Westlake Publishing Forums

It's clapboard. How does it look? -- Russ

As it should, clapped out.  Gary

Well, we're waiting...how did you do it? It does look like delapidated clapboard, not as nasty as my old aunt's house, but nice.
                              Woodie

Russ,    Ill take a wild guess........is the wall paper :)   Craig H

I fear this is some type of aptitude test, or a psychiatric evaluation. Regardless, I downloaded it and blew it up 10X. I stared at it for a long while. Other than the chipped patterns, I found it has a smell like weathered clapboards. I see women crawling around in it. They need to be freed. So do I...

What scale is it? The irregularity is good, the weathering looks a little blotchy, the chipping is good.

Clapboard note: old New England houses had tighter spaced clapboards toward the bottom where the snow would pile up. Usually it is found on the better houses from wealthy owners. And the closer the spacing in general reflected the wealth of the owner. Sometimes the fine work was applied only to the front of the dwelling.

John

Craig, you were peeking.

The reason I posted the photo is to get some input about the general appearance. I tried a brainlessly simple weathering technique and slapped the thing together in about fifteen minutes. I made no attempt to put the peeling paint in the "right" places; the choice of boards was totally random from a pile I had cut although most boards I would use not have peeling paint or cracks. There is wood grain but it's too subtle to see with the kind of lighting I used and without magnification. The scale is 1:48.

Comments?

Russ

Well, much better than before...the actual chips look good.....but something in the pattern/layout is still bugging me.....I can't put my finger on it. Maybe just lack of context within a scene. I think I will need a personal showing.

I unfortunately have to agree with John,...the blotchy weathering is not helping it.


Marc

Don't worry about the chipped paint layout at this point. As I said, there was no effort to place the chipped boards properly; it was strictly random and I had too many in the pile of boards I used.

The blotchy issue bothers me, too. Part of it might be some pastel chalk I dabbed on but some might be due to the way I weathered the boards. To get a better grasp of that, are the blotches objectionable because they appear to run across several boards or is the weathering on each individual board too blotchy? A third problem might be the relative contrast -- the blotches are too dark. If you guys can identify the most offensive aspects I may be able to correct them.

When I read your replies I'll explain what motivated this quickie experiment.

Russ

I looked at it a few times and thought something was "off" had to think a while, I think its inconsistency with the weathering, the heavy horizontal chipping/scraping here and there, with much better preserved boards between them doesn't look quite right.    Maybe tone them down some with an overspray of the base color and see how they look.

Also, no visible horizontal grain, or brush marks, leaves it flat looking.   Might help to enhance what's there with an oil wash, which will also put a little shadow/grime build up under the boards.   

Yeah, I'm not sure either ... might be lack of context like Marc said ...

There's a light/lens flare just above and to the right of the center point that's making the photo look a bit washed out ...

There's a sort of "texture" (blotchiness, bumpiness or something) to the coloring that does look a lot like the surface texture of paper ... or like what you'd get if you brushed pastels, etc onto the surface of bumpy paper.

And, as Dave mentioned, no grain to the wood ... also no joints in the siding, nail heads/holes, etc.

Context photo might help ... doesn't look bad, but doesn't really grab interest either ... maybe the fact that you felt the need to state that it's a section of clapboard is a "tell" (hint) that you've had similar thoughts ...

Cheers,
Dallas

It looks "soulless" but as Marc pointed out it might be lacking context.

After the consideration my guess is: It seems to be a photo of a print (a good quality print though), then again I'm probably wrong.

Okay, okay! You guys are a tough audience. (Actually, that's exactly what I want.)

Here is another attempt at a wall section using the same weathering approach but toned down. 1:48 scale at high magnification, heavily side-lighted to bring out the grain detail. That tended to grossly overstate the texture of the peeling paint near the bottom. I added nail holes for your viewing enjoyment. The bowed effect at the top and top left and right is from using a zoom lens.

I don't think the approach can improve much beyond this attempt so let me know whether it's a hit, foul ball, or a miss -- i.e., what you either like or don't like and why -- and please don't gripe about the peeling paint at the bottom since it doesn't look like that in person and easily could be fixed. This is a quick and dirty method that anyone can duplicate and I want to know whether it's worth using.

Russ

Grain?? We don't need no stinkin' grain.

If most of the paint is still adhered to clapboards, it is doubtful the grain would show. Clapboards are usually tight-grained wood with grain showing only if the paint has been mostly washed away and the wood has been exposed. The chipping in strips is representative of paint falling off along the drip line of the siding and maybe along a few splits in the grain.

It was the blotchy weathering color that was killing the first try. It extended across clapboards like someone threw shovels of damp dirt at the wall. A blending would look better, like on the new wall. Nail holes might be a little much, but they do add interest.

John

PS One of these days I will stop casting and make something to show. When I get brave enough.
PPS Anyone ever read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yellow_Wallpaper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yellow_Wallpaper)?

Paint / texture looks good to me. The nail pattern and reveal/show needs to be more like this illustration tho... your asking for cupping and splitting as the nails are pulling the wood into the void.

Philip

(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.finehomebuilding.com%2FCMS%2FuploadedImages%2FImages%2FHomebuilding%2FQA%2Fhb177QA02-01_lg.jpg&hash=06da3bb9a9f446c93ff16168ce0569a4129adb51)

Interesting info on the nail holes. Somebody asked for them so I made the smallest I could with the tools on hand. Glad I included them because now I've learned how to do it right.

Posted by DaKra: "Also, no visible horizontal grain, or brush marks, leaves it flat looking."

See, John? I read every comment. You guys better have a meeting to decide how my stuff should look before I build the next installment!

Still hoping for a consensus before moving ahead.

Russ

most get carried away...... nail hole happy!  ::)

philip

I think it looks good. I _like_ the peeling paint.

It looks like styrene to me, the paint seems kinda thick to my eye (and if that is what i see then the grain must be HUGE).
Wondering what you painted it with.........
-Marty

This excellent site  http://www.cgtextures.com/ might help everyone at this Forum. Just the planks / board section has about 670 examples. The only thing they don´t tell you is how to get that look!!!!!! ;D

Anders

There is visible texture on wooden clapboards.    If there were none, it would be indistinguishable from vinyl or sheet metal siding. 

Something to keep in mind-- its meant to represent a section of relatively new clapboard.  In the real world, clapboard is generally uninteresting and plain unless something happens to it, like a shadow falls on it, or it starts to weather and dilapidate.   So it stands to reason an accurate model will also be uninteresting and plain.  If you ask much more of this thing, you'll end up with a hokey caricature.     

Looky here. Lousy, old clapboards getting fixed and painted. Not much texture except the peeling paint.

(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos.northofboston.com%2FNewspapers%2FThe-Eagle-Tribune%2FMay-2010%2F100527ETABORESTORE2%2F881814922_3wK8B-M.jpg&hash=3946d5e09e96bee4a6f45b524dedcb0bcb4c24ba)

Adding grain in 1:48 would not be that effective as a realistic texture, unless one wanted to have something there as an exaggeration. The paint and coloring is more important. The peeling paint does follow grain lines but still only really old clapboards have grain. Save yourself the trouble of adding grain.

John

Dave makes a good point.

Quote from: Chuck Doan on October 28, 2010, 07:06:59 AM
Dave makes a good point.

yep. And his photo defines painter job security!

Philip 8)

Actually that photo shows destruction of years worth of lovingly applied patina. Shameful.

So now we're into the nitty gritty. How much grain or texture to include and whether nail holes should be visible. These are things I have thought about endlessly and have studied.

While I included nail holes to satisfy one comment, my conclusion is that, in 1:48 scale, they probably shouldn't be there. If I had properly modeled them, they would be invisible to the naked eye and barely visible under magnification. On my sample they are vastly exaggerated and, to my eye, gross.

Grain: What you see is absolutely invisible under typical viewing conditions. I had to light the photo specifically to bring it out. Again, in 1:48, scale grain would be invisible. I brushed it in to suggest texture and I'm ambivalent about it. I kind of think it's both superfluous yet, paradoxically, a little overstated but, in the big picture, it may enhance the boards. I know of no way to make it more subtle in that scale. I'd really be interested your opinions as to whether it helps or hurts overall. (I gather Dave finds it acceptable.)

Nobody seems to object to the overall weathering of the painted boards or to the general coloration. I find that white is a real challenge to weather subtly and am pretty satisfied with this look, now that it's toned down from my first attempt. Any comments?

When the final tally is in I'll explain how I did this thing. Thanks for the input. I need it.

Russ

IMO the whole texture and feel of the second sample is like"Plasticville".....dont care for it....though I am glad you got rid of the spotty make-up brush splotchy weathing from the first one.


Interesting to note, is that you can see the rusty nailheads (NOT nailholes....NEVER holes...if you get a hole, you are sinking your nail too deep and will cause evential failiure/splitting of the board) on some of the weathered siding. Note also that these hailheads are round (not some squarish shape as is the preferrence of MRR's...yes, I know its because they are lazy and want to use the pattern-wheelie-thingy).....also, the nailholes do not line up in nice long rows up and down the side of the building (the only known method for MRR's)...this indicates that this structure likely has plywood or diagonal sheathing that the siding was nailed into; compared to a building with only studs and no sheathing (which would give cause to a linear nail pattern).

M

Nail location is the only problem I have with it. But it has to do with where the nail is vertically. My nails (and those of the scores of folks that I've worked with) are only an inch or less from the butt of the clap. Nailing them in the middle as shown would most certainly cause splits in a short time.
   I too feel it has worth but is not awe inspiring.

Russ, I'm no where near the expert most of the guys are, but I still don't like the blotchiness of the paint.
I don't think I've ever seen something like those blotches (but alas, there's always a prototype).
And as John and others said, grain would not be visible.   Clapboards were put on with the smooth side out.
This grain in clapboards is a modern thing with the new siding materials.   
And it is only the last half of the 20th C that the rough side was put out so as to grab paint better.
Old time builders always tried to get the smoothest finish possible for the clapboards and paint.
Same goes for nails.   Never saw an old timer leave nail holes in his clapboard after painting them.
And all of my wood siding jobs are nailed exactly as Chester described.

The consensus seems to be lose the grain and the nails (I prefer that myself) but is divided when it comes to the "blotchiness" of the finish. At this point, the "blotches" don't bother me but, in the past, I have been oblivious to some imperfections in my modeling and this could be one of those times.

So the finish, rather than the texture, seems to be the remaining issue. Let's put it to a vote (unless you first have other comments).

Russ

I don't think the grain issue is a yes/no question, more like a maybe, maybe not.  It depends on Russ's intention.

Theoretically, anything visible in 1/1 scale, is visible in any smaller scale, its a matter of how closely you look.  Whether or not its practical to reproduce something in miniature is a question only the model maker can answer.

