Photoshop Use and Misuse

[Bufferstop]

Going off at at tangent... I picked up a copy of Railway Modeller about eight or so years ago, when the first stirrings of having a train set again were happening. The editor, in his editorial, cheerfully admitted that photographs were Photoshopped. I binned it, what's the point of 'showing what can be achieved' if what is shown is fake?

Quite a tangent Richard but one deserving of its own thread so I've created one and ported in your originating post.

If it's the incident I remember the Photoshopping was to remove very intrusive foreground (below layout) and background detail! A very early bit of photo editing involved masking tape on the negative to obscure the second hand plywood used in the construction of what was an exemplary layout for the time. It probably accounted for about a third of the image area being the profile board going from rail to overbridge levels. Where cropping can't readily remove unwanted sections of an image I think an editor is well within his remit to resort to more advanced "Editing" techniques. The clue is in his job title.
Somewhere on this board there is a track level shot of a coal loading plant with a cup and saucer neatly framed by its portal. An obvious case where photoshopping is a move for the better.
IMO whether Photoshopping is a good or a bad thing depends on what it's being used for and whether its use is declared. The example I gave above of a pre digital bit off image manipulation is an obvious case where photoshop can be used to generally improve without deceiving, the reader isn't interested in the fact that the profile board came from a box that held packets of PG Tips. Masking it out helps take in the quality of what the modeller has done.
Opinions please'

[Bigmet]

Since digital compositing of images for publication - whether in print or on line - became a reality, 'we' entered a problematic fairyland. What's done in the way of falsifications of female bodies is of greatest concern, but it simply must be occurring universally, even if only to a minor degree. The temptation is always present "We'll just eliminate that slightly ragged paint boundary, alter the contrast 'there' to make the underframe detail clearer, and square up that bent footstep" in order to have the 'best' images of the latest release.

[Richard08]

Since digital compositing of images for publication - whether in print or on line - became a reality, 'we' entered a problematic fairyland. What's done in the way of falsifications of female bodies is of greatest concern, but it simply must be occurring universally, even if only to a minor degree. The temptation is always present "We'll just eliminate that slightly ragged paint boundary, alter the contrast 'there' to make the underframe detail clearer, and square up that bent footstep" in order to have the 'best' images of the latest release.

Actually the article stated that backgrounds had been added, sky edited and such. Also the blatantly obvious 'smoke' coming from the engines was what made me bin the mag, it looked awful. The pictures were untrustworthy, it wasn't just tarting up. There's no reason to cover up the 'ugliness' that a layout lives in in my book, but if it must some cloth pinned will do the job. I would wish to see it as I would if it were it at an exhibition - warts and all. Others may disagree with my views, that is their prerogative. Since then I've sought inspiration mostly from amateur (photography wise) photos on club or private layouts - the non professional photos are, again for me, more 'real'.

[End2end]

Also the blatantly obvious 'smoke' coming from the engines

Which almost lends to false advertising, thinking that the model shown has a smoke facility (in this example) when it does not.
Honestly, I don't that's fair on the reader nor any possible purchaser of the model(s) shown.

In the wider World and as Bigmet says "What's done in the way of falsifications of female bodies is of greatest concern".
You can only imagine what harm this is doing to young female minds through marketing and advertising.

I think Bill Hicks explained marketing and advertising to a T.
WARNING expletive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHEOGrkhDp0
Thanks
End2end

[ChrisGreaves]

Opinions please'

Now you've done it!

Much depends on the objectives of photographer/editor ("source") and viewer ("object").
Suppose I post a photo of my gravity-driven parallel-rail funicular, showing wagons between the source and object ore hoppers.
Looks good, eh?
Makes you want to build a similar model.

That my length of rail (one length of Peco flex-track) is too short, and I have a six-foot slope in the planning stage does not harm you if you are looking for an extra-ordinary layout, and feel like using Mister Puzey's high-school physics teachings. Such an image shows that I have built something and. perhaps, found a hurdle to be leaped.
Over the past two weeks i have viewed two sites "Bridge Street Micro Layout (construction)" and "A Wagon Display Yard" knowing that I probably lack the skills for fine work, but still dreaming ...

As Richard went on to point out, he had a respectable reason for rejecting edited images, and I can respect that.
Cheers, Chris

[Richard08]

Opinions please'

Had I actually written that.... yeah, boom

[muggins]

One thing about the comics that really does seem very silly to me is the Photoshopping-in of smoke from locomotive chimneys. It just looks daft.

As an ex-professional photographer, I have always been a firm believer in Rule #1 of Photoshopping viz. just because you can, doesn't mean you ought to.

[Mountain]

Is like models of steam locomotives that have smoke generators that don't quite look right.

The problem is that people buy the magazines to see real model railways. If they wanted magazines of enhanced photos of scenes they may as well get photos of real places from the past and convert them from black and white into colour and sell them instead.

