How to take a decent photo of your car in less than 20 seconds

If this isn't a reminder to go out and use my camera more, I don't know what is.

While the car does look good with the wheels straight I've always felt that in the classic front 3/4 view that cutting the wheels a bit towards the camera was even better.  I think it looks, or maybe feels, more dynamic.  Part of what makes cars so exciting is that they move and having the wheels turned provides a hint of that in a static image.

In reply to APEowner :

I think you can try both. Sometimes a bit too much tread looks weird. Sometimes too little tread looks weird. I say try all.

In this case, I've been happier with the car's looks with the wheels dead ahead.

Plus, I only had 20 seconds....

David S. Wallens said:

In reply to APEowner :

I think you can try both. Sometimes a bit too much tread looks weird. Sometimes too little tread looks weird. I say try all.

In this case, I've been happier with the car's looks with the wheels dead ahead.

Plus, I only had 20 seconds....

Yeah, I've tried the wheels turned thing and I don't care for it.  Looks too much like I'm trying to be Car & Driver. :)

Rather than the downspout pipe, the background thing that stands out to me is the little patch of blue on the wall just peeking over the hood. 

In reply to APEowner :

I'm partial to this angle; the person who took this is a hobbyist professional.

"Our camera gear was in the trunk the entire time."

Some of my favorite random shots happen when all my stuff is neatly packed away and its too much hassle to get it all out . Nope, boom 20 seconds, phone shot, done.

In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :

I both like and don't like that patch of blue above the hood.

If I had another 5 seconds, yeah, I could have rolled the car forward or backward.

But note that we're discussing the fine points. The big stuff has been handled. Once you have the basics, now you can fine tune things. This is all good stuff. 

Something I don't like about the final shot; there's medium blue on the building behind a dark blue car.  Higher contrast would have resulted from just white building behind the car.  I think the eye can be drawn to that odd junction point where medium and dark blue meet.  If there was a section of just white wall available, that would have been nicer, I believe.

Kevin_at_BW said:

"Our camera gear was in the trunk the entire time."

Some of my favorite random shots happen when all my stuff is neatly packed away and its too much hassle to get it all out . Nope, boom 20 seconds, phone shot, done.

Yup. If you didn't get the photo, you didn't get the photo. Be prepared and all that. 

Along those lines, in school we had to carry our camera with us. All the time. 

Once, while driving home from class, I came across an armored car that had gone off the road and flipped. Police and fire were already on the scene. Big mess. 

I had my camera right there with me so I parked, got out of the car, and grabbed some photos. 

Long story short, I made the cover of the next day's paper–both morning and evening editions. 

See also: I'm okay with creating some tension if the overall image releases it. 

For those using a camera phone:  Tap the subject (car) on the screen so that the camera knows what the most important thing in the scene is.  It will alter the exposure to make sure that the subject is correct - or come fairly close.  If it still seems a little dark/light most phones have an exposure compensation slider on the screen after you tap it.  Use that to get it where you want.  It only takes a few seconds. 

Also... while diffuse light is generally flattering, it can be a little dull, depending on where exactly the light source is. The light in the shadows is also cool (blue-ish) which is also not always flattering.  With a car's shiny, reflective surfaces, you may want to shoot it in a place where you get some warmth and sparkle to make your photo pop.  

I'm going to stop now before this is ten paragraphs long and way outside the scope of this article.  :-)

Good point on tapping the screen. Yes, that helps. 

Still, not a bad image for spending 18 seconds on the entire production. Hopefully the info helps. 

Some tips from a friend of mine, Dick James, who has taken some iconic car pics and produced some amazing car "ads"..  

Step back to about 50' to take your shots..  it minimizes distortion - look closely and the bimmer has some front to rear distortion.

turn the wheels in about 15 degrees on the side you're shooting (of course they have to be nice wheels)  

his last nugget of advice when I sent him some shots I'd taken in front of a classic old barn..  "what are you selling?  the barn?"  Plain backgrounds....   he was the first to take shots on the wet salt flats..

several of these from the 70's are his: https://blog.consumerguide.com/classic-plymouth-ads/

I don't mind the downspout, but that blue paint on the wall right above the ... blue hood makes that pic a throw-away to me.  Makes the car appear to have lines it doesn't (shaker hood anyone?).

russelljones48 said:

Some tips from a friend of mine, Dick James, who has taken some iconic car pics and produced some amazing car "ads"..  

