The Energon Pub

carytheone wrote:

MGrotusque wrote:Id like to try and get more focus for a cleaner shot. Beast Wars figs have a lot of interesting detail that with a better camera could really pull out some of it. I like this one but sadly it's just not sharp enough.

Are you using a tripod? I found that and a 2 second timer combined with manual focus is the way to go. Auto focus can bounce around at the last second.

I use a digital zoom on the plane I want to focus on and then zoom back out to take the pic. With the timer, the camera stops bouncing by the time the picture is taken.

Just my Iphone dude. My first mistake i know but that's the way she goes. Don't want to spend the dough on a real camera. My new Iphone 6 might take sharper shots but i haven't set anything up properly to test it yet.

MGrotusque wrote:Just my Iphone dude. My first mistake i know but that's the way she goes. Don't want to spend the dough on a real camera. My new Iphone 6 might take sharper shots but i haven't set anything up properly to test it yet.

I picked up a cheap monopod for when I'm feeling lazy and use my cell. It doesn't mount, but sure takes the shake out of my hands.

carytheone wrote:

MGrotusque wrote:Just my Iphone dude. My first mistake i know but that's the way she goes. Don't want to spend the dough on a real camera. My new Iphone 6 might take sharper shots but i haven't set anything up properly to test it yet.

I picked up a cheap monopod for when I'm feeling lazy and use my cell. It doesn't mount, but sure takes the shake out of my hands.

Good to know! First step in a tight pic is stabilizing the camera. I'll look into it.

MGrotusque wrote:

carytheone wrote:

MGrotusque wrote:Just my Iphone dude. My first mistake i know but that's the way she goes. Don't want to spend the dough on a real camera. My new Iphone 6 might take sharper shots but i haven't set anything up properly to test it yet.

I picked up a cheap monopod for when I'm feeling lazy and use my cell. It doesn't mount, but sure takes the shake out of my hands.

Good to know! First step in a tight pic is stabilizing the camera. I'll look into it.

Or have really steady hands! My nicer lens for my Sony NEX-5N that I use for my galleries has the image stabilization. Many cameras have a similar feature built-in nowadays, whereas many of the mirrorless and DSLR cameras have the feature in their lens.

However, my macro lens for my camera doesn't have image stabilization so it's up to my fairly steady hands and good eyes to make it happen for Seibertron.com so that I can end up with nice close-up shots like this uncropped and unwatermarked photo from an upcoming gallery (full image width 4,912 pixels).

I don't use a tripod either because I want the nice variety of shots and angles that catch my eye that I think the rest of you will find appealing. A tripod is good if you are only taking a select number of photos and have time to set up the shots properly. As of today during the past 2.5 hours prior to this post, I've taken 283 photos so I have to photograph by hand without the use of many tools because speed is of the essence for my work.

Dood, you got robot hands. If I took a close up like that without a tripod it would look like we were at a rave.

Image stabilization is not an option for me. But I'm kinda old school anyeay, that's why I use old manual glass lens. Well that and I like they way they take pictures.

Same image but cropped to 2000 pixels wide so that you might able to see the detail better. This is more handy when viewing the significantly reduced images on the site when the maximum width is 1,200 pixels than it is when viewing the original sized images prior to image reduction, optimization, watermarking and thumbnailing for Seibertron.com.

carytheone wrote:

MGrotusque wrote:Id like to try and get more focus for a cleaner shot. Beast Wars figs have a lot of interesting detail that with a better camera could really pull out some of it. I like this one but sadly it's just not sharp enough.

Are you using a tripod? I found that and a 2 second timer combined with manual focus is the way to go. Auto focus can bounce around at the last second.

I use a digital zoom on the plane I want to focus on and then zoom back out to take the pic. With the timer, the camera stops bouncing by the time the picture is taken.

I second Cary's assessment a tripod is a beautiful thing. As for the focus def try manual focus...it takes longer to set up the shot but well worth it...my camera doesn't bounce? but when using auto it'll focus and once the shutter button is pressed it does one last check. A myriad of things could have taken place in those few seconds esp if you're holding the camera...

Even with tripod I use a shutter cable so as not to move the camera body when taking the shot.

donny1975 wrote:my camera doesn't bounce?

It's a combo of a heavy lens and a light weight tripod. There is a little movement after I press the shutter button and the timer let's that settle down before the picture is taken.

The 50mm lens I use appears to always be "zoomed in". The pics I've taken with it aren't cropped and I'm around 3-4 feet away from the figures; any movement of the camera is heavily exaggerated.

I like all the advice given in this thread. I always take great pictures with my Galaxy S5 camera phone

I've created a post in my transformers photo challenge thread that will utilize taking pictures using low-key lighting in black & white.

I'd like to start a conversation to help those of us that are pretty clueless. Since I'm one of the clueless, I've read the brief wikipedia entry and I've come away with the following:

Low-key lighting uses three lights; a key light, fill light and a back light.

