Is it real or not

[marknewton]

  A story can be made to justify just about any dirt, or lack thereof in the real world.

All good points though, and ones I will use in future weathering projects, thanks for the feedback.

Can you post some images of your work?

 

 

 Funny how marknewton  dropped from the trhead after this....

You were saying?

I post to individual threads as and when I get the opportunity.

Mark.

[marknewton]

Streaks on the side of the tenders were very common as filling the tank often resulted in water being spilled over the side of the tender dragging the coal dust along with it creating streaks.
That's the usual explanation offered, but it 's a furphy, nothing more than a bit of received wisdom How often have seen a loco being watered and observed the crew let the tank really overflow that much? Overfilling the tank is something real steam crews try very hard to avoid. It wastes water which is usually treated, hence it costs money to replace. The railway will go to some lenghths to discourage the practice. And as a steam loco crewman, if you're standing on the tender deck and you overfill the tank, your shoes/boots get wet, which is something else you like to avoid.

But assuming you're careless enough to overfill the tank, the water doesn't spill over the side of the tender. The tender deck is typically inset from the top of the sides about three inches, and there are drains on either side of the filler hatch - they're plainly visible in your photo. The water sloshes around the deck until it drains. The only instance where it would spill down the sides is on a Vanderbilt or flush-deck tender - see below.

The only time I would expect to see streaks of coal dust on the tender sides is if the crew used the deck hose to wet the coal pile to keep the dust down. Then you get minor streaking down the sides below the bunker. Once it's dried most of it blows away when you're moving

Studying prototype images will reveal this effect, which is why it is an oft modeled detail. I wasen't simply copying other modelers techniques as is implied.
I've studied numerous prototype images, and many more prototype locos in the flesh, and it's an effect I've rarely seen - other than on models, which is why I made the comment. It's interesting that of the images you posted, two locos have Vanderbilt tenders, one has a flush-deck tender, and yet none of them show the streaking you've modelled.

Rust streaks around the sand dome are also common, and can be seen on the second image above.
The "rust streaks" looks more like sand blowing through from a defective trap to me. Sand domes work better without large amuounts of moisture in them or their contents, which is why you rarely see rust around them on working engines.

Patches of white seem to appear almost anywhere on hard working steam engines, a feature I have observed from prototype images and have recreated on the model.
"Patches of white" appear in specific places on engines for specific reasons, as I noted previously. When you bung them on anywhere at random as you have done it detracts from the realism of your weathering.

Why is the front of the stack white on the engine in the first image? No obvious reason for that, perhaps it was a helper engine, who knows?
I know a couple of really obvious reasons. And I'd love to know why you imagine a helper engine would have a white smokestack?

But a quick look at the photo shows that it's not white - what you're seeing is the relatively clean graphite finish applied to the entire smokebox. The back of the stack and the smokebox immediately below it are discoloured by soot, but the front is fairly clean. There are at least three likely reasons for this;

The loco has only recently been lit up;

The loco has a soft exhaust and is prone to smoke trailing;

and/or;

The last bloke to climb up there and oil the bell managed to transfer most of the soot to the back of his clothes.

A story can be made to justify just about any dirt, or lack thereof in the real world.
Yes, it can, but without any real understanding of the processes involved, your story will lack credibility.

Can you post some images of your work?
Yes I can, even though your apparent intention is to imply that I can't express an opinion without having first presented my credentials for your approval. It matters nowt, I'll play your game.

These days I have only one model steam loco which is weathered. A poor quality photo of it here:



The rest of my steamers I try to keep as clean as possible, as the passengers seem to prefer them that way, and they're much nicer to work on than dirty engines. That's me wearing the black beret in the first photo.





I have some weathered rollingstock, but since I model a prototype where even the coal hoppers get washed on a regular basis, any weathering I do is very subtle. I tend to concentrate my efforts on weathering my track and structures.

















All the best,

Mark.

[dehusman]

and now we have two layers of people who didnt get it..

  There is also a third layer of people who don't get it because they don't agree with the position.  A really badly focused picture of a poorly detailed model doesn't make the model any better or more detailed.  The only thing that makes the model better is making the model better.  Looking at a 3 in square picture on a CRT for 30 sec may cause people to not notice the lack of detail on a locomotive, but switching with the engine in person, full (model) size, in focus and in good light, it will be easy to separate the detailed engine from the non-detailed engine.

