How To Photograph A Bike
05-25-16, 04:47 PM
#51
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PAZ
Posts: 12,295
Mentioned: 255 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2588 Post(s)
Liked 4,823 Times
in
1,709 Posts
I broke a lot of the "rules" found here: https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vi...fect-shot.html in the following shot, but ya know what? I like it 
Sometimes we want to get it just right, and other times we simply capture the moment. I remember when I shot this pic - I glanced at my bike sitting in the rack and thought "that looks cool - I should get a photo of that". And I did. Sometimes that's the way it happens, too!
DD
Sometimes we want to get it just right, and other times we simply capture the moment. I remember when I shot this pic - I glanced at my bike sitting in the rack and thought "that looks cool - I should get a photo of that". And I did. Sometimes that's the way it happens, too!
DD
05-25-16, 05:26 PM
#52
Hump, what hump?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SC midlands
Posts: 1,934
Bikes: See signature
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 337 Post(s)
Liked 227 Times
in
145 Posts
That is a gorgeous bike, from any angle!
__________________
2010 AB T1X ** 2010 Cannondale SIX-5 ** 1993 Cannondale RS900 ** 1988 Bottecchia Team Record ** 1989 Bianchi Brava ** 1988 Nishiki Olympic ** 1987 Centurion Ironman Expert(2) ** 1985 DeRosa Professional SLX ** 1982 Colnago Super ** 1982 Basso Gap ** 198? Ciocc Competition SL ** 19?? Roberts Audax ** 198? Brian Rourke ** 1982 Mercian Olympic ** 1970 Raleigh Professional MK I ** 1952 Raleigh Sports
2010 AB T1X ** 2010 Cannondale SIX-5 ** 1993 Cannondale RS900 ** 1988 Bottecchia Team Record ** 1989 Bianchi Brava ** 1988 Nishiki Olympic ** 1987 Centurion Ironman Expert(2) ** 1985 DeRosa Professional SLX ** 1982 Colnago Super ** 1982 Basso Gap ** 198? Ciocc Competition SL ** 19?? Roberts Audax ** 198? Brian Rourke ** 1982 Mercian Olympic ** 1970 Raleigh Professional MK I ** 1952 Raleigh Sports
05-25-16, 05:31 PM
#53
Senior Member
I think subject matter and background is everything. A great picture also tells a story. For example, here's one taken by another forum member that I just love. Something about the lens flare off the saddle and the "stopping by a green meadow in late afternoon" setting gets me. You can imagine parking the bike and wandering off into the cool, tall grass.
Fields of Green by velocivixen, on Flickr
Fields of Green by velocivixen, on Flickr
05-25-16, 05:39 PM
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18347 Post(s)
Liked 4,497 Times
in
3,344 Posts
Say if you're riding along. Then wish to take a photo off to the right side of the road, then one's bicycle is naturally facing left. Somehow turning it around makes it appear to be going in the wrong direction.
I was able to get a DS photo here.
In this case, I think a signpost was cropped out of the photo.
05-25-16, 05:44 PM
#55
working on my sandal tan
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,626
Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3870 Post(s)
Liked 2,563 Times
in
1,577 Posts
nds photos should be all c&vers' pet peeve. why hide the best bits? shame? it's like expectantly opening up a playboy magazine and seeing the girls wearing burqas.
i did it too when i got my first road bike as an adult. i don't know why, but it appears to be human nature to point the bike to the left. i'll guess most craigs ads reflect this.
i did it too when i got my first road bike as an adult. i don't know why, but it appears to be human nature to point the bike to the left. i'll guess most craigs ads reflect this.
05-25-16, 05:45 PM
#56
Banned.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: on the beach
Posts: 4,816
Bikes: '73 falcon sr, '76 grand record, '84 davidson
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 22 Times
in
17 Posts
Originally Posted by cliffordk
Say if you're riding along...
1. taking a photo to journal your ride, capture the day/moment, or just for art's sake.
2. taking a dedicated photo of the bike to detail your build.
in the second case, it's best to follow a set of standards.
