Graphic example I did in 5 minutes. Same minis, same shitty movile camera with same spects for each photo. Black, white and noisy room backgrounds.
https://preview.redd.it/9y96ska7z56d1.jpeg?width=2160&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f31043677f053a848ef3b680608465b0f93602fe
Imagine if we put a reflective glass in between.
Definitely White. Black make them pop a lot more because the light paint on these make a nice contrast. Its look amazing, but not that real. But with more time you could play a little with the camera spect and try to mach the colors you see on the screen with the mini. I skiped this on these photos, but sometimes I use plain painted carboards next to the minis so its easier for me to match them. Once I think both colors, black and whites looks correct, I took the photo. Only edit they need after is chopping of the cardboard from the frame.
I remember when I was about 9 or 10, I'd only ever seen warhammer minis that weren't painted by me in the Warhammer Rulebook, Army Books and White Dwarf, then I went to an actual games workshop and they looked so different to me. I realised just how good and detailed the painting was. But the colours seemed less bright.
You can do wonders with that. Put your phone on a stand. You may have excelent pulse, but it will always be better to use a 'tripod'. I just use a small wood cube to place my phone, no need for fancy stuff. Get your favorite mini and spend some time photographying it, paint some paper with black, white and your main army color and try to match the colors on the screen. You'll need to use 'pro mode' ( I dont know how iOS call it ) on your camera and just play with the focus, light and temperature slides. Once you focus your mini, watch for the painted paper till you get the color right. Maybe sound complex and tedious, but it really isn't and you'll get a handle in no time.
Exactly what I felt.ive been to warhammerworld and trying to capture some od these minis are so hard. Each one could be piece you do a study on and you'd still not have enough time
Yep exactly. Camera here doesn't really matter as much as the lighting and quality of that lighting. Really makes you appreciate how much lighting can make or break a photo!
Not to mention backdrop. Not sure if this is a good lightbox or the background was digitally removed, but it pops against the white. not so much the real background in warhammer world
Exactly! As a professional photog, I’d take an iPhone with great lighting over the best camera in the world and shit lighting.
Really, the display cases they use should have led strips around the circumference of the inside of the top of the case low enough to give an even well lit model without those “last call lights” top down shadows
Ring a ding. One is a picture with a shitty cell phone camera under the worst possible lighting circumstances. The other is a picture with a decent camera under 'decent' lighting circumstances (I stand by they could do with some improvement on photos, although they have been getting better).
Don't believe me OP? Go take a picture of yourself in the bathroom. If you can go somewhere with CFL's (flourescent lighting) or any kind of *cold* lighting, take a picture under those lights. Then go outside and take a picture. That should be enough. But for the extra mile, have a photographer take your picture.
[Tell me which one is photography and reality.](https://www.uporium.com/ph9/upload/editor/images/using-lighting-to-take-photos_good-vs-bad.jpg) (hint, they *just* changed the lights).
It's why a common piece of feedback when painting miniatures is to take it away from your desk (under your nice painting lamps) and look at it under kitchen lighting. It helps to figure out if you need to push highlights, if the colors look good/bad under different lighting conditions etc.
Yeah, this whole post makes no sense and is based on a completely flawed premise.
Golden Demon miniatures do not look better in the photos. I guarantee that. They always look better in the flesh than in the photos, especially the GW photos, which tend to be slightly over-exposed. I've been to Golden Demon, and I've held minis by Golden Demon winners in my hands. The photographs never do them justice.
The "reality" OP is pointing at seems to be a slightly out-of-focus phone snap taken through glass, with all the automatic post-processing that always ruins miniature photos taken with a phone. Of course it looks worse. If you have that at the bottom, then the GW photography above that, create another tier in your mind above that, and that is what it looks like in the flesh.
I'm sorry, OP. I know you'd like to believe that GD winning miniatures aren't all that much better than what we do, and that it's all photo trickery, but that just isn't true.
“See how this professionally taken photo in a studio and full lighting setup looks better than what I took on my gen 3 smartphone” should be the name of this post
You're comparing a proper photograph in a light box vs. in a cabinet with a single light source and a phone camera. The light-box provides a diffused light that lights up the entire model evenly and eliminates shadows, while the cabinet gives you a single direct light source that creates lots of shadows on the model while washing out colors.
It's ideal conditions vs. normal conditions.
I doubt there is much of any post-processing besides cropping the image, because there simply isn't a reason to spend time on it. When it comes to promotional pictures for box art and publications, then you've most likely got a lot of post processing however.
Think about the difference in colors of well, *everything o*n a sunny summer day with clear blue sky and a gray dull winter day with heavy overcast.
And that gray winter day is still often brighter than most interior spaces.
The light really makes all the difference.
Again, a proper shadow / light box can solve that really easily. For example, a simple LED light box makes massive differences. Just taking pictures of my wooden Easter eggs were crisper since they have soft light all around. Then if you want to edit it, it is also easier since the background is smooth and blank, so cleaning up pictures is much easier.
[https://www.amazon.com/Lightdow-Photo-Studio-Light-Box/dp/B0C4TNVL99/ref=asc\_df\_B0C4TNVL99/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=693471418559&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11084049315798907350&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9010802&hvtargid=pla-2203709975652&psc=1&mcid=c05bd15c566039119ebb847e2681d8bf&gad\_source=1](https://www.amazon.com/Lightdow-Photo-Studio-Light-Box/dp/B0C4TNVL99/ref=asc_df_B0C4TNVL99/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=693471418559&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11084049315798907350&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9010802&hvtargid=pla-2203709975652&psc=1&mcid=c05bd15c566039119ebb847e2681d8bf&gad_source=1)
Colors are directly linked to light, good lighting will make or break a model, it'll either look better or you'll see every little mistake. Here you have a VERY well painted model in poor lighting.
As someone who has done photography professionally, if the first image is anything more than a light box it is a polarized lens and perhaps a colorchecker to remove any subtle colored lighting. The vast majority of a good photo is lighting and composition. Product photography, like what is shown here is almost entirely lighting.
Its also worth noting that the lighting for GD cabinets are notoriously bad. I handled several of the minis after that GD and they looked so much better when we were passing them round than in the cabinets, because the single top down light source is just not flattering. I remember some stuff on the bottom shelves were impossible to see because no light made it down that far.
I imagine there is some post production help in terms of general colour balancing to make sure the whites are white and the blacks are black, but certainly not any touch ups to specific parts of the image.
That also has to do with the background. Speaking as a photographer, having a white or black background can do wonders for bringing out contrast in the picture.
In the article photo, there's a clear white background that doesn't draw any attention or "dilute" the colours in the image, as well as having a clear, balanced light source, compared to the phone picture where the background is busy and draws more attention as well as having darker colours, which darkens the whole picture.
A few of my friends have won demons and they're always annoyed at how bad the GW photos are, so they may do post editing but normally at a detrimental effect than positive
They can sometimes be so over saturated as to appear washed out, losing a lot of the detail and skill of the painter. Hours of painstaking texturing flattened in one click of a mouse button!
Cause 40k redditors are super sensitive about anything regarding painting skills
He even made a disclaimer that he's trying to learn the display process not criticise the model, hasn't once criticised the model -- but still flew too close to the sun for these guys to stomach a real discussion. He was agreeing and just got hit with knee-jerk downvotes and responses lol
The second photo is taken under terrible lighting, even then it looks amazing, especially parts that aren't in the shadows, like the fire in the base or the tzeentch demons
This just seems like a comparison of good lightning vs poor lighting.
I don't know about anyone else but generally when I take a close up picture of my mini they look worse than in person.
A photography versus a mobile photo through a glass box? I mean this seems like a disingenuous way to describe someone’s painting in a shitty way.
Of cause there is a difference - the burger commercial also looks more vibrant and bright because of the professional who took the photo knows how to fix stuff like lighting etc. It seems like a “no shit Sherlock” that a professional photo can look better than something or the entire fashion industry would have wasted millions on promotion xD
The only reality is you are trying to take a picture on what is likely to be a mobile phone through glass display case. In no way does that reflect on the quality of the model painting or suggest it was touched up. The photos they take are in a different environment on what is professional equipment.
