The most depressing thing about the Oct MR

[Anonymous]

My two cents for everything. photos have been touched up for years, it is just that you can be a bit more detailed about it. I don't think they have become drawings yet. And dknelson, what about the idea that surfaced a while ago with putting flat screen back drops in so that one would change the weather, even have it as a video!!!! I like that idea, and would do it if I had the money, time and space, same as most others. I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I was lookin at some of my pervious layouts, and was shocked at what I saw. It was sooooo different to what my memory had, but at the time it was great. have fun with whatever type of image you like of yourself and your trains. Danny

[Anonymous]

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..

[skiloff]

I wondered that, Timothy. I think I'll put in a query.

[chateauricher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by skiloff
You people just got the October MR????? I got my SEPTEMBER last week!!!! That is one thing that has always irked me about an MR subscription.

That is odd. I got my October copy last week. And I live near Québec City, farther from MR's offices than you do. I get my copy of MR 4 to 5 weeks before the issue date (eg: At the end of August (the 31st), I got the October issue).

If I were you, I'd definitely look into why you're getting your MRs so late. At the very least, you should be getting it at the same time as your local retailers.

[dgwinup]

BTW, I haven't received my Oct issue (here in the Midwest), so I can't comment on this topic.

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.

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.

My [2c] worth.

Darrell, still quiet...for now

[dgwinup]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Texas Zepher

QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwinup

"All's fair in love or war."

Now we can add model railroading to that list! LOL

Oh, I'm glad you added that last line. I was just about to say, "so now it is war with MR." That wouldn't be real good since this is basically their form.

Let me start by saying that MR is a great magazine, and has been for years, IMHO. I've been a fairly regular subscriber for many years and have collected most back copies dating to the early 1970's.

With that said, I think that if the readers of MR have a problem with some part of an issue, then a discussion on this forum is a good and healthy thing, both for us modelers AND for MR. If you are dissatisfied with any portion of the magazine, I'm sure that MR would like to hear about it. I am NOT advocating 'flaming' them, just some constructive criticism. I believe that MR would support this forum even if they end up taking some criticisms now and then.

"Round up the horses, boys, and we'll head 'em off at the pass" - Slim Pickens, 'Blazing Saddles'

Darrell, full of beans, but quiet...for now

[skiloff]

You people just got the October MR????? I got my SEPTEMBER last week!!!! That is one thing that has always irked me about an MR subscription. Here in Canada, the normal subscription price is virtually the same as I can buy it for at the Newstand, PLUS the newstand has it at least a week (usually two) before I get it. The only reason I got the subscription this year was because my kids' fundraiser from school had MR subscriptions that were actually $15 less than I could get it at the Newsstand - or $1.25 per issues less. But I still get it much later than the Newstand does. I think as a subscriber, I should get it BEFORE the general public has access, or at least at the same time. Maybe I should copy and paste this in an email to them and see what they have to say. [soapbox]

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dknelson

So what is more "dishonest" -- 1) taking an indoor model outside and photographing it with a real sky and scenery background that is not actually to be found in the guy's basement (a very very common practice by the way), 2) moving a painting of sky behind the model which is not actually part of the backdrop -- very common for Model Railroad project railroad photos; or 3) inserting a digital sky but keeping the layout inside for photos? I am just asking, I am not claiming I know the answer. But I will say that the number one thing that marks most model layout photos as being models is the sky and the background.

Dave - The answer is, if you are dealing with "layout tour" articles, readers want to see the way the layout actually appears, just as if you were standing in the room viewing it. How many times do we see posts pleading for layout room shots instead of the endless 6"x 6" area superdetailed photos that illustrate these articles? Readers what to see what others have actually done and apply the best aspects to their own layouts.

I think what particularly troubles most of us about any image manipulation in layout tour articles is that it is only a small step from adding a sky to adding a bit of mountainous terrain to the background, then a specialty structures or two, and so on, until you can't decide what's modeling and what's computer generated image. The most useful illustrations show things as they really are...not how we wi***hey were.

