Backscene discussion

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi All

 

This one started on the how realistic are your models thread but with Dave's permission I thought it best to start again so that topic can stay doing what it does best.

 

The conversation so far

 

With the availability of realistic photographic sky/scenic backscenes these days, I personally think even photoshopping a sky onto a picture is a bit of a copout (assuming you have a layout with a backscene of course).

 

 

Hi Dave

 

The converse view is its actually more difficult and shows more creativity to photoshop a background onto a picture than to stick a print to a bit of wood. Taken further are not all photographic backscenes a cop out compared to ones painted by hand that again show a high degree of ability and creativity?

 

I still dont know if I will end up with backscenes on the layout but if I do they will be hand painted for sure (Probably in photoshop though as that is where I used to do all of my illustration work)

 

Cheers

 

Jim

 

Hi Jim,

 

It may be more difficult to photoshop a background onto a picture than to stick a print to a bit of wood, but I wouldn't call it modelling, which is what RMWeb (and this thread, according to the OP) is all about, isn't it? When we stick a print to a piece of wood, we are improving the layout, i.e. modelling. I'm not sure about your point about photographic backscenes being a copout. They're part of the layout and they are not much different to, say, sticking a photocopied sign or poster onto the layout, or maybe even transfers onto a loco.

 

I take my hat off to people who have the ability to convincingly handpaint a backscene, but I don't see many around which are what I would call sufficiently convincing or subtle. I hope you do go for backscenes on your layout, even if they are just sky ones. I think they had so much depth to a layout when done well.

 

You obviously have a slightly different perspective on the issue from me, not surprisingly really given your job! I'm not suggesting Photoshopping should be banned on this or any other thread, just stating my preference and admiration for modellers who keep it to a minimum. RMWeb is, and hopefully always will be, a broad church.

 

Cheers,

Dave

 

Hi Dave

 

I come at it from both sides. I used to be an illustrator but now I finish photos. As such I feel that a painted background would match my modelling style more than a photographic one and also it would be more fun to do!

 

Ultimately though a backscene should really go unnoticed. If it draws attention to itself its missed the point.

 

The reason why I am unsure about backscenes is that the buildings from a natural backscene.

 

 

Plus I am thinking I might backlight the layout to give the shadowy look of the real location

 

Cheers

 

Jim

 

 

Hi Jim and folks,

 

 

 

I'm not sure I entirely agree with you there, Jim. Take this shot:

 

 

With the backscene, it is instantly recognisable to anyone who knows Waverley and its environs. Without it, it could be any large station in the UK. In other words, it needs to be noticed (and recognised) in order to do its job, i.e. set the context or scene. I didn't have space to model Princes St., the Scott Monument or the North Bridge (!), so I let the backscene do it for me. You maybe have more space than me and so may be able to include, say, the first line of buildings behind the station, which will do the job for you.

 

Sorry, guys and gals for continuing this discussion and wandering off thread! Backscenes are a fascinating aspect of layouts I think and a topic being touched on elsewhere in another similar thread.

 

Cheers,

Dave

[Kenton]

Just to add an opinion (accepting I may well be in a minnority and that it takes all sorts)

 

I think any photographic manipulation of a backscene has no real place on a layout.

Almost to the point where I would prefer plain even unpainted wood.

 

It is also one of the problems I have with the manipulation of photographs taken of layouts - something I view as plain deception on the part of the modeller.

 

Generally I'm not impressed by hand painted attempts, I find the commercial backscenes repetitive and look out of place when you have seen the same scene on more than one layout, and I also find that they generally look flat with incorrect or inappropriate perspectives.

 

Let's face it even a correctly scaled photograph of the exact location (assuming the model itself is a copy of the prototype) is still going to look flat where the model suddenly meets that piece of wood. Then there is the ugly nature of that almost unavoidable compression used on most layouts - do we compress the buildings?

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi Kenton

 

Since most people heavily compress the track but still want to keep the features of a location I would say the answer is Yes. Most people do compress the buildings. Is that your point though? Do you mean full size buildings on a photographic backscene dont gel with a compressed layout?

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[coachmann]

Some very good photographed backscenes are available from International Models to suit differing needs nowadays. To my mind a good backscene adds character to a layout, so much so that if you get it wrong it matters! When I added one to Diggle a few years back, it ended up looking like the Cheshire Lines instead of the Pennines.

[Kenton]

Since most people heavily compress the track but still want to keep the features of a location I would say the answer is Yes. Most people do compress the

In part. The problem is generating the correct perspective on a 2D photo for that compression on the 3D layout especially as the eye is already challenged by the abrupt and flat interface. All this meanwhile distracting from the level of modelling on the layout.

 

Note: I am not saying it is impossible to do - just that I really find that I am underwhelmed and probably more disturbed by most attempts at rendering a backscene that is anything other than a plain blue/grey expanse. I would rather see the efforts put into the colour rendering and detail on the buildings and infrastructure that are being modelled but primarily on the track and rolling stock.

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi Kenton

 

Its because the backscene is too close. The reason why I said I might not have one is because my plan is to have more boards behind the track ones, 3-4 feet deep with scenery on. Meaning the scenic back of the layout will be 6-7 feet from the front. Plus having a dense city as a backdrop anyway I dont think you will see right to the back!

 

Does lead to an interesting idea though. It would only work on layouts operated from the front but why mount the backscene on the layout at all? Why not have it behind the layout by a few feet to help throw it even more out of focus and to help the perspective problem you mentioned?

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[96701]

Hi Kenton Its because the backscene is too close. The reason why I said I might not have one is because my plan is to have more boards behind the track ones, 3-4 feet deep with scenery on. Meaning the scenic back of the layout will be 6-7 feet from the front. Plus having a dense city as a backdrop anyway I dont think you will see right to the back! Does lead to an interesting idea though. It would only work on layouts operated from the front but why mount the backscene on the layout at all? Why not have it behind the layout by a few feet to help throw it even more out of focus and to help the perspective problem you mentioned?CheersJim

Most of us are not blessed with enough space for a backscene that is that far from the front of a layout. It really doesn't matter how models appear in real life because it's obvious it's a model. If the modeller's skills show in a photograph that it looks like it could be a photo of a real one, then that is something that fellow modellers can appreciate and admire. If, however, a photograph of a model is the manipulated to make it look like a real one, we can appreciate the skills of a graphic artist.

 

All I want to do is to know which skills I'm admiring.

[johnteal]

I think there is a place for photography in modelling, not just after the model is photographed but also in the creation of the model. I certainly dont think it is a cop out, in fact it can be quite an effort and involved process.

 

For example, although far from perfect, I spent time researching a mill in Stcockport and took photographs of the side street next to it to create a section of backscene that I scaled to fit.

 

 

Am I cheating because my shed wasn't big enough to build all that is on the picture ? the photograph shown above has not been edited, its what the naked eye would see if you had looked at the "layout in the flesh"

 

In some part all modelling is a deception, we are trying to make a small piece of plastic look like its real ?

 

Another example, I could have bought a ready made retaining wall to put on this layout

 

 

But chose to make the wall using balsa covered in Scalescenes stone prints, which are in fact photo generated prints in pure 2D would this be considered cheating as I didnt hand carve the stone work to create a true 3D texture ? Interestingly on this layout the builidngs are also compressed, low relief but the backscene is just off white.

 

 

And finally perhaps this is cheating but no photoshop or photo editing at all, the background (Sadlleworth moor) was really there

 

 

But only because in the interests of creating a decent photograph I made the effort to drive the section of layout there, rather than just plonk it on the table ?

 

 

 

So I guess to summarize I think photographs are just part of the skills that can be included along with many others in a model makers tool box.

 

John

[Guest jim s-w]

That's ultimately what its all about.

