tips for getting shiney pics?

ok. ive been trying to get good shots of the car after washing and all the ones i get seem washed out... my camera isnt a cheapo, and from a distance it takes great pics, but up close it looses the detail.

 

i took it off auto focus because i figured that might be throwing it, and ive tried flash/no-flash/remote flash, contrast filters, all kinds off stuff...

 

anyone have any tips on best lighting conditions / camera settings? so far patial shade has worked the best but its still not great... ive just never done car photos before, im a portrait/landscape kinda guy

what color is your car?

brilliant silver

Digital is fun but you can get good pics if you realize the camera is really a computer and the computer on a digital camera tries to average and smooth out the shots. A lot depends on the camera. I have a Leica digital that allows spot, matrix and center weighted metering. Many cameras have various program modes. Try a few out. Like mountain scenic mode where the foreground is illuminated with a bit of flash and the exposure is set to include the background.

 

Clouds are great.

 

Dont shoot into the sun, have it behind the camera illuminating the car. This prevents the light meter looking at a bright sky and making the car dark.

 

Mid morning and late afternoon give more of a warm glow. Mid day can be harsh but it can also bring out more color.

 

Spot meter (if you have one) on the area of the car you want the most want to come out. Matrix/Center weighted when the light conditions are uniform.

 

If you have a real time histogram, try to adjust aperature or speed to give an bell curve to the histogram where its low on the ends and high in the middle.

 

Use the rule of thirds. Think tic tac do and place the main interest where the lines intersect. I have one built into the display.

 

If you have a hot spot in the pic, the meeter will read that and adjust making the rest of the shot dark (like bright chrome).

 

To show the difference between matrix (overall picture metering) in bright directional light vs consistant/equal light. I wanted a dark, warm feeling in the first pic. The second, I wanted the look of a Subaru commercial.

 

First pic: F8/500, matrix metering

Second: F7.1/500 matrix metering

 

Finally, use your white balance. All digital cameras have a built in white balance. Sometimes the colors are not exactly what you want. Get a pure white card. I always keep a cut down gray/white card in for this. Set the camera on manual white balance and point the lens at the white card in the directing you'll be taking the shot. Many camera's are different but the concept is the same. This will set the WB so the digital will know what really is white and the color should come out correct for the current light condition.

Have you try using a polarized filter?

You aren't going to get silver to look like a darker color would look. You can get it to glow and look pretty glossy, but if mirror reflection pictures are what you are trying for, then I'd give up. It won't ever happen. Light colors do nothing but absorb light and they don't reflect much back. Your best bet is low lighting on the car reflecting bright backgrounds.

i have to get in a very low light situation to get mine to reflect. Night is where my car really shines.

ok, this is going to sound weird, but I think you actually want to to set your camera a couple stops OVER to slightly over expose the image. You said the pictures are coming out washed out ... but I bet they're coming out almost a hazy grey color. Digital cameras intentionally under expose the images. In fact, I think that digital cameras and digital photos are almost worthless unless you post process 90% of the images. Generally, the post processing involved is very minor, but post processing will greatly improve 99% of digital photos.

 

Before I dive any further into this, do you have any examples?

ok. ive been trying to get good shots of the car after washing and all the ones i get seem washed out... my camera isnt a cheapo, and from a distance it takes great pics, but up close it looses the detail.

 

i took it off auto focus because i figured that might be throwing it, and ive tried flash/no-flash/remote flash, contrast filters, all kinds off stuff...

 

anyone have any tips on best lighting conditions / camera settings? so far patial shade has worked the best but its still not great... ive just never done car photos before, im a portrait/landscape kinda guy

 

As a portrait/landscape guy, I assume you already know the usual photo tips. The big difference here is that your car provides lots of specular reflections which can really throw off your light meter. It's simplist to just meter off something else (the ground, nearby foliage), then recompose and shoot. A polarizer might help to control reflections off different planes of the car.

 

The washout can come from adjusting an underexposed image and/or from flare caused by strong reflections back into your lens. So, even with correct exposure, watch out for flare (keep your lens clean and use your best lenses and multicoated filters).

Bump for examples? I'd like to see what's happening in your pics.

What see_obxt said. It's all about the metering...

 

This one was twilight and partial shade. The background is a little darker than the the subject so pretty good exposure for the car and a little underexposed on the background:

 

http://home.comcast.net/~locdogg/Car/car3.jpg

 

This one you can see the sky and the reflection of the sky is blown out, so the shot is metered to the car. The car still looks shiny because it is carrying most of the range of light (black shadows to white highlights). I don't really prefer this look, but it can be used for a certain mood:

http://home.comcast.net/~locdogg/Car/car1.jpg

 

In this one everything is about the same brightness, so the camera had no problems metering the bright silver against the bright sky reflecting off the glass of the building:

 

http://home.comcast.net/~locdogg/pics/other/legacy01.jpg

 

 

If you want to show the reflectiveness, it helps to have something in the composition that is reflecting on the car:

http://home.comcast.net/~locdogg/Car/0402_05.jpg

 

 

 

Unless the background can reflect a lot of the direct sunlight, I prefer to shoot on an overcast day for the diffused light.

 

If you have a really dark background with direct sunlight, you will definitely have blown/washed out highlights on a silver car. In the same situation, if you expose for the car, your background will be greatly underexposed.

 

It's very hard to get a perfect exposure on a silver car. Each of the examples I posted have some extent of blownout highlights. I find it is more of a matter of controlling them as opposed to eliminating them. If I eliminate the blown highlight, odds are the rest of the composition is severly underexposed.

