Flipping thru the Walthers February 'Fearless' Flyer, I saw that Downtown Deco's 'Kitty Korner' is back.(and on sale). Ignoring it's concept (it's a strip club - not a big deal), I realized there was something jarring in that catalog image about the juxtaposition of the real photo-image of the female dancer in the ad on the wall, and the model human dancer figures by the entrance* (and I guess the two males figures walking on the sidewalk too).Now one thing the human brain does very well is to identify and compare human faces, and while we can paint, shade, add washes to the best Presier and Woodland Scenices offerings, in HO/N scale the close-up of a figure's face is not really gonna fool anyone (at a medium distance, thou, this can be pulled off - maybe in G scale you can get pretty life-like close up, I'm not sure).What I am getting at, is do you (as a modeler) have images of real people on you layout, most likely as advertisments (Billboards, Wall Posters, Station & Bus Stop Ads, and so on) - as opposed to ads with drawn, painted, or caricature humans? I don't plan to, as it doesn't look right to me. I'd like to hear other opinions (of course, even the Moxie-Boy drawing advertising has more detail than the old Plasticville people, but yet it doesn't seem as out of place on a layout as a real photo would).
Depends on the era. Those of us modeling the first half of the 20th century up through the fifties probably have more illustrated adds, billboards, etc. Since I'm planning a layout in the fifties, I plan on using period advertising. If that has a more illustrative look so be it. As long as it represents the era, that's all I care about. If I was modeling the 90's I would expect to see billboards with photos of real people not a giant Plastic-ville standin.
Chris
Celebrity endorsements have been around for a long time. The presence of these images from bygone days helps to fix the era of your layout. Speaking of Moxie....
A popular and tasty meat product, and the equally popular George and Gracie:
Say goodnight, Gracie...
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Sure. One example can be seen in the distance of the image presented below. Although looking a bit color-shifted here, it's one of Bing Crosby hawking Chesterfield cigarettes. It's representative of many "movie personality" ads seen during the late pre-war/early post-war era.
CNJ831
Hmm, judging from the images the building side 'painted' ads look abstract enough (like paintings) that they don't cause any...heck, could I use 'cognitive dissonance' here? Probably not, but it kind of means what I am aiming for - two conflicting idea - a very real photo image of a human (which is supposed to be an ad - i.e. fake representation) contrasting with somewhat unreal human figures (which are supposed to be real). The Bing Crosby Chesterfield billboard is closer to this, but somehow still doesn't cause this contrast (maybe it's farther away from the viewer, maybe because it still looks a bit abstract, maybe because there are no model figures nearby?). Perhaps a small subtle photo of am actual human on a layout looks OK (since it's subtle, corner of the eye type of stuff that the brain just processes in the back), while the Kitty Korner wall ad or this BLMA Billboard ad just look...well, ridiculous when placed IN context on a layout.
Probably could write a thesis about this (and probably many psychology students have already done so), but I think there's a word limit to these posts...
I tend to agree with you, and I get a similar "jar" when seeing the trains constantly moving while the people (and usually automobiles) never do. And sometimes photographic backdrops give me a similar dislocated feeling when compared to the models in front of them, no matter how well done they may be. But then I let the imagination take over and it's all good after that.
Sean
HO Scale CSX Modeler