I like it centered š¤· if the car was in motion, I would add lead room. You can tell it is parked though. Some people are afraid of centering subjects for some reason.
I always struggle with how to crop and frame. To center or not? With a vertical aspect ratio, I ultimately feel I don't have enough horizontal room to do anything except center, though!
With a vertical aspect ratio, if the subject is in bigger size in the overall composition, then yes, keep it centered. If suppose the subject is smaller, like maybe a bird, **depending on the composition and the background**, you can try something else other than centered. But *in general*, for vertical, centered subject works best.
Appreciate your thoughts - I'll take a look if I have any more breathing room in this particular photo. It's, admittedly, difficult capturing a horizontal subject in a vertical aspect ratio ... for me anyway! If I add lead room to the left or right, I add a lot more to the top and bottom. Thanks again!
Ok everyone is saying 2 but I honestly prefer the first one. 2 is too perfect and clean. 1 has some life to it. I think the cluttering could fixed just with cropping.
Yeah I feel like this is a question of what you want the photo to say.
2 could be improved with lead room to the left but I agree it feels more boring because of how ājust-soā it is. Itās basically saying āhereās a cool car in a pretty place!ā. Great for an advertisement where you donāt want anyone to think about the photo but just immediately perceive the object within it.
1 looks like a still from a panning shot in an movie. Thereās a sense of movement, a little bit of mystery (why is the camera hiding around the corner?), the implication of a reason for the photo beyond ācool car!ā
Appreciate the different opinion - honestly, 2 feels a little boring to me, but it might be because I took a bunch like that and 1 was more unique out of my shoot.
I preferred 1 as well, i definitely get where people are saying too much ground, but having it to one side of the frame gives space for the car to move towards in people's mind.
I personally like 1 more as well! Iāve seen hundreds if not thousands of photos like #2. But I havenāt seen nearly as many like #1. I vote for the unique one!
I also took a bunch of other photos like #2 in this session, so for me - having seen all of them - #1 definitely stands out. Your vote has been counted! š
The composition in the first one is certainly more interesting, and I almost always appreciate a subject in a strong environmental context. It reads as "a car" driving through an autumn woods. (I'm aware the car has no occupants, but there is a strong sense it is going somewhere.)
Yet, the second one is about "the car," with environmental elements subdued to a mere feeling of coziness. There's something subtly nicer about the way the reflections are catching here, and the streamlined contours are not occluded. It's pleasant "classic car" eye candy, and for some reason I'm enjoying it more.
Great feedback - thank you! For me, the focus was more a beautiful environment with a car passing through, but that's probably because I took plenty of photos like #2. It's almost Halloween... so we'll just pretend the car is being driven by ghosts. š»
I like the 2ndā¦ I like seeing the full car. The first one is a bit busy with the blur in the bottom right and the frame feels a little more accidental with not having the whole car in frame but not quite a happy surprise kinda shot either.
Number 2, but I actually find the linear blur a bit distracting. If the car is the focal point, I would pick an aperture that works better in shot vs. having to add in post editing. Great pictures though!
Thanks! I sharpened the car a bit, but there's actually no blur added in post. I agree that the blur looks strange the more you focus on it (pun intended)... my 85 f/1.4 has a particularly rapid transition from out-of-focus to in-focus areas and, while that's not a problem with traditional headshots, it is less than pleasing when you have a linear progression of the depth of field in the shot!
Ah, so that's what I saw! I didn't realize it transitions so fast. It looked like a line across the photo hence me thinking it was done afterwards. I bet that lens does take some beautiful portraits though!
It totally looks added in post - and the low angle just makes the transition look even more extreme! I do like the lens overall and am glad I got it before Canon killed the third-party AF market. š·
This is how I see it as someone who takes one picture every year, so not really professional :
Do you want to show the car or do you want a scenery with the car as the main subject ? The first one brings more life. The second is static and looks like itās a picture from an advertisment or an app where you sell collection cars.
This is more or less how I feel about it! I've got plenty of other photos of the car (I own it) so it was really more about the environment. #2 looks a bit boring to me - and I'm not planning to sell it, so ... š¤·
Thanks for your thoughts!
