Photography is very important for detailing companies. More and more high-end detailers are utilising the services of a professional photographer or take care of photographic solutions in-house. Final Inspection use Bespoke Imaging.
Some vehicles are works of art, the Aston DB5, the Ferrari 250 GTO they are glorious examples of moving artwork and there are too many to mention. We love our toys and LOVE detailing and taking pictures of them.
Cars and to a lesser extent, motorcycles, are very difficult subjects to shoot as they are (almost always) glossy and reflect objects, the bigger the car and the darker the colour, the worse this irritating obstacle is to overcome. Sometimes reflections suit a shot and sometimes reflections of objects (such as the photographer) can ruin an image. Often you'll know what has killed the shot and sometimes you won't.
One thing is for sure, there is never a better time to take photos of your customers (or your own) pride and joy than immediately after the perfect detail. Since 2010 we have seen a dramatic increase in customer requests for professional photographs directly after detailing before even a speck of dust has had a chance to touch the perfection we've delivered.
Photography and detailing go hand in hand. Photography is a very satisfying hobby. Although, photography, at even a semi-professional level, is a much, much more expensive hobby than detailing. It's just as addictive, but boy is it harder on the wallet. If you are looking to go 'pro', then the costs are simply part of running a business, if you're looking for an affordable hobby and are used to detailing budgets, brace yourself.
If you are honest with yourself and you know you won't bother to delve into professional photography techniques to improve your images, stop reading and call Bespoke Imaging for your vehicle (or any) photographic needs.
If you're eager to learn, let's jump in. I'll attempt to keep the tech talk down and explain as I go along, but I do want to delve deep into what we do to acheive the professional look.
I will say now that this article assumes you are already familiar with a camera such as a DSLR and that you are looking to move from amateur (not beginner) to professional. The article is also produced to teach you how to capture images of vehicles so you won't learn how to shoot a wedding reading this article although you may learn something new about photography in general and it's worth a read. For the seasoned pro, you already know what I'm about to put forth, the info below isn't for you.
What type of camera?
I suggest looking for a camera body, not a camera and lens kit.
I suggest only using cameras with interchangeable lenses and Digital Single Lens Reflex are recommended. I'll concentrate this article around using DSLR's. Yes interchangeable lens mirror-less cameras will also be suitable. 'Prosumer' fixed lens cameras won't do.
Phone cameras are not cameras we'd consider good enough tools for professionals to use. Yes, my camera phone has 40megapixels and it's conveinet, but it is a good phone, not a good camera.
Which camera exactly?
Let's get one thing out of the way from the very beginning, no particular brand matters. We could attempt to discuss it, but it is probably the most discussed question in camera forums these days and there is no clear answer to which brand is best. In my opinion, cameras from the big camera makers such as Nikon and Canon will deliver better bang for buck than most. Unfortunatley the only way to shoot professionally, in our opinion is to choose from one of these camera makers.
Medium format cameras can deliver slightly better results but are extremely expensive, cumbersome and usually have very specific use, e.g. most only produce acceptable images upto ISO800 (some ISO400).
Each camera has its good points and bad, every single one, no single camera does everything well so you will have to carefully choose the best camera for the purpose.
Button layout is important, although you will find that shooting cars, you usually have plenty of time to make adjusts and when shooting motor sports you will set it up once and rarely change settings as the scenery rarely changes. We're talking about shooting static vehicles in this article, so this is of little importance for this particular topic and we won't go into it in too much detail.
Resolution is important, some say it isn't but of course, more resolution = more detail. You can sacrifice some performance somewhere when you have more resolution, as resolution (megapixels) equals more information. Higher resolution cameras are usually slower (frame rate) and not the best choice for motor sports, a lower frame rate for static subjects isn't usually an issue.
So, let's cut to the chase :)
As of 2014 (and since 2012), we prefer and thus use the Nikon D800 and D800E for reasons we will explain throughout this article. We don't use the Nikon brand for any reason but we prefer the D800 (and 800E) for their almost-medium-format resolution of nearly 37 megapixels, their class-leading dynamic range and fantastic, plentiful and relatively affordable lens choices. Canon and Nikon rule for affordable, professional level lens choices and accessories, but only Nikon has a sensor that we think is perfect for the type of photography we do and the type I am covering in this article.
The camera is not the most important component of the complete set-up and if your budget will have you skimping on the rest of the system, make a different choice here, but I highly recommend this camera, again, for reasons I'll explain, in detail, throughout this article.
Your lens is incredibly important and for the D800/E, even more so as you will require a lens that will allow you to make the most of that resolution Many lenses still manufactured are out-resolved by the newest sensors in the best cameras, the D800/E really does require you to have lenses with glass that is worthy of being placed in front of that sensor. Fortunately, you can easily complete a set of basic but professional quality images for paying customers with one single lens as we'll explain later on.
I say at this point that I and Final Inspection as well as Bespoke Imaging do not have any affiliation, in any way, with any company mentioned in this post and all of the equipment we have is purchased from authorised retailers at full price.
Full Frame (FF), Crop sensor (APS-C) or Micro Four Thirds (MFT)?
