Wright writes.....

[bluebottle]

I'm getting a bit dispirited at all this angst about DOF, POV, ISO/ASA, aerial perspective, stacking, photoshopping and so on. Next time I take some snaps at a show, I think I'll go for the mid-1950s Model Railway News look. They were simpler times, but I think we were happier then!

 

[jwealleans]

Blimey.... I was doing some ballasting on that layout last evening.

Edited January 6, 2015 by jwealleans

[bluebottle]

Blimey.... I was doing some ballasting on that layout last evening.

 

It's still going strong, then? - I snapped it back in 2007. The B&W version above was treated to make it look something like the illustrations I remember in old MRN mags.

 

[jwealleans]

Still going strong, still being enhanced and available for viewing at the Pennine Model Railway show in Huddersfield the weekend after next.

 

(The layout is Peter Simmerson's Uppingham for those who dont' know it).

Edited January 6, 2015 by jwealleans

[LNER4479]

Blimey.... I was doing some ballasting on that layout last evening.

Indeed 'e was - I bear witness to this activity.

 

Clearly, the (still mock-up) signal box isn't sharp but the loco (the point of real interest) is, as is the receding distance. I think the eye accepts that the 'box need not be sharp and is 'invited' into the picture, or is that bullsh*t? I seem to recall statements like that from my art school days when assessing pictures. 

IMHO - I don't think that's bullsh*t; I think that's exactly the point. One of the difficulties of looking at any picture is that it ends abruptly at its four edges which jars on the eye compared with the human eyeball viewing experience. If you look straight ahead and think about what you can see at the limits of your peripheral vision, it sort of fades out rather than has a definite edge to it. By having items at the limit of a picture in slightly soft focus with the main item of interest pin sharp (within the 'golden section' - yes, I've read books as well!) then does this not at least go someway to replicating one's natural view of things?

 

Natural looking lighting makes a huge difference as well. That GW pic in the current header bar is a great example.

Edited January 6, 2015 by LNER4479

[micklner]

Thanks Andy for the post above.

 

DSC_0449.JPG

 

This is a single exposure showing Peco large-radius points. 35mm Nikon lens, set to f29 on the front of a D3.

 

DSC_1742.JPG

 

I've been thinking some more about the problems of getting sufficient depth of field for a model picture. Here, I've mounted the 35mm lens on the Df, stopped the iris down to F29 and set the focus to about 3'. The lens was about a foot from the front of the loco. Clearly, the (still mock-up) signal box isn't sharp but the loco (the point of real interest) is, as is the receding distance. I think the eye accepts that the 'box need not be sharp and is 'invited' into the picture, or is that bullsh*t? I seem to recall statements like that from my art school days when assessing pictures. 

 

DSC_1747.JPG

 

By moving the train a bit further forward and taking the camera to a position about 2' from the loco, then setting the focus to 4', just about everything in this view is in focus (apart from the immediate foreground - which the eye looks over?). The whole train (41 wagons) is sharp enough, even at this very tight angle. But the whole view is equally important (to me), not just the train itself. Obviously, I've superimposed a neutral background in both images.

 

DSC_1749.JPG

 

Finally, MickLNER is making a splendid job of the Southern Pride PV Thompson stock for the post-war 'Flying Scotsman'. This is one of the prototypes for the Southern Pride range. I formed the sides, altered the roof profile of the Bachmann donor, made new rainstrips and destination board brackets, painted, lined and finished it. As a 'layout' coach in a 'layout' train, I think it works reasonably well. The bogies are wrong, though. I believe they should be 8' 0" heavy-duty ones, not standard Bachmanns. 

Tony (or anyone else)

 

I have never read they were 8ft Heavy duty version before on the BG?

MJT are doing the " 8ft Suburban version" which I presume are "normal" 8 ft Gresley Bogies soon. Does anyone make a Heavyweight version? 

 

As to the SP sides they are incredibly cheap come pre formed as well, a real bargain !!. All I have done to mine is the Roof mods as yourself and also removed the Battery Boxes from one side . I had intended to replace the Vac Gear as well but as the floors are moulded flat that was best left alone !!.

 

Mine will also get some new Corridor connectors and the latest Bachmann Gresley Bogies when they become available again.