A layer of house paint doesn't render a board glass smooth.  The underlying surface always influences paint, and paint itself can have a sort of grain in the form of brush strokes.   Grain under paint becomes more apparent as the wood weathers, since moisture raises the grain.   I think that's why in later stages of weathering, you often see paint cracking and chipping following the wood grain.    Also simple whitewash was widely used as an inexpensive wood preservative back in the days before latex.  It was not a durable paint, it would just erode and expose the wood.   

Here is a nice Shorpy photo that shows moderate grain on a relatively well kept wooden dwelling.  The boards exposed to the weather start to show more grain than those protected under the porch awning, though I'd submit the protected boards aren't perfectly smooth, either. 

http://www.shorpy.com/node/7011?size=_original

I opt for visible grain because its a simple, realistic effect that adds some depth and warmth without appearing hokey.  Plus its usually more work to eliminate grain than produce it! 

My feeling regarding the grain is that it depends on the condition of the structure you are trying to model. Even a painted building can have visible grain, if the paint was applied after the surface began to weather. For example, if the building was neglected for a time prior to repainting it.

Quote from: finescalerr on October 28, 2010, 07:02:13 PM
The consensus seems to be lose the grain and the nails (I prefer that myself) but is divided when it comes to the "blotchiness" of the finish. At this point, the "blotches" don't bother me but, in the past, I have been oblivious to some imperfections in my modeling and this could be one of those times.

So the finish, rather than the texture, seems to be the remaining issue. Let's put it to a vote (unless you first have other comments).

Russ

Well, then here's mine:
-- Blotchiness:  I DID have a problem with it in the first sample posted ... in the second one, it's more subtle and just seems more like natural variations ... OKAY there.
-- Wood grain:  I vote in FAVOR of the subtle grain shown on the second sample ... noting that the photo is an extreme enlargement and it mostly disappears to the eye at normal size ... the eye nevertheless picks up a (very subtle) texture which (my opinion) will look far better than a mirror-smooth flat surface.

Also, assuming that the clapboards themselves are not the principle SUBJECT of the model, the finish seems acceptable to me ... guessing that there will be some other focal points, like ... oh, I dunno, an actual building with some architectural details and other interest!  ;D

Cheers,
Dallas

Russ:

The only thing I have to add to this is that subtlety is the key, whichever way you go. We could argue on and on about visible grain and nail heads and never reach a consensus. We all know when it's overdone, goodness knows there are plenty of examples of that in the MR world as Marc has pointed out. We've all seen models where the visible graining scales out to be at least 1" deep and there are nail holes, not nail heads. Makes you wonder what's holding the sheathing on apart from fantasy.

In the meantime, I found this astounding paper/cardstock/wire loco build on the Buntbahn forum for inspiration: http://www.buntbahn.de/modellbau/viewtopic.php?t=9835 (http://www.buntbahn.de/modellbau/viewtopic.php?t=9835)

(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froughboy.net%2Fimgs%2F1044jpg950.jpg&hash=5967ab2a7d158b7324c1cc2a6b5ed60ab09c0900)

(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froughboy.net%2Fimgs%2F1014800.jpg&hash=d683aa2de221b87983678fb698856b767d7f10dc)

Paul

As some of you have guessed and others probably knew, these attempts were my last at inkjet printed cardstock. The reason I decided to give it one more try was because it was so incredibly easy and quick to crank out. I got the idea from Troels Kirk, who dabs paint onto watercolor paper with a sponge, cuts the blotchy result into strips (boards), and presses them onto double-sided carpet tape to create walls. Then he pops the usual Grandt Line doors and windows in place, adds corner trim and a roof, and he's done.

I decided to emulate his work in Photoshop and went heavier with the color on the first attempt because his stuff is rather overstated and mine was less so. I daubed a brown shade onto digital "paper" with some really huge Photoshop sponge tools in "dissolve" mode, faded the image, blurred it a little, printed it on Lanaquarrelle cold press paper, cut 8 scale inch strips, and pressed them onto a carpet tape covered sub-wall. The first result, as you know, was disappointing from our standpoint but somewhat reminiscent of Troels' modeling.

Second attempt: Same artwork, but faded quite a bit and some daubs erased. The paper was different -- Strathmore Bristol Vellum (readily available in pads at Michaels and everywhere else). It's my favorite paper because of its texture, workability, thickness, and overall quality. It has a somewhat smoother texture than the Lanaquarelle and is better for representing painted wood.

Both papers accept graining with a wire brush fairly well without raising fibers. Under magnification, the grain looks a little too coarse but it is invisible to the eye. I went with it for "feel" rather than precision since, under normal viewing, you can't see it but you might "feel" it. Under the very controlled lighting and high magnification of my second photo you could see it clearly. As Marc wrote, it looks like Plasticville and Marty thought it was the result of a bad paint job. Well, given the circumstances, what else would you expect?

The subtle speckling visible randomly here and there seems to work in this case, at least to my eye. I have actual photos of similar weathering on white boards and, on a structure wall, the subtle variation between the white "paint" and slight random discoloration makes for a better appearance than bare white paper. Very subtle touches of pastel chalk powder or weathering powders here and there add immensely to the overall effect.

It took no more than fifteen minutes to cut the paper boards and build the 2 by 3 inch wall segment. It looks better than any of my previous attempts to photographically reproduce an accurate image of painted, weathered wood and the artwork required only about two minutes to create. It involves neither skill nor talent, perfect for a ninny like I.

Based on your input and following your suggestions I'll try a small section of the structure I began work on early this year and see how things turn out. (I scrapped all the work I did between January and April -- hours of labor -- because it looked lousy.) I'll post the results for more feedback.

Thanks to everybody who tried to help. Your input enabled me to interpret what I was seeing in photos of actual structures and apply it to modeling.

Russ

Well Russ, thats what we thought.
But, I dont see why you are bothering to play with the paper.
There are different materials for a reason.
Just look at one of Chucks models; paper, plastic, brass, styrene, cerro, PAP ect.
I agree there are some modelers who can create anything from paper, but why bother other than to challenge oneself?
May be that is what you are doing.
I just dont see why you keep doing this when you could have built something out of wood and other materials by now.
I guess you are doing this "for the good of the order", I appreciate it. Now I know not to try paper for siding!

-Marty

I have been amazed at Troels Kirk's work but I am no artist.
I really like building with wood but the final painting and weathering has been my hang-up.
I have just started experimenting with card stock and creating computer images from texture tiles (like stone foundations or floors).
I will have to try this on the next scratch build after I finish my current one.

This is going off in another direction, but nail holes were mentioned
earlier in this thread and I remembered something I did a while back.
Sharpen the end of a small mechanical pencil...

(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages39.fotki.com%2Fv1283%2Fphotos%2F1%2F15405%2F483628%2FNails1-vi.jpg&hash=81eebf7349ee05055e23ac59de1cda74c37a34c8)

...press the sharpened tip into a board....

(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages54.fotki.com%2Fv564%2Fphotos%2F1%2F15405%2F483628%2FNails2-vi.jpg&hash=fce33bdd5323d0e67cbc41154f346e4359317b97)

...which cuts a ring instead of pushing in a hole. 
A spot of paint turns the center into a nail head.

(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages108.fotki.com%2Fv626%2Fphotos%2F1%2F15405%2F483628%2FNails-vi.jpg&hash=e37b989b9dbc589fbaf9068e71d6b8fc1970a55f)

(This isn't my idea and it may have already been posted here somewhere)

Quote from: finescalerr on October 29, 2010, 01:51:24 AM
As some of you have guessed and others probably knew, these attempts were my last at inkjet printed cardstock. The reason I decided to give it one more try was because it was so incredibly easy and quick to crank out. I got the idea from Troels Kirk, who dabs paint onto watercolor paper with a sponge, cuts the blotchy result into strips (boards), and presses them onto double-sided carpet tape to create walls. Then he pops the usual Grandt Line doors and windows in place, adds corner trim and a roof, and he's done.
Russ

Well, in that case, you're standing too close to the Monet, sir ... I'm afraid you'll have to back the truck up!

Troels does beautiful, stylized work ... the individual buildings generally look quite nice by themselves (seen as a whole) and even better within the whole scene with the artist's painted backdrops and carefully selected range of colors ...

Doubtful that his structures would stand up to close magnification if you're looking for "realism" ... look at one of Monet's gothic cathedrals from an appropriate distance, and it carries the "weight" of a substantial stone structure ... stand too close it become a very sloppy mess of smeary dots and what-not.

The degree of subtlety/extremity on Troels' siding varies.  The guano factory seems (to me) to have rather "intense" coloring ... others much more subtle.

So, um ... you made siding that looks perfectly fine and now that's just like learning to get proper brush strokes off a new style of brush ... the next step is to put it together with the other compositional elements and make a painting (ie, structure).  If you want to build structures that will look "photo realistic" under close-up, then you'll have to go with range of materials and approaches similar to what Chuck does as previously noted ... if you want to emulate an artistic style like Troels, you've already got a siding "nailed" (pun definitely intended) and are ready to move on ... and, at the appropriate distance (scope of composition), I think you can actually make a successful blend of those too styles.  Items that look impressionistic up close can be put together to create very realistic compositions ... like a photograph that has an artistic slant.

In other words, ignore all this ... I'm just babbling!  :P
Dallas

Perhaps more succinct:  I think you're trying to analyze elements of an impressionistic style the same way that you would look at elements of a photo-realistic style, and I don't think that really works.

If you want to experiment with emulating Troels' style and/or (more likely) developing your own version of that, you're well on the way ... go for it ... allow for some error in the trial and error ... have fun ... build a whole thing (whatever it is) and then build it again if you need to.  Repeat until you train your hands to produce what your mind envisions.  Don't get hung up on the individual dots or brush strokes.

Cheers,
Dallas

Strangely, what you wrote makes perfect sense. But at the moment I'm kind of disgusted with the whole thing, no matter what material I might use. I messed around with clapboards again this afternoon, took the sample outside, looked at it under a magnifying glass, and was totally frustrated. I think the reason is that nothing I build in 1:48 will stand up to the scrutiny of what I might build in a larger scale and that's been part of my hang-up.

Here's what I mean: Chuck started his garage in 1:48 and did his usual amazing job, then scrapped it and began again in 1:24. Comparing close ups of each model, 1:24 wins hands down (for obvious reasons). No wonder he started over; he couldn't get the results he wanted in the smaller scale.

One reason I began messing with paper was because it had a texture I liked better than wood or styrene in 1:48. (The grain of basswood is often too coarse to be convincing in a close up of a 1:48 model and the inconsistent quality of some of the wood I've seen lately also has too much fuzz, even after fine sanding. As for styrene, painting it to look like weathered wood can be a hit and miss proposition, itself rather impressionistic.)

So every material or weathering technique I mess with in 1:48 is frustrating although some are better than others. A lot of guys can make them look better than I have so far. And, partly because a fifth of a century in the hobby biz has had a negative impact on my patience for meticulous modeling, I no longer have the desire to slave over microscopic parts until their appearance satisfies me. (I'm just spending too much time on hobby related things and I've reached a saturation point.) I thought inkjet colored cardstock might help to avoid some hours of drudgery but it's a shortcut technique whose failings are too evident in close ups.

Scale from 1:48 and smaller must rely to a greater or lesser degree on impressionism and the higher the magnification the more you realize that. If you like to stand back a foot or two, the best models can be stunningly realistic and the very good ones still impress you. I might be able to achieve the latter with inkjet colored cardstock and judicious use of stains and powders. But so far the best I've done is to create very good "layout quality" models. The might be the goal of some of us but it isn't what I had in mind.

The best idea might be to take a few days off and think about it.

Russ

I think you have the right idea... take a few days off and come back to it. Focus on something else for a while and a solution will eventually present itself to you. If you try to force it, you'll never be happy with the result.

For what it's worth, I think the concept is an excellent one, though not one I'd personally be interested in pursuing, though that's just my personal feeling and doesn't take away at all from the validity of the pursuit. When trying to develop or learn any new technique there's always a period of dissatisfaction and frustration until you finally reach the "ah ha" moment when the tools and materials conform to your wishes and commands. Until that point, the tools and materials are in full control and this is what leads to the frustration. I'm convinced, given some of the other work we've seen done in paper, that this is possible... so give it a few days' rest and come back to it refreshed. Decide exactly what your project brief is and set out to achieve that. Thus ends my motivational sermon... ;-)

Paul

Actually, Russ, the way smaller scales rely on a sort of impressonism to fill in the blanks is one of their great advantages. Some details can be omitted, or merely suggested, and the model will still appear perfectly whole. Go small enough, and you can be a rivet counter, without any rivets.  Part of the art of model building is the art of omission, omit the unimportant and the impractical and you will have a good model.  As small and extreme as I go with my models, I always have this in mind. 

Dave

For what it's worth (who knows?), if you have a look at the work done at Pendon Museum you will see the absolute apotheosis of 4mm scale model making.  And that's a lot smaller than 1/48th (which we don't, stupidly, do in Britain)
Roye England, way back in the late 40s, realised that whole sections of English rural life were disappearing too quickly and so he would freeze that time in aspic.  Well, model aspic anyway.
He decided that only the very finest attention to detail would do, both inside and out, of the actual buildings he chose to make his models of.  For instance, he took seven weeks to model the interior of one room in one cottage, including painting miniature oil paintings for the walls.  His Clematis climbing round the door of a cottage has individually hand cut leaves and flowers all assembled painstakingly.
His thatched roofs were done with hair, but it had to be Chinese hair, because only Chinese hair is straight!  He then sent it to a University somewhere where they treated and coloured it so that it wouldn't rot, mainly.  He would then build the roof exactly as a thatcher would in clumps, trimmed once in place.  His bricks were hand cut and glued on individually. 
He gave his entire life to this pursuit.  When he died, the museum was set up and is run by modellers who do their best to emulate his standards.  I don't think they quite cut it, but that's splitting hairs.  They have enabled the landscape, for that is what's being modelled here, to grow to a complete vista of old England, not a whimsical one, but a scale model of what actually existed, whatever sociologists might claim.
And yes, it is quite astonishingly, staggeringly good.  It is as near perfect as you could get in that small scale.

Then consider George Illiffe Stokes' work.  I actually prefer it, it moves me rather than amazes me, which I like better.  But it is very impressionistic.  Where most on this forum would have decals made for lettering, George hand lettered.  It is not perfect but it is more convincing for reasons which mystify me.  When I see his "Upham's Boat Yard" scene, my childhood is there in front of my eyes, not a model.  I can smell the sea, hear the mud popping, the rattle of rigging against a pine mast.  I love to SEE Pendon, but I would rather OWN Upham's Boat Yard.  That old curmudgeon, Malcolm Muggeridge once gave an entire lecture on the wireless about the essential differences between truth and accuracy.  Pick the bones out of that one, but it struck a chord with me.

Now Russ, you are working in a scale almost twice the size.  Fall back and regroup, or, if you just can't be satisfied, move up a scale.  Try 1/32nd.
Throwing that damned magnifying glass away would be a good start.  Our work is not meant to be seen through a magnifying glass!  We use our eyes to build it for the perusal of people with eyes to view it.  Not false enlargements.

What, exactly, is wrong with impressionism anyway?  Unless you are prepared to devote your entire life to the endeavour like Roye England, it has to be impressionism to some degree and all the more impressive for it.

Martin

Interesting for sure! Here's one of the interiors Hector's talking about. Pretty darn amazing at 1:76
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.miniatura.co.uk%2Fpendon3.jpg&hash=d34de7143ce61098422d34e048416b86472fefeb)

Thanks Ed, I've spent all evening looking for something to put up here, but the net keeps a mystery!
And the Museum ain't giving much away.  They wan't yer money!  Everything costs.

Martin

This is a great discussion. I have spent a lifetime scrutinizing fine models -- already as many years as Martin, for example, has been alive. I know excellence when I see it and I understand almost every step of what went into a model on initial inspection. I also know when I have failed to equal that. And I am aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each scale.

As I look at the photo Ed posted, for example, I can perceive the limitations of 1:76 scale even though the camera is standing away from the model. Nonetheless the work is excellent.

So maybe Martin is right. Maybe, when you model in a smaller scale, you shouldn't use too much magnification to view the results. And maybe, by shooting a macro image of a 2.25 inch wide wall section, we are nitpicking the limitations of scale rather than the overall impression the same assembly would make in the context of a complete model.

I spent a few minutes yesterday comparing photos a 1:48 scale clapboard wall with a finish I created in Photoshop with those of Chuck Doan's 1:48 scale masterpiece, the Red Oak Garage. Each photo was of about the same resolution so I enlarged each to the same level of magnification. The appearance of my wall came pretty close to that of Chuck's model. "Pretty close" is all I expect.

A couple of years ago Marc was at my house for a meet and stayed late to scrutinize a structure I had just finished. He was less critical of the Photoshop artwork that I was and thought the things I didn't like could be fixed pretty easily: Individual boards rather than scribed ones and maybe some kind of clear flat coat or wash over the walls. Individual boards certainly have helped but I've been hung up on how to put a unifying finish on a built up wall.

Marc also pointed out wood and styrene have as many perceptual drawbacks as cardstock so the model would have looked no better had I used those materials.

Maybe this all has something to do with the Zen of modeling and even more with knowing how to apply a proper finish. I don't know. Either way, I'm still in a quandary.

Russ

Russ:

Here are a couple of clapboard reference shots I took for you earlier today of my neighbor's house. Don't know if these will help or not but they do illustrate that texture is quite readable from a distance, however, if you stand back far enough to view the entire house at once, the texture is very subtle, barely visible. Also, these are examples of "mountain village" construction, not quite so refined as you would find in other areas of the country.

(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froughboy.net%2Fimgs%2FClapboardRef.jpg&hash=2b345139d1785bb7a2c2db7989990c8cec34f86e)

(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froughboy.net%2Fimgs%2FClapboardRef2.jpg&hash=386137eb25b59fefcfbdb2416f1bbd89d09bc8fb)

Paul

Coupla points..the nail hole discussion.  I went round looking at nails today while I was building a new garden gate and the fact is that the nails sit on top of the wood as much if not more than they get driven right in.
Also our timber is a lot less figured than those pics above.  We also only have our white timber gloss painted which tends to obscure the grain on a newly painted wall for some time.  If it ain't white, it's usually black.  Real black...tar in fact which takes a while to grey off a bit, but not much and only shows grain after a long while.

Also, in 1/43.5 scale, (stupid British O scale) I used pear wood for shiplap fences and walls, as I used it for that dinghy in the same scale.  It doesn't fluff like bass wood, which I think is useful but over-rated.  You guys in the States should be able to get pear as it's produced in Canada I believe, though most of it seems to come from Germany. I use steamed pear veneer for all my fences.  On the Havengore yard office (in 1/32nd scale) I used it in a construction system which exactly replicated the methods used for real, thereby governing where the nailmarks HAD to be as there was a scale framework beneath the separate planks

Finally, that room interior from Roye England's Pendon display is about 1 1/4" square and is only seen from outside the building at a distance of about three feet (last time I was there).  It is also lit when the lights go down, which makes you want to curl up in that wing chair with a good book.

Martin

Great discussion......and fascinating how much can be written and disected about/over 20 strips of paper. ;D

I have read this discussion with a lot of interest.
First, as some of you certainly know, I belong to the category of people who wish to be able to make models that stand against close-up photographs.
Second, many of you certainly know that I am a genuine admirer of Troels' work, and consider his model railroad one of the greatest achievements I've ever seen. It's interesting to notice that he mentioned several times in the topic on RR-Line devoted to the building of his layout that he preferred build from pictures of actual locations rather than making models of models, as it is often seen (in particular on my benchwork... :) ). Yet, this approach to realism could be described as a global one, and although I'm not enough knowledgeable in painting matters to say if it can be called impressionnism, it certainly is very far from the extra-detailing you are after, Russ.
I guess that one could want to make a model that would be realistic from a global point of view and also down to the level of detail. Some of Dave's (dakra) HO dioramas point in this direction to my point of view. Yet, this is not the size of a layout.

Quote from: Roughboy on October 30, 2010, 01:58:19 PM
Russ:

Here are a couple of clapboard reference shots I took for you earlier today of my neighbor's house. Don't know if these will help or not but they do illustrate that texture is quite readable from a distance, however, if you stand back far enough to view the entire house at once, the texture is very subtle, barely visible. Also, these are examples of "mountain village" construction, not quite so refined as you would find in other areas of the country.
Paul

Nice pics Paul.

Disregarding all the issues of accentuating, adding character, enhancing the visual experience, personal taste, etc.; and what the cameras eye now enables us to see. The basic underlying fundamental starting point in "scale modeling", is "scale translation" (it's spelled out right away when you choose a scale).......by this I mean, what does the object or material look like at the real world scale, from the distance of your intended modeling scale.......when translated into being viewed at 12" from the model.  In Russ' case of this 1/48 scale wall.....what does the referenced real-world clapboard wall look like when you stand back from it 48'.......whatever you can see and interpret from this distance, is the base-line starting point for what you should represent and experience looking at the model from 1' away. .......then from there, is where the artistic license, personal expresion, etc. come into play and begin.

