Wright writes.....

[teaky]

Looks good to me Tony.

 

All I can see after a quick look:

- Maybe the coupling rods are a little cruder?

- There is a cover (superheater?) on the top of the firebox of the new one but that may be a genuine difference between the two locomotives anyway.

- A few of the fittings need tweaking to straighten them up.

- More space above the leading pony truck or that may just be the slightly different angle?

- The point where the valve gear and body meet is a little dodgy, especially on the RH side of both of the new models.

 

No doubt someone with a whopping big, hi-res screen will spot far more.

[Tony Wright]

Looks good to me Tony.

 

All I can see after a quick look:

- Maybe the coupling rods are a little cruder?

- There is a cover (superheater?) on the top of the firebox of the new one but that may be a genuine difference between the two locomotives anyway.

- A few of the fittings need tweaking to straighten them up.

- More space above the leading pony truck or that may just be the slightly different angle?

- The point where the valve gear and body meet is a little dodgy, especially on the RH side of both of the new models.

 

No doubt someone with a whopping big, hi-res screen will spot far more.

Many thanks for the observations.

 

There is only one new model there, 67777.

 

The plate above the firebox is correct for this loco from 1952/'53.

 

The differences are more to do with the lining/numerals. The red lining on the newer model (other than on the boiler) is far less distinct and the bunker-side numerals are now the right size. 

[Mallard60022]

I don't know much about L1s; were they really as noisy as concrete mixers?

Anyway I think this loco will fall into Tony's  ...won't need to build a kit (unless it was for the pleasure of doing just that) category.

Great pics Tony.

Phil

Edited April 10, 2014 by Mallard60022

[Tony Wright]

I don't know much about L1s; were they really as noisy as concrete mixers?

Anyway I think this loco will fall into Tony's  ...won't need to build a kit (unless it was for the pleasure of doing just that) category.

Great pics Tony.

Phil

Phil,

        Many thanks for the response, and for the praise of the pictures. But, that's all they are - pictures of a model. Looking at some other pictures of models recently, I'm puzzled as to actually what I'm looking at. It's all outstandingly clever, what with zone focusing, stacking and image combinations, but they're not 'real' pictures of model railway items in my opinion. Still, they're very pretty but for actually assessing a model's worth, I'm not sure. But, like paintings, perhaps they're not intended for that purpose.

 

Mine, for what it's worth, (and I've probably mentioned this before) are taken under 2,000 Watts of light, using a Nikon D3 and a 55mm micro lens stopped down to F32 (actually a twitch less). I take one shot, then 'fiddle' with it to the minimum in Paint Shop Pro, sharpening and clarifying as necessary. Occasionally I'll isolate an area (say, immediately underneath the footplate) and lighten it, but no more. It's a bit old-fashioned in a way - everything in focus by using a small aperture - just, in my opinion, as it should be. To truly give an accurate rendition of a model for 'assessment' needs, I wouldn't take any other sort of picture. 

 

How this thread behaves like a butterfly! 

[jrg]

Whenever I see statements like this, I can only assume the writer has no knowledge of either approach. Do you really believe we are all born with CAD and 3D modelling skills and just have to push a couple of buttons to produce a finished model?

 

Traditional scratchbuilding involves research, design, production of parts, assembly and finishing. All require different skills. Research is much the same however we intend to produce the model. At the design stage, computer-based tools give us a way of producing shapes that are more dimensionally accurate than those produced from hand drawings. They may also allow us to check that parts fit together before they are produced. All of this requires at least as much skill in manipulating the software as hand drawing. A Cameo cutter merely replaces the cutting skills used in the production of parts. All very useful, though you won't get very far as a modeller without some hand cutting. As to 3D printing, again that only replaces some of the part production and assembly phases. In both cases, the result still needs a fair amount of finishing to compare with a good hand built model.

 

Personally, I've spent a great deal of time working with various forms of 3D modelling and CAD though I prefer to exercise mechanical skills in building models. Because I do have some of those skills, I know that computer aided methods are certainly not for dumbos.

 

Nick

Whilst you need different skills to produce 3D and Cameo modelling, once you have set up for this, you can have production runs indefinately-that part is deskilling.  There are no motor skills involved in computers-with the loss of scratchbuilding, these will be lost. 

[buffalo]

Whilst you need different skills to produce 3D and Cameo modelling, once you have set up for this, you can have production runs indefinately-that part is deskilling.

