Wright writes.....

[Headstock]

It may not be necessary for the Golden Era to have existed. I think the mass audience would still be likely to be drawn most effectively by an idyllic portrayal, even if that is a false image.

 

I can't disagree with what you are saying, it's more the notion of 'recreating' such an idyll. It dose make me ponder whether model railways are really any different in this respect.

[APOLLO]

I remember Shipley MRS's layout "Leicester South GC" layout has a very atmospheric backscene, anyone any photos ?

 

Brit15

[micklner]

Backgrounds ?  not really as the vast majority are mainly photoshopped in the photos ( I have typed this before). Personally I ignore the background and look at the models !!

[Lecorbusier]

For what its worth (given I am still at the start of my first 'real' layout) I think some sort of back scene is essential for my own enjoyment of a layout. It can be a simple sky or such like, but I find extraneous clutter within the eye line when concentrating on a layout a terrible distraction.

 

Currently I am fascinated by the back scene being developed as part of 'The Burford Branch' ... Martin Goddall's Layout. https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1846

 

Whilst being quite detailed and complex, I think the recessive tones and the eschewing of any perspective works rather well.

[LNER4479]

 

Totnes 08 DPS.jpg

 

Totnes in N

 

 

Any comments, please. 

This one is the pick for me. The colours seem particularly well blended in comparison to the scenery immediately in front of the backscene, giving a very natural and convincing appearance.

[Clearwater]

Thanks for the last-mentioned, David.

 

However, I've still got to finish it. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

Apologies Tony! There’s my lack of artistic eye not recognising that. My memory may also be playing me false but I was thinking of the view of the town and the church spire past the overbridge. I thought that was a back scene. If not, even more apologies and I shall have to pay closer attention at Ally Pally in March.

 

David

[Tony Wright]

Backgrounds ?  not really as the vast majority are mainly photoshopped in the photos ( I have typed this before). Personally I ignore the background and look at the models !!

I know you've mentioned this before, Mick, but I have not altered anything on the actual models, other than take out what isn't part of the layout. That, and merely extending any sky in the background. 

 

I'm puzzled sometimes as to what viewers expect. Having both taught photography to A level and been a professional photographer, surely we want to show any subject in its best possible light. Granted, I don't believe in altering the principal subject matter, but by just removing what's in the background (and not part of the model) it enables the viewer to really look at the models (at least in my view). 

 

It's no different than in those days of yore using film (on massive negatives) where background material was taken out by applying an opaque substance (with great care, there being no 'undo' button) to the negative which, when printed, gave a white background. Countless official pictures of new locos/rolling stock were produced in this manner. 

 

Have you tried taking out backgrounds yourself? It really does improve an image in my opinion, making it look more realistic, even though nothing has been materially-altered on the layout. 

 

One thing I would mention is that the process takes ages. I for one don't mind that, particularly after developing an image one day of a section of a large O Gauge layout in which I'd got the lighting right, the composition right and the depth of field infinite, only to see on printing the image (even though I'd arranged a sky fabric background) a packet of digestive biscuits sitting on top of a bridge! I tell you no lie; though looking at the models in my picture was what I wanted to do, all I saw was that blasted packet of biscuits - just plonked there by some guy who was more interested in getting bigger than in my getting decent shots.

 

Would you also like to see operators' fat bellies behind the layouts as well? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[petrovich]

I know you've mentioned this before, Mick, but I have not altered anything on the actual models, other than take out what isn't part of the layout. That, and merely extending any sky in the background. 

 

I'm puzzled sometimes as to what viewers expect. Having both taught photography to A level and been a professional photographer, surely we want to show any subject in its best possible light. Granted, I don't believe in altering the principal subject matter, but by just removing what's in the background (and not part of the model) it enables the viewer to really look at the models (at least in my view). 

 

It's no different than in those days of yore using film (on massive negatives) where background material was taken out by applying an opaque substance (with great care, there being no 'undo' button) to the negative which, when printed, gave a white background. Countless official pictures of new locos/rolling stock were produced in this manner. 

