March Model Railroader and fake photo's
SP UP RR
made.the engine and bridge was pasted on a back drop of another pic of
building which was placed on a back drop of clouds.After that
steam,smoke,headlight,engineer and firebox glow was added.This is
deliberate cheating.To be able to do all that you would have to spend
about $10,000 on a computer,scanner,software,the picture projector,and a
few other things.Plus who can learn to use all this things just for a
photo contest.I think we sould boycott Model railroader.The pics with
cotton vibrating for smoke is ok because it is all material and not
electronic.I use cotton on some steamers just to represent smoke while
running.
Model Railroader and railfan
SP UP R...@aol.com(A.K.A. SP R...@aol.com)
Jonathan Rutledge
Andrew Toppan
The third-place photo--computer enhanced--doesn't even look good.
It's grainy and simply looks electronically altered. Yuck.
If you're gonna fake it, can't you at least do a good job?
--
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- el...@confusion.net
Railroads, Ships and Aircraft Homepage -- http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/
"I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated."
Keith Rogers
Am I the only one who is offended by the cheaters who entered
photographs that have been computer enhanced? They even took some
prizes, may their photo's wrinkle. IMO, good, honest photographers
rely upon their own abilities to take a prize-winning picture and
don't need to cheat. The other kind know that they are incompetent
so must rely on the computer to help them. Shame.
We might also discuss MR's (ill-conceived) decision to allow fake
photographs in their contest.
DHENK
(Keith Rogers) writes:
>The March issue of MR has some prize-winning photographs printed.
>Am I the only one who is offended by the cheaters who entered
>photographs that have been computer enhanced?
Well I wouldn't call it cheating as it was allowed in the rules. This was
after the big fuss over last years winner. Personally I don't like these
types of photo manipulations. Always leaves me wondering what was wrong
with the model or scene that needed to be "fixed". This years winner
wasn't the one I'd have picked anyway. I liked one of the runnersup much
more.
Oh well MRR is a good magazine but far from perfect. Afterall a short
time ago they reviewed the MRC210 Sound System (sort of!). Mentioned
things it wasn't capable of doing etc. Didn't apparently even get around
to installing the receiver in a car. If he had he would have had realized
it's not just a drop in an go deal.
Regards,
Dave Henk
Jacksonville, FL
Rogteach
are "fakes." As a photographer and model railroader for over 30 years,I
have seen my occupation and hobby undergo all kinds of change. Is it"
fake" model railroading to use command control instead of block control ?
The use iof electronic imaging, including computer enhancement, is just an
innovation in the science of photography. It does not alter the art of
the photographer; just gives him or her new tools. I think the contest is
to measure art, not science. I think it did just that.
Roger Hart Kramer
San Antonio, TX
Edward J Hanley
: The March issue of MR has some prize-winning photographs printed.
: Am I the only one who is offended by the cheaters who entered
: prizes, may their photo's wrinkle. IMO, good, honest photographers
: rely upon their own abilities to take a prize-winning picture and
: don't need to cheat. The other kind know that they are incompetent
: so must rely on the computer to help them. Shame.
: We might also discuss MR's (ill-conceived) decision to allow fake
: photographs in their contest.
I don't see it as cheating. I think photography is an art, like model
railroading. I say let technology rein. I enjoy being fooled a bit. I
can tell all the recent MR photos are models, but some have me looking
twice.
Fake photographs of fake trains. Nothing wrong with that, right?
Ed
The Milwaukee Road in HO and N
Missoula, Montana
Dennis Shea
did not prohibit submitters from using state-of-the-art
technology. In fact, each photograph was accompanied
by a short description of how each was produced.
Nonetheless, the monetary investment needed to produce
the photographs can be substantial. This means
that the contest is really among the small subset
of model railroaders that can avail themselves of
the tools used.
I would urge MR to split the contest
into two parts. One where 'anything goes' and the
other 'traditional' photography.
Dennis Shea
Brian A.Lunergan
I agree fully, Roger. As someone who works with computers, it takes just
as much skill to use these new imaging tools as it does to practice
photography and modeling in the older, "classic" ways.
Perhaps instead of venting their spleen by splashing words like boycott
around, those who disagree with the use of newer technologies should
suggest (and I stress suggest, not the more bullying word demand) that MR
split the prize catagories to reflect the new reality in photography and
model railroading.
Who nows? Perhaps those critical folks will offer their services to MR as
judges to take some of the workload off of MR's staff. I mean, stranger
things have been known to happen. :-)
Regards...
--
Brian Lunergan (Nepean, Ontario, Canada)
Voice: +1 (613) 829-0609
Fax: +1 (613) 829-5903
Email: ab...@Freenet.Carleton.CA (Internet) / 1:163/335.44 (Fidonet)
Edward J Hanley
: The third-place photo--computer enhanced--doesn't even look good.
: It's grainy and simply looks electronically altered. Yuck.
: If you're gonna fake it, can't you at least do a good job?
The third-place photo? This is the photo of the covered hoppers. I
disagree. Doesn't look grainy to me. It is one of the most convincing
(at looking like the real thing). The shadows on the tops of the cars
are great. Nice units and a real looking train consist, don't you think?
Are you guys jealous? What is wrong with sharpening detail and burning
in headlights? I don't see where this hurts the hobby.
Tom Reid
I have no problems with using a computer to enhance photographs. It is
another skill or subhobby that many can and will enjoy. Maybe sort of like
playing ping pong in the rain.
But ... in the same way that many photo contests separate black/white from
color or prototype from models, make computer enhancing a separate contest.
This way, you have one category for the best that natural light and setting
will allow and one category for the best in placing your layout/module in the
best possible light (pun intended for compute enhancing!). An interesting
twist would be to restrict computer enhancing to, say, background, smoke, and
lights.
I know the picture in questions photographer and computer whiz, Bernie
Kempinski, to be one of the best and cleaverest in our hobby. I think he
could have taken the photo in such a way to place without any enhancing if he
had set out with that in mind.
Frisco2008
enhancements represented in these MR photo contest pix and the type of
darkroom work that someone like O. W. Link put in their photos. Nothing!
You may as well kvetch about the use of commercial or hand-crafted
pin-hole lenses..."who has the money or time/skill (etc.)...".
What ever happened to Model Railroading is FUN!
MEvans
>Ed
>The Milwaukee Road in HO and N
>Missoula, Montana
I Have been impressed with the computer enhanced photos some of our
fellow modelers have genarated. They have been able to explore a new
area of creative expression that makes this hobby so enjoyable. I
still believe there should be a seperate catagory in any contest for
these types of photos. It's really not the same as submitting an
un-altered photo taken the old fashioned way..
just my opion for what it's worth..
--
Mark Evans
Meva...@tcd.net
Expect the Worst to happen and you'll never be disappointed
ernf...@indirect.com
>
>
>I agree fully, Roger. As someone who works with computers, it takes just
>as much skill to use these new imaging tools as it does to practice
>photography and modeling in the older, "classic" ways.
>
>Perhaps instead of venting their spleen by splashing words like boycott
>around, those who disagree with the use of newer technologies should
>suggest (and I stress suggest, not the more bullying word demand) that MR
>split the prize catagories to reflect the new reality in photography and
>model railroading.
>
the work involved but I think the key is in pre and post exposure modification. Pre
exposure is the old definition and is a different art form than post.
I would include darkroom enhancement in post exposure modification. That is why
color slides are a good way to it since they remove that variable.
I think straight photography no matter how the scene is set up is fundamentally
different from computer enhancement and the two should be in separate cate-
gories. They both produce good results but they are different.
ernie fisch
Keith Rogers
>
>Rogteach (rogt...@aol.com) writes:
>> Sorry Keith I don't agree with your comments that the photos in question
>> are "fakes." As a photographer and model railroader for over 30 years,I
>> have seen my occupation and hobby undergo all kinds of change. Is it"
>> fake" model railroading to use command control instead of block control ?
>> The use iof electronic imaging, including computer enhancement, is just an
>> innovation in the science of photography. It does not alter the art of
>> the photographer; just gives him or her new tools. I think the contest is
>> to measure art, not science. I think it did just that.
