Wright writes.....

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, MJI said:

Favourite film was colour slide.

Me too. Started with Kodachrome II/25 and finally 64. Never bothered with 200.

[nerron]

Me too, but with the original Kodachrome ASA 10!. What a joy KII was- 2.5 times faster and more natural colours.

[Dunsignalling]

10 hours ago, landscapes said:

Hi Tony

 

Yes thank you I am very pleased with the Pacific Models front number plates, I also like the additional B/W images you have posted as well.

 

I enclose a photo of my PDK A2/1 60510 Robert the Bruce, which I have just recently renamed and renumbered previously being 60509 Waverley.

 

The remainder of locomotives in the background are all either Hornby or Bachmann RTR models, with the exception of A2/3 60521Watling Street which is a Bachmann/Graeme King conversion.

 

I also had a go at a Black and White version of the same photo, but I am not sure about this one for some unknown reason, maybe it needs a little adjustment in Photoshop to bring out the monochrome qualities. 

 

Regards

 

David

 

Very nice but, in my view, a bigger improvement would come from a liberal application of "ground-level-grot" (ash, puddles etc.) to the layout.

 

John

Edited December 3, 2019 by Dunsignalling

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

Very nice but, in my view, a bigger improvement would come from a liberal application of "ground-level-grot" (ash, puddles etc.) to the layout.

 

John

 

I was thinking the same. Comparing the photos of model and prototype you can see all sorts of variations in texture and colour in the track whereas the model tends to be a bit clean as if all the track and ballast is brand new.

 

A couple of other possible changes I would be looking to make if I was "the gaffer" would be to get some correct pattern buffer stops from Dave Franks to replace the rather generic Peco ones and possible correct the ground signals.

 

i am not sure if it has been mentioned before but LB had some GNR types right up to the end.

 

Now that the layout is pretty much finished, we must find something to keep Tony busy!

[Lecorbusier]

I don't know if this runs against the grain somewhat ... but my view on photographing models is that they are very much models. They can never look like the real thing as it is impossible to simulate actual weather conditions, distance, personal interaction etc etc   - so why try?

 

But that's fine .. the models themselves are tantamount to works of art in many cases, and worth photographing and celebrating in their own right. When I see photos of Gordon Gravvatt's landscape modelling I marvel not because I think it is real, but because of the skill with which he has conveyed a sense of realism and so transported my imagination, whilst at the same time allowing me to marvel at the technical skill.

 

I like the black and white images ... but for me they play down the skill and breadth of the modelling which is present in the colour images, and at the same time don't exploit the artistic qualities of the black and white medium. Taking that analogy further, I would also comment that model railway photography seems very much to be a recording exercise ... very skilful but not necessarily adding anything. This being the case, for me it will always be second best to seeing the real model ... this is not necessarily the case with the finest railway images which capture a fleeting moment in time and manage to convey atmosphere and emotion alongside recorded fact.

[4630]

10 hours ago, Adam88 said:

As well as playing with the contrast, one of the things I have done when converting colour to B&W is to experiment to simulate the effects of orthochromatic film, e.g. Victorian and Edwardian photographs with union flags make the red look much darker than the navy. 

 

For anyone wanting to try out orthochromatic film, Ilford has recently introduced Ortho Plus 80 in 35mm and 120 formats.

 

https://analoguewonderland.co.uk/blogs/film-news/ilford-announce-ortho-80-film-in-35mm-and-120

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, westerner said:

Re: B&W photos Tony, perhaps a tad more contrast. They look too grey (y) to me. My recollection of prototype photos is that they were more Black and White than 50 shades of grey. Have a play and see what you think.

I don't want 'soot & whitewash', Alan.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

11 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

 

Are you sharing your model of the real thing, or trying to replicate a photographer’s record of the real thing to share with us?  

 

The real thing had colour, so It’s colour every time, for me.

'Are you sharing your model of the real thing, or trying to replicate a photographer’s record of the real thing to share with us?'

 

That suggests I know what I'm doing!

 

Wow! 1,600 pages now!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.   

Edited December 3, 2019 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Bucoops]

14 minutes ago, 4630 said:

 

For anyone wanting to try out orthochromatic film, Ilford has recently introduced Ortho Plus 80 in 35mm and 120 formats.

