would people use a 'why isnt this picture realistic' thread

[Jamie]

It's a bit sad if the only thing expected on existing threads is posts of admiration, and we need a separate "lion's den" thread.

RMWeb's strength in the past was that folk were helped, encouraged, to improve.

This was done not only by acknowledging the poster's existing strengths, but by suggesting where improvements could be made.

[Guest Phil]

In response to Will Vale's request for comments on his class 60 earlier - To be honest Will the only comments I have are ;

 

The ballast on the track nearest the photographer is just a little to "clean". This could suggest recent relaying, but maybe just a very slight colour varation would give a better effect,

 

The running gear on the bogies could do with a couple of washes of grime and brake dust to take the remaining shinyness away and give a more realistic colour.

 

 

Apart from that the photo looks good, although I am not experienced enough in S&T gubbins to comment on the point equipment.

 

 

Hope this helps

[newbryford]

What really struck me as unrealistic about that "33" was that it had completely the wrong cab windows, and gangway doors.

 

 

Maybe that's why it's not realistic - it's the wrong class of loco ........

 

Mick

[Will Vale]

Thanks for all the suggestions, useful stuff. I'll try some lower-angle shots next time I get the layout out, and maybe play with this image in Photoshop to see if I can correct the lighting.

 

The comments about ballast and lack of grot I agree with - the real location has recently-laid ballast, but they also have more space around the track, I think maybe part of the issue is that I have grass coming too close for ballast that new?

 

The shiny running gear, I 'greased' the springs on purpose to match the pics I looked at. Funny though - it does look like shiny plastic in the picture, which I'd never noticed before!

 

I'm interested that no-one picked up the gert big 'oles where the ends of the tie-bars run - they always stand out for me compared to prototype shots, especially with the natural light. Not sure what to do about the plastic crossings either

 

Anyway perhaps requests need to be specific

I dunno, I like the idea of the whole thing being automatically up for critique, just as the whole thing is what you're supposed to provide in 'How realistic?' thread. There are plenty of forum topic areas to ask specific questions about stock, track, etc. etc. already.

 

It's a bit sad if the only thing expected on existing threads is posts of admiration, and we need a separate "lion's den" thread.

Just to clarify, I think I was the only one making that suggestion, I don't think it's universally agreed-with! It just seems a shame when people want to join in and get told "sorry, not good enough". I think constructive criticism is vital, what really winds me up is the way that every so often someone will say "I thought this was supposed to be realistic models, there's loads of pictures on here that don't fit the bill" and then a chorus of agreement appears. Which strikes me as different from criticising individual pics and providing useful suggestions, and seems like it could be off-putting.

I totally agree that there's a balance to be struck between being open and fawning though

 

Thanks again!

 

Will

[Guest jim s-w]

 

it took me ages to figure out why pictures of my class 310 never looked much like a real 310. In the end it was a simple case of raising the ride height that made all the difference.

 

 

No reason to be confused beast. I was specific in the example I gave:)

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Guest jim s-w]

It's a bit sad if the only thing expected on existing threads is posts of admiration, and we need a separate "lion's den" thread.

RMWeb's strength in the past was that folk were helped, encouraged, to improve.

This was done not only by acknowledging the poster's existing strengths, but by suggesting where improvements could be made.

 

I do agree but do people want or feel they can give feedback?

 

I doubt anyone thought that Hornby dublo stuff posted a while ago was realistic at all, it was in completely the wrong place, equally we occasionally see models shown that are simply removed from it's rtr box and plonked on the track. Yes rtr stuff is good but it's how realistic are your models not how realistic is your shopping.

 

Both examples are interesting in their own right of course

 

Cheers

 

Jim

['CHARD]

it's how realistic are your models not how realistic is your shopping.

 

That's gonna take some beating for me, as quote of the day.

 

Nice one Jim

 

 

* my bold

[Jamie]

I do agree but do people want or feel they can give feedback?

 

In many cases yes, to both. With a bit of tact, constructive input needn't be demoralising to the modeller.

