Discussion in 'Photos & Videos' started by jon-monon, Oct 24, 2002.
Is anybody interested in macro photography?
Yes, it is nice to be able to get up close to a subject, here's my H0 little people at work.
Very nice, are you using floodlamps and bracketing, as you describe for standard model photography?
Macro Part II
I have mixed emotions about macro for myself. If I could model like Casey, Pete, Shamus and some of the others here I would probably use it more, but is this picture attests I can't. There are 2 problems with macro: 1- shows every little (and not so little ) flaw in your (mine) modeling efforts 2- No depth of field. In a shot like this one depth of field is not important so if my modeling was better macro would be O.K. There is equipment out there that will enable you to get much better depth of field but I don't have the depth of wallet to own such stuff! BTW that excellent tank car on the siding is a work of Charlie's.
P.S. The dog bites so be careful!
P.P.S. We have had so many new members lately I figured I ought to say this is n-scale for those that didn't already know.
Oh-my god!!! another Box
I hope this one doesn't get away.
Awww, heck, Tyson, you're being too harsh on yourself.
That engine house looks just like the house next to the one I grew up in. Or maybe it's the one I did grow up in (it was a long time ago, you understand.) Anyway, your modeling looks pretty darned good to me in this shot. And it's a good thing you reminded us (me) that it's N scale. Even after having been here for a few months, I still forget that fact. Your photos and modeling are that good.
Now, for whatever this is worth... John Allen's good friend Jim Findley once said that photographs were the only judges of his modeling efforts that he trusted, and that he used each one as a learning tool to improve his skills. Everytime a photo makes my stuff look like "stuff" to me, I remind myself of that. It happens at least once a day.
Hi Tyson, Like Casey said don't be hard on yourself....Man I wish I could do half as good in something as small as N scale.
Your comment about depth of field done got my wheels to turning.
My poorman's digital camera (Sony MC 75) has a fixed arpatuere but a variable(to some extent) exposure. Now I'm thinking about getting me some kind of tight fitting caps that would fit snug over the lens barrel and then drill say a #80 hole in the center of the cap and see if it would work like a pinhole camera using strong light and a time exposure or possibly a multiple exposure with the camera on a tripod.
It will probably be awhile before I gits around to this project so if anybody tries it let me know what happens.
Thanks guys! I do have a 35mm SLR that I can get good depth of field with but there's the cost of film and devoloping which is why I switched to digital in the first place. I have seen some digitals that have adjustable shutter speed etc., but they are out of my price range. Let me know how you make out Vic with your experiment.
I guess we are our own harshest critics, because I really can't see anything in the photo to complain about...(hell, you even managed to get that tank car to look pretty good! )
I know I've said this before, but you're one of those people who've taken N scale to a higher level of quality, & I know that takes some talent & skill!
Hey that "dawg" looks twice as mean in macro!
And for goodness sake, don't let him lap up any of that stuff drippin' outa that tanker! He'll make Cujo look like a lap-"dawg"!
Tyson my friend, your modelling is simply great. I tried to post into your thread with that building but a disconnect screwed it up.
That is also a super photo, nothing wrong with it at all (and with a digital cam too). I have all the gear for close up film work but I too am reluctant to spend on film etc and wait till (possibly duff) photos come back from processing.
I for one certainly wouldn't look for the perfection of HO modelling in an N model and like you say, macro shows the compromises that are made in N (but how often is your head where that cam was for that photo??).
Now that we know you can take them thar close ups so well, I for one am going to be expecting the same standards from you in the future!! ..
(Thinking.. I wonder if my +3 dioptre lens will fit my digital cam??)
Nothing wrong with that photo at all for a macro setting. If it had been taken on plain "Auto" without Macro in use, then yes, depth of field is not that good. The closer you get to the subject the less D.O.F. available.
Tyson, your modelling looks GREAT to me!!
If only I could manage to do in H0 that you have succeded to do in N, my ego would grow several sizes...
Child's play... Check out what can be done with some more specialized equipment (Well, really the onlything that's specialized is the reverser ring.) and some imagination!
The last photo shows what can be done with this setup. The author used two lenses and a reverser ring to achive 4X magnification on film. Imagine doing that with your model work!
Macrophotography can be a very helpful tool in learning to build better models. BUT..... You have to be prepared to accept the harshest criticism you'll ever recieve, about your modelwork. The camera "never lies", and when you shoot that closeup, every imperfection of fit and finish leaps out at you in a very condemning way.
One nice thing about posting photos on the gauge is that they are usually reduced in size for posting. A lot of imperfection gets "hidden" this way.
Here's a picture, simply reduced for posting,
I also selected a small portion of the original picture, before reduction, which ends up about the right size to post without any reduction. You can see how much better the reduced image looks both photographicly, and in hiding detail mistakes.
Pete, Just what detail mistakes are you talking about? Tyson, I will add my kudos to all those already posted, your work is very nice, regardless of scale. I take most of my photos close up and yes the details do show much more and I find the photos very useful for showing what needs more work.
Hi Pete, good example in the two photo's, I tend to go anothe way if I just want something out of a photo and that is to take the photo at the highest end my camera will go (tiff format) then reduce the image and re-save as a new file. Next I go back to the original and crop what I want and re-save as a new file.
Here's an example.
No fair Pete, you posted a picture with no imperfections! Thanks to everbody that had kind words about my pic, I wondered what happened to my thread, I guess Shamus combined it into this one. Went nuts trying to answer e-mail notifications to that thread only to be told they were invalid!
I guess I consider the oversize ladder rungs on the hopper, the unpainted rail, the lack of lenses in the class/marker lights, and the lack of a bell rope, imperfections.
Paul, I am certainly never ashamed of the work I've done, but when it comes to photography, and detail, you still give me inspiration.
Separate names with a comma.