CNJ831

[Billba]

Received my October MR yesterday(Saturday), and absolutely lovin' it!! Fake pictures, captions, and all!!

[dknelson]

So what is more "dishonest" -- 1) taking an indoor model outside and photographing it with a real sky and scenery background that is not actually to be found in the guy's basement (a very very common practice by the way), 2) moving a painting of sky behind the model which is not actually part of the backdrop -- very common for Model Railroad project railroad photos; or 3) inserting a digital sky but keeping the layout inside for photos? I am just asking, I am not claiming I know the answer. But I will say that the number one thing that marks most model layout photos as being models is the sky and the background.
Dave Nelson

[Anonymous]

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.

I think Adobe's Quark-Killer "InDesign" never materialized. Way to many printing services are setup for Quark, though PDF's are a another way to deliver the ready print files. To be honest, though I always preferred InDesign over Quark. I haven't heard of many folks using Illustrator for heavy press work. I know a lot of billboard companies like Illustrator. Sorry for the off-topic, but I always find software choices to be a little interesting, the old computer geek in me.

[Anonymous]

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.

[jwr_1986]

The big problem that I see with digital editing is that model railroading may become unatainable without the aid of retouching. It has long been a topic in the news, the pressures put on young people to meet a magazines view of perfection. Now imagine if this became the norm and you didn't know that the photos were edited. Your lifes work would be dealt a considerable blow. Years of hard work and dedication could be outshined by an hour or two at a good photo editing suite. Just my [2c].

Jesse

[Anonymous]

Welcome to the naughts of the twenty first century, believe nothing that you see or hear it has all been digitally altered. Now if we were discussing the missing weapons of mass destruction, I could understand the heat. I think we should recognise the "not to scale" and the side bar on the manipulation of a photo to give the best foreground with out the distraction of the bare floor joists above should be applauded for honesty. We all need Jarrell to shoot our work, he does magnificent work. I believe that we are looking at best presentation for our reading enjoyment, not "historical" accuracy after all none of it is 12 inches to the foot!! (Ok maybe the cloths pins!)
Take a breath, relax and enjoy your hobby, and above all admit if some manipulation is done to your work to give it the beat presentation, not alter it for 'gain".
Will

[bogp40]

QUOTE: Originally posted by loathar

I beleive it means having to cater to those less intelligent people that might think the pic is actual size.

No, only to show that the proportions can be wrong. The only reason for the diagram is to show the concept of using the clothespins for the skirt.
Bob K.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Catt

Well I've read this thread this far (not quite sure why yet) and I've come to the conclusion that your wifes,girlfriends,daughters,moms, etc. aren't the only ones on the rag at your houses.

Get a new hobby guys this one don't cut it for ya anymore.

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.

[grandeman]

I'm not to keen on altered pics for MR either. I don't even alter my own for the most part. MR has elevated the hobby to the point where it must be tough to get enough material each month. Most layouts aren't as well done as what we're used to seeing in the magazine and if they do an article on a "normal" layout it's almost a let down now. Must be a tough row to hoe.

[grayfox1119]

Lighten up guys, your taking life waaay too serious...ask yourselves this question, " what difference will it make 50 years from now"?

[Catt]

Well I've read this thread this far (not quite sure why yet) and I've come to the conclusion that your wifes,girlfriends,daughters,moms, etc. aren't the only ones on the rag at your houses.

Get a new hobby guys this one don't cut it for ya anymore.

[howmus]

QUOTE: Originally posted by alco_fan

QUOTE: Originally posted by tstage

Don't they use Adobe (Paintshop?) to create all the layout renderings for the MR magazine?

At least in the past, it was Adobe Illustrator -- a drawing program.

