Like em both Paul. The side shot is a good catalog type and is my favorite, although I could do without the blank sky. The second shot "shortens" the vehicle and doesn't interest me as much as the first. Man there sure was a lot of shiney stuff on the older cars.
Kenneth Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Stenquist" 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 >
