Wall

[Ray Dunakin]

My feeling regarding the grain is that it depends on the condition of the structure you are trying to model. Even a painted building can have visible grain, if the paint was applied after the surface began to weather. For example, if the building was neglected for a time prior to repainting it.

[Malachi Constant]

The consensus seems to be lose the grain and the nails (I prefer that myself) but is divided when it comes to the "blotchiness" of the finish. At this point, the "blotches" don't bother me but, in the past, I have been oblivious to some imperfections in my modeling and this could be one of those times.

So the finish, rather than the texture, seems to be the remaining issue. Let's put it to a vote (unless you first have other comments).

Russ

Well, then here's mine:
-- Blotchiness:  I DID have a problem with it in the first sample posted ... in the second one, it's more subtle and just seems more like natural variations ... OKAY there.
-- Wood grain:  I vote in FAVOR of the subtle grain shown on the second sample ... noting that the photo is an extreme enlargement and it mostly disappears to the eye at normal size ... the eye nevertheless picks up a (very subtle) texture which (my opinion) will look far better than a mirror-smooth flat surface.

Also, assuming that the clapboards themselves are not the principle SUBJECT of the model, the finish seems acceptable to me ... guessing that there will be some other focal points, like ... oh, I dunno, an actual building with some architectural details and other interest! 

Cheers,
Dallas

[RoughboyModelworks]

Russ:

The only thing I have to add to this is that subtlety is the key, whichever way you go. We could argue on and on about visible grain and nail heads and never reach a consensus. We all know when it's overdone, goodness knows there are plenty of examples of that in the MR world as Marc has pointed out. We've all seen models where the visible graining scales out to be at least 1" deep and there are nail holes, not nail heads. Makes you wonder what's holding the sheathing on apart from fantasy.

In the meantime, I found this astounding paper/cardstock/wire loco build on the Buntbahn forum for inspiration: http://www.buntbahn.de/modellbau/viewtopic.php?t=9835





Paul

[finescalerr]

As some of you have guessed and others probably knew, these attempts were my last at inkjet printed cardstock. The reason I decided to give it one more try was because it was so incredibly easy and quick to crank out. I got the idea from Troels Kirk, who dabs paint onto watercolor paper with a sponge, cuts the blotchy result into strips (boards), and presses them onto double-sided carpet tape to create walls. Then he pops the usual Grandt Line doors and windows in place, adds corner trim and a roof, and he's done.

I decided to emulate his work in Photoshop and went heavier with the color on the first attempt because his stuff is rather overstated and mine was less so. I daubed a brown shade onto digital "paper" with some really huge Photoshop sponge tools in "dissolve" mode, faded the image, blurred it a little, printed it on Lanaquarrelle cold press paper, cut 8 scale inch strips, and pressed them onto a carpet tape covered sub-wall. The first result, as you know, was disappointing from our standpoint but somewhat reminiscent of Troels' modeling.

Second attempt: Same artwork, but faded quite a bit and some daubs erased. The paper was different -- Strathmore Bristol Vellum (readily available in pads at Michaels and everywhere else). It's my favorite paper because of its texture, workability, thickness, and overall quality. It has a somewhat smoother texture than the Lanaquarelle and is better for representing painted wood.

Both papers accept graining with a wire brush fairly well without raising fibers. Under magnification, the grain looks a little too coarse but it is invisible to the eye. I went with it for "feel" rather than precision since, under normal viewing, you can't see it but you might "feel" it. Under the very controlled lighting and high magnification of my second photo you could see it clearly. As Marc wrote, it looks like Plasticville and Marty thought it was the result of a bad paint job. Well, given the circumstances, what else would you expect?

The subtle speckling visible randomly here and there seems to work in this case, at least to my eye. I have actual photos of similar weathering on white boards and, on a structure wall, the subtle variation between the white "paint" and slight random discoloration makes for a better appearance than bare white paper. Very subtle touches of pastel chalk powder or weathering powders here and there add immensely to the overall effect.

It took no more than fifteen minutes to cut the paper boards and build the 2 by 3 inch wall segment. It looks better than any of my previous attempts to photographically reproduce an accurate image of painted, weathered wood and the artwork required only about two minutes to create. It involves neither skill nor talent, perfect for a ninny like I.

Based on your input and following your suggestions I'll try a small section of the structure I began work on early this year and see how things turn out. (I scrapped all the work I did between January and April -- hours of labor -- because it looked lousy.) I'll post the results for more feedback.

Thanks to everybody who tried to help. Your input enabled me to interpret what I was seeing in photos of actual structures and apply it to modeling.

