How to make good pictures ?

[Alex Ilea]

Hi everyone ! 

I can never make make good pictures of creations . Some people make outstanding quality pictures . Do you guys have any tips ? Also , after taking pictures , do i have to edit them ( like makeing the brightness highter) ?

[dr_spock]

3 hours ago, IA creations said:

Hi everyone ! 

I can never make make good pictures of creations . Some people make outstanding quality pictures . Do you guys have any tips ? Also , after taking pictures , do i have to edit them ( like makeing the brightness highter) ?

Check out the Photography Index in the General section:   http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/133592-lego-photography-index/

We have also a Technic Photography topic here: http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=110840

You can post a sample of your pictures for guidance.

If your picture is the way you like it out of the camera, then there is no need to edit them.

[Tommy Styrvoky]

Lighting is important, a tripod or something to keep the camera stationary, a clean background is nice, though it can be edited out ( you can use fabric or printer paper taped together) For the picture, low ISO speed lower= less grain in image, use highest resolution preset for camera, higher F-stop= more stuff in focus, though longer exposure. You can use the focus and low F-stop to create a point of interest too . Try to find an interesting angle of the model (get up and close, rather than a top down 3/4 picture.) Editing always helps with the photos, If you can take the photo in RAW format, and use a post processing application to tweak white balance/shadows/color shift, I personally use Rawtherapee for tweaking the photos, it's a free program for both mac and windows. For editing and adding effects, you can use GIMP for most effects/removing background with paths, and I sometimes use Blender's Cycles engine for making 3D text/rendering Lego parts/objects.

Another great free program for video editing /colorgrading is Davinci resolve

Basically experiment and take lots of photos, then find the ones you like most, and edit them for improved color/shadow

Edited September 29, 2016 by Tommy Styrvoky

[Sariel]

It's all about the hardware and learning how to use it. Photoshop can only take you so far.

[Lego2016Lego]

This is what I do the yellow Lego thing is my tripod.

[Lipko]

What the others already said. Plus I have the habit lately to use the timer function (the smallest possible) so that the small motion coming from from pushing the exposition button can also be ruled out, because even with a rigid tripod, this can be an issue.

Another thing I learned that it's better to take pictures from a distance. With my camera it's at least 1.5-2 meters. This way the perspective distortion becomes smaller. Strong perspective might be a nice effect, but to show the shape, it's better to minimize it.

[grum64]

I've got nothing 

[JJ2]

11 minutes ago, grum64 said:

I've got nothing 

Still better then mine though

Edited September 28, 2016 by JJ2

[RohanBeckett]

lighting... lighting... lighting... can make all the difference in the world - even if using a 3 year old iphone...

outdoor, diffused (overcast), sunlight can be a cheap way of doing this

[Jim]

Don't forget these two topics:

I will be merging this topic with the latter.

Having proper lighting like Rohan mentioned will help you out a lot. Indirect light works best in most situations.

Actually, every digital pictures needs some post-processing to make it less grainy, sharper, etc. 

[Victor Imaginator]

Just now, Jim said:

Actually, every digital pictures needs some post-processing to make it less grainy, sharper, etc. 

Like old photographers processed film for making real photo, new photographers should process RAW pictures to make real viewvable pictures. When camera makes JPEG for you - camera process same RAW on her own. Manual RAW processing is neccesary, because RAW contains much more information that any JPEG can hold and any display can show. Camera just can't choose what to keep and what to drop better than any photographer can do.

[Jim]

1 minute ago, Victor Imaginator said:

Like old photographers processed film for making real photo, new photographers should process RAW pictures to make real viewvable pictures. When camera makes JPEG for you - camera process same RAW on her own. Manual RAW processing is neccesary, because RAW contains much more information that any JPEG can hold and any display can show. Camera just can't choose what to keep and what to drop better than any photographer can do.

Exactly!

When I first bought my DSLR (70D), I was so disappointed with the quality of the pictures. I thought they would be crystal clear. Well, they weren't...

[Alex Ilea]

Thanks everyone ! 

