Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

 

Hi Tony,

 

To my eye, the full frame shots have a smooth and realistic quality whereas the cropped ones seem to be a bit coarser - the edges of shapes seem to be slightly accentuated. (A bit like looking at a still frame extracted from a video.)

 

Do you see the same thing? Is it because the zoomed images are getting close to the camera's native resolution, or are we seeing compression artefacts in the original image files or is it maybe to do with the way RMweb handles the images?

 

Good evening Phil,

 

I do see the same thing.

 

I'm hesitant to make an objective assessment, but I'll try. The zoomed images represent only a part of the whole image. 

 

For example............

 

 

Here's the full-frame image I took of the A1 on the Pullman. Shot as a Tif, its original size is over 14 megabytes (ideal for paper reproduction, but too big to put on RMweb - in fact, the size of this has had to be reduced and changed into a jpeg in order that I can post it on here). 

 

What I previously posted is probably only a quarter of the overall image, which means, posted at the same size, the resolution is only a quarter of what it could be (I could be talking boll*cks - I probably am!), so three quarters of the definition is lost. 

 

What this overall shot does show is the remarkable depth of field achieved by the Sigma lens at minimum aperture. The camera was placed a twitch over two feet from the loco's front, with the focus distance on the lens set to almost five feet. Which means that everything from the slip immediately in front of the loco to the 'Bytham' sign on the end wall is in focus - near 25'! As I said, who needs stacking? 'Cheap' though the lens might have been, it's still damned good! 

 

In the same way that the resolution of a medium format 6 x 9 transparency (its sharpness) is going to be better than that of a 35mm transparency (all other factors being equal). 

 

Any shot I post on here is, by definition, of low-resolution, especially prototype shots which are subject to copyright. Though they might look crisp on a monitor screen, when printed, the images are made of Lego! 

 

I hope this makes sense.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited April 12 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Harlequin]

Thankyou Tony,

 

I will cogitate on what you've said.

 

The depth of field is indeed very impressive without the need to resort to focus stacking.

 

[Northmoor]

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

Which it definitely is; definite enough to reveal how 'bendy' Bachmann's Mk.1s have become (this has nothing to do with lens aberrations). 

 

Good grief!  Were those coaches left out in the sun?  I've not seen RTR coaches do that since the Triang "shorties" of what, the late 1950s?

[EHertsGER]

On 06/07/2023 at 14:10, Steamport Southport said:

Whilst I was messing with the phone I thought I would take these as well as they were mentioned.

 

Recent eBay buys. Occasionally there are still bargains.

 

ISTR it was about £70 for the LRM Jinty. £20 for the Craftsman MR Jinty. I was surprised it's whitemetal as other Craftsman kits are brass.

 

 

 

 

And getting back on the subject of D&S. I think this was £35. I thought it would go with my J70 and J15.

 

 

All at the bottom of the pile though as I want to finish other things before starting anything else!

 

 

Jason

Just FYI I commissioned Fox to produce GER decals for this, if you are planning on that period. They are in the Fox range.

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Good grief!  Were those coaches left out in the sun?  I've not seen RTR coaches do that since the Triang "shorties" of what, the late 1950s?

Good morning Rob,

 

No sun can illuminate Little Bytham, so the distortion can't be due to that. 

 

In fairness, I think it's the incredibly tight perspective in the shot in question which has accentuated the impression.

 

Pictures of the same train in not-so-tight perspective................

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are not quite so revealing.

 

That's my original Kitmaster/Lima DELTIC, by the way; the one I dropped, smashing it to smithereens!

 

The two A3s are SE Finecast/Wright/Haynes creations. 

 

 

The replacement NRM/Bachmann DELTIC is far superior (even better after Geoff Haynes weathered it). 

 

Carriages built from metal (mainly Tony Geary's work) aren't anywhere near so 'bendy'.

 

Tight perspective shots can illustrate all sorts of anomalies...........

 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Dunsignalling]

11 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Thankyou Tony,

 

I will cogitate on what you've said.

