MR Photo Contest Pix
JBortle
to pop up here and often the comments can be enlightening to those of us who do
close-up model photography. My March MR arrived yesterday and I must say from
the perspective of a runner-up from a few years ago that this year's crop of
photos is, in my opinion, most disappointing.
I'd have to say that the Grand Prize Winner is probably the most
mundane/simplistic photo I ever recall winning, going back to the contest's
very beginnings. From an artistic standpoint it is bland, essentially static,
and tells no story whatever. I note also that the first place conventional
image has perhaps 50% of the scene unacceptably soft/out of focus (foreground
and background), while the first place digital uses a very obvious and poor
blending effect in the water so that there is a clear mismatch in the scene. In
fact, the only two images I find impressive are those by Ferdinand Rat
(digital) and Wayne Wesolowski (conventional), who appear to have placed far
down the list of winners!
My intent is not really to criticize the photographers themselves - these were
undoubtedly their best efforts and as a model photographer I respect that - but
rather I have to question MR's judgement. Could these really be the
best-of-the-best in the way of model railroad photography today? Without
question, the winning photo's from a decade ago were far better and more
ingenious. I'm curious to hear what others think.
John
Joseph M. Ferris
I have to definitely agree. Yesterday, I recieved my March issue and
read it completely. I thought that Wayne Wesolowski's submission was
the best of the crop - a picture that you said that you found
impressive, as well.
In previous years, there was always a sense of realism to the winners,
whether it was a conventional photograph or digitally enhanced. That
touch seemed to be missing from this year's selection.
As you said John, nothing against the modelers who put their hardest
efforts forward this year.
--Joseph
Rathburne
MR wants to be/is today. It is a nice, average shot, but obviously a
model (I thought N guage) and very boring.
jbo...@aol.com (JBortle) wrote in message news:<20030204085337...@mb-ms.aol.com>...
Daniel Tavares
didn't strike me as better than other submissions. Wesolowski's shot is very good
but, to me, lacks life. Would be improved if it showed men working on the engine.
Actually, Lutz Kuhl's shot impressed me because the figures seem so lifelike
and well-done, right down to the stripes on the mounted police's pant legs!
Squeaky-clean buildings kind of kill it, though.
The most realistic of all, though, appears in Koester's column on page 116.
Beautiful!!!
Dan T
Mark Mathu
> I'm curious to hear what others think.
The total prize money was scaled back 20% this year ($2500 this year,
compared to $3100 last year), while the number of awards increased 60% (eight
this year, five last year).
Were the number of entries down this year?
Mike Tennent
I agree. The winners were not impressive at all. Some of the also rans
were much more artistic.
Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"
Operating Traffic Lights
Crossbucks
Special Effects Lighting
http://www.ironpeng.com/ipe
Wolf Kirchmeir
=> The most realistic of all, though, appears in Koester's column on page 116.
=>Beautiful!!!
Well, it _is_ a photo of as real place...
Wolf Kirchmeir
If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train?
(Garrison Keillor)
Paul Tackowiak
I can't help but connect it to MR's continued obsession with cropped close ups. If
you look at the On3 logging layout it appears to be a simple, but impressive
layout. It even has a 5% and 6% grades, but can I see the grades or any image that
isn't through a damn pin-hole? Hell no. Everything image is perversely selected
according to some bizarre notion that model railroading is about framed little
scenes. Even the photos of the big club layout give you no sense of scale. The
pictures could be from modules or dioramas.
I think MR believes that layout photos are eye-candy and nothing more. They show
you only the 'prettiest'. The photo contest makes this very clear. This is what
bugs me about MR. I want a magazine that gives me information I can use - not just
fashion photos. I want to see layouts from a distance. I want to be able to take
the nicely renderred track plans and connect them with something real. I want to
see layouts in a context - like I would in person.
Does MR think the point of model railroading is to make static little scenes (a la
it's sister publication Scale Modeler)? The only parts of the magazine that say
otherwise are the technical or how-to acticles and even they seem to lead to -
guess what - a static close up, as if the point of building a model railroad is to
make a couple ot stage sets for photo-ops.
Paul Tackowiak
Eric
mundane/simplistic photo as you mentioned one year and a highly
complex one with lots of details and photo techniques the next.
I think what happens is that the complex one frightens off a lot of
would be entrants the next year so they few entries. That causes all
the photo tech savvy modelers to enter complex pictures the next year
because 'they can do better' And thus the cycle continues.....
Eric
Gerry Leone
Contest WASN'T mentioned on the front cover anywhere? Perhaps that's a bit
telling, too.
-Gerry Leone
http://home.earthlink.net/~gerryleone/trains.htm
Jim Hill
> I'd have to say that the Grand Prize Winner is probably the most
mundane/simplistic photo I ever recall winning
> I thought that Wayne Wesolowski's submission was the best of the crop
> In previous years, there was always a sense of realism to the winners . .
. That touch seemed to be missing from this year's selection.
