Wright writes.....

[Hroth]

@Tony Wright  Arty types refer to lenses as having "Excellent bokeh", though that means that the images are fuzzy around the edges. Sometimes it seems that superlative sharpness is a fault...

 

[Harlequin]

3 hours ago, Barclay said:

These excellent shots really do show that there is simply no need to mess about with focus stacking to make an image look good. 

That's only true if you're using a proper camera where you can control the aperture in the way that Tony is demonstrating.

 

It's very difficult to justify buying a dedicated camera with a decent lens or lenses if you already have a Smartphone - which most of us do these days.

 

Unfortunately, while smartphones are fantastic devices that can take great pictures, they have fixed apertures and so depth of field is very poor when photographing models. Then focus stacking is a necessity.

 

 

[Izzy]

7 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Unfortunately, while smartphones are fantastic devices that can take great pictures, they have fixed apertures and so depth of field is very poor when photographing models. Then focus stacking is a necessity.

Actually that’s not strictly true in relative terms in that most fixed lens small sensor cameras have native DOF that even at wide-open apertures is greater than most larger sensor cameras such as DSLR’s can produce even with their lenses stopped right down. It’s a sliding scale with such as large plate view cameras having very shallow DOF and very small sensors basically giving back-to-front DOF. In the old days of film use this was used to advantage to produce cheap fixed focus/focus free/fixed aperture cameras simply because everything captured at any focused distance would be in relative sharp focus within the DOF.  This continues these days with most small sensor cameras. It’s all to do with the relationship with focal length and sensor size. Where the larger sensor cameras gain is with far better image collection information thanks to larger pixels. Their downside is the need for a far greater amount of light falling on a subject to fill/saturate those pixels and the much longer shutter speeds thus required to capture one and provide a sharp and blur free result, meaning using a tripod is almost a given. With small sensors and thus very short focal lengths this isn’t needed and they can be hand-held down to very slow speeds with sharp images being produced. Sharp is of course a relative term to be considered in relation to the overall image quality. In other words whether the image is viewed at distance, down at pixel level, or something between the two. 
 

With the images taken with the 24mm I think the most impressive part is the apparent distortion free result. Usually with any DSLR wider-angle lens much below 35mm you expect to see hints of barrel distortion even with the best examples. However in these digital days in-camera processing can offset this and maybe this is what has helped here. 

 

Bob

[Barry Ten]

Here is my Mainline 4MT, purchased from (I think) a Carlisle model shop during a family visit to the Lake District in 1980. To put that into perspective, the other thing I bought that day was the special "Borchester Market" edition of Model Railways which I still have.

 

The 4MT is a bit noisy but it runs quite well apart from that, and for the hell of it I converted it to DCC (a bit tricky due to the way the motor brushes work) but not too bad. 

 

 

The weathering was acrylics, brushed on  not long after the model was bought.

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, jwealleans said:

Morning Tony,

 

I thought you might like a look at this, which I acquired last week on Ebay.   I'm just a sucker for a C1, I suppose.   I thought it looked good enough to be worth finishing off and having it in my hands confirmed that impression.   I have no idea how old it is or who made it, though I don't think it's recent.

 

 

I take my hat off to those who can scratchbuild to this standard.     It ran surprisingly well, though it'll need a modern mechanism fitting.  I wondered whether the mech might give an idea as to it's age?   I've never seen one like this before and I'd have suggested it was homebrewed except that it has Romford and a number stamped into the brass frame.

 

 

 

Good afternoon Jonathan,

 

It's a very early Romford by the look - similar to contemporary Zenith motors (were they made by Romford?). 

