Hornby Star Class

[Miss Prism]

4061 was one of eight Stars to have I-section coupling rods.

(Imagine that 'I' with serifs - this software can no longer do different fonts.)

 

 

[Harlequin]

7 hours ago, robmcg said:

Although it contravenes my solemn promise to not put edited pics in others' threads,  here for the sake of comparison is the same photo with 40 minutes of editing , 

 

 

Will remove if asked.

 

Main changes are; vac pipe on front, coupling on front, 10 spoke bogie wheels, cylinder drains, cab handrail has light under, number plate has shadow edge, speedo thingamy by rear driver..

 

It DOES show how brilliant this would be of Hornby had done the spokes and can handrail from day one, and to be fair they still give 10 spoke bogies on request, and 4021 'British Monarch' has them from new. 

 

I won't mention fall plates, or green livery.

 

Hi Rob, Can you please add some sort of caption, watermark or credit to your images to make it clear that they are neither images of models nor images of the real thing and might contain errors. Thanks.

 

[Pacific231G]

17 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

Hi Rob, Can you please add some sort of caption, watermark or credit to your images to make it clear that they are neither images of models nor images of the real thing and might contain errors. Thanks.

 

Hi Phil,

Hmmm. I found it entirely clear from his posts that Rob's first image is his own untouched photo  of the model he's just received and the second, in his following post, was edited from that to show the effect of his proposed changes.  While I agree with you about images whose provenance is unclear I don't  think this was an example of that as Rob clearly stated what he's done. I wish everyone would.

Edited March 25, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Harlequin]

8 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Hmmm. I found it entirely clear that Rob's first image was his own untouched photo  of the model he's just received and the second, in his following post, was edited from that to show the effect of his proposed changes.  While I agree with you about images whose provenance is unclear I don't  think this was an example of that.

Not everyone sees the context, though, (forum settings might hide it for instance) and Google searches will throw these images up out of context in future.

 

It's not difficult to have some sort of boilerplate credit caption and disclaimer that can be quickly pasted into an image.

 

[cctransuk]

2 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Hi Phil,

Hmmm. I found it entirely clear from his posts that Rob's first image is his own untouched photo  of the model he's just received and the second, in his following post, was edited from that to show the effect of his proposed changes.  While I agree with you about images whose provenance is unclear I don't  think this was an example of that as Rob clearly stated what he's done. I wish everyone would.

 

I still fail to understand why Rob cannot confine his doctored images to his own thread.

 

No confusion there; those who enjoy them can view them; and I wouldn't have to IGNORE all of Rob's posts, regardless of whether they contain doctored images or not.

 

John Isherwood.

[nigel newling]

Do you two have dyspepsia or something?

 

I enjoy the photoshopped images. Part of being a railway modeller is to enjoy the fantasy as a substitute for no longer being able to enjoy the real thing.

 

As this is a GWRRob initiated topic thread, I think it is up to him to decide if Rob's images of Hornby Stars are acceptable.

[gwrrob]

1 hour ago, nigel newling said:

 

As this is a GWRRob initiated topic thread, I think it is up to him to decide if Rob's images of Hornby Stars are acceptable.

 

Absolutely and I'm happy for any Star related posts/photos. Just for good measure, here's Knight Templar sitting in the Spring sunshine awaiting duties.

 

[Miss Prism]

15 hours ago, robmcg said:

Although it contravenes my solemn promise to not put edited pics in others' threads,  here for the sake of comparison is the same photo with 40 minutes of editing ,

 

I enjoy robmcg's pics. but I can't find his own thread.

 

[truffy]

38 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

I enjoy robmcg's pics. but I can't find his own thread.

 

 I don't think that he has one, he just seems to dump them elsewhere.

 

Personally, I like photos of locos in layouts (as @gwrrob shows above). But I'm underwhelmed by photoshopped shots, particularly since large posts can be quoted in toto and become difficult on mobile devices.

 

Verily, there are different strokes and different folks.

[robmcg]

43 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

I enjoy robmcg's pics. but I can't find his own thread.

 

 

Hornby's Best Ever thread, started by me about 100 years ago...

[robmcg]

9 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Hi Phil,

Hmmm. I found it entirely clear from his posts that Rob's first image is his own untouched photo  of the model he's just received and the second, in his following post, was edited from that to show the effect of his proposed changes.  While I agree with you about images whose provenance is unclear I don't  think this was an example of that as Rob clearly stated what he's done. I wish everyone would.

 

Much as I dislike saying so, my 'modelling' with RTR models and photo editing is a result of being paralysed from the chest down with only one arm working normally... motorbike crash in 1974.

 

I have some difficulty with ordinary living, let alone opening boxes, the object of so much holier-than-thou behaviour, but to even say this is contentious and results in warnings from Andy so I'll not say what I really think.

 

Certainly I usually put my pictures in the Hornby Best Ever thread, which I started , otherwise they are not doctored, or I offer to remove them. 

Edited March 25, 2020 by robmcg
typo

[Steamport Southport]

27 minutes ago, truffy said:

 

 I don't think that he has one, he just seems to dump them elsewhere.

 

Personally, I like photos of locos in layouts (as @gwrrob shows above). But I'm underwhelmed by photoshopped shots, particularly since large posts can be quoted in toto and become difficult on mobile devices.

 

Verily, there are different strokes and different folks.

 

He does. It's here.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/82970-hornbys-best-ever-models/page/132/#comments

 

 

 

 

 

Why anyone takes offence is baffling. It takes less than a second to scroll past.

 

If they are good enough for Tony Wright to allow in his thread, then they are good enough for me. 

 

 

 

Jason

[robmcg]

17 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

Hi Rob, Can you please add some sort of caption, watermark or credit to your images to make it clear that they are neither images of models nor images of the real thing and might contain errors. Thanks.

 

 

If they are edited I always say so and offer to remove them.

 

All pictures are edited even from a phone on Auto. Tony Wright edits skies and under-bridge gumph.  Gilbert with PN the same with skies poles etc..  Nearly all photo on here are cropped and re-sized, and many will have from a phone a one-click 'auto' re-set of images.

 

Now this is all editing.

 

Truffy . cctransuk, and others appear not to know this or willfully ignore it. My pictures are clearly straight 'normal' images cropped re-sized and made attractive, or to varying degrees edited with a VERY obvious addition of steam and smoke and a caption which says 'edited' ...  as if that isn't already clear.

 

I'll probably be suspended for saying this, the 'serious modellers' will waste Andy's time AGAIN.

 

Lovely forum, 

 

but goodbye.

 

here is an unfinished pic    edited, will remove if asked,

 

of the very same UKP67 Ebay purchase,   an RTR model no less,  thanks all, a great forum     people can fault it the model no doubt. I think it's lovely.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2020 by robmcg
typo

[Harlequin]

@robmcg My suggestion was made in good faith. I think the disclaimer needs to be in the image so that it's guaranteed to be present whatever context the image shows up in.

 

[robmcg]

1 hour ago, Miss Prism said:

 

I enjoy robmcg's pics. but I can't find his own thread.

 

 

Pleased to hear it.

 

It might not be relevant, but I have been suspended by Andy for arguing in these pages about the nature of photography, reality, editing, modelling and so on, and the result was suspension. I expect after this exchange it will happen again.

 

Most of my edited pics appear on my two Facebook pages, which have over 3,000 followers each. I haven't promoted them for many years, but I regularly add pics to the BR page.

 

One of them is 'BR Steam Photos'  the other is 'US Articulated Steam Locomotives'.

 

Curiously, although most of my pics reach between 500 and 7,000 people and are widely  shared, I have had in 5 years almost ZERO negative feedback;  just two nasty posts, easily removed, with thousand upon thousands of 'likes' and hundreds of interesting comments often from ex-BR railwaymen.

 

I haven't created by own blog or sub-section here on RMweb because nearly all my pics are more relevant to Hornby Bachmann and Heljan 00 RTR than  to my my actual photography, it is the models I like.  Not that I used ISO100 and F29 @ 6 secs.

 

Cheers  and thanks Miss Prism for your deep knowledge of details.

