General : CarDatabase.net
This is where most things should go. Additional forums will be created when needed.
Goto Thread: PreviousNext
Goto: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
come on!
Posted by: juanelo242 (IP Logged)
Date: June 15, 2011 10:34PM


Click here for bigger photo!
Photographer © Misko Ruvidic

Edited 2 times. Last edit at 07/02/11 02:24AM by juanelo242.

Re: come on!
Posted by: Ikarus (IP Logged)
Date: July 2, 2011 12:15PM

Where is the problem, 242? This is perfect picture (no grains, no shadows, no dust, no garbage, no wrecks) of trail for military truck FAP 1118 (previous picture ID: 00180060 ) on the exibition of military vehicles in Belgrade. BTW ... what you mean by WTF!!! For me, too polite to think you wrote what I think you did...



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 07/02/11 08:46PM by Ikarus.

Re: come on!
Posted by: Mårten (IP Logged)
Date: July 4, 2011 02:18AM

thats a trailer...

Re: come on!
Posted by: Felipe Garcia (IP Logged)
Date: July 7, 2011 07:09AM

WTF means what the fuck, and I think he really means it.

Sorry Misko, but you seem to be the one making the push for Airliners-like standards, I haven't even seen Henrink promoting those much higher standards, but a the same time you accept a photo of a trailer, a nice photo, I must admit. What you seem to be saying is that it's acceptable according to these new standards you are actively promoting because it doesn't have grain, shadows, dust, garbage or wrecks.; but, if I upload a photo of say a Morris Marina with a piano on top of it, it's grainy, my shadow is in there and there's some garbage around it, it's probably not acceptable.

By the way, what kind of camera were you using, because there is virtually no grain and the colors look very good, I seriously doubt my $100 point and shoot can get a photo that nice.

Felipe Garcia

Re: come on!
Posted by: Ikarus (IP Logged)
Date: July 7, 2011 04:24PM

Dear Felipe,

I know what WTF means but I hoped that the text was not so rude.
I use Canon with 8 megapixels, 4years old, nothing special, with 70-200mm, f5.6 lenses and Canon S3IS, also relatively old model, with 6 megapixels. The main reason of pretty good quality is Canon software, not number of pixels. Your pictures of aviation are very very good, you can be proud - no any bad element to ruin the photographers result, so I see that you know how a nice pic can look like and that you don`t use $100 camera for aviation motives.
If you analyse, I am promoting, not expensive cameras, but basic things in taking and uploading pictures.
1.No contra light or sun in taking pics,
2.no burned areas of the car,
3.no deep shadows and bright sun on the same pic because camera can`t “read” those information on the same shot,(shadows also create grain in very dark parts of the picture)
4.no cutted parts of the car,
5.no objects between camera and the vehicle
6.absolute sharpness of standing motives (as parked cars).
7.no using flash direct to the registration plate - the result is always bad
because of reflection direct to the camera.
8.Analyze picture before upload
9.use a little editing tools to remove garbage or some other things making pic ugly.
I think that those couple of elements help anybody to take a nice pics and nobody can be against it. No one word here about cheap or expensive cameras. Exceptions in quality could be tolerated if the motive was very interesting (or rare) and the photographer is a beginner on the site.
If we don`t have basic standards for photographers, CDB doesn`t need screeners at all, but automatic upload machine. In that case everybody can upload anything but this is other kind of site, like photobucket. I strongly believe that CDB is not that kind of a site.


Edited 2 times. Last edit at 07/07/11 06:35PM by Ikarus.

Re: come on!
Posted by: Felipe Garcia (IP Logged)
Date: July 8, 2011 06:51AM

See, I agree with you in some of these points, however.
-A lot of beginner/inexpensive cameras aren't that great when it comes to noise and sharpness. You can use a Nikon D3s at ISO 25600 and get photos that are better than any ISO100 photo on a Canon DSLR, but of course, the D3s has a price tag somewhere around US $5200.

Look at this photo. I took it back in 2005 with a Nikon Coolpix 4300, decent mid-range camera back then, paid $400 back in 2003 with it


Notice the amount of noise at ISO100, that camera was more than great in daylight (in fact, it got my very first photo on Airliners.net, taken in Tucson), but if you had the slightest amount of low light, low contrast or a combination then the results were terrible, just look at that photo, the quality is good, but there's plenty of noise. I was able to bring it down by a bit without lowering the image quality significatively.

