Omenbringer Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 I dont have a very expensive digital camera and have used my phone with the setup I have a bit. With that said it is going to be fairly difficult to eliminate the color shifts without multiple light sources (out door light casts a blue hue, incandescents a pink hue, and CFL's a slightly greenish hue). Including natural day light will make replicating the results consistently a bit of a crap shoot due to the number of variables you'll be dealing with (angle of light, adjusted time of day, weather/ atmospheric conditions, if doing this indoors the effect of the window filtering the light source, etc.) Not saying it absolutely can't be done with a single light source but including a second, third or even fourth and fifth light will make it so much easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webmonkey Posted September 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 so then,.. you advocate more light sources,.. not less?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omenbringer Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 (edited) Definately, I recommend mulitple light sources from several different angles (in conjunction with a light box) and of different temps (to even the hues). I recommend it not just for photography but also for painting in general. Good light will improve your results as much if not more than other things. Edited September 9, 2012 by Omenbringer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mako Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 Ha right, generally speaking more lights (so long as theyre set up right) give you better photos. I think for me it comes down to a balance between ease and light. I personally don't bother with more than one broad spectrum daylight lamp, as any more just proved to be more of a nuisance than a benefit (but that's just a personal preference, I have pretty light sensitive eyes and I move house a lot so one lamp is all I ever needed or had space for!). More lights, properly balanced, with the model in a light tent is the way to get perfectly reproducible photos, but for day to day stuff (even my guides) I find a nice bright day and a moment on the pc with the raw image files plenty good enough. It's not perfect, but again it's a lot easier to set up, tear down and move about! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djkickz Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) I'm pretty sure the context of this thread was for people who didn't want to need to learn to use a complicated program like gimp or photoshop and wanted decent pictures so suggesting they build or buy a lightbox is probably not something they're going to do. You're right tho I use a homemade lightbox (and this guide on strobist is a really great way to make one really cheap http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-to-diy-10-macro-photo-studio.html) and it will really help get better results. I'd argue that you'll get the best results with a light box and a single temperature of light. Also my post wasn't suggesting a single light source it was suggesting multiple sources of the same color of light. IE multiple lamps with the same brand / style of bulb in them. If anyone wants more info about shooting with off camera lights here is a little write up I did on them (if linking to a public note on facebook works) never tried this before. http://www.facebook.com/notes/jamie-lumsden/testing-out-the-studio-lights/10151058880924454 Definately, I recommend mulitple light sources from several different angles (in conjunction with a light box) and of different temps (to even the hues). I recommend it not just for photography but also for painting in general. Good light will improve your results as much if not more than other things. Edited September 10, 2012 by djkickz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edonil Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 I'm pretty sure the context of this thread was that people were too lazy to learn to use gimp or photoshop and wanted decent pictures so suggesting they build or buy a lightbox is probably not something they're going to do. You're right tho I use a homemade lightbox (and this guide on strobist is a really great way to make one really cheap http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-to-diy-10-macro-photo-studio.html) and it will really help get better results. I'd argue that you'll get the best results with a light box and a single temperature of light. Also my post wasn't suggesting a single light source it was suggesting multiple sources of the same color of light. IE multiple lamps with the same brand / style of bulb in them. If anyone wants more info about shooting with off camera lights here is a little write up I did on them (if linking to a public note on facebook works) never tried this before. http://www.facebook.com/notes/jamie-lumsden/testing-out-the-studio-lights/10151058880924454 Too lazy? Mind using a less offensive tone? Welcome to reality- a whole bunch of us looking for stuff and unable to find information aside from buying a $300 program. So, while I appreciate your advice, it would be more appreciated if you weren't insulting those of us who bothered to speak up and ask detailed questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djkickz Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 I'm just trying to be helpful to people who want to learn more about photographing their miniatures without spending a lot of time or money. If I wanted to have an offensive tone I would post a link like this http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+use+gimp JUST KIDDING! I'm sorry lazy was totally not the word I meant to use, I was just trying to get out a lot of information quickly and didn't reread my post to reflect my message. I'll go edit it, I'm sorry if it came off the wrong way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edonil Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 No worries. My apology for taking offense...thanks for that link, though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omenbringer Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 I'm pretty sure the context of this thread was for people who didn't want to need to learn to use a complicated program like gimp or photoshop and wanted decent pictures so suggesting they build or buy a lightbox is probably not something they're going to do. An effective light box can be made in about a minute using nothing but tape and foamcore (white or black) or you can use a frosted plastic jug (shown in this thread a few times). Of course you could also just buy a light tent (like this one) from a photography shop for a nominal fee ($29.95 for the one linked to). G.I.M.P. and Photo shop are as robust as you want them to be, I rarely use anything other than the auto-fix and resize features for my photos (both are fairly user friendly). You got me on the multiple lights set up (the only thing that might be complex in the process) but even that isn't exactly rocket science (you basically just swing them in and aim them at the four walls (Back, left side, right side and roof)). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webmonkey Posted September 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 (edited) Alright,.. using mako's diagram setup, I took the following pictures. 1) Natural direct sunlight, no flash. (not edited in a photo program). 2) Natural sunlight, (but pulled out of the direct light into the more shaded area of the house), no flash. (not edited) Both of these are overly white-washed. Is it the black background? Am I too close with the camera? Too far? What other factors and I not accounting for? Next post,.. I'm gonna try some editing software and see what I get. Edited September 13, 2012 by Webmonkey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webmonkey Posted September 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 (edited) And here are those same 2 pics, but edited as best I can in gimp. Admittedly they still are a bit out of focus, and somewhat bright in certain areas. But they do look a bit better,.. 1) Natural direct sunlight, no flash,... edited. 2) Natural in-direct sunlight, no flash,... edited. The direct light shot is still unworkable. The indirect light one is still salvagable perhaps though. Next up,.. I'm gonna try "studio" shots (as suggested by omenbringer) Multiple lights (all artificial) from various angles. It may take me a while to get to these though. As I do not have anything like this even remotely set up. Edited September 13, 2012 by Webmonkey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mako Posted September 13, 2012 Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 I'd say maybe try the indirect natural light one with a bit less editing, see if you can get somewhere between the two states. But it comes down to whatever gives you the most accurate shots you can get without becoming too much hassle to do! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djkickz Posted September 13, 2012 Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 the unedited indirect natural light shot looks pretty close. I would try it using a bend sheet of paper as a background, will help with editing to get a more consistent result. What type of camera are you using? might be the settings you're shooting with. Even point and shoots usually let you choose what lighting condition you're shooting in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webmonkey Posted September 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 I am using the camera that's built into my phone. It has options for Flash - on/off/auto. (curently off) Exposure - set to zero. Goes to +\- 2.0. Shooting mode - set to single shot, but also has continuous, panorama, add me, action shot, cartoon. Settings- various sub -menus in here,.. (listed below) Focus mode - Set to Auto. Also has macro function. Scene mode - set to none. Also has landscape, sports, portrait, night party/indoor, beach/snow, sunset, dawn, fall color, firework, text, candlelight, backlight. Timer - set to off. Also has 2 sec, 5 sec, and 10 sec. Resolution - set to 2560x1920. Has a whole list of other resolutions, but they are all lower settings. White balance - set to auto. Also has daylight, cloudy, incandescent, and flourescent. Effects - set to normal. Also has negative, black and white, and sepia. ISO - set to auto. also has 100, 200, and 400 Metering - set to center-weighted. also has matrix and spot Auto contrast box is checked (on) Blink detection box is checked (on) Image quality - set to superfine. also has fine and normal Adjust - has 3 settings. Contrast, saturation, and sharpness. All set to zero. I know what some of these things do, but for the most part, I must profess my ignorance when it comes to how this thing should be set up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICleadpeople Posted September 13, 2012 Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 You need to have a background in your photo. The color of the background will dramaticly change the way your model looks. Heres a few links to some that I like. I generally have a light source on both side and on top. Sorry if this was already mentioned but I stopped reading about half way through this post. http://massivevoodoo.blogspot.com/2009/10/tutorial-overview.html#painting http://corvusminiatures.blogspot.jp/2010/04/cloud-backdrops-for-your-miniature.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wings Posted September 13, 2012 Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 (edited) Is this any closer to the actual mini? I took the original image and opened it in GIMP. Went to Levels (under Colours), and clicked Auto. It's what I normally do with my photos and as a rule it works. [Edit - on second thoughts I'm not sure if there's any difference at all. Hmm) Edited September 13, 2012 by Wings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian Posted September 13, 2012 Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 First thing I notice is that the pic is blurry... So, that's the biggest problem ATM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djkickz Posted September 13, 2012 Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 those are some pretty good setting choices for a camera phone. you could try setting the white balance to day light to see how you like those results. Just to be clear the daylight isn't coming through tinted windows right? First thing I notice is that the pic is blurry... So, that's the biggest problem ATM. I think that has most to do with the fact that it's a cell phone camera. Not much you can do to fix that with editing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webmonkey Posted September 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 Is this any closer to the actual mini? I took the original image and opened it in GIMP. Went to Levels (under Colours), and clicked Auto. It's what I normally do with my photos and as a rule it works. [Edit - on second thoughts I'm not sure if there's any difference at all. Hmm) No,.. the image is still too white-washed here. The true colors are closer to the edited version of the photo. The green is a slightly darker olive green. And the brass bits aren't as gold looking,.. they have a bit more "orange/copper" to them. ---------- Post added at 03:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 PM ---------- those are some pretty good setting choices for a camera phone. you could try setting the white balance to day light to see how you like those results. Just to be clear the daylight isn't coming through tinted windows right? I think that has most to do with the fact that it's a cell phone camera. Not much you can do to fix that with editing. I haven't found a zoom on the camera. So I have to get closer if I want the figure to fill the picture. It's supposed to auto-focus when you tap on the screen, but that only seems to work,... well,... sort of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webmonkey Posted September 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 Alright, tried the daylight setting and it seemed to help the color a lot. Though it was getting a bit later in the day so the image came out on the dark side. The 2nd image I turned the flash back on and it seemed to help. The shadows in the background are a bit stark though. Perhaps some side lights in the future will help with that,.