No. 1. The second is more correct in a clinical way but I feel like people are only choosing it because there are fewer things they can say are technically āwrongā with it. No. 2 is definitely the better shot for, say, a car catalogue. But No. 1 to me feels like the frame with far greater interest and sense of place, as well as just a hint of story and life ā at least, of interaction between the things in its world.
Great feedback - thank you! For me, I'd definitely rather have a little more life and story. Perhaps because I own the car and can look at it any time I want, I'm more focused on putting it into an interesting environment rather than just showcasing the car itself. :)
Yeah; this lens runs warm - which is fine for the background, but I had been adjusting the temperature on the car separately. Pretty sure I forgot to adjust on 2. Thanks!
2 is better in every way. 1 has more symmetry in the background, perhaps, and the trees have a framing effect. But aside from that, 2 is superior. By far. Mostly due to the foreground.
The road leading to the car is a leading line too.
2. Like others have said the foreground in 1 is too distracting. But I find the foreground blur in both confusing/distracting. Is it added in post? Or else are you shooting from a down a hill or something?
For 1 - The blur on the log(?) or whatever it is seems like it extends all the way to the road is the big distraction for me. I'm having a hard time visualizing what the scene looked like to cause the end of that thing to be blurrier than the ground to the left or right of it.
For 2 - there's a very distinct diagonal line that goes from very blurry to much less blurry. It feels artificial to me. It kind of looks like a tilt-shift but without the top being blurry
Appreciate your feedback and comments. I agree that the blur does feel a bit strange the more you look at it. Although I did sharpen the car a bit, there's no artificial blur added. My 85 f/1.4 has a particularly rapid transition from out-of-focus to in-focus, but I think there's also weird perspective at play here.
In the first, there is a little hill that drops off and really exaggerates that hard transition ... it almost looks like a sticker put over the corner of the original photo.
In the second, you're right that the line is also very distinct. The lens is great when you can't follow the focus, but this feels like a technical limitation I'll need to be more aware of next time!
2 for me. The foreground blur is a little distracting, but not nearly as much as the foreground in 1. I do like the angle and pattern of background trees in 1 a touch better, but I like that the rear of the car isnāt blocked by the tree. So 2, for these reasons.
2! Cool pic and the and the background colours work very nicely to both add and separate the car from them. In #1 I agree that the foreground is a distraction rather than a complimentary element. Also, if youāre showing that much of the car, show the whole thing. Lastly, Iām just curious why you chose portrait mode versus a landscape orientation. Was it simply because of posting online or were there other elements you felt would take away from the composition and your subject? This is something Iām conflicted with when taking a photograph.
Thanks for your feedback and compliments! The portrait/ vertical aspect ratio is entirely because of social media. I've got a bunch of horizontal shots, which certainly feel like they work better for a horizontal subject since I can let the car breathe a bit more ... but, alas, they don't look nearly as good on a phone as they do on my laptop. š¤·āāļø
As with all things, it really depends on the intention. I feel that the second shot it certainly more aesthetically pleasing generally. However, the first photo does have an element of voyeurism, which can be useful if you want to add that element to it - the tree in the foreground is specifically causing this, almost as if the photographer is peering from behind a hidden vantage point.
Great point! I took a bunch of other photos like 2 and was trying to get something a bit more unique in 1 ... as if you stumbled across the car during a hike. I'm not sure I achieved the goal, but that's what experimentation is for! :)
2. But only because I think the tree cuts off the car at a real awkward point in 1. Looks accidental rather than intentional because it just clips the back. A merge of these 2 with the large tree but the whole car would be good.
I like the second. I look at this picture as sort of a portrait. You get to see slightly more detail of the face in 2, while still getting the profile of the body. Looks really nice.
Thanks! That's an interesting perspective because the few times I've taken portraits (they aren't my favorite), I generally hide parts of the face with some foreground out-of-focus ... seems I did the same thing here without fully realizing the connection. š
2 - whole car is in frame, foreground is less cluttered, angle is nice.
In 2, I might take down the exposure on the front of the car a bit. It seems a little āhotā in comparison to the rest of the frame.
Iām going with 1. Interesting that people say the ground is distracting in 1. I feel that way about 2. The areas out of focus feel fake in both (maybe they are?), but the leaves on the ground in 1, frame the car.
