NON MOVING "CAR PORTRAITS" LETS SEE YOUR BEST!

TRhoads wrote in post #18239314
The exposure looks great, very clean, and the color of the car pops nicely.
Curious about the comp, lots of negative space to the left, and the eye is drawn to the bright parts in the weeds/grass off the side of the road. The car is also on the tight side of the frame. Any chance you shot one with the negative space being the road, leading the car down that path of somewhere to go, use the negative space to be part of the story?

Good point. I'm so used to leaving room for text that I didn't think of it. ; D

1965 Superformance Daytona Coupe

IMAGE LINK: http://www.speednbeaut​y.com/p96544248/e81333​2a6

Peeler wrote in post #18239557
1965 Superformance Daytona Coupe

IMAGE LINK: http://www.speednbeaut​y.com/p96544248/e81333​2a6

It's a beauty, & you did nice work with it!

My Gokart!

lucky7 wrote in post #18238551
I think the consistency is there, but maybe you're not reading far enough into it. I think some should realize that getting criticism on those particular shots means you're on the right path. I'm the guy with the snapshots, I'm not even on a level remotely close to those getting the 'harsh' critiques. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but it's just a little 'tough love' as I can see it. Also, often you'll find that those that seem most harsh are very fair. They tend to be their own best/worst critics as well.

Maybe youre right!

Awesome shots in here btw the last few pages!

OZS2KCA wrote in post #18240726
My Gokart!

Hosted photo: posted by OZS2KCA in
./showthread.php?p=182​40726&i=i83215305
forum: Transportation

I liked the light in your previous post better, & what's going on in the passenger window?

Another edit from a few weeks ago

CPL showing the tempering pattern in the glass. You see a similar effect on cars with paint protection film where they used a heat gun to stretch or conform the film to curves/edges.

passpanda wrote in post #18240973
CPL showing the tempering pattern in the glass. You see a similar effect on cars with paint protection film where they used a heat gun to stretch or conform the film to curves/edges.

Thanks. Just another reason to leave my CPL in the bag! ; )

PhotosGuy wrote in post #18241037
Thanks. Just another reason to leave my CPL in the bag! ; )

I have to absolutely disagree here. With all due respect, since you've clearly been in the industry for a very long time according to your profile, and you've clearly posted here more than anyone i've seen (75k posts!! wow!), AND you're a moderator, but not using a CPL just because of the look on a side window?

A CPL is absolutely needed/used when trying to become a professional automotive photographer now a'days. There are times when it's not wanted/needed, sure. But to just throw the idea out the window (pun intended), why?

In the case of the s2000 above, sure maybe he could tone it down a little, but it's an actual part of the car. I don't really understand your logic.

I guess I'm not really sure why I'm arguing about it, it just really blows my mind why someone wouldn't want to use a CPL for automotive photography, so feel free to ignore.

timlair wrote in post #18241048
I guess I'm not really sure why I'm arguing about it, it just really blows my mind why someone wouldn't want to use a CPL for automotive photography, so feel free to ignore.

No, I don't mind answering you.
I don't care for the rainbow that a CPL puts in plastic headlight covers, (and now, some windows).
I do like how not having one on lets the paint/metal reflect the light around it & look for locations where I can take advantage of that without having trees/buildings, etc., in those reflections. For instance, look at the "Move" link in my Sig. It's just the way I'm used to working.
OTOH, if I had to see through glass for some reason, I might try one, but would be more inclined to use a black card/cloth to kill the reflection in the window first.

You could always shoot two frames...wtih the CPL and one with out...and then blend in any windows or headlights that look like crap due to the CPL...they don't eliminate relfectiosn and glare completely...tone it down yes...valuable tools, I use them in my architectural work to control glare on shiny surfaces like granite and windows...

I have done that at times. Thanks for bringing it up.

TRhoads wrote in post #18241148
You could always shoot two frames...wtih the CPL and one with out...and then blend in any windows or headlights that look like crap due to the CPL...they don't eliminate relfectiosn and glare completely...tone it down yes...valuable tools, I use them in my architectural work to control glare on shiny surfaces like granite and windows...

PhotosGuy wrote in post #18241150
I have done that at times. Thanks for bringing it up.

This is what I do as well. I also utilize the 'move' tip you referenced in your signature. I've had clients who both LIKE the rainbow in window/plastic, as well as ask for it to be removed. So I guess it just boils down to client satisfaction/your own style.

I respect that you like to get everything in camera, i just felt the need to rant i guess lol.

I think most of us who use CPL do take multiple exposures and merge them instead of getting a single shot. For me toning down reflections on the body is more important than the glass. Depends on personal style but sometimes you want to set the car and background a certain way and tone down reflections using a CPL rather than moving things around till you avoid reflections.