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

4 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

I have to admit to being in the 'crop out' distracting background clutter that isn't part of the modelling camp. And replace it with a plain 'sky' rather like a grey overcast day or monotone colour.

 

However, I find that bright blue skies with fluffy white clouds rarely work (as above) partly because I believe the clouds often look like they extend down below the viewers eye level and, of course, due to the other issues reported like non-matching sunny shadows. AFAIA, although clouds may reach down to the distant horizon, the atmospheric effects (like clouds) tend to come forward and above/over your head (as you reduce your viewing distance). Generally you can't look left and right and see the clouds lower than you are. Only in rare circumstances are they level with or below your eye line.

 

Hmmm, I don't think I've explained that very well.

 

 

 

 

You've explained it just fine, Grahame,

 

That's why I no longer put fluffy cloud skies behind my model shots..................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Andrew,

 

Many thanks.

 

Different photographic styles with regard to model railways is never going to please everyone. As mentioned, I no longer put real skies behind any of the images I take. At most I'll extend a backscene, cloning the colours therein.

 

What's the alternative? Or alternatives? As you say, people's wallpaper, or shelves, doors, windows, wardrobes, cupboards, plants, climbing bars and ropes (if the layout's in a sports hall), cups of tea, bellies (often fat!), crowds and all manner of other distractions. Left in, the eye is immediately drawn to these; the complete opposite to reality, where the eye shuts these out. 

 

Digital 'enhancement' has been mentioned, but I consider that nonsense. What I do doesn't enhance any part of the actual model. If the modelling is out-of-kilter, telegraph poles and signals are out-of-plumb, painting is poor or there are scuffs and dents, or buildings are de-laminating through age, I'm afraid (actually, not afraid at all) that's how they stay. Having said the above, I did 'remove' a dead wasp from one shot of late; which rather proves my point in a way (though it's probably enhancement). My eye dismissed it in reality (I didn't see it), but there it was in the picture! 

 

'Eye level' photography on model railways has necessitated backgrounds be taken out (can you imagine what a magazine's readership would say if all the clutter mentioned above were left in?). In the Brian Monaghan days of 'helicopter' shots, it didn't matter - what was achieved in the main were 'plan' views. 

 

Other than a 'fake' sky or black-out/white-out a baseboard edge (which can give a nice text box), one thing I'll never do with a picture is add things which aren't really there - grand houses, trees, distant hills and so on and so on. 

 

Each to their own, I suppose..................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Evening Tony,

 

I think that model railway photography is often at its best when it is creative and expressive, rather than just diagrammatic. The shot of the K3 goes further than LB in its use of digital artwork. However, it gets it about right in my opinion. There are no tricks in the modelling, It compliments the modelling and contributes to the general atmosphere. It is such a good shot that you could hang it on a wall. Perhaps not, if it was required to be painted out each time. At the end of the day, its no different from waggling a sheet. The latter is still a good idea, if you intend to use a digitally background and retain a complicated scenic element.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

God morning Chas,

 

Thank you for your kind comments. 

 

I must admit, I no longer put real skies behind my model pictures nowadays. The main reason for this is that many are published, and I leave it to the designer to put his/her background in. All I do is provide a neutral colour for a sky now, cloned from the colour of the backscene or just chosen from the colour palette. 

 

It does take more time to put a real sky in, though the real work involved is taking the 'lasso' tool around all the edges, isolating the background and adding another layer. My photo programme has a 'smart edge' tool, but it's the opposite of that, cheerfully nibbling away things like telegraph poles, signals and chimneys. No, it has to be 'free-hand', point to point. Painstaking, but necessary. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

The best way to cut out anything in Photoshop is to use a layer mask. (There are plug-ins available that enable smart masking to speed up the process.) This method allows any combination of selection tools to be used ensuring the quality and sharpness or softness of the cut edge is infinitesimally variable, rather than having to accept a global value for the entire layer. The user can combine other techniques with layer masks, for example using the channels palette to make precise selections. Perhaps the greatest advantage of the technique is that you can make endless adjustments and refinements. Essentially Photoshop used professionally is pixel perfect, entirely natural looking and its use undetectable.


 

Edited by Anglian
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 01/01/2021 at 19:47, Tony Teague said:

 

 

A nice collection Tony!

