The Great Backscene Disaster

[John R Smith]

 

Well, there you go. Sometimes it seems that great ideas turn out to be not so great, after all. For some time I had been pondering the potential for a backscene at Kingswell Street, as an alternative to the default expanse of white-emulsioned wall. I did go so far as to purchase a commercial photographic scene from Gaugemaster, and although it was well produced and for a fair price I found it much too dark overall and rather gloomy.  Just a big expanse of dark green woodland, really. So a bad choice on my part. In any case, it was a modern scene, and shall we say, too realistic - which jarred with the definitely unrealistic foreground.

 

So I pondered long and deep, and came up with the following mantra - my 1930s layout should have a 1930s backscene. Amongst my collection of railway prints and posters I discovered this GWR poster from the period, which has the advantage straight away of being a painting, not a photo, and hence rather more suited to my antique collection of classic O Gauge bits and pieces -

 

 

Having scanned the postcard into my PC, the hard work began. In Photoshop, I desaturated and lightened the painting to give a feeling of distance. I then made left and right versions by flipping the image. Now the L and R prints could be joined together seamlessly, because the joining mirror images would match along each edge. I then uploaded the images to a firm called Printpond, who did a super job of printing the files to A3 size on heavy paper and winged them back to me securely packed by express post.

 

Now I had enough A3 prints for my nine feet long layout, and I set to work hanging them on the wall. At first, I was rather pleased. The backscene did seem to give a feeling of depth and space to the setting, was not too dark, and the style of the artwork did sit quite well with the Bassett-Lowke and Hornby rolling stock. So I thought that I would take a few photos to check my work. Then alas, the truth was revealed. It had been a big (huge, massive) mistake to include a ruler-sharp sea horizon line in the backscene. The only way that can work in the photos is to shoot exactly at 90 degrees to the wall and level the camera accordingly. Otherwise, move the slightest bit off angle, and you get something like this -

 

 

And if you think that you can straighten things up a bit in Photoshop, it just results in this (with a four degree correction) -

 

 

Oh dear. A choice of sloping sea, or collapsing 0-4-0 tank. Well, it didn't cost much, and I learned a lot. Any thoughts?

 

 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2023 by John R Smith

[AY Mod]

I really like that. You'll never get round the sea horizon issue unless the centre of the lens is at exactly the same height as that horizon line. I wouldn't worry too much to be honest; I think the tones and style are lovely.

[kevinlms]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but shouldn't a sea horizon be level? Or at least curving slighty downwards the further left/right you go.

[RodneyS]

I agree with Andy.   I wouldn't have noticed the sloping sea if you hadn't mentioned it.

As you have subdued the colours it is really not noticeable.

My friend, looking over my shoulder as I type this, thought it was a misty valley so everybody sees things differently.  

Very nice.

Rodney

[goldfish]

From what we can see in your photographs you seem to have created an excellent back scene for your railway. Unless the prime purpose of your layout is to use it as a photo plank, I wouldn't worry about the horizon. Pretend it is low cloud, or hill mist.

[Michael Hodgson]

I don't see the problem.  Surely that would also happen to the skyline if you photographed the sea from a similar acute angle?  It's "levelling" your photograph to align with your ideal of a horizontal sky that has caused the distortion in the second image.  It would be even steeper if you photographed from an even more acute angle.  The first image looks fine to me.

 

In any case the sea is not a straight line at the horizon.  It's slightly curved to follow the shape of the planet. 

 

Indeed if you hadn't started with a level sea line, flipping and joining the images like that would have resulted in a V-shaped sea at the join!!

 

In short, you're over-thinking this.  Nothing wrong wth what you've done.

