Gubernator's Various Photos, Kitbashes, and Customs (new update 31 October 2024)

Xavion2004 wrote:“Excuse me.  I’m new to the Republic.  Where can I find the Galactic Senate?”

“Just follow the Otorlan in the landspeeder.”

Thank you, you made me learn something new (or remember something old) -- Max Rebo's species!

davidd wrote:How much horsepower's that speeder bike put out?

I'm not sure about the horsepower, but it would do the Kessel Run in less than 13 parsecs.

What I love about this guy is the fact he doesn't look out of place in star wars, love him.

Theboo-bomb wrote:What I love about this guy is the fact he doesn't look out of place in star wars, love him.

Thank you very much, I'm glad you like him and find him plausible.

This time, I blame or credit Dal. He wanted to know about the blue moon. Now he'll find out what happens under it...

10. Working title: Survivors.





Of course, the actual blue moon was not blue (it could be, given specific conditions, but that wasn't the case). And this is just what my phone can do when set on full zoom, aided by a helpful function that kicks in; but professional lenses and filters would do much better. The actual blue moon, unedited:

Great shots Ian! and what a great idea for a series of pics. Nice work.

Aw, that looks great!! Nice touch with the sparks.

Nice edits! I love the campfire sparks!

You phone camera will get a moon shot like that? What kind of phone cam are you using?

Best I could manage was this, and it's pretty grainy:

Those are great Ian .

Very real fire effect here. I really like these pics and lighting. The plants are a nice touch

BAMComix wrote:Great shots Ian! and what a great idea for a series of pics. Nice work.

Thanks a lot, Dal, I'm glad you like them. And you inspired me to do something with the shots of the moon (which I had taken anyway, but without thinking of putting them to good use).

Diana wrote:Aw, that looks great!! Nice touch with the sparks.

Thank you, Diana, I'm glad you liked them. The sparks are two layers of transparent PNG, and there is a bit of a flame layer too, but it is hardly visible. I could have done more with smoke, but didn't want to lower image clarity. The first two photos had the light set to a flame function, although it is not too obvious.

davidd wrote:Nice edits! I love the campfire sparks!

You phone camera will get a moon shot like that? What kind of phone cam are you using?

Best I could manage was this, and it's pretty grainy

That is a nice photo of the moon you took. In fact, that is what most of my photos of the moon end up being like, in the best of cases. The breakthrough was that I zoomed in all the way (I usually avoid this, as it lowers photo resolution), and some sort of special digital aide setting kicked in, with a little digital targeting display popping up in the upper right corner to help me find the moon (it can be hard when you are that zoomed in). And then, when I found it, I could see all the spots and details like never before. So of course I snapped a bunch of those photos, both on the proper night, and the next one. Helps to be able to steady the camera or at least the arm holding the camera (I used my mailbox). Of course, a professional camera with special lenses and filters would do much better than this, but I was very pleased.
The camera is whatever comes with Samsung Galaxy S23+, camera version 13.1.01.53. My previous phone was fine but the USB charging/transfer port got damaged, so I had to upgrade in the spring. For all I know, the previous camera might have had this ability too, although I never stumbled across it. Then again, it had been quite a few years, so maybe not.

Chip wrote:Those are great Ian .

Thank you very much, Mark, I'm glad you enjoyed them.

Oh! I have a Galaxy S23! I'll have to try some night shots with it! Thanx for the info!

Really cool shots with the moon and the spark effect. Did you buy the full Koska Reeves figure, or just parts?

Valiarde wrote:Very real fire effect here. I really like these pics and lighting. The plants are a nice touch

Thank you very much, Simon, I'm glad you liked it. You guys (including Ralf) gave me some suggestions for trying to take photos of figures in front of a night sky displayed on a screen, and this is much better than my early attempts. Glad you liked the fire effect -- some of it is digital transparent background PNGs, some of it is a light function of the light I used in the first two photos. And the plants are mostly the ones we've been discussing on and off that are made for aquariums.

davidd wrote:Oh! I have a Galaxy S23! I'll have to try some night shots with it! Thanx for the info!

Great, go and give it a try. It ought to still work tonight, even as the moon is getting smaller. If it makes a difference, the automatic nighttime photo setting was also on.

Stryker2012 wrote:Really cool shots with the moon and the spark effect. Did you buy the full Koska Reeves figure, or just parts?

Thank you very much, Mark, glad you liked it. I only got Koska's head, but she seemed reasonably good with this transporter trooper armor (I bunched it up a bit so that she doesn't have too much of a giraffe-neck effect). I have yet to make a proper custom figure with it.

Wait a minute. So they are hanging out under our moon, i.e. Luna, the satellite of the planet we (so originally) call Earth. And it looks like we know it to look right now, not in the distant past.

Just how long is long time ago, and how far is the galaxy far, far away?..

Visisonor wrote:Wait a minute. So they are hanging out under our moon, i.e. Luna, the satellite of the planet we (so originally) call Earth. And it looks like we know it to look right now, not in the distant past.

Just how long is long time ago, and how far is the galaxy far, far away?..