 

Step back to about 50' to take your shots..  it minimizes distortion - look closely and the bimmer has some front to rear distortion.

turn the wheels in about 15 degrees on the side you're shooting (of course they have to be nice wheels)  

his last nugget of advice when I sent him some shots I'd taken in front of a classic old barn..  "what are you selling?  the barn?"  Plain backgrounds....   he was the first to take shots on the wet salt flats..

several of these from the 70's are his: https://blog.consumerguide.com/classic-plymouth-ads/

 

Totally agree with the first suggestion.  Using a zoom lens results in much less distortion and a more realistic representation of the subject.  Granted that sometimes that distortion is an artistic choice. Also acknowledging that you may not have the room to back away from the subject.  A second benefit of using a longer focal length (Fancy way of saying "zooming in") is that you can often hide things in the background (A blue piece of wall, for instance).  

This is a reasonably easy to understand article on the topic:

https://www.diyphotography.net/definitive-guide-focal-length-perspective-zooming-feet-nonsense/

The higher angle shots showing a bit of the grandstands were good for defining the location - a race track, not a storage rental site.  Also at this angle, the blue panels look like they are meant to be there and are therefore less distracting in my view.  Fun exercise and discussion!

Another possibly hidden tip: You can find some cool places to shoot a car at the race track, even if it's not on the race track.

And, yes, have fun with it. 

I never owned a camera when my car looked good enough to photograph, but when I took some photos, during the first shoot, I had the seat back pushed forwards into the steering wheel (fail) and the second shoot, I didn't have the door fully closed (fail). Lately, I cut off part of the car trying to use a smart phone because I can't see anything through the view screen (multi fail). 

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

Yeah, composition matters. Our photojournalism professor didn't allow any cropping. We had to print the entire negative, including the raggedy edges. 

Why? It forced us to compose in the viewfinder. 

David S. Wallens said:

Yeah, composition matters. Our photojournalism professor didn't allow any cropping. We had to print the entire negative, including the raggedy edges. 

Why? It forced us to compose in the viewfinder. 

I have read that this is considered important for journalism because cropping the photo is considered "doctoring the image" and thus violates a code about ethics and truth.  I'm not sure I agree, but maybe that's why I'm not a photojournalist. :)

If one is shooting digital photos for fun/art/commerce/etc, then I would argue that it's better shooting a little wider than needed for the finished product and then cropping it slightly during processing.  That trades off a little bit of resolution (which modern camera bodies have far more of than you actually need for virtually anything) for an increased chance of getting a shot that contains all of the important things.  It's the same reason why I rarely take only ONE photograph -- digital storage is so cheap that grabbing 2 or 3 frames (or more!) is good insurance against getting stuck with an image that had some transitory problem with it.

Oh, yes, take a ton of photos. I used to joke that film is cheap–and it is compared to travel and everything else involved in getting there for the shot. 

Today, yes, storage is crazy inexpensive. We keep everything on a server that is then backed up to the cloud. We're talking zillions of photos. The whole rig would fit in the trunk of a Miata. Our slides and prints sit in lateral files that take up so much space–and if you lose a neg/slide, then it's gone forever. 

Likewise, I don't delete photos. What if you do need it later? What if you accidentally delete a good shot? And why take that much time to save a tiny bit of storage?

I don't recall cropping being considered unethical. We cropped in journalism class. A proportion wheel was standard issue. (I have mine here–photo of it to come soon.)

But what about about phone photos? My photojournalism friend doesn't allow his students to use them for class. Why? Too much internal doctoring and manipulation. Was the sky really that blue? Was his skin really that clear? You can argue that you can do all that stuff in Photoshop, but figure you have to draw the line somewhere. 

Before Photoshop, before InDesign, we used this to resize images. 

Now to see if I remember how to use it...

And with my parents' rally computer. 

David S. Wallens said:

Oh, yes, take a ton of photos. I used to joke that film is cheap–and it is compared to travel and everything else involved in getting there for the shot. 

