Peterborough North

[bigwordsmith]

@Theakerr Apparently it helps with thermal values as well.

[Timara]

How does Tim do it ?

 

Coming slightly late to this one!  My method for getting that effect has changed a little since I was asked to give "Mallard" its shine.  All that had was two coats of Johnsons' Klear on the top.  Nowadays I give the base green a buffing-up with T-Cut and then add the coat or two of Klear afterwards.  Care is needed to preserve the lining, since too much work with the T-Cut will take that off too.  It'll work with almost any RTR finish.  Cotton buds and kitchen paper are my two tools, though I will use a (blunt) cocktail stick for finer areas if need be.

 

HTH!

[great northern]

Back to running trains, rather than relocating books, but first here is one of the least exciting photos ever posted on this thread.

 

In case anyone is interested, here is the fix for the problem. The piece of wood is screwed into the underside of the unit, so it can no longer move anywhere. As you can see though, I'm taking no chances, and as many books as possible have been relocated to lighten the load. Anyway, following a protracted diversion of trains via the GN and GE Joint, normal service is resumed with the arrival of the 8.42 from Grimsby. Immingham shed has used a Lincoln D11 for some reason, even though they have plenty of B1's. It would seem that Lincoln didn't take kindly to being given GE engines in place of the GC ones they were used to, and somehow got back some of those that had been transferred to Darnall the previous year.

Featured here is one of the new skies Andy Y has very kindly sent to me, though on another thread there seems to be a campaign to prevent such apparently heinous deception. How many of you would actually prefer to see bookcases or other extraneous items instead, just on the basis that is what is really there?

I will find the missing bits and attach them, I promise.

And the ripples in the platform will be corrected when Gravy Train is next here in a couple of weeks time.

I took these yesterday, when the sun was extremely strong, and as you can see even with the blinds closed it still got through. I rejected this shot for a number of reasons, which will be rather obvious, and which even photoshopping could not put right. Had I been able to remove the bleaching effect though, would that have been an unacceptable "deception"?  It ruins the photo, and if I were to go and take the shot again now it would not occur, as it is cloudy today. Photograhic images have always been altered, but now we do it digitally rather than in a darkroom. You will gather that I feel strongly about this.

 

 

[Mallard60022]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo bookcases. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssss to sky. I think the pics are beginning to look more authentic in that some look like they were taken in the distant past, using real film and that is meant as a compliment. More please G.

Quackers, (not at Wakefield but about to watch an A1 on the down main....oh better go....)

Edited April 12, 2014 by Mallard60022

[artizen]

Another vote for sky - please!

[Tony Wright]

The skies in your pictures really do make them look amazingly realistic, the three-quarter rear view of the D11 being an excellent example. So, I for one would always advocate using them. Indeed, your photography has come on in leaps and bounds - to the extent that if further pictures of Peterborough North were needed for publication it would be unlikely that Andy or I would be needed again. That said, with stacking, Andy would get greater depth of field, and I could (probably) achieve the same optically, but it would be a very close-run thing, especially where the camera is positioned as in the first picture. And, you're right about digital manipulation being used now instead of darkroom techniques. Interestingly, in the shot you reject, were it a wet-process picture one could burn-in the tender side and dodge the smokebox front. I suppose one could do that digitally - it might be interesting.

 

It's right to feel strongly about imagery, and your pictures have been inspirational. So, without being patronising, please carry on taking them in the manner you've mastered. But, would you feel happy putting a front shackle on the D11 digitally (the way I did with the DELTIC once), or even digitally obliterate the visually awful NEM pocket on the bogie (though they're easy enough to remove 'surgically')? You could also remove the ripples in the platform in the photo-programme with relative ease. 

 

Looking back, some of the finest pictures on the layout threads have been of PN (mine excepted), so I for one don't suggest for one second that you alter anything in your approach. In my opinion, it isn't a heinous crime to manipulate images of layouts to make them look at their best - just as you do. In fairness, such is the excellence of the model, too much 'fiddling' is not required. 