 

I am sure no one sees the Scalescenes range as cheating but at the same time whether people admit it or not, they will always have just that little bit more appreciation for something hand coloured by the modeller than printed from a file.

 

I think its just the way people are - although as much skill is required to illustrate something in photoshop as it is to illustrate it with paint and brush people will always believe the software somehow does the work for you. Of course its just a tool available to be used. I ave seen artists that are very talented in the traditional techniques completely unable to illustrate digitally.

 

Let me give you a little example

 

 

You could argue that my horse is cheating. I didn't cut and file it from a flat piece of metal but i just drew it in illustrator, sent it away to an etchers and it came back done. You could also say that there is a degree of skill to cutting it out by hand but what about the skill involved in learning to use the software, understanding the etching process and being able to draw it accurately in the first place.

 

There will always be people who deride new technology and methods. But going back to the art world if a true visionary like Leonardo had Photoshop would he have rejected or embraced it?

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[johnteal]

Leonardo....

 

Interesting quote from Wikipedia

 

"Perhaps fifteen of his paintings survive, the small number due to his constant, and frequently disastrous, experimentation with new techniques,"

I think that answers the question he would be photoshoping but doing it very well !!!

[Kenton]

my plan is to have more boards behind the track ones, 3-4 feet deep with scenery on. Meaning the scenic back of the layout will be 6-7 feet from the front. Plus having a dense city as a backdrop anyway I dont think you will see right to the back!

That design of layout would certainly be the exception rather than the norm and have not seen anything like it before. One that may come close would be Copenhagen Fields where perspective has been used to very good effect and a quite well executed backscene. But even in that case I still found that it added very little to my appreciation of the "railway scene" that was the modelling I was interested in.

 

 

 

For example, although far from perfect, I spent time researching a mill in Stcockport and took photographs of the side street next to it to create a section of backscene that I scaled to fit.

Despite the effort made and that can be appreciated - to me this still looks like a flat scene abruptly sticking up out of the road and emanating from the sides of the buildings my eye just sees the joins in the transition from what is obviously 3D to what is obviously flat. It would make no difference if this was just a sheet of gray/white - Id still see the "join".

 

Another example, I could have bought a ready made retaining wall to put on this layout

 

But chose to make the wall using balsa covered in Scalescenes stone prints, which are in fact photo generated prints in pure 2D would this be considered cheating as I didnt hand carve the stone work to create a true 3D texture ? Interestingly on this layout the builidngs are also compressed, low relief but the backscene is just off white.

Now this is quite different.

The wall in the eye is a flat surface what texture that is generated on the paper used to cover the flat surface is subtle. Even if modelled in reality carving and painting each individual brick/stone we would be pushed to tell the difference. It is in the model and not behind it. We can then make a clear judgment on the modelling skills involved and how close it represents the actual. Similarly low relief buildings when seen face on have little perspective and so we can accept that the edge of the world fog happens at some point behind them. The problem as I see it comes when you try to represent for example an industrial chimney of rows of houses in that fog.

 

And finally perhaps this is cheating but no photoshop or photo editing at all, the background (Sadlleworth moor) was really there

But only because in the interests of creating a decent photograph I made the effort to drive the section of layout there, rather than just plonk it on the table ?

And a very fine photograph it is .. a photograph of your model on a particular stage. Not as a normal viewer or any viewer would normally see it. To me it is no different than taking a photograph of say you or your car in that location - it has little to do with the model as a layout itself.

 

Where as the first two examples were not trying to deceive (if they were they certainly didn't feel like it) the last one was.

[Oldddudders]

I think this thread is actually at the heart of the "broad church" that was mentioned earlier. Some RMWebbers specialise in contributing to threads about modelling using traditional techniques and materials - soldered brass being a prime example - and I have no doubt that the models on their layouts reflect that. At the other end of the spectrum are those of us who want a "complete" picture of our railway, be it ever so small in dimension, and for us a stonking background adds to the completion. I know I am more attracted to the Torringtons and Kylescus of RMWeb than I am to layouts where fine scale and miniature engineering in individual models take precedence over the cosmetic effect of a background - if they have one at all.

