Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Of course it's already Christmas Day with you Jesse.

 

All the very best,

 

Tony. 

Indeed it is, 8:43am and the beers have been cracked....Australians have a very different Christmas to the rest of the world.....we get pissed, eat ham and get into family feuds. 
 

All the best to the fam. 

  • Like 4
  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I was only referring to the two taken from track level on the M & G N. The rest look like totally natural positions that a real photographer would seek out to take a photo.

 

  

Thanks Tony,

 

I misunderstood (not uncommon these days).

 

The one thing the 'elevated' shots show is the 'narrow gauge' of OO, but I didn't choose EM when I had the chance over 40 years ago. A mistake! 

 

The two M&GNR shots also show the narrow gauge (even more so?) but they also look 'unnatural' because of the far-too-tight curve, going on/off stage. Something I have to live with because I wanted the upper level to be a circuit, giving two independent railways. An interesting question; should I either have the MR/M&GNR section just a scenic break (effectively dead straight and much more realistic) going into 'blind' bridges at both ends, or have a separate circuit; meaning tight end curves? I chose the latter, at the expense of 'realism'. 

 

It does mean, of course, that I can model shorter trains with small locomotives.

 

Like this.............

 

1198991236_RM022D3.jpg.716d0bd345afec5afd3b21cc26b5d5d8.jpg

 

In the current RM.

 

42860823_RM0214Fs.jpg.07b69bc03b22983493448701c9e5faaf.jpg

 

Or these.

 

Aren't the signals beautiful? Many thanks.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Edited by Tony Wright
to include a thank you
  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jesse Sim said:

Good Morning and a very Merry Christmas to all.

 

42 minutes ago, Jesse Sim said:

ndeed it is, 8:43am and the beers have been cracked....Australians have a very different Christmas to the rest of the world.....we get pissed, eat ham and get into family feuds. 

 

Merry Christmas Jesse. No...    we do most of that....  but not necessarily in the same order..   (Except I'm a veggie, too)

  • Like 4
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Merry Christmas everyone.  Cheers Jesse... just thinking about the first beer! It is a lovely 27degrees here in Melbourne, the garden is on its way to dying... the dog is asleep in his kennel! 

 

This year has has not been the greatest, work.. well it is a 4 letter word... relations on their death bed.. requiring attention. Modelling has been a bright spot. Not much finished but enjoying the journey. I am really enjoying pushing a second Finney V2 to the same stage as the one I have been working on for years. There is a J39 with a Bachman body and I have completed the chassis to just about running but I need to complete the lubricator drive. 

 

Looking at all this I have been able to do a heap of modelling as there is more that I have forgotten!

 

Any how, may santa bring you complete kits that practically fall together. Have a happy safe and relaxing Christmas and new year. 

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

we get pissed, eat ham and get into family feuds

Apart from the ham, that's pretty well how I remember Christmas in the Northern Hemisphere.

 

Just about to start our feasting with champagne and Christmas cake on the terrace.

 

Tony, all the best to you and Mo and to all Wright Writes writers and readers.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Merry Christmas everybody, I hope you all got the modelling requirements from the jolly fat person (un-PC??!!).

 

My 6 year old has spent a while this morning racing Thomas and Percy round and round. The indoctrination continues :D

  • Like 8
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Apart from the ham, that's pretty well how I remember Christmas in the Northern Hemisphere.

 

Just about to start our feasting with champagne and Christmas cake on the terrace.

 

Tony, all the best to you and Mo and to all Wright Writes writers and readers.

Thanks John,

 

A very Merry Christmas to you, yours and all those wonderful folk we met in Australia last year.

 

The plan is to return in 2021!

 

Slight frost here at daybreak, but a very nice sunny morning to take our younger son's little dog out for a walk. 

 

Time for some model-making. I cannot stand Christmas TV! Having seen some Oz telly, I would imagine it's worse than here..................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony - Currently working on my 1/43 scale HST power car. This is a personal indulgence project and not for series production. Christmas is a good time to do this sort of involved project as it tends to be quieter.

Best wishes to Mo and the family.

 

 

 

body_compressor assy3.jpg

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
16 hours ago, grahame said:

With a nod to the latest photography subject theme mentioned, I've just taken this quick snap. The lens is a Nikkor micro 105mm stopped down to f36. The image has just been reduced in pixel terms and is not cropped or any other effects like sharpening or perspective control applied. The camera is a quite old Nikon D7000 so having a DX sensor the crop factor of that will have effectively increased the focal length. The model is about 20 inches long, N/2mm scale and placed at about 45 degrees to the camera plane:

 

If I recall photographic theory correctly, although the DX crop factor adds 50% to the effective focal length, the depth of field remains that of a 105 mm lens. Whatever, the photo and the model are each a great success!

