Scene but not Heard

On 17/12/2022 at 14:14, Tony Teague said:

Finally got this building 'finished'.

I may have gone a bit over the top with the green slime on he wall originating from a leaky downpipe but since about 2/3 of the building sits behind rows of terraced houses I think I'll live with it:

 

 

Next job is to 'plant' it which requires just a little more site clearance because, as mentioned previously, everything in front of it will have to move forward by about 4mm, however, the good news is that once that is done and those buildings in front of it are re-instated, it clears the way for the start of the installation of Steve Hewitt's magnificent semaphore signals which have been sitting in their transport frames for at least a year!

Tony

Hello Tony, So pleased you have come up with a fine solution to my acrylic wash disaster! The fact that it will stand fractionally proud of the existing card is, in my opinion, a positive factor. I have to say I am relieved, but dare not ask how many extra hour of work my mistake caused. Okay... I'll allow you to calculate it as a percentage of the total hours you have put into this magnificent project! Mike

On 17/12/2022 at 14:14, Tony Teague said:

Finally got this building 'finished'.

I may have gone a bit over the top with the green slime on he wall originating from a leaky downpipe but since about 2/3 of the building sits behind rows of terraced houses I think I'll live with it:

 

 

Next job is to 'plant' it which requires just a little more site clearance because, as mentioned previously, everything in front of it will have to move forward by about 4mm, however, the good news is that once that is done and those buildings in front of it are re-instated, it clears the way for the start of the installation of Steve Hewitt's magnificent semaphore signals which have been sitting in their transport frames for at least a year!

Tony

There is a subtlety to all your modelling that gives it a special, finger tingling feeling. For me, two things in particular set your work apart, and provide a standard for us mortals to aim for. Your eye for colour and texture is immaculate. I think model paint manufacturers have a lot to answer for by calling their products, names like grass green and slate grey. Grass has a million hues and shades, depending on a multitude of factors, but in your grass bank that we are referring to here, you have somehow managed to create a universal sense of what an English slope is like.

I am also stunned by the quality and quantity of your trees. Do you make them yourself?

Hi Tony,

Great to see  the latest weathered locos and rolling stock. There look terrific. If the 'practice makes perfect' motto has any truth to it, by the time you have finished your whole collection, you might get close to Mick's mantle as the weathering wizard!

Still no sign of a break in the covid restrictions, but once a vaccine becomes a reality I shall be delighted to visit.

Mike

That weathered loco really looks the business!

Hello Tony,

Just catching up on the progress you have been made in recent weeks. I am really impressed with how the parish church has turned out, especially when you compare it with what it replaced. It fits into the limited space extremely well, and I can't wait for when it is safe for me to return and help you with the scenery.

The Q class looks very handsome on the viaduct, although photography does cruelly pick out what is still required to get the scenery up to scratch.

Happy modelling... hopefully not too long before we can meet up.

Regards,   Mike

19 hours ago, CF MRC said:

Interesting thread.  I am a great believer in less is more and sketching-in ideas and then improving them over time. 
Making round buildings in perspective can be quite fun.   On Copenhagen Fields, the Midland Roundhouse was a prominent feature in the goods yard that needed to be represented somewhere in the distance. 

The site for it was between York Road viaduct and the back scene itself, an awkward triangular patch. 

The very first rough working was a piece of corrugated cardboard to judge the best size.  I then cut out some stout card and painted it with appropriate muted colours to see if it could work.

The idea was OK, but the execution needed to be improved: it looked like a piece of flat cardboard. Subsequent archaeological research has indicated that it was probably a red brick structure.  Some other ideas were beginning to form in the little grey cells as to how to show the curvature. A more detailed representation of the round house was therefore cut out and painted with windows and some indication of the roof lantern, derived from photos. Shading was also introduced to imply the direction of the sun and increase the effect of the circular nature of the building. 

This showed some resemblance to its predecessor but was designed to be viewed as a curve, stuck to a 10 mm thick plywood former.

When viewed from below it presents quite an alarming prospect.

 

In situ, the effect is a little less distressing and the ground level & textures will be integrated with the structure. The top of the rear roundhouse roof is not quite correct, but satisfactory for my purposes.

Viewed side-on the relationship with the back scene is obvious, as is the extent of the subtle curvature.

From the normal public viewing distance of 4’ it works well enough, but is awaiting many more structures and features to the south (left) of it. The advertising hoardings are strategically placed to ‘catch’ your eye before the scene (or lack of it) behind. 

