I may have complained here that I couldn't get paper to look right but, over the weekend and yesterday I tried a little experiment. Just for a lark I printed white siding on some textured, flat finish sketch paper I bought last year at Michaels. I didn't think it would work with the inkjet but it did.
I distressed the printed paper with a wire brush. Surprisingly the paper did not tear or fuzz. The result was as close to "scale" grain as is possible.
Two photos show a section of 1:48 clapboard siding and trim I built up with laminated strips of the sketch paper. The flaky stuff in the super macro shot is pastel chalk and maybe a few bits of styrene dust. Even with a double magnifying glass I can't see that stuff at my workbench; it's too small. But I went back and brushed it off anyway.
The photo with the peeling paint is a section of a wall panel with scribed six inch boards. No chalk or noticeable dust on it.
I tried to make the photos super sharp with a little more contrast than usual to show the texture.
What do you think?
Russ
Here is an extreme macro close up of that clapboard section.
Russ
Finally, here is a section of 6 inch scribed siding with peeling paint.
Please comment on whether this possibly final attempt at paper artwork is up to a high enough standard. And please judge it on its own merits without a colored perception of what you are used to seeing. In other words, just because you are used to seeing grain and texture in small scale wooden models without using a magnifying glass doesn't necessarily mean they should actually look that way! The reasons I have kept trying to get paper to equal the appearance of wood are:
The quality of commercial stripwood has become very disappointing (can't sand off all the fuzz, coarse and blotchy grain, too much texture for smaller scales under close scrutiny).
I want to develop a quick, repeatable, consistent way to finish models. (Chuck Doan's method is pretty consistent but it ain't quick and works better for scales larger than 1:48.)
Okay. That's the background info. Now fire away!
Russ
Looks great to me, only the extreme macro shot gives it away as paper.
Quote from: finescalerr on October 21, 2009, 08:04:27 PM
What do you think?
In the pictures, it looks really good. It looks no-nonsense, no caricature. I applaude that!
But as always when I see modelling including pictures of the real thing I feel that it is impossible to give a fair judgement without seeing the model in person.
I do not doubt for one second that the samples shown here are way better than the non-relief pictures of weathered siding and corrugated metal roofing that are sold as modelling materials today. But the problem is that those materials (that I loathe on principle, I must admit) looks great in pictures. And why shouldn´t they, Its the real thing!
But what when you have the model lighted in a way that do not exactly matches the lighting used when taking the pictures of the old wall/roof? What when this is combined with "real" modelling materials?
I understand that this might not be an issue with your approach, but again, seeing in person is beliving!
Hey Russ,
I think it looks good...
Now how exactly did you do this?..
(did you print a darker grain then paint it white?)
Russ quote: Just for a lark I printed white siding on some textured, flat finish sketch paper. (how do you print white siding?)
Mike
Havard, I'm not sure whether you are asking whether the photos show actual three-dimensional boards. If so, the answer is yes -- no "fool the eye" artwork.
Mike, here is the process in brief:
1. Scan actual boards, modify and enhance the photo in Photoshop, print on white paper with an inkjet photo printer. When I say "white" boards, obviously they are not entirely white; in the example I photographed there is some grayish grain in the photo (worn whitewash) but, for painted boards, that shouldn't be there because paint is opaque. The artwork also includes joint lines where the boards meet but they are nowhere as pronounced as in the third photo. Shadows from the lighting make them look darker.
2. The paint peels are part of the artwork. I added them as an afterthought on a separate layer. I found a photo of boards with peeling paint and created a "mask" from it. I then copied only the peeled areas onto my board artwork, positioned them as appropriately as possible, and filled them with a weathered wood color. The result is what you see.
3. Distress the printed artwork with a wire brush. Use a scribing tool to draw in deeper grain. Laminate the artwork onto a Strathmore Bristol sub-wall using 3M Super 99 spray adhesive. Scribe board joints or cut individual board strips. Shiplap siding requires scribed joints. Clapboards are from individual boards.
4. Build up a clapboard wall board by board just as you would using wood. Use scribed siding where you would use either scribed wood or styrene.
No paint at all but some highlights of powdered pastel chalks.
Russ
Heck, I can't even tell it's paper in the MACRO shot. This definitely adds a more realistic texture to smaller scale models. Russ, how much of the visible texture is from printing and how much is from the scuffed-up surface?
