In response to the many requests I have received regarding the quality of the pictures on this website, I thought it might be helpful to explain how this standard is achieved. I have tried to achieve a natural look to the pictures without the extremes one often sees on railway websites. On some websites nothing has been done to the pictures in which case they often look muddy and soft, especially those taken in less than ideal conditions. Conversely, some photographers ramp up the colour saturation and contrast and over sharpen the images, which initially looks impressive, but is certainly not accurate! 

Most of the digital pictures, especially those taken in good light require virtually no work, other than any slight cropping or straightening that may be required. A little lightening of the shadows, especially the dark front of locos where the sun isn't on the front is often carried out, and sometimes the sky may be darkened slightly. For both of these operations a new layer is created in Photoshop. For most such adjustments I usually use curves in Photoshop rather than levels, as once learned they offer far more control. Where only simple adjustments are required brightness and contrast are sometimes used. Obviously it is no use just lightening the front end of the loco, as this will just lead to a fogged look. The contrast has to be increased to compensate, and finally the edge of the layer feathered appropriately. More on this later. Situations where the sun has gone in on the train but is still out in the background can be corrected providing the exposure is set for the light background. It is vitally important with digital photography not to overexpose, as once the highlights are lost through clipping nothing is salvageable, whereas detail can be recovered from massively underexposed areas. These adjustments are normally all that is required, but in really difficult lighting situations I sometimes take an additional picture exposed for the sky and blend that into the train picture, if otherwise all sky detail would be lost.

Unlike digitally captured images, getting good results from scanned images is not as easy as you would think. All too often scanned images on the web look dark and unbelievably soft. There is no reason why this should be so, as hopefully the originals we are working from are of good quality. Every railway photographer knows how fantastic a properly projected slide is, and yet how often does that quality appear on websites? The main problem seems to be the default scan setting on most scanners. The default scans on my Minolta Dimage Multi scanner look horrendous, and considerable tweaking is required to get a decent result. Thankfully the more up to date Epson Perfection V700 is not as bad, but still the default setting appears too contrasty, with dark shadows and blown highlights. Therefore the first step is to flatten the image slightly, and for once the levels tool seems the most appropriate for this. Digital ICE is a fantastic tool for removing the inevitable dust from scanned transparences and I have found that this is well worth using where there are large areas of sky in the picture. It does however have two drawbacks. One is that it slows the scanning process down considerably. Scanning a 6x7 slide at 2400dpi takes over half an hour! The other problem is that it doesn't work with Kodachrome, which is a nuisance as most of my earlier slides are on Kodachrome stock. I know for certain that it doesn't work, because I forgot once, and after waiting for ages for the scan to appear, it looked very odd with strange bright coloured dots everywhere! Once scanned the image is saved as a TIFF file, and at this stage looks a little thin and anemic.

The first Photoshop adjustment (after any cropping and straightening as already mentioned) is usually to create a new layer of the whole picture and tweak the curves on this to achieve the desired brightness and contrast. This will usually leave the sky too light, so the sky area is selected with the Magic Wand (Colour Wand) tool usually set to 99, and then deleted. The edge of this layer is then feathered so that no hard edge is visible. What to set the feather tool to is a matter of trial and error, depending on the original image size, how the background merges with the sky and any small areas of sky visible through the trees or other background. I generally tend to do it at least twice, with a different setting each time, perhaps 222 and 99. Incidentally you may wonder why I state 99 rather than 100 for these settings. It is purely down to the typing speed when working fast. Sometimes on rolling stock with a lot of white in the livery I might delete the new layer for those areas as well. Usually another layer is created for the dark underframe (usually with a 55 selection) and this is modified using curves. I have noticed that the saturation often needs to be reduced on this layer if large changes in the brightness and contrast are made. Later versions of Photoshop have a shadow/highlight tool which would seem to make the layers method of working obsolete. However I have noticed that this tool all too often leads to a very strange almost painting like unreal quality to the picture. Although difficult to master at first, the layers facility in Photoshop is the single most useful feature of the program and the one thing that elevates it above lesser photo editing software. The ability to be able to work on individual areas of a pictures is vital, as long as appropriate feathering of the edges is achieved, so that the final result gives no clue that any manipulation has been done. Sometimes for tricky subjects other layers are created to deal with specific problems, the only limitation being available RAM and forgetting which layer is doing what. I have to confess that I never label the layers so have only myself to blame if I get confused. Once it all looks right, the layers are merged and then any colour correction is applied. As the images were scanned a little flat, the saturation usually has to be increased a little, which is done on a new layer, and usually this is deleted over the front end of diesel and electric locos to avoid the yellow warning panel turning orange. Any colour casts are now removed, and for this curves really come in to their own, as often Kodachrome 64 exhibited an objectionable magenta cast in the highlights. This can be removed by bending the green channel curve from about two third up. Similarly any badly processed or faded images can be dealt with in this way. Hopefully after all this tweaking the image on the monitor now looks like the original slide and in the case of Kodachrome scans is still covered in dust!

