Peterborough North

[great northern]

Here it is. I'd forgotten to reduce the size.

May I please ask how much difference, if any, the addition of the sky makes to your viewing enjoyment?

[gwrrob]

Fabulous photos and yes the sky adds to the scene.I wish sometimes I could hide my background clutter using Photoshop etc.Very believable Gilbert.

[cornish trains jez]

Lovely photos Gilbert, and yes, the sky does add to the overall atmosphere.

[Oldddudders]

Gilbert - it's not your zoom that needs a little more attention, it's the aperture. The zoom varies the focal length of the lens, essentially between wide angle and long focus, which latter we generally refer to (incorrectly) as telephoto. You have used the zoom correctly, since you have framed the picture as you wished. What is needed is a much smaller aperture, say f11 or smaller, because then you increase the depth-of-field, i.e. the distance between foreground and background that is in focus at the same time. That may be quite hard to do on certain cameras - indeed not within the capabilities of the user at all.

 

I'm sure Andy Y or Tony Wright can explain it much better, and may be able to suggest if your camera even has the capability.

[Mallard60022]

 

But, alas, I did spot something that had me worried (and just a tad jealous).  Evidence of locoholism was quite prevalent:

IMG_2183_1024.jpg

 

 

Gilbert, it is no use hiding those Preiser nudes in that loco box mate.

Quack

Edited November 30, 2014 by Mallard60022

[Mallard60022]

Great pics again. I need to practice doing some of that so I'll bring the camera. as I've got nothing to take pictures of yet other than piles of c**p  stuff still all over the loft.

P

[Andy Y]

Gilbert - it's not your zoom that needs a little more attention, it's the aperture. The zoom varies the focal length of the lens, essentially between wide angle and long focus, which latter we generally refer to (incorrectly) as telephoto. You have used the zoom correctly, since you have framed the picture as you wished. What is needed is a much smaller aperture, say f11 or smaller, because then you increase the depth-of-field, i.e. the distance between foreground and background that is in focus at the same time. That may be quite hard to do on certain cameras - indeed not within the capabilities of the user at all.

 

I'm sure Andy Y or Tony Wright can explain it much better, and may be able to suggest if your camera even has the capability.

 

Ian's quite correct. When using a zoom in real life it leads to foreshortening and reduced depth of field; this can be a complementary attribute in portrait photography when using a lens around 80-100mm flattens the features of a face whereas moving closer and using a wide angle e.g. 28mm would be most uncomplimentary to the most beautiful of subjects. In model terms with the reduced depth of field which a physical attribute in macro photography use on longer ranges only serves to emphasise that limited depth of field. Basically the right bits were in focus but there was too much of the peripheral matter which couldn't be brought into the range of focus. Hence you'll rarely see really long shots of models in a mag as it just screams model as well as emphasising anything that's even the slightest bit 'wiggly'.

[jwealleans]

This is what we need... more mucky old wagons.  Bring it on!

[great northern]

Ian's quite correct. When using a zoom in real life it leads to foreshortening and reduced depth of field; this can be a complementary attribute in portrait photography when using a lens around 80-100mm flattens the features of a face whereas moving closer and using a wide angle e.g. 28mm would be most uncomplimentary to the most beautiful of subjects. In model terms with the reduced depth of field which a physical attribute in macro photography use on longer ranges only serves to emphasise that limited depth of field. Basically the right bits were in focus but there was too much of the peripheral matter which couldn't be brought into the range of focus. Hence you'll rarely see really long shots of models in a mag as it just screams model as well as emphasising anything that's even the slightest bit 'wiggly'.

 

 

Gilbert - it's not your zoom that needs a little more attention, it's the aperture. The zoom varies the focal length of the lens, essentially between wide angle and long focus, which latter we generally refer to (incorrectly) as telephoto. You have used the zoom correctly, since you have framed the picture as you wished. What is needed is a much smaller aperture, say f11 or smaller, because then you increase the depth-of-field, i.e. the distance between foreground and background that is in focus at the same time. That may be quite hard to do on certain cameras - indeed not within the capabilities of the user at all.

