steam


Ideally, you would do this work from the original file. The better the source, the better your results will be. Work in high resolution, shoot in RAW if you can. Don't scale your image down until you're ready to export it to the web. Working on the large image will keep plenty of details and help you blend things together.

Even so, this will give you a good idea. Everything was done in Photoshop, since it's what I use and know. There is one tool in Photoshop (and Photoshop Elements too) that really does well with this stuff. It's called "Content Aware Fill". This is a healing brush that scans the adjacent areas and tries to blend in the fill to match. It usually, but not always, does a really nice job of it. I used it extensively on this one, and had the whole thing done in about 10 minutes.

I used the clone stamp to copy and paste some items to new areas, then content aware fill was used to blend and patch as needed. Here's the final result:

bridge-1.jpg

This gives you a good idea of what you can do in "post production" (editing). Ideally, you'll do as much as you can "in camera" (when you shoot the photo). As an example, if you have permission, momentarily removing the cop car from the scene would save effort and make that area look better.

Some things can't be fixed in camera, or at least not easily. It's not practical to build more rock wall to hide the benchwork just for a photo. Hiding the wall would be tough easier, as you'd need big screen, and if you use something like a sheet or blanket, it's going to wrinkle and cause problems.

On the other hand, for shots like the turntable, where you could put a sheet of posterboard in, that's a good option. Trying to edit around all the fine details is painstakingly difficult. Ideally, position the train so that the background directly behind it won't need editing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well done, Bob! You also had a very good shot to start with!

Like you, I will occasionally take a photo into Photoshop and play around with it. One thing that caught my eye in the original shot was the police car. I could only see a small part of it, but enough to make me believe that it was "too modern" for the rest of the scene.

I know that places that have photo contests "frown upon" digital editing -- and to some extent, I agree. There is most assuredly an art to taking a photograph that does not need re-touching, and Photoshop (and it's kinfolk) seem to be cheating somewhat on the art of photography. On the other hand, sometimes a little post-production work can turn a good photo into a great one.

I would have NO problem with seeing this photo on a website or in a magazine, IF it were noted that some re-touching had been done. But it's a tough call -- do you leave a picture with the fascia and the incomplete backdrop alone, as an accurate representation? Or do you re-touch the photo, and then run the risk of being accused of "cheating" by adding detail that wasn't there or removing things that wouldn't be there if we we looking at the real thing?

Food for thought -- and I don't think there's a simple answer...

Regards,
Tom Stockton
 
I reckon the cop in the car gave up, 'cause no one in their right mind would speed on that road.
 
Whether or not digital re-touching is appropriate depends on, as you have suggested, how the image is presented.

If I take a photo of my layout, Photoshop in a bunch of stuff, and then send it in to Model Railroader, without any explanation, that would be dishonest in my opinion.

In this case, it's not about the model railroad, and whether or not that rock cliff goes to the floor, it's about presenting a complete image that appears to be real.

When you first looked at the image, chances are good you didn't see most of the stuff I cleaned up. You didn't notice the "sky" had a doorway, or the benchwork was shown. You probably saw the train and admired the scene, then you started noticing the other stuff. Your eyes do a great job of filtering out things like that.

Some folks prefer to do the stuff "in the real world", rather than in Photoshop. That's all well and good, and an admirable goal.

However, give this some thought: This is a photo of a plastic or brass train crossing a plastic bridge, on a hollow wood and plaster hill, covered in paint and fake grass. It's running on plastic ties (most likely) and the rails aren't steel. The engine is powered by an electric motor, even though it appears to be steam. In fact, pretty much nothing in the scene is really what it appears to be. So why would adding a some pixels be "cheating?" (If the goal it create an image, not present a layout as something it isn't.)
 
Bob,

I agree with you 100%. My thought was to bring some some point on some things I've heard over the years about altering images of our model railroads.

And you are right -- the first thing I looked at was the train and the bridge. However, it did not take me too long to notice the police car, the fascia board and the "end of the sky"; I've worked for over thirty years in television graphics, and photography is one of my hobbies. I will admit that I didn't pay much attention to the white patches; my eye read them as gravel piled up alongside the roadway -- maybe in preparation for the DOT crews to spread out along the shoulder? I did not see the graffiti -- that was a good catch! I would probably have noticed it if I'd taken more time to study the picture... maybe... :confused:

But I am ALL for presenting our model railroad worlds in the (reasonably) best possible light, and I think GN.2-6-8-0 has a beautiful and well-staged photograph, which you made better looking by Photoshopping some of the "problem areas" to make the model look more like the real thing. A tip of the hat to both of you!

Regards,
Tom
 
tomstockton said:
But I am ALL for presenting our model railroad worlds in the (reasonably) best possible light, and I think GN.2-6-8-0 has a beautiful and well-staged photograph, which you made better looking by Photoshopping some of the "problem areas" to make the model look more like the real thing. A tip of the hat to both of you!

Regards,
Tom
Click to expand...

Good points all round, Guys.

For my two cents - The better presentation is that of the "touched up" photo, but then I asked myself, "What's that Alleghneny doing in the desert"?

Beautiful job, Bob. How about photo shopping in a couple of whispers of steam around the cylinders and some smoke/steam from the stack - yeah!
 
Sirfoldalot said:
For my two cents - The better presentation is that of the "touched up" photo, but then I asked myself, "What's that Alleghneny doing in the desert"?
Click to expand...

I think so too, the lack of distracting elements does seem to help. As for the desert, it does seem a bit more barren than it's normal home turf, doesn't it? Not nearly enough trees.

Well, you see, way back before the whole CSX 8888 "Crazy 8's" runaway, there was this steam engine that made it all the way to... Nah, doesn't work does it? ;) But overall it's a cool photo.

Beautiful job, Bob. How about photo shopping in a couple of whispers of steam around the cylinders and some smoke/steam from the stack - yeah!
Click to expand...

I thought of that, but it's far more challenging than you might expect at first. Also, since I'm so familiar with the real thing, I'd really be hard on myself.

That said, Ted's done a nice job of it on a couple of his shots... He went with a nice subtle effect, works pretty good, though that piston rod packing leak really needs to be looked at by the Master Maniac ...err Mechanic.

http://www.modelrailroadphotos.com/photos/showphoto.php?photo=4749&title=steam-road-swtcher&cat=568
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top