For anyone that is contemplating doing a lot of photo manipulation, I strongly recommend getting a graphics tablet. Although they seem difficult to use at first, with a little practice you will realise how much better for cloning out dust, etc a graphics tablet is over a standard mouse. Not only are you relieved of all that constant clicking with the possibility of RSI after extending operating sessions, but also the pen of the graphics tablet can utilise the pressure sensitive feature of many Photoshop tools. For delicate work and repeated use the tablet is much easier and more precise in use. Slides scanned using Digital ICE usually require very little cloning (unless you left a particularly large lump of dust or a hair on the slide). However, Kodachromes usually require a good clean. Early Kodachromes and the professional version that I used in the mid 1980s came in card mounts which leave a ragged edge when viewed at high magnification and this usually requires some work if working right to the edge of the mount. Apart from removing dust, No drastic alteration is been made to any images apart from the occasional removal of inconveniently placed wires, trackside rubbish, or possibly the odd rail worker in an orange jacket! Just occasionally if I have misjudged the timing of the picture and the loco is 'colliding' with a sign or building, I might move that object along slightly. After all this work the image is saved as a TIFF file for future use and then downsized to 980 pixels wide for use on this website.

The final stage is sharpening and noise reduction. It normally seems to be recommended to do any noise reduction before the sharpening, but I have found that the reverse seems to produce the best results. Sharpening is done purely by eye. Most web images seem too soft, as if no or not enough sharpening has been applied, although there are a few websites where the opposite applies, and certainly over sharpening is definitely to be avoided. After appropriate sharpening I apply noise reduction using Neat Image. Although the settings on this are infinitely variable, I find the following method of working far quicker. Using a device noise profile based on the sky area I run Neat Image at its default setting. Often this works fine, but sometimes the non sky part of the image assumes a very 'plasticky' look, with trees and bushes in particular taking on a very odd appearance. Unless this is really pronounced, I save the file anyway then open it up in Photoshop and paste in on top of the original (pre Neat Image) version. I then change the opacity of that layer to 20% to 50% depending on how good or bad the tweaked version is. I then paste another copy of the Neat Image version on top of that and select the sky area (which is where you want most of the grain removal to be apparent). From this selection I create another layer and then delete the previous one. This leaves 100% noise reduction over the sky area and a lesser amount over the rest of the picture. Although it seems very complicated this method of working is both effective and quick once learned. The final stage is to save the file as a medium quality JPEG with appropriate file name. The usual advice is that all web images should be saved at 72dpi. This is nonsense, but unfortunately even some people who should know better still perpetuate this myth. The dpi setting has no effect at all on images displayed on the web. A 600 pixel wide image (for example) will look exactly the same (and be the same file size) at 72dpi or 300dpi or anything else! The dpi setting is purely for printed in repro work. 

Up until June 1980 a pair of Praktica cameras (PLC2 & PLC3) were used, along with Pentacon & Zeiss lenses. In June 1980 the then state of the art Canon A1 multi-mode 35mm SLR  camera was purchased, and after a brief experimental period has been used on the manual setting ever since! A second body was acquired the following year, and believe it not, these two cameras are still in use today, although in an extremely battered condition. In the late 1980s a second hand Canon F1 was added to the line up. This was one of the original series, totally mechanical and built like a tank. In 1985 the decision was taken to move up to medium format, and after much deliberation with regard to choice of format, a Pentax 6x7 was purchased along with 105mm and 200mm Takumar lenses. For the next twenty years the standard railway photography set up was a Canon A1 and Pentax 6x7 with matching focal length lenses on a homemade bracket, allowing simultaneous exposures, assuming I had remembered to wind both cameras on! The Pentax can produce stunning results, but although people will tell you the weight is the main disadvantage, in my view the single biggest disadvantage of the format is the vanishingly small depth of field. For someone who prefers the perspective of a short telephoto for railway subjects, this can be a real challenge. Full sun, a moderately fast train and ISO 100 transparency film will yield excellent results, but with a faster subject, or evening light, a switch to ISO 400 is needed. This has not been a problem in latter years as Fujichrome Provia 400F improved the standard for ISO 400 films out of all recognition, but you always feel with the big Pentax that you are struggling to get enough speed and depth of field.

Films used over the years having included most of the better transparency films, with Kodachrome 64 being used extensively until the late 1980s, followed by Fujichrome Sensia 100 for 35mm and Provia 100 and 400 for roll film. A little Ektachrome was used in the late 1980s when I was having trouble with the unpredictability of Kodachrome. In poor light Kodachrome 200 was used, and various Agfa transparency  films were tried, none of which were any good! Although not relevant to this site, a large amount of black and white photography was undertaken using the Pentax 6x7, the printed results even at 20" x 16" could be stunning in this format. Latterly the standard B&W combination was Ilford HP5 Plus developed in home brew D-76 and printed on Ilford Multigrade, with Agfa Record Rapid paper used for prints to be framed. Kodak Tri-x, Ilford XP1 & XP2, Agfapan 400, and even Ilford Delta 3200 were also tried.