05-25-16, 05:48 PM
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Peoria, IL
Posts: 4,461
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1822 Post(s)
Liked 3,366 Times
in
1,572 Posts
when you mentioned breaking all the rules, i assumed that's what you were referring to.
nds photos should be all c&vers' pet peeve. why hide the best bits? shame? it's like expectantly opening up a playboy magazine and seeing the girls wearing burqas.
i did it too when i got my first road bike as an adult. i don't know why, but it appears to be human nature to point the bike to the left. i'll guess most craigs ads reflect this.
nds photos should be all c&vers' pet peeve. why hide the best bits? shame? it's like expectantly opening up a playboy magazine and seeing the girls wearing burqas.
i did it too when i got my first road bike as an adult. i don't know why, but it appears to be human nature to point the bike to the left. i'll guess most craigs ads reflect this.
The more practical cyclist might lean the bike against the wall with the delicate derailleur towards the wall so that when it inevitably gets knocked over, the derailleur doesn't absorb the impact.
For photo purposes, though, the fancy shiny bits should be displayed prominently!!
Steve in Peoria
05-25-16, 05:51 PM
#59
Banned.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: on the beach
Posts: 4,816
Bikes: '73 falcon sr, '76 grand record, '84 davidson
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 22 Times
in
17 Posts
good point. and i've thought about this in my own home. but even there, i don't want to see the nds!
05-25-16, 05:59 PM
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18347 Post(s)
Liked 4,497 Times
in
3,344 Posts
Standards?
Yeah, if I was making stock photos of bikes for a series of production bikes for sale for a major manufacturer. Then yes.
But, even for routine Craigslist ads, sometimes it is nice to see a little variety. And, maybe even ads from a manufacturer, I'd rather see a road and trees in the background than just a white background or some nondescript background.
For build photos... sure, show the DS. But, also take a few close-ups. Wheels, derailleurs, shifters, cranks, seat, brakes, etc.
05-25-16, 06:06 PM
#61
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18347 Post(s)
Liked 4,497 Times
in
3,344 Posts
Of course, if you must do a photo of the right side of the bike, you can always do it like this one that showed up on Craigslist a while ago.
https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vi...l#post17626776
https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vi...l#post17626776
05-25-16, 06:09 PM
#62
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PAZ
Posts: 12,295
Mentioned: 255 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2588 Post(s)
Liked 4,823 Times
in
1,709 Posts
I didn't know Shimano derailleurs were only good for people between 5' 9" and 6' 1"
DD
DD
05-25-16, 06:42 PM
#64
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 20,305
Mentioned: 130 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3462 Post(s)
Liked 2,825 Times
in
1,994 Posts
I have a digital camera that was fairly nice when I bought it (Canon PowerShot S2 IS). The phone I have now takes better pictures. My wife has a really good digital SLR, but I rarely bother using it. My photography skills don't surpass what I can do with the phone.
--------------
I think bikes look better with the chain on the big ring, but I don't see any reason to put it on the small cog. That doesn't look any better, and who are we kidding here? I use that combination to rule out chainring/cog wear when diagnosing mechanical problems.
I like to be able to see the stem shifters, and I usually choose the rear gear based on where it puts the shifter if the bike has stem shifters.
Aligning the valve stems is a nice touch, but I usually forget to do it.
The background shouldn't be too busy. A contrasting color is helpful, which I think usually makes garage doors tolerable. In the OP example the garage door doesn't contrast enough and the hardware creates too much noise.
I usually use a pedal against a curb to prop up the bike (when it isn't leaning against a garage door) so that limits my choice of crank orientation to something that doesn't look good. All else being equal, I like the cranks horizontal. Ideally it should be impossible to tell what is keeping the bike upright.
I don't care for the straight on angle. Especially with camera phone pictures it distorts the angles of the bike too much. For instance, in Bikerider007's picture in post 9 the seatstays and handlebars have the illusion of being turned away from the viewer. I often take pictures from a front angle in an effort to avoid this.
Offering a few examples of my own for critique...