 

I'm sure Andy Y or Tony Wright can explain it much better, and may be able to suggest if your camera even has the capability.

Thanks chaps. As I can't get beyond f8 with the G12, I shall have to give up on these close ups, as cars and Christmas have considerably reduced resources, at least in the short term. Having read that again, perhaps I'm turning into a politician.   I could just have said - I'm skint.   But happy.

[coachmann]

Even limited to F8, the quality lens and the small chip are giving you some pretty sharp shots. Even at f 22 my cheapo 18-55 lens on the DSLR doesn't deliver the quality basically because the optics just don't deliver the goods. When you are taking close up shots, don't focus on the part of the subject nearest to the camera as this is merely wasting the depth of focus. I focus about a third down the subject instead. Okay so the nearest part might not be pin sharp but the focus does extend further down the other parts. I have tried to put this as simplistic as possible. Like lots of things, photography is simplicity itself once the building block are understood. An eye for a picture is harder to master, but you don't have any problems in that department Gilbert!

 

On another subject, I too prefer a sky on your shots but if your backing boards were much higher it might be different. Higher boards would certainly make photoshopping life easier. 

Edited November 30, 2014 by coachmann

[Clive Mortimore]

It seems like a long time since I promised to ............

 

fish and B2 8.jpg

Why did Mr Thompson do this to a B17? It didn't improve the performance of the engine at all. All that was necessary was to fit a Dia 100a boiler, which most certainly did.

 

Somewhere, there is one more shot, on which I spent time photoshopping. If I can find it, I'll add it on.

I know the answer Gilbert

 

So diesel modeller like me can say why is that B1 in green :scratchhead:

[Tony Wright]

Gilbert - it's not your zoom that needs a little more attention, it's the aperture. The zoom varies the focal length of the lens, essentially between wide angle and long focus, which latter we generally refer to (incorrectly) as telephoto. You have used the zoom correctly, since you have framed the picture as you wished. What is needed is a much smaller aperture, say f11 or smaller, because then you increase the depth-of-field, i.e. the distance between foreground and background that is in focus at the same time. That may be quite hard to do on certain cameras - indeed not within the capabilities of the user at all.

 

I'm sure Andy Y or Tony Wright can explain it much better, and may be able to suggest if your camera even has the capability.

Since my opinion has been 'requested', may I make a few comments, please?

 

I think, given the 'restrictions' of the G12, many of Gilbert's pictures are really outstanding. I say 'restrictions' because I've never been able to get on with smaller cameras. I know Andy York uses a G12, but he employs stacking to get almost limitless depth of field. He has explained the process to me, but being dim and a bit of a Luddite, it went completely over my head.

 

I know a minimum aperture of F8 is quite 'wide', but such an aperture on a 'compact' camera gives much greater depth of field than F8 on a 35mm equivalent digital camera using a standard lens. I personally would bin any pictures which weren't sharp where it matters, though they do encourage lively debate. 

 

Where I do take issue with smaller cameras is that, in many cases, the focusing cannot be done manually. In my opinion, this is a major drawback, and results in the camera selecting what it wants in focus, not the user. 

 

I have no wish to hijack this most-popular thread, but the following images might be of interest, and they do show ECML subjects. Some might have already appeared on Wright Writes; if so, my apologies.

 

 

One major drawback of a big camera is the unnaturally-high viewpoint given at times. Such as in this view, where the horizon on the right-hand side doesn't work. I used a Nikon D3 with a 55mm Micro on the front. This exceptional lens stops down to F32, so depth of field is never an issue. I focused on the third/fourth carriage in the train, so it's all sharp.

 

 

The same combination gave me this result. This end-on shot is the most difficult view of a model train to ensure all is in focus where it matters, but the F32 (actually between that and F45) on the Micro has ensured almost endless depth of field.

 

 

This time it's the Nikon Df in use, with an 18-35 zoom on the nose. The viewpoint is lower (and more natural) and at the 35-end of the zoom (which I used), the minimum aperture is F29. Thus, by focusing midships along the freight train, everything that needs to be sharp is.

