Feeback on new article on my site... Trees!

[Ed Kapuscinski]

http://conrail1285.com/news.asp?storyid=57

What do you all think? What am I missing?

[tomgschilling]

Well, Ed, I think the article was great.  As an indication, I just went over to Scenic express and ordered some Super trees.  Now, I've got to figure out the most expeditious was to save your article.  Great job.                ...Tom

[JDouglasFisher]

10 out of 10, and heres why.

1.) You explain a bit about "Perception". When you spoke of whether trees are brown or gray. I have been arguing perception with people in the hobby for about 2 years now, especially when one comes to blows over the "appropriate" color for a locomotive. Everyone perceives color differently, and some (myself) perceive it in 2 ways if not using both eyes (yes, my right eye interprets colors "warmer" than my left, though stereoscopically, it balances out.) We're taught from kindergarten that trees are brown, but in reality, taking into account atmosphere, distance, natural light, species of tree, etc. they are perceived as "gray".

2.) You also take on the misconception of height. All to often, trees are modeled shorter than reality, most trees in the northeast are at least minimum 75 feet tall (unless they are saplings). Oaks, Maples, Conifers generally left on their own grow to great heights. Modelers however seem to forget the vertical height issue in regards to scale. Food for thought, a 100 foot maple in N scale is 7", in HO scale its over 12" easily, yet we don't see this modeled.

3.) You speak of the "Forest Effect". When we look into a wooded area, what our mind sees is many vertical trunks, and lots of branches that "weave" into each other. When looking, we don't try and differentiate branches from one tree to the next, we look at the whole, and decide "its a forested area". The Scenic Express Super Trees achieve this effect greatly.

The only thing I think you may want to explore with yourself is how "we" as operators perceive foreground trees. I know you made mention of looking for a more detailed foreground tree, but I must ask, are we, as operators in an aisle, supposed to be looking into our layouts from a scale distance of say 200', or perhaps more realistically, 1,000 feet?

If its the former, than perhaps yes, but if its the latter, at 1,000 scale feet away, than perhaps there is no need for a more detailed tree in the foreground.

Thats the one crux that no one I know has ever been able to answer, at what distance are we supposed to be when viewing our models?

J

[asciibaron]

What do you all think? What am I missing?

trees?  ;D

looks good.

[Scott Lupia]

Great article.  Great photos, the whole thing. 

Now what you are missing...  Girls in bikinis?   ;D

Ed, very great read.  I enjoyed it.

Scott

[Sokramiketes]

Lately, I don't know that I agree with using giant trees, even if in scale.  At least not in all applications.

I'm picturing some of my favorite layouts, and the trees on each are relatively small.  For recent examples, pull out the latest Mike Danneman article, and even the latest photo essay on the Reid Bros.  If N scale trains surrounded by big time scenery is your thing, maybe it's better to model the forest instead of the trees.  Both those layouts use lots and lots of tiny trees.  And they are able to play off of distance and depth and everything that makes those layouts feel more like you're standing in the scene, instead of looking at a narrow shelf.

Perception comes to mind as well.  When I'm out railfanning, my perception is "trains = big".  I seem to like layouts that are modeled to N scale but set in scenery that might be 75% of N scale.  Emphasize the trains like they should be, right?

Anyway... as I dive into a home layout, I've been thinking of such things a lot more that I do with modules. 

[AlkemScaleModels]

I think on a shelf layout where the benchwork is narrow, larger trees are better as they help disguise the limited depth of the scene. Where there is more scenic depth, such as the Reids and Danneman's layouts, there is more scenic depth. The smaller trees help enhance the feeling of depth. I had a similar experience on my DRGW layout. Lotos of smaller trees helped make the scene look bigger.

[Pomperaugrr]

Ed, that was a nicely written article.  The photography is excellent as well.  I have to say that this is one of the most realistic n scale scenes I have ever seen.  Nice work!     



Eric

[flight2000]

Now what you are missing...  Girls in bikinis?   ;D

I think Craig over at BLMA has that one cornered already...   ;D

Nice article either way.

Brian

[Catt]

Ed,
  Great article along with awesome modeling.It was also nice to discover that I am not the only modeler that knows trees are not brown but shades of grey.

[Sokramiketes]

I think on a shelf layout where the benchwork is narrow, larger trees are better as they help disguise the limited depth of the scene. Where there is more scenic depth, such as the Reids and Danneman's layouts, there is more scenic depth. The smaller trees help enhance the feeling of depth. I had a similar experience on my DRGW layout. Lotos of smaller trees helped make the scene look bigger.

Bingo.  Ed, maybe you can address both sides of this one.

[davefoxx]

Ed,

I'm a big fan of your modeling, and your article is well-written.  I agree that trees should dwarf the trains, just as they do in real life.  You and I have had this discussion before.  I'm looking out the front window of my home, and there are trees behind the townhomes across the street that are at least twice as tall as the buildings.  Some modelers often miss this, and when only clump foliage is stuck to the side of a ridge to represent trees, it is apparent, to me, that the tree structure is missing.  Here's a picture I took last winter that shows the height of trees relative to the train and clearly reveals the color of the trees in that time of year.



Although I am red-green colorblind, I've always thought that tree trunks were mostly gray.  As the shot shows above, winter scenery is very gray and cold, which is my only complaint about your scene.  Since it's another gray day here in March, your pictures make me long for Spring!

Dave

[wm3798]

I think it may be a matter of geographic reference.  Ed, Dave (and myself) are here on the East Coast, where things are pretty heavily forested.  When you hike along an old right of way, you can't help but be overwhelmed by the trees.  Now granted, these aren't sequoias, but from eye level, a good percentage of your scenery goes up.


It's also a matter of perspective, as much as perception.  Here's an example.


This is a very familiar scene, which can be adequately modeled as Mike describes.  While the trees may be 50 to 60 feet tall, they also go up a steep slope behind the train.  There's a rock face that provides the necessary height, so the trees don't have to be modeled as tall.  You'll also notice that there are few if any visible trunks.  The grass in front of the track adds to the perspective of train first, trees second.

But that's not the effect that Ed's after.  He's modeling a secondary line that runs through some pretty heavily wooded areas.  There is no tidy line of demarcation, much like this scene...


or more specifically, like this...


Modeling the winter scene presents a much greater challenge.  When you have a full canopy of foliage, it's easy to camouflage the true size of the trees, because you can't really see them.  You see the crowns and the foliage.

There's also a difference in how you shoot a scene from eye level, and how the trees look.


vs. how you might see things from a higher viewing angle, which supports the idea of smaller trees to maximize the appearance of the trains.


As you can see, I use a variety of tree sizes to try to get the best out of different photo locations.  These areas are blended a bit to give a consistent look to whole layout when viewed in person.

Lee

[asciibaron]

the reason i am in N scale now is because the environment can envelope the trains

[davefoxx]

Steve,

I've seen you post this picture before.  I always liked how it appeared that the forest canopy was taking over and creating a tunnel effect.  Also, interesting is the settling of the track, leaving a hump at the bridge crossing.  Yee ha!

Dave