Jump to content
 

Photographing wagons


magmouse

876 views

A couple of people have asked how I photograph the wagons I've been posting about. The 'workbench' shots are done with my iPhone 12 Pro. The Pro version has a slightly telephoto lens, which gives a nicer perspective for close-ups, and means the phone is further away from the thing being photographed, making it easier to get some light in without casting a shadow of the phone or me.

 

The 'studio' photos of the finished result, against a white background, are a bit more sophisticated. They are taken with my Fujifilm X-T2 mirrorless camera, with a 60mm focal length lens. The key to getting the 'studio' look, though, is not so much the camera as the lighting. The following photos and commentary explain the set-up.

 

pic001.jpeg.4051ea1c6aeb6fd77dcef67b49358ba2.jpeg

 

Here we see the overall set-up - the wagon is on the workbench on the piece of white A4 printer paper, which provides the background. The camera is on a tripod, adjusted to be just slightly higher than wagon, so it is looking almost horizontally but just a touch downwards.

 

The 60mm lens is a medium telephoto, giving a field of view equivalent to a 90mm lens on a 35mm SLR film camera, or 'full frame' digital SLR, for those who are familiar. A 'standard' lens would work fine as well, or a zoom that covers the standard or short telephoto zoom range. A wide angle lens is possible, but has two disadvantages - firstly, the perspective is (to me at least) less flattering, and secondly, a closer position means the camera sees past the ends of the wagon at a more acute angle, so you will need a bigger piece of paper for the background.

 

The flip-up screen on the camera is very useful, but not essential.

 

pic002.jpeg.7e1945300e7d19364cf0e97ed9e73079.jpeg

 

There are a few nuances with the setup of the background:

  • The paper is curved, providing a seamless, shadowless transition between the 'ground' the wagon is on and the back. The paper is held in place by a book (Cyril J Freezer's Locomotives in Outline: GWR - other railway companies are available), and the book is supported by a heavy object - a large bottle of wood glue in this case. As well as supporting the paper, the book ensures no light can come through the paper from behind, which would create an uneven background.
  • The paper curves downs slightly at the front, where it overhangs the edge of the bench. This ensures there is some white space below the wagon's wheels, as seen from the camera position.

 

pic003.jpeg.65f6156eb036e5640fe8d4da45f5d3ec.jpeg

 

Here is the overall context - my home office/modelling room/hi-fi room/general midden. The point of showing it here is the lighting. This and the previous two pictures were taken with the room lights on, but for the photography, the model is lit entirely with the daylight through the window. I don't want any direct light to hit the model - that's why I am shooting into the window with a solid background. The light on the wagon is that which is reflected around the room, ensuring it is very soft - ideal for model photography.

 

The venetian blinds are useful for controlling the light. Tipping the slats upwards means the light entering is mostly sky-light, which will be blueish on a sunny day, or whiter on a cloudy day. Tipping them down means the light is that which has reflected from the buildings and gardens opposite the window, which on a sunny day is warmer in colour than the sky-light.

 

The light can be made slight directional by opening the right-hand blinds, as seen in the picture above. The extra light on that side reflects off the wall to the right of this shot, and back onto the model from the right hand side. Experimenting with this can give a nice effect: a definite sense of directional light, but still without harsh shadows or excessive contrast.

 

The one disadvantage of this set-up is the wooden material of the slats. The warm colour sometimes shows in highlights on the top of the subject, and can be seen in the light reflecting from the top of the sheet in the straw-loaded wagon below.

 

pic004.jpeg.832ba075cadde263ed33403293f81f3a.jpeg

 

The specific type of camera isn't important, But my X-T2 has some key capabilities. Firstly, the exposure settings can be controlled manually. In order to get reasonable depth of field when photographing something this small, a small aperture is required - I usually use around f/11 (for those unfamiliar with these terms, there are excellent online resources that explain the basics of how a camera works).

