How Much Image Manipulation?

Example 1: Backdrop manipulated.

This is the beginning of the Harrington Farms loop. The problem here is a very deep scene, about 40 inches, with only 15 inches of vertical clearance.



While I've cropped this second deck image, the third deck would still be in the picture. The backdrop is a photo image of mountains, but it's nearly impossible to light. So I changed the sky to blue.

4 sec exposure at 12mm @f/22 at ISO 200.

 

Example 2: Clutter Eliminated

Here's where I could use the real backdrop.



But there was a problem with the third deck. So I eliminated the structural stuff with the patch of blue sky at the left top. I also extended the foreground at bottom left a tiny bit to hide the first deck. I could have just extended the layout there, but then I get into access problems. So a temporary extension for photography? Not sure why I should do it, and the next example is probably more relevant.

This little rise, exaggerated by the telephoto, has been corrected about four times. Each correction has caused derailments. So it's back in the trackwork as originally built. Trains have no problem with it.

With mild telephotos, I can eliminate some of my vertical height problems. This was taken at 85mm, at f/8 at 0.25 seconds at ISO 200. It is a composite of 10 Helicon slices.

 

Example 3: Backdrop heightened, harbor enhanced

This is one of my favorites shots of my layout.



That's a real photo backdrop from Alaska. I extended it up to eliminate the two upper decks on the west wall because there really wasn't much to see, just two white streaks of the slanted fascia.

I also extended the harbor above the bridge and below the ships in the middle right. Again, I have so many sheet of foam core that a temporary extension wouldn't take long to install. The whole center of the layout is the harbor! An extension is not a big deal, but why bother?

This is a Helicon shot, taken blind. 12mm at F/8 at 0.25 seconds @ ISO 200.

 

Pete, agreed, this is an interesting thread. Long ago I used a very affordable alternative to Helicon Focus: a 300 micron laser-etched pinhole (~$30) installed in a used 50mm Canon lens (~$25) on an ancient Canon TL body. Great depth of field, better sharpness than most any other pinhole. But oh, the work getting the shot--an enormous effort setting it up, so much light that things would melt, exposures into tens of minutes, etc. Digital is the only way to go any more.

By the way, have you tried CombineZ? The learning curve is steeper, but it has considerably more power than Helicon Focus, not to mention it's freeware. Some of my colleagues have worked with the developer of CombineZ to customize it for our research needs, which is how I found out about it.

http://www.hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZ5/combinez5.htm

 

Example 4: Not Worth it!



This shot begins to show some of the complex geometry of my layout. At the east end of the bridge, our train is only six feet above sea level. By the time we climb through Boston and its western environs, we'll be 135 feet above sea level. We've got a long way to go before we climb past the linear accelerator (right, upper center), and even further to go before we reach the upper deck. You can see the rope lights I use to throw light into dark corners.

I decided not to Photoshop a sky into this, in order to show what's really happening. You can also see, center left, the cabinets that I built this section of the layout upon.

That's the East Harbor in the center from a reverse angle.

The shot also shows some of the difficulties of shooting minatures. My color balance for the camera is locked in; yet this looks greener than other shots. The fact is, it is greener, due to scenery. But we don't see that. So this shot will probably have to be shifted to bluer to match other shots.

 

Hi!

As I was staring up at the ceiling while the dentist was doing a root canal, I noticed that the lighting fixtures were overlaid with pretty pictures of clouds. Perhaps you could mount one of these panels on the underside of your upper deck to give the illusion of sky? The light in the office seemed to be unaffected by the clouds dropping by... :teeth:

http://www.xtechnologies.info/LIGHT PANELS/fluffy clouds light panel.htm

 

Very interesting thread, guys!!!

To me, it’s a matter of where you draw the line between manipulation and misrepresentation.

There’s an old saying that the camera never lies, and this applies to digital as much as it does to film. In my model of the SP depot at Colfax CA, I was pretty pleased that I had “gotten it right” until I looked at the picture:



At least half of the columns were crooked!!! I was certain that it was a parallax issue, as I KNOW I had measured and installed them to within a hair’s width of true vertical (precision measurement, that). Having been called out by the camera though, I found out that the hairs I used must have been bigger than I had thought! (Oh, and that Code 80 rail ... and those rail gaps!!!<G>)

Should I fix it or not? If so how? I could break the offending columns loose and try to re-align them and re-take the shot, but there would be no guarantee that the results would be any better, and I might damage what was a fair piece of modeling effort in doing so, or I could digitally alter the photo (not sure just how, but I’m sure Russell or Pete would know). A photo is after all a representation of what the eye sees and the mind processes, so the case could be made that either approach is flawed, one before the shutter clicks (or the CCD is read), one after. Nothing new there. Just consider Ansel Adams’ darkroom genius or O. Winston Link’s elaborate lighting setups. Considering that setups and darkroom wizardry has always been part of the creative process, and the end result would then have to stand on it's own merits, why should photoshopping, etc. be any different? Do you think Picasso's people looked anything like he represented them? I hope not, but it didn't seem to hurt his reputation.

