Westlake Publishing Forums

General Category => Modellers At Work => Topic started by: finescalerr on July 16, 2016, 07:06:27 PM



Title: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on July 16, 2016, 07:06:27 PM
I've started a small 1:32 scale diorama. Here's an attempt to replicate unpainted weathered wood with paper. The first image, "Dr. Jekyll", shows the incomplete structure as you would see it on a diorama, from about a foot away, under typical lighting. -- Russ


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on July 16, 2016, 07:25:39 PM
The "Mr. Hyde" photo, in high contrast sunlight, should show every flaw and texture but, at the resolution limit of our site's mediocre software, some warts, wrinkles, and flakes are impossible to see. The question of whether the experiment is a success is one I can't easily answer and maybe some of you have a thought or two.

The first thing I had to get over was how the paper "wood" doesn't resemble the color of any unpainted weathered wood model I've built. On the other hand, when I compare it to the boards of my back fence the appearance is very similar, both color and texture. Marc Reusser made that point to me a few years ago when he said real silvered wood has an opaque quality stained stripwood doesn't replicate. In a scale as small as 1:32, the grain of stripwood also may miss the target.

The colors in the photos don't quite match those of the model so I replaced the one I posted yesterday with this one, with more accurate color.

What do you think?

Russ


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Ray Dunakin on July 16, 2016, 07:50:52 PM
Unfortunately in that photo, it's hard to tell there's any color at all. It does seem to me, that there ought to be more variation in whatever color is there.


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: 1-32 on July 16, 2016, 11:35:42 PM
go  russ i dont believe it.


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Design-HSB on July 17, 2016, 02:13:19 AM
Hello Russ, the second photo has clearly more contrast, only something is pending, it still does not look finished.


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on July 17, 2016, 01:00:28 PM
It is not finished. These images are "in progress" photos. -- Russ


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Malachi Constant on July 18, 2016, 04:07:19 AM
It needs nail heads ... razor-saw woodgrain ... and antlers!  8)


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Hydrostat on July 18, 2016, 05:11:53 AM
Essentiall it's not my place to post here after I didn't manage to post at least anything in your amazing "Wood?" thread - indeed I was tempted to evince my compunction that Chuck AND Marc seemed to have gone mercenary, but discarded that, facing the danger of being sent off to the corner. As astonishing your results are there, to my eyes here in the second picture the structure's texture is simply paper ... and maybe this results from the paper fibres following one straight direction at one sheet of paper. For very sure the direct sun lighting has a share in that for over 90 percent. I'm a bit clueless if that is some helpful criticism without seeing the finished structure`.

Volker


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Bill Gill on July 18, 2016, 05:16:57 AM
The grain is good. The overall tone OK, but I agree with Ray that as it stands is too even. The brownish tinting at the top where the wood is less exposed to sunlight and water doesn't yet look like any weathered unpainted wood color I've seen, but different climates + different woods = different effects.


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Hydrostat on July 18, 2016, 05:51:56 AM
Correction: It's not the fibres or grain, it's some kind of repeating 'waves' on the surface, which gives it this 'uneven' touch, especially visible at the boards above the door, and I still think that's a feature of the paper surface.


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Allan G on July 18, 2016, 09:29:36 AM
Tough group!....Allan


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Bill Gill on July 18, 2016, 11:39:29 AM
Hmm, I can't see the 'waves' unless they are perhaps faint raised spots left where the paint dried in small pooled areas, or just artifacts in the low resolution the image itself?

Here are two wood photos, not sure what they add to the discussion except they are also board & batten. The first one is too new looking. It's on the inside of a recently rebuilt covered bridge, so it's protected from the sun and rain.
(It also has faked curved lines scratched onto the individual boards with a disc grinder to try to imitate the look of the original rough sawn planks!) The second example is too weathered as it is starting to get a bit green where it stays damp in the shade. Both examples show more variation in color than your model, Russ, but again, that might simply be the kind of wood used in each case. I've seen weathered cedar that is a much more uniform color.


