MRJ 262

[5050]

The whole arguing over nothing gets a bit dull after a while, particularly when the same circular discussions crop up time and time again. Live and let live folks.

 

Blimey, it's taken longer to read this thread than to read the whole magazine!  Lighten up guys, it's only a train set

[Robin2]

 I rarely go to exhibitions, but when i do I get myself at eye level and as close as i can to the layout or model.

I genuinely find that very interesting because I don't understand why. I'm quite sure you are not doing that just so you can find fault with the modelling.

 

For me, I reckon if I have to get close in order to be impressed then the whole concept is not working.

 

...R

[Craigw]

I genuinely find that very interesting because I don't understand why. I'm quite sure you are not doing that just so you can find fault with the modelling.

 

For me, I reckon if I have to get close in order to be impressed then the whole concept is not working.

 

...R

 

Why do i do it?  Because my strongest impression of being by the side of a railway line is being up close as a train passes. Its the impression of a train clanking by and the passing of the wheels that gets me in. I then sit back and look at the over all scene. But when I want to see things in one particular area, I move in again.

 

Craig w

[Phil Parker]

I genuinely find that very interesting because I don't understand why. I'm quite sure you are not doing that just so you can find fault with the modelling.

 

For me, I reckon if I have to get close in order to be impressed then the whole concept is not working.

 

...R

 

Surely it's because we experience railways (and life) close up and so seek to see models in the same way. If you only see railway lines from many miles away then I can understand standing 4ft back every time, but to replicate the experience of being "in" the scene, you'll have to get closer.

 

But then I prefer Canaletto to Turner. 

[chris p bacon]

But then I prefer Canaletto to Turner. 

 

 

Is that the cheese sauce or the tomato one........I bet you call it gravy...

[Compound2632]

Surely it's because we experience railways (and life) close up and so seek to see models in the same way. If you only see railway lines from many miles away then I can understand standing 4ft back every time, but to replicate the experience of being "in" the scene, you'll have to get closer.

 

But then I prefer Canaletto to Turner. 

 

I have been known to kneel in front of certain layouts at exhibitions, purely for this reason - I hope my actions have not been misinterpreted. I perfectly well understand why most layouts are exhibited at the level they are. Could exhibition managers perhaps provide prie-dieux as well as step-up stools? They would form quite an effective barrier too.

[Robin2]

Why do i do it?  Because my strongest impression of being by the side of a railway line is being up close as a train passes

I can understand that. But I can't imagine that it is possible to reproduce that impression with a model, not even with the "models" on the Romney Hythe and Dymchurch railway.

 

...R

[davknigh]

I can understand that. But I can't imagine that it is possible to reproduce that impression with a model, not even with the "models" on the Romney Hythe and Dymchurch railway.

 

...R

Perhaps not, but we can try.

 

Cheers,

 

David

[Robin2]

Perhaps not, but we can try.

 

I reserve that level of imagination for stuff that would not be appropriate on a family-friendly forum

 

...R

[NHY 581]

I enjoy the close up photography both in mags and taking my own photos of my models. I prefer it and fail to see the issue in it.

 

 

Rob

[LBRJ]

There is, or there should be no issue there...But it is not the only way to go.

 

If you built a barn sized layout of a station near Doncaster in P4, realised it did not work as well as you wished and rebuilt it in OO I am sure you would not wish anyone taking pics to focus too hard on the track gauge, for example

Or, hopefully you would want that cos the whole show now works better

[Bernard Lamb]

IMHO this mania for close-up photography has ruined the hobby for anyone who is (A) not an expert and (B) does not have the huge amount of time and money needed to avoid the nit-picking flaws that are only visible in close up photos.

 

The normal viewing distance for model railways at exhibitions is about 3 or 4 feet, maybe even more. At that range the Turner equivalent will convey the essence of the model perfectly (assuming the model has an essence).

 

...R

 

But this is the MRJ thread where detail matters.

If you want the just the essence you might be better to look else where.

Guy Williams would point out cab fittings in the cab roofs of his kings that you could not see when stationary let alone when running and say I know they are there.

That has to be the standard to aim at. 

I knew a chap who built a layout almost 50' long and loved it when people would pick out tiny cameos in photographs. Every detail mattered to him and his group.

It also looked good from the normal viewing distance.

Each to his own but we must never loose sight of the goal of continuous improvement and education to enable more people to attain such standards.

That is something that MRJ has certainly achieved. Very much so in the current issue and close up photography has helped.

Mania?

Or jut another tool to help?

I can remember the days when I worked with optical drawing instruments and air gauges to multiply very small dimensions while checking tools.

These days a quick snapshot and all is revealed. I would have loved to have access to a digital camera 50 years ago when I started to have a need to measure things.

Bernard

[John_Hughes]

But this is the MRJ thread where detail matters.

