pro shoot R32

I'm terribly sorry to dig up an old thread but I wanted to add my bit into this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WABIT

great photos, but i think they are HDR, its a mix of over/under and true exposure (3 shots) "folded" over the top of eachother

thats the only way to get this effect

dom

---

Not true. While this method can be used (firing single flash on each section of the car, then creating seperate layers and revealing each shots highlights and another seperate layer(s) for sky, etc) is possible, it would not make sense that these photos would be taken using that method as it is at dusk/night and the softness of the sky and slight motion blur on trees suggest these photos are produced by using a long exposure + a flash that is fired multiple times over the exposure. This is essentially called 'light painting', and is a common used practice for automotive photography because you can get full coverage of the car with 1 flash with good batteries where as you would need ~4 remote flashes to cover it otherwise, plus it gives it a great efffect. I personally, choose the method of 3 strobes so i can get a nice balanced light during the middle of the day or other times where there is a lot of ambient light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fuzion

awesome photos! using a filter obviously.. looks great tho, nice detail.

i wont even ask about what tyres your running tho ........... :P

---

Filter, not necessarily, depending what time of day this was shot at (just after dusk), the long exposure can picj up a lot of light that is not evident to the naked eye, an orange tinge becomes apparent with a recently set sun/surrounding lights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthony_VWJET

Im sorry to say, and hate to be the first to say it, but i find it hard to believe that photoshop wasnt used in these shots. Its not possible to get shots this clean without using photoshop or coral. I can see the lens filters, but you can easily tell the photoshop was used when looking at the colour and reflections. But that being said, sweet photos, regardless what tools were used - your mates got talent! :biggrin:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faisan

Theres gotta be some sort of post processing used. I find it hard to believe that the photos came straight out of the camera like that.

Sweet pics regardless though :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BRU51N

i would assume HDR + proper studio lighting, or some sort of additional lighting.

regardless, the photographer is very skilled. ive seen afew of his work and its quite impressive.

---

As far as photoshop goes, there was probably photoshop used for small things, which, ALL good photographers do, and i should make it very clear that ALL professional photographers extensivly use photoshop. Retouching, adjusting levels, colour, contrast, all of that kind of stuff. In terms of producing the picture to come out like it has, it would have all essentially been done on the camera, and photoshop retouches would just be a minor thing.

Try it sometime, you just need an SLR and a flash. Set your exposure to ~10" or longer as desires and equal out your ISO and F stop accordingly to acheive a balanced ambient light, then set your flash to full power and just press the fire button to paint areas of the car you want light on.


-Drew.

I know tanglca through a photography forum, and he's always saying how everyone criticizes his work saying it's all photoshop. Fact is he has just mastered his technique of using an LED torch inside a small softbox. He shoots with a long exposure and "paints" the car with the torch.

When he says no Photoshop was used, he's saying that it's all very minor stuff. When shooting with DSLR's there are some adjustments that need correcting like White balance and contrast. He doesn't use complex layers in Photoshop though.

Refer to my above post. :p

Just to add to the thread.
When we say an image isn't photoshopped it refers to the modifications we do.
I.e. A photoshopped image will include multiple layers, masking, hue adjustments, pixel adjustments, stamping, cloning... etc.
No non photoshopped image will almost always have been opened up in photoshop, and adjustments such as what drewr has said, contrast, levels, blah blah.

P.s. I know this is an old topic. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James Dean

P.s. I know this is an old topic. :)

---

Nonetheless, that was an interesting read for me! I just wish I had a DSLR and the knowledge on how to use it...

Yeah, I am glad I saw this.
Makes me think I should get some nice photos of my R...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James Dean

Just to add to the thread.
When we say an image isn't photoshopped it refers to the modifications we do.
I.e. A photoshopped image will include multiple layers, masking, hue adjustments, pixel adjustments, stamping, cloning... etc.
No non photoshopped image will almost always have been opened up in photoshop, and adjustments such as what drewr has said, contrast, levels, blah blah.

P.s. I know this is an old topic. :)

---

thats still photo-shopped! without photo-shop these pictures wouldn't look the same as they do now! therefore, contrast, hue, shadows, everything you do to a "raw" photo is classified as photoshopped

not saying they arnet brilliant photos! because they are! its just that any editing to a standard photo IS a photoshop

cheers
dom

Quote:

---

thats still photo-shopped! without photo-shop these pictures wouldn't look the same as they do now! therefore, contrast, hue, shadows, everything you do to a "raw" photo is classified as photoshopped

---

IF the image was shot in raw format (.cr2 - From memory he is using a 1d mkIII? the colours tonal range in camera adjustments are simply amazing.) So if the photo was shot in raw, opened in Camera RAW (which is an Adobe software) and make the adjustments there. Thus meaning it isn't photoshopped.

Not looking for an argument, or justifying his use of "i don't photoshop" just bringing the other side to the table.

For those with less camera knowledge.
Raw (.cr2 for a canon dSLR) files are data of image, meaning the "image" doesn't actually exist, its just a file telling devices/programs what to display and where. This means the image is higher quality. 1:1 pixel ratio, also you can heavily modify the colours, contrast and other features without being destructive to the histogram. Where as a Jpeg file (10:1 pixel ratio, meaning lower quality, smaller file size) is destructive to the histogram once the editing process begins, this being the same with TIFF files except the pixel ratio is 1:1.

tl:dr? Camera stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James Dean

IF the image was shot in raw format (.cr2 - From memory he is using a 1d mkIII? the colours tonal range in camera adjustments are simply amazing.) So if the photo was shot in raw, opened in Camera RAW (which is an Adobe software) and make the adjustments there. Thus meaning it isn't photoshopped.

Not looking for an argument, or justifying his use of "i don't photoshop" just bringing the other side to the table.

For those with less camera knowledge.
Raw (.cr2 for a canon dSLR) files are data of image, meaning the "image" doesn't actually exist, its just a file telling devices/programs what to display and where. This means the image is higher quality. 1:1 pixel ratio, also you can heavily modify the colours, contrast and other features without being destructive to the histogram. Where as a Jpeg file (10:1 pixel ratio, meaning lower quality, smaller file size) is destructive to the histogram once the editing process begins, this being the same with TIFF files except the pixel ratio is 1:1.

tl:dr? Camera stuff.

---

His claim to 'i dont photoshop' baffles me a little, when you do a tafe course for photography, or apply for a photographic job the FIRST thing i've always been asked is "what's your photoshop experience". It really is THAT big of an influence these days, but which ever. Any way you want to put it, whether it's specific RAW editing (which i beleive the new photoshop handles, same with lightroom) the term "photoshopped" isn't even correct, rather Post Proccessed (PP for short) is the general consensus for saying that an image has been altered from what is captured on the camera.

Who cares about Photoshop or not? The car looks fantastic! If I saw it in the flesh (metal), it would still look fantastic. I could attach a retinal reflection improvement system (RRIS) to the back of my eyeball I suppose...:cool:

Point is.....

Great car....

Well done!

Now going to take a dump, squint slightly, look down, and hope the edges look smoother 'cos I hate that intestinal look!