[coachmann]

One cannot go off the human eye. We merely assume everything is sharp when the only thing that is sharply in focus is the thing we are looking at. Still, mustn't get too deep. When I used film I used to think twice before pressing the shutter, although this was partly due to only have 15 shots on a 120 film. Digital allows us to experiment and delete and in theory camera-users should learn quickly. I say in theory because my grandchildren shoot brilliantly expressive and well exposed 'selfies' on their Mobiles but know not how, nor I suspect do they care. 

Edited January 6, 2015 by coachmann

[JeremyC]

Digital allows us to experiment and delete and in theory camera-users should learn quickly. I say in theory because my grandchildren shoot brilliantly expressive and well exposed 'selfies' on their Mobiles but know not how, nor I suspect do they care.

 

And that's an example of a trend that's been going on for as long as there have been modern tools; that of building the skill into the tool rather than 'skilling' the operator.

 

Jeremy

Edited January 6, 2015 by JeremyC

[Andy Reichert]

Just for background info. My old Minolta Dimage 7 won't stop down below 9.5, so I have more of a depth of field issue than probably many of you. Plus on my earliest model the macro focus for really close up, only works on full telephoto.

 

IIRC, the turnout I stack photographed is a #10, so just over 17" long from one end of the photo to the other.

[Clive Mortimore]

One cannot go off the human eye. We merely assume everything is sharp when the only thing that is sharply in focus is the thing we are looking at. Still, mustn't get too deep. When I used film I used to think twice before pressing the shutter, although this was partly due to only have 15 shots on a 120 film. Digital allows us to experiment and delete and in theory camera-users should learn quickly. I say in theory because my grandchildren shoot brilliantly expressive and well exposed 'selfies' on their Mobiles but know not how, nor I suspect do they care. 

Hi Larry

 

Over the past few years nothing is sharp when I look at it. 

 

Seriously I need glasses for long distance, glasses for reading and glasses for looking at the computer screen. The last two are in a varifocal lens. I cannot see the telly properly with any of my glasses, they have the wrong focal length. My right eye has a jam jar bottom lens as it worse than the left. I am lucky because I can go and get new glasses when I feel things are not right. There a lot of people who cannot afford new glasses so struggle and people who have very little eyesight or none at all. In fact aren't we all lucky that we can discuss photos of models. 

[raymw]

If you want a photo of a model, to look like a photo of the real thing, then you need a model camera and a model eyeball to see the result. Instead of using a relatively large format dslr, if you are only posting web sized images, then you may be better off using the camera in a mobile phone. The lens is at one edge, so can be positioned near enough at baseboard level, the camera is smaller, so you can get it into smaller spaces, and importantly the sensor is smaller, so you get a greater depth of focus. Alternatively, if using a dslr, get further back and use a telephoto, but that will tend to foreshorten the image compared to the nominal 50mm lenses used in many of the older cameras when the image you are trying to replicate was taken.

 

You can play around as much as you like, but you can't scale nature, and my personal view is that a photo of a model should look like a photo of a model, just crop off the giants in the background, and apply blurring or vignetting to get rid of the edge distractions. Alternatively do an oil painting of it. 

 

Best wishes,

 

Ray

Edited January 6, 2015 by raymw

[coachmann]

........if you are only posting web sized images, then you may be better off using the camera in a mobile phone. The lens is at one edge, so can be positioned near enough at baseboard level, the camera is smaller, so you can get it into smaller spaces, and importantly the sensor is smaller, so you get a greater depth of focus. 

Have you tried it? Do mobile phone cameras give you access to manual override of exposure and aperture?

[raymw]

 

Have you tried it? Do mobile phone cameras give you access to manual override of exposure and aperture?

My mobile phone is cheapest of the cheap. However, if you need confirmation of the quality of images, then maybe have a look here, http://www.getdpi.com/forum/small-sensor-cameras/  or elsewhere. There are a few close up images, dew drops, insects and the like. I'm not sure why you would need to override exposure and aperture for stuff for the web, if the lighting is good enough and the smaller sensor will give you a large depth of focus. Most phones, small cameras produce jpegs, so post processing, if any, (exposure correction, selective sharpening, etc.) will be more restricted than for raw images, but the one thing you can't do with an slr, is get it into a  small space. Why don't you grab one of your grandchildren's phones, and have a go?

