Profile Shots.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Profile Shots.
Hey guys, I posted this in the gallery, but got no response. here is a link to the original thread, and post. http://bit.ly/bacUFO there were a lot of poor examples and I thought I could learn from them the formula for these shots. However,
No one commented positively or elsewise and I thought maybe I posted it in the wrong forum. Maybe here it will be a little more received with some comment/critz etc...
I have yet to take a shot just like these, but I know the 'style' of this photography well. Very straight on, and I love the look of these photo's. In my opinion they make great background and wall art. I like how it really abstracts the shape of the subject. ANYWAY! here is my short tutorial on how (((((""""""I"""""))))) think these shots come out great. like I said, I haven't taken any of these pics yet, so let me know what you think!
Hey guys, I really love these photos! I am an avid photographer and I wanted to find the "recipe or forumla" for taking a really good side profile shot(so I can finally be good at them). I took a photo that I thought looked like what I think they 'should' look like and did a little analysis on it. Here is what I found. If the originaly poster would have any info, that would be welcomed . (Great job on this photo I really like it!!)
Camera height: if there is 0° in the x,y, and z direction(from the camera relative to the car) the hight of the camera should be equal to the center of the image. so this image was taken at roof level indicated by the black shading at the intersection of the black lines.
Distance to subject: I don't know of anyway to prove this other than experience, but the bokeh (stuff NOT in focus) looks like it was taken with a lens at approximately 200mm. This focal length give a particular look that mimics the above.
ƒ#, iso: The ƒ# is probably numerically higher(smaller aperture diameter) than 4 since the lens is about 200 mm(unless using a VERY expensive lens). as far as the iso goes, it really doesn't matter but the lower the better and since all things were static I would guess it's 100iso.
The Scene: long and flat. Personally I've noticed that shots that "I" think look the best are long and flat stretches with things far enough away to really get good bokeh(blur). Also, the time of day that this was taken was prime since the shadow is cast directly under the car. This made the car look like it has depth, but that it is also very straight-on and flat. I know… very contradicting.
Improvements that can be made: As you can see from the image the center of the image is not the center of the car. Although this is an easy fix on the computer, it could be avoided when taking the picture to avoid cropping and thus changing the standard shape of the photo. This is only really important if you want to blow it up. However, I would imagine that some PP(post processing) would be done on the photo anyway to give it more saturation(especially since it's yellow and in direct sun) and maybe some contrast.
Interesting Things to Note:
Notice how the lines that find the center of the car go perfectly along the lug nuts on both sides. This shows how straight-on the camera is to the car.
Also, the car is oriented so the sun is a bit in front of it so the light is very nice from front to back. This creates a good contrast.
Notice the sexyness of the s2k's body, this is hard to mimic with nearly any other vehicle.
Thanks, I hope you enjoyed the read!!
-Nate
P.S. Check out my Flickr and add me if you like
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathan_okane/
No one commented positively or elsewise and I thought maybe I posted it in the wrong forum. Maybe here it will be a little more received with some comment/critz etc...
I have yet to take a shot just like these, but I know the 'style' of this photography well. Very straight on, and I love the look of these photo's. In my opinion they make great background and wall art. I like how it really abstracts the shape of the subject. ANYWAY! here is my short tutorial on how (((((""""""I"""""))))) think these shots come out great. like I said, I haven't taken any of these pics yet, so let me know what you think!
Hey guys, I really love these photos! I am an avid photographer and I wanted to find the "recipe or forumla" for taking a really good side profile shot(so I can finally be good at them). I took a photo that I thought looked like what I think they 'should' look like and did a little analysis on it. Here is what I found. If the originaly poster would have any info, that would be welcomed . (Great job on this photo I really like it!!)
Camera height: if there is 0° in the x,y, and z direction(from the camera relative to the car) the hight of the camera should be equal to the center of the image. so this image was taken at roof level indicated by the black shading at the intersection of the black lines.
Distance to subject: I don't know of anyway to prove this other than experience, but the bokeh (stuff NOT in focus) looks like it was taken with a lens at approximately 200mm. This focal length give a particular look that mimics the above.
ƒ#, iso: The ƒ# is probably numerically higher(smaller aperture diameter) than 4 since the lens is about 200 mm(unless using a VERY expensive lens). as far as the iso goes, it really doesn't matter but the lower the better and since all things were static I would guess it's 100iso.
The Scene: long and flat. Personally I've noticed that shots that "I" think look the best are long and flat stretches with things far enough away to really get good bokeh(blur). Also, the time of day that this was taken was prime since the shadow is cast directly under the car. This made the car look like it has depth, but that it is also very straight-on and flat. I know… very contradicting.
Improvements that can be made: As you can see from the image the center of the image is not the center of the car. Although this is an easy fix on the computer, it could be avoided when taking the picture to avoid cropping and thus changing the standard shape of the photo. This is only really important if you want to blow it up. However, I would imagine that some PP(post processing) would be done on the photo anyway to give it more saturation(especially since it's yellow and in direct sun) and maybe some contrast.