It will make very little difference as we recommend to use smaller apertures and low ISO so noise and DOF (depth of field) aren't issues.
Crop frame cameras are usually cheaper so unless you have to, always try to save money on equipment and buy the crop however sensor performance (dynamic range, iso handling and other characterises) will usually be better in 'full frame' models.
Megapixels aren't everything
Resolution will allow you to print larger, and retain detail as the print (or viewing) size increases. If this is important to you, prioritise a higher resolution camera, we would consider 12-16 megapixels (Nikon D5100,D90,D7000,Canon 5DMI,7D) an absolute minimum, 24mp is preferred (Nikon D7100,Canon 5DM2 & 3, 36mp (D800/E) is more than ample and desirable and medium format resolutions of 40, 50, 60mp+ is fantastic if your budget allows.
To make desktop wallpapers, 12mp is more than ample, for decent printing at about A1 size, a minimum of 24mp is advisable and for larger printing, at least 36mp.
Most photographers will tell you that megapixels are not important and they are correct. Take the new Nokia camera phone with a 40mp camera for example. The megapixels far exceed anything from any DSLR available, but the image quality will be lower than almost all DSLR's. Megapixels are important, but are absolutely no representation of image quality.
The first thing I hear, always from Canon guys is that the 36+ megapixels is too much and that 'megapixels aren't everything', and they are correct, but resolution is great to have.
I don't see megapixles as the main selling point for the D800 though, it's the D800's sensor and the fantastic (and class leading) dynamic range which is the most important feature for us. Dynamic range is more important than megapixels, more important than bit depth and more important than noise ratio, in my opinion. Dynamic range allows you to have more detail in each shot, you may have megapixels, but have you got detail in those black areas and detail in those white areas? The detail is what you want, but if you have resolution as well as dynamic range, then you really have something special, that's why the D800 for me is the best DSLR available for anything but very eratic moving subjects.
At the base ISO of 100, the D800 has both more dynamic range and resolution than any camera offered by Canon and Nikon, including their flagship products.
It doesn't matter what any of this technical jargon means, on screen, D800/E images captured at the best settings have more detail in general than any other DSLR available in my experience.
AF (Auto Focus)
Auto focus is very important if you shoot anything that moves. You could have the best sensor with the most dynamic range, the most megapixels, the sharpest lenses etc. but if your shot is oof (out of focus) your shot is useless. The way your camera handles AF, the speed, the intelligence and accuracy of that AF and the consistency of the focus is very important.
Most D800 buyers purchase their tool for shooting still subjects (or landscapes), so the AF isn't very important, but, the AF in the D800 is every bit as good as the 5D3, not as good as the D4S or 1DS3, but very good. If you're shooting very eratic subjects that move unpredictably, like kids or sports people, you'll find the limits of both the AF systems (D800 and 5DM3), they aren't as advanced as the tech found in the more expensive models.
AF lenses are important for the same reason. This isn't important for the static subjects we shoot, so we won't spend any more time on AF.
ISO
Canon users will say that the 5DM3 has a higher ISO (than the D800), and it (technically) does. It doesn't have better real world ISO handling than the D800. In my opinion.
I've shot exactly the same image in controlled conditions with exactly the same lens (Nikon) on both bodies and compared them side by side at 1:1 and yes, the Canon did demonstrate that it had less noise at each ISO, but, when I down-sampled the D800's image from 36mp to 24mp to match the Canon resolution, the extra noise evident in the D800's image was approximately the same as the 5D3 image. Not only that, the D800 had nicer looking noise, more organic and finer (when down sampled). Colour and dynamic range were also similar at high ISO for both cameras.
Much of a muchness though, neither result would sway me, so for me, after thorough testing, they are on par. Noise benefits from the Canon sensor is just noise from Canon die hards.
Fair is fair, and you have to down-sample the D800 to compare it to the Canon or view the images at the same size, if you view them at 1:1, then yes, the D800 loses out, but if you down sample the D800 image to the same size of the Canons, you have negligible difference, if anything, as I said, I prefer the D800 image, the noise was finer and more organic, more film like, but that is subjective, the non-subjective fact is that a 24mp D800 (downsampled) image vs a 24mp (full size) 5D3 image at high ISOs of 3200 and 6400 look so similar that the differences are insignificant.
That 36.6mp Sony made sensor Nikon have tinkered with is a peach. My tests were comparing highest quality RAW files with no NR or long exposire NR applied. This means very little to me and most D800 shooters as teh D800 is designed be used at low ISO, if you are after a camera that performs best at high ISO, get a flagship model, or, for Nikon users, you are lucky as the relatively (comepared to flagship) cheap Nikon DF has excellent high ISO handling.
What lens?
Focal length is important to us. Long lenses are preferred, we prefer to be as far away from the vehicle as possible to avoid reflections of the camera, photographer and other equipment such as laptops, cables etc.
Too far away and you can introduce issues such as dust and heat shimmer (outdoors on hot days) and, of course, make walking to and from the subject tedious. In public areas you may also have interruptions if you are too far away from the subject (people walking between the camera and subject).
