Westlake Publishing Forums
September 19, 2019, 01:18:42 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:     REGARDING MEMBERSHIP ON THIS FORUM: Due to spam, our server has disabled the forum software to gain membership. The only way to become a new member is for you to send me a private e-mail with your preferred screen name (we prefer you use your real name, or some variant there-of), and email adress you would like to have associated with the account.  -- Send the information to:  Russ at finescalerr@msn.com
 
   Home   Help Search Login  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6
  Print  
Author Topic: Texture: Another Attempt At Replicating Wood With Paper  (Read 26748 times)
finescalerr
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5442


« Reply #15 on: October 23, 2009, 02:25:50 AM »

Jacq, I forgot to scribe those particular spots. That is why they lack depth and definition. If the peels on the lower part of the wall work for you, then the technique is a success.

Marc, I agree with your assessment of the "combination" artwork with peeling paint on worn whitewash. The peels were just a quick experimental afterthought. But I could use some assistance with the locations and arrangement of where the peels should be. I have a bunch of photos but can't seem to see much logic to the peels; they seem random. If I am baffled, I bet some of the others here are confused, too.

There should be no pink or blue in the artwork. If it actually exists on the paper, then it is a by-product of how the printer tries to emulate shades of gray. I can assure you I desaturated the artwork completely. (Based on my photos of actual worn whitewash, you may be correct in suggesting at least some of it would be almost as quick with paints or stains.)

As for the amount of time it takes me to prepare a wall, it is minimal compared to distressing, staining, applying weathering powders, painting and removing paint, etc. I am just very slow and inconsistent at that kind of stuff even though sometimes the results turn out well. I figure building and finishing a paper structure requres somewhere between half and a third the time it would take me to do the same thing in wood.

But that's not the main reason why I've pursued this technique. It has simply been a challenge that nobody else seems to find interesting. I've been like a bulldog because I can't believe contest quality results are impossible to develop. On the other hand it is equally possible I have lost my cotton pickin' mind ....

Russ
Logged
Ken Hamilton
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 667



« Reply #16 on: October 23, 2009, 05:56:33 AM »

On the other hand it is equally possible I have lost my cotton pickin' mind ....
Russ

(...You said it - not US)
Logged

mobilgas
Guest
« Reply #17 on: October 23, 2009, 09:33:51 AM »

  Russ,     i dont get it?? why do all that work on real wood...and copy and put it on paper? and your trying to get contest quality results this way. So if im in a contest room somewere, i will be fooled in thinking that its not paper.  Shocked  Craig
Logged
finescalerr
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5442


« Reply #18 on: October 23, 2009, 01:42:27 PM »

Craig, I did NO work on real wood. I simply scanned some raw stripwood, doodled with the scan in Photoshop, and saved a photo I could easily modify, print, and apply to thousands of potential projects. I add three dimensions to the photos by scribing and cutting and layering.

Somehow I get the feeling that some of you have missed the entire point of this exercise. Apparently the combination of computers and paper for modeling a variety of textures is just too uncoventional, intimidating, or overwhelming for some traditional railroad guys to grasp.

And then there's that problem of perception I referred to: If it does not look enough like other MODELS you have seen, then it looks "wrong". That brings us back to the problem of caricature: Overstated grain, overstated weathering, "cute" additions like chains and antlers, and the thought process of, "Fred won a prize because the weathering on his stripwood looks like cake frosting. Therefore I should weather my wood with cake frosting, too." So the new model becomes somebody's idea of how Fred's model looks. Only it looks a lot worse.

Texturing and weathering requires a lot of time and tedium even though it can be the most creative part of modeling. Painted wood is not always the best material to use in 1:48 scale and smaller to represent painted wood because of its over scale grain, fuzz, and the other problems I have mentioned. Styrene has become the default alternative but weathering it realistically can be hit or miss and takes a long time. So I am experimenting with building models from photographs of trim, siding, roofing, etc. (including special weathering effects) to see whether, in some ways, that might provide a desirable alternative.

Get it?

Russ
Logged
jacq01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1110



« Reply #19 on: October 23, 2009, 01:49:42 PM »


  Russ,

  the other parts of the photo do look very convincing. It is ( as usual) a matter of consequentely carrrying out the job started.
  This is foreground material and I definetely will built a couple of buildings with this.

  Jacq
Logged

put brain in gear before putting mouth in action.
never underestimate the stupidity of idiots
I am what I remember.
marc_reusser
Curmudgeon
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4504



WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 23, 2009, 02:54:17 PM »

Quote
Somehow I get the feeling that some of you have missed the entire point of this exercise. Apparently the combination of computers and paper for modeling a variety of textures is just too uncoventional, intimidating, or overwhelming for some traditional railroad guys to grasp.


...touchy, touchy....simmer down there sonny Wink


Not at all what anyone is implying......we are saying it is a worthwhile effort, and definitely has its uses right up alongside real wood.....but for some of us it may not be the material of choice, as we actually enjoy the manual process (and random or at times uncontrollable results) of staining/weathering and painting....especially if we (OK...I).....would not get, what I consider a significant enough time savings.....in the scope of the overall finished model. 