I'm surpised they used that pic on the Middleton Press cover - to me, the pway men don't look far enough away from that HST!

 

Tony

Tony,

 

I’ll put my day job hat on. No need to worry about the Track Workers and the proximity to the HST.  The minimum safe distance for a train running at 125mph is 6’ 6”. When you enlarge the image the worker nearest the train is stood in the 4 foot of the adjacent line. The limit is defined by the rail nearest the line the train is actually on.  The image is does set the date.  Now I would expect to see them with Safety Glasses as well.

 

Paul

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

  • RMweb Gold
15 minutes ago, Flying Fox 34F said:

Tony,

 

I’ll put my day job hat on. No need to worry about the Track Workers and the proximity to the HST.  The minimum safe distance for a train running at 125mph is 6’ 6”. When you enlarge the image the worker nearest the train is stood in the 4 foot of the adjacent line. The limit is defined by the rail nearest the line the train is actually on.  The image is does set the date.  Now I would expect to see them with Safety Glasses as well.

 

Paul

 

Thanks - I'm actually surprised it is that close.

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tony Teague said:

 

Thanks - I'm actually surprised it is that close.


Tony,

 

It can be quite surprising to new staff as well.  I usually break the ice with someone new and take them to a location with a slower line speed to get them used to the idea of being close to a moving train.  Then we change locations to one on the ECML.  I have one spot where you can see 2 1/2 miles in a straight line.  I point out where to stand safely and explain the distance of how far aware the approaching train is, then I ask how long it will take to get to our location?  It makes people appreciate the dynamics of the railway.

 

Paul

  • Like 8
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, grahame said:

 

I have to admit to being in the 'crop out' distracting background clutter that isn't part of the modelling camp. And replace it with a plain 'sky' rather like a grey overcast day or monotone colour.

 

However, I find that bright blue skies with fluffy white clouds rarely work (as above) partly because I believe the clouds often look like they extend down below the viewers eye level and, of course, due to the other issues reported like non-matching sunny shadows. AFAIA, although clouds may reach down to the distant horizon, the atmospheric effects (like clouds) tend to come forward and above/over your head (as you reduce your viewing distance). Generally you can't look left and right and see the clouds lower than you are. Only in rare circumstances are they level with or below your eye line.

 

Hmmm, I don't think I've explained that very well.

 

 

 

 

Hi Grahame

 

Depends were you are at a the time.

002a.jpg.005f101c9e3968f303f36caeea4fa0db.jpg

 

Looking the other way, same time, same day

001a.jpg.3ff651f9554cc7cfdfcfcf7e57691294.jpg

 

These have a railway connection as the old GNR Mablethorpe loop ran along the hedge row in the top photo and across the left hand field in the bottom one.

 

On a nice day the big sky where I live is great, not so today but at least I could see where it was raining in the distance.

  • Like 6
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
23 minutes ago, Flying Fox 34F said:


Tony,

 

It can be quite surprising to new staff as well.  I usually break the ice with someone new and take them to a location with a slower line speed to get them used to the idea of being close to a moving train.  Then we change locations to one on the ECML.  I have one spot where you can see 2 1/2 miles in a straight line.  I point out where to stand safely and explain the distance of how far aware the approaching train is, then I ask how long it will take to get to our location?  It makes people appreciate the dynamics of the railway.

 

Paul

Paul

 

Interesting; thanks for explaining.  I have held PTS photography lineside passes at a couple of heritage railways and their minimum distances are exactly the same for trains with a max speed of 25mph! But I suppose you wouldn't want to get any closer whatever the speed, to something as heavy and solid as a steam loco!

 

Tony

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Grahame

 

Depends were you are at a the time.

002a.jpg.005f101c9e3968f303f36caeea4fa0db.jpg

 

Looking the other way, same time, same day

001a.jpg.3ff651f9554cc7cfdfcfcf7e57691294.jpg

 

These have a railway connection as the old GNR Mablethorpe loop ran along the hedge row in the top photo and across the left hand field in the bottom one.

 

On a nice day the big sky where I live is great, not so today but at least I could see where it was raining in the distance.

