[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 68 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



How do photographers achieve this effect of an ultra-clear subject/image? Do they just own equipment that I'll never be able to afford, or is it the editing style?
>>
The one you have with you
>>
>>3509685
Yes
>>
>>3509685

It's the editing mostly. You don't need an expensive camera to create images like that.
>>
>>3509687

every fucking time I lose it when I see this
>>
>>3509697
looks like the retoucher used a color picker slider to enhance the ones of the AMG GT which also affected the same colors of the farther part of the bridge, part of the concrete pavement and the soil/dried grass.
>>
>>3509722
The one you have with you
>>
>>3509685
>ultra-clear subject/image
That image is compressed and pixelated to hell and back yet is still somehow 1.4MB. Did you take a screenshot of a low res jpg?
>>
>>3509797
No, I just went on IG where this image was uploaded and downloaded the picture using inspect element. You can blame IG for the compression, but you can still tell there's this weird amount of sharpness to the car compared to the rest of the image, and it's not just because it's in focus. What I want to know is why I can't seem to achieve this effect.
>>
>>3509685
40 or more megapixel full frame camera with good prime lens

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
>>3509685
[spoiler]selective shapenning, you sharpen the subject, and make everything else blurry as fuck, that way subject stands out more[/spoiler]
>>
>>3510019
So basically anyone who can't afford a mirrorless camera or a very expensive DSLR can just go fuck themselves if they want super sharp photos?
>>
>>3510027
yes, it's completely impossible without at least a d850 and zeiss otus lenses
>>
>>3510027
No, for still landscape and car shots you can just buy older body and used lens. It might still not be cheap, so just save for few months and you will be able to buy it.
>>
>>3509685
Colorful contrast is about yanking digital sliders in post.

Sharpness and to an extent bling is expensive sharp lens, studio lights with diffusers and other gear.

... you could and might also do the product model in CG 3D.
>>
>>3510019
was that supposed to be a sample supporting your statement, because if it was, it's not working
>>
>>3510027
Everyone who can't afford comparatively *cheap as fuck* professional-ish (even APS-C, but preferably FF) bodies and lenses will have to invest immensely more work and might not succeed, yes.

But the barrier to entry is so low/cheap that just about fucking everyone can get pro gear up to FF and the market is flooded with hobbyists and pros that can do these shots. You could just hire someone to do the whole thing for a few hundred bucks.
>>
>>3510034
Why not? The image, the cars looks pretty sharp to me
>>
File: IMG_8261.jpg (327 KB, 667x1000)
327 KB
327 KB JPG
>>3510031
>>3510035
See here's the thing: I own an 80D and have a nifty fifty as well as a 70-200 2.8 that I use for specific photoshoots for people and/or their cars yet my photos look like trash compared to the OP pic I posted. What I want to know is exactly why and how some of these IG photographers can achieve such clarity for their subjects and I can't. It makes me think that maybe I'm just editing my photos completely wrong and I'm just retarded? I have very rarely ever taken some photos (of cars mostly) in which I am completely satisfied with how sharp they are.

Pic related: what I think is some of the closest I've come to a picture that I think can compare to these IG photographers in terms of insane sharpness

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 80D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:07:24 01:49:10
Exposure Time1/80 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating160
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: IMG_8765.jpg (309 KB, 1000x667)
309 KB
309 KB JPG
>>3510041
Also I realize that the nifty fifty at 1.8 is not going to be the sharpest thing ever given it's a budget lens but I at least expect more out of the 70-200 2.8

This picture was taken with the 70-200. Yeah it's nice, fairly sharp on the subject but I don't know it still feels like it was taken with any old camera and lens, and not some super expensive and nice camera giving off the cinematic effect that other photographers seem to get

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 80D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:07:24 01:58:31
Exposure Time1/200 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating125
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length125.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3510041
Buy Pepper Yandle's lessons
>>
>>3510041
The contrast of colors between subject and background/foreground are what makes it pop out. Your rear view picture is sharp but it doesn’t pop out like the yellow Benz you posted because the colors are dull.

Also
>the one you have with you
>>
>>3510041
Its the light dude, I am by no means expert, but you get a fuck ton of light on these cars, high f number, underexpose hard and you will get your shot
>>
>>3510044
>and not some super expensive and nice camera giving off the cinematic effect that other photographers seem to get
your gear is not at fault for your shitty pictures
>>
>>3510045
Thanks, I'll check him out.

