Mini Cooper SModerators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent. Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature. Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread. Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Previous topic • Next topic
17 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Mini Cooper SI had the chance to do a shoot with a couple of Mini Cooper S'. My light painting technique wasn't as proficient as that displayed by many members here, but I gave it a shot.
C&C welcome. Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
Re: Mini Cooper SPAtrick,
This looks a little soft to me. Perhaps too much flare and light? Of course, I'm refraining from making the point that just because these Beamers have badges that says they're Coopers doesn't make it so. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Re: Mini Cooper Slol, nice work - next time use real cars then I will be impressed
no excuse for not light painting these they are so tiny ya could do it in a 5 secs They do look a bit soft from my end also. gerry's photography journey
No amount of processing will fix bad composition - trust me i have tried.
Re: Mini Cooper SNice composition but the softness erks me a bit. Is it just a JPEG artifact or something?
Re: Mini Cooper SThanks chaps.
The softness maybe due to slight camera movement during the shot. Aperture was set at f/8 but depth of field is still too small. Gary you would be happy or indifferent to know that one of the boys' current favorite movies is the car chase in the Italian Job...and I mean the original. Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
Re: Mini Cooper S
I was wondering about that possibility, but given the photographer, discounted that. What tripod were you using? The new JellyLegs? f/8 should be fine, but that would depend upon your angle of approach.
Excellent. That's the second best car chase scene ever filmed, IMHO, the best being in a little known Jean Paul Belmondo movie, Burglars. Have you seen the deleted scene from TIJ's chase scene, with the cars dancing to the orchestra in the convention center in Torino? totally awesome. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Re: Mini Cooper SNo tripod used. The camera was rested on the ground. The red car was about 20cm from the front of the lens.
That car waltz was fantastic. Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
Re: Mini Cooper S didn't realise these were toy cars (literally)
Re: Mini Cooper SEither did I. The gloss bench top should've been a give away.
Re: Mini Cooper S
That's a polished concrete floor Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
Re: Mini Cooper S I did wonder about the glossy floor and assumed it was at the dealer!!
In that case, you can easily reshoot (Which I suggest ).
Not sure actually. You would need a very small (soft) source of light without too much spill. Will need to improvise a bit I reckon.
Re: Mini Cooper SHopefully this version addresses the sharpness issue in the first one.
Suren is correct regarding the light source. It needs to be quite small to avoid too much spill. In this case, I used a torch app on the iphone. I was going to use my head torch with diffusing material but chose instead to use the red light feature as part of the background. I have other ideas including using water. Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
Re: Mini Cooper SThanks for demystifying the light on these.
It is an improvement. Hmm. Not sure whether it is sharp enough though.
Re: Mini Cooper S
Perhaps that is the narrow depth of field? Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
Re: Mini Cooper SPerhaps. The blue car does look bokehy...
Re: Mini Cooper SPatrick,
This is so much better. And yes, the blue car is now merely feeling the effects of the limited DoF given the subject to camera distance and aperture settings. The next issue that you'll face is that if you go much beyond f/11, you'll move out of the lens's sweet spot, and while DoF will increase, that actual acuity might not. it will still be an improvement, but perhaps not quite as you expect. A couple of other thoughts for you to play with here. First of all, keep in mind that your lens's DoF represents a range over a given distance ... if you, for instance, set your focus point on the front most point of the red car - or maybe its license plate - the range of the available DoF - the parts if image apparently in sharp focus - will actually extend from a point closer to the camera than the nominated focus point to a point further from the camera than that nominated focus point. This is a feature that you can use: you can set the focus point further from the camera, so that the point of sharp focus that is nearest to the camera is actually a little further away, and perhaps level with the closest point on the red car to the camera. That will, in turn, extend the range of the apparently in-focus part of your image to some point further away. Second, this is prime territory for a PC lens. Use the scheimpflug theory to bring both cars into sharp focus. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Re: Mini Cooper SGary, spot on. I focused on the nearest part of the red car. At f8 and a subject to camera distance of c20 cm, DOF is about 3cm. However, about 40% of this is lost in front of the red car. Changing to f/11, moving the camera back 10cm would have given me DOF of about 9-10cm. Such changes and correct focus point positioning would have given me sufficientg DOF to cover more or all of the cars.
Cheers Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
Previous topic • Next topic
17 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|