Tim

 

 

 

 

Tim,   Thank you so much for these pictures... and I agree with your principle... to get a basic 'structure' onto which you can modify and refine in the light of what you see. I came late to the art of model railways and found the whole world of illusion fascinating. Everything you create is forced into compromise, and until one accepts that wholeheartedly, frustration will always be your partner!

More specifically, your lovely layout oozes atmosphere which, I guessing here, partly comes from your painting methods. I do hate paint pots labelled 'skin', 'rust', 'concrete' and the like; clearly your technique allows for a more varied palette.

The round-house. Hurray! It has no straight lines to cause vanishing point vertigo, but never-the-less the elipses test the best in eye-level expertise. Here, the compromise is deciding from what height the spectator will look down on it. Your pictures suggest to me that 'adult standing height' from about five feet away works splendidly. As you admit, the top lookout ring is not perfect when viewed close-up, but overall I would like to say you have achieved a terrific compromise.

Thanks for contributing this, and I look forward to seeing the finished layout.

Mike.

On 16/12/2019 at 16:49, bgman said:

At the risk of causing a few blushes for one of the contributor's may I suggest purchasing a worthwhile Christmas present.

 

Paul Bambrick & John Ellis-Cockell published a book entitled "Creating a Backscene - A Railway Modelling Companion"

 

It's been one of my better purchases.

 

G 

Thanks... I have not come across it, but I am sure it will list pitfalls as well as sound practice. All our pressies are wrapped and under the tree, but I'm sure hints will come aplenty in the New Year. A Merry Christmas to yourself, and other companions on here.

On 16/12/2019 at 16:49, bgman said:

At the risk of causing a few blushes for one of the contributor's may I suggest purchasing a worthwhile Christmas present.

 

Paul Bambrick & John Ellis-Cockell published a book entitled "Creating a Backscene - A Railway Modelling Companion"

 

It's been one of my better purchases.

 

G 

Thanks... I have not come across it, but I am sure it will list pitfalls as well as sound practice. All our pressies are wrapped and under the tree, but I'm sure hints will come aplenty in the New Year. A Merry Christmas to yourself, and other companions on here.

17 hours ago, Scene but not Heard said:

The stepped approach! Never thought of that. Interest.

Kevin,

I tracked down that conical perspective thing. Wow that's fun. After Christmas I'll give that a play... let you see the results... or not if I can't fathom it out!

6 hours ago, PJBambrick said:

True, the first layer of near scale structures behind the railway are often conveniently parallel to the line, so they don't usually need any unrealistic and conflicting perspectives.  Beyond these, I find the trick is to do a gentle, layered middle distance two point illusion with a painted skyline and 3D building facades in relief.  Restricting any unrealistic angles of observation on either side using view blockers usually results in visitors tending to just study that scene, then moving along to the next feature without disappointment.  It's my closest method of forcing an 'X marks the spot' and this cheating can be done all the way along many freelance landscapes as long as there is a little depth allowance.

 

 

For me, photo backscene prints work very well as stand alone 'distance' representations, but they are more difficult to actually blend into 3D.  Prints can work perfectly well as individually cut collage elements, as long as their perspective matches the layout's horizon datum.

 

Two 'in progress' pics of Bucks Hill show view blocking at work, where the unwanted aspect is obscured as soon as the observer moves a few feet to one side. 

That's very sound advice PJ. I totally 'get' the idea of limiting one's vision by constructing foreground 'effects' to limit the eye. Clearly the earlier in a layout development that this can be planned for, the better! In your two links here (which are stunningly naturalistic) the printed background works remarkably well... maybe because great attention seems to have been given to colour balance and seasonal attention and model/background eye-level balance. Beautiful work, a credit to the modelers. I love the country house, just visible in the valley through the trees.

Thanks for taking the trouble to show me, and other interested parties, these excellent examples.

On 14/12/2019 at 15:36, PJBambrick said:

Painted buildings can be successfully included on a backscene in perspective, but because the scale layout foreground has a different horizon datum to the artificial backscene illusion, it's the sharp transition between the two that sometimes gives trouble.  View blockers can help to control the observation angles in some cases, but middle and far distance buildings look great in perspective.  Why struggle, just leave yourself a bit of depth for a 3D backscene portrayal in the foreground, it's by far the most convincing method of gradually easing the eye away from the lineside and to the distance, and you can include plenty of interest and character to the locality in the process.

 

(The feint blue horizon datum in the 'Generate a Panorama' colour pic corresponds to the far distance. and all the different vanishing points are registered along it).