 

I'd date the whole thing as near-70 years old!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

14 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Actually that’s not strictly true in relative terms in that most fixed lens small sensor cameras have native DOF that even at wide-open apertures is greater than most larger sensor cameras such as DSLR’s can produce even with their lenses stopped right down. It’s a sliding scale with such as large plate view cameras having very shallow DOF and very small sensors basically giving back-to-front DOF. In the old days of film use this was used to advantage to produce cheap fixed focus/focus free/fixed aperture cameras simply because everything captured at any focused distance would be in relative sharp focus within the DOF.  This continues these days with most small sensor cameras. It’s all to do with the relationship with focal length and sensor size. Where the larger sensor cameras gain is with far better image collection information thanks to larger pixels. Their downside is the need for a far greater amount of light falling on a subject to fill/saturate those pixels and the much longer shutter speeds thus required to capture one and provide a sharp and blur free result, meaning using a tripod is almost a given. With small sensors and thus very short focal lengths this isn’t needed and they can be hand-held down to very slow speeds with sharp images being produced. Sharp is of course a relative term to be considered in relation to the overall image quality. In other words whether the image is viewed at distance, down at pixel level, or something between the two. 
 

With the images taken with the 24mm I think the most impressive part is the apparent distortion free result. Usually with any DSLR wider-angle lens much below 35mm you expect to see hints of barrel distortion even with the best examples. However in these digital days in-camera processing can offset this and maybe this is what has helped here. 

 

Bob

Good afternoon Bob,

 

I've heard about how to correct barrel distortion when using wider angle lenses. Heard about it, but I don't have a clue of how to apply it.

 

The shots I took with the 24mm lens are exactly as the camera 'saw' them. 

 

As others have pointed out, with such an enormous DOF achieved, there is no need for focus stacking.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

9 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

Here is my Mainline 4MT, purchased from (I think) a Carlisle model shop during a family visit to the Lake District in 1980. To put that into perspective, the other thing I bought that day was the special "Borchester Market" edition of Model Railways which I still have.

 

The 4MT is a bit noisy but it runs quite well apart from that, and for the hell of it I converted it to DCC (a bit tricky due to the way the motor brushes work) but not too bad. 

 

 

The weathering was acrylics, brushed on  not long after the model was bought.

Very nice Al,

 

Are we going to see anything from the big box I handed over to you at York?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[1471SirFrederickBanbury]

1 hour ago, TrevorP1 said:

I’m immediately thinking of the average TV add and some of the ‘reality’ shows (in which I have no interest whatsoever!). Has society become used to garish artificial colours?

 

I love bright colours and wish I had the nerve to dress like Michael Portillo but I find this lurid artificial reality quite awful.

I think it has less to do with garish artificial colours, but down to being a reaction to some of the more desaturated examples where people have tried perhaps too intently to make the image gritty and realistic.

 A great example is the (not so) humble motion picture.  In years gone by with film, many movies were bright and bold, with vibrant colours filling the screen.
 

 Skip a few years and digital cameras were the new big thing, but many movies were even less vibrant than videos filmed on tape.  This was a great effect to make movies feel more realistic, but as with many things, it began to be used in far too many examples, where it just makes everything dull.

 

Meanwhile outside of Hollywood, people started missing the vibrancy of their Kodachrome and Velvia, which also gave more contrast.  Even now, many movies and television shows which should feel bright and grand have that grandeur ground off in post production.

 

I find that whenever I look through old albums of prints from film, I see something there that isn’t present in most digital photos, especially phone pictures.  This grander sense of a scene of life being picked out of reality is a significant challenge.
 

 I also find my phone camera and screen both want to keep everything desaturated, dark, and shifted toward a green-brown colour cast.

 

My response to the annoyance of having to correct everything in post to look decent was to ask my father for his old 35mm Canon AE-1, and in time, I’ll probably have many duplicate photos from the phone and the real deal to ponder over.

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

Actually that’s not strictly true in relative terms in that most fixed lens small sensor cameras have native DOF that even at wide-open apertures is greater than most larger sensor cameras such as DSLR’s can produce even with their lenses stopped right down. It’s a sliding scale with such as large plate view cameras having very shallow DOF and very small sensors basically giving back-to-front DOF. In the old days of film use this was used to advantage to produce cheap fixed focus/focus free/fixed aperture cameras simply because everything captured at any focused distance would be in relative sharp focus within the DOF.  This continues these days with most small sensor cameras. It’s all to do with the relationship with focal length and sensor size. Where the larger sensor cameras gain is with far better image collection information thanks to larger pixels. Their downside is the need for a far greater amount of light falling on a subject to fill/saturate those pixels and the much longer shutter speeds thus required to capture one and provide a sharp and blur free result, meaning using a tripod is almost a given. With small sensors and thus very short focal lengths this isn’t needed and they can be hand-held down to very slow speeds with sharp images being produced. Sharp is of course a relative term to be considered in relation to the overall image quality. In other words whether the image is viewed at distance, down at pixel level, or something between the two. 
 

