Are we becoming "helicon-holics"

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

Can there be too much depth of field?

With the recent popularity of Helicon, and other software programs to increase depth of field in photographs, are some users going overboard, removing the depth of the photo, and defeating the purpose?

The cover photo on the latest issue of Model Railroader, is to me, a perfect example of too much.

The image appears flat, and , forgive me, too - two dimensional for a shot designed to show long view of trains and scenery.

(I have no information if that shot was processed with the Helicon software or some other method, and use it as reference example only, and do not want to single out any one photographer or publication.)

Items in the shot twenty or more feet away from the camera seem as much in focus as the foreground, lots of DOF, but no Depth to the image.

Are we becoming Helicon-holics?

The human eyes and brain, well mine anyway, expect that objects that are far away to be less sharp than Objects that are up close, giving a reference for distance, and dimension.

That a freight car thirty places down the string should not as sharp in focus as the first

one, or all the distance is lost.

Heck even the air that is between would affect sharpness

The result, “phlat photos” that just seem unnatural and lacking in both depth and “atmosphere”

Do we know when to say when?

I am curious as to your thoughts.

2

I like it. The photos are more informative, which is why I look at them in the first place. I’m not looking for great artistic value in the photos, just the modeling. Plus, in person, most models won’t have much depth anyway.

3

I have absolutely no expertise in the area of photography, digital or otherwise, but I know what I like and I like that photo. It’s a great scene. Ignorance is bliss.

4

As a person still taking photos on film, all I can say is that just like there are 1001 tricks to manipulate photos in a dark room and in the camera, there are 1001 tricks to manipulate imiges on the computer. The Helicon software in my oponion simply takes over the role of the Pinhole lense in traditinal photogrophy. Different roads, different technologies. same out come.

James

5

In this digital age, swimming against the stream doesn’t seem to promise productivity. Instead, it seems counterproductive. When software solves what used to be classed as undesirable, I don’t see the problem with that. More power to Helicon…is it freeware? [:D]

6

I really hate how these new iPods allow us to store thousands of songs and then get to them at one or two touches. I mean why did they make it so easy for us? I miss going thru all 200 of my Cds and act as a DJ running around to change out the CD before the next song that i didnt like as much as the one I wanted to play. These were the good old 90’s! Now these iPods even have the ability to be played in my car thru my speakers!! I have not had to buy a CD in years. LOL Im kidding. I do not ever go against the electronic evolution. Its so cool!

7

I think there is a freeware timed trial version.

I’m all about technology, and photoshop is my friend, but the pic just seems “off”, with too much DOF, at the expence of depth, and I’ve noticed it on other pics in other mags also lately, but hey, maybe it is just me.

8

Huh!

river_eagle, did you pay any attention to who the attributed photographer is for this feature? Not only is Mr Paul Dolkos an eminent modeler in his own right but he is a miniatures photographer extraordinaire with dozens of photography spreads to his credit over the past 25 years or better. Because of other commitments I have had little time to delve into this latest Model Railroader beyond giving this cover considerable perusal and observing that it has a fantastic depth-of-field. I was particularly impressed with the focus of the freight train passing from view to the right in the distance, something you apparently find confusing and artificial. Your post, however, did send me scrambling into the living room for my copy. I have now had the opportunity to give closer attention to this article and, once again, Mr Dolkos has come up with a winner and my hat goes off to him.

HERE WE GO AGAIN! I KNOW I MADE A NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTION TO STAY AWAY FROM CRITIQUES ON WEEKEND PHOTO FUN BUT THIS AIN’T WEEKEND PHOTO FUN!!!

you ask! Not according to Weekend Photo Fun where week-after-week depth of field is ALMOST non-existant. Mr Dolkos obviously is a knowledgable photographer with professional skills and with an extensive collection of equipment that renders him good service. It is likely that this shot was done with an extremely high f-stop, maybe as high as f-128 or maybe even as high as f-256. Photos like that take two -three-four minutes to expose. Whatever the case this is one of the most impressive cover shots MR has had in many a moon.

