Macro Photography – Photo’s for Build Logs (Part 1)

[Captain Slog]

Firstly I had written up about 8 pages of text covering the principles of photography but afterwards realised that if you aren’t interested in photography then you won’t bother reading it and if you were interested then you probably knew it all anyway so pruned it back to cover only macro.

 

A few decades ago I got into photography in my middle teens and learned the technical aspects (if not the ‘art’) of photography.  I had a cheap Eastern European manual only SLR film camera, which although basic did teach me the principles and relationships of settings, light, exposure etc.  I would deem myself technically proficient. The artistic side of it I would deem myself as talentless (that’s polite for crap).

 

I have been on quite a long modelling hiatus and decided to get back into photography again after 3 decades and entered the world of DSLR photography. 

 

The choice of camera manufacturer can be very polarising (pun intended) like Ford v Holden (probably only Aussies will get this), PC v Mac, Playstation v Xbox, DSLR v mirrorless, full size sensor v crop sensor, Canon v Nikon etc.  Well I am an unashamedly Nikon DSLR fanboi.

 

Lastly I must confess to being a pixel peeper (digital camera term and not some kind of pervert), which is a very debilitating illness and results in either expensive therapy (newer lenses and camera bodies) or having little to show for my efforts (deleting 99% of all images taken).

 

Remember you can click on the images below to see them at 1600x1200 (maximum that MSW allows). Actual images where shot at 6000x4000 in 14-bit Raw format.

 

 

What is Macro and is it necessary?

Well apart from making your hard work and super detailed nice part look not so nice due to showing up every little bit of dust, dirt and fluff there are 2 schools of thought on what represents macro photography.  Again as with most things people’s ideas are polarised and may cause ‘discussion’.

 

The first school of thought say that zooming in as close as possible for the shot, particularly using a large focal length and filling the frame as much as possible constitutes macro.  This could technically be called a ‘close-up’ because although it may fill the frame it doesn’t meet the criteria of the second description.

 

The second school of thought says that the subject being shot needs to be projected on to the sensor (or film) at life size or greater i.e. at a ratio of 1:1 or greater.  An example of this is a 15mm long insect will be projected on to the sensor as 15mm long.  I personally follow this school of thought.  Remember this is the projection of the image on to the sensor and not enlarged due to cropping or perceived enlargement of viewing the photo on a computer screen.

 

It gets messy as a manufacturers tend to write ‘macro’ on their lenses but in actual fact may only give you ‘close-ups’  A true macro lenses will say 1:1 on it somewhere meaning it will produce a full size subject on the sensor.

 

Is it necessary? No not at all.  You don’t use it to take shots of the whole model but is useful to show off your hard work on the smaller components but again using ‘true 1:1 macro’ would rarely be used except for the very smallest components.  But the macro lenses will allow smaller components to be captured in better ‘Close up’.  There are lenses which will give 1:2 reproduction i.e. twice life size.  The 15mm insect would now be 30mm long on the sensor.

 

The examples below of my Endeavours ship’s boat were all taken with the macro lens showing close up but only one image is true 1:1 macro.  The approx 100mm boat is too large to capture fully on a 24mm sensor as 1:1.

 

 

Examples showing effect of Aperture

I have set the ISO at 100 and made the changes using the aperture only to show the effects on the depth of field and left the camera to change the shutter speed automatically to obtain the correct exposure i.e  ‘Aperture Priority’

 

All lenses have a sweet spot where it gives the sharpest image possible. This is typically around f8-f11 give or take.

 

The focus point on all images was the very tip of the stem post.

 

 

1/30s @ f/3.8 ISO 100.  Because I wasn’t as close as I could get the DoF is probably around 5mm although the maximum of f/2.8 isn’t available being this close.

 

 

1/6s @ f/8 ISO100. Closing down the aperture has given more DoF probably around 10mm but the shutter speed is slowing down to get correct exposure.

 

 

5s @ f/45 ISO 100.Closed the aperture right down and as can be seen approx 2/3 of the boat is in focus.  The problem with closing down the aperture is that all lenses suffer from diffraction as the aperture is tiny at f/45 so the resulting image is ‘soft’

 

 

1/5s @ f/8 ISO 100.  For a bit of fun using the lenses likeliest sweet spot of f/8 this was the closest I could get to the boat.  Since I moved a lot closer the depth of field has reduced to around 1mm to 2mm!  

 

 

Focus stacking

To overcome some of the problems of very shallow depth of fields in macro photography there is a technique referred to as focus stacking.  This is performed by taking multiple shots of the subject but moving the point of focus for each image.

 

The resulting multiple images, each with a different focus point are then combined using software to form a single composite image or stack.  The software algorithm works by selecting the sharpest parts of the images to merge as one.

 

   

Here is an example.  It was made up of 13 separate images each one taken at 1/5s @ f/8 ISO 100.

 

 

 I am quite proud of this image as it was the first time I used my new macro lens and the first attempt at focus stacking so turned out not too bad.  As can be seen comparing this shot with the one shot at f/45 it is a lot sharper as it is not suffering from diffraction due to very a small aperture.

 

Is it perfect? No, it might not be visible on the above but there are small bands of out of focus parts as my increments in moving the focus were too large.  To better this I would try using f/11 (which should still be in its sweet range) and move the focus point in smaller increments to increase the overlap between each image.  A doubling of 13 to 26 images should be perfectly in focus the full length of the boat.

 

For focus stacking you will need a tripod and ideally some kind of remote release as being so close in with macro any vibrations are magnified substantially.  If you don’t have a remote release then set the camera timer to a few seconds so you don’t need to touch it to fire the shutter and the timer delay will allow any vibration to settle down.

 

I used a remote release and the mirror up function of the camera as it is possible that the mirror slap of the mirror moving up can cause shake.

 

 

General Hints and Tips for Photographing your Model

I want to discuss some general points to think about in photographing your model and not necessary using macro.  The 2 main issues we see on build logs are blurry out of focus shots and camera shake.

 

Out of focus

All camera lenses have a minimum focus distance and going below this will never be in focus.  Firstly move back so the lens is in its working range again.  It may not be as close as you would like but a sharp smaller image is 100% better than a larger out of focus image. 

 

Still want it to be bigger though?  Then move back take the sharp picture and then crop the image.  Some detail will be lost and may not be pin sharp as an uncropped image but it will still be in focus!  Depending on the megapixels of the sensor you may be able to crop in considerably before degradation. You may not be able to show all the detail you would like but an out of focus shot isn’t showing it anyway.

 

Camera shake

A number of reasons for this but the prime culprit is due to taking the picture in low light conditions.  What looks like a bright well lit room for the naked eye is actually pretty dark for cameras believe it or not.  What to do? Well first rule of thumb if hand holding is to use a shutter speed higher than the focal length of the lens (more to it than this but good starting point). 

 

Practice hand holding and get good stance, good hand hold on the camera.  Increase pressure on shutter release gently. Some people roll the pad of the finger onto the release but whatever don’t stab it! Good technique and image stabilisation can allow hand holding 3 to 4 stops below optimum.

 

Increase the light to allow an increase in shutter speed.  If you can’t do this move the subject closer to the window. Switch on the flash and place some sheets of white paper out of shot to reflect light back reducing shadows.  If you are not a pixel peeper increase the ISO a couple of stops to give corresponding increase in shutter speed.  Open the aperture (bearing in mind DoF).

 

Stick the camera on a tripod.  Don’t have a tripod? Place the camera on a beanbag/box/bundled up jacket and use the self-timer to actuate the shutter so you don’t disturb it pressing the shutter.

 

Some good no cost options above on taking sharp pictures.  After all that you still have blurry/shaky images? Then delete the images and try again. Be ruthless.

 

 

Summary

I found the whole macro/ focus stacking great fun and quite challenging.  Would I do it for all build log photos?  No, far too time consuming for general everyday build progress shots.  I would probably reserve it for build log milestones but of course not worth it for overall progress shots of the whole model.

 

I am keen to discuss camera gear and techniques in general and also to see others equipment and photos you are proud of. 

 

Although macro shots of flowers and insects etc are great this is a ship modelling forum so please keep the photos to ship modelling.

 

Please, PLEASE DON’T post random pictures taken by random people from facebook, flickr etc (there is enough of that on this forum as it is) If I want to see that there is an infinite amount of photos from countless photo sites I can find for myself. 

 

I want to see YOUR photos and YOUR gear.

 

Cheers

Slog

 

Edit: just noticed the walnut in the first 4 images has changed colour slighty.  I couldn’t be bothered reducing the file size in Light Room for posting here and just used MS Paint.  All the full size RAW images have the same colour as the stacked image which is correct.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Captain Slog

[Captain Slog]

Hi Daves,

 

Thanks for posting some images. They look great.

 

 I wonder how much the camera plays in the quality of photography?

 

 

This is an interesting question.  My thoughts are if you understand the principles and know the camera and good composition etc then you are more likely to produce nice interesting photos.  I follow some youtube channels and on one they get professionals on and give them crappy or novelty cameras and a brief and most of them turn out some great shots because they understand the 'art'.

 

Also reminds me of a joke;

A woman bumps into an old photographer friend at one of his galleries and says 'wow these pictures are great, you must have a really good camera".

 

Well he is a bit miffed but doesn't say anything and the woman invites the photographer back to dinner that night to catch up on old times.

 

After the meal the photographer exclaims to the woman "that was delicious, you must have a really good oven"

 

 

I also think having  great equipment will help make the picture look 'correct' but any emotions it instills in the viewer is definitely down to the 8" behind the viewfinder.  I think my general photos are pretty boring although they may be technically good.  

 

All my build log photos were on an 8meg canon point and shoot.  But now have a Nikon D7100 which I love.

 

Cheers

Slog 

Edited October 21, 2015 by Captain Slog

[Keith_W]

Great tutorial, thanks for posting Capt. When I take photos of my model, it is more for documentary purpose than for any "art". Until recently, I shot with a Canon 5D Mk.3 with a 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro lens, mounted on a tripod with bounce flash (580EX x2). Here are a few of mine, since you asked. 

 

 

My current model, the HMS Royal William showing my scratchbuilt cannon carriage, vs. the kit supplied carriage, with a 1/72 model of an Android (which I turned on my lathe) for scale. 

 

 

 

An older, completed model - HMS Bounty by Artesania Latina. 

 

 

 

Detail from the deck of the Bounty. 

 

What software are you using to stack your macros? 

[popeye2sea]

I have been using a set of Vivitar filters that magnify 1, 2, 4, and 10X in order to get macro shots of small details.  Would I be better off shooting in RAW format and cropping?

[GuntherMT]

Interesting post.  FYI - you never explain (or it's possible that I missed it) in your post that "DoF" = Depth of Field (or the amount, or depth of the subject that is in focus as seen from the lens).

 

When I started doing this hobby I was using a 10'ish year old Canon Powershot S3, which is a point and shoot camera, which was pretty decent for a point and shoot in it's day (and is actually still not bad).  It took images at 2816 x 2112 resolution, so it was considered a 6 megapixel camera.  All of the Carmen build log, and the first couple months of the AVS build log were shot with the Canon.

 

The Canon did a pretty good job for what it was, but of course being a point & shoot, the depth of field wasn't something I could readily control.

 

 

At the end of November I purchased a 'kit' Nikon D3300 which included both an 18mm-55mm zoom, and a 55mm-210mm zoom lens.  This is a 24 megapixel camera that produces images at 6000 x 4000 resolution, which allows me a lot more freedom of how I frame the photo, since for the purposes of the build logs, everything is cropped to 1200x on the long side, which means I am only using a fraction of the photo.  Along with that, the ability to completely control the focal length, aperture and shutter speed makes for a much better quality image in my logs (at least I think so).

 

I've not had much luck getting good shots with a flash, so that is one area I need to work on some time.

 

Of course as the camera operator, I'm still ultimately to blame when the photo's come out like crap.    My build log has 800+ photos in it currently, but the 'raw' image directory has almost 1900 images, and there were plenty more that were immediately deleted because they were terrible.  Don't be afraid to take lots of pictures, you don't have to pay for film and developing any more!

 

The system that I've found works very well for me is as follows.

1) Set the camera to aperture priority.

2) Using a tripod, set up the shot how I want it, and adjust aperture to f8~f18 depending on how much depth of field I want.

3) Set camera to 2 second timed shutter release (my remote doesn't work for some reason and I've been too lazy to try to fix it or get another one).

4) Set camera to manual mode.  The aperture is now fixed based on what I set in step 2, and the dial is now controlling the shutter speed.

5) Start at the shutter speed the camera selected in step 2, and slow it down based on what it is that I want to bring out in that photo:

     For light objects, like the deck for example, I'll shoot a single stop down in shutter speed.

     For darker objects like the deck furniture, I'll shoot 1 or 2 stops down.

     For pulling out details in really dark object like the standing rigging, I'll go 2, 3 or even 4 stops down

 

Obviously some experimentation is involved!

 

A tripod is absolutely necessary, and they don't have to be expensive for this, the one I'm using was less than $20 from Amazon last year on sale.

 

The downside to super sharp photo's, as was mentioned in the posts above - every single flaw or spec of dust is immediately evident.  This of course can also be used as a tool to help clean up things that you didn't initially see.

 

 

Ultimately, I think the flexibility, and learning curve of a decent DSLR is completely worth it, as I truly enjoy the results that are seen in my build log due to my investment in this camera.  some day I might buy a really good macro capable lens for it, and maybe even learn about that focus stacking stuff, which I've read about, but not really looked into at all.

 

 

 

[GuntherMT]

I have been using a set of Vivitar filters that magnify 1, 2, 4, and 10X in order to get macro shots of small details.  Would I be better off shooting in RAW format and cropping?

 

IMO you are always better off cropping, as you don't lose any detail.  Every time you add a piece of glass, you also add the potential to add distortion into the image somewhere.

 

What size are your original images (i.e. 6000 x 4000, etc.)?  That can determine how much 'zoom' you can get from cropping alone.

[popeye2sea]

I think the original images are about 4000 x 3000.  I am using a Nikon D90

Edited October 21, 2015 by popeye2sea

[GuntherMT]

I think the original images are about 4000 x 3000.  I am using a Nikon D90

 

Pretty close.  D90 is 4288 x 2848.

 

If you are cropping to 1200x on the long side, depending on which way is 'long', you should get a nice 2x to 3x factor out of just cropping if needed.

 

Ultimately, if the images you are getting are good, and the Vivitar lens attachments you are using don't make the image distorted, then you can use whichever method works best for you.  I was always taught way back in the 80's when I took a photography class, that the doublers were terrible for image clarity, but I'm sure that some improvements have been made in the last few decades, so who knows!

 

Try some experiments.  Shoot with just the lens, as close as you can get while remaining in sharp focus.  Then take the same 'photo' with your multipliers in various sizes.  Then use the 'crop' method on the original and compare it side by side with the images using the extra glass, and see what you think about the results.  Looking at some random images in your build log, they do seem to have some distortion around the edges, and the really sharply focused portion of many of your images is extremely small.  This could be related to the lenses, but could also simply be your camera setup. 

 

Are you using the camera on auto?  Are you using a tripod?  Your lighting appears to have a very 'yellow' cast to it which makes me think that your lighting is probably poor, so the camera is probably shooting at a very wide open aperture which is causing the very narrow field of focus.  To fight this, get a tripod and switch to aperture priority mode, and much longer shutter speeds.

[usedtosail]

What a great thread. Thanks for starting it Slog. I had a similar entrance into photography. I ended up getting a Master of Science Degree in Photographic Science, so I am a real technical geek but my artistic abilities are crap. That was many years ago however, and since then I got lazy and was using only a point and shoot for family pictures, until I started this hobby. I wanted to take better pictures of my models so I ended up back with a DLSR. I now have two Nikon D80 bodies, one of which stays in the workshop for progress pictures. I do tend to use the flash for these progress photos, though, but do set up better lighting for completed model pictures. I use a cheap macro lens too, for really tight shots, but will try cropping now that you have pointed it out. Its not like the old days where film grain was an issue, is it.

 

Anyway here are a couple of shots of completed models

 

 

[popeye2sea]

Pretty close.  D90 is 4288 x 2848.

 

If you are cropping to 1200x on the long side, depending on which way is 'long', you should get a nice 2x to 3x factor out of just cropping if needed.

 

Ultimately, if the images you are getting are good, and the Vivitar lens attachments you are using don't make the image distorted, then you can use whichever method works best for you.  I was always taught way back in the 80's when I took a photography class, that the doublers were terrible for image clarity, but I'm sure that some improvements have been made in the last few decades, so who knows!

 

Try some experiments.  Shoot with just the lens, as close as you can get while remaining in sharp focus.  Then take the same 'photo' with your multipliers in various sizes.  Then use the 'crop' method on the original and compare it side by side with the images using the extra glass, and see what you think about the results.  Looking at some random images in your build log, they do seem to have some distortion around the edges, and the really sharply focused portion of many of your images is extremely small.  This could be related to the lenses, but could also simply be your camera setup. 

 

Are you using the camera on auto?  Are you using a tripod?  Your lighting appears to have a very 'yellow' cast to it which makes me think that your lighting is probably poor, so the camera is probably shooting at a very wide open aperture which is causing the very narrow field of focus.  To fight this, get a tripod and switch to aperture priority mode, and much longer shutter speeds.

Thanks for the tips.  Most of the early photos in my build log were taken before I got the macro/magnifier lenses.  I took them by setting up a third hand device with a magnifier between the camera and the object.  Then cropping out the frame of the magnifier. Admittedly very crude and lots of distortion from the cheap magnifier lens.

The lighting in my work area is not the greatest.  I am thinking of getting a separate lighting source just for photos.

 

Regards,

[GuntherMT]

So I thought I'd put together a very quick demo of "The power of cropping".

 

First, I took one of my build photo's and re-sized it to the size from the D90 as my starting point - so 4288 x 2848, and I used that as my original.  

 

This picture was taken with the lens at 55mm, showing that it doesn't take a "long" expensive lens for this either.  Settings were f20 and 1/3 second exposure under LED shop lighting.

For purposes of the build log, I resize all my images to 1200x on the long side, which with 4288x2848 resolves to 1200x799, so lets just call it 1200x800.  I made some copies of the original, and then re-sized the original as if I was going to put it into a build log, and here is the resulting 'build log' image at 1200x800:

 

 

So that is the original photo that we are working with as our source, but what I really want to do is show the details of a particular point of the rigging.  Instead of using a magnifier and trying to fill up the frame of my camera, instead what I will do is simply take a piece of the original photo, and crop down to there, rather than re-sizing the original.  

 

So how big is a 1200x800 box on the original photo?  It's much smaller than you would probably think!  The red rectangle is 1200x800 portion of the original.

 

 

So that little red box is what will become the entire image if I simply crop out a 1200x800 part of the picture and post that as my image.  Like this:

 

 

Of course you can also crop out a much larger portion of a photo, and then resize that to the build-log size, but this was to show the maximum effect of resizing.  If you have a larger original photo, then the effect is even more pronounced.

 

This is a 1200x800 piece of the original 6000x4000 photo from my camera:

 

 

Cropping is a *hugely* awesome way to get a very detailed photo, without losing any of your sharpness or image resolution, and without using magnifiers or expensive lenses.  Every computer that has Windows installed is capable of doing this as well, as the super-expensive program that I used to do all of the image manipulation for this post was...  Windows Paint.

 

 

[Captain Slog]

Thanks everyone for posting what are all great shots of your work and I can see why you would be proud of them.  The discussions going on are great also.  A lot of knowledge and experience out there to share.   

 

When I take photos of my model, it is more for documentary purpose than for any "art". 

 

What software are you using to stack your macros? 

Hi Keith,

 

My build photos like you are for documentary purposes.  The biggest thing is trying to get viewable images across to show what was done.  The art part of it I would like to start trying to incorporate it more for my own enjoyment but likely to eat into the time from modeling but to me both equally enjoyable.

 

Should have mentioned in first post.  I am using Heliconsoft focus stacking software. http://www.heliconsoft.com/  I have been looking around and seems to be popular with lots of good images to be found and also YouTube tutorials.  I downloaded the free 30 day trial (only started stacking at the weekend) but will purchase it when the trial period runs out.  The trial version appears to be missing the DNG RAW converter plug-in so it can export a RAW back to Light Room for developing after the stack!

 

It is fully integrated into Light Room also so all images can be exported directly from LR and Heilconsoft opens automatically.  It is a one click action to start the stacking.

 

There are three different methods of stacking A, B and C which is dependent on the size of the stack, subject etc but I render using each method and use the one which worked the best.

 

Also can be used for general photography and not just macro  as can focus stack any images.  It can also stitch together multiple shots for panoramic photos.

 

I have been using a set of Vivitar filters that magnify 1, 2, 4, and 10X in order to get macro shots of small details.  Would I be better off shooting in RAW format and cropping?

 

Hi Henry,

 

Brian makes some good points above which you have probably seen already.  Another relatively low cost option is a set of macro extension tubes.  Come in a set of three and can be used in combination or even with a dedicated macro lense to give crazy magnification.  They are simple tubes which fit between the lens and body moving the lense further from the sensor.  The good thing is they are hollow so don’t introduce further glass or distortion.  There are basic tube ones and also ones which maintain the electronic contacts between the lens and body so metering, aperture control and auto focus still operates.

 

 

Interesting post.  FYI - you never explain (or it's possible that I missed it) in your post that "DoF" = Depth of Field (or the amount, or depth of the subject that is in focus as seen from the lens).

 

When I started doing this hobby I was using a 10'ish year old Canon Powershot S3, which is a point and shoot camera, 

 

I've not had much luck getting good shots with a flash, so that is one area I need to work on some time.

I thought I had but must have deleted it when I purged what my original post was going to be as went into a lot of details about each of the exposure settings etc and how they interact.  If there is any interest in the principles I can post later as have saved it all.

 

All my build log photos to date was using a Canon IXUS80 hand held which was great also.  The macro function let me get in real close although DoF was an issue.  Here is a photo of a 1.6mm eye bolt taken with the point and shoot on the macro setting. 

 

I don’t have a separate flash and like you don’t have much luck with the built in flash.  I used natural light or desk lights for all my modeling photos to date.

 

 

The only way people can see the art of ship building is from photographs so good photography is very important

I agree, it doesn’t have to be a master piece but a clear sharp image will show your modeling skills if not your photography skills ( I don’t have much of either LOL) .  I am almost ashamed to say if I look at a log I haven’t seen before and the images are blurry or shaky I hit the back button without any further browsing and rarely will return later to see if the pictures have improved. Sad as I may be missing out on a great build.  It’s not snobbery but I don’t see the point, it doesn’t show or promote your hard work as a modeler.

 

 

 so I am a real technical geek but my artistic abilities are crap. 

LOL I am very similar.  I love the hardware side of photography! 

Brian has done an excellent demo on cropping what shows better than I can explain. 

 

 

So I thought I'd put together a very quick demo of "The power of cropping".

 

Wow, thanks Brian for putting in the effort to detail this. Shows perfectly what can be achieved. 

 

Cheers

Slog

[usedtosail]

Thanks Brian for that great post on cropping. Makes it all clear to me. 

 

Slog - for the stacking software, for focus stacking how close does the alignment need to be between images? If you tried do use it with hand held images, would it still work?

[Captain Slog]

Hi Tom,

 

I have wondered that myself.  From what I know it compensates for 'focus breathing' This is where the image size changes slightly with in the focus range.  The image might grow or shrink when changing focus depending on the lens. I saw this happen slightly with my trial stack and it didn't seem to be a problem.  

 

Doing it hand held might be different.  Perhaps if the images where slightly skewed from each other it might still be able to combine them but would require cropping of the edges where not all images aligned.

 

I came across some amazing insect images consisting of a considerable amount of images and caption says they were hand held but I can't remember for the life of me where.  Probably a YouTube video.  In that case I think the technique would be to turn the lens down to its minimum focus distance and then slowly move forward until the front part of subject just comes into focus, take the shot, move slightly forward, take the shot etc etc until full coverage obtain.

 

Using the tripod I went minimum focus distance on the lens and moved the camera and or object about until the point of focus was the tip of the boat and then left everything where it was and then only wound back the focus slightly after each shot.

 

I am hoping to head out to the in-laws at the weekend, who have lots of flowers and therefore insects and try some stuff out.  I will do hand held shots where again I will turn-off auto focus and set at minimum distance and focus by moving the camera hand held.

 

Cheers

Slog

 

Edit: Okay opened up Helicon and looked at the preferences and clicked on the help button which took me to their site.

 Can't get the link to work so pasted below.  It looks like can tackle quite a bit of variation.  If you go to the link to Heliconsoft posted above you should be able to find the help/FAQ pages.

 

Autoadjustments

 

Focus Stacking Autoadjustments

Even if you shoot a stack from a tripod and the subject is completely still, the images in the stack will not be perfectly aligned. It means that even with good shooting conditions, the subject will slightly change its size on the image every time the focus is shifted. So during focus stacking the program has to somewhat scale and sometimes rotate and shift images in order to align. This group of controls allows to fine-tune the alignment properties if needed.

Adjust vertically - sets maximum vertical shift between two consecutive images of the stack in % of their width or length, whichever is greater.

Adjust horizontally - defines maximum horizontal shift between two consecutive images in % of their width or length, whichever is greater.

Rotate - defines maximum angle between two consecutive images in degrees. Usually not needed for microscope and tripod shots.

Scale -  defines maximum difference in subject size between two consecutive images in % of their width or length, whichever is greater.

Adjust brightness - defines whether brightness of consecutive images should be equalized.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Captain Slog

[Captain Slog]

here is the original shot and the cropped shot in the build log. If i took the shot like the one seen in the log the only thing in focus would have been the very front of the bow. Backing off and cropping i got more depth of field. These are not exactly the same shot because i take a lot of different shots changing lighting etc, but this gives you the idea.

Hi Daves,

 

Thats a nice looking ship and good example of the technique.  Is that another scratch hull in the background?

 

then there are the shots you will never get. These shots of a model are in a dark room under a LED spot light and it is slowly rotating.

yeah can imagine that would be an impossible shot.  Even if you were allowed to use flash the glass case would obscure/distract from the image.  Only thing I could think of to try would be to really crank up the ISO but then gets 'noisy' which I couldn't live with.

 

Cheers

Slog 

[Captain Slog]

when i am out on a photo shoot i take hundreds of shots thinking odds are i just might get a good shot

In my opinion you got it. Very nice.

 

To prevent blowing out the highlights I think its a case of under exposing as the shadows are more recoverable than the highlights in post processing.

[GuntherMT]

Yea, with those LED spots, I think the only viable way to get a good image would be to take a number of different exposures to capture the various sections, and take them in RAW and then use Lightwave or something similar and create one good shot by post-processing the images.  That's something that I'm not good at, but I've seen amazing results from people who really know how to use the software.

[GuntherMT]

Dirk's build logs show that you don't need special equipment to take good photo's, he does all his build log photo's with his iPhone!

 

I try to look at most all the build logs, but yea, the ones with blurry photo's make it difficult to really follow and pay much attention, since I can't really see what the person is talking about, so those logs typically just get a quick skimming.  Maybe I'm just an eternal optimist and hope that a nice clear photo will show up in them some day.  

[mtaylor]

The bright side about photography today is it's digital.  You can shot 100's of photos for that one shot and not feel bad.  Back when I was doing it semi-professionally (drag race photog...) it was film.  Spend two nights processing just the color negatives from a Saturday night shoot or a Sunday shoot then spend the rest of the week to pick and print only the good ones.  With digital, there's not that big chunk of time in the dark or costs anymore.

 

I'm not the best when it comes to this hobby (ship models) but it's part of the fun.

[usedtosail]

Good question Dave. I hope not. I have a feeling though that those folks interested in adding build logs are also interested in getting better at taking pictures of their hard work. I know I am.

 

Were build logs really practical before digital photography? Like you said, the turn around times make for long gaps between building. Not to mention having to scan the paper pictures into the computer to post them, which takes a while.

 

I walked into my office this morning to this scene:

 

 

I keep my model of the Beagle on my window sill at work and the Fall foliage on the other side of the parking lot was lit by low sunlight. Of course, I only have my phone to take the picture, which did not help. There are a couple of problems with this picture. One was to get enough depth of field to have the model in focus and the trees in the background. The other was the dark office versus the bright outside. I did use a bit of fill light on the final image to bring out the model a little.

[Captain Slog]

Do you think this thread might make builders a little skittish about posting build logs. Because it sounds like we are a bit critical about posted photos.

 

I wouldn't have thought so. I would say the vast majority of posters only use photography to document their log (myself included up to this point) and nearly all logs from this perspective are fine.  The criticism has only been directed at the blurry shaky images and in defense of that there has been a lot of good advice, tips and techniques posted here to help improve picture taking in general.

 

The intent of the thread was initially for macro photography and to bring attention to focus stacking in particular as I have only recently discovered this myself and think it would be an idea to apply it to build logs in certain instances.  The general hints and tips I threw in were as an example of how a few relatively easy and at no cost techniques could improve peoples build log photos. Indeed some of you posted real examples of this in practice.  I would hope no one is offended or hold back from starting or continuing their log.

 

I think the only person who will be a bit skittish in posting photos to their build log will be me as got a lot to live up to now 

 

Will post some more stack examples tomorrow.

 

Cheers

Slog

[Captain Slog]

 

 

IMG_0055-2.JPG

 

I keep my model of the Beagle on my window sill at work and the Fall foliage on the other side of the parking lot was lit by low sunlight. Of course, I only have my phone to take the picture, which did not help. There are a couple of problems with this picture. One was to get enough depth of field to have the model in focus and the trees in the background. The other was the dark office versus the bright outside. I did use a bit of fill light on the final image to bring out the model a little.

 

Hi Tom,

 

A pro-photographer (I forget who) said "The best camera is the one you have with you"

 

Would it have been possible to move the ship back so the picture could have been taken with you between the ship and the window to your back so the light is falling onto the ship?  An office wall might then have served as a less cluttered background.  The problem as you know shooting it against the window is the camera light meter is going to see the average exposure as being quite bright with the result that the ship is under exposed and a correctly exposed sky.

 

Thats a nice ship to have in your office by the way.  I wish I had something in my office like that to look at!

 

Cheers

Slog

Edited October 23, 2015 by Captain Slog

[usedtosail]

Thanks Slog. I could have put the model on a table on the other side of the room, but I was trying to use the foliage as the background in the picture.

[Captain Slog]

Thanks Slog. I could have put the model on a table on the other side of the room, but I was trying to use the foliage as the background in the picture.

 

Ah okay, in that case what I would have tried was to minimize the depth of field so the background wasn't in focus to make it softer so it isn't fighting with the details of the masts and rigging.  I might also have tried going lower and shooting slightly upwards as well to eliminate the fence outside and possibly the window sill.  Then it would have the ship in focus against the nice soft coloured foliage and reduced  distracting things like fences.

 

But thats only my opinion, everyone has their own ideas about the what the shot is about.  Look forward to seeing more pictures.

 

Cheers

Slog

[usedtosail]

Yes, you are so right. That would have made a much better shot. Backgrounds have always been one of those things I just don't see until after I see the picture. Thanks.

[usedtosail]

Yep, exactly. Nice retouch job. Can I hire you for all my pictures?

 

Oh and can you tie ratlines too?

Edited October 23, 2015 by usedtosail

[gjdale]

I'm loving this thread. Far from feeling intimidated by it, I'm picking up a lot of good tips. My favourite so far has been the power of cropping to show detailed close-up. I'll definitely be experimenting with that.

[Captain Slog]

Hi Dirk,

 

Those images are incredible.

 

Cheers

Slog

[usedtosail]

Nice Dirk. I am always amazed what you can get out of those phone cameras.

[Q A's Revenge]

Best I can do with my Macro setup. Just below the queens head on a 1p coin: