The most depressing thing about the Oct MR

[howmus]

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......

[eastcoast]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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).

[bogp40]

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

[JDCoop]

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

[CNJ831]

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

[krump]

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

[Anonymous]

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?

[StillGrande]

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.

[Bob Hayes]

Suggestion to MR: Don't publish anymore disclaimers concerning digital enhancement of layout photos.

Bob Hayes

[StillGrande]

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).

[palallin]

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.

[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.

[scubaterry]

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

[ukguy]

[#ditto] Tom, I havent seen the article yet unfortunately but I agree with your sentiments completely.

Have fun & be safe
Karl.

[davekelly]

I wonder if Gary has traditional dimensional lumber rafters, the new I beam composite type rafters or steel beams. Guess I'll never know.

[twhite]

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]

[CNJ831]

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

[davekelly]

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.

[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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[CNJ831]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[davekelly]

MABruce,

Love that tunnel scene!! Great angle on the photo shoot.

[MAbruce]

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):

[kansaspacific1]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[grayfox1119]

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.

[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" ...

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)?