 

The depth of field is indeed very impressive without the need to resort to focus stacking.

 

There's stacking and stacking.

 

My camera (a Lumix G9) does it on-board in about 90 seconds after taking the shot, and it allows even hand-held shooting if the layout lighting is good enough. I find myself using just a monopod most of the time these days. 

 

As with all photography, though, cropping should be minimised and confined to improving composition or making your photo fit the paper it is to be printed on. 

 

Using the lens with the correct reach is the way to go. I use primes on my MFT body for layout photos; 15mm Leica, plus 25mm and 42.5mm Lumix, (x2 for full-frame equivalence) all have f/1.7 maximum apertures and, when stacking, I generally shoot at f/3.2.

 

Example attached.

Edited April 13 by Dunsignalling

[Dunsignalling]

And this one was taken hand-held (despite the instructions advising against it) using the 12-60mm f/2.8-4 Leica kit lens that came with the camera). Success rate on the day was about 40%.

 

The superb Sandford and Banwell.

 

Check out the lettering on the PO wagon far right top vs the platform trolley left foreground.

 

Only jiggery-pokery was to remove a backscene join in Paint.

 

John

Edited April 13 by Dunsignalling

[Tony Wright]

46 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

And this one was taken hand-held (despite the instructions advising against it) using the 12-60mm f/2.8-4 Leica kit lens that came with the camera). Success rate on the day was about 40%.

 

The superb Sandford and Banwell.

 

Check out the lettering on the PO wagon far right top vs the platform trolley left foreground.

 

Only jiggery-pokery was to remove a backscene join in Paint.

 

John

Very impressive John,

 

Did you show me how you did it at one show? 

 

 

I took a picture of the same station building from the opposite direction. I'm not sure that having the distant trees in focus as well would have been beneficial to this image. The same is so for the wagon in the background; it's merely peripheral to the main subject. 

 

Anyway...........

 

 

If a lens stops down to F40 (Nikon Micro), is there any need for stacking? 

 

Granted, the trackwork in the immediate foreground could be rendered in focus by stacking, but (in true 'artistic' fashion) by having the foreground slightly 'fuzzy', one is invited to look through to the principal subject matter. 

 

I agree about cropping, but if the original image size is very big, then the deterioration in quality is minimised.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited April 13 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

One final point (from me) on stacking. Andy York once tried to explain the process to me, but I found it far too complicated. I know the camera can be programmed to do it for the photographer, but I much prefer to 'fly by the seat of my pants' when taking pictures. I set all the parameters before taking a shot, the camera does nothing 'automatically'. 

 

In my experience, by using high-quality (and, therefore, rather expensive) lenses which will stop down to much smaller apertures than 'normal', then there is absolutely no need for stacking.

[westernviscount]

On 30/03/2024 at 22:24, westernviscount said:

A classic ratio kit given a bit of attention. Thought some folks might be interested. Happy Easter everyone. 

 

 

A quick follow up on my previous post.

All painted and decorated. Croesnewydd wass assembled from an HMRS pressfix sheet. 

Neat enough and in my opinion satisfying the 3 foot test. 

Light weatheringusing an enamel wash and light airbrushing of made up dirt colour. 

What was the point with excellent RTR? Lamps and couplings to follow. 

[Dunsignalling]

22 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Very impressive John,

 

Did you show me how you did it at one show? 

 

 

I took a picture of the same station building from the opposite direction. I'm not sure that having the distant trees in focus as well would have been beneficial to this image. The same is so for the wagon in the background; it's merely peripheral to the main subject. 

 

Anyway...........

 

 

If a lens stops down to F40 (Nikon Micro), is there any need for stacking? 

 

Granted, the trackwork in the immediate foreground could be rendered in focus by stacking, but (in true 'artistic' fashion) by having the foreground slightly 'fuzzy', one is invited to look through to the principal subject matter. 

 

I agree about cropping, but if the original image size is very big, then the deterioration in quality is minimised.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Southampton, 2020, Tony, before I got the prime lenses.

