I purchased my first mirrorless camera a Canon R6 MKII and it is a little different than the DSLR (Digital Single Lens's Reflex) cameras I have used, I am playing with depth of field, along with the ISO to set exposure setting from the histogram readout on the camera.
These photos are of my 1989 Nissan R89C by Exoto.
Photo f/20 ISO 10,000 handheld at 1/10 of a second
This one is on the dark side but the depth of field looks good for detail with just a little blur at the left right corner of the car. It needs to be a touch lighter with a little more depth of field.
Photo f/20 ISO 20,000 handheld at 1/10 of a second
This one brightens up the photo and on the histogram shows a proper exposure.
These five photos were all taken at the same f/20 ISO 20,000 handheld at 1/10 of a second
This photo was taken at f/4 ISO 1250 handheld at 1/13 of a second.
You can see how shallow the depth of field becomes throwing part of the right side of the car out of focus.
This photo was taken at f/5.6 ISO 1250 handheld at 1/10 of a second.
still to shallow for the depth of field at the rear of the car.
This photo was taken at f/16 ISO 10,000 handheld at 1/10 of a second.
Depth of field is good until the right rear of the car where it starts to blur.
Of these I think the photos taken at f/20 ISO 20,000 provide the best detail on the car for depth of field.
Opinions please.
This topic was modified 7 months ago 2 times by john3976
Woah... way above my pay grade. I do have one super nice high-end Sony digital camera - that I don't understand and don't use much. 99.8% of the time I use my phone. All I care about is sharp, clear images with scale backgrounds to facilitate the "illusion."
Looking GOOD! The higher your ISO, the brighter the image will be. The smaller your aperture (higher F stop number) the deeper your field of vision will be - sharp front to back.
If you use a small aperture setting; I routinely use f/22 to f/45 for sharp model photos, and let the camera pick the shutter speed. They are usually slow since I use ISO settings of between 64 and 250. So a rock steady tripod with onboard camera timer is needed.
My biggest (tech ) problem, currently, is swapping info/pics between two computers. I recently upgraded all my "office equipment." As I s l o w l y transfer doc/pic/etc... I'm utilizing two full set-ups. If I wasn't so lazy, I'd be done by now, but.... 😫 😫 😒
That LAST thing I need is "camera lessons!" I'll leave ALL that up to you brainiacs.... 🙄 😮 🙄
My biggest (tech ) problem, currently, is swapping info/pics between two computers. I recently upgraded all my "office equipment." As I s l o w l y transfer doc/pic/etc... I'm utilizing two full set-ups. If I wasn't so lazy, I'd be done by now, but.... 😫 😫 😒
That LAST thing I need is "camera lessons!" I'll leave ALL that up to you brainiacs.... 🙄 😮 🙄
Oh God Bless you brother Chris! I hate doing that. My favored photo program is on my old computer (Windows 7) that I still use off and on. And it has since been relegated to wife, Shirl's, use. My main 'puter is on Win 11 and I use two different photo programs that I don't like or use as well as my old one. The newer version of the old one is too unfamiliar for an old dog unwilling to learn new tricks!
These photographs look really good and the model cars themselves make excellent subject matters to image. I need to restore a photo-studio area in my present very small apartment, but I was using a Pentax K-30 DLSR and also a Pentax *ist-DS for imaging model diecast automobiles.
A very important accessory can be a solid tripod to mount one's camera to. This allows solid support, the use of longer exposures if necessary and larger f-stops to increase the depth of field to get everything in sharp focus. I have also used "focus-stacking " computer software to radically extend the range of items in focus in one's photograph for good sharpness and various special effects.
As always, it is the actual love and pride of showing a prized model diecast car and not really the techniques or special fx or the cost of a model automobile that is the important thing. If you like it and are proud to show it off to others, a $ 12.95 diecast car is just as valid as a $ 400+ diecast replica.
Those pictures certainly look great and with excellent realism. Looking at photographs and images of real cars and also the set-ups used by professionals for actual 1:1 automobiles can give some fine ideas for model/replica shots.
@chris LOL, thats what I see too Chris. I exclusively use my phone. I just point, shoot and hope, lol. I'm always surprised when they turn out half as good as they do.🤪🥴
@chris That's been my problem! I generally never take more than two from any angle that I shoot - a holdover from the old days of shooting with film when you would take the shot and then 'one for safety'
"...a holdover from the old days of shooting with film."
Yes, I read about "those days" in the history books. 😏 😏 😏
Apparently, photographs were taken on a camera (not a phone ) and then the "film" had to be developed at a store, then you waited for associates (strangers ) to process it - which could take days - then you had to return to that store to pick up your photos...and it wasn't free! You had to PAY money for YOUR photos (that strangers looked at! )
Frank, that all sounds crazy to me, but I guess that's how it was done. 🙄 🙄 🙄
Well, no need to be "stingy" anymore, take ALL the FREE pics you want - choose the very best (in seconds ) and post! 😀 😀 😀