If you want the just the essence you might be better to look else where.

Guy Williams would point out cab fittings in the cab roofs of his kings that you could not see when stationary let alone when running and say I know they are there.

That has to be the standard to aim at. 

I knew a chap who built a layout almost 50' long and loved it when people would pick out tiny cameos in photographs. Every detail mattered to him and his group.

It also looked good from the normal viewing distance.

Each to his own but we must never loose sight of the goal of continuous improvement and education to enable more people to attain such standards.

That is something that MRJ has certainly achieved. Very much so in the current issue and close up photography has helped.

Mania?

Or jut another tool to help?

I can remember the days when I worked with optical drawing instruments and air gauges to multiply very small dimensions while checking tools.

These days a quick snapshot and all is revealed. I would have loved to have access to a digital camera 50 years ago when I started to have a need to measure things.

Bernard

 

I know exactly what you mean, and I partly agree with you; but why does it have to be the standard to aim at?

 

I play the piano tolerably well, but I'm not Glenn Gould and never can be, no matter how hard I work at it; I make decent models that run well, but I'm not Guy Williams either.

 

The work of both (and many others) inspires me to do the best I can commensurate with my abilities at the time and my desire to still actually enjoy playing Mozart or building a 14XX tank or whatever. I model - and play the piano - because I enjoy those things. Life's too short to be able to excel at everything.

 

From time to time, though not very often, I show what I've done on here, and I've had layouts in various exhibitions in the past, and they've generally behaved themselves decently. But I'm not going to set my own bar so high that I have no hope of getting over it, though I admire those whose work puts mine in the shade.

[Robin2]

But this is the MRJ thread where detail matters.

This is the RMWeb Forum commenting on MRJ so I think any common-place comment is relevant

 

If you want the just the essence you might be better to look else where.

Guy Williams would point out cab fittings in the cab roofs of his kings that you could not see when stationary let alone when running and say I know they are there.

That has to be the standard to aim at.

Why?

 

I can admire Guy Williams' highly detailed models just as I can admire a Faberge egg. And I certainly have no wish to curtail the activities of anyone who wishes to make a fine-scale model of anything. More power to his/her elbow.

 

But I don't like the implication that people who are not aiming at those standards are letting the side down.

 

I would much prefer to see people making things badly rather than buying things well.

 

...R

Edited April 17, 2018 by Robin2

[johnarcher]

I know exactly what you mean, and I partly agree with you; but why does it have to be the standard to aim at?

 

I play the piano tolerably well, but I'm not Glenn Gould and never can be, no matter how hard I work at it; I make decent models that run well, but I'm not Guy Williams either.

 

The work of both (and many others) inspires me to do the best I can commensurate with my abilities at the time and my desire to still actually enjoy playing Mozart or building a 14XX tank or whatever. I model - and play the piano - because I enjoy those things. Life's too short to be able to excel at everything.

 

I'd largely agree with that. I play the baroque flute pretty inadequately, well short of Barthold Kuijken, (to be a bit more obscure than Glenn Gould), but still, even at my advanced age, hope to raise my abilities a step or two closer.

So I would mostly agree, except for 'my abilities at the time', for they may improve in time, and doesn't one do that by admiring and aiming at Gould, Kuijkem or Williams standards, even though you accept you'll never get there?

 

But I don't like the implication that people who are not aiming at those standards are letting the side down.

 

I would much prefer to see people making things badly rather than buying things well.

 

...R

I certainly agree with that last sentence.

I don't think it's a matter of letting the side down, just, as above, that by aiming at those standards one might do it a little bit less badly, which is surely worth-while.

[Iain Popplewell]

 If you're into buying things like I am, don't buy RTR. like I used to, waste of time. No get into making things for yourself, preferably in summat purporting to be "finescale".

 

Now there's no limit to what I can buy. Last four years have seen me buy spray booths, compressors, airbrushes, drawing instruments, soldering ironsx3, fluxes, brass sheet. brass castings, wheels, etched kits, books galore, a lathe (now lathes are brilliant cos you have to buy loads of stuff to go with them.) lathe tools, dial test indicators, digital calipers, centre drills, drills, slideway oil, slot drills.

 

No there's much more to the hobby than just buying RTR, you'll get much more satisfaction if you make things for yourself, even the simplest plasticard building will do for starters, and even better you'll get to spend a fortune on stuff you didn't even know existed when all you did was buy RTR.

[Enterprisingwestern]

 If you're into buying things like I am, don't buy RTR. like I used to, waste of time. No get into making things for yourself, preferably in summat purporting to be "finescale".

 

Now there's no limit to what I can buy. Last four years have seen me buy spray booths, compressors, airbrushes, drawing instruments, soldering ironsx3, fluxes, brass sheet. brass castings, wheels, etched kits, books galore, a lathe (now lathes are brilliant cos you have to buy loads of stuff to go with them.) lathe tools, dial test indicators, digital calipers, centre drills, drills, slideway oil, slot drills.

