Taking pictures of your models

[Ace-Garageguy]

The size of the flake and the resolution of your camera and the monitor you're looking at the image on will affect the visibility of the metallic base...the huge flake in my Testors "One Coat" shows up better than a finer-grained metallic or pearl, for instance. It's also necessary to angle the subject and/or light source to get a reflection on the surface of the paint in order to demonstrate the gloss...something like this (not my photo...taken from the web under the fair-use definition in copyright law):

 

Edited June 21, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[ScaleDale]

I have a small scale studio set up using daylight florescent lights in 10 inch reflectors and a semi professional thing called a light tent or table top studio. It's a 16 by 24 inch semi transparent box with openings in the top and front. It has velcro for different backdrops and came with white and black ones. The reason I mention all this is that I think you are doing everything right except for your backdrop. The fibers in the towel (if that's what it is) may be capturing too much of the light and causing the overall image to go flat. Maybe something that is a little more reflective would show off the gloss of the paint better. I don't do glossy, so I'm just relying on my photography background here.

Ultimately, you need a camera that will shoot in the RAW image format. It's a digital negative that can be "developed" or modified in computer software like Adobe PhotoShop, Lightroom or Apple's Aperture. It's rather easy to adjust the look of the photo to get it just the way you had envisioned it.

Dale

[Mrdarkmonkey96]

I have a small scale studio set up using daylight florescent lights in 10 inch reflectors and a semi professional thing called a light tent or table top studio. It's a 16 by 24 inch semi transparent box with openings in the top and front. It has velcro for different backdrops and came with white and black ones. The reason I mention all this is that I think you are doing everything right except for your backdrop. The fibers in the towel (if that's what it is) may be capturing too much of the light and causing the overall image to go flat. Maybe something that is a little more reflective would show off the gloss of the paint better. I don't do glossy, so I'm just relying on my photography background here.

Ultimately, you need a camera that will shoot in the RAW image format. It's a digital negative that can be "developed" or modified in computer software like Adobe PhotoShop, Lightroom or Apple's Aperture. It's rather easy to adjust the look of the photo to get it just the way you had envisioned it.

Dale

Hmmm, ill try glossy posterboard instead if a towel... are any of those computer programs free? And I have nooo clue what format the camera shoots in other then jpeg..

[ScaleDale]

Hmmm, ill try glossy posterboard instead if a towel... are any of those computer programs free? And I have nooo clue what format the camera shoots in other then jpeg..

It would say RAW on the dial. All the DSLR cameras can shoot in both RAW and jpeg, but most point and shoot don't. Cameras like the Canon Powershot G15 will, but they start at $550. Aperture is $80.

Another thought on this, where is your camera's ISO set? Around 100 is normal but your camera will go higher. A higher ISO lets you shoot faster in bad light but you give up detail for that.

Dale

[Mrdarkmonkey96]

It would say RAW on the dial. All the DSLR cameras can shoot in both RAW and jpeg, but most point and shoot don't. Cameras like the Canon Powershot G15 will, but they start at $550. Aperture is $80.

Another thought on this, where is your camera's ISO set? Around 100 is normal but your camera will go higher. A higher ISO lets you shoot faster in bad light but you give up detail for that.

Dale

I'm not surr I can adjust the iso.. and I just have a point and shoot.

[ScaleDale]

That's an older camera but you should still have something in the menus for setting the ISO. Search the net for your camera model or look at the manual if you have it.

Dale

[Ace-Garageguy]

My old Nikon 4.0MP camera, also a point-and-shoot for the most part, included a simple photo-editing-suite program on CD that lets you manipulate images to a surprising degree.

Your 16MP camera with 10-power optical zoom should easily outperform my old dinosaur.

I believe you'll find you can go as high as ISO 3200 too (according to the Nikon website).

Did yours include any image-processing computer software ?

Edited August 23, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[Mrdarkmonkey96]

My old Nikon 4.0MP camera, also a point-and-shoot for the most part, included a simple photo-editing-suite program on CD that lets you manipulate images to a surprising degree.

Your 16MP camera with 10-power optical zoom should easily outperform my old dinosaur.

I believe you'll find you can go as high as ISO 3200 too (according to the Nikon website).

Did yours include any image-processing computer software ?

I dont believe so. I have a friend whos brilliant with photoshop though!

[weasel]

Hmmm, ill try glossy posterboard instead if a towel... are any of those computer programs free? And I have nooo clue what format the camera shoots in other then jpeg..

i've found that a 'flat' background works better with a 'gloss' car...

got any old calendars, those big, Wurth, Mac Tools, etc...about 3'x4' kinda thing...nice heavy white glossy paper on the reverse sides...now, the top tip... i paint these... some are flatted, primer combo[black/grey], get creative...

glossy...

flat base, 'playing' with primer...lol

[Guest]

I have a really old camera. Probably one of the first produced. I have good results shooting my models in natural light with no flash and the close up option on. I've shot photos in the sun and on overcast days. For me, the photos shot on overcast days seem to give me better results. The color comes through better and has a richer, deeper look to it IMO. The sun seems to wash out the shine and color. Here's an example. Same model, same background, different lighting.