 

I think you might has misunderstood what I was trying to say. In neither of your two pics does the sky and clouds reach down lower than the far distant horizon (to the left or right) nor can clouds be seen at the viewers eye-height near the viewing position, yet on Tony's pic they go down behind the trucks on the right side close to the viewing position. 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Flying Fox 34F said:


Tony,

 

It can be quite surprising to new staff as well.  I usually break the ice with someone new and take them to a location with a slower line speed to get them used to the idea of being close to a moving train.  Then we change locations to one on the ECML.  I have one spot where you can see 2 1/2 miles in a straight line.  I point out where to stand safely and explain the distance of how far aware the approaching train is, then I ask how long it will take to get to our location?  It makes people appreciate the dynamics of the railway.

 

Paul

 

A former guard's instructor used to take new staff, after appropriate classroom training and careful site briefing of course, to the upside of the barrow crossing at Grantham, long since abolished. The experience showed vividly how a train can sneak up at speed relatively unnoticed. Lesson very much learned!

By the time I did my PTS we weren't allowed trackside so mine was done on a dead end siding at Tyseley and on the platform at Stechford (I think). Not quite the same impact.

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

My PTS was completed at Derby under the gaze of the PSB. I had to acknowledge 2 Lookouts, then cross three running lines to the designated position of safety.  I was then marooned for 20 minutes due to passing traffic.  The Instructor became quite concerned, but was reassured when I pointed out I was enjoying the “scenery”. 
On the way back to Wyvern house we had three track workers hauled off the line in platform 1. Non had the correct I.D. and the Signalman didn’t know they were even there.

Finally, Grantham Barrow Crossing was always a good location to show staff how a train can sneak up on you.

 

Paul

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

God morning Chas,

 

Thank you for your kind comments. 

 

I must admit, I no longer put real skies behind my model pictures nowadays. The main reason for this is that many are published, and I leave it to the designer to put his/her background in. All I do is provide a neutral colour for a sky now, cloned from the colour of the backscene or just chosen from the colour palette. 

 

It does take more time to put a real sky in, though the real work involved is taking the 'lasso' tool around all the edges, isolating the background and adding another layer. My photo programme has a 'smart edge' tool, but it's the opposite of that, cheerfully nibbling away things like telegraph poles, signals and chimneys. No, it has to be 'free-hand', point to point. Painstaking, but necessary. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Good evening Tony, thank you for the explanation, quite understood. I did wonder whether you had to use a 'lasso' type tool (which I've used a bit in a very old version of Photoshop) but thought perhaps something easier had been invented more recently. I hadn't thought of your allowing for publishers adding their own backgrounds too...

Do you like the 'fake smoke' effect?

Thoroughly enjoying all the other beautiful photos you're posting from the decade just gone, inspiring stuff!

10 hours ago, john new said:

Given the responses above I am one of the odd ball readers. I quite like shots that show the railway in its room rather than a forced in extra. A layout needs a fascia and a back scene and they are part of the modelling totality and, as in the recent DVD/YouTube link you recently posted, it is useful to see how modellers successfully do, or don’t, process their edges.

 

Good evening John, you're not alone: I like seeing the real room too sometimes, not least because as you say it sometimes furnishes useful ideas for our own layouts :).

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
57 minutes ago, Flying Fox 34F said:

My PTS was completed at Derby under the gaze of the PSB. I had to acknowledge 2 Lookouts, then cross three running lines to the designated position of safety.  I was then marooned for 20 minutes due to passing traffic.  The Instructor became quite concerned, but was reassured when I pointed out I was enjoying the “scenery”. 
On the way back to Wyvern house we had three track workers hauled off the line in platform 1. Non had the correct I.D. and the Signalman didn’t know they were even there.

Finally, Grantham Barrow Crossing was always a good location to show staff how a train can sneak up on you.

 

Paul

My 1st PTS "practical assessment" was in Shoeburyness yard.  After I'd answered the instructor with the correct way to walk from the yard to Platform 2, a C2C driver walked past us and broke at least four rules including stepping out from behind a train onto a running line.  My instructor stood there with jaw dropped for a few seconds.....

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I am with you on that.

 

I would rather see a layout as it is rather than what it would be like if it was really outside.

 

How the railway is set up, what the real background looks like in the room, are things that are all part of the hobby and we can all look at what others have done or not done and learn about what looks good.

 

A false digital sky and a digitally added foreground take that opportunity away.