Having to ask that question at all indicates the technique works....
I LIKE it.
Russ
I think you have a winner there. I like it. And glad you kept after it until you got it to turn out the way you wanted it to. Excellent job.
Jerry
Russ,
only the last close up is giving it away. These boards give a very realistic impression.
Applying the peeling paint realistic will remain a challenge, especially at those places where flakes are showing.
I will give this definetely a go when doing some of the buildings on the sawmill diorama.
Presently I am drawing the metal roofframes of the boiler house, which most probably wil be made from paper as stryrene is not stable enough.
Jacq
Hey Russ,
Thanks for sharing this... Looks like it is definetly a process worth trying.
Mike
Ken, none of the texture is from printing. It is all "real" 3-D texture from the wire brush or the scribing tool, just as you would apply to styrene or wood.
Jacq, please explain where the peeled paint fails to convince you. Maybe there is still a way to improve it.
Russ
Very nice, the effect is quite realistic in the first two photos. I too however don't feel that the photo of the peeling paint looks quite right. The boards that do have peeled paint look good but the others are perhaps a little too pristine. So the peeled paint effect may work better if the entire wall was peeling. Thanks for sharing this technique.
As noted on TNGS, the whole thing looks good and beliveable, and will work good for a model.....except for the artwork...Like Chester mentioned the peel locations and arrangement/occurance seem to have nothing to do with the boards and how they typically weather (regrdless of if it is from a real image...it was a bad choice, and it doesn't show/adapt well in this case). I would also not mix the faded/multi-color boards with the peel technique...pick one or the other...or at the very least play down (and desaturate) the fading/discoloration. White tends to fade to a lighter chalky white...or a yellowed or greyed shade...not blue-ish and pink-ish.
I think with the right final detailing and weathering it would work very well as a foreground model......and though I know what you are aiming at, by the time/effort it took me to print, laminate (& wrap under at colored siding), cut, scribe/impress the pieces, add details...and then still need to add some weathering to "unify the structure...despite how much I like the idea of paper, I personally would probably just go with wood or styrene (or even painted paper)...especially for a building exterior......as it is at most only 40% more work....however for any interior work I would use it in a heartbeat as it would be much easier and expedient.
M
The peeling effect in the middle of the last picture is imo lacking the ( suggestion of) paint layer depth and sharp (flaky) separation between area's with remaining paint and are's where paint has dissappeared.
All is very very convincing till I saw these spots on the last photo.
Jacq
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
Quote from: finescalerr on October 23, 2009, 01:25:50 AM
On the other hand it is equally possible I have lost my cotton pickin' mind ....
Russ
(...You said it - not US)
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. :o Craig
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
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
QuoteSomehow 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 ;)
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
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
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.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi191.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz79%2Fchesterf%2Fin%2520progress%2Ftruck2s.jpg&hash=8c9acae9782f851c49bad666318a384e65efcbe9)
Quote from: finescalerr on October 24, 2009, 01:25:56 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 ;)
Paul
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
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
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.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi191.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz79%2Fchesterf%2Fdio%2520build%2Fc7.jpg&hash=db5cfe559ec6140d9c82c8104cba52789f4f1855)
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
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
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.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3128%2F3139052996_e5e7ceb1c3_b.jpg&hash=0681c0cb379814f1b05fa6c5911dc58a19269d8c)
Marc
Chester, how do you apply the Doan weathering method to paper?
Martin, I hope you didn't interpret my disappointment with Pendon's photos as disappointment with the models. On the contrary, I want to see much better photos of what they have built there. As for pear wood, the only problem I have is the need to cut it myself since it is unavailable here as stripwood.
Marc, THAT's what I needed. Thanks.
At yesterday's meet, three or four of us studied the occurrence of peeling paint (prompted by your comments here). I already had observed that paint peels more in areas that get a combination of moisture and more sunlight, that areas prone to peeling would be nearer to the bottom of a building (water splash) or places where water runs down the side of a wall.
Please note that my peeling paint patches are add-ons. When I use paper for a model, I start by importing a CAD drawing into Photoshop. The next layer is the basic board artwork, the next layer would consist of special effects (such as paint peels). I remove the door and window openings from the siding, then flatten the image, then print. I should do a step-by-step here to illustrate. I'll try to put one up this week.
