S
Stevekir
Guest
I am asking for advice on how I could increase the quality of my photos.
Here is a photo of my 1/72 Lancaster:
View attachment 77744
and here is a photo of another 1/72 model of the Lanc taken by Mike “The Migrant” and posted as the third image on 5 May 2011 under “Completed Aeroplanes”.
View attachment 77745
The difference in quality is very obvious. Mike’s is much sharper and crisper, and the blacks are darker and clearer. Why?
Mike said “28-105mm lens on my Canon Digital Rebel, 1.6 sec exposure at f.22. I used two lights with reflectors and diffusers, set either side of the backdrop (which is just a sheet of grey paper curving upwards and pinned to the wall).”
The XTi (same camera?) sells today on Amazon for £160 (used). Wikipedia mentions the Canon EOS 300D (Digital Rebel) introduced in August 2003 at $999 with the kit lens.
My setup is similar: My camera is a Nikon D3100 SLR introduced in 2010, kit lens, bought 6 months ago at £280. 14 million pixels. It is probably at the bottom of the single lens reflex range but I can’t compare its quality with Mike’s camera. Exposure was 2.5 sec at f22, and, as for Mike, with two lights in umbrella reflectors left and right of the paper backdrop. It is shot in RAW with manual exposure and manual focussing (single spot) using the built-in rangefinder. RAW manipulation on Photoshop CS6 was at the Auto setting, which helped the tonal values. The Unsharp Mask settings were moderate.
What I would like please is help in understanding why there is such a difference in quality. For example, is it lens quality, or poor photographic technique? What do I need to do to get Mike’s quality?
Thanks.
Here is a photo of my 1/72 Lancaster:
View attachment 77744
and here is a photo of another 1/72 model of the Lanc taken by Mike “The Migrant” and posted as the third image on 5 May 2011 under “Completed Aeroplanes”.
View attachment 77745
The difference in quality is very obvious. Mike’s is much sharper and crisper, and the blacks are darker and clearer. Why?
Mike said “28-105mm lens on my Canon Digital Rebel, 1.6 sec exposure at f.22. I used two lights with reflectors and diffusers, set either side of the backdrop (which is just a sheet of grey paper curving upwards and pinned to the wall).”
The XTi (same camera?) sells today on Amazon for £160 (used). Wikipedia mentions the Canon EOS 300D (Digital Rebel) introduced in August 2003 at $999 with the kit lens.
My setup is similar: My camera is a Nikon D3100 SLR introduced in 2010, kit lens, bought 6 months ago at £280. 14 million pixels. It is probably at the bottom of the single lens reflex range but I can’t compare its quality with Mike’s camera. Exposure was 2.5 sec at f22, and, as for Mike, with two lights in umbrella reflectors left and right of the paper backdrop. It is shot in RAW with manual exposure and manual focussing (single spot) using the built-in rangefinder. RAW manipulation on Photoshop CS6 was at the Auto setting, which helped the tonal values. The Unsharp Mask settings were moderate.
What I would like please is help in understanding why there is such a difference in quality. For example, is it lens quality, or poor photographic technique? What do I need to do to get Mike’s quality?
Thanks.