Wright writes.....

[Iain Popplewell]

Lovely images PMP, hard to believe that no "Photoshop" software etc was used to achieve these images it rather proves my point that excellent modelling and excellent photography are all that is needed.The most important thing is that you have made no attempt to address modelling errors with the use of software.

I suppose it might be argued that a camera doesn't present a "true" view of reality, the photographer selects how and what to photograph for instance, but my fear is that the widespread use of image manipulation will lead to the distortion of peoples perception of what models should and do look like to the detriment of the modelling hobby.

[black and decker boy]

The photos i take of layouts at shows or of our own groups layouts and used on places such as RMWeb are generally cleaned up but not manipulated, one main reason is I don't have photoshop.

 

In cleaning up (in Windows live photo gallery and assciated Windows software), I may remove a backscene joint but I cannot add backscene. I cannot crop trees or add buildings. I cannot add smoke. I can convert to black and white and I can crop to make the subject more prominent. I can straighten the photo but not individual items within it. The rest is purely down to selecting the right shot in the first place, getting the angle right and then taking several shots on different settings. I am no Tony Wright or Chris Nevard but I am happy with my photos and because they are undoctored, anyone can replicate them if they want.

 

Having had a few layouts in magazines down the years (and Mssrs Wright, Bayer & Nevard doing the honours), I have seen very little if any manipulation of those photoshoots. Maybe a little smoke effect now and then but generally the art of these PROs is scene selection, camera angles and lighting. I for one would not want to move into some kind of Model CGI where the image bears little relation to the layout in the flesh.

 

EDIT a few pics

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 14, 2014 by black and decker boy

[Tony Wright]

Many thanks for all the positive comments with regard to model railway photography. 

 

I've included a selection of my pictures from the last few years. All have been taken digitally and most have had the 'minimum' of post-exposure treatment. No stacking, multi-exposures, multi-images, added smoke (with one exception, see later), just 'powerful' cameras with facilities for very small apertures and, usually, plenty of light.

 

Perhaps folk might comment as  to what they think..........  

 

I've included a few comments underneath each picture.......

 

 

This is, in fairness, more to do with miniature engineering, rather than railway modelling, because it shows a 5" 'King' Class, outdoors. Taken in high summer (just note how blue the actual sky is - no filter was used to boost this), I used a Metz 60 Flash gun (more powerful than some studio lights) to bring out the details in the shadows.

 

 

 

The wonderful 82G, O Gauge shed layout. This has a plain blue backscene behind, but not at the ends. Since these shots were taken towards the ends, simple plain backgrounds were Photoshopped behind. Depth of field was down to tiny apertures. 

 

 

 

 

The first two pictures were taken of Annan Road at the Glasgow show four years ago, using just the ambient lighting. When I lit it 'properly', the third picture was the result. Since the backscene didn't extend completely round the ends, I cloned the backscene colour and extended it round the end.

 

 

 

The remarkable O Gauge Bangor is contained in a dark environment, because the operators like it that way and the lighting illuminates just what they're operating. As a background to a picture, it's less than appealing, as in the shot of the B1. So, turning the camera the other way, I took out the black background and superimposed a neutral blue. Perhaps I should have softened the outline. 

 

 

 

The OO gauge Billingham has (had) a hand-painted backscene. Part of that backscene included houses, but no thought seemed to have been given to aerial or diminishing perspective, to the extent that at their relative 'real' distance from the railway, they were Brobdingnagian in size! In the second picture, I've taken them out. Is this cheating?

 

More pictures to follow...........

Edited April 14, 2014 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

The next set.......

 

 

In this shot of Bishop's Quay, the view is the one the operators get. So, behind was either a barrier and stomachs (at a show) or the interior of the clubroom. A neutral background was superimposed.

 

 

Peter Denny's outstanding Buckingham - remember, all his own work. The background was terribly faded, so I just cloned a bit of it and put it behind. Would anyone dare to straighten those pillars?

 

 

Occasionally, product shots would be taken on layouts - in this case an O Gauge 'Coronation Scot' on John Emerson's Gifford Street. Since the background wall had real posters on it, I thought it better to superimpose a plain white.

 

 

Crickey has a photo-generated backscene, which is remarkably effective. A glance at the foreground will reveal an obvious baseboard joint (which I left), but there was also another joint running through the backscene (which I removed). I also didn't remove the shadows from the chimneys.