.....compare it in concept to me buying a plaster or plastic brick wall casting (which is for this purpose sim to computer generated paper wood)......and me carving my own from foam or plaster.......there's just a nice sense of adventur/ejoyment and acccomplishment in the latter.  That does not mean one is wrong or worse than the other....it's just a different approach...each has it's merits and detractions.


In the end using your method, a large part of the creation of a structure with printed paper becomes, IMO, much more of a technical/mechanical excercise (IE. printing, laminating, cutting, folding) than a creative excerscise....nothing wrong there.....it's also much a "cleaner" working method/system (IE mess on the workbench and tools required.)

The one issue that has not been addressed in your process is the overall weathering, the dirt, grime, duts, runs and small details that unify a structure and plant it in it's scene......this is not something that can easily/readily be done on the PC/print.....it is still something that needs to be manually done one the structure is complete.....so ther is still paint and pigment work required.....and just rubbing pastels on will not really cut it for this.

Another thing that is  also time consuming, is coming in and doing all the required edge touch-up on structures where the paint finish is not white.....making sure the paint color matches the print.

...SO...while a great process and, wonderful results possible.......I don't think you are realistically looking at/accepting the whole scope of work.....especially if you want to analyze this in the context of "contest level" compatible.


Marc
« Last Edit: October 23, 2009, 03:00:04 PM by marc_reusser » Logged

I am an unreliable witness to my own existence.

In the corners of my mind there is a circus....

M-Works
finescalerr
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5442


« Reply #21 on: October 24, 2009, 02:25:56 AM »

Marc, I'm not trying to suggest everybody jump on the paper bandwagon. I'm just trying to explain why I have kept at it. But some responses, some questions, and some lack of response have suggested it's just not an area of much interest to many modelers. Your post pretty much sums up why even though I find the reasons somewhat analogous to using a chisel when CNC is available.

What I really needed you to answer was the question from my previous post: Where does peeling paint tend to occur and in what patterns? Despite spending hours trying to figure out a logical answer (lfor example, at the bottom of a structure, on the lower part of a board, and areas that get both a lot of water followed by a lot of sun, I see mostly random patches of peeled paint. Please elucidate.

Russ
Logged
chester
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 761


« Reply #22 on: October 24, 2009, 07:53:40 AM »

Some time ago I thought I might turn to paper as a material for structures. My problem with paper is that a lot of additional time is needed to reinforce structures. Other than that it seems to be a material one can do a lot with. The following is Manila with Manila strips for claps. Scale is 1/87.

Logged

RoughboyModelworks
Guest
« Reply #23 on: October 24, 2009, 09:27:06 AM »

Where does peeling paint tend to occur and in what patterns? Despite spending hours trying to figure out a logical answer (lfor example, at the bottom of a structure, on the lower part of a board, and areas that get both a lot of water followed by a lot of sun, I see mostly random patches of peeled paint. Please elucidate.
Russ

Russ:

Paint starts to peel because of inadequate adhesion to the supporting surface which can be due to any number of reasons from use of improper paint, poor preparation or sloppy application. Paint will also not stick to end grain (neither will glue), so that is why knots will always reappear if not properly prepped before painting. Once peeling starts, then environmental elements and wear come into play and will generally accelerate the process. It will only peal though where it didn't stick properly in the first place. It is always random, there is no pattern. My neighbor's picket fence is a perfect example and when things settle down here a bit, I'll take and post some pics, been meaning to for some time anyway before it falls down completely or Chuck takes it away  Wink

Paul

Logged
Nurser
Guest
« Reply #24 on: October 24, 2009, 09:51:38 AM »

OK, I've been tempted back.  Oh Lordy, I hope I don't regret this<G>
Russ, even though I'm no lover of computerised modelmaking, I must say, I like your idea, providing it is the early stages of a hand finished object.
Also, speaking fior the English, we have had a tradition of working with cardboard for decades. I believe you call it cardstock Stateside.  It has always been the prefered substance for we hard up Brits since the War and once you get a liking for it, it becomes the default.  If you could see what George Stokes, my modelling hero, could do with some Bristol board and paper you'd be amazed.  He was an artist, first and foremost and his work is still the standard we all struggle to reach.
I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't have a shot at what he could do with a computer if he'd had a chance (he died back in the early 80s)
Even I am interested in your methods.  I'd have a shot myself, but the printer never does what I want , the size I want and the ink is SO expensive, but to save time on a job which is not a competition model, such as my son's slot racing track it could save a lot of time better spent on some seriously hand made cars, replicas of old hillclimb specials etc, that HAVE to be hand made , as were the originals.

