Hornby Star Class

[truffy]

31 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

The irony is that the mags are quite happy to engage in image manipulation.

 

Quite possibly. But they don't try to accentuate the image with steam, background darkening, and the like. And they don't post them here.

[robmcg]

9 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

The photos of all those pre-digital Hollywood Stars must have had tons of pencil lead lavished on the negs to present their unblemished features to an adoring public....   Anyhow, I appreciate the effort you take to make some of the locos look presentable!

 

 

 

It's all fraudulent you know.  Ask Edwardian.  He has postcards where there are painted skies. Heaven forfend...

 

Tony Wright has painted hedgerows behind his lamp-carrying engines, but I suspect they are not real fields...

Edited March 25, 2020 by robmcg

[robmcg]

4 minutes ago, truffy said:

 

Quite possibly. But they don't try to accentuate the image with steam, background darkening, and the like. And they don't post them here.

 

As John McEnroe famously said, "You cannot be serious!"  

 

Background darkening?      OMG   I give up!  Next we'll ban changing contrast to make a face look nicer.

[Harlequin]

@robmcg Other people use image processing mainly around the locos and other relevant subjects to enhance the image and they try hard to leave the main subject as unprocessed as possible.

 

You, on the other hand, paint over the primary subject of the images. That's a very significant difference.

 

Forum threads like this one are about the model and how it relates to the prototype. Your images give very little useful info about either because of the painting you've carried out. That's why I and others find them distracting in threads like this.

 

Whether they look nice or not, or realistic or not, is a separate issue and is a subjective judgement for each viewer.

 

Edited March 25, 2020 by Harlequin

[robmcg]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

... 

 

Your images give very little useful info about either because of the painting you've carried out. That's why I and others find them distracting in threads like this.

 

...

 

 

I do hope my unedited images such as the very recent one of my second-hand weathered Hornby Star didn't distract you.

 

The edited one which followed showed how the model looks with basic modelling done and/or proper factory assembly (the basic modelling being that which I cannot do for reasons I stated) and if you find that distracting, sobeit. 

 

To say that my edited images give very little useful information is of course your perfect right and that's why I limit them and caption them 'edited'. I hope you don't find my unedited pictures offensive..  because believe it or not I simply like good skillfully-done attractive pictures of steam trains, using mostly RTR 00 models. I think of models as representations of the real thing, and my edited photos are not intended to be a forensic examination of every rivet on a model, but to evoke a love of the subject, model or real. And are obviously just that.

 

Tony Wright, Andy York, and Mike Wild do superb 'rivets and all' catalogue photos of RTR 00. To be honest I don't understand why edited versions are so offensive when they are captioned thus. I will curtail my enjoyment of the hobby in product threads since it offends so many on RMweb (and nowhere else) and reiterate that given that I am 45 years paralysed and severely limited in choices regarding model railways, that's just the way it is.  Serious modellers only allowed here.

 

p.s. Do you trust Hornby's pictures?   Just out of interest.

 

 

 

[Hilux5972]

Hi Rob, please keep posting on your Facebook page. You don’t need the agro that people keep giving you here, especially given your restrictive injuries that people don’t seem to care about. I frequently visit your Facebook page to see what’s new on the images. Don’t let them bring you down. 

[ikks]

If I recall, we have had these negative reactions in the past and I seem to remember the vast majority of members enjoyed Rob's work. I know I certainly do, so Rob, keep it up, the ones that don't like the pictures, just scroll past............it ain't hard.

 

Rgds..Mike

[atom3624]

In the relatively short time I've been on this forum I've always enjoyed your presentations - enhanced images - Rob.

 

They show real insight and skill.

 

I don't see what the problem is.

If people don't want to see them, there are plenty of other threads on the forum.

 

Al.

[tomparryharry]

Rob's rather excellent work straddles a very fine grey area. Does Rob lead you to believe that this is what you will get, when you open the box?  No, I didn't think so. There are a lot of images of the model, both current, and historical photographic reference, all on the same page. I can't see how Rob's picture are likely to offend. After all, there are images of the model on other peoples layouts. 

 

Hornby themselves use Rob's work to display the model. As I see it, that artwork can stand alongside Terence Cuneo, also utilised by Triang. Is this misrepresentation?

 

I can't see the fuss, myself. 

