PaternosterRow

11 hours ago, Mikkel said:

 

Mike, those are extraordinary images - especially the last one. Apart from everything else there's some very effective atmospheric haze going on in those shots - or whatever it is, can't quite put my finger on it. And you're only just getting started!

 

Cheers, Mikkel.  The haze is simple cigarette smoke - not exactly PC these days but very effective.  These are high F stop, long exposure shots so you don’t get to see blue swirls just a sort of haze.  Love the shot of Gollum by the way!

I've been experimenting with my home made lighting rig (see my Folgate Street Blog) I made from an old over head projector to see how the lighting effects being planned might work out.

I've sprayed on a bit more black to enhance the filthy state of the screen.  Painting and cleaning the Screens wasn't too regular in the 20th C and they appeared much filthier prior to 1936 when it was last cleaned and painted.

I'm clearly going to have to think something up if I want to create a more mottled, sun beam type effect when the model is completed.  I'm thinking of using a layer of white paper over the top with various pinholes and openings here and there.  This will all have to wait for now whilst I finish the layout.

7 hours ago, Alex Duckworth said:

Hello Mike - brilliant (as ever) photo. I went back several times to check that it is a model and that you aren't spoofing us. Magic!

 

regards,

Alex.

Hi Alex, hope you and the family are all well and good.  Thanks for the comment - very flattering given your skills at this wonderful hobby.  Don’t be over fooled by it all - photos always make the work look better!  Overall, I’m pretty pleased with results so far and I’m pushing on for the finish.  This layout has felt like a bit of a marathon so far.

Cheers again,  Mike

4 hours ago, Mikkel said:

Mike, that is absurdly good. As I started scrolling down the first photo I thought "Oh good, he's going to build this station structure". Turns out it was the model itself.

 

The loco looks good but the structure steals the show. You're probably going to have to get used to that! I hope you're planning for lighting, we'll be demanding high noon shadows, late afternoon low light, and gas-lit night time shots! 

 

The facade is a work of art. It seems to be fairly lightly supported, isn't architecture magical sometimes (sometimes!).

 

 

Gosh, cheers, Mikkel.  That’s valued praise from a genuine master of the hobby and it’s come at the right time too as I was started to flag a bit.  Unfortunately, being limited by the materials I use out of economy I see all the niggles and mistakes.  The screen for example, is made of card and it doesn’t take well to readjustment.  You can see that things don’t quite line up and the angular nicks along the top of the windows are not all uniform as on the prototype.  The same goes for the roof structure and if you were to put your eye along the trusses you would see the wobbly bits and how out of tue it is in places.  

The layout was inspired by a single picture of a Fowler 2P taken in 1948 (Mike Morrant Collection) that I saw a couple of years ago.  Carlisle, at that time, was in a right state of decay and the screens at both ends (and roof) were filthy from years of neglect.  The shot is just so atmospheric that I couldn’t resist having a go at modelling it.  As you know from previous stuff, I love all that internal atmosphere from these Cathedrals of Steam.

I have all sorts of plans for dramatic lighting effects when the layout is complete - here’s hoping some of them work!  I’m not sure about gaslight though!

The Screens must have been magnificent when built in 1880 and they were all out of wood supported by a light metal span from behind.  This, in turn was connected to the roof structure - a real work of art that was sadly lost in 1957 because of years of neglect.  They were some builders those Victorians and the neo Gothic design  would have even undoubtedly been inspired by Pugin - it was all about art and function for them.  What a sad loss.

Cheers, again and I’ll keep plugging away at it now I know I’m on the right track (no pun intended). 

4 hours ago, DavidLong said:

Excellent work, as ever, Mike. That wire must be the best investment that you ever made and it's still going!

 

David

Cheers, Dave.  Yep and I found it on a dump site so it was free!  It took 200 x 3ft lengths that had to be pulled straight in a vice first.  About a third of it was waste etc.  Those circular braces took up an awful lot and it was a tedious job overall to complete.

