Wright writes.....

[gr.king]

Andy,

 

Is it possible to get similar results with a pin-hole aperture and a long exposure?

 

Andy

 

Bear in mind of course that there's a limit to how small that pin-hole aperture can be before conventional optical effects cease to be the dominant consideration and significant diffraction effects begin to appear, degrading the image in other ways and revealing the wave properties of light. I suspect the pin-hole needs to be a nice smooth-sided one too.

[raymw]

A few years back, I experimented with pin holes. If you have an slr, get a spare body cap, drill a hole in centre (6mm hole will do), then tape over a piece of ali. foil, and make the smallest hole you can into the foil, but the secret is to try and get a smooth sharp edge, with no burrs. If it is too big, the image will be blurred, too small you get diffraction (you can get laser cut pin holes, if you are not into too much diy). I made a telephoto version, too, a pin hole on the end of a 2ft parcel tube. I then went on to making the foil with two adjacent pin holes, a bit of red cellophane over one, blue over t'other, to make anaglyphs.  Like many things, you can get interesting results, and the benefit, compared to the sort of photography shown on here, the results will completely flummox the rivet counters

[corneliuslundie]

Could you do something similar with a digital camera (non SLR)? Getting the paper and chemicals for an old style camera is getting difficult.

 

Jonathan

[raymw]

Hi Jonathon, It makes no difference, in my previous post I should have said 'dslr' but I had sort of assumed the 'd' was implied...

 

if you mean a digital camera with a fixed lens, I wouldn't drill a hole through the lens, no matter how small.    .Putting a small hole in front of the lens will most likely only increase the exposure time, and give a fair amount of vignetting. Maybe you give it a try?

Edited June 28, 2015 by raymw

[AndyID]

Hi Jonathon, It makes no difference, in my previous post I should have said 'dslr' but I had sort of assumed the 'd' was implied...

 

if you mean a digital camera with a fixed lens, I wouldn't drill a hole through the lens, no matter how small.    .Putting a small hole in front of the lens will most likely only increase the exposure time, and give a fair amount of vignetting. Maybe you give it a try?

 

Hi Ray,

 

I have an old digital Nikon compact that's in the pre-binning staging area in the garage. I might take a shot at replacing the lens with a pinhole. Am I right in thinking you want the material to be as thin as possible at the edge of the hole (the less "tube-like" the better)?

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony on the subject of deisels do the prototype DP2 and lion get a run on little Bytham?

Sorry to be so late in responding, but I don't always read through the complete thread. 

 

The answer is yes, but with a qualification. Because the station itself closed in 1959, one can legitimately run (just) the prototype Deltic and the first EE Type 4s. There was a Saturday Peterborough-Lincoln DMU service which ran up the main line to Barkston, calling at LB, rather than go via Spalding, so a Derby Lightweight or Cravens DMU could be used. The first Peaks didn't arrive until the station closed, though it's possible that Brush Type 2s might have been seen there. I have a Baby Deltic and a BRC&W Type 2 which make light-engine appearances (probably incorrect, for they'd most likely use the joint line to get to and fro to Doncaster). 

 

But, since Stoke Summit diesel days, I have DP2; a Lima Deltic conversion using A1 parts (?), LION; another Lima conversion (A1 or Craftsman?), FALCON; a Lima conversion with much scratch-building, by my elder son, Tom, and KESTREL; another scratch-built/conversion. I run these when friends come round, even though they're out of time (though not KESTREL, because that's far too late). Odd, isn't it, that all of these are now available RTR, and probably much better, too.  But, yet another example of the inexorable rise in not needing to actually make something! Anyone interested in these models? I also run production Deltics, even though they're at least three years out of time. 

[Tony Wright]

As usual, many thanks for all the recent comments - most interesting and enlightening.

