Photo Gig- Hummer H1

JimM

Hi Friends,

I was asked my a magazine to take some pictures of this Hummer for publication. The magazine is http://www.ultimatehummermag.com (this might give you idea of what they have published in the past).

I have published over 100 images to my Smugmug site to show them to them. They are located here:
http://jimmitte.smugmug.com/gallery/1042692/1/48396509
the password is: hummer

What are your thoughts? Are there any I should remove that aren't not as good? I wanted to give them variety, as they will get to choose how they want to lay out what type of images in their magazine.

Since this is my first shoot for them, the deal is they will pay me if they like my images enough to use them.

Help and comments are very appreciated. Thanks.





Oh, and he ran over a car for the shoot...

Thusie

I'm not one to help, but I realy like the snow shot. The car crush one, not your idea, seems a bit silly, good shot tho'

DoctorIt

I come away from those 3 wishing you had better control of the backgrounds.


the car crusher angle isn't that dramatic. If I watched a Hummer crush a car, I'd probably be thinking WOW! That photo makes me think, EH. Also, there's a corner of a car there in the bottom left corner thats OOF, and the dumpster on the right don't look so pro (that could be cropped).

JimM

DoctorIt wrote:

I come away from those 3 wishing you had better control of the backgrounds.


the car crusher angle isn't that dramatic. If I watched a Hummer crush a car, I'd probably be thinking WOW! That photo makes me think, EH. Also, there's a corner of a car there in the bottom left corner thats OOF, and the dumpster on the right don't look so pro (that could be cropped).

I know, the backgrounds were tough. It was behind this guys shop. I didn't have any control. I know I am asking a lot, but can you take a look at the gallery and let me know if you think there are some shots I should exclude when sending to the publication?

nlatto

I think maybe it would look better if you were standing a little higher to get the shot. Maybe on a step ladder or something. Since the Hummer is so tall you are missing some of the vehicle.
I take a lot of shots of offroading and the vehicles are so high that I have to get up a little for it to look good , to me.
Also try it with the parking lights and running lights on, not the headlights or other white lights. See how that looks.
Hope that helps.
Nick

JimM

nlatto wrote:

I think maybe it would look better if you were standing a little higher to get the shot. Maybe on a step ladder or something. Since the Hummer is so tall you are missing some of the vehicle.
I take a lot of shots of offroading and the vehicles are so high that I have to get up a little for it to look good , to me.
Also try it with the parking lights and running lights on, not the headlights or other white lights. See how that looks.
Hope that helps.
Nick

Nick, please check out the gallery... http://jimmitte.smugmug.com/gallery/1042692/1/48396509
I did bring a ladder and got some high and some low shots... I am just not sure I want to share the entire gallery with the magazine, if some of the shots don't look good.

Here is one on the crush where I got low:

ziggy53

Jim,


I hope you don't mind, I took the liberty of reducing the DOF on shot #2 and adjusted with Levels and some USM to better "pop" the H1 from the background.

ziggy53

DoctorIt

ziggy53 wrote:

Jim,


I hope you don't mind, I took the liberty of reducing the DOF on shot #2 and adjusted with Levels and some USM to better "pop" the H1 from the background.

ziggy53

You're on to something... Jim, use Ziggy's technique to deemphasize some backgrounds like this (just take the time to make all the grills and brushgaurds look right, you can see "clear" backgrounds, especially in the front right brushgaurd).

As for the gallery, there's nothing there that is "bad". They are all on the same wavelength. I would leave it up to the magazine, but make it clear that you will post-process some of those they pick a little bit more. Hopefully these guys can work closely with you and make it a good deal for both parties.

JimM

ziggy53 wrote:

Jim,


I hope you don't mind, I took the liberty of reducing the DOF on shot #2 and adjusted with Levels and some USM to better "pop" the H1 from the background.

ziggy53

Hi Ziggy, I don't mind at all. Can you help me understand what you did? I have never been good at this post processing thing.

Thanks.

nlatto

I agree with Erik. All the shots look good. Some stand out more than others, but I would leave it up to them to decide what they will need. They know what their layout is going to be, so something that you don't like may work for them in a certain way.

Nick

JimM

nlatto wrote:

I agree with Erik. All the shots look good. Some stand out more than others, but I would leave it up to them to decide what they will need. They know what their layout is going to be, so something that you don't like may work for them in a certain way.