> The grand prize is a vanilla photograph . . . It is a nice, average shot,
but obviously a model
> Some of the also rans were much more artistic.
> Definitely a very lame group of photos.
This is unbelievable! The annual dust-up over the MR photo contest . . . and
I agree with (almost) every comment that's been made. This must be a sign
that the world is coming to an end.
The "Grand Prize" photo is 40% sky and 40% ground cover, with a train in the
middle that screams "I'm a MODEL!"
Very strange.
Jim Hill
John Dennis
> ... Everything image is perversely selected according to some bizarre notion
> big club layout give you no sense of scale. The pictures could be from
> modules or dioramas.
>
> fashion photos. I want to see layouts from a distance. I want to be able to
> take the nicely renderred track plans and connect them with something real.
> I want to see layouts in a context - like I would in person.
An interesting comment Paul. When I photograph layouts for magazines,
my aim is to try and remove all context from the photos, to make them
look more like a prototype photo and less like a layout. People in
fact are frequently surprised when they see how small some of the
layouts I have photographed are. I always aim to get in close and
get down low, giving a viewpoint similar to that of a railfan.
John
==========================================================
John Dennis jde...@acslink.net.au
Melbourne,Australia Home of the HOn30 Dutton Bay Tramway
and the Australian Narrow Gauge Web-Exhibition Gallery
Dutton Bay URL: http://members.optushome.com.au/duttonbay
WebX http://members.optushome.com.au/jdennis/ng_webex.html
Nigel Nichols
little scenes that don't give me an overall picture. One of the best
articles I have read was one that was accompanied with photos taken further
back so I can see what the layout builder/operator sees. The text was not
about how the layout was built but rather we followed a freight trains
typical run from town to town until it returned to it's point of origin. The
photos and track plan allowed me to see where the loco was etc.
Nigel
John Dennis <den...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c4dd96b.0302...@posting.google.com...
Paul Tackowiak
For me an 'art-shot' such as you might compose has real impact if I can see how that view came from
an actual model railroad layout - as opposed to a specially built diorama such as Ken Patterson
makes to demonstrate certain techniques. What's ironic is that articles in MM that use dioramas to
demonstrate scenery techniques aren't at all afraid to show the diorama because they're trying to
teach something. MR doesn't understand that a close up can have much more to offer if you can place
it in a (literally) bigger picture.
Paul Tackowiak
cat
miaoued:
>Paul Tackowiak <pt...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<3E41BA1D...@optonline.net>...
>> ... Everything image is perversely selected according to some bizarre notion
>> that model railroading is about framed little scenes. Even the photos of the
>> big club layout give you no sense of scale. The pictures could be from
>> modules or dioramas.
>>
>> ... I want a magazine that gives me information I can use - not just
>> fashion photos. I want to see layouts from a distance. I want to be able to
>> take the nicely renderred track plans and connect them with something real.
>> I want to see layouts in a context - like I would in person.
>
>An interesting comment Paul. When I photograph layouts for magazines,
>my aim is to try and remove all context from the photos, to make them
>look more like a prototype photo and less like a layout. People in
>fact are frequently surprised when they see how small some of the
>layouts I have photographed are. I always aim to get in close and
>get down low, giving a viewpoint similar to that of a railfan.
While I like the close in, realistic shots of layouts, I, too,
would like to see the occasional shot placing those closeups in
context.
The thing I especially dislike are the dioramas found in the
contests as they are a creation solely for the camera and do not have
any integration with a complete model railroad. While i build dioramas
for other models about the only legit railroad dioramas would be those
recreating a very specific image (like an O Winston Link photo) or a
historical vignette that would be impractical at a railroad theme
(like the earliest railroad railroads). To me trains are something
which in moving moves me and those which just sit there leave me cold.
cat
Rathburne
back, and one that includes the whole train room. O scale train mags
generally do that.
Paul Tackowiak <pt...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<3E41BA1D...@optonline.net>...
Rathburne
trackside photos section each month. Pay those shooters $100 etc and
be done with it.
"Gerry Leone" <gerry...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<GXm0a.1790$tO2.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Ken Spranza
were simply good shots of someone's model railroad; an opportunity
to see some good work without an entire layout article.
More recently, Trackside Photos seem to be plugs for what you'll see
in Great Model Railroads upcoming issue, NMRA tours, etc.
Most seem to be related to some sort of promotion.
--
Ken Spranza
k...@horailroad.com
"Rathburne" <ffrat...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7f2c0704.03020...@posting.google.com...
Rathburne
"Ken Spranza" <kensk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<vXE0a.3123$tO2.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Andy Harman
>Each year a discussion regarding the results of MR's annual photo contest seems
>to pop up here and often the comments can be enlightening to those of us who do
>close-up model photography. My March MR arrived yesterday and I must say from
>the perspective of a runner-up from a few years ago that this year's crop of
>photos is, in my opinion, most disappointing.
