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

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?

Don't know what I did to inspire this photoshoot, but it looks good!  I do love a lakeside romance and some sunset colours!  

I am presuming you painted both of these and re-haired the blond sculpt yourself?

The doggie is very cute!

skywalkersaga wrote:Don't know what I did to inspire this photoshoot, but it looks good!  I do love a lakeside romance and some sunset colours!  

I am presuming you painted both of these and re-haired the blond sculpt yourself?

The doggie is very cute!

Thank you very much Sky, I'm glad you like it. And doggie too. I'm thinking of calling him Spot. He does technically have a spot at the top of his tail.
Well, I did think you might like the romance and colors, but the next thing I post will clarify things more specifically. In the Tutorials section.

GubernatorFan wrote:
Thank you very much Sky, I'm glad you like it. And doggie too. I'm thinking of calling him Spot. He does technically have a spot at the top of his tail.
Well, I did think you might like the romance and colors, but the next thing I post will clarify things more specifically. In the Tutorials section.

Ahhh, I think I get it now. Will look out for the tutorial.

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

Did you paint that head of him?

Nostalgic, romantic, intimate, probably all of the above. Yes, I modified and painted his head, in an attempt to get a decent un-scarred Josh Brolin; not sure I'm done messing with it yet, and I might be trying it again, in part because I'm not satisfied with the degree to which Vallejo's plastic putty filled-in the scars. And hair fuzz is really hard to paint, even with a sponge. On no, I just realized I forgot to obscure the wrist joint in one of the close-ups. Ovy would call me out on this. Or maybe not, he doesn't seem to look at my posts lately.

skywalkersaga wrote:

GubernatorFan wrote:
Thank you very much Sky, I'm glad you like it. And doggie too. I'm thinking of calling him Spot. He does technically have a spot at the top of his tail.
Well, I did think you might like the romance and colors, but the next thing I post will clarify things more specifically. In the Tutorials section.

Ahhh, I think I get it now. Will look out for the tutorial.

Yep, I think you got it. I hope you find the tutorial adequate.

GubernatorFan wrote:

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).

Sorry for the cryptic remark about the shooting angle. My approach to photography is still more based on intuition than on analysis (no professionalism here...). I guess what felt odd in some pictures is the low horizon, giving the photos a "downhill view" vibe. I'm not sure whether you were going for this impression on purpose, but I would have tried to lessen the effect moving the camera slightly down by a few centimeters keeping the overall motive. That's what I meant with shallow angle.

I like the new closeup photos, they feel very real. Nice work!

Randam Hajile wrote:

GubernatorFan wrote:

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).

Sorry for the cryptic remark about the shooting angle. My approach to photography is still more based on intuition than on analysis (no professionalism here...). I guess what felt odd in some pictures is the low horizon, giving the photos a "downhill view" vibe. I'm not sure whether you were going for this impression on purpose, but I would have tried to lessen the effect moving the camera slightly down by a few centimeters keeping the overall motive. That's what I meant with shallow angle.

I like the new closeup photos, they feel very real. Nice work!

Thank you very much, Ralf. Looks like I understood what you meant about the angle; actually, with the close-ups, I was thinking of exactly that, being able to move the camera lower vis-a-vis the figures. In principle, I prefer that to overhead shots, but sometimes I'm limited by the background available to me (unless I'm doing much more digitally); I also have a second monitor turned 90 degrees (so it is tall but narrow), but usually that allows posing only one figure at a time in front of it.

As for the "downhill view," actually that was intentional. The idea is that she is sitting on a porch (with a firepit off camera) and enjoying the sunset, and the farmhand is coming up the stairs and joining her for a drink or a smooch (or both). Which is not to say I could not have composed the elements and their relation to each other better (or more consistently as I rotated between options).

As for professionalism, perhaps you are just born a naturally-talented photographer.

