Good suggestion in regard to the road. Thanks Anthony. On Oct 25, 2004, at 6:39 AM, Anthony Farr wrote:
Paul,
After your build-up (build-down?) I was pleasantly surprised at how nice
both the shots are. It's not at all the disaster that you prepared us for.
The profile looks a touch over warmed to me, but not so much as to be objectionable.
What really does pop out to me is the colour of the bitumen. It's not
wrong, but it's not grey either, and in peoples' imagination bitumen is
grey. My years on the payroll of a rurally oriented employer taught me that
bitumen comes in many unexpected colours, mostly caused by non-specular
reflection of the sky but the colour of the aggregate that topped the
bitumen was also a factor. Pink and purple were two of the most bilious
examples, but in the predigital early 80s we just had to live with it.
If they were my shots I would put a mask around, and very moderately
desaturate the road. Not fully desaturate to grey, but just enough to knock
out the obvious excess yellow of 809. 802 is not too bad and the road might
just need that little bit of colour to match up to the skylight reflections
in the chromework.
Just my 2c.
regards, Anthony Farr
-----Original Message----- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
