We had one of these threads a while ago and a lot of people (myself included) gained a lot from be able to ask questions of more knowledgable /p/hotographers and get advice on our photography.
Some basic links:
Composition - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds
Diffusion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuser_%28optics%29
How to make a lightbox - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyxzC5kqbyw
I'll also link the current photo general - >>5267600
Perfect timing for this thread. Any camera recommendations? I'm looking to get one black Friday or cyber Monday at the latest. Just want something cheap and digital, primarily indoors. As long as it's quality is comparable to a smart phone's camera, I'm fine.
What do anons use to diffuse? Is greaseproof paper too thick?
Of you use your phone for photos, investing in a stand can make a world of difference.
All threads of supposed toy photography is nothing more the essence. You do not understand the real toy photography.
It is established and the rules to follow. Simply put is not the use of expensive dslr because it is arrogant showoff. Also is picture the expensive toys is not toy photography but also arrogant showoff! You modify pictures to photoshop? Not toy photography! Toy photography is new art form that I invent and introduce as new hobby. If you do not followed the principals of it than your picture is just photo of toy and no essence and not true toy photography. Want to learn from the master of toy photography then check my work in http://jamstorm.deviantart.com and follow me in instagram @cerbojam and I will blown your minds with power of true toy photography!
>>5271619
are you ok dude?
>>5271619
It wouldn't be a toy photography thread without him.
>>5271666
SATAN REPRESENT
>>5271462
Would be fine. I've used layers of bubble wrap in the past when desperate.
Can anyone recommend me a decent entry level DLSR camera? Looking to pick one up second hand for about $100.
>>5271759
For around $100 you can have a Canon 10D, 20D, or 30D. Considering how cameras get released and upgraded over the past 10 years, there's likely not much difference between them.
>>5271759
Lenses are going to be the real money sink. Also it's entirely likely that if you have a phone made in the last 4 years it will take better macro shots than any DSLR setup you could get for under a grand
>>5271826
I have a windows phone. The camera is okay but nothing special.
>>5271833
Consider playing around with it if you do need to do macro. A 50mm prime lens, some lighting (can just use a desk lamp,) a backdrop and a tripod will will suit a good deal of your needs though
>>5271844
Well it does have a "close-up" mode. I'll play around with it tomorrow when the light is good and see what I can get out of it.
Any good macro cameras for under 200? Under 300?
I got a problem with my lenses always having a depth of field. I want everything clear!
>>5271916
I can't remember the correct term for it but this came up the last time we had one of these threads and the advice given was essentially to take two photos (one focusing on the foreground subject and one of the background) and then merging them together.
>>5271890
You could get an HTC One M7 for like $70 used
A lot of point and shoots are good too, the older models drop in price quickly so you should be able to find a Canon G9 for under $200 used.
>>5271922
Yeah I tried that the other night and it sucks to work on in photoshop. Do you think it looks ok?
>>5271928
Except for the glaringly obvious stand, I think it's a very good picture. The angle on the first one seems slightly better but overall I like this shot.
OP here. Thinking about trying to put together a basic guide to /toy/ photography, one of those helpful images you see for various subjects on various boards. Whenever there's a photo thread there always seem to be people saying things like "sorry about potato quality" or "can't into photography" and I'd like something to be able to help anons like that. Thoughts on what would want to be included?
>>5271961
9/10 bad photos are because of shit lighting, even if your camera isn't great you can probably take something decent if you just shine a direct light on it. A desk lamp would be fine. Second thing to look into is a tripod
>>5271961
A lot of the people who take bad pictures don't know why they're bad and don't care. I've seen enough people blow up on me here after simple advice like lighting the shot or focusing. They just want praise for their dumb stuff.
>>5272574
I think there's some truth to that but I do think there are equally as many people who just don't know the basics of taking better pictures. Even the very basics like lighting, focus etc like you mentioned.
>>5271916
>>5271928
Post more Ultras!
