Peterborough North

[HAL 'O THE WYND]

But the occasional black-and-white helps bring back memories of Brownie 127s. Days when many of us were fortunate to have any sort of camera at all, and any sort of picture was a result.

 

NOT to make any comparison with Gilbert's in that regard! lol

 

Hal

Edited February 4, 2015 by HAL 'O THE WYND

[Donington Road]

But the occasional black-and-white helps bring back memories of Browney (sp?) 127s. Days when many of us were fortunate to have any sort of camera at all, and any sort of picture was a result.

 

Hal

 

...and when you did get a camera your were only allowed to take 3 or 4 photos at a time, a roll of film had to last a month because we were so cash strapped.

[coachmann]

Yes I recognise the nostalgia angle and I wonder if it is an age thing.. Black & white railway albums also were good enough at one time, but they left us with a boatload of guesswork on colours. David Jenkinsons 'Big Four in Colour' gave me a taster of what things would have been like had colour stock been more affordable - and faster.

Edited February 4, 2015 by coachmann

[bigwordsmith]

`as someone who isn't old enough to have ever who in B&W I must have a narrow, if colourful, perspective!

[JeffP]

Love that photo. When you went to places like Peterborough, it would have been easy to get more than one loco in shot...and lo and behold, we have.

 

Very realistic.

 

But which A3 was it?

[New Haven Neil]

I'm still waiting for 60100.

 

 

I may be some time........

[manna]

G'day Gents

 

Most of us 'dan sarf' boys waited in vain for 60101, reputed to have last visited the capital in 1948 !!!!

 

60004, was another rare A4 at the bottom end of the ECML.

 

manna

[great northern]

I'm still waiting for 60100.

 

 

I may be some time........

I'm afraid so Neil, as I know where she was in August 1958 - seen during an "unofficial" visit to Doncaster plant, being stripped down for a general overhaul. And of course I already have my ex works Haymarket A3, and two of those at the same time would be unprecedented.

[trw1089]

Hi Gilbert

 

That recent track level pic is just beautiful in colour.  As one who was just over 2 years old at the end of steam here in Queensland, I have no memories of working steam, only preserved examples.  While B&W shots were the norm when I first got into railways, colour photos of steam just made it so much more real for me.  I therefore always prefer a colour pic, especially one with a nice example of Gresley prowess.

 

Cheers

Tony

[great northern]

There seems to be almost a 50/50 split between preference for b&w or colour. I'm used to seeing most of the prototype photos for my period in b&w, as colour images were very rare before the 60's. Is that why some of us like them, I wonder? For me though, it is more the fact that, however hard I try, I feel that I rarely succeed in getting the sky to look right in colour images. It may be something to do with the strong light source that I struggle with, and getting a photoshopped sky which is lit in the same way. Can those who know more about photography than I do comment on that? Other than that, I have to say that occasionally shots just look far more atmospheric to me in monochrome. I wish I knew how to make them look more grainy though, as mine finish up looking rather bland.

[bigwordsmith]

Gilbert - have you tried putting a large sheet of paper across your windows to mute the light source?

 

Photographers use this for reducing the intensity of flash and diffusing the light as it gives a more even illumination - it takes away strong shadows, but that is what you're trying to achieve.

 

Grain is much harder to achieve as it was caused by the actual film used in film cameras. Digital photography does not exhibit film grain, since there is no film for any grain to exist within.

However, the effect of film grain can be simulated in some digital photo manipulation programs, such as Photoshop, adding grain to a digital image after it is taken.

In digital photography, image noise sometimes appears as a "grain-like" effect.

[Oldddudders]

great northern, on 06 Feb 2015 - 10:39, said:

There seems to be almost a 50/50 split between preference for b&w or colour. I'm used to seeing most of the prototype photos for my period in b&w, as colour images were very rare before the 60's. Is that why some of us like them, I wonder? For me though, it is more the fact that, however hard I try, I feel that I rarely succeed in getting the sky to look right in colour images. It may be something to do with the strong light source that I struggle with, and getting a photoshopped sky which is lit in the same way. Can those who know more about photography than I do comment on that? Other than that, I have to say that occasionally shots just look far more atmospheric to me in monochrome. I wish I knew how to make them look more grainy though, as mine finish up looking rather bland.