>>3510046
>>3510048
Thanks for the tips, I'll work on the lighting on the next shoot and try to get better colors out of the scene.

>>3510050
And that's what's making me scratch my head. I made this thread wanting to know why I can't get anything close to what other photographers make
>>
File: sampleshit.jpg (1.26 MB, 4000x2534)
1.26 MB
1.26 MB JPG
>>3510041
Here's how a snapshit looks with still APS-C and a better lens. Framing is to avoid capturing license plate and because this might actually show the downsides a little better without the need to post full res.

What I lack here is moar diffuse light and a bit of post. Plus preferably but not NECESSARILY large FF pixels because frankly if I bump up the aperture a bunch more, the bling reflections will reduce. [And arguably a tripod, but I didn't shake THAT bad.]

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
>>
File: sampleshit_closeup.jpg (285 KB, 1336x1289)
285 KB
285 KB JPG
>>3510065 (cont'd)
Close up near corner - advantage of really sharp lens is that you can use these (would also apply on FF on this lens).

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
>>
Dude almost all car photography is either done with a fuckton of lighting gear, or a single light being moved around and modified a bunch then composited together.

Cars get more Photoshop than Playboy models.
>>
>>3510070
Also, most print ads these days aren't even photos. They're pure CG because it's easier and cheaper now that they use such high fidelity renders in the design process.
>>
>>3510065 (cont'd)
>>3510067 (cont'd)
Oh and to make it clear, this was a REALLY no effort snapshit taken just now. It should make it more or less clear what a good lens will do for you.

The tire close-up is from the same 24MP APS-C snapshit - not a second shot.
>>
>>3510065
>>3510067
What lens did you use for this shot?
>>
>>3510065
Get a polarising filter to reduce reflections, then add more light and adjust exposure and shutter speeds
>>
>>3510079
Sony FE 90mm f/2.8 macro.

That said, it being APS-C I could actually get comparably detailed results on a Sigma 60mm f/2.8 or 30mm f/1.4 (these are both cheaper APS-C lenses, but definitely very sharp too at f/4).
>>
>>3510065
Here's an attempt at moving sliders in Lightroom. I don't really understand sharpening tough, as I rarely see any difference.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareLightroom
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
>>
>>3510081
> Get a polarising filter to reduce reflections
One more possible thing to do. Probably interesting in that specific natural light.

But I will caution that it may not actually look better when you actually *do* have the big diffuse lights to work with.

Either way, there I was only trying to show the improvement from the actually sharp prime alone, on the guess that this is likely the first thing other than lights that OP doesn't have.
>>
>>3510085
Although I'm not saying specifically that these sliders are entirely representative of what you'd do on a properly illuminated RAW shot, you do get the general idea.

If you now had a RAW where the lighting wasn't random ambient one but with some flash units behind big diffusers and then maybe the FF no diffraction issues camera, you'd easily have a pretty srs looking photo in no time.

If you were a professional I guess it'd then depend on your customer's good or shitty taste which (over-) edited variant of slider settings and (not) dramatic lighting they might ultimately prefer
>>
File: 183267719selective2.jpg (398 KB, 1100x703)
398 KB
398 KB JPG
>>3509685
Lens sharpness helps, the rest is lighting and editing. I imagine this one looks sharp to you?
>>
>>3509685
pics for ads are usually 3D renders
>>
>>3510108
That would make me feel better about my pictures not coming out as great, except the person who took the photo in the OP pic is an 18 year old kid with less than 100 followers on IG. I know this because he's friends with a car photographer friend of mine.
>>
>>3510110
Well, a 14 year old kid can do car renders OR shots with a good camera and some lights.

