Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => The Lead Painters' League => Season 5 => Topic started by: NurgleHH on March 21, 2011, 01:56:01 PM
-
You should also give some points for the quality of the pictures. Some pictures are really terrible!
-
But that is something subjective, and not easy to quantify along the same lines as "Does this conform to the theme?" or "Is this a new team?"
Anyway, I think that already gets reflected in the votes they receive. There is at least one match this round where the paint-jobs don't seem too far apart quality-wise, but the photography badly lets one of them down and it really shows in the difference in votes they've got.
-
Taking photos of your minis is almost an art in itself, with quite a steep learning curve.
The League encourages folks to push their skills to new frontiers, and that includes photography.
As such, points for photo quality would be inappropriate.
-
You should also give some points for the quality of the pictures. Some pictures are really terrible!
Without straying into the perjorative, we do seem to have a lot of problematic photographs in round 2 - Blurry, or underlit/overlit, or having white balance problems. Personally, I found Orctrader's tutorial very helpful in improving the quality of my photography:
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=6052.0
-
thanks for the link heldrak!!
Very helpful.
Blue
-
Sorry, but sometimes bad pictures won the round... And there are very objectiv things in voting the quality of photography, Sharpness, Light, and so on
-
...I found Orctrader's tutorial very helpful in improving the quality of my photography:
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=6052.0
Good to know it was helpful. :)
It's actually on my Website - LINK (http://www.orctrader.co.uk/Articles/Photos.html)
I hope to update it in the not too distant future. Using a different camera now as my Coolpix "died." A Finepix S1500. More manual control.
I don't think anyone should be penalised specifically for "bad" photos or rewarded for "good." Who is to judge? (Though mine, of course, are "good" ;) But always looking to improve.)
-
I've split this topic (photography) out from the rules thread, in case more people would like to comment on things to do with taking pictures in general, in reference to the LPL.
It's certainly true that the LPL is as much as a photography competition as a painting competition. There are people who say every time that it shouldn't be so, but it is, unavoidably. Yes, it helps if you are good at painting, but there are plenty of good painters whose presentations are let down by photography, and equally, some perhaps less good painters who have nonetheless managed to compose and shoot a really good picture.
The thing that I've noticed (and I'm not sure it's any different from previous LPLs to be honest) is not just a few fuzzy and less than perfectly focused pictures, but that composition could often be better. I'd advise anyone who (even occasionally) takes pics of their figures to acquire some basic picture editing software (nearly all PCs and cameras come with something) and practice cropping your shots to put your subject in the middle, and get rid of extraneous surroundings :)
-
Google's free Picasa has been terrific. Many the problems I've seen over the last two rounds are easy fixes with it. In changing computers I lost whatever editor I had before and Picasa was a much better improvement on it and again it's free and non intrusive.
-
... Anyway, I think that already gets reflected in the votes they receive. There is at least one match this round where the paint-jobs don't seem too far apart quality-wise, but the photography badly lets one of them down and it really shows in the difference in votes they've got.
That’s so true.
I’ve sold a lot of painted figures during the past 2 or 3 years and I often received the comment that they look “better in the flesh”… No matter how I try I can’t take a picture that reflect the actual color of the figure. I’ve said it before, my photo skills seem to get from bad to worst… to a point were I’m starting to wonder if the quality of the pictures a numeric camera can take goes down as time past.
-
(http://i54.tinypic.com/34ik592.jpg)
Taken circa 2005 with £350 worth of brand new Nikon Coolpix
(http://i54.tinypic.com/2vnjm39.jpg)
Taken last year with a £40 secondhand Fuji Finepix S5700 + pukka light bulbs and thousands of hours of practice and experiment.
And compared to Capt Blood or Frank I'm crap at it lol
The moral is if you ain't got any latent talent practice and copy other people ;)
-
Here's a question for the forum-
I'm usually pretty on top of my lighting, framing, focus, color balance, cropping, etc., but one thing I have problems with is maintaining image quality when reducing pictures to the dimensions required for the contest, Any suggestions?
-
I've got Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0 it does all that for you, just click "save for web" and type in 800 pixels wide and Bob's your uncle.
-
I've got Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0 it does all that for you, just click "save for web" and type in 800 pixels wide and Bob's your uncle.
Thanks, I do have Adobe Photoshop (although I freely admit I have almost no idea how to use it... ::) ). What about the new requirement limiting entries to 500 Kb in size?
-
I also happen to be using Photoshop Elements 2.0...