Well, as we all know aliens arrived on Earth and started our civilization, building pyramids and engaging in bloodsports with specially engineered carnivorous species. We have even discovered the petrified hull of one of their Death Stars in our solar system, orbiting around Saturn. So, yes, it's in the past, but not quite that impossibly distant...

Nice lighting experiment! And hey, maybe it's just a moon that looks like ours!

skywalkersaga wrote:Nice lighting experiment! And hey, maybe it's just a moon that looks like ours!

Thank you very much, Sky, I'm glad you liked it. And, yes, it could be just a coincidence. Or they got to... here.

This experiment is, indirectly, due to Sky. I call it 

11. Texan Sunset (or is it Texan Dusk?). 

Which of the three versions works best?

Version 1:







Version 2:







Version 3:







And a couple of close-ups added later:




As always, what do you think?

Very nice, Ian! I like the last set the best, as lights and shadows fit nicely. I would have preferred a more shallow shooting angle, but I understand that the camp fire would get in the way.

I usually reduce depth of field to blur out the background slightly, as this gives the illusion of a real 3D setup. I think your picture could also profit from playing with the camera aperture or the use of a photo app to dynamically reduce sharpness in the background. Sorry for my nitpicking...

Awww, nice! Love the dog. It makes them so much more versatile when they can move their heads!

I think I like the first set the best. The clouds are just a little too busy for my liking in set 3, and the blue sky in set 2, at least in pictures one and two, is just too much.

Nice sequence. All three of them.
The second version has monitor bezel visible on the last photo, but that can be fixed with a simple crop.
I think I prefer the first version, but can't point out why, just a feeling.

Really nice shots, Ian!

I would prefer the second set. Here the spatial illusion succeeds best.

Hmmm. Hard to say. There are some excellent shots in each set, where the lighting and shadows match with the backdrop. Lots of nice touches and details. Is the dog’s head actually movable?

Randam Hajile wrote:Very nice, Ian! I like the last set the best, as lights and shadows fit nicely. I would have preferred a more shallow shooting angle, but I understand that the camp fire would get in the way.

I usually reduce depth of field to blur out the background slightly, as this gives the illusion of a real 3D setup. I think your picture could also profit from playing with the camera aperture or the use of a photo app to dynamically reduce sharpness in the background. Sorry for my nitpicking...

Thanks, Ralf. And no problem, I'm looking to learn, hence these experiments. I don't think I will ever reach your level of professionalism, and this is just my phone camera (although I'm sure it has plenty of settings I have not checked yet). What exactly does a more shallow shooting angle mean? From below? The screen is only this tall, so unless both figures are sitting or lying, or I'm not showing the whole of their bodies, I won't be able to fit them against the background. I agree about the focus -- usually the camera focuses on the objects in front, so the screen becomes a little more blurry, but perhaps not quite enough. I noticed, after editing, that on a couple of images, one can actually make out the raster of the screen, which I aim to avoid. This was yet another exercise in trying to use a relatively dark screen-projected background with a non-obvious front light source (and the flame and embers were added digitally).

Diana wrote:Awww, nice! Love the dog. It makes them so much more versatile when they can move their heads!

I think I like the first set the best. The clouds are just a little too busy for my liking in set 3, and the blue sky in set 2, at least in pictures one and two, is just too much.

Glad you liked the pooch. He's a recent acquisition, and I also love that he is partly articulated (head and tail).

I also thought the clouds were a bit busy, but couldn't resist trying out that gorgeous sunset. My quick search turned up remarkably few images that lent themselves to what I was trying to do.

Visisonor wrote:Nice sequence. All three of them.
The second version has monitor bezel visible on the last photo, but that can be fixed with a simple crop.
I think I prefer the first version, but can't point out why, just a feeling.

Thank you very much! And yes, I meant to crop and forgot (I did remember in the other photos). EDIT: Fixed it, and thanks again for letting me know.

BAMComix wrote:Really nice shots, Ian!

Thank you very much, Dal, glad you enjoyed them.

ElBundy wrote:I would prefer the second set. Here the spatial illusion succeeds best.

Thank you, I think you might be right. You are the master of spatial illusion.

Stryker2012 wrote:Hmmm. Hard to say. There are some excellent shots in each set, where the lighting and shadows match with the backdrop. Lots of nice touches and details. Is the dog’s head actually movable?

Thank you very much, Mark. And yes, the dog's head moves quite freely, as it is attached via a magnet. The tail is also movable, but not enough to be particularly obvious in the photos.

Very moody pics! I think the lighting is very good and some real spectacular shots, with the near silhuettes for example.

I agree with ElBundy that the second set looks the most "natural", but I still like the first one for its powerful dreamy look.

Valiarde wrote:Very moody pics! I think the lighting is very good and some real spectacular shots, with the near silhuettes for example.

I agree with ElBundy that the second set looks the most "natural", but I still like the first one for its powerful dreamy look.

Thank you very much, Simon, I'm glad you liked them. I also thought the near-silhouettes were very promising (and a natural thing to go for), but couldn't resist trying to cast some "fire" light on the figures themselves. Speaking of which, I think I'll manage one or two more.

Decided she needed a closeup or two, so here it goes, with yet another sunset:

He seems to tell a story of their past while she is listening Probably something nostalgic.

Did you paint that head of him?