Brilliant and I’m going to really enjoy the development of Kyle 7mm (love that title - it’s the sort of minimal moniker that suits your architectural approach).  As I commented before, this is an interesting idea to enable comparison between the 7mm and 2FS versions - a serious study into a hobby that is generally written off by those not involved as a big kids pastime.   If they only knew what work went into our creations - the planning, the frustration, the joy and the craftsmanship employed.  For me, and I’m sure that some will think I’m being a bit too over the top and fanciful, it’s an art form.  Especially given the quality and finesse of Kyle 2FS (not to mention a whole host of other layouts that appear on RMweb).  Can’t wait to see the Lima 33 and MKI coach conversions as I’ve often thought of buying some from EBay as a cheap intro to 7mm.  

Great to see you posting again and I love that picture of the real location, Mike.

Brilliantly entertaining and useful information all at the same time.  The colour of that dung is so realistic that it instantly brings the smell to mind (now that’s proper modeling for you).  Happy Christmas.

Magical scene. I genuinely thought it was the real thing.  Beautiful, breathtaking piece of work.  Mike.

Wow.  Brilliant work 5&9 - you and Mikkel seem to be in a class of your own regarding the observation of and modeling the Victorian world.  It’s just pure Dickens come to life with that man in the snow along the bridge.  Breathtaking stuff.

Mike. 

Fantastic as usual.  The Load just looks so realistic!

Brilliant!  What a treat for a rainy afternoon over here.  Your figure painting and posing is second to none.  Thanks for sharing. 

Beautiful, seamless piece of work.  Love those shots under the bridge.  A master class in how to extend beyond the scenic break - a personal bug bear of mine.  Really is a well worth exercise doing this to enhance what is an already beautiful layout.   

Mike.

12 hours ago, Mikkel said:

 

Many thanks Mike!

 

Regarding the Silhouette, this thread is a good place to start: 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79025-a-guide-to-using-the-silhouette-cameo-cutter/

 

The arched cobbles were made using a roller, as described in the workbench thread here: 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/97672-pragmatic-pre-grouping-mikkels-workbench/page/67/&tab=comments#comment-3580069

 

The setts were described here: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blogs/entry/23431-when-in-danger-or-in-doubt-progress-on-the-fourth-bite/

 

Cheers, Mikkel

I went back over your blog and caught up a bit and looked at how you made that brilliant cobbled surface (giving me ideas again!).  You must have been a bit fraught when you had to downsize the boards for your house move!  I recoiled in horror when stumbling across the picture of the saw half way through Farthing.  However, it seems to have turned out well - a bit like watching a magician sawing someone in half, no real damage just a clever trick!  

I shall read the stuff about the cutter with interest - thanks again for the info.  

Mike.

Beautiful little piece of workmanship.  I had no idea about Silhouette cutters, are they easy to operate and how much are they etc?  Whatever it is, it’s done a brilliant job on those windows and tiles.   The prototype pictures are wonderful, but that image of yours of the two wagons beyond the weight bridge is just so enticing of what is yet to come.  Lastly, how have you created those brilliant cobbles for the yard?  Meticulously executed as per usual. 

Mike.

Pete, just seen a beautiful picture of Kyle in Model Rail August issue.  Still can’t believe it’s 2FS.  You can see the reflections of the pier stanchions and what looks like clouds in the water effect!  Always be one of my favorite layouts. Really loved the way you seamlessly integrated the magnificent backdrop into the layout - a real work of art.

Mike.

Beautiful as per usual.  The attention to detail on those roof panels is fantastic - just what I’d expect from you, Pete, even the randomness is carefully planned.  Brilliant stuff.  Mike.

1 hour ago, AY Mod said:

No one's mentioned the elephant in the room Mike; you've gone and created another very charismatic scene! 

 

I'm sorry I'm latte in coming in with a reply but I've been distracted with all the stuff we're doing for this weekend. I certainly don't find the tone of the original images offensive; light varies a lot and you've got a warm, strong evening light at play with your typically ingenious light.

 

From that as a base point it's possible to neutralise tones somewhat in photo software if you're after a different look.