This is becoming an education thread on weathering and techniques. Thanks, everyone.
Russ
As I understand it, and I may need to be corrected, the surface to be peeled is colored for a weathered wood look. In the case of the paper structures shown, I simply painted them with an acrylic dark gray, essentially sealing them. Then brushed with turp and after allowing the turp to become tacky, painted with an acrylic finish coat. When dry, masking tape was used to remove the top coat where desired. This may not be exactly what Chuck does but it was at least inspired by his similar technique. Am I way off base in this interpretation?
And in following the discussion with regard to how peeling actually appears I'd like to point out that often the weather affecting the structure's exterior is not always the only cause. In many cases moisture escaping from a buildings interior can often be the major contributor to it's paint peeling particularly if the structure is a heated one. I have seen moisture from inside literally push the paint off a building. It can do considerable damage to certain kinds of roofs as well.
Russ, I'll ask my American chums if they know of a supply of pear that can be stripped up further with hand tools or the excellent but cheap little Microcraft circular saw.
Since a big supplier of pear is Canada, I would think we can find you some. I would send you a bit but at present the overgrown paperboys who masquerade as postmen in this country have decided to hold us all to ransom and the mail just ain't gittn' through!
Cheers,
Martin
Thank you, Martin, but as a clarinetist, it seems prudent to keep my fingers away from any kind of power saw; I don't own one for that reason.
And now, as I promised, a little step-by-step to show how you could do most weathering to a structure with a paper veneer prior even to printing:
Step 1. Import your plan into a photo editing program.
Step 2. Create a new layer and import siding artwork. In this case I am using the easiest to model, simple six inch planks.
Step 3. Reduce the opacity of the siding layer so you can align it with the drawing.
Step 4. Select and delete the siding from the window opening. In this case I wanted to show what you would remove if you were using clapboard siding -- everything up to the trim. If you were using shiplap or simple plank siding you would remove only the opening for the window itself because, in that case, the trim covers the siding. Bring the opacity of the siding layer back to 100-percent.
Step 5. At first glance there may be little difference but, if you look closely, you will see I slightly desaturated some boards, especially the two at the bottom, and added some subtle discolored streaks below the window sill. Modelers overdo that stuff. Many structures have no streaks beneath window sills but I wanted to show what is possible.
Step 6. Final details. I created another layer so I could apply paint peels and exaggerate the board texture. (Maybe a little too much but, again, it is to show what you can do.) At this point, the wall is ready to print. Then you would scribe the joints between the boards and maybe scribe in some additional texture, laminate the resulting 3-D artwork to a sub-wall, cut out the window opening, install a real window, and enhance the built up assembly with whatever additional weathering you want (oil or lacquer stains, pastel or weathering powders, or some other unique concoction). If your siding were clapboard, you would cut the boards from the artwork and build up the wall piece by piece.
Believe me when I say it takes MUCH less time for me to create a structure in this manner than with sticks, stains, and paint. Again, I am not trying to convince anyone to adopt this method. I just want you to see how it actually comes together so you'll have a better idea of what is involved.
Russ
Nicely explained and illustrated!
How are you doing the peeling paint? Does it make any sense to put an image of unpainted weathered wood on a layer underneath the siding layer, and then erase portions of the siding layer to reveal the raw wood?
One of the things that appeals to me with this method is the availability of so many images to use as a starting point.
I don't see this as compromising our skills as modelers either. You could give each of us the same picture file to start with, and the same program on the same type of computer, and we'd each come up with a unique model. Yes it requires a different set of skills than using an airbrush, but hey, the best modelers I know use a variety of skills and techniques.
Eric Zabilka
I agree, nice SBS, thanks Russ. You are making progress.
Hey Russ,
As I said before it looks like a process worth trying... and even more so now that I have seen the SBS... great stuff
It will be interesting to see how far you can get with this. ;)
Thanks
Mike
Chuck, the biggest improvement was getting a new photo printer a year or so ago. The other areas of progress have been incremental. I still doubt I could build 1:48 scale walls with paper that would equal those of the Red Oak Garage.