 

If you want to use an slr, then Jim Mccordall has some honest tutorials on lighting and other useful items including focus stacking http://www.mccordall.com/photo/article/focus-stacking-very-simple/  - the main part of a digital camera photo is perhaps in your pc - that is where the image development takes place -  if you want to produce artful images (but, for some reason, many folk think that is 'cheating') .

 

Best wishes,

 

Ray

[bluebottle]

 

You can play around as much as you like, but you can't scale nature, and my personal view is that a photo of a model should look like a photo of a model, just crop off the giants in the background, and apply blurring or vignetting to get rid of the edge distractions. Alternatively do an oil painting of it. 

 

I don't think that some alternatives would please the rivet counters, though ...

 

Gino Severini, Suburban Train Arriving in Paris, 1915. Public domain image from Wikiart.org

[Andy Y]

Natural looking lighting makes a huge difference as well. That GW pic in the current header bar is a great example.

 

When I was setting up to photograph Nick Wood's excellent 'Much Murkle' I noticed he'd got a 2 x 500W inspection lamp in the garage so I thought it worth a try. Nick set it up as far back as possible and although each of the exposures were still fairly long it meant we'd got a bright light source some way distant from the layout (certainly over 3.0m) with a colour cast and angle which mimicked evening sunlight. It therefore gave sharper and stronger shadows which were nearer parallel and although the colour cast was challenging at the processing stage I think it was worth the effort.

 

 

Much Murkle is featured in this month's BRM.

[PGC]

Have you tried it? Do mobile phone cameras give you access to manual override of exposure and aperture?

 

This link shows you a photo I took on my mobile phone - I can't upload it to RMWeb as it's almost 3Mb and RMWeb has a 1Mb file limit, hence the link, but you can see how good the resolution is.

 

Phil

[PGC]

When I was setting up to photograph Nick Wood's excellent 'Much Murkle' I noticed he'd got a 2 x 500W inspection lamp in the garage so I thought it worth a try. Nick set it up as far back as possible and although each of the exposures were still fairly long it meant we'd got a bright light source some way distant from the layout (certainly over 3.0m) with a colour cast and angle which mimicked evening sunlight. It therefore gave sharper and stronger shadows which were nearer parallel and although the colour cast was challenging at the processing stage I think it was worth the effort.

 

Feature5s.jpg

 

Much Murkle is featured in this month's BRM.

 

I think that is a fantastic photo. Could you give a few details of just how you achieved this, Andy, such as positioning of lights in relation to camera etc.

 

The only things I don't like are the gap under the bridge and the road on the bridge going nowhere to the left of the picture, but if it's not there in the model, how can you take a photo of it? Come on Andy, if anyone can find a way it's you! 

 

Phil

[Donington Road]

This link shows you a photo I took on my mobile phone - I can't upload it to RMWeb as it's almost 3Mb and RMWeb has a 1Mb file limit, hence the link, but you can see how good the resolution is.

 

Phil

 

There you go Phil, it's now only 240kb file size, can you tell any difference from the original?

 

[coachmann]

When it comes to depth of field and the use of mobile phones, the responses tell me some folk are out of their depth. I had photos published in mags every month and later every fortnight (Rail) for over 30 years and the challenge was always to get the shot no matter what the light and conditions, as there were no second chances. An example :- Editor phones to say an HST is travelling through the night ready to take up the next mornings very first HST service from Holyhead, and he wants a shot that night on its way to Holyhead!  It is pitch dark and pouring with rain, but I know it will stop at Colwyn Bay station for a few minutes. I secured the picture by painting with light, which captured the train, the moving off exhaust and the pouring rain yet the whole was pin sharp. The Editor got his picture.

 

That was on medium format film....Today I know it would be a doddle on a high spec DSLR.  I use the same application of thought and knowledge of the basics when shooting on the layout, the only difference being I have all the time in the world. I asked if someone had tried using a mobile phone camera before advising me to try it, simply because I doubt such cameras would cut it. I will enlist the help of my eldest son to see if he can replicate over a distance of say 14 feet on his phone what we are doing with compact and DSLR cameras.

