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.
The most depressing thing about OCT’s issue is…
I haven’t got my copy yet! [;)]
Gordon
Please forgive my ignorance. I don’t understand…
Jeff
[#ditto],[#ditto]
Will
I beleive it means having to cater to those less intelligent people that might think the pic is actual size.
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]
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
Don’t they use Adobe (Paintshop?) to create all the layout renderings for the MR magazine?
Tom
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
I agree
I don’t think it matters because its showing a concept instead of like a layout project or something
Alex
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.
In the September 2005 issue, the article, “Create a Photo Backdrop” used some trickery also.
They created a digitial photo backdrop, but in the picture for the article, they also superimposed the water from the digital photo onto the modeled water under the bridge. That’s irritating. They introduced a cool concept to many people, but then went overboard in its application - because it won’t really look like what they’ve done.
And this is on the MR & T no less! They did a “before & after” shot, but the “after” shot is 75% digital photography trickery, not what you’d really see in person.
Nonetheless, I’ll definately be using digital pictures / photoshop elements to do backdrop work, considering I’m no painting artiste…
Mr. Hoover has been using artifical temporary backdrops, scenery and access hatches to create photos of otherwise impossible views on his layout for years. He published a recent article on his techniques. So lots of the layout and layout room photos you’ve seen of his layout over the years have not been “as they really are”.
But that’s OK as long as he doesn’t use a computer to make the artificial scenes?
I fail to see the difference. As long as the author makes clear what’s real and what’s enhanced, why should it matter? For the record, some of the photos Mr. Hoover has published in the past with the temporary scenery and backdrops showing impossible (from the aisle) viewpoints have not been so identified. So what?
Photographing layout scenes as the builder would like them to be and not “as they really are” goes back at least as far as John Allen (who used a lot of photographic and temporary scenery tricks) and probably farther.
Jon
At least in the past, it was Adobe Illustrator – a drawing program.
What happened to the days when the smoke from a steam engine was a cotton ball [:D]
Jacon12, that’s a beautiful picture! In a picture like that it’s the artistic content that counts, not the realism. I have to agree that I’d rather see model RR pictures as they are. I do feel that it’s okay to paint out the background or insert one when the modeler doesn’t have a skyboard or backdrop behind the layout. It’s better than piles of lumber and tools and other stuff. I too remember the very heated controversy when MR started displaying digital photos in its contests. But as Alco_fan pointed out, photographers have been modifying photographs for decades and we never thought ill of it. Digital programs like Photoshop have just made it easier to do, and made it possible to do much more. As an example, we just had a family photo taken at a studio. The photographer used a digital camera and also uses Photoshop to process the pictures. When we were choosing the shot we wanted printed, in the shot of our choice one of the nine people in it had an uncomplimentary look on her face, but her face was good in another shot. We were told it was no problem to substitute her head from the other shot. Is that bad? Is that unrealistic? Maybe, but she will be much happier with the result than if we had left it alone. There’s my [2c] for what it’s worth.
Sea and Alco - There is a world of difference between the “trickery” that was employed in MR photos of the past and the digital subsitution/collages that are creeping into the pages today. In years gone by a photographer might alter, in one manner or another, a few percent of an image with the introduction of simulated smoke and steam. Overall, that alteration/addition probably didn’t make the difference between a winning contest photo and one that didn’t place at all. With conventional photography, the basic photographed scene did not change to any degree. However, for some of the recent winners in the digital category of MR’s photo contests the shots are approaching 50% artificial or composite. This is no longer model photography, it is more akin to graphic arts work.
In general, it is the intent of MR’s photos to illustrate the talent and cleverness in modeling that can be attained by a truly accomplished hobbyist and to provide you with modeling ideas. But what we are talking about here, if taken to the extreme, is the same sort of thing as if you were a fine arts major and painted a scene with a train in it, or created a collage from images appearing in MR, Trains, etc. What’s this technique got to do with model railroading?
CNJ831
Bob, I agree with you. Using Photoshop to do whatever you want on your layout or to enhance models in some way is perfectly fine with me. However, I get a little leery if a magazine did the same in an article UNLESS they stated they did so and what it was they did. It’s as though I posted that photograph of my grandaughter and said that the butterfly was really on her shoulder and the sky was really that way and aren’t I a great photographer. When actually I shot a picture of her, I already had the photos of the butterfly (actually a moth) and the sky and did a cut and paste job and worked over the color balance, contrast etc. so they would all match.
Th
“All’s fair in love or war.”
Now we can add model railroading to that list! LOL
Darrell, quiet…for now