Any Suggestions on New Camera?

[TRAINS1941]

Chuck's broom is there also.  Put it good use.  Nick was kind of sloppy!!

Jerry

[finescalerr]

Okay, so here I am in the corner. I was bored to death so I grabbed my iPhone to test its depth of field. I set up a bright light (to make the f/stop automatically shrink as much as possible), plunked some HO freight cars and an NW2 on the kitchen table, and took photos. I doubt the forum's file size limitation will resolve enough detail but first I shot this photo with my iPhone 7 Plus "telephoto" or "portrait" lens. Regular iPhones (like iPhone 6 or 7, not Plus) don't have that extra lens. Just as well because it probably would require too many image layers to produce much depth of field. This (single exposure) is what the camera saw though that lens.

Russ

[finescalerr]

Just as I feared: I focused on the tank car and it's sharp. You can't see how fuzzy the two ends of the train are. Useless image.

Then I shot a couple of images through the regular lens. It's the same lens as every iPhone has and most other smartphone lenses are nearly the same. Better, but the end of the train is soft. I doubt it will be evident in the attachment. Here it is anyway.

Russ

[finescalerr]

I shot a second image through the "regular" lens and focused on the end of the train. That gave me two essentially identical photos, one with the front in focus, the other with the rear in focus.

I opened both images in Photoshop, layered the one with the loco in focus over the one with the end of train in focus, and erased everything that looked fuzzy. The result is pretty good, comparable to images I took through my 3 and 5 megapixel digicams years ago and maybe better. Certainly with much higher resolution.

As you may recall, the point of the experiment was to see whether Havard and the rest of us can achieve model shots with satisfactory depth of field using a smartphone and, at the same time, get the "scale man" perspective the old digicams gave. I think the answer is yes, and you probably don't have to stack images to get decent depth of field. I think the single exposure depth of field is close to the best I could get with my early digicams. If you want more, stack two or three images with different points of focus (without changing the camera's position!), and it may be possible to produce the look you want with the 12 megapixel resolution of today's smartphones.

Russ

[Hauk]

I set up a bright light (to make the f/stop automatically shrink as much as possible)

A while back I installed several camera apps on my iPhone in the hope of being able to control the f-stops manually.

It took quite a while before I realized that iPhones (and probably all smartphone cameras) has a fixed aperture!

[finescalerr]

Well, that makes sense. Even so, the more light, the better the photo because small sensors need a lot of light. -- Russ

[mad gerald]

I set up a bright light (to make the f/stop automatically shrink as much as possible)

A while back I installed several camera apps on my iPhone in the hope of being able to control the f-stops manually.

It took quite a while before I realized that iPhones (and probably all smartphone cameras) has a fixed aperture!

Um, well   ... depending on the iPhone IMHO it should be at least possible to change the exposure (time): focus the object, then put a finger on the display and slide (topwards or downwards) to raise or reduce exposure time ... apart from the possibility(ies) to make changes afterwards using the menue edit > Light > separate setting options: brilliant, exposure, shadow, brightness, contrast, highlights, blackness (black Level value) ...

[Barney]

Now come on lads get your act together ! I am no photographer but I knew a professional long time ago ( on a planet far far away so the saying goes ) he said get yourself a SLR manual type or nowadays its with a manual override setting - set it to F22 (or more if you require) this way the depth of field will be more than adequate - that is every thing is in focus from the front to the rear and beyond of the model - OK you will need a tripod and a remote control to set it and take a deep breath and stand still for a few seconds  I think its called a long exposure ! depending on the amount of light you have . the camera I use is a Nikon D50 its getting on now and its built like a house brick so its time for a change now for general use - but when I checked how much its worth as a trade in for a new model the best offer was £50:00 so I think I will keep it for use for model photography only
The lens is the standard one that came with the camera AF-S DX 18-55mm if that means  anything to any one
The D50 range of cameras comes with a range of settings in the AUTO mode and the manual settings  cover the aperture /speed
I have found this type of camera more the adequate for close up model photography
Barney
and good second hand ones are around and cheap !

[Bill Gill]

I've been following this stacking discussion with a lot of interest. Previously I had Control ZM (open source focus stacking software) on my old computer and eventually had it working fairly well, but it isn't available for my current computer. I use GIMP for photo editing and have read some general discussion about manually being able to use it (like Russ described with PhotoShop), but not enough specifics for me to get results...so here's a couple questions
1. Given both camera and subject in fixed positions, the shots taken at slightly different focal lengths will also slightly change the overall all size of the image, so I guess you have to manually rescale them to exactly match the sizes first, yes?

2. When you layer one image on top of another how do you determine the edges of what is unacceptably out of focus in the lower layer? Do you just erase what seems the most fuzzy in the upper layer and then feather the edges where it overlaps the lower level - then add the next layer(s), if any, one at a time and repeat the erasing? How easy/difficult is it to tell the edge between what is acceptably in focus and what isn't with something like trees in middle ground as you look at the lower level(s) through the "hole" you made erasing the exact same subject in the upper level?

[Lawton Maner]

Since we now have pictures of the corner, the inquisitive among us want to know where are the bikini babes?