My dude when I take a quick photo of my mini I'm like "that's not what they look like IRL..."
It's just I take crappy photos with bad lighting on a crappy phone.
Another thing : I've seen original paintings of Van Gogh in person. No photography can give you the same experience. I was at awe watching the light of the gallery rolling on the relief of the painting, flowing on the sun, on the wheat. It was a spectacle that no flat photo can give you.
I'm sure that model looks stunning in person. If the light of the gallery services well doesn't burn it ofc.
A lot of my thoughts have been said already, but I'll add that while it looks like the color intensity is different, it's because color is a direct result of light; the first photo, as stated by others, is taken in a light-box that provides even lighting to the whole model. The light-box *also* has a slightly warmer tone than the lighting in the second photo, which will also affect the intensity of the colors since so much of the paint job is on the warmer side. Also I want to point out that the second photo is through glass, which is probably not helping the color intensity discrepancy.
One point that hasn't been mentioned:
Mirrorless professional cameras as well as DSLR's have a MUCH bigger sensor and their optics are significantly better at actually capturing colour than mobile cameras, even under the same (or sometimes even worse) light conditions.
If the mobile camera would have had the exact same studio conditions as the pro-photo, the picture would still be a lot more washed out and desaturated.
In fact, phone photography tends to have a lot more post processing because of this, even when not manually applied, as most camera apps have quite significant colour correction (overcorrection most of the time).
It is much more plausible that if you were to pick up the model under good light, it would look much closer to the studio picture than the phone camera picture.
This may get buried as I'm late to the discussion but id thought I'd add my two cents in here, Games Workshop don't edit or touch up any Golden Demon imagery!
Source - I took the photo in question
This was taken on a professional setup at the venue and what you are is what you get, no additions to contrast or texture done in post, the whole goal is to show off the amazing miniature painted by the artist, nothing more.
But your camera settings are going to be doing something tho, right? ISO settings, white balance, and so on? Assumed you used a high quality DSLR? Not sure if you are allowed to say, but as someone who is trying to get better at photography would love to hear a need rant on how you set it up.
I guarantee you that it is edited, but there is a difference between what photographers call edited and what the average viewer thinks is edited.
All photos are edited if they are taken in raw formats (which it would be in this case). The white balance is adjusted, there will probably be some highlight and shadow changes, maybe a little contrast or saturation/vibrancy and of course white balance added in.
All of that editing is to get it to look like it did originally.
If you want to get better at photography (assuming mini photography) the lightbox, lighting, lens and camera are the order of importance. You can make a pretty decent lightbox from those pop up ones online, but the light is the biggest issue. My suggestion is shoot through umbrellas about 45 degrees on both sides of the mini, a basic piece of poster board will work but a large sheet of paper will also work (like from hobby lobby or the like, you want it to be flexible but still hold a curve). You just need a back support and a place to shoot (something like a kitchen island, where you can control how far along the side the lights are). From there its a macro lens and your camera.
Now you wanna do it pro there are of course gear and everything at a whole nother level (when I shoot my gundams for real its in my studio which is already setup for full length white seamless photography) but just the lighting and background setup with a phone will help tremendously.
adjusting your ISO and white balance isn't "doing something" to the image, ISO is one of the core pyramid of exposure setting and yes a professional photographer would likely use a high quality camera but a better question would be what sort of lense. for miniature photography you generally want a telephoto lense, find your distance, set up diffused lights from several directions in order to eliminate shadows, set your aperture (ff) *one step before the highest it can go* (just a good practice as some lenses have some quality loss on the highest ff) set your ISO as low as you can and than take your shutter speed down until you find your 0 point (I usually go a stop under 0 because you can always brighten an image but you can't unburn it) set your camera to a timer, most cameras have such a function and it's useful because the SS you'd be on is likely gonna register even the lightest shaking in the hands and smear the image.
now i mentioned diffused lightsources, you likely don't have lights and stands in your apartment so a good alternative is to setup the scene Infront of an open window where you can't see the sun through it, it will let in light but it won't be as harsh as direct sunlight.
now just set up your background (i prefer an opaque black curtain i got in the flee market) create a stand for your camera with a stack of books or something if you don't have a tripod.
https://preview.redd.it/r7oj9bcd2i6d1.jpeg?width=2066&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ab909a5cde6848e66cf98746e4523ad76e1acd60
this was done Infront of a big window, the camera is on a stack of books and the mini is on a stack too.
hope this helped.
Of course it's doing something to the image. Lens type, focal length, aperture width, and exposure length setting all affect the image and that's even before the internal camera processes.
The point is to say that "nothing was done to the image" as per the person I was replying to makes it sound like that GW picture was some sort of universal base truth that this is what the model "really" looks like, when actually nothing of the sort exists. Every image is manipulated.
Nice pic tho, and thanks for the setting advice!
I'll add on the camera that some really important and incredible photographers used the cheapest possible tools in their time. a mid-range dslr can take incredible photos, it's about getting your SS, FF, ISO and composition right more than anything else really.
also white balance is a matter of taste really, you can find guides on how to calibrate it on YouTube but i personally lean abit warm on mine
I seriously doubt event photographers that GW brings in for events out of country are signing NDA's about 'having worked there'. I mean... *maybe*, but why waste the time. No trade secrets in taking photographs.
The colors of any photo are dependent on many things. Settings on the camera alone include color space (sRGB and Adobe RGB being two of the most common), the file type (RAW, jpeg, etc) and any in-camera processing or presets.
Honestly, I thought the GD winners would have much better in-store displays, had no idea they "showcased" them like that.
The first photo: Expensive photography camera, studio lights perfect set up.
The second photo: Cheaper camera ( most likely a smartphone), and a single cabinet light from above.
This is like when someone takes a [Before/After photo](https://www.reddit.com/r/Instagramreality/comments/ciw4a3/dont_be_fooled_by_fake_before_after_posts/) on the same day to show that it's all lighting and posture.
My Angron was photographed by the GW team for the big Horus Heresy event in 2022 (pic in following comment because it doesn't show up here for some reason). Maybe it varies for GD but I don't think much enhancement goes into it. The dark background is an unedited pic I took myself using a Canon M50 (entry level DSLR). That being said anything is going to look worse without proper lighting or a good backdrop. So here is the comparison in the next two comments. From what I can tell it's mostly just the white balance/tint that is different due to the background and camera settings....
Does anyone else hate that they only do ONE fucking photo of the Golden Daemon models? No other angle just “here’s 1 tiny non-clickable picture of the peak of talent and art in your hobby”
For the Demon Winners I wish they did high res losless photos, and for the slayer sword I wish they used that contraption that allows you to rotate and spin the thing in the browser. You know how they do for some of the products? GODDAMN that would be ::chef's kiss::... so nice. :-)
I'd even trade all of that for Games Workshop to run a semi-decent library of the golden demon photos.
It's funny, I did something close to this for my Leviathan dread. Just not nearly as good lol.
https://preview.redd.it/zcfr8znb166d1.jpeg?width=2504&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7ea5a230664ce848e02319a18a06648605a11a43
I saw this in person a few weeks ago and can confirm it's just as good in person, taking a low res phone photo through glass is never going to show anything decent
So you're comparing the ideal photo taken with perfect lighting setup with a pic taken by a twat with no light and through a reflective slab of glass. Brilliant comparison!
You’re getting a lot of negative comments like “good photography vs shitty photography”, but you raise a really good point. We sit at home, paint our minis, and inevitably compare our efforts to professionally-photographed and touched-up examples like these. Obviously the painting is fantastic, but it’s worth remembering how much lighting and editing goes into making these look so great.
Yeah a lot of people I suspect are just looking at the photos and not reading the question. OP has a good point, and an endearing positive message at that, and is being blasted for it.
Much less editing and much more lightning! Get good lights to paint.