Assuming I did the digital deed and submitted the photo for publication in a layout article, would it be manipulation or misrepresentation? Good question. What if it were for a modeling or photo contest (not that it would have a snowball’s chance), then what?

I agree that full disclosure of any alteration would be the best policy, but how many of us owned up when Mom thought the cookies that were missing had been eaten by your little brother?

As usual, the answer is “it depends”. (<== Soprano's ending)

 

This discussion is proving to be most interesting. However, it seems mostly to have focused on contest photos, whereas my greatest concern in the future is are we going to see layout tours in the magazines where what you see may not exist at all?

The MR article I originally cited in one instance seemed to have mountains replacing an existing view of the aisleway if one went by the trackplan. Another deep perspective shot down the tracks clearly had a significant portion of one side of the frame replaced to show rock outcroppings that hid another aisle-way view.

Currently, at least MR has what might be considered staff photographers shoot most of their layouts photos for the magazine, so image cheating has to be currently minimal. But as MR's circulation shinks, this control will likely diminish or be dropped all together for economic reasons. RMC and I think most other magazines, rely on submissions of images from the authors of their layout tours. Thus, no control.

So let me more directly focus my question - how do folks feel about images with added and subtracted scenic elements that modify the scene from what truly exists...and their publication in the hobby press? I think it will become a real problem in the not too distant future, myself.

NYW&B

 

My dentist has cows on the ceiling! Troubling.......

 

You know, I was thinking about the typical layout tour, and it occurred to me that people don't tend to see benchwork, open spaces, and backgrounds when they visit layouts. Most use mental filters to shut it all out, to "make believe," and all they see is the stupendous job that you did on your layout. With respect to that fact, photoshopping in scenic elements merely allows the viewer to experience the layout as he would have if he had been able to visit your layout. The camera in this instance becomes a modeling tool just as do lights and mirrors.

On the other hand, I imagine a magazine filled with layout photos that have been photoshopped in this way and I can see myself getting totally and utterly discouraged, thinking this was the way their actual layouts looked. No matter what I do with my limited space I still see all the benchwork and stuff! How disappointing. I would really feel deceived if I then learned that their layout was just 13'x6' like mine.

I also think back to the wonderful layout photos that I have seen that unabashedly show the benchwork and controls as a part of the layout--and remember how thoroughly I have enjoyed them. I want to know how every little thing was done, and these photos show me.
That approach, however, has gone the way of the 8-track and the triceratops. Even with SLR's you rarely get to see the "guts" of a layout anymore.

I guess what I would like to see is balance, balance, balance. Layout articles in which some photos show benchwork, fascia, and controls, while other photos are photoshopped and presented as such, with full disclosure on what was done to the photo like Pete N. just did in this thread.

I think I'm still too much of an old fogey, though, to be able to really appreciate a real human being waving from a cab window. Truth be told, I found that rather jarring, which is hard on an old lady's bones.

 

Well, at least the Microsoft Train Simulator fad has passed. Remember the "no one will make a layout any more" hysteria when that came out? In the end, it's just more fun to do it yourself. Fiddling with pictures is harder than it looks. Even the best models are still recognizable as models, and a large section of computer generated stuff would not be confused as part of the model scene. Of course, I would love a better layout planning 3D software that would create pictures of first class layouts that you could publish in a magazine. :teeth: Such a tool could come up with new layout designs that we haven't thought of yet (actually that John Allen hadn't thought of yet, he da man!)

 

It's a beautiful picture, Russell--and the extension really made it better!

This is the kind of thing I would like to be told, though, when I am viewing layout photos. The puff of coal smoke or steam has been around a long time and is obvious to everyone (i.e., nobody thinks your loco really smokes), while scenery extensions are not. OTOH, that photo is a very nice piece of art. Presented as such, it wouldn't need explanation.

The largest building is incredible. What is it? Is it scratchbuilt?

 

Wow, Pete, your layout and photography are both beautiful. Thanks for sharing your photo data with us! :thumbs_up:

 

Wow, this thread has gotten even more interesting!

Let's see if I can answer all the questions.

dsk2855 asked if I tried Combine Z. Yes I did. It didn't work at the time I tried it. It was more oriented to microphotogrammatics--shooting through a microscope. At the time I tried it, it was oriented towards moving a slide under a microscope, rather than plunking a cmera down on a layout and shooting slices, like Helicon. Nice software, just not far enough developed two years ago.

Tony Burzio asked if I could mount a dentist's lighting fixtures under the decks, showing sky. Not really, although I considered it. It's just not at the right angle. I'd still have a 90 degree angle between the sky and the backdrop, which I would have to hide with Photoshop. In 15 inches between levels, I really don't have much room, once I subtract the structure, which is two or three inches. And then to backlight something? LCD panels would do the trick but, man, I'm not made of gold!

dstuard asked about crooked columns. I'm afraid I have to answer: fix the columns. Yep, you could straighten the columns with Photoshop, but it will probably take more time than just straightening them physically. I've faced this problem many times. Only once did I use Photoshop to straighten them. It's a pain, because after you straighten them, you have to fill in the background. Yep, the camera doesn't lie. If it were me I just leave them, and also, put a train on the tracks to divert attention.

To r_i_straw about foreground additiions: yep! it happens all the time. It's a temporary addition. You could certainly keep it if you liked it. That's how my layout gets expanded all the time!

Chaya,

Appreciate your insights and complements. Take the hour drive down to ABQ anytime.

 

Pete, agreed, this is an interesting thread. Long ago I used a very affordable alternative to Helicon Focus: a 300 micron laser-etched pinhole (~$30) installed in a used 50mm Canon lens (~$25) on an ancient Canon TL body. Great depth of field, better sharpness than most any other pinhole. But oh, the work getting the shot--an enormous effort setting it up, so much light that things would melt, exposures into tens of minutes, etc. Digital is the only way to go any more.

I meant to answer this, dstuard, but forgot. I did exactly the same in 1967 with a worn-out Leica. I modified a f/2.8 50mm Leica lens by inserting a disk into the aperture slot. It didn't work out well. It wasn't sharp. I think I don't have a cheap lens to try it again. Or at least one that I'd take apart for the experiment!

Your observations about melting stuff are spot on!

 

I'm a dyed in the wool film user - Kodachrome 64, Tri-X, and just recently Provia 100F. I shoot Kodachrome because what I see in the viewfinder is what I get - real, accurate colors. In other words, a minimum of deception. I shoot Tri-X because it works so well with the Zone System of B&W photography.

Way back when I had a darkroom, I NEVER burned and dodged prints, NEVER used high or low contrast paper. I only needed one contrast grade - normal - because I knew exactly how my camera would expose the film, knew exactly how the developer would develop the film, and knew exactly what shades of gray would be represented in the final print. Anyone with a spot meter and an easily calibrated camera can do the same. When I read that Ansel Adams dodged and burned, I was upset. When I SAW what he did to one of his negatives - printing it several different ways, I felt deceived. Here I was, relying on proper exposure to get accurate photographs, meanwhile he was busy jumping through hoops to change the scenes he photographed. That's his right, but when I found out some of the scenes he created weren't REAL, I lost some respect for him. I suppose I have a different understanding of the way the Zone System works.

Now what about digital photography? I think manipulating a digital image is wrong unless the photographer specifies what he has done to the original. Adding sky to blot out an upper deck is deceptive, IMO, unless acknowledged. Cloning out misplaced ballast, seams in a backdrop, or other defects in the layout, while improving the overall effect, tends to produce a "why bother? I'll never be able to duplicate this fantastic layout" attitude in me. If you really want a perfect layout that badly, just create your own fantasy layout from scratch with a graphics program. No camera needed.

I welcome comments so that I can clarify my points better. As they stand now, I'm sure some will be taken wrongly, and I'd like the opportunity to expand on the subject.

 

It's just a toy train set... :teeth:

(incoming! BOOM!) :umbrella: mg:

 

That was me, actually, but that's OK. I didn't do a huge amount of photography with this setup because the layout was dismantled before long. My first images were pretty good, except that I used the wrong film--EK200, which was too fast, and the grain made the image soft, made worse by processing at a local shop that wasn't very good; the lens and pinhole were actually capable of much better.

This is probably the best of the bunch. Exposure was several minutes, IIRC, under 1500 watts of daylight tungsten photofloods. The foreground car was about four inches from the lens, and the sky backdrop was about six feet away at the furthest point. No digital manipulation except to remove some dust embedded in the 7-year-old slide:



I haven't touched that camera since then, because I've moved on to digital without looking back (something I never thought I'd hear myself say).

 

I state, in my three articles so far, that I manipulate backgrounds to remove upper decks. I'm not trying to be deceptive at all.

Like good lenses, Photoshop is NOT cheap, about $1200 for the full package.

I have plenty of shots where I didn't use any photo tricks at all. No Helicon, no manipulation, just the shot from the camera. This is one of them:



Yep, I could put in a bluer sky, but why bother?

I hate photographing my layout! It just takes too much time and effort. So I'll erase a stray bit of scenery (ballast was a wrong choice of words) rather than re-take the shot. Photography, especially miniature, takes time that I usually don't have. People have been bugging me for years to shoot my railroad. I've resisted, because I just didn't have time. I can hide the seams in some backdrops, but it takes a few hours of time that I don't usually have!

Hiding seams is not that hard; it just takes time that I don't have.

Over the years, I have not submitted photos or articles to model railroad magazines because of these concerns:

my modeling wasn't good enough.

my photography wasn't good enough.

Given the choices this thread seems to suggest, should I just shut up and not submit?