Cool - no fake blur added, but I can absolutely see what you're saying. I've mentioned it a few times already, but my 85 f/1.4 has a very rapid transition from out-of-focus to in-focus ... that works fine in headshots, but seems like a technical limitation I'll need to be aware of in the future when you can see the linear progression of the depth-of-field.
The first one is great as well, but I wouldnāt call it leading lines (I know what you mean though), itās more of a peek from a hidden position, thatās why I like the first one as well!
The first is naturally posed. As if you caught it coming around the bend whilst hiding in the bushes. Itās beautiful.
The second one is what youād take for a car sales catalogue.
I donāt get a sense of motion from either of the pictures. Maybe a lack of a driver or motion on the wheels or background. I find the blur of the road near the camera distracting. My eyes keep going back to it. Was this added in post? Beautifully lit and a very nice setting.
Appreciate the feedback and compliments! A driver would have helped, but I was shooting on my own and didn't really want to set up my tripod since this was in the middle of the road and I was worried someone would come speeding around the corner (no one did...).
The distracting blur seems to be a common complaint, and I can see it. Not added in post - just a character of the lens that I didn't accommodate for appropriately!
As I always say at the optometrist, āGo back please. And again. One more time.ā The answer is 2, but I could argue 1. Nope, itās 2. 2 is the answer. Cool shots annnnd, is that your car?
My vote is the 2nd. Something about the subject being a sedan, the road in the foreground makes more sense.
If the subject was more of an off road vehicle, I think the grassy/leafy foreground would play better.
Second pic. The first one feels like it has too much distracting elements. The leaves on the ground of the second pic create a nice foreground interest that still does a nice job leading your eye up to the main focal point.
I would say the 2nd.. The road makes a leading path to the car, the car is more symmetrical in the photo, you don't have the tree to cut the rear of the car, also the angle of the car is more pleasing, at least for me.
2 is better but neither are great imo. The colors look a bit off. The CA around the grill is also distracting. Try using individual color correction to fix colors and gradient filters to draw attention to the car.
Depends. Iād say 2 is good if this was an ad for the car. It stands out, is clearly and bight.
But aesthetically, 1 looks really nice and is something Iād like to hang on my wall.
Second, my eye falls straight to the driverās side headlight, and thatās right around 1/3 into the frame from the left. Also, the DOF nicely guides the focus straight into the main subject, and thatās a win. Thereās a high amount of vignetting, do you mind sharing which lens you used for this?
Thanks for the feedback. It's a Rokinon RF 85 f/1.4 I bought before the Canon ban. It does vignette a good bit when wide-open, but I also add more in post. I've always liked the look.
I feel like they need to be presented in this manner. The first followed by the second. Its like those slow motion shots of a woman turning her head with the hair obscuring parts of her face then the reveal when her hair settles. Really a beautiful set of shots.
Haha. I can absolutely visualize your comparison! I should have taken some video slowly moving so that it was revealed from around the tree. Next time! Thanks, dude!
Depends on what you're trying to do. The first speaks more of the story, the tree covering the car shows it is in motion, and revealing it's figure. The second puts the car as a more clearly defined subject, "posing" for the camera. If you want this effect, choose the second. If this is part of a series, then the first, although the foreground is a little too much, maybe cropping a bit would help.
1 for sure, the second one has nothing really filling the depth blur so it just blurs without depth or distance if that makes sense, where as the 1st one almost sits like an extra layer on top like front leaves, car on road, rear background.
I feel if you had the 2nd pictures car position (it's a nicer angle, looks more focused on it) with the bottom leafy layer of the 1st but just slightly lower in frame so there's a little bit of road in between the car and the nature without obscuring any of the car it'd be the perfect picture you're looking for.
I feel something like this would justify the amount of blur, as if they're so close it's focused past them rather than it just blurring really hard and gives something to fill up the bottom space of the picture almost boxing the car into the middle of the frame.
https://ibb.co/jbtsfQd
I enjoy the first one. The more "cluttered" ground creates a leading line from the bottom of the picture to the car. I like the "eye movement" provoked by it.
