Is it real or not

[Lillen]

Hi,

 

Look at these pictures.

 

Impressive:

 

http://www.port-kelsey.com/?p=627

 

Magnus

[dehusman]

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.

[lvanhen]

It was probably shot with a film camera with the lens "wide open", i.e. the widest possible aperture and a fast shutter speed will yeild a very short depth of field, especially in close-up work.  A tripod, stopping down to f16 or f22 would increase the depth of field, but would require a much longer exposure time.  He probably used a good camera - a "terrrible" camera would not have yielded the sharpness evident in the narrow band that is clear.

[jeffrey-wimberly]

In this case I think it's the other way around. Thake a photo of a real scene, make a few changes to the lighting and focus and it can look like a photo of a model scene complete with the short depth of field.

[dwRavenstar]

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]

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.

[simon1966]

It appears that he made his point!  A very interesting approach.  Once I realized that the images were of real scenes I found myself going back and forth between the doctored images and the originals.

[highhood63]

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

I just had my own example of this yesterday...a few in our local group was invited to see a Friends layout he had been working on this the past year and had kept it under wraps.  What I saw was a well thought out track plan, a nice collection of Rolling stock and some of the best looking scenery I had seen in a long time.  The two Bevises with me however started giving him all kinds of grief because he used the Woodland scenic Mod U Rail system, they called shake and bake Railroading and kept asking where was Thomas?  The funny thing is that layout looked ten times better than the grandiose yet barely started Bench work jungle these guys had.

I just pointed out to the guy that the two Rivet counters were morons, and that John Allen, David Barrow heck even Tony Koester have talked about and even used most of the basic principles he was using, those two went back to their perspective caves, I stayed and had  an extremely enjoyable operating session, in the end for me at least that's what it's all about.

[andrechapelon]

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

[reklein]

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.

[BlueHillsCPR]

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... 

[don7]

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.

[rrebell]

Great site, was smart enough to look at whole thing before making lame comments I later would have regretted. Now there was an o scale site that was a model but you couldn't tell, anyone one have a link ?, I believe they are in the LA area in California.

[Bill H.]

Makes me wonder if all the "model photos" I've seen over the years were actually models.

[Trekkie]

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. 

[rs2mike]

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.

  I agree tatans noone read the whole article to see wht the author was saying.  THEY ARE ALL REAL PICTURES NOT MODELS!!!!

[dinwitty]

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. 

 

[reklein]

I remember Jacques,that was a cool layout. At first I didn't like it because I thought it lacked detail and was unrealistic. But now that I'm older I realize what a peice of work it was. I'm surprised to hear it still exists as that article was a long time ago.

[RicHamilton]

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

[rolleiman]

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..

[Anonymous]

No, those are defintally not real. You probally just have your camera close up to make it kind of look real. Reply back to me if i was right



softball maniac

[dehusman]

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.

 

 

[andrechapelon]

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 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

 

 

[rrebell]

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 photo, didn't know of the shield for trains, only about the ones for autos, also the water tank photo made me realize that I missed a detail on one I built, like I need more to do!!!!!

[Big Ugly Waz]

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

Cheers,

Warren

[Lillen]

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

 

[FastTracks]

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.

 

 

[andrechapelon]

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.

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

[SteamFreak]

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

[marknewton]

...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...

Once again, one man's opinion is presented as though it's a universal truth, with a bit of gratuitous rivet-counter bashing thrown in.

Well, there are some photos on this website of a weathered P2K 0-8-0 which doesn't "look right" at all, so why doesn't this bloke follow his own dictates?

Cheers,

Mark.