|Cars

Promac

Why do people think that taking pictures of their honda civic or bmw m3 is good photography? I'm not saying it isn't but is it really worth sharing?

Ok, here's a decent enough pic of your car with the front right or left wheel dominating the scene - congratulations?

Crispin

Promac wrote: »

Why do people think that taking pictures of their honda civic or bmw m3 is good photography? I'm not saying it isn't but is it really worth sharing?

Ok, here's a decent enough pic of your car with the front right or left wheel dominating the scene - congratulations?

Who's to say that everyone has to give a sh*t about a nice sunset or a portrait. Some people like cars. Leave 'em alone. :mad::P

ThOnda

Cars, swans, rocks, HDR, naked girls, oveprocessed polaroid-like looking pictures...

It is not the subject or the technique what makes a good picture.

Tallon

Promac wrote: »

I'm not saying it isn't but is it really worth sharing?

Absolutely!

I, for example, wouldn't like to see a picture of a pink acoustic guitar...

hi_im_fil

Yes its worth posting. You might not like the photo, but others might like it.

People often post to get feedback on how to improve too.

charybdis

I really don't get the whole "car photography" thing either. The only car-centric photographs I've seen here that interested me were these, but I found them interesting because of their photographic attributes as opposed to the subject. It seems like the people who like car photographs don't like photography so much as they like pictures of cars they like.

It seems a lot of people don't distinguish between photographs and the subjects of photographs.

Although, I don't want to discourage anyone from taking photographs, of cars or otherwise; I just think it might be worth considering whether your work is interesting from a photographic perspective or otherwise, and what audience might appreciate it best.

challengemaster

Promac wrote: »

Why do people think that taking pictures of their honda civic or bmw m3 is good photography? I'm not saying it isn't but is it really worth sharing?

Ok, here's a decent enough pic of your car with the front right or left wheel dominating the scene - congratulations?

Well, imo it's certainly more worthy of being shared than some of your photos. Pink guitar? Congratulations!....

charybdis wrote: »

It seems like the people who like car photographs don't like photography so much as they like pictures of cars they like.

I'm not interested in photography now, am I? Because I like cars/car photography? I've heard some ****e before, but that takes the cake.

I just think it might be worth considering whether your work is interesting from a photographic perspective or otherwise, and what audience might appreciate it best.

Uhm, why? People take photos for themselves. Photography is a personal thing, hence why people interpret photos differently. And at the end of the day, if you're not taking a photo for yourself (outside of work ofc) then why are you taking it? If you don't like something, nobody is forcing you to look at it forever. Just don't go posting crap about different types of photography just because it's not your thing.

Adriatic

This may cause some shudders but the style that Top Gear portray cars in makes them more appealing to be possible photographic subjects. But they are fabulous super cars and not your Fiat Panda.

charybdis

challengemaster wrote: »

Well, imo it's certainly more worthy of being shared than some of your photos. Pink guitar? Congratulations!....

I'm not interested in photography now, am I? Because I like cars/car photography? I've heard some ****e before, but that takes the cake.





Uhm, why? People take photos for themselves. Photography is a personal thing, hence why people interpret photos differently. And at the end of the day, if you're not taking a photo for yourself (outside of work ofc) then why are you taking it? If you don't like something, nobody is forcing you to look at it forever. Just don't go posting crap about different types of photography just because it's not your thing.

That's not really what I meant to say. I don't mean that anyone who likes photographs of cars necessarily isn't interested in photography; I meant that in my (admittedly limited) experience of reading commentary on car photography it seemed like the discussion and voiced appreciation for the work heavily hinged upon the subject matter as opposed to other photography discussion that was more about the compositional choices and photographic properties of the work. When the discussion is about the subject and not the photograph itself it doesn't lose merit, it just becomes about something else. In the same way a discussion based on an image of a newsworthy event probably isn't about the photograph as such, but is probably about the event depicted therein, the discussion based on an image of a car about the cost and provenance of the subject probably isn't a discussion about photography. That said, I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss subject matter, it just seems to be all that is discussed when car photographs are at hand.

I also think that the photographer is his/her most important audience, it is personal, and subjective, and I would encourage anyone to continue photographing in ways that please themselves, but I didn't stay stop photographing stuff, I said consider your audience. I'm sure we all have tons of personal photographs of friends and family members that we consider among our favourite images, but it would be unrealistic to expect others, unfamiliar (literally) with the subjects to appreciate them as we do, and if we are really honest with ourselves, we'd probably admit that we don't love these images for their photographic excellence, we love them because we have a connection to the subject matter. So in the same way you wouldn't expect a stranger to appreciate a photograph of a family member of yours, I don't think you should expect everyone in a photography forum to be interested in photographs of cars you like. (That said, there's plenty of great photography of various photographers' families and I would hate to discourage anyone from using their family as subject matter lest we lose a future Sally Mann. My point was really about considering one's audience.)