Would anyone like to share any tips or fill in the huge blanks I've left?

Here are a couple test shots trying to wrap my head around some low key lighting. I'm using my homemade light box one light low and to the left pointed directly at Bulkhead and another high and also to the left and pointed towards the background. I'm also using some bits of cardboard to block light on Megatron.

This is the general concept I'm shooting for, but using different figures than the final product. I want a silhouetted figure in the foreground and the main figure in the background. The first thing I've decided is that I need to use a lens that will put both figures in focus.

What I want is a sharp contrast on the primary figure of shadow and light. These are both un-edited photos, any suggestions/criticism would be appreciated.




EDIT:

I went and put a B&W filter on one of the pics and I think it looks pretty good. I still think it needs a little more tweaking though.

carytheone wrote:Here are a couple test shots trying to wrap my head around some low key lighting.

Well, you have a challenge ahead of you trying to get both in focus here. Working the low light angle and a higher F-stop to get everything in focus means that your picture quality is going to have to suffer.

I think having your subject in the back with a secondary point (figure) close is hard. Perhaps try getting them more on the same horizontal line and focusing the light source tighter around the principal subject.

My contribution:
Skywarp Warping by ME_Counterpunch, on Flickr

Thundercracker by ME_Counterpunch, on Flickr

Starscream by ME_Counterpunch, on Flickr

Thrust by ME_Counterpunch, on Flickr

Ramjet by ME_Counterpunch, on Flickr

Dirge by ME_Counterpunch, on Flickr

Counterpunch wrote:

carytheone wrote:Here are a couple test shots trying to wrap my head around some low key lighting.

Well, you have a challenge ahead of you trying to get both in focus here. Working the low light angle and a higher F-stop to get everything in focus means that your picture quality is going to have to suffer.

I think having your subject in the back with a secondary point (figure) close is hard. Perhaps try getting them more on the same horizontal line and focusing the light source tighter around the principal subject.

Let me start by saying that Skywarp photo is gorgeous. Are those 3p figs?

On topic, yeah I swapped from a 50mm to a 35mm for my final pic. I was able to get the figure in the foreground more focused, but I was happy with the amount of focus I was able to get.



I decided that I need to get some type of spotlight after that challenge. I also feel I need to build a bigger/better light box. I'm starting to feel the limitations.

F stops is something I don't quite fully understand. Do you have any nutshell tips you could share?

carytheone wrote:F stops is something I don't quite fully understand. Do you have any nutshell tips you could share?

In summary, smaller F-stop, tighter focus, more light needed. Your subject is in focus, everything else, isn't. Large F-stop, it's the opposite. The whole picture is in focus.

This is a nice short explanation.

Just ordered a reversing ring off Amazon. Not even $6, worth a gamble, right? Anyone have experience using that for macro?

ScottyP wrote:Just ordered a reversing ring off Amazon. Not even $6, worth a gamble, right? Anyone have experience using that for macro?

Wow, I just looked up what that does. I am super interested in how that works.

I'd be interested in reversing a few lens I have so I can get close ups with them.

Please post some pics here, I'm very curious to see some normal vs reversed images.

caryweeone wrote:

ScottyP wrote:Just ordered a reversing ring off Amazon. Not even $6, worth a gamble, right? Anyone have experience using that for macro?

Wow, I just looked up what that does. I am super interested in how that works.

I'd be interested in reversing a few lens I have so I can get close ups with them.

Please post some pics here, I'm very curious to see some normal vs reversed images.

So I finally got a 58-55mm step down ring so I could actually use the reversing ring yesterday. Did some testing and wow - it's very macro! Almost too much for Transformers with my camera, I guess the sensor size really matters with this and with mine being smaller, the reproduction is much greater than 1:1.

For instance, this is MMC Greatshot's head through the macro lens. Camera was maybe an inch away from the toy:


So close up you can see the red plastic of the body reflecting onto the face!

The other major problem is total loss of aperture control because the camera can't talk to the lens. Going to have to buy an aperture control ring next, which still makes this much cheaper than a Macro lens but only if it helps make this a practical exercise. Without this control, the lens is defaulting to only its smallest aperture, giving a brutal, unforgiving, teeny tiny depth of field as seen in these failed attempts at a close-up:







Additionally, I have to crank the exposure time up to see any sort of preview of the shot before taking it, then crank it back down since it comes out entirely too bright at say, a ten second exposure, and hope it had it low or high enough. If not, time to re-do, which is annoying since all I have is a ten second timer to avoid camera movement.

So yes, this is a tough exercise so far, and if a manual aperture control ring doesn't help, probably a failure for all except the most extreme closeups that I'll ever want to get. I can see some contexts where this would be excellent, but Transformers photography may not be one of them.

If u have an interchangeable lens camera, I would just recommend getting a macro lens. All of my galleries are photographed with a macro lens.

