Auto Show photos...

DanielB

god if i know which thread this goes in.:D but anyways, heres just a few of my favorites from teh Auto show in Kansas City tonight... i mainly focused on the Camaro, and an old woody they had down there.

2 of my fav's from the camaro, and 1 of the woody*my fav. of the night*







how'd i do? good, bad, horrible, amazing? things i can improve on:dunno i can always re-shoot, its here till sunday.:thumb



thanks,
Daniel

Red Bull

I really like the first one. The second one is kinda "eh". The third one is good, but it looks blurry to me. Good job though. I know it's hard with all those "beginners" with their little point and shoots in your way.

HeldDown

Hey Dan! Lucky you -- I missed shooting (and working!) the Toronto Autoshow a few weeks ago 'cause of Valentine's Day.
I like the first one a lot; with a bit of post to give it some "punch," you've got a winner! As for the second, it looks to me like you need to check the wb? As well, the crop might be a bit tight.
The third one hurts my eyes a bit, I don't know what to concentrate on -- or even if it's possible to concentrate on part of it. I'm pretty sure it's a hood ornament, so I'd go back and reshoot it dead on, looking slightly up to it, to give it false scale and a referenceable background (as opposed to the mess of reflection and highlights.)

Good job man

wholenewlight

Daniel,

Nice shots. Like the first two. What's cool about them is the reflection of the flag in the windshields. Maybe try to boost it a bit in your processing? And the flag reflection makes sense being that the car is the Camaro prototype - the "return of the american musclecar"??

The third shot has some abstract qualities too.

Car shows are impossible to do nice - keeping people out of your shots and the mixed lighting etc. Good stuff.

Awais Yaqub

Nice shots but they look littel OOF

bwg

i agree with awais. they all look a little OOF.

and i'm apologizing in advance for this hijak, but it has to be done:

wholenewlight

bigwebguy wrote:

i agree with awais. they all look a little OOF.

and i'm apologizing in advance for this hijak, but it has to be done:

C'mon, that's one of the car's features - it's not a problem with panel gaps and alignment, it's a method of secondary air intake for the high-output pushrod engine!!! :bash

You just don't understand GM's technological advancements . . . . :

ChrisJ

Hey Daniel,

I like the first one the best... you should definitely experiment on the 2nd to try and get the hot light spots out of there. The definitely looks OOF.

When I took my shots at the LA auto show, I found it helpful to actually underexpose the cars a bit, and then brighten in post. I also shot RAW (which I usually don't).

ziggy53

Daniel,

I agree with everybody that the first is a keeper. I think I would tone down the glint in the windshield just a bit, but that's about it. It has interesting lines and features that hold my attention.

#2 Just doesn't have the same appeal.

#3 Appears to show some motion blur and the suject is way too lost in the reflected lights. I know what you were looking for, but you have to find a better way to show it.

Car shows are tough. You have little control over the ambient lights. You have little control about your position with respect to the subject sometimes. Lotsa shiny reflective stuff and wide range of harsh lights to boot. If you can have a helper with a slave flash on one side or the other, that can help, especially bounced.

Think about interesting angles and perspectives. I wish I had some good examples to show, but I mostly failed at our local shows and quit doing them. That was before digital, so I might try again sometime. You give me hope.

Thanks,

ziggy53

DanielB

thanks everyone. i was at the camero exibit for like 30 solid minutes shooting photos because it was on a turntable and i had to wait for it to come back around to the front and back everytime i wanted to take another photo. the "flag" in the windshield is just the way they had the display lights for it in bars... focusing was hard... very dark in that place... oh, but most of these were shot with my 70-200... i know, crazy. BUT i found that people give you a TON more working room when you're using a big white lens, as compared to a little 50 1.8. i did see a couple fellow photogs there, and got to tinker with some of their stuff lets just say the next thing on my list is a 17-40...

almost all shots were at ISO 400, f/4, 1/125th... AWB, available light.

thanks again,
Daniel


pssst... i always wanted to take a photo of the Jag. emblem:D