The earlier requires a little more skills, the latter more equipment, both don't require anything extraordinary.
>>
>>3510110
I wouldn't worry about what other people are doing in relation to what you're doing. Especially since the pic in the OP really doesn't look sharp. You should post a photo you've taken showcasing the lack of sharpness you're disappointed in.
>>
>>3510105
This probably won't work well on products and cars and stuff.
>>
>>3510118
See
>>3510110

Hell, join any auto photography group.
>>
File: IMG_8749.jpg (443 KB, 667x1000)
443 KB
443 KB JPG
>>3510117
I've posted a picture showcasing where I think my 50 1.8 did a decent job with sharpness here >>3510041

As for times that my photos did not come out as sharp as I want them to, here's an example. Maybe I just completely missed the focus or something, but the car is nowhere near as clear as the Mercedes in the OP pic in my opinion

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 80D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:07:24 04:57:08
Exposure Time1/640 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length70.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3510127
You're mistaking contrast for sharpness.
>>
File: IMG_8752.jpg (495 KB, 1000x667)
495 KB
495 KB JPG
>>3510128
Am I the only one who sees that my photo of the black car just looks like the subject is almost entirely out of focus whereas the Mercedes is almost entirely in focus? That's what's getting to me. Is it really just the colors? Am I just going insane?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 80D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:07:24 05:09:56
Exposure Time1/640 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length70.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3510134
Both don't look really sharp to me? IDK if it's just the compression of the JPEG or the lens.
>>
>>3510134

Try a smaller aperture. F/2.8 is not a good choice here. You can see in the live view if you are doing it right.
>>
File: IMG_8752.jpg (2.33 MB, 6000x4000)
2.33 MB
2.33 MB JPG
>>3510136
There's not much I can do about the OP image's quality besides asking the guy to send me the photo directly to get rid of compression. I exported my image in its full resolution while lowering the export quality on LR enough to be able to post on here

>>3510137
Yeah I'm going to have to take that into consideration next time. I would've thought 2.8 on a 70-200 would be sharp given how expensive the lens is and I'm a bokeh whore but I guess I still need to cut back a little

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 80D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:07:24 05:24:53
Exposure Time1/640 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length70.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3510134
Just sell your cam, you're clueless. And stop listening to advises on basket viewing forums, they're pretty much all bad.
>>
File: 1545013128130.png (5 KB, 267x188)
5 KB
5 KB PNG
>>3510134
>Am I the only one who sees that my photo of the black car just looks like the subject is almost entirely out of focus whereas the Mercedes is almost entirely in focus?
Exposure Time 1/640 sec
F-Number f/2.8
>Exposure Bias 0 EV

do you keep posting without reading a single reply in this thread?
hmm, subject out of focus, what could be the reason... maybe its F 2 fucking .8!!!
>>
I feel like people on Instagram with a lot of followers have higher resolution images, or so it seems
maybe they just do better editing, but then I see how instagram fucks up my images
>>
>>3509685
>that fake ass square masked bokeh
>that compression
jesus christ
>facebook
oh you're from there, fuck off and never come back.
>>
>>3510151
>maybe its F 2 fucking .8!!!

Anon I’m very much aware of this, as I’ve stated it multiple times. I’m just saying I expected better performance at a wide aperture on an expensive lens
>>
>>3510152
That’s exactly my thought process too.
>>
>>3510152
Shouldn't be to hard to prove if so. All the information you need is in the jpegs.
>>
File: 1562596457043.jpg (140 KB, 866x838)
140 KB
140 KB JPG
>>3510155
>>
>>3510138
What about this picture is not sharp to your eye? The front of the car, where the lens seems to be focused it sharp enough. Maybe what you are trying to ask is why the WHOLE car is not in focus, in which case you have to stop the lens down to f/4 for example.

The most expensive lens in the world won't make the whole car sharp at a large aperture.
>>
>>3510138
My attempt (on mobile). Tried to darken the background a bit, some work on the blue channel to bring back the sky and some clarity on the car itself.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 80D
Camera SoftwareLightroom
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2019:07:23 21:09:56
Exposure Time1/640 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length70.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
>>
>>3510041
this is better than the OP, you're just baiting
>>
>>3510155
aperture controls the depth of field (the length thats focused) wide open means less is in focus
>>
>>3510127
Your lighting sucks immense dick
>>
>>3510155
Are you literally retarded? At f2.8 at 200mm you will only have part of the car in focus.
Use
A
Fucking
Smaller
Aperture
Holy
Shit
>>
>>3510293
Also hi fellow ausfag
>>
>>3510019
hnnnggg
>>
>>3510065
>>3510105
Can anyone explain to a retard why more light will give better sharpness?
>>
>>3510481
Less light = need a wider aperture (not as sharp and focus point is razor thin) + higher ISO (more noise) = not so sharp image
>>
>>3510487
Oh I knew that. But the posts above mine seemed to imply that more light=sharper image.
>>
>>3510036
Your image is fine, people here just like to shit on any oc
>>
Op, look up brenizer method...


