What's involved with 'processing' an image for the magazine?

[Grovenor]

Hornby Duchess of Abercorn LMS 6234 in forward gear, coming off shed for a hard WCML turn..... I hope it's not too irrelevant.

If its in forward gear why does all the smoke and steam suggest it is running in reverse? Are we supposed to asume that a full gale is blowing?

Regards

Keith

PS The pic is pretty stunning nonetheless.

[Andy Y]

I also believe that they do nothing to add to the image and only detract from the quality of the model.

 

That's a personal preference/opinion which you're perfectly entitled to hold rather than a fact; if I were photographing your layout I'd give you the option of with/without in any final imagery. Until such time as we can produce a modelling equivalent of the Daily Prophet with a flexible graphene sheet which we download our smallest-room reading material onto it's one of the few ways of conveying that a model does function.

[Steven B]

I can see your point Andy. However, I've yet to see a model railway produce smoke like that shown in the magazines. Similarly I've seen few real steam locos/trains produce steam and smoke like that shown in the modelling magazines.

 

If you (and RM, MR, HM etc) want to show a functioning model would it better to do it via videos on a webpage (or embedded in the case of digital versions of the magazine). Model Railroad Hobbyist manages to mix video content with an electronic magazine so I don't see why something similar couldn't be done for the British magazines.

 

Happy modelling.

 

Steven B.

[Huw Griffiths]

Ah, so the 'render clouds' is a new creation in the smoke source layer, and not a rendering of the existing clouds in the picture!

 

I'm not too familiar with cloning, but presumably you just take an area of it from the 'smoke source' layer and in effect spray it on the 'smoke layer'?

 

1. Spot on - I can see where the confusion may have arisen.

 

2. That's it; it sprays a thin duplication onto the 'smoke' layer.

 

I'm not saying my approach is the definitive way as it's self-taught rather than books or tutorials but it's just a method that works for me. I just wish there was a quick and easy way of masking around OHLE, trees and lattice-post signals!

 

Would the Magic Wand tool be any use for that Andy?

 

About as much use as a real magic wand would be Steve; it just cannot differentiate with sufficient consistency in areas of similar colour and tone without a lot of additional work after a best stab.

 

I hope I have not missed this somewhere in the text, but how long would that complete process take, approximately?

 

I'd agree about the timescale - and a very large percentage of this time is actually taken up with doing the selections / masking.

 

It isn't exactly the same thing - but I don't know how many people here have tried to "fix" an old, scratched, faded and coffee stained, photo of some well liked, but now dead, relative, who was photographed against a cluttered background many years before you were born. I can guarantee some "fun" at the edges of their hair and clothes - and at the edges of any stains.

 

It's extremely difficult to accurately select the edges - doesn't matter whether you use "magic wand" (very "hit and miss"), "find edges" (similar), the "extract" tool (can be slightly better - but difficult to get the program to recognise the transitions you want), a mask drawn on some sort of adjustment layer (almost as bad - but also very time consuming), or paths (what I'd probably go for - but it's hard to get used to - and not available on all versions of PhotoShop). Whichever of these "tools" are available in your program - and whichever you use - I don't think any of them are exactly brilliant.

 

There are also a number of after market "plug in" tools, sold for doing this - and other stuff. I've never tried any of them - so I can't comment on them.

 

Also, whichever tools you use, I suspect that it won't be too long before you start thinking in terms of "feathering" selections by a couple of pixels - to try and avoid the "cardboard cutout" look.

 

Selections for stuff like railings, fences and OHLE are just as difficult to do - and often for exactly the same reason - I'm not aware of any "guaranteed effective" way of ensuring that you get clean edges between these features and the background.

 

Like it or not, you're always likely to be looking at a balancing act between accuracy of selections / masking and time taken to do this work.

 

 

However, let's assume you've finally created selections / masks that you are happy with. You now come to the bit where you clone certain bits of the picture - and try to make the transition from "real" to "cloned" look as seamless as possible.

 

I'm sure you'll be working on a new layer - partly because it makes it easier to modify the cloned area without affecting everything else - partly because, if you really don't like the result, this gives you the option of trying again.

