Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

The most depressing thing about the Oct MR

8579 views
131 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, September 12, 2005 5:35 PM
QUOTE: So...in the final analysis are we dealing with a valid layout tour, or one consisting of half reality and half modeler's fantasy? And is it indeed what readers what to see in layout tours? Me, even as an experience model photographer, much prefer Paul Dolkos honest method of displaying his excellent modeling efforts.

CNJ831


Same here. I felt I was seeing a true model railroad, nothing left to wonder, only to try and recreate in my layout world.
  • Member since
    March 2005
  • From: Eastern Massachusetts
  • 1,681 posts
Posted by railroadyoshi on Monday, September 12, 2005 5:32 PM
interesting point about photo #4
I think they usually like to put the arrows in the aisle as not to affect the map. I really hope he did not use photoshop for all of that, though it is probable, as for one, the picture was unbelievably realistic with the bridge, and two, how long has it been since the MKQ? Not too long I think. Would be pretty hard to make that much progress on such a large layout.
Yoshi "Grammar? Whom Cares?" http://yfcorp.googlepages.com-Railfanning
  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: US
  • 3,150 posts
Posted by CNJ831 on Monday, September 12, 2005 5:31 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by railroadyoshi

Im not going to say much for the most part of the discussion except that if someone feels it neccesary to digitally insert a backdrop, it be very simple, a simple shade of blue. This is so that it doesnt dramatically help the image, and you can concentrate on the scene, as Jfugate pointed out, nor do you have the messy look, which makes it hard to concentrate on the actual scene.
In regards to Gary Hoover's pictures #'s 4 and 6, IMO, i think that #4 is reasonably accurate, but #6 the arrow should be on the other side of Wooton Ranch facing the same direction.


I find it mildly amusing now that folks have actually given more than a cursory look at the photos in question and have started to appreciate the actual degree of manipulation/Photoshopping apparent in them...especially after so many early comments about it really being ok that Gary only added a sky, supposedly to hide ceiling rafters!

Looking at Image #4, it has to be heavily altered as the entire mountain background that must exist beyond the bridges (based on the layout diagram) has entirely vannished, while the two mountains seen at the left of the frame would almost seem to be situated in the aisleway unless thay are virtually two dimensional.

Dealing with only the very obvious in images #6, the two layers of rock wall at right have been Photoshopped in. That third, branching track at right doesn't exist at this location in the trackplan based on the camera call-out location. It may be possible the camera was actually situated much further up the track near where the word "Wootton" appears on the track diagram. But then the rock wall at the right has been Shopped on top of the tracks. One also sees the cars of the receding train curving to the right in the distance but only straight track is indicated on the layout until you reach the "hinged section" of track... beyond an apparently full layout width scene divider! There are other lesser points I'll skip.

So...in the final analysis are we dealing with a valid layout tour, or one consisting of half reality and half modeler's fantasy? And is it indeed what readers what to see in layout tours? Me, even as an experience model photographer, much prefer Paul Dolkos honest method of displaying his excellent modeling efforts.

CNJ831
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, September 12, 2005 5:23 PM
Photo #4 is taken from a vantage point on the outside of a curve. But the layout plan shows the camera location for #4 as being somewhere in the aisle, looking toward the inside of the curve at that location.

I suspect #4 was taken from a location between the tracks and the outside wall of the layout space (shown as completely scenicked on the drawing) about where the label line ends Indicating "Upper Narrows." If that's correct, then there's a good likelihood that everything in the image, except for the roadbed, tracks and railroad equipment, was Photoshopped in.

The camera angle label for #6 appears to be incorrect, and Yoshi probably has correctly discerned that the camera was actually located at the right end of the "Wooton Ranch" scene. Still, there appears to have been a lot of Photoshopping on both sides of the diesels and caboose, as well as above them.
  • Member since
    March 2005
  • From: Eastern Massachusetts
  • 1,681 posts
Posted by railroadyoshi on Monday, September 12, 2005 3:32 PM
Im not going to say much for the most part of the discussion except that if someone feels it neccesary to digitally insert a backdrop, it be very simple, a simple shade of blue. This is so that it doesnt dramatically help the image, and you can concentrate on the scene, as Jfugate pointed out, nor do you have the messy look, which makes it hard to concentrate on the actual scene.
In regards to Gary Hoover's pictures #'s 4 and 6, IMO, i think that #4 is reasonably accurate, but #6 the arrow should be on the other side of Wooton Ranch facing the same direction.
Yoshi "Grammar? Whom Cares?" http://yfcorp.googlepages.com-Railfanning
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, September 12, 2005 2:41 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by skiloff

OK, I'm going to eat some crow in regard to my post about not getting MR on time. While its true that when I last subscribed to MR several years ago it took at least a week or two after the LHS got the MR that I got my MR, it is not true now. The problem is that I travel so much, my wife sticks my mail in a spot and I haven't been sharp enough to figure out where it is until she cleans out this spot and hands me my MR - and I assumed it had just come. My October issue did come two weeks ago or more, I just didn't see it. I apologize to MR and everyone for my rant regarding that.


Technically you still are getting it late [:p][:p]
  • Member since
    July 2005
  • From: Saskatchewan
  • 331 posts
Posted by skiloff on Monday, September 12, 2005 2:32 PM
OK, I'm going to eat some crow in regard to my post about not getting MR on time. While its true that when I last subscribed to MR several years ago it took at least a week or two after the LHS got the MR that I got my MR, it is not true now. The problem is that I travel so much, my wife sticks my mail in a spot and I haven't been sharp enough to figure out where it is until she cleans out this spot and hands me my MR - and I assumed it had just come. My October issue did come two weeks ago or more, I just didn't see it. I apologize to MR and everyone for my rant regarding that.
Kids are great for many reasons. Not the least of which is to buy toys "for them."
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, September 12, 2005 1:45 PM
I was looking at the Oct MR again, and I would have to say, I am more impressed with Paul Dolkos layout, I know they photochopped some smoke in, but his backgrounds from what I could tell are real and blended in better, his angles I felt also made his layout come out in a better light. Oh! I saw part of his train room, how gaudy, but real. I think I see what Gary was after, a proto look, but I think we all know when we buy MR, they are model railroads and not the real thing. I could at least take in the scope of Paul's layout, as opposed to Gary's I felt shorted on seeing it all.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, September 11, 2005 10:59 PM
Yup. The rock on the right in photo #6 is an obvious Photoshop add-on. How about the siding and foliage on the right?

What about the rocks, the hills, the semaphore on the left? How about the freight cars and the semaphore in the background?

When you're done with #6, compare #4 with the plan of the layout, and tell us where that scene could possibly be located on it.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, September 11, 2005 10:25 PM
Interesting - just read the notes above about photo #4 and photo #6. When reading the article the first time, it was obvious to me that the rock on the right hand side was photoshop'd into photo #6.

Photo #4 - that almost looks like the shot location callout in the track plan is a typo or something.

Still, I dig the guy's layout for sure. I don't want to take anything away from his work.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, September 11, 2005 10:01 PM
Or is the guy's layout really awesome?

We have legitimate reason to question it.

I think the author and MR's editors have some 'splainin' to do. Especially about photos # 4 and 6.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, September 11, 2005 9:37 PM
Just got the issue in question.

I'm not outraged, as much as bummed that this is what's going on in the hobby. Or at least, this is what's being printed in MR for a featured layout.

The guy's layout is awesome. I just wish it wasn't photoshop'ed.
  • Member since
    January 2005
  • 180 posts
Posted by tsasala on Sunday, September 11, 2005 4:00 PM
Interesting that such a simple thing has generated so much discussion.
  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: US
  • 3,150 posts
Posted by CNJ831 on Saturday, September 10, 2005 8:36 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Catt

Just think,if Gary hadn't put that disclaimer in his article this thread never would have existed.[:D]


Oh no, that would not have been likely! [swg]

CNJ831
  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Sliver City,Mich.
  • 708 posts
Posted by Catt on Friday, September 9, 2005 10:44 PM
Just think,if Gary hadn't put that disclaimer in his article this thread never would have existed.[:D]
Johnathan(Catt) Edwards 100 % Michigan Made
  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,330 posts
Posted by selector on Friday, September 9, 2005 4:05 PM
I can't hep but wonder if fragile egos are at play when people misrepresent themselves and their supposed creations to others. I would feel much better about someone seeing my mediocre achievements than exaggerating them and taking the compliments.

I think the art in this hobby is when a modeler can fool the rest of us with what he/she has actually crafted with his/her hands, backdrop and all. That said, I do admire the tenacity and skill of those who post images with digital backgrounds...as long as they acknowledge that artifice. As Joe stated, I would prefer not to see an otherwise good modeling scene with 2 X 4's and shelving in the immediate background.

Yeuuuch!
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 9, 2005 3:45 PM
QUOTE: I admire people like Joe Fugate that knows every trick in the book to make a layout realistic. It's importent that this art and skill is not forgotten in the digital world we all live in.


I think that says it better then what we all have been saying. [tup]
  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Sweden
  • 2,082 posts
Posted by electrolove on Friday, September 9, 2005 1:58 PM
I'm a web designer and I have worked as a Photoshop teacher as well. I think Photoshop is a wonderful tool when planning a layout. I use it for that and it's really great in many ways. I also use it when I ask questions at this forum to make my questions and answers eaiser for other to understand. But...

I don't want it to be a tool to fix bad layout pictures so they look better then they are, or look different then they are.

I admire people like Joe Fugate that knows every trick in the book to make a layout realistic. It's importent that this art and skill is not forgotten in the digital world we all live in. Botton line, use Photoshop wisely.

Rio Grande Zephyr 5771 from Denver, Colorado to Salt Lake City, Utah "Thru the Rockies"
  • Member since
    December 2004
  • From: Finger Lakes
  • 10,198 posts
Posted by howmus on Friday, September 9, 2005 1:06 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by dthurman

I like both, one for the "guts or real" deal, and the other is the photography modeling we all are evolving to. Nice shot(s) BTW

Though, I am sure you will want to someday add something similar to the background you now have, I can see using editing to decide what you want to change or do on a layout.


In this case, the first photo was taken where the diorama was built (in another part of my basement). The entire diorama will be placed in its location on the layout tomorrow evening. I hope to have some new shots of it for Weekend Photo Fun. The second is the same scene superinposed on a photo I took last fall on a Steamtown excursion to Tobbyhanna Junction. I could only dream that I will be able to come up with anything like that for my layout, but am going to try.

Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO

We'll get there sooner or later! 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 9, 2005 12:50 PM
Both #4 and 6 do seem to have more in them then what the track plan shows, could be the plan is off?
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 9, 2005 11:22 AM
Likewise as to photo #6 ....
  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: US
  • 3,150 posts
Posted by CNJ831 on Friday, September 9, 2005 9:18 AM
While I really don't want to perpetuate this thread ad nauseam, I would like to offer one further point. I spent a little while last evening comparing Gary's photos with the trackplan diagram accompanying the article. Assuming the latter is reasonably valid and also correct with regard to indicated camera placements for the photos accompanying the article, I would invite some of our more experienced model photographers to do the same and offer comment. There certainly seems to be the implication that significantly more than just the sky was altered in some of the images. And would someone care to explain to me how photo #4 can, in any manner, be reconciled with the camera location indicated?!

CNJ831
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 9, 2005 8:12 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by palallin

Personally, I don't have any interest in Playboy: I prefer my wife. she is not only unaltered, she is with me where we can interact. I cannot interact with a Playboy bunny, and I cannot interact with a computer-generated backdrop.



Have you heard about the Playboy for married men? It has the same centerfold month after month after month after month... [(-D]
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Wyoming, where men are men, and sheep are nervous!
  • 3,392 posts
Posted by Pruitt on Friday, September 9, 2005 5:24 AM
If you claim any graphic item, be it a painting, money or a photograph, is something it is not, then it can be classified as a forgery. Saying a modified photo is a photo of your layout put it in this category.

Personally, I agree with those who say that these digitally-enhanced images are graphic arts, not photography. For a photo to be "honest," it has to represent what is really there.

If you post a photo of your layout where you've added elements - sky, background, smoke, whatever - and don't write down that it is a modified photo, then you are a fraud, and the image is worthless as a example of your modeling. But if you mention what elements you added, the image is again "honest," and becomes of value again - I can once more appreciate the modelings aspects of the image, since I know what is "real" and what isn't.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 9, 2005 4:13 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Newyorkcentralfan

There are very few unenhanced photos. If you see an Illinois Central grey and orange locomotive with the orange 'ICG' visible, it's been enhanced because it doesn't show up unless you use an orange enhancing filter.

Likewise, a vast majority of b&w photos have used filters to enhance the photo through color shifting.


I don't want to get into the whole digital manipulation argument, I just want to point out in your examples above the resulting photos would only show something that was actually in the subject. The filters just made them more visible. Nothing would have been added to the scene, it would be as one's eye would see it. Film often sees colors different that our eyes do.

This is a long way from adding elements to a scene digitally that were not present.

Bob Boudreau
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • 293 posts
Posted by Newyorkcentralfan on Friday, September 9, 2005 3:28 AM
Darrell wrote:

"In the past, MR received lots of criticism in their Annual Photo Contest, to the point that they changed the rules to allow digitally enhanced photos in a catagory separate from non-enhanced photos. Seems to me that they listened to the readers."

I think that they're gutless weenies for giving in to the pressure from the great clueless unwashed masses.

One day I'm going to do a photo enhance the crap out of it with a computer, put Terry Thompson in the cab etc and the then run it through a film recorder, which is a device that allows you to take a actual photo of a digital image and submit it as a unmolested photo, because it is an unmolested photo, just to make a point on how stupid their arbitary rule is. Then a couple of months later I'll fess up on how it was done. :-)

"As far as enhanced photos are concerned, I think that the reader should be informed when the photo has been enhanced digitally. It is not an actual photo, so it shouldn't be presented as one."

There are very few unenhanced photos. If you see an Illinois Central grey and orange locomotive with the orange 'ICG' visible, it's been enhanced because it doesn't show up unless you use an orange enhancing filter.

Likewise, a vast majority of b&w photos have used filters to enhance the photo through color shifting.


Eric
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Carmichael, CA
  • 8,055 posts
Posted by twhite on Friday, September 9, 2005 1:10 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by fiverings

Okay, we have some very interesting comments on Gary Hoover's lead-article photo-enhancement techniques. I'd like to provoke a discussion of the scenes chosen on the layout.

We have downtown Chicago, immediately followed by Wootton, Colorado, which in turn is immediately followed by Victorville, Callifornia (then by other California scenes). IIRC, this was the kind of thematic presentation lampooned by the late John Armstrong in "Track Planning for Realistic Operation", wherein he depicted a 4X8 layout which incorporated Grand Central Terminal in NYC, the Grand Canyon and the vicinity of LAX airport (or the like).




Yes, but to be fair, John Armstrong was using a 4x8 layout as an example, not a 49x24 layout such as Gary Hoover has. And from the scene-blocks that I see in his track-plan, he's got Cajon, Raton and Chicago well blocked from each other, with what looks like plenty of operating room in each scene. Though it may not be something that you or me or some other modelers would do, it appears to work very satisfactory for him. And let's face it, when you boil it down to the basic nuts and bolts, isn't our model railroad a reflection of our own personal likes and desires? Mine sure is.
Tom [:)]
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Portland, OR
  • 3,119 posts
Posted by jfugate on Friday, September 9, 2005 1:06 AM
Ray:

Excellent example!

I find the top photo background to be so distracting that I can't even focus on some of the modeling to study and appreciate it. It's much easier in the bottom photo to focus on the modeling and vitrually ignore the sky because it's no longer a distraction.

Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 8, 2005 11:07 PM
I like both, one for the "guts or real" deal, and the other is the photography modeling we all are evolving to. Nice shot(s) BTW

Though, I am sure you will want to someday add something similar to the background you now have, I can see using editing to decide what you want to change or do on a layout.
  • Member since
    December 2004
  • From: Finger Lakes
  • 10,198 posts
Posted by howmus on Thursday, September 8, 2005 10:53 PM
So, which photo do you like better?



or,



I did the background real quick so it is not the best job. I too think that there is a time and place for photgraphic tricks and a time to show things as they are. It does depend on the intent of the article and the purpose of the photo. As has been said here many times all digital photagraphy does is make certain things easier. I almost always crop a pic to exclude some things and to center the focus of the shot. I often adjust color balance, brightness and contrast to make the photo look as much like it does in real life as possible. But I too would rather see a layout without a lot of editing of the photo to create something that is not there at all. There have been some very good and interesting points discussed in this thread on both sides......

Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO

We'll get there sooner or later! 

  • Member since
    October 2012
  • 527 posts
Posted by eastcoast on Thursday, September 8, 2005 10:20 PM
Wherein technology has merged with everything in our lives,
it actually does make sense that photos and layout articles are
"hyped up" and in this case of OCT MR , Gary Hoover points out
that he enjoys being creative with photos. I can very well imagine
that if any of us wanted to create museum quality layout photos or,
in this case, a magazine article, we would want to show our best
skills. I just like the fact that MR contributors can be creative and
honest about the methods used, in which is pointed out to readers.
The hobby is STILL about having fun, right? Maybe one day , I too
can perfect my photos to be able to professionally display. E C R
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 8, 2005 9:34 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Robert Knapp

QUOTE: Originally posted by dthurman

I figured I would play a little bit in Photshop to see if I could enhance my model scene,



Can you pick out the enhancements made?

Wow, you turned a UP into a CNW


Very good, I de-borged it via photoshop [:p]

No I added weathering and a switchstand as well as took out all the railjoiners and unsceniced areas. Though my layout isn't anywhere close to the level of modeling as MR articles, I am just concerned that poor modeling (as in my case) can be changed to show a more perfect rendition. That is what I don't want to see happen in the MR articles, adding backgrounds, adjusting for lighting etc, is fine, we want quality shots, it's when we are seeing that fine grey line editing that does constitute "cheating" that I worry over (day and night). Actually I wouldn't mind seeing what others here can come up with.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 8, 2005 8:47 PM
Okay, we have some very interesting comments on Gary Hoover's lead-article photo-enhancement techniques. I'd like to provoke a discussion of the scenes chosen on the layout.

We have downtown Chicago, immediately followed by Wootton, Colorado, which in turn is immediately followed by Victorville, Callifornia (then by other California scenes). IIRC, this was the kind of thematic presentation lampooned by the late John Armstrong in "Track Planning for Realistic Operation", wherein he depicted a 4X8 layout which incorporated Grand Central Terminal in NYC, the Grand Canyon and the vicinity of LAX airport (or the like).

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Weymouth, Ma.
  • 5,199 posts
Posted by bogp40 on Thursday, September 8, 2005 8:44 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by dthurman

I figured I would play a little bit in Photshop to see if I could enhance my model scene,



Can you pick out the enhancements made?

Wow, you turned a UP into a CNW

Modeling B&O- Chessie  Bob K.  www.ssmrc.org

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Southern Illinois
  • 67 posts
Posted by JDCoop on Thursday, September 8, 2005 8:33 PM
I was waiting to weigh in on this topic until I, too, received the issue. I don't think the addition of digital background detracts from the models and I do believe that showing floor joists would draw the viewers eye away from the scene. The inspiration that I draw from a layout tour article are the completed and detailed scenes as that is what I am trying to attain.

I would have a problem with using digital manipulation in 4 instances (that I can think of as I type this) and that is to superimpose buildings, engines, and rolling stock that don't exist onto the layout, to superimpose someone else's modeling work into the scene, flaw correction on the models, and digital alerations without disclosure. I wonder if a temporary piece of sky-blue hardboard placed behind the scene for purely photographic purposes would have drawn the ire of this many modelers. Using temporary backgrounds for layout photography isn't unheard of.

I also would like to comment on some of CNJ831's comments. Your use of "People" read layout tour articles to see how they actually look casts too broad of a net (maybe unintentionally). A more accurate way of phrasing it would be "Some people" or "Most people" depending on the situation. The use of "People" implies, to me, to mean "All people". I personally don't read layout tour articles to see a modeler's floor joists, floor jacks, 1970's mud colored paneling, water pipes, cracked concrete floor, junk under and on the layout, or the sewer pipe dropping out of the bottom of their toilet. I am inspired by the scene, not how their house was built. In addition, I think a better place to address items such as benchwork, wiring, facia, scenery, and overcoming layout room obstacles would be in articles dedicated to those subjects. Trying to comprehensively address those topics within the constraints of a layout tour aricle is futile and just leaves some readers wanting more in depth details.

