This is for all you guys who take pictures of your miniatures. I've been
trying to take some pictures with a camera that has autofocus, and the results
have not been good at all. Usually the picture comes out very
blurry with close-up shots. Is there any way of taking relatively clear
pictures with an autofocus camera, or am I doomed to failure? Is a
high-quality camera, with good lighting, really necessary for taking
> Control Robot wrote:
> This is for all you guys who take pictures of your miniatures. I've
Well, I think good lighting is always going to be necessary. Of course, that
can be as simple as a few cheap lamps and some shirt cardboards.
For the focus issue, off the top of my head, that's going to depend on the
model of camera you have. Does it have a "macro" mode for telling the
auto-focus that
you are doing close-up work? Can you disable the focus and use manual
focus?
My brother is a photographer by trade. If you'll let me know what equipment
you're using, I can ask if he has any advice that might yield better results.
Now, taking advice from my brother, I've found a digital camera works great
for this sort of thing. If I understand what my brother has said on this
properly, the small size of the imaging element makes digital cameras well
suited for close up work. Having a live preview on the back of the camera also
helps quite a bit too.
This pic: http://www.wombatzone.com/images/GundamSet.jpg was taken with
my camera (Nikon C800) and the detail level is pretty good (the graphic has
been shrunk to ~50% of the size the camera recorded). I've had to use manual
focus a few times (mostly on figs that have bazookas pointed at the camera),
but overall
its macro-mode has worked out well for me.
> --- Control Robot <cqin@ee.ualberta.ca> wrote:
Camera's usually have a minimum focus distance. On the 'point and shoots' it's
usually 3 feet or so, less on the Slurs. Defiantly turn on a macro mode if you
have one like Ray Forsythe suggested (the icon is almost always a little
flower), or just move the camera back. Also if you have a point and shoot
camera the viewfinder is offset from the lens and the picture isn't exactly
what you see in it, it's actually probly not getting what's the top of the
view finder (this is how grandma cuts peoples heads off). I would defiantly
use an area with good lighting, natural lighting (i.e. the sun) is best,
because using the flash will create shadows and glare off shiny parts. You
don't need a expensive camera or equipment to do the pictures (although it
can't hurt), as long as you understand what the camera can do. If all else
fails, go down to your local camera shop and ask
for advice (not the local Wal-Mart camera section, an actual camera shop
like Ritz or any smaller local place), bring the camera if you can.
[quoted original message omitted]
Thank you everyone for replying to my post. My camera is a Pentax ESPIO
140M, which it seems to me is more designed for point-and-click shooting
of longer ranged scenery. It's supposed to have a "spot AF" mode that makes it
focus better on closer objects, but I'm not sure if that's really affecting
anything. If anyone can tell me more about this camera (since I don't know
anything about photography) that'll be really appreciated. Thanks.
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 08:49:20PM -0600, Control Robot wrote:
In addition to what other people have said: many autofocus cameras have
a "hold focus" mode, activated by half-pressing the shutter release. Put
a piece of card with solid black lines on a white ground in the place of the
miniature, let the camera focus on that, then hold the focus while you take
the card away.
One thing I found from my auto-focus camera. Once it
is set in focus (the green LED would glow steady) I could move it slightly in
or out to improve focus without it reseting the lens.
I received a new camera for my birthday so I do not have that problem any
longer.
Bob
> --- Control Robot <cqin@ee.ualberta.ca> wrote:
The biggest issue I've always found, even with a decent camera, is lighting.
If you don't have enough light, regardless of whether or not you're intending
to use a flash, the camera doesn't seem to be able to
focus properly - presumably because it can't clearly see what its trying
to focus on.
Tony
> --- Control Robot <cqin@ee.ualberta.ca> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:49:20 -0600, Control Robot <cqin@ee.ualberta.ca>
wrote:
> Is there any way of taking relatively clear
It depends on what you mean by "autofocus camera".
If you mean a standard "point and shoot" (that is, a camera with a fixed lens,
usually the type with little icons of a face, a group of people, and a
mountain/landscape), then you're right, you're doomed.
If you mean something like an SLR (single lens reflex; i.e. a camera where you
can swap lenses) but which will automatically change the focus on your camera
for you (you can tell this because you will hear a "whir" when it changes
focus), then you can take good pictures.
Since most half decent SLRs are at least in the $300+ range, I'm
guessing that
this is _not_ what you want.
I have a Nikon SLR. I have a half decent telephoto zoom lens with a "macro"
setting that lets me get in close. I also have some screw-on close-up
filters. Using cheap studio lamps, I can get a half decent result.