That level of close up is too much for molded plastic. I bet you could get some great shots of nature with it.

Speaking of lenses with neat effects; have any of you heard of a lens baby?

http://lensbaby.com/usa/

We had a lens baby spark for a while. It was one of the cheaper versions they made. You could get some neat effects with it. My wife wants a velvet 56.

So my battery didn't cooperate (it hadn't been charged in awhile) but I messed around a bit with Remote Shooting today and this opens up the world of the histogram. Here's the one shot I got in that I liked somewhat before needing to charge the battery, nothing done to it here but cropping:



There was pretty much no post-production color correction that could be reasonably done, as the histogram on this was very close to the right with the blue having quite a high peak there. I could instead have taken this with the histogram more towards the center, then corrected the colors, but this seems like a lot of work that isn't necessary. What say y'all on this topic?

I have a very rough and rudimentary understanding of of what the histogram is telling me and how to use it. I had to look up "remote shooting"; I don't have that option, but my camera does have an on-screen histogram.

Personally I'm not a fan of the histogram and I just ignore it. I feel to much reliance on it starts to produce boring pictures, but maybe I'm not looking at it the right way. It sounds like the histogram can be used as a tool to help move the image where I want it to be, not just to a pre-established "correct" spot. I subbed to this thread to get my learn on.

I don't really focus much on technical terms, I'd just feel my way through it. I've been trying to break out of my rut lately and focus on more creative use of light and shadows. I've self-imposed a limitation of absolutely no post production. You've got some interesting light play going on here that I'm digging.

Unfortunately this is all very subjective and I don't really know what you are aiming for. Maybe shoot multiple pics from different extremes of the histogram to have something to compare it too?

I'm currently taking a dinner break from working on some shots for next months photo challenge. I'd love to do a little show, tell and make better. I have the "photo booth" all set-up and some figures down from the shelves. I'm always trying to improve, even if it's just a little bit.

I'm a complete photography newb. My wife isn't. So, I get to steal her good equipment to take really bad photos!

So, here are some my son and I shot today, I think they're OK, but I could totally use some better eyes on them.

DSC_0753 by Nophix, on Flickr

DSC_0711 by Nophix, on Flickr

DSC_0725 by Nophix, on Flickr

This one particularly bothered me. I couldn't get much of his awesome detail to pop with the natural light. I tried several, this was the best one.
DSC_0762 by Nophix, on Flickr

Nophix wrote:I'm a complete photography newb. My wife isn't. So, I get to steal her good equipment to take really bad photos!

So, here are some my son and I shot today, I think they're OK, but I could totally use some better eyes on them.

Welcome to the boards and this thread. I'm in the same boat. I just borrow my wife's nice toys. She does the natural light thing, where I want to control all of the things.

I find that natural light can be difficult to work with especially with small figures. If and when I take pictures outside I try and time it during the golden hour.

I'll give you my two cents worth of uneducated untrained opinions. It seems that light or lack of light is what is fighting you the most. The framing seems nice with some fun location/setting choices. It's those last two pictures that seem to need a little bit of light.

I play the part of assistant when my wife is taking pictures. I usually just tote the heavy stuff, but I also man the light bounce. I found one on amazon for cheap that looks almost identical to hers. Amazon link

That one is nice because is offers multiple different colors and I use the translucent one as a diffuser. I'm currently fighting over exposing my pictures and I'm playing with different options to diffuse the light.

I am currently fighting either too much light or not enough light. I've been playing around with my setup and now I'm re-learning how to use the tools available to me.

Here is an unedited pic that I over-exposed.



One of the problems is that my camera display does not even come close to the way the pictures look on my computer monitor. So I kinda have to take a few test shots and look at them on my computer then go back and adjust. I'm starting to learn the on-screen info to be able to make a good guesstimate.

So here is another from later that night after I got a feel for the way things were working.



It's better, but I'm not quite happy with it. There are still some hot spots I'd like to remove. I'd like to get a nice bit of shadowing on the figure, but still have it lit well.

Right now if I don't evenly light the figure it's either too dark or just overexposed.

Just to jump back in with a number of points here:

Regarding image stabilizers...they aren't always a good idea. When using a tri-pod, be sure to turn it off and use a timer or remote shooting. I do all my stuff on a 2 second delay. Read this anyway:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/image-stabilization-when-use-it-and-when-turn-it

I would limit any exposure to 1 second at max. Even with other controls accounted for, that's getting too long in the exposure time.

Histograms are usually available for view on a DSLR outside of remote shooting. You might have to play with the info/display options to find it. You can generally adjust three points on a histogram in Photoshop. A quick and dirty guide is to only mess with the first and third point. (Leave the middle alone.) Adjust those two points such that they touch the beginning and end points of the range. It will sharpen up your colors dramatically and correct for small deficiencies.

If I get some time, I'll put together some small tutorials on this.