5L my xr8

[auxr8220]

ok ill stick to the 4 images only per post

i havnt used the 50mm that i brought with my camera, so i decided i would go out this afternoon/night and get a few pictures.









these are just my 4 favourite photos from tonight, i have got more with the whole car in them but i wanted to include the blurred background in them aswell so that is why half the car is chopped off in a few pics.

pics are straight from the camera aswell, i might have a go in photoshop later and see if i can improve the images.

[gstark]

ok ill stick to the 4 images only per post

You appear to be treating our rules here as a bit of a joke. Let me assure you that your respect of the rules is expected.

Please take this observation as your first, and your last, and your only, official warning. If you believe that there is a problem with the rules, or how they're applied, you are free to take this up, in a PM, with any of the mods or admins. Failing that, your apparent level of respect needs to be improved, and to be made very clear, and your attitude needs to be left at the door, before you enter this forum.

There are a great many things that I am able to overlook. Disrespect towards other members of this forum, of which I am also one, is not amongst them.

these are just my 4 favourite photos from tonight, i have got more with the whole car in them but i wanted to include the blurred background in them aswell so that is why half the car is chopped off in a few pics.

Actually, that is not the reason. You could have taken up a different point of view from which the images may have been made, which would have included the the whole of the car. For instance, in any of the first three images, simply stepping back a few feet would have permitted this to occur. So too, you could have included the whole car in the first image had you used the camera in landscape mode. I think that either of those options would have made this a better image: there is little at the top of this image that shooting in portrait mode has added to it.

And clearly, all of this was possible: look at image #4 in this series.

The Canon 50s are very sharp lenses and offer good contrast, but I'm not seeing this in these images. For instance, the license plate in the first image - and the badges on the car - appear to be very soft. What aperture did you have set, and what were your camera settings?

Something isn't quite right in what I'm seeing in these images, because you state that you're wanting to see the OOF backgrounds that the faster lenses are capable of. To attain this, you need to have the lens wide open, or close to it, but to my mind, the backgrounds are not far enough OOF for this to have been done. That suggests that the lens was stopped down somewhat, and I then look at the license plate and the badges (as noted above) and there I'm seeing the opposite effect.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not even convinced that the first image is even in focus at all - please look at the metal plate to the left of your car: I would expect to be seeing some portion of that to have a plane of sharp focus at some point, but it does not. Yet parts of that plate appear to be in the same plane as the car's rear window, and the sticker, which does appear to be somewhat close to correct focus.

Let's look at your composition now (apart from shooting a half a car) ...you appear to be trying to get an urban or perhaps grunge type of feel to this image, but I really don't think that you've succeeded, but I cannot say why. I just don't think that this background helps the image, nor do the reflections in the side of the car (always something to look for when you're shooting reflective surfaces) nor does the fact that this image, too, is crooked (like the other images that you posted a day or three ago).

While this one is significantly less crooked than the earlier ones, that does not relieve you of the responsibility for looking through the viewfinder before making your exposure, and ensuring that the details are correct.

And those details include ensuring that the exposure is correct: I cannot help but feel that this image is also under-exposed. There's a reasonably large reflective section of the car in this image: the roof and the rear glass. I suspect that this may have affected your exposure settings, and thus the camera's meter has misread the light, and caused what I suspect I'm seeing.

That is where you, as the photographer, need to learn about such things, and to learn how to see and identify them, so that when you come across these instances, you can deal with them and override the camera's settings.

pics are straight from the camera aswell, i might have a go in photoshop later and see if i can improve the images.

Two points here ....

Yes, you could do some work on these images in photoshop, and yes, that might help improve them somewhat.

But I think that it might be a better goal, a more productive approach, for you to perhaps learn a little bit about technique, to pay attention to the details, to apply some thought to the photographic processes, and to then be able to achieve far better results straight out of the camera.

Do you agree?

[auxr8220]

ill take in what you have said gstark, as you know i am a beginner and am here to learn.

the camera was set in auto- no flash mode.

i will try again on another day to manually focus, and use the correct auto camera settings.






( and yes i am here to abide by the forum rules aswell, i was merely pointing out that i was abiding by them)

[gstark]

ill take in what you have said gstark, as you know i am a beginner and am here to learn.

And there are many here who will offer you help. The experience, and the skills that you will see here, never cease to amaze me, and it is all here, for you, just for the asking. All you need to do is to be respectful

the camera was set in auto- no flash mode.

Which auto mode? There are several. I'd suggest Av as a starting point, and with the lens (which version do you have?) just running through a variety of aperture values while shooting the same scene (and doing this with several different scenes) n order to see how this setting, and the selected aperture values, all work together to help you make your images.

