|
|
Post by fightnjoe on Mar 2, 2015 8:15:50 GMT -5
Rick that is very kind. Thank you.
I still have to get by the paint stage. So much can still go wrong with this.
Joe
|
|
|
|
Post by fightnjoe on Mar 3, 2015 20:59:27 GMT -5
A duel purpose update. Trying out a bigger home made photo booth and paint is on. Three hours worth of paint work is now accomplished. I tried the same thing that I had been working on the last few projects. I would appreciate the feedback on this. Sorry for the blurry picture of the wing. I was trying for a closeup and the camera would not cooperate.        Happy with the way the paint looks but unhappy that my white backdrop looks gray. Going to have to work on that again. Maybe add more light. Comments, critiques, and criticism are encouraged. Joe |
|
|
|
Post by deafpanzer on Mar 3, 2015 21:00:48 GMT -5
Superb painting job!
|
|
|
|
Post by JimD on Mar 3, 2015 21:22:05 GMT -5
Joe, the paint looks fantastic. It's really coming along beautifully. I can help out with the white I think. It'd help to know what kind of camera you're using. If a it's a point and shoot type digital camera it's all going to depend on the setting the camera has to work it out, but if it's a DSLR we can fix it easily. You're actually underexposed in the photos where the white is grey. This can happen if your camera is metering mostly white in a scene. A lot of times you see it with snowy scenes...where the snow will be grey in the photo. The cameras built in meter is trying to expose to somewhere between 15%-18% grey...so when faced with large swatches of white it underexposes the scene (because its metering the scene thinking it's brighter than it actually is)...making the white parts grey. So I'm guessing you're using a point and shoot (also based on the focus issue in the wing pic). A point and shoot generally is set to auto, so it makes all the adjustment on it's on. Without changing things with some exposure compensation etc. it will do this since they generally meter the whole scene. Point and shoot digital cameras will struggle to focus if you get too close...basically you're too far inside the focal length of the lens. You're closer to the subject than the camera can focus. More light necessarily won't fix it, because the camera will still meter the scene as bright and underexpose. (Because of all the white in the background) If you are familiar with the settings you can adjust in your particular camera then you need to have some positive exposure compensation or you need to change metering modes...it's either in a matrix mode (where it meters everyting in the frame) or a center weighted mode (where it meters off the center-most part of the scene...this would cause it to underexpose less...but in this case probably not much). You need a spot metering where it meters off a single spot you point the camera. I'm not sure what settings point and shoots do and don't have, so I don't even know if adjusting this is an option. If you're not that comfortable or know the setting of your camera well enough...you can tell me the model and I can see if I can find an online manual to give you an idea of what settings you can control. If you have a DSLR all of this is easily fixed with proper settings.... Hopefully I haven't confused you....and I hope I'm not telling you stuff you know  Please DO NOT hesitate to ask questions...I'm happy to help...and there are a lot of other guys here that know their photography stuff who I am sure are willing to help too. |
|
Rick
Full Member
Member since: March 2013
what to build, what to build . . . Ok THAT one!
Posts: 854 
|
Post by Rick on Mar 3, 2015 22:14:58 GMT -5
Right on target Jimmy. Exposure is tricky when there's a wide of light and dark.
Joe, I think your paint is looking good. German camo is not easy. Looks like you're right on track.
Rick
|
|
|
|
Post by fightnjoe on Mar 3, 2015 23:15:59 GMT -5
Jimmy the camera is a Nikon D3100 DSLR. I used the 12-55 lens. I did drop the exposure from 1.7 to .3. I had done this for the previous round of pictures and forgotten to do anything with it this time. I need to play with it more. I really appreciate the comments. I will work with some of the suggestions and hopefully it will help.
Rick it is one of the reasons I dislike working with German aircraft. I do not have very good luck in the finishes.
