Bipin

Superb work! You have a very consistent and very attractive aesthetic. Keep it up!

Nice work! A pleasing, new spin on old classics!

Nice build! Certainly among the best construction vehicle MOCs out there.

That's pretty damn spectacular, especially the cockpit!

While the black background wasn't ideal, I found the white one just didn't work for this model. I did try it, but I found the yellow didn't quite "pop" against white; diffused, even lighting didn't look too nice , and the way in which I wanted the shadows looked good on the model, but not on the background. I think if I were to shoot this again, I'd go for shooting it on some sort of concrete surface, as opposed to a studio setting, or a different coloured background.Speaking of lighting and background, I would suggest Behemoth that you invest in something like this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/16-40-x-40cm-Photo-Studio-Light-Shooting-Tent-Cube-Soft-Box-4-Backdrops-/200928232031?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ec841825f For $14 you can't go wrong. Even if you don't have flash units, using lamps, as previously suggested by myself and others would still work well. Since you are shooting still objects, you can use a longer exposure so long as the camera is on a tripod and timer or cable release. As JGW said, Cowboy Studios is good. Yongnuo also makes inexpensive, but good quality lighting equipment that is worth checking out. I personally know a wedding photographer who uses their flash units and has seldom, if ever had problems with them.

How old was your camera? Sony has really innovated within the last several years with their sensors; their flagship model the A7 is widely considered one of the best, if not the best of 2013. As good as Canon is (I shoot Canon myself) they just haven't done anything too innovative within the last five or so years; their "prosumer" line for instance, has been stuck at 18 MP on APS-C for the longest time. If I were to buy a camera now, I'd probably chose a Sony over my current Canon. Another good brand to check out besides Sony is Sigma. Their Foveon sensors are phenomenal compared to the typical Bayer counterparts found in nearly all consumer cameras. It's a bit pricier, but worth checking out.

Links to the above photographs can be found here: There's more quality Sony A3000 content where those came from, so I'd encourage you to look around. If you do invest in a compact digital/mirrorless camera, I would suggest that it has interchangeable lenses regardless of the brand you chose, and that you start off with a prime (fixed focal length). Now, not to make this a self plug or anything, but in regards to lighting, this is what I had created with velvet as a backdrop, three IKEA lamps, a bed sheet as a diffuser and an upside down IKEA coffee table to form the vertical members of my softbox structure: First and foremost, you need to have enough money set aside for the bare minimum of lighting essentials. Once you have enough allocated to that, you should spend the rest on a body and a lens.

These aren't my own pictures, but they'll give you a taste of what you can expect with the A3000: Besides immediate satisfaction, Sony is partnered with Carl Zeiss, which is amongst the best lens manufacturers in the world. They are up there with Voigtlander and Leica to an extent in terms of optical quality, which means you have the ability to invest in some excellent hardware down the road that won't require adapters and other "messy" workarounds. Even with the lens that comes packaged with the camera, you get pretty good results, certainly for one of this price range. If possible though, I would recommend switching out the kit lens for a prime lens (fixed focal length). This goes for whatever camera model you buy, sony or otherwise. You'll achieve better image quality, have a lighter lens and a faster lens. Of course, you won't have zoom, but that isn't too much of an issue for photographing LEGO. I myself only use a 50mm f/1.8 for photographing LEGO. On an APS-C sensor (like in the A3000) a 50mm lens is great. It is equivalent to 80mm; the perfect focal length for photographing models, both human and LEGO!

Phenomenal MOC. I love the perspective!

