Joe,
I certainly agree that there are many artistic elements in model railroading. As to it being an art form... we'll just have to continue to think along different lines in that regard.
As far as the illegitimacy of a digitally manipulated photo - I think my second paragraph in my 7:31 am post explains how I see the issue, so I won't bore you with that again.
Grande man is absolutely right - "... it was a cool pic that included great digital enhancement AND super modeling." And I completely agree. The composite product is stunning. My issue isn't with the image - it's with where it was presented.
If anyone somehow got the idea that I don't think convincing image manipulation takes skill, that idea is absolutely incorrect. Nowhere did I intentionally give that impression. Although the software does the drudge work, the process of composing the image and creating a photo-realistic product takes a great deal of skill.
As far as it being a legitimate form of modeling simulation - of course it is. My whole point is that that's exactly what it is - a simulation and not actual modeling, so I think it should not be in a magazine about modeling. If model railroading is a fake, then digitally manipulated photos are fakes of a fake, or fakes squared (kind of like infinity squared, maybe. Does that really mean anything?).
Bottom line - I want to see what the modeler's skills have wrought, not the skill of the computer operator. Somehow, a manipulated photo, no matter how inventive or stunning, leaves me feeling that I still haven't seen what the modelers skills have honestly produced. Still, your point about the modeling skill being evident in the seamlessness of the composite image is a good one.
Grande man,
Perhaps this thread reads as something of a controversy, but to me it's just a very enjoyable discussion from disparate viewpoints. Certainly no rancor here from my end.
I certainly agree that there are many artistic elements in model railroading. As to it being an art form... we'll just have to continue to think along different lines in that regard.
As far as the illegitimacy of a digitally manipulated photo - I think my second paragraph in my 7:31 am post explains how I see the issue, so I won't bore you with that again.
Grande man is absolutely right - "... it was a cool pic that included great digital enhancement AND super modeling." And I completely agree. The composite product is stunning. My issue isn't with the image - it's with where it was presented.
If anyone somehow got the idea that I don't think convincing image manipulation takes skill, that idea is absolutely incorrect. Nowhere did I intentionally give that impression. Although the software does the drudge work, the process of composing the image and creating a photo-realistic product takes a great deal of skill.
As far as it being a legitimate form of modeling simulation - of course it is. My whole point is that that's exactly what it is - a simulation and not actual modeling, so I think it should not be in a magazine about modeling. If model railroading is a fake, then digitally manipulated photos are fakes of a fake, or fakes squared (kind of like infinity squared, maybe. Does that really mean anything?).
Bottom line - I want to see what the modeler's skills have wrought, not the skill of the computer operator. Somehow, a manipulated photo, no matter how inventive or stunning, leaves me feeling that I still haven't seen what the modelers skills have honestly produced. Still, your point about the modeling skill being evident in the seamlessness of the composite image is a good one.
Grande man,
Perhaps this thread reads as something of a controversy, but to me it's just a very enjoyable discussion from disparate viewpoints. Certainly no rancor here from my end.
Last edited by a moderator: