Photographic Fan Art

[JPolitte]

Hello all,

I don't post here often, but I do lurk a bit from time to time and enjoy reading the discussions. Anyway, being a huge Trek fan and also a photographer, I've been enjoying merging those two worlds lately by photographing my Trek models with public domain images from the Hubble Telescope.

I apparently can't post attachments or images here yet, so I'll have to provide links instead.

TOS Enterprise (Art Asylum) facing off against a Klingon D-7 class battlecruiser (AMT/Erlt) with NGC 2070 in the background:
http://jasonpolitte.aminus3.com/image/2011-08-09.html

The Enterprise Refit (Bandai) with NGC 4038 and 4039 used for a background:
http://jasonpolitte.aminus3.com/image/2011-07-24.html
http://jasonpolitte.aminus3.com/image/2011-07-25.html

The same Enterprise Refit model with the Orion Nebula:
http://jasonpolitte.aminus3.com/image/2011-07-26.html

I was pretty pleased with how these turned out and thought I'd share them with some other Trek fans. Hope you enjoy!

Jason

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

Really nice. Are you photographing the models in front of a large screen?

 

[JPolitte]

Really nice. Are you photographing the models in front of a large screen?

Thank you - yes, I'm using a large LCD monitor to display the backgrounds.

Jason

 

[SonicRanger]

The last one is the best.

 

[JPolitte]

The last one is the best.

Thanks - that's my favorite as well.

 

[Psion]

These are gorgeous! And I agree, the last one is best.

Can you step down the brightness on the display, then increase the exposure time so the ship lights are brighter? And maybe a dim white LED near the camera as a fill? I think you're on to a cool technique here and it deserves more experimentation.

 

[Kelso]

Very nice.

 

[Kaiser]

Pretty Photo's

 

[The Axeman]

Nicely done. Using the monitor to show the image in the background is quite a cool way of getting light from the backdrop to show up on the models. A little fill from the side or front and you'd be laughing. It might be nice to see a shot with a somewhat less showy backdrop though, they're all quite busy because of where you're sourcing them.

 

[Forbin]

Fun, ain't it?

 

[Patrickivan]

Nice! Well done. Keep playing around and post some more!

 

[Patrickivan]

Nice! Well done. Keep playing around and post some more!

 

[Tiberius Jim]

Looks promising. I would suggest using HDR bracketing on your photos to capture the entire range of lighting. In case you're not familiar with the concept here's a quick tutorial.

 

[JPolitte]

Thank you all for the comments and encouragement!

These are gorgeous! And I agree, the last one is best.

Can you step down the brightness on the display, then increase the exposure time so the ship lights are brighter? And maybe a dim white LED near the camera as a fill? I think you're on to a cool technique here and it deserves more experimentation.

Thank you very much, Psion. I don't want too much light on the models or otherwise the photos will just look like photos of models. I feel the deep shadows help convey the sense of actually being in space. I will keep experimenting though - thanks for the ideas.

Looks promising. I would suggest using HDR bracketing on your photos to capture the entire range of lighting. In case you're not familiar with the concept here's a quick tutorial.

I am familiar with HDRs and have played around with them in the past, although I really don't much care for them. I'm afraid I can't see how an HDR of a space shot would work too well considering there would no longer be any shadows. To me, the shadows are what conveys that the shot is actually in space. Without the deep shadows, I'm afraid that would be lost, but perhaps I'll give it a go sometime. Thanks!

Jason

 

[JPolitte]

Fun, ain't it?

It is indeed!

 

[Psion]

Thank you very much, Psion. I don't want too much light on the models or otherwise the photos will just look like photos of models. I feel the deep shadows help convey the sense of actually being in space. I will keep experimenting though - thanks for the ideas.

Ah! I get your approach -- you're shooting for a bit more realism. And you're also getting a lot more interactive lighting with the background than one usually gets from physical models. Or sometimes even CGI.

There's one other point I want to raise if your objective is realism. Real nebulae aren't very bright or colorful to the naked eye. They look bright in astronomy books and such because astronomers use very long exposure times to collect as much light as possible.

Go out and look at the constellation Orion ... just below Orion's belt is M42 -- the Orion Nebula. It's an amazing sight through binoculars, and even visible as a smear without them if you have a decent eye or two. But even through binoculars, it's not as colorful or bright as in photographs. It looks a bit like a bluish smudge with some stars in it in real life.

Even worse, a lot of nebulae are photographed through a variety of filters intended to bring out particular kinds of light to reveal hidden structures and hints about composition. These "false color" images are quite striking, with billowing gold or purple clouds and brilliant pink stars. Like the one you used for your Orion shot. Orion actually should look more like one of the images shown at the top of this page, especially the green-enhanced, log-scaled version, although I'd be tempted to de-saturate it a bit more.

The techniques used to capture these images are frequently lost on the public, and special effects artists often take astronomy photos as gospel without realizing they're including heavily manipulated sources in their work. Here's a great presentation on the creation of one of Hubble's Eagle Nebula images that steps through one process.

Given how hard it is to get a good true color image (Wikipedia even calls one false-color picture "true color"), it's perfectly understandable to chuck an effort at perfect realism in favor of something that just looks good. I just like to pipe up with these observations from time-to-time.

 

[Patrickivan]

Thank you very much, Psion. I don't want too much light on the models or otherwise the photos will just look like photos of models. I feel the deep shadows help convey the sense of actually being in space. I will keep experimenting though - thanks for the ideas.

Ah! I get your approach -- you're shooting for a bit more realism. And you're also getting a lot more interactive lighting with the background than one usually gets from physical models. Or sometimes even CGI.

There's one other point I want to raise if your objective is realism. Real nebulae aren't very bright or colorful to the naked eye. They look bright in astronomy books and such because astronomers use very long exposure times to collect as much light as possible.

Go out and look at the constellation Orion ... just below Orion's belt is M42 -- the Orion Nebula. It's an amazing sight through binoculars, and even visible as a smear without them if you have a decent eye or two. But even through binoculars, it's not as colorful or bright as in photographs. It looks a bit like a bluish smudge with some stars in it in real life.

Even worse, a lot of nebulae are photographed through a variety of filters intended to bring out particular kinds of light to reveal hidden structures and hints about composition. These "false color" images are quite striking, with billowing gold or purple clouds and brilliant pink stars. Like the one you used for your Orion shot. Orion actually should look more like one of the images shown at the top of this page, especially the green-enhanced, log-scaled version, although I'd be tempted to de-saturate it a bit more.

The techniques used to capture these images are frequently lost on the public, and special effects artists often take astronomy photos as gospel without realizing they're including heavily manipulated sources in their work. Here's a great presentation on the creation of one of Hubble's Eagle Nebula images that steps through one process.

Given how hard it is to get a good true color image (Wikipedia even calls one false-color picture "true color"), it's perfectly understandable to chuck an effort at perfect realism in favor of something that just looks good. I just like to pipe up with these observations from time-to-time.

Great post. And I don't want to get off the OPs thread, but I've been a fan of images like that but never really bothered (I'm ashamed to admit) to look up the creation process despite having known that the images are manipulated. That said, are there any that approximate what we would see with our own eyes, if close enough to do so?

 

[The Axeman]

The only nebula I have seen through my telescopes that looks even a bit like a nebula is the Orion nebula. Pretty much all the rest in the northern hemisphere need long exposures or really huge mirrors to see anything like you'd expect. You look at Orion through even a 4" scope and you go 'hey, that's a nebula!'