Wright writes.....

[Focalplane]

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.

 

With a lot of experience taking photos of the real thing in France, I have come to realize that good light is essential if the train is moving (particularly TGVs), to freeze the shot, and the direction of the light is always important, particularly with compacts and mobile phones, possibly because there is no lens hood available.

 

Some of my sharpest photos were taken with an old Nikon 300mm f4 lens behind a D200 DSLR mounted on a stable tripod using a remote IR release.  The time was around 5 pm in the summer and the sun was behind the camera:

 

 

Note also that there was a strong wind blowing and I was situated on top of a hill.  A close up shows:

 

 

I put the quality of this photo down to a number of factors.  The light, the position of the light, the speed of the TGV was only about 160 kph at this location, the quality of the lens and tripod (the camera body plays a minor role in all of this), and the fact that I knew the territory well and that this time of day had the best chance of yielding a good photo.

 

Much of this can be translated into model photography.

 

I also use a Pentax shockproof camera when hiking and an iPad Mini when nothing else is available.  Both can take good photos but neither could have taken the photo shown above.

[PGC]

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

 

E4.jpg

 

Yes, on the original I can zoom in and see the detail in a way I can't on yours.

 

Knowing more than a little bit about IT, I'm well aware of how to reduce the size of files etc., but on this occasion I was replying to Coachman's question about the resolution and quality of the cameras in modern smart phones and wanted to show just how good they really are. To do that, I wanted to show the original full size. If you look here, you'll see the photo reduced to 226Kb.

 

Phil

[Andy Reichert]

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

 

Gino Severini - Suburban Train Arriving in Paris 1915.jpg

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

 

I dunno. . . he has smoke . . . .

 

Andy

[Tony Wright]

Many thanks for all the comments on model photography. They're certainly most interesting, though slightly bamboozling to an old pro' these days. In a way, I'm glad I'm out of professional model railway photography now. I don't think I could keep up. If, has been suggested, phones in cameras will eventually give as good a resolution as high-end compacts or digital SLRs, then who'll bother spending thousands on bulky beasts when they're not needed? 

 

In the early '90s when I abandoned teaching as a career and looked for something less maddening as a means of providing food, I consulted experts in a shop for professional photographers in Wolverhampton. The same firm had a shop for amateurs, just up the road. The firm was Warners, in Chapel Ash, and they've long been closed. I bought a second-hand Mamiya Press camera and various lenses, one of which stopped down to F90. The back was moveable to increase depth of field, one composed the image upside-down on a ground glass screen and then clipped on the appropriate film back - 6 x 7 or 6 x 9 (cms), colour transparency, colour print or B&W. The dark slide was taken out, multi-exposures made (painting with light), and the image secured (only to be obliterated on occasions because of not replacing the dark slide!). The lenses gave biting clarity and the moving back gave absolute depth of field. I calculated it cost me £1.00 every time I took a picture - cost of film and processing. That cost was a powerful incentive to get things right. I also bought a Pentax 6 x 7 system, which I used for prototype photography. That, too, gave unequalled image quality, if one got everything right - focus, exposure, etc. Nothing was automatic on either system and every shot was taken using 'seat of the pants technology'. Such bulky (and very expensive) cameras were necessary to give the image-quality demanded (quite rightly) by editors. Lighting for the Mamiya drained the National Grid and consisted of two 2,000 Watt heads and a couple of hand-held 500 Watts photofloods to soften shadows. Today, both systems are obsolete and practically worthless (or would be if I still had them). If even better resolution was required (for an advertising poster, say) I borrowed an MPP heavyweight monorail camera. Just out of indulgence, I also hired an American Speed Graphic press to take some prototype shots. What a camera! 

 

Today, if all that's required is a mobile phone then I'm happy to be left behind. I'm all for things being egalitarian, but are those tiny images really suitable for large-scale reproduction? If they are, then camera manufacturers will be out of business. 

Edited January 7, 2015 by Tony Wright

[PGC]

Many thanks for all the comments on model photography. They're certainly most interesting, though slightly bamboozling to an old pro' these days. In a way, I'm glad I'm out of professional model railway photography now. I don't think I could keep up. If, has been suggested, phones in cameras will eventually give as good a resolution as high-end compacts or digital SLRs, then who'll bother spending thousands on bulky beasts when they're not needed? 