[sjordan2]

Plowboy is pretty close. Outdoor shots with natural lighting tend to show more detail. Reduce direct sunlight by using a large white poster board as a reflector to fill in shadows, or a piece of large white drawing paper to diffuse the light. You'll be able to see for yourself through experimentation.

Edited August 23, 2013 by sjordan2

[jedimark14]

is there any where in these forums about taking pictures of our models, setting up cameras,anything on that subject. i could use help on setting up my dig camera to get the best detail on models

[atomicholiday]

I had a discussion yesterday with another member regarding photography. My pics have never really been that great and this gentlemen gave me some tips. And what a difference! But it started me experimenting and now I'm on a mission. So here's where I'm at after a few hours of playing around with the camera.

First off, the camera is a Nikon D3200 with the Nikkor 18-55 VR lense. The settings I used on the following pics were exposure option A, ISO set to 100, and F-stop set to 8. I've got the camera about 16 inches away from the subject on a tripod and setting a 5 second delay timer.

The pics still don't seem very sharp to me, but they are better than they were. Any suggestions on getting them to come out a little more clear?

[Shelby 427 1965]

To me those images look fine, it's more down to the compression of the filehosting site you use that seems to be ruining the clarity and sharpness!

[atomicholiday]

Actually they look like that before I upload them.

[Len Woodruff]

I use a F stop set at 20,

[curt raitz]

Don't forget about your "white balance" adjustment, especially if shooting under fluorescent or incandescent lighting

Edited February 23, 2015 by curt raitz

[taaron76]

Don't forget about your "white balance" adjustment, especially if shooting under fluorescent or incandescent lighting

Yep, that's a pivotal piece of advice that many people miss. Lighting is so critical as well. I shot my '66 Shelby with glossy photo paper underneath and behind it. I also increased the exposure rate on my DSLR to +1, but I also take tons of pics with different settings and see which ones come out best. I never shoot with the flash on either and this photo is with an overhead fluorescent light, as well as one on the side.

Tim

[atomicholiday]

Thanks for the tips gentlemen. Think I may be getting the hang of this stuff.

Just playing around with settings earlier and snapped this.

[taaron76]

Jeremy, another good tip is to shoot the pic from a further distance, zoomed in, if you have the lenses to do it. I use a 55-300mm lense on my Nikon DSLR when I take pics.

Tim

[atomicholiday]

My wife's got another lense. I'll have to see what it is. Think it's a 55-200 maybe.

Tim, how far away do you shoot?

[taaron76]

My wife's got another lense. I'll have to see what it is. Think it's a 55-200 maybe.

Tim, how far away do you shoot?

That lens will work fine but I'd say anywhere between 3'-5', depending. Are you using a tripod? I always shoot pics with the timer function so I know it will be completely still.

Tim

[atomicholiday]

Yup, tripod and a 5 sec. timer. I'll give the other lense a try tonight.

Thanks Tim.

[taaron76]

Yup, tripod and a 5 sec. timer. I'll give the other lense a try tonight.

Thanks Tim.

Awesome! Glad I could help.

Tim

[Matt Bacon]

I wanted to improve my model photos from this:

To this:

The original is not bad... it's taken outside, on a bright overcast day, using a little point and shoot Canon camera and macro mode. However, to step the game up to the next level required some investment...

I wanted the images to be "pin-sharp" everywhere, so I needed to get the best possible "depth of field". The trouble is, when most camera books talk about "macro" or "close-up" photography, they are trying to achieve a sharp focus on the object you want, but also to BLUR the background or nearby other objects, so they want a _narrow_ depth of field.

To get the depth of field, you need a small aperture (high F-stop) and LOTS of light. So my first investment was these:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/151545726620

They have equivalent of 2000W of lights on each one (fluorescent, though, so they don't get hot), and the "softbox" in front diffuses it.

My second investment was an old Canon EOS400D ("Rebel Xti" to you guys) digital SLR. It's a few years old, cost very little, but gives you full control of everything, unlike the point and shoot.

I made my own background from an old and large printer box we had lying around -- about a 30" cube. I cut off the top, front, and most of the sides (just leaving a "web" triangle to hold the back up vertical. The background is just a piece of white card held in place at the front and the top with clips. It forms a natural smooth curve from the flat bottom to the vertical top (the equivalent of what photographers call an infinity wall)

I have put the lights on each side, up close, so they're flooding the whole white card, and the car in the middle. After a lot of messing around, I figured out that actually the basic 55mm single focal length lens that comes with the camera rather than the zoom was the best. That will take full screen images of a car from about 45cm away, the closest it will focus, and as you can see from the prancing horses on the SA Aperta's sides, wheel and boot-lid, it'll be in focus everywhere. I have the aperture set to F/25 or 29 in aperture priority mode, which gives exposure times of 1/4 to 1/2 second.

As a result, you absolutely need a tripod to keep the camera still. And I happen to have a remote release which means I can trigger it without touching the camera -- another potential source of wobble. You can get the same effect by setting the timer, though, and letting it trigger itself after you've stepped back.

So the answer is a tripod, lots and lots of light, small (high f-stop number) aperture and slow exposures.

In the earlier pictures, I left the garage lights on to show more of the set-up. Taking pictures for real, I turn all the other lights off, to prevent any stray light affecting the exposure of the real subject.

The end result is this:

bestest,

M.