 

I set the ISO (the sensitivity of the camera to light) to the lowest value to maximise image quality - 200 ISO in the case of the X-T2. This, together with the small aperture, means the exposure is quite long, often 5 to 10 seconds. Because the camera is on a tripod, this is not a problem, but it does require a camera that allows long exposures.

 

I also often use the exposure overide. If you rely on the camera's light meter, it will typically under-expose the image, fooled by the amount of white background. Slightly increasing the exposure from what the meter says will fix this, but it is important not to over-expose. Under-exposure is fixable later when editing the image; over-exposure isn't.

 

As well as the exposure settings, the camera also allows the focus to be manually controlled. This isn't absolutely essential, but is makes things much easier. Focus is critical, because there is so little depth of field, and it is easier to control it manually, setting it once without worrying the camera is going to try and refocus at an inconvenient moment.

 

For this kind of photography, any digital SLR or mirrorless camera will be suitable, and many other types as well. Even a smartphone with a good quality camera could do it, provided you mount it on a tripod (special mounts are available for that) and you can control the settings manually. While the built-in camera controls in smartphones are often limited, there are usually third-party apps that can give the manual control of the phone's camera that you need.

 

pic005.JPG.832ab57773baf472c95ba1f12b5c448b.JPG

 

Here is the outcome, straight from the camera. It is a little under-exposed overall, because I wanted to make sure I didn't overexpose the right-hand end which is more brightly lit.

 

pic006.jpg.2d23dec9b0cd116147e166ad056497ee.jpg

 

And here is the finished photo, after a little bit of editing: I increased the exposure slightly, and cropped to the final size and shape. It is much easier to shoot a little 'wide' and crop later, rather than trying to get the framing exactly right in camera.

 

And that's about it - just one last thing to note: quite often, the light levels on the wagon are low. Looking at it, it seems very dark, but with the long exposure, it comes out fine. So don't worry too much about the amount of light - it is the quality of the light that counts.

 

I hope this is useful. Your situation will of course be different, in terms of the equipment you have and the space where you can do the photography, but as long as you can control exposure and focus, and the quality of light, you will be able to achieve good results.

 

Nick.

  • Like 10
  • Informative/Useful 13
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1

20 Comments


Recommended Comments

  • RMweb Premium
48 minutes ago, Ian Smith said:

Nick,

Thanks for taking the time to compose this post.  Most informative.

Ian


Thanks, Ian - I’m glad you think it’s useful.

 

Nick.

Link to comment

Nick - very helpful about photographing wagons a.k.a. small static objects with detail that needs to be clearly shown.  Better pictures make a more interesting and informative post so definitely worth learning more about how it's done -  thanks for taking the time to record and show your set up and methods.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

That is really useful information, Nick. I use a tripod and a compact camera with decent zoom, looks like I could move it further back judging by your setup.

I've never thought to try and use manual settings but given I only just learnt how to take a proper picture of the moon in the last year, it's about time I tried on models.

Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, 57xx said:

That is really useful information, Nick. I use a tripod and a compact camera with decent zoom, looks like I could move it further back judging by your setup.

I've never thought to try and use manual settings but given I only just learnt how to take a proper picture of the moon in the last year, it's about time I tried on models.


It’s definitely worth experimenting with the distance between the camera and the subject, and using the zoom to frame as you want it. See what effect it has on the perspective, and find the best setup to give you want you like.

 

The same goes for manual settings - the auto settings generally make sensible choices, but not necessarily optimum ones, especially for the very specific requirements of close-up work photographing small objects.

 

Feel free to let us know how you get on and post results here, if you want. I’m happy for this comments section to be a place for discussion and sharing if that’s useful to people.

 

Nick.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

Thanks very much Nick, very kind of you to provide such a detailed and useful post. My query is fully answered. I clearly need to work more with natural light.

 

As I mentioned earlier my problem has been the camera's struggle with the stark contrasts between white backgrounds and artifial light on models.  Photographing *against* natural light and using its reflection from around the room is not an approach I would have thought of. Fortunately we have white walls so should be possible here too.