 

 

The same combination again, this time on Graham Nicholas' Grantham (which really proved a hit at the NEC, I'm told). This one has a real sky superimposed, which is better than the cluttered walls of an ex-chapel.Lighting, as in all the other shots was the ambient lighting and remote, fill-in flash.

 

I realise that the equipment I use is high-end in terms of performance (and price!), but I couldn't get the results I seek by other means. 

 

On another note, it was nice to see one of the Gresley conversions on the last page. Might I mention how this, and others, was achieved is featured in the BRM Annual, please? It was also good to see Rob Kinsey's fish train in use. It's gone to a good home.

 

My apologies if anything in the above is off-topic.

[Theakerr]

Talking of Ludites, I guess I must be one or at least related to one.  I prefer the picture in question without the sky.  In my minds eye, when I see most of the pictures you (and others) post with the layout/room background present, the background disappears.  In many cases when I see the sky photoshopped in, my minds eye goes to the photoshopped section then the train.  Note; I do say most because like most statistical type statements there are exceptions.  Just my thoughts Gilbert.   

[great northern]

Even limited to F8, the quality lens and the small chip are giving you some pretty sharp shots. Even at f 22 my cheapo 18-55 lens on the DSLR doesn't deliver the quality basically because the optics just don't deliver the goods. When you are taking close up shots, don't focus on the part of the subject nearest to the camera as this is merely wasting the depth of focus. I focus about a third down the subject instead. Okay so the nearest part might not be pin sharp but the focus does extend further down the other parts. I have tried to put this as simplistic as possible. Like lots of things, photography is simplicity itself once the building block are understood. An eye for a picture is harder to master, but you don't have any problems in that department Gilbert!

 

On another subject, I too prefer a sky on your shots but if your backing boards were much higher it might be different. Higher boards would certainly make photoshopping life easier. 

Thanks Larry. I shall try focussing further down the train next time. As to backing boards, some time ago I worked out a system which allowed me to put up temporary much higher boards. Nothing clever, just a few strips of velcro in strategic places. I've not been using it though, pure idleness again, though I did find that even with a plain white board, photoshopping those trees in the hotel garden wasn't much fun.

[great northern]

Talking of Ludites, I guess I must be one or at least related to one.  I prefer the picture in question without the sky.  In my minds eye, when I see most of the pictures you (and others) post with the layout/room background present, the background disappears.  In many cases when I see the sky photoshopped in, my minds eye goes to the photoshopped section then the train.  Note; I do say most because like most statistical type statements there are exceptions.  Just my thoughts Gilbert.   

 Just shows that we all see things differently Jim. The ****** bookcases are the first thing I see, and they ruin the effect I'm after, so I have to do something to get rid of them. The blue card helps, but even then my mind tells me that what should be in the background is the sky. I think you must be much better at concentrating on what really matters than I am! You will continue to see both shots with skies and without though, as there are times when the thought of photoshopping all those lattice posts is just too much, and others where, as with some yesterday, the sun bleaches out detail, and makes it impossible to get the thing to look right.

[Anthony]

I confess that it is only when you mention the bookcases that I really notice them, as my attention is always focussed on the quite wonderful subject matter, which gives unending pleasure while being at the same time a source of great inspiration.

 

So this is another vote to help keep your conscience in check when you don't have the time/enthusiasm for photo-shopping!

 

Many thanks for all that you post.

 

Anthony

[great northern]

Today I had the great pleasure of a visit from our mighty duck, aka Phil. Some trains were run, but even in the early afternoon it was so dark that the lights had to be on, which did not help when it came to photography. Phil brought his camera, which is bigger than mine, and has more range of aperture, not to mention more functions, though accessing them proved to be a problem. Of nine shots I tried, only one is worth even looking at, and even then only after extensive photoshopping.

