Painted vs. Printed Backdrops

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I personally have never liked photographic backdrops, no matter how well scaled, no matter how era-appropriate.
The reason is that real-life photos, to me, always possess a quality that somehow makes them stand out like sore thumbs
compared to the  layout in front of them.  Even if the layout is magnificent, I always see an
element of it looking like a "cartoon" in front of a real life scene.   

Up until about a year ago I'd completely agree with Max.

Then I saw Mike Confalone's stuff.

http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/sites/model-railroad-hobbyist.com/files/allagash-sandy-river-2_0.jpg
http://www.railroad-line.com/forum/data/mike%20hamer/200927232047_Granite%20Junction%20and%20woodyard%205%20web.jpg

Needless to say, I've changed my mind.

I now believe that, like almost all techniques, if done well, they can work out wonderfully.
But the trick is in doing them well.

[mark dance]

As others have stated, it depends on what you are trying to achieve and what your personal priorities are.

My priorities are to try to achieve an attractive "model" and environment in which to operate trains realistically rather than to achieve a hyper-accurate "model".  This is true of all aspects of the C&W...the effect is more important than the accuracy to me.  I also enjoy the challenge of painting backdrops and the satisfaction that exercising this side of the hobby brings me (and further some of these backdrops are in such crazy orientations that photos simply wouldn't work so the flexibility of painting is required!).  These combined have pushed me to painted backdrops although I am experimenting with cut out photos over top of the paint to represent buildings where clearance from the tracks is not adequate for a model.

So I think the only right answer is not what others think but what *you* want to spend your hobby time doing and what *you* want to achieve.  So I would advise you to examine your responses to those two questions first then follow how these guide you.

md

[rsn48]

Even at Backdrop warehouse, I've seen photo's clash with what is on the layout; that isn't the problem of using photo's but as others have noted how well the foreground and background blend.  I know I'm not an artist but I have enough faith to feel I will get some reasonable blending.

In fact on one part of my layout, a narrower shelf at 18 inches wide, I'm thinking of double photos.  The one photo which is the main backdrop and another of industrial buildings cut out and mounted on foam board, in front of this scene will be the industrial buildings I have on the layout in that location.

Just like the DC/DCC wars with DCC taking over, photo backdrops are becoming much more acceptable as folks see the results and realize its easier to pay out a few bucks and glue them to the hardboard then it is attempting to acquire reasonable enough painting skills to do a good job.

[Nilmadic]

So Pelle Soeborg's book "Rebuilding Your Layout From Start To Finish" has a great article on photo backdrops. How he photographed the actual location and then cut up the photos and spliced them together with software. Literally moving mountains to where he wanted them. Getting rid of unwanted details that will make the scene seem out of scale, that sort of stuff. May be worth the read if you really are gonna go that route. MR may have featured it not too long ago.

[w neal]

[ljudice]

If you can easily and inexpensively print massive things, go get a copy of Vue (there are very inexpensive, in fact even a free starter kit, I think it's called Vue Pioneer) -  See http://www.e-onsoftware.com  for details.   Stick to the versions for 3D enthusiasts, since the versions for Artists and production pros get extremely expensive.

Vue is used widely in movies, etc... to create natural environments of any type, size, terrain shape, material, vegetation, fog, haze, sun, moon, extra suns and moons for extra-terrestrial layouts, clouds, weather conditions, etc... 

Here is something I cranked out last week in about 10 minutes to test the reinstallation of my "render cows". It was done in an older version of their very high end product, but uses no real high end features:



I have been using it for business for some time and in fact need to upgrade/crossgrade to the latest Mac versions, and
I need some capabilities that require a pretty expensive version of the software.

- Lou

[VirginaCSX]

If you are doing sky or natural background and have the talent, painting usually looks better.  If you need man made structures in your background I like pictures better.

[C855B]

Now mind you I have not executed this yet... but...

I think I've become a big believer in the false horizon. This is creating a hill or other obscuring elements which obfuscate the line between the layout surface and backdrop. Then you can force the perspective either with a photograph of distant hills or forest, or a painting, or even just a stylized airbrushed sky to convey the feeling that the rise in your scenery is the local horizon. This is one of the things which make some of the incredible layouts with incredible scenery so believable - the scenery is the horizon, you don't have to force anything else. I think Lee's shots are good, practical examples of the practice.

[mmagliaro]

I'm not so sure its a matter of one versus the other. It seems to me that the trick/skill may be in how well you can BLEND the forground with the background, what ever form it is. See: The work of Danneman - for hints. What detracts, to my eye, is the contrast between the two.

I'm playing with elements of each on my layout. (You can view the awful results in the Layout Engineering Reports section.) I do not have access to a large printer and have "miles and miles" of sky. There fore, I was trying to seek a marriage of the two worlds. Oh well, I tried.

In your case, I would try printed backdrops with elements from the actual location you are modelling. Maybe, being in your position, you can control the inks/shades to better match the foreground cover where the sky and ground elements actually meet.

+1 on this.
Yes, and my contention is that it's hard to tone down, mute, and blend a real live photo into your model train scenery.

I'm afraid that this really is a matter of how well the given person can master each skill (altering the photos to match
your scenery, or painting backdrops to blend in with your scenery).     

If you can blend in and mute the photos, yes, you can make it work.  I think it is a myth to assume that if you don't have good painting skills, that you will find it easier to select and adjust real photos so that they blend in.  The photos may be
already done, and you don't have to paint them, true.  But there is a lot of skill involved in altering them so
they don't jump out from the background as though they are out of place.    My impression is probably largely steered
by all the cases I see where people unroll a photo backdrop from a tube, glue it up, and say, "There, all done."

 

[SecretWeapon]

Hey Lee, that 2nd photo is really nice!

[ljudice]

Hey Lee, that 2nd photo is really nice!

Good to see you back!

[ljudice]

Somewhere in the Smoky Mountain Rain...  This is a 4000x1500 render, took 5 minutes to design and 4 minutes to render (on four core-duo pc's):




Here is link to see it larger:

http://www.louisjudice.com/DigitalIllustrations/Digital-Renders/i-WMhqWrC/0/X3/smokymtn-X3.jpg

[Erik W]

Somewhere in the Smoky Mountain Rain...  This is a 4000x1500 render, took 5 minutes to design and 4 minutes to render (on four core-duo pc's):




Here is link to see it larger:

http://www.louisjudice.com/DigitalIllustrations/Digital-Renders/i-WMhqWrC/0/X3/smokymtn-X3.jpg

I like this.  If I had to choose either photo or painted, my vote goes with a painted backdrop.  I feel it's hard to pull off the photo backdrops well.  A lot of that is in a way they look too real, compared to the models in front of them,  I agree with other posters though, the key in both cases is how well you blend the backdrop with the scenery.

I think this computer generated backdrop idea has real possibilities, and is a good compromise between photo or painted backdrops.  It doesn't look hyper-real when compared with the rest of the model railroad, as photo backdrops do, and it would appeal to modelers, like me, who are not really good painters.

By the way, the only thing I've painted in my life was my 26' backdrop.  Seen here in the early stages of layout construction back in 2005


. . . and a couple years ago.


Erik

[ljudice]

Erik,  your backdrop is really nice! 

As for Vue, as you say, it's not hyper real, just suggestive - although with further rendering, turning on an ecosystem of about a million trees, etc  it could look realer-than-real... 

If you have the 3d models, you can also have buildings, or whatever you want in them.

The other nice thing is that you are in control and can get anything out of it you want, certainly the ability to make larger panels that can be placed side by side.

If anyone has a printer that can make some massive thing, send me the specs and I'll make a file and see how it turns out.

I use this a lot just for the clouds, because you can get better looking clouds from the program than from any stock image I've ever seen.

- Lou

[ljudice]

Hey, just a dumb thought - for a diorama, put several flat panel display behind it, and you could have changing weather, day and night, sunsets...

I know a company that could engineer this, but it would cost $10's of K's of $$$.....    Used to have stuff like this built for the old HP
corporate visit center in Cupertino (and other places...)

Of course DKS could probably put an entire "T" scale layout in front of one of these Apple Thunderbolt displays....