If anyone viewed the recent post “Show Me Something”, you see some great photographs. The subjects were great, the lighting was outstanding and the over all pictures were really good.
I was wondering if some of you who really know how to take the picture could give the rest of us a tutorial on how you did it. Maybe some photos demonstrating how you set the shots up, positioning of the lights, the camera; a long shot showing the project. Then a discription of the lights used, the type of camera and the like. So that those of us that are still learning how do take “the picture”, can post better photographs.
I am trying but they don’t always turn out as well. True, if I could shoot everything out of doors my photos would be a lot better.
I tried this one by adjusting my 6 megpixel Kodak to black and white.
Early morning on the WTRR
Morning work site, busted water main. I used a 100 watt light bulb with a glass relector and there are some flourecent work lights above.
I think many would be interested on how it’s done.
I haven’t used a point-and-shoot (other than iPhones) in a few years, but those will give you more depth of field at given focal lengths than SLRs (interchangeable-lens cameras).
The site Batman suggested offers excellent suggestions, but I didn’t see it written (at least upon skimming) that the narrower apertures (higher f-numbers, which result in more depth of field) require more light.
I really like how the site emphasizes reflectors. Reflectors are very important in many facets of photography.
If you opt for an SLR see if you can get a good exposure at f16-f22. If you opt for an SLR, consider investing in a studio light. I think Paul C. Buff offers excellent lights, especially for the money.
I don’t have a layout yet or any model railroad photography. I’ve shot mostly portraits and weddings for about nine years.
Lots of light, ideally coming from the same direction so that shadows all match and look realistic.
Camera set into the scenery, even astride the track if necessary, to simulate someone on a platform or at track level taking the shot.
Use manual settings for exposure control and the right colour balance for the light source.
So that you can adjust the iris in the camera to as small as possible for the best depth of field, do not handle the camera. Focus as best you can (flip rotatable back screen is ideal), and use the shutter timer. That way, even if the light is poor, as is often the case indoors, the steady camera and auto shutter with the small iris will result in a solid sharp image.
Once you have those processes down pat, and do them routinely, start using a freeware stacking programme. You take several images with the camera in the same orientation, but focused progressively deeper into the scene, and let the image stacker do as its name suggests. You get tremendous depth of field that way. See below:
For layout photography you need great depth of field so that both foreground and background objects are in focus. You get depth of field by stopping the lens down as far as it will go. Which requires a long exposure time to get enough light onto the LCD or the film. You cannot hand hold exposures longer than 1/60 sec. Which means you need a tripod to hold the camera steady. Use the camera’s self timer to trip the shutter without jiggling the camera.
Compose carefully. Each shot needs a center of interest, centered in the shot and as big as possible (camera in as close as possible) with a back ground that does not distract the eye from the center of interest. Avoid background trees and poles sticking up behind the center of interest.
Properly used, a decent SLR or DSLR will give you better shots, and have more versatility than a point-and-shoot. That said, I often use a point-and shoot for shots that you can’t get an SLR in position for.
Getting the extra light that a small aperture requires is easy - you just use a longer exposure time. I’ve taken many good shots which have an exposure time of over 30 seconds. Night shots can take ver a minute, or many mainutes, depending on how much light is available, and the ISO (“film speed” equivalent) setting. In this kind of photography, a solid tripod is a must-have. Fortunately, they’re not all that expensive.
With the modern digital camera. the type of lighting is less important than it used to be, since you can compensate for the existing color temperature of the lighting with the camera’s white balance setting.
A decent DSLR will let you go down to f32, which can get you several feet of depth of focus (as much as 4-6 feet).
What’s a “decent” DSLR? My Canon T2i can only step down to f22. I know it’s the Rebel line so it’s not a professional unit, but it’s miles ahead of a point and shoot type camera.
Just wondering really what type of equipment most people use.
Getting a f-stop of f f/32 is lens dependant, not body dependant. All lenses will close down to f/22, specialised macro lenses ($$) go to f/32. f/22 is sufficient for what we do.
Your T2i is a great camera, will do everything you want it to do, its a few models newer than my Canon XSi.
A lot that has been mentioned in this thread is indeed shown and illustrated on my website that has been listed. It’s in my signature. See examples of different lens stops. And lots more!
Great suggestions so far, but I’d like to again emphasize depth of field.
Depth of field becomes very difficult when photographing models. That’s why I think stacking software becomes a must when working with cameras with a limited f-stop range. Model in N-scale, and I wonder if depth of field would still be an issue even if I had a more sophisticated camera.
I use the same software package as Crandell (Combine ZP). I’ve also tried Helicon Focus, which is a try before you buy package. Both do very well.
In fact, as illustrated in the photo below, stacking software sometimes works a little too well. Certain details have a tendency to show up that weren’t as apparent to the naked eye (like all the dust particles on my loco):
As noted earlier the F number is based on the lens. My T2i with stock lens goes to F36. Try zooming all the way out.
Another thing that affects field of view is the exposure time. Using an F stop of 36 with iso 100 try setting the exposure time to 15 or even 30 seconds. You’ll get a great shot. Depending on lighting you may hav to adjust the exposure time some or even the iso if it’s very dark.
Kit lenses ( or any zoom lenses) will give you a smaller f stop reading when zoomed out. They are not giving you an actual smaller lens opening, the lens just admits less light when zoomed out.
And all zooms will give you the most depth of field when at their shortest length. f/22 and widest view equals best depth of field.
I agree that focus stacking software may supply the ultimate in depth of field, but it isn’t very useful with point and shoot cameras, as you need to be able to keep the camera steady in one place and adjust the focus into the scene. Most cameras focus in the center. With a DSLR, you can manually focus with no problem.
I’ve downloaded a free stacking software, but have yet to give it a try, not sure if I’ll bother as I can get decent focus with my wide angle lenses:
Well, I learned something new! I did not realize the f-stop was dependent entirely on the lens, I also didn’t realize how zooming in and out effects it.
Messing around with the T2i and the 18-55 IS kit lens it came with I can zoom it all the way in and get down to f36. I was taking my pictures zoomed all the way out so I could get as physically close as possible to the subject.
I’m a little confused though, as I always thought the more you zoom in the more you lose in depth of field, but I can zoom into 55mm and get a higher f-stop for greater depth? (I work in the lithography feild with 10-20 million dollar lenses and this is the principal we work with to achieve lines on silicon only nanometers wide). I haven’t played with this new knowledge yet to see how the pictures are effected. Does zooming in and using a higher f-stop somewhat equate to zooming all the way out and using a lower f-stop?