Too close and you will have distortion, which can sometimes be useful, but we will be demonstrating how to achieve basic studio type images in this article maintaining correct proportions at all times, so we recommend an absolute minimum of 35mm, but preferred focal lengths are 50mm to 85.
As above, resolution is important, but your lens can easily handicap your sensor if it's optical quality is unable to out-resolve the sensor, many modern sensors are finding the limits of older lenses which are still being used as well as cheap lenses. Significant degradation can be seen when using a lens of poor quality or a lens made with old technology when used in conjunction with the newest sensors.
Distortion is apparent in every single lens ever released by any manufacturer and an undesirable trait, especially for our purposes. It is usually easily corrected these days in post-processing, however it is easier and quicker to alleviate the issue of having to correct that as soon as you capture the image by using a lens that has low distortion levels. Correcting distortion means you will lose (a usually minuscule) amount of the captured image and sharpness. Fortunately no 50mm lens from the big manufactures suffers from any serious distortion.
It's not often you find an item like this that will do everything you want for such a small amount of money and so is a great buy. The other lenses we use (mentioned above) are every bit as good for our purposes so if the extra cost is no issue or the other characteristics are desirable, definitely don't discount those options as you are unlikely to see the loss of sharpness unless examined very, very closely or your image is printed very large.
Other focal lengths we use are 14mm (very rarely), 35mm, 85mm, 150mm (rarely) and 300mm (very rarely).
Our preferred lenses (in order of preference) for each focal length are as follows with explanations. We've done all the research, purchasing and testing so you don't have to go through the hit & miss.
14mm-24mm
1. Nikkor 24mm 1.4G ED $2,500
Ultra sharp, virtually distortion free, very fast, accurate and silent AF and very well built. Quality of every aspect is best in class. Price tag is painful and usefulness of this focal length (for us) is low, we usually either have our 35mm or 14mm on-camera.
2. Samyang 14mm 2.8 $400
Cheap, well built, compact and very sharp, although no AF* and severe 'moustache' distortion which is difficult to correct, we use this in very wet conditions or if we think we may drop or damage the lens -or if we absolutely need the space saving. At less than one-fifth the price of the Nikkor options, this is a must have in my opinion. This lens records EXIF data to Nikon cameras, but not Canon. It's also a whole 10mm wider than the Nikkor 24mm, that's ultra wide and that comes in very handy on occasion. The Samyang, like the Nikkor below, can't (easily) accept filters, but filters are unnecessary for our studio type shooting.
3. Nikkor 14-24mm 2.8 $2,500
Very sharp, low, easily correctable distortion, fast, accurate and silent AF and very tough. Good old made in Japan Nikkor quality. Ability to zoom from 14mm to 24mm is almost useless for our kind of shooting, zooming only saves you having to step backwards or forwards a few steps. We almost always use this lens at 14mm and the $400 Samyang is sharper at less than one-fifth the price and substantially lighter and smaller.
35mm
35mm focal lenght is considered just on the verge of wide angle. A very useful focal length for capturing a whoe vehile from short distances and a vehicle, sky and surroundings from 'normal' distances. A good focal length for interior photography when used in conjunction with a full frame sensor. We recommend a 10-20mm focal length for APS-C sensors.
1. Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art $850
Cheaper, better built, sharper, very contrasty and with nicer bokeh than any 35mm full frame lens I've ever used before. AF is super fast, super accurate and silent. A clear winner, the best 35mm ever and inexpensive when you consider the performance and quality of this Japanese made masterpiece.
2. Nikkor 35mm 1.8G $650
A great lens, not as good in any way as the Sigma though and slower, but light, and relatively inexpensive for a Nikkor 35mm. Not really a choice, get the Sigma instead of this cheap, plasticy made in china 'Nikkor'.
3. Nikkor 35mm 1.4G $1900
A great lens, not as good in any way as the Sigma and more than twice the price. Not really a choice for those reasons, get the Sigma.
50mm
Considered a 'standard' focal length, our preferred lenses (in order of preference) are as follows;
1. Nikkor 50mm 1.8 D $125
We'll explain in detail below why this $125 lesns is at the top of the list, above two $500 options.
2. Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM $500
For it's very well controlled distortion and vignetting and it's super sharp glass. This Sigma acheives a very close second.
3. Nikon 50mm 1.8G $300
Third place for it's super sharp glass, light weight and slightly reasonable cost. This lens loses out in speed but it's only two-thirds of a stop slower and we use it stopped down to f8 most of the time anyway.
4. Nikon 50mm 1.4G $500
A slightly disappointing lens, it isn't as sharp as its cheaper brother, or the very similarly priced Sigma, but still very, very good. Compared to the Sigma this lens has strong vignetting and a softer centre.
There are many other 50mm options, but most are manual focus only which we find are not useful, see the paragraph entitled 'autofocus'.
Nikon have a great option here, especially if you have forked out more that what you would have liked on the camera, the 50mm 1.8D is dirt cheap, incredibly sharp 'stopped down' and built well, it is plastic, but it is very reliable and stronger than you would think considering its price and weight. NB: AF will not work on cameras without built-in AF motors.