>>5269963
Really, any DSLR or mirrorless systems can do. Some point and shoots are getting better but I don't like how they handle, especially after using DSLRs and 35mm film cameras. What's your budget?
>>5271916
Generally, you need to open your lens' aperture less to make the depth of field less shallow. But if one of the objects is very close to the lens then it wouldn't make that much of a difference, so by that point you might want to do post-processing.
I'd like to add in something I learned from the last photography thread; reflectors are awesome!
Here is a picture taken using natural light only . . .
>>5272977
. . . and here is one using my incredibly ghetto reflector (literally a folded piece of box card covered in tin foil).
Natural light makes every picture I take look cold. Is there a way to get a warmer tone to my pictures?
>>5273224
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/white-balance.htm
tl;dr don't use AWB if you're not taking a quick snapshot
The actual secret to professional photography is taking a lot of photos of the same subject with different settings. Then cherry picking the best one and tweaking it in post
>>5273248
Ah okay, thanks very much. I'll play around with it.
I was pretty active in the first thread with answering questions, will try to keep an eye on this one too.
Just as a basic rule: Could we agree on mentioning a few things when asking about camera recommendations?
In my local forum people actually have to fill out a form before they post a request thread, that's a bit too much in my opinion but a few basic things should be included in your post or else it's hard to recommend a camera.
Something like:
> Budget:
> What would you like to take pictures of the most (landscapes, portraits, toys, a mixture etc.):
> Any experience?:
> How willing are you to learn how to handle your camera?:
> Would you mind editing your pictures/are you interested in doing so:
> What do you expect from your camera?:
That should be enough for an observation and to make a recommendation.
General advice: photography is NOT rocket science, in its most basic core it's a craft like anything else.
Learn the basics first, learn how to handle your camera, read tutorials.
Don't post some lazy snapshot and claim "my stuff sucks, help me, I have no idea"; put some effort into it first.
If you know how to handle the technical part the most important thing is to take pictures. And more, and more.
Take a look at other photographers, ask yourself what you like about their work and look at yours to determine what is missing to make you happy.
I will post a few graphics that I sometimes use to explain things to others.
Some information is being repeated on them, but experience showed me that some people can work better with one graphic than the other.
Most important though is: don't just read them, try to test what you see.
Take your camera, play with the settings and see what changes.
First graphic, incl. Koala dude.
That one talks about all kinds of things.
It's more suitable to people who don't need many pictures to understand the whole deal, but it also gives you a few terms to google and further look into.
The triangle at the top is important, the three most important settings on your camera to determine the look of the picture are shutter speed, aperture and ISO.
Combine that with the white balance and you have all settings you basically need to know how to use and change in your camera.
Something one anon already struggled, white balance.
Or easier: how to make a picture look less blue or red straight from the camera.
This is actually pretty simple to understand.
Most cameras have a WB button or setting in the menu, and often they have already saved some presets for daylight, flash, cloudy or fluorescent light and AWB, auto mode.
Color temperature of light is in K (Kelvin).
The lower the number the warmer the light, the higher the number the colder is the light.
The light from a candle for example is 1000K.
You might see this when buying bulbs for your lamps, lower K makes for a warm and cozy light while the ones with more K tend to be colder.
Now, when you change the settings on your camera you will see it the opposite way.
Lowering the numbers will make a colder picture, raising them will make a warmer one.
Your goal is always to reach a "natural daylight" look.
So when you are taking pictures in the middle of the night with some shitty desk lamp and everything is red that means you need to lower the K number.
Alternitavely you can use one of the available presets, in case of warm lamp light it's usually a "bulb" icon.
Again, test it.
Put up a set up with some lamps and then look how you change the WB setting in your camera.
If you can't change it you definitely should invest in some daylight lamps, their light is already a pretty neutral temperature and it helps greatly in taking pictures.
This is true in general.
Just a nice little graphic on how the angle of your light source can change the look of your object.
