Streets I need your opinion about a setup i tested

CapitanXeon · 10-01-2019, 03:35 PM

Okay guys, i want to "play" a bit.

Yesterday i got on a fairly heated argument with some "pro" who claimed my setup for a given picture was complete trash and his 3000€ lens was better.
I can't stand people like that, so i played my own game there, but now i want your honest opinion.

I took two pictures (well, a whole lot, but goot two suprise keepers from what was suposed to be a test run), the first one is the referenced up there (or down there?) and the other one will have the parameters under it.

This is the first one:

Completely apart from the grain aspect, get tight with it, even if it was taken at ISO 80 with the best sensor ever, would yo like this pic if you were, lets say, the owner of the car?

This is the second one:

Mystery lens for now - Pentax K-5 - Terrassa Spain - ISO 1000 - 1/30s - f/10

Average at best, maybe understandable later, would you like this one too?

Both pics have been taken handheld with the same setup, you have almost all variables except one, would you be able to get what's the remaining one?

(Maybe isn't the right place to "play" to this, but i think it's fit, if not feel free to shoot me in the chest)
(Well better no, just move the thread or something)

**dms** · 10-01-2019, 03:48 PM - **1 Like**

The first one is an interesting well done photo, and has real merit, and depth (literally and figuratively), and the second one has merit only (IMO) if you are looking to match the paint on your car.

But if that is not your point/question I suppose the lens on the first shot is of an older design and image was not sharpened, but also the equipment is secondary to the settings/intent.

CapitanXeon · 10-01-2019, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by dms

The first one is an interesting well done photo, and has real merit, and the second one has merit only (IMO) if you are looking to match the paint on your car.

Okay you got a laugh from me with the second one

Thanks! I know it's too close, but i couldn't do better.

Gerbermiester · 10-01-2019, 04:10 PM

I prefer the second photo. Here's why:

1) The second photo has a greater feeling of speed due to the panning effect, relative to the stillness of the first shot. It fits the 350Z as a subject.
I'm not sure what the story behind of the first photo is. Is it "sunset" or "open road"? The first photo is about "speed".
2) The colour in the second shot seems more pleasing to my eye. It is certainly less washed out.
3) The lighting of the car in the second shot is more dynamic. There are areas of highlight and shadow within the main subject, whereas the light in the first shot is more flat. I can see the curves of the car, such as the shape of the wheel arches in the second shot. It's much more flattering light on your subject.
4) The second photo has fewer distracting elements; in the first photo there's a ghost, bugs lit by sunlight, and the car windshield appears to be dirty. The main distraction in the second photo is the sign pole in the foreground.
5) In the first photo, the eye is lead away from the car because it is in shadow. The street in front of the car is the brightest object in the scene.

If I was the owner of the car, I'd be happy to see that I was included in each photo. I do like the reflection of the driver's face in the side mirror in the first photo!

Whenever an artist claims that his work is superior because he or she has better equipment, I'd be hesitant to listen to them. But, I'd agree with them if their argument was that "a person's selection of equipment, their purpose, and their set-up in taking a photo is an important factor in determining the merit of their photograph".

Keep up the good work!

CapitanXeon · 10-01-2019, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Gerbermiester

I prefer the second photo. Here's why:

1) The second photo has a greater feeling of speed due to the panning effect, relative to the stillness of the first shot. It fits the 350Z as a subject.
I'm not sure what the story behind of the first photo is. Is it "sunset" or "open road"? The first photo is about "speed".
2) The colour in the second shot seems more pleasing to my eye. It is certainly less washed out.
3) The lighting of the car in the second shot is more dynamic. There are areas of highlight and shadow within the main subject, whereas the light in the first shot is more flat. I can see the curves of the car, such as the shape of the wheel arches in the second shot. It's much more flattering light on your subject.
4) The second photo has fewer distracting elements; in the first photo there's a ghost, bugs lit by sunlight, and the car windshield appears to be dirty. The main distraction in the second photo is the sign pole in the foreground.
5) In the first photo, the eye is lead away from the car because it is in shadow. The street in front of the car is the brightest object in the scene.

