Layout Photography Pointers??

BobRoyals,

You should check out Joey Ricard's Photography thread.

https://ogrforum.com/t...art-1-back-to-basics

Regards,

Calvin

Lots and lots of light and a tripod are starters. The light has to get rid of all the dark spaces and shadows. I am by no means a photographer, but just those things help me a great deal.

"Lots and lots of light..." will only make those dark shadows worse. Hard, direct light is not the best for model photograhy. Soft, even light is what makes for good model photos.

And do not EVER use the on-camera flash.  That's a sure-fire guarantee for a lousy picture.

Did Rich mention to use a tripod?
Oh, he didn't, well he gets one demerit

Tripod, Tripod, Tripod

...and if there ever was a lousy picture, one could guarantee that no matter what else is wrong with the shot, it was taken free hand.

I did know to not use the flash, that really does make it worse. The extra light is the only way I can ever get the camera to not use the flash, unless I turn it off manually. I don't really like to override the camera as it usually knows more than I do.

A beanbag to support your camera for low shots and a cable release. Also don't mix light types. No Flash and tungsten or LED and CFL etc

Shot the biggest file size you can  and RAW if you understand it

....and if your camera doesn't accept a cable release use the self timer!!

Or buy a better camera

Better yet....just use your camera phone!!!  With the flash. 

Of course, any train or layout pic is better than none.

If you really think the camera knows more than you do, then you need to learn more about your camera! You will never get professional results letting the camera make all the decisons in auto mode.

RAW is a waste of time and hard drive space. I never use it. None of the images which appear in OGR magazine were shot in RAW mode. They are all high quality jpg images.

Just set the camera to take the largest jpg image it is capable of at the highest quality setting and you will be fine.

If you shoot JPEG you MUST think the camera knows more than you do - because you are letting the camera's algorithm build the JPEG from the RAW data rather than controlling the process yourself.

Yes, if the camera guessed the white balance correctly, and happened to to pull an exposure you like from the raw sensor data, and applied a sharpening algorithm that works for you, all well and good. But not if you want more control, particularly outside of studio conditions.

I don't need to control the jpg compression process to get publication quality images. It is an unnecessary step in the process that simply is not needed. Why should I make more work for myself? I work on several hundred images in Photoshop every month, so more steps in the workflow is something I definitely do not need.

My camera doesn't "guess" about anything. I never use ANY of the automatic modes. I run my camera in full manual mode all the time. In doing that, I am controlling the important things - white balance, exposure, f-stop, shutter speed, etc. I don't add any digital sharpening to the image anywhere in the process, in the camera or in Photoshop. If an image is properly focused and exposed, it doesn't need any additional sharpening.

I understand the purists who want to work in RAW, and if that's what blows your hair back, go for it! My point is that after working on tens of thousands of images for publication in OGR, I have found that the additional work flow steps that RAW requires aren't necessary and I don't need the small amount of additional image control it provides in order to achieve publication quality results.

I'd be very surprised if you're manually mapping the 14 bit or so range of your sensor to 8 bit JPEG range without RAW - you're letting the camera take its best guess.  

But fair enough - RAW is not a worthwhile investment of time given your particular workload, source material and output needs.  That's a little different than "RAW is a waste of time and hard drive space."

Practice.  Take pictures, look at them on your computer and critique themk and work to improve . . . lots of advice and tips on photography on line (too much actually) but that is no substitute for just playing with things.  You can teach yourself.  About five years ago I was not good at it, but did this.  Recently I submitted some photos to a mag and was complimented on my photography skills!  Really, me? 

I would not advise spending a lot on an expensive camera.  I have a Nikon that cost $59 on sale and it has done a lot of good.  A tripod to hold it steady and allow you to position the camera one time is a good idea, too.  (Mine cost a bit more than the camera).  Then you can try zooming, light position and all, say do six versions of one scene and study them.  This way you can teach yourself what does what, etc.  One thin I learned was to not use too much light - while it improves some things, it can over do it, but to focus and where it comes from, etc..  

One critical item that has not been addressed regarding JPEGs. A JPEG is a lossy compression file i.e. every time you save a JPEG it throws away information. So, if you do any editing of your file and save it or simply re-save your original, you have in effect degraded your image. Every time you save it you lose more information.

The way around that problem is to immediately save your image as a TIFF file. TIFF files can be saved over and over without losing anything. 

However, shooting and then working in raw allows you to to render an image without altering your original or raw image data. It is a non-destructive editing process. That way you can always go back to your original file. In raw you can also make specific adjustments for your particular camera and lens. There's much more to it than that, but if you're serious about getting the most out of your camera, shooting in raw is the way to go. 

For us dumb button pushers. Three things of importance.

(1.) Lighting.

(2.) Solid support for the camera.

(3.) Maybe some lens adaptors, even for the point and shoot cameras.