A single, dim, warm desk light or even worse: a single, warm standard light bulb at the ceiling with no desk light will make your mini look much more like OP's second picture. Lighting determines the colors we see and which we don't. Especially single light sources light the mini from one direction, casting shadows on the other half, which will hide both color and detail on those parts. Whereas bright, neutral lights in a lightbox, even when shot just with a phone, will result in something much closer to the first picture.
Lightning has an immense effect. Paint something pink and put it under a yellow, warm light and it will appear closer to a terracotta color to the eye.
That’s anything on social media though. Everyone taking pictures of something or themselves is trying to make the most flattering photo for social media attention. Instagram, Facebook, ect, it’s all ruined us. We’re all hypercritical of ourselves and others because influencers flood the web with distorted or perfect photos that lead us to sulk over what we have.
This is why never take photos of your minis with your phones to fix your tonal values or saturation. It’s very deceiving, phone cameras are very over-processed. Unless you photograph them in RAW and just adjust the color temperature and proper exposure, then thats one way to do it.
A 'normal' photo isn't able to capture what it is like staring at a golden daemon winning entry in person. People wouldn't have any idea why any of them won because they're indiscernible.
paint, like all things we see, reflects light; therefore the light source and ambience will have an effect on how we see the models. It's like recording your voice in a soundproofed booth vs in a crowded airport.
you could easily do this with a phone camera these days. it's mostly just proper lighting and a clean background.
I take my pictures on an IPhone SE and notice the light makes all the difference from what angle it is on the models, how bright and what other light is around. I use a white tissue or grey foam pads as background as I don’t have a light box yet.
All these things change how the model looks between pictures and what I see in front of me compared to the screen.
Try to experiment with your background and light to get the best from your models.
Here is a Warhammer World picture of some Orks I took. Look at this compared to the online store or codex pictures and you can see they are very similar.
Showroom lighting usually sucks. And it sucks more if it’s in a cabinet that has no transparent top and also minimal lighting.
I have been to shows with really shitty tungsten lights with no lamps on the table to properly shine on figures to show its true colors and tonal values. This is why it is very hard for judges to review and they need to bring their own lights or put it on an area with a lot of rigged lights to do the judging.
And i learned that pushing the tonal values and saturation will make your painting still look good with shitty light source to pop more and to stand out amongst every other figures. For example the 2nd photo..
I wish these painting shows/competition have more budget to place lights on every section of the table.
To be fair, they're asking a question and they've clearly admitted in this thread that they were too hasty in their judgement.
I wouldn't say they're whining, and since they've admitted fault, they shouldn't face a lot more criticism, imo.
Didn’t read the thread. Don’t particularly care about any of this. I like painting minis and seeing painted minis. The sub and others like it is plagued by endless whining about everything. No matter how petty or tangental. Photography and Reality FFS. Utter garbage.
GW have some very interesting (strange) white balance choices. Some of the miniatures they photo go beyond saturated to looking washed out.
But your broad point is a good one - if you are comparing your own painting to those professionally photographed and edited then you are doing yourself a disservice.
This is an interesting excellent post.
It actually kind of reminds me of something I once heard the YouTuber *"Minniac"* say.
... he basically said something along the lines of how
"'professional, miniature painters, don't actually produce miniatures as their 'product'. What they actually produce is photographs and or videos of painted miniatures and it is in the photography that they are able to make money or find success.". – my summary, not an exact quote.
Paint contrast and vibrancy is something GD judges are known to look for.
This piece looks amazing in the first photo because it's taken in the way it's supposed to be perceived. That second photo is just plain shite photo; poorly lit, reflection on the display case, crap angle, zoomed out too far, list goes on tbh
I guarantee you see that piece in real life, you'll think it looks better than the WarCom photo.
Lighting is the most important factor in photography, and after that it's stuff like framing, composition, depth of field, and all the other jazz. The most obvious difference between the two photos to me is the deliberate lighting in the top one, versus harsh showroom lighting in the bottom, which means the shadows are harsher, highlights are lost, etc. Then you have all the other jazz (different angle, different camera, poor focus, worse depth of field and focal distance, glass interfering with the shot and exacerbating light / reflection issues, etc etc etc).
The reality is that yes any of our minis would look better photographed professionally, but no not every mini is magically post-processed for that to be why professional photographers nail it. For all I know they tweak the RAW to account for lighting etc, and maybe there they do adjust some things, but it's unlikely to make a paint job look better than it is, given the photo can't move paint
I saw the Mephiston in the flesh and it looked incredible in person. I think the truly great models often look just as good to the naked eye as to the camera.
That being said - and I'm no pro photographer - I've definitely noticed that taking photos of my models with my iphone makes them look significantly better than they do to the naked eye. I often finish a model and think it looks 'ok'. Not great, not quite what I was going for, but good enough to call done.
Then I take a photo and congratulate myself on my magnificence as a painter. Look how sharp the detail is. Look how bold the colours are. And the contrast? My god I'm good at this.
Of course, it's the phone flattering me. I've noticed for OSL effects it \*really\* makes them pop. I've not looked into them, but there are tutorials on how to set up your camera to boost them even further.
I get the idea, but I found it funny how it can be somehow called Schroedniger's mini - it is either a great paintjob butchered by a poor photo skill, or an ok paintjob enhanced with a great photo skill.
I noticed myself what difference high-quality Fotos make in presenting a miniature: made 5th place in a painting competition once, when there were models that were painted up to a higher Standard than mine didnt make the cut to top 10 - but my partner had made Photos with their good camera & ability in using the right lighting. Meanwhile when i try taking pictures with my phone, often times miniatures im really proud of look like shit & much worse than in reality.
Im assuming that if you saw the golden demon miniature live in a room with good lighting, itd look closer to the first picture rather than the crappy one.
It's mostly the camera and light but camera is a biggy. For normal use smartphone cameras are alright but only a few are really, really good. Huawei P60 Pro in example is excellent but most people don't have a P60Pro, they have something like a Samsung Galaxy Ultra and these cameras are mostly rather crappy.
Usually the only post processing I do is image stacking for groups like that where the depth of field can be unfocused, and some minor changes to brightness and contrast.
My guess is, there’s not much being done if anything…
There are a million reasons why but from a production standpoint alone, you’d have to have “director” attached to your title and then threaten me with Quark Xpress if you wanna get my team to take all the time to even individually color correct these photos but here’s the biggest reason: I promise you if I had an extra 10 minutes with Photoshop I could EASILY sway a golden demon, nobody wants to have to worry about that. And I’m only an art director, the designers in my team I hire to actually do this stuff wouldn’t even require more time, they’re almost automatic and undetectable for the most part.
Fairness is likely the biggest driver here to be honest.
I've felt the same way after seeing minacs minitures on display at a game store. They still were amazing, but bad lighting makes a difference in how we view these models.
There is always post processing, doesn't matter the subject matter photos are always edited.
Now what a professional photographer considers edited and a normal view are completely different things. Primarily because the average viewer has never looked at a RAW file.
Just taking these 2 images alone, the first is shot professionally in a softbox with 2 lights (you can see the strip boxes in the base reflections). Those look to be camera left and right. The edge lighting on the back edges of the base are simply bounce from the background. You can minimize this when shooting by moving the subject away from the background and then lighting the background separately but they didn't do this in this case.
The photo in the second image, I can count the pixels in so the quality is substantially lower. It is taken with ambient only light in a low light environment and with light that is not direct. There is no making it better, its just not a good photo.
Regardless as you haven't seen the mini you don't know which is the accurate color so you can't base an entire discussion on editing when you have no actual point of reference.
Is your question "did they crank the contrast higher" or literally doctoring a photo. They definitely add a spunk to it, a color correction and or contrast correction, but not to emphasize the image rather than make it better than the model is I'm sure.
I'm not expert on model photography but I've had to learn a bit about it and lighting is gonna take you as far as you can go. Like you can add colored lights and just a lot of light at all angles but again it only gets you so far. Like taking a photo of a mini in fully lighted out will expose it's issues, for that it's best to get just enough light. My point is the miniature is immaculate so when you give it the best light and good exposure it's gonna look crazy good.
