photo v reality

[barkel]

Ok, I could ask the question this way: How many people find thier model actually looks better than the picture they took of it? But I bet I\'d get around 100% affirmatives on that one.

So let me put it this way, I find that when I photograph a model of my own it rarely, and by rarely I mean never, looks as good as it does in reality. This is the primary reason I have yet to post a model on this forum. However, I feel that the quality of my models is pretty good, around a 7 and sometimes, on a good day, an 8, but the picture usually looks around a 5 or a 6.

Now, this could partially be due to bad lighting, bad photography or even bad karma. But I\'ve followed lighting rules, I\'ve been using a camera for about 7 years, and I\'ve been a very good boy.

So, it brings me to my actual question: How many of your models actually look better in PHOTO than in reality? In other words, how many of you paint the models for gaming differently than models for pictures?

On another forum I had a discussion with a gent who implied that in order to get in pictures the stark highlighting that I can see on any of the top 20 artists of this forum I would have to make the actual highlighting twice as drastic, rendering the model somewhat ugly in person.

Thanks for any input.

barkel
Text

 

[Coyote]

Uhmmm, yes?

If you keep in mind how the camera changes the look of the miniature and paint to compensate it will look better.

For example, the model of the Enterprise in the original series is duck-egg blue, but photographs as grey.

Some GW terrain is painted a very dark green because it looks lighter on film, but in the old days it was painted a very light green because it looked darker on the film of the time.

 

[elouchard]

I lose fine detail as my camera is only 1.3 megapixels but my shots are getting better with different lighting tricks. The figures still look better in person but the photo \"scenes\" look good in their own way. Some shots really do a disservice to the actual figure though.

My favorite lighting scheme for now is a desk lamp about 10 inches away in the position of my figure\'s simulated light source, and a small goose neck lamp turned and twsited to shine light on the front of the figure. I also put a little riser under the front of the figure so it faces upwards a bit. The light setup seems to keep good color contrast for me and makes nice shadows.

About super-highlights looking better in photos, I agree that cartoony minis photograph more easily than realistic ones as the colors separate better. Historical mini\'s look great in photos though if the lighting and background is done well.

 

[Lurch]

What I notice alot lately is people who are REALLY good at editing the photo in Paint Shop Pro or Adobe Photoshop. They give out an impression of.. \"Is it real or is it Memorex\". Know what I mean?
Their mini\'s take on the qualities of an illustration rather than a photo.
I find if I think the photos been \"doctored\" to the factor that it has that quality, I\'ll rate it lowere than normal.
As far as the quality of a photo on HTML versus the real thing... No contest.

 

[JonG]

Photo Manipulation

So my follow up question based on Lurch\'s response is: what level of photomanip is acceptable?

My single mini (can\'t wait to get more up asap) had a slight amount of adjusting to compensate for scanning issues but I\'m kind of wondering what constitutes overkill?

- Jon

 

[virtuouswolf]

I do the same thing as Lurch does.. if it looks like someone has gone overboard with the photo editing, they immediately lose 1 point to whatever the score was going to be. Sometimes more is definately less if you know what I mean.

Here\'s what I personally find acceptable (and I\'m sure everyone has their own feelings on this):

1. Sharpening of the image to bring out the details really helps. Likewise it will hurt a poorly painted mini that hides behind a blurred picture.

2. Increase in image lightness for dark photos.

3. Color balancing ONLY in the case where a photo significantly distorts the color of your mini and even then you should try to get it as close to what it looks like in person.

4. Cropping and removal of background when opting for a plain colored or monochrome background.

What I immediately take away points for:

1. Overdone or overly elaborate backgrounds. Photos of say a forest or a cliff aren\'t so bad but I strongly prefer a plain background, I mean we are judging a mini, not that fantastic shot of yellow stone national park its smattered on. Crazy hippy looking, tie-died backgrounds get hammered in the vote as they give me a headache.

2. Color manipulation to add highlights, more vibrant colors, etc. That\'s just not what the mini looks like in real life. If you can get the thing to shine a brillant array of colors in real life, I\'d be impressed.

3. \"Softening\" the image to obscure poorly painted areas short of removing something that doesn\'t show up in real life.

I\'m sure I could think of more but that\'s off the top of my head. Most people\'s editing lust actually gets them a lower score anyhow. I saw this one guy take a shot of an assassin mini and make it look like you were viewing him through a night vision scope... well of course everything was green and he got shafted on the vote because there was no color to speak of, just varying shades of green.

 

[Lurch]

what level of photomanip is acceptable

Lets take a look at the recent CMON contest.
http://www.coolminiornot.com/index.php?id=18010 is in first place at the moment. It is beautifully painted... or..is it? In my mind it is hard to tell where the editing started and where the painting ended. Notice the illustration look to the mini? As if it were two dimensional?
I would say this one pushes the envelope pretty hard.

Compare it\'s look to say the second place mini http://www.coolminiornot.com/index.php?id=18102
The vignette is more \"realistic\" in my eyes.
Beyond the conversion, the photo itself looks \"real\". The colors aren\'t as vibrant and would be the look of a photo rather than an illustration.

If we wanted to look at two of the same figures, #3 ( skipping the valkerie alone of course) would be http://www.coolminiornot.com/index.php?id=17814 . The first thing I notice is that it has edges. You can tell there hasn\'t been alot of manipulation to the colors or look of the figure.
I would be hard pressed to say the first one hasn\'t been, although I have no real proof.
That is the thing with heavily manipulated photos..
My temptation would be to rate the first one a little lower simply for that unknown factor.
Ohh, and before anyone cries foul, I DID rate both Groms an 8 and the Vignette a 9 and and 8 (for an 8.5 lol )