 

If anybody else is using a Lumix with the stacking facility, I strongly recommend the Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 lens.

 

I use it widely (usually at f/3.2) when stacking but also stopped down to f/22 (equivalent to f/44 on full frame) for rolling stock pictures.

 

It, like the camera body was made in China, whilst all the other lenses are Japanese.

 

Bargain of the century at just £149. new...

 

Example, and one of my makeshift "studio" attached (that was taken on my other Lumix, an LX100 compact).   

 

John

 

Edited April 14 by Dunsignalling

[RThompson]

1 hour ago, westernviscount said:

A quick follow up on my previous post.

All painted and decorated. Croesnewydd wass assembled from an HMRS pressfix sheet. 

Neat enough and in my opinion satisfying the 3 foot test. 

Light weatheringusing an enamel wash and light airbrushing of made up dirt colour. 

What was the point with excellent RTR? Lamps and couplings to follow. 

 

Looks very good. I've got one to build myself and replace the handrails as I'm missing a GWR toad but trying to find a decent photo of one in the London area.

[maico]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

One final point (from me) on stacking. Andy York once tried to explain the process to me, but I found it far too complicated. I know the camera can be programmed to do it for the photographer, but I much prefer to 'fly by the seat of my pants' when taking pictures. I set all the parameters before taking a shot, the camera does nothing 'automatically'. 

 

In my experience, by using high-quality (and, therefore, rather expensive) lenses which will stop down to much smaller apertures than 'normal', then there is absolutely no need for stacking.

 

You can't escape the laws of physics Tony. Even using a macro lens stopping down to F32 or F40 is degrading image quality significantly by iris diffraction. After f/11 on FF, f/8 APS-C noticeable image softening starts.

 

(BTW. 75033 arrived in good shape thanks to your excellent packaging)

[Jamiel]

Interestingly one of the characteristics of films/movies, and especially wide screen images is the amount of distortion giving ‘character’ to the look.

Lens aberration, the splitting of colours into a prism effect, by the edges of the lens gives the edges of films a look that helps make the centre of the image more attractive and guide the viewer to focus on that space. Many lenses only have a limited central area in focus as well.

Using anamorphic lenses also accentuates this, and if you watch any JJ Abrahams films (not something I would personally recommend!) additional lens flares are often added in post-production to create a ‘more filmic look’.

Some digital film cameras offer a cropped view, just taking the part of the image in the centre, with less distortion, or it can be done is post production as Tony has above.

There is an argument between sharper being better but lacking character, and shots with character but lacking detail. This also mirrors the differences in choices made between still and moving image photography.

Exposure on a moving image and the ‘lens angle’ (time the footage is exposed) is also a great difference between still and moving image, too much detail is uncomfortable on the eye, Steven Spielberg used this to make sequences in ‘Saving Private Ryan’ visually hard as well as the horrific acts being depicted.

Depth of focus also has very different aims in films, often there is a small depth of focus again to highlight where the director wants you to look, but still photography often has a deep focus allowing a lot of detail to be looked at. I would suspect that to mimic a small depth of focus for taking photographs of model railways in a filmic manner you would have to use a macro lens.

Personally, I prefer the wide shots without a crop as it loses the character of the lens, but that is probably because I am used to viewing moving images a great deal.

A lot of the choice is do you want to document as much as possible on a model, or to try and reproduce how the model would look if it were a photograph of the real thing. That might lead to a lot of photographs being made black and white and with grain (or noise as photoshop calls it).

As an aside, a question that is often asked by cinematographers at the start of a film is what lenses would the visual effects (VFX) department like to use? VFX usually reply Sony Spherical lenses, very accurate very little distortion and without character (very easy to use in post-production) and then the cinematographer will suggest 1960s hand ground anamorphic Cooks lenses. The VFX department then conceded the Cooks lenses look far better and ask to shoot lens charts so that the distortion can be reproduced in post.

