Ian

Impressions Ian here. I'm no painter by a long shot but I think I was able to create the image of west coast mountains here on the Island.

Roy

There are several factors...

...at work here. First, is the modeler's artistic ability. I am inept with a brush, so would probably use it only in the Impressionist model, where appropriate. I am a big fan of photo backdrops as a cousin to the art of painting, for those with the necessary computer skills. My photoshopping ability is lacking but still much better than my brushwork. I especially appreciate photo backdrops where there is very little room for the physical layout such as a narrow shelf. Second, it really is a matter of personal preference. Third, it depends on what you have access to and can afford. Just my $0.04 (inflation).

Rile 'em up Rick?

Sheesh more reverse running, (sort of)?! Enough I say! [wink]

I'm "Kut the Krud" Kevin.  I say, "It's your railroad, do what makes you happy regardless of what Norm, Ian or Phil think about it."

I like all styles of backdrop from minimalist to glossy 8 X 10, it's all model railroading to me!  I may end up with all three...that is if I ever get this bench work finished!

If there must be a backdrop...

then I'm in the Photorealistic Phil camp.  Otherwise, it's background scenery all the way to the top of the scene since i'm modeling western PA and and the tracks are along the bottom of river valley's.

Ken L.

No Artist Here

...so I had to go with a photo backdrop. I think the question of whether or not to use one depends on what is on your wall. In my case it was a foil moisture barrier on the basement walls, which would have looked horrible. I suppose I could have painted some masonite a blue color and just used that. I have seen some beautiful scenery on this forum doing just that. It was just easier to buy one ready-made. So I guess you can just call me Phil.

Lazy or otherwise!

Not sure which, but I have no backdrop of any sort. The layout is in the guest bedroom and I painted the walls a light blue, and even had light blue curtains.....

Perhaps being controversial too, but how high do you make a backdrop, unless you can blend it into the sky?

Suppose I don't really notice the lack of a backdrop when I'm operating, though I do when taking photos...

Brian

In between Ian and Phil

Even though one might think actual photos would convey the ultimate in realism, I think photo backdrops work better if they're portraying natural elements such as flatlands, hills, distant mountains, etc. For rivers or other waterways, some are done very well and it's hard to tell they're on the backdrop. Backdrops with town or city buildings looks less convincing to me. I've rarely seen one of the latter types that blend in well with the foreground.

To my eyes, even the most super detailed rolling stock or building placed in front of a photo backdrop of a city still shows it's a model. I believe even George Sellios' outstanding modeling wouldn't look as nice with an actual photo behind his city scenes. I think the best types of city backdrops for nice foreground modeling are detailed partial buildings or flats if space is tight. They would be a better match for what is modeled in front of them.

That's not to say that all man made objects would not look good on a backdrop. I've seen some great blending of dirt roads from foreground to photo backdrop.

All in all though it basically just comes down to what a modeler is trying to achieve. Is the backdrop sharing the stage with the models or just representative of what lies beyond the tracks.

Duane Goodman

None of the Above?

Not sure I fit into any of those definitions.  I feel that as long as the backdrop and foreground work harmoniously the whole scene is doing its job.

"Backdrop at Clive"....

I like photo realistic

but I"m afraid most of us have to choose based on the costs involved. I have no backdrop because like another post, my layout is in a spare bedroom and I do not wish to make any changes to the wall, plus I have plans for an out building that will house a larger layout. I don't notice when operating but I see a wall when taking pictures. 

@ GearedSteam

Are you able to place a temp background in place for photos?  I have seen some On30 island style layouts where the owners have nice paintings that they place to provide a background when taking photos.  Have you thought about trying this?

Den

Light Blue Sky

When the trains are running I don't notice the backdrop, even the scenery doesn't register much. 

I think photo backdrops work best for photographs of the layout otherwise I think a light blue sky is just fine.

Paul

Phil has to put up with Ian

I took some photos of the northern Minnesota iron range landscape in hi-res.  I then tried printing on a 42" wide HP plotter which, admittedly isn't photo quality, but the result looks a little impressionistic just because it was blown up.

Here is the test piece taped up behind the mine.  Looks a little blurry - and it's not the focus of the photo.

Hmmmm, been thinking about backdrops too

I am modeling a prototype and specific geographic area. My layout is at that stage where I need to make a decision on what to do with the sky blue painted backdrops before more scenery can be done. I have a shelf type double deck layout around the walls with 2 peninsulas. The bench width varies from 20" down to 8". My upper deck backdrop is 40" high; the lower 20". While I have seen nice photo backdrops on line none are a match for my area. The discrepancy would bother me. I could take photos and have them printed but not sure I want to do that. I've dabbed on a few impressionistic, distant hills and not sure I like them either. A few years ago I visited a large layout in Colo Springs during the NNGC. The layout had a painted backdrop, hills and a little vegetation, impressionistic I'd guess you could call it. Certainly not a detailed painting.  It really complimented the layout which I mentioned to the layout's owner. My layouts geographic area (northern New Mexico) is the same as that layout. I'm leaning toward the impressionistic approach or just keep my blue sky. My benchwork is high so I really only need to capture the horizon line anyway. IMHO out of scale or poorly done backdrops (photo or painted) really distract from a layout and call attention to themselves.  

Some examples from my previous layout:

Here are some examples of the different type of backdrop treatments from my previous Richlawn Railroad.  First up are pictures using a photo backdrop from Backdrop Warehouse.

Next are pictures of the mountain area which only has blue sky & clouds.

An finally pictures of an artist painted backdrop in the alcove area, where the layout width is 20"

Here's a video of a "walk through" of the room to see more of what the different effects look like.  The video is 13+ minutes long; however, if you go to 0:4:20 you can skip the intro

And here is a "train's eye view" running through the layout:

I hope that the information helps people visualize what the different styles look like.

Art vs Photos

I think that painted backdrops look nicer than photos. For some reason, they show up better in pictures, etc.

I also agree with those who paint backdrops that are busy rather than non-descript.  Those pictures that someone posted with the model roads carrying on to the backdrops were awesome in my opinion.

I painted my own backdrops in acrylics and posted them at: http://royhoffman.com/pwrr/background

Good reality check

Rick - this photo of yours tells me you absolutely need a backdrop to convey a down-in-the-valley feeling.

Result, not method

Not sure I fit into any of the classifications. For me, it is not so much the method as it is the results. I have seen good and not so good instances of each approach. Some locales are more well suited to producing believable backdrops such as distant high mountains or featureless expanses while others areas are at a distinct disadvantage in being recreated convincingly like cityscapes and Appalachia. I would be hesitant to say one method is any better than the other. Rather, whatever method sets the place and is the least noticeable that it is not part of the 3D scene is the best to my eye.

Size matters

Rick,

As you know I have about 130 linear feet of blue painted sky behind my railroad. I would love to go photorealistic but for one the cost would be immense and also there's the question where to get enough background photos taken so it all makes sense. I guess it will probably just have to stay blue !

Size does matter!

Sky anyone?

With all of the discussion on backdrops I'd be interested in how many people have a "sky only" backdrop - and does your sky include clouds?

I can paint detailed landscapes

I've been doing them for years on canvas. It's another one of my many hobbies. However, when I paint model railroad backdrops, I tend to paint very basic mountain silouhettes  with little or no detail and sometimes not even a tree line. I then "mist" the whole thing with flat white paint to further soften the mountain shapes and impart a feeling of distance and atmospheric haze. In my mind this is what looks best. I want my three dimensional scenery to be at the forefront. Look of in the distance on a hazy day and note how much detail you really see.  You don't see much.

Photo realistic backdrops have their place in some applications but for the kind of scenery I'm used to modeling, i think they are all wrong.

Michael

Michael - pictures, please

Michael,

Can you please post some pictures of your backdrops?  I'm especially interested to see your "misting" idea.  Thanks!

it's all in the execution

I think I'm in the same camp.  Any of the techniques can be a botch if it's done poorly; it's all in how well it works with the layout.  A backdrop with perspective which conflicts with the point of view of the rest of the layout will look bad even if it's photorealistic.  Mind you, if you use a photorealistic backdrop, that may force you to raise the bar on your 3D scenery, since the realism of the trees and whatnot may just emphasize any deficiencies in your scenery work.

One point in favor of the low detail, generalized backdrop is that they tend to work better from a variety of viewing angles, while something detailed usually has to be visualized from a specific angle and will look strange from the side-on view, etc.  But in the end, I think any backdrop is better than no backdrop.