My First Car Shots.

eL eSs Vee

This is my buddy Sal's new Mustang GT.









I think I'm showing off my friend's car more than my images. :rofl
C&C is certainly welcome, since I'd like to do more automotive photography.

Skippy

eL eSs Vee wrote:

This is my buddy Sal's new Mustang GT.

I think I'm showing off my friend's car more than my images.
C&C is certainly welcome, since I'd like to do more automotive photography.

Nice looking car Lee, did your friend let you drive it
You did a good job, clever thought to put the lights on on the car.

Need to pick a better location for background and shoot it again
.... Skippy
.

black mamba

When shooting cars at shows, museums, or other exhibits, you pretty much have to deal with the cards as they are dealt.....certain lighting, positions, etc. In this case though, Skippy makes a very good point. When you have the option of choosing the location, and influencing other factors, you have to try and eliminate any elements that compete with the car for attention. This is often easier said than done.

Dark colored cars, particularly those with a lot of bright work ( chrome ) require close attention to proper exposure techniques. Be very aware of unwanted reflections that can ruin an otherwise great shot. The best you can do is stack the odds in your favor that you'll get the shot you're after.

Good luck. Shooting cars is fun and challenging.

eL eSs Vee

Thank you both for commenting. Unfortunately, no, I didn't get to drive it. But that V8 gets it to 90 in no time!

black mamba wrote:

The best you can do is stack the odds in your favor that you'll get the shot you're after.

You gave me some very good advice, black mamba, and this is the best. I have to take total control the my surroundings to get the best shot possible. Thank you very much.

Yes, cars have been a passion of mine for as long as I can remember, and I've wanted to photograph them away from car shows for as long as I've been holding a camera. And for as long as I've lived in this area, I really don't know it very well. This was a park not far from Sal's apartment, and the time was right. If I knew this area better, I would have gone somewhere better. Obviously, I don't get out enough.

At the very least, I should have used a shallower depth of field to better isolate the car from the background. I also should have been more aware of items - trees, etc. - growing out of the bodywork. I'll have to scout out more locations: particularly ones that have fewer trees between the cars and the sunset.

I looked through the EXIF for several of the photos and realized that I was shooting at f/16 and f/22 for most of the shots. And that's why I'm here; to learn.

Any further comments? All are welcome, good and bad. Thanks.

LensCap

Looking Good Lee! I tried to shoot my neighbors new corvette the other day, it was a disaster . Think I'll work on other things for now...

Pexi

Hello, another gear head here. I really do like Mustangs, I think it's one of the best looking cars produced today, and for me you've captured that shiny black paint very nicely. As you said, you had good timing, those rays of sun are golden. I specially like the point of view in the last pic. The caption could be "I'm Mustang, and I'm proud of it".

I might have considered just a bit different cropping there in the last pic, though, leaving more space in front of the car and positioning the car a bit lower in the frame. I don't mind the trees in the background of the first picture, but there you have had to deal with a difficult exposure challenge, dark black car and a still somewhat bright sky. This has rendered the sky almost white. Combining several exposures could have helped? Maybe even just some plain tinkering in post-process, if you're photographing in RAW?

On the other hand, you've better not to listen to me, I know less than a monkey. And I understand only half of what I know .

eL eSs Vee

LensCap. Show us your shots.

Pexi. Thank you very much. That's quite a big compliment. Somehow, though, I'd missed the crop on that last photo until after I'd posted it. How I didn't catch it while shooting is beyond me.

My friend would be happy to let me shoot it again, and when I do I'll use everything I've learned from all of you and do a better job. I agree that lowering the camera will make a better shot and will do that next time.

Yes, I did shoot in RAW and did some tweaking in Photoshop. I'm still learning both of those, too. So far, I love them. I did bracket those shots and plan to someday attempt HDR.