Yes, it may be sort of boring ... so is learning to play scales on the guitar, but if you want to progress beyond I, IV, V in music, or beyond "just push dis button" in photography, learning and understanding the basics of photography, and how your camera and its components interact with one another, then you need to spend a little bit of time working with the basics.

( and yes i am here to abide by the forum rules aswell, i was merely pointing out that i was abiding by them)

There should never be any need for you to say this: it should be clearly evident in the content of your postings. Please accept that the mods here are all highly intelligent (well, the rest of them are ) and please take it as read that they have the ability and the experience to read and understand the posts made here, and that they have the ability to discern when and if a post might not be kosher.

But I do thank you for your cooperation; it is appreciated.

[auxr8220]

there is a "no flash" mode, but i will try the AV mode.

and the lense is an efs 50mm f/1.8 II

[gstark]

there is a "no flash" mode, but i will try the AV mode.

I suspect that that the "no-flash" mode will be a PHD mode, and as such (and if you want to learn how to use the camera's features) might need to be best avoided.

The modes you should consider using as your sandpits would be Av, Tv, and M.

and the lense is an efs 50mm f/1.8 II

Ok, that's about what I expected, but as a point of detail, I suspect that it's an EF, rather than the EFS. I have the EF 50mm f/1.8 II mounted on my 30D, and I believe yours would be the same.

[auxr8220]

yeah sorry must of read the box wrong, it is the ef not an efs.

[rflower]

Hi there.

I would tend to agree with Gary. I would prefer to see the whole car in shot, instead of half a car. As Gary mentioned (especially with a fix lens) move your feet, and focus / compose the shot and take a picture when you are happy.

I think I would prefer a lower vantage point (like in photo #2 and #3), instead of looking down on the roof of the car.

My favourite in this set would be #2, with the reflection of the sunset / bridge in the car. The sky in the background is not over exposed. It would look better being able to see all of the back of the car, and also all of the rear passenger side tyre. may be if you have moved around to your left a little to improve the angle?

My next favourite would be #3. The background is pretty clean and not cluttered. #1 and #4 on the other hand have too much stuff close to being in focus that my eye wanders around, distracting from your car. Playing with the "manual" settings, you may have been able to reduce the exposure time in #3 to stop the sky being as over exposed as it is.

As Gary also mentioned the reflections in the laneway shots ( in your clean car) are pretty harsh and do detract from the images.

[auxr8220]

how is this one?

[gstark]

In terms of basic composition, this is much better.

I do think that it seems to be underexposed though; it could do with some curves in post, and it also appears slightly soft. See my earlier comments regarding focus.

And speaking of post - and this is precisely what I mean when I say we need to taks some time and look at what is in the viewfinder - what can be seen in the viewfinder - before making the image. Here we have what may be one of the world's first amphibian Ford Falcons, judging by its mast.

Some might suggest cloning it out in post, and that is one valid solution. I'd probably look for a different angle, a different location, somewhere where the mast does not appear to protrude from the car's roof. This is actually a very serious problem: many people make images of, for instance, people, with trees or telegraph poles (or yacht masts) growing out of their heads. It is always preventable, at the time of making the image. It just requires a slight amount of care before squeezing the shutter release.

[auxr8220]

lol i never thought of it that way, i will definately take more time in choosing locations.

see this forum will turn me from a simple point and shoot, to someone that will take the time to take the correct photo.


time for me to set sail,

[ozimax]

Mate, you will learn a huge amount from gleaning through this forum.

The first thing that will improve these images is to get a Holden (Sorry, someone had to say it)

Seriously, your 50mm lens is a beauty. I have the F1.4 version, and although you can stop it down to F1.4 and take photos in near darkness, in my experience it doesn't really start becoming sharp until F2.8 and above. Even then, the depth of field is pretty thin. I would look at using it at F5.6 - F8 for a car. This means using Av mode. I also almost always use a tripod as I don't have image stabilized lens.

Having said all this, there are some very experienced photographers here who are happy to impart what they have learned, to others who are willing to learn.

Ozi.

[gstark]

The first thing that will improve these images is to get a Mercedes (Sorry, someone had to say it)

Oz,

I couldn't agree more.

[ozimax]

The first thing that will improve these images is to get a Lada Samara (Sorry, someone had to say it)

This could go on for a long time....

[gstark]

The first thing that will improve these images is to get a Ford Edsel (Sorry, someone had to say it)

This could go on for a long time....

Probably best that it stops now.

[Kreapen]

**Sigh**

Keeping the "Should have been a different car" conversation going just to rain on everyones parade....

I have work for all these companies.. to list them all here we go:

Subaru, Saab, Mercedes Benz Passenger and Commercial, Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, Mitsubishi, Honda, Suzuki, Hyundia.

in short.. My Mitsubishi will own you