2010 Mazdaspeed 3

Shot these for a friend of mine over the weekend. Yeah, I love my angles.

1.)

Love the shots!

Really like #1...location, colors, perspective, etc. is all working well together.

Only critique would be the reflections in the door...but overall good shot.

Nice job. i hate those cars but these photos are really nice. you found a way to make a car i dont like looking at worth viewing

very nice set, I LOVE 3...good job for making an ugly car look good lol

Haha, thanks guys! I take that as a major compliment because these cars truly are a love-it-or-hate-it design. In the time I spent shooting it, the front-end totally grew on me, but I still hate the rest of the car. My god, it handles well though!

Good shoot, overall. #4 is a bit dark, but I like #s 2 & 3. Clean up the windows in #2.
#3 could be better if it wasn't so centered. I'd crop out the sky & some off the left side.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #11223837
Good shoot, overall. #4 is a bit dark, but I like #s 2 & 3. Clean up the windows in #2.
#3 could be better if it wasn't so centered. I'd crop out the sky & some off the left side.

Good tips, thanks! I didn't want to push #4 too much. It was way under-exposed and I brightened it up in post, but I was starting to see a lot of grain. I had to use noise reduction in post the way it is now. It really wasn't a terribly useable shot, but I liked the way it was composed so I stuck with it.

Really like the highlights on #3 & #4. They make the paint look VERY wet. The lines on that car also helps define the highlights.

-Mike

CaptainTonus wrote in post #11223980
I didn't want to push #4 too much. It was way under-exposed and I brightened it up in post, but I was starting to see a lot of grain.

EXIF:

Partial ISOs like 320, as opposed to 200 or 400, have been known to increase noise. And what was the reason for 1/250 sec? It's not as if it was going to move?

PhotosGuy wrote in post #11227199
EXIF: Partial ISOs like 320, as opposed to 200 or 400, have been known to increase noise. And what was the reason for 1/250 sec? It's not as if it was going to move?

I'm not entirely sure if that's true about the partial ISO's on the newer cameras with the DIGIC III and DIGIC 4 processors. I've heard otherwise, but who knows. I think it would be pretty tough to actually tell the difference.

I admitted that the shot was under-exposed from the get-go. I think I chose 1/250 because I didn't want to completely blow out the background. I figured I'd do some HDR-type editing with it and rescue it, but it was too grainy.

That's one of those "It seemed like a good idea at the time!" things.
Expose for the important part of the image: Need an exposure crutch?

Fix what's left over in post. There are lots of ways to "fix" it.
Adjustment Layers are one answer. Post #9:
Airport runway shoot

Masks & Blend Modes are another:
For those needing help making selections in Photoshop

Thanks for those links!

I like number 2 the most, great view