Macro Photos In Z, How Close?

[Ztrains]

My impression is that we seem to take more macro shots in Z scale than I've noticed being taken in N or HO. Not that the other scales don't take them, we just seem to take more. Close-up shots are fun but once you dial in the macro mode on the cameras, a stray bit of near-invisible fiber becomes a tree branch.

At some point in the macro lens world, almost nothing can hold up to scrutiny... almost.

In some ways it seems an odd situation because the scale that (in theory) can stand the least macro scrutiny seems to get the most. There are exceptions of course... modeling that can hold up to this level of observation but they are the exceptions, not the rule.

I'd almost like to develop my own standard for how close I photograph models, how much detail can or should be revealed. Even on a brand new model from any manufacturer, with today's cameras we can reveal details that the naked eye just can't get to. In this case, which is the more accurate representation... the naked eye, some magnification or the macro lens?

I'd be curious to hear about other experiences and opinions on this... when to take close-up shots and when to take macros.

John
www.ztrains.com

[tom mann]

If I post a photo of an HO scale 50' boxcar and that photo is 1000pixels wide, the car appears about the size it does in real life (give or take, depending on monitor size and resolution).  The same size photo of a Z scale 50' boxcar would essentially make the car 3 times bigger than real life.

So in reality, Macro Photos in Z becomes unavoidable!

[David K. Smith]

I think the issue goes beyond merely photographing models. Most Z layouts tend to be small, so there aren't many opportunities to get broad vistas—which, ironically, Z should provide better than any other (mainstream) scale.

But as Tom points out, when it comes down to shooting individual models, particularly rolling stock, we pretty much can't avoid shooting macro. And as John points out, Z fares worse under macro than any other scale. Such are the laws of physics.

I'm a bit frustrated by the fact that I can't shoot macro wide angle. I'd love to get up close and personal with a locomotive, and have its headlight tower over the photographer.

About the best I can do is get below a bridge. Even then it takes a lot of time and trickery: a first-surface mirror, an extension tube, and Helicon Focus.
 

[Ztrains]

I may just start backing off a bit in my photos to compensate for some of the inherent limitations. Focus a bit more on lighting and composition than on my camera's macro ability. I realize some great macro shots do happen in Z but as David pointed out, it can be a fair amount of work to get them.

I don't mind playing around to get these shots, just trying to come up with my version of the 3 foot rule for the majority of my photos.

John
www.ztrains.com

[tom mann]

it can be a fair amount of work to get them.

This took 10x the amount of work I "usually" spend.  Not only is the weathering rougher, but now all the flaws in the model appear.

[Ztrains]

"usually" being the key word of course!

Given how good your photos look I can imagine the usual time spent. For a special shot like this loco I can understand the time that has to go in to the photo.

In some ways maybe I should have framed my initial post differently. What prompted me to write was your GCLaser building earlier Tom. I'm working on one now and the interlocking tabs had me for awhile. I came up with a nice and fairly simple way to eliminate the joints but it does make you think... how close do we need to take model photos in Z?

And the related question, should we do all our work in Z with an Optivisor almost certain that we're the only ones to see all the detail work?

John
www.ztrains.com

[Chris333]

Sweet geep!  Hmmm LA under the cab, could this be for your layout?

[tom mann]

I'm going back and forth about things like that, too.  Since the series of buildings I'm working on are printed out, close up photos will show printing halftone patterns.  So the way I organize these buildings on the layout will be in such a position that any future photos will only show them in the background.  In other words, right off the bat, I know that there will be certain compromises.  Planning around them is an extra step not necessary in HO and N (at least not as much).  I think this is why the width of MT engines doesn't bother me as much as it would if they were N scale:  I know they are wide, so in photos they will be shown in side views only.

The GCLaser kit's tabs are hard to cover.  I would like to know what you did.  Mine looked good until someone opened a door and the humidity level changed. ;D

 

[tom mann]

Oh, one more thing:  while using Bing I realized that helicopter-style shots are pretty neat and would work well in Z scale.

[David K. Smith]

My inclination is to think in terms of Z being more appropriate for expansive views (along the lines of helicopter shots, etc.). There aren't many modelers who are going to go to the trouble of attempting to get even close to macro-level-quality. It's really, really hard, and I think it's probably not worth the effort in the end, because something somewhere is going to break the illusion (halftone dot patterns, rivets the size of grapefruit, whatever).

I mean, what can you do when even the best Z scale people look like melted wax?
 

[Ztrains]

Melted wax people... ok, now I feel better!

That's kind of a real sticking point in Z though. You create a lighted porch scene but have to have wax folks, as you said David, populate it. Is the best way to handle this simply back off on the camera distance? It's an interesting problem.

On the GCLaser tabs I went with a thinned acrylic wood filler then a heavy flat file. I found the corners came out fairly sharp with no tab lines. I'm playing with textured paint now. Naked eye it looks good, macro of course it's far too coarse. I'm looking to sand the walls a bit with some 400 grit to knock this surface down some. The speckles in the paint are too large of course but I think it will all hold up when assembled.

John
www.ztrains.com

[attachment deleted by admin]

[David K. Smith]

An alternative to the heavy "stone" textured paint: try Krylon "Suede." It's got a very fine texture, and being a single color doesn't look like ice cream sprinkles. If you want a slight variation in color, lightly overspray the Suede with normal paint in the alternate color from a distance to create a fine speckle effect. Or, apply a very light India ink wash.

[Ztrains]

...

[Ztrains]

This isn't the stone textured paint, just looks that way in these close-ups... the stone texture is seriously heavy. Funny you should mention the suede paint David as I did go with that first but I found the effect, especially over the cardstock, too fine and got lost in the photos and more so to the naked eye. This is one of those questions I think of modeling for the camera or for live viewing. From a foot away the color variations look good, subtle. The overspray idea is good but I like this color variation and once knocked down a bit should work.

John
www.ztrains.com

[David K. Smith]

Interesting. I used the Suede on the stone door facade and cornice of this firehouse, and thought it was almost too much texture. Then again, the macro photo shows up all of the glaring errors, such as the sloppy weathering, the shaky soldering joint down the front left corner near the bottom, the less-than-sharp edge between brick and stone colors, etc., etc. And the Searails fire engines are a little embarrassing; good thing they won't be directly visible.