Wright writes.....

[New Haven Neil]

I'm all for the 'modified' versions, as they show what I 'see' when looking at a layout.  The brain shuts out the surrounding intrusive objects in real life, which doesn't happen looking at a photograph.

 

But please, never, ever, add smoke and steam!

[Clearwater]

I'm all for the 'modified' versions, as they show what I 'see' when looking at a layout.  The brain shuts out the surrounding intrusive objects in real life, which doesn't happen looking at a photograph.

 

But please, never, ever, add smoke and steam!

I agree with Neil though I do like the occasional warts and all shots where you see where the owner has the layout. That helps you visualise what sort of space you need or what you can do with the space you have.

 

As one who is too young to have known steam directly, my primary knowledge is from my father's old snaps. Most of them are not what you might charitably call of publishable quality and I've no idea what type of camera and lens he used but it wouldn't have been an expensive one given the year most of them are taken. As such, for me some of the technically slightly iffier shots which are a little darker, or where the background light is too strong or slightly out of focus often look more realistic to me. The darkness hides some of the lack of detail or coarseness that differentiates a model from reality, particularly on people or moving locos. Similarly, black and white works well for me for the same reason.

 

David

[Theakerr]

Personally I prefer the non photoshopped versions showing the total picture.  Initially I find my mind "blocks" out the surrounds and focusses on the railway but, at my discretion, I can go back and take in the surrounds so as to put the layout into its total (holistic) character.   Basically I see it more as a complete Model Railway that really does exist.  If I wanted a perfect picture I would go to Google Images or wherever.  Notwithstanding I do crop and re-align when I have got the photo crooked and I have on occasion posed a picture.  

The human imagination is amazing at leaving out or including something that is not relevant to what it perceives as important.  I remember years ago looking at a layout where the station canopy had been left open so that the observer could see the trains at the platform.  However it wasn't until much later that our group realised that the canopy was just the framework.  I later read that the builder had deliberately used this technique.  

I also have some concerns that photoshopped images may discourage some individuals from having a go since the photoshopped image presents a picture of perfection that they feel they can never again.  So they do not try.

[Headstock]

Some very interesting discussions about colour; many thanks for posting those. 

 

Colour is, of course, highly subjective as to whether one likes any particular tint/shade of primary, secondary or tertiary colours. 

 

With regard to the overall colours on a model railway, what I've (we've) always tried to achieve is a limited palette. By that I mean, nothing too strident or dazzling, especially if one is attempting to create a representation of a 1950s' scene. 

 

60508 on Down express.jpg

 

Overall scenes like this (now with the telegraph poles reinstated). I still need to add a little aerial perspective to the backscene (tint it a bit), but (I hope) nothing stands out as being too bright. 

 

Changing the subject slightly, I made a recent comment about superimposing a neutral sky on my most recent pictures, rather than using a real sky. The picture above has this, and it's cloned from the sky colour I used on the backscene. 

 

However, should one go further with model railway photography? I know this topic has been discussed before, but there are many more new posters on this thread than when that took place. 

 

Dsc_4548.jpg

 

This is a picture I took this morning using the room's ambient lights and pulses of fill-in flash during a six second exposure with the iris at F32. There's no doubt what it's of, but the fiddle yard to the left of the view, the seat to the right and the rafters do obtrude. 

 

60039 0n Down express passing V2.jpg

 

So, some cropping, a bit of Photoshopping and making clipping paths to isolate areas, then flood-filling them and cloning bits, and this is the result. I haven't created anything here which wasn't (somewhere else) on the original picture. Is this acceptable? I certainly haven't added fake smoke (which I heartily dislike), nor added real fields, hedges, roads, buildings, etc, which I have seen done in some publications. 

 

Dsc_4549.jpg

 

This is the second picture I took this morning, with the camera at a rather drunken angle, leaning against the cutting side. I employed much the same shot parameters. I'm pleased I painted the baseboard edges to the non-scenic section a sort of grass green, because it certainly helps. 

 

60943 0n Up express.jpg

 

This was the result after a fair bit of image manipulation. 

 

Any comments/thoughts/objections/criticisms gratefully received. 

