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
14 minutes ago, Tony Teague said:

 

 

Yes I get that - and whether this "progress" is positive or negative in terms of the images produced will be very much in the eye of the beholder.

It sound to me like it’s very much a positive for the images and a negative for progress with the layout. Why fix those things if you can edit them out later?!

 

One thing I’ve found is that taking even my basic photos highlights problems on the layout. I don’t necessarily correct them and retake the photo, but I do try to address them before the next shot in the same location.

 

Andy

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a press photographers son I should know better !!!!

 

Many years ago learning the art of filling 35mm film cassettes in pitch darkness, developing and printing in my dad's darkroom with makeshift equipment - but it all worked and my photos are on my Flikr link below, 

 

Set the ISA (usually 200 or 400), guess the distance, 250th at F8 usually did for trains and cloudy weather. Sometimes dad lent me his Weston Master light meter - I still have it, still works. I learned to guestimate the settings using this as reference, usually worked.

 

Yes, digital cameras have made it easy, (too easy) for me. I've become a small camera out of top pocket point & click guy, who sometimes forgets to pop the flash up !! I have a nice Fuji digital SLR but rarely use it as its a bit bulky. My Samsung smart phone (daughters hand down !!) gives fair pictures also, but is rarely used.

 

I often wonder what my dad, who died back in 1981, would have thought of digital cameras. I'm sure he would have got on with them, then again ----.

 

Brit15

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
29 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

It sound to me like it’s very much a positive for the images and a negative for progress with the layout. Why fix those things if you can edit them out later?!

 

One thing I’ve found is that taking even my basic photos highlights problems on the layout. I don’t necessarily correct them and retake the photo, but I do try to address them before the next shot in the same location.

 

Andy

Andy

I agree that I see things that want fixing by taking pictures, that I don't see without; the camera can be cruel!

Tony

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, some very interesting comments on model photography. 

 

I for one would never want to go back to 'old-fashioned' photography. Why not? Well, in my case, cameras with the 'qualities' of a house brick (or two), resulting in perfect hernias, lighting which drained the National Grid, the economics (even back then) of it costing a quid for every picture taken on medium-format trannies; actually, more when one takes into account bracketing. Then, for B&W work, hours in Stygian gloom, inhaling noxious fumes from noxious chemicals. Not only that, the failure rate, even with test strips and so on. No thank you.

 

No matter that the equipment I used cost me ten of thousands of pounds (second-hand), and that it was virtually given away as technologies moved on. Granted, it gave superlative results but in my days as a professional photographer, the writing was on the wall. I turned up for one job at a Wolverhampton factory for the boss to tell me 'Can't you do it digitally?'. 'Not with a Pentax 67 and a Mamiya Super 23, I'm afraid!'. 

 

Yet, there was a real 'discipline' involved, as Tony Gee implies. There was no means of seeing the results before the films either went to the lab or I developed them in my darkroom. No, if I got it wrong it was either an apology and a request to return, or the editor got someone who knew what he/she was doing. 

 

As for digital photography making some photographers lazy, then that's life. Though digital photography is much easier, I still take my time with each shot, ensuring that the composition is OK, the lighting is OK and all is well on the screen (that's something I always use - never rely on a viewfinder. And, big camera have big screens). Then, there's the processing - hours spent on the computer instead of hours spent over each shot. Overall, probably the same amount of time, just differently-allocated. 

 

I still retain the 'discipline' of only taking out 'clutter' from shots in the digital darkroom, or extending backscenes. I won't alter the real elements of the picture; if things are wonky, they're wonky! For studio shots, it's often necessary to do a little bit of 'digital dusting' - specks of dust can look like boulders under strong lights. 

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

10 hours ago, t-b-g said:

Half the issue with me is the rise of the digital camera.

 

I have said before that I think it has made many photographers lazy.

 

Take the shot and sort any problems out on the computer is the way now.

 

I spent a short while this afternoon looking at a few pre digital magazines.

 

It just confirmed my view that the technology is now so good that a huge, totally pin sharp image from a camera at eye level to a model person is easily done. It is usually the view with the camera placed within the layout that needs the backscene digitally manipulated. That is because the layouts are just not designed to be viewed from there. When cameras couldn't take those shots and the photographer usually had a tripod standing alongside the layout giving the same view that a person looking at the layout got, then such trickery wasn;'t needed.

 

I actually prefer many of the older images, which are not 100% focussed over a 30ft long layout, which have a clear focal point and a surround that is not quite as sharp to frame it. My eyes work like that too, which is why I prefer them. I don't see everything pin sharp across my whole field of view.

 

I will never be a great photographer and I don't have anything better than a point and shoot camera but this shot illustrates what I mean.

 

Other than setting the camera at "black and white" this has had no digital manipulation. It was framed to miss the top of the backscene and the baseboard edge. The background goes out of focus but I actually prefer that as it is how my eyes work!

 

DSCN0047.JPG.143bf8bd4796b32b44d653372bc098d4.JPG

 

Good morning Tony,


There is some superb modelling on display in your image, I think. The photo doesn't do it much justice I'm afraid. A rather cluttered composition with no focal point. There is actually a tighter crop in there that would work better. As it is, there is no space to breath and the eye darts around looking for somewhere to settle. 


I've worked with enough pro photographers, both pre and post digital to know that the lazy photographer suggestion is just lazy thinking. All that digital photography has done is democratise the access to making pictures. This forum for example, would be screwed if we were all running down to true print every half hour. Most people are bad at photography and terrible a digital artwork. Northing has changed pre or post digital, if you want good photography and good digital artwork you need talented people not technology. Technology doesn't convey vision or creativity it is just a tool, one that still requires a high degree of skill to get the best out off.


I don't get your idea of this supposed golden age of unadulterated photography. I can assure you we were busy manipulating away in a pre digital world, with cut and paste, airbrush, paintbrushes and many hours in the dark room. Multiple exposures, Rubylith, on the fly feathering devices, cross processing etc and we were producing results that would still impress today.

 

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I agree entirely but there is a further change that digital photography has brought on. When my very first encounter with a proper photographer took place, with a certain Tony Wright, he was taking pictures of a layout of mine for Railway Modeller. He spent ages setting up each shot. The lighting, the framing, all the preparation was done before the shutter was pressed.

 

Anything that didn't look right was dealt with before the photo was taken and the photo was a true record of what the scene was. It took several hours, most of a day just to take around a dozen photos.

 

Now, the photos are taken by the hundred and the best ones are chosen and any problems are sorted out on the computer but it means that what you see in the magazine or on the internet may or may not be a true reflection on what the layout looks like. Light balance wrong, sort it digitally. Gap under a building, soon sort that. Gap in a backscene, gone.

 

I am not saying that one approach is better or worse than the other, just that it is different now and in my personal view, something was lost along the way, as other things have been gained.

 

 

 

No professional photographer wold behave in the manor that you describe, I wouldn't employ them. Time is still money, both at a shoot and in front of the computer.  I have seen a couple of railway model photographers in action. As an example, about twenty shots are taken in about an hour and a half, all were used in the article. After the shoot, the photographer had to rush off to another set up somewhere else in the country. Poor lazy photographer.


I very much appreciate Tony's photography on this thread and what other chose to do. I know that the amazing insight we get to see of LB would be unthinkable without digital technology. However, it is not the technology that tells the story, it is the creative person behind the lens, or in front of the computer with the vision and the skills. You could give the same technology to another individual and all the magic would fall as flat as a fart.
 

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

11 hours ago, t-b-g said:

Half the issue with me is the rise of the digital camera.

 

I have said before that I think it has made many photographers lazy.

 

Take the shot and sort any problems out on the computer is the way now.

 

I spent a short while this afternoon looking at a few pre digital magazines.

 

It just confirmed my view that the technology is now so good that a huge, totally pin sharp image from a camera at eye level to a model person is easily done. It is usually the view with the camera placed within the layout that needs the backscene digitally manipulated. That is because the layouts are just not designed to be viewed from there. When cameras couldn't take those shots and the photographer usually had a tripod standing alongside the layout giving the same view that a person looking at the layout got, then such trickery wasn;'t needed.

 

I actually prefer many of the older images, which are not 100% focussed over a 30ft long layout, which have a clear focal point and a surround that is not quite as sharp to frame it. My eyes work like that too, which is why I prefer them. I don't see everything pin sharp across my whole field of view.

 

I will never be a great photographer and I don't have anything better than a point and shoot camera but this shot illustrates what I mean.

 

Other than setting the camera at "black and white" this has had no digital manipulation. It was framed to miss the top of the backscene and the baseboard edge. The background goes out of focus but I actually prefer that as it is how my eyes work!