[finescalerr]

Hmmm. I guess I have a few questions to answer. First, Lawton, the bikini girls were standing behind me when I shot those test images. Remember, this is a forum rated for general audiences.

Now on to Bill's questions:

Yes, shots at different focal lengths do change the overall size and even position of the image. The commands in Photoshop, Helicon Focus, and others adjust each layer (individual image) to compensate. They don't always do it as well as you might like. That is why the eraser tool and your eyes are so valuable. Automation only gets you started and manual adjustments are the finishing touch. (As I warned above, stacking is time consuming, tedious, and sometimes imperfect.)

Also yes to your second question. The reason stacking is so tedious is that you must turn layers on and off to see how your erasing looks. On the shots I took with my 35mm full frame SLR I had to redo work on several layers three or four times. I also tossed out the whole thing and started from scratch about five times! Layer stacking for depth of field is not something you'll want to do all the time.

Now to amplify on Barney's comment:

You're right about SLR cameras in general but for some kinds of model shots, especially those of small scale models where you want a train in focus from front to back, F/22 is about as "wide open" as you want the aperture. Even f/32 often is insufficient. But it really depends on what you want your photo to look like and, maybe more importantly, how much resolution you need.

Here's what I mean: Suppose your Nikon's zoom lens at 55mm can keep an entire 12 car HO train in focus if you shoot at f/22 and back about 12 feet away from the subject. (Assuming you have that much space!) The train will be only a small part of the photo. So you crop the image. Well, if you have a sensor with 24 megapixel resolution, the part of the photo you end up with might be only 8 megapixels. In inches, let's say a 24 inch wide photo crops down to 8 inches. If you plan to use that photo as a half-page image you're in good shape. But what if you want a super sharp 17 inch spread or even a 30 inch wide poster? Ain't gonna happen because you'll need to stretch that 8 inch image by 3- or 400%.

Now suppose you want to push the perspective to get a very different, much more dramatic look: You'll need to adjust the zoom to between 18 and 35mm on your SLR and move right up to the loco. The perspective issue is magnified if your lens is a macro. So now you're back to image stacking because shooting close up with a wide angle lens is about the only way you can achieve the look you want. Get it? (And if anybody wants a more detailed explanation, send me a note and we can talk on the phone or Skype or something.)

Finally (and I can hear sighs of relief), the reason we're messing around with iPhones is because Havard asked how to get the "scale man" perspective that early digicams could produce. A 35mm SLR is too big and bulky to sit on a layout or diorama without destroying structures and scenery and, besides, the lens will be too high to achieve that "scale man" perspective. The little digicams we used to use had their lens only 1/8- or 1/4-inch above the ground so you could actually "look up" at locos, rolling stock, and structures. And you could get pretty close, yet still manage decent depth of field.

The irony is that today's smartphone cameras do pretty much what those little digicams from 2001 to about 2005 could do. My 2001 3 megapixel digicam was a little better than my 2005 5 megapixel digicam for miniature close up macro shots. My impression from yesterday's experiment is that the iPhone will produce shots similar to the 2005 camera but with 12 megapixel resolution. Image stacking probably wouldn't be necessary for most of what we want.

As you guys probably know, I spent 25 years shooting hundreds of models, dioramas, and layouts. It got to the point where I could do it in my sleep ... but standing, squatting, climbing, contorting, and lifting heavy gear was so painful I usually remained awake. What I learned is that our needs are highly specialized -- so far out of the main stream that few cameras today will give us the perspectives we want and also provide close to ideal images. But we already have smartphones, they're always with us, and they're not so bad. We should learn to use them to best advantage.

Russ

[finescalerr]

Examples, all shot with the iPhone:

First, with the camera only a couple of inches from the 1:32 scale loco. The whole train is about three feet long. I merged three shots but should have used four.

Russ

[finescalerr]

In the second shot I backed off about six inches and merged two shots but should have used three. -- Russ

[finescalerr]

The final shot is about a foot away from the train and again I shot two images but really needed three. In this and the previous shot the "soft" spots are around the smokestack.

All three are "quick and dirty" examples of what a smartphone can produce with about two minutes of setup and shooting and about ten minutes in Photoshop or other software with equivalent image stacking features. I used a couple of table lamps to illuminate the train. The idea was to approach the shots as a rank amateur, with only a smartphone and a tripod but no other photo-specific gear. I did nothing to control shadows or backgrounds or anything else I normally would do. If I can crank out these shots in about fifteen minutes each from start to finish, you can do better with a little more care.

Russ

[Greg Hile]

I used to teach photography. I have both film and digital SLRs but don't use them that much any more. I have had a succession of iPhones up to my current 7, and just recently acquired a fifth generation iPad. I have used Photoshop from version 6 all the way up to the Creative Cloud. It is truly amazing how the technology has changed over just the last two decades and what these tools can do. But, at the end of the day, it's neither the technology nor the technique that matters so much as it the photographic composition, imagination, and inspiration, what Ansel Adams described as "knowing where to stand."

I've mastered the technology over the years, and I am familiar with the techniques, but I've never really developed the photographer's eye. My oldest daughter, on the other hand, knows the technology and the techniques, but absolutely shines from the gleam in her eye. That's why she's a professional photographer, and I'm not!