 

The camera does seem to be doing a good job also, capturing detail in the shadows to work with in the software.  Cheap cameras are typically weak in that department, and mobile phones seem to lighten shadows artificially, which is not always helpful for a natural look in situations like these.

 

Now to experiment with the gloomy light of a rather grey Danish winter, thanks again!

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium

Thanks, Mikkel - I'm glad this was what you were after, as the post was written partly at your request.

 

As a one-time theatre lighting designer, the thing that always strikes me when I have the opportunity to watch TV and film lighting being done is how terrible it can look in 'real life' - flat, dull, lifeless, dim - while looking great on camera. It's the same here - don't allow you preconceptions of the light in the room distract you from focusing only on what the camera is seeing.

 

You are right that cheaper cameras generally have less dynamic range, and so are less able to capture shadow detail and highlights at the same time. The softer the light, the less of a problem this will be. And bear in mind that even a cheap camera will likely have more dynamic range than the screen you view the image on, and certainly less than a printed image can deliver. So it's more a question of wrangling the technology to preserve highlights and shadows at each step in the process.

 

Smartphone camera makers are doing amazing work, spearheading the development of 'computational photography', where an image is made from multiple cameras through complex processing algorithms. Small, relatively cheap lenses and sensors are thus able to deliver remarkably good results. However, the consequence is often a loss of control by the user, which is fine when the camera/computer does what you want, but less fine when it doesn't.

 

One answer is to partly bypass this, using an alternative app to control the phone's cameras, which can allow more manual control of the settings. These are usually paid-for, but not hugely expensive.

 

Nick.

  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold
On 11/02/2023 at 23:41, magmouse said:

Feel free to let us know how you get on and post results here, if you want. I’m happy for this comments section to be a place for discussion and sharing if that’s useful to people.

 

Well, here is my first go. I decided to go for the dodged background look and placed a sheet of white A4 behind my photo plank. There is a second sheet folded round to the left to reflect some light on to the front. Lighting was from a 6400K 30W CFL bulb in my modelling lamp. The light source is to the front and top left of the pic.

 

Camera settings were F8.0 (as low as I can stop it down to) and ISO 100. Focal length is 35.5mm. The exposure time was about 0.5s IIRC. That's one thing I need to do, note down my settings, I had to look on the picture info to recall the settings as I'd fiddle around with different ones but was then unable to recall what was for which shot! The model was about 4 feet from the camera and I zoomed in as much as I could before the autofocus stopped working.

 

The underframe needs more light so I think I might try bouncing the light off the walls and set a much longer exposure time as you do. I only have a limited to of direct sunlight coming in through the rooms window. I could always move my setup too. I can also go down to ISO80, so will give that a try too.

 

Feedback most welcome!

Phototest1.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
28 minutes ago, 57xx said:

 

Well, here is my first go. I decided to go for the dodged background look and placed a sheet of white A4 behind my photo plank. There is a second sheet folded round to the left to reflect some light on to the front. Lighting was from a 6400K 30W CFL bulb in my modelling lamp. The light source is to the front and top left of the pic.

 

Camera settings were F8.0 (as low as I can stop it down to) and ISO 100. Focal length is 35.5mm. The exposure time was about 0.5s IIRC. That's one thing I need to do, note down my settings, I had to look on the picture info to recall the settings as I'd fiddle around with different ones but was then unable to recall what was for which shot! The model was about 4 feet from the camera and I zoomed in as much as I could before the autofocus stopped working.

 

The underframe needs more light so I think I might try bouncing the light off the walls and set a much longer exposure time as you do. I only have a limited to of direct sunlight coming in through the rooms window. I could always move my setup too. I can also go down to ISO80, so will give that a try too.

 

Feedback most welcome!

