The DIORAMA Thread; Tips, Tricks, Tales, Pics.
- Thread starter photonrider
- 275 comments
- 47,427 views
- 4,771
- New York
- GO6DoRiFUt0
- gtun3d
- 7,436
- Canada
- photonrider
Brilliant work, gtuned. 👍
I was enjoying the pics in your personal gallery here, but am quite thrilled that you are showing off this facet of your focus. I like how you keep pushing the limits of traditional perception; it will be interesting to see how you develop this.
Oh! and Welcome to the show-and-tell!
AOS-
Premium
- 28,800
- 'Sauga, ON
Was messing around earlier. See how I got from:
to:
By visiting my blog post about it.
to:
By visiting my blog post about it.
- 7,436
- Canada
- photonrider
Later, that evening there was a visitor to the Lambo Showroom.. . .
- 7,436
- Canada
- photonrider
- 2,652
- Las Vegas NV USA
- entertowin(1st) and niNjasPY55(2nd and m
Amazing photos guys, especially GT's pics, real artistic and the one with the GTR, is it a photoshopped custom background? I love it. 👍
And the city is busting with heavy traffic on a very busy day. Lots of construction work on the roads and many detours. Cool city Mr. Harry👍.
And the city is busting with heavy traffic on a very busy day. Lots of construction work on the roads and many detours. Cool city Mr. Harry
👍.
- 7,436
- Canada
- photonrider
Amazing photos guys............................................
And the city is busting with heavy traffic on a very busy day. Lots of construction work on the roads and many detours. Cool city Mr. Harry
Thanks, Phil.
If you have been following the discussion so far, you may have seen this little intersection (junction) was begun a while back - I did the streets with Foamboard, and in this picture you can see I'm experimenting the layout of the buildings by using cookie boxes and so on.
The cars of course all want to come out and play. Work never gets done.
- 2,652
- Las Vegas NV USA
- entertowin(1st) and niNjasPY55(2nd and m
Hmmmm. Is that the Little Debbie Oatmeal Creampie factory I see? 
Yeah I remember about your city display from before, I remember the sketch of it before from last year. Looks real nice, I love it! Any new plans to extend?
Yeah I remember about your city display from before, I remember the sketch of it before from last year. Looks real nice, I love it! Any new plans to extend?
- 7,436
- Canada
- photonrider
It's coming along fine - I did a bunch of building recently, recorded it all in pics so that you guys could spin some ideas off it, and then Photobucket decided to revamp their schtick - which threw me off for awhile.
Well after emails back and forth everything's working again now, and I can post the step by step pics.
So far the city has a car dealer, gas shed, police station, fire dept, and pizza restaurant.
I just spent hours downloading - and soon I'll be able to bring these pics to the table.
As you can see - if you remember the sketch that turned into the larger board of streets - has now acquired pseudo buildings. I use various boxes, and test out perspectives with the camera fist. Then I make the buildings to scale.
More later . . .
Well after emails back and forth everything's working again now, and I can post the step by step pics.
So far the city has a car dealer, gas shed, police station, fire dept, and pizza restaurant.
I just spent hours downloading - and soon I'll be able to bring these pics to the table.
As you can see - if you remember the sketch that turned into the larger board of streets - has now acquired pseudo buildings. I use various boxes, and test out perspectives with the camera fist. Then I make the buildings to scale.
More later . . .
AOS-
Premium
- 28,800
- 'Sauga, ON
New Light Source; New Possibilites
Grabbed this giant bulb push light from work last week and it may just be more useful than the last flashlights I've had. And here is a very brief summarized demo. For more detail, please visit the link above.
What it can do:
ISO 400, f/18, 2s
ISO 400, f/18, 3.2s
That's more than just the tip of the iceberg.
ISO 400, f/18, 2s.
Imagine having a second light source on the opposite side.
And to think I only spent $4 for this. $3 + $1 pack of AA batteries. I grabbed it from Dollarama. It may be of use to you, Harry. Especially with night shots or garages since the couple LED bulb flashlights you have create highlights that are way too strong on the body's surface. This is a great solution, but it may not turn out too well if you can't adjust shutter speed as it's very very dim.
Grabbed this giant bulb push light from work last week and it may just be more useful than the last flashlights I've had. And here is a very brief summarized demo. For more detail, please visit the link above.