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on July 18, 2016, 01:20:03 PM
My model tries to reflect the weathering in your second (lower) photo. I just don't know how to add the subtle coloration we find in real wood -- but I'm not sure I could do that with stripwood, either.

I've attached a photo of a 1:32 scale shack I built from stripwood about 15 years ago. The stain has faded and the wood has yellowed. Next to it are some paper boards I did last month, part of a 4 week experiment. They looked good to my bare eyes ... and in my workshop lighting the color looked very real. Then I saw the photo and threw the disaster into the trash! Horrible!!!

Volker, the waves are part of the paper surface. Again, when you just look at the model with no magnification or low magnification you can't see them. When you use a macro lens, high resolution, and deliberately harsh light to show up problems, the imperfections become overwhelming.

Anyhow, the point of this is to show how even real wood doesn't always look the way it should. Yes, it looks like wood, but it sure doesn't look like the wood in Bill's photos because the grain is way out of scale and it absorbs color improperly. Maybe we're looking too closely at a 1:32 scale model and should back off a foot or two?

Russ

Russ


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Hydrostat on July 18, 2016, 01:48:09 PM
Russ,

you made an important point about photography: Is there something like a scale adequate distance or resolution? Close ups which work in 1-24 scale for example don't work at all in 1-87 scale because of textures' flaws or simply some 'not to scale' light distribution / shadowing and depth of focus issues. Maybe this reasonable postulation for backing implicates a need for backing off from the prototype for a more 'correct' general color impression, too. But I still think the coloring of those paper boards is good. There's a lot of variation in rough cut wood, depending on tree species, cutting angle, board position within the trunk and so on.

Volker


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Bill Gill on July 18, 2016, 04:03:10 PM
Russ, In your photo the paper boards look pretty good. One possible way to attempt to add some color and tonal variations to your paper boards might be to use colored pencils and transparent watercolors instead of acrylic paints. They won't seal the paper surface so subsequent washes/layers can still be absorbed into the paper.

Instead of embossing grain, suggest it very lightly with the tip of colored pencils, then use the side of the pencil points rather than the tip to very lightly add a little darker tonal variation to the boards. After a bit of practice I think both can be done pretty quickly so it won't be as tedious a it sounds.

Next add several very thin washes running the length of the boards, but don't aim for even coverage except for the first coat or two of extremely pale gray. After that vary the grays with a bit of Paynes gray or perhaps a tiny dot of burnt umber. Let the pencil show through for the subtle textured effects you can't get with washes. When the washes are dry you can experiment with a couple techniques to complete the weathering:

Wet on Wet: Really wet some of the individual boards using a brush loaded with clean water. Let it sit so the water mostly soaks into the paper & evaporates until the surface looks damp, not wet. Wet a brush with water, add a tiny bit of a darker gray and barely touch it to a board with a gentle motion in the direction of the long dimension of the board rather than just touching the tip of the brush straight down to the paper. Try different sizes of brushes. Be generous with the water and stingy or not with the paint.

Blotting: Really wet some individual boards again and this time blot and streak the wet surface with a paper towel to both soak up some of the paint and spread it along the length of the board*

* I say "board" but you can try this on wider strips of paper and then perhaps pick and choose areas to cut into individual boards later.


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on July 18, 2016, 08:34:45 PM
Water turned out to be a real problem, Bill. It tends to bring up fibers in the paper and the result is the fuzz Volker commented on in my thread about using paper for wood. Colored pencils tend to produce a grainy appearance; I've tried them.

Also, as I pointed out in that other thread, softer papers absorb color well but are delicate and get fuzzy very easily. Hard papers, such as Strathmore Bristol Plate, are more like wood but they produce a speckled appearance when stained. On this experiment, I ended up using alcohol, turpentine, and lacquer thinner rather than water. Even though they are noxious they were less damaging to the paper.

Here is the shack as it looks now but I'm not sure I want to use it on the diorama. I may complete it just to see how it looks but my current approach to paper is proving more trouble than it's worth. After I fix my photo printer I may see how printed weathered wood looks but I'll probably just go back to using real wood.

Even if the last couple of months result in nothing worth keeping I found all the experimentation pretty interesting. Sometimes it's worth trying the impossible just to see how close you can come to success.