My goal in photographing a model scene was to try and make it look
real... to make you really, really have to look long and hard for
evidence that it's a model. To me this means the shot has to be
"mundane" in that it has to look like something that could actually
happen. And it also means that you pretty much have to leave the
people out of the shot. John Allen probably made the most realistic
HO people, but even so a 1-inch tall "human" usually stands out.
MR on the other hand seems to be going for a water color or oil
painting look. Which is fine, but if I want a water color, I'll paint
a water color.
There is only one model photo I can think of which stands out strongly
has having virtually no "model givaways". That is a shot from about
4-5 years ago looking up at Doug Hole's Cisco Bridge, which I think
was featured in RMC. It is looking up at clear blue sky, the bridge
model of course is fabulous, and any aspects of the loco which might
give it away - like a Kadee coupler - are not visible in the view. I
think that photo was taken by Don Weixl(sp?) and may also have been
used in the ads for Overland's Cisco bridge which was based on Doug's
model.
I don't go for contests, period, so debating which photo is a "winner"
or not is pointless, but I can certainly express a general opinion.
Out of focus photos don't look realistic. Why? Because the cheapest
disposable camera is capable of taking an in-focus photo (reasonably)
of a train. Sharp is good, razor sharp is better. Blurry stinks.
Secondly, digitized photos should be given a handicap in contests...
they just look ugly and fake. The only viable exception would be to
add real people to a model scene, but I haven't seen this done
convincingly... yet, although I believe it's possible. And lastly,
there is only one sun. It makes shadows. I have very few photos of
real trains that don't contain shadows. Those that don't are taken on
overcast days, and by definition, are usually crappy photos... not the
photographers' first choice for illumination. Deliberate use of
lighting that simulates an overcast day is a common technique in model
photos for the purpose of illuminating every detail, but detracts
greatly from the realism of the shot.
Of course there are exceptions.... the occasional wonderful overcast
shot, or backlit shot. A model photo which captures a real world look
is more interesting to me than a perfect one. When I was working with
Ken Patterson shooting the photos for the SDP45 article, I wanted a
diamond crossing shot, because at the places I watched EL (Griffith,
Hammond, Pullman Jct.) the diamonds were a fact of life. Was not able
to stage up a shot with a tower/diamond scene that was suitable for a
cover however. But one shot I took is a horizontal of the SDP
crossing a diamond, emerging from behind the tower, with a semaphore
in the way. Fairly strong shadow (shot outdoors in sun). As a
railfan, I would have tried for a clearer shot of the loco.. but as an
experienced railfan, my slide trays are filled with HUNDREDS of
similar shots - strong shadow, pole in the way, etc. As a result,
that particular photo looks much less "staged" than the others, and
it's my favorite of the batch. Bill did use it in the article, but as
the title page for the second part (April 99 RMC). It doesn't really
qualify as a totally realistic shot, there are several elements which
give it away, but it just looks more like the kind of photo someone
might have taken of the real thing.
At any rate, I do enjoy looking at model contest photos but it would
be interesting to have seen the also-rans in this latest contest.
It's not supposed to be a model contest, but a photo contest... but
again if the goal is realism, the model has to be there or it's going
to detract majorly from the effect.
Andy
----------------------------------------------------
Please reply to aharman at hhcustom dot com
Visit the RPM Web Page at http://www.rpmrail.org
Or my personal site at http://www.hhcustom.com/nspmg
----------------------------------------------------
Andy Harman
>An interesting comment Paul. When I photograph layouts for magazines,
>my aim is to try and remove all context from the photos, to make them
>look more like a prototype photo and less like a layout. People in
>fact are frequently surprised when they see how small some of the
>layouts I have photographed are. I always aim to get in close and
>get down low, giving a viewpoint similar to that of a railfan.
There is value in doing it both ways. I find it very useful to see a
layout IN context, to see how the builder fit the layout design into
the available space, etc. One layout I frequently visit has it's main
line on two levels emerging through cuts in the basement stairs.
Wouldn't make an MR cover shot, but it's a critical part of the layout
design. Going through the stairs made the main line route much
cleaner, and eliminated a duck-under at the bottom of the stairs.
RMJ probably gives the best coverage to layouts in context, and also
publishes a lot more photos of unfinished portions of the layout.
While the finished work is desireable from a "cover shot" point of
view, a magazine whose primary purpose is "how to" needs to show a bit
more... sort of like seeing a top fuel dragster motor being stripped
and rebuilt, as opposed to a still shot of it crossing the finish
line.
Jon Miller
latest Railmodel Journal (RMJ). All in color some nice "scene" shots and
some nice shots of the actual benchwork, control panels, etc. in one shot
(even wires on the floor, as in reality).
Mark Mathu
> IMHO, the contest has outlived it 'purpose' and there should just be a
> trackside photos section each month. Pay those shooters $100 etc and
> be done with it.
I'm sure one of the side benefits of the contest is that they get a lot of
good Trackside Photos from the submissions.
Diluting the prize structure to meet the demands of the digital/non-digital
crybabies is degradng the contest.