New Shite Magazine launched

[Bear]

It's harsh to suggest that a single column width is inappropriate for all images. It's a magazine, to read, not a picture book. There are some improvements that can be made to the repro but I'm not involved in that side of things - I know there are new profiles to suit this process that might tone down some of the more garish tones, but given a choice between poor contrast/muddy repro or punchy, I'd choose punchy for a car mag. In the other press stuff I do working on repro, density, colour management was pretty much core to everything - we ran our own imagesetter and variable dot screening, worked with the printers to get everything accurate. Even then mistakes could happen, like green casts due to ink issues during a run.

 

Here're some of my images from past editions of CCW (and playing with Mercedes). We all need to improve, so constructive criticism is welcome (yes. I know the Mercedes logos aren't straight on the wheels. I didn't have a suitable jack on hand, or time).

 

 

Retouched for a bit of a soft-focus feel.

 

 

Vrrrrm.

 

 

A nice place to be?

 

 

That alright for an engine shot?

 

 

Devil's in the detail, of course.

 

 

A little play with light painting.

 

 

My favourite AMG by far.

 

 

Inside the A45 AMG.

 

 

Speed is addictive.

 

 

Yep. I could live with this every day (that one, unfortunately, was done after I'd gone back from the country roads. Not happy with the clutter).

 

 

[Junkman]

All these pictures would be OK. Not brilliant, but acceptable. Although the one showing the devils on the rocker cover (or whatever it is) would be twice as good,

had the wing nut thingy on top not been cut off.

If the pictures I normally find in British car magazines would be half as good, I would not have sat down and spent an hour to point out the lousyness of many pictures

in the magazine at hand and I said this before, I could do this with most British car publications.

My criticism is not regarding the technical quality, I find them artistically challenged.

[Bear]

Well, I'm certainly interested in your background for making the criticisms - not disagreeing but curious. Years of working with professional photographic associations (including qualifications, competitions) has given me the critical eye, but the realities of time/light/equipment/deadlines control what can be produced to a degree - yes, a whole day with impeccably prepared cars can be done for the odd cover shoot, but on a group, or (as with the G-class) a few minutes ambling about countryside, there's no so much time for reflection.

 

As a rule, if I can criticise in an appropriate way, it's because I know how to improve it. No in a "these aren't good enough" way, but in an actual "place lights here, pay attention to this, use black cloth/paper here to kill reflections, remember lens distortion" way. If there's an untapped pool of photographic talent here, I wanna know!

 

(wingnut cropped because of clutter behind it and small sensor camera to get in there in the first place, so insufficient DoF control).

[scruff]

Off to see Monty Pyton Holy Grail 40th - must remember to bring home popcorn for later

[Bear]

No need for popcorn on my side, I'm really interested in knowing what improvements can be made. I tend to focus on the technical - the "straight wheel" or the rectilinear wides for interiors, the use of lighting gear, and I want to be better. One of my friends does commercial work at £50K a pop, I'd like to meet that standard ideally. Not for the money, but for the wow factor in images.

[inconsistant]

I still haven't found a copy.
I have come to realise that I have a profound dislike of the name 'youngtimers'. It really, really grates on me.
Sentient beings can be young or old, whereas I'd always consider inanimate objects to be 'new' at the start of their life and never 'young'.

I'm glad this name isn't used in the UK like it is abroad. Modern Classic is much more palatable, but I still think using the word 'modern' to describe 20-40 year old cars is a distortion of the word.

(Edit: not meant as a criticism of the magazine, just an observation/ moment of clarity from reading Junkmans posts above)

[Bear]

I still haven't found a copy.

I have come to realise that I have a profound dislike of the name 'youngtimers'. It really, really grates on me.

 

I'm equally uncomfortable with it, though it defines the market in Germany and as such, through most of Europe.

 

And yes. It is a distortion required due to the stagnant nature of post-WWII mass produced cars - people became desensitised to the ages and disappearance of each successive generation and, though massive increases in weight, equipment and technology have taken place there's little to differentiate between the abilities of a good 1970s car and a good 2000s car in the hands of a competent driver. They'll both be easy to use, capable of long distances reliability, and relatively refined.

