Hot! What is the new frame?

You are 100% WRONG!:crash:

Sorry (not really)...but no.

no, sorry but you are wrong here. Look back through all these pictures posted and see how many times it was mentioned.."hot bike, but you need to take a better picture.", "take a better photo and repost". If the set up of the bike and surrounding elements aren't complimenting then the bike usually comes out bland and boring. Did he go way above what was necassary to show off his bike? yes. But it shows because it helps show off the bike. May not be a hot bike to everyone, but the effort and quality of the picture shows the bike off well.

I don't care about the other pictures...this is about this particular picture. It's nice & well lit (maybe slightly underexposed) but the background/scenery is silly as are most in this thread. Picket fence is no different from another garage door. Mainly I don't care other than I think it's funny that someone finally takes a decent pic so it's instantly 'hot'.

Which reminds me...yours is definitely a 'not'. Nothing to do with the pic...it's just a boring bike.

Cool, let's see what you got then.

Your entitled to your opinion but no one agrees with you...it happens..:lurker:

Duuuude - I love that Fuji. I've seen WR's other Fuji in person and it is hot for real. Also as a photog I'm impressed with the shot. Calculating exposure on a singe exposure with 3 separate flash pops is not a walk in the park. No one else (sadly myself included) has come within a million ballparks of the effort in this shot except for Rad55 (and he has access to a studio specifically set up for product shots).

Not as sexy as some, but it fits my needs.

http://www.glenn-ring.com/temp/Madone_4.6.jpg

Im not a Fuji fan, but the effort on taking the picture, which turned out phenomenal. You have to give home kudos for that.

Hot well done!maybe flip it...

That's fine if you feel that way about my bike. No hurt feelings. As for his bike, its not instantly hot because of his photo. I think k its a hot bike. To me the photo adds to the hotness. Appearantly you are the only one who doesn't think so, which again. Is OK. That's your opinion. Cheers

I'm an old man and not that flexible.

Anyway, i'm getting a "pro" fit in a few weeks so we'll see what changes are needed.

I don't disagree at all...like I said, possibly slight underexpose. I just think it looks silly w/mood lighting on the same old grass/picket fence backdrop.

It's not underexposed. If I were to bother bringing it in to photoshop to examine, I bet that I would see peak white levels just under clipping, which is where (typically) you want them. I would also bet that the blacks are close, but not quite, clipped, too. The only way that someone would say that that's underexposed is if they were accustomed to the 18% gray level that the in-camera auto-exposure programs seek (and which is almost never right).

hell i like it. i'm the (surprised) proud owner of a madone 3. flip and slam if possible.

Disagree...at least on my laptop monitor. Haven't run a spider on it on my graphics display. Either way, the shadows are too dark to me and I did say 'slightly'. Point being...wanna create a mood then the same old backdrop does nothing for it and actually detracts to me. Photography critique done.

The bike itself is ok but I'm no Fuji fan.

Full disclosure on the exposure: I wanted it a bit dark in the dark spots. I wish it looked more like nighttime, but I didn't have time to play around with it much.

Here's the sum total of my processing (all RAW in LR4, no CS6):
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/1373/postqls.png

Mind explaining like I'm 5 years old?

I'll try. RAW is a type of image format. It contains a zero-loss compressed image along with all camera settings during the shot. RAW files have to be "developed" (typically) into TIFF or JPEG files before they are generally usable. The software used to develpe RAW files is akin to what used to be done in a dark room. The RAW is like a negative -- very subtle shade and color differences are captured.

During the developing process, the photographer can make changes to the lighting and coloring of the image without losing any of the integrity of the original. If you have a photo of a bride in her wedding dress, but the dress is nearly blown-out white (over exposed), RAW processing can recover the details in the fabric. Same goes for pushing darks out of the black.

So, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom is a RAW processing program. You have many of the same types of controls that you would see in a pixel-editing program like Photoshop CS6. The difference between RAW processing and pixel editing is the same as the difference between projecting light through film on an enlarger vs. taking a photo of a print, then editing that photo. The copied photo doesn't have the original subtleties.

So, if you brought all the sliders on the right to their default positions, the image would look like the "before" top half. The slider positions shown make it look like the "after" bottom half.

With about 30 seconds of editing in LR4, I could make it look like it was shot in daylight (with some strange reflectors...).

Bring on the hot bikes!!! No more photo banter...

Hot

Love the gum walls. Hot - on condition of some fresh black bar tape, removal of seat bag, and ideally some different bottle cages.