 

Returning briefly to the subject of model railway photography, I agree entirely that, whatever the equipment and the technology, it's still the guy/girl firing the shutter that is most important. That said, what Andy did with those incredible pictures he took recently on Little Bytham would have been impossible without a powerful modern digital compact camera and a great knowledge of Photoshop. With wet-processing and dark-room enlargement techniques, forget it. Film cameras of the size of Andy's Canon (Instamatics?) would have just produced blurred rubbish. In 'my day' (long gone now), I've mentioned before how I used a medium format camera with movements, lenses which stopped down to F.64 (and smaller) and thousands of Watts of light (the other day, we used the ambient lighting and just my waving around of a photoflood). These combinations always gave me infinite depth of field and razor sharp imagery (far superior to even the best 35mm cameras). But, it was bulky and unwieldy - any eye-level shots could only be achieved by splitting boards. Brian Monaghan used even bigger cameras. The modern-day exponents of the craft of model railway photography have taken it to a level undreamed of just a short time ago. I'm not saying it's easier now to take 'realistic' pictures, just that it's now possible. All the above said, I dislike digital smoke and the over-superimposition of real backgrounds. 

 

 

As for obtaining decent depth of field without resorting to stacking, I had a go this afternoon. By using a 200mm telephoto lens on the front of the Df, stopping it down to F39 (that's what the camera said) and focusing to about a metre, this is the result. Granted, I cannot get the 4mm eye-level view, the foreground sharp, and the telephoto lens has 'crushed' the perspective but what needs to be in focus is I think. As for the lighting, that was ambient (with some reflected sunlight) and a pulse or two of fill-in bounced flash. The exposure was about fifteen seconds. It's also cropped substantially, but since the file size of the Df is quite big (like cropping a part of a large negative?), then there's not too much loss of clarity. I admit, though, it's not in Andy's league.

 

 

 

 

 

Picking up on the running of the unique diesels on LB (however inappropriate), here's three of them. The shots of DP2 and LION were taken in the same manner as the first picture - hence the foreshortening. And, don't be fooled by folk telling you that 'bendy' coaches are caused by some photographic aberration. No they're not - they're bendy, and that's that! 

 

 

 

 

Finally, a request, please. The three prototype pictures above were taken in the summer of 1937, '38 or '39. They're obviously at the east end of Waverley, but can anyone tell me if the structure to the left of the A4 is a new signalbox, and, if so, was that coincidental with the replacement of the NB semaphores with colour lights or Sykes repeaters. I've already asked a couple of Scottish friends, but the more the merrier! 

Edited June 28, 2015 by Tony Wright

[The Stationmaster]

I'm fairly sure that it is Waverley east - it definitely isn't Waverley West (or the much smaller North or South 'boxes).  I see that the semaphores are still in use which indicates that the photos were taken prior to the commissioning of the colour light signals and new signal boxes which according to a secondary source took place sometime in 1937.

[Porcy Mane]

Definitely Waverley East. This is a crop of about 5% of an 8 x 6 negative, of which the accompanying notes say was taken in 1964.

Don't know anything about the signals though.

 

Re your DF photographs, you could try "digiCamControl" for Nikon. It's a free programme and considerably more sophisticated that Nikons proprietary software.

It doesn't do focus stacking but what it does do is allow you to take a series of images via a Windows PC and using the USB cable supplied with your camera for input into stacking software.

In principle you tell the camera were the nearest and furthest focusing points are, input how many images you want between your furthest and nearest points, and then let camera take the images.

But, technology sometimes thumbs it nose at you, as you witnessed on Thursday. (all down to USB bug in my laptop)

 

Porcy  (Cross post with Mike)

Edited June 28, 2015 by Porcy Mane

[Tony Wright]

Definitely Waverley East. This is a crop of about 5% of an 8 x 6 negative, of which the accompanying notes say was taken in 1964.

Don't know anything about the signals though.

BlueSpotRake.jpg

 

Re your DF photographs, you could try "digiCamControl" for Nikon. It's a free programme and considerably more sophisticated that Nikons proprietary software.

It doesn't do focus stacking but what it does do is allow you to take a series of images via a Windows PC and using the USB cable supplied with your camera for input into stacking software.

In principle you tell the camera were the nearest and furthest focusing points are, input how many images you want between your furthest and nearest points, and then let camera take the images.