What it can do:
ISO 400, f/18, 2s
ISO 400, f/18, 3.2s
That's more than just the tip of the iceberg.
ISO 400, f/18, 2s.
Imagine having a second light source on the opposite side.
And to think I only spent $4 for this. $3 + $1 pack of AA batteries. I grabbed it from Dollarama. It may be of use to you, Harry. Especially with night shots or garages since the couple LED bulb flashlights you have create highlights that are way too strong on the body's surface. This is a great solution, but it may not turn out too well if you can't adjust shutter speed as it's very very dim.
- 7,436
- Canada
- photonrider
I'm thinking f22 for the last shot - but could be just me liking it a bit underexposed. That bulb is a great idea - a soft white diffused light. Combined with a hard light at the right distance and we would be cooking.
From the Collector Thread: (continued)
a6m5 - we were discussing bulbs and additional lighting as well as types in the collector's thread - so I thought I'd bring it back here where it would be more appropriate for viewing by all. I'll try to keep it non-technical and more of a simple story - so that even the youngest and most inexperienced photo-dogs here can catch on.
Let's think about light for a moment . . . from the beginning.
In the beginning all we had was the sun. It was built into our genes, and instilled in us the colour of the realities we perceive. There was the moon - but again that was just the photons off the sun being bounced. And there was lightning - again as brilliant and white as the sun - and starlight - tiny bits of sun far away. All this lighting of course generated a bunch of whitish photons. Even Mars, looking red, was only red because the whitish sunlight was bouncing the red photons that Mars made with its Martian surface, back at us.
Somewhere after we got used to the sun, lightning struck someone's craphouse somewhere, starting a fire - and then we had firelight - another light to see things by.
Now . . . if you were holding a diecast car in the sunlight, then it would bounce back the colours it was made in, taking this white light and scattering it, sending back to your eyes the ones that give you the colour of the car.
Now imagine, at night, and the only light shining on your diecast was the firelight, it would bounce back a whole bunch of different photons, right, based on what the firelght offered it.
If you took photos of the cars under those two conditions, the you'll have two differnt pictures. (Though it's the same car.)
This is all about what kind of photons are entering your lens after being bounced off your car.
So then it is about what kind of photons are being generated.
The sun generates what we call 'full spectrum' lighting. When this 'white' light bounces off a surface and generates a colour to our eyes (because it got bent out of shape by knocking on that surface and so comes back at us twisted) the color is about as 'real' to us as it should be - what we take to be its natural colour.
Now let's say you are wearing yellow tinted shades. Obviously this 'real' colour coming at us will now be filtered through your shades and will go somewhat 'yellowish' (because the light-wave was now further mutated by having to struggle through your shades.)
If you wore blue shades, it will turn bluish, pink pinkish, and so on.
Now . . .let's say your eyes were regular photographic film (that messy thing in a spool that one is exposed to when using a 'regular' (analog, not digital) camera, and capturing whatever photons flew though your yellowish shades on to this film.
So then, obviously, all things being equal, when we use that exposed-to-yellowish-photons film (the negative) to print out a photograph on special paper sensitive to photons, (the positive) we get a final photograph, and lo and behold . . . it's all yellowish.
If we captured it without the yellow shades, then it would come out in all the natural colour that the sun (or full spectrum lighting) would bounce off the object.
What we used to do is take special film made for Daylight and took photographs in daylight - It looked natural. We took Tungsten film and put it into our cameras, and went indoors and took pictures in our homes with that Tungsten (incandescent) lighting that was natural to us indoors - and when the photographs were printed - Oh! Look - the pictures look like they were shot in a living room under yon everyday tungsten/incandescent living room lighting. It looked natural. It wouldn't look like everybody in the room was lit up by the sun while indoors.
What happened when someone had Daylight film (which is engineered to respond accordingly with Daylight photons) in their camera and had to go shoot pictures indoors under Tungsten? Well, you had to take the Daylight film out and replace it with Tungsten film - which of course was engineered to react appropriately to Tungsten lighting.
What if you had no tungsten film, or wanted to use the camera as is, indoors with that strange yellowish man-made lighting that was nowhere looking like daylight?
Why . . . filters, of course. (The shades!)
