Get your cameras and Cougars out - It’s the first ever West Coast Classic Cougar photo contest! Cue the graphic:
For the past few years, I’ve had a monopoly on the WCCC Calendar. While I selfishly like being able to say that all the photos are mine, I can only cover a very limited part of the country, and there are a lot of great cars in locations around the world that I’ll never get to see. Not only that, but I know there are some talented photographers out there who would love to take their cars out and experiment with getting some killer shots. It’s fun!
Have a nice Cougar but no photo skills? You can recruit that photographer buddy of yours to shoot the photos. You’ll both get credit.
Have photo skills but no Cougar? Go find one and team up with the owner to take some shots. You’ll both get credit.
WHAT DO I WIN?
For starters, the winner will be featured in the 2017 Calendar published by WCCC. We may include more than one entry if there are enough excellent ones, or if there’s a tie. You’ll also get a free copy of the calendar itself, and probably some other freebies, TBD.
WHAT ARE THE PHOTO REQUIREMENTS?
Minimum resolution: 12 megapixels (4290x2800) - but bigger is better. I shoot 24mp.
File Type: RAW or JPEG
(You can either send in the original unaltered file, an edited version, or both. I’d like to be able to touch up your photos to match the overall style of
the calendar, but kudos if you have editing skills. RAW files are encouraged, but JPEG’s are fine too.)
Camera type: DSLR, mirrorless, or point-and-shoot. Just no cell phones.
Obviously, photo subject matter needs to be a 1967-1973 Mercury Cougar.
HOW DO I ENTER?
Send photos to media[at]cougarpartscatalog.com (change [at] to @). You can send as many as you like, but please limit it to your best few shots. If your files are too large to email, write in and I’ll set up a Box folder for you to upload to. If you’re a finalist, I may ask you for additional shots (engine, interior, wheels, other details) to use alongside the main one, so keep this in mind when shooting. Entries must be received by 10/10/16 to qualify.
I think that’s all for now, I may add to this later if I think of something. But I’m looking forward to seeing your entries! I think I’ll post downsized versions in this thread as they roll in. Get shooting!
Great idea Andrew, hope you get lots of submissions. Guess I won’t be getting any email alerts from ticketmaster this year for Andrews national cat photoshoot tour
The response has been great so far! Have gotten over 50 submissions. While it’s been fun to see all the pictures, only a small handful are what I’d consider real contenders. I’m hoping that as time goes on, the quality of the submissions will increase, as “serious” participants go out and shoot their cars with this contest in mind, rather than just sending in some pix they had on their phone. (Yes, there have been quite a few phone shots despite the rule against them. Some of them are quite good but I can’t use them for print).
This is shaping up to be fun, I’m thinking I’ll try to get the entries organized and start posting my favorites. May even post a couple “close but no cigar” examples and explain why they don’t work, it that’s helpful.
Giving examples of what does not work and why would be good, be nice. Showing the fav’s would be just as helpful to see if we are on the same page as well. Be patient, some of us who have nice cameras and like to shoot need the time to get there as work and life keeps us occupied with things other than shooting our Cougars. Which of course, is what we really want to do!!
^ Ironically, that’s MY phone pic. Good news is that I had my real camera with me too and spent some time shooting at that location. So that might be a “spoiler alert” for the calendar…
Again, even a good phone pic is not going to translate well to a 300dpi 12"x12" printed image.
Here’s an example of an entry that’s killin’ me. It’s very good, I like the car and the environment and the lighting and everything about it. But there’s a “but.”
The image size is a healthy 16 megapixels, which exceeds the minimum requirement of 12. Great, so what’s the problem? Well… it’s from a phone. Samsung Galaxy Note 4 to be exact. And hey, this is really impressive for a phone. The quality is actually amazing for a phone. But when you take a look at 100% zoom, you realize that a tiny lens and tiny image processor just can’t render the same amount of detail that you get with a “real” camera.
I think there is probably some software sharpening going on, causing the jaggedness.
To me, this falls a little short of the image quality I’d expect from a big, full-page, glorious calendar image. It’s so close though, I’m seriously considering bending my own rule. It might look fine printed out. But this compromise is why I didn’t want to even deal with phone images in the first place.
You could do a page – like for the 13th month (January of the following year?) – of small pictures (for the really good ones that won’t enlarge) creating a collage that makes up the single image maybe?
Theres an idea, for those of us who haven’t bought a real camera in the last decade Or just post the submissions that didn’t make the cut in this thread, i’m sure there are some nice cats out there we haven’t seen or need or memory jogged. Glad your getting a bunch of submissions
In the “close but no cigar” category, here’s one that will allow me to give a few pointers in one shot. First off, I really like the car and background, and the image quality is good. Solid entry! But here are the issues I see:
Awkward front wheel angle: Keep the wheels straight for a side shot like this. For a 3/4 shot, if you’re going to turn the wheels, turn them to face the camera (so you see the wheel instead of the tire tread)
Partial shadow: Most of the car is in the sunshine, and there are no distracting reflections, so that’s great. But part of the front fender is shaded, probably by a tree branch. Avoid partial shade like this; the lighting should be consistent over the whole car.
Cropping: The car fills the frame a little too much. When it comes to printing, all the edges get trimmed. This means the edges of the car will be even closer to the edge of the paper. Make sure to give your car a little more breathing room than this.
That said, this fellow did send in a few other shots along with this one, which were quite good. I could tell he spent some time parking in different spots and experimenting with angles, so I appreciate that. Here’s one of the good ones:
And finally here’s one that would have been good if that shrubbery wasn’t in the way (tip: don’t let anything obstruct your view of the car). Also the rear of the car is a little too close to the edge of the frame again.
I hope that’s a helpful example, and that Gary won’t mind that I picked his to comment on. His shots are still some of the better ones I’ve gotten so far. I figure it’s more useful to comment on the “almost” pictures than the “no way” ones.
Here are a couple nice ones out of Australia. It’s great to get participation from around the world.
This one is from Paul H., whose email was pretty entertaining. I have nothing bad to say about this. The background compliments the attitude of the car, the angle and composition are good, and I just think this shot is bad to the bone.
(note: something weird happened with the colors when I resized it to post here. It’s not actually this vivid)
Just know that the aspect ratio above (16:9) is wider than what I’ll be able to use, so I’d have to crop out the sides a bit. Luckily in this case that shouldn’t be a problem. But for future reference, if you camera has different options for “wide” or “normal” , choose “normal”.
Another '69 down under owned by Brian P. He had some shots done by a pro for a magazine, which is certainly advantageous. This is but one of a very nice group of shots he kindly sent in.
Nice shot! Only thing I’d change is to even out the lighting on the side of the body. Notice how the front of the fender is darker. Pretty sure a couple external flashes were used. Anyway, I could probably correct this in Photoshop and might do so just for the heck of it.
Car is a little close to the frame edges on the left and bottom, but I think it’s still within spec. The bottom is not as much of an issue because 1) the bottom won’t get trimmed, because I place smaller inset images and a paragraph beneath, and 2) I could clone some of the pavement and extend the bottom a bit if needed, in this case.
Here’s another from this shoot that’s pretty cool:
ECI Bob also sent in some killer shots that were done by a pro. I love 'em, my only hangup is that most of us have probably seen these shots already, and I would prefer to have fresh new material. That said, he’s definitely in the running with shots like these:
I, too, have some really nice “Pro” shots. But like Bob’s, they’ve all been seen before. Besides, I don’t have the rights to have them published anywhere other than where they were originally published.
Since the car isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, I don’t foresee getting any new material either.
Andrew is giving some GREAT advice to help the non-pro shooters out there. One more that I’ll add came directly from the guy who shot my car: Cars look weird when parked on grass. That is not their natural “habitat.” Keep it on a nice piece of pavement, absent of parking lot lines, handicap parking symbols and burnout patches. Or if you must stray off the beaten path, at least make it a gravel or dirt road if it fits the look of what you’re going for.
Another is when shooting static shots, keep the windows rolled up unless it’s a Vert.
Good Luck and Have Fun! I’m looking forward to the results.
I’ve heard this critique before and almost mentioned it, but honestly it doesn’t really bother me. I understand that pavement is more logical, but cars can still look great parked on grass. I’ve used grass shots in the calendar before (just look at this month in your WCCC calendar if you have it).
I definitely agree that a vert should always have its windows down if the top is down, but on hardtops I don’t think it’s a big deal, as long as they aren’t halfway down or something goofy like that. In fact I think it looks pretty good to have them all down, so you can enjoy the “pillarless” design. So I guess I would say for hardtops, either have them all up or all down.
Ummmm… Don’t you work for Nikon? Just sayin. On the 67-68’s my tip is if you have not bought our elongated headlight door adjusting bolts, wad up a paper cup or grab a small pine cone and shove it in between your headlights and lids and squash the cup auntil the grille looks aligned.
Or just post the submissions that didn’t make the cut in this thread, i’m sure there are some nice cats out there we haven’t seen or need or memory jogged. Glad your getting a bunch of submissions 
