# Abandoned Capri in HDR



## pixor (Jan 11, 2008)

Out for a walk, I spotted this in a shed.
It was sad to see it in this state. The first car I got a regular drive of was in this very colour. I think it's a Mk2 3 litre Ghia, but a real Capri enthusiast may be able to put me straight.

Big versions of the photos are on my web site - http://www.pixor.co.uk/2009/03/03/capri/ .

Thanks for looking!

P.S. I really don't think it'll polish out :buffer:


----------



## johnsastra16v (Oct 7, 2007)

gorgeous photos.
HDR not over the top at all. very subtle


----------



## tmclssns (Dec 28, 2006)

Nice use of HDR to bring out some detail without giving away it's a HDR.
Too bad it's left in this state, what a great car it once was.


----------



## johnsastra16v (Oct 7, 2007)

tmclssns said:


> Nice use of HDR to bring out some detail without giving away it's a HDR.


thats exactly what i was trying to say lol

really good skills


----------



## drive 'n' shine (Apr 22, 2006)

Looks like a MKII 2.0l Ghia can only see one tailpipe so can't be a 3.0l

Nice pics :thumb:


----------



## Needs a clean (May 24, 2008)

Where is that?? Potential Resto project!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ALANSHR (Jun 29, 2007)

drive 'n' shine said:


> Looks like a MKII 2.0l Ghia can only see one tailpipe so can't be a 3.0l
> 
> Nice pics :thumb:


One pipe must have fallen off as it says 3.0 just below the ghia badge on the front wing and back then people didnt put the wrong bdges on cars to make them go faster.

Looks good to me, I had both a 2.0 and 3.0S version and great fun they were too, proper poor mans porsche.

I think a quick wash, some air and she'd be right...:thumb:

Hopefully somebody will rescue her and do a good job restoring it, maybe put it up and its location on here or a ford website, someone might come forward.

Where is this by the way and would the owner give it up?


----------



## dubnut71 (Jul 25, 2006)

Superb use of HDR, subtle and very very detailed, love the shots!:thumb:


----------



## Multipla Mick (Feb 5, 2006)

Cracking shots, love the second one particularly, and the HDR isn't overdone, but brings out the best in the subject, so the focus is on the car and it's predicament, not the effects achieved in processing if you like, which to me is what it's all about :thumb:


----------



## Harley (Oct 19, 2006)

Whats HDR? they look like normal pics to me.

Nice ones very clear.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

great HDR shots - I opened this expecting the usual junk HDR images I see, but those are great. Loads of detail and great colours.

I had a '80 MKII 1.6S and it was fabulous  Would really like another now - a 3.0S or Ghia would just do the job nicely


----------



## joe_0_1 (Apr 7, 2007)

Brilliant photo's.

This is where i like HDR


----------



## tmclssns (Dec 28, 2006)

Harley said:


> Whats HDR? they look like normal pics to me.
> 
> Nice ones very clear.


HDR means high-dynamic range. In essence you take several photographs of a scene under the same circumstances but alter the time you expose your film (yes, something like that exists!)

Afterwards you layer these different exposed photographs and make a "mix" of it. For the darker parts you'll use more of the over-exposed photographs to give those parts more detail and vice versa.

In the end you'll have an image that was "impossible" to capture within a single photograph because of the massive tonality range. So you'll see details in all tonal ranges whereas normally you'd see more dark or more light details.

Often though the effect is overdone resulting in a fake (plastic-like) looking sky, or your photograph looks more like a comic. However if you work it from a subtle angle, you can get a very crisp and clear image without giving away it's HDR at first sight.


----------



## swiftshine (Apr 17, 2008)

Just want to echo what others have said about the HDR'ness of the images.

I'm not usually a fan as it often looks fake, but that has been very nicely done.:thumb:


----------



## Maxtor (Feb 23, 2007)

Great shots! poor car


Lets all buy it! :thumb:


Maxtor.


----------



## North east Car Care (Jan 14, 2008)

Nice pics:thumb:, some of the parts on that car are still worth saving.


----------



## Harley (Oct 19, 2006)

tmclssns said:


> HDR means high-dynamic range. In essence you take several photographs of a scene under the same circumstances but alter the time you expose your film (yes, something like that exists!)
> 
> Afterwards you layer these different exposed photographs and make a "mix" of it. For the darker parts you'll use more of the over-exposed photographs to give those parts more detail and vice versa.
> 
> ...