Eric, my first attempt at replicating peeling paint was as you suggest. It never worked out right. I spent hours over a couple or three years and simply could not produce the random peels of old paint. I finally "captured" some peeling paint from a photo, totally reworked the image, and found it is infinitely easier and better looking simply to paste sections over my "painted" wood artwork.
At this point I would say the most important next step in replicating a credible weathered wood finish is to find a better paper. It needs to be dead flat (no sheen), have some texture (like wood and brick), reproduce a lot of detail, and have no coating that can flake off. I tried a French watercolor paper sometime back, Lanaquarelle, and it was very good. I really should order some and experiment ....
Russ
Here is a 1:48 scale wall section (so far without window mullions) I just built up. I think it may be okay for my proposed waterfront warehouse flat. It is the first floor of the right-hand wall so it has been sliced off on one side where the diorama ends.
It makes use of two kinds of paper. One is some sketch paper I found at a Michaels Craft Store and apparently they no longer carry it. The other is Strathmore Bristol vellum, softer than the Bristol plate I have been using and 0.020-inch thick. The finish is flatter with a little more texture. I can distress it with a wire brush and it does not create any fuzz. The weathering is pastel chalk.
Russ
Very nice!
Russ:
Have you ever tried any synthetic paper from YUPO (http://www.yupousa.com/paper/index.php)? Samples I've seen are very tough, water proof, print beautifully and have no apparent texture. As to how it would work for your application I don't know, but you can get a free sample pack from their site. Might be worth a try. All paper manufacturers provide sample packs. I can provide you with a list of suppliers if you like.
Also, have you tried Pearl Paint (http://www.pearlpaint.com/) yet, probably the best retail art paper supplier around, though I've only had experience with their Manhattan (a wonderland!) and Rockville locations. They do have a store in LA.
Paul
Thanks for the suggestions, Paul. I haven't heard of either source and will check them out.
For representing wood, I actually do want some texture and a dead flat finish. I recently ordered a bunch of Lanaquarrelle 90 lb. hot press paper, a tough, semi-soft paper that looks great when printed with brick or wood artwork. I think it is primarily a watercolor paper. I would use a smooth, hard finish paper for representing metal. Strathmore Bristol Plate works just fine and is readily available.
I have found the pursuit of representing various textures with paper really fascinating. To me (and I know I am in a vast minority), the idea of conceiving of something, designing it in CAD, using Photoshop to produce infinitely repeatable and modifiable artwork, and assembling a model that needs little more than a few streaks of pastel chalk to complete it is really gratifying. First, it just seems that you shouldn't be able to make it work, yet it works. And second, it requires a fraction of the time I would spend creating the model in a more traditional fashion.
To demonstrate what some people can do with paper (although I see no reason to take it that far), I have attached a couple of photos of a paper truck (with a balsa bed and side rails). And, yes, the cab and even the tires are paper.
Russ
You're welcome Russ. I'll be curious to know if you find anything useful. I'm thinking the synthetic paper might work well for representing metal. Certainly worth experimenting with at the very least.
I can't believe that truck is paper... that's astounding :o
Paul
Paul, I checked out the synthetic paper and its potential uses. It won't work for what I'm after: something I can use with an inkjet photo printer. They say the material is inompatible with inkjet or laser printers. It might be a very stable material for sub-walls. Apparently it takes paint well. But so do traditional smooth finish papers so I see no real advantage there. Besides, styrene is readily available and is easier to glue.
The whole point behind this little exercise is, in a sense, to build up a 3-D photograph. If that ends up neither looking as it should nor saving modeling time then I would happily return to wood and plastic. (I love wood.)
Thanks again for the links and the information. This forum has been an outstanding resource for ever better materials.
Russ
Well I'm sorry the synthetic paper won't work for you, but it could prove useful in another application, you never know. It prints beautifully but I wasn't aware that it was incompatible with inkjet and laser printers.
Now what you need to do is get yourself down to Pearl Paint and check out their paper stock. As I recall from their Manhattan store, it's a paper junkie's dream. I'd be very surprised if you didn't find something that would suit your needs to a T.
Paul
!cnU
You are making tremendous progress in this medium. I hope you stick with it as it will soon be a method I think we will all be using thanks to your leadership.
John
Russ, I'm just discovering the 'paper truck' you posted on Nov. 8th. It's impressive to read that tires and cabins were made out of paper. Do you know where one can find more information about the techniques involved?
Frederic, if your German and Polish are as good as your English, you may translate the pages on this site for me! I found the truck you "discovered" and a few other extraordinary models here: http://kartonbau.de (http://kartonbau.de). Most of the better models are in the "Vehicles" section. I have found the "Architecture" section extremely disappointing. Some airplanes and ships are good. Most build their models from printed kits but a few are scratchbuilt. The overall quality of the detail and finish you will find on the site is very inconsistent.
In particular, also check out these two models: http://kartonbau.de/wbb2/thread.php?threadid=17165 (http://kartonbau.de/wbb2/thread.php?threadid=17165) and http://kartonbau.de/wbb2/thread.php?threadid=20696 (http://kartonbau.de/wbb2/thread.php?threadid=20696).
Although I have looked at length, I have not found another site even half as good.
Russ
Thanks for the answer, Russ.
Unfortunately, neither my German nor my Polish are nearly as good as my English. As long as you're happy with watching models, it's ok but explanations are hard to understand (a bit easier in German, yet).
I agree with you on the great differences of quality between the models displayed on this site.
The two threads you put in evidence are indeed very impressive. I wouldn't have believed paper or cardboard models could be this detailed and realistic.
Again, thanks for sharing the link to this place.
Russ:
I can't believe those two models are made entirely from card stock... absolutely amazing work. The fellow making the locomotive even cut all the hex head bolt heads from paper... and I thought some of us were nuts... ;) The gentleman who is building the tank says that each link in the tank track is made from 25 separate pieces of card stock... :o :o It looks like all the pieces are plotted out first then laser cut... is that your understanding?
Thanks for posting the links...
Paul
Frederic, you are most welcome. My German vocabulary is very weak so I get only a general sense of what the guys are saying. But the photos really tell the story. Building such amazing models from paper seems impossible yet the proof that an expert can equal or even surpass what we can do with styrene just leaves me in awe.
I have noticed the best models are painted, not printed. And the builders saturate some parts with cyanacrylate (SuperGlue) to give them rigidity and resistance to tears or fraying. Once they have done that they can file, sand, or use a Dremel to shape or drill the (often laminated) parts. That is how they form locomotive drivers.
Paul, with few exceptions the models are entirely paper. The locomotive has some wire and balsa. The cab floor and roofing is stained balsa because nobody can make paper look as convincing as stained wood. The cargo truck's bed and side boards are balsa; the builder deviated from the kit's paper parts. Neither model has any plastic and no machined metal or castings of any kind.
I think the guy building the tank is fairly young -- late twenties or early thirties. He designed the model in CAD and had the parts laser cut, just as you surmise. Not all tread links on various models consist of 25 pieces but all do consist of at least a few and each link must be assembled individually. Building up N-B-Ws from cut and punched paper is a common practice although some guys buy laser cut pieces and bypass the individually cut nuts.
Russ
I tried a few ideas for HO scale paper clapboards over the weekend. A scratch brush can add texture which suggests raised grain and/or chipping paint. Scratch for texture, paint, then scratch again to chip away some paint. This is dark brown, then sand colored craft paint over laser engraved cardstock.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi655.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu276%2FDaveKrakow%2FClapTest2.jpg%3Ft%3D1312822935&hash=0b91f48d0691f4acc19f21d28fce24720d26be61)
I used this tool from MM.
http://www.micromark.com/Scratch-Brush,8058.html
I found it useless on wood and plastic because its too coarse. There are wire wheels in a variety of sizes and gauges which should work just as well.
Dave
If you look closely at the above photo, you'll see the brush dislodged some paper fibers to create an almost fuzzy texture. That and what might also be the laser engraving, combine to yield what seems to my eye an overstated appearance. In some spots it almost looks like the grain has shifted from horizontal to vertical. Why am I sensitive to that? Because I've experimented in the same way and was unhappy with the results.
If you compare the paper boards in Dave's photo with those of a 1:1 structure the immediate difference is that the full size board texture is almost smooth, especially if you were to view it from 87.1 feet away. So if you brush the paper at all, it must be lightly, with only one or two passes in the same direction. I pretty much gave up on that technique because it was either too destructive or too subtle.