 

https://analoguewonderland.co.uk/blogs/film-news/ilford-announce-ortho-80-film-in-35mm-and-120

 

Good to hear the Ilford brand is still going - my Grandpa worked for them many years ago

[Tony Wright]

29 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I was thinking the same. Comparing the photos of model and prototype you can see all sorts of variations in texture and colour in the track whereas the model tends to be a bit clean as if all the track and ballast is brand new.

 

A couple of other possible changes I would be looking to make if I was "the gaffer" would be to get some correct pattern buffer stops from Dave Franks to replace the rather generic Peco ones and possible correct the ground signals.

 

i am not sure if it has been mentioned before but LB had some GNR types right up to the end.

 

Now that the layout is pretty much finished, we must find something to keep Tony busy!

I already have a couple of 'proper' buffer stops to install, Tony.

 

In time!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

18 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

I don't know if this runs against the grain somewhat ... but my view on photographing models is that they are very much models. They can never look like the real thing as it is impossible to simulate actual weather conditions, distance, personal interaction etc etc   - so why try?

 

But that's fine .. the models themselves are tantamount to works of art in many cases, and worth photographing and celebrating in their own right. When I see photos of Gordon Gravvatt's landscape modelling I marvel not because I think it is real, but because of the skill with which he has conveyed a sense of realism and so transported my imagination, whilst at the same time allowing me to marvel at the technical skill.

 

I like the black and white images ... but for me they play down the skill and breadth of the modelling which is present in the colour images, and at the same time don't exploit the artistic qualities of the black and white medium. Taking that analogy further, I would also comment that model railway photography seems very much to be a recording exercise ... very skilful but not necessarily adding anything. This being the case, for me it will always be second best to seeing the real model ... this is not necessarily the case with the finest railway images which capture a fleeting moment in time and manage to convey atmosphere and emotion alongside recorded fact.

Interesting as always, Tim.

 

A couple of points, if I may............

 

Whether a model looks 'real' in a photograph is dependent, to some extent, on the level of knowledge of the observer. On occasions, when giving talks to photographic societies, I've put photographs of model railways. One observer was astonished at how old I must have been (or how young!) when I took a picture showing a pre-War LNER express. When I told him I'd taken it the week before, he looked perplexed; until I told him it was a picture on a model railway! 

 

As for photographs of models being 'second best' to seeing them in reality, I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a model railway in the flesh and been very disappointed with it; having first seen it in pictures. The opposite, of course, is also true.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[t-b-g]

9 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I already have a couple of 'proper' buffer stops to install, Tony.

 

In time!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Too busy building locos for you and for others!

[t-b-g]

2 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Interesting as always, Tim.

 

A couple of points, if I may............

 

Whether a model looks 'real' in a photograph is dependent, to some extent, on the level of knowledge of the observer. On occasions, when giving talks to photographic societies, I've put photographs of model railways. One observer was astonished at how old I must have been (or how young!) when I took a picture showing a pre-War LNER express. When I told him I'd taken it the week before, he looked perplexed; until I told him it was a picture on a model railway! 

 

As for photographs of models being 'second best' to seeing them in reality, I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a model railway in the flesh and been very disappointed with it; having first seen it in pictures. The opposite, of course, is also true.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

When that happens, the model photo that fools people into thinking it is real, it is usually a non modeller who is fooled. In my modelling times, I have seen perhaps a couple of photos where I had to do a "double take" because they were so close to being "real". Or as one of my friends puts it, the models are "real", just smaller!

 

I tend to like to see what a modeller has done by way of colouring and weathering, not just of the locos and stock but of buildings, general landscape and backscenes etc. We always have some degree of doubt as to whether the image we see on our screen is exactly the same as the model looks to the eye simply because of the differences caused by lighting, the quality of the colour capture of our technology and all sorts of things but it does give a good idea.

 

Colour photos give me that. On the other hand, the biggest amount of my knowledge of real railways of the period, by far, is from black and white photos. That is all I have in many cases.

 

Seeing a model in the same format as I know the real thing is somehow right.

 

So I like to see both!

 

They give me different takes on the scene. One shows me how good the modeller is at choosing colours and weathering. the other brings the model closer to how we view the prototype.

 

In one of the recent articles I did on Buckingham, Tim Shackleton took the photos and had a battle to get some of them them on the printed page in B & W. He wanted to recreate scenes from the Railway Modeller of 50 years ago. In the end, the article had a mix of B & W and colour and I thought it worked really well like that.

