What is Model Railroader’s policy towards publishing digitally-manipulated modeling?
The May MR has another faked up “photo” created from several different photos. The caption explained how this was done. The result is striking, to be sure.
MR also recently published a layout visit where the sky was digitally added to ALL the photos in the spread which should have a sky.
The majority of the elements in the images are apparently real modeling, but how do we know some of that wasn’t digitally created or enhanced - like removing the plastic sheen from some of the buildings, for example?
Heck. I could just sit a loco on the table and take a photo, then fake in everything else around it, right? Gee, by the time we’re done adding to the scene, I might look like the world’s greatest model railroader!!! Does this constitute an acceptable photo for publishing? If not, where is the line drawn?
Personally, I don’t like it when modeling magazines publish faked-up images. Somehow it seems dishonest to publish images that are NOT correct representations of the modeled work. What was really in those photos with all the added sky? Poor-grade modeling? Ceiling joists? Finished ceiling? I much prefer the use of camera angles and/or cropping of photos that eliminate the real-world clutter to looking at a image that is partially false. Am I alone in this?
I don’t really have a problem with it so long as any photograph that is digitally enhanced is noted as such (and what was done) so any modeling in the picture is not misrepresented.
Digital photography has become a whole new art form that I think has added new dimensions to the hobby. It’s not unlike special effects in movies. So long as they are used correctly they enhance the movie. If not used correctly, they become the focus of the movie and overpower everything in it.
Seems a bit curious to me how someone can apply so much effort creating a wonderfully detailed model and then point a finger at a photographer for applying an equal amount of effort for creating a ‘fake’ photograph. Isn’t it all ‘fake’?
Mark, I have to support you in this one. The name of the game is MODEL railroading, no matter what the scale, indoor or out. I oppose any photographic trickery in representing the modeling aspect of the hobby by using any method like digital or matt glass; I want to see what creative human hands have made, not what can be digitally enhanced to make it appear better than what it is. I call this “real world” as opposed to the “digital fake world”. Are these modelers not capable of creating a backdrop that is acceptable, or are they so embarrassed by their work that they feel the need to hide it?
True, the photos were captioned as being enhanced and I appreciate the honesty in labeling them as such. I do not like or support the idea that they appear in a modeling magazine. Either model it for real or don’t call it a model.
This is my own opinion and a reflection of what I believe the hobby is all about. You have every right to disagree with me and I will not argue or try to dissuade you from your viewpoint if that is what you like.
As mentioned , as long as it is noted that the photo was digitally enhanced, I have no problem with MR doing so. The cab shot is really a work of art, depicting the modeled scene. As described the photographer said the toughest part was to orient the perspective and work in the reflection in the cab door glass.
Bob K.
A recent issue of Railroad Model Craftsman had a cover story about the use of software to dramatically improve depth of field in photos. The model itself wasn’t altered, but the pictures were actually composites of many individual photos. This is simply overcoming a limitation of photography, not modelling.
The sad reality for me is that my layout shares the family room with a TV set, a stereo, an ironing board and an air hockey table. I can’t paint blue walls with clouds on them. So, I wouldn’t feel bad about digitally replacing the walls with sky. If I couldn’t do that, I would end up with an air conditioner floating above my engine house, no matter how good a model I might build on my layout. At the same time, though, I would feel compelled to mention that any photo like that was digitally altered.
Remember, photography is an art form, just like model railroading. (Oh, here we go with “is MR Art” again…[:D])
As much as I agree with Mark and Fergie, I can see the writing on the wall. As digital photography continues to replace slides, the “temptation” to spruce up a photo will get too great, and may even some day become a commonplace practice.
All this after I finally got a handle on indoor slide photography this year!!![V]
And yes, I’m already guilty, [:0] the pic in my sig line had the sky cleaned up a little (to remove the drop ceiling grid and 1 light)
I believe the article you are referring to was in Model Railroading magazine and not RMC. The article itself was reprinted from an N scale magazine, and the modeling was all in N scale. It was on using the Helicon Focus software that combines mulitple images of a same scene, all with different focus points into a single image. The resulting photos were awesome!
RMC had a recent article on model photgraphy, which the author spent way too much time recommending the use of a costly fog machine to soften backgrounds. This isn’t a reality in layouts, so should this be considered “fake” too?
I realy have no problem as long as it is noted. For many years we have seen photos of great models photographed ‘outdoor’ with a natural background/sky. I have not seen too many complaints about that or ‘airbrushed’ exhaust smoke! Like any work of original art, the creator should only take credit for his own work.
Like having other people’s structures and modelwork on your layout, I only think it’s a problem if you claim it’s real or your work, and that includes omission that it isn’t real/yours.
John Allen’s use of mirrors was already brought up, I have yet to see one of the pictures in question in print where it didn’t state that there was a mirror in the picture, in fact he (John) took great pride in his prowness in such deceptions, but you knew right away it was not as it appeared because he told you so. Same with having other people build your stuff, I think they should be gave credit.
Another thing to say is we put a fresh, out of the box, F7 on our layout and take a picture. We didn’t build that F7, should we post we didn’t? No, common sence will tell me you didn’t build it unless you tell me otherwise. Same with a smoke trail out of a Mike, I know (hope maybe?) that its not real smoke.
I think the real trouble lays in some people not having the values and pride in themself and our hobby to tell you they are cheating or faking it, esp to win contests or be published. Computers are now a part of this hobby, but they are just a tool and will never replace real and honest modeling, at least not on my layout. Fred
I think editing a picture digitally is ok as long as you don’t outdo it. Creating an entire layout digitally is not acceptable, but whoever can do that is very talented. I don’t think you should make major changes with digital enhancement.
They are nice pictures…but just show what is possible to do with a digital camera and a computer program not what we can strive for with our (in my case) limited modeling skills.I would rather try to replicate methods from George Sellios or other top modelers.I don’t learn anything from enhanced photos.
I will agree with most that as long as the details of the “enhanced” portions are obviously stated its OK. Also agree this is a trend that is only going to become more and more common place. Probably at some point becoming a sub-set of the hobby.
Terry[8D]
I have no interest in digitally enhanced model railroad photos. I am most interested in seeing what other people have actually done. If there is an airconditioner sticking out above your layout, so what? We all have limitations that we work around or live with, for me that’s part of the hobby. And I am always interested in seeing how people dealt with it. My favorite layout photos are the ones taken to show what I would see if were standing at the layout looking at it normally, warts and all…
If MR feels that part of their readership enjoys digitally enhanced photos, then I have no problem with their inclusion. We all have parts of the hobby we’re not particularly interested in.
Is photography part of MRRing or should it be in Photography magiznes? John Allen said they were both part of the hobby. I do enjoy the Weekend photofun, but NOT for the photography but the layout.
It looks like Photography is part of the hobby these days, but like everything else, most of us have favorite parts. I do like scenery, but love to read about you opperating people and what you do. Maybe some day I will learn to take a good pic and then my attitudes will change.
I see nothing wrong with it as long as it’s noted that it has been digitally enhanced and how. It seems to me to be an extension of wonderful imagination that the better modelers possess. The photo of a model from within the cab of a locomotive was indeed a work of art as previously stated.
Tom
I’m guessing that because sophisticated computer software is part of the equation, many people feel threatened by the thought that staying ‘current’ means they have to learn how to be digital-graphic artists as well as good photographers/modelers.
MR editors seem to believe that any photos they publish have to be alot more dazzling than anything that can be viewed online, if they want people to keep buying/subscribing to their magazine - and I can’t really fault them for that. Unfortunately for me though, it means whatever I try to submit will probably never be good enough for MR. The widespread availability of decent images on the Internet has permanently raised the bar for acceptance.
On the issiue of digitally enhanced photos, for me its a rather non-issiue as long as its stated up front that the picture has been manipulated. Besides the picture looking out the cab was really cool and I feel the fact that it was included was really cool. Instead of being what would have been a rather boring shot of the engine facility. It turned into a dramatic statement that told a story. As for Gary Hoover’s “Digital Sky” I can’t blame him for wanting to hide his ugly ceiling iether. Especially if it looks anything like mine.
What really gets me fired up is the articles where I read “Im incredibly rich and all this work of building a layout is beneath me so I paid so and so to do it for me.” That usually leaves me down right angry that they are even wasting my time being in a magazine. I can understand having some one paint your locos. They are complex, (and expensive in the case of brass) and there is some fear that you could ruin the project because you don’t know what your doing. And then that airbrush can seem down right intimidating at times. Then there are people like me where all my locos and cars might spend lots of time on book shelves because Im the last person who should be around a power saw. (Though I have met with some success on the miter saw) But to not even try?? That really ticks me off. To me that is what I consider “fake” modeling.
James
P.S. How soon is the day that pritning will become advanced eneugh they can print a 3D holographic like image onto the page without needing special “3D Glasses” What is everyone going to think of digital imaging then??
Brunton, I respectfully have to disagree with you. 1. Photo enhancing was around for a long time prior to digital photography. I can remember that for a price most pro photographers would “fix” such things as stray hair, zits, and other such things in portraits for a price. many of those years old photos used in modeling mags were retouched by hand. 2. often a “blemish” in a photo can take away from the great work that a modeler has done. An example:
Here is the original photo:
Here it is with a sky put in instead of the brown wall that was there at the time the photo was taken:
Hopefully you agree the second photo shows off my modeling work better than the first.
As long as the photo is identified as being “enhanced” and what was done is identified, I have no problem with it as it makes for much better photography. I commonly use the crop feature to get exactly the scene I want as well as redoing color, brightness and contrast so that it matches what is really there. I don’t consider those types of techniques to be cheating or fake at all.