Tripod for a point and shoot.   Set the camera to time shot, and get your hands off the camera.  Turn the flash off.  IMO.

These are back pack friendly.

Surprisingly, for a few bucks, this lens set, with an adaptor will fit my very old point and shoot. Most noted ability gained, is close-up of small parts.

Lighting was a major part of my layout.  Doesn't take much to get the light I want, in some cases, may be too much light, I rarely use the flash.

Two different types of lighting.  Without spending serious money, the smaller 110 volt heads do a fair job of spot lighting, larger floods, for general illumination.  The tracks, and swivel mounts allow for light positioning.   I never did dimmer switches on this track lighting, it may be an advantage. 

 Pictures taken at 100 to 125 KB easily become internet material without much work.

Biggest criticism of pictures I see here on the forum, Flash wash-out.  Flash exposure tends to over-light the picture, which destroys a lot of suttle shadows and color. IMO.  Mike CT

Instant, point and shoot, digital photography is both good and problematic.  It's good because photography is now accessible to everyone. However, because of automation, the craft of photography is being lost. 

I don't know Dennis.  You can do a lot with a point and shoot.  Rule is if you take enough shots you are bound to get a good one.

No argument there! 

Auto settings are great for most picture taking and produce great results as Mike's excellent photo shows.

But, there is a big difference between layout photography and "normal" everyday picture taking. The auto functions of cameras are designed primarily for these "normal" situations.

To make a layout photo believable, you have to increase the depth of field to keep more of the photo in focus. This is done by decreasing the lens aperture or "stopping down" the lens by shooting at large f/ numbers.

This can only be done by manually controlling the camera, shooting at what is called "aperture priority". A camera should have this mode if you want to do layout photography with it.

Since stopping down the lens means less light is being received, exposure times will increase making the tripod and delayed shutter release necessary.

Even some professionals have trouble with this. If you have ever seen "layout photos" taken by a news photographer covering a model railroad event, depth of field is sometimes terrible in these newspaper photos.

Depth of field is normally not a problem for large objects at a distance from the camera as in everyday photography. But, taking photos of small objects at a greatly decreased distance from the camera as in layout photography makes keeping everything in focus much more difficult.

Photo at "normal" wide aperture as set by auto. The first loco is in sharp focus, but the worker in front and the other locos are not.

Aperture priority mode set at highest f/ number. The increased depth of field keeps much more of the scene in focus :

Click these photos for a larger view and better idea of how increased depth of field can help your layout photography.

Jim

(By the way, I shoot in RAW also and only create a JPG when I have adjusted white balance, contrast, etc., etc.)

I'm guessing that you haven't seen Joey Ricard's Photography thread.  All his photography was done with a cell phone using the self timer feature.

There is no difference between allowing the camera to "...take its best guess..." on the jpg compression or doing the exact same thing in Photoshop, where Photoshop will "...take its best guess..." on the jpg compression. If both are set to the maximum quality setting, jpg compression artifacts are invisible anyway.

For me, RAW is a waste of time and hard drive space. I would wager that statement is probably true for 95% of digital photographers. I'll let the quality of the images which appear in OGR every month speak for themselves.

Jim Policastro...thanks for the excellent explanation and illustration of depth of field. Nicely done...as usual!

Rich, I think you missed his point.

And, if you're referring to professional photographers, I'll take that bet!

Based on my experiences shooting with RAW in Canon DSLRs, I'd say there's not-insignificant difference in the amount of info and/or detail retained in RAW vs JPEG. I often shoot RAW+JPEG (highest quality JPEG). The RAW files look flatter, with less clipping (loss of detail) in both the highlights and shadows. I also think the RAW version retains more fine detail.

This shot of NKP 765 is overexposed by a stop and a half or two. I was chasing and hopped out of the car as the train was a couple seconds away, and forgot to check settings on the camera. Also, the sensor was dirty at that point, so there's crud in the frame, especially at the upper right.

The RAW image was opened with no tone adjustment. Both pix were then saved as JPEGs, quality 12. No toning or any other work in PS on either. Yes, the JPEG file has now had a second round of compression.

To depth of field - a rule of thumb from I recall from my youth was to put the point of sharp focus about a third of the way into the area you want in focus - in Jim's pix above, focus on the second engine, rather than the one in front, say, while shooting with smallish apertures (large F numbers). Focus appears to fall off more quickly to the front than to the rear.

In a controlled environment, well-lit and properly exposed, there would be less of a difference in RAW vs JPEG, but still a difference. I agree with Rich that the images look good in the magazine.

Now, off topic - looking at the statement of ownership, management and circulation in Run 276 - how were more copies distributed than were printed (the monthly average for 2014)?

David

My two cents

Raw is a plain picture all the effect could be adjusted in a computer JPEG has a built in self adjustments.

focus is interesting.

