Advice/Tips for getting better photos against a black background?

[StevenBills]

Here's how I have done it in the past.

I went to Jo-Anns and bought a 5'x5' piece of black muslin. I was looking for velvet, as velvet sucks up any light that is pointed at it, but muslin works well also. I then clamp the top to some extra chairs, and then drape the fabric over the seat of the chair and set some foam-core underneath to provide a stable-ish "tabletop" for the model to sit on. Then I have a key-light (the main light for the scene), and usually a fill light on the other side, or a white bounce card of some kind to fill in the other side of the model with some softer light. Here's a setup for my Red Jammer a few years ago:

And here's the resulting photo:

After I take my photos, I bring them into Photoshop and use the Levels tool to make the black background truly black. Then cleanup and dust spots and remove the stand, etc...

Here's another setup for a more recent X-Wing:

And the resulting image:

I submitted that image to FineScale and they actually ran it in their magazine. Kinda fun. My wife is a photographer, so I borrow her Canon 6D, 24-70mm lens, and I bring some lights home from work every so often. It's very important, with these small-scale models, to have a tiny aperture (like f/22) so that your depth of field is increased, so the entire model is in focus. These photos are usually shot at around 3-6 second exposures because of the tiny aperture, in order to compensate for the lack of light.

You can see more of these photos on my Flickr:

Bandai Red Jammer Y-Wing

Explore this photo album by Steven Bills on Flickr!

flic.kr

Red 6 X-Wing model

Porkins' X-Wing from Star Wars: A New Hope.

flic.kr

Bandai Halo Master Chief model

Explore this photo album by Steven Bills on Flickr!

flic.kr

Anyway. That's how I do it.

SB

 

[Analyzer]

It's very important, with these small-scale models, to have a tiny aperture (like f/22) so that your depth of field is increased, so the entire model is in focus. These photos are usually shot at around 3-6 second exposures because of the tiny aperture, in order to compensate for the lack of light.

I have used f22 to f29. What's weird though is I have to have the shutter speed be very quick to avoid overexposure and not show the background

maybe try less light and longer exposure?

But then again, I think I have similar amount of light you show in your setup pics

 

[Zuiun]

Aperture ƒ/29.0
focal length 27 mm
exposure time 1/15
ISO 800

One thing to be careful of is making your aperture TOO small.

When you start to get to higher F-stops (narrower apertures), you begin to introduce diffraction. Basically, you limit how absolutely sharp your images can get, due to the physics of how the glass of the lens operates. As a general rule of thumb, the absolute maximum sharpness a lens is capable of is a few stops higher than the widest open aperture. But even more generally speaking, almost any lens produces the good results around f/8 or so, with up to f/16 being totally usable when sharpness is an important factor to the image (such as when trying to capture details in a model).

So at a certain point, with really small apertures, you're really just getting diminishing returns. Not only are you compromising the overall sharpness of your image, but you're also seriously constricting the amount of light, resulting in needing longer shutter speeds, higher ISO, or both (each full F-stop you go up halves the amount of light reaching the camera sensor).

Since you're working with digital, which is basically free in terms of how many images you can take, there's no reason not to try to take control and manually adjust some of these settings.

I'd recommend going for an F-stop in the f/11 to f/16 range. Higher ISO values will increase the amount of digital noise in the image, so keep that as low as you can -- ideally you want enough light on your model to allow you to stay within the 100-400 ISO range (though a lot of modern cameras can still produce pretty clean results going even higher). Then adjust the shutter speed accordingly.

I have used f22 to f29. What's weird though is I have to have the shutter speed be very quick to avoid overexposure and not show the background

In the above specs, you are using an ISO of 800, which is basically increasing the light sensitivity of your sensor. This is probably why, even through you are closing down the aperture, you are still getting over-exposure -- your camera is boosting the ISO to try to compensate. Yet another reason to take manual control of your camera, so you can set the ISO lower yourself.

 

[basementdweller]

I have been using a tripod with the camera on a timer and it does make a huge difference.

I have been looking for some free image stacking software. It's something I had heard about through Model Railroader that they use to extend the depth of field across the whole scene to help make mini dioramas look more life size. In the Astronomy field they use it to combine many different timed exposures of deep space objects so you you get more faint details

Does Krita do image stacking?

I don't think Krita does that like Photoshop unfortunately. There might be a plugin or functionality that will be added, but I don't know that it does this currently.

If you use Darktable, which is the open source and free equivalent raw editor to Lightroom, there are plugins for alignment and HDR processing and image stacking.

Picolay is a standalone stacker that is freeware and free to use for non-commercial purposes
CombineZP is an open source image stacker under the GPL license.

If using a mobile phone the app "Stay focused" can be used to capture the focus range of pictures on your phone without needing to manually tap the focus and inadvertantly move the pic. That part is free. The stacking is done remotely and costs money afaik.

