Right, I've wasted enough batteries and time, and I'm ****ing fed up...

Cliffjumper · Post by **Cliffjumper** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:27 pm

Is there a good guide somewhere online (preferably specific to toys or something of a similar size to taking digital photographs) that don't completely suck shit? All my latest efforts, whatever I've tried, have come out unspeakably badly, and it's getting genuinely depressing. Either the light levels are all over the place, or they're grainy, or whatever, and it's ****ing sickening. I just want to be able to take pictures...

Post by **Denyer** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:00 pm

What camera? The Casios, Olympuses, and even lower-end Fujis of the world are pretty crap at anything other than optimal light conditions. I've always been quite pleased with Canons, though still end up tweaking results slightly. Whilst I know something about light and the mechanics, I'm still a lousy photographer...

(Tip: rechargeables are great for situations you know in advance you'll be using.)

Natural light + no flash + camera steady on a small pile of books? Plus a good macro mode, of course, without which the endeavour is doomed.

Post by **Sades** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:20 pm

Wish I could help you out but I've been looking for the same thing for practuically forever- basically, yeah... I've found that having better lighting than your average desk lamp and having a good quality camera with better than decent macro mode is the thing that is needed.

Natural light works well if lighting is a problem, I've found... keep in mind I probably waste just as much time as you do trying to get decent pics though. :/

Blitzwing · Post by **Blitzwing** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:27 pm

I have a Canon 700SD (I think that's the model #). It takes pictures of toys very well if you are in a well lit room and have the flash on. I usually only stand about a foot away from them.

Claypool · Post by **Claypool** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:33 pm

Buy a better camera with a better lens. Good photography costs money.

Post by **Denyer** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:46 pm

If flash is absolutely necessary, try optical zoom at maximum (never digital zoom, it's a con) and keeping the camera further away.

Claypool wrote:Good photography costs money.

Not really. Got an S45 a couple of years back for under £40, and an A80 recently for about the same, after getting rid of an A200 and an A310. The S45 does decent enough A4 prints, has custom white balance, etc. and all of the models have had more-than-adequate macro facilities.

For anyone who just wants postcard prints (or eBay pics) and doesn't care about zoom, a disposable A200 may be a good bet at £10-20.

The lens is certainly key. Resolution's meaningless without it.

RID Scourge · Post by **RID Scourge** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:57 pm

Denyer wrote:If flash is absolutely necessary, try optical zoom at maximum and keeping the camera further away.

That's how I do it. Then I just open paint, cut what I want, select all, delete, resize the space for the image (usually to a smaller size than the portion I cut out since paint will resize the space to fit the cut image. It's skilled like that) and paste. It's a lot less complicated than it sounds and it looks pretty good.

Here's an example of what it looks like:

A few other galleries to get a better idea:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2 ... &id=907989
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2 ... &id=907989

Cliffjumper · Post by **Cliffjumper** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:27 pm

Denyer wrote:What camera? The Casios, Olympuses, and even lower-end Fujis of the world are pretty crap at anything other than optimal light conditions. I've always been quite pleased with Canons, though still end up tweaking results slightly. Whilst I know something about light and the mechanics, I'm still a lousy photographer...

It's a Vivitar, which I kow is pretty lo-tech... I get passable results outside in bright sunlight - e.g. http://counter-x.net/gobots/reviews/ser ... atch_r.jpg - that's the sort of quality I'm after replicating, nothing pro quality, but just fairly clear, fairly crisp little-ish shots that accurately reflect the colours of the thing...

Any suggestions for a simple, cheap way of recreating those conditions? I'm wary of investing much in terms of lighting if it's going to be impossible.

(Tip: rechargeables are great for situations you know in advance you'll be using.)

My set are so dead they give me about an hour, tops, and the thing just eats Duracell... And again, throwing money at it possibly wouldn't alleviate

Natural light + no flash + camera steady on a small pile of books? Plus a good macro mode, of course, without which the endeavour is doomed.

saysadie wrote:Natural light works well if lighting is a problem, I've found... keep in mind I probably waste just as much time as you do trying to get decent pics though. :/

Sadly most areas of the house itself get really shitty light...

Claypool wrote:Buy a better camera with a better lens. Good photography costs money.

Sadly money isn't abundant... I'm not attempting to match, say, Collection DX or Remy's stuff, just stuff to illustrate toy reviews

Cheers for the tips... Cliffy prevails. Or tries to, anyway. The frustrating bit is I know the camera can do what I want it to, it's just got such a narrow band for it.

Ackula · Post by **Ackula** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:37 pm

I have the same sort of problems every time I try to take any pictures of my toys. Lighting always seems to be an issue. I've found that taking the pictures outside in natural lighting is really the only way that I can get the results I want. Problem with that is that I usually work all day and get home and its night already, so I have to bug my wife to do it for me during the day.

When I do take pictures inside I try to stand as far away from the figures as possible and use the zoom to get a closer picture, that way the flash causes less of a cock up.

I wish I could be of more help, but I just suck at photographing, my wife on the other hand can take a picture that looks brilliant almost every time.

Cliffjumper · Post by **Cliffjumper** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:29 pm

My problem is over here, aside from the summer months, there really isn't a lot of strong sunlight... and when there is, it's ****ing freezing.

