Adk46

I don't believe Mr. Stout has attended a 928 gathering ... the studio apartment has just opened up for June 13-16, meaning the bedroom in our [former] photography studio. I'm sure someone would pick you up in Albany, Pete. In the world's greatest GT!

vanster

Pete has attended a few of our Nor Cal 928 gatherings. Remember that when Wolfgang Mobious designed the car it was all about how the light reflected off of it. This was what he was looking for.

linderpat

Wow, I'm glad I renewed! Can't wait to get my copy. I devour these things. Simply the best car mag in the world. Period. One of the local guys in our car world is a photographer for 000 (among others), and he was telling me about his shoot that is in this issue as well. Looking forward to seeing that too.

vanster

Michael Alan Ross just finished the shoot of

my red car today. Although he only shoots for Panorama he is a great fan of Pete's. It's all good that the 928 is getting some real coverage.

Wisconsin Joe

Are you gonna let him drive it?

vanster

Ha! Michael was not the one that destroyed the clutch. The good thing was that he was the witness. It ended up with a new flywheel ( last one out of the factory) the throwout bearing was completely melted and the car still stinks.
Back to the 000 cover...does anyone see the 904 influence in the design?

stout

You know, that phrase really resonated with me when I first read it, too. The first statement in the internal discussion was that the cover needed to be reshot, to which I said, "I actually like the concept. A lot..." Then we all got to talking. It is…deliciously deliberate.

I have to admit I have tried to figure out how the image was made myself, without wanting to ask Ondrej as that's too easy. The rear quarter windows seem to be playing no small part in the image...but I have yet to figure it out. However, I will say this, there was a "cheat" applied to the image (though not to the car itself) in order to make the image work on the cover.

Many thanks — but I've always had a strain affinity for this corner of Rennlist, probably tied to my still unrequited interest in 928s. The one I bought from Mark, which I'd hoped to turn into a Safari 928, just wasn't to be.

Ah, many thanks and hope it's a standing invitation...as it might be awhile before I can take you up on it. While I'd like to get back east more often, 000 remains pretty all-consuming—any time I get goes to my better half, a certain little one, and two aging kids we just moved in with us. Just the chapter I'm in. I think they call it midlife, or something like that...

Indeed, and those are always fun days. Still think about the last one every time I go to that Peets, and would be happy to host another 928 gathering/open house at 000 sometime if you cats are headed out to west Marin for a drive.

Wow. Many thanks for the kind words, and I think I know which photographer you're talking about. We just published his work in 009, and he's over the moon. He was worried we would short it to 5-10 pages. It's, ah, a little longer!

You've got a good eye, Van...

linderpat

Yep, the French guy; he's a pretty darn good photographer!

Adk46

At the risk of getting it very wrong, and TLDR: The car was shot with four main lights. One was to the side on the left (relative to photo), somewhat behind the front fender giving a "high" reflection. There was a similar light on the right, but more towards the front of the car, giving a somewhat lower reflection. That these two lights were in different places is a clue that the shadows did not come from them - the shadows are nearly identical left and right. There was another light nearly head on, from above and to the right - that gave the reflection high on the bumper cover. A fourth light was low from the front, providing some light to the lower bumper. Note the vertical surface of the bumper is dark - little light hit it suggesting these last two lights were quite high and low - or something. The first three lights are "soft", from large panels or "softboxes"; car photography requires gigantic versions of these compared with the photography of smaller things. Cars are reflective objects, so the lights are in the photo - a major headache. The sharply defined shadows were certainly not from soft lights - another major clue to the magic of this photograph.

After adjusting everything, a single exposure provided much of what you see of the car, which was "knocked out" in Photoshop. The camera and car were not moved while lights were set up to photograph the shadows. Two lights were set up left and right, fairly "hard" lights to give sharply defined shadows. Another hard light was directly over the front of the car, giving the shadow in front. When a good result was obtained, this photo was added in Photoshop in a layer beneath the knock-out. Fine-tuning then commenced, possibly requiring adding layers from other exposures.

I have not explained a number of details - e.g., extra shadows in front and behind the car. There are two small, yellowish highlight reflections in the floor - where did they come from? I've read detailed "how I did it" accounts of high-end product photographers - they will obsess over these details, which in the film days meant doing it in a single shot, using Polaroids for test shots. I always wanted to do this sort of photography - subjects that don't move - out of some big loft I lived in, Bohemian-style, littered with Chinese take-out boxes and such.

Tony will be staying in the studio apartment (the closest I could get to a loft in my one-stoplight town), unless you change your mind, Pete.