Russ


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Ray Dunakin on July 18, 2016, 09:09:12 PM
That last photo looks a lot better to my eyes, though I still think it could use a bit of variation, and more color overall. Without seeing your reference, I think you're probably getting pretty close to the look you want, just not quite there yet.



Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Bill Gill on July 19, 2016, 05:35:02 AM
Russ, I feel your pain. One of the first areas sceniced on my small layout was a small pile of driftwood washed up against a stone bridge abutment. The driftwood was a collection of tiny sticks gathered over several months in anticipation of making the scene. The sticks had interesting shapes, but most importantly they had that special silvery sheen that you seek to reproduce. The pile looked better than hoped for against the contrasting flat grays of the "stonework"...for several years anyway. But overtime the driftwood seemed to lose its silvery appearance. At first accumulated dust was suspected, but a careful brushing and vacuuming revealed even less silver. The wood had mostly turned to the light tan look of newly cut, raw wood. Further investigation discovered tiny little critters scurrying over the pile and the conclusion was they'd slowly gnawed away the top surface of all the twigs.

I experimented with a number of colors and techniques to recreate the original silvery sheen with no success. I could get a dull, flat pale gray tone that was close to the overall tone of the wood, but not that sheen.

The temptation was to surgically remove the pile from the scene and set it outside for several months to restore the "real" color, though I suspected it wouldn't work on top of the stains and paints that had been applied.

However, there are also a few fragments of silvery old real railroad ties on the layout that have stood the test of time (so far). They are scattered along part of the right of way, representing remnants of old, torn up ties. Perhaps the little critters haven't found them yet, or perhaps residual creosote keeps them at bay. A few pieces were carefully glued down making sure not to get any glue on the visible arts of the wood because that changed the look. A few pieces were laid loosely on the layout, subject to accidental vacuuming up, but definitely keeping the sheen in pristine condition.

You've experimented with color printers before and not ultimately liked the results. If you revert to wood, what if you plan way ahead and set out the strip wood to actually weather and acquire a real silvery finish? That won't fade over time like most weathering solutions (except some India inks which don't create the look you want). Years ago a modeler did just that and the results looked great. You'll have to deal with warping and other contingencies, so make extra pieces, but it is probably the only way you will get the look you desire.



Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on July 19, 2016, 12:22:18 PM
I suspect SilverWood will get me close enough to the appearance I want. I'll just practice on some scrap wood until the results look okay. Wood is far more robust than paper, requires a lot less work, and lends itself to more realistic effects so it should be a vacation in comparison to what I've been trying to do! -- Russ


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Hydrostat on July 19, 2016, 01:08:18 PM
Russ,

I wouldn't judge this as a failure. But when I read about Bill's experience with natural wood I asked what was going to happen to the paper's appearance in a longer timespan. Paper tends to yellow and it doesn't matter (as far as I know) if there's daylight exposure to it or not. How would this change the stained boards' appearance? The approach to use real wood, bleeched in the sun is as interesting as difficult, because every cut will bring back the former tone. Isn't there a biologist or chemist amongst us who can explain what happens to the wood when it is fading to grey? Seems to be rather a process of losing some feature than adding one (which staining is). Maybe there's a way for an artificial aging process?

Cheers,
Volker


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on July 25, 2016, 05:39:13 PM
I have seen no apparent deterioration or color change in paint stained paper and, so far, inkjet printed paper. The reason seems to be a deliberate absence of acid and other chemicals that cause problems. But I also have neither fluorescent nor much sunlight in my model room.

Anyhow, here's an interesting comparison. This photo is the final version of the paper structure.

Russ


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on July 25, 2016, 05:53:51 PM
And here is the same model I just finished building from wood and photographing in the same light as the image above. I colored each board with SilverWood and applied powdered pastel chalk to kill the translucent "furniture finish" quality stains create. (I ripped out the door after I saw the photo!)

