Some of the scenery materials listed by others in this look into the new techniques, have actually been in use for generations. Also there have been modelers from way back, who had scenery building skills that rival (maybe surpass) current "ready built" scenery materials. What's more difficult: building scenery from scratch; or, buying it ready built and installing it?
Just sayin' don't look down your noses at what took place before you were involved, as what became the Bench Marks for scenery building back in the day, is what has brought all this wonderful scenery materials to the market today.
I have never used foam materials for a scenery base even though it is so highly touted. The thought of having to vacuum up all the foam dust leaves me absolutely cold to the idea. To each, his own!
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
There's sort of a 'trickle-down' effect. 30-40 years ago, only a few 'elite' models were doing things like using resin for water, or making their own trees. Now many of those techniques have become common.
wjstix There's sort of a 'trickle-down' effect. 30-40 years ago, only a few 'elite' models were doing things like using resin for water, or making their own trees. Now many of those techniques have become common.
There's something to this, too. The word on such techniques spreads from its original sources and more people adopt and share them, which helps information spread further.
This scene has epoxy resin water, Supertree material, shrubs constructed from synthetic steel wool, static grass (including home made static grass tufts for weeds), extensive use of natural dirt and rocks (painted as appropriate to match the plaster cliffs), and real rock ballast. I've adopted such ideas over the years by reading everything I can find on building scenery. The more these techniques are used and shared, in articles, books, a forum like this, or in person, the easier it becomes for the next guy to learn about them.
Much is made of using extruded foam, but I'm not so sure I'd consider that part of the scenic revolution. It's an alternative method for building a scenic base, but when finished it remains hidden. I tend to think of advances in scenery as being those affecting what you actually see.
Rob Spangler
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
SpaceMouseHas scenery improved that much since I've been gone the last 5 years? I feel like I have to wrap my head around a whole new level of competence.
Not as much at it appears, I think. Yes, there are more shots of good scenery, but some of the improvement is due to people learning how to use graphical manipulation programs to improve the appearance of their work. Take a look at the most recent MR, for example - the story on the 3-deck model railroad. Sky was edited in on many of the shots, and the deck above was edited out. MAJOR improvement in realism, as the shots can be improved and not just cropped to remove unwanted elements.
Many folks routinely "Photoshop" their photos to add sky, smoke, steam, lit headlights, etc. (The NMRA Scale Rails editor, Stephen Priest, regularly added arc-light-bright headlights to all locomotive shots, even old-time locos which in reality had kerosene or similar headlights and would have glowed only weakly during the day. He's toned that down a bit recently). Atmospheric effects, such as haze, fog, rain and snow are added less frequently, but all these sorts of things tend to add to the sense of realism in a model photo. I'd like to see the unedited photos of many of these great shots for comparison and a reality check.
So yes, some improvement, but much more widespread fakery, making it look like more improvement than I think there really is.
Go ahead - take your shots.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
Mark,
I'm not talking about green-screening your loco setting it in Horseshoe Curve.
I'm pretty familiar with Photoshop but I don't see how you can fake realistic-looking trees, rocks, and ground treatment--unless you added in trees clipped from someone else's layout photos.
BruntonSo yes, some improvement, but much more widespread fakery, making it look like more improvement than I think there really is.
I dunno, Mark. I don't see much fakery here, unless it's awfully well-done and has me completely fooled. There are times when I wish I had a method (and knew how to use it ) to add-in some "sky" to cover out-of-place anomalies in the background of some of my photos. I recently managed to add some foreground to a picture taken very close to the aisle, covering-over the layout fascia. Other than hiding the fascia, though, the modelled part of the scene was unaltered. I didn't post the photo here, but the "fakery" was, in my opinion, pretty obvious - it did, I think, look less distracting than would have the fascia, though. However, I found it to be a very time-consuming process, and not really worth the effort for general picture posting. It does offer a method of photographing those close-to-the-aisle scenes so prevalent on around-the-room-type layouts, though, and places things more in the context of the layout.
It still amazes me that there are so few photos posted here, though.
Wayne
doctorwayneIt still amazes me that there are so few photos posted here, though.
here are times when I wish I had a method (and knew how to use it ) to add-in some "sky" to cover out-of-place anomalies in the background of some of my photos
That's a nice-looking photo, blue sky or not. Could be low cloud cover or a hazy day, but the lack of blue doesn't detract from its appeal.