There is a caveat with this in regards to something like Russ is showing us, and that is the lack of context or visual scale reference for the viewer of the image.....just looking at the boards, gives one no sense of what level of detail and reality one is seeing...for all we know they could be 1/6 scale...or 1/87.....so when we look at his wall,.....though we are all skilled modelers and understand 1/48 scale....we all have our own varying visual scale and detail interpreteation, as well as our own personal aesthetic, quality level and expectations from which we judge or analyze things.....and as humans we are used to seeing things relative to eachother.  This need for scale reference is less necessary when we are looking at a model of a complete known item...say a car, dishwasher, chair, etc.....because we are all fairly familiar with these items and can easily translate them into a scale..and thus know what to expect, insofar as weathering and detail.....however just looking at a square photo of boards essentially tells one nothing....are these board s 6" are they 18"?.....and even if we knew that, it is still arbitrary to a certain degreee when translated through the minds eye.

Marc  (not sure if I am making sense any more......)

A fascinating discussion with excellent points that provoke much thought...a few rambling observations:

To Marc's point, any particular component of a model is difficult to assess without the perspective of how it fits into its context...perhaps a good metaphor is the old adage of finishing your models in the light they will be displayed in.  Anyone who has been caught with the old problem of matching colors in the home improvement store only to be disappointed with the color at home in different light has dealt with this.  Therefore, the setting and perspective of a model provides the eye with cues that will affect how it is perceived.

So comparing good, better or best with a siding sample works ok, but absolute judgements are difficult to reach without evaluating the component as part of the whole.

If anything, I think experienced modelers in general tend to gravitate towards dilapidated vs. maintained, because the temptation is irresistible to add more detail...more detail is always better, right?  Yet, like the wood grain issue I have also noodled over for countless times, an accurate 1:48 model with well-maintained siding would not have visible grain unless magnified or in special lighting conditions.  Yet I still like seeing the texture of the wood grain on my models...it's 'eye candy' that helps me perceive what the object is made of.

We are all striving in our model building to trick the human eye to see the real thing.  I admire work that blends technical excellence with visual artistry to pull it off without any telltale signs of the slight of hand being played on me.  I don't think there are absolutes to this balance, and don't presume to know the answer to these 'universal questions'.  We'd probably agree we all know it when we see it, but is subject to personal perception and taste.  I have always found caricature modeling offending the boundaries of realism, and yet I would have to admit many of my models are also caricatures, only slightly more subtle in execution.

Something else I have struggled with is the difference between what looks good to the eye, vs. photo realism in close-up photography...another conundrum!  It's tough to pull both off equally well.

Russ, I for one have found your experimentation with printed textures very interesting...and I think they have a rightful place alongside other materials and techniques in our bag of tricks.  As I am both inherently lazy and not the best time manager, anything that can deliver eye-fooling bang for the buck is welcome!

This thread has some of the best modeling philosophy I have read or heard.

Marc, thanks for explaining how to put each scale into perspective. That starting point is absolutely new to me.

Paul, those reference photos are excellent.

Frederic and Verne, your comments about realism vs. impressionism explain how difficult it sometimes can be to separate the two clearly.

Just for fun I have attached a small piece of the full resolution "weathered white paint" artwork I have used for previous experiments. It is not a photo of the printed art but the actual original artwork. The scale is 1:48 and the board width is eight inches. It began as an image of actual stripwood and went through various modifications. White, for some reason, is much more difficult to produce credibly than colors, probably because it is the absence of color and the trick is to get the grain, scuffs, and weathering to print correctly; there's no room for error. Compare it to Paul's photos.

If you are totally insane you could print it out and stand a foot back to determine whether it looks real to you. Better yet, slice the boards, rearrange them, glue them to a subwall, and analyze them again! This is the artwork I'll probably use on any future cardstock models where the paint should be white.

Russ

I really like your weathered board graphic, Russ, it looks perfect.  I can see how a printer would, in theory, be superior to hand painting to achieve a photo realistic result like this.    What sort of results did you get and how far did you go with it?   

White is a difficult color to work with on miniatures, its very sensitive to any influence, from undercoats to smudges to washes.  As colors go, white is "fragile".   However, its a very common structure color in 1/1 scale, so it shouldn't be avoided.

I've been able to produce similar results in HO:

(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi655.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu276%2FDaveKrakow%2Fth_DailyEcho1.jpg&hash=e586e18ba6be7c9821fc823676b042cb3a859c0b) (http://s655.photobucket.com/albums/uu276/DaveKrakow/?action=view&current=DailyEcho1.jpg)

Its created by sanding the painted surface and applying an oil wash.  But I'm now wondering if I could use something like Russ's graphic to create indentations on the kit parts, to catch an oil wash in a particular pattern, or maybe print decals to put on over the paint.   

As for dilapidation, "uber-delapidation" seems a general trend among American RR modelers, to the point of cliche.  Very few do it well or know when enough is enough. 

Russ, I really like that graphic.  I had been thinking of using some printed siding to simulate interior sheathing inside a 1/48 scale boxcar that has its doors open as an experiment of controlled-perspective use of printed texture.  Because the viewing angles and subdued light would be controlled, the lack of texture should not be visible.  My guess is printed detail will appear convincing most of the time...but then, would siding INSIDE a car peel and weather like that?  Probably not, I welcome other opinions.

Dave, I think the texture on your structure is effective in HO...which looks good to my eye but is subtle enough to enhance believability.  It's where I want my models to be, not in new condition but reasonably well maintained.  As for my railroad, it is a critical part of its parent company's business (copper mining) and would not be allowed to descend to derelict condition.  I agree that decrepit structures and trains abound in modeling, and are usually overdone to the extreme.  I don't want to sound critical, but the stereotypes used so often (especially in narrow gauge modeling) are actually depressing to see...

Russ,
I too think you have achieved your nirvana with that latest rendition.   I'm going to save it and try it on a future build.

Quote from: finescalerr on October 31, 2010, 01:05:44 AM
White, for some reason, is much more difficult to produce credibly than colors, probably because it is the absence of color  ....

Perhaps, but on your computer monitor, it's the opposite ... just as your printer has no capacity to "print" white (except by omission, Alps notwithstanding) ... your monitor doesn't have ANY white pixels ... and the white shown there is NOT by omission.  The white is composed of red, green and blue pixels ... because "white light" is full-spectrum and contains all the other colors of light.

So, to further add to the mix-up ... when you "paint" white on the computer screen, you're painting with light (source) ... but when you're printing/painting a model you're manipulating perception by altering the reflection of light on a given surface.

Or, maybe I'm just going off on another Timothy Leary take on this whole thing and nobody else will think that's interesting ... dang, man ... who put those sugar cubes in my coffee?  ;D

Dallas

What Dallas is trying to say is that monitors use additive colour theory, painting uses subtractive colour theory.  Clear as mud now...

Paul

The monitor isn't the big problem; it's the printer. I use a very good photo printer, an Epson R1900. It is useless in grayscale, though, because you can't turn off the colors. So grays print as faded dots of magenta, yellow, cyan, orange, red, and blue (or whatever). They may look grayish from a distance but not under magnification. I was able to turn off color printing on my previous Epson and it cranked out pretty decent looking grayscale so I don't know what idiot at Epson decided to change things. Before you ask, laser printers produce dots too coarse for photo reproduction.

Either way the point is moot because a white wall isn't pure white. It has dust, stains, chips, cracks, and discoloration. You need a very good color printer to render those things.

So no matter how "perfect" artwork may look on your monitor, it will print slightly differently.

In a related footnote, I have been able to replicate stained wood (and possibly painted wood, though I haven't tried) with outstanding success. I use a different paper (Lanaquarelle cold press) and scribe in grain. Last year the picky Terrapin guys compared actual stained wood with my "paper" wood under a magnifying glass and found them all but indistinguishable.

Russ

Russ,This is a very good thread and I like your boards. as some one who works exclusively in paper, It's been hard for me to not make comments. I applaud all of the viewpoints but I am still amazed at the outright hostility some times expressed toward card stock. The statement of why do you bother working with card when you could have used wood is telling. Your answer was right on. Card stock is often the better choice, even more so when partnered with digital imaging and printing.

Thom

Quote from: finescalerr on October 31, 2010, 12:31:38 PMLast year the picky Terrapin guys compared actual stained wood with my "paper" wood under a magnifying glass and found them all but indistinguishable.

Russ, as a mathematician prone to love logical things, may I point that if these things are really undistinguishable, why not use the easy to work wood, at least for people who master wood and the work of it?

The last two posts are pretty interesting:

Thom writes: "I am still amazed at the outright hostility sometimes expressed toward cardstock. The statement of why do you bother working with card when you could have used wood is telling."

Frederic writes: "If these things are really undistinguishable, why not use the easy to work wood, at least for people who master wood and the work of it?"

And Russ writes: I'm not suggesting anyone use cardstock instead of wood (or plastic or metal) unless he or she is as strange as I am. Therefore nothing I have written is illogical.

Actually, for me, it is easier to print digital artwork on cardstock and build a model from that than it is to use wood, stains, weathering powders, hairspray, adhesive tape, chipping tools, and washes. As for assembly, I find paper, wood, and styrene to be about equal in ease. So it is logical for me to try to push the printed card method as far as possible for my own modeling.

In that context the question of "why use paper to represent wood" in some ways seems like, "Why do people run the marathon when they could travel the same distance faster on a racing bicycle?"

Nevertheless I wish more people were interested because it's tough pioneering something like inkjet printed cardstock in a vacuum. Developing artwork has taken "forever" but I have enjoyed the challenge. And, as I have said before, I think the texture of paper looks more like that of wood in 1:48 scale and smaller. Some may disagree or consider the texture inconsequential. But that variety and difference of perception is what is so great about this forum and about modeling in general. And the tough questions and thoughtful answers have made this an absolutely fascinating thread ... at least to me.

Your comments and questions are still teaching me things.

Russ

Russ, a real quickie away from the esoterica...have you seen the Scalescenes site?  We in England like our cardboard and building papers, always have done.  So your problems with "popularising" the techniques reads rather strangely to me as I came up with little besides card. I love it!
Scalescenes have come up with a big range of brick, stone, concrete and I think, wood prints done from digitised photographs of the real thing which you can select and download for a pittance to be printed on your home printer.  I did just that when I got a half decent Canon printer and was very pleasantly surprised with the results and was moved to knock up a wee diorama using it to test the effect.  On RMWeb there is a whole sub forum covering the use and improvement of Scalescene's stuff.

Just a suggestion you might find useful.