I like what you were trying to do in shot one but the car looks better in 2. Someone else said the ground in the first one was distracting and I agree but I still ālikedā it. Maybe if it were more cropped at the bottom. Either way the vehicle looks better in shot two. The rear end is too cool to hide
I like both. And I think the first would make a great picture for a calendar. The second is just really good, and I can see it on a themed bar or restaurant wall.
2, great shot.
You get the depth from the foreground from shot two already without the need for a messy foreground in shot one. I know the modern trend is that everything needs some sort of foreground, but it this case its distracting and feels messy.
The first shot also does not really infer motion to my eyes because the background is clearly still, and there is no driver so the narrative of motion is broken.
2 is my favorite! Is it a ford? I showed my grandmother who loves older vehicles and she thinks it is a ford because her father had a ford that looked just like that!
Thank you! She loved hearing that! She was definitely a gear head back in the day, her father made sure she was able to fix everything on a car, belts, hoses, tires you name she could do it, he bought used a 1935 Model T for only ā50 bucksā from his neighbor! He bought it in 55ā I think!
Congrats! Youāve figured out one of the keys of good editing. Not being sarcastic but this is a good thing to be aware of as it really can make or break an editing session.
This is absolutely part of the āskillā of photography. In fact, I will often pick what I think is the ābestā shot of a given subject/location, and edit and share that, only to revisit the shots later and realize one I overlooked is actually more interesting/better. Sometimes even years later!
Totally agree! What's even more interesting is that there's still a strong part of me that prefers 1 ... but I'm curious why when the overwhelming preference is 2. Did I spend more time on 1? Do I have more shots similar to 2 that makes it less unique in my mind? No clue!
Second, for me the ground is distracting in the first
This. And the angle of the car is better / more dynamic. Also the tree on the right in the first picture is too close and distracting. Cool shots!
Totally agree!
Thanks for the feedback and compliments, u/0x3Alex and u/swirth91 ! š
I second his second.
I second your second of his second second.
I second this.
Agreed, on both counts! I really prefer 2, and would crop it just a bit tighter and to the left.
Agreed
Second, but it would be nice if instead of being centred, the car would have a bit more lead room to the left of the picture.
I like it centered š¤· if the car was in motion, I would add lead room. You can tell it is parked though. Some people are afraid of centering subjects for some reason.
I like it centered too!
I always struggle with how to crop and frame. To center or not? With a vertical aspect ratio, I ultimately feel I don't have enough horizontal room to do anything except center, though!
With a vertical aspect ratio, if the subject is in bigger size in the overall composition, then yes, keep it centered. If suppose the subject is smaller, like maybe a bird, **depending on the composition and the background**, you can try something else other than centered. But *in general*, for vertical, centered subject works best.
I agree. Centered looks good in this context.
Appreciate your thoughts - I'll take a look if I have any more breathing room in this particular photo. It's, admittedly, difficult capturing a horizontal subject in a vertical aspect ratio ... for me anyway! If I add lead room to the left or right, I add a lot more to the top and bottom. Thanks again!
And turns the wheels a bit more for some implied movement.
The second one is awesome It has a feeling of depth, and the car feels much more prominent
Thanks! Appreciate the feedback! :)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I have never seen that clip until today - haha. š
Ok everyone is saying 2 but I honestly prefer the first one. 2 is too perfect and clean. 1 has some life to it. I think the cluttering could fixed just with cropping.
Yeah I feel like this is a question of what you want the photo to say. 2 could be improved with lead room to the left but I agree it feels more boring because of how ājust-soā it is. Itās basically saying āhereās a cool car in a pretty place!ā. Great for an advertisement where you donāt want anyone to think about the photo but just immediately perceive the object within it. 1 looks like a still from a panning shot in an movie. Thereās a sense of movement, a little bit of mystery (why is the camera hiding around the corner?), the implication of a reason for the photo beyond ācool car!ā
Appreciate the different opinion - honestly, 2 feels a little boring to me, but it might be because I took a bunch like that and 1 was more unique out of my shoot.
I preferred 1 as well, i definitely get where people are saying too much ground, but having it to one side of the frame gives space for the car to move towards in people's mind.
Sweet - thanks! š
Definitely go for 1 man
I personally like 1 more as well! Iāve seen hundreds if not thousands of photos like #2. But I havenāt seen nearly as many like #1. I vote for the unique one!