 

In the early '90s when I abandoned teaching as a career and looked for something less maddening as a means of providing food, I consulted experts in a shop for professional photographers in Wolverhampton. The same firm had a shop for amateurs, just up the road. The firm was Warners, in Chapel Ash, and they've long been closed. I bought a second-hand Mamiya Press camera and various lenses, one of which stopped down to F90. The back was moveable to increase depth of field, one composed the image upside-down on a ground glass screen and then clipped on the appropriate film back - 6 x 7 or 6 x 9 (cms), colour transparency, colour print or B&W. The dark slide was taken out, multi-exposures made (painting with light), and the image secured (only to be obliterated on occasions because of not replacing the dark slide!). The lenses gave biting clarity and the moving back gave absolute depth of field. I calculated it cost me £1.00 every time I took a picture - cost of film and processing. That cost was a powerful incentive to get things right. I also bought a Pentax 6 x 7 system, which I used for prototype photography. That, too, gave unequalled image quality, if one got everything right - focus, exposure, etc. Nothing was automatic on either system and every shot was taken using 'seat of the pants technology'. Such bulky (and very expensive) cameras were necessary to give the image-quality demanded (quite rightly) by editors. Lighting for the Mamiya drained the National Grid and consisted of two 2,000 Watt heads and a couple of hand-held 500 Watts photofloods to soften shadows. Today, both systems are obsolete and practically worthless (or would be if I still had them). If even better resolution was required (for an advertising poster, say) I borrowed an MPP heavyweight monorail camera. Just out of indulgence, I also hired an American Speed Graphic press to take some prototype shots. What a camera! 

 

Today, if all that's required is a mobile phone then I'm happy to be left behind. I'm all for things being egalitarian, but are those tiny images really suitable for large-scale reproduction? If they are, then camera manufacturers will be out of business.

 

I have a friend who works for Canon, and they're not worried about the market disappearing. As they say, you can do a lot more with a DSLR than you can with an iPhone - for example, how do you mount an iPhone on a tripod? (I know how I'd do it, which is not a method sanctioned by Canon and would both invalidate the warranty and stop the iPhone working, but that's another story!) 

 

As an addendum to my earlier photo, here are three further pictures that show the ability of the camera on a smart phone (Samsung Galaxy S4) - photo 1, Ely cathedral, photo2 - Bury St. Edmunds cathedral and photo 3 - Southwell Minster).  Although these photos are good records, that's all they are!

 

Phil

Edited January 7, 2015 by PGC

[Andy Y]

how do you mount an iPhone on a tripod?

 

Not that I'd want to but you can buy mounts that will hold phones or tablets; e.g. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/New-Universal-BRACKET-ADAPTER-Tripod-MOUNT-HOLDER-for-Tripod-iPhone-smartphone-/261504959007?pt=UK_Mobiles_Accessories_RL&hash=item3ce2e9021f

[Focalplane]

Model railway photography can be much improved by using bounce flash off a white ceiling.  Again something that would require a reasonably sophisticated camera with hot shoe, etc.  A white handkerchief draped over a flash gun can also soften the light if that is what is required.  And if you have a flexible lead to remove the flash from the axial plane of the shot, even better.

 

I too have gone through a miscellany of cameras over the years.  I still have two collector's pieces, a Rolleiflex and a Nikon F2.  The latter was dropped in a river in Eastern Indonesia in 1975 while doing fieldwork and was fished out quickly enough to carry on working.  It still does.  Try that with a modern equivalent!

[Tony Wright]

Just out of possible interest, a few pictures to follow...............

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above are all low-res' scans of 6 X 9 transparencies taken with the Mamiya Press. They all show Gauge 1 locos built for Pete Waterman by either Geoff Holt or George McKinninon Ure (though the GC loco might be by someone else). It needed the moving back and smallest aperture to ensure all was in focus.

 

 

 

Move forward a decade or two and now we have the work of Nick Dunhill in O Gauge represented. This loco will appear in the next issue of MRJ.

 

 

More of Nick's superlative work. These pictures were taken with the Nikon D3 and a Micro lens (not Macro) on the front. Plenty of light and an aperture of F32. 

