Jump to content
 

Tetbury


Chris Chewter
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

I think I’ve finally got a good one. And to prove it, here’s the video!

 

 

I decided in the end to keep asking Kernow’s for a replacement, until I received one that worked. After all, there had to be a good one out there. Looks like it’s third time lucky!
 

I think I’ll weather and crew it after it’s had a good bit of running, just to make sure!

  • Like 9
  • Round of applause 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The room where the railway is kept is lit by a single tube fluorescent strip light.  I wondered how this was affecting the photographs, so for a experiment, I took the same focus stack twice.  One with the light on and one with the light off.  Both images are unedited, other than this is how they came out from CombineZP.

 

With the additional fluorescent

 

New-Out99997.jpg.584c21623394d08a46dfe5beb06eb193.jpg

 

Without the fluorescent

 

New-Out99998.jpg.6f0b952af059d54a58ec2c62392b776d.jpg

Edited by Chris Chewter
Grammar
  • Like 7
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The only real difference I can see is the shadow on the platform underneath the awning - “without” it is quite a bit darker under there, especially at the front where the people are.  On my iPad I can’t see anything different on the engine (where I would naturally look first).  Do you have any prototype photos from this angle to compare?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

It's good to have a light source that casts definite shadows more like the sun than most layout lighting rigs but I must admit that I find most of the recent photos (I guess with the builders lights) quite harsh. Are the two things linked? I don't know.

(More "noisy" in the digital photography sense of the word, perhaps).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I know what you mean by the harshness, however the builders lights were installed 8 months ago, so they aren't that new.  The main change is using the focus stacking on the iPhone which seems to collect the images more accurately than using the SLR .  Anyway, I'm still trying different methods.  There are so many variables, it makes it tricky to get it right and I'm still refining the technique. I might try a few using a different light source and see what happens.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

With some adjustment on the colour and light settings, plus pushing the clarity back a touch to soften the ballast, hopefully we get an image that's a little easier on the eye. The number of photos in the stack also makes for a harsher image, but that could be CombineZP. I'll grab some more photos and do a little more post image processing over the weekend, and see how I get on.

 

613385747_New-Out99997revA.jpg.ddfefff3b2562b4704b3b95123d6f513.jpg

  • Like 12
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

These are interesting experiments. To me, your recent photos have been so convincing because it looked as if they were taken outside on a real sunlit day. 

 

But in that last photo, it begins to look more like conventional layout photos to me, perhaps exactly because the new settings have softened the glare? That makes me wonder if our attempts to avoid glare in photos (self included) should in fact be questioned.

 

Of course, lots of factors affect our perception of this. What we are used to seeing on other layouts, and the nature of our screens.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Really like this one Chris.

 

But the foreground ballast is a bit too sharp, and draws the eye away

from the subject.

 

Perhaps a drawback of focus stacking, or maybe try cropping to nearer

the rail-built fence.

 

That's my try at guilding the lily for this morning

all the best

 

TONY

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I think its more of a composition issue caused by trying to keep both the coal wagon and van in shot. 

 

I think I'm being too greedy. If I crop closer to the wagon, it seems to work better.

 

537489284_4680goodsyardcropped.jpg.11ba2d043839698fec0f2b6931f804c1.jpg

 

The crop towards the van also seems to work.

 

1109561454_4680GoodsyardAttemptBCropped.jpg.08dd61e944b443e02530600b804e8998.jpg

 

 

Edited by Chris Chewter
  • Like 19
Link to post
Share on other sites

Much better cropped to my eye

As I have said, many a time, cropping is a very powerful tool and sometimes I can get additional pictures out of one depending on where and how you crop them.

For example I look at the original picture of 4680 and see four pictures.

Original of all three

Horse drawn coal wagon

Loco

Van

 

Then you've got landscape, portrait and panoramic views to mess with as well. 

 

Great layout and pictures by the way...

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 17/02/2021 at 16:40, MrWolf said:

That is a damn shame. Such a good looking locomotive too. Not that it's any consolation, but the box I found the "Connie" chassis in also contained my mint, boxed Mainline Railways 57xx that has seen less than an hour's running.

 

Or at least I thought it did. The body and one side of the split chassis is like new, the other has expanded and broken into no less than eight pieces, pushing the wheels off the axles in the process. I seriously doubt that Hattons will take it back after 38 years, even if I can find the receipt.

 

Bin fodder I think. 

 

IMG_20210217_164513.jpg.ce9406b946ef6d25c173dfe90b922b90.jpg

 

 

 

If you're chucking it in the bin, I'll send you the postage for the body. That's prime candidate to attempt a top-feed removal and re-chassis.

Edited by 57xx
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 23/02/2021 at 07:42, Chris Chewter said:

Whilst the lighting works well from most angles, its not so good for end-on shots.

 

1127250537_3711RunRound.jpg.ce6bcaa34a12172430cb581d0090f695.jpg

 

I've had to adjust the colour on this one.

 

I'm liking the shadows, more realistic and natural than everything bathed in bright light from every angle. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, 57xx said:

 

If you're chucking it in the bin, I'll send you the postage for the body. That's prime candidate to attempt a top-feed removal and re-chassis.

 

It has been pointed out already that the bodies are salvageable and thanks to the generosity of @Limpley Stoker I have most of another chassis which has a blown up motor, so I can keep it going a while longer. As for the removal of the top feed, that's exactly what I was thinking. 

You can fit a Bachmann chassis if you can find one, but ISTR that there was a chassis kit available for the Mainline pannier, due to the early failure of a lot of the chassis. I hunted for one but no luck. Either they are no longer made or I just wasn't looking in the right place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, MrWolf said:

ISTR that there was a chassis kit available for the Mainline pannier, due to the early failure of a lot of the chassis. I hunted for one but no luck. Either they are no longer made or I just wasn't looking in the right place.

 

High Level still do their 57xx chassis kits:

http://www.highlevelkits.co.uk/pannierpage.html

 

I believe older ones like Perseverance occasionally pop up on eBay.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

This and similar images keeps coming to mind when I see your photos. Something about that light.

 

image.png.03f7d78056ed40789cda8e95b221eb09.png

 

The three books in this series are a mine of information and the one shown taught me more than any other book I've read on the subject of GWR branches.

 

Dave

  • Like 1
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've still got mine, a bit yellowed like everyone else's. Their usefulness and relevance are echoed by the fact that single copies fetch more than I paid for the set.

 

 

IMG_20210228_185834.jpg

Edited by MrWolf
Picture no load!
  • Like 6
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KNP said:

Snap.

I brought these when they first came out and still refer to them now.

Not to frighten you all but the first one was 1991.....!

 

IMG_2955.jpg.66f861f77a68da05872fcd83eac712c2.jpg

 

 

My three are pretty worn - I wonder if we will ever see a 'combined volume'...?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Crew fitted to the 16xx. They seem to fit very well, so happy with their placement.  However I think I overdid the dry brushing on the driver, so may repaint that one.

 

New-Out99999.jpg.00d7026e351bdd927e27bc9f1e05edc7.jpg

 

New-Out99999a.jpg.d4a5be8121fa750fe510fcf7b8a17765.jpg

Edited by Chris Chewter
  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...