Also, insulting the photography of specific people involved in a discussion cheapens your argument and makes you look very weak and petty.

Adriatic wrote: »

This may cause some shudders but the style that Top Gear portray cars in makes them more appealing to be possible photographic subjects. But they are fabulous super cars and not your Fiat Panda.

I actually really like the cinematographic style of Top Gear, it's consistent, characterful, and inventive, and if anything, they extend the same reverent style to realistic cars as they do to the more esoteric models.

dazftw

Photography is subjective. Why is any of it good?

You took a picture - congratulations would you like a medal?

This thread is pointless.

congo_90

Right now now the op has in their sig a pic of a pink guitar, a sunset and a few poles in water... Now I'm not defending pics of cars nor do I condone such things but what I'd like to point out is that sometimes it's what is in the pic that is seen not by the cam but the photographer. Sorry for getting deep but I can take a photo of something using my phone and it can mean 100,000 things to me but nothing to you. Who is to say your pics (general, not at op) are any better?

I've argued this before. Why must we decide that if a pic isn't taken using a 500+ euro piece of equipment and not in the exact position or edited to an unrealistic light that it is suddenly not a photo?

I take pictures of things as I see it with a 230 euro cam and my phone. It may not appeal to some but to others it can speak bibles of words.

What my point is. Photography is too much a persuasive and open process.

The best pics are those that are unedited, where a photographer took their time and created a moment to share. No glorified point and shoot, followed by editing, processing, uploading for strict C&C on angles and light.

Or, Have we all forgotten the ways of learning a good pic using film where each click counted? Some serious photographers that I know of will agree with me on this. Some will not.

Tallon

Promac

Wow - didn't think I'd get that kind of response. Thanks for the various slagging-offs! Yes - a pink guitar. Aren't I an arsehole? That's clearly much worse than a picture of a honda civic on an industrial estate.

Promac

charybdis wrote: »

I really don't get the whole "car photography" thing either. The only car-centric photographs I've seen here that interested me were these, but I found them interesting because of their photographic attributes as opposed to the subject. It seems like the people who like car photographs don't like photography so much as they like pictures of cars they like.

It seems a lot of people don't distinguish between photographs and the subjects of photographs.

Although, I don't want to discourage anyone from taking photographs, of cars or otherwise; I just think it might be worth considering whether your work is interesting from a photographic perspective or otherwise, and what audience might appreciate it best.

Absolutely agree with that.

DaireQuinlan

dazftw wrote: »

Photography is subjective. Why is any of it good?

You took a picture - congratulations would you like a medal?

This thread is pointless.

QFT

/thread

OREGATO

Promac wrote: »

Wow - didn't think I'd get that kind of response. Thanks for the various slagging-offs! Yes - a pink guitar. Aren't I an arsehole? That's clearly much worse than a picture of a honda civic on an industrial estate.

What is your problem with car photography though? To some, it's a means of transport getting you from a to b, to others, it's a hobby.

I've gone to car shows/meets and have taken pictures of M3s, Civics, anything that floats my boat.. Why? Because I wanted to and I enjoy browsing over old photos of cars I've accumulated with crappy point and shoots and disposables from over the years..
Just to admire some cars that I like and to playback memories of those days. Does that mean that I'm not into photography?

Is your problem with people actually posting up pictures of cars and going wow look at that? Or is it that you think that people who take pictures of cars are sad?

If I were the like of paddy mcgrath on here, I'd find this thread very insulting.

Promac

challengemaster wrote: »

Just don't go posting crap about different types of photography just because it's not your thing.

Why not? This is a discussion forum and the subject matter is photography. I started a discussion on photography. I'm genuinely baffled by the car photography thing - I honestly don't get it.

I didn't get the pink guitar thing either until I saw some IR photos that really impressed me and I wanted to try it out. I don't care if you think it's not as good as a honda civic in an industrial estate. The point of it was to experiment with a technique in order to learn more about my hobby. What's the point of the honda civic or the nissan skyline? The point is generally the car itself, as Charybdis said earlier. It's not about the photo, it's about the car.

Promac

OREGATO wrote: »

What is your problem with car photography though? To some, it's a means of transport getting you from a to b, to others, it's a hobby.