I know what you mean about knowing less than a monkey. Fifteen years ago I was shooting on film and in a studio. I let photography go until this year and I'm relearning everything, it seems. I have to retrain my eye for details like trees growing out of the hood of a car and lines bisecting the image under the car. And I don't know if it's me or digital SLRs, but with film cameras I was able to see depth of field better. Maybe it's just these middle-aged eyes of mine.

Thank you very much for all your comments, folks. I look forward to more.

Arvan

i agree that the background is distracting. But i think you got the exposure right. black is black and so on.

The mustang gt?? 300 hp on the crank? or is it more in the GT models? It´s a classic car for sure..But i think i needs more engine i mean them old detroit musclecars with what 454? 540? engines..That´s just madness but it is very very nice torque...

I love the looks of the new mustang..But i wish the internals was from the nissan GTR...but it wouldnt be that much of a "muscle car" then.

Go for another background..Maby the good old industrial would suit fine..Its very common but it works fantastic for shooting cars..have a good one!

eL eSs Vee

Thank you, Arvan. I was thinking of an industrial setting until I looked out my buddy's window and saw a hill. I asked him what was on it and he said there was a park there. So, that's where we landed.

You know, I never did ask about torque, but the engine's somewhere around 5 litres. That's about 360 cu. in. Compared to an engine that size from the '60s, modern technology has really added a few buckets worth of power and torque. It certainly didn't take him long to get it to 90 on our way to lunch!

More comments, please.

photographz

Ah, Mustangs are my fav...considering DH & I have two, going on three this weekend, I might be biased though. Dark, deep colors are the hardest especially when they are kept polished and waxed-they reflect EVERYTHING (and are real easy to have multiple blow outs everywhere the sun touches them).

IMO, cars look best with buildings behind them...it's hard as a nature photographer to think that way, but they are a human creation, so they look most at home with other human creations. I like old buildings myself (all my car pics are backed up on DVDs packed away, soon it will be nice enough out to have new ones though). My fav's of my one car were taken at the dream cruise in detroit at Fairlane (Henry Ford's house) and Flat Rock (the new Mustang plant). The one at Flat Rock is full of blow outs, but given that the security guard didn't look too enthused that we were there, I hopped out, snapped the pic on auto and we left. Has the big "the legend lives here" banner on the building. Most mags use ones with buildings/industrial type settigns too...I'd say find an awesome old factory as a backdrop. Watch the parking lot though-stripes reflect as much as overheaad stuff (see your first pic)

Also, get low down and try angling the camera too. Those are both classic car shooting styles.

That said-nice car, nice pics! #3 is probably my fav, but I'm all about something different when it comes to cars.

LensCap

eL eSs Vee wrote:

Thank you, Arvan. I was thinking of an industrial setting until I looked out my buddy's window and saw a hill. I asked him what was on it and he said there was a park there. So, that's where we landed.

You know, I never did ask about torque, but the engine's somewhere around 5 litres. That's about 360 cu. in. Compared to an engine that size from the '60s, modern technology has really added a few buckets worth of power and torque. It certainly didn't take him long to get it to 90 on our way to lunch!

More comments, please.

The 'vette shots are crap...might try to take some shots of the wife's Monte Carlo SS (5 more HP then the GT )...anyway my big comment is that 5.0 liters=305 Cubic Inches, I've been on this forum for 2 months and FINALLY get to see something I know about...BTW I think the Mustangs are 4.6 Liters...See Ya!!!

eL eSs Vee

LensCap wrote:

The 'vette shots are crap...might try to take some shots of the wife's Monte Carlo SS (5 more HP then the GT )...anyway my big comment is that 5.0 liters=305 Cubic Inches, I've been on this forum for 2 months and FINALLY get to see something I know about...BTW I think the Mustangs are 4.6 Liters...See Ya!!!

That's right! Sal did say it was a 4.6. I just couldn't remember. Thanks for the reminder.

I'll watch for the pictures of your wife's car.

eL eSs Vee

photographz. I was considering an industrial site to shoot the car, but Sal doesn't live very close to any factories. Maybe he and I should plan another shoot. I'm sure he'd be happy to.

Thank you for your comments.