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

We've now built the second carriage for the Lego train (the almost 5 year old wanted to get on and drive once the first was complete) and it's circling fast enough that the track is moving around the laminate above speed 4/10. The Trackmaster Caitlin and Conner rattling around I  the background and it's enough to make my head hurt. I'm pleased he's train mad but glad it's well past wine o'clock. 

 

Happy Christmas all!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an N gauge version of Gordon's brother that I've been working on. Just needs a few areas painting - including the face to disguise the fact it's been cut straight off a Henry mini - and transfers for the second tender to change LNER to 4472.

 

20190809_173943.jpg.5ced5e79a280a821d1d7507dc9db0b5e.jpg

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, richbrummitt said:

Here's an N gauge version of Gordon's brother that I've been working on. Just needs a few areas painting - including the face to disguise the fact it's been cut straight off a Henry mini - and transfers for the second tender to change LNER to 4472.

 

20190809_173943.jpg.5ced5e79a280a821d1d7507dc9db0b5e.jpg

What a fantastic workbench behind.

 

I'd feel entirely at home using it!

 

What have I done today? With both sons in their late-30s, and no (known of) grandchildren to entertain, my making of things has been entirely selfish - starting putting the handrails on a B12/3, either side of watching the peerless Alistair Sim as Scrooge.

 

I hope everyone has had a wonderful day.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, richbrummitt said:

Here's an N gauge version of Gordon's brother that I've been working on. Just needs a few areas painting - including the face to disguise the fact it's been cut straight off a Henry mini - and transfers for the second tender to change LNER to 4472.

 

20190809_173943.jpg.5ced5e79a280a821d1d7507dc9db0b5e.jpg

 

Ps. He really ought to have some German deflectors. Maybe an addendum project for the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
13 minutes ago, Dave John said:

A couple of highlights of 2019. I finished the mainly scratchbuild of a D1 and made a signal box. A photo of both. 

 

I have also improved my lack of photography skills by reading what you lot do and taking notes. If I ever get lining right then you will never hear the last of it.... 

 

 

bc_2.JPG.900ffcdbae877e29688fa72f59e214a1.JPG

 

On a serious note, I do enjoy all of the threads in which folk make things and record their progress. That is how I learn and improve. So many thanks to all that post progress, thats the part of rmweb I really enjoy. 

I like the tenements.

  • Agree 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
18 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

If I recall photographic theory correctly, although the DX crop factor adds 50% to the effective focal length, the depth of field remains that of a 105 mm lens. Whatever, the photo and the model are each a great success!

Agreed, the depth-of-field advantage of  cameras with smaller sensors derives from lenses of shorter focal length giving the equivalent angle of view to longer ones used on full frame cameras.

 

Compared with the use of (say) a 60mm macro lens on Tony's Nikons, a 40mm will give the same coverage on a DX camera and a 30mm on one with a four-thirds sensor. If one were to take similar photographs on each, at the same aperture setting, those taken on the smaller formats would exhibit greater D-o-f.  However, Tony's lens stops down significantly further than is usual with crop-sensor lenses, thereby redressing all or most of any disadvantage.   

 

The other factor to be considered, is diffraction, a phenomenon (for simplicity a kind of fuzziness) which occurs progressively as lenses are stopped down from the aperture at which they deliver optimum sharpness. The effect also increases as the size of sensor is reduced so, with such cameras, it is advantageous to focus-stack using multiple frames taken using (say) f/5.6 rather than stopping down to f/22 and beyond as would be usual practice using a macro lens on a full-frame camera.

 

The ideal, in model photography, is to create depth-of-field characteristics in line with what one would expect to see in a comparable prototype photo taken on a 35mm film camera with a 50mm "standard" lens or thereabouts. As with all photo-manipulation, the key to successful focus-stacking will lie in learning how far one can take it before the effect becomes obtrusive.

 

My new four-thirds camera is capable of "focus bracketing" up to 999 frames without me touching it, having set the parameters. I dread to think how long taking such a sequence (and worse, processing it in the PC afterwards) would take but, from what I gather, around 30 frames is usually sufficient. It also offers more limited stacking in-camera which I'm playing with currently and It will be fun to learn the techniques involved in taking things further.

