The most depressing thing about the Oct MR

[Anonymous]

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.

[railroadyoshi]

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.

[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.

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

[Anonymous]

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]

[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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[tsasala]

Interesting that such a simple thing has generated so much discussion.

[CNJ831]

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

[Catt]

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

[selector]

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!

[Anonymous]

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]

[electrolove]

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.

[howmus]

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.

[Anonymous]

Both #4 and 6 do seem to have more in them then what the track plan shows, could be the plan is off?

[Anonymous]

Likewise as to photo #6 ....

[CNJ831]

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

[Anonymous]

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]

[Pruitt]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[Newyorkcentralfan]

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

[twhite]

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 [:)]

[jfugate]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.