Hello everybody,
I have been lurking here for a while and staying up to date with what's going on but haven't posted much lately due to my busy nature at art school and personal projects. While trying to photograph my works in progress and final photos with my iPhone I came to a conclusion that it is probably time to invest in a nice decent camera to document my work for my portfolio, my work consists of mostly fine scale models, dioramas, or props. I have been researching through various model forums about what camera to use and what lens you should get and have become quite overwhelmed in the vast options out there on the market, plus most forums I've found related to photography are five or more years old, I guess my core question would be what cameras and setups do you guys use most often for model photography? SLR, DSLR point and shoot? Im very overwhelmed and could use a good starting point for my search.
Thank you,
Tyler Virga
You probably want an interchangeable lens DSLR because model photography often requires a macro lens. The one I used professionally and still tend to use most often is a 100mm macro. Sony, among others, makes a fixed zoom lens camera. It's small but I don't know whether it has decent macro capability.
Were I looking to buy something for a reasonable price (because my camera's price is unreasonable) I'd go to bhphotovideo.com (http://bhphotovideo.com) (where many professionals get their stuff) and pick up one of the Canon bodies--one of the Rebels or the 80D--and whatever lens you think you'd use most often. The 100mm macro, by the way, is just as good for regular shooting as it is for macro shots.
It may make no difference to you but the lower cost camera sensors are inferior to those in the more expensive bodies. An inexpensive sensor will have less effect on sharpness than on noise in shadows or low light. Years ago I bought one of the Canon Rebels thinking it had the same sensor as the next best model (because the previous generation's cameras did) and learned the hard way that things had changed. I still used the camera for about six or seven years, cleaned up the noise and adjusted the unsharp mask in Photoshop, and the photos were fine for publication. I used that camera until I closed down the business, then bought a better one. (I know, totally illogical.)
You might save a little money by buying one of Canon's body/lens packages. They also are available at Costco. Depending on what you plan to do with the camera, that might be a good idea or a bad one. In my case, a body alone along with a separate 100mm macro makes more sense than paying extra for the body and a mediocre lens I might not use much.
Nikon cameras also are excellent and in the past five years Sony has come on strong. Most professionals think Canon still produces the most pleasing color and perhaps has an edge in lens selection and perhaps sharpness. But everything I have written is a professional's nitpick. If you know what you're doing, any decent camera, including an iPhone in some cases, can produce good photos. It's hard to make a bad choice. But as you shoot, you become more critical of what you and your camera can do so, if you get a better camera and lens to start with, you'll save money in the long run because they will serve you longer.
Russ
Okay great, this is a great start Thank you for your input and I was leaning toward a DSLR camera because of its large range of manual options and interchangeable options. I didn't realize that macro lenses are not only used for close-ups but can be used in other applications too. I am a newbie when it comes to photography so I appreciate your input and suggestions on what direction to look further in.
-Tyler
I am also looking for a new camera, but I am not so keen on a macro with a relatively long focus length. Even on a full format DSLR, a 100mm lens is a telephoto lens.
What I want is a camera with the possibillity to shoot model scene closeups with a normal angle of view.
For this reason I have been rather fond of the early generations of digital compacts with really good macro capabilities. For instance, the good old Nikon Coolpix 995 had the closest focus at just 2cm, or slightly under an inch. And that with the normal angle of view.
I am now shooting with an Canon G12 that have the closest focus at around 5 cm (2 inches). But the sensor is not exactly state of the art, and the lens has suffered some annoying scratches.
I know that the close focus capabilities on these old cameras are due to their very tiny sensors and the really short focal lengths that goes with them. For those reasons these cameraes also had an impressive depth of field, that at the time was a great bonus. Due to focus stacking, this is not so important any more.
So if anyone could point me to a camera or lens with a normal/slightly wide view angle that can focus down to at least 2 inches, I would be very grateful!