 

John

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Agreed, the depth-of-field advantage of  cameras with smaller sensors derives from lenses of shorter focal length giving the equivalent angle of view to longer ones used on full frame cameras.

 

Compared with the use of (say) a 60mm macro lens on Tony's Nikons, a 40mm will give the same coverage on a DX camera and a 30mm on one with a four-thirds sensor. If one were to take similar photographs on each, at the same aperture setting, those taken on the smaller formats would exhibit greater D-o-f.  However, Tony's lens stops down significantly further than is usual with crop-sensor lenses, thereby redressing all or most of any disadvantage.   

 

The other factor to be considered, is diffraction, a phenomenon (for simplicity a kind of fuzziness) which occurs progressively as lenses are stopped down from the aperture at which they deliver optimum sharpness. The effect also increases as the size of sensor is reduced so, with such cameras, it is advantageous to focus-stack using multiple frames taken using (say) f/5.6 rather than stopping down to f/22 and beyond as would be usual practice using a macro lens on a full-frame camera.

 

The ideal, in model photography, is to create depth-of-field characteristics in line with what one would expect to see in a comparable prototype photo taken on a 35mm film camera with a 50mm "standard" lens or thereabouts. As with all photo-manipulation, the key to successful focus-stacking will lie in learning how far one can take it before the effect becomes obtrusive.

 

My new four-thirds camera is capable of "focus bracketing" up to 999 frames without me touching it, having set the parameters. I dread to think how long taking such a sequence (and worse, processing it in the PC afterwards) would take but, from what I gather, around 30 frames is usually sufficient. It also offers more limited stacking in-camera which I'm playing with currently and It will be fun to learn the techniques involved in taking things further.

 

John

Thanks John,

 

May I just make one correction, please?

 

My 60mm Nikon is a 'Micro' lens, not a 'Macro' one. One other lens I use has a 'macro' feature, but it is rather restricted and only used for close-up photography. The macro feature is useless for overall layout photography (in my experience), but the micro is most-useful; because its range of focus is from half an inch to infinity! On has to 'step' a little bit further back but with F.45 (if fiddled with on the control knob on the camera, which, as mentioned, I don't understand - the minimum aperture on the lens itself states F.32, but the camera reads F.45 or less; it does make a difference) the depth of field is excellent. 

 

One advantage, of course, with the full-frame camera(s) is, with such a large file-size, an image can be quite tightly-cropped, yet still remain very sharp when enlarged; rather like the difference between 35mm film and medium format film cameras?

 

I must stress I'm not an analyst when it comes to my model railway photography. By that, I mean I don't theorise as to how results are obtained. I use powerful cameras and very high-quality lenses, plenty of light, very small apertures, long exposures and soften shadows by pulses of powerful fill-in flash. It works for me, and it's based on lots of experience.

 

I've used this image below before, but it's taken with the Nikon Df sitting on the track, with an 18-35 Nikon zoom lens on the front (set to 35), stopped down to F.29, with an exposure (relying on the 15 'daylight' tubes in the room) of around six seconds at an ASA of 100, with the shadows softened with pulses (around F.8) of fill-in flash. 

 

245468730_RM017V2.jpg.8e8e80c92ef4820811e413871d94ba12.jpg

 

The front of the lens was just over a foot from the front of the V2, and I've cropped off most of the out-of-focus foreground. If I recall correctly, the point of focus (I don't let the camera decide anything for itself!) was the nearer ends of the platforms. Apart from getting the ballast at the photographer's feet in focus (which would be unnatural in my opinion), stacking would not improve the depth of field at all. 

 

One thing this image does show is how fortunate I've been to have baseboards built by a master-carpenter (a dead-flat surface to start with), Norman Turner, track made/laid by the best track-maker in the realm, Norman Solomon and architectural modelling created by among the best, Bob Dawson, Scott Waterfield and Ian Wilson. That's not to mention some of the finest signals, by Mick Nicholson, Graham Nicholas and Roy Vinter (Tony Gee's lovely M&GNR ones cannot be seen here). 

 

837154281_RMLittleBytham09.jpg.38c60c7c2ac8cf068258aa21ec4d0c8c.jpg

 

With the same camera/lens/lighting combination used, but this time with the camera sitting just six inches from the rear of the tender, the depth of field is (naturally) reduced, though (in my view) all that needs to be in sharp focus is. The point of focus was the loco's cab. Stacking might mean that distant buffer stop would be in focus, but I doubt if it would improve the image.

