Folks:
It's not nearly a pointless question. I think it's a distinction with a great impact on this hobby. It is natural that a lot of modelers should want a photogenic railroad, and in fact these are the ones who probably get published most often - photography is still the main way we communicate our images to others, whether on paper on electrons. At the same time, this is a three-dimensional art form, and even a performance art form, so we aren't exactly like the builders of movie sets. There really is no way to satisfy both viewpoints completely, because the camera and the eye just don't see things the same way.
Some elements work well for a camera, but not the eye. A good example is the typical two-sided scene-divider backdrop. A camera is fixed and predictable. You can aim the shot in such a way to block out the backdrop edges, and make it the background of a realistic scene. Eyes are neither fixed nor predictable. The eyes of an observer viewing the same scene will jump from target to target, drift along, take in everything within view. It's hard to miss the edges of the backdrop and not see it as a Big Card Standing There.
Other elements work well when seen, badly when photographed. A typical old-time club layout, with lots of dense track, and heavily scenicked chunks connected by relatively narrow "bridges" is unlikely to look good in a photo. A camera takes in what it's pointed at. The eye, though, can be distracted - an operator following his train doesn't necessarily notice the extraneous tracks, or the sudden dropoff of the world. He's concentrating on his train.
My wholly unsystematic observations suggest that, over the years, we have come to focus on those things which photograph well, even if they don't necessarily work out well when seen in person...but is this really what we want?
You hit the nail on the head!
I was thinking the exact same thing last night while conducting a photography shooting session on the layout. When I designed this layout photogenic elements or placement was not in the equation. Now I find that a lot of cropping will need to happen with some of the images to keep them focused on the subject.
And for me this seems to be more of an issue with wide-angle shots as opposed to the close-ups.
I'm still playing around with my new digital SLR, having used a "point and shoot" for the past 4-5 years it is going to take some time to get back in the hang of using manual settings.
Cheers,
Ryan
Ryan BoudreauxThe Piedmont Division Modeling The Southern Railway, Norfolk & Western & Norfolk Southern in HO during the merger eraCajun Chef Ryan
My upcoming layout is being built with photography in mind. In fact all my scale model I build have that end in mind during construction.
I think the layouts that have the most impact on people are those that are what I would call "phootgenic". This means more scenery than structures and visually impacting scenes. It also means less "spaghetti" trackwork and a simplistic approach. Of course building a layout like this doesn't mean you have to sacrifice operations. I think you can get enough satifying operations from a layout that is built to be photographed.
-G-
The last thing on my mind is taking pictures. I build for myself. I guess that means I build for the eye, but for my eye. If others enjoy how it looks, great! If not...
Autobus Prime wrote: Other elements work well when seen, badly when photographed. A typical old-time club layout, with lots of dense track, and heavily scenicked chunks connected by relatively narrow "bridges" is unlikely to look good in a photo. A camera takes in what it's pointed at. The eye, though, can be distracted - an operator following his train doesn't necessarily notice the extraneous tracks, or the sudden dropoff of the world. He's concentrating on his train.My wholly unsystematic observations suggest that, over the years, we have come to focus on those things which photograph well, even if they don't necessarily work out well when seen in person...but is this really what we want?
It seems to me that quite a few modelers have been able come up with a layout that satisfies both the eye and photograph and have been doing so for many years. Hayden and Frary, Malcom Furlow, John Olsen, Allen McClelland, John Allen etc al... built their railroads with photography in mind. With the ability for anyone to take and publish digital pictures of their layout I think that some elements of design for photography were inevitable even on the smallest layout.
Trying to duplicate the type of scenic effects of a layout like the V&O in a relatively small space is going to require view blocks and other techniques that may no be as pleasing to the eye for some people. I actually prefer the visual effect of a divider type backdrop compared to the visual effects of many of the spaghetti bowl layouts of the past.
Just my opinion.
Scott
I build for the eye, but since I take a lot of pictures, I'm aware of the difference. My layout is a table, so I can't use a permanent background, and it's in the family room which no one really wants painted light blue with a few puffy clouds. So, I make do with a thin piece of foam board that goes behind the layout when I'm taking pictures.