 

Please remember that all the above are low-res images to post on this site. Could a 'phone camera (or cheap compact) give this sharpness? As I said, I'm well out of such matters now, apart from still taking product shots for BRM. Which they seem to like.

 

At the risk of appearing argumentative (me?), I really wonder what folk expect from model railway pictures sometimes. I'm not sure about the ratings system on this site, though it is nice to get 'likes' from time to time. It's just that some pictures can receive heaps of praise when, to me, large areas are out of focus or just plain blurred, items are covered in dust and there are weird effects when attempts are made to remove background clutter. Perhaps viewers just like the subject matter, which is fair enough. 

Edited January 7, 2015 by Tony Wright

[The Stationmaster]

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

 

E4.jpg

Try clicking on that one to enlarge it then clicking on the linked original to enlarge it.

[The Stationmaster]

Just out of possible interest, a few pictures to follow...............

 

49245.jpg

 

bj14.jpg

 

bj16.jpg

 

bj28.jpg

 

garrat.jpg

 

magnet2.jpg

 

saint david.jpg

 

The above are all low-res' scans of 6 X 9 transparencies taken with the Mamiya Press. They all show Gauge 1 locos built for Pete Waterman by either Geoff Holt or George McKinninon Ure (though the GC loco might be by someone else). It needed the moving back and smallest aperture to ensure all was in focus.

 

LNER Garratt 01.jpg

 

LNER Garratt 08.jpg

 

Move forward a decade or two and now we have the work of Nick Dunhill in O Gauge represented. This loco will appear in the next issue of MRJ.

 

W1 04.jpg

 

More of Nick's superlative work. These pictures were taken with the Nikon D3 and a Micro lens (not Macro) on the front. Plenty of light and an aperture of F32. 

 

Please remember that all the above are low-res images to post on this site. Could a 'phone camera (or cheap compact) give this sharpness? As I said, I'm well out of such matters now, apart from still taking product shots for BRM. Which they seem to like.

 

At the risk of appearing argumentative (me?), I really wonder what folk expect from model railway pictures sometimes. I'm not sure about the ratings system on this site, though it is nice to get 'likes' from time to time. It's just that some pictures can receive heaps of praise when, to me, large areas are out of focus or just plain blurred, items are covered in dust and there are weird effects when attempts are made to remove background clutter. Perhaps viewers just like the subject matter, which is fair enough. 

I remember being told years ago that whatever camera it happens to be you can't beat the best quality lenses and you need the largest film format for the best results.  Logically the latter nowadays presumably translates to the better/more comprehensive sensor, I think the former still applies (definitely does for Pentax where the Japanese made DA series lens has better optical quality than the 'cooking' version lens which comes with their DSLRs, especially in respect of zooms). 

[micklner]

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!). 

The BG were on 8' 00" Bogies. The remainder 8' 6" as normal. None of the few references (Harris and Campling books) I have mention HD bogies on Thompson Stock. The few photos I have they appear to have normal Bogies.

 

The TK I showed earlier being "Teaked" has just been finished, pictures tomorrow.

[coachmann]

Re-reading some of the recent responses, I suspect some folk have confused sharpness of an object with sharpness over a long distance such as on a model railway layout. I marvel at today's high megapixel digital SLR where, with a flick, one can dial in 6400ASA. Instead of a typical film setting of 400ASA giving 500th sec @ 9.3 (call it f8+), 6400ASA gives 500th F29+...... What a difference, provided the optics are delivering the goods. There are factors that can degrade the image, but this is just talking the basics. When photing layouts, I generally use 3200ASA. 

[bluebottle]

. . . . . . . . . .

 

At the risk of appearing argumentative (me?), I really wonder what folk expect from model railway pictures sometimes. I'm not sure about the ratings system on this site, though it is nice to get 'likes' from time to time. It's just that some pictures can receive heaps of praise when, to me, large areas are out of focus or just plain blurred, items are covered in dust and there are weird effects when attempts are made to remove background clutter. Perhaps viewers just like the subject matter, which is fair enough. 

 

I think that you've answered your own question, Tony, plus I suppose most of the rest of us the rest of us get the odd pat on the head for doing our best. However, looking back a few years I think that there has been some overall rise in basic standards, and obviously this topic and your own example in particular is playing its part in showing what should be at least aspired to.

