Backscene discussion

[johnteal]

I agree Dave the colour of the road from 3D to 2D is not spot on is what gives the game away, since that attempt I have avoided trying to bring the picture to the floor unless it was specifically a different colour. as per this

 

 

Which uses photographic images downloaded from CGtextures.com scaled to fit.

 

Another potential for sections of backscene not yet discussed is the use of mirrors, in the next picture its a 3 coach train but there is a mirror under the girder bridge

 

 

The same here , a mirror under the bridge, only a single car DMU, in the early days of Mossley Terrace

 

 

If all else fails you can always depend on your better half to come up with a good backscene !!

 

 

John

[Kenton]

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

I'll sort of volunteer my name here as I'm usually quite vocal about my preference for not mixing media - so its not quite an "only work in brass" I will use white metal, n/s, other metals - I just do not like mixing in plastic, resin and wood - that is for stock building.

 

I'm quite happy to use any practical medium on the layout and that includes photographic textures on card/plastic/wood/resin.

[coachmann]

Thanks Kenton. I must admit this 'only work in brass' thing was puzzling. We appear to be of a similar mind using whatever material suits the purpose. One thing I replace as a matter of course is plastic coach and wagon undergear as there seems no point in building an all-plastic kit only to watch bits fall off the chassis at every session.

 

On the question of backscenes, I tried taking my own selective backdrops, joining them on computer and printing them with the inkjet printer, but they faded in next to no time.

[Will Vale]

This thread is timely for me, since I've been musing about backscenes recently and I'm getting to the point where I have to make a decision.

I've built a couple of layouts which avoided the backscene issue entirely by being "in the round". This is based on not really liking backscenes, since there's almost always a mismatch in tone or in perspective between the flat bit and the modelled bit. Not having them works well for small layouts IMO, because you can easily transport them to photograph, or insert skies on the computer as required. I've always thought of these small layouts a bit like taking a core sample of reality - you sort of cut around the modelled bit and pull it out of the ground wholesale, bingo, one layout

 

 

Now I find myself building a slightly larger layout, I'm starting to think that maybe I *do* need a backscene. The catalyst was taking this (admittedly poor) picture to show off some weathering:

 

 

 

To remove the backdrop of my dining room window, I put a couple of sheets of foamboard behind the layout. And suddenly it looked like a slice of somewhere rather than a model of somewhere despite there being only 2-4" behind the running line. The layout is set in/near fenland, so I want to capture the look of wide skies.

 

So now I'm wondering if I should...

 

1) Leave the backscene off entirely, exhibit the layout on a black-clothed table as I do with my micros. Use a real sky, a green card or other photography/Photoshop tricks for pictures.

2) Add a sky backscene fixed permanently

3) Add a sky backscene fixed temporarily at exhibitions, remove it for outdoor pictures? Possibly do something where the backscene is on an 8' roll so it doesn't have joins?

4) Something else I haven't considered.

 

Would welcome some advice really!

 

Thanks,

 

Will

[James]

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

 

Catcott Burtle

 

The defence rests...

[Kenton]

Catcott Burtle

 

The defence rests...

No that goes nowhere to change my mind.

Although a great admirer of Chris's layouts and (separately) his photography I do find the combination of the two sometime (no, I'll go as far as to say, often) jars with me. I am much happier seeing the layouts live where my eyes can appreciate the skills going into the model and the subtle colouring and "eye" for detail that Chris undoubtedly has. The background used on Catcott Burtle is very subtle and as pointed out in comment above does not attempt to mislead with sudden 2dD structures. It just fades away as rolling hills and sky. But I still find it an abrupt edge along the back of the board (unavoidable).

Perhaps it is the industrial backscenes that upset me the most. But I still prefer a simple foggy sky with nothig to pull the eye away from the important display of modelling.

[Guest jim s-w]

Perhaps its a style thing

 

Anything that involves any degree of creativity, modelling, photography, painting, will ultimately have a style that is imparted by its creator. Thus one thing might not be to the viewers taste. Its about consistancy. I believe that if I draw or paint a background it will have my 'style' embedded into it. If I use a photo I dont believe it will.

 

but then I think there are several types of modellers. those that are looking for people to say 'wow, that looks so real' to those that are looking for 'thats a beautiful model'. A beautiful model might not look realistic and a realistic model might not be considered beautiful (building what I am I should know).

 

 

Its kind of the way movies can be gritty and realistic or just pure eye candy like Avatar.

 

Thing is when you get into a question of style and taste there is no answer.

 

For me Larry's picture looks great, against a grey background I think it would lose something.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Michael Delamar]

I think clouds can scale, and depending on the height of your backscene, you need to have the right sized clouds, they can look wrong if you have large clouds on a low backscene.

