C2500-Classic Car
Classic Photography
this magnificent machine. I stopped in and asked the owner if
I could snap a few shots with my C2500. The background was a
little busy, so I rendered it out of focus in Photoshop. The
car is 100% C2500, and with the background faded, it really
shows the capabilities of this camera. I used Genuine Fractals
to scale it to 8x10 at 320 dpi, and the resultant print is
nothing short of stunning. Yes folks, digital is here to
stay. I would never have said this even a few months ago.
You can see it at http://www.classicphoto.net/57belair.htm
Regards,
Tim
Paul Rubin
VERY nice shot. However, since it's on a digital geek newsgroup I
cannot resist the urge to nitpick.
There is this weird looking glow/artifact around the car, especially
along the top of the windscreen and the left vertical edge of the
front of the car. It might come from blurring the background layer a
little bit carelessly. I think the idea is trace around the car very
carefully with a graphics tablet to separate the background into
another layer, then expand it slightly before applying blur. The
lighter colored foliage over top of the windshield also looks a little
weird--maybe a bit of cloning of the nearby green stuff could help
that.
I have a lot of Nikon 35mm SLR film equipment at home. Watch for my
garage sale on EBay pretty soon ;-).
thunder
>You can see it at http://www.classicphoto.net/57belair.htm
way too much blur, imo. looks composited.
Frank S
when the '57 was the most wanted car on the road. This photograph does my
imagination justice. :-)
-Frank
Classic Photography <classi...@bellsouth.nyet> wrote in message
news:52bk4.14935$ln.11...@news4.mia...
> I was passing by a shop in my town called Dream Cars when I saw
> this magnificent machine. I stopped in and asked the owner if
> I could snap a few shots with my C2500. The background was a
> little busy, so I rendered it out of focus in Photoshop. The
> car is 100% C2500, and with the background faded, it really
> shows the capabilities of this camera. I used Genuine Fractals
> to scale it to 8x10 at 320 dpi, and the resultant print is
> nothing short of stunning. Yes folks, digital is here to
> stay. I would never have said this even a few months ago.
>
> You can see it at http://www.classicphoto.net/57belair.htm
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> http://www.classicphoto.net/
>
Ted Dodson
blurted out...
>>You can see it at http://www.classicphoto.net/57belair.htm
>way too much blur, imo. looks composited.
See, there you are again, being critical without the credentials.
Please tell us what fine art University you graduated from ? You
don't know jack shit about art bubba, and nothing about photography.
Take your lame ass remote control image and wank off with it.
I'm glad this is the last post I'll have to read from you.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Classic Photography
out...
>I really like it! Very good. Makes me smile, because I was in high school
>when the '57 was the most wanted car on the road. This photograph does my
>imagination justice. :-)
Thanks Frank. The car is magnificent, and that was the whole reason
for shooting it in the first place. He leaves it out on a corner
lot at a busy intersection, and it turns lot of heads.
Classic Photography
>>You can see it at http://www.classicphoto.net/57belair.htm
>way too much blur, imo. looks composited.
Hi Thunder. Is that your name ? :) Sorry you didn't like it,
but so far, you are in the minority my a large majority :)
But there was a reason for renering the background out of
focus. I shot it on the lot a body shot, at a busy intersection.
My intent was to focus (pun intended) on the car, which is
the subject, not the distracting background. I like the
way it looks, but in any conceptual rendering, people are
of course free to differ. For what its worth, the owner
of the car is submitting it to Hod Rod magazine for
publication consideration. They may, or may not like
it. I still had fun creating the image, and the owner
loved it. The car is worth 65,000.00 by the way!
Where might I see some of your work ? Are you a
photographer by trade ?
Lee Rothman
to check it out.
thunder
>Hi Thunder. Is that your name ? :) Sorry you didn't like it,
>but so far, you are in the minority my a large majority :)
i didn't say i didn't like it. it's nice, but to me, it looks like a composite
of 2 different images...not sure if that was your intention, that's all.
