Background Flats

[Kamiyacho]

For a while now I've been thinking that one area of my layout was a bit bland and needed something in the background so I've mocked up a bulding flat from a GM engine shed kit.  The area is only about 1 inch deep - any thoughts or comments?  Does it need a roof? How would you capture the roof angle in such a shallow space?

[disturbman]

That looks a bit weird. I'm not sure you can do much here, I've got the impression you'll need a bit more depth to do something believable. Sorry I can't help you.

[KenS]

I don't like flats, as they're always a compromise. But they can work if they're subtle, and other things in the scene are more likely to draw the eye.  In that use, they're like the backdrop, only with dimensionality that makes them look better.  While yours looks okay, the lack of any kind of roof (a typical problem with flats) makes it look a bit "off". But it's better than painting a building on the backdrop, unless you're a very good artist.

 

If you have an inch to work with, rooftop signs and/or piping/ventilators can make it look less like a free-standing wall.  But those can also work against you by making it less subtle, and drawing the eye to the building.  Disguising the ends with trees or something else can help hide the lack of depth as well.

 

Another technique that can be used where you have no depth to work with is to cut out a photo of a building that's taken from an angle a bit above it or from a distance, showing part of the roof and part of a second side rather than just one face. That gives it more dimensionality from a distance, although up close it still won't look "right" due to perspective issues.

[keitaro]

Agreed I don't like that either.

 

I been trying to think of what could be done...

 

first you need to at lease paste a print of background so you can't see mountain through it's windows.

 

However it really seems out of place I mean a large workshop looking building all by itself with nothing behind it or next to it in the distance. It would look better if it were perhaps being constructed ? with a crane sitting right on the wall and some steel frame of the building come up that would require less of an 3d look that a large 2d building.

It would look a bit more suitable as though a new development site rather than a random building sitting there.

 

but that just my 2 cents

[CaptOblivious]

I wonder if the problem is a mismatch between the building and the background? It looks a bit out of place.

[Kamiyacho]

Just to be clear, it was only cut from the sprues and set in place as a mock-up to see general scale, etc.  I agree that if I use it a good idea would be to paint it some subtle color and the windows would need to be dealt with.  Also I think it is a good idea to put something else around it, or maybe even slightly in front of it (yard lighting?). Maybe I'll try a few photos to see what that looks like.  A steel frame is a very interesting idea.  Hmm.

[keitaro]

i dig that you will paint it but still i just can't see that working sorry. Anyway the shrubs in front would need to be moved as well. i guess it's worth painting up and seeing if it looks better though you can always reuse on another layout some where else if it looks horrible.

[CaptOblivious]

Here's my analysis: The building is placed directly in front of a painting representing something quite distant. Yet we can see the "near" building and the "distant" mountain are right next to each other. I would suggest using a backdrop that has something a bit "closer" to the viewer on it. I don't personally think there's anything wrong with the building itself, only with a failure of illusion of seperation between the building and the mountain.

[stevenh]

Not so much flats, but make it a factory... you'd just have to paint in a roof that angles back to add the depth?

[Kamiyacho]

The building is placed directly in front of a painting representing something quite distant

 

I think you have clarified what has been bothering me.  The painted mountains are quite distant and the view seems to jump from the yard to infinity - almost as if there are miles of flat plains out to the mountains. Rather than adding something else relatively near perhaps I should use the 1 inch to add some intermediate foothills, in a color somewhat darker than the distant mountains and with more texture.  Thanks.

[disturbman]

If Don said more clearly what I was thinking, your answer is atually the one I was thinking about. I didn't thought you had enough space to create some foothills.

[CaptOblivious]

Rolling hills might be good. A technique I saw recently...perhaps on this very forum...had it where the hills would peak in front of the backdrop (rather than right at it), and roll slightly downwards towards the backdrop, helping to reinforce the illusion that the backdrop is far away.

[Lawrence]

There was an article in Continental modeller some time ago about this, I don't know if I still have it but will try and look it out.  As I recall they made use of black foamboard behind the flats to give the indication of depth, this was glued directly to the back of the flat (which has the added bonus of making all the windows dark and reflecting back passing trains  ). A couple of layers of 5mm foamboard would give you enough depth to be able to add a little roof details as previously mentioned and it will look perfectly presentable.

 

Love the little boat going up the river by the way 

[Kamiyacho]

In response to the near-universal rejection of my first idea for "something behind the yard", today I've been working on some foothills.  Still a work in progress.

[scott]

Nope, too green and hilly. ;-)

 

Actually, that looks pretty good.

[keitaro]

It does. Million time better than the flat factory of doom 

[David]

I agree. With the forced perspective of the camera they look very good, maybe too good - now your hill drawing behind them is starting to look out of place!

[CaptOblivious]

Much improved! The illusion of depth is much stronger now. That the more distant mtns are paler than the one in the foreground contributes to the illusion as well.

[KenS]

I agree, definitely better.  Although the dark green seems a bit too dark if you're trying to suggest something partway between the tracks and the distant mountains, and the color seems to uniform.  But that's nit-picking.  They still look pretty good as they are.

[cteno4]

Ill throw in one grain of salt, trying to evaluate a 3D to 2D transition like this via a 2D picture is probably not going to give you a lot. your eye will see things very differently in person with just tiny movements in angle and position for both good and bad.

 

effects like this work as they tend to trick the mind's eye into a certain effect/picture/etc that once established forces the eye to ignore little things that dont jibe with the mind's eye's image.

 

cheers

 

jeff