The art in displaying a model railway layout is to display the layout as it is and only edit things that do not need to be displayed.

Example is when one takes a photo of something and ones finger is seen to the edge of the picture or some undesired thing such as a car or a person passing can be seen to the side of the photo. One then edits to crop the picture so one can concentrate on the scene itself without including the elements that one did not intend to include, with the idea being that one has captured the look of the real object (In this case it is a model railway layout) to show the layouts creative element.

Enhanced overedited secenes are the ones that are dissapointing to see in real life. The good layouts are the ones where they are a joy to see in real life. There is a balance to be done if any editing has been neccessary.

The purpose of a model railway magazine is to show model railways and models. When one reaches the point of over editing then they no longer are models and the picture becomes the scene in itself, where the "Model railway" is no longer the focus, but the edited scene from it is the focus and the cleverness of threoperator who has done the editing which shows a lack of experience and foresight into what the job is all about. In the past when things like this would be done the comment would be made "He's keen" meaning that the person is new on the job and does not have the experience to find thr balance between what they should have done and what they did. I often heard this in the past when I started new jobs. One cwn be fresh out of college or a training course or apprenticeship and yet be so keen to impress that one misses the point of being there.

I never forget with my last layout, an elderly man said he was a photographer and had much experience, and I wanted photos taken of my model railway. I did not want photos of me in it but he insisted I was in them.
Turns out I ended up with many good shots of me, but none of the layout other than distant views of it behind me, as the guy wasn't listening to what I want. He was an ex.newspaper photographer who was more used to featuring the people where what they made was secondary to the people themselves, and my aim was to not even be in the photographs as I wanted the layout.
And this is a feature that some model railway magazines do these days which I don't like and why I do not want to submit any articles. They want to feature pictures of the person. I don't want my picture taken as part of what I write! I don't mind my name too much but even then I would rather just have my sirname and initials, and I have always been like that as to me it is not me that it is about. It is what I have made so others can see it and copy for themselves, or it has inspired them to do something along similar lines, or maybe even different.

The aim these days seems to be "Pride in what "I" have done that others have not done". The aim I was taught was to "Share and encourage", where if I explore, it is to show others they can do the same. This to me is what the railway modelling magazines are there for.

[Bufferstop]

Example is when one takes a photo of something and ones finger is seen to the edge of the picture or some undesired thing such as a car or a person passing can be seen to the side of the photo. One then edits to crop the picture so one can concentrate on the scene itself without including the elements that one did not intend to include, with the idea being that one has captured the look of the real object (In this case it is a model railway layout) to show the layouts creative element.

Ever since photographs were first published, they have been edited to remove unwanted or extraneous detail. Originally it was purely rectangular, in a way simply adjusting the mask applied to the image by the camera (the mask less image is circular). When you look at a model railway what you see is put through an amazingly clever filter, you brain. Any extraneous stuff like the wallpaper is filtered out and it's not until you see the image through a lens that cropping and filtering become relevant. Look at these images:-
What you see

What you wanted to see or should I say what I wanted you to see:-

It's not the work of the notorious Photoshop, far too expensive for my needs, Just the latest edition of Corel's "Paintshop Pro" It's what I've used since the days when it came supplied as shareware on magazine cover disks. A bit more fiddling, matching the background to the colour of the surface on which it will be displayed and it'll be close to what you see. You can see that the wall above the layout and the interior of the lighting pelmet are sky and blue respectively, but it's not in a closed box so looking from the centre of the layout outwards you can see the real world, well when seen through a lens you do! If your model is an attempt to create a believable scene, pictures of it will need a little help to get the same effect. I don't consider this cheating.

[Mountain]

I preferred the first one as I can see interesting things rather than boring white.

Photo 1 looks like a model railway in a model railway room. Photo 2 looks edited.

[dubdee1000]

I have to disagree,

In the first photo, i find myself looking at the lights on bufferstop's ceiling. I also notice that the foreground is blurred. The focus point is somewhere in the middle. Getting front to back in focus and sharp would perhaps have needed a smaller aperture, but that would have made the image darker. Your eye sees it all sharp, but that's because it looks at different parts at different times. Multiple layered images would have helped, but is this cheating?

A good photograph should tell a story, it shouldn't just be capturing what's 'there'. Every single photograph that i exhibit is the result of a long post exposure processing. I don't add physical things in, but i will draw attention to details by highlighting shadows, boosting contrast etc.

What you see with your eye is often not what the camera sees. Stare at a dark sky for 30 seconds and you'll see a handful of stars. But your camera will see millions. Nips and tucks in Photoshop will transform this into a beautiful image of the milky way. If photography is classed as an art, isn't this where the skill is - to take an image and make it stunning?

[Richard08]

I preferred the first one as I can see interesting things rather than boring white.

Photo 1 looks like a model railway in a model railway room. Photo 2 looks edited.

Yup, same here. Photo 1 looks 'real', I can relate to it.