Latest Issue of CTT

[Anonymous]

Terry,

I loved the Video of your layout on TM videos. I was not aware that this house was different. It must be spectacular. I agree with what has been said that we all like to see the "big picture" especially when it is a layout of your size.

[Anonymous]

This is my first post on ANY forum!!!
I'm Terry Johnson and was reading posts about my layout relative to photographing the entire layout. I think Jim Forbes has taken the best photos I've seen in any mag., and I was very happy to have drawn him for my shoot. Having said that, I was quite disappointed with my layout's coverage. The scenery looked stark and dull. And you're all correct- there were no overall shots which took in the scope and character of the layout. I feel I have a knock out layout, mainly because of the special effects, but it looked pretty boring to me in print. I'll blame myself for not having scenery that photographs well.
I have about 48 feet of Backdrop Warehouse backdrops, of which only a snippet was shown in the background. My layout room is immaculate and I had nothing sitting around to detract from wide angle photos. I am not, however, a photgrapher and would not pretend to know how to shoot a layout.
My layout was shot 3 1/2 years before it was published. You are looking back in time. I now have 2 UP turbines, a Challenger and a DD40X that would have said UP alot better than a GN F3 set.
As far as my TM video is concerned, that was a smaller layout in a different home.
Don't get me wrong; I'm honored to have my layout in CTT and think the world of Roger Carp and Jim forbes. Thanks guys![:D]

[Dr. John]

I thoroughly enjoy CTT ! Not every article or issue rings my bell, but it is an overall high quality magazine that provides me with a great deal of information, inspiration and entertainment. Between subscribing and hunting down back issues I probably have 95% of all of the CTTs published. I will continue to subscribe and look forward to the October issue! Keep up the good work, Neil and Co.

[nitroboy]

Just got my copy, I LOVE the layout building tips!!! I guess because I am building my layout now and can use all the tips I can get.

Great magazine, keep up the good work.

[Anonymous]

Doug:

Yeah, that would be cool! Even if the rocket does hit the ceiling & bounce off!

Tony

[cnw1995]

Turning this back to the subject, I really like the latest issue - the article on Littletown is certainly interesting - I hadn't heard of it. I love the scenicking ideas and the looks inside at the wiring of pw Lionel locos. The layouts are interesting. I wish I could see a video of that rocket hidden inside the moutain.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by FJ and G

Oh, one other thing that I'm sure Neil B. is aware of. Over on the "other" forum is an extremely long and sometimes humorous and unhumorous thread reg. Neil B's editorial. He's become a maga-star over there.

OGR Melvin deletes threads he considers "negative" yet he allows that one to continue.
Looks like a double standard to me.

[Anonymous]

I haven't received my CTT yet. It seems that us here in Canada get it a few days later than the American subscribers. I would like to make some more comments, though, about what people have mentioned conerning JLC and toy train advertising.

Lionel is by far not the only toy train company that focused on how much better their trains were than their competitors. In fact, all of them probably have done it at one time or another. In the train page of an early-1900's Eaton's (a Canadian department store with a mail-order catalog, like Sears) catalog, all the trains are Ives, all of which are clockwork. There is quite a lengthy writeup that goes on about why Ives trains are the best and comparing them to German-made toy trains. It claims that Ives trains ran much longer and were of far better quality than "larger, more expensive German-made train sets." The truth is that at that time, many of the trains made by German companies like Bing and Marklin were of a much higher quality than Ives was.

And who can forget American Flyer's postwar marketing campaign claiming that AF trains were "authentic scale models with real two-rail track", not old-fashioned three-rail track. In an AF catalog of mine, there's a picture comparing an AF Alco PA A-B set with some fictitious set of short toy-like diesels representing what other manufacturers were making.

I'm not criticizing or defending any particular toy train company here, but more or less am pointing out that all of them have at some point been guilty of advertising like this. The train manufacturers are in the business to make money and naturally want to do better than their competitors. Advertising like this is nothing new, just turn on your TV and you'll see plenty of commercials that compare their products with those of competing companies. That's basically the point of advertising, though, trying to make your products look like the best. It certainly may not be ethical at times, but it's what is done.

[BigJim]

"How well do the photographs illustrate the subject of the story."

That's been a real bug-a-boo!

So many times in CTT the text speaks of an interesting scene or idea and then has no picture included!

If you're going to talk the talk, put a picture where your mouth is!!!

[FJ and G]

Oh, one other thing that I'm sure Neil B. is aware of. Over on the "other" forum is an extremely long and sometimes humorous and unhumorous thread reg. Neil B's editorial. He's become a maga-star over there.

[FJ and G]

After reading the article about converting PS1 to PS2, I think I'll let the experts do it instead of trying to save $120. The author mentions that Williams can be converted as well. Perhaps a follow-up piece on that and other models to upgrade.