The best way to get the shot you want with almost any camera is to put the camera on a tripod, focus the first photo as close as possible, refocus a few inches farther away and shoot again, and on down the scene until you have what you want. Take the images into Photoshop, one per layer and, with the "feathered edge" erase tool, remove the part of each overlapping photo where it begins to lose focus. Flatten all layers into one and you have your shot in perfect focus from front to back at the sensor's full resolution.
A couple of companies have software to do the same thing but I see no reason to buy them.
An easier way to achieve what you want (at the cost of resolution) is to use a normal lens, shoot from farther away, focus on a point that encompasses the whole scene, and then crop the image. You'll need a fairly hi-res camera for that, since the resulting image will be between 30-50% of the full frame, but any camera from 12 megapixels up should do the job your Nikon 995 did -- only better.
My first digital camera was a Nikon 990 and it was terrific for shooting close-up macro type shots but its resolution was only 3 megapixels. With that, however, I took all product shots, two or three covers, and even managed to put a 990 image onto a 35mm slide shot to create an 11x17 inch spread!
Finally, although I haven't used one, 35mm camera tilt-shift lenses are available and may produce what you want.
If you have more questions, either ask them here or send me an e-mail.
Russ
Quote from: finescalerr on September 18, 2017, 10:54:50 AM
The best way to get the shot you want with almost any camera is to put the camera on a tripod, focus the first photo as close as possible, refocus a few inches farther away and shoot again, and on down the scene until you have what you want. Take the images into Photoshop, one per layer and, with the "feathered edge" erase tool, remove the part of each overlapping photo where it begins to lose focus. Flatten all layers into one and you have your shot in perfect focus from front to back at the sensor's full resolution.
Focus Stacking in other words ;)
Quote
An easier way to achieve what you want (at the cost of resolution) is to use a normal lens, shoot from farther away, focus on a point that encompasses the whole scene, and then crop the image. You'll need a fairly hi-res camera for that, since the resulting image will be between 30-50% of the full frame, but any camera from 12 megapixels up should do the job your Nikon 995 did -- only better.
Yes, except that you will end up with an image taken with a telephoto lens. The challenge is to keep the view angle of a normal/standard lens. That was the charm with the 990, you got very close focusing combined with the view angle of a normal or slightly wide angled lens. And great depth of field. That we both agree is not so important anymore due to Focus Stacking.
Quote
Finally, although I haven't used one, 35mm camera tilt-shift lenses are available and may produce what you want.
Way back in the analogue ages Model Railroader shot a feature on George Sellios´ Franklin & South Manchester using a medium format camera with a tilt-shift lens. Great depth of field, but the lens made the perspective look quite strange in some of the images.
Hauk, The November 2017 issue of Model Railroader (Yes, it's already available in some areas) has an article about taking photos acceptable for publication using an iPhone. While that is not the camera you are seeking, one advantage to camera phone is they are low enough and small enough to set onto a layout for good trackside views that bulkier camera with lens mounted higher are more difficult to set up in some tight/close situations.
Quote from: Bill Gill on September 19, 2017, 09:09:33 AM
Hauk, The November 2017 issue of Model Railroader (Yes, it's already available in some areas) has an article about taking photos acceptable for publication using an iPhone. While that is not the camera you are seeking, one advantage to camera phone is they are low enough and small enough to set onto a layout for good trackside views that bulkier camera with lens mounted higher are more difficult to set up in some tight/close situations.
I certainly consider my iPhone 8 for usable for some jobs, especially for the situations you describe.
For webpublishing the a mobile gives more than adequate quality. Even for smaller images in print it can be acceptable.
By the way, I looked into some compacts, and even if it is one of the ugliest cameras I have ever seen the Canon PowerShot G5 X might be a camera for me. It focuses down to 5 cm from the front of the lens. I think this is about as good as it gets with modern compacts.