 

Model railway photography has almost become a hobby within a hobby. I have to say, it's much easier to get realistic results with digital imagery than with film. 

 

Tony,

 

I like both approaches, they have equal value and interest in my opinion. Although I have never gone as far as to add a hole embankment, I don't have a problem with it. The thing that I would not like to see is the establishment of some sort of rule book that would allow people to be critical of others efforts.

[Tony Wright]

Personally I prefer the non photoshopped versions showing the total picture.  Initially I find my mind "blocks" out the surrounds and focusses on the railway but, at my discretion, I can go back and take in the surrounds so as to put the layout into its total (holistic) character.   Basically I see it more as a complete Model Railway that really does exist.  If I wanted a perfect picture I would go to Google Images or wherever.  Notwithstanding I do crop and re-align when I have got the photo crooked and I have on occasion posed a picture.  

The human imagination is amazing at leaving out or including something that is not relevant to what it perceives as important.  I remember years ago looking at a layout where the station canopy had been left open so that the observer could see the trains at the platform.  However it wasn't until much later that our group realised that the canopy was just the framework.  I later read that the builder had deliberately used this technique.  

I also have some concerns that photoshopped images may discourage some individuals from having a go since the photoshopped image presents a picture of perfection that they feel they can never again.  So they do not try.

I don't think any picture I've ever taken 'presents a picture of perfection'; far from it.

 

I do take your point about preferring the non-Photoshopped image. I respect your opinion. 

 

One thing I won't do in Photoshop is 'improve' the modelling. By that, I mean straightening wobbly bits and removing rough patches, etc. Other than the superimposition of backgrounds, the modelling is exactly as it is.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

I like both approaches, they have equal value and interest in my opinion. Although I have never gone as far as to add a hole embankment, I don't have a problem with it. The thing that I would not like to see is the establishment of some sort of rule book that would allow people to be critical of others efforts.

Thanks Andrew, and very interesting.

 

But, who would write any rule book?

[westerner]

Personally I prefer photos without background clutter and I do like the slightly muted colours. I find some magazine photos rather garish in their colour palette, and I certainly do NOT like smoke and photo-shopped fields and sky. When Wencombe was photographed for one magazine a I asked that the sky should be my background sky (painted by me) should be used and if it was essential then that should be cloned to extend the sky upwards. I did not want a real sky photo-shopped  in. I'm pleased to say that they acted on my request.

[sp1]

I agree with Neil though I do like the occasional warts and all shots where you see where the owner has the layout. That helps you visualise what sort of space you need or what you can do with the space you have.

 

As one who is too young to have known steam directly, my primary knowledge is from my father's old snaps. Most of them are not what you might charitably call of publishable quality and I've no idea what type of camera and lens he used but it wouldn't have been an expensive one given the year most of them are taken. As such, for me some of the technically slightly iffier shots which are a little darker, or where the background light is too strong or slightly out of focus often look more realistic to me. The darkness hides some of the lack of detail or coarseness that differentiates a model from reality, particularly on people or moving locos. Similarly, black and white works well for me for the same reason.

 

David

I have said similar before - I saw one and one only steam loco in service (I think I must have been between the age of 2 and 4) but I grew up with the images in Railway Modeller, so to me black and white photos = steam. Wrong to those that remember it , but that's what's in my head!

[sp1]

Personally I prefer photos without background clutter and I do like the slightly muted colours. I find some magazine photos rather garish in their colour palette, and I certainly do NOT like smoke and photo-shopped fields and sky. When Wencombe was photographed for one magazine a I asked that the sky should be my background sky (painted by me) should be used and if it was essential then that should be cloned to extend the sky upwards. I did not want a real sky photo-shopped in. I'm pleased to say that they acted on my request.

I hate photoshopped smoke and steam too.

If carefully done, as Tony has done above, pictures without the 'background clutter' are acceptable, but equally it's nice to see layouts 'in context' with the walls/ ceiling joists in view - you see a fantastic layout and realise that we all have to work within constraints

Edited January 5, 2017 by sp1

[richard i]

I have said similar before - I saw one and one only steam loco in service (I think I must have been between the age of 2 and 4) but I grew up with the images in Railway Modeller, so to me black and white photos = steam. Wrong to those that remember it , but that's what's in my head!