 

DSCN0047.JPG.143bf8bd4796b32b44d653372bc098d4.JPG

It's a very evocative picture, Tony.

 

But (there's always a 'but'). Though you're right about the perception of the human eye (with only limited depth of field), if this were a photograph of a real railway, then everything would be in focus. That's my take on model railway photography; to make the picture look as 'real' as possible. 

 

I'd have 'rejected' you picture, largely because of the signals (as you know, signals are a 'bee in my bonnet' thing with me). One is 'half' upper-quadrant and surely, with two boards being 'off' on the nearer bracket, isn't a conflicting movement being set up? In fact, I don't know what the lower right board is actually signalling - there doesn't seem to be anything in the road. If I'm wrong, my apologies. 

 

The shot has also cruelly highlighted the odd ride-heights of the vans to the right. 

 

'Constructive criticism', I hope................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I actually prefer many of the older images, which are not 100% focussed over a 30ft long layout, which have a clear focal point and a surround that is not quite as sharp to frame it. My eyes work like that too, which is why I prefer them. I don't see everything pin sharp across my whole field of view.

 

 

However, the eye and brain also work and have a wonderful ability to look around a real scene, without physically moving position, alter focal length and see any part of it in focus. This allows us to see all parts in the field of view in sharp focus. Yet, with a 2D photographic image that only has a small section (small depth of field) in focus, we are not able to resolve the out of focus area with our eyes and they will remain fuzzy. 

 

  

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
26 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

It's a very evocative picture, Tony.

 

But (there's always a 'but'). Though you're right about the perception of the human eye (with only limited depth of field), if this were a photograph of a real railway, then everything would be in focus. That's my take on model railway photography; to make the picture look as 'real' as possible. 

 

I'd have 'rejected' you picture, largely because of the signals (as you know, signals are a 'bee in my bonnet' thing with me). One is 'half' upper-quadrant and surely, with two boards being 'off' on the nearer bracket, isn't a conflicting movement being set up? In fact, I don't know what the lower right board is actually signalling - there doesn't seem to be anything in the road. If I'm wrong, my apologies. 

 

The shot has also cruelly highlighted the odd ride-heights of the vans to the right. 

 

'Constructive criticism', I hope................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Perhaps I should have digitally altered the signals and the ride heights to make them look better than they really are and stacked the focus (as if my camera has that facility!).

 

Or perhaps I should just show the layout as it really is.

 

I know which I prefer but as I said, I fully accept that I am but an amateur with a point and shoot camera and a minority view.

 

I did tell you, when you came here, that much work still needs to be done to fully restore the layout, including the signals and the springing on some of the stock. So you should have known about that but of course you have to tell the world what you see that is wrong, showing great disrespect to modellers who have passed away, as discussed previously.

 

My aim in posting that particular shot was to show that you can take a view of a layout without having to add fake sky or foreground if you frame it carefully. I hope it achieved that if nothing else.

 

Perhaps it is time I stopped showing stuff on Wright Writes as Buckingham and my photography are clearly not up to the required standard and my photography isn't going to improve!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I know nothing about photography. When I take a snap of my latest bodge it is show my modelling not my photographic skills. I usually take two shots at a given angle, normally both are OK . Sometimes only one is any good and sometimes I retake both of them. I will crop one to reduce the back ground mess and post it on RMweb to show my modelling.

 

Going back a few years, would I have taken a snap of my models? "What waste film and money on some toys?" could be heard from Mrs M. Also taking the time to go and see the lady in Boots.

 

To show my models I would take them to my then club for my mates to see and when invited to a show with a layout, display them on the layout.

With today's digital world, snap on my phone,  up load, resize and crop, post. A lot easier, there is a down side no seeing the lady in boots.

  • Like 5
  • Funny 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Model photography is just like woodwork, brick-laying or anything else, even acting; it's very easy to DO but very difficult to DO WELL.  I've tried brick-laying and am happy to leave it to a professional in future.  The problem with all skilled professionals is they make the very difficult look easy. Tony's photography certainly falls into this category.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

As far as published photos are concerned, I like to see a model looking like a model (ideally a realistic one) but without the real world distractions of 1:1 scale windows, doors, bookshelves etc. I can't stand fake smoke & steam.

 

My own model photos are best described as snaps. They are very useful for helping to spot faults on models, or just areas in need of improvement. They're also good ad showing which models need dusting!

