I made many mistakes back in April, 2009 when MyStarCollectorCar went live for the first time.
Some of those mistakes were simply the product of “teaching an old dog new tricks” in cyber-world but the most consistent error was in the photo department.
I’m not really proud but here’s a look at some of my early attempts.
The biggest mistake I made was cutting off the front, back of both ends of the car or truck in question. These are a few examples of what happens when you don’t fill your picture with the whole car.
Here’s a look at two Chargers from a 2009 car show. Why I thought this was a cool shot is a mystery for the ages but it did no justice for a pair of classic Mopars.Maybe it was a reflection of what I thought was artistic back in 2007 when I took a picture of two equally cool F-Body Mopars.
Either way, the phrase “my classic Mopar pictures really suck” springs to mind.
I’m an equal opportunity guy with old iron so I also showed no mercy with classic Vettes a few years ago when these pictures were taken. Clearly, I thought the back or front end of a Vette in the foreground of a shot was some kind of artistic statement.
There’s no limit to self-importance when you give a rookie a camera because I really thought the Pulitzer Prize people would be all over that picture.
Here’s an example of how jarring bad photography can be when you arm an idiot with a camera.This AMC Pacer was an extremely cool find at a swap meet back in 2009 and if the monkey behind the camera knew how to get a whole car into a picture readers would have appreciated the car on the pages of MSCC. The same rule applies to the ’65 Marlin.
Classic trucks were also victims of this incredibly bad photography. These two IHC trucks were at a 2008 show and they both suffered the effects of acute “moron behind the camera” disease.
Horrible photography wasn’t limited to the domestic car in my world because this large and rare Humber sedan paid a price for my incompetence with visual perspective on the whole car. The hot rod in the other picture paid the same price in 2009 because I decided not to move over three feet and actually get a whole picture of the car.
Most of these sins were acts of omission but there were many sins of commission.Things got a lot worse when I went for “artsy” shots. Here are two classic examples. I thought the ’57 Chevy in the foreground would be some kind of decade-crossing statement if I used it as part of the ’64 Impala picture. I can’t remember if I was drunk or suffering a severe concussion back in 2009 but I did it twice at the same show. The “Cadillac fin looking at shoebox Ford” was clear evidence of impaired thinking.
Someone told me back in 2009 that he filed some cool car pictures by taking a shot of a reflection in a hub cap so I vaulted onto that band wagon. One has a Dodge truck in it that begged to be seen in real pictures, not distorted reflections. The other one was on an old Buick and it had a very cool Chevy truck in the reflection.
Smart guys would have taken pictures of the two vehicles but you can see the results in this failed attempt to make a statement via a hubcap picture.
I’d like to end this with a picture from 2008. I rarely see ’58 Plymouth Furys at any car shows so the natural tendency would be to take comprehensive, clear and detailed pictures of this rare Mopar muscle car. Instead, I decided to take this goofy picture down the side of a Viper.
There’s no real excuse for this kind of moronic behavior but in my own defense I was brand new to the game.
Now I know what car guys want…pictures of the whole car, the whole engine and interior shots.
Leave the Mona Lisa stuff to the artists.