Chris' Toy Chuffer Pix

[Chris Nevard]

Me leaning out of the cab of 4569 as it clags and clanks into Polbrock


43216 shunts the siding at Catcott Burtle on a nice summer days in 1959


53809 speeds through Catcott with a coal train for Highbridge Wharf.


Radstock makes an appearance on cement Quay Old Quarry Wharf. Since this photo was taken a new siding has been laid in the foreground.


Radstock seen again, but this time from inside one of the sandstone tunnels that link this section of the workings to Cement Quay proper.

 

[Ressaldar]

Great pix Chris, keep them coming.

cheers

Mike

 

[rosspeacock]

Lovely pictures Chris

 

[AdamF]

Great pictures and wonderful modelling - I'm taking plenty of inspiration!

Please do post more!

 

[Steph Dale]

He he, thread and counter-thread. Apparently every point of view is presented on this forum.

Steph

 

[Neil]

He he, thread and counter-thread. Apparently every point of view is presented on this forum. ....

I wondered who'd be first to mention that; splendidly diplomatic post Steph, I'm glad you got there before I went in with my size twelves. I'd be very interested to see Chris' take on the shop or not to shop debate.

 

[westernfan]

Excellent images . The first and third images remind me of those Watercolour paintings , on the covers of Jigsaw puzzles . wf

 

[Chris Nevard]

I like steam on my pics, simple as that! Howver for my commissioned magazine work, there is always a set done 'with' and set done 'without' (it's a separate layer). But guess what, most readers/layout owners want it after discussing it regularly with the publisher and guys that build the layouts. There has only ever been ONE complaint which is from a monthly readership of 30.000 peeps, 13 issues a year. At the end of the day I'll do what the man that pays the bill and layout owner requests. I do however suggest that they don't use steam effects for every shot.

The steam effect on the top photo is using real steam from a full sized pannier tank. Variations of it will probably replace the older wispy effects (previously using the 'clouds' filter in Photoshop) seen in othe pics in due course.

Other than filling in the sky as required to hide the room the layout was shot in, I don't mess about with the photos, but I do have over 30 years experience as a properly trained photographer to fall back on to extract every ounce of miniature beauty. It's amazing how decent portable studio lighting can really help in this respect.

 

[Simon]

Other than filling in the sky as required to hide the room the layout was shot in, I don't mess about with the photos, but I do have over 30 years experience as a properly trained photographer to fall back on to extract every ounce of miniature beauty.......

And it shows

I think the digital revolution in photography so that even duffers like me can get credible shots of models from close up using angles and viewpoints that are un-achievable with the human eye has added a whole new layer of enjoyment and appreciation to what ws already a great hobby.

When this technology is put in the hands of talented individuals with an "artist's eye" then the results can be simply stunning, as I think you demonstrate.

Your models aren't at all bad either!

Simon

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

The pictures are good.

Do you also daylight balance these to remove the tungsten lighting effect or use daylight bulbs in the studio lighting?

 

[Chris Nevard]

I shoot RAW which allows me to write my own white balance after the shoot - that's one of the most useful things ever about digital photography. My studio lighting is daylight, a great advantage if the layout is in a bright room with daylight spilling in because I can often mix both without getting funny colour casts or bits of the layout with different colours.

The first 3 shots of my trainsets above were actually taken under the layout's own lighting rigs which are flu (great for digi photography because they give a nice even illumination). All the photos apart from the bottom one (which is actually looking outward from the middle of the layout away from teh backscene) use the layout's own backscenes - that's why the clouds are at slightly odd angles, sadly something we cannot get around when looking at something 2D away from the usual intended viewing angle.

The last 2 were taken under a single domestic lightbulb with the lampshade removed (and later placed back to keep 'er indoors happy) - I recall the exposure with these 2 was around 30 whole seconds at f22! The single bulb gives a good impression of sunlight, especially if you look at the crisp shadow of the aerial conveyor on the spoil heaps. Trying to do that with *film (*aka 'fillum' for those under 25) would have created so many problems, not only with colour but 'reciprocity failure' (Google that one if you're realy bored) .

I'l post some more snaps later, sadly the corporate computer I'm using at the moment won't let me because the browser is too old

 

[Steph Dale]

Chris,

What gear are you using? Even if you're using full-frame your lenses must be awesome if they're not suffering diffraction effects at f22 (or do you fix in post?).

In my experience there is some reciprocity failure in digital, but it's certainly not as acute as it is with film...

Steph

 

[40126]

Welcome Chris

I'm aware of your contributions to Model Rail & am very impressed every time

Steve

 

[Chris Nevard]

I used a full frame Nikon D700 currently (with 55mm Micro Nikkor below), diffraction not really cutting in until f22 and then not enough to worry. When I used a D200 with an APS sizes sensor dibilitating difraction would occur around f16 or even 11. I think it's something to do with full frame pixel density, the less highly packed the better.

