Recent Professional Works

[MarkoRepse]

Very nice Rob! Great title too.

[Rob C]

Very nice Rob! Great title too.

Thanks, I enjoy playing with words and pictures. It became a bit of a thing with two clients; both liked me to write some brief caption to the calendar pages which left me somewhat bemused; one never knew quite how far off-centre it was permissible to stray or, for that matter, whether the attempt would remain far too opaque. In the end, I did what I though was okay and they just went along with it. One client actually laughed and said: I have no idea what you're talking about, but I like it. I wonder sometimes if that would be possible today, what with political correctness and all that self-defeating nonsense... I'm reliably informed that some of the younger ladies actually do like folks to hold doors open for them; there's a glimmer of hope!

;-)

Rob C

[K.C.]

Here are some images made recently for Road and Track's C7 Corvette cover story.

Great shots!

It's refreshing to see an actual car. Audio and BMW having moved largely to CGI now. I have a couple of friends ready to close amazing studios in Germany because of it.

[FredBGG]

Great shots!

It's refreshing to see an actual car. Audio and BMW having moved largely to CGI now. I have a couple of friends ready to close amazing studios in Germany because of it.

I had a discussion with a car designer a little while ago. I brought up the issue of CG car adds and press releases. He said that a large part of the move to CG is the direction car photography and heavy retouching took.

He said that so much of the car photography is so heavily processed that it starts to look CG. In particular he was referring to the HDR sort of look heavy blacks and contrasts that you just don't see in reality.

In his words he's just seen car photography moved so much towards photo/photoshop illustration that the next logical step was CG.

Many watch makers have gone the same way, but there it's different due to the fact that they are making full pages of small objects do you need to go past reality to have an appearance that
would look comparable to real life viewing of a small object.

To a certain extent I see it happening in fashion photography... Skin textures that are more of an illustration rather than photography. HDR type looks, over working the files etc.
What is interesting is that the more important fashion work is more photographic looking and less post produced. Not saying that they don't retouch wrinkles and folds, but they keep
a more photographic look there.

However it's interesting that at the very high end you will still find a more "purist" (less manipulated) photographic look.

For example IWC campaign and book by Peter Lindbergh. http://www.iwc.com/en/experiences/days-portofino/
Also a look at the Bugatti website media and the cars are shot in a less processed looking way. http://www.bugatti.com/en/experience/media.html

[K.C.]

He said that so much of the car photography is so heavily processed that it starts to look CG. In particular he was referring to the HDR sort of look heavy blacks and contrasts that you just don't see in reality.

But that's been true for a few years and I don't really think it's HDR that's creating the look, but heavy post production.

There's also the reality of the time it takes. Engineering (CAD) files > wire frame for CG app > infinite selection of lighting at rendering stage = a lot less man hours = smaller budget.

While I really do like the shots of the Vette, the tail end of the cars looks completely like it was rendered. Still a great shot, just an observation.

There's a fine line between the two and both can look great.

Check this out: http://www.profoto.com/blog/videos/video-tim-bjorns-wireless-truck-shoot/

[haefnerphoto]

The main reason for automotive art to be accomplished in CG is the lack of a product to photograph.  CG can be realistic or stylized just as photography can be, I see CG images frequently that I can't determine whether they are a photograph or not.  The idea that overproduced car photography leads to an increase of CGI isn't really accurate.  At least in the US automotive photography is increasing from where it was 3-4 years ago, one reason is it's cheaper in many instances.  Another interesting issue about costs is that there is usually just as much retouching on a CG image as there is a photograph.  This Corvette project was accomplished in eleven hours with the car during which I took 13 different photographs, it was an ambitious program by any standard. I turned over the final files within a week of shooting them, this could not have been possible working in CG.  Usually editorial car photography is not stylized and realistic by nature, this project was a studio project due to the incredible amount of security necessary to keep the launch of the vehicle closed (not shown before it's announcement).  My studio photography of automobiles tends to be on the dramatic side and while the actual retouching of the sheetmetal is minimal when a studio car is placed into a location it becomes a bit surreal looking.  But as I mentioned, with the exception of the cover, the vehicle images in the article where just placed on a grey sweep.  There is definitely a move to more realistic imagery in many areas of advertising photography right now but the auto manufacturers are generally more comfortable with great imagery of their product then editorial looks at the car because the vehicles design is so important to it's success.  My background makes it hard for me to not try to define the vehicle's shape and I really enjoy the opportunity to emphasize certain design characteristics.  It's just what I do.  I'm particularly happy with the 3-4 rear and profile, my rep likes the cover because it's basically real, so hopefully I've got some new samples that illustrate both concepts.

Concerning the rear end of the car, it's just a couple of lights bounced into a flat above the vehicle and maybe a little fill on a side wall, certainly nothing out of the ordinary.

[MJSPhoto]

Probably not a good idea to post right after Jim's amazing shots but since we are on cars now.....

A concept car I shot for Hyundai. Project kept getting delayed and then it showed up to the studio 4 hours late meaning I ended up with only about 6 hours of shooting time before it went on the truck to Detroit. Had to pull an all-nighter on the post to make it into the presentation 

[haefnerphoto]

MJS, Nice job on the exteriors but I think the interior really looks great!  Jim

[K.C.]

The idea that overproduced car photography leads to an increase of CGI isn't really accurate.  At least in the US automotive photography is increasing from where it was 3-4 years ago, one reason is it's cheaper in many instances.

I'm the last person that'll claim shooting cars is an over priced market. That's not what I posted and I'll defer to your knowledge of the industry trend here in the U.S.. It's been 25 years since I loaded a 4X5 and shot in a Detroit studio. I was referring to the Germany market, and I don't necessarily know that it's even a trend. I just have two friends who have big studios, and more Broncolor gear than any single human should be allowed to own, that are selling out because they've lost the work to CG. One shot exclusively for Audi and the other for BMW.

