Recommendations For Iphone Photography?

[oldcarfan]

I've read all the tips and tricks for photographing models. I take reasonable pictures with my phone, but obviously, the best answer is to get a good digital camera, but that's not really happening right now. In lieu of that, what if any tips help get good results from an iPhone or other brand? I currently have an iPhone 11 and i haven't found any good apps to help. I'm in the process of building couple of different backdrops, but are there any cheap lighting hacks or other ideas?

[RancheroSteve]

I use a variety of digital cameras for my model photography, but at this point the iPhone cameras have gotten so good that unless you're taking photos for publication, there isn't a whole lot of difference. Probably the most important consideration is lighting and there are several threads on the forum here that deal with that.

It looks like the iPhone 11 has a macro mode that allows you to get as close as 2cm - should work for most models.

[Matt Bacon]

Lots of light, a little tripod, and shoot from further away using the _optical_ part of the zoom (x2 max) to reduce distortion…

best,

M.

[Pierre Rivard]

Hi Gary, I have a good digital camera but ended up using my iPhone as I find it makes equally good pictures and has easy to use post processing filters. I have a XR iPhone (similar to your 11). I shoot adjacent to a window plus a lamp with 3000k led bulb as a second angle light source. I usually stand about 18 inches away and zoom in a bit, then use the post processing filters integrated to the iPhone to make finesse adjustments (usually just adding a bit of exposure and  contrast). That's my easy setup. Not super sharp but I believe a good method for forum posts.

Posting a couple of photos for reference & discussion

 

[maxwell48098]

One thing to keep in mind when taking images via phone, turn the phone horizontally to get wide shots instead of backing away from the model while taking images with the phone positioned vertically.

 

A.J.

[RancheroSteve]

Just my personal preference maybe, but I prefer to use a wide angle - I think it better simulates the way cars are photographed in static situations and how the eye sees them. Appears more realistic to my eye, which I think is what we're all aiming for. Just be careful you don't get your shadow in the photo!

[peteski]

33 minutes ago, RancheroSteve said:

Just my personal preference maybe, but I prefer to use a wide angle - I think it better simulates the way cars are photographed in static situations and how the eye sees them. Appears more realistic to my eye, which I think is what we're all aiming for. Just be careful you don't get your shadow in the photo!

Yes, telephoto flattens the image while wide angle lens will exaggerate the perspective, making the model look more like a larger vehicle.

[Ace-Garageguy]

You don't have to buy the latest-greatest high-buck digital SLR to take professional looking shots suitable for publishing to the web.

The photos below were taken with an "obsolete" 4-megapixel Nikon that can be purchased used for $15-$50.

It features 3X optical zoom and a macro setting.

I bought one new many years ago and it's still going strong.

I bought a used one for a dedicated shop camera 5 years ago and it still works fine too.

I use a very capable Nikon photo editing suite (which was a free download) on my laptop.

EDIT: Good lighting, a tripod, and some care with composition are also required.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2024 by Ace-Garageguy

[iBorg]

From a former professor who taught a photography class. The main advantages of better digital cameras are interchangeable lens and pixel depth or resolution. The lens matter most when you're taking really close (a macro lens) or far away (telephoto). Neither are the case with a model car unless you're zooming in for really close, specific part details. Resolution is a non issue when you're publishing on the web. For print, resolution is an issue but most modern phone cameras will reproduce reasonably well for a 4 x 6 or maybe a 5 x 7 printed image. My advice, google using an iphone to take Ebay photos. There's some amazing resources available which will help you take good photos for use on a web forum.

[Zoom Zoom]

I recently spoke with Tim Kidwell about the issue, since I'm not doing magazine articles anymore I've only been using my iPhone for model photography. The #1 issue w/most builders is getting up too close to the subject, distorting the perspective and depth of field. Stand further away and shoot the model then use the phone's editing features to zoom in/crop the background. The overall shot will not have as much distortion. While my phone's editing is decent, my MacBook's built in editor is far superior at editing after I've taken the photos. Good lighting from the start helps. The better/newer the phone is also helps. 

[peteski]

11 hours ago, iBorg said:

For print, resolution is an issue but most modern phone cameras will reproduce reasonably well for a 4 x 6 or maybe a 5 x 7 printed image.

