Hiding the photographer

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Charlie Self, Jul 16, 2005.

  1. Charlie Self

    Charlie Self Guest

    Since I started shooting classic vehicles, I've been playing "find the
    photographer" in all the shiny surfaces. I just came up with one I'd
    missed, me in a hood ornament on a 1930 Ford Phaeton. That has a
    perfectly round, very highly polished, chrome base, so there probably
    is no way of escaping getting caught. Not long ago, when I blew a
    grille/bumper segment from a '57 Chev Bel Air up, I found that I was
    almost identifiable in the parking light assembly. That one wasn't bad,
    but the other is annoying and ruins an otherwise good photo.

    In some cases, I'm almost at my wit's end trying to place myself so I
    don't show up in the photos. Sometimes, I know, that it's not possible
    to stay out. Other times, I wonder.

    I thought of wearing clothing that blends in. No luck. I never know for
    sure whether or not I'll be shooting with trees at my back, an old
    barn, a brick home, industrial buildings, a parking lot, whateve.
    Angles of course, but try an angle that lets you shoot into the half
    round back of a side view mirror. There are not many.

    I'm wondering if I'm missing something, if someone else has some tips,
    or if we just live with this and try to clone it out (or leave it for
    the magazine's art director to clone it out).
     
    Charlie Self, Jul 16, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Charlie Self

    Jer Guest


    Just put a sack over your head. You could paint it to match the odd
    color clothing you're wearing making the cloning process easier.
     
    Jer, Jul 16, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Charlie Self

    Charlie Self Guest

    Thanks for the helpful idea.
     
    Charlie Self, Jul 16, 2005
    #3
  4. Charlie Self

    Skip M Guest

    Heheh, hadn't thought of that one...
     
    Skip M, Jul 16, 2005
    #4
  5. Charlie Self

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    Since I started shooting classic vehicles, I've been playing "find the
    Like this one?

    http://www.snopes.com/photos/kettle.asp

    steve
     
    Steve Wolfe, Jul 16, 2005
    #5
  6. Charlie Self

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Looks like a little flash-fill is needed in the abdominal fold in the
    top picture.

    --
     
    JPS, Jul 16, 2005
    #6
  7. Charlie Self

    Frank ess Guest

    Frank ess, Jul 16, 2005
    #7
  8. Charlie Self

    Frank ess Guest

    There's always the "Face it, it's a fact of life" approach:
    http://www.fototime.com/F8E2D1B23BA18EC/orig.jpg or

    Incorporate it into the "art":
    http://www.fototime.com/8F753B2E0669B23/orig.jpg or

    "Photographer? What photographer?":
    http://www.fototime.com/8DB324A7FBBEC6A/orig.jpg or

    "Airstream with abstract":
    http://www.fototime.com/57FC72D2E17A26A/orig.jpg .

    Sometimes, with the right light, colors, and angles it's not that
    difficult:
    http://www.fototime.com/480E92CF66AC979/orig.jpg

    And there are other ways to avoid the problem:
    http://www.fototime.com/B1152FF45A7BF22/orig.jpg
     
    Frank ess, Jul 16, 2005
    #8
  9. Charlie Self

    Jer Guest


    This would be another helpful place for a small... uh... very small sack
    covering something that *we* don't want to see, regardless of whether
    the photog wanted us to see it. Kids are such scamps.
     
    Jer, Jul 16, 2005
    #9
  10. Charlie Self

    Jer Guest

    This must be one of the cheaper models that didn't come with the brake
    package, considering the wheel chock at the rear wheel. :)
     
    Jer, Jul 16, 2005
    #10
  11. Why the connundrum? Retouch yourself out of the image. Since you're
    doing the shots on location instead of in a studio, and have to deal with
    varied backgrounds behind you, it will be more involved, but not
    impossible. In my architectural work, I'm always taking out ugly light
    poles, cars, reflections, and, yes, even myself, on occasion. It's
    certainly a lot easier to do it today with digital files than it was with
    film.


    Stefan
     
    stefan patric, Jul 16, 2005
    #11
  12. Charlie Self

    Charlie Self Guest

    It's do-able, but no really practical in a time sense. With 30-50
    photos to go out, checkikng and touching up each one gets tedious. Too,
    I just did a radiator cap on that '30 Ford, and the damned
    touch-up--clone tool--took almost as long as shooting 75-80 photos.

    I'll just have to try for more oblique angles, I guess.
     
