Wright writes.....

[coachmann]

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.

Thanks Martin. I have followed your detailed instructions concerning Image Editor  and have posted the results below.....

 

The image below was done through my usual process but with a few changes...

[martin_wynne]

Hi Larry,

 

Your own version is the better one there, so whatever you did -- carry on.

 

The RMweb Image Editor has got it to 237KB, your version is 277KB. The advantage of lower compression over your previous post is very evident.

 

The RMweb Image Editor is using a softer resizing function than the uploader, and ideally needs some sharpening after resizing. But they are both showing far less compression effects.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[PGC]

Personally, I use Irfanview to resize images. It's free software that's very well recognised and it's a pretty handy image editor for other work than resizing as well, although having a copy of Adobe CS6 Masterworks through work, I tend to fire up Photoshop within that, just because I can! :-)

 

Phil

[MikeOxon]

.....

 

The snag with small sensors is the lack of selective focussing, ..............

 

Ray

 

Actually, I often find this an advantage when photographing small scale models..  I've mentioned before in my blog that one way of looking at it is that a compact or phone sensor is, in effect, a 'scale model' of the sort of camera that might have been used during my chosen pre-Grouping period. Out of interest, I did a few calculations:

 

The sensor in a typical compact measures about 6.2 x 4.6mm, whereas a 'whole plate' camera, as might have been used in the 19th century, had a sensitive area of 8½" x 6½" (216 x 165mm). From these figures, the compact represents a 1/35 scale model - not too far removed from 0-gauge! So, you can expect to get similar perspective and depth-of-field when using a compact to photograph an 0-gauge layout from 'realistic' locations, as would be seen in an old 'real' photo

 

Mike.

[landscapes]

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.

 

2001_P2_LNER_portrait15_2abc_r1200.jpg

 

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

Hi Rob

 

That is one very nice photo indeed

 

Regards

 

David

[Oldddudders]

I never quite understand the RMweb photo situation. Andy asks us to downsize to less than 1MB, which I dutifully do, using the RMweb Editor, generally leaving the file size at about 900KB, so the Editor tells me. But then when I post the pic, I discover it is sometimes less than 100KB, implying that there is a further reduction undertaken automatically.

 

Not really an issue, just a puzzle!

[landscapes]

Good Afternoon all

 

I find these articles on Tony's thread regarding Model Railway photography very interesting and helpful as well. 

 

As like robmcg I also very much enjoy the photography side of model railways as well, I have tried various ways to photograph my own models while I am in the process of producing my own layout.

 

I own a Canon 5D Mk 11 digital SLR which I find is far to cumbersome for taking layout photos, I recently purchased a Canon Powershot G1X which I used when I had the privilege to visit Tony at his home and photograph a few on my own models on his Little Bytham layout.

 

But I do find taking photos using a iPad Mini is the easiest way of all especially as you can turn the the iPad up side down so that the lens is a track level, great for really low level angled photos.

 

It also has quite a good depth of field as well.

 

The photo enclosed was taken with the iPad but the upper background part of the photo which was photoshopped in was taken with the Canon 5D.

 

The original photos was 3.4MB but reduced down to 917KB.

 

Regards

 

David

Edited January 8, 2015 by landscapes

[PGC]

Good Afternoon all

 

I find these articles on Tony's thread regarding Model Railway photography very interesting and helpful as well. 

 

As like robmcg I also very much enjoy the photography side of model railways as well, I have tried various ways to photograph my own models while I am in the process of producing my own layout.

 

I own a Canon 5D Mk 11 digital SLR which I find is far to cumbersome for taking layout photos, I recently purchased a Canon Powershot G1X which I used when I had the privilege to visit Tony at his home and photograph a few on my own models on his Little Bytham layout.

 

But I do find taking photos using a iPad Mini is the easiest way of all especially as you can turn the the iPad up side down so that the lens is a track level, great for really low level angled photos.

 

It also has quite a good depth of field as well.