And by the way, we have a member of the forum here named Bob Boudreau of Nova Scotia; Mr Boudreau uses the forum name of railphotog I believe. Just this week I was browsing through a decades old MR or MRP or GMR or something and encountered a photo spread by him; he has h

9

I would say probably not since I’d never heard of it till you posted this.

10

No! I am a combineZM a holic. Why pay when you get your kicks for free

11

RT: Many thanks for the mention! I’m from New Brunswick, Canada and not Nova Scotia!

I’ve had pretty good luck over the years with my model photos, with over 800 published so far, including 30 covers in all major magazines - all without using focus improving software. With film in the past I used a pinhole equipped wide angle lens for great depth of field. The lens doesn’t work the same on my digital camera, so I’m using an extreme wide angle lens to achieve almost the same DOF, a Tamron 11-18mm.

As to model/proto depth of field, here are two examples:

Not the greatest prototype shot, but is a recent one that I could access quickly. The background is only out of focus if one zooms in on the image in the computer. Otherwise it appears to be in focus to the eye at normal viewing distances. This is a train of pipe for a local gas pipeline being built.

This scene is on my 6 foot HO scale shelf layout (originally appeared as Mansfield Junction in MR many moons ago). Depth of field is attained by using the wide angle lens, no software. I was intrigued with the Helicon Focus software, but felt I didn’t really have a use for it. I don’t have a layout with extensive scenes, as the rest of my modeling is done on HO scale modules. I can get good enough DOF without the software.

12

I’d like to cut the OP a bit of slack…it seems he’s not anti-technology / anti-digital, and tells us he uses photoshop. It’s true that when we look at things in the real world, we focus selectively - we can’t see close things and far-away things with the same focus at the same time. Many photos, as Bob B has pointed out, can intentionally draw our attention to a specific place by having it in sharper focus than other places - usually by limiting depth of field. Thus, a lot of photos will intentionally (or unintentionally) look fuzzy everywhere but at the main subject…maybe we’ve become used to seeing photos like that?

But unless you are doing that intentionally, I typically prefer photos with great depth of field. When I look at a photo like that, I will focus on one place, then another, just as I would do in “the real world”…and it’s nice to be able to focus on far-away things and see them as clearly as when I focus on something close-up.

I’ve never used depth-of-field software. I’m lucky because I have a digital SLR that allows me to stop down to f32 and take 20 or 30-second exposures if I have to, and that seems to give me all the depth of field I need. I can well understand that, especially folks that don’t have that luxury, would want to achieve a similar effect with software.

Cheers.

13

I’m with Loathar on this one. The only helicon I’m familiar with is a Sousaphone.

14

As Bob B. has pointed out, use of the correct lens for a particular situation, plus the photographer’s savy, virtually negates the need for any computer manipulation like Helicon. In the image below, the structure shown is situated about 12" from the camera, while the real background trees are ~150’ beyond (the cloud in the sky is obviously at some thousands of feet distant). While not absolutley tack-sharp, the definition of the background of the image more than suffices for the purpose of creating a realistic photo. The exposure was made using a standard 18mm digital lens at an f/37 setting, shot out-of-doors and no post-exposure tricks were employed.

(click to enlarge)

Re the MR cover and the OP’s question of can a scene have too much DOF, I would have to say that most accomplished model photographers try to render their images as close to prototype reality as they can. Were the MR cover an image of an actual prototype scene, from the photographer’s vantagepoint probably no element of the scene would be closer than 100’, judging by the scale of things. In such a situation, the appearance of the image is absolutely correct, as the viewer’s eyes would be essentially at infinity-focus and all elements of the scene would appear sharply defined, from the rear of that caboose all the way out to the distant background mountains.

Incidentally, anyone else take notice of that picture of the CB&Q switcher on page 101? It shows you what a master photographer (Vic Roseman, far and away the greatest model photographer in the hobby since Bill Clouser in the 1960’s) can do…without resorting to computer tricks.

CNJ831