 

I can't compete with the modelling spaces - I lost mine when my beloved daughter was due! I now have a set of draws on a shelf, tool box in the corner for my main storage. For a modelling session I take over the kitchen counter or dining table and use my modelling tool box - repurposed from a audio cassette tape box with space for tools, paints and my current project. Other work in progress projects get stored in plastic VHS cassette tape boxes. Modelling in N Gauge does have plenty of advantages!

 

Steven B.

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I first started photography with a small 35mm compact camera with which, i'll admit, I didn't take the greatest of photos. There are probably a handful of photos i'm 95% happy with from probably a couple dozen or so reels of film. My first digital camera was a Fuji Bridge, and I pretty much snapped away and filled up the memory as quickly as I could, most of which were rubbish if i'm honest, but what it did give me was the experience of what was a good photo, how to compose, take lighting into account, etc. Since moving to a Digital SLR, i've gradually started to take less and less photos, preferring to get it right in camera, rather than spending hours on Photoshop fixing them. Shooting in RAW helps with this, as they take up more space on the memory card.

 

I do still struggle with take photos of layouts with my SLR under certain conditions. On the tripod, with excellent lighting, I can get a great photo. But if it's handheld, at an exhibition, I seem to struggle. Here the mobile phone camera comes into it's own, but the photos taken on that seem to lack something compared to a photo taken on a proper camera. I probably need to invest in a new lense to supplant the standard kit lens, but i'd rather spend the money on model trains. :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been much talk of Model photography on here lately, and whilst not a professional photographer by any means two magazines have used my photos to illustrate my layout articles. The only thing I have ever changed is to crop to get rid of most of the off layout clutter and to clone the sky (painted by me) upwards if there was any clutter still left.  Personally I do like photos that are taken to make the layout look real. As a modeller I know what the clutter around the layout is likely to like so I do not want to see it on a photo of THE LAYOUT. However if someone is showing how the layout fits into their model room then OK.

And on that basis I will show you my model room which is 12ftx 9ft into the alcove. In the last photo "Sir" might notice one of his photos of my then Castle stomping round LB.

 

The flood light, which has 3 curly whurly energy saving bulbs allows me to get a more evenlight on the layout when I'm taking pics, as you can se it is bounced off the ceiling

 

1167409858_MR1.jpg.5bfc7ef98b882c7d7cac02ba9606ede6.jpg

 

884828369_Untitled-1MR2.jpg.6e6002d9d9392610ee0a5dd8d5cc5a4b.jpg

 

1002180106_MR3.jpg.4903135b17f0c0ee135390763d5b7d1e.jpg74978316_MR4.jpg.dfd228827e7ff0ac5eb74f80cfaa1cb4.jpg

 

74978316_MR4.jpg.dfd228827e7ff0ac5eb74f80cfaa1cb4.jpg

 

1799832671_MR5.jpg.7e91163aebfbe206028b908bfa3096df.jpg

 

 

Edited by westerner
correcting a few typos
  • Like 15
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Perhaps I should have digitally altered the signals and the ride heights to make them look better than they really are and stacked the focus (as if my camera has that facility!).

 

Or perhaps I should just show the layout as it really is.

 

I know which I prefer but as I said, I fully accept that I am but an amateur with a point and shoot camera and a minority view.

 

I did tell you, when you came here, that much work still needs to be done to fully restore the layout, including the signals and the springing on some of the stock. So you should have known about that but of course you have to tell the world what you see that is wrong, showing great disrespect to modellers who have passed away, as discussed previously.

 

My aim in posting that particular shot was to show that you can take a view of a layout without having to add fake sky or foreground if you frame it carefully. I hope it achieved that if nothing else.

 

Perhaps it is time I stopped showing stuff on Wright Writes as Buckingham and my photography are clearly not up to the required standard and my photography isn't going to improve!

 

I think you are taking things a little too personally there. I feel that Tony's 'criticism' was only supposed to show he would have rejected the image as it doesn't show the model in the best way possible. Ultimately, it depends on what you are taking the photos for. If for publication then these things need to be spotted and corrected or someone else could get the wrong impression when they read the article. 

 

I'm sure Tony's method would be to spot the issues before hitting the shutter rather than digital manipulation of the image. Having had him take photos of one of my layouts in the past I remember him insisting the tension locks were removed from the NEM pockets on my locos and the images looked all the better for it.

