Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

 Many thanks to all the recent correspondents regarding the many and varied differences regarding the painting specifications, particularly on LNER locos. 

 

Thanks, too, to Richard Irven - all the best in your new life over the 'pond'. I'll report on Jack's progress as he makes his C12.

 

 

As mentioned, Little Bytham is to feature in the RMweb issue of BRM (thanks once more to all those who voted; I'm very flattered). Here's one of the pictures which didn't make the cut as far as the magazine is concerned, but I don't dislike it. A similar view is to be published.

 

One of my 'delights' about the layout is how the natural topography of the actual site goes from having the railway on an embankment at the north end, just about level through the station, then into a cutting at the south end. The north end, as in this view, enables me to get below the subject matter, with the subject matter itself providing the horizon. Granted, it requires a bit of photo-shopping and the superimposition of a real sky, but the effect is, I hope, realistic. I've resisted the temptation to add fake smoke because it always looks too contrived in my opinion.

 

The subject matter, in this case, is Graeme King's Bachmann A2 conversion into an A2/3, which I finished, part-painted and weathered. I'm taking it over to Bachmann's tomorrow (along with some Thompson catering cars) but I'm sure the answer with regard to them eventually producing a Thompson Pacific will be an emphatic 'no!'. As it was the last time.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Tony Wright

[robmcg]

Lovely photo Tony, I wouldn't put any smoke on that either, being a warm day and an ER express at speed.

 

Maybe the tiniest smudge of visible black over the boiler, nothing more, but I agree a lot of smoke added digitally in current and recent publications looks contrived. (my own stuff is I hope so clearly a digital picture using a model as a prop that it's not quite so bad).

 

Cheers,

 

Rob

 

p.s. Could I add the smudge as an example of warm day express running with a cleanish fire? Will remove of course if you wish.

 

Edited August 11, 2014 by robmcg

[HerbertHopkins]

 

 I've resisted the temptation to add fake smoke because it always looks too contrived in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

Totally agree. There are many excellent photos on this thread of well built models running in a well modelled setting that is entirely convincing. However, realistic as they are, we all know we are looking at a model powered by electricity. Personally, I don 't think adding fake smoke adds anything to the illusion.

Edited August 12, 2014 by HerbertHopkins

[Tony Wright]

Lovely photo Tony, I wouldn't put any smoke on that either, being a warm day and an ER express at speed.

 

Maybe the tiniest smudge of visible black over the boiler, nothing more, but I agree a lot of smoke added digitally in current and recent publications looks contrived. (my own stuff is I hope so clearly a digital picture using a model as a prop that it's not quite so bad).

 

Cheers,

 

Rob

 

p.s. Could I add the smudge as an example of warm day express running with a cleanish fire? Will remove of course if you wish.

 

post-18225-0-92128800-1407790490abcde.jpg

There's no need to remove the smoke effect, in fact it looks quite realistic. Thanks for the praise of the picture as well, though it's nothing special.

 

When I take pictures of preserved steam running up Stoke bank (down in railway parlance) near my house, they're usually working hard, having started from Peterborough and/or having been turned 'inside' at Tallington. For SUN STREAM to give that wisp-of-smoke effect, it would have to be running quite fast, probably downhill through Little Bytham, but it's on a Down train. Some of Colin Walker's pictures at Bytham have volcanic appearances as Down trains attack the gradient, particularly in colder weather.

 

I've presented a few shots of steam going north at or near Little Bytham, taken in the last few years. Trying to replicate these effects on a model would be nonsense in my opinion, other than in trying to give the effect of a painting perhaps. As for smoke-effects on models, either digitally Photoshopped or with actual smoke-generation units, count me out I'm afraid. Some of those one sees in more recent model railway magazines are just hopeless in my view. It's a model railway after all, in a shed, spare bedroom, garage, loft, etc, etc, not something in an art gallery! Let's see it for what it is, though I admit to taking background clutter out.  

 

 

At Westby, near the summit of Stoke.

 

 

From a friend's garden at Careby.

 

 

From the M&GNR embankment.

 

 

Passing Creeton.

 

 

From the same friend's garden.

 

 

From a field at Careby. A hot day, so little exhaust.

 

 

Just north of Bytham, and a hot day.

