BCSJ wrote:More recently I got an honorable mention for a slide shot on my Redland Diorama posed outside with 'real' sunlight and 'real' fields and hills and clouds and sky (I wrote an article for MR on the subject of outdoor module photography playing tricks with selective perspective to make the diorama (foreground) and the 'real' background mesh together). So are those outdoor photos 'altered'? I thought that this contest was a 'photography' contest. In which case it's the quality of the photo (or image) being judged. The appearance of realism is what I'm after in most of my shots, but let's face it - I'm still taking pictures of toy trains here so how 'real' can it be? Regards,Charlie Comstock (the Bear Creek and South Jackson Railway Co.)
I thought that this contest was a 'photography' contest. In which case it's the quality of the photo (or image) being judged.
The appearance of realism is what I'm after in most of my shots, but let's face it - I'm still taking pictures of toy trains here so how 'real' can it be?
Regards,
Charlie Comstock (the Bear Creek and South Jackson Railway Co.)
Charlie would be too modest to say so, but his diorama photo graces the month of September in Kalmbach's 2008 calendar, and I think it's one of the best photos in the whole calendar. Not bad for pictures of toy trains!
Charlie also has a great web site, and he regularly posts reports of the op sessions of his new under-construction Bear Creek & South Jackson. I'm priviledged to live close enough to Charlie that I get to participate! Here's his November op session, as reported on his web site, with photos.
Charlie's also running an ongoing "clinic" on model railroad photography on my layout web site. I'm glad to see Charlie here on the MR forum! We need more modelers of his caliber on here!
As to Charlie's comments on the MR photo contest, I tend to agree with him. Most of the furor about digitally modified images simply indicated ignorance of what it really takes to get a winning image, IMO. You need real talent to visualize the desired image, and then a deft photo-artistic skill to pull it off without it looking like some sort of hack.
If digital photo manipulation was really that easy, then every Tom, Dick, and Harry would be winning the MR contest with photos that they took on their living room rug of their Christmas trainset, but then altered in photoshop to look like a masterpiece.
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
I visited Charlie's Webpage and viewed the youtube trial video.
I think this is well done! Very nice.
Is it possible that photography as we once knew it is kaput and long live the video?
Should we even contemplate having video contests?
Falls Valley RR wrote:I would think that Film Cameras will be pretty good. But they are obselete and have passed their time. I still enjoy them but for the need to process the pics.Digital camcorders like the sony I have take very poor pictures: http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/7903/lpgtankcarsez4.jpgI dont think for one minute that image is worthy of any contest. At least the layout deck is reasonably clean, structures are visually acceptable and the rolling stock passable. No photo shop, no nothing.. just a USB cable and transfer from the camera memory to the computer desktop.[snip]Sorry folks, no contests for me. I take images because I like to. Take it or leave it.By the way that is the new Manufactoring complex that I am working on. Sometime by summer of 2008 it should be finished and ready for scenery and quite the switching. Ive got about 5 structures more to build and they all will be installed along the backwall to the right for about 8 more feet. The mainline will go into the front part of the table winding around other industries as necessary.
I would think that Film Cameras will be pretty good. But they are obselete and have passed their time. I still enjoy them but for the need to process the pics.
Digital camcorders like the sony I have take very poor pictures:
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/7903/lpgtankcarsez4.jpg
I dont think for one minute that image is worthy of any contest. At least the layout deck is reasonably clean, structures are visually acceptable and the rolling stock passable. No photo shop, no nothing.. just a USB cable and transfer from the camera memory to the computer desktop.
Sorry folks, no contests for me. I take images because I like to. Take it or leave it.
By the way that is the new Manufactoring complex that I am working on. Sometime by summer of 2008 it should be finished and ready for scenery and quite the switching. Ive got about 5 structures more to build and they all will be installed along the backwall to the right for about 8 more feet. The mainline will go into the front part of the table winding around other industries as necessary.
Hey Falls. That complex looks like it could turn out very nicely.
