TheRailwire
General Discussion => N and Z Scales => Topic started by: RDG_Rich on January 26, 2008, 06:23:57 PM
-
I just got a renewal notice for RMC, and it got me thinking that I should think about adding another mag to the toilet tank pile. ;D
Out of the two (N scale and N scale Railroading) which is better...(opens the can of worms) for ME?
I like building stuff~ structures, freight cars, kitbashing etc.
I model steam and early diseasels, and I don't have the time money or space to build an "empire" so Modular articles, and small layouts are more my speed.
Any insight on these mags would be great.
Tanks!
-
Personally, I like N Scale. Mostly because I've head a couple "choo choo" like comments coming from the other camp lately.
-
I wouldn't subscribe to either. Both mags post the contents for each month. Wait and order the ones that interest you. Could be both one month and neither the next.
Jason
-
I always thought N Scale magazine was more into the actual construction of stuff even if it was just trees. N Scale Railroading had a lot of nice pictures of completed layouts but thin on how to get from "A" to "Z".
-
N Scale Railroading had a lot of nice pictures of completed layouts but thin on how to get from "A" to "Z".
That's by design, from what I gather. I've exchanged emails with Kirk, and that's the way he prefers to run his shop. He comes off as a bit odd to me, but then who am I...?
-
I like both the NScale mags, but they all seem to lack "construction" articles that I like. The layout articles are nice, but there is just some "sizzle" thats missing. I have been less than thrilled with the last 3 Nscale mags. RMC and RMJ are actually my favorites.
-
Before hurricane Katrina, I was always going through back issues of Model Railroader and Railroad Model Craftsman magazine for building plans. I had accumulated quite a few which I planned to build out of styrene. Then came the flood and they were lost. Rats.
-
RMC used to have a n article called "N scale niche" every issue. Didn't pay much attention at the time as I was in the "accumulation" mode. Wish I did now.
-
This comes down to personal preference for each individual, rounding it down even further then that, toilet tank vs. reading something of serious interest to you.
Both magazines offer something in each category in every issue. I won't disclose my personal habits here, but I am sure you can guess I have a well defined place to read/look at both types of articles.
If you take a look at the contributors to both magazines you will see that they both have lots of content from the same people all the time. I'm not saying this is bad, but I am saying that it tells me that both magazines need articles.
Having hung around here at RW since it began I can say with confidence that we have a number of very gifted people posting here. I would suggest that some of you sit down and write a "How To" or create a photo essay of your own layout for publication.
I think we are pretty lucky to have two magazines dedicated to N Scale Modeling. Considering that you can subscribe to both magazines for about $60.00 per year I'd think it would be a pretty easy decision and don't see any downside to it.
-
I always subscribed to MR and looked at RMC at the LHS and never purchased it. RMC has the look of a 1975 magazine. I think even some of the pictures are still in black and white. I like the N scale magazine that is published every two months. I agree with Ed not a lot of meat. I have been getting into the magazine you get when you join the NMRA, it's pretty good stuff and Model Railroad News is not bad either.
-
I always subscribed to MR and looked at RMC at the LHS and never purchased it. RMC has the look of a 1975 magazine.
Hmm, I'd take RMC in 1975 over most of the current mags (I was a subscriber in 1975).
I get extremely bored with endless layout photo tours.
I think I might subscribe to that N Scale Magazine - I've actually been considering this for months.
-
I always subscribed to MR and looked at RMC at the LHS and never purchased it. RMC has the look of a 1975 magazine.
Hmm, I'd take RMC in 1975 over most of the current mags (I was a subscriber in 1975).
I get extremely bored with endless layout photo tours.
I'd take MR in 1975... I had from 1971 to 1977 that were Dad's... unfortunately in a flood all were lost exept for 1976.
I get bored with layout photo tours as well. The current trend of fictionalizing stories about the layout is not nearly as interesting to me as learning how the scenes were built.
So, it sounds as if N scale covers more of the building aspect of the hobby than N Scale Railroading.
Thanks for the input everyone!
-
I subscribe to MR & RMC, buy both NS & NSM every bi-monthly(???).
I also have a few hundred #s of RMJ, MRG, Trains, Railfan, CTC, Railpace, et al, not to mention GMR, MRP and sundry pubs.
Info is good. Yeah, there is some stuff that appears on the web but may also go pouf! Paper lasts. It may have that smell if it is 60 years old, but I can carry it where ever I want & still access it (as long as the lights are still functional (if they aren't... we have BIG problems)).
Bob in IDaho
-
N Scale Model Railroad is the one I've subscribed to for two years now. Yes they do take you from beginning to end. No Sop Opera there.
-
I find RMJ extremely informative for freight car articles, particularly differences between 40-footers so common in the 40s, 50s, and 60s.
Frank
-
One thing that amazes me are the layout tours where all the photos are shot from a N scale airplane. ;)
Dunno about you guys but I've never railfanned from high up in a helicopter or airplane before.
-
(http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CMi4mung_JGhpwEQ2AUYTzIIXoBhzG-NwP0)
;D ;D
-
One thing that amazes me are the layout tours where all the photos are shot from a N scale airplane. ;)
Dunno about you guys but I've never railfanned from high up in a helicopter or airplane before.
