Wayne, Being one of your biggest fans, ever, I have to say that it's really really fun to see some "realistic in the room views" like the one with the roofs from above with a bit of aisle way showing. The illusion destroying veiw of your bridge/river scene (famous by now ;-) is a refreshing look at a master modeler's work but also an inspiration/reminder to me that your layout is also based in the "real world" like we experience at visiting Operations Sessions. I'd welcome more and maybe others would too?
Makes you seem more like a mere mortal like the rest of us!
Too weird?
Jim
Raised on the Erie Lackawanna Mainline- Supt. of the Black River Transfer & Terminal R.R.
ROBERT PETRICK...When lighting is controlled and the single point perspective camera sits exactly on View Point A at an exact focal length for an exact exposure and whatnot . . . I wonder what the scene looks like in real life; with bifocal perspective in less-than-ideal lighting from someplace other than View Point A....
I agree, and that's why I including multiple pictures of the icehouse: it works best when the viewing point is controlled, as Kevin's photos also show.
The previously offered view from the river and out over Lake Erie isn't at all convincing from any perspective other than eye-level, and, when viewed from the air, well, the ruse is readily apparent...
(Aerial photo courtesy of Secord Air Services)
My favourite not-from-eye-level view is this version, with mist over the lake, created by my brother...
Wayne
Just for the record, the guy's name is Gerry, not Gary.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
ROBERT PETRICKI wonder what the scene looks like in real life; with bifocal perspective in less-than-ideal lighting from someplace other than View Point A.
.
You are absolutely correct. I photography you control everything, so you can make everything look great, but from a different angle it is garbage and the illusion is lost.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
bogp40 I feel that you have to be rather careful and any painting like this need to be thoughly thought out and planned. Once you allow the backdrop to become part of the scene things get tricky.
I feel that you have to be rather careful and any painting like this need to be thoughly thought out and planned. Once you allow the backdrop to become part of the scene things get tricky.
I agree. It was an interesting article about an interesting subject. The photos looked good, but that's the whole point: whether this idea applies only for photographing a model layout. When lighting is controlled and the single point perspective camera sits exactly on View Point A at an exact focal length for an exact exposure and whatnot . . .
I wonder what the scene looks like in real life; with bifocal perspective in less-than-ideal lighting from someplace other than View Point A.
Like I said, an interesting idea; but it might be difficult to pull off.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
I feel that you have to be rather careful and any painting like this need to be thoughly thought out and planned. Once you allow the backdrop to become part of the scene things get tricky. Your artistic ability really matters here as well as the viewing angle and prospective. A scene could be just additional building as in a city or continuation of an industial facility and most time this works fine whether painted of use of commercial backdrop. But to work a building into a curved or ther changing backdrop footprint may work from one viewing angle but look horrible if not blocked somehow from any other view. Simple paintings of continuing roads/ features into the distance for short areas that visualy are blocked by scenery or building can work and look great. Also any continuing of a structure placed and try to paint the remainder into a forced 3D prospective is rather difficult and can look cheesey at best. the coloring, textures and overall apperance can be difficult.
Modeling B&O- Chessie Bob K. www.ssmrc.org
Thanks for the clarification, guys.
So far, I've resisted any temptation to draw or paint scenery stuff on the backdrop, but I don't think I'd be tempted to extend modelled structures onto the backdrop with paint. I do use background flats, but they're there simply to hide the horizon.In the photo below, the backdrop is water meeting the sky, just as you'd see looking out over Lake Erie from southern Ontario, towards New York (or Pennsylvania, or Ohio)
This view...
...is looking in the same direction, but the lake, and most of the town, is not visible, with the town on a slope down towards the shore. That part of the town, the shore and the lake aren't even modelled.
For structures close to the backdrop, I like to model them with pitched roofs, and add only enough of the unseen side of the roof to give the whole structure the appearance of more depth than is really there...
doctorwayneFor those of us who haven't seen the article, is the referred-to inverse curve in the track or in the backdrop?
The line is on the backdrop. Since in one area the backdrop is curved, any straight line painted on the backdrop will appear curved. The author helped correct the issue with what he called an inverse curve.
I do not know if that is really the correct term, but I understood what he meant.
doctorwayneFor those of us who haven't seen the article, is the referred-to inverse curve in the track or in the backdrop?Wayne
It's an article that could use a few overhead pictures to clarify the illusion. He is drawing on the backdrop an extension of the roof to give the illusion of 3D. The problem is the pictures make it appear as if he is just adding a cardboard roof in the front back direction.
On the curved backdrop, he shows a straight line of the far roof line appearing to be bowed upward. He corrected that with what he called an inverse curve. To my mind, it would be inverse to the upward curve, not inverse to the curved backdrop itself.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
For those of us who haven't seen the article, is the referred-to inverse curve in the track or in the backdrop?
That was an excellent article.
Yes, he means a curve that is opposite to the curve of the backdrop surface. That way to our eye, it will look more or less like a straight line.
That article was great because it shows how important the last layer of paint really is. I hope more creative finishing articles are on the way.
In Gary Leone's excellent article in the most recent MR, he describes making "an inverse curve" - p. 26. Does he mean a curve that is the opposite of the curve in the backdrop?