>My intent was to focus (pun intended) on the car, which is
>the subject, not the distracting background.
i realize that...i guess you looked at it with less blur, and decided it needed
more.
>For what its worth, the owner
>of the car is submitting it to Hod Rod magazine for
>publication consideration.
wow, i hope you make it.
>Where might I see some of your work ?
ok, take a look at:
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/checkpoint/mgwater1.jpg (beware, 400k pic)
this is a similar "Photoshop Special" like your shot, so feel free to take a
couple jabs at me!
>Are you a photographer by trade ?
no, i couldn't afford the pay cut! hehe.
thunder
>See, there you are again, being critical without the credentials.
>Please tell us what fine art University you graduated from ? You
>don't know jack shit about art bubba, and nothing about photography.
so unless i'm roger ebert, or graduated from UCLA film school, then i'm
*REQUIRED* by assholes like you to rave about every movie i've ever seen simply
because others are more formally educated on films?
we are all entitled to our opinions, ted..your problem is you somehow think that
*YOUR* opinion is the only one that could possibly matter.
well i also have the opinion that you are among the most pompous asses ever to
crawl from the bowels of AOL....and that *IS* an educated opinion...!
daytripper
Photography) wrote:
>I was passing by a shop in my town called Dream Cars when I saw
>this magnificent machine. I stopped in and asked the owner if
>I could snap a few shots with my C2500. The background was a
>little busy, so I rendered it out of focus in Photoshop. The
>car is 100% C2500, and with the background faded, it really
>shows the capabilities of this camera. I used Genuine Fractals
>to scale it to 8x10 at 320 dpi, and the resultant print is
>nothing short of stunning. Yes folks, digital is here to
>stay. I would never have said this even a few months ago.
>
>You can see it at http://www.classicphoto.net/57belair.htm
Simply luscious. A tasty piece of eye-candy. Very nicely done.
/daytripper (makes me want to sneak a lick ;^)
Lee Rothman
pleasant smelling kind I might add. He must have lens caps on
his eyes. LOL
Classic Photography
blurted out...
>i realize that...i guess you looked at it with less blur, and decided it
>needed more.
Yes. I used gausian blur, and adjusted the threshold several times
and kept coming back to this level. We're planning a reshoot in
a more asthetic environment, so I won't have to resort to
Photoshop. But the car is 100% untouched for the most part,
it is straight from the camera.
>wow, i hope you make it.
Thanks. Haven't been published in a car magazine yet :)
>http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/checkpoint/mgwater1.jpg (beware, 400k pic)
>this is a similar "Photoshop Special" like your shot, so feel free to take a
>couple jabs at me!
Nah, I welcome constructive criticism, so no need to apologize. Art,
and photography are extremely subjective. Everyone is certainly
entitled to their own opinion.
>>Are you a photographer by trade ?
>no, i couldn't afford the pay cut! hehe.
<g> I know of several photographers in my town that are making
in excess of 300,000.00 a year, so that must be some salary
you make :)
Classic Photography
day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com blurted out...
>Simply luscious. A tasty piece of eye-candy. Very nicely done.
>/daytripper (makes me want to sneak a lick ;^)
<g> Thanks man. With a subject like that, it is so easy :)
Mike van Erp
That photo really rocks my world! It is extremely cool, and I love the way
you've blurred the background to concentrate on the car. I'm no car buff,
but can I ask why is it called a Belair here, and an Impala on the C2500
list photo page?
Cheers,
Mike.
Classic Photography <classi...@bellsouth.nyet> wrote in message
news:52bk4.14935$ln.11...@news4.mia...
> I was passing by a shop in my town called Dream Cars when I saw
> this magnificent machine. I stopped in and asked the owner if
> I could snap a few shots with my C2500. The background was a
> little busy, so I rendered it out of focus in Photoshop. The
> car is 100% C2500, and with the background faded, it really
> shows the capabilities of this camera. I used Genuine Fractals
> to scale it to 8x10 at 320 dpi, and the resultant print is
> nothing short of stunning. Yes folks, digital is here to
> stay. I would never have said this even a few months ago.