DxOmark, arguably one of the most credible resources for lens and sensor tests document the results of the 50mm 1.8D (above), the sharpest lens in that line-up of very popular Nikon 'F' mount lenses, it also has the least distortion and happens to be the cheapest and lightest lens with the least CA (equal to the 1.4G -worth more than 3 times the price).
The 1.8D can be had for less than $125 (in Australia, at time of writing) and will be used stopped down to at or between f8 & f11 where all of the imperfections that are evident at lower f stops don't exist. The shortcomings of this particular lens are that it is not as sharp at f1.8, not as fast as the f1.4,versions and will not autofocus on DSLR's without built-in AF motors (which won't matter either for us) and that it has inferior 'bokeh' (out of focus backgrounds) at almost every aperture. Since we shoot at f8-f11, there will be almost nothing that is oof.
The 50mm 1.8D is the only lens I have purchased outside of Australia, I bought at a physical store in Japan for $90. Not for the saving, it just happened that way. Spend the extra, support your local store, especially for a $20 saving.
It has to be mentioned, because, if your budget allows, it is a serious bit of kit... the Zeiss Distagon 'Otus' 55m 1.4, still a standard focus length, acheives the highest lens test scores I've ever seen and has, for obvious reasons, the respect of some of the world's best photographers. I haven't used one yet and probably won't becuase I don't really like manual focus lenses, but here is the lens test data from DxO that will make the lenses above look nasty:
The Zeiss is on its own in this article because it really does sit on its own, on a different level in the world of lenses in my opinion. The Otus is oferred for, wait for it, $5,500 (rrp) in Australia. You can have 44 Nikkor 50mm 1.8D for the price of a single Otus. So naturally there are people everywhere shouting outrage at the price even given the specs and sample images. I use an analogy to explain why the Otus costs so much which motoring enthusiasts will understand. If you had a vehicle that completed a quarter mile in 14 seconds and wanted it to acheive it in 13, it would cost you, for arguments sake and to use round figures, $5,000. To get that run down to 12 seconds costs an extra $10K, to 11 seconds an extra $15K and to 10 seconds, an extra $50K. The Otus is a 9 second machine.
Would I buy an Otus? Probably not. I am happy to pay for quality, but it is manual focus, so while it's OK for what we do here (still subject photography and why it is mentioned in this post), I can't use it for anything else, manual focus lenses, like my 50mm 1.2, which I LOVE, cause me to miss too many oppurtunities. I simply cannot justify having no AF technology in a $5,500 lens.
If you want that level of optical precision though, there is nothing else that matches the Zeiss Distagon 'Otus' 55m 1.4, yet (I'm watching you Sigma, Nikkor and Canon).
85mm
85mm is a 'portrait' focal length, you will have to be some distance away from the vehicle to capture it completely, but it is highly unlikely that you will see your own reflection in the paintwork or glass, the 85mm focal length renders the most accurate proportions of a vehicle in my opinion. Not recommended for use on a crop sensor for whole car shots.
1. Sigma 85mm 1.4 HSM $900
Not as good in any way as the Nikon below, but 1/3rd the price which is why we keep it. Indistinguishable at the f stops we use it at most (f4-f8).
2. Nikkor 85mm 1.4G $2,500
Better in every way than the Sigma, but not by much, three times the price means we place it (a very, very close) second.
3. Nikkor 85mm 1.8G $600
Better in every way than the Sigma, and (slightly) cheaper. The 1.8 doesn't win in an area that we feel is important and which can't be told by lab tests, the 1.8G doesn't have the three-dimensional look of the two above. It wins on paper and whilst it's worth considering, it's third on our list.
150mm-180mm
Not recommended for use on crop sensors, the 150mm is rarely used but is useful if reflections of the camera gear are still an issue. The 150mm is chosen for shots of localised areas of the vehicle or parts such as wheels, mirrors headlights etc. not for complete shots of a vehicle, usually due to space restrictions, but the 150mm focal length is useful if you have the space for whole car shots.
1. Sigma 150mm 2.8 Macro OS HSM $1,200
A fast, reliable, ultra sharp, vibration stabilised unit with reliable, fairly quick and accurate AF.
2. Nikkor 180mm 2.8 IF ED $1,200
A fast, reliable, ultra sharp, non stabilised unit with reliable, fairly quick and accurate AF, this lens is old tech, still good, but it loses out to the Sigma for sharpness and especially for distortion. The lack of vibration reduction (stabilisation) isn't an issue for us as we usually have this lens on a tripod, but does make the lens less useful as we will handhold shots from time to time and either your ISO or shutter speed must be increased when using the Nikkor compared to the Sigma, thanks for stabilisation.
300mm
The 300mm focal length is used for capturing images of vehicles being driven e.g. around a closed circuit and from great distances (about 50+ metres from the subject). Definately not recommended for crop sensors as the focal length becomes ~480mm.
1. Sigma 300mm 2.8 $3,750
Almost every bit as good as the Nikkor below, for half the price.
2. Nikkor 300mm 2.8 $6,500
Slightly better in every way than the Sigma above. Brilliant quality, fantastic optics. Subject separation is phenomenal and bokeh is deliciously smooth and creamy. Produces gorgeous images. Expensive (more than two D800 camera bodies).