[raymw]

It's horses for courses. My statement was concerned with images good enough for the web, not the 40MB requirement by some publishers, and the fact that you can get a phone into a small space with the sensor plane/lens near the ground. wrt image quality - just look at the getdpi link I mentioned, if you can be bothered. fwiw, some years back, iirc, it was the NYT that got rid of many of their news photographers, and gave others hd video cameras. The photo editor then simply selected the appropriate frame, from maybe a ten minute video, and the result was more reliable than an experienced pro with a still cameras. Mind you, they may be doing something else now. Too many straw man arguments in many of these threads, and not enough experimentation. If you keep on doing the same things as you always do, you'll always end up in the same place, whatever. Maybe some folk are too old to learn anything new?

 

I've deleted most of what I was going to say, not many seem to listen. wrt commenting on images, i more or less gave up on that after I joined, since I would most likely have caused offence. It is probably best to leave folk happily playing in their sand pits.

Edited January 7, 2015 by raymw

[robmcg]

I experiment with making images, and they are neither a perfectly accurate record of a model nor layout, but use models to make images which please me.

 

I am not welcomed by RMweb in product threads, but do love to collect models, as well as using them in (to me) evocative photos. I have been reading about photography since I was about 8yrs old, have known all kinds of photographers pro and amateur often gifted artists, and now love as mentioned here before playing with pictures of British steam locomotives.  The attainment of perfect sharpness and acuity and choosing depth of field by lens/DIN and other factors like format/size, is interesting, but not the only part of image-making, and some of the cameras are beautiful in themselves.

 

So please forgive me Tony this one indulgence.  this picture of a beautiful £100 Hornby Gresley P2 taken with a £120 point-and-shot 14MP Canon SX150 and cobbled-together background with Paintshop Pro6 software.

 

My father was publicity manager for New Zealand Railways as well as being an author editor and publisher, and I fully understand your experiences of larger format photos. I couldn't count the hours I have spent in darkrooms shading and burning, angling and setting-up, choosing papers and chemicals. But I am very happy to make my pictures using RTR models using quite ordinary digital cameras and old software .

 

Horses for courses indeed, Tony  I truly admire your product photos, am not worried by 3200 ASA and f32 , (I use 80 DIN and 1 sec for point-and-shoot small cameras, or Canon medium size f25 and touch-screen shutter with my EOS-M and 100 DIN).  All power to Little Bytham.

 

And no, I am not advocating that people should (or shouldn't) do anything with cameras and darkroom effects, cropping, skies, smoke, no smoke, distortion, copying, pasting, bleeding, feathering,  ... it's all part of the creative pleasure.

 

 

Hornby model LNER Gresley P2  2-8-2 edited.

 

 

[Clive Mortimore]

Just out of possible interest, a few pictures to follow...............

 

49245.jpg

 

bj14.jpg

 

bj16.jpg

 

bj28.jpg

 

garrat.jpg

 

magnet2.jpg

 

saint david.jpg

 

The above are all low-res' scans of 6 X 9 transparencies taken with the Mamiya Press. They all show Gauge 1 locos built for Pete Waterman by either Geoff Holt or George McKinninon Ure (though the GC loco might be by someone else). It needed the moving back and smallest aperture to ensure all was in focus.

 

LNER Garratt 01.jpg

 

LNER Garratt 08.jpg

 

Move forward a decade or two and now we have the work of Nick Dunhill in O Gauge represented. This loco will appear in the next issue of MRJ.

 

W1 04.jpg

 

More of Nick's superlative work. These pictures were taken with the Nikon D3 and a Micro lens (not Macro) on the front. Plenty of light and an aperture of F32. 

 

Please remember that all the above are low-res images to post on this site. Could a 'phone camera (or cheap compact) give this sharpness? As I said, I'm well out of such matters now, apart from still taking product shots for BRM. Which they seem to like.

 

At the risk of appearing argumentative (me?), I really wonder what folk expect from model railway pictures sometimes. I'm not sure about the ratings system on this site, though it is nice to get 'likes' from time to time. It's just that some pictures can receive heaps of praise when, to me, large areas are out of focus or just plain blurred, items are covered in dust and there are weird effects when attempts are made to remove background clutter. Perhaps viewers just like the subject matter, which is fair enough. 

