>From a later post I understand that you're asking advice therendering of color and >contrast. Well, to start with, both are very good car shots. When looking at the shadow side of the front shot it struck me that the rendition of the color is quite a bit different from in the profile shot. Since I don't know the color in real life, I asked myself which picture renders the color most accurately. I'd say that you have some more headroom for the profile shot. You wouldn't have needed to boost contrast, saturation or warming of the color as much as you did in order to make a pleasant shot. I think you could very well do with less, IF this would increase color accuracy. As for the reflections in the top of the car, I'm not sure that a viewer would react to it as much as you do or fear. I mean that when presented with an image, human perception would steer the viewer's eye to get both 1) a general view and 2) points of details and in (seconds) time continue bouncing between the two (macro-micro) perspectives. I simply think that the reflections which you as a photographer have noticed that much, is pretty far down the list of details observed by a general viewer. At least that's my guess...
Lasse From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 12:20 AM Subject: PESO: Fighting Bad Light and Needing Some Help > I had to shoot a car this morning. It was a "64 Dodge with a 393 and a > 4-speed manual trans. One of only three made with that engine and > transmission combination. It's a survivor, with only 18,000 miles on > the odometer, so it's worth big bucks and is a suitable subject for > collector car magazines. i set out to shoot it this morning for a > magazine that features older Chrysler Corp. products. At dawn there was > beautiful light, but my location was too low to get any of it due to a > tree line. By the time I had any light at all, a heavy cloud cover had > moved in. So I shot and made the best of it. The sky was gray/white so > the reflections in the top of the car were horrendous. And the light > was muddy. I shot RAW and pumped up the contrast and saturation while > warming the color temperature before conversion. After conversion, I > went to shadows/highlights to kill some of the white light on the roof > and hood. It's not great, but I think it's okay. We'll see. I put two > shots on PhotoNet. The head on is with the A 400/5.6, the profile is > with the K 135/2.5. These two shots are radically different. That's > partly a function of the changing light. But also the position of the > car in respect to the brightest part of the sky. Most of the shots I > took resemble the profile. But I could move them more toward the long > lens head on shot. Which do you prefer. (I'm really hoping to get some > feedback here. In other words: Help!!) > Paul > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2816809 > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2816802 >