Art papers come in a variety of textures. Some look more like wood than others. If you choose a paper for its texture and lightly scribe it with a dull needle (a somewhat slow process since you must do each board by hand) you can achieve results virtually indistinguishable from wood with no raised fibers.
Alternatively you can simply leave the paper texture alone, or almost alone, and use paints and stains to get the results you want. A combination of both is what I decided comes closest to replicating reality. The accompanying photo isn't what I'd consider a superb result (it's only better than average) but I hope it illustrates differences in textures.
I'm really glad Dave took the initiative to experiment with paper. I look forward to his, and other, future attempts to push the envelope.
Russ
Fair enough, Russ. Another experiment, slightly different method. I washed brown oil over tan acrylic, scratched before and after. Its meant to show weathered bare wood. HO scale Tichy window.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi655.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu276%2FDaveKrakow%2Fclap3.jpg%3Ft%3D1312833582&hash=d6ebf7b78ed4b3d171621743cd8060bc7e059c3b)
Dave
Both excellent attempts. The first might be improved just by using a 600 grit sand paper to remove the fuzzies and smooth it out. Just a little too uniform too, different color chalks maybe?
I like the second one better but again just a bit too uniform.
I think you should make your own windows! (Yeah, I already know you will. And they'll blow away Tichy's.).
The second attempt is better but still seems, to my eye, a little overstated even though it is HO scale. Maybe in that size you might want to give in to understatement: Try some un-textured boards and suggest the weathering with paints, stains, powders, or whatever. In HO, I've found you almost have to do that because the overall size is so small.
Russ
I think I disagree with Russ on this one ... that is an incredibly HUGE, gigantic, extreme close-up of Dave's siding and it still looks "good" (to my ignorant self) ... I suspect that in "normal" shots showing a full structure, or even some sort of "normal" close-up showing some small details along a structure, that this level of statement or overstatement of the desired detail will show well.
I think "understatement" of the grain detail, etc in HO means it would tend to disappear altogether ... and, to my eye, and keeping in mind the extreme close-up, I think you've got a degree of subtle overstatement that works well. Of course, it would help if your photo were actually in focus! ;D
PS -- Assessing these effects really draws heavily on personal preference, opinion, etc ... so just toss this in as my worthwhile or worthless opinion ... whatever! 8)
Cheers,
Dallas
Agree with the above.
Chester, I was studying some weathered clapboard while I was out walking the dog last night, and you are right about the color variations. There are more contrasts in the actual wood. A single plank can go from dark to light with a hard edge beween the shades. I'll try to replicate that with the next trials.
On the exaggerated effect, again, agreed. The back story to these experiments is they are R&D for a structure kit I currently have in design phase. This time, I'm going to roll with some of the craftsman kit trends to see what happens with my bottom line. Subtle doesn't sell. In HO scale, subtle is invisible to the majority of customers. Also the instructions must include painting instructions that are simple to follow. No more than three steps to achieve the effect, and no exotic tools or paints.
So within those specifications, this is what I've come up with. At normal viewing range, the effects are much less extreme and since the subject matter is appropriate for heavy weathering and dilapidation, the overall effect doesn't offend my sense of realism. Still a way to go, but I'm happy with where its going.
Dave
It probably looks terrific from a slight distance away. I suffer from the problem of evaluating things under a lot of magnification. Once, when I complained to Marc about how my siding looked, he told me I should back off. So I'll back off from my earlier comment, too, because Dallas is right: It's strictly personal preference. -- Russ
"This time, I'm going to roll with some of the craftsman kit trends to see what happens with my bottom line. Subtle doesn't sell. In HO scale, subtle is invisible to the majority of customers. Also the instructions must include painting instructions that are simple to follow. No more than three steps to achieve the effect, and no exotic tools or paints. "
Thats an interesting, but probably unfortunately very true, observation Dave. It kind of emphasizes the way modellers interpret what they are looking at, and often build from memory and also replicate modelling styles of others, instead of looking at the real thing for inspiration. How often have you heard the comment "I'd love to build a model like Chuck", but then the modeller makes no effort to change/improve their techniques (sorry to drag you into this Chuck, but you set the benchmark for many modellers around the world...thanks).