With the images taken with the 24mm I think the most impressive part is the apparent distortion free result. Usually with any DSLR wider-angle lens much below 35mm you expect to see hints of barrel distortion even with the best examples. However in these digital days in-camera processing can offset this and maybe this is what has helped here. 

 

Bob

 

I think I'm I right to say that smartphones have a relatively small focal length compared to the sensor size and that is why DOF at close distances is a particular problem in smartphones vs. other small sensor devices like compact cameras.

 

Whatever the reasons, the empirical evidence is certainly that they have very limited DOF when photographing models with the aim of producing something similar to a real-world photograph. I.e. concentrating on elements of a scene rather than a landscape or helicopter shot.

 

[MJI]

I found the colour balance and tube pickup on my first video video camera looked really cheerful.

 

BTW dumped that domain as it was costing me money!

 

 

[Barry Ten]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Very nice Al,

 

Are we going to see anything from the big box I handed over to you at York?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Not for a week or two, Tony. Due to the logistics of getting back from York, I've left the box down in Cardiff with Dave for temporary safekeeping, although I hope to collect it soon. Not this week for sure! I'm in musical theatre all week, with three small parts in our local production of "Made in Dagenham"! Dress rehearsal tonight, then the first public performance tomorrow.

[Willie Whizz]

Although I didn’t actually buy it, it was seeing the then-new Mainline 4MT in a shop window next-door to Lady Whizz’s place of employment that first re-ignited my childhood interest in model railways. There was just such a vast difference in appearance and realism to anything I’d ever seen from Hornby etc. 

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, 1471SirFrederickBanbury said:

I think it has less to do with garish artificial colours, but down to being a reaction to some of the more desaturated examples where people have tried perhaps too intently to make the image gritty and realistic.

 A great example is the (not so) humble motion picture.  In years gone by with film, many movies were bright and bold, with vibrant colours filling the screen.
 

 Skip a few years and digital cameras were the new big thing, but many movies were even less vibrant than videos filmed on tape.  This was a great effect to make movies feel more realistic, but as with many things, it began to be used in far too many examples, where it just makes everything dull.

 

Meanwhile outside of Hollywood, people started missing the vibrancy of their Kodachrome and Velvia, which also gave more contrast.  Even now, many movies and television shows which should feel bright and grand have that grandeur ground off in post production.

 

I find that whenever I look through old albums of prints from film, I see something there that isn’t present in most digital photos, especially phone pictures.  This grander sense of a scene of life being picked out of reality is a significant challenge.
 

 I also find my phone camera and screen both want to keep everything desaturated, dark, and shifted toward a green-brown colour cast.

 

My response to the annoyance of having to correct everything in post to look decent was to ask my father for his old 35mm Canon AE-1, and in time, I’ll probably have many duplicate photos from the phone and the real deal to ponder over.

Good evening Rohan,

 

The one thing I like most about old 'talkies' (other than their often 'gritty' appearance) is that I can understand every word that's said.

 

The other night, Mo and I started watching Oppenheimer and gave up because most of the dialogue was mumbled; into incoherency at times! A multi-award winner it might be, but what has happened to actors' diction? 

 

I find it everywhere in the media today (and I'm not going deaf!). Incomprehensible gibberish at times, accents so thick as to be able to be cut by a knife and spoken grammar so appalling (he's took a dive, the other day!) that an ear would have been cuffed in my teaching days! If this is what 'inclusivity' in the media means, I'm glad I'm old!

 

Apologies for the rant.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[1471SirFrederickBanbury]

16 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Rohan,

 

The one thing I like most about old 'talkies' (other than their often 'gritty' appearance) is that I can understand every word that's said.