Phototest1.jpg

 

This is looking good. A few thoughts:

  • Perhaps try a slightly lower camera position, to get to a realistic head height (or plate camera on a tripod height).
  • The white background works well, for the 'official photo' look - though I think this was achieved by painting out the relevant area on the glass plate, rather than dodging it in the darkroom while printing.
  • As you say, the shadows in the under frame area are quite blocked up. You may be able to address this to some extent at the post-production stage, if you have a photo editor that will lift the shadows. That assumes the camera managed to capture some detail there in the first place, of course.
  • Better would be to address the shadows by reducing the contrast in the lighting. Soft daylight would do it, or if that is not convenient, try putting the light of your modelling lamp through a large piece of paper (e.g. tracing paper). Note that you need to make the source bigger - a lot bigger - so it won't help just to put the paper directly on the lamp itself. Or turn the lamp the other way and bounce it off something - again, a piece of paper or card, sheet of expanded polystyrene, etc.
  • Don't worry too much about the ISO. I use the lowest ISO my camera can do (known as the 'base' ISO - 100 in my case), but any reasonably recent camera will run at 200 or even 400 with negligible reduction in image quality. You do reduce the maximum dynamic range, so unless you are able to soften the light and reduce contrast that way, higher ISO will make it harder to lift the shadows and keep detail there.
  • The f/8.0 aperture setting seems to be working well for you - you have enough depth of field to keep the whole wagon, front to back, in focus.

I hope that all makes sense, but please ask if anything isn't clear.

 

Nick.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

Thanks, Nick. I happened to try a couple of your pointers since posting, so I have bounced the light off a wall and also had the tripod set lower. The lower angle does look a lot better. As for the light, well I got more even exposure off the shadows but overall the room was too dark really for the camera to focus so most of the shots are blurry. I need to try it during the daytime with natural light and see how it goes.  One other thing I noticed with the indirect light is the paintwork looked more like it does to the eye, the direct lighting over-enhanced where I'd put a darker brown wash over that wagon.

I agree about the aperture, I noticed the whole wagon seemed to be in focus compared to older shots I have done leaving the camera on auto.

Thanks for the pointers, I'll tidy up the best shot from the 2nd session and post it later and set up another session another day!

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
4 minutes ago, 57xx said:

I'll tidy up the best shot from the 2nd session and post it later and set up another session another day!

 

Great!

Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold
On 13/02/2023 at 10:24, magmouse said:

One answer is to partly bypass this, using an alternative app to control the phone's cameras, which can allow more manual control of the settings. These are usually paid-for, but not hugely expensive.

 

Thanks for further info, Nick, including that bit above. I had no idea such apps existed, must investigate.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

As promised, here's the result of the 2nd test with indirect lighting.

Phototest2.png.8ebb9585bdf3bd321863052bb12b234b.png

 

The colours are looking more natural and the underframe is visible without having to lighten the whole picture. Focusing was a royal PITA so need to work on that (the manual focus was useless so stuck with auto focus for now).

 

20 hours ago, magmouse said:

As you say, the shadows in the under frame area are quite blocked up. You may be able to address this to some extent at the post-production stage, if you have a photo editor that will lift the shadows. That assumes the camera managed to capture some detail there in the first place, of course.

 

I had a tweak on the original pic and adjusted the mid levels which did bring out the underframe detail and made the oxide paint less "contrasty", but it was still too red compared with above..

Edited by 57xx
  • Like 3
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium

Great - looking very nice now. The soft lighting works well, and keep the contrast manageable, so we get some underframe detail. The whole picture is a little 'soft', which is perhaps the autofocus issue.

 

Depending on your camera, you might be able to do 'back-button focus', where you are in manual focus mode but can push a button to get the autofocus to lock on once, then leave it alone, which can be good in this situation (manufacturers might refer to this by different names).

 

If you are using manual focus 'by eye', judging it on the screen or in the viewfinder, go to maximum aperture (minimum depth of field) to get the clearest sense of where the point of focus is. Once you have focused, rest the aperture to the setting for the shot - f/8, in your case.

 

What kind of camera do you have?

 

Nick.

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

Hi Nick, it's a Sony DSC-HX60, a compact camera but with good lens and lots of features.

 

There is a "semi-auto focus" mode that I've not played with, that might be the equivalent of "back button focus"? With manual focusing, there is no focus ring on the camera so it is done with buttons and a bit meh.