To my eyes (and my wife's), neither model's siding really looks "better". Neither accurately approximates weathered wood on a full size structure although each has strengths and weaknesses. Also, while I've long thought 1:32 scale was large enough to look good in macro photography, I've changed my mind. Every imperfection in texture, color, construction, and anything else is just as apparent on the wood building as the paper (including fuzz and other flaws you guys have mentioned). Maybe some of you have wisdom you might share.

Russ


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Ray Dunakin on July 25, 2016, 11:32:10 PM
For what it's worth, I think the paper one looks better than the wood with Silverwood stain.


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Hydrostat on July 26, 2016, 08:29:51 AM
It's so hard to say, which one is 'better'. Both are good. Maybe the tone of the wooden one looks a bit more like sun bleeched wood than the rather yellowish tone of the paper version, but that may be a difference in white balance, too. The paper one for sure has better/more interesting tonal variation than the wooden one. The texture of the real wood is a bit more interesting like boards cut from a trunk's outer area (which for sure is difficult to replicate on paper), but close to being out of scale, isn't it? Could you maybe take a side by side picture of both items?
About macro photography: Close ups of dusty/stony modeled ground mostly looks strange because most types of rock/sands are somewhat translucent. That doeesn't help, but yes, I think each scale needs its own distance for photography.

Volker


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on July 26, 2016, 06:00:55 PM
Okay, here's a shot (in the shade) of both flats. The only modification was to remove the distracting background. Maybe the color and contrast are a little more accurate than the previous photos although, indoors, they seem more similar than the image might suggest.

I still think neither comes close enough to the appearance of full size real weathered wood and their deficiencies make them about equal. The real wood has far too much contrast (because its dense and porous areas absorb stain unequally) and the only way to adjust that might be to apply washes of paint. That might also have negative side effects. SilverWood pretty well emulates the color of bleached old wood but lacks its opacity.

Honestly, neither result seems of contest quality and I don't know what to change. For example, maybe I used the wrong kind of wood (it's not bass).

As I've mentioned, my experiments over the past couple of months have been extremely interesting. Even so, I'm disappointed and welcome your input.

Russ


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Hydrostat on July 27, 2016, 12:57:01 AM
Russ,
you mentioned a fence with an appearance you'd try to approach. Take apicture of it in same lighting and the same perspective/scale distance as the models and again compare the three pictures. Concerning silverwood and opacity: does any clear matte varnish help? Or rubbing white/greyish pigments into the surface? I didn't try both ...
By the way:your last picture shows that your results in paper and wood are much more similarly colored.
Volker


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on July 27, 2016, 12:11:00 PM
I rubbed gray and white pastel powder into the wood, Volker. It helps a little but does not tone down the color contrast enough. I plan to spray a matte clear coat on the front wall after I rebuild the door.

Wood is a little quicker and easier to stain and assemble, and much less fragile to work with than paper but, in this case, paper comes a little closer to the appearance of my back fence.

Russ


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Royce on September 02, 2016, 08:44:01 PM
Far be it for me to critique but if you're going to rebuild the door the stiles (vertical pieces on the outside edges of the door) should be continuous.

And I think you have achieved a beautiful representation of aged (sun bleached (oxidized)) wood in your last incarnation.  What is appealing to me, or my eye, is variation.  ANY variation.  Your (my) eye flows from variation to variation in a pleasing way on your last incarnation.  Very well done ! 

NB  I would think that obtaining this variation would be very difficult with paper - which is by nature homogeneous.  vs wood - which has natural variability which would work to your advantage.

royce


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: mabloodhound on September 04, 2016, 08:40:01 AM
I like the silver color of the wood model buy the grain variation takes away from the overall effect.
The paper model if much more to my liking for the shading and lack of grain if only the color were more akin to the wood model.
Perhaps try some basswood to see if that makes a difference.  Even balsa would be worth a try.
At least we can learn from your trials.
 8)


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Bill Gill on September 04, 2016, 10:36:40 AM
Russ, You've built with wood, you've built with paper, now try clay! Look through these examples for inspiration :) http://christopherdavidwhite.com/index.php/portfolio/sculpture


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on September 10, 2016, 04:45:57 PM
I'm still fooling around with the shack. So far I like the original card structure better than the one I made from mystery wood (not basswood). Yesterday I found some cardstock I had printed eight years ago and, while it isn't exactly the weathered wood I had in mind, I built up a small wall section and photographed all three examples.

Starting from the left are 1.) stained card, 2.) printed card, and 3.) mystery wood I stained with acrylic gray.

The experiment will continue with stained basswood and different printed cardstock, this time with knots (if I can unclog my dormant inkjet printer).

Russ


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on October 03, 2016, 04:05:05 PM
Okay, this is my third attempt at building a 1:32 shack and making it look like REAL weathered cedar wood. I finally achieved what I've been trying to accomplish. -- Russ


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Ray Dunakin on October 03, 2016, 10:58:32 PM
Yes!!!  THAT looks real! Congrats, your perseverance has certainly paid off!


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: lab-dad on October 04, 2016, 05:56:47 AM
'bout friggin' time!  ;)
Glad you didnt give up!
-Mj


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Bill Gill on October 04, 2016, 06:30:05 AM
OK! That looks satisfactory.

Is it a photographic process that gave all the detailed knots and whatnots? Please share your technique.


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: TRAINS1941 on October 04, 2016, 06:38:39 AM
Russ that looks really nice.

You are going to do the rest of the building right?

Jerry


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on October 04, 2016, 12:00:56 PM
Thanks, guys. Yes, I finally had to resort to photography. All attempts at creating miniature swirls, grain lines, knots, and coloration in miniature (after three months of trying) ended up as impressionistic approximations. I found a photo of the boards I wanted online and used Photoshop to weather them. (They started out a reddish-brown color.) I scaled them down to a ten scale inch width and used a pro quality inkjet photo printer to output the artwork on 0.012-inch thick art paper of the proper finish and texture.

Then I laminated the paper onto heavier cardstock, cut out the boards and bats, and built up the shack. It will be a reduced depth structure and will sit on the back corner of an 8" square base. The left wall is 2 inches deep and the right 1 inch. The window and roof are the next little projects.

I now have an entire junk box of weathered wood and stained/painted card that just didn't make the grade -- three months' work -- as well as two other 1:32 shacks (each without a roof and window), one of card, the other of wood.

There now is no question: I am clinically insane.

Russ


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: EZnKY on October 04, 2016, 04:57:33 PM
Well I love it!
The insanity is the point...


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Sami on October 09, 2016, 12:45:24 AM
The tries are decisive. Good job !


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: TRAINS1941 on October 10, 2016, 10:36:01 AM

I now have an entire junk box of weathered wood and stained/painted card that just didn't make the grade -- three months' work -- as well as two other 1:32 shacks (each without a roof and window), one of card, the other of wood.

There now is no question: I am clinically insane.

Russ

Maybe you should go back to publishing something you were very good at if not exceptional!!

Jerry


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Lawton Maner on October 10, 2016, 11:51:53 AM
Insanity is the act of doing something repeatedly and expecting different results. ;D


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Hydrostat on October 11, 2016, 12:08:55 PM
Russ,

that looks good to me. Did you take the picture in another light constellation? It looks a bit overexposed and the shadows seem to be much harder than in the previous pictures. Well, printed stock: Why don't you dare to try to paint some wood like that? Might work ...

And I second what Jerry said  :D.

Cheers,
Volker


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on October 11, 2016, 12:37:20 PM
It's just a quick iPhone shot, outdoors, late afternoon. That would account for the contrast.

As for painting, I spent two months trying to get decent results and failed. Over time I have learned I am better with computers than with a paintbrush, miniature table saw, machine tools, or a high level of artistry.

Russ


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Hydrostat on October 11, 2016, 01:41:37 PM
If it looks the part I can't see anything wrong in using whatever technique there's available or someone is good at. What I thought about painting was indees imitating one special board. My only concern about the prints is color fading after some time. But I'm afraid I'm a bit old school at that and ink qualities and especially UV-resistant varnishes have improved ever since. I'd really like to see some more pictures taken in a less harsh light.

Cheers,
Volker


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Bill Gill on October 11, 2016, 03:56:30 PM
I agree, the results are the goal, not the method. And your results look very good. But I too wonder about the lightfastness of the inks in general. Some Epson inks are listed as archival, others????

Here's recent research on archival properties of inks:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251484589_Light_Fastness_of_Pigment-based_and_Dye-based_Inkjet_Inks

Here is an Amazon listing for archival ink refills for Canon, Epson and HP printers
https://www.amazon.com/Archival-Ink-USA-Systems-Printers/dp/B004CCO8T6


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on October 12, 2016, 01:18:13 AM
I've finished everything except the roof so I'll take a couple of new photos with better lighting.

As for the inks, they are Epson's best photo inks and should last at least 100 years. I keep my models away from sunlight and fluorescent bulbs. So far my photos, including those I use for model artwork, have outlasted some stains!

Just for fun, here is one wall of a 1:48 scale caboose I've designed. It's printed card and I'm about to see whether the parts actually fit together.

Russ


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Bill Gill on October 12, 2016, 05:25:59 AM
Russ, I like the beaded car siding you made for the caboose. Hope it all fits together.


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Barney on October 12, 2016, 10:27:25 AM
Quite adequate !
Barney


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Ray Dunakin on October 12, 2016, 08:57:03 PM
Satisfactory!


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: fspg2 on October 12, 2016, 11:48:50 PM
I enjoy that!


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on October 18, 2016, 06:28:21 PM
I have finished the shack. It will sit in a corner of the diorama so the side walls are very short. This post and the next three show the structure. It is entirely paper and card from my own artwork. -- Russ


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on October 18, 2016, 06:29:09 PM
Another view.


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on October 18, 2016, 06:29:55 PM
Here is the front.


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on October 18, 2016, 06:30:37 PM
And the roof. It looks as though some strange color artifacts occurred during the upload. -- Russ


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: 5thwheel on October 18, 2016, 11:07:20 PM
LIKE!


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Ray Dunakin on October 19, 2016, 02:14:13 AM
Wow, that is amazing!! 


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Design-HSB on October 19, 2016, 04:04:12 AM
Hello Russ, absolutely upper class the forum according to Finescale.


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: Bill Gill on October 19, 2016, 05:47:25 AM
Came out very well. Were the shingles individually cut from photo prints of shingles or of other wood and cut to shingle sizes?


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: lab-dad on October 19, 2016, 06:17:04 AM
Not bad, but the white edges of the cut shingles are a giveaway.
Coloring the edges would be a real PITA though.....
Whatever the artifacts are they seem to work.
Glad you are modeling & sharing.
-Mj


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on October 19, 2016, 12:21:25 PM
Actually, I stained the cut edges of the shingles and every other part of the model. (Yes, every edge.) Parts with a very thin (scale) cross section (including wood) tend to reflect light differently than a thick one so the edge may look bright from some angles even after you stain it. Also, the strong JPEG compression of the photos didn't help at all. In the 63 megabyte full resolution TIFF images the shingle edges are the same color as the tops.

It took much more time to compress the images to fit this forum's archaic requirements than it did to set up, photograph, sharpen, and crop the photos!

I created the shingle artwork from a highly modified photo of a weathered board wall, printed it on the same paper as the boards and bats, and used a knife and scissors to create shingle strips. If anybody wants a copy, please send me a note.

Russ


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: mabloodhound on October 20, 2016, 07:33:31 AM
As great as the building looks, I am really impressed at the caboose side and the depth of field you got with that red color.
I look forward to when you get that one together.
 8)


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on October 20, 2016, 12:51:02 PM
Thanks, Dave. The On3 caboose is a much more complex model than the shack and will take a while to build. I'll post updates from time to time in a new thread. -- Russ


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on January 19, 2017, 02:14:08 AM
I finally cranked out a water pump drawing for the 1:32 shack diorama. Might be too delicate to 3-D print but I'm sure someone with more experience will have a comment. -- Russ


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: lab-dad on January 20, 2017, 07:23:24 AM
Can you send me the file?
-Marty


Title: Re: 1:32 Diorama
Post by: finescalerr on January 20, 2017, 01:13:35 PM
Sure. -- Russ