Is it real or not

Great modeler, terrible camera.  The thing that immediately tells you they are models is that the range of depth of field is about 2-6", everything in the foreground and everything in the background was out of focus.

Even shooting it using print film with a lower end, interchangeable lens SLR, then scanning a print would make it a more challenging decision.

Obviously the modeler put a LOT of work into the scenes.  Too bad a cheap camera or an inexperienced photographer lessened the effort.

Dave H.

Scanning down through the offered pictures and reading the explanation at the bottom of the page leads me to believe that he had altered pictures of real scenes to create the impression of a modelled scene.

The things that made them "obvious" shots of models taken by an inexperienced cameraman with a faulty camera seem to have been created on purpose to create exactly that response.

Interesting, both the effect and the response to same.

dwRavenstar 

tatans wrote:

Did no one READ the text with the accompanying photos?? did anyone get the authors intention???(it seems not!)   A great take on just how rivet counters don't reallistically look at things.

 Exactly

dehusman wrote:

Great modeler, terrible camera.  The thing that immediately tells you they are models is that the range of depth of field is about 2-6", everything in the foreground and everything in the background was out of focus. Even shooting it using print film with a lower end, interchangeable lens SLR, then scanning a print would make it a more challenging decision. Obviously the modeler put a LOT of work into the scenes.  Too bad a cheap camera or an inexperienced photographer lessened the effort. Dave H.

Yup. Those 1:1 modelers are pretty good when it comes to getting every detail right.  Admittedly they are a bunch of rivet counters. You kinda have to be when the rivets are actually used to hold sheets of metal together.

Andre

I took drawing classes for several years and one of the things we were taught is to blur out details as you rough in your drawing. You do this by squnting until you can no longer see details. I just used to take my glasses off. I think many of us become too obsessed with details and lose the overall impression. I seen a lot of really nice work with drawn or painted on details that work just fine for me.Its a little like trying to count the number of spikes in a tie or bolts in a switch frog when you get run over by the train.

Good one Lillen.

My first thought while looking at the first few images was, either thats the worst broken piece of junk camera I have ever seen or these have been photoshop'd to add the lack of focus etc.

Sure enough, upon scrolling down I saw the pics were doctored to look the way they do and then read the explanation at the bottom.  The horrible focus that seemed to affect everything outside of a small circular area was what looked wrong to me initially.  It was just too bad.  I get a kick out of the responses slamming the camera and/or ability of the photographer...depth of field...

This is the real Port Kelsey I believe... 

I have seen this site before, so was aware that these were real photos that had been further edited.

I was not at all surprised that people started responding to the thread without even reading through the material provided by the link. All too often people respond with their own off the cuff information/opinions without even checking their facts.

If the first one hadn't been the Santa Fe engine I might not have caught on so fast.  however I've seen that picture a bunch of times while researching how I might want ot do my dream santa fe layout so I was questioning what was up.

Still very cool. 

tatans wrote:

Did no one READ the text with the accompanying photos?? did anyone get the authors intention???(it seems not!)   A great take on just how rivet counters don't reallistically look at things.

F. Lee Jaques had this similar concept in mind. He built an O scale railroad, however everything was practically scratchbuilt. He was a museum diorama artist. He had mountains with snow and deserts, and looking at the scenes you could practically feel you were there. His locomotives, lets say, look at the N&W Y6b, heavy, rugged built to pull 100 car trains over long mountain grades, his engines had THAT look, however, they were but 2-4-4-2's.

His layout is at the minnesota Museum of Minig, if you can ever get there. MR had an article on him years ago. 

I guess I was lucky I didn't have to get to the bottom to realize they were not models...the CN picture with the string of hoppers and container cars is in Halifax and I recognized it right away.  This yard is commonly referred to as HOT (Halifax Ocean Terminal)

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=69156&nseq=117

dehusman wrote:

Great modeler, terrible camera.  The thing that immediately tells you they are models is that the range of depth of field is about 2-6", everything in the foreground and everything in the background was out of focus. Even shooting it using print film with a lower end, interchangeable lens SLR, then scanning a print would make it a more challenging decision. Obviously the modeler put a LOT of work into the scenes.  Too bad a cheap camera or an inexperienced photographer lessened the effort. Dave H.

From the bottom of the page after the photos...

"Well, all that was done to these real photographs was some lighting and focus changes. The pictures are still images of real scenes, only your perspective has been changed. The point being that it is not necessary to model everything in perfect detail — trying to replicate every rivet in order to create something that looks real; all that needs to be created is the illusion.

The steam engine picture above is a great example of this. The blurred image looks like a very simple model, almost toy-like… but it is the real deal. If we could shrink the prototypes down to our scale, I’d wager they just wouldn’t look right.

Sometimes it is best to just make models that “look right” and let the rivet counters, well… count rivets."

You really should look at ALL of it before making your assumptions and giving a dissertation about what the photographer/modeler did wrong..

rolleiman wrote:

You really should look at ALL of it before making your assumptions and giving a dissertation about what the photographer/modeler did wrong..

OK it was a trap and I fell for it. 

A crappy picture is a crappy picture.  After looking at the first few I didn't bother with the rest.  I've seen hundreds of sites and posts with crappy pictures.  He took a good picture and made a crappy picture out of it.  Big deal.  That's easy to do.  That's not rivet counting.  Just because a really bad photo of a real engine might look the same as a really bad photo of a bad model engine, that doesn't mean that in person a really bad model engine will look the same as real engine (unless you live with Vaseline smeared over your glasses).

