Photographing Cars - DPChallenge Forums

06/15/2006 04:48:41 PM · #1

So I've tried to photograph our car in such a way as they look in the magazines. Clear shapes, cut edges, soft gradient reflections. Obsessed as I am with painting with light, I tried that. I tried different approaches and used the whole spectrum of light-painting techniques I know, nothing yielded anything useful. What I want is something like this, for example.
It seems to me that what I need is one huge diffused light source, like a gigantic softbox? Or do you know some other way to achieve this with my beloved torchlight?

oOWonderBreadOo

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

06/15/2006 05:03:28 PM · #2

a while back someone posted images shot with and without a polarizing filter. They were both outside but the results were outstanding. I think if you had a good background outdoors might work.
...But I really have no clue :0P

DanSig

06/15/2006 05:04:25 PM · #3

unfortunately it has very little to do with lighting, but mostly it has to do with photoshop skills.

like this image..purple prowler

was made from this image..prowler

wich was made from this image...original

there was terrible lighting there, I had to shoot this image on a tripod with 4 sec exposure.

KiwiChris

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/15/2006 05:13:08 PM · #4

It can be done in camera, but you need some very large lights...

I visited a studio a few years ago that was set up for a hotrod shoot, they had four light banks with 20'x20' difusers on them hanging in the ceiling... Serious stuff.

If it's your own car you could suspect a huge bit of white fabric over it in the back yard to act as a diffuser on a sunny day, that might get you what you want, but it'd have to be large, 30'x30' I imagine... And you'd still have reflections on the sides of the car..

Asside from that, what Dan said... Photoshop.

sabphoto

Samsung Galaxy S8/S8+

06/15/2006 05:18:15 PM · #5

Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:

I second that, only problem is that you can usually only get either the window clear of reflections or the paint, usually not both. Cars can be difficult but as was also mentioned, your photoshop skills can totally save a questionable image with the cloning and such.

good luck

06/15/2006 05:55:18 PM · #6

What if you're in nature? They don't use softboxes there and have perfectly smooth gradients.

andiesmith

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8

06/16/2006 11:03:22 AM · #7

they can use GIANT diffusers in nature.

Panasonic DMW-LTZ10 1.5x Teleconverter

06/17/2006 02:51:06 AM · #8

I think I found out that, in nature, all you need is to put the car in the shadow of something large. If you have a clear sky, but no direct sunlight, you get those smooth gradients. The only problem are the reflections, you'd need to be on top of some hill or something like that, where the surroundings don't reflect in the car.

KiwiShotz

Panasonic DMC-FZ20

06/17/2006 06:30:35 AM · #9

I guess, I'd better step in here having spent 13 years as advertsiing manager for two car manufacturers.

Reflections are the big issue. Because the perfect car surface is very shiny and reflective, they are going to collect everything and bounce it straight back at you. For this reason, a lot of car shots are taken using drive-in studios and a soft box type diffuser screen, that is bigger than the car, slung from the ceiling. Then you have to spend at least a day working and painting with lights to get it right.

For external and road shots, you tend to end up in wide open space locations where a distant horizon forms the cut line reflected in the side of the car.

For detail shots, all sorts of tricks have to be used. In some cases the nice bright shiny paint gets sprayed with a dulling spray (its hell to get off too!). Most of the interiors for brochures which look so casual take two days to set up, light and shoot.

It is a fascinating and challenging area of photography as so much depends on your making that car look good enough to eat - after all we're asking people to hand over a lot of money and the competition is deadly fierce.

I still enjoy car photography as you can probably see

and

As you can see from "Black Light", strong light and shadows can work.

I should just mention, for those whose answer is "... to be good at photoshop ..." that none of the photography that I started doing in the 80's had any didgital manipulation at all. Most were shot on 2 1/4 square format, double-page speads were done 4x5 and all were transparencies. What that means is that what goes into the camera is what goes into the magazine. Why transparencies? It is a tranparency that is scanned for colour separations which printing plates are made from. Reflective copy (i.e. Prints) cannot be used as the quality is too poor. Digital manipulation only started to become commonplace from about 1987 onwards. It wasn't very good and was hideously expensive.

Brett

MPRPRO

Olympus E-5

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital Zoom

06/17/2006 06:51:08 AM · #10

I experimented back in Feb with this idea. You can see some of my shots on my blog Here

I used a polarizing filter at different angles to get these shots and a flash. Hope that helps a little.

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

06/17/2006 09:04:19 AM · #11

Not sure if these would help, but here's a few I've taken over the past couple of weeks...

Man_Called_Horse

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

06/17/2006 09:34:25 AM · #12

In the industry that I rep., and am disapointed with, I have in the past worked with car ads and commercials.

