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
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.
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.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Catt Just think,if Gary hadn't put that disclaimer in his article this thread never would have existed.[:D]
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.
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.
Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO
We'll get there sooner or later!
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.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
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.
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).
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
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
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?
Modeling B&O- Chessie Bob K. www.ssmrc.org
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.
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
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
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
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..
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.
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" ...
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
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)?
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.)
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?
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."
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
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"?
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.
QUOTE: Paintshop and digital photos should be baned from the magazine as they are misleading. Stick to real trains and models and photographs.
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 ...
..... 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.
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.
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.
http://mprailway.blogspot.com
"The first transition era - wood to steel!"
QUOTE: Now can we get back to talking about trains, please?
QUOTE: Originally posted by rripperger It's a slander on "this generation" of Americans, and it's a slander on the city of Washington.
QUOTE: But what do you expect from an editorial?
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.
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.
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.
QUOTE: Originally posted by howmus Illustrator is not a drawing program but rather a page layout program.
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.
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.
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.
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.
QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwinup "All's fair in love or war." Now we can add model railroading to that list! LOL
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.
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.
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.
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.
QUOTE: Originally posted by tstage Don't they use Adobe (Paintshop?) to create all the layout renderings for the MR magazine?
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.
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.
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.
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
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
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.
Brought to you by the letters C.P.R. as well as D&H!
K1a - all the way