Today, yes, storage is crazy inexpensive. We keep everything on a server that is then backed up to the cloud. We're talking zillions of photos. The whole rig would fit in the trunk of a Miata. Our slides and prints sit in lateral files that take up so much space–and if you lose a neg/slide, then it's gone forever. 

Likewise, I don't delete photos. What if you do need it later? What if you accidentally delete a good shot? And why take that much time to save a tiny bit of storage?

I don't recall cropping being considered unethical. We cropped in journalism class. A proportion wheel was standard issue. (I have mine here–photo of it to come soon.)

But what about about phone photos? My photojournalism friend doesn't allow his students to use them for class. Why? Too much internal doctoring and manipulation. Was the sky really that blue? Was his skin really that clear? You can argue that you can do all that stuff in Photoshop, but figure you have to draw the line somewhere. 

Have you ever noticed how much room there is around the subject of many automotive press photos theses days?  I assume that's to give each publisher some flexibility in how they want the image cropped for their particular publication.  It makes sense for that usage but if you're just downloading the image to look at it's a little annoying that the subject often takes up so little of the composition.  Zooming in still yields a nice quality image though.  

Totally agree with the comment about the reality of what's coming out of phone cameras these days.  I feel like they often help WAY too much.  I try to shoot something like a sunset image and the AI messes with things in ways I don't like or agree with, in terms of what I'm seeing with my eyes compared to what the image looks like.  I'd really like a slider or buttons that allow me to adjust the amount of processing that AI does before it's final rendering of the image.  I also think that everyone talking about how phone camera images are approaching the quality of DSLR/mirrorless camera images is high. Blow them up on a computer screen at full resolution and they fall apart in comparison.  They often look fine on the phone but that's not really how they should be judged.  

David S. Wallens said:

Before Photoshop, before InDesign, we used this to resize images. 

Now to see if I remember how to use it...

I find old school gizmos like this infinitely fascinating, even if they make no sense compared to modern tools.

msterbeau said:

David S. Wallens said:

Oh, yes, take a ton of photos. I used to joke that film is cheap–and it is compared to travel and everything else involved in getting there for the shot. 

Today, yes, storage is crazy inexpensive. We keep everything on a server that is then backed up to the cloud. We're talking zillions of photos. The whole rig would fit in the trunk of a Miata. Our slides and prints sit in lateral files that take up so much space–and if you lose a neg/slide, then it's gone forever. 

Likewise, I don't delete photos. What if you do need it later? What if you accidentally delete a good shot? And why take that much time to save a tiny bit of storage?

I don't recall cropping being considered unethical. We cropped in journalism class. A proportion wheel was standard issue. (I have mine here–photo of it to come soon.)

But what about about phone photos? My photojournalism friend doesn't allow his students to use them for class. Why? Too much internal doctoring and manipulation. Was the sky really that blue? Was his skin really that clear? You can argue that you can do all that stuff in Photoshop, but figure you have to draw the line somewhere. 

Have you ever noticed how much room there is around the subject of many automotive press photos theses days?  I assume that's to give each publisher some flexibility in how they want the image cropped for their particular publication.  It makes sense for that usage but if you're just downloading the image to look at it's a little annoying that the subject often takes up so little of the composition.  Zooming in still yields a nice quality image though.  

Totally agree with the comment about the reality of what's coming out of phone cameras these days.  I feel like they often help WAY too much.  I try to shoot something like a sunset image and the AI messes with things in ways I don't like or agree with, in terms of what I'm seeing with my eyes compared to what the image looks like.  I'd really like a slider or buttons that allow me to adjust the amount of processing that AI does before it's final rendering of the image.  I also think that everyone talking about how phone camera images are approaching the quality of DSLR/mirrorless camera images is high. Blow them up on a computer screen at full resolution and they fall apart in comparison.  They often look fine on the phone but that's not really how they should be judged.  

To be honest, I haven't noticed more room about the subject in press photos, but it could be because I'm used to it.

But the extra room is appreciated. The photos on our project car landing page, for example, are sized differently than the ones on social. Not that we use press photos for project cars, but we recently did run into a situation where we didn't have quite enough room around a car on the project car landing page. The solution? In the end, we reshot the car. 

As far as shooting to crop or not, as usual, it depends. 