 

 

The best point of advice given is training your camera for its white balance; are you able to save a custom white balance setting? If so, point it at something medium grey in tone and get it use that as its datum. You should then have consistency wherever the same light source is falling.

 

We've been discussing depth of field in another topic too https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/156102-chdk-and-focus-stacking/&do=findComment&comment=4033077

 

Cheers Andy and brilliant work on getting rid of the shadow.   I don't think the camera can be trained, but it does have an auto setting and I'll try to see if that sets a datum as you've suggested.   I'm off to work now, but had a quick look a the other topic - I'll study it in detail later.  Thanks for comment also.  I'll contact you soon.

Mike

13 hours ago, KH1 said:

Just like soldering,  depth of field is pretty simple if explained properly which I am now about to try and do at way past bed time and with a little beer inside! 

 

The smaller the aperture (the hole in the lens), the greater the depth of field so more will be in focus.  Just remember that a small aperture is a high f number, say f22. The problem with using a small aperture / high f number is that it lets in less light so a longer exposure is needed (the hole needs to be open for longer), or in other words a slower shutter speed, so seconds rather than thousands of a second. If you have the camera securely on a tripod and the subject is not moving as in your case this is not a problem. If anything is moving in the scene you need a much faster shutter speed and thus a more open aperture which gives less depth.

 

Hopefully you are still with me!

 

I mentioned before that if you have the camera further away and you zoom in you will get a better depth. The only other variable is the ISO,  a low ISO , say 100 will give better quality but will need more light so exposure times will be great or the aperture needs to be larger. A high ISO (1600 plus depending on camera). means you need less light for a correct exposure so apertures can be smaller or shutter speeds quicker BUT the higher the ISO the lower the quality. Every camera and situation is different so it is really just a case of experimenting to get the best balance between the variables, this is certainly much easier and cheaper with digital cameras than the days of film. 

 

I am happy to have a chat if you want to PM me

Thanks KH1.  I just wish I could afford a better camera.  Under manual control it will only stop up to about F11 and then only with longer shutter speeds.  It's limited but okay for something I won in a photo competition.   I love your blog by the way and must sit down later and have a good long look at it.   I'd really like to have a go at image stacking as it seems the way to go now for layout photography.  Andy Y has explained it in principle to me, but it just seems like yet another skill that will take hours and hours to master.   It will also mean spending money on equipment and programs and to be quite frank I'd rather spend my limited funds on trains!    I agree about the democratic digital camera, I used to have a go a long exposure photography with 35mm film years ago.  I got some interesting results but it was expensive and you had no way of knowing what you got until the pics came back from the developer.   Photography really is a bit of a 'dark art' in my opinion and I really admire those who can grasp it.    Thanks again for the advice and I'll be in touch.  Mike

A few more pictures.  I've shot these using the white balance feature that has been set to Tungsten.  They are all ISO 100, F8 with variable shutter speed set automatically by the camera.

This is the same scene as the one in the first shot above.  Personally, I like the other shot with the more afternoon sun glow feel to it.  It'd be interesting to know which one people prefer out of the two.

Under zoom from about 1 meter away.   The camera is quite good at these zoom in shots under manual control and has picked up some amazing detail.   I can quite get my head around the beautifully rendered valves.  Hornby has done a brilliant job with the Q1.  Also note how the camera has picked up the hairs and odd bristle of the glass fibre pen used in the weathering process.

I quite like this 'across the tracks' shot.  My Third Rail insulators aren't the best though.

Another light and shade shot.  A lot of modellers don't like 2D textures, but I love that Scalescenes brick texture used on the Theatre building.  

The last shot demonstrates the mirror trick under the station roof.  Under operation the layout makes use of a three foot 'black box' extension.

14 minutes ago, Metr0Land said:

Am amazed at the results you get just using f8!

Cheers, Metr0Land.  Yes, I never really liked this camera until I started to get to know it and always preferred my smaller point and shoot Panasonic.  The Fuji Bridge will stop up further if allowed to shoot automatically but results are always uncertain and you certainly get less focus over the whole subject.   Photography really is an art form that take years to master and I really admire those who decide to try and fully understand it.

