Well AppyGuy, as I've said before

Well AppyGuy, as I've pointed out previously in these discussions, the range in colors is going to be highly dependent on you local region. A difference of a even 100 mile, particularly as one approaches the New England area can produce rather dramatic changes in the range of intensities of the hues apparent.

I model the mid Hudson Valley in NY state and based my modeling efforts on autumnal photos I took where the color pallet is certainly broader than in Virginia, but not as drastically vivid as say for Vermont. Thus, my recommendation would be to work to match color photos taken in your specific region at the appropriate time.of year. Quite honestly, it took me a while to exactly match what my photo showed.

Below is a scene from my layout still showing areas of green foliage, followed by a shot of a real local hillside at peak color a couple of weeks beyond what is represented on my pike with most of the green shades gone.

NYW&B

You've done well matching

You've done well matching your area. Are you using typical WS or some other foam brand or a little of each?

Sometimes I think colors are too bright....

But as just pointed out, it largely depends on region and I would think also the time in the fall season. As you know there is a peak time for color. I remember my Mother always wanted to try and travel up into the Smokies at peak time. What I remember seeing looks a little more subdued than the pictures above but that doesn't mean they are wrong. I've never been to that part of the country, my experiences and memory are based largely on visiting the area in which you live.

Michael

The colors are too bright

The colors are ever-so-slighly too bright.

If you closely compare the top model photo to the bottom photo of the real thing you will notice the real thing photo colors are slightly more blue-gray than the colors in the model photo.

IMO, almost all model scenes need a good overspray of light blue-gray if you want them to look more real - especially for areas that represent more distant parts of the scene.

Joe's comment on colors

Actually, Joe's comment on the perhaps somewhat excessive intensity in the hues of my forest precisely personifies my earlier remarks concerning that one should model the exact location in which they live to have any hope of accuracy, even if the results tend to look off to non-local viewers. Although it may be difficult for some folks here who are not New Englanders to believe, the hues seen in my hillside autumn scene are actually somewhat subdued from reality! The vivid, even riotous, colors displayed in a good autumnal color year (sadly the latest was one of the most drab and briefest I've seen here in 40 years) border on the unbelievable to most in-person viewers and if depicted verbatim can to look utterly toy-like! The prototype photo accompanying my earlier post was taken this year. Were I to actually modify it through PhotoShop to bring it up to the level of color often seen locally during a good color year it would have been necessary to enhance the color saturation level by a factor of several times.

To relate a little story associated with the subject at hand, I recall many years ago having a visit from an old friend who was a resident of South Africa. His visit just happened to coincide with the peak of our autumn color. I picked him up from the airport late in the evening, so the trip to my home offered little in the way of sights. When he awoke the first morning at my home and looked out the window he exclaimed, "Oh my God, am I in the Land of OZ?!" The remainder of the day, although intended to be a tour of NYC, was spent driving around the countryside taking endless photos. He was so stunned by the colors displayed that he never could quite calm down over what he saw and we ran through roll after roll of film that day.

Joe's other remark, concerning the misting of distant hills was, however, right on the mark. Few hobbyists fully appreciate the affect that atmosphere has on a proto-type scene, even when the supposed distance between the viewer and the subject may be as little as a scale 150 feet. This is why 99% of model photos, especially panoramic ones, always look slightly off, toy-like and unreal. It is the fact at the intervening atmosphere ever so slightly softens our view of the real world, even though we are not often aware of it, but this is rarely replicated in our model photos. Addressing my forest scene, I did ever so slightly "weather" it to imply some presence of atmosphere between the trees and the viewer, but as it is all within a supposed 150 yards of the viewer it's not very apparent. 

NYW&B

Pitfalls of modeling fall

Interesting discussion.

I too am a New Englander. I live in New Hampshire. My yard is comprised of mostly oak trees. We have a few maples, but the oaks dominate. Oaks are a much more subdued brownish tone and usually hang on for much longer. Maples come and go in a flash. Here's the point.

When choosing a season to model, or a "part" of a season you might consider just how long things actually "look" that way. I considered modeling fall at one time. My problem with modeling "peak" fall color is that the actual peak of color (on a good year) is a day or two, and then the leaves lose the brightness, or are stripped by wind and rain, or there is a hard frost. In other words, a best case scenario for peak color in one particular area is a few days, and then things change, quickly. There is a progression to the color change. It is in motion day-to-day. This is why I chose the leafless, early spring season. This can last for weeks, and often a couple months in winters with less snow. So, it is representative of how things look, more of the time. In other words, that "look" is not unusual, but rather commonplace. It looks the same day after day after day. It's similar to summer, which looks basically the same from June-September here in New England.

What I find interesting is that very few modelers attempt to model "past peak" fall foliage, whether it is New York, Vermont, Maine or West Virginia. To me, this would be a very interesting project, and frankly it would produce a result that would look more realistic (more common) vs. the sometimes garish colors of "peak" foliage attempts. The photo above is a pretty darn good crack at modeling peak color. If it were modeled a week later, you'd have more subdued colors and some bare trees too, along with green grass, and some grasses that had turned to tan/brown. In other words, subdued but still very colorful.Something to consider.

if I have any suggestion about the scene it's the texture of some of the tree foliage. Some of the trees are just a bit "lumpy" and this takes away from that individual leaf look. This isn't a criticism. It's a wicked nice scene. Curious to know what was used for tree armatures.

For a great example of fall color that is subdued just enough, check out Marty McGuirk's Central Vermont stuff. I think he nailed it probably the best I've seen. I believe he used Supertrees and the foliage colors were earth tones, NOT fall foliage selections.

Mike Confalone

Dead trees

A good point was made above.  Looking at the photo, I see at least half a dozen trees with no leaves, and thinking about this I am used to seeing this but I do not see many people who have modelled leaf less trees when they model fall.

- Doug

Coloration...

I think at least some of the color difference between the two photos is due to lighting difference. The model scene appears to be lit by incandescent lamps. The real thing uses the sun. Cameras usually do a fairly lame job of compensating for incandescent lighting. The only way to avoid this is to use a custom white balance if your camera has that feature. With custom white balance you shoot a gray card (cardboard printed with a perfectly gray color -- no red, green, or blue bias) under the layout lighting. Then you tell the camera "this is what a perfect gray looks like". Then camera adjusts the gain on the red, green, and blue amplifiers in its sensor and now you have perfect compensation for different colored lighting. This is much better than trying to post process color balance in photoshop.

Not that I'm saying the model photo is no good. Far from it in fact, I like it a lot. But correct white balance would tend to make the colors have less of a cast.

Charlie