I just thought I'd offer that as a distant support from a whole country where any scenic modeller over about 40 would naturally reach for the cardboard/cardstock/papers before anything else.
I should say I'm also a fan of card carcassed, plastic brick covered buildings, providing the brick bond is observed correctly and the corners/reveals are properly done.  I have also seen some wonderfully convincing models using printed brick papers, although it is a lot more fiddly making sure the corners and reveals are nicely done.

I must, I suppose, admit that for those younger, brought up in a world of easy come-easy go and computers everywhere, it must be tempting to use them to do the tedious stuff. I still think it a shame, but have to put up with it I suppose.
I won't do it myself, despite being a pretty dab hand at Photoshop.  It makes my eyes sting!!
But I am genuinely interested in your aproach, Russ.  Don't give up.
I suppose I should have read all the preceeding stuff, but I'm in a bit of a rush today.  I have to take my dear wife and daughter to my future daughter-in-law's hen night!
My son and I will be making driver figures for his slot cars...without the paint peeling, I hope.
Cheers all,
Martin

Thanks to frank Smart for the link.
Blog:- http://oddsoracle.blogspot.com
Logged
finescalerr
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5442


« Reply #25 on: October 24, 2009, 01:30:16 PM »

Thank you for the information, Paul. So "random" is indeed the key to paint peels as my analysis suggests. At least I wasn't too far off base.

Martin, I know the British have been building with card for decades. Everyone refers to the Pendon Museum for excellent examples but the photos from the Pendon website leave much to be desired. I have seen outstanding paper modeling of vehicles and some ships and planes but most of what I have seen of structures is ghastly. Yet I am all but certain that somewhere modelers already have finished the wheel I am trying to reinvent.

Your surmise about the printed artwork being a starting point is correct. As Marc pointed out above, a finished model almost always needs some kind of washes or sprays or dusting to provide cohesion.

Chester, I never would have guessed you built that structure from paper in a million years. Excellent modeling. (I cheat by using my artwork as "wallpaper" over, most recently, styrene. No problem with reinforcement there!)

Russ
Logged
chester
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 761


« Reply #26 on: October 25, 2009, 08:16:03 AM »

Thanks Russ, I have the Chuck Doan method of peeling paint to thank for the finish. Except for the pedestrian door (Tichy) this structure is all paper as well.

Logged

Nurser
Guest
« Reply #27 on: October 25, 2009, 10:34:59 AM »

Russ, I've never looked at Pendon's website, but I have been to the museum in person and I can assure you there is nothing ghastly about and many have built their models based on Roye's methods and those of the subsequent standard bearers for the museum and wider modelling diaspera.  Roye England's original work is still the standard by which all other small scale modelmaking is measured.  When a man has spent 7 weeks furnishing one room, you know it has to be a bit special.  Right down to the socks drying by the stove.  The paintings on the walls were actually hand painted in oils!  Each brick was a seperately glued on item, 3mm long by 1mm high.  The brick bond was, naturally perfect.  Each brick was then individually painted.
The new brigade there are trying to continue that standard. I doubt if they can, but what I've seen of their work certainly comes close to Roye England's work.

I first won a cup for cottage modelling when I was 14.  Those were pebble dashed using fine sand and some were flint dashed using maw seed.  Each roof slate is seperate.  They had survived until a few years ago as far as I know.
They were sealed with shellac as per John H. Ahern's seminal work on the subject, "Miniature Building Construction", my "bible" all my scenic modelmaking life.
Plastics being relatively recent, I'm left wondering what Americans have been using as an alternative all these years.  Wood, where the subject is wooden but what of brick, stone and stucco?

Cheers,
Martin
Logged
Nurser
Guest
« Reply #28 on: October 25, 2009, 10:50:25 AM »

Russ, I notice you mentioned poor quality wood these days.  May I suggest you try steamed pear?
I've used it for all scales down to 1/76th and it is very convincing since it has a very hard, fine grain with no appreciative figure.  I should think suppliers of model ship building materials would have it in stock.
I have often combined it with card buildings, for things like frames and lintels or the more obvious areas requiring timber parts.
I have also used it in veneer form for lapstrake fences.
For bracing card buildings I use spruce.  Light and stiff and cheap to buy.
Cheers,
Martin
Logged
marc_reusser
Curmudgeon
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4504



WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 26, 2009, 04:13:23 AM »

More weathered than what you are after, and what you were trying to achieve.....but it works well to emphasize a point on peeling and fading......note that despite it's "randomness" the fading, peeling and other wear actually DO have/develop patterns.....sun hits some areas more than others, moisture affects areas and sides of a building in different ways (some of this even depends on what rooms/uses lie inside)...water runs down walls and splatters up from the ground or drips from trees in certain patterns.....all of these despite appearing random up close....form patterns when looked at as a whole........and it is in these patterns..or the appearance of them, that I feel will continue to be a bugaboo in the computer printed wood......the only way around this is to pre layout and design the weathering for each wall/side/piece of a specific building.




Marc

Logged

I am an unreliable witness to my own existence.

In the corners of my mind there is a circus....

M-Works
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!