Recently, Bachmann Europe, posted a teaser picture on their Facebook page. It's a close-up of the pipework in the soon-to-be-revealed LSWR Adams T3. Some of the comments were interesting:
Very poor moulding......you can do a lot better than this !
Cheap moldings the excess plastic squeezing out of the molds
To me, thats not the best finish of the piping .And, is that the tender or cab ?
Firstly, who can't tell the difference between the cab and the tender when they can see the firebox?
Anyway, obviously, there were plenty of "experts" desperate to rubbish the model because of the excess plastic on the pipework. To put this in context, this isn't a production model, and Bachmann has fed back to the factory. And that copper pipe on the far right, is only 0.8mm wide. These parts are tiny.
When I am feeling mischievous, and this sort of comment pops up on RMweb, I like to ask to see the commenter's layout. Since my job is to find the best model railways to photograph, any layout where this sort of issue is The Wusrt Thing In The World (TM) must be absolutely amazing.
The question is usually met with an angry response that they haven't built a layout yet, but have a human right to an absolutely perfect model in any case.
All of which makes me wonder if we were all a lot happier when taking this sort of photo required specialist gear such as a set of bellows, or at least, extension tubes, so people didn't bother.
What we relied on was the good old human eye, sometimes aided by a magnifying glass. Anyone resorting to a jeweller's loupe, was considered a bit weird.
As a layout photographer, my job is to make whatever is in front of me look as good as possible. This sometimes means pulling back a bit, and giving a wider shot because I realise the hard close-up will be cruel to the model. A magazine appearance isn't a competition for perfection; it's there to entertain and hopefully inspire the readers. Showing up some wobbly modelling does no-one, in my opinion, any favours.
And before you ask, we don't fix things in Photoshop. Skies replace backscenes and the owner's tummy. Lighting is sorted out. Otherwise, what you see is what is there. OK, some clever shot choices make layouts look larger than they really are, but these are mostly the same view you can have at a show.
My guess is that the T3 will look magnificent on any layout it appears on, and like most RTR models, will be the best model on the baseboard. Again, my opinion is that a scene where everything is a similar standard looks better than one with a few standout models, on a background that isn't anything like as good. I'm looking at you people who ballast with something from a garden centre...
Do we all need to find a little perspective when looking at these extreme close-ups?
7 comments:
I've said many times that layouts that were once highly regarded would be dismissed out of hand if photographed with modern equipment. Since dabbling in N gauge again I've found photography a great aid, but it can also be extrmely disheartening when you see your work at several times lifesize.
Perspective, yes, and an understanding of the manufacturing process. Another thing to be taken into account is how and where the part(s) sit on the model, i.e. how visible they would be when viewed with anything other than a magnifier.
It wasn't so long ago that such detail as shown in the photo would be moulded as part of the backhead rather than a separately applied part, and probably not even picked out with a touch of paint.
If you reduce the image to lifesize the issue isn't ging to be visible to most people. There is a question to be asked about the law of diminshing returns with detailing, as I'm finding out in 2mm. Less can be more.
I sometimes wonder if at least some of the "nit picking" might be triggered by the prices of models these days - plus the lack of a Lima style "budget option".
Personally, I don't have a problem with factory workers being paid sensible money (assuming, of course, that they are) - but, for a number of years, lots of people's wages haven't kept pace with costs.
I suspect that some people who might previously have considered buying model trains are getting "sticker shock".
You know the sort of thing: "A few hundred quid for a model locomotive / DMU - and it isn't even solid 24 CT gold. Do they think we're made of money?!!"
OK - I'm sure that someone might point to inflation / "cost of living" figures and say that a few hundred quid now is worth less than it was 50 years ago - but there's still the number on the price tag.
Ultimately, if the price of anything goes up, some people will still want the quality and quantity they get to go up to match.
I suspect that some people would never be persuaded otherwise.
It is a valid viewpoint. Models of this quality have always been at least this expensive, but only a few people bought them. Others either scratchbuilt them, or were happy with much more basic models. The cheap option now is 3d printed bodies and adding your own detail. But even then, the price of the chassis is still high.
People like to moan. It's a people thing. British are some of the best at it. Those who seek to buy the most uber perfect are then likely to moan about the price afterwards. Most adults have lost the ability to have fun. Most six year old's will have more fun with a battered, out of scale, roundy roundy plus a siding layout than any adult with a near perfect scale model. Models today are amazing compared to the things I had as a kid in the early 1970's and I never worried how little detail was on them back then.
I think there are adults who like to have fun. I see them on YouTube with a layout that would never photograph well, but is full of Blue Pullmans, APT-E's and Wickham railcars belting around. Sadly, there is also a group who's only "fun" is willy-waving on social media to be more offended than anyone else. You don't mee them at shows too often, they don't like to leave the house...
Post a Comment