The simplest tool if using mobile is Googles Snapseed app. It's a photo editor that allows stacking directly on your phone.

Oh - I have just done the basic legwork research, but not used stacking yet A fellow modeler introduced me to the concept through his other hobby which is rocks and crystals. Very cool stuff. Of course this would be handy for Astronomy! It didn't really cross my mind till you mentioned it.

 

[Analyzer]

One thing to be careful of is making your aperture TOO small.

When you start to get to higher F-stops (narrower apertures), you begin to introduce diffraction. Basically, you limit how absolutely sharp your images can get, due to the physics of how the glass of the lens operates. As a general rule of thumb, the absolute maximum sharpness a lens is capable of is a few stops higher than the widest open aperture. But even more generally speaking, almost any lens produces the good results around f/8 or so, with up to f/16 being totally usable when sharpness is an important factor to the image (such as when trying to capture details in a model).

So at a certain point, with really small apertures, you're really just getting diminishing returns. Not only are you compromising the overall sharpness of your image, but you're also seriously constricting the amount of light, resulting in needing longer shutter speeds, higher ISO, or both (each full F-stop you go up halves the amount of light reaching the camera sensor).

Since you're working with digital, which is basically free in terms of how many images you can take, there's no reason not to try to take control and manually adjust some of these settings.

I'd recommend going for an F-stop in the f/11 to f/16 range. Higher ISO values will increase the amount of digital noise in the image, so keep that as low as you can -- ideally you want enough light on your model to allow you to stay within the 100-400 ISO range (though a lot of modern cameras can still produce pretty clean results going even higher). Then adjust the shutter speed accordingly.




In the above specs, you are using an ISO of 800, which is basically increasing the light sensitivity of your sensor. This is probably why, even through you are closing down the aperture, you are still getting over-exposure -- your camera is boosting the ISO to try to compensate. Yet another reason to take manual control of your camera, so you can set the ISO lower yourself.

Thanks for that detailed explanation! Now I've got a better handle on what to try when experimenting with the manual settings

I don't think Krita does that like Photoshop unfortunately. There might be a plugin or functionality that will be added, but I don't know that it does this currently.

If you use Darktable, which is the open source and free equivalent raw editor to Lightroom, there are plugins for alignment and HDR processing and image stacking.

Picolay is a standalone stacker that is freeware and free to use for non-commercial purposes
CombineZP is an open source image stacker under the GPL license.

If using a mobile phone the app "Stay focused" can be used to capture the focus range of pictures on your phone without needing to manually tap the focus and inadvertantly move the pic. That part is free. The stacking is done remotely and costs money afaik.

The simplest tool if using mobile is Googles Snapseed app. It's a photo editor that allows stacking directly on your phone.

Oh - I have just done the basic legwork research, but not used stacking yet A fellow modeler introduced me to the concept through his other hobby which is rocks and crystals. Very cool stuff. Of course this would be handy for Astronomy! It didn't really cross my mind till you mentioned it.

Lots of things to look at. Picolay and CombineZP sound the most promising since I don't work on a mobile device

 

[Escape068]

Here are some pictures I took of my just completed Polar Lights 1/350 K'Tinga. I used black foam board all around the model with a white LED daylight bulb shining up at the ceiling in the corner. I had a white sheet of paper in front of the bulb to diffuse the light. It was too bright shining directly at the model so I moved it away into the corner of the room about 10 feet away. I used a Galaxy S9 phone in Pro mode adjusting the ISO and F settings. The pictures came alright......The model needs to be a little brighter and less background showing. Even with the light away in the corner the black foam boards still picks up the light shinning off of them. Pictures were taken without a tripod.

 

[Escape068]

A few more...….

 

[Analyzer]

Very cool!

I think the pictures do a good job of capturing the lighting effects of the model without them appearing overexposed but still showing off enough details of the model itself

Sometimes when people takes photos of models with lights all you see are the lights and a totally dark model

 

[Escape068]

Very cool!

I think the pictures do a good job of capturing the lighting effects of the model without them appearing overexposed but still showing off enough details of the model itself

Sometimes when people takes photos of models with lights all you see are the lights and a totally dark model

Thanks for the compliments. I did that quickly last night just to see how they would come. I have a large swatch of black velvet and the other black muslin that I can use with the foam boards. I need to make a larger area so their is more space between the model and background.

I have one of these lights with a 100 watt LED daylight bulb with a white piece of paper over it. I need to experiment with it or maybe cover it with cardboard and make a small hole in the center to limit the light and focus it on the model. I have it mounted on a makeshift PVC pipe made tripod.

 

[jusdrewit]

I want to improve my photo skills. I have a Canon EOS Rebel XSI. I have been toying around more with trying out the manual settings instead of auto but still have lots to learn.

This is what I have tried so far...