 

 

[JimC]

Anyone who believes any digital image is evidence of anything seriously needs their head examined.

 

[truffy]

46 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

He does. It's here.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/82970-hornbys-best-ever-models/page/132/#comments

 

Yes, and I have that thread on ignore. But, that doesn't seem to be enough.

[truffy]

5 minutes ago, JimC said:

Anyone who believes any digital image is evidence of anything seriously needs their head examined.

 

Agreed!

 

But there's a whole lot of gullible out there on the intertubes.

 

My kids have learned at skool that you can get any information you need just by searching Google. Whatever comes up is, somehow, 'true'! 

[The Great Bear]

19 minutes ago, JimC said:

Anyone who believes any digital image is evidence of anything seriously needs their head examined.

 

Photo retouching, manipulation and fakes all pre-date digital. Digital just makes it much easier to do.  

[robmcg]

24 minutes ago, JimC said:

Anyone who believes any digital image is evidence of anything seriously needs their head examined.

 

 

And I thought the Daily Mail was trustworthy...

[Miss Prism]

28 minutes ago, robmcg said:

It might not be relevant, but I have been suspended by Andy for arguing in these pages about the nature of photography, reality, editing, modelling and so on, and the result was suspension. I expect after this exchange it will happen again.

 

I would regard such action as disproportionate and unwarranted.  The irony is that the mags are quite happy to engage in image manipulation.

 

Edited March 25, 2020 by Miss Prism

[robmcg]

1 minute ago, The Great Bear said:

Photo retouching, manipulation and fakes all pre-date digital. Digital just makes it much easier to do.  

 

I was a professional new photographer in the 70s and have about 60 years of photography behind me, much published, and manipulation of exposures either on plate cameras or in a darkroom was normal.

 

Let's ban postcard art while we are at it eh? 

[robmcg]

19 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

I would regard such action as disproportionate and unwarranted.  The irony is that the mags themselves pride themselves in image manipulation.

 

 

Indeed.  I have to say that the colours and effects used in current railway modelling magazines is not particularly to my taste.  I wouldn't dream of requiring them to over-print their covers with a a message like, 'this image is manipulated and may not be accurate'.  It's self-evident, to most people, even children.

 

Anyway, back to Star models, I am all a-tither with anticipation about my two s/h 4003 'Lode Star' models. For me the great pleasure of RTR is actually receiving opening and usually photographing them. I physically cannot do much modelling with one hand and a numb club other hand. I can in my wheelchair get a Heljan Beyer Garratt out of its box unaided and undamaged and on my diorama, but it would bore people to death to explain how that is done; lots of cunning, bubble wrap  and intermediate stages!

 

With international airlines in retractionary mode I am not hopeful of instant gratification here in NZ.  We are under martial law effectively, lock-down,  we have in NZ as of yesterday about 250 covid-19 cases, 5 in hospital ,none serious no deaths so far. I feel sorry for hospital and other vital workers in the UK.

 

I am bemused by readers on this thread who cannot recognise an un-edited photo when I put in the caption 'un-edited'.

Edited March 25, 2020 by robmcg
usual typos

[Hroth]

22 minutes ago, robmcg said:

I was a professional new photographer in the 70s and have about 60 years of photography behind me, much published, and manipulation of exposures either on plate cameras or in a darkroom was normal.

 

The photos of all those pre-digital Hollywood Stars must have had tons of pencil lead lavished on the negs to present their unblemished features to an adoring public....   Anyhow, I appreciate the effort you take to make some of the locos look presentable!

 

 

[robmcg]

59 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

@robmcg My suggestion was made in good faith. I think the disclaimer needs to be in the image so that it's guaranteed to be present whatever context the image shows up in.

 

 

In all good faith, are you saying that my edited pics are TOO realistic?  I really don't know how to answer that.

 

That my photos are neither the real thing nor the model is also a bit perplexing, if you think that they are that good... I think I can see where 'historical accuracy' is important.

 

Actually the digital camera is exceedingly cruel to 00 models as many will attest, I perhaps you give me guidance on whether or not it's ethical to remove a hair or lens distortion?    All in good faith.