 

actually, Im just looking for an excuse to link to some Bob Ross happy clouds

 

here we go...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raXanYjTF18&feature=related

 

 

Mike

[Lawrence]

For what it is worth, I'll chip in too. Firstly, it is a model, an approximation of a scene that may exist (or have existed) in reality or only in the modellers mind, there is also the budget, especially in these somewhat stringent fiscal conditions, to consider, shop bought photo realistic back scenes don't come cheap so folks have to compromise.

 

I fail to see how anyone can criticise another modeller because they don't like the back scene, or disagree with the method of production. I have seen some wonderful back scenes at shows, and some rotten ones too, but I tend to look at it that, well they have had a go at it (it's brilliant \ rubbish) and they have done their best to add something to the layout and that is the point. You can only work with the skill set you have available to you.

[Michael Delamar]

I dont think theres anything wrong with tips hints and discussion on how to improve an often overlooked aspect of layouts.

 

 

another layout I love with a great Backscene is Pempoul http://www.flickr.com/photos/fairlightworks/2974268456/in/photostream/

 

Mike

[Dave777]

I fail to see how anyone can criticise another modeller because they don't like the back scene, or disagree with the method of production. I have seen some wonderful back scenes at shows, and some rotten ones too, but I tend to look at it that, well they have had a go at it (it's brilliant \ rubbish) and they have done their best to add something to the layout and that is the point. You can only work with the skill set you have available to you.

 

Well the thread is titled 'Backscene discussion', and to me that means discussing the various approaches that have been taken and which we feel work and which don't (and why). Invariably that's going to involve saying 'I'm not so sure about this one' and giving an example sooner or later, so is it criticism of that modelling or merely expressing a preference for one modeller's approach over another?

 

I'm not sure if everyone taking a 'I don't like that but mustn't say anything negative' approach would actually result in any discussion at all...?

[Will Vale]

I agree that discussion should cover all points of view, otherwise what's the point? I'm not a fan of backscenes in general, and although I do like the one on Catcott Burtle, it does suffer from perspective issues when photographs of the layout look along the track. But I guess there's not much to be done about that - even a simple colour gradient will show up the perspective as being wrong in that case.

 

I also thought there was a reply to my "what to do with Whitemarsh" question at some point, but I can't find it now. Assuming I'm not dreaming I just want to thank whoever it was that replied, I think that the detachable one is looking like a good option.

 

Cheers,

 

Will

[amdaley]

I think the type of Backscene is down to the individual modeler & his layout. Some people are excellent at art & scene creation,others depend on low relief building of a kit form against a sky background. If its a club layout then the chances are that someone is or knows someone who can do a realistic backscenes. I feel all layouts should have a backscene of some sort no matter how simple. It adds to the overall effect of a scene in miniature. I do feel that modelers should put in a little effort no matter how limited their skill level. I have seen backscenes where little or no effort has been put in & the layout modeler has a backscene simply to hide the control panel or because he feels he has to have one. I don't care how simple a backscene is as long as the creature has put in some sort of effort & simply not paid lip service to the subject.

[Will Vale]

While I remember, the Totternhoe Mineral Railway is an interesting take on "no backscenes" - setting the thin layout on a black surround with lots of light to emphasise the models.

 

http://www.ngrail.co.uk/4_tot.htm

 

Will

[Dave777]

Yes, I think Dainton Bank takes the same approach if memory serves (seems to be hard to find a pic on Google). I believe this approach is popular on the continent although still a little rare in the UK.

 

It's a bit like photographic backscenes for me. Again I'm really not sure about it, but can't quite put my finger on what exactly is wrong with it, just... something.

 

Possibly it's a weird 'it looks like night time but there's loads of light around' clash that confuses me.

[Michael Delamar]

Ive been wondering how well a backlit perspex sky would work, with clouds painted or printed on clear plastic sheets, think busstop billboard advertising.

 

reason being the sky is bright, and thats hard to achieve, the other way being to overlight from the front

 

 

Mike

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi Michael

 

I agree (in fact see post 19). Having said that I am thinking I might backlight the whole layout anyway as a feature of my chosen location is shadows!

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Karhedron]

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.

I think that this may be key to the success of a backscene. Fooling the eye in the transition from 3D to 2D will usually only work from a single perspective. If you hide the join with walls/hedges etc then the eye will be much more tolerent.

[Claude_Dreyfus]

Personally I appreciate a good backscene; however one of these is extremely hard to achieve. There will always be a case of agree to disagree, with this in mind, I have to say I am not a fan of plain blue or grey backscenes (as opposed to steam and green ). They may well be okay if the viewer is looking upwards, however 99% of layouts are viewed from above and a plain background merely emphasises the sharp cut off between the backscene and the layout itself. Roads, fields, yards etc. all vanishing into a wall of monotone.

 

Although they are not to everyone's taste, the photographic backscenes have gone a long way to improving the appearance of many models...and a vast improvement of the generic 'PECO' scenes that dominated so many layouts for the last few decades. They still don't help with main roads suddenly vanishing into a field, or some northern industrial town behind some Scottish, or Southern seaside station...

 

Our layout does have a backboard, awaiting the scene to be added. It has been the subject of a lot of thought as it is quite 'busy' scenically. We have tried a number of techniques in the past, including doing without a backboard at all. Visually this is really distracting as the eye is drawn to the various detritus that exists behind the layout...notice boards, chairs, operators (!) etc. Our layout also has the fiddle yard on the same board, and personally I like to keep to that illusion of the trains not running round and round in circles.

 

 

 

As with all aspect of modelling, this needs a degree of thought before being added. I am often puzzled by layouts that display a good standard of overall modelling being let down by poor quality backscenes.

 

 

 

My two-penneth at any rate…

 

 

 

 

[roger440]

They may well be okay if the viewer is looking upwards, however 99% of layouts are viewed from above and a plain background merely emphasises the sharp cut off between the backscene and the layout itself. Roads, fields, yards etc. all vanishing into a wall of monotone.

 

 

 

At the risk of going at a slight tangent, and given the way people take phots of their models, would it not be worth raising the layout, so that is was viewed at a more lifelike level. This would mean sky is largely all you might need. I appreciate that there would be some constructional difficulties, but i quite like the idea!

[Karhedron]

At the risk of going at a slight tangent, and given the way people take phots of their models, would it not be worth raising the layout, so that is was viewed at a more lifelike level.

This is a popular approach, particularly in larger scales. It is largely a matter of taste, some people like a model's eye view whereas others like looking down on the panorama.

[SouthernRegionSteam]

Personally, I have never seen a layout with a convincing painted backscene. Nope. Not even the really good ones like those already mentioned.

I'm not saying that to put anyone down it is just my opinion. It is virtually impossible to paint a scene like a photo can capture - and besides even if you could, would you have the time? Don't forget that there is also risk of damage. On the other hand I much favour photographic backscenes. However there has to be a few strict criteria here -

1. No joins whatsoever

2. High backscene (none of those backscenes that merely reach the top of a building)

3. Individual and unique backscene (preferably to be taken from the prototype location of your layout)

4. No gaps under the backscene (has to be blended in well)

 

I admit that the backscene made for me was made from photos I took quite a distance West of the actual location - however it is not a bad match. I am likely to replace it in the future.

 

I can understand that photographic backscenes are not the whole answer, but shy of taking your layout to the real location and taking a few snaps it's the next best alternative. Backscenes only work from a scale figures POV.

 

Feel free to metaphorically shoot me down...

[Steve Williams]

Having not read this thread from start to finish (yes I know that's dangerous), I hesitate to make any observations. However, for what it's worth here I go. The ethics of whetehr one should paint, Photoshop or photo-montage or whatever is, to me, a non-argument. The intention is to create a realistic looking backscene which will enhance the realism of the layout, hence, any method / technique is acceptable. Paradoxically, the best effect is often a plain neutral colour backscene which does not dominate or detract from the overall standard of the layout. Rather like choosing the most appropriate frame for a painting or drawing. It's the image that is important, not the frame. As has been expressed above, if the layout is viewed at near eye-level, then one has a head-start as the actual backscene need not be so high. I have seen loads of layouts that have been completely ruined by poorly painted backscenes - either just very poor draughtsmanship, an awful painting style (for a backscene), or over-dominant, unrealistic colours. To me there is nothing worse than being able to see the brush strokes, or having trees that look like they have been painted with a toilet brush using veridian green! I believe that, as a general rule, the less of a backscene that is actually visible, the better. Hence the advantage of using 3D modelled trees, for example, to hide the join between model and backscene. this will also create a more realistic perspective. Similarly, in built-up areas, let the actual buildings or half-relief buildings do most of the work. It is then possible to get away with a plain backscene representing the sky visible between the buildings, or just have small sections of backscene buildings visible. The problem one often encounters with buildings and backscenes is maintaining a believable perspective. In this instance, a plain backscene is preferable. Incidentally, poorly painted clouds are the 'kiss of death' as far as realism are concerned. When using printed backscenes, one also has to watch unrealistic sheen. if using a montage of images, it is very difficult to avoid a visible edge to the buildings which counter the aerial perspective which would come into play in reality. In essence, I don't believe that a backscene should draw attention to itself, whatever method is used. To be a success, one shouldn't realise it is there.

[Will Vale]

I saw Dunbracken at Valkenburg yesterday, which has a really effective photo backscene - it's an excellent match to the layout in perspective and colour. It's certainly making me think harder about what could be done with a backscene for Whitemarsh.

 

Will

 

 

[Russ (mines a pint)]

I do like a good backscene, whether it be photo or hand painted, there ARE some good hand painted backscenes remember Kentside which was based on the Sandside/Arnside area (an Em layout I think, by Carl Krowther?) which had a superb painted backscene.

 

The thing that becomes more apparent when you view model railways on the web is that there is good modelling and good photography, sometimes you see people have got both these skills and thats REALLY frustrating!