 

There are no rights, no wrongs here - as with all matters modelling, if it suits you then stick with it.

[Guest jim s-w]

 

Despite the effort made and that can be appreciated - to me this still looks like a flat scene abruptly sticking up out of the road and emanating from the sides of the buildings my eye just sees the joins in the transition from what is obviously 3D to what is obviously flat. It would make no difference if this was just a sheet of gray/white - Id still see the "join".

 

 

The thing is the perspective will work from a certain point on the model and it will look right. Where as the grey abyss at the end of the road will never look right. In this instance if John had added his image in photoshop and matched the perspective to the photo it would look spot on.

 

 

Now this is quite different.

The wall in the eye is a flat surface what texture that is generated on the paper used to cover the flat surface is subtle. Even if modelled in reality carving and painting each individual brick/stone we would be pushed to tell the difference. It is in the model and not behind it. We can then make a clear judgment on the modelling skills involved and how close it represents the actual. Similarly low relief buildings when seen face on have little perspective and so we can accept that the edge of the world fog happens at some point behind them. The problem as I see it comes when you try to represent for example an industrial chimney of rows of houses in that fog.

 

 

Yes but this is an instance where it 'may' work better because it is in a photograph. You are looking at a 2D representation of a 3D object presented to you in a 2D format. So naturally nothing looks out of place. In the real world the human eye is very good at picking up depth and it might look less real in the flesh.

 

Where as the first two examples were not trying to deceive (if they were they certainly didn't feel like it) the last one was.

 

I dont agree - the last picture is a of a model in a location chosen by the photographer. John could have photographed the same background, printed it out and used it as a backdrop. Then lighting the model with studio lights and gels while at the same time backlighting the sky so that the gels don't throw a cast and the result would have been the same. I have access to a full studio set up and half a dozen professional photographers. Not that I have but we could spend a day setting up the perfect shot. Would that be cheating?

 

I think this thread is actually at the heart of the "broad church" that was mentioned earlier. Some RMWebbers specialise in contributing to threads about modelling using traditional techniques and materials - soldered brass being a prime example - and I have no doubt that the models on their layouts reflect that.

 

 

Hiya

 

I have never really understood the 'I only work in brass" mentality. Surely we should use the best materials for the job? Perhaps its fear, laziness to learn new techniques or plainly what people are comfortable in (the hobby is supposed to be relaxing after all)

 

I still maintain the view that its a toy train we are trying to present to fool the viewer that its real. I dont see why some efforts towards that goal are OK and some are not.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Steve K]

To me, the best backscenes are those that don't draw the eye. In fact, by being unobtrusive, they help you focus on the modelled part of the layout, instead of seeing a piece of scenery in isolation, with the full-sized "real" world intruding behind. Often, a hand-painted backscene, if not well done, will prove a distraction. I'd prefer to see a backscene which consists of just sky, or maybe the outlines of some distant hills if appropriate, so that the eye is drawn back to the model.

 

I've mixed feelings about the popular photographic backscenes, especially for anything bigger than the very smallest layouts. That's partly because some of these scenes are so popular that it's quite jarring to see the same hill, the same row of houses, wherever you go!

 

One of the best examples of creative use of a backscene I've seen on RMweb has been on Al (Barry Ten) R's Shillingstone. There, a photographic backscene has been treated to give a highly effective misty effect, to the extent that you are aware of scenery behind the rails without realising that you're aware of it, if you see what I mean.

 

I'm clearly having trouble expressing myself in English today for some reason, but I hope you can tell what I'm getting at...

[Kenton]

I dont see why some efforts towards that goal are OK and some are not.

You have misunderstood me completely if that is the opinion you think I have.

I had hoped that my first line of response had made it clear that it is only my view of the world of manipulating photographs as part of the backscene of layouts.

