Any Serious/Experienced Photographers Here?
-
white balance doesn't replace taking the picture in good light. I got the external flash.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
-
I have an extensive collection of diecast cars ranging in scale from 1/144 all the way up to 1/18. I want to take some decent photos of them, regardless of the scale of the car. I've taken some photos ( a year or more ago) using a Canon PowerShot S3 IS[^] on a tripod, with the cars positioned in a home-made light box, but I struggled to get consistent results. Here's a link to the photos: FR500C #55[^] FR500C #05[^] The background used for both of those photos was the same, but I had to Photoshop the images to bring the correct color on the car, which resulted in changing the background color as well. I'm sure this is partially caused by my lack of familiarity with Photoshop, but I'm equally sure that a large part of the problem is my camera settings and lighting techniques. I'm doing this on as small of a budget as I can get away with, so I'm not inclined to spend big bucks on a studio-quality lighting system, and I'm not going to run out and buy a new camera (I think my PowerShot is more than enough camera for the task at hand). For lighting, I'm currently using a pair of twisty-neck desk lamps with the purest white light bulbs I can find at Home Depot, and diffusing/reflecting the light with a section of white bed sheet draped over the light box. What I'm looking for is suggested settings (described in a general way of course, and not really specific to the camera I'm using (unless, of course, the description can be applied to it) and techniques for getting the most (and most consistent) results regardless of the size or color of the object being photographed.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels."As Nish and Graham mentioned, white balance adjustment might help a lot. For months my Olympus drove me crazy with a persistent blue tint in low light levels; I haven't seen a digi yet that can match real film for low light. I finally rebalanced it manually using a sheet of white craft paper in daylight lighting and it's been fine since. This model has the WB button right where it's convenient to place the thumb while shooting, so I assume I must have accidentally pressed it while shooting on an overcast day. I'd also try a higher f-stop with a longer exposure time. I've had better luck with lower speeds when the level is low; I theorize that it gives the CCDs more time to stabilize, but it works. My camera has a setting for bracketing the exposure; it takes three or five (I forget which) shots in one go with slightly different exposure settings, and I can select the one that looks best from the group. A brighter light source would also help, and a higher color temperature, which I think others have already mentioned. GE makes a line of indoor lights called "Reveal" which have a slightly bluish tint to the glass and seem to produce a more honest daylight output. I haven't used them for photography yet, but I plan to. They cost the same as any other bulb, and are readily available at Ace and Home Depot - anyplace they sell GE bulbs. The won't work in a little desk lamp, but if you have a couple of regular table lamps I'd give them a try. A way to increase the light would be to use reflected, rather than filtered light, as filtering is lossy. Shiny white poster board (Target or Walmart) could be used to make angled reflectors above and to the sides to eliminate shadows, with direct lighting in front to brighten the images. I think the camera will work better with more light. I hope you'll post a link to the gallery when you're done. Nice looking cars! I've never been a collector, as my little brother broke all of mine when we were kids, but I do admire the quality ones. :-D
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
-
As Nish and Graham mentioned, white balance adjustment might help a lot. For months my Olympus drove me crazy with a persistent blue tint in low light levels; I haven't seen a digi yet that can match real film for low light. I finally rebalanced it manually using a sheet of white craft paper in daylight lighting and it's been fine since. This model has the WB button right where it's convenient to place the thumb while shooting, so I assume I must have accidentally pressed it while shooting on an overcast day. I'd also try a higher f-stop with a longer exposure time. I've had better luck with lower speeds when the level is low; I theorize that it gives the CCDs more time to stabilize, but it works. My camera has a setting for bracketing the exposure; it takes three or five (I forget which) shots in one go with slightly different exposure settings, and I can select the one that looks best from the group. A brighter light source would also help, and a higher color temperature, which I think others have already mentioned. GE makes a line of indoor lights called "Reveal" which have a slightly bluish tint to the glass and seem to produce a more honest daylight output. I haven't used them for photography yet, but I plan to. They cost the same as any other bulb, and are readily available at Ace and Home Depot - anyplace they sell GE bulbs. The won't work in a little desk lamp, but if you have a couple of regular table lamps I'd give them a try. A way to increase the light would be to use reflected, rather than filtered light, as filtering is lossy. Shiny white poster board (Target or Walmart) could be used to make angled reflectors above and to the sides to eliminate shadows, with direct lighting in front to brighten the images. I think the camera will work better with more light. I hope you'll post a link to the gallery when you're done. Nice looking cars! I've never been a collector, as my little brother broke all of mine when we were kids, but I do admire the quality ones. :-D
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
Roger Wright wrote:
I've never been a collector, as my little brother broke all of mine when we were kids
Younger siblings! Pfft, I hope you took appropriate action and broke something of his? :rolleyes:
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
-
I have an extensive collection of diecast cars ranging in scale from 1/144 all the way up to 1/18. I want to take some decent photos of them, regardless of the scale of the car. I've taken some photos ( a year or more ago) using a Canon PowerShot S3 IS[^] on a tripod, with the cars positioned in a home-made light box, but I struggled to get consistent results. Here's a link to the photos: FR500C #55[^] FR500C #05[^] The background used for both of those photos was the same, but I had to Photoshop the images to bring the correct color on the car, which resulted in changing the background color as well. I'm sure this is partially caused by my lack of familiarity with Photoshop, but I'm equally sure that a large part of the problem is my camera settings and lighting techniques. I'm doing this on as small of a budget as I can get away with, so I'm not inclined to spend big bucks on a studio-quality lighting system, and I'm not going to run out and buy a new camera (I think my PowerShot is more than enough camera for the task at hand). For lighting, I'm currently using a pair of twisty-neck desk lamps with the purest white light bulbs I can find at Home Depot, and diffusing/reflecting the light with a section of white bed sheet draped over the light box. What I'm looking for is suggested settings (described in a general way of course, and not really specific to the camera I'm using (unless, of course, the description can be applied to it) and techniques for getting the most (and most consistent) results regardless of the size or color of the object being photographed.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels."John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I'm sure this is partially caused by my lack of familiarity with Photoshop, but I'm equally sure that a large part of the problem is my camera settings and lighting techniques. I'm doing this on as small of a budget as I can get away with,
I have a lot of experience in photography and doing photo retouching work. I can give you a quick-but-effective fix for both the exposure and the white balance problems for the photos your already took. Here are your photos using the corrections I want to show you: Photo 1 - Before (top) and After (bottom)[^] Photo 2 - Before (top) and After (bottom)[^] 1. Open the photo in Photoshop. 2. Type Ctrl-L (Image > Adjustments > Levels). 3. Change the "Channel" dropdown to "Red". 4. In the histogram (input levels), move the left slider (black) and right slider (white) until they just touch the middle bulk portion of the curve (Here[^] is what the red channel looks like when I'm done). 5. Repeat step 4 with both the "Blue Channel" and the "Green Channel". I think your lighting setup is fine the way it is. If you were doing this professionally or doing a huge quantity of photos, we could get into better lighting setups and properly setting your white balance with an 18% grey card. But, without getting into the effort or expense, you can get pretty good results with a bit of post processing. 'Just my opinion. Enjoy, Robert C. Cartaino
-
I have an extensive collection of diecast cars ranging in scale from 1/144 all the way up to 1/18. I want to take some decent photos of them, regardless of the scale of the car. I've taken some photos ( a year or more ago) using a Canon PowerShot S3 IS[^] on a tripod, with the cars positioned in a home-made light box, but I struggled to get consistent results. Here's a link to the photos: FR500C #55[^] FR500C #05[^] The background used for both of those photos was the same, but I had to Photoshop the images to bring the correct color on the car, which resulted in changing the background color as well. I'm sure this is partially caused by my lack of familiarity with Photoshop, but I'm equally sure that a large part of the problem is my camera settings and lighting techniques. I'm doing this on as small of a budget as I can get away with, so I'm not inclined to spend big bucks on a studio-quality lighting system, and I'm not going to run out and buy a new camera (I think my PowerShot is more than enough camera for the task at hand). For lighting, I'm currently using a pair of twisty-neck desk lamps with the purest white light bulbs I can find at Home Depot, and diffusing/reflecting the light with a section of white bed sheet draped over the light box. What I'm looking for is suggested settings (described in a general way of course, and not really specific to the camera I'm using (unless, of course, the description can be applied to it) and techniques for getting the most (and most consistent) results regardless of the size or color of the object being photographed.