False Backgrounds?

Agreed. Show off your model work and not your photoshop skills.

I disagree. But be honest about it. What I mean is, there's room for any and all approaches. One's a model, the other is a diorama.

I disagree. A diorama is another skill to make a base and adding figures. Rather than superimposing a build image on a background image. Granted there are different skill sets required, but image skills are not modelling skills. But yes there is room for any and all approaches.  But personally I rate them in separate categories, computer imaging as opposed to scale modeling.

Dont get it. If the picture makes you think twice and makes the model look as the real thing then you/me, the modeler, succeeded.  You can still appreciate all the model details, its a background, not a foreground. What wrong with using "photoshop", BTW?  If it makes for a cool image and gives a touch of realism, go for it.  I prefer those type of pics over the studio like images of the model and a white/blue background which makes somewhat boring images, not much creativity in those.  The ideal thing could be combining realistic type images with a a few studio like ones concentrating in the details of the build.

If a guy's model is so good he can put a background behind it and fool the viewer, that's a pretty good testament to his skills if you ask me.

I do like it when someone posts a couple of pics with a false background along with some images of the build without the editing. I have a few builds I would like to add a background to myself but not sure I have the tools, or skill, to do it.

Well, I started posing my aircraft models at our local airport for several reasons; My limited photography skills prevented me from getting good photos of them with indoor lighting, the natural light and airport "scenery" seemed like a good combination and the happy coincidence that I live just 4 minutes away.

With my last finished build, the Hobby Boss MiG-17, I tried to get some indoor, detail pics prior to taking it to the airport.  I did take quite a few but again, my photo skills just aren't that sharp.  I guess I do see the airport as a way to "showcase"my modest efforts and allow myself to exhibit my models in a natural setting, in natural light.  Heck, back home, they just sit there in those cold, "sterile" display cabinets.

An example of my motivation:

http://cs.finescale.com/fsm/modeling_subjects/f/2/t/162199.aspx?sort=ASC&pi240=1

http://cs.finescale.com/fsm/modeling_subjects/f/2/p/153727/1651604.aspx#1651604

To me, the objective of scale modeling is to make a model that looks exactly like the prototype.  Realistic photos can show this.  To me, a model displayed on a tabletop suffers a distraction from the tabletop.  We never see large vehicles displayed on giant tabletops. If I take a photo of a model, and viewers cannot tell it from the real prototype, I feel I have done a good job on the model.  If they point out easily seen deviations, then I have to avoid those features on my next model.  

Because cameras can focus closer than the human eye in scale distance, a good closeup photo is the ultimate tests.  Many is the time I have discovered flaws in a model in a photo that I never saw with my own eyes.

Don Stauffer

To me, the objective of scale modeling is to make a model that looks exactly like the prototype.  Realistic photos can show this.  To me, a model displayed on a tabletop suffers a distraction from the tabletop.  We never see large vehicles displayed on giant tabletops. If I take a photo of a model, and viewers cannot tell it from the real prototype, I feel I have done a good job on the model.  If they point out easily seen deviations, then I have to avoid those features on my next model.  

Because cameras can focus closer than the human eye in scale distance, a good closeup photo is the ultimate tests.  Many is the time I have discovered flaws in a model in a photo that I never saw with my own eyes.

Well said Don!  I agree completely, and I've had finished cockpits that I thought looked really good...until I saw the close-up pics.  Yikes!  Yes, I've learned a healthy respect for that macro mode.

Gary

while photographs can point out flaws for example i missed weathering one side of a KV-23 and didn't realize it until i took pictures, don't get overly concerned about it. like taking a photograph and zooming in close, many flaws at that "distance" will not be seen with the naked eye.

as for backgrounds, i do the same thing with generic bases. just accents the model a bit for the glamour shots. i have taken WW2 builds and photoshopped the pics to the point they look like real WW2 photographs. just part of the fun.

Tex, now your stuff brings up a different point. A scale model placed in a natural setting with an almost "forced perspective" final look. No false background or photo shop involved. Rather than distract from the build, your particular photo style enhances the build.

stikpusher

Tex, now your stuff brings up a different point. A scale model placed in a natural setting with an almost "forced perspective" final look. No false background or photo shop involved. Rather than distract from the build, your particular photo style enhances the build.

Thanks Stik!  I'm glad that you see it that way.  I've always thought that the airport pics made the models look better.  They simply aren't that impressive sitting on the shelf; but put them in "their element" and they do seem to come alive a bit.  I guess it does bring out their best for me.   That said, I sure have a few (?) that need to make that short drive out to the airport for another photo-session!

Thanks my friend! 

The use of forced perspective or a natural background setting is always better than a false background.  The use a good physical background or a adequately used photoshop are good alternatives though.

If forced perspective is your thing check this guy's work:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/24796741@N05/

I used natural light and background for my recent build pics.

One way to force perspective is shorter focal length (wide angle).  I love the lens I have that came with my first Nikon.  It is macro at all focal lengths, not just the longest telephoto setting (normal with many macro zooms.  Shorter focal lengths make things look more massive.  This is a common trick for advertising photographers shooting cars for car ads.  So I always shoot at shortest focal length I can focus at.

sorry, deleted

For the forced perspective to be effective you want the subject (your model) and the background to be in focus.  A blurred background looks cool in 1:1 subjects but in scale models can bring out the "toynes" (I just invented the term!) of it.

