Back scenes

2372 Views 11 Replies 9 Participants Last post by SPROGman, Jan 7, 2008

Duztee

Discussion Starter · Jan 3, 2008

Hi Guys,
I wish you all a Happy and Prosperous New Year.
and thank you for all the helpful advice of last year, both in questions I asked and questions others have asked which have given me guidance.
I would be interested in any tips, hints or cheats for adding back scenes.
WHen i see photo's in magazines the back scenes seem to flow almost seamlessly from the model, But unfortunately mine do not! :-(
Is this just because I KNOW were the join is?
I suspect the problem is one of perspective, it is too abrupt a change between model and scene, ..... I am using Peco landscape scenes.
Thanks again and may all your modelling problems be small and easily solved in 2008
duztee

Save

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

Doug

· #2 · Jan 3, 2008

Photos can be touched up to remove the seam. I'm not saying that the ones in your mag are touched up, but they could be.

I have a backdrop painted plasterboard. There was a seam, so I plastered it, but as it is attached to the sloping roof a hairline crack appeared. Every time I plastered it over, it cracked again. I notice it and it is the source of much frustration, but I doubt that many visitors see it.

Disguise the join with a tree or some sort of structure perhaps...

Save

Robert Stokes

· #3 · Jan 3, 2008

I may be wrong but I think that Duztee is not talking about vertical joins in the backscene itself, but the horizontal join between the backscene and the surface of the model.

If this is correct, then one answer is a small rise in the model to meet the backscene. This could be grass covered and blend with the shade on the backscene. A line of bushes might help.

I am sure that others with more experience than me will give further suggestions. Cheers, Robert.

Save

Duztee

Discussion Starter · #4 · Jan 3, 2008

Yes, Thank you Robert, you are correct.
I am trying to achieve a smooth transition for the eye from the model into the distance of the back scene.
I have studied more magazine articles and it would seem that the commercially produced back scenes are actually too detailed and that the best results seem to come from indistinct, even blurry backgounrd,
I will experiment more!
Duztee.

Save

Richard Johnson

· #5 · Jan 3, 2008

QUOTE (Duztee @ 3 Jan 2008, 21:08) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Yes, Thank you Robert, you are correct.
I am trying to achieve a smooth transition for the eye from the model into the distance of the back scene.
I have studied more magazine articles and it would seem that the commercially produced back scenes are actually too detailed and that the best results seem to come from indistinct, even blurry backgounrd,
I will experiment more!
Duztee.

*** Hi, These pictures will help.

Two comments first: Firstly the Peco backscenes are far, far too low - you need 24" or of height or more to start to look believable. Secondly, the Peco images on the backscene already fail the realism test - much better to carefully cut out images chosen to look right for the scene - take them from magazines, calendars, computer /digital photo's etc.... but not Peco's very tired "Thomas level" attempts!!

Re the pictures: They are the work of a friend - he is an extremely talented modeller however if you observe closely what he has done it will give you a good starting point to make the seam "totally invisible". The keys are good composition within the scene, careful colour choices, variety of texture and correct perspective!

**on the hunting scene, the buildings and their stone wall are all just a picture on the backscene, as is some of the other stuff framed with textured flocks..... The distance from the rail side of the platform to the back is much less than 6".

The other two are two images of the a different but equally excellent scene - on the aerial view you can see how the modeller blended the forground into the background. In the front on image of the scene, look carefully - the lake and the building in the distance are just pictures on the backscene

regards

Richard

See less See more

Save

7113

· #6 · Jan 3, 2008

I would agree with what has been posted previously, and personally would never use Peco backscenes (another area where the company has become very dated.)

Even very simple things can diguise a join between the backscene and the nodel, for example a wall or fence will bring attention to the foreground. Careful use of trees and hedges is another option especially when used with a low bank. I have also found that a very general "open" backdrop works best.

My advice would be to experiment with some scrap materials until you feel that you are getting the result you want. Oh and one further piece of advice - sky tones look better in a very pale blue/grey not bright blue!

Regards

Save

poliss

· #7 · Jan 3, 2008

Doug, have you tried Mastic or something that doesn't go rock solid when it dries?

Save

Duztee

Discussion Starter · #8 · Jan 3, 2008

Thanks, for the thoughts,
particular thanks to Richard, your friend is certainly a modeller to envy!
But I understand the principals to try employ.
duztee

Save

neil_s_wood

· #9 · Jan 3, 2008 (Edited by Moderator)

There was an article on, I think, Chris Nevards site or blog about this and one of the things said was keep any structures or trees on the back drop low so that it looked distant. More sky than anything else. I have used photo backdrops but am now coming round to the idea that painted would be better.

Save

Richard Johnson

· #10 · Jan 4, 2008

QUOTE (neil_s_wood @ 4 Jan 2008, 06:22) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>There was an article on, I think, Chris Nevards site or blog about this and one of the things said was keep any structures or trees on the back drop low so that it looked distant. More sky than anything else. I have used photo backdrops but am now coming round to the idea that painted would be better.

*** Yes, this is quite right. If you look at the images posted then there is nothing above the line of "texturing" that is actually on the backdrop - except sky and clouds. Hills are profiles cut out and sensitively treated with the finest texture and complementary but paler/softer colours... I 100% agree with you Neil NO buildings or trees ona backdrop at all is best.

I also think it is most important that it should be (a) in place before track is laid with no corners - just curves where it changes direction and (

"layout to ceiling" or "Layout to valance" so there is no totally "reality destroying" line where the sky ends. infinity of sky makes the real world real.....

regards

Richard

See less See more

Save

mikelhh

· #11 · Jan 4, 2008 (Edited by Moderator)

If you are to have buildings depicted on the backscene it's best to keep them "flat - on " to avoid problems with perspective. They still won't look right from all angles, but you'll minimise the problems.

I agree that photo backdrops can take over and look more real than the layout.

Mike

See less See more

Save

SPROGman

· #12 · Jan 7, 2008

QUOTE (Richard Johnson @ 4 Jan 2008, 02:59) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>*** Yes, this is quite right. If you look at the images posted then there is nothing above the line of "texturing" that is actually on the backdrop - except sky and clouds. Hills are profiles cut out and sensitively treated with the finest texture and complementary but paler/softer colours...

Take a leaf out of the artists book, colder bluer tones will make something recede into the background whilst warmer tones will bring it forward.

Look out of the window and see how the sky tone varies from overhead to the horizon.

There are lots of good "how to" books on Watercolour that will show you how to paint realistic cloud/sky scenes with very few colours and very few brush strokes.

Andrew

Save

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top Contributors this Month