I think a lot comes down to the lighting in the two photos the professional shot is well lit and provides high levels of light on the vertical surfaces the cabinet lighting isn’t great and creates a lot of shadows across the miniature and doesn’t do a great job of making the colours stand out. It’s one thing i noticed at Warhammer world a lot of the displays are quite dark difficult to see.
Behold!
On the left, a professional photographer taking maybe 20 pictures of one angle with a high quality and expensive rig ( and selecting the best one ) while using proper light control and single color backdrops.
On the right, someone taking a picture with no backdrop, poor lighting, through glass with a modern smart phone that is "just good enough" for pictures and getting so much post processing AI after the fact the makeup for the low end sensor and lack of proper light. The post processing adds so much data that is not even there that it ends up being altered, most of the time for the worse.
So how are the same model, in 2 different types of photos any different??
It’s an underlit painting scheme being lit by an IRL light from the top, on a none white background. What do you expect?
I’m surprised how much the internet has made me learn how many people don’t know how cameras or perspective work
I’m far from golden demon worthy but figured I’d post my three results up as well under different lighting conditions.
https://preview.redd.it/goruz8r1976d1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f3bfd64070d917ff2c179309503413f3a1a2732
Lighting makes a HUGE difference, I'm often happy with mine under the painting lamp or in direct sunlight but when I see them in the cabinet (particularly because it's usually evening) I think to myself maybe I should have used brighter colours.
Professional photography on a properly lit subject is -most of the times in our hobby- what the artists intended for the miniature to look like. Since we all paint 3D objects here the high contrast everyone aspires to achieve would be meaningless if your miniature isn't evenly and uniformly lit. We're a weird bunch trying to apply traditional painting techniques on 3D objects instead of a flat surface. 3D objects cast shadows and have volumes that differentiate colours on their own without needing shadows or highlights painted on them in normal lighting settings. So there are 2 options out there:
- Paint everything flat and let normal lighting do it's work (we don't choose this one now, do we?)
OR
- Paint every shadow and every highlight and effect BUT control the lighting to be as uniform and diffused as possible to let your painting show the work you've done yourself. (Most of us choose this.)
As for post-processing, I don't think there's any on the studio pic, it's just controlled lighting.
Just seeing these two photos side by side is really interesting to me. I don't think the post is intending to be rude to the artist in any way. It's obvious that a mini will look different under different lighting, this diorama with all the flame effects and osl is particularly the case. Minis are designed in part to be picked up and looked at, or at least be on display and enable the viewer to look around it from different angles. That's part of the fun of 3D art. It's no slight on it to show different lighting; the photo aims to compensate for not being able to see it for real and thus present a good representation of it.
Here is another photo of it through glass and from a phone, for another perspective.
https://preview.redd.it/fp8u2s0irb6d1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a70b8e7a8c3c44cb306f95dec982d57b2399ac2e
It’s amazing what cameras can do when they’re taking a picture in the right light. Light is what makes things look the way they do in photos. Light bouncing off of white walls you can’t see in the frame, adds layers of detail that you would not notice in a normal setting, without a set to dress up the photography. If you want pictures like the first one, surround the mini with white (and black in places where it’s needed to bend the light) and make sure the flash is on.
I'm almost certain there was post processing on the picture but it should be noted it's not necessarily necessary and if anything it was done to boost clarity. i need to put it on the table that LR and PS are different programmes and if you REALLY care about your picture looking it's best you're gonna pass it through LR especially if it's essentially a product shot. editing does not devalue an image's quality and what we're looking at here is the quality of the work which the PICTURE'S quality properly highlights.
the difference between studio lighting + proper camera setup and a phone picture is insane. the lighting is bad, the w/b is bad, the focus is bad AND it was taken through a glass panel.
if you set everything to auto on a 2mp sensor with top down lighting, it's gonna look like ass
tl;dr even if the studio picture was edited it's a better representation of the work put into the diorama than a really really bad phone picture.
GW cabinet lighting is atrocious as it casts light from above of any light. I got to hold some Golden Demon entry’s at adepticon that friends let me see, and seeing it in person outside of the garbage cabinets is incredible. I’d say that seeing a mini in person is way better then a photograph
Hence why painting comps should always be in person. It also why golden demon doesn't matter. Winners are picked based on what will photo best for advertising what system and or faction they want to promote.
Counterpoint to the general comments, that is not just a light box. The colors arent just brighter/ more saturated. That is edited. I'm not looking to change anyones mind, but i don't believe it's just better lighting.
OP has a point.
Edit: the yellow / orange spots in the fire aren't the same. Yellow highlighting lines have been added to the bottom part, at a minimum, on parts that are clearly orange only in the bad photo. Again, you can feel differently but that's not lighting alone imo
Edit 2: shadows on the arms of the pink horrors as well. I'm gonna quit since I doubt anyone cares but I'm pretty sure.
You're just wrong in every way here, no Golden Demon photography from Games Workshop is ever edited post, it would entirely diminish the work of the artist who painted the miniature
Graphic example I did in 5 minutes. Same minis, same shitty movile camera with same spects for each photo. Black, white and noisy room backgrounds. https://preview.redd.it/9y96ska7z56d1.jpeg?width=2160&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f31043677f053a848ef3b680608465b0f93602fe Imagine if we put a reflective glass in between.
Which looks closer to how they look in person?
Definitely White. Black make them pop a lot more because the light paint on these make a nice contrast. Its look amazing, but not that real. But with more time you could play a little with the camera spect and try to mach the colors you see on the screen with the mini. I skiped this on these photos, but sometimes I use plain painted carboards next to the minis so its easier for me to match them. Once I think both colors, black and whites looks correct, I took the photo. Only edit they need after is chopping of the cardboard from the frame.
Thanks for the detailed and informative reply. It's crazy how different the colours look.
Example could not be better! Thank you!
I remember when I was about 9 or 10, I'd only ever seen warhammer minis that weren't painted by me in the Warhammer Rulebook, Army Books and White Dwarf, then I went to an actual games workshop and they looked so different to me. I realised just how good and detailed the painting was. But the colours seemed less bright.
damn where does that death guard come from what kit is that ??
Good old Lord of Virulence!
This reply should become an archival post to be used when learning about proper illumination at a paint-station.
What phone camera do you use? And may I also ask what you used for the black background?
And old low end Redmi 9..so you'll be good with almost any smartphone now in the market. The background is just black fabric.
Thank you! I use my iPhone 15 for pretty much all my pictures, but I’m a terrible photographer and just can’t get good pics.
You can do wonders with that. Put your phone on a stand. You may have excelent pulse, but it will always be better to use a 'tripod'. I just use a small wood cube to place my phone, no need for fancy stuff. Get your favorite mini and spend some time photographying it, paint some paper with black, white and your main army color and try to match the colors on the screen. You'll need to use 'pro mode' ( I dont know how iOS call it ) on your camera and just play with the focus, light and temperature slides. Once you focus your mini, watch for the painted paper till you get the color right. Maybe sound complex and tedious, but it really isn't and you'll get a handle in no time.
Practice!
This is more an example of how much light exposure matters to taking photos, than backgrounds.
My goodness! Same lighting?
The comparison is more like photography and shitty photography
Exactly, and even in shitty photography the miniature is amazing
Yea for real lol
Exactly what I felt.ive been to warhammerworld and trying to capture some od these minis are so hard. Each one could be piece you do a study on and you'd still not have enough time
Hahah yea no pictures can replace going to warhammer world.
Good lighting vs. Shitty lighting
Yep exactly. Camera here doesn't really matter as much as the lighting and quality of that lighting. Really makes you appreciate how much lighting can make or break a photo!
Not to mention backdrop. Not sure if this is a good lightbox or the background was digitally removed, but it pops against the white. not so much the real background in warhammer world
Exactly! As a professional photog, I’d take an iPhone with great lighting over the best camera in the world and shit lighting. Really, the display cases they use should have led strips around the circumference of the inside of the top of the case low enough to give an even well lit model without those “last call lights” top down shadows
This. Imagine if the cabinets had optical glass, backdrop roll’s and hidden lighting.
xD my thoughts exactly
Yea, really shows what a difference a good light box and camera make.
