Garden Railway Forum

Hi.

I find one of the most difficult things in capturing a realistic picture of a garden railway is the proportion of sky to background. Trees can be simulated by dwarf shrubs, but the sky is hard to capture.

Who thinks tasteful photo-shopping a sky-scape adds to a picture and who feels it detracts

Feel free to illustrate.



No2 "Tom" on heritage train at Little Weighton.

Andy S at the Rylston Light

also http://www.flickr.com/photos/rylston_light_railway/

looks good don't know if it would count as cheating but I like it

RylstonLight:92855 wrote:Hi.
I find one of the most difficult things in capturing a realistic picture of a garden railway is the proportion of sky to background. Trees can be simulated by dwarf shrubs, but the sky is hard to capture.
Who thinks tasteful photo-shopping a sky-scape adds to a picture and who feels it detracts
Feel free to illustrate.

Hi,
I feel tasteful photo-shopping would add to a garden railway photo in many cases.
Where there are sensitivities over this subject, e.g. when taking part in some photo competitions, perhaps these could be reduced if a photographer were to briefly explain the adaptations that have been carried out.
I personally think that use of photoshop and similar is part of modern digital photography, though it is another skill I have yet to master.

Hornby magazine do it so why not, looks great

That's a cracking picture. I think if done well it can add to a shot, but like most arty things it needs a measured hand.
There is an article in this Novembers 16mm Today on photographing 16mm lines for those that havn't already found it.
John

At first glance I didn't realize it was 16mm because of the sky. If done well it can add to the picture and really has in this case.

Gremlin:92873 wrote:At first glance I didn't realize it was 16mm because of the sky. If done well it can add to the picture and really has in this case.

The same here - I thought it was full scale!

Must say that does look fantastic, adding in a different background really works to advantage where you've got a realistic scene in the foreground ruined by 12 inch/foot world at the back, a house or a garden shed etc

When taking photos I normally don't tend to take the photo with then having to process it with anything in mind. The only thing I tend to do however is sometimes adjust the colour balance or crop it, which can sometimes bring out some details which may have been burnt out on the pixels if not looked at. However, that has been done very neatly! I personally wouldn't call it cheating, as I think it is up to yourself to decide whether it is or not

DolwyddelanLightRail:92890 wrote:The only thing I tend to do however is sometimes adjust the colour balance or crop it, which can sometimes bring out some details which may have been burnt out on the pixels if not looked at.

I usually do that - I often don't get the subject where I want it in the frame!

I find that the "rotate image" feature is as important as "crop". Getting the camera down to eye-level means I cannot always precisely compose the photograph, and they are almost always skew-wiff (sp?).

I find a small bean bag (made of a latex glove filled with lentils) allows me to get to 16mm scale head height for shots.




The other trick is to make sure you match the real sunlight direction/time with a suitable donor sky-scape. In the example image the evening sun was low from the west. The Photoshopped donor skies I tried looked totally wrong until I found one that was of an evening sky looking west. Suddenly it "looked right" because it was right.

Also make your first attempt one with a real sky-line that is a smooth profile not say shrubs posing as trees as they are difficult to blend in.

Finally your real background will be slightly defocussed due to the depth of field effect of close-up photography. This looks odd: foreground slightly defocussed, train focussed, immediate real background defocussed again and then further background (the donor sky-scape) back in focus again.

This looks wrong until you deliberately blur the donor sky-scape to look slightly further out of focus than the (real) immediate background.

Sorry if there are some experts out there who are amused at my tentative attempts at photo manipulation; but if so share your tips too.

There are several other things I have learnt by trial and error that if the forum is interested I could chat about.
Andy S at the Rylston Light

RylstonLight:92903 wrote: There are several other things I have learnt by trial and error that if the forum is interested I could chat about.
Andy S at the Rylston Light

I'd be interested in that!

I'd tend to say it's not cheating, and the only reason it's not allowed in the GRF Photocomp is to keep a level playing field for those who haven't yet developed the skill.
There was a HUGE row (well, lively debate ) in the mainstream Steam Railway magazines some time ago about this, and in the end it boils down to whether the photo is meant to be "a historical record" or "artistic representation".

I think the row started over modern features being removed from photo's and extra "clag" being added

In addition to trying to match the angle and direction of the prevailing light in both the sky-scape donor photo and the model photograph, try to pay attention to the colour caste and intensity.

The donor sky-scape may benefit from altering the hue and saturation to make it less intense. Thinks about mountains getting paler and hazy and more blue in the distance.

Once you have combined the two image you might need to "dodge" in to make the transition a less defined edge.

One you have a tried straight edge false horizon then graduate onto a sky-line that has shrubs on.




I realise this is all a bit vague but just playing with a picture is the best way of learning.


Just for fun:




What if Terence Cuneo visited the RLR?

Royton light I do like your idear using the glove very very clever

Very interesting, thanks for posting some notes to go with the pic

I like the glove, quite clever! What type of camera are you using may I ask? It is a DSLR or a normal compak type camera?

I use a Fuji FinePix 6900. It's a hybrid style so not very sophisticated in modern standards.

However it is better to have a camera that you really know how to use rather than keep chasing higher specs all the time.

Photoshopping is just plain WRONG !!

Had to look twice at that, normally its because I can't tell if a garden railway is real or not not that way round!