Official Automotive Rigs - DIY Thread

shot a couple this weekend trying to get a few more in before winter.First one is in front of my house and the other down the street at the forest preserve, only had about a hour and a half and the sun was gone. This vehicle was bit different than others I shot as the front end was all fiberglass and it has no roof or truck to work with. CC welcome as I am trying to get better with it.

Dude those (jeep?) shots look fantastic!! Nicely done, some great inspiration on this page!!

Also love that Veilside nissan!! Epic epic epic!!!

Got out for some more practice with my ride this weekend..

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pt2i​ds

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oNEL​NT

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't think it's desirable to have the car 100% super-sharp in these shots. After all, we're trying to give the impression that the car's moving fast white we're photographing it. I think that a tiny bit of motion blur around the edges is nice. That jeep is not super sharp but I really like the impression that gives.

Andy

andycole1970 wrote in post #17224818
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't think it's desirable to have the car 100% super-sharp in these shots. After all, we're trying to give the impression that the car's moving fast white we're photographing it. I think that a tiny bit of motion blur around the edges is nice. That jeep is not super sharp but I really like the impression that gives.

Andy

It's just you.

It's fine to have some of the car soft if you're panning, but in a rig-shot the entire car needs to be sharp to help sell the motion. The problem comes in when people use bad equipment, so they have to take a static shot and lay it over a motion shot, so it looks weird. Done correctly, sharp is the way to go.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/hd1F​vE

Just to be clear, mine are motion shots (1,4, and 6 second) I just can't seem to control the bouncing rig enough. Ive been waiting to do a stabilizer for a while but maybe its time to get that done.

I also agree the car should be as sharp as possible, I just can't seem to get it where andrew can right now.

First, there will ALWAYS be some bounce, even with the most expensive glass move-and-shoot rigs. The good news is that some bounce will not affect the sharpness of the shot. Don't ask me to explain why because I can't, but I know it to be true. So, just because you're getting a little bounce during the shot doesn't mean that it won't turn out sharp.

Second, controlling this bounce is part of becoming a seasoned rigger, as there are many ways to do it.

- use a shorter boom and a wider lens
- use a shorter boom, normal fl lens, and only use the hood/trunk
- make/buy a stabilization cable
- seek out super smooth roads
- make/buy a cable pull
- hold/stabilize the camera with your hand while the shot is being taken
- move the car super slowly with a longer exposure
- make sure the engine is off
- remove any leaves/stones/sticks from the road
- spread the cups out as far as possible

To get a great result you are going to need to do some work, simple as that.

VisualEchos wrote in post #17224970
It's just you.

I am sure that there are others who would agree with me, but I am cool with having a different opinion than you. Not wanting to single out any image in particular, I think shots where the car is pin sharp and the background is blurred almost to a point where you can't see anything, look unrealistic. Maybe that's more of a comment about the backgrounds, I don't know.

I didn't need to insert any static pixels on my Nissan shots, do you think they should be sharper, in your opinion?

Andy

andycole1970 wrote in post #17225178
I am sure that there are others who would agree with me, but I am cool with having a different opinion than you. Not wanting to single out any image in particular, I think shots where the car is pin sharp and the background is blurred almost to a point where you can't see anything, look unrealistic. Maybe that's more of a comment about the backgrounds, I don't know.

I didn't need to insert any static pixels on my Nissan shots, do you think they should be sharper, in your opinion?

Andy

Nissian pictures look OOF to me.

I have a few more lined up to hopefully get more practice in with it, probably doesnt help I like the wide shots so im using as much boom as I can.

Yeah, they're soft, and there is a lot of bounce to the boom, you can see that in the background. If it's a look you like, keep doing it, but if you want others to like it, you might try for a sharper shot next time.

It's just like a shallow dof. The image subject may not be sharper, but it APPEARS sharper because it's right beside something oof. With rig-shots, the sharper the vehicle, the more pronounced the sense of motion.

Wide, and sharp, have it both ways This image is a bit soft at the front, and I had a sharper one, but I didn't like it as much as this one.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/dsiN​h9

Sharp FTW though.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/e7Ly​ZE

VisualEchos wrote in post #17225215
Wide, and sharp, have it both ways This image is a bit soft at the front, and I had a sharper one, but I didn't like it as much as this one.

So, you've just disproved your own theory that sharp is best I also really like that one because there is a tiny bit of movement in the car. I prefer it to your other ones of the car in the autumn leaves.

Photography at its best is an art form and art is subjective, people will always have different opinions.

I will say one more thing and that it is that a static car in the shots makes post processing a lot easier! Masking layers gets trickier the more the car moves in the image

On my first outing with the rig it was a very windy day, so that will have contributed to shaking. Hopefully next time it won't be so bad.

On the subject of weight, my poles are 6.5m long, about 20ft and weight only 5kilos, so you can imagine how thin they are. All things considered, I am happy with my pictures for a first attempt.

Andy

Love it Patrick!