Just to add an opinion (accepting I may well be in a minority and that it takes all sorts)

I can applaud the efforts taken to improve a layout, it is just that I am yet to see anything on a layout backscene to convince me it adds anything to the viewing experience of a layout, indeed in general in most cases it detracts from the other modelling skills presented in the layout. (and with usually 20+ shows a year I've seen a fair few layouts)

[Michael Delamar]

It depends on the shape and size of the layout. and I think is one of the key ingredients to make a good layout.

 

I personally think backscenes should be as high as possible, Im around 6ft tall, and the top of the Backscene on Crown st is just around my chin. If the layout was operated from the front Id have made it higher.

 

when people are taking shots at exhibitions you dont want your ugly mug in shot or other things which distract the eye.

 

I also made sure the lighting pelmet framed the layout and was a few inches lower than the backscene at the front of the layout

Im not entirely happy with the paint on it at the moment, but I didnt do it as was in a rush for the first show and havent got round to sorting it.

 

some of my favourites are the lynton and barnstaple narrow gauge layout and Dave Lanes Saffron st

 

If I was to build a permanant home layout I would have the backscene to the ceiling like Pendon or the slaters millers dale layout.

 

I think some layouts backscenes are absolutley awful, why go to the bother of scale track and rivet counting on a loco when the backscene is about 4 inches tall and looks like something a toddler would put on a fridge

or painted with a tin of emulsion with thick brush marks!

 

 

when researching Thunderbirds and other tv shows that used models, I spoke with artists who actually painted backscenes for them and learned some good tips, usually canvas sprayed sky blue with an air gun, hand painted clouds and shining plenty of light onto them helps a lot. these canvas painted skys where something like 20ft tall! which I know we all cant use on our layouts but can get close.

 

 

to put it another way, Imagine watching something like Thomas the tank engine on tv and seeing the operator peering over the clouds backscene it destroys the illusion

 

one of my reasons for researching shows that used models, is to make my own layouts and backscenes more realistic, after all, they where doing it well over 45 years ago.

 

instead of cheating with photoshop, you could always use a roll up canvas sky, which you could pin up on a wall as high as possible. and take it down when your finished

 

example to illustrate point, this monorail miniature from TV's joe 90 from 1968 was running on O gauge track, so we know the size, the top of the backscene would be around 20ft tall, but scale it down to 00 or N and itd become more managble

 

 

cheers

 

 

 

 

Mike

[Michael Delamar]

that photo is a bit dark, so a screengrab is better quality.

 

If we can ignore the fact its a ficticious monorail, maybe imagine an O gauge loco on a more realistic bridge, the sort of results you should get with a decent backscene and lighting...

 

 

 

Mike

[Guest jim s-w]

You have misunderstood me completely if that is the opinion you think I have.

I had hoped that my first line of response had made it clear that it is only my view of the world of manipulating photographs as part of the backscene of layouts.

 

I can applaud the efforts taken to improve a layout, it is just that I am yet to see anything on a layout backscene to convince me it adds anything to the viewing experience of a layout, indeed in general in most cases it detracts from the other modelling skills presented in the layout. (and with usually 20+ shows a year I've seen a fair few layouts)

 

Hi Kenton

 

Sorry I meant a generalised perception and I wasn't meaning yourself in particular.

 

Appolgies

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi Mike

 

Another advantage of the remote backscene is you can light it separately to the layout. After all buildings casting shadows onto the sky is decidedly odd. Perhaps you could even backlight the sky as thinking about it the sky is usually lighter than the things in front of it. Especially the sort of sky you normally see on model railways.

 

Taking it even further why not use a projector to project a sky that moves. Imagine moving clouds or sun that rises and sets throughout the day.