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

  • RMweb Premium
7 minutes ago, LNERandBR said:

 

I think you are taking things a little too personally there. I feel that Tony's 'criticism' was only supposed to show he would have rejected the image as it doesn't show the model in the best way possible. Ultimately, it depends on what you are taking the photos for. If for publication then these things need to be spotted and corrected or someone else could get the wrong impression when they read the article. 

 

I'm sure Tony's method would be to spot the issues before hitting the shutter rather than digital manipulation of the image. Having had him take photos of one of my layouts in the past I remember him insisting the tension locks were removed from the NEM pockets on my locos and the images looked all the better for it.

 

It is just more "fakery" in my view. You have a layout with tension locks but they come off for photos so it looks better. Then people looking at the photos don't know how your locos pull your trains as they seem to have no couplings. 

 

If I had submitted that photo for publication, then yes, the comments would have been fully justified. I didn't. I submitted it to show that you can get angles on a layout that don't need fake backgrounds adding and that I personally don't have a problem with a photo if the background was not pin sharp scale quarter of a mile away. I said that I was a totally amateur photographer, using a basic point and shoot camera yet comments were made as if I was wanting to put it on the cover of a magazine.

 

For the record, I have had a few photos of mine published in magazines such as MRJ but none of the few good ones I have taken illustrated the point I was trying to make, so I used one that I knew wasn't perfect and boy did I get reminded!

 

It seems to me that my options are to either post perfect pictures of perfect models (which isn't going to happen) or post less than perfect pictures of less than perfect models so that the assembled masses can tell me where I went wrong.

 

The first won't happen and the second doesn't appeal much. I am my own worst critic and I don't need experts telling me where I went wrong. I see far more wrong with what I do than most people ever could.

 

Nobody has even mentioned the needle file on the track near to the saddle tank!

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I know nothing about photography. When I take a snap of my latest bodge it is show my modelling not my photographic skills. I usually take two shots at a given angle, normally both are OK . Sometimes only one is any good and sometimes I retake both of them. I will crop one to reduce the back ground mess and post it on RMweb to show my modelling.

 

Going back a few years, would I have taken a snap of my models? "What waste film and money on some toys?" could be heard from Mrs M. Also taking the time to go and see the lady in Boots.

 

To show my models I would take them to my then club for my mates to see and when invited to a show with a layout, display them on the layout.

With today's digital world, snap on my phone,  up load, resize and crop, post. A lot easier, there is a down side no seeing the lady in boots.

 

What kind of boots?

  • Like 1
  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Perhaps I should have digitally altered the signals and the ride heights to make them look better than they really are and stacked the focus (as if my camera has that facility!).

 

Or perhaps I should just show the layout as it really is.

 

I know which I prefer but as I said, I fully accept that I am but an amateur with a point and shoot camera and a minority view.

 

I did tell you, when you came here, that much work still needs to be done to fully restore the layout, including the signals and the springing on some of the stock. So you should have known about that but of course you have to tell the world what you see that is wrong, showing great disrespect to modellers who have passed away, as discussed previously.

 

My aim in posting that particular shot was to show that you can take a view of a layout without having to add fake sky or foreground if you frame it carefully. I hope it achieved that if nothing else.

 

Perhaps it is time I stopped showing stuff on Wright Writes as Buckingham and my photography are clearly not up to the required standard and my photography isn't going to improve!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tony,

 

I have to say that I think you're very unfair at times.

 

Read any book I've written, or any article I've written where Buckingham is mentioned and I have nothing but praise to say about it. It's, without doubt, one of the most influential layouts of all time (influential to me), but with regard to the picture in question, anyone with eyes can see the things I was mentioning. If you're so 'sensitive' to 'criticism' of it, why not mention those things in your description?

 

I have to say, I think there's a 'trap' which commentators can fall into with regard to older layouts, no matter how important and influential they might be (or have been) in the past. That's the trap of 'rose-coloured spectacles' in my view. 

 

I'll explain. Some years ago, some bits of Ken Northwood's Torreyford Station were placed in front of my camera (The North Devon Layout had been dismantled after his death). I looked at the rather sad state of affairs in front of me, and declined. It would have been cruel. Yes, there was some sign of damage, but at close-quarters, most of the modelling was crude. Yet, this was a layout I'd drooled over in my youth, seeing it the contemporary press. Ignorance at the time prevented me from knowing how poor a Graham Farish 'King' body was, or that Exley's GWR coaches were no more than LMS ones painted chocolate and cream! 

 

Borchester and its predecessors were most-influential to me, but the last time I saw Borchester Market, it was a shadow of what Frank Dyer had produced. 