Just up to 5 x 7 prints? Mike,  I don't  think the resolution of iPhones is an issue. Maybe with the original iPhones, but current iPhones have very high res image sensors. I don't own an iPhone but I think they now have 12 or 24 Megapixel sensor.  Even my 20-year old Nikon CoolPix 8700 camera with 8Mp sensor can produce very sharp 8x10 enlargements. Images from newer iPhones could be used for good quality poster-size enlargements.

Main thing is getting sufficient DOF (depth of field) so the entire subject is in acceptable focus.  This is done by selecting appropriate lens and using numerically highest f-stop aperture.  That requires bright lighting and often slow shutter speeds (so a tripod is needed).

Photos of contest coverage done using my old Nikon are good enough to have been published in modeling magazines (like Model Cars and SAE Contest Cars Annual) for decades. For examples see http://classicplastic.org/show-2024.html

[bh1701]

I usually use an older Olympus digital camera - nothing fancy, no interchangeable lenses. Some key points that others have mentioned which I also use are good lighting and good depth of field (range of focus).

For the lighting, I shoot models on top of my washing machine with a sheet of gray art paper taped to the top of it. I bring in my torch lamp (a pole lamp with 2 bulbs in it). The laundry room is fairly small and has white walls and ceilings, so the light from the lamp is reflected very well throughout the room.

If i need additional light on the sides/front/back of the model, I have some inexpensive battery powered LED lights that I will use - however, I don't find this necessary to do very often.

For depth of field, the camera is on a tripod and I use the camera settings to shoot at the the highest F-stop I can. The higher the F-stop, the greater the range of focus will be. The tripod is needed since the exposure time is well beyond what you could hold the camera steady for. I also use the timer on the camera to snap the picture so there is no chance of me shaking the camera by pressing the button to take the picture.

Finally, I always use Photoshop to enhance the image - usually using color correction and adjusting the Levels to brighten up the image. Sometimes, I will use the Shadows/Highlight feature to bring out details that are in the shadows.

I also use my iPhone sometimes to grab shots - I find that it is able to get closer shots than my simple camera can get. I'd use this for close-ups of interiors or close up details on the body. I can usually hand-hold the camera for these shots, but also have a tripod mount for the iPhone if needed.

Here is some samples of the results I get.

Thanks,

Bart

 

[kurth]

I do not know what kind of budget you have, but a great used, pro grade  digital camera might be more accessible than you think. 

Buying into a digital camera system is a huge decision, but look at keh.com and mpb.com for used cameras and equipment.  Lots of great advice here, lots of light and a tripod will help you get great pictures. 

[Matt Bacon]

31 minutes ago, kurth said:

a great used, pro grade  digital camera might be more accessible than you think. 

+1 to this. Good several-generations-old (so "only" 22Mpix sensors, and 1080P video...) used high-quality DSLR bodies can be had for £50-£100. The main expense is lenses (they have much longer "generations" and most are compatible with current bodies, so the second hand price is more robust). But if you really want to take pictures for print, then one is probably the answer (it's the sharpness and depth of field that phone cameras struggle with, especially with default settings and the default camera app.

Just on the matter of wide-angle versus longer lens.... if you want to accurately represent what the human eye sees, then you need a 45-50mm lens on a full-frame SLR camera or 35mm on a compact sensor model (Canon EOS x0D for example), shooting from 2.5-3" above the the base your car is on, from about 10-12" away. Anything with a shorter focal length from closer up will be starting to "fisheye" distort the subject; anything zoomed from further away will compress the perspective. Of course, both of these may be effects you want to achieve:

Shot from close up at about 17mm focal length.

Shot from about 4m away at around 100mm focal length, zoomed in.

Shot at 40mm from 3" above the table, filling the frame...

best,

M.

 

 

[iBorg]

2 hours ago, peteski said:

Just up to 5 x 7 prints? Mike,  I don't  think the resolution of iPhones is an issue. Maybe with the original iPhones, but current iPhones have very high res image sensors. I don't own an iPhone but I think they now have 12 or 24 Megapixel sensor.  Even my 20-year old Nikon CoolPix 8700 camera with 8Mp sensor can produce very sharp 8x10 enlargements. Images from newer iPhones could be used for good quality poster-size enlargements.

 

I guess I'm going down a technical rabbit hole.