I try to leave some air around the subject so the photos can be cropped as needed. If it's a cover shot, then we leave even a little more space than usual for the words. With cameras shooting such big files, zooming in a bit usually isn't a problem. For the site, I'll leave a little extra room, too, since the ratios can be a bit wider than you'd think. 

For my personal stuff, I do tend to crop in the viewfinder. I guess that's my usual default.

You can see some non-car stuff on my non-car Instagram. All of the photos are unadjusted–right out of the camera. If there's any cropping, it was just turning the image into a square via IG. (I do that occasionally.) All of the modeling photos, I believe, are not cropped. I'm just dragging them from the camera to IG, so that's totally unadjusted. 

msterbeau said:

David S. Wallens said:

I don't recall cropping being considered unethical. We cropped in journalism class. A proportion wheel was standard issue. (I have mine here–photo of it to come soon.)

But what about about phone photos? My photojournalism friend doesn't allow his students to use them for class. Why? Too much internal doctoring and manipulation. Was the sky really that blue? Was his skin really that clear? You can argue that you can do all that stuff in Photoshop, but figure you have to draw the line somewhere. 

Have you ever noticed how much room there is around the subject of many automotive press photos theses days?  I assume that's to give each publisher some flexibility in how they want the image cropped for their particular publication.  It makes sense for that usage but if you're just downloading the image to look at it's a little annoying that the subject often takes up so little of the composition.  Zooming in still yields a nice quality image though.  

Totally agree with the comment about the reality of what's coming out of phone cameras these days.  I feel like they often help WAY too much.  I try to shoot something like a sunset image and the AI messes with things in ways I don't like or agree with, in terms of what I'm seeing with my eyes compared to what the image looks like.  I'd really like a slider or buttons that allow me to adjust the amount of processing that AI does before it's final rendering of the image.  I also think that everyone talking about how phone camera images are approaching the quality of DSLR/mirrorless camera images is high. Blow them up on a computer screen at full resolution and they fall apart in comparison.  They often look fine on the phone but that's not really how they should be judged.  

Perhaps I was misremembering -- I just googled the AP photojournalism ethics document and it says cropping is OK.  (https://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/goffs/135%20photojournalism/associated%20press%20ethics%20code.pdf)

Sensor technology has advanced in tremendous ways, especially in the area of being low noise.  That's what's making it possible for phones do everything they can -- very low noise means you can use a tiny sensor, which means you can include lenses of reasonable quality without them needing to be big, heavy, and expensive.  If you want to avoid the overprocessing thing, some newer phones support RAW files so that you can load them into Lightroom and do all the processing yourself just like with a "real" camera.  I know my Pixel 6 Pro does, although I haven't actually tried it out.

As for the full size thing, images from my P6P stand up OK at full size.  In keeping with the theme of this thread, here's one of my M3 that I shot with similarly small levels of prep:

I could have done with rolling the car back a bit further to avoid having the trailer ramps in the frame and composing it to have more space in the front of the car.  Would have been nice to avoid the yellow power outlet in the background too, although that would've probably required losing the tree as well.  Oh, and the car REALLY needs to be washed. :)

At least I know to turn my phone sideways to take photos and movies. But there was that time when a scheduled B-52 flew down our towns main drive about 500 feet up right in front of me, I couldn't see anything in the view screen because of the sun, so I just watched the plane and hoped it was in the video shot. Unfortunately, I somehow hit the flip screen button and videoed myself.  It did take me about 6 months to figure out that you don't hold a phone with the side buttons up thinking it was similar to a normal digital pocket camera so the first 1000 pictures I took for work, I had to rotate every photo. The upside down videos where a lot more work to correct.

VolvoHeretic said:

It did take me about 6 months to figure out that you don't hold a phone with the side buttons up thinking it was similar to a normal digital pocket camera so the first 1000 pictures I took for work, I had to rotate every photo. The upside down videos where a lot more work to correct.

Huh, every phone I've had has used the orientation sensor to flip the photo right side up when saving it, so you can hold the camera in any orientation without the pictures being upside down.  Maybe you have that turned off?

In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :

FWIW, the trailer ramps do say "race car at the race track."

As far as washing the car, quick detail to the rescue!

Very cool shot. 

In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :

Who knows, it's a really old hand me down Apple my kids made me take to replace my flip phone so that I could open texts with emojis and not be scrambled. No manual and they didn't give me any lessons.