Attached is about the best I've managed with artificial light (this is the closest thing to something useable from about identical 20 shots). But I think I've nailed it - the problem is I keep buying high quality figures with diecast and chrome. If I buy shitty stuff like UT Transformers, the problem will disappear :\

Post by **Denyer** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:37 pm

Cliffjumper wrote:It's a Vivitar, which I kow is pretty lo-tech... I get passable results outside in bright sunlight - e.g. http://counter-x.net/gobots/reviews/ser ... atch_r.jpg - that's the sort of quality I'm after replicating, nothing pro quality, but just fairly clear, fairly crisp little-ish shots that accurately reflect the colours of the thing...

Replicate the distance you took the shot from as closely as possible. The same cameras sell branded as Premier, IIRC, and focusing is a weak point, as is image noise. I know people who've bought the 5 and 7mpx versions having seen 'em at knockdown prices, and I wouldn't have traded them for the 2 (the A200) that was the first camera with print res I bought, at a price that seems astronomical now...

Wouldn't bother investing in lighting. You can make a lightbox inexpensively, if you want to try it:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&sa ... arch&meta=

eg, http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/2006/0 ... tudio.html

Beyond that, suggest leaving a search saved on eBay and waiting out a cheap Powershot. Buy-it-nows on a 3mpx, non-zoom A3x0 tend to be thirty or up, which they categorically aren't worth as a 4mpx optical zoom model isn't much more if you're patient. Lowest current 3mpx is twenty-five.

edit: very first macro shot I took with a 2mpx --

-- it picked up the screenprinting on the keys, which wasn't visible to the naked eye.

My set are so dead they give me about an hour, tops

Which is fine if you're inside the house, right?

Post by **Clay** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:41 pm

I have a shelf on a white bookcase that I clear out for photos. I back up to a suitable distance and let the flash do the lighting, and it seems to work. Will photograph the setup when I get home.

Cliffjumper · Post by **Cliffjumper** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:46 pm

The biggest problem is the macro mode does indeed seem to be shite, meaning if I stand more than two foot away and try to have the thing fill the frame, it's stupidly grainy... 2 foot or closer, we're in flash city. Unless I'm missing something, the flash doesn't seem to be turnoffable. Which is a pain, as it's what causes a lot of the glare.

I'm very, very reluctant to buy any sort of replacement camera - one because money is tight (£30 would basically, and two it might not solve the problem. I may try a lightbox, though - not a lot to lose with a cheap set-up like that

The batteries thing is more annoying - the hour is from a 24-hour (or as good as) charge, and it leaves me with very little time really. If I can get a lightbox working, though, that's less of a problem as I can keep things consistent and shoot any time of day

Lessee... box I've got now, board & tracing paper I can get at the Works tomorrow, get a little lamp from somewhere for a couple of quid... Excellent! Yayage!

Post by **Clay** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:51 pm

Right, so here's how I take photos of toys. I used both the old camera and the newer one, and have labeled things as such.

The setup itself.

The old camera. No optical zoom (only digital).
Picture taken by holding the camera close to the toy, no zooming, using flash.
Picture taken from further back, using zoom and flash.
The setup with a 75 watt bulb inches from the figure yields lackluster results.

The new camera. Has optical zoom and a better lens.
Picture taken close up with the flash, without zooming.
Picture taken further back using the zoom and flash.

As you can tell, a better camera yields better pictures. However, backing up and zooming in while using the flash will give better pictures regardless of what camera you're using. As for light boxes or whatnot, I find that the shelf works fine, but you can use a piece of folded poster board just as easily. A white, reflective surface helps, but the light has to be incredibly bright. Outside of sunlight, the flash on the camera is the best bet.

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:10 pm

Claypool wrote:Buy a better camera with a better lens. Good photography costs money.

He's back?!??????

Oh please, oh please oh please YES!

Claypool · Post by **Claypool** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:11 pm

Jetfire wrote:He's back?!??????

Oh please, oh please oh please YES!

http://www.tfarchive.com/community/show ... hp?t=43393

Post by **Denyer** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:59 pm

Cliffjumper wrote: if I stand more than two foot away and try to have the thing fill the frame

Is there actually a barrel on the front of the camera moving/whirring when you zoom? If not, it's digital rather than optical and isn't actually zooming anything; it'd be interpolating (guessing) pixels in-between in a software mode. Digital zoom's a con, and nothing you can't do afterwards once the photos are on a computer -- it deserves to be banned for deceptive marketing.

2 foot or closer, we're in flash city. Unless I'm missing something, the flash doesn't seem to be turnoffable.

Should be the other way around; cameras more often tend to automatically switch flash off for macro shots because they usually overexpose with it. Is there a sliding switch on the side of the unit with a mountain and a flower, or similar icons?

Notabot · Post by **Notabot** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:26 pm

You can try putting a bit of masking tape or scotch tape over the flash to help diffuse the light a bit. Might cut down on the glare for close-ups.

Post by **Denyer** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:29 pm

Or just neuter it with black electrical tape, perhaps?

Civ · Post by **Civ** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:46 am

I use a Canon Powershot A510 and it's been a pretty good camera for me. Glass lens, optical zoom, ungodly bright flash (which can be turned off), decent megapixels (3.2), and works well with the absolutely atrocious lighting in my place. If you do break down and buy a new camera, you can get this one for around 100 USD (not on e-bay) from what I've seen.