For approaching this topic from a commercial perspective, the finish is probably quite appropriate, and if can be achieve with less than three colouring stages even better (less steps for a customer to stuff up, and then turn around and complain about, but if they want to apply their own finishing methods, they are on their own). Important I guess to consider the general modeller who would purchase such a kit...where do they set their standards? I'd think that this finish is still higher than the general expectation. Would a finesale craftsman purchase one of these kits? Maybe, but more likely not, because they perhaps have a greater interest in the challenge of scratchbuilding it.
You can't keep everybody happy, but if this is a business decision, rather than a personal project, you have to use your head and not your heart.
Cheers,
Dan
This really is an interesting conversation. Drawing a line between reality and a perception and interpretation of reality ans also changing the scale of them to each other. your comment Russ about evaluating something under extreme magnification I think hits the nail on the head. this has implications for all sorts of other issues as well. We cannot scale nature, it is. We interpret natures effects as we design and build our models, it is part of the challenge and as we gain skills and knowledge we are able to make more and more convincing looking interpretations.
Once I had to build a model of a lumber yard that had been bulldozed by the city after an overnight fire caused by electrical wires striking the side of a sawdust hopper during an intense storm. The wires (city utility) were the subject of a multi million dollar lawsuit. Were they the cause or not.
I worked with forensic investigators to rebuild evidence that had been allegedly intentionally destroyed.
I replicated all the wires for the poles and transformers using an extremely fine model chain it couldn't have been more that a 1/64 in diameter it was blackened and hung in perfect catenary arches from pole to pole. Sitting upon the witness stand as an expert witness the city's lawyer commented that these wires were not very realistic because they were made of chain and wiggled easily if the model was bumped. I took a moment to think about that and responded.... if a big hand came down and whacked the side of the street all the wires outside would wiggle the same way. After the courtroom stopped laughing my point was accepted.
Obviously looking at the side of a building from ten, or twenty feet, or ten or twenty inches changes how we see the finish. I suspect that we are sometimes too critical of a texture or colour because we are looking at a tiny portion of the scene and not the whole picture. I would expect that it is even harder to replicate a really top notch representation of a building that has just been fixed up and renovated with a new coat of paint over old boards that have been repaired.
I have rambled on enough.
Michael
In other words, every meticulous modeler has to draw the line somewhere because we cannot duplicate nature in miniature; we can only approximate it and, sometimes, only suggest it. The smaller the scale, the greater the compromise. That is where impressionism comes into play.
In my own HO modeling, I decided stained Strathmore Bristol looked more real than stained wood when modeling painted wood. I still think it does because wood grain and texture is grossly oversize in HO. But if you hold a strong magnifying glass up to stained Strathmore you immediately notice tiny speckles in the finish and slightly mottled coloration. That imperfection is almost unnoticeable from a foot away with the unaided eye. The reason is that paper fibers absorb color at different rates, a problem unique to the scale and the material.
Plastic would have other disadvantages.
Everything is compromise, technique, and preference.
The art of modeling involves choosing the best materials, finishes, and compromises FOR A GIVEN SCALE.
Yes, it is a fascinating subject and one we must address anew with each model.
Russ
Rembrandt said "pictures are not meant to be smellt." In other words, he asks you to take a step back when viewing his paintings. RR structure models meant as a backdrop for trains are not meant to be smellt.
Fine scale models however, beg a close up view. The joy of beholding a really well made miniature is zooming in for a closer look, and not losing resolution, finding more details instead.
Even if models are meant for backdrops, I think extreme close ups are useful. Generally speaking, a technique that withstand close up scrutiny will look good at a distance. The inverse is less often true. It also gives a better idea of what is happening physically on the model to produce the results you see at longer ranges.
Dave, regarding three simple steps to paint and weather a commercially offered kit- for my resin bridge kit I simply point people to a hobby shop for books and to this website. I do tell them a few things such as an order of painting that makes accessing beam insides easier, but I don't believe it is my responsibility to tell people how to do it. There is so much info available on the web and in print, and the styles vary so much. I would venture that all the customers that would buy a "craftsman" kit have had some exposure to at least the most popular weathering chemicals and powders.
And Dave- "This time, I'm going to roll with some of the craftsman kit trends to see what happens with my bottom line. Subtle doesn't sell." Jeez Dave, please, noooo. :o Do we need an intervention here??? At least find some good drugs so you enjoy your time designing architecturally impossible decrepit structures that defy the laws of gravity.
