In this month’s Model Railroader there was an article about using your own photo’s and computer software to make a nice backdrop. The result was really nice, but what would something like that cost? It was an interesting article, but I just don’t know if doing something like that is practical. Any ideas of the cost?
Jim
If you’ve got Photoshop or access to it, the main cost is printing. Kinkos/FedEx will do a 8’ x 30" banner on vinyl starting at about $130. I’d think they have a photo print only option for less. If Pelle had 45’ of backdrop printed at Kinkos on vinyl, then that would be around $800.
The article says he had it printed, then attached it to plain styrene sheet himself. My guess is that would still cost in the $500 range here in the US. Not sure about Sweden.
In either case, sounds like a lot of money, until you try painting your own backdrop. I have and it’s a lot of hours to do something like 45’! Mine are nowhere near that big. I did a credible job by my own eye. But I was actually thinking about redoing them as photo backdrops even before Pelle’s article, so it is handy to have as a reference for when I get serious about this. Fortunately, I only need about 24’.
Hi guys,
Jim, I think meihman has given you pretty realistic numbers for having the backdrops printed. Do beware that prices at print shops vary widely for this type of work.
However, I would like to offer a little constructive criticism regarding photo based backdrops. Personally, I find that photo backdrops distract the eye away from the trains and towards the backdrop because they are too detailed. Things that are far away should have less visible detail than the things in the foreground. Most models and layouts will never have enough fine detail to pull off the effect. It’s also very difficult to get a good color match between the backdrop and the foreground scenery. It’s extremely rare to find trees, ground foam, static grass, dirt, or rocks that are a good match for a particular photo.
I still prefer a hand painted backdrop. A lower level of detail is actually beneficial, so you don’t need to spend forever working on the painting. If you’re doing any mountainous scenery I highly recommend watching a few episodes of The Joy of Painting with the late Bob Ross on your local PBS station. Bob demonstrated some simple techniques for painting beautiful landscapes in minutes. If you’re unsure of your artistic skills you can use the same photos you might use for a photo backdrop as guidance. If you have a video projector or a slide projector you could even shoot the photo image onto the wall and sketch out the major features. People often fret about painting their own backdrop because they find it difficult to pick the right shades of color. If you collect samples of the materials you intend to use to build your scenery you can use them as a guide for mixing your paints. Acrylic paints dry a little darker than they appear when mixed, and we would really like them to be a little lighter to create the allusion of hazy distance. To achieve this simply mix the colors to match your materials
Dave,
what a superb job!
[bow][bow][bow]
I wholeheartedly agree with your following statement:
“Personally, I find that photo backdrops distract the eye away from the trains and towards the backdrop because they are too detailed. Things that are far away should have less visible detail than the things in the foreground. Most models and layouts will never have enough fine detail to pull off the effect. It’s also very difficult to get a good color match between the backdrop and the foreground scenery. It’s extremely rare to find trees, ground foam, static grass, dirt, or rocks that are a good match for a particular photo.”
As I am not as talented as you are. For the background on my layout, I will have to use a commercially made backdrop, which I find distracting or make my own, which will then be a simple, light blu (very light blue!) colored backdrop, without any frills, not even clouds.
As for printing costs, they run to about $ 12,50 per foot in my neck of the woods. $ 125 for the 10 ft. I´d need are way beyond my budget.
I happen to like photographic backdrops, provided they are of the correct light balance, sun angle, and the right height/angle of view. Far too often they do draw unwanted attention because of those errors. Having a flat layout with corn rows in a close backdrop rising up to a much higher horizon just doesn’t cut it…sorry. Or, the lighting in the room has shadows to the right of the items being imaged, but the backdrop has them to the left. Pelle has done a nice job.
For the cost, you shouldn’t discount the price of the software or the other services used in the articles. Getting a good printed background isn’t’ expensive, and makes looking at a place like backdrop junction worth while.