Most of the time, though, I'd have to agree with the original premise. The pictures I take can be tightly controlled, to block out anything that doesn't fit the theme. After all, there's still a sizeable chunk of pink foam visible, and I wouldn't want that in anything other than a "work in progress" photo. I find that I'm often happier with the pictures than I am with the real look of the layout.
Then, sometimes I look at a photo and see something I really don't like. I have to head back to the train room and fix it.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Lakeshore 3rd Sub wrote: Autobus Prime wrote: Other elements work well when seen, badly when photographed...My wholly unsystematic observations suggest that, over the years, we have come to focus on those things which photograph well, even if they don't necessarily work out well when seen in person...but is this really what we want? It seems to me that quite a few modelers have been able come up with a layout that satisfies both the eye and photograph and have been doing so for many years. Hayden and Frary, Malcom Furlow, John Olsen, Allen McClelland, John Allen etc al... built their railroads with photography in mind. With the ability for anyone to take and publish digital pictures of their layout I think that some elements of design for photography were inevitable even on the smallest layout.Trying to duplicate the type of scenic effects of a layout like the V&O in a relatively small space is going to require view blocks and other techniques that may no be as pleasing to the eye for some people. I actually prefer the visual effect of a divider type backdrop compared to the visual effects of many of the spaghetti bowl layouts of the past.
Autobus Prime wrote: Other elements work well when seen, badly when photographed...My wholly unsystematic observations suggest that, over the years, we have come to focus on those things which photograph well, even if they don't necessarily work out well when seen in person...but is this really what we want?
Other elements work well when seen, badly when photographed...
L3S:
I'm not really referring to les chemins de spaghetti, though.
Take my own layout. My trackage is slightly convoluted, but is no temple of reformed pastafarianism. I also have two town - areas roughly diagonal from each other that aren't supposed to be so close.
Conventional wisdom would suggest a diagonal backdrop board, crossing part of the table, or a ridge high enough to block all view. This would photograph well from either side, and the background could be as urban or rural as paint or print could make it. "Hey, they built a Hotel Gotham in Wattsburg! "
In practice, though, there would always be times, while running the railroad, when I would see the ends of the backdrop, or see an absurdly steep ridge with a town on each side. This would be like seeing the back of the Wild West set flats - it takes the observer out of the carefully crafted illusion.
What I did, instead, was mock up a very low, flat ridge, with some scattered trees on it. This wouldn't make such a good photo backdrop, but it does stop the eye and screen one scene from the other, without itself being eye-catching. It's still a mockup, but it works well enough that I'm going to keep it when I get to the finished scenery.
BlueHillsCPR wrote: The last thing on my mind is taking pictures. I build for myself. I guess that means I build for the eye, but for my eye. If others enjoy how it looks, great! If not...
If a piece of rolling stock looks good enough to my less-than-perfect eyeballs at a distance of 100 scale meters (roughly four feet) I consider it satisfactory. Once I start building scenery and structures, I expect to follow the same standard. Except for 'right up front' modeling, any detail not readily visible at the length of a New York City block will be roughed in, or simply omitted.
I don't doubt that the flaws and shortcomings of models built to that standard will jump right out of a photograph, but I really don't care. I have a LOT of respect for craftspeople who can build models able to withstand close-up photographic scrutiny - but trying to equal their efforts is rather low on my list of priorities. Maybe my opinion will change once the broad-stroke work of building a rather large model empire is mostly completed, but that won't be happening soon.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - in essence, not in excruciating detail)
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
jeffrey-wimberly wrote:The camera can pick up things that thge eye alone can't pick out. Something that looks like a minor error to the eye can look like a major mistake in a photo.
j-w:
But does this matter? If photography is the goal, it obviously does...but can't you just as easily say that the major photo error isn't a problem, because the eye misses it?
What of something that works better on film? Take the typical polyball hillside. On film, it looks good, very realistic, as a backdrop for equipment. But in real life, looking at a scene like that, the eye tends to breeze right over it...lots of green, nothing to see.
This is very useful when trying to make something Not Be Obvious like a big pillar or the table edge, or a divider ridge, but not so much when the intent is to make a scene that is interesting even when there's not a train in sight.
I think we have really become used to thinking of the photo as the ultimate test, but really, this is not solely a photo art form, but a live art form too, meant to be personally viewed.