If I was the owner of the car, I'd be happy to see that I was included in each photo. I do like the reflection of the driver's face in the side mirror in the first photo!

Whenever an artist claims that his work is superior because he or she has better equipment, I'd be hesitant to listen to them. But, I'd agree with them if their argument was that "a person's selection of equipment, their purpose, and their set-up in taking a photo is an important factor in determining the merit of their photograph".

Keep up the good work!

I...think i can answer?

that was a nice detailed analisas to be honest!

1. Effectively, the second photo has a feeling of speed at all, it was cruising at what i believe was 20 to 30km/h while the other pic was almost stopped, waiting for someone to cross the street. Of course i deleted him because i hated that fact.
2. Yes, i can agree with that, i tried to make that color fading pleasing to the eye but clearly failed in the process! At least the color correction on the added chunk is well done as you didn't see it :B
3. I can agree on that and certainly if i didn't mess up on the first one with the faded effect, it would be much better. My fault on postprocessing, for sure.
4. All of the lightning artifacts were caused by the lens itself, there was no bugs (not i can see on that burst, i took a burst and those are all around) and...welp, the dirty windshield is extremely annoying but i couldn't do nothing about that

Also, i find the second pic has kind of a car commercial feeling on that foreground pole, i find it aesthetically pleasing at least. It doesn't bother me at all!
5. I might look the other pics on the burst, but the sun issue would be solved by me going the other way around that street, as the sun was actually lightning the whole front of the car, hence the disastrous windshield.

And on the equipment topic, i do know expensive equipment is expensive for a reason, but i know his work isn't that good for such an expensive equipment (i won't post it, i'm not "that guy" and i don't want to be), or at least reflects what would i do with expensive equipment, not knowing how to use it. At the end, he only used it to compare it to the monetary value of my equipent to try to undermine me, and, textually, "send me to study how photogrpahy works" (apparently by equipment monetary value). I don't really care about that people as i have to bear with it on computer hardware, which is my main knowledge area.

And last but not least, thanks again! I try my best every time i pick my camera, so it's pleasing to see this kind of extended analysis instead of "booooo". With this i kind of know how to work my way around my errors. I might post the raw picture eventually and try to do an edit contest on the first one, as i messed up so many things on PP to be honest.

tokyoscape · 10-01-2019, 04:28 PM

This is just ideas

First one, I like it and I think it will go a long way with the right post processing.

Second one, what about do it at night and do rear sync flash (I think Pentax call it Trailing Curtain Sync) - Set camera to slow shutter speed, panning follow the car and let camera discharges a flash immediately "before" closing the shutter. so you will get froze car with the light trails behind it. Read camera manual under Flash "Trailing Curtain Sync" for more information.

CapitanXeon · 10-01-2019, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by tokyoscape

This is just ideas

First one, I like it and I think it will go a long way with the right post processing.

Second one, what about do it at night and do rear sync flash (I think Pentax call it Trailing Curtain Sync) - Set camera to slow shutter speed, panning follow the car and let camera discharges a flash immediately "before" closing the shutter. so you will get froze car with the light trails behind it. Read camera manual under Flash "Trailing Curtain Sync" for more information.

Hmm...that's something i've never tried, mainly because of the aspect of flashing someone's car, i think it's kinda "aggresive". I'm not sure i've seen this on my Pentax K-5 but i'll take a look anyway, also on the manual should be more info on that. By now the only trailing i've done has been with some thicc layers of postprocessing.

Gerbermiester · 10-01-2019, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by CapitanXeon

I...think i can answer?

that was a nice detailed analisas to be honest!