I think the point I am trying to make is that sharper is not always better and sometimes you want to create a shot that is more about character. Very useful when reproducing a period look, but not very useful when documenting a how much work has gone into making a fantastic layout.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, maico said:

 

You can't escape the laws of physics Tony. Even using a macro lens stopping down to F32 or F40 is degrading image quality significantly by iris diffraction. After f/11 on FF, f/8 APS-C noticeable image softening starts.

 

(BTW. 75033 arrived in good shape thanks to your excellent packaging)

Glad the 75XXX arrived safely; I hope you are pleased with it.

 

I was never very good at physics, but I know what works photographically. I'm not saying I understand how it works, just how to get reasonable results.

 

You've followed a misconception, by the way. My Nikon is a Micro lens, not a Macro. The difference is enormous. With the Micro, not only does its minimum aperture stop down to much smaller than 'normal', it will focus on anything from literally inches away to infinite. No Macro lens will do that.  

 

Ever since I can remember, for taking model railway photographs, I've always used the smallest aperture (down to smaller than F.64 in my medium format days!). 'Escaping' the laws of physics or not, I hope the results have spoken for themselves; spoken enough for my making part of my living from it.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[MJI]

Depth of field is great, with fixed focus it is essential.

 

Eye based bright sunlight i can read number plates. And down to 250mm.

 

Still short sighted.

 

Night time lots of grain and no focus.

 

Just amount of light and my own irises.

 

You get really good at understanding optics with a number of eye conditions and using glasses.

 

Also found the smaller the sensor   the greater the depth of field.

 

35mm, 2/3 in tube, down to CCD and whatever my newest HDV thing has.

 

Depth of field gets deeper.

[Tony Wright]

An interesting comparison..............

 

Am I escaping the 'laws of physics here'? Two shots, taken of the same model, at the same distance with the same camera and the same lens (a Nikon 18-35, set at 35), the only difference being the different apertures.

 

 

Aperture at F.8, the point of focus being the centre driving wheel.

 

 

Aperture at F.32, with the same point of focus. 

 

If, according to the laws of physics, the second image suffers because of its smaller (smallest) aperture, then I can't see it, other than in the top one the loco is slightly lighter - I could lighten the bottom one to be the same). In fact, the top image is really useless. I'll continue using the smallest aperture possible. 

 

I've said before, I rather was baffled by physics. The only really interesting thing in my physics textbook (by Nelkon) was a picture of a 'Nelson' Class battleship underneath the Forth Bridge, though this never came up in lessons.

 

By the way, the loco is one of only three I still have for sale in the Peter Lawson collection (the 82XXX sold this evening). Built from a Gibson kit and a good runner, at £150.00 it's quite a bit less than its component parts! 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 13 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Izzy]

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

In my experience, by using high-quality (and, therefore, rather expensive) lenses which will stop down to much smaller apertures than 'normal', then there is absolutely no need for stacking.

Quite some years ago now, back when stacking first began to appear, and in connection with running a digital camera website I undertook a series of tests to see just how it ‘stacked’ up. So using a couple of different DSLR’s along with their normal lenses, nothing more than the average owner would use, I took optimum single shots at the best apertures for the lenses, f8 or f11, (after that lens diffraction degrades any image and mostly offsets any DOF advantage), and then did a series of stacking shots at the same apertures. In all cases what the single shots lacked in terms of total DOF they more than made up for in clarity and definition and were seen by all who viewed them as the better image. 
 

Now I admit that times have moved on and that the stacking software of today has evolved but the basics are that you can’t get past the fact that the average human eye can resolve 22 llpm ( line pairs per millimetre) and past that point details just merge. So large DOF is only good within certain parameters associated with viewing distance and size of reproduction of any given image. 
 

Bob

[Tony Wright]

More on budget modelling........

 

This morning I was given free access to 'rummage' through drawers of 'dud' locos in the Grantham Model Shop (thanks Chris), the intention being to 'resurrect' some 'poorly' models, to be featured in future BRM articles. 

 

And, the result?

 

 

All of this lot for a mere £20.00! 