Also shoot film you pleb
>>
>>3510496
Who's saying that? I find you've some comprehension problems that should be addressed before you try to learn a thing or two about photography.
>>
>>3509812
But why did you convert it to png?
>>
>>3511046
That’s just what it saved as
>>
>>3509685

Well, There is focus stacking....Taking 2 images one wide open, then the other closed down. Then blending the 2 or more images in photoshop/lightroom. Also you can get a zoom lens 70-200, then shoot at like f22 or f32 at lets say 135mm-170mm
>>
>>3510134

Images don't need to be sharp. They need to be aesthetic. Sharp doesn't mean good. The viewer on the other hand feeling something after losing at one of your pictures is good.....With this car slightly blurred from front to back. It looks like you focused on the front left bumper or tire. With the slight blur this car looks something that would be in a dream. Mission accomplished.
>>
>>3510138
Start taking those same shots from f8-f22
>>
>>3510155
>muh expensive

kys dude the laws of physics dont give a fuck how much youve spent you stupid fucking child
>>
the photo quality is garbage but the shot is basically a lot of good lighting, a good looking car that carries the shot, and sharpen + selective color tool in photoshop
>>
>>3511081
>>3511096
But what about muh bokeh?
>>
If you're going to use this look a lot, just buy a damned tilt lens. It's NOT rocket science.
>>
>>3509685
The car is obviously shot seperately with great lighting and its a composite image, people see this right?
>>
>>3512179
people on instragram don't see shit
everything is fake, no one cares
>>
>>3512179
The reflections on the car are the same as the surroundings though, aren't they?
You can see the light strip from in between the highway lanes just above the wind shield, and on the fender you can see the edge of the highway-overpass-thing/sky
>>
>>3512182
The intensity is too off though its an overcast day for pete's sake
>>
>>3512182
The car was almost definitely parked there and shot.

It was also lit and multiple shots were used to composite together the final look.

This is standard practice with automotive photography. In fact a lot of car photographers just use a single light and reposition it between shots. They shoot on location when possible so they don't have to worry a ton about getting reflections correct (and frankly, most don't have the money to build a proper car sized studio with car sized lights), not that people really give a shit because often if you really look at the lighting in the final image, it's plainly impossible. Car photography is like product photography in that it doesn't matter if the lighting is possible. It matters if it looks good.

Which is what I told y'all way the hell up there in this thread and was ignored.
>>
>>3512185
>>3512182
I see it now
>>
>>3512184
>The intensity is too off though its an overcast day
Yeah, I was wondering about that, how is are the reflections blown out but the actual sky isn't?
So it defnitely has to be a composite of different exposures.

If you look closely, the car seems to be full of water droplets though, right?

>>3512185
Not OP but I'v been reading along some and I'm interested.
Could you point out some locations on the car where it's lit by some kind of light? I can't see it in reflections or anything.
Or how would the sk be blown out in the reflections without other lights being visible?
Would it be the gentle lighting on the curve towrds the bottom of the driver-side door for example?
>>
>>3512196
Stripe of light on the car roof matches the gap in the roads above
>>
>>3512199
>Stripe of light on the car roof matches the gap in the roads above
I know, I pointed that out here >>3512182

>>3512196
to clarify, if someone could point out locations on the car where ARTIFICIAL light is visible, not just any, that'd be great.
Sorry for being retarded.
>>
>>3512196
Look at your highlights like the directionality of what's bright and what's not on the brake pad, the wheel itself. Notice how the wheel is brightest at around the 5 o'clock position in the middle part? now look at the black trim just to the left of that on the front bumper. That's not the same light.

If we go by the specular highlight on the hood and such to the left of frame, the entire side of the car facing us should be in shadow. Similarly, look at the shadow on the ground the car is casting. If it were real, the shadow under the bumper would be coming from a light about where that streetlight is, but if you look at the shadow under the driver's side door, that looks more like it would come from high and orthogonal to the side of the car.