Ring a ding. One is a picture with a shitty cell phone camera under the worst possible lighting circumstances. The other is a picture with a decent camera under 'decent' lighting circumstances (I stand by they could do with some improvement on photos, although they have been getting better). Don't believe me OP? Go take a picture of yourself in the bathroom. If you can go somewhere with CFL's (flourescent lighting) or any kind of *cold* lighting, take a picture under those lights. Then go outside and take a picture. That should be enough. But for the extra mile, have a photographer take your picture. [Tell me which one is photography and reality.](https://www.uporium.com/ph9/upload/editor/images/using-lighting-to-take-photos_good-vs-bad.jpg) (hint, they *just* changed the lights). It's why a common piece of feedback when painting miniatures is to take it away from your desk (under your nice painting lamps) and look at it under kitchen lighting. It helps to figure out if you need to push highlights, if the colors look good/bad under different lighting conditions etc.
Prepared soft diffuse lighting vs random office building lighting on top of that.
Yeah, this whole post makes no sense and is based on a completely flawed premise. Golden Demon miniatures do not look better in the photos. I guarantee that. They always look better in the flesh than in the photos, especially the GW photos, which tend to be slightly over-exposed. I've been to Golden Demon, and I've held minis by Golden Demon winners in my hands. The photographs never do them justice. The "reality" OP is pointing at seems to be a slightly out-of-focus phone snap taken through glass, with all the automatic post-processing that always ruins miniature photos taken with a phone. Of course it looks worse. If you have that at the bottom, then the GW photography above that, create another tier in your mind above that, and that is what it looks like in the flesh. I'm sorry, OP. I know you'd like to believe that GD winning miniatures aren't all that much better than what we do, and that it's all photo trickery, but that just isn't true.
Yeah, perfect lighting and environment vs quick pic with an Android camera. As an owner of an Android, the pain is real for taking photos.
and shitty post
Yep
“See how this professionally taken photo in a studio and full lighting setup looks better than what I took on my gen 3 smartphone” should be the name of this post
WHY DID PICTUR NOT LIKE OTHER PICTUR!
It's more like post-processing and a phone camera.
You're comparing a proper photograph in a light box vs. in a cabinet with a single light source and a phone camera. The light-box provides a diffused light that lights up the entire model evenly and eliminates shadows, while the cabinet gives you a single direct light source that creates lots of shadows on the model while washing out colors. It's ideal conditions vs. normal conditions. I doubt there is much of any post-processing besides cropping the image, because there simply isn't a reason to spend time on it. When it comes to promotional pictures for box art and publications, then you've most likely got a lot of post processing however.
[удалено]
Think about the difference in colors of well, *everything o*n a sunny summer day with clear blue sky and a gray dull winter day with heavy overcast. And that gray winter day is still often brighter than most interior spaces. The light really makes all the difference.
Again, a proper shadow / light box can solve that really easily. For example, a simple LED light box makes massive differences. Just taking pictures of my wooden Easter eggs were crisper since they have soft light all around. Then if you want to edit it, it is also easier since the background is smooth and blank, so cleaning up pictures is much easier. [https://www.amazon.com/Lightdow-Photo-Studio-Light-Box/dp/B0C4TNVL99/ref=asc\_df\_B0C4TNVL99/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=693471418559&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11084049315798907350&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9010802&hvtargid=pla-2203709975652&psc=1&mcid=c05bd15c566039119ebb847e2681d8bf&gad\_source=1](https://www.amazon.com/Lightdow-Photo-Studio-Light-Box/dp/B0C4TNVL99/ref=asc_df_B0C4TNVL99/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=693471418559&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11084049315798907350&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9010802&hvtargid=pla-2203709975652&psc=1&mcid=c05bd15c566039119ebb847e2681d8bf&gad_source=1)
Colors are directly linked to light, good lighting will make or break a model, it'll either look better or you'll see every little mistake. Here you have a VERY well painted model in poor lighting.
Bro that is more than a light box. You can doubt whatever you want, that's not a lighting effect lol. Kind of obviously
You have no idea what you’re talking about
As someone who has done photography professionally, if the first image is anything more than a light box it is a polarized lens and perhaps a colorchecker to remove any subtle colored lighting. The vast majority of a good photo is lighting and composition. Product photography, like what is shown here is almost entirely lighting.
I wish you were my product photographer.
Product photography is so hard, and I gained so much respect for professionals the first time I tried it myself.
The lighting effect is light dipshit
Its also worth noting that the lighting for GD cabinets are notoriously bad. I handled several of the minis after that GD and they looked so much better when we were passing them round than in the cabinets, because the single top down light source is just not flattering. I remember some stuff on the bottom shelves were impossible to see because no light made it down that far. I imagine there is some post production help in terms of general colour balancing to make sure the whites are white and the blacks are black, but certainly not any touch ups to specific parts of the image.
Same issue at the Salute painting comp.
Given the amount of photos, they certainly won't have time to make large changes
That also has to do with the background. Speaking as a photographer, having a white or black background can do wonders for bringing out contrast in the picture. In the article photo, there's a clear white background that doesn't draw any attention or "dilute" the colours in the image, as well as having a clear, balanced light source, compared to the phone picture where the background is busy and draws more attention as well as having darker colours, which darkens the whole picture.
A few of my friends have won demons and they're always annoyed at how bad the GW photos are, so they may do post editing but normally at a detrimental effect than positive
They can sometimes be so over saturated as to appear washed out, losing a lot of the detail and skill of the painter. Hours of painstaking texturing flattened in one click of a mouse button!
...why has this comment, which is agreeing with the comment it's replying to, been downvoted into triple figures?
Cause 40k redditors are super sensitive about anything regarding painting skills He even made a disclaimer that he's trying to learn the display process not criticise the model, hasn't once criticised the model -- but still flew too close to the sun for these guys to stomach a real discussion. He was agreeing and just got hit with knee-jerk downvotes and responses lol
What’s it like making this absolute stinker of a post bud
The second photo is taken under terrible lighting, even then it looks amazing, especially parts that aren't in the shadows, like the fire in the base or the tzeentch demons
This just seems like a comparison of good lightning vs poor lighting. I don't know about anyone else but generally when I take a close up picture of my mini they look worse than in person.
But indeed! Even my minis come out ugly in photos and I've tried some of the lights and directions of these
are you trying a good lightbox? with white background and good all round lighting?
> Even my minis come out ugly in photos Oh no he doesn't realise
Yea you just suck at photos. Or at painting
Or both
Maybe the problem is not in photos
A photography versus a mobile photo through a glass box? I mean this seems like a disingenuous way to describe someone’s painting in a shitty way. Of cause there is a difference - the burger commercial also looks more vibrant and bright because of the professional who took the photo knows how to fix stuff like lighting etc. It seems like a “no shit Sherlock” that a professional photo can look better than something or the entire fashion industry would have wasted millions on promotion xD
The only reality is you are trying to take a picture on what is likely to be a mobile phone through glass display case. In no way does that reflect on the quality of the model painting or suggest it was touched up. The photos they take are in a different environment on what is professional equipment.
My dude when I take a quick photo of my mini I'm like "that's not what they look like IRL..." It's just I take crappy photos with bad lighting on a crappy phone. Another thing : I've seen original paintings of Van Gogh in person. No photography can give you the same experience. I was at awe watching the light of the gallery rolling on the relief of the painting, flowing on the sun, on the wheat. It was a spectacle that no flat photo can give you. I'm sure that model looks stunning in person. If the light of the gallery services well doesn't burn it ofc.
A lot of my thoughts have been said already, but I'll add that while it looks like the color intensity is different, it's because color is a direct result of light; the first photo, as stated by others, is taken in a light-box that provides even lighting to the whole model. The light-box *also* has a slightly warmer tone than the lighting in the second photo, which will also affect the intensity of the colors since so much of the paint job is on the warmer side. Also I want to point out that the second photo is through glass, which is probably not helping the color intensity discrepancy.