I think dynamic range may have a role here - although I'm not the sort of guru who can give you chapter and verse. Basically, while your and my eyes adjust as we survey a scene, with the pupil opening up so we can appreciate detail in the dark bits, a camera can only capture a certain range between very light and very dark, although they have got better. Thus the contrast between a lovely blue sky and the sombre foreground - even when apparently well lit - may look unnatural.

 

Colour temperature is also a factor, particularly where a sky has been photoshopped in, as that sky might have a colour temperature of 8000 deg kelvin, while the foreground might be rather less than 6000. In the extreme, a foreground shot using room lighting might be only 3000 k. Thus our experience of light and scenes tells us something is "wrong".

 

Once again, many on RMweb will explain this better!

[coachmann]

To begin with, if your window light is hitting the scenic part of your layout from the right, your clouds must be lit from the right. Also reduce the saturation of your skies particularly where they meet the horizon. Don't ask me how to fade them out using Photoshop as I use a different program. 

 

When I used to do book cover colour conversions, which invariably meant adding a new sky,  I desaturated the finished picture to monochrome and this immediately showed up any areas where the grey tones did not match the rest of a scene. It was the sky that usually had to be attended to before cancelling desaturation to restore colour.

Edited February 6, 2015 by coachmann

[bigwordsmith]

Gilbert, The other thing that might help is if you could somehow add in some background clutter. I found this pic on the Interweb which shows that even though PN is on a petty flat area, there was still a lot of building and other scenic paraphernalia in the hinterland of the station

 

 

I'm fairly sure that they would be off the edge of the board but as you see in the mags adding in scenery totally changes the dynamics of the pics.

 

I'll get my head down now before any one has a go at me for even suggesting such fakery.

[HAL 'O THE WYND]

There seems to be almost a 50/50 split between preference for b&w or colour. I'm used to seeing most of the prototype photos for my period in b&w, as colour images were very rare before the 60's. Is that why some of us like them, I wonder? For me though, it is more the fact that, however hard I try, I feel that I rarely succeed in getting the sky to look right in colour images. It may be something to do with the strong light source that I struggle with, and getting a photoshopped sky which is lit in the same way. Can those who know more about photography than I do comment on that? Other than that, I have to say that occasionally shots just look far more atmospheric to me in monochrome. I wish I knew how to make them look more grainy though, as mine finish up looking rather bland.

 

Hi Gilbert,

 

I like the skies in 7042. They look overcast - as though there's been a heavy shower - but with strong sunlight breaking through, which allows for the bright clarity of the objects. Otherwise I like the cloudy skies, or, bleached out white ones. Personally I don't like blue skies. I don't know if it's because I was used to industrial Tyneside as a boy, where there seemed to be constant cloudy weather as a result of a daily pall of smoke from all the chimneys - factory all year round, domestic according to season and local weather.

 

Otherwise, black and white occasionally - in reminiscent terms - but for quality images, colour.

 

Hal

Edited February 6, 2015 by HAL 'O THE WYND

[great northern]

Gilbert, The other thing that might help is if you could somehow add in some background clutter. I found this pic on the Interweb which shows that even though PN is on a petty flat area, there was still a lot of building and other scenic paraphernalia in the hinterland of the station

 

Screen Shot 2015-02-06 at 09.59.39.png

 

I'm fairly sure that they would be off the edge of the board but as you see in the mags adding in scenery totally changes the dynamics of the pics.

 

I'll get my head down now before any one has a go at me for even suggesting such fakery.

