My first recollection of steam was Valley Center, Kansas in the late 40's. Our little rent house was across the street from the ATSF mainline and little Joey was terrified of the trains. I remember vividly running to the back yard and away from the tracks because of the incredible noise they made when coming through town. All I remember is the huge Steamers, the Diesels were years later. To overcome my fears of the steam engines, my Mom and Grandma put me on the Doodlebug from Valley Center to Sedgwick before 1948 and I remember getting on and off that train and that it was Green, not silver. We moved to Norman, Oklahoma and my Dad's work was right next to the ATSF mainline again and I recall seeing all the green passenger trains and the red stock cars in the yard. The engines were black, but in Kansas and Oklahoma, the skies were always BLUE. As the were likely all oil burners, I don't recall any soot, and Mom did not have a dryer, but used a clothes line. She's long passed or I'd ask her if soot was a problem. Sometime in the early 50's Mom sent us to Wichita on the train by ourselves. I remember that big black steam engine with all the green passenger cars. We were so miffed when we found out that we would not get to see the locomotive as we rode along the way. As a pre-teen in the 50's in Oklahoma, we lived again near the ATSF mainline and I remember the Diesels, always Silver and Red for passengers and Blue and Yellow for all the freight trains. Since I NEVER saw a Silver war bonnet pulling a freight, I cringe when I see someone's model railroad running that lash up. Does not mean ATSF did not do it, but I don't recall ever seeing it. A VERY vivid memory, especially when we visited Grandma in Sedgwick was the drive up old 77 before I-35 and watching trains as we rolled along in our robin egg blue 1951 Ford. Wichita was my favorite place because we would drive by this amazing switch yard on the north side of Wichita near 81 highway, as I recall. When we would visit one of Dad's friends at the old Bus garage in Wichita, one of the things I remember to this day is the Banjo/WIG-WAG that was right near the bus garage. I was delighted when a train came buy and I saw that silver banjo with that RED light on it. My childhood fantasy was to personally own a yellow putt-putt so I could go see Grandma by myself. Yes, the steam era should be in color. I wish I could put the memories of those times on video, then maybe I could tell if they were Pacific, Mikado or Hudson locomotives. My 2 cents, certainly worth no more.
Sorry for coming in late to this thread, but i find it quite interesting. As a professional designer i'm very at home in photoshop, and maybe it's the trained eye thing, but often times i find most retouched model photography to be more distracting than seeing a computer screen, garage door, or other natural room background. Most people won't, or can't take the time to get a tight mask, i hand paint most of mine, it's like cutting your yard with cuticle scissors. Sky's are often too intense, color and shadows just don't match the model lighting. And much like david, that clone stamp repeat pattern just drives me crazy. I have trouble seeing the model for the digitally imposed flaws. Anyhow, enough of my ranting...:angel: I think you can categorize photography of this type into 2 camps documentary, and conceptual. Documentary, the kind of model photography i like most, should try it's best to represent the model as it exists. Any retouching, and they all need a little, should be used to only bring the photograph closer to what our eyes see. Cuz lets face it folks, our eyes and the camera do not see in the same way. If you walk from outside into a fluorescent lit room, the room is tinted green, our brains automatically adjust for that, the camera does not, ok,ok...technology is making that a less relevant analogy. It's a cold hard fact that all photography is a manipulation to some degree, if 2 people had the same exact undeveloped negative you would end up with 2 entirely different prints, and neither would necessarily be incorrect, human judgment interferes with the science of photography along the process. egh, that was heavy, heh. Plus i'd rather see a nice subtle painted blue fade than clouds any day, it showcases the models better. The primary goal of conceptual photography on the other hand is to elicit an emotional response, and all bets are off, you use every trick in the book to pull these off. For an annual report i did last year i combined and manipulated pieces from 16 different images to create one, but it was the only way i could get what my mind saw. And believe me if i could shoot it as a single composite i would, i'd much rather shoot once, and cut down on the retouching hours. As far as picking up a magazine, i'd rather see a big beautiful conceptual shot on the cover to draw me in, as long as they get more documentarian in the guts of the story, and i'm not saying documentary shots can't be beautiful.:teeth: On a helpful note, i always start a color to B&W conversion from the channel or 2 that is closest to the tonal range i'm going for, delete the rest, then start manipulating with curves. Sorry this was so long... jason
Welcome to Trainboard, Jason! I had to do about the same process on the last annual report I did. Basically mask images pixel by pixel. I'm a much better writer than masker! I've got some documentary stuff in the works now, for publication at a later date. As a model railroad matures, it get easier to photograph.
Joe Daddy, Thanks for the wonderful narrative! We lived away from the tracks. A trip to Framingham was a treat; a train trip from Framingham to Boston (perhaps 20 miles) was a once in a childhood occurence. By the time I was a teenager, it was much easier to go to Riverside and hop the trolley. So all I remember are road switchers. I never saw a first gen F nor FA.
A little OT, but I find it surprising that many of us of similar vintage didn't experience steam first hand, as we were roughly 10 years old or so during the last days. Shouldda seen some somewhere! My strongest memories are standing with my dad at the depot in Berkeley watching the last of the Cab Forwards roll through. That and PAs and Es pulling the Shasta Daylight, the City of SF and the Overland (sigh). The smell of brake shoes lives with me to this day.