Ah i see :thumb:
But i used to get some good results with a 64 ASA Kodachrome (the old fashioned stuff Film well slides when shot with a high quality lens, a 35 mm Kodachrome slide will hold detail equivalent to around 25 megapixels of image data ! ) the only down side you had to send it off and await the results

I will have to get the old film camera out and see if i can get close to these pictures posted on here they are truly good!

Thats the advantage with digital if it does not come out right (and you can see straight away) you can take another shot and delete the crap ones.

I have played with digital cameras for years bought an Olympus E10 when the first came out but have always thought it is just not the same as film but thats just me being old LOL


----------



## tmclssns (Dec 28, 2006)

@Harley: I like slide film. It's technically more complicated to get right on exposure and stuff compared to normal film. Used a test film once to get some photography done inside a church. Most of them were on the darker side (only learned later you should always compensate a bit when shooting with slide film).

Technically speaking it should be impossible to get the same contrast level within a single photograph. Some HDR images are combined of up to seven different photographs. You can of course take different shots on different exposures with film and expose different parts of your final image with different exposed negatives but I wouldn't even try... Developing and "printing" a regular film already takes up most of a day when I used to do that.

I'd have to disagree on your point about being able to see your end result with a digital camera. I was "raised" at school with film (even when digital was already taking over the market). So I learned to think four times before pressing the shutter release. I think that knowing that you can take tons of photographs hoping one would come out sort of right, takes away the challenging edge of getting it right on every aspect. I also believe that you can get a good composition review on the small LCD screens but (imo) they give little away on overall image tonality, colour balance, etc. (the histogram is a slight hint, but few people really master the "histogram reading skill").

So I use mine only to quickly review my composition, checking if nothing unwanted entered the frame but all the rest comes down in Lightroom. I still take a lot less photographs compared to people that are longer into the digital scene. I still "think" too much about a photograph instead of just taking it. 

The only thing I must admit is that I do "trick" the exposure sometimes. I underexpose some photographs just so I know my shutter speed was fast enough to get no blur. Thanks to RAW, most of the underexposure can be corrected inside Lightroom (or any other advanced editing tool). So sometimes I take a shot I know I'd never try to do with film just because I have control over the RAW output.

Oh and I share your opinion on digital / film. Compared to standard material, film is blown away by the MP-bombs we've seen lately. However when it comes to sharpness and image quality.. you'd need a high-end camera to match that of slide film. That's the next step. Not everyone needs 20 MP images - 10 MP is a good limit imo (for the work I do). So I hope Canon, Nikon, etc. start concentrating on image quality instead of pixel count. The lenses were there before the digital age so we know it's the camera that gives us a "bad" image quality.


----------



## jcmac (Sep 13, 2008)

Shame that... I love the old Fords


----------



## pixor (Jan 11, 2008)

Thanks for all your kind comments.

The reason I used HDR for this subject was that the Capri was in a old shed, with one end completely open to the outside. Hence it was very bright near the rear of the car, but very dark near the bonnet. I tried taking some 'normal' shots, but it was impossible to capture any detail within the range of contrast in the scene.

This is the kind of HDR I like, as I don't like the low contrast/surreal look that you often get by default.


----------



## james_RScos (Mar 13, 2006)

Nice pics, BUT thats wrong:doublesho:doublesho


----------



## Mr Mike (Oct 2, 2007)

Really liking this shots, very subtle use of HDR :thumb:


----------



## Harley (Oct 19, 2006)

tmclssns said:


> @Harley: I like slide film. It's technically more complicated to get right on exposure and stuff compared to normal film. Used a test film once to get some photography done inside a church. Most of them were on the darker side (only learned later you should always compensate a bit when shooting with slide film).
> 
> Technically speaking it should be impossible to get the same contrast level within a single photograph. Some HDR images are combined of up to seven different photographs. You can of course take different shots on different exposures with film and expose different parts of your final image with different exposed negatives but I wouldn't even try... Developing and "printing" a regular film already takes up most of a day when I used to do that.
> 
> ...


When i say the end result i mean to check it is in focus and the framings right or nothing moved etc.


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

really like the use of HDR, works great.

Bret


----------



## OrangePeel (Feb 19, 2007)

Cracking pictures of a very 'sad' scene...

Brilliant use of HDR, just starting to get to grips with it myself.

Many thanks for sharing.

OP


----------



## Kaz219 (Jul 17, 2008)

They're awesome pics there...

shame about the capri though - doubt anyones going to restore it...


----------

