I heard someone on another thread mention the idea of a forum clinic on model photography. I say thats a brilliant idea. I ain’t no photographer myself. But there are some guys (girls too?) who know a whole heap. You guys who are heavily into photography can all do some input. Can help spread information and I’m sure lots of people would be thankful. So how 'bout it?
Aggro:
Digital or film photography?
It shouldn’t make a whole lot of difference, the principals are the same for both. But digtial is the current way to go and I assume most people would be using digital. I’ve more or less abandoned my film cameras in favor of digital. I’m on my third and fourth digital camera already!
Bob Boudreau
I would be glad to contribute to the ‘know how’, I’ve been in photography for about 40 years and have about as many cameras around here as many of you have boxcars, not to mention studio strobes etc.
But alas… I have no layout yet and only one lonely little SD-40 locomotive [:(] … so I wouldn’t be able to contribute a whole lot. I’m always willin’ to learn though! [:D]
Jacon
I would have to disagree, it makes a big difference whether it is film or digital unless, of course, digital has some new widget that permits multiple exposures in the same frame. One big thing you can do with film is identify correct exposure for each element of the picture and then expose those elements for the optimum result. While this probably isn’t a big issue if you are simulating the usual bright-sunny-day-with-picture-exposed-between-10AM-and-2PM it will matter a great deal if you are trying to simulate an evening shot, a night shot, or a shot simulating inclement weather.
I happen to be very partial to the night scene and the way I manage to give the impression of a night time exposure is to first set up the scene, turn on the lights and turn off everything else and then just sit there and wait for my eyes to get dark adapted. Once they have settled down I then identify those elements of the scene that have the same degree of illumination. Next I put together a check sheet and then set up a small experimental design to find the correct exposure levels. This usually means anywhere from 8-16 exposures. These 8-16 pictures look absolutely terrible - but then they are supposed to. Since I keep track of how much exposure each area of each picture received I can look at the pictures, identify the optimum exposure for each segment of the scene, and then go back and separately expose those regions with their best level. The end result is a picture that really looks like a night time photograph. What is particularly amusing is that most of what I do is with toy trains but even with 3 rail track and structures, accessories, and even people out of proportion, the visual impact is such that many people think the picture is of a real train. If you want to get some idea of how these pictures look CTT has published some of them over the years (September 1996, May 1995, March 1993)
I also have to agree that it matters whether the discussion is in regard to digital or film cameras. I can to many things with my relatively inexpensive (less than $300) film cameras that are still impossible, or not nearly as well done, with digital cameras costing far in excess of $1,000. In particular, I have special sets of lenses and adapters that allow extremely close focus while retaining considerable depth of field on my film cameras, a very desirable feature in model photography, that is quite unapproachable with current digital cameras at just about any price.
Is there still interest in what can be accomplished with film cameras, or has digital really taken over in the hobby just as RTR seems to have?
CNJ831
While I would certainly be interested in film photography, digital would be more useful right now since I got my first digital camera for Christmas. While I can take pictures with it, there’s a lot I need to learn.
Also, I would like to make a plea to keep the cost down. I can’t afford to support 2 hobbies. Some low cost techniques/solutions would be much appreciated.
Thanks
Paul
I have some 35 mm equipment that I could use to phtograph a gnat’s but with, but I cannot acheive that with digital. Still digital is what I have to use with posting to this forum.
In my opinion, what would serve this board is techniques that the amateur with the digital camera can use to get good shots with very modest equipment. Most of us don’t have fancy light set-ups and given the choice would rather spend the money on a new 4-8-8-4 than a strobe and stand.
Maybe we have two different clinics needed. One for serious shutterbugs and one for people with just a digital camera, the hood light in the garage, and a lamp they pulled from their kids bedtroom.
Here’s a couple of things I found recently when using a digicam (I usually use a Pentax P30T film SLR, but it’s not so good for website photos). Turn the flash off - it reflects horribly from any surface (glazing, paintwork, anything) and either makes the subject invisible behind a bright “splurge” of light or just over-lights it - removing all shadows so the model looks like it’s been caught in the beam of a searchlight. Natural light and/or normal room lighting is much more effective - I take photos in daylight, in a room with large windows and with the room lighting on, result being all light is coming from behind the camera and is nicely diffused. Hope this is of some use!
I think most modelers would say that such night scene photography is rather specialized and would be greatful just to be able to get a properly composed and exposed dayight type scene. Such night photos would best be left to those who have much more experience. After all you have to crawl before you run!
Here’s a night time shot that I happen to have on my hard drive. Taken with a Canon Digital Rebel at f/22, exposure time not recorded (the time would be on the EXIF info on the original but it’s somewhere on a CD). Lighting from inside engine house, scale street lights and light bounced off the ceiling.
Bob Boudreau
Im all for it–God knows that I could use some help in that area. I’d be very interested in finding out how to use this digital thingy I’ve got to the best advantage. Everytime I envision a scene on the layout, then down-load it, I wonder who the idiot was that I sent out there to do the photography!!
Tom [:I][B)]
Right Chip. Two clinics would be good.
With all the people here, we should have experts on digital, film or both.
I’m only digital.
I’d nominate FundyNorthern, based on the picture with his post. That’s magazine-quality, both for the photo and for the modelling. Keep up the good work, Bob, and let’s see more photos! Sometimes the best thing is just to show us amateurs what’s possible.
