Putting Backscene Painting into Perspective

[Scene but not Heard]

It NEVER works. Painting buildings on background scenes in 3D perspective looks awful. Discuss.

[Stephenwolsten]

The bible on this subject:  http://www.crecy.co.uk/creating-a-backscene

[Graham_Muz]

If done well In my humble option it can work see https://grahammuz.com/2014/04/19/a-view-from-the-line-13-creating-the-impression-of-depth-effective-backscenes/

And / or 

 

https://grahammuz.com/2017/03/05/making-a-scene-on-the-back-of-canute-road-quay-or-simply-how-i-have-done-the-backscene/

 

more pictures and details in the links 

 

 

[AY Mod]

9 hours ago, Scene but not Heard said:

It NEVER works. Painting buildings on background scenes in 3D perspective looks awful. Discuss.

 

From your profile:

Quote

Interests

Writing, painting and backscene design and creation.

 

Maybe it would be good to disprove your own assertion by illustration first?

[Oldddudders]

1 post and inviting a potentially controversial discussion? 

 

I think Andy has his number. 

[grahame]

20 hours ago, Scene but not Heard said:

It NEVER works. Painting buildings on background scenes in 3D perspective looks awful. Discuss.

 

Sounds like a discussion subject for your own gratification (or maybe perverse pleasure).

 

It may be difficult and there are certainly challenges, but aren't they just issues to be overcome? Graham Muz has provided examples of effective perspective backscenes and here's a couple of less successful ones that I undertook:

 

 

 

[JimFin]

20 hours ago, Scene but not Heard said:

It NEVER works.

 

My take is that it can work - but only in a limited range of circumstances and requires a very high skill level to pull it off well.

 

Perspective and vanishing points are simply a matter of geometry in their construction. The biggest problem for model railways is establishing the point where the vanishing point is to be constructed from.

 

A fundamental problem in calculating this is the eye level of the viewer, there are quite different points for a tall adult, person in a mobility device and a small child. What works for one will be compromised for the others.

 

On a small / micro layout, its fairly easy to establish the approximate vanishing point and generate the perspective from there.

 

On any larger layout, as the viewer moves position to see different aspects of the layout, the perspective calculation would change with every step they took which means the view would be distorted to some extent.

 

Given that its all the art of illusion, there are all sorts of techniques which can be used to achieve a decent end product.

 

For those with an interest in the subject - this is an excellent source book - https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=K7bLDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=perspective+drawing+in+concept+art&ots=noq6r292XQ&sig=xuNm0rYSf7gFMednLHu7BvjeWVs#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

 

[PJBambrick]

Painted buildings can be successfully included on a backscene in perspective, but because the scale layout foreground has a different horizon datum to the artificial backscene illusion, it's the sharp transition between the two that sometimes gives trouble.  View blockers can help to control the observation angles in some cases, but middle and far distance buildings look great in perspective.  Why struggle, just leave yourself a bit of depth for a 3D backscene portrayal in the foreground, it's by far the most convincing method of gradually easing the eye away from the lineside and to the distance, and you can include plenty of interest and character to the locality in the process.

 

(The feint blue horizon datum in the 'Generate a Panorama' colour pic corresponds to the far distance. and all the different vanishing points are registered along it).

 

[Scene but not Heard]

Dear PJ,

Thanks for the effort you have expended in your reply, most interesting.

 

Perhaps you realized that I posed a deliberately provocative question here! As a later comer to the work of modelling, and in particular scenic backdrops I immediately appreciated the difficultly perspective presents. All perspective represented of a flat plane can have only one viewpoint... another words, relative to all other buildings and features on a layout, there is only point where a spectator can stand to see the correct illusion. Realistically, no railway

modeler will what to have an X marks the spot on the floor of their studio! (Even then, a step ladder would need to be provided to compensate for the varied heights of different viewers).

 

Trees, pillars and the like do not present a problem as long as the scale, and recessive lighting is taken into account. But three dimensional buildings! The more you show of two sides the more certainty there will be of poor results.

 

Can photographic backdrops of buildings ever but effective?

 

Regards,    Mike

 

[Nearholmer]

I agree with the assertion, possibly with the rider “.....,.. unless the viewing angle is very, very tightly limited.”

 

Donkeys years ago, I read a piece of advice saying that it is better to show foreshortening only, with no recession to vanishing points, and it is true for our purpose.

 

Of course, it’s ‘wrong’, but it is consistently slightly wrong from every viewing angle, rather than right from one angle, and really grossly wrong from all the rest.

 

Buildings clearly need to be smaller the further away, but best not show the recession of each individual building.

 

I would contend that 'flats', 2D with a bit of relief, used as a transition between 3D and back-scene 2D work better this way too, certainly if the layout is bigger than a diorama with only one viewing angle (and even dioramas can 'go wrong' with varying eye-height).

 

I've got c16ft x 3ft of this to do shortly, and haven't done anything so big before, so will be reading with great interest.

Edited December 15, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Scene but not Heard]

Dear Grahame,

Whilst I wasn't posing that question for my own gratification, (at least I don't think so) it did have a purpose... namely to promote folk on here to show me to be wrong. In that way I will learn, and hopefully improve from my humble starting point. I do not want to show examples of unsuccessful backdrops, or criticize others, but what it has done is shown good attempts (yours included) at overcoming the problem. I have already seen some excellent links, so thank you for all those who have taken the time to contribute.

As other's here have suggested (Nearholmer and Jim), once three point perspective is employed, there is an increasing compromise to viewers as they move from that set point.

As has been mentioned by others, I am realizing that the further one recesses to the distance the less that compromise is felt.

I have only been scenery painting for four years, and I find the topic fascinating. I am convinced that us painters should be like football referees... the less you see of us the better... and the decisions we make had better be right!

On 13/12/2019 at 21:10, AY Mod said:

 

From your profile:

 

Maybe it would be good to disprove your own assertion by illustration first?

 

[grahame]

1 hour ago, Scene but not Heard said:

 

Whilst I wasn't posing that question for my own gratification, (at least I don't think so) it did have a purpose... namely to promote folk on here to show me to be wrong.

 

 

Maybe a better opening gambit would have been to ask how to improve perspective painting on backscenes rather than assert that it 'never works' and 'looks awful'. To some extent I guess your approach will have led to some people thinking it was wrong of them to tackle it and possibly criticism of their efforts.

[Compound2632]

Setting aside any exploration of motives, this is a pertinent topic to our current club layout, where we are wrestling with the problem of "disappearing" roads into the backscene, in a urban setting - terraces. With a longish layout, there is little hope of controlling the viewpoint.

[Scene but not Heard]

Hello Compound2632,

I am assuming that you have a facing terrace of houses with roads stretching from this into the scenery?

 

If this is the case, there are two factors in play. 1) the angle an average height adult will look down on the scene and 2), of more importance, the length of the terracing.

I could not call myself much more than a novice, but I would suggest that in the case of (1) you will need to establish the horizon, which is one and the same as your 'vanishing-line'. If you have any choice in the matter, make this no more than double the height of the terraced houses (which are usually about 100mm 00scale). This then will limit the receding landscape, and the problems you have to deal with.

(2) As you are finding, the roads feeding away from the terrace are very difficult to represent effectively. In the work I am currently doing I have limited the receding roads to just three lengths of house. To further disguise the problems I have 'tree-lined' the roads. It really does distract from those remorseless lines to a vanishing point... which is only correct from one stand point.

I hope this might be of some use. I have no idea if your layout is a scale copy of somewhere, which clearly compounds your problems. If you have any photos, I will gladly give you more detailed advice, which you can take or leave!

 Regards,   Mike

[Nearholmer]

I’m not suggesting this seriously, at least I don’t think I am, but I have seen a brilliant trick using elongated pyramids that stick out towards the viewer to represent receding terraces. 

The terraced houses are drawn onto the pyramids, thereby putting the smallest (= furthest away) nearest the viewer. Stick a few pyramids in a row, and move along past them, and they provide a perfect 3D affect of receding terraces, with self-adjusting angle of view.

 

It is a truly strange affect, amazingly convincing.

 

In an exhibition of trompe l’oeil at Birmingham Art Gallery, that’s where I saw it.

 

More practically, cheat.

 

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Scene but not Heard]

Hello Chris,

I'm a great believer in trying anything... and if it works use it! I can't quiet visualize your description... do you have any web links to what you are referring to?

Edited December 15, 2019 by Scene but not Heard

[Scene but not Heard]

Chris... Art is all about cheating. ;-)

 

[Nearholmer]

Norman,

 

my name isn’t Chris.

 

Kevin

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Norman,

 

my name isn’t Chris.

 

Kevin

 

It's a reasonable bet, though I'd have gone for Dave first. About a third of the women of my age are called Jane.

 

1 hour ago, Scene but not Heard said:

Hello Compound2632,

I am assuming that you have a facing terrace of houses with roads stretching from this into the scenery?

 

If this is the case, there are two factors in play. 1) the angle an average height adult will look down on the scene and 2), of more importance, the length of the terracing.

