My Model Photography setup

[michael lambert]

Originally Posted by Didymus

At any given focal length, there's no difference in the perspective of a zoom lens vs. a fixed length lens. For example, a shot taken with a zoom lens set at 28 mm will have exactly the same perspective as the same shot taken with a 28 mm fixed lens.

I agree with you that a wide angle lens gives model cars a more realistic perspective.

As a general rule, the depth of focus is shallower at large apertures like f1.8 or f2.2. At small openings like f16 or f22, the depth of focus (aka depth of field) is much greater. So if you're shooting from the front of the car, and you want the headlights and the tail fins to both be in focus, it's best to focus on the windshield and "stop down" to a small aperture. OTOH, if you want to blur the tail fins, focus on the headlights and increase the aperture to f2 or whatever.

Ddms

A prime lens will typically be slightly sharper than a zoom at the same focal lengh, Just mostly due to the element of the lens.

however i dont understand why you guys feel shooting your model with a wide angle lens will make it any better?

Check out this thread, i just posted of my 360.. I think they look decent for a zoom lens!

Pictures here!

[Didymus]

Originally Posted by michael lambert

however i dont understand why you guys feel shooting your model with a wide angle lens will make it any better?

The wider perspective of a WA tends to make the close portions look relatively larger and the distant portions relatively smaller and farther away. Thus, the car looks bigger.

A telefoto tends to compress front-to-back, so the distant portion looks closer, making the car look smaller.

Another example: Indoor shots taken with an extreme wide angle make a room look much bigger than it is.

Ddms

[michael lambert]

I do belieave that using a Tele-photo or Zoom lens can produce some pretty decent shots.

While i can understand the benifits of a WA lens you will also tend to get a bit of distortion to the image, an unnatural look tot he image. Ofcourse that sort of look can easily be done with in a image editing program

This shot was taken with a telephoto lens ( 70-200 2.8L )

[Didymus]

Originally Posted by michael lambert

I do belieave that using a Tele-photo or Zoom lens can produce some pretty decent shots.

Absolutely! And, as you've shown, even better than pretty decent. But if you're going for the big-car look, a WA is probably a better choice.

While i can understand the benifits of a WA lens you will also tend to get a bit of distortion to the image, an unnatural look tot he image.

Depends on the angle of the dangle, of course. And whether it's equal to the mass etc.

Ofcourse that sort of look can easily be done with in a image editing program

That "sort" of look, maybe, but actual WA perspective would be very difficult to fake. You'd need some way to change the relative proportions of foreground and background objects. Image editing programs only work in two dimensions.

I've been using PhotoShop a long time, and I've seen a lot of trick photography, including sphericizing, but I don't recall seeing any plug-in that truly emulates the perspective of a wide angle lens. If you know how it's done, by all means share!

This shot was taken with a telephoto lens ( 70-200 2.8L )

And it's a good one.

Ddms

[jmwallac]

Originally Posted by Didymus

Yes it does, all else being equal.


Megapixels affect image quality even if the output size is much smaller than the original image. The differences don't just disappear when the image is reduced in size. Again, all else being equal, a 640 x 480 ppi image taken with an 8 mpx camera will look better than a 640 x 480 ppi image taken with a 3 mpx camera. In the image shrunk down from the larger original, subtle color differences will be more apparent; tonal gradations will be less compressed; details will be more distinct.

Ddms

This statement is not true. If the sensor size remains constant then the density of light receptors MUST increase (as MP increase). Therefore each sensor is smaller and as therefore less sensitive to light. Another nasty by-product is "digital grain" or noise as it's also referred. Look at the quality of early 5MP cameras with almost anything available now. The image quality has improved due to tweaks in software, processing and the microlenses on the sensor.

It still amounts to the person behind the tool. Ansel Adams had a pretty low tech camera and produced beautiful images. I've seen "photographers" with the highest end gear out there turn out awful images. Learn to use whatever you have access to. I love when people blame bad pictures on dead batteries!