Yes, just different skills. How does that differ from hand drawn etch artwork or hand-made masters for casting?

 

There are no motor skills involved in computers-with the loss of scratchbuilding, these will be lost.

 

No motor skills? You have to be joking? Again, it's just different skills and, for many of us, additional skills.

 

I can see little evidence of a 'loss of scratchbuilding' or kitbuilding. Those who have them will retain older skills even if they adopt new ones. New technologies are more likely to attract others to have a go and, once the limitations of any one technology are appreciated, they may try others.

 

Nick

Edited April 11, 2014 by buffalo

[Iain Popplewell]

I'd love to see a computer that could assemble an etched kit,but I'm not holding my breath.Mind you some etched kit instructions read like they were computer generated.

[St Enodoc]

Though I know little or nothing (or even less!) about 3D printing and Cameo cutters, I'm not sure that 'de-skilling' is quite right. Perhaps different skills or even re-skilling might be more appropriate. The reason I say this is because both my sons (33 and 31 respectively) are designers, and though both are accomplished technical draughtsmen, both use CAD to design boats and aquaria equipment respectively. Occasionally I see something they might be working on on a laptop - it's absolutely bewildering as far as I'm concerned and the skills required (mechanically and intellectually) are way beyond my comprehension. Clearly, they take after their mother! 

 

Thank you for the praise about the K4 chassis (not K1). It is 'old-fashioned' scratch-builder's 'art' and it is utterly reliable, and it took a modicum of 'skill and expertise' to put together by 'traditional' means. However, when Dave Lewis and I generated kits for various carriages in his Southern Pride range (Dave did the hard work, I did the building and instruction-writing), at the same time as drawing carriages, if he'd drawn a K4 chassis out, and then had it etched, would that not have an element of scratch-building in it? The skill would be in producing the technical drawing to a larger size, then to be photographed to produce an etching master, and then the old-fashioned skills would be used in soldering the thing together. An etching bath would then have replaced the piercing saw in that respect. Different skills, I think you'll agree. 

 

In a similar vein (at least philosophically), the late (and great) John Horton used a pantograph miller to cut out the parts for his peerless Scale Seven locos. The great skill there was in making the Plastikard patterns for the miller to follow. These patterns were hand-made, to a larger size than the finished product, glued together in sandwich form. Suppose they could have been made by Cameo cutters - though the hand-made aspect of making the patterns might have gone, somebody would still be needed to write the programme and drive the machine. And, nothing has replaced soldering for fixing sheets of brass and nickel silver together. 

 

One could go on about all sorts of progress - don't get me started on photography for instance. 

 

What I really want to reiterate is the notion of actually making models for yourself. Instead of broadcasting to the world how marvellous some latest RTR offering is (and it might be), actually have a go at making something for yourself. If computer know-how and manipulation have been involved, so what? As long as you've made the finished thing yourself! And don't go on about lack of skill and all that guff. Why are you (the generic article) in the hobby anyway, unless you're actually prepared to make something? 

I can sense some holier-than-thou attitudes creeping into this conversation, which I find disappointing.

 

I make lots of things, and I also buy lots of things.

 

I make points (but not plain track), buildings, signals and the memory wire actuators that make them work, couplings, electromagnetic uncouplers, landscapes and trees, not to mention baseboards and wiring. I even make wagon and coach kits, and occasionally loco kits too.

 

I buy locos, coaches and wagons where they are available, which gives me time (as I said in post #616 on this thread) to make the things I can't buy. I buy DCC systems and decoders, electrical switches and lamps as well.

 

Just because I choose not to scratchbuild locos, does that make me some inferior kind of railway modeller? I believe not.

[Tony Wright]

I can sense some holier-than-thou attitudes creeping into this conversation, which I find disappointing.

 

I make lots of things, and I also buy lots of things.

 

I make points (but not plain track), buildings, signals and the memory wire actuators that make them work, couplings, electromagnetic uncouplers, landscapes and trees, not to mention baseboards and wiring. I even make wagon and coach kits, and occasionally loco kits too.

 

I buy locos, coaches and wagons where they are available, which gives me time (as I said in post #616 on this thread) to make the things I can't buy. I buy DCC systems and decoders, electrical switches and lamps as well.

 

Just because I choose not to scratchbuild locos, does that make me some inferior kind of railway modeller? I believe not.

My apologies if I appear to have come over as 'holier-than-thou', and if I implied that a person who doesn't scratch-build locos is somehow inferior, that was not the intention.