[newbryford]

With a bit of tact,

 

We are talking rmweb here

 

Tact can be difficult to come by............ Lack of tact is not always intended, it's the unemotive nature of e-communication that often causes it.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Pennine MC]

.

RMWeb's strength in the past was that folk were helped, encouraged, to improve.

.

 

I might be reading too much into this - is the feeling that things aren't like that anymore?

 

That said, it can be a fine balance. My own yardstick FWIW is to offer advice/critique only if a) I know the member well enough that I'm confident it won't be taken in the wrong spirit or b ) comments are specifically requested. Even in the latter case, it can be difficult to swim against a tide of posts saying something is wonderful without appearing to be carping.

 

Another example is when somebody asks what improvements can be made to, say, a RTR model; in that case I'll try to only present facts, or give suggestions as options, I wouldnt insist that a particular modification is mandatory. I certainly wouldnt be so overbearing as to dive into a random thread and say something like 'nice layout, shame your Vanfits have the wrong brakegear'.

[Jamie]

I might be reading too much into this - is the feeling that things aren't like that anymore?

Unsure if your question is addressed to me, or generally.

If it is addressed to me, well that's exactly what I'm asking. Have we got to that stage where suggestions of improvement need done in a "safe place"?

[Oldddudders]

Have we got to that stage where suggestions of improvement need done in a "safe place"?

No, but JS-W's idea is that people should deliberately invite minute carping, so they might learn and improve. I think it takes a particular sort of person to invite criticism and remain stoic and balanced when it arrives by the bucketful!

[Guest Phil]

Unsure if your question is addressed to me, or generally.

If it is addressed to me, well that's exactly what I'm asking. Have we got to that stage where suggestions of improvement need done in a "safe place"?

 

I really hope not Jamie.

 

Jim created this thread to specifically consider whether there was a need for a thread where posters could ask for positive critique of their modelling.

 

I think there is, and I think a few others also agree. It is therefore up to any RMwebber to submit photos of their projects to the thread for comments, but if they do - lets be really honest about it. What we need is lots of positive comment, preferably offering advice, and reasoning by the comments posted.

 

This thread, if used correctly could be really beneficial in my opinion. An example might be "here chaps - this is an unfitted 16T mineral wagon I've been working on for a few evenings. Not sure I am happy with it, can you advise ?"

 

With the benefit of sitting in a clinic with Mark Forrest, which was hosted by "PennineMC" - I learned a massive amount and feel far more objective over wagon weathering. If fellow RMwebbers can receive similar positive advice through such a thread, it would be really useful.

 

I cannot stress the positive word enough though.

['CHARD]

people should deliberately invite minute carping,

 

Is that in the Noch Fishing set?

 

 

[Oldddudders]

Is that in the Noch Fishing set?

"Boom, Boom!" as I believe they used to say!

['CHARD]

Now here's a thought.

 

Returning to the OP and being deliberately prescriptive, whilst attempting to retain the good humour for which this forum is rightly renowned (despite my efforts otherwise), may I make a suggestion?

 

Call it something like:

 

"I can't quite put my finger on it, but..."

 

Then post your picture AND the parameters you're operating in. For example:

 

This is a Class 29 'Sad Eyes' I converted from the Hornby model. Bearing in mind I use kadees as standard, run on OO track and have yet to add bufferbeam detail, what is it about the face of the loco that I've not got right?

 

In my scenario, assuming the poster has not bothered to enlarge the windows and flush glaze them from scratch, then we can cut to the chase pretty quickly.

 

I think between them Jim and Phil finally got to this regarding Jim's 310. After a bit of a dance around, we were man enough to agree on ride height and windows, other contributors however chucked in a few wild cards because the original parameters hadn't been defined tightly enough.

 

Does that make any sense?