Also with me, the model railroad photography was always a problem, until I bought this Sony QX 100, attached examples. Photography is done through an app.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.buntbahn.de%2Ffotos%2Fdata%2F9365%2F13MF01.jpg&hash=47a958d7cd14662c69d614325f1577efdd55d340)
shooting distance to lens approx. 70 mm.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.buntbahn.de%2Ffotos%2Fdata%2F9365%2F13MF02.JPG&hash=98cd337f366b95c855cb655dd9b3ed401c04b301)
Here the recording scenario the lighting is done with LED job spotlights.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.buntbahn.de%2Ffotos%2Fdata%2F9365%2F13MF03.jpg&hash=b5e9b6c3122ee0e56498a1e992375c81281e7268)
Here is another example.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.buntbahn.de%2Ffotos%2Fdata%2F9365%2F13MF04.JPG&hash=06f74cc6e846bdbdd6271d46ee5c8960b0c00175)
in the background my tray with the app for recording.
There is now even a Boddy for interchangeable lenses the Sony QX 1.
With the QX 100 I made the recordings for my Miba articles.
I've been thinking about Havård's question for the past couple of months. This week I decided to test my own answer and tried image stacking to extend my Canon SLR's depth of field. Photoshop has a couple of options in both the File and Edit drop down menus so, with those in mind, I shot a few frames of a 1:32 scale log train with both a 50mm and a 100mm macro lens, then fumbled around with different Photoshop settings to see what kind of results they produce. Photoshop's macros produce something similar to Helicon Focus.
Bottom line: Don't waste your time unless you enjoy tricking out photos.
As Havård points out, the resulting image, even with a 50mm lens at f/32, probably won't produce the results he wants. Helmut's shorter focal length camera seems to do the job better. I don't have a macro lens shorter than 50mm but, if I did, it might be fun to see what it could do.
Photoshop also has another downside: By my standards the masking it uses is rather crude. The only way to get a decent image is to let Photoshop resize all the stacked images so the photographer then may erase the out-of-focus parts of each layer to blend into a final image and then flatten the layers into a single shot. It's necessary to erase the layers at high magnification, too, because of Photoshop's default feathering, and you need to be meticulous in cleaning them up. The procedure takes more time than it should.
It seems pointless to attach my photos because the huge loss of resolution necessary to post them here would obscure their minor imperfections and because I'm less than excited by the results. Yeah, I probably could have used the technique to crank out a few covers and spreads for my books and magazines but I'm not certain the difference would have been important for photos of large scale models. It would have been more noticeable in photos of the HO dioramas I created, especially since I wasn't trying to achieve the same perspective Havård wants. I often spent a few hours Photoshopping important images but I seriously doubt any of you would. That's because I'm insane, because I felt it necessary to help sell magazines and books, and because photo editing had become second nature. Rather a uniquely necessary combination, n'est-ce pas?
I faithfully used my Nikon Ftn which I purchased new in 1972 for about $700 until digital cameras came along.
Photography has always been a second hobby for me so having a good camera has been very important.
Today I just use my Apple iPhone for photography. Very easy to use and always on hand.
At the narrow gauge convention, I talked with Mario Rapinett about how much I liked his photographs.
I figured he had some big heavy rig based on the quality of the photos he always provides after the conventions.
He pulled out his small Sony point and shoot camera and said that all his photos are taken with in.
He said the "trick" is to actually read the owner's manual and follow the instructions.
If you don't have your owner's manual, here are the "tricks" for good model shots:
The first is to use the smallest possible aperture (biggest f/ number), such as f/32 or as close to that as your camera gets. Cellphone cameras lack f/stop controls so ....
Regardless of what kind of camera you use, the second "trick" is to shoot under as much light as possible since manufacturers optimize digicams and smartphone cameras for shooting in sunlight. Less light equals shallow depth of field and more "noise".
The final "trick" is always use a tripod.
Decent shots require all three "tricks" ... always, no exceptions. But I assume you guys already know that since the shots I see on the forum usually tend to be quite good.