 

Have you tried taking out backgrounds yourself? It really does improve an image in my opinion, making it look more realistic, even though nothing has been materially-altered on the layout. 

 

One thing I would mention is that the process takes ages. I for one don't mind that, particularly after developing an image one day of a section of a large O Gauge layout in which I'd got the lighting right, the composition right and the depth of field infinite, only to see on printing the image (even though I'd arranged a sky fabric background) a packet of digestive biscuits sitting on top of a bridge! I tell you no lie; though looking at the models in my picture was what I wanted to do, all I saw was that blasted packet of biscuits - just plonked there by some guy who was more interested in getting bigger than in my getting decent shots.

 

Would you also like to see operators' fat bellies behind the layouts as well? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hi Tony .  No point in me approaching you for a book signing at Southampton with a packet of digestives then, and with a fat belly 

 

Regards

 

Peter

[petrovich]

Many thanks for all the comments on the backscenes. My view is that when viewing the very best, one is aware of them, but they are, like a background behind a stage production only there to 'set the scene'. When the eye is drawn far too much to them, often because of lurid colours (viridian tint!), then any effect of realism is rather lost. 

 

I've included a few shots of layouts featuring a backscene. In every case I've done no more than show the height exactly as it is, place a real sky behind them or clone the sky colour which was painted on to them. I have not altered the perspective, both natural and aerial. Some are painted, some are produced photographically and some are little more than plain colour. Some have (extremely) low-relief structures glued straight on to them. 

 

In my opinion, some work beautifully, some less so. Naturally, I'm not expressing an individual opinion on each one, though I'll make the odd comment for clarification. I think with the best, the eye is not sure exactly where the 3D work ends and the backscene begins. 

 

Annan Road 33.jpg

 

Annan Road in OO

 

Hinton Parva 13B.jpg

 

Hinton Parva in OO

 

Hospital Gates 15.jpg

 

Hospital Gates in O

 

Kendale 03.jpg

 

Kendale in O

 

Kingstorre 18.jpg

 

Kingstorre in EM

 

Langwith Road 19.jpg

 

Langwith Road in OO

 

Loch Tat 19 DPS A.jpg

 

Loch Tat in N

 

Melton North 14.jpg

 

Melton North in N 

 

Pendon Vale 07.jpg

 

Pendon in EM

Hi all. As an aside is Loch Tat the layout as good as it looks in the magazine articles I have read, it was one of the layouts that sparked my interest in N Gauge.

 

Regards 

 

Peter

[micklner]

Tony

      I am sorry they look what they are ,manipulated. They don't look "real" so why do some people pretend that they are? If the layout has a high enough background there is no need for a plain blue sky or whatever other version of sky to be added to the original photo.

 

      If someone wanted to show biscuits or big bellies , if they think it doesn't matter to them, why not ? I personally wouldn't but some people wouldn't be bothered, they might even be proud of their big belly !!

 

       Airbrushing of photos on the other hand is artificial and not needed. There is nothing wrong with the "normal" photos of your layout , that is what it looks like so why hide whats actually there ?

 

     Everybody know its a model !!   IMHO.

[The Stationmaster]

I don't know about the backscene but on that picture of Kingstorre my eyes were immediately drawn to the missing trap point on that siding in the foreground    (no, not the siding with the wagons of coal)

[richard i]

How's this for drawing in the back scene with forced perspective.

Didn't Bucks hill do it too?

Richard

[Tony Wright]

I don't know about the backscene but on that picture of Kingstorre my eyes were immediately drawn to the missing trap point on that siding in the foreground    (no, not the siding with the wagons of coal)

Well spotted!

 

I hadn't noticed, though I'm not going to Photoshop one in!

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony .  No point in me approaching you for a book signing at Southampton with a packet of digestives then, and with a fat belly 

 

Regards

 

Peter

Peter, there is no point, but many thanks; I'll sign your book, anyway. 

