The Realistic Photo Thread

[DarkR]

Thanks guys 👍

 

[Horde_R35]

Your welcome

Click the pic for HD

​

 

[Watchman]

DarkR and Tiago, you guys just prove that you're among the best photographers we have around here with these beauties. Well done!

 

[DarkR]

DarkR and Tiago, you guys just prove that you're among the best photographers we have around here with these beauties. Well done!

Thanks GT-R :tup:

And great work Horde 👍

 

[proby458]

Awesome i-MIEV! I never knew it did that if you painted it. I may have to actually buy one.

It's canal blue metallic from an evo 6 GSR Tommi Makinen edition.

 

[Fat Buff Guy]

Nürburgring Nordschleifeedit by GT5NUT, on Flickr

 

[MiamiStreets]

zzz_pt

Beautiful !

 

[xMARKITOx]

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

In how far does this look realistic? It looks like an "yet another GT5 picture I've taken" attempt; the watermark does not help either. Or the fact that it's unedited. Even just a bit of post-editing is fine (as long as the stock image looks realistic to begin with).

I mean, you don't see jagged lines, etc. The whole point of that photo was an exposé of clean lines, nice shadows, and blurred speed. It's an artistic action shot, centered around the realism.


At least it's not a shot of a car going 200 km/h, with the camera aimed at the front bumper, , as that would lead to an injured camera man.

I understand your point of removing the watermark to make it look more realistic, but, I'm focusing on purely finding nice angles for my photos. And people have enjoyed the simplicity of my photos with the new angles that are less common. So, while I do agree, and will make some hyper-realistic photos by removing watermarks etc., I just want to be clear: watermarks are as equally valid, as it shows how little it was not edited, instead displaying an emphasis purely on the angle and speed of the photo.

*img with watermark*

*img with watermark*

*img with watermark*

*img with watermark*

I'm not even the only one to post with watermarks.

 

[GalvoGT13]

Do new posters read the first post from the OP?

While there are pretty awesome and realistic photos from driftinziggy, Horde R35 and DarkR,
there's some photos that are just...ugh, note ven close to good, nowhere near realistic, sorry, this thread is almost gone.

I lost my password to my old account, I've been here since 2010.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Do new posters read the first post from the OP?

While there are pretty awesome and realistic photos from driftinziggy, Horde R35 and DarkR,
there's some photos that are just...ugh, note ven close to good, nowhere near realistic, sorry, this thread is almost gone.

I lost my password to my old account, I've been here since 2010.

Did you read the OP? OP says that he wants everyone to state whether they edit the photo or not.

Horde_R35 etc. make great photos, but edit without stating so.

Hmmmm, why don't you tell us what you think makes the photos better? What makes the photos more realistic?

 

[xMARKITOx]

Edited

​

 

[proby458]

- Try to stick to photos straight out of GT5. If you must edit them, please indicate that you have done so in the post.

Some of us don't edit the photos that we post, we just try our best to capture the reality/ drama or action scenes of the race or cars in question.
Also, there is nothing wrong with edited photos if that's what choose to do.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

- Try to stick to photos straight out of GT5. If you must edit them, please indicate that you have done so in the post.

Some of us don't edit the photos that we post, we just try our best to capture the reality/ drama or action scenes of the race or cars in question.
Also, there is nothing wrong with edited photos if that's what choose to do.

That's the point I'm trying to make, but, since I've come back, and posted my non-edited photos, people have been complaining that they're not real enough.

To each their own, guys! I don't like seeing photos that are too perfect.

 

[xMARKITOx]

Let's all sit back, grab a drink and relax our buns. It will all be fine in the morning.
Keep calm, and carry on.

 

[nealcropper]

Let's all sit back, grab a drink and relax our buns. It will all be fine in the morning.
Keep calm, and carry on.

I agree

 

[mazda787]

2 Unedited versions


​

 

[nealcropper]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mazda787/8356088568/lightbox

Well......

All that arguing about realism. And

BOOM! Mazda787 delivers.

 

[mazda787]

Well......

All that arguing about realism. And

BOOM! Mazda787 delivers.

Hehe thanks 👍 ... there is no point arguing as everyone will have different definitions.

 

[nealcropper]

Hehe thanks 👍 ... there is no point arguing as everyone will have different definitions.

Well I'm sure that there will be no argument over you shot.

 

[APXCaramel]

Special Stage Route X by ForzaTuner, on Flickr

 

[GalvoGT13]

Did you read the OP? OP says that he wants everyone to state whether they edit the photo or not.

Horde_R35 etc. make great photos, but edit without stating so.

Hmmmm, why don't you tell us what you think makes the photos better? What makes the photos more realistic?

- The subject(s) of your pictures(s) may be anything; a car or cars, scenery, weather, but try to make it something interesting. For example, don't take a picture of a realistic-looking concrete texture in closeup; people want to see something fascinating or amazing, not boring.

- Try to post realistic looking pictures. There are no restrictions, but be reasonable. Does it look like a car taken with a real camera, or does it look like it's out of a cartoon?

Not going to put names, 'cause it is agaisnt the OP, but some photos here look no better than the regular pics from the latest GT5 pics thread.
You don't need to edit to make it realistic, back in the first 500 pages, most photos weren't edited and they looked real. I remember one F1 photo that was like real life and it had the GT watermark and it wasn't edited.