You can set the file size when saving images to maintain a certain quality with Photoshop. It will ask you for a 1-12 "Quality" rating when saving the file, regardless of image size. For an 800x800 image, a '10' Quality file is about 500kB (although that depends on the size of the initial file that you are saving which will be larger for composite entry photos of for cameras with higher megapixel sizes - mine is only about 5 megapixels)
-
I believe I am one of the bad photo culprits,just did some research and you know what? Better photo,too late for the 3rd round though,already sent it in last night...... >:(
What I did learn is all about AV,the higher the number,more will be in focus.Oh yes and not too high ISO one's pics go all grainy if it's set too high (as mine are).
Ah well live and learn.
Cheers
Blackwolf
-
I believe I am one of the bad photo culprits,just did some research and you know what? Better photo,too late for the 3rd round though,already sent it in last night...... >:(
What I did learn is all about AV,the higher the number,more will be in focus.Oh yes and not too high ISO one's pics go all grainy if it's set too high (as mine are).
Ah well live and learn.
Cheers
Blackwolf
That's the beauty of LPL, I think! While it is first and foremost a Good Show, it also seems to have this effect: it encourages individuals to get ahead but makes raises the standards of the collective.
-
The new Photoshop Elements 9 (Mac and Win) is really good. A lot of good function, a lot of online- tutorials and a brilliant management for photocollections. And you can upload to several providers like flickr.
There are some good and free tutorials about macro-photography or objekc-photography in the net, so try this source.
I think it is important to understand the photography-rules about aperture and time, that is enough...
-
And compared to Capt Blood or Frank I'm crap at it lol
You jest, comrade. You are past master of the crisp pic.
one thing I have problems with is maintaining image quality when reducing pictures to the dimensions required for the contest, Any suggestions?
No, because I've never quite got my head around juggling the three dimensions of physical image size, pixel count and resolution.
Theoretically, if you set the pixels at 800 wide, you can reduce the resolution and / or physical image width as much as you like, and as long as you keep the 800 pixel image in view at 100% (of 800 pixels) there should be no apparent deterioration in image quality compared to a much higher resolution / larger sized version of the selfsame image.
In which case - is it just my imagination that when I reduce the pixel count and the image size, but hold onto a higher resolution (which results in a larger file size of course) the picture looks just that little bit sharper...? ::)
I'm not enough of a scientist to understand the workings behind this, so if anyone can explain - as simply as possible - the principles and best way of resizing images whilst maintaining best quality, I'd certainly find that helpful, and I'm sure a lot of others would as well :)
-
In theory, resolution only affects the picture if you choose to print it. For example, 300dpi refers to "300 dots per inch", which means that a square inch printed in that resolution is made up of 300x300=90.000 pixels.
That gives you a lot more pixels, and therefore potential variation of tone, than, for example, a resolution of 96dpi (which is a common screen resolution, and results in 96x96=9216 pixels to the square inch).
So, if you have a pic 800 pixels wide and set the resolution to 300dpi, it means a "physical" copy will be 2 2/3 inches wide if printed from the set resolution. If you were to print it at 200% (i.e. 5 1/3 inches), the pixels are blown up to double size, and the image becomes more grainy (and yes, the image is actually four times the size, as the 200% refer to width and height, not image area).
As for file size (in kb), this is dependent on the number of pixels and the number of colours. For photos, especially in something like this contest context, you usually want to go for high colour depth (16.7 million being a current standard, IIRC - I can remember when 256 colours were quite the rage). The basic assumption is, the more pixels in an image, and the higher the colour depth, the greater the file size. For example, an 800x800 pic contains 640.000 individual pixels. Note that if you keep a set image size (AxB pixels), changing the (printer) resolution, i.e. "x dpi" will only thange the way it is printed, not how it is displayed on screen.
Next, you have the format in which you save. All the above and below refers to the bitmap principle, which assigns each pixel a definition in the file code.
The original "bmp" format does not compress at all, and is therefore the largest of the basic file types - however, there is no loss in picture quality as all pixels are saved "as is".
JPG, on the other hand, uses a complex algorithm to compress the file size, and does so by not including all pixels in 8x8 sections, but approximates them, therefore reducing the number of different types of and therefore the file size. The problem with that is that if you set the compression too high, this will lead to "blocky chops" referred to as "compression artifacts".
