Crash's Photos
- Thread starter Crash
- 451 comments
- 29,777 views
- 6,041
- Puget Sound
- Crash852
- 6,041
- Puget Sound
- Crash852
Well, the cars in the garage was really just a tour of a local BMW enthusiast’s car collection that he opened to the car club. He talked a bit about his collection, as well as went around and talked about some of the unique things about each car. He’s not a very focused collector; he doesn’t specify things like “only white cars with ex-F1 driver ownership history”, but rather, he collects whatever he’s interested in and whatever speaks to him, and he is very particular about buying cars that allow him to build a quality collection. His collection is primarily BMW focused, but the guy has a lot of cars from other makes as well. In an interesting way, the ironic thing is that the pictures that I took of a BMW focused collection seemed to be the non-BMWs. Anyways, a few tidbits of each of the cars, at least of what I can remember from the collector’s words:
Untitled is the front left suspension and wheel of an ex-Jochen Rindt Lotus 69. It’s neat to see how simple those suspension components seem to be, but it belies how effective double A-Arms are.
Louvers and Vents is an ex-Aston works DBR9.
JPS is a JPS Team BMW BMW 635CSi Touring Car. That car is an ex-Jim Richards car that actually ran in Australian Group A racing in 1986.
Untitled and Stella are a BMW M1 Procar unofficial Art Car commission by Peter Gregg painted by Frank Stella using his “Polar Coordinates” theme. This is the only Art Car that was completed by an artist that also had an official factory BMW Art Car to be outside of the company’s collection. This Art Car used to sit in the Guggenheim Museum, but was sold a few years back to the current collector.
I wish I could say that the series of pictures had a story like you hear about when people combine a set of pictures into one piece of work, but there isn’t really here. As you said, it was tough to get good shots of the cars. Cars that were inside were pretty packed together, while cars that were outside (which included 5 or 6 BMW 3.0 CSLs) were under harsh sunlight or under irregular shadows. There seemed to be some rhyme and reason as to why the cars were presented by the collector the way they were (the M1s were together, the BMW Touring Cars were together, all the 3.0CSLs were together), but other than that, I didn’t see and didn’t think of a specific narrative that I wanted to tell, and I really wasn’t advanced enough to see all that other than thinking the shot looked nice.
What do you mean specifically about the JPS Bimmer being a descriptive photo for recording purposes?
who's this guy ?
- 4,555
- Australia
I was basically asking in regards to this general point:
The JPS shot is really a full frame image taken from head height. Generally that's what descriptive and record keeping photos look like as they capture the entire object with little to no artistic considerations that might get in the way of presenting the subject in the clearest possible manner - think of train spotters or people who like taking pics of aeroplanes on an air strip. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it if that's what you are going for or if you like that type of photography, but you could try a few different things if you wanted to add a little more story.
You don't necessarily have to get the whole car in shot, especially if the space around you is tight. Large aperture detail shots work great in those sorts of places and you can certainly use those irregular shadows can also help you get some interesting results.
If the cars are packed together, you might be able to use one/some of them in the foreground to fame your subject, or even using the the car you want to show as a foreground while you focus on something interesting on the garage wall. Any of these techniques show off the car to some extent, without including their entirety in the shot.
Of course everyone is different, and it looks good as a descriptive shot, so take any critique with a grain of salt!
👍
- 6,041
- Puget Sound
- Crash852
@Boffin Much, much thanks for explaining that to me. I really appreciate your advice, and I'll try to keep what you said in mind as I continue to learn more about and experiment with photography.
If the following seems familiar, it's because I entered it into the Architecture themed photography competition a couple of weeks ago. This is some of the remaining 100 year old pilings that were used to construct the rock wall that forms the south Columbia River jetty. It's white sand on this side, but it's the great Pacific Ocean right on the other side.
--
If the following seems familiar, it's because I entered it into the Architecture themed photography competition a couple of weeks ago. This is some of the remaining 100 year old pilings that were used to construct the rock wall that forms the south Columbia River jetty. It's white sand on this side, but it's the great Pacific Ocean right on the other side.
- 6,041
- Puget Sound
- Crash852
Thanks for looking and the kind words!
As always, comments and criticisms always welcomed!
--
- 6,041
- Puget Sound
- Crash852
- 6,041
- Puget Sound
- Crash852
- 6,041
- Puget Sound
- Crash852
Yup, everything out of the 7D2 is in Raw. The details are there, and can be pulled out. Funny thing is that I've actually already applied a radial filter to the wheels and increased the exposure in there a little bit to bring some of the details back out. I struggled to figure out how to lighten the shadow to bring details out while still being faithful to the very bright, high contrast situation that that picture was shot in. I'm still learning the why behind the effects of each LR slider, so I'll need to play with it more.
Thanks for looking!
- 6,041
- Puget Sound
- Crash852
- 6,041
- Puget Sound
- Crash852
I like the 50mm. It's nifty, though with a crop sensor, it gets to be a little too long. Something like the 24mm-70mm f/2.8 would be awesome and perfect, if it wasn't so damn expensive.
EDIT: Looks like the Canon 35mm f/2 is $600 or $1300 for a f/1.4 L. How much is a Nikon 35mm?
--
Last edited:
- 17,865
- 509
Canon has the 35mm F/2 and 35mm F/2 IS. Having owned the 35/2 non-IS, the IS seems to vastly superior in every aspect while not costing too much more.
@Crash - I still think the Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8 A would be an ideal wide to normal zoom on APS-C, and not that much more than the 35mm F/2 IS.
- 6,041
- Puget Sound
- Crash852
I agree that 18-35mm or somewhere in there range would be ideal. The 50mm just has a little too much reach on APS-C, and I've ran into enough situations where I can't adequately fit in frame what I want to capture in that moment while walking around, and without the option of moving back multiple steps.
The Sigma is listed as an EF mount but "designed for APS-C" sensors. What, is that meaning that you're not supposed to use it on a full frame?
Prime lens are fun, but I should save my money and start getting some good zoom glass to be able to cover a decent focal range first before spending much money on primes.
Thanks!
"[The] milkshake brings all the boys to the yard, boys to the yard, boys to the yard..."