>
>I agree fully, Roger. As someone who works with computers, it takes just
>as much skill to use these new imaging tools as it does to practice
>photography and modeling in the older, "classic" ways.
>
>Perhaps instead of venting their spleen by splashing words like boycott
>around, those who disagree with the use of newer technologies should
What are you talking about, boycott. You forget how to read???
>suggest (and I stress suggest, not the more bullying word demand) that MR
>split the prize catagories to reflect the new reality in photography and
>model railroading.
>
>Who nows? Perhaps those critical folks will offer their services to MR as
>judges to take some of the workload off of MR's staff. I mean, stranger
>things have been known to happen. :-)
What those of you who agree that fake photo's are peachy-keen forget
is that it is simply a matter of time, very short time, when an
entire photograph will be fake, the whole thing the product of some
computer's imagination. What then, are fake railroad photo's still
OK? Be honest!
Keith Rogers
>Rogteach (rogt...@aol.com) writes:
>> Sorry Keith I don't agree with your comments that the photos in question
>> are "fakes." As a photographer and model railroader for over 30 years,I
>> have seen my occupation and hobby undergo all kinds of change. Is it"
>> fake" model railroading to use command control instead of block control ?
>> The use iof electronic imaging, including computer enhancement, is just an
>> innovation in the science of photography. It does not alter the art of
>> the photographer; just gives him or her new tools. I think the contest is
>> to measure art, not science.
Your argument is reasoned but faulty. You gave the lie to your own
words with the last sentence above. I agree the contest is art and
faking your photographic results with a computer is science, and so
yes, science has no part in it, just as you say.
Andy Wilks
>I Have been impressed with the computer enhanced photos some of our
>fellow modelers have genarated. They have been able to explore a new
>area of creative expression that makes this hobby so enjoyable. I
>still believe there should be a seperate catagory in any contest for
>these types of photos. It's really not the same as submitting an
>un-altered photo taken the old fashioned way..
Photographers have been altering photos long before computers came out.
Does this mean that all entries should be limited to prints returned from
the local grocery store. The photographer with good camera, darkroom and
enlarger has the ability to dodge and burn and do multiple exposures as
well as other effects. Should they be excluded because these are "fake".
Darkroom equipment cost far more than computer equipment. Allowing computer
enhancement is no different than allowing darkroom enhancement and allows
more people to participate.
Regardless, there are some people that can take a better picture with a
disposable pocket camera than others can take with thousands of dollars
worth the equipment. Talent will always be the major factor.
Andy in Austin
Brian A.Lunergan
Keith Rogers (kei...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
> What those of you who agree that fake photo's are peachy-keen forget
> is that it is simply a matter of time, very short time, when an
> entire photograph will be fake, the whole thing the product of some
> computer's imagination. What then, are fake railroad photo's still
> OK? Be honest!
Keith;
You are forgetting that your model railroad is, in NO way, a true
reflection of real life. Selective compression. Staging yards. All are
used to build on imagination and deliver the look and feel of the real thing.
There is no point to fighting the arrival of computers in any branch of
the hobby. They, along with video cameras and other high-tech tools, are
part of the scene and here to stay. Funnel all this fear-based energy into
finding the ways that those who practice BOTH methods of photography and
modelling can do best. Work together and HAVE FUN!
A wise individual gave me some good advice once. There are two ways to
deal with the advancing tide of knowledge and technology. The first is to
work with it and ride the wave. The other is to fight it, drown in it, and
disappear. Look up your history. Don't, for pity sakes, act the part of a
model railroad Luddite.
Bruce Wilson
>The March issue of MR has some prize-winning photographs printed.
>Am I the only one who is offended by the cheaters who entered
>photographs that have been computer enhanced? They even took some
>prizes, may their photo's wrinkle. IMO, good, honest photographers
>rely upon their own abilities to take a prize-winning picture and
>don't need to cheat. The other kind know that they are incompetent
>so must rely on the computer to help them. Shame.
>We might also discuss MR's (ill-conceived) decision to allow fake
>photographs in their contest.
Its seems to me that there might be a lot of incompetent photographers out there who don't
know how to use their equipment and rely upon their darkroom skills to produce a photo.
What is the difference between enhancing an image with multiple exposures and special lighting
or darkroom effects, or generating a similar result using electronic methods. There are a lot of people
who put a great deal of time and effort into providing us with great photos using both methods.
I think that we should be thankful of their efforts.
By the way. I would have hoped that everyone had had enough of this debate last year.
Bruce Wilson
Barrie, Ontario
Rick Hines
>
> Your argument is reasoned but faulty. You gave the lie to your own
> words with the last sentence above. I agree the contest is art and
> faking your photographic results with a computer is science, and so
> yes, science has no part in it, just as you say.
I have to disagree. It is art, pure and simple. But first let me so that I didn't like
the choices of the second place winner. It just wasn't appealing to me at all. It was
surrealistic, but unappealing.
However, the metering systems in the cameras used, in addition to just about every other
aspect of the onboard camera electronics would have to qualify as "science". But that
isn't the point. You (and others) are upset that a computer produced some result. It
just don't work that way guys. The computer doesn't produce 'anything' that the user
doesn't very specifically and at a very detailed level control. Ya I know there are
morhphing tools and such, but those are pretty much toys in terms of what we're talking
about. But even those have an artistic place. Look at Terminator II. Whether you like
the special effects or the movie, there is no question in my mind that the morphing
qualifies as art.
The user of the computer simply has a sophisticated tool for controlling color hue, and
light saturation and contrast. Very similar to using a color head in a dark room - and
color is always done with a color head - filters haven't been seriously used even by
amateurs for at least 25 years. I used to have a color dark room which my wife and I ran
just for a hobby. It wasn't much different than what I now use my computer to try and
accomplish with a little more control of light and color to enable me to concentrate more
on the artistic effect or result I'm trying to achieve.
And believe me, it takes a lot of skill - a lot more than using a color head on say a 2
1/4 by 2 1/4 enlarger with a Durst color head. Thats relatively easy - but limiting
compared to the sorts of tools the computer can make available.
As to editing of pixels, so what? Is that different than using paint and brush?
"Pictures" have been air brushed for ages.
Anyway, the second place winner was art and I am sure took a lot of work to produce. The
blending of background and foreground appeared to be very well done. I just didn't like
it. The engine with the burnt in head lights coming at me was pretty neat, but the
cartoonish cliffs in the background just didn't cut it for me.
Bottom line, I just didn't particularly like it. But please differentiate between what
you like and don't like with the techniques used to achieve either one.
FWIW,
Mr. Rick.
_______________________ ________________________
_|][][]| # ## SLACK #####| |##### TIME ## # |[][][|_
|_|_____|_________________|H|__________________|_____|_|
/( )( )( )\-------/( )( )( ) ( )( )( )\-------/( )( )( )\
lionel_strang
> Its seems to me that there might be a lot of incompetent photographers out there who don't
> know how to use their equipment and rely upon their darkroom skills to produce a photo.
>
> What is the difference between enhancing an image with multiple exposures and special lighting
> or darkroom effects, or generating a similar result using electronic methods. There are a lot of people
> who put a great deal of time and effort into providing us with great photos using both methods.
> I think that we should be thankful of their efforts.
>
> By the way. I would have hoped that everyone had had enough of this debate last year.
>
> Bruce Wilson
I think the best solution for this discussion would be to start a new magazine
called Computer Enhanced Model Railroading. This new publication could be
about a hobby where people pretend that they have trains that run through
beautiful scenery. There wouldn't be any need to design a layout, learn how
to build benchwork, agonizing sessions of learning the electrical side of the
hobby, or a lot of the other pleasures that go with building a layout.
This is only my opinion, but I enjoy photos of real model scenes much more
than I do a scene that has generated by a machine and never really existed.
I wonder if people would have such fond memories of John Allen's Gorre
and Daphited if it had never existed except as computer enhanced image of
his imagination. Computer enhancement of photos regardless of the subject
is a different hobby, valuable in its own right. But it is not model railroading.
Thank you and good day
Lionel Strang
Dave Nelson
>[comments deleted for brevity]
As MR is running the contest it's their call on what is and what is not
cheating and by that perspective the computer enhanced photos are okay.
Your calling it cheating doesn't make it so.