Photography wasn't a consideration at all while I was building my current (second ever) layout. It took far too much energy as it was with all the learning I had to do to keep asking myself as I went along how this would look at such and such an angle. It turns out that the resulting layout, at its current state of development, produces gratifying images for my equipment and skills in both modelling and photography, but a cursory glance at WPF each weekend encourages me to keep looking ahead. For example, I need quite a few more trees, and more detailing so that scenes come alive.
All in due course. Same for beginning to think in terms of decent photography.
I agree(sortof) with Jeffery. As an example the scene below looks great in my basement and pretty good in the picture. BUT, when you click to enlarge I can see the booboos.And they aren't lack of detaials, more along the lines of foundations, etc.
My $.02
Terry
Terry in NW Wisconsin
Queenbogey715 is my Youtube channel
As I told Grandman back when he was first learning to use a camera and photograph his layout, "... the two edged sword of good pictures, the flaws in the models start becoming more apparent. Did you notice your cement station platform isn't totally on the ground?"
While I don't design a layout or a scene for the specific purpose of taking pictures, I certainly want my work to look good in a photo.
Mark, you made my point better than I. That was exactly what I was trying to say. I build for the eye(mine) but I sure hope it looks good on film.
Thanks for the kind words.
I would think the great majority of people build for the eye, without giving much thought to photography. However the percentages of modelers on a forum like this may be much different.
Frankly, I think the differences in approach are minimal:
1. More detail is always better. If it can be seen in a photo, it can probably be seen (but perhaps not noticed) by the naked eye .
2. Almost any MR looks better with a backdrop, whether in photos or real life. The exception to this rule is backdrops painted by people who think they are artists, but aren't.
3. My personal rule of thumb is to avoid putting anything on the layout that causes people to ask questions like, "Uncle Harry, why is that board sticking up in the middle of your layout?" While it will photograph well, it tends to look really stupid in person. There are many other ways to disquise/hide the dreaded oval, and imo all of them are better than the centerboard.
4. A final obvious difference is that a MR build for photography only wouldn't have to run. That wouldn't suit me in the least.
Just my thoughts.
- Harry
jeffrey-wimberly wrote:The camera can pick up things that the eye alone can't pick out. Something that looks like a minor error to the eye can look like a major mistake in a photo.
If a photo makes a minor flaw look like a major mistake then I'd have to say the camera is the major mistake. I take pictures of the things I wish to recreate in scale, not the other way around.
Maybe someday I'll care if my layout is photogenic and then maybe I'll care about seeing my layout in MRR...I sincerely hope not. That's not why I became interested and it's still not why I do it. I'd rather take terrible pictures of my family having fun working on the layout and running trains.
I first started taking pictures of my layout simply to document construction and progress. As areas became more finished, I started using the camera to help improve a scene. Lately, I have been building certain areas specifically to look good in pictures.
During all of these phases, my main objective has been to run the trains. Everything else is secondary. I am continually amazed by the quality of the newer engines in the area of performance and detail. Having said that, it is so much more fun to run the trains through a somewhat realistic setting rather than simply shifting cars back an forth on a bare table top.
I guess for me the answer to the original question is "both."
Tom
Life is simple - eat, drink, play with trains!
Go Big Red!
PA&ERR "If you think you are doing something stupid, you're probably right!"
The obvious difference that hasn't been mentioned yet in photos of layouts or seeing them in person is movement or animation. Models of running streams or waves on the water can look really great in a photo - especially in the "how-to" articles. But when you see the same scene in person, it's not so great. Why? Because your eye expects the ripples on the water to move. Because the way the light reflects off the water is constantly changing.
Cars, figures, and trackside industries are other obvious examples. When I drive by the local concrete plant in Oakland (served by rail and truck), it's a noisy, dusty place with something or somebody always on the move. Very few autos are seen on the streets perpetually standing still. So when we visit a layout, our eye expects this constant movement and senses something is not quite right with a silent, static scene. But it looks great in a photo which is an instant in time. Meanwhile, our brains are trained to make sense of movement brought to us through eyes, nose, ears, etc. Our middle ear detects changes in velocity, not position.
These reasons favor photography over in-person visits. Static models and scenes are easier to model, hence the movement to layouts that photograph well.
