My photos suck.

[Rodnik]

Alrighty then.
So, here\'s the long and short of it....
I\'ve been told numerous times that my photos don\'t do my figures justice.
I\'m photographically challenged---and ignorant to what folks do to get good photos---
The really sad thing---
I\'ve got $1000s of dollars worth of equipment---and still can\'t manage it.

This is what I have to work with:
Nikon D70---and about every lense one would ever need for miniature photography.
12 and 20 inch diffusing cubes.
3 studio lights.
Photoshop.
All of which I use at a VERY remedial level.


My latest photo----
http://www.coolminiornot.com/166677

So, you guys fix me.....

What do I need to do to clean these up?

Be more careful bracketing and such?
More Shop work?
Add filters of some kind to my camera?
Eliminate the diffusing boxes?
......et al?


Cheers,
Kev

 

[Mr. Simpson]

Hey Rodnik,
honestly, how much better do you expect this to get? This pic is damn good enough to judge it seriously. The only thing you could do is to get it closer in focus or a little lighter. But actually it´s good for decent judgement. No wild guessing on which technique you might have used or whatever. Look at my www.coolminiornot.com/166678 orc, and you´ll see how much a pic can spoil your efforts. There´s no drybrushing on that mini, but it looks like that.
Your khor-warrior looks awesome by the way.
Cheers, Bart

 

[squidders]

Hi Rodnik,

I also have a Nikon D70s but your pics are way better than mine.

I\'d be interested if anyone can offer any practical advice to you as your pics look spot on other than I guess they could be a fraction of a little bit of a microscopic bit sharper in focus but that\'s it.

How have you set all the priority and exposure etc on the camera?

Cheers,

Joe

 

[Avelorn]

It overall looks good to me but slightly out of focus. For an ordinary camera I wouldn\'t say much but for a dslr with macrolens something is wrong. If you could post or check the original so it can be determined if it\'s the photoshop resizing or not. You should be able to pick out specks of dust etc on a 100% crop. I know some cameras/lenses can have trouble auto-focusing if there\'s too much light. So try focusing manually. What Macrolens are you using? full manual mode? What background are you shooting against? Consider using a printed out background for added naturalism. The best photos out there imo is those that feels like you\'re holding the mini in your hand.

Anyway.. only you can compare with the real thing.. so what would you say are the major differences?

 

[Kendaric]

What lens are you using? Nikon, Tamron, Sigma?

Macro lenses are usually incredibly sharp. However your photo doesn\'t seem to be so. Lighting is good, post-processing also seems to be good.

Did you focus manually? Have you stopped down the lens (you can go to f/11 at least, you could even try f/16) enough? Check your lens for front/back focus.

If it\'s not a macro lens try to pick up a used 105 AI/AI-S micro-nikkor. Or a 55/60 one. Such as this one:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-Micro-105-f-4-AI-Manual-Focus-Lens-in-Ext-Cond_W0QQitemZ140147280416QQihZ004QQcategoryZ48556QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem

The price tag on that particular one is too high though IMO. I paid some 110$ for mine, in very good shpae. (a few marks on outer barrel, some dust inside the optics, but nothing that affects picture quality)
Don\'t buy a pre-AI one you can\'t mount it on the D70.
It\'ll be full manual but that\'s fine for macrophotograhpy.
AI-S versions are quite sought after, so they\'d be more expensive.

 

[Legacy Account]

Are you using a macro lens? You\'ll get fuzzier images if you use a zoom.

My 50mm macro will stop down to f32, so stop your lens down as far as it\'ll go, tripod the camera and use a shutter remote or self timer to prevent camera shake.

The main problem with that pic is that you\'ve applied too heavy a Feather to the mini selection (it really shows up on the base edge...) and it makes the edges of the figure blur against the background.

Another thing to consider is that you really need to do all your Photoshop-ing to the pics BEFORE resizing them so that you have plenty of resolution to play with - a 1 pixel feather is far more subtle on a 2000 x 2000 pixel image than it is on a 600 x 600 pixel image.

 

[sg2009]

wot ar u cryin about lol that pic is awsome
ill never be able to take pics that good unless someone else took them lol lol

but seriously that pic is awsome

sam

:moon: <----funny

 

[Rodnik]

Thanks guys. I\'ve got some pointers from this that I\'m gonna try this weekend.

