Photo Improvement Hints - Trackside Photo

[selector]

I agree....a sow's ear is still a sow's ear, even when imaged by a pro with a $20K Hasselblad. 

Let's face it, we get impressions, and we judge, what we see, often at first glance and at face value.  So there is a lot an image must do for itself in the first second of viewing.  If the image has defects, such as poor lighting, poor contrast, over or under saturation, etc. they will miss the mark, but the person may still linger and puzzle over the nature of the subject...is it real or just a model?  The best images these days give little away about their nature, unless obvious things are present such as trip pins on couplers and such.  So, a great deal of car has to go into the planning and execution of the layout, the lineside details, structures and their arrangements relative to the terrain and the tracks, how trains are composed, and so on.

Most of us have gotten used to, and accepted, that the best images take many components and put them into a single image.  Weathering, track that looks real and good, proper rolling stock for the train and era, and details such as tire ruts, tuft grasses, dusty leaves near dirt roads, ropes and barrels set against a wall, a dog lying in the shade, and so on.  When any one of us finally gets it right, we earn the congratulations from those viewing.

It's a lot of work.  Many of us take years to get it all put together. 

I'm getting there myself, but I hope I don't run out of years. 

-Crandell

[Railphotog]

Here's an image taken on my HO scale modules.  See the dramatic side/back lighting, the tracks leading to the subject locos, the submerged truck in the foreground, all elements of a "photograph", as opposed to a snapshot of some train models.

I have lots of hints and tips on my photo website, including several sample photos and how they were taken.  The site is not an advertising one, no ads on the site, and contains tips and suggestions I've picked up over the years taking model railroad photos.  Most of the suggestions in this thread are included on the site too.   If you want my qualifications, check out the "About photographer Bob" page on the site.

Keep on shooting!

 

[PA&ERR]

CNJ831

One of the big problems I see in this thread is that most of the advice is coming from the unpublished folks. Lotsa advice on photographic approaches, techniques and methods, but little that honestly addresses what really gets photos published. Like Bob B., I speak as someone with a long history of having their images published in various magazines, or winning regional and national contests and can tell you that simply good photo techniques come second to several other considerations in getting the job done.

CNJ831 

 

Sorry, I must have missed the part in the OP where the author asked for only "published" photographers to reply.

I may not be "published", but I have two photo on the wall behind me with NMRA blue ribbons hanging from them. 

I'll now return the discussion to the "published" photographers.

-George

 

[Oakhurst Railroad Engineer]

Oakhurst Railroad Engineer

HoosierLine

Go to a camera store and purchase two tungsten photo bulbs (seven bucks each).

Tungsten bulbs seem to be pretty hard to find, especially on a weekend.  Anyone got any lighting suggestions that I can buy at Lowes or Home Depot?  Hallogen, daylight florescent, cool light, high color temperature, etc?

Marty

 

OK, you guys are talking artistic philosophy and photographer credentials.  I'm just a poor engineer used to side, top, and front views ... but I'm listening, trying to be more artistic while avoiding fascias, doors, windows, upper deck benchwork, while trying to get a tripod squeezed in to a corner.

Back to lighting ... I called two camera stores in my area.  Neither have tungsten bulbs.  I talked to one guy at the store and he said no one uses tungsten bulbs any more.  Says everyone uses digital cameras and they have automatic white balance.  Do you agree? 

Also, checedk my Canon camera.  It has these settings:

1) AWB

2) Daylight

3) Tungsten (regular bulbs are tungsten aren't they?)

4) Fluorescent

5) Fluorescent H (daylight fluorescent)

6) Custom (point at a white object and calibrate)

So, given this info, what do you recommend for lighting?  For reference, the original photo had a mix of lighting:  Std floods from above in the ceiling, natural light from a window, a fluorescent tube shining down from under the upper deck, plus std bulbs (one for diffuse light, one more focused on lighting up the dark valve gears). I can' t remember if I was using a white reflector or not.

Thanks again ... 