Interesting Things to Note:
Notice how the lines that find the center of the car go perfectly along the lug nuts on both sides. This shows how straight-on the camera is to the car.
Also, the car is oriented so the sun is a bit in front of it so the light is very nice from front to back. This creates a good contrast.
Notice the sexyness of the s2k's body, this is hard to mimic with nearly any other vehicle.
Thanks, I hope you enjoyed the read!!
-Nate
P.S. Check out my Flickr and add me if you like
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathan_okane/
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,404
Likes: 1
From: Cape Girardeau
I think you're reading too much into it Nate, side shots are very easy, and the one you posted is, well, not very good at all, as the light is wrong, and the background is TERRIBLE. In fact, with regards to side shots, you need to mostly concentrate on background and light, most everything else is done for you.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
[QUOTE=stauren1203,May 9 2010, 07:38 PM]I don't know anything about photography, but I really enjoyed reading your analysis because I believe storing this kind of information in my head will help for when I can afford a good camera. 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,404
Likes: 1
From: Cape Girardeau
I suppose what I meant was that, for the sun to really show the vehicle properly, it was positioned wrong.
As far as the background, well, it's just awful. Seriously, light poles growing out of the vehicle, other vehicles present, powerlines, it's really that bad. If you want to consider that my opinion, do so, but I consider it a matter of aesthetics.
As far as the background, well, it's just awful. Seriously, light poles growing out of the vehicle, other vehicles present, powerlines, it's really that bad. If you want to consider that my opinion, do so, but I consider it a matter of aesthetics.
Trending Topics
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 78,840
Likes: 7
From: On yo puter screen
Originally Posted by VisualEchos,May 10 2010, 07:54 AM
I suppose what I meant was that, for the sun to really show the vehicle properly, it was positioned wrong.
As far as the background, well, it's just awful. Seriously, light poles growing out of the vehicle, other vehicles present, powerlines, it's really that bad. If you want to consider that my opinion, do so, but I consider it a matter of aesthetics.
As far as the background, well, it's just awful. Seriously, light poles growing out of the vehicle, other vehicles present, powerlines, it's really that bad. If you want to consider that my opinion, do so, but I consider it a matter of aesthetics.
I said the same above but used two letters to do it 
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,951
Likes: 0
From: Pembroke
Nice car, but I'm with zipppy and echos....your analysis is completely wrong.
First off, you're analyzing the composition, specifically the car's position in the frame, wayyyy too much. Lugnuts aligned by the diagonal bisecting lines bounded by the roofline and ground....to quote Seth and Jerry - REALLY?? My guess is that the photographer had no such thing in his mind when he composed this photo. Say who that the car has to be in the centre of the frame? Ever hear of a little rule of thumb called the Rule of Thirds?
Mid-Day is the best time to shoot? Well you've just gone against one of the biggest no-no's in photography. Unless you absolutely have to, mid day is quite possibly the worst time of day to shoot, except at night and you're too cheap to own a tripod.
As other's have said, the background couldn't be any worse, except for maybe a top level parking garage floor or an industrial loading dock. Buildings, wires, poles, trees, other cars....i don't care of they're "bokeh'd" or not, they're still there, and they are impaling the car. Bokeh doesn't = appealing. What makes Echo's shot so great is that the background is part of the photo - it complements the subject. The s2000's background is so ugly that the photographer tried so desperately to get it out of focus, but still failed.
There is no rule with focal length and f-stop. They play a part of course with how a photo turns out, but ISO 100, 200mm at f-whatever doesn't always = the best photo. And instead of guessing what the s2000 photographer used, why not just pull the EXIF? You know what that is, don't you?
First off, you're analyzing the composition, specifically the car's position in the frame, wayyyy too much. Lugnuts aligned by the diagonal bisecting lines bounded by the roofline and ground....to quote Seth and Jerry - REALLY?? My guess is that the photographer had no such thing in his mind when he composed this photo. Say who that the car has to be in the centre of the frame? Ever hear of a little rule of thumb called the Rule of Thirds?
Mid-Day is the best time to shoot? Well you've just gone against one of the biggest no-no's in photography. Unless you absolutely have to, mid day is quite possibly the worst time of day to shoot, except at night and you're too cheap to own a tripod.
As other's have said, the background couldn't be any worse, except for maybe a top level parking garage floor or an industrial loading dock. Buildings, wires, poles, trees, other cars....i don't care of they're "bokeh'd" or not, they're still there, and they are impaling the car. Bokeh doesn't = appealing. What makes Echo's shot so great is that the background is part of the photo - it complements the subject. The s2000's background is so ugly that the photographer tried so desperately to get it out of focus, but still failed.
There is no rule with focal length and f-stop. They play a part of course with how a photo turns out, but ISO 100, 200mm at f-whatever doesn't always = the best photo. And instead of guessing what the s2000 photographer used, why not just pull the EXIF? You know what that is, don't you?
Sorry but I jest hadda....