How about modeling in black and white to make a model that feels right?

[sp1]

Apologies for one more post, but I haven't worked out how to tie them all together,

 

I think someone mentioned uniformity of tone. As I have dabbled in watercolour painting I have seen mention of using the same tones/ paints when mixing colours to achieve uniformity- perhaps the artists among could elaborate on this as it applies to layouts/ weathering etc?

 

Edit: I suspect that a lot of layouts that apply this concept may do it subconsciously to achieve an overall uniformity.

One example though, that I suspect this was entirely deliberate is Bramblewick....

Edited January 5, 2017 by sp1

[coachmann]

Presentation's what counts.

[Headstock]

Thanks Andrew, and very interesting.

 

But, who would write any rule book?

 

That's a very good question,

 

I notice that you have self-imposed rules about what you will and will not do in Photoshop. For example, you would regard it as going too far to use a photograph as a sky, preferring to the clone in the sky from the existing back scene. I don't have any problems with using photographic skies (that I photograph myself) and blending them into the existing back scene. The addition of a large chunk of scenery from another part of the layout is something I would balk at, however, I don't have any problems with you doing it. As Coachman so succinctly puts it, it's "presentation what counts". I think that everybody would agree that retouching a locomotive or stock due to a modeling cock up is a no-no.

 

To answer your question, everybody can write a rule book, the best are for personal use.

[Black Marlin]

Thanks Andrew, and very interesting.

 

But, who would write any rule book?

 

Is it the case (and this is a genuine question) that the magazines have their own 'style guides' that cover not simply in-house graphical design and copy-writing but also model photography? I've been aware of the long-running debate in the letters page of one particular monthly about whether or not to include steam effects, among other things. In my view, I quite like the idea of it occasionally cropping up: what I have yet to see, however, is any magazine doing it convincingly. So far the standard seems to be a slightly-darkened shimmer of barely-visible smoke. I understand why this has been the default setting - the visual editor doesn't want to obscure the rest of the photograph - but this misses the point of the drama inherent in a steam locomotive's volcanic eructations. I would love to see the occasional (!) foray into this aspect of representation. After all, if in real life steam photographers were sometimes captioning their pictures with 'smoke by arrangement', then surely the judicious use of photoshop to create the same effect is, in fact, the modeller's equivalent?

 

Done too much or too often it would quickly become tiresome; but its never being done at all seems to be missing a trick. I suppose, in the end, it depends on the intent of the photographer (and photograph): is it a picture of a model railway, or is it a picture that happens to be of a model but which intends to invoke the real thing?

 

Gavin

[CF MRC]

Apologies for one more post, but I haven't worked out how to tie them all together,

I think someone mentioned uniformity of tone. As I have dabbled in watercolour painting I have seen mention of using the same tones/ paints when mixing colours to achieve uniformity- perhaps the artists among could elaborate on this as it applies to layouts/ weathering etc?

Edit: I suspect that a lot of layouts that apply this concept may do it subconsciously to achieve an overall uniformity.

One example though, that I suspect this was entirely deliberate is Bramblewick....

The use of a limited range of colours / palette in a model is a good way of achieving an harmonious scene. The use of reduced saturation in the background structure colours will also help. Paul Bambrick's new book on 'Creating a Backscene' is a mine of useful information and highly recommended.

 

I think that many layout magazine photos often crucify layouts and get too close. Modern digital stitching techniques give extended depths of field, when a little blurring would probably be much kinder to the model. Digital photos are also much more colour-vibrant than film. Craig Tiley took some superb pictures of CF for the 2012 Railway Modeller article. The cover photo I have as my desktop on the iPad. It has however had the colours muted to look a bit like an Edwardian tinted post card and looks so much better for it. I think MRJ is the best magazine for its use of colour.

 

Tim

[jrg1]

This has been my main modelling project over the Christmas period, a Wills kit of the Black Horse pub.