Here's the set up for the Modl Rail cover of a couple of months ago, the 4 track thingy was built for the photo. Mist is a layer in Photoshop, somewhat better than uses a fog machine or smoking 30 ciggies!

 

[Steph Dale]

I used a full frame Nikon D700 currently (with 55mm Micro Nikkor below), diffraction not really cutting in until f22 and then not enough to worry. When I used a D200 with an APS sizes sensor dibilitating difraction would occur around f16 or even 11. I think it's something to do with full frame pixel density, the less highly packed the better.

Here's the set up for the Modl Rail cover of a couple of months ago, the 4 track thingy was built for the photo. Mist is a layer in Photoshop, somewhat better than uses a fog machine or smoking 30 ciggies

Okay, that explains a lot - the pixel density issue is known and understood (I've got an EOS 7d and it stinks when used with cheap glass). And the 40-a-day photo? Been there, done that:


Blowing the smoke in along a piece of 1/4" brass tube was enough to cool it so it pooled - and I hasten to add that the same effect works whatever sort of smoke you use - even from a smoke generator.

BTW, the loco is the handiwork of one Yorkshire Dave, so too are the smoke effects. The photo is mine, taken with an EOS 300d and the totally pants kit lens, I seem to remember...

Steph

 

[Chris Nevard]

This works nicely, great luminous lighting too. Just been looking at your web link too - lots of good stuff in there, particularly like the trains modelled in arid places.

I've sometimes thought of getting one of these stage smoke generators, but I think for toy chuffers such would be overkill. Quite often I focus stack (several identical frames of the same cropped shot, but focussing on different planes and then merging them with suitable software to effect an increase the depth of field), but unless the real smoke matched bewteen shots I'd get a wierd effect due to the mismatch.

 

[Neil]

I like steam on my pics, simple as that! Howver for my commissioned magazine work, there is always a set done 'with' and set done 'without' (it's a separate layer). But guess what, most readers/layout owners want it after discussing it regularly with the publisher and guys that build the layouts ....

Thanks Chris, it probably does just come down to personal taste, some will like and some won't. I don't know whether I should feel comforted or not that I seem to be out of step with the majority. Weird or free thinker?

.... Other than filling in the sky as required to hide the room the layout was shot in, I don't mess about with the photos, but I do have over 30 years experience as a properly trained photographer to fall back on to extract every ounce of miniature beauty. It's amazing how decent portable studio lighting can really help in this respect.

On the few occasions that a 'proper' photographer has taken photos of my work with a 'proper' lighting rig I've always been impressed with how much more life like the extra candlepower makes the the models appear even to the naked eye.

 

[Chris Nevard]

A few more snaps, none of these are messsed about with other than a hint of helicon to increase the depth of field, the backscenes are part of the layouts, not jiggery pokery. The only fetting is the smoke.

Above: Combwich my 32 year old layout (much updated over the years with the latest in scenic materials). This was taken with natural window light, which is great at highlighting textures due to the side lighting. The backscene is my rather cack handed effort at painting one.


Above: Catcott Burtle, my recent antidote to the headache of carting Combwich to shows (something it was never designed to do). This one will fit in the back of the Ford Mundano. As with the previous shot it's not messed about with photographically. It was shot under the layout's built in flu lighting. The backscene, which is a long panoramaic print was shot near the real Catcott, the hills in the distance being the Mendips. I've just penned a feature on photo-backscenes for the popular press.


Above: Polbrock, my latest project is a tiny 3x1ft micro (about to be extended - see in 'Layouts'). As with the Jinty shot this was taken under natural window light, again the only messing is the clag! The uniformed woman in her shiny rubber suit looks like she's off to some fetish party - she was only temporary for a few shots.


Above: Arne Wharf; 009 in a 3x2ft box using various modified kits imported from the USA and some Artitec resins kits from Holland. The rather stormy backscene was painted rather heavily with various colours of household emulsion. It is lit with the layout's own lighting which are a couple of tradional clear 100 watt tungsten bulbs. The loco is a Roxey kit shoehorned onto a Fleischmann 0-4-0 chassis - runs beautifully.

<<imags edited to fall within 1024 spec>>

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

I was looking at the studio lighting in your set up for the Tornado shot and looks relatively compact. I've toyed with the idea of having portable studio lighting rather than integral lighting to illuminate my layouts at exhibitions but I need some which is compact.

I've also been looking at LEDs as well. Do you have any thoughts about using these?

 

[Bob]

I've just penned a feature on photo-backscenes for the popular press.

Excellent! Will look forward to seeing that Chris. Your slightly hazy one on Polbrock is top notch stuff.

Bob