One needs to consider how you

One needs to consider how you will model the mountain in the background. If a 3d model will be used to scale the mountain will be taller than the room you are in. Most of the hills were at least a few hundred feet taller than the flatlands adjacent to the river. However there were gaps between the hills that would allow some background to be seen because of the distance involved. The area you are modeling may have more than a few gaps or none at all.

If we are considering HO scale a 300 foot hill will be higher than 3 actual feet. If your bench work is 4 feet tall from the floor unless you played a lot of basketball you will not likely be able to see the top of the hill let alone the sky. N scale will be close to 2 feet and still not likely to show any sky on a modeled layout.

If on the other hand you wish to depict the hills on the backdrop you may still forgo the sky and just hide the joint with vegetation. This would allow more of the river valley to be modeled. Your statements regarding not being able to see the sky unless one looks up are very accurate and unless one was lined up on one of the gaps between hills you were unlikely to see more than one hill either.

Either way you go the view would be the same( like being the #2 Dog on the Dog Sled the scenery doesn't change). Consider your depth in the scene will a backdrop be better and give you more scenery in the front or does making lots of trees sound more appealing. It may be cheaper and quicker not to mention more realistic, to use a photo backdrop rather than building the huge number of trees required for Appalachian foot hills.

Rob in Texas formerly from the Ohio Valley south of Pittsburgh, PA

I have found that adding a

I have found that adding a painted backdrop has made a huge difference.  It makes the scene seem to extend off into forever.  When it was just a blue background, the shelf real estate seemed small.  I had considered photo backdrops, but my railroad runs though Minnesota's iron range, and the mining dumps as they looked in the 1950s aren't available in backdrops.

I painted the backdrop blue, painted in the horizon clouds in white, a few clouds farther up,  I painted in a far purple/blue horizon, then a green nearer-horizon line, then blotched in yellow/green, all with an el cheapo 1" brush.  The blue and white are latex paints from Menards.  The green and yellow are artists paints Mars Black, and Yellow Ochre.  The Mars Black has a blue base to is.  Adding yellow makes green.  You can see the mine overburden pile to the far right.  I painted them in using artist red - can't remember, raw umber maybe.

I an NOT an artist, but this worked out well.  It is fuzzy enough to not draw the eye, yet good enough to give a sense of distance.

That is an excellent example

That is an excellent example of a relatively simple backdrop that adds tremendous depth to the scene. Well done!

I agree...

That is indeed an excellent example.  And for a Midwest, or similar type of landscape where distance needs to be created using a backdrop would be absolutely essential. 

Given what Rob has said however, and the scenes that I'm considering not having a backdrop are 6-9" in height, and the scenes being usually 9-12" deep, then it would almost seem a backdrop would be out of place, unless the location is a track cresting a mountain ridge. 

SIGH, I wish I could put off the decision whether to include it or not.  I can delay it for awhile, but it will be easier to put in the "lattice work" that I plan on installing for gluing the vinyl flooring too now before too much of the benchwork is up.  I'm not going to let this indecision hold up construction, but I do need to decide sooner rather than later or else I create more work should I want to include a backdrop in those scenes. 

I would love for anyone who is also modeling Appalachian Mountains that have limited deck heights (12" or under) who have used backdrops, could you post any photos of how they look like.  It would help with making this decision.  This is one thing that will be difficult to "mock up" unlike other issues.

Thanks.

Ken L.

Mockups, and the need for backdrops

Dear Ken,

Surely a couple of sheets of foamcore on a shelf could provide a high-speed low-cost mockup of the situation in question?

I could forsee a dimension-adjusted version of this

with maybe another one "on top" to simulate the upper-deck + lighting valence,
sitting on some form of shelf or support to get the "lower deck" at the appropriate height???

As far as the wider question "to backdrop, or not to backdrop", I offer the following.

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Just so everyone understands...

There will be background scenery on all the decks (except for Staging).  When I ask about a backdrop, I am speaking of something to paint a sky and "distant" mountains, but with the area i'm modeling, I don't see how train crews on the bottom of a valley would be able to see a distant mountain ridge beyond the ridge they are right next to.  For those short and narrow (depth wise) scenes that are just a single track mainline, would adding 2-3" of sky really be worth the effort, or would hust having a mountain ridge with trees all the way to the top of the deck suffice.

Ken L

would adding 2-3" of sky really be worth the effort,

 I'd just add backdrops and then decide later how high the mountains come up to at various locations. Backdrops can be the backing support for the mountains and could be covered or not as the location requires.....DaveB

You are correct about not

You are correct about not seeing the sky when driving. This holds true in many areas however our mind knows it's there and just hints of it will make your railroad more believable. If you really want trees all of the way up at least add little leaks of blue sky in the trees. Blayne

Backdrops

This is a backdrop for my Maybrook, NY yard on the NH. 

Lots of different

Lots of different philosophies about backdrops, I'm a photo kind of guy because I know I'm not that skilled at painting and I don't want something not that well done when photos can produce excellent results, even just sky photos which are available commercially.

In this first pic, you can see the ribs of the mountains with paper as I experiment with peek a boo sightings for the mountains in the back you are not really intended to see much of except mostly their tops and sky:

And the next pic is of my backdrop elsewhere; these backdrops though available commercially aren't used that much in North America but I like the looks much better than painting:

Forested Shallow Backdrops

While most of the suggestions and advice offered above are indeed good ones concerning how to approach the development of your intended Appalachian backdrop, I'd like to offer a word of caution. A solid wall of simulated trees is a very common approach among hobbyists in situations such as yours, but most make the grave mistake of representing such a hillside as abruptly rising behind their trackage essentially vertically, then puzzle why their backdrop looks decidedly odd.

Except for fairly sparsely treed rock cliffs one rarely will encounter large vertical surfaces densely covered with trees, although at first glance these may appear so from a distance. There's a little thing called the angle of repose that dictates beyond a certain steep angle dirt and debris will simply not cling solidly in place. Thus, a truly vertical cliff would usually be anticipated to accrue too little dirt to anchor and support the growth of masses of large trees.

For that reason, models of treed hillsides should always show some degree if incline amounting to less than around 65-70 degrees (the typical angle of repose from common dirt is roughly 45 degrees). If you go more vertically than this 65-70 degrees any viewer of the layout who is the least bit familiar with hilly regions of the country will immediately perceive that something is wrong with the scene, even if they can't put their finger on what it is right away. This is  because their mind knows more about how the real world is supposed to look than you might assume and too great a deviation from the norm will set off alarm bells. Professional diorama makers appreciate this fact and will only stretch scene elements just so far, halting before this "cheating of reality" goes too far to be accepted in the viewing public's mind.

The moral here? Whatever you do, don't represent your treed hillside backdrop as an absolutely vertical surface of puffball, or other similarly modeled trees, even if space is limited. 

NYW&B     

Embudo canyon end of aisle Chili Line turnback scene

This scene is an end of aisle curve between peninsulas and represents Embudo canyon along the Rio Grande in NM on the Chili Line. Benchwork depth for the canyon scene is 12-14" and is 57" high. Backdrop rises to near ceiling height. On my layout the railroad curves through the canyon following the Rio Grande in the foreground (or will be) to the station of Embudo. After roughing in the scenery I debated about adding depth to the scene and decided to paint a backdrop that represents the higher hills and mesas that are visible above the modeled scenery and on the prototype. When the scenery is finished it should blend with the backdrop adding the depth I was looking for. I was hesitant about painting a backdrop this size but am happy with the results. I used 4 colors of indoor latex browns and tans for landscape and 2 greens to represent the pinons and junipers. A little gray dabbed here and there represent chamiso bushes. Oh yes, the blue areas to the right on the first photo are where I plan to add rock castings that mimick the scene above Embudo. 

You don't have to ...

... include a skyline on your backdrop, if you don't want to.  However, if you are planning on scenery 'all the way up', you will be wanting a pretty deep scene (unless you are modeling cliffs or cuts).  For a narrower scene, you could certainly include a background (photo?) depicting a forest (without a skyline); then you'd just need to model a bit of the slope from the tracks leading back toward the background which would provide the required depth of field.  One would have to be a bit careful to ensure that the scale of the trees in the background matches those in front of it.

Yes, Yes, and Yes

Nope.

If you are at the bottom of the valley and have a second layer on top and all that your crew can really see is trees and mountain side - then I don't see why you need to include any sky. And if you did, I would make it only a very little sliver.

Ken- Where is Rt 15. Rt 8 I

Ken-

Where is Rt 15. Rt 8 I know, US 19 I know, Rt 18 and 51 I know... But those mostly run through smaller hills, and not very vertical. Is that down closer to WV? Washington area?

Someone else mentioned the hills being too vertical. I would definitely watch against that. But otherwise, IMO, having grown up in that area, the one characteristic of the hills in W. Pa that always bothered me was their claustrophobic nature. You always feel surrounded by hills, and can never see much, and the sky is always "up". So IMO, if you can find a way to do it _without_ the sky--or maybe, just the tiniest bit of sky at the top, to drive home that feel, that would be what you want. If you do add sky, I would definitely add clouds--close ones that don't let you feel like you are looking far. You want that claustrophobic sense that the hills give. I would experiment with photos, both with some sky and without, to see which actually works better. I wouldn't just take our word for it. Get some big prints and put them in place, and use whichever ones you prefer. 