>
> You can see it at http://www.classicphoto.net/57belair.htm
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> http://www.classicphoto.net/
>
Classic Photography
dci...@earthlink.net blurted out...
>Awesome photo. That Fractals must be a fun program. I'll have
>to check it out.
It is indeed. You should see this image at 3360x2283. It is simply
amazing in detail.
Steve Young
Steve Young
_________________
"daytripper" wrote:
<snipped>
thunder
>No kidding. Thunder is one heck of a bag of wind, and not the
>pleasant smelling kind I might add. He must have lens caps on
>his eyes. LOL
funny! has jay leno called?
my point (as if i need to explain to you) is that that picture is not of a car
IN a scene..it's a car ON TOP of a scene. if that's what the guy was trying to
achieve, then great! it looks like a matted shot to me though, which doesn't
mean it's a bad pic...
is it really that difficult to understand?
Classic Photography
blurted out...
>my point (as if i need to explain to you) is that that picture is not of
>a car IN a scene..it's a car ON TOP of a scene. if that's what the guy was
>trying to achieve, then great! it looks like a matted shot to me though,
>which doesn't mean it's a bad pic...
Quite simply, its an image of a car, not a scene, so I used a tool
that I felt would direct the eye to the subject. Had I used a long,
larger aperture lens, the effect would have been similar, although
somewhat less exaggerated perhaps. Have you ever had the pleasure
of shooting with a 600mm f4 lens ? Anything other than your point
of focus is nothing more than a hazy memory when shot wide open.
This is why theses lenses are so popular for sports, because they
isolate the subject from a distracting background. Given that most
digital cameras have fixed mount lenses, the only way to isolate
a subject in a busy background is to do it after you have taken the
shot.
I looked at the image you referenced in a link eariler. How would
you define this image ? Is it an image of a child, or was your
intent to create abstract art ?
Classic Photography
blurted out...
>Just noting pic traffic... *Nice* pic BTW, Good luck with the mag Tim!
Thanks Steve.
Classic Photography
mikevanerp...@hotmail.com.uk blurted out...
>That photo really rocks my world! It is extremely cool, and I love the way
>you've blurred the background to concentrate on the car.
Thanks Mike.
>I'm no car buff, but can I ask why is it called a Belair here, and an
>Impala on the C2500 list photo page?
<g> You certainly may. I'm no car buff either, but I do enjoy seeing
a beautifully restored antique. When I first created the image, I
erred in naming it Impala. If you notice, I also misspelled Impala
as "Imalpa" :) It wasn't until after I had e-mailed the image to
Wally that I realized the mistake, and correctly renamed it Belair.
It is a 1957 Belair, worth around 65,000.00 according to the owner.
He spent roughly 38,000.00 restoring it.
thunder
>I looked at the image you referenced in a link eariler. How would
>you define this image ? Is it an image of a child, or was your
>intent to create abstract art ?
it's a photo of a 1 year old child at a restaurant with a crayon in his hand.. i
used a few filters in photoshop to create an effect that would simulate an oil
painting of that scene on a canvas, as if it were a scene that only ever existed
in the artist's mind.
but it started out as a (kinda lousy) low light photograph. i think it looks a
lot better as an oil painting! :P
thunder
>but it started out as a (kinda lousy) low light photograph. i think it looks a
>lot better as an oil painting! :P
>
here, take a look at the original (low res, 24k):
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/checkpoint/mgorig.jpg
quite a difference, don't you think?
Stanton
SK
----------
In article <52bk4.14935$ln.11...@news4.mia>, classi...@bellsouth.nyet
Classic Photography
blurted out...
>but it started out as a (kinda lousy) low light photograph. i think it looks
>a lot better as an oil painting! :P
Cool. Thats what makes photography so much fun. You start with
an idea, and can take it where ever your mind takes you. This
is especially true of digital imaging. The boundaries are
limitless.