Russ

[lab-dad]

Well Russ, thats what we thought.
But, I dont see why you are bothering to play with the paper.
There are different materials for a reason.
Just look at one of Chucks models; paper, plastic, brass, styrene, cerro, PAP ect.
I agree there are some modelers who can create anything from paper, but why bother other than to challenge oneself?
May be that is what you are doing.
I just dont see why you keep doing this when you could have built something out of wood and other materials by now.
I guess you are doing this "for the good of the order", I appreciate it. Now I know not to try paper for siding!

-Marty

[mabloodhound]

I have been amazed at Troels Kirk's work but I am no artist.
I really like building with wood but the final painting and weathering has been my hang-up.
I have just started experimenting with card stock and creating computer images from texture tiles (like stone foundations or floors).
I will have to try this on the next scratch build after I finish my current one.

[Ken Hamilton]

This is going off in another direction, but nail holes were mentioned
earlier in this thread and I remembered something I did a while back.
Sharpen the end of a small mechanical pencil...



...press the sharpened tip into a board....



...which cuts a ring instead of pushing in a hole. 
A spot of paint turns the center into a nail head.



(This isn't my idea and it may have already been posted here somewhere)

[Malachi Constant]

As some of you have guessed and others probably knew, these attempts were my last at inkjet printed cardstock. The reason I decided to give it one more try was because it was so incredibly easy and quick to crank out. I got the idea from Troels Kirk, who dabs paint onto watercolor paper with a sponge, cuts the blotchy result into strips (boards), and presses them onto double-sided carpet tape to create walls. Then he pops the usual Grandt Line doors and windows in place, adds corner trim and a roof, and he's done.
Russ

Well, in that case, you're standing too close to the Monet, sir ... I'm afraid you'll have to back the truck up!

Troels does beautiful, stylized work ... the individual buildings generally look quite nice by themselves (seen as a whole) and even better within the whole scene with the artist's painted backdrops and carefully selected range of colors ...

Doubtful that his structures would stand up to close magnification if you're looking for "realism" ... look at one of Monet's gothic cathedrals from an appropriate distance, and it carries the "weight" of a substantial stone structure ... stand too close it become a very sloppy mess of smeary dots and what-not.

The degree of subtlety/extremity on Troels' siding varies.  The guano factory seems (to me) to have rather "intense" coloring ... others much more subtle.

So, um ... you made siding that looks perfectly fine and now that's just like learning to get proper brush strokes off a new style of brush ... the next step is to put it together with the other compositional elements and make a painting (ie, structure).  If you want to build structures that will look "photo realistic" under close-up, then you'll have to go with range of materials and approaches similar to what Chuck does as previously noted ... if you want to emulate an artistic style like Troels, you've already got a siding "nailed" (pun definitely intended) and are ready to move on ... and, at the appropriate distance (scope of composition), I think you can actually make a successful blend of those too styles.  Items that look impressionistic up close can be put together to create very realistic compositions ... like a photograph that has an artistic slant.

In other words, ignore all this ... I'm just babbling! 
Dallas

[Malachi Constant]

Perhaps more succinct:  I think you're trying to analyze elements of an impressionistic style the same way that you would look at elements of a photo-realistic style, and I don't think that really works.

If you want to experiment with emulating Troels' style and/or (more likely) developing your own version of that, you're well on the way ... go for it ... allow for some error in the trial and error ... have fun ... build a whole thing (whatever it is) and then build it again if you need to.  Repeat until you train your hands to produce what your mind envisions.  Don't get hung up on the individual dots or brush strokes.

Cheers,
Dallas

[finescalerr]

Strangely, what you wrote makes perfect sense. But at the moment I'm kind of disgusted with the whole thing, no matter what material I might use. I messed around with clapboards again this afternoon, took the sample outside, looked at it under a magnifying glass, and was totally frustrated. I think the reason is that nothing I build in 1:48 will stand up to the scrutiny of what I might build in a larger scale and that's been part of my hang-up.

Here's what I mean: Chuck started his garage in 1:48 and did his usual amazing job, then scrapped it and began again in 1:24. Comparing close ups of each model, 1:24 wins hands down (for obvious reasons). No wonder he started over; he couldn't get the results he wanted in the smaller scale.

One reason I began messing with paper was because it had a texture I liked better than wood or styrene in 1:48. (The grain of basswood is often too coarse to be convincing in a close up of a 1:48 model and the inconsistent quality of some of the wood I've seen lately also has too much fuzz, even after fine sanding. As for styrene, painting it to look like weathered wood can be a hit and miss proposition, itself rather impressionistic.)

So every material or weathering technique I mess with in 1:48 is frustrating although some are better than others. A lot of guys can make them look better than I have so far. And, partly because a fifth of a century in the hobby biz has had a negative impact on my patience for meticulous modeling, I no longer have the desire to slave over microscopic parts until their appearance satisfies me. (I'm just spending too much time on hobby related things and I've reached a saturation point.) I thought inkjet colored cardstock might help to avoid some hours of drudgery but it's a shortcut technique whose failings are too evident in close ups.