So, what's with the unbreakable rule that says you will be shot if you ever turn your front tires into the camera if you take a frontal 3/4 view photo? I like it. This photo was an accident and the wheels are nowhere near full lock. It shows off the widest front tires ever put on a sports car in 1985 which I am very proud of. 

David S. Wallens said:

FWIW, the trailer ramps do say "race car at the race track."

As far as washing the car, quick detail to the rescue!

Very cool shot. 

Thanks!  It was a bit beyond quick detail though, there were bugs all OVER it and the wheels were filthy.  Still are, actually, I haven't gotten around to pulling it out of the trailer to wash it.  Maybe I'll do that over the holidays, now that I've taken the Rookie stickers off. :)

Back to car photos... I have to use Windows Paint or Paint 3D to edit my photos. I don't know what photo size my old 18 megapixel pocket zoom camera produced, but I have no idea how to crop photos into printable standard sizes that don't need custom cut mats. Are all standard sized photos the same height to width ratio? If only there was a simple way to easily zoom in and out and also pan around the photo with a boarder and then hit crop.

VolvoHeretic said:

Back to car photos... I have to use Windows Paint or Paint 3D to edit my photos. I don't know what photo size my old 18 megapixel pocket zoom camera produced, but I have no idea how to crop photos into printable standard sizes that don't need custom cut mats. Are all standard sized photos the same height to width ratio? If only there was a simple way to easily zoom in and out and also pan around the photo with a boarder and then hit crop.

Generally speaking, pocket cameras and cell phones are a 4x3 ratio, whereas SLRs are usually 3x2.  Really high end stuff (medium and large format) vary a lot, but 1x1 square is common.

Common print sizes are also all over the map, 3"x4", 4"x6", and 5"x7" are all different ratios and will usually require cropping.

Most photo editing utilities have the ability to zoom/pan/crop inside the photo.  You might want to take a look at Adobe's "Photoshop Elements", it's a lightweight version of Photoshop that will do all the basic stuff you're talking about and is much less expensive than the full thing.

In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :

Thanks, I will check that out. Although, I need the full boat version to remove the rust from my car. 

And sometimes you do want a shot from high up–like when the background really helps the photo.

I have a few seconds in this one. 

Not a great shot–more to just to show how different angles can make different impressions.

TL;DR: Take a bunch of photos, try new things, and have fun with it. 

David S. Wallens said:

And sometimes you do want a shot from high up–like when the background really helps the photo.

I have a few seconds in this one. 

Not a great shot–more to just to show how different angles can make different impressions.

TL;DR: Take a bunch of photos, try new things, and have fun with it. 

Getting up above the car, either a little or a lot, is underused and under-appreciated in my opinion.  Race cars and many older, vintage models look fantastic from a high point of view.  The problem is often that of finding (Or carrying) a platform to get that shot.  

David S. Wallens said:

As far as shooting to crop or not, as usual, it depends. 

I try to leave some air around the subject so the photos can be cropped as needed. If it's a cover shot, then we leave even a little more space than usual for the words. With cameras shooting such big files, zooming in a bit usually isn't a problem. For the site, I'll leave a little extra room, too, since the ratios can be a bit wider than you'd think. 

For my personal stuff, I do tend to crop in the viewfinder. I guess that's my usual default.

You can see some non-car stuff on my non-car Instagram. All of the photos are unadjusted–right out of the camera. If there's any cropping, it was just turning the image into a square via IG. (I do that occasionally.) All of the modeling photos, I believe, are not cropped. I'm just dragging them from the camera to IG, so that's totally unadjusted. 

I don't shoot a lot of car stuff any more.  That may change.  My non-car stuff is my main thing.  I try to get the crop close in-camera but my work is often more like photo illustration.  LOT's of editing.  That's part of the fun, to me.  I know some people dislike it or feel like it's cheating or something.  Their problem, not mine.  :-)

NSFW warning: SubQulture Studio

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

msterbeau said:

David S. Wallens said:

I don't recall cropping being considered unethical. We cropped in journalism class. A proportion wheel was standard issue. (I have mine here–photo of it to come soon.)

But what about about phone photos? My photojournalism friend doesn't allow his students to use them for class. Why? Too much internal doctoring and manipulation. Was the sky really that blue? Was his skin really that clear? You can argue that you can do all that stuff in Photoshop, but figure you have to draw the line somewhere. 

