Feb.CTT Article a "DUD"

[BigJim]

"Sleepers & Duds"
I wonder who was asleep at the throttle and let this article slip through?
For example;
The inclusion of the "Trestle set" item as a "dud" and the reasoning given was just plain stupid! IMAGINE to actually have to modulate the throttle to get the train up the hill and then again to slow it coming down! Do you not have to do the same thing when you build inclines? Do you not do the same thing every day in your own car? What exactly do you think real engineers do with their trains?
Just another waste of good magazine space that could have been used to better see on a broader scene more of;
The Alaska RR layout. Looking at the layout plan, a wide picture of the Mt. McKinley area was definately in order! Instead of so many uptight closeups, how about stepping back so we can see more of the big picture?

If you readers keep on telling CTT OH! What a fabuously great incredible fantastic glorious issue this is, CTT will never get better!

One of CTT's biggest flaws is describing a certain neat features of a layout in print and then not showing a picture of the same. Get rid of the "Dud" articles and use the space to show us more of what really is important!

[Bob Keller]

Thanks Jim, but how do you really feel about the issue? [:D]

Here is a link to some more Sleepers and Duds on our homepage.

http://www.trains.com/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000/000/006/357xpdza.asp

Have a great New Year holiday.

[BigJim]

Bob,
As I said in my post, I feel like CTT leaves a lot to be desired.

In the layout articles, there have been far too many very nice layouts reduced to just a few closeup photos. There are two in the Feb. issue, the Alaska and Marx layouts.

And again, details of such layouts that seem to be important enough to mention in print, are not shown at all. Now ,since a majority of us will never be able to view these layouts in person to see what it is you are speaking of, you could at least include a photo of the same.

And cut out the cheesy Sleeper/Dud type articles that take space away from the nice layouts. It didn't say much for those involved with putting that one together!

Why single out the Lionel Trestle Set? A trestle set is a trestle set, no matter who makes it. And why in the wide wide world of sports should he be complaining about having to ACTUALLY move the throttle foward and back? Isn't that what runnig trains is all about?

[Bob Keller]

Send the author a letter in care of the magazine (he doesn't use the internet). We'll forward it to him. Perhaps he'll explain his choices to you in more detail.

As I said in the earlier thread on this topic, don't overthink this. The article was designed to get people talking. The article is a conversation piece. And it has worked.

As for the photography, sometimes you can get the photo you want, sometimes you can't. Sometimes the photo you want turns out to be pretty bad or unpublishable.

[MartyE]

I would agree with Jim that more wide shots are needed. It is typical IMO that most mags tend to use a lot of closeups. As much as I like to see the detail I also like to see how a layout comes together. I'd sacrafice a wider lens with a bit of fish eye effect to see 1 over all shot of a subjects layout.

[ben10ben]

I personally would like to thank CTT for allowing constructive criticism on their forum and not deleting it like some other magazines would.

[Frank53]

On one hand, I agree that the overall picture is a good thing.

On the other hand, she wore a glove.

No wait!

On the other hand, an overall view makes everything so small, you really can't get a feel for a lot of anythng. I see many layout plans, illustrations and photos that I just can't make out where the trains are going, because they try to show too much. Add to that the fact that most train nutz are bound and determined to use every available inch of psace in a room to maximize teh enjoyment of their layout. However a photographer (and Dennis Brennan (Marx layout) is a really fine one) neds room to step back and I would venture a guess that there is usually no room to get an overall look at a layout - hence the accent on details.

If I were designing a layout article, I would consider getting the big overall shot anyway, and then using insets and callout photos with captions to highlight the individual detail areas. Or, if an overall photo isn't feasible, an illustrated layout plan. In this way, the reader gets to see the great modeling or details of scene, while also seeing how it blends into the overall scheme.

It's not always the photos, but the use of them in teh article which makes or breaks a presentation.

ps: I completely agree with Ben's comment regarding not zapping this thread into dust. Credit where credit is due for letting constructive criticism stand. This would have lasted ten minutes north of the 38th.

[Anonymous]

Big Jim and MartyE

Most of the time wide shots are not practical. By that I mean either it's impossible to light or there's no place to put the camera to get an overall shot. Sometimes it's possible to get the shot but the surrounding walls or area is not (to put it politely) photogenic. At other times, one would have to be so far away that the shot would be meaningless--you wouldn't be able to see anything.

Please don't take this the wrong way but since you're not professional photographers, you have no idea what goes into each photograph. Believe me, the published photos represent the best possible views.

I understand what you're saying but, as Frank said, that's what the layout diagrams with photo locations are for.

Dennis Brennan

[pbjwilson]

The overall wideshots that appear occasionally are my favorites. I'm knowlegable in photograghy, and you simply light for an overall scene rather than a close-up. If theres stuff in the background thats distracting I'd like to see it. I like seeing the setting of the layout. If you only take close-up shots why not build dioramas. In both CTT and MR the full layout is shown in some articles, and some not. I'd like to see one overall setting shot just to show how the layout fits into it's setting. I can remember an article in MR that consentrated more on the room than the layout. It was an On3 layout that made the cover of that issue. Plenty of shots of the entire "scene".