Whether you take pictures for a contest or not I'm glad that you're taking pictures. You're right that the 'still' feature provided by camcorders is not terribly good, but hey, you already have it so you might as well use it.
Have you tried different camera and lighting angles? For example, instead of the helicopter shot get the camera down lower. Then put the main light off to one side or the other (early morning or late afternoon lighting - photographers go nuts over the light at these times because it greatly enhances the photo's drama - mondo shadows). I'm not sure why you picture has so much color grain to it - possibly too much .jpeg compression? Or perhaps not enough light and you're making your camcorder work too hard.
Go ahead and take more pictures. Learn your way around the camera you have and when you get a better one you'll be that much further ahead.
btw. As far as good cameras for model train pictures go I'd recommend staying away from the new $5000 Nikon body and $8000 Canon body. They're just too big! One on my tricks is to set the camera in the scene and its hard to do that with camera the size of an Abrams tank.
Charlie
Railphotog wrote:Charlie:Great comments and thoughts! Like you, some of my wins in MR's contest were done on minimalist dioramas, not on a "real" model railroad - should they count? All on film too.My first place win scene was really simple - two HO scale snow plows posed nose to nose on an 18" wide shelf layout with a Faller scenic background at the back. There was a CN diesel model in the center. Other wins were taken on styrofoam photo dioramas or on a wood trestle in front of a cloud background, foreground scenery in shadow was just a cardboard cutout. Nothing "real" about any of them, mostly altered reality!They did, however take some time to visualise, creat and execute. They were not "snapshots". And being taken on film, many exposures had to be taken to ensure at least some would have the proper exposure. Exposure on slide film was very critical.Let the contest continue to seek out the best model railroad images. Period.
Charlie:Great comments and thoughts! Like you, some of my wins in MR's contest were done on minimalist dioramas, not on a "real" model railroad - should they count? All on film too.
My first place win scene was really simple - two HO scale snow plows posed nose to nose on an 18" wide shelf layout with a Faller scenic background at the back. There was a CN diesel model in the center. Other wins were taken on styrofoam photo dioramas or on a wood trestle in front of a cloud background, foreground scenery in shadow was just a cardboard cutout. Nothing "real" about any of them, mostly altered reality!
They did, however take some time to visualise, creat and execute. They were not "snapshots". And being taken on film, many exposures had to be taken to ensure at least some would have the proper exposure. Exposure on slide film was very critical.
Let the contest continue to seek out the best model railroad images. Period.
Bob, I remember that snowplow picture. That was really nice. And you ain't kidding about how fiddly slide film is about precise exposure.
I just picked up a Canon dSLR and I think that only recently have digital cameras gotten comparable to film in image quality. But they sure are a lot easier to work with and all the mistakes don't cost you processing!
Charlie C.
Falls Valley RR wrote: Sorry folks, no contests for me. I take images because I like to. Take it or leave it.
I do model photography because I like to as well, I'm combining two interests in one. And the $2000.00 or more that I've won in MR contests sure does help buy the train and photo toys!
Bob Boudreau
CANADA
Visit my model railroad photography website: http://sites.google.com/site/railphotog/
on30francisco wrote:I remember Malcolm Furlow altered the photos of his layout, the Soda CreeK and South Park (MR Oct 86 issue), by superimposing photos of himself and other people into the scene, however, he stated that fact in the writeup. I guess an altered photo is acceptable to submit as long as it's stated how it was edited. Obviously, since there's no way to tell an altered one from a unaltered one, the contestants would have to adhere to "the honors system."
Hmm...I certainly seem to have started a minor brew haha.
I too used film for years, and remember shooting many many frames of Ektachrome to get the one perfect shot. I only switched to digital last year, when I felt that the DSLRs where up to the task, and had fallen to an acceptable price.
I have no problem with Photoshop, I have the skills to do it. And certainly know what kind of abilty it takes to do it well. I agree that altered vs non altered is a sticky situation. But I think that it's a more realistic division the film vs. digital.
Nick
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
The one thing that bothers me about this entire discussion has only been briefly touched on by a few people: what constitutes a model photograph? A famous radio talk show host often says that he uses absurdity to prove his point, so here's my "extreme" example of a model photo...