Both these guns are big mammas. Hand holding isn't really an option, a very strong and steady tripod is the only choice and even then they are still cumbersome. They do render a special look though.
Nikkor 300mm 2.8 (bottom) dwarfing what is a rather large DSLR wearing a sizable 85mm lens (with a hood)
Ultra fast f0.95 and f1.2 lenses?
There are faster lenses than 1.4, why aren't these mentioned? Many companies don't make lenses faster than f1.4 and, I think, for good reason. Nikkor haven't made anything faster than 1.4 for some time, Canon make a few f1.2 and there are very, very few 0.95 lenses offered. f0.95 lenses were madby companies like Nikon in the 50's, f1.2's were also made and the f1.2 Noct is still an amazingly sharp masterpiece that sells for more used than it did new. Mostly becuase it is a collectable, not becuase it is of any real world use today.
I have a 50mm 1.2 from Nikon and I can honestly say that apart from it feeling very nice to use, it is utterly useless. I understand why Nikon don't bother to make f1.2's anymore. Canons 50mm f1.2 and even moreso their 85mm 1.2 is also useless.
f1.2 and sometimes f1.4 lenses are made to be used at that maximum aperture, so if you absolutely need that speed or the dof that results from using such a fast lens, then buy nad use it. The difference between f1.2 and f1.4 in terms of speed though is miniscule and with the camera tech we have no, even moreso. Using a 50mm 1.2, even with AF that is absolutely precise is silly, dof is so paper thin that the shot rarely looks good. An 85mm f1.2 @ 1.2 has dof so shallow that pores on a nose will be in focus but the rest of hte nose and eyes won't, why would you ever need a lens that does that? We don't need that for vehicles either. In my opinion.
f1.2 lenses have much more glass in them, so they are bigger and heavier than slower lenses.
f1.2 lenses are very expensive becuase, as with the Otus above, it takes significantly extra work to acheive that level of optical precision. Canon produce these f1.2 lenses, imo, to demonstrate the ability to be able to manufacture such products. Nikon don't have to, they have proved their capabilities decades ago with products such as the 13mm aspherical and 6mm 2.8 that see behind itself etc.
I've only used one f0.95 lens, a 50mm, it was a great experience, optically the lens was worse in every way to any good 50mm 1.4 that cost one quarter as much and had AF technology.
The days of requiring that extra one quarter to one third of a stop from a lens are gone and carrying the weight, putting up with the size and bearing the expense is uneccessary. Some of these ultra fast lenses are ultra fast but optically poor.
Third party lenses
Popular third party optic companies that manufacture products for Nikon and Canon include Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and Samyang.
Most people purchase third party optics from third parties as cheap options.
I haven't had good experiences with any third party manufacturer other than Sigma. Those who know me know that I have liked Sigma products for some time, particularly because they offer affordable alternatives, but most recently for their outstanding and class leading performance.
What is ISO handling?
ISO (which stands for International Standards Organisation), is basically a standard of the sensitivity of your camera sensor.
The higher the ISO number, the more sensitive your sensor is to light. Raising ISO allows you to capture images in less light at the same settings. We use artificial lighting because raising the sensitivity level of the sensor (ISO) increases noise as an unwanted side effect.
ISO handling is the ability of the camera to deliver a good balance between image fidelity and noise. Some cameras handle high ISO noise better than others, usually cameras with newer tech will have higher ISO ratings allowing the sensitivity to be raised whilst keeping noise levels down. As the technology is improved, ISO levels can be high enough to allow hand holding cameras at night to capture bright images without artificial lighting.
This is a very, very basic explanation of what ISO handling is, we don't think it's necessary to elaborate here.
What is (lens) distortion?
Here are three examples of how different lenses render objects differently and why we prefer to use certain focal lenghts, provided we have the choice. Take a look at thes images, all three are captured with the same camera and in each image we attempt to capture the rear end of a vehicle with a little space ecah side. Take a look at how focal length completely changes the proportions of the vehicle.
14mm
In this shot the photographer is ~1 metre from the focal point which is the boot emblem. Notice that the proportions of the vehilce and completely unrealistic, bulged/convex, the rear screen seems further away and stretched, there are also distractions in the image such as the mixing vats to the right and bench to the left as well as another vehiicle, the yellow motorcycle. This isn't great composition, it's messy, unrealistic and the worst thing is the reflection of the photographer.
35mm
In this shot the photogrpaher is ~2-3 metres from the focal point. In this shot the proportions are better, but they still aren't a good representation of the true proportions of the vehicle. The photographer is stil in the reflections and there are still some distracting objects at the edges of the image which can't be cropped out as it will destroy the composition making the subject cramped.
85mm
In this shot the photogrpaher is ~10 metres from the focal point. In this shot we have fidelity of the proportions and almost no distorition at all. There are no distractions at all, the background complements the subject, we've allowed a little room to the right for the watermark and there is very little of the photograppher in the reflections, not at all distracting. This isn't perfect composition, but these three images are good representations of the way each focal length affects a the way the subject appears as well as composition.
What about Zoom lenses?
Zoom lenses are lenses that have multiple focal lengths. Primes are lenses with a fixed focal length.