 

At this point, you'll realise that different areas of the picture - that you think are the same colour / pattern - are actually nothing of the sort. The differences might be obvious - they might not - but you'll probably notice them the moment you start cloning. You might also notice that certain patterns seem to repeat themselves - and that some of this repetition doesn't look quite "right".

 

To some extent, you might be able to disguise this by cloning in a number of low opacity "washes" of different picture areas - on top of each other - but probably with slightly different edges. You might also be able to alter the hue, saturation or brilliance of the cloned stuff.

 

Sometimes, it's easier to create a new "texture" from scratch - by rendering it - using some of the "clouds", "noise" and other rendering filters in your image processing program.

 

It's possible to spend many an enjoyable hour experimenting with this stuff - and, over the years, I've come across some amazing internet tutorials which tell you how to generate (from scratch) all manner of cool stuff like imaginary landscapes, planets and even solar systems. A lot of this stuff can be well worth checking out - but probably not now.

 

Eventually - after selecting, cloning, rendering, altering colours etc, you'll probably find yourself looking at some picture you're happy with. At this point, you now need to make a copy of your original image layer - and your correction / clone layers - place all these layers into a new layer set - and make a duplicate set.

 

Now, merge the "duped" set - and check that you're still happy with the result. (Please note that you still haven't destroyed your original - you don't want to! In fact, at his point, it might be worth saving all the new and copied stuff as a separate file.) If you are happy with the result, do a final check for rough transitions between original areas and areas you've worked on - it might be possible to fix these using "tools" like "blur" or "smudge" - or perhaps the "patch" or "texture" tools that can be found in some versions of PhotoShop.

 

You might even wish to alter all - or part - of the new image - to suggest that it might have been photographed under different light conditions - perhaps even to make it look like certain parts have been "spotlighted" or "floodlit". (Here's one point at which you're likely to find it very useful if you've still got all the separate layers - you might need to work on some, but not others.) A lot of photo manipulation software allows you to do all this - and more - but it's really something which comes with practice (a bit like the CG planets in some of the tutorials I've alluded to). It can all be very enjoyable to do - but I wouldn't recommend it on any pictures that matter, unless you've had plenty of practice.

 

 

If you're happy with the result, it's now time to sit back and admire your work (or, if you work in publishing or graphic design, start thinking about the dozens of other pictures that require similar attention, all by yesterday).

 

If you're not happy - well I'm afraid it's time to start retracing your steps. Now you know why I suggested creating loads of different layers - copying everything into layer sets (which, themselves, get duplicated) - and, above all, always working on a copy and never doing anything to the original.

 

 

I don't pretend to be an expert here - but I think it's fair to say that PhotoShopping is one of those things that needs to be subtle to really work. I'm certain that we've all seen bad examples of PhotoShopping - pictures where some elements look like cardboard cutouts (possibly out of perspective or lit from a different direction to everything else) - "out of the box" RTR loco models, complete with tension lock couplings, roughly superimposed onto library photos of Crewe station - stuff like that. I can see the join - I'm sure you can - and I'm sure everyone else can, too.

 

I'm not saying this to poke fun at people who've produced this sort of stuff - merely to point out that it's probably best not to copy some ideas.

 

I'm sure we've all got standards - standards that we're constantly aiming to improve on - and that sort of stuff really doesn't cut the mustard.

 

 

At this point, I should add that I've got no problem with Andy's PhotoShop work at the start of this thread - it's subtle, effective and well done. Same goes for a number of other people who have also produced good quality PhotoShop work.

 

There are, however, some people who routinely come up with stuff that nobody with standards would ever wish to be associated with. I'd like to hope that this doesn't apply to anyone here.

 

 

Huw.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Huw Griffiths

[Neil]

Perhaps our take on part 4 (steam and smoke) depends on the perceived purpose of the photo - is it trying to

a. represent the model accurately, or

b. do essentially what all models are doing, and pretend to be the real thing?

Is part 4 just one more degree of pretending? In that case it is any different to adding a sky?

 

I think it's just a manifestation of our differing tastes. The worth or otherwise of adding 'effects' will depend on our preferences. But even if the style of presentation isn't to ones taste, how it's done can still fascinate.

[queensquare]

I think it's just a manifestation of our differing tastes. The worth or otherwise of adding 'effects' will depend on our preferences. But even if the style of presentation isn't to ones taste, how it's done can still fascinate.

 

Fully agree. Image manipulation is always going to be a marmite issue and it would be nice if this thread could concentrate on how its done - if you don't like it you probably don't want to know how anyway. I think it would a real shame if it descended into a debate between those who do and don't like it - that has been done to death elsewhere and to be honest will always boil down to taste.

 

Jerry

[Huw Griffiths]

I'm not saying my approach is the definitive way as it's self-taught rather than books or tutorials but it's just a method that works for me. I just wish there was a quick and easy way of masking around OHLE, trees and lattice-post signals!

 

 

Following a break for food, I've had chance to think about this one from a different angle - which may, or may not, be helpful.

 

You probably know that a lot of stuff in films and TV programmes is shot against a blank backdrop.

 

Is there any sensible way in which something similar could be done for layout photography - perhaps by having some grey* card placed behind the layout (or section of it) - and adding the sky afterwards from a library shot?

 

(* Other colours are available - in TV and film, I believe that blue - and green - backdrops have often been used. However, I might be wrong on this - I've never worked in these areas. I'm sure that some RMweb members would know a lot more about this than I do.)

 

 

In all honesty, I'm not completely sure what I think about PhotoShop with regard to layout photography.

 

I like things to look much like they do in real life - I'm certainly no fan of some of the obviously fake stuff I've seen in some places.

 

However, I also can't claim to be too happy about obvious distractions in the background behind layouts - stuff like shelf fixings, mains sockets and the like.

 

I'm not sure that it's really possible to please everyone all the time - even pleasing one person all the time isn't too easy.

 

I guess it's a case of being sensible about it and trying to strike a balance - something which has definitely been achieved here.

 

 

Huw.

[Andy Y]

I watched the 'remove unwanted background' tutorial as it's that aspect which I thought might be of most use to me. Fascinating, the image program used is unfamiliar to me, seems far more complex than anything I've ever used. Would it be a stupid suggestion to use a toll of bright pink paper as a photo backdrop as it would be so unlike any of the foreground colours that the program could identify it even round the fiddly bits?

Following a break for food, I've had chance to think about this one from a different angle - which may, or may not, be helpful.

 

You probably know that a lot of stuff in films and TV programmes is shot against a blank backdrop.

 

Is there any sensible way in which something similar could be done for layout photography - perhaps by having some grey* card placed behind the layout (or section of it) - and adding the sky afterwards from a library shot?

 

(* Other colours are available - in TV and film, I believe that blue - and green - backdrops have often been used. However, I might be wrong on this - I've never worked in these areas. I'm sure that some RMweb members would know a lot more about this than I do.)

I forgot to reply to this part of Neil's post after an evening in the pub but you both raise a pertinent issue. Neil's right that pink or other lurid fluorescent colours would provide something which would be easier to eradicate as a background. The difficulty comes with the practicalities of surrounding three or more sides of the subject layout with such material. Pro's studios will have backdrop supports and materials but it's another impractical embuggerance to find space for in cluttered clubrooms or exhibition halls for me to trip over as a change to lighting stands and tripods. I'm sure there would be occasions where I could hammer something useful into someone's wall to help a little. Although a fair amount of sheet-waggling has happened on some occasions it's still not foolproof and sometimes it's less stress for everyone if I put the time in sat at the digital darkroom rather than out in the wild. A few metres of this may help though - http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Fluorescent-Yellow-Hi-Viz-Waterproof-Resistant-Fabric-Material-FREE-UK-P-P-/161230188099?pt=UK_Crafts_Fabric&hash=item258a116e43 (couldn't find any pink!).

 

I can imagine the look if I'd turned up at CK's with 5m of pink chiffon.

[queensquare]

I can imagine the look if I'd turned up at CK's with 5m of pink chiffon.

 

I suspect he'd have told you to put the camera away and get the sewing machine out

 

Jerry

[Andy Y]

I can imagine the look if I'd turned up at CK's with 5m of pink chiffon.

I've found some pink hi-vis but it's just occurred to me that there'll be a chance that I'd have hi-vis tinges to any reflective elements of the model to deal with!