A few years ago, there was a winning photo where the sky was real & had been added on a computer screen later. So, is this a "model photo?" Suppose I had an awesome shot of some prototype steam engine in all of its glory. So I get an HO scale plastic skid, take a picture of it then digitally lean it up against a telephone poll in my prototype shot. Is this a model photo?
I don't know where the line is, but somewhere out there, a photo ceases to be a model photo and becomes a modified prototype photo. This is the reason why I feel that manipulated photos really muddy the water. I don't know where that line is but it needs to be drawn somewhere. Until then, this debate will go on forever.
dlm
dlm:
True enough, where do you draw the line? For me the line would be:
The subject, associated track, and essential surrounds must be an actual model. All non-model elements must be called out in a detailed description of the image.
From there it becomes the judges call. I'm personally open to creative uses of non-model elements to enhance an image's foreground or background -- but the subject, track, and middle ground needs to be a model for it to be a model railroad photo. Otherwise it becomes a prototype photo enhanced with model elements just as you describe.
brothaslide wrote:One aspect that I am not fond of is "photoshoping in" a real horizon behind the model railroad. I prefer to see the model as is.
There was an article on this in MR not too long ago, where a modeler showed a photo taken on his layout, with nothing added. You could see the real world background - wall studs and ceiling beams of his basement, which were really distracting. The second view was the same image with a digitally added sky background. Nothing in the modeling changed one bit, just the added effect of a non distracting background.
Keep in mind this is a model photo contest, and studs, beams, furnaces, calendars, tools, etc. in the background distract from the subject - the train models. Removing the distractions makes a scene a better photo of a model railroad subject.
That's why I have no problems with this type of manipulation in the computer.
What about a model railroad scene where only a small part of the real world intrudes - something just beyond the scenic background? A little bit of cloning of the background and the distracting area can be removed. What's wrong with that?
Bob, my own incipient modelling is greatly improved by the addition of photoshopped sky and some judicious cropping and image brightening. That suggests to me that there are likely two factors: first, the model itself isn't complete or sufficiently "fine" to stand on its own as a primary image, but secondly that I don't really know what I am doing when it comes to the imagery, itself.
It would seem to me that a model should be sufficiently comprehensive to withstand scrutiny as a primary image. So, really, if that is acceptable in principle, it should have all the background and details it needs to render an image worthy of evaluation in competition.
In a model photo constest, the primary, unaltered, image, should be compared with like kind. Then the merits, subjectively though they be judged, are at least starting from the same page...so to speak. Once an image is "enhanced" for effect, or visual completeness, it should be judged with like kind.
I don't think that an image is false if it contains imagery of items that are placed just for the photo session. For example, if I place a "sky" backdrop in juxtaposition so that if affords the finished primary image with a convincing sky, that should be just fine. Similarly, if I add an old rusty pickup in scale, and some scale farm workers, and then do nothing to the image of them, that should satisfy the criteria for the unaltered primary image section of the contest. The model/diorama gets placed in a box and stored, but the add-ons go on to another shoot. The were only entered into the scene for the one image. It is still a model photograph. But, my point is that it is a complete, stand-alone, image that is sufficient to stand alone on the merits of the techniques applied to both the imagery (half the equation), and those of the subject.
Altered primary image, or adjusted/altered and thus secondary image...or more.
-Crandell
Nick,
If it were up to me, I'd abolish the distinction between Digital and Film images altogether and judge all entries as they come, altered or not.
I say this because I believe that an unaltered image featuring good model railroad subject matter that is creative, well conceived, well lighted and well composed can compete on equal footing with highly manipulated images. If you don't believe this, just look back over the last few contests and pick out the most striking, creative, interesting images. I think you'll find that some are film, some are digital, some are altered and some are straight from the camera.
High quality cameras, lenses, computers and software are now widely available at reasonable prices. Making use of these resources, however, requires creativity, skill and hard work; and these are the qualities that shine through in outstanding contest entries - not the particular techniques used to produce an image.