 

However, where a product shot is concerned (for a review, say, or a 'how I did it article'), I think it should show it just as it is - warts and all. With this in mind, I enclose two photographs. It would have been dead easy for me to have tidied up my soldering around the smokebox on the K1, and produced a wonderful job of fixing the balance weights to the wheels of a K3 chassis I've just finished, also hide the Romford axle nuts, straighten up the reversing lever, attend to the blobby soldering on the tender and make a better job of the boiler weathering - all digitally! 

 

The above is slightly off topic, but I hope of relevance. And, keep up the good work!

 

 

[bigwordsmith]

Gilbert & Tony, I'd say it isn't off topic at all as this seems to have become the premier discussion forum on RM Web - we're in the company of experts here and as ever when the great and good come together the debate will invariably widen. 

 

You could set up a discussion on the use of digital manipulation, in which case I'd throw in that there has to be a line somewhere, but defining it will be the challenge.

 

Using skies and filled in steam/smoke does add a dimension to the pics, but it also covers up a ton of laziness. Where you have a large open layout, as at an exhibition, the back scene is a critical component, so to an extent filling it in digitally is letting the modeller off the hook of having to provide one. I've spotted this happening in a couple of shots where the back scene has been digitally edited in using a photograph which makes everyone go green at the modeller's skills, but is not a true representation of the reality.

 

Certainly as soon as you start photoshopping pics of models - someone mentioned editing out the NEM pocket, then you're losing sight of the purpose of the pic, which is to show off the modelling skills of those involved.

 

I would liken it to waking up in the morning next to Kate Moss - without her makeup. The results are still gong to be outstanding, but a significant let-down compared to how she looked with all the editing!

 

But let's not forget this is something we all do for fun.

 

Peter

[Oldddudders]

PN was justly feted a while back for setting a new milestone in number of views. The great and the good post here, as do some of us from the (much) lower orders.

 

There is nothing broken here, it would seem, so there is no need for a fix. PN has its own style and that's that. Just carry on, please.

[bigwordsmith]

Sorry folks - just re-read and realised that my comment could have been taken as a criticism of Gilbert's work - quite the opposite, I'm a huge fan and welcome very new shot.

 

I think PN's got the balance right - Sky is way preferable to bookcases, although I'm not sure the Peterborough Tourist Information Centre would be overly happy about the place always being depicted as under heavy cloud!

 

My concern is when you see fantastic layouts with what looks like a work of art scenic backdrop, but is actually a piece of photoshoppery, or as Tony suggested, retouching flaws to make a model look more perfect than it is.

 

Not all editors are as scrupulous on this as they should be!

[Tony Wright]

Gilbert & Tony, I'd say it isn't off topic at all as this seems to have become the premier discussion forum on RM Web - we're in the company of experts here and as ever when the great and good come together the debate will invariably widen. 

 

You could set up a discussion on the use of digital manipulation, in which case I'd throw in that there has to be a line somewhere, but defining it will be the challenge.

 

Using skies and filled in steam/smoke does add a dimension to the pics, but it also covers up a ton of laziness. Where you have a large open layout, as at an exhibition, the back scene is a critical component, so to an extent filling it in digitally is letting the modeller off the hook of having to provide one. I've spotted this happening in a couple of shots where the back scene has been digitally edited in using a photograph which makes everyone go green at the modeller's skills, but is not a true representation of the reality.

 

Certainly as soon as you start photoshopping pics of models - someone mentioned editing out the NEM pocket, then you're losing sight of the purpose of the pic, which is to show off the modelling skills of those involved.

 

I would liken it to waking up in the morning next to Kate Moss - without her makeup. The results are still gong to be outstanding, but a significant let-down compared to how she looked with all the editing!

 

But let's not forget this is something we all do for fun.

 

Peter

It's interesting you mention backscenes. Oddly enough, neither PN nor my own Little Bytham has a backscene. I cannot comment about Gilbert's reasons for not having one, but in my case I wanted to be able to photograph the layout from both sides. When Andy took pictures of LB he superimposed some actual shots of the real area around LB to put behind. They were mightily impressive as visual images but it wasn't at all true. It certainly wasn't my work (though as an 'artist' I've painted quite a few backscenes for Wolverhampton MRC layouts, and others'), or the work of anyone else. Quite frankly, I felt uneasy when the pictures were published. You see it too often today in my opinion in magazines. I've done it myself - superimposing a real pithead backscene behind Ynisybwll Fach (forgive me if the spelling is wrong). The results looked 'tremendous' but neither the layout builders, nor any exhibition viewers were much impressed. If anything, it took away from the excellence of the actual modelling. All I do is put a sky (real) or plain background behind my own pictures. It's time-consuming; lasso tool in point-to-point mode following all the contours, create a new layer, introduce new image, superimpose the new image, then flatten and merge, As for image manipulation having always been done (by wet-processing), in my opinion, such a procedure as just described would have been impossible to create in a darkroom. 

 

And, I rather hope someone might have noticed by now, in applying the above procedure to the K3 model (but using the flood-fill mode to white instead of a second layer), I neglected to take out the space enclosed by the front vacuum pipe!

 

As for the 'great and good', I'm sure some do post on here. But, as I've said before, when it comes to photography the new 'masters' leave me in their slipstream, Peter Leyland's work on here I can only marvel at, Ian Willets' carriages are superb and the loco conversions by Tim Easter are most ingenious. Though I've built one or two locos which work on PN, compared to some of the work of the 'greats' I've photographed- those who work in EM, P4 or the larger gauges - they're not in the same class. 

Edited April 13, 2014 by Tony Wright

[Mallard60022]

If I woke up in the morning next to Kate.......oh shut up you fool and get back to discussing the real world of railways.

Dudders, as always. is the voice of reason and thus I agree as it is as simple as he states. Yes Gilbert, do what you want with PN and the photography, do a little tidy up here and there if you wish and mention that. What we want is loads of your lovely loco's and stock to gaze at and wide shots of your layout to whisk us back on the photographic magic carpet to a wonderful summer in '58. (...oh yes, + sky effects please )

Quackers.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Mallard60022

[coachmann]

Peterborough is a damn fine model and I am sure it would stand out just as fine without the addition of skies, which must drive Gilbert mad at times when filleting a GNR lattice signal post. I wonder if it would be a simple task to add very pale blue boards behind the scenic section (as I have). I say I wonder because I realise Peterborough is meant to be viewed from outside the oval. But if boards were possible, they would make life easier at the photography stage and even make it easier to add skies occasionally.

[westerner]

Adding to Larry, perhaps there could be a way of being able to attach temporary boards behind the area being photographed, even it were with small G gramps to the bottom of the baseboard.

[bigwordsmith]

Tony - interesting observations - BRM is far from being the worst at the 'fill in.' I've seen some total fakes in other titles to which I no longer subscribe.

 

Like many modellers, I want to see and learn the work of the great and good, but I also want to know that I can at least have some chance of striving to emulate their results. Photoshopping out their missing bits does neither them nor us a service..

 

To this day I remember being taken to an exhibition by my father when I was just 10 or 11, and seeing a layout with Allan Downes buildings on it. We were both both transfixed and completely missed the hand-built black five that eaed into sight beneath the amazing scenery. I think it was Mr. Downes himself who commented in an article that for a railway to be a true model, the trains should be incidental to the scene in which they run, not its focus.

 

My view is that subtle enhancement - as Gilbert does, is fine, because it leaves the models, many of which are outstanding, to speak for themselves.

 

'nuff said by me, Gilbert thanks for letting us go off topic!