Yes, you may have noticed we listed only one zoom lens. Zooms are for photographers who shoot constantly moving subjects. Or lazy photographers. Some photographers cannot use primes as their subjects constantly move unpredictably and the photographer hasn't the time (or space) to constanly move backwards and forwards to correct composition.
Zooms don't perform as well as primes and are usually more expensive. For the static subjects we are considering in this article, zooms are uneccessary, primes are best.
Kit lenses are usually lenses you purchase with your camera body. These are usually long range zoom lenses with vast focal lengths and whilst they are ultra convenient, they are usually very poor quality in terms of build and optics.
What combination of lens and camera?
Consider your working environment, the combination of lens and camera and how they will work together for you. We usually shoot in a confined space, there is plenty of room, but we couldn't use a 300mm even if we wanted to. Especially in garages, you'll be limited to what lenses you'll be able to use and what will work best.
For instance, if you were to shoot the profile of a vehicle, like so:
and, for example, you had a crop sensor (Nikon call this DX, full frame is FX) and all you had was an 85mm lens, you'd have to be approx 50 metres away from the vehicle in order to capture the complete vehicle in the frame and some area either side of the vehicle (so your composition looks good).
This is great because an 85mm has next to no distortion, the proportions of the car look normal and your reflection won't be an issue, but if you can't be that far away from the subject, you won't be able to capture the shot.
Recommended systems
Here are some systems that we have tested, in order of cost, that will achieve good results for simple studio type images.
Nikon D7000 + 50mm 1.8D + lighting = $3,000
Canon 7D + EF 50mm 1.8II + lighting = $3,000
Canon 5DM2 + EF 50mm 1.8II + lighting = $3,000
Nikon 7100 + 50mm 1.8D + lighting = $4,000
Nikon D600 + 50mm 1.8D + lighting = $4,000
Nikon D800/E + 50mm 1.8D + lighting = $5,000
Canon 5DM3 + EF 50mm 1.8II + lighting = $5,500
Yes, yes, I hear you, there are not only 2 companies (Canon & Nikon) that manufacture great cameras, however, I honestly feel that these two brands offer the most for still photography at a professional level, for the price. You may be able to deliver ever so slightly better images from $50K worth of medium format camera, but the bang for buck is long gone by then.
I'm personally not a fan of mirror-less cameras and whilst a Sony shares the D800 sensor, it isn't as nice a camera to use. I think mirror-less may replace SLR's one day, but right now it's D800 or 5D3, go the Canon if you have Canon lenses or have a friend who has Canon lenses that you can 'borrow' :)
Moire
Nikon was very honest and forthcoming with possible moire problems with the D800 and especially with the 'E' version upon release, they warned over and over again about the new high resolution sensor and possible issues with moire, but I have never ever seen any significant moire ever with both cameras and they both have about 20,000 shutter actuations each.
Button placement
When asked, I convinced my good friend Marco from Duke Creative to purchase a Canon 7D, a ripper camera mainly because he was looking to shoot a substantial amount of video.
He had no glass and could have bought either way, I recommended the 7D for its ability to capture better video than my Nikon D90 and D7000. The 7D took nice stills to boot. He now shoots a 5D3.
I absolutely hate button placement on most Canon DSLR's. With almost every digital (and some film) Nikon, you turn the camera on by picking the camera up from the grip on the right hand side with your right hand (of course) and flicking it on with your index finger. Then you can immediately shoot with your index finger, with one hand on the camera. Makes sense.
Here I am taking one photo with one camera whilst turning on and shooting with another:
Easy. With most Canons I've used, you need 2 hands to switch the camera on and get started as the 'on' button is on the opposite side to the shutter actuator :( I won't go into it too much but it gets worse from there. I find (this is subjective) that Nikons allow me to work faster, the switchgear seems to be laid out in a more logical manner.
The D800 allows me to adjust anything without taking my eye off the finder, especially the important things. The only button placement I don't like on the Nikon is the record button which they moved from the back of the camera for some super silly reason, it's tiny, it's very close to another button of similar size and it's on the top instead of on the back where all the other video controls are. It was a stupid decision to move it from the back of the camera where it was for all other video equipped Nikons before the D800, to the front and everyone I talk to agrees.
Lastly, but most importantly, it is common knowledge that Nikon users are by far and away better looking, more stylish and more classy phtographers than Canonistas and that Cannot couldn't produce a camera better than Nikon in a million years. Fact :D Um, what I mean is, don't take this article too seriously, if you like or have already purchased a Canon 5D3, everything is going to be fine, please don't write an angry post in the comments section becuase of my opinions on Canon products :)
Memory Cards
Very important. I use a mixture of SD (Secure Digital) and CF (Compact Flash). The pros and cons, in my opinion, are as follows; SD cards are more convenient and cheaper, my laptop has an SD card slot and while I can plug in a card reader to read from CF cards, it's not as clean and easy as using the SD slot. If I'm shooting in JPG (very rare) or the images aren't important (very rare), I'll shoot onto an SD, sometimes in JPG and I can transfer the files quickly and easily to the laptop for either processing or immediate upload.
SD cards are usually cheaper per MB of space than CF.
