Well the foreground and the sky in the distance are good so all is not lost. I assume that the brown fields in the distance are one of two things. Either plowed fields or a possible crop of winter wheat that is near harvest. Either way both would have some lines in it either from the plowing or the planting. The lines would need to taper inward at the top suggesting distance and be just a tad bit further apart at the bottom indicating a closer view. The green would indicate either corn fields or possibly spring wheat. Again fine lines suggesting rows would apply. Only a hay field or pasture would not have some indication of rows. If a hayfield I would put a few rolled bales of hay in a staggered pattern if a more modern timeframe. Other wise the typical small rectangular haybale if doing the timeframe that is earlier than the 1960s. The bales would be in rows but staggered and dimishing in size with distance. Depending on the locale, next would be some trees between the backdrop and the layout. I would not do them too thickly allowing the backdrop to show through in places and I would vary the sizes. The sky is reminiscent of a storm front appraoching in the distance and I might be tempted to add just a few ragged clouds cloud of a lighter sort of dirty white a little lower to indicate the leading edges of the approaching storm, but only a few. Not a bad first shot at a backdrop though.
Not the worst I've seen and much better than anything I could do myself. I must resign myself to photo backdrops and preprinted materials. You only have to please yourself in this hobby. Give it some time it may grow on you and you can always touch it up or redo it. Jerry
Well, I can certainly get the idea of what you had in mind. Easy to paint over and start again. As the old saying goes, practice makes perfect....
Biggest problem? Just too much of it..I'd try painting out at least 2/3 of it with sky first,then follow J.Moore's advice on the rows,ETC.Also,you really need to fade the colors out to almost nothing in a short distance since you're trying to to mimic hundreds of yards in an inch or so,colors fade as distance increases.Those trees in the background should be only about 1" off the layout surface,and the distant trees should be a much lighter color than the front trees,also,much lower..
When I really study it I'm trying to figure out why it's done right yet doesn't look 'right'. What triggers it? On the detail side, one thing caught my eye. The transition between the treeline and the fields isn't straight, it's ragged. Even at a distance, that transition in any given field is pretty straight. And in individual fields, it comes and goes in distance with some treeline closer than others. The second thing is the colors; probably too vivid. The thing you learn from the 'horizon line' technique is to mix the sky color into the 'earth' colors the further way you get in the perspective; that simulates the hazing of distant colors and reflectivity. So in this case you'd add touches of the sky colors into the greens the further from the subject you get. It's not the detail level. Its the color balance. I did some VERY basic horizon line techniques on my first backdrop, and the instant depth addition was just stunning; blew me away. The basic horizon line technique is that blue transitions into white working down to the horizon line, and earth colors transition into blue heading up into the horizon line, again, mixing in latex paints rather liberally. All other details go on top. And finally, I can't paint backdrops for crap either, I've gone almost entirely to either photo elements or commercial elements or a mix of both, but most of those either include those color factors (even though you don't think of it) or are deliberately blued/hazy for distance. But underneath it all is still that original horizon line deal I did about 30 years ago now. Look right over top of the freight house sign on this one: http://gustafson.home.westpa.net/3143_Flagstaff_4.jpg See how far away that looks? Looks like freakin' miles and miles. That's a scrap of the remaining horizon line there. Also between the telephone poles on the RH side. The blueish sky color was mixed in with the brownish green right below the horizon line, and above the horizon line the blue was mixed into white. I've added specific photo elements to this over time like Mt. Eldon in Flagstaff. That's a photo chunk, but again, the photo chunk has a rather bluish tint to it and that gives the distance impact.
I have given up trying to create anything convincing for a backdrop and resigned myself to painting a fuzzy nebulous "horizon" and hope it does not draw attention to it and away from the modeling scene in front.
Keep up the work the more you do the better you will get. And you can always go back and redo a sean as you get better. JT
While something is indeed somehow off a bit, you're on the right track with a lot of this. The sky is perfect and, either intentionally or by accident, there's what looks like a second range of hills behind the first just to the left of the roadway. The second range of hills look great because they have a distinct off-in-the-distance look due to their color and haziness as compared to the front range. Perhaps some increasing, subtle haziness as the fields extend away would help? Maybe a few passes with an airbrush would do the trick.