Having said that I would prefer MR had more than one category for
competition. I suggest the following:
Indoor, non-enhanced (no double exposure, time lapsed, airbrushed etc).
Traditional ehancement techniques.
Computer enhanced.
Dave Nelson
-- from home
HUSSARD
era, science has been a part of it. How long is the exposure, what is the
developer concentrate, how long in the stop bath? Each of these steps
affects the picture. Two people with the same negative can produce
entirely different pictures. Neither is a fake. They can be croped,
enhanced, fish eyes can blir the edge but make the focal point clear.
From the start, the type of film, the f stop, the settings, light
difusion, any number of things can affet the picture as taken.
Photography is an art form, based on good scientific knowledge as well as
chemistry.
Frank Kastenholz
>
>The March issue of MR has some prize-winning photographs printed.
>Am I the only one who is offended by the cheaters who entered
>photographs that have been computer enhanced?
You're right. This is horrible. Yet one more step on the slippery slope
that started when they allowed people to buy ready-made cameras, rather
than hand-grinding their own lenses and building the bodies from wooden
boards. And then they let you buy your own
film, I mean, if Mathew Brady could take those wonderful pictures of the
Civil War using home-made plates with emulsions he mixed himself, why
can't we do the same with our railroads! And then they let you take
the exposed film to a _commercial_ _developing_ _company_! Why, I shudder
to think what the next step will be...
Frank Kastenholz
Dan Prysby
>The March issue of MR has some prize-winning photographs printed.
>Am I the only one who is offended by the cheaters who entered
>prizes, may their photo's wrinkle. IMO, good, honest photographers
>rely upon their own abilities to take a prize-winning picture and
>don't need to cheat. The other kind know that they are incompetent
>so must rely on the computer to help them. Shame.
>We might also discuss MR's (ill-conceived) decision to allow fake
>photographs in their contest.
I agree. One extreme example (maybe Ishould do this) is to take
a photo of a toy Thomas tank engine and computer enhance it to
say a BN SD45. If the game is "there are no limits" then this
example can be allowed.
Should it?
Dan Prysby
Drew R. McGhee
I find it interesting that there is an argument about 'doctored' photos.
Even the greats like John Allen 'doctored' photos. Things like adding
smoke and blurring the backround to darkroom tools like burning and dodging
were all evident in his photos and discribed by him. Malcolm Furlow
(I appologize is I misspelled your name.) used dark room tricks to add himself
and others to his photos among other technics.
Adding a differant backround to a photo is not something new. I remember
the long hours in the darkroom in college doing an assignment that required a
differant backround to be substituted in a photograph. Again, burning and
dodging were the tools of the trade. The computer has, as it has done in other
areas of life in addition to our hobby, just made it easier. Should we require
entrants to do their own film and print processing?
I will submit that the computer has leveled the playing field. Darkroom tricks
like burning and dodging take skill and alot of practice. Now the average
modeler/photo hobbiest has a tool so he or she can compete with the
'professional photographers'.
How could photos be separated into 'straight' and 'enhanced' catagories?
Again what is a 'straight' photo? Should we go back to the technology where
the photographer removed the lens cap, counted then put the lens cap back on?
(No shutters back then.) What about wet plates? Where do we draw the line? MR
has always been good about bringing new technology and technics to our
attention. I kind of like that. Using the computer is just a new tool to use.
Sorry about cluttering up the news group with my ramblings but I really felt
compelled this time.
Drew R. McGhee
Altoona, PA
Andrew Wilks
>Though I don't think we've seen it yet, where on your honsety scale would
>you put pictures taken with a digital camera?
Well, since they are very expensive, it would rich people a defininite advantage,
so I am against them!
Andy in Austin
Per Harwe 66654
>
>Are you guys jealous? What is wrong with sharpening detail and burning
>in headlights? I don't see where this hurts the hobby.
>
No, it doesn't hurt the hobby. My biggest gripe with the annual photo contest
is that it is not a contest showing your MR work; it is a contest showing how
good you are with a camera and how well you can put your diorama somewhere
out in the nature to get that "real backdrop". I like the suggestions earlier
that the contest should be split into new categories where un-enhanced photos
from you layout-room is the main category. Then you can have other categories
where everything is allowed. I like the pictures, but it is not MR work that
is shown in them.
---
Per Harwe |
Ericsson Inc. | Internet: ebu...@ebu.ericsson.com
Cypress, CA. |
The opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
Crawfojr
If you take a photo with a ready-made amateur camera OR with a piece of
professional equipment and you DO NOT in anyway modify by using fish-eyes,
filters, etc. -- that is a "factual" photo. You have just captured a
moment as perceived through the lens of an inanimate device. However, it
may not be the same as your perception. Mathew Brady's Civil War shots
come to mind. He did a lot to "alter" his photographs without even
playing with the camera. He moved a body when he wanted to, and in every
way set up many scenes. This is where art comes in. If you take the
photo and alter it later by whatever means, you are dealing with the
artistic side of photography. The issue in debate here seems to be not
about the photo contest so much as it is about the nature of photography.
I'm not criticizing anyone, I'm just saying that there are at least two
things a photo can be -- an aerial photo of bomb-damage is (supposed to
be) a *factual record*. Please temporarily suspend the "But Viet Nam body
counts...." arguments. On the other hand, a photo of a moving car with
blurred taillights (might be, depending on your tastes) artistic. If the
contest is open to photos that are artistic, computers are going to be
used. Every artist uses the tools he/she has available. Who knows, Monet
might have used a computer to achieve "Gardens at Giverny" instead of a
brush had he been able to.
Like I said, just a thought. Not necessarily an expert one.
Rob
Tom Pennington
Not to beat a dead horse, but not all model railroading revolves around a layout
of track. I know a man who's only interest was in building steam locomotives from
kits and super detailing them. Another guy my father knew scratch built passenger trains
from wood, but not in either case did these models ever run on track. Does that mean they
were not model railroader? Don't be to provincial in your outlook. Many might think what
you or I do to be of little value. This is a hobby, not a religion, lighten up a little.
--
Tom Pennington _---_---_---______--__--___+-----+||]
tpen...@ix.netcom.com [||####### B & O #####|______||_____
|| __| [][] |__ ||
When all else is said ||_______________________/ _| B&O |___\_||
and done, take the | ||| | | | | | | / | 4212 | # ||| |
train. []|=|==================o=====o==================|=|[]
/|-||(0)|=|(0)|=|(O) |_________| (0)|=|(0)|=|(O)||-|\
=============================================================================
Ralph Rizzo
>Am I the only one who is offended by the cheaters who entered
>photographs that have been computer enhanced? They even took some
>prizes, may their photo's wrinkle. IMO, good, honest photographers
>rely upon their own abilities to take a prize-winning picture and
>don't need to cheat. The other kind know that they are incompetent
>so must rely on the computer to help them. Shame.
>We might also discuss MR's (ill-conceived) decision to allow fake
>photographs in their contest.
Do you consider photos that have had darkroom work done on them to be
"fakes"? Does a little burning or dodging on the enlarger faking it?
How about more than one exposure? My point is that photographers have
always considered darkroom work to be an important and legitimate part of
producing a picture. I think computers are a legitimate alternative or
supplement to darkroom work (and not nearly as messy). I know this has
been a debate at MR in the past, and I think they have made a conscious
decision to treat digitally enhanced work eligible. I agree with them.
Duane Meeter
1) No system is perfect.
2) You have to draw the line somewhere.
This is like the scratchbuilding/kitbashing controversy.
What is the purpose of the contest?
BTW, I was disappointed in some of the photos, in that they were grainy
or out of focus.
Duane Meeter
Jim Canavan
photographers
>rely upon their own abilities to take a prize-winning picture and
>don't need to cheat. The other kind know that they are incompetent
>so must rely on the computer to help them.
Being a graphic artist who spends much of his time in Adobe Photoshop, I
rather resent being called "incompetent"
and the implication that a computer is a crutch to make up for lack of talent.
I've won my share of design awards (for BOTH computer-designed pieces as well
as traditional)...I consider my Macintosh as just another tool in the creative
process, along with my pens, airbrush, and camera.
Keithrx's comments remind me of the type made in the 19th century during the
early years of photography. Painters used to complain that photography wasn't
"real" art!
