I'm not a camera nut or expert, in fact, the only camera I have is a 5MP iphone camera.... hardly what I would deem as a camera.

Look at this pic of M3This's mini (hope he doesn't mind me using his pic for instance)



Is it safe to assume a professional or someone with a very good camera took this shot?

I know M3This has had professional pics but this looks to me the same way. So my question to you pro's, have these pics been doctor'd? (I mean to enhance, etc, etc... not in a negative tone)

Is it the camera or is it software to make it look this great? I don't know squat about cameras/taking pics but always love the way these types of pics look.

Thanks guys, Thanks M3This....fantastic car and pics as usual.


Mark

 

high end cameras and a knowledge of Photoshop definitely help, but really, what it comes down to is an eye for a well-composed image and an understanding of the principles of recording light to film/sensor.

i've seen amazing camera phone images and plenty of crappy $5000 DSLR pix. It's all about the eye behind the viewfinder, really.

 

Guess some of us are not meant to be photo buffs.... Thanks for the clarification.

Mark

 

iPhone only has a 3MP (not 5MP) camera, but the MPs and other camera features are not what really makes this picture. The original you posted the link to is 1024x683 (but who knows what the camera took that day). Subject, composition, and lighting are its real strengths. I'm not saying gear wont help, but gear doesn't do it alone.

 

Ohhhh, I thought the 32gig iphone was 5MP.... my bad.... okay, that makes it worse. LOL.

Like I said, guess I need to go get a pro to take some pics of my car.

Crappy camera
Crappy backgrounds
Crappy lighting
Crappy eye

Now I know why my pics are always crappy...lol.

Thanks guys, I'll get a pro to do it.

Mark

 

Actually, this appears to me to be a nicely edited image, some cropping, some photoshop enhancements and what appears to be some HD work.

If you have a good pocket digital camera and the right software on your PC or MAC, you can get these results with very little effort.

It will not be letter perfect but will make some nice prints for the office wall or the home man-cave!

Mark, get yourself a nice Canon G10 or other Canon/Sony/Olympus with 6-12 megapixels and take some pictures.

Try a few hundred shots and then get Picasa for Windows or MAC, then play around a little.

Not hard, not rocket science.

Btw, I am a published photographer who has been working in the field since 1966. Everything I submit to VL for this year is edited in Picasa for Windows, then exported for submission.

By the time a picture makes it to VL, I have no idea what the copy editor has done to my image other than I still get photo credits and rights.

Just my 2cents.

You can build a wing, paint a car and race on fast track, you can take pictures.

 

Hell Mark, if you can run a body shop you can take good pics! I tell ya what, we can have a body shop owners support group for picture taking. I've wanted to play with some of my pics too. If they say Picasa is the software to use lets get it and play with it! With everything we have to do through the course of a day, what's one more thing to learn!

 

I want to say a circular polarizer was at work in that image, based on the seemingly controlled reflections off the car's windows. Understanding how light works, and then choosing when/how to exploit it is the key to neat looking photos.

And some Photoshop knowledge doesn't hurt. Lots of easy to use, easy to understand guides available online.

 

If you have a local community college/tradeschool or an art school, take an evening course in photography. It's a learned-skill and anyone can be taught.

You'd probably really enjoy it.

 

Aside from a good camera with a good lens and a good lighting setup, he probably manually blended 3 exposures via photoshop and added multiple layers of who knows what kind of adjustments. Anthony is an excellent automotive photographer.

So I guess in summation, that picture is the combination of good equipment, good editing and an excellent photographer.

 

Scott Kelby's digital photography books are really helpful.

http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Photog...tt_at_ep_dpi_1

 

That pic on the first post is definitely some HDR work. You can see by the unnatural color gradient in the sky and the unbalanced lighting in the background to the left. A very solid composition but HDR is getting a little out of hand in my opinion...

 

One of the best photos I've ever seen, Ansel quality, was taken with a pin hole camera made out of an empty tissue box. The culmination of a photography class sent that particular student to a fine career. The equipment is secondary to the person behind the shutter which in this case was a piece of duct tape.

 

Orangecrush,
I agree with the other posters here that the camera gear is largely secondary to the photographer behind the lens.

