How realistic are your models? Photo challenge.

[GreenGiraffe22]

CME, I have a feeling my latest offering to this thread may have sparked your comments, admittedly not my most realistic contribution, but I just wanted to show off my new toy and recreate a situation I'd read about, unfortunately to fit in the rake of wagons I had to include unfinished parts of the layout.

 

At the moment my skill set doesn't come anywhere near some of the contributers here, but I still enjoy taking part

 

Edit: I don't own photoshop either... Just a basic photo editor that came with my computer that can add filters.

Edited March 20, 2017 by GreenGiraffe22

[Waverley West]

At the moment my skill set doesn't come anywhere near some of the contributers here, but I still enjoy taking part

 

Personally, I think taking part and getting constructive and helpful views from others is what this thread should be all about. How good you are shouldn't be an issue. We all have our level whatever scale or gauge we model in. But that's just my view.

 

Sorry, I said I wasn't going to contribute anymore but I felt that greengiraffe's comment hit the nail on the head for me.  :scratchhead:   

 

 

PS Thank you for the many kind expressions of support I've received, both above and via PMs. Maybe I'll just take a short break instead. 

[CME and Bottlewasher]

CME, I have a feeling my latest offering to this thread may have sparked your comments, admittedly not my most realistic contribution, but I just wanted to show off my new toy and recreate a situation I'd read about, unfortunately to fit in the rake of wagons I had to include unfinished parts of the layout.

At the moment my skill set doesn't come anywhere near some of the contributers here, but I still enjoy taking part

Edit: I don't own photoshop either... Just a basic photo editor that came with my computer that can add filters.

Hi GG,

My comments were not directed at you, specifically and your layout looks more complete than my own at this point in time, yet it be wrong of me not to mention that a photo of a SFTB loco doesnt, personally inspire me-the pages of mainstream mags are full of them (nice loco BTW). If one looks, eg. at Tony Wrights Thread its full of doers, kit builders, kit bashers, RTR modifiers and that's what this Thread used to be about. IF we, as a modelling community, dont-until all the younger Thomas the Tank Engine fans get interested (as interest in model rlys seem to have skipped a generation) catch up - keep kit building/modifying etc etc then in a 'use it or loose it way' many cottage industry suppliers will go, even local model shops are closing down at a rate of two or more a month. As mentioned I make no value judgements, each to their own and the apple of one modeller's eye wont be the same for another. Im certainly not a gauge or scale snob and Im pleased that you are excited about your latest purchase, but I did feel, atop of some others' Posts, that your Post wasnt in the spirit of the Thread. What is realistic in a model is debatable adinfinitum, eg. A working, smooth running OO layout, compared to a superbly detailed P4 layout that only runs when it works? Im also deeply concerned that our consumerist world promotes-for the sake of the super elite and big business-'retail therapy' because last years profits are never enough AND we all fall foul of such. Lord knows what the state of the planet will be like re waste, pollution and 7+billion of us, in 50 years time if we all dont change and change soon. But I digress. As I said my comments were not aimed at you specifically, but your photo did trigger, for me, some thoughts about this Thread, it would be wrong of me to deny such. Critique rather than critism is, however, my mantra and I hope my words here are taken in that vein.....

Personally, I think taking part and getting constructive and helpful views from others is what this thread should be all about. How good you are shouldn't be an issue. We all have our level whatever scale or gauge we model in. But that's just my view.

 

Sorry, I said I wasn't going to contribute anymore but I felt that greengiraffe's comment hit the nail on the head for me. :scratchhead:

 

 

PS Thank you for the many kind expressions of support I've received, both above and via PMs. Maybe I'll just take a short break instead.

 

Dave,

 

We have had a lovely exchange of PMs and we are very much in agreement, you also know by now that I think your layout, locos and stock are excellent-and the way your trackwork is laid, weathered etc plays to its strengths, in your model-making, nothing 'jars' either (not to my eyes anyway).

 

You kindly said that I was the voice of reason.

 

From my POV Ive seen some wonderful P4 layouts in magazines only to be disappointed by them when Ive viewed them at exhibition, because either they dont run well or the owner/operator will only run one train a day because thats how the prototype was on the afternoon of 16th October 1963! Ha ha! Ive also seen OO layouts that have used SMP et al track whereby onlooker/experts have commented out aloud with a knowing air of authority '....how marvellous it is to see well made, well operated P4 exhibition layouts!' Then the layout's owner tells said know it all, what many of us already knew, that the layout is 'OO'! Having said such Mostyn is P4 and yet works superbly-a layout that both you and I admire. Pendon is only EM is it not?