I think the "front angle" worked pretty well here. I'm looking down on the bike quite a bit. That's obvious not good, but I don't think it's awful. The alignment of the sidewalk and the top tube is less than ideal, but it's better than having them misaligned. The location of the sidewalk in this picture really exaggerates my already ridiculous stem height. The rear gear has the derailleur stretched out too much, and the rear wheel details are impossible to make out. The lighting was perfect to bring out the color of the frame, which is surprisingly difficult with this bike. I'd give this picture a C+.
The "front angle" didn't work quite as well here. The handlebars and rear wheel appear to be facing different directions. The camera is lower to the ground, which I think looks a bit better. The sidewalk disappears in the center of the main triangle with some help from the rose bushes but is still in line with the top tube, so I think that's spot on. I like the way the roses work with the red in the bike. I wish more had been in bloom. The leaves around the saddle are a disaster, giving the illusion that the saddle is curled. The rear gear selection was even worse here. The overall picture is too dark, but I don't think I could fix that without washing out the color of the frame. I think this one is a low B.
A straight-on shot...the parallax distortion is pretty bad here and made worse by the way the stem flows into the handlebar. The handlebars get lost in the dark area of the background foliage. The background in general just has too much going on. This picture is fairly bad, D-.
As a final note, I think a complementary set of detail pictures really enhances any bike photography.
--------------
I think bikes look better with the chain on the big ring, but I don't see any reason to put it on the small cog. That doesn't look any better, and who are we kidding here? I use that combination to rule out chainring/cog wear when diagnosing mechanical problems.
I like to be able to see the stem shifters, and I usually choose the rear gear based on where it puts the shifter if the bike has stem shifters.
Aligning the valve stems is a nice touch, but I usually forget to do it.
The background shouldn't be too busy. A contrasting color is helpful, which I think usually makes garage doors tolerable. In the OP example the garage door doesn't contrast enough and the hardware creates too much noise.
I usually use a pedal against a curb to prop up the bike (when it isn't leaning against a garage door) so that limits my choice of crank orientation to something that doesn't look good. All else being equal, I like the cranks horizontal. Ideally it should be impossible to tell what is keeping the bike upright.
I don't care for the straight on angle. Especially with camera phone pictures it distorts the angles of the bike too much. For instance, in Bikerider007's picture in post 9 the seatstays and handlebars have the illusion of being turned away from the viewer. I often take pictures from a front angle in an effort to avoid this.
Offering a few examples of my own for critique...
I think the "front angle" worked pretty well here. I'm looking down on the bike quite a bit. That's obvious not good, but I don't think it's awful. The alignment of the sidewalk and the top tube is less than ideal, but it's better than having them misaligned. The location of the sidewalk in this picture really exaggerates my already ridiculous stem height. The rear gear has the derailleur stretched out too much, and the rear wheel details are impossible to make out. The lighting was perfect to bring out the color of the frame, which is surprisingly difficult with this bike. I'd give this picture a C+.
The "front angle" didn't work quite as well here. The handlebars and rear wheel appear to be facing different directions. The camera is lower to the ground, which I think looks a bit better. The sidewalk disappears in the center of the main triangle with some help from the rose bushes but is still in line with the top tube, so I think that's spot on. I like the way the roses work with the red in the bike. I wish more had been in bloom. The leaves around the saddle are a disaster, giving the illusion that the saddle is curled. The rear gear selection was even worse here. The overall picture is too dark, but I don't think I could fix that without washing out the color of the frame. I think this one is a low B.
A straight-on shot...the parallax distortion is pretty bad here and made worse by the way the stem flows into the handlebar. The handlebars get lost in the dark area of the background foliage. The background in general just has too much going on. This picture is fairly bad, D-.
As a final note, I think a complementary set of detail pictures really enhances any bike photography.
I think hiding the valve stems is the style for me. So, it depends on angle, behind a fork blade, chain stay is my preference.
If you were DD and you bought into that, changing the tire displacement might be in order. I fall back to what Clement did with tubular tires where there was an offset of the label away from the valve.
Chainring selection… black chain, small ring, bright or interesting chain, pro plates for example, big ring.
Set the jockey cage to near vertical.
No spare tire.