 

 

Bytham itself, and a cold day.

 

 

Near the Bythams school, and very warm.

 

 

Again, from the friend's garden.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Tony Wright

[robmcg]

Superb photos Tony, thankyou.

 

I shall just have to imagine 'Sun Stream' was running moderately hard at good speed with a clean fire, on a warm day. I fully accept that such as smoke effects need to be 'right' with regard to gradient, time of day and other influences like crew, temperature, and so on, or arguably done not at all. Imagination is a fine thing.

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

Rob

[micklner]

Nice pics ,Tony I agree re smoke effects !!  What we need is a decent smoke system to be invented !!  please !!

[t-b-g]

There is a place for photoshopping in model railway photography but to may way of thinking, it should be kept for special circumstances and otherwise used as little as possible.

 

I quite like some of the faked liveries and locos, like the Gresley 2-8-2 based on a stretched and doctored V2, as that is probably the only way we may ever see such things unless some modeller wants to spend time making such things (step up Mr King!).

 

I don't mind background or foreground clutter being taken out and replaced with a generic greyed out area or a basic sky background. I don't have  a problem with cropping or adjusting exposure, as those used to happen in the days of film cameras and just makes the finished image more pleasing to the eye.

 

These sorts of things can be done without conning or cheating the person seeing the end product.

 

My problem is when images are doctored to make the model look like something that it isn't. Straightening wonky lamps, removing dust or gaps under buildings is no more than a deceit. If a layout is being photographed for a magazine or for placing images on the internet, I want them to show what the model looks like in real life. I don't want them to show an idealised, sanitised version of what it really looks like.

 

If somebody hasn't hidden the gaps under buildings, don't take or publish photos that highlight such things but please don't con me into thinking that the gaps are not there.

 

Over the years, many photos have been published showing things not quite as they should be. Locos off the track, gaps in scenery and wonky telegraph poles. They in no way spoiled my enjoyment of the layout or the photos as they, in some ways, encouraged me that even people with layouts in the magazines were human too and made modelling like that more attainable to a relative novice. 

 

Adding exhaust/steam/smoke is another thing that I am not keen on. Has any model ever had a smoke unit that laid out that even trail of grey haze from the chimney? I think not. When I see an image like that, however well it has been done, I always think "Somebody likes playing in photoshop, what else have they altered?" and my interest in the photo sags immediately because I know that I am not looking at a photo of a model railway as it really is, I am being conned and I am looking at what somebody sitting at a computer thinks it should look like.

 

I fully accept that not everybody feels the same and I would never say that anybody shouldn't play in photoshop (which is an interesting and absorbing way to spend some time as a hobby in its own right) all they want but it doesn't do anything for me.

 

Tony

Edited August 12, 2014 by t-b-g

[landscapes]

Good afternoon Tony

 

I do find this discussion on changing backgrounds and adding smoke fascinating especially as I have just began to master how to do this in photoshop Elements.

 

For those who object or do not like additions to original photos they will proberly not like the image I have enclosed.

 

One of my main interests along with model railways is photography so I find it enjoyable to combine the two to see how far I can alter a photo I took of one of my own models on a modelled landscape back ground.

 

Many railway modellers try to build a life like model layout so what's wrong with trying to create the same objective in photographic form.

 

Like others who photoshop model railway photos it's just creating an image, at the end of the day they are just models.

 

I must say I do enjoy reading your thread and especially seeing your own photos of Little Bytham.

 

Again please let me know if you would like me to remove the enclosed image.

 

Best Regards

 

David

Edited August 12, 2014 by landscapes

[Guest 2750]

I have to say Tony, the M&GN embankment photo in the depths of winter, with the branches forming a natural frame is very effective. I really like that one!

You must have been like Tarzan swinging through all those trees!

Edited August 12, 2014 by 2750

[cctransuk]

Good afternoon Tony

 

I do find this discussion on changing backgrounds and adding smoke fascinating especially as I have just began to master how to do this in photoshop Elements.

 

For those who object or do not like additions to original photos they will proberly not like the image I have enclosed.

 

One of my main interests along with model railways is photography so I find it enjoyable to combine the two to see how far I can alter a photo I took of one of my own models on a modelled landscape back ground.

