Wall

[Philip Smith]

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

philip

[Ray Dunakin]

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

[lab-dad]

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

[Junior]

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!!!!!!

Anders

[DaKra]

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.     

[JohnP]

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



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

[Chuck Doan]

Dave makes a good point.

[Philip Smith]

Dave makes a good point.

yep. And his photo defines painter job security!

Philip

[Chuck Doan]

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

[finescalerr]

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

[marc_reusser]

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

[chester]

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.

[mabloodhound]

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.

[finescalerr]

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

[DaKra]

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!