So photographers would fit a colour-correction filter on the camera lens and all the strange tungsten photons in the room would be told - 'hey, it's daylight film ahead - behave accordingly' by the filter and the photons would then be shuffled around so that when they finally got through and hit the Daylight film, the Daylight film got photons saying 'look, we were tungsten-types, but we've realised the error of our ways, please accept us as daylight photons, and respond accordingly. And the picture would come out looking natural.
What if you had tungsten film in your camera and went outside into daylight? Well, a different filter of course to fool the tungsten film into thinking it was getting tungsten photons instead of daylight, and the film would react appropriately to give the most realistic effect.
These types of photographers of course have dozens of different filters from ND to Cross and everything in between - even splitting a picture into different shades, or multiplying the photons (since they seem to be in several places at once
) or just even bouncing them out of the club and blocking them out by polarising them. So keep in mind filters - for different lighting. (Not that we're going to use them - we have other ways, but the idea is the same)
Now let's look at what this tungsten lighting scene is all about.
Tungsten? These are incandescent bulbs - those old-fashioned bulbs that look like pears with a tiny spiralled filament of tungsten that heats up when electricity busies itself through it, and heats up bright enough to give us light. Tungsten light. As you can imagine the light that would bounce of your cars then as you photograph would look like they were bathed in yellow light; it's actually the red tones that have been enhanced. (Like the firelight.) It is being bathed in photons that are sadly lacking their blue-blooded dancing partners, and are jaundiced about everything they touch. All red - yellowish. That's tungsten lighting.
Halogen? These are what energy-conscious countries mostly use, usually a small spiral tube filled with gas that reacts to electricity and gives off a whiter light. Bulb makers now try to duplicate sunshine and make them in various types 'Soft White', ' Cool White', 'Daylight', etc. These are mostly descriptive labels for these 'household grade' bulbs, tagged on to differentiate the kind of output the bulb has; they throw out white light that is a lot less red/yellow than tungsten bulbs and attempt to simulate the sun.
And they also come in other shapes and sizes.
And then there are LEDs - a different type of artificial lighting. And neon. And In fact they do have specialised lighting of all types, used in the medical field, research, forensic work, and in the military (e.g. infra-red) and so on. And even your lowly petshop down the street might carry various types of light, from UV to full spectrum - because fishies show all kinds of weird patterns and colours under UV lighting.
As far as photographing diecast, we have the sun, (IMO, the best for true colour), we have tungsten at home, maybe some halogen, maybe even 'Daylight' types (you know what we're talking about, now, don't you?) that'll help us get the true colours we want.
So there you got it - sunshine, firelight, starlight, moonlight, halogens, incandescent, neon and sodium, fluorescent, and 'Daylight fluorescent.. . . .
Soft light softens the shadows, and therefore the edges. Hard lighting (direct, bright) brings out the contrast of shadow and light giving you more definition and crispness to your edges.
If you want to soften the lines of the car, show less of the diecasting flaws and rough edges, and it's 'plasticiness' (look at the pic of the red Amazoom - and you'll understand AMG's comment) then use soft or shaded light. If you want it all glinty and shiney, but every scratch and dust mote showing - then hard, intense light.
(This is about looking at your lighting first - then we start looking at camera settings for exposure; aperture and shutter . . . lets not go back there - we spoke about that in previous posts.)
We're talking lighting - this 'tungsten/daylight' thing.
But, of course, its easy for you to solve this problem by putting the appropriate filter on your camera, right, when you are taking shots of cars indoors under tungsten/incandescent lighting?
Hold on. Filter? On a pocket digital camera? Ah! This is where your 'White Balance' menu comes into play. Your WB menu can be used to tell the camera, that you are shooting in Tungsten lighting. And yes, candle/firelight is different, halogen is different, and sodium lighting is on another street altogether. We'll leave moon-lighting out of this; it's diecast cars we're talking about not palm trees and ocean waves. Your WB menu will have different selections depending on the camera. Your WB Menu looks like this - and is usually a submenu - some examples:
Now you have your cars on a platform and you are going to shoot. Where are you? Outside? Check your WB. Inside under Tungsten? Check your WB. Inside under Halogen or Fluorescent, check your WB. The WB sub-menu is usually easy to access, and change. Remember to remember what you left it at when you pick up the camera again to shoot another day. Or check. Or make sure it's on Auto.
