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 would think that Film Cameras will be pretty good. But they are obselete and have passed thier 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.
If I wanted to, I could shoot this with the DV tape and then run my roxio processing software and capture a screenshot and post a slightly better image. We know more without the fuzzies and such.
Now if I actually own a 5 megapixel camera that does optical picture taking without too much lighting problems we will learn about the seam between the two roof peices now wouldnt we?
Anything bigger defeats the purpose. I can see myself hoisting a 200 megapixel 5000 dollar wonder and subsequently be buried in PM's saying OMG! That GLUESPOT UNDER THE CANOPY IS SO YUCKY!
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.
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 Boudreau
CANADA
Visit my model railroad photography website: http://sites.google.com/site/railphotog/
So what are the criteria for calling a picture "altered"? Does it have to be done with a computer?
When John Allen wrote about "posing miniatures on a table top with separate background" in the late 1940's was he advocating "altered" pictures? How about his hoax of the guy building a 1/400th size model railroad in his briefcase? John cut and pasted pictures of different sized elements together (sort of a pre-photoshop compositing job but taking incredible photographic talent to accomplish)?
I won the MR annual photo contest in 2000 with an unretouched slide. I built some scaffolding behind the module I was photographing and planted some tree and buildings on it. I also used some dry-ice fog. So was this picture "altered" or not? I shot 14 rolls of slide film getting that image?
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'?
But the previous year I got an honorable mention from a digital photo of my timesaver module balanced on the railing of my backdeck. I used photoshop to tweak the contrast, do some cropping, and turn on the loco's headlight (I didn't have any power to the module). So I'd guess that would be 'altered' too (although I didn't cut and paste any background stuff)
I thought that this contest was a 'photography' contest. In which case it's the quality of the photo (or image) being judged. Not primarily the quality of the model (I try to always use Kadee PS1 boxcars in the scenes because they look so good). It's possible to take a pretty good picture of a crappy model. It's also possible to take a really mediocre picture of a great model.
Or is it violating the rules by incorporating full scale items into photos of models, digitally or otherwise?
If someone can integrate separate pictures together the looks realistic then more power to them. But it's not so easy to do photoshop or not. Differences in the color and angles of lighting are major issues as are differences of perspective. I saw a really bad job of plugging bits and pieces together in a contest picture a number of years ago (perhaps that was the picture that spawned this discussion?). 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?
Real is a different thing to different people. I don't know how many contest winners I've seen that had impossible lighting in 'em. The year I won the runner up was a really nifty piece of work - a night-time shot with the moon low in the background but there was a moonlit embankment in the foreground - but no way for the moon to illuminate it (except for giant mirrors). So I get the impression that 'real' isn't necessarily a major criteria for the judges (sometimes I think that modeling the 'correct' roadname is more important than the photography).
And no, I'm not a pro-photographer and am self-taught. When I won the contest I used a second from the bottom Canon film slr with consumer grade glass and very low end (cheap) photo flood lights. I did work hard at it but was just plain lucky.
Anyway, better to be careful with our definition of 'altered' or 'unreal'.
btw. My friend Gordon here at work who has won the Oregon State Fair photo contest a couple of times is horrified by the "magazine owns all rights to the photos" feature of the MR contest. But then, the state fair prize was practically nothing other than noteriety...
Railphotog wrote: I think a rep from MR replied to similar questions a while ago stating they were looking for the best images of model railroads, period. Not concerned how they were produced. Probably still the same.How would one prove that an image had not been digitally altered? Or was altered?I recall many years ago reading in a photography magazine the great extent that a particular famous black and white photographer (Ansel Adams?) went to in order to print his award winning photos. He had precise instructions on how to dodge, burn, etc. the images being made in a darkroom, and had special tools to do it. I recall being reall amazed at the amount of effort it took to produce the images, as I never realized such work would take place. I had my own darkoom and would do similar work in very basic steps, so I had an idea what was involved. So esentially this great photographer was "creating" finished images from his negatives using his experience and techniques. So tweaking images isn't something new, it just became easier to do with digital.