 

 

Farkham has a plain backscene, but the lighting was uneven on it - so I just cloned it and extended it round to the end.

 

 

 

The power of lighting. The first shot on the Gresley Beat was taken as a test, using just the ambient lighting in the room. Apply 2,000 Watts of light and, bingo! Clean up the background and there you go.

 

 

 

Little Severn Wharf, in 7mm Scale, has no backscene at all, so just plain ones were superimposed. A baseboard edge can also be distracting, so a white triangle is a useful 'take out' for a designer to add a caption..........

Edited April 14, 2014 by Tony Wright

[coachmann]

The power of lighting. This first shot on the Gresley Beat was taken as a test, using just the ambient lighting in the room. Apply 2,000 Watts of light and, bingo! Clean up the background and there you go.

 

 

I'm one of those awkward cusses Tony that prefers the ambient lighting shot of the K3. In contrast, the P2 shot looks gaudy and toy-like. One thing about some of the better printed backscenes is they are as familiar as RTR now every beggar's got one. 

[Tony Wright]

Some more..............

 

 

 

No need to muck about with puny cameras and stacking processes, which always cause the odd aberration. No, plenty of light, a big camera and an aperture between F32 and F45 reveals Nick Dunhills's staggering work in O gauge.

 

 

Melton North has a mainly plain backscene, so I just cloned the main colour and stuck it behind.

 

 

I painted the South Wales 'weather' behind Merthryr Riverside - not in Photoshop, but for real.

 

 

 

I don't like added smoke (as here, largely because I can't do it properly and it adds nothing to the images in my opinion. However, some folk have been critical about adding real skies to pictures. But, in this case, how real do you want it to be? I lit the model picture as for a sunny day, then immediately walked outside, along Station Road to a point where the trees aren't too tall and took a picture of the sky just above the electric catenary. So the morning lighting orientation is exactly the same. 

 

 

 

Rowlands Castle has a plain sky background. So, this was cloned and placed all around. Again, the white triangle is useful for adding captions.

[Tony Wright]

The last few.....

 

 

Individual loco portraits often look better on layouts. In this view, all I've done is give it a plain background.

 

 

The electric 'flash' here is not a bit of digital manipulation. It's a LED.

 

 

One thing digital photography has enabled picture-takers to do is expose images where light levels would have rendered the use of film impossible. As in this shed interior shot.

 

 

Y Crae is another layout without a backscene as such. So, a plain background suffices.

 

 

The lights on these diesels on Buxton are real, so to bring them out I bounced the lighting and deliberately under-exposed the shot - then placed a plain grey/blue background behind.

 

I hope viewers can see that my manipulation of all these images has been the minimum to make them acceptable for publication. Though it might smack of my being a reactionary old f**t, I don't like much of the way modern digital manipulation has taken over in model photography. Yes, the programmes all have tools for the photographer to use, but some of the images I see are so manipulated as to make me wonder, what am I really looking at? 

Edited April 14, 2014 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

I'm one of those awkward cusses Tony that prefers the ambient lighting shot of the K3. In contrast, the P2 shot looks gaudy and toy-like. One thing about some of the better printed backscenes is they are as familiar as RTR now every beggar's got one. 

I respect your opinion, of course, but can you imagine what the K3 image would look like if printed? Mud, would be the most apposite description!

[New Haven Neil]

I'm with Coach - the rendition (on my monitor....) looks more redolent of the 1930's to me.

 

Redolent, not reminiscent, as I'm a child of the 50's!

 

I'm quite sure you are correct about printing it though.

[Mallard60022]

Blimey - I'm staggered at how interesting all those shots are. Superb TW.

P

[Paul Cram]

I have to say that I am with Larry as well. It occurs to me that it is the brightness of the photography that makes a lot of layouts in the magazines seem to have a toy like look not helped by peco track.

[bluebottle]

.... A baseboard edge can also be distracting, so a white triangle is a useful 'take out' for a designer to add a caption..........

 

Aww, shucks! I thought I was being clever in using the white triangle for titling some of the snaps of exhibition layouts I put on RMweb from time to time. Still, there are lots of things that I hadn't thought of that I've learned from this forum, so mustn't grumble ...

 

Edit: corrected grammar.

