Photography - The Common Passion with Porsche - Photo Tips

I use a Canon 7D now, after having a Canon 40D. I have only two lenses that I use regularly, a telephoto and a 60mm macro f 2.8.

I met a pro once who told me three somewhat simple tips: 1. Use a tripod whenever you can, as you aren't as steady as you might think, 2. Shoot RAW as you can do a lot more with it, 3. Use Lynda to learn stuff. He felt that the other avenues of typical learning weren't as good, such as workshops or magazines (for the average amateur). I realize carrying your camera, and shooting a lot of photos - experimenting, is another great idea. I don't carry mine enough.

In response to in-camera vs. post-production... I try to get the best CAPTURE with the camera, and then do whatever editing afterwards from the RAW file, assuming the photo is to my liking. I think most DSLRs will do some sort of sharpening, saturation, etc. in the camera, but I've stayed away from them. I am constantly learning more about the effective use of layers in Photoshop for editing, like sharpening.

I also agree with Barwaut that it's hard to take interesting photos of cars. I like that challenge, and wonder if any of my car photos would appeal to a non car nut.

My advice, which you're free to ignore; buy the fastest (quality) lens you can afford and take 10 pictures for every one you see.

-Mike

There were two articles over on Hemmings that I found useful. Both had to do with cover shots. The first was the technique behind a recent cover. The second was from a photographer - what he felt were 10 of his more memorable covers.

http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2...-photographed/

http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2...s-cover-shots/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ibmiked

My advice, which you're free to ignore; buy the fastest (quality) lens you can afford and take 10 pictures for every one you see.

-Mike

---

Why the fastest lens for car shots? I would think you'd want the depth of field to keep most, if not all of the car in focus...... Quality - absolutely. You don't need the speed if you're shooting a static subject like a car, especially with a tripod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Digital K

I agree, but WHY is it a great shot is the more important thing to discuss...

---

I like the contrast between the dark shadow on the building and the light reflecting off the curvaceous body in sharper focus. My eye is draw to the car's hips where there is that sense of motion from the dust trail and slight blur on the rest of the car, presumably from the panning. The (somewhat blurred) people cheering the Ferrari on add to the emotional response and the perspective (of the building growing smaller into the distance) adds to the sense of depth, like the car is coming out of the page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Digital K

... but WHY is it a great shot is the more important thing to discuss...

---

My thoughts:

The graphical composition is important here. The main element is placed in the lower third of the image, giving it added prominence because its lopsided.

The curvaceous lines of the car also contrast with the geometric, straight lines that otherwise dominate.

The strong lines within the surrounding architecture enhance the perspective within the image, again giving it an additional off-kilter center of focus, but also graphically launching the car through and out of the image. This, along with the cloud of dust, gives a sense of motion in an otherwise static image. (In other images, blurred wheels or background might give this sense of speed.)

The cheering spectators are a nice, organic touch, but they could be window-box flowers and would provide the same effect, which is interesting. As if they're only of tertiary importance... the race could as easily go on without them.

In technical terms: I dig it.

Attachment 242804

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by setho

Why the fastest lens for car shots? I would think you'd want the depth of field to keep most, if not all of the car in focus...... Quality - absolutely. You don't need the speed if you're shooting a static subject like a car, especially with a tripod.

---

Depends on what you're trying to capture. Shallow depth of field can be used to good effect in static shots, and a fast lens opens many possibilities.

My static images are not great, but in recent years I have been working on improving my photography of cars in motion. This, to me is the essence of the automobile: the shape, but in motion. This is one of my best. The composition is not terribly exciting, but I think I was able to balance the depth of field and shutter speed (and shaky hands) enough to capture something interesting.

Attachment 242805

Getting things correct in camera is the most important thing. Photoshop cannot easily fix and is not a substitute for a good subject, foreground, and background. It can't create composition or dictate a specific depth of field or the natural motion a correct shutter speed can give. Photoshop is an essential tool but its akin to how a spade is to a gardener whereas the camera is the earth things are growing out of. The camera is integrally tied to your eye and your mind. Photoshop is just software.

I was trolling through http://www.stanceworks.com. I thought there was a lot of interesting car photos there..... Worth a look for some different ideas.

Saw this yesterday:

http://thechicaneblog.com/

Congrats to Bob! Great discussion on his site http://werkcrew.com/?p=4295 regarding the composition of the photo.

I also found one of my favorite "in period" themes in Bob's discussion - 1966 or 2011? Great comments. Keep them coming.

Henry