Also, where exactly is the light coming from that is reflecting yellow on the bottom of the driver's side mirror, remembering that the son is somewhere way off to the left side of frame. On a similar note the Mercedes logo up front doesn't really fit with the brightness of the highlights around it either.

Actually looking at this picture, this car likely was just shopped in. Yeah, it wasn't there. There should be a reflection of the gap in the overpass visible on the side mirror, not just the roof. You'd also be able to see it on the hood more clearly and the shadows are shitty as fuck. If it'd had actually been there, they would have had real shadows to go by.
>>
>>3512201
What about the dirt on the tire?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW7Op86ox9g
>>
>>3512202
I never even really look at that any more. That's something that EVERYONE shops out.
>>
>>3512201
First of all, wow, so much of this tht I didn't notice in the sliightest until you pointed it out, thanks man.
But I do have some problems with your points:
>Also, where exactly is the light coming from that is reflecting yellow on the bottom of the driver's side mirror
that's just the yellow side of the car boody, isn't it?
>There should be a reflection of the gap in the overpass visible on the side mirror, not just the roof.
But it's there, top left corner of the side miror, there is a spec oflight whre the gap in the highway would be. to the left of that is the reflection of the shadow of the left highway lane and then the sky, similarly to the right of the bright spot, there's the shadow of the right highway lane and then the sky again after that.

I'm pretty convinced the car was there, but it must be a composite of a ton of exposures.

Thanks for your input man, appreciate it.
>>
>>3512214
>But I do have some problems with your points:
I'm probably definitely wrong in places. Not a pro by any means, but I do like trying to figure out how scenes were lit so I can get the same effects. There's a good website breaking down lighting schemes that I'll see if I can find.

>that's just the yellow side of the car boody, isn't it?
It is, but I wouldn't expect a reflection that bright and along those lines without a light low to the ground pointing slightly up towards the door.

>But it's there, top left corner of the side miror, there is a spec oflight whre the gap in the highway would be. to the left of that is the reflection of the shadow of the left highway lane and then the sky, similarly to the right of the bright spot, there's the shadow of the right highway lane and then the sky again after that.
I'd expect to see a larger one that goes around the curve of the mirror, but I could be wrong.

That said, likely the bit on top wouldn't be a reflection of the gap either. Think about where that gap has to be in relation to the car where it's parked. The car would be in the left lane of the overpass on the right. There's a big ass shoulder on overpasses like that, then another three or so feet of concrete barrier, then there's the gap.
>>
What about this photographer, /p/? Do you reckon he uses a lighting set up while shooting or makes composites?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution216 dpi
Vertical Resolution216 dpi
Image Width1242
Image Height1545
>>
>>3511096
/thread
>>
>>3510019
source: your desperate crippling gear-fueled insecurity
>>
>>3510041
F number dude. Adjust your iso and shutter so that you can have a higher F number
>>
>>3512474
Nah just good old overcooking in photoshop
>>
>>3509685
That's not a photo.
>>>/3/
>>
>>3509685
carefully set up lighting, you can't fake a well illuminated scene in post

/thread
>>
>>3509685
get gud
>>
>>3509727
Yeah, you can tell that yellow from that yellow thing in the background that is the exact color as the car. He didn't just push the saturation or something, he changed the color altogether.
>>
>>3510041
Remember photography is 99% light.
A "professional" photographer lights his scene well.
Look at strobist for examples of what good lighting vs poor lighting can do.
You can make anything look great if it's well lit, even if your gear sucks
>>
>>3509730
Actually, the one you have with YOU
>>
>>3509685
Editing.

In this case he's either copied and pasted the car completely (the light doesn't seem to match) or more likely just increased the clarity, contrast, saturation and more while doing the opposite to the rest of the shot
That's in addition to the obvious shallow depth of field if it's real

>>3509812
Post your editing of a similar setup and we'll be able to help

>>3510019
You jest, but there are people in this thread, nevermind the rest of /p/, stupid enough to believe this

>>3510027
Case in point

>>3510041
That's a terrible comparison because you've put it against a similar coloured and shaded background at a wildly different aperture from a couple of feet away