Always test around and take lots of snapshots till you find a setup and setting you enjoy.
One that tries to explain how changing the settings for aperture, ISO and shutter speed changes the picture.
Again, a graphic can only show so much, read into this a bit more and change the settings on your camera to really understand what is going on.
It sadly does not show though how these settings change the picture in terms of exposure.
General advice here: small shutter speed and aperture number -> more light
Small ISO number -> less light compared to high ISO number
In an ideal world exposure wouldn't be a problem, but light is often a problem when you want to use certain settings.
Let us say you want to take a picture of many figures together, this means you need to use a small aperture (small aperture = high number) so they all get equally sharp.
But that means you have less light, so you make the shutter speed slower (slower = small number), which makes it difficult to take a non-shaky picture.
But hey, you could raise the ISO for more light, but higher ISO makes the picture all noisy :(
List goes on and on, you always have to find a good combination of the three and, if possible, provide tons of light for best results.
Something at least a little toy related, this one shows how aperture changes the look of a picture using BJDs (or ball jointed dolls).
On the right you can see the settings used by the photographer.
She uses a 50mm prime lens.
ISO is set at 400, and from top to bottom the aperture (f stop) gets smaller, i.e. the number gets bigger.
You can also see that her shutter speed gets slower to keep the picture at the same exposure despite changing the aperture (because small aperture means less light because the "hole" the light can come through gets smaller the higher the number is).
Often cheap zoom lenses can't even open the aperture that wide, it's a thing people enjoy in many prime lenses for portraits and the like because you can set the focus to a certain part of the picture while the rest is blurry.
It's also important for "bokeh", these pretty out of focus light reflections so many go crazy about.
Google them, I'm sure you know them already.
>>5272904
k
Good thread, OP. Say I wanted to pick up a cheap dslr, what would I need to know about lenses for it? There are a bunch of secondhand shops with cameras nearby me and I'm thinking that could be a way to pick up some lenses on the cheap, but I have no idea what I need to know as far as compatability goes. My main desire is to be able to take shots with extreme bokeh, as that's the one thing you I can't really do with a cell phone camera.
>>5271923
I've been using a phone for my stuff for a while now and it's not bad, but I would absolutely not recommend an M7 for photography. That particular one has a pretty widespread issue with the camera where overheating will permanently mess up the sensor and give pictures a purple tint. A lot of used ones will have that problem.
>>5273982
When in doubt, tell the owner of the shop what model of DSLR you have and ask what's compatible. You can also get adapter rings for certain incompatible lenses to make them fit your camera body. Buying old manual lenses is actually a great idea--sure, they won't have fancy modern features like autofocus, but it forces you to learn how to do things manually and also you can get old high-quality lenses for relatively cheap this way.
>>5273998
>tell the owner of the shop what model of DSLR you have and ask what's compatible
When I say secondhand shops, I mean like mainly hole in the wall thrift stores, not so much actual specialty stores. I donno if they'd be able to help as far as what goes with what. Also I haven't actually picked up a camera yet, I'm waiting for black Friday like the guy above.
>>5271462
I use wife beaters. Works like a charm
>>5271462
>>5274035
I think you best bet is to wait until you get a camera. Go in to the shops and see what lenses they have in the kinds you want, take down product numbers and go home and do a little reseatch. Then, if everything lines up, buy them the next day.
>>5273534
>>5273552
>>5273599
>>5273605
>>5273616
>>5273628
Very helpful posts anon and things I can save to dump into the next thread.
I will makes sure to have some kind of questions to ask for camera recommendations (as I agree just asking vaguely what camera to buy is unproductive) but I think a lot of anons looking to up their /toy/ photo game are looking for similar things. Is there something you'd suggest (or maybe a few) for under $200-300 if anons are mainly focused on taking pictures of toys?
>>5272979
That's adorable
>>5271619
Get off your high horse.
>>5274663
Bro . . .
>>5274673
Wh...what?
