The most depressing thing about the Oct MR

[Anonymous]

Wasn'r there a large buzz years ago in MR about the introduction of digital cameras, and the potential abuse/use of photo editing tools, I seem to remember reading the this in some issues I had bought at a train show. They presented almost the same arguement, only it was on the trackside photos and contest.

I use photoshop to remove the lines that are in my backdrop sometimes, in fact I was messing with it just the other day, I removed the rail goiners, added rust in that wasn't there,



For use "at home" guys I don't see the harm, but I don't think it should be used in the MR mag, I mean we want to see the real deal, not some photo editing.

BTW I am still waiting for my MR to come in the mailbox.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

I don't think it really matters much that the construction diagram on page 130 isn't to scale as it is simply conveying a concept and not something expected to be reproduced precisely.

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. I very much hope this doesn't begin a trend, as it's not much of a step from inserting a digital sky to doing the same for the entire background. I want to see a modelers' actual work, not his ability at trick photography.

CNJ831

I agree
I don't think it matters because its showing a concept instead of like a layout project or something
Alex

[Piedsou]

Here it is Saturday and I still don't have my issue yet. If I don't get it today, it will be at least Tuesday before I do.
Of course, I live in the Washington D.C. area where everything moves a little slower.

Dale Latham

[tstage]

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

Tom

[jacon12]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

I don't think it really matters much that the construction diagram on page 130 isn't to scale as it is simply conveying a concept and not something expected to be reproduced precisely.

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. I very much hope this doesn't begin a trend, as it's not much of a step from inserting a digital sky to doing the same for the entire background. I want to see a modelers' actual work, not his ability at trick photography.

CNJ831

I agree. As a long time user of Adobe Photoshop I don't think it has a place within MR magazine. As with my picture below..

in which I used 3 different images, it is an artistic version and not what was there in reality. In MR we expect that what we see is what was there. Unless the article is to show you how much better your layout would be if it had this type background but even then it's not a background that someone actually built, but could be one that someone printed out and pasted on the backdrop.
Jarrell

[loathar]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

I don't think it really matters much that the construction diagram on page 130 isn't to scale as it is simply conveying a concept and not something expected to be reproduced precisely.

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. I very much hope this doesn't begin a trend, as it's not much of a step from inserting a digital sky to doing the same for the entire background. I want to see a modelers' actual work, not his ability at trick photography.

CNJ831

Yea, I wonder if we're going to see a monthly article sponcered by Adobe Photo Shop.[xx(][V]

[CNJ831]

I don't think it really matters much that the construction diagram on page 130 isn't to scale as it is simply conveying a concept and not something expected to be reproduced precisely.

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. I very much hope this doesn't begin a trend, as it's not much of a step from inserting a digital sky to doing the same for the entire background. I want to see a modelers' actual work, not his ability at trick photography.

CNJ831

[loathar]

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

[Anonymous]

[#ditto],[#ditto]
Will

[1shado1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

What a sad indictment of the times that the MR staff felt obligated to add the disclaimer "Not to scale" to the concept drawing on the last page.

Dave H.

Please forgive my ignorance. I don't understand...

Jeff

[CP5415]

The most depressing thing about OCT's issue is...

I haven't got my copy yet! [;)]

Gordon

[dehusman]

What a sad indictment of the times that the MR staff felt obligated to add the disclaimer "Not to scale" to the concept drawing on the last page.

Dave H.