Photography: Hide and seek...

[rstype]

I was in my garage taking pictures for my BF vs. CMW vs. UPP vs. EX comparison. On one photo, I tried to show how one product attracted more dust than another, while on another photo, I tried to capture the waxes' differences in shine and gloss.



I'm not a good photographer, but I noticed how pictures can hide many things. The following pictures are of the same, dusty hood.

Above: Yuck!

Above: Different angle, and it sure looks shiny!



Other than shrinking them to 400 x 300, none of the pictures were Photoshopped.

 

[BradE]

It's the WuWagon Type R!



Nice test BW. It appears dust ownz j00. UPP, BF, CK and EX all contain lots of oils, so I'm guessing that's the source of your dusting problem.

 

[Steve @ Guru]

Great post, and good examples.



That's why I put little faith in any picture I see posted on the web. There's simply too many ways that the camera, photographer, film processing lab, or computer can manipulate the images in an attempt to get the best possible image.



For those with film cameras, try this little experiment:



1) Find a suitable item to photograph, preferably something colorful with good, bright sunlight available.



2) Take 1 picture on "auto" mode with your camera. Take another in "manual" mode. Take another, but this time, lower the f-stop setting 1 or 2 stops. Take another, but this time lower the aperature setting 1 or 2 settings. Repeat these steps with a different roll of film.



3) Take 1 roll of film to a local 1-hr place, like Walgreens, Wal-Mart, etc. Take the other roll to a camera store that specializes in selling quality film, cameras, etc.



4) Compare the pictures against one another, then compare how the shops vary with their processing.



Here are some examples:



Photo #1: Canon EOS A1 35mm, SLR with Kodak Royal Gold 400 speed film. Developed at Walgreens. Notice the greens; they're not quite "right."

Photo #2: Canon 35mm EOS A1, SLR with Kodak Royal Gold 400 speed film. Developed at Wal-Mart. Notice how the greens are little more natural, but still a little "bright."

Photo #3: Canon EOS A1 35mm, SLR with Kodak Royal Gold 400 speed film. Developed at the local camera store. Notice how much more "vibrant" the photo is.

Photo #4: Canon G2 digital camera, automatic mode, nothing photoshopped or edited (other than a resize).

Photo #5: Canon G2, automatic mode, image slightly tweaked in photoshop (color corrections, contrast and levels adjustment).

And, last but not least...a picture of a dirty black car. Black is the hardest color to clean, right? Not if I set my camera to the correct settings...this photo was *not* adjusted in photoshop - it was merely resized. All of the effects were done with lighting and camera settings.

Here's the same photo, taken in "automatic" mode on the camera:

So, take it for what it's worth. Cameras can be a big asset to the photographer - with the proper lighting, a few easy settings changes, a little "know how," the proper photo lab (or photoshop) and you've got magical pictures.



Sorry for the novel - this stuff is very interesting to me and I can't stop playing around with different camera settings, etc., always experimenting.

 

[imported_BretFraz]

It's the WuWagon Type R!

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl









That last pic is a nice one, though.

 

[Scottwax]

Angle, apeture, film and shutter speed, available light and developing process all play a role in how well a picture will turn out.



I've been using Kodak's new High Definition film because it offers very low grain for a 400 ASA film, outstanding color saturation and terrific sharpness. I also take my film to a camera shop (Wolf Camera) for developing, printing and transfering the pics to a picture CD. I feel it is worth the effort to get the best possible photographs.



You don't even need a camera to see how available light and different angles affect how a car looks. Bright sunlight tends to wash out the gloss while shade emphasizes it. Looking down the side of a vehicle shows more shine most of the time than looking at the paint straight on.



I don't have a problem with anyone using light, good film processing or differing angles to get the best shot. That is just good photography. What I would have a problem with is altering the picture using photoshop or other such programs to change the picture to intentionally misrepresent the original shot.

 

[Steve @ Guru]

Scott - how's that new HD film? I saw it and almost bought some, but decided to stick with my old "favorite" - Royal Gold.



Have you compared the two? Just curious...I've also heard that Royal Gold is being discontinued.

 

[Scottwax]

Steve-I think HD is slightly sharper and even finer grained than Royal Gold (which like you, I find to be an outstanding print film).



I've also heard Royal Gold is being fazed out. HD is a worth successor. Let me know when you try some and how it works out for you...I think you will be very pleased!

 

[chris0626]

Agree with your observations, BW. I've had tons of experience already where I wanted to take a pic of a crappy/filthy/scratchy car, and the paint made it look gorgeous and shiny.

 

[vulturetec]

First -- Nice illustration of what lighting and angle can do for/against your images!

What I would have a problem with is altering the picture using photoshop or other such programs to change the picture to intentionally misrepresent the original shot.

I agree -- editing out flaws and retouching (most things printed in magazines aren't always a good representation of reality) might make nice looking car pictures but for our purposes here that type of editing really shouldn't be done. Strangely though I've not seen anyone mention not using polarizing filters to change the reflections on a car - is that good technique or an attempt to make something better than it is? I'm still undecided on that one.



I often see people complain about people using photoshop to alter color and density in pictures before displaying them though. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that - that type of "editing" is completely valid. Every print that comes from a roll of 35mm neg film has had color and density adjustments made to it by the printer or the lab tech, or a combination of both.



Any pictures I produce for documentary purposes are as real as I can make them...but there's always room for fun, right?:



Obviously the Marcos team is an ardent autopia supporter, right? Maybe...

How much of this is real? The more I look at it the worse it looks, but still - always be leary with photographs