PS: Yes, the name should be changed to "Model Railroader Photo and Imaging Contest".
I dont know how many photos ive seen over the years.
I do remember the ones that manage to tell a story with a single click of the shutter. For example the Steam engine stopping all smoke as it drifts past a family hanging laundry 50 feet away. Not any laundry but white sheets.
Or perhaps one taken from inside a baggage car as a lady sets out food trays from the local diner as one of the crew counts the money and checks the reciept.
Pictures worth a thousand words are the ones to keep.
So what do you say. Is the following image altered?
http://s145079212.onlinehome.us/rr/bcsj2/construct011126/pix/sd7_002_c.jpg
Perhaps not contest quality but fairly decent.
But after seeing this image what do you say?
http://s145079212.onlinehome.us/rr/bcsj2/construct011126/pix/cheat_006_c.jpg
The first image wasn't digitally altered. But it doesn't represent a 'real' scene on my previous railroad! But all of the elements in the photo were 'real' (not computer synthesis).
So is this enterable in the "unaltered" category or does it go in the 'tweaked' side of the universe?
Really, I was just trying to make a realistic looking model railroad image. I figure if you have to look for a while before saying "model..." I've succeeded.
Charlie Comstock
Charlie, if I may call you that, of course the first scene is real. If, as you claim, and as you demonstrate by your second image, all that appears in the first is extant at the instant of shutter release, then the camera angle does not matter. Nor the lighting, since a good picture can't be offered for view unless imaged in "decent" lighting. What I see is what the camera sees. Good modelling image.
The second is not a good modelling image, although it absolutely is instructive. Had you digitized tiny HO scale people, say a hobo lying between the tracks, it would not be an original image. I would submit that it would not be a fully "modelled" image since the digital imagery added is not a model. It was also not present at the instant of shutter release. It was not an extant condition that could be imparted to the primary, unaltered, or raw, image during the primary imaging.
Haven't read all the posts on this thread but the contest should be for unaltered or "real" photos or have multiple catagories.
When the first digitally enhanced photo won, I thought the contest had taken a wrong turn. The next year there were more digitally enhanced photos with greater and more numerous enhancements. The third year, I believe most all entries had some type of digital enhancement on them.
I thought then, and with the current advancements, I believe one could now, totally make up a scene, without any item being "real". Wouldn't that be something! A photo wins and MR asks for more pictures of that great layout, only to be told none of it exists. Not the loco or cars, not the scenery, people/figures, not the backdrop, nothing.
Is that what the "contest" is about? I would think we are still dealing with "Model" railroading.
Tilden
Tilden wrote: I believe one could now, totally make up a scene, without any item being "real". Wouldn't that be something!
IRONROOSTER wrote: The contest should be about taking accurate pictures of model railroad scenes. I see no difference between digital cameras and film cameras; and altering the film or digital image would both seem to be out of bounds. I also would exclude the fake smoke stream and other "effects" whether it's done after the photo or before. The photo should depict what you would see if you went to the layout/diorama and viewed it in person. Otherwise we should call it train pictures and not worry about whether it's a model, a real train, or someone fooling around with computer software. EnjoyPaul
Enjoy
Paul
I used to enjoy MR a lot more before they started publishing doctored images and touting them as someone's layout. Now you can't always tell what's real and what's fiction in the lens. I especially don't like undocumented doctoring.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
For what it's worth, here's how I see (ouch!) "altered" versus "non-altered" images:
An altered image is one that you cannot reproduce for the eye in real time, whereas a non-altered image you could.
Taking Charlie's example - his first photo would qualify as a non-altered image, since he could place the elements such that the eye could see what his photo shows (cropping does not count as an alteration, since every photo is already a cropped version of what your eye sees - except maybe for some fisheye lenses).
Added smoke, steam, and even headlights falls into the altered category, since you could not reporduce that in real time in a way that looks realistic (the way smoke curls, rises, etc does not scale).