Finally, your comment that you can't imagine any accomplished modeler having an open ceiling is rather presumptive. In my last basement in an older home, the ceiling height in the basement was about 6.5 feet and all of the plumbing was installed below the floor joists making the actual height a little lower. Sure, the ceiling could have been closed, but then I would have to had to walk in the basement in a permanent bent-over position. I don't know if I'm someone who is considered an accomplished modeler, but it doesn't take a great leap in my imagination to understand why accomplished modelers may have open ceilings.

Some of us don't mind the digital backdrops and other believe that it's cheating. That's fine as all of us have opinions and personal preferences. I don't care if you express that you don't like it as you are entitled to your opinion just as much as I am entitled to mine, but there are some of us who do prefer a digital backdrop over floor joists. There is room enough in this hobby for both of us.

Jeff


  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: US
  • 3,150 posts
Posted by CNJ831 on Thursday, September 8, 2005 4:28 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Catt

QUOTE: Catt, I recommend that you re-read this thread so that you fully understand the reason for the complaints and bashing. The disclaimer is irrevelant. This is a Layout Tour article. People read these pieces to garner new ideas and to find ways of improving the actual appearance (not virtual reality look) of their own layouts - basically, how have others handled problems and problem areas of their layout. They want to see the layout as it actually is. If these images were in Trackside Photos, an article "How I Approached My Backdrop Problems", or whatever, there would be no complaints or bashing. The percieved problem is that if this instance were to start a trend, the value of Layout Tour articles could essentially drop to zero.

CNJ831


What your saying is you haven't read the article /disclaimer either,huh.He didn't photoshop the backdrop he photoshopped the ceiling area to hide the exposed rafters.


You need to use your head a little, Catt, and look at the article photos and re-read that disclaimer once again yourself. The excuse has to be largely nonsense. The only photos I can find that might extend above a normal backdrop and have shown the room's ceiling rafters (and I can't imagine any experienced hobbyist ever leaving the ceiling open in a layout room) are the one at the bottom of page 45 and the top of 47. Even if it was necessary to add to the sky here and there, why not just digitally extend what was actually there. Where is the dire need to go to a completely artificial sky backdrop beyond vanity or a desire to create scenes that simply don't exist on the layout?

Gary is a highly experienced and talented model photographer, I even have his video on railfanning and photographing his former MK&Q layout, so he could just as easily have extended what's actually there if it was absolutely unavoidable. Employing a real sky background in a shot changes and enhanses the impression of a model photo enormously. I should know, I did it in photo contests for years in the pre-digital era. Still, I'd never employ such a technique in a Layout Tour article for reasons cited upstream in this thread.

CNJ831
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Beautiful BC
  • 897 posts
Posted by krump on Thursday, September 8, 2005 3:13 PM
I just bought the SEPT '05 issue, before it left the shelf...

as far as the rafters... string with grey thread, a to-scale-airplane from the rafters, then take a picture of the plane flying over the layout.

I'll look forward to reading the article next month

cheers

cheers, krump

 "TRAIN up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it" ... Proverbs 22:6

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 8, 2005 3:10 PM
I figured I would play a little bit in Photshop to see if I could enhance my model scene,



Can you pick out the enhancements made?
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Alexandria, VA
  • 847 posts
Posted by StillGrande on Thursday, September 8, 2005 2:33 PM
The most depressing thing to me was that Tony Koester and I were reading the same book at about the same time. I never expected to have anything in common with him (besides model trains). Even reading his books lets me know I will never get to what he considers model railroading (but I will still be happy and not stressing about it :-))

I don't consider the digital backgrounds cheating any more than carrying the models outside or putting up photo backgrounds or taking a multi-exposure shot to enhance smoke, headlamps, motion, etc. The article on the Boston and Maine New Hampshire Division does not mention that the backdrops are photos of the area modelled which the modeller then painted out the out of era items such as a modern post office and some other buildings (there was an article on this some years ago). You would still see the same scene if you went (I saw it on a layout tour a few years ago and it looks the same) so maybe it is not cheating under some definitions given here.

Personally, I think the addition of smoke to steam locomotives (no matter what the method) looks cheesy and does not enhance the "realism" of the model. Most of the time the smoke is just over the engine and doesn't extend far enough for the shot. Blah. Why not at exhaust marks to diesel shots (and smoke to GEs and ALCOs for that matter) to make them more "realistic".

At least when they do the alterations they should tell you what they did and how. Then you can try to reproduce it if you want. If you were fooled by it in the first place, I have some beachfront property in Arizona I would like to discuss with you.


Dewey "Facts are meaningless; you can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true! Facts, schmacks!" - Homer Simpson "The problem is there are so many stupid people and nothing eats them."
  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: Chiloquin, OR
  • 284 posts
Posted by Bob Hayes on Thursday, September 8, 2005 2:24 PM
Suggestion to MR: Don't publish anymore disclaimers concerning digital enhancement of layout photos.

Bob Hayes
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Alexandria, VA
  • 847 posts
Posted by StillGrande on Thursday, September 8, 2005 2:11 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Piedsou

Just checked the mail today, Tuesday the 6th and I still don't have my MR or Trains.

I think the Washington area has the slowest mail delivery system in the country.

Dale Latham


Maybe it is just you (or Maryland). I am also in the Washington DC area and got my mags (MR & T) on the 3rd. They come the 1st Saturday of the month when the 1st is Thursday, Friday, or Saturday. Otherwise, I get it the Saturday before the month. Most of the things I mail get there about a day faster when I put them in the box at home than when I mail them from work (in Maryland).
Dewey "Facts are meaningless; you can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true! Facts, schmacks!" - Homer Simpson "The problem is there are so many stupid people and nothing eats them."
  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Middle o' Nowhere, MO
  • 1,108 posts
Posted by palallin on Thursday, September 8, 2005 1:57 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by teamdon

Presenting an image that is unobtainable in real life is wrong....Playboy used to airbrush imperfections out of photos years ago,but we all knew it....well,I guess most of this crowd would'nt have a clue what I am talking about...You see,Playboy is this magazine that................................never mind..


A friend of mine once characterized Playboy as a "rich man's catalog." That is, it presented for inspection the unobtainable. That is the direction MR might be drifting in: to create wonderful but unobtainable scenes. If so, it becomes just like Playboy: a dream. This trend is a sea change from it being a How-to manual.

Yes, I WANT to see the rafters, the tools lying on shelves, and the bare wood L-girders in layout tours because I want to know how the layout builder did his job so that I might something from his experience. The trick photography is fine for Trackside Pohots and so forth, but it makes for lousy process analyis. It differs in no essential way from modifying photos of the final product of an article on a scratch-built building or a super-detailed loco to eliminate any imperfections in the result.

Personally, I don't have any interest in Playboy: I prefer my wife. she is not only unaltered, she is with me where we can interact. I cannot interact with a Playboy bunny, and I cannot interact with a computer-generated backdrop.
  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Sliver City,Mich.
  • 708 posts
Posted by Catt on Thursday, September 8, 2005 12:54 PM
QUOTE: Catt, I recommend that you re-read this thread so that you fully understand the reason for the complaints and bashing. The disclaimer is irrevelant. This is a Layout Tour article. People read these pieces to garner new ideas and to find ways of improving the actual appearance (not virtual reality look) of their own layouts - basically, how have others handled problems and problem areas of their layout. They want to see the layout as it actually is. If these images were in Trackside Photos, an article "How I Approached My Backdrop Problems", or whatever, there would be no complaints or bashing. The percieved problem is that if this instance were to start a trend, the value of Layout Tour articles could essentially drop to zero.

CNJ831


What your saying is you haven't read the article /disclaimer either,huh.He didn't photoshop the backdrop he photoshopped the ceiling area to hide the exposed rafters.
Johnathan(Catt) Edwards 100 % Michigan Made
  • Member since
    December 2004
  • From: Gainesville area
  • 1,396 posts
Posted by scubaterry on Thursday, September 8, 2005 12:37 PM
I don't have a problem with doctored photos as a finishing touch. However, If the article is about layout construction then the bulk of the photos should be actual photos untouched so the reader may garner information from the picture. I do much better understanding something if I have a picture to reference to. Many times I have looked at a Picture explaining a point and I notice something else in the Pic and I say "hmmm that's how they do that" So for me pictures are an important part of the learning process. If the author wants to put in a few "doctored" shots at the end of the article putting it all together thats fine by me. Frankly I want to see the roof rafters, solder joints (even if ugly), hot water heaters, cluttered room, etc because it makes them normal just like me and much more believeable and optainable.
Terry
Terry Eatin FH&R in Sunny Florida
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Mississippi
  • 819 posts
Posted by ukguy on Thursday, September 8, 2005 11:26 AM
[#ditto] Tom, I havent seen the article yet unfortunately but I agree with your sentiments completely.

Have fun & be safe
Karl.
  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,216 posts
Posted by davekelly on Thursday, September 8, 2005 11:15 AM
I wonder if Gary has traditional dimensional lumber rafters, the new I beam composite type rafters or steel beams. Guess I'll never know.
If you ain't having fun, you're not doing it right and if you are having fun, don't let anyone tell you you're doing it wrong.
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Carmichael, CA
  • 8,055 posts
Posted by twhite on Thursday, September 8, 2005 10:14 AM
Let me get this straight--some of you are complaining because you didn't get to see Gary Hoovers RAFTERS? Hey, you're not going to see MY rafters in any shots of mine if I can help it--I want to focus on the layout and the trains, and if I have to 'paint' in some sky to do it, I'm gonna do it--in fact, I've done it.
Model railroaders have been playing camera tricks since before John Allen, and they're going to continue to do so long after we've pounded our last spikes. Myself, I was really impressed by Hoover's modeling work, I'd like to see more of it. And IMHO, his photos did exactly what he wanted them to--focus our eyes in on his modeing and his layout, not his bloody RAFTERS!
SHEESH!!
Tom [banghead][banghead]
  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: US
  • 3,150 posts
Posted by CNJ831 on Thursday, September 8, 2005 9:58 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Catt

Just out of curiousity I wonder how many of you have read the article in question.I read it,I agree with what he did and would do it my self.

It's a great layout and seeing the rafters in his basement will not make the layout look better.

I highly reccomend you read his dis-claimer in the article before you bash what he did anymore.


Catt, I recommend that you re-read this thread so that you fully understand the reason for the complaints and bashing. The disclaimer is irrevelant. This is a Layout Tour article. People read these pieces to garner new ideas and to find ways of improving the actual appearance (not virtual reality look) of their own layouts - basically, how have others handled problems and problem areas of their layout. They want to see the layout as it actually is. If these images were in Trackside Photos, an article "How I Approached My Backdrop Problems", or whatever, there would be no complaints or bashing. The percieved problem is that if this instance were to start a trend, the value of Layout Tour articles could essentially drop to zero.

CNJ831
  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,216 posts
Posted by davekelly on Thursday, September 8, 2005 8:56 AM
Catt,

Read the disclaimer before bashing? What fun is that? My mind is made up and so don't bring facts into the scene.

Dave

P.S. This post is done tongue in cheek.
If you ain't having fun, you're not doing it right and if you are having fun, don't let anyone tell you you're doing it wrong.
  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Sliver City,Mich.
  • 708 posts
Posted by Catt on Thursday, September 8, 2005 7:05 AM
Just out of curiousity I wonder how many of you have read the article in question.I read it,I agree with what he did and would do it my self.

It's a great layout and seeing the rafters in his basement will not make the layout look better.

I highly reccomend you read his dis-claimer in the article before you bash what he did anymore.
Johnathan(Catt) Edwards 100 % Michigan Made
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 11:48 PM
I didn't want to wade in on this topic until I belatedly received the issue in question. I have it now, and I am with the traditionalists.

The three-dimentional modelling shown in the article is outstanding, and the written description of the layout shows the builder has invested much thought and research into producing a model with tremendous fidelity to the prototype.

But here's the problem: rather than showing us how the builder has presented an actual backdrop to showcase the foreground scenes, we have a computer-generated background that does not fairly and accurately depict the scene a viewer might have of the "real" layout. We don't know how the builder handled the problem of overhead floor joists or other common construction features. Instead we have, in my humble opinion, a fairly crude imposition of a photo of an actual foreground scene against an unrelated photographic background.

To me, all of the "photos" said "phony", notwithstanding the disclaimers and the phenomonally good three-dimensional modelling.



  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: US
  • 3,150 posts
Posted by CNJ831 on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 6:34 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831
When the item or image element does not physically exist in the layout room, never has, nor ever will, that's when it becomes "cheating". Once this premise is violated you are no longer dealing with model railroading, rather it becomes part of the world of graphic arts.

CNJ831


Pretty narrow description of "cheating" there, CNJ. I know many of John Allen's photos from the 50s and 60s included smoke added to the steamers in the darkroom. So those where "cheating" ...


No, just a totally accurate description of what consitutes "cheating".

Let me enlighten posters to the fact that probably 99.9% of the pre-digital photos submitted to and published in MR were undoctored in any fashion, whether it be for layout tours, photo contests, or whatever. Virtually the only photos that were altered in the past were b&w prints and perhaps a few color prints...mainly long, long ago. Once color transparencies became the standard way to submit images to MR, beyond-the-camera doctoring all but vanished.

So, there is a world of difference between MR images of past decades and what is starting to creep into the hobby today. When jfugate asks:
QUOTE: So does doing any "digital darkroom" work to the photo constitute cheating? Like fixing lighting problems (too dark, not enough countrast)? And is there such a thing as "okay cheating" (removing background eyesores like a supporting beam) versus "bad cheating" (adding scenic elements from real photos)?


My answer is, image manipulation was so rare in the past that it is not even worth considering in the present contex. Published personal darkroom work essentially faded from the hobby decades ago. But what we are starting to see appear in print nowadays is most certainly cheating if it dramatically alters the orginal image to depict aspects or elements that simply do not exist in the orginal location and is used to represent layout quality or modeling efforts that in reality do not exist at all.

CNJ831

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 3:57 PM
If I'm not mistaken, MABruce that's all N Scale isn't it? I have seen your posts at some other forums, you had the thunderstorm effect which I liked. For inspirations and new ideas, I do agree on the editing, just don't want to see our hobby turn into MSTS or Trainz pictures. They already have their place.
  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,216 posts
Posted by davekelly on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 2:58 PM
MABruce,

Love that tunnel scene!! Great angle on the photo shoot.
If you ain't having fun, you're not doing it right and if you are having fun, don't let anyone tell you you're doing it wrong.
  • Member since
    November 2001
  • From: US
  • 1,720 posts
Posted by MAbruce on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 2:17 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by ironpenguin

MAbruce,

I would consider the top one to be a photo of your layout. The other three are model photography staged on your layout. (And excellent ones, BTW.)


Thanks. I agree on your categorization.

QUOTE: There's nothing "cheating" about them, as long they aren't represented as being photos of your layout as it actually exists. That, to me, would be slightly dishonest. I'd fully expect someone to ask "how I made those great backdrops" and what would be my reply?

I actually put a disclaimer (or make every attempt to) on any doctored shots informing people that the backgrounds are digitally added. I agree it could be considered misleading if I purposely omitted these details in order to gain favor from others. “Cheating” would be if I misrepresented one of these shots in (for example) a contest with strict rules prohibiting any photo manipulation.

QUOTE: The MRR article had an appropriate disclaimer, but my own preference is that layout shots be layout shots, not model photography or "how I wish it was."

Unfortunately magazines touch up a photos all the time without disclaimers. Next time you’re in line at the grocery store, just look at one of the many beauty magazines and tell me that the model on the cover really looks as good if you ever passed her on the street!

Oh, and just so it's known – I do have at least one “non-manipulated” close-up shot on my layout (unless you count the extra light I used to properly illuminate the shot):

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Midwest
  • 135 posts
Posted by kansaspacific1 on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 1:33 PM
MAbruce's layout and "cheating" photos illustrate, I think, the same thing that was
illustrated in the MR article which got this whole discussion going: The juxtaposition of
quality modeling with a computer generated background. As ironpenguin said: one
illustrates modelling, the other model photography.

In the case of both Gary Hoover's layout and MAbruces, both demonstate such high
quality foreground (if you will) modeling that the use of a computer generated background (like people used to take the models outside) creates a model photo which
is almost indistinguishable from reality. Which John Allen did about 50 years ago with
his Varney ads and similar photos. And in both cases, the modeler/photographer has
"told the truth," that the photos were artifically augumented

Now, the other side of the coin: Several people have indicated they like to see the
layout in actual context, and I would agree with that as well. To carry that thought even
further, layout articles that show some partially completed scenes or even benchwork
are instructive to those looking to see how sucess was achieved, and to provide ideas
for our own modeling. However, I feel that MR could include more photos in some of its layout articles to achieve those ends, but have no problem with "artificial backgrounds" as long as they are so advertised, as in the Hoover article.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 1:04 PM
MAbruce,

I would consider the top one to be a photo of your layout. The other three are model photography staged on your layout. (And excellent ones, BTW.)

There's nothing "cheating" about them, as long they aren't represented as being photos of your layout as it actually exists. That, to me, would be slightly dishonest. I'd fully expect someone to ask "how I made those great backdrops" and what would be my reply?

The MRR article had an appropriate disclaimer, but my own preference is that layout shots be layout shots, not model photography or "how I wish it was."

No big deal. I enjoy both but think the distinction should be clear.

Mike Tennent

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Cherry Valley, Ma
  • 3,674 posts
Posted by grayfox1119 on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 12:55 PM
If it is done for the right reasons as Joe has pointed out, what is the problem? We are getting far too critical of issues that cause us to miss what the author is trying to point out.
Dick If you do what you always did, you'll get what you always got!! Learn from the mistakes of others, trust me........you can't live long enough to make all the mistakes yourself, I tried !! Picture album at :http://www.railimages.com/gallery/dickjubinville Picture album at:http://community.webshots.com/user/dickj19 local weather www.weatherlink.com/user/grayfox1119
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Portland, OR
  • 3,119 posts
Posted by jfugate on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 12:44 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831
When the item or image element does not physically exist in the layout room, never has, nor ever will, that's when it becomes "cheating". Once this premise is violated you are no longer dealing with model railroading, rather it becomes part of the world of graphic arts.

CNJ831


Pretty narrow description of "cheating" there, CNJ. I know many of John Allen's photos from the 50s and 60s included smoke added to the steamers in the darkroom. So those where "cheating" ...

I've masked out support beams and fascia in some of the "beauty shots" of my layout I show in my DVD series ... so that's "cheating", too.

And finally, I know MR sometimes doctors their cover shots a bit ... for example, they extended the bridge and vegetation in my January 1997 cover shot. It ended at the fascia edge, but they extended it to the right out of the scene ... which meant they were putting a "doctored" shot of my layout that you could not really see in person on their cover.

So does doing any "digital darkroom" work to the photo constitute cheating? Like fixing lighting problems (too dark, not enough countrast)?

And is there such a thing as "okay cheating" (removing background eyesores like a supporting beam) versus "bad cheating" (adding scenic elements from real photos)?

Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 9:30 AM
I would have to say the September 2005 article on using digital images for backdrops is "dishonest".

The before and after shots cannot be fairly compared. "Before" is the picture of a layout. "After" is the picture printed from a computer screen - NOT a picture from a computer screen printed and propped up behind a layout.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 8:53 AM
I think some of the "take issue with" is the magazine end of this, posting on the forums and such, is fine, though I still think a little bit of honesty or explination is still due. You have some great enhanced layout photo's, but had I not known, I would have thought you did the backdrop that way, and as such I would be trying replicate that effect only to fail unless I did it in an editing program. I think that's what the major beef is with this. Agreed we are all striving for the proto-photo-model effect. But let's all be honest in how we did that. Just because the hobby is changing, and I like a lot of the changes, I just want to know what I am viewing and how it was done, if possible. Showing something as your hard work only to find it was all smoke and mirrors is not being fair to others.
  • Member since
    November 2001
  • From: US
  • 1,720 posts
Posted by MAbruce on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 8:44 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

QUOTE: Originally posted by skiloff

Joe, it seems that those who don't like the doctored photos don't like it because it doesn't exist when you look at their real layout in person, but the board hanging behind the layout is always there, regardless whether it is in a photo or not.


But what if the board is put up just for the photo, and when the board's not there, you can see across the aisle to the other side, see the basement window, etc?

I know Allen Keller does that a lot in his videos, for example, to hide visual clutter in the layout room background.

At what point does it cross the line and become "cheating"?


When the item or image element does not physically exist in the layout room, never has, nor ever will, that's when it becomes "cheating". Once this premise is violated you are no longer dealing with model railroading, rather it becomes part of the world of graphic arts.