 

Many railway modellers try to build a life like model layout so what's wrong with trying to create the same objective in photographic form.

 

Like others who photoshop model railway photos it's just creating an image, at the end of the day they are just models.

 

I must say I do enjoy reading your thread and especially seeing your own photos of Little Bytham.

 

Again please let me know if you would like me to remove the enclosed image.

 

Best Regards

 

David

 

David,

 

Not my thread, but I do have an opinion on this matter - so please bear with me.

 

I entirely agree that photo-manipulation of images of model trains is a perfectly legitimate pass-time.

 

However, as I've said before, I and many other members find the torrent of such images inserted into so many threads - notably of late the Heljan Beyer-Garratt one - more than a little tiresome.

 

There are undoubtedly a significant number of members who enjoy these images, but I fail to understand why these photos cannot stand on their own merits in a thread, or threads, of their own.

 

Many of us follow threads that interest us, but I am getting more and more frustrated when I am constantly notified of postings that turn out to be yet another manipulated image. The image may be of the thread subject, but it tells me nothing new about the topic.

 

The Moderators have, in the past, taken a firm line with repeated postings that add nothing to the thread; I feel that the time has now come to extend this policy to manipulated images that add nothing to the thread itself.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Tony Wright]

Good afternoon Tony

 

I do find this discussion on changing backgrounds and adding smoke fascinating especially as I have just began to master how to do this in photoshop Elements.

 

For those who object or do not like additions to original photos they will proberly not like the image I have enclosed.

 

One of my main interests along with model railways is photography so I find it enjoyable to combine the two to see how far I can alter a photo I took of one of my own models on a modelled landscape back ground.

 

Many railway modellers try to build a life like model layout so what's wrong with trying to create the same objective in photographic form.

 

Like others who photoshop model railway photos it's just creating an image, at the end of the day they are just models.

 

I must say I do enjoy reading your thread and especially seeing your own photos of Little Bytham.

 

Again please let me know if you would like me to remove the enclosed image.

 

Best Regards

 

David

Good afternoon David,

 

I don't have a reason to ask you to remove the image above (neither do I have the right), in fact I find it quite interesting. 

 

Where I would differ from your point of view is in comparing the actual creation of a model/model railway with achieving the same objective in photographic form. The former is actually real, the latter (taking your picture above as an example) is an illusion. Granted, if a model railway has been done really well, then it can create the 'illusion' of reality to the observer. This doesn't have to be in a photograph - how many times have you seen someone at a show getting down to eye-level to take in a good model? In that situation, the brain blocks out background clutter - lighting rigs, fat bellies, barriers, sports hall roofs, etc. Granted, if one were to take a picture of the same scene and print it exactly as taken, then the eye would be drawn to all the paraphernalia listed above. That's why I remove the roof trusses, pictures on the walls, spare stock, etc, when I take pictures of Little Bytham. I usually layer-in a real sky or neutral, graded background, NEVER real topography, which I think is a form of cheating. If folk think that by putting in a real sky is hypocrisy on my part, then so be it. 

 

I see model railway photography as only a means to an end, not an end in itself. If the only way I can make my modelling look 'real' is by superimposing real landscapes, fake smoke, digital weathering or straightening up things out of plumb, taking out building base shadows, making lamps vertical or any other of the 'tricks' made possible by digital photography, then count me out. I want my modelling to be seen exactly as it is, as an absolutely critical examination of whether I can build a loco or carriage properly, that I can line horizontally/vertically or put numbers on straight, and paint up to an edge. I will admit to taking out a blob of paint on a coach window recently because the picture might well be published. It wasn't my doing and it was careless of he who did. I'm unhappy at having to do that; more hypocrisy? 

 

It might well be, that in some cases, folk are more skilled at photography than they are at modelling. If that's the case, then who am I to tell them how to enjoy their hobby? Certainly, in the days when I took pictures of others' models, I did my level best to make their railways look as good as possible. I used to take it as a compliment when people said they were 'disappointed' at seeing the real railway after seeing my pictures in a magazine. There were, of course, others who thought the layout looked better in the flesh than in my pictures. 

