I’ve noticed there is a twofold difference in H O layouts, some are the exact replica of an actual scene and it’s hard to think the layout is NOT real, superb craftsmanship, excellent detail, etc, etc it almost hypnotizes you that you are not looking at a real scene. Then there are layouts that look very unatural, almost toy-like, crammed towns, far too much ''stuff" in a scene, too many trains and cars, objects plunked down everywhere and anywhere, the real test is when photographed it is so easy to see the the “non-real” layout. Am I the only one who has ever noticed this? ? I am not being critical, this is simply an observation, maybe I’m not supposed to mention this and I will stoned (or worse) for asking the question, The amount of work in each layout seems to be about the same but the difference is very noticeable, any comments?? or am I just being a little paranoid?? Can the makers of each layout actually see a difference in each others workmanship?? ooooooooh ooooooooh big mysteries here, eh? ?
Personally I couldn’t tell a newbee’s plywood central from Joe Fugate’s layout if it jumped out and bit me.
I’m more distressed that I get critical of someone’s work if it isn’t as good as mine and give myself slack when someone else does it better. But I’m working on the double standard.
I understand what your saying. Some modelers just have an eye for making things look absolutely real looking. My eyes are just lucky to see! It’s an artistic side that some people just seem to have. If I see a layout where things don’t look all that great , that’s fine because I really can’t do much better. I’m sure you just started a food fight .[}:)]
I believe it has to do with the creators vision. No two people are going to have the exact same vision of what a model railroad should look like. The two that you pointed out are at the opposite ends of the spectrum for sure. Now, which one is right? That depends on what your vision is.
I veiw it this way. Drive done the street and pay close attention to how houses are decorated and the landscaping. Some will be just the brick and mortar house with a green lawn out front, some will have a veiw well manucured bushes, and some will have a flower box at every window, every corner of the yard has a flower bed, and yet some will have the plastic swans and pink flamingos,…you get the idea.
Does this mean some people are wrong? Not at all. It just means that some have different veiw points on decorating.
Perhaps the lifelike layouts are being done by a person that has “decorated” 10 other layouts or they just have a better sense of what the camera will reveil.
Then again, not everyone does a layout for the camera.
Look at George Selios. That’s his FIRST layout!!![:O] He said he didn’t even have a game plan when he started. Just started putting stuff together. (I know he had built models for years)
Plenty of Joe’s layout is still plywood central. The parts that are not, well, they are pretty impressive. It’s taken him years to get to where he is, as well.
Given the EXACT SAME INGREDIENTS, one modeler will create a masterpiece and another modeler will succumb to mediocrity. This is simply part of the nature of things, and applies to all fields of human endeavor.
Consider a Rembrandt, a Picasso and a four-year-old’s first fingerpainting.
Consider the gourmet chef, the typical family cook and the new bride’s first biscuits.
The problem arises when someone other than the original modeler takes out a microscope and a micrometer, then makes disparaging comments and comparisons with acknowledged experts’ work.
I, personally, am no challenge to Rembrandt (though some of my work looks like something Picasso might have done on a bad day!) Therefore, I am not one to criticise the honest work of others. I AM quick to criticise my own work, or that of commercial providers whose products fail to meet my standards of acceptability. I have also noted that some newcomer might be on the steep part of the learning curve. Even after a half-century plus of experience, there are still learning curves which I find pretty near vertical.
OTOH, if someone puts an image of nicely done modeling on these forums, I will not hesitate to praise it. Less than acceptable work gets no comment - I see no advantage to me in hurting someone’s feelings.
No, you are not the only one; nor will you be the last. Bottom line: It really comes down to preference.
Some folks like to sqeeze as much as they can in a scene. Their motto: “The more, the better!” While it may hold some visual interest, it’s not what you’d necessarily find in the real world.
Other folks like to take a more “conservative” approach to scenicking. Their motto: “Less is more”. They study the real world and do their best to mimick it. If there are bare patches on the layout, so be it. That’s what you find all over creation.
And then there are the folks who enjoy a freelance approach to modeling, while others like to follow the prototype. (And even in the latter group there are wide variance in how strict you want to follow a given prototype.)
Personally, I prefer and enjoy the “less is more” approach and sticking to the prototype, without getting too “rivoty”. Some layouts are not going to appeal to me the way they might wow others. Since modeling is an expression of a perception, there is a wide choice in the medium we enjoy.
With that said, over the short stint that I’ve been in this hobby, I’ve found that I can still appreciate and learn from certain aspects of another’s layout, even though I would never desire to model the way they model. Art is that way sometimes.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, no? And ditto the previous post as well. I look at some of the more realistic layouts and am simply amazed. I keep trying to improve every time I do something and strive to learn more but lets face it. Some folks just have a natural eye and talent that try as I might I’ll never equal. J.R.
Some people are more skilled than others. Some people have different desires. My railroad is one of those Plywood Pacifics right now. A lot of cars have unrealistic schemes. It’s small, so I have had to condense things, and it’s short, and I run multiple laps between stations. None of that matters once I fire it up and the couplers take up slack. The MGA adapter kicks in, just like it does when playing Zork, and I’m not standing by a plywood table with the tools pushed away from the track. I’m at the throttle with the orders in my hand and a job to do. I’m standing by the station, watching the marker lights recede away. I’m sitting in the feedmill office, calling the V & E agent about a car pickup. We’re not building dioramas here, we’re building worlds.
One thing that amazes me is related in a strange way to what you said. Sometimes you’ll see a scene modeled perfectly, almost bolt for bolt, and yet it doesn’t look real…but some other person will have plunked down some plastic structures and trees and come up with that elusive reality. The same thing happens with models. I see lots of pictures of steam locomotives beautifully detailed and weathered by the book, and yet they just look
Dont look too closely at my roofs. They are weathering and some graphite to hide the bare plastic in spots and maybe a touch a paint. However I try to avoid glue spots or hide them entirely. Nothing like a big glue spot to destroy the attempt at making a world.
I dont even think for one second that I will be right up there with Greech who can make the same kit look like a Master’s work.
Plywood central or finished scenery, it’s all the same to me when it comes to enjoying trains.
It’s different to saying something nice, versus trashing someone for not looking ‘real’ enough or something of that nature.
What I mean is, say someone does something crazy like 4" drop over 10" of distance on the track with an 11" radius turn at the bottom, and hasn’t run trains on it. It would be fair to point out that no matter what the scale most trains run at nothing will go up it and going down will be a slide more than a run and won’t look all that exciting (well, unless you like crashing and burning)
Also it would be fair to point out that they only have two loops and that’ll get pretty boring to work with. There are constructive ideas to offer about that as well. A lot of us new to making your own layout types are thinking ‘how will I turn the engine around, oh yeah, a loop’ and put those on the end so that it’s always going ‘frontwards’. Again, there are ways to point this out without calling them an idiot or something but are still fair critiques that the person may be asking for.
In the layout section over the last few days there has been some very nice building of a layout going on with all sorts of input. All nice and constructive. So if you don’t like the way it looks and someone asks for feedback, you might take the time to say what bothers you, how you might have done it different, and some suggestions. If the person gets offended when you answer like that, they never should have asked for opinions in the first place
Is photography the real test, though? (That was the point I was kinda tryin’ to make from that word-junkyard up yonder, but managed to obfuscate). I’d say it’s /a/ test, but not the ultimate one.
My response here is that no one models the same. Even the great layouts have their faults. You asked, so I’ll answer that yes, I think your being a little paranoid here. No disrespect intended here, but I fail to see the reason behind this. You state that this is simply a comment, but even simple comments can have implications. I’ve just one more comment to make here. We are here because we enjoy the hobby of model railroading, not to judge others work. Respectfully, Ken