10 hours ago, 47137 said:

I am very impressed by your lamp and indeed your results. I bought a home studio lighting kit a few years ago, one by Interfit. It wasn't desperately expensive but it had rather more than I needed for models and the layout - two heads, snouts, brollies and so on. Eventually one of the heads wore out and I am now using the second one. The soft box is its most useful accessory for me and you might experiment with a piece of net curtain or loosely-woven cotton sheet across the front of your lamp. But do keep an eye open for the heat.

 

- Richard.

Thanks very much for the advice and the compliment, Richard.  I’ll certainly have a go at your suggestion with the net curtain.

Mike.

18 hours ago, Lantavian said:

I love the low colour temperature. It looks like a late summer afternoon/early evening

 

Plus, I love the shadows. Much better than pix with bland diffuse lighting.

 

 

 

 

Cheers for the compliment, Lantavian.  I’m trying to aim for much better focus as well as shadow effect.  Photography is really hard and I have a lot of respect for the professionals.  It really must take years to master the art.

22 hours ago, KH1 said:

Be careful of mixing different 'colours' of light which can make a very complex brew that automatic or preset white balance cannot cope cope with. Experiment with turning your ceiling lights off while using your new set up. Depth of Field is also influenced by the distance of the lens from the subject so if you have a true zoom on your camera (rather than a digital zoom that just messes with the pixels), try moving the camera back and zooming in with the lens for a greater DoF .

For lighting that area under the overall roof try shining a torch with a focused beam under it for all or some of a long exposure. Do bear in mind previous comment about mixing colours of light although much fun can be had by adding a coloured filter over the torch provided by  a sweet wrapper - equal amounts of enjoyment being provided by the photography and eating lots of sweets to find the correct wrapper!

Cheers for the advice. I have tried long exposure with light trickery before.  Below is one I did a few years ago.  It was a small shadow box layout (a quarter of a roundhouse scene with a mirror at one side) using car headlight bulbs positioned above pinholes in the roof.  There is a few more pics somewhere in my blog.  

I have read about DOF and F Stop settings, but it’s difficult to understand if you are an amateur like me.  I tried out the white balance thing today and will post tomorrow.  I do have a true zoom on the bridge and will also be sure to have a go to see if it improves the focus.

11 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

Maybe. Maybe not.

The reason phone cameras are so good for getting lots in focus (a large depth of field) is that their sensors is so small. This makes them excellent for most situations, including close-ups & landscapes.

Sometimes it is desirable to take photos with very long exposures, like 2-4 minutes. I am not sure any phones will do this. It is often desirable to open the aperture to blur out anything in front of behind the subject, thereby drawing attention to it. This does not really a small sensor like that found in a phone.

I agree, for now.  But you can bet long exposure along with some sort of steady cam program is on the cards for the future.  I still can’t get my head around all the things you can do on a modern phone.  It seems like magic that such a small device can pack in the enormous computing power traditionally associated with the PC - the average battery life is also impressive.  I love taking long exposure shots with my cameras and you can get some really interesting results with low level lighting and smoke.  

3 hours ago, Kylestrome said:

Any 'yellowing' in your photos is caused by the colour temperature of the lights and will occur regardless of f-stop. If you are using normal household tungsten, or LED equivalents, they usually give off 'warm' light of about 2700-3000 Kelvin (K). So-called daylight lamps will have a colour temperature of approx. 6500K and, as the name suggests, give off a much bluer light similar to a sunny day outside.

 

Most digital cameras have  an adjustable white balance function which gives you a true white under most types of lighting. I'd be surprised if your camera doesn't have one tucked away in the operating menu somewhere.

 

David

Thanks very much, David.  I spent the last few hours looking at the menu and finally found the WB button staring me in the face!  It has the options to shoot under tungsten and 3 settings for fluorescent lights.  I’m going to have a go tomorrow.  That’s what I love about RMweb - the free advice.  You also don’t have go through reams of words to get to the point.  Thanks again.  Mike.