[CNJ831]

PA&ERR

CNJ831

One of the big problems I see in this thread is that most of the advice is coming from the unpublished folks. Lotsa advice on photographic approaches, techniques and methods, but little that honestly addresses what really gets photos published. Like Bob B., I speak as someone with a long history of having their images published in various magazines, or winning regional and national contests and can tell you that simply good photo techniques come second to several other considerations in getting the job done.

CNJ831 

 

Sorry, I must have missed the part in the OP where the author asked for only "published" photographers to reply.

I may not be "published", but I have two photo on the wall behind me with NMRA blue ribbons hanging from them. 

I'll now return the discussion to the "published" photographers.

-George

George, if the OP had, he'd surely have received more informative and useful advice. Failing to do so is exactly why a thread of this type ends up filled with misinformation, as much of it comes from folks that honestly don't begin to understand what is necessary to create a publishable photo these days. Do you go to an auto mechanic for medical advice?

CNJ831

  

[Colorado_Mac]

My response has nothing to do with professional photography, or even professional magazine editors.  Its more human nature.  FWIW, I can't take model photos if there is a gun to my head.  But lack of skill never stopped me from commenting before! 

Many posters said the scene was boring, and many said it was too busy.  My opinion is that is is both at the same time - the scenery and the positioning of the trains is boring, yet there is too much in the picture.  I think this subconsciously puts the viewers teeth on edge, and they reject it out of hand.

The fact that you asked for advice, listened, and asked follow-up questions says to me that you're going to be taking some outstanding shots before too long.  Looking forward to seeing the results.

[jwhitten]

Oakhurst Railroad Engineer

Oakhurst Railroad Engineer

HoosierLine

Go to a camera store and purchase two tungsten photo bulbs (seven bucks each).

Tungsten bulbs seem to be pretty hard to find, especially on a weekend.  Anyone got any lighting suggestions that I can buy at Lowes or Home Depot?  Hallogen, daylight florescent, cool light, high color temperature, etc?

Marty

 

OK, you guys are talking artistic philosophy and photographer credentials.  I'm just a poor engineer used to side, top, and front views ... but I'm listening, trying to be more artistic while avoiding fascias, doors, windows, upper deck benchwork, while trying to get a tripod squeezed in to a corner.

Back to lighting ... I called two camera stores in my area.  Neither have tungsten bulbs.  I talked to one guy at the store and he said no one uses tungsten bulbs any more.  Says everyone uses digital cameras and they have automatic white balance.  Do you agree? 

Also, checedk my Canon camera.  It has these settings:

1) AWB

2) Daylight

3) Tungsten (regular bulbs are tungsten aren't they?)

4) Fluorescent

5) Fluorescent H (daylight fluorescent)

6) Custom (point at a white object and calibrate)

So, given this info, what do you recommend for lighting?  For reference, the original photo had a mix of lighting:  Std floods from above in the ceiling, natural light from a window, a fluorescent tube shining down from under the upper deck, plus std bulbs (one for diffuse light, one more focused on lighting up the dark valve gears). I can' t remember if I was using a white reflector or not.

Thanks again ... 

 

 

Get familiar with your White Balance settings-- the "custom" one is probably best although you might find you can get away with one of the fluorescent settings if your fluorescent colors are "about right". Look at your manual and find out what 'K' your preset fluorescent settings are set for.

Personally though I recommend the 'custom' white balance. Although if your Canon is like mine, its kind of a pain to set since you have to go into the menus to do it. My Olympus was super easy- it had a button on the back that made it a snap.

Anyway, to make it work, you must be in the area you want to photograph with the lights you'll use on. Then find something white (a piece of paper is fine) and make it fill the viewfinder screen (mostly is okay). It doesn't have to be in-focus. You're just using it to set the balance. And then do whatever it is you have to do to set the balance. On my Canon you had to dig through the menus and then take a picture of it-- it didn't save the picture so you're not out anything. On my Olympus you pressed the little button on the back while taking a picture (very easy :-) On my Nikon, it has a number of presets that are for fluorescents, or you can set it custom.

