Photographing your layout

[LASteve]

Apologies if I missed the correct forum for this, but I'm sure the guardians will move this to the correct thread (thank you in advance!)

So .......

I've been reading a few how-to and how-not-to guides to photographing one's layout - with quite an astonishing amount of advice and detail - aperture priority, shutter priority, focal lengths, all quite wonderful information for a newbie like me, but I'm sure @rogerdB would put all these people to rights but .... Photoshop.

There's a lot of support for cut & paste skylines, adding smoke with a Photoshop airbrush, hiding the edges of the baseboard with cloning brushes, putting a moon in the sky - all making wonderful photographs, but ...

... are they missing the point? I model to look at my layout and if I close my eyes *this* much I think it looks pretty good. Are all the spreads in the magazines Photoshopped? I have a suspicion that Richard from Everard Junction (not "n", I know), or Roger, or Ray & rAnna, or any of the inspirational modelers that might have got us into this mess might seem a little affronted?

I know I've probably upset 99% of the genuine model forum members by not name-checking them, but you know what I'm getting at. Do you build a layout for Photoshop and a magazine or for your own enjoyment? I'll link the article I read later (certainly some wonderful photographs) but it left me a little cold.

What think you?

[railsquid]

Entirely for my own enjoyment.

Admittedly I enjoy finding angles which look good in a photo, and I do like the possibilities presented by the availability of digitial cameras to see the layout from perspectives not available from normal viewing angles, so do put some effort into those scenes.

However apart from basic adjustments such as cropping I've no intention of turning the photos into something it isn't. The closest I got was adding a generic blue "sky" before I had any kind of backscene, to cover up the very visible white wallpaper.

Some of the photography I've seen in British modelling magazines looks overly "photoshopped" to me. Personally I prefer seeing warts'n'all shots rather than something "perfect" looking.

[Bealman]

Yeah, me too. For some reason, I hate smoke being added.

Many years ago, the editor of a local journal did that to a photo of my layout without asking. That infuriated me - especially as the loco was a Crosti-boilered 9F, and he'd put the smoke coming out of the wrong chimney!!

[PLD]

Are all the spreads in the magazines Photoshopped?

Railway Modeller: minimal - largely confined to removing anything that shouldn't be there e.g. masking over visible base board edges or joins in backscenes, anything that has accidentally crept into shot.
BRM and Model Rail are both notorious for much more use of added "effects".

[Chris Morris]

The technique used by professionals such as Chris Nevard and "stern" Steve Flint is to take three or four photos with their SLR on a tripod in exactly the same place but with the focus in a different place. They then shop these into one photo where everything is in focus. I see this as sensible rather than cheating.  They also use delayed action to take the photo. Press the button then the camera waits five seconds before taking the photo. This gives time for any minute camera shake to stop before the photo is taken.

N gauge photos always seem to make the layout look bigger than it really is.

[Bealman]

Roger of this parish (Wrenton) is a master of the layering technique.

[Train Waiting]

You make very interesting points, Steve.

My feeble efforts at model railways are primarily for my own enjoyment.  Although it is really lovely if a Forum Friend kindly 'likes' or comments that they have enjoyed a picture or something I have written.

I don't have 'Photoshop'.  All I do is a bit of cropping and, maybe, slightly adjust the light or colour.  Apart from when I remove the colour completely!  And, occasionally, I have fiddled with the colour to create a garish old colour illustration look; rather like the catalogues of the 1950s.

Railway Modeller gets its photographs about right, I think.  As does Model Railway Journal.  Some of the other railway modelling magazines appear, to me, to overdo it completely as regards effects.  I rarely purchase them, but I often have a quick browse at the station WH Smith's.

I agree completely with George about adding smoke!

Best wishes.

John

[port perran]

I can only concur with John (TW).
I use only my iphone as I find it easy and quick and like John I crop as necessary and sometimes adjust colours.
I've never really thought about the photographs in magazines before but will pay more attention from now on and I agree, smoke is a no no, it just doesn't work for me.

[Bealman]

Regarding the mainstream media, PLD pretty much nailed it in post#2.

And John has it correct as well when he says MRJ gets it right.... why wouldn't they? Unless it's perfection it won't make it into that mag! 

Personally, I feel, as squiddy says, that seeing a layout (especially your own) warts and all, can bring about improved modelling.

The camera sees what the eye ignores. In this respect, photography is a powerful modelling tool.

[njee20]

N gauge photos always seem to make the layout look bigger than it really is.

Totally agree with this, I've seen so many layouts in the flesh that have turned out to be far smaller than I imagined!

I'm not a fan of lots of effects, I agree that adding smoke and what not is totally unnecessary. Each to their own though, if photography and associated effects are something the builder enjoys then crack on, but I'd rather see models with "flaws" than everything edited out.

[Newportnobby]

I just like to make a layout look realistic to my own mind. I truly hope (for their sakes) no one else has the same mind. I attend as many shows as I can and would find it very easy to pick fault but keep my gob shut as it's someone else's pride and joy.
Going by comments from others on the forum I've had fair success in taking suitable photos of my own work but I just have a basic bridge camera (it does take pics of other things too )
It tends to be difficult to not get domestic furniture and walls etc in the frame at times which makes it obvious it's a model. I guess that's where something like Photoshop may be useful but being a computer numpty that's a no-no for me.

[njee20]

I think part of the skill of photographing a layout is setting the frame and cropping it appropriately (with software or the camera). Like you I tend to get photos of unwanted detritus in all the time! I think it's a bit of an issue with N gauge in that you want to convey a sense of scale, so want wide angle shots, but that inherently means getting loads of 'stuff' in shot too.

The OO gauge layout Waverley West is absolutely stunning, but when you see a photo of the whole thing the size is a bit of an illusion. I won't offend too many people's sensibilities with myriad photos of a OO layout, but here are a couple to evidence my point:





And then 'naked' (minus the tunnels):

[dannyboy]

I take photographs of my layout for my benefit in the main. If I am adding to my 'Averingcliffe' thread, I do sometimes use cropping and a bit of colour correction, but that is it. (Partly because like Mick, I would not know what do with a 'proper' photograph adjusting programme!).

Just to prove that the camera does, (can), lie, looking at the last photo' from @njee20  the left hand leg of the layout looks, at least to my eyes, to be a horrendous incline  I think a Union Mills would struggle with that! (Can somebody please confirm that my eyesight is not getting worse and it does look like a steep incline - please?).

[njee20]

Hadn't noticed until you said it, but yes, it does. But then the first photo is taken from the perspective looking straight 'up' the gradient, and it doesn't look bad.

[dannyboy]

Phew!