Photographing Models

richard carr

Western Thunderer
I have been photographing quite a few models recently . I decided to try Helicon Focus including the remote control software for canon and nikon DSLRs, and then following advice on here I went bought some lights from Photogeeks for £96 on amazon, so this is how I got on with it all.

class15 (7 of 4).JPG

This is the class 15 taken with my Nikon D810 using a 50mm lens with Helicon Focus at f5.6 and using the lights from photogeeks. As you can see everything is completely sharp on the loco, it used a 6 photo stack to do this. The setup is a white sideboard top with a whitish wall behind it. The lights are not particularly bright being 35 watt fluorescent with a reasonable daylight balance. You get 3 lights in the set up but I managed to break one of the bulbs by knocking it over.
Here's a couple of pictures of the setup

class15 (102 of 4).JPG

class15 (103 of 4).JPG

Here's a picture taken in daylight without the lights

IMG_1291.JPG

The lighting isn't anywhere near as even, it quite directional even on dull day.

The lights kit also comes with a 90cm light tent, but this is too big to fit on top of the sideboard and I don't really have any where else for it at the moment. You can get a 60 cm version for £12 delivered so I ordered one of those. So here is a picture of a new Heljan centre headcode 37 taken in it, having arrived from Tower models today.

class15 (111 of 5).JPG
The lighting is much better, the only problem is the back ground, I much prefer my flat wall.
There are some back grounds with a the lighting kit so I need to try those.

Here's a few other pictures I took this evening

All the bits that come with the 37, snow ploughs, air brakes, frost grills spare multiple working connectors western region lamp irons and ordinary lamp irons.

class15 (112 of 5).JPG

Then my Heljan 33 and Falcon

class15 (113 of 5).JPG

class15 (114 of 5).JPG

It is definitely worth buying the lights and I'm completely sold on helicon, it s easy to use and gives great results.

Richard
 

Heather Kay

Western Thunderer
What I've found using my light tent is I have to work out an exposure where most of it will blow out, while still keeping the subject lit well. The creases are a real nuisance, as you're finding!

Being old-fashioned, I quite like the challenge of trying to get the shot in camera. I hate having to spend time post-processing images. That said, I am aware that even my best model shots do lose focus and go soft at times. When I get a chance to play, I'm going to try some stacking shots, but I'll let Affinity Photo do the graft, while I twiddle the focus point myself!
 

Big Train James

Western Thunderer
I might recommend considering two ideas, as they have been pretty successful for me.

Get a couple of yards of primed canvas from an artist supply house. The material is stiff enough that it won't wrinkle, but rather bend evenly at the blend between the table top surface and the the background. It will have some texture, but most of that bleeds out with enough light and exposure. It's already white in color, and the matte finish will prevent reflections.

Second, increase the size of the table top so that there is a greater depth between the subject matter and the vertical background. Depth of field will make the background indistinct while maintaining sharpness close to the front of the table. Disclaimer time, I have no idea how Helicon Focus will affect this aspect. I guess it depends on which individual photos you choose to compile together.

My setup was all cheapo stuff from the big box hardware store. Clamp on reflectors, the strongest daylight fluorescent bulbs I could find, and some 2 X 2 and 1 X 4 pieces to hang the clippy lights from. The bulbs were probably the most expensive items. I have not used any sort of light tent or reflector umbrella to diffuse the light.

I'd post a picture but I'm out of town at the moment and the images reside on my desktop back home.

Jim.
 

oldravendale

Western Thunderer
That's pretty much the professional way, James.

Professional studios have huge wide rolls of (usually) cartridge paper - sometimes printed with lovely diffuse patterns which would be of no use to us whatsoever - hung on a gantry at 2 metres + high. The end of the roll can then be pulled down and the paper used as the floor, with the curve running up the wall. This is, of course, for large subjects.

For small items, such as those in which we have an interest, a sort of easel built on to a table top was used with a high top bar at the back on which a roll of cartridge paper is hung and can be rolled down in the same way as for the larger set up. A much less expensive but equally effective background is an ironed bed sheet. In fact, in the olden days (when I were a lad) when I was taking studio pictures this could be draped over the top and sides of the subject to create a tent, although usually artistically created shadows were regarded as desirable - as long as they did not appear on the background!

B
 

oldravendale

Western Thunderer
Yep. That's it.

