Show us yours - Realistic modelling

[NHY 581]

On 03/07/2022 at 19:39, JonathonAG said:

Ex NBR C16 No. 67488, shedded at Polmont, runs along the shoreline West of Bo'ness with a late evening summer service to Grangemouth.
Model is a modified NuCast kit, upgraded so it can compete with RTR offerings in terms of detailing, sitting on a modified Hornby Adam's chassis with wheels appropriately changed with correct diameters.

 

 

That's a splendid image. 

[Captain Kernow]

2 minutes ago, NHY 581 said:

 

 

That's a splendid image. 

R.C. Riley?

 

[NHY 581]

36 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

R.C. Riley?

 

 

Could easily be, could it not? 

[Physicsman]

Fully agree about Jonathon's image.

 

Stunning.

 

Some of the contributors on here should take note of what the word "realistic" means by looking at that.

 

More, please.

 

Jeff.

[Lowlander]

Somewhere in Fife. 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Lowlander

[NHY 581]

9 hours ago, Physicsman said:

Fully agree about Jonathon's image.

 

Stunning.

 

Some of the contributors on here should take note of what the word "realistic" means by looking at that.

 

More, please.

 

Jeff.

 

 

Totally agree, Jeff. 

 

Interpretation of the term 'realistic' has been somewhat stretched as of late by some. 

 

Jonathan's image is without a doubt, something of a benchmark. 

 

Rob. 

[Gopher]

One point I am never sure of is whether "photo shopping" images is O.K. ?  Personally I think adding steam/smoke - false sky backscenes etc can make a good image brilliant, as can using proper lighting, camera etc.   I am not having a pop at anyone who does this.  I love looking at the images posted, but it is clear some images posted are in the raw, others have been tweaked .    So what counts as realistic ?           

[AY Mod]

28 minutes ago, Gopher said:

others have been tweaked .

 

It may be worth quoting an example that you may think stretches things in your view.

[JonathonAG]

1 hour ago, Gopher said:

One point I am never sure of is whether "photo shopping" images is O.K. ?  Personally I think adding steam/smoke - false sky backscenes etc can make a good image brilliant, as can using proper lighting, camera etc.   I am not having a pop at anyone who does this.  I love looking at the images posted, but it is clear some images posted are in the raw, others have been tweaked .    So what counts as realistic ?           

 

Thanks all for the kind words!  I'm rather flattered, but certainly feel there's many more images throughout this thread that trumps my efforts!

 

Regarding photoshop, I personally don't see the issue as long as the core element of modelling is met on the main focus of the picture.  What I have is a blank blue wall behind my two dioramas when set up, and this allows to easily put in the background of my choice and doesn't confine me to one sky/season etc, but this is really no different to having multiple physical backscenes and swapping them over.  The exhaust is the one area where we cannot recreate conceivably at small gauges even though the TRS steam efforts are heading in the right direction, but for me exhaust is one of the big areas of a 'steam' photograph that helps make it feel alive.

 

I don't think term 'realistic' in this thread limits a photograph to one set of rules, but that's my personal taste.  Realistic can be easily applied to an image of an accurate train formation in an accurately modelled location, or to an image of an entirely fictional layout/diorama but has been modelled so well to feel like it was recreated from a prototype.  As long as somebody feels like they could walk among the image as if it were a real scene, surely that is the bar?

Edited July 6, 2022 by JonathonAG

[Captain Kernow]

I would say that one of the best examples of where a photoshopped background enhances a modelled foreground that is already at the pinnacle of the art, are those photos of the Vale scene at Pendon, where a 'Wiltshire' background has been photoshopped onto a photo of the model scene. The result is just breathtaking. The photo(s) I am thinking of are in the latest version of the 'In Search of a Dream' volume by Wild Swan.

 

[Rowsley17D]

The late summer sun catches the final activities of the day at Derwent. 3P 748 has the last arrival of the day the 9.08pm from Derby. 3F 7107 has shunted the coaches into the carriage siding and the 3P has reversed to the platform end awaiting the signal to reverse further then to drop down to the shed via the steeply graded road. She'll be readied in the morning for the 7.52am back to Derby.

 

 

 

[Gopher]

24 minutes ago, JonathonAG said:

 

Thanks all for the kind words!  I'm rather flattered, but certainly feel there's many more images throughout this thread that trumps my efforts!

 

Regarding photoshop, I personally don't see the issue as long as the core element of modelling is met on the main focus of the picture.  What I have is a blank blue wall behind my two dioramas when set up, and this allows to easily put in the background of my choice and doesn't confine me to one sky/season etc, but this is really no different to having multiple physical backscenes and swapping them over.  The exhaust is the one area where we cannot recreate conceivably at small gauges even though the TRS steam efforts are heading in the right direction, but for me exhaust is one of the big areas of a 'steam' photograph that helps make it feel alive.