Horrible bright light, despite using the correct white balance setting, which for me makes it look very clinical. This angle doesn't show all the roofs which are just a white glare, hence my sharing it. The other problem of course is that all the shadows now go in completely the opposite direction to what I'm used to. I shall wait for some daylight in future.

[Anotheran]

I very much like your photos Gilbert and don't think you should abandon any of your shooting angles. If you're really concerned about getting a depth of field greater than your camera allows Andy Y explained how he did his stacking here... http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/84168-whats-involved-with-processing-an-image-for-the-magazine/

 

If I remember correctly he has even used the same camera as you so I'm sure he could tell you how he's programmed it to take the multiple shots at different focal points.

 

Kind regards, Neil

[Alister_G]

Actually Gilbert, I quite like that shot, the lighting looks like a sunny day. I think the only reason it looks clinical is the lack of any background detail - there is a large expanse of sky which draws the eye away from the foreground.

 

If you crop it down a bit, I'ts pretty good, the depth of field isn't bad either:

 

 

Cheers,

 

Al.

[jwealleans]

Not sure I'd park anything to the left of that signal..... I hope that's some sort of distortion.

[Mallard60022]

No pics from me sadly as my beak couldn't operate the bl**dy camera.

In fact I discovered that I really have not got a clue how to set up and take shots like you lot, or how to find technical things in the pages of stuff stored in the beast . It might be a reasonable camera for taking pics out in the 'real world' but it certainly needs a better operator and a different type of macro lens, or something similar, to start to do anything near as good as Gilbert's or TW's (and others of course, but I don't know you....sorry) efforts. My last camera was a  very simple thing and that suited me as I am a ...............

Apart from the camera use failure on my part, I saw some excellent trains running, although I missed the 'Fish' that had passed by just a while before, sent a BSK to works for ' A exam' and got it back into service swiftly and learnt a great deal about identifying 'typical' stock replication within different train sets. Most useful for future reference in my case. I didn't let on to Gilbert at the time, but stuff we were talking about made me realise that I have not given serious thought to my future requirements for suitable coach Diagrams  for train sets. That is apart from certain 'unusual' workings. Strange that the 'everyday' can so easily be forgotten and my mild OCCDD* will not allow too much of that.

Needless to say I spent several hours last evening starting to do that very research. I think some SR experts might be getting PMs!

*With no intention to upset, as I fully understand the condition that is OCD,     OCCD is obsessive compulsive coach diagram disorder.

A thoroughly enjoyable few hours. Thanks G.

P

Edited December 2, 2014 by Mallard60022

[great northern]

Not sure I'd park anything to the left of that signal..... I hope that's some sort of distortion.

Not this time I'm afraid. That signal hasn't been motorised yet, so we have put off the job of bedding it in properly until that happens. Every time I take a photo in which it appears I carefully straighten it before doing so, but most times it manages to lean again before I can take the shot. This was yet another of those occasions.......

[great northern]

It is time for me to unveil my big new idea. (Please imagine a drum roll here). One of the the recurring things about this hobby is that most of us want more than we already have, and more than we have got room for, or can afford. I have frequently admitted my failings in this respect, and it is unlikely that I will ever become reformed. So, I started to see if it actually is possible to have more for less. I announced a while ago that I intended to do a Saturday sequence, and then, when I realised the amount of work involved, that I wouldn't. Thoughts then turned to adding a bit of variety to the existing sequence by adding a few Q trains, and some of the services that ran only on certain weekdays. Out with the WTT, and the creation of yet another list, which, with a bit of naughty manipulation of the truth could give me another 11 main line trains in each direction. My first thought was to do as I did with the Leeds and Newcastle regular services, which was to choose four actual formations to represent all of those trains, as to do otherwise would be both impractical and unaffordable. But then, I looked more closely, and started to see trends in these formations. Could I do something with that? I then closely examined seven of the trains, and came up with this.

 

1. A West Riding service formed as follows:-  BSK(3 compartment), 8 x SK ( 8 compartment) BSK (3). In fact there were three trains with that formation.

