A Dying Industry?

[Bob Chapman]

Well, this was bound to happen eventually.

http://www.tenlinks.com/NEWS/PR/art_vps/072006_ford.htm

The question now becomes, how quickly does it become de rigueur for the industry. And where do WE go from here?

Thoughts?

[Jacob Leveton]

Steve demmitt will still have a job ;)

hey steve, wanna teach us old-timers some new tricks? or, should i say some new clicks....

[Zerin Dube]

I notice this in all the press photos that fly across my desk. Most of them are all done in CG, and look pretty awful. BMW still uses real photos for the most part, as does Audi for the exterior shots. GM just issued photos of the 2007 Z06 with it's new paint color...but all it is are 2006 Z06 photos that were yellow, now photoshopped orange.

[John Jovic]

It reads like an advertisement for the software firm, maybe it is.

Maybe this is the end of 'high end' car advertising photography but I don't see how different this is to the way advertising work is done already, only the image of the actual car is being replaced with a CGI image.

Almost all advertising work is highly computer intensive anyway, It almost doesn't matter which program is used?

JJ

[Daniel Buck]

at work, we make car commercials where the car is completely 3d, and sometimes the background plate is completely 3d.

I wouldn't say digital cars are taking over anytime soon though. Even though we can fool probably most of people who see the commercial that the car is real, (unless the car is on a white background, doing special morphs, or something that is totally not realistic) but alot of directors still like the idea of actually shooting the vehicle on film. And actually, some times we are required to have at least one shot where the car is real, I'm not sure why that is, maybe it's just so they can say there is actually a real car in the spot, I don't know.


I forget which brochure it was, but I picked up one at the LA auto show and there was a bit 'picture' of the interior of a car. It looked real good, I had no reason to doubt it wasn't a photo, untill I saw the seatbelts. you could tell the seatbelt texture had been mapped onto the seatbelt, and there was an ever so slight segmentation to the curve of the seatbelt as it wrapped around the chair. I think it might have been the ford mustang? can't remember.

[Mike Ditz]

It will be a trickle dow effect, The high end stuff wiil be able to afford CG and then the clients will phase it into other purposes to justify the cost. I highly doubt consumers care that the seatbelt looks funny in a catalog. There have been bigger goofs than that in the pre-digital/CG age.
I figure there are about 5 years left for automotive photography in these markets. There will still be a need for editorial stuff like races, but I'll go out on a limb here and say digital video grabs are the future there. why choose from 8 fps when you can choose from 60 fps?

Like the Chinese curse..."may you live in interesting times."

MD

[Daniel Buck]

but I'll go out on a limb here and say digital video grabs are the future there. why choose from 8 fps when you can choose from 60 fps?

www.red.com

check out the Red One, it shoots 4k (about the size of a 1Ds), RAW, and 60fps. !!! :eek: A guy at my studio lready has money down on one for when they come out :)

[Steve Demmitt]

Jacob, maybe if I was already solidified in the industry to begin with..... =|

Automotive commercial photogs in general will have a job no matter what, as long as they can adapt to the market
its about having the ability to change and evolve
if you can't do that you wont succeed, and that goes for business in general

I have been following the ARTVS system for a while now
I'm really interested in the 360 degree camera that can take a location and basically give you the ability to place the car anywhere

the car doesn't necesarily have to be a 3d model either, heck it doesnt even have to be a car
and thats my point
although its geared more toward the use of 3d car models
it can certainly be used without it which opens up all sorts of possibilites

[Daniel Buck]

I'm really interested in the 360 degree camera that can take a location and basically give you the ability to place the car anywhere
the spheron you mean? You don't have to have a special camear to take the 360 degree HDR images, though the spheron is quite nice and does it all automaticly, with a ton of range. we take 360 degree HDRs all the time at work, with just a regular digital SLR and a pano head.

[Steve Demmitt]

ahhh really
well then I would need someway of mapping it into a 3d environement right?
I would just use a 3d program to do that?