 

I don't think term 'realistic' in this thread limits a photograph to one set of rules, but that's my personal taste.  Realistic can be easily applied to an image of an accurate train formation in an accurately modelled location, or to an image of an entirely fictional layout/diorama but has been modelled so well to feel like it was recreated from a prototype.  As long as somebody feels like they could walk among the image as if it were a real scene, surely that is the bar?

 

23 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

I would say that one of the best examples of where a photoshopped background enhances a modelled foreground that is already at the pinnacle of the art, are those photos of the Vale scene at Pendon, where a 'Wiltshire' background has been photoshopped onto a photo of the model scene. The result is just breathtaking. The photo(s) I am thinking of are in the latest version of the 'In Search of a Dream' volume by Wild Swan.

 

 

1 hour ago, AY Mod said:

 

It may be worth quoting an example that you may think stretches things in your view.

I'm not going to quote examples - because despite my post it is not a big deal for me, and of course I may be mistaken in some cases. 

 

There are a few images posted since April which I think may have been tweaked, (smoke/steam added and either hugely realistic printed sky backscenes -not tweaking, or sky scenes added to the photo).   Some of the modelling is excellent and stands alone without any photographic enhancement.

 

My post was really a question to get people's views on what counts as realistic on this thread.  I think it is a sliding scale.  I post what I think are some of my better photos which are never going to pass muster for total realism.  Not just because of my average photographic skills, but also because I don't install items such as point rodding, catch points, and probably have some signals in the wrong location, I also run locos and rolling stock which probably would never be seen in the same location at the same time.  To my eyes the better photos  create an impression/illusion - just don't look too closely at some of the detail.      

 

There are also some brilliant models photographed outside in natural light.  Not photo tweaking just showing the model in the best possible lighting.

 

Jonathan - totally agree with your comments and congratulations on a lovely model, beautifully photographed, I hope you did not think I was criticising your photos. 

 

I also agree with the Captain.  I think that excellent modelling is excellent modelling, and any photo enhancement aka the Pendon images - just adds to the realism of an already superb model. 

 

Similarly  no end of photo enhancements will hide poor modelling. 

 

Anyway - have a good day all.  

 

      

[Karl]

28 minutes ago, Gopher said:

There are a few images posted since April which I think may have been tweaked, (smoke/steam added and either hugely realistic printed sky backscenes -not tweaking, or sky scenes added to the photo).   Some of the modelling is excellent and stands alone without any photographic enhancement.

 

      

 

I suspect this may refer to some of the images I have put on, so for the avoidance of doubt the ones I have put on are all taken outside  against the sky and so it is natural light with the sky as it was on the day. I deliberately have done it when there have been some dramatic skies. 

[Gopher]

19 minutes ago, Karl said:

 

I suspect this may refer to some of the images I have put on, so for the avoidance of doubt the ones I have put on are all taken outside  against the sky and so it is natural light with the sky as it was on the day. I deliberately have done it when there have been some dramatic skies. 

Not at all Karl - it is clear your excellent model is photographed outside, in fact I think you state this on some of your posts .     

[Karl]

39 minutes ago, Gopher said:

Not at all Karl - it is clear your excellent model is photographed outside, in fact I think you state this on some of your posts .     

No prob, I just didn't want credit for Photoshop skills I don't have! 😆

[Physicsman]

Just an additional "two pennies worth" from me.

 

I rarely stray beyond the confines of my thread or the S&C section in which it resides. Occasionally (4 or 5 times, so far) I feel I may have an image that is worthy of this thread and have posted it on here.

 

Here's a quote from Andy York's opening post on this thread:

 

 

"We are constantly blown away by some of the images in the 'How realistic is your modelling' topic each month and feel that the best content is worth sharing with BRM readers. So, we’ve set up this feed to allow you to share some of your work with us. We will then select the best entries featuring the most inspiring and realistic imagery for a short feature in the magazine.

 

We are committed through the current situation to bring readers the best possible modelling content and thought, while we don't have exhibitions, this would be a great way to spread a positive message and showcase what the modelling community is up to."

 

 

I've highlighted what, to me, are the key elements this thread is supposed to represent (it's irrelevant that Andy might then choose to publish some of the best images in BRM). As Gopher has just said, in a post further up this page, we all produce tons of reasonable-to-good stuff and often have images of this. But if it's not inspiring or truly realistic then it ought to remain within a person's thread and not be posted on here.

 

This is NOT an elitist or condemnatory attitude. The remit of this thread goes beyond the normal "good stuff" we may produce and should be kept as such.

 

Really good modelling is almost self-evident and there are examples on here that I find TRULY inspirational and can aspire to. The mundane, often repetitive images, are also pretty self-evident and it's clear that a large number of people on RMweb are getting a bit fed up with them.