[great northern]

Oh well, having opened the can of worms, I suppose I should make my own position quite clear. I'm trying, with the assistance of master craftsmen whose work I could never hope to equal, to recreate a nostalgic view of a time long past, but which I still remember with great pleasure. That time is never going to come back, but I can at least attempt to have something which bears some resemblance to it, albeit in minature and restricted form. All of which means I guess that I want it to look as real as possible. For me, that gives the same satisfaction as those whose skills greatly exceed mine can get by making things themselves.

 

The layout was originally intended to be viewed from the operating well, but I quickly discovered that there were equally good, if not better views to be had from the window side. When it comes to photography, it is no contest, as the light coming in is so strong as to make contre jour shots challenging to say the least. For that reason, there are no backscenes..... yet. There will be one or two parts of the layout where eventually they will be erected - to the North on the Up side, and Station Road behind the loading dock at the South end, if I can figure out how to do it, and on the other side at the North end leading up to Spital Bridge. Otherwise, it can't be done without restricting the views too much when looking at the layout in person.  I do have some light blue card as suggested by Larry (Coachmann) which can be temporarily put up with the use of strategically placed strips of velcro, if I remember that is.

 

I do not agree with the use of digital manipulation to hide or correct the results of poor modelling, and I don't do it, nor would I want a professional to do it when dealing with images intended for publication. Thus at the moment you can see gaps under buildings, and will continue to do so until Gravy Train and I get round to bedding them in. The same goes for leaning lamp posts, and other such abominations. But wait a minute, what if that lamp post got caught by a sleeve just before the photo was taken? It does happen, and Murphy's law dictates that it won't be noticed until the shot is being processed. But if that lamp is normally perpendicular, isn't it rather unfair to the layout owner to have it shown "warts and all" when that particular wart is not normally there?  The same goes I think for loco lamps. Nearly all of my locos, nearly 140 now , have correct lamps attached, but occasionally I forget, and Murphy again dictates that will be the loco in shot. My skills with photoshopping are very limited, and I don't know how to put them on digitally, so I don't/can't do it, but if 138 of 140 locos do have lamps, is it wrong to correct the one that doesn't? Before Tim's last visit I carefully examined every loco, and noted those that were missing coupling hooks, vac pipes shackles or a combination of the three.  We then searched for those that had fallen off, and I thought that we had sorted them all, but of course I then photographed that D11. It happens.

 

Added steam/smoke I confess to being very ambivalent about, as more often than not I think it doesn't really work. How much would one see emanating from the double kylchap of an engine at rest anyway, particularly on a hot day?  i entirely agree with TW  regarding the addition of real backscenes. Andy Y's photos with a background of real local scenery looked stunning, but it isn't what one sees when viewing Little Bytham. Perhaps one photo of that sort could be included in a magazine shoot, provided that the caption makes it clear what has been added?

 

So, no airbrushing out of bad modelling on here, but for goodness sake to suggest as has been done on TW's thread that the addition of simple skies should not be permitted is surely taking things to ridiculous lengths?  That's what got me started on this in the first place. If you look at my layout "in the flesh", you will not see book cases, because they are above your eye line, particularly if as most people do, you get down to rail level. OK, the windows can't be avoided, but that's all. Unfortunately when taking photographs, in most cases the bookcases, plus other things such as fluourescent lights do come into shot. That immediately destroys the illusion of reality I want to create. Even cropping of images, (would those against any form of manipulation ban that as well?),can't always get rid of such things. We all know that model raiways don't have real sky backgrounds, unless of course one can set the whole thing up out of doors, so there is no misleading going on. One is merely setting the layout in context of the real world, and showing it as it would have been back in 1958. I can't remember ever seeing a set of bookcases behind any loco that I looked at back then.

 

Two final points. Why is Peterborough nearly always cloudy? Because I'm rarely convinced by blue skies even after I've toned them down. And many thanks to TW for his comments about my photography, but it really doesn't bear close scrutiny, and I've no idea how to do a lot of the stuff that Andy Y can do, so if it is going to be made more public that it is on here, he's the man.

