EZ Line from Berkshire Junction

[robert3985]

@robert3985 this is just me ruminating, but I wonder if this perhaps is some kind of effect from the notion of "granularity" that I mentioned.  From looking at models all the time, our brains, which function as pattern-recognition engines, become conditioned & adapted to seeing detail parts that are in general oversized, on the order of say 50% to 100% or so (more or less).   In N scale this is prevalent in many areas, e.g. handrails, ladders, couplers, wheels, rail, line poles, scenery elements, etc... almost everything, really.  This leads to two effects:  (1) When we see oversized details, our pattern-recognizing brains immediately make a "this is a model" association. This holds whether looking at a model in-person or in a photo, tho each of those also has subtle cues that help our brains to recognize them as such. Subsequently, (2)  that association creates an expectation, which feeds back into our pattern-recognizer as a sort of control parameter or bias, that every detail in the modeled scene should be over-scale by about the same amount.  Then, when we replace an element in the scene with one that is truly scale-sized, to the point where we cannot actually see it (just like with true prototype proportions), our biased expectation leads our pattern-recognizers to conclude "model with missing element" instead of "realistic prototype scene with true-to-scale sized elements that I can't see".  To remove or change the expectation, it would first be necessary to change enough of elements in the scene to scale sizes/proportions, so that the initial "this is a model" association is removed, or at least weakened to the point where the brain has to look for other cues in order to answer the "what am I looking at here?" question.

I refer to that as, 'increasing the granularity' or 'increasing the resolution', somewhat like replacing an HD image with a 4k version.  It's in essence trying to increase the scale fidelity of the models, by removing the more obvious "giveaway" elements.

Our brains of course use many other subliminal cues, but addressing them all become more a matter of trying to create a virtual reality - something that really is at the center of our model building efforts

Ed

@ednadolski  Ed, I agree with you, and have incorporated much of the idea of "increasing the resolution" into my common scenes, a good example of which is sifting my real-rock ballast so that it's scaled-down prototype sized.  When I was taking photos for the Model Railroader photo contest back in the '90's, I intentionally took obvious things off of my models that would be a "giveaway" as to what scale the models were, such as all of the Magnematic dongles on the Z-scale Kadee couplers, and cast-on grabs on the Kato F's...although my replacement wire wasn't as fine as what you use for your handrails and grabs. I also used Rail-Craft C70 flex because of the prototype tie dimensions and spacing...and found that in the photos I sent in, the rail height wasn't a factor.

When I won the contest, many of the comments were that they couldn't tell that it was an N-scale scene, which was what I was shooting for.

I had some non-model railroaders tell me that the photo looked "real", but never had any experienced modelers tell me that. 

I regretted not stringing .002" wire on my scratch-built telegraph poles in this photos, thinking that would have been the final touch, but pondering upon the problem, I'm not so sure that would have improved the photos.

Telegraph/signal/telephone wire has been a more insurmountable problem for me because it is really small and to my way of thinking, should also "disappear" in photos like the prototype does most of the time...but just leaving it off doesn't do it for me...even though prototype photos of locations my LDE's depict don't show any wires on the poles.   

I think since Mark W has actually measured EZ Line, and it's substantially smaller than its advertised diameter, that I can finally be happy with using it, satisfying about 80% of both what I think I should be doing as well as what I think my photos should look like.

Now, if only somebody would produce some real N-scale properly proportioned Code 46 rail! 

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[ednadolski]

my replacement wire wasn't as fine as what you use for your handrails and grabs.

I was really surprised at what a difference (to my eye) the exact-scale wire parts made.   I never would have thought that a 0.003" difference in diameter would be noticeable, but the eye can and does pick up on it when it is juxtaposed with the other elements in a scene (esp. when some of the other 'giveaway' cues are removed).

It's almost the same amount of work to use fully-scale parts as oversized parts, so no real reason to go with the latter afaics.

I had some non-model railroaders tell me that the photo looked "real", but never had any experienced modelers tell me that. 

Perhaps, maybe because they are more accustomed to looking at models, so they readily pick up on the 'giveaway' cues, whether they realize it or not.

I regretted not stringing .002" wire on my scratch-built telegraph poles in this photos, thinking that would have been the final touch, but pondering upon the problem, I'm not so sure that would have improved the photos.

Lighting is another one of those subliminal depth cues, as is the perspective distortions that a camera lens imposes.  I'm always curious about "tilt-shift" that makes real trains look like models, I wonder if there is a reverse application of that which can make a model loolk more like a full-sized train.

https://lakeshorerailway.com/tilt-shift-train-photography/

I think since Mark W has actually measured EZ Line, and it's substantially smaller than its advertised diameter, that I can finally be happy with using it, satisfying about 80% of both what I think I should be doing as well as what I think my photos should look like.

I'm going to have to try some of that, when I get the chance    IIRC, MC used it for fences too.

 

Now, if only somebody would produce some real N-scale properly proportioned Code 46 rail! 

I think it's only a matter of time, before that can be done in metal on a 3D printer

Ed