You need a high f/stop (11 or more) to get the effect.  Of course natural light is a must in this situation. You could combine the setup with artificial light to manipulate the shadows but that is another argument all by itself.  Shoot a a low angle, like you were a scale little guy standing next to it. A cheap way is using a "cheap" camera like a cell phone.  Due to the nature of it and its little lens, when you shoot in Auto in these conditions the cell camera almost always chooses to get everything in focus due to its limitations.  Micheal Paul Smith uses a relative cheap camera and at one time tried a higher end camera but it produced images with too much detail making the models look toyish so he went back to his older equipment.

Here is a few Ive tried.  The model is 1/24, I shot it at a f/22 stop in very bright light. It blurs some details and makes the pic to look more like a random snapshot of a cool subject.

farm4.staticflickr.com/.../12565328603_d261e25ff3_b.jpg

The model is on a folding table that looks like some kind of pavement. Tried to line it up with the background. I shoot this handheld but a tripod would have been better.  When you got to such a high f/stop sometimes you would need slow shutter speeds and motion could make you image blurred if handheld. This depends of course in the lighting conditions at the time. If the light was very bright and harsh ( like in my example) the camera could be handheld die to the vast amount of available light.

To this one I added some effects to make it look like an old photograph in the same time frame of the car itself.  Maybe a enthusiastic guy that jusy bought his first cool car and took a pic with his Dad's film camera...Of course is photshopped but IMO, you can get creative and must important, enjoy what your doing, have fun! Life is too short...

farm4.staticflickr.com/.../14525757581_f03b610986_b.jpg

Excuse me if a bored you to death!! LOL! I just love photography!

For the forced perspective to be effective you want the subject (your model) and the background to be in focus.  A blurred background looks cool in 1:1 subjects but in scale models can bring out the "toynes" (I just invented the term!) of it.

You need a high f/stop (11 or more) to get the effect.  Of course natural light is a must in this situation. You could combine the setup with artificial light to manipulate the shadows but that is another argument all by itself.  Shoot a a low angle, like you were a scale little guy standing next to it. A cheap way is using a "cheap" camera like a cell phone.  Due to the nature of it and its little lens, when you shoot in Auto in these conditions the cell camera almost always chooses to get everything in focus due to its limitations.  Micheal Paul Smith uses a relative cheap camera and at one time tried a higher end camera but it produced images with too much detail making the models look toyish so he went back to his older equipment.

Here is a few Ive tried.  The model is 1/24, I shot it at a f/22 stop in very bright light. It blurs some details and makes the pic to look more like a random snapshot of a cool subject.

farm4.staticflickr.com/.../12565328603_d261e25ff3_b.jpg

The model is on a folding table that looks like some kind of pavement. Tried to line it up with the background. I shoot this handheld but a tripod would have been better.  When you got to such a high f/stop sometimes you would need slow shutter speeds and motion could make you image blurred if handheld. This depends of course in the lighting conditions at the time. If the light was very bright and harsh ( like in my example) the camera could be handheld die to the vast amount of available light.

To this one I added some effects to make it look like an old photograph in the same time frame of the car itself.  Maybe a enthusiastic guy that jusy bought his first cool car and took a pic with his Dad's film camera...Of course is photshopped but IMO, you can get creative and must important, enjoy what your doing, have fun! Life is too short...

farm4.staticflickr.com/.../14525757581_f03b610986_b.jpg

Excuse me if a bored you to death!! LOL! I

Somethings wrong withe rich formatting.....why is not a default setting? Would be much easier to share pics and multimedia! Just my opinion.

It would be nice to have both for comparison's sake.

Scarecrow Joe

Somethings wrong withe rich formatting.....why is not a default setting? Would be much easier to share pics and multimedia! Just my opinion.

SJ,

What are you using for your browser? I find Internet Explorer (Even with comparability mode turned on) is not working very well with most websites I visit. So, now I use Chrome exclusively. 

What is the intent behind the model photos you want to take?  Consider what the viewer looking at you photos wants to see.  What is it that you want to communicate to the individual looking at the shot?

If you want to show the completed build, use good lighting in a studio-type shot.  The viewer sees the paint job, the assembly, etc.

If you want to show how realistic the model is, put the model in an appropriate setting.  The viewer is more likely to "see" it in that context and view it as a whole object. The viewer seeing the model in this context will tend not to see the model as an assembly of parts like in a "studio" shot.  In this type of shot, the weathering, etc., may get more emphasis.

In the studio shot a modeler will view the work as a bit of technique.  In a context shot, a modeler may see less individual applied techniques.

I believe most modelers that shoot mostly in the studio style intend the work to be seen mostly by other modelers.  Non-model builders, may take a quick glance at such a photo and move on.  A non-modeler will look at the background context shot longer and appreciate the model more.  Non-moderlers aren't interested in the builder's techniques, but they can certainly appreciate how well the model was done when they have a hard time believing what they are seeing is a model!

Both types have their merits and their challenges.  It is the photographer's job to reach the intended audience with the photos that best communicate the desired message.

It could be fun to try both types of shots on both types of audiences and gauge the results you may get.

 IMHO photographing a model against a background, real or imagery, is an 'after-modeling activity'. After finishing the build the model can be photograph atop the workbench, on a base, in the display case, or against a background. As I have often read here, to each his own. If the model will look real in the photo that's very good. That's one reason we build models, to make a representation that looks like the real thing. But that is not part of the building proper and it will be part of displaying or whatever you may call it.

A variation on this theme is to use the background in a diorama box., I did these three for my faince, and used photos behind them The first one is from my deer stand, taken by me, the second one was from an old calendar., as is the third. I think they added, rather than detracted from the model.

Very nice.  I particularly like your derelict cars.  I consider the shadow box as sort of a variation of the diorama, and is certainly a neat way to display a model.

Thank you kindly, Don. :)

I used to date a girl that was a masterful shadow box maker. She really took it to another level. They are a nice way to capture memories.