• Modelers Alliance has updated the forum software on our website. We have migrated all post, content and user accounts but we could not migrate the passwords.
    This requires that you manually reset your password.
    Please click here, http://modelersalliance.org/forums/login to go to logon page and use the "Forgot your Password" option.

Modelling for the camera

Tim A.

Tim A.

Well-known member
This topic may have been discussed here before but I'm curious to know if ya'll build to please the camera's eye. I have never seen, in real life, works done by modellers who's works I've seen by them in photographs. I know that my camera at least does not pick up all the subtle color tones and detail that are actually in and on the models and scenes I build. Sometimes the camera can enhance the work but sometimes it doesn't do it justice.

In dioramas the camera is a great tool for cropping out the surrounding real world stuff, I guess I'm wondering if some of the greats like Bob, Ian hill and Lewis to mention a few build with the camera's eye in mind as this is probably the only way I will get to see their works.

Tim
 
Me personally, I never model for the camera, (well unless it's for my youtube channel, but that's not what you mean ;) )

IE: I never use a specific method or technique to affect the look of my model strictly for it's look on 'film'. I model the same way I model even on projects that never get posted and there are plenty of those.

I will however, use the camera to edit stuff out, or bring more attention to them in the photo by clarifying it or something. Notice the missing red spray paint cap in the hatch and the better clarity of the picture:


compare_20100711_2005511364.jpg




The last pictures I posted of my Dodge look just like my Dodge does in 'real life', it's just not so well lit all the time and five times it's size on a monitor but any and all that you can see in the pictures, you can see in your hand. (you might have to squint though)

B)
 
As I do reviews for IPMS, I often modelmore for the camera. Case in point is my Hobby Boss F-111. It is riddled with flaws.

http://www.ipmsusa2.org/reviews2/aircraft/kits/hobbyboss_48_f111a/hobbyboss_48_f111a.htm

But in the review it looks great. In our club, we've discussed it a few times. We have several who model for IPMS/Internet Modeler. And we've figured out you have three types of modeling: modeling for fun, modeling to win [contests or even to sell], and modeling for the camera for reviews and such.

he main thing I tell people is that I model for fun, and then use photoshop to correctthe photos so they actaully look like the model [color/lighting/etc]

hobbyboss_48_f111a-07.jpg
 
Nice bird Viper_MP
I'm definitely in the model for fun group. Of course being good enough to compete would make it funner!

Tim
 
hood wrote:
Nice bird Viper_MP
I'm definitely in the model for fun group.
Click to expand...

Me too! :peace

hood wrote:
Of course being good enough to compete would make it funner!

Tim
Click to expand...

I've seen your work Tim, I could easily see you placing at an AMPS contest if you wanted to enter some stuff.
 
:blush: Thank you Ken. It would be a great way to meet some of the folks behide the awesome works I see.

Tim
 
Well I actually have a bugbear against Military Modelling magazine putting photoshopped models on their front cover , sure they may think they look realistic but are the models not good enough to sell the magazine on their own ? One recent cover had a photoshopped 1/6 action figure in the turret of a 1/35 tank with a duplicate of the same vehicle and a fake diorama . I have no problem with a realistic background being used but where does it end ?

I want to see stuff modellers build , not some photoshopped stuff , where does it end ? If the modeller is not competent to put a row of tie downs on his tank , and photoshops them , why bother with your own kit at all ? Just cut and paste someone elses .

Jenny :kiss:
 
jenny croft wrote:
One recent cover had a photoshopped 1/6 action figure in the turret of a 1/35 tank with a duplicate of the same vehicle and a fake diorama .
Click to expand...

W000000T? RLY? that leaves me so ROFLMAO! :laugh:
 
I think that the photography side of things is actually a sub-genre of the hobby these days and you should only really worry about taking pictures you're happy with.