Here is a sample "A caboose in the same track with the engine"

the first picture shows the focus on the caboose.

Second picture the focus is on the engine.

can you see the optical illusion. does the engine appear like on a parallel track regarding the caboose?

Andre,

Those photos show that being selective with the depth of field can be used to emphasize certain objects in a photo.

That second one is amazing in the way it seems to bring the engine out almost in front of the caboose. Something that we probably could never do if we tried, but happens by accident.

It shows why you should take lots and lots of photos and experiment. You never know when you might come up with a real winner.

Jim

Hint, hint... 

A lot of times, folks talk about photography as if it's an "absolute" medium.  However, when you get down and dirty, photography is far from an "absolute", and you'll quickly discover there are very few -- if any -- hard-and-fast "rules".  Experiment and have fun learning.  That's what it's all about. 

The whole RAW vs. JPEG thing is a perfect example.  Nobody is wrong here... yet nobody is 100% correct either.  Professionals learn how to deal with RAW files in a way that it's not a waste of their time... since time is money, and nobody wants to waste either.  So it's best not to beat one's chest too hard pontificating about it. 

Same thing with focus/depth-of-field.  There are times when good depth-of-field is absolutely necessary to create an image with maximum focus -- very often true in landscape photography.  But there are also times when selective focus draws the viewers attention directly to what's intended to be emphasized.  In the latter case, image composition is critical, since you often wouldn't want folks to actually "see" what's not in focus, in order to pull that type of shot off effectively.

Tripod vs. no tripod is yet another area where the world is forever changing.  While a tripod is often helpful when shutter speeds become slower than the inverse of the lens focal length (i.e., 1/200th second for a 200mm lens), it's not ALWAYS a necessity nowadays.  Lens "image stabilization"  or "vibration reduction" technology has advanced to the point where sharp hand-held shots can now be achieved at 4 or even 5 stops below what would have been recommended decades ago.   I find -- more often than not -- that the use of a tripod helps more when trying to create image consistency (from a composition standpoint) rather than as a necessary means of maintaining sharp focus.

Even "on-camera flash" can be a bit of a misnomer nowadays.  It's very true that DIRECT on-camera flash is a sure sign of amateur work, but there are all kinds of light-modifiers and techniques that can change the character of an on-camera flash dramatically.  Bouncing the flash as well as coordinating on-camera flash with off-camera lighting can produce a world of interesting results.

Bottom line... once you realize that the rules of yesteryear are pretty much guaranteed to be broken nowadays, you're less apt to talk about photography in absolute terms and more likely to speak in relative terms -- letting folks explore all the capabilities of both the medium and their imagination.  

David

Realistic model railroad photography for publication absolutely requires the use of a tripod and absolute control of your depth of field. Maximum depth of field is necessary if you're trying to emulate real world photography on your model railroad. It is the difference between a photo of a miniature landscape that looks real as opposed to a picture of a scene on a model train layout.

OUCH! I've been demoted to "amateur" status because I don't use RAW! Well THAT"S a bummer. I don't think I'll be able to face myself in the mirror in the morning...

I guess those thousands of images which have appeared in the pages of OGR since 2002 are all totally unacceptable now, because they have been prepared by an amateur who doesn't waste time working with RAW images.

Talk about pontificating... 

Just keep doing your thing Rich, the pictures always look great.

Ken M

Rich, you missed the point (again?).  If you want to work with JPEG files, that's fine.  But professionals and serious photo enthusiasts who prefer shooting RAW have found ways over the years to optimize their workflow by necessity, so it's not a waste of time.    That was the point.  Both styles of shooting have their advantages.  As can be said for camera equipment, some folks can produce better JPEG images than others who prefer shooting RAW.  I also know some pro's who can do wonders with an iPhone in their hands as compared to others who just spent north of $5K on expensive camera gear.  There are lots of ways to get to the "end-game" in this business. 

David

Rich, I never said that you were an amateur. I was only referring to your wager that raw is a waste of time for 95% of digital photographers. If you're including everyone who shoots digitally then you're probably right. However, if you're strictly speaking about professionals, then I question that percentage.

If anyone is pontificating...

Be in the right place, at the right time, with the "right" amount of light, and "correct" camera setting.  Easy huh?  Never! :-)

Try being a sports photographer with a couple dozen athletes and a handful of overly redundant officials on the same playing field.    They're always good for messing up what would have been a perfect shot.   

David

My "best" camera moment was near Glacier National Park when a goat was standing on a steep cliff very near to the highway.  I slammed on my brakes!  Grabbed my camera.  Ran like crazy!  I had the perfect shot.  My camera battery was dead.  I looked at the goat who slowly walked away.  I swear I heard it laughing!  :-)

That's why I enjoy working in a studio environment where I can control everything. Sports photography is an entirely different animal. I have a ton of respect for you guys.