Another question I know, I should go hide my head in the sand for cloning a foreground, while I meant that I hadn't cloned the back drop. I'll take my medicine here, but I do want to raise another question. Years ago, we didn't have today's scanners and software. Is it fair to make a back drop from window images I've taken or scanned? This is just one image, for example: The right background building is cloned from a DPM wall section; the left background building is cloned from a picture of a factory window that I took years ago. I used Photoshop to make the back drop; but I didn't Photoshop the back drop in post processing. I did clean up some of the asphalt and park for those pesky white spots. Fair or not?
If one follows NYW&B's suggestion, which I like quite a lot ("if everything you see in the image was also visible through the viewfinder at the time the shot was taken, then it is legit"), then it's fair.
That, of course, assumes you can see the viewfinder! But I get the point. Temporary extensions are OK, cloning them in are not. I've come to the realization that temporary extensions are probably easier in the long run. When I'm shooting some of my bridges, I realized that many years ago. If I'd thought about photography a bit more during design, my layout might be much different.
If I had made it further along with the White River and Northern II, it would have had foreground extensions mounted on slide-out panels, just like drawers. Some of them would have extended clear across the aisle to provide enormous (relatively speaking) expanses of continuous scenery. I may someday get to revisit this idea; it would be nice...
As they say, there is a prototype for everything. I've seen a photo (sorry, didn't keep it) of just such a thing. It was in the very last days of the F-units; a single, very sad looking, very dirty red-and-silver pulling a small line of freight cars. (For all I know it was just doing switching duty in a yard).
Well, maybe it was morphed into the shot and it was really a blue and yellow unit! (Just kidding.) Have a great week end! Joe
I was actually surprised that some older than me haven't even experienced F units. I think this has to do with where in the country we grew up. Different railroads hung onto their steam--and F-units--far longer than others. I vividly remember Great Northern passenger trains winding their way over Stevens Pass in Washington. I watched them running through snowsheds, and at night, saw their lights periodically as they wound back around each mountain. At the time we had plenty of time to watch, since we were driving old cars on a winding, 2-lane road. (And then I watched the snowsheds and trestles slowly collapse). Today a massive freeway will shoot you over the Cascades, and bicycles or feet are necessary to follow what is now a trail. When I was 11, I took a trip from Seattle to Canada aboard a Northern Pacific passenger train (headed by F-units). It was great fun. I'm sure we thoroughly annoyed all the passengers by walking from one end of the train to the other--over and over again! I may have seen steam engines running at a young age, but I doubt it. I know that there were steam engines running in other parts of the country at the time, though.
I have planned my layout around photographic visual aesthetics that will look good on the camera. This includes broad curves at strategic points, envisioned background and forground colors that my rolling-stock will contrast with so they are more visible in the shot, and areas that will imply a larger expance based on the angle of the photo. I'm not sure I can achieve all of my goals but I'll try. The reason for the thought behind the photos, (instead of how I see the area), is with my vision it won't make much difference in person. I'm sure it will look good. But I am able to tell online what stands out. I think the first realization of this was on "Colonel's" layout. He has a bridge as a focal point. Due to a series of factors it is a superb location for photo ops of his work. There are a series of "bands" of color that contrast. These contrasting bands accentuate the locos and cars on that bridge. My intent is to have 3 or 4 similar areas.
Pete & others, Since the subject is here what programs do you use to manipulate by adding backgrounds..any links to free or pro downloads. Help a guy out, I can't live in the dark ages forever
My photo application of choice is Corel PhotoPaint. I tend to run against the current of Adobe Photoshop and its army of hardcore fans; I've used both Corel and Adobe products since they were first introduced for the PC, and over time I've found Corel to be superior from the standpoints of user interface and output quality. (Some time ago I did a side-by-side comparison and demonstrated how Corel produced measurably better results.) But software preferences are subjective and personal, and not everyone will agree. The full Corel Suite can be had for around $300 from a vast array of reputable online dealers, such as Amazon.com.
Route 66 - Personally, I've found Adobe Photoshop Elements 5.0 very pleasing and it certainly meets all my needs. Decidedly less expensive than the complete Photoshop package, it is capable of performing incredible magic, even though I've still got miles to go to learn all its facets. But let there be no mistake about it, the learning curve on this or pretty much any quality image manipulating program is steep...with the keys to some functions not always being so straight forward and obvious. These programs are great but they are probably not for the point-and-shoot or RTR sort of hobby enthusiast. Below is a recent shot from my HO layout that has been very modestly photoshopped (beyond the usual adjustment to light/contrast/cropping), mainly through the cloning over of a few rough/undesirable areas. NYW&B
I use Photoshop, obviously, but I prefer Corel Canvas 5 by far over Adobe Illustrator when I am making illustrations. I haven't had the business justification, nor the money right now, to upgrade the Corel applications. I too have been using both since they were introduced. I sure like Corel user interface, and features like on-screen dimensions of what I'm drawing. I'm on a Mac G5. I still use Canvas 5, running in "Classic" mode, to do my illustrations. Because I have Photoshop, I haven't explored free downloads. Doesn't Picassa, from Google, enable a good bit of manipulation?