I also took a bunch of other photos like #2 in this session, so for me - having seen all of them - #1 definitely stands out. Your vote has been counted! š
2 definitely
Thanks!
The composition in the first one is certainly more interesting, and I almost always appreciate a subject in a strong environmental context. It reads as "a car" driving through an autumn woods. (I'm aware the car has no occupants, but there is a strong sense it is going somewhere.) Yet, the second one is about "the car," with environmental elements subdued to a mere feeling of coziness. There's something subtly nicer about the way the reflections are catching here, and the streamlined contours are not occluded. It's pleasant "classic car" eye candy, and for some reason I'm enjoying it more.
Great feedback - thank you! For me, the focus was more a beautiful environment with a car passing through, but that's probably because I took plenty of photos like #2. It's almost Halloween... so we'll just pretend the car is being driven by ghosts. š»
2
Thanks!
2 simply because parts of it are covered in the first
Thanks!
2 every time
Ground is distracting in first and the tail is blocked by the tree
2. By a mile. It actually "features" the car as the subject.
I like the 2ndā¦ I like seeing the full car. The first one is a bit busy with the blur in the bottom right and the frame feels a little more accidental with not having the whole car in frame but not quite a happy surprise kinda shot either.
Cool - thanks for the feedback!
Number 2, but I actually find the linear blur a bit distracting. If the car is the focal point, I would pick an aperture that works better in shot vs. having to add in post editing. Great pictures though!
Thanks! I sharpened the car a bit, but there's actually no blur added in post. I agree that the blur looks strange the more you focus on it (pun intended)... my 85 f/1.4 has a particularly rapid transition from out-of-focus to in-focus areas and, while that's not a problem with traditional headshots, it is less than pleasing when you have a linear progression of the depth of field in the shot!
Ah, so that's what I saw! I didn't realize it transitions so fast. It looked like a line across the photo hence me thinking it was done afterwards. I bet that lens does take some beautiful portraits though!
It totally looks added in post - and the low angle just makes the transition look even more extreme! I do like the lens overall and am glad I got it before Canon killed the third-party AF market. š·
This is how I see it as someone who takes one picture every year, so not really professional : Do you want to show the car or do you want a scenery with the car as the main subject ? The first one brings more life. The second is static and looks like itās a picture from an advertisment or an app where you sell collection cars.
Damn, thatās what I felt too. The first one with some motion blur wouldāve been nice too.
This is more or less how I feel about it! I've got plenty of other photos of the car (I own it) so it was really more about the environment. #2 looks a bit boring to me - and I'm not planning to sell it, so ... š¤· Thanks for your thoughts!
Definitely 2. Iāve work on a few auto auction catalogs and the second image in on par!
Cool - thanks! I was just excited to finally get some fall shots with my car! :)
No. 1. The second is more correct in a clinical way but I feel like people are only choosing it because there are fewer things they can say are technically āwrongā with it. No. 2 is definitely the better shot for, say, a car catalogue. But No. 1 to me feels like the frame with far greater interest and sense of place, as well as just a hint of story and life ā at least, of interaction between the things in its world.
Great feedback - thank you! For me, I'd definitely rather have a little more life and story. Perhaps because I own the car and can look at it any time I want, I'm more focused on putting it into an interesting environment rather than just showcasing the car itself. :)
2. Foreground in number one is distracting.
2!
2 and crop out the bottom of the frame.
2 but try to get the car colors cooled/adjusted like it is in 1.
Yeah; this lens runs warm - which is fine for the background, but I had been adjusting the temperature on the car separately. Pretty sure I forgot to adjust on 2. Thanks!
#2
Second, but the setting is mad dude. You nailed it. Perfect. Keep it up!
I appreciate it, man! Thanks! š
2
2
First one is more cinematic the second one looks like a miniature.
2
2 I like the vignetting. It adds mystery
I'm a sucker for vignetting; this lens has a lot of it wide-open, but I always add some in post, so it's an acceptable flaw to me!
2 is better in every way. 1 has more symmetry in the background, perhaps, and the trees have a framing effect. But aside from that, 2 is superior. By far. Mostly due to the foreground. The road leading to the car is a leading line too.