Martin

Russ, this is an interesting observation, and the last part of your post could be applied to many human activities, and in particular to the development of mathematical research, with sometimes very unexpected consequences, such as for instance the secret coding of cards on the internet as an application of purely speculative arithmetics developed centuries ago.
From a litterary point of view, you'll notice that while I expressed my taste for logical things, I didn't imply that your behaviour was illogical, even if it could be read as an implicit consequence of my sentence. And strangeness is something that does often go hand in hand with logic, oddly.
About the marathon, one could argue that we all run the marathon with this kind of hobby, and the question could become : "Why do some people running the marathon do it with shoes full of gravel when it is already so hard the 'normal' way?" But I don't want this sentence to suggest a criticism against your research (as a matter of fact, I found your planks quite neat and downloaded them to see if I would be able to do something with your artwork).
I'd say that a European like me may have the belief that cardboard + paper + sandpaper + a few more things can be the best tool for modelling the concrete or stone walls we have everywhere here, while western wood is best modelled in wood, especially when one has got used to do it. Which requires time, and several "rethinking processes", that have for instance lead me to distress less and less the planks I use for my walls, and no more - or almost not - those which I use on visible interiors, or to measure the rust I apply below nail hints or nuts in homeopathic units, which is indeed an effort when almost everybody around you tends to overdo these effects, based upon the consideration of other models, and never that of reality - or very extreme examples of reality that we almost never observe.
One of these days, I'll tell you something about my theory of simple and multiple coincidence...

Frederic, I was terrible at math, physics, chemistry and every related field except 2-D geometry. Yet I am annoyingly logical (something I must overcome when I play jazz) and wish we could sit down and discuss some of the things you have mentioned ... just for the fun of doing it. I like the way your mind works.

As for running the marathon with gravel in my shoes, I've never thought of working with cardstock in that way. I don't do it because it is hard. I don't even think of it as difficult. I do it because I like it and I like to push the limits of using technology (i.e., inkjet printing and Photoshop) to advance what I can do with card. For me it isn't cardstock that is difficult; it's my ability to come up with better ways of using it. In a sense it's what Dave (DaKra) does with lasers but he's better at what he does than I am with with I do.

Martin, I plan to check out those websites. Even though I enjoy creating my own artwork, I want to learn something from people who can do it better than I.

Russ

I just checked out Scalescenes and RMWeb but found them disappointing. Some Scalescenes' artwork is okay (usable but not excellent); some falls below the caliber we aspire to on this forum. Every model I saw on RMWeb was of the "background" variety, lacking texture, fine detail, and a proper finish. That is the big problem I have encountered with cardstock structure modeling. And manufacturers seem to cater to guys looking for an easy way out.

Martin, I suspect you could take their materials and produce something extraordinary. Unfortunately none of the hobbyists who posted were able to do that.

Russ

Ah, oh dear.  Looks like a bum steer.  Sorry.  I can't get on RMWeb because I had a ding-dong with the chief honcho a while back (see an earlier entry in my blog)  I just thought someone might have the hang of it.
I think for exactly that background use, they aren't bad and one chap did a beautiful set of urban workers' cottages in the Scalescenes papers, but he was a bit better with them than the rest and finished them nicely.  I was so impressed that I made him a tin bath for his outhouse wall.  Mad devil that I am.
Brick papers are good for the majority of 1/76 scale modellers because they are seen from a distance only and are usually better than the poor efforts most people put into using moulded brick plastic sheet (the rounded brick and splurge weathering syndrome).  Taken as a whole effect for an exhibition layout viewed from a few feet of safety fence, they are very effective.  Though it isn't for me, I can appreciate it when it's done with consistency.
But I imagine you saw what a generally parlous state model making is in, in Britain.  I have only seen one really uplifting work in donkey's years and that was Gravett's Ditchling Green in 1/43 rd scale.  I should mention a certain partiality in so far as he used some vehicles for which I'd revamped some very old brass masters<G>

Another good reason to only bother with this forum

So, sir, the search continues, eh?

Martin

.

Here is what may be the upper limit of the inkjet-art-on-card approach. The photo shows the artwork you guys liked best on a wall section about 2x3 inches. 1:48 Scale again. First the overall view....

Russ

... And then a closeup.

Russ

I like it, Russ. This gravel must not be such a pain after all. :)

Looks great to me!

Russ --

Those look perfectly usable and the close-up is surprisingly good ... time to knock together a building or something, eh?

Cheers,
Dallas

Quote... time to knock together a building or something, eh?

...not so fast.

Both in the normal shot and the close-up, it is apparent that the bottom edges of the clapboard are 'rounded over'....this lack of sharpness/crispness on siding is not there in the real world...unless you are using aluminum siding, or some cheap stuff from within the last 30 years.  It has that "California round-over" look that tract home carpenters and painters are so fond of.  [There is a type of bungalow siding that existed on early homes, that had an intentional rounded over profile ...Ihave  run across it on 1900-1920s  small homes....however, this siding tended to present a surface of 2-1/2" 'to weather'....it was actually a 5-3/8 +/- overall piece that was milled to look like/represent two 2-1/2" boards/pieces.]

I know this rounding-over probably occured because you were trying to burnish down the raised edge that resulted from cutting.....one way to avoid this is to burnish multiple parallel strips at once (or place the peive between two scraps), so that the burnishing tool is fully supported, and can not roll/anlge over the strip to one side or the other and cause that excessively soft edge.


Lastly...for now...your butt joint where the siding meets the trim is way to big and would be completely unacceptable if it were so in real life. You also want to make sure that your trim stands at minimum 1/4 to 1/2" proud of the highest point of the siding. Some times we use 1-1/2" thick, perfect edge s4s redwood pieces for this, as it ends up giving that clearance...other times we'll use thicker material, to give a better reveal (say 3/4 to 1")....or so that we can cut a rabbet into the edge of the trim board to slide the siding under (if too thin a piece remains, or in ceratin conditions, the rabbet can be troublesome later on when material begins to move, or the boards begin to cup...ther is a small chance of the rabbet splitting out...though luckily we have not had that on any of our projects yet)



Marc

Ah...one more thing on the close-up....at the top board seam, you are showing the left board as one that has slid down....but your overall board joint is still tight and vertical. When a board slides down, the vertical edge of the angled/slid board is always 90-degrees to the bottom edge.....same as the vertical edge on the board that has remained in place......therefor your joint at this point should/would have a visible v-shaped gap.


M

Marc, you need to get back on your medication.

I was worried about the paint and weathering; you're already nitpicking my carpentry! How about the lack of nail heads? How about the fact that there is no apparent difference between the level of the paint and the level of the wood where the paint has worn off? And I'll thank you to avoid commenting on my butt joint. Really, now!

If it's truly a problem, any rounded lower edges of the clapboard are unavoidable, even if you burnish before assembly because, inevitably with paper, that lower edge can get a little rough from handling and needs to be smoothed down after the wall is complete. The only way to avoid that would be to stiffen each pre-cut board prior to assembly and I don't know what to spray on it to impart that quality.

By the way, I used carpet tape to secure the boards to the sub-wall. That stuff is unforgiving. If you're off by 1/128 when you position a board, you're out of luck. With glue you can push the board into place but not with tape. (You thought I didn't notice that? Think again!)

Russ

I think this is all getting beyond Russ's original remit, I think it can be done in card and paint better, but I would still use wood.  My 20thou veneer scales at less than an inch thick, which looks good.  Even where it supposed to represent a thinner board for a fence panel it still looks convincing and very sharp edged with no burr.  On card, of the right sort, a very sharp scalpel or preferably razor blade at the right angle doesn't leave a burred edge.
Russ's experimentation has been helpful and it is necessary to try stuff, even if we're not happy with it.  My place is littered with "Hmm, p'haps nots".
Onwards and upwards.

Martin

Its a very interesting result.  I think the graphic works well, even if the "paint" has no dimensional thickness.   Marc's criticism is harsh, but the graphic does set a very high standard of realism that the rest of the model should meet, in order not to violate your rule of consistency.   

I see no reason why that graphic wouldn't work in a laser, to etch paint off a pre-weathered wooden board.  Then you would have the best of all worlds, economics aside!   

Regarding butt joints, they tend to end up more pronounced on models than they are in 1/1 scale.  So I don't think the weathering helped. 

Dave

"Shmooie"

http://www.finescalerr.com/smf/index.php?topic=600.0

Gentlemen: ever heard of pet peeve?

philip

The biggest problem with "photoshop walls" is the depth perception. While a lot of paper structures look great in photos most of them are lacking these small nuances of depth. I am a big fan of scalescenes.com and I have used a lot of their files, but they have their limitations. Russ's approach of board by board construction is the right (and only way). For me, the bigger question is if the file preparation in Photoshop, printing and cutting is worth the effort. I consider myself somewhat competent with Photoshop due to my job in Graphic Design, but I still feel more efficient with traditional ways of modeling.

I think the wall looks great, - I mean "satisfactory". Seriously, it is a satisfying result. I can't wait to see this technique applied to a full structure.

Russ,

I think you've made great progress with this project in a short time span- personally I really like the finish you are achieving. All of the feedback is making for rapid progress which is the real value of this forum. I've attached a photo taken earlier this year of a barn in Dutchess County, NY. Not sure how it will feed into the debate but hopefully it will be of some use.

I have to say that the UK does not see such extremes of weather so to have such warping of the boards is rare over here but something that one sees all the time on travels in the USA- something that I always thought was 'overdone' and cliched when I saw it modelled, until I travelled a little more widely in the States.

There are so many factors that go into weathering of such a simple thing as a wall of timber that perhaps you need to judge your own success according to what you set out to achieve and what was in your minds eye when you began- and there is not a little truth in the aphorism "there is a prototype for everything". Looking forward to seeing your finished structure.

James

Any board not perfectly cut on the quarter will cup horribly.  Take it from a man who rebuilt an oak boat full size and watched the rear deck become a big dipper!

It happens here although we don't get the extremes of weather.
As for the depth of paint issue, I would say that unless the paint is visibly curling up, there would be no perception of depth at 1/48th scale.

I'm looking at a weathered wall plate 20 feet away and the missing paint is not at all perceptible compared with the base iron plate.  That's just 5 inches in 1/48th scale and I never look at a model that close.  My specs won't allow it!
Varifocals.  Like mixed fruit jam, they're neither fish nor fowl.

Martin

Like I had nothing better to do.....

But in the intrest of maybe furthering the discussion....

I had an old sample section of one of Russ walls in my drawer, and decided to drag it out and play with the coloring, chipping and stainining a bit. Aadded a foundation, some details and stains....about an hours worth of work....nothing great or involving a lot of effort or finesse.

The overall shot...viewed from about 12" away:

(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2F2.jpg&hash=15f06635fb8112d16f74f3e190ce345ac065fccf)


...and the close-up shot.