[bigwordsmith]

Great response Gilbert and the key as you point out is that the recreation is giving us all a great deal of pleasure.

[Mallard60022]

Three cheers for 1958 and all who recreate it (and '59. '60, '61, '62 and most of '63.....) life after 1963 was just not quite the same.

P

[great northern]

Adding to Larry, perhaps there could be a way of being able to attach temporary boards behind the area being photographed, even it were with small G gramps to the bottom of the baseboard.

Thanks Alan. I've been messing around with velcro, but clamps might well be easier. I'll give it a try.

[great northern]

After giving you all that lot to wade through, the least I can do is show a few more photos.

Here is the first Up Cleethorpes running in to Platform 2. I don't know why this has come out so small.

And now waiting for the right away. I don't know why this one is so big either! and I'm still not convinced by blue skies.

Alternatively, you can have something like this, exactly as it was taken, with glorious technicolour bookcases, though I forgot to take the card away so you could see all of them.

Here is the Down Fair Maid behind Golden Fleece, heading determinedly towards some blue card.

Or you can have it framed by sky. I know which I prefer. I'll get off my soapbox now. And cloudy skies look better.

[jonny777]

Yes, the grey skies do fit with the rather diffuse shadows on the model. The all over blue sky does not, because unless the sun had been obscured by the one small area of cloud in the sky, the shadows would be much stronger.

 

In other words when the sky suggests the sun is shining, the contrast between light and shade would be much greater.  I quite like the effect on the final photo where some bright light is coming through the drawn curtains at an almost horizontal angle, because it suggests late evening in summer, and fortunately the layout is orientated the correct way for this to come from "the west", as it were.

[micklner]

The "normal" photos appear to be sharper and with a software programme could easliy be cropped to remove the vast amount of spare space showing shelving and door etc.

 

At least we know what is really there on such photos :jester:

[bigwordsmith]

To support micklner's suggestion - here's one of those 'natural shots' which I screen grabbed and cropped using native apps on the mac - A lot less infill needed and still hugely realistic. OF course you can't do this unless the original image is good

 

[coachmann]

Two final points. Why is Peterborough nearly always cloudy? Because I'm rarely convinced by blue skies even after I've toned them down.

Blue skies fade to white towards the horizon due to air pollution and what not, so photograph them low from a high rise car park or somewhere. Saves trying to figure out how to fade them mechanically. 

[westerner]

I should have added or large bulldog clips.

[tetleys]

I'm arriving late on platform 3 but may I add my five penn'th on the photos shopping question.

 

I recall the endless comments on this post and the hours of sleepless nights and pacing the golf course at all hours of the night Gilbert endured over his very photogenic book cases and the lengths to which he went to disguise them now he's mastered the black art of photo shopping he's beating himself up for his infidelities from the purity of railway modelling, he can't win.

 

I'm not clever enough nor do I have the patience to embark on hours of photo shopping but several RMWeb members undertook to add moody moorland back drops or miserable grey rain to some of the images of my old Tetleys Mills, was I offended, did I lose the purity of the models, were we cheating? Bo-----cks they looked great, the actual models were as built but the viewer was left with a very realistic scene instead of my wall hung pictures, curtains or magnolia paintwork.

 

I accept I'm often a voice in the wilderness and if one is photographing one's own models they are entitled to present it warts and all or in some cases a brilliant loco or rake of coaches, building or piece of scenery 'enhanced' with a wandering cat or under base board collection of boxes, books and general clutter. In other words we can all revert back to roll film, make it black and white and forget rail level shots we should just do those beloved aeroplane shots showing the whole scene in one fell swoop. We can all buy those Peco back scenes as well oh how I miss The Railway Modeller circa 1970 and Triang ?Hornby Dublo and not to mention waking to frost on the 'inside' of windows, now that was modelling.

 

For me it's the models and their setting that floats my boat not photographic purity though I'm not fully convinced of added smoke to EVERY shot.

 

Philistine of Ancaster