[Ian Hargrave]

You’ve shrugged this off before,Rob...a long while ago now.As the world turns,what goes round comes round.You can’t please everyone. Some of us enjoy an art form.....IMHO that’s what it is....that you’re very good at.Members have trenchantly held views which they are unafraid to express on this forum and that’s fair enough .So must you be.So please don’t withdraw into the shadows 

 

[didcot]

Well I for one like Robs images, I know others don't. I cannot master digital art programs or draw anything ( except on a drawing board or CAD package) so am some what impressed with the composition. If only I could reproduce Robs work in 4mm to 1 foot I'd be a happy bunny.

[JimC]

12 hours ago, truffy said:

Quite possibly. But they don't try to accentuate the image with steam, background darkening, and the like. 

 

Do you really believe that? I can't speak for the railway press, but in fields where I have a bit more knowledge... 

[Neal Ball]

Is it time to back on topic and talk about the Hornby Star class loco.

[railroadbill]

I like Rob's pictures, think they are very well produced and add a lot to these model locomotive discussions.

Keep 'em coming, Rob.

 

This particular thread is about the Hornby Star class model.  I bought a couple of these recently, this thread has been very useful in determining the characteristics, pluses and minuses of the model.  Also with modifications to make them more authentic.  Thanks to those who answered my questions. 

 

In the current extraordinary and dangerous situation we are in, having a hobby  like railway modelling is a good and helpful distraction.  Having a useful thread turned into a pit just for trolling is extremely negative.

Hopefully this site can continue to  just be about railways and model trains.

Thank you and keep safe.

 

Edited March 26, 2020 by railroadbill

[PJT]

27 minutes ago, railroadbill said:

I like Rob's pictures, think they are very well produced and add a lot to these model locomotive discussions.

Keep 'em coming, Rob.

 

I wholeheartedly agree.  In many instances Rob's pictures provoke good conversations about the locos - more, in fact, than comments about the pictures themselves. 

 

We readers and contributors to RMweb are, thank goodness, a broad church, from on the one hand collectors who buy and admire but rarely touch their models through those who just enjoy running them, to those who dabble in model making and modifying, to those who make most things themselves.  We all derive our pleasure from models in different ways and none of them are 'wrong' (we might not like some of the ways other than ours, but that doesn't mean they're wrong). 

 

Rob's pleasure, partly through necessity, is two dimensional modelling rather than three.  It's certainly, absolutely, no less creative than three dimensional modelling (in fact in some instances it's a great deal more creative).  And I really don't see why one of Rob's massaged Star photos is not acceptable while a photo of a beautifully home-weathered loco from gwrrob on the same thread page is acceptable - neither are images of the model as Hornby sells it and, more importantly in a sort-of academic sense, neither are misleading at all on that point.  Rob's captions state in the clearest possible terms whether the photo's retouched or not. 

 

I really like some of Rob's work, some of it not so much, just the same in fact as many of the photos people have posted showing their own three dimensional modelling exploits.  Some I like, some I don't.  Some of the ones I don't like, other people do.  Of course I don't have a problem with that and I certainly don't want all the work I personally don't like swept away so I don't have to sully my vision with it, thus denying it to people who like it more than I do. 

 

As I said, we're all different, thank goodness - and even I'd get pretty bored in a world where everyone had the same likes and dislikes as me.

 

Right, I apologise for my late post on the matter (I really wanted to join the conversation but didn't have the time to earlier today).  We can all go back to our Star studies now!

 

Pete T.

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, Harlequin said:

@robmcg My suggestion was made in good faith. I think the disclaimer needs to be in the image so that it's guaranteed to be present whatever context the image shows up in.

 

I recall there was something of a hullabaloo about all this a while back - probably a couple of years ago when former member 'Coachman' took 'considerable exception', to phrase it politely, to manipulated images appearing in what are basically threads which dealt with modelling or described products.  It was my understanding that following that Rob agreed to retain his manipulated images in a separate thread where those who liked them could see them and those who didn't want to see them could carry on and access threads where they could learn about products or modellers' work to improve them.  

 

In recent times that division seems to have fallen by the wayside for whatever reason,  and now is maybe the time to go back to that practice before unnecessary major warfare breaks out.  Many people are currently under all sorts of stress and anything which adds to it, especially in a place where we come to escape into our hobby or learn about various aspects of it, should remain exactly that.  Rob's skills in image manipulation, and his reasons for doing it, are well known to those long familiar with it through RMweb but I remain of the view that they don't really belong in threads about products - which in my case I visit to learn about the product and its good points and bad points and how to correct the latter.   Should I wish to study or learn about somebody's artistry with Photoshop or whatever then I would go to places where I can see it - to me that is a remarkably simple division of interest and information.