The basic point is that you have a tradeoff between file size and quality. I found that with most graphic programmes I use (e.g. Irfanview, Photoshop, Photopaint X), it is sufficient to go for about 85-90% quality (Irfanview) or the "High" setting in Photoshop (9-11) to produce an image that has an acceptable file size (between 100 and 250kb) and still retains good quality as not too many artefacts occur. Other factors such as your screen resolution may come into play as well, but are of less importance and mainly affect your perception of the image.
-
Some really useful points here. I'm always a bit frustrated with how photos of my minis turn out (of course, in reality they're all Golden Demon winners!), so clearly there are a few things I need to play with to improve my outcomes. Lots of food for thought here!
-
:'( I don’t understand half of the things you guys are talking about (and I’m being generous saying "half")… I’ll try to find tips on the net later (in French if available). Unfortunately, rounds 3 and 4 are already submitted lol
-
I believe I am one of the bad photo culprits,just did some research and you know what? Better photo,too late for the 3rd round though,already sent it in last night...... >:(
What I did learn is all about AV,the higher the number,more will be in focus.Oh yes and not too high ISO one's pics go all grainy if it's set too high (as mine are).
Ah well live and learn.
Cheers
Blackwolf
I'm sure the Captain will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that you can submit revised photographs of your contest entry up until the deadline for that entry (thus you can still send in better photographs of a round 3 entry).
-
I put my camera on "auto" and hope for the best... :)
-
In theory, resolution only affects the picture if you choose to print it. For example, 300dpi refers to "300 dots per inch", which means that a square inch printed in that resolution is made up of 300x300=90.000 pixels.
That gives you a lot more pixels, and therefore potential variation of tone, than, for example, a resolution of 96dpi (which is a common screen resolution, and results in 96x96=9216 pixels to the square inch).
So, if you have a pic 800 pixels wide and set the resolution to 300dpi, it means a "physical" copy will be 2 2/3 inches wide if printed from the set resolution. If you were to print it at 200% (i.e. 5 1/3 inches), the pixels are blown up to double size, and the image becomes more grainy (and yes, the image is actually four times the size, as the 200% refer to width and height, not image area).
As for file size (in kb), this is dependent on the number of pixels and the number of colours. For photos, especially in something like this contest context, you usually want to go for high colour depth (16.7 million being a current standard, IIRC - I can remember when 256 colours were quite the rage). The basic assumption is, the more pixels in an image, and the higher the colour depth, the greater the file size. For example, an 800x800 pic contains 640.000 individual pixels. Note that if you keep a set image size (AxB pixels), changing the (printer) resolution, i.e. "x dpi" will only thange the way it is printed, not how it is displayed on screen.
Next, you have the format in which you save. All the above and below refers to the bitmap principle, which assigns each pixel a definition in the file code.
The original "bmp" format does not compress at all, and is therefore the largest of the basic file types - however, there is no loss in picture quality as all pixels are saved "as is".
JPG, on the other hand, uses a complex algorithm to compress the file size, and does so by not including all pixels in 8x8 sections, but approximates them, therefore reducing the number of different types of and therefore the file size. The problem with that is that if you set the compression too high, this will lead to "blocky chops" referred to as "compression artifacts".
The basic point is that you have a tradeoff between file size and quality. I found that with most graphic programmes I use (e.g. Irfanview, Photoshop, Photopaint X), it is sufficient to go for about 85-90% quality (Irfanview) or the "High" setting in Photoshop (9-11) to produce an image that has an acceptable file size (between 100 and 250kb) and still retains good quality as not too many artefacts occur. Other factors such as your screen resolution may come into play as well, but are of less importance and mainly affect your perception of the image.
This is good, solid in sight...
-
I put my camera on "auto" and hope for the best... :)
Also my gameplan ... lol
I got paintshop photo pro version 3 or something like that, but I don't understand half of it! I'm keeping it simple and will just be submitting my usual haf-bothered pictures :D
-
I put my camera on "auto" and hope for the best... :)
lol
I'm sure the Captain will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that you can submit revised photographs of your contest entry up until the deadline for that entry (thus you can still send in better photographs of a round 3 entry).
Yes, that's quite right :)
Chris, thanks for the explanation. I didn't really understand on a first reading, but I shall sit down and try to work it through logically!
;)
-
Chris, thanks for the explanation. I didn't really understand on a first reading, but I shall sit down and try to work it through logically!
;)
Yes, it is not terribly clear, I'll admit. Maybe I'll just sum up the major points:
A digital image has two "sizes", screen size (given in pixel width times pixel height) and "print size". The print size is directly related to the screen size, in that the print dimensions are simply the screen dimensions multiplied by the resolution.
If you modify either size (as you can do in Photoshop, for example - it gives you two sets of dimensions, both the print size and the screen size), the other will be modified accordingly as long as you keep the same resolution.
Since we want pics for screen presentation (online), you want to modify the screen size (given in pixels x pixels) so that the maximum width and height are 800 pixels.
You actually do not need to bother with the resolution, but if you want to allow people to print the images in a usable size, you may want to set the resolution to 100dpi, giving you a printed image 8x8 inches, but with less quality than a 300dpi image, which, printed from the 800x800 file, would be only 2 2/3 inches square.
For saving, JPG usually works out as the best compromise. Check that your image meets the maximum pixel size (800x800), and save with a high, but not maximum quality factor (90% usually is a good compromise), and you should get a good-looking file with little artefacts and an acceptable file size.
-
Since we want pics for screen presentation (online), you want to modify the screen size (given in pixels x pixels) so that the maximum width and height are 800 pixels.
You actually do not need to bother with the resolution, but if you want to allow people to print the images in a usable size, you may want to set the resolution to 100dpi, giving you a printed image 8x8 inches, but with less quality than a 300dpi image, which, printed from the 800x800 file, would be only 2 2/3 inches square.
Aha. It's starting to become clearer... So it is right to say that, purely for on screen viewing purposes, if you have reduced your image to, say, 800 x 800 pixels, then then resolution is neither here nor there - unless you wanted people to be able to print a higher quality image from your on screen image?
So viewing an 800 x 800 pixel image on screen (at 100% of its size in pixels), I shouldn't be able to discern any difference if the resolution is 300 dpi or 96 dpi. Correct?
(Sorry, Chris - I'm an artiste darling, not a physicist ;))
-
So viewing an 800 x 800 pixel image on screen (at 100% of its size in pixels), I shouldn't be able to discern any difference if the resolution is 300 dpi or 96 dpi. Correct?
Correct, the difference would be when printing. 300 dpi would yield a tiny but sharp printout and 96 dpi would yield a large but fuzzy printout.
-
Aha. It's starting to become clearer... So it is right to say that, purely for on screen viewing purposes, if you have reduced your image to, say, 800 x 800 pixels, then then resolution is neither here nor there - unless you wanted people to be able to print a higher quality image from your on screen image?
So viewing an 800 x 800 pixel image on screen (at 100% of its size in pixels), I shouldn't be able to discern any difference if the resolution is 300 dpi or 96 dpi. Correct?
(Sorry, Chris - I'm an artiste darling, not a physicist ;))
That is exactly my point. There should not be any difference if you look at two images of the same size, but with different resolution.
Allow me to illustrate, first with a simple graphic with large areas of similar colours. Both are saved at 100% quality, and have the same file size of ~46kb. Left is 96dpi, right is 300dpi.
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg236/Christian_S_1979/Restricted%20Access/merchantnavyflag_096dpi.jpg)(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg236/Christian_S_1979/Restricted%20Access/merchantnavyflag_300dpi.jpg)
Next a photo, which is bigger (107kb) due to the higher variety of pixel colours. Again, 96 on the left, 300 on the right.
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg236/Christian_S_1979/Restricted%20Access/fishsub_096dpi.jpg)(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg236/Christian_S_1979/Restricted%20Access/fishsub_300dpi.jpg)
-
Excellent! Thanks Chris.
So there's no real reason for LPL entrants to save their images at higher resolutions, thus pushing file sizes up to 350Mb - 450Mb, when a lower res image coming in at 100Mb or so, will give exactly the same effect on screen.
:)
-
While we're chatting so pleasantly, here's another question -
Are there initial camera settings that we should be looking at with an eye towards eventual compression of the photograph for website display?
In my own case, since I cut my teeth on photographs of bare metal figures for eBay sales (where you want to expose any flaws so that customers know what they will be getting), I find that when I take pictures of painted figures, they tend to be at too high a level of magnification, and this is further exacerbated by the cropping one does to get a good composition.
Let's take a look at my recent photo of the conversion of The Spirit that I did. This photo was taken with overhead room lighting, plus two extension lamps with regular (yellow/white) bulbs. The white balance isn't problem because I set it manually with a piece of white card under room lighting conditions prior to taking the photograph. The picture was taken in Macro mode with a tripod.