Along these same lines...

I\'ve seen some photos that look like folks use a soft-focus filter or effect---
Have any of you--and specifically SpaceM--ever used this type of effect on a miniature photo. You know..a mild soft-focus like someone would use a typical portrait?

Kev

 

[Legacy Account]

Not on a miniature pic.

To be honest, it\'s easier to P\'Shop any blurring you want into your picture:

All I did with that was to make a copy of the pic on a new layer. The background layer remains untouched throughout - lock it if you want.

I then applied a motion blur across the top image layer, then simply rubbed bits out using the eraser. Tweak the opacity setting of the eraser to leave some of the blur behind - easy!

I could get anal with it and start adding directional blurs on separate layers to make different parts of the body appear to be moving in different directions...

 

[Rodnik]

Thanks SM. I\'ll check it out.
I wasn\'t talking so extreme as a blur----just creating an effect like you see in a lot or portrait/model photography (they do just enough to remove skin pores and such)...seems like it would be nearly the same approach though.

I think I just need to get familiar with my tools---I\'m very weak in photoshop, with the exception of the tutorials and such that are out here...and then it\'s still just a step-by-step for me with no real understanding of what I\'m doing. I just feel like every time I try to take a picture, at the very least I\'m either under/over exposed----and then I tack on the other problems.
Granted, I\'m probably just being too anal about it.

My 50mm macro will stop down to f32, so stop your lens down as far as it\'ll go, tripod the camera and use a shutter remote or self timer to prevent camera shake.

Do you shoot on complete manual or with priority? And do you purposely over/under expose your pictures---or do adjust to even exposure? I\'ve got a comparable lens I can use.

Kev.

 

[Legacy Account]

I whack the mini on a piece of white paper, preferably lit by natural light.

I stick my camera on aperture priority and use autofocus. That\'s it!

Levels get tweaked in Photoshop if the exposure is a bit out - I can never be bothered faffing with bracketing etc. Mostly a waste of time these days....

 

[Rodnik]

Cool.
I\'m gonna give that a try tonight.

The only \"natural\" light I have at the moment are three studio lights--daylight corrected.

I\'ll try the pictures under a couple of different configs and see what happens.
I\'ll post out some comparison pics when I give it a shot.


K.

 

[Kendaric]

Thanks SM. I\'ll check it out.
I wasn\'t talking so extreme as a blur----just creating an effect like you see in a lot or portrait/model photography (they do just enough to remove skin pores and such)...seems like it would be nearly the same approach though.

It\'s done with very fast lens wide open. Typically a 85mm f/1.4 or f/1.2 wide open. It\'s no photoshopping, just a characteristic ov these very expensive lenses. You can get the same effect with a macro lens wide open at close focus distance though. But I\'d advise against it, for you it\'s better to post-process in Photoshop.

My 50mm macro will stop down to f32, so stop your lens down as far as it\'ll go, tripod the camera and use a shutter remote or self timer to prevent camera shake.

f/32 is too much, you\'ll loose sharpness because of diffraction and not gain that much depht of field. f/8 to f/16 sound about right, since you won\'t be going to huge levels of magnification, so you\'ll keep some depht of field. I\'d probably use f/11 myself. And you won\'t loose detail because of diffraction.

EDIT: just thought that you weren\'t after an accurate pic of the mini after all. In fact slightly blurring the pic by stopping down the lens to f/32 might yield the result you wanted: blur the fine detail (which means loss of it) and then you bring back what\'s not been blurred (the miniature\'s shape) using unsharp mask in Photoshop. It might work better than having to \"dust out\" the miniature later in PS.

Tripod, self timer/remote is good advice. Also use mirror lock-up to further limit blur.

Do you shoot on complete manual or with priority? And do you purposely over/under expose your pictures---or do adjust to even exposure? I\'ve got a comparable lens I can use.

You shouldn\'t over/under expose. If you shoot jpeg nail the exposure and use either A or M mode. I you shoot raw expose the histogram to the right. Check the histogram as soon as you\'ve taken the shot.

 

[Legacy Account]

f32 produces pin-sharp pics for me so i guess it depends on the quality of the gear you\'re using!

Diffraction is pretty irrelevant when you consider that pics are getting shrunk to a fraction of their original size/resolution for use on CMON too. It\'s more important to have a large depth of field to ensure every part of the fig is focussed...