you could be right.. i'll try it. Could be Topaz.. hadnt considered that. thanks
It's really hard to exPlain. But it's more the texture I'm after. Almost CGI and a bit shiny. Not sure I'm really explaining it now
.. a result of good photography - especially lighting, not processing.
Yes the use of off camera flash has allowed for underexposure of the Tarmac which in turn brings out more detail and allows more detail to be extracted in postYou're all wrong. It's lit that way. There are clearly, distinct pools of light from off camera flash.
As usual, good photography is, surprise surprise
The texture is there because of the correct exposure for the "look" the photographer was after. No amount of PP is going to bring that to surface with the wrong exposure to begin withIt's really hard to exPlain. But it's more the texture I'm after. Almost CGI and a bit shiny. Not sure I'm really explaining it now
Unless we are looking at a different part of Tarmac on the images I'm not sure but the texture is there due to being underexposed . If it was over exposed it wouldn't be there as in the 2nd image where it is blown out . A perfectly exposed image of the Tarmac won't look like that because it needs to be under exposed . We all know to underexpose an image ( within reason) will allow you to extract more detail . I do it with off camera flash many times a week for this exact reason . The only light I can see excluding the car is on the plane symbol as I said before . But as I say we are maybe commenting on 2 different parts of the imageThe texture is there because it's there
Exposure is not what makes it look like that. Go outside right now, and take a perfectly exposed image of the road outside your house... it won't look like that. It's lighting. It uses off camera flash to highlight the surface in those areas (as well as the Corvette) and as the flash has overpowered the ambient light, it highlights the tarmac in those areas. It's had processing of course... most images have, but nothing as dramatic as some of the suggestions on here.
Good lighting = good photography. Processing can only really enhance what's already there.
I know all your saying and I pay my mortgage through doing this but it's clearly underexposed , it only takes you to look at the sky and I'm sure lighting plays a major part aswell . I think any photographer that knows even a bit could get that look with no location lighting at all (forgetting about the car of course ) with regards to PP I'd love to have seen the shot on the back of the camera .
Yes that is the images sucess as a whole I am talking about the tarmacs texture.Actually... I think the OP is talking about the light and dark areas
The texture is merely there.. it's cracked tarmac. As teh light is spilling back towards the camera, it is essentially backlit. That reveals the texture.
Speak for yourself LOL. I don't think that at all.
I process my images a great deal actually. Probably more than you do (not that I've seen any of your work... would be nice to see some), but I don't rely on it. I LIGHT my images whenever I need to.
Agree to disagree if you want, but that image's success is a result of lighting, not processing.
5P1A0047 by stuart macrory, on Flickr
Yes that is the images sucess as a whole I am talking about the tarmacs texture.
Your totally not hearing me, Im with you all the way and agree on the lighting , as said before its the texture I was taking about rather than the actual lighting (maybe im wrong and have picked the op up wrong) And I process heavly as well, here is a quick image to try and explain what I am meaning, its one stop under and structure lifted in a nik program.
so just so you fully understand .......this image is to expain what I was meaning with the image NOT to try and prove you wrong, and its 2 birds with the 1 stone as it will link to my flickr where you can slate me till your hearts content, I see it on the forum all the time when someone disagrees with someone else so it turns to the "lets see your images" card . so rip away!!
think you are right about Nik.. I tried a very quick and messy attempt and it works quite nicely.
Then again they do look a touch like tarmac !
Yes so If there is light there then there will be texture, thats a given and If you change the angle of light it will have an impact on the amount of texture due to shadows etc but you have said to get the desired amount of texture you have to PP and there no getting away from that. I expalined how I would and do , do it with the Nik software when is one of the best things you can buyNice reading this one for me. You guys are way to clever for me. I do get the raking the light accross the surface thing though.When I want to increase the apperant texture I just create a new layer and run high pass filter on vivid light blend mode and mask it in where needed then adjust opacity as required.As stated the texture as to be there in the first place and have some specular highlights.
ps:
I am not a photographer but have used this technique quite regular on my images. "on dogs noses more often than not"
Gaz
.... The light spills onto the tarmac, hence the hard shadow cast by the Corvette, and due to the position of the lighting, the tarmac is being backlit.
As said Im all for learning, I was only stating how I would do it and thats why I was interested in a break down on how you would do it so I can try it you way next time. But as you can see I agree with almost everything your saying along with the fact the image and the look is made up of good exposure and off camera flash with processing.I said it's BACKlit. Of course all photographs need light... but there's good lighting, and bad lighting. It's all light.
Yes you did say backlit..... but it wasnt
Shadows say otherwise. That bright sky behind the house is clearly the predominant lightsource. There is no direct sunlight on the tarmac in your shot... there just isn't.
the sun was low but it was there, and as I said to my right past 90deg
No.. I said you can process to reveal texture that's already present. You can't create a texture that's not already inherent in the image through processing.
Correct process to reveal texture, no you cant create a texture I agree if its not there
Because I'm a photographer and I like looking at images. Why are you so paranoid?
As ive twice now, because I see what happens everytime a thread goes like this, it becomes personal, so assuming you had a look are my images ok? where can I improve? I love learning.
You can only enhance what's there. You reveal texture with lighting.... you light appropriately, or wait until the available light (if not supplementing it in some way) is suitable.
Correct
I said there is possibly 2 lights. The light area around the plane could well be localised dodging. The main light source is clearly up high, slightly to the left of, and slightly behind the Corvette, and hence heading back to the camera. The back lighting resulting is enhancing the texture of the tarmac. Whether it's processed to enhance that is irrelevant, as processing can only enhance what's already there. Texture in a surface is revealed by lighting, as the shadows cast by the irregularities in the surface is what shows texture. That's basic physics.
and I agree LOL ... You see the pattern here..... I agree
He has not used a light to specifically light the tarmac.. he's lit the car.. but in doing so, has lit the tarmac. You can't make photons stop in mid travel
still not hearing me, Im not talking about the pools of light, the dark areas or the light areas, get the images and zoom in 200% on any given piece of tarmac, thats what Im talking about.
I feel sorry for photographers today who feel they HAVE to process images to get the results they want. So.. all the wonderful photographs taken over nearly 200 years that beautifully reveal texture are just going to be discounted in this thread? LOL
So you feel sorry for yourself, you said you probably process more than me. Dont feel sorry for yourself, its not worth it, just accept it and move on
Processing to reveal texture when it's not been lit correctly is merely enhancing edge contrast. Texture in a photograph is caused by shadow, which is caused by lighting angle. If you want to do it properly... light it properly, you're a photographer.
processing to "reveal texture" weather you want to give it a different name is still processing to reveal texture
Ok... clearly you all feel there's nothing to be learned, as you know it all already. I'll leave you to it. Have fun.
the title is how to get tarmac affect like this, nothing to do with the car, the plane or the spill, or at least that how I read it, you said its nothing to do with the processing and I disagree.