05-25-16, 06:42 PM
#65
Banned.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: on the beach
Posts: 4,816
Bikes: '73 falcon sr, '76 grand record, '84 davidson
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 22 Times
in
17 Posts
Originally Posted by cliffordk
Standards?
- good lighting, like in the shade of a sunny day.
- drive side for full bike shot (and most detail shots).
- camera at the same level as the bike.
- crank arms aligned in an appropriate way (i choose horizontal).
- valve stems aligned at either 6 or 12:00.
- chain on the big ring and a smaller rear cog.
- front wheel straight with the bike not appearing to be leaning.
- interesting, contrasting, but unconfusing background (not a plain garage door).
- either an appropriate bottle in the cage or no cage for the photo.
05-25-16, 06:43 PM
#66
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 20,305
Mentioned: 130 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3462 Post(s)
Liked 2,825 Times
in
1,994 Posts
I have a digital camera that was fairly nice when I bought it (Canon PowerShot S2 IS). The phone I have now takes better pictures. My wife has a really good digital SLR, but I rarely bother using it. My photography skills don't surpass what I can do with the phone.
--------------
I think bikes look better with the chain on the big ring, but I don't see any reason to put it on the small cog. That doesn't look any better, and who are we kidding here? I use that combination to rule out chainring/cog wear when diagnosing mechanical problems.
I like to be able to see the stem shifters, and I usually choose the rear gear based on where it puts the shifter if the bike has stem shifters.
Aligning the valve stems is a nice touch, but I usually forget to do it.
The background shouldn't be too busy. A contrasting color is helpful, which I think usually makes garage doors tolerable. In the OP example the garage door doesn't contrast enough and the hardware creates too much noise.
I usually use a pedal against a curb to prop up the bike (when it isn't leaning against a garage door) so that limits my choice of crank orientation to something that doesn't look good. All else being equal, I like the cranks horizontal. Ideally it should be impossible to tell what is keeping the bike upright.
I don't care for the straight on angle. Especially with camera phone pictures it distorts the angles of the bike too much. For instance, in Bikerider007's picture in post 9 the seatstays and handlebars have the illusion of being turned away from the viewer. I often take pictures from a front angle in an effort to avoid this.
Offering a few examples of my own for critique...
I think the "front angle" worked pretty well here. I'm looking down on the bike quite a bit. That's obvious not good, but I don't think it's awful. The alignment of the sidewalk and the top tube is less than ideal, but it's better than having them misaligned. The location of the sidewalk in this picture really exaggerates my already ridiculous stem height. The rear gear has the derailleur stretched out too much, and the rear wheel details are impossible to make out. The lighting was perfect to bring out the color of the frame, which is surprisingly difficult with this bike. I'd give this picture a C+.
The "front angle" didn't work quite as well here. The handlebars and rear wheel appear to be facing different directions. The camera is lower to the ground, which I think looks a bit better. The sidewalk disappears in the center of the main triangle with some help from the rose bushes but is still in line with the top tube, so I think that's spot on. I like the way the roses work with the red in the bike. I wish more had been in bloom. The leaves around the saddle are a disaster, giving the illusion that the saddle is curled. The rear gear selection was even worse here. The overall picture is too dark, but I don't think I could fix that without washing out the color of the frame. I think this one is a low B.
A straight-on shot...the parallax distortion is pretty bad here and made worse by the way the stem flows into the handlebar. The handlebars get lost in the dark area of the background foliage. The background in general just has too much going on. This picture is fairly bad, D-.
As a final note, I think a complementary set of detail pictures really enhances any bike photography.
--------------
I think bikes look better with the chain on the big ring, but I don't see any reason to put it on the small cog. That doesn't look any better, and who are we kidding here? I use that combination to rule out chainring/cog wear when diagnosing mechanical problems.
I like to be able to see the stem shifters, and I usually choose the rear gear based on where it puts the shifter if the bike has stem shifters.
Aligning the valve stems is a nice touch, but I usually forget to do it.
The background shouldn't be too busy. A contrasting color is helpful, which I think usually makes garage doors tolerable. In the OP example the garage door doesn't contrast enough and the hardware creates too much noise.