CF cards are supposed to be the more reliable memory alternative. I say suppose to becuase I've never had an issue with a decent quality SD card ever in over 100,000 shots on many types of devices. CF cards are usually faster than SD, even if the specs are the same, I find writing to the CF card is almost always faster than writing to the SD card regardless of the device,even if the cards are both rated at the same speed. This could be for two reasons, CF is considered a professional option and it's usually professional cameras that offer a CF slot. With my experience with the 5D3, the camera wrote to the CF card faster than to the SD card, but the same two cards in a Nikon D800 showed no difference in writing speeds. I tested the cards with Blackmagic Design Disk Speed and they were returning very similar results. This tells me that Canon have set up the 5D3 to transfer its buffer to the CF slot faster than to the SD slot, or, Nikon have setup their D800 to transfer to the two slots at the same rate. I carried out a few more tests and I'm certain that there is a bottleneck writing to the SD card slot on the 5D3. If you're shooting to CF on a 5D3, there is no issue, but I'm sure writing to the same speed rated SD card on a 5D3 is slower than the CF slot.
The D800 usually writes at the same rate to the CF SD slots if the same speed rated card is used, if I insert a high performing SD card a may see a slight improvement, but a higher performing CF card will return the fastest results, the CF card will accept data faster and my buffering times will be reduced versus writing to the SD. If I write to both (which I almost never do), the writing process is slower. So, on the D800, writing to expensive, fast CF cards does mean you will squeeze more shots into a burst and have faster buffer recovery times.
CF cards usually are more expensive than SD cards per MB of space, sometimes significantly. The most highest performing CF card I know of is a 1000x Lexar at $1K per card (in Australia). Ouch.
So my recommendations are to choose a camera with a CF slot if your budget allows and to write to CF cards if your budget allows for better performance and peice of mind (even though I've never had an issue with good SD cards from brands like Sandisk and Lexar). I use UDMA 7 CF cards from Lexar and Sandisk and Extreme Pro SD cards from Sandisk. For the D800 I like to have no less than 32GB of memory with another 32GB in my pocket, if I'm out shooting all day, 2 x 64GB minimum, not in the camera bag but in my pocket where I can access it quickly when I see the FULL sign on the camera, this way I don't miss a shot running to my camera bag and fumbling around like an unorganised moron.
The D800 and E do not like specific cards, so purchase carefully:
The D800 and D810 have no problems with this card. Nikon Australia couldn't provide us with a solution. We were dissapointed as these were $1000 cards, you've been warned.
Archiving Memory
I have used everything, I've had many issues too, I now store my archeived information to Western Digital external HDD's. I label them with information such as the month and year the information was created. Every single Seagate product I have had has given me nothing but trouble, either doa (dead on arrival) or very unreliable soon after. Your workflow will differ from mine, so I won't spend anymore time talking about how to archive your work.
Built-in Flash
OK, on-board flash is never the best way to add light, but it it's dam useful to have. The 5DM3 doesn't have one and Canon will say because the camera achieves better weather sealing, but, I'm gonna say that it's because it saves them money and they spin it differently. I've never ever had an issue with weather sealing and as a detailer, I am constantly holding my camera with wet hands and it is constantly used in a wet environments. No issues ever, even with camera like the D80 and D90 which aren't weather sealed and are low end consumer grade devices.
I do, often, use the built-in flash for quickly filling a subject and checking for imperfections in paintwork:
instead of wasting time fetching a speed light (flash), mounting it and mucking around with batteries etc.
By the way, shooting a flash directly at paintwork is the best way to highlight imperfections, an extremely unforgiving light that is bound to find any flaw. Not only do you see imperfections that aren't visible in most light, but you have a record of them and you can examine them easily.
You can also use it to trigger remote flashes (we'll talk about this later), but Bespoke Imaging uses radio triggers which is better than Nikons line of sight IR (infrared) system (which was good before radio triggers were affordable).
It's silly not to have a built-in flash and unless you require a camera that is used in environments that are much worse than mine, like rain and snow, you should have one, it's very handy to have. I really did wonder why the 5DM3 cost $400 more than the D800 when it was missing so many useful things like this.
Lighting
Bespoke Imaging uses speed lights (strobes/flash) as lighting. You can use studio lights which are better in every way, but heavy, more expensive and require more power, sometimes mains.
Unless you're shooting rapid bursts and require very fast recycle times, strobes are fine.
To get more power, use two or more strobes in the same location. We regularly use 3 together (in each location) without issues.
Stay away from cheap strobes, they can and will be unreliable and whilst we've never seen it happen, downright unsafe. Unreliability means embarrassment and damage to your business. For business, dependability of everything you use (not just photo gear) is paramount.
For basic studio shots, Final Inspection likes to set it up classically. Front, rear, profile and three-quarter shots. This is the called the 'basic' photo shoot. Here are some of those shots:
Lighting for this shot is set-up like so:
The black box is the vehicle, the front two lights (grey circles) illuminate the front and sides of the vehicle and the rear light source illuminates the backdrop to create an outline of the vehicle and provide seperation. Each light source for this shot was 3 x strobe @ full power.