 

I was given it as a present well over a decade ago, but whenever I opened the box and looked at the amount of measuring and cutting that needed to be done, I always found another project that was a bit more attractive. In the end I felt sufficiently motivated to give it a go and here's where I've got to, with only some final detailing and filling left to be done.

 

pub1.jpg

 

pub2.jpg

 

It's a surprisingly imposing building, given the size of the box.

 

The Wills sheets are a great range for the modeller, but they can be a bit challenging to work with. At some point I reckon they changed the consistency of the plastic, as the sheets I've bought over the last decade or so are much less brittle than the earlier ones, and correspondingly more easy to cut and shape. In fact, for big cuts, I find a pair of sturdy scissors are great. However, the ones in this kit were much more brittle and needed to be handled carefully. For the windows and doors, I used a small circular saw in a mini-drill, followed by final finishing with a file. All the other cuts were done with very careful passes with a Stanley knife. The usual "score and snap" approach doesn't work so well with these older sheets.

 

If we can talk about "layout locos" and "layout coaches", then this is definitely a "layout pub", with some of the corner joints not bearing close examination. But, once filled and painted, I reckon it'll fit in well with my other buildings, and hopefully look like quite an enticing establishment for a pint or two.

 

Alastair

Try using an Olfa P45 carpet cutter for the Wills Sheets-mch easier.

[MJI]

Have a look at the real outside scenery and note how colours are muted when not close up.

 

Over saturated colours is a device to make pictures more punchy, but can be quite odd sometimes.

 

Not sure if film or digital are better for this.

 

Also time of year. Grey winters day, very muted. Sunny Autunm day very warm.

[APOLLO]

Tony a quick question re the fluorescent lights you use above Little Bytham. What "colour" are they ? (Warm white / daylight etc)

 

I have 8 x 5ft lights in my loft, fitted as supplied and forgotten about. Recently I replaced one tube which immediately gave a difference in layout "colour" in the area below this tube. The old (7 rermaining) tubes gave a bluer hue which was quite un-noticed till the change. 

 

Most digital cameras have white balance and fluorescent light temperature adjustments. I find it sometimes difficult to set this correctly, i.e. my results vary.

 

Any tips ? 

 

Brit15

[glo41f]

Again we have a most interesting "gallop" on the picture business. For what it is worth, I like the shopped images as they give me the impression of being there watching the real thing. I wish that understood more of what was being said as to the technicalities of what is involved with the technology as I would love to do some of this magic on my snaps of my layout such as eliminating the garage walls. I do not feel that this approach is wrong and it is no different to the pictures we saw in days of yore where the subject matter was cut out with scalpels and placed on a neutral background.

 

What is lovely is to see a recreation of the ECML which faithfully reproduces what we remember. I for one am grateful for the evocation of these memories and find them inspiring. 

 

Martin Long

[cctransuk]

Try using an Olfa P45 carpet cutter for the Wills Sheets-mch easier.

 

Please could you provide a link to this product? A Google search on 'Olfa P45 carpet cutter' produces nothing suitable, and a browse of Olfa's website is equally unenlightening.

 

Many thanks in anticipation.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Tony Wright]

Is it the case (and this is a genuine question) that the magazines have their own 'style guides' that cover not simply in-house graphical design and copy-writing but also model photography? I've been aware of the long-running debate in the letters page of one particular monthly about whether or not to include steam effects, among other things. In my view, I quite like the idea of it occasionally cropping up: what I have yet to see, however, is any magazine doing it convincingly. So far the standard seems to be a slightly-darkened shimmer of barely-visible smoke. I understand why this has been the default setting - the visual editor doesn't want to obscure the rest of the photograph - but this misses the point of the drama inherent in a steam locomotive's volcanic eructations. I would love to see the occasional (!) foray into this aspect of representation. After all, if in real life steam photographers were sometimes captioning their pictures with 'smoke by arrangement', then surely the judicious use of photoshop to create the same effect is, in fact, the modeller's equivalent?

 

Done too much or too often it would quickly become tiresome; but its never being done at all seems to be missing a trick. I suppose, in the end, it depends on the intent of the photographer (and photograph): is it a picture of a model railway, or is it a picture that happens to be of a model but which intends to invoke the real thing?