1. Effectively, the second photo has a feeling of speed at all, it was cruising at what i believe was 20 to 30km/h while the other pic was almost stopped, waiting for someone to cross the street. Of course i deleted him because i hated that fact.
2. Yes, i can agree with that, i tried to make that color fading pleasing to the eye but clearly failed in the process! At least the color correction on the added chunk is well done as you didn't see it :B
3. I can agree on that and certainly if i didn't mess up on the first one with the faded effect, it would be much better. My fault on postprocessing, for sure.
4. All of the lightning artifacts were caused by the lens itself, there was no bugs (not i can see on that burst, i took a burst and those are all around) and...welp, the dirty windshield is extremely annoying but i couldn't do nothing about that

Also, i find the second pic has kind of a car commercial feeling on that foreground pole, i find it aesthetically pleasing at least. It doesn't bother me at all!
5. I might look the other pics on the burst, but the sun issue would be solved by me going the other way around that street, as the sun was actually lightning the whole front of the car, hence the disastrous windshield.

And on the equipment topic, i do know expensive equipment is expensive for a reason, but i know his work isn't that good for such an expensive equipment (i won't post it, i'm not "that guy" and i don't want to be), or at least reflects what would i do with expensive equipment, not knowing how to use it. At the end, he only used it to compare it to the monetary value of my equipent to try to undermine me, and, textually, "send me to study how photogrpahy works" (apparently by equipment monetary value). I don't really care about that people as i have to bear with it on computer hardware, which is my main knowledge area.

And last but not least, thanks again! I try my best every time i pick my camera, so it's pleasing to see this kind of extended analysis instead of "booooo". With this i kind of know how to work my way around my errors. I might post the raw picture eventually and try to do an edit contest on the first one, as i messed up so many things on PP to be honest.

You're very welcome. I find that getting critiqued on my own photos can be stressful, but it is a great way to look at your own work with fresh eyes.
(For the record, the "distracting" sign pole I mentioned does add to the sense of speed to the photo as it exhibits the same panning motion blur.)
I've always felt that critique should be backed up with specific examples for its reasoning, but ultimately, its mostly an exercise of opinion. Thanks for taking the time to consider my opinions.

Bromberger · 10-01-2019, 04:53 PM - **1 Like**

I still don't understand what this is about ^^

Anyway, the second image is what i prefer.

tokyoscape · 10-01-2019, 04:56 PM

you are right about flashing a car. so I should add a warning; If the driver stop, you run fast!

Another idea is wait near a traffic light. So you can get light trail and frozen car without flashing them. (no blur background)

dan.a.nesheim · 10-01-2019, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by CapitanXeon

heated argument with some "pro"

Sounds like someone who bought expensive gear but doesn't have the talent to use it.
A "pro" would get it done, and get moving. There's no money to be earned or new clients to be found in arguing with strangers in public.

Originally posted by CapitanXeon

would yo like this pic if you were, lets say, the owner of the car?

The top one, no. The car is competing with the scene as the subject. The mood of the scene is dominating, like the car is just there as an accessory to the scene.
General guide for taking pictures of peole with their things: "My ego don't like competing for attention".

The second one, yes. The car/driver is in focus, and the composition makes for many different possible stories.The driver looks like someone mysterious, maybe someone important, moving through the image with a purpose.

Originally posted by CapitanXeon

Lens: Mistery lens for now

It looks like you have used an older lens, maybe manual...but i think it's irrelevant anyways. A lens is a tool. You use what you got, or chose the one you think would help you reach your end goal; the purpose of the image or the idea you have visualised. Some requires an old 50$ polaroid camera, others images need the latest and greatest 10000$ kit.

CapitanXeon · 10-01-2019, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by dan.a.nesheim

Sounds like someone who bought expensive gear but doesn't have the talent to use it.
A "pro" would get it done, and get moving. There's no money to be earned or new clients to be found in arguing with strangers in public.

Yeah, he's actually similar to me on what we do, which isn't money related exactly.

Originally posted by dan.a.nesheim

The top one, no. The car is competing with the scene as the subject. The mood of the scene is dominating, like the car is just there as an accessory to the scene.
General guide for taking pictures of peole with their things: "My ego don't like competing for attention".

The second one, yes. The car/driver is in focus, and the composition makes for many different possible stories.The driver looks like someone mysterious, maybe someone important, moving through the image with a purpose.