 

All of them did no more than 'twitch' when power was applied, but they all run now (the non-motorised A3 chassis' valve gear will be transferred to the one that has a motor). In fact, all that was needed was a good clean, adjustment and oil to all of them. 

 

Naturally, none of them runs as well as more modern RTR examples, but, at a tiny fraction of the cost, they'll suit many when completed (the finished items will be offered as prizes in BRM).

 

Grantham's model shop is well worth a visit. Not only are the prices of new items competitive, there are also shelves loaded with bits and pieces for 'modellers'. The staff know what they're talking about as well.    

 

 

Edited April 13 by Tony Wright
clumsy grammar

[MJI]

22 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

An interesting comparison..............

 

Am I escaping the 'laws of physics here'? Two shots, taken of the same model, at the same distance with the same camera and the same lens (a Nikon 18-35, set at 35), the only difference being the different apertures.

 

 

Aperture at F.8, the point of focus being the centre driving wheel.

 

 

Aperture at F.32, with the same point of focus. 

 

If, according to the laws of physics, the second image suffers because of its smaller (smallest) aperture, then I can't see it, other than in the top one the loco is slightly lighter - I could lighten the bottom one to be the same). In fact, the top image is really useless. I'll continue using the smallest aperture possible. 

 

I've said before, I rather was baffled by physics. The only really interesting thing in my physics textbook (by Nelkon) was a picture of a 'Nelson' Class battleship underneath the Forth Bridge, though this never came up in lessons.

 

By the way, the loco is one of only three I still have for sale in the Peter Lawson collection (the 82XXX sold this evening). Built from a Gibson kit and a good runner, at £150.00 it's quite a bit less than its component parts! 

 

 

 

 

That top one is like post cataract vision with lowish light.

 

As i was trying to explain.

[Hollar]

On 10/04/2024 at 09:55, ScRSG said:

 

An unlined green version which if I remember was taken either at Crewe or Chester, but I stand to be corrected, memory failure!

Chas

Something very odd about the numbering.  Definitely should have gone down the pub instead of squeezing in the last little job;

[maico]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

An interesting comparison..............

 

Am I escaping the 'laws of physics here'? Two shots, taken of the same model, at the same distance with the same camera and the same lens (a Nikon 18-35, set at 35), the only difference being the different apertures.

 

 

Aperture at F.8, the point of focus being the centre driving wheel.

 

 

Aperture at F.32, with the same point of focus. 

 

If, according to the laws of physics, the second image suffers because of its smaller (smallest) aperture, then I can't see it, other than in the top one the loco is slightly lighter - I could lighten the bottom one to be the same). In fact, the top image is really useless. I'll continue using the smallest aperture possible. 

 

I've said before, I rather was baffled by physics. The only really interesting thing in my physics textbook (by Nelkon) was a picture of a 'Nelson' Class battleship underneath the Forth Bridge, though this never came up in lessons.

 

By the way, the loco is one of only three I still have for sale in the Peter Lawson collection (the 82XXX sold this evening). Built from a Gibson kit and a good runner, at £150.00 it's quite a bit less than its component parts! 

 

 

 

 

 

On my screen Tony, the area in focus has more resolution in the image shot at F8.

 

Having spent a lifetime working in the film industry behind the camera I've got a pretty good eye!

[Dunsignalling]

The thing with model photography, though, is that the aim is to approximate the DoF characteristics of prototype photos taken on a 1950s/1960s still camera using prime lenses (on 35mm) with focal lengths of 35, 50, or 90mm (e.g. Leica) but most commonly 45 or 50mm (e.g. Kodak or Agfa).

 

That sets a whole different set of challenges compared with photographing full-sized trains.

 

I came to using prime lenses and wider apertures when stacking through trial and error. My camera is of Micro Four Thirds format, what we called half-frame in film cameras back in the day.

 

Advantages arise from that, enabling me to work with, rather than against the laws of physics;

 

1. An inherently greater depth of field arising from the smaller sensor.

 

2. My 25mm lens has an angle field of view equivalent to a full-frame "standard" lens but the DoF characteristics of a cropped image taken on a full-frame wide-angle.

