Wall

[finescalerr]

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

[RoughboyModelworks]

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

[Hector Bell]

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

[marc_reusser]

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

[Frederic Testard]

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.

[marc_reusser]

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......)

[MinerFortyNiner]

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!

[finescalerr]

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

[DaKra]

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:



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. 

[MinerFortyNiner]

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...

[mabloodhound]

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.

[Malachi Constant]

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? 

Dallas

[RoughboyModelworks]

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

Paul

[finescalerr]

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

[clevermod01]

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