[Pete Haitch]

The sea horizon is a funny thing even in real life so I wouldn't worry about it - the end result looks pleasing to me. What does it look like in real life when sat at the layout; and do you like what you see? If so, I would stick with vision 1.0 as the human eye and brain generally outperforms a camera lens and chip.  There is a manufacturer in the vassal lands of the western dukedom, who argues that brick paper is a good finish for model buildings as the human eye cannot determine the absence of depth at normal distance. Equally. I know individuals who can tell a flat brick paper at  a (metaphorical) 100 paces and are adamant that their eye/brain combo registers the difference.  One of these guys left a job after one day as the fancy office building had shadow gaps around the doors on the director's floor, and these were perceptibly fractionally different widths around each door or even around an individual door.  Nobody else noticed but he did even though it was only a few thou here and there - but it disturbed him.  My 2023 eyes/brain have been conditioned to see and interpret the same vista differently to my 1950/60s eyes.  If you like what you see, then its right for you.

Edited December 27, 2023 by Pete Haitch

[F-UnitMad]

The sea horizon looks level in your 1st picture. If you have put the backscene up with the sea horizon level, then what's the problem? You can't overcome the physics of matching 3D & 2D perspective in the same photo.

Anyway even in the real world we/a camera doesn't see things as they 'should' be. I took this photo at Aberystwyth earlier this year. The scene is 'level', the buildings are vertical (edit - more or less!! I blame lens distortion!!), but the sea horizon sure isn't horizontal.... 😱🤷‍♂️🤦‍♂️

Edited December 27, 2023 by F-UnitMad

[Captain Slough]

Surely a sea horizon is only visually level if you're looking directly at it?  Aim your gaze offset and it should appear tilted anyway due to the way the optic nerve works, look along the coast and it should seem to go from low to high in peripheral vision

[John R Smith]

8 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

I took this photo at Aberystwyth earlier this year. The scene is 'level', the buildings are vertical, but the sea horizon sure isn't horizontal.... 😱🤷‍♂️🤦‍♂️

 

With all due respect - what the photo needs is a custom rotate of 1.25 degrees left. Then the sea horizon will be level. The building fronts are actually not vertical, but that is because the camera lens is below their centre line. You would require a rising front on the camera to correct this. For many years I earned a living recording historic buildings, so I am sure I am very over sensitive to all this stuff, and far too picky, but that is my cross to bear . . .

[John R Smith]

 

Anyhow - many thanks to everybody who has replied to this thread. I am a bit surprised by the number who felt that there really was not much of a problem, or that I was making too much of it - I was really expecting more along the lines of "hard luck John, what a clot you are, just rip it all down and bin it, better luck next time dimwit" or perhaps variations on that theme. Or it may be, of course, that the RM Web chaps are just far too polite to give me the hard truth.

 

This is not the first time that I have used flipped L-R prints to build a frieze style backscene. It's a bit off subject, I know, but I used the same technique on my finescale 7mm diorama to build an urban backdrop -

 

 

These are actually the houses to the rear of the station at Wadebridge, combined with some stone walling along the same street. I printed all the components out and built them up into a collage of some thirty pieces of paper! Everything behind the seated young lady is 2D, including the wall and pillars. The total depth is six inches. As usual, the problem is in the transition to the sky at the top of the scene, but the perspective is working quite well.

 

 

[Mike Buckner]

Perhaps these rose-tinted glasses might help:

 

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/DODO®-Vintage-Celebrity-Designers-Sunglasses/dp/B077MVCMKJ/ref=sr_1_14_sspa?crid=33POK0S63LMLE&keywords=rose%2Btinted%2Bglasses&qid=1703694558&sprefix=rose%2Btinted%2Bglasses%2Caps%2C73&sr=8-14-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9tdGY&th=1

[AY Mod]

14 minutes ago, John R Smith said:

Or it may be, of course, that the RM Web chaps are just far too polite to give me the hard truth.

 

Please be assured that is very unlikely to be the case. 😁

[roythebus1]

The problem I can see ith the sea horizon is that with seceral sheets together, the sea could appear to go up and down like a roller caster between the scenes!