CNJ831


Model railroading - graphic arts. It's all FAKE folks!! One is created by hand by the imagination of a modeler; the other is created on a computer screen by the same imagination of the same modeler.

I "cheat" all the time. While I don't consider my modeling skills particularly advanced, I think adding in digital backdrops makes my work look nicer.

This is what my layout looks like unaltered:


This is me “cheating”:




“Cheating” is pretty fun, and I enjoy seeing other modelers do the same thing. I see it as an extension of a hobby that seeks to create and/or simulate different landscapes.

I think debating issues like this signals that some have lost the essence of what this hobby is all about. It's all about creating and enjoying - not a contest in which someone's rules must be strictly adhered to.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 8:10 AM
Perhaps part of the problem is that this particular article blends (or blurs) two different aspects of the hobby - model photography and layout construction.

One of the challenges in model photography is to to take a model and make as "realistic" a picture as you can. Digital photography has made it possible to enhance shots in previously impossible ways, but it's basically a technological extension of the older tricks used in photography.

The challenge of layout construction is also to create a scene as realistically as possible, but you're stuck with the "real" world. You can't digitally enhance your layout room and create something that isn't there. An article about a layout should, in my opinion, show that real world context.

As impressive as the layout in question may be, by digitally enhancing the layout room, it can't be judged against "real" layouts. I'm left wondering what was hidden and how that compares with my own (decidedly incomplete) work.

Mike Tennent

  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,216 posts
Posted by davekelly on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 11:40 PM
Philosophical (sp?) questions are often the most interesting to ponder and debate.
If you ain't having fun, you're not doing it right and if you are having fun, don't let anyone tell you you're doing it wrong.
  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: US
  • 3,150 posts
Posted by CNJ831 on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 7:22 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

QUOTE: Originally posted by skiloff

Joe, it seems that those who don't like the doctored photos don't like it because it doesn't exist when you look at their real layout in person, but the board hanging behind the layout is always there, regardless whether it is in a photo or not.


But what if the board is put up just for the photo, and when the board's not there, you can see across the aisle to the other side, see the basement window, etc?

I know Allen Keller does that a lot in his videos, for example, to hide visual clutter in the layout room background.

At what point does it cross the line and become "cheating"?


When the item or image element does not physically exist in the layout room, never has, nor ever will, that's when it becomes "cheating". Once this premise is violated you are no longer dealing with model railroading, rather it becomes part of the world of graphic arts.

CNJ831
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Portland, OR
  • 3,119 posts
Posted by jfugate on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 6:55 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by skiloff

Joe, it seems that those who don't like the doctored photos don't like it because it doesn't exist when you look at their real layout in person, but the board hanging behind the layout is always there, regardless whether it is in a photo or not.


But what if the board is put up just for the photo, and when the board's not there, you can see across the aisle to the other side, see the basement window, etc?

I know Allen Keller does that a lot in his videos, for example, to hide visual clutter in the layout room background.

At what point does it cross the line and become "cheating"?

Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 6:49 PM
Okay, I stand corrected, I guess if MR is allowing it, I should too (not that anyone needs my permission), BUT the only problem I see, is that when I post a great enhanced digital photo-chopped picture here to impress everyone, in reality, it's still a layout that isn't what's been presented to you guys. Hmm, still not sure now that I think about it...

Corrected bad grammer, or at least tried
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 6:43 PM
Anyone out there remember reading the descriptions of the photo contest entries maybe 20 years ago? One neg would be exposed three or four times; one exposure for front lighting the train, one for the street lights and building lighting (with a star filter of course), then a filtered light for the moon, and I believe there was a trick with a lighted straw to show the headlight beam and another one with cotton on a wire for the steam. And that doesn't count the dodging and burning during the print exposure. It's the same thing, just easier now. As an artistic expression it shows the artists talent and has its place, even in Model Railroader. As for layout articles, show us all the screws, switch machines, solder joints, control panels and ceiling supports. It's what we buy the magazine for.
Steve
  • Member since
    November 2002
  • From: Winnipeg, Manitoba
  • 1,317 posts
Posted by Seamonster on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 5:39 PM
QUOTE: Paintshop and digital photos should be baned from the magazine as they are misleading. Stick to real trains and models and photographs.

Does that mean that I can never submit a photo to a magazine because I don't own a film camera, only a digital camera?

QUOTE: Interesting discussion ... digitally enhancing photographs, as in adding a realistic looking sky, is considered by many to be "cheating". But if I hang a board with distance hills and clouds on it behind my layout scene, that's not cheating?

Now why is one cheating, and the other not? They are both illusion ...

I agree!

..... 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.

  • Member since
    July 2005
  • From: Saskatchewan
  • 331 posts
Posted by skiloff on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 5:39 PM
Joe, it seems that those who don't like the doctored photos don't like it because it doesn't exist when you look at their real layout in person, but the board hanging behind the layout is always there, regardless whether it is in a photo or not. To me, its just semantics, but others don't like it. I have no problem with digital photography enhancements, just as long as you are told what was done.
Kids are great for many reasons. Not the least of which is to buy toys "for them."
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Portland, OR
  • 3,119 posts
Posted by jfugate on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 5:30 PM
Interesting discussion ... digitally enhancing photographs, as in adding a realistic looking sky, is considered by many to be "cheating". But if I hang a board with distance hills and clouds on it behind my layout scene, that's not cheating?

Now why is one cheating, and the other not? They are both illusion ...

Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Mississippi
  • 819 posts
Posted by ukguy on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 5:13 PM
I personally dont have a problem with digitally inserted backdrops, I would much rather see a good model infront of a superimposed sky than to see some other guys(male/female) junk on the shelf.

A good model will stand on its own merits, if the overall illusion is enhanced with a superimposed backdrop to me it is more enjoyable to see.

I will also add that a digitally enhanced photo is more than a simple "copy'n'paste" action, as I am sure Jarrell and others will attest, it takes a certain amount of time, effort, knowledge and skill to insert the correct background into a picture and make it look as realistic as possible, I see it as another aspect to this great hobby.

There is a line to be drawn, but if that line is pre-stated then it is OK with me, all movies and magazines are digitally enhanced, I personally would not be interested in superimposed weathering or superdetailing on a photo but a backdrop to the model is different.

Its your hobby, do what you want with it.









Have fun & be safe.
Karl.
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Portland, OR
  • 3,119 posts
Posted by jfugate on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 4:04 PM
I'm currently relaying the yard ladder in my Medford staging area with all new DCC friendly turnouts and I'm also going to try the velcro idea for mounting the tortoises.

With the half-inch hole, you have a lot of room to adjust the placement of the tortoise, so I think the dowel is an extra unneeded complication.

Sounds like a pair of Joes will need to report on how velcro mounting tortoises works out! [swg]

Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 3:59 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by mondotrains

Personally, I don't think the approach is going to work and I'd bet that a lot of guys don't know what the guys talking about when he speaks of the material to attach the Tortoise to the layout because he never used the word "Velcro", which most people would know about.


He probably didn't use the word "Velcro" because it's a trademark of a specific brand, and not a generic description. There are many other vendors of the hook-and-loop stuff, and if you look at their package, they don't say "Velcro" either.

That said, I never thought of mounting a Tortoise with it -- I use hot glue to mount mine. I'm about to add another one to the layout, and I think I'll try the h&l method to see how it works. But not the dowel -- I like Joe F.'s idea of drilling a 1/2" hole and using tape on the bottom of the turnout to cover it for ballasting. The bigger hole and h&l tape will give me a better shot of getting it aligned the first time. [:)]
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Portland, OR
  • 3,119 posts
Posted by jfugate on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 2:04 PM
I always find Paul Dolkos' articles to be most insightful. I greatly enjoyed his article in the October issue and then to find out there's another part coming!

Even Paul's article on his layout was very useful. Most layout articles are: I build the benchwork out of lumber, I laid the track using flex track, and I build the scenery out of plaster ... pretty mundane stuff.

But Paul's layout article discussed what he elected to do and why, what he originally thought he would do but changed his mind because it didn't work out in practice ... all the great stuff you want to know from someone who's garnered lots of valuable experience.

And now we get an article in this month's MR that's just loaded with these insights! [swg]

Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • 1,138 posts
Posted by MidlandPacific on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 1:44 PM
QUOTE: Just checked the mail today, Tuesday the 6th and I still don't have my MR or Trains.

I think the Washington area has the slowest mail delivery system in the country.


Ah, I wouldn't worry so much about it - you're just going to find out that Don Phillips thinks you're a chicken, anyway, being a DC resident, and all.

http://mprailway.blogspot.com

"The first transition era - wood to steel!"

  • Member since
    March 2001
  • From: Waldorf, Maryland
  • 160 posts
Posted by Piedsou on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 1:40 PM
Just checked the mail today, Tuesday the 6th and I still don't have my MR or Trains.

I think the Washington area has the slowest mail delivery system in the country.

Dale Latham
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • 1,138 posts
Posted by MidlandPacific on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 12:44 PM

QUOTE: Now can we get back to talking about trains, please?


oh, all right......[:)]

http://mprailway.blogspot.com

"The first transition era - wood to steel!"

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Portland, OR
  • 3,119 posts
Posted by jfugate on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 11:46 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by rripperger
It's a slander on "this generation" of Americans, and it's a slander on the city of Washington.


Okay, fine, point taken. Now can we get back to talking about trains, please?

[:)]

Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 10:57 AM
Paintshop and digital photos should be baned from the magazine as they are misleading. Stick to real trains and models and photographs.
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • 1,138 posts
Posted by MidlandPacific on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 10:11 AM
QUOTE: But what do you expect from an editorial?


I expect real analysis, not dubious and unsourced insults. Here's what he actually said:

QUOTE: Perhaps the truth is that the people of Chicago and New York are less fearful than the people of Washington. I said "less fearful," not "brave." The bravery title goes to the people of London, Madrid, Baghdad, and other cities that face attacks with far more bravery than this generation of Americans.


I find that offensive: nothing less. I'm not going to impugn the courage of the Spaniards or any other Europeans, but I think that statement is worse than demonstrably untrue: it's slanderous. It's a slander on "this generation" of Americans, and it's a slander on the city of Washington.

http://mprailway.blogspot.com

"The first transition era - wood to steel!"