 

Gavin

Thanks Gavin,

 

I think my aversion to adding digital smoke is two-fold. For one, I can never do it to my satisfaction and two, neither can many others in my opinion. 

 

I'm lucky in having seen real steam in main line action in this country. Yes, I know preserved lines are doing a wonderful job, but it's never going to be the same. By the way, and this is tangential, I looked at a magazine featuring preserved railways recently and some of the images were so Photoshopped as to make them look like super-realistic paintings - not like photographs at all, with really vibrant and too-lurid colours. Has anyone else noticed this trend? 

 

6A on a mucky, but still, January Sunday morning was a complete fug. Watching a Scot lift its enormous train out of Chester beneath the City Walls was a volcanic experience. Equally volcanic were the exhausts of banking engines assisting a heavy steel train up to Brymbo from Connahs Quay. Pictures of the real thing show effects like these, but how can they look right on a model? By superimposing a real smoke effect, perhaps - not creating it digitally? 

 

I think my own view is very simple (it has to be). I don't mind taking out background clutter digitally, but I still want my pictures to be nothing else that those of a model railway. And, my model railway (unless there's a disaster!) doesn't have smoke. 

[grahame]

Thanks Andrew, and very interesting.

 

But, who would write any rule book?

And who would enforce it.

 

Probably a non starter.

 

G.

[coachmann]

The chocolate box images so beloved of 'freight charter master-shooters twerps' (I say this having heard their chuntering about recreating scenes from the past....which they patently aint!) are a real turn off for buying some magazines. The so-called master-photographers of the steam-era worked with old manual cameras, with which I believe most of today's digital-toting cameramen wouldn't have a clue. Most of them like Eric Treacy took photos for impact to suit the poor reproduction of the magazines of the day, hence the wedge shots that could be cropped for vertical reproduction. Most also used medium telephoto lenses.

 

I don't know about others, but I find the most useful pictures were those taken on standard lenses and show a darn sight more of the overall scene than the loco and the leading three coaches. As for colour saturation, it needs to be played down, but the 'market' appears to dictate the opposite. Maybe the garish liveries and colours are what attract today's readers rather than the motive power, afterall when you've seen one Class 66 you've seen em all. Imagine a steam railway run by Black Fives and 8F's! Oooh, I did back in 1967. Small wonder I turned my back on railways some years before!

[Tony Wright]

Tony a quick question re the fluorescent lights you use above Little Bytham. What "colour" are they ? (Warm white / daylight etc)

 

I have 8 x 5ft lights in my loft, fitted as supplied and forgotten about. Recently I replaced one tube which immediately gave a difference in layout "colour" in the area below this tube. The old (7 rermaining) tubes gave a bluer hue which was quite un-noticed till the change. 

 

Most digital cameras have white balance and fluorescent light temperature adjustments. I find it sometimes difficult to set this correctly, i.e. my results vary.

 

Any tips ? 

 

Brit15

The strip lights in the building are 'daylight'. I assume that means as near white light as is possible for a tube to be? 

 

I set the white balance on the camera to Auto, and that's that. The Metz guns are obviously white light as well. One thing which convinced me of the Nikon Df's suitability as a camera for taking model railway pictures (other than its general excellence and the quality of the Nikon lenses I use) is its colour rendition - very muted and under-stated. This might mean its being less suitable for, say, fashion-shoots and the like, but it's great for what I need.

 

Alan (Westerner), on one visit, said how much he like the colour achieved under the room's lights, the pulses of flash and the camera's rendering of the colours.  

[grob1234]

Daylight bulbs are about 6500 kelvin (k) if that helps, which is much closer to sunlight around 8000k.

 

'Normal' indoor bulbs range from 4100 - 2700k, and have a more yellow tint to them. Incidentally, to give a more imaginable thought, candles are 2000k, i.e. warmer...

 

EDIT: here's some I found after a brief search:

 

https://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/product-type/tube-bulbs/f70w-72-6ft-activa-172-full-spectrum-daylight-tube

 

I'm sure you can get 'em cheaper if you look.

Edited January 6, 2017 by grob1234