 

Despite all of these things, regardless of RTR, RTL, gauge, scale etc etc some models, some layouts have that magical ingredient, Im loathed to write it, but they have the X factor....IIRC (the name) 'Braydon' in OO on a 6x4 baseboard (possibly old hat now-but I still think that it holds its own as a layout, ie amongst the best of its type)....all such layouts are superbly executed by editing out items that 'jar' and maximising what is available. One 2mm layout in MRJ recently was such a layout, it utilised some off the shelf structures kits, yet the whole scene worked synergistically.

 

That's what this Thread is about-at least in my mind it is/was. I whole heartedly agree we need to encourage young and old newcomers to the hobby, Ive always believed in that and Ive actively supported such. But when magazines are full of much of the same - some mainstream mags are actively discouraging kit/scratch building/kit bashing based articles-and some dont have the space for such due to all the RTR reviews and advertisements - we need multi scale and gauge Threads like this to inspire, not to repeat what the mainstream mags are doing enmasse, do we not? Tony Wrights Thread is another good case in point, full of doers, inspirational model making and practical folk. I dont know how others feel, yet I felt that this Thread was an oasis of inspiration, it wont be if we just plonk our latest, unweathered, unmodified, RTR chequebook/credit card purchase on a piece of RTL track and take a photo of such, then Post it here? We can see that in a mag or catologue.

 

You havent done that Dave, you Post your modelling, your slant on such.

 

As Ive written before, a SFTB latest purchase loco on a radius one set track curve and using a B&W filter isnt the ethos of the Thread IMHHO.

 

I have noted some nit picking on here too and I seem to have blundered into the middle of such.....critiques are more helpful than nit picking IMHO.

 

I shall now endavour to stay quiet and let others Post photos of their model making (whilst I go back to model making and taking some photos of such), I strive towards continous improvement and I set my sights on achieving what the greats do, even if I never achieve such, its good to aim high, sometimes inspiring, sometimes frustrating and mostly fun.

 

Kind regards to ALL here,

 

CME

Edited March 20, 2017 by CME and Bottlewasher

[westerhamstation]

Just leaving Chevening Halt.

[john flann]

CME, it's comments like your most recent ones (and earlier) that always make me think twice before posting on this thread.

 

And, if we have to be judgemental then surely a fair measure of "realism" of any image/model is the number of "likes", or other commendation it receives.

 

Having said that I do not intend to enter in on any further comment-except to say that as as far as my own modelling standards are concerned my Hintock thread and my Hintock website (  www:hintockbranch.com/ see link below ) speak for themselves.

 

 

Above and below are two examples of work in progress - or realism in the making- on my most recent project-Port Bredy.

 

Edited March 20, 2017 by john flann

[gwrrob]

The signalman's job is sometimes a lonely one at Tigley Junction.

 

 

[wagonbasher]

Personally, I think taking part and getting constructive and helpful views from others is what this thread should be all about. How good you are shouldn't be an issue. We all have our level whatever scale or gauge we model in. But that's just my view.

 

Sorry, I said I wasn't going to contribute anymore but I felt that greengiraffe's comment hit the nail on the head for me.  :scratchhead:   

 

 

PS Thank you for the many kind expressions of support I've received, both above and via PMs. Maybe I'll just take a short break instead. 

 

Posing a question like "how realistic are my models?" will inevitably receive a 'not very' occasionally.  There are all kinds on this thread.  I follow it because often I go "Wow!".  I show my wife...   "look at that!!".  If I'm honest she's not really that bothered but I have to show someone.  Waverly West is the source of many a Wow!

 

If you post the best weathered item of rolling stock against your garage wall, sure, the locomotive may be well realistic but the scene wont be realistic with a couple of tins of Dulux paint in the background..  But, post what you like, I'm not having to pay to look.

 

Andy

[2ManySpams]

I for one am very glad that CME started this discussion.

 

There's some really excellent modelling on this thread, and the photos are often the skilled combination of modelling, scene setting, photography, lighting and Photoshop. All equally valid in my opinion.

 

I totally agree with the comment that SFTB models, plonked on first radius set-track isn't in the spirit of the thread. I know that I'm looking to be wowed and forced to look really hard to check if it's real or not. For me scale and gauge play no part in this. IMO an eye for detail and colouration are far more important.

 

I must admit I'm not convinced that simply applying a black and white or sepia filter instantly turns a photograhed subject into something realistic.

 

No finger pointing, no intent to force folk not to post, no intent to upset, just opinions - we are allowed those aren't we?

[2ManySpams]

Personally, I think taking part and getting constructive and helpful views from others is what this thread should be all about. How good you are shouldn't be an issue. We all have our level whatever scale or gauge we model in. But that's just my view.

