Hood Tach

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Comments welcome.

[ccphoto]

I would like to see this scene reversed..dark BG and light foreground. The hood and tachometer are overshadowed by the brightness.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I was pretty happy to get the numerals on the face of the tach to show up. This car was under another one on a lift so I had to work with what you see.

[ccphoto]

I think you can have a little of both if you would allow an edit. I am an "Old" Orange County Street Racer ('60's) so I appreciate the ride.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

This is an SOOC jpg which has only been cropped by me. Edit away as I have very limited editing software/skills.

[ccphoto]

Well, because the BG has so much yellow in it, I couldn't really re-expose it properly in Photoshop to get the effect I would have had I made the camera exposure. So, instead, to a large degree I left your BG alone but increased the tonal pop in the hood and especially in the tach.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

That looks good.
It really doesn't represent how dark the situation was though, which is why I posted this shot. I think it's one of the most difficult shots I've made that actually turned out. It was difficult to see the numbers on the tach because of the lack of lighting.

[IzzieK]

Interesting. But why is it outside of the car?

[ccphoto]

That looks good.
It really doesn't represent how dark the situation was though, which is why I posted this shot. I think it's one of the most difficult shots I've made that actually turned out. It was difficult to see the numbers on the tach because of the lack of lighting.

Dark-smark, light, bright, that's the beauty of photography, and digital just makes it much easier to shoot what you want to see by selective metering. Had you of metered for the shadows, your original out of the camera shot would have looked more like my edit than your SOOC. Try to keep in mind that a digital image is really just a 1's and 0's data base until it is in someway enacted upon. Can you shoot a perfect exposure out of the camera...of course you can. Is it hard? You betcha it is. But even so, you don't have to accept what the lighting offers you when you have the ability to master that light.

What you posted is what your eye saw but not what the camera was capable of seeing. Even the most simple Point and Shoot has the capacity to see half again as much in the details as your eye can. It can record this detail and in post processing, you can reveal that detail. Ansel Adams didn't shoot what was there; he carefully mapped all the ten tonal zones and then through exposure (for the shadows), processing (for the highlight) with copious amounts of dodging and burning (to enhance the middle grays), Adams created his masterpieces. You saw what he wanted you to see: his vision. It was all there for the taking and boy did he ever take it.

Izzie..it was based on the idea that when drag racing, it was better to be able to see your RPM's without having to take your eyes off the drag strip. And it was great mid-morning and depending upon ambient light, at night...but midday when we also raced the windshield glare made them almost impossible to see. I think they only lasted one model run. I never had such a device outside but did have one mounted up high and in front as I did so hate to red line (over-rev) and fritz an engine.