[Miss Prism]

I wonder whether 'blue screen' would actually work, because such a backscene is likely not to be evenly lit, and therefore there will be a myriad of tones to drop out and make transparent.

[Neil]

..... pink or other lurid fluorescent colours would provide something which would be easier to eradicate as a background. The difficulty comes with the practicalities of surrounding three or more sides of the subject layout with such material. Pro's studios will have backdrop supports and materials but it's another impractical embuggerance to find space for ......

 

I realised whilst idling some time away earlier today that I'd forgot how awkward it would be to arrange a full contrasting backdrop, and if you could why not sky blue or overcast grey and eliminate a swathe of techno-jiggery-pokery. Then I had another brainwave It seemed from the tutorial video that large parts of the photo posed few problems when the sky was being inserted. The railings and lattice signal post looked to be disproportionally time consuming, and I began to wonder if a piece of pink card held behind such trouble spots would make matters easier. It would be relatively easy to carry, could be held in place by the photographers glamorous assistant (or CK) and being smaller shouldn't give a significant colour cast. There may still be snags with this; I don't think I know enough to properly assess what they might be.

[Andy Y]

We did use a not-so-glamorous assistant with some sheets of foamboard at one point but he kept wandering about. Will nail his feet to the floor next time.

 

This extract shows that a plain white background doesn't help much.

 

 

I've done the same with plain blue or grey cards several times too and you still end up doing very similar amounts of work to clean up.

[Andy Y]

I wonder whether 'blue screen' would actually work, because such a backscene is likely not to be evenly lit, and therefore there will be a myriad of tones to drop out and make transparent.

That can certainly be a problem when any backing turns around the end of a layout or has any folds in the fabric.

[CathcartCircle]

Great tutorial and pics although I too do not like the addition of the smoke which to me makes a layout less realistic. It is of course my personal choice! I wonder if a poll should be taken within BRM to see if readers are happy with effects!

[Neil]

Great tutorial and pics although I too do not like the addition of the smoke which to me makes a layout less realistic. It is of course my personal choice! I wonder if a poll should be taken within BRM to see if readers are happy with effects!

 

It's not my choice either, but I reckon there's space in the hobby press and internet for both 'enhanced' and 'straight' formats. I'm also starting to wonder if an unrelieved diet of images tailored exactly to my choice would be a good thing? Being challenged by the new helps our opinions form and evolve. Seeing something that one doesn't like can often spark off ideas which lead to something one does like.

[Andy Y]

I wonder if a poll should be taken within BRM to see if readers are happy with effects!

I've held straw polls when doing talks and of course speaking to individual modellers and from that a few hate it, a few love it and the (large) majority aren't particularly bothered one way or the other. A bit like most things then.

[Jon Fitness]

Andy,

Finally had time to sit down and have a look at these tutorials and they look "do-able" enough for a complete noob like me to have a go.

Going back to stage one (the stacking), what is the technique for re-focussing between shots when actually taking the originals? Does the camera you use have an auto facility to do this or do you have to touch the camera to re-focus? Only asking as I can't think how to keep the camera in the same place if it's on a bean bag and I have to touch it to re-focus.

Jon F.

[Andy Y]

Andy,

Going back to stage one (the stacking), what is the technique for re-focussing between shots when actually taking the originals? Does the camera you use have an auto facility to do this or do you have to touch the camera to re-focus? Only asking as I can't think how to keep the camera in the same place if it's on a bean bag and I have to touch it to re-focus.

Jon F.

That's the tough bit; focussing without moving the camera - it's OK if you're using a tripod of course but I do like to get the camera low down and into the layout. I mainly use a Canon G12 but have Canon Hack Developers Kit scripts on the SD card so I can pre-set the focussing intervals and using a remote to start the range of shots off. It's a PITA to set up so I'd recommend first trying the multiple shots and stacking using a tripod or other form of secure positioning to allow for re-focussing.

[Jon Fitness]

That's the tough bit; focussing without moving the camera - it's OK if you're using a tripod of course but I do like to get the camera low down and into the layout. I mainly use a Canon G12 but have Canon Hack Developers Kit scripts on the SD card so I can pre-set the focussing intervals and using a remote to start the range of shots off. It's a PITA to set up so I'd recommend first trying the multiple shots and stacking using a tripod or other form of secure positioning to allow for re-focussing.