Have you ever noticed how much room there is around the subject of many automotive press photos theses days?  I assume that's to give each publisher some flexibility in how they want the image cropped for their particular publication.  It makes sense for that usage but if you're just downloading the image to look at it's a little annoying that the subject often takes up so little of the composition.  Zooming in still yields a nice quality image though.  

Totally agree with the comment about the reality of what's coming out of phone cameras these days.  I feel like they often help WAY too much.  I try to shoot something like a sunset image and the AI messes with things in ways I don't like or agree with, in terms of what I'm seeing with my eyes compared to what the image looks like.  I'd really like a slider or buttons that allow me to adjust the amount of processing that AI does before it's final rendering of the image.  I also think that everyone talking about how phone camera images are approaching the quality of DSLR/mirrorless camera images is high. Blow them up on a computer screen at full resolution and they fall apart in comparison.  They often look fine on the phone but that's not really how they should be judged.  

Perhaps I was misremembering -- I just googled the AP photojournalism ethics document and it says cropping is OK.  (https://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/goffs/135%20photojournalism/associated%20press%20ethics%20code.pdf)

Sensor technology has advanced in tremendous ways, especially in the area of being low noise.  That's what's making it possible for phones do everything they can -- very low noise means you can use a tiny sensor, which means you can include lenses of reasonable quality without them needing to be big, heavy, and expensive.  If you want to avoid the overprocessing thing, some newer phones support RAW files so that you can load them into Lightroom and do all the processing yourself just like with a "real" camera.  I know my Pixel 6 Pro does, although I haven't actually tried it out.

As for the full size thing, images from my P6P stand up OK at full size.  In keeping with the theme of this thread, here's one of my M3 that I shot with similarly small levels of prep:

I could have done with rolling the car back a bit further to avoid having the trailer ramps in the frame and composing it to have more space in the front of the car.  Would have been nice to avoid the yellow power outlet in the background too, although that would've probably required losing the tree as well.  Oh, and the car REALLY needs to be washed. :)

 

Beautiful shot!  Everything seems well lit, the sky looks great and I agree with the comment about the ramps being OK.  BUT - If you did this same shot with a DSLR and the phone camera at the same time and viewed them side by side, I guarantee you would see a significant quality difference.  Many people woudn't notice it enough to matter but people like me do.  Even without the comparison I see areas in this image where the detail is a little fuzzy or there's jpeg artifacts and other issues.  They don't take away from the overall impact of the image but they are definitely there.

In reply to msterbeau :

My dad's friend does a lot of work that's very heavily edited. He's basically turning his images into his artwork. Again, no wrong answer, and that's just his style. 

msterbeau said:

Beautiful shot!  Everything seems well lit, the sky looks great and I agree with the comment about the ramps being OK.  BUT - If you did this same shot with a DSLR and the phone camera at the same time and viewed them side by side, I guarantee you would see a significant quality difference.  Many people woudn't notice it enough to matter but people like me do.  Even without the comparison I see areas in this image where the detail is a little fuzzy or there's jpeg artifacts and other issues.  They don't take away from the overall impact of the image but they are definitely there.

I think the fuzziness is probably noise -- there's not a lot of light at dawn and even though the sensor tech has come a long way that's still a tall order!

And yes, it would absolutely have looked better if I'd used my 7Dmk2 and 24-105L.  Thing is, they were at home, I was at the track, and the Pixel was in my pocket. :)

In reply to msterbeau :

I agree, getting up about the car can provide a cool angle–again, you're showing the car from an uncommon view.

For the MX-5 shot, I just held the phone above my head. Look at the photo, I'm likely standing an inch or so above the car thanks to the pavement. I shot a few to get one that was decent. 

This is one-off my faves:

ok and this one:

I was washing and waxing in preparation for the snow, and I had the step ladder out. I like this perspective. 

In the end, I think, it's a photo that makes you happy. 

This is a subject (no pun intended) that is near and dear to me. I see photos online that make me wonder if the person who took the shot actually looked at the result. It takes very little forethought to compose a shot - what's in the background, lighting, etc. And if you took a picture from behind the wheel of that rare car in front of you, but the picture is focused on your dashboard and not the blurry car ahead of you, it's not really a useable shot.

