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

  • RMweb Premium
17 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good afternoon Andy,

 

my ears must be burning.

 

I have no love for MK 1's but I don't hate them. Their stock rises if modellers are taking the time and effort to build them. Catering carriages of all types are always of interest. Yours get three gold stars, being built by yourself, being based on a real prototype and despite being MK 1's, they avoid the cookie cutter phenomenon. However, I'm nocking one star off, for getting the division line between the crimson and cream band in the wrong place on the lower bodyside!


My lack of love is basically that


1. They are boring, a virus of uniformity.


2. They are ugly, not in an interesting way, just boring ugly.


3. Real word proliferation, leading to the disappearance of a wonderful diversity of elegant, individual, interesting, quirky, if unsafe rolling stock. The alternative is safe but a bit boring


4. model railway proliferation, except for one or two  loonies, people just buy MK1's fully formed, (or should that be malformed) leading to the disappearance of a wonderful diversity of elegant, individual, interesting, quirky, modelling. The alternative is .........................you guessed it.

 

 

Some of us are stuck with them, of course we can have newer stock but we still need the things.

 

And I only have 10 Bachmann.

 

Still need to model though, upgrading oder stuff, renumbering, correcting roof vents, bogies and brake gear.

 

I think only 1 of my catering vehicles has a vacuum brake cylinder.

 

Or am I a loonie? But if I am so is Clive!

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MJI said:

 

 

Some of us are stuck with them, of course we can have newer stock but we still need the things.

 

And I only have 10 Bachmann.

 

Still need to model though, upgrading oder stuff, renumbering, correcting roof vents, bogies and brake gear.

 

I think only 1 of my catering vehicles has a vacuum brake cylinder.

 

Or am I a loonie? But if I am so is Clive!

 

God bless the loonies, wonderful people.

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

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

God bless the loonies, wonderful people.

 

bar1.JPG

 

bar2.JPG

 

This will never be RTR, runs with 6 Shawplanned Airfix 2D, a Lima 47 and a Replica BG

  • Like 9
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Geep7 said:

Hi Tony,

 

After my slightly dragging the thread off course earlier, I thought I should at least ask something that is on topic.

 

I've always admired your layout photography, and one thing i've been wondering whilst looking at your last few shots. Do you use full manual mode or aperture priority? I use a DSLR as well, but still only have the standard 18 - 55mm kit lens, plus a telephoto (which is no use for model photos of course), and I sometimes still struggle to get the full scene in focus. In the past, I have dabbled with focus stacking, but it requires spending way too much time on Photoshop. Would you recommend I invest in a better wide-angle lense, or am I just not doing something right?

 

Best regards, Chris

Good afternoon Chris,

 

Firstly, my congratulations on your using 'my' in the first sentence of your post. So many would have used 'me'; incorrectly. 

 

I'm pleased you like my layout photography. 

 

Full manual or aperture priority? It doesn't really make a difference, because I always use the minimum aperture. However, I would never dream of using auto-focus. 

 

It's impossible for me to advise you on which lenses to use, without asking the following questions. Which DSLR are you using? Is it full-frame? When you say you have a 'standard' 18-55mm kit lens, what's its make? 

 

The lens on the camera shown in my pictures of late is a Nikon 18-35mm AF zoom. It stops down to F29, which is vital (F22 is never small enough). I only use Nikon lenses on professional Nikon cameras. Non-Nikon lenses, which have the same mounts, are poor in comparison. The difference is, of course, in the price. 

 

I also use a Nikon 55mm Micro (not Macro) and a Nikon 60mm Micro, both of which will go to smaller apertures than F.32. Both are prime lenses, which always give better results than zooms, but their use is more limited. 

 

I find it slightly amusing when folk will buy 'miniature' cameras which cost less (a lot less) than any one of my lenses and then puzzle why they can't get the 'same results'. 

 

I agree, focus stacking (which Andy York tried to explain to me, and failed dismally - though not because of his fault) increases depth of field, but I'm not prepared to use it. Why? I have no need of it, and get enormous depth of field optically, without any risk of lens aberrations (which some folk blame for producing 'bendy' stock). 

