Well after having a totally non-productive day in the shop yesterday and an almost totally non-productive day again today (Spent three hours trying to repair a non-functioning airbrush with no success. This obviously is not the weekend for painting.) I decided it was time to tear something apart. ;D
I've had this diecast 1923 Ford Sedan for sometime which I think will make a decent derelict vehicle rusting and fading away in the weeds in a small product diorama I'm working on. I blasted the paint off and cut the cowl from the body. Then I machined the mating surfaces flat between the cowl and body. I cut off various screw posts from inside the cowl and body and began thinning the wall thickness inside the cowl with dental burrs. Will continue with that tedious process tomorrow. Also need to remove the oversize cowl hinges (to be replaced with wire) and the oversize louvres, then cut and fold one side of the cowl so that it's laying open. Not sure how I'll recreate the louvres but will probably settle for small lengths of styrene strip. Need to reduce the bulk of the lines and trim on the body as well, it's grossly oversize.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froughboy.net%2Fimgs%2FFordFordorwtmk.jpg&hash=6b15afa86315a5bf281e6fd301e1f827e5e4015e)
I want to have an engine inside the engine compartment. I've had this PSC 1:48 flathead kit for years which although it may not be absolutely accurate for the vehicle, it's certainly close enough and will do the job. I have some wheels and other frame parts for the car that can be bashed from some old kits, which unfortunately are probably at the back of our storage unit. Other than that, it should be a fun little project...
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froughboy.net%2Fimgs%2FFlatheadwtmk.jpg&hash=5a51ec478a183de0d24a2d77f22cebccad9b50f6)
Paul
Paul, Look's like you got a good start on this project ;) Craig
Cool start...can't wait to see how you go about thinning the walls, adding the wood bracing, cutting out the doors so they can be in an open/slightly ajar position, and removing and refining the cast-on detail! ;D ;D ;D ;D
M
Yeah, thinning the walls is a treat. No worries about the wood though, it all rotted away and the doors are rusted shut... ;D ;D
Paul
Paul, Heres some pictures i have that might help with the build as far as details and colors :)
a few more ;D
Those are great Craig... thanks. Just the sort of thing I have in mind.
Did get a little work done on the cowl this morning (shop time cut short by a fire somewhere in the region and the smoke was blowing up the valley into the shop... cough, cough).
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froughboy.net%2Fimgs%2FFordFordor%2FCowlHandVise.jpg&hash=3aeb6b400779a52377d3ad4fbfa5c53548ec9a49)
I removed the cast on hinges on the top and left side along with the louvres on the left side and thinned down the top, removing approx. 3/32 worth of metal from the inside using a mini air-powered die grinder and some dental burrs. I used the ball burr below for "hogging" out the bulk of the material then finished with the spiral file to smooth out the contour.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froughboy.net%2Fimgs%2FFordFordor%2FMiniDieGrinder.jpg&hash=8bb4a6a299be31c405ffe39d2f4951752cc5263e)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froughboy.net%2Fimgs%2FFordFordor%2FCuttingBits.jpg&hash=2fe349090c16ac3e01520013cf6f61d6f188840e)
Pictures below show the now thinned top panel. With care it's possible to thin the wall thickness without going through the metal using a sharp cutter and a light touch. Sorry about the focus, got a little too close on these two shots.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froughboy.net%2Fimgs%2FFordFordor%2FCowlinProgress.jpg&hash=f039106668908cbbe410b2af189253461e932ab2)
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froughboy.net%2Fimgs%2FFordFordor%2FCowlInner.jpg&hash=31b635031ed2ec2b7964fd27470f6f8d1da756d4)
Next step will be to remove the cast-on hinge and louvres from the right panel, then thin both the right and left panels.
Paul
Are you a master machinist or something? How did you learn these techniques? They are completely out of the range of my experience and, as you know, I've had a lifetime of exposure to modeling. Your knowledge and skill continue to impress me. -- Russ
Aughh...die cast flashback! Enjoy, I swore never again after my Fordson.
Wouldn't it have been easier to just make a new hood from scratch?
Quote from: finescalerr on September 07, 2010, 01:19:42 AM
Are you a master machinist or something? How did you learn these techniques? Russ
Hardly Russ but thanks for the compliment, much appreciated especially coming from such a discerning eye as yours.
Ray: Yes possibly, but this is really a fairly simple process given the right tools and the right touch. If this were a stand-alone or foreground model that required greater accuracy I would have formed a new cowl from brass sheet, punched louvres and all that good stuff. But, since it's simply a background model to add another layer of character to a diorama and not take away from the primary model on the diorama, this process is more than adequate.
Paul
I can't wait to see where this is headed.
....there's nothing like tearing up an old car.
This is great fun to watch. Can't wait to see how it turns out.
Hey that's not really Fujichrome Provia 100F or Ektachrome 64T Pro 4x5 sheet film now is it?
They are nice detail photos (regardless of a little out of focus). Did you take them outdoors?
And of course the model will be interesting especially if it gets rusty per the photos.
John
No sorry John. I got rid of my 4x5 speed graphic years ago, and my 8 x 10 Deardorf :'( (still kicking myself over that one, oh well) but I've always been fond of the sheet film border look so it was added digitally. It's a look I'm using throughout my web site, so pics of mine that are to be used there will eventually all have it.
Yes, the shots were taken outdoors, right in front of the shop on a very simple portable seamless backdrop I banged together out of some scrap plywood. Generally I use a tripod, but this time I didn't (oops, sorry Russ). Even so, the fuzziness is a depth of field/distance to the subject issue.
Paul
Fuzzy or not, we get the picture...........
