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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Just my opinion.
Scott
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...
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-
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
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.