To the editors of Classic Toy Trains Magazine:
I realize that, in this digital age, many feel the need to "PhotoShop" their pictures to (supposedly) enhance them. HOWEVER, to try to pass off an altered photo as the real thing, isn't fair to the readers of Classic Toy Trains!
Case in point...in the January, 2020, issue, there is a picture on page 11 of part of Jack Lantz's S Gauge Layout. It shows the 25046 rocket launcher car (among other things), but the caption is written to try to fool the reader into believing that the photographer actually snapped the picture of the rocket flying through the air while being "startled", but remaining "calm".
Come on, who are you editors trying to kid? Anyone with even the remotest amount of eyesight can see that the rocket in the picture was digitally inserted. Take a good look for yourself!
All of the other accessories are totally opaque. However, the rocket is so transparent that we can see the tan of the Union Station on the left through the red tip of the rocket. We can also see the wording above the opening for the Frank and Beans refreshment stand through the blue fin of the rocket.
IF you are going to digitally alter a photo in the magazine, the least you could do is admit it and not write a caption that is filled with bilge water to mask the truth.
Classic Toy Trains readers deserve better!!
The picture looks very plausible to me.
The rocket is blurred, and parts of it, like the ends of the body and the fins, appear transparent because the rocket moved during the camera exposure, causing those parts to obscure whatever was behind them only during part of the time. The middle of the rocket body however completely blocked the view of anything behind it. Look at the light on the lamppost, which the rocket body completely obscures, because that cylindrical space was fully occupied by the long moving cylindrical rocket body during the entire exposure.
Bob Nelson
Looks fine to me as well.
Remember, what the "finished product" photograph is going to look like depends on a number of variables such as shutter speed, f-stop, film stock used, lighting (either ambient or flash) and so forth. And that's with a traditional camera! Digital cameras are a whole 'nother animal!
It's not worth worrying about.
Lets not forget one of the largest components of a toy train layout is IMAGINATION. In context the picture looks great to me.
Steve
To CNW Lover and the other Forum Members who have addresssed this issue:
I was with Steve Crise to photograph Jack Lantz's S gauge layout. Steve has contributed to CTT and Model Railroader among other magazines for many years. He has worked in the entertainment industry and for prototype railroads. He is, to put it simply, one of the best photographers around when it comes to taking dramatic and exciting pictures of trains of every and any size.
When Steve and I were composing the photos at Jack's, we were excited to see the rocket car Jack had coupled to a train. Jack offered to demonstrate the launching, which we all enjoyed.
Steve then asked if I would be interested in a sequence of shots showing the rocket being launched and flying through the air and then hitting its target. I was fascinated and told Steve to go ahead.
The image used in Photo Album is one of the four or five shots Steve snapped to capture the sequence. There is nothing added, changed, of manipulated. There is no need to enhance the outstanding images Steve took. We at CTT relate to our readers and contributors with honesty and integrity--and have for more than 30 years.
Roger Carp
Senior editor
Not that Roger needs any backing up, but here's an unaltered photo I took today showing the motion blur of my Lionel Lone Ranger General:
And that's with a point and shoot DSLR, not a professional grade camera like Steve Crise uses. Poin t being he could have stopped the blur if he wanted to but opted for a more artistic choice.
Trains, trains, wonderful trains. The more you get, the more you toot!
It would be nice if this thread were to end with an apology.
I agree. One small step toward civility.
The Northwoods Flyer Collection
of
American Flyer Trains
"The Toy For the Boy"
DITTO.
Celebrating 18 years on the CTT Forum.
Buckeye Riveter......... OTTS Charter Member, a Roseyville Raider and a member of the CTT Forum since 2004..
Jelloway Creek, OH - ELV 1,100 - Home of the Baltimore, Ohio & Wabash RR
TCA 09-64284
Well, some threads end that began with the original poster asking for advice on "this or that" and then never responding with a "thank you" to all the replys.
