56 Minutes with a 2002 Peterbuilt.

One more comment. I think the background looks out of place because the last place I'd expect to see a full blown 18-wheeler with a liquid-of-some-sort trailer is barreling down a residential neighborhood street.

Gotta say here I agree with a lot of the posters. The first 7 shots to me look like poor PP work and shots that originally were shot with what I would say at first glance was with a point and shoot(nothing wrong with this). 3 really stands out to me though as the truck looks like it was dropped into the photo. As another poster said a change of scenery would really improve the photos.


I do like the 8th shot but again it is nothing that really stands out for me personally.

I do have to ask though what is the reasoning for this kind of PP/Photography because it was going to print? I shoot for media outlets for motorsports and I have not been asked or seen this type of work before. Honestly interested.

p27rpy wrote in post #13258022
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.

Sorry, but I don't see that as an improvement.

sigma pi wrote in post #13259186
actually he links to a few posts that are not his shots and said they did a good job

A good image is a good image. Why not give that member credit for it? Sorry if I've never linked to one of yours?

aemravan wrote in post #13259214
Im curious to find out what you are shooting with as i am too lazy to search and look through EXIF data

Too lazy to look at my sig, too?

Some of you guys do it all the time. I'm not allowed? I expected controversy over this shoot, & have no problem with that. Someone will learn something from it.

We have something in common! A lot of the garage shots don't do much for me, either!
I don't expect everyone here to shoot the same thing the same way. In fact, in "Tips" I said, "As in anything else, there's no one way to take a good looking shot of a car. Some guys like grungy garage pics. Others put it in 20% of the frame in what looks more like a landscape shot. Neither are "Wrong" if you get the results that you wanted, but I'd still like to see one shot in a series that makes the car/bike/etc. look as good as possible." Did you miss that point?

And if you're past the point where the tutorials, links, etc. aren't helping you, then good for you. Ignore them. Some of the other 300,000+ members might appreciate them though, & I wonder why you bothered to bring that point up in the first place?

You're right, it's not. I specifically addressed one member who seems to have a problem following the forum rules.

I rescue a lot of threads without comments from page 2. Might as well make a comment at the same time. If you guys weren't so lazy, maybe I wouldn't have to pick up the slack when a new member comes along & everyone ignores them? At the very least, would it hurt just one of you guys to at least find the time to just say "Hi!" & make them feel welcome when nobody else does?

That background was two miles away. But the tractor really pops out of it in the print.

Good analogy!

Feel free to show us how it's done. There's plenty of room for more big rigs in this forum.

Did you get the title, "54 minutes"? There was no time for a walk around. It took 5-7 minutes for him to make the circle, wait for traffic to leave a space, & get around again. And I wasn't there for a static truck shoot. We only shot it because we were a little early & I needed to wait a few minutes for the light to get lower.
I was there for on the road shots, specifically where the tractor & trailer would be a more dynamic angle than straight down the road. That gives the potential for a sharp tractor, with some movement blur in the trailer.

wfarrell4 wrote in post #13259232
One more comment. I think the background looks out of place because the last place I'd expect to see a full blown 18-wheeler with a liquid-of-some-sort trailer is barreling down a residential neighborhood street.

Not a residential neighborhood street. It's a rural highway & it gets a lot of truck traffic. Thing is, shooting before dark usually means that they don't all have their lights on.
And at that spot, there's a 25mph 90-degree curve ("more dynamic angle") & the setting sun puts highlights in the side that I wanted to bring it out of the background for some of the the "night" shot treatments.

dinanm3atl wrote in post #13259639
Gotta say here I agree with a lot of the posters. The first 7 shots to me look like poor PP work and shots that originally were shot with what I would say at first glance was with a point and shoot(nothing wrong with this). 3 really stands out to me though as the truck looks like it was dropped into the photo. As another poster said a change of scenery would really improve the photos.

"a change of scenery"? Give me a break? Too many of you guys think that an "AWESOME location!" will make up for no defining highlights on the body.

1. It wasn't shot that way "because it was going to print". It was shot that way because it was the subject/location/light I needed for the purpose I posted above.
2. And I've already said why I didn't PP them for the web.
3. "Day for night" has been around for at over half a century. See the links in post #4.

Thanks for the comments everyone.

I am honestly confused. Did you not say this was for print and not for web and thus they look this way? I don't understand what you mean on this front as I edit for 'web' and they are printed and then I post them on the web. None look like your photos.

Yes... A change of scenery. It is like parking a BMW M3 Racecar in a field. You might be able to make it work but having it posted up in Pit Lane or actually moving on a track is a better photo. A Semi rolling through a residential neighborhood it looks like? Now if it was rolling on a 2 lane highway... that would improve ALL the photos. Sorry if you disagree but the setting/location help make the photo. Obviously the setting is not a neighborhood as you said but the photo portrays it as a neighborhood.