Classic Photography
blurted out...
>here, take a look at the original (low res, 24k):
> http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/checkpoint/mgorig.jpg
>quite a difference, don't you think?
Definitely. When I get caught up, I'll post the before and
after of the '57 Belair. I also have a snapshot the owner
took before he started the restoration. It was nothing
but a banged up old rusting hulk. Three years, and
only 38,000.00 later, just look at it :)
Classic Photography
managed to say
>You lie! You took that with your Bronica. Fess up!
<g> Now you know better :) Don't make me e-mail you a 7 meg file
so you can read the EXIF header :)
David B.
Photography) wrote:
Nice shot....excellent color, sharpness. But, is it just me, or does
the angle of the shot, the depth-of-field, and the dropped-out/blurred
background make the car look like a model? Not a criticism, just an
observation.
David B.
>I was passing by a shop in my town called Dream Cars when I saw
>this magnificent machine. I stopped in and asked the owner if
>I could snap a few shots with my C2500. The background was a
>little busy, so I rendered it out of focus in Photoshop. The
>car is 100% C2500, and with the background faded, it really
>shows the capabilities of this camera. I used Genuine Fractals
>to scale it to 8x10 at 320 dpi, and the resultant print is
>nothing short of stunning. Yes folks, digital is here to
>stay. I would never have said this even a few months ago.
>
>You can see it at http://www.classicphoto.net/57belair.htm
>
>Regards,
>Tim
>
>http://www.classicphoto.net/
______________________________________________________________
Posted via Uncensored-News.Com, http://www.uncensored-news.com
Only $8.95 A Month, - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Classic Photography
managed to say
>Nice shot....excellent color, sharpness. But, is it just me, or does
>the angle of the shot, the depth-of-field, and the dropped-out/blurred
>background make the car look like a model? Not a criticism, just an
>observation.
My daughter suggested that when she first saw it. She said,
"cool, it looks like a toy" :) I sat on the ground to shoot
it, so that the car would dominate the foreground. No doubt
my aggressive manipulation of the background has an effect
on the scale of the car, since there really isn't much else
to use for reference. Still, I am quite pleased with the
look. Thanks for your comments, and I wouldn't consider it
negative even if it were criticism.
Robert Scott
>>You can see it at http://www.classicphoto.net/57belair.htm
>way too much blur, imo. looks composited.
What the hell is "composited" ? No such word. You may have
been attempting to say, it looks like a composite image,
but there is no past tense "composited". Kind of funny
when you keep correcting people for errors in grammar
and spelling, and you keep making them. Perhaps you
should have looked up the definition when you looked
up "its". :)
Greg Biggs
Tim, I am impressed. That is a super shot of vibrant color. Yea, I am only sorry I did not take it. You should submit it as Photo of the day in the digital art category. I think you would bring it in. And that is coming from a Sony F505 owner who would not want anyone to think I could possibly appreciate a shot from something other than a Sony. Nah, really nice though.
>I was passing by a shop in my town called Dream Cars when I saw
>this magnificent machine. I stopped in and asked the owner if
>I could snap a few shots with my C2500. The background was a
>little busy, so I rendered it out of focus in Photoshop. The
>car is 100% C2500, and with the background faded, it really
>shows the capabilities of this camera. I used Genuine Fractals
>to scale it to 8x10 at 320 dpi, and the resultant print is
>nothing short of stunning. Yes folks, digital is here to
>stay. I would never have said this even a few months ago.
>
>You can see it at http://www.classicphoto.net/57belair.htm
>
>Regards,
>Tim
>
>http://www.classicphoto.net/
>
Posted via DigicamCenter - http://www.digicamcenter.com
Digital Camera Contests, News & Usenet access.