I've dreamed about trying to recreate a total scene at my Oregon dog hole port dock. Using a fog machine with salt-air scented fog so that the train actually does pop out of the scene from the fog. Pulleys squeaking and spars groaning as loads are actually shifted into and out of the schooner's hold. The sound portion is achievable by using under-the-layout speakers driven by programming so that sounds are changing, and changing location. Still haven't got any idea on how to make the waves lap against the rocks - but I can at least add the sound. Nor can I animate the little people yet. But I can add their voices on the sound tracks. And please note that this is all still in the dream stage.
For me personally, I'd rather attempt to create the total effect rather than the photogenic layout...but that's me.
Fred W
This is a fascinating thread! I found myself thinking along these lines the other day while trying to photograph some scratchbuilt seedum "trees". My layout doesn't have a painted backdrop yet, so while the trees looked great in person, all of the photos clearly showed an artificial white background where sky should be. I started thinking, maybe if I just build a steep hillside behind those trees, and populate it with foam ball foliage, it would make the seedum trees look better in the pictures. And it hit me, that's a strange way of building a layout, but I understand the reasoning.
Regarding what fwright wrote, I totally agree that it's the lack of movement that makes a layout look lifeless. In front of my layout I left some vacant space where my kids can play cars. My little boy was playing with a pullback VW bug and the movement caught my eye. I grabbed another car, pulled it back a bit, then placed it on my main street, and let it run slowly down the pavement. Eureka! It made the whole scene come alive! I thought, I've got to make a video of this, with a train running in the foreground, and a couple of pullback cars going in opposite directions.
Fooling the eye is what's about and that brings me to my next observation: the detailed trains and scenery on a layout can easily fool the eye into thinking a scene is real. But add just one static, scale figure and for me, the scene just dies. You see this phenomenom in digitally animated movies for kids. While the viewer can be tricked into thinking the animated creature on the screen is real, humans have such a nuanced and complicated way of looking at other humans, that trying to mimic one convincingly is almost impossible. To me, even the highest quality, best painted figures on a layout absolutely fail in their ability to depict real humans. Imagine if locomotives had brains and eyes and could look at your train layout. They would probably think, wow, that little engineer looks pretty darn realistic, but that GG-1 just looks so fake!
I model 100% for the eye. If it looks good to me, it works. I can then choose camera angles that will work.
This approach also means there are numerous minor flaws that the eye doesn't easily pick up on but would be apparent in a photograph. I can live with that. I'm a believer in the 3 foot standard. If it looks good from 3 feet, it's good enough. An observer tends to take in the scene as a whole and might overlook a flaw but a photograph focuses the eye on a much smaller area so flaws will stand out more in a photo than when observed by the naked eye.
fwright wrote: The obvious difference that hasn't been mentioned yet in photos of layouts or seeing them in person is movement or animation. Models of running streams or waves on the water can look really great in a photo - especially in the "how-to" articles. But when you see the same scene in person, it's not so great. Why? Because your eye expects the ripples on the water to move. Because the way the light reflects off the water is constantly changing.Cars, figures, and trackside industries are other obvious examples. When I drive by the local concrete plant in Oakland (served by rail and truck), it's a noisy, dusty place with something or somebody always on the move. Very few autos are seen on the streets perpetually standing still. So when we visit a layout, our eye expects this constant movement and senses something is not quite right with a silent, static scene. But it looks great in a photo which is an instant in time.
Cars, figures, and trackside industries are other obvious examples. When I drive by the local concrete plant in Oakland (served by rail and truck), it's a noisy, dusty place with something or somebody always on the move. Very few autos are seen on the streets perpetually standing still. So when we visit a layout, our eye expects this constant movement and senses something is not quite right with a silent, static scene. But it looks great in a photo which is an instant in time.
fw:
GREAT point. I see this very thing mentioned repeatedly in old issues of MR (not so much recently). I think Westcott kept it as a pet windmill for jousting purposes. :) It was always suggested that figures and cars be put in plausible resting or semi-resting poses - action poses were acknowledged to look great in photos, but subtly "off" in real life for the reasons you mention.