Also, mention was made of using some type of conducting grease or something (don't have the mag w/me right now). What does that do, I wonder? Thought a good soldered joint was good enough conductor.

[3railguy]

Why not hire Boldt or CR Meyer to lift the house off the layout with a crane so you guys can get an overall shot? You'll have natural sunlight too.

One overall shot is nice if doable. I like the up close shots best because they show the details better and sort of suck me in. They give me the feeling I'm a toy figure living in a toy train world.

[Anonymous]

I remember one time they did a really small layout(4x6?) and all of the shots were close up making it very intimate. You couldn't tell what size it was from the pictures. Since I am modeling on a small layout, I would like an overview to get an idea of track and building placement.

[Anonymous]

Hi guys,

Thanks for the feedback. Dennis has shot some layouts for us and he is right on the mark. We go into every layout shoot looking for an overall shot. We just couldn't get it done at Terry Johnson's house. If you look at the way his layout snakes around, you'll get a better sense of things.

Lighting can be a problem, and as it is, we can no longer take lights on airplanes reliably (weight restrictions) so if we fly for a photo shoot we have to ship much of the equipment.

Also, we can't always back up far enough to get a big-picture shot. Sometimes we can get away with a wide-angle lens, sometimes not (the lens also accentuates the floor and ceiling).

Ernie Emrich shot his own photos in last January's issue. If you look at his track plan, you note his layout is in -- more or less -- two separate rooms. Not easy for an overall.

Thanks again for the comments (thanks too, Dennis) and we'll keep plugging away at overall shots. By the way, another layout Dennis shot is coming up in one of the fall issues.

Sincerely,
Neil Besougloff
editor

[Frank in Steam]

The other possibility is that the editor selected the artsy/portrait/close up photose to 'balance' with the other layout's pictures in the same issue. I cannot believe that there can't be a few medium distance exposures to give us a feel of the layout. Strange that we don't see this issue crop up (pun intended) in the competition's photos.

[NYC Fan]

Thank you Dennis. I respect your opinion and appreciate your responses.

I hope, whenever possible, the photographers and editors keep in mind what we have discussed in this thread, and do their best to show as much of the layout itself as possible.

[Anonymous]

If you check out the article entitled "TMCC and DCS on the same layout" in the January 2004 issue of CTT, you'll see a different style of photography by Jim Forbes. The shots are much wider. This layout obviously lent itself to greater vistas.

In the September 2003 issue, check out "The Scenic Route" article. It also has an overall shot.

Based upon his photography in those two layouts, I would think there were limitations in shooting Terry Johnson's layout.

Dennis

[NYC Fan]

Dennis,

I totally understand. CTT photographed my layout for the January 2000 issue and I know alot of work and thought go into each shot. The quality of the photography is not my issue. My issue is, "How well do the photographs illustrate the subject of the story."

I must question how much of this is attributable simply to the taste of the individual photographer. Like I said above, judging from an accummulation of this photographers work in CTT, he appears to consistantly provide the same type of photos in his layout coverage, close-ups and portraits. He may honestly think they are artsy. There is currently a book on the market that is a collection of photos of Lionel Trains where about 3/4 of each photo is out of focus. Personally, that's not my taste either, but some may consider it artsy.

As a professional, Dennis, how much of this do you think is his personal preferrence and how much do you think is due to the limitations of the situation?

[Anonymous]

NYC,

I don' necessarily disagree with what you're saying. My comments are meant to be more general than specific. I haven't been to Terry's layout so I really have no idea what was involved in shooting his layout.

I, too, have my own lighting which is sufficient to light a fairly large area. However, another problem I've run into is not having enough circuits to power up all of my lights without tripping a breaker. There have also been situations where there wasn't any place to put a light to get a particular shot.

Speaking for myself, a lot of thought goes into every photo. In some cases, it's a delicate balance of satisfying my own aesthetic sensibilities with the reality of the situation.

Dennis

[Anonymous]

Yes I agree, and we know that everyone at CTT listens. Now if the manufactuers payed as close attention, life would really be good.

[FJ and G]

Good points, all. Useful feedback for CTT.

[NYC Fan]

Dennis,

You make some good points.

However, I would like to point out that this photographer in particular, or his editor, seems to be enamoured more with the equipment than the layout itself. He seems to like taking portraits of things. For example, in the Johnson layout, there are closeups of the Mi-Jack and the oil drum loader and very little of the layout. There is not enough layout in the pictures, with the exception of the Rocket Launching Mountain, to even orient yourself on the diagram, or, orient one picture to another.

CTT's photographers bring their own lighting and it's plenty to light a significantly larger area than is shown in these photos..

I understand cropping out things that are detracting, but don't crop out the whole layout.