I think a rep from MR replied to similar questions a while ago stating they were looking for the best images of model railroads, period. Not concerned how they were produced. Probably still the same.
How would one prove that an image had not been digitally altered? Or was altered?
I recall many years ago reading in a photography magazine the great extent that a particular famous black and white photographer (Ansel Adams?) went to in order to print his award winning photos. He had precise instructions on how to dodge, burn, etc. the images being made in a darkroom, and had special tools to do it.
I recall being reall amazed at the amount of effort it took to produce the images, as I never realized such work would take place. I had my own darkoom and would do similar work in very basic steps, so I had an idea what was involved. So esentially this great photographer was "creating" finished images from his negatives using his experience and techniques. So tweaking images isn't something new, it just became easier to do with digital.
Bob,
I think you have summed up my thoughts pretty clearly here. Most non-photographers may not be aware of how much "post processing" goes on using film. I too was amazed by Ansel's manipulation and I have seen color photographers do much more extreme dark room stuff using film. Even with transparencies there were/are film development tricks, the use of different films for different color bias etc, to say nothing of the magazine printing process itself and the process of color separations and halftones. The capabilities to manipualte these areas (espcially in color) weren't readily available to the non-pro before photoshop and computers (how many had acess to a color dark room set-up??).
In my experience with black and white film photography (and printing) and digital more recently, it still is about the basic image. In most cases, There is no amount of trickery that is going to turn a mediocre shot into a stunner. Or for that matter mediocre modeling into contest quality. I'm not talking about making the photo acceptable, I'm talking about reaching the highest quality images in terms of exposure, composition. and overall vision. There is a term in the music biz for applying massive post production to a dog: "T*rd polishing". I think the real issue is what is the vision?? I think that is still the hardest part.
I would agree that flying in backdrops and adding stuff that isn't there probably should be in a seperate category, but if these images are excellent (surely a subjective term), I have no problem enjoying them and considering them "Model Railroading" photograhy.
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
I don't think this issue will ever be resolved but it's interesting to get people's opinions on it. The way I look at it, it's a photography contest of model railroad subjects. The photographs are the best the photographer can do with his photography skills and his posing of the subject (trains). If this were a wedding magazine, all the photographs would be of brides, bridesmaids, etc., posed creatively and photographed well. If this were a dog magazine, all the photographs would be of dogs, posed creatively and photographed well. And so on. This is a model railroad magazine so the photographs are of model trains posed creatively and hotographed well.
I think the judges are looking for two things--how the subject (a train) is posed with regard to its surroundings, camera angle, etc. and how well the photographer took the picture with regard to lighting, depth of field, lack of shadows, use of shadows, etc. That's how I would judge the photographs anyway, with no regard to whether they were taken with a film camera or a digital camera.
I have no problem with a photographer using a computer to enhance his photograph to correct mistakes in it, to lighten or darken it or erase blemishes. I've scanned many of my old snapshots (yes, I remember the 126 camera!) into the computer and made them look better with software. Where I draw the line is using software to put backgrounds in the picture that didn't exist when the picture was taken (i.e. substituting a scenic shot from your vacation for the painted backdrop on your layout) or adding objects that were not originally on the layout (i.e. real people, real cars, real buildings). In my opinion, I think MR should change the rules to say "no digitally added objects, everything in the photograph has to be in the original shot."
For what it's worth, there's my .
..... Bob
Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here. (Captain Kirk)
I reject your reality and substitute my own. (Adam Savage)
Resistance is not futile--it is voltage divided by current.
BRAKIE wrote:As a personal thought..A high end camera,professional type photo lights and p'shop skills equals pictures that is hard to beat with a film camera.Is that fair? I think not..
Guys,On a lessor scale it some times it bothers me to post my so/so pictures against those that have been p'shop in the WPF.I won't even consider entering a monthly photo contest.
Back to the subject at hand..IMHO there should be two photo contest..Digital and film.