Forgive me as I have never attempted to a backdrop yet, although the time is drawing near. I agree with Rangust that the tree line might be a little jagged, not on the top but the bottom where it meets the fields as he suggests. You might want to try and give the bottom of the tree line a straighter bottom. Most fields that I've seen are generally flat and level. At least the ones here in Nebraska. The other thing you might try is to lower the height of the fields and tree line, maybe lower the bottom of the trees a bit when you give them a straighter bottom. This might help to give a greater sense depth. Also you might try to blend the distant points with a fine spray of white or gray to give the hazy look of distance. Just a thought.
Actually,over the tracks,you should barely even see the field at a flat view angle.You should really only see the treeline,and the trees should be sized and shaded according to their distance from the tracks.It's very difficult,if almost impossible,to model fields like that right off the tracks because depending on your viewing height to the tracks,the angle to the field changes dramatically.If you look flat over the top of the tracks,you won't see the field at all,just the trees.if you look over the top of the locomotive,the field would have to be several inches high to get the right look.Really,best to model a fraction of the actual field,maybe lower than the height of the top of the tracks,and make everything else tiny,faded,and distant..I'd go take pics at track viewing height near real tracks,and go from there..What you see may surprise you..
Before you blot it all out, may I suggest running a succession of washes over the whole thing, that is, hit it with layers of really watered down paint. Maybe pick a haze color and make it all that, particularly where the sky hits the ground. It may help play down the effect and make it recede further both visually and in our minds.
I have to agree with Lou on this. If you are trying for a flat fields look...drop the fields down to about the roof level of the red truck. Fade it with washes into the background to give it depth. The road can go to a point faster up to the horizon which will also give it depth. use some washes on the end of the road too ;-) If you are railfanning such an area and a train comes by...you wouldnt even see the fields...it should be that way on your layout too. Unless you are going for rolling hills or mountains...the background should be fairly low. On a layout....the trains should be the focal point....not the background. Thats why they are called 'backgrounds'...lol. Just my .02
Exactly..If you want to gt a feel for how it would really look,put a camera on the floor at the end of a fairly long room,and snap a pic..The entire floor would only come up 1/4 inch on the shot,now take the same shot with a balasted track in front of the camera.On my RR backdrops,I actually painted mountains,most aren't as high as your fields.This is my old RR,notice how the mountains get lighter as they get farther away..
A little lite white paint to haze it up some you be good, just enough to take that "new" look off. Between that and a little scenery scattered around it will work.
Man, do I love this layout pic! Not to hijack this thread, but this is the kind of layout that drew me into the hobby with all the interweaving tracks at different levels. Shalow, around-the-wall layouts have their advantages and can be great, but this type really sparks interest by making you wonder where a train is going to appear next. Great scenery too! Russ
Seeing this thread about painting brought back memories of Bob Ross and his "Joy of Painting" TV series. Every episode he'd do an entire painting using very easy techniques. If you think it might help with your painting, check out "Bob Ross" on Youtube.
Thanks Russ!!Sadly,this RR is gone,but I'm hot on another one,new,bigger house.I kinda did a few "different" things on the one in the pic.I like running huge trains,but also like little locals and switching.Also,I live near Steamtown,and live in an area with DOZENS of railroads,so I could pretty much do what I wanted.To run the long trains,and since it was kinda common here to see a train from one RR,and another one close by from another blasting through,I ran a totally separate two track main on the bottom level,no connection to the upper levels whatsoever.On the second level,there was a single track main with a few industries and a yard/roundhouse/engine facility,the a third intertwined level that was a double dead ended branch.It was a totally hands off layout,you could switch for hours without touching a thing.It was a blast,my buddies would show up at night to switch it,I'd end up throwing them out at 3am..The whole thing was carved styrofoam,and all the hidden tracks were accesable from on top,all the mountains were removable.The top of one hill on the far right corner "Mt. Java",was flat so I could put my coffee on it,LOL!! It was only 10X6,I'm working on a new one just like it,12X12,but all the levels are connected.Here's a pic of the other end of that stone viaduct..