 

 

[4630]

11 hours ago, westerner said:

Re: B&W photos Tony, perhaps a tad more contrast. They look too grey (y) to me. My recollection of prototype photos is that they were more Black and White than 50 shades of grey. Have a play and see what you think.

 

40 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I don't want 'soot & whitewash', Alan.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I agree that 'soot and whitewash' is probably not a look that would gain much support.  But without putting words into his mouth, I don't think that's what Alan was suggesting.

 

Merely that images presenting a 'clearer and cleaner' view of LB and its cast of locomotives and rolling stock, would add to what you've created.

 

I hope you don't mind but I've taken the liberty of quickly doing what I hope is a very subtle change to the contrast on one of your images to illustrate what I mean.  Original image as posted on the left; My quick edited version on the right.

 

The adjustments were done in Photoshop, but are straightforward and any image editing software should be able to do the same.

 

No offence intended Tony and happy to delete the image if you'd prefer.

 

[St Enodoc]

41 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

When that happens, the model photo that fools people into thinking it is real, it is usually a non modeller who is fooled. In my modelling times, I have seen perhaps a couple of photos where I had to do a "double take" because they were so close to being "real". Or as one of my friends puts it, the models are "real", just smaller!

The B&W photos of Martyn Welch's Hursley in the MRJ about 30 years ago certainly looked "real" to me - far more than later colour ones. I never saw it in the flesh as having queued for an hour to get into the MRJ Exhibition I couldn't be bothered to queue for another 30 minutes to see Hursley.

[t-b-g]

2 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

The B&W photos of Martyn Welch's Hursley in the MRJ about 30 years ago certainly looked "real" to me - far more than later colour ones. I never saw it in the flesh as having queued for an hour to get into the MRJ Exhibition I couldn't be bothered to queue for another 30 minutes to see Hursley.

 

When I mention the few photos that make me do a double take, it was exactly those I had in mind.

 

I did exactly the same as you at the MRJ show! There were two layouts I wanted to see because I thought it would be my only chance. Leighton Buzzard and Hursley. I never saw Hursley for the same reason as you. I had queued round the building for nearly 2 hours to get in and was told it would be another 30 to 45 minutes to see Hursley. I spent the time gradually getting somewhere near Leighton Buzzard instead.

[St Enodoc]

5 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

There were two layouts I wanted to see because I thought it would be my only chance. Leighton Buzzard and Hursley.

Ah, if only! Had you been able to see into the future you would doubtless have queued to see Hursley!

[Lecorbusier]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Interesting as always, Tim.

 

A couple of points, if I may............

 

Whether a model looks 'real' in a photograph is dependent, to some extent, on the level of knowledge of the observer. On occasions, when giving talks to photographic societies, I've put photographs of model railways. One observer was astonished at how old I must have been (or how young!) when I took a picture showing a pre-War LNER express. When I told him I'd taken it the week before, he looked perplexed; until I told him it was a picture on a model railway!  Not totally convinced that the limited capacity of some observers necessarily negates my point?

 

As for photographs of models being 'second best' to seeing them in reality, I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a model railway in the flesh and been very disappointed with it;  having first seen it in pictures. - But I would argue that this is usually as a result of omission rather than 'artistry' in the photography .... a thing your own photography doesn't suffer from!

 

The opposite, of course, is also true.

 

However ... point taken ...  and this opens a whole can of worms! I have lost count of the times I have come across modern buildings which have been designed for the photos as much as (or instead of) the end user ... universally disappointing when visited ....

 

where as there are some spatially sophisticated buildings (Borromini's San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane in Rome springs to mind) that can really only be appreciated in the flesh ... and I suspect the same is true of certain layouts regardless of the quality of the photographer. 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2019 by Lecorbusier

[Clive Mortimore]

Models looking like the real thing?  This comes down to the skills of both the modeller and the photographer to trick the viewer's eyes. No matter how hard we try to make our models look realistic when we see them in the flesh they are still models. I for one prefer to see photographs showing the modeller's skill rather than the photographer's ability to deceive my eyesight, but then I am a modeller not a photographer. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, 4630 said:

 

 

I agree that 'soot and whitewash' is probably not a look that would gain much support.  But without putting words into his mouth, I don't think that's what Alan was suggesting.

 

Merely that images presenting a 'clearer and cleaner' view of LB and its cast of locomotives and rolling stock, would add to what you've created.