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djkickz Posted September 14, 2012 Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) looking good! setting the white balance to the actual type of light you're shooting in should make a big difference on getting accurate color reproduction. If you're still not happy with the color in the second shot it's probably because the flash is a different color of light than day light so it's probably introducing some color distortion into the shot. This can be seen more clearly by looking at the color of the white paper in the background. See how it looks white in the day light shot but when the flash is added in it looks more reddish? I think you'll get best results using the day light setting at a brighter time of day. Another option you can use to help out with the shadows is point some lights from the side not directly at the model but try to bounce them off the ceiling to give a softer light. Don't forget to change your white balance setting if you're shooting with mostly halogen or florescent (or incandescent) light! Another option I didn't bring up before is many photo editing software will let you set white balance in the shot by clicking on a part of the shot that is white. Choose the white paper and tell the software that is what white is supposed to look like and it will adjust everything to compensate. This solves the problem of using other lights but won't help if the white paper is mostly lit by one color of light and ur mini is getting a lot of another color. EDIT: Just for reference i took the first photo in this post (the one that was way to red, and edited it using photoshop to tune the red down a little bit (that I assume is coming from your flash). Not perfect as there is more of the red light on the center of the image than on the edges so either the edges look a little too cyan or the center looks a little to red, but does this look any closer to how it looks in real life? Edited September 14, 2012 by djkickz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djkickz Posted September 14, 2012 Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 doing the same thing with the last image you posted in this thread (taken with the daylight setting on the camera using the flash) changed the colorization to turn down the red and also turned down the contrast to make the shadows a little less harsh and this is what I came up with. I'd imagine the first one is more color accurate since the light was more consistent in it (but the second looks better overall because it was more well lit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webmonkey Posted September 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 doing the same thing with the last image you posted in this thread (taken with the daylight setting on the camera using the flash) changed the colorization to turn down the red and also turned down the contrast to make the shadows a little less harsh and this is what I came up with. [ATTACH=CONFIG]7963[/ATTACH] I'd imagine the first one is more color accurate since the light was more consistent in it (but the second looks better overall because it was more well lit. Actually,.. the color in the second pic is pretty darn close. By far the best image of the lot. Makes me feel like maybe I can better showcase my talent with a brush. Not golden demon quality, to be sure,... but still, I'd say decent overall. At least I can say that I'm not ashamed to field them or display them. But thanks for all the help guys. I appreciate it. Though,.. this thread isn't over yet. More questions coming soon,.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omenbringer Posted September 15, 2012 Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 (edited) ...It has options for Flash - on/off/auto. (curently off) Exposure - set to zero. Goes to +\- 2.0... Focus mode - Set to Auto. Also has macro function. Scene mode - set to none. Also has landscape, sports, portrait, night party/indoor, beach/snow, sunset, dawn, fall color, firework, text, candlelight, backlight... White balance - set to auto. Also has daylight, cloudy, incandescent, and flourescent... ISO - set to auto. also has 100, 200, and 400 Metering - set to center-weighted. also has matrix and spot Auto contrast box is checked (on)... Image quality - set to superfine. also has fine and normal Adjust - has 3 settings. Contrast, saturation, and sharpness. All set to zero. I know what some of these things do, but for the most part, I must profess my ignorance when it comes to how this thing should be set up. That is actually a lot of settings for a camera phone! I would recommend flash on, exposure set to 0 (adjusting this one way or the other allows you to fine tune the contrasts, however I wouldn't really recommend playing with it unless the picture is almost perfect and just needs a little "push" or "pull" to finish it off), focus mode Macro, Scene mode set to Portrait, White Balance I would set to Daylight (though you might want toplay with this if you are still noticing a hue), ISO set to 200 (it will mean a slower picture but will capture a sharper image without the need for additional light, if it continues to look blurry it is because your hand is moving to much), Metering should be set to Matrix (this will take readings from several different areas in the field of view instead of just the center), I would probably turn off the Auto Contrast feature (so you can control the effect in post editing instead of counting on the camera phone to make an irreversible judgement during the capture), Image quality keep on super fine (so you get the largest file (most information to edit with), keep the adjust set to 0. When you take your photo you will need to move your phone into range and not depend on the auto focus feature which will typically be fooled due to the shallow depth of field used during Macro photography. The slower ISO speed will necessitate you bracing your hands/ phone during the capture but will give improved results in regards to the lighting (lower ISO = slower camera speed= more light hitting the sensor). I would also try taking the picture again without the flash on and see if you like the results. Alright, tried the daylight setting and it seemed to help the color a lot. Though it was getting a bit later in the day so the image came out on the dark side. The 2nd image I turned the flash back on and it seemed to help. The shadows in the background are a bit stark though. Perhaps some side lights in the future will help with that,... Adding a small lamp aimed behind the mini will even out (or possibly eliminate) that shadow a lot. You see this done a lot in portrait photography. Edited September 15, 2012 by Omenbringer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.