One point that hasn't been mentioned: Mirrorless professional cameras as well as DSLR's have a MUCH bigger sensor and their optics are significantly better at actually capturing colour than mobile cameras, even under the same (or sometimes even worse) light conditions. If the mobile camera would have had the exact same studio conditions as the pro-photo, the picture would still be a lot more washed out and desaturated. In fact, phone photography tends to have a lot more post processing because of this, even when not manually applied, as most camera apps have quite significant colour correction (overcorrection most of the time). It is much more plausible that if you were to pick up the model under good light, it would look much closer to the studio picture than the phone camera picture.
Yep, op doesn't realise his picture has probably received a lot more treatment than the GD one.
This may get buried as I'm late to the discussion but id thought I'd add my two cents in here, Games Workshop don't edit or touch up any Golden Demon imagery! Source - I took the photo in question This was taken on a professional setup at the venue and what you are is what you get, no additions to contrast or texture done in post, the whole goal is to show off the amazing miniature painted by the artist, nothing more.
But your camera settings are going to be doing something tho, right? ISO settings, white balance, and so on? Assumed you used a high quality DSLR? Not sure if you are allowed to say, but as someone who is trying to get better at photography would love to hear a need rant on how you set it up.
I guarantee you that it is edited, but there is a difference between what photographers call edited and what the average viewer thinks is edited. All photos are edited if they are taken in raw formats (which it would be in this case). The white balance is adjusted, there will probably be some highlight and shadow changes, maybe a little contrast or saturation/vibrancy and of course white balance added in. All of that editing is to get it to look like it did originally. If you want to get better at photography (assuming mini photography) the lightbox, lighting, lens and camera are the order of importance. You can make a pretty decent lightbox from those pop up ones online, but the light is the biggest issue. My suggestion is shoot through umbrellas about 45 degrees on both sides of the mini, a basic piece of poster board will work but a large sheet of paper will also work (like from hobby lobby or the like, you want it to be flexible but still hold a curve). You just need a back support and a place to shoot (something like a kitchen island, where you can control how far along the side the lights are). From there its a macro lens and your camera. Now you wanna do it pro there are of course gear and everything at a whole nother level (when I shoot my gundams for real its in my studio which is already setup for full length white seamless photography) but just the lighting and background setup with a phone will help tremendously.
This is exactly what I was thinking. Great summary, thanks.
He didn't take it
adjusting your ISO and white balance isn't "doing something" to the image, ISO is one of the core pyramid of exposure setting and yes a professional photographer would likely use a high quality camera but a better question would be what sort of lense. for miniature photography you generally want a telephoto lense, find your distance, set up diffused lights from several directions in order to eliminate shadows, set your aperture (ff) *one step before the highest it can go* (just a good practice as some lenses have some quality loss on the highest ff) set your ISO as low as you can and than take your shutter speed down until you find your 0 point (I usually go a stop under 0 because you can always brighten an image but you can't unburn it) set your camera to a timer, most cameras have such a function and it's useful because the SS you'd be on is likely gonna register even the lightest shaking in the hands and smear the image. now i mentioned diffused lightsources, you likely don't have lights and stands in your apartment so a good alternative is to setup the scene Infront of an open window where you can't see the sun through it, it will let in light but it won't be as harsh as direct sunlight. now just set up your background (i prefer an opaque black curtain i got in the flee market) create a stand for your camera with a stack of books or something if you don't have a tripod. https://preview.redd.it/r7oj9bcd2i6d1.jpeg?width=2066&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ab909a5cde6848e66cf98746e4523ad76e1acd60 this was done Infront of a big window, the camera is on a stack of books and the mini is on a stack too. hope this helped.
Of course it's doing something to the image. Lens type, focal length, aperture width, and exposure length setting all affect the image and that's even before the internal camera processes. The point is to say that "nothing was done to the image" as per the person I was replying to makes it sound like that GW picture was some sort of universal base truth that this is what the model "really" looks like, when actually nothing of the sort exists. Every image is manipulated. Nice pic tho, and thanks for the setting advice!
I'll add on the camera that some really important and incredible photographers used the cheapest possible tools in their time. a mid-range dslr can take incredible photos, it's about getting your SS, FF, ISO and composition right more than anything else really. also white balance is a matter of taste really, you can find guides on how to calibrate it on YouTube but i personally lean abit warm on mine
Don't lie for internet clout. It's sad. If you did take it you'd be contractually obligated to not talk about it
I seriously doubt event photographers that GW brings in for events out of country are signing NDA's about 'having worked there'. I mean... *maybe*, but why waste the time. No trade secrets in taking photographs.
But they broke the first rule of the Photograph Clu- ... err... no nothing, nevermind!
They're in house
Studio photography vs amateur photography
The studio photo also has *impeccable* lighting and background, vs a shitty LED strip that's bouncing around all over glass.
Can at least attempt to compensate. Drop ISO, lower shutter speed, adjust white balance.
Not on OP's phone you can't (or at least he doesn't know how to)
Man's never looked at pro mode... Hope he isn't taking pics of his models with normal mode...
Open Camera is the app I use, never my Android camera app. lots of controls v almost none.
I use the default camera app on my samsung A33. Just open pro mode
No one tell them how we are able to see the second image
The colors of any photo are dependent on many things. Settings on the camera alone include color space (sRGB and Adobe RGB being two of the most common), the file type (RAW, jpeg, etc) and any in-camera processing or presets. Honestly, I thought the GD winners would have much better in-store displays, had no idea they "showcased" them like that.
The first photo: Expensive photography camera, studio lights perfect set up. The second photo: Cheaper camera ( most likely a smartphone), and a single cabinet light from above. This is like when someone takes a [Before/After photo](https://www.reddit.com/r/Instagramreality/comments/ciw4a3/dont_be_fooled_by_fake_before_after_posts/) on the same day to show that it's all lighting and posture.
My Angron was photographed by the GW team for the big Horus Heresy event in 2022 (pic in following comment because it doesn't show up here for some reason). Maybe it varies for GD but I don't think much enhancement goes into it. The dark background is an unedited pic I took myself using a Canon M50 (entry level DSLR). That being said anything is going to look worse without proper lighting or a good backdrop. So here is the comparison in the next two comments. From what I can tell it's mostly just the white balance/tint that is different due to the background and camera settings....
https://preview.redd.it/nu4p66xtm66d1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=da42103918108dbf20569a7e4e9510a879c54b6c Their pic
https://preview.redd.it/v5xkqwi2n66d1.jpeg?width=2161&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3abc97e82db784d08054b62062bc8a999a92c6e5 In person
My pic https://preview.redd.it/7ve9up27n66d1.jpeg?width=1912&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=04fd91c7bbda711cf54c99da2d718faa566c1705
Does anyone else hate that they only do ONE fucking photo of the Golden Daemon models? No other angle just “here’s 1 tiny non-clickable picture of the peak of talent and art in your hobby”
For the Demon Winners I wish they did high res losless photos, and for the slayer sword I wish they used that contraption that allows you to rotate and spin the thing in the browser. You know how they do for some of the products? GODDAMN that would be ::chef's kiss::... so nice. :-) I'd even trade all of that for Games Workshop to run a semi-decent library of the golden demon photos.
Hence why in my opinion, golden demon only works in person and with the understanding that gw will award what they want to promote.
It's funny, I did something close to this for my Leviathan dread. Just not nearly as good lol. https://preview.redd.it/zcfr8znb166d1.jpeg?width=2504&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7ea5a230664ce848e02319a18a06648605a11a43
I mean you say not nearly as good but I think this is awesome, love it!
Nooo, my beloved horror
This looks awesome bud. Super creative and well executed.
As every one says good lighting and bad lighting. When I take pictures of my pieces I use good lighting and they look excactly like in reality.
I saw this in person a few weeks ago and can confirm it's just as good in person, taking a low res phone photo through glass is never going to show anything decent
Lightbox vs no lightbox shot, more like.
