Warmachine Army Project... again

Theotril · Post by **Theotril** » 30 Mar 2006, o 17:09

Good conversion on the warjack crushes. Manhunter looks promising. I like red clothes and fur. Keep us updates.

Post by **Demi_morgana** » 30 Mar 2006, o 21:39

good converting job, I know how hard is to make these big minis more dynamic...
I'll try to repose cryxian reaper soon

about manhunter - imo You could have painted in a bit smoother way

ToMaZ · Post by **ToMaZ** » 31 Mar 2006, o 00:04

The manhunter is smoother in real life, also, this is painted in one night. When I couldn't sleep. Gerrie and Jasper gave me the comment that I need more contrast highlights on my minis, that's what I did here. IMO this is one of the better minis I have painted in a while, and I'm very satisfied with the skin and red. Plus, you should know my photographic skills are worthless. I have built myself a light diffusion box, but I don't have the proper lighting yet. I hope to get a better camera some day soon to show the minis how they really are...

Anyway, thanx for the comments.

Post by **mahon** » 31 Mar 2006, o 07:03

The manhunter is very cool and everybody who photographed a bit with digital cameras will notice that the lack of smoothness is the effect of long exposure. I know this effect.... I like him a lot and think he has a lot of character! So your photo skills aren't all this bad, only your lights are to weak...

I wanted to comment that the warjack was a bit boring with a paintjob like this, but then I returned to your post and ... OMG, how silly I was, he's only converted now

Dragyn · Post by **Dragyn** » 31 Mar 2006, o 16:20

Nicely converted Tomaz. The static Warjacks are a royal pain to convert convincingly, but you managed very well.

Dragyn.

ToMaZ · Post by **ToMaZ** » 1 Apr 2006, o 16:24

thanx Dragyn and Mahon ^^

Mahon, could you explain that long exposure thingy a bit? Maybe I'll get better pics if I understand it better ^

Post by **mahon** » 1 Apr 2006, o 19:08

I believe you must know the basics (described below) if you managed to take such good pictures. But maybe it is of any use to less experienced people, as photography seems to be a problem for them....

In your camera you have two important settings: aperture (how big opening is opened for light to get in through the lens) and exposure (how long the shutter remains opened). The longer the picture is exposed or the wider the opening is - the more light gets = the picture is better exposed (to light). Right?

You surely have two modes - aperture priority or shutter speed priority, where you can choose one setting and the other is adjusted by the camera to the one you chose. Still you can choose how much underexposed (too much light getting in) or underexposed (to little light) the pic would be (eg. +0.7, or -1.0). Usually I use +0.7 to +1.0 for most of my pictures (pictures of such small things need really much light), with my aperture set to the highest possible "F" setting to maximize the field of depth. (The higher "F" the smaller the opening and the bigger field of depth).

Generally - the more light comes through the lens, the shorter exposure you need. If you use really long exposure, and it's generally when there is not enough light, various odd-colored spots start to appear on the picture. They make the photo look grainy. You can avoid it by using shorter exposure, but it will require increasing the amount of light getting in through the lens: either by opening the lens (by lowering the aperture) or by using more light, additional lamps, etc.

There's also one factor which is important in this matter: the ISO setting. In regular cameras (not in digital) ISO defines the sensivity of the film to light. The higher the value, the less light is needed. IT also has some other consequences, but for us it's enough to know that digital cameras 'emulate' the ISO values, and for low light pics your camera might switch to a higher value, but this also increases the grain on the pics.

Generally it's best to use low ISO (eg. 100), small appertures / high F value (eg. at least 9-11), and not too long exposure - you will have to experiment by yourself... Because too high ISO or too long exposure can create grain on your pics, which will look as if sprayed with multicolored dots... And this must've been the problem of your photo

Sorry for the rant, but I hope somebody will be able to learn anything from it.

ToMaZ · Post by **ToMaZ** » 1 Apr 2006, o 19:42

Wow, thanx for the explanation. I'm gonna try that out as soon as I get home again. Didn't know you had to put the ISO settings lower... I think mine are at max ^^

Agains, thanks for the effort

Post by **mahon** » 2 Apr 2006, o 21:39

sharing experience is what we're trying to do