Wright writes.....

[robmcg]

2 hours 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.

 

....

 

John Isherwood.

 

John, a model railway can be both a photographic backdrop (as you describe it) , AND a superb example of modelling.

 

Little Bytham is both. 

 

If people can take photos of their models which look real, then good on them. Equally, a well-made model is a thing of beauty, regardless. By 'well made' I include 'runs superbly' too.  Tony test his models on LB irrespective of guests, too, I daresay that gives pleasure.

 

Creativity, art, craft, call it what you will. Suspension of disbelief is a great thing, as is a scratch-built or proprietary model scene.... and I confess I do enjoy photography too.

 

I have no idea what a 'prime objective' might be in this context, there is certainly no right or wrong in it..

 

 

 

 

[Headstock]

4 minutes ago, robmcg said:

 

John, a model railway can be both a photographic backdrop (as you describe it) , AND a superb example of modelling.

 

Little Bytham is both. 

 

If people can take photos of their models which look real, then good on them. Equally, a well-made model is a thing of beauty, regardless. By 'well made' I include 'runs superbly' too.  Tony test his models on LB irrespective of guests, too, I daresay that gives pleasure.

 

Creativity, art, craft, call it what you will. Suspension of disbelief is a great thing, as is a scratch-built or proprietary model scene.... and I confess I do enjoy photography too.

 

I have no idea what a 'prime objective' might be in this context, there is certainly no right or wrong in it..

 

 

 

 

 

I wonder if at the time that scenery was first introduced on model railways, if there were complaints that it didn't look like a model anymore?  Backscenes, surely they are a big fat lie. Suppose you were caught imagining something that wasn't there, like a leaky injector, would the gateway guardians pounce on you and make you look at wallpaper for a day. Come to think of it, what is the purpose of model railways, if you can't travel on them?

[Dunsignalling]

Isn't it really just about presentation?

 

If you had restored a classic motorcycle, you wouldn't photograph it in the workshop full of surrounding clutter. You would take it out somewhere and place it in front of an attractive building or landscape. 

 

That's not an option with model railways and, for operational reasons, backscenes can seldom be as high as one might desire. Cloning out unavoidable bits of non-layout from pictures is (IMHO) no different than temporarily fitting drapes etc. that couldn't be left in place when running it.  

 

Retouching is something I am less happy with, and I generally limit any I do to cloning out joins in, and unwanted shadows thrown onto, backscenes. I only straighten wonky telegraph poles physically before taking pictures, but will confess to removing them digitally afterwards!  Tony describes it well; deleting from pictures that which the brain subconsciously edits out when observing the model in person.

 

So, I'm entirely happy with removing unwanted intrusions from layout pictures, but not with adding things that aren't there, especially prototypical smoke superimposed on models (yuk). I am also rather thankful that Tony doesn't add "real" skies any more, for me they looked anything but.

 

Unless one goes the whole hog like our New Zealand friend, Rob, who blends multiple images to make superb "digital paintings"; a mixture of real and model imagery in the same picture usually looks exactly what it is.

 

John

 

 

[bbishop]

18 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

The correct gauge, Bill.

 

Also, a fictitious location. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Tony, I was thinking about facing point locks.  I know, you do all the point rodding and then some pillock finds the next niggle .....  Bill

[Tony Wright]

59 minutes ago, bbishop said:

Tony, I was thinking about facing point locks.  I know, you do all the point rodding and then some pillock finds the next niggle .....  Bill

It's just a matter of time, Bill,

 

All the rodding runs for a lock to the appropriate points are there; just the gubbins on the tie-bar to make and fit. One day.................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[grahame]

3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

Unless one goes the whole hog like our New Zealand friend, Rob, who blends multiple images to make superb "digital paintings"; a mixture of real and model imagery in the same picture usually looks exactly what it is.

 

 

And, I guess, that once you start electronically altering, manipulating and 'improving' the photographic image you remove or detract from the art and crafting of the modeller and place it in the hands of the picture editor. However, I wouldn't consider cropping, straightening the picture (somehow many pics are taken on the wonk) and removing distracting background clutter (that is not part of the modelled scene) to be invasive or altering the modelled worth.

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

9 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

And, I guess, that once you start electronically altering, manipulating and 'improving' the photographic image you remove or detract from the art and crafting of the modeller and place it in the hands of the picture editor. However, I wouldn't consider cropping, straightening the picture (somehow many pics are taken on the wonk) and removing distracting background clutter (that is not part of the modelled scene) to be invasive or altering the modelled worth.

 

 

Agreed, though my latest beastie (a Lumix G9) does focus stacking in-camera and seems to be pretty effective at it, whilst not going OTT as sometimes happens when it gets done in post-processing. 

