Thanks Ken,
Perhaps I'll have a go at replacing the sky. I have plenty of sky plates that I've shot for stock.
Paul
On Oct 24, 2004, at 6:39 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote:


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





Reply via email to