 

Sorry, I said I wasn't going to contribute anymore but I felt that greengiraffe's comment hit the nail on the head for me.  :scratchhead:   

 

 

PS Thank you for the many kind expressions of support I've received, both above and via PMs. Maybe I'll just take a short break instead.

 

Yours are some of the very best photos on here. No need to stop posting​ IMO, not sure why you've taken such offence - from what I've read nothing was aimed in your direction.

 

Yes in a perfect world with limitless time, money and skill we'd all have no need for Peco track and its compromises but that's not the case. I fully understand your choice of track and think that the composition of your photos often hides this very well indeed. That said the point blades and flangeways are the one thing that can point to the photo being a model. No criticism intended of your excellent layout and photos.

[gwrrob]

I must admit I'm not convinced that simply applying a black and white or sepia filter instantly turns a photograhed subject into something realistic.

No finger pointing, no intent to force folk not to post, no intent to upset, just opinions - we are allowed those aren't we?

Guilty as charged my Lord.

[vitalspark]

Theres been a lot said about using OO track but with SMP straight out of the packet then weathered and skilfully laid excellent results can be achieved.

 

Sharp curves rather than track gauge are probably more of a problem on some space limited layouts as it doesn't matter what the gauge is they will always drag the overall effect down.

 

On Alloa we have far too much stock at 16.5 both kit and modified rtr so we make the best of it by building as close as we can to prototype practice avoiding sharp curves and making sure all ballast is properly weathered and correctly laid.

Also all buildings and infrastructure needs to be seen as bedded in ..nothing makes a layout more toy like than platforms and buildings with gaps to the baseboards.

Easily and cheaply sorted so no excuse for tunnel mouths etc just plonked on the baseboard..definately 'not realistic'.

 

I have posted before and admit to often using B&W images although not photoshopped as it does often convey the atmosphere I seek however I take the point of previous posters regarding this andf all this attached rate as taken.

Alloa is a large OO scale layout as is the new one under construction and its a credit to it that we are often asked if it is EM.

Two of our group well known to many are privately constructing finescale EM layouts alongside the new OO layout and they really are superb so we do have the skills amongst us its just that for a large exhibition layout utilising the vast stock we already own a OO finescale layout seems a decent compromise.

 

I include a few shots all straight from the camera and often phone with no photoshopping to illustrate some of the points as regards using OO to advantage.

 

 

A good kit built model on SMP OO track.

This is Tony Wrights Tudor Minstrel.. a very welcome guest on Alloa.

Little Bytham is also OO which is good news for us when a loco like this comes to visit.

 

 

Not very clear shot but the intention is to show the very convincing SMP track work when rail section and sleeper spacing combine to given EM appearance…well I think so anyway!

 

 

 

A RTR loco with a bit of extra detail and weathering sitting on SMP track at a platform properly bedded in and with subtle weathering colours.

Nothing turns me off more than super clean and brightly coloured station buildings..they weren't like that!

 

 

A general view of the station from the west.

No attempt at masking the fact its in a clubroom.

We have a cropped and B&W version which I admit does transform the scene but thats noir what this post is about.

 

 

Again SMP OO track often mistaken at shows for EM.

Weathering and detail is the key.

 

 

 

A few more general shots showing the track work and attention to bedding in adjacent structures and detail plus subtle weathering colours.

 

The tunnel mouth is a point to note as too many I have seen look just like they have been plonked onto the baseboard.

Little cost and effort in this department can obtain decent results.

 

 

 

 

 

Hope this has encouraged some of our OO modellers to continue posting.

 

Dave. 

 

 

 

 

[Vistisen]

I must admit I'm not convinced that simply applying a black and white or sepia filter instantly turns a photograhed subject into something realistic.

 

AT first I thought I was in agreement as colours are one of the hardest things to get right.  But then I looked at the title  "How realistic are your models? Photo challenge" Well... most photos of steam trains are in black and white, so are the black and white photos of steam trains not more photo realistic? Mind you, anyone putting up monochrome shots of say, class 70's is pushing their luck!

[vitalspark]

AT first I thought I was in agreement as colours are one of the hardest things to get right.  But then I looked at the title  "How realistic are your models? Photo challenge" Well... most photos of steam trains are in black and white, so are the black and white photos of steam trains not more photo realistic? Mind you, anyone putting up monochrome shots of say, class 70's is pushing their luck!

 

 

Same pics.

 

 

 

Dave.

[leopardml2341]

It is clear, to me at least, that with the thread title posing the question "How realistic are your models? Photo challenge" the following posts will be pictures exhibiting varying degrees of realism.

