Old cars and hot rods C&C welcomed

[KimC]

I received my new 35mm lens and wanted so bad to give it a try, I shot something different and outside my comfort zone. I also used auto ISO, which I found very helpful.

Image 1 - ISO 900; 35mm; F2.2; 1/400


Image 2 - ISO 200; 35mm; F2.0; 1/400

[Shadowman]

Nice shots.

[flashback]

Kim, I think both of these of great. Both are great compositions, colors are vivid and eye catching but, my eye keeps going to the second image. Something about that '56 Chevy and the mustard color....

[TonyW]

I really enjoy these pictures as I am a bit of a car enthusiast, perhaps more in the past than now. I am prejudiced towards the Fords though even though the mustard colour looks nice. I like the choice of view with these.

[Nicks Pics]

I like the choice of view with these.

Speaking of which, what is the purpose of the choice of view with these? I think a front-side angle shot would have shown the cars better overall. No problem, just curious.

[Kodiak]

I received my new 35mm lens and wanted so bad to give it a try, I shot something different and outside my comfort zone. I also used auto ISO, which I found very helpful.

Is that the lens we talked about?

Outstanding rendition when it comes to colour characteristics.
Focusing is not to the level, though.

Exif of the first shot says:
Exposure: Manual exposure, 1/400 sec, f/2.2, ISO 900
I would have chosen ƒ5.6 or more… DoF a tad too shallow!

Exif of the second shot says:
Exposure: Manual exposure, 1/400 sec, f/2, ISO 200
Again, DoF a tad too shallow and PoF at the improper place, IMO.

Don't you ever give up! ;-)

[IzzieK]

As usual, I will go for #1 because of the simplicity of the shot. Period. I would advice using a CPL next time you shoot static cars like these one to tone down the shine.

[Stagecoach]

Very nice Kim, great colour and again your well controlled PP work

I will not mention the DoF because I suspect these were very much a trial to see what it could do.

As for outside your comfort zone the results suggest it certainly was not outside the lens or cameras

Grahame

[Mike Buckley]

If these were outside your comfort zone, I think you found a new comfort zone. Great compositions with regard to shape and color in both images.

About Kodiak's point of depth of field and focus: Carefully examine the photos in their full size. Notice in the first one that the license plate isn't sharp. Notice in the second one that the yellow car's left tail light isn't sharp but the right one is.

In my opinion, this isn't a matter of depth of field and focus as much as learning to be more critical when you view your images. Once you see stuff like this, you'll think about it the next time you capture a similar image.

From now on, when shooting scenes like these always blow up the image in your camera's LCD to examine the most important part of the image for sharpness. If it's not sharp, change your settings and/or focus point and shoot again.

A polarizer filter helps wonders with the reflections on automobiles. Due to the many curves, you can't eliminate all off the reflections. However, you can often eliminate the reflections in the most important areas of the image. At the least, using a polarizer in situations like this gives you more control than not using one.

[TonyW]

Speaking of which, what is the purpose of the choice of view with these? I think a front-side angle shot would have shown the cars better overall. No problem, just curious.

Now I have to think about what I said earlier, which is an interesting challenge. For some time I have been thinking that I tend to try to get the whole of a subject into one image instead of seeing and concentrating on some simpler subject. I think in this case we know more or less what old cars look like (at least old blokes like me do) so that there is really no need to see everything. What we see here are views of three old cars, showing just bits of their anatomy, which are all interesting. The back of the sedan is what distinguishes it from any old car of that make, the back of the Chev show the characteristic shape of the wings and we see the bonnet (hood) of the other dark car (is it a Ford?). They all have a nice glow about them which shows that they have been lovingly restored and cared for and the composition of each picture is quite pleasing to me.

The lack of sharpness that others have pointed out does not bother me especially but I must admit that I would be wary of using such a large aperture in these cases, especially when the shutter speed and ISO could have been increased without concern. On the other hand, in #1 where you might want the background to appear blurred, it is hard in the heat of the moment to do all the calculations to work out what aperture you need to get the right depth of field.

In spite of people's reservations, I still think these are nice pictures.

[Mike Buckley]

it is hard in the heat of the moment to do all the calculations to work out what aperture you need to get the right depth of field.

There is no need for calculations. Once you get the right exposure, take three to five shots using a different aperture on each one. Determine which depth of field you prefer when you get home and view the image on your computer monitor.

[KimC]

Can only do a short note now, but thanks all for the comments.

Yes, Daniel that is the lens we discussed - I like it :-). Thank you

The first pic I wanted the blur. The second yes that was an error. I got into trouble again because it was getting dark - 10 mins before sunset and didn't want that high awful ISO. I really need to focus on experimentation more - as Mike said change it up and see what you like late.

I may have one with a better dof - will check tonight.

[chauncey]

Kim, when I visit those car shows, it's the reflections that interest me...check my signature link.

[mknittle]

Yeah me too.

[mknittle]

Very nice Kim.

[Mike Buckley]

I got into trouble again because it was getting dark - 10 mins before sunset and didn't want that high awful ISO.

Try out a very different mindset: Make high ISO your least important concern. Capture the photo in every other respect the way you want it even if it means using a high ISO. Example: Would you rather have a sharp photo with high ISO or an unsharp photo with low ISO?

This isn't to say that you should ignore the impact of high ISO. As an example, if you need to use a certain large aperture to be able to shoot at a low ISO, look for the images that can be successful using a large aperture; the images that require using a small aperture will have to wait for another day.

Having said that, if you're trying to avoid noise, nailing the exposure will usually do more for avoiding noise than using a low ISO. I shoot at high ISO regularly (albeit using a camera that handles it reasonably well) and rarely have issues with noise. I never have them when I have nailed the exposure.

[wtlwdwgn]

It's always good to stretch your shooting outside the box. You never know what you can learn that might help what's in the box. Nice image of the antique with a different sort of composition. Nice colors in #2.

[Rebel]

I love both of those shots, but number 2 is my favourite because of the colours

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Kim,

I like them both.

In #1, I like the 'repetition' of the second distant car on left being of the same basic shape, I find the DoF of the entire shot is adequate (unless pixel peeping).

If #1 was mine, which is very unlikely because I have never thought, when out shooting, to compose like that; I either go for the whole car or a (much) smaller part of it
I digress (to compliment you) anyway, I would consider, in PP, changing the colour of the red rectangle as it attracts attention away from the subject.

#2 would have benefited from greater DoF and setting the active focus point on the centre boot/trunk badge - but I still like it.

Cheers, Dave

[KimC]

Nice shots.

Thank you John.