While I can see the use of two dimensional structure pictures on a backdrop I am having a hard time accepting their use for three dimensional buildings on my layout. Although the photography in many cases may be excellent the lack of the third dimension on surface texture makes them look too fake to me. Although inexpensive appeals to me I don't think they would fit in next to kit built or scratchbuilt buildings made with three dimensional materials. Can someone convince me I'm wrong and maybe I'll try to build some.
Eaglescout,
I'm guessing,you never built any, E.Suydam & Co. kits,cardstock and strip-wood,or their metal kits,that had to be soldered,,before,CA, was.. You could build,many great looking buildings with them..
Cheers,
Frank
How good is your eyesight?
Reason I ask is that, at 'three foot rule' distance, a lot of microdetail simply blurs out. Printed brick paper frequently looks more realistic than three-dimensional plastic brick walls. Detailed window castings look crude beside a photo of a real window. Someone who takes the time to cut his roof shingle tabs could probably get the same effect with a soft pencil.
Granted that, at 'right at the fascia' range, three dimensional detailing is better. But that level of detail isn't necessary for an N-scale structure partially hidden by foliage halfway up the selectively-compressed valley on my 1:80 scale layout.
Many years ago, MR had a feature on The Great North Road, a model railroad built by the artist F. Lee Jacques. From a distance his rolling stock seemed to have incredible detail. Up close, it could be seen that each car was a simple rectangular shape, everything else being paint. (I still get chills thinking about the ice-locked, windswept vista of Ptarmigan Summit...)
A structure with setbacks and varied roof heights should show that. Having every chipped corner on individual bricks is a lot less critical - and a lot easier to achieve in two dimensions.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Eagle Scout:
Sorry, but I have to say that I agree. Two dimensional pictures turn me off.
Despite the obvious support for them, my eyes, whether at six inches or plus three feet, still see the sheen caused by light reflecting off of the flat surface and I personally don't find that effect to be acceptable.
Early on in my modeling life I purchased some of the european flat stock prints of things like cobblestone streets and rock walls. When I incorporated them into a couple of foreground scenes and structures I found them to be disappointing at best. They were removed and tossed in the scrap heap.
However they obviously do work when creating a flat backdrop, and even when used just in front of the backdrop to create some depth. Those are not areas that my eye usually focuses on directly and the two dimensional sheen does not register in my peripheral vision as opposed to when I am looking straight at something.
I am not trying to suggest that others are wrong for using cardstock for foreground structures etc. I am only stating my own feelings about them.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Chuck,
I'll agree at a distance it may make sense to try some printed structures. However, my layout is 16-24" maximum distance to the backdrop. Again, I can see using two dimensional prints on the backdrop but not three dimensional at such a short sight distance.
It really depends on what you're talking about. If you simply glue a printed photograph on to a piece of cardstock or foam core, yeah, it doesn't look very realistic. On the other hand, decent quality cardstock buildings, with matte printing and separately applied details and acetate windows, the can stand beside the best plaric or wooden models. Here is a photo of a section of my first layout. Can you guess which buildings are cardstock?
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
CTValleyRR Can you guess which buildings are cardstock?
Can you guess which buildings are cardstock?
I'm not seeing them in person, which does make a difference in such things. They're small and in a compressed image viewed through a CCD chip. There's all manner of texture and shadow that doesn't come across.
However, I am reasonably sure the roof on the one on the left is paper and the green doorway on the middle one looks pretty 2D to me, the brick pattern looks somewhat repetitive in a clone brush way, and the chimney is definitely paper.
Laminating paper and card is used to make three dimensional models that often have as good or better detail than l models made using other materials such a wood, plastic or resin.
Take a look at Clever Models http://clevermodels.squarespace.com/
and ScaleScenes http://scalescenes.com/
Also look at http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/ In particular the Picture of the Week and the Model Builds section to access photos of some great models made from paper.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
All of them, and I decided that before I saw your answer.
They are pretty good, but I still prefer my styrene and wood structures.
Hi Eaglescout
I would say from your comment you have never scratch built in card.