 

What I would say penultimately is, in my view, no matter how good your (the generic 'your') photographic/photo-manipulation skills might become, it'll surely all count for nought if your railway doesn't work properly in reality. It's all very good having folk fawning over images on this forum, clicking 'like' time after time, when all they can see is a still image, manipulated or not. That's the reality of proper railway modelling to me. No matter how pretty some scenes might be, does the railway work properly? If not, it's (or can be) an expensive diorama, and no amount of computer image manipulation will alter that. 

 

Finally, to me, railway modelling is about making things, not 'faking' things. I consider my time spent on producing a 'good' picture as time well spent - essential even if I were on commission. However, it was always secondary to the actual making of the model(s). If that model, say a loco, was also on commission, can you imagine the potential owner's reaction if I'd sent him a picture of the finished thing (which I often did) where I'd tarted up the image to remove wobbly lining/numerals, blobby paintwork, out of kilter handrails or lamp brackets - then he saw the real thing? Then I'd produced a picture (like the one above) showing that same loco apparently storming along a main line hauling (I assume) a full-length train, only for him to find that it didn't actually work. No, though I compliment anyone who can master the full range of image manipulation to produce (what are really quite stunning pictures in some cases), it's never going to be substitute for REAL railway modelling. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Tony Wright

[landscapes]

Hi John

 

You have your opinion and I respect that.

 

I was just making the Point that I cannot see what the fuss is all about on photo manipulation, they are still models no matter what the photo includes.

 

To bring in the Moderators must mean you have a very strong view on this subject.

 

I will remove the photo out of respect to your views and that I do not wish to draw in an argument this subject on Tonys excellent thread

 

Regards

 

David

[Tony Wright]

Hi John

 

You have your opinion and I respect that.

 

I was just making the Point that I cannot see what the fuss is all about on photo manipulation, they are still models no matter what the photo includes.

 

To bring in the Moderators must mean you have a very strong view on this subject.

 

I will remove the photo out of respect to your views and that I do not wish to draw in an argument this subject on Tonys excellent thread

 

Regards

 

David

David,

 

Though I am in some little agreement with others' views, it's a pity you've seen fit to remove the manipulated image of HUMORIST.

[cctransuk]

Hi John

 

You have your opinion and I respect that.

 

I was just making the Point that I cannot see what the fuss is all about on photo manipulation, they are still models no matter what the photo includes.

 

To bring in the Moderators must mean you have a very strong view on this subject.

 

I will remove the photo out of respect to your views and that I do not wish to draw in an argument this subject on Tonys excellent thread

 

Regards

 

David

 

David,

 

My comments were not aimed at you in particular - the 'deluge' to which I referred comes from another source - and I had no desire for you to remove your image.

 

As I said, photo-manipulation is a valid subject for a thread entitled to indicate its contents.

 

I just feel that such material should have its own thread / threads, so that those of us who follow other threads, and have no interest in photo-manipulation, do not have to wade through numerous postings that add nothing to the thread subject.

 

Not an unreasonable expectation, surely?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited August 12, 2014 by cctransuk

[landscapes]

Good afternoon David,

 

I don't have a reason to ask you to remove the image above (neither do I have the right), in fact I find it quite interesting. 

 

Where I would differ from your point of view is in comparing the actual creation of a model/model railway with achieving the same objective in photographic form. The former is actually real, the latter (taking your picture above as an example) is an illusion. Granted, if a model railway has been done really well, then it can create the 'illusion' of reality to the observer. This doesn't have to be in a photograph - how many times have you seen someone at a show getting down to eye-level to take in a good model? In that situation, the brain blocks out background clutter - lighting rigs, fat bellies, barriers, sports hall roofs, etc. Granted, if one were to take a picture of the same scene and print it exactly as taken, then the eye would be drawn to all the paraphernalia listed above. That's why I remove the roof trusses, pictures on the walls, spare stock, etc, when I take pictures of Little Bytham. I usually layer-in a real sky or neutral, graded background, NEVER real topography, which I think is a form of cheating. If folk think that by putting in a real sky is hypocrisy on my part, then so be it. 

 

I see model railway photography as only a means to an end, not an end in itself. If the only way I can make my modelling look 'real' is by superimposing real landscapes, fake smoke, digital weathering or straightening up things out of plumb, taking out building base shadows, making lamps vertical or any other of thce 'tricks' made possible by digital photography, then count me out. I want my modelling to be seen exactly as it is, as an absolutely critical examination of whether I can build a loco or carriage properly, that I can line horizontally/vertically or put numbers on straight, and paint up to an edge. I will admit to taking out a blob of paint on a coach window recently because the picture might well be published. It wasn't my doing and it was careless of he who did. I'm unhappy at having to do that; more hypocrisy? 

 

It might well be, that in some cases, folk are more skilled at photography than they are at modelling. If that's the case, then who am I to tell them how to enjoy their hobby? Certainly, in the days when I took pictures of others' models, I did my level best to make their railways look as good as possible. I used to take it as a compliment when people said they were 'disappointed' at seeing the real railway after seeing my pictures in a magazine. There were, of course, others who thought the layout looked better in the flesh than in my pictures. 

 

What I would say penultimately is, in my view, no matter how good your (the generic 'your') photographic/photo-manipulation skills might become, it'll surely all count for nought if your railway doesn't work properly in reality. It's all very good having folk fawning over images on this forum, clicking 'like' time after time, when all they can see is a still image, manipulated or not. That's the reality of proper railway modelling to me. No matter how pretty some scenes might be, does the railway work properly? If not, it's (or can be) an expensive diorama, and no amount of computer image manipulation will alter that. 

 

Finally, to me, railway modelling is about making things, not 'faking' things. I consider my time spent on producing a 'good' picture as time well spent - essential even if I were on commission. However, it was always secondary to the actual making of the model(s). If that model, say a loco, was also on commission, can you imagine the potential owner's reaction if I'd sent him a picture of the finished thing (which I often did) where I'd tarted up the image to remove wobbly lining/numerals, blobby paintwork, out of kilter handrails or lamp brackets - then he saw the real thing? Then I'd produced a picture (like the one above) showing that same loco apparently storming along a main line hauling (I assume) a full-length train, only for him to find that it didn't actually work. No, though I compliment anyone who can master the full range of image manipulation to produce (what are really quite stunning pictures in some cases), it's never going to be substitute for REAL railway modelling. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Hi Tony

 

I cannot disagree with any if the points you have put in your reply, and Following John's comments I have removed the image from your thread.

 

Best Regards

 

David

[landscapes]

David,

 

My comments were not aimed at you in particular - the 'deluge' to which I referred comes from another source - and I had no desire for you to remove your image.

 

As I said, photo-manipulation is a valid subject for a thread entitled to indicate its contents.

 

I just feel that such material should have its own thread / threads, so that those of us who follow other threads, and have no interest in photo-manipulation, do not have to wade through numerous postings that add nothing to the thread subject.

 

Not an unreasonable expectation, surely?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Hi John

 

Thank you for your reply, not unreasonable at all.

 

I just thought I would remove the image incase our discussion escalates and Tony's thread is far to good for that to happen.

 

Regards

 

David

[Tony Wright]

Anyway,

 

Enough of image manipulation and what have you, and down to real models.

 

I've just returned from a most interesting meeting at Bachmann's offices regarding the forthcoming Thompson carriages. The types listed in the latest catalogue (far superior 'duplicates' of what's gone beforehand) will be produced first. That said (and as I've intimated before), if sales of these are encouraging there is a very real possibility of catering vehicles being added to the list, most probably a Restaurant First and an Open Third/later Second. If two different interiors are made, the open car can also be offered branded 'Restaurant Car'. The provision of heavy-duty bogies was mentioned and this was taken into consideration, especially if, in future, they could be supplied as spares - how useful! 

 

Though, as I've also mentioned before, I am not a Bachmann representative (merely a very modest 'consultant'), it's incredibly encouraging to see a major firm listening to opinions and feedback (some from this thread). I'm sure many commentators don't have the faintest idea how much it costs to tool up for variations in models (not to mention the initial tooling costs!) but the potential production of these catering vehicles, as I've said before, is down to how the first types sell. Gentlemen (and ladies), buy these, what are sure to be outstanding initial models, then you'll also get what you want in the future as well. 

 

As for an A2/3, those delightful chaps listened and looked at SUN STREAM. A long way off in the future? Maybe one day but I'll probably be very, very old by then. I don't think you have much in the way of competition Mr King!