 

I mentioned a month ago that I've had my annual MOT test. Though having passed, I was told that, though I wasn't overweight - I'm six foot tall and was a twitch over 13 stone - it was in the wrong place. Guess where? My belly!

 

I thus resolved to do something about it. Having for years and years been ten stone of rippling bone, the extra baggage had to go, especially since I no longer play the summer sport of cricket. Thus, I've given up chocolate (though I slipped, just, over Christmas), biscuits, cakes, butter and cut down my sugar intake. Not only that, a couple of brisk walks over the holiday and, Heh Presto, I'm now a happy twelve and a half stone! My aim is to shed a further half stone, and then see from there. 

 

As for Loch Tat, it's as good (if not better) than it looks in the pictures. N Gauge how it should be in my view. Not everything crammed in, and a real feeling of open spaces. 

[Northmoor]

The backscene is not actually fixed to the layout boards, but to the walls, with a gap between for access/operating. I've painted it using artists' acrylics applied with a range of sables. Comment has been made that the backscene is too bright. However, at rail level the real horizon is only a quarter of a mile away, Little Bytham Station being in a very shallow valley of the River Glen. I walked along the west side of the railway, took pictures, made colour sketches and wrote notes one hot summer's day two years ago. Apart from the addition of a few more farm buildings, the scene is virtually as it was 60 years ago. One thing I omitted was the run of pylons.

 

What works so well Tony (Happy New Year BTW) is that your colours are subtle enough not to draw your eye off the layout - as it should be, because colour fades with distance - and that the perspective works from any angle, vertical or lateral.  Putting buildings in the scene too close to the layout (not distant enough) makes their perspective only work from a narrow angle.  You often see this on exhibition layouts of urban areas; the buildings on the backscene are as seen from below (ground level), but you view the layout from above, so they look ridiculous.

 

I would like to publicly praise the N-gauge "Wickwar" which I saw recently; photographs of the real scene were used but toned down nicely and the scenery is coloured to blend in with the printed images.

[petrovich]

Peter, there is no point, but many thanks; I'll sign your book, anyway. 

 

I mentioned a month ago that I've had my annual MOT test. Though having passed, I was told that, though I wasn't overweight - I'm six foot tall and was a twitch over 13 stone - it was in the wrong place. Guess where? My belly!

 

I thus resolved to do something about it. Having for years and years been ten stone of rippling bone, the extra baggage had to go, especially since I no longer play the summer sport of cricket. Thus, I've given up chocolate (though I slipped, just, over Christmas), biscuits, cakes, butter and cut down my sugar intake. Not only that, a couple of brisk walks over the holiday and, Heh Presto, I'm now a happy twelve and a half stone! My aim is to shed a further half stone, and then see from there. 

 

As for Loch Tat, it's as good (if not better) than it looks in the pictures. N Gauge how it should be in my view. Not everything crammed in, and a real feeling of open spaces. 

Oh dear I am a tad over 5 foot 8 inches weigh 15 stone and my doctor goes into raptures because I am still alive   I played a certain sport professionally to the highest level and still weighed 13 stone.

 

Still I do have something, it is called fibromyalgia, so I have some excuse.

 

Regards

 

Peter

[glo41f]

Thank you for the pictures of the P2's. Very impressive machines and beautifully crafted form the base model. I think I prefer the variant with the A4 nose but both are object lessons on how to get the best out of standard commercial offerings. Lovely work and beautifully finished. How fortunate we are that we will hopefully see one running again in the future.

 

Good to see 2017 end on another variation namely caravans, motor homes and driving. We do get through some topics here do we not?

 

I spent the festive period reflecting on my modelling and the future thereof. At the moment I am in the doldrums though still fiddling about with the odd locomotive. (in fact I have 7 at various stages of undress!). My layout is now too large for me to manage so it has to go for something that I can handle more easily. The width I have is a tad over 8 feet which rather precludes gracious curves in 7mm, so the temptation is very strong to do a final 4mm opus which will work in the space available. I will be looking hard at the forthcoming shows at Stevenage and Bristol to see what could be done. 