 

No need for anyone to report this post - I shall do that myself.

[atom3624]

They're adjusted photos of the models, to better agree with the original article - locomotive or whatever.

 

People post their specific models without any change - so in addition to Rails, Colletts, Hattons' et al sources of original photos, as well as Ebay, there's still the 'happy new owners'.

Rob adding on the same thread certainly doesn't 'annoy' me in the slightest - if I want to see what the actual model looks like, I'll 'Google' it anyway.

 

There is credence to a 'Rob's Own Thread', I won't disagree, but it's like casting somebody out for having skills way beyond our own.

The fact there are physical limitations as well just increases the understanding of what skills Rob has.

 

For me, the door's wide open that he continues - each to his/her ...

 

Al.

[The Stationmaster]

35 minutes ago, atom3624 said:

They're adjusted photos of the models, to better agree with the original article - locomotive or whatever.

 

People post their specific models without any change - so in addition to Rails, Colletts, Hattons' et al sources of original photos, as well as Ebay, there's still the 'happy new owners'.

Rob adding on the same thread certainly doesn't 'annoy' me in the slightest - if I want to see what the actual model looks like, I'll 'Google' it anyway.

 

There is credence to a 'Rob's Own Thread', I won't disagree, but it's like casting somebody out for having skills way beyond our own.

The fact there are physical limitations as well just increases the understanding of what skills Rob has.

 

For me, the door's wide open that he continues - each to his/her ...

 

Al.

I have of late closed this thread almost as soon as I have opened - people can guess the reason for themselves.   i am very interested to see what folk have done with various modelling skills or ideas to improve or alter their Hornby 'Star' and I like to see pictures such as those of GWRob's of a detailed and/or skillfuly weathered engine doing such things asworking on 'A Nod To Brent'.  Obviously pictures of the real thing are useful as a guide to detailing etc are useful but artistry of a different kind doesn't really help in that respect, sorry but that's why I come to this thread.  If I want to go to a thread about photoshopping images then that is what I would do - exactly as you said 'each to his or her'.

Edited March 26, 2020 by The Stationmaster

[toboldlygo]

On 07/03/2020 at 09:03, Ian Hargrave said:

Particularly the version you have.This has an altogether better shade of g***n I think.

 

Ian, it's only because he knows the owner of a certain 'Railway, Aviation (Shipyard) Works - who uses his Jedi skills to rework the colour without a full respray (and knows how to colour-match Hornby 'g***n  ).

 

[gwrrob]

Hornby groan ?

[atom3624]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

 ...   I am very interested to see what folk have done with various modelling skills or ideas to improve or alter their Hornby 'Star' ...

I agree with that as well.

It is a modelling forum and it's nice to see what has been done.

 

I'm certain Rob means no harm.

I suppose it may revert to, perhaps, a Railway Art section, where such adapted, modified images can be freely aired.

 

I had no problems.

I can understand where others are coming from as well.

 

Al.

[rgmichel]

On 08/03/2020 at 04:51, 60800 said:

Obviously it's been a fair while since it was released, but for those of you that bought the original run of Lode Star - was the LH tender lining wonky on yours? I've had two of them - the original was returned as it didn't run and I got stuck with the second as they had no more to swap it with. Both suffered with the wonky lining and I don't want to attempt to remove the wonky portion as I know nothing matches Hornby GWR lining. Unless anyone knows different?

I have a couple of Stars, including Lode Star, and the lining looks identical on both, and not wonky to me.  Unfortunately, my eyesight is not perfect so I might miss a bit of wonkyness!  I did return my first Lode Star delivered as it had broken parts, including whistles when it arrived.

[robmcg]

Back to the thread subject,

 

two unedited pics, repeated from a while back, and my great enjoyment of the hobby...

 

 

 

I have been looking out for these R3165 models for a while and two turned up on the same day...

[Ian Hargrave]

Hope it stays in one piece,Rob.Enjoy.

[robmcg]

On 26/03/2020 at 00:19, Harlequin said:

 

 

 

 

 

Removed by me, inappropriate humour.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2020 by robmcg