Except that in my day we had Photofloods and the whole set up became extraordinarily hot. Electronic flash was about, but very expensive and had to be wired to the camera.

Brian
 

Scale7JB

Western Thunderer
I spent many years working with 5k hot lights in big car studios, and it was always interesting in the summer.

When I say interesting I mean it was b****y hot!! And that was on something akin to a sound stage..

JB.
 

Big Train James

Western Thunderer
I feel so back of the class here.....:(
I wouldn't....it's strictly amateur hour for me and I get along ok. While I'm sure better equipment will yield better results (especially depth of field), you can get good results with some fairly ordinary equipment. The important parts are having a camera where you can manually set the f stop and exposure, using a tripod (arguably with a delayed timer for the shutter), and good light.

I use a Sony bridge model digital (DSC-hx300), not quite as simple as the cheapest versions, but not as capable as a full bore Dslr. I can manually set ISO, f stops, and exposure, but I cannot interchange lenses. And my f stops don't have the same range as a more sophisticated camera. The camera does have a traditional dslr form factor, which I am more comfortable handling then the tiny boxy point and clicks, although that isn't too relevant while using a tripod.

My process is to max the f stops for greatest depth of field, then adjust exposure until I get the get the gray out of the background. I wish I had access to my photos for some examples, but that will need to wait.

Jim
 

FiftyFourA

Western Thunderer
Richard,

I'm glad your Heljan 37 arrived OK today, I decided to have a day out and went to collect mine. Got home in time to go out to my local model railway club to show off my latest loco and then, in front of the assembled multitude (well half a dozen or so), found that one cab is missing the rear bulkhead - giving a wonderful view of the motor. Annoyed with the factory quality control - you bet :rant:.

Sorry for hijacking the thread a bit.

Anyone any advice for those of us with the pointy-click little boxes - apart from buy a better one :eek:.

Peter
 

Scale7JB

Western Thunderer
While I'm sure better equipment will yield better results (especially depth of field),

Not necessarily..

I've just invested heavily in Digital Hasselblad, and due to the larger sensor size the depth of field is smaller. And my one lens that I use mostly for larger product shots on the canon is a cheapie 50mm f1.8 which drops down to f22, probably pick one up for £50 s/h..

JB.
 

SimonT

Western Thunderer
When I get a chance to play, I'm going to try some stacking shots, but I'll let Affinity Photo do the graft, while I twiddle the focus point myself
In that case, can we have a guide of how do this in Affinity? Just installed it and so far I can change colour and light/contrast, so building depth of field is way beyond me at the moment.
Simon
 

Heather Kay

Western Thunderer
In that case, can we have a guide of how do this in Affinity? Just installed it and so far I can change colour and light/contrast, so building depth of field is way beyond me at the moment.
Simon

I need to take some suitable images first. The latest version of Photo has a stacking option where you choose the images through its own dialog, then it does all the work. I'll try and do something this afternoon.
 

oldravendale

Western Thunderer
.......and as my own training in photography goes back as far as making my own emulsions (well, I exaggerate a little:)) and, I seem to remember, an eleven step colour process, ignoring the additional complexities of Kodachrome, I don't pretend to understand Affinity. I reckon Photoshop is a pretty good tool, though, and I've tidied up all my scanned photos even if that's just involved removing dirt. Beyond that process I'm lost.

However, as Heather says, the fundamentals of picture taking, backgrounds etc doesn't change.

I reckon that an interest in photography is a Very Good Thing. The trouble for me is that, after a lifetime career in the business I can't be bothered with all the faffing around any more, hence all my pictures being of the point and shoot variety even though I'm often using a Canon DSLR (but I also use a little Kodak digital point and shoot jobbie which I can keep in the workshop on a tripod). I take the lazy route and use existing light and a time exposure.

Hence, any comments I make are from a professional viewpoint but way out of date.

Brian
 

richard carr

Western Thunderer
Thanks for all the comments, its nice to know what other people are doing.

I would say that the lights and tent will definitely help anyone taking photos of their rolling stock even with a point and shoot, it lets you get a much better all round lighting effect, I think it's a bargain for £96.

Peter that's really annoying about the 37 how did they manage to miss that one. It should be easy enough to fit a replacement though if previous models are anything to go by.

