Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, I recently posted a few photo's of my recently finished Pellas Mir'san over in the P&M Showcase. I'd said that I was unhappy with the outcome of my photography and it was reccommended to me that I watch a Youtube video about the photo-editing software GIMP 2. I duly watched the video and then set about following the instructions to improve the image of Pellas Mir'san. So these are my before and after images. I haven't photoshopped them in any way (i.e touched up mistakes or anything like that - I wouldn't know where to start!), all that has been done to image B is the greyscale has been removed and the white balance improved. So go ahead and tell me what you think. I'm looking more for opinions on image quality rather than the model (But C&C on that is always nice )


^Image A. This was simply taken and then uploaded straight away. I did use DakkaDakka's auto-adjust function so that accounts for how dark it is. EDIT:Cropped to make comparison easier.


^Image B. This was the same image as A, but rather than upload via Dakka's auto-adjust, it was put through GIMP 2 to remove the greyscale and then uploaded without Dakka's auto-adjust.

So tell me what you think. If you have a better solution to improve my image then I'm all ears. Personally while it is an improvement, I'm not too sure on the overall effect. For example I'm sat here looking at the model and I can see that the kneepads do have brighter highlights than the image conveys. Should people prefer the images with the GIMP 2 correction, then I may see about re-uploading all my images again with corrections - which may require me to photo them again. Oh well

EDIT: Image A is now cropped to roughly the same size.

B is the best

Cheers mate - I'm just trying to fiddle around a bit. How's your own Salamanders coming along?

b, but mostly because its cropped to remove most of the background

B is a definite improvement. Highlights on the armor come through more clearly, but the black areas, especially, are like night and day - with B, I can suddenly make out highlights and red eyes in the face, and individual ribs in the armor joints. The larger, closer cropped shot gives a better view of the details, as well.

The only lingering photography issue is depth of field (I don't consider the soft shadow on the backdrop much of an issue). It's not too severe, but there's definitely a degree of blurring as you move forward and back from the focal point, around the torso.

B by far, but as others have pointed out, it's not quite apples to apples since the crop in B is much tighter and the subject fills more of the frame.

as a side note, I'm not a fan of the gallery's auto-correct feature. much better to get the image looking the way *you* want it before uploading rather than to rely on an automated process that you have no control over. I find that it bumps up the contrast way too high for my personal tastes. YMMV

@Varl - No no varl - I agree completely. It was my lack of understanding about Dakka's autoadjust that sent me down this route. I was unsatisfied with my own images but Dakka's autoadjust wasn't much better. Then a member on here (Rickfactor) linked a video for Gimp - which I'm now using to experiment. If you check back in a short while, I'll re-crop the original so it's the same size (to eliminate one variable).

@Oadie - The blurring is my fault really as my photogrpahy leaves something to be desired. But I appreciate the comments regarding the clarity of the image. I'll crop the original so it's an easier comparison.

Why is he a ginger?

Also voted be, the crop is really what does it because it pulls the whole picture together leaving less white space and allowing people to see more detail

@Alfndrate - He's got red hair simply because Nick Kyme's Tome of Fire trilogy presents some Salamanders with fiery red hair - and I thought it was rather fitting considering the chapters theme.

I should also say I've now cropped the first picture but I've still used auto-adjust to show the comparison.

B is still the winner (for color clarity - greater contrast between greens, facial highlights more noticeable, can see more contour in black areas without distinct highlights), but by a much smaller margin than before A was cropped down. Seems the size was as much to blame for the lack of detail as the white balance. Still, the GIMPing is worthwhile, even if the gap between them has narrowed, somewhat.

I voted B, just because there bit more visual info in the darker areas.
Found that on one of my monitors, both have really hard to see highlights in the blacks.
On the other (which admittedly is a much better monitor than the other) both images clearly show your work, albeit a bit brighter in B

Hmm, so if it is such a close tie between A and B in terms of clarity, then it seems that the key fault is photography - not the editing afterwards. What then would you say are the key faults in my photography? I suspect light is to be the main problem. I think this was taken with flash (Which I gather is a big No) but it was taken on the white paper underneath a velux/skylight window at mid-day - so that gives you an indication of light quality. Would I be better off getting a light box?

A is the best. B took out the depth from the image and makes it overall look rather flat.

Initially i see you need better depth-of-field.

I'm found from the many tutorials and expert advice that your basic set-up with good lighting (which you appear to have) should be:
F/stop 16
ISO 100
1 second exposure.

Don't use Macro, and take the picture about 1 foot or 30 cm away if using 12 Megapixel cameras... then crop.

With that, you shouldn't need a light-box...

You're right in thinking that flashes are generally to be avoided - the light is pretty harsh and tends to cause glare, wash out colors, etc. Looking at your images, though, I wouldn't have assumed that you used it - you have forward facing surfaces in shadow and minimal glare.

A light box wouldn't hurt, but it's by no means a strict necessity. Its two main purposes - to reflect and diffuse light - can be achieved in other ways. Increasing the number of light sources, whether used in conjunction with a light box or not, will help get rid of those lingering shadows.

Can't help with camera settings too specifically, but Kr00gZ's suggestion sounds like a good starting point. I can vouch, at least, that backing away from the subject and cropping in will definitely help with the depth of field. The closer you are, the shallower the focal range gets. Seems like macro mode is the obvious choice for photographing minis, but it has its limitations.

@Oadie - Ah, it's interesting that both you and Kr00gZ advise not to use macro. I can't remember if I had Macro set on this image but I've read a good deal of tutorials where they do advise you to use it. I shall have to experiment then.

@Kr00gZ - Thanks for the advice - I'll have a fiddle around and see what I can come up with.

Post-processing isn't the real issue here - it's selecting the focus point that would have more influence, and closing down the aperture to get more depth of field. Alternatively, move slightly further away from the model, and crop.

The major post-processing here would be to get some detail in the face. If you have a "levels" display, it's worth moving the mid-point slider around, because on this photo i think you need a little more detail in the dark greys. I've tried to show a v rough example below.

Miniature looks great, btw.

@Hivefleet Oblivion - Thanks On the subject of the processing, not to diminish your effort are processing my image (Which I'm very much appreciative that you took the time to have a look at), but IMHO I think your attempt looks a little too washed out. I hear what your saying about bringing out the detail by reducing the contrast, but IMO that shifts the rest of the models colour too far away from it's actual shade. That said the best advice you've given me is to move further away from the model and crop - I feel that is a major fault of my photography. Many thanks.