As Darth Dino said, the lighting makes the shot. On the other hand, unless you are going to be stitching iPhone photos together in Photoshop, you'll want a decent mirrorless or DSLR camera. Sony is the up and coming leader in the camera market; it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that Sony has made more innovations in the last decade than "Canikon" has in triple that time. Their sensors are great; phenomenal for the price. They are even working on ultra-compact cameras with curved sensors; long focal lengths without huge lenses, no one else is doing that! To that end, I'd recommend you invest in the Sony A3000 mirrorless camera. It manifests the familiar appearance of a DSLR without its size, sensor aside. For about $270 the A3000 cuts corners, although not in image quality. Mostly in extra, often needless features. Despite being fairly compact and mirrorless, the A3000 hosts a 20.2 MP sensor at APS-C size, which is on par if not better than that of my own DSLR's; a Canon 650D. In fact, if I were to buy a camera now, I'd probably go with a Sony.Combine this with the fact that Sony sensors are renown for low noise at high ISO settings the inherently low vibration of a mirrorless system and you've got a camera that will perform well handheld and/or under poor lighting. That translates to quality photographs now, without the immediate need for studio lights/flash units. The A3000 is available at or near your requested price point, in varying conditions: http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Interchangeable-Digital-20-1MP-18-55mm/dp/B00EH5UGR6 Alternatively, many of the Olympus Pen, Pentax and Fuji Micro Four Thirds cameras are good, although they don't match the quality of the aforementioned A3000. If I were you, I'd invest in the Sony A3000, a flash unit and reflector. I could even show you how to make a softbox for under $15 with PVC piping On the other hand, if you are crazy about quality, go pick up some film, a Mamiya RB67 and you're set. Those digital camera folks will have nothing on you and your medium format! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me over on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/brickartisan/ I'd be happy to answer your camera-related questions.

These are all very intriguing. Each model has its own, distinct aspects, yet retains an overall (very attractive, I might add) aesthetic. Nice work!

Very nicely done! You've mixed traditional Classic-Space aesthetics with your own quite well. I'm a big fan of the cockpit's windows, the angles look very intimidating!

Through SEPC (Shell Eastern Petrochemicals Complex) and other, similar locations, Shell does operate and own/co-own some mono-ethylene glycol (MEG) facilities, plus ethylene cracking facilities which provide cracked (refined) oil for MEG facilities. Mono-ethylene glycol is integral to the creation of many plastics. As well, Shell's hydrocarbon cracking results in the creation of butadiene and vinyl benzene (styrene) which are, of course, integral to ABS (acrylic butadiene styrene). It wouldn't be unreasonable to think that Shell is in business with selling LEGO the raw materials for their bricks, given that they are already in the industry of creating those materials. Regardless, I think we can all agree this would be a step forward: http://newswire.net/newsroom/pr/00080393-lego-plastic-abs-bio-plastic.html Creating plastic from other organic molecules (e.g. saccharides - sugars) would certainly be possible, as they are chemically similar to the hydrocarbons currently used (which lack the oxygen found in saccharides).

LEGO's partnership with Shell is limited at those sets of yesteryear, or in today's case, the "ingredients" for LEGO bricks; ABS plastic. Their partnership has quite pragmatic roots, based upon the need for raw materials used to create plastic. It's something LEGO doesn't have a lot of leverage in; these oil companies, Shell or otherwise, are all fairly unsavory yet they provide LEGO with a necessity. if LEGO cuts ties with shell, they'd have to move to another equally bad if not worse provider. I'd say LEGO maintaining ties with Shell is a bit more of a "need" than a "want", which makes me feel as though Greenpeace is picking on/putting too much emphasis on the wrong person in this case.

Oops, I had meant to say in recent times (e.g. 2000's) when they had only partnered with Shell, via proxy, by partnering with Ferrari. Regardless, I don't really see those older sets as ones relevant when discussing the current rhetoric. As far as the sets go that are tied directly to Shell, I'd say those are a moot point for Greenpeace's cause. Those sets were made in a different era; a different zeitgeist. Many companies have developed ties we'd deem unsavory nowadays, yet they were perfectly acceptable at that time, decades ago. You can't really blame them for that by applying alternate, current rhetoric to events that far in the past. The bottom line though, is that LEGO seems to only be involved with Shell from a raw materials standpoint. They need to get their ABS/oil for ABS plastic from somewhere and in doing so chose the least bad option, which sometimes constitutes making a deal with the devil. To that end, on the grand scale of things, a few decades-old toys involving a brand/business partner of LEGO should be pretty low on the list of issues Greenpeace should tackle when it comes to issues that threaten natural environments.