The cartoony approach vs the photojournalism approach...

[Terronium-12]

Yet you continue with the unnecessary double posting. Do you not see the edit button?

It can work wonders, perhaps instead of griping over a trivial video game camera, you should focus on the quality of your post eticate. The shouting is also quite unnecessary.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Indeed, I mentioned it once, and I see one of these doubles was edited, so I know he's capable.

The odd thing here, for me, is that you picked a pretty lousy shot to try and make your point, kanjifreak. Maybe it'd be clearer to me if it wasn't shrunken down, but there's no real sense of movement. A little on the tires I suppose, but certainly not enough to make me think the car's moving very fast (which, judging by the surroundings, it is at one of the slowest parts of Monaco). That makes the plausibility of the shot much higher in my mind. There's no sign it's in the middle of a race; it could be doing promotional work at a snail's pace for all I know.

If it was a slow shutter speed shot, with GT's "always perfect rig-style" Panning 3 option... yeah, just not really possible in real life. But as is, nothing jumps out to me as impossible to recreate in that first shot. Unlikely, yes, if the photographer doesn't have control of the elements, such as during a race.

Yeah, Photomode has a few very obvious detours around real-life limitations; something tells me Kaz didn't do these things accidentally. As is the mode is easy enough for anybody to dive into, and with only a little bit of learning, start cranking out some really nice shots. If they had to deal with the myriad variables present in real life, well, it'd lose it's appeal to anyone except the photography fanatics.

 

[daan]

An F1 car at full race speed is not even close to the one in your pic which could have been shot at 20 miles per hour if you know your shutter speeds (now, please don't reply saying: I did it at Xmph).

That's the hairpin at Monaco/Cote d'Azur where the F1 cars go round it at about 30mph. Not very high speed really.

an F1 car at race speed,

It's a picture of an F1 car. "Race speed" is not proven.

That shoot (mine) would require the camera at a distance of approximately 1 meter from the car. LOL!!! Totally plausible with a rig under that conditions with an F1 car racing straight at you in a FRONTAL angle.

Is he racing? I can only see 1 car. It could be a publicity photo shoot.

this is a car in the middle of a RACE shot with a close range wide angle.)

Again, what race?

the camera would just be pulverized by the car, unless you come up with some Galactic Stunt from the movies you most certainly watch to get the camera out of the way before getting smashed.

So, what if it was a publicity photo shoot and the F1 car was following an estate car with a photographer hanging out of the back?

Serioulsy, if you are a racing fan, haven't you seen how PHOTOGRAPHERS shoot the cars in the middle of a RACE?

Again, what race?

Can we conclude the lecture now asserting the impossibility of my shot in real life photography?

I'm not a photography expert but that shot seems very possible in real life photography by use of a rig, or by someone hanging out the back of a car in front.

And, if you wish to pick out the fact that there's another mod in your thread, none of that was moderating, that was just me. The next bit is moderating...

You have been told on numerous occassions to stop with the double posting, yet you continue to do so. Use the edit button, or the multiquote feature, in future or offical warnings will be handed out.

 

[peter_vod69]

So from the tone of his posts I'm guessing kanjifreak will be heading back to school soon?

 

[Moglet]

Surely as a photographer having the ability to do the impossible is a brilliant thing?! I only do freelance stuff here and there but I love how flexible the GT5 photomode is. You can do anything you want in a game so why limit it to the real world? Plus with a bit of work and a lot of money that F1 shot is easily do-able.

 

[Big Ron]

I think, no view angle you can create in a game is unrealistic or impossible in real world.

Top-photographers and studios use those angles for commercial spots or posters. Everything I´ve done in GT5 photo mode has been seen in real world, too.

Would be really boring when there only would be the possibility to make shots from spectator view behind the crash barriers.

I know, that you can´t jump over the guard rail within a race and make a close up with wide angle. But that´s not the point or sense. It is all about the car, no matter in which situation it is or even if it is a race or a studio location.

The sense of the photo mode is to make shot of situations which always seems to be prepared for this one picture.

 

[boozybloke]

I'm loving the fact that for less than the price of a decent SLR camera and some trick lenses you can buy a PS3, GT5 and go and take pictures of some awesome cars in any kind of style your imagination allows.
I get the point about being able to do near impossible shots in a game thats main selling point is the realism, but at the end of the day... IT'S A GAME. PD have given us a great little toy to play with and it's providing some fantastic pictures, even without photoshoppery.

 

[gtuned]

McLaren's right.
Rig Shots.

Some tubes, suction cups and IR release trigger and a slow shutter speed and there you go.
Sure you gotta shop out the stuff, but in GT5, it does that with an invisible rig setup.
Personally, the closest i've ever got is about 10ft away from a car doing a burnout at a drag strip, i wouldn't go any closer, so GT5 gives us shots that we could never. Never get.

 

[andmen]

Almost as close

 

[Terronium-12]

I love how Felipe seems to be gesturing (with his head no less) "What on Earth? How'd that camera get there?!"

