What's the dead giveaway the scene in photo not real?

[FJ and G]

In some photos you literally cannot tell if model or real, like Jan05 MR Monon and Soo photos in Trackside Photos section.

In other photos, the "grass" doesn't look like grass; rather ground foam or sawdust (unless it is done up right). In other photos it's the tree leaves.

Some photos I'm hardpressed to see what the modeler did wrong, but looks like a model.

Naturally a dead giveaway is tree or structure shadows on the sky.

[trainboyH16-44]

The models were not weathered enough, I think, and they looked a bit plastic.
Trainboy

[whitman500]

I often think that the people figures and model cars give away a scene. The colors on both often look far too bright relative to real life and usually have a plastic sheen to them.

[cjcrescent]

Mainly I look at the couplers. If the couplers are not true scale size, ( like the old AAR dummies included in some of the older craftsman kits), then the oversize couplers are a dead giveaway. "Air hoses" on these couplers, or airhose detail parts that hang perfectly straight. A very visible knuckle spring is also a giveaway.

The angle of the lighting, (cast shadows), of the model versus the background is also a giveaway.

I remember the advice that John Allen once gave Cliff Grandt about building a model for a contest, but it holds true for any model photography. "Take a picture of the model, and just the model, blow it up to a large size, (at the time, John was referring to at least an 8 x 10), and anything in that picture that tells you its not real, change it."

[Bikerdad]

Shadowing, object brightness, shiny people, "clunky" vehicles. With fall scenes, a dead giveway is that the leaves of a tree are all the same color. Leaves don't all change at the same time.

The trickiest thing is to inject enough visual nuance into a scene to fool the human eye. The range of color and shading that we can see, and more importantly do see every day is mind boggling. To capture that in a smaller space is very difficult. Aside from the shine, that's the essence of "artificial", too much consistency of color and shading.

Just as an FYI, I may be able to analyze the challenge, but I'm a LONG way off from doing work that somebody would need more than a second to decide whether or not its a model or the real thing...

[Anonymous]

Most times the first tip-offs that I see in a photo that tell me it is a model is the vehicles, which are too clean and shiny and second is scenery that is just "too clean" to be realistic.

[simon1966]

Not enough variation in the vegetation colors. Joe Furgate has been discussing this in his forum clinic on realistic scenery. I also agree that the people and cars are often the giveaway. I guess we need to weather them as well!

[AntonioFP45]

Saw an incredibly realistic HO CN scene.
Two rusty Geeps on a weed grown siding. Only the Kadee coupler trip pin gave it away.

[Anonymous]

To me, in HO scale it's usually couplers and sometimes wheel flanges. Sometimes there's too much "daylight" under steamers, particularly around leading/trailing trucks. It's also tricky to get stainless steel right - only effective way I've seen of doing this involved the "Alclad" paint - anyone else remember the Budd RDCs in MR a while ago? They were repainted Kato N scale models, on these, the only way I was able to spot they were a model was the wheel flanges being deeper than the real thing - when that's all you notice, it's a good model!

[Anonymous]

Maybe it's the bad hair cut. Or the lack of a face.

[FJ and G]

Don't get me wrong. A model train layout might look great but not real.

Usually, within a millisecond, I can tell if it's a model or not.

I've seen exceptional models even in N scale that look like the real deal.

Now, on the flip side of the coin, I've seen real scenes that don't look real.

Just the other day, I took some mental notes on passing scenes from VRE train I take to work every day. A sunset that didn't look right at all. A really funny shaped tree. A building with half pink bricks and the other half looked like mud, and on and on.

To make our models look real, we sometimes have to be more real than reality (if that is one's intent).

[mcouvillion]

Lighting. If the engine is on the main and the headlights aren't lit, it is a model. I am still amazed at how many folks photograph trains without the headlights on.

Mark C.