Snapseed is a free app for your phone that is terrific for editing photos. I use it on nearly every shot I save - the crop and tune image features are very useful. Smart phones can take decent shots (usually suitable for posting on Facebook), but a real camera (even an inexpensive point-and-shoot) almost always gives higher quality results. Most of us always have a camera with us (our phones), but if you are going to be somewhere where you expect to be taking pictures of something that you care about (maybe a Cars and Coffee event where you will be displaying your car) then take an actual camera, the quality of the pictures will be better.

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

msterbeau said:

Beautiful shot!  Everything seems well lit, the sky looks great and I agree with the comment about the ramps being OK.  BUT - If you did this same shot with a DSLR and the phone camera at the same time and viewed them side by side, I guarantee you would see a significant quality difference.  Many people woudn't notice it enough to matter but people like me do.  Even without the comparison I see areas in this image where the detail is a little fuzzy or there's jpeg artifacts and other issues.  They don't take away from the overall impact of the image but they are definitely there.

I think the fuzziness is probably noise -- there's not a lot of light at dawn and even though the sensor tech has come a long way that's still a tall order!

And yes, it would absolutely have looked better if I'd used my 7Dmk2 and 24-105L.  Thing is, they were at home, I was at the track, and the Pixel was in my pocket. :)

 

Noise is different than the blurry detail characteristic of camera phones.  Same with JPEG artifacts.  It's not a criticism of the image, it's just part of an image in current times that's shot with a phone camera with a tiny lens and sensor.  

Yep, the best camera is the one you have with you when you need it.  Which is often your phone.  My point was not that they don't take decent shots - these days they definitely do.  I just take exception to the articles that say they're getting as good as a DLSR or mirrorless camera. They aren't, and I'm not sure they ever will be without a ton of computational AI stuff.  And at that point, is it really real?  Is it really what you saw?  I'm sure for some people it doesn't matter, but it does to me. 

David S. Wallens said:

In reply to msterbeau :

I agree, getting up about the car can provide a cool angle–again, you're showing the car from an uncommon view.

For the MX-5 shot, I just held the phone above my head. Look at the photo, I'm likely standing an inch or so above the car thanks to the pavement. I shot a few to get one that was decent. 

When I used to shoot cars more, I often dragged along a smallish ladder that folded and had wheels on one side.  Made getting those kinds of seldom seen shots easy and it wasn't too much hassle to manuever.  Shooting from above often has another benefit - the background is now the ground around the car. Instant simple background!  

Some talk in The Washington Post about cell phone cameras–Cameras struggle with dark skin. Here’s how new smartphones stack up.–explains how today's phone "make photos."

But because your phone has massively more computing power than your old point-and-shoot does, it can automatically tweak and process those images faster than a person in a photo lab would be able to. Meanwhile, more sophisticated smartphone cameras can pull off even more clever tricks, like capturing multiple exposures of the same scene and cobbling together the best bits of each.

In other words, you’re not alone when you tap the shutter button on your screen — you have a second-in-command in software form.

This approach to producing images, called computational photography, is one of the reasons you might have noticed your phone’s photos sometimes look brighter and more colorful than the real world. The problem is that some of the algorithms that define the way a subject of color ultimately looks in a photo were mostly trained using images of people with light skin.

David S. Wallens said:

In reply to msterbeau :

I agree, getting up about the car can provide a cool angle–again, you're showing the car from an uncommon view.

For the MX-5 shot, I just held the phone above my head. Look at the photo, I'm likely standing an inch or so above the car thanks to the pavement. I shot a few to get one that was decent. 

Agreed. This one was also with the phone lifted:

Hmm. The forum resized it and lost some of the clarity...

BTW, that spot is one of my favorite backgrounds, as it's fairly simple while being colorful. Even black stands out against it:

In reply to Chris_V :

Our old office sat across the street from a furniture company, so out back they had a loading dock plus assorted shipping containers. It was like my own little photo area. I believe the building now houses a medical billing company, and the back lot has been converted to parking. 

Sort of related–maybe–the Porsche 911 wound up in a photo shoot this past weekend: How to (inadvertently) make your own car event.

Details and more photos in the link above, but here's a teaser: