Photography - Lighting

[redarmy27]

Good afternoon ladies and gents,

I've been painting for a while and also enjoying photography, but there's one element that always kills me: lighting. I do have a lightbox, but I can never seem to get just the right amount of light to illuminate the model without white-washing it.

I currently operate with a light box and two lights on either side of the box, figure in the box about 8 inches into the center and 13 inches from the camera (Nikon P90, use it just for my figs!). I like to angle the lights a bit up to bounce the light off the top of the box.

Here's my most recent blunder:

I want soft and subtle lighting so that I can see everything correctly on the miniature. Everything is too washed out. Would it help if I pull the lights further back? Angle them up more? It's just tough to take pics and then run over afterwards to the PC and see that they're not what I hoped.

I'm just anxious to master this element for online contests. Thanks!

Taking pics of wildlife and people is SO much easier than this.... haha.

All the best,

Jake

 

[Meehan34]

Try placing some baking paper over the front of your lights for another layer of light diffusion. This should soften the light even more for your light box.

 

[Einion]

I want soft and subtle lighting so that I can see everything correctly on the miniature. Everything is too washed out. Would it help if I pull the lights further back?

Don't know what the original is like but your photo doesn't look washed out, in fact it looks pretty good Jake! Seen lots worse.

Presumably from your comment it's not quite what the thing looks like IRL but few model shots are what you'd call 'documentary photos' of the miniature.

Pulling the lights back might help, but will cut down on how much light reaches the model - try it and see. More light (as long as it's properly diffused) is never a bad thing, that's how professional product photos are taken. But a lot of modellers get successful results with just two lamps.

Einion

 

[Daitri]

Have you tried deflecting the light.
or adding in relectors.

 

[redarmy27]

I'll try to defuse it a bit with the wax paper and see what happens. I currently use two lights, one on each side, but as you stated Ein, if I pull the lights back too much, I lose the amount of light reaching the model.

I haven't tried deflecting the light or reflectors yet, but I'll tink with it this weekend!

Jake

 

[roadking]

I use two lights above/either side about 8-10" and forward by about 6-8". I also use a light box that the figure sits on which illuminates the back drop so that it is lighter at the bottom and darker at top (theoretically opposite of the subject being photographed). The rest is just tweeking the camera settings, the effects of which can usually be seen and judged by looking at the viewing screen on the camera as you go.

Jim

 

[slaj]

Guys, someone placed a couple of links in the second post of this thread which led you to different backgrounds. Can't find them though. can someone repost them pls

Steve

 

[megroot]

Here you go Steve;
http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/showthread.php?43844-Photo-backgrounds-freebie

 

[redarmy27]

Thanks for all the feedback guys. I finally took the time to set up my proper "lighting studio" and I came up with this:

I'm happy with it, I just want to eliminate a little more of the glare off of the metals. I'll just have to shift around with the lighting a little.

The funny thing is that I'm going from a Nikon Coolpix P90 to a Nikon D200 with a Macro. With the bigger camera, I'm actually shooting a good 4-5 feet back from the model before I can get the whole thing in the frame! Whatever works I guess, haha.

Jake

 

[PaultheMilitaryModeller]

Hi

To eliminate as much of the glare as possible is best to use some sort of light tent, this is how they get glare free photos of silver. You don't need to buy anything expensive, although you can if you wish. Just make a box out of garden sticks and cover all but one side with tracing paper and cut a round hole through one side just bid enough for your camera lens to poke through.

Place the light tent over your subject, place a couple of lights ever side shinning through the box and shoot through to round hole you made earlier.

That will give you your best shot at glare less lighting

If you want an expensive one see here http://www.lastolite.com/studio-cubelite.php

Paul

 

[redarmy27]

Hey Paul,

Thanks for giving me that link and the advice. I’m already using a lightbox with my set up like this:

I think I just need to put some wax paper over the lights a bit to stop the glare. Shooting pictures of metallic surfaces is always going to be hard because of the light coming off the surface. Or I could bring the lights back a bit more, but I haven’t tried that yet with this new setup that randomly came to me before I went to bed. The previous set up was using the dresser in our bedroom, the new one resides in my “man cave” next to my painting/computer desk.

I’ll have to tinker with it I guess. Still, any advice is greatly appreciated!

All the best,
Jake

 

[redarmy27]

Also, I was going to ask: does anyone have any techniques they use to get the whole figure in focus? Perhaps I don't run into this much when I shoot athletes or wildlife due to the size of the subject, focal length, etc, but I've noticed that it's harder on a smaller scale. Should I keep moving the camera back or such?

Jake

 

[Einion]

Well you probably know that stopping down is the way to go for maximising depth of field - small aperture* = wider DOF, larger aperture = narrower DOF.

You are kind of at the mercy of your lens here, but ignoring the issue of light if you can use the smallest aperture the camera will go to. That'll give you the widest in-focus area possible with your setup.

*Higher number.

Einion

 

[redarmy27]

Well you probably know that stopping down is the way to go for maximising depth of field - small aperture* = wider DOF, larger aperture = narrower DOF.

You are kind of at the mercy of your lens here, but ignoring the issue of light if you can use the smallest aperture the camera will go to. That'll give you the widest in-focus area possible with your setup.

*Higher number.

Einion

I was afraid you'd say that! Bar... I'll keep at it . Although you must admit, the newest pic is sooo much clearer!

Jake

 

[Einion]

Yes, it's much lighter (in a good way, you can see more). I presume you have also done a bit of extra work on the paintjob since the first picture was taken though yes?

Re. reflections on metallics, I know these can sometimes get in the way of showing off the surface of the model properly but you need enough of them to see the thing is painted in metallics in the first place. Personally I think the amount of surface reflection in the second pic is just fine, but if you wanted you could certainly tweak in PS/Gimp to get that last 5% improvement (opening up the midtones, without blowing out the highlights).

Einion

 

[redarmy27]

Yes, it's much lighter (in a good way, you can see more). I presume you have also done a bit of extra work on the paintjob since the first picture was taken though yes?

Re. reflections on metallics, I know these can sometimes get in the way of showing off the surface of the model properly but you need enough of them to see the thing is painted in metallics in the first place. Personally I think the amount of surface reflection in the second pic is just fine, but if you wanted you could certainly tweak in PS/Gimp to get that last 5% improvement (opening up the midtones, without blowing out the highlights).

Einion

Actually only a little bit of work; it just shows how much better the second photo is quality-wise. I was messing with some midtones last night and I think I might just "have it". I'll put it up once I do some further work tonight. Didn't get much done last night with the storms and all. I might also consider going for a darker background; while ominous and a bit mysterious, the current one appears a little too bright. We'll have a go at it when I get home though

It's funny how I'm spending almost as much time getting the photography right as I am painting the bugger... ironic.

Jake

 

[redarmy27]

Well I did some messing around with the F-Stop a bit and got it in that "sweet spot". I also adjusted the levels just a touch to eliminate excessive glare. I think I found a winner!

 

[Einion]

Yeah your DOF here is super - pretty much all the way from the back of the cloak to the fingers of the left hand. Can't ask for better

This is partly a style/preference thing but to my eyes the pic could do with having the 3/4 tones (the medium shadow areas) opened up a touch more; this can be a tricky tweak depending on the software you have available though.

Einion

 

[redarmy27]

Thanks for the feedback!

I’m looking for some final critiques on my guy as they said they’ll be listing the final date of entry at any day now. Feel free to be brutally honest of him in the photography elements. I think I’m lacking in the photography department as I feel his face is getting washed out. I’ve put a lot of work into the face, but it seems that I just get it be shown right.

I’m getting ready to put the web on as well, but I want all the details to be there before I load in the big guns with the webbing effects I’m planning. He’s at 99% but I need that last little “umph” to get me there.
I wonder if I need to angle the lighting better, especially on the right side.
Any thoughts?
All the best,
Jake