Many cameras also let you choose between shutter speed priority and aperture priority (in addition to full manual control), which means that you set only one of the values and the camera automatically adjusts the other. While these settings don't give as much freedom as full manual control of both shutter and aperture, I think they are worth mentioning as a starter point for those not familiar with different camera settings.
For a long depth of field you choose a high F-value (small opening), or a low F-value (large opening) for a short depth of field, and the camera then calculates shutter speed based on the amount of light available (turn off the flash!). If you worry about blurry pics caused by long exposure time, use a tripod or another solid foundation for the camera, and use the self timer function.
If the resulting pic is to bright or to dark for your taste, you can use the bracketing technique that jktrains explained, with the previously calculated shutter speed as a reference point.
Another good tip is to turn on the the loco's lights, especially if you're using DCC. Turn on the headlights, ditchlights, etc. This as 'life' to the shot. The diorama shown at the beginning is fully wired. All I need to do is attached some power wires to the terminal strip located on the endplate and I've got power on the module.
jktrains
A small opening aperture helps create the star burst pattern.
jktrains, don't mean to steal your thread. This is really good. I'm learning. I've not bothered with understanding the camera - just point and shoot ... hey if I can see it okay ... and if not just right, use Photoshop. But I've always marveled at those closeup detail shots some people manage to do.
Keep the thread going
Using manual mode on my Kodak DX6490
f2.3 - cows, house, rear trucks out of focus
f8.0 - wow!
Regards,
Tom
Tom,
Nice shots. You can see the depth of field difference. Now, as the photographer you can choose which you to use. Do you want have the focus (pardon the pun) be on the whole scene or do you want the viewer to focus on just the train. Depth of field allows you to compose the pic to do this.
I have a different of opinion than some others about using editing software. Call me old school, but I think you need first have a good picture. It needs to have solid basics - good composition, good lighting, good focus, the right exposure. IMO, if you ignore those and think you can correct things with software, you'll spend more time in front of a computer, when that time could have been spent on taking the picture or modeling.
Mitch,
In my opinion, photos taken outdors in good natural sunlight provide the best lighting possible.
For example look at this overall shot of stuff I took yesterday. If anything it causes the opposite problem, too much light.
I wouldn't let the cold weather stop. It takes very little to take good indoor pics. Build a small diorama to use for taking pics. Or, even easier, simply use a piece of poster board or a large piece of white paper like butcher's paper to create a seamless backdrop. All you need is a basic desklamp, a daylight bulb and a tripod. All this can be bought for probably $50. A cheap investment if you plan on selling items.
One of the purposes of the tutorial is to show that it doesn't take a lot of fancy equipment to get good results. I got tired of people using the excuse "I don't have a lot of money to spend" or "my resources are limited" so I can't take good pics. Except for the camera, the cost of everything else you need is less than the cost of a decent locomotive.
Keep up the good work. I've seen some of your stuff on MTW. I was the one who posted the real rust pics on the Conrail boxcar awhile back. Don't you do a lot of W&LE stuff also?
Hey back JK-
Yeah, a indoor diorama has been in the plans for awhile-hopefully once things are settled here that can finally get started. I've been kicking around some ideas-something simple, but effective.
Yes, I do remember the "Real Rust" CR box-that was a nice car. As to WLE stuff, I haven't done any modeling of yet (my other half is a WLE fan) just mostly railfanning of the line when I can-most of the time though I'm at Sterling watching CSX due to the higher amount of traffic. The WLE runs not too far from there though, so if CSX is slow & I hear a WLE horn, I'm off to chase it down.
Thanks again,
Dave,
Well I hope I've restored a little credibility in your eyes. Now let's some of the pics you've taken while experimenting.
Nick(nbrodar),
Actually, you are only partially correct about focal length affecting depth of field.
It's often stated that focal length, aperture, and distance from the subject are the three factors which affect depth of field.
In actuality, it's more correct to say that there are two factors which affect depth of field: aperture and magnification ratio. The magnification ratio is, of course, the ratio of the actual size of the object to the size of the object as recorded on the film(or digital sensor).
In other words, if both the aperture and the size of the object on the film are held constant, depth of field is constant regardless of whether one is using a 14mm lens or a 1200mm lens.
In your posted examples, had you recomposed such that the flower had the same relative size in the viewfinder with both lenses, rather than simply cropping the wider one to have the same field of view, you would have found this to indeed be the case.
Interestingly enough, this same property also means that since digicams have sensors much smaller than 35mm film and dSLRs, they need less magnifcation in order for an object to occupy the same relative portion of the sensor.
This means that a digicam with a 1/1.8 sensor(the most common size for smaller sized cameras), for a given composition, actually has slightly more depth of field than a 35mm camera at f22, and and slightly more depth of field than an APS-C DSLR at f16.
Ben10ben
Thanks for filling in some blanks regarding depth of field. I was trying to keep things relatively non-technical so I wouldn't lose people. It's been a few years (like 20+) since the B&W photo class dealing with all this. The main point that I was trying to make, and which you clarified was that depth of field is control by aperture size, all other things remaining constant.
Hey jktrains,
You mention the lights and the tripod, do you recommend a remote switch for the shutter?
Nigel
Nigel,
I'm not exactly certain what you mean by a remote switch. Do you mean a cable release? Most cameras have a timer mode you can set that will trip the shutter, say 2 sec, after you push the shutter release button. My old 35mm SLR has a timer or you can use a cable release to trip the shutter button. Read your camera's manual to find out how to set the cameras shutter timer. The shutter timer will work fine since the camera is mount on the tripod anyway.
As a former professional photojournalist and commercial photographer, I have to ask you, Jktrains, if you feel it would be fair for me to take it upon myself to point out the obvious flaws in your photography, in a public forum such as this one, and, after judging your work by the much higher standards my profession requires, ask you refrain from posting further images?
What would your reaction be, how would it make you feel, to have me publicly note that in an image you used as an example of "quality" photography, in an image that you held up as a standard for others to emulate, that the plane of focus was two or more inches BEHIND the primary subject, as the grass on either end of the locomotive above clearly indicates?
If I were to explain to the whole world that your color temperature was off by several hundred degrees Kelvin, and that your exposure settings left the image too dark by one third to one half stop, exhibiting considerably less than the full spectrum offered by 32 bit digital color, would I be performing a service to the readers of this forum, or would I simply be comparing my superior experience and knowlege in the field to yours, in an attempt to gratify my ego and look good at your expense?
Would it make any difference if I did any of the above, if you had already done exactly the same thing to another member of the forum?
Personally, I don't believe it would.
I don't believe it would be fair to hold you to the standards my editors used in determining whether I got paid enough to eat, when photography was my only source of income.
I don't believe it would be fair to you, to ask that you refrain from posting your work until and unless you could match those standards.
I think that to do so, would undermine one of the primary purposes of this forum, which is to introduce new modelers to advanced techniques, and to help all modelers, regardless of skill level, to improve their work.
I think that any attempt to exclude any imagery that failed to meet my standards would cheapen both this forum, and also my own work.
No-one respects a bully, whether he has read one book on photography, a hundred books on photography, or never read a single book on photography.
I think it's great that many modelers were able to learn from your work in creating this tutorial. That is one of the primary purposes of this forum.
I must question, however, your motivation and timing in creating this thread, whether or not you realize that in doing so, you exacerbated a long-standing and previously unrelated problem here, and whether or not the imagery in this tutorial should be used as an example for others to emulate.
I learned a long time ago that no matter how much or little my skills advanced, there's always someone better than me, and that the moment I started acting superior and exclusive towards those with less experience, lesser ability, or lesser equipment, I was opening the door for my betters to do the same thing to me.
There are photographers who post here on a regular basis who have much stronger skills than I do. Since most of us are here for enjoyment, I'd rather not have those individuals exclude my work from this forum.
For that reason, and more importantly, because I don't feel that posturing has any place excluding anyone here, I don't ask you not to post pictures, and by the same token, believe you should sit down and think, as many times more than once as is necessary, about whether you are in a position to exclude anyone else's work either.
If only the best photographer here is allowed to post images, I won't be posting, and neither will you. if the forum is open for us "mere mortals" to post less than perfect imagery, then I don't believe it's up to me, or to you, to self appoint ourselves as arbiter, judge, and moderator to determine the minimum standards here.
Decide what you think is right, but understand going in, a simple fact of human nature determines that however you choose to treat others, is quite likely how others will choose to treat you.
Jeffers,
First off, I made very clear that at the start of this that I was not a professional photographer. I also made it clear that this was meant to be a non-technical discussion in the hope of not losing people by making them feel that was much too difficult for them to even attempt.
Since you are the professional, I'll yield to you to continue and show us how to master this subject in a more precise, technically correct manner. As a starter, please share with us some examples of your model railroad photography, especially those that have not been digitally enhanced for things such as brightness, contrast, saturation, hue etc. but a simple picture straight from the camera to the forum.
jktrains: Curious to hear if you've had any of your photos published in the model press? With all of your knowledge and opinions there must be some that we can refer to.
And maybe any model photo contests in which you've placed?
Bob Boudreau
CANADA
Visit my model railroad photography website: http://sites.google.com/site/railphotog/
jktrains,
I couldn't think of the name and the Canon website called them a Remote Switch, but I meant as you said a cable release. My guess is with the new EOS cameras it would be electronic rather than a cable so they call it a remote switch?!
Thanks for that, I'll try using the timer. I just though that with a slow shutter speed and even with a tripod the pressing of the button could move the camera slightly.
Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO
We'll get there sooner or later!
howmus wrote:Ahhhhh! What goes around - comes around. Hmmm.
Naw, once when I was hunting I heard a whooorsh as something flew over my head. It was straight line all the way.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Er, well, after reading the entire thread, and completely forgetting the original author - thanks for posting this =) it added a little more to my depth of knowledge of "good" model photography (however shallow that may be).
Now, Bob also has a great tutorial set up, although at my current (wicked limited) understanding of how to take good photos and some of the terminology this thread has helped me to understand a few of the topics that I was otherwise a little unclear on after having read Bob's tutorial.
Even with the naysayers present in the thread, I like it and I hope that you will continue to expand on what you are convering.
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
jktrains wrote:I'll let the professionals take over. Hopefully we won't get lost in the techno speak.
I don't think for a minute they were questioning the validity of the tread, rather they were pointing out that they could do to you what you did to Jeffery. In the end, it seems you feel the same way Jeffery did.
Don't stop helping people, but be tactful in the way you criticize. People can learn without being hurt.
SpaceMouse wrote:I don't think for a minute they were questioning the validity of the tread, rather they were pointing out that they could do to you what you did to Jeffery. In the end, it seems you feel the same way Jeffery did. Don't stop helping people, but be tactful in the way you criticize. People can learn without being hurt.
Well said, Chip.
I hope you don't be discouraged by the one "professional" that commented. All us amateurs appreciate what you're trying to do. Though I've been shooting pictures for many years, (back to an old Kodak SLR w/ black-and-white film in the early Sixties), I've been following the thread with interest.
In that vein, I thought I might share another demonstration of the depth-of-field (or depth-of-focus) phenomenon. Both pictures were shot with a Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT, which I'm still learning how to use. The only editing done was to resize them so I could upload them to Photobucket. The originals were WAY too big!
The first was shot at f/3.5, 1/24 sec. exposure, w/ the ISO ("film speed") setting was at 400. The result is slightly underexposed, amd might have been better at 1/20 sec. The focal point was the smokebox of the locomotive You'll note that the horse in the foreground is almost unrecognizable, and that from the middle of the boiler back, things are progressively out of focusquite blurry.
The next shot was at f/22, with a 10 sec. exposure, and an ISO setting of 100. The focal point is the same as the first, but almost everything in the picture is in focus. It's also not as underexposed.
The second picture was also done with the camera's delay timer. (A BIG help!) The camera was setting directly on the layout.
---
Gary M. Collins gmcrailgNOSPAM@gmail.com
===================================
"Common Sense, Ain't!" -- G. M. Collins
http://fhn.site90.net
jktrains, I'll add one comment regarding the whole picture quality issue:
I post pictures that look good to ME. If others don't think so, that's THEIR problem, not mine. I simply ignore them, except when they can point out areas where I might improve my work, without falling to the level of a flame. We're all here to learn from each other, and it's time that civility came back in fashion.
No, your pictures aren't perfect. That's true of all of us. The last perfect guy that came around was hung on a cross for his trouble. However, your efforts to educate us and share your knowledge, whether or not it is more, en toto, than others or not, are greatly appreciated, and show the spirit that I've always felt was a hallmark of our hobby.
------end of rant-------------------
Rock on!
gmcrail
Thanks for the kind words. I made it clear at the beginning that I was not a professional photographer, never claimed to be, never wanted to be. Since we have former professional amongst I believe it only proper to let them share their vast knowledge with the rest of us. Please contact them directly and ask them to continue on and to continue enlightening use with their knowledge. I'll follow the rule that when someone speaks up with more knowledge than let them take over.
Chip,
No I don't feel the same way as Jeffrey. I haven't gone on a rant swearing at people. I've merely said that since someone with more knowledge has step forward then they should continue this thread, or start their own, and share with us less knowledgeable individuals the vastly more knowledge that they have. So convince them to continue.
BTW, weren't you the same one who contacted me offline about contributing photos to a project you were compiling. Can't have it both ways. Don't attack me online and then ask me to send you pics off line. Don't contact me offline and say that you agree with my comments about Jeff, but remain silent online. You did a nice thing by starting the process to get Jeffrey a better camera. But one could ask why did it take my comments about his photos for you to start this process? You're a regular contributor and have seen his pics for along time, why did you all of a sudden start that process? Coincidence??
Don't be a hypocrite.
jktrains wrote: Chip,No I don't feel the same way as Jeffrey. I haven't gone on a rant swearing at people. I've merely said that since someone with more knowledge has step forward then they should continue this thread, or start their own, and share with us less knowledgeable individuals the vastly more knowledge that they have. So convince them to continue. BTW, weren't you the same one who contacted me offline about contributing photos to a project you were compiling. Can't have it both ways. Don't attack me online and then ask me to send you pics off line. Don't contact me offline and say that you agree with my comments about Jeff, but remain silent online. You did a nice thing by starting the process to get Jeffrey a better camera. But one could ask why did it take my comments about his photos for you to start this process? You're a regular contributor and have seen his pics for along time, why did you all of a sudden start that process? Coincidence??Don't be a hypocrite.
Actually Crandell contacted us both. I feel you do have something to contribute. If I remember the conversation, we talked about sandwiching criticism with praise. I also have had a dialog with Jeffery offline. I told him how I felt when a conversation I had was bumped off the top page. I didn't mention it to you, sorry.
As to what instigated the camera drive idea, it was probably the attack on him personally. I saw a person trying to do what he could with what he was dealt and taking flack for it. It seemed a good solution in a lot of ways. As to why it took so long, well sometimes I need to be hit with a 2 x 4 to wake up.
As to you feeling like Jeffery, well, no one feels exactly like someone else so there was generalization. In fact no one really knows how you feel. So I apologise for making the comparison. Some people "get it" faster than others and others are pushed to the breaking point and still don't get it. At some point it is the responsibility of the pusher to recognize when his comments are not having a desired effect and back off. If I've done this to you, once again, I apologise.
jeffers_mz wrote:As a former professional photojournalist and commercial photographer, I have to ask you, Jktrains, if you feel it would be fair for me to take it upon myself to point out the obvious flaws in your photography, in a public forum such as this one, and, after judging your work by the much higher standards my profession requires, ask you refrain from posting further images?What would your reaction be, how would it make you feel, to have me publicly note that in an image you used as an example of "quality" photography, in an image that you held up as a standard for others to emulate, that the plane of focus was two or more inches BEHIND the primary subject, as the grass on either end of the locomotive above clearly indicates?If I were to explain to the whole world that your color temperature was off by several hundred degrees Kelvin, and that your exposure settings left the image too dark by one third to one half stop, exhibiting considerably less than the full spectrum offered by 32 bit digital color, would I be performing a service to the readers of this forum, or would I simply be comparing my superior experience and knowlege in the field to yours, in an attempt to gratify my ego and look good at your expense?Would it make any difference if I did any of the above, if you had already done exactly the same thing to another member of the forum?Personally, I don't believe it would.I don't believe it would be fair to hold you to the standards my editors used in determining whether I got paid enough to eat, when photography was my only source of income.I don't believe it would be fair to you, to ask that you refrain from posting your work until and unless you could match those standards.I think that to do so, would undermine one of the primary purposes of this forum, which is to introduce new modelers to advanced techniques, and to help all modelers, regardless of skill level, to improve their work.I think that any attempt to exclude any imagery that failed to meet my standards would cheapen both this forum, and also my own work.No-one respects a bully, whether he has read one book on photography, a hundred books on photography, or never read a single book on photography.I think it's great that many modelers were able to learn from your work in creating this tutorial. That is one of the primary purposes of this forum.I must question, however, your motivation and timing in creating this thread, whether or not you realize that in doing so, you exacerbated a long-standing and previously unrelated problem here, and whether or not the imagery in this tutorial should be used as an example for others to emulate.I learned a long time ago that no matter how much or little my skills advanced, there's always someone better than me, and that the moment I started acting superior and exclusive towards those with less experience, lesser ability, or lesser equipment, I was opening the door for my betters to do the same thing to me.There are photographers who post here on a regular basis who have much stronger skills than I do. Since most of us are here for enjoyment, I'd rather not have those individuals exclude my work from this forum.For that reason, and more importantly, because I don't feel that posturing has any place excluding anyone here, I don't ask you not to post pictures, and by the same token, believe you should sit down and think, as many times more than once as is necessary, about whether you are in a position to exclude anyone else's work either.If only the best photographer here is allowed to post images, I won't be posting, and neither will you. if the forum is open for us "mere mortals" to post less than perfect imagery, then I don't believe it's up to me, or to you, to self appoint ourselves as arbiter, judge, and moderator to determine the minimum standards here.Decide what you think is right, but understand going in, a simple fact of human nature determines that however you choose to treat others, is quite likely how others will choose to treat you.
This little tirade should have been sent to JK in a PM. I don't see you sharing your vast knowledge of skills with the rest of us. I for one appreciated this thread. Its simple and to the point for us other amatuers.
SpaceMouse wrote: jktrains wrote:I'll let the professionals take over. Hopefully we won't get lost in the techno speak.I don't think for a minute they were questioning the validity of the tread, rather they were pointing out that they could do to you what you did to Jeffery. In the end, it seems you feel the same way Jeffery did. Don't stop helping people, but be tactful in the way you criticize. People can learn without being hurt.
Can't you for just one minute let this stuff go. Geesh. This was a great informative tutorial until you and jeffers had to bring your baggage here. PM the guy if you have a problem with him, but don't drag the rest of us down with your petty squabbling.
It would be nice, now that all the egos are bruised, to get back to the topic, and maybe later to healing. We've had our slugfest.
We have come through a swamp, gentlemen, and are not very happy about the experience. Maybe, though, just maybe, we can all grow a bit from what we look back on over the past two and a half weeks. If we could retract our horns a bit, acknowledge that none of us is perfect, and try to be less hurtful with our choices of words as we string them together, we would be better off on this place that we like to frequent every day. Let's clean house a bit, air out the rugs, and enjoy our forum. Yes, our forum.
We would all be happier here if we were to address topics or subjects respectfully, never "taking it to the man". In formal logic, a course university students in the Arts often take their first year, there are what we call "informal fallacies". One of them, a very common one in public discourse and on editorial pages, is the error of attacking the person instead of using proven facts and prior argument to point out the flaws in what the other person is saying. The error, or fallacy, is one of relevance. Who the person is, their educational level, their marital status, what car they drive, or how many teeth they still have is almost never relevant to the topic being discussed, and that fallacy is what we often see here. In the study of logic, it is called an Ad Hominem argument, literally "taking it to the man."
Direct attacks on people, even if they are meant to be instructive, are not welcome when they serve to isolate or to injure, even if by accident or incident. No one should be treated that way. If I have a problem with people, I almost aways contact them offline (no, my record is not perfect, I admit that now). We all should. At least, make an attempt to do the arguing the more private way. If you get ignored, you would then be entitled to make your point directly on the forum.
Let us try to preserve our mutual dignity here. We are all humans, mothers' sons and daughters, every one of us. If we would not speak to our own mothers the way we treat each other, why would we stoop and debase ourselves on a public forum that way? It doesn't matter that we use avatars, we are still generating the outcomes, and they reflect on our personas, no matter what we call ourselves.
We are known only by our words here. Let us endeavour to make that a positive undertaking...please. Always meant to help, never to injure.
I can't do more than this.