Like I mentioned before, not all of us are able to shoot in safe or controlled environments. Just a month ago I got to play with a friend's Canon 300 2.8L IS, which is by no means cheap, but we were shooting from the roof of an airport, and that's more or less controlled, in the past I've been at other locations at the airport where I'm having a conversation with an armed policeman while shooting planes. I don't know of anyone who would like to steal a camera right in front of a cop -unless he's armed with an assault rifle. On the other hand, there's no way I'd take my Rebel XT around town in Mexico or some parts of Panama, having a big, flashy toy is the last thing you want to. Now, when I spent 2 weeks in Europe I was shooting daily, The Hague, Paris, Brugge. I don't know that's the security situation in Serbia, but I'm guessing that there are locations where you can have a camera and not be worried about it getting stolen or getting arrested. Last big airshow I was at I had a 7D, 70-200F4L+1.4x TC II, 350D, 28-135IS and grip, plus an 18-55 in my bag. Everything else was on my shoulders, and what was the risk of someone trying to snatch it? you figure it out, consider that I wasn't even allowed my pocket knife inside, and the whole airshow grounds was being patrolled by USAF Security Forces with full auto M16A4 rifles and working dogs. The E-3 and E-8 planes had their own security detail.

Just 3 years ago I was in the balcony of my grandpa's office and got a couple of photos of some old Datsuns, and someone from the street saw me and went all the way to my grandpa's front door to figure out what I was up to, because she was worried I was a kidnapper (and the fact that I wasn't one, and didn't have a pistol at hand helped her a lot).

On the subject of flash, I agree, the flash bounces off horribly off license plates and other chromed surfaces, but, how many people carry a flash diffuser? Or for that matter, an external flash.

And garbage and such, the rule for most airplane websites is that you can remove dust spots and nothing else, else you risk getting banned and your photos deleted. Personally I think that if we plan on implementing something like that here, it should be that. If you don't know how to properly use the clone tool the photos can come out terrible, but on the other hand, visible dust spots can be annoying.

I know you're not trying to promote cheap or expensive cameras, but it is easy to forget that lower end cameras won't produce a result like even a high-end point and shoot. Noise and far-from-perfect color rendition are always there. And I'm trying to raise awareness that not everyone can use a good camera for car photography, because the level of security and comfort is far below what you can enjoy when shooting airplanes.

Also, what do you mean with burned parts of the car? I feel something was lost in translation.

Felipe Garcia

Re: come on!
Posted by: Ikarus (IP Logged)
Date: July 8, 2011 05:37PM

I am sorry about problems the felow photographers have in car-spotting. It can be a real problem in shooting pics in large series from some special places. In Serbia I took many aviation photos of our Air Force, NATO visits to our airbases F-16,Apaches...., international airshows, landings on our airports, anti-mosquito campaigns from the air over the cities, air to air photos, with no problems at all. So, as I see I am a lucky one. Here is a link for about 1050 my aviation pics


what I mean “burned” parts of the car - too much light and with almost no any details. Like wind shields or engine covers on bright sun. In that case changing the position of the camera (a little upper maybe change the reflection angle) arrange the problem. If not, the picture is not usable, large parts of the car are a big white spot. With burn tool in editing programs it can be easily repaired in lots of cases, but not 100%. I don`t post here a picture as example because I could be criticized using some photographers picture to show what I mean. But it is a very often a reason of rejections because of half-picture visibility. Some of our friends have that as a big problem because of very bright sun in their countries all 365 days a year. The best results, as you know from car-shows on the fields, airshows and aviation pics, are in Great Britain, northern countries of Europe...etc, and the problems we have with too much sun and too hot air. Those are enemies for photographers and cameras in many cases as in motion photos or long lens shots.

I see we both understand very good photographic problems and we will try to help thing be better. Just some of advices from previous posts and CDB will shine as a sun, don`t you agree...

Best regards


Edited 2 times. Last edit at 07/14/11 07:24PM by Ikarus.

Re: come on!
Posted by: Felipe Garcia (IP Logged)
Date: July 21, 2011 06:34AM

Hey Misko, check this out


Felipe Garcia

Re: come on!
Posted by: Ikarus (IP Logged)
Date: July 25, 2011 12:14AM

Very interesting, but it doesn`t show anything contrary to what I wrote about photographers shadows allover the picture of a car.(see the last part of the text). We are not journalists, and the story you sent me a link is about the trust to reporters on the field. How do they see and take pics and send us their reality and truth through the camera lenses. We are car-spotters in the way that car has to look interesting or even beautiful on our pictures to site visitors. I will suck that photographer myself too, because he was not enough good (as professional) to avoid his shadow dominating in this really very good action picture where kids are jumping with a ball. His shadow doesn`t fit there, so he had to take proper position before start to shoot pics. But, the whole story is about manipulations in editing, not against the whole thing as a real improvement, and I understand it as a reaction to raising technology. And as Americans often do, they exaggerate a lot in everything, so no red-eyes effect improvement….come on! The other side of the story is that any PC users ( what we are here, I think) have hundreds of editing tools to buy or free download from the net, to make their work better. And I still think that my shadow doesn`t fit allover one beautiful Maybach (as example), or if I see gorgeous yellow Lamborghini, to cut his back lights, or, if sun is coming straight to my camera to be lazy to change position a little.



Edited 2 times. Last edit at 07/25/11 12:22AM by Ikarus.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

[Home] [Forum] [News] [Sport news]
[Market] [Techspec preview] [Add photos]
[WAP] [Contact] [About] [Privacy Policy]