Aesthetics. Reality vs. photo...

I have been moving the headlights on the coupe, and trying different mounts, and just generally messing around trying to find the perfect location, you know? height, in/out board of the front tires, fore/aft location, relationship to the grill shell, etc...
When I built the car, I had ended up somewhat unhappy with their location, but, I mocked them up completely the other day, taking no chances, tightened everything, and did the old sit and stare...
perfect.
got everything together, and LOVE the way the car looks in person...ten times better, right?
Came home and put the photo card in the 'puter, loaded the pix, and damned if I don't think it looks wrong in the photos.
compared them to the photos of them the old way, and I like the old location better...only NOT in person?!
Why do some things look different in pix then in reality???
I sit around and really stress these little details, and to have an exact image of something tell me one thing, yet reality tell me another, makes already difficult decision making virtually impossible!
any photo-geni out there wanna 'splain how this functions?
damn...I don't get it...

 

i do the same damn thing and i hate it, did it a ton on the chop on my pontiac looks good in person but bad in pics vise versa agggggravating!!!!

 

Ever hear "The camera adds ten pounds?"

It's true, it flattens things out, and changes the perspective. There's never a substitute for standing back and staring at stuff to make sure it's right. That's why God invented beer.

 

What sucks is that this implies that perhaps many "magazine" worthy cars, are merely...ummm, photogenic?
They might actually look like crap in person, but take a mean photo!...
I, myself, don't really wish to choose...

 

i have seen many cars (which shall remain un-named) in magazines that I thought was bad ass, only to come across them in person, and was incredibly disappointed. but then I know some cars that look awesome in person but have yet to see a good pic of them.

 

its crazy seeing those cars in person and you see horrible door gaps crooked stuff all over the place i could go on forever i guess they are just made for pictures. im building my pontiac for in person views haha!

 

I've seriously had the same problem with women....whacked.

 

Just made up my headlight bar. They sit where they ended up. Can't see them from the drivers seat anyway

 

your looking at the car with your good eye right??

 

Its the loss of depth perception. Fucks with everything.

 

i have the same trouble , i have been playing around with the location of my lights on my truck trying to get the bug eyed look off , no matter where i put them it looks funny as well .. i have to agree with doc its more than likey depth perception..

 

I have to agree !!!

 

Actually...if I put pix up, I can't trust them to tell the truth about how it looks in person, now can I ?

I was actually more interested in the phenomenon, and why it is that way, than in getting any opinions on it, 'cause everyone likes what they like...but,
ehhhh...I'll put some up anyway, what the hell...

since you asked...

 

new way:

 

old way:

 

looks good from way over here!!
either way looks good..

 

Every see someone's Glamour Shots pictures?

Your brain only concentrates and focuses in on one part of what your eyes are looking at, the camera captures everything at once, no emphasis on the headlights like your brain does. When you look at the photo, you see the whole photo, in your hand, or on your screen.

New is better.

 

Good eye, bad eye...
Third eye...
The next step is going to be trying to get it to telepathically communicate to me where these damn things will look good to me from all angles!

 

I think the new way looks better in pics.......

although, I'm not a huge fan of the shades on top of the headlights though. gives it a droopy eye look....

 

It might help if the two pics were both of the same side, angle, and lighting. Right now I like the old setup better.

 

I think when your trying to compare the looks you would need to duplicate the location of the pictures. The new pic is done indoors and from the other side of the car. The old pic just looks better because it is brighter and outdoors. My opinion is the new location is better.

 

I'll take a stab at the optics...

...because there is a distance between your eyes, when you look at a point in space, there is a triangle formed, and this looks a certain way. It's almost like you see "around" objects a bit. A camera is a single point of view, and objects captured on the film converge from all angles, so the camera "sees" everything at an angle, it "sees" less near the edges.

Also it doesn't take much head movement for objects in space to move in relation to each other, this is depth perception, or 3D viewing.

 

I've been on the fence about that one, too...thanks!
Still undecided, but, I think I'm gonna pull 'em off today, and shoot more pix. I think they worked in the previous location, because they were behind the grill shell, and it helped them to sorta strike forward...they no longer need that, so...we'll see. They do make it look kinda lethargic, I think. Or maybe just stoned.

My Girl thinks I'm thinking way too hard about headlights, I don't even sleep when I have these conflicts...the last one was over the Firestone slicks, which, as you can see, I have also ditched in the "new way" pic. They look great, and i love 'em...just not on my car! Too small of a white wall for the fronts.

 

Harry, coupester...I agree, thats why its coming outside today for some daylight multi-angle shots...thats been a problem before, too, with other aspects of this build, the indoor light does not do wonders...

 

Thats funny...I was thinking the same thing, as I sat and stared at my shock mounts...
Might be time to hack them off, too...

 

Take a straight on front shot each way and post.

 

i like the new way... it makes your tires look taller.. but i would also remove the eyelids..

 

will do...gonna snap a few today...
eventually it will have actual NICE lights on it, too ( guides? '35/'36 Ford? ), which will make difference, also.

I am leaning toward low, and inside...it accentuates the flow of the body, thins it toward the grill shell, and helps to keep the appearance of the "nose" somewhat down, important, I think, for an un-channeled car. Helps the rake a bit, ya' know?
Trying to get that beautiful, slightly aggresive taper, down, and forward...to a point.
I loved it...
until I looked at my pix, then...I second guessed it...
thanks everyone...

hmmmm...maybe its time to reverse the spring-eyes on that front leaf now...grab another inch of drop?
Its funny, a lot of folks would think building a fenderless, 20's/30's car would be like assembling a radio flyer. At first glance they seem so primitive, crude. Its MUCH harder to get a car where there are so many mechanical assets showing to appear seemless, and flowing, than one with a body/fenders molding the whole thing into one form.
The lights were originally back slightly from the grill shell, because of the use of smaller light buckets, and locating them in that fashion on early Altered/Gas cars, where the smallest, lightest lights were used, just to meet the requirements.
But, my car has a more "street" look anyway, I think, so...I am leaning toward keeping them in, and down...

 

keep in mind this is suppose to be FUN....not stressful.

Typed out for my reminder as well as yours.