# For us auto enthusiusts



## Shipman (Nov 18, 2013)

Just a few of my car

1.



DSC_0013 by mshipman89, on Flickr

2.



DSC_0005 by mshipman89, on Flickr

3.



DSC_0013 by mshipman89, on Flickr

4.



DSC_0014 by mshipman89, on Flickr


----------



## Starskream666 (Nov 18, 2013)

underexposed but nice


----------



## skieur (Nov 18, 2013)

Starskream666 said:


> underexposed but nice



I would NOT say that they are underexposed but white balance does not seem to be consistent.


----------



## Shipman (Nov 18, 2013)

Thats 100% true, they were not all shot or edited the same so that makes sense.


----------



## R3d (Nov 19, 2013)

Starskream666 said:


> underexposed but nice



I agree.  Histogram is probably skewed left.  You're losing details in the bumper, splitter, wheels, and brakes, and exhaust.  The STi brembos are pretty to look at, and viewers want to see them.  

I don't really like the warp in the first and third either, but that's up to you.  I like the color tones of all of them, but being consistent looks less indecisive (the bluer one is my first choice, but I might warm the highlights a bit).  

If I were editing for myself I'd dodge down the background a bit and burn the foreground up of the final photo to really make the car pop in that setting.  You've got some nice lines in the trees above the car that keep the viewer in that part of the frame, but you can do a little bit more to accentuate it and hold them there a tad better - I'm still escaping through the lighter pavement to the back of the photo and away from the car.  I might have even placed the car in the light in front of it and shot with a longer focal length which would help flatten that nice background.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Nov 19, 2013)

I usually keep my auto images a bit darker, but these for me are just a tad too dark, as mentioned your losing detail. the tires and wheel wells blur together and the car just doesn't pop or grab as much of my attention. Like the car and the location.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 19, 2013)

#2 is cool, but I wish you took the shot a little lower to the ground. 

I dont like the lens distortion on the rest and I agree they are underexposed.


----------



## Shipman (Nov 19, 2013)

I appreciate all the comments guys, Ill work on adjusting the exposure when shooting. As for the "warp", there is none, they were shot at 10mm so its just super wide with the camera moved in close. Thanks again guys.


----------



## Aloicious (Nov 19, 2013)

Shipman said:


> Just a few of my car
> 
> 1.
> 
> ...



They're decent shots, I agree they're all underexposed by a good amount, I don't mind a little underexposure depending on the setting/subject/etc, but I think its just a bit too much on these. the white balance seems to be off in most all of them as well. I don't mind the lens distortion on some of them, though it is quite extreme (when the others are talking about 'warp' they're referring to the wide angle lens distortion, not that you've actually 'warped' the image or something like that). I also think your composition could be improved in some of them as well, for example, #1 has lots of space to the left, where the car is facing to the right, and there really isn't anything fantastically interesting to the left. I think repositioning the shot so that you have more empty space to the right of the car gives the feeling that the vehicle has somewhere to 'go' since that is how it is facing. 

you've got the 'My photos are OK to edit' in your postbit, so I hope you don't mind I did a quick edit on #1...its not great and you would be able to get much better results starting from a raw file, or better yet, reshooting...but here's a quick change that: 1) increases exposure overall (though its tough starting with a jpeg, so this exposure still isn't spot on), 2) reduces a little bit of the lens distortion and straightens horizon, 3) crops a bit for composition (though a reshoot could get better composition than this even, we're kind of limited due to the front bumper being so close to the right image edge), 4)some color adjustment, 5) attempt to separate the subject from the background with some selective exposure editing and curves (dodge the car and some foreground highlights, burn the background highlights, and some slight exposure gamma and offset adjustment), I tried to get the sky to feel less 'blah' but its kindof stuck like that, a reshoot on a better day would help out immensely. 

you might also look into a good circular polarizer, you could get some more 'feeling' in the car by reducing the glare and reflections on the glass/surface of the car that way. 







overall they're not terrible or anything, but just some C&C to think about on your next shoot.

Thanks for sharing them


----------



## R3d (Nov 19, 2013)

Shipman said:


> I appreciate all the comments guys, Ill work on adjusting the exposure when shooting. As for the "warp", there is none, they were shot at 10mm so its just super wide with the camera moved in close. Thanks again guys.



10mm means you're going to have lens distortion.  If you want to get close shoot telephoto and you won't get that stretchy look.


----------



## Shipman (Nov 19, 2013)

I dont mind the edit and I appreciate the advice. These are things that I need to improve on so I highly appreciate the elaboration of exactly what was bugging you. Thank you very much.​


----------



## R3d (Nov 20, 2013)

No worries!


----------



## Shipman (Nov 25, 2013)

Heres some of my daily, how about these?




DSC_0096 by mshipman89, on Flickr



DSC_0074 by mshipman89, on Flickr



DSC_0107 by mshipman89, on Flickr



DSC_0109 by mshipman89, on Flickr



DSC_0080 by mshipman89, on Flickr


----------



## terryc967 (Nov 26, 2013)

Nice scooby, my favorite year model, nice location for the pics


----------

