What's New

Modellers
Notebook

Construction
Articles

Tech Notes

DCC
&Sound
Articles

PHOTOS

A Short
Story for
Children

S.R.M.
at the
W.D.M.

LINKS

Guest Book

Contact Us

• scanned from paper prints
• captured from video
• taken with a digital camera
• received in digital form from other sources

To eliminate negatives and paper prints, I use a normal, non-digital video camcorder and capture images from the video output using a Snappy video capture unit.  This would not be cost effective except that I have the camcorder for other uses.  The Snappy can capture 1 frame or it can capture several frames and averages them to reduce the random noise generated by a CCD image sensor.  It produces an image as small as 240 x 320 pixels from moving video to as large as 1125 x 1500 from a motionless camera image.  The camcorder I use most often is a Sanyo VM-EX30, chosen in part because of its detachable LCD viewing screen which allows me to set up shots in places where I can put the camera but where I cannot get my head up to the normal viewfinder.

Recently I have started eliminating the in between steps by using a digital still camera.  I chose a Nikon Coolpix800 for its versatility, including focusing down to about 2 inches, and its high resolution.  It takes photos in either 240 x 320 ppi or 1200 x 1600 ppi and saves them on Compact Flash cards with selected compression (.jpg files) or with no compression at all (.tif files.)  I like being able to store a hundred normal compression photos in the camera on a single 48 Mb flash card - I can take lots of photos to get just the right one, and never have to worry about the cost of film or processing.  Battery consumption is high, but it runs off standard AA cells available everywhere, and battery cost is minimal using rechargeable alkaline batteries.

Almost every photo I upload has been processed in some way, even if only to crop it and size it.  I normally use Picture Publisher 6 which I got free with my scanner (or I got the scanner free with Picture Publisher, depending on how you look at it.)  I also have Photoshop and a few others, but I am most comfortable with Picture Publisher, so that is what I usually use.

But enough about how I take photos.  Lets look at what I do after I take them.  At this point, I take off my technician's hat and put on the dual hats of artist and philosopher.

Photo 1
This is a pretty normal looking model shot.  It is an Aristo-Craft FA-1 pulling four heavyweight passenger cars, all in CN green and gold.  It was taken with existing room lighting so that the whole train would be illuminated more or less evenly.  It is a little dark and has a horribly cluttered background.  It is not at all how my mind saw this beautiful train.
 

Photo 2
Lightened slightly, cropped slightly, and the background replaced with sky blue with just a hint of cloud on the horizon, This is how my mind saw the train - up front with no distractions.  We all see things differently than they really are.  We see the pretty girl but not the dump truck about to run us down.  We see the lovely flower, but not the dirt it is growing in.  Photographs, unfortunately, are not so selective.  A painter can interpret what is there and show on his canvas only what his mind sees.  Unfortunately the camera sees it all, it cannot interpret.  So for me to show you what I saw, I have to artistically interpret the photograph.  To put it simply, I did not see the clutter because I was admiring the train when I took photo 1.  The camera saw it, but to show you what I saw, I took it away and made photo 2.
 

Photo 3
I could have put a background behind the train to cover up the clutter.  That is an age old photographic technique.  If I had used a sky background, I would still have ended up with photo 2.  I did not have such a background with we, so I added it electronically.  Now my question is, does how the background got there in any way affect the validity of the photograph?  Photo 3 is another possible background.  It happens to be a photo mural on a bedroom wall in my house.  If I superimpose photo 2 on photo 3, we get Photo 4 below.
 

Photo 4
Again I could have placed this model train, on its model track, in front of this photo mural and achieved the same result.  That technique is used over and over again in model railroad photos where part of the background is modelled, part is a photo or painting on the wall.  So I ask again, does it matter how I put the background behind the model?  If I were demonstrating my prowess as a photographer, maybe it would.  But as I see it, the electronic manipulation, and even the photography itself, are just artistic tools that allow me to show you something as I see it.  To me, it matters not at all how the background got there.  For those who think it does matter, I normally note it in the credits if a background has been added.

Sometimes I wonder when was the last time any of us saw a published photo with credits something like this:
photo by John Smith
taken in front of an artificial background using artificial light
selectively lightened and/or darkened
cropped  for emphasis
rotated to correct for camera tilt
keystoned to remove converging verticals or to emphasize converging horizontals
gamma correction applied to correct contrast
flipped horizontally for any of a number of reasons
and so on, listing all the techniques used with "normal" photographs, you know, the photos that tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Anyway, I hope this gives a better understanding of how the  photos on this website come about.  Some of it is technique, some of it is artistry, and some of it is philosophy.

If you are doing your own web pages and are having any problems with photos, don't hesitate to ask for help.  I for one would welcome the opportunity to pass on all the encouragement and advice I have received over the years from people who have helped me.

Jim Banner,
Saskatoon, Nov. 2000

return