 

The photo enclosed was taken with the iPad but the upper background part of the photo which was photoshopped in was taken with the Canon 5D.

 

The original photos was 3.4MB but reduced down to 917KB.

 

Regards

 

David

 

The one thing I find about the majority of background replacement is that the join is usually very obvious. Yours, however, isn't, and the picture looks very good indeed.

 

Phil

[Tony Wright]

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.

Thanks Mick,

 

According to the Isinglass drawings (if my memory serves - I'll check at the weekend), the 1948 pressure-ventilated Thompson stock rode on HD bogies. 

[MikeOxon]

The one thing I find about the majority of background replacement is that the join is usually very obvious. Yours, however, isn't, and the picture looks very good indeed.

 

Phil

After taking some photos of my own layout and adding a 'fake' back-scene afterwards, I decided to print out the scene that I had added and stick the prints behind the layout.  The effect in a layout photo is almost exactly the same and it feels less like a 'cheat'

[Tony Wright]

Good Afternoon all

 

I find these articles on Tony's thread regarding Model Railway photography very interesting and helpful as well. 

 

As like robmcg I also very much enjoy the photography side of model railways as well, I have tried various ways to photograph my own models while I am in the process of producing my own layout.

 

I own a Canon 5D Mk 11 digital SLR which I find is far to cumbersome for taking layout photos, I recently purchased a Canon Powershot G1X which I used when I had the privilege to visit Tony at his home and photograph a few on my own models on his Little Bytham layout.

 

But I do find taking photos using a iPad Mini is the easiest way of all especially as you can turn the the iPad up side down so that the lens is a track level, great for really low level angled photos.

 

It also has quite a good depth of field as well.

 

The photo enclosed was taken with the iPad but the upper background part of the photo which was photoshopped in was taken with the Canon 5D.

 

The original photos was 3.4MB but reduced down to 917KB.

 

Regards

 

David

What a splendid picture, David. Well done (not patronising) and does it really matter how it was achieved, as long as it works? That said, I have found all the discussion about model railway photography of some interest. But, to return to the picture, please remove the long guard irons from the front of the loco. These were taken off all the A4s by 1953/'54, the little ones on the bogie being deemed adequate. On the real thing they were mounted on the frames, but Hornby has mounted them on the bogie, thus exacerbating the problem. They're only held on by a screw, but take care not to dislodge the dust shields as well. 

 

Returning to the 'off-thread' subject of model photography (why is it off-thread?), as one who is far too old to learn, I wish folk wouldn't write using acronyms. Is this a side-effect of (hideous, in my opinion) text-speak? By the time I've attempted to work out what they mean, I've lost interest. 

Edited January 8, 2015 by Tony Wright

[Mallard60022]

Teccy photo chat is useful, but I'd rather be reading about rolling stock, track and locomotives and how to fix, modify, enhance, repair and service them correctly. Also I enjoy discussion about scenics and sources of info for the same. Any chance we could just appreciate the fantastic pics on here and talk modelling rather than photography? There is a thread for that. Apologies if this upsets anyone but that's how it is with me, I'm just an awkward s*d.

Phil

[micklner]

More of  my scene some modelling, using basic photos . I now have a Apple and Irfanview is a Windows app so these have been done on the Forum app.

 

Thompson TK 

 

 

 

 

Start made on a Orphan of the Storm better known as a Thompson A2/1.

 

 

[landscapes]

Teccy photo chat is useful, but I'd rather be reading about rolling stock, track and locomotives and how to fix, modify, enhance, repair and service them correctly. Also I enjoy discussion about scenics and sources of info for the same. Any chance we could just appreciate the fantastic pics on here and talk modelling rather than photography? There is a thread for that. Apologies if this upsets anyone but that's how it is with me, I'm just an awkward s*d.

Phil

Hi Phil

 

Your comments do not upset me one bit, in fact I tend to agree with them.

 

The photography side of the hobby for me is just an enjoyable stop gap in between trying to do actual modelling I some how have this talent of being able to stick any detailing parts to my hands rather than the model itself.

 

Photography then helps to keep my blood pressure down.

 

Regards

 

David

[Tony Wright]

Teccy photo chat is useful, but I'd rather be reading about rolling stock, track and locomotives and how to fix, modify, enhance, repair and service them correctly. Also I enjoy discussion about scenics and sources of info for the same. Any chance we could just appreciate the fantastic pics on here and talk modelling rather than photography? There is a thread for that. Apologies if this upsets anyone but that's how it is with me, I'm just an awkward s*d.

Phil

As usual, the wisest of words, Phil.

 

I suppose I'm guilty of 'extending' the discussion about model railway photography because that's what I used to specialise in. But, as I've said, the technicalities are way beyond me now, and some folk do get uppity if dimwits like me can't navigate the various obscure paths to photographic 'success'. 

 

In a way, I'm not sure what Wright Writes is all about, anyway. I just post my musings in an entirely unstructured way and folk respond accordingly. But, it should, at heart, be about modelling - personal modelling.

 

To try and keep a link with modelling, and BRM, the following pictures might be of little interest. 

 

 

 

Apologies if these have been seen before, but they tie-in with the latest issue of BRM where an account of how I built this DMR K1 is published. I never did get around to lining the valance, though Tom Foster's expert weathering disguises that fact to some extent. Is it as good as Hornby's latest RTR offering? 

 

 

 

Definitely not, and all this for under £130.00 quid! There's a comprehensive review in the current issue by Ben Jones (my apologies for not noticing the centre tender wheels were off in one of the pictures - could they be manipulated back on?). What a superb model this latest Hornby creation is, but mine is still 'mine' in a way impossible by RTR means. 

 

My model will be on display at the Doncaster Show, along with several of the carriages featured in the latest Annual.

 

 

This will also be on display at Doncaster - my conversion of a Hornby 'Hunt' into a 'Shire'. How I did this will also feature in BRM in the near future. And, I still haven't come to terms with how to line a valance. 

 

 

Another 'conversion' showing how to turn a Hornby Railroad P2 into the putative PRINCE OF WALES will also appear in BRM soon, this time the work of Howard Smith. A bit of Photoshopping has been applied to this picture, but I really don't know what I'm doing!

Edited January 8, 2015 by Tony Wright

[micklner]

Tony

Just seen your K1 in BRM I maybe not looking properly? There did not appear to a division between the boiler and smokebox.

[Tony Wright]

Tony

Just seen your K1 in BRM I maybe not looking properly? There did not appear to a division between the boiler and smokebox.

There is (just about), described by a lining band. It doesn't, however, have a line of rivets, as illustrated on the Hornby model. Where I do think the kit-built version scores is with regard to the crankpins and coupling rods. Hornby's, like all RTR examples, are a bit over-scale. Also, because the smokebox and boiler are separate fittings on the Hornby model, there is a slight gap (visible in my side-on picture). There's no such gap on the kit-built one. 

 

But, thanks for the comments, Mick. 

Edited January 8, 2015 by Tony Wright

[davidw]

The Thompson's coaches look very good. How did you make the underframe mod's Mick?

Edited January 8, 2015 by davidw

[micklner]

The Thompson's coaches look very good. How did you make the underframe mod's Mick?

       Not a lot done!!

 

       All that has been done is the Battery Boxes removed one one side. Majority of the Boxes was cut out with metal slitting saw disc in a Dremel , the remainder filed back to the Angle Iron moulded under frame lines. The Bachmann's have a floor moulded flat. Therefore any under frame furniture i.e Vacumn Cylinders would all need reducing otherwise they would hang far too low. I have decided as these as Tony calls them layout Coaches , that nothing else was viable/ needed.As they are the Flying Scotsman versions with lower sides that helps to hide the under frame as well.

      The Roofs have been reworked as they are far more visible than the under frames. As said before second hand coaches costing £7 a time , sides @ £7.50 and a bit of modelling time they are not bad value.