[jacon12]

Being in photography all my life I come at this from a photographers point of view, not a modelers because I'm too new at it. Most of the time I can tell because of the 'depth of field' in the scene... i.e. the area in focus. It is difficult with most cameras to get a model or a section of a layout in 'proper' focus, as it would be if the scene was real and you're photographing it. Photographs of models usually have a very limited depth of field, much more so that shooting the real thing. As far as realistic models, I've seen pictures of some that are expertly done and lit very well that I wondered at first if it was the real thing or if it was Memorex.
I had to use a wide angle lens for the picture below to get that adequate depth of field. Of course, everything else in the shot is a dead give-a-way.... :)

Jarrell

[Anonymous]

JACON12 you are right on DOF of a scene. Being a photographer who uses proffesional equiptment myself ive also
seen problems in the DOF, espacially with Fstops as small as 16 or 22..Also items such as plastic people, no rust on
locomotives or outdoor metal, no light atmosphere, tungsten lights(250 watt photofloods or a blue fiter can fix that),
instead of realistic cab interior wires showing, pipes built into steam loco body, shadows on the backround, & plastic seats
in the coaches, instead of fabric... And Im getting carried away! Well anyways those problems & much more need to be
tackled.

[Anonymous]

also no sidewalks!

[AggroJones]

That Mellow Mike man.......

He does the absoulute, most true-to-life looking modern freight cars EVER!
The only thing that gives away its not real is the couplers. Giant knuckles can't pass for prototype.

[tatans]

Gumby-like fiures standing around everywhere in very unatural poses and the sure giveaway on diesels are the big fat handrails, also horrible looking cars and trucks and very important "weathering" but not too much.

[bikerraypa]

I've seen several steam-era scenes that were SPOT ON, super-realistic, except for someone using their photo software to add digital "smoke" coming out of a smokestack on a locomotive. That ALWAYS takes a nice photo and makes it a loser.

Ray out.

[CNJ831]

As someone who did quite a bit of model railroad photography back in the 1990's, I'd say the biggest giveaway for me is lighting. There is simply no substitute for actual sunlight. I've _never_ seen a "daytime" layout shot that was honestly believable. I did all my published and contest work out of doors.

A second point is what I call atmospherics. Even though most folks aren't really conscious of it, over any distance the air has a slightly softening effect on a scene and distant colors become muted. Most people looking at the photo will say something just isn't right, without being able to put their finger on what it is. In 99% of the model photos I've seen this is missing and it's a dead giveaway.

I also would have listed depth-of-field among the top 2 or 3 shortcomings in model photographs had it not already been mentioned. And let me say that I've yet to be impressed by the DOF of images taken by any digital cameras when compared with some of the film cameras with special lenses I used in the past.

Plastic people and most vehicles, also already cited, figure highly in ruining the believability of scenes.

CNJ831

[johncolley]

Two dead giveaways are: multiple shadows from multiple light sources, and shadows on the backdrop!

[underworld]

As several have already said ....depth of field. The only way some of the photos could have been made of a real scene would have been with a large format camera and intentionally blurring the fore and background....focusing on the middle subject area. Camera angle is another problem. Many shots appear as though they were taken from high above the ground. The reason that some digital cameras have given better results is that the lens is closer to the sensor than the lens is to the film plane on film cameras. One detail I've noticed in some otherwise incredible photos is too perfect, too uniform in color railroad ties. Ballast also sometimes appears to be too large.

underworld

[Anonymous]

Here's one to chew on:



(Click on photo for a larger version.)

Bob Boudreau

[nfmisso]

Also see Bob's covers on past issues of MR.

[jfugate]

Bob, that looks like a pinhole shot .... but it's absolutely fantastic! The depth of field is *amazing*.

[Anonymous]

Here's a different perspective on the speeder shed:



Vivitar 28mm lens on a Canon film camera, home made pin hole aperture.

Fun!

Bob Boudreau

[underworld]

Bob, Outstanding! What about the background shot?

underworld

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by underworld

Bob, Outstanding! What about the background shot?

It's a few model buildings placed to hide the background, along with a model speeder.

Bob Boudreau

[Dbcxyz123]

[zzz][zzz][zzz][zzz][zzz][zzz][zzz][zzz][zzz][zzz][zzz][zzz][zzz][zzz][zzz][zzz][zzz][zzz][zzz][zzz][zzz]

[Anonymous]

Now that's what I call a convincing building. Only way (and I mean the only way) I could spot that it was a model are the hand tools - particularly the pliers/clippers on the left-hand end of the bench, and that took a few minutes to find. Great work Bob!

[Dbcxyz123]

QUOTE: Originally posted by johncolley

Two dead giveaways are: multiple shadows from multiple light sources, and shadows on the backdrop!

[#ditto]