 

Like golf, photography can produce snobs. Snobs who think that by spending mega-bucks it'll improve whatever they do. In golf's case, all it means is that, by employing the most expensive clubs, all they'll do is hook or slice the ball even greater distances! That said, and returning to photography, I couldn't possibly get the results I manage with 'cheap' cameras. Even second-hand, the 60mm Nikon Micro was not far shy of £400.00. 

 

So, how do I advise? Be prepared to spend an awful lot of money on the 'best' photographic equipment? To replace my Nikon D3 with the current D5, I'd need over five grand! 

 

Because it was my profession, I always bought 'top of the range' photographic stuff for my purposes - in film days, it was Mamiya 6x7s (or 6x9) and Pentax 67s, plus enlargers equipped with  Zeiss lenses. Much was bought second-hand (and is now worthless!), but it was still top stuff. I also hired 5X4 (inches!) MPP monorail cameras. 

 

Now it's full-frame DSLRs. I did dabble with smaller digital cameras, but found them, for my purposes, useless - the classic snob's assessment, of course. The one huge advantage of powerful cameras is that, because the file sizes they take are huge, sections of the frame (negative) can be enlarged without loss of clarity. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

My Mark 1s of interest, mainly catering and brakes.

 

RBR(RU) WR one, Comet sides on Lima RB base with filled in windows to look like its protype

TSOs a few Triang based with BSK, my GWR150 rake

A few Coopercraft waiting on IDs

A few Lima waiting on better glazing, will probably get Cometed

A Triang RMB on Replica Commonwealths and correct roof vents, Replica glazing, detailed underframe including air brakes (used picture of real one as an ex departmental awaiting scrap).

A Triang BG on B4 with AB runs in same set as the RMB shares same 2 base BSKs as one of the TSOs

A bitsof BG Comet sides CC BR1s and cut down Triang UF

 

I am currently trying to work out how to flush glaze a Mainline RBR (a lovely model apart from that).

 

Rest are Bachmann and flushglazed Replica

 

But few rakes are finished

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I like Nikon.

 

My previous glasses were Nikon and much better than the current Specsavers.

 

I want a Nikon DSLR as they combine Nikon glass and Sony sensors, so best of both.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good afternoon Andy,

 

my ears must be burning.

 

I have no love for MK 1's but I don't hate them. Their stock rises if modellers are taking the time and effort to build them. Catering carriages of all types are always of interest. Yours get three gold stars, being built by yourself, being based on a real prototype and despite being MK 1's, they avoid the cookie cutter phenomenon. However, I'm nocking one star off, for getting the division line between the crimson and cream band in the wrong place on the lower bodyside!


My lack of love is basically that


1. They are boring, a virus of uniformity.


2. They are ugly, not in an interesting way, just boring ugly.


3. Real word proliferation, leading to the disappearance of a wonderful diversity of elegant, individual, interesting, quirky, if unsafe rolling stock. The alternative is safe but a bit boring


4. model railway proliferation, except for one or two  loonies, people just buy MK1's fully formed, (or should that be malformed) leading to the disappearance of a wonderful diversity of elegant, individual, interesting, quirky, modelling. The alternative is .........................you guessed it.

Good afternoon Andrew,

 

I rejoice in being a loony! 

 

Beauty (as always) is in the eye of the beholder (as is ugliness).

 

470347482_ECMLtrain02.jpg.73889e4e8de286c20fe787395af62dbe.jpg

 

Despite this train's all-Mk.1 formation, I find it a beautiful rake. 

 

194747529_ECMLtrain23extraLMSGWRBRLNERstock.jpg.cfadd44cbf76bbf8c4653ea678eaaf4d.jpg

 

Far more-beautiful (though, perhaps, not as interesting) than this jumbled up mixture. With ex-LMS, ex-GWR, MK.1s and ex-LNER cars (could there be an ex-SR one in the distance?), it's a bit of a muddle in comparison.