      As the new Bachmann versions are now being listed as 2016 productions and at a unknown price they are a quite viable option !!.  I have three more set of sides awaiting  arrival from the post at the moment.

[davidw]

Not a lot done!!

 

All that has been done is the Battery Boxes removed one one side. Majority of the Boxes was cut out with metal slitting saw disc in a Dremel , the remainder filed back to the Angle Iron moulded under frame lines. The Bachmann's have a floor moulded flat. Therefore any under frame furniture i.e Vacumn Cylinders would all need reducing otherwise they would hang far too low. I have decided as these as Tony calls them layout Coaches , that nothing else was viable/ needed.As they are the Flying Scotsman versions with lower sides that helps to hide the under frame as well.

The Roofs have been reworked as they are far more visible than the under frames. As said before second hand coaches costing £7 a time , sides @ £7.50 and a bit of modelling time they are not bad value.

As the new Bachmann versions are now being listed as 2016 productions and at a unknown price they are a quite viable option !!. I have three more set of sides awaiting arrival from the post at the moment.

thanks Mick, I've a lizzie rake done and a dozen or so non pressurised Thompson's also resided. I may make your additional mod. Cheers.

[New Haven Neil]

I feel a little cheap raising this, as my personal modelling standards are a long, long way short of what we see on here and on many other threads, and is mostly weathered (USA outline) RTR.....but there is one thing about many of Tony's (and others) locos that really jumps out at me every time I see a photo - Romford wheel nuts!  They clash and glare to me more than 16.5 gauge, rivets, cab side thicknesses or many other things that bother other folk!  I hate the damn things.

 

I'll go and sit in the corner now....    Sorry Tony!

 

The D49 has a lot of character, a good budget conversion, I'm liking it a lot, shame the valve gear is a bit crude, but that keeps the cost of the conversion down I suppose.  Plus my battered fingers would be set on fire trying to solder decent valve gear together, of course!

[Tony Wright]

I feel a little cheap raising this, as my personal modelling standards are a long, long way short of what we see on here and on many other threads, and is mostly weathered (USA outline) RTR.....but there is one thing about many of Tony's (and others) locos that really jumps out at me every time I see a photo - Romford wheel nuts!  They clash and glare to me more than 16.5 gauge, rivets, cab side thicknesses or many other things that bother other folk!  I hate the damn things.

 

I'll go and sit in the corner now....    Sorry Tony!

 

The D49 has a lot of character, a good budget conversion, I'm liking it a lot, shame the valve gear is a bit crude, but that keeps the cost of the conversion down I suppose.  Plus my battered fingers would be set on fire trying to solder decent valve gear together, of course!

I'm inclined to agree; not your being cheap, I mean. 

 

Markits sell etched axle end covers, which improve the appearance a lot. But, the design means they have to be fixed by the crankpins. Since I put wheels on and take them off quite frequently during a loco build, this is a disadvantage. Not only that, if the end covers are firmly attached (and if they're not, the crankpins unscrew), getting the wheels off, say, years later to replace a gearbox is a real headache.

 

The best solution is to fill the slots in the Romford nut with a couple of dabs of Plasticene, then paint them matt black. The Romford screwdriver removes it very easily if necessary.  

[New Haven Neil]

Just so folk know I do have a layout...

 

 

Back to the ECML soon!  Sorry for the off topic excursion.

[Clive Mortimore]

Just so folk know I do have a layout...

 

 

Back to the ECML soon!  Sorry for the off topic excursion.

Hi Neil

 

She looked a lot better as D&H 5005. But any picture of a RS11 is nice. 

 

http://donsdepot.donrossgroup.net/dr2191.htm

Edited January 8, 2015 by Clive Mortimore

[cheesysmith]

Just so folk know I do have a layout...

 

 

Back to the ECML soon!  Sorry for the off topic excursion.

Can we have another photo, but from a more elevated position? Just so we can compair what H0 track(which peco is) looks like when used in the correct scale ratio.