An ink jet printer, which is the most common way to produce a print, can produce acceptable quality at a lower resolution than offset lithography which is the standard for quality magazines. You can get by with 75-100 pixels per inch for an ink jet printer. To print with offset lithography the standard for a medium quality printed photo is 133 dots per inch. Photos printed by offset lithography are converted into halftone dots. (please let's not dirty this conversation up with discussing stochastic or FM screening) The relationship between DPI and resolution is typically 1.5-2.0 pixels per inch per halftone dot which equates to 200-266 PPI per DPI. A higher quality magazine may go to 150 with some printers claiming 180 but to the naked eye, 150 is the highest practical resolution. That equates to 225-300 PPI to achieve that DPI. 

When you zoom in and crop the subject with a fixed lens camera such as a phone you are throwing away pixels. In essence, when you zoom in, you're actually viewing the image at a lower resolution. This is the concept of a digital zoom which is typical of point and shoot cameras and cameras built into a phone. The DSLR with the ability to focus the lens by changing the optics does not resample the pixels to make the object larger. It changes image size by moving the optical elements of the lens. This is the concept of optical zoom.

You can produce some nice large prints with a modern phone camera if, and only if, you fill the frame with the image and don't rely on digital zoom to crop the image. That rule can also be bent somewhat on how much you crop and how large a resolution your camera has. Phone cameras have become so good that the entire category of point and shoot cameras disappeared about 5-7 years ago. Remember when big box stores carried a whole display of cameras? Those went away as phone cameras improved. 

I do believe you can use a modern phone camera and produce magazine quality photos at a 5 x 7 size but getting much larger than that the interchangeable lens of a DSLR produces better quality. For web use, learn to use a modern phone camera. You might be surprised what you can achieve.

[peteski]

Yes Mike, you are going into the that rabbit hole.

But what we are really discussing here is simple hobby photography.  Most modelers will likely not do much cropping or using digital zoom (which as you said reduces the resolution of the final image).  To me the DOF is still the most important parameter for model photography, so the ability to control the aperture and select aperture property shooting model is vital. But most phone cameras have very small diameter lenses and they produce quite good DOF without even having the ability to control the f-stop.  I have not looked into the science of this but it seems to work.

Also the photos we are discussing here basically need to be good enough to be posted to forums. Even if sent to magazines, they are likely published in quarter-page (sometimes maybe half-page) size.  A 5 x 7 (or roughly half-page) 300dpi photo only needs to have 1500 x 2100 pixels resolution. In camera talk that is around 3Mp. That is very realistically achievable, even after cropping, with pretty much most consumer cameras (including phone cameras). Do we really need to take 48Mp photos and even after cropping still end up with 15Mb images?

Also, many magazines are now printed on equipment which uses stochastic printing method (not the typical halftone printing).  But this is getting way out of topic for this discussion.

[Matt Bacon]

In the end it still comes down to basic optics. Until phone cameras and apps can do “focus stacking” - despite the computing power in smartphones, there’s still no “app for that”, even though there are some high-end DSLRs that can do it - the focal length of the lens, effective aperture and amount of light control how much depth of field you will get. Smartphone cameras and apps optimise how they work for the kinds of pictures most people take. We are not most people. You can get camera apps that give you more control over all the parameters, and make the best use of the phone optics and sensor to do what we want. But you have to be prepared to deep dive a bit. However, “lots of light and a tripod” is a reasonable approximation in most circumstances!

best,

M.

[Pierre Rivard]

I think we lost oldcarfan. While we're spinning around he just moved on...

[bill-e-boy]

I have used a DSLR in the past. Great pix with lots of opportunities to crop and set up the pix in the camera. The downside is the size of the file is usually way too big to post on a forum such as this. You have to re-save the file with a lower resolution. 

I now use my iPhone for posting here and elsewhere online. I still use the DSLR to take the glamour shots as this what they are best for.

As for cost - most of us now have reasonable cell phones and they do a capable job taking pix suitable for posting so the added expense of a an additional digital camera may not be justifiable to most of us

As an aside went did an overseas trip recently and I took along my DSLR and looked well and truly out of place as most people use their phones for holiday snaps these days

One thing that is common for all types camera be it DSLR or phone is to spend that extra second or so to check that what you have is in focus and presented well to convey your intention    

[Bainford]

25 minutes ago, bill-e-boy said:

 

As an aside went did an overseas trip recently and I took along my DSLR and looked well and truly out of place as most people use their phones for holiday snaps these days

 

Make no mistake Bill, you were the cool one in the crowd.😉

[iBorg]

On 12/13/2024 at 2:04 PM, peteski said:

But what we are really discussing here is simple hobby photography.  Most modelers will likely not do much cropping or using digital zoom (which as you said reduces the resolution of the final image).  To me the DOF is still the most important parameter for model photography, so the ability to control the aperture and select aperture property shooting model is vital. But most phone cameras have very small diameter lenses and they produce quite good DOF without even having the ability to control the f-stop.  I have not looked into the science of this but it seems to work.