 

It comes down, of course, to modelling motivation. Mine, as is known, is to model what I saw. Thus, during my 'spotting days on the ECML, many of the principal trains had Mk.1 carriages in them. 

 

Pragmatism also calls. I've said before, that to produce all the Mk.1s I 'need' for LB, I'd need to build well over a hundred of them. It's just not practicable

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 10
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

It's impossible for me to advise you on which lenses to use, without asking the following questions. Which DSLR are you using? Is it full-frame? When you say you have a 'standard' 18-55mm kit lens, what's its make? 

Hi Tony,

 

Apologies, I knew I should have mentioned what camera make and model I use in the first post. I currently use a Nikon D3100, having recently "upgraded" from a D40 that I used for quite a few years, and the 18 - 55mm is a Nikon DX series lense.

 

Regards, Chris

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Geep7 said:

Hi Tony,

 

Apologies, I knew I should have mentioned what camera make and model I use in the first post. I currently use a Nikon D3100, having recently "upgraded" from a D40 that I used for quite a few years, and the 18 - 55mm is a Nikon DX series lense.

 

Regards, Chris

 

 

Thanks Chris,

 

I'm afraid I've no idea what the capabilities of a Nikon D3100 are, but is it full-frame? If not, there'll be limitations. 

 

Any Nikon lens should have good resolution (as long as it's been made in Japan - some were made elsewhere, and, I'm told, though I've never used one, aren't as good. Perhaps others will know). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Chris,

 

I'm afraid I've no idea what the capabilities of a Nikon D3100 are, but is it full-frame? If not, there'll be limitations. 

 

Any Nikon lens should have good resolution (as long as it's been made in Japan - some were made elsewhere, and, I'm told, though I've never used one, aren't as good. Perhaps others will know). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Ah, sorry. It's got an APS-C sensor, so not full frame unfortunately.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Headstock said:

My lack of love is basically that


1. They are boring, a virus of uniformity.

 

Oddly enough I find a lot of Big-4 designs uniform. Each had it's own standard designs that only varied when the chief engineer changed. Surely a rake of 100% Gresley, Stanier, Maunsell or Hawksworth designed coached is just as dull. The variety comes in as soon as you start mixing designs - add a pre-nationalisation coach to a rake of Mk1s and the train becomes more interesting. Similarly mixing Mk1, 2 and 3s together does the same, just fewer people do it.

 

There are plenty of passenger carrying Mk1 diagrams that have yet to be produced RTR, before starting on parcel and post stock.

 

Steven B.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steven B said:

 

Oddly enough I find a lot of Big-4 designs uniform. Each had it's own standard designs that only varied when the chief engineer changed. Surely a rake of 100% Gresley, Stanier, Maunsell or Hawksworth designed coached is just as dull. The variety comes in as soon as you start mixing designs - add a pre-nationalisation coach to a rake of Mk1s and the train becomes more interesting. Similarly mixing Mk1, 2 and 3s together does the same, just fewer people do it.

 

There are plenty of passenger carrying Mk1 diagrams that have yet to be produced RTR, before starting on parcel and post stock.

 

Steven B.

 

Good evening Steve,

 

what a super idea, I have placed my order with Hattons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I disagree entirely,

 

Definitely not. There must be thousands like you who find the description abhorrent, of which I'm definitely one! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

The wond'rful language thee calleth english is f'r ev'r evolving railway station  to traineth station.

  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Clem said:

Evening Tony. I've been enjoying your photographic jaunts around Little Bytham.  The eye level (scale eye) shots really bring out the realism of the railway and paint your Locos and stock in a most convincing way. I particularly like the M&GN shots from the road. One of the regrets of my layout is that it is a 'flat earth' layout as you call it. 

 

However, one angle I've found quite interesting is using the i-phone camera. It allows the shot to be taken about a scale foot above the ground and gives quite and interesting perspective. The big drawback is the lack of depth of field and anything other than a side-on loses focus half way down the loco. But my i-phone is very old and the cameras have improved much since mine. I believe the latest ones allow you to adjust the aperture and presumably allows a much greater depth of field. Anyway, here are one or two shots of the new austerity which is virtually constructionally complete now. 