There are other arguements for not worrying about superdetailing things that are way more effective.  There are many techniques that can be employed to make things look more realistic that don't involve superdetailing things (like weathering and employing a uniform minimum level of detail, and lessening the differences in appearance between the more detailed and the less detailed). 

Dave H.

[vsmith]

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.

  Hahahaha!

Reminds me of the old saying "When all else fails, Read the instuctions" or in this case, read the entire article!

Says alot about 2 things, either A; how readily we accept things without really examining them for fact, or B: an awfull lot of us have really really crappy cameras!

 

[scottychaos]

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

Cheers,

Warren

and now we have two layers of people who didnt get it..

first the quick replys from people who didnt read all the way to the bottom of that page,

then, even after its fully explained in this thread, you now have people who havent read this thread completely and post things like " are you dumb? Those are so not real." at the top of PAGE 2!! ;)  after its been explained it detail!

He missed it TWICE!

Scot 

[highhood63]

  A story can be made to justify just about any dirt, or lack thereof in the real world.

All good points though, and ones I will use in future weathering projects, thanks for the feedback.

Can you post some images of your work?

 

 

 Funny how marknewton  dropped from the trhead after this....

[Southwest Chief]

Not exactly on topic, but you can sort of do the opposite of the photos in question.  Take a real photo and place your model in that photo:

[rolleiman]

...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.

Who's opinion are you referring to? 

[SteamFreak]

I actually have been reading the magazine that those pictures are in....about railroads during wartime....

They can also be viewed in the Library of Congress galleries on Flickr. Interesting stuff.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/sets/72157603671370361/?page=11

[fireman216]

I actually have been reading the magazine that those pictures are in....about railroads during wartime....

[FastTracks]

Hi,

 There is quite a bit of spilled coal on the top of the tender on the finished model.  Some of the images were taken before this was added, the latter images show this...

Streaks on the side of the tenders were very common as filling the tank often resulted in water being spilled over the side of the tender dragging the coal dust along with it creating streaks.  Studying prototype images will reveal this effect, which is why it is an oft modeled detail, I wasen't simply copying other modelers techniques as is implied.

Rust streaks around the sand dome are also common, and can be seen on the second image above.

Patches of white seem to appear almost anywhere on hard working steam engines, a feature I have observed from prototype images and have recreated on the model.  Why is the front of the stack white on the engine in the first image?  No obvious reason for that, perhaps it was a helper engine, who knows.  A story can be made to justify just about any dirt, or lack thereof in the real world.

All good points though, and ones I will use in future weathering projects, thanks for the feedback.

Can you post some images of your work?

 

[marknewton]

It doesn't look right to me because your weathering is what I call "artistic" - it appears to me to be based more on model railroad examples than the prototype photos you posted. I feel that for realistic steam weathering, you ought to follow a prototype example of the same type as your model, and have some understanding of what causes specific weathering patterns.

I say this because in my experience, steam loco weathering patterns are determined both by their operating environment, and by specific design features and accessories they carry. The CN U-2-a under the coal stage is a good example.

On your USRA 0-8-0, there were a number of things that I thought were unrealistic:

The verical streaks on the tender sides - often seen on models, but what would cause them?

The top deck of the tender has no spilled coal or cinder deposits, no water or rust marks, or footprints.

The tops of the engine running boards have no cinders, oily patches or footprints.

The rust streaks under the rear sandbox - what caused that?

The white streaks under the turret, safety valves, the front sandbox and on the valve chests - ditto. These are also commonly seen on weathered models, but what are they supposed to represent?

The sides of the ashpan the same colour as the bottom of the firebox.

No oily/greasy areas around the power reverse, valve motion, crosshead, slidebars or air compressor.

Having said all that, I would stress that I'm not doing so to have a dig at you. I would like to gain some insight into your thinking about weathering steam locos.

All the best,

Mark.

[FastTracks]

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.

 

You mean this one...

 

I'm curious what it is you feel dosen't "look right" about it?  I tried to get it as close to the prototype images I was working from...

 

 

Its close, but probably not dirty enough.

 

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

 

 

[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

 

[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

[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!!!!!

[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

 

 

[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.

 

 

[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

[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..

[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

[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.

[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. 

 

[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!!!!

[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.