But, technology sometimes thumbs it nose at you, as you witnessed on Thursday. (all down to USB bug in my laptop)

 

Porcy  (Cross post with Mike)

Many thanks,

 

As for the programmes for multi-picture taking and stacking, it's kind of you to suggest them but 'you can't teach an old dog new tricks' I'm afraid. Since retirement and no longer touring the country taking pictures of other folk's model railways, I'm not really interested in 'developing' my model railway photographic skills. I can take reasonable product shots for BRM (they still ask me), take good enough step-by-step shots and can take pictures of Little Bytham which (though not in Andy's league) are good enough for publication. 

 

I suppose I'm happy enough now 'doing my own thing'. I try to help others in their model-making, enjoy the company of some splendid guests and have lots of things I've yet to build. Apart from Ian Wilson's remaining buildings, and Paul Bason's Willoughby Arms, most of what's to do on LB now I'll be doing myself. I've still got several locos to make (a few for Grantham) and about a dozen more carriages, not to mention 'miles' of point rodding, ground signals and the making of signs, both road and railway.  Rob Davey has just about completed the weathering of any remaining wagons, so that's that, and Richard Wilson is completing the stationmaster's garden (remotely). Derek Griffin is also building the pair of M&GNR signals (in return for my doing something for him). I have the Bookazine to complete, another Irwell book to write and several more articles for BRM. 

 

As has been axiomatic, I rail against some of the more recent developments in the hobby, though one cannot stop progress. I suppose I live in the past. Happy still to make things using traditional methods and (with mates) build a very 'personal' model railway.  

Edited June 28, 2015 by Tony Wright

[Clive Mortimore]

As usual, many thanks for all the recent comments - most interesting and enlightening.

 

Returning briefly to the subject of model railway photography, I agree entirely that, whatever the equipment and the technology, it's still the guy/girl firing the shutter that is most important. That said, what Andy did with those incredible pictures he took recently on Little Bytham would have been impossible without a powerful modern digital compact camera and a great knowledge of Photoshop. With wet-processing and dark-room enlargement techniques, forget it. Film cameras of the size of Andy's Canon (Instamatics?) would have just produced blurred rubbish. In 'my day' (long gone now), I've mentioned before how I used a medium format camera with movements, lenses which stopped down to F.64 (and smaller) and thousands of Watts of light (the other day, we used the ambient lighting and just my waving around of a photoflood). These combinations always gave me infinite depth of field and razor sharp imagery (far superior to even the best 35mm cameras). But, it was bulky and unwieldy - any eye-level shots could only be achieved by splitting boards. Brian Monaghan used even bigger cameras. The modern-day exponents of the craft of model railway photography have taken it to a level undreamed of just a short time ago. I'm not saying it's easier now to take 'realistic' pictures, just that it's now possible. All the above said, I dislike digital smoke and the over-superimposition of real backgrounds. 

 

60501 & 70003 lighter.jpg

 

As for obtaining decent depth of field without resorting to stacking, I had a go this afternoon. By using a 200mm telephoto lens on the front of the Df, stopping it down to F39 (that's what the camera said) and focusing to about a metre, this is the result. Granted, I cannot get the 4mm eye-level view, the foreground sharp, and the telephoto lens has 'crushed' the perspective but what needs to be in focus is I think. As for the lighting, that was ambient (with some reflected sunlight) and a pulse or two of fill-in bounced flash. The exposure was about fifteen seconds. It's also cropped substantially, but since the file size of the Df is quite big (like cropping a part of a large negative?), then there's not too much loss of clarity. I admit, though, it's not in Andy's league.

 

DP2.jpg

 

Lion.jpg

 

Falcon.jpg

 

Picking up on the running of the unique diesels on LB (however inappropriate), here's three of them. The shots of DP2 and LION were taken in the same manner as the first picture - hence the foreshortening. And, don't be fooled by folk telling you that 'bendy' coaches are caused by some photographic aberration. No they're not - they're bendy, and that's that! 