As a personal thought..A high end camera,professional type photo lights and p'shop skills equals pictures that is hard to beat with a film camera.Is that fair? I think not..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
tstage wrote: Perhaps the photo contest could be divided up into two catagories: "As is" and "Enhanced". Course, I would imagine that the line between the two could get pretty blurry (no pun intended). Even with film technology and an SLR, you can "alter" a picture by just the method you go about to take it. That would be a tough one to define and regulate.
Perhaps the photo contest could be divided up into two catagories: "As is" and "Enhanced". Course, I would imagine that the line between the two could get pretty blurry (no pun intended). Even with film technology and an SLR, you can "alter" a picture by just the method you go about to take it. That would be a tough one to define and regulate.
I think perhaps a better choice/definition of categories would be "Reality" and "Enhanced", where images entered in the former classification must include only whatever elements, details, and features were visible through the viewfinder at the time the exposure was actually made. This would remove the complication of choosing where to put photos taken out-of-doors, in unusual room lighting, or employing clever tricks, as Bob Chambers did in this year's contest. Then the latter classification would include images with whatever post-exposure modifications and manipulations the photographer might choose to make to his original image. This arrangement would also provide more continuity with past contests winning images. A simple, logical and fair solution to the situation.
And how about we hear something more from folks who have actually participated in such contests, rather than simply opinions from uninvolved bystanders? Those views would be far more telling as to how future contests could and should be judged. Hopefully there are more former contestants here than just Bob and I.
CNJ831
I think a number of folks have touched on the real issue: if you're having a contest, establish the objectives and criteria...is the objective the most pleasing image or is it the recording of the best modelling? If it's recording the best modeling, should the model be functional (part of a layout) or are static dioramas allowed? Methinks that categorizing in this way pretty much stops the arguments.
Personally, I sometimes like to play around with photoshop - not to artificially improve my modeling skill but to improve the image. When I run trains on my layout I automatically "block out" the doors, windows, carpets, fascia etc. of my real-world train room and selectively focus on the layout, but I find it harder to do that when I look at a photo. Therefore, if I drop in a sky or something along those lines in a photo to eliminate these real-world distractions, what's the harm? (as long as I "fess up" about it if I post the pic). Not always, but usually, it's still apparent where the real-world layout ends and the digital world begins. As long as we all voluntarily disclose our manipulations, all's fair.
My Cheers.
Good points all around. There is a distinct difference between film and digital to be sure and perhaps it is this clear distinction that makes it such a controversy, but I don't think the subject of discussion should be "fairness" or how much it costs to do digitial altering. Back in the "good old days" there definitely was an advantage for the guy that had the funds to purchase a high end SLR over the guy with the 126 camera (anyone remember those?), the professional lighting versus magic cube and of course the guy that had the skill to make those really cool pinhole attachments (MR had an article on how to make one and I think scratchbuilding an HO Big Boy would be easier). Arguably the use of a film camera or attachment to one that gives a greater depth of field is some sort of altering as the picture resulting from their use may have a greater depth of field than what the human eye can see.
Other than having separate categories for film and digital, I'm not sure any more distinction is possible unless there is a definition of "altering" that could be easily understood and then determined by the judges. Simply saying "no software" won't cut it. A guy that uses photoshop to change the contrast of his pic is doing nothing more than the majority of the photo processors do automatically. Is the use of filters on a film camera altering? Is there a difference between photoshopping myself into the cab of an engine and the old method of taking a pic of myself, cutting it out and putting it in the cab and then taking a pic? What of double exposing? To come up with a fair definition of "altering" IMHO would be darn near impossible.
The other difficulty would be enforcement. How would the judges determine which photos had been altered? Seems to be the contest could simply become a contest of which digital guru is able to "put one by the judges."
I can see and understand all the various points brought out above. I think bottom line is that as long as it is MR's contest, they can set the goal and determine the rules.
nbrodar wrote: I realize the genie is out of the bottle regarding digital imaging software like Photoshop and Helicon, and respect the skill of those that use software. As a photographer, however, I find it questionable to have altered images competing against non-altered ones in MR's Photo contest.
It just takes a different set of skills. You still have to light the scene properly. You still have to have a good model. The camera still has to be focused.
In some ways it improves the average person's chances because in previous years the way to get those effects was with a room full of darkroom equipment. Now all it takes is a piece of software and for the equivalent cost of one engine, anybody can have access to the same imaging technology. After that it requires the skill and artistry of the person manuipulating the photo to get an award winning one. Just because you have Photoshop loaded on your computer doesn't mean you can produce a better picture. You still have to practice the skills equivalent to dodging and burning, just with a computer. You still have to MAKE the better picture.
And that is the purpose of the contest. The artistry of the photo.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Just look at practically any magazine in print today or infommercial on TV or blockbuster movie on the big screen or pop hit on the Billboard chart and digital manipulation is "the norm". It's a pervasive attitude nowadays (in practically all walks of life) that you have to continually "wow" your audience because they are too quickly "bored" with yesterday's "best".
That's not to say that all manipulation is bad. Sometimes it is nice to see a photo that hasn't been altered or changed. However, I'm sure there have been a few that have crossed my eyes...and I didn't realize it. Most of the time though - after close scrutiny and taking in a number of considerations - you can tell when a picture or image has been manipulated.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Funny, but that was exactly who came to mind when I was composing my post, Bob. Mine was getting long, so I didn't get into my expectation that his photo renditions were very cleverly done....very highly skilled, too.
-Crandell
No photoshop Period!
It defeats the whole "Model Railroad Photo Contest" build it to look real.
What ever happened to having a contest to show off how good of a modeler you are to create a scene on your layout/diorama, not computer. Maybe it should be called Scene Contest not Photo Contest.
--Zak Gardner
My Layout Blog: http://mrl369dude.blogspot.com
http://zgardner18.rrpicturearchives.net
VIEW SLIDE SHOW: CLICK ON PHOTO BELOW
I've long wished they split between pictures of actual layouts vs. temporary dioramas...I mean, it's one thing to be able to reproduce a realistic scene in your basement and make a real-looking photo of it, it's another to slap a piece of snaptrack on a board, add some ground foam and ballast, and photograph a train sitting on it with the real Grand Canyon or Rockies or something behind it. Sure it might be a great picture, but how much of it is really "model railroading"??
BTW am I the only one that noticed that the digitally added locomotive smoke always look fake because it doesn't cast a shadow like real smoke does ??
The process of imagery, if the product is to be judged at all, is a complex one, no matter which system you use...photo or digital, and either one, digitized, can be manipulated with software after the fact.
No matter what you use, a film camera or a digital imaging device with CCD, it is extremely rare to find a simple subject that has not been imaged with several different imaging-relevant settings so that the most pleasing aspect is produced for presentation in media format. This is where the subjectivity comes to play...who says what is most pleasing? That is the factor that determines winners.
When you run a foot race, whomever places first wins. It is against an objective and quantifiable standard. Not so with imagery. Imagery contests are about pleasing the judges on what may be subjective criteria, or at least those criteria are qualitative. That necessarily means that there will be at least some disagreement, and that is sure to be reflected in feedback and in scoring. If it is honestly undertaken, you can't even call it human error, because those judges are scoring as honestly as they can...there is no "measurement", so no error.
Personally, an image is an image. I am intelligent enough to know that smoke rising from a train in an image purporting to be a model is going to be faked or at best artificial, including artificially inserted using software. I don't see how that is different from manipulating the exposure or the depth of focus, or the timing of the shutter, or even the back and side lighting, or using reflectors that otherwise wouldn't be there. What counts is what is presented, no matter how it was made. That is is of a steaming and smoking steamer suggests to me that I am not seeing what the camera imaged, and I am fine with that. It's still an image contest, and I will assign the highest grade to the most artful image. If my tastes are not inclined to charicature, some images will fare better by me than others. If, in my whimsy, I feel a simple non-manipulated image captures my attention better than one which seems highly realistic due to manipulation, I will reward that image accordingly.
Now, when my own Mark I Eyeball gets to see the real things and compare them, I feel that I will be in a better position to judge the subjects as they really exist. But then, that wouldn't be judging images, would it? And yet, it would be every bit as subjective. Maybe different criteria, but qualitative all the same.
This same argument happens in sporting events, such as championships in track and field or in triathlon. Training improves from year to year, but not for all athletes; only in some camps. Or, someone invents a new swimsuit or bicycle that is meant to give an advantage (oooh, that ugly word!). Most of us are wise enough to understand that this seldom produces the desired outcomes for those using these new-fangled things. That is because there is too much else about the achievement that can affect it, from a bad night' sleep two nights previously, to dehydration over the past 36 hours, and on and on. The same is true for imagery...there is more to it than just setting up a camera and then toying with hues and brightness, or adding fake smoke later on.
The way I see it, anyway..... (who used to say that on radio?)
nbrodar wrote:I realize the genie is out of the bottle regarding digital imaging software like Photoshop and Helicon, and respect the skill of those that use software. As a photographer, however, I find it questionable to have altered images competing against non-altered ones in MR's Photo contest.
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. .... 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.
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.
Enjoy
Paul
Tileguy86 wrote: Digital Imaging -Vs- Photography........This argument has been around awhile now and I am amazed it still pops up on occassion.Some have settled it by having two seperate contests and some 2 distinct categories.I saw the phrase: altered images competing against non-altered and thought to myself are we not altering images as seen by our eye even through use of a camera? we are controlling our lighting, we are controlling our backgrounds, we are contrrolling our shutter speed for use in effects............I'd say thats Altering, Just in a different way.In a WORD, What does it all come down to?...........CREATIVITYThe Best creative Image/Photograph Wins.In my mind you can make rules and have rules within rules and absolutely destroy the FUN that the contest is supposed to be about.Yes, Computer graphic artists are going to be better with imaging programs than most of us giving them some advantages, just as Professional Photographers ( or those who made Minitaure Photography a Serious 2nd hobby) had a distinct advantage over the guy with a poloroid and a toilet paper tube pinhole lens cover.Do we make new rules because now the guy with all the photography equipment and training no longer has an advantage?ORDo we make new rules because the guy with the best computer & imaging software won a contest or two? ( is that advantage any different than those who had the best Nikon and lighting equipment 10 years ago?)I say think less about the equipment and more about the creative nature of the Photo/Image you will submit. You may win and you may lose........OH WELL!!
Digital Imaging -Vs- Photography........This argument has been around awhile now and I am amazed it still pops up on occassion.
Some have settled it by having two seperate contests and some 2 distinct categories.
I saw the phrase: altered images competing against non-altered and thought to myself are we not altering images as seen by our eye even through use of a camera? we are controlling our lighting, we are controlling our backgrounds, we are contrrolling our shutter speed for use in effects............I'd say thats Altering, Just in a different way.
In a WORD, What does it all come down to?...........CREATIVITY
The Best creative Image/Photograph Wins.
In my mind you can make rules and have rules within rules and absolutely destroy the FUN that the contest is supposed to be about.
Yes, Computer graphic artists are going to be better with imaging programs than most of us giving them some advantages, just as Professional Photographers ( or those who made Minitaure Photography a Serious 2nd hobby) had a distinct advantage over the guy with a poloroid and a toilet paper tube pinhole lens cover.
Do we make new rules because now the guy with all the photography equipment and training no longer has an advantage?
OR
Do we make new rules because the guy with the best computer & imaging software won a contest or two? ( is that advantage any different than those who had the best Nikon and lighting equipment 10 years ago?)
I say think less about the equipment and more about the creative nature of the Photo/Image you will submit. You may win and you may lose........OH WELL!!
I think you've hit the nail square on the head. In my eyes, photo contests are not 100% about the subject matter, but how that subject is interpreted and captured in the image. It does take some creativity to manipulate the subject and surroundings in order to convey the proper message to the viewer. It all boils down to having and not having. The ones that have the creativity to manipulate images will more often come out winning over those that don't have the creativity to do the same. The ones that know how to use photoshop and the like will be victorious over the ones that don't know how to use or don't own photoshop. Model railroaders are masters of many "arts", photography should be one of those.