AMEN!!!!!
I agree 100000 frigging percent. But, I think as we all learn pretty quickly. Putting the camera "on the deck" makes your layout look a LOT different. If you're not ready for that, then stuff can look pretty lame pretty quick.
-
Agreed. Was looking ad Ed's module at Timonium Saturday and it wasn't until I got down low that I recognized it from the photos he posted last week.
Bob
-
One thing that amazes me are the layout tours where all the photos are shot from a N scale airplane. ;)
Dunno about you guys but I've never railfanned from high up in a helicopter or airplane before.
I try not to do this. Yes, I do some, because it seems that there is a need for an "overall" picture. Getting down on the deck is hard with a DSLR and a 12-20 mm zoom, whose center is a scale 19 feet off the ground! So I get this:
(http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/data/575/RoundhouseTracks1.jpg)
Yes, I can shoot with mirrors to get lower.
Could this one be from a hillside, rather then a helicopter?
(http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/data/575/NewJ-TownMid.jpg)
I think many of us are trying to shoot low.
(http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/data/575/WHarbor2low.jpg)
Sometimes I can drop below the table edge.
(http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/data/575/MinesweeperWestHarbor.jpg)
I guess I'm going to have to get a smaller camera.
-
Pete, that's my secret!
My one published photo (uncredited in the third installment of Max's I1 article) was shot with my tiny, crappy $120 canon "point and shoot" (but I was using it in manual mode).
-
I'll be a dissenting voice...
I like a few "helicopter" shots now and then to get an idea of how the scenes transition between one another and the overall "feel" of the layout. This is as, if not more, important as the trackplan to me.
I like lots of trackside shots, of course. But a few broad-area shots are useful.
Sometimes you'll see all the photo angles on the trackplan are of one small area on a huge layout. I always wonder if that means the other 80% of the layout is bare benchwork. That leads me to wonder why someone would submit a 20% done layout for publication... ???
-
I'm with Dave. While I totally dig those Ed shots taken from manhole covers on the layout, I also like to see how the layout coexists in it's habitat.
This is about as low an angle as my Canon S-2 can muster...
(http://www.wmrywesternlines.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/Penn_Central_Turn_051.jpg)
Not bad, but N scale Norm has to be standing on a couple of boxes to get that shot.
Lee
-
I'll be a dissenting voice...
I'm with you, Dave. I think there is a lot of value in a "helicopter" view of a layout from a modelers perspective. I also enjoy the low down shots for a "scene specific" view like Ed does.
Frankly, I'm just glad we have two magazines to choose from. From what I understand we will be seeing less and less N Scaling in Model Railroader down the line as they have pretty much conceded the magazine market place to NSR and N Scale.
-
Not bad, but N scale Norm has to be standing on a couple of boxes to get that shot.
Lee
Actually I'm around 6'1", so I don't usually have a problem except that whenever I railfan your layout there's never any Chessie goodness.
-
I'll be a dissenting voice...
I'm with you, Dave. I think there is a lot of value in a "helicopter" view of a layout from a modelers perspective. I also enjoy the low down shots for a "scene specific" view like Ed does.
Put me in with group that prefers a mix of both "helicopter" and "eye-level" shots. With nothing but "eye-level" shots, it becomes hard to get a feel for the layout's... er... layout. I even like to see a shot or two of the whole layout room to get a sense of the space.
As for why "helicopter" shots dominate magazine articles, if it's a staff photographer, these guys don't have huge amounts of time to get the job done, and "eye-level" shots take a loooong time to set up and get right. Plus, they're usually working wth big SLRs. I've attended quite a number of layout shoots with different photographers, and only one that I've met so far who seemed to be really committed to getting a variety of good shots was Lou Sassi. The rest just want to get in, get some "decent" shots, and get out. I can't blame them, though, given their salary and their working conditions--having to fly everywhere and try to squeeze everything into one long day while suffering jet lag. That's a tall order and a pretty thankless job. Then there's the layout owners doing their own shoots, and not everyone has a lot of photography experience, much less the wherewithall to get those good "eye-level" shots. If they want to get published, they're better off sticking with the safer, easier "helicopter" shots. IMO, that is.
-
When I design a diorama, I slope the front downwards so the camera can be lower than the track. As Pete says, mirrors also work.
-
Close up shots don't take that long to set up... The problem is, I think, that the staff photographers have a lot of expensive equipment, and they feel compelled to use it. This means camera angles limited to the aisles, and views similar to those that can be had by the visitor looking in at the layout.
(http://www.wmrywesternlines.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/Caboose_020.jpg)
I shot this by dropping the camera in the middle of the peninsula on my layout, making some adjustments to the room lighting, and firing away with the self timer. Not a lot of brain science, and a finished picture you can't see from the aisle.
Lee
-
Close up shots don't take that long to set up... The problem is, I think, that the staff photographers have a lot of expensive equipment, and they feel compelled to use it.