Russ
Another "trick" I like to use is to move the camera back and then use graphics editing software to crop the photo to the desired size.
This allows a better focus and eliminates the "fore-shortening" effect of having the camera too close.
Example, if your wife is sensitive about her big nose, take your photo from further away to avoid exaggerating a problem.
My wife's only problem in her photography is she thinks she needs to get the camera right up close to the subject.
another "trick" I learned years ago is to use the timer on the camera rather than manually pushing the button to take the photo.
Good tricks.
The one about the big nose might be an idea for guys wanting to flatter wives or girlfriends: Get the camera up close to her chest ....
Uh-oh. I think Nick and Lawton and probably a few others are threatening to send me to the corner. Gotta go.
Russ
While you are there put all of Nick's take away boxes in the bin. You might do something useful around here.
Chuck's broom is there also. Put it good use. Nick was kind of sloppy!! :)
Jerry
Okay, so here I am in the corner. I was bored to death so I grabbed my iPhone to test its depth of field. I set up a bright light (to make the f/stop automatically shrink as much as possible), plunked some HO freight cars and an NW2 on the kitchen table, and took photos. I doubt the forum's file size limitation will resolve enough detail but first I shot this photo with my iPhone 7 Plus "telephoto" or "portrait" lens. Regular iPhones (like iPhone 6 or 7, not Plus) don't have that extra lens. Just as well because it probably would require too many image layers to produce much depth of field. This (single exposure) is what the camera saw though that lens.
Russ
Just as I feared: I focused on the tank car and it's sharp. You can't see how fuzzy the two ends of the train are. Useless image.
Then I shot a couple of images through the regular lens. It's the same lens as every iPhone has and most other smartphone lenses are nearly the same. Better, but the end of the train is soft. I doubt it will be evident in the attachment. Here it is anyway.
Russ
I shot a second image through the "regular" lens and focused on the end of the train. That gave me two essentially identical photos, one with the front in focus, the other with the rear in focus.
I opened both images in Photoshop, layered the one with the loco in focus over the one with the end of train in focus, and erased everything that looked fuzzy. The result is pretty good, comparable to images I took through my 3 and 5 megapixel digicams years ago and maybe better. Certainly with much higher resolution.
As you may recall, the point of the experiment was to see whether Havard and the rest of us can achieve model shots with satisfactory depth of field using a smartphone and, at the same time, get the "scale man" perspective the old digicams gave. I think the answer is yes, and you probably don't have to stack images to get decent depth of field. I think the single exposure depth of field is close to the best I could get with my early digicams. If you want more, stack two or three images with different points of focus (without changing the camera's position!), and it may be possible to produce the look you want with the 12 megapixel resolution of today's smartphones.
Russ
Quote from: finescalerr on November 29, 2017, 04:07:13 PM
I set up a bright light (to make the f/stop automatically shrink as much as possible)
A while back I installed several camera apps on my iPhone in the hope of being able to control the f-stops manually.
It took quite a while before I realized that iPhones (and probably all smartphone cameras) has a fixed aperture!
Well, that makes sense. Even so, the more light, the better the photo because small sensors need a lot of light. -- Russ
Quote from: Hauk on November 29, 2017, 11:02:26 PM
Quote from: finescalerr on November 29, 2017, 04:07:13 PM
I set up a bright light (to make the f/stop automatically shrink as much as possible)
A while back I installed several camera apps on my iPhone in the hope of being able to control the f-stops manually.
It took quite a while before I realized that iPhones (and probably all smartphone cameras) has a fixed aperture!
Um, well ::) ... depending on the iPhone IMHO it should be at least possible to change the exposure (time): focus the object, then put a finger on the display and slide (topwards or downwards) to raise or reduce exposure time ... apart from the possibility(ies) to make changes afterwards using the menue
edit > Light > separate setting options: brilliant, exposure, shadow, brightness, contrast, highlights, blackness (black Level value) ...