Never thought about photography like this, i'll definetely make that spin into my head from time to time. I guess it's also a matter of negative space?
It's useful to "imagine" a story for a given pic that actually doesn't one in order to compose it? I mean, i had fractions of a second for the second one, but you know, things occur on split second sometimes.

Originally posted by dan.a.nesheim

It looks like you have used an older lens, maybe manual...but i think it's irrelevant anyways. A lens is a tool. You use what you got, or chose the one you think would help you reach your end goal; the purpose of the image or the idea you have visualised. Some requires an old 50$ polaroid camera, others images need the latest and greatest 10000$ kit.

I just went without even a bag, things fitted and going from home to test it. While not manual, it's an older lens on a suboptimal setup, which contributes to the artifacts seen on the first one.

PaysonAZTim · 10-01-2019, 07:17 PM

The top one is very artsy while the 2nd one is reminiscent of a car commercial. I agree with Dan regarding the first picture - if it was my car it's not the picture that I would want of it.

Kozlok · 10-01-2019, 07:34 PM

From an artistic point of view, the first one is much better, but I absolutely love back light, and that golden hue in the light is amazing. The one and only thing that I see in the first photo is that the ML Mercedes causes a big lump of shadow right where some light should be to better define the rear shape of the car. The second one is fine, but meh for me.

10-01-2019, 03:35 PM	#1
CapitanXeon Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2018 Location: Terrassa Posts: 220	I need your opinion about a setup i tested Lens: Mistery lens for now Camera: Pentax K-5 Photo Location: Terrassa, Spain ISO: 1000 Shutter Speed: 1/250s Aperture: F10 Okay guys, i want to "play" a bit. Yesterday i got on a fairly heated argument with some "pro" who claimed my setup for a given picture was complete trash and his 3000€ lens was better. I can't stand people like that, so i played my own game there, but now i want your honest opinion. I took two pictures (well, a whole lot, but goot two suprise keepers from what was suposed to be a test run), the first one is the referenced up there (or down there?) and the other one will have the parameters under it. This is the first one: Completely apart from the grain aspect, get tight with it, even if it was taken at ISO 80 with the best sensor ever, would yo like this pic if you were, lets say, the owner of the car? This is the second one: Mystery lens for now - Pentax K-5 - Terrassa Spain - ISO 1000 - 1/30s - f/10 Average at best, maybe understandable later, would you like this one too? Both pics have been taken handheld with the same setup, you have almost all variables except one, would you be able to get what's the remaining one? (Maybe isn't the right place to "play" to this, but i think it's fit, if not feel free to shoot me in the chest) (Well better no, just move the thread or something)

10-01-2019, 03:48 PM - 1 Like	#2
dms Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: New York, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,192	The first one is an interesting well done photo, and has real merit, and depth (literally and figuratively), and the second one has merit only (IMO) if you are looking to match the paint on your car. But if that is not your point/question I suppose the lens on the first shot is of an older design and image was not sharpened, but also the equipment is secondary to the settings/intent. Last edited by dms; 10-01-2019 at 03:55 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Macro Need your opinion!	Buruny	Photo Critique	15	07-22-2018 04:22 AM
MSI Cubi - need your opinion.	UserAccessDenied	General Talk	2	04-21-2016 03:47 AM
HELP: opinion needed on Home Theatre Setup soundstaging	Pentaxor	General Talk	4	11-17-2013 06:18 PM
I need your opinion... K-x or a lightly used K200D?	theperception2008	Pentax DSLR Discussion	26	05-01-2010 08:57 AM
Best 4-5 Lense Setup/Your Dream Setup	68wSteve	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	65	02-11-2009 04:59 PM

10-01-2019, 03:49 PM	#3
CapitanXeon Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2018 Location: Terrassa Posts: 220 Original Poster	Originally posted by dms The first one is an interesting well done photo, and has real merit, and the second one has merit only (IMO) if you are looking to match the paint on your car. Okay you got a laugh from me with the second one Thanks! I know it's too close, but i couldn't do better.