    Charlie Self, Jul 17, 2005
    #12
  13. Charlie Self

    Colin D Guest

    This may be too obvious, but how about using the self-timer, or a remote
    trigger? The camera may be still in the picture, but you won't be, and
    it's easier to retouch out a small camera than a (comparitively) large
    person.

    Colin
     
    Colin D, Jul 17, 2005
    #13
  14. you've got my nomination for post of the month... possibly post of the
    year. :)
     
    googlegroups2sucks, Jul 17, 2005
    #14
  15. No one said photography was easy. ;-)

    Yes, picking a suitable angle where your reflection doesn't show or is
    obscured or otherwise diminished is good. But for those really close up,
    detail shots of those chrome parts, where you're definitely going to
    show, have you ever thought of carrying a portable lighting tent to cover
    the part? It wouldn't have to be all that much -- a moderate piece of
    parachute nylon with small hole just big enough to poke your lens through
    would do. Drape it over the part and shoot.

    Now, to the slowness of your computer and how to speed up things.
    I'm assuming you're using Photoshop, the resource hog of image
    processors. First, shutdown all other apps, except PS. Go into
    Preferences and turn off all Undo buffers, except one. This will free up
    lots of RAM. I think the default number of buffers is 10 and each one
    allocates as much RAM as the size of your image. Besides, you only NEED
    one Undo buffer anyway. Max out the RAM on your computer. If this
    doesn't speed things up much, then you'll have to get a faster machine.
    If you're using Windows XP, consider dropping back to Windows 2000. W2k
    requires a lot less resources. Of course, you could always convert to
    Linux. ;-) If you're using a Mac and OSX, then you already are using
    Linux, sort of. FreeBSD, actually, another Unix clone.

    Another thing you might consider is using a more efficient image
    processing app that needs less RAM to run. Take a look at The GIMP
    (www.gimp.org). This was originally written for Linux, but they've ported
    it to Windows and Mac's OSX. Yes, it's not PS, but it will do what you
    need it to do, and it will do it faster using less resources. Plus, it's
    FREE! Just download it, install and run.

    Here's a little trick to speed up image processing: let's say you're
    retouching a 400x600 pixel portion of a 2000x3000 pixel image; "cut" that
    400x600 portion out of the original and open it in it's own window as a
    separate image. Close the original image, so it doesn't take up RAM.
    Retouch this small image, and when completed, paste it back.

    Good shooting...


    Stefan
     
    stefan patric, Jul 17, 2005
    #15
  16. Charlie Self

    Charlie Self Guest

    Good idea. The remote for the Pentax is too short, but the timer is a
    good one.
     
    Charlie Self, Jul 17, 2005
    #16
  17. Charlie Self

    Charlie Self Guest

    I like that. I have to make sure ONLY fabric touches the car. These
    paint jobs are not something I want to pay to repair.
    PSP 9, not Photoshop. And the computur, with a 3 Gig P4 and a gig of
    RAM isn't that slow. I am. I'm not good at post-processing. Back in the
    smelly old days, I used to only save the negs that gave me straight
    prints, no burning in, but I almost never shot shiny stuff. I seem to
    be doing a lot of shots of shiny things lately.
    An idea. I've tried it before and didn't like it, but things, and
    people, change.
     
    Charlie Self, Jul 17, 2005
    #17
  18. Charlie Self

    John_B Guest

    Charlie,
    Try using your camera's timer and then
    run (assuming your camera is mounted to
    tripod).

    You will still get the camera but much
    less noticable then the photographer!


    "Charlie Self" <>
    wrote in message
    ..googlegroups.com...
    vehicles, I've been playing "find the
    surfaces. I just came up with one I'd
    light assembly. That one wasn't bad,
    end trying to place myself so I
    Sometimes, I know, that it's not
    possible
    blends in. No luck. I never know for
    buildings, a parking lot, whateve.
    that lets you shoot into the half
    something, if someone else has some
    tips,
    to clone it out (or leave it for
     
    John_B, Jul 17, 2005
    #18
  19. Charlie Self

    Charlie Self Guest

    Yeah, I'll give part of that a try next week. I'm stuck at this screen
    all this coming week, but will be shooting at least three more cars the
    following week.

    The part I won't try is running. With my knees, that's
    counterproductive, causing lots of problems. But the *istD allows about
    10 seconds,IIRC, so that's plenty to for me to stroll out of most shots.
     
    Charlie Self, Jul 17, 2005
    #19
  20. Charlie Self

    Stacey Guest

    Charlie Self wrote:

    You have, a shift lens can sometimes work around this.
     
    Stacey, Jul 17, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.