>>5274689
It's pasta.
>>5271619
ACBA in a post.
>>5271759
I use a Sony Alpha A200 that I got from Craigslist for $150 after selling some vintage GI Joes.
Nothing fancy but it gets the job done. You really don't need anything crazy expensive. I can't quite afford a Canon kit and some decent advise I've gotten was along the lines of "Its not the camera that makes good pictures, it's the person behind the camera. Give an artist a box of broken Crayolas and they'll still produce art."
I think I do alright and I don't even have a macro lens yet.
>>5274713
Great advice, thanks.
Very cool picture too. Nice idea and really well executed. I really wish I could find her anywhere.
>>5271916
>my lenses always having a depth of field.
Set your F-stop higher. As high as it will go even.
I dont know where the control for it is on your camera, but on mine (nikon) its the dial right there your right finger is when holding the camera.
>>5273894
Also look into action poses. I hate to say it, but that's one of the most bland and lifeless poses I've seen here in a long time.
>>5274783
Agreed with this. It's a decent enough picture but more dynamic posing would really put it over the top.
>>5274713
Do you have a bigger version of this? Would make sweet wallpaper.
I found this a helpful breakdown of the main current budget DSLRs:
http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-budget-dslr-camera/
>>5274809
It's more important to decide if you're going to upgrade it and what lenses you want. A dSLR body isn't a significant investment, lenses are and you'll be using them on the next body you get.
>>5274816
What would you consider the most important lens to invest in? 50mm?
>>5274824
The fastest 50mm you can afford would be a great first lens. 50mm is popular for good reason, it covers a lot of ground so to speak.
If you buy a camera kit rather than only a body the kit lens will probably be a fine starter as well. This is usually a relatively inexpensive zoom lens, which is perfectly fine to start with as well.
Personally I'd suggest getting a body, a tripod and a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 (if you're getting a canon body, I'm sure Nikon has something similar.)
For learning lighting I'd suggest starting with direct lighting before you invest in a flash, an adjustable desk lamp and some household items for bouncing and diffusing would work perfectly fine. Direct lighting is a bit easier to deal with if you're able to pose your subject at home. You can also build an inexpensive DIY lightbox
Photography gear can get quite expensive, always look for a DIY solution if you can. Bouncing light off of some foil or cardstock can work quite well.
>>5274851
That's for the advice. So a 50mm prime is better than say a 35mm to start with? Would it matter if I'm shooting in relatively close quarters, without a lot of room to move backwards?
>>5274894
The 35 vs 50 debate will go on until the end of time. Using a crop sensor camera as opposed to a full frame confuses it even more.
I can't tell you which would be better because they'd be different styles of shooting, neither is "wrong" but basically a 35mm is kind of a semi-wide angle lens and the 50mm is tighter and will give you the bokeh you want if you're into that. Or phrased differently, a 35 will be better at capturing a scene with the background and a 50 will be better at capturing just the subject.
But really, both can be quite versatile. You wouldn't be screwing yourself either way.
>>5274931
Thanks very much for the advice anon. Very informative. I think, given that my focus will be on toys, the 50mm is probably my best bet.
![CTNNenyUsAEXTY5[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/UhdW8Fm.jpg "CTNNenyUsAEXTY5[1].jpg")
I know its in portrait, so its pretty bad. I just wanted tips on lighting. I got 2 small lights for my figures at a recent convention. That lightbox tutorial in the OP helped me a lot, so Ill make one soon. Any tips on light placement?
![CTNNfKfVEAAp2ZT[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/JfHRJMl.jpg "CTNNfKfVEAAp2ZT[1].jpg")
>>5275065
Here's another photo. Tips on lighting and metal would also help for future advantages.
>>5274894
>So a 50mm prime is better than say a 35mm to start with?
Thats completely subjective. Personally, I use a 50mm for most everything and love it.
>>5271619
Did this pasta always included the last bit about his deviantart and instagram accounts?
