PaperBrick

[marc_reusser]

What's wrong with doughnut holes!?  

I believe in th fine line between the doughnut and the hole.  

M

[finescalerr]

"I believe in the fine line between the doughnut and the hole."

Unfortunately, we all have known that for some time. In fact your mom asked me and your doctors to talk to you about that ....

ssuR

[Mr Potato Head]

In my opinion, short sighted as it is, remember a "Potato" has hundreds of eyes, it all comes down to scale "viewing" distance, each scale has it's detail viewing limits, sure if you have a magnifying glass you can find every flaw, but when viewed at a scale distance, what can you see, but more important what does your eye see? If you look at an impressionist painting close up all you see is a bunch of dots of color, but when viewed at the correct distance Viola! Masterpiece!!!
I thing we can all agree for foreground work nothing beats brick on brick, or board on board, but right past foreground and from middle ground to background what can your eye see? We are all different, build to what you can see, or what others can see.
I think that for foundations and quick buildings in the middle to back ground it looks rather convincing, and if you do what "Unc" does and embellish it you can get "believable" results! Don't forget all "Masterpiece" paintings are "two dimensional" fooling your eye to be three dimensional
MPH
MFA CSULB 1979

[DaKra]

Agreed, but fine scale modelling implies detailed foreground work as Russ said.  And a flat sheet of paper brick will betray its lack of depth at middle or far range, when the light strikes it at a certain angle and reflects back a solid sheen.  On the other hand, a model with depth and texture that looks good close range will look good at any distance.

I'm also not sure how appropriate it is to compare a painting to a scale model.     If you take the concept to the extreme, it doesn't really hold together.  To demonstrate what I mean about the division between painting and model making consider this--  If Picasso painted an abstract impression of a chair, it would still be a painting.    If a model maker could somehow reproduce this Picasso chair in 3d, it would no longer be a scale model, it would be a sculpture.    Two different art forms.

Dave

[Gordon Ferguson]

Feel I have got to jump in on this thread ................. no disagreement over all the comments over "finescale work" but I do think we are missing the most important point here.

This gentleman has devised a programme, stated very clearly that he is not a model maker and has welcomed suggestions for improvements. I have already suggested one or 2 things, such as including 1/35 scale in the scale options ............. had an e-mail back from thanking me for my comments and I see that he has amended his options accordingly. Hopefully in the future he can add correct brick patterns for around doors, arches etc ........ 

So we have a guy trying to do something for the hobby, willing to listen and amend his work .............. think it would be a lot more positive to say thanks its a good start and here are some ideas for improving it even more, rather than dismiss it out hand.

I may never use the printed brick work as such but will more than likely use it as a template for laying card brick slips over ..... and it will save me a lot of time drawing out all the various brick patterns.

So lets please welcome what the guy is trying to do & as he asked help him improve it   





 

[RichD]

Thanks gfadvance for you comments.

Your comments and clarity are exactly why I posted this link in the first place.  To me, there is a difference in what type and purpose of model is being built.  If it is a forground model, that will get lots of close up attention, sitting on the edge of a railroad layout or a diorama, then one approach is warranted.. with all the scale detail in all the correct proportions etc.

But on the other hand, if the model is going to set back a foot or more.. and noone is going to be able to distinquish whether the morter lines are scale or have depth, then anything that helps create the illusion of reality in a shorter period of time, should be fair game also.

Thanks again for your voice of reason.

I too left this gentleman a couple of comments and he responded within 24 hours and was also very appreicative..

Rich D

[Mr Potato Head]

If Picasso painted an abstract impression of a chair, it would still be a painting.    If a model maker could somehow reproduce this Picasso chair in 3d, it would no longer be a scale model, it would be a sculpture.    Two different art forms.

Dave,
Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso
Was a cubist, so he wouldn't be painting a abstract to begin with and if someone wanted to make a model of a Abstract chair, it would still be a model or a copy.
Media defines form, so a sculpture would always be a sculpture.
Finescale, is our devotion, our passion, our muse, or what ever "term"  you want to associate with it, but modeling and painting is art, and I have said this a million times there is no bad "ART" only bad  art critics, Art for Arts sake
I say go with it if it makes you happy
MPH

[finescalerr]

I think we should focus our ideas about this subject.

On the one hand, any hobbyist should feel completely justified in approaching his own models in whatever way he wants, whether or not he has an ounce of talent or taste. In other words, hobbies exist as a creative pastime where you satisfy yourself regardless of what others do or think. As you guys know, in Outdoor Railroader and Finescale Railroader, I tried to promote that principle by publishing every photo I received, even when the model was horrid.

But, on this forum, our aim is to build ever better models, not to take unnecessary shortcuts by deliberately using inferior materials. This isn't a forum about background models and toy train layouts. So a defense of the programmer or the use of his (currently) crude artwork is out of place ON THIS FORUM and ONLY on this forum.

