Any Advice on my picture

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
1

Here is a picture I took today and I wanted to know what everyone thought.

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Michael

2

Michael,

I think it looks pretty good, though I think you’d want to ballast your tracks. The water looks really good.

Don Z.

3

Only thing I can think of, as far the picture goes, maybe move the light so you can see more of the engine and trees. otherwsie, it makes a nice effect, gives it a sunrise/sunset feel to it.

4

Some would say to not put the central theme in the middle of the pic. The framing is nice but I would feature the engine more and the trees less. However, you are already better than most of us, and the pros will also give some good suggestions. Thanks for sharing.

5

Very nice. How did you model the water?

6

Thank you.
I mixed a 2 part 5min. epoxy. I built the shape of the pond using insulation foam. Then i panted the base and the foam a light tan laytex and sealed it with weather proof caulk. I painted then center of the lake black and around the edges i added ground foam to add under water plants. Finally i pored the epoxy and let it dry.

7

I like the picture. Nice composition. Too bad you had a couple of SLACKERS standing under the tree! LOL

Darrell, quiet…for now

8

Why aren’t they admiring that fine Erie F unit that’s passing by?

9

I think you have done some nice work there. I am unsure of the type of feedback you are seeking, so I will just say that you could ballast the track and weather the rails, ties, and ballast. Also, find a way to hide the bases of the figures. The camera is a cold-eyed instrument, and will not fool us much…we see what it shows us, and it will show us what is there unless you do a lot of work.

I think the lighting is fairly good, but it doesn’t look a lot like true daylight. Experiment with angles and saturation. Finally, with more lighting, you will be able to increase the focal ratio of the camera by stopping down the iris to get the same exposure length, but the bonus you are looking for is the much improved depth of field. This will keep more items in focus, not just what is in the middle ground. The depth of field issue is a real problem for model photographers…a real give-away when only a short range stays in focus.

FWIW, I like what I see, and know that you are well on your way.

-Crandell

10

Thanks everyone. Crandell that is what i was looking for. I haven’t gotten the ballast for that part of the track and i did weather the track but i geuss i didn’t do it to well lol. The only light i have and can use is a lamp with a 75 watt bulb. The camera is an old digital camera the only zooms in 2x. I am thankful for your advice and i will try it out today. any more advice would be helpful. thanks again

11

Michael, it could be that the combination of lighting, angle, distance, and lack of ballast contributed to my observation of the rails and ties needing something more. Perhaps once the cork is covered you and I will notice a big difference in the track appearance.

I reiterate, I do like what you have done so far. You have a good eye.

Regards,

-Crandell

12

Well, since you asked…

:slight_smile:

First off, that pic is as good as or better than 95% of the ones I see posted online, because it gets a couple of very important things right.

  1. The camera is at eye level. Real trains are often viewed at eye level, and even more often from below eye level (embankments, etc), and almost always, model trains are shot from above, with no explanation in the picture as to why the camera is so high, like a retaining wall on a bridge partially visible in the picture, etc. If you want a real looking image, you have to start from a realistic point of view, or else all else, lighting, composition, arrangement, etc, are bandaids trying to cover up something wrong, that never could have been in the first place.

  2. You have the basic idea of the lighting right. The specular highlights on the locomotive match the shadows thrown by the trees and figures. Trees that throw two shadows, or shadows that don’t match the direction of other shadows, or shadows that contradict the position of lighting reflections create a base, unreality that other tricks are not likely to mitigate. Your primary lighting in real life comes from the sun, a single point source, and the sky and/or clouds act as a huge umbrella or light box fill source, a light just bright enough to soften shadows but not bright enough to throw its own shadows.

That said, you don’t learn anything new from recitations of what you did right, sooooo…

  1. The male figure leans. In real life, he’s about to fall over. His arms are folded, so it isn’t likely he will be able to break the fall in time, and at his age, he could break a hip real easy.

  2. Both trees lean, in opposite directions.

  3. The highlights on the locomotive look like shiny plastic, not shiny paint on metal. Either kill the shine, or bring it up to a high gloss, what you have now is a sort of satin fini***hat doesn’t look like gloss paint on sheet metal, clean or dirty.

13

My advice to you would be to keep up the good work. [:D]

14

The figures seem to have no faces; maybe it’s the lighting. No numbers on the number boards. We can see the base of the figure that is leaning backward. The shadow above the nose of the locomotive is on the backdrop, most likely from the tree to the right in the background. Ballast always makes track look better and it’s not a big job to ballast a small section of track where you’ll be doing photography.