 

Disagree with this if you choose. It is one person's opinion and, of course, one person's "realistic" may be another person's "mediocre".

 

Jeff

Edited July 6, 2022 by Physicsman
Grammar

[Barry Ten]

Here's another one from me, a night-shot this time.

 

 

Just a couple of observations: what you see if what you get; the only manipulation I've done is to crop the image to remove the layout border, although you can still see a vertical line in the backscene between the two boards. There's also a shadow caused by daylight entering the layout room - it wouldn't be there if I did the shot at night, but I think it can pass as a cloud?

 

Other than that, I went for a low angle so that the Kadee couplers are hidden, and I shot with full manual exposure on a tripod with delayed shutter release, picking the exposure time that I felt worked best. The lighting effect is achieved by turning off the usual warm-white LED strip and relying only on the secondary, colour-variable LEDS, set to blue.

 

[Paul_C]

I am building a layout based on the Sheerness branch line as it was in 1959/60 when steam gave way to electrification. Although it's not yet underway I've secured a lot of models and infrastructure ready for the off. A big challenge is going to be creating backscenes as I would like to be pretty realistic on this part if I can. If I were modelling the current era then there would be no issue as I could just go and take a shed load of photos and print off accordingly.     

 

I've tried to find coloured scenic views of the actual areas needed but it's proving very difficult to find what I need, I can't help feeling that it's going to be an almost impossible task 🤣. Any ideas/thoughts please?

 

Paul.

Edited July 10, 2022 by Paul_C
Wrong section of the forum

[Rowsley17D]

8 minutes ago, Paul_C said:

I am building a layout based on the Sheerness branch line as it was in 1959/60 when steam gave way to electrification. Although it's not yet underway I've secured a lot of models and infrastructure ready for the off. A big challenge is going to be creating backscenes as I would like to be pretty realistic on this part if I can. If I were modelling the current era then there would be no issue as I could just go and take a shed load of photos and print off accordingly.     

 

I've tried to find coloured scenic views of the actual areas needed but it's proving very difficult to find what I need, I can't help feeling that it's going to be an almost impossible task 🤣. Any ideas/thoughts please?

 

Paul.

 

I cannot help feeling you've posted in the wrong section. Perhaps better in Modelling Questions, Helps & Tips or Scenery, Structures and Transport sections. Perhaps @AY Mod can move it?

Edited July 6, 2022 by Rowsley17D

[NHY 581]

3 minutes ago, Paul_C said:

I am building a layout based on the Sheerness branch line as it was in 1959/60 when steam gave way to electrification. Although it's not yet underway I've secured a lot of models and infrastructure ready for the off. A big challenge is going to be creating backscenes as I would like to be pretty realistic on this part if I can. If I were modelling the current era then there would be no issue as I could just go and take a shed load of photos and print off accordingly.     

 

I've tried to find coloured scenic views of the actual areas needed but it's proving very difficult to find what I need, I can't help feeling that it's going to be an almost impossible task 🤣. Any ideas/thoughts please?

 

Paul.

 

 

Hi Paul, 

 

I stand to be corrected but is the Sheerness area quite flat ? 

 

If this is the case why not emphasise the flat, open area around by simply having a plain backscene ? 

 

It will draw the eye to the actual modelling rather than offering the distraction of a 'busy' backscene.......

 

I use a plain backscene.....

 

 

A far from realistic image but perhaps illustrates the point. 

 

 

 

Rob. 

[The Johnster]

I am particularly taken by the misty gloominess of the backscene on Arun Quay, an excellent layout which superbly conveys the feeling of a flat and bleak terrain.  Sheerness is Thames estuary, so much like this and has a good bit of scruffy industry thrown into the mix as well, so a backdrop of untidy industrial buildings, perhaps rail served, with a low wall separating from the marshes, actually a plain grey backdrop, suggests itself, under cool led lighting.  If you want a sunny day, this is 'big sky' country, clear blue and fluffy white clouds, and warmer lighting.

[John Besley]

Agree wholeheartedly with the above comments, this thread / topic IS for realistic modeling to be showcased.

 

It seems to have degenerated into a discussion now as a Q&A on modeling - nothing wrong with that where it's meant to be but we need good photos of inspirational modelling to get this back on track.

 

If anyone has a question research it first as it's proberly been covered before on this site

[NHY 581]

[Captain Kernow]

Just a thought in terms of photoshoppery, the likes of Peco were doing this on a basic level for photos for 'Railway Modeller', where untidy bits of the layout owner's workbench etc. were digitally removed from the photos for publication.

 

[97406]

I'm an avid loco collector, but there is so much more to setting the scene and adding clutter, thanks to many of the pictures on here. Some welders' helmets and other things!