I wish someone would had screencaped the bits where he's back pedalling once he acquired a decent camera.
>>5275068
First, try not to shoot indoors unless your depth of field blurs out the background.
Also, consider the subject and mood you're going for. Before posing I find myself miming the desired pose or saying something or making some weird face to help me get in the mood I'm trying to convey. It's austistic as fuck but it works.
Also, since you're shooting giant monsters it helps to shoot outdoors so you can't scale it against something and pointing up gives the impression that the subject is bigger than it is.
>>5275279
Cool shot.
>>5274931
Personally I preferred my 35mm while I still used a crop.
Short story: first had a 50mm on both my Canon 1000D and 550D, the 1.8 I version.
Was unhappy because you can't get close with it to your subject.
Bought the 35mm 2.0 then and loved it, used it for everything from toys to people.
Got my 5D II and thus switched to full-frame aaaand....lens got unusable because now you had distortion with the 35mm and I only liked that for certain pictures.
However, most important with toys in the 35 vs 50 debate is the minimum focus(ing) distance. That means how close you can get to the subject before the lens stops being able to focus. In case of Canon the 50mm 1.8 (and 1.4) will require you to take a step back, while their 35mm 2.0 actually lets you get pretty close for a non-macro lens.
On a crop you also don't have that typical wide angle distortion with the 35mm.
So don't immediately go for the 50mm just because people say so.
Also check Flickr, type in the lens and you often get a lot of examples.
I am not at home right now or else I would have shown some examples from toy shots I took with 50 and 35 on both crop and full-frame.
>>5275702
yeah that is the hardest part of the set. I love Ultraman obviously and the background isn't big enough to make it easy enough. Even if I elevate it with cds and stuff the background is way to small to do a towering look. here is an idea of how big it is.
Every time I bring the camera down, move the background up, there isn't enough height and you can see the bottom of the background.
>>5275810
Here is an example of what I am talking about. I can do it, but there are huge limitations to how much space I have to work with.
>>5274740
This.
Also, moving back a little and zooming in will help as well.
>>5275810
Is that a specific backdrop holder or are you using something else as one?
>>5275810
I just realized you can't see how tall the background is in this so here is another.
>>5275841
It's the Tsubaraya Special Effects Set. Includes a few backdrops, a shit ton of studio lights, and all of the stuff in those pictures.
>>5275849
Yeah it's 4 studio lights. the other two are just props
>>5275849
>$3-400
Probably worth it though
>>5275863
It was for me.
>>5275867
Yeah, that seems like a fair price for a premium set like that, especially if it has functional lights. I'd jump on it if I was a bigger toku fan
>>5275810
>>5275817
Not the guy you were replying to but I had a first go. Excuse the bad green screening, I just didn't have an interesting backdrop to use. Just in terms of forcing perspective, is there anything I should look to improve?
>>5275945
Cleaner erasing and the figure should be in focus, not the background. Afterwards you should edit the figure to have the same color/light like the background, incl. the angle and placements of shadows.
Are there any decent cheap cameras with full on manual controls.
I have a point and shoot that works alright but the focus is auto only and likes to focus on random shit in the background or like, the figure's foot or something.
>>5276153
How much do you want to spend?
Just a general tip for anyone else lurking, if you make a post for camera suggestions like this, please include a price range.
>>5276198
Cheap means cheap. But let's say sub- $200
>>5276269
New or used? Do you want an SLR or a point and shoot?
>>5276153
>>5276269
Canon S90, Canon S95, Olympus XZ-1, Olympus XZ-2.
These are all point and shoots, with decent small sensors and manual controls. In your price range all of them will probably be used. Although last year during christmas I got an XZ-2 for $180 new on amazon so you never know what deals there will be later this month or in dec.
Would you guys mind if I use some of your images/tips for toy photography on my blog?It's a shitty blog no one reads but it's my hobby. I'm not sure how to credit but if anyone doesn't want their pictures used I understand.
>>5276391
I've thrown a few tips out, but whatever. We have a reputation to uphold, so be sure to note we called you a dirty dickbeater at least twice.
Go with a cool approach like, anon called me a dirty dick beater, but, taking some advices and applying it, my results are "here".
Here are a tip on a cheap item to help you start out: silver car sun reflector. Very handy for bouncing soft light, cheap and chances are already have one around the house, or cost about $5-10.
>>5276391
Share the link
>>5276484
Or a piece of cardboard with some smoothed out aluminum foil stretched over it. For 30 cents or less.
Hell, for that matter a piece of white paper works as a good reflector, and costs nothing.
I did this today for fun, any suggestions?
cam: canon SX530 HS
>>5276550
Well if you want pics then I need to know where to send em
>>5276526
Terrible composition.
Maul is off to his side. They should be facing, or at least turned/looking toward each other. Lifeless, bland poses. I'll get shit for this, but they look like two toys just sort of sat next to each other on a shelf, instead of two characters fighting.
Is that background edited in, or did you actually take the shot outdoors. If so, why use the flash instead of a reflector. It throws off the lighting.
If you're going to go to the trouble of 'shopping effects, go all the way and do the sabers as well. It looks like a couple of plastic swizzle sticks with a sparkler pasted over them.
>>5276550
Id hot glue you baby
>>5276391
I wouldn't mind.
What am I doing wrong?
>>5278812
No lamp light filter.
Anyone know any good sources for composition and framing because I think that's where a lot of my pictures fall down. I get it well lit and manage to get it in focus etc but the shot just seems to be from a weird angle or the scene is just badly constructed. Any tips?
Lamp further away, thicker paper.
>>5277537
>>5278812
Both these pictures would look a lot better if the stands would have been edited out.
What's the use of putting so much effort into something just to have these ugly huge things across the picture?
I mean it's a toy, I get that, but still. Do yourself a favor and put in the few minutes and it will look a lot more "real".
>>5278825
Experience and looking at references, just like any other thing.
Look at pictures you like and ask yourself why your way of framing doesn't work for you.
>>5278812
That pose is very awkward. Look at some action poses online to get some ideas
>>5278983
Is the second one better?
>>5278866
You shouldn't even need a stand for such a basic pose my friend. Generally if there's not a lot going on in your picture the stand is a huge visual obstruction.
>>5278985
For your first shot, you could make her feet point more downward to sell the fact that she's airborne, probably bring her arms a bit out too to get them into a more dynamic pose. In regards to your second shot, try planting her right foot onto the ground, probably to the side of the stand's base if you really need it to help you in getting her standing. Otherwise, the pose you're going for is entirely doable without one (not that stands are a bad thing, mind you)
>>5278883
There wasn't much effort put into mine. I get what your saying, but clearly we aren't putting much effort in at all if their is a stand. And as for editing them out we kinda got two options.
I can either completely redo the pic or lose a piece of composition that I like to hid the stand.
Or photoshop.
I don't care enough to learn how to do this yet to hide the stand always, but as for photoshop you can always do it!
>>5279476
You have other options. Attach the claw to a part of the figure not in the picture. Use some blu-Tak, or some tape to secure it (off camera, natch). Think outside the box.
>>5279881
Awesome thanks for giving me some stuff to work with! Now I know what to do! Most anons just say get rid of them. Now I can start taking them away.
>>5280638
>>5280639
>>5280642
I haven't really done any action shots but im very open to criticism as I am looking to improve. I've been more critical with lighting and making sure things don't look awkward in shots ect.
>>5280638
Could maybe have been a little bit better lit but well composed and clearly shot. Very nice pic.
>>5280746
I use two desk lamps, one on each side of the subject to give even light and avoid too many shadows. Then just diffuse it with greaseproof paper. This is obviously in addition to my room's overhead light too.
On the third photo I'd also try to focus on the figure's face, as the details are a lot smaller than the Yoshi's.