 

Edinburgh 01.jpg

 

Edinburgh 03.jpg

 

Edinburgh 04.jpg

 

Finally, a request, please. The three prototype pictures above were taken in the summer of 1937, '38 or '39. They're obviously at the east end of Waverley, but can anyone tell me if the structure to the left of the A4 is a new signalbox, and, if so, was that coincidental with the replacement of the NB semaphores with colour lights or Sykes repeaters. I've already asked a couple of Scottish friends, but the more the merrier! 

Hi Tony

 

So far I have managed to find out that then new power box, Waverley East, opened in 1938 (the Signal Box by the Signalling Study Group, OPC). West box opened in 1936, same book and various web sites. They would have opened with the change from semaphores to colour lights at there respective ends of the station. The old mechanical box was known as Waverley Bridge Signal Box. I hope this helpful.

[46256]

Tony thanks for the pictures of the prototype diesels...realise now how these would be inappropriate given if I am now correct. The date of the stations closure . I too model a specific location and the study of the prototype photos...what few exist in my case can throw up all sorts of discrepancies....not just the rolling stock, differing track formations...movement of running boards on platforms. In respect of the track I have a number of photos showing the crossover from the down fast to down slow lines opposite my models signal box controlling the junction...ok until 1969 when the crossover has literally been moved under my stations road bridge...some ten or twenty feet. I knew my location intimately at this time and had no recollection of this work being done..I assume when the manual box closed at this time being taken over by the area one at saltley. As ever thank you for the inspiration your models and articles have given...

[jrg1]

Tony thanks for the pictures of the prototype diesels...realise now how these would be inappropriate given if I am now correct. The date of the stations closure . I too model a specific location and the study of the prototype photos...what few exist in my case can throw up all sorts of discrepancies....not just the rolling stock, differing track formations...movement of running boards on platforms. In respect of the track I have a number of photos showing the crossover from the down fast to down slow lines opposite my models signal box controlling the junction...ok until 1969 when the crossover has literally been moved under my stations road bridge...some ten or twenty feet. I knew my location intimately at this time and had no recollection of this work being done..I assume when the manual box closed at this time being taken over by the area one at saltley. As ever thank you for the inspiration your models and articles have given...

The diesels may be strictly inappropriate with the station open, but I feel that is quite irrelevant.  A certain time and place has been captured and recalled brilliantly-after all, strict authenticity would probably have to see the M&GNR bridge removed, and that would definately spoil the layout.  The earlier photographs of Southern stock were just as good, as all the individual components made a believable whole.  Running a HST through the station would in no way detract from the achievement, as far as I am concerned.

[newbryford]

However much I (mostly) like the clear focus shots that "stacking " allows, I sometimes look at them and think it's too clear.

After all, the human eye can't focus on multiple distances at the same time and sometimes, model pictures that cover a huge depth of field with sharp image can - to my eye - look even more artificial.  These are the photos that have the main subject fairly close to the camera. The model picture can be too sharp and on some occasions, can make the model really look like a model.

 

From a publishing point of view with magazine images and the quality of image printing these days, I can fully understand the desire to have all, or as much as possible, in as clear focus as you can get. Somehow, these manipulated pictures don't always look natural - or is that because I'm simply used to seeing photos in books with limited depth of field?

 

Just an opinion - nothing more, as Andy Y has certainly done some very good work photographing my efforts!

 

Cheers,

Mick

Edited June 29, 2015 by newbryford

[Andy Reichert]

However much I (mostly) like the clear focus shots that "stacking " allows, I sometimes look at them and think it's too clear.

After all, the human eye can't focus on multiple distances at the same time and sometimes, model pictures that cover a huge depth of field with sharp image can - to my eye - look even more artificial.  These are the photos that have the main subject fairly close to the camera. The model picture can be too sharp and on some occasions, can make the model really look like a model.

 

From a publishing point of view with magazine images and the quality of image printing these days, I can fully understand the desire to have all, or as much as possible, in as clear focus as you can get. Somehow, these manipulated pictures don't always look natural - or is that because I'm simply used to seeing photos in books with limited depth of field?

 

Just an opinion - nothing more, as Andy Y has certainly done some very good work photographing my efforts!

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

I'm no psychologist, but respectfully, I feel differently about the focus issue. The prototype looks sharp all over when we are far enough back to see all of it.  So generally it also does in prototype photos, extreme foreground obstacles excepted.