I believe that in the interest of covering the layout, we can sacrifice a bit of quality to satisfy the need for content. Composition of a photo is more important than perfection, IMHO. I'll sacrifice having to see a cinderblock wall, after all we all have them, in order to see the layout better. Loosen up! I do not get the same frustrated feeling of wanting to see more, when looking at old issues of CTT or when viewing layout articles photographed by Fred Dole of OGR.

Terry Johnson's layout was part of one of the McComas tapes several years ago. Those video cameras had no access or lighting problems.

If an area was unfinished, referrence could have been made to that in the article, but the article indicated that the layout is complete and that Johnson is now adding detail.

Regarding boxes piled up, If CTT were coming to photograph my layout I'd make sure the room was in order. If boxes are neatly piled, cannot be concealed, and are part of the trainroom, so be it. We all have boxes. Shoot the layout anyway.

If after all that, the photos are totally unpresentable, which I highly doubt, perhaps the layout is not worthy of publication.

[Anonymous]

Having shot several layouts for CTT, I would like to respond to the above.

Generally speaking, most layouts do not lend themselves to overall shots. There are several reasons for this. First and foremost, is the quantity and the quality of the lighting. Many layouts do not have sufficient lighting for good photography. This is not meant to be a criticism --just an observation. Needless to say, we have to augment the existing lighting with professional lights. In some cases, this works just fine. However in many cases, it's impossible to relight a large layout for an overall shot.

Secondly, what you see when you enter the train room and what the camera sees are two entirely different things. You can ignore the cinderblock wall in the background or the boxes piled up under the benchwork. The camera sees all these things which detract from the finished photo.

Thirdly, the layout may not be completed. So a neat feature in the layout plan may still be in the builder's imagination.

So guys, take it easy on the photogs. We sometimes have to accompli***he impossible to get some of the shots that you do see.

Dennis Brennan

[rlplionel]

QUOTE: Originally posted by NYC Fan
There is a whole turntable and roundhouse area that isn't even shown.

That's exactly what I thought when I saw the layout diagram. Would have been very interested in seeing this section as I have been off and on contemplating a turntable/roundhouse area for my layout.

[NYC Fan]

As a subscriber from Issue 1, I agree. I'm not trying to criticize as much as I'm trying to get some improvement. Layout articles are a very important (to me, the most important) part of CTT.

[FJ and G]

NYC Fan,

Know whatchya mean. Earlier this year there was even a better example. Ernie's layout in CTT (Jan?) only focused extremely up close, not more than a foot away for every shot; perhaps the most extreme example. Not meant to criticize as much as improve content.

[NYC Fan]

BETTER AND MORE LAYOUT PHOTOS!

I still have a gripe. In the latest issue, especially with the Terry Johnson layout , the photos fail to show the whole layout. In fact, the photos focus on items such as a locomotive, or in one photo a Lionel Intermodal Crane, showing very little of the surrounding layout. I go away wanting more! There is a whole turntable and roundhouse area that isn't even shown. Plus, the photo locations are not on the diagram. Perhaps six photos isn't enough either. Focal Length needs to be adjusted so that a wide section of the layout is in focus, instead of taking portraits of individual items. REMEMBER, it's the layout we want to see! A well done photo spread should show as much of the layout as possible. Look at some of the photography in past issues from the 80's and early 90's and compare. And I'm sure access wasn't the problem on the Terry Johnson layout. I'd like to see what the photographer sees when he walks into the train room. I want to see the layout from various perspectives to capture the different areas, and then if there are close-up vignettes of interest they can be added. But a series of close-ups doesn't cover the layout!

[Anonymous]

David:

As has been pointed out in other threads on this topic, civil suits do not find guilt or innocence. Lionel has been found "liable" and has to pay money. No one has been convicted of anything, by the jury (obviously, some people here in forum land are convicting people at Lionel & MTH of different things).

I have to say that Neil's editorial was OK by me. It seemed accurate and on the mark. The call to the TCA may be questionable. Doing so is about the only action that the TCA can take if they decide they need to punish "the guilty" at Lionel. However, no one at Lionel has been convicted of anything. The only convictions in regard to this matter were of certain individuals in Korea. Pulling TCA membership from anyone may not be fair, as you are innocent in this country until convicted by a court of law, and nobody at Lionel has been convicted.

When it comes to it, I'm not sure how big an impact taking away membership in the TCA will have on any individuals who can be singled out as being responsible for Lionel's actions. I guess that depends upon how important TCA membership is to the people in question.

Tony

[3railguy]

The only people charged with theft is Lionel's subcontractor. Lionel was charged with liability. It is believed Lionel employees were aware of this. Many aren't even there anymore. One is at Atlas, another at K-Line. It is uncertain what they knew.