 

I've had a little play during lunchtime today as it's a WFH day and used some natural light by the window.

 

One of the issues with focus could be a user problem... I have a remote shutter release cable originally for my old dead SLR (and also used on my Fuji Finepix, which also sadly died), but no way to use it on the Sony. So, I was holding the tripod firmly and pressing and holding the shutter release button to minimise shake. The penny dropped today that I should be using the timer with the long exposures, so wacked it on 10secs, got the auto focus latching on to the target and pressed down further and let go... blip... blip... blip... click. No shake and crisper numbers when looking at the preview on screen. Slowly getting there! More pics to process and upload after work.

cheers

Ric

Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, 57xx said:

Hi Nick, it's a Sony DSC-HX60, a compact camera but with good lens and lots of features.

 

There is a "semi-auto focus" mode that I've not played with, that might be the equivalent of "back button focus"? With manual focusing, there is no focus ring on the camera so it is done with buttons and a bit meh.

 

I've had a little play during lunchtime today as it's a WFH day and used some natural light by the window.

 

One of the issues with focus could be a user problem... I have a remote shutter release cable originally for my old dead SLR (and also used on my Fuji Finepix, which also sadly died), but no way to use it on the Sony. So, I was holding the tripod firmly and pressing and holding the shutter release button to minimise shake. The penny dropped today that I should be using the timer with the long exposures, so wacked it on 10secs, got the auto focus latching on to the target and pressed down further and let go... blip... blip... blip... click. No shake and crisper numbers when looking at the preview on screen. Slowly getting there! More pics to process and upload after work.

cheers

Ric

 

The semi-auto focus mode sounds like it is worth investigating. Manual focus by push-button is generally pretty hopeless in this kind of situation, because the depth of field is small and the steps in the focusing mechanism take you from having the focus point too close to having it too far away, with no available position in between - as you discovered.

 

If semi-auto focus doesn't work for you, go to manual focus, get it about right, then fine tune by moving either the model or the tripod.

 

And, yes, using the self-timer to delay the shutter release, so you don't get camera shake from pressing the button, is a great idea to help maximise sharpness.

 

Nick.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

Here are the pics from lunch time, minimal tweaking in photoshop to get the levels balanced.

 

 I had the tripod a bit too high for the first wagon and it's got that odd angle it again. It could have done with a longer exposure, this was only 0.8s.

Phototest3.jpg.3bbfbb05e055cc0fc055a331188a2d23.jpg

 

I swapped wagons for another colour to test, lowered the tripod and set the exposure time to 2s. Much better.

Phototest4.jpg.eff6870763038c14f0b96c5545473397.jpg

 

One more lesson learned, dust off your models if they have been sat on the workbench for a while...!

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

For anyone wondering what getting "levels balanced" entails, here's a couple more snaps. In my laymans terms, the Levels tool adjusts the start points for darkest and lightest colours (black/white) on you picture and gives a better tonal range.

 

Pic 1 shows the raw photo and the levels curve, not the dead spots between the left (black) most slider and right (white) most slider.

Levels1.PNG.54fa02f18ce8495d3cbd100972317988.PNG

 

You can use Autolevels, but I like to do it manually. I move the outermost sliders in to where the tone curve starts at each end, then adjust the midpoint (usually to the left) to bring out the detail in the darker areas, thus:

Levels2.PNG.c3d13bba803a63a63cd4c8eb95d203d4.PNG

 

Edited by 57xx
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium

Looking good, Ric. These photos are much sharper, so it looks like using the self-timer has done the trick.

 

My only remaining thought is to see if you can play with lighting some more to get a touch more light on the front of the van, so you can reduce the exposure and prevent the grass in the foreground being over-exposed.

 

22 minutes ago, 57xx said:

One more lesson learned, dust off your models if they have been sat on the workbench for a while...!

 

Tell me about it! It's amazing what the camera sees that the naked eye ignores.

 

Nick.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...