Take the same shot as OP and literally 60 seconds of selective editing on the car is enough
>>
>>3509685
that image can be recreated with a d700 and a 35mm, don’t froth over gear anon
>>
File: IMG_8942.jpg (1.26 MB, 1333x2000)
1.26 MB
1.26 MB JPG
>>3514960
This is the most recent photo I've taken of a (my) car. Similar-ish set up I guess (but I know the color of the car is too similar to the environment so it won't pop out)? Definitely not nearly as much light as the OP pic but anyways yeah this is how I edit my photos. I'm going to be testing out the technique of taking a photo of the car at like f4 or something, then taking the same photo at a wider aperture then combining the two to get a car entirely in focus and a background with a ton of bokeh.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 80D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:08:02 14:43:46
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length75.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3510041

Are you kidding? Your picture is better than the OP
>>
>>3510134

Try to bump the shadows up in this one so that we can see more of the details in the front bumper. Lower the blacks if it gets too bright.
>>
>>3512474

I mean the photo itself is good, but jesus christ that's overdone editing if I ever seen some.
>>
>>3509722
"Lose it" as in get angry, or "lose it" as in bust out laughing?
>>
It's called Focus Stacking. Lot of post production work on Photoshop.
>>
File: _DSC1885.jpg (1.43 MB, 1500x1000)
1.43 MB
1.43 MB JPG
>>3515466
man i really need to get a tripod so i can focus stack

>>3515141
i think it's great. really forces your eye to the taillights and anyone who knows anything about cars knows those taillights well.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)36 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:08:02 14:49:05
Exposure Time1/500 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating500
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Brightness5.1 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length24.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1500
Image Height1000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3510134
i think it's more a lighting problem in this one. it seems unsharp because the shapes get muddled in the shadows
>>
>>3515471
>man i really need to get a tripod so i can focus stack
Or just use a more narrow aperture so you get decent DoF. You're at f/4 when you could easily be at f/8 because you've got down to around 1/50 of a second before handholding becomes an issue and you're at 1/500

Get a depth of field calculator for your phone.
>>
>>3516722
What does a depth of field calculator do?
>>
>>3509685
Editing mostly. You can do this a few different ways:
-Take bracketed shots then stack/merge them
-Take backround shot then take shot of subject and merge both shots
-bokeh panorama method
>>
File: _DSC1980-2.jpg (1.35 MB, 1920x1080)
1.35 MB
1.35 MB JPG
went and did a little photo shoot with my car this morning.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)36 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6000
Image Height3375
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:08:11 16:07:05
Exposure Time1/250 sec
F-Numberf/11.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/11.0
Brightness10.5 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length24.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1920
Image Height1080
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: _DSC1996-2.jpg (1.41 MB, 1920x1080)
1.41 MB
1.41 MB JPG
>>3519559

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)36 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width5902
Image Height3320
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:08:11 16:19:43
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/11.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/11.0
Brightness9.8 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length24.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1920
Image Height1080
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: _DSC2118-2.jpg (1.48 MB, 1920x1080)
1.48 MB
1.48 MB JPG
>>3519563

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)36 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6000
Image Height3375
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:08:11 16:30:45
Exposure Time1/400 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Brightness10.4 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length24.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1920
Image Height1080
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: _DSC2132-2.jpg (1.95 MB, 1920x1080)
1.95 MB
1.95 MB JPG
>>3519568
also spotted this while i was driving around town

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)36 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6000
Image Height3375
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:08:11 15:51:36
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Brightness8.7 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length24.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1920
Image Height1080
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: DJI_0036-2.jpg (2.09 MB, 1920x1080)
2.09 MB
2.09 MB JPG
>>3519570
i even got a drone shot or two

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera ModelFC300C
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)20 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3422
Image Height1925
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:08:11 17:15:07
Exposure Time1/2400 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramUnknown
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Subject Distance0.00 m
Metering ModeSpot
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash Function
Focal Length3.61 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1920
Image Height1080
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
It's all in the editing dude.

https://www.eastonchang.com/Gallery/
>>
>>3515141
I really dig your style OP. I think this is just a case of underestimating your skills
>>
File: IMG_0497.jpg (566 KB, 692x1000)
566 KB
566 KB JPG
>>3519700
Fuck me that is unreal. This is just a whole different level of quality in editing that I don't think I can ever compare to.