10-01-2019, 04:10 PM	#4
Gerbermiester Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: British Columbia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 377	I prefer the second photo. Here's why: 1) The second photo has a greater feeling of speed due to the panning effect, relative to the stillness of the first shot. It fits the 350Z as a subject. I'm not sure what the story behind of the first photo is. Is it "sunset" or "open road"? The first photo is about "speed". 2) The colour in the second shot seems more pleasing to my eye. It is certainly less washed out. 3) The lighting of the car in the second shot is more dynamic. There are areas of highlight and shadow within the main subject, whereas the light in the first shot is more flat. I can see the curves of the car, such as the shape of the wheel arches in the second shot. It's much more flattering light on your subject. 4) The second photo has fewer distracting elements; in the first photo there's a ghost, bugs lit by sunlight, and the car windshield appears to be dirty. The main distraction in the second photo is the sign pole in the foreground. 5) In the first photo, the eye is lead away from the car because it is in shadow. The street in front of the car is the brightest object in the scene. If I was the owner of the car, I'd be happy to see that I was included in each photo. I do like the reflection of the driver's face in the side mirror in the first photo! Whenever an artist claims that his work is superior because he or she has better equipment, I'd be hesitant to listen to them. But, I'd agree with them if their argument was that "a person's selection of equipment, their purpose, and their set-up in taking a photo is an important factor in determining the merit of their photograph". Keep up the good work!

10-01-2019, 04:26 PM	#5
CapitanXeon Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2018 Location: Terrassa Posts: 220 Original Poster	Originally posted by Gerbermiester I prefer the second photo. Here's why: 1) The second photo has a greater feeling of speed due to the panning effect, relative to the stillness of the first shot. It fits the 350Z as a subject. I'm not sure what the story behind of the first photo is. Is it "sunset" or "open road"? The first photo is about "speed". 2) The colour in the second shot seems more pleasing to my eye. It is certainly less washed out. 3) The lighting of the car in the second shot is more dynamic. There are areas of highlight and shadow within the main subject, whereas the light in the first shot is more flat. I can see the curves of the car, such as the shape of the wheel arches in the second shot. It's much more flattering light on your subject. 4) The second photo has fewer distracting elements; in the first photo there's a ghost, bugs lit by sunlight, and the car windshield appears to be dirty. The main distraction in the second photo is the sign pole in the foreground. 5) In the first photo, the eye is lead away from the car because it is in shadow. The street in front of the car is the brightest object in the scene. If I was the owner of the car, I'd be happy to see that I was included in each photo. I do like the reflection of the driver's face in the side mirror in the first photo! Whenever an artist claims that his work is superior because he or she has better equipment, I'd be hesitant to listen to them. But, I'd agree with them if their argument was that "a person's selection of equipment, their purpose, and their set-up in taking a photo is an important factor in determining the merit of their photograph". Keep up the good work! I...think i can answer? that was a nice detailed analisas to be honest! 1. Effectively, the second photo has a feeling of speed at all, it was cruising at what i believe was 20 to 30km/h while the other pic was almost stopped, waiting for someone to cross the street. Of course i deleted him because i hated that fact. 2. Yes, i can agree with that, i tried to make that color fading pleasing to the eye but clearly failed in the process! At least the color correction on the added chunk is well done as you didn't see it :B 3. I can agree on that and certainly if i didn't mess up on the first one with the faded effect, it would be much better. My fault on postprocessing, for sure. 4. All of the lightning artifacts were caused by the lens itself, there was no bugs (not i can see on that burst, i took a burst and those are all around) and...welp, the dirty windshield is extremely annoying but i couldn't do nothing about that Also, i find the second pic has kind of a car commercial feeling on that foreground pole, i find it aesthetically pleasing at least. It doesn't bother me at all! 5. I might look the other pics on the burst, but the sun issue would be solved by me going the other way around that street, as the sun was actually lightning the whole front of the car, hence the disastrous windshield. And on the equipment topic, i do know expensive equipment is expensive for a reason, but i know his work isn't that good for such an expensive equipment (i won't post it, i'm not "that guy" and i don't want to be), or at least reflects what would i do with expensive equipment, not knowing how to use it. At the end, he only used it to compare it to the monetary value of my equipent to try to undermine me, and, textually, "send me to study how photogrpahy works" (apparently by equipment monetary value). I don't really care about that people as i have to bear with it on computer hardware, which is my main knowledge area. And last but not least, thanks again! I try my best every time i pick my camera, so it's pleasing to see this kind of extended analysis instead of "booooo". With this i kind of know how to work my way around my errors. I might post the raw picture eventually and try to do an edit contest on the first one, as i messed up so many things on PP to be honest.