Paintshop is by Correl not Adobe. Adobe Photoshop or a similar program is certainly used by MR Magazine as a part of their process. Photoshop is excellent for correcting color, removing distracting stuff from the pic, and resizing, croping, etc. (Not to be confused with Photoshop Elements which is a basic limited home type program for PCs). Illustrator is not a drawing program but rather a page layout program. I would assume that either Illustrator, Pagemaker, or its replacement InDesign (which is what I use for page design and layout) or similar programs from other companies are used by the magazine for page layout prepress. Bergie? Chime in here and let inquiring minds know what is used to create the best model railroad mags out there.... [:D]

[Anonymous]

I just got my Oct issue today, so I could actually see what the true post was about, and I do have a comment, while for all of us to post our layouts here online and at our personal websites, I am not sure I like the idea that now when I am looking at a print featured layout in MR, RMC or the others is a possible I might be mislead, I know he has an insert story, but still when we view our print mags, aren't we really wanting to see the real train/layout?

Think of what the readers who don't hang out here, they may get a feeling of frustration when building their layouts when they have a preset idea of how the "finished" layout should look and don't get the same look. Also I wonder what his layout looks like with out the hollywood editing. How long will it be before MR and others just enhance digitally things they want to change? Soon we won't know modeled from electronic modeling. I want hold in your hands trains, not MSTS or Trainz type layouts.

For photo taking not in a print/presentation article, sure I agree he can do as he wishes, but in MR we are looking for the whole picture, of course we discussed this not long ago about how we don't get to see the whole layout be it still under construction, maybe they have crappy looking scenery that MR tossed etc. I see using digital photos for modeling and backgrounds, I am doing soda machines, and lumber loads and soon my background.

Still his layout base is pretty sharp. I say we all start editing our pictures to hide all our faults [:D]

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwinup

"All's fair in love or war."

Now we can add model railroading to that list! LOL

Oh, I'm glad you added that last line. I was just about to say, "so now it is war with MR." That wouldn't be real good since this is basically their form.

[dgwinup]

"All's fair in love or war."

Now we can add model railroading to that list! LOL

Darrell, quiet...for now

[jacon12]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Seamonster

Jacon12, that's a beautiful picture! In a picture like that it's the artistic content that counts, not the realism. I have to agree that I'd rather see model RR pictures as they are. I do feel that it's okay to paint out the background or insert one when the modeler doesn't have a skyboard or backdrop behind the layout. It's better than piles of lumber and tools and other stuff. I too remember the very heated controversy when MR started displaying digital photos in its contests. But as Alco_fan pointed out, photographers have been modifying photographs for decades and we never thought ill of it. Digital programs like Photoshop have just made it easier to do, and made it possible to do much more. As an example, we just had a family photo taken at a studio. The photographer used a digital camera and also uses Photoshop to process the pictures. When we were choosing the shot we wanted printed, in the shot of our choice one of the nine people in it had an uncomplimentary look on her face, but her face was good in another shot. We were told it was no problem to substitute her head from the other shot. Is that bad? Is that unrealistic? Maybe, but she will be much happier with the result than if we had left it alone. There's my [2c] for what it's worth.

Bob, I agree with you. Using Photoshop to do whatever you want on your layout or to enhance models in some way is perfectly fine with me. However, I get a little leery if a magazine did the same in an article UNLESS they stated they did so and what it was they did. It's as though I posted that photograph of my grandaughter and said that the butterfly was really on her shoulder and the sky was really that way and aren't I a great photographer. When actually I shot a picture of her, I already had the photos of the butterfly (actually a moth) and the sky and did a cut and paste job and worked over the color balance, contrast etc. so they would all match.
That wouldn't be ethical at all, and on photography forums this is often argued back and forth.
Thanks for the compliment of the photo, Bob.
Jarrell

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Seamonster

I do feel that it's okay to paint out the background or insert one when the modeler doesn't have a skyboard or backdrop behind the layout. It's better than piles of lumber and tools and other stuff. I too remember the very heated controversy when MR started displaying digital photos in its contests. But as Alco_fan pointed out, photographers have been modifying photographs for decades and we never thought ill of it. Digital programs like Photoshop have just made it easier to do, and made it possible to do much more.

Sea and Alco - There is a world of difference between the "trickery" that was employed in MR photos of the past and the digital subsitution/collages that are creeping into the pages today. In years gone by a photographer might alter, in one manner or another, a few percent of an image with the introduction of simulated smoke and steam. Overall, that alteration/addition probably didn't make the difference between a winning contest photo and one that didn't place at all. With conventional photography, the basic photographed scene did not change to any degree. However, for some of the recent winners in the digital category of MR's photo contests the shots are approaching 50% artificial or composite. This is no longer model photography, it is more akin to graphic arts work.

In general, it is the intent of MR's photos to illustrate the talent and cleverness in modeling that can be attained by a truly accomplished hobbyist and to provide you with modeling ideas. But what we are talking about here, if taken to the extreme, is the same sort of thing as if you were a fine arts major and painted a scene with a train in it, or created a collage from images appearing in MR, Trains, etc. What's this technique got to do with model railroading?

CNJ831

[Seamonster]

Jacon12, that's a beautiful picture! In a picture like that it's the artistic content that counts, not the realism. I have to agree that I'd rather see model RR pictures as they are. I do feel that it's okay to paint out the background or insert one when the modeler doesn't have a skyboard or backdrop behind the layout. It's better than piles of lumber and tools and other stuff. I too remember the very heated controversy when MR started displaying digital photos in its contests. But as Alco_fan pointed out, photographers have been modifying photographs for decades and we never thought ill of it. Digital programs like Photoshop have just made it easier to do, and made it possible to do much more. As an example, we just had a family photo taken at a studio. The photographer used a digital camera and also uses Photoshop to process the pictures. When we were choosing the shot we wanted printed, in the shot of our choice one of the nine people in it had an uncomplimentary look on her face, but her face was good in another shot. We were told it was no problem to substitute her head from the other shot. Is that bad? Is that unrealistic? Maybe, but she will be much happier with the result than if we had left it alone. There's my [2c] for what it's worth.

[Anonymous]

What happened to the days when the smoke from a steam engine was a cotton ball [:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tstage

Don't they use Adobe (Paintshop?) to create all the layout renderings for the MR magazine?

At least in the past, it was Adobe Illustrator -- a drawing program.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

What did disturb me in the October issue was Gary Hoover's use of an inserted digtal sky in photos for a traditional layout tour article. I greatly admire Gary's work but I want to see layouts/layout rooms as they really are...not imaginary visions of what the builder would like them to be.

Mr. Hoover has been using artifical temporary backdrops, scenery and access hatches to create photos of otherwise impossible views on his layout for years. He published a recent article on his techniques. So lots of the layout and layout room photos you've seen of his layout over the years have not been "as they really are".

But that's OK as long as he doesn't use a computer to make the artificial scenes?

I fail to see the difference. As long as the author makes clear what's real and what's enhanced, why should it matter? For the record, some of the photos Mr. Hoover has published in the past with the temporary scenery and backdrops showing impossible (from the aisle) viewpoints have not been so identified. So what?

Photographing layout scenes as the builder would like them to be and not "as they really are" goes back at least as far as John Allen (who used a lot of photographic and temporary scenery tricks) and probably farther.

Jon

[Anonymous]

In the September 2005 issue, the article, "Create a Photo Backdrop" used some trickery also.

They created a digitial photo backdrop, but in the picture for the article, they also superimposed the water from the digital photo onto the modeled water under the bridge. That's irritating. They introduced a cool concept to many people, but then went overboard in its application - because it won't really look like what they've done.

And this is on the MR & T no less! They did a "before & after" shot, but the "after" shot is 75% digital photography trickery, not what you'd really see in person.

Nonetheless, I'll definately be using digital pictures / photoshop elements to do backdrop work, considering I'm no painting artiste...