I've gone to car shows/meets and have taken pictures of M3s, Civics, anything that floats my boat.. Why? Because I wanted to and I enjoy browsing over old photos of cars I've accumulated with crappy point and shoots and disposables from over the years..
Just to admire some cars that I like and to playback memories of those days. Does that mean that I'm not into photography?

Is your problem with people actually posting up pictures of cars and going wow look at that? Or is it that you think that people who take pictures of cars are sad?

If I were the like of paddy mcgrath on here, I'd find this thread very insulting.

I've no idea who that is but I don't want to insult anyone. Still though, you're not talking about photography, you're talking about cars.

Most of us here are taking pictures for the sake of the pictures, not the subject matter. We also take pictures of things and people that we like but this isn't the forum to share them - "Hey look - here's me and the missus in magaluf!"

OREGATO

Promac wrote: »

Why not? This is a discussion forum and the subject matter is photography. I started a discussion on photography. I'm genuinely baffled by the car photography thing - I honestly don't get it.

I didn't get the pink guitar thing either until I saw some IR photos that really impressed me and I wanted to try it out. I don't care if you think it's not as good as a honda civic in an industrial estate. The point of it was to experiment with a technique in order to learn more about my hobby. What's the point of the honda civic or the nissan skyline? The point is generally the car itself, as Charybdis said earlier. It's not about the photo, it's about the car.

I'd have a bigger interest in cars that I would photography, combining both is great. I enjoy my car and at the same time can take some snaps of it. What's the big deal?

Promac

OREGATO wrote: »

I'd have a bigger interest in cars that I would photography, combining both is great. I enjoy my car and at the same time can take some snaps of it. What's the big deal?

No big deal at all. You snap all you like.

.Longshanks.

Genuinely baffled by the OP's thinking.

So what if the car is the subject...I find flowers boring and if ive ever taken a shot of one it was because I was messing with macro extension tubes.... But if it rocks your boat, so what?

I've loads of car pics. I love my car. Its my another of my hobbies......so i take pictures of it. I also have a fiancee...love her too and guess what...I take pics of her too!

magicbastarder

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

QFT

please would like to explain. thanking you!

Promac

kev_Longshanks100 wrote: »

Genuinely baffled by the OP's thinking.

So what if the car is the subject...I find flowers boring and if ive ever taken a shot of one it was because I was messing with macro extension tubes.... But if it rocks your boat, so what?

I've loads of car pics. I love my car. Its my another of my hobbies......so i take pictures of it. I also have a fiancee...love her too and guess what...I take pics of her too!

Nothing to do with my post at all. The question was why do people think it's good photography just because it's a nice car?

I take pictures of my fiancee too and I love them - doesn't mean they should be framed and hung on a wall somewhere though. Most of them are **** from a photographic, artistic, point of view but that doesn't mean I don't love them.

Is it a nice photograph or a photograph of something nice?

OREGATO

Promac wrote: »

I've no idea who that is but I don't want to insult anyone. Still though, you're not talking about photography, you're talking about cars.

Have a look at this thread. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055933143

He does a good bit of photography on cars, I don't know him personally but he would frequent a lot of different car forums I would be on and I always enjoy having a look at his work.

Is it for the cars? Yes. Is it for the photography? It is as well, the way he's able to capture the car in different angles, the skill, talent and effort put into it is huge. And if that's not photography, then what would you call it? A few purple cars in an industrial estate?

Promac

OREGATO wrote: »

Have a look at this thread. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055933143

He does a good bit of photography on cars, I don't know him personally but he would frequent a lot of different car forums I would be on and I always enjoy having a look at his work.

Is it for the cars? Yes. Is it for the photography? It is as well, the way he's able to capture the car in different angles, the skill, talent and effort put into it is huge. And if that's not photography, then what would you call it? A few purple cars in an industrial estate?

Yeah, they're not bad photos but they're not amazing either. Still just pictures of a couple of pink cars though.

And if people don't get why I don't get it then there's not much else I can say - I've already said I don't understand the car photography thing, slagging me off about my own photos is not going to change that. I'm not insulting anyone personally or trying to pick on people or trying to be a snob or a troll or whatever - I was just curious.

Chorcai

magicbastarder wrote: »

please would like to explain. thanking you!

Quoted For Truth

I think those car shots (some of them) are a lot more techy than mets the eye.

Multi flash set up, locations, PP etc Some of the shots are very well thought out.

IIRCC, Paddy gave a run down on how he went about doing one of those cars shots it was quite a long process.

magicbastarder

ah - the first thing which popped into my head was 'quit ****ing talking'.