To finish I think you have some very nice photos on here but this set is lackluster. Not sure why you are so defensive on this set of photos as they just are not anything great.

I give up man...

aemravan wrote in post #13261720
I give up man...

I'm feeling the same way, unfortunately. I suppose you can just continue on in your path of ignoring the input from others and doing your own thing. I posted this in another thread of yours, Frank, and I'm sad to say that it still applies:

PhotosGuy wrote in post #13261596
I rescue a lot of threads without comments from page 2. Might as well make a comment at the same time. If you guys weren't so lazy, maybe I wouldn't have to pick up the slack when a new member comes along & everyone ignores them? At the very least, would it hurt just one of you guys to at least find the time to just say "Hi!" & make them feel welcome when nobody else does?

Credit where credit is due. You do indeed go out of your way to make sure nearly every post at least get a recognition, and I know that is appreciated by many.

I like that Kenworth shot, it reminds me of the movie "Maximum Overdrive" for sume reason

C'mon guys, sure Frank has given me some harsh crit that has shat me up the wall at times, like I'm sure it has a few of you. But he has also given me good crit, helped me notice stuff that I hadn't previously and has rescued my threads from the dark depths of page 2. Sure, he may not be the worlds best shooter, but I'd bet neither else is anybody on here, and at the end of the day, he's a damn good and dedicated moderator.

I started out in this forum having not a clue, and have worked my way through to the busy professional I am today, and Frank has been criticizing me the entire way haha. But I have a fair dose of respect for the dude, and I reckon you mob should too. Cheers Frank, for being the dedicated mod that you are .

Agnu wrote in post #13263153
C'mon guys, sure Frank has given me some harsh crit that has shat me up the wall at times, like I'm sure it has a few of you. But he has also given me good crit, helped me notice stuff that I hadn't previously and has rescued my threads from the dark depths of page 2. Sure, he may not be the worlds best shooter, but I'd bet neither else is anybody on here, and at the end of the day, he's a damn good and dedicated moderator.

I started out in this forum having not a clue, and have worked my way through to the busy professional I am today, and Frank has been criticizing me the entire way haha. But I have a fair dose of respect for the dude, and I reckon you mob should too. Cheers Frank, for being the dedicated mod that you are .

That has nothing to do with posting pictures and taking advice.

No, but neither does commenting on his past posts about your, or other people shots. My point is that a couple of you are getting fairly personal, making references to his attitude in a whole, and I don't think that's right. Keep it on the photos, or if you want to get personal, get personal, but I'll defend Frank because at the end of the day, he's a good bloke, and makes more effort than most.

I absolutely agree that he's a fantastic moderator, and that his advice is often worthwhile and helpful. I've taken a lot of his criticism to heart and now pay MUCH more attention to natural light and reflections. What I think most are referencing here is his sheer disregard for other people's honest and helpful critiques, simply passing it off as a technical error or a dispute between the medium in which the photo is viewed.

It is just frustrating because when the vast majority of a group sees a technical error with a photo, it probably DOES exist, and the photographer should possibly take that fact into consideration.

p27rpy wrote in post #13263411
I absolutely agree that he's a fantastic moderator, and that his advice is often worthwhile and helpful. I've taken a lot of his criticism to heart and now pay MUCH more attention to natural light and reflections. What I think most are referencing here is his sheer disregard for other people's honest and helpful critiques, simply passing it off as a technical error or a dispute between the medium in which the photo is viewed.

It is just frustrating because when the vast majority of a group sees a technical error with a photo, it probably DOES exist, and the photographer should possibly take that fact into consideration.

There are disagreements all the time about this though. Mix that in with the semi personal attacks and well its hard to tell what is what.

Did anyone like my pun there with the semi

p27rpy wrote in post #13263411
I absolutely agree that he's a fantastic moderator, and that his advice is often worthwhile and helpful. I've taken a lot of his criticism to heart and now pay MUCH more attention to natural light and reflections. What I think most are referencing here is his sheer disregard for other people's honest and helpful critiques, simply passing it off as a technical error or a dispute between the medium in which the photo is viewed.

It is just frustrating because when the vast majority of a group sees a technical error with a photo, it probably DOES exist, and the photographer should possibly take that fact into consideration.

This is where I am at. I know he is a valuable member to this subforum. Keeping threads active. Etc. However when 90% of the posters in a 3 page thread say photo 3 does not look good. Looks like the vehicle is floating. Placed into the page. A defense about how it is for print and we are all wrong seems off based to me(and others apparently).

For the amount of C&C he is giving out to keep this subforum active the amount posted in his threads is not well received by him. That is my personal take on it.