Evo mag.

[dan]

Still a subscriber despite not being interested in most of the cars in there, but thats just the state of new cars rather than the magazine. Can't bring myself to stop subscribing for some reason despite getting to read it for free via apple too

I should cancel it but the collection on my mezzanine at work is so complete I can't bring myself to stop.

[dinny_g]

ETA: Dinny, I think the multiple images is just to get the light trails but maybe the lighting on the mountains is more complicated than I initially thought?

Yeah I'd love to know how it was done. I think the mountains are definately 1 image as the long exposure would have at least impacted the clouds in the background.

It wouldn't have mattered if the mountains ended up overexposed when capturing the light trails as you'd only crop the roads from that one. And yeah, this could be multiple exposures, re-set at a particular hairpin (where the light disappears as you look at the side of the car.

Then finally, the near shot.

But hey, I'm no expert...

[KiwiDave]

My guess is that the landscape itself is a separate image, and each 'section' of the road that's visible is likely a separate image and the whole thing is combined. Whether each section is each individual corner or several I'm not sure. I'm not familiar with the road at all, but even if the two drivers were the Franchitti brothers you're talking what 8-10mins to get up that road? If it was one shot, that length of exposure, any wind or breeze that subtly moved the camera would write the shot off, and you'd only get one go at it before the light changed. Also a 10min exposure at 'blue hour' would actually need to be basically pitch black to the human eye. And if it was one shot, the brightness of the car lights would be so far out of relation to the light happening in the rest of the image. And then the clouds aren't blurred because they haven't moved.

And, and, and...

So assuming it's multiple images, it still isn't easy to do. Over the length of time it would take you to shoot each section, move to the next and nail that in one photo, the ambient light is still changing. The 'correct' exposure for the car's lights is fixed, the lights don't get brighter or darker, but that's only applicable when you're the same distance away from them with the camera. Inverse square law applies here as to how bright those lights are when they arrive at the sensor, and that would apply at a different rate to the ambient area surrounding them where its light is provided by the sky, which is just very far away along the whole road. The relative proximity of the lights sources change at drastically different rates. So during the act of taking each shot, if you adjusted the exposure to cater for how the lights recorded, you're adjusting at a different rate to the way the ambient light is changing on the road and hillside. In short adjusting your exposure throughout this would give you a Photoshop nightmare later, blending exposure differences in both car lights and in very subtle dark areas of the image, they're the worst to blend. In theory though, you'd have to adjust your exposure for it to work at all.

So even if he got there during the day or the night before and planned it all out. Even if it was executed with military precision. Even if you do it quick enough and accurately enough you give yourself a decent enough set of images the ambient shadows in all the images work well enough to Photoshop together. After all that, the bloody cars are pretty nicely light painted in situ to have all the sides of the cars lit and done in a way which works with the ambient exposure. They're not lit perfectly like a studio shot by any means, but they're pretty great, and in that context it's unbelievable. You'd have to know, because of time pressures as the light changed, first go, exactly how far away from each car to hold the light source to light paint them for the result to not come out too bright or dark(less important), and do it in a way you're not part of the picture from the camera's viewpoint. Light painting is a pretty common thing for car photographers, but still, to get that right is the result of a LOT of practice.

And then you're obviously timing this in such a way as to catch some form of sunset lighting. Pink clouds, the far mountains lit more brightly, presumably because they're still getting some light whereas the hillside the road is on is in shadow. And those lit/unlit mountain surfaces have colour in them, they're not just black or faded - it's shot while there's still some meaningful light to work with. I don't know the area, but I'd guess that forgetting the road completely, just the basic landscape shot if it's one image, there was probably only a 10min window where the light on both shadow and lit mountain surfaces was in relation to one another nicely enough to give colour and tone to both.

I've done some insanely complex studio shots, the full size aircraft in a hangar which took us two days to light springs to mind, but they're stood still and time is (kinda) your friend and nothing is changing around you. I'd guess this is 90% as technically difficult but with 1% of the control of the circumstances making it a gazillion times harder.

The sheer professional balls it takes to dream it up, plan it, execute it and deliver that result is nuts. You'd have to back your skills so hard, even if you were shaking inside with nerves. Kinda image that only comes from a deeply, deeply skilled photographer at the top of their game.

It's so technically difficult it's bonkers. But it's also beautiful point blank. You don't often see both together.

[dinny_g]

Erm… yeah that’s what I meant…

[mik]

<Insights>

Cheers! Very

[speedingfine]

<Insights>

Cheers! Very

[GG.]

Has anyone considered that they may have taken one shot and drawn the light trails on in photoshop

[KiwiDave]

Genuine LOL

Advanced crayoning!

[IanF]

Has anyone considered that they may have taken one shot and drawn the light trails on in photoshop

That’s what I thought!

[Mito Man]

Has anyone considered that they may have taken one shot and drawn the light trails on in photoshop

That’s what I thought!

Same here. Everyone tends to just choose the path of least resistance so I really hope it is as complex a shot as theorised above.

[Jobbo]

Is it even a photo or just CGI?

Cheers Dave for the insights - I hadn't even looked at the lighting on the cars at the front as being a complex part of it but obviously it is, just adding to the difficulty. Shame people don't appreciate this sort of thing as much now so many images are completely computer generated.

[integrale_evo]

I thought the lighting on the cars would be the easy bit as there’s a nice wall line to separate the foreground from the rest of the image so you could treat it as it’s own image.

Could you record the light trail part as a continuous video then use stabilising / blending software to create a still, and take a photo with no cars / light sources for the scenery / sky.

As has been said, you’d definitely get cloud movement and more than likely some background softness from camera movement trying to do it in one.