[Nearholmer]

The only problem that I can see with it is that it bothers you, so only you can say whether it is a big problem, or a really tiny one that you can live with.

[ian]

You have my sympathy. I used a commercial backscene with a sea view on an eye-level branch terminus. I had mounted it with the sea horizon above eye level and every time I looked at it felt that I was in imminent dange of being swept away by a tsunami. It had to go...

 

Yours however looks fine but if it really bugs you then it will have to go.

 

Perhaps modify the image to replace the sea with sky or forest?

[Hibelroad]

If the sea is level how do you account for tides?  Some bits are sometimes higher than others!

[ian]

3 minutes ago, Hibelroad said:

If the sea is level how do you account for tides?

And water skiing - you must need a downhill bit for that. 😀

[Colin_McLeod]

Would it be possible to get rid of the sea altogether by altering and reprinting the relevant sheets?

[Michael Hodgson]

3 hours ago, John R Smith said:

 

This is not the first time that I have used flipped L-R prints to build a frieze style backscene. It's a bit off subject, I know, but I used the same technique on my finescale 7mm diorama to build an urban backdrop -

 

 

I rather like that idea.  I'm not one of nature's artists, so my approach is to wallpaper the wall with commercial backscenes for rural views which is perhaps easier to find in OO, with perhaps a little bit of collage here and there.  For urban scenes I prefer very low relief buildings, looks OK particularly in O.  But I accept I my skills are nowhere near what some others achieve, especially those who can just do it all with a paintbrush.

[Michael Hodgson]

20 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

Would it be possible to get rid of the sea altogether by altering and reprinting the relevant sheets?

... or glue a cloud or a distant mountain range over the top of it, if it is bothering you as much as it seems.

[F-UnitMad]

7 hours ago, John R Smith said:

 

Anyhow - many thanks to everybody who has replied to this thread. I am a bit surprised by the number who felt that there really was not much of a problem, or that I was making too much of it - I was really expecting more along the lines of "hard luck John, what a clot you are, just rip it all down and bin it, better luck next time dimwit" or perhaps variations on that theme. Or it may be, of course, that the RM Web chaps are just far too polite to give me the hard truth.

 

This is not the first time that I have used flipped L-R prints to build a frieze style backscene. It's a bit off subject, I know, but I used the same technique on my finescale 7mm diorama to build an urban backdrop -

 

 

These are actually the houses to the rear of the station at Wadebridge, combined with some stone walling along the same street. I printed all the components out and built them up into a collage of some thirty pieces of paper! Everything behind the seated young lady is 2D, including the wall and pillars. The total depth is six inches. As usual, the problem is in the transition to the sky at the top of the scene, but the perspective is working quite well.

 

 

I remember that!! - and the best trick you pulled off there was the mirror beyond the canopy! 👍👍👌

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

I remember that!! - and the best trick you pulled off there was the mirror beyond the canopy! 👍👍👌

I think the sign with the arrow successfully distracts the eye, because it ISN'T part of the reflected view. You have to go looking hard to see mirror images.

[Colin_McLeod]

21 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

... or glue a cloud or a distant mountain range over the top of it, if it is bothering you as much as it seems.

It's not bothering me at all.  I was making a suggestion to be helpful to the OP with the problem he is having with the appearance of the sea horizon in photographs.

[Deeps]

The GWR poster image shown at the start of this thread has all the hallmarks of a painting by Rowland Hilder. He produced a number of such paintings, the prints of which adorned the compartments of many GWR & SR carriages (and, possibly, other regions).

 

One of his more interesting commissions was to produce artwork for the ‘Strong & Co’ brewery at Romsey. Large versions of these could be seen alongside the Southern Region lines in the area, and beyond, advertising ones proximity to the ‘Strong Country’. 

 

I can vividly remember these from my youth and later I was delighted to learn that he was a distant relation of mine. Needless to say, suitable versions of these will populate my layout.