Edited April 14, 2014 by bluebottle

[MJI]

To be honest I like the plain backgrounds where it was a mess before, the pale blue or white instead of beer bellies is an improvement.

 

There have been pictures in the press recently which were too processed.

 

I just want a good clear, well focused and exposed picture which show the layout off to its best.

 

I will admit I prefer the darker GB picture as well, but all of the pictures were good.

[Iain Popplewell]

Very interesting to see how a professional magazine photographer like yourself Tony deals with the dilemmas presented by the use of photo editing.Like you I feel their is an obligation placed on the photographer/editor to present images that reflect what the models actually look like,warts and all.Many of your example photo's had minimal manipulation cloning back-scenes etc which I personally have no problem with.I did get a little uneasy though when you edited out the Billingham back-scene, this was intended as part of the model and by doing this you have altered the character of the model.Interesting that you don't remove baseboard joins but do remove back-scene joins.At what point does one decide to stop editing.At what point does editing alter the model to an unacceptable degree.It all comes down to a personal choice in the end.

I feel that the trend is that peoples perception of what is acceptable is widening,and it worries me.

 

Edit:To remove references to the morality of photo editing as Queensquare rightly thought it weakened my arguement.

Edited April 15, 2014 by iainp

[Paddy]

Stunning photos Tony - you are very clever.

 

Paddy

[queensquare]

I have to say this is all getting a bit silly. Since when has the degree of manipulation or otherwise of photographs of a model railway become a moral issue?

 

A matter of taste, most definitely, a Marmite issue that some will love and some will hate, unquestionably,  but one of morality, I don't think so. 

 

Jerry

[Clive Mortimore]

Not being one who knows how to manipulate photos I didn't feel I would be able to comment on this issue, but as someone who views models and photos I have a few thoughts.

 

First is giving a layout a sky background not bookshelves, or   the tut found in one's man shed is great. Adding steam or exhaust clagg is just plain silly. Up righting telegraph poles and lamp post, is OK but next time you venture outside have a look at how upright the real ones can be. Adding real buffer beam detail and removing the Tri-ang snowplough is not on, it is a model after all.

 

Second too much hocus pocus with the image can cause much mutter at shows "Cor blimey I have come all this way to see this layout and it doesn't look as good as it did in the comic".

[Iain Popplewell]

I have to say this is all getting a bit silly. Since when has the degree of manipulation or otherwise of photographs of a model railway become a moral issue?

 

A matter of taste, most definitely, a Marmite issue that some will love and some will hate, unquestionably,  but one of morality, I don't think so. 

 

Jerry

If the issue is one of choice between what is acceptable and not acceptable in human behaviour then it is a moral choice at the end of the day.I admit in the grand scheme of life choices over whether to straighten a telegraph pole or not, may not be the most important moral choice one may be forced  to make in life.As you say photographs are a matter of taste, but at what point does one persons taste for photo manipulation become excessive and become a form of deceit.Images of modelling actually set tastes in modelling  and I think that if these images depart too much from the reality of what models are actually like then a disservice to the modelling hobby results.

 

Edit:Actually Queensquare,although I still stand by my post on what constitutes a moral choice above,I think you had a point my original posting had no reason to use the word morality or moral so I removed them.Nothing else was changed and I agree the force of my argument was thereby improved.Thankyou.

Edited April 15, 2014 by iainp

[Tony Wright]

Very interesting to see how a professional magazine photographer like yourself Tony deals with the moral dilemmas presented by the use of photo editing.Like you I feel their is a moral obligation placed on the photographer/editor to present images that reflect what the models actually look like,warts and all.Many of your example photo's had minimal manipulation cloning back-scenes etc which I personally have no problem with.I did get a little uneasy though when you edited out the Billingham back-scene, this was intended as part of the model and by doing this you have altered the character of the model.Interesting that you don't remove baseboard joins but do remove back-scene joins.At what point does one decide to stop editing.At what point does editing alter the model to an unacceptable degree.It all comes down to a personal moral choice in the end.

I feel that the trend is that peoples perception of what is morally acceptable is widening,and it worries me.

Iain,

       Many thanks for the comments, though I've never considered myself facing a moral dilemma with regards to my photography, except in one case. I'd photographed a wedding, and took a low shot, looking up, of the bride and groom, lit by powerful flash. Processing the picture, I noticed that my low shot had also got beneath the hem line of the skirt of a particularly gorgeous female onlooker. Not only was the size of her skirt 'minimal', so were her 'revealed' undergarments. Was it a 'moral' issue? I thought so, and 'shadowed' out the 'offending' area, though I still have the original file! 