Hi Tony 

 

Sorry that is me. I am more interested in the modelling than the photography. I will admit sometimes there are photos on here that I know are not the result of my poor eyesight. 

 

All the talk of how to and what to do to get a good photo has just gone wizzzz over my head. The recent discussion on LNER bogies under Thompson BGs was right up my street. But with my dodgy eyes I don't think I could tell if a model had bogies of 32 mm wheelbase or 34mm as long as they look the right type. 

Edited January 7, 2015 by Clive Mortimore

[Donington Road]

Try clicking on that one to enlarge it then clicking on the linked original to enlarge it.

 

Yes, I do know the difference.  At 100% the original will print or need a computer screen of 43x24 inches to see it in its full glory.  The reduced photo at 100% comes out at 16x9 inches.

Do the majority of people on this forum who like general photographs of the railway scene really want mega pixel photos that they are going to have to scroll around?  I think not.  If I wanted to see a larger photo to glean some extra detail then a polite email to the photographer asking if they would supply the original or give a link for its whereabouts would IMO suffice.

Tony's photos are usually 2000 pixels in width which I find just about right on my screen for general viewing - I would not want larger, but it would be interesting to know what other people think of that size when they view on small screens.  After enlarging the thumbnail does scrolling get to a point where it becomes a pain and the viewer no longer enlarges the thumbnail and just accepts the smaller image within the body of text?

[Anglian]

Is scrolling involved on other peoples PC's. On mine it doesn't matter if the image is well above the stipulated 800 pixels across, they are still automatically reduced to screensize. The beauty of a much larger image is one can enlarge it by clicking on it (as per the lower picture).....

 

WEB Local train 800.jpg

WEB Local train 1679.jpg

 

When I click on the lower picture is does enlarge but the image resolution really shows  – I can see areas of the image that are pixelating and blurring. You can see this in the top image but it's more apparent when viewing the larger version. It's most noticeable in the tank sides of the loco and the signal box name board.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Anglian

[Donington Road]

Is scrolling involved on other peoples PC's. On mine it doesn't matter if the image is well above the stipulated 800 pixels across, they are still automatically reduced to screensize. The beauty of a much larger image is one can enlarge it by clicking on it (as per the lower picture).....

 

WEB Local train 800.jpg

WEB Local train 1679.jpg

 

I see it like this, click to enlarge, 800 pixel thumbnails.  If I click the bottom picture it then enlarges to 1700 pixels in width.  I do not have to scroll horizontally.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Donington Road

[raymw]

Hi Anglian, it's another case where size doesn't matter    If you're dealing with lossy jpegs, then you can start off big, and shrink to size. You can edit jpegs, sharpen, adjust tonality, etc. the compression (resulting in pixelation, colour compression, etc.) takes place on saving the image, so if you keep saving and reloading the saved file to edit some more, it will degrade (think of it like photocopying a document - copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, compared to a copy of the original). Like many things on fora, there is a load of misinformation - like never edit jpegs. (I'm not saying that others don't know about this stuff, but some may not.) 

 

fwiw, although I have cs5, and a fair number of specialised photo editing sw, and normally shoot raw, print large canvases, etc., for simple stuff suitable for the web (where most do not have colour calibrated monitors, or as others have said they can't see too well) then the simplest software to use is Irfanview (but it doesn't work with all raw files, and you have to set it to ignore embedded jpegs, iirc ) which has some pretty good downsizing algorithms built in, and basic cropping and colour adjustment - and you have to like the price.

 

There is no need for any of it to be as complicated as some make out, for the average photos we see here, and a 800 by 600 pixel image is good enough in most cases. (May need bigger for a detailed track diagram, templot whatever, which although a large image will be a small file)

 

I think I may leave this thread, it is going off course, hope too many feathers are not ruffled. If I get going on this, then Kenton will be jealous.

 

Best wishes,

 

Ray

[coachmann]

The 800 pixel and 1700 pixel images were there merely to show that both are automatically reduced to screen size by RMwebs software. 

[HAL 'O THE WYND]

Is scrolling involved on other peoples PC's. On mine it doesn't matter if the image is well above the stipulated 800 pixels across, they are still automatically reduced to screensize. The beauty of a much larger image is one can enlarge it by clicking on it (as per the lower picture).....

 

WEB Local train 800.jpg

WEB Local train 1679.jpg

 

Sigh...

 

I do like to see a clean loco.

 

Hal

[martin_wynne]

When I click on the lower picture is does enlarge but the image resolution really shows  – I can see areas of the image that are pixelating and blurring. You can see this in the top image but it's more apparent when viewing the larger version. It's most noticeable in the tank sides of the loco and the signal box name board.

 

The reason for that has little to do with the image size in pixels, it is caused because Larry (coachmann) has set rather too high a level of file compression. That image is only 93KB in file size, whereas for good viewing on RMweb images typically need to be in the 200KB - 300KB file size range to contain sufficient detail. Likewise the smaller image is only 73KB.

 

Larry, try setting a lower compression level. Your fine models will then look much better without the effects which Anglian mentions. I don't know what software you use, but if you can't see a compression slider directly, try selecting "print" rather than "web" as the compression intent.

 

Alternatively, use RMeb's own image editor which makes it easy to set the compression level -- see: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/86885-putting-a-photo-on-rmweb/&do=findComment&comment=1482354

 

edit. p.s. the Image Editor is now listed under the Apps & Content tab at the top of every RMweb page.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited January 8, 2015 by martin_wynne

[PGC]

Just out of possible interest, a few pictures to follow...............

 

49245.jpg

 

bj14.jpg

 

bj16.jpg

 

bj28.jpg

 

garrat.jpg

 

magnet2.jpg

 

saint david.jpg

 

The above are all low-res' scans of 6 X 9 transparencies taken with the Mamiya Press. They all show Gauge 1 locos built for Pete Waterman by either Geoff Holt or George McKinninon Ure (though the GC loco might be by someone else). It needed the moving back and smallest aperture to ensure all was in focus.

 

LNER Garratt 01.jpg

 

LNER Garratt 08.jpg

 

Move forward a decade or two and now we have the work of Nick Dunhill in O Gauge represented. This loco will appear in the next issue of MRJ.

 

W1 04.jpg

 

More of Nick's superlative work. These pictures were taken with the Nikon D3 and a Micro lens (not Macro) on the front. Plenty of light and an aperture of F32. 

 

Please remember that all the above are low-res images to post on this site. Could a 'phone camera (or cheap compact) give this sharpness? As I said, I'm well out of such matters now, apart from still taking product shots for BRM. Which they seem to like.

 

At the risk of appearing argumentative (me?), I really wonder what folk expect from model railway pictures sometimes. I'm not sure about the ratings system on this site, though it is nice to get 'likes' from time to time. It's just that some pictures can receive heaps of praise when, to me, large areas are out of focus or just plain blurred, items are covered in dust and there are weird effects when attempts are made to remove background clutter. Perhaps viewers just like the subject matter, which is fair enough. 

 

Tony

 

Stunning pictures, and proof that in the right hands, a camera is a fantastic tool.

 

Yes, I do know the difference.  At 100% the original will print or need a computer screen of 43x24 inches to see it in its full glory.  The reduced photo at 100% comes out at 16x9 inches.

Do the majority of people on this forum who like general photographs of the railway scene really want mega pixel photos that they are going to have to scroll around?  I think not.  If I wanted to see a larger photo to glean some extra detail then a polite email to the photographer asking if they would supply the original or give a link for its whereabouts would IMO suffice.

Tony's photos are usually 2000 pixels in width which I find just about right on my screen for general viewing - I would not want larger, but it would be interesting to know what other people think of that size when they view on small screens.  After enlarging the thumbnail does scrolling get to a point where it becomes a pain and the viewer no longer enlarges the thumbnail and just accepts the smaller image within the body of text?

 

Donington Road  - You still seem to have missed the point of the link to the first photo I posted - it was to show the quality that a modern smart phone can produce, not that I can take a big photo. As I showed in my second post on this subject, I know how to, can and do reduce the image before posting on RM Web.

 

Phil

[Killybegs]

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.

 

This is apparently very topical at the moment, even my BiL is in on the act!  http://memex.naughtons.org/archives/2015/01/06/21093