The final statement was a 'blunt' exhortation for folk to 'have a go' themselves, which you clearly do. You probably make more things than I do, or ever have done. Part of my reasoning is in having been a tutor at several railway modelling events down the years. Meeting many wonderful men (and women) who 'can't solder, won't solder, can't make this, won't make this, never be able to do this, won't be able to do this' and then they're shown, mainly by far more accomplished tutors than I'd ever be, and it's like a veil is lifted. And, they can do it! 

 

Above all else, railway modelling is a constructional hobby - not so much a passive or acquisitive one (like collecting?) - so my motives, if clumsily put, are honourable, I hope.  

 

But, the main gist of the post was to illustrate how different skills are needed nowadays, especially with regard to new technologies. 

[buffalo]

Phil,

        Many thanks for the response, and for the praise of the pictures. But, that's all they are - pictures of a model. Looking at some other pictures of models recently, I'm puzzled as to actually what I'm looking at. It's all outstandingly clever, what with zone focusing, stacking and image combinations, but they're not 'real' pictures of model railway items in my opinion. Still, they're very pretty but for actually assessing a model's worth, I'm not sure. But, like paintings, perhaps they're not intended for that purpose...

 

I can almost sympathize with that view, Tony, but surely in the old days we used to do similar things in the darkroom? Maybe some techniques were not widely used in model photography, but faded backgrounds by varying exposure, adjusting contrast of different parts of an image and even creating a single print by masking multiple negatives were all part of the darkroom craft. These probably are skills that are in danger of disappearing simply because modern technology makes the tasks more convenient and more controllable.

 

It's also worth remembering that our eyes and brains effectively build up what we see from multiple images so that we appear to be seeing the world with a much deeper DoF than we can achieve with a camera. Is the idea of overcoming some of the severe limitations of any camera system such a bad thing?

 

I can sense some holier-than-thou attitudes creeping into this conversation, which I find disappointing...

...Just because I choose not to scratchbuild locos, does that make me some inferior kind of railway modeller? I believe not.

 

I'm often puzzled when folk say things like this. Most of what is said here and in other topics revolves around the pleasure to be gained from kit and scratchbuilding, and encouragement to others to have a go. The message is that if you can develop the skills then you are likely to be able to get much more out of modelling. Of course, that message is not for all and there may even be folk with the relevant skills who find little interest in using, perhaps because they spend all day using those skills and want something different from their modelling (hence my preference for the mechanical over the virtual when it comes to making things). It's all down to personal choice.

 

Nick

[brushman47544]

The differences are more to do with the lining/numerals. The red lining on the newer model (other than on the boiler) is far less distinct and the bunker-side numerals are now the right size. 

 

This is not the first model I've read where the new factory has done a better (or at least finer) job with the lining than Sanda Kan. Is the new L1 from Refined? The other model I read about was (sorry but can't be faced with trawling through topics to recall which). This is encouraging for the future if they can get their build quality up to Sanda Kan's standards.

[Tony Wright]

I can almost sympathize with that view, Tony, but surely in the old days we used to do similar things in the darkroom? Maybe some techniques were not widely used in model photography, but faded backgrounds by varying exposure, adjusting contrast of different parts of an image and even creating a single print by masking multiple negatives were all part of the darkroom craft. These probably are skills that are in danger of disappearing simply because modern technology makes the tasks more convenient and more controllable.

 

It's also worth remembering that our eyes and brains effectively build up what we see from multiple images so that we appear to be seeing the world with a much deeper DoF than we can achieve with a camera. Is the idea of overcoming some of the severe limitations of any camera system such a bad thing?

 

 

I'm often puzzled when folk say things like this. Most of what is said here and in other topics revolves around the pleasure to be gained from kit and scratchbuilding, and encouragement to others to have a go. The message is that if you can develop the skills then you are likely to be able to get much more out of modelling. Of course, that message is not for all and there may even be folk with the relevant skills who find little interest in using, perhaps because they spend all day using those skills and want something different from their modelling (hence my preference for the mechanical over the virtual when it comes to making things). It's all down to personal choice.

 

Nick

Nick,

        Many thanks for the comments.