 

[TSLRich]

Firt off let me introduce myself... My name is Rich Lavigne. I'm a professional photographer and I've been a GT fan since day 1. I currently work full-time as a wedding photographer, but prior to starting my wedding business, I worked exclusively as a motorsports and automotive photographer for 6 years. I still shoot cars on occasion when i have a free weekend. My work has been seen in magazines such as Import Tuner, Super Street, Modified, Performance Auto and Sound, and National Dragster in both feature work and event/race coverage. I've shot Sport Compact and Import Drag-racing, Formula D, D1, ALMS, Rolex Grand Am series, NHRA Drag racing, and AMA motorcycle racing. My photography has been used in advertising campaigns for Red Bull, Nos Energy Drink, Lucas Oil, K&N Filter products, and Quaife differentials. I say all this not to wow anyone or brag, but simply to show that I speak from experience....

I personally think the debate here isn't between reality and fantasy... its been proven that a shot like the one in the first post can be done in reality. The debate then becomes about the difference between photo-journalistic style coverage and editorial/publicity style photos. The first shot of the F1 car is certainly not possible in reality in a photojournalistic style sense. A shot like that requires a rig, something that would severely hamper the drivers ability to race and win in reality. A shot like this could certainly be accomplished in a publicity setting though... many photographers have made there mark in the industry specializing in this sort of stuff, Easton Chang and Clint Clemens come to mind. A good publicity photographer will stage that shot and take it to give the impression that it was shot during a race.

 

[sixtoes]

Wow. Looks like I missed some fireworks in this thread yesterday. Probably a good thing, or I might have just tossed gasoline onto the smoldering embers.

kanji, while I certainly appreciate your 'concerns' regarding the unrealistic nature of some of the tools GT5 gives us in regards to photography, it seems to me that you're overstating the case. You're also not winning anyone to your position with the insulting and denigrating approach you've been taking towards some in the thread. Then again, perhaps you don't intend to win anyone to your position... in which case - good job, you've achieved your goal.

Of course I recognize the tools we have are unrealistic: a 16-500 f/1 lens attached to a body that can apparently shoot at unlimited ISO with no noise. Oh, and then there's the ability to stop time. Given those tools, wouldn't you expect artists to create art? Does it genuinely matter that we can create images that can't currently be created in the real world? As a visual artist yourself, I'd think that you would have more respect and appreciation for art itself - regardless of the medium, or the level of realism in the finished product. After all, if a photographer from 50 years ago saw your work today, he would criticize your work as unrealistic, would he not?

If you choose to respond to my comment, please refrain from giving me any 'humble advise', and please avoid your now-trademark, "My God" statements. As a professional photographer myself, I do not need your advice... and as someone who respects God, I definitely do not need to hear you take His name in vain. Thank you.

 

[materialism]

Wow. Looks like I missed some fireworks in this thread yesterday. Probably a good thing, or I might have just tossed gasoline onto the smoldering embers.

kanji, while I certainly appreciate your 'concerns' regarding the unrealistic nature of some of the tools GT5 gives us in regards to photography, it seems to me that you're overstating the case. You're also not winning anyone to your position with the insulting and denigrating approach you've been taking towards some in the thread. Then again, perhaps you don't intend to win anyone to your position... in which case - good job, you've achieved your goal.

Of course I recognize the tools we have are unrealistic: a 16-500 f/1 lens attached to a body that can apparently shoot at unlimited ISO with no noise. Oh, and then there's the ability to stop time. Given those tools, wouldn't you expect artists to create art? Does it genuinely matter that we can create images that can't currently be created in the real world? As a visual artist yourself, I'd think that you would have more respect and appreciation for art itself - regardless of the medium, or the level of realism in the finished product. After all, if a photographer from 50 years ago saw your work today, he would criticize your work as unrealistic, would he not?

If you choose to respond to my comment, please refrain from giving me any 'humble advise', and please avoid your now-trademark, "My God" statements. As a professional photographer myself, I do not need your advice... and as someone who respects God, I definitely do not need to hear you take His name in vain. Thank you.

👍

 

[kanjifreak]

That's the hairpin at Monaco/Cote d'Azur where the F1 cars go round it at about 30mph. Not very high speed really.


It's a picture of an F1 car. "Race speed" is not proven.


Is he racing? I can only see 1 car. It could be a publicity photo shoot.


Again, what race?


So, what if it was a publicity photo shoot and the F1 car was following an estate car with a photographer hanging out of the back?


Again, what race?


I'm not a photography expert but that shot seems very possible in real life photography by use of a rig, or by someone hanging out the back of a car in front.

And, if you wish to pick out the fact that there's another mod in your thread, none of that was moderating, that was just me. The next bit is moderating...

You have been told on numerous occassions to stop with the double posting, yet you continue to do so. Use the edit button, or the multiquote feature, in future or offical warnings will be handed out.

It is always the same, when they can't win with intelligence, they always use "authority".