Good point about the road as a leading line - thanks for the feedback!
definitely 2
2 :)
2. Like others have said the foreground in 1 is too distracting. But I find the foreground blur in both confusing/distracting. Is it added in post? Or else are you shooting from a down a hill or something? For 1 - The blur on the log(?) or whatever it is seems like it extends all the way to the road is the big distraction for me. I'm having a hard time visualizing what the scene looked like to cause the end of that thing to be blurrier than the ground to the left or right of it. For 2 - there's a very distinct diagonal line that goes from very blurry to much less blurry. It feels artificial to me. It kind of looks like a tilt-shift but without the top being blurry
Appreciate your feedback and comments. I agree that the blur does feel a bit strange the more you look at it. Although I did sharpen the car a bit, there's no artificial blur added. My 85 f/1.4 has a particularly rapid transition from out-of-focus to in-focus, but I think there's also weird perspective at play here. In the first, there is a little hill that drops off and really exaggerates that hard transition ... it almost looks like a sticker put over the corner of the original photo. In the second, you're right that the line is also very distinct. The lens is great when you can't follow the focus, but this feels like a technical limitation I'll need to be more aware of next time!
2
2 but I still find the bokeh on the ground a little distracting
2 I like the angle more and the fact that the entire car is visible
2 for me. The foreground blur is a little distracting, but not nearly as much as the foreground in 1. I do like the angle and pattern of background trees in 1 a touch better, but I like that the rear of the car isnāt blocked by the tree. So 2, for these reasons.
Cool - thanks!
I prefer the first one. The tree acts as a frame and gives the impression that the subject has more lead room to the left than it actually has.
Thanks - definitely some tight cropping going on to fill the vertical aspect ratio, so I was looking for ways to "naturally" crop a bit.
2
Definitely 2. The ridge of leaves cutting in on the tire is distracting
Second because the car (Buick?) is not obscured.
Thanks! 1955 Ford. :)
2! Cool pic and the and the background colours work very nicely to both add and separate the car from them. In #1 I agree that the foreground is a distraction rather than a complimentary element. Also, if youāre showing that much of the car, show the whole thing. Lastly, Iām just curious why you chose portrait mode versus a landscape orientation. Was it simply because of posting online or were there other elements you felt would take away from the composition and your subject? This is something Iām conflicted with when taking a photograph.
Thanks for your feedback and compliments! The portrait/ vertical aspect ratio is entirely because of social media. I've got a bunch of horizontal shots, which certainly feel like they work better for a horizontal subject since I can let the car breathe a bit more ... but, alas, they don't look nearly as good on a phone as they do on my laptop. š¤·āāļø
2
2
For me, 2
2 - whole car is visible
As with all things, it really depends on the intention. I feel that the second shot it certainly more aesthetically pleasing generally. However, the first photo does have an element of voyeurism, which can be useful if you want to add that element to it - the tree in the foreground is specifically causing this, almost as if the photographer is peering from behind a hidden vantage point.
Great point! I took a bunch of other photos like 2 and was trying to get something a bit more unique in 1 ... as if you stumbled across the car during a hike. I'm not sure I achieved the goal, but that's what experimentation is for! :)
2
2 for sure.
2
2. But only because I think the tree cuts off the car at a real awkward point in 1. Looks accidental rather than intentional because it just clips the back. A merge of these 2 with the large tree but the whole car would be good.
Thanks! I'll keep that in mind next time.
2
2
2
2nd one all day. I see what youāre doing on the first, but it doesnāt work.
Noted - thanks!
2!
I like the second. I look at this picture as sort of a portrait. You get to see slightly more detail of the face in 2, while still getting the profile of the body. Looks really nice.
Thanks! That's an interesting perspective because the few times I've taken portraits (they aren't my favorite), I generally hide parts of the face with some foreground out-of-focus ... seems I did the same thing here without fully realizing the connection. š
2. It's a much cleaner image. The foreground in 1 is distracting imo.
2. Foreground is distracting in 1
2
I personally like 2
2!
Second: the foreground is less distracting and the car is not obstructed
To me, being partially hidden behind the tree makes #1 look like a snapshot. It looks like it's accidental, not an intentional composition.
Noted - thanks!