And to add to the subject, there is the whole world of video now. I’m personally holding off until I have an engine-cam running through my tunnels, but that’s a long time in the future.
I would also argue digital versus film makes a big difference in terms of the equipment costs, it’s capabilities, and what your goal is.
For example, if you want to take photos for web sites, then you need a digital camera, 3-4 megapixels and with aperature adjustment controls to get a decent depth of field.
If you want to take nice snapshots for your friends with a film camera, then for way less than the price of a digital for the example above, you can get some really nice photos if all you do is not get too close to the trains, have good lighting, and shoot from lower angles.
If you want to take photos for publication and want the maximum control, then plan on spending over $1000 on digital camera equipment, the more megapixels the better, but you’ll need at least 6 megapixels if you ever want to see your image on a magazine cover somewhere.
Digital and film also make a big difference in terms of post processing of the photo. Sure you can always have a film image scanned, but to get a quality high megapixel scan isn’t super cheap, but if you start with a digital image, you’ve got fewer hurdles.
The photographic principles are certainly very similar if you have a top end digital SLR, but even then there are differences – like white balance. The theory is the same, but the ways you deal with light color differences is very different between film and digital.
Joe, why would you need a 3-4 megapixel camera to take pictures for websites?
I have a 3.3 megapixel camera, but I know when shown at actual size, those pictures never fit on my computer screen, and I run at a high resolution. So I always have to cheapen the quality to make pictures work well on websites.
This is where I get confused about really high resolution digital cameras. How would a 6-megapixel camera look any better on my screen than a 2 megapixel camera? I must be missing something here about the way the camera stores the information or something?
I could understand how for printing it could make a big difference, but for displaying on a computer screen, I don’t understand how a higher resolution makes one bit of difference.
Oh, if, of course, you’re going to crop a huge picture down to a tiny little square, I could see that mattering, but not for a full size picture.
What am I missing here?
And yes, I would definately like it if someone created a good thread on model photography.
It’s so cool hanging out on here with guys who’s layouts/photos I’ve admired in MR for years!
Bob, you have one of the few digital cameras that can compete with a 35mm camera. I envy you. I would love a digital rebel. Can it do all like regular rebel ? Interchangeable lenses, telephoto, wide angle and fish eyes lenses available ? Or all you need is an adaptor. Also my rebel has an incredible zoom with standard lens, and great macro with other lenses. Same thing for the digital ?
Most digital camera are horrible compared to film. Poor zoom, poor f stop capabilities. Double exposer is easy, I use photoshop. With that I can do any effects I could do on my film cameras. I only use digital 99 % of the time due to convience for transfering pictures to other people. But the less expensive digital don’t even compare to a $350 rebel 35mm camera.
Tim
CARRfan:
You want to drop the pixel density on web photos, yes. But having 3-4 megapixels gives you some flexibility as to cropping the photos, and when you start with more megapixels in your image, when you downsample to get something that displays quickly on the web, you’ll generally get a cleaner image if you start with something on the order of 3-4 mpx.
Model photography demands a camera with aperature control if you want sharper closeup photos of your model (depth of field), and the ability to shoot wide-angle. Cheaper cameras in the 2 mpx range won’t have those features. The higher mpx count brings with it more of the camera features you’ll need for better model photos.
The main reason I went to the Canon Digital Rebel was because I’ve been using Canon film cameras for about 35 years. I have 7-8 lenses that I can use with the Rebel. The problem with using the Canon lenses is the Rebel’s sensor is about 60% the size of 35mm film. Therefore images from standard lenses are cropped by 60%. This means my 50mm lens will give the view of an 80mm lens (50mm X 60%). My 28mm wide angle lens is now a 45mm lens. The same with zoom lenses.
I have a very old Hanimex manual focus full fisheye lens that gives a full 180 degree view when used on the film cameras, but on the Digital Rebel it is just an extreme wide angle lens, no complete fisheye effect. No great loss here though!
I bought the Digital Rebel with the kit lens, a 17 -55mm, which gives me the view of a 28-85mm lens so I do have wide angle capability. This lens will not work on Canon film cameras by the way, a real pity!
My 430EZ Canon flash used with my film cameras will not work at all with the Digital Rebel, which is a real pain. I had to buy a 430EX flash for the digital camera.
I see Canon has just brought out the Canon Digital Rebel XT, with 8 MP, at the same price as the 6MP version. Always something new coming out!
[quote]
QUOTE: Most digital camera are horrible compared to film. Poor zoom, poor f stop capabilities. Double exposer is easy, I use photoshop. With that I can do any effects I could do on my film cameras. I only use digital 99 % of the time due to convience
[#ditto] [#ditto] [#ditto]
I have to concur. I would love to be able to take magazine quality pictures. In fact it is the one thing that keeps me from submitting articles to MR and other magazines. But I am not a pro or even serious amateur photographer. I have a 5mp digital camera, but I am probably never going to invest in the lights and other equipment needed to take this level of pictures. I would, however, love to know how to take better pictrues withthe equimpent I have and perhaps cheap solutions to improve them. I think a couple of clinics in this area would be very helpful.
Ron
Excellent, Bob!
Looking forward to it. [tup]