Wright writes.....

[PMP]

35 minutes ago, micklner said:

Manipulated looks what it is , why pretend its not there .

To improve the picture, simple as. It allows the subject matter to get the required exposure, (I’m here all week), without unnecessary distractions.

 

The background here adds nothing, so remove it either digitally or with paper/sheet.

[MJI]

OK I have unwittingly been pulled into a EM vs P4 battle.

 

I am planning on building a small plank for some fun using EM (because it is easier than P4) and Peco track.

 

Worked out about £100 worth of EMGS Streamline.

 

No more than 6 locos, 8 coaches, depending on what I find. Modellers licence taken on age of stock and service (right area, locos are local to it, even seen photos of some real life carriages available as simple kits). Simply put in EM wheel sets into the bogies and the first two locos are broken anyway. One jammed loco chassis with tender drive, one body only display model).

 

Been getting replies, PMs and profile posts pushing P4.

 

A bit insidious.

[MJI]

9 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

 

Possibly not unrelated:

 

 

 

 

In later years 43102 & 43159 did the Diesel record same area.

[johndon]

8 minutes ago, MJI said:

OK I have unwittingly been pulled into a EM vs P4 battle.

 

I am planning on building a small plank for some fun using EM (because it is easier than P4) and Peco track.

 

Worked out about £100 worth of EMGS Streamline.

 

 

Coincidentally, I'm also planning a small EM gauge layout with about £100 worth of Peco track, only two locos and perhaps 20 wagons, I'm doing it as a distraction from my magnum opus which happens to be in P4...

 

 

[Michael Edge]

11 minutes ago, MJI said:

 

In later years 43102 & 43159 did the Diesel record same area.

I thought that was north of Doncaster or York?

[landscapes]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

A question, please..............

 

How much digital manipulation is acceptable in a picture of a model railway?

 

 

This is one of the most-recent pictures of Retford I've taken (no trains, so no need to worry about lamps, or the lack of them!). 

 

It shows (I hope) the wonderfully-wide aspect of the railway ('No compromises!' was one of the great man's phrases), the cant of the fast lines, the splendid signals (apologies for breaking the rules of composition by having a vertical element right in the middle), the fantastic (finished) buildings (Geoff Kent and John McRae, I don't know whose work the signals are) and the distant perspective. 

 

Now, to the last-mentioned point. Do the main line tracks recede into the distance towards Eaton Wood? 

 

 

In actuality, those main line tracks disappear through 'a hole in the sky', through which can be seen a substantial electrical feed and a baseboard edge.

 

If left as it were, would it be too obtrusive? I don't have a problem with extending the sky behind the nearer signals (my eye is immediately drawn towards the ceiling and the walls of the room - and the ghostly operator!), but the on-/off-stage arrangement? 

 

All I did in the top picture to remove the aperture was to clone the surrounding, painted areas. Acceptable? 

 

 

Taken from a similar angle to the one above (I prefer this composition), with the aperture taken out (apologies for this having been seen before, but I'm interested in the opinions). 

 

 

 

 

Hi Tony

 

I do enjoy photo manipulation using photoshop, but usually just adding a sky background or occasionally an area of landscape.

 

I personally prefer the photos you have taken where you have added a sky and they enhance the view of a fabulous model railway layout such as Retford and your own Little Bytham.

 

As for adding smoke I don’t have a problem with it at all as it’s just creating a piece of art which a photo is.

 

We all like the model locomotives to be as realistic as possible and enhance them with additional detailing and weathering, adding smoke to a photo in my opinion is just an extension of that.

 

But the above photos are still great with or without an added background.

 

Regards

 

David  

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

The counter shows the number of replies. You need to add 1 to get the total number of posts. Clem's was definitely the final post on page 2000 (and will remain so unless an earlier post is deleted for some reason).

 

So we can all mess about deleting our earlier posts to allow us to claim the prize?

 

Room for some devious skulduggery I think!

 

On the other hand, I think I will let it go.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

My apologies to John if I've got it wrong, Tony.

