Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Photogenic vs unphotogenic Ferraris

  1. #1
    Nosevi's Avatar
    Nosevi is offline Post whore with no life, no friends, and a problem fitting into normal social circles Committee Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lincolnshire
    Name
    Pete
    Posts
    12,053

    Default Photogenic vs unphotogenic Ferraris

    I'll be honest I've never been a huge fan of the look of the 612......... in photos. But then I can't think I've ever had a good look over one in the metal. Have just seen a dark red one outside our Spar and it looked absolutely stunning!

    It got me thinking, I wonder why some Ferraris look great in pictures yet some look nowhere near as good in pictures as in real life?

    I've always thought 308s look fantastic in pictures, 348s for some reason just don't photograph well even though 355s do. 360s I think do look good in print, better than 430s I think, yet in real life a 430 looks fantastic. I've never really liked 599s in pictures but again, stunning in real life. An F12 looks great both in photos and real life to my eye. Don't think I've ever seen a Ferrari I didn't like in the metal but in print some look nowhere near as good to me.

    If I ever needed to get a grown up Ferrari (ie more useable than a 348........ which leaves quite a long short-list ) I'd never have really considered a 612. But having just seen one it's definitely something I would consider, great looking car.
    Last edited by Nosevi; 28-05-2022 at 07:57 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    West Midlands
    Name
    Steve R
    Posts
    45

    Default

    I donít think the 612 looks good anywhere. Bonnet too long, too much body behind the front wheels, headlights too small and plain, confused scallops on the flanks (Corvette did it so much better), looks heavy at the rear. That said viewed directly from behind is its best angle. Interior is fine though.

    599 is just horrible too, in pictures and in the metal. Proportions are all over the place - windscreen too tall, side glass goes from really deep at the front to way too tiny at the rear, buttresses look feeble and ghastly, and the clashing forms of the side creases where they donít quite meet the side glass is poor.

    As for the good stuff, 308 and 288 GTO both have it bang on and donít have a bad angle anywhere.

  3. #3
    Nosevi's Avatar
    Nosevi is offline Post whore with no life, no friends, and a problem fitting into normal social circles Committee Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lincolnshire
    Name
    Pete
    Posts
    12,053

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stero View Post
    I don’t think the 612 looks good anywhere. Bonnet too long, too much body behind the front wheels, headlights too small and plain, confused scallops on the flanks (Corvette did it so much better), looks heavy at the rear. That said viewed directly from behind is its best angle. Interior is fine though.

    599 is just horrible too, in pictures and in the metal. Proportions are all over the place - windscreen too tall, side glass goes from really deep at the front to way too tiny at the rear, buttresses look feeble and ghastly, and the clashing forms of the side creases where they don’t quite meet the side glass is poor.

    As for the good stuff, 308 and 288 GTO both have it bang on and don’t have a bad angle anywhere.
    I sort of agree with some of those thoughts in pictures yet somehow in the metal I just don't see them like that. It's almost like in 3D they work, in 2D they don't, to my eye at least.

    With a 348 they look totally different to me in the metal. I think it's the perspective - most photos look at the car very much as if it sits at eye level whereas it's obviously much lower down than that and you look down at it in the metal. Perhaps that’s why the 612 looked so different to me in the metal than in pictures I’ve seen.
    Last edited by Nosevi; 28-05-2022 at 09:03 PM.

  4. #4
    tom's Avatar
    tom is offline You thought the Enzo was ugly? - The Ferrari FXX Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Name
    Tom
    Posts
    5,584

    Default

    I’d agree with that. I think a lot of Ferraris, especially modern ones and the 612 is a good example, look crap in photos but somehow work in the flesh.

    I’ve never been a fan of the current crop of designs having only really seen them online but I crawled along next to an SF90 for a few miles of traffic recently and found myself wondering if I could afford one (I could not)

  5. #5
    Nosevi's Avatar
    Nosevi is offline Post whore with no life, no friends, and a problem fitting into normal social circles Committee Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lincolnshire
    Name
    Pete
    Posts
    12,053

    Default

    Perhaps itís the result of how they are designed now. Perhaps older Ferraris were originally designed from 2D sketch whereas more modern ones are designed in 3D CAD and detailed modelling so the designers are always viewing them from a 3D perspective.

  6. #6
    Modificato is offline Nowhere to put the shopping -The Ferrari F40 Club Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    north west
    Name
    CPD
    Posts
    3,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nosevi View Post
    Perhaps itís the result of how they are designed now. Perhaps older Ferraris were originally designed from 2D sketch whereas more modern ones are designed in 3D CAD and detailed modelling so the designers are always viewing them from a 3D perspective.
    Being in the car design game there is SO much to discuss here.

    Designers absolutely do not design in 3D CAD they sketch exactly as they have always done with a pencil and paper. The pencil is electronic and the paper is a tablet but the use of 3D electronic means is somewhat later in the process. CAD comes later in the process as the engineers work with the designers to package the mechanicals within the aesthetics of the design.

