[Silver Paladin]

Please rate/critique this photo of a 2010 Dodge Challenger.

Attached Images

 

[Ash]

Nice car.
It's a good capture, though the diffused sunlight has flattened the lighting effect and as such the shot looks a little lifeless. With a good PP treatment, a lot of detail and texture can be brought out to make this one look a lot more punchier.

It looks like a toy or a plastic model. I'm confused. Why post a photograph made with a Canon 5D on a Pentax Forum for critique? No Canon alternatives? Its okay, I just don't get it.

[Silver Paladin]

Why post a photograph made with a Canon 5D on a Pentax Forum for critique? No Canon alternatives? Its okay, I just don't get it.

I read the posting guidelines. It didn't say anything about having to post a photo taken with a Pentax (although I do have pentax cameras slr and dslr). It says to post your photographs for critique.

[tackyat.2]

Looks good, in my completely unprofessional opinion.

However, the image overall looks a touch unsharp. I do like the lighting, good diffuse lighting overall. Pretty much standard fare for a car mag or something similar. Not a very dramatic angle, I might add.

Please rate/critique this photo of a 2010 Dodge Challenger.

I'm guessing you used a tripod with the 1/10 sec exposure. That's okay but an aperture 2.8 is too soft, I think that's the biggest issue. Its a machine, make it crisp and a little more depth of field. Beautiful grey day with diffuse light so add interest turning in the parking lights, cut the front wheel over more and fill the frame with the car. Probably shoot lower down. Here's an example, shot my step sons car.

[Bill_R]

It seems a little like an artificial capture of motion when there is none to me. Would have looked great if the car was moving with the front wheels on more lock, leaning over on the suspension a bit and some motion blur in the wheels with that framing and attitude to the road.
The Mustang photo by Brooke looks like it is meant to be a static shot but to emphasise the "boldness" of the car (not that a Mustang really needs it). Yours looks like it is framed and set to be "dynamic".

[shooz]

I agree with those that say it needs to be sharper.
Perhaps a bit more vibrance or saturation would help it stand out from the BG too.

[Chaos_Realm]

I agree with a couple of the above posts.
Looks a little soft, and lack luster, might also be beneficial to crop out some of the asphalt in front of the car and take a sliver off the left side of frame to center the car. But otherwise I really like it.
I hope you don't mind but I had a bit of a mess around with it and found you could fix a few things. By no means Is my result perfect but its how i would approach PP for this shot. I Didn't soften the background but it needs it after the sharpening.

the following adjustments were made in light room 3.4:
+.4 Exposure to generally lighten the shot
+89 Recovery Bring back some of the detail in the car (especially the top left windshield)
+11 Fill Light
+23 Blacks Enhance the black trim on the car/tyres
+70 Clarity makes the car pop a little better by adding some contrast to the mid tones
+13 Vibrance improves some of the flat colours
+17 Saturation overall to give the image a bit more life
-50 saturation of Green to reduce some of the saturation in the green cause by overall saturation.
+78 Sharpening to bring out the lines on the car.

[r0ckstarr]

The top one is a bit soft. Other than that, it's fine. The bottom two are over-processed in my opinion.

[jezza323]

The top one is a bit soft. Other than that, it's fine. The bottom two are over-processed in my opinion.

agreed, way too much PP for me

the top one is ok, the DOF is just too narrow (too large aperture). if you shot it at around f4.5 or so it would probably have the whole car in focus. maybe just a tiny touch of contrast or so to help it pop a little more (but being in focus might take care of that)