 

In future, I'll refrain from mentioning anyone's name in a Retford picture. I always like to give due credit for work, but it seems that omission is all too prevalent. In that respect, I cannot win.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

I know you like to give credit where due and I think it is really good that you do. It is just really difficult to do on Retford because of the number of people involved and the overlaps where people have collaborated. At least 7 different people have contributed to the signals to my knowledge and there may be some that I have missed. If you add those involved in the wiring up, you can add a couple more.

 

I am not sure that even Roy remembered who had done exactly which bits and there are things on Retford that I look at now and cannot be 100% sure if I did them, either by myself or with somebody else.

 

So it is great that you would like to give credit where it is due and fair play to you if you want to try to do it but you may find yourself in the same position as Roy, where he found it so difficult that the credit was given to "The Retford Mob".

 

I had a chat with John Phillips yesterday and asked him if he could remember what vintage "Singapore" was and whether it was an old High Dyke loco but he couldn't recall an A3 with that name. It wouldn't have been produced for Dunwich. It certainly wasn't on "The Talisman" on Retford previously and neither of us can remember seeing it run on Retford at all before, so we are wondering about its history. Could you tell the origin of the loco (which kit/RTR etc.) from looking at it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Clem said:

Thanks Andrew. What a brilliant site. I've not seen any of these photos before. Yes I definitely need a NER T(8). They appear in photos of the line frequently. Do you know if there's a kit? I also clocked the B1 on the SP twin diagram 310. 

The photo of 61821 (and others) have NER? clerestories in the background and a 60' GC matchboard. I wish I could have got to Grantham 10 years earlier!

 

Good morning Clem,

 

Yes, it's a fantastic site. Ten years earlier, I quite agree, look at all that stuff to go at, it certainly beats filing the ribs off Bachmann MK1's (yawn). If you get the chance, there are some great stories and more image to indulge on there.

 

D&S produced a nice little kit but they go for silly prices on the Bay of E. Dan was producing limited runs of his 4 mm kits but I think that ill health in the family has curtailed that. They need prising out of the hands of the hoarders for the good of everybodies mental health.

[Clem]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Argumentative, controversial, self-opinionated, insensitive, useful, helpful, enlightening, disappointing, creditable, long-winded, upsetting, creative, misleading.........................

... and that's just applying it to the argument who won the 50,000th post prize!

[St Enodoc]

2 hours 3 minutes for a full page. Is that a record?

[davidw]

I had to look up what erudite meant!

Edited August 27, 2020 by davidw

[FarrMan]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

How much digital manipulation is acceptable in a picture of a model railway?

 

I like both. With digital manipulation it is more realistic. Without digital manipulation it is easier to see how you have got round the problems on the model. Both have their place, and both are a delight to see.

 

The same applies to added smoke. With it - more realistic. Without it - you see the actual model better.

 

It is like the DC/DCC debate and many other debates. Both are right depending on the type of layout and the skills of the builder.

 

Lloyd

[FarrMan]

1 minute ago, davidw said:

I had to look up what erudite meant!

I thought it was a glue.

 

Lloyd

[St Enodoc]

3 minutes ago, FarrMan said:

The same applies to added smoke. With it - more realistic. Without it - you see the actual model better.

I don't really like photoshopped (other digital enhancement programs are available) smoke and steam at all. It doesn't look much like any photo of a real steam loco in action to me.

[FarrMan]

3 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

I don't really like photoshopped (other digital enhancement programs are available) smoke and steam at all. It doesn't look much like any photo of a real steam loco in action to me.

I can understand that. But surely it depends on how well it is done. I have never used Photoshop or any similar programs, but I would imagine that to get the steam/smoke effect must be quite difficult, and so to compare an amateurish attempt to a highly skilled attempt would be like comparing a model that I had built (had I built any recently) with one of Tony's.

 

Lloyd

[Tony Teague]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks to all the posters for collectively passing the 50,000 mark!

 

Argumentative, controversial, self-opinionated, insensitive, useful, helpful, enlightening, disappointing, creditable, long-winded, upsetting, creative, misleading......................... Any other adjectives to describe this thread? Most of the 'negative' ones apply to me.

 

Thanks again for all the erudite (another adjective) comments from, everyone.................

 

And that's why we follow it!

 

Well, that plus there's some excellent modelling going on - yours and that of other contributors!

 

Congratulations on passing 50,000 posts.

