# 1962 Mustang



## dandaluzphotography (Jun 20, 2012)

I got lots more.  Please keep the C&C coming!


----------



## LizardKing (Jun 21, 2012)

Hello there!

Not going to talk about HDR cause I know nothing about it... but why would you cut the hood like that? It kills the picture IMO. It's a nice shot and I like it, but that really bumps me out.
There's also some noticeable editing in some places of the pavement, specially on the top-right and bottom-left. And finally maybe the whole composition could use a little more air, specially on the right side... the car is just too close to the edges for my taste.


----------



## dandaluzphotography (Jun 21, 2012)

Hey. Good points. I cut off the top of the hood because I didn't feel it added anything to the shot. If I included the hood, there would have been a lot of dead space in the top top left. 

As far as the editing, well, i have to get better at that. . Thanks!


----------



## Jaemie (Jun 21, 2012)

I don't think the Mustang existed in 1962, at least not in production.


----------



## dandaluzphotography (Jun 21, 2012)

Jaemie said:
			
		

> I don't think the Mustang existed in 1962, at least not in production.



You're absolutely right.  It's a 64. It was a typo.


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 21, 2012)

Lots of Mustangs cropping up on this forum.

I dig it...


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Jun 21, 2012)

Well, I wouldn't crop the top of the hood. I agree with LK. Looks like your processing is getting better!


----------



## Blade_Runner (Jun 21, 2012)

Technically speaking, 64 and a half was the first model year.....lol 


Nice pic!


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jun 21, 2012)

agree, should have left the hood attackhed, maybe gave it a bit more space on either end of the car as well. not much just a tad more.   

i'm always torn about hdr's taken this far. sometimes i'll like them, sometimes not. this one for me is a bit to far processed for me personally. but its not bad.


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi (Jun 21, 2012)

They never made a 64 1/2 fastback.


----------



## dandaluzphotography (Jun 21, 2012)

BlueMeanieTSi said:


> They never made a 64 1/2 fastback.



I'm not much into these cars at all.  The owner told me 64.  Maybe he was drunk.  He was holding a beer.


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi (Jun 21, 2012)

They did sell them in 65.


----------



## EDL (Jun 21, 2012)

'65 was the first year of the fastback and the car in the picture (assuming no parts have been changed) is a '65 (you can tell by the grille).

Technically there's no 64 1/2 mustang as the mustang debuted in April of '64 (model years always come out in the year prior).  The VIN code and title will say the "64 1/2" is really a '65.

The "1965" mustang came out in October of '64, just 7 months later.


----------



## daarksun (Jul 4, 2012)

Actually there is a 64 1/2 mustang.. Here's how to identify it. 
.
Truth is, the '64-1/2 Mustang lacks some of the nice engineering refinements and features those post-July '64 steeds have, such as an alternator charging system, a better engine-to-bellhousing marriage, an adjustable passenger seat, and a host of other items. 

To be a '64-1/2 at all, a Mustang has to be factory-equipped with a generator charging system, a 170ci six (U-code), a 260 2V (F-code), or a 289 4V (D-code) low-compression, large horns mounted down on the frame behind the radiator, a brake light pressure switch on the master cylinder, a center "off" heater fan switch, and a generator charge light, just to name the basics. These are features exclusive to Mustangs built between early March and July 31, 1964 ​​
*How to Identify a 1964-1/2 Mustang - Mustang Monthly Magazine

*The reason to crop out part of the mustang hood is for the overall image. it does not really affect the image and no one gives a crap about the underside of the hood, unless there's graphics on it. By leaving the entire hood you've added the small piece of the hood and possible a large amoung of background that may take away from the overall image, which is the 64.5 Mustang. 

For this image it's a good crop. Had the car been setup for a beauty shot the background would have been great to see and the hood would not have been up for that kind of shot. When you shoot at a car show you take what you get and you have to crop to the best view, as was done in this case. 

Excellent black and white HDR.


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi (Jul 5, 2012)

daarksun said:


> Actually there is a 64 1/2 mustang.. Here's how to identify it.



Um, taken straight from the article you posted:  "The '64-1/2 Mustang isn't any more rare than one of its '65 counterparts. *In fact, there are no '64-1/2 Mustangs at all*; that title was coined by enthusiasts."  So no, there is no 64 1/2 Mustang.


----------



## EDL (Jul 5, 2012)

daarksun said:


> Actually there is a 64 1/2 mustang.. Here's how to identify it.
> .
> Truth is, the '64-1/2 Mustang lacks some of the nice engineering refinements and features those post-July '64 steeds have, such as an alternator charging system, a better engine-to-bellhousing marriage, an adjustable passenger seat, and a host of other items.
> 
> ...




If you read the entire article, is says (in more than one place) "The '64-1/2 Mustang isn't any more rare than one  of its '65 counterparts. In fact, there are no '64-1/2 Mustangs at all;  that title was coined by enthusiasts. The '64-1/2 Mustang is simply an  early-production unit without the refinements that came later. And  another thing, Ford never built a production '64-1/2 Mustang fastback."

It also says "The '64-1/2 Mustangs have always been '65  Mustangs--always. As enthusiasts, we call them "'64-1/2" because it's  easier to say, but it's also a cult thing. Early '65 Mustangs have the  distinction of being the first block of Ponies ever produced."

Again, '64 1/2 is only a term coined by 'stang owners.  There was never officially a '64 1/2, ever.  I got $$$ says you can't find a title on a mustang that reads anything older than 1965, or a mustang VIN code that breaks out to anything earlier than 1965.  Technically, if we follow the trend of model year nomenclature, then the earliest models were '65's and the ones with the refinements later the same year would be '65 1/2s.


​


----------