 

With regard to the model photography, what I hoped to convey is the desire for just taking a picture of a 'new' product - loco, coach, etc, etc, and showing it as near as possible exactly as it is - as an 'absolute', critical piece of visual assessment. When I photographed Heljan/Hatton's Beyer-Garratt recently, I asked Ben Jones should I straighten a buffer, re-instate chipped paint and close a gap between frames and body - all via the computer, and he said 'no'. So, it is as it is. What I would say is (modesty allowing I hope) that I was the only one at BRM capable of taking a picture in one go of that great length, and getting everything in focus.

 

Though I completely agree with your comments regarding the craft of the darkroom - dodging, burning-in, masking out on (large) negatives, Frisk film and airbrush on prints, etc, those skills were spread amongst a far smaller number of the population. Since those skills are no longer needed (I no longer have medium/large-format cameras nor a darkroom), they'll probably disappear anyway. Far more folk can manipulate images these days than ever in the past - which is a good thing. However, and I'm wallowing in the past again, in the days when I used to photograph model railways by 'traditional' means - cameras with movements, pin-hole apertures and so on, what you saw was far more what was really in front of the camera. 

 

In that regard, years ago, after I'd photographed another selection of Mr Waterman's magnificent Gauge O and Gauge 1 models, I received a phone call from the great man saying the footplate on one loco appeared 'bent' in the picture. I politely asked him to look at the model itself, and, indeed, it was bent. What the builder thought of me after it was returned to be fixed, I'll not repeat, but how relatively easy it would be today to 'straighten' that footplate digitally.

 

And, today's model railway photographers - Andy York, Chris Nevard, Craig Tiley, Trevor Jones (I think that's the right name) and anyone else I've forgotten (with apologies) have taken the craft to a level I can only marvel at.   

[buffalo]

Thanks, Tony. I'd missed the point that you were talking about 'fixing' defects in the photographed model, rather than just 'improving' the photo. You can tell it's a long time since I did any darkroom work, I can't even remember the proper terms for the techniqes. I fully agree with you about review photos showing the model as it is. As a very average photographer, I too marvel at what those guys produce.

 

Nick

[bluebottle]

I doubt that St Enodoc's "holier than thou" aside was aimed at Tony, whose posts are models (no pun intended) of civility and clarity of expression.

I do worry about manipulation of images of models in order to show them in a better light. I am minded of the American astronaut who, when shown a preview of Ron Howard's "Apollo 13", said of the launch sequence that they were great shots and that he didn't know that  they had such recordings. Howard replied that the images referred to had been produced in the studio; they had intended to use film of the actual launch but found it impossible to realistically integrate it into work created for the movie. Such misunderstandings were at least partly responsible for the infuriating conspiracy theories about the "faked Moon landings". Perhaps, unless a photo is "warts and all", a health warning about manipulation should be attached.

(Caveat: I don't generally use smileys, and no harm to egos was intended in the making of this post)

 

Edit: punctuation.

Edited April 11, 2014 by bluebottle

[Andy Y]

Perhaps, unless a photo is "warts and all*, a health warning about manipulation should be attached.

An amusing criticism of 'warts and all' from yesterday http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/83170-brm-april-2014/page-2&do=findComment&comment=1413830 - 'we' can't win.

[bluebottle]

An amusing criticism of 'warts and all' from yesterday http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/83170-brm-april-2014/page-2&do=findComment&comment=1413830 - 'we' can't win.

 

I'll bet that Andy P will have something witty and pungent to say about such criticism of his modelling!

[Barry O]

Photo manipulation isn't new.. RM used it on Brian Monaghan's photographs of Dave Walkers layout Laxford Bridge.  Fave had to go out and add some more bits of scenery to match before it went to its next show...

 

BUT seriously the photos should show what is there - not what the photographer/publisher wants it to look like.... I am interested in the models/scenes as photographed. I have seen a good few layouts in the flesh so to speak post seeing them in print and had some disappointments and vice versa.

 

Looking at the L1 from Hornby ot looks like they have sorted the valve gear out (or is it just my eyesight).. I will stick with ABS one my father built as it has a lot of memories in it and runs like a dream...

 

 

[coachmann]

When it comes to members showing their latest model just tipped out of the box, so to speak, I do not want it manipulated for pretty obvious reasons. So I do have a problem with some images because I simply do not know what to believe any longer.  

Edited April 11, 2014 by coachmann

[Tony Wright]

When it comes to members showing their latest model just tipped out of the box, so to speak, I do not want it manipulated for pretty obvious reasons. So I do have a problem with some images because I simply do not know what to believe any longer.  