 

I hope you don't mind but I've taken the liberty of quickly doing what I hope is a very subtle change to the contrast on one of your images to illustrate what I mean.  Original image as posted on the left; My quick edited version on the right.

 

The adjustments were done in Photoshop, but are straightforward and any image editing software should be able to do the same.

 

No offence intended Tony and happy to delete the image if you'd prefer.

 

I certainly don't mind at all, and, please do not delete your image.

 

What I would say (and no offence intended) is that in your image, the wheels and motion on the locos have almost disappeared with regard to our ability to really make them out.

 

If you wish, please alter the other images. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

55 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Models looking like the real thing?  This comes down to the skills of both the modeller and the photographer to trick the viewer's eyes. No matter how hard we try to make our models look realistic when we see them in the flesh they are still models. I for one prefer to see photographs showing the modeller's skill rather than the photographer's ability to deceive my eyesight, but then I am a modeller not a photographer. 

'I for one prefer to see photographs showing the modeller's skill rather than the photographer's ability to deceive my eyesight, but then I am a modeller not a photographer.'

 

Which can be tricky if you're both, Clive.

 

In Little Bytham's case I cannot lose. I've had many visitors tell me that my pictures 'don't do it justice', and others who say (because of my photography?) that they'd thought it would be bigger. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Tony Wright]

When I gave my talk to a branch of the 2mm Scale Association on Sunday, I put in the following picture...............

 

 

It's taken (of course) on Copenhagen Fields (how many other folk enjoy the privilege of being able to plonk their {great big} camera down in such an 'intimate' position?).

 

I consider it to be one of the best model railway pictures I've ever taken - one has to be photographing one of the best layouts of all time to be able to say this!). Yes, of course, the pedants (of which I'm one) will tell you that upper quadrant signals were an LNER feature (not GNR), and the latest (in reality) this picture could have been taken is the early years of the last century. But, doesn't it exude 'atmosphere' (despite one of the 'futuristic' signals being a bit wonky)?

 

Given, then, that the only way that a real-life a photographer could capture such an image would be in B&W, here it is again......................

 

 

Which actually I prefer, given that it's much more redolent of the time. 

 

 

[Lecorbusier]

That is a fantastic picture of Copenhagen Fields Tony .... and for me it is the colour photo all the way. I can't believe you remember your trainspotting days in black and white!

 

I also feel hoisted by my own petard a little ... I have seen Copenhagen fields in the flesh a couple of times now, and your photo certainly adds to my experience of it, which is not to say that I was in anyway disappointed by the layout in the flesh - though to my mind viewing from so far above coupled to the smallness do rob it of something ... it feels a little like viewing from an aeroplane.

 

Tim

Edited December 3, 2019 by Lecorbusier
additional thoughts

[t-b-g]

That is a lovely view of Copehnhagen Fields but in my mind, I saw a cropped version that I really liked. So here it is!

 

It is more a photo of the train now, rather than the whole scene but I really liked the way the locos were framed by the signal and I wanted to emphasise it.

 

 

 

 

 

ps I feel like a naughty schoolboy playing with Tony's photo!

 

Edited December 3, 2019 by t-b-g

[Clive Mortimore]

29 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

'I for one prefer to see photographs showing the modeller's skill rather than the photographer's ability to deceive my eyesight, but then I am a modeller not a photographer.'

 

Which can be tricky if you're both, Clive.

 

In Little Bytham's case I cannot lose. I've had many visitors tell me that my pictures 'don't do it justice', and others who say (because of my photography?) that they'd thought it would be bigger. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Hello Tony

 

If the modeller is a photographer as well and enjoys both hobbies and can can combine both then a big thumbs up. There is a thread about "How realistic are your models", I view it every now and then, I see some very good model making and some very clever photography, so hats off the the contributors. Sadly they still look like models to me. 

 

You mention how photographs of a layout can be deceiving, as you state Little Bytham can appear different to what people expect to see when they see it for real. A layout that does that to me is Copenhagen Fields, before everyone jumps up and down this is no disrespect to the modelling that Tim and the gang have put into it, it looks wonderful in many photos, and is quite a remarkable model but seeing it the flesh leaves me cold. Thankfully for Tim, those who helped build and operate it there are loads of people who get pleasure form seeing it.

 

Please can we not turn this into a debate as why I find some well made layouts not of my liking. Like many on here I am quite opinionated when it comes to model railways. Please do have a pop at my taste in train sets on my layout thread Sheffield Exchange.