The most depressing thing about the Oct MR

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

[davekelly]

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

[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

[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"?

[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

[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

[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!

[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.

[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 ...

[ukguy]

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.

[jfugate]

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]

[Anonymous]

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. [:)]

[jfugate]

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]

[MidlandPacific]

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.

[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

[MidlandPacific]

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

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

[jfugate]

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?

[:)]

[Anonymous]

Paintshop and digital photos should be baned from the magazine as they are misleading. Stick to real trains and models and photographs.

[MidlandPacific]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[MidlandPacific]

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.

[howmus]

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]

[mondotrains]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

[Catt]

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]

[Bob Hayes]

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