Nick

Thanks for the feedback, and WELCOME to DGRIN!

polartownjunkie

i enjoy the snow picture, particulary because it
shows the hummers suspension in reaction
the stance looks good in that picture as well, although
i wish i could see the same picture from various angles,
but if its the hummer your trying to capture, i say
shot two does that the best

ziggy53

JimM wrote:

Hi Ziggy, I don't mind at all. Can you help me understand what you did? I have never been good at this post processing thing.

Thanks.

Jim,

For the quick and dirty method I used (with PhotoShop):

1) I made a copy of the entire image as a new layer, which became my working copy.
2) I used a large brush size and the "Blur" tool to manually blur the upper section of the image, mostly the wooded area with sky, but with a little overlap into the H1 itself. The idea is to create a sense of DOF. Nearer objects would receive less blur; farther objects receive more blur.
3) I switched to the erase tool and a small brush size and enlarged/zoomed in the image and erased the blurred parts of the H1 that I want as sharp as the original. (This exposes the underlying base image. I was not as careful as I could have been with the test. Heed Erik's comment.)
4) Using the Image-Curves control on the base image (Not "Levels" like I said before, I meant Curves), I anchored the center of the line and pulled down the bottom section and pulled up the top section, increasing contrast selectively with the top section receiving less adjustment than the bottom.
5) I used USM on the base image settings of Amount 20%, Radius 50 Pix, Threshold 33 and then Amount 214, Radius 0.2 Pix, Threshold 0.

This is about what the Curves looked like:

JimM

ziggy53 wrote:

4) Using the Image-Curves control on the base image (Not "Levels" like I said before, I meant Curves), I anchored the center of the line and pulled down the bottom section and pulled up the top section, increasing contrast selectively with the top section receiving less adjustment than the bottom.
5) I used USM on the base image settings of Amount 20%, Radius 50 Pix, Threshold 33 and then Amount 214, Radius 0.2 Pix, Threshold 0.

Ziggy, thanks for the help and insight, I hate to keep bothering you, but exactly what does Image-Curves do? I have the same question for USM (in this case... I know the "Ultrasonic" definition )

JimM

Magazine Response
Hi Everyone, thank you for your comments. Here is what they said...

"JIM
I opened them up on a different pc with a lacie professional monitor and they look a lot brighter as I suspected they woould. So dont worry about doing the extra work on touch up. We'll take care of that. But heres the numbers anyway

8 9 12 13 15 20 24 (very nice teaser shot) 27 49 57 70 74 75 76 80 84 86 98 100 102"

Looks like they must have liked them if they are going to use 20 images! I will keep you posted.

ziggy53

Jim,

Fantastic and congratulations having 20 images selected.

According to Adobe Help:

"

Like the Levels dialog box, the Curves dialog box lets you adjust the entire tonal range of an image. But instead of making adjustments using only three variables (highlights, shadows, midtones), with Curves you can adjust any point along a 0-255 scale while keeping up to 15 other values constant.

"
... so in a simplified explanation, Curves are somewhat like Levels, but with much greater control over "ranges" of values as well as bezier curved control shape(s).

USM is an acronym for Un-Sharp-Mask and is a filter methodology for increasing the contrast around shapes and edges in an image. The effect is an improved visual acuity or relative "visual sharpness". It is not a replacement for sharp optics and accurate focussing, but it can add some "snap" to an image. Overdone it looks pretty harsh and ugly (tacky).

The reason I used two different USM treatments is because the first affects more global contrast in the image and the second affects mostly object edges.

ziggy53

Skippy

I Touched One

JimM wrote:

Hi Friends,

I was asked my a magazine to take some pictures of this Hummer for publication. The magazine is http://www.ultimatehummermag.com (this might give you idea of what they have published in the past).

I have published over 100 images to my Smugmug site to show them to them. They are located here:
http://jimmitte.smugmug.com/gallery/1042692/1/48396509
the password is: hummer

What are your thoughts? Are there any I should remove that aren't not as good? I wanted to give them variety, as they will get to choose how they want to lay out what type of images in their magazine.

Since this is my first shoot for them, the deal is they will pay me if they like my images enough to use them.

Help and comments are very appreciated. Thanks.
Oh, and he ran over a car for the shoot...

Hi there Jim.......lucky you

When I was in OHIO recently we drove past a car yard and saw a brand new Hummer ..... a Burnt Orange one, so we turned around and went back and we got out and drooled allllllllllll over it ...... I'd only ever seen one on TV on that Miami CSI show, and there I was in the car yard leaning on it

They are quite an amazing looking vehicle aren't they.......bet they cost an arm and a leg in fuel, I am pretty sure we don't have them here in Australia.

I see you have had a lot of replies to your post...... and I see you have been given lots of input....... all the best Jim........ Skippy (Australia)