 

3. All that also means my preferred aperture of f/3.2 is, in truth, more like f/6.3 but still clear of the point where diffraction becomes detectable to the naked eye at my maximum print size (A4).

 

4. Stacking, in or out of the camera, does the rest, and the G9 does it well enough in-camera (for my purposes) that I don't need to use its Focus Bracketing feature (programmable up to a maximum of 999 frames!)  and do the work myself in the computer afterwards. 

 

John

Edited April 14 by Dunsignalling

[cctransuk]

12 hours ago, Hollar said:

Something very odd about the numbering.  Definitely should have gone down the pub instead of squeezing in the last little job;

 

If you're referring to the '2' - a flaw in the film emulsion or a large seagull deposit?

 

CJI.

Edited April 14 by cctransuk

[Bernard Lamb]

5 hours ago, Jamiel said:

Interestingly one of the characteristics of films/movies, and especially wide screen images is the amount of distortion giving ‘character’ to the look.

Lens aberration, the splitting of colours into a prism effect, by the edges of the lens gives the edges of films a look that helps make the centre of the image more attractive and guide the viewer to focus on that space. Many lenses only have a limited central area in focus as well.

Using anamorphic lenses also accentuates this, and if you watch any JJ Abrahams films (not something I would personally recommend!) additional lens flares are often added in post-production to create a ‘more filmic look’.

Some digital film cameras offer a cropped view, just taking the part of the image in the centre, with less distortion, or it can be done is post production as Tony has above.

There is an argument between sharper being better but lacking character, and shots with character but lacking detail. This also mirrors the differences in choices made between still and moving image photography.

Exposure on a moving image and the ‘lens angle’ (time the footage is exposed) is also a great difference between still and moving image, too much detail is uncomfortable on the eye, Steven Spielberg used this to make sequences in ‘Saving Private Ryan’ visually hard as well as the horrific acts being depicted.

Depth of focus also has very different aims in films, often there is a small depth of focus again to highlight where the director wants you to look, but still photography often has a deep focus allowing a lot of detail to be looked at. I would suspect that to mimic a small depth of focus for taking photographs of model railways in a filmic manner you would have to use a macro lens.

Personally, I prefer the wide shots without a crop as it loses the character of the lens, but that is probably because I am used to viewing moving images a great deal.

A lot of the choice is do you want to document as much as possible on a model, or to try and reproduce how the model would look if it were a photograph of the real thing. That might lead to a lot of photographs being made black and white and with grain (or noise as photoshop calls it).

As an aside, a question that is often asked by cinematographers at the start of a film is what lenses would the visual effects (VFX) department like to use? VFX usually reply Sony Spherical lenses, very accurate very little distortion and without character (very easy to use in post-production) and then the cinematographer will suggest 1960s hand ground anamorphic Cooks lenses. The VFX department then conceded the Cooks lenses look far better and ask to shoot lens charts so that the distortion can be reproduced in post.

I think the point I am trying to make is that sharper is not always better and sometimes you want to create a shot that is more about character. Very useful when reproducing a period look, but not very useful when documenting a how much work has gone into making a fantastic layout.

Re the sharper is not always better comment.

At one time I was involved in wedding photography, my two colleagues used Bronicas and I had a Mamiya, all 6 x 4.5 format. The standard 80mm lens on the Bronica was superb. When working in good light there was no questions as to these lenses being sharper than mine. However I had a wide angle lens, 45mm if I remember correctly. At one stop down this was amazing. When taking group shots in pouring rain I would gather the subjects near a wall, to give a bit of shelter and go in close with this combination. It worked, not in respect of actual sharpness as measured in a test, but in terms of giving the client a set of acceptable prints. I remember one wedding where the conditions were diabolical. The standard lens on the Bronica could not capture the shots and the Bronica wide angle lens showed distortion. It was not a situation that happened very often, but it was good to know just what could be acheived If needs must. I am sure there must be many examples where technically less good, relatuvely speaking, equipment can deliver the required results.

Bernard