Richard
 

Heather Kay

Western Thunderer
I hope this makes sense, and it's chiefly for Simon's benefit! It's the first time I've actually used the Affinity Photo Focus Merge in anger, so there are rough edges. Having learned more about it by actually using it, I will make some observations at the end.

If you don't use Affinity Photo, apologies. I have various reasons for not preferring Adobe Photoshop which are not worth going into, and I've been actively seeking good alternatives for a while. I am a Mac user, so the screen shots show the Mac operating system; I assume the Windows layout is very similar. The latest Photo update included HDR, stacking and focus merge, so I was keen to experiment. This thread has given me the chance.

For the technically inclined, I did a quick setup on my workbench test plank of two current builds. I used my Canon EOS 7D with a 35mm ƒ/2 EF lens (with the small sensor crop factor that works out at about a 56mm prime lens on a full frame camera), mounted on a tripod and used a shutter release cable. All focus and exposure settings were on manual. I used automatic white balance and ISO 100 throughout. Each shot was overexposed by two-thirds of a stop in the camera. For speed I used large JPEG for the files, rather than my usual RAW. On with the show!

Normal (1).jpg

For comparison, I shot a "normal" image at ƒ/22, as I have done since I got into model photography. I focused around the 2251's cab, which is about the orthodox third of the way along my subject. The exposure worked out at 2 seconds. Close inspection shows blurring and fringing on the 8750's cab, and the handrail is almost blown away. The right hand buffer on the 2251 is also slightly out of focus. It's not technically brilliant, but adequate.

I then took seven images, progressively focused from just in front of the 2251 to just behind the 8750. Each image was exposed at ƒ/8, tw0-thirds overexposed (to try and counter the backlight from my window!) and shutter speed of 0.4 seconds.

New Focus Merge.png

Having dowloaded the images to my Mac, I opened Photo, and chose New Focus Merge… from the File menu, which opened the following dialog box:

Focus Merge Dialog.png

I clicked Add and navigated to where my images were saved, clicking OK in the subsequent dialog to import them.

Images Selected.png

You can remove unwanted images, or add further ones using this dialog. Once the images were imported to the dialog, I clicked OK to initiate the focus merge operation.

Stack Processing.png

The time to process depends on how many and how large your source images are. In my case, being JPEGs, it took about 20 to 30 seconds to complete the process.

Stack List For Edits.png

When finished, Photo presented me with a floating palette showing my source images and the final merged image at the top. It's important not to close this now, as it's where you can make edits or changes to the source files, and tidy up the final image if it needs it. My guess here is that Photoshop would import each source into a layer and work its magic there, emulating how a retoucher would do it manually with masks and so on. What Affinity have done is automate things so all the mapping, masking and so on is done for you, but at the expense of going in and manually adjusting masks later if you want.

After consulting the Help files - this is my first time, and I wasn't sure what to do next - using the clone tool, I could select a target source in the dialog and paint into the final image. This let me refine edges with better focused source images in my list to edit artefacts and rough edges. I then did a quick adjustment to lighten the shadows a little, and then saved out a JPEG.

FInal Image.jpg

It's not perfect, but not bad. The rear of the pannier cab is now defined and fairly sharp, although the right front buffer on the 2200 is still a bit fuzzy.

I've learned, if I plan to use this software again, that I need to use more precision in taking a series of images to get smoother transitions - not to mention better control of lighting! There were areas in my sequence where a higher ƒ-stop might have been beneficial to give a better depth of field for the software to work with. I opted for ƒ/8 as it's proved in the past to be about the sweet spot for the lens I used. When I have some time to set things up properly, I will try again.

I hope that was interesting and useful. Comments, questions, brickbats, all welcome!
 

richard carr

Western Thunderer
Heather

Thats not bad at all, the difficult bit is knowing where to focus and deciding how many photos you need for the stack. This is where Helicon Focus does it all for you, I tried it with a 105mm lens for a bit of fun, it worked out that it needed a stack of 46 photos to get everything in focus, so I pressed the button and left it to get on with it. It took about 3 minutes to take the photos and a similar amount of time to render the finished item, but it did work.
With a 50mm lens it was using a 7 or 8 photo stack that it could render in about 30 seconds. The big advantage is that it can work out exactly where to focus each photo, when I have tried to do this my self I get it wrong and end up with fuzzy bits in the middle of the photo, but with enough practice you can probably work it out for yourself.



Richard
 
Top