A few years back Todd and I worked on a wonderful ad campaign for Ford Motor Co.  To this day, it is still one of my favorite commercial shoots.  We had a blast that day and Todd is a great AD to work with.

Recently, at the request of a student, I interviewed Todd about automobile advertising photography. I will post some images of Todd’s work soon, but I wanted to post the interview, hot off the press. This will be posted in two parts, with more to come tomorrow. <Part II re: what makes a great car shooter, the convergence of still and video, and adjusting to tight budgets, is now here.>

GC: Can you describe how advertising photography in the automobile industry has changed since you have been an AD on still photo shoots?

TR: I started in this business over 20 years ago so obviously a lot of things have changed. The biggest change has been the switch from film to digital.  Back in the Stone Age we had to wait until film was processed before we knew that we got the shot, Now with digital cameras, it’s virtually immediate. Which removes a ton of stress and worries waiting for that late night film drop off while also saving a bunch of time and money on the much dreaded re-shoot.

Another amazing change is the introduction of digital retouching and CGI. Now we can actually retouch and composite as we’re shooting. Again back in the day, we would shoot different elements on film and composite them later hoping that they would all come together. Sometimes this didn’t go so well.  Now we can experiment and try different things until they work. This really opens up creativity and again saves a ton of time.

GC: What does a car shooter’s studio look like these days?  Are there still these huge studios in Detroit where a photographer can light an SUV?  Are most of the car shooters still in Detroit?

TR: Car studios in Detroit are dwindling fast. Some of the biggest and most prominent stages have closed their doors due to the bad economy and competition outside of Detroit.

In the past Detroit was “The” place to photograph cars. There was no other. Studios like The Boulevard owned the business and trained an army of photographers that branched out and started their own studios.  Through the 80’s and 90’s there was plenty of work to go around and the business was very prosperous.  Three years ago I was very saddened to see The Boulevard finally shut down their stages.  In fact, I believe the photoshoot I was overseeing was the final shoot for the grand stage.  A sad day indeed.

Most Detroit photographers today find it very cost prohibitive to own their own stages.  Instead, they rent from a handful of very well equipped studios that are conveniently located throughout the Detroit area.

GC: What images being done for car shoots are generated via CGI and what is being “Shot” by the photographer?  More specifically, we often see interiors of cars in showroom catalogs, are these shot by a photographer or produced by CGI artists?  How much is being done via CGI?

TR: CGI has definitely found its place in advertising but has not and WILL NOT replace actual photography. I believe that nothing can replace the spontaneity and “happy accidents” that can occur while actually shooting something.

I’ve found that the biggest weakness/flaw to CGI images is the tendency of the creative person to play God and make everything perfect and pristine.  This is easy to understand because who wouldn’t want to make everything perfect if given the tools to do so. And what client wouldn’t want their product looking its absolute best?

Therein lies the problem.  When you make something too perfect you run the risk of making it look fake.  Using CGI requires the creative person to actually create flaws in the image.  Therefore making it look believable.  Imagine telling your client that you’re going to take their flawless pristine CGI product image and screw it up. What do you think their response would be?
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve had some great experiences with CGI cars but have also had a few nightmares.  The main reasons I would choose CGI vehicles over traditional photography would be:

1. The actual vehicle is not available to shoot or it is a prototype that can’t be seen in public.
2. The location is too difficult and/or too expensive to get the actual vehicle into. Imagine trying to put a real vehicle on Mount Everest or within the Louvre.
3. The vehicle will be changed drastically. If we plan on doing major retouching to the vehicle such as making the outer skin transparent it really would make much more sense to start with CGI.
4. Timing. If we are under the gun for time and only CGI would meet the deadline then I would go this route. That being said, I really haven’t found much time or cost savings by going with CGI. They are both pretty comparable.

Tomorrow, Part II:  What Todd looks for in a car shooter; photographers with video cameras; and tight budgets…