Couple fun shots

[Grant Zoschnick]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4102/4860714359_eacb236469_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4123/4790827996_762f7bb8b0_z.jpg

[Travis Rhoads]

the Corvette in teh second one, looks like it was shot somewhere else and dropped into that scene.

[Daniel Buck]

Something looks funny about the blurring in these shots. is the blur done in post?

I enjoy the framing on the vette shot, a good composotion! Framing on that SUV is a little lacking I think, the rest of the image is beautiful though, aside from the strange looking blur, and possibly the sky? is the sky from a different shot? the perspective on the clouds looks odd.

[Ronnie Renaldi]

Nice pics. Did you use a car rig? What kind?

[Grant Zoschnick]

In the corvette shot the road and the vette are one shot and everything else is another but the steering angle focal length and speed are the same.

The subaru shot the sky is a crappy drop-in. I'm working on a better sky when I have time soon.

[Grant Zoschnick]

Nice pics. Did you use a car rig? What kind?

Its my own made rig aluminum pipe and magic arm attached with superclamps and suction cups.

[John Thawley]

In the corvette shot the road and the vette are one shot and everything else is another but the steering angle focal length and speed are the same.

The subaru shot the sky is a crappy drop-in. I'm working on a better sky when I have time soon.

Well... here's my take. First, there is nothing about these shots that couldn't have been done in/with the camera. Second, if you're going to go to these lengths to create a picture in Photoshop, they should be fundamentally, "great" photos. I'm not critiquing the Photoshop work... at this low web resolution you can't see critical stuff anyway... but the actual "photographic" elements aren't very special. If you've got the opportunity to piece together a picture from other random components, the picture should be impressive.

I'm not trying to discourage you... take whatever path you like. But if you're going to make photographs in Photoshop, there's really no excuse for bad sky or bad backgrounds ... etc. etc.

But if you've got the rig, why not put your efforts and attention into learning how to get it in the camera?

IMO

[Grant Zoschnick]

Well... here's my take. First, there is nothing about these shots that couldn't have been done in/with the camera. Second, if you're going to go to these lengths to create a picture in Photoshop, they should be fundamentally, "great" photos. I'm not critiquing the Photoshop work... at this low web resolution you can't see critical stuff anyway... but the actual "photographic" elements aren't very special. If you've got the opportunity to piece together a picture from other random components, the picture should be impressive.

I'm not trying to discourage you... take whatever path you like. But if you're going to make photographs in Photoshop, there's really no excuse for bad sky or bad backgrounds ... etc. etc.

But if you've got the rig, why not put your efforts and attention into learning how to get it in the camera?

IMO

I'm confused by the phrase get it in the camera. Both droppins were necessary due to locations and conditions. The backdrop wasn't there to get in the camera.

[Bill Jurasz]

I think what JT meant was to choose a better location and condition to get the rig capture with. In other words, don't put your effort into the Photoshop work, put your effort into capture a compelling rig shot right from the start.

[Grant Zoschnick]

I agree 100% but these are personal client shots not portfolio pieces lol the conditions are not always controllable.

Not excusing myself from a better image either I could have shopped in better locations but the vette one the client wanted the old packard plant and some stupid movie was filiming there so I didn't get what I wanted in terms of a background plate.

[John Thawley]

I agree 100% but these are personal client shots not portfolio pieces lol the conditions are not always controllable.

What does that mean? Are they personal or are they for a client? And isn't your portfolio a representation of your work? I'm not following the logic.

Sorry... what I meant was get it RIGHT in the camera. These shots don't require Photoshop... not in my opinion, anyway.

JT

[Grant Zoschnick]

I missed an and there lol "personal and client"


The logic here is they aren't for or in my portfolio so they don't speak hugely of my business work. They are more or less as the title of the thread states "for fun".