Tony

[30368]

Good afternoon Tony,

 

Sorry to interupt the flow but a quick question relating to the Crownline A1/1kit that I am building, well I guess its a prototype question really.

 

I am fairly certain that Great Northern did have AWS fitted (there is an image of it on Doncaster works with AWS conduit fitted to the drivers side) but I cannot find any image that shows were the AWS battery box was located. I don't think there is room on the trailing wheel frame below the cab as on, for example, the A2/3.

 

Can you please enlighten me?

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

The counter shows the number of replies. You need to add 1 to get the total number of posts. Clem's was definitely the final post on page 2000 (and will remain so unless an earlier post is deleted for some reason).

 

Thanks, that is what fooled me.

 

I will remember that and be ready when we get to 100,000 in a couple of weeks.

[MJI]

2 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

I thought that was north of Doncaster or York?

 

The IC225 bogie tests.

 

Hmm you are right, I had poor quality information, off the internet.

 

https://www.125group.org.uk/tag/43102/

 

Sorry!

[dibateg]

Back to the K2's, mine seems to have the wrong tender ( with the hand holds ) , unless it changed later on when the insignia was changed, the General repair in '55. I 'll have to live with that... and were K2's running at the same time as the flying pigs? Rule 1 then...

 

Clem - I like that K2 with the curved smokebox handrail, I wonder if anyone's been brave enough to do that! The NER coaches would make an interesting addition to the fleet, they must have gone by the '60s. There is that excellent photo of a J6 pulling in to Basford North with one in the formation.

 

Tony - I like the shopped photos, a sort of physical way of suspending disbelief in that the manipulation is doing what the mind would like to and that the focus is on the model and not the junk in the background ( which every photo of mine has included so far! ) .

 

I know there is no scenery yet, so the backscene should obscure that window - up to a certain level.. I need to shop out all that junk!

 

Keep up the irreverence!

Regards

Tony

[stewartingram]

3 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

 

Possibly not unrelated:

 

 

 

Somewhere - it might be Shapeways or Scale Model Scenery? - I've seen a model of this. Such a shame it can't be squeezed onto the LB scene.

[Woodcock29]

18 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Evening Clem,

 

I reprocessed one of the files off the camera. I'm much more happy with it now. It looks like a corrupt colour profile problem on the camera was causing a bit of bother, now sorted. Hopefully it still looks OK, as that is the model.

 

That brake looks wonderful Andrew. What a great model. I have one I got second hand  a few months ago which had been started but haven't had time to do much more on it yet.

 

Andrew 

[APOLLO]

My views on layout photos is that I like both those that portray a real life scenario i.e sky added, clutter removed etc but I also like to see the layout in it's setting, tidy, cluttered or otherwise - sometimes the layout surroundings is more interesting than the layout (but not on Tony's layout !!). Anyone recognize where the NER gradient board was rescued from ?

 

 

I also dislike layouts that the main line just disappears into a hole in the back scene with no attempt (or very little) to hide it. Little Bytham I note has very convenient bridges to hide such places. Again some exhibition layouts I have seen are either excellent or terrible in this area. I could name a couple but I won't as they are otherwise superb layouts. If you model a real setting and no bridge is handy - use vegetation (trees) - this can be very effective, and trees little and large are easily justified.

 

I have no fiddle yards, the whole layout is a fiddle !!!!!!!

 

Brit15

[landscapes]

1 hour ago, FarrMan said:

I can understand that. But surely it depends on how well it is done. I have never used Photoshop or any similar programs, but I would imagine that to get the steam/smoke effect must be quite difficult, and so to compare an amateurish attempt to a highly skilled attempt would be like comparing a model that I had built (had I built any recently) with one of Tony's.

 

Lloyd

Hi Lloyd

 

I agree with your comments regarding smoke, I do occasionally add it to some of my photos, it isn't as hard as one might think, most of the model railway journals tend to use it in their layout photos

 

I enclose I photo I recently produced using Photoshop Elements, I am not sure whether in other members eyes this is regarded as amateurish or not.

 

All I have added is a sky background and smoke all the rest is pure model railways, photo can be removed if required, personally I think it produces quite a nice effect to the overall scene.

 

Regards

 

David