That side of things is at least partly in hand Peter, in fact there may be developments quite soon. I would like if possible to get a backscene done for the North end, just the bit between the window and Spital Bridge, but that requires a view of Spital Bridge shed and Cenotaph, and I'm not at all sure how that can be done. At the South end, I'd like a relatively low backscene showing the houses on Station Road, but photos of those are very few and far between. The fact that the baseboard comes in at an angle will also cause some head scratching.

 

I see no reason why those and other things should not be depicted. It will be in the form of backscenes, rather than photoshopped in. As to blanking off the windows, there are three, and they are very large, particularly in height, so that would be very hard to do I think.

[coachmann]

As to blanking off the windows, there are three, and they are very large, particularly in height, so that would be very hard to do I think.

White venetian blinds...?

[Mallard60022]

Hello Gilbert. Do tell how a 'new' diesel shunter from 'darn sarff' was on test at PN today and failed.......I could have laughed if it had not been so sad to see the little 'Gronk' shed a coupling rod almost directly in front of all the spotters! It was so distressed that it refused to be towed away by the faithful Station Pilot and had  to be humanely destroyed. Gilbert is a hot shot with the weapon required!

Then there was a Class 40 that needed to go to Donny, from Top Shed,  for 'adjustment'. It did manage to get as far as PN and it also managed to whilstle (and that's being generous) through the Station. However it was less than a glamourous appearance and the spotters all shouted scrap it rather loudly I'm afraid. Personally I think it sounded a bit like a weak washing machnine on slow spin, but then I'm a steam man.

Other than that there were other interesting things happening  and one exciting bit as a rather splendid and not common A1 really showed its abilities as it negotiated the maze of lines through the Station area and then blasted away from the SR and headed north. Much nicer that diseasels......

Thanks Gilbert. 

[jwealleans]

Before I moved my office, I used to have a problem with the sun shining over my shoulder onto the monitor.  I found some translucent blinds which let in a diffuse light without blocking too much of it.  That might be an answer?

[bigwordsmith]

Hi Gilbert 

 

Just bought six of these for one of our offices - at 160cm long that's over 5 feet - they have a spring mechanism to wind them in and you just pull them down to close down the light.

 

http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/30291069/

 

Don't get blackout ones as they will give you no light!

 

Peter

[great northern]

Thanks for the suggestions chaps, but I do already have blinds, rather expensive ones. They are white, and they will let light through whilst preventing nasty ultra violet variety from doing so. Even with them closed though, the sun still gets through enough to create a problem. There is no plan B, partly because of the expense already incurred, but also because I don't fancy letting someone squeeze into the limited space between baseboard and windows and try to fit new ones. Recipe for disaster that. In fact, I don't think you could get a step ladder in there, and there is no way the top of the window aperture could be reached without using one.

[coachmann]

Photoshopped skies are invisible to visitors, but I wonder if Gilbert adds to the 'Peterborough experience' with a crafty hand on the back of trains to induce the characteristic slip of departing engines.......? 

 

Edited February 7, 2015 by coachmann

[JeffP]

Just to be different, can I suggest a setting sun sky?

 

Runs for cover.......

[hornbyandbf3fan]

Photoshopped skies are invisible to visitors, but I wonder if Gilbert adds to the 'Peterborough experience' with a crafty hand on the back of trains to induce the characteristic slip of departing engines.......? 

 

WEB Peterborough slip.jpg

I do like that, you can imagine the sound erupting from the loco

[great northern]

Photoshopped skies are invisible to visitors, but I wonder if Gilbert adds to the 'Peterborough experience' with a crafty hand on the back of trains to induce the characteristic slip of departing engines.......? 

 

WEB Peterborough slip.jpg

I hope someone is holding it back Larry. If not it comes fllying out of the bay, derails at the junction with the Down Main, and closes the ECML.   Very clever though.

 

Just to be different, can I suggest a setting sun sky?

 

Runs for cover.......

Good idea Jeff. First, find your sun........hasn't been much round here lately. Then of course if I take photos here, it will be setting in the wrong place, so would the shadows and direction of light be wrong too? As it is actually out at present, I might try later though, assuming it is still present at about 1700 of course.