[Daniel Buck]

ahhh really
well then I would need someway of mapping it into a 3d environement right?
I would just use a 3d program to do that?

just about any 3d program with a decent render engine can do it. You don't have to map it to a sphere (though, you can). Most render engines just have a 'environment' tab where you can plug in your HDR. The only problem with environmental HDRs, is that you don't get any paralax or any movement (unless you have a sequence of HDRs). So one trick is to take HDR pictures and make a 'tunnel' of HDRs, so you can actually drive through the tunnel. Another trick is to have an HDR for just the sky (no trees, buildings or anything else) and then map other objects (like buildings) with flat HDR images. Most 3d engines can have objects emitt light, so you can map the HDRs onto the objects (like, an flat HDR of the side of a building) and you'll get full interaction of the light and reflection as you drive by the building. Add in your trees and other objects and you'll get alot of paralax. It's pretty powerful stuff.

[Steve Demmitt]

yeah that is really cool
thanks for the info
i am going to look into that stuff

[Daniel Buck]

yeah that is really cool
thanks for the info
i am going to look into that stuff

I shoot our lighting HDRs with a 180 degree sepherical lens, that way you don't need to take all kinds of images, you just need to point it straight up in most situations to get a 360/180 dome. If you need more than just the sky dome, you can do 3 captures evenly along the entire horozontally to capture a full 360/360 environment. Bracketing 7 exposures with 3 stops inbetween each exposure is sufficient to capture just about all the available light. Shot at F32 and 1/8000 at ISO 50 for your fastest (darkest) exposure you can usually capture the sun spot with a value less than 255 on the RGB scale. If not, then add a neutral density filter, a 3 stop filter should do.

For the reflections however, you usually need more resolution, and a 180 degree lens doesn't give a whole lot of resolution because it's seeing such a wide viewing angle. The DVD link I is a good way to get enough resolution for your reflection environment.

If you are new to shooting 360 degree spherical images, I suggest this DVD, it covers a good way to get alot of resolution, plenty for even big screen 4k display environments.

http://www.thegnomonworkshop.com/dvds/gdo01.html

The same idea from the DVD applies to shooting HDR images, accept that instead of taking just one exposure, you will be taking several exposure before you move the camera to the next position. As I mentioned, you don't need near as much dynamic range for reflections, so you can get away with 3 exposures, and about 1-2 stops between them, depending on your scene.


We have in-house custom software that we stich and compile our HDRs with, I'm not sure if RealVis sticher can handle HDR files or not, I'm pretty sure that www.autopano.net can, however. You could stitch each exposure seperatly, then mirge to an HDR, in that way you could still use realviz stitcher.

It's a somewhat complicated process at first, but once you understand it all, it's pretty simple.

[Steve Demmitt]

yeah that makes sense to me
seems a little compicated but I get it
thanks for the links
I will see what I can come up with

[Mike Ditz]

Automotive commercial photogs in general will have a job no matter what, as long as they can adapt to the market
its about having the ability to change and evolve
if you can't do that you wont succeed, and that goes for business in general


I there is no car, there can be no photography of the non car. There will be people creating images with 3d programs but they will be more illustrators rather than photographers. The manufacturers will like it because they won't have to build prototypes for ads and photography, no storage or transport issues, no weather days either.
The days of going on location for a catalog shoot are numbered.:(

[Daniel Buck]

The days of going on location for a catalog shoot are numbered.:(

No, you'll still go and shoot, there just won't be a car there :D

[Mike Ditz]

No, you'll still go and shoot, there just won't be a car there :D

Well, yeah, then you are a background or landscape photographer (which isn't all bad if you can get decent rates) not an automotive photographer.

[Bob Chapman]

Well, yeah, then you are a background or landscape photographer (which isn't all bad if you can get decent rates) not an automotive photographer.

Won't the background be computer-generated as well?

In fact, racing/event photography could also be eliminated entirely. Here's one logical conclusion...

At the end of a race, data from each car would be immediately downloaded to a database. The data would include the speed, racing line driven, steering input, throttle application, brake application, brake temperature, rotational velocity of each wheel, car attitude (yaw/slip/dive/squat/lean), and (via an elaborate series of body panel sensors) all damage done to the car and all dirt/bugs accumulated on the bodywork. ...at every moment during the race. Computer models of the car and the track could then be combined with data downloaded from the National Weather Service (to determine exact lighting and cloud conditions at any moment) to generate any "photo" from any location at any time during the race.

Minutes later, all the customers would have to do is specify the lap, the car, the position of the "camera" and the shutter speed (or the f-stop), and their "photos" would be immediately delivered.

:p ...or maybe... :(

[Steve Demmitt]

I dont feel the same way
I don't see it as a clear cut decision
I see it as more of an alternative
companies will still hire automotive photographers
this does pave the way for the 3d world of things
but of course only time will tell

[Bob Chapman]

I dont feel the same way
I don't see it as a clear cut decision
I see it as more of an alternative
companies will still hire automotive photographers
this does pave the way for the 3d world of things
but of course only time will tell

Companies would be foolish to do anything other than adopt the least cost method of obtaining the same quality result. They have shareholders to answer to.

FWIW, I think there will still be a creative process, because selection of "subject" position, "camera" angle, "location/background", "lighting" and "f-stop" will still be required. I just think that the creative process might not involve ever stepping foot outside the office.

[John Jovic]

I think there will still be a creative process, because selection of "subject" position, "camera" angle, "location/background", "lighting" and "f-stop" will still be required. I just think that the creative process might not involve ever stepping foot outside the office.

In the context of 'high end' car ads, advertising agency AD's are the only ones making creative decisions, and yes, from the comfort of their desks. Layouts or images are usually decided before a photog is hired. The photog is often just a technician, hired to achieve the desired look (quite low down in the food chain when you think about it). The reason you got the gig over the next guy is often not because of your creativity or vision. It's usually because the AD can sleep at night knowing that you are capable of delivering the goods and that you are NOT going to screw up this job (and maybe his/her career).

It's been this way for years, doesn't really matter how the images are generated does it?

Other parts of the car biz are quite different allowing almost total freedom, especially editorial work.

JJ

[Bob Chapman]

Adverstising agency AD's are the only ones making creative decisions...It's been this way for years, doesn't really matter how the images are generated does it?

JJ

I guess I've just been lucky thus far.

[John Thawley]

Well, if I might chime in a bit....

There will continue to be needs for all format... whether it be for a "noir" look or simply to get away from the sterile feel that generated images tend to have. Take the current batch of rig shots.... it's a look. And, after awhile, the "look" becomes to apparent... it takes over the message.

As far as motorsports... I find that images tend to inspire the ad. I wlll often get a call looking for a side shot.... wanting to see all the sponsors etc., but more often than not, they'll want to see a selection and design the around their choice.

Likewise, if I'm doing a print project, it is often the image that drives the direction I'll go with the layout or design.

Radio didn't replace the newspaper, tv hasn't replaced radio... or the movies for that matter. Things will evolve and find thier place in the creative process.

IMO

JT

[Morgan J Segal]

It's never going to replace editorial photography, but for many advertising applications, it will for sure. Doing CG has so many advantages.
- The most important one is that it will be cheaper in the long run (it may not be now, but it will)
- You can create any kind of look
- No car is needed. So no rush to get a pre production car ready for photography. Photos can be created long before the first car is even built
- A photographer can show up with just a camera and tripod, take the landscape shot and go home
- no need for permits
- no need for a crew, police details, etc
- no need for lighting
- no need for an RV on location
- no need to figure out how to get the car to the location (which opens up the choices for locations)

The only negative for the art directors is that they no longer get to go on some exotic trip for the shoot

[Steve Demmitt]

Companies would be foolish to do anything other than adopt the least cost method of obtaining the same quality result. They have shareholders to answer to.

FWIW, I think there will still be a creative process, because selection of "subject" position, "camera" angle, "location/background", "lighting" and "f-stop" will still be required. I just think that the creative process might not involve ever stepping foot outside the office.

of course they will
but as of right now or even in the next 2 years
I see 3d as still being the expensive option

[Mike Ditz]

It's been this way for years, doesn't really matter how the images are generated does it?

JJ

Well, when it comes down to the client either hiring me to shoot a picture, or calling up the image generating studio and saying I need #23-048B in New York City at 73rd and Park, with snow, it matters to me. No to the client, but to the supplier.