Yes, a few photogs may have the need to look like pros, but good ones don't. And close-up shots definitely take far longer to compose if you're going to do it right. Staff photogs usually have their own lighting gear. Why? Precise color balance. Most modelers are OK with the color rendering they get with either existing lighting or some supplemental lights. Magazines often demand very precise color balance, which means using the photographer's lights exclusively; often they will shut off all existing lights and even block out any open windows in the room. Lighting balance is critical, and even more so for close-up work. When working close-up, balancing the light from foreground to background becomes a time-comsuming process with much trial-and-error. Compound this with the need for maximum depth of field, and you're pumping a lot of light into the scene (unless they've graduated to digital image slicing techniques, which is still rare for most professionals).
As for "just plopping the camera down," one must ask: where? Is this a good spot, or that one? What's the story you want to tell with the image? Is the composition going to work? Any old random shot is not going to fly every time. And once again, depth of field is also critical; the better mags are not going to publish shots with blurry foregrounds.
-
As Pete says, mirrors also work.
Yes, indeed. This silly little shot was done with a mirror. There was no other way to get the angle, even with a compact camera, since the train was a mere 1-1/2 inches above the surface of the layout.
(http://jamesriverbranch.net/images/IMG_2208_F.jpg)
-
David,
Are you using front-surface mirrors? If so, where did you get them?
-
David,
Are you using front-surface mirrors? If so, where did you get them?
Yes, it's a first-surface mirror. I got it years ago from a stained-glass supply house (brick-and-mortar). You should be able to find them online at most any stained-glass supply site. They sell them for making kaleidoscopes and suchlike.
EDIT: The big names in stained glass supply are:
Delphi http://www.delphiglass.com/index.cfm?page=itemView&itemsysid=130206
Warner Crivellaro http://www.warner-criv.com/product.aspx?id=9980-29
Glass Crafters http://www.glasscrafters.biz/Merchant2/merchant.mv? (search for 'front surface')
You can also try:
http://www.frontsurfacemirror.com/
http://www.clarityglass.com/fsm.asp
-
Thanks, David!
I had a small one years ago, and it required very delicate treatment--white gloves, even. I destroyed it just by slipping it into my pocket for a few hours. Are they any harder today?
While I don't spend a whole lot of time setting up photos, mostly because I don't have a whole lot of time any longer, most any studio shot that's any good takes a lot of time and physical energy. I'm not a spry 25-year-old like I once was; I'm kind of a lumbering 60-year-old linebacker playing in an old-timers game.
I'll be getting a new one soon.
-
I had a small one years ago, and it required very delicate treatment--white gloves, even. I destroyed it just by slipping it into my pocket for a few hours. Are they any harder today?
The ones I have are fairly robust. They came with thin plastic protective sheets on the silvered side. One mirror shattered as I was peeling the film off, but this was my fault--the glass was super-thin (so thin you could almost use the glass side instead), and I wasn't being careful enough. No biggie, as I need smaller mirrors on occasion, so I just cut down the larger pieces into useful squares.
While I was setting up one shot, I dropped a freight car onto the mirror, and I feared the worst. But it was not damaged. I've even been brazen enough to touch the surface; with very gentle cleaning, the silvering survives nicely. As I used the mirrors more and more, I came to realize that dust, fingerprints and small imperfections disappear in the image, because the flaws fall outside the focal range. (Kind of like how Ansel Adams shot some of his most famous images with a cracked lens--some people don't believe you when you tell them this.)
-
David,
How big a mirror do I really need? My wife, before her shoulder and neck went bad, was an accomplished stained glass artist, so cutting them down won't be a problem--I did her cutting near the end. I have problems envisioning how I'd use a 16" x 20" mirror--how would I fit that into the scene that need a mirror? I know the real answer is: how close do you want to be to the mirror? But any practical advice? For some scenes, I'm thinking a 4 x 5 mirror would just barely fit. BTW, the prices are way below what I expected!
-
How big a mirror do I really need? My wife, before her shoulder and neck went bad, was an accomplished stained glass artist, so cutting them down won't be a problem--I did her cutting near the end. I have problems envisioning how I'd use a 16" x 20" mirror--how would I fit that into the scene that need a mirror? I know the real answer is: how close do you want to be to the mirror? But any practical advice? For some scenes, I'm thinking a 4 x 5 mirror would just barely fit. BTW, the prices are way below what I expected!
Yes, you sort of answered your own question--it depends on how close to the mirror you'll be working. But the angle of the camera is also a factor. If for example you were shooting straight down at a mirror set at 45 degrees to capture an eye-level shot, you could use a piece as small as 3 x 3 inches or so. For the under-bridge shots I made of my Z scale layout, the piece was around 4 x 6 inches because I was working at a low angle. I don't think there would be much call for a 16 x 20... the largest mirror I own is 9 x 12. Having said that, I tend to use the largest mirror possible because it reduces the setup time, since you have more freedom to move the camera around.
BTW, interesting coincidence, my ex-wife is an accomplished stained glass artist as well, and I helped her cut and grind, too (hmmm, that sounds a bit odd). The mirrors are very easily cut with any plain glass cutter. Just press gently, as the glass is thin.