[forddeliveryboy]

Years of working with professional photographic associations (including qualifications, competitions) has given me the critical eye

 

 

I broadly agree with Junkman, none of the pictures above grabs me at all - are they production quality? But I like the R4 interior shot - it's simple and there's an absence of distractions.

 

For me, they lack an element of passion or emotion as well as an eye to detail, all of which in something like a good motoring magazine is surely essential? Photography is an art, the purpose of which is to convey feelings directly. Music can be technically correct, but still leave the listener cold.

 

 

It's a magazine, to read, not a picture book.

 

 

Even the world-class scribes in CAR of old used top quality photographs, they formed an integral part of the magazine. If you're going to use pictures in a magazine-for-pleasure, then they need to be good. Otherwise why bother? Images need to add to the text and add another dimension to it, mediocre pics can detract from otherwise good text

[Bear]

It's interesting you'd suggest the shots lack an element of passion, given that the AMG G63 is pretty much my dream car, but the shots are taken with a purpose - in this case to show the interior, slim pillars, shallow dashboard, the huge sunroof. The G63 is next to sculpture; the car has a permanence and weight that I feel is equally solid within the landscape.

 

Picture the G63 interior shot with a sunny, but not cloudless sky, and the car on top of a mountain pass, or maybe in a vibrant downtown instead of a carpark. Unfortunately no sun or mountains were within reach!

[NorfolkNWeigh]

I started buying CAR or as it was at the time ' car ' in January 1976 just before my 12th birthday and didn't miss one issue for about 14 years.

During this time ,I seem to recall at least one letter a month whingeing about the layout,design or photography- if even the greatest magazine in its pomp couldn't please all the people all the time......

[forddeliveryboy]

But they did have a point, it was a pretty crap layout with patchy pics in the late seventies, wasn't it?

[NorfolkNWeigh]

Heretic !!

Hunt him down in Alfasuds and Citroen CXes , throw him in the boot of an XJ 12 and abandon him in Morocco.

[Jim Bell]

I think Richardk's pics above are class.  I'm not very good at taking pics, but I enjoy trying.  If I was producing images like that, I'd be proud.

 

I'd like to hear any direction or advice on taking better motor related shots too.

 

I'm not being flippant, but genuinely want to improve my understanding of the art of capturing images.

 

And there seem to be some experts amongst us.

[forddeliveryboy]

Heretic !!

Hunt him down in Alfasuds and Citroen CXes , throw him in the boot of an XJ 12 and abandon him in Morocco.

 

 

Sounds like a good start to a new omgcollecshunfred. R4, W123 or 305 to bring back, people?

[Justin Case]

I am interested in photography and think that it should be as artistic as possible while still illustrating the subject. So to me, the Porsche on p10 is pretty dire, I know what a 911 looks like , so waht the point, but the c6 on p56 is excellent, the composition is spot on and the balance of the different coloured elements of the photo works extremely well, the rest are somewhere between the two.

 

s for your examples, they are all pretty good, but I think two are especially outstanding. The Renault 4 in front of the building is my favourite, the form of the car and the building complement each other ideally and as with the C6 but even more so, the light and balance of colours is superb. You've even manged to get the branches across the top without it looking a cliche I also like the G63, juxtaposing the car and the sculpture really makes the picture stand out. I am envious

[UltraWomble]

I think Richardk's pics above are class.  I'm not very good at taking pics, but I enjoy trying.  If I was producing images like that, I'd be proud.

 

 

Same here, I like to faff, but know im a bit shit at it really.

This didnt come out at all how I thought it would

 

[Alexg]

Jesus, how picky do people want to be? Those pictures of the R4 look great, interior and engine bay shots especially. If they're not 100% class leading who cares; it's a magazine not a sales brochure.

[RoadworkUK]

I like all of RichardK's pics aside from the Renner 4 interior which agitates my HDR gland.

 

I'm surprised you like the G63, though. I spent a day with one and couldn't find one redeeming feature. The fact that it exists and the idea of it is fantastic, but the product itself is shit and should have been canned twenty years ago or kept basic like a Defender.

 

Selling it with a daft engine and posh trim for £100k + is reprehensible.

[andrew e]

I like rubbish pictures that catch the moment - luckily that's all I can take! But I do like the moment. This is a shite picture snapped on a sub £200 camera, but the moment is in the back ground - it took a few goes!

 

 

Not keen on HDR over over processing, I like the large luxury shot, glamour Country Life thing, what Car did in the late '80s. Miserable picky wise: Richard the passenger sun visor on the G wagen WHY!

[andrew e]

The R4 engine bay is the bollocks though.

[Junkman]

Jesus, how picky do people want to be? Those pictures of the R4 look great, interior and engine bay shots especially. If they're not 100% class leading who cares; it's a magazine not a sales brochure.

 

I wholeheartedly agree. If the standard of pictures in British car magazines would be consistently merely half as good, there would be nothing I'd want to criticise in that respect.

However, it is obvious that I am unable to properly express what exactly I find so deficient in British professional car photography on an online forum.

Hence I welcome whoever is seriously interested, to meet up with me, and I will explain it by reference to examples.

[Felly Magic]

One thing that grinds my gears on photos is in Craptical Plastics when they go mental with the blur tool in Photoshop, when clearly the car is stood still, and you can see the speedo registering a big fat zero!

[Bear]

Not keen on HDR over over processing, I like the large luxury shot, glamour Country Life thing, what Car did in the late '80s. Miserable picky wise: Richard the passenger sun visor on the G wagen WHY!

 

The R4 interior isn't strictly HDR - it's opening shadows and pulled in highlights, but it would be better to have lit the interior to match outside conditions as much as possible.

 

I totally missed the sunvisor. It'll have been down when driving, I'll have flipped one back. That's the sort of useful criticism I need - like "remove keys" and straighten up wheel, it's all a matter of having a little mental checklist that becomes second nature - like all the ones that go with driving such as making sure the belt buckle isn't in the door shut.

[forddeliveryboy]

Jesus, how picky do people want to be? Those pictures of the R4 look great, interior and engine bay shots especially. If they're not 100% class leading who cares; it's a magazine not a sales brochure.

JM and meself responded to the request for criticism, so since they appeared technically good, I expressed what I appreciate in a motoring magazine.

 

For all the limitations of online journalism, being able to enlarge a detailed picture isat the click of a button is truly luxurious, compared with struggling to imagine what various little inky dots might be trying to represent.

[FakeConcern]

I recently picked a friend up from Gatwick and the flight was delayed, so I bought Issue 2 & sat in Costa reading it. I enjoyed it & wish I'd got issue 1.

[dugong]

For me, they lack an element of passion or emotion as well as an eye to detail, all of which in something like a good motoring magazine is surely essential? Photography is an art, the purpose of which is to convey feelings directly. Music can be technically correct, but still leave the listener cold.

 

*Awaits FDB's image portfolio with cup of coffee* 

[dollywobbler]

One thing that grinds my gears on photos is in Craptical Plastics when they go mental with the blur tool in Photoshop, when clearly the car is stood still, and you can see the speedo registering a big fat zero!

 

Bit of insider info. I once took part in a photo shoot where the camera was hanging off a beam (later photoshopped out) hanging off the front of the car, and I was pushing the car at all of about 5mph. It's not all done on the computer...

 

But I must agree generally about photography, and absorb some of the blame. I'm a writer who takes reasonable photos, and often that's deemed good enough. I'm not even close to being pro, and most photography terms go clear over my head. I'm probably part of the problem.

 

I still hold Classic & Sports Car in high regard, because their photos are rarely over manipulated. I have a serious dislike of arty photos beyond a touch of motion blur from the camera. I like photos that look like what I'd see with my own eyes. HDR is one of the worst inventions of all time!

 

I really liked Richard's Renault 4 interior shot though. It's beautiful. As for sunvisor woes, I've certainly done much worse myself! Usually because there's not half as much time as I'd like. (in the case that springs to mind, the car had broken down and took two hours to fix. Leaving me with half an hour to find a location, conduct a photoshoot and return the car. I look forward to sharing the results one day soon!).

[lincolndanny]

Enjoyed both issues so far but feels like there is an elephant in the room. No readers resto article.

 

Genuinely suprised that the Carlton GSi readers resto in Practical Classics wasn't used in Modern Classics instead.

[scaryoldcortina]

Bit of insider info. I once took part in a photo shoot where the camera was hanging off a beam (later photoshopped out) hanging off the front of the car, and I was pushing the car at all of about 5mph. It's not all done on the computer...

 

I've done that too, but I was driving the car!