N scale magazines

[Mark5]

One thing that amazes me are the layout tours where all the photos are shot from a N scale airplane. 

Dunno about you guys but I've never railfanned from high up in a helicopter or airplane before.

[TrainCat2]

 ;D ;D

[Ed Kapuscinski]

One thing that amazes me are the layout tours where all the photos are shot from a N scale airplane. 

Dunno about you guys but I've never railfanned from high up in a helicopter or airplane before.

AMEN!!!!!

I agree 100000 frigging percent. But, I think as we all learn pretty quickly. Putting the camera "on the deck" makes your layout look a LOT different. If you're not ready for that, then stuff can look pretty lame pretty quick.

[Bob Bufkin]

Agreed.  Was looking ad Ed's module at Timonium Saturday and it wasn't until I got down low that I recognized it from the photos he posted last week.
Bob

[pnolan48]

One thing that amazes me are the layout tours where all the photos are shot from a N scale airplane. 

Dunno about you guys but I've never railfanned from high up in a helicopter or airplane before.

I try not to do this. Yes, I do some, because it seems that there is a need for an "overall" picture. Getting down on the deck is hard with a DSLR and a 12-20 mm zoom, whose center is a scale 19 feet off the ground! So I get this:



Yes, I can shoot with mirrors to get lower.

Could this one be from a hillside, rather then a helicopter?



I think many of us are trying to shoot low.



Sometimes I can drop below the table edge.



I guess I'm going to have to get a smaller camera.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Pete, that's my secret!

My one published photo (uncredited in the third installment of Max's I1 article) was shot with my tiny, crappy $120 canon "point and shoot" (but I was using it in manual mode).

[Dave V]

I'll be a dissenting voice...

I like a few "helicopter" shots now and then to get an idea of how the scenes transition between one another and the overall "feel" of the layout.  This is as, if not more, important as the trackplan to me.

I like lots of trackside shots, of course.  But a few broad-area shots are useful.

Sometimes you'll see all the photo angles on the trackplan are of one small area on a huge layout.  I always wonder if that means the other 80% of the layout is bare benchwork.  That leads me to wonder why someone would submit a 20% done layout for publication... ???

[wm3798]

I'm with Dave.  While I totally dig those Ed shots taken from manhole covers on the layout, I also like to see how the layout coexists in it's habitat.

This is about as low an angle as my Canon S-2 can muster...


Not bad, but N scale Norm has to be standing on a couple of boxes to get that shot.

Lee

[Chulvis]

I'll be a dissenting voice...

I'm with you, Dave. I think there is a lot of value in a "helicopter" view of a layout from a modelers perspective. I also enjoy the low down shots for a "scene specific" view like Ed does.

Frankly, I'm just glad we have two magazines to choose from. From what I understand we will be seeing less and less N Scaling in Model Railroader down the line as they have pretty much conceded the magazine market place to NSR and N Scale.

[Norm P]

Not bad, but N scale Norm has to be standing on a couple of boxes to get that shot.

Lee

Actually I'm around 6'1", so I don't usually have a problem except that whenever I railfan your layout there's never any Chessie goodness.

[DKS]

I'll be a dissenting voice...

I'm with you, Dave. I think there is a lot of value in a "helicopter" view of a layout from a modelers perspective. I also enjoy the low down shots for a "scene specific" view like Ed does.

Put me in with group that prefers a mix of both "helicopter" and "eye-level" shots. With nothing but "eye-level" shots, it becomes hard to get a feel for the layout's... er... layout. I even like to see a shot or two of the whole layout room to get a sense of the space.

As for why "helicopter" shots dominate magazine articles, if it's a staff photographer, these guys don't have huge amounts of time to get the job done, and "eye-level" shots take a loooong time to set up and get right. Plus, they're usually working wth big SLRs. I've attended quite a number of layout shoots with different photographers, and only one that I've met so far who seemed to be really committed to getting a variety of good shots was Lou Sassi. The rest just want to get in, get some "decent" shots, and get out. I can't blame them, though, given their salary and their working conditions--having to fly everywhere and try to squeeze everything into one long day while suffering jet lag. That's a tall order and a pretty thankless job. Then there's the layout owners doing their own shoots, and not everyone has a lot of photography experience, much less the wherewithall to get those good "eye-level" shots. If they want to get published, they're better off sticking with the safer, easier "helicopter" shots. IMO, that is.

[tom mann]

When I design a diorama, I slope the front downwards so the camera can be lower than the track.  As Pete says, mirrors also work.

[wm3798]

Close up shots don't take that long to set up...  The problem is, I think, that the staff photographers have a lot of expensive equipment, and they feel compelled to use it.  This means camera angles limited to the aisles, and views similar to those that can be had by the visitor looking in at the layout.



I shot this by dropping the camera in the middle of the peninsula on my layout, making some adjustments to the room lighting, and firing away with the self timer.  Not a lot of brain science, and a finished picture you can't see from the aisle.

Lee

[DKS]

Close up shots don't take that long to set up...  The problem is, I think, that the staff photographers have a lot of expensive equipment, and they feel compelled to use it.

Yes, a few photogs may have the need to look like pros, but good ones don't. And close-up shots definitely take far longer to compose if you're going to do it right. Staff photogs usually have their own lighting gear. Why? Precise color balance. Most modelers are OK with the color rendering they get with either existing lighting or some supplemental lights. Magazines often demand very precise color balance, which means using the photographer's lights exclusively; often they will shut off all existing lights and even block out any open windows in the room. Lighting balance is critical, and even more so for close-up work. When working close-up, balancing the light from foreground to background becomes a time-comsuming process with much trial-and-error. Compound this with the need for maximum depth of field, and you're pumping a lot of light into the scene (unless they've graduated to digital image slicing techniques, which is still rare for most professionals).

As for "just plopping the camera down," one must ask: where? Is this a good spot, or that one? What's the story you want to tell with the image? Is the composition going to work? Any old random shot is not going to fly every time. And once again, depth of field is also critical; the better mags are not going to publish shots with blurry foregrounds.

[DKS]

As Pete says, mirrors also work.

Yes, indeed. This silly little shot was done with a mirror. There was no other way to get the angle, even with a compact camera, since the train was a mere 1-1/2 inches above the surface of the layout.