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 9:55 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by rripperger

Nothing to bother me per se in MR, but did any other readers notice the nasty slur in Don Phillips' Trains column, implying that DC residents were somehow less courageous than people in London or Madrid? It was a silly assertion, but I was surprised that Kalmbach would print something so offensive - particularly since his former employers, the Washington Post, are printing obits for soldiers from the area who died in Iraq and Afghanistan almost weekly.


I think he made a statement when he was going to be working from Europe or someplace that he was going to speak of how "they do it" over there? I wonder if he is getting a little shaded in his outlook. I haven't really agreed with a lot of his comments of late. But what do you expect from an editorial?
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • 1,138 posts
Posted by MidlandPacific on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 9:21 AM
Nothing to bother me per se in MR, but did any other readers notice the nasty slur in Don Phillips' Trains column, implying that DC residents were somehow less courageous than people in London or Madrid? It was a silly assertion, but I was surprised that Kalmbach would print something so offensive - particularly since his former employers, the Washington Post, are printing obits for soldiers from the area who died in Iraq and Afghanistan almost weekly.



http://mprailway.blogspot.com

"The first transition era - wood to steel!"

  • Member since
    December 2004
  • From: Finger Lakes
  • 10,198 posts
Posted by howmus on Monday, September 5, 2005 10:24 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by SPandS-fan

QUOTE: Originally posted by howmus


Illustrator is not a drawing program but rather a page layout program.


No, Adobe Illustrator is a drawing program. Unless Kalmbach has changed its preferences in the past three years and switched to InDesign, it still uses QuarkXpress for pagination.



You are indeed right! I wasn't thinking when I posted that. I have seen large Ad pages that were created using Illustrator and using images prepared in Photoshop. Then the entire page was turned into an eps file and sent to press. I took over the creation of a brochure for our Scout Council several years ago and had to recreate the entire thing in Pagemaker. The print house could use the Pagemaker files directly to print as they also used Pagemaker making it easier for all of us. InDesign, by the way, is Awesome!!!! I love it. However QuarkXpress does the job very nicely.... [:D]

Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO

We'll get there sooner or later! 

  • Member since
    April 2004
  • From: Connecticut
  • 724 posts
Posted by mondotrains on Monday, September 5, 2005 10:11 PM
I was a little disappointed in the editors of Model Railroader for publishing the article on mounting the Tortoise switch machine and not ensuring that all the details are there. I used to be a high school teacher and when you're giving directions, you need to include all the information for people. The guy who wrote the article talks about drilling holes in the wood dowel he uses to line up the Tortoises but there's no mention of what size drill bits to use for the different holes. If this guy has a good idea and has used it, why not be specific rather than let all those guys out there try to figure out what drill bits to use. I'll bet the only way you could get those holes drilled properly is with a drill press, but again, there's no mention of that. I don't have a drill press and I'd bet a lot of other guys don't have one either.....so once again, an article published by MR is essentially worthless to most people.

Personally, I don't think the approach is going to work and I'd bet that a lot of guys don't know what the guys talking about when he speaks of the material to attach the Tortoise to the layout because he never used the word "Velcro", which most people would know about.
My two cents; for what it's worth.
Mondo

Mondo
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, September 5, 2005 8:59 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by robengland

Like others in this thread, I fail to see the distinction between a piece of blue cardboard temporarily propped behind a scene and a backdrop digitally added later, or between a piece of jiggled cotton vs a digitally added steam trail. How about snow painted on a sheet of glass in front of the camera?
Why aren't printed photographic backdrops "unfair"? How about the folk who photograph a brick wall, make a decal out of it and apply it to a model? Or the same with decalling the entire side of a caboose or boxcar with a photo? "Cheating"?

All model railroading is illusion.


You are correct that all model railroading is an illusion but MR is here to teach us how to achieve the illusion. The article mentioned was about how to add digital photographs to the backdrop. No problem there The aim is to teach all of us that want to do that how we can achieve it. The problem is that we could do everything in the article and not achieve the results they showed because they went beyond the thesis of the article in the water photo by digitally retouching the water in the scene. We could do everything just as instructed and fail to achieve the pictured results. It is like a math book explaining 2+2 but showing 2*2. It's OK in the book but when we try it with, say a 3, we get all screwed up.

The "not to scale" caption was as stupid as putting a "Do not immerse in water" sign on cell phone b that is just what my 23 year old step-daughter did last week. With or without it there could be someone out there with calipers, reverse engineering the drawing.
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: New Zealand
  • 462 posts
Posted by robengland on Monday, September 5, 2005 6:49 PM
Like others in this thread, I fail to see the distinction between a piece of blue cardboard temporarily propped behind a scene and a backdrop digitally added later, or between a piece of jiggled cotton vs a digitally added steam trail. How about snow painted on a sheet of glass in front of the camera?
Why aren't printed photographic backdrops "unfair"? How about the folk who photograph a brick wall, make a decal out of it and apply it to a model? Or the same with decalling the entire side of a caboose or boxcar with a photo? "Cheating"?

All model railroading is illusion.
Rob Proud owner of the a website sharing my model railroading experiences, ideas and resources.
  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Sliver City,Mich.
  • 708 posts
Posted by Catt on Monday, September 5, 2005 4:15 PM
QUOTE: Catt, it's called a forum, and we are exchanging ideas, some are interesting to some and some are off-topic or boring, I guess this is one you found no interest in.


David,magazines have been altering photos since there were magazines to put them in.What's the big deal? You guys want to see the junk under someone else's layout so you don't feel bad about yours?

As far as "not to scale" drawings are concerned it is standard pratice to state such info.

I stand by my origonal statements gentlemen.Remember this is a hobby .[:D]
Johnathan(Catt) Edwards 100 % Michigan Made
  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: Chiloquin, OR
  • 284 posts
Posted by Bob Hayes on Monday, September 5, 2005 3:59 PM
I haven't even started reading the Oct. issue yet, but did notice a couple of items most everyone was complaining about. In Railway Post Office, there is a self serving letter about how thrilled someone is that Schedule of events is no longer in the magazine. And has anyone noticed there isn't as much white space in Trackside Photos?

Bob Hayes
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, September 5, 2005 7:41 AM
My two cents for everything. photos have been touched up for years, it is just that you can be a bit more detailed about it. I don't think they have become drawings yet. And dknelson, what about the idea that surfaced a while ago with putting flat screen back drops in so that one would change the weather, even have it as a video!!!! I like that idea, and would do it if I had the money, time and space, same as most others. I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I was lookin at some of my pervious layouts, and was shocked at what I saw. It was sooooo different to what my memory had, but at the time it was great. have fun with whatever type of image you like of yourself and your trains. Danny
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, September 5, 2005 6:46 AM
Presenting an image that is unobtainable in real life is wrong....Playboy used to airbrush imperfections out of photos years ago,but we all knew it....well,I guess most of this crowd would'nt have a clue what I am talking about...You see,Playboy is this magazine that................................never mind..
  • Member since
    July 2005
  • From: Saskatchewan
  • 331 posts
Posted by skiloff on Monday, September 5, 2005 5:44 AM
I wondered that, Timothy. I think I'll put in a query.
Kids are great for many reasons. Not the least of which is to buy toys "for them."
  • Member since
    November 2004
  • From: Chateau-Richer, QC (CANADA)
  • 833 posts
Posted by chateauricher on Monday, September 5, 2005 3:02 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by skiloff
You people just got the October MR????? I got my SEPTEMBER last week!!!! That is one thing that has always irked me about an MR subscription.

That is odd. I got my October copy last week. And I live near Québec City, farther from MR's offices than you do. I get my copy of MR 4 to 5 weeks before the issue date (eg: At the end of August (the 31st), I got the October issue).

If I were you, I'd definitely look into why you're getting your MRs so late. At the very least, you should be getting it at the same time as your local retailers.


Timothy The gods must love stupid people; they sure made a lot. The only insanity I suffer from is yours. Some people are so stupid, only surgery can get an idea in their heads.
IslandView Railroads On our trains, the service is surpassed only by the view !
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • 1,168 posts
Posted by dgwinup on Monday, September 5, 2005 12:46 AM
BTW, I haven't received my Oct issue (here in the Midwest), so I can't comment on this topic.

In the past, MR received lots of criticism in their Annual Photo Contest, to the point that they changed the rules to allow digitally enhanced photos in a catagory separate from non-enhanced photos. Seems to me that they listened to the readers.

As far as enhanced photos are concerned, I think that the reader should be informed when the photo has been enhanced digitally. It is not an actual photo, so it shouldn't be presented as one.

My [2c] worth.

Darrell, still quiet...for now
Darrell, quiet...for now
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • 1,168 posts
Posted by dgwinup on Monday, September 5, 2005 12:41 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Texas Zepher

QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwinup

"All's fair in love or war."

Now we can add model railroading to that list! LOL

Oh, I'm glad you added that last line. I was just about to say, "so now it is war with MR." That wouldn't be real good since this is basically their form.


Let me start by saying that MR is a great magazine, and has been for years, IMHO. I've been a fairly regular subscriber for many years and have collected most back copies dating to the early 1970's.

With that said, I think that if the readers of MR have a problem with some part of an issue, then a discussion on this forum is a good and healthy thing, both for us modelers AND for MR. If you are dissatisfied with any portion of the magazine, I'm sure that MR would like to hear about it. I am NOT advocating 'flaming' them, just some constructive criticism. I believe that MR would support this forum even if they end up taking some criticisms now and then.

"Round up the horses, boys, and we'll head 'em off at the pass" - Slim Pickens, 'Blazing Saddles'

Darrell, full of beans, but quiet...for now
Darrell, quiet...for now
  • Member since
    July 2005
  • From: Saskatchewan
  • 331 posts
Posted by skiloff on Sunday, September 4, 2005 11:42 PM
You people just got the October MR????? I got my SEPTEMBER last week!!!! That is one thing that has always irked me about an MR subscription. Here in Canada, the normal subscription price is virtually the same as I can buy it for at the Newstand, PLUS the newstand has it at least a week (usually two) before I get it. The only reason I got the subscription this year was because my kids' fundraiser from school had MR subscriptions that were actually $15 less than I could get it at the Newsstand - or $1.25 per issues less. But I still get it much later than the Newstand does. I think as a subscriber, I should get it BEFORE the general public has access, or at least at the same time. Maybe I should copy and paste this in an email to them and see what they have to say. [soapbox]
Kids are great for many reasons. Not the least of which is to buy toys "for them."
  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: US
  • 3,150 posts
Posted by CNJ831 on Sunday, September 4, 2005 11:10 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by dknelson

So what is more "dishonest" -- 1) taking an indoor model outside and photographing it with a real sky and scenery background that is not actually to be found in the guy's basement (a very very common practice by the way), 2) moving a painting of sky behind the model which is not actually part of the backdrop -- very common for Model Railroad project railroad photos; or 3) inserting a digital sky but keeping the layout inside for photos? I am just asking, I am not claiming I know the answer. But I will say that the number one thing that marks most model layout photos as being models is the sky and the background.


