Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

ScoobyDoobyDo!
#1

I know, it just had to happen. Rolleyes

Here's a pic I took a day or so ago of my new vehicle, a Subaru Forester 2.0L diesel. How I did it is underneath:

[Image: 2951zoomWebsig.jpg]

Here's what I did:
There's some roads near me that are lined with beechwoods; I chose a bit that was catching some of the afternoon light and parked it facing uphill. I ensured I turned the wheels a little toward the camera to try and suggest a feeling of movement from such a static object.
On the opposite side of the road(where I am to take the shot), the land dips down below road level. It is thus possible to hunker down and get "below" the car... I did this to achieve what is called in, er, portrait photography as the "heroic" angle: see where the light is, and the camera in relation to the profile of the subject.
Trying still to convey an impression of "movement", I ensured that in the frame, the car has a distance to "travel" to the right; its engaged wheels suggest(to me anyway) a sense of purpose and movement.
To augment this, I knew I needed a wide aperture...the wider the better at the longest length I could get with the 70-200.
I in fact ended with f4.5, to try and offset a bit of vignetting...though this didn't matter to the final shot.
At this distance, I could see that the road surface was rendered blurred given the depth of field.
I underexposed for that moody look and to avoid blown highs.
A high-saturation conversion in pp, duplicating the background as a second layer;
then I added motion blur to the layer, then using a soft brush on "erase" selectively. Of course, muggins here doesn't have a graphics tablet, so I'm quite happy with the mouse as I'm used to it.
Flatten the image, smart sharpen at output rez, add the sig and we're done.

All my stuff is here: www.doverow.com
(Just click on the TOP RIGHT buttons to take you to my Image Galleries or Music Rooms!)
My band TRASHVILLE, in which I'm lead guitarist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6mU6qaNx08
Reply
#2

great sense of movement and a fine tutorial. Nicely done. Big car though.

Please see my photos at http://mullerpavel.smugmug.com (fewer, better image quality, not updated lately)
or at http://www.flickr.com/photos/pavel_photophile2008/ (all photos)
Reply
#3

Pavel Wrote:great sense of movement and a fine tutorial. Nicely done. Big car though.
Need a big one for those 10 guitars and the photo gear. Smile

What is the difference between flattening and merging selected? ( I always use the latter.)

Lumix LX5.
Canon 350 D.+ 18-55 Kit lens + Tamron 70-300 macro. + Canon 50mm f1.8 + Manfrotto tripod, in bag.
Reply
#4

Thank you boys.
It's actually not vast or anything, midway between my old 3-door Rav and an estate...miles shorter than an estate. Sort of Narnia-wardrobe-like.
Do you know NT, I've not the faintest idea: our Matty will know Smile It might be that flattening loses or dithers down some information, whereas merging saves the info in both...?...but am floundering. I always use the flatten for some reason.

All my stuff is here: www.doverow.com
(Just click on the TOP RIGHT buttons to take you to my Image Galleries or Music Rooms!)
My band TRASHVILLE, in which I'm lead guitarist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6mU6qaNx08
Reply
#5

I really should be saying thanks for the tutorial and the very impressive sales shot, rather than asking questions. Smile

Lumix LX5.
Canon 350 D.+ 18-55 Kit lens + Tamron 70-300 macro. + Canon 50mm f1.8 + Manfrotto tripod, in bag.
Reply
#6

Aw, not at all; blessya though! Big Grin

Rather than swamp these boards, I've placed a gallery here of 15 shots I took(on me birthday actually Smile ) of the new motor in various tempting and sultry poses, if anyone fancies a look...

All my stuff is here: www.doverow.com
(Just click on the TOP RIGHT buttons to take you to my Image Galleries or Music Rooms!)
My band TRASHVILLE, in which I'm lead guitarist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6mU6qaNx08
Reply
#7

NT73 Wrote:What is the difference between flattening and merging selected? ( I always use the latter.)
Flattening compresses all layers to one whether they are currently visible or not. Merge visible flattens only the selected (visible) layers.

Example: I am doing a big composite with 20 layers. One building in that scene is comprised of 4 layers itself. When I am happy with that building, I make the other 16 layers invisible and then do a merge visible to combine only the 4 layers for the building together. Now my scene has 17 layers instead of 20 and I can move the building around in the scene as a single unit while still preserving the other layers of the scene independently.

I hope this confusing example helps clarify things a bit.
Reply
#8

Nice sig, Zig.
Reply
#9

Ahright, the same as a submix then in music; thanks that Toad. Smile

All my stuff is here: www.doverow.com
(Just click on the TOP RIGHT buttons to take you to my Image Galleries or Music Rooms!)
My band TRASHVILLE, in which I'm lead guitarist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6mU6qaNx08
Reply
#10

Great gallery link as well. Its lovely to see the first flush of young love...
Reply
#11

Toad Wrote:
NT73 Wrote:What is the difference between flattening and merging selected? ( I always use the latter.)
Flattening compresses all layers to one whether they are currently visible or not. Merge visible flattens only the selected (visible) layers.

Example: I am doing a big composite with 20 layers. One building in that scene is comprised of 4 layers itself. When I am happy with that building, I make the other 16 layers invisible and then do a merge visible to combine only the 4 layers for the building together. Now my scene has 17 layers instead of 20 and I can move the building around in the scene as a single unit while still preserving the other layers of the scene independently.

I hope this confusing example helps clarify things a bit.
Yes it does thanks. PS being what it is, is (i suppose) only baffling if you do not use it regularly.
I presume if you wished to keep the 4 layers (in an unflattened ) separate then you could save just those 4 layers as a different file.

i.e. if you did wish to go back, it could still be changeable/recoverable.

Lumix LX5.
Canon 350 D.+ 18-55 Kit lens + Tamron 70-300 macro. + Canon 50mm f1.8 + Manfrotto tripod, in bag.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)