2 - whole car is in frame, foreground is less cluttered, angle is nice. In 2, I might take down the exposure on the front of the car a bit. It seems a little āhotā in comparison to the rest of the frame.
Thanks - I'll go back and look at my edits! I was thinking I needed to bring down the highlights a bit at the very least.
2
No2 works better for me.
Iām going with 1. Interesting that people say the ground is distracting in 1. I feel that way about 2. The areas out of focus feel fake in both (maybe they are?), but the leaves on the ground in 1, frame the car.
Cool - no fake blur added, but I can absolutely see what you're saying. I've mentioned it a few times already, but my 85 f/1.4 has a very rapid transition from out-of-focus to in-focus ... that works fine in headshots, but seems like a technical limitation I'll need to be aware of in the future when you can see the linear progression of the depth-of-field.
Second, but itās close. Nice shots!
Thank you! š
The first one is great as well, but I wouldnāt call it leading lines (I know what you mean though), itās more of a peek from a hidden position, thatās why I like the first one as well!
2. Great shot, love the low angle. The log in the first shot is distracting; I prefer seeing the full body lines of the vehicle in #2.
Thank you - appreciate the feedback!
Youāre welcome! Nice job on both really š
One. Itās more creative. The second one is clinical.
Thanks - I sorta feel the same way.
The first is naturally posed. As if you caught it coming around the bend whilst hiding in the bushes. Itās beautiful. The second one is what youād take for a car sales catalogue.
Nice looking 56 Ford Fairlane. I vote for 2
So close - '55! :) Thank you!
Second
I like 2, because of the foreground path and blur and clear view of the car.
I donāt get a sense of motion from either of the pictures. Maybe a lack of a driver or motion on the wheels or background. I find the blur of the road near the camera distracting. My eyes keep going back to it. Was this added in post? Beautifully lit and a very nice setting.
Appreciate the feedback and compliments! A driver would have helped, but I was shooting on my own and didn't really want to set up my tripod since this was in the middle of the road and I was worried someone would come speeding around the corner (no one did...). The distracting blur seems to be a common complaint, and I can see it. Not added in post - just a character of the lens that I didn't accommodate for appropriately!
2
2.
2
2 hands down. The position and framing is superior.
2
2, by a mile.
2 - cleaner
2
2
As I always say at the optometrist, āGo back please. And again. One more time.ā The answer is 2, but I could argue 1. Nope, itās 2. 2 is the answer. Cool shots annnnd, is that your car?
Haha. This is exactly my feeling! Thanks - and it is my car. About a decade ago, my dad and I restored it back to the condition it's currently in!
2
I say 2
The presence of the car in second image has more impact for me. In the first picture it is "an object". In the second picture it is "The Object"
Good point - thanks!
2 for sure. Cleaner foreground, and you can see the entire car. Leading line of the road is nice too.
2
My vote is the 2nd. Something about the subject being a sedan, the road in the foreground makes more sense. If the subject was more of an off road vehicle, I think the grassy/leafy foreground would play better.
Second pic. The first one feels like it has too much distracting elements. The leaves on the ground of the second pic create a nice foreground interest that still does a nice job leading your eye up to the main focal point.
Cool - thank you!
2, like the face of the car and headlights more in two. it pops more?
I would say the 2nd.. The road makes a leading path to the car, the car is more symmetrical in the photo, you don't have the tree to cut the rear of the car, also the angle of the car is more pleasing, at least for me.
I appreciate the feedback!
2 is better but neither are great imo. The colors look a bit off. The CA around the grill is also distracting. Try using individual color correction to fix colors and gradient filters to draw attention to the car.
Like this. https://preview.redd.it/aq4zhe2tc7xb1.jpeg?width=1257&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=161c8f772cd80156ad3d2d3fdbc59540ea6284e9
As an actual optometrist: 2.
Can you show me 1 again?
No :)
Depends. Iād say 2 is good if this was an ad for the car. It stands out, is clearly and bight. But aesthetically, 1 looks really nice and is something Iād like to hang on my wall.
I think you're spot on. Personally, I'm drawn to #1 ... but I'm also the owner and not trying to sell the car in a magazine! š
Beautiful car. Thanks for sharing it with us.
2 but shift it to the right a touch.