If you don't want to futz with setting the color balance, you could also shoot in "RAW" mode which will give you the option of correcting the color afterwards, but you'll need 3rd party software such as one of the photoshop packages to do it. 

Fluorescent lighting though is hard to work with, as a number of other folks have already mentioned. Regular incandescent lighting is probably your better bet. And of course you could always try a combination of both. The trick is really about achieving a good range of tonal quality-- doesn't matter if its "looks right" as long as its spread out evenly. You can adjust the "looking right" part with the white balance if you get a good tonal range.

Don't forget you can also turn the lights OFF and just work with a few incandescent bulbs. If you're using a tripod and self-timer exposures (to reduce vibrations and such) there's nothing wrong with long exposures-- unless you're in a hurry :-)

 

As someone else pointed out earlier, mastering the technical aspects of photography is only half the battle. The rest is all composition. There are some techniques you can use to get you started, as well as give you something to think about if you need some "guidance" to nudge you along. But after that its an "art"-- the "eye of the photographer" that makes the shot. Take *LOTS* of pictures, bracket your exposures (up/down an F-stop or shutter speed). Unlike old-fashioned film, digital storage costs nothing, once you've bought it. And if you're a cheapskate then think of it this way-- its a fixed, one-time cost. The *more* you use it, the cheaper each shot becomes! :-)

 

Hope this helps!

 

john

[HoosierLine]

Oakhurst Railroad Engineer

So, given this info, what do you recommend for lighting?  For reference, the original photo had a mix of lighting:  Std floods from above in the ceiling, natural light from a window, a fluorescent tube shining down from under the upper deck, plus std bulbs (one for diffuse light, one more focused on lighting up the dark valve gears). I can' t remember if I was using a white reflector or not.

Marty,

I wouldn't get too hung up on my comment on the tungsten bulbs.  They are readily available and cheap out here but apparently not everywhere.  The main thing is to try to get away from fluorescents if you can.  If you go to the Bob Sobol site you can see his set up using halogens.  You can also use incandescents.  Any bulb will work as long as you set the correct white balance and place the lights in the best location (easier said than done.  lots of trial and error there).  I usually use custom white balance but as mentioned it's sort of a weird set up with the Canon Rebels.  Maybe your camera is easier.  With custom white balance you get what is called a gray card (five bucks) from a camera store, photograph the card using your lights, and use that to get the settings closer.

Finally, there was an exceptional article on photography basics in the September 2008 issue of RMC by Al Askerberg that I would track down for your library.  Here are some shots from my two switching layouts:

 

http://www.lancemindheim.com/toppage1.htm

http://www.lancemindheim.com/photo_gallery.htm

 

Lance

 

[jwhitten]

HoosierLine

With custom white balance you get what is called a gray card (five bucks) from a camera store, photograph the card using your lights, and use that to get the settings closer.

 

 

That was true for film. However every digital camera I've seen says to use a *white* object as a reference, and that includes both my canon and olympus cameras. Can't recall about my Nikon, but probably true for that one also.

 

John

[jwhitten]

jwhitten

HoosierLine

With custom white balance you get what is called a gray card (five bucks) from a camera store, photograph the card using your lights, and use that to get the settings closer.

 

 

That was true for film. However every digital camera I've seen says to use a *white* object as a reference, and that includes both my canon and olympus cameras. Can't recall about my Nikon, but probably true for that one also.

 

John

 

 

I stand slightly corrected (I just looked-up the manuals online) -- they say that you can use a white reference but later in the manual indicate that an 18% gray is a better target.

 

john

[farrellaa]

Bob,

I went to your website and it is just fantastic. Everyone reading this thread should do the same. Not only is your photography excellent, your model work is the best. I wish I had a good DSLR but spent my $$$ on the trains. I do have my old 35mm SLR's but don't want to fool with the film/development/disappointment scenerio that happens so often. I do have a digital Canon SL100 which does OK for some shots but is limited in focal adjustments.

 Keep up the great work and thanks for sharing your methods and your skills.

Bob Farrell

Knoxville, TN

[PA&ERR]

CNJ831

PA&ERR

CNJ831

One of the big problems I see in this thread is that most of the advice is coming from the unpublished folks. Lotsa advice on photographic approaches, techniques and methods, but little that honestly addresses what really gets photos published. Like Bob B., I speak as someone with a long history of having their images published in various magazines, or winning regional and national contests and can tell you that simply good photo techniques come second to several other considerations in getting the job done.

CNJ831 

 

Sorry, I must have missed the part in the OP where the author asked for only "published" photographers to reply.

I may not be "published", but I have two photo on the wall behind me with NMRA blue ribbons hanging from them. 

I'll now return the discussion to the "published" photographers.

-George

George, if the OP had, he'd surely have received more informative and useful advice. Failing to do so is exactly why a thread of this type ends up filled with misinformation, as much of it comes from folks that honestly don't begin to understand what is necessary to create a publishable photo these days. Do you go to an auto mechanic for medical advice?

CNJ831

No, but then again, I would be unlikely to go to a doctor for medical advice who is, rude, arrogant, and looking down his nose at his peers.

-George 

[HoosierLine]

jwhitten

I stand slightly corrected (I just looked-up the manuals online) -- they say that you can use a white reference but later in the manual indicate that an 18% gray is a better target.

 

Thanks John.  I'm not really an expert on that and only use the custom balance about half the time.  I have found though with the custom balance you need to make sure that when you use the cards that you position them the same distance from the camera, and same location, as your model subject will be.  I've gotten careless a few times and, while using the same light positions, moved the card off layout to photograph it.  That didn't work too well.

Lance

[jwhitten]

HoosierLine

jwhitten

I stand slightly corrected (I just looked-up the manuals online) -- they say that you can use a white reference but later in the manual indicate that an 18% gray is a better target.

 

Thanks John.  I'm not really an expert on that and only use the custom balance about half the time.  I have found though with the custom balance you need to make sure that when you use the cards that you position them the same distance from the camera, and same location, as your model subject will be.  I've gotten careless a few times and, while using the same light positions, moved the card off layout to photograph it.  That didn't work too well.

Lance

 

 

Not meaning to harp on the Olympus too much, but it had a very nice and easy way of adjusting the white-balance, that was very photographer-friendly, IMO. It was a button just under your thumb as you held the camera ready to press the shutter. So anytime you wanted to update the white balance, you just needed to spot something white, zoom in on it and take the shot. This worked out really well, again IMO, in the field where you're working with who knows what kind of lighting conditions. The way it worked, you could set the light balance for one area of a scene, and then shift position, redo the balance, and keep on shooting.

The difference, IMO, between that and the other cameras with more thumbing-and-selecting in the menus, is that (a) once you get the hang of it you're more prone to do it as you shoot-- and indeed I am to the point where I just do it out of habit; (b) you are adjusting the white balance *relative* to the items actually in the scene-- presumably-- as opposed to whipping a piece of paper out of your pocket. Although, if that happens to be a calibrated piece of paper, that would be different. My point (opinion) being is that even if you're "wrong" in your white balance setting, it will be "wrong" in a "relative" way, which is easy to correct for after-the-fact with photoshop-like software tools. 

 

John

[DJO]

CNJ831

One of the big problems I see in this thread is that most of the advice is coming from the unpublished folks. Lotsa advice on photographic approaches, techniques and methods, but little that honestly addresses what really gets photos published. Like Bob B., I speak as someone with a long history of having their images published in various magazines, or winning regional and national contests and can tell you that simply good photo techniques come second to several other considerations in getting the job done.

First off, images must convey an obvious story that is told without need of a long, detailed caption. At most, a single word or two should be enough to lead the viewer to what the photo is obviously implying, or depicting. Really good, publishable, shots can stand alone and without commentary. Some folks may regard this aspect as nothing more than "composition", but it is far deeper than simply following certain specific guidelines spelled out in photo guides, like the rule of thirds, etc. The "feel" for a good scene is only gained by achieving somewhat of an artistic bend, or artist's eye, in the creation of your scenes and it usually only comes after long practice.