(http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u219/Heldrak/Heldraks%20Painted%20Figures/IMG_0004.jpg)
The focus isn't a problem because I manually set the camera on a 2 second delay for the exposure (thus no body shakes).
Once the picture was taken, I loaded it onto my computer and sharpened it and cropped it and adjusted the brightness using the iPhoto application on my Macintosh.
While the result is a decent photograph, the figure comes in larger than it would appear to the naked eye with the resultant magnification of flaws, brush marks, etc. Is there some kind of camera setting that I'm missing that would render the figure more as it would appear in scale to the naked eye?
-
That is because most cameras take their pics at a comparatively low resolution (all of mine took 72dpi), but in huge pixel dimensions (3000+ pixels in either dimension) to produce an image that has enough detail to print to high quality on photo paper. You will need to resize the image to a pixel size that is closer to actual size, so ca. 150 pixels figure height on a 96dpi screen - that is a bit bigger than a 28mm figure would be on 100%, but not so big as to be unforgiving on the details.
-
Both fascinating and helpful, thanks Chris.
I'm sure it must show in my image quality but I keep this photography business as simple as I can......
....illuminate with an LED lamp shielded with a mask of baking parchment, take a bunch of photos using the camera's auto macro function, upload resulting JPEGS to pc then open them in MS Paint, then shrink and cut/paste the bits of the images that I want to use into a new (blank) 800x800 image file.
The camera is nothing special.... 6.0 megapixels pocket snapshot holiday photo jobby..... less than £100 I think about 4 years ago.
-
You jest, comrade. You are past master of the crisp pic.
Really? D'ya reckon ? 8) I think mine are ok for punting figures on ebay but I much prefer the big cinamatic epics like you, Frank, Hammers, Grimm and all the big scenery maestros knock out. But thanks for the gee up Captain :)
Thanks Westphalia Chris, I didn't understand above half but it's a start ;)
-
Thanks Westphalia Chris, I didn't understand above half but it's a start ;)
Glad to help and to be able to make some contribution to the LPL this season even if I could not get myself in the mood to actually participate.
-
I put my camera on "auto" and hope for the best...
lol
This is my first participation to the LPL and thus the first time I had to take "good" pictures of my models. I must say I did under estimated it a bit :D
For my past 2 entries, which where spaceships, I took pictures outside (in the sun and in the shade) and inside on full auto and blasted away. After the digital carnage I searched for the best result. So I'm glad to find all afor mentioned tips, I'll try to use them.
-
...While the result is a decent photograph, the figure comes in larger than it would appear to the naked eye with the resultant magnification of flaws, brush marks, etc. Is there some kind of camera setting that I'm missing that would render the figure more as it would appear in scale to the naked eye?
If I understand you correctly, the issue is simply that your photo is too big. 800 wide is ideal for groups of figures. 200-300 is for single image of a single figure. I usually go for 250. (Or have I misunderstood your point? ::))
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v509/orctrader/IMG_0004.jpg)
-
Thanks, OT.
You're talking about reducing the size/pixel count after the fact, yes? One doesn't reduce the pixel count via some kind of camera setting?
-
Is there some kind of camera setting that I'm missing that would render the figure more as it would appear in scale to the naked eye?
No. Size on screen is completely dependat on screen size and screen resolution. An 800 x 600 pixel photo is a different "displayed" size (in cm or inches of screen real estate) on a high resolution 17" laptop compared to a 50" hd ready tv.
On a general note:
DPI has nothing to do with file size or image resolution. The only thing DPI regulates is printing behaviour. If you have a 72 dpi photo of 100 x 100 pixels and resave it as 144 dpi, two things can happen. Either the image resolution is doubled to 200 x 200 (resampled), or the image resolution is maintained but the photo will print at half size compared to 72 dpi.
You can raise the dpi to 30000 if you wish, it won't change the file size unless the image is resampled.
-
Thanks, OT.
You're talking about reducing the size/pixel count after the fact, yes? One doesn't reduce the pixel count via some kind of camera setting?
No. You want the camera to work at a high mp - within reason. I have a 10 mp Camera but use a 3 mp setting for Macro photos.
Then, in photoshop elements I...
Crop.
"Quick Fix" (Not always - if the camera settings are "right" it shouldn't need Photoshopping.)
Resize (Reduces pixel size)
Save for Web (Reduces file size.)
Upload to Photobucket and/or upload to my Website.