Rt 15...

is located more in the central part of the state of PA.  Several parts run along side the Susquehanna River IIRC.  It comes out of Corning NY, heads south through major cities such as Williamsport and Harrisburg.  

Though my railroad runs quite a bit west from there, it's still the Appalachian Mountains. 

Ken L

Ken L backdrop question

SEA1109 - do you have some pix that you can post?

Viewer's Perspective

I can't see where anyone has mentioned perhaps the most important aspect of the background question:

What CAN the viewer see on the layout?

If the scene in question is near eye level a backdrop may not make any sense.  The only thing the viewer can see are the trees or buildings or other scenery immediately behind the tracks.  In this case you would be replicating the effect of having to "look up to see sky" you mentioned.

However, if the scene in question is very low, then a backdrop would be essential because the viewer can see well beyond the track and scenery in the foreground.  In the real world the horizon is always at eye level.  Unless you are on a boat in the middle of the ocean you will probably only be able to see small portions of the horizon, or maybe not any of if because there are objects (trees, buildings, mountains, etc) between you and the horizon.  In a low scene, one of the main jobs of the backdrop is to raise the apparent horizon, otherwise it is way too obvious one is looking at a shelf.  For a low scene, a solid blue backdrop would probably look worse than no backdrop (unless you are modeling the Flat Earth RR near the edge of the world).  The lower the scene, the more forests, mountainsand lakes you will need on the backdrop.

Forced perspective

You probably don't have room for any backdrop because of the size of the hills and the limited view. You can steepen the terrain (base) past 45° and up to 70° and maybe beyond "if" you force the perspective. Use smaller trees and vegetation farther back and up. Full size trees in front and N or even Z scale trees at the top. Towards the top you're not going to see much from where you're standing unless you bend a bit so you don't have to put a lot of time or effort into it.

Backgrounds do enhance a scene

My view is that backgrounds a worthwhile but as has been noted - it really depends upon the scene that you wish to create and, probably more importantly - the area that is available to complete it in.    I guess that there are pro's and con's but if there isn't any room to create the forest, mountain or install building etc then it may well be worthwhile.

I've utilized them on all of my layouts with some degree of satisfaction - particularly when creating switching layouts when there is only 13" of space and one is attempting to create a specific effect.

Good luck with the task.    Stu

http://members.optusnet.com.au/interplayvjm          Modular Division

http://member.optusnet.com.au/interplaytrain          HO Division

Concerning "Forced Perspective"

Herbyguitar posts: "You probably don't have room for any backdrop because of the size of the hills and the limited view. You can steepen the terrain (base) past 45° and up to 70° and maybe beyond "if" you force the perspective. Use smaller trees and vegetation farther back and up. Full size trees in front and N or even Z scale trees at the top. Towards the top you're not going to see much from where you're standing unless you bend a bit so you don't have to put a lot of time or effort into it."

One must exercise real caution employing forced perspective, especially when the depth of a scene is really shallow. As I've gone to great pains to explain numerous times on various forums, scenes modeled in forced perspective often look very nice and believable in 2-D images on-line and in magazines, but they too often appear just a bit hokey when viewed in person.

Simply modeling a rapid decrease in the apparent size of trees on a hillside that rises steeply (instead of in considerable depth) only conveys the impression that the higher up one goes the smaller the trees there are, not that they are more distance from the viewer. Now that is not to say that a viewer won't understand what the modeler has attempted to portray, but it is still totally unconvincing.

Over the years I've visited a number of the hobby's famous layouts that employed forced perspective in shallow forested and urban scenes and after years of seeing these same convincing scenes in MR, or RMC, I found viewing them in person a great letdown. Particularly in certain city scenes, the only impression the viewer came away with was that the buildings toward the rear were piled atop the rear of the  roofs of nearer ones.

Because of the 3-D nature of human vision, forced perspective does generally not work when the scene in question is within roughly 20 feet from the viewer. Beyond that distance, it rapidly grows more convincing. That is why it often seems very effective in the full-sized dioramas at the famous theme parks.

So, I would advise use of any forced perspective to be done with care and to try to make sure that any scene employing it looks reasonably convincing to the eyes of a viewer actually standing before it, unless your main focus is just on getting photos published in the magazines.

NYW&B

, I found viewing them in person a great letdown.

  What method have you found that's better in that situation? Photo backdrops? painted backdrops? bare wall? :> ) .........DaveB