10-01-2019, 04:28 PM	#6
tokyoscape Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2018 Location: Tokyo Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,256	This is just ideas First one, I like it and I think it will go a long way with the right post processing. Second one, what about do it at night and do rear sync flash (I think Pentax call it Trailing Curtain Sync) - Set camera to slow shutter speed, panning follow the car and let camera discharges a flash immediately "before" closing the shutter. so you will get froze car with the light trails behind it. Read camera manual under Flash "Trailing Curtain Sync" for more information.

10-01-2019, 04:32 PM	#7
CapitanXeon Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2018 Location: Terrassa Posts: 220 Original Poster	Originally posted by tokyoscape This is just ideas First one, I like it and I think it will go a long way with the right post processing. Second one, what about do it at night and do rear sync flash (I think Pentax call it Trailing Curtain Sync) - Set camera to slow shutter speed, panning follow the car and let camera discharges a flash immediately "before" closing the shutter. so you will get froze car with the light trails behind it. Read camera manual under Flash "Trailing Curtain Sync" for more information. Hmm...that's something i've never tried, mainly because of the aspect of flashing someone's car, i think it's kinda "aggresive". I'm not sure i've seen this on my Pentax K-5 but i'll take a look anyway, also on the manual should be more info on that. By now the only trailing i've done has been with some thicc layers of postprocessing.

10-01-2019, 04:44 PM	#8
Gerbermiester Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: British Columbia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 377	Originally posted by CapitanXeon I...think i can answer? that was a nice detailed analisas to be honest! 1. Effectively, the second photo has a feeling of speed at all, it was cruising at what i believe was 20 to 30km/h while the other pic was almost stopped, waiting for someone to cross the street. Of course i deleted him because i hated that fact. 2. Yes, i can agree with that, i tried to make that color fading pleasing to the eye but clearly failed in the process! At least the color correction on the added chunk is well done as you didn't see it :B 3. I can agree on that and certainly if i didn't mess up on the first one with the faded effect, it would be much better. My fault on postprocessing, for sure. 4. All of the lightning artifacts were caused by the lens itself, there was no bugs (not i can see on that burst, i took a burst and those are all around) and...welp, the dirty windshield is extremely annoying but i couldn't do nothing about that Also, i find the second pic has kind of a car commercial feeling on that foreground pole, i find it aesthetically pleasing at least. It doesn't bother me at all! 5. I might look the other pics on the burst, but the sun issue would be solved by me going the other way around that street, as the sun was actually lightning the whole front of the car, hence the disastrous windshield. And on the equipment topic, i do know expensive equipment is expensive for a reason, but i know his work isn't that good for such an expensive equipment (i won't post it, i'm not "that guy" and i don't want to be), or at least reflects what would i do with expensive equipment, not knowing how to use it. At the end, he only used it to compare it to the monetary value of my equipent to try to undermine me, and, textually, "send me to study how photogrpahy works" (apparently by equipment monetary value). I don't really care about that people as i have to bear with it on computer hardware, which is my main knowledge area. And last but not least, thanks again! I try my best every time i pick my camera, so it's pleasing to see this kind of extended analysis instead of "booooo". With this i kind of know how to work my way around my errors. I might post the raw picture eventually and try to do an edit contest on the first one, as i messed up so many things on PP to be honest. You're very welcome. I find that getting critiqued on my own photos can be stressful, but it is a great way to look at your own work with fresh eyes. (For the record, the "distracting" sign pole I mentioned does add to the sense of speed to the photo as it exhibits the same panning motion blur.) I've always felt that critique should be backed up with specific examples for its reasoning, but ultimately, its mostly an exercise of opinion. Thanks for taking the time to consider my opinions.