Dave - The answer is, if you are dealing with "layout tour" articles, readers want to see the way the layout actually appears, just as if you were standing in the room viewing it. How many times do we see posts pleading for layout room shots instead of the endless 6"x 6" area superdetailed photos that illustrate these articles? Readers what to see what others have actually done and apply the best aspects to their own layouts.

I think what particularly troubles most of us about any image manipulation in layout tour articles is that it is only a small step from adding a sky to adding a bit of mountainous terrain to the background, then a specialty structures or two, and so on, until you can't decide what's modeling and what's computer generated image. The most useful illustrations show things as they really are...not how we wi***hey were.

CNJ831
  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: Detroit area, Mi., U.S.A.
  • 167 posts
Posted by Billba on Sunday, September 4, 2005 10:52 PM
Received my October MR yesterday(Saturday), and absolutely lovin' it!! Fake pictures, captions, and all!!
Bill. Quote: "Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." - Will Rogers. Motto: "It's never to late to have another happy childhood"
  • Member since
    March 2002
  • From: Milwaukee WI (Fox Point)
  • 11,439 posts
Posted by dknelson on Sunday, September 4, 2005 10:16 PM
So what is more "dishonest" -- 1) taking an indoor model outside and photographing it with a real sky and scenery background that is not actually to be found in the guy's basement (a very very common practice by the way), 2) moving a painting of sky behind the model which is not actually part of the backdrop -- very common for Model Railroad project railroad photos; or 3) inserting a digital sky but keeping the layout inside for photos? I am just asking, I am not claiming I know the answer. But I will say that the number one thing that marks most model layout photos as being models is the sky and the background.
Dave Nelson

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, September 4, 2005 10:13 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by SPandS-fan

QUOTE: Originally posted by howmus


Illustrator is not a drawing program but rather a page layout program.


No, Adobe Illustrator is a drawing program. Unless Kalmbach has changed its preferences in the past three years and switched to InDesign, it still uses QuarkXpress for pagination.



I think Adobe's Quark-Killer "InDesign" never materialized. Way to many printing services are setup for Quark, though PDF's are a another way to deliver the ready print files. To be honest, though I always preferred InDesign over Quark. I haven't heard of many folks using Illustrator for heavy press work. I know a lot of billboard companies like Illustrator. Sorry for the off-topic, but I always find software choices to be a little interesting, the old computer geek in me.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, September 4, 2005 7:11 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by howmus


Illustrator is not a drawing program but rather a page layout program.


No, Adobe Illustrator is a drawing program. Unless Kalmbach has changed its preferences in the past three years and switched to InDesign, it still uses QuarkXpress for pagination.
  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Sullivan County, NY
  • 239 posts
Posted by jwr_1986 on Sunday, September 4, 2005 6:05 AM
The big problem that I see with digital editing is that model railroading may become unatainable without the aid of retouching. It has long been a topic in the news, the pressures put on young people to meet a magazines view of perfection. Now imagine if this became the norm and you didn't know that the photos were edited. Your lifes work would be dealt a considerable blow. Years of hard work and dedication could be outshined by an hour or two at a good photo editing suite. Just my [2c].

Jesse
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 3, 2005 9:35 PM
Welcome to the naughts of the twenty first century, believe nothing that you see or hear it has all been digitally altered. Now if we were discussing the missing weapons of mass destruction, I could understand the heat. I think we should recognise the "not to scale" and the side bar on the manipulation of a photo to give the best foreground with out the distraction of the bare floor joists above should be applauded for honesty. We all need Jarrell to shoot our work, he does magnificent work. I believe that we are looking at best presentation for our reading enjoyment, not "historical" accuracy after all none of it is 12 inches to the foot!! (Ok maybe the cloths pins!)
Take a breath, relax and enjoy your hobby, and above all admit if some manipulation is done to your work to give it the beat presentation, not alter it for 'gain".
Will
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Weymouth, Ma.
  • 5,199 posts
Posted by bogp40 on Saturday, September 3, 2005 7:37 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by loathar

I beleive it means having to cater to those less intelligent people that might think the pic is actual size.


No, only to show that the proportions can be wrong. The only reason for the diagram is to show the concept of using the clothespins for the skirt.
Bob K.

Modeling B&O- Chessie  Bob K.  www.ssmrc.org

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 3, 2005 7:04 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Catt

Well I've read this thread this far (not quite sure why yet) and I've come to the conclusion that your wifes,girlfriends,daughters,moms, etc. aren't the only ones on the rag at your houses.

Get a new hobby guys this one don't cut it for ya anymore.


Catt, it's called a forum, and we are exchanging ideas, some are interesting to some and some are off-topic or boring, I guess this is one you found no interest in.
  • Member since
    April 2005
  • 1,054 posts
Posted by grandeman on Saturday, September 3, 2005 6:51 PM
I'm not to keen on altered pics for MR either. I don't even alter my own for the most part. MR has elevated the hobby to the point where it must be tough to get enough material each month. Most layouts aren't as well done as what we're used to seeing in the magazine and if they do an article on a "normal" layout it's almost a let down now. Must be a tough row to hoe.
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Cherry Valley, Ma
  • 3,674 posts
Posted by grayfox1119 on Saturday, September 3, 2005 6:30 PM
Lighten up guys, your taking life waaay too serious...ask yourselves this question, " what difference will it make 50 years from now"?
Dick If you do what you always did, you'll get what you always got!! Learn from the mistakes of others, trust me........you can't live long enough to make all the mistakes yourself, I tried !! Picture album at :http://www.railimages.com/gallery/dickjubinville Picture album at:http://community.webshots.com/user/dickj19 local weather www.weatherlink.com/user/grayfox1119
  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Sliver City,Mich.
  • 708 posts
Posted by Catt on Saturday, September 3, 2005 6:19 PM
Well I've read this thread this far (not quite sure why yet) and I've come to the conclusion that your wifes,girlfriends,daughters,moms, etc. aren't the only ones on the rag at your houses.

Get a new hobby guys this one don't cut it for ya anymore.
Johnathan(Catt) Edwards 100 % Michigan Made
  • Member since
    December 2004
  • From: Finger Lakes
  • 10,198 posts
Posted by howmus on Saturday, September 3, 2005 4:30 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by alco_fan

QUOTE: Originally posted by tstage

Don't they use Adobe (Paintshop?) to create all the layout renderings for the MR magazine?


At least in the past, it was Adobe Illustrator -- a drawing program.


Paintshop is by Correl not Adobe. Adobe Photoshop or a similar program is certainly used by MR Magazine as a part of their process. Photoshop is excellent for correcting color, removing distracting stuff from the pic, and resizing, croping, etc. (Not to be confused with Photoshop Elements which is a basic limited home type program for PCs). Illustrator is not a drawing program but rather a page layout program. I would assume that either Illustrator, Pagemaker, or its replacement InDesign (which is what I use for page design and layout) or similar programs from other companies are used by the magazine for page layout prepress. Bergie? Chime in here and let inquiring minds know what is used to create the best model railroad mags out there.... [:D]

Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO

We'll get there sooner or later! 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 3, 2005 3:33 PM
I just got my Oct issue today, so I could actually see what the true post was about, and I do have a comment, while for all of us to post our layouts here online and at our personal websites, I am not sure I like the idea that now when I am looking at a print featured layout in MR, RMC or the others is a possible I might be mislead, I know he has an insert story, but still when we view our print mags, aren't we really wanting to see the real train/layout?

Think of what the readers who don't hang out here, they may get a feeling of frustration when building their layouts when they have a preset idea of how the "finished" layout should look and don't get the same look. Also I wonder what his layout looks like with out the hollywood editing. How long will it be before MR and others just enhance digitally things they want to change? Soon we won't know modeled from electronic modeling. I want hold in your hands trains, not MSTS or Trainz type layouts.

For photo taking not in a print/presentation article, sure I agree he can do as he wishes, but in MR we are looking for the whole picture, of course we discussed this not long ago about how we don't get to see the whole layout be it still under construction, maybe they have crappy looking scenery that MR tossed etc. I see using digital photos for modeling and backgrounds, I am doing soda machines, and lumber loads and soon my background.

Still his layout base is pretty sharp. I say we all start editing our pictures to hide all our faults [:D]
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Colorful Colorado
  • 8,639 posts
Posted by Texas Zepher on Saturday, September 3, 2005 1:59 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwinup

"All's fair in love or war."

Now we can add model railroading to that list! LOL

Oh, I'm glad you added that last line. I was just about to say, "so now it is war with MR." That wouldn't be real good since this is basically their form.
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • 1,168 posts
Posted by dgwinup on Saturday, September 3, 2005 1:40 PM
"All's fair in love or war."

Now we can add model railroading to that list! LOL

Darrell, quiet...for now
Darrell, quiet...for now
  • Member since
    November 2002
  • From: US
  • 4,648 posts
Posted by jacon12 on Saturday, September 3, 2005 1:40 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Seamonster

Jacon12, that's a beautiful picture! In a picture like that it's the artistic content that counts, not the realism. I have to agree that I'd rather see model RR pictures as they are. I do feel that it's okay to paint out the background or insert one when the modeler doesn't have a skyboard or backdrop behind the layout. It's better than piles of lumber and tools and other stuff. I too remember the very heated controversy when MR started displaying digital photos in its contests. But as Alco_fan pointed out, photographers have been modifying photographs for decades and we never thought ill of it. Digital programs like Photoshop have just made it easier to do, and made it possible to do much more. As an example, we just had a family photo taken at a studio. The photographer used a digital camera and also uses Photoshop to process the pictures. When we were choosing the shot we wanted printed, in the shot of our choice one of the nine people in it had an uncomplimentary look on her face, but her face was good in another shot. We were told it was no problem to substitute her head from the other shot. Is that bad? Is that unrealistic? Maybe, but she will be much happier with the result than if we had left it alone. There's my [2c] for what it's worth.


Bob, I agree with you. Using Photoshop to do whatever you want on your layout or to enhance models in some way is perfectly fine with me. However, I get a little leery if a magazine did the same in an article UNLESS they stated they did so and what it was they did. It's as though I posted that photograph of my grandaughter and said that the butterfly was really on her shoulder and the sky was really that way and aren't I a great photographer. When actually I shot a picture of her, I already had the photos of the butterfly (actually a moth) and the sky and did a cut and paste job and worked over the color balance, contrast etc. so they would all match.
That wouldn't be ethical at all, and on photography forums this is often argued back and forth.
Thanks for the compliment of the photo, Bob.
Jarrell
 HO Scale DCC Modeler of 1950, give or take 30 years.
  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: US
  • 3,150 posts
Posted by CNJ831 on Saturday, September 3, 2005 12:37 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Seamonster

I do feel that it's okay to paint out the background or insert one when the modeler doesn't have a skyboard or backdrop behind the layout. It's better than piles of lumber and tools and other stuff. I too remember the very heated controversy when MR started displaying digital photos in its contests. But as Alco_fan pointed out, photographers have been modifying photographs for decades and we never thought ill of it. Digital programs like Photoshop have just made it easier to do, and made it possible to do much more.


Sea and Alco - There is a world of difference between the "trickery" that was employed in MR photos of the past and the digital subsitution/collages that are creeping into the pages today. In years gone by a photographer might alter, in one manner or another, a few percent of an image with the introduction of simulated smoke and steam. Overall, that alteration/addition probably didn't make the difference between a winning contest photo and one that didn't place at all. With conventional photography, the basic photographed scene did not change to any degree. However, for some of the recent winners in the digital category of MR's photo contests the shots are approaching 50% artificial or composite. This is no longer model photography, it is more akin to graphic arts work.

In general, it is the intent of MR's photos to illustrate the talent and cleverness in modeling that can be attained by a truly accomplished hobbyist and to provide you with modeling ideas. But what we are talking about here, if taken to the extreme, is the same sort of thing as if you were a fine arts major and painted a scene with a train in it, or created a collage from images appearing in MR, Trains, etc. What's this technique got to do with model railroading?

CNJ831
  • Member since
    November 2002
  • From: Winnipeg, Manitoba
  • 1,317 posts
Posted by Seamonster on Saturday, September 3, 2005 11:44 AM
Jacon12, that's a beautiful picture! In a picture like that it's the artistic content that counts, not the realism. I have to agree that I'd rather see model RR pictures as they are. I do feel that it's okay to paint out the background or insert one when the modeler doesn't have a skyboard or backdrop behind the layout. It's better than piles of lumber and tools and other stuff. I too remember the very heated controversy when MR started displaying digital photos in its contests. But as Alco_fan pointed out, photographers have been modifying photographs for decades and we never thought ill of it. Digital programs like Photoshop have just made it easier to do, and made it possible to do much more. As an example, we just had a family photo taken at a studio. The photographer used a digital camera and also uses Photoshop to process the pictures. When we were choosing the shot we wanted printed, in the shot of our choice one of the nine people in it had an uncomplimentary look on her face, but her face was good in another shot. We were told it was no problem to substitute her head from the other shot. Is that bad? Is that unrealistic? Maybe, but she will be much happier with the result than if we had left it alone. There's my [2c] for what it's worth.

..... 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.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 3, 2005 11:19 AM
What happened to the days when the smoke from a steam engine was a cotton ball [:D]
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 3, 2005 11:16 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by tstage

Don't they use Adobe (Paintshop?) to create all the layout renderings for the MR magazine?


At least in the past, it was Adobe Illustrator -- a drawing program.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 3, 2005 11:15 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

What did disturb me in the October issue was Gary Hoover's use of an inserted digtal sky in photos for a traditional layout tour article. I greatly admire Gary's work but I want to see layouts/layout rooms as they really are...not imaginary visions of what the builder would like them to be.


Mr. Hoover has been using artifical temporary backdrops, scenery and access hatches to create photos of otherwise impossible views on his layout for years. He published a recent article on his techniques. So lots of the layout and layout room photos you've seen of his layout over the years have not been "as they really are".

But that's OK as long as he doesn't use a computer to make the artificial scenes?

I fail to see the difference. As long as the author makes clear what's real and what's enhanced, why should it matter? For the record, some of the photos Mr. Hoover has published in the past with the temporary scenery and backdrops showing impossible (from the aisle) viewpoints have not been so identified. So what?

Photographing layout scenes as the builder would like them to be and not "as they really are" goes back at least as far as John Allen (who used a lot of photographic and temporary scenery tricks) and probably farther.

Jon
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 3, 2005 10:53 AM
In the September 2005 issue, the article, "Create a Photo Backdrop" used some trickery also.

They created a digitial photo backdrop, but in the picture for the article, they also superimposed the water from the digital photo onto the modeled water under the bridge. That's irritating. They introduced a cool concept to many people, but then went overboard in its application - because it won't really look like what they've done.

And this is on the MR & T no less! They did a "before & after" shot, but the "after" shot is 75% digital photography trickery, not what you'd really see in person.

Nonetheless, I'll definately be using digital pictures / photoshop elements to do backdrop work, considering I'm no painting artiste...
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 3, 2005 10:18 AM
Wasn'r there a large buzz years ago in MR about the introduction of digital cameras, and the potential abuse/use of photo editing tools, I seem to remember reading the this in some issues I had bought at a train show. They presented almost the same arguement, only it was on the trackside photos and contest.

I use photoshop to remove the lines that are in my backdrop sometimes, in fact I was messing with it just the other day, I removed the rail goiners, added rust in that wasn't there,



For use "at home" guys I don't see the harm, but I don't think it should be used in the MR mag, I mean we want to see the real deal, not some photo editing.

BTW I am still waiting for my MR to come in the mailbox.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 3, 2005 9:49 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

I don't think it really matters much that the construction diagram on page 130 isn't to scale as it is simply conveying a concept and not something expected to be reproduced precisely.

What did disturb me in the October issue was Gary Hoover's use of an inserted digtal sky in photos for a traditional layout tour article. I greatly admire Gary's work but I want to see layouts/layout rooms as they really are...not imaginary visions of what the builder would like them to be. I very much hope this doesn't begin a trend, as it's not much of a step from inserting a digital sky to doing the same for the entire background. I want to see a modelers' actual work, not his ability at trick photography.

CNJ831


I agree
I don't think it matters because its showing a concept instead of like a layout project or something
Alex
  • Member since
    March 2001
  • From: Waldorf, Maryland
  • 160 posts
Posted by Piedsou on Saturday, September 3, 2005 9:40 AM
Here it is Saturday and I still don't have my issue yet. If I don't get it today, it will be at least Tuesday before I do.
Of course, I live in the Washington D.C. area where everything moves a little slower.

Dale Latham
Moderator
  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: Northeast OH
  • 17,255 posts
Posted by tstage on Saturday, September 3, 2005 9:39 AM
Don't they use Adobe (Paintshop?) to create all the layout renderings for the MR magazine?

Tom

https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling

Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.

  • Member since
    November 2002
  • From: US
  • 4,648 posts
Posted by jacon12 on Saturday, September 3, 2005 8:39 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

I don't think it really matters much that the construction diagram on page 130 isn't to scale as it is simply conveying a concept and not something expected to be reproduced precisely.

What did disturb me in the October issue was Gary Hoover's use of an inserted digtal sky in photos for a traditional layout tour article. I greatly admire Gary's work but I want to see layouts/layout rooms as they really are...not imaginary visions of what the builder would like them to be. I very much hope this doesn't begin a trend, as it's not much of a step from inserting a digital sky to doing the same for the entire background. I want to see a modelers' actual work, not his ability at trick photography.

CNJ831

I agree. As a long time user of Adobe Photoshop I don't think it has a place within MR magazine. As with my picture below..

in which I used 3 different images, it is an artistic version and not what was there in reality. In MR we expect that what we see is what was there. Unless the article is to show you how much better your layout would be if it had this type background but even then it's not a background that someone actually built, but could be one that someone printed out and pasted on the backdrop.
Jarrell
 HO Scale DCC Modeler of 1950, give or take 30 years.
  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: Amish country Tenn.
  • 10,027 posts
Posted by loathar on Saturday, September 3, 2005 8:26 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

I don't think it really matters much that the construction diagram on page 130 isn't to scale as it is simply conveying a concept and not something expected to be reproduced precisely.

What did disturb me in the October issue was Gary Hoover's use of an inserted digtal sky in photos for a traditional layout tour article. I greatly admire Gary's work but I want to see layouts/layout rooms as they really are...not imaginary visions of what the builder would like them to be. I very much hope this doesn't begin a trend, as it's not much of a step from inserting a digital sky to doing the same for the entire background. I want to see a modelers' actual work, not his ability at trick photography.

CNJ831

Yea, I wonder if we're going to see a monthly article sponcered by Adobe Photo Shop.[xx(][V]
  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: US
  • 3,150 posts
Posted by CNJ831 on Saturday, September 3, 2005 8:19 AM
I don't think it really matters much that the construction diagram on page 130 isn't to scale as it is simply conveying a concept and not something expected to be reproduced precisely.

What did disturb me in the October issue was Gary Hoover's use of an inserted digtal sky in photos for a traditional layout tour article. I greatly admire Gary's work but I want to see layouts/layout rooms as they really are...not imaginary visions of what the builder would like them to be. I very much hope this doesn't begin a trend, as it's not much of a step from inserting a digital sky to doing the same for the entire background. I want to see a modelers' actual work, not his ability at trick photography.

CNJ831
  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: Amish country Tenn.
  • 10,027 posts
Posted by loathar on Saturday, September 3, 2005 8:00 AM
I beleive it means having to cater to those less intelligent people that might think the pic is actual size.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 3, 2005 6:29 AM
[#ditto],[#ditto]
Will
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • 450 posts
Posted by 1shado1 on Saturday, September 3, 2005 6:16 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

What a sad indictment of the times that the MR staff felt obligated to add the disclaimer "Not to scale" to the concept drawing on the last page.

Dave H.


Please forgive my ignorance. I don't understand...

Jeff
  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Whitby, ON
  • 2,594 posts
Posted by CP5415 on Saturday, September 3, 2005 5:37 AM
The most depressing thing about OCT's issue is...

I haven't got my copy yet! [;)]

Gordon

Brought to you by the letters C.P.R. as well as D&H!

 K1a - all the way

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!