Sad but true.

Firt off let me introduce myself... My name is Rich Lavigne. I'm a professional photographer and I've been a GT fan since day 1. I currently work full-time as a wedding photographer, but prior to starting my wedding business, I worked exclusively as a motorsports and automotive photographer for 6 years. I still shoot cars on occasion when i have a free weekend. My work has been seen in magazines such as Import Tuner, Super Street, Modified, Performance Auto and Sound, and National Dragster in both feature work and event/race coverage. I've shot Sport Compact and Import Drag-racing, Formula D, D1, ALMS, Rolex Grand Am series, NHRA Drag racing, and AMA motorcycle racing. My photography has been used in advertising campaigns for Red Bull, Nos Energy Drink, Lucas Oil, K&N Filter products, and Quaife differentials. I say all this not to wow anyone or brag, but simply to show that I speak from experience....

I personally think the debate here isn't between reality and fantasy... its been proven that a shot like the one in the first post can be done in reality. The debate then becomes about the difference between photo-journalistic style coverage and editorial/publicity style photos. The first shot of the F1 car is certainly not possible in reality in a photojournalistic style sense. A shot like that requires a rig, something that would severely hamper the drivers ability to race and win in reality. A shot like this could certainly be accomplished in a publicity setting though... many photographers have made there mark in the industry specializing in this sort of stuff, Easton Chang and Clint Clemens come to mind. A good publicity photographer will stage that shot and take it to give the impression that it was shot during a race.

Nice to meet you, Rich.

Exactly, in the end, under the conditions of MY shot, it is impossible.

Thank you for your contribution.

 

[gtuned]

It is always the same, when they can't win with intelligence, they always use "authority".

Sad but true.

I expect you to be banned by the end today quite frankly. You're giving a bad name to photographers with your stuckup acting and refusal to be proved wrong.

 

[freedomweasel]

It is always the same, when they can't win with intelligence, they always use "authority".

Sad but true.

Probably not worth the time posting here, but you're entire argument (and thus this thread) can be boiled down to this:

you: "I'm a professional and know what I'm talking about"
someone else: "I dunno, I think you may be wrong, look at this"
you: "ha, you moron. It's beneath me to explain any further"
someone else:"well, I think I have a point"
someone else: "you are clearly a plebeian and as such I shall merely laugh at your attempts at intelligence"

repeat as needed.

Don't bother posting anything if your responses are merely one line insults brushing off questions.

 

[gtuned]

Probably not worth the time posting here, but you're entire argument (and thus this thread) can be boiled down to this:

you: "I'm a professional and know what I'm talking about"
someone else: "I dunno, I think you may be wrong, look at this"
you: "ha, you moron. It's beneath me to explain any further"
someone else:"well, I think I have a point"
someone else: "you are clearly a plebeian and as such I shall merely laugh at your attempts at intelligence"

repeat as needed.

Don't bother posting anything if your responses are merely one line insults brushing off questions.

Pretty much sums it up in 1 epic win post.
Good job my friend.

 

[kanjifreak]

Wow. Looks like I missed some fireworks in this thread yesterday. Probably a good thing, or I might have just tossed gasoline onto the smoldering embers.

kanji, while I certainly appreciate your 'concerns' regarding the unrealistic nature of some of the tools GT5 gives us in regards to photography, it seems to me that you're overstating the case. You're also not winning anyone to your position with the insulting and denigrating approach you've been taking towards some in the thread. Then again, perhaps you don't intend to win anyone to your position... in which case - good job, you've achieved your goal.

Of course I recognize the tools we have are unrealistic: a 16-500 f/1 lens attached to a body that can apparently shoot at unlimited ISO with no noise. Oh, and then there's the ability to stop time. Given those tools, wouldn't you expect artists to create art? Does it genuinely matter that we can create images that can't currently be created in the real world? As a visual artist yourself, I'd think that you would have more respect and appreciation for art itself - regardless of the medium, or the level of realism in the finished product. After all, if a photographer from 50 years ago saw your work today, he would criticize your work as unrealistic, would he not?

If you choose to respond to my comment, please refrain from giving me any 'humble advise', and please avoid your now-trademark, "My God" statements. As a professional photographer myself, I do not need your advice... and as someone who respects God, I definitely do not need to hear you take His name in vain. Thank you.

Just some annotations here...

The captures from photomode are "Art"?

I can use the word "God" as much as I want, I am not denigrating the concept.

And if you are a professional photographer, great, nice to meet you. We share a passion in life then.

 

[Terronium-12]

Again, stop double posting. And you've already been proved wrong, what, three times now?

What are you still on about? The insults (if that's what you want to call them) aren't going to get you very far but then again, I fully expect it was your intention to laud your "professionalism" over certain individuals from the get-go, and even that you aren't doing a good job of.

 

[Famine]

Since the OP seems to only be here so he can be supercilious at others and completely ignore several valid points that show his claims of impossibility to be false, this thread has no life.