I try to get better photos these days as I just didn't like the ones I was taking and felt I was losing detail, tone and depth in the pictures. It was a pretty interesting exercise and I do enjoy it, particularly with the printed backdrops. It's fun seeing the model come to life through a lens.

I model for the camera all the time as I film most of it. It really does detract from the hobby and sometimes it can feel like a job rather than fun.
 
Ken Abrams wrote:
and Victoria's Secret has never been the same since...

:lol:
Click to expand...

Hey I like to think I'd make a good Victoria's Secret model ! I can see it now...



...actually no, no it's probably best left as Victoria's best kept secret.
 
JonHayward wrote:
Ken Abrams wrote:
and Victoria's Secret has never been the same since...

:lol:
Click to expand...
it's probably best left as Victoria's best kept secret.
Click to expand...

It's not a secret anymore :laugh:

Jenny hit on something. I live a sheltered life as far as model work goes, There is so much High quality stuff available to the modeller. but I still tend to grab my jeweler's saw and spend days making the part. It's just the way I work.... Mabey partly due to I just can't afford all the great stuff :pinch: :)

Anyhoo is it that the computer enhanced or even generated model of a model is more popular now cause It's what people want and expect to see? As for me I just build the best I can and hope for a lucky shot with the ol' Kodak easyshare :side:
 
hood wrote:
Jenny hit on something. I live a sheltered life as far as model work goes, There is so much High quality stuff available to the modeller. but I still tend to grab my jeweler's saw and spend days making the part.
Click to expand...

Tim,

I will make as much as I can out of plastic stock and wire and such as much as I can. I do occasionally buy some of the smaller detail sets if they are simple and inexpensive but I'm getting cheaper and broker in my latter years so they have become few and far between.

hood wrote:
As for me I just build the best I can and hope for a lucky shot with the ol' Kodak easyshare
Click to expand...

A Kodak easy share is what takes all my pictures, I use the software disc that came with it and I downloaded the free paint.net software as well. With a decent lighting area and a tripod, that camera does me just fine.

Remember what Jimi Hendrix did with a pawn shop guitar, upside down and backwards?

B)
 
Maybe this will help
I use a nikon L 100 there is believe it or not a food setting on the camera that i use that allows you to shift the color tone internally and get the best tone ratio..... If i wasnt too lazy most of the time and set up the proper lighting then the pics would be better most images i dont edit at all except maybe for size
 
Now I got "All along the watch tower" stuck in my head :ro:

The camera helps for everything from spotting booboo's to aiding in making a scene's composition. It can make or break a work and even make it famous. It is no doubt one of the most important tools in the chest.

Tim
 
jenny croft wrote:
Well I actually have a bugbear against Military Modelling magazine putting photoshopped models on their front cover , sure they may think they look realistic but are the models not good enough to sell the magazine on their own ? One recent cover had a photoshopped 1/6 action figure in the turret of a 1/35 tank with a duplicate of the same vehicle and a fake diorama . I have no problem with a realistic background being used but where does it end ?

I want to see stuff modellers build , not some photoshopped stuff , where does it end ? If the modeller is not competent to put a row of tie downs on his tank , and photoshops them , why bother with your own kit at all ? Just cut and paste someone elses .

Jenny :kiss:
Click to expand...

Sadly that's a general practice in all print media.
And it's not limited to scale modeling publications.
You see more of it in the fashion and beauty ads and publications (you don't really think that the girls in Playboy mag or Victoria's Secrets look in real life the way they do in the mags and posters, do you?).

That's why I'd rather look at the work posted on these forums than the mags.
 
jenny croft wrote:
Well I do not look at those magazines :pp But I will take advice from someone who does ... Hehehehehehehehe :whistle:

Jenny :kiss:
Click to expand...

You don't look at Victoria's Secrets catalogs?
Lol! yeah well....I don't deal with publications anymore as I quit doing fashion photography a while back. But in my current job I do get to see and talk to the models quite frequently, and the editors and all those types.

I'd rather hang out with modelers and day! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top