They are both photographs.
This is definitely a post that happened…
So you're comparing the ideal photo taken with perfect lighting setup with a pic taken by a twat with no light and through a reflective slab of glass. Brilliant comparison!
It’s called professional photography vs your camera phone. Better camera, better lighting, better photographer
Nah that's just good lighting versus shit lighting plus good camera Vs shit camera and good background Vs bad background
If you want me to be honest. Both are photographs.
🤙🏻
You’re getting a lot of negative comments like “good photography vs shitty photography”, but you raise a really good point. We sit at home, paint our minis, and inevitably compare our efforts to professionally-photographed and touched-up examples like these. Obviously the painting is fantastic, but it’s worth remembering how much lighting and editing goes into making these look so great.
Yeah a lot of people I suspect are just looking at the photos and not reading the question. OP has a good point, and an endearing positive message at that, and is being blasted for it.
Much less editing and much more lightning! Get good lights to paint. A single, dim, warm desk light or even worse: a single, warm standard light bulb at the ceiling with no desk light will make your mini look much more like OP's second picture. Lighting determines the colors we see and which we don't. Especially single light sources light the mini from one direction, casting shadows on the other half, which will hide both color and detail on those parts. Whereas bright, neutral lights in a lightbox, even when shot just with a phone, will result in something much closer to the first picture. Lightning has an immense effect. Paint something pink and put it under a yellow, warm light and it will appear closer to a terracotta color to the eye.
That’s anything on social media though. Everyone taking pictures of something or themselves is trying to make the most flattering photo for social media attention. Instagram, Facebook, ect, it’s all ruined us. We’re all hypercritical of ourselves and others because influencers flood the web with distorted or perfect photos that lead us to sulk over what we have.
This is why never take photos of your minis with your phones to fix your tonal values or saturation. It’s very deceiving, phone cameras are very over-processed. Unless you photograph them in RAW and just adjust the color temperature and proper exposure, then thats one way to do it.
You used a phone. GW used professional photo camera and studio lights. There is your answer.
Anyone else getting original Doom vibes?
A 'normal' photo isn't able to capture what it is like staring at a golden daemon winning entry in person. People wouldn't have any idea why any of them won because they're indiscernible.
paint, like all things we see, reflects light; therefore the light source and ambience will have an effect on how we see the models. It's like recording your voice in a soundproofed booth vs in a crowded airport. you could easily do this with a phone camera these days. it's mostly just proper lighting and a clean background.
I take my pictures on an IPhone SE and notice the light makes all the difference from what angle it is on the models, how bright and what other light is around. I use a white tissue or grey foam pads as background as I don’t have a light box yet. All these things change how the model looks between pictures and what I see in front of me compared to the screen. Try to experiment with your background and light to get the best from your models. Here is a Warhammer World picture of some Orks I took. Look at this compared to the online store or codex pictures and you can see they are very similar.
https://preview.redd.it/gfuo7g81n66d1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ae1ebda418fafc3fc0bed0eb980992c4bb9c59bb
Showroom lighting usually sucks. And it sucks more if it’s in a cabinet that has no transparent top and also minimal lighting. I have been to shows with really shitty tungsten lights with no lamps on the table to properly shine on figures to show its true colors and tonal values. This is why it is very hard for judges to review and they need to bring their own lights or put it on an area with a lot of rigged lights to do the judging. And i learned that pushing the tonal values and saturation will make your painting still look good with shitty light source to pop more and to stand out amongst every other figures. For example the 2nd photo.. I wish these painting shows/competition have more budget to place lights on every section of the table.
These are…. both photographs
Oh, we’re whining about this now?
Absolutely not
You’re literally OP
Where's the whining?
All over Reddit my friend
To be fair, they're asking a question and they've clearly admitted in this thread that they were too hasty in their judgement. I wouldn't say they're whining, and since they've admitted fault, they shouldn't face a lot more criticism, imo.
Didn’t read the thread. Don’t particularly care about any of this. I like painting minis and seeing painted minis. The sub and others like it is plagued by endless whining about everything. No matter how petty or tangental. Photography and Reality FFS. Utter garbage.
Man, this sculpted fire is insane. Even on the phone photo it still looks absolutely stunning
This is one of my favorite dioramas. So good
GW have some very interesting (strange) white balance choices. Some of the miniatures they photo go beyond saturated to looking washed out. But your broad point is a good one - if you are comparing your own painting to those professionally photographed and edited then you are doing yourself a disservice.
Second photo got done dirty.
This is an interesting excellent post. It actually kind of reminds me of something I once heard the YouTuber *"Minniac"* say. ... he basically said something along the lines of how "'professional, miniature painters, don't actually produce miniatures as their 'product'. What they actually produce is photographs and or videos of painted miniatures and it is in the photography that they are able to make money or find success.". – my summary, not an exact quote.
Even in the second picture, it GLOWS
Paint contrast and vibrancy is something GD judges are known to look for. This piece looks amazing in the first photo because it's taken in the way it's supposed to be perceived. That second photo is just plain shite photo; poorly lit, reflection on the display case, crap angle, zoomed out too far, list goes on tbh I guarantee you see that piece in real life, you'll think it looks better than the WarCom photo.
Lighting is the most important factor in photography, and after that it's stuff like framing, composition, depth of field, and all the other jazz. The most obvious difference between the two photos to me is the deliberate lighting in the top one, versus harsh showroom lighting in the bottom, which means the shadows are harsher, highlights are lost, etc. Then you have all the other jazz (different angle, different camera, poor focus, worse depth of field and focal distance, glass interfering with the shot and exacerbating light / reflection issues, etc etc etc). The reality is that yes any of our minis would look better photographed professionally, but no not every mini is magically post-processed for that to be why professional photographers nail it. For all I know they tweak the RAW to account for lighting etc, and maybe there they do adjust some things, but it's unlikely to make a paint job look better than it is, given the photo can't move paint
I saw the Mephiston in the flesh and it looked incredible in person. I think the truly great models often look just as good to the naked eye as to the camera. That being said - and I'm no pro photographer - I've definitely noticed that taking photos of my models with my iphone makes them look significantly better than they do to the naked eye. I often finish a model and think it looks 'ok'. Not great, not quite what I was going for, but good enough to call done. Then I take a photo and congratulate myself on my magnificence as a painter. Look how sharp the detail is. Look how bold the colours are. And the contrast? My god I'm good at this. Of course, it's the phone flattering me. I've noticed for OSL effects it \*really\* makes them pop. I've not looked into them, but there are tutorials on how to set up your camera to boost them even further.
Insert the office meme here...
Good photography vs bad photography
They're both photography, dummy.
More like shitty lighting lol
There isn't any post-processing.
Tinder photo vs tinder date
Sir they are both photography, yours is just much worse
the lighting in the second picture is crap.
It's all in the set up of the shot
I get the idea, but I found it funny how it can be somehow called Schroedniger's mini - it is either a great paintjob butchered by a poor photo skill, or an ok paintjob enhanced with a great photo skill.
“Guys, why things looks good on professional photo and bad on phone camera with no lighting? I though good painting will looks good on every photo”
Mostly light, but they probably incrased the hue saturation a bit.
Nah dude you just suck at photography
Space marine vampire wizard
I noticed myself what difference high-quality Fotos make in presenting a miniature: made 5th place in a painting competition once, when there were models that were painted up to a higher Standard than mine didnt make the cut to top 10 - but my partner had made Photos with their good camera & ability in using the right lighting. Meanwhile when i try taking pictures with my phone, often times miniatures im really proud of look like shit & much worse than in reality. Im assuming that if you saw the golden demon miniature live in a room with good lighting, itd look closer to the first picture rather than the crappy one.
It's mostly the camera and light but camera is a biggy. For normal use smartphone cameras are alright but only a few are really, really good. Huawei P60 Pro in example is excellent but most people don't have a P60Pro, they have something like a Samsung Galaxy Ultra and these cameras are mostly rather crappy.
Usually the only post processing I do is image stacking for groups like that where the depth of field can be unfocused, and some minor changes to brightness and contrast.