 

Whatever happens personally, I draw great pleasure from this thread and the comments contained therein. On being invited to put down pet hates on model layouts by out leader I came up with a list and then thought better of it. Yes it is true that some layouts are sort of pastiches of the real railways they seek to portray but then they reflect one person's take on the situation and really who am I to criticise this? I personally prefer fully signalled, "proper" operation with appropriate headlamps etc. but then I am a sad old fusspot and when you go to model shows as like as not, the biggest attractions are the "Thomas" or Lego railways or the vintage tinplate stuff which always has a large crowd watching it.

 

I try to look for something of merit within all models and reflect on whether I can do better to which the answer is probably not!

 

Martin Long

[CF MRC]

Here you go Martin, to appeal to your Thomas the Tank engine leanings, Micky the Mikado for a certain 2 mm layout.

 

 

Don’t worry Tony, it was only carved in Blu-Tak.

 

 

Maybe point your lens at it in a couple of weeks?

 

Tim

 

P.S. I rather like backscenes.

Edited January 1, 2018 by CF MRC

[Re6/6]

This was quite the best 'forced perspective' diorama that l've ever seen. Check out the skilled work here:  http://www.peterdillen.nl/ijsselstein.html

 

I saw another of Peter's 'picture frame' working dioramas which used three scales and rhombus shaped rolling stock to create the illusion!

[Tony Wright]

Here you go Martin, to appeal to your Thomas the Tank engine leanings, Micky the Mikado for a certain 2 mm layout.

 

 

Don’t worry Tony, it was only carved in Blu-Tak.

 

 

Maybe point your lens at it in a couple of weeks?

 

Tim

 

P.S. I rather like backscenes.

Tim,

 

Will you have the P2 at Stevenage? 

[CF MRC]

Hope to get there on the Sunday, Tony. The P2 will obviously be in my pocket. Nearly finished now, ticking off the detailing list. Still got to make the castings for the Cartazzi and tender axle boxes.

 

Tim

Edited January 1, 2018 by CF MRC

[thegreenhowards]

Tony,

 

Of the layouts you showed, Totnes and Annan Road were the pick for me. A real sense of depth and you couldn’t see the join.

 

Andy

[Woodcock29]

Interesting question you've posed Tony as I've had an ongoing debate with myself as to whether or not I should be trying to incorporate backscenes into my layout. Currently I have plain bluish grey backboards - which are mainly the gyp-rock walls of my shed. I'll be interested in your comments when you visit in September.

 

Annan Rd, Kingstorre and Totnes for me.

 

Andrew

[St Enodoc]

Interesting question you've posed Tony as I've had an ongoing debate with myself as to whether or not I should be trying to incorporate backscenes into my layout. Currently I have plain bluish grey backboards - which are mainly the gyp-rock walls of my shed. I'll be interested in your comments when you visit in September.

 

Annan Rd, Kingstorre and Totnes for me.

 

Andrew

They'd look better with more scenery in front of them Andrew (sorry folks, BRMA in-joke).

[Tony Wright]

Interesting question you've posed Tony as I've had an ongoing debate with myself as to whether or not I should be trying to incorporate backscenes into my layout. Currently I have plain bluish grey backboards - which are mainly the gyp-rock walls of my shed. I'll be interested in your comments when you visit in September.

 

Annan Rd, Kingstorre and Totnes for me.

 

Andrew

Thanks Andrew,

 

Looking again through my images of layouts incorporating backscenes, I was astonished I'd left Copenhagen Fields out of my selection. The (not-really-forced) perspective and dramatic sky really work on this incredible creation. In my opinion, it's currently the finest model railway on the circuit, and without doubt one of the best ever.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm in an incredibly privileged position in being invited to plonk my camera down anywhere I like and capture this true classic (as well as I can). Thanks Tim.