In 2003 a Canon EOS10D digital SLR was purchased, to allow quicker submission to magazines and general ease of use for web based projects such as this. Although obviously no substitute for a properly projected slide, the flexibility of digital has certainly been useful, especially the ability to increases the ISO speed in adverse lighting conditions. Unfortunately, although remaining loyal to the Canon brand, it did mean that I had to purchase a new set of lenses, as my old FD range are not compatible. The decision was made to stick with prime lenses, as the alternatives were either the useless consumer zooms that are usually offered with digital bodies, or an L series zoom, which would not only cost more than all my fixed lenses put together, but would still not match their quality. Even now it is commonplace for many photographers to slavishly upgrade their cameras when the next model comes out, fascinated by all the new features or gimmicks it has, often ignoring the lens. Often you see photographers with the latest body with a consumer zoom, often of the £3.5 - f5.6 bottom of the range variety. Even in the digital age it is still the lens which has the main influence on image quality. Although some of the very expensive zooms do give good quality, generally you have to make a choice: zooms for convenience, primes for quality. I now have the following lenses:

Canon 24mm f2.8 This equates to a 38mm lens on the EOS10D and is an ideal focal length for general landscape photography, although I do not use it much for railway photography. It is a compact lens of a rather dated design, with a rather fiddly focusing ring, but is optically excellent, apart from some vignetting wide open. I have never found the standard lens to be ideal for general railway photography, finding that the stretched out, large loco, rapidly receding train look does not suit the majority of lineside locations. Stations and depot shots are another matter, and here a wider view is required, but as I do very little of this kind of photography, I find the gap from 24mm to 50mm no problem at all. However, there is always the prospect of the Canon 35mm f1.4L lens with its superb optical quality if I ever felt the need for the traditional standard focal length.

Canon 50mm f2.5 Macro Initially this may seem a strange choice for a lens primarily used for railway photography, and indeed I did initially have the Canon 50mm f1.4 lens. Both these lenses become a very short telephoto on the EOS10D and produce the near ideal perspective for many lineside locations. The 50mm f1.4 is a very good lens, although quite soft wide open. However, it does have a design fault, in that if it receives even a minor knock the focusing mechanism can become damaged, rendering the auto focusing inoperative, and the manual focusing virtually so. Due to the unusual design of this particular lens, which has a slightly loose front element at the best of times, one of the internal components is prone to snapping. Unfortunately my lens suffered in this way, and rather than get it repaired only for the fault to reoccur, I decided to seek an alternative. The Canon 50 f1.8 has an even worse reputation for build quality, so that was discounted. The 50mm f1.2L, whilst no doubt a superb lens hardly justified the £1,000+ just to get an extra half stop! I therefore decided on the 50mm f2.5 Macro, which despite its name is also suitable for general photography. I thought the f2.5 maximum aperture might be limiting, but found that it was still pin sharp wide open, unlike most other lenses, and certainly better than the f1.4, so in practice the difference wasn't that great. The focusing is a little critical, and although the lens doesn't have the build quality of an L series lens, at least the front element doesn't wobble disconcertingly like the f1.4! Another bonus which is more applicable to architectural photography, is that this lens, unlike most primes, and all zooms does not suffer from barrel distortion, rendering straight lines correctly. On the downside, if you wish to pose with your camera with a huge zoom and long lens hood, as many photographers do, this is not the lens for you, as it looks a little primitive, with a very small heavily recessed glass area. However, optically it is superb.

Canon 100mm f2 Having used its predecessor in the FD range, I fully expected this lens to perform faultlessly, and so it does. Stunning build quality, which really justifies an L designation, and superb optics make this an ideal choice for railway photography. I wonder how some linesiders manage, with their f5.6 consumer zooms that are soft wide open, when with this lens even f2 is good, while from f2.8 onwards the resolution is superb. Reading various reviews it also appears that this is one of Canon's star buys.

Canon 200mm f2.8L A truly impressive lens, which when used selectively can add real impact to a picture. Admittedly I use this lens more for other branches of photography, particularly stage photography, where its effective 320mm reach can prove very useful. I have the original version with built in lens hood, which is optically identical to the current version. Surprisingly I seem to have fewer camera shake problems with this lens than the 300mm I had on my 35mm system, possibly due to the near ideal balance on the EOS10D. Obviously wherever possible this lens is used with a tripod, but the handholding ergonomics are excellent. This is the one lens where I find auto focusing useful, although not for railway photography for which manual focusing is preferential.

The digital revolution has certainly caused a renaissance in photography generally, and railway photography in particular. This can be a problem, as now the specialist magazines are flooded with mediocre images from people who would not have taken the trouble to send in images before. Unfortunately, as the burgeoning Fotopic websites prove, not all these photographers have the necessary skill, and in fact a good percentage of the pictures are clearly rubbish. There is certainly no substitute for technique! The film images on this website have been scanned on a Minolta Dimage Multi film scanner, which can handle film from 35mm to 6x9cm, and latterly a Epson Perfection V700. They have then been processed using Adobe Photoshop and Neat Image, which has been extremely useful in eliminating film grain from scanned shots and noise from digital images. I should also mention the excellent XnView which is ideal for sorting and viewing thumbnail images, as well as batch conversion and such utilities as changing EXIF data, etc.