[MartyE]

I maynot be a professional, and BTW no offense taken, but I'll look at it from what I do know. As a Television tech and involved in many major sporting events the one thing I hear over and over is...the tight shots are nice but we want to see the whole foeld of play to see how the play comes together. I guess that's what I am getting at. I'm not saying we always need an entire cover shot but a lot of layouts combine several layers, sections, and levels and it would be nice to see visually how they interact. A diagram or drawing only goes so far.

I understand the visually pleasing aspect and that a furnace may get in the way of a wide shot, but sometimes IMO, I'd rather get a glimpse of the furnace to see the whole picture. Who are we trying to kid anyways. I would suspect 75% of us model in an unfinished yucky ( technical term) basement.

[Anonymous]

Purely as a "dreamer", I love over-all shots! Seeing a section of layout, with fascia, back drop, floor, shelves, whatever, is very interesting to me. Plenty of great layouts are in miserable surroundings unfortunately, and if I'm CTT, I wouldn't show wideangle pics of someones layout with unpainted concrete walls in the background. I think of all the over-all shots I have seen of layouts and the rooms they're in, and never have I seen one in unfinished surroundings.
I periodically take photos of my layout simply to see what's missing in a scene. What's not obvious when looking at the layout with the eye, is blazingly obvious when you look at a photo. It improves my modeling emmencely. As a way of improving surroundings, take a wide angle shot of your own layout, and then ask yourself.. if your layout would be published in CTT, would it warrant a wide angle shot, or only close-ups?
Greg

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gterhaar
[
ask yourself.. if your layout would be published in CTT, would it warrant a wide angle shot, or only close-ups?
Greg

My layout's so small, a close-up would get it all in[:D] Joe

[tschmidt]

These are interesting opinions that everyone has. I wonder if there is a compromise here. I like seeing more than the up close of one building or so. On these large layouts maybe a "sectional" shot would work. If the layout was divided into sections we could get a feel for the overall look and still see detail. Having dabbled in photography I appreciate all that goes into taking these photos.

Thank you to this magazine for what you cover and thank you to all you guys who have great layouts for us to see.

Tom S

[lionelsuperotrack]

Well, say what you may, CTT certainly got the track on the 282 Crane correct. It appears to be "Super O"!

A Healthy & Happy New Year to All,

Mike Spanier

[prewardude]

I agree: we need more wide-angle shots... of STANDARD GAUGE LAYOUTS! [:(!]

[Warburton]

I loved the Marx layout article (I think Marx layouts, few as they may be, are neat) but I would have liked to see some wideangle views of it. In general, I don't think there were enough shots of the Marx layout in the article. More wideangle photos, please!

And please, more Marx layouts (if you can find them)!

[Anonymous]

I'm currently reading the book "Playing With Trains", and tonight I came across a section that dealt with the writer's frustration at not being able to "take in" the whole layout he was seeing, at one time. He writes, "You saw the scenery as a series of vignettes, just as you would experience it as you looked out the window of an actual train".
Maybe some of you would also like a view from a "plane". I can see a point in that if the layout is quite small...to illustrate that a lot of small areas of interest can work in a small space once you take a closer look. For a really large layout, I guess it adds a "WOW" factor..."Gee, I wish I had a layout that big!". My 2 cents. Joe

[steamerlynn]

Happy New Year everyone! I enjoyed the article, and was looking for more.BLOCKED SCRIPTinsertsmilie('[:)]')
BLOCKED SCRIPTinsertsmilie('[:)]')I think CTT is agreat mag ,and considering our diverse interests,does an excellent job. Lynn

[Anonymous]

I know from trying to take pictures of my own layout as I work on it that it is like impossible to find a place to get a whole overall shot of the entire layout. I can do the "panorama" thing where I take a picture of one side, and then move to the right a little and take another picture, move again and take a picture, etc, but I can't get the whole layout. Having said all of that, I would like to see, WHENEVER POSSIBLE, CTT publish more pictures that have an overall feel for the layout than they currently do.

[MartyE]

Trevor

Good Point.

I guess the operative words are...whenever possible.

[laz 57]

This whole thing reminds me of my trip to TRAIN AMERICA here in PA. The whole layout is HUGE and breath taking when you first see it but it is all the little things in it that make up the big picture. In asense I guess 6 of one and a half a dozen of the other, alll told it will work ouy.
laz57

[CB_Fan]

Re layout photos, as several of you have commented, I also like the closeups -- but I'd very much like to see how they fit into the entire layout, either by using an overall view or a layout plan. For example, see my article, "Trains in LA - Lower Alabama," in the December 2005 issue of "The Lion Roars" (LCCA). Though some may disagree with me, I really like the overall shots of the SWARM and BARR modular layouts, and I used a few closeups to show details. (And I thank editor Mike Mottler and his graphics arts people for working with my amateur photography to make it look presentable!)

Also, I enjoy reading all the comments about each new issue of CTT as I wait for my copy to make it here to "Lower Alabama." We had some big delays following the hurricanes but, after hearing from me, CTT rushed two issues to me by first class mail.