The problem with this experiment is its not reversible.  It is very easy to take a good photo and blur it to the point that you can't tell whether its real or not.  Lets see him take a blurry model photo of a poorly executed model and make it as sharp and detailed as the real thing.   That's skill.   Anybody with Photoshop and blur took can do what he did. 

Compare that with Pelle Soeborg's photography in the April 2008 MR.  THAT's skill.  If you believe that the devil isn't in the details, compare the photos on page 45 of the April 2008 MR.  I'm sorry the photo on the top of the page looks way more realistic than the photo on the bottom of the page.  The difference between the two is in the details.  The colors, textures, relative size of the elements and overall sheen is much better in the upper photo and it works much better.  It is more believeable.  If all you need to do is create the illusion then the two pictures should look just as good.  Now if you want to photoshop both photos so they are really crappy, then yes they would look the same.  But the models wouldn't be the same.

Dave H.

A crappy picture is a crappy picture.  After looking at the first few I didn't bother with the rest.  I've seen hundreds of sites and posts with crappy pictures.  He took a good picture and made a crappy picture out of it.  Big deal.  That's easy to do.  That's not rivet counting.  Just because a really bad photo of a real engine might look the same as a really bad photo of a bad model engine, that doesn't mean that in person a really bad model engine will look the same as real engine (unless you live with Vaseline smeared over your glasses).

Nice try, Dave.

However, that photo of the Super Chief in Albuquerque is a rather famous photgraph done by Jack Delano. That's what got me looking to see if someone was yanking my chain. I'd seen it somewhere before. Only the first time, it was in focus. The dispersion shield on the headlight was a dead giveaway even if one is not familiar with the work of Jack Delano. Who models dispersion shields on headlights? Somewhere there may be someone who models the ATSF, SP, WP, UP, etc.  on the Pacific Coast during WWII, but I've yet to see a photo of a model of a locomotive equipped with a dispersion shield.

http://www.mcmahanphoto.com/lc330.html

Fred Stoes photo of SP #2855 in Santa Cruz during 1942. http://www.yesteryeardepot.com/SP2855.JPG

What was done with the original photo was irrelevant. Like I said, no one models dispersion shields, at least not that I've ever seen.

And yes, the devil is in those kinds of details.

Andre

andrechapelon wrote:

OK it was a trap and I fell for it.  A crappy picture is a crappy picture.  After looking at the first few I didn't bother with the rest.  I've seen hundreds of sites and posts with crappy pictures.  He took a good picture and made a crappy picture out of it.  Big deal.  That's easy to do.  That's not rivet counting.  Just because a really bad photo of a real engine might look the same as a really bad photo of a bad model engine, that doesn't mean that in person a really bad model engine will look the same as real engine (unless you live with Vaseline smeared over your glasses). Nice try, Dave. However, that photo of the Super Chief in Albuquerque is a rather famous photograph done by Jack Delano. That's what got me looking to see if someone was yanking my chain. I'd seen it somewhere before. Only the first time, it was in focus. The dispersion shield on the headlight was a dead giveaway even if one is not familiar with the work of Jack Delano. Who models dispersion shields on headlights? Somewhere there may be someone who models the ATSF, SP, WP, UP, etc.  on the Pacific Coast during WWII, but I've yet to see a photo of a model of a locomotive equipped with a dispersion shield. http://www.mcmahanphoto.com/lc330.html Fred Stoes photo of SP #2855 in Santa Cruz during 1942. http://www.yesteryeardepot.com/SP2855.JPG What was done with the original photo was irrelevant. Like I said, no one models dispersion shields, at least not that I've ever seen. And yes, the devil is in those kinds of details. Andre

Nice one Magnus !!! I loved the early replys from the guys who didn't realise it was a setup ! LOL

Cheers,

Warren

Big Ugly Waz wrote:

Nice one Magnus !!! I loved the early replys from the guys who didn't realise it was a setup ! LOL Cheers, Warren

I will have to admit that I did not expect those responses since it's their in plain writing that they are real photos. But funny it was!

But I have noticed a trend on forums that people can say things that the original author already have said him self or something like that. perhaps the biggest lesson is that we shouldn't answer things that we have not even fully read.

Magnus

Hi,

 I love it!

This is the second time on this forum my pictures were used to fool unsuspecting readers.  The results the last time were exactly the same, although not as many stuck feet into their mouths.

I took the shot above with a crappy Nikon D80 from our 70th floor hotel room window in Detroit last summer when we were at the National Train Show. 

I have a gallery on my new site with a few more examples of this technique that anybody can do with Photoshop....

Galleries can be found here.

This is the second time on this forum my pictures were used to fool unsuspecting readers.  The results the last time were exactly the same, although not as many stuck feet into their mouths.

Stuck is an understatement. Some of them slapped their legs into a French roll, slathered on mustard and relish, added lettuce, tomato and onion after which they proceeded to devour their entire legs.

It was fun to watch. Well worth the price of admission.

Andre

Adult Swim on the Cartoon Network has some bumper images that are doctored to shorten the focal length, and it messed with my head until I realized that they weren't pictures of the best detailed miniatures ever.

Most of the altered photos on Port Kelsey were taken by photographer Jack Delano in the forties, and are featured on a blog which has been the subject of a few threads in the past.

http://www.shorpy.com/node/127

rolleiman wrote:

...The point being that it is not necessary to model everything in perfect detail — trying to replicate every rivet in order to create something that looks real; all that needs to be created is the illusion. The steam engine picture above is a great example of this. The blurred image looks like a very simple model, almost toy-like… but it is the real deal. If we could shrink the prototypes down to our scale, I’d wager they just wouldn’t look right. Sometimes it is best to just make models that “look right” and let the rivet counters, well… count rivets...