I’ll also disagree with two other points -
Too much detail in a photo. This is entirely up to you, you can easily blur, or soften an photographic image prior to printing. I don’t think it’s fair to the style as a whole without calling that out. Pelle’s works so well because he purposely didn’t put in overtly detailed images
The articles this month were not that good. Well Pelle had a good article, but its kind of hard for him not too. The other article I felt was a lot less than useful, especially as the software work was contracted out, and in my opinion the color was not balanced to the layout, resulting in an unrealistic combination.
I went through something similar about a year and a half ago, and I’ve been satisfied with the results.
have to admit though, my layout is 24" deep.
Scarpia has a good point on the issue of too much detail. A carefully chosen image would be one that doesn’t have a lot of detail. It’s also a matter of the relationship between the layout scene and the view behind it.Finally, it can seem too sharp, but using Photoshop to add in some gray and white “haze” will help. Another thing that could help is to use PS or one of those other programs that takes a real image and makes it seem “toylike” by manipulating it.
Anyway, here’s a pic of the most involved part of my painted backdrop, which is the backdrop to Silverton, based on a panorama of old photos taken back before digital came along:
I used Green Frog’s Greg Gray instructional video to get my artistic juices flowing.
I still haven’t gone back and done the final two or three passes over it that blend the details into the backdrop, but its abstract nature doesn’t draw the eye away too much from the scenery in front.
The one place where I’m a little leery of the photo backdrop is in the corner of the room where the branch to Silverton crosses the Rio de las Animas. I curved the backdrop there and painted it so that it tends to lead the eye “downriver” as the rail line bends away. I’m not sure if I can get a photo backdrop to do the same thing, but I think it’s possible. Here’s what I have currently, so you can see the relationship between scenery and backdrop:
[URL=http:/
Here are some buildings you can use for citys, towns & small villages.
Personally, I think having an original photo or series of photos stitched together in panorama would be a great way to build a credible backdrop. I’m certainly no artist and I suspect attempting to utilize any painting skills that I do possess would create a much larger distraction than what a real photo would cause.
Pelle Søeborg’s article in the July 2012 Model Railroader relies heavily on manipulating the photos he used with Adobe Photoshop. I’ve never used this software but I plan to purchase it in the near future and start learning how to use it. As for a photo being too realistic and stealing eyes away from your scenery, track and trains, I think that you can use some of the features in the Photoshop program to soften the focus and add haziness in order to dull to the photos without a lot of extra effort. You can also add/edit in some extra features (either drawn or from other photos) in order to customize a photo backdrop.
My backdrop, when I get to the point that I need one, will have to reflect one basic fact:
I am modeling a humid day in late summer, in a place where that is usually accompanied by a high overcast.
The few places where a vertical backdrop (not a foreshortened, selectively compressed three-dimensional construct) will be appropriate, the primary color will be bluish grey-white. Any landforms represented will also have a lot of bluish grey-white over the natural' color, to the point where details are obscured and only silhouettes remain. The same will be true of the more distant’ parts of those vertical constructs. Anything which is supposed to be more than 250 meters from the viewer will be, at best, barely visible through the haze.
Pelle, OTOH, is modeling something I would see around my home town, where you can pick out individual bushes on a hillside a couple of kilometers distant. Humidity is usually in the single digits. For that, photo backdrop work is probably appropriate. For what I want and need, an airbrush is quite sufficient.
Just my [2c] Other opinions are sure to differ.
Chuck (Modeling muggy Central Japan in September, 1964)
Pelle, without any doubt, has done a wonderful job in creating this backdrop.
I still question, though, whether it looks as good when viewed in person. Photographs betray the eye …
I’d say that’s a very valid question. I’ve seen several photo backdrops that looked just fine in a magazine or online that looked quite awful in person. One the camera isn’t around to control the viewing angle and presentation of lighting, things can be very different.
Since Pelle isn’t around and myself being half Danish, Pelle is NOT from Sweden, he is from and lives in Denmark.
A survey was done a few years ago and it was found that the Danes are the most contented population in the world and the Swedes have the highest alcoholism and suicide rates, (sorry Stein!)
Dave, I agree that often a photo backdrop can have too much detail or the viewing angle is “off.” I can see using them in specific situations where you can control the lighting and viewing angle but for most scene I find the basic hazy outline much more realistic in person. And I do love how well you did them.
And here’s another thought. I think panarama backdrops are overused on model railroads vs the real thing. When looking at a layout from a realistic viewing location, the appropriate background is very different around the country, and I’m not talking about the obvious desert vs mountain. Rather, go trackside in many locations and your actual viewing distance is less than 100 feet beyond the track, in many places much less. For example the roads here parallel the railroad for miles and I can go fifteen miles between two towns and there is only about 500 yards the entire trip where a panarama backdrop would be appropriate. For most of that distance a row of trees with a sort of hazy blue white sky above and a nondescript dark forest behind them matches reality.
As Stein is from Norway, he does not fall into the group of folks having the highest alcoholism and suicide rates [(-D]
Europe can be so confusing [swg]
One day someone will come up with a rear projection system where you can choose your background & see traffic moving in the distance, trees blowing.animals grazing etc…
Meanwhile, I have been using photos & print them out. They are only 11 ‘’ long, but if you cut the sky out the joints can be hidden edge to edge or hidden by a building or tall tree. Spray with a mall UV blocker. A lot cheaper.
After painting about 40 feet of backdrop.
.
It’s not something I would relish doing again, so I read the article with great interest. I would love to see a really well done photo backdrop in person. I use Photoshop and am proficient with it and I also know it is difficult to find that ‘just right’ spot to shoot your landscapes for backdrops, e.g. sun at right angle, no obstructions in foreground, locale suitable for your particular layout etc., so I commend anyone that can do it and pull it off reasonably well. As I read the article I kept wondering how well the individual ‘panels’ went together where they join. The human eye can easily pick up a slight difference in color and contrast between two adjoining pieces, so… as I believe he stated in the article, doing the backdrop required a good bit of back and forth with his printer to get it just right.
In any event, the photos in the article looked good to me, the man does some very good work!
Jarrell
Jarrell,
looking at your backdrop, I´d like to invite you to my home to make a Japanese themed backdop for me. It´s only ten feet! My wife Petra is an excellent cook and I will take you to Miniatur Wunderland and a nearby steam train to compensate you for your effort. The air fare will have to be on you, though …
Is it a deal?
[swg]
Mea culpa, that’s what I get for trusting my memory (Huh?) and not checking my sources before explicating. [:$] I certainly didn’t intend to cast aspersions by invoking trite stereotypes. And I should know the difference, as an old friend is married to a Danish gal.
I agree there’s a tendency to overuse backdrops. In my case, they are used selectively in places where you can’t help but NEED the image behind the scenery to be credible. This is mainly due to the mountains and the various viewing angles that they restrict the viewer to. Much of my scenery is at or above eye level, although shallow, so that helps make the backdrop more plausible where it is in place.
That said, with either a painted backdrop or a photo-realistic one, getting the height/viewing perspective right is critical to ensuring that it will not detract from the scene. You really don’t want the backdrop to call attention to itself. You want it to help focus the viewer on the scenes you’ve created in front of it.
[quote user=“Sir Madog”]
modelmaker51:
mlehman:
The article says he had it printed, then attached it to plain styrene sheet himself. My guess is that would still cost in the $500 range here in the US. Not sure about Sweden.
Since Pelle isn’t around and myself being half Danish, Pelle is NOT from Sweden, he is from and lives in Denmark.
A survey was done a few years ago and it was found that the Danes are the most contented population in the world and the Swedes have the highest alcoholism and suicide rates, (sorry Stein!)
As Stein is from Norway, he does not fall into the group of folks having
Another tip I recently heard from a photographer who has several Model Railroader credits to his name is to leave some gap between the actual mountains on your layout and the backdrop. This helps add depth to the perspective and give you a sense of distance. I think that generally speaking, any backdrop should probably include 60 to 75% sky and clouds on the horizon in order to create the desired illusion.