12. Tony's Angels

Yelena needed some friends, so she ended up with a bunch... The missions of Tony's Angels are covert, so we cannot reveal the details, but suffice it to say there is a lot of hunting and running around, followed by unwinding at the pub.

GubernatorFan wrote:Yelena needed some friends, so she ended up with a bunch...

And then the friends (The White Widows?) ended up taking all the guys.
(Aren't those marines from Starship Troopers?)

Nice combination of foreground props and background images to create a seamless sense of setting, particularly in the pub pictures.

Visisonor wrote:

GubernatorFan wrote:Yelena needed some friends, so she ended up with a bunch...

And then the friends (The White Widows?) ended up taking all the guys.
(Aren't those marines from Starship Troopers?)

Yes, I guess that is how it worked out. Although I only had in mind to show her suffering from an incipient hangover. These are not specifically from Starship Troopers (nor specifically intended to be), but, yes, they are wearing Starship Troopers gear. Good eye! Don't worry, we'll find her a dude (probably not a Starship Trooper, though).

davidd wrote:Nice combination of foreground props and background images to create a seamless sense of setting, particularly in the pub pictures.

Thank you very much, Dave, I'm glad you liked them. I've had these lying around for a while, never finding the time for a proper photoshoot, so I did a little impromptu one before packing them up. It's not perfect (not that I am likely to attempt a real full bar diorama like some our members, most notably and prolifically Dal), but I thought it worked ok for what it is. I love the cozy look of those pubs and thought they'd make a nice backdrop to some close-up photos. I realize I left the light a little too bright for the setting, but wanted the figures to be clearly visible.

Really nice shots, Ian! I really like that dog! It looks like the mission was successful especially as they seem to having a great time unwinding. Really nice natural positioning in the pub scenes, they really look to be having fun!

Charlie's Ian's Angels

Tha Yelena head is still one of the greatest around. I like the scenes with the troopers and the interactions

I like the pictures in front of the winter forest and the pub scenes.

BAMComix wrote:Really nice shots, Ian! I really like that dog! It looks like the mission was successful especially as they seem to having a great time unwinding. Really nice natural positioning in the pub scenes, they really look to be having fun!

Thank you very much. Coming from the master of pub scenes, this is high praise indeed. I think they were happy to unwind. The dog (which has theoretically light-up eyes) is from that Superboy set (from Titans) by some company.

Valiarde wrote:Charlie's Ian's Angels

Tha Yelena head is still one of the greatest around. I like the scenes with the troopers and the interactions

I like the pictures in front of the winter forest and the pub scenes.

Well, given Tony Stark's association with Black Widow, I called them Tony's Angels, but I guess he and I can share...
I still love the Yelena sculpt, and I think it is better than these older ones, which are, moreover, larger (or rather larger looking, since they use an ampler hairstyle made of "real" hair), so I'm not sure they compare very well. I'm glad you enjoyed the photos (I wish I did better with the winter scenes, but that would have taken more preparation than time and energy allowed).

Haha! That last shot of Yelena!  

Great shots all around. Love your three white angels. And Lara fits in nicely, too! 
My favourite shot is that first snowy forest group shot. Just fantastic! 

And that smily chatty dude is great for these kinds of social gathering shoots! Great energy.

Diana wrote:Haha! That last shot of Yelena!  

Great shots all around. Love your three white angels. And Lara fits in nicely, too! 
My favourite shot is that first snowy forest group shot. Just fantastic! 

And that smily chatty dude is great for these kinds of social gathering shoots! Great energy.

Thank you very much, Diana, I'm glad you liked them and they entertained.
I guess Lara needed to loosen up, but she was just not prepared for the impact of the alcohol. Apparently, neither was Yelena. Or maybe Visisonor is right, and she was upset her colleagues made off with the guys?
Smily chatty dude is Seann William Scott, Steve Stifler (the "Stifmeister") from the American Pie movies, and also from Dude, Where is my car? (so "dude" is very accurate).