 

I should have made things clearer, but I took another picture of Crickey from a similar view where no baseboard edges were apparent, and this was used. I have, however, in the past removed baseboard edges on 'proper' prints using designer's gouache and SPOTONE. Not as easy as in Photoshop because there's no 'undo' feature.

 

As for the Billingham giants' houses - all I did was pre-empt what the club did. The members physically painted them out after I'd left. I wasn't always popular after I'd visited some clubs!   

[Tony Wright]

Stunning photos Tony - you are very clever.

 

Paddy

Paddy,

            Very kind thoughts, but I've also been very lucky in the past.

[Iain Popplewell]

Hi Tony.

 I now wish I'd not used the word moral as it seems to have distracted from the real argument/debate.

 

In fact I did worry if it was morally right to edit my original post,but as you have quoted it above in it's original unedited state members can view both posts and make their own minds up.

 

Not so sure about the morality of you keeping that unintended revealing photo shot, surely a true gent would have destroyed the image.

[Oldddudders]

I think Tony's point about the effect of a picture when it appears in print, as distinct from online, is very interesting. His before-and-after pair undoubtedly show the "benefit" of decent lighting - but I certainly find the forbidding nature of the upper shot much more compelling, much more real-world. And I speak as one who isn't very keen on weathering of locos and stock - I am not a grot-freak. Nevertheless, if a pro snapper wishes to pursue his trade and pay the bills, he needs to submit pics which the editor will like. Just as the red-top photographers, at a photo-call with a pretty girl, will invariably shout "More leg!" etc etc, because that's what the readers enjoy, so the sunny shot, full of light and modelling excellence, is the one that sells magazines in our hobby.

 

I agree that this isn't a "morality" issue, but a phrase perhaps including the word "responsible" might be coined to cover what some of us seem to feel. After all, if the Disney-esque (that being the extreme version, not necessarily visible in this thread) pics that we see exceed anything we ever manage to portray ourselves, or even see at exhibitions, disillusionment might be just as likely as the inspiration that such pics were intended to prompt.

[gr.king]

For what it's worth I don't mind the tidying-up of backgrounds to a PLAIN approximation to a neutral "sky" as opposed to a real sky imported from an image library. It ought to be borne in mind that grey sky is far more common in Britain than tropical blue. Digitally added smoke and steam effects not only look ridiculous, they are a total con, not being part of the modelling achievement. Unless there is scale smoke and steam as part of the model, I don't want to see it. I want the view kept clear so that the MODELLING can be seen. 

[coachmann]

For what it's worth I don't mind the tidying-up of backgrounds to a PLAIN approximation to a neutral "sky" as opposed to a real sky imported from an image library. It ought to be borne in mind that grey sky is far more common in Britain than tropical blue. Digitally added smoke and steam effects not only look ridiculous, they are a total con, not being part of the modelling achievement. Unless there is scale smoke and steam as part of the model, I don't want to see it. I want the view kept clear so that the MODELLING can be seen. 

I agree to a point, but I think the occasional 'going to town with smoke & steam' shot is within reason. I'm bound to say that if you look at Greenfield....

[Tony Wright]

A most enjoyable day has just finished, where members of the Potter Heigham Finescale Group visited Little Bytham and operated the railway. Apart from my incompetence at setting section switches and changing points, everything seemed to go quite smoothly, with no black marks given to the railway (apart from one, inexplicable derailment). 

The highlights included an A4 'beating the pants' off a 'Western' diesel in terms of speed, and a visiting 'Castle', with a most attractive, slightly weathered finish, which positively walked away with the 'Queen of Scots'. A picture is included below, complete with dull sky.

 

 

I contented myself by running a B1 (Bachmann body) under which I've just made and installed a new Comet chassis. The original split-chassis nonsense was abandoned as a lost cause. 

 

 

 

I hope members of the group might respond (a safe journey back home, I hope) because it's only when visitors see the railway that I can get an independent view of where things can be improved, but many thanks for the positive verbal comments already given. And, thanks for the lunch, gentlemen. 

Edited April 17, 2014 by Tony Wright