 

I'm still learning how to exploit it and have acquired a 15mm Leica prime lens which seems better-suited to stacking than the (also Leica) 12-60 mm zoom kit lens.

 

John

[grahame]

35 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Agreed, though my latest beastie (a Lumix G9) does focus stacking in-camera and seems to be pretty effective at it, whilst not going OTT as sometimes happens when it gets done in post-processing. 

 

 

I see focus stacking as a way of improving the technical aspects and limitations of the camera rather than manipulating the modelling. Perhaps like having the ability to focus, or have the camera undertake and enact exposure timings. Some cameras/lenses don't seem to need focus stacking (such as Tony's equipment) but others desperately do (like many cheap/early phone cameras).

 

 

Edited January 4, 2021 by grahame

[Chas Levin]

8 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

I wonder if at the time that scenery was first introduced on model railways, if there were complaints that it didn't look like a model anymore?  Backscenes, surely they are a big fat lie. Suppose you were caught imagining something that wasn't there, like a leaky injector, would the gateway guardians pounce on you and make you look at wallpaper for a day. Come to think of it, what is the purpose of model railways, if you can't travel on them?

Morning Andrew, actually, I believe that was very much the case for some people at the time. I have read of opinions to the effect that too much scenery was not only a waste of time away from 'real' railway modelling (which was defined by some of those making these comments as being solely locos, rolling stock and permanent way) but that it did indeed detract from the 'pure' essence of railway modelling. Not only that, but the definition of what constituted 'too much' secenery in this context was taken in some quarters to be almost literally anything other than stock,rails and signals.

 

I get the impression though that this was partly because of the very unrealistic and toy-like appearance of much of the scenery of the times. (I'm loosely talking here of the period from the earliest layouts - 1920s? - to at least the 1960s and I know there will be many on here who were actively modelling in those times - or at any rate towards the latter end - so please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. Although Dublo stations and signals for instance have a great charm of their own, I would suggest that it's based more on nostalgia than realism, so the increasing interest in scenery that seems to have followed the availability of more realistic looking scenic material in the '70s and 80s (again, please correct me on those dates if I'm wrong) seems to have overcome the more purist line and nowadays I don't think anyone considers a layout finished if even a small area is yet to receive rural or urban cover.

 

When my dad built our layout in the 1970s (getting me to hold a torch for him during the three-day week power cuts!) he certainly viewed scenery as fussy nonsense: he was an engineer and trains, rails and signals were engineering matters! An overhead line, two tunnels and various other features were simple pieces of plain wood, with square-cut sides and corners - no varnish, no paint, no distractions!

Having inherited it, I don't know what he'd think now, if he saw my gradual covering of it with modern scenery, working colour light signals (he allowed a couple of Dublo semaphores), station platforms, vehicles and lots of people...

[Tony Wright]

Some more thoughts on model railway photography..................

 

A couple more Stoke Summit images which I've shown to various photographic societies in the past where some of the members thought the pictures were of real trains.

 

 

Even Bob Essery commented in one of his books 'This is a model' when he included this picture.

 

 

Less convincing because of the ghastly, over-scale lamps (though non-railway modellers wouldn't know this. Anyway, they've long since been replaced).

 

 

Taken during my last visit to Retford. Are Retford's lights, ceiling, blinds and windows really that interesting? 

 

I'll attend to this image later.

 

 

Even more interesting - Retford's cobwebs?   

 

 

Nearly an hour's fiddling and one gets this. Surely a better presentation of this magnificent model railway? 

 

Actually, I wasn't going to bother with this shot because the composition's a bit dud, but I've used it in the context discussed. 

 

In fact, I preferred this shot of 60508. 

 

 

Might those who wish to see 'everything' take some pictures of their creations/property and show us what they mean, please? 

 

I view model railway photography as just as much of a craft (or an art?) as actually making models. To show them at their most-realistic, without actually 'altering' them is surely something to be pursued. Anyway, neither of the unaltered images above would be acceptable for publication. 

 

 

 

 

[Clive Mortimore]

For those who like to see the layout as it is, here is the small space I use for modelling on my baseboards.

 

I am not too sure the editors of any of the railway magazines would publish a shot of a realistic model railway.

 

 

For those who are wondering what I was not going to finish this time, the Doncaster SK prototype, the profile of the Doncaster 1957 coaches was not the same as the normal Mk 1. I challenged myself to see how far I could get in a day, so from the pile to something looking like a coach was not too bad.

 

[LNERandBR]

I really do think there is a place for both 'realistic' model railway photography and for seeing a model railway in its natural state. 