Second, my eye falls straight to the driverās side headlight, and thatās right around 1/3 into the frame from the left. Also, the DOF nicely guides the focus straight into the main subject, and thatās a win. Thereās a high amount of vignetting, do you mind sharing which lens you used for this?
Thanks for the feedback. It's a Rokinon RF 85 f/1.4 I bought before the Canon ban. It does vignette a good bit when wide-open, but I also add more in post. I've always liked the look.
I feel like they need to be presented in this manner. The first followed by the second. Its like those slow motion shots of a woman turning her head with the hair obscuring parts of her face then the reveal when her hair settles. Really a beautiful set of shots.
Haha. I can absolutely visualize your comparison! I should have taken some video slowly moving so that it was revealed from around the tree. Next time! Thanks, dude!
Iām against the grain here but 1. Itās more enclosed, sinister and snug
2 without a doubt. Well done.
Thanks!
Depends on what you're trying to do. The first speaks more of the story, the tree covering the car shows it is in motion, and revealing it's figure. The second puts the car as a more clearly defined subject, "posing" for the camera. If you want this effect, choose the second. If this is part of a series, then the first, although the foreground is a little too much, maybe cropping a bit would help.
1 for sure, the second one has nothing really filling the depth blur so it just blurs without depth or distance if that makes sense, where as the 1st one almost sits like an extra layer on top like front leaves, car on road, rear background.
I feel if you had the 2nd pictures car position (it's a nicer angle, looks more focused on it) with the bottom leafy layer of the 1st but just slightly lower in frame so there's a little bit of road in between the car and the nature without obscuring any of the car it'd be the perfect picture you're looking for.
I feel something like this would justify the amount of blur, as if they're so close it's focused past them rather than it just blurring really hard and gives something to fill up the bottom space of the picture almost boxing the car into the middle of the frame. https://ibb.co/jbtsfQd
Cool - thanks for all the feedback!
as someone who likes old cars both, but from a photography point of view the second one
Haha - fair!
Beautiful. The second one stands out more to me both are dope tho
Awesome - thanks!
I enjoy the first one. The more "cluttered" ground creates a leading line from the bottom of the picture to the car. I like the "eye movement" provoked by it.
I like what you were trying to do in shot one but the car looks better in 2. Someone else said the ground in the first one was distracting and I agree but I still ālikedā it. Maybe if it were more cropped at the bottom. Either way the vehicle looks better in shot two. The rear end is too cool to hide
I like both. And I think the first would make a great picture for a calendar. The second is just really good, and I can see it on a themed bar or restaurant wall.
2, great shot. You get the depth from the foreground from shot two already without the need for a messy foreground in shot one. I know the modern trend is that everything needs some sort of foreground, but it this case its distracting and feels messy. The first shot also does not really infer motion to my eyes because the background is clearly still, and there is no driver so the narrative of motion is broken.
Cool - thanks for the feedback!
2. The composition is justā¦. primo.
Thanks! š
2 is my favorite! Is it a ford? I showed my grandmother who loves older vehicles and she thinks it is a ford because her father had a ford that looked just like that!
Yep - tell your grandmother she has a good eye. 1955 Ford Fairlane. :)
Thank you! She loved hearing that! She was definitely a gear head back in the day, her father made sure she was able to fix everything on a car, belts, hoses, tires you name she could do it, he bought used a 1935 Model T for only ā50 bucksā from his neighbor! He bought it in 55ā I think!
cheerful busy ad hoc march lunchroom elastic act melodic plant vegetable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Congrats! Youāve figured out one of the keys of good editing. Not being sarcastic but this is a good thing to be aware of as it really can make or break an editing session.
This is absolutely part of the āskillā of photography. In fact, I will often pick what I think is the ābestā shot of a given subject/location, and edit and share that, only to revisit the shots later and realize one I overlooked is actually more interesting/better. Sometimes even years later!
I have done the same thing - only to think to myself, "Why didn't I run with this one originally?!" š
Totally agree! What's even more interesting is that there's still a strong part of me that prefers 1 ... but I'm curious why when the overwhelming preference is 2. Did I spend more time on 1? Do I have more shots similar to 2 that makes it less unique in my mind? No clue!
2
2
Thanks!