Edited January 7, 2015 by coachmann

[raymw]

It's odd, what we think is 'acceptable'. It's OK to remove the background by photo-shopping in a sky, (even if the edge detection is not up to snuff) but not to photo-shop/change anything on the model (e.g. couplings). We want to see the model, 'as is', but in a somewhat false environment, in the pretence of making it appear to be something other than what it is.  In a  photo of a full size railway, we tend to relish the background clutter, but that is generally 'to scale'. However, when it came to my school photos, my mum would complain if my tie was not straight!.

 

If we were taking photos of a 'product', we would straighten things, polish it, present in the best possible manner, but here (or rather in images I've seen in mags.), it's OK to have lamp-posts not straight,  3 link couplings not hanging right, even wheels off the tracks. I'm fully aware of time constraints, etc. My point is not on technique, but how the viewer accepts what is seen, and I'm not saying one is right or wrong,

 

I suppose it is a question of creating an illusion, but often reality is better, (whatever better may mean).

 

Best wishes,

 

Ray

[gr.king]

Or just 125kB..

 

[Andy Y]

I think that is a fantastic photo. Could you give a few details of just how you achieved this, Andy, such as positioning of lights in relation to camera etc.

 

 

 

From memory Phil the lights were on a pole about 6' in height shining across to the layout from about 10' away off to the right of the image shown above.

[Oldddudders]

A recent edition of the leading French photography magazine Chasseur d'Images included a full test of the camera in the iPhone 6 & 6Plus. They were very impressed, awarding it 5 stars, while the new Pentax K-S1 DSLR, for example, only got 4. A photo of a TGV at 200 kph, passing through a platform and thus no more than 10 metres from the photographer, is reproduced as a 19 x 14.5 cm image. They include a blown-up portion at 100% showing the pantograph in contact with the OLE. Admittedly the sky is blue so there was plenty of light, but everything is as sharp as you could want.

 

While this in no way represents the capability in model photography, the camera manufacturers should be worried by this.

[raymw]

Hi Coachman, as you realise, getting photos of a model, is not the same as something bigger. Getting an image suitable for printing is not the same for on the web. using a smaller camera has advantages.

 

If you look at the link I gave you to the getdpi forum, I think you would be hard pushed to tell the difference in web images from the phone camera compared to others, provided lighting, etc. are suitable (but even the night shots are pdg, imnsho. )

 

Many of the 'old school' photographers could not get to grips with the digital world, but many of those that did would not go back (other than for the odd nostalgic trip (same with polaroid). You will need to persevere with the phone, and maybe be prepared to do more post processing, but you will be able to get viewpoints that otherwise could be impossible with a dslr.

 

The snag with small sensors is the lack of selective focussing, hence the popularity of the relatively cheap (compared to broadcast quality video cams) canon 35mm equiv. dslr's for tv and other film work (apart from video smearing in horizontal pans). So, in many small sensor cams they build in tricks to give a narrower depth of field, artificial film grain and such like - it will depend on the phone/camera. In our model photography, in the examples shown, we want to utilise that small sensor to our advantage.

 

I hope you enjoy your testing, if not I'll have to rig up something and use my little samsung tablet, and maybe compare the results with my canon 'L' glass (I know the results beforehand, however, except getting it into a small space, and I know which I would prefer to use...)

 

Best wishes,

 

Ray

[Tony Wright]

Tony (or anyone else)

 

I have never read they were 8ft Heavy duty version before on the BG?

MJT are doing the " 8ft Suburban version" which I presume are "normal" 8 ft Gresley Bogies soon. Does anyone make a Heavyweight version? 

 

As to the SP sides they are incredibly cheap come pre formed as well, a real bargain !!. All I have done to mine is the Roof mods as yourself and also removed the Battery Boxes from one side . I had intended to replace the Vac Gear as well but as the floors are moulded flat that was best left alone !!.

 

Mine will also get some new Corridor connectors and the latest Bachmann Gresley Bogies when they become available again.

Mick,

 

It could be an assumption I made about the bogie wheelbase. As far as I know, all Gresley and ordinary Thompson BGs ran on 8' 0" bogies. All the Thompson PV stock for the post-war 'Scotsman' ran on heavy-duty bogies - 8' 6" in length. Since there'd be no need to pressure-ventilate a BG (they had ordinary ventilators), might the trio have had ordinary 8' 0" bogies? Or were the HD 8' 0" or HD 8' 6" bogies? Since it's 20 years and more since I built my 'Elizabethan', I can't recall (nor find the folder with all the information in!).