We used this much light to overpower the natural light in the workshop to make it appear as if it was night so reflections from surrounding objects were greatly reduced.
Here is the result with the same lighting set-up, minus the rear fill:
The lighting in the shot above is passed through a snoot which is a device used to funnel light in a certain direction and contain light from spilling into unwnted areas. The snoot on each of the two foreground light sources was required for the dark background.
For both shots, the camera settings were as follows:
Nikon D800
1.8/50mm (lens)
@ f11 (aperture)
1/250th (shutter speed)
ISO 100 (sensitivity)
The combination of fast shutter speed, small aperture and low ISO means that the natural light doesn't have a chance to make any impression. If we didn't use any lighting and used the same settings, this scene would be totally black.
Another Final Inspection favourite which isn't used often is the overhead light box:
The overhead light box creates the reflection of the light which shows off the lines of the vehicle and a bunch of remotely triggered strobes behind the vehicle, facing the backdrop, each on low power and heavily diffused, separates the vehicle from the backdrop and provides the silhouette.
More remotely triggered strobes, grid diffused and pointed directly at points of interest such as the wheels and emblem are also on low power, these break up the silhouette enough to give some foreground detail.
This is a very time consuming set up involving constant adjustment and modification of custom diffusers to achieve just the right amount of light power, angle and spill on each point of interest.
The camera was hooked up to a laptop (Asus G73JH) and software on said laptop remotely triggered the camera so the image could be previewed immediately on a large high-res screen instead of the tiny camera display.
Remote Triggering
Bespoke Imaging uses Cactus transceivers. They are reliable, simple, small, light and relatively inexpensive receivers and transmitters that remotely trigger lighting and never present issues.
You'll require one for your camera (sits in the hot shoe) and one for each lighting point. You set the one on the camera to act as the transmitter and the others, on each light source, to receive that signal and fire.
Raw, mRAW or sRAW
Very easy answer. Full raw, disk space is cheap and easy, you will degrade your image and reduce the ability to adjust your image by shooting in a lower quliaty, more compresed, or even baked version of RAW. If you've invested this much into the best image qualty, shoot the highest quality RAW.
Computer hardware and software
Whether you shoot RAW or JPG, you should be able to process your images with any decent, current computer, you may hear stories of computers bursting into flames when attempting to process RAW files from a D800/E. I almost always use a laptop (2010 Asus G73JH) to process RAW files with no issues whatsoever. I can batch 50 RAW files at a time without issue, possibly more.
A Mac book air will process RAW D800 files, do not worry about the file size, the extra resolution is worth the disk space. On disk space, storage space is less than .05c as of the publication of this article and decreasing, by half, every year. The difference between 24mp and 36mp files are insignificant to workflow or disk space/cost.
I use Adobe Photoshop CS6 only to process all still images. Lightroom doesn't interest me, there is nothing I can do with Lightroom that improves the result or workflow. I try to do as little as possible in post, but I'm not so lazy that I shoot in JPG and upload as is, there is always a benefit to tinkering with the image a little in post.
Post production is part of the photographic process just as darkroom work was to film. I don't buy into only using images directly from camera and any JPG from any camera has some processing work applied anyway, shooting raw and processing in photoshop just simply means that most of that processing is done by the photographer, not the camera company engineers' algorithm.
Cheaper options for non professional use
Whilst I don't recommend it, the Fuji X100S is my choice for compact camera should you find that a DSLR is out of budget. I like the X100S for its ability to very quickly and easily capture images without any fuss and with very high image quality, for its size and the price point it's offered in. I would never consider the camera a professional camera though and wouldn't insult my customers by using it to capture images that I would charge them money for.
The Fuji X100S is a great camera for capturing stills for use on social media or just documenting your work. I find it has great AF and metering system which is very important as well as great optics (non interchangeable) and user-friendly software.
I have personally tried, tested, own and spent considerable amount of time with all the still camera equipment mentioned above. This is my accurate and honest advice regarding this equipment and isn't regurgitated from reviews. It is meant as a guide to detailers and enthusiasts using the equipment for the purposes of shooting cars, mostly as it relates to the detailing industry.
Not all Professional photographers will agree with the recommendations, but these are recommendations for a very specific use, which is for capturing images of vehicles and detailing.
Image Samples
Here is a 1:1 demonstrating sharpness:
Focus point was the top right hand section of the 'L'. This shot acheived with a single strobe at full power wearing a snoot to funnel light where we wanted it and to kill anything around those first few letters.
Gear was: D800 (hand-held) w/ Nikkor 50mm 1.8D (our 'nifty fifty') @ f11, ISO 100, shutter 1/200th of a second.
I hope this article has helped someone that is either thinking of taking on the mammoth task of learning how to professionally shoot vehicles, or at least gives you more information about what companies like Bespoke Imaging are up to when Final Inspection say they will have a photo shoot carried out.
I want to mention that I am not a Canon basher, before posting angry comments, please make sure you read the entire article and realise that I have mentioned on numourous occasions that the 5D3 is similar to the D800 which I've praised so highly. Also take my thoughts with a grain of salt, whilst I think I'm a good enough photographer to offer adivce, I'm completely aware that I am no Ansell Adamas.