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

[sparkingbolt]

I'm Far from being a photographer, but I agree with most or all the observations above. I'll add my 2 cents worth: 2 or 3 lights reflecting off the nose of an F-7 or other rounded item, What!? Are there 3 suns today? That kills it for me.

But what else can they do if you can't take it outside, and only one light will produce sharp black shadows...and-and-and....Dan

[tutaenui]

To me track and particularly turnouts are the biggest clue. On the model turnout the gap between the switch rail and the stock rail is about double scale size.

YZ XY

[canazar]

I think lighting is usually it, or something is off in perspective. Weeds too tall, no wires in the telehphone poles.... Of course, I have no room to talk.. [8)]

In my pictures the dead give away is usually some thing like this...

"Well, either this picture is real and the Bud Light beer bottle in the background is 120 feet tall, or you took a another shot of your layout and forgot to move the stupid bottle." [banghead]


Hehehe

[Anonymous]

Yeah nice job Bob. You should start a model photography clinic thread.

[Anonymous]

Two of the problems I see, figures and ground foam. WS and Prieser have nice figures, but they are "flat", meaning there is no shadow detail. To get the detail, you have to paint your own. Try http://www.2guyzandsumtrains.com/index.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=3 or google Bryan Fayle. For good ground foam, you need to mix colors. WS makes lovely colors, and at $$$/qt. you might not want to buy enough to do the trick. What to do? Make yer own! Fred tells you how: http://www.2guyzandsumtrains.com/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=118

jon knudsen

[hminky]

Usually it is photo style for the time period and whether the photo is color for a time period before color.



One cover for the Narrow Gauge and Shortline Gazette had Paul Scoles's HOn3 layout, a late nineteenth century railroad, you would swear it was real except that it was in color.

Just a thought
Harold

[jacon12]

And conversely, taking the real railroad workers and making it not so real...

Jarrell

[Anonymous]

Bob - GREAT picture. Beautiful modeling.

The way I knew it was a model was the aforementioned hand tools.

Also, I happen to own a kit of that hand car (Still partially finished from, I think, 1992) and I recognized it.

Really, really nice.

I aspire to be that good someday.

Rob

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know of a screensaver which utilizes an "underway" locomotive from different angles ???

[robengland]

As mentioned:
- lighting
- depth of field
- massive weird curving steel bars sticking out the front of locos and rolling stock below thumping great couplers
- rails that could move a Saturn rocket (especially in N and Z scales)
- monochrome textures: a hundred lumps of lichen in three colours always looks like 100 lumps of lichen. Even forests with one species have young trees, old trees, tall trees, short trees, trees in dry spots, trees in wet spots, diseased trees, dead trees, fallen trees, epiphytes... Long grass has a dozen different sorts of weeds in it. Heck, my LAWN has a dozen sorts of weeds in it [:)]

I'd add a couple more:

1) weight: people, cars, buildings don't float 1" above the ground, but models do because they don't cru***he surface texture they are standing on (or on their underside). The realistic modellers have made an effort to set things in the ground (eg good building foundations) or solidly on the ground (push people in, file flats on car tyres etc)

2) size of texture: for some reason my eye always picks this up on diesel locos, but it is everywhere. Real surfaces are reflecting at you from a billion flat surfaces all less tham a millimetre across. Many models are reflecting from millions of surfaces, a scale inch or two across. It just looks different to the eye without exactly knowing why. The great models are the ones with finely textured matt paint that doesn't look too smooth and shiny but also doesn't look too lumpy or grainy.

[Anonymous]

The thing that tells me it's a model is when half the people in the scene are waving to someone.

Wayne

(Sorry if we're boring you, Dbcxyz123. Feel free to skip to other threads.)

[Dbcxyz123]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Dbcxyz123

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

[banghead]I'm Bored..................................................................................................................

[Dbcxyz123]

QUOTE: Originally posted by johncolley

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

[#ditto]

[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]

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

[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

[underworld]

Bob, Outstanding! What about the background shot?

underworld

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

[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

[jfugate]

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

[nfmisso]

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

[Anonymous]

Here's one to chew on:



(Click on photo for a larger version.)

Bob Boudreau

[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

[johncolley]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Anonymous]

also no sidewalks!

[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.