 

That's beautiful!

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I’m not suggesting this seriously, at least I don’t think I am, but I have seen a brilliant trick using elongated pyramids that stick out towards the viewer to represent receding terraces. 

The terraced houses are drawn onto the pyramids, thereby putting the smallest (= furthest away) nearest the viewer. Stick a few pyramids in a row, and move along past them, and they provide a perfect 3D affect of receding terraces, with self-adjusting angle of view.

 

It is a truly strange affect, amazingly convincing.

 

In an exhibition of trompe l’oeil at Birmingham Art Gallery, that’s where I saw it.

 

More practically, cheat.

 

 

The stepped approach! Never thought of that. Interest.

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Norman,

 

my name isn’t Chris.

 

Kevin

My apologies Kevin... I'm very new to this milarky, and I generally just press buttons and hope. I went on your blog/site/whatever thingy, and saw a number of Christopher's. I'm Mike but call me Dave.

Hello Stephen,

Here's one I did earlier lol! Just so that I'm not talking in the abstract... this is the surround to a 1960s goods yard. I had a totally free hand. other than it was needed to be 'industrial'. The scale of the retaining wall was determined by myself in order to obscure much of the close at hand perspective. As you can see the sides of the buildings were shown to a very limited extent... after several pencil sketches that was the greatest angle I thought I could get away with. The horizon is quite low. The light colour tones in the distance help as much as formal perspective to help create distance (in my humble opinion).

Chris... Art is all about cheating. ;-)

Hello Chris,

I'm a great believer in trying anything... and if it works use it! I can't quiet visualize your description... do you have any web links to what you are referring to?

Hello Compound2632,

I am assuming that you have a facing terrace of houses with roads stretching from this into the scenery?

If this is the case, there are two factors in play. 1) the angle an average height adult will look down on the scene and 2), of more importance, the length of the terracing.

I could not call myself much more than a novice, but I would suggest that in the case of (1) you will need to establish the horizon, which is one and the same as your 'vanishing-line'. If you have any choice in the matter, make this no more than double the height of the terraced houses (which are usually about 100mm 00scale). This then will limit the receding landscape, and the problems you have to deal with.

(2) As you are finding, the roads feeding away from the terrace are very difficult to represent effectively. In the work I am currently doing I have limited the receding roads to just three lengths of house. To further disguise the problems I have 'tree-lined' the roads. It really does distract from those remorseless lines to a vanishing point... which is only correct from one stand point.

I hope this might be of some use. I have no idea if your layout is a scale copy of somewhere, which clearly compounds your problems. If you have any photos, I will gladly give you more detailed advice, which you can take or leave!

 Regards,   Mike

Dear Grahame,

Whilst I wasn't posing that question for my own gratification, (at least I don't think so) it did have a purpose... namely to promote folk on here to show me to be wrong. In that way I will learn, and hopefully improve from my humble starting point. I do not want to show examples of unsuccessful backdrops, or criticize others, but what it has done is shown good attempts (yours included) at overcoming the problem. I have already seen some excellent links, so thank you for all those who have taken the time to contribute.

As other's here have suggested (Nearholmer and Jim), once three point perspective is employed, there is an increasing compromise to viewers as they move from that set point.

As has been mentioned by others, I am realizing that the further one recesses to the distance the less that compromise is felt.

I have only been scenery painting for four years, and I find the topic fascinating. I am convinced that us painters should be like football referees... the less you see of us the better... and the decisions we make had better be right!

On 13/12/2019 at 21:10, AY Mod said:

 

From your profile:

 

Maybe it would be good to disprove your own assertion by illustration first?

Dear PJ,

Thanks for the effort you have expended in your reply, most interesting.

Perhaps you realized that I posed a deliberately provocative question here! As a later comer to the work of modelling, and in particular scenic backdrops I immediately appreciated the difficultly perspective presents. All perspective represented of a flat plane can have only one viewpoint... another words, relative to all other buildings and features on a layout, there is only point where a spectator can stand to see the correct illusion. Realistically, no railway

modeler will what to have an X marks the spot on the floor of their studio! (Even then, a step ladder would need to be provided to compensate for the varied heights of different viewers).

Trees, pillars and the like do not present a problem as long as the scale, and recessive lighting is taken into account. But three dimensional buildings! The more you show of two sides the more certainty there will be of poor results.

Can photographic backdrops of buildings ever but effective?

Regards,    Mike

It NEVER works. Painting buildings on background scenes in 3D perspective looks awful. Discuss.