DaireQuinlan

magicbastarder wrote: »

please would like to explain. thanking you!

It means 'Quoted for truth'. I was being a bit facetious, but really Daz has said everything that has to be said to answer the OP. Photography is subjective. There you go. Although I agree with Charybdis as well to some extent.

Promac

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

It means 'Quoted for truth'. I was being a bit facetious, but really Daz has said everything that has to be said to answer the OP. Photography is subjective. There you go. Although I agree with Charybdis as well to some extent.

The only real response to that is - O RLY?

Calina

Nothing to do with my post at all. The question was why do people think it's good photography just because it's a nice car?

In no way have you demonstrated that people think it's good photography because it's a nice car.

I'm biased of course; I won a motor photography competition last year and occasionally mess around with cars.

However, if you've no interest in the subject of a photograph you may not note the technical work that goes into creating those photographs. For me, some of the best press photography I have ever seen are some of the photographs that went into Car magazine over the year. Printed on glossy paper too, man some of those covers really, really rocked.

If you're around here long enough, you'll know, however, that I have a reputation not as a motor or motorsports photographer, but as a watersports photographer.

I don't have many photographic ambitions left but playing with a couple of Italian supercars and possibly still a McLaren F1 would be there (and if anyone can help with the latter in particular, I'd be delighted).

With respect to the quality of photography, the straight truth is photographers very often look at things differently to how subject specialists look at them. As a result, I have kitesurfers who like particular photographs that I don't like because they have photography technical glitches, and vice versa because they are technically perfect photographs, but the kitesurfer has his kite too high or whatever.

Just life, I guess.

magicbastarder

i think the OP is getting a hard time. sure, he might have come in with all guns blazing, but i find these threads more interesting than most on the forum.

for the record; i usually steer clear of commenting on car photos (with one exception in the last few days) because it's not a discipline i've ever had any interest in.

NothingMan

I think what the OP is saying is there's a difference between

This: It's a picture of a nice car


And this: is a nice picture of a car.


I'm not saying one holds anything over the other but they are 2 completely different types of photography. The first is a snapshot. Basically "look at the sexy car I saw today". The second is obviously a planned technical photography shot, most likely for advertising.

Where I do disagree however, is that a lot of the car shots I see on here and pix.ie are good photographs in their own right and lean more toward the second picture and not just snap shots of sexy cars and like and other photograph you can appreciate the photograph as well as the subject.


*Photo's found randomly on google images.

magicbastarder

NothingMan wrote: »

And this: is a nice picture of a car.

i would argue that the photo serves the car here. it should be the converse.

Promac

NothingMan - spot on. Thank you.

smash

charybdis wrote: »

I really don't get the whole "car photography" thing either. The only car-centric photographs I've seen here that interested me were these, but I found them interesting because of their photographic attributes as opposed to the subject. It seems like the people who like car photographs don't like photography so much as they like pictures of cars they like.

It seems a lot of people don't distinguish between photographs and the subjects of photographs.

Although, I don't want to discourage anyone from taking photographs, of cars or otherwise; I just think it might be worth considering whether your work is interesting from a photographic perspective or otherwise, and what audience might appreciate it best.

I'm going to throw my 2 cents in here... I like taking photos of cars, because I like cars. If I see a supercar I take a photo - not because it's a great photo, but because it's a rare car and people appreciate seeing it. It's a photo for an enthusiast, not a photographer. I go to track days and take photos, not to get great arty shots, just to get shots of people enjoying themselves and while those shots may not inspire you, when the owners see photos of themselves on track it will bring back fun memories.

Here's an example:


Great shot? No.
Rare Car? Yes, especially in this colour.
Did I post it here? No
Would I post it in the motors forum? Yes

But the funny thing about this shot... I got a few emails from people inquiring about my lens because of the nice DOF, so some photographers obviously appreciated it... If not for the subject, for the photo 'effects' if you want to call it that.

Tallon

Promac wrote: »

Thanks for the various slagging-offs!

Noone's slagging you, it's the point that your attitude is "Everything that I don't like, people shouldn't like"

Promac

Tallon wrote: »

Noone's slagging you, it's the point that your attitude is "Everything that I don't like, people shouldn't like"

I didn't say or imply that at all. I was very specifically talking about pictures of cars. I didn't say that no-one else should like it, I was very obviously asking why other people do.

And you were the one that posted the "obvious troll is obvious" pic - isn't that slagging someone off? Maybe you were just talking about yourself.

Calina

Please cool the carping at each other.

Tallon

Promac wrote: »

And you were the one that posted the "obvious troll is obvious" pic - isn't that slagging someone off? .