I usually use a pedal against a curb to prop up the bike (when it isn't leaning against a garage door) so that limits my choice of crank orientation to something that doesn't look good. All else being equal, I like the cranks horizontal. Ideally it should be impossible to tell what is keeping the bike upright.
I don't care for the straight on angle. Especially with camera phone pictures it distorts the angles of the bike too much. For instance, in Bikerider007's picture in post 9 the seatstays and handlebars have the illusion of being turned away from the viewer. I often take pictures from a front angle in an effort to avoid this.
Offering a few examples of my own for critique...
I think the "front angle" worked pretty well here. I'm looking down on the bike quite a bit. That's obvious not good, but I don't think it's awful. The alignment of the sidewalk and the top tube is less than ideal, but it's better than having them misaligned. The location of the sidewalk in this picture really exaggerates my already ridiculous stem height. The rear gear has the derailleur stretched out too much, and the rear wheel details are impossible to make out. The lighting was perfect to bring out the color of the frame, which is surprisingly difficult with this bike. I'd give this picture a C+.
The "front angle" didn't work quite as well here. The handlebars and rear wheel appear to be facing different directions. The camera is lower to the ground, which I think looks a bit better. The sidewalk disappears in the center of the main triangle with some help from the rose bushes but is still in line with the top tube, so I think that's spot on. I like the way the roses work with the red in the bike. I wish more had been in bloom. The leaves around the saddle are a disaster, giving the illusion that the saddle is curled. The rear gear selection was even worse here. The overall picture is too dark, but I don't think I could fix that without washing out the color of the frame. I think this one is a low B.
A straight-on shot...the parallax distortion is pretty bad here and made worse by the way the stem flows into the handlebar. The handlebars get lost in the dark area of the background foliage. The background in general just has too much going on. This picture is fairly bad, D-.
As a final note, I think a complementary set of detail pictures really enhances any bike photography.
I think hiding the valve stems is the style for me. So, it depends on angle, behind a fork blade, chain stay is my preference.
If you were DD and you bought into that, changing the tire displacement might be in order. I fall back to what Clement did with tubular tires where there was an offset of the label away from the valve.
Chainring selection… black chain, small ring, bright or interesting chain, oro plates for example, big ring.
Set the jockey cage to near vertical.
No spare tire.
05-25-16, 07:31 PM
#67
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,624
Bikes: iele Latina, Miele Suprema, Miele Uno LS, Miele Miele Beta, MMTB, Bianchi Model Unknown, Fiori Venezia, Fiori Napoli, VeloSport Adamas AX
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1324 Post(s)
Liked 927 Times
in
640 Posts
It is probably different in Australia and the UK.
Say if you're riding along. Then wish to take a photo off to the right side of the road, then one's bicycle is naturally facing left. Somehow turning it around makes it appear to be going in the wrong direction.
I was able to get a DS photo here.
In this case, I think a signpost was cropped out of the photo.
Say if you're riding along. Then wish to take a photo off to the right side of the road, then one's bicycle is naturally facing left. Somehow turning it around makes it appear to be going in the wrong direction.
I was able to get a DS photo here.
In this case, I think a signpost was cropped out of the photo.
Cheers
05-25-16, 07:42 PM
#68
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 6,480
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1361 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 422 Times
in
282 Posts
You could shoot pics of this anywhere and it'll be great. And of course, its another post with the subject 
(Where does one find these tires?)
(Where does one find these tires?)
I broke a lot of the "rules" found here: https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vi...fect-shot.html in the following shot, but ya know what? I like it
Sometimes we want to get it just right, and other times we simply capture the moment. I remember when I shot this pic - I glanced at my bike sitting in the rack and thought "that looks cool - I should get a photo of that". And I did. Sometimes that's the way it happens, too!
DD
Sometimes we want to get it just right, and other times we simply capture the moment. I remember when I shot this pic - I glanced at my bike sitting in the rack and thought "that looks cool - I should get a photo of that". And I did. Sometimes that's the way it happens, too!
