We recently took a drive from San Jose to Garden Grove. We've made the trip several times, but this was the first where Joan drove and I got to sight-see. As we passed thru the sumptuous valleys something caught my eye relative to our hobby. There is a shadow of the tree under every tree. I have have scanned a number of sites on the internet and I have yet to find any shadows painted under the trees. The scenery on layouts, no matter how well done, have always hit me with a feeling of "artificiality". Could it be this lack of the natural shadows? I don't know. Is there anyone out there with artistic talent who can respond to this? Has anyone made the effort to create shadows? At this point it is more curiosity than a comment.
Your lighting should provide the necessary shadows. Take a look at that, and make changes if necessary, before you try to paint shadows. I think painted shadows would look even more unnatural. Ben
I was criticized by Kalmbach on my pictures for having them too 'flat'. That's a direct result of the heavy application of overhead daylight flourescents in the ceiling. The color rendition is really good, but it is an overcast, flat, light, a rather overcast day, not necessarily typical in Arizona! I recently added a daylight-balanced 80W, clip-on halogen photo spotlight as a 'key light' to add some shadows. The results are pretty awesome. Here's the 'before and after' - basically the same scene, but notice the tree shadows all over the front of the building. ambient room light: http://gustafson.home.westpa.net/LPsite40.jpg With halogen key light: http://gustafson.home.westpa.net/LPsite42.jpg Same thing happens at Nelson Tunnel. Notice the distinct shadows I get now: http://gustafson.home.westpa.net/4551_riordan_1.jpg I got the little clip-on photo light from Ebay for $50, and it's been great. It just clips on the suspended ceiling grid wherever I need it. I did, however, spray-paint the entire inside of the tunnel black, and then clean off the railheads. That was an old tip in MR to make it look less toylike and it is a darn good one.
The sun is the best light. At the SDSoNS, we have hight intensity spots on the scenery, all pointing the same direction to create harsh desert shadows. You can also check out professional lighting at http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/category/1165/Continuous_Lighting_Tungsten_Lighting.html where you can learn what a "snoot" is! :teeth:
Shadows are tough in modeling whether from trees or structures. It is hard to duplicate the sun in a train room environment because you would need a very high ceiling and a very bright single point light source to have the shadows all cast in more or less the same direction. The best you can do is light each scene that you want to focus on and ignore the apposing shadows coming off objects between scenes where light from two or more sources falls on the same object. For photography you can always just light the subject area with one source. However you have to also "back light" the shadow areas with blue light to simulate what the blue sky does in nature.
A very interesting point, lighting can make or break a layout especially the way any gloss painted item has an unaturally large shine spot reflecting off it. Im still surprised how many train shows i attend to see gloss painted figures glowing on the sidewalks! paul
Regarding shadows, I always notice the shadows on backdrops more than the lack of a shadow cast by an object. I am no photographer but it seems pretty challenging to eliminate a shadow in the wrong area while at the same time getting an appropriate shadow cast where you want it.
As someone who has practiced model railroad photography for many years, let me offer the following in response to your question. In the real world, strong shadows are cast because of the essentially point-source nature of the lighting - the Sun. As someone noted earlier, to accomplish this correctly indoors necessitates having a particularly strong single light source at a considerable height above the layout, a situation almost never found in a trainroom. Certainly, the most realistic model photographs are those taken out-of-doors in full sunlight. However, such a natural source usually will not produce images ideally suited for most publication purposes. One rarely sees strong, well defined shadows depicted on layout shots that appear in magazine (or on the Internet) simply because often too much detail will be lost to the shadows. Publications want rather evenly illuminated, highly detailed, scenes with the strongest shadows pretty much filled in. This leads to images seemingly taken on either an extremely hazy or perhaps overcast day...but never convincingly so. It is not the shadows alone that give away model photos. Another consideration is color. Too often the colors we use on our models and how pure or vivid they are, give away the artificial nature of the image. In the real world everything is duller in appearance (less saturated colors) than as modeled and often real objects take on the tinge of the dust from the surrounding soil. There is also the matter of a slight blue tinge from the sky, never reproduced in model photographs, adding to and very slightly skewing the color of everything. Finally, perhaps the biggest failing, or give away, at least in my book, is the obvious lack of atmospheric softening in modeled scenes. Although we may not recognize it on a conscious level, everything we see is filtered very slightly by the air between the object and ourselves. The greater the distance, the softer the more distant objects become. When a scene lacks this minute softness, the brain immediately recognizes something wrong, even if we can't immediately put our finger on it. NYW&B
Good thread. David's picture says a lot and so does Tony's. Randgust's comparison seems more subtle but sure looks alive to me. Av8rTX raised a pet peeve of mine, especially in pictures published in the magazines, like the one a few months back of the perfect shadow of a water tower against an azure sky. I have done/am doing the following- Lights already up. 12 2x4 double flourescents with 50000 Kelvin (daylight) bulbs. The layout area is 14x14 approx. There are five separate switches. I wanted to cast shadows or eliminate them at will. With some relectors, it will be even easier. If not- another LESSON LEARNED and a wasted few grand since I was not capable of rewiring myself. BTW- Use of a tripod and a longer or shorter exposure will give you a tremendous range of shadows, etc.
After a couple years of complete failure, and gentle coaching by Jim Kelly of MR, I finally hauled the little Hickory Valley module outside and shot the mazine photos in direct sunlight, with ASA64 slide film. The results were really good. My first published article That's great for a small module but impossible for the normal layout. I've spent literally years trying to get what you see now. I probably use 2-3X more overhead lighting fixtures than the average layout; it is BRIGHT in the railroad room, by far the brightest room in the house. But the payoff is that when I just want to take a picture of something, get out the camera and the tripod, and shoot. No other setup necessary. If I want it really good, clip on the key light. I never could get conventional photography to work. Digital, plus the lighting, has been the salvation. That's really why you've never seen much of the ATSF layout in the magazines. I have lots of backdrops and no extra 3-4" anywhere. I have my own solution to the shadows on the backdrop - Photoshop!
Same thing happened to me. Jim Kelly rejected an article I submitted for the "Paint Shop" column until I came up with a good lead photo that I took outdoors per his suggestion. I have since shot most all of my photos for magazine articles outdoors. Fortunately NTRAK modules are easy enough to set up outside. Here are some tree shadows provided by sunlight.
Here's a photo I took with shadows, unexpectedly. The source is two floodlights mounted 15ft up on the garage rafters.
As simple as it sounds, this is it. You can see most of the light is on the floor, but there is enough getting on the layout to produce the shadows.
However, it is very obvious from the "dullness" of the scene's lighting, as well as the washed-out shadows, that it is an indoors shot of a model. Compare it to the scene below, shot outdoors in actual sunlight and you'll understand my earlier point that there is no substitute for true sunlight if you want a modeled scene to look realistic. NYW&B
