33 replies to this topic

[VisualEchos]

First I want to say that I don't consider myself an expert automotive photographer. To me, "expert" implies that I can make any automobile look good in any sort of situation. I have friends in the industry that are like that, and their work continues to astound me, not because of how good it is, but because they consistently produce excellent results under less-than-favorable conditions/situations. This is the life of most professional automotive photographer's, and because of that, I'm glad I don't count myself among them. I shoot only for myself, and I'd like to think that it shows. This thread is not about making you an expert, I can't help you with that side of things, but what I can do is help you with the basic rules of the game, so that when you go out to take pix if your own car, you just might come home with something of professional quality.

Before I begin, I want to say that you don't need a DSLR to take beautiful automotive photograph's. However, since DSLR's allow the user to change lenses, each lens can be more specialized, and therefore create many "looks" that are unavailable to point-and-shoot users.

Photography is light

If there is a starting point to all photography, it must be light. Without light, you'd simply be looking at a black screen right now, and it's crucial that you understand that all things about light are important to a photographer. The type of light, the brightness of the light, where the light is coming from, and control over reflections all play key roles in how the subject is presented. So how do you use light properly? Easy, follow these three steps...

1. Shoot in indirect light, preferably just after sunrise, or just before sunset.
2. Shoot with the sun on your back.
3. Always use a tripod and circular polarizer.

The goal is for the light to lay on your subject, not strike it. Shooting at mid-day will not only produce huge hot-spots (pure white areas of reflection), but create harsh shadows, and usually wash the colors out. The picture below will illustrate my point perfectly...



I'm going to use this photo in later installments, but for now, I want you to notice 4 things about it...

1. The huge hot-spot on the rear quarter panel, and the smaller one on the lower front fender.
2. The shadow crossing the road, and how dark the rear of the car is.
3. The color, and brightness of the side window.
4. The washed-out colors and cool-blue cast.

Had I taken this shot near sunset, with the light on my back, and polarized it correctly, it could have had an entirely different feel...



The last thing I want to cover, with regards to light, is the circular polarizing filter. This is a filter, which is attached to the lens, and then rotated to control reflections. If you have never used one of these, you're in for a treat. The first time I turned one I thought I was looking through an old kaleidoscope, it was simply amazing. This filter is an absolute must if you plan on shooting reflective objects, and its power over reflections cannot be over-stated. Notice the huge differences in the two pictures below, and realize that they were caused by simply rotating the filter.



Next up, Composition...

Edited by VisualEchos, 23 May 2011 - 02:16 AM.

[Moxie]

Nice shots! What lens and exposure time did you use for the motion shot?

[Bibs]

Very interesting. A polarising filter is on the shopping list. Any recommendations? Canon ones are £90, Jessops sell them for £15. Is the Canon worth the extra money?

[VisualEchos]

Moxie: Nikkor 16-35 ƒ4 + CP filter, shot at ƒ16 • ISO 200 • 2 second exposure

Bibs: The Canon filters are fine, but I prefer B+W because they tend to screw on and off very easily, and have a heavy, quality feel to them.

[Roger the Dodger]

What's the difference between a UV filter and a circular polarising filter. (being as they're both round)

[Bibs]

UV blocks UV, that's all they do. Polarising filters block reflections by removing the out of phase wavelengths of light caused by the reflection. You can rotate it on the lens, varying the wavelengths you block and in fact 2 filters can even block all light, as seen on the windows of some private jets (you just rotate the inner window and can have a complete black or complete transparency.)

[Simon350S]

This is all cool stuff and I'm reading with great interest but alas I have no way of joining in practically, my old Sont cybershot is very old with crap inside the lense... Ho Hum.. Will keep reading though

[Roger the Dodger]

Like the old Polaroid sun glasses

[Mark B]

Have you ever used an ND filter for car photography?

[VisualEchos]

Yes, I use a .9 ND from time to time on my rig-shots (because of the long exposure), but otherwise, there is no real need for one in automotive photography.

Edited by VisualEchos, 23 May 2011 - 11:22 PM.

[Roger the Dodger]

Speaking of filters, when I first came to Australia (long time ago, 35mm film camera) the first thing I had to do was get UV filters for my then Pentax, think I had Tamron lenses. The colour was being washed out by the higher UV in Australia. Anyway I now realise, curtsey of this topic, I haven't needed any such filter with my new Nikon. So does the modern lens come with a UV coating, I have no issues with the colour density, quite the reverse, I enthuse about the colour. So do I need one, should I have one ?

[VisualEchos]

Not at all, for most people a UV filter is snake-oil. You will find those that say that it's "cheap protection" for the front of their expensive lens, but that makes no sense at all, I mean, why would you pay big money for good glass only to shoot through a cheap filter?

Besides, your glass will be fine, you can completely crack the front element and have no issues with shooting at all.

[Bibs]

Very true. You shouldn't be so careless with something so expensive to need an extra layer of protection, it's like putting bubble wrap on your bumpers. A UV (or Skylight) filter costs you a stop of light too.

[GKP]

Yep, they're even Guinness proof.

[Moxie]

Moxie: Nikkor 16-35 ƒ4 + CP filter, shot at ƒ16 • ISO 200 • 2 second exposure

2 seconds?! I've never really attempted motion blur shots like this, so I ask from complete ignorance, but how did you manage to keep the car in focus so well over 2 seconds? I mean, the car looks like you shot it at nothing less than 1/125.

[Bibs]

With a rig I would guess?

[VisualEchos]

Bibs has it right, it's a rig-shot .

[Simon350S]

wheres the rig then? Photoshop?

[VisualEchos]

Exactly. The biggest part of a rig-shot is not the shot, but the post-processing afterwards.

[Simon350S]

I so wish I could Photoshop stuff. Struggling with the basics here. Maybe we should have a Photoshop advice thread as well