Now come on lads get your act together ! I am no photographer but I knew a professional long time ago ( on a planet far far away so the saying goes ) he said get yourself a SLR manual type or nowadays its with a manual override setting - set it to F22 (or more if you require) this way the depth of field will be more than adequate - that is every thing is in focus from the front to the rear and beyond of the model - OK you will need a tripod and a remote control to set it and take a deep breath and stand still for a few seconds I think its called a long exposure ! depending on the amount of light you have . the camera I use is a Nikon D50 its getting on now and its built like a house brick so its time for a change now for general use - but when I checked how much its worth as a trade in for a new model the best offer was £50:00 so I think I will keep it for use for model photography only
The lens is the standard one that came with the camera AF-S DX 18-55mm if that means anything to any one
The D50 range of cameras comes with a range of settings in the AUTO mode and the manual settings cover the aperture /speed
I have found this type of camera more the adequate for close up model photography
Barney
and good second hand ones are around and cheap !
I've been following this stacking discussion with a lot of interest. Previously I had Control ZM (open source focus stacking software) on my old computer and eventually had it working fairly well, but it isn't available for my current computer. I use GIMP for photo editing and have read some general discussion about manually being able to use it (like Russ described with PhotoShop), but not enough specifics for me to get results...so here's a couple questions
1. Given both camera and subject in fixed positions, the shots taken at slightly different focal lengths will also slightly change the overall all size of the image, so I guess you have to manually rescale them to exactly match the sizes first, yes?
2. When you layer one image on top of another how do you determine the edges of what is unacceptably out of focus in the lower layer? Do you just erase what seems the most fuzzy in the upper layer and then feather the edges where it overlaps the lower level - then add the next layer(s), if any, one at a time and repeat the erasing? How easy/difficult is it to tell the edge between what is acceptably in focus and what isn't with something like trees in middle ground as you look at the lower level(s) through the "hole" you made erasing the exact same subject in the upper level?
Since we now have pictures of the corner, the inquisitive among us want to know where are the bikini babes?
Hmmm. I guess I have a few questions to answer. First, Lawton, the bikini girls were standing behind me when I shot those test images. Remember, this is a forum rated for general audiences.
Now on to Bill's questions:
Yes, shots at different focal lengths do change the overall size and even position of the image. The commands in Photoshop, Helicon Focus, and others adjust each layer (individual image) to compensate. They don't always do it as well as you might like. That is why the eraser tool and your eyes are so valuable. Automation only gets you started and manual adjustments are the finishing touch. (As I warned above, stacking is time consuming, tedious, and sometimes imperfect.)
Also yes to your second question. The reason stacking is so tedious is that you must turn layers on and off to see how your erasing looks. On the shots I took with my 35mm full frame SLR I had to redo work on several layers three or four times. I also tossed out the whole thing and started from scratch about five times! Layer stacking for depth of field is not something you'll want to do all the time.
Now to amplify on Barney's comment:
You're right about SLR cameras in general but for some kinds of model shots, especially those of small scale models where you want a train in focus from front to back, F/22 is about as "wide open" as you want the aperture. Even f/32 often is insufficient. But it really depends on what you want your photo to look like and, maybe more importantly, how much resolution you need.
Here's what I mean: Suppose your Nikon's zoom lens at 55mm can keep an entire 12 car HO train in focus if you shoot at f/22 and back about 12 feet away from the subject. (Assuming you have that much space!) The train will be only a small part of the photo. So you crop the image. Well, if you have a sensor with 24 megapixel resolution, the part of the photo you end up with might be only 8 megapixels. In inches, let's say a 24 inch wide photo crops down to 8 inches. If you plan to use that photo as a half-page image you're in good shape. But what if you want a super sharp 17 inch spread or even a 30 inch wide poster? Ain't gonna happen because you'll need to stretch that 8 inch image by 3- or 400%.