But only if you want natural lighting. Some photographers start playing around with all these settings, taking daylight shots with tungsten settings for instance to get weird (or 'artistic') effects.
The first rule to how you present an object is that there are no rules - because originality hasn't - unless it's judicious imitation. (Perception differs.)
But the rule of how to capture an object in the way you want to present it is to learn the rules. And use them.
So if you don't want your cars looking yellowish . . . or bluish . . . or greenish . . . . set that WB right. Your camera is only as good as you. It won't make you better. But you can make it do its best.
I myself didn't think your pics were too dark (also displays can be drastically different, believe me. Your picture on some moldy old display screen won't look the same as it would on a 50 inch OLED.
I was complimenting you on how much your photography has improved - nice angles, crisp colours, soft edges when needed, hard and bright when required - quite a difference to back in the days when you would apologise for your photography. Apologise no more.
One must give thought to why you are taking the photo, too, or what function the pic needs to fulfil.
Take the instant photo-shoot of the Nardo I did recently because Madertus wanted a closer look - this is candid photography. Grab a camera, throw a car under some light, take a shot of particular detail or angle, download, upload, and post. Takes less than a minute. In this case the lights at hand were the usual 'Soft White' (more branding than a fact) that were fixed to a floor-lamp nearby. That's a different function to taking a shot that shows specs in detail for a blog, or a magazine, or production artwork. No, there you may have to give particular thought (and a lot more time experimenting till you are satisfied) to your lighting. Or you may be taking a picture from an artistic POV and use creative lighting that seem to break the rules. Or thematic, or dioramic lighting - these take time and effort to follow the rules, capture what you want to present, and then maybe even post process to get what you want.
As well, most cameras don't output RAW, there is some post-processing going on in the camera after you take the picture, and what you get (in a pocket digital) is what the manufacturer has decided you're going to get. Take a Nikon and Canon and take the same shot, same settings, and this will be quickly apparent.
Photographing blister packs is a whole different ballgame. It's a wonder any of us get the really good shots we get - because of the light-scatter, and flashing, but generally good enough to identify the cars so we can go look for them. Opened cars are so much easier to capture.
I'm enjoying your photography in the collector thread - but don't waste your talents there, solely, do more creative stuff, too. 👍
_____________________
From the Collector Thread: (continued)
a6m5 - we were discussing bulbs and additional lighting as well as types in the collector's thread - so I thought I'd bring it back here where it would be more appropriate for viewing by all. I'll try to keep it non-technical and more of a simple story - so that even the youngest and most inexperienced photo-dogs here can catch on.
Let's think about light for a moment . . . from the beginning.
In the beginning all we had was the sun. It was built into our genes, and instilled in us the colour of the realities we perceive. There was the moon - but again that was just the photons off the sun being bounced. And there was lightning - again as brilliant and white as the sun - and starlight - tiny bits of sun far away. All this lighting of course generated a bunch of whitish photons. Even Mars, looking red, was only red because the whitish sunlight was bouncing the red photons that Mars made with its Martian surface, back at us.
Somewhere after we got used to the sun, lightning struck someone's craphouse somewhere, starting a fire - and then we had firelight - another light to see things by.
Now . . . if you were holding a diecast car in the sunlight, then it would bounce back the colours it was made in, taking this white light and scattering it, sending back to your eyes the ones that give you the colour of the car.
Now imagine, at night, and the only light shining on your diecast was the firelight, it would bounce back a whole bunch of different photons, right, based on what the firelght offered it.
If you took photos of the cars under those two conditions, the you'll have two differnt pictures. (Though it's the same car.)
This is all about what kind of photons are entering your lens after being bounced off your car.
So then it is about what kind of photons are being generated.
The sun generates what we call 'full spectrum' lighting. When this 'white' light bounces off a surface and generates a colour to our eyes (because it got bent out of shape by knocking on that surface and so comes back at us twisted) the color is about as 'real' to us as it should be - what we take to be its natural colour.
Now let's say you are wearing yellow tinted shades. Obviously this 'real' colour coming at us will now be filtered through your shades and will go somewhat 'yellowish' (because the light-wave was now further mutated by having to struggle through your shades.)