[Bernard Lamb]

David,

 

 

 

As I said, photo-manipulation is a valid subject for a thread entitled to indicate its contents.

 

I just feel that such material should have its own thread / threads, so that those of us who follow other threads, and have no interest in photo-manipulation, do not have to wade through numerous postings that add nothing to the thread subject.

 

Not an unreasonable expectation, surely?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

I would suggest that it is put into the photography section in the special interest area.

Not an unreasonable request at all in my book.

I do not mind the odd photo but I do find in recent months it has become some what over done.

What is a photograph of a model trying to achieve?

If so many hours work is put into creating an illusion of reality, then why, for a steam age model, is not the same care and dedication put into trying to record an image of it that is appropriate to the period. I brought down a ton of adverse comment when I was critical of the amount of shadow detail shown on the wheels and motion of a locomotive. It looked so unreal, but the photographer said he was trying to show the fine detail. 

Those shots from Tony do show the danger of looking at preserved trains and taking the scene as being correct for a former period.

I do like that bright green grass in one of Tornado.

Bernard

[S.A.C Martin]

Instead of digitally manipulated smoke, what about real smoke? Gimmick, unrealistic, or adding something to the scene?

 

 

I don't pretend that my example is good (it fundamentally is not!) but it serves to illustrate the sort of effect I mean.

[Tony Wright]

Instead of digitally manipulated smoke, what about real smoke? Gimmick, unrealistic, or adding something to the scene?

 

CIMG0082-3.jpg

 

I don't pretend that my example is good (it fundamentally is not!) but it serves to illustrate the sort of effect I mean.

Simon,

 

The effect is very convincing, though is that 'real' smoke in the distance, or cotton wool? I mention cotton wool because the late Ken Northwood used cotton wool on a wire armature coming out of the chimneys on the locos on his South Devon Railway. The trick was to multi-expose on a single piece of film, slightly moving the armature each time. It was quite effective, and one shot with this technique in use appeared on the front cover of an issue of the MRC. 

 

The best smoke effect I ever achieved photographically was on Kensall Green, where the Knights used a small, theatrical smoke-generating unit puffing smoke through outlets in the floor of the shed building. I hung a tie-dye sky fabric behind. The images are on a disc somewhere in my collection, so I'll try and dig them out. The smoke unit was used at exhibitions. 

 

A similar unit was used underneath parts of Maindee East at shows. So effective was it at one Wells show that it set off the fire alarm and I was unable to get pictures of it in operation.

 

When I did pictures for MORILL, the first Editor, Andy Farquarson, used to puff fag smoke as I took pictures. Some worked, some didn't, mostly the latter. 

 

The problem is real smoke (like real water) doesn't scale, hence the very unrealistic results when model steam locos have smoke-generating units. These, like digitally-applied smoke, I have no time for. Best, in my opinion, have pictures showing realistic models which are well-made and look convincing, and forget about any arty-f*rty manipulation, no matter how clever it might seem.  

 

I also agree that such heavily-manipulated images should be on their own threads. For those who like that kind of thing (and I don't), it'll be easier for them to find and enjoy. That said, I think it's a bit of a shame that Landscapes has removed the 'doctored' image of his HUMORIST. I think some interesting points were made, though if loads of much-altered images were to appear on this thread (which isn't 'mine', by the way), I don't think I'd bother posting much more. 

Edited August 12, 2014 by Tony Wright

[Allegheny1600]

This puts me in mind of a cartoon in a long past "Model Railroader";

There was a gentleman in his basement sitting at reproduction loco controls, in front of a TV screen and to him, controlling his model loco, everything looked "real", the loco responded according to his control and the scenery passing his 'window' changed over time however the reality was merely a loco with camera wagon trundling around a circle of track on a bare board!

I think this illustrates the extreme of digital manipulation, fair play to those who do it well but it needs it's own place really, not amongst actual modelling please.

Cheers,

John E.

[cctransuk]

David,

 

My comments were not aimed at you in particular - the 'deluge' to which I referred comes from another source - and I had no desire for you to remove your image.

 

As I said, photo-manipulation is a valid subject for a thread entitled to indicate its contents.

 

I just feel that such material should have its own thread / threads, so that those of us who follow other threads, and have no interest in photo-manipulation, do not have to wade through numerous postings that add nothing to the thread subject.

 

Not an unreasonable expectation, surely?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

I have received a personal message from the prime poster of manipulated images to this forum; I will not quote the content as it was intended as a private communication.

 

However, my response may warrant publication, so that the wider membership can understand the reasons for my intervention - I do not usually seek to engage in matters controversial!

 

What follows is the basis of my views, and it would seem that a significant number of members agree with me.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

Thank you for contacting me - it's good to exchange views.

 

Firstly, I don't think that I've ever said that I don't trust your images - perhaps you can correct me on that point?

 

Basically, I don't accept that digitally altering images of an as-bought model has anything to do with railway modelling; whether the model itself is digitally manipulated, or the surroundings of the model are so treated.

 

My test of a worthwhile posting to a thread, regardless of its subject, is "Do I know know something that I didn't know before I read this?", or, "Will I now be more able to accurately model this subject as a consequence of reading this thread?"

 

An unaltered image of the prototype provides irrefutable evidence of the way the subject appeared at a certain point in time.

 

An unaltered photo of the model as produced illustrates exactly what I may purchase, and helps me to decide what work I may need / wish to do to it.

 

An unaltered photo of a modified model, hopefully with notes as to how the model was altered, may provide me with inspiration / assistance in accomplishing a similar transformation.

 

Manipulated images of models, or photos of the model with manipulated surroundings, fulfil none of these criteria other than, perhaps, the second; and in that case why bother to manipulate the surroundings?

 

I would not dispute that manipulating images of models can produce evocative images that recall the past - but that is NOT railway modelling; it is a branch of photography.

 

As the subject matter of your hobby is railways, albeit at a second remove, it is quite justifiable to post it to this forum; but PLEASE, post under a thread that declares the content!

 

Like-minded members can then revel in your images, and perhaps produce their own, but those of us who prefer to model in reality rather than digitally can carry on our discussions without being bombarded with images that are, at best, tenuously connected to the thread subject.

 

Surely what I am asking is not unreasonable? Posting your images far and wide smacks of forcing your work down our throats - have confidence and let it stand on its merits!

 

Regards,

John.

[robmcg]

As the originator of manipulated images I never realised that I was forcing anything down anyone's throat, least of all with images unaltered but for background, as many of my recent ones in the Heljan BG thread are.

 

As Tony might wish, we all want to enjoy good modelling.

 

So I'll politely bow out of this thread and enjoy my RTR models in threads relating to them.

 

I greatly admire Little Bytham and everything it embodies, also such as Peterborough North, Bacup and other examples of superb modelling. It never occurred to me that my digital image compositions were the opposite of modelling and in some way damaging to enjoyment of modelling.

 

Thankyou.

 

Rob

[S.A.C Martin]

Simon,

 

The effect is very convincing, though is that 'real' smoke in the distance, or cotton wool? I mention cotton wool because the late Ken Northwood used cotton wool on a wire armature coming out of the chimneys on the locos on his South Devon Railway.

 

You've caught me Tony! The one in the distance is indeed cotton wool, on a wire armature. It was carefully position in the chimney of one of my N2s. I used a fog machine to create the smoky haze in and around the shed to give an illusion of distance to the end of the yard and the buildings behind.

[gr.king]

I quite like some of the faked liveries and locos, like the Gresley 2-8-2 based on a stretched and doctored V2, as that is probably the only way we may ever see such things unless some modeller wants to spend time making such things (step up Mr King!).

 

Tony

That's one of many projects I'd like to tackle if only I ever get enough time. At the moment I'm in the midst of sorting out the consequences of flooding of my business premises on Sunday, for the second time in three weeks, just four days after getting carpets back down following a hell of lot of hard work after the first flood! Time is not plentiful at present. Despite this being the fourth flood due to identical cause (simply heavy rain) in seven years, both our local council and our local water company are still trying to cling to the LIE that these are "wholly exceptional, once in thirty years" rainfall events and that they cannot therefore be expected to do anything about the wholly inadequate drainage arrangements for our little local area of low lying land - yet they manage to provide adequate drainage for the ordinary town road that passes beneath the railway via a deep 1930s subway just around the corner from us......