(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2F1.jpg&hash=ff5878eebebbd80daef6f53cce1da3941299b142)


There is still a lot that could be done, and definitely more finesse taken with the chip coloring and pattern (but then this should be coming from/manipulated on the printer and the original board print-out.)......but I thought it might finally stop Russ' whining about not being ready for prime-time, and get his butt in gear to move forward.

There are definitely some things I found that need to be improved/changed on the print-out and that need to be touched-up/addressed during assembly to help the appearance.


Marc

Dang, that looks good, Marc!

Well, I see you are finally putting my gifts and your time to good use. Didn't I give you that discard in February? A long overdue demonstration.

I can't even remember what the original artwork looked like on that wall so please tell us more specifically what you did and how you did it. Looks as though the lighter peels were mine and the darker ones are yours. Adding foundation stones, signs, bedsprings, barrels, corrugated window covering, and stripwood is cheating. You just did that to doll up your muddled attempt to improve things. Still, given the starting point, it's not bad overall.

The lower edges of the clapboards look slightly rounded.

Just kidding.

Or am I?

Russ

Well, I figured it was about time I held up my end of those samples ::) ;D

You gave me three pieces....two like this with the green trim, and one narrower one with white trim. You had gone through and done the same or sim type of board fading and discoloration with powders/pigments as you did here earlier on in the thread. Given this, I thought it would be a balanced starting point for this exercise.

First I used a soft eraser and tried to remove as much of your pigment as posible. Then I used a 1/4-3/8" wide flat brush, and coated the whole sample...in the direction of the planks, with Grumbacher matte varnish. Dried with a blow-dryer.

I then placed small dabs of three different Vallejo colors in a tray and created random mixes with which I added more and finer chips only about 50% of the light chips are printed origanlals (there were only about 4 boards on this sample that had some areas of printed chipping)...the rest are paint...and the dark ones are definitely paint...mainly due to mixing inattention. On ething that I oticed that IMO seemed to help the overall appearance was where the chips (printed and painted) hit the lower edge of the clapboard, I painted the underside of the edge as well, so ast to show the chip wrapping the dge onto the underside of the siding...as it would in real life (I used a steel shim, just held in place, to protect the next next board from accidentally getting any paint on the face.)  at this point I could have gone back in withs some off white paint and added "positive chips" to some of the printed and painted areas to refine them.....but this was intended to be just a quick try ...and I didn't want to spend the time.)

I also cut a few board splices in (after the varnish), and then with an 18/0 brush carefully wicked some Silverwood into the joint.

Next I masked off the trim boards, went in and dry brushed a lighter/faded shade of green Vallejo acrylic over the trim boards....the original boards were farr to GREEN and saturated. Not only in regards to wanting them to appear aged, but also for scale effect.

Then a wall length board template was made using Tamiya masking tape.....this rectangular mask, pretty much exactly fit one board height the entire width of the wall. using two or three different colors tan and grey MIG pigments, and a partially cut down dound brush, I dabbed and streaked (along the board direction) a varying mix of the pigments. The amask was lifted as a whole...and placed on the next board up...then pigments repeated. By having a random mix and quantity of pigment I was hoping that the boards would have varying shading and hues. [unfortunately the moving of the mask caused some ogf the painted on chip areas to lift off.]  Once all the boards were done (I only went halfway up the windoew on each side) I bleww off some of the extra/loose pigment, then again using the flat brush, drew matte varnish across the boards in the grain direction. Dried with a blow dryer.

I tried a few dots of Humbrol rust colored paint, applied with a .010 rod end...but felt I didn't have the hang of it or right solution yet, so I picked most of them back bup ond fade the few remaining, with a small brush and turpentine.

Then the details were added to muddle things up, and lastly a round tip brush was used with a mixture of Bragdons grey/tan/brown to create the grime streaks from the sill, and the same brush (after cleaning) was used with a mix of Bragdons rust pigments to create the rust streaking.

I dolled the whole thing up, only to show the importance and relevance of the "context" that I have been harping on about, but seems to have fallen on deaf ears. :-X ;)...and also to try and drive home my point I made the day we discussed your waterfront buildg, that as long as you only look at the building you are going to drive yourself nutty, and the the setting, and details accompanying the building will create the complete scene and apperance, and take away from the almost irrational/intense/obsessive focus you were putting on the plain structure.  ;)

Now, I know painting additional chips on, or drybrushing the trim, is not what you are after in this excercise....but what it does show, is that maybe the artwork needs to be changed to have a wider selction of chipped boards with finer and more random chips....and the color for the trim needs de-saturation.  .....however...even if this was done....I think there would still be a need to paint in the chips on the board undersides, and possibly add a few in here and there to either better combine/and blend areas that didn't/weren't laid out exectly right when glued up.

One other thing to note...I found that when adding the painted chips...that when got the different shades right, it helped to subtly paint these into some areas of the printed chips/peels. What I got out of this was that The underlying grey artwork could benefit from some variation in tone, color, and value of the peeled areas.

When printing the board sheet, it is also wise to print some boards where the chips go all the way up the short distance...that way these boards could be used to simulate peels at butt joints and at wall or trim ends.

Like I said...my experiment has very obvious issues, but I think it points out (at least to me) areas that would benefit the end result, were they adressed in the artwork.



Marc

PS...if the lower edges appear rounded, that's because the purveyor of such provided them as such. ;) ;D

I used to think that you Americans went a little too far with the weathering stuff, then I saw a feature on English TV about a town called Gary (forgotten the state,sorry) and it was a wrecked ghost town in which 100,000 people STILL live!
Good grief, you weathering fans would have a field day picturing and representing that poor place.
What a mess!
I can pretty safely say, that whilst we have some dodgy places over here, we have nothing as bad as Gary.

Martin

Gary, Indiana, Ghost Town (http://www.forbidden-places.net/urban-exploration-gary-indiana-ghost-town)

Marc,
First off excellent tutorial! The techniques could be used on any media.
Am I to think the "boards"were sliced into individual ones? or is the relief I see simply paint?

Russ,
No more whining! get something built!

I really enjoyed seeing Marc's bench! Would love to see an overall shot!
Makes me feel better about mine!
-Marty

Thanks for the thorough, in-depth explanation, Marc. If you can improve my discards to that extent then I should be able to do more with my "keepers". And I don't think an hour with a paintbrush is too much time to spend improving a wall section. Please save that scrap and let's photograph it for an article. It shows how to improve the weathered finish of virtually any "wood" wall, whether wood, plastic, cardstock, or brass. I'll save your SBS for the text and publish it in next year's Modelers' Annual.

Suggestion: Any of you guys with salvageable structure walls should spend an hour messing with them and post the results here. Let's see whether this thread can morph into a clinic on finishing and weathering. And if you want to try it with cardstock, even better. (The next Modelers' Annual challenge is to build a small structure from cardstock.)

Yeah, Marty, at this point I need to start building, especially as I now see there is more potential in my cardstock muddling than I thought. I'll cobble together a new wall (maybe that same section) and post it ASAP.

Russ

  Russ,   Salvageable structure wall's?? .......printed pepsi sign on plain old copy paper....cut out sign....flipped over and sanded back with fine sandpaper... ruined a couple sign's till i got it thin enough but not to thin were i couldn't work with it.  Soaked in bowl of water and white elmer's glue...and applied to wall....worked it in with Wet paint brush and let dry.   I messed it up :( latter buy adding wood grain over the paper?....should of left it alone.....The Fix?? i don't know what to do with it now. >:(      suggestions welcome            Craig H

Possible solutions:

A. Maybe you could carefully pick away the edges of the holes to make them look as though they should be there and maybe even create a new one.
B. Remove the sign completely.
C. If either suggestion works, further enhance the result with paint, stains, or another sign.
D. If neither will work, toss the wall and start from scratch.

As you know, I have tossed five attempts at building one particular wall section. I'm an expert at throwing away mistakes.

Russ

Is this the right time to ask what kind of cardstock is best to use? And where to source it?

Thanks, John

Craig,

Before I comment, what are you trying to represnt; A painted on sign. or sectional paper billboard type sign adhered to the wall?


...and, do you have a closer image of say half the sign?


Marc

Is this the right time to ask what kind of cardstock is best to use? And where to source it?

Anytime is the right time to ask but the answer depends on what you want to do.

For a structural wall or subwall, Strathmore Bristol Plate is the way to go. It comes in big sheets at art stores and in 1 (0.006-inch) through 5 ply. 4 ply is the proper thickness for a subwall. It will behave and endure like wood but you do have to brace it with stripwood or styrene. Jack Work used to scribe it and stain it with paint to represent painted, weathered wood. It has a hard, smooth, semi-gloss finish similar to styrene and, for that reason, also can represent sheet metal if you spray paint it. Of course you can use anything as a subwall. Styrene is the quickest to build up and brace.

For exterior surfaces I have tried almost everything and find two papers to excel, depending on what kind of texture you need. Think of cardstock as a veneer, like wallpaper. For painted wood with the kind of finish you would see on clapboards or shiplap siding, my favorite is Strathmore Bristol Vellum. You can buy it it Michaels or any art or craft store with a typical supply of papers. It comes in pads of varying size and is slightly thicker than a 3x5 index card. It's not as hard or as shiny as Bristol Plate but you can texture it with a wire brush without raising fibers (as long as you use a gentle touch and don't overdo it).

For surfaces where you want a little more texture, such as brick, weathered wood, rough cut lumber, tarpaper, even freight car sides, the best choice is a rather exotic French art paper called Lanaquarelle cold press. I ordered a ton of it from an outfit in Vermont, more than I could use in a lifetime (assuming I were 20 years old). As I recall, Dick Blick has it, too. It comes in 22 x 30 inch sheets. It's about the same thickness as a 3x5 index card (= 2 ply Strathmore) and the finish is dead flat and sort of stippled. This paper is amazing because you can scribe grain into it, stain it, put it next to stained stripwood and, under magnification, see virtually no difference in texture. Half a dozen Terrapin guys will testify to that. If you want, you may grain it with a wire brush and, if you are gentle, you won't raise fibers. It is softer than Strathmore Vellum and much softer than Plate.

Both papers take embossing very well. They seem to respond to inkjet printing equally well, too, and exhibit almost identical resolution qualities: Not quite as perfect as a dedicated inkjet photo paper (lousy for modeling) but close. Both also take stain very well.

Ain't nuthin' better than those and, if it matters, they are less expensive than stripwood.

I hope that answers all your questions.