Also the photos we are discussing here basically need to be good enough to be posted to forums. Even if sent to magazines, they are likely published in quarter-page (sometimes maybe half-page) size.  A 5 x 7 (or roughly half-page) 300dpi photo only needs to have 1500 x 2100 pixels resolution. In camera talk that is around 3Mp. That is very realistically achievable, even after cropping, with pretty much most consumer cameras (including phone cameras). Do we really need to take 48Mp photos and even after cropping still end up with 15Mb images?

Also, many magazines are now printed on equipment which uses stochastic printing method (not the typical halftone printing).  But this is getting way out of topic for this discussion.

I do agree with you that phones are really improving. While most phones don't allow you to control the depth stop, I do know Apple has a portrait mode which in essence produces much the same quality. Most auto functions for different shooting conditions are actually adjusting what would typically be done on a camera by adjusting shutter speed, ISO/ASA sensitivity and aperture.  One thing I've observed over the years is a huge emphasis on Mb size as a marketing ploy. As Peter says, you can do a lot with 5-7Mb. I'll go back and reemphasis what I said previously, Google shooting photos for eBay using an iphone. Most modern phones have capabilities that DSLRs of 5 years ago struggled with. The inclusion of AI will only make this better. You can create excellent photos with a modern camera phone.

The mention of stochastic screening having a lower resolution requirement is accurate. Most printing that is done digitally prints clusters of toner or ink and in essence is a variation of stochastic. Stochastic was first introduced in the 1960s and has a history of being a hot topic for a few years and then dieng off due to being a great theory but lacking the technical ability to use it. After seven years or so it returns and has repeated the cycle. I think the inventor of it was Heil Graphics. Only now with direct imaging is it finally technically feasible for large production runs. 

And with that, I'm going to climb out of the rabbit hole.   

[Ace-Garageguy]

Much of this comes back down to the fact that, as in many cases, it's not so much the tool as the user that's most important.

Even though it's not particularly hard to get very acceptable photos suitable for web forums, I've seen no end of photos on here that look like they were taken with a potato covered in vaseline, dark and blurry, with zero apparent effort at composition, and distracting backgrounds detracting from shots of finished models.

Some understanding of the capabilities of whatever it is you use to capture images with, and a little experimentation, will get you the best results.

And "a lot of light and a tripod".  

Edited December 14, 2024 by Ace-Garageguy
TYPO

[oldcarfan]

On 12/14/2024 at 10:16 AM, Pierre Rivard said:

I think we lost oldcarfan. While we're spinning around he just moved on...

Sorry, still around, just got our first grandchild and got distracted.

[oldcarfan]

It's not in the budget right now for a digital camera, and my old Navy Pentax 35mm is kind of out of date, but I'm going to work on my backdrop and start looking for some good lighting sources. If I can't improve my camera, I'll improve the other parts of the problem. That's a start.

[Ace-Garageguy]

11 hours ago, oldcarfan said:

It's not in the budget right now for a digital camera, and my old Navy Pentax 35mm is kind of out of date, but I'm going to work on my backdrop and start looking for some good lighting sources. If I can't improve my camera, I'll improve the other parts of the problem. That's a start.

Just a reminder...lighting doesn't have to be expensive either. My photos above were shot with this cheapo setup.

CORRECTION: The swing-arm lamps I got at Goodwill for $5 each. They are rated for only 60 watt bulbs (any more will destroy the switches), but because a 100 watt comparable-light LED only takes about 7 watts, I installed those. LED bulbs come in soft white and daylight-balanced color temperatures, so you can mix and match bulbs to suit the kind of light you prefer. I use two soft whites (which are more blue yellow) and one daylight (more yellow blue). It's very bright, like I said, and you can put the light exactly where you need it.

The actual light falling on the desk would take 300 watts using incandescent bulbs, but only 21 watts using LED bulbs, so it saves on your power bill too, doesn't dump waste heat into the house...and the switches in the swingarm lamps last forever because of the low current draw.

Edited December 16, 2024 by Ace-Garageguy