Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

peteski

Members
  • Posts

    7,937
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by peteski

  1. As a bit of a packrat I save various glass bottles from used up hobby paints like Testors and Floquil. Alos the glass Gloss and Dullcote bottles (those IIRC are 1.5 oz.).  I have also bought empty Floquil bottles (from Micro-Mark). Another source of all sorts of glass bottles (and zillion other packaging items) is http://www.freundcontainer.com/ . I buy bottles, cans and jars from them.  Surplus materials vendors also sometimes have all sorts of small bottles available. Check out https://www.sciplus.com/ .

  2. Not bad.  Just make sure that the lighting and the angle of the shadows on your model matches the shadows in the backdrop photo.  Otherwise human eye will subconsciously pick that up and the photo won't look "right".  Of course the scale height of the camera needs to be similar to the camera's height in the 1:1 photo so the perspective is similar.

    As far as the base/driveway, you could simply cut off all the visible pavement in the photo then you won't have to worry about matching the base to the pavement in the photo.

  3. Buffing will not polish out Metalizer chrome. It depends 100% on the glossiness of the black base coat and on a semi-dry application  of Metalizer. Metalizer's metallic flakes need to lay flat on the glossy undercoat to produce a polished metallic finish.  If the base coat is not very glossy then no matter how much Metalizer you apply, the "chromey" finish will not happen.  If you apply the Metalizer too heavily or too wet then the metallic flakes will no flatten down on the glossy base - again, you won't get  the "chromey" finish.

  4. He's either lost what was left of his mind, or he's totally trolling us...

    I have a strong suspicion that the price is just a typo. I've seen similar typos in other eBay listings.  Most likely a $20.00 item. Check his eBay store and you will see that his other items have "normal" prices.  Bit inflated for my taste, but still more reasonable than two grand!

  5. I use a Nikon Cool Pix 8700 camera I bought back in 2005.  This shot was done using 2 halogen shop lights. Since the camera's lens only stops down to f8, I took several frames ad gradually changing focused areas and combined them into a large-depth-of-field composite using Helicon Focus software.  Original photo is 5Mp is size - this is a low-res copy for the Web.

    2019Wisniewski.JPG

  6. Find out what specific chemicals are in the paint or thinner which you used when you got sick, then look up the MSDS sheets for them to see what effect they can have on people.

    Is this the same paint/thinner you have used in the past without problems?

    Another possibility is that since you were already sick (probably had a cold or flu since you couldn't smell), maybe it wasn't the paint which made you sick but the combination of you being sick and inhaling fumes just made you sicker?

  7. Peter, I have to agree but for a different reason.  In the old days(like 40 years ago) the SLR was the best camera on the market.  This is because you actually got to see through the lens.  Other cameras(called viewfinders) had a separate peep hole that had it's own lenses.  The SLR let you see what was actually going to be exposed on the film. 

    That was then.  Now we have "D"SLR's because of the old days.  The SLR portion still does the same thing, but in my opinion is a redundant mechanism that is left over from the old days, kind of like your appendix.  Why? Well with a modern digital display you are actually looking at what the CMOS sensor  is seeing which is what you will get for a picture.  Why would putting a mirror in front of the CMOS sensor and looking at that be in any way better than just looking at the video display and the actual picture you will record?  It wouldn't. 

    Well, to me there is a difference.  First of all, the optical viewfinder of a DSLR comes in handy in bright sunny conditions.  It beats an external  LCD screen any day.  Yes, I know, there are digital cameras which have a digital viewfinder (my CoolPix 8700 actually has one so I can switch between the outside flat screen or the digital viewfinder).  But the problem is that the resolution and display speed of the digital viewfinder limits what I see.  If for example I'm trying to take a photo of something rather small like a bird or a plane flying high across clear sky I can't really see it in the digital viewfinder.  I can also see the pixels of the viewfinder display which is a bit annoying. Same goes for a fast moving subject - the digital viewfinder screen has a bit of a lag.


    With true DSLR, your eye is viewing the outside world directly through the lens and you can easily see the objects I described above.  But for just average or studio photography I agree that there really isn't a need to have an optical viewfinder. Actually, when I use my CoolPix 8700 to take staged model photos at the model contest, I hook up its video output to a 19" flat panel LCD monitor sitting on the table and my viewfinder becomes 19" in size. I can see the subject clearly and so can people standing around (or even several feet away).

  8. Except for the lower part of the '57 Chevy, those photos look good to me.  I don't see any color temperature problems (but I don't have the models in front of me to compare the colors).  But you can pretty much forget trying to get the colors in the photos to look like the actual color, especially with metallic colors. Some colors will look quite bit different in the photo than what you see in front of you.  There are a lot of variables at play which makes color matching very difficult.

    I re-calibrate my camera's white balance all the time (I don't depend on presets).  With my camera it is really easy - just put a piece of white paper in front of the camera lens (and have it illuminated by the light I'll be using int the photo). The color balance is in the top menu - just select it, then hit "measure" and the white balance is adjusted to the ambient light.  Can't be any simpler or quicker.  I also often adjust the exposure time over or under what the camera wants to do to get the best shot.  Maybe this is an instance where my less advanced camera is actually more useful than a fancy DSLR?

  9. Bill,

    Here is another example from me.  I use a vintage Nikon CoolPix 8700  camera I bought in 2005.  Back then it was a pretty decent non-DSLR cameras, but by today's standards it is not all that good. Still, it has excellent macro capability and it can shoot in aperture-priority mode and have custom white-balance (both of which I use all the time).  My setup is similar to Ray's (curved piece of paper) but for illumination I just use a single circular fluorescent  lamp (a magnifier desk lamp). So if you use a tripod and can shoot at longer shutter speeds  (with stepped-down lens) strong light is not vital. But having even and diffused light is important (unless you are after some special effects like sharp shadows).  Here is a 1:43 scale 289 Cobra engine.

    EngineChassis08_zpsf9a66090.jpg

     

    See this album for more photos. On photos with gray background I used 2 150W halogen shop lights for illumination (you can see more distinct shadows).

     

    I also take photos at my club's annual model show. I use the same setup as for the photos above (a curved paper background and those halogen shop lights).  Here is a sample of those photos.  I'm by no means a professional photographer, but those photos look good enough to be published in the Scale Auto Contest Annuals.

  10. I'd tend to say it's not so much having "luck" as it is having the desire and putting forth the effort to learn the skills.

    If you're not intimidated by the computer or learning new things, you CAN learn CAD. Google SketchUp is a simplified FREE 3D modeling program that's FREE for you to download and learn for FREE. 

    I've dabbled with CAD (2D and some 3D) back in the '80s when I worked as a computer tech on Computervision's CAD/CAM systems. Back then I worked with CADDS 4X. 

    I have dabbled with SketchUp and while it is intuitive, it seems to lack what I need to design the objects I wont. I even picked up a copy of TurboCAD. But finding the time to to sit down and mess around with these programs is my problem. I would also like some instructor-lead training so I can ask questions.  Ans just like learning other things (like playing music) it takes a lot of practice (read: time) to get proficient with 3D software.  I have so many hobbies and projects going at the same time that I just don't have the time to get experienced with 3D design.  Maybe someday...

×
×
  • Create New...