 

So is the challenge to photograph one of your (i.e. owned by you) models in such a way as to create a believable 'realistic' image or to photograph a realistic model In say the manner of a works 'grey loco' picture? My interpretation of the thread title is that both types of picture are appropriate responses.

 

Anyone posting here must hold some belief that what they have posted has an element of believable realism to them; other readers can choose to give praise (or not) by use of the appropriate ratings buttons.

 

One dictionary definition of believable is:

 

(of a fictional character or situation) convincing or realistic.

 

Ergo the respondent to the challenge perhaps feels that they 'have' created an image of a model that is realistic or posted an image of a realistic model, which may not be in realistic surroundings.

 

Each and everyone of us has our preferences, skill level reference and an innate threshold of believability which will no doubt influence agreement or not with any post in this thread.

 

My approach is to show agreement when my believability threshold is met and to be politely quiet when it isn't.

 

One of my preferences for realism comes as much from believable operating scenarios, try conveying that in a photo - that would be a challenge!

 

Now having set that hare running.....

 

Keep the pics, of either interpretation of the OP, coming is what I say!

Edited March 20, 2017 by leopardml2341

[leopardml2341]

Mind you, anyone putting up monochrome shots of say, class 70's is pushing their luck!

Are you sure?

 

http://www.semgonline.com/model/dsmod01.html

 

Not mine by the way

Edited March 20, 2017 by leopardml2341

[CME and Bottlewasher]

CME, it's comments like your most recent ones (and earlier) that always make me think twice before posting on this thread.

 

And, if we have to be judgemental then surely a fair measure of "realism" of any image/model is the number of "likes", or other commendation it receives.

 

Having said that I do not intend to enter in on any further comment-except to say that as as far as my own modelling standards are concerned my Hintock thread and my Hintock website (  www:hintockbranch.com/ see link below ) speak for themselves.

 

IMG_0026-1.jpg

 

Above and below are two examples of work in progress - or realism in the making- on my most recent project-Port Bredy.

 

IMG_0021-1.jpg

Hi, not sure of your point, what you are driving at? I also believe that 'judgemental' is a harsh word, from my POV, I was being more philosophical in terms of my comments  

AT first I thought I was in agreement as colours are one of the hardest things to get right.  But then I looked at the title  "How realistic are your models? Photo challenge" Well... most photos of steam trains are in black and white, so are the black and white photos of steam trains not more photo realistic? Mind you, anyone putting up monochrome shots of say, class 70's is pushing their luck!

 But those steam trains were real! B&W photos of a model hides a multitude of sins, ie colour and the rendition of such, which in model form is very hard. I still believe that the core of the Thread title is 'how realistic are YOUR models'. Not how realistic are your latest purchases/how realistic is a manufactured model etc etc

Same pics.

 

IMG_0317 - Version 2-2.jpeg

 

IMG_0317 - Version 4.jpeg

 

Dave.

Superb! Why? because they were superb to start with when in colour.

 

Best wishes to all,

 

CME

[Waverley West]

Yours are some of the very best photos on here. No need to stop posting​ IMO, not sure why you've taken such offence - from what I've read nothing was aimed in your direction.

 

Yes in a perfect world with limitless time, money and skill we'd all have no need for Peco track and its compromises but that's not the case. I fully understand your choice of track and think that the composition of your photos often hides this very well indeed. That said the point blades and flangeways are the one thing that can point to the photo being a model. No criticism intended of your excellent layout and photos.

 

For some time now, a recurring theme in the comments that follow many of my photos that dare to show my Peco points concerns the point blades, crossing gaps, etc. This has got to the point now (pardon the pun) where I expect a post or two after each of my photos referring to it, often in less than tactful terms. I have no intention of replacing my points, let alone my track, any time soon, so this situation is unlikely to change and by implication my photos are unlikely to become more realistic.

 

A recent comment in a discussion on this was that RTL track could be realistic if you didn't show the track gauge, the rail profile or the flanges. Well, if that is the case, I'm blowed if I can work out what you can show.

 

I must confess that my enthusiasm for posting on this thread has waned because of this attitude. I even got such a comment after a photo I posted which has so far attracted 84 likes. I welcome constructive feedback, but the repetitive nature and often less than tactful phrasing of these comments leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

 

I hope that explains my views.

[lightengine]

Vitalspark, at some stage in their life, station buildings were pristine. If someone models the 1920's LNER then any station built/rebuilt in that period would be fairly pristine. But I acknowledge your point in general. I regularly observe in historical films how they use buildings like castles with worn stone arches, doorways, steps etc when in reality these would not be so worn as the buildings would have been relatively new in the period filmed.