In other words, I don't disagree with anybody's opinion about what he wants to use for a background structure on his layout and I applaud the programmer for trying to help and for wanting to improve. But his work ain't ready for prime time and this is an inappropriate place to showcase it. Think about that ... and then ask yourself whether you would display a six year old's drawing of stick figures next to a Rembrandt. Similarly, when you read a comment, please respond mainly to the reasoning behind it rather than to individual supporting sentences.

So, to repeat my earlier challenge: If one of you guys can turn that PDF brick stuff into a credible and impressive model, I'll be happy to change my opinion about its relevance. So far I've seen nothing but verbal justification.

Russ

[DaKra]

My point about the abstract impression of a chair was that a model built in the style of Picasso would not be a good scale model of whatever actual chair Picasso interpreted.   It would convey very little information about the the 1/1 prototype chair, though it might be a very interesting sculpture.   

Its relevant to model making, because distortion caused by straying from the prototype and or using inferior materials and shortcuts, without the conscious application of artistic skill is just distortion.   Call me a bad art critic, but I will be so bold as to say most model makers, myself included, lack that artistic skill.   

Dave

[Mr Potato Head]

it's like baseball, given enough time a practice everyone should be able to hit a pitched ball, and then here comes the curve ball and then the splitter, and so on,...............there's plenty of art out there and plenty of modeling out there, but who's to say whats good and just plain bad? but I have seen ordinay materials turned into majestic art, just look at the Watts towers! ::
they just don't hand out the term artistic genius
MPH

[DaKra]

It sounds like we are agreeing then.   The difference between watts towers and a big heap of junk was the innate artistic sense of Simon Rodia.   Rodias are rare.    In painting, the hand and personality and interpretation of the artist is desirable, its part of what sets it apart from photography.   But a model is a technical thing, ideally it shows everything of the prorotype and nothing of the hand that built it.  Its more a blueprint than a sketch.  Stray too far from the prototype and its no longer a model.   Which is why I don't think its fair to compare a scale model to an impressionist painting. 

[marc_reusser]

So, to repeat my earlier challenge: If one of you guys can turn that PDF brick stuff into a credible and impressive model, I'll be happy to change my opinion about its relevance. So far I've seen nothing but verbal justification.

Russ

What do I get if I pull it off???...is this really a challenge you want to put out there for me? ( in reality, my other commitments won't allow me to do it.)


...tell you what, I'll do it in exchange for getting the Mag delivered here to Cali before it being shipped to the rest of the world.

In this whole discussion I have to side and agree with what Gordon has said. I applaud the gentleman for taking the time and effort to do/create this, and be responsive to, and interested in, feedback. If more mfrs in the RR realm would take his approach to trying new technology and methods, and being responsive to the needs of their customers, we would have far better and diverse products.

I for one would not be adverse to using printed brick in the right application for a foreground model...heck I have already used printed siding for such.

M

[finescalerr]

"I could play basketball as well as Kobe Bryant if I really wanted to. I just don't want to." -- Russ

[RichD]

Marc.. I am glad to read your input.  I was hoping this community could help/suggest/assist with a new idea and/or approach.  I have left this gentleman several ideas based on the comments in this thread.

Some of them were:

• Use a randon number generator to select the images of brick being 'laid' up so that they don't have the re-occuring pattern some have found.  but also being careful not to let the randon generator pick the same image 2 times in a row..etc
• I suggested he ask for other people to offer more brick images to choose from.. so that his universe of brick is larger
• I also suggested he experiment with real images of mortar.  It will be harder, but he could overlay the brick images with mortor images and give them a more rugged appearance some have mentioned.. This should be a good challenge to him as a programmer.
• and I suggested he suggest the best way to print and the best paper to use that would reduce the glare and shine.

A shot of dullcoat might help to reduce the glare.

What I have not suggested yet is that he 'invent' some kind of embossing tool (like a roller with 'tiny' impressions) to pass the printed paper though.  If someone has access to a  machine shop, something could be tried.
For my scale (S) the indentation of mortar lines would be very very slight.  At 1/4" depth (typical mortar line where I live) that would be .25/64 = .004 of an inch.  I am not sure how many would really be able to see it except under a lens.  However, I do believe that if you ran a finger nail over it, you would feel it.

If my ideas work, then this would be a nice and quick alternative to plain paper bricks.. at least for the foreground models.

Thanks for your comments Marc

Rich D

[Mr Potato Head]

Dave
With all do respect, no I am not agreeing with you and now that the gauntlet has been dropped by our imperial leader! Marc will charge forth and pick up the gauntlet and prove once and for all that it can be done! C'mon Marc! Don't let me down! 
MPH