It is what it is.
By the way, Rogers response should be a clear indication that the CTT staffers DO look in on the Forum. I kind of wish they were active participants (would make things more fun!) but I'm sure they have more important things to do.
Lionelsoni, Northwoods Flyer, Buckeye Riveter, Flintlock76:
lionelsoni It would be nice if this thread were to end with an apology.
or maybe at least a
Life's hard, even harder if your stupid John Wayne
http://rtssite.shutterfly.com/
The one post admitted that the shot was staged. Not taken by a "startled" photographer who remained "calm". It was set up after the missle was fired the first time so that the photographer could capture the motion. Why wasn't that information in the photo caption?
None of us will convince the other that we're right. So be it.
You mean it wasn't fired "to ward off an attack from neighboring Nevada"? I am shocked--shocked!
CNW Lover The one post admitted that the shot was staged. Not taken by a "startled" photographer who remained "calm". It was set up after the missle was fired the first time so that the photographer could capture the motion. Why wasn't that information in the photo caption? None of us will convince the other that we're right. So be it.
Does not matter if shot was staged or not, your original post labels the missle as "digitally inserted" which is incorrect, and yet you still have not apologized.
lionelsoni You mean it wasn't fired "to ward off an attack from neighboring Nevada"? I am shocked--shocked!
If I were him I'd have saved that missile for the Russian paratroopers! I've been ready for 'em since "Red Dawn!"
But let me bring everyone's attention to another picture...
On page 13 there's a nice head-on shot of a vintage Lionel 221. See the smoke coming out of the stack? Well, the 221 didn't come with a smoke unit, I know, I've got one, so we're looking at prop smoke here. But you don't hear me complaining about fakeroos, I know dramatic license when I see it. Without the "smoke" the shot would be dead, just like a shot of a real steamer's dead without smoke. There's nothing to imply "life" or movement.
There's more important things to worry about than photos in CTT. Just enjoy 'em for what they are.
Flintlock76 I wonder if maybe some one added smoke to it. I have seen it done with outher engines. lionelsoni You mean it wasn't fired "to ward off an attack from neighboring Nevada"? I am shocked--shocked! If I were him I'd have saved that missile for the Russian paratroopers! I've been ready for 'em since "Red Dawn!" But let me bring everyone's attention to another picture... On page 13 there's a nice head-on shot of a vintage Lionel 221. See the smoke coming out of the stack? Well, the 221 didn't come with a smoke unit, I know, I've got one, so we're looking at prop smoke here. But you don't hear me complaining about fakeroos, I know dramatic license when I see it. Without the "smoke" the shot would be dead, just like a shot of a real steamer's dead without smoke. There's nothing to imply "life" or movement. There's more important things to worry about than photos in CTT. Just enjoy 'em for what they are.
I wonder if maybe some one added smoke to it. I have seen it done with outher engines.
Did someone add a smoke unit to that 221? Maybe, but I doubt it. The smoke in the photo looks like what Lucius Beebe used to call a "Burning of Rome" effect, way beyond what most smoke units are capable of, even MTH's, and some of them could put a yard fogger to shame! I'm sure it's "prop" smoke.
Mind you, I've had the shell off my 221 just to see if I could get a smoke unit in there! I don't see how it can be done, there's just not a lot of room "under the hood" of a 221.
I swear the whistle blew while looking at the picture!!
Me.
on Mars!
Penny TrainsMe. on Mars!
Truly a history making moment!!!
Now, I did add a whistle to my 221, when I bought it it was a "whistle-less" version.
No problem, I replaced the tender's rear truck with a post-war truck with pick-up, installed a Williams steam sound package in the tender, and 'voila! Whistle and bell sounds!
Ummm. Toy Trains. None of this is real. We create our own little worlds with our own three rail trains (except for A.F. S Gauge), we put up our Plasticville houses and trees, we create miniature landscapes. Some are more realistic than others but in the end, its all fantasy.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month