IMHO, it takes just as much talent to artistically and creatively retouch and
modify a photo electronically, as it does to get out your Nikon and take a
good photo!
Join the digital age, Keithrx!
Jim
Christopher S Webster
Let's say I'm modeling an existing town, but twenty or fifty years ago.
I go out and take photos of the existing town to use as the background
from my layout. (MR and other publications have done articles about
blowing up photos to use in lieu of painting a backdrop.)
Now, let's say I take my computer and "doctor" the photos back into
the appropriate era. While the structures haven't changed, the signs
on the building, vehicles in parking lots, etc, all have changed. Using
photoshop or some other program, I 'correct' these details so that the
backdrops will be consistent with my modeled era.
(Incidently, I've often thought that using a color printer capable of
outputting onto continous feed paper would eliminate the backdrop
"seam" problem that using enlargements causes.)
So, I now have a "era-correct" photographic quality background to my layout.
I build the foreground scenery (I would be smart enough to install the
background first...), park a train in the middle of the scene, put out
my camera and tripod and mail the results to _Model_Railroader_.
Should my entry be entered in the legitimate or computer-doctored category?
--Chris Webster
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~cwebster
[Still recovering from the flames about my comment on the March MR coverstory.]
Randy Gordon-Gilmore
>But ... in the same way that many photo contests separate black/white from
>color or prototype from models, make computer enhancing a separate contest.
>This way, you have one category for the best that natural light and setting
>will allow and one category for the best in placing your layout/module in the
>best possible light (pun intended for compute enhancing!). An interesting
>twist would be to restrict computer enhancing to, say, background, smoke, and
>lights.
I think you have hit the nail on the head in categorizing the contest as photo
as an end in itself vs. photo as depiction of an actual model scene.
I too do not like the idea of having "enhanced" photos competing with
"traditional" photos, but must agree that, as defined as a *photo contest*, any
technology goes (fancy darkroom equp't, computer enhancing, placing model in a
prototype scene etc.)
But I too would like to see a "layout photo" division, with the layout being
the focus (much as the "Model of the Month" is judged by its photo. (How about
opening MotM to "enhanced" photos of the modeler's productions? <g>)
--
Randy Gordon-Gilmore ,----.___________ _______________ __________________
rgo...@castles.com // = = === == || == == == = || == == == = == =|
/-O==O------------o==o-------------o==o------------o==o-'
-=CB&Q 9900 "Pioneer Zephyr"=-
Paul Canniff
auto-focus cameras. Of course my grandpa always called me a cheat
for using store-bought lenses.
On a more serious note, there was a similar letter in the Jan 96
NMRA bulletin, in response to an earlier article. Summary: have
different categories for pictures. And one category can include
both darkroom and computer retouching because it is just a tool.
This is not my opinion, but is an attempt to address the issue.
I don't mean this to become a photo-art thread. If I didn't
have the NMRA references to give I wouldn't have posted here.
I suggest that folks who do enter these contests take some time
to think about the issue amd make your feelings known to MR,
NMRA, etc. Folks who don't (like me) can take further discussion
off to the photo newsgroups, where we can argue over the *obvious*
dividing line between state-of-the-art tools and cheating. :)
- Paul
john haskey
Andrew Wilks <awi...@zephyr.us.dell.com> wrote:
>In article <4fnhl1$6...@news.dot.gov>, Ralph Rizzo says...
>
>>you put pictures taken with a digital camera?
>
Excuse me, but have you priced the cameras mentioned in the photo captions
lately? The contestants aren't using $10 disposable cameras these days...
With digital cameras starting at around $600 they compare favorably with
some of the SLRs in use...
And many of the models aren't $5 Bachman specials either...
---john.
--
---
jo...@netcom.com
Proud owner of a II/8 Balcom & Vaughn and an Allen Models 0-4-2T
Dave Bott
> The March issue of MR has some prize-winning photographs printed.
> Am I the only one who is offended by the cheaters who entered
> photographs that have been computer enhanced? They even took some
> prizes, may their photo's wrinkle. IMO, good, honest photographers
> rely upon their own abilities to take a prize-winning picture and
> don't need to cheat. The other kind know that they are incompetent
> so must rely on the computer to help them. Shame.
> We might also discuss MR's (ill-conceived) decision to allow fake
> photographs in their contest.
New technology and definitions are always in flux. I'm not surprised at
the debate here. Where do you draw the line? Does "real sunshine and
trees" as a backdrop make a photograph more "real" or more fake? After
all, they are not "modelled." What if someone put their model GEEP in
front of a real industry and sent the photograph in for the contest? How
we decide how much "technology" is too much? Are filters and special
lenses or films that cost hundreds or thousands of dollars "unfair" to
those who use run-of-the-mill SLR's? Are those who use these
camera-related technologies any more "incompetent" at taking a static
photo than those who use Brownies? How about those who take photos of
somebody elses $3000 brass model with all the detailing and airbrush
weathering? Are they "cheating" because they did not build the model?
The contest is as much about the spirit of modeling as it is about
photography. Should a picture of my unpainted IHC Mogul on bare track
with homasote for scenery, no matter how "artfully" photographed win the
contest?
You can never please all the people all the time.
As for "shame" and "cheating," I would not be so quick to use those
words! Are those who use new plastic resins or special model tools to be
shamed and called cheats because their models compete against cardstock
and sheet brass models in model contests?
I say we should praise anyone who has cared enough to spend the time and
effort to produce a pleasing image (2 or 3 dimensional)!
Model railroading can be awe inspiring as well as fun. Do not begrudge
others for being able to do something you may not be able to do! I admire
those who can airbrush a wonderful backdrop, though I can barely draw a
stick figure! The same should be said for those who bother to send in
photos to the contest, regardless of how they're made.
DAve
P.S. with current computer prices and photoCD services, one could easily
take a photo down to Kinko's and have it scanned for less than $20. Then
a 486 with SVGA (street price around $1500) and a good imaging shareware
program (maybe $100) could do the edits done to the photos in the
contest. Thats about $1700. I know cameras, filters, and even lighting
sets that cost that much or more!
--
Dave Bott prefers to be contacted at david...@dartmouth.edu
Empire Deluxe PBEM Keeper of the List
Fan of the Baltimore Orioles and the Sugar Bowl Champions
Virginia Tech Hokies
Charles P. Woolever
For years people have been using painted backdrops and then someone came
along and decided to photograph their layout/diorama outside with a "real"
sky. No one cried foul then. No one complained that it was unfair becuase
some people couldn't bring their layouts outside and use the real sky.
The model magazines have had article after article about using photographs
as backdrops behind entire layouts. I've never read a letter in a mag
complaining of it. There is no difference between using a photo as a
backdrop on a layout or adding your photo sky after processing.
The whole world of modeling is to *replicate* a small part of the real
world. There are no rules. The changes poeple make to the photos are
always insignificant, like skys, stars, moons, cityscapes, smoke, etc. No
photo has ever been of a model bridge with trees, river, and ducks pulling
a computer generated engine that the photographer has added after his
photo of the scene was taken.
I heard no complaints of the SP shot taken at dusk at the fueling towers.
That one had the Durtrans transparency background (illuminated photo). If
it hadn't said in the caption, that could easily had been another photo
done using a computer.
Maybe MR should just leave off the captions and let the photos go on their
own merits.
Charles
--
___________ - _____________________________________________________________
-----
--------- . . . Not content with horses of flesh,
--*---*---*-- they are building horses of iron,
----*----*-*----- such as never faint nor lose their breath.
--****--*----
--------- ds...@spectra.net --Anonymous (1840)
----- http://www.spectra.net/~dsaur/
___________ - _____________________________________________________________
Kevin Guthrie
>No, it doesn't hurt the hobby. My biggest gripe with the annual photo contest
>is that it is not a contest showing your MR work; it is a contest showing how
>good you are with a camera and how well you can put your diorama somewhere
>out in the nature to get that "real backdrop". I like the suggestions earlier
>that the contest should be split into new categories where un-enhanced photos
>from you layout-room is the main category. Then you can have other categories
>where everything is allowed. I like the pictures, but it is not MR work that
>is shown in them.