 

Cropping a photo to cut out background clutter is something I am happy with. Faking a view to make a layout look bigger or to make the edges look better than they really are is something I am not so keen on.

 

I would rather go for "warts and all" views than digitally enhanced.

 

So you are not quite alone but I am sure we are in a minority!

Well, Tony, I'm in the same minority. I like to see what's going on behind the scenes, too, in fiddle yards and storage areas.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Well, Tony, I'm in the same minority. I like to see what's going on behind the scenes, too, in fiddle yards and storage areas.

 

Me too - this elimination of all traces of reality is a publishing obsession nowadays.

 

John Isherwood.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's nice to see behind the scenes sometimes but I also like the images that have had those 'background distractions' removed. The latter show up the modelling better without any distracting bookcases or other furniture. It is good to see how people have constructed and layed out their fiddle yards but that's still a 'model railway' not a bookcase of railway books.

 

I also do think the method of just cloning the existing backscene sky is the better option then adding a fake sky. 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LNERandBR said:

I think it's nice to see behind the scenes sometimes but I also like the images that have had those 'background distractions' removed. The latter show up the modelling better without any distracting bookcases or other furniture. It is good to see how people have constructed and layed out their fiddle yards but that's still a 'model railway' not a bookcase of railway books.

 

I also do think the method of just cloning the existing backscene sky is the better option then adding a fake sky. 

 

It all depends what you believe railway modelling is all about.

 

I want to produce a railway setting that is complementary to my rolling stock - which I will enjoy running.

 

However, in some cases, it would seem that the primary purpose of the railway is simply that of a glorified photographic backdrop. The aim seems to be to produce still photos of trains, that will attract the comment "I thought that it was the real thing!"

 

I suppose that, if you are involved in publishing, that's fine - but it is not what I believe to be the prime objective of railway modelling.

 

If this seems to be a bit harsh - by his own admission, Tony rarely operates his creation, except for the entertainment of visitors.

 

John Isherwood.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's room for both. I very much enjoy operating model railways but I also enjoy viewing photos of them. Often, you spot things in a photograph that you never spotted before and can go back to the layout and rectify them.

 

In the current climate, how are we to show our models off other than through the medium of photography? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Well, Tony, I'm in the same minority. I like to see what's going on behind the scenes, too, in fiddle yards and storage areas.

 

No way,

 

all shots of the fiddle yard should have digital fountain, or some other water feature. Dare I say a shrubbery...….

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Chas,

 

Many thanks. Oh, by the way, I cannot stand digital smoke. 

 

I'm intrigued by the various comments on (my) model railway photography. I must admit to being something of a dinosaur when it comes to digital photography, or the photo programmes needed to fully manipulate the images. My programme (which is Paint Shop Pro - which I find more intuitive than Photoshop) is from 2007 (which really is prehistoric!). I understand it, can use (and find!) all the tools I need and I can get the most out of my powerful cameras (though those more-able no doubt could get more). I have more up-to-date programmes, but many of the tools are now hidden! I don't use stacking (it isn't necessary with a 'specialist lens) to increase depth of field, and any 'manipulation' is no more than the digital equivalent of wet-processing masking, burning-in and dodging. It's just quicker and easier than using frisk film, gouache, an enlarger and smelly chemicals! 

 

Regarding the earlier picture I posted of my 34094..............

 

1845227537_34094original.jpg.2c4ccc4ffcba2165612f76de2c3acff7.jpg

 

Apart from a little sharpening and the use of curves to lift some shadows (dodging), this is exactly how the camera took the image.

 

By cropping, much of the background could be taken out.

 

150355259_34094cropped.jpg.376130e4f76558f726e2095478df8267.jpg

 

But that gives a 'letterbox' effect.

 

1486773954_34094modified.jpg.f9ecaa61d5dac8af8aaeb05d1b31d905.jpg 

25 minutes using the lasso tool, isolating the background and flood-filling it (with a colour cloned from the backscene), and you get this. Apart from a little blurring of some of the trees' edges (more dodging) the basic image is exactly the same; nothing fundamental has been altered on the model.

 

If this is 'digital enhancement', then so be it, but I think this is a far better picture than the other two.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Ha - "Oh, by the way, I cannot stand digital smoke" - neither can I! I'm surprised at how popular it seems to be.