I simply put my pictures into photobucket - a free service with pretty generous storage allowances (I have about 4500 photos there, I think, and have used only about 25% of my allowed space). If your camera does high megapixel photos, they'll take-up space faster, but mine is only 4mp. You don't need to re-size your photos to place them there, either.To post them here, you simply click on the thumbnail view of the picture you wish to use (this gives you an enlarged image) then click on the word "IMG" in the list of "links". That automatically copies the data, and then you simply "Paste" it into your composition window here. It will appear as a line of data, but when you hit either "Preview" or "Post", it will appear as the photo. Most of my photos, once they're posted here, can be enlarged simply by clicking on the image, and if you click on that, you'll get an even larger view.
Yes, I have "Paint", but can't seem to get the hang of some of its features, especially the one to copy a portion of the picture to paste it elsewhere - that would be useful to cover up the weird-looking clouds seen in the distance of the photo below:
I actually tried using Paint a few days ago (after ignoring it for a long time) and sorta papered-over one of the common photo drawbacks of some around-the-room layouts, namely the stuff too close to the aisle. Here's the general area, seen as you'd see it if you were wandering around the layout room:
And here is a couple of doctored-up shots of the same area. "Paint's" version of the grassy knoll, I think :
Still, it's pretty tedious to use, at least in my hands. If I'm looking to get a presentable (reasonably attractive) picture, it's usually possible to do without trickery simply by paying close attention to composition, and with a digital camera, one can shoot multiple views at no cost, then choose the best ones or go back and shoot more. If I'm simply showing something as a visual explanation or in reply to a question, I try to show what's most pertinent, and don't worry too much if there's unrelated stuff in the background. How-to type of photos should be well-focused and without extraneous items. I often shoot such stuff through one lense of my Optivisor, or for even closer views, through a loupe.
I seriously urge anyone who wants to post pictures here to join a free site such as photobucket and share your work with the rest of us. Often, if you're here with a question or problem, you'll get better quality responses when you also show us the problem - the old "picture is worth a thousand words" thing, eh?My "home" forum has a large and animated smiley which declares that "This thread is worthless without pics!" and it gets fairly well-used. If you talk a good game, you'd better be ready to show your stuff. That site does host photos, but they must first meet certain size requirements. Also, those hosted photos are to be used only in that forum. I often store how-to thread illustrations there (to avoid that dreaded red X) but for general interest pictures, photobucket gets the nod.
For anyone interested, here's a link to photobucket
Wayne,
If you don't want to fork out the dough for Photoshop and want something a little more than paint, there is a free program called Gimp that is pretty powerful. (Google it) Then I suggest watching a few YouTube tutorials on how to use it until you get the hang of it. I have no problem with people Photoshopping photos any more than I have a problem with people taking a diorama outside to get natural lighting and a natural backdrop. You can still tell their skill level based upon the layout you can see.
Thanks, Chip. I actually have Gimp installed, but I got it for viewing photos which I took using a high-end digital camera. They were done in RAW format, for submission to a magazine, and without Gimp, all of the images displayed in very vivid shades of magenta and fuschia. Very psychedelic. I'll have to check it out again.
Three different images using, in order, draped towel to cover benchwork, cloned smoke and steam effects, but also some fixing of the sky using the cloning brush, and lastly an outdoors diorama using image stacking:
The towel is draped over a track rising toward the left just below the track on which you see the locomotive. Next, some steam and smoke plus a fixed backdrop at upper right.
Finally, the outdoors diorama: (four images stacked with each one focused deeper into the scene. everything in the photo is real, just in focus. Glacier 20 miles distant, locomotive 16"))
Crandell
Photos which are modified that purport to show someone's modeling are what I consider fakery (excepting white balance, contract and brightness adjustments, which correct errors which can be attributed to the photographer in one form or another). Cropping is also fair game - you're not altering what's in the photo; just controlling how much of what you modeled is seen.
If you're trying to simply create a realistic-looking image based on your modeling but with enhanced realism through digital effects, that's a different story - just don't try to pass it off as a real representation of what you built.