If you wore blue shades, it will turn bluish, pink pinkish, and so on.
Now . . .let's say your eyes were regular photographic film (that messy thing in a spool that one is exposed to when using a 'regular' (analog, not digital) camera, and capturing whatever photons flew though your yellowish shades on to this film.
So then, obviously, all things being equal, when we use that exposed-to-yellowish-photons film (the negative) to print out a photograph on special paper sensitive to photons, (the positive) we get a final photograph, and lo and behold . . . it's all yellowish.
If we captured it without the yellow shades, then it would come out in all the natural colour that the sun (or full spectrum lighting) would bounce off the object.
What we used to do is take special film made for Daylight and took photographs in daylight - It looked natural. We took Tungsten film and put it into our cameras, and went indoors and took pictures in our homes with that Tungsten (incandescent) lighting that was natural to us indoors - and when the photographs were printed - Oh! Look - the pictures look like they were shot in a living room under yon everyday tungsten/incandescent living room lighting. It looked natural. It wouldn't look like everybody in the room was lit up by the sun while indoors.
What happened when someone had Daylight film (which is engineered to respond accordingly with Daylight photons) in their camera and had to go shoot pictures indoors under Tungsten? Well, you had to take the Daylight film out and replace it with Tungsten film - which of course was engineered to react appropriately to Tungsten lighting.
What if you had no tungsten film, or wanted to use the camera as is, indoors with that strange yellowish man-made lighting that was nowhere looking like daylight?
Why . . . filters, of course. (The shades!)
So photographers would fit a colour-correction filter on the camera lens and all the strange tungsten photons in the room would be told - 'hey, it's daylight film ahead - behave accordingly' by the filter and the photons would then be shuffled around so that when they finally got through and hit the Daylight film, the Daylight film got photons saying 'look, we were tungsten-types, but we've realised the error of our ways, please accept us as daylight photons, and respond accordingly. And the picture would come out looking natural.
What if you had tungsten film in your camera and went outside into daylight? Well, a different filter of course to fool the tungsten film into thinking it was getting tungsten photons instead of daylight, and the film would react appropriately to give the most realistic effect.
These types of photographers of course have dozens of different filters from ND to Cross and everything in between - even splitting a picture into different shades, or multiplying the photons (since they seem to be in several places at once
) or just even bouncing them out of the club and blocking them out by polarising them. So keep in mind filters - for different lighting. (Not that we're going to use them - we have other ways, but the idea is the same)Now let's look at what this tungsten lighting scene is all about.
Tungsten? These are incandescent bulbs - those old-fashioned bulbs that look like pears with a tiny spiralled filament of tungsten that heats up when electricity busies itself through it, and heats up bright enough to give us light. Tungsten light. As you can imagine the light that would bounce of your cars then as you photograph would look like they were bathed in yellow light; it's actually the red tones that have been enhanced. (Like the firelight.) It is being bathed in photons that are sadly lacking their blue-blooded dancing partners, and are jaundiced about everything they touch. All red - yellowish. That's tungsten lighting.
Halogen? These are what energy-conscious countries mostly use, usually a small spiral tube filled with gas that reacts to electricity and gives off a whiter light. Bulb makers now try to duplicate sunshine and make them in various types 'Soft White', ' Cool White', 'Daylight', etc. These are mostly descriptive labels for these 'household grade' bulbs, tagged on to differentiate the kind of output the bulb has; they throw out white light that is a lot less red/yellow than tungsten bulbs and attempt to simulate the sun.
And they also come in other shapes and sizes.
And then there are LEDs - a different type of artificial lighting. And neon. And In fact they do have specialised lighting of all types, used in the medical field, research, forensic work, and in the military (e.g. infra-red) and so on. And even your lowly petshop down the street might carry various types of light, from UV to full spectrum - because fishies show all kinds of weird patterns and colours under UV lighting.
As far as photographing diecast, we have the sun, (IMO, the best for true colour), we have tungsten at home, maybe some halogen, maybe even 'Daylight' types (you know what we're talking about, now, don't you?) that'll help us get the true colours we want.
So there you got it - sunshine, firelight, starlight, moonlight, halogens, incandescent, neon and sodium, fluorescent, and 'Daylight fluorescent.. . . .
Soft light softens the shadows, and therefore the edges. Hard lighting (direct, bright) brings out the contrast of shadow and light giving you more definition and crispness to your edges.
If you want to soften the lines of the car, show less of the diecasting flaws and rough edges, and it's 'plasticiness' (look at the pic of the red Amazoom - and you'll understand AMG's comment) then use soft or shaded light. If you want it all glinty and shiney, but every scratch and dust mote showing - then hard, intense light.
(This is about looking at your lighting first - then we start looking at camera settings for exposure; aperture and shutter . . . lets not go back there - we spoke about that in previous posts.)
We're talking lighting - this 'tungsten/daylight' thing.
But, of course, its easy for you to solve this problem by putting the appropriate filter on your camera, right, when you are taking shots of cars indoors under tungsten/incandescent lighting?
Hold on. Filter? On a pocket digital camera? Ah! This is where your 'White Balance' menu comes into play. Your WB menu can be used to tell the camera, that you are shooting in Tungsten lighting. And yes, candle/firelight is different, halogen is different, and sodium lighting is on another street altogether. We'll leave moon-lighting out of this; it's diecast cars we're talking about not palm trees and ocean waves. Your WB menu will have different selections depending on the camera. Your WB Menu looks like this - and is usually a submenu - some examples:
Now you have your cars on a platform and you are going to shoot. Where are you? Outside? Check your WB. Inside under Tungsten? Check your WB. Inside under Halogen or Fluorescent, check your WB. The WB sub-menu is usually easy to access, and change. Remember to remember what you left it at when you pick up the camera again to shoot another day. Or check. Or make sure it's on Auto.
But only if you want natural lighting. Some photographers start playing around with all these settings, taking daylight shots with tungsten settings for instance to get weird (or 'artistic') effects.
The first rule to how you present an object is that there are no rules - because originality hasn't - unless it's judicious imitation. (Perception differs.)
But the rule of how to capture an object in the way you want to present it is to learn the rules. And use them.
So if you don't want your cars looking yellowish . . . or bluish . . . or greenish . . . . set that WB right. Your camera is only as good as you. It won't make you better. But you can make it do its best.
I myself didn't think your pics were too dark (also displays can be drastically different, believe me. Your picture on some moldy old display screen won't look the same as it would on a 50 inch OLED.
I was complimenting you on how much your photography has improved - nice angles, crisp colours, soft edges when needed, hard and bright when required - quite a difference to back in the days when you would apologise for your photography. Apologise no more.
One must give thought to why you are taking the photo, too, or what function the pic needs to fulfil.
Take the instant photo-shoot of the Nardo I did recently because Madertus wanted a closer look - this is candid photography. Grab a camera, throw a car under some light, take a shot of particular detail or angle, download, upload, and post. Takes less than a minute. In this case the lights at hand were the usual 'Soft White' (more branding than a fact) that were fixed to a floor-lamp nearby. That's a different function to taking a shot that shows specs in detail for a blog, or a magazine, or production artwork. No, there you may have to give particular thought (and a lot more time experimenting till you are satisfied) to your lighting. Or you may be taking a picture from an artistic POV and use creative lighting that seem to break the rules. Or thematic, or dioramic lighting - these take time and effort to follow the rules, capture what you want to present, and then maybe even post process to get what you want.
As well, most cameras don't output RAW, there is some post-processing going on in the camera after you take the picture, and what you get (in a pocket digital) is what the manufacturer has decided you're going to get. Take a Nikon and Canon and take the same shot, same settings, and this will be quickly apparent.
Photographing blister packs is a whole different ballgame. It's a wonder any of us get the really good shots we get - because of the light-scatter, and flashing, but generally good enough to identify the cars so we can go look for them. Opened cars are so much easier to capture.
I'm enjoying your photography in the collector thread - but don't waste your talents there, solely, do more creative stuff, too. 👍
Last edited:
AMG.
Staff Emeritus
- 3,116
- NL, Leiden
- GTP_AMG
Good and long explanation.
PS what's up with the BOLD, it makes it somewhat hard to read.
There is an alternative to the above though when shooting digital. You can set it to AWB auto white balance and then correct it in LR, Aperture Photoshop etc.