 

Another method you can take from animation is to have a backscene that is layered. Imagine a row of painted buildings - cut out with another row behind and a sky behind that. It would mean as you move from side to side the buildings would change their relative positions just as they would in the real world.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Michael Delamar]

yeah on those Thunderbirds ones, cant see in that shot but in a lot of all those behind the scenes shots I have theyre lit by a row of hanging lamps with shades pointing towards the sky backing.

theyd need a lot of light because they where sometimes filming at high speed. but a good ordinary strip light would do for a layout, anything that stops the need for flash which ruin photos.

 

looking at some other old photos, there not always so high, can see some around 10ft even when the scene was on rostroms of around average layout height. so only about 5ft of sky.

 

agree that shadows on the backscene ruin it, and best to have buildings away from them if possible,and better to try and have a curved backscene rather than a corner.

 

another favourite layout with excellent backscene is Chris Nevards Catcott Burtle, the modelling is fantastic, but imagine it without that backscene and it wouldnt look as good. and thats only a pretty small layout and shows what can be done.

 

Mike

[johnteal]

I think the other reason you need a high back scene is if you plan on taking low angle shots as per the monorail, I guess as for how high " the sky's the limit "

 

John

[Adam]

Another favourite layout with excellent backscene is Chris Nevards Catcott Burtle, the modelling is fantastic, but imagine it without that backscene and it wouldnt look as good. and thats only a pretty small layout and shows what can be done.

 

Mike

 

The trick that Catcott pulls off rather brilliantly is to give the impression of a large, flat landscape rimmed by hills several miles distant in a space little more than a foot and a half deep. It pulls it off precisely because the bottom edge is hidden all the way along and it's lit in a way that shadows aren't cast ion the backscene. Iain Rice's layouts have usually managed this feat too.

 

Adam

[coachmann]

I have never really understood the 'I only work in brass" mentality.

Must admit I have never come across this. Anyone care to give an example?

[Michael Delamar]

The trick that Catcott pulls off rather brilliantly is to give the impression of a large, flat landscape rimmed by hills several miles distant in a space little more than a foot and a half deep. It pulls it off precisely because the bottom edge is hidden all the way along and it's lit in a way that shadows aren't cast ion the backscene. Iain Rice's layouts have usually managed this feat too.

 

Adam

 

 

I think he planned the backscene from the start,as an integral part and thats why its so nice, most backscenes are an afterthought

 

Mike

[Dave777]

For example, although far from perfect, I spent time researching a mill in Stcockport and took photographs of the side street next to it to create a section of backscene that I scaled to fit.

 

 

 

That's one of the best efforts of that approach that I've seen... and now I'm going to point out where I think 99% of people get this approach wrong - it's the colour difference between the modelled road and the backscene road. If the two don't match, the join is too obvious

 

 

 

I personally think backscenes should be as high as possible, Im around 6ft tall, and the top of the Backscene on Crown st is just around my chin. If the layout was operated from the front Id have made it higher.

 

I also made sure the lighting pelmet framed the layout and was a few inches lower than the backscene at the front of the layout

 

Exactly what I'm attempting on my challenge layout - I've got nearly 1.5 feet of backscene towering over the N gauge models so that all that can be seen in the background is backscene.

 

http://www.rmweb.co....post__p__161434

 

I'll be doing something about the 90' joins too, as that's something else that I think ruins a good backscene - corners.

 

Controversial view - I'm not sure if I've ever seen a photographic backscene that looks good. For some reason that I just can't fathom they just never look right to me.

 

For my own, I've always taken the view that I can never paint one good enough to look decent, the commercial ones are overfamiliar, and photographic ones don't look right to me - so I just do a plain grey backscene that just suggest a neutral sky colour. And I think that perhaps cuts to the heart of the backscene 'issue' - are we trying to extend the layout by suggesting the scenery we have modelled extends/carries on 'into' the backscene, or are we merely adding something to remove our view of the brick wall/wallpaper/shelving that sits behind the layout? Seeing as I've rarely seen a backscene that convinces me that the scenery does indeed carry on 'into' it, I've always gone with the neutral 'view blocker' approach - my backscene is just there so I can't see the wallpaper.