 

Model railway layouts are transient things. They fade, degrade, wear out, crumble, decompose, de-laminate, corrupt, rot, disintegrate and suffer all manner of maladies as the years pass. I honestly think, even the best, are best remembered as they were in their prime, and quietly left to history. The Norris layout was light years ahead of its time in the '40s/'50s, but when I took some pictures of some of its buildings some years ago, I never used them (nor ever will). It would not have been fair. 

 

I'm also under no illusions about what Little Bytham's place might be in the 'history' of the hobby. A 'great fun' creation, made by some of the finest contemporary modellers (yourself included) and a wheeze to operate at high speed. But, though I'd like to think the locos and stock will survive, the rest will inevitably turn to dust. I certainly wouldn't want it to carry on well beyond its 'sell by date', especially as reliability inevitably declines. 

 

I think you've done a tremendous job in saving Buckingham for posterity, but any recent pictures of it are asking it (up to a point) to be judged against the best of today. You describe its creator as a 'genius', but I'm not so sure. Anyway, Peter Denny would never have accepted that epithet. He was a pioneer, self-reliant, inventive, consistent, influential and uniquely creative. Isn't that enough?

 

I'll be extremely disappointed if you cease to post on Wright writes, or cease to show pictures you've taken, but that's up to you.

 

Finally, I wonder what you'd have said if I'd posted that Retford's fast-line trackwork was wrong? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

After completing the Southern Pride Mk.1 BSO, I looked around for other examples of SP kits. And, I found this.................

 

363039328_NightcapBar01.jpg.b39ed71e5ba098444051311d8edde0a6.jpg

 

1298482494_NightcapBar02.jpg.8c309d18c81ba28ff14ae21368f75152.jpg

 

It's the 'Nightcap Bar' car, the erstwhile  Pullman 'Hadrian Bar' car, ex of 'the Tees-Tyne' Pullman. 

 

It was made by my elder son, Tom, when he was in his late-teens (he's 40 this month!). 

 

Though it runs well, it never actually ran on Stoke Summit. In fact, for around 20 years, it's just lived in its box. 

 

He took the kit further than as-supplied, adding proper gangways (Comet) and much extra detail. 

 

I think it turned out well, and shows how 'natural' these vinyl-sided vehicles can look, especially with weathering. 

 

What'll happen to it, I have no idea. It's not much use in restoring a 50 year old E Type Jag!

 

 

  • Like 6
  • Craftsmanship/clever 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

After completing the Southern Pride Mk.1 BSO, I looked around for other examples of SP kits. And, I found this.................

 

363039328_NightcapBar01.jpg.b39ed71e5ba098444051311d8edde0a6.jpg

 

1298482494_NightcapBar02.jpg.8c309d18c81ba28ff14ae21368f75152.jpg

 

It's the 'Nightcap Bar' car, the erstwhile  Pullman 'Hadrian Bar' car, ex of 'the Tees-Tyne' Pullman. 

 

It was made by my elder son, Tom, when he was in his late-teens (he's 40 this month!). 

 

Though it runs well, it never actually ran on Stoke Summit. In fact, for around 20 years, it's just lived in its box. 

 

He took the kit further than as-supplied, adding proper gangways (Comet) and much extra detail. 

 

I think it turned out well, and shows how 'natural' these vinyl-sided vehicles can look, especially with weathering. 

 

What'll happen to it, I have no idea. It's not much use in restoring a 50 year old E Type Jag!

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, Chamby said:

Apologies, I'm a bit late to the 'I'll show you mine' party but here goes.  Last winter we had windows fitted in place of our garage doors and converted the former garage into a hobbies room.  So I now have a separate railway room and a workbench in the hobby room which has made a huge difference.

 

1062840742_IMG_4228small.jpg.88c5f7dbbe5c3d61f6ae155236f8bbc2.jpg

 

This is my railway room, much use is made of storage under the layout and the ubiquitous 'Really useful boxes' hold both stock and modelling "stuff".  The track diagrams and route indicators are almost ready to be mounted on the wall, and the junk in the far corner occupies the space where a turntable will be installed... both projects for this new lockdown, I think.