BUT you need to be shooting in RAW mode for the above to work. If you are limiting yourself to jpeg then adjust WB as applicable for the situation.
Of course that romantic dinner you're photographing you do not want to adjust your yellow cast by adding a blue filter / adjusting WB.
And if your shooting with flash and you want to capture the existing light colour too then change the camera settings to fire on the 2nd curtain. (Quick and dirty explanation)
PS what's up with the BOLD, it makes it somewhat hard to read.
There is an alternative to the above though when shooting digital. You can set it to AWB auto white balance and then correct it in LR, Aperture Photoshop etc.
BUT you need to be shooting in RAW mode for the above to work. If you are limiting yourself to jpeg then adjust WB as applicable for the situation.
Of course that romantic dinner you're photographing you do not want to adjust your yellow cast by adding a blue filter / adjusting WB.
And if your shooting with flash and you want to capture the existing light colour too then change the camera settings to fire on the 2nd curtain. (Quick and dirty explanation)
- 7,436
- Canada
- photonrider
Thanks for the kind words, AMG. 👍
For you guys that have been following how I was constructing the intersection - my apologies for the long delay between segments. I will try to put together some pics of how the Foamboard was cut, and walls, windows, etc, were made.
Batman keeps an eye on my particular patch of Gotham:
And another pic from the Garage that was built a few posts back:
]
And a '2nd Curtain' shot:
Lights! Camera! Well, that means 'Action!':
👍For you guys that have been following how I was constructing the intersection - my apologies for the long delay between segments. I will try to put together some pics of how the Foamboard was cut, and walls, windows, etc, were made.
Batman keeps an eye on my particular patch of Gotham:
And another pic from the Garage that was built a few posts back:
And a '2nd Curtain' shot:
Lights! Camera! Well, that means 'Action!':
- 7,436
- Canada
- photonrider
- 7,436
- Canada
- photonrider
- 7,436
- Canada
- photonrider
AOS-
Premium
- 28,800
- 'Sauga, ON
So I decided the Dream Cruisers series needed its own unique backdrop. I'm currently testing how much area I need for the foreground so that I won't catch any edges when shooting. After that, it's a matter of settings on the camera to work with the one warm-light desk lamp I have.
The trick I've employed is to only make a diorama foreground. The background is a photo produced by my computer monitor - something I learned from figurine collectors. The cool bit of it is that I don't need to invest hours of work to make a background for the sake of a few photos, and I can have a plethora of locations at my disposal - from coastal regions, plains, outbacks to forests. Already I have about 15 different photos I can use as a backdrop - none of which were taken by me and I can change up the setting in no time.
The only downside to using a monitor or any flat background is that it's more trickier to make the environment seem convincingly real. One way I figured going about is to treat the foreground like the edge of a cliff or hill. I would physically move the foreground away from the background (the computer screen) to help enhance the illusion of depth, and the camera angle as well as the photo's position would have to be adjusted to accommodate for this "false" perspective. In other words, to make the source photo's landscape perspective match the photo I will take, I'm usually forced to take a picture from a low bird's eye view or from a stand-still "point-and-shoot" position. The photos I find will also have to be valleys or show the terrain dipping downward to match the cliff/hill-top edge of the foreground.
As for what sorts of foreground I'll be making, I've got corkboards in the works. They shred beautifully to give me natural looking rocky cliff edges. I can paint that to match a grassy or sandy surface. I've also gotten a hold of foam bricks I can also use for even more intricate surfaces. Paint and sand can mimic dirt, and this tree ball (got from Dollarama - hint hint Harry) with small leaf bunches I can separate to make it look like trees in the distance or small bushed up-close (see the second photo).
I think I may have more fun photographing than making the cars themselves at this point.
The trick I've employed is to only make a diorama foreground. The background is a photo produced by my computer monitor - something I learned from figurine collectors. The cool bit of it is that I don't need to invest hours of work to make a background for the sake of a few photos, and I can have a plethora of locations at my disposal - from coastal regions, plains, outbacks to forests. Already I have about 15 different photos I can use as a backdrop - none of which were taken by me and I can change up the setting in no time.