Concerning the rear end of the car, it's just a couple of lights bounced into a flat above the vehicle and maybe a little fill on a side wall, certainly nothing out of the ordinary.

Again, I said it "looks" rendered. I didn't think it was. I'm not sure why but it just has a different feel from the rest of the shot.

And believe me I'm glad it's what you do. You're doing a damn fine job of it.

[K.C.]

Probably not a good idea to post right after Jim's amazing shots but since we are on cars now.....

Great images, and I'd agree, the interior shot is outstanding!

[MJSPhoto]

Thanks for the compliments! I am mostly a location shooter and it's a [fun] challenge to do studio work, so it means a lot to me to hear that you liked them. Phew!

I'm the last person that'll claim shooting cars is an over priced market. That's not what I posted and I'll defer to your knowledge of the industry trend here in the U.S.. It's been 25 years since I loaded a 4X5 and shot in a Detroit studio. I was referring to the Germany market, and I don't necessarily know that it's even a trend. I just have two friends who have big studios, and more Broncolor gear than any single human should be allowed to own, that are selling out because they've lost the work to CG. One shot exclusively for Audi and the other for BMW.

Again, I said it looks rendered. I'm not sure why but it just has a different feel from the rest of the shot.

And believe me I'm glad it's what you do. You're doing a damn fine job of it.

Perhaps it is a German thing as Mercedes does mostly CGI too. A landscape photographer friend of mine shoots bg plates and domes for a lot of the Mercedes stuff. He has encouraged me to try shooting backgrounds but I am a car nut and cars are the reason I got into this.

I had a discussion with a car designer a little while ago. I brought up the issue of CG car adds and press releases. He said that a large part of the move to CG is the direction car photography and heavy retouching took.

He said that so much of the car photography is so heavily processed that it starts to look CG. In particular he was referring to the HDR sort of look heavy blacks and contrasts that you just don't see in reality.

In his words he's just seen car photography moved so much towards photo/photoshop illustration that the next logical step was CG.

Many watch makers have gone the same way, but there it's different due to the fact that they are making full pages of small objects do you need to go past reality to have an appearance that
would look comparable to real life viewing of a small object.

I may be wrong, but I saw it as being the other way around, the heavy retouching of photos was made in response to CGI

[Rob C]

To a certain extent I see it happening in fashion photography... Skin textures that are more of an illustration rather than photography. HDR type looks, over working the files etc.
What is interesting is that the more important fashion work is more photographic looking and less post produced. Not saying that they don't retouch wrinkles and folds, but they keep
a more photographic look there.

However it's interesting that at the very high end you will still find a more "purist" (less manipulated) photographic look.

For example IWC campaign and book by Peter Lindbergh. http://www.iwc.com/en/experiences/days-portofino/
Also a look at the Bugatti website media and the cars are shot in a less processed looking way. http://www.bugatti.com/en/experience/media.html

Hi Fred

I have a Thames & Hudson tome called Femme Fatale, with photography by Michael Thompson.

Three photographs spring to mind: a b/w portrait of Cindy Crawford, and two colour shots of Christy Turlington and Carmen Kass. In the Cindy image especially, a very large head shot, the skin is skin and it looks fantastic. The colour images too convey the feeling of person and not mannequin.

I simply don’t understand where the idea of plastic people came from. I do appreciate that I left fashion in the late 70s and that lots has happened since, but why did it take this direction to absurdity? Nobody on the street buys into the idea that it’s representational of women; is that perhaps the purpose? To remove the threat of real beauty from the readership’s worry zone?

Rob C

[Kolor-Pikker]

Or cars.

It seems that even when it's not CGI it's mimicking CGI.

I find that so odd, modern manufacture pretty much requires them to have a complete 3D rendering of the entire car, which could theoretically be imported into an app like 3dsmax or Maya and then you can do whatever.
If going through the whole trouble of actually having to shoot a car on-location, wouldn't it be because the manufacturer desires an "earthly" feel? Is there any advantage over a render that you can output to any size you like with just a couple mouse clicks?

[uaiomex]

An editorial designer, good friend of mine says all the time that CGI imitates photography and that now photography imitates CGI.
Eduardo

Or cars.

It seems that even when it's not CGI it's mimicking CGI.

[HarperPhotos]

Hello,

One of my car shots  I like cause of its simplicity.

Love the Vette shots Jim.

Cheers

Simon

[Scott Hargis]

Simon, I like that one very much -- CLEAN.

[Scott Hargis]

Still digging through stuff from last fall...this for the designer.

[haefnerphoto]

Scott, I think this post is one of the nicest shots I seen of yours.  Great composition and good, defining light.  I would have taken the can lights out of the ceiling and I'm on the fence about the far chairs but it really sets up well, I love the detail in the chairs.

Simon, It's clean I guess and shows the product but I'd prefer something more dynamic.   

[Rob C]

Scott, I think this post is one of the nicest shots I seen of yours.  Great composition and good, defining light.  I would have taken the can lights out of the ceiling and I'm on the fence about the far chairs but it really sets up well, I love the detail in the chairs.

Simon, It's clean I guess and shows the product but I'd prefer something more dynamic.   

Jim, a Focus can't look dynamic; its the epitome of current jelly-mould design. Only the older Civic or perhaps an Auris could match it for lack of dynamic exuberance.

From the company that gave us the GT and the Mustang, it beggars belief where they have sunk. The last vaguely dynamic machine they produced in Europe was the previous Escort RS thing with the high rear spoiler.

They may well go very quickly and safely, these newer cars, but they look like dog turds just dropped.

And to think I still buy their product!

Rob C

[bcooter]

BC