The most depressing thing about the Oct MR

[jfugate]

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 ...

[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. 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.

[Seamonster]

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!

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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

[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"?

[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

[davekelly]

Philosophical (sp?) questions are often the most interesting to ponder and debate.

[Anonymous]

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

[MAbruce]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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)?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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):

[davekelly]

MABruce,

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

[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.

[ukguy]

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

Have fun & be safe
Karl.

[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

[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.

[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.