 

1435080178_BridgefieldQuarry25.jpg.094ec0bbb773177db78ebc23e679f9c9.jpg

 

By 'standing back' slightly from the subject matter (in this case almost a whole layout) the depth of field capabilities of the Micro Nikon can be fully-exploited. Everything in this scene is in focus, with no need for stacking. 

 

I've seen the results of stacking and I remain ambivalent about it. On too many occasions (in my opinion) it introduces too many aberrations (often manifested in trackwork and trains in tight perspective). Anyway, I'm too dim to use it!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Like 12
  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks John,

 

May I just make one correction, please?

 

My 60mm Nikon is a 'Micro' lens, not a 'Macro' one. One other lens I use has a 'macro' feature, but it is rather restricted and only used for close-up photography. The macro feature is useless for overall layout photography (in my experience), but the micro is most-useful; because its range of focus is from half an inch to infinity! On has to 'step' a little bit further back but with F.45 (if fiddled with on the control knob on the camera, which, as mentioned, I don't understand - the minimum aperture on the lens itself states F.32, but the camera reads F.45 or less; it does make a difference) the depth of field is excellent. 

 

One advantage, of course, with the full-frame camera(s) is, with such a large file-size, an image can be quite tightly-cropped, yet still remain very sharp when enlarged; rather like the difference between 35mm film and medium format film cameras?

 

I must stress I'm not an analyst when it comes to my model railway photography. By that, I mean I don't theorise as to how results are obtained. I use powerful cameras and very high-quality lenses, plenty of light, very small apertures, long exposures and soften shadows by pulses of powerful fill-in flash. It works for me, and it's based on lots of experience.

 

I've used this image below before, but it's taken with the Nikon Df sitting on the track, with an 18-35 Nikon zoom lens on the front (set to 35), stopped down to F.29, with an exposure (relying on the 15 'daylight' tubes in the room) of around six seconds at an ASA of 100, with the shadows softened with pulses (around F.8) of fill-in flash. 

 

245468730_RM017V2.jpg.8e8e80c92ef4820811e413871d94ba12.jpg

 

The front of the lens was just over a foot from the front of the V2, and I've cropped off most of the out-of-focus foreground. Apart from getting the ballast at the photographer's feet in focus (which would be unnatural in my opinion), stacking would not improve the depth of field at all. 

 

837154281_RMLittleBytham09.jpg.38c60c7c2ac8cf068258aa21ec4d0c8c.jpg

 

With the same camera/lens/lighting combination used, but this time with the camera sitting just six inches from the rear of the tender, the depth of field is (naturally) reduced, though (in my view) all that needs to be in sharp focus is. Stacking might mean that distant buffer stop would be in focus, but I doubt if it would improve the image.

 

1435080178_BridgefieldQuarry25.jpg.094ec0bbb773177db78ebc23e679f9c9.jpg

 

By 'standing back' slightly from the subject matter (in this case almost a whole layout) the depth of field capabilities of the Micro Nikon can be fully-exploited. Everything in this scene is in focus, with no need for stacking. 

 

I've seen the results of stacking and I remain ambivalent about it. On too many occasions (in my opinion) it introduces too many aberrations (often manifested in trackwork and trains in tight perspective). Anyway, I'm too dim to use it!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

When I observe anything the object of my interest is 'in focus'; I am largely unaware of the surrounding scene - it is effectively 'out of focus'. As my point of interest shifts, so the point of 'focus' shifts.

 

No photographic technique can reproduce this, though it is sometimes possible to get most or all of the image in focus. However, when this is achieved - often by 'stacking' nowadays - it just looks 'wrong' to me. It's not how my eye perceives the real thing, and magazine photos produced in this way shout 'model' at me.

 

No image, real or model, has the same level of interest throughout, and a model image which focusses on the main subject will always, to me, appear more realistic than one that is pin-sharp throughout. Just because something can be achieved, does not automatically mean that it is desirable.

 

This modern obsession with infinite depth of field has, in no small measure, contributed to my giving up on all model railway magazines except MRJ; (along with the 'dumbing-down' of the vast majority of their content).

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

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

42 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

When I observe anything the object of my interest is 'in focus'; I am largely unaware of the surrounding scene - it is effectively 'out of focus'. As my point of interest shifts, so the point of 'focus' shifts.

 

No photographic technique can reproduce this, though it is sometimes possible to get most or all of the image in focus. However, when this is achieved - often by 'stacking' nowadays - it just looks 'wrong' to me. It's not how my eye perceives the real thing, and magazine photos produced in this way shout 'model' at me.

 

No image, real or model, has the same level of interest throughout, and a model image which focusses on the main subject will always, to me, appear more realistic than one that is pin-sharp throughout. Just because something can be achieved, does not automatically mean that it is desirable.

 

This modern obsession with infinite depth of field has, in no small measure, contributed to my giving up on all model railway magazines except MRJ; (along with the 'dumbing-down' of the vast majority of their content).

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

It's interesting you mention the MRJ, John,

 

Little Bytham appeared in that some little time ago, but I don't think my photographic approach was any different to what I usually do. 

 

Some shots which were submitted, but not used......................................

 

1777125355_MRJ18A4andO2s.jpg.a6300fdcf4e30663f082511ade88e592.jpg

 

1786803671_MRJ20K2.jpg.12910dbb28199f0ece392a083154abd7.jpg

 

827675522_MRJ31BGoodsYardentrance.jpg.6fb8fba0c0e56995aa8ffb8064e43774.jpg

 

I think this was used as a cameo.

 

1625086490_MRJ36J6shunting.jpg.10eb4adbb2d717511cb34e513664f296.jpg

 

Obviously a huge amount of work has been completed since these were taken. 

 

One which was used, replicated a prototype shot (or as best as I could)...........

 

1346111118_MRJ06Viewnorthwards.jpg.b47938f56b6f51bec121102758d9d3a8.jpg

 

1772771116_MRJ094Fbybox.jpg.61f83e5d968d6213630cb9faa1176ebf.jpg

 

This was another 'replication', but was not used.

 

Dsc_4043.jpg.ec167a6431560c881aa876ed36192025.jpg

 

This was taken and processed, but then not submitted. It's daft - the photographer would be killed! 

 

1506509846_MRJ05A1onYorkshirePullman.jpg.1d5150a8498f13c29bf467a5edb35ab5.jpg

 

This one was also taken and processed but not submitted; far too much image manipulation!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 13
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

It's interesting you mention the MRJ, John,

 

Little Bytham appeared in that some little time ago, but I don't think my photographic approach was any different to what I usually do. 

 

 

.... and that's why I like them - to my eye, at least, there is excellent depth of field within the main subject area, but the background has an element of soft fade.

 

That's what I perceive in real life, and that's the way I like it.

 

(I'm assuming that the images that you've posted have not been subject to image stacking).

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

.... and that's why I like them - to my eye, at least, there is excellent depth of field within the main subject area, but the background has an element of soft fade.

 

That's what I perceive in real life, and that's the way I like it.

 

(I'm assuming that the images that you've posted have not been subject to image stacking).

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

'(I'm assuming that the images that you've posted have not been subject to image stacking).'

 

Your assumption is dead right, John,

 

I don't know how to!

 

One other thing: the camera I use mainly for layout photography (the Nikon Df) gives rather nice 'soft' and natural colours. Some more recent model railway photography I've seen is incredibly lurid and (for want of a better description) 'over-Photoshopped' in my opinion. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

When I observe anything the object of my interest is 'in focus'; I am largely unaware of the surrounding scene - it is effectively 'out of focus'. As my point of interest shifts, so the point of 'focus' shifts.

 

No photographic technique can reproduce this, though it is sometimes possible to get most or all of the image in focus. However, when this is achieved - often by 'stacking' nowadays - it just looks 'wrong' to me. It's not how my eye perceives the real thing, and magazine photos produced in this way shout 'model' at me.

 

No image, real or model, has the same level of interest throughout, and a model image which focusses on the main subject will always, to me, appear more realistic than one that is pin-sharp throughout. Just because something can be achieved, does not automatically mean that it is desirable.

 

This modern obsession with infinite depth of field has, in no small measure, contributed to my giving up on all model railway magazines except MRJ; (along with the 'dumbing-down' of the vast majority of their content).

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Hence my comments in the fourth paragraph of my post.

 

It seems my new toy has the means of exercising restraint as the menu allows for choosing the nearest and furthest focusing points, it then focusing on however many equally divided points in between the two that I choose. Hence, once I've learned how to use it, hazy backgrounds should be obtainable. What I really want is to avoid fuzzy foregrounds of the kind one just doesn't get on prototype photos unless using fast lenses wide open.

 

I also intend to experiment with a 40mm Micro_Nikkor on my old DX-format Nikon in order to compare the effects.  

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
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...