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels."You probably need to create a color correction profile for your camera. You can buy some very expensive systems or try this low end ~$25USD system that works fine for most uses. http://www.qpcard.se/BizPart.aspx?tabId=28[^] As noted by others use the highest color temp bulb's you can get - but also look at the color spectrum of the bulb. You want a bulb that puts out as close to a solar spectrum (called a blackbody distribution) as possible. Tungsten-halogen bulbs generally give the best spectrum matching but run very, very hot. Florescent bulbs may have a high color temp, but may have a low output in certain color bands. Applying a color correction will fix that providing the missing colors are not totally missing. On the other hand fluorescents have lots of other advantages - especially the fact that they run cool and you don't have to worry about setting you bed sheet on fire! Small light tents that fold up for storage run $50 or so, but I have found a bed sheet light tent works great. Shut off any camera color/white balance corrections so you get consistent colors. Once you have a color profile, use exactly the same setup used for establishing the color profile, i.e. same lights and locations, same camera settings, etc. Stick with your white background. Using a color background is a poor man’s way of doing color correction, but it takes a lot of experimentation to get it close.
-
Btw both the pics look nice and sharp. Do you have a link for the rest of your car collection?
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com linkClick "Pictures" in the menu[^]
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
As Nish and Graham mentioned, white balance adjustment might help a lot. For months my Olympus drove me crazy with a persistent blue tint in low light levels; I haven't seen a digi yet that can match real film for low light. I finally rebalanced it manually using a sheet of white craft paper in daylight lighting and it's been fine since. This model has the WB button right where it's convenient to place the thumb while shooting, so I assume I must have accidentally pressed it while shooting on an overcast day. I'd also try a higher f-stop with a longer exposure time. I've had better luck with lower speeds when the level is low; I theorize that it gives the CCDs more time to stabilize, but it works. My camera has a setting for bracketing the exposure; it takes three or five (I forget which) shots in one go with slightly different exposure settings, and I can select the one that looks best from the group. A brighter light source would also help, and a higher color temperature, which I think others have already mentioned. GE makes a line of indoor lights called "Reveal" which have a slightly bluish tint to the glass and seem to produce a more honest daylight output. I haven't used them for photography yet, but I plan to. They cost the same as any other bulb, and are readily available at Ace and Home Depot - anyplace they sell GE bulbs. The won't work in a little desk lamp, but if you have a couple of regular table lamps I'd give them a try. A way to increase the light would be to use reflected, rather than filtered light, as filtering is lossy. Shiny white poster board (Target or Walmart) could be used to make angled reflectors above and to the sides to eliminate shadows, with direct lighting in front to brighten the images. I think the camera will work better with more light. I hope you'll post a link to the gallery when you're done. Nice looking cars! I've never been a collector, as my little brother broke all of mine when we were kids, but I do admire the quality ones. :-D
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
Roger Wright wrote:
GE makes a line of indoor lights called "Reveal" which have a slightly bluish tint to the glass and seem to produce a more honest daylight output.
That's what I'm using. And, I'm reflecting the light instead of diffusing it.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Many thanks.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001He asked if this is what you wanted your collection to look like. Cars[^] If so I can find out how he did it. Apparently you have what it takes in the photos you took.
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
Click "Pictures" in the menu[^]
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001Wow. That's really cool, John.