 

I'm well past the 42 year eye lens hardening stage, but even so, when I look around my room,  my brain tends to hide off to the side, out of focus, items, or quickly re-focus on them when I turn my head back to them. So I would suggest as humans, we expect objects we look at and think to be large, to be in focus front to back. It's when they aren't that discomfort and disbelief kicks in.

 

Andy

[Porcy Mane]

 'you can't teach an old dog new tricks'

 

Dunno about that. Ricks going down the DCC sound route and there's not many older dogs than him.

 

 I suppose I live in the past.

Nothing wrong with that. Friends family and colleagues have been telling me that since I was about eight. 

 

Happy still to make things using traditional methods and (with mates) build a very 'personal' model railway.  

I've always thought that for most railway modellers their creation of a "Layout" be it of a real or imaginary location is a deeply personal thing. Whether it be based decades or just hours in the past. Has anybody (apart from film makers, architectural modellers and the like) created a model railway based in the future?

 

I think we try to create a vision in our minds eye something that evokes memories of sounds ,smells, vibrations etc. whether it be from a loco spinning round on an oval of track on the dining room floor or, at the other end of the scale, somewhere like Pendon were we allow our minds filter out the unrealistic (Room walls, furniture Ceilings and the like) and add in the unachievable (Inertia, mass, sound even a shunter coupling up wagons)

 

New technologies may go some way to contributing to the illusion of reality and making the creation of our models easier but that will never take anything away from the traditional skills and ingenuity that have gone into creating the likes of Little Bytham and the thousands of other model railways that have preceded it. Out of all the craft hobbies I think it's probably model railways that make use of the greatest amount of engineering, craft and research disciplines and yet if anybody wants to build a reasonable 4mm scale model railway they can turn to todays high quality rtr offerings and turn out a reasonable effort by using just the basics of traditional skills.

After all todays High Tech is tomorrows Old Hat and it's an old hat that is most comfortable.

 

Sometimes I'm glad of the demise of "traditional" skills, for example I didn't need to go and chip a bit of flint into an arrow head to enable me to go out and catch my tea this evening but in the same breath the loss of some traditional skills concerns me. I recently had to show a seventeen year old how to use a file despite him taking technology classes at school. Seems like metalwork/woodwork is no longer taught in schools and if it was probably no kids would be interested!

 

As you say, and regardless of how it is achieved, railway modelling can allow a group of mates to get together, build something and then just have fun playing trains.

Long may it continue...

P (With apologies for the ramble).

Edited June 29, 2015 by Porcy Mane

[coachmann]

Our eyes are no different to a lens and only one focus point is truly sharp. But because we scan... ie: we look around at different things, the eye is constantly refocusing and our brain tells us everything we see is sharp. Ordinarily a photograph should be as sharp as possible (ignoring deliberate art-farty). Our forefathers worked darned hard at achieving this with camera 'movements' (swing front and/or swing back) and it wasn't easy for them with large format cameras and slow film emulsions. 

 

I have before me a sentence written in 1946 by railway photographer O. J.Morris in which he says, 

 

The cameras I normally use are Eastman Speed Graphics, which have a plain no-nonsense focal plane shutter, plus a rack front with double extension.......Naturally, with long foci and large lens apertures, to say nothing of track which is invariably at a sharp angle with the camera, I must have a swing back or front (it makes no real difference which) to get the colossal range of perspective into sharp focus".

 

Referring to a picture in his album he went on to say, "Readers troubled with questions of sharp focus will be left to imagine the degree of swing necessary to bring engine 1631 into sharp focus at f6 on a 8½ in. Ross Xpres lens, while preserving the details of Dorking town, 2 miles off in the distance".

 

Technology has moved on and 75 years later we have small chip cameras and lenses capable of closing down to very small apertures, plus the option of selecting a workable ASA that could only be dreamed of in the days of film. 'Stacking' is merely another tool in the armoury, an option we may wish to use on occasions in the absence of a swing front or expensive lens with movements.

Edited June 29, 2015 by coachmann

[AdamOrmorod]

...

Edinburgh 01.jpg

 

Edinburgh 03.jpg

 

Edinburgh 04.jpg

 

Finally, a request, please. The three prototype pictures above were taken in the summer of 1937, '38 or '39. They're obviously at the east end of Waverley, but can anyone tell me if the structure to the left of the A4 is a new signalbox, and, if so, was that coincidental with the replacement of the NB semaphores with colour lights or Sykes repeaters. I've already asked a couple of Scottish friends, but the more the merrier! 

I'm fairly certain the year would be 1938, as 4492 wouldn't have had the tender fairing cut back in 1937, and would have likely received the additional access hatch under the nameplate by summer 1939 as I believe they all had them by winter 1938/early 1939.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Ade the Pianist 4468

[JeremyC]

<SNIP>

 

Edinburgh 01.jpg

 

Edinburgh 03.jpg

 

Edinburgh 04.jpg

 

Finally, a request, please. The three prototype pictures above were taken in the summer of 1937, '38 or '39. They're obviously at the east end of Waverley, but can anyone tell me if the structure to the left of the A4 is a new signalbox, and, if so, was that coincidental with the replacement of the NB semaphores with colour lights or Sykes repeaters. I've already asked a couple of Scottish friends, but the more the merrier! 

 

A photo of Waverley East taken at a slightly later date [May 1974]!

 

Jeremy

Edited June 29, 2015 by JeremyC

[grob1234]

Tony, something completely unrelated to the current discussion, but I thought you might be interested in this:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/100704-oo-lner-coronation-brass-kit-build-sydnope-scale-models/&do=findComment&comment=1939868

 

It my build log of the OO Coronation kit I showed you, as I am now settled back in HK, I can crack on with building it. I thought it worth posting on here as I know a lot of the contributors to this thread are avid kit builders too.

 

Thanks,

Tom

[Tony Wright]

 

Can Grantham have too many V2s? 

 

Yet another Jamieson resurrection (temporarily attached to a Hornby tender). It still makes up into a good enough V2 in my view. 

[LNER4479]

Can Grantham have too many V2s? 

That's actually a genuinely interesting question! Until July 1937 we could only have five (and one of them was allocated to Dundee!)

 

Thereafter, granted, they did start to appear in numbers, but even by 3rd July 1938 (say, to pick a purely nominal date from history - not!) we only have 32 of the eventual 184 to choose from!

 

However, none of this should detract from a lovely surprise today when I first saw this photo! Looking forward to seeing her develop and her first runs on the layout.

[davidw]

Latest V2 with still lots to do,

 

 

 

 

 

It a Bachmann split chassis V2, Hornby A3/A4 cartazzi, G K body, Some Brasmasters A3 detailing applied lamp irons, Front frame handrail wires glazing weathering still on the too list - not in the same league as the Jamison heavy weight though

Edited June 30, 2015 by davidw

[gr.king]

The paint shop foreman here has been frustrated over the last couple of days because certain members of his staff have been going off cycling in in the Lincolnshire Wolds in the fine weather instead of turning up on time for work. He has done his best to motivate them and to re-organize the work, but has reluctantly had to advise the works manager that the paint jobs on C1 Atlantic No 4426 and A4 Pacific No 4493 will not be complete before the paint shop shuts down for a few days ready for the staff trip up North. The foreman has however wisely ensured that such paintwork as is finished on the two locomotives will enable their temporary release into traffic in order to ensure an adequate supply of motive power in the Grantham area over the coming weekend and no disgrace for the company on account of "obviously" shoddy-looking engines.

 

The head painter was even daft enough to get out a OOO sable brush and paint in that parabolic lining curve freehand. There may be some discussion amongst the management this weekend on the question of those green edges to the roof on the Pacific.

Edited June 30, 2015 by gr.king

[AdamOrmorod]

Could it be the tender that's supposed to be green on the top like 1935 streamlined types usually are? And is Hornby's usual style of cab roof for garter blue A4s even right? I know it's how Mallard's roof is now, but I've yet to see a period picture where the arrangement is apparent.