[definate maybe]

I agree with Chard's comments above, rather than a 'why isnt it realistic' thread how about a 'how can I improve this' thread but the poster advises where his limitations are or what areas he is trying to improve. Ie 'i am using set track for ease so I know this isnt realistic but am happy to repaint/ weather/ modify the loco - how can it be improved'

I think where Jim S-W's idea fails is that he has the ability to create a very impressive model which only 10-25% of the posters on here can hope to get near . If we were all at his superb level of modelling then the origin post idea may be fine but with the wide range of abilities demonstated then a helpful hand may be a better way forward.

[coachmann]

Usually my first impression does it and if its...."Blimey that looks like the real thing", I stick with it. If my eyes don't initially spot the Bachmanns couplings, Peco Code 100 and other things, then even better!

[Pennine MC]

Unsure if your question is addressed to me, or generally.

 

 

So was I

 

 

Usually my first impression does it and if its...."Blimey that looks like the real thing", I stick with it. If my eyes don't initially spot the Bachmanns couplings, Peco Code 100 and other things, then even better!

 

We're getting into 'suspension of disbelief' here, a fascinating but essentially subjective notion because most of us will edit out the less realistic elements, either consciously or subconsciously, if we're generally well-disposed to the picture.

[Waverley West]

Lots of interesting and valid points, but to get back to the OP, maybe, Jim, you should just start the thread and see where it takes us? Assuming it hasn't already been started here to some extent of course.

 

It seems like there are enough people who have posted their support for the idea, including me. I liked the comment that the thread should be entitled something along the lines of "How can I make this more realistic?", rather than "Why isn't this realistic". Accentuate the positive and all that.

 

What's the worst that can happen? :lol:

 

Cheers,

Dave

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi Dave

 

I was wondering if a group might be better that way questions can be separate and the 'rules' are easier to see? What do you think?

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Pugsley]

I might be reading too much into this - is the feeling that things aren't like that anymore?

 

That said, it can be a fine balance. My own yardstick FWIW is to offer advice/critique only if a) I know the member well enough that I'm confident it won't be taken in the wrong spirit or b ) comments are specifically requested. Even in the latter case, it can be difficult to swim against a tide of posts saying something is wonderful without appearing to be carping.

 

Another example is when somebody asks what improvements can be made to, say, a RTR model; in that case I'll try to only present facts, or give suggestions as options, I wouldnt insist that a particular modification is mandatory. I certainly wouldnt be so overbearing as to dive into a random thread and say something like 'nice layout, shame your Vanfits have the wrong brakegear'.

I think that pretty much sums up my approach as well. That doesn't always work though, I can think of at least one person that wasn't that impressed when I offered them advice, who would fall into one of the above categories.

 

Some things I will always mention regardless, unpainted wheels on weathered stock being one of them - why weather something and leave the wheels all shiny?

[Waverley West]

"I was wondering if a group might be better that way questions can be separate and the ‘rules’ easier to see? What do you think?"

 

 

Yes, I can see the merit in that. The clearer the "rules", the better I think. It is a potential minefield but I really don't see why the potential pitfalls can't be avoided if we're all sensible and mature about it. Cough. Splutter.

 

I'm certainly prepared for my photos to be constructively criticised and I think other RMWebbers are too, perhaps more so than is the case with the current realism thread, which seems to be based more around the number of '+'s as an indication of quality, rather than constructive comment in depth.

[beast66606]

Some things I will always mention regardless, unpainted wheels on weathered stock being one of them - why weather something and leave the wheels all shiny?

 

Depends which vehicle, some have brakes which act on the front of the wheel

[BlackRat]

Dave, sounds like a good idea in principle

 

Usual caveat...............

What's the worst that can happen?

 

In my experience, a broken nose! ........or worse!! (I was neither a giver or receiver (ohhh Vicar) but a seperator!! lol)

 

Remember there is a HUGE divide between useful advice (which is positive) and critiscm (which is often destructive, intentional or not) and not everyone who posts will take it on the chin.

 

That said, hopefully we are ALL looking at ways to improve and I think good advice is always useful, whether you heed it or not.

 

A group may well be the way to go, as you wouldn't be in it if you didn't know the score.