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^] -
I have an extensive collection of diecast cars ranging in scale from 1/144 all the way up to 1/18. I want to take some decent photos of them, regardless of the scale of the car. I've taken some photos ( a year or more ago) using a Canon PowerShot S3 IS[^] on a tripod, with the cars positioned in a home-made light box, but I struggled to get consistent results. Here's a link to the photos: FR500C #55[^] FR500C #05[^] The background used for both of those photos was the same, but I had to Photoshop the images to bring the correct color on the car, which resulted in changing the background color as well. I'm sure this is partially caused by my lack of familiarity with Photoshop, but I'm equally sure that a large part of the problem is my camera settings and lighting techniques. I'm doing this on as small of a budget as I can get away with, so I'm not inclined to spend big bucks on a studio-quality lighting system, and I'm not going to run out and buy a new camera (I think my PowerShot is more than enough camera for the task at hand). For lighting, I'm currently using a pair of twisty-neck desk lamps with the purest white light bulbs I can find at Home Depot, and diffusing/reflecting the light with a section of white bed sheet draped over the light box. What I'm looking for is suggested settings (described in a general way of course, and not really specific to the camera I'm using (unless, of course, the description can be applied to it) and techniques for getting the most (and most consistent) results regardless of the size or color of the object being photographed.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels."If your camera is used with automatic settings it tries to compensate for the different light situation which might explain that the results are differing a bit. But your camera supports both manual shooting and custom white balance, so there shouldn't be any problems to get consistent results. 0. Setup the light to fit the cars. (Already done) 1. To setup the correct white balance use "custom white balance". Shoot a picture of the white background as is, without any cars, to use for it. It's in your cameras manual how to do it. 2. Set the camera on manual settings and shoot a few test pictures to find a good setting. (Aperture probably around 4-5.6 and time depending on your light.) 3. Leave the camera on the stand and simply exchange the cars for every new picture. If the cars differ in size a lot you probably will need to redo the whole process a few times so that you can change the lighting to fit the distance/zoom. Good luck!
-
As Nish and Graham mentioned, white balance adjustment might help a lot. For months my Olympus drove me crazy with a persistent blue tint in low light levels; I haven't seen a digi yet that can match real film for low light. I finally rebalanced it manually using a sheet of white craft paper in daylight lighting and it's been fine since. This model has the WB button right where it's convenient to place the thumb while shooting, so I assume I must have accidentally pressed it while shooting on an overcast day. I'd also try a higher f-stop with a longer exposure time. I've had better luck with lower speeds when the level is low; I theorize that it gives the CCDs more time to stabilize, but it works. My camera has a setting for bracketing the exposure; it takes three or five (I forget which) shots in one go with slightly different exposure settings, and I can select the one that looks best from the group. A brighter light source would also help, and a higher color temperature, which I think others have already mentioned. GE makes a line of indoor lights called "Reveal" which have a slightly bluish tint to the glass and seem to produce a more honest daylight output. I haven't used them for photography yet, but I plan to. They cost the same as any other bulb, and are readily available at Ace and Home Depot - anyplace they sell GE bulbs. The won't work in a little desk lamp, but if you have a couple of regular table lamps I'd give them a try. A way to increase the light would be to use reflected, rather than filtered light, as filtering is lossy. Shiny white poster board (Target or Walmart) could be used to make angled reflectors above and to the sides to eliminate shadows, with direct lighting in front to brighten the images. I think the camera will work better with more light. I hope you'll post a link to the gallery when you're done. Nice looking cars! I've never been a collector, as my little brother broke all of mine when we were kids, but I do admire the quality ones. :-D
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
Roger Wright wrote:
I haven't seen a digi yet that can match real film for low light
I suspect most modern DSLRs could do that. Set up white balance decently (i.e. using a neutral reference) and use a high enough ISO and you're not going to do so badly. Take this one[^] (the lighting - not the composition) - single incandescent bulb, no flash, ISO 1600, with a relatively cheap DSLR (Nikon D60). I haven't corrected the white balance - just used the in-camera tungsten white balance. The noise isn't too bad either. Point'n'shoots can do OK as well - this[^] was taken this year at Magic Kingdom in Florida, with a 2003 vintage Canon digicam. ISO 400, no flash - it's acceptable. As ever, the main thing with digital is that you can afford rejects - the only cost is downloading it to your PC!
-
I have an extensive collection of diecast cars ranging in scale from 1/144 all the way up to 1/18. I want to take some decent photos of them, regardless of the scale of the car. I've taken some photos ( a year or more ago) using a Canon PowerShot S3 IS[^] on a tripod, with the cars positioned in a home-made light box, but I struggled to get consistent results. Here's a link to the photos: FR500C #55[^] FR500C #05[^] The background used for both of those photos was the same, but I had to Photoshop the images to bring the correct color on the car, which resulted in changing the background color as well. I'm sure this is partially caused by my lack of familiarity with Photoshop, but I'm equally sure that a large part of the problem is my camera settings and lighting techniques. I'm doing this on as small of a budget as I can get away with, so I'm not inclined to spend big bucks on a studio-quality lighting system, and I'm not going to run out and buy a new camera (I think my PowerShot is more than enough camera for the task at hand). For lighting, I'm currently using a pair of twisty-neck desk lamps with the purest white light bulbs I can find at Home Depot, and diffusing/reflecting the light with a section of white bed sheet draped over the light box. What I'm looking for is suggested settings (described in a general way of course, and not really specific to the camera I'm using (unless, of course, the description can be applied to it) and techniques for getting the most (and most consistent) results regardless of the size or color of the object being photographed.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels."I'll second Jörgen's advice. Use automatic settings on a first test shot, to let the camera decide what the shutter speed and aperture should be. Then use those settings in your camera's manual mode. Also, use a neutral reference in the test shot - these tutorial videos[^] show how and why. Something like Photoshop Elements or similar (I use iPhoto), should be able to automatically correct using the neutral reference. And don't trust your eyes when taking the photos - in tandem with your brain, they're a lot more capable than your camera!
-
I'll second Jörgen's advice. Use automatic settings on a first test shot, to let the camera decide what the shutter speed and aperture should be. Then use those settings in your camera's manual mode. Also, use a neutral reference in the test shot - these tutorial videos[^] show how and why. Something like Photoshop Elements or similar (I use iPhoto), should be able to automatically correct using the neutral reference. And don't trust your eyes when taking the photos - in tandem with your brain, they're a lot more capable than your camera!
That was good info. I wonder if WhiBal is available locally...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
That was good info. I wonder if WhiBal is available locally...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001I bought one mail-order directly from them. Postage (from US to UK) was very good value @ $3. Alternatively, you could just use something that's white or grey as an equivalent. It probably wouldn't be completely neutral, but would likely be close enough.
-
I have an extensive collection of diecast cars ranging in scale from 1/144 all the way up to 1/18. I want to take some decent photos of them, regardless of the scale of the car. I've taken some photos ( a year or more ago) using a Canon PowerShot S3 IS[^] on a tripod, with the cars positioned in a home-made light box, but I struggled to get consistent results. Here's a link to the photos: FR500C #55[^] FR500C #05[^] The background used for both of those photos was the same, but I had to Photoshop the images to bring the correct color on the car, which resulted in changing the background color as well. I'm sure this is partially caused by my lack of familiarity with Photoshop, but I'm equally sure that a large part of the problem is my camera settings and lighting techniques. I'm doing this on as small of a budget as I can get away with, so I'm not inclined to spend big bucks on a studio-quality lighting system, and I'm not going to run out and buy a new camera (I think my PowerShot is more than enough camera for the task at hand). For lighting, I'm currently using a pair of twisty-neck desk lamps with the purest white light bulbs I can find at Home Depot, and diffusing/reflecting the light with a section of white bed sheet draped over the light box. What I'm looking for is suggested settings (described in a general way of course, and not really specific to the camera I'm using (unless, of course, the description can be applied to it) and techniques for getting the most (and most consistent) results regardless of the size or color of the object being photographed.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." -
I have an extensive collection of diecast cars ranging in scale from 1/144 all the way up to 1/18. I want to take some decent photos of them, regardless of the scale of the car. I've taken some photos ( a year or more ago) using a Canon PowerShot S3 IS[^] on a tripod, with the cars positioned in a home-made light box, but I struggled to get consistent results. Here's a link to the photos: FR500C #55[^] FR500C #05[^] The background used for both of those photos was the same, but I had to Photoshop the images to bring the correct color on the car, which resulted in changing the background color as well. I'm sure this is partially caused by my lack of familiarity with Photoshop, but I'm equally sure that a large part of the problem is my camera settings and lighting techniques. I'm doing this on as small of a budget as I can get away with, so I'm not inclined to spend big bucks on a studio-quality lighting system, and I'm not going to run out and buy a new camera (I think my PowerShot is more than enough camera for the task at hand). For lighting, I'm currently using a pair of twisty-neck desk lamps with the purest white light bulbs I can find at Home Depot, and diffusing/reflecting the light with a section of white bed sheet draped over the light box. What I'm looking for is suggested settings (described in a general way of course, and not really specific to the camera I'm using (unless, of course, the description can be applied to it) and techniques for getting the most (and most consistent) results regardless of the size or color of the object being photographed.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels."Ditto on the Strobist stuff... Lots of good advice there. For white balance, you can get an 18% grey lens cloth and toss it in frame for the first shot (after selecting a specific white balance like Daylight for the lamps you're using), then white balance using the cloth in the first frame and apply those settings to the rest of the shots from that session. Don't use the automatic white-balance setting, since the camera will probably compensate differently each frame. Another good cloth to use is a white terrycloth rag -- it's somewhat useful as a white-point, and also helps you keep from blowing the highlights (if you can see details in the rag, you didn't overexpose). For a little bit of case, you can pick up an external flash and an optical trigger that you can fire using the on-camera flash on the S3. This will give you consistent color light. Also, since you're on a tripod, keep the ISO low, bump up the f-stop so your Depth of Field is sufficient, and use the delayed shutter so there's no camera shake. -matt
Matt Newby President, Matt Newby Enterprises, Inc. matt@mattnewby.com
-
I have an extensive collection of diecast cars ranging in scale from 1/144 all the way up to 1/18. I want to take some decent photos of them, regardless of the scale of the car. I've taken some photos ( a year or more ago) using a Canon PowerShot S3 IS[^] on a tripod, with the cars positioned in a home-made light box, but I struggled to get consistent results. Here's a link to the photos: FR500C #55[^] FR500C #05[^] The background used for both of those photos was the same, but I had to Photoshop the images to bring the correct color on the car, which resulted in changing the background color as well. I'm sure this is partially caused by my lack of familiarity with Photoshop, but I'm equally sure that a large part of the problem is my camera settings and lighting techniques. I'm doing this on as small of a budget as I can get away with, so I'm not inclined to spend big bucks on a studio-quality lighting system, and I'm not going to run out and buy a new camera (I think my PowerShot is more than enough camera for the task at hand). For lighting, I'm currently using a pair of twisty-neck desk lamps with the purest white light bulbs I can find at Home Depot, and diffusing/reflecting the light with a section of white bed sheet draped over the light box. What I'm looking for is suggested settings (described in a general way of course, and not really specific to the camera I'm using (unless, of course, the description can be applied to it) and techniques for getting the most (and most consistent) results regardless of the size or color of the object being photographed.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels."I have just read an article in a magazine about this[^] and remembered your post from a few days ago. You might already be aware of it, but the article in the mag was very enthusiastic, so in the hope that it might be useful? BTW I thought the GT40 was the best of the pics I looked at, used to be my dream car. :sigh:
Henry Minute If you open a can of worms, any viable solution *MUST* involve a larger can.
