Looking at Petes 'Helicopter' photo got me thinking. How much has our modeling changed or been influenced by Digital Photography? Think of the photoshop pictures of steam engines with smoke coming out the stack. Megapixels that can make an N Scale locomotive twice it's size. Panoramic layout photos. It just blows my mind to think of everything possible with todays photography equipment.
I can take a picture of the final model (usually a building) and see mistakes or areas for improvement. With digital, I get immediate feedback.
Quite honestly, most of the special imaging effects executed through digitial photography today were accomplished by the hobby's more experienced film photographers of the past...some to a better degree than digital can currently offer. It's just that this door to more sophisticated imaging has now been open to the novice. As a longtime film/model photographer, now working in digital, I find that one of the more disappointing aspects of all the Photoshopping of images is that it is often used to hide the hobbyist's ineptitude as a modeler. Thus, layout images no longer necessarily convey the actual skills and cleverness of the builder, only his ability at manipulating image elements. NYW&B
"The Camera Doesn't Lie" Well, it can be made to do so. The ease and speed of getting a reliable image has helped me. Several times a picture has revealed: Tracks out of alignment that I thought were straight Colors that did not work together S Curves I didn't notice in the not to scale track plan Problems with couplers and trucks - Close up solved this Things out of level Features that helped have been: Enlargements – issues with couplers and trucks Converting to grey scale or negative – Alignment issues. The mind “interpolates” or “corrects for “ things that don’t seem quite right. Changing to something the mind is not accustomed to allows anomalies to stand out. It is sort of like looking at a print by MC Escher. The mind tries to make it work. Lighting and shadows – I was oblivious to my own shadow because I am so used to compensating for it. The ease of sharing with people who pointed out things I may have missed I am sure there is more that will come to mind as I read through this thread.
Yes, that one thing I notice too. Modeling by digital camera. I will paint something, then photograph it, download to computer, blow it up and check where I need to fix. (Or at least make the decision if fixing is worth it or not. ) So, in a sense, digital photography makes us better modelers by almost instantly showing us where to improve a kit of paint job.
Subtle psychological affect: Since we can share them so easily I am betting it pushes us to do a litle better. Hmm, I can fix that, take care of this, and change that. I noticed myself cleaning up the mess on the table just do take some of my pics. That led to straightening other things - including track.
Isn't that a little harsh? Digital or not, MR has been "dolling up" photos for decades....does every modeler have to be perfect at everything they do? I remember as a kid trying to hold myself to the standards of work I saw in MR and always getting frustrated to the point of giving up in some cases, not realizing that there were a lot of smoke and mirrors involved. Granted, the stuff that gets published is still good, and "honest" image manipulation should only go so far. But I would think that very little "over the top" stuff wouldn't eventually be found out. When the question is posed about lack of participation in the hobby--or why we don't see more photos of people's layouts--I think it is because of attitudes like this. I say, put the lipstick on the pig and show us what you got. Few of us are good at everything.
To the original topic, I find the digital camera invaluable to my modeling. -it makes me better because I can see flaws in photos that aren't revealed otherwise. -I can magnify things on screen and better plan out how to modify them -I can document how I do things to aid other modelers. (or at least show what NOT to do!) -I can see how a scene changes over time, and overall what might be missing to make the scene more believable -I can easily photograph items for sale to send to TrainStore or eBay to keep my collection and hobby funds in check -I can photograph the real thing to make sure my model looks believable -I can take virtually unlimited photos at virtually no cost, have immediate feedback, and not have to worry about wasted development costs.
Wasted development cost! Thats huge! I know when I had a Pentex K1000, I was careful to get the 'perfect' shot everytime so I wouldn't have to pay for a bad photo. Now I take 5-6-7 photos of one thing not worrying about having to pay for a bad shot. Just delete and keep the ones you want!
Oh, man, where to start.... I struggled with photography so. That's why my ATSF layout never appeared in the magazines and the HVRR did - I could haul it outside for better lighting. I got so disgusted trying to photo the ATSF with regular film I quit trying. I started with a Kodak and graduated to an Olympus C4000 zoom. The macro feature is just awesome. Overall, I work to a much higher standard because I can see things in the digital photos that you just can't see otherwise. I photo constantly to look for errors. Things pop up that I never noticed before. I'll do some general cropping, lightening, and saturation in Photoshop. I'll do cloning sometimes to bring the scenery over the fascia edge or to fill the shot with backdrop sky. Other than that, I don't do very much. It's usually a sign to go back and redo it on the actual model. But yeah, the impact on my modeling has been huge, and the ability to photograph and distribute rapidly was a major contributor to the kit production concepts. The other thing I'm doing is distributing all the instructions as full-color .PDF's - so there's no real limit on photos, color, or size. I can make really, really good instructions instead of printing cheaply or minimizing the effort.
