The most depressing thing about the Oct MR

[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).

[Bob Hayes]

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

Bob Hayes

[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.

[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?

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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).

[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.

[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

[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......

[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.

[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.

[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 [:)]

[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

[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

[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 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]

[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]

Likewise as to photo #6 ....

[Anonymous]

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

[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!

[Catt]

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

[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

[tsasala]

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

[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.