John
"I don't believe it is my responsibility to tell people how to do it"
I agree with you there John, it really shouldn't be the responsibility of the designer to say how a kit should be painted, but believe me, the buyers certainly do follow up and ask for detailed SBS "how do I do it like on the box" instructions. As you said, there is plenty of well documented info in both print and web based formats to refer too, but, the same questions are still asked. Maybe its a degree of fear of stuffing up the kit they just invested their modelling dollars into?
Dan
I figure minimal instructions are needed for familiar materials like resin, plastic and wood. Where a material is less familiar, more instruction is needed. Paper is not a commonly used material in this niche of the hobby, probably freaks people out.
Also I've noticed craftsman kits are often flogged as lesson in model building. That may or may not be so, but info on technique is perceived as value added. Like I said, rolling with some trends here. Some, not all. I've left out the rooftop water tanks and external staircases. ;)
This is a real interesting discussion, but I think its getting off topic. I'll start a new one later, when the model is ready for commercial release.
Dave
PS @ John, hah """trust me""" ;D
Came back to testing ideas, now that I have the Mig oils in hand. This HO scale wall is 2" x 1.5" cardstock, paper battens glued on, wire brushed. I painted thined out Mig Shadow brown over a mix of craft store acrylics. When dry, I painted a few knots.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi655.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu276%2FDaveKrakow%2Fknottywood.jpg&hash=cb459a0131f249dacf4823ae2caa77d131c8acef)
Chester, your tip was right on the money, there needs to be some more variation in tones, to make a good simulated wood, thanks for pointing it out. What I really like about using the paper and acrylic + oil washes, is the super color control I just cant get with stains on basswood and plywood.
Dave
I like the way that looks, I am wondering if the knots might be a bit dark.
Michael
The color balance is off and that could have a very strong effect on the relative lights, darks, and overall coloration. Dave, was your camera was expecting to shoot in daylight but, instead, the photo was under incandescent bulbs? Regardless, we can't draw any real conclusions about the knots until we have a more accurate image.
Reading "between the lines", I suspect the technique works and may need only a minor tweak to be spot on.
Russ
Russ, I don't know about the camera settings, new camera, haven't finished reading the manual yet. For now, I just push the button and hope for the best.
One thing I forgot to mention-- and this is one of the big advantages of using paint-- the battens are glued on with thick CA glue. I glued this test piece up in a rush without any consideration about glue ooze. If this had been stained wood, or printed paper, it would have been completely ruined by glue smears around every batten. But because the paint covers everything, I was able to sand off the more offensive blobs and ignore the smears, and assembled this thing quickly and stress-free.
The colors are based on a calendar photo over my workbench. It shows a 100 year old barn in Vermont, the wood weathered to a reddish brown, and the knots stand out as nearly black. I think it was periodically treated with linseed oil or some traditional wood preservative.
Dave
Another test, slightly different method to simulate heavily weathered, bleached out untreated wood on cardstock. This time I put on a heavy coat of grey and brown craft store paint, and dragged the wire brush through while it was still wet. Diluted Mig shadow brown oil overpaint as before. Very simple. 5 mins including blow drying the paint and cleaning the brushes. Not sure I like the laser engraved knots, may go back and stain around them some.
(https://www.finescalerr.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi655.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu276%2FDaveKrakow%2Fbleachedwood.jpg&hash=e8e799269d3ad6f4adce9651d13e74662bffe6fa)
Photo is with my old camera this time, correct light setting. Color is 98% correct on my monitor.
Dave
Very promising Dave!
Actually, the laser knots look okay but stain around them might enhance their appearance. If this wall is just an experiment, try this, too: Lightly sand it to tone down the paint ridges left from the wire brush. The side lighting and macro image probably exaggerate them in the photo but, even so, a softer look might come closer still to wood. This ongoing attempt to perfect a technique is really interesting and should be of value when working with styrene, too. I hope a lot of others appreciate it. -- Russ
Dave,
I really like that last photo. Certainly has the looks of weathered wood. And the knot holes might also be wood pecker holes or man made cuts during sawing, etc.
The first photo looks like the buildings I saw at the Bodie ghost town in CA while the last is something from rural New England.
Very fine.