TONY
"If we never take the time, how can we ever have the time." - Merovingian (Matrix Reloaded)
CNJ831 wrote: Just what sort of contest is it actually becoming? I suspect that, in the long run, it will no longer really be a "model railroading" contest at all, simply because the images will be so highly manipulated that they become examples of the graphic arts, not of our hobby. Honestly, I've become increasing less and less impressed by many of the images I see on-line and in the magazines as the degree of image manipulation grows ever greater. Recently, I've even noted it starting to slip into magazine layout tour photos. Give it enough time and you may see totally fictional images that rival shots of the G&D or F&SM in the magazines...and I'm not joking! Now this outlook may sound like sour grapes to some but it's certainly not. Like Railphotog, I've placed in MR's Photo Contest in the past and had many photos in MR, RMC and elsewhere. Likewise, I graduated to digital imaging quite some time ago and am quite adapt at manipulating my layout images, too. However, I still only submit actual photographs for publication. What would be the point, from a hobbyist's perspective, otherwise? I'm a modeler, not a V-scaler.I'd ask posters to ponder the question of just what meaning does a "model railroading photo contest" have if the entries no longer depict/represent actual model railroads or an individual's modeling ability? If the answer is neither, then it simply becomes a sham.CNJ831
Just what sort of contest is it actually becoming? I suspect that, in the long run, it will no longer really be a "model railroading" contest at all, simply because the images will be so highly manipulated that they become examples of the graphic arts, not of our hobby.
Honestly, I've become increasing less and less impressed by many of the images I see on-line and in the magazines as the degree of image manipulation grows ever greater. Recently, I've even noted it starting to slip into magazine layout tour photos. Give it enough time and you may see totally fictional images that rival shots of the G&D or F&SM in the magazines...and I'm not joking!
Now this outlook may sound like sour grapes to some but it's certainly not. Like Railphotog, I've placed in MR's Photo Contest in the past and had many photos in MR, RMC and elsewhere. Likewise, I graduated to digital imaging quite some time ago and am quite adapt at manipulating my layout images, too. However, I still only submit actual photographs for publication. What would be the point, from a hobbyist's perspective, otherwise? I'm a modeler, not a V-scaler.
I'd ask posters to ponder the question of just what meaning does a "model railroading photo contest" have if the entries no longer depict/represent actual model railroads or an individual's modeling ability? If the answer is neither, then it simply becomes a sham.
Cascade Green Forever ! GET RICH QUICK !! Count your Blessings.
Tileguy86 wrote:But isnt this a contest about Images Not Modeling ability?? I thought thats what model judging at shows was for??
No, in the instance of model railroading, traditionally it has been about images of what you have actually modeled, depicted as realistically as you can make them appear. It's not about creating some imagined scene where the majority of its elements never existed together in the real world. That's part of a graphic arts contest.
I have always thought that the seperation of the contest into film and digital was assinine. A demonstration of true stupidity if there ever was one.I think it would be fun to take a digital picture, manipulate it to the hilt and then run it through a film recorder, which generates a film negative of the digital image. Develop the film, make a print and submit it as a film entry, because it is one. If it won, hopefully, announce how it was made a couple of months later to make that point.
I know I was personally disgusted when the first digitally altered photo won one of the major awards in the contest some years ago. At that time you really needed a high end computer, program and skills to be able to do what the winner did. It was so far beyond what I could even imagine doing with my vastly inferior computer, and digital cameras were hardly even around much. But now I can do pretty well what that contest winner did, although it's not something that I do very much.
Then too there was a vast outcry from contest participants who felt they were at a disadvantage, not being able to fairly participate any more, myself included. I more or less withdrew from entering in the contest but it didn't bother me that much because I had won each of the place awards several times using unaltered slide photos.
Whether MR changes the name of their contest doesn't really seem to matter, but I assume something will be done eventually as film gets passed by. I'd be interested in hearing what MR's answer to your letter would be rather than what others think because its their magazine and their contest!