backdrop painting

No, it's merely impressionistic, which is as it should be. And the pictures are close up, which exaggerates its simple shapes, etc. At normal viewing distance, it will look just fine. Pity MRR didn't include a shot showing it with track and trains in the foreground.

A back drop should not look too realistic, and especially it should never be "in scale." Otherwise, people look at the back drop, and not the trains in the foreground.

cheers, wolf k.

Just like with art, there are the photographic copyiers and the impressionists. Getting a photorealistic backdrop can be a big problem when the backdrop isn't seen at only one angle so impressioonistic paintings can do a better job by being basically invisible from certain places while quite striking at others. Besides, you didn't do the work or are responsible for it. Don't complain as it just ain't gonna make a bit of difference.

-- Bob May

rmay at nethere.com http: slash /nav.to slash bobmay http: slash /bobmay dot astronomy.net

I'm a professional artist - mostly landscapes. Not surprisingly I painted my own backdrop for my layout. Basically I blocked in the sky, hills, midground, etc with a gradual lightening of shade from mid-ground to horizon. I did not detail to the degree that I would in a painting. Where foreground meets the layout scenery I have continued colours through, with enough detailing so that modelled and painted are not readily distinguishable apart. The result is a background that does not detract or distract from the railway and it's operation.

Results at exhibitions:

- circa 25% specific compliments on background.

- circa 75% no comment.

- One comment that it was too basic.

Greg.P. NZ

Agreed. I just thought it was a bad example to show beginners. As an example, Dave Frary's backdrop in Realistic MR Scenery is also impressionistic, but looks a lot less garish. But as you say, it's probably just a matter of preference and I was expressing mine :-).

"Greg.Procter" skriver:

Picture, picture, picture - please :-)

Klaus