 

I remember an overwhelming sense of pride when each of my layouts appeared in the model railway press. The feeling that the images shown were produced partly due to my efforts to make the layout as good as they could be. Anyone can take a photo of a layout in its basic form, it's only those with the time, patience and inclination to go through the trouble of photoshopping.

[t-b-g]

People have taken distracting backgrounds out of railway photos since they started taking photos. Many official works photos were done that way.

 

I think my problem is more about adding things that don't really exist, like a grass foreground or an 8ft high backscene.rather than cropping out stuff that spoils the photo.

Edited January 4, 2021 by t-b-g
Spelling

[Tony Teague]

39 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

For those who like to see the layout as it is, here is the small space I use for modelling on my baseboards.

 

I am not too sure the editors of any of the railway magazines would publish a shot of a realistic model railway.

 

 

Love the workbench detritus!

Makes mine feel positively pristine.....

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Chas Levin said:

Morning Andrew, actually, I believe that was very much the case for some people at the time. I have read of opinions to the effect that too much scenery was not only a waste of time away from 'real' railway modelling (which was defined by some of those making these comments as being solely locos, rolling stock and permanent way) but that it did indeed detract from the 'pure' essence of railway modelling. Not only that, but the definition of what constituted 'too much' secenery in this context was taken in some quarters to be almost literally anything other than stock,rails and signals.

 

I get the impression though that this was partly because of the very unrealistic and toy-like appearance of much of the scenery of the times. (I'm loosely talking here of the period from the earliest layouts - 1920s? - to at least the 1960s and I know there will be many on here who were actively modelling in those times - or at any rate towards the latter end - so please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. Although Dublo stations and signals for instance have a great charm of their own, I would suggest that it's based more on nostalgia than realism, so the increasing interest in scenery that seems to have followed the availability of more realistic looking scenic material in the '70s and 80s (again, please correct me on those dates if I'm wrong) seems to have overcome the more purist line and nowadays I don't think anyone considers a layout finished if even a small area is yet to receive rural or urban cover.

 

When my dad built our layout in the 1970s (getting me to hold a torch for him during the three-day week power cuts!) he certainly viewed scenery as fussy nonsense: he was an engineer and trains, rails and signals were engineering matters! An overhead line, two tunnels and various other features were simple pieces of plain wood, with square-cut sides and corners - no varnish, no paint, no distractions!

Having inherited it, I don't know what he'd think now, if he saw my gradual covering of it with modern scenery, working colour light signals (he allowed a couple of Dublo semaphores), station platforms, vehicles and lots of people...

 

Good morning Chas,

 

I think you are on to something there. My Father built scenery but it was more of a chore that he was happy to leave someone else, that way he could tinker with valve gear to his hearts content. Eventually he moved up a gauge and built a layout in the garden where it was no longer necessary to make the foliage, just trim it.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Headstock
missing letter

[Headstock]

57 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

For those who like to see the layout as it is, here is the small space I use for modelling on my baseboards.

 

I am not too sure the editors of any of the railway magazines would publish a shot of a realistic model railway.

 

 

For those who are wondering what I was not going to finish this time, the Doncaster SK prototype, the profile of the Doncaster 1957 coaches was not the same as the normal Mk 1. I challenged myself to see how far I could get in a day, so from the pile to something looking like a coach was not too bad.

 

 

Good morning Clive,

 

You appear to have glued your tools to your workbench. You need to use the ADDDF, the Adobe Digital Desktop Declutter Filter.

[Woodcock29]

I have a question on behalf of a friend that someone maybe able to answer. He has a Heljan O Gauge GWR 61xx and wants to know how to take the body off to fit a DCC chip. Apparently it didn't come with any form of instructions and try as he may he's not found a solution.

 

Andrew

[St Enodoc]

4 minutes ago, Woodcock29 said:

I have a question on behalf of a friend that someone maybe able to answer. He has a Heljan O Gauge GWR 61xx and wants to know how to take the body off to fit a DCC chip. Apparently it didn't come with any form of instructions and try as he may he's not found a solution.

 

Andrew

Phew, for a moment there I thought you were going to contribute to the scenery debate...

[Chas Levin]

27 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Chas,

 

I think you are on to something there. My Father built scenery but it was more of a chore that he was happy to leave someone else, that way he could tinker with valve gear to his hearts content. Eventually he moved up a gauge and built a layout in the garden where it was no longer necessary to make the foliage, just trim it.

Good morning Andrew - a garden railway: in some ways that's perhaps the ultimate 'realistic scenery', but doesn't it also bring its own problems of scale? What happens when a Laurel leaf is the same size as a smokebox door?