Hey, I've always been amazed that quite a few people seem to design their
layouts for photos. I've seen shots in the magazines (and even articles
describing how to do it) where, say, a 3D wall on a model building (or a 3D
road, or...) is continued into the backdrop. From the exact location that
the camera is in, the effect looks fine. But when you view the same area
of the layout from any other location, the continued wall looks bent!
In other words, the little visual trick that makes that photo so realistic
actually detracts from the realism when you look at the layout in person.
Its the same thing with backdrops, really. Don't get me wrong; I've seen
some beautifully done backdrops that in one sense add a lot to their layouts.
But at the same time the backdrop that looks good head on when your eyes are
level with the track starts to look like, well, a fake painted backdrop
when you view it from higher up or from more of an angle.
Personally, I think the real wonder that people experience when they first
see someones layout comes from the fact that there is so much 3-dimensional
miniaturized detail; wherever you look, the closer you look the more detail
you see, and the more you get the feeling that there is a whole world down
there. I think that when people see backdrop paintings, photos and mirrors,
when they look close and see that something that looked good at first is
really just some trick with a paint brush, it detracts from this "whole
miniature world" effect. Too much of it and the effect disappears entirely;
you are looking at a stage, not a world, and the magic is gone.
So I would like to see a split in the magazine photos between 100% real 3D
models and collages of photos, smoke, mirrors, and (somewhere) a model of
something. Some day someone is gonna win with a photo built from no
models whatsoever...
Just my opinion,
Kevin Guthrie
jhi...@mcs.net
>About the "fake" photos discussion.....
>Should my entry be entered in the legitimate or computer-doctored category?
Like everything else, it all depends. :) While I've nothing against what you
propose, currently its impractical. Full color, in hi-res takes a lot of bits to
process. (30 some Mb per page)
Pictures should be judged on what it is, and not so much how it was produced.
A fuzzy picture is a fuzzy picture, and that was the problem I had with
the picture in question, and with most digital pictures. The square
pixels are terribly grainy when enlarged.
If you want to do it, and you have fun doing it, go ahead and do it. If you
want to argue the fine print of contest rules, become a lawyer....
-john
Randy Gordon-Gilmore
said...
>So, I now have a "era-correct" photographic quality background to my layout.
>I build the foreground scenery (I would be smart enough to install the
>background first...), park a train in the middle of the scene, put out
>my camera and tripod and mail the results to _Model_Railroader_.
>Should my entry be entered in the legitimate or computer-doctored category?
I think the criterion would be "can I walk into your layout room and see the
scene as depicted in the photo?" If so, it's in the "legitimate" (real-time?
Geraldo-on-the-spot-report!) category. Dodged-in smoke, edited-in train
crew/SO's, multiple exposure, etc. would be in the other category, IMHO.
Now, modules photographed out-of-doors at clever angles...? <g>
ernf...@indirect.com
>About the "fake" photos discussion.....
>
>I go out and take photos of the existing town to use as the background
>from my layout. (MR and other publications have done articles about
>blowing up photos to use in lieu of painting a backdrop.)
>
>Now, let's say I take my computer and "doctor" the photos back into
>the appropriate era. While the structures haven't changed, the signs
>on the building, vehicles in parking lots, etc, all have changed. Using
>photoshop or some other program, I 'correct' these details so that the
>backdrops will be consistent with my modeled era.
>
>So, I now have a "era-correct" photographic quality background to my layout.
>I build the foreground scenery (I would be smart enough to install the
>background first...), park a train in the middle of the scene, put out
>my camera and tripod and mail the results to _Model_Railroader_.
>
>Should my entry be entered in the legitimate or computer-doctored category?
>
By my standards you would be in the legitimate category. Your backdrop is no
more jiggered than building a model(s) of the old town. The key is that your
photograph would be of something that existed at the moment of exposure.
This of course raises the issue of darkroom manipulation. I will accept contrast
control, burning in and dodging but no retouching other than cleaning up dust
spots. This position is arguable but it is mine.
ernie fisch
Stephen Hatch
This is only my opinion, but I enjoy photos of real model scenes much
more
> than I do a scene that has generated by a machine and never really
existed.
> I wonder if people would have such fond memories of John Allen's
Gorre
> and Daphited if it had never existed except as computer enhanced image
of
> his imagination. Computer enhancement of photos regardless of the
subject
> is a different hobby, valuable in its own right. But it is not model
railroading
>.
>
> Thank you and good day
>
> Lionel Strang
A lot of the photos, especially the ones from the late 40ies, were
not a real railroad. John Allen just set up scenes on his kitchen table
with a background taped on the wall. All the Varney Ad photos were done
this way. There was no Gorre and Daphetid until long after John had a
reputation as a great modeler with a fantastic railroad. Should we
throw away all John's photos? He Cheated? What are you saying?
-Stephen Hatch
http://www.greatbasin.com/~railway/
Jim Patterson
(Stephen Hatch) wrote:
> \\\\\\\\\ lots of stuff deleted ---------------
>
I've been a photographer for 43 yearsŠ a model railroader for about the
same length of timeŠ and a Macintosh user/teacher, etc., for 11. We turned
our darkroom into a storage area in 1989 when Photoshop took over
production of photo output for my graphic design business.
MR's Photo Contest is judged on the basis of dramatic photography. good
modeling skills play a role but for the most part, the winner photos are
from staged dioramas designed to create a dramatic photo.
In the olden days, I might have dramatized an otherwise drab b&w photo by
burning in a sky, using bleach to bring out highlights, dodging in clouds.
Fakery? Yep. Art? Yep. Science. Bet your butt.
So is dragging a length of track to the backyard, along with some
buildings and diorama scenery and backdrop, legitimate model railroad
photography or fakery using real sunlight and a real sky?
If I can create a dramatic and prize-winning MR photo by compuer scanning
and scaling a photo of a real person rather than go crazy painting
eyebrows on an N-scale Preiser figure, I'll do it.
There's a lot of controversy over digital imaging and digital photography.
Slipping a real figure into a model scene and making it look realistic
requires a lot of skillŠ artistic, scientific et al. The idea of
"restricting" computer graphics to smoke, steam, etc., is a lot of crap.
Why not restrict the contest to photos of blue locomotives?
--
------------------ Jim Patterson ----------------
-----------Shoreline, Inc.----------
--------...@gate.net-------
Kenneth Willmott
lots of stuff deleted ---------------
: Why not restrict the contest to photos of blue locomotives?
Because Duck would become very, very jealous. :-)
--
______________________ Ken Willmott
|][] # # # [] # ## [][|
|_||_______||____## ||_|
___(U-U-U)`------'(U-U-U)______________________________
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Nelson Kennedy
says...
>
>As MR is running the contest it's their call on what is and what is not
>cheating and by that perspective the computer enhanced photos are okay.
>Your calling it cheating doesn't make it so.
>
>Having said that I would prefer MR had more than one category for
>competition.
>
>
sense of fair play and allow room for the photographic art to be further
developed (no, no, that is NOT a pun). If some way is not found to
restore a sense of fair play we are going to see this debate emerge every
year about this time. This is the second year I've seen it and I've been
on the 'net only twelve months.
--
Nelson Kennedy
Christchurch, New Zealand,
Home of the 'other' Wisconsin Central
Dave Bott
(Brian A.Lunergan) wrote:
> Keith Rogers (kei...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
> > What those of you who agree that fake photo's are peachy-keen forget
> > is that it is simply a matter of time, very short time, when an
> > entire photograph will be fake, the whole thing the product of some
> > computer's imagination. What then, are fake railroad photo's still
> > OK? Be honest!
>
> Keith;
>
> You are forgetting that your model railroad is, in NO way, a true
> reflection of real life. Selective compression. Staging yards. All are
> used to build on imagination and deliver the look and feel of the real thing.
>
> There is no point to fighting the arrival of computers in any branch of
> the hobby. They, along with video cameras and other high-tech tools, are
> part of the scene and here to stay. Funnel all this fear-based energy into
> finding the ways that those who practice BOTH methods of photography and
> modelling can do best. Work together and HAVE FUN!
>
> A wise individual gave me some good advice once. There are two ways to
> deal with the advancing tide of knowledge and technology. The first is to
> work with it and ride the wave. The other is to fight it, drown in it, and
> disappear. Look up your history. Don't, for pity sakes, act the part of a
> model railroad Luddite.
As much as I agree that computer-enhanced imagery is not such a giant leap
from other types of photographic enhancements as to require a different
category for competition, I have to just say that one should not just
"ride the wave" of technology. The point is not whether computers,
digital control, and high priced technology should REPLACE scratchbuilt
cardstock cars, regular photographs, and block control. The question is
whether people who like or work with one or the other can coexist and have
fun! I would not want to have all manufacturers of block control
transformers go out of business because a "better" technology of digital
control came along. If we can have different scales and different
emphases (e.g., operation, rivet counting, scenery) coexist in one
magazine and one usenet group, even if there are tensions, why can't we
have two different photographic enhancement groups coexist? I don't think
computer enhancement necessarily makes a photographer better, it might
even magnify a poor photographers' errors in judgement!
Does an airbrush necessarily make a person produce a better weathering job?
DAve
Don Mitchell
says...
>
> A lot of the photos, especially the ones from the late 40ies, were
>not a real railroad. John Allen just set up scenes on his kitchen table
>with a background taped on the wall. All the Varney Ad photos were done
>this way. There was no Gorre and Daphetid until long after John had a
>reputation as a great modeler with a fantastic railroad. Should we
>throw away all John's photos? He Cheated? What are you saying?
>-Stephen Hatch
>http://www.greatbasin.com/~railway/
>
A lot of us G & D operators would be surprised to find out that the Varney ad
photos were taken on a tabletop, or that the G & D didn't exist until after
John had established his reputation. For a quick reference, check Westcott's
book for timelines ... and don't forget that John had 3 G & D layouts, the
first of which was incorporated in each of the 2 others.
Don Mitchell donm...@cts.com
Eric Welch
> the image is the point, and the photographich part is just one step to
> the image. After all, if you spent hours in the darkroom, burning,
> dodging, and using special developers, not to mention double-exposure
> techniques to get the image, that would still be acceptable to most.
Maybe the article should be based on the nature of the photograph, and
the purpose of the contest? If it was a photojournalism contest, then
faked pictures are completely unacceptable and the photographer deserves
derision and loss of his/her job. But for photographs of an "artificial"
subject to start with, that's something to think about.
Maybe the idea is, is it a photographic contest? Well, nowadays,
Photoshop is an integral part of photography, the digital equivalent of
a darkroom. Like you say, are multiple images allowed? Are lithos and
other darkroom tricks allowed? If so, Photoshop is. If the goal is only
to represent the model itself, and the craftsmenship involved in
building it, then straight photography ought to be used, and the
background should be a neutral grey with no interference with the
modeling involved. I think the former is the idea. Creating photos with
your model. So in that case, I believe MR is right in allowing such
pictures. Photoshop is one creative tool in the photographer's bag of
tricks along with filters, lighting and film choice among other things.
Photoshop does nothing (except maybe unsharp mask which is a pre-press
funciton) that couldn't be done, albeit more difficult, before it's
introduction.
Faked photos are bad in an editorial and documentary context. Otherwise,
it's acceptable. As a photojournalist myself, I've thought long and hard
on these issues. It's a matter of intent. Though I have to agree with
the person who objects to such pictures that digital manipulation is
often the tool of those who can't do it right the "straight" way. Just
look at Adobe's ads for Photoshop. Pretty sad drek if you ask me. Boring
to say the least. But I've seen more lame straight photography over the
years. The image is paramount. How does the end result look? That's what
counts. (Again, except in journalism.) But, and this is a big one,
Photoshop does NOT DO MIRACLES. You can't make a really bad picture good
with it. You can make a really good pictures bad, though. And most
people aren't that good with Photoshop anyway, because they don't put
the work into it.
--
Eric Welch
Grants Pass, OR
FREDERICK W DABNEY
(but no slide scanner, alas, yet), color printer, cd-rom, fairly
high-horsepower computer (gig drive, 80Meg 486, 16 meg ram), and a lot
of the software as well.
I've also got some decent cameras. I also have my own darkroom and an
idea of how to use the stuff in it.
Would I stand a chance in the contest? Probably not. First, I don't
have the eye to recognize when the photo is "right". That sort of
photography is not my strong suit.
No amount of hardware, photographic, electronic or whatever can ever
substiture for talent, judgement, and the skills required to operate the
equipment to the desired end. The tools are tools. I cannot expect to
put my supplies down on the bench, put the tools next to the materials
and expect to get a model out of the result. I cannot expect to do the
same with the ingredients to make a picture, either.
The builder must build the model. The photographer must take the
picture, then the rest is a matter of sweat and inspiration with whatever
tools are used, be it computer or darkroom; plastic or brass; hand tools
or power tools, and so on.
If you can't take a good photograph, don't whine because the guy who did
used better equipment than you did- first he had to take the picture too.
There is an old adage about the poor workman blaming his tools for bad
work. Have we reached the stage where bad workmen are blaming other
workmen's tools for the other person's good work?
With all that, I too agree that the rules can well stand to allow for
different categories. But denying the use of commonly available
techniques is as foolish as staging a contest on an architectural theme,
then denying the users the standard tools like view cameras with their
swing and tilts, or even perspective control lenses like Nikkor and
others have made in 35mm
In fact, what determines a professional photographer is the understanding
to use the tools that get the best results for himself or his client.
This is as true of fine arts photography as industrial or others.
Fred D.
Eric Welch
> Excuse me, but have you priced the cameras mentioned in the photo captions
> lately? The contestants aren't using $10 disposable cameras these days...
> With digital cameras starting at around $600 they compare favorably with
> some of the SLRs in use...
Any digital camera that costs less than about $7,000 or $8,000 isn't worth using, and won't
produce pictures that are good enough for magazine reproduction. The "standard" camera for even
newspaper reproduction costs in the neighborhood of $17,000. The cheapies that are coming onto
the market now (and I'm talking less than $1,000) are good for tiny pictures, and for web pages
(sort of), and nickle ads type pictures, but not for what we're talking about here. And the
peripheral costs of even the mediocre cameras puts it out of the reach of just about anybody but
people who use their cameras for their jobs.
--
Eric Welch <----whose waiting for his boss to buy him a Canon DCS3 (for $17,000!)
Grants Pass, OR
Dan Prysby
snip
>In the real world __THERE ISN'T ANY SUCH THING AS________FAIR__
>
>FAIR is a concept promulgated by those who --- can't, won't, are unable
>to (for any number of reasons) to compete with those who DO have the
>ability, knowledge, equipment, (and yes money).
>
>Chuck D.
>
Chuck,
Agreed, there may never be anything that is FAIR but if we perceive
something as being unfair, should we not strive toward trying to
make it less so? That's my only point.
Dan Prysby
Dan Prysby
>something isn't mentioned --- DOES NOT mean that your, mine, or any other
>individuals interpretations/desires are what should be used.
>
>In the real world __THERE ISN'T ANY SUCH THING AS________FAIR__
>
>FAIR is a concept promulgated by those who --- can't, won't, are unable
>to (for any number of reasons) to compete with those who DO have the
>ability, knowledge, equipment, (and yes money).
>
Chuck,
You make some rather strong comments on the concept of "fair".
I do compete and I prefer to make the games I play "fair".
While I agree with you that in many cases there isn't any such thing
as "fair", I do not think the concept of "fair" is as you describe.
For example, I run autocrosses. If there were no classes, my
trusty BMW2002 would never be able win any points against an M3.
Sure, I would have fun trying but I would never have a chance of
an earned win. In this case, the club assigns points based on
year and model of car and for particular modifications. Thus
many types of cars can compete if their points class them the same.
They also have a novice class.
In closing:
The game is meant to be fun.
If people perceive gross unfairness, they may decide not to try.
We do not want to discourage those in this hobby. I for one, try
to help those newbie questions and encourage anyone to try
something for the first time. I would never be telling anyone
that if you haven't tried, it's because you can't, won't or are
unable to.
Respectfully,
Dan P. and his 2002
Bill Kepner
Next year maybe I'll enter a photograph in the Trains photo contest of
a modern train on a narrow-gauge line, such as SP AC4400's at climbing
Cumbres Pass with a loaded 120 car coal train ! It will be easy to
standard gauge the line with Photoshop. Who needs those tiny K-36's ?
I bet that would be a winner !
Bill Kepner
Ft COllins, Co.
Nigel Cliffe
> >Am I the only one who is offended by the cheaters who entered
> >photographs that have been computer enhanced? IMO, good, honest
> photographers
> >rely upon their own abilities to take a prize-winning picture and
> >don't need to cheat. The other kind know that they are incompetent
> >so must rely on the computer to help them.
>
> Being a graphic artist who spends much of his time in Adobe Photoshop, I
> rather resent being called "incompetent"
> and the implication that a computer is a crutch to make up for lack of talent.
> I've won my share of design awards (for BOTH computer-designed pieces as well
> as traditional)...I consider my Macintosh as just another tool in the creative
> process, along with my pens, airbrush, and camera.
>
> Keithrx's comments remind me of the type made in the 19th century during the
> early years of photography. Painters used to complain that photography wasn't
> "real" art!
>
> IMHO, it takes just as much talent to artistically and creatively retouch and
> modify a photo electronically, as it does to get out your Nikon and take a
> good photo!
Is this a side issue ? I agree with Jim, that electronic editing is just
another tool - the same as painting out bits of negatives 80 years ago.
Using photoshop well is a technical skill.
But, when photographic model railroads, the issue is whether the
photograph is re-touched to show something better than the model.
It is a difficult issue - careful choice of angle and lighting will make a
model better or worse on the photographic print, but, by re-touching a
photograph it is possible to "improve" the model.
For example, I have a photograph of a model locomotive which did well in a
competition. However, the photograph showed up clearly that the chimney
was slightly squint. 30 minutes with photoshop straightens the chimney,
tidies up the edges, and the print looks much better - but is it a
photograph of the model, or is it an interpretation of the model ?
As far as my own editing goes, I won't use photographs which have been
modified, beyond simple changes, such as altering contrast and removing
backgrounds, unless its clearly stated on the caption what changes were
made.
- Nigel.
editor 2mm Scale Association Magazine.
--
Nigel Cliffe, mailto:ncl...@hfnet.bt.co.uk BT Labs, Ipswich, UK
Opinions my own, they may or may not be shared by my employers
Charles A Davis
On Fri, 16 Feb 1996, Dan Prysby wrote:
snip
> I do compete and I prefer to make the games I play "fair".
> While I agree with you that in many cases there isn't any such thing
> as "fair", I do not think the concept of "fair" is as you describe.
> For example, I run autocrosses. If there were no classes, my
> trusty BMW2002 would never be able win any points against an M3.
snip
> The game is meant to be fun.
> If people perceive gross unfairness, they may decide not to try.
> We do not want to discourage those in this hobby. I for one, try
> to help those newbie questions and encourage anyone to try
> something for the first time. I would never be telling anyone
> that if you haven't tried, it's because you can't, won't or are
> unable to.
I was thinking of sending something directly to you, but didn't yet!
(Tried and it bounced so posting gets the job done.)
The "auto-cross" you mention. The group has made some decisions as to
'classes' etc. to increase the participation, enjoyment, etc. that's fine.
There isn't a thing wrong with that. What my point is that there isn't
any "fair" rule to apply --- it's a nebulous fiction. And the ones that
'cry fair', are usually the ones that don't have the intelligence to see
that they _don't_ have a valid complaint.
Someone that _really_ want's to participate in a contest, finds out the
rules, and if there is somewhere that he is deficient (equipment, ability,
whatever), he is allowed, encouraged to figure a way around things.
I'm reminded of something that happened to my wife, many YEARS ago.
She had built and entered in a PCR (probably) contest. In the contest
room, she noticed that the 'gauge board' was numbered backwards, (larger
number at the top, smaller number at the bottom)(the gauge board is the
water level indicator for the tank contents). The judges were there
judging the models. She came up with a story to explain the backwards
'gauge board', and while it would have been "cheating" to collar the
judges and tell them, it wasn't to tell the story _loudly_ to another
modeler there with her. Unfair? I don't think so, part of model
railroading is coming up with stories (sometimes 'Tall Tales) to justify
what we enjoy modeling. Maybe to the extent that the story should have
been on the entry sheet --- maybe -- I don't remember the entry sheets of
that era, there may not have been a place for such information.
But she DID win a prize in the contest.
Oh yeh! The story.
Seems as how this was a model of a water tank "up in the mountains', poor
water supply, the 'gauge' was set up to tell 'how much capacity' was left
in the tank instead od the usual 'how much was available'
Chuck D.
Joseph P.
> How could photos be separated into 'straight' and 'enhanced' catagories?
> Again what is a 'straight' photo? Should we go back to the technology where
It seems based on the responses so far that a straight photo is
nothing more than whatever that particular writer knows how to do and owns
the equipment for, while a fake photo is caused by any technique they
can't do.
It seems many people forget that this is a photo contest, not a
modeling contest, and a photo is, by it's very nature, an artificial
image.
- Joseph
_____,,;;;`; ;';;;,,_____
,~( ) , )~~\| Jos...@Primenet.Com |/~~( , ( )~;
' / / --`--, Picture Rocks, Arizona .--'-- \ \ `
/ \ | ' ` | / \
-=:=- "God, grant that I may go to a heaven filled with horses" -=:=-
Derek Boles
>Being a graphic artist who spends much of his time in Adobe Photoshop, I
>rather resent being called "incompetent"
>and the implication that a computer is a crutch to make up for lack of talent.
>I've won my share of design awards (for BOTH computer-designed pieces as well
>as traditional)...I consider my Macintosh as just another tool in the creative
>process, along with my pens, airbrush, and camera.
>
The whole point behind *model* railroading is to take something that isn't
real and create the illusion that it is. I just don't understand the
Luddites who think that computer enhancement is some kind of cop-out and
represents a lack of talent. It takes just as much skill and creativity to
enhance an image in a photo image editor as it does to photograph a
miniature.
Model Railroader and other magazines regularly enhance photographs
submitted by readers to make them more attractive for their readers. Any
time you see type superimposed over a photograph on the front cover, it's
done in a computer application. What's the difference between doing this
in a darkroom and on a computer? No one gets mad at MR when they use
image editors, as they do all the time. Why shouldn't readers and
contributors be allowed to do the same?
I remember years ago in MR, the great Malcolm Furlow, a model railroader
of international repute, caused a storm of controversy because he
submitted a photo of one of his miniatures with a photo of him grafted
into the cab of his model engine. Many readers thought that was some kind
of cheat on his part.
Get off it folks, it's almost the 21st century!
--
Derek Boles
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
dbo...@astral.magic.ca
Smith
> In article <311c0925...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, kei...@ix.netcom.com
> >
> >The March issue of MR has some prize-winning photographs printed.
> >photographs that have been computer enhanced?
>
Then there's Toy Story. Wow!!! What a fake movie!
Smith Nash
Eric Welch
> > IMHO, it takes just as much talent to artistically and creatively retouch and
> > modify a photo electronically, as it does to get out your Nikon and take a
> > good photo!
People who say this don't know how hard it is to make a good photograph. Taking a picture is the
easiest thing in the world to do. To make a good photograph, that's one of the hardest things to
do. I know from years of experience as a pro. photographer looking at the work of other pros, my
own work, and that of many amateurs. Photography is incredibly difficult TO DO WELL. As a
"Photoshopper" myself, I can tell you, retouching a photo is kids play. Creating an artisitic
image with retouching, that IS another thing. But it's a whole different art form. Manipulating
photogrpahs takes no artistic skill at all. Just some good clonging skills and an understanding
of color theory. It's how you do it, and what you do with it, that makes it "artistic."
> As far as my own editing goes, I won't use photographs which have been
> modified, beyond simple changes, such as altering contrast and removing
> backgrounds, unless its clearly stated on the caption what changes were
> made.
You make a very good point. If it is a modeling contest, the photos should be "straight." If it s
a photography contest, let's get with the 90s and let photographers use what tools they have at
hand. Essentially, nothing Photoshop does couldn't be done 80 years ago.
ernf...@indirect.com
>On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Drew R. McGhee wrote:
>
>> How could photos be separated into 'straight' and 'enhanced' catagories?