    What has changed since those classic designs is mainly legislative in nature and impacts both design and engineering.

    You have to comply with a massive rule book for safety and a massive rule book for environmental considerations. The irony is as these have grown manufacturing constraints have diminished with the advances in additive manufacturing. (3D printing).

    Finally the thing to say is that car design is of its time anyway. Vehicles have to appeal primarily to their intended NOW market and that is a demographic window ready to part with their cash now. Itís fair to say that the female of the species now has a much much more intrinsic role in the purchase than ever before and so big and protective has entered the customers needs alongside the traditional sensual. The ideas of sensual are also changing heavily from a singular fairly narrow cultural definition to a much broader one.

    So as a company that designs vehicles and vehicle concepts we have to take 10X more into account than when some of the models mentioned were designed. They had it so easy back then and form follows function of the day.

    Bottom line is this - if you donít like it be assured it was likely deliberately designed to be not for you simple as that. When the pursang breaks ground you can relax in that knowledge.

  7. #7
    Nosevi's Avatar
    Nosevi is offline Post whore with no life, no friends, and a problem fitting into normal social circles Committee Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lincolnshire
    Name
    Pete
    Posts
    12,053

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Modificato View Post
    Being in the car design game there is SO much to discuss here.

    Designers absolutely do not design in 3D CAD they sketch exactly as they have always done with a pencil and paper. The pencil is electronic and the paper is a tablet but the use of 3D electronic means is somewhat later in the process. CAD comes later in the process as the engineers work with the designers to package the mechanicals within the aesthetics of the design.

    ......
    Interesting. I understand that design is now far more constrained by legislation but still wonder at the stark difference in the poor photographic look of some modern models compared to how good they look (to me) in the metal.

  8. #8
    Modificato is offline Nowhere to put the shopping -The Ferrari F40 Club Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    north west
    Name
    CPD
    Posts
    3,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nosevi View Post
    Interesting. I understand that design is now far more constrained by legislation but still wonder at the stark difference in the poor photographic look of some modern models compared to how good they look (to me) in the metal.
    In addition to the above points - re: photographs

    Again surfaces and curves have become much more complex too.

    Aero, cooling, ground effect, hot air egress, manufacturing advances have all conspired too make vehicle surfaces way more 'interesting' and hence drawing the attention than those of old.

    A complex surface is still hard to capture photographically and so like when you go from 2D to CAD to clay to virtual digital and ultimately the vehicle in the flesh each time you gain a lot.

    612 Scaglietti, going back to the previous comment is a great example of a car that with looks better in the flesh and with a subtle wheel change from stock to the optional challenge rims looks lovely in the flesh - even though compared to the 456GT M is a more difficult to package design.

  9. #9
    Nosevi's Avatar
    Nosevi is offline Post whore with no life, no friends, and a problem fitting into normal social circles Committee Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lincolnshire
    Name
    Pete
    Posts
    12,053

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Modificato View Post
    In addition to the above points - re: photographs

    Again surfaces and curves have become much more complex too.

    Aero, cooling, ground effect, hot air egress, manufacturing advances have all conspired too make vehicle surfaces way more 'interesting' and hence drawing the attention than those of old.

    A complex surface is still hard to capture photographically and so like when you go from 2D to CAD to clay to virtual digital and ultimately the vehicle in the flesh each time you gain a lot.

    612 Scaglietti, going back to the previous comment is a great example of a car that with looks better in the flesh and with a subtle wheel change from stock to the optional challenge rims looks lovely in the flesh - even though compared to the 456GT M is a more difficult to package design.

  10. #10
    francisn is offline Post whore with no life, no friends, and a problem fitting into normal social circles Admin dude
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    S. England, but Scottish!
    Name
    Francis Newman
    Posts
    17,073

    Default

    An interesting thread. I do basically like the design of the 612 except for the back end which I find rather round and heavy and doesn't blend well with the front and side which I really like.

    Which brings me to my own car, the Dino 308GT4. I have seen pics where I don't actually like it. But a side view, a rear or 3/4 rear and 3/4 front I just drool over for hours and can think of very few more beautiful cars. But a front view from an elevation for some reason I am not so in love.

    Funny old world

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Our Former Ferraris Ė Where Are They Now?
    By Boxer in forum Ferrari Talk
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 16-04-2021, 05:15 PM
  2. So, how many Ferraris in the UK?
    By polartech in forum Ferrari Talk
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-05-2010, 11:21 AM
  3. Top 10 used Ferraris
    By rmdferrari in forum Ferrari Talk
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 25-10-2009, 12:18 PM
  4. Ferraris at the Ace
    By F355GTS in forum Meets, Cars & Coffee
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 07-01-2008, 04:11 PM
  5. How many Ferraris are there in the UK?
    By F328GTS in forum Ferrari Talk
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 15-01-2007, 06:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •