It is a natural phenomenon that when you look at something, the brain tends to ‘edit-out’ the chaff it finds unneccessary. This is especially true when you are looking at one of your own creations, and the more time invested, the ‘truer’ it is.[:D] Photos on the other hand are dispassionate, capturing every nuance and flaw. Looking at a photo, you see things you didn’t remember in real life. This was brought home to me as I examined this WIP picture I took of Carter Coal Company.
I could see clear through the garage, which was very distracting. And even though this scene will be up close to the backdrop, I have already installed a dark view-block to correct this problem. I also hadn’t noticed the sliver of plastic hanging in the garage window while holding it in my hand, but it screamed out,“Here I am,” in the photo. A light touch with a #11 blade and blemish removed. The small smear of red paint on the lower right corner of the garage I would have spotted and touched up. Or maybe not, y’know that N-scale painter I hired to paint the “H” beam may have been a little sloppy.[:-^]
Anyway, my suggestion to everyone is to take plenty of Work In Progress pictures as you model. It not only helps you see and correct your flaws, but it helps you remember how you built your project.
Good suggestion. I’ve unconsciously done that with photos a couple of times but never really thought of using the photos on purpose. Easy to do and inexpensive with digital photos. Thanks.
Photos are great for getting a close enough look to determine what you can and can’t live with. F’rinstance, on a freight car, up close, you can pick up a lot of potential problems…
In this image I can see that the decal film is too fat, some of the lettering isn’t quite level, and there’s a visible seam where I spliced a couple of panels in to lengthen the car. As such, this car isn’t going to be the one I highlight in a magazine article. Also, it’s apparent that the molded on grabs are typically heavy (N Scale).
But, when coupled to a bunch of its mates, and cruising around the layout at 25 scale mph from a normal viewing angle, you can see that it’s a WM H-21 rebuild, or at least that it’s part of a nice fleet of hoppers moving coal from one place to another.
SO the goal would be to build a couple cars that DON’T show these problems to the camera, write the article based on this “best case scenario”, then throw the rest of them together to flesh out the fleet as background filler.
John Allen (remember him ? [;)]) was a big proponent of this. I recall reading numerous times when friends of his would a newly finished engine over to show off. John would then proceed to take a close-up photo of the engine and blow it up to a larger size. Immediately, those inconspicuous screw-heads and the like showed up like a sore thumb !!!
I’ve noticed this even myself when taking pictures of my own layout … a beautiful shot is thrown off by that immencive spike in the middle of the tie holding the track down ! It’s amazing just how far off some things can look up close and huge !
Heh. My favorite is when you tidy everything up, move around a few details and do everything “just so” to get that magazine cover shot, then when you look at it on the screen, the front truck of the locomotive is on the ground, or a figure has fallen flat on his face.
Fortunately with Digital, you don’t have to wait a week for the slides to come back before you start pulling your hair out!
I discovered how useful photography was when I got back into modeling after laying off for 20 or more years. In the meantime, photography had become my main hobby, and I was anxious to take photos of my models. I soon discovered in photos that my fine models had problems that I could not see through casually looking at them. And even if a model was pretty good, the surroundings often weren’t. A scratchbuilt model next to an Athearn blue box model sure made those cast on grab irons and stirrup steps show up as being huge! And the lichen and coarse ground cover I was using, mostly colored sawdust, (this was before Woodland Scenics) didn’t look very realistic.
With digital photography, I can be even more critical, as I can zoom in extremely close on photos of models. Nothing like spending a whole lot of time taking a photo to discover in the computer that there is a fine layer of dust with fingerprints on it!
As a proponent of the “good enough” approach, it is my belief that flaws that don’t jump out at you at first glance are usually acceptable. So far my work has not progressed to the point where I would submit it to MR for publication so for me, it is less important that my work be photogenic. I also believe that something that is unacceptable at the front edge of the layout might be perfectly fine in the background. Photography can reveal flaws that the naked eye would miss, but that isn’t always a good thing.
I agree. I believe in “build it to run it”. Make it run well, then make it look nice, and add lots of “general” detail. I let the museums have their museum quality.
Besides, as the model railroad ages, and one is never really complete, you constantly “tweak” things and by the time you kick the bucket, it IS museum quality, then some one else moves into your house and tears it down to make room for a bar, pool table, and staduim sized big screen TV.
So build it to run it (unless you have OCD, then use it for therapy). lol!
The use of photography to microscan a project for defects has a place - if you are working on something to be entered in a serious contest or submitted to a magazine for publication. Since I don’t plan to do either, the camera will be held at standing eye level and the views will be wide-angle panoramas, not microfocused platforms for nitseekers.
Of course, if I manage to put together something that can STAND micro-focused nitpicking, my opinion might change…
I am perfectly satisfied with my own level of modeling, and see no need to spend time on an aspect of the hobby that isn’t very important to me. OTOH, I really don’t care if you operate 140 trains a ‘fast clock day’ to the schedule laid down by your prototype’s employee timetable. Each of us has to make a personal decision about which facets of the hobby are important and which ones aren’t. One size does not fit all.
Note that I noted how the subject applied to MY situation. I didn’t imply that YOU have to follow the same route. Your first sentence was a valid point, with which I agree. You should have stopped there.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - my way)