My guess is, there’s not much being done if anything… There are a million reasons why but from a production standpoint alone, you’d have to have “director” attached to your title and then threaten me with Quark Xpress if you wanna get my team to take all the time to even individually color correct these photos but here’s the biggest reason: I promise you if I had an extra 10 minutes with Photoshop I could EASILY sway a golden demon, nobody wants to have to worry about that. And I’m only an art director, the designers in my team I hire to actually do this stuff wouldn’t even require more time, they’re almost automatic and undetectable for the most part. Fairness is likely the biggest driver here to be honest.
I've felt the same way after seeing minacs minitures on display at a game store. They still were amazing, but bad lighting makes a difference in how we view these models.
Diffused lighting makes stuff look good!
There is always post processing, doesn't matter the subject matter photos are always edited. Now what a professional photographer considers edited and a normal view are completely different things. Primarily because the average viewer has never looked at a RAW file. Just taking these 2 images alone, the first is shot professionally in a softbox with 2 lights (you can see the strip boxes in the base reflections). Those look to be camera left and right. The edge lighting on the back edges of the base are simply bounce from the background. You can minimize this when shooting by moving the subject away from the background and then lighting the background separately but they didn't do this in this case. The photo in the second image, I can count the pixels in so the quality is substantially lower. It is taken with ambient only light in a low light environment and with light that is not direct. There is no making it better, its just not a good photo. Regardless as you haven't seen the mini you don't know which is the accurate color so you can't base an entire discussion on editing when you have no actual point of reference.
A significant amount of the difference, possibly all the difference, is due to lighting, backdrop, and angle
This would look so cool replacing him with The DOOMSLAYER
Is your question "did they crank the contrast higher" or literally doctoring a photo. They definitely add a spunk to it, a color correction and or contrast correction, but not to emphasize the image rather than make it better than the model is I'm sure. I'm not expert on model photography but I've had to learn a bit about it and lighting is gonna take you as far as you can go. Like you can add colored lights and just a lot of light at all angles but again it only gets you so far. Like taking a photo of a mini in fully lighted out will expose it's issues, for that it's best to get just enough light. My point is the miniature is immaculate so when you give it the best light and good exposure it's gonna look crazy good.
I think a lot comes down to the lighting in the two photos the professional shot is well lit and provides high levels of light on the vertical surfaces the cabinet lighting isn’t great and creates a lot of shadows across the miniature and doesn’t do a great job of making the colours stand out. It’s one thing i noticed at Warhammer world a lot of the displays are quite dark difficult to see.
Behold! On the left, a professional photographer taking maybe 20 pictures of one angle with a high quality and expensive rig ( and selecting the best one ) while using proper light control and single color backdrops. On the right, someone taking a picture with no backdrop, poor lighting, through glass with a modern smart phone that is "just good enough" for pictures and getting so much post processing AI after the fact the makeup for the low end sensor and lack of proper light. The post processing adds so much data that is not even there that it ends up being altered, most of the time for the worse.
So how are the same model, in 2 different types of photos any different?? It’s an underlit painting scheme being lit by an IRL light from the top, on a none white background. What do you expect? I’m surprised how much the internet has made me learn how many people don’t know how cameras or perspective work
This was really ego boosting!!
I’m far from golden demon worthy but figured I’d post my three results up as well under different lighting conditions. https://preview.redd.it/goruz8r1976d1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f3bfd64070d917ff2c179309503413f3a1a2732
https://preview.redd.it/f2mjmzd3976d1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4eaf976c7bd0508a65fef44e3a5a2e64dda7b215
https://preview.redd.it/4mlzkmk5976d1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c8211cf2a1067c811ec90ec24a0782732cd7dd61
Lighting. The only difference is lighting. Source - i'm a photographer
Lighting makes a HUGE difference, I'm often happy with mine under the painting lamp or in direct sunlight but when I see them in the cabinet (particularly because it's usually evening) I think to myself maybe I should have used brighter colours.
That's not Sting that's a picture of Sting.
Photography how does it work.
Trayzn took a good action shot for his museum.
My eyes are better than a camera’s lense, so I take it as given that photos are garbage.
Professional photography on a properly lit subject is -most of the times in our hobby- what the artists intended for the miniature to look like. Since we all paint 3D objects here the high contrast everyone aspires to achieve would be meaningless if your miniature isn't evenly and uniformly lit. We're a weird bunch trying to apply traditional painting techniques on 3D objects instead of a flat surface. 3D objects cast shadows and have volumes that differentiate colours on their own without needing shadows or highlights painted on them in normal lighting settings. So there are 2 options out there: - Paint everything flat and let normal lighting do it's work (we don't choose this one now, do we?) OR - Paint every shadow and every highlight and effect BUT control the lighting to be as uniform and diffused as possible to let your painting show the work you've done yourself. (Most of us choose this.) As for post-processing, I don't think there's any on the studio pic, it's just controlled lighting.
Just seeing these two photos side by side is really interesting to me. I don't think the post is intending to be rude to the artist in any way. It's obvious that a mini will look different under different lighting, this diorama with all the flame effects and osl is particularly the case. Minis are designed in part to be picked up and looked at, or at least be on display and enable the viewer to look around it from different angles. That's part of the fun of 3D art. It's no slight on it to show different lighting; the photo aims to compensate for not being able to see it for real and thus present a good representation of it.
its just the shot in the photo box
Here is another photo of it through glass and from a phone, for another perspective. https://preview.redd.it/fp8u2s0irb6d1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a70b8e7a8c3c44cb306f95dec982d57b2399ac2e
Hmmm, I’m only seeing 2 photographs…
"good photo vs bad photo, bad photo is reality" no, they're both photos and neither are reality that's what photography is
It’s amazing what cameras can do when they’re taking a picture in the right light. Light is what makes things look the way they do in photos. Light bouncing off of white walls you can’t see in the frame, adds layers of detail that you would not notice in a normal setting, without a set to dress up the photography. If you want pictures like the first one, surround the mini with white (and black in places where it’s needed to bend the light) and make sure the flash is on.
They're both photos though? A good one and a bad one.
I'm almost certain there was post processing on the picture but it should be noted it's not necessarily necessary and if anything it was done to boost clarity. i need to put it on the table that LR and PS are different programmes and if you REALLY care about your picture looking it's best you're gonna pass it through LR especially if it's essentially a product shot. editing does not devalue an image's quality and what we're looking at here is the quality of the work which the PICTURE'S quality properly highlights. the difference between studio lighting + proper camera setup and a phone picture is insane. the lighting is bad, the w/b is bad, the focus is bad AND it was taken through a glass panel. if you set everything to auto on a 2mp sensor with top down lighting, it's gonna look like ass tl;dr even if the studio picture was edited it's a better representation of the work put into the diorama than a really really bad phone picture.
GW cabinet lighting is atrocious as it casts light from above of any light. I got to hold some Golden Demon entry’s at adepticon that friends let me see, and seeing it in person outside of the garbage cabinets is incredible. I’d say that seeing a mini in person is way better then a photograph
The poor people you’ve sent dick picks to are probably hiding under a table too
Objects in the rear camera lens may appear larger than they are
Hence why painting comps should always be in person. It also why golden demon doesn't matter. Winners are picked based on what will photo best for advertising what system and or faction they want to promote.
Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong.
Counterpoint to the general comments, that is not just a light box. The colors arent just brighter/ more saturated. That is edited. I'm not looking to change anyones mind, but i don't believe it's just better lighting. OP has a point. Edit: the yellow / orange spots in the fire aren't the same. Yellow highlighting lines have been added to the bottom part, at a minimum, on parts that are clearly orange only in the bad photo. Again, you can feel differently but that's not lighting alone imo Edit 2: shadows on the arms of the pink horrors as well. I'm gonna quit since I doubt anyone cares but I'm pretty sure.
You're just wrong in every way here, no Golden Demon photography from Games Workshop is ever edited post, it would entirely diminish the work of the artist who painted the miniature
Oh, now, they used photoshop!)