Re: "Scale-less" modeling

I've found that if you photograph outside in sunlight it makes it much more difficult to tell that you're looking at models. You really have to concentrate on the details to pick up on 'model' items ie couplers etc.

I think the eye and the mind equates sunlight with outside and outside with real.

Eric

Art Fahie wrote:

You look at a photo of a model, or even better... a layout shot. DO you test yourself by quickly questioning yourself as to what "scale" model you're looking at?... I know I do. There are giveaways... most of them almost subliminal... from the height of the rail, to the appearance of the rolling stock, details, figures etc:... the question... what is the "give-away" that keep an n-ho-s-o, or ANY scale layout, identifiable as to being THAT PARTICULAR SCALE. Many modelers have stepped-up to the plate and created models so g-o-o-d that they defy the actual physical reality of the model... so maybe it's a two-part topic... what gives a model away AS a model (and if you know a way around it, share the thought... so much the better!) ... and what modelers have been able to bridge-the-gap that can visually remove a model from it's "scale" and make it possible for their efforts NOT to be seen as n-ho or whatever, but just as a great modeling effort with a de-emphasis on the actual scale they are working within. This should be interesting.

For the smaller scales (N and Z), the rail height makes a big quick difference. For HO, almost everybody uses Kadee or equivilant couplers and that is a dead giveaway. Then there is the flange size that also tends to give away the gauge size with the smaller gauges having bigger flanges more often. Another thing that often gives away the scale is the height of the camera from the ground level. The smaller the gauge, the higher that view is. In addition, the contrast between sunlit and shadowed areas are usually way too low for real sunlight. Another is to look at the grain on the paint of the model. All of the paint tends to be kind of a knobbly matte finish and the larger the grain, the smaller the scale. In addition, the wood of buildings tends to stand out more for the smaller scales and plastic isn't the good material as it is usually too sharp in the wrong locations and too soft a curve in the other ones. Finally, look at the ground. The less the detail and the larger the grit of that ground, the smaller the scale. People tend to use medium sized gravel sized particles to do the general ground and that is wrong.

-- Bob May Losing weight is easy! If you ever want to lose weight, eat and drink less. Works evevery time it is tried!

Art Fahie wrote: ... what gives a model away AS a model (and if

Let's hope you watch Letterman once in a while...

The top ten give-aways that it's a model:

1. Fake smoke. I've yet to see it done convincingly, best to skip it.
2. Soot marks over tunnel portals. (See #10)
3. Shiny clothing. More Dull Cote, or are those disco vamps in vinyl tights?
4. Power lines too tight. Sag, baby.
5. Ballast too coarse. Go down one scale, in some cases two.
6. Shadow on backdrop. Light too low, move it up to noon time. (Or if the sun really is that low, the light should be golden yellow.)
7. Shadows too dark. More indirect ambient light, or is this layout on the moon?
8. Two shadows. Either have one shadow (sunny) or none (cloudy).
9. Flat picture. Not enough perspective, too far away from subject, move closer.

...and the number one give-away that it's a model (drum roll):

1. Narrow depth of field. Foreground and/or background out of focus. Stop down as much as possible, in other words, use a pin hole camera. (Naturally, #1 and #2 are mutually contradictory).

Ahhh. It's so easy to criticize.

Bill MacIndoe

Good topic, Art.

For me, it's usually the relative textures of the scenery materials - rocks, sand, and trees, to the scale. The same sand material that looks good for HO will look like a beach full of small rocks in N. Same for trees.

I may get the larger scale folks riled up by saying this, but many of the photos I see of O scale and larger have a toy like look that's obvious. I think that the larger the scale, the more critical it is to have massively minute details in order for a model to look realistic. The eye fills in the missing details for HO and N, but not the larger scales.

As a side note, when I first saw the photos of your layout, I thought it was HO scale. The latest pics are great. You need to do an article on your water - it looks incredibly real.

Mike Tennent "IronPenguin" Operating Traffic Lights Crossbucks Special Effects Lighting

=>I may get the larger scale folks riled up by saying this, but many of =>the photos I see of O scale and larger have a toy like look that's =>obvious. I think that the larger the scale, the more critical it is to =>have massively minute details in order for a model to look realistic. =>The eye fills in the missing details for HO and N, but not the larger =>scales.

I think you've made an excellent point about texture here. We don't see texture as individual bits and pieces, but in the way the light reflects of surfaces, the existence of minute shadows, and so on. We often exaggertae texture, forgetting that from usual viewing distances, texture is more of an illusion than a reality. The great modellers know all about texture, and they seem to operate on two principles: first, it's all illusion anyway, so use any technique that works; and second, use a consistent scale. Variations in texture from "scale size" to "over scale size" are more diestructive of illusion than consistent over scale texture.