>>3519711
Thanks anon, I appreciate it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 80D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:08:12 19:02:01
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating2000
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length105.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3519700
I would love to watch the workflow on some of these.
>>
>>3509685
Images like that are created in photoshop by combining multiple photos taken with different settings and lighting.
>>
File: _DSC1996-3.jpg (1.56 MB, 1920x1080)
1.56 MB
1.56 MB JPG
i took another crack at editing this one again >>3519563 this time getting into layer masking.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)36 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:08:13 20:40:28
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/11.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/11.0
Brightness9.8 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length24.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1920
Image Height1080
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3520629
It was bad before, now it's tremendous!
>>
>>3520635
tremendous in what way?
>>
>>3519700
Those cars look like toys. Or stills taken from commercials. I honestly prefer something like this >>3515141
Ligthing is a bit flat n that one though (maybe try a rimlight to separate the car from the background?), and there is something weird about those taillights.
>>
>>3520655
The belly of the car and rims also look too dark and undefined, now that I think of it, but that's nitpicking.
>>
File: _DSC1996-3v2.jpg (1.51 MB, 1920x1080)
1.51 MB
1.51 MB JPG
>>3520629
third pass

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)36 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:08:14 17:19:41
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/11.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/11.0
Brightness9.8 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length24.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1920
Image Height1080
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3510041
>first off this is better than OP, secondly most IG photogs, especially car ones know IG will compress their image to hell and back so they abuse the disgusting clarity slider and have crazy saturation and dull contrast.
>>
File: IMG_8942.jpg (353 KB, 667x1000)
353 KB
353 KB JPG
>>3520655
>>3520657
Thanks anon, I took on your critique and edited the photo a little differently. I like this much better than the original. I really wish I would be more patient when posting photos to IG so I can make sure it's 100% edited perfectly rather than trying to get a photo online ASAP.

>>3520959
Thanks anon.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 80D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:08:15 08:48:03
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length75.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3519582
Nice renders! I kind of hatem but they're well made and will appeal to some people.
>>3519559
It's kind of weird that the top of the roof touches the skyline. up or down, choose
>>
>>3520973
tell me about your workflow. I have an 80D as well but I cannot into editing so basically I've just been hitting the AUTO button and adjusting the contrast since Lightroom hates contrast for whatever reason.
>>
>>3520973
that's a nice improvement. i've also noticed how much more saturated smartphone displays are than the majority of computer monitors. you almost have to upload an edit to a phone to see how it displays there.
>>
>>3520975
>Nice renders!
not sure what you mean by renders. they aren't renders.
>>3520975
>It's kind of weird that the top of the roof touches the skyline. up or down, choose
agreed but it's a little late for that now lol. i'm struggling to edit that one better. there's just not enough color in the photo to do much.
>>
File: cvvdvbd.jpg (49 KB, 500x374)
49 KB
49 KB JPG
>>3520977
I'm going to be completely honest with you: I used Peter McKinnon's LR presets for the longest time before learning to edit myself. There's this local photographer who's kinda popular called northborders and he's got a YouTube channel with vids where he shows his editing workflow. I've pretty much learned how to edit my own photos by following the same steps he does, but obviously with different inputs to match my photos.

>>3520978
Thanks anon. I just checked the photo on my phone and it's definitely a little more saturated than on my laptop screen.
>>
>>3520977
not him but you gotta learn photoshop and color grading.

https://youtu.be/1O-zR4Xp2z0
>>
we should do an event where we all edit the same .raw file to see what each of us comes up with
>>
>>3520983
>endless arguing over who has the best edit, ending with a decision that a B&W submission is the least shit out of them all

It'd be fun nonetheless
>>
>>3520985
better than the two posts an hour the board is currently getting.
>>
>>3520980
>northborders
This guy seems fun I do enjoy a good Aussie accent and that he swears constantly without censoring, huge contrast to McKinnon types. However I find his post processing style to be very "Instagram Protographer" style, like every other younger camera youtuber. A style I feel will be dated as fuck very quickly. But it's still a fun watch and I'm sure I'll learn a lot, thank you.

>>3520981
I'm gonna sink a pint and watch this too. Thank you.
>>
>>3509722
i hope you find it soon, anon
>>
>>3520981
Little less haze and the original looks so much better.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.