Recent Professional Works

[MH]

clients returning to photography.. seems that we are living in different worlds.
2 of 3 car advertisements are cgi (in germany, france, spain..). i would love to see more photography again.
but it can be a very powerful and pleasant tool to save money and keep your set up small.
in my case, i just started to deal with 3d rendering stuff. it is not a anti-photography thing, its more like the photographer becomes a director. and as i call me a photographer, i put the work into a photography forum


 

[haefnerphoto]

I think (and hope) you will see more photography.  Here in Detroit, CGI started being used in 2002 or 2003.  Lots of photographers bought either Panoscans or Spherons so that they could participate in this burgeoning business.  To my knowledge everyone lost money on them, myself included.  The CGI houses needed only so many domes before they could cover the gamut of exterior (or interior) lighting situations (if they use them at all).  The consulting end of it didn't last long either, the renderers had a difficult time explaining to their clients why they couldn't handle the situation without a photographer.  That doesn't mean that photographers are never involved in the process but the majority of rendering is done without the benefit of one of us.  I am not a fan of CGI for obvious reasons and am thrilled that, at least, here in Detroit I see some of the business returning to photography.  At a time when photographers can be so productive because of the digital workflow it's cost effective to shoot automobiles.  As you're finding out, rendering the product is just the beginning of the CG process.  The amount of retouching required to make the rendered art adequate is considerable, this workflow takes a lot more time than photography too.  So that we can keep to this thread's premise, here's another recent image.  Jim





 

[fredjeang]

I think (and hope) you will see more photography.  Here in Detroit, CGI started being used in 2002 or 2003.  Lots of photographers bought either Panoscans or Spherons so that they could participate in this burgeoning business.  To my knowledge everyone lost money on them, myself included.  The CGI houses needed only so many domes before they could cover the gamut of exterior (or interior) lighting situations (if they use them at all).  The consulting end of it didn't last long either, the renderers had a difficult time explaining to their clients why they couldn't handle the situation without a photographer.  That doesn't mean that photographers are never involved in the process but the majority of rendering is done without the benefit of one of us.  I am not a fan of CGI for obvious reasons and am thrilled that, at least, here in Detroit I see some of the business returning to photography.  At a time when photographers can be so productive because of the digital workflow it's cost effective to shoot automobiles.  As you're finding out, rendering the product is just the beginning of the CG process.  The amount of retouching required to make the rendered art adequate is considerable, this workflow takes a lot more time than photography too.  So that we can keep to this thread's premise, here's another recent image.  Jim

That is true. But talking about CGI, there is an issue. Indeed photography is more cost effective when you compare 2 identical things, like for example a very experienced team. But there is a "new" working market particularly active in CGI wich are those very very skilled kids, some are indeed gurus, that for the moment are not emancipated and have very little idea, or care, about the cost-price of things. There is a very cheap and very skilled young talents. They don't have to run business or family, they are very cheap and very good and actually into the working market in a "discrete" form.

[haefnerphoto]

I think I'm about done with these images.  These were shot during my trip to Death Valley and Las Vegas, as well as, a couple of studio shots.  I'll divide them between automotive images and landscape/architecture.  Jim

[haefnerphoto]

Here's the balance.  Jim

[SecondFocus]

Incredible Jim! WOW!

[feppe]

Here's the balance.  Jim

Great shots, especially the Zabriskie shot looks stunning.

Any chance we'll see Ford F150 Raptor shot by you? I'm more of a bike (HD) guy, but saw it on Top Gear US and it's the first pickup I'd consider buying.

[Frank Doorhof]

Love the front shot and shot from above wow.
Landscapes are great too, heck love them all

[NickCroken]

I love the processing on the city center shot

[david.westphal]

MH, Just out of curiosity, why are you showing CG cars on a photography forum?  I've done a fair amount of consulting when CG first started to be used to render vehicles and my take on it is that unless there are no vehicles available it's better to shoot them.  Of course I'm a bit biased!  Fortunately, my clients are returning to photography, none of them ever professed any love for CG but their client would force it upon them.  Now even the manufacturer sees the advantage of photography (thankfully).  Attached is one of my recent images.  Jim

Sorry for the honesty, but I think your kinda coming off as being arrogant here.  It's obvious this guys new at rendering.  And if he's rendering the files himself, there's probably an even greater curve for him to get past.  I think the work has some fundamental issues that you addressed in your earlier post, but I think your delivery of the message is off.

