Mission Impossible - good pic from me

Post by **Nameless** » 16 Apr 2008, o 09:32

thanks for theory Mahon

I hope that I will be able to live without it though

As you stated, I'm heading the right direction.

I'm just checking competition rules again. No info about enhancing pics at Wyrd, Chick Challenge, Newbold challenge.
Black Scorpion Golden Chef - "Obviously digitally enhancing your photos is not allowed". "Basic photo editing is allowed for you to submit your photos, any alteration that improves or changes the quality of the paintjob is not allowed , i.e photoshopping"
Reapercon Wannabe - "no ?photoshopping?"

So, there are contests with such regulation (even if not all of them), that's another reason to learn how to make good pics without computer enhancing

As for my tests - I found out while testing different distances between a camera and a mini, that I get best results with a camera not placed too close to a mini and with zoom as good as possible (i.e. without decreasing sharpness on a display). Is is a standard situation or just my camera's properties?

Mental note for next tests - try stronger bulbs, play a bit more with a camera-mini distance

NAVARRO · Post by **NAVARRO** » 16 Apr 2008, o 09:59

I think that they look better, still its like they have a grey filter, since i cant see no whites there ( and i still think is something to do with the box you used)

Post by **mahon** » 16 Apr 2008, o 19:42

Nameless wrote:"Basic photo editing is allowed for you to submit your photos, any alteration that improves or changes the quality of the paintjob is not allowed , i.e photoshopping"

where is the difference between basic and other modifications? cropping? resizing? they also change they way miniature is perceived...

Nameless wrote:As for my tests - I found out while testing different distances between a camera and a mini, that I get best results with a camera not placed too close to a mini and with zoom as good as possible (i.e. without decreasing sharpness on a display). Is is a standard situation or just my camera's properties?

normal. I tend to tell it to most people who ask me the question that it's not about getting your miniature as close to the camera as possible, but about finding the optimal distance. From my experience it usually is 25-30cm in case of my cameras. When you get closer, proportions often get distorted. When you go too far, you need to use tele-lens and it decreases field of depth (field in which your objects look sharp). Also, usually tele-lenses are darker then wide-angle lenses, so you need to provide more light or use longer exposure.

unfortunately - this usually means the object doesn't fill the whole picture and you need to crop it, and it becomes edited. otherwise - if the object fills the whole field, you need to resize the picture (especially in case of high-resolution cameras), and it becomes edited too.

fortunately these problems are less common with compact cameras, and more common with DSLRs - which means I had to get used to them in order to take advantage of other positive aspects of DSLRs.

Mental note for next tests - try stronger bulbs, play a bit more with a camera-mini distance[/quote]

Post by **Nameless** » 16 Apr 2008, o 22:01

mahon wrote:where is the difference between basic and other modifications? cropping? resizing? they also change they way miniature is perceived...

as I see it, cropping and resizing are 'basic' modifications. any other alterations are not allowed.
Am I right? Absolutely no idea

I got 100W bulbs and tried different settings of the whole paint station.
Best results achieved today are here:

Click to see full-sized image

Post by **mahon** » 16 Apr 2008, o 22:06

So I can bet most pics from compact cameras will be better than DSLR photos, as most compact cameras do in-camera sharpening and saturating, while DSLR users need to do it in postprocessing.

want a comparison?

I hope you don't mind my theoretical rant

You know I like it - probably as much as you and Slawol

PS - why does the hooded guy always gets the better photo?

Post by **Nameless** » 16 Apr 2008, o 22:12

of course I want. that's why I made this thread - to learn new things.

mage gets better photos, because he's painted better

Post by **Nameless** » 17 Apr 2008, o 22:43

it's me again.
today I placed two lamps in front of the tent, so that they illuminated minis without tracing paper acting as difusion barrier. there were ofcourse shadows behind minis, so I left the third lamp over the tent.
mage as usual looks better than viking

Click to see full-sized image

Click to see full-sized image

I believe that these pics are what I wanted to achieve. They are good enough to be placed in galleries or online contests, and (what is equally important) they show real colours. I think that I won't be able to improve them significantly without using a computer, or without some tips from professional (experienced) photographer.

What do you think? Are they really good enough or is it only my wishful thinking?

NAVARRO · Post by **NAVARRO** » 17 Apr 2008, o 22:51

See i told you the paper of teh box was creating some freaky grey effects...much better now!

Post by **Nameless** » 17 Apr 2008, o 23:09

yup, you were right, at least partially. if I had taken the mini out of the tent completely, I would get shadows on the pic.
I suppose that at least 1 source of light have to difuse lighting somehow. Perhaps I don't need a tent, and sheet of tracing paper on the 'top' lamp would be enough?

Skya · Post by **Skya** » 18 Apr 2008, o 00:16

I'd say cropping, resizing and color/contrast adjustments, possibly a sharpen or blur filter, but that's pushing it. Basically anything that affects the entire image is basic modifications. Anything that changes an individual part of the picture without changing the rest is not. I'm of teh opinion that if you could do it with your camera, you should darned well be able to do it with photoshop instead, but that's just me.