2 fully calibrated monitors but again I could be seeing it different from you. All the other shots i can see what your intent was...but it was like communism, better on paper. The compositions are very "dull", nothing special or exciting. Nothing conveys the Big Rig the way ti really is.... "BIG"

I believe what makes all of those images boring, at least to myself, is the fact that you didnt capture them from an angle that we dont see EVERY SINGLE DAY on the road. If i came up to a big rig, i would see it JUST like you posted, and that goes back to your own suggestion/tutrial, moving your feet. you shouldn't just be walking around the subject, but finding ways to shoot it down low, or from up high. I don't know man, i dont mean to come off as an *******, but I wouldn't hang the first image on my wall, much less pay for one (not sure if this was a paid shoot)