In other words, fakery for effect is fine; fakery with intent to misrepresent isn't. IMHO
So give - tell me if, and how, my perspective off on this matter.
Bruntonfakery for effect is fine; fakery with intent to misrepresent isn't.
I'm pretty much for anything that facilitates creative expression. Although I suppose that "fakery with intent to misrepresent" happens, I cannot fathom why someone would do so. I mean are these people trying to impress who, the readers on this board? What do they gain? Digital prestige?
Brunton In other words, fakery for effect is fine; fakery with intent to misrepresent isn't. IMHO So give - tell me if, and how, my perspective off on this matter.
I wouldn't say it's off as far as you explained here, at least with respect to presenting modeling in an honest way. However, I don't think suck fakery plays a role in scenery techniques appearing to be making an advance. Better models of water, grass, trees and other inorganic ground texture are real developments, still evident in photos that haven't received additional processing. Tools like Photoshop can only do so much, as the quality of the underlying modeling remains apparent unless the whole scene is a fake. Most photos on the various forum sites and even the magazines are mostly showing the modeling as it is, with a few edits here and there to hide fascia or backdrop corners.
SpaceMouseAlthough I suppose that "fakery with intent to misrepresent" happens, I cannot fathom why someone would do so.
You run into these sorts of people in everyday life, so I'm sure there are a few in this category on these boards. Everybody likes the kudos for work that is perceived as above the norm. Sometimes it spurs us on to achieve even more. But some folks have to have the praise, and a few would go so far as to misrepresent something to get it.
All of which is beside the point of the thread.
I agree in large degree with your original statement that scenery has gotten better. I just commented on one reason I think it seems so, and semi-hijacked the thread in doing so. My apologies for that. I also think some of the improvement is due to the much wider access to internet-based tutorials on how an excellent scene was done.
bogp40 Doughless Modelers may be emphasizing qulity scenery more since they have the ability to show their efforts to the world these days, via digital equipment. And the camera notices imperfect workmanship more than does the eye in real life, making the modeler double their effort in making high quality scenery. JMO. I also feel this is more the reason
Doughless Modelers may be emphasizing qulity scenery more since they have the ability to show their efforts to the world these days, via digital equipment. And the camera notices imperfect workmanship more than does the eye in real life, making the modeler double their effort in making high quality scenery. JMO.
Modelers may be emphasizing qulity scenery more since they have the ability to show their efforts to the world these days, via digital equipment.
And the camera notices imperfect workmanship more than does the eye in real life, making the modeler double their effort in making high quality scenery. JMO.
I also feel this is more the reason
Agreed.
DC
http://uphonation.com
BruntonThere are a significant number of folks whose personalities are such that they need the validation impressing others brings.
Yeah, I suppose. Just not in my circles I guess.
Brunton I also think some of the improvement is due to the much wider access to internet-based tutorials on how an excellent scene was done.
I know I got my head turned around after watching Joe Fugate's DVD's. His work made mine look like a cartoon.
Brunton.....You run into these sorts of people in everyday life, so I'm sure there are a few in this category on these boards......
Well, now I'm curious, as I can't recall seeing anything which looked suspicious, but something must've caught your eye, Mark. Any names or perhaps some links to the evidence? The game is afoot.
Chip,
I get the joke and enjoy the picture.
While I don't agree with alco-f's dig at your picture, I do agree with him that better cheaper cameras (or cheaper better cameras, if you wish) have made it easier to show better scenery.
doctorwayneWell, now I'm curious, as I can't recall seeing anything which looked suspicious, but something must've caught your eye, Mark. Any names or perhaps some links to the evidence?
And now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.
After reading these posts I just had to go back to my July 1946 issue of MR (25 cents) and look at John Allen's cover photo and his article " how to take realistic model photos. It is hard to get more realisic than that or his cover photo of "Model railroading with John Allen"
Peter Smith, Memphis
John Allen
Yep
A bit of creativity with the lighting can go a long way to making layout photos better and more realistic. Some cast shadows which indicate both the strength and direction of the "sun" can do wonders and can enhance work which is only moderately good. There's no beating natural outdoor light but it's fun to try.
Modelling the UK in 00, and New England - MEC, B&M, D&H and Guilford - in H0