 

The other night, Mo and I started watching Oppenheimer and gave up because most of the dialogue was mumbled; into incoherency at times! A multi-award winner it might be, but what has happened to actors' diction? 

 

I find it everywhere in the media today (and I'm not going deaf!). Incomprehensible gibberish at times, accents so thick as to be able to be cut by a knife and spoken grammar so appalling (he's took a dive, the other day!) that an ear would have been cuffed in my teaching days! If this is what 'inclusivity' in the media means, I'm glad I'm old!

 

Apologies for the rant.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I think I may know why that's the case for film.  These days, even the home release versions of films are sound balanced for THX theatre sound, not exactly something one would expect to have in the average living room!  I have found that the only way to get them to be somewhat right is to turn the subwoofer up to comical levels and have a complex speaker set up.  It would seem that surround sound is requirement instead of a compatibility feature. 

 

In other media, my usual musing is about the English language (especially in America) getting quite choppy.  I always knew that most Americans never really understood contractions and some abbreviations.  They always emphasise each word somewhat akin to the way that I typed this sentence. 

 

In contrast, if-I try-to type-one the-way a Brit (or some people from New York and New Jersey) usually-speak,-There's-more omission-and rhythm, making-it hard-to type-out (I tried to hyphenate where the shorter breaks between words would be, though not perfect, it'll have to do).

 

The choppiness along with trailing off of the voice can make it hard to follow.  When not choppy, the "vocal fry" sounds normal, or at times posh, but when the two are together, it becomes confusing and sounds constantly sarcastic! (I remember seeing some Youtube video about vocal fry which was intriguing, if I can remember the name, I may be inclined to post the link.)  

[richard i]

35 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Mo and I started watching Oppenheimer

You didn’t miss much. I watched it to the end, without my background knowledge it would have been hard to piece together the context of the scenes as it jumped between decades. Others in the family certainly struggled. A case of hype over substance in my opinion. 
others may disagree.

richard 

[polybear]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

The other night, Mo and I started watching Oppenheimer and gave up because most of the dialogue was mumbled; into incoherency at times! A multi-award winner it might be, but what has happened to actors' diction? 

 

 

Don't worry Tony, it's not just you - the Film was slaughtered in the media for the poor sound quality.

[MJI]

I find that films are easier to listen to, if the centre speaker level is boosted a bit. Something like 20% louder than the front stereo pair.

 

Also decent quality speakers.

 

Mine are Castle Acoustics pre going bump. With upper mid range Sony receiver.

Edited April 16 by MJI

[maico]

8 hours ago, Hroth said:

@Tony Wright  Arty types refer to lenses as having "Excellent bokeh", though that means that the images are fuzzy around the edges. Sometimes it seems that superlative sharpness is a fault...

 

 

Well, bokeh is how the out of focus area is rendered. If it is smooth it will give the subject in focus a three dimensional look and pop.. If the bokeh is messy the object in focus will look less defined and sharp to the eye. 

The best lenses for me are also the most expensive for example a Leica Summilux-C 25mm T1.4 cine lens is £24k

 

[Tony Wright]

14 minutes ago, maico said:

 

Well, bokeh is how the out of focus area is rendered. If it is smooth it will give the subject in focus a three dimensional look and pop.. If the bokeh is messy the object in focus will look less defined and sharp to the eye. 

The best lenses for me are also the most expensive for example a Leica Summilux-C 25mm T1.4 cine lens is £24k

 

Good evening,

 

And I thought paying a thousand pounds for a lens got me a 'best' one!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

I've fully-processed the two A4 shots I left unaltered last night...........

 

 

Apart from some foreground cropping, this is full frame.

 

 

This has been cropped to the left, a bit on the right and in the foreground.

 

I don't know which is 'better' (if either) but both show the overall excellence of the Nikon 24mm prime lens (and, no, it didn't cost even near a thousand!). 

Edited April 16 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

Chris Walsh and I edited the moving footage I took of Hornby's latest steam-generator P2 on Gilbert Barnatt's Peterborough North a week or more ago (readers might recall, I couldn't get DCC to 'couple-up' to Little Bytham). My thanks to Gilbert for this.