Now suppose you want to push the perspective to get a very different, much more dramatic look: You'll need to adjust the zoom to between 18 and 35mm on your SLR and move right up to the loco. The perspective issue is magnified if your lens is a macro. So now you're back to image stacking because shooting close up with a wide angle lens is about the only way you can achieve the look you want. Get it? (And if anybody wants a more detailed explanation, send me a note and we can talk on the phone or Skype or something.)
Finally (and I can hear sighs of relief), the reason we're messing around with iPhones is because Havard asked how to get the "scale man" perspective that early digicams could produce. A 35mm SLR is too big and bulky to sit on a layout or diorama without destroying structures and scenery and, besides, the lens will be too high to achieve that "scale man" perspective. The little digicams we used to use had their lens only 1/8- or 1/4-inch above the ground so you could actually "look up" at locos, rolling stock, and structures. And you could get pretty close, yet still manage decent depth of field.
The irony is that today's smartphone cameras do pretty much what those little digicams from 2001 to about 2005 could do. My 2001 3 megapixel digicam was a little better than my 2005 5 megapixel digicam for miniature close up macro shots. My impression from yesterday's experiment is that the iPhone will produce shots similar to the 2005 camera but with 12 megapixel resolution. Image stacking probably wouldn't be necessary for most of what we want.
As you guys probably know, I spent 25 years shooting hundreds of models, dioramas, and layouts. It got to the point where I could do it in my sleep ... but standing, squatting, climbing, contorting, and lifting heavy gear was so painful I usually remained awake. What I learned is that our needs are highly specialized -- so far out of the main stream that few cameras today will give us the perspectives we want and also provide close to ideal images. But we already have smartphones, they're always with us, and they're not so bad. We should learn to use them to best advantage.
Russ
Examples, all shot with the iPhone:
First, with the camera only a couple of inches from the 1:32 scale loco. The whole train is about three feet long. I merged three shots but should have used four.
Russ
In the second shot I backed off about six inches and merged two shots but should have used three. -- Russ
The final shot is about a foot away from the train and again I shot two images but really needed three. In this and the previous shot the "soft" spots are around the smokestack.
All three are "quick and dirty" examples of what a smartphone can produce with about two minutes of setup and shooting and about ten minutes in Photoshop or other software with equivalent image stacking features. I used a couple of table lamps to illuminate the train. The idea was to approach the shots as a rank amateur, with only a smartphone and a tripod but no other photo-specific gear. I did nothing to control shadows or backgrounds or anything else I normally would do. If I can crank out these shots in about fifteen minutes each from start to finish, you can do better with a little more care.
Russ
I used to teach photography. I have both film and digital SLRs but don't use them that much any more. I have had a succession of iPhones up to my current 7, and just recently acquired a fifth generation iPad. I have used Photoshop from version 6 all the way up to the Creative Cloud. It is truly amazing how the technology has changed over just the last two decades and what these tools can do. But, at the end of the day, it's neither the technology nor the technique that matters so much as it the photographic composition, imagination, and inspiration, what Ansel Adams described as "knowing where to stand."
I've mastered the technology over the years, and I am familiar with the techniques, but I've never really developed the photographer's eye. My oldest daughter, on the other hand, knows the technology and the techniques, but absolutely shines from the gleam in her eye. That's why she's a professional photographer, and I'm not!
Thanks to you all for the info and thanks very much to our Russ for taking the time to put it right and share his thoughts on the subject it shows things have changed for the better in most cases and I must admit the quality of a photo taken on quite cheap mobile phone is excellent.
Thanks
Barney
Would not it also be a good idea to talk about the right lighting for digital photography? I use Led construction sites spotlights which have LEDs 30 W, 2,400 lm, neutral white (4,000 K)
Russ, Thank you for answering all those questions. It helps to get insights and ideas from someone who's done a whole lot more photography than I ever will.