Joe
|
|
|
|
Post by JimD on Mar 4, 2015 0:05:02 GMT -5
Well looking at the photos you've clearly got enough light to get good photos. Your monitor may be an issue to some extent. However, on my screen (which is color calibrated) you bottom two pictures are perfect. I know the Nikon system fairly well, so that's good There are a few ways to solve the issue: 1. You can not mess with the current settings at all and just overexpose manually. You can't really do that in auto modes, so you'd need to be in manual. But you could use whatever metering mode the camera is in, let it meter the scene and dial in some overexposure. If this was a +.3 exposure compensation I think you probably need around a full stop. 2. It'd be easier to go with current settings and adjust exposure compensation up. Essential what this does is zeros the meter. You'd be at the same exposure as above, but the meter would zero out at the center line. 3. The other option is to change metering. I'm wanting to say you're probably in center-weighted. Your photos seem to suggest that to me because of how they are more properly exposed when more of the airplane is in the frame. There could be other factors of course...if you adjusted anything etc. If you want a more correct exposure then spot metering would be best. It's the icon under metering with just the dot. It will meter wherever the dot is pointed. Point it at the subject and it will be closer, but still may not be perfect. The meter in the camera is picking up reflected light, so it can still be fooled if whatever your point at isn't close to 18% grey (actually I believe it's 16% in Nikons). Another good tip is to shoot in RAW if you can. I've got somewhere around 10,000 raw images on my computer...they are huge I know...but size is really the only reason not to use it if you can...if you're withing 1/5 stops on exposure you can pretty much correct it in processing with zero destruction. I shoot with two speedlights and I don't meter at all. I get it close on the histogram and adjust in post. Looking at the LCD image the camera gives you isn't very helpful either, so if you play around to where it's right there, it probably won't be on the computer screen. The LCD uses a horribly compressed JPEG...they are no where near representative to what you're actually getting. Lots of words, but I hope I've helped seem. It does seem you know a bit about this stuff anyway...please don't think me presumptuous, and just ignore me if you know all of this  I'll say it again too...with the skin and paint down this thing is really coming to form. Absolutely awesome stuff. |
|
sturmbird
Full Member
Member since: June 2012
Posts: 1,406
Jun 21, 2012 13:51:45 GMT -5
Jun 21, 2012 13:51:45 GMT -5
|
Post by sturmbird on Mar 4, 2015 16:46:03 GMT -5
I use a Nikon based system, but it's also a little different from the Nikons. I use Fuji's, and they use similar lenses. Macro photography is my favorite form to shoot in, and there several factors to deal with. First of all is your white balance. Looks like your using fluorescent lighting. Quit using it! The camera's flash is marginal at best, and you really want a ring flash that mounts on the front of the camera.
I have not shot a picture in raw, in several years. Why? I hate Photoshop with a passion! I don't have time to mess with correcting something that should have been done right the first time. About the only thing I use it for is cropping and maybe a little zoom.
One major issue with digital cameras is shooting colors. Some do it better, and many simply suck at it. There is no real correction as most of the time it's in the sensor chip. Sometimes a filter will help, but don't bet on it. Just because you spent $10K doesn't mean your colors are right. Good ones don't make money for Adobe. I have three or four RAW converters, and the fastest ones are not the best. The slowest is, and it still sucks.
I shoot with lenses that go from 12mm to 300mm in macro. My favorite is 85mm. Just seems to do it all. Least is the 300mm, but it has it's purposes. I almost always use manual focus off a tripod. Plus I use a remote shutter release. Real important when shooting insects. My next setup change will have the camera plugged into my laptop to make it easier to see what's going on. Newer cameras have a flip up LCD screen, and that's a real plus. My DSLR's don't.
gary
|
|
|
|
Post by JimD on Mar 4, 2015 17:01:34 GMT -5
If anything the WB in those photos are on the cool side, and I'm not seeing it that much honestly. The lights are fine. It's entirely a metering issue here. The white balance compensation is pretty good even in the 3100 too, so if it's set accordingly it's usually not a problem.
Lightroom is your friend too. I hardly ever use PS. It takes 4 seconds to correct exposure and tweek things in LR and paste it across every photo in a set.
|
|
thug626
Senior Member
Member since: January 2013
Posts: 2,035
Jan 15, 2013 13:05:28 GMT -5
Jan 15, 2013 13:05:28 GMT -5
|
Post by thug626 on Mar 4, 2015 19:45:57 GMT -5
Awesome work on the camo Joe! Top notch!
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by Leon on Mar 4, 2015 20:44:06 GMT -5
Nice camo and painting on th 109 Joe!
|
|
|
|
Post by fightnjoe on Mar 4, 2015 22:05:02 GMT -5
Many thanks all.
Jimmy thinking about this all day today I came to a three point conclusion. 1) My lighting was off, I was using one overhead bulb (fluorescent) and that caused me issues. 2) My exposure was off, I had reset the exposure for a very well lighted home made booth I have in my hobby room. This new setup is in the dining room and I failed to reset the camera accordingly. 3) I did not test at all on this new setup. I took the photos I posted and that was it. For my booth in the hobby room I had taken several hundred photos to get the settings right.
Gary many thanks. My only experiences with using flash for pictures turned out horribly wrong. I stopped and started using more light and just recently started to play with the settings on my camera, how the lights are set up, and a photo booth. I am still learning. I do take pictures where I get them as RAW files but they also are saved as JPEG. Funny though I only use Photoshop to resize the JPEG images so that they do not cause issues when I upload them to sites like Photobucket.
Dave, Leon, many thanks.
Joe
|
|
|
|
Post by JimD on Mar 4, 2015 22:55:03 GMT -5
I'm glad you got it sorted out. looking forward to some updates with the new setup. |
|
sturmbird
Full Member
Member since: June 2012
Posts: 1,406
Jun 21, 2012 13:51:45 GMT -5
Jun 21, 2012 13:51:45 GMT -5
|
Post by sturmbird on Mar 5, 2015 2:21:34 GMT -5
If anything the WB in those photos are on the cool side, and I'm not seeing it that much honestly. The lights are fine. It's entirely a metering issue here. The white balance compensation is pretty good even in the 3100 too, so if it's set accordingly it's usually not a problem. Lightroom is your friend too. I hardly ever use PS. It takes 4 seconds to correct exposure and tweek things in LR and paste it across every photo in a set. fluorescent lighting comes in as a cool blue grey. There is a program in the camera to adjust for it, if there is an issue. I like a ring light as it concentrates the light into the view. On the otherhand a 1/24th scale kit may not need to be shot in macro, and perhaps using the close focus might work better. Most of my macro shooting is of bugs crawling on flowers. I've also done it in medium format with spaced shooting to get a time lapsed series of photos. Would love to have a digital medium format camera. gary |
|
|
|
Post by fightnjoe on Mar 6, 2015 21:05:17 GMT -5
Still working on the phototaking but decals are now on. Beware, these decals were very difficult to work with. They did not want to come off the backing and tore and shattered at times. Kind of surprised that I did not destroy any of them. They did not settle down until after many applications of Micro Sol. Next up will be another coat of future and then some weathering.       All comments, critiques, and criticism are encouraged. Joe |
|
|
|
Post by TRM on Mar 6, 2015 21:26:43 GMT -5
I told you on FB this was looking insane Joe! The paint came out excellent looking at it from this side of the fence!! Some solid modelling all around!! You're getting there on the pics my friend! If you can swing it sometime, a sheet of white poster board from Wally World...$1, white give a smoother and lest contrasted white in the background. But everything is looking much brighter and less grey!!  |
|
|
|
Post by bullardino on Mar 7, 2015 3:55:05 GMT -5
Wow. I'm speechless, this is art.
|
|
|
|
Post by fightnjoe on Mar 7, 2015 11:26:55 GMT -5
Many thanks both of you.
T I had a sheet of the white poster board but to be honest it is too small for these big birds. I cannot find any that are big enough to work. I think I swung too far the other way with this set of pics. I need to back down one setting and see if I can dial in the exposure.
Joe
|
|
|
|
Post by wbill76 on Mar 7, 2015 17:45:33 GMT -5
Looking good with the markings on Joe. Almost done with this one!
|
|
|
|
Post by Leon on Mar 7, 2015 20:24:41 GMT -5
Looking really good with the markings on Joe! |
|
|
|
Post by TRM on Mar 7, 2015 20:48:45 GMT -5
Sure you will dial in the whiteness soon enough Joe! Looks like you have to go with a smaller scale now then!! LOL!! I wonder if you could find a bright white window shade wide enough. Pull it down when you need it and away when you don't! |
|
|
|
Post by fightnjoe on Mar 8, 2015 22:45:30 GMT -5
Many many thanks.
T I have a couple of ideas to try to fix the issue.
Joe
|
|
sturmbird
Full Member
Member since: June 2012
Posts: 1,406
Jun 21, 2012 13:51:45 GMT -5
Jun 21, 2012 13:51:45 GMT -5
|
Post by sturmbird on Mar 9, 2015 0:40:13 GMT -5
Many many thanks. T I have a couple of ideas to try to fix the issue. Joe a few years back I did some experimenting with a pair of Otte Lights and different colors of back ground. For what I wanted to do, I ended up with almost exactly the opposite of what I would have thought I wanted. Once I got kind of close, I spray painted two sheets of foam I picked up at the hobby shop. Must use flat or matte painted surfaces to prevent any reflection. One trick you can do to make the example just jump out at you, is to use a back ground flash (behind it) to high light it. I did this with film, but have never tried it with digital. Yet I know it works well as I've seen the results. There's a program you can download that will help you calibrate the color on your monitor, and thus help you get the colors in the camera right. I also use the other one, but see little advantage. I would suggest buying a piece of white card stock, and repaint it white (forget the factory white!). Then after it dries, paint half of it black (the blackest black you can find). Use this as a gauge to set up your blacks and whites. 95% of digital cameras shoot blacks in a grey scale, and you can use this to adjust the blacks from a dark blue charcoal to a dense black in Adobe. The white side will tell you if you whites are actually a grey or a very light blue. That one is near impossible to fix. After you get the B&W's calibrated as best you can, make a second board (or just use the backside of the other)and set one up with red, green, blue and yellow squares (about two or three inch squares over a white back ground. Somewhere in there add an orange stripe that doesn't touch the squares. What your looking for is true color, plus flares. Flares are hard to stop, and you can see them starting with a fuzzy outline. Adobe can't do much here, but sometimes a filter will. gary |
|
|
|
Post by fightnjoe on Mar 9, 2015 22:37:32 GMT -5
Gary I cannot thank you enough for the suggestions. Now... Tidying up the little things. The Prop is ready.  The landing gear are ready.  The wheels are ready.  Just a few more things to go. Do not mind the pictures. This time I think I know what happened. All comments, critiques, and criticism are encouraged. Joe |
|
|
|
Post by wing_nut on Mar 9, 2015 23:06:08 GMT -5
WOW Joe... SCHWING!
|
|
|
|
Post by deafpanzer on Mar 9, 2015 23:07:03 GMT -5
AWESOME!!! Propeller looks sexy...
|
|
sturmbird
Full Member
Member since: June 2012
Posts: 1,406
Jun 21, 2012 13:51:45 GMT -5
Jun 21, 2012 13:51:45 GMT -5
|
Post by sturmbird on Mar 10, 2015 0:30:39 GMT -5
Gary I cannot thank you enough for the suggestions. Now... Tidying up the little things. The Prop is ready. The landing gear are ready. The wheels are ready. Just a few more things to go. Do not mind the pictures. This time I think I know what happened. All comments, critiques, and criticism are encouraged. Joe macro can be addictive. Not a lot different than the other stuff, but still a little more finite. True macro images completely fill the picture frame, and that's why I said to try close focus. For me the smallest image I've done is the hind leg of a Japanese beetle, but have done ants. Lastly, buy a good tripod! That with a remote shutter release will make a big difference. gary |
|
|
|
Post by Leon on Mar 10, 2015 4:00:47 GMT -5
Nice work on the small things Joe!
|
|
|
|
Post by dupes on Mar 10, 2015 10:18:36 GMT -5
Looks great, Joe! Must be almost finished? Lightroom is your friend too. It takes 4 seconds to correct exposure and tweek things in LR and paste it across every photo in a set. I had no idea that you could do this. I would LOVE to be able to batch-edit photos! |
|
|
|
Post by JimD on Mar 10, 2015 10:24:36 GMT -5
It's looking absolutely fabulous, Joe. You're getting very close it seems Looks great, Joe! Must be almost finished? Lightroom is your friend too. It takes 4 seconds to correct exposure and tweek things in LR and paste it across every photo in a set. I had no idea that you could do this. I would LOVE to be able to batch-edit photos! Yeah...once you edit one photo you can copy those settings and paste them across all photos in a set. I've forgotten the exact action. I tried it once and my laptop punched me. It's very RAM intensive...and frankly...I need to add more...running PS and LR really bogs things down as it is...so I just do it one photo at a time. I make very few adjustments to model photos anyway...but when using it for portrait work I edit photos individually anyway. |
|
Please DO NOT hesitate to ask questions...I'm happy to help...and there are a lot of other guys here that know their photography stuff who I am sure are willing to help too. 