-
Its late here and I've just tried to assimilate the above
This is still like rocket science to a thicko like me o_o
I'm in the Ray group, auto, when its sunny, lots of walking back and forth, lots of fiddling with the zoom, hundreds of pics mostly out of focus and loads of breath holding whilst balancing the camera with its tiny tripod on my knee or chest or......
-
Well....re-entered my third round (cheers Heldrak :)),not entirely happy with it,and I don't care >:( I'm on a steep learning curve,the LPL is mean't to be fun. No more camera for 24 hours at least ;D
Something I did learn is don't fiddle around with your settings too much,my camera is an old banger SLR and requires more knowledge than I shall ever have,thank god for default settings.......Should have taught myself BEFORE LPL 5,but then I'm a git lol
-
No. You want the camera to work at a high mp - within reason. I have a 10 mp Camera but use a 3 mp setting for Macro photos.
Then, in photoshop elements I...
Crop.
"Quick Fix" (Not always - if the camera settings are "right" it shouldn't need Photoshopping.)
Resize (Reduces pixel size)
Save for Web (Reduces file size.)
Upload to Photobucket and/or upload to my Website.
Thanks OT. My brain was having a hard time differentiating between pixel size and file size. I'll have to warm up my Photoshop and monkey with it to see if I can get a decent result.
-
I'll have to warm up my Photoshop and monkey with it to see if I can get a decent result.
There is a great feature in Photoshop which is very handy when cropping and resizing images. A quick google gave me this image to illustrate it with:
(http://www.godzilla.se/tmp/cropping.jpg)
Open up your photo and select the cropping tool (circled red to the left).
Then enter the image dimensions in the toolbar below the menu bar. The fields in question are circled green in the image above. Type "800 px" in both the height and width fields and leave the resolution field blank (or type 100000, it doesn't matter really). Make sure to keep "px" in the editing field though!
Crop the image as usual, marking the area you want to keep by left-clicking and dragging. Double click in the marked area or hit enter for the crop to take effect and presto - one image with the correct dimensions (800 x 800 pixels). When saving, make sure to not save at max jpg quality (8 is usually allright).
Edit: Fixed the linked image.
-
I'll have to warm up my Photoshop and monkey with it...
EVERY TIME I read this, I parse it as this:
I'll have to warm up my Photoshop monkey...
-
you need a minimum of three lights for eliminating unwished shadows. A lot of picture are made with frontal flashlight and there are unwished shadows or to bright colors.
I am using three lights. Main light, back light and fill. Back light is the equivalent of 200W, main 150 and fill 75. Manual Macro setting, ISO 100, shutter speed F 3,3, Custom White balance adjusted with a white paper.I am not sure what to do with the AutoFocus mode since I have no way to adjust it manually on the compact. There are three settings Center. Multi and Continous. Will photometry settings have any effects?
-
I am using three lights. Main light, back light and fill. Back light is the equivalent of 200W, main 150 and fill 75. Manual Macro setting, ISO 100, shutter speed F 3,3, Custom White balance adjusted with a white paper.I am not sure what to do with the AutoFocus mode since I have no way to adjust it manually on the compact. I quite often get an indicator (AF!) flashing that I can't focus on theobject I want.There are three settings Center. Multi and Continous. Will photometry settings have any effects?
-
copy and paste this for all your white balancing issues.
http://uk.lifehacker.com/#!5659324/use-an-18-gray-card-for-better-color-balance-in-your-photos
How to photoshop your figures (http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/showthread.php?11603-How-to-Photoshop-your-mini-pics...)
How to photoshop montages (http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/showthread.php?16232-Photoshop-Montages....)
How to make a $10 macro studio (http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-to-diy-10-macro-photo-studio.html)
-
Cheers Redzed, they're great!!
-
Some great advice in there Redzed. Quite a bit of which I could have used week one! :D
-
copy and paste this for all your white balancing issues.
http://uk.lifehacker.com/#!5659324/use-an-18-gray-card-for-better-color-balance-in-your-photos
How to photoshop your figures (http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/showthread.php?11603-How-to-Photoshop-your-mini-pics...)
How to photoshop montages (http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/showthread.php?16232-Photoshop-Montages....)
How to make a $10 macro studio (http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-to-diy-10-macro-photo-studio.html)
I tried this on my Gordon Highlander stretcher bearer from R2:
(http://www.adventuregaming.tsome.com/LPL/LPL5/Gordon3.jpg)
While I am sure they have their uses I am not so sure I think they beat a plain paper back drop.
(http://www.adventuregaming.tsome.com/LPL/LPL5/Gordon2.jpg)