First thing to know is the car(s) were super duper clean. Almost glass like.

On moving shots, there was a 'camera car' that followed the subject car around for the close ups. Along with the camera, some sort of light was rigged to help bring up the highlights of the car.

On stage, a huge softbox usually was above the car along with a key, fill and back light. Then depending on the DP at the time, other lights were put in strategic places to bring up parts of the car for the camera to see, i.e. under the car, drivers side, passenger side, back, engine, grill, wheels, rear, ect..

By the time we were done lighting, there may be a dozen or more lights burning on one car.

The same went for still projects. A plain bg, a softbox overhead, some hot lights highlighting areas of the car, strobes for the key and back lights, ect..

Just remember not to have a hot light on one particular part of the car for a long period of time. It may (or may not) bubble the paint.

Prof_Fate

06/17/2006 10:12:13 AM · #13

Pics like the brochures and ads are probably beyond the means of us amateurs. I read of one studio in california that is just for cars - a 50foot by 11 foot 20,000 wattsecond softbox was hung from the celing and movable.

I'd be happy replicating the look you see in car magazines on their test drives - the last few issues of which I've seen some pretty sucky pics - so i guess they hired somebody new? I don't have a car worthy of using for portfolio shots (93 taurus w/rust, 96 caravan w/rust, 90 jeep w/ battle scars) - and clean and shiny matters.

I got a few detial shots at car shows - I may approach one or two of the owners at the next car show -free prints for some time in the park taking pics.

Reflections are still the issue.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

06/17/2006 11:16:40 AM · #14

I think pleasing shots of cars can be had by amatuers without access to studios and tons of specialized lighting. Just depends on what you are after. The correct weather conditions can provide strong but diffuse light, think mid-day or early afternoon when it's overcast but very bright. Think of the reflections off the cars surfaces as somthing to be controlled rather than something to be eliminated. The right reflections can improve your shot just as the wrong ones can be a distraction. Car shows can be a place to pick up ideas but the cars are usually too close together to get clean shots. Close shots with a wide angle can give interesting distorations to your subject. Some paint colors used on cars are a lot more photogenic than others, the guys who shoot for the ads can choose but we may not always be able to. Shooting down at a car from a small step ladder, the bed of a pickup, or even a second story window, can give a shot where the ground is the only background you have to contend with.

Here's a couple of challenge entries where I thought the reflections helped my score.

peecee

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/17/2006 11:24:51 AM · #15

Location can help :-)

My only car challenge entry, reflections can be good or bad.

Panasonic DMW-LTZ10 1.5x Teleconverter

06/17/2006 01:35:36 PM · #16

Thanks for all your comments, I appreciate the advice. The studio option is not available to me, the open space method sounds most interesting. Nonetheless I found a completely different workaround. You'll see the results on Wednesday.

Man_Called_Horse

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

06/17/2006 02:22:47 PM · #17

Originally posted by peecee:

My only car challenge entry, reflections can be good or bad.

There is a product made by a couple differant companies called "Dulling Spray".

It is a spray that not only dulls the hotspots of bad highlights, but also can take away reflections.

You can find this spray at any art store $15 USD.

KiwiShotz

Panasonic DMC-FZ20

06/17/2006 10:01:36 PM · #18

Originally posted by American_Horse:

And the groomers hated it! Especially if we needed the car in the next shot and were putting the pressure on them to hurry :)

The other thing I should reinforce is the photog's ability to select the colour of the car to shoot. It is almost always silver or light beige. You can add colour to the shot when you have a neutral coloured car but your options are much more limited with a strong coloured car.

I appreciate Gloda that you weren't seeking the studio option, but I hope we explained why sometimes a seemingly casual (and "easy") shot is anything but

Brett

06/28/2006 11:52:28 AM · #19

Okay, so how do you think I managed the situation? I don't think many of the voters realized this was a toy car. I'm gonna try it with a DeLorean and some more time on my hinds to improve it.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

06/29/2006 05:26:59 PM · #20

Hey, I jump more than 24 hours in time and nobody has noticed the flames on the concrete yet?

TonyT

Fujifilm X-T5

06/30/2006 08:10:42 AM · #21

How's this one?

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

06/30/2006 08:23:40 AM · #22

Originally posted by gloda:

Okay, so how do you think I managed the situation? I don't think many of the voters realized this was a toy car. I'm gonna try it with a DeLorean and some more time on my hinds to improve it.

Had me fooled as to it being a toy car. I was curious how you accomplished this image. I didn't get the connection to the time travel bit (sorry). A DeLorean would be cool!!! ;^)

boysetsfire

06/30/2006 08:30:47 AM · #23

nothing really to do with this thread really, but i recon its a pisser of a pic 2 of my mates in their datsun sunny.

Matthew