Scale from 1:48 and smaller must rely to a greater or lesser degree on impressionism and the higher the magnification the more you realize that. If you like to stand back a foot or two, the best models can be stunningly realistic and the very good ones still impress you. I might be able to achieve the latter with inkjet colored cardstock and judicious use of stains and powders. But so far the best I've done is to create very good "layout quality" models. The might be the goal of some of us but it isn't what I had in mind.

The best idea might be to take a few days off and think about it.

Russ

[RoughboyModelworks]

I think you have the right idea... take a few days off and come back to it. Focus on something else for a while and a solution will eventually present itself to you. If you try to force it, you'll never be happy with the result.

For what it's worth, I think the concept is an excellent one, though not one I'd personally be interested in pursuing, though that's just my personal feeling and doesn't take away at all from the validity of the pursuit. When trying to develop or learn any new technique there's always a period of dissatisfaction and frustration until you finally reach the "ah ha" moment when the tools and materials conform to your wishes and commands. Until that point, the tools and materials are in full control and this is what leads to the frustration. I'm convinced, given some of the other work we've seen done in paper, that this is possible... so give it a few days' rest and come back to it refreshed. Decide exactly what your project brief is and set out to achieve that. Thus ends my motivational sermon... ;-)

Paul

[DaKra]

Actually, Russ, the way smaller scales rely on a sort of impressonism to fill in the blanks is one of their great advantages. Some details can be omitted, or merely suggested, and the model will still appear perfectly whole. Go small enough, and you can be a rivet counter, without any rivets.  Part of the art of model building is the art of omission, omit the unimportant and the impractical and you will have a good model.  As small and extreme as I go with my models, I always have this in mind. 

Dave

[Hector Bell]

For what it's worth (who knows?), if you have a look at the work done at Pendon Museum you will see the absolute apotheosis of 4mm scale model making.  And that's a lot smaller than 1/48th (which we don't, stupidly, do in Britain)
Roye England, way back in the late 40s, realised that whole sections of English rural life were disappearing too quickly and so he would freeze that time in aspic.  Well, model aspic anyway.
He decided that only the very finest attention to detail would do, both inside and out, of the actual buildings he chose to make his models of.  For instance, he took seven weeks to model the interior of one room in one cottage, including painting miniature oil paintings for the walls.  His Clematis climbing round the door of a cottage has individually hand cut leaves and flowers all assembled painstakingly.
His thatched roofs were done with hair, but it had to be Chinese hair, because only Chinese hair is straight!  He then sent it to a University somewhere where they treated and coloured it so that it wouldn't rot, mainly.  He would then build the roof exactly as a thatcher would in clumps, trimmed once in place.  His bricks were hand cut and glued on individually. 
He gave his entire life to this pursuit.  When he died, the museum was set up and is run by modellers who do their best to emulate his standards.  I don't think they quite cut it, but that's splitting hairs.  They have enabled the landscape, for that is what's being modelled here, to grow to a complete vista of old England, not a whimsical one, but a scale model of what actually existed, whatever sociologists might claim.
And yes, it is quite astonishingly, staggeringly good.  It is as near perfect as you could get in that small scale.

Then consider George Illiffe Stokes' work.  I actually prefer it, it moves me rather than amazes me, which I like better.  But it is very impressionistic.  Where most on this forum would have decals made for lettering, George hand lettered.  It is not perfect but it is more convincing for reasons which mystify me.  When I see his "Upham's Boat Yard" scene, my childhood is there in front of my eyes, not a model.  I can smell the sea, hear the mud popping, the rattle of rigging against a pine mast.  I love to SEE Pendon, but I would rather OWN Upham's Boat Yard.  That old curmudgeon, Malcolm Muggeridge once gave an entire lecture on the wireless about the essential differences between truth and accuracy.  Pick the bones out of that one, but it struck a chord with me.

Now Russ, you are working in a scale almost twice the size.  Fall back and regroup, or, if you just can't be satisfied, move up a scale.  Try 1/32nd.
Throwing that damned magnifying glass away would be a good start.  Our work is not meant to be seen through a magnifying glass!  We use our eyes to build it for the perusal of people with eyes to view it.  Not false enlargements.

What, exactly, is wrong with impressionism anyway?  Unless you are prepared to devote your entire life to the endeavour like Roye England, it has to be impressionism to some degree and all the more impressive for it.

Martin

[eTraxx]

Interesting for sure! Here's one of the interiors Hector's talking about. Pretty darn amazing at 1:76

[Hector Bell]

Thanks Ed, I've spent all evening looking for something to put up here, but the net keeps a mystery!
And the Museum ain't giving much away.  They wan't yer money!  Everything costs.

Martin