Thanks Andy, I'm not sure how easy my little compact is to manually focus (PanasonicTZ10) but I'm certainly intrigued by the process.

Jon F.

 

Edit: just found out...no manual focus in the TZ10  .....

Edited April 4, 2014 by Jon Fitness

[Andy Y]

Edit: just found out...no manual focus in the TZ10  .....

I've just had a quick squint at the manual and you can partially depress the shutter button and Auto Focus on a spot and then compose the shot; this would obviously mean moving the camera between shots to re-focus so it would be tough for Photoshop to do the requisite alignment necessary to do the stacking. It may be worth a go focussing on three points - 1. a few inches in front of the lens, 2. About 12 inches away and 3. About 3' away and see if anything can be achieved.

 

I'd be really interested to see anyone's efforts if they give the tutorials a go; it's quite likely that you won't get perfect results at first but it's worth persevering (if you like the concept).

[Jon Fitness]

you can partially depress the shutter button and Auto Focus on a spot and then compose the shot;

That's a technique I use quite often when the camera won't focus where I want it to..

JF

[Kenokie]

Andy

 

I am reasonably computer literate, knew that this stuff could be done and partially understood most of the terminology and can even manipulate simple stuff in Paint Shop Pro. What I lack is experience, and its amazing what a difference (leading to confidence) a couple of hours of watching someone else explain and "do" in few videos, can make.

 

It appears that ultimately I will need something a bit better than a phone (even with its 12 megapixels) to take the pictures with, but to begin with it will be interesting to see if I can now improve new photos in comparison to the ones I already have, and used to consider acceptable.

 

Producing the tutorials must have taken up quite a bit of your time, so I for one would very much like to say thank you. 

 

Chris O

[Krusty]

 

I've found some pink hi-vis but it's just occurred to me that there'll be a chance that I'd have hi-vis tinges to any reflective elements of the model to deal with! 

 

 

 

 

There's more than a chance -- you can guarantee it, and not just in the reflective elements. It's surprising the extent to which background hues can tint shadows &c.

 

 

 

 

That's the tough bit; focussing without moving the camera

 

 

 

 

 

A friend used to hold a piece of junk mail in the scene in front of the camera at the point where he wanted each slice to be focused. It worked okay once he got the hang of it, but it needed very careful use of a remote.

[robmcg]

I've just had a quick squint at the manual and you can partially depress the shutter button and Auto Focus on a spot and then compose the shot; this would obviously mean moving the camera between shots to re-focus so it would be tough for Photoshop to do the requisite alignment necessary to do the stacking. It may be worth a go focussing on three points - 1. a few inches in front of the lens, 2. About 12 inches away and 3. About 3' away and see if anything can be achieved.

 

I'd be really interested to see anyone's efforts if they give the tutorials a go; it's quite likely that you won't get perfect results at first but it's worth persevering (if you like the concept).

 

For what it's worth, I use centre-weighted average auto focus for several shots in my equivalent of 'stacking'   the camera is sitting on a piece of cardboard, a box, or anything to give a consistent view, and I rotate it slightly to make the centre of the view front/middle/rear of subject area, (I take 2 or 3 with different angle light sources too, and different exposures if I want).... delayed release , all sorts of trickery like half-depressing shutter to get, say, a 0.8sec exposure, then rotating the light-source (hand held 240v reading lamp) to give more light and/or better highlights,

 

and when it comes to blending the sharp areas of each pic I select the best of say the front and rear sharp sections, copy them onto a new image (layer), try it as a 'paste' onto a sharp middle section (maybe having added borders to increase size of completed pic) and if it isn't a perfect match I re-size it until it is...  repeat for rear sharp section.

 

I know this isn't strictly 'stacking' or perhaps even 'layering', but it works for me.

 

As for honesty in a photo, is it dishonest to remove electronic noise around a bright flange on a wheel?

 

here is a typical example of my method, which also for what it's worth allows for lens distortion to be compensated... my camera is a Canon SX150is. My picture editing is with PSP6.

 

Cheers,

 

Rob