The second point that helps to have photos win contests, or get them published in magazines, is an implication, or impression, of some specific motion, or action, in the subject and scene. Static photos rarely draw the attention of persons in the magazine's editorial department (although if the subject is just right, it sometimes can). This feeling of action is often gained through creating a tight shot of events, unless perhaps the scene is of a wonderfully complex, sweeping vista, composed such that the viewer can be said to be drawn into the scene, yet not loose sight of the primary subject.

A third element, particularly significant in today's published hobby photos, is the need for an increasingly greater degree of realism in all the depicted scene elements. The more realistic the scene appears, the greater the likelihood that the photo may be picked as a winner. Totally unweathered, out-of-the-box, locos, rollingstock, or structures, with an obviously plastic road crew and a drab background, gets your photo headed for the circular file so quick that it would make your head spin. A really good idea is to study the photos that appear in Trackside Photos and then to try to honestly judge how yours stack up against them before submitting your efforts to MR, et al. On average, expect 98% of your efforts to be far better suited for weekend photo threads here, then for MR's pages. 

After the above considerations have all been seriously addressed, only THEN do the particular camera, specific lens, overall scene lighting and camera angle begin to gain increasingly in importance in assisting your work.

CNJ831 

 

 

you kind a come off like a man lookin down your nose at evryone else here. bob is good but havent seen him put folks down like you did. you coud of left out first 2 lines in your reply.

[CNJ831]

PA&ERR

CNJ831

 

George, if the OP had, he'd surely have received more informative and useful advice. Failing to do so is exactly why a thread of this type ends up filled with misinformation, as much of it comes from folks that honestly don't begin to understand what is necessary to create a publishable photo these days. Do you go to an auto mechanic for medical advice?

CNJ831

No, but then again, I would be unlikely to go to a doctor for medical advice who is, rude, arrogant, and looking down his nose at his peers.

-George 

George, peers? Please! This is a site composed mainly of entry-level hobbyists. Very few accomplished, truly knowledgeable, modelers are left here anymore. Most have long since moved on to more advanced sites populated by their actual peers. 

As I pointed out previously, while it may be nice for the general community to join in enmasse with comments on broader topics, when it comes to questions requiring more precise answers it would be to the advantage of all that it be left to those possessing actually firsthand knowledge in that particular subject to respond. Although Driline was recently banded from this site for saying it, he was quite correct that far too often people lacking any useful input are overly quick to jump into a thread with "advice". What too often results are pages on pages of responses that dance around the actual question providing only vaguely associated information of minimal use. Typically, they offer nothing that accurately addresses what the O/P actually asked about and what he needs to know to rectify his problems and advance his work in that area.

I would suggest that at some point you try visiting one of the sites made up of real craftsman model railroaders and see what the content is like there. You'll quickly find that threads and posts are certainly fewer, but when a question is posed, the replies it generates contain concise, accurate and highly useful information that makes each a treasure trove of valuable hobby advice. Then look back over this thread...

CNJ831

[AntonioFP45]

CNJ, Your knowledge and experiences are valuable and often appreciated. HOWEVER, the issue that has come up with a number of your responses is that you provide clear concise information while AT THE SAME TIME you "metaphorically" whack others with a 2' x 4'. That seems to be the only issue.

I forgot on which thread, but I expressed this sentiment to you and told you about a boss that I worked with who winded up losing support because he felt that he had to take a verbal swipe at anyone who provided incomplete or inaccurate information.  I was no pushover, but when I was put in charge of the shop, my approach to correcting a technician was to simply thank him for his input but then lay out the correct information for him without making him feel like an incompetent sap. No hand holding.........no pat on the back.......yet, no hard feelings either. As a result, I had an outstanding transit collision shop repair crew.

On another note: I've been here since 2003. Modelers have come and gone, however, I'm glad to see that there are a very good number of skilled and experienced modelers still on this forum. Just scan through the next 100 pages of threads and you'll still find excellent, informative topics. I'm a member of the MRH and various Yahoo forums. There are good craftsman style articles on those forums as well. In fact I almost left one of the Yahoo forums because of what I perceived as a bit of "snobbery" from a couple of highly skilled /overly critical modelers. Each model railroad / railroad related forum has its pros and cons. I still enjoy this one best of all.

[CNJ831]

AntonioFP45

CNJ, Your knowledge and experiences are valuable and often appreciated. HOWEVER, the issue that has come up with a number of your responses is that you provide clear concise information while AT THE SAME TIME you "metaphorically" whack others with a 2' x 4'. That seems to be the only issue.

Antonio, while it may be considered "politically incorrect" to call a spade a spade these days, I do not  share in that misguided philosophy after having participated in various forums over the past couple of decades and for good reason.

The great failing of the Internet is that it has given an equal voice to every hapless dabbler in every field and empowered them with the ability to mislead large numbers of others who are searching for information. Your analogy to your workplace does not apply here, or on any other forums, for the simple reason that in your workplace that underling's erroneous ideas were shared only between him and yourself and when you corrected him, regardless of your approach, no lasting harm had been done. The bovine scat so often offered as advice, or even hard fact, on Internet sites can lead countless individuals in the wrong direction and they may never spot the one correct answer presented by someone actually knowledgeable in the subject among the host of erroneous thread posts, thus missing the material that would have really helped them. This is why I do not hesitate to point out shortcomings among the general hobbyist population's posts and advice when it should be done.

You left another site because of what you claim was the "snobbery" shown by some experienced modelers. Have you considered that perhaps they had become weary of reading all the bad advice, or ignorant approaches to problems, endlessly posted by dabblers? It's what has happened so often on many of these entry-level forums over the years. There are supposedly 60,000+ registered members of this particular site, but I honestly can't point to evidence of more than several dozen really serious/accomplished modelers among them! Where are the rest that you claim are actually here? I think you'll find they gave up and that most are now participants in other sites that cater to far more serious modelers and approaches to modeling.

CNJ831    

[Anonymous]

CNJ831

Have you considered that perhaps they had become weary of reading all the bad advice, or ignorant approaches to problems, endlessly posted by dabblers? It's what has happened so often on many of these entry-level forums over the years. There are supposedly 60,000+ registered members of this particular site, but I honestly can't point to evidence of more than several dozen really serious/accomplished modelers among them!

 

Before we get much further into deifying the "experts/serious/accomplished modelers" and shunning the "dabblers," can we please take a step back and remind ourselves that this is a HOBBY? While some may be in the hobby for the sole reason of being published, taken as an expert, and all that fun stuff that comes with being an experienced and skilled modeler, I would say the vast majority of the fine folks in this hobby are in it because it's FUN.

With that over with, can we define what makes someone an "expert/serious/accomplished modeler?" I have a byline in Trains about railroad photography, but does that make me an expert in railroad photography? I also have a byline in a local newspaper about a local trolley line, but does that make me a traction expert? I haven't been published in Model Railroader (yet), so does that make me a "dabbler," "amateur," or "beginner?"

Everyone started somewhere. Everyone. At what point do you have the necessary credentials to help out a fellow modeler when he asks a question?

[Heartland Division CB&Q]

Overall, this has been a very constructive thread to me. I appreciate all who particpated with constructive advise. ...  It inspires me to focus on photgraphy more than I have ........ Thanks everybody.

[BRAKIE]

John,You can be a royal pain at times with your needless slams against other forum members but,we are all pains at times...I'm sorry but,I don't recommend anybody going to some of those stiff neck and high minded forums I visited where everybody thinks they are the "super modeler of the year" or God's greatest gift to the hobby..Sheesh!

I still find some of the best modeling advice and answers can still be found on this forum-unless one is to high minded and sit in his own ways to understand there's more then one way to do things.

Back to the topic.

 One thing I have notice is how fake some photos look after being photoshopped..Ease up on over photoshopping your photos.

[selector]

As is often the case, our broad reach in ability and in experience also gets demonstrated by the huge variety of attention spans and willingness to beat one's chest in a thread that has long since been answered.

-Crandell

[locked]