For an example, think of wood boxcars. I've just looked at an article about building single sheathed boxcars. The model has very pronounced horizontal grooves to simulate the wood sheathing. The prototype photos show very little of these grooves; they are almost invisible, in fact. One has to look closely to see them, and they look more like fine painted lines than grooves.

What this means is that often it's better to use paint than actual surface texture to simulate the appearance of texture. Actual textures will almost always be too large, and that's one of the marks of a model. One of the most common errors is "nothing looks like wood more than real wood." That's true - it will look like full size wood used to make a scale model. A good paint job on stryene will produce the appearance of wood better paint over real wood will.

WOlf, You've really made a valid observation. I rely heavily on my airbrush to imply shadows & textures that don't exist in reality and AM NOT shy about taking it (the airbrush) away from my workbench & bringing it into the layout room. "Thomas Kincaid" is very famous for "painting with light", and we can do the same thing on our layouts in an even more dimensional sense. When "textures" are so distinct as to conflict with each other the modeling becomes apparently unrealistic, I tend to "bleed" textures together (generally with airbrushed white) and the scenes achieve a far more natural "flow"... anyone who's familiar with my personal website will probably notice the "continuity" of the scenes, but is very unlikely to actually figure out why I can seemingly make it work while they may have trouble with it. I hate to say it, but I'd rather have a masterfully painted & weatherd structure/scene, than the same scene done with a less critical paint job and alot of details in it... of course, I like to approach it WITH the eye towards painting as well as a crapload of details... but that's my style!

Art Fahie N&PC RR

Excellent observation. I have always thought there was something about O scale that gave it away as being a model. Just because it is closer to full size than HO or N is not an advantage when trying to replicate full size. O scale might have a disadvantage in that there is more to do to make it realistic. In O scale you almost have to weather each rivet have airhoses on every car and have grease on each wheel for it to really begin to blend together. I've seen O scale traction layouts that are very realistic but not as many O scale steam and diesel layouts.

CBix

Art,

Would you please give us the URL of your website. I would like to see what you are talking about.

Thanks,

Jeff Hensley Sugar Creek RR Greenfield,IN

You'll have to go to my company website: "barmillsmodels.com" and then go the the link to the layout (Niagara & Pearl Creek R.R.)... one of the things I've run into are the guys that use the "salt & pepper" ballast (a combination of dark & light ballast in the same bag)... boy!... talk about something that makes trackwork look out-of-scale... especially in n-scale... some guys don't even use the finest ballast they can get, they go "up" a size... not to start an arguement... but would someone please explain that thinking to me? Understand that on the website the airbrush effects are more to the extent of "blending" and very subtle... the newest completed area of the layout is "Commercial Street"... part of the "Domino" peninsula... if you look at the track you can see the "ashen" look created by a misting of white paint between the rails. Airbrushing is also a great way to make the visual transition between the "ballast" and the non ballasted areas that run along side of it, it visually removes the all-to-distinct visual line between the two. There is alot to this, it's all simple and relies more on observation than techniques... but like weathering, it can be overdone... so approach it in small steps and find a comfort-zone, you won't believe the difference in your scenes and once you've started the technique you'll want to use it again & again.

Art Fahie

A lot depends upon whether you are talking photos or eyeballing the model yourself. I have built a few simple layouts for youngsters over the last few years. To save cost I used paper card building kits, these have minimal relief detail, especially at the cheaper end, but in photographs they tend to look better than my models which do have such detail (moulded plastic brickwork etc. The card models were created by artists and I'm not an artist. The more expensive card models (here in the UK that would be Prototype) have separate window sills etc and a lot more relief detail (you cannot paste them onto a wooden block for a kids layout). This makes a massive visual difference but doesn't show in a photograph.

Using printed paper overlays actually works rather well, as someone noted above with regad to wooden plank lines. I have recently been experimenting making my own brick papers using a laser printer to print then colouring with water colours. I can now produce a rather good brick effect using burnt sienna. When winter draws in I hope to get some time to try using this on buildings.

Re the larger scales - There is a chap with a garden railway in the UK who likes taking photos. His layout was featured in Railway Modeller a year or two back. He selects the plants with care and in all honesty when looking at the photographs you would swear you were looking at a full size scene. If I can find the reference I'll post it later as a separate thread.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Art,

Just wanted to say I spent an enjoyable amount of time cruising around your website. . . and I signed up for the e-newsletter, too.

Paul - "The CB&Q Guy" Peru, IL *USA*