 

Your post with the three versions of the same photo is very interesting - we rarely if ever have the chance to compare the before and after side by side - thank you for posting it.

 

The 'after' version with the plain sky inserted certainly does enhance the perceived realism, remove distractions from the main points of the scene and so forth, but I still find the original very attractive and interesting. There's a different type of realism there, the realism of the 'real model railway', if that isn't too odd or oxymoronic; it has a more friendly feel to it.

 

My ideal would be to see both versions - untouched and processed - of layout photos each time, but I'm sure that would be unpopular and unrealistic; it would double the length of many threads and, as Andrew (Headstock) points out, there are also sometimes other reasons for discretion concerning the real world locations of our layouts...

 

Getting back to the main point of your original series of posts though, what a lot of wonderful layouts - hope you'll post a few more...

Edited by Chas Levin
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

It all depends what you believe railway modelling is all about.

 

I want to produce a railway setting that is complementary to my rolling stock - which I will enjoy running.

 

 

John Isherwood.

I think that is a very good point. I love rolling stock and in effect I’d like ‘nice’ layout to show off my stock. I know some regard the layout as the main event, and the stock is just there to make the the scene. Neither view is better than the other after all it’s all modelling.

Regards

Robert

  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

It all depends what you believe railway modelling is all about.

 

I want to produce a railway setting that is complementary to my rolling stock - which I will enjoy running.

 

However, in some cases, it would seem that the primary purpose of the railway is simply that of a glorified photographic backdrop. The aim seems to be to produce still photos of trains, that will attract the comment "I thought that it was the real thing!"

 

I suppose that, if you are involved in publishing, that's fine - but it is not what I believe to be the prime objective of railway modelling.

 

If this seems to be a bit harsh - by his own admission, Tony rarely operates his creation, except for the entertainment of visitors.

 

John Isherwood.

Interesting observations, John,

 

I once gave a talk to a photographic society and popped in a picture I'd taken on Stoke Summit, stating that I'd taken it a few weeks before. 

 

1630956310_WillsA4onCarCarrierBW.jpg.06ceffbec1c8827b07c57e8201cb1486.jpg

 

This is that picture. It was taken over 20 years ago now, with a much less-powerful digital camera than I currently use. Everything (apart from my addition of about a couple of centimetres of cloned sky in the top LH corner) is exactly as the camera took the picture. 

 

'How can this be?' was the 'astonished' response from some of my audience. 'Steam trains don't run in this country any more'. Many thought it was a 'real' picture, but none of them was a railway modeller. It certainly wouldn't fool any railway modellers I know.

 

However, is it a bad thing to make a model and photograph it so that the whole scene looks 'real'? That was the late, great Martin Brent's ambition when he was just a schoolboy. 

 

And, I certainly admit to not running my railway unless guests are present (though it's not 'my' creation; it's the work of many). Why should I do something I don't particularly enjoy? I much prefer making things (though how they run, and they must run well, is paramount to me). 

 

If folk get pleasure from running their railways, even though little (or nothing) on/in them might be their work, then that's up to them, though if it's a fictitious location, I'm not really sure how 'realistic' that can be. It's just not my thing. 

 

'Suspension of disbelief' is I think the phrase used, and if digital manipulation of images (in the way I describe) allows me to get closer to that, then I'm happy. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 11
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

Ha - "Oh, by the way, I cannot stand digital smoke" - neither can I! I'm surprised at how popular it seems to be.

 

Your post with the three versions of the same photo is very interesting - we rarely if ever have the chance to compare the before and after side by side - thank you for posting it.

 

The 'after' version with the plain sky inserted certainly does enhance the perceived realism, remove distractions from the main points of the scene and so forth, but I still find the original very attractive and interesting. There's a different type of realism there, the realism of the 'real model railway', if that isn't too odd or oxymoronic; it has a more friendly feel to it.

 

My ideal would be to see both versions - untouched and processed - of layout photos each time, but I'm sure that would be unpopular and unrealistic; it would double the length of many threads and, as Andrew (Headstock) points out, there are also sometimes other reasons for discretion concerning the real world locations of our layouts...

 

Getting back to the main point of your original series of posts though, what a lot of wonderful layouts - hope you'll post a few more...

Thanks Chas,

 

'hope you'll post a few more...'

 

Tomorrow...............

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

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...