10-01-2019, 04:53 PM - 1 Like	#9
Bromberger Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Stuttgart, Germany Posts: 186	I still don't understand what this is about ^^ Anyway, the second image is what i prefer.

10-01-2019, 04:56 PM	#10
tokyoscape Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2018 Location: Tokyo Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,256	you are right about flashing a car. so I should add a warning; If the driver stop, you run fast! Another idea is wait near a traffic light. So you can get light trail and frozen car without flashing them. (no blur background)

10-01-2019, 05:29 PM	#11
dan.a.nesheim Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2019 Photos: Gallery Posts: 167	Originally posted by CapitanXeon heated argument with some "pro" Sounds like someone who bought expensive gear but doesn't have the talent to use it. A "pro" would get it done, and get moving. There's no money to be earned or new clients to be found in arguing with strangers in public. Originally posted by CapitanXeon would yo like this pic if you were, lets say, the owner of the car? The top one, no. The car is competing with the scene as the subject. The mood of the scene is dominating, like the car is just there as an accessory to the scene. General guide for taking pictures of peole with their things: "My ego don't like competing for attention". The second one, yes. The car/driver is in focus, and the composition makes for many different possible stories.The driver looks like someone mysterious, maybe someone important, moving through the image with a purpose. Originally posted by CapitanXeon Lens: Mistery lens for now It looks like you have used an older lens, maybe manual...but i think it's irrelevant anyways. A lens is a tool. You use what you got, or chose the one you think would help you reach your end goal; the purpose of the image or the idea you have visualised. Some requires an old 50$ polaroid camera, others images need the latest and greatest 10000$ kit.

10-01-2019, 05:34 PM	#12
CapitanXeon Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2018 Location: Terrassa Posts: 220 Original Poster	Originally posted by dan.a.nesheim Sounds like someone who bought expensive gear but doesn't have the talent to use it. A "pro" would get it done, and get moving. There's no money to be earned or new clients to be found in arguing with strangers in public. Yeah, he's actually similar to me on what we do, which isn't money related exactly. Originally posted by dan.a.nesheim The top one, no. The car is competing with the scene as the subject. The mood of the scene is dominating, like the car is just there as an accessory to the scene. General guide for taking pictures of peole with their things: "My ego don't like competing for attention". The second one, yes. The car/driver is in focus, and the composition makes for many different possible stories.The driver looks like someone mysterious, maybe someone important, moving through the image with a purpose. Never thought about photography like this, i'll definetely make that spin into my head from time to time. I guess it's also a matter of negative space? It's useful to "imagine" a story for a given pic that actually doesn't one in order to compose it? I mean, i had fractions of a second for the second one, but you know, things occur on split second sometimes. Originally posted by dan.a.nesheim It looks like you have used an older lens, maybe manual...but i think it's irrelevant anyways. A lens is a tool. You use what you got, or chose the one you think would help you reach your end goal; the purpose of the image or the idea you have visualised. Some requires an old 50$ polaroid camera, others images need the latest and greatest 10000$ kit. I just went without even a bag, things fitted and going from home to test it. While not manual, it's an older lens on a suboptimal setup, which contributes to the artifacts seen on the first one.

10-01-2019, 07:17 PM	#13
PaysonAZTim Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2018 Location: near Payson, Arizona Posts: 160	The top one is very artsy while the 2nd one is reminiscent of a car commercial. I agree with Dan regarding the first picture - if it was my car it's not the picture that I would want of it.

10-01-2019, 07:34 PM	#14
Kozlok Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Albuquerque Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,148	From an artistic point of view, the first one is much better, but I absolutely love back light, and that golden hue in the light is amazing. The one and only thing that I see in the first photo is that the ML Mercedes causes a big lump of shadow right where some light should be to better define the rear shape of the car. The second one is fine, but meh for me.