People standing and talking, men playing checkers on a barrel, Huck Finn fishing, dogs sniffing around a hydrant...not stuff that necessarily never moves, but stuff that stays put long enough to be plausible while the eye is caught, briefly held, and moves on...these were suggested.
The "worldwide pause" effect this could cause was acknowledged, but in fact was not so much a risk as we might think, at least for less busy areas. Think of a street of rowhouses during the day. There will be a lot of parked cars, but 90% of the time, the street is clear - vehicles enter and leave quickly; pedestrians likewise.
Where this might be tough is in modeling a really busy city scene. Perhaps the city could be modeled in the early morning or lunch hour? (Modelers of the recent eras, sadly, often will have no problem here.)
Another cool idea. It would work for other industries, too. A lot of real-life shops are pretty static-looking outside, most of the time...and others are pretty much so except for the trackmobile pushing cars around. What gives these scenes life is almost entirely the sound, and often of things you can't see - buzzers, drop hammers, machinery whining, tannoys crackling away, and especially, the jitney drivers revving the propane engines and buzzing around the shop. Meanwhile, outside is all parked cars and a handful of employees seated at the ubiquitous picnic table, taking a cigarette break. I just can't overstress how common these picnic tables are at plants of every type.
I build for the eye, but after, I take some test shots, and then by analizing the pics I go and clean up certain "cluttered" aspects, or add to scenes that look barren on film, I use the pics to better my scenes, I find a balance between the two.
I have used photography to tweek my layout, sometimes the camera will show us things that our "Panavision" misses.
I build for both my own eye and for my own enjoyment of photographs. If I don't like it in person, AND on film, it isn't done yet. I have yet to run into any conflict between the two.
Something not yet introduced here is what you model in addition to how you do it. I consciously decided to model only things and places I like. Places I want to go to or places I've already been and want to return to. Here's a nice quiet mountain valley, and here's an armed robbery at a fast food joint. Which am I likely to go out of my way to see, and which am I likely to avoid like the plague? That's the standard used on our layout. If it isn't some place I'd pay money to go see, then it doesn't get included.
Of course, I LIKE complicated machinery, old woodwork, and dusty old junkyards full of forgotten technicalogical treasures. That goes to personal preference but if anyone is at all concerned about how others remember their layouts, I think you'd do better to model the log cabin, and leave out the outhouse out back. Just my opinion...
For those who want to bring their layouts to life with sound, I'll repeat this. The earlier you get a personal computer into the audio chain, the more versatile your sound canvas will become. A computer will generate and play back more sounds than any ten thousand dedicated layout sound devices you can buy or even imagine. In mono or stereo, up to CD quality, even an old 486 will do wonders for your layouts aural aura, and most anything you put into that PC will not be wasted. All of your programming and most of your extra hardware will transfer to a new PC if and when you upgrade. Of course, 7.1 surround or better than CD quality requires more horsepower than the old 486 can deliver, but not by too much. Digital video and 3D simulations are real power drains on a PC, audio, not nearly as much.
Model railroading is creating an illusion. The professionals in that business, movie and TV makers, audio engineers, all went digital a decade or more ago. Here's a decoder. Here's 500 decoder equipped locomotives. One old PC will outperform all the above by a factor of 1000. More memory, more processing horsepower, and levels of flexibility that even a Tsunami can't even begin to compare to.
The faster you put a PC into your audio chain, the earlier you can begin realizing some of those dreams.
Well, first of all, I don't consider myself a very good photographer, nor am I particularly interested in becoming one because at my age, it's taking time away from the layout. So I'm certainly not building my MR with the camera in mind. However, I AM building it with my eyes in mind and with the hope that I'm doing a convincing enough job to at least duplicate to a reasonable degree what excited me about model railroading in the first place--in my case, big steam in big mountains.
If one of my photos happens to turn out well (purely by accident), then I'm happy. If not--oh well--I'm still working on the layout.
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
Sawyer Berry
Clemson University c/o 2018
Building a protolanced industrial park layout
Having given this topic some thought, the question comes to mind - what could one do to build for the camera but not the eye? In other words, what would inspire "Ah ha! This will look good in a photo, even though it will look terrible to the eye?"
Frankly I can't imagine what that would be, except for the camera's ability to a crop scene and vary apparent depth.