But does it make for a better photograph? SPOILER ALERT! Magazines have been faking backdrops for years.mg:mg:mg: If that means I don't have to see cinder block walls or wooden studs gracing the cover of MR, so be it. And if some photograph is under exposed but an editor or author still wants to use it, then fix it, computer or otherwise. Isn't all model railroad photography about one thing, inspiration? If a piece of digitally removed ballast gets your undies in a bunch, that's fine. When I see that well composed, well lit and modeled scene, my eyes focus on that one little speck of stray rock and I must scratch my nail on the page or screen to try and remove it. But that's just me. Make no mistake, however, computer altered is computer altered. I don't think there should be a grey area. Auto-levels and color balance are two of the greatest gifts* to an amature digital photographer like myself but just because they're easy to use and work so well, shouldn't excuse them from the manipulation controversy. BTW, is there a function in Photoshop that well re-rail locomotives? (pet peeve #1) Jason *Helicon focus being the greatest.
Well, there's no funtion (as in a button to click), but it's possible. I've done it for someone else; it saved the guy many hours to re-set a shot and possibly miss a publishing deadline as a result. Deception? I think this one is a really tough call.
But I do acknowledge these things, openly. And I have to compete with others who do the same, usually just as openly. I think I have a nice layout but, if I had to use temporary layout extensions, light bouncing cards, light blockers, and all the other tricks I know, it would never get photographed. I know a lot of lighting tricks, and used to use them all the time in the film days. For one shot in a documentary, we covered all the windows with an 85C film, so the Boston skyline in the background was the right color. This was 1967. It cost $300 then. I was just trying to capture what the eye saw, not what the film was capable of reproducing. Were we wrong? I think not. We just realized the film wasn't capable of capturing the correct colors though the windows, so we adapted. On my layout, I spent a ton of money on linear flashes that shot light up onto my limited backdrops. It worked, sort of. It took a day to set up, shielding the flashes from the camera. But you could still detect that I had spent a lot of time and money. A little more time, and I might have mastered it completely. But I didn't have the time. We still do these old tricks, but it is easier (and cheaper) with Photoshop.
I've found that "auto-levels" just don't work very well. They are like the routines at photo stores that adjust your pictures whether you want them adjusted or not. Learn how to do it manually! You'll be much happier! I print my own snapshots, and would never think of letting the grocery store do it.
For stark contrast: Before: After: I did the above clouds in less than 15 minutes including figuring out how to do it. Seeing the difference here my thoughts are: Before doing this in a competition I would ask if it was permitted When posting on the web I would declare it Trying to get an arical published I would ask the editors to declare - though that could get me turned down. But that is just me.
Yeah, maybe for a magazine article I'll spend more time. It's quite sufficient for posting pictures on Sundays.:shade: Someday I'll take a couple hours to manually adjust more of the settings. Maybe make a couple masks to separate different elements and tweek then seperately to see what effects I can achieve, but then I wouldn't ever post it because apparently I'd have to write a friggin' book about all the changes I made in order to explain why my picture doesn't look exactly like seeing it in person.:thumbs_down: "Why is that shadow darker in the picture?" Lame.... Jason
Frankly I am in the I don't like fake photoshopped backgrounds, clean ups, alterations or modifications beyond the aforementioned chopping, cropping and lighting - gamma changes. In other words if you don't CHANGE the content, I am for it. My why is pretty simple. It devalues the extreme talent and work of those superior modelers like John Widmar who have produced a train room that does indeed look real. Curved, coped corners, valences, sacrificing wide open spaces for stacked and tiered track arrangements so his railroad looks great right out of the box as it were. The problem with these digital enhancements is where does it end? Are we soon to expect digital locomotives and rolling stock, buildings and people inserted into a scene? As for disclaimers, when one is browsing pictures, reading the text is not likely to happen. Not for me anyway. When I look at the last 24 hours of pics here on Trainboard, I am looking at pictures I like. Hardly do I look for disclaimers. I have respect for those who can digitally manipulate an image. But that respect is a very different respect that I have for a modeler who creates an image in what I'll call typical fashion. Putting up a good background is a lot of work. I respect those who work to get the seams to blend, choosing the right colors, creating realistic clouds and make it all work. I don't share that same level of respect for someone who right or left click's a north Texas Sky into the picture. Then there are those who will literally carry their railroad out in the country and set it up so they can capture a picture with a natural background. All of this is where the hobby is today, no getting around that. But there is a place for those who hope to attain and work to accomplish that which is done with a brush and a knife, not a mouse and click. My 2 cents, as I say, about all it is worth. Joe
Your two cents, raise ya 1 penny... On a non-paid foamer board, ya can do whatever you want to do. In a paid magazine, the Editor should note content modification if the article is about what has been modeled. If the article is about signals and all you want is a good background for your work, mods are fine with me. Modifications on an article about scenery would not be kosher. This is why Editors get the bucks... :teeth:
BC--before computers--I had huge rolls of back drop paper. I suppose i could still do this, but what a pain in a train room! Photographers and film makers have been using another technique, called color-keying, for decades. Sometimes called "blue-lighting," you can combine negatives to put in a background. It doesn't have to be blue, by the way. I do think if a contest specifically forbids digital manipulation, then contestants should follow the rules. But how are the judges going to detect subtle changes--not stuff like smoke from a steam engine? Are we going to have to send undeveloped film, for example? I know that's taking it too far, but I can make changes that are virtually undetectable. Matching textures, for example. I also "square-up" my perspective in some wide-angle shots. I could spend a fortune on an architectural lens (perspective control) but why should I when I can do it on the computer for a lot less money? Are those with the most photo equipment the ones who are going to win? Manipulation is here to stay.
