40s Dodge

I like the subject matter, but you do not seem to have obtained much infrared effect with the foliage. Perhaps this was because it was a dull day. Did you use a red filter? IR film really needs to be used on a day when there is at least some clear sky for best effect.

Nice.

Nice grain

Your technique makes the photo look as old as the car. Nice effect.

Intrinsicly (sp?) good image - nicely lit, well exposed, effective background, interesting perspective, etc. - smothered by effect.

I shoot Infrared in a way that avoids the white foliage as much as possible. The film has greater potential than just closing your eyes and hoping for a neat effect.

 

As far as grain is concerned, I have sucessfully enlarged my images to 30x40. At this size they appear to be more like a charcoal sketch than a photo. Kodak liked the effect enough to feature 40s Dodge as a photo of the day on their website. Admittedly, it is a different look. But, that's what we all shoot for. Thanks for your comments...

I'm drawn to many of your shots, but this one had me coming back the most. Composition and choice of film is most pleasing. I like the fact that the leaves aren't blown all white as in many IR shots, and the grain effect in the clouds seals the deal for me. Well done.

I apriciate the grain in this image. Low key makes it moody. Well executed image. Regards PK

It might have been shot in 2001, but the grain definitely gives it a forties feel. Excellent work!

Is this grain all natural? Or is there any digital manipulation used on this? It looks very muddy to me, the sky even more then the rest of the pic. Strange...

I just took a look at your portfolio and found the same dodge/picture of the dodge in the middle of Salt Lake City, just mirrored the car and put it in here, or mirrored the car and put it in the other picture of Salt lake C.? Anyway, I'm rather disappointed, not sure, and I think I don't even care that much, if this or the other one is a photoshop trick. Nothing against photoshop, but one should just say which is which. Old fashioned as I am, I prefer whole negative printing. When digital manipulation is used (nothing against that as well), it should be said. Sorry. Don't like the grain as well, but when this one is the composite, it explains the difference in "muddy" grain between car and sky. If not, please do tell which is which. Bye, and cheers, Rienk

Yeah, it does look pretty old, as if dug out from a grandpa's album found after decades in an attic, but so what? -- the image doesn't move me; emotional response it evokes in me is limited to some sort of nostalgia of an old picture, but it could have been any old picture (as often reproduced in documentary books on early 20th century.) Because this one is very well executed technically, I would expect to come across it in an album presenting a history of automobile industry with a caption explaining that it's an ad from half a century ago and stating make, model, and other technical details that make collectors excited.

Everything is very classic about this picture, but what's your point?

 

RGDS

The simplicity of this one is what strikes me. The image is well composed, taken from just the right angle to enhance that "bomber" look of those vintage wheels. Just the right lighting. Framed properly. Good choice, elves!

Such negative response to an excellent photo! Michael, I think your whole portfolio is excellent as well -- shows a unique, creative style.

 

One of the things I love about this photo is that it *does not* show the usual infrared look, which frankly is way overdone. Your image shows another, more interesting look to infrared, and the high grain really works perfectly for this subject matter.

 

The fact that many people here think this image was created with Photoshop shows how little they know about basic film techniques. Congrats on a well-deserved POW.

To Rienk,

I believe this picture is the original photo, and the Salt Lake City picture would indeed include the same car, flipped horizontally. So I don't see any evidence of any Photoshop work in this POW. Perhaps the grain was added in PS here, and perhaps a few other details were touched up as well - not sure -, but I doubt this picture would be a composite - though it is not entirely impossible either. If this is a composite, it's anyway superbly done. If it's not, then it's a great photo to me. The best car pix in the folder remains for me "Overdue", which is obviously PSed, but very well done AND very funny. But this is a great second choice imo. The sky is indeed muddy and very grainy - more than the car ? - but it works fine for me as well.

Let's anyway wait a little before calling the police: there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that the present image was PSed. Even the grain on the present image could have been achieved in many ways - despite the fact that the same picture of this car which was included in the other image seems less grainy. Example: reshooting the original photo with a higher ASA film.

Congratulations, Michael. Your work, generally speaking, whether PSed or not, deserved imo to be seen, and I'm glad the Elves found you. For those who dislike PS, and assuming this is PSed (an assumption that seems very prematured at this point), there are plenty of obvious and obviously less tasteful PS creations all over the top-this and top-that pages of this site; so I'd suggest you keep your stones for better opportunities. There is nothing here that couldn't be achieved by strictly photographic means, as far as I can tell.

It's the same car, probably his, shot at roughly the same angle

but one is not a reverse clone of the other. Look at the light in the

rear window and the location of the mirror relative to the front

window.

 

Details, details, details. Not just for sleuthing purposes, but to

appreciate the subtlties of any image.

If you are looking for details, Carl, look at the reflection on the bumper. It's flipped. You can't tell from the window, but from the bumper, you can. This being said, I believe the other one is the flipped picture, not this one - despite the fact that this one seems to have more grain...

Appears to be spewing steam from under the hood...

I really enjoy the mood of this photo. Well done! Like some one pointed out,

the grain of the sky is different than the one on car. So what.

 

My question is to the purists out there. Why should it matter if a photo as gone

through Photoshop? Is it lesser than doing the same thing in the dark room?

Fine, skill wise it requires more mechanical work and trial and errors, but

Photoshop needs to be mastered as well and the outcome is as rewarding. I

seem to recall the same debate in the print industry when desktop publishing

made it's appearance. All the typesetters where swearing, left, right, up, down,

you name it, that typesetting done with a computer was not good and was not

art. Well, typesetters as they were just 15 years ago are gone. No more knife,

no more rulers, no more tape : Quark and Illustrator are here, YEAH.

 

Now Photoshop is here.

 

To get back to this POW, whatever medium was used to create it, it's still a

great photo, and on top of that we are all viewing it at 72 dpi on a computer.

Not in a gallery. Cheers

 

Pascal

I like the squareness of the image. It balances out all the elements. The angle of the car works because it creates a line to lead through the image, like it's stepping out of time and into the present.

 

One thing bothers me a bit though. There's a cloud coming from behind the car, and it looks like the car is smoking (like an overheated radiator).

 

I am curious. How did you obtain this car and put it in the field like that? Was this at a car show? Is this an old gem of yours that you're lucky enough to own? Is it a friend's car you decided to photograph? I am just curious.

 

I normally don't like most car photos, because they like flower pictures -- commonly photographed with similar techniques. But this one is good!

I didn't say once that I'm against PS manipulation. I just said, it should be told here, in a photographic community, which is which. I see a whole lot of difference between a classic picture of a classic car composed through the lens, one negative, one print, and a classic picture of a classic car created in PS. Both are creative products, I just want to know if I'm eating fish or meat, bites or silver...So please stop telling me I'm against this picture because it's maybe manipulated in PS. I just want to know if the car is flipped, and if yes, if this is the original car pic, or the other one where the car is standing in the middle of Salt lake city. If I'm wrong, so please forgive me for my wrongdoings. I'll take all the blame. Mea culpa. Bye, Rienki

Hmmmm . . . .

 

Good point about the steering wheel :-)

 

. . . . and yes, the reflections look similar, but the hood is angled

up more on this one (OK, it could be skewed) . . . . and why

clone out the name on the front, and change the lighting in quite

a few other places?

 

This is indeed strange. My vote is for one of them being a

reversed image, but beyond that, I think I'll back off and wait for

an explanation.

Your comment crossed my last one. Sorry. Bye, Rienk

Mine too . . .

 

the car? . . not the image? Why change some parts and leave

others?