I notice in one of your photos (I am not being critical, just observant) that a downpipe does not connect with the gutter. It's little things like that that make for realism. Maybe that was accidental though.

Looking at some photos of a quay the other daybghe modeller had modelled a hroken timber on the structure.

[P.C.M]

25059 arrives at Llanbourne on the daily Speedlink working.

 

The last few days on this thread have made for some interesting reading. I for one hopes Dave keeps posting his Pics.

 

Cheers Peter.

[PhilJ W]

I'm getting fed up with the carping and criticism from some on this thread. Many of the models and layouts here are far better than I could ever hope to achieve so I have no reason to criticise. If anyone wants to criticise put pictures of your own efforts up or shut up.

[vitalspark]

Vitalspark, at some stage in their life, station buildings were pristine. If someone models the 1920's LNER then any station built/rebuilt in that period would be fairly pristine. But I acknowledge your point in general. I regularly observe in historical films how they use buildings like castles with worn stone arches, doorways, steps etc when in reality these would not be so worn as the buildings would have been relatively new in the period filmed.

I notice in one of your photos (I am not being critical, just observant) that a downpipe does not connect with the gutter. It's little things like that that make for realism. Maybe that was accidental though.

Looking at some photos of a quay the other daybghe modeller had modelled a hroken timber on the structure.

 

Downpipe..what downpipe  !..now frantically searching pics for said offender

 

Seriously though it may have been intentional but possibly not so rest assured it will be found and sorted.

 

I take your point on pristine station buildings and yes of course you are right a country branch station in the early days would have been immaculate with pristine gardens to match no doubt.

 

We model the industrial central belt of Scotland in the 60s so it doesn't get much bleaker as regards colours go.

 

Easy to model right enough just a palette of blacks greys browns and the like!

 

Thanks for your comments everything is constructive and its what this forum is about and WW keep posting your excellent pics they hit the spot regardless of the track.

 

Dave. 

[The Stationmaster]

For some time now, a recurring theme in the comments that follow many of my photos that dare to show my Peco points concerns the point blades, crossing gaps, etc. This has got to the point now (pardon the pun) where I expect a post or two after each of my photos referring to it, often in less than tactful terms. I have no intention of replacing my points, let alone my track, any time soon, so this situation is unlikely to change and by implication my photos are unlikely to become more realistic.

 

A recent comment in a discussion on this was that RTL track could be realistic if you didn't show the track gauge, the rail profile or the flanges. Well, if that is the case, I'm blowed if I can work out what you can show.

 

I must confess that my enthusiasm for posting on this thread has waned because of this attitude. I even got such a comment after a photo I posted which has so far attracted 84 likes. I welcome constructive feedback, but the repetitive nature and often less than tactful phrasing of these comments leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

 

I hope that explains my views.

 

I love your photos and therefore equally must be fairly keen on what they portray - even if it is the diesel age (and horror of all horrors - blue diesels  ).  So that must say more than a little about both your modelling and your photography - to grab my interest and get that 'Like' when the subject in the prototype is not one which appeals to me is saying quite a lot.  So one could readily ask why am I so keen on your pics and their subject matter?  Simples - they brilliantlycapture the atmosphere and feel of the real world (so keep on doing it please).

 

Then comes the things which are 'lost' in my first, and strongest, impression when looking at pictures of your railway - I'm more likely to look and see if you have got point machines, or handpoint levers the right way round, than the make of track you use.  The gauge (which I also use) is not something which detracts from the overall impression because the reality and 'feel' of the overall scene just loses it; and if you've seen telephoto shots of real pointwork the curvature and turnout angles do not look out of place.

 

The main constructive (I hope) feedback I can offer is 'keep on the way you're going' because you're hitting all the right buttons for me (apart from the colour of the diesels - and I can even manage to ignore that to be honest).

[johndon]

I don't think I've posted this before, 56009 catches the late evening sun outside the shed:

 

 

John

[Porcy Mane]

Blooming Heck John. Missing fish plates!  

 

(please note the smiley everybody.)

[Stubby47]

What I like about WW's pictures is they are instantly recognisable as whose they are - their style, composition etc., all point to the same source.

 

Sandhills used to do this with his weathered locos, Chris Nevard has the same ability.

 

WW, please keep posting your pics, some of us can't tell the difference between real track and Peco OO (as we're not too concerned about the real stuff), so flange gaps are of no interest - it's the overall look, carefully posed trains and general atmosphere that give the pictures their high quality. 

 

Edit: to correct Sandhills' name

Edited March 22, 2017 by Stubby47