DD
05-25-16, 08:16 PM
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SF Bay Area, East bay
Posts: 7,641
Bikes: Miyata 618 GT, Marinoni, Kestral 200 2002 Trek 5200, KHS Flite, Koga Miyata, Schwinn Spitfire 5, Mondia Special, Univega Alpina, Miyata team Ti, Santa Cruz Highball
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1604 Post(s)
Liked 2,564 Times
in
1,214 Posts
Like to shoot on overcast days.
05-25-16, 08:39 PM
#70
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 7,639
Bikes: 61 Bianchi Specialissima 71 Peugeot G50 7? P'geot PX10 74 Raleigh GranSport 75 P'geot UO8 78? Raleigh Team Pro 82 P'geot PSV 86 P'geot PX 91 Bridgestone MB0 92 B'stone XO1 97 Rans VRex 92 Cannondale R1000 94 B'stone MB5 97 Vitus 997
Mentioned: 146 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 49 Times
in
31 Posts
Another rule breaking photo
If you look hard, you can identify the components. But the photo doesn't make it easy.
If you look hard, you can identify the components. But the photo doesn't make it easy.
05-25-16, 09:06 PM
#71
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Peoria, IL
Posts: 4,461
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1822 Post(s)
Liked 3,366 Times
in
1,572 Posts
Steve in Peoria, glancing up from typing to look at my own Raleigh Team
05-25-16, 09:12 PM
#72
Bike Butcher of Portland
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,630
Bikes: It's complicated.
Mentioned: 1299 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4677 Post(s)
Liked 5,790 Times
in
2,279 Posts
Wrong.
Yours look great compared to mine. If you check my flickr site you'll see people actually commenting on my crappy photography!
Yours look great compared to mine. If you check my flickr site you'll see people actually commenting on my crappy photography!
__________________
If someone tells you that you have enough bicycles and you don't need any more, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
If someone tells you that you have enough bicycles and you don't need any more, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
05-25-16, 09:12 PM
#73
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18347 Post(s)
Liked 4,497 Times
in
3,344 Posts
It is probably about a 56cm or so frame, so the listed size isn't bad (ignoring ambiguity in the sentence). But, look a bit closer at the photo to see why it ended up on the Wacky thread.
05-25-16, 09:40 PM
#74
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 7,639
Bikes: 61 Bianchi Specialissima 71 Peugeot G50 7? P'geot PX10 74 Raleigh GranSport 75 P'geot UO8 78? Raleigh Team Pro 82 P'geot PSV 86 P'geot PX 91 Bridgestone MB0 92 B'stone XO1 97 Rans VRex 92 Cannondale R1000 94 B'stone MB5 97 Vitus 997
Mentioned: 146 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 49 Times
in
31 Posts
05-25-16, 09:53 PM
#75
52psi
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 4,015
Bikes: Schwinn Volare ('78); Raleigh Competition GS ('79)
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 790 Post(s)
Liked 801 Times
in
390 Posts
Something I've done lately is turn the wheel ever-so-slightly to the right, giving the illusion that the picture was aligned with the fork when taken. Makes the front end very clean for the photo, but seems like it might be skewing the visible geometry or the relation of the wheel to the downtube... This pic is actually centered right about at the BB:
...apologies for the shed door.
EDIT: In the context of "how do you photograph a bike," and really looking at the overall effect for the first time, the fact that you can see the far-side stays but not the far-side fork prong makes it somewhat unbalanced, doesn't it?
Oh, and @Drillium Dude's front shot of the Colnago is one of my favorite bike pics ever. So it's like anything else: learn the rules so you can throw 'em out.
__________________
A race bike in any era is a highly personal choice that at its "best" balances the requirements of fit, weight, handling, durability and cost tempered by the willingness to toss it and oneself down the pavement at considerable speed. ~Bandera
A race bike in any era is a highly personal choice that at its "best" balances the requirements of fit, weight, handling, durability and cost tempered by the willingness to toss it and oneself down the pavement at considerable speed. ~Bandera
Last edited by Fahrenheit531; 05-25-16 at 10:01 PM.