Mazda787, the second photo looks good, no unrealistic effects and the environment/car looks good.

To me, a realistic photo is a picture that has a realistic looking environment and a realistic looking car, no unrealistic blur or effects that remove the realism from the pics

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

no unrealistic blur or effects that remove the realism from the pics

Blur is more realistic. If a car's going 200 mp/h down the Mulsanne straight, and you look at it with the bare eye, you're not going to see the rim's delicately crafted shape. No, you're going to see wheels blurring, and the background becoming just lines.

That's a real photo of what I'm talking about.


Blur is more real.


But, for comparison, here's a photo with next-to-no blur, with a very little amount of shutter delay etc., and a "high shutter speed."

That's not very realistic. My eyes can't train in on the details that well. Only a camera can do that. That's not realistic.

 

[Fat Buff Guy]

It's all relative, because if I am shooting it with a camera at the angle the ferrari is, its going to have to be panned and having a little bit of blur on the back car is completely possible.

Nice shots Mazda! Love the pattern of the buildings in the background :thumbsup:

 

[GalvoGT13]

Blur is more realistic. If a car's going 200 mp/h down the Mulsanne straight, and you look at it with the bare eye, you're not going to see the rim's delicately crafted shape. No, you're going to see wheels blurring, and the background becoming just lines.

That's a real photo of what I'm talking about.


Blur is more real.


But, for comparison, here's a photo with next-to-no blur, with a very little amount of shutter delay etc., and a "high shutter speed."

That's not very realistic. My eyes can't train in on the details that well. Only a camera can do that. That's not realistic.

I know blur is more real.

But there's a lot of unnecessary blur in some photos and there's certain realistic blurs and non realistic blurs.

Some blurs only appear in the back of the car in some pics here, that is unrealistic, a realistic blur is like the car is not totally blurred, but the rims and the environment are, a blur that is appearing randomly or the half of a pic is not realistic.

 

[Fat Buff Guy]

I know blur is more real.

But there's a lot of unnecessary blur in some photos and there's certain realistic blurs and non realistic blurs.

Some blurs only appear in the back of the car in some pics here, that is unrealistic, a realistic blur is like the car is not totally blurred, but the rims and the environment are, a blur that is appearing randomly or the half of a pic is not realistic.

Mmmmmmmmmm what? O_o

http://www.flickr.com/photos/76765783@N06/8357139046/in/photostream

Have you ever panned cars in real life? It's not something you strive to get but it does happen quite often where the front of the car is sharp and the rear isn't especially if you are shoot particularly slow shutterspeeds.

 

[Fat Buff Guy]

Mmmmmmmmmm what? O_o

http://www.flickr.com/photos/76765783@N06/8357139046/in/photostream

Have you ever panned cars in real life? It's not something you strive to get but it does happen quite often where the front of the car is sharp and the rear isn't especially if you are shoot particularly slow shutterspeeds.

This isn't as exaggerated as it is in the game, as the car wasn't going that fast and I was shooting rather fast for how slow the car was going. But you get the point.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Mmmmmmmmmm what? O_o

http://www.flickr.com/photos/76765783@N06/8357139046/in/photostream

Have you ever panned cars in real life? It's not something you strive to get but it does happen quite often where the front of the car is sharp and the rear isn't especially if you are shoot particularly slow shutterspeeds.

This. This is the most accurate piece of information I'll ever be able to find, anywhere.

I too do photography in real life. While I really enjoy capturing light/shadows, (almost as if it were a battle between the two,) speed is another awesome thing to capture.

Thing is, if you're "tracking" a car, for a photo, the camera's moving; directly proportionately of the car's movement, clearly.

Anyways, these are real life photos I took with the "poor quality" Blackberry camera, at a recent rally in my area.

Again, it's off of my Flickr account.

Anyways, you can notice exactly what I'm (and what Fat Buff Guy is) talking about, because a portion of the car's blurred, and all of the surroundings are blurred. I was focusing on the front bumper/front tires, so the surroundings are blurred.

That same effect in GT5:

Someone named jus1059 (I think I got it right, will check & edit) took that photo, showing, again, blur in all of the surroundings, and a small bit of blur on the car.

And, even more blur (this guy almost crashed! )

 

[Horde_R35]

DarkR and Tiago, you guys just prove that you're among the best photographers we have around here with these beauties. Well done!

Im not sure about that... . Thanks .

Thanks GT-R :tup:

And great work Horde 👍

Appreciated.

Do new posters read the first post from the OP?

While there are pretty awesome and realistic photos from driftinziggy, Horde R35 and DarkR,
there's some photos that are just...ugh, note ven close to good, nowhere near realistic, sorry, this thread is almost gone.

I lost my password to my old account, I've been here since 2010.

Did you read the OP? OP says that he wants everyone to state whether they edit the photo or not.

Horde_R35 etc. make great photos, but edit without stating so.

Hmmmm, why don't you tell us what you think makes the photos better? What makes the photos more realistic?

Thanks guys .

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Im not sure about that... . Thanks .

I'll challenge you for that title at some point, in the mean time, I have to agree. Well, sort of. The list of names is longer than that... We'll see, once I find a car/location that just HAS to happen.