 

The video will appear on World of Railways soon (the TMC one made by Howard Smith is already on Youtube). 

 

 

It steamed well.

 

I mused over what carriages it might pull when the prototype is completed (nothing on PN was suitable, so it ran light engine). 

 

I thought Hornby's latest EWS Mk.2s might suit, so this afternoon...............

 

 

 

Staged these two static shots (the loco is programmed not to work on DC. If I ask a friend to programme it for DC as well, will the smoke generator work, I wonder? Anyone know?). 

 

 

[Leander]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

The other night, Mo and I started watching Oppenheimer and gave up because most of the dialogue was mumbled; into incoherency at times! A multi-award winner it might be, but what has happened to actors' diction? 

When I watched 'Oppenheimer' at our Village Hall the subtitles were switched ON at half time (because of the film's length, an intermission was inserted). Therafter, I enjoyed it.

 

Pete

Edited April 16 by Leander
Missing apostrophe

[Jesse Sim]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Rohan,

 

The one thing I like most about old 'talkies' (other than their often 'gritty' appearance) is that I can understand every word that's said.

 

The other night, Mo and I started watching Oppenheimer and gave up because most of the dialogue was mumbled; into incoherency at times! A multi-award winner it might be, but what has happened to actors' diction? 

 

I find it everywhere in the media today (and I'm not going deaf!). Incomprehensible gibberish at times, accents so thick as to be able to be cut by a knife and spoken grammar so appalling (he's took a dive, the other day!) that an ear would have been cuffed in my teaching days! If this is what 'inclusivity' in the media means, I'm glad I'm old!

 

Apologies for the rant.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony we don’t watch films anymore, we read the subtitles and watch half the movie. 

[Bernard Lamb]

29 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I've fully-processed the two A4 shots I left unaltered last night...........

 

 

Apart from some foreground cropping, this is full frame.

 

 

This has been cropped to the left, a bit on the right and in the foreground.

 

I don't know which is 'better' (if either) but both show the overall excellence of the Nikon 24mm prime lens (and, no, it didn't cost even near a thousand!). 

Good evening Tony.

In the first shot I find that the tall signal is too dominant. A much darker sky might help. I can never tell what time of day it is on your train set, without being told what service is depicted.

In the other shot I find that the point rodding detracts from the assertivness of the signal. This one, to me, is the 'better' shot  However the parked waggons tend to lead the eye away from the main subject, which rather spoils it.

I have mixed feelings about the greyness of your track. Being used to less well maintained minor branchess in my modelling, where the track tends to be the colour of well weathered LMS  bauxite, it is not what I would do. However to show off your express trains it provides an excellent neutral background.

Basically there is no right or wrong. When I was printing photographs for an income I would deliberately aim for a slightly warm flesh tone. Clients would like it. Not a very PC remark these days, but the aim was to flatter the femail subjects, rather than to produce an accurate portrait.

On the subject of current trends in photographic equipment. I have recently bought a Nikon Z5 and am using it as a general camera in place of a frull frame DSLR. Lighter, quieter and it gives surprisingly good results.

Bernard 

[maico]

38 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Chris Walsh and I edited the moving footage I took of Hornby's latest steam-generator P2 on Gilbert Barnatt's Peterborough North a week or more ago (readers might recall, I couldn't get DCC to 'couple-up' to Little Bytham). My thanks to Gilbert for this.

 

The video will appear on World of Railways soon (the TMC one made by Howard Smith is already on Youtube). 

 

 

It steamed well.

 

I mused over what carriages it might pull when the prototype is completed (nothing on PN was suitable, so it ran light engine). 

 

I thought Hornby's latest EWS Mk.2s might suit, so this afternoon...............

 

 

 

Staged these two static shots (the loco is programmed not to work on DC. If I ask a friend to programme it for DC as well, will the smoke generator work, I wonder? Anyone know?). 

 

 

 

This is the P2 for you Tony that existed in a parallel universe...