[Chas Levin]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Some more thoughts on model railway photography..................

 

A couple more Stoke Summit images which I've shown to various photographic societies in the past where some of the members thought the pictures were of real trains.

 

 

Even Bob Essery commented in one of his books 'This is a model' when he included this picture.

 

 

Less convincing because of the ghastly, over-scale lamps (though non-railway modellers wouldn't know this. Anyway, they've long since been replaced).

 

 

Taken during my last visit to Retford. Are Retford's lights, ceiling, blinds and windows really that interesting? 

 

I'll attend to this image later.

 

 

Even more interesting - Retford's cobwebs?   

 

 

Nearly an hour's fiddling and one gets this. Surely a better presentation of this magnificent model railway? 

 

Actually, I wasn't going to bother with this shot because the composition's a bit dud, but I've used it in the context discussed. 

 

In fact, I preferred this shot of 60508. 

 

 

Might those who wish to see 'everything' take some pictures of their creations/property and show us what they mean, please? 

 

I view model railway photography as just as much of a craft (or an art?) as actually making models. To show them at their most-realistic, without actually 'altering' them is surely something to be pursued. Anyway, neither of the unaltered images above would be acceptable for publication. 

 

 

 

 

Good morning Tony, another interesting comparison batch; I must admit that the brightness of Retford's ceiling lights is quite distracting and no, I wouldn't claim that any of the room's visible features qualifies as 'interesting' in itself, but the real room context is so.

Your final shot of 60508 is a lovely one, it gives a great sense of scale doesn't it?

[Dunsignalling]

2 hours ago, grahame said:

 

I see focus stacking as a way of improving the technical aspects and limitations of the camera rather than manipulating the modelling. Perhaps like having the ability to focus, or have the camera undertake and enact exposure timings. Some cameras/lenses don't seem to need focus stacking (such as Tony's equipment) but others desperately do (like many cheap/early phone cameras).

 

 

Indeed, the only real reason I haven't gone down the full-frame route like Tony is the size and weight of the gear.

 

I wanted a single outfit for everything that I wouldn't leave at home because of the effort of lugging it around as I had begun to do with my DX format Nikon.  I'm also getting to an age where remembering how to get the best out of two different makes of camera, when they are all getting loaded up with new features, is getting tricky.

 

The thing with the focus stacking is that it's done off a short movie sequence at apertures around f/3.5 so it's possible to get away with hand holding in places where the tripod won't go.

 

The "book" says tripod, but I've been getting a reasonable success rate without.

 

John

Edited January 4, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Headstock]

21 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

Good morning Andrew - a garden railway: in some ways that's perhaps the ultimate 'realistic scenery', but doesn't it also bring its own problems of scale? What happens when a Laurel leaf is the same size as a smokebox door?

 

A good question Chas. The lack of Laurel trees negated the problem somewhat.

[D.Platt]

Tony , 

Regarding the backgrounds on the photos, you have just said it took an hour to alter the image, so if your happy to use your time doing this then that’s fine , or what other jobs could you be working on in that hour ?

Dennis 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

For those who like to see the layout as it is, here is the small space I use for modelling on my baseboards.

 

I am not too sure the editors of any of the railway magazines would publish a shot of a realistic model railway.

 

 

For those who are wondering what I was not going to finish this time, the Doncaster SK prototype, the profile of the Doncaster 1957 coaches was not the same as the normal Mk 1. I challenged myself to see how far I could get in a day, so from the pile to something looking like a coach was not too bad.

 

 

I am a bit like that too Clive.

 

Recently, I have taken to clearing the workbench down to a bare board every few days but that just means that I can't find any tools that I knew exactly where I had left them.

 

This was the old way!

 

[Tony Wright]

18 minutes ago, D.Platt said:

Tony , 

Regarding the backgrounds on the photos, you have just said it took an hour to alter the image, so if your happy to use your time doing this then that’s fine , or what other jobs could you be working on in that hour ?

Dennis 

Good afternoon Dennis,

 

I suppose I'm coming at it from the position of one whose photographic work frequently appears in print. What often takes the time are lattice signals, with their myriad apertures.

 

I only altered the picture in question to illustrate a point, because I don't think its composition merits potential publication. But, normally, spending an hour or so on each picture (though many don't require that amount of time) has to be worth it if they're to be published; editors would expect nothing less. 

 

Which other jobs? Many, of course, but I find working on photographs as interesting/creative/therapeutic as building models, often with less stress (there's always an 'undo' function). Surely spending time that way is well worth while? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited January 4, 2021 by Tony Wright
typo error