 

IMG_4855_rdcd.jpg.57b8d06d1afa9e966e898faad3c2a467.jpgIMG_4856_rdcd.jpg.a2c194365df470365fd98d90533c3423.jpgIMG_4857_rdcd.jpg.61d1b111b1389268b6639abaec9fee81.jpgIMG_4858_rdcd.jpg.391ad7d59cb587e9b7bc7006737b13b2.jpg

 

 

Good evening Clem,

 

I'm not being disparaging to fat earth layouts. If that's the nature of the topography being modelled (where the formation is the lowest feature), then that's all one can do. It's just that, from a photographic point of view, having objects (much) higher than the camera gives me some interesting viewpoints. 

 

That said, your phone camera almost gives a worm's eye view (if worms had eyes), and really shows off the mass of your splendid WD. Even with my camera standing on the floor adjacent to a loco, the viewpoint is that of a Brobdingnagian! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Regards,

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

That said, your phone camera almost gives a worm's eye view (if worms had eyes), and really shows off the mass of your splendid WD. Even with my camera standing on the floor adjacent to a loco, the viewpoint is that of a Brobdingnagian! 

That's true. But I'm probably more gullible than Gulliver!

  • Funny 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

On my DSLR (Canon) the APS sensor gives a slight advantage in some circumstances when using my telephoto lens’ for sport and wildlife work. The next body however will be full frame.

Re what have you done in lockdown, not much yet, these three were completed with individual numbers, laserglase and minor detailing. I get furloughed soon so hope to do quite a bit more then.

 

D0413489-E714-4985-9050-89974659A1F4.jpeg

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The superbly modelled station building on Sandford and Banwell, taken at Southampton show.

 

I confess that I don't strive for perfection, just sufficient quality to make A4 prints to my own satisfaction, with the minimum of fuss and post-processing.

 

Panasonic Lumix G9 (Micro Four Thirds format, so smaller than DX), Leica 12-60 zoom lens, set at 35mm (equivalent to 70mm on full-frame). In-camera focus-stacking (my first attempt at using it away from home).

 

The book says use a tripod, this was hand-held, using only the layout lighting, ISO 1600, 1/200 sec at f/3.8 x however many frames the camera deemed necessary (eight I think).

 

John

PPG90038.JPG

  • Like 12
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Manxcat said:

Tony,

 

Is there a particular reason why some of the buildings on LB are removable? Was it a conscious decision from the outset?

 

Archie

Archie,

 

It was a conscious decision. 

 

Apart from the buildings on the island platforms, all the others sit in 'footprints' cut from card, glued to the groundwork. There are several reasons for this. It makes removal for photography dead easy. It also disguises the tell-tale shadow at the buildings' bases when photographs are taken. It also allows for maintenance/track cleaning (inside the goods shed, for instance) and also stops them from moving without their being glued down.

 

How I did it is explained in my Crowood book.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

The superbly modelled station building on Sandford and Banwell, taken at Southampton show.

 

I confess that I don't strive for perfection, just sufficient quality to make A4 prints to my own satisfaction, with the minimum of fuss and post-processing.

 

Panasonic Lumix G9 (Micro Four Thirds format, so smaller than DX), Leica 12-60 zoom lens, set at 35mm (equivalent to 70mm on full-frame). In-camera focus-stacking (my first attempt at using it away from home).

 

The book says use a tripod, this was hand-held, using only the layout lighting, ISO 1600, 1/200 sec at f/3.8 x however many frames the camera deemed necessary (eight I think).

 

John

PPG90038.JPG

Did you show me your camera at the Southampton show, John?

 

If so, its depth of field capability was very impressive.

 

I've taken a picture of that same wonderful station building......................

 

286608621_SandfordBanwell14.jpg.65b6b1dc6c5b547bcad87fc7f3817408.jpg

 

Not at 1600 ASA, however. And just one shot, with the camera (Nikon D3) on a sturdy tripod. 

 

Perhaps your camera shows us the future in model railway photography.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 3
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...