Assistance with photo article

[daniel_leavitt2000]

I am working on a series of articles for N-Scale Mag on basic model photography. I have the first two parts finished (introduction to equipment and basic photography) I would like to write a third part to this which would include photo editing and Helicon. The only problem is I am in the dark ages equipment wise (Photoshop 7 and the first release of Helicon), and lack the resources to purchase something newer.

Does anyone with a newer version of Photoshop, and Hellicon (preferably with a camera capable of auto shooting) want to collaborate on this? You would need to make screen shots of your work.

[pnolan48]

Sorry, my Photoshop isn't much newer (Creative Suite 2). I did buy a lifetime Helicon license, but just realized I forgot to tell them my email address had changed. So I've probably missed three years of updates. Unless you are getting pretty advanced, do you really need recent versions? Well, I guess menus have probably changed. and new (and useful?) features added.

Screen captures are pretty easy.

[up1950s]

Then maybe your expert advice would be better written in the field of trucks , especially fire trucks . This way it is based on personal knowledge .  Or leave those chapters to another expert by just stating you don't know enough to comment on them .

[daniel_leavitt2000]

Here is the thing. I do use the software all the time. Its just so old that if I did a how-to using my software, new users would be lost.

[pnolan48]

Daniel,

A serious question: how many of your readers are going to have the full Photoshop? Maybe Photoshop Elements, but the full Photoshop is still very expensive. Same question about Helicon. They are nice programs to have. I have them because I bought them for my business. But now I am retired, and can't afford to upgrade.

Perhaps you could explain the basics of both programs? That is, why does someone want to use Photoshop or Helicon? And perhaps look at more inexpensive alternatives, such as open source programs.

Same goes for cameras. Perhaps you could discuss how to squeeze maximum performance from what you have?

[wcfn100]

I would agree that you could reach many more people and remove several obstacles if you utilized free programs.

Gimp and CombineZ should do most of what you need except the camera automation. 


Jason

 

[pnolan48]

The last time I looked at Combine Z it was "not ready for prime time," to put it gently. It was great for looking at the multiple lenses of a fly, but useless for miniature model photos. No aspersions meant toward the authors, as it did exactly what it was written to do at that time. I didn't realize that it had been extended so far. Helicon seemed to be the work of some fairly serious eastern European folks whose customer service was excellent.

I've tried gimp, but I guess I'm just too trained in the Photoshop way of seeing menus and doing things.

[wcfn100]

Here's a comparison between the newest version of CombineZP (top) and an early version of Helicon Focus.






CombineZP did a much better job with the bushes in the front left.  The interface still has a long way to go, but I think the functionality is there.  It's probably a good candidate for an article to help people figure out how to use it.  HF doesn't really require too much instruction as it is.  As for Gimp, I too am a PS snob after 15 years, but for model train photographs, you shouldn't need much more than some cropping and color correction. Both are easily found in Gimp.  And again, software where instruction might be beneficial to more people than PS.


Jason

[diezmon]

I've got Photoshop CS4.. what did you have in mind for the editing piece?  something like combining layers by hand? 

[delamaize]

*****, I am the last one to be asking about this! I'm still using a old hacked version of Photoshop 7, CZ batch for stacking images, and GIMP for anything else that I can't do with the others.

[Smike]

I’ve been a diehard PS user since version 4.0. Since the intro of Adobe Lightroom 4 years ago, I now use PS for about 5% of what I do post editing on photos. (most of the time my images never make the trip into PS) Cost wise its substantially cheaper than PS. ($299 vs. $699)  PS is no longer a required piece of software to extract the bet results.  I have yet to try CombineZP or Helicon. So far I just use blending layers in PS to do the same.

Regarding maximizing DOF (depth of field) in a single exposure. (I would guess about 95% of modelers just use single shot)  If you haven’t you should include the advantages of modern Point &Shoot with the smaller sensor = larger DOF   My high end P&S runs rings around my full DSLR pro kit.  All truth be told, the best DOF to date with a single exposure is my iPhone 4.


Mike

[pnolan48]

Here's a comparison between the newest version of CombineZP (top) and an early version of Helicon Focus.






CombineZP did a much better job with the bushes in the front left.  The interface still has a long way to go, but I think the functionality is there.  It's probably a good candidate for an article to help people figure out how to use it.  HF doesn't really require too much instruction as it is.  As for Gimp, I too am a PS snob after 15 years, but for model train photographs, you shouldn't need much more than some cropping and color correction. Both are easily found in Gimp.  And again, software where instruction might be beneficial to more people than PS.


Jason

Jason,

I agree completely. But it's really hard to judge differences on small jpgs. I suspect the differences are still minimal on larger images. Perhaps we should go to PMs and I can look at larger images?

My interest here is 99.9% academic, as it looks like either program will do more than most photographers can use. I tried to write software to do this way back when (which is 1992 or so) and quickly failed.

[wcfn100]

as it looks like either program will do more than most photographers can use.

Which was really my only point.   Helicon Focus probably excels across the board over CombineZP (a newer version would probably fix the photo I posted), but that doesn't mean CZ can't do most anything needed for the sake of illustration in an article.  I will say I found what I though was an image stack that I can't get CZ to render correctly, but honestly it's been so long since I took the photos, I'm not 100% they ever worked in HF either.

I think the point to an article like this is to show what can be done and do it using tools available to everyone.  If the reader chooses to take it to the next level i.e. Photoshop or Helicon Focus, they can do so with some knowledge of how it's supposed to work. If you just shove expensive programs at them, they may just turn the page.

Try these links for the full size photos.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-XbU8zNnE50o/Tp-jjCjHMhI/AAAAAAAAGes/4nrJ7rM4aDg/combinezgimp.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-J-zzmHW3x2o/Tp-jZ3YSi_I/AAAAAAAAGek/lIYO5dC6v54/35mm%252520helicon%252520compare%2525201.jpg


Jason

[pnolan48]

I have a few shots from a D70 @12mm at f22/f32  that Helicon or Combine can't match. Both get really confused about things like ship railings.

Not sure any of this helps Daniel, though. Lots of good advise here, but we're not helping.

With cell phone cameras getting so sophisticated--i.e., today's Libya coverage--I wonder how much longer this kind of thread will be relevant.