 

2. A Newcastle service formed BSK(4), CK(3/3) 6 x SK (7), FK (6), BSK (4).

 

3. A 12 coach rake formed BSK(3) CK, 8 x SK(8.), CK, BSK(3)

 

4. An 11 coach rake formed BSK(3), 6 x SK(8.), BSK(3), 2 x SK (8.) BSK (3).

 

5. A 12 coach rake formed BSK(4), 2 x SK(7), CK(3/3), BSK (4), SO, RF, CK, BSK MK1, 2 x SK Mk1, BSK(4).

 

6. An 11 coach rake formed BSK(4), 5 x SK(7), SO, RF, SK(7), BSK MK1.

 

7  An 11 coach rake formed BSK (4), 4 x SK(7), CK(3/3), 2 x SK (8.), CK (3/3) SK (8.)BSK (4).

 

Please bear with me, this may prove useful, honestly. To get those seven trains, I would need "only" 77 coaches, and a lot of them are not available RTR. Time to give in and abandon the whole idea? Well, no actually, because I then looked more closely. Train 3 is Train 1 with the addition of two CK's, and Train 4 is Train 1 with an additional BSK in the middle. What's more, the other trains had a lot of similarities too. Now, all of these trains were going to have to be stored in cassettes, as the fiddle yard is full, so my next thought was "What's the point of having all these Brake coaches?" None of the formations uses more than three, either three or four compartment, so why not just have three of each, and top and tail the trains as necessary? That idea can be extended, as there are no more than two CK's in any train, and no more than one FK. The catering cars are a compromise, as there were other combinations, but SO/RF is the most common, and so would not look out of place. The MK1's aren't a problem, but what about 18 seven compartment SK's and 27 eight compartment ones? Well, analysis shows no more than 6 and 8 respectively in any train. All I have to do is to have two three ft long cassettes, each holding three SK(7), and two four foot cassettes, each holding four SK(8.). One more four foot cassette takes care of the CK + MK1 formation.

 

How does it work in practice? The brakes, CK's, the FK and the catering cars will live in the spurs which join onto Road 1 of the fiddle yard, which is dedicated to assembling trains. For most of the seven trains it will just be a matter of putting two cassettes one by one onto the cassette spur, and letting the coaches run by gravity down onto Road 1, then adding the appropriate brake at each end, or where needed, in the middle. Same procedure with the CK's and Catering cars. OK, one or two formations need the contents of the cassettes splitting too, but that won't take long. I'll post some photos tomorrow to show how this works, as the ones I put on before will now be buried many pages back.

 

 I finish up needing 29 coaches, not 77, and with them I can represent with complete, or very near complete, accuracy, fourteen prototype formations. I had identified five different types of train:-

 

1. All pre war and all door stock.

2. All pre war, and all end door stock, save for Brakes.

3. End door stock, plus FK and catering cars.

4. End door stock, plus catering cars and MK1's.

5. A mixture of end door and all door stock.

 

All of those can be represented, so I can put together most of what was to be seen back then. This is why I keep banging on about how useful a cassette spur can be, and twisting the arm of our Duck and Bigwordsmith to design one in to a new layout. I'm sure that the same exercise can be performed, whatever steam age layout one is wanting to build. Anyway, I hope at least one or two people find it useful, and of course I'm happy to answer any queries that these ramblings may raise.

Edited December 3, 2014 by great northern

[trw1089]

Wow Gilbert, that's brilliant work and really impressed that you can reduce down the requirements of coaching stock to fit all that in.  Do you do consulting work, as I think I need the same amount of analysis for Wakey West, oh, but I need cassettes first, oh, and a siding to connect them too, oh and a lot more funds to buy the required coaching stock,    ...

 

Still, it really does illustrate how well the cassette idea would work and setting up standard blocks of coaches can be really useful.  I do like the idea of reducing the number of required Brakes, I'm always running short of them with three required on every train from the South.

 

Cheers

Tony

Edited December 3, 2014 by trw1089

[richard i]

maths can be such a graceful thing, i would love to see it in practice and see how long it takes to extract one formation and deliver the next.

Richard