 

1858305161_IMG_4241small.jpg.dfc6bb230cac07b3990c4505dac53376.jpg

 

This is my new workspace in the converted garage.  I have all the stuff for different activities in separate boxes, and pack it away when not in use to prevent clutter becoming excessive.  A plate girder bridge kit under construction on the cutting mat.  A Heljan Class 35 on the rolling road, having its chip modified using the Lok-programmer and PC.  The spray booth is a new acquisition, awaiting an extractor fan as I nearly asphyxiated myself using it for the first time a couple of weeks ago!

 

1984815440_IMG_4240small.jpg.1261bc056253e0eaf9d4ac7c0efdf101.jpg

 

A workbench with a view as well!   

 

559104387_IMG_4242small.jpg.946bd07adafc4a6f15218bf9120599e3.jpg

 

Faithful companion, an almost permanent fixture when I'm modelling.  She doesn't like the Dremel but is pretty tolerant about everything else.

 

I think I've at least as much clutter as everyone else has shown, its just mostly hidden away in those (really useful) plastic boxes!

 

Lovely work chaps.

 

While a minority are getting upset over some photography and the majority are slavering over new product buying opportunities, a wonderful bit a creativity and faithful companion shines through.

 

Good gravy Chambly, you hinted at it but still kept that one quite. As well as a model railway, you've built a working model of a town planning office!

  • Like 1
  • Funny 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

1759442885_AnnanRoad23.jpg.83f88770940f6ff82ff3812c84dc9568.jpg

 

 

What's the first thing your eye goes to on this shot of Annan Road?

 

 

 

To my own eye, really sorry to say it but there seems so much else compositionally 'off' about that shot that the "day and night sky with incoming UFOs" is not the most distracting thing on there; and rectifying the sky just makes the other issues even more prominent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

It's a very evocative picture, Tony.

 

But (there's always a 'but'). Though you're right about the perception of the human eye (with only limited depth of field), if this were a photograph of a real railway, then everything would be in focus. That's my take on model railway photography; to make the picture look as 'real' as possible. 

 

I'd have 'rejected' you picture, largely because of the signals (as you know, signals are a 'bee in my bonnet' thing with me). One is 'half' upper-quadrant and surely, with two boards being 'off' on the nearer bracket, isn't a conflicting movement being set up? In fact, I don't know what the lower right board is actually signalling - there doesn't seem to be anything in the road. If I'm wrong, my apologies. 

 

The shot has also cruelly highlighted the odd ride-heights of the vans to the right. 

 

'Constructive criticism', I hope................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

image.png.1f5fd10c549770809709d92608e87bcb.png

 

Despite the adverse comments, the image is a true record of what the camera 'saw' at that particular moment. I could find thousands of similar 'rejectable' photos in my collection of old model railway magazines - they all tell the 'truth' in a way that today's sanitised and supposedly perfectly composed (and amended) published images do not.

 

We all know that no model railway is 'perfect'; why, therefore, do those involved in publishing now feel that nothing less than a 'perfect' image of what is not in reality 'perfect' will suffice?

 

I'm afraid that most such publications have become largely divorced from the skills and the reality of railway modelling, in favour of becoming a sanitised gallery for the abilities of photographers to transform a human creation into something that does not exist in reality.

 

I long since ceased to purchase them.

 

Just MHO.

 

John Isherwood.

 

  • Like 6
  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

We all know that no model railway is 'perfect'; why, therefore, do those involved in publishing now feel that nothing less than a 'perfect' image of what is not in reality 'perfect' will suffice?

 

I'm afraid that most such publications have become largely divorced from the skills and the reality of railway modelling, in favour of becoming a sanitised gallery for the abilities of photographers to transform a human creation into something that does not exist in reality.

 

I long since ceased to purchase them.

 

 

 

 

I agree to a point.

 

Amongst my prized possessions is my large (but incomplete) collection or Railway Modeler, Model Railway News, and Model railway Constructor mags from the 50's and 60's.  I also have boxes of the American Model Railroader mags from the 50's, 60's & 70's. I have to say that in many areas the Yanks were years in advance of the UK back then (not much in it though these days). History now.

 

Difficult to put my finger on it but many layouts from that era were far more interesting to me than many fine scale ones of today. Somehow I identify with them more. perhaps it's my skill level, or my style of modelling etc. We all have different standards, interests, skills etc. Difficult to quantify.

 

I too rarely purchase modern mags (British or American), an occasional one now and again. Nothing much wrong with them but they do seem to be a bit "samey", too many adverts, reviews etc. Also they are these days more of an expense / storage issue for me.

 

Brit15

 

 

Edited by APOLLO
  • Agree 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...