Backdrop enhancement for the Tehachapi sub I've had a plain sky blue backdrop (painted sheet styrene) for quite a while on my layout. Today I experimented with an extra sheet that I have, using Mike Danneman's technique from his Model Railroader article several years back. Here's the test sheet: And here's a comparison - a not-so-good grab shot of the layout as it exists today: And with my test panel held up in front of the current backdrop: What do you think? Please, input and critique, as I'm contemplating doing all 24 linear feet of my backdrop. . . .One unforeseen benefit is the light balance on the camera likes the backdrop scene better . . . .
:thumbs_up::thumbs_up: looks good! i think the last two mountains should be a little more out of focus to give the look of distance.
My impression even before reading NS Bigford.... awfully close to having it. I was thinking, perhaps with just a little less "focus"... Play around a little more and your Tehachapi will be even more to-whoppoee than it is already.
Come on now Dave. You now its good. You just wanted us to give you a big pat on the back for some exceptional work. Well you got it. I think you did a great job with your color choices to make it convincing. We all wish we could have an eye for color like that. I agree that it seems the camera does like it to as you said. Then again are you sure your wife or one of the kids didn't change the settings and you got lucky.:tb-tongue: At any rate I will PM my address and send some gas money. I have about 32' waiting for you.:tb-biggrin:
I think the nearest hill on the backdrop is right on and the second one back is not to bad either. To me the last one just isn't working. I think the last one back needs more definition as far as the ridges that appear to be identified by the trees in lines. I think bigford is correct in that it needs to lose focus and I think some shadows would be nice between the ridges to give it additional depth. I think getting rid if the trees and just having ridge lines with shadows would help drive it back further which would help it a lot. I lived on the east side of Bakersfield when I was 8-13 and lived one block off of the SP mainline just east of where the Sante Fe joined it. I really like your modeling and the colors are good as well in that it really seems to capture the feel of the climb up to Tehachapi. Jerry
I agree. For the most distant mountains, do what I did for my SD&AE layout and make the colors blur into each other, with one side of each mountain in the range a darker color than the other side. That will look more natural than single dark lines. Also I would blend the blue with white near the horizon. But definitely keep it! The backdrop makes it 1006% better!
That looks fantastic Dave! Makes it look more like the train is winding its way through the mountains. Cant wait to see the finished 24 ft!
I'll be the fly in the ointment!! I DONT LIKE IT !! :tb-ooh: . . . . Only because the whole thing aint MY layout...lol :tb-tongue::thumbs_up: J/K...it looks great !! .
OK, between the "looks good" and the "flys in the ointment", I will say this. It doesnt look bad, but, with professional options such as Back Drop Warehouse . com There is no need to settle for anything but true realism, the cost may be substantial, but in the long run, you will be truly and forever satisfied. I say go with the backdrops. When people see your layout and backdrop and they are blown away, you can say "YES" it IS awesome. fatalxsunrider43
Thanks for the inputs gang - very good critique and ideas. I'm going to play around with the back hill some more, it looked ok on the ground but against the layout I agree w/ the 'more blur' and more 'depth' comments. I'm going to play with it some today, blur (ie drybrush/sponge) the ridgeline, and add more drybrushing and an additional color also...the first 2 hills have multiple colors but the farthest one back just has one (and not enough of that now that I look at it). Another thing I noticed looking at the picture now is my hills are all too steep looking, so I will smooth them out some when I do the whole thing for real. It's in the Oct '04 issue. I'm going to stick w/ this method for now - cost being one factor, and the 'yes I did it myself' being the other. . . It was easy - it look maybe 2 hours off and on total. I did this one from memory and a picture from a book, but when do the whole thing I'll work off of my slides that I've taken.
I didn't give it much thought as to how you could free hand better results, sorry. So here is my short list mostly based on what has been said already. I would also stick to the free hand method because you are matching the freehand model. The picture backdrop can be risky as it will detract from the model in my opinion. Not to say the Oak Hill Sub looks bad. I dissagree that the hills are to steap because they match your model. tie it all together. Muting or graying out the furthest hill and its trees/bushes will add depth. Anything to green will tell my eye it is not that far away. A line of haze is in order as was already pointed out. This will also mute the distant hill, but to add depth I would keep the top of the haze below the highest point of the third hill back. The distant hills have some bushes but only one spot that looks like a tree that are on the layout. I would add only a few more tree trunks under those patches to trick the senses into thinking there are more trees. Keep in mind these are suggestions from an untrained eye so trash in trash out. You have a good grasp of it though. Mine would look like I did it with crayons in comparison.
I was going to say to add a little more grey-green on the distant hills, for the trees. Not too much, but the oaks on those hills stand out, even at a distance. Smudge them a bit more, so you are not seeing distinct trees, but just the blur of them. But, overall, this really looks good. And no, they are not too high, that is one steep area, going from Bakersfield up to Tehachapi.
Here is another option ! Go out and take some mountain pictures with 35 MM Slide Film. Once you get them developed, you can put them in your slide projector, project them onto the wall. By moving the projector closer or far away you can adjust the size. You can either trace these directly onto the wall, or onto big pieces of white or blue construction paper you've taped onto the wall, then carefully trace the image. This will give you an exact outline of the image. You can also use these for matching the color, trees, shrub, etc. fatalxsunrider43
Took the suggestions and made some changes - here's the before: And after (added more of the darker color to the far mountains, 'blurred' the transition to the sky, and added some smaller/darker trees to the middle hill) Inputs? More texture/shadows still to the rear mountains? I'm liking how this is coming along....
OK this is getting GOOD! I am in love with this method!!! And if you squint, it looks real. Flat out real. I've been through Tehachapi, and I think this is also very reminiscent of the Grapevine above Los Angeles..... a place I wish to model myself. You nailed it, brother. Funny & sad; your drawings look better than my actual scenery!
The only thing I can think of is the third hill/range back where you added more blurred bushes all the ridges are the same dirrection. Are there any peaks going downward to the right at all? Like the mountains in the background here, http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=322127 Oh and I could not resist this,but you likely already saw them. http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=298547 http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=298471 http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=339883 Warning these photos are slow to download.
