The GS 300 - C&C Please

Alright guys what can i do to improve on these pics? They just don't look as sharp and as good looking as you all's pics.

How's the framing? Color and angle of car ok?

Well it looks like the color of 1 vs 2&3 are a little different this must gotten missed up in PP.

1: 35mm, 1/200, f/13, ISO 200

I'd like to see a background without poles & brush growing out of the body. See the links in my Sig.
And, brighter highlights in the side would be nice in one of the images: Black/Red/white car links: Post #52:

Yea didn't notice the brush till i threw it up on the monitor. Thxs for the input

This better?

4: 42mm, 1/320, f/13, ISO 200

The second set with the building in the background is better, but you should have moved it down 40 feet and shot up against the bricks, imo.

I like #4 best.

i like the second set better but a white car against that color building somewhat blends it all together. next time try to find a red brick wall or something with a lot of graffiti on it to make it stand out against the background. also, what all did you do for editing?

#4 is best to me.

Car need to be slammed!

Sharpmaxell wrote in post #11608875
i like the second set better but a white car against that color building somewhat blends it all together. next time try to find a red brick wall or something with a lot of graffiti on it to make it stand out against the background. also, what all did you do for editing?

Yea i hope the 2nd set is better, trying to apply some of my lessons learned. Will choose a better wall next time.

Wish i remember what i did to editing. Im new to this and was changing and little bit of this and a little bit of that.

What are some things you guys use when editing?

2nd set is way better.

Seems like everyone liked either 4 or 6.

Hows the framing of this one?

^the car could use some space in the front to "move into" as they always say. It looks a bit odd given how much space is left in the rear. id probably crop it tighter from the top too, as its a huge void.

second set is definitely stronger. try to shoot at a larger aperture to get some of the background to blur a bit, that way the focus can be drawn to the car. the scenery isn't that great, so i would suggest it. #4 is probably my favorite.

quickfast wrote in post #11626141
^the car could use some space in the front to "move into" as they always say. It looks a bit odd given how much space is left in the rear. id probably crop it tighter from the top too, as its a huge void.

Yea i was trying to incorporate the rule of thirds. Didnt know about the "move into" rule, will keep that in mind next time.

p27rpy wrote in post #11626502
second set is definitely stronger. try to shoot at a larger aperture to get some of the background to blur a bit, that way the focus can be drawn to the car. the scenery isn't that great, so i would suggest it. #4 is probably my favorite.

Yea didnt realize i was at such a small aperture till i got home and i need to find a cooler spot but cant be so cool that it takes away for the car.

Thxs for the feedback guys.

Johnnyk_1 wrote in post #11627686
Yea i was trying to incorporate the rule of thirds. Didnt know about the "move into" rule, will keep that in mind next time.

Every rule is made to be broken.

I generally use the rule of thirds on the horizon more than I do on the vertical for automotive subjects. I do agree with giving the subject a bit more room on the left to allow the car to move. I've seen these on CL as well.

^ yea trying to get some feedback on CL. You have a Lexus? Is 3 rotor on reference to the 20B rotary engine?