But disappointed that the photo and caption are highlighting what I consider one of the failures of that project. As my blog will indicate I attempted a second method of fixing the sign then in the end removed it entirely. The referenced thread even includes this comment from myself;

A model railroad scene is static, a snapshot in time. And yet it isn't because trains move through the scene. By putting figures in the scene actively doing something we are dooming those people to an eternity day and night of doing that activity. If I were to put a man on a ladder fixing the sign on a diorama that would be ok. For on a diorama we have a single snapshot of time. But as model railroaders we are challenged to make a scene believable day or night, Monday or Sunday. I can't doom Murph's sign man to an eternity of fixing a liquor store sign. I'll have to fix the sign myself.

Also the depth of field is lacking, the backdrop is horrible... that picture was merely illustrating a problem with a sign.

But a sincere thank you for including me. My first published work. Hopefully there will be more.

Matt

Also the depth of field is lacking, the backdrop is horrible

We said, "this photo doesn't have a huge depth of field" - which states a fact in a non-judgemental way. We did not say "depth of field is lousy" nor did we say "lacking" since that would be condescending.

Yes, the sign mounting was a failure - and that was the point. Take a failure and turn it into something out of the ordinary.

No slight was meant, and if you felt we did slight you then we apologize since that's not our intent. We know you didn't elect to go the route of the ladder and the fixit scene, which is why we included the thread link so people could read the whole story.

Still, we felt it was an opportunity to encourage others that problems could be an opportunity in disguise. If your photo helps other modelers see the possibilities, isn't that worth it?

We do have to wonder ... if this photo was that much of an embarrassment to you, why did you post it on the WORLD WIDE Web? Your photo is potentially viewable by over 1 billion people. So you posted your "mistake" to the world by putting it up on a public website ... or would you rather we not comment on it?

NOTE: By the way, the last photo in Yes, it's a model is always something offbeat and memorable - so you rank up there with a select few who have a photo we felt justified as closing out YIAM with something to help people see their problems differently. Most will be thinking, "Man, that kind of thing has happened to me more times than I can count ... but I never thought of trying to make it into something useful. Hmmm ...".

Your caption and application of the picture are fine. I feel in no way slighted by you or your magazine in your approach.  Let's just say my first foray into being published in a magazine was not how I had planned it to go. And yes although I publicly posted that picture here and elsewhere I still draw a distinction in my mind between the published magazine and user generated web content. I guess I'm still not used to the concept of Yes It's a Model's final photo being offbeat and memorable. So I suppose I'm a bit chagrined to have not taken a better photo to have it appear there.

I still plan to take a screen shot and have it printed and framed. After all my work appeared in the international model railroad press! 

Matt

We actually think your modeling is quite good - and we look forward to giving you some decent airtime in a future YIAM or an article.

I have a shoot planned with the existing buildings but TRAINS too. I have some ideas for a night shot with some weathered freight cars on the grade crossing. 

Matt

Although I understand self critiquing, many of us could only dream of hitting that level eventually.  Don't beat yourself up, it looks great!

FWIW, here's the correct caption for the overhead shot of GP40 6697 and SD45-2 8969.  The published caption was for a different shot.

"Two CSX veterans are trailing in the consist of this gloomy afternoon's Q690 through Sun, VA on May 2, 1992.  CSXT 8969 is former Clinchfield 3611, built 11/72, and CSXT 6697 was originally SAL 626, built 7-66 as SAL 626 and later becoming SCL 1541 and SBD 6697 before her current identification."

I thought the caption here was perfect, including the mention of depth of field. And the idea of a ladder, owner and repairman pointing up is also really cool.

Question for all:

I have trouble with depth of field also. How could the depth of field have been increased for this photo?

Thanks,

Al