You can also get good results with a digital camera, but most digitals can't
get close enough unless you get a close-up filter for it (digitals can
often
take screw on or "slip on" filters/lenses for this sort of thing).
Regardless of the camera, lighting is a very good idea. Digitals are really
good at compensating for different coloured light and for low-light
situations. Most folks seem to forget, though, that you want lighting to deal
with shadows, not just exposure. A digital will usually balance the colours
properly if you use, say, a couple of desk lamps. Film is usually colour
balanced for outdoor sunlight, so if you use desk lamps you need to put on
some special "blue" filters to get the colour more-or-less right. A
better result comes from using photolamps that are already properly colour
balanced.
The short answer is, yes, you're probably doomed unless you get a better
camera. Some options, other than buying a new camera:
- rent a camera, which can be done if you live in a big city
- take pictures with your little point and shoot but from a distance.
Use low grain film (i.e. 100 speed). Get the film processed onto a Kodak
PhotoCD or
have it scanned at _really_ high resolution. Crop and blow up the
picture in Photoshop or something like that. You'll find the result will be
adequate for putting on a web site or something.
They key to this is good lighting. As in lots of it and a slow shutter speed.
Your auto focus camera is going to try to focus on a sharp edge, somewhere
near the middle of the frame. But if, due to lack of light or a
fast shutter speed, the f-stop opens up, you depth of field is going to
go to pot. You are taking a still life. Your subject isn't moving. So you want
your shutter speed as slow as needed to insure that you have as small an
f-stop as you can get (assuming this are adjustable on your camera).
Scott B. Jaqua
SCA Link http://sjaqua.tripod.com
Gaming Link http://www.geocities.com/sjaqua/
[quoted original message omitted]
Scott Jaqua schrieb:
> They key to this is good lighting. As in lots of it and a
If you go for a slow shutter speed, make sure the camera is stable.
Don't just shoot free-hand, as this will lead to motion blur. Depending
on how steady your hand is and the focal length, somewhere between
1/15th and 1/50th is usually the limit.
A tripod is best, or rest the camera on books or similar. If possible, use a
remote cable.
Lots of lihgt is always the best option.
Greetings
> At 10:44 PM 6/26/2002 +0200, you wrote:
One of the tricks my brother showed me was that a bean bag (or a shooters rest
bag) works really nice for this.
Thank you everyone for giving me advice on taking photographs. I'll try some
of the suggestions here, such as good lighting, and putting the camera farther
away with some kind of support. If the pictures turn out well, I'll put them
on my website and send the URL to the list. Once again, thanks
Regarding lighting, for Photos or painting. My wife got me an Ott Light (full
spectrum portable lamp). Closest to natural sunlight you can get. It has made
a real difference in the amount of detail I see, as well as seeing paint in
true colors.
Have a look at
http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~aebrain/epic/orkrhin.jpg
This was taken using a single 45 watt lamp nearby. The figures are 5mm. Taken
at a distance of 3cm.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/epic/files/Images/GOFFIK2.JPG
was taken under natural light, at 3cm.
Yes, these are GW Ork figs.
http://members.tripod.com/panpacalliance/3d9781a0.jpg
Was taken under natural light, at a distance of 5cm. This is a converted
FENCER Ogre, made by Ral Partha.
Camera Used: Ricoh RDC-300
http://www.epinions.com/elec_Cameras-Digital_RicohRDCC-Ricoh_RDC-300
http://www.g4wjx.freeserve.co.uk/Ricoh/watch300.jpg
shows the degree of detail possible by a good photographer.
This camera is now about 5 years old, so should be available
second-hand cheap-cheap-cheap. 640x480 resolution, adequate
for webwork. Best thing about it is the superb close-up capability,
I have fiddled a bit with these camera things also. (You see, I do tinker with
"LEGO" sets, and I have been trying to take pics of my creations...)
I have a DSP-100 (a VERY cheap digital camera.)
No LCD on the back. I only used it attached to my laptop with USB. I would
adjust the camera, take the pic, download the image to my laptop to view it,
and repeat.
Long and tedious -- but it works.
My most recent camera is a Camedia D-100 (a 1.3 megapixel REAL camera)
This one is so easy to use. It has an LCD monitor on the back, with a "real
time" mode. You just point and click. This one has a slot for a smart media
card. I put the maximum size card I could find: 128 MB (Yes, This means I can
take something like 1350 640x480 pictures...Stop motion video anyone?) Has an
USB connection. The computer treats it as a hard drive! Makes getting the pics
easy. This thing was on sale a couple of months ago. (Jeez I sound like a
commercial...)
Donald Hosford
> Alan and Carmel Brain wrote:
> Have a look at