Russ

So....here is another experiment with making peeling paint on paper/cardstock....and it will not appeal to Martins' sensibilities of well kept structures. ;)


This experiment took about 30-45 mins....so no real, finesse, thought, effort or reason was put into controlling the chipping and achieving a pre-determined effect,....this was all simply about seeing if it would work. I decided to do this one in 1/35 scale. There are numerous issues with the finished product....most notably the darkness and clarity of the underlying ink-jet printed wood grain (which is easily corrected in Photo Shop)...and then of course the weathering, fit and finish.....but I think it definitely shows that this approach is possible.

Overall view from 12"/30cm:

(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2FP2_0.jpg&hash=1e8d7311cc7b392da723e4a5580a3325161e7f9f)


Close-up view from 2"/5cm:

(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2FP2_2.jpg&hash=12bd6ce634181d86c6b52c26be0372611a8ced9e)



To get ahead of the curve on any questions:

The wood pattern is a 1/48 4" board pattern that Russ e-mailed me....however I did not use the photo printing option, or adjust the darkness for the larger scale....so the underlying wood finish/color is my fault.

The line that you see running along the middle of the boards is a "board gap" line...because I needed to use two next to eachother for 1/35, the line shows. 

The pattern was printed out on 80lb. Strathmore, on my inkjet printer.

......then I did the chipping.




Marc

  Russ and Marc,

   thank you for this informative information.  Very useful for my next project: a narrow gauge ( 600mm) in 1:35. 

   Jacq

Thank you Russ. Jack Work is an old name from back in the day. Was modeling more satisfying back then, with more hand work, simple tools and common materials?

Thank you Marc for your examples and links throughout.

I am planning a slow down from resin casting in every spare moment so a little work with cardstock will be a pleasure.

John

Nice work on the chipped boards, Marc. If I had known you wanted to do them in 1:35 I could have scaled up the artwork for you. They are 6 inches wide in 1:48 and I think the art would have held up at the next scale level, especially for the way you were using them.

Unless you prove me wrong, I think inkjet printed paper as a "foreground" finishing technique has limited use in scales larger than 1:48. But painted cardstock looks excellent in many scales, as you have shown. And, since you used the artwork as a "background" effect beneath the paint, maybe inkjet art can be useful to the guys in larger scales, too.

It is pretty tricky to peel paint from paper. Want to reveal the steps you used? And the specific paper (e.g., Strathmore Bristol Plate from a pad or the harder stuff in the big individual sheets?)

Russ

Thanks guys.
It was interesting to try this and see if it would work....especially since my process was very haphazard.....was trying to pay attention to a show on BBC).
Russ I was really trying to save any info for your side-bar (and to use on the paper shed build challenge, to give me a leg up), ...but if you insist.....
I don't know what the Strathmore was exactly. It was some really heavy 8.5 x 11 stock that I bought a 100 sheet ream of to print business cards, and promo pieces, when we needed them. It is true "Strathmore" name brand, and I bought it a Kelly Paper. I don't have the wrapper/package anymore...but I think it was 100lb.  It is not 'plate' stock (meaning not smooth) ...which I believe is referred to as "cold press"...but I always get hot/cold confused. 

These were the steps used:

1. Print design on the cardstock.

2. Cut board strips, and burnish flat the raised lip from the cut (do that using the note in my previous post, and always change your cutting blade frequently).  Cut the stips longer than you will be needing them. [This will give you the needed space for the next step, as well as some flexibility in which part of the finished board you want to use)

3. Lay the strips parallel on a piece of matt-board (space the pieces about 1/4" or more apart).

4. Using any masking tape (I prefer the Tamiya tape or plain blue painters tape from the big box store.) tape down both ends of the strips.

5. Using a flat brush, apply a liberal coat of matte varnish to each strip (I use the Grumbacher stuff).....you don't want the varnish to pool and puddle...but you want enough to give good coverage, and so no potentially raw paper surface is left. (It's okay if the varnish gets off the strips and onto the board....as this will help seal the edges as well.)

6. Let varnish dry. (I accelerated this with a blow dryer....but be careful as varnish is flammable...and you may want to check to make sure your strips are not bonding to the board. I quick slight lifting of the strip with a razor blade or steel shim will fix this).

7. With a flat brush, apply acrylic paint. The paint was applied heavy enough to give a one coat coverage.  I used Vallejo acrylics, as I know it gives outstanding brush coverage and smoothness of finish, and is not as aggressive in bonding to the surface below as Tamiya might be.  I worked the paint a bit wet, blending and mottling a couple of colors together to try and vary the color finish (sort of like mapping the surface).  I could have taken more time and patience to do this, to get a better effect...but this was not the main point of the exercise.  You want to make sure you don't get too much and too heavy of a paint run/build-up between the edge of your strip and the board....this can easily be cleaned later when the strips are removed...but why create the issue.

8. When the paint has dried to the touch, use masking tape to "peel" the paint off the strips....basically the same way you would on wood. Some practice will be needed to get the feel for it, in regards to the amount of pressure used on the tape and such.

9. I used  a thin coat of yellow carpenters glue to apply the strips to a piece of dark grey matte-board  (why dark grey?...because on non white walls, in case you accidentally have a gap or seam somewhere, it will not show up as readily, and will appear more as "shadow" or underlying building paper.)

NOTES:

I only did 8 strips per paint session....this way the paint did not have time to fully cure before peeling...I have no idea how much it would  bond to the boards if it were left to dry for an extended period. 
One thing that also happens when peeling the paint, due to the Vallejo paints consistency/make-up, you will often get a pulled up edge on the remaining paint around the peel....I chose to simply press these back down flat with my finger...but they could be used to create a varying peel appearance/texture. 
When acrylics are applied so heavy, or "worked" on application, they can develop a slight sheen when dry . in some conditions this can be used to an advantage during weathering...but in general paint on buildings dulls down pretty darn fast, so if you get the sheen, you can eliminate it by applying a coat of Model-Master "Lusterless Matte" (I prefer it over "Dullcoat").....the sealer may also help to ease application of any subsequent weathering applications.


....anyhow...I think that should about cover the basics


Marc

Side road request- Marc can you provide info on the rock foundation? If it involves more techniques please bless us with another thread. The rocks are nicely shaped and sharp edged. Thanks.

John,

Unfortunately there is not much I can say about the foundation. It is actually built for 1/48 acsale...so the stones are a bit small for the 1/35.


Basically they are just some sort of stone debris that collected in a sandwich bag when I was out on a mountain-bike ride. I have no idea exactly what type of stone it is.....but from its shape, surface texture and breakability, it seems like some sort of sandstone. The pieces in the wall are for the most part how I found them on the trail.

The build is done pretty much the same way as Chucks barn diorama foundation.....basically I just spread the contents of the entire bag out in a baking tray on my workbench...then like a real stone wall would be built, started gluing and stacking the pieces. I tried to select pieces that would fit and give as much coursining and interlock as one would in a real drystack wall...and where I was deperate I used a small piece of steel to chip, shape or break some stones in hopes of getting the right shape/piece. I did these about 4 years ago, so I can't remember for sure what I used to glue them, but it was either yellow carpenters glue, or thick ACC....likely the latter....just applied in a small spot or two to hold the stones (making sure none showed from the front or squeezed into gaps anywhere).


At one point I considered experimenting with mortaring the wall, to see how to do it and how it would look....but as I have had no need for this yet, I have put off this experiment. I have about 12 linear inches of wall built in three sections, that form a "U" shaped foundation and interlock invisibly at the corners....they were supposed to be for a building idea that i had....that of course never materialized.


M
Marc

Thanks. Rarely does real material scale down and look natural. The wall is quite handsome.

John

Wow this is really good stuff.  And Marc got Russ to commit to building something.  Or did Russ get Marc so excited he is going to finish something???  Only time will tell.

So stay tuned in for further adventures!!!

Jerry

Ps I'm so excited I might have to post something.  Marc get up off the floor I'm serious.

Give peace paper a chance. -- ssuR

Slightly off the topic, but since we have a discussion about some peeled paint as well, heres a quick shot of some experiments I did recently (thanks to Rod for the phot at a recent NMRA meeting).  Not a card base (actually 0.4mm ply sheet, laser cut into 8" weatherboards in 1:48).  The actual peeled paint was done with a temporary spray adhesive.  Timber weathered, spritzed with spray adhesive, let dry for about 10 minutes, after which it becomes a temporary bond (where as stick something too it straight away to be more permanent).  Brushed on the paint to be peeled, let dry, and then peeled back with masking tape.  The spray adhesive essentially worls like a rubber cement mask, where the top layer of paint only temporarily bonds too it, and lifts off fairly easily.

Dan

That looks great Dan! I like the color of the wood too.

Dan, can you be a little more specific about the kind of spray adhesive you used? -- Russ

Russ,
Its just one of the common brand spray adhesive, but often they stock two types...permanent and temporary bond.  The temporary bond is often used for artwork layouts or photo mountings.  It actually has clearly written on the can "temporary" bond, however, if you read the directions, it usually says to wait about 10 minutes til the glue goes tacky (and then becomes only a temporary hold), but if wanting a more permanent bond, stick down immediately.  To do the pictured boards, I prepared the boards to the aged brown/grey first, and then mounted them onto some mattboard as a group.  Spritzed the spray adhesive on from about 12", aiming for a random and uneven cover.  The glue dries near invisible.  Once the wait time has elapsed, brush painted the white, let dry, and then "waxed" the paint off with a high tack masking tape.  Most of what I wanted to come off came off with a few quick lifts of the tape, but extra sections were scratched back with the edge of a blade.  I lightly sanded the boards when finished to reduce some of the white paint thickness.  Finished up with working in a bit of bragdons powders with an artists stump once they were mounted on the structure.   Thats pretty much it.  I'm actually working on an article on the technique for my local NG magazine, so will have a few more photo trials at a later stage.

I had tried a few of the other techniques (different thinners with paint over top, but got mixed results, and had trouble sourcing a good gum arabic locally for masking with).  This was just a trial that worked out better than I expected...with fairly predictable/reproducable results

Dan

Russ's computer generated paint chipping has a very realistic pattern to the chipping, the paint is shown flaked off in a pattern influenced by the grain of the wood.   Paint lifted with tape seems doesn't seem to do this as well.    I think Russ is onto something really good here.

Though I've never been a proponent of this medium, Russ' latest tests in combination with the finishing steps outlined by Marc is showing real potential... good to see and well worth the experimentation and effort.

Paul

This peeling paint issue is really a mystery to me. I look at photos and, often, the peeling appears in what seems random spots. Marc cautioned me that there is really a logic to it and explained it pretty well in another thread (although I can't remember its name). In most photos I've studied, I can't see that logic.

When I look at Marc's peeled paint, it looks fine. When I look at my little invention, it looks fine. I have very good control over where the peels can go and how big they are and what color the weathered wood is underneath. But, to my eye, it doesn't look better or worse, more or less realistic, than other techniques.