Wow, nice shots, Vahkil. That's the best I've seen in Subaru's silver which never seemed silver enough in real life. Looks like you're using a nice wet wax or sealant too.

 

Good photo tips backed up with good examples. Thanks.

Another thing to do would be to shoot raw and build the mood in post processing. Bring the the pic in a tad dark and adjust the fill flash in photoshop. Since I'm a purist, I try to get the poc out of the camera the way I want it.

 

Using an F2 Sumicron, I try to stay away from any filters. I don't want a $50 filter on a major $$$ peice of glass. This is a greatly heated topic of the Leica crowd. But, some filters are worthwhile, like a polarizer. That can help control highlights and sky.

 

And, like Vahkil said about the highlights "I find it is more of a matter of controlling them as opposed to eliminating them." Totally agree.

 

Problem with over exposing digital is that you lose information. Burning in PS just ain't the same as in film. Under exposing can lead to noise. Either way, post processing is needed. I personally like a bit under vs over.

 

Digital sensors are kinda partial to blue. You can get a real blue sky by underexposing just a tad or setting up the scene so the sun is not directly behind the car.

 

The real time histogram, if you have one, is a great tool. It shows in pixels the quantity of light vs dark. It'll show you hot spots and a washed out sky you may not notice in the composition.

Pics needed, to be honest. Hard to diagnose the patient without them.

 

Silver isn't all that hard, but it does not have a lot of inherent contrast. It's a favorite car to shoot in my industry because it doesn't show up the dirt or dents like the other colors do - which is probably the problem that you are facing.

 

Silvers and white cars usually throw the auto metering system on cameras off about a stop, even top end ones like the Canon 1D series. If you don't have some sort of histogram preview, it may be hard to catch this when shooting.

 

Best time of the day to shoot is early, early morning or evening, right before the sun sets, or as the sun is setting. Can't always do that, though.

 

http://www.sevenphotos.com/dev/test_area02.jpg

 

Oh, and post-processing is almost always needed with digital, especially for cars.

 

Cheers,

 

Paul Hansen

http://www.avoturboworld.com | http://www.sevenphotos.com | http://www.scoobymag.com

You aren't going to get silver to look like a darker color would look. You can get it to glow and look pretty glossy, but if mirror reflection pictures are what you are trying for, then I'd give up. It won't ever happen. Light colors do nothing but absorb light and they don't reflect much back. Your best bet is low lighting on the car reflecting bright backgrounds.

 

Is automotive paint any different? doesn't dark colors in general absorb light more than light colors?

Is automotive paint any different? doesn't dark colors in general absorb light more than light colors?

 

I'm not a light physicist, but I think the reason darker colors give a more mirror like reflection is because of the contrast between the reflection off of the clear coat and the backdrop (the paint).

 

On a black car with an impeccable polished clear coat, there is a mirror-like shine. On a flat black car, you see no reflection. You are seeing the reflection off the clear coat, and the dark color behind it gives great contrast.

 

On a white or silver car with an impeccable polished clear coat, you still get the same perfect reflection, it is just drowned out by the bright color behind it.

 

Here's another example. Look into a window of a closed store on a bright day at 12 noon. You will see your reflection and the reflection of everything around you in the glass, but you cannot see inside very well. Now look into window of a store that is open and well lit like a department or grocery store. You may still catch a glimpse of your reflection (it's still there, it didnt' go anywhere), but it is being overpowered by the light background inside the store.

 

Hope this makes sense.

while all you camera buffs are in one place, what kind of software do you guys use? for enhancing as well as organizing/archiving/viewing... probably PS for enhancing? do you guys do them in batches somehow to speed up post processing?

I use Photoshop CS for all post-processing. It's got a 'browse' feature which makes for easy viewing.

 

I shoot in raw format, so my images have no in-camera processing like they would if I shot jpeg. I'm not a pro so I don't have to batch process them, as usually I'm only happy with certain shots out of the hundred that I take. Batch post processing only works well if you have a trend across all your images like the color levels need to be adjusted one way or the contrast needs increasing by a specific amount.

 

As for someone who prints a lot more pictures than I do, I'm sure some heavy duty archiving batch processor would be very helpful.

I have a copy of Adobe PS v5 (old), v7 and PS Elements for editing and ACDsee for Viewing. I really like ACDSee. It was cheap and is really fast, about the fastest browser available. Elements is good enough for me for editing, it has levels.

 

I will say that CS is where it's at for professionals and the advanced amature. I've been told it's too complex for beginners. The $650+ pricetag is a tad bit steep too. I tend to not use PS modifications on JPEGS. Call me a purist and except for Raw, then you must use PS.

 

I use DCRAW (I like the freeware gui) to do my raw conversions. I do just one at a time. Adobe CS and almost ALL raw converters use Dave Coffins C code anyway and there is a link to it below. I convert to 48 tiff bit with it but usually use 24.

 

http://www.cybercom.net/%7Edcoffin/dcraw/

There are several freeware raw converters and editors and organizers here all using DCRAW, not just for unix. Some are cool like IRFANVIEW. Picassa is also interesting. These are free.

 

I only use batch processing when I want to save a lot of files the same way, like for the web Vahkil is right about batch. If you exposed all shots in a controlled environment, you could probably batch color corrections. My raw shots are all one at a time like i said above. I actually worked in a real dark room years ago, 30x40 inch prints and did all my own color correction. Old habits die hard.

 

Later,

 

Scott