I think MH should be on a render for feedback and maybe he's interested in photography feedback here?  I don't know, not a regular visitor to this forum.  But with your experience, I'd think you'd be more forgiving because you were in his shoes at some point, like all of us...

I think this guy should work strictly on the background, get a look down and get it dialed, then use that to inform the lighting of the car....

With regards to your drop shadow on the car, if you look at the shadows in the foreground you can see that the shadow for the car does not match the scene.  I would work on that to improve your image.  I'm not sure, the car might not be in the correct perspective.  Can't tell with the shadow.

David

[haefnerphoto]

Sorry for the honesty, but I think your kinda coming off as being arrogant here.  It's obvious this guys new at rendering.  And if he's rendering the files himself, there's probably an even greater curve for him to get past.  I think the work has some fundamental issues that you addressed in your earlier post, but I think your delivery of the message is off.

I think MH should be on a render for feedback and maybe he's interested in photography feedback here?  I don't know, not a regular visitor to this forum.  But with your experience, I'd think you'd be more forgiving because you were in his shoes at some point, like all of us...

I think this guy should work strictly on the background, get a look down and get it dialed, then use that to inform the lighting of the car....

With regards to your drop shadow on the car, if you look at the shadows in the foreground you can see that the shadow for the car does not match the scene.  I would work on that to improve your image.  I'm not sure, the car might not be in the correct perspective.  Can't tell with the shadow.



David

David, Arrogance wasn't my intention.  My original post was meant to give some feedback on his image, I didn't know that it was CG.  That fact alone indicates that the image was successful enough (although the file size didn't allow for very close inspection).  I actually thought it was a strip because of his drop shadow.  I still question the reasoning behind showing CGI on a photography forum but it's not that big of a deal.  In regards to shadows, they're tough.  I'm not sure if you're referring to the shadow on the CG image or the one on my Camaro but if it's the latter, I agree, it needs some finessing.  Jim

[Rob C]

The hell with the shadow
Just gimme the Camaro!

;-(

Rob C

[Frank Doorhof]

A few from yesterday.

And a nice motion promo : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sSum9APq_4

[david.westphal]

David, Arrogance wasn't my intention.  My original post was meant to give some feedback on his image, I didn't know that it was CG.  That fact alone indicates that the image was successful enough (although the file size didn't allow for very close inspection).  I actually thought it was a strip because of his drop shadow.  I still question the reasoning behind showing CGI on a photography forum but it's not that big of a deal.  In regards to shadows, they're tough.  I'm not sure if you're referring to the shadow on the CG image or the one on my Camaro but if it's the latter, I agree, it needs some finessing.  Jim

Could have been my mis-read on the posts.  In terms of the camaro, I was looking at the shadows of ridges on the ground surface.  I think that was bonneville?  The thing about bonneville or almost any dry lake bed (to a lesser degree), there's a lot of bounce back.  The shadows are really filled in by the ground.  Plus, low light would extend the shadow out the back....  But you don't need me to tell you how to retouch.

David

[AndreNapier]

Something different. No more big projects just a studio work ala MM.
http://Http://AndreNapierStudio.com

[haefnerphoto]

Beautiful! Pretty girl, pretty light!!

[wolfnowl]

Yes, nice light indeed.  Makes one wonder what she's waiting for...

Mike.

[AndreNapier]

Thank you guys.
It was lit by Bron Para 220 with 170 diffusion cloth attached in the center of it. I very much like the effect which is a mixture of soft center with contrasty edges.
http://Http://AndreNapierStudio.com

[BobDavid]

a time exposure of a Central Florida car lot

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

Thank you guys.
It was lit by Bron Para 220 with 170 diffusion cloth attached in the center of it. I very much like the effect which is a mixture of soft center with contrasty edges.
http://Http://AndreNapierStudio.com

What is the main difference between a para and a softbox? Is it the size or something more?