>> Again what is a 'straight' photo? Should we go back to the technology where
>
> It seems based on the responses so far that a straight photo is
>nothing more than whatever that particular writer knows how to do and owns
>the equipment for, while a fake photo is caused by any technique they
>can't do.
>
> It seems many people forget that this is a photo contest, not a
>modeling contest, and a photo is, by it's very nature, an artificial
>image.
>
> - Joseph
I think this trivializes the argument. A straight picture records what is there at the
time of exposure and I don't care what equipment you use.
A modified picture records what the photographer desires, and I don't care what
equipment is used.
Where does that leave certain darkroom techniques such as contrast control, burn-
ing in and dodging. I would accept them as legitimate enhancements of the
original image but I am not hard over on this. Touch up for dust spots only, no
smoke, etc.
I believe there is a place for both methods in the hobby. I would like to see
contests divided into two segments. Pre exposure enhancement and post. Can it
be policed? NO.
Finally a photograph is as good a representation of a scene as you will ever get.
It is certainly subject to manipulation by lighting, angle of view, etc. But it is a
representation and therefore, to me, not an artifact.
ernie fisch
Charles Pearce
Picasso that goes like this:
Picasso was talking to a young soldier who told him that he didn't have
much of an appreciation for abstract art because it just wasn't
realistic. Picasso, the story goes, didn't try to argue the young man,
but instead asked if he had a picture of his girlfriend. The soldier
reached into his wallet and extracted a small photograph of his girl and
showed it to Picasso. Picasso looked at the picture and exclaimed: "My
God, is she really that small?"
Derek Boles
"Joseph P." <jos...@primenet.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Drew R. McGhee wrote:
>
>> How could photos be separated into 'straight' and 'enhanced' catagories?
>> Again what is a 'straight' photo? Should we go back to the technology where
>
> It seems based on the responses so far that a straight photo is
>nothing more than whatever that particular writer knows how to do and owns
>the equipment for, while a fake photo is caused by any technique they
>can't do.
>
> It seems many people forget that this is a photo contest, not a
>modeling contest, and a photo is, by it's very nature, an artificial
>image.
>
> - Joseph
>
Right on and it would follow that all those award-winning photos that fall
into the following categories would be disqualified if one were to pursue
this debate over what's "real" and start coming out with hard-line rules
about what qualifies as such:
€ All photos with those "fake" smoke effects that are drawn on glass and
mounted between the camera and the layout.
€ All those dioramas that are photographed outside with real scenic backgrounds.
€ Any photograph with a lighting effect that misrepresents what is really there.
€ Any work in the darkroom that effectively alters the actual photographic
image in any way.
€ Any photograph that is black & white instead of the real colours.
Jim Patterson
Whoo-eee! What a great discussion. I'll toss this into the hopper (50-ton
twin withi partially peaked endsŠ probably C&O).
Part of my graphic design work brings me into contact with a Photo CD
operator who sends his weirdest clients to me for Photoshop work. I've
gained a small degree of fame (disrepute?) for the job I did for a bride
who didn't have photos taken at here second wedding. So she had me put the
new groom's face in all the formal wedding pictures from ceremony #1.
Must've done a good job as she paid with glee. Go figure!
I've been a photojournalist since the early 50's and have found to my
chagrin that all that experience has not made me a very good model
railroad photographer. Certainly not in the same class with Furlow,
Sperendeno (sp?) et al. StillŠ I haven't used Photoshop for any of my
railroad pictures except for some grayscale scans I've submitted to
N-Scale. These were improved just as I would've done in a traditional
darkroom plus I masked out the background of my crappy garage door, etc.
Since they're construction photos, I don't feel as if I've cheated the
reader. If Bob Hundman runs them, see what you think.
Keep the discussion going. There's bound to be a solution somewhee. In the
meantime, I just found out that photography really is an art. After all
those years of abuse from my painting friends.
Jim Patterson
Back in the 50's and 60's, Popular Photography published annual editions
of "prize-winning" photos. In the back of the book would be thumbnails of
eachi photo and a brief description of the photogapher, how he took the
photo, and equipment plus exposure.
A thumbnail might end: "Leica M2, 35mm Summicron f:2, 1/125 @ f:8."
These thumbnails were recognized as a spur to camera sales. A jump in
Leica or Nikon sales could be attributed to Pop Photo Annual's heavy
selection of photos made with those cameras. I even knew photographers who
would use the exposure settings published in the annuals because they
worked for the prizewinners.
AnywayŠ to the subject at hand.
As as Mac user and writer, I'm always interested in seeing more people try
my preferred computer platform. So if Model Railroader would publish more
detail about its prize-winning photos including the computer and software
use to "enhance" an image, Macintosh sales should boom.
Bernard Kempinski
A model railroad contest photo needs three elements: good modeling
techniques, good photographic techniques (on film or on disk) and lots of
luck. Perhaps the latter is the most important. Photo contests are very
subjective and good luck is probably the best asset.
I think the digital and nondigital enhanced is the wrong categorization.
In addition to being unenforceable it is focusing on the technique and not
the product. I've never heard anyone say we should have a contest category
in modeling only for people with complete machine shops. The computer is a
tool which if anything has made advanced color photography more accessible
to the amateur photographer. By analogy you can build a great model with
hand tools but photoetching and motor tools make it a lot easier.
Photograhers have different purposes for taking shots. I usually have an
idea about what I want to picture to look like and then plan the shot
accordingly. Sometimes I know in advance that I'll need to work in the
darkroom (digital or otherwise) other times it's to correct a mistake. In
either case the computer is just another tool in the bag.
BCK
--
Bernard Kempinski
Institute for Defense Analyses
Alexandria, VA 22311
Burridge, Gerard
>In <Pine.BSD.3.91.960217...@usr4.primenet.com>, "Joseph P." <jos...@primenet.com> writes:
>>On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Drew R. McGhee wrote:
>>
>>> How could photos be separated into 'straight' and 'enhanced' catagories?
>>> Again what is a 'straight' photo? Should we go back to the technology where
>>
>> It seems based on the responses so far that a straight photo is
>>nothing more than whatever that particular writer knows how to do and owns
>>the equipment for, while a fake photo is caused by any technique they
>>can't do.
>>
>> It seems many people forget that this is a photo contest, not a
>>modeling contest, and a photo is, by it's very nature, an artificial
>>image.
>>
>> - Joseph
>I think this trivializes the argument. A straight picture records what is there at the
>time of exposure and I don't care what equipment you use.
>A modified picture records what the photographer desires, and I don't care what
>equipment is used.
>Where does that leave certain darkroom techniques such as contrast control, burn-
>ing in and dodging. I would accept them as legitimate enhancements of the
>original image but I am not hard over on this. Touch up for dust spots only, no
>smoke, etc.
>I believe there is a place for both methods in the hobby. I would like to see
>contests divided into two segments. Pre exposure enhancement and post. Can it
>be policed? NO.
>Finally a photograph is as good a representation of a scene as you will ever get.
>It is certainly subject to manipulation by lighting, angle of view, etc. But it is a
>representation and therefore, to me, not an artifact.
>ernie fisch
Did anyone notice how many computer manipulated photos won a prize in
the TRAINS photo contest?
If this is legitimate with models, why is apparently not in the TRAINS
contest. In fact, it is very unlikely any computer manipulated photos
were even submitted for consideration. But, if one was, would Kalmbach
be guilty of a double-standard if it was rejected because it had
passed through a computer? (The Heber photo might be nicely converted
to a moonlit shot, or ...)
The reason is, many, including apparently the MR contest judges,
confuse photography and modeling and how they relate. Computer
manipulation seems to be perceived as an extension of the initial
stage, the reduced physical model and the second stage, the taking of
a photgraph, the goal being to produce a yet 'better' model, albeit
one that does not really exist. In the process of depicting a
suipposed model, the definition of a /photography contest/ has been
skewed.
(if anyone did send in a manipulated photo to TRAINS: Appeal!)
=============================================================
Gerry Burridge burr...@odyssee.net
PO Box 152
Pte.Claire-Dorval, Que., CANADA Always looking for RUTLAND RR
H9R 4N9 photos, film, ephemera, ....
-----------------------------------------------------------------