Added sky, or even digitally removed walls are an alteration, but use of a protable sky backdrop is not, since at any time you can place the sky backdrop behind the scene and reproduce physically what the camera saw.
Just my perspective.
Agree with Brunton. And if you want the altered photos, have a seperate catagory.
I think the point about MR photos is well taken. I too am less impressed with the current photos because they leave me wondering if the photo represents real model achievement (which I might want to emulate) or computer editing skills.
Brunton wrote:For what it's worth, here's how I see (ouch!) "altered" versus "non-altered" images:An altered image is one that you cannot reproduce for the eye in real time, whereas a non-altered image you could.Taking Charlie's example - his first photo would qualify as a non-altered image, since he could place the elements such that the eye could see what his photo shows (cropping does not count as an alteration, since every photo is already a cropped version of what your eye sees - except maybe for some fisheye lenses).Added smoke, steam, and even headlights falls into the altered category, since you could not reporduce that in real time in a way that looks realistic (the way smoke curls, rises, etc does not scale).Added sky, or even digitally removed walls are an alteration, but use of a protable sky backdrop is not, since at any time you can place the sky backdrop behind the scene and reproduce physically what the camera saw.Just my perspective.
Exactly. I have a photo of my layout looking towards the aisle where there's a real physical portable backdrop. Would I consider this an altered image? No.
This whole area of "enhanced" photos is tricky.
For example, if I use one of the depth-of-field enhancement programs, so that the resulting photo is sharp focus from foreground to backdrop, is that a digitally enhanced photo?
Strictly speaking, this is a digitally enhanced photo because the camera cannot reproduce the image -- it took a computer manipulating the bits to get the resulting image. On the other hand, the scene is real enough, the image simply cannot be done without the help of a computer.
So now is that a digitally altered image or not? My head hurts ... ouch!
jfugate wrote: This whole area of "enhanced" photos is tricky. For example, if I use one of the depth-of-field enhancement programs, so that the resulting photo is sharp focus from foreground to backdrop, is that a digitally enhanced photo?Strictly speaking, this is a digitally enhanced photo because the camera cannot reproduce the image -- it took a computer manipulating the bits to get the resulting image. On the other hand, the scene is real enough, the image simply cannot be done without the help of a computer.So now is that a digitally altered image or not? My head hurts ... ouch!
I think Brunton got a good definition. If you can look at the photographed scene with your eyes (possibly through a hole in a box or something to limit your field of vision), and see the same as in the picture, then you are good to go.
Even if you have brightened or sharpened the photo. Your eyes adjust to changing light conditions in real life. Your eyes change focus automatically when you let your eye roam.
I don't see a problem with recreating the "everything in focus" effect. Basically - if you do stuff to the image to make it easier to see what is really there on the layout, no problem.
If you have added features that does not exist on the layout (like a background that only exist on your computer, smoke etc), or retouched away blemishes that would be inside the picture when looking at the real layout from the same viewpoint as the photo, then it should go in a category of its own - maybe "photo-improved layouts" instead of "improved photos of layouts".
But this is a debate that isn't about to be concluded anytime soon - so carry on as you were, ladies and gentlemen.
Grin, Stein
I also think Burton's on the right track with his definition of altered vs unaltered.
Joe, I'll have to say that you example is an altered image, especially if you use something like Halicon, that composites several seperate images together.
jfugate wrote:This whole area of "enhanced" photos is tricky. For example, if I use one of the depth-of-field enhancement programs, so that the resulting photo is sharp focus from foreground to backdrop, is that a digitally enhanced photo?Strictly speaking, this is a digitally enhanced photo because the camera cannot reproduce the image -- it took a computer manipulating the bits to get the resulting image. On the other hand, the scene is real enough, the image simply cannot be done without the help of a computer.So now is that a digitally altered image or not? My head hurts ... ouch!
But I wouldn't necessarily consider the use of depth of field programs to be creating an altered image, because the camera could be replaced by the eye and you'd see what the inage showed. Even though you may use multiple images with differing focal planes to create the final image, the basic image is still what you would see with your eye. There are no deleted or added elements or highlights.