Classic Photography
pcim...@NOSPAMin-tch.com managed to say
> Tim, I am impressed. That is a super shot of vibrant color. Yea,=
> I am only sorry I did not take it. You should submit it as Photo=
> of the day in the digital art category. I think you would bring=
> it in. And that is coming from a Sony F505 owner who would not=
> want anyone to think I could possibly appreciate a shot from=
> something other than a Sony. Nah, really nice though.
Thanks Greg. I think any digital camera would have
sufficed though :)
thunder
>you keep correcting people for errors in grammar
"keep"...? oh, by "keep" you must have meant ONE TIME? Surely by saying "keep",
you can certainly find numerous threads where i've done this...please cite them,
jerk...why don't you stop dropping gernades, and go think up something useful to
say.
and please take a look at www.amishrakefight.org/gfy before starting any more
wars, you piece of shit!
Robert Scott
managed to say
>
>sc...@nospam.minkspring.com (Robert Scott) stands accused of saying:
>and please take a look at www.amishrakefight.org/gfy before starting any
>more wars, you piece of shit!
How charming. Need I say more ladies and gents ? This one is a perfect
example of the perils of inbreeding.
thunder
>How charming. Need I say more ladies and gents ? This one is a perfect
>example of the perils of inbreeding.
guess you forgot to post all the references where i "keep correcting" other
peoples' grammar....you drop a grenade, then refuse to back up your own
statements, then reply with some attempt at humor.
you're just another slash-and-burn artist with nothing to say.... the "ladies
and gents" are smarter than you think.
Steve Young
Yeah we are,.... and I think it's time for you to take a break... maybe a nap?
Steve Young
Steve Young
> >managed to say (It was tough,... but I'm not afraid to get in the ring!:)
> >Yeah we are,.... and I think it's time for you to take a break... maybe a
> >nap?
-----------
>"Robert Scott" vaulted back:
> <g> No kidding. Kid needs a good whelping. Mommy must not know what
> he does on the computer all day.
-----------
She must not.... (or Probably it's her baby sitter;)
Last week I got a little irritated with what seemed like a large number of
antagonistic posts from him. So I did a search of his posts here. Would you
guess, that on one day, he posted nearly 5% of the total traffic for that day?
Sure didn't seem like his posts contributed 5% of the total knowledge here.
Just an observation,
Steve Young
Steve Young
> >Yeah we are,.... and I think it's time for you to take a break... maybe a
nap?
------------
>"thunder" wrote in message:
> wow, another comedian! i didn't realize all you Hollywood comedy writers
> were such photo buffs!
------------
Well I'm not a comedian..... but I have been caught laughing pretty hard at some
of the stuff I write
Steve Young
"Robert Scott" wrote in message:
> Yep, I can believe it. Certainly a lot more than 5% of the noise
> level. Talk about self righteous. There is always at least one like
> him on every NG.
I guess we have ours then... I just hope one's the quota!
Robert Scott
managed to say
>Yeah we are,.... and I think it's time for you to take a break... maybe a
>nap?
Robert Scott
managed to say
>you're just another slash-and-burn artist with nothing to say.... the "ladies
>and gents" are smarter than you think.
Did you not attempt to correct someone for a grammatical error only
to blow the definition of word ? I think the facts speak for themselves.
You two are just alike, and yes, I'm sure most people are smart enough
to know we have no interest in you, or his personal tirade. Take it
to e-mail pal. You must be really insecure, because it seems you
must have the last word, and can't stand to be called down on the
facts. I'd be willing to bet you're no older than about 14. You
certainly act that way if nothing else.
thunder
>Yeah we are,.... and I think it's time for you to take a break... maybe a nap?
wow, another comedian! i didn't realize all you Hollywood comedy writers were
such photo buffs!
Robert Scott
>Last week I got a little irritated with what seemed like a large number of
>antagonistic posts from him. So I did a search of his posts here. Would you
>guess, that on one day, he posted nearly 5% of the total traffic for that
>day? Sure didn't seem like his posts contributed 5% of the total knowledge
>here. Just an observation,
>Steve Young