[Jim]

Just now, IA creations said:

Thanks everyone ! 

What camera are you using by the way?

15 hours ago, Lipko said:

What the others already said. Plus I have the habit lately to use the timer function (the smallest possible) so that the small motion coming from from pushing the exposition button can also be ruled out, because even with a rigid tripod, this can be an issue.

Another thing I learned that it's better to take pictures from a distance. With my camera it's at least 1.5-2 meters. This way the perspective distortion becomes smaller. Strong perspective might be a nice effect, but to show the shape, it's better to minimize it.

True, always use the 2 sec timer or a remote.

Distance can be important. In Lightroom you can apply Lens Correction to compensate for this unwanted effect.

[Lucio Switch]

2 hours ago, Jim said:

Distance can be important. In Lightroom you can apply Lens Correction to compensate for this unwanted effect.

I hope I'm not wrong, but it does so only partially. It correct a bit the "fish-eye" effect, but if you shoot with a 18mm lens it will be always a pic with a 18mm lens.
I suggest to use a 50mm or higher.

[HallBricks]

All important things have already been said. Having good lighting is always very important, many times upgrading the lighting gives better results than upgrading your camera. With good lighting, a clean background, and preferably a tripod you can get extraordinary results without any editing at all.

[TheMindGarage]

Use plenty of light and a white background. I only have access to a compact camera, but it gives decent results when you take the pictures from far away with high optical zoom.

[nerdsforprez]

When I made this post here:

http://www.moc-pages.com/moc.php/431720

I literally put myself in a room and just experimented.  I tried different ISO settings, light amount and types (natural light, yellow light, etc.) and many other variables.  I had a sheet of paper and made notes of associations and correlates of the variables I was changing (settings, light, etc.) and the pics were labeled so that when I referred to them later I could treat them like subjects....i.e. I knew all the variables associated with them that led to their properties.  I found this SO much more helpful than reading about taking quality photos, and much more fun and hands-on. 

People have given tons of good concrete advice here.  I would offer perhaps a step further.  I would challenge you to take an hour or two, and not even be concerned about good/bad quality photo.  Just experiment.  Learn what light settings, amount, etc. is associated with both good and bad shots.  Take a shot with a tripod, and then take one without one.  Look at the differences.  Label your pictures so that you know the settings and light exposures are associated with each one.  Purposely TRY to create a bad photo as well as a "good" one.   Knowing the variables that lead to a bad photo are just as important as knowing those that lead to a good one.  This might sound really labor intensive but actually it can be really fun.   Put on a lab coat if you want to   Act like you are your own mad scientist of sorts..... 

[grum64]

13 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

...Purposely TRY to create a bad photo...

I'm pretty sure I've got that covered 

[nerdsforprez]

22 hours ago, Sariel said:

It's all about the hardware and learning how to use it. Photoshop can only take you so far.

Sariel, always have enjoyed your work and likely always will.  I have used your GIMP youtube tutorial and also purchased your book and enjoy your contributions as well as your personal projects.  But in the example above, I almost (well, actually I do like) the original photo better than the "processed" (aside from the text at the bottom, that is totally cool) one.  The bottom photo looks too made up to me.  Wonder if you ever get that type of feedback from your fans.  Wonder what others think of my observation.  Perhaps kinda like guys who like their gals (and not trying to be indecorous here, just think the analogy applies) "natural" instead of made up and all full of silicone (no..... not ABS ) and make-up........

[Lipko]

Also I have the habit lately to take preliminary photos (not caring about settings, lighting, background) only to find the good angles and composition.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Lipko

[Sariel]

50 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

But in the example above, I almost (well, actually I do like) the original photo better than the "processed" 

Fair enough, it's a matter of personal preferences, but that's exactly my point: a proper hardware will get you results that don't really need photoshopping. FYI with a dark background there are always little motes of dust here and there and they inevitably show on photo when the photo is taken from so close, so I clean the background up in Photoshop. And the vignette effect which I assume is what you don't like, looks much more subtle in full size: