Weekend Update 3/26/17

[peteski]

Part of the point to my post was answering the question "what more would you need?"  Notice the generic "you", which opened the door to an opinion.  Since Dave apologized for the quality of the photos, evidently he thinks they need more.  I just filled in some of the blanks.

You will also note that I commented specifically about my non-pro quality Minolta SRT-101 SLR camera and lenses, which worked quite well with ultra-fine grain Kodachrome 25 and 64....the megapixel sensor equivalents having to do with the quality of film, not the technical aspects of mechanical SLR's, so access to "pro equipment" was not a factor as to resolution figures, but the availability of ultra-fine grain film, the finest of which is/was Kodachrome 25.  You didn't have to be a pro to use it in your non-pro cameras in the 70's, meaning being a "pro" is beside the point.

It's YOUR opinion that today's cellphones produce images that are sufficient for posting to online forums and, I agree...most of the time.  However, bad photos are bad photos, even if they allow the modeler's work to be seen.  My comments were about what more could possibly be wanted, and the myth that film cameras in the 70's were technically inferior to modern digital photographic instruments...particularly cellphone cameras.

However, the points to my post still stand, particularly that it's really Dave's excellent work that's interesting, not the quality (or lack thereof) of his photos!...which are sufficient.

Bob, even the best equipment will not magically make a person a good photographer.  Especially if manual settings are required.  You are also boasting about the superb resolution of Kodachrome 25.  That film pretty much requires a tripod mounted camera and use of high power photo-floods (to get any appreciable DoF by stopping down the lens).  Also, there is no need for high-res photos for in-progress shots for the forum as they will be reduced to low-res (1024 pixels wide) images when posted to the forum.

Quick in-progress snaps is where a smart-phone camera works really good. With fully automatic mode and good DoF capability it is ideal for quick in-progress shots for the forum. Anybody should be able to take decent photo. After all we aren't talking magazine-quality photos  - just quick snapshots.  Pretty much anybody can get results decent enough to show off their work on the forum (although have seen some photos here with *REALLY* bad lighting).  That is not the camera's fault.

Then there are members here who are really good with their smart-phone camera - just look at some of the photos from @Chris333 .

[peteski]

Curious as to why the use of flat brass strips instead of conventional flex for off-scene tracks.  Is this common practice in England?
Charlie Vlk

Interesting - I didn't notice that until you mentioned that and I took a 2nd look.  Maybe it is easier than hand-laying the regular track?  But brass was always considered bad for track (it needed frequent cleaning for reliable electrical contact).  But the wide brass strips nailed to the roadbed will sure will be more sturdy than the fragile rail.

[OldEastRR]

Day late reporting but a good start on getting at least one scene mostly done.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Put in a bit of abandoned ROW because I think it's a neat visual.

[robert3985]

Bob, even the best equipment will not magically make a person a good photographer.  Especially if manual settings are required.  You are also boasting about the superb resolution of Kodachrome 25.  That film pretty much requires a tripod mounted camera and use of high power photo-floods (to get any appreciable DoF by stopping down the lens).  Also, there is no need for high-res photos for in-progress shots for the forum as they will be reduced to low-res (1024 pixels wide) images when posted to the forum.

Quick in-progress snaps is where a smart-phone camera works really good. With fully automatic mode and good DoF capability it is ideal for quick in-progress shots for the forum. Anybody should be able to take decent photo. After all we aren't talking magazine-quality photos  - just quick snapshots.  Pretty much anybody can get results decent enough to show off their work on the forum (although have seen some photos here with *REALLY* bad lighting).  That is not the camera's fault.

Then there are members here who are really good with their smart-phone camera - just look at some of the photos from @Chris333 .

Peter, Obviously the camera is the tool,  the photographer is the artist.  Did I ever contend that good equipment will "magically make a person a good photographer"?  Newp.  However, the equipment can limit you, and cellphone cameras do just that, because they are so "advanced" they don't allow simple manual operation...which is the very heart of photography...the artist controlling the quality of light, and the amount of light, by choosing the f-stop, the shutter speed and the focal point.  Cellphone cameras at least allow the operator to compose the shot, but usually do everything else.  "Good" photography is one thing to you, and another to me...and yet another thing to someone else.  You may not think that an artistically well-composed, well-exposed, well-focused, well-lit photo is necessary in our forum, but when they are, they sure make the subject matter more visible and understandable to us gawkers.

I won't argue that cellphones make quick snapshots very easy to do.  I use mine all the time for quick grab-shots of my work, or for reference shots when disassembling something so I can get it back together again.  If cellphone designers were photographers, one of them might think to offer a "manual" setting, but they obviously are not, and do not.

However, from a "photographic technical quality" aspect, the old film cameras take much better photos than cellphones.  There were point & shoot film cameras that did all the calculations for you by the 70's made by Kodak, Agfa and I don't remember who else.  However, from a "handiness" aspect, cellphone cameras do the job better than anything else so far.

But, we weren't talking about "handiness" originally were we?

You say that anybody should be able to take (a) decent photo...I suppose it depends on what your definition of "decent" is, eh?  Kinda like what your definition of "good" photography is...it's not easily defined and assuming that everybody agrees is an erroneous assumption.

Once again, Dave's photos did the job, even though he thinks they deserve to be apologized for.  You may not, but the creator of them does.  Who's right? 

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Mark W]

Interesting - I didn't notice that until you mentioned that and I took a 2nd look.  Maybe it is easier than hand-laying the regular track?  But brass was always considered bad for track (it needed frequent cleaning for reliable electrical contact).  But the wide brass strips nailed to the roadbed will sure will be more sturdy than the fragile rail.

Easier to hand lay, maybe, but sure as hell not cheaper!  It's gotta be something more than just being more sturdy than flex.  The only reason I can hypothesize for doing this rather than just laying flex is, given the elaborate packing for storage/transport, perhaps the top face of those sections are load bearing or in direct contact with other material when packed.  A bunch of brass strips firmly screwed in place can take a rough beating, but flex would need careful protection.  Any other reason I can imagine seems beyond the cost/benefit of plain ol' flex. 

Interesting, I always just assumed Brass oxidation was still highly conductive, and of course is quite durable, which is why it's the material of choice for garden railroads in outdoor environments.  Likewise, I figured the reason it wasn't used in N was that Nickle Silver had the superior look (for the top of the rail head at least) and was more suitable for indoor environments.  I sense this may not be entirely accurate.

[peteski]

I won't argue that cellphones make quick snapshots very easy to do.  I use mine all the time for quick grab-shots of my work, or for reference shots when disassembling something so I can get it back together again.  If cellphone designers were photographers, one of them might think to offer a "manual" setting, but they obviously are not, and do not.

I don't own a smart-phone, but they are all around me. Some brands allow manual control of some of the settings. There are also additional "camera apps" one can install on their smart-phone to allow even more manual control. But in the end the amount of control is limited by the phone's camera hardware.  However the automatic mode seems perfectly adequate for most of the quick in-progress snapshots I would expect to see here.

This discussion was about taking decent quality low-res snapshots of in-progress work and using them on TRW. Not everybody takes professional-quality photos for that purpose.  We could beat this horse forever (since each of us has a different opinion of what a quick and simple snapshot is).  One thing we agree on is that the smart-phone photos which spawned this discussion are plenty good for being used here. 

[garethashenden]

Interesting - I didn't notice that until you mentioned that and I took a 2nd look.  Maybe it is easier than hand-laying the regular track?  But brass was always considered bad for track (it needed frequent cleaning for reliable electrical contact).  But the wide brass strips nailed to the roadbed will sure will be more sturdy than the fragile rail.

It's a bit of both. It is a bit faster than handlaying track, but it is also very robust. When loading up the van some of these sections can almost be tossed in, they're that sturdy. Track joints are often a weak point on exhibition layouts, but these are rock solid. As for cleaning the track, once the layout is up all the brass strip gets gone over with track cleaners before the scenery is added. One other advantage of the brass strip is that it's really easy to put stock on. You don't get the problem of missing the very narrow rail with a wheel or two.

[nscaler711]

I don't own a smart-phone, but they are all around me. Some brands allow manual control of some of the settings. There are also additional "camera apps" one can install on their smart-phone to allow even more manual control. But in the end the amount of control is limited by the phone's camera hardware.  However the automatic mode seems perfectly adequate for most of the quick in-progress snapshots I would expect to see here.

This discussion was about taking decent quality low-res snapshots of in-progress work and using them on TRW. Not everybody takes professional-quality photos for that purpose.  We could beat this horse forever (since each of us has a different opinion of what a quick and simple snapshot is).  One thing we agree on is that the smart-phone photos which spawned this discussion are plenty good for being used here. 

Pete, if you ever get a "smart"phone, I don't think you would ever leave this site. :p 

[peteski]

Pete, if you ever get a "smart"phone, I don't think you would ever leave this site. :p 

I don't see that happening anytime soon.  Actually I do own a smart-phone. Bought it for about $25 at Target and didn't activate it. I use it strictly as a WiThrottle.

As far as leaving this site, I don't ever leave it, even now.     

[Ed Kapuscinski]

BTW, how is 9253 coming?  Mine is going to get airbrushed.  So there.

Ahahahahaha. It's coming along. I've been spending a lot of time trying to get the patched cab front to a point where I'm happy with it.

Code: [Select]

Foreach (round in manyRoundsOfRevision){
    ApplyPutty();
    SandCarefully();
    BRUSHPaint();
    Observe();
}

[Lemosteam]

Ahahahahaha. It's coming along. I've been spending a lot of time trying to get the patched cab front to a point where I'm happy with it.

Code: [Select]

Foreach (round in manyRoundsOfRevision){
    ApplyPutty();
    SandCarefully();
    BRUSHPaint();
    Observe();
}

It might come if you rub it harder and faster.   

Sorry couldn't resist.

[Missaberoad]

You are entirely correct.  Late night posting and I flubbed the numbers by "an order of magnitude".  Should have said "80MP and 25MP"...on the low end 8.5MP  OOOPS!!!  Thanks for the correction, but the gist of the post is still the same with the corrected numbers.

Kodak Kodachrome 25 has virtually no grain.  It was, and shall remain the sharpest, most grain-free positive film ever produced.  However, I shot most of my photos on Kodachrome 65, which, while not as "grainless" had a sharper "look" to them due to the thinner film carrier and emulsion surface, allowing a more critical focus than Kodachrome 25.

Later, I switched to Fujichrome Velvia daylight & tungsten for my model railroad work.  The roll on which I took my MR Photo Contest winning shot was Fujichrome Velvia, and I loved the color rendition it gave over the sharper Kodachrome.

I'll edit my my post and give you credit for a$$-hatting me into compliance!! 

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

Bob,

That's much closer to the numbers I'm familiar with and personally I think they are closer to the 25mp equivalent figure.

I did all of my slide shooting on Velvia 100 so I have no personal experience with Kodachrome 25, but going back to Grumpy's slide scanning experience
he discovered that once scanned with a high resolution slide scanner, slides that through a loupe were tack sharp and had no evidence of grain were in fact very "noisy" and nowhere near as clear as he had originally thought.

...but there is more to the equation then simple line or pixel resolution, and both film and digital both have areas where they excel over the other.

No worries with tired night typing  I would love to see and 80,000 mp image tho...

[Cajonpassfan]

Took a break from layout chores and finished and weathered a few home road cars.
Given its age, the "War Bonds" car should probably be more beat up and weathered...
Otto K.

[peteski]

I attended a local Greenberg toy and model RR show this weekend and participated in the NTRAK layout. I ran my (reworked) Bachmann Acela set and found out that it needed more tweaking.  Bachmann did such a nice job on the shells, but the mechanical design is very poor.

I also fund some vintage N scale goodies (for very good prices).  Just recently we were discussing the Kadee/MT rib-back wheels and here I found a unopened package of the early wheels (metal wheel with plastic axles).  Back then the draft gear box was also different than on today's MTL trucks and it was held together by a 00-90 screw.  Also at the same dealer I found unopened pack of couplers and a coupler conversion for an Atlas steamer.  Got all 3 for less than the '70s price listed on the blister packs.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Next was an Atlas Rivarossi sleeper in excellent condition.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Last but not least is this wood-sheathed boxcar from Con-Cor. I have never seen this paint scheme before. I also noticed that the size of those gaps between the boards on this vintage model are very similar the recent release of Rapido Meat Reefers.   
But it was so punny that I had to buy it (and the price was right too).

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[Rich_S]

I attended a local Greenberg toy and model RR show this weekend and participated in the NTRAK layout. I ran my (reworked) Bachmann Acela set and found out that it needed more tweaking.  Bachmann did such a nice job on the shells, but the mechanical design is very poor.

Last but not least is this wood-sheathed boxcar from Con-Cor. I have never seen this paint scheme before. I also noticed that the size of those gaps between the boards on this vintage model are very similar the recent release of Rapido Meat Reefers.   
But it was so punny that I had to buy it (and the price was right too).

(Attachment Link)

Unique play on "Phony Baloney" Wonder if this car was inspired by Rege Cordic, a radio and TV personality who created "Olde Frothingslosh the pale, stale ale with the foam on the bottom" comedy skit. He even had "Olde Frothingslosh" railroad cars on his HO model railroad.   

http://www.hobeercars.com/manufacturers/cordic.html