Don't have to contribute anything appropriate regarding photography, so I decided to move my posting from here to my thread:
http://www.finescalerr.com/smf/index.php?topic=2783.msg57395#msg57395 (http://www.finescalerr.com/smf/index.php?topic=2783.msg57395#msg57395)
We can do it all with iPad apps now:
CameraPixels to shoot focus bracket photos.
Affinity Photo to focus stack and edit the photos.
SKRWT or Affinity Photo to mitigate the distortion of a wide angle lens (the nose being too big in a portrait)
The iPad as a camera is great not because it's a great camera as such but because of the great yet inexpensive camera and photo editing apps. The quality might or mightn't be as good as a much more expensive setup, but you can't browse the Westlake site on that more expensive setup.
I'll post something about lighting later. Right now I want to point out that Affinity Photo is supposed to be as good and as comprehensive as Photoshop (each has strengths and weaknesses but, from what I've read, they are equal overall).
The BIG difference is price: Photoshop is by subscription only and tends to be expensive. Affinity Photo costs $50 and you own the program. I'm thinking about buying it because I don't like being forced by a corporation to pay monthly or annually in order to keep the program and get updates I don't need that keep altering how I do things. I have the last version of Photoshop they sold as a program.
An aside about cameras and, for that matter, computers: Unless you have specific creative or industrial needs a smartphone or tablet will do everything the typical owner would want. Today's SLR and mirrorless cameras are sophisticated, confusing to some people, and relatively expensive, especially when you need a few lenses. So are computers (except for the lenses!). But two year old kids easily master smartphones and tablets. Yes, really. Inexpensive apps along with macro and wide angle slip-on lenses extend the devices' functionality.
Many of us need computers for CAD, advanced photography, video production, or music production. I need mine for all four! Others might think about the alternatives and possibly save some money.
Russ
Russ:
Since you opened the door to the subject of photo manipulation (what us old f**** called "dark room techniques") how about some opinions on software comparisons? I am looking for something I don't have to rent and can be used in a stand alone mode because of the slow speeds in rural central Virginia.
The best choice by far is Affinity Photo, as Peter pointed out (and I commented on). It's a thoroughly professional program and an amazing value. No sense in getting a less comprehensive program when Affinity will do everything at the same price. Even though it can do a thousand things, you still may only need to use three of them. The others will be there if you need them.
You have to download Affinity Photo. If your Internet connection is slow it may take a while. After it's in your computer the Internet no longer is a factor. Incidentally, the same is true of Photoshop ... except Adobe will keep extorting money from you.
Russ
I'm going to start a new thread called "Photography, Cameras, and Lighting" to cover what is a crucial aspect of modeling. Let's continue with this subject there and it's perfectly okay to repeat any posts or questions about iPhones there. I'll see whether I can include a link to this thread, too. -- Russ
Thanks, as many know, I hate being robbed by someone with a mouse.
Mr Russ - yes please much needed - but please keep it simple -
Barney
Barney, here you go: http://www.finescalerr.com/smf/index.php?topic=2840.msg57418;topicseen#msg57418 (http://www.finescalerr.com/smf/index.php?topic=2840.msg57418;topicseen#msg57418)
If you don't want to read it all, just check out the drawing.
Russ
I decided to see what the iPhone could do with sufficient light and Affinity Photo. Yes, I bought the program for $50 because it really is a Photoshop alternative and does some things better. For instance, its "focus merge" feature works vastly better than the equivalent command in Photoshop CS6 (the last time you could buy rather than lease the program).
Since this was a test to see what I could do with only the most basic tools I put the 1:32 scale loco (about 8 inches long) on my workbench and used my two halogen desk lamps for lighting. No reflectors, no backdrop. I used one of those inexpensive "selfie" clamps to mount the phone on a tripod, brought the phone very close to the model, and shot seven photos. I never moved the position of the phone but, in each case, manually set the point of focus and exposure. (Most relatively new phones have an on-screen control for that.)