Tony, if the modifications make the work look better than it is, then I guess I still don't think it is OK. Thinking, thinking, thinking. . . Maybe yes, maybe no. ?? Interesting though though. Thanks! Joe
Me thinks I knew that and it is at the root of my point. What am I looking at? Is it the picture of a model railroad, or a concept picture of what someone thinks a model railroad scene should or could look like? I seek the former, not the latter. The trick today is discerning what is virtual and what is real.
You make a very good point, Joe. I typically read every little bit of text I can find: instructions, disclaimers, acknowledgments, cereal boxes, you name it. Others don't. Someone like you, though, would miss disclaimers as you were scanning photos in a magazine, then walk away feeling discouraged because what you're seeing in the photos is umpteen times better than what you would have seen on the layout. When I was thinking that one or two of these photoshopped images would be fine in an article if presented with full descriptions of what was done--in fact, would be just as interesting as the old photos that included f-stop, aperture setting, film type, and lens--I wasn't thinking about people who browse photos and would miss the text. Based just on what you said, I guess would be inclined to holler about any images in a magazine that included added or removed objects. I don't agree with Tony that it would be okay if it the article wasn't about scenery. I stare long and hard at any layout photo, no matter what the article is about.
Sorry, I got called away. I do have some alternatives that I'm thinking about. In fact my bridge scene uses one: a vertically coved back drop which hides the upper decks quite well. I could do that in other places. If I wanted to continue with photo back drops, I'd probably buy a wide-bed, continuous printer. I have a wide bed but it will only print to 44 inches long. But I actually don't like photo back drops all that much. Sometimes they work; other times they really look fake. I've purposely thrown them out of focus when they are just too sharp. I think I have the artistic talent to paint back drops. I like my spay can five-minute efforts, and could probably do even better if I spent more time. And many of my shots are not manipulated at all, and don't use any special lenses. Like this one: Gee, no headlight! Guess I forgot to turn the track power back on. Oh well. It would take me 30 seconds to put a headlight in: why bother? Here's the vertically coved back drop. You can make out the shadows from the bridge. Take them out? Nah! In fact, I had to reshoot this one: the engine picked up a spider web on it's way through the bridge! Could I take that out--probably, but easier to reshoot. Or perhaps I should just build a barn and go single deck.
In the late 60s, I worked for a printer of very high quality magazines. In those days we had a press camera to make color separations. This was literally a room-sized view camera with every sort of adjustment imaginable. And we made "adjustments" all the time, especially for color balance and perspective. The fellow who ran it was considered The Master for punching up photos. He could take a series of photos of different color balances, and make them all look the same balance. A conventional press makes color with four (or more) black & white plates. The press camera could do all sorts of tricks with the negatives used to make the plates, and we did them every day. And we could do tricks on the press, usually to enhance contrast and brightness. Sometimes we had six or seven inks--two or three beyond the essential CMYK. While normally used for varnishes or spot colors, we also used those added plates to punch up yellows, reds and blacks. As I mentioned earlier, we were retouching negatives before we made plates, mostly eliminating dust and scratches, but also doing things like covering up faces in operating table scenes. We used itty-bitty paint brushes for dust and scratches, trying to mimic the half-tone patterns on the separations. We used exacto knives and paintbrushes for larger corrections. It was basically an analog version of Photoshop's cloning tool. So we were manipulating images in an analog rather than digital fashion. Digital processes came into play in the mid 80s, and were established by the mid 90s. It sure was easier using a clone tool than trying to paint a separation at 200 dpi. It was sure easier manipulating the CMYK channels on a computer than fiddling around with the controls of the press camera, and not seeing the results for half an hour. Just a little perspective.