 

No there's much more to the hobby than just buying RTR, you'll get much more satisfaction if you make things for yourself, even the simplest plasticard building will do for starters, and even better you'll get to spend a fortune on stuff you didn't even know existed when all you did was buy RTR.

 

Whilst I fully agree with your sentiments, selective use of RTR gives you the one item none of us can buy, time.

 

Mike.

[BlackRat]

If detail matters..... is it ok to use thin nylon strands as grass?

 

Or ground foam as tree leaves?

 

Yes, because to quote our military modelling cousins 'Stand Off' rules apply and they look good from a distance.

 

What I (sometimes) fail to understand is how someone will ( not sure brag is the right word here) comment on how they've done N to the Xth degree and then place an amorphous blob of whitemetal or plastic which purports to be a member of the loco crew.

 

We are getting there now ( thanks to firms like ModelU) but it seems odd that someone will go to get something absolutely right, then seemingly overlook ( to some) the glaringly obvious.

 

Sometimes it's the bigger picture that counts.

 

You can find fault with anything, if you really want to, and you look hard enough of course.

[Hroth]

You can find fault with anything, if you really want to, and you look hard enough of course.

 

Its what the magnifying glass was invented for, or the scroll wheel when viewing a photo on line.....

[Tricky]

I must confess I really don’t see what all the fuss is about. I don’t critisice anybody else’s work on here. Why should I and for what purpose? It’s a hobby for goodness sake after all. One man’s enjoyment is another’s anguish. Some like detail (me!) and others the broader picture. For me, close-up photos I take serve to highlight things otherwise missed, and help me to improve. I draw inspiration from those better than me and hope I in turn inspire others. I don’t whip myself with birch twigs over not getting anything ‘right’. As I’ve said before, life is way too short! I aim to improve and this forum and MRJ help me achieve what I want to. Previous stuff I’ve done is not now ‘wrong’; just an indicator of what I have learnt in the mean time and what I have improved upon. I love the journey, not just the destination. Which other hobby after all is as multi-disciplines as ours?

Edited April 17, 2018 by Tricky

[NHY 581]

I must confess I really don’t see what all the fuss is about. I don’t critisice anybody else’s work on here. Why should I and for what purpose? It’s a hobby for goodness sake after all. One man’s enjoyment is another’s anguish. Some like detail (me!) and others the broader picture. For me, close-up photos I take serve to highlight things otherwise missed, and help me to improve. I draw inspiration from those better than me and hope I in turn inspire others. I don’t whip myself with birch twigs over not getting anything ‘right’. As I’ve said before, life is way too short! I aim to improve and this forum and MRJ help me achieve what I want to. Previous stuff I’ve done is not now ‘wrong’; just an indicator of what I have learnt in the mean time and what I have improved upon. I love the journey, not just the destination. Which other hobby after all is as multi-disciplines as ours?

That just about sums things up. I could not have said things any better myself Richard. Your modest words reflect the skill and passion for your chosen subject which shine through via your beautifully understated modelling. It certainly provides inspiration to myself and I am sure to many others..

 

 

Rob.

Edited April 17, 2018 by NHY 581

[queensquare]

I must confess I really don’t see what all the fuss is about. I don’t critisice anybody else’s work on here. Why should I and for what purpose? It’s a hobby for goodness sake after all. One man’s enjoyment is another’s anguish. Some like detail (me!) and others the broader picture. For me, close-up photos I take serve to highlight things otherwise missed, and help me to improve. I draw inspiration from those better than me and hope I in turn inspire others. I don’t whip myself with birch twigs over not getting anything ‘right’. As I’ve said before, life is way too short! I aim to improve and this forum and MRJ help me achieve what I want to. Previous stuff I’ve done is not now ‘wrong’; just an indicator of what I have learnt in the mean time and what I have improved upon. I love the journey, not just the destination. Which other hobby after all is as multi-disciplines as ours?

An excellent post, couldn't agree more. Richards wonderfully atmospheric models will be back in MRJ very soon.

 

Jerry

[PenrithBeacon]

In that case, we should be using old RTR from about 1981. After all, that stuff sort of looks right at normal viewing distance....

Interesting all this stuff about normal viewing distance particularly as the normal viewpoint is a scale few hundred feet up from a helicopter

 

My preference is to see a layout as a might see it if I were a 23mm high figure in the landscape ie as I would view the full size railway from my 5’-11”. It also helps if I can get into some unusual corners of a layout.

 

Taking photos helps me to do this and sometimes I publish on RMweb not with the intention of being critical but hoping to illustrate the skills and imagination of the modeller.

 

Regards

Edited April 20, 2018 by PenrithBeacon