If you still believe that a meager 3MP iPhone is something that you would "hardly...deem as a camera," then I encourage you to take some time to look at Chase Jarvis' work. In particular, look through his portfolio of photography taken using an iPhone (found under the "Portfolio" link). Wonderful photographs can be made using minimalist equipment, and you'd be surprised what kind of seemingly ordinary places make interesting subjects when viewed from the right angle in the right light.

In addition to Chase's work, the New York Times blog, Lens, posted an inspiring gallery of photos back in July - all of them taken with cell phone cameras. You can see the gallery here: http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/readers-3/. More examples can be found in the NYT blog - just use the search.

My advice would be to just pick up your camera (or, more to the point, your phone), and start shooting. The more you shoot, the more you'll begin to look at every day objects with a new eye toward composition and light.

 

Spot on supe.
The rule of thumb in the news bureau I worked for back in the 70's was 3%. It was a black and white world then using Tri-X 400. Film was cheap so we used lots and found one or two good prints out of a hundred. Digital photography is even cheaper and you don't smell like fixer when you are through, so shoot even more and sort through them looking for that perfect gem. Don't ignore cropping either. An ordinary picture can be greatly enhanced by cropping down to a significant portion of the picture which, by the way, can as easily change the theme of the original photograph. One hard, fast rule though. Never alter the original photo. If you make changes to it, save the work under a different file name. The original exposure is sacred.

Also, pick up a couple of photography magazines at a news stand and study good photography looking for ideas on lighting and composition. The eye can be trained to recognize ideal settings.

 

I think that is a little mis-leading, as he does a lot of post-processing on those photos. They aren't at all what the raw images likely looked like.

 

Having an iPhone I can attest to that. While it's a great camera phone in broad daylight, it won't create images like those without some significant post processing (not that that's a problem, post processing is just as important a tool as the camera itself is IMO).

You can also see how he's using the cameras disadvantages and making the pictures seem more "artsy" or abstract if you want to call it that. There are severely blown highlights in the majority of those pictures, which works great with the style he's going for.

 

Those are both valid points. However, while the iPhone does have its technical limitations, I wouldn't discount its value simply because it's not a $5,000 12MP wonder. And that was partly my point to the original poster. With a little creativity he might find that some of his iPhone photos aren't that bad at all.

You're both correct, of course. Chase does process his iPhone photos. So does just about every other photographer using more expensive gear. If we're being totally honest, Chase took some of the photos using a custom application for the iPhone that he co-developed. The point remains, however, that the photos were taken using a camera phone.

 

Oh yeah, it's a very capable camera, it just has it's limitations.

 

Guys,

I really appreciate all the input. That's why I love these forums, there's always someone that knows something more than you do about some topic.

I have learned one thing... it's not just the equipment. After reading all these posts and viewing hundreds of pictures since, I "SEE" what you guys are talking about. Though I haven't tried to take any more photos, I look at pics differently now. I look at the lighting, where the shadows are. Is the sunlight being used or reflected off a building, is the photographer focusing in on the background or just the object, what angle looks better.

I look at pictures completely different than I did a few weeks ago when I posted this. I always looked at photos with an almost "uninterested" eye in the sense that I went "oh, that's cool". Now, I look at the "whole" pic, not just the cool car or girl or tree...whatever.

I never really tried to get good pics because I've ALWAYS just assumed that almost anyone could take good pics if they had a good camera.

NAY NAY I SAY... it's good equipment AND ability. I feel like I should give props to all the photographers who made all the pics PHOTOS.

Guess that's why they call it photography and not just picture taking.

This thread has been VERY ENLIGHTENING to me and I want to say THANKS to all that answered, I'll never look through a viewfinder the same again.

I'm going to take my "crappy" iphone and become more aware of what and how I'm taking my pics. I'm also going to start reading up on this and perhaps I can at least take some pics worthy of posting.

Thanks all... MUCH APPRECIATED!


Mark

 

Just in case anybody was wondering what the "before" version of that shot looked like, here you go:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...=678298&page=6

Edit: That's strange, in the pic on the OP Anthony hadn't cloned out the power lines, I wonder why he would've let Kris have the photo before he did that?

 

VicSkimmr, the original is what I was going to speak about and you nailed it. The processed is pretty well balanced. Normally, if you shot a sky with a dark subject, it is difficult to get a good balance. The sky gets blown out or your subject is too dark. Fill flash works in some instances. But yes, this was a worked over image and nothing is wrong with that.