It wasn't meant as a slag, if you felt like that, apologies.

Your OP has no other reason than for you to vent your annoyance at a certain type of photo.

At no point in it did you suggest the discusion of the merits of a 'car shot'

Promac

Tallon wrote: »

It wasn't meant as a slag, if you felt like that, apologies.

Your OP has no other reason than for you to vent your annoyance at a certain type of photo.

At no point in it did you suggest the discusion of the merits of a 'car shot'

Honestly?

Promac wrote:

Why do people think that taking pictures of their honda civic or bmw m3 is good photography?

challengemaster

It may or may not be good photography, but who are YOU to dictate if it deserves to be posted or not. It's an open photography forum, like I said earlier. If you don't like what's posted, stop looking. End of.

Promac

challengemaster wrote: »

It may or may not be good photography, but who are YOU to dictate if it deserves to be posted or not. It's an open photography forum, like I said earlier. If you don't like what's posted, stop looking. End of.

No-one's dictating anything.

See steve06's post above for a reasonable position on the subject. But as you said yourself, if you don't like what I'M posting, stop looking. End of.

Promac

And just as an addendum - the photos we're talking about are about the cars, not the photos. They belong in the car enthusiast section, not the photography enthusiast section. It would be just as inappropriate if I went and started posting HDR'd landscapes in the food forum.

Edit: And before you start ranting - I'm not dictating what any should do, I'm posting my opinion on the subject - if you want to go and post HDR'd landscapes in the food forum then go right ahead.

challengemaster

Photos -> Photography forum

End of.

Tallon

Promac wrote: »

And just as an addendum - the photos we're talking about are about the cars, not the photos. They belong in the car enthusiast section, not the photography enthusiast section. It would be just as inappropriate if I went and started posting HDR'd landscapes in the food forum.

Edit: And before you start ranting - I'm not dictating what any should do, I'm posting my opinion on the subject - if you want to go and post HDR'd landscapes in the food forum then go right ahead.

Genuine question!

Would you post the picture of your pink guitar in the Photography forum, or the music forum?

magicbastarder

Tallon wrote: »

Would you post the picture of your pink guitar

this place is getting very euphemistic for me.

eightcell

So who's going? Gonna be some beauties there!
http://www.irishjagclub.ie/show.html

Had to be said, was giving me a pain in my chest all day
As the joker says... "Why so serious?", relax guys!

Promac

Tallon wrote: »

Genuine question!

Would you post the picture of your pink guitar in the Photography forum, or the music forum?

Photography - the guitar was irrelevant, I was trying out infra red photography and used the guitar as subject.

The people posting the car photos I'm talking about are not interested in how the picture was taken, they are interested in the car and are posting for the benefit, presumably, of other people who are interested in cars. Either you genuinely can't make that distinction yourself or you are intentionally missing it in order to bait me.

Tallon

Promac wrote: »

Photography - the guitar was irrelevant, I was trying out infra red photography and used the guitar as subject.

The people posting the car photos I'm talking about are not interested in how the picture was taken, they are interested in the car and are posting for the benefit, presumably, of other people who are interested in cars. Either you genuinely can't make that distinction yourself or you are intentionally missing it in order to bait me.

I have personally never come across someone posting a car photo here saying, "You guys will like this because it's a picture" !?

People post car photos and usually ask for C&C or whatnot, but there's no regular posting of silly 'normal' P&S car shots

What the hell are you talking about 'Baiting you in'?

Brndn

2 boardsies in industrial estate car photograph shocker!!!!!!!

I'm actually off to photograph a Honda Civic for a friend tomorrow, I think I'll do that in an industrial estate too, and I'll probably post that in the random photo thread. :P

Paddy@CIRL

I think the guy is mostly right to be honest.

Car Photography is generally seen as an outlet for people to get involved in motorsport because they either can't drive or can't afford to race. As such, you get a LOT of people who arrive at events that take mostly sh*te photographs with the completely wrong gear, whore the images everywhere then feel great because all their friends tell them they are the best thing since sliced bread. Unfortunately others see this and start out on the same path; take mediocre images and get loads of praise from their immediate circle of friends, none of which have the heart to tell them that actually, they're a bit sh*t.

However, there are guys here who know the difference. They don't care about the status, they just want to combine they're two biggest passions in life. These are the sort of guys we could spend hours talking to, exchanging tips, advice and LEARNING from each other without fear of having your work wholly copied.

You can actually tell the difference between these two sorts of characters by the photographs they take.

Just look for the image with passion.