Thanks for documenting this project, Paul
Nice project Paul & some cool tools! :) Are the fires out?
Philip
Not sure if the fire is out Phil but it wasn't anywhere nearby, which is a good thing. The fire was quite a ways south of us and because of peculiar wind and climate conditions, the smoke was blowing up the valley along the west side of the mountains. We had smoke until Tuesday night. Fire is the one thing we're always on the lookout for up here.
Paul
Goodness an 8x10. Did you ever use color transparencies in it? I have a 1942 ViewGraphic 4x5. I haven't had it out in a year or two but I keep threatening to do so. Film and processing are getting expensive, plus favorite films are disappearing. Looking on Shorpy at the old Kodachrome 4x5s and seeing the unbelievable rich colors of 50+ year old K transparencies makes me wonder what the heck were they thinking when they stopped production. Digital is for snapshooters, but it is handy for article shots and the like.
It is always nice to see your work. It is natural you'd have used a big camera or two.
John
John: Yes I was sorry to see the demise of Kodachrome too. I have one SLR left that I used to like to use on occasion with Kodachrome, but it will be pretty much a relic now. I only shot a few transparencies in 4x5, almost all the work I was doing was in B&W. There's a real magic to an 8x10 BW contact print that you just can't recreate any other way. I used to selenium tone my prints too and the tonal range was just incredibly rich. I had the opportunity to use a Sinar 4x5 for a summer... that was a treat. I owned an old Kodak 5x7 too for a number of years until it became almost impossible to find film. The largest view camera I used was an old portrait 11x14 when I was at the Eastman House. I had a small studio set up in one of the basement vaults and would take portraits of friends and visiting photographers. One of my favourite shots is of J. H. Lartigue who was quite a charming man. I still have those negatives filed away, interesting documents.
Paul
Completely off topic but hey that's a good thing when we talk about Sinars!!!! I owned a 4x5 with about four lenses and many doubledarks, a 6x9cm rollfilm back and the classic photo grey case for metering. Those were the days. Sold it at my new wife's insistence to put a deposit on our first new house. Still suffer withdrawal symptoms whenever I grab the Lumix to take a shot. Mind you, the Sinar never took HD video either!
For modelling, the new breed of compact do-everything cameras are perfect for documenting the evolving life of a new layout but the old film cameras recorded history with a level of detail that is still lacking (until you reach about 24 megapixels). But I think a Seitz 617 is over the top for layout photography (at 160 megapixels). Drool.
Hijack over. Rant over. My photography as I knew it is over.
Oh heck Ian, keep the hijack going for a bit. We all can weep over the loss of big film. What do people think made the old LIFE and National Geographics so great? All those Speed Graphics the press used too. I mean they got the shots, didn't they? It was all art back then. We have in Roanoke VA the O Winston Link museum, with his Graphic View cameras on display. Sure, it was set-up photography, but still try to reproduce that with digital today. Plus the shear pleasure of making an image with all the set-up time and calculations vs. just taking a picture.
Paul, you have been around haven't you? The only B&W work I ever did was at a job making laser interferometry images and holograms on red-sensitive 4x5 glass technical plates, plus a little 35mm roll film. That meant no light at all in the darkroom until developing was done. My second day on the job as an electronics technician the scientist handed me several plates in a box, said "These are electron microscope images, they cost $1000 each, please develop them, go see Bob in the darkroom." Then he walked away. Man was it DARK in there. I learned to lightly touch my lips to a plate to see what side the emulsion was on. But I got them done.
John
OK - just one more small hijack then!!! I still have my Speed Graphic from the days when I owned a portrait studio. The Speed Graphic was used by the original owner as his passport photo camera. I sold all the Mamiya 6x7 stuff and the studio camera stand. Still got the light troughs in the roof of the garage and all the old signage from the business. My Sinar was my pride and joy but I went on to Nikon F4s and now a Nikon D200 plus a Lumix. The only thing I really miss is the ability to shoot really long exposures (meaning several hours if necessary) otherwise the digital stuff is getting better - just in a different direction. I think if we saw the quality being produced by the really high end digital cameras such as Hasselblad and Sinar and Seitz 617 we would see that the capability of capturing detail is there - just the price is out of reach. But for capturing day-by-day blow-by-blow layout build history then the Lumix is just fine. Plus I can put it in my pocket and go on holiday and shoot HD video of the kids on the beach. Don't know if I could quite squeeze the Sinar into my pocket or even get it into the layout to take photos either. But swing and tilt and shift certainly made extreme depth of field supremely easy to deal with. I might still have the Sinar wax pencil somewhere as well.
OK - hijack over now.
Quote from: JohnP on September 13, 2010, 07:03:01 AM
Paul, you have been around haven't you?
Yes John, I have been around the block a couple of times... ;D
No worries about hijacking the thread Ian. Photography is an old love. I got rid of the last of my larger format gear about 12 years ago... traded my last Hassy for my first Nikon digital camera. Kinda miss the Hassy but for 99% of the photo work I do now, digital is just fine. I once took the Sinar 4x5 on vacation with me with a stack of film holders and a changing bag so I could unload and reload the film holders every night for the next day's shooting. One thing I liked about it that Dave alluded to, was the discipline it took to take a shot... a lot of setup time, multitude of adjustments, waiting for just the right moment, then the darkroom work at sometime later. You couldn't (at least I couldn't) afford to waste any film so every shot had to count. That discipline has proved very valuable in my other pursuits and I still take a long time to take my photographs, even with the digital camera. I guess once it becomes ingrained, you never lose it. Gotta admit, I do miss f64 though... ;)
Paul