Froggy shark

Hi Chris,

Nevis seems to be a caribbean island, West Indies

Cheers,

Michel
http://culte928.monsite-orange.fr/

pjg

Just completed Maxjax install.

Mrmerlin

Cool lift

Rob Edwards

whiteNSXs

No, I think you ruined the picture for him. What you did was artificially eliminating the depth of field of the picture so rendered the car looking flat and 2-dimensional. Now the car looks like a tin toy. These are amateur chopping tricks that should simply not used in cars in general. $0.02
Steve

jleidel

Yes, i really am that tall

JPTL

Said by the guy with the NSX for his Avatar.

RKD in OKC

Before and after retouching, I know which one I like.

whiteNSXs

I apologize for my harsh words. However, for the sake of photography, I would comment that the real car picture should have consistent depth of field to show the dynamics. I understand that one might want to chop the exposure and contrast to enhance the picture. However, when the picture in question was obviously taken by a wide angle lens, the background should be appropriately clear. By artificially eliminating the depth of field, blurring the background, one also eliminate the dimensional feel of a 14 feet long car.
In reality, the only natural pictures that would give you the same look as the photochopped product would be photographing a tiny toy car with a wide angle lens. Since the actual distance between the lens and the toy car is so short, the background would be entirely blurred.
So by duplicating that toy car look, I think the result is counter productive.
I will post some pics of a toy car to illustrate my point.
Steve

jorj7

My engine last summer:



My engine now:

RKD in OKC

For the sake of photography as an art...



A photographer uses lens focal length, fstop, and shutter speed to control the depth of field as part of the composition of the photograph. AND it is entirely possible to shoot a picture of a 14 foot car where both the foreground objects and the background objects are blurred, even with a wide angle lens. I've done this many times shooting photos professionally and I've seen it in many award winning photographs.

On the picture you commented about I also did lens correction to remove the fish eye.

Oh, and you should be posting a 928 related picture to comment on this thread...

Dave928S

assembly line ....

Ad0911

Hi Tony,
While recovering from surgery I started looking through the "Random picture posts" and stumbled over the picture of your green (oakgreen?) 928. First time I saw another one with green Pascha just like mine. Yours looks fine (much better then mine I guess). Here's a picture of mine. Do you still have the green monster?

Jadz928

I see you spaghetti and raise you some linguini...

whiteNSXs

The pic that you posted does not cover 14 feet of the car but just the back side. It was done with a telephoto lens as evident by the compression effects and shallow depth of field. With that combo, the car is shown as a 2-dimensional object rather than a 14 feet car. One would be able to simulate that with even a carboard. That's the same reason that a roadside police car cardboard, being as flat as it is, can fool people to slow down. We are talking apples and oranges here. Sure, I can post some pics of my 928 when it comes out from the repair shop. I am not a professional photographer and am not pretending to be one. I just read and observe a lot about good car photos. Obviously you feel that your blurred/"fixed" versions of many cars that you frequently volunteer are better than the originals. Yes, a large aperture can blur out the backgrounds in certain composition combinations and they are appropriately so. But digital blurring of the immediate background of a wide angle lens still shot just mades the car look awkward and toy-like. For a moving car, blurring the backgound in a PANNING fashion is however desired to add speed but that is an entirely different chop. So for the moving shot of your blue car above, you might consider doing the panning blurs of the background instead of the shallow depth of view blur to make it more consistent. Then of course, there are no standards of "arts" but just opinions. I just have different ones from yours.
Steve