I came up with my peels by selecting them from a photo of an actual peeling wall and running them through some Photoshop manipulation. I am happy with their appearance and paste them wherever I want.

Two final thoughts:

No matter how good printed artwork might be, you still need to do something to it by hand. Sometimes that may be a few touches of weathering powder. Or it may be an application of some kind of wash or artist's marker. I suspect even an overspray of matte varnish or lacquer would help. It needs an "analog" touch to bring it to life.

The second thing is that most modelers tend to resist using Photoshop or even cardstock. Most of us think of our hobby as kind of a tactile thing and we cling to traditional ways of creating effects. I remember a real master once telling me that in 1:48 we should use wood to represent wood, glass to represent glass, and metal to represent metal. But that was in 1965! Now we have a lot of styrene and all kinds of other materials. And honestly, guys, card does a better job of representing painted wood in 1:48 and smaller scales because of its finer texture and printed cardstock can look more real (though not necessarily better) than painted card. Trust me. I've nitpicked, analyzed, studied, and compared the two. Yet the only card modeling we usually see is the nincompoop who glues raw Paper Creek artwork over a subwall (no scribing, no individual boards, nothing) and says, "Wow! Look what I did!"

As many times as I have shown a starting point with cardstock, the general reaction here is that it's kind of an interesting aberration. To date, Marc is the only one to mess with it.

It's a hobby. We should do what we find satisfying. But I hope somebody, someday, gets curious enough to try to push the envelope. I think inkjet printers, card, and something else (I'm not sure what) could open a new vista.

Russ

Okay, another quick experiment...sorry to do this to you all again...but I had to try one more approach...and wanted to try a rotting board and bricks while I was at it....I promise this is the last time I'll foist one of these wall on you.  :)


Scale on this is 1/35. The wood siding and the bricks are made of 4-ply Strathmore board.


Overall view from about 12"/30cm:

(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2FBr3_01.jpg&hash=d3f24fa271ce7a3a8ea9477a9382dd9393430b5b)


Close view from about 3"/7.5cm:

(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2FBr3_02.jpg&hash=4e0ec0844e7a4f41820f466fa065620689a66a2d)


Detail view of rotten board and brick from about 1.5"/3.75cm:

(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Erbadesign%2FBr3_03.jpg&hash=2def691d9020a0cda1b5a086bec48791f23d8163)


...again, a lot of room for improvement, but it showed me some possibilities.


Marc

"The wood siding and the bricks are made of 4-ply Strathmore board."

Marc - How did you do the bricks?

Don

And this time did you simply stain the Strathmore prior to painting? This attempt really withstands close scrutiny. -- Russ

P.S.: I know you have threatened to do something like this for a couple of years and I'm really glad you followed through.

While we are waiting for Marc to follow up, I want to return to the original intent of this thread: Using printed cardstock to approach contest quality modeling. In this first of two images, how 1:48 scale printed cardstock compares to the wood and paint on Chuck Doan's 1:24 scale garage.

Russ

... And, in this photo, the unadorned 1:48 scale wall section I posted a few days ago (10 minute build with raw artwork and a little pastel chalk at some board joints) compared to the front wall of Chuck's 1:48 magnificent Red Oak garage.

Okay, Marc, back to your tutorial.

Russ

Chuck seems to have an excellent grasp of the way that paint chips from wood.   As I mentioned earlier, the way paint fails seems influenced by the grain of the wood it adhered to, or maybe the brush strokes when it was applied, or both.  Something I've been paying a lot more attention to since this thread started! 

Much as I admire Marc's techniques, this "wood-influenced-chipping-pattern" is missing from his quick demos.   Russ's printed paper shows it very nicely.  The green sample is close to perfection.   Chuck, of course, shows it perfectly.

Chuck, mind telling, what do you look for, and how did you do it??   :)

Dave

     

Chuck looks for the place of God, Dave. And I think he got it.

Quote from: Don Railton on November 06, 2010, 09:18:44 AM
"The wood siding and the bricks are made of 4-ply Strathmore board."

Marc - How did you do the bricks?

Don

Don,

The bricks were made by first cutting the board into the proper/needed width strips (about 10" long), and then using the "Chopper" cutting them to the proper/needed length.  Each brick was then glued individually to another piece of 4-ply Strathmore. Two things I found pertinent to observe whenm doing this were:

1). Avoid mixing  "bricks" cut from different strips (no matter how hard you try the strips might end up being just a hair different, and tis could show).  

2). then cutting you will typically get a slightly sloped/angled cut, which flates at the bottom of the cut, so it is adviseable to ensure that this side is placed down, against the backing board.

The first row was laid against a straight edge, subsequent rows were spaced/placed using a piece of .010" styrene. I used yellow carpenters glue to attach the bricks. (if one desider to make the brick surface more uneven, one could achieve this by either using a brick made from slightly thicker board, or adding a small piece of single ply first, behind the brick, and then gluing the 4-ply brick in place.

Once set, I went over the bricks with a fiberglass pencil, and 400 or 600 sandpaper to soften the edges or slightly clean up any edges or spacing. I also used an exacto to carefully cut a spawl/spall or chip into an edge or corner here and there.

Once dry I did an overall coloring of a dark red Vallejo acrylic.....as I worked a bit wet/damp, this slightly softened the surface of the bricks, allowing me to emboss a random texture into them. This texturing was done using the broken ends of a piece of basswood that was the same size as the brick...and with varying pressure and angle, pressing it into the softened surface.

This coat was allowed to dry and then followed with varing colors and coats of more Vallejo acrylic.....lastly I randomly dusted on some colors of redish/brick and grey AGAMA and MIG pigments. Then the whole thing was sprayed with a heavy coat of Model-Master "Lusterless flat.....dried with a blow dryer.

With my fingertip I then worked some lightweight wall patch compound (the stuff that's comes ready to use in small tubs and is sort of "fluffy"), into the joints....the brick surface was wiped off with a soft cotten rag, and some wdide brushes were worked across the surface to provide some depth to the grout joints.  I was considering tinting the wall compound before adding it....but was worried it might stain the brick surface....so instead I used MIG "Panzer Grey Fading" pigment, and brushed it over the surface and into the grout joints....(You can't use Bragdon's for this, because it adheres too strongly to the brick surface and will discolor it)....extra pigmant on the brick surface was brushed off, and then "washed off" with a brush wet with "Odorless Turpentine" working in a vertical motion.  

....lastly.....one the entire piece was all assembled, the priks along wit the clap-boards were weathered (and unified) using CMK and MIG dust colored pigments.

The entire wall example, including the sign probably took me around 4 hours or so to do......some of that was definitely in the prep.,  thinking, and learning. The actuall painting and assembly probably took about half that.


Marc

Quote from: Frederic Testard on November 07, 2010, 02:00:32 PM
Chuck looks for the place of God, Dave. And I think he got it.

I thought Chuck was God!!!

Jerry

You know, Jerry, my english is far from perfect...

Frederick. Don't worry about it .. you are fine. If you ever get a chance, take a trip to Southern Louisiana .. about half the people down there speak French .. well .. a version of French :)

Marc, thanks for that info about bricks. I think your concept and execution are most satisfactory. You have taken an approach I have only thought about and brought it to splendid fruition.

Now a tough question: How would you deal with corners?

And, with the Strathmore clapboards, did you stain the card before painting it this time? Whatever you did looks good.

Russ

Russ,

Corners should be pretty easy....I have two ideas for doing them.


The individual boards were actually painted "wet" with several colors of Vallejo acrylics, and when dry to the touch a quick drybrushing swipe along the length of the boards to add some grain highlight/pattern. (not that much of this is apparent in the small amount that is seen through the chips....but it does allow the various chips to have some slight variation in tone and shading.

The lower boards were done using the tape method...which is difficult to control (at least without taking more time with it), and the white acrylic came of in large swaths (the nature of the acrylic),and something you with artwork...and chuck with actual directional grain have been able to avoid

On the upper boards I was finally able able to find a different method of paint removal that allows for much greater control, as well as allowing me to make the chips more directional (like yours and chucks)....following the grain of the board....as they generally would on a real structure.


Marc

Quote from: lab-dad on November 03, 2010, 05:01:19 AM

I really enjoyed seeing Marc's bench! Would love to see an overall shot!
-Marty

Hmm...okay...here is a shot from yesterday....

That is the usual state of Marc's workbench. I've been to visit several times. He is well organized and neat and puts away his toys when he has finished playing. So the photo isn't a fake. -- Russ

*sigh* .. I just looked. I think .. my workbench is under .. whatever .. is piled up there. I was 'organizing' and got distracted ...

No wonder you cant finish anything Marc!
Once you put it away how do you find it?.... ;D :D ;)
name withheld
:P

Marc – Thanks for the paper brick tutorial.  That's how Wolfson does his brick. Each one cut separately then glued in place except he uses styrene.

Your wall looked liked it had some decent 3-D.  I'll have to give it a try with paper.

Don

Let me know how you plan to deal with the corners. Marc didn't even offer a clue. Scale-brick-thickness paper or plastic would seem almost counterproductive. -- Russ

Quote from: finescalerr on November 10, 2010, 08:07:27 PM
Let me know how you plan to deal with the corners. Marc didn't even offer a clue. Scale-brick-thickness paper or plastic would seem almost counterproductive. -- Russ

Sheesh Russ....I try to save you something in case you want that sidebar...but nooooo....you just can't leave well enough alone ;) ;D

For the corners the two simplest options are:

1). Simply cut a short piece (end brick size) and glue it into the correct location. You can get a tight enough bond, and with some liht sanding, if done correctly, after painting the seam will not be visible.

2). Make the paper piece long enough to represent the full side and end of the brick...then at the proper location on the backside, cut a V-shaped notch/groove....then simply bend the brick around the corner at that point. Though tedious....this is not hard to do, and will give a nice clean corner.  (We used to do this on full scale Strathmore models, using a professional matt cutter on which you could carefully set the depth so as to end up leaving barely 1-ply between the V cut on the back and the face.)

To make option 2 easier, you can cut the V groove first, and then cut the strip on either side to give the needed dimension. This way in case the V cut is slightly off, or it doesn't bend like you wanted....you hevent wasted the time and piece.


Marc

You must understand, Marc, that I am offering you the opportunity to cobble together a rough draft of your ideas here. If they work, or even if they don't, I then shall transform your unpolished gems into beautiful examples of the Queen's English replete with spectacular photographic illustration. Thereupon I shall publish the results for all the world to admire. O lucky you!

Besides, I was curious.

I don't suppose you have, or anyone else has, a suggestion for making convincing corners with brick paper. Or do you?

Russ

Hide them with stone or concrete quoins .....or there is always the old standby....the rainwater leader. ;D


M