The only downside to using a monitor or any flat background is that it's more trickier to make the environment seem convincingly real. One way I figured going about is to treat the foreground like the edge of a cliff or hill. I would physically move the foreground away from the background (the computer screen) to help enhance the illusion of depth, and the camera angle as well as the photo's position would have to be adjusted to accommodate for this "false" perspective. In other words, to make the source photo's landscape perspective match the photo I will take, I'm usually forced to take a picture from a low bird's eye view or from a stand-still "point-and-shoot" position. The photos I find will also have to be valleys or show the terrain dipping downward to match the cliff/hill-top edge of the foreground.
As for what sorts of foreground I'll be making, I've got corkboards in the works. They shred beautifully to give me natural looking rocky cliff edges. I can paint that to match a grassy or sandy surface. I've also gotten a hold of foam bricks I can also use for even more intricate surfaces. Paint and sand can mimic dirt, and this tree ball (got from Dollarama - hint hint Harry) with small leaf bunches I can separate to make it look like trees in the distance or small bushed up-close (see the second photo).
I think I may have more fun photographing than making the cars themselves at this point.
AOS-
Premium
- 28,800
- 'Sauga, ON
Okay, it's done.
Convincing?
Here's the secret: Cheap dollar store supplies!
Foam bricks, cork boards, paint and artificial foliage.
Layering to mimic mass and to help conceal the base of the plants.
Trick used to get the backdrop.
Foam was chiseled at, primed, sprayed, drizzled and dabbed with acrylic paint. I surprised myself with the results as I've never crafted anything to mimic the texture of land before.
Convincing?
Here's the secret: Cheap dollar store supplies!
Foam bricks, cork boards, paint and artificial foliage.
Layering to mimic mass and to help conceal the base of the plants.
Trick used to get the backdrop.
Foam was chiseled at, primed, sprayed, drizzled and dabbed with acrylic paint. I surprised myself with the results as I've never crafted anything to mimic the texture of land before.
- 2,652
- Las Vegas NV USA
- entertowin(1st) and niNjasPY55(2nd and m
I'm impressed Andy, looks real convincing to me as well. 👍
I'm thinking of trying something like this out soon using background scenery with my scales soon. From countrysides, deserts, forests, beaches and city scenes, especially for the custom cars.
Since I have two laptops and no desktop computer, it's going to be tricky since I have to have the car and/or ground sitting on the keyboard and it won't look good.
But if I can find some good photos and put them on my USB and on my PS3, Save the pics on it, I could use my TV and PS3 💡.
Or try using postcards of Vegas and scenery from my magazines.
👍I'm thinking of trying something like this out soon using background scenery with my scales soon. From countrysides, deserts, forests, beaches and city scenes, especially for the custom cars.
Since I have two laptops and no desktop computer, it's going to be tricky since I have to have the car and/or ground sitting on the keyboard and it won't look good.
But if I can find some good photos and put them on my USB and on my PS3, Save the pics on it, I could use my TV and PS3 💡.
Or try using postcards of Vegas and scenery from my magazines.
AOS-
Premium
- 28,800
- 'Sauga, ON
Using a TV is a great idea, but make sure you can suspend your stage up like I did, or else you'll get the edge of the TV. Don't worry about how much content you squeeze into your photo as most of the backdrop will be out of the photo once you crop it.
Also, you'll also want to ensure your TV brightness can be set low because otherwise the backdrop (when you take a photo) is going to be much brighter than the diorama itself and that won't be convincing anymore.
Also, you'll also want to ensure your TV brightness can be set low because otherwise the backdrop (when you take a photo) is going to be much brighter than the diorama itself and that won't be convincing anymore.
Last edited:
- 7,436
- Canada
- photonrider
Stunning work, Andy! 👍 👍
Great contribution to the thread; thanks for the time and effort you put into this.
Yeah . . . I'll be raiding Dollarama soon.
👍 👍Great contribution to the thread; thanks for the time and effort you put into this.
Yeah . . . I'll be raiding Dollarama soon.
AMG.
Staff Emeritus
- 3,116
- NL, Leiden
- GTP_AMG
Excellent creativity there Andy, Like the idea of the placement of the shrubbery. If I may give some critique (positive feedback) try and match up the background colour with the foreground. The blue hue in one of them is just too much. If you can adjust then you certainly have a more believable result. But I mentioned it before REALLY GOOD effort! 👍