I imported the seven images and let Affinity Photo combine them into a single image. Then I spent about five minutes burning in the highlights, bringing out some shadow detail, and applying a light "unsharp mask". The result is truly impressive at full resolution and, honestly, comes very close to what my SLR can produce. But the SLR can't achieve the same dramatic perspective.
If you have a smartphone, a tripod, and software with a decent "focus merge" command, try shooting a couple of images of your layout or diorama and post them somewhere on this forum. If you don't have the software, buy Affinity Photo. It's worth ten times its price.
Russ
Really great job, Russ!
BTW, Affinity is running a 20-25 percent off "end of the year" special, depending on the product, through January 5. I am downloading trials of Photo and Designer, and am most likely going to purchase the iPad version of Photo regardless. It would be nice to wean myself off of that monthly Adobe subscription I don't use all that much anymore.
Quote from: Greg Hile on December 20, 2017, 01:15:10 PM
Affinity is running a 20-25 percent off "end of the year" special, depending on the product, through January 5. I am downloading trials of Photo and Designer, and am most likely going to purchase the iPad version of Photo regardless. It would be nice to wean myself off of that monthly Adobe subscription I don't use all that much anymore.
Turns out that after looking at trial versions, I bought all three and am happy with them ...
Today I think the big draw of Adobe is that it's the de facto tool for anyone who needs to exchange raw data or run something through two or three programs.
Now that I've spent more than a few minutes with Affinity I think it is top notch. As a stand-alone photographer I can't think of a reason why it would be inferior to Photoshop and, as I said above, it's actually better in some ways. But if I were a corporate oriented graphic artist and needed Lightroom, Illustrator, Premier (for video), and InDesign in my workflow, I might be stuck with Adobe.
For guys who just want top results, I can recommend Affinity Photo and, for video, DaVinci Resolve's free(!) version, as superb tools with no practical drawbacks. Because of that, Adobe already is losing appeal worldwide.
Russ
great shay Russ I remember them was it, Roger Russel.?
cheers kim
Good memory, Kim, but Roger didn't build this one. He has built others, though. Here's the background:
Robert A.M. Stephens built that 1:32n3 Shay. Bob sold it to Roger but Roger sent to back to Bob for some reason. Roger says Bob then demolished the (better looking) cab, replaced it with what you see, and kept it.
Now for the good part. Bob took out full page ads in my magazine back in 1994 and maybe one or two in 1995 but never paid for them. He also accepted payments from dozens of hobbyists for Shays and rolling stock but never built more than a few, mostly rolling stock, maybe a chain drive, but certainly no Shays.
A few outraged hobbyists accused Bob of postal fraud and the FBI showed up at my home one afternoon to ask me a lot of questions and to get photocopies of some paperwork. By the way, FBI agents have no sense of humor. Don't invite one to your home to be the life of the party. Incidentally, they never tried to prosecute Bob because, according to my sources, his roughly $40,000 alleged crime was "too small to bother with". (See, guys? Your tax dollars at work!)
Despite his dishonesty and everything else, I actually liked Bob Stephens; he is one of the funniest people I've ever spoken to. Not sure it would have been quite as much fun in person from what I hear. He used to phone me from Montana every day and talk for a couple of hours, usually late at night. We became pretty good "friends", if that's the right word.
Maybe that is why, a few months later, a big box arrived at my front door and inside were the Shay and a lot of little water cars, saw cars, disconnects, some handlaid track, and a few other odds and ends. I think I am one of the very few people actually to have received something from Bob and it came close enough to paying off his debt that we called it even. Shortly after that Bob disappeared. Last I heard he was living in or near Gig Harbor, Washington, had returned to painting landscapes, was very involved with old Jeeps, and had some kind of mutual lawsuit with an all night talk radio guy specializing in UFO sightings.
I'm still friends with Roger Russell and he recently scratchbuilt a 1:32 Shay but apparently Fedex demolished it.
Quite a colorful hobby we enjoy, isn't it?
Russ