I couldn't agree more, Larry, and well said. That's why, I hope, my pictures of individual models are taken (no pun intended) as 'accurate' representations of what they actually are. That way, an observer can make his/her own mind up as to what he/she thinks of the model. I think sharpening is acceptable (rather in the manner that higher-contrast photographic papers often made an image crisper) and, in the past cameras with movements aligned with tiny apertures have allowed everything to be razor sharp at source. But, they didn't actually alter what the model looked like. 

 

I always brush off models before taking a picture - the powerful lights make specks of dust look like little stones if not. That said, if I've missed a bit, I will admit to 'cloning' out a speck; in the same way that SPOTONE was used on wet-process prints to eradicate any tiny blemishes. I don't think that constitutes 'cheating, and I certainly wouldn't straighten numbers, lamp brackets, etc for a review picture.

 

But, for a layout picture, how far does one go? I've not been beyond cloning a front coupling to 'replace' one that was missing from a loco. I even cloned a buffer on a 2mm A4 on Copenhagen fields because the original had fallen out, and it spoilt the picture otherwise. I admit, I've straightened loco headlamps and even put them in place when they were missing, but only on layout shots. All the above would have been just about impossible before digital manipulation came along. 

 

Where will it all end, I wonder? Virtual visual models? 

[micklner]

It will end as already been said, when none of it is actually real or so manipulated that people dont really look anymore anyway as everything looks the same.

 

As I commented on last months BRM magazine images. I dont want or need to see artifical steam clouds, backgrounds obliterated or over managed or replace with something that is simply not there . I like to see what is actually there, why kid ourselves that layouts dont have curtains, shelves etc behind them. Its not as they are and never will be !! e.g Larrys pictures of his layout show the real thing its in shed what the problem with seeing where it is and what it really looks like and everybody learns something about construction from the photographs.

 

As to models warts and all please , you can then really appreciatte the skill that has created them or in some not on occasions :jester:

[Iain Popplewell]

My worry is that the widespread use of digital photo manipulation technology,and lets face it it's so easy,will result in an unrealistic unattainable  expectation of what models should and do look like.This can only lead to prospective new modellers becoming disheartened when their models don't live up to the "idealised" images they have seen in the magazines.

Keep it real!   A  model is a model. No smoke effects, no layering,no removing gaps below buildings,or making telegraph poles vertical.

Let us have model railway photographs that reflect what model railways really look like.

 

Then I and everyone else will know what the Hxll we are supposed to aspire to.

 

                                                                                                                                                                            Iain Popplewell

Edited April 11, 2014 by iainp

[Nimbus]

When it comes to members showing their latest model just tipped out of the box, so to speak, I do not want it manipulated for pretty obvious reasons. So I do have a problem with some images because I simply do not know what to believe any longer.  

 

I have to say, I find pretty much all TV adverts quite disorienting these days, particularly featuring cars or animals, for exactly the same reason. I wonder if many of the population do believe the photo-manipulated/CGI world to be the real thing, and organise their lives accordingly. 

 

The Nim.

[Mallard60022]

I wonder if many of the population do believe the photo-manipulated/CGI world to be the real thing, and organise their lives accordingly. 

Half of the population of 36E seem to most of the time from what I observe in town on a Saturday!!!!

My two penneth:

include in the photo's the real 'environment' if it does not distract too much and please stop 'adding smoke' to so many shots in BRM (however see below). I'd rather not see folks' piles of washing, garden through the window, cat doing tricks or heaps of whatever. Railway rooms/sheds/ lofts are OK as that's where layouts often live.

Maybe in an article there could be a shot or two where it is noted as 'manipulated for effect'?

P

[Grafarman]

 

IAINP Keep it real!   A  model is a model. No smoke effects, no layering,no removing gaps below buildings,or making telegraph poles vertical.

Let us have model railway photographs that reflect what model railways really look like.

 

Then I and everyone else will know what the Hxll we are supposed to aspire to.

 

 

 

No problem,

 

IMG_0255.JPG

 

IMG_0264.JPG

 

IMG_1776.JPG

 

IMG_9258.JPG

 

IMG_0222.JPG

 

wysiwyg no manipulation, no fake smoke, no extra lighting 

 

Then if you change it to B&W and adjust the contrast (nothing else) you get one of these.

 

IMG_0225.JPG

 

 

Last pic; awesome...

[coachmann]

wysiwyg no manipulation,

 

 

Is 'wysiwyg' a real word or has it been manipulated?