I could not call myself much more than a novice, but I would suggest that in the case of (1) you will need to establish the horizon, which is one and the same as your 'vanishing-line'. If you have any choice in the matter, make this no more than double the height of the terraced houses (which are usually about 100mm 00scale). This then will limit the receding landscape, and the problems you have to deal with.

(2) As you are finding, the roads feeding away from the terrace are very difficult to represent effectively. In the work I am currently doing I have limited the receding roads to just three lengths of house. To further disguise the problems I have 'tree-lined' the roads. It really does distract from those remorseless lines to a vanishing point... which is only correct from one stand point.

I hope this might be of some use. I have no idea if your layout is a scale copy of somewhere, which clearly compounds your problems. If you have any photos, I will gladly give you more detailed advice, which you can take or leave!

 Regards,   Mike

 

Thanks, interesting thoughts, which I will discuss with our leader. Unfortunately we haven't got much depth to play with as the principal feature is a long row of terrace house backs, with ridge line at the backscene. The passageways between blocks of houses are reasonably successfully terminated with a reduced version of the house fronts, representing the other side of the road, but we do have a couple of roads going straight into the backscene. The one we're principally fiddling around with at the moment is at one end of the layout, so in a corner.

 

It's not a real location. Our leader is intent upon having a tree-less layout, to wind up certain other club members!

Edited December 15, 2019 by Compound2632

[Scene but not Heard]

Hello Stephen,

Here's one I did earlier lol! Just so that I'm not talking in the abstract... this is the surround to a 1960s goods yard. I had a totally free hand. other than it was needed to be 'industrial'. The scale of the retaining wall was determined by myself in order to obscure much of the close at hand perspective. As you can see the sides of the buildings were shown to a very limited extent... after several pencil sketches that was the greatest angle I thought I could get away with. The horizon is quite low. The light colour tones in the distance help as much as formal perspective to help create distance (in my humble opinion).

[Scene but not Heard]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Norman,

 

my name isn’t Chris.

 

Kevin

My apologies Kevin... I'm very new to this milarky, and I generally just press buttons and hope. I went on your blog/site/whatever thingy, and saw a number of Christopher's. I'm Mike but call me Dave.

[Scene but not Heard]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I’m not suggesting this seriously, at least I don’t think I am, but I have seen a brilliant trick using elongated pyramids that stick out towards the viewer to represent receding terraces. 

The terraced houses are drawn onto the pyramids, thereby putting the smallest (= furthest away) nearest the viewer. Stick a few pyramids in a row, and move along past them, and they provide a perfect 3D affect of receding terraces, with self-adjusting angle of view.

 

It is a truly strange affect, amazingly convincing.

 

In an exhibition of trompe l’oeil at Birmingham Art Gallery, that’s where I saw it.

 

More practically, cheat.

 

 

The stepped approach! Never thought of that. Interest.

[Scene but not Heard]

On 14/12/2019 at 15:36, PJBambrick said:

Painted buildings can be successfully included on a backscene in perspective, but because the scale layout foreground has a different horizon datum to the artificial backscene illusion, it's the sharp transition between the two that sometimes gives trouble.  View blockers can help to control the observation angles in some cases, but middle and far distance buildings look great in perspective.  Why struggle, just leave yourself a bit of depth for a 3D backscene portrayal in the foreground, it's by far the most convincing method of gradually easing the eye away from the lineside and to the distance, and you can include plenty of interest and character to the locality in the process.

 

(The feint blue horizon datum in the 'Generate a Panorama' colour pic corresponds to the far distance. and all the different vanishing points are registered along it).

 

That's beautiful!

[PJBambrick]

22 hours ago, Scene but not Heard said:

relative to all other buildings and features on a layout, there is only point where a spectator can stand to see the correct illusion.

True, the first layer of near scale structures behind the railway are often conveniently parallel to the line, so they don't usually need any unrealistic and conflicting perspectives.  Beyond these, I find the trick is to do a gentle, layered middle distance two point illusion with a painted skyline and 3D building facades in relief.  Restricting any unrealistic angles of observation on either side using view blockers usually results in visitors tending to just study that scene, then moving along to the next feature without disappointment.  It's my closest method of forcing an 'X marks the spot' and this cheating can be done all the way along many freelance landscapes as long as there is a little depth allowance.

 

 

For me, photo backscene prints work very well as stand alone 'distance' representations, but they are more difficult to actually blend into 3D.  Prints can work perfectly well as individually cut collage elements, as long as their perspective matches the layout's horizon datum.

 

Two 'in progress' pics of Bucks Hill show view blocking at work, where the unwanted aspect is obscured as soon as the observer moves a few feet to one side. 

[Nearholmer]

Beautiful.