>>5280754
are you diffusing or bouncing the light?
>>5280772
I generally diffuse. If it is evenly lit from both sides I don't find I need to use a reflector. Obviously if I'm using natural light I will try it with and without the reflector.
>>5278993
She can't stand without the stand.
>>5280883
Put some putty underneath her feet, stick her to the ground, profit.
Afterwards just peel it off.
I was wondering if anyone had any advice on this picture (>>5281224). It took me about 200 photos trying different variations on pose, iso, focus etc etc to get it how I wanted it. Anything I could improve upon?
Any anons Animators as well?
Alright, how does my current set up look?
>>5285977
Not too bad. Do you have a tripod becuase it looks a little out of focus.
>>5285983
>Not too bad. Do you have a tripod becuase it looks a little out of focus.
A cheap one, but I've been free-handing a lot recently after a bit of spill, and this was more of an ad-havoc shot.
Accidentally knocked it over when using it on the table top, and it started acting up.
>>5286004
>ad-havoc
Moron
>>5286029
Uh, taking pics of construction toy builds as you're building doesn't count as ad havoc?
And here we see the biggest weakness of my set up; I'm using the ceiling lights only, so I have to be careful not to literally overshadow my scenes.
>>5286035
The term is "ad hoc".
Try and make sure you take a good few pictures to make sure you get them in focus. Also consider either stronger lighting (not a lot but they're a bit underlit) or using a slightly higher ISO on your camera (assuming you're not using a phone).
>>5286035
think anon's pointing out that you said ad-havoc rather than ad-hoc
>>5286120
>The term is "ad hoc".
>>5286146
>think anon's pointing out that you said ad-havoc rather than ad-hoc
>Grammer Nazis
Damn it Blitzen!
>>5286120
>Try and make sure you take a good few pictures to make sure you get them in focus. Also consider either stronger lighting (not a lot but they're a bit underlit) or using a slightly higher ISO on your camera (assuming you're not using a phone).
Alright, like I said the shots of the flamethrower were a spur of the moment thing in relation to a thread here, so didn't put a whole lot of effort into focus.
I already knew about the lighting, but when I tried to use a "tulip" bendy lamp I had on hand, the results were way too warm...
I might go with >>5272977 >>5272979 advice and try reflectors instead, since my father has a bad habit of buying junk and we've probably got more than a few mirrors handy.
>>5286160
Even if you don't have mirrors, tin foil taped to a piece of cardboard is admittedly a bit ghetto but works well enough.
Also, if the light it too warm then consider playing with the white balance. A lot of cameras have different settings based on if you're using natural light or standard "warm" light from bulbs.
>>5273628
Ah yes, this was really helpful. Would try to use the low aperture sometime.
>>5286160
No Grammar Nazi about it. You're using a word to make yourself sound more intelligent than you are, but the word you're using is not just the wrong word. It's not even a word to begin with.
It makes you sound like an idiot, and when you try to defend yourself, it makes you sound like an even bigger idiot, because there's no defense to this. You're just plain stupidly wrong. Period.
I bought a sort of neat background that I thought would look cool. When I got it in the mail it's not as great as I would have hoped, but I still think it's sort of cool. I'll try to take decent pictures sometime over the weekend.
>>5281226
Well you already have the main piece of advice down; take lots of pictures. Patience is the key to getting the results you want. Don't pose something, snap two quick pics and be done. Personally, I'll snap a batch, see how they look on my laptop, adjust what needs adjusting and repeat until I have a shot I am really happy with. Sometimes I get it after 20 shots (in batches of 5-10) and sometimes it's nearly 100 but even then the whole process maybe takes half an hour and I have something I am actually happy with.
>>5286769
That's ND you're talking to dude. Long track record of being pretty shitty.
>>5278866
>>5280883
You okay?
She can stand on her own pretty easy, like most figmas. All you need to do is get their feet at the right angle.
>>5271619
Simmer down there jim