For a period I had been trying to digitally replace the backgrounds in photos after the fact. That was very time consuming and in many cases since I was using crappy software like MS Paint so it was not very convincing as far as the edges of things. Mostly the curved parts

This picture for example, the nose area of the X-Wing is a mess along the edges which ruins the illusion. I am sure with newer version of Photoshop or other software this might be easier and it would probably help doing the photo against a green screen type background

View attachment 1259763

Here is the original

View attachment 1259767


However, I really would prefer an in camera solution

So then I figure just try taking a picture of something against a black back drop. The problem here was the picture was always way overexposed. I could try darkening after the fact in the photo editing software that comes with windows, but that was inconsistent at best and never often did not show the colors or details accurately

Here is an example of that post processing "fix" of fiddling with exposure , shadows, and contrast

View attachment 1259768
View attachment 1259769

So I figured maybe instead of lighting everything like out doors I would try a dark background but make sure that the light only fell on the model.

At first I still had the same problem as above where the picture was way too overexposed.

But then I stumbled upon a trick where I could hold up a white paper before pressing the button halfway down where it does it's auto stuff. Then without depressing it, I then pull that away and fully click to then snap the pic (I have it on timer).

That seems to get much more accurate colors and for the most part captures the weathering, but sometimes it still loses it or the pic comes out a bit grainy.

The biggest benefit is no post fixes beyond cropping is needed

While this has been the best in camera options so far, There has to be a better solution

It gets to be a pain to constantly be holding something white in front first, especially since I sometimes skip that step and it takes the crappy over exposed version instead

Here is an example of the same setup, but the first pic I forgot to use the white paper, the second one nothing else change expect using the white paper during the process. I made no other post processing color/light adjustments to the pictures beside cropping them




So any suggestions/advice/wisdom would be helpful

1 min in photoshop does pretty good too:

 

[Escape068]

Last night I covered the lamp with cardboard and cut a small hole in the center about the size of the light bulb then slid a white piece of paper in front of the bulb. It definitely dimmed it down and focused the light at the model instead of all over the room. I used a large piece of black velvet fabric and the black foam boards. The pictures came better. The black velvet is jet black compared to the foam boards and really made a super black background in the pictures. I need to get more of the black velvet fabric and use less of the foam boards. Phone camera was in Pro Mode and I adjusted the F settings leaving the ISO at around 320

 

[Analyzer]

1 min in photoshop does pretty good too:View attachment 1270498

That does look much better! my only nitpick is some of the weathering disappeared and the body color lost some of the "blue/grey" compared to in person.

Last night I covered the lamp with cardboard and cut a small hole in the center about the size of the light bulb then slid a white piece of paper in front of the bulb. It definitely dimmed it down and focused the light at the model instead of all over the room. I used a large piece of black velvet fabric and the black foam boards. The pictures came better. The black velvet is jet black compared to the foam boards and really made a super black background in the pictures. I need to get more of the black velvet fabric and use less of the foam boards. Phone camera was in Pro Mode and I adjusted the F settings leaving the ISO at around 320
View attachment 1270782View attachment 1270783View attachment 1270784View attachment 1270785View attachment 1270786View attachment 1270787View attachment 1270788View attachment 1270789View attachment 1270790View attachment 1270791View attachment 1270792View attachment 1270793View attachment 1270794View attachment 1270795View attachment 1270796View attachment 1270797View attachment 1270798View attachment 1270799View attachment 1270800View attachment 1270801View attachment 1270802View attachment 1270803View attachment 1270804View attachment 1270805View attachment 1270806View attachment 1270807View attachment 1270808View attachment 1270809View attachment 1270810View attachment 1270811

Those look fantastic

How much was it for a black velvet backdrop?

 

[Escape068]

I bought 2 yards here 44" wide by 72" long

Are You A Bot?

You’re seeing this message because some of your behavior on the site looked a little odd. To continue on through the site, help us verify that you’re a real person.

www.joann.com

The current price is a little high but I think they run sales / promotions on this often

I bought 2 yards for $27.97 with free shipping. I think I got it during a sale / promotion.


I was looking on Amazon and I really like this because of the size and price!

Amazon.com : Meking 10 x 6.5 feet Portrait Photography Black Backdrop, Velvet Wrinkle Resistance Black Screen Background for Television Photo Video Studio Shooting Props : Camera & Photo

Amazon.com : Meking 10 x 6.5 feet Portrait Photography Black Backdrop, Velvet Wrinkle Resistance Black Screen Background for Television Photo Video Studio Shooting Props : Camera & Photo

www.amazon.com

It's only the velvet fabric but its a good price for that size and if I don't like I can return. You can make the stands out of PVC pipe. I made my light stand out of it.

You can get the stands separately

Amazon.com : Photo Backdrop Stand Kit Background Stand Support System

 

[Escape068]

I just purchased the velvet backdrop from Amazon

https://www.amazon.com/Meking-Photo...lack+thick+velvet+fabric,aps,154&sr=8-36&th=1

Should get it tomorrow