The secret is in how many layers and thicknesses of card are used to build up the level of 3D detail.
If you go back and read the early say 1930's through to mid 1960's model railroaders or other model railway publications from that time.
You will find a passenger car requires something like six layers to build up the detailed panelling those coaches had, and a very very basic building required three maybe four layers and match sticks for the window sills.
Next to the scratch builds the modern card kits are flat because its easy to print and as manufactured while easy to build they do benefit from extra time to get a bit of 3D happening.
Don't forget the Texta or coloured pencil for the corners to hide the white on the commercial kits
The other secret is fore ground full 3D and go mad on detail even over the top if you wish.
Mid ground a good level of detail and a bit of 3D happening
Back ground flat as a pancake and minimalist detail is fine.
Done right the eye and to a small degree the camera is fooled into thinking the full detail goes right through the scene.
regards John
Hi CTvalleyRR
By the look of it all of them are card and of English manufacture as well
That centre one looks like a station building or at least part of one.
Gorre Engine House - kit based on a model by the great John Allen.
Engine House interior by Aristotelese Held
Wright's built by Jim Gore
Photos from Clever Models website
I bought some of the paper background structures from Kingmill and I will be using them in the background (most of the layout is only 30" deep). The first two photos show them where they'll be used, but I also took a few photos of other ones placed a little closer to the aisle:
Wayne
OK. I printed a freebie off the internet in N scale and will try it in a forced perspective area of my HO layout to see what I think from a distance. I can see where adding three dimensional details in the form of window trim, staircases, downspouts, support posts, etc. may enhance the process.
While some layering is possible in N scale, HO scale is about the smallest where real 3 dimensional detail can be done in paper. Although I have seen a few paper models with great 3 dimensional detail in Z scale. They were done by very dedicated/skilled modelers. As the scale gets smaller real 3 dimensional detail is less important if the color and shading are right and paper models often look more real than models built using other materials.
Also while there are purist paper modelers, who do everthing in paper, there are many who treat paper as just another useful material, building multi-media models. .
Some advantages of digital paper model kits:
1 - Lower cost
2 - Download once then print a many copies as you need.
3 - Change scale. Works best from larger to smaller, but if the resolution is high enough it is sometimes possible, with rearranging componets to go the other way.
4 - Add, subtract, move, change size and/or shape, and style of details such as doors and windows.
5 - Increase height and length of walls without splices.
6 - Change textures, brick types/patterns, brick to wood, wood to stone etc.
For scratchbuilders and kit bashers there are many good textures available for a small cost, and also a huge number available free. In adition to the many texture download sites, useable textures can be found at store and manufacturing company sites, such as Home Depot, Lowles, Sears, Pennys, carpet and flooring stores, roofing companys,brick companys, etc.
Photoshop type programs are needed, and they can be expensive. However there are free programs that work very well. For instance GIMP and Inkscape, both of which are highly recomended in the paper modeling community
Evans Design Model Builder software is a good program for anyone who wants to get there feet wet designing and building paper model buildings, and the cost is very reasonable.. It has some nice features not available in photoshop type programs (which can achieve the same results by other means), but ultimately I found it somewhat limiting. It does allow the importation of terxtures, and does everything many modelers need.
I have heard that some paper modelers use the free version of Google Sketchup
OK, now that I have said that I don't care for cardstock structures, I have to ask a question that may prove me wrong:
When you refer to "textured" surfaces, does that mean that there is an actual 3 dimensional surface (i.e. I can feel a rough surface with my finger) or is it only a 2 dimensional depiction of a textured surface (i.e. smooth to the touch)?
Anything that I have purchased has been a 2 dimensional smooth flat surface. I have purchased shingle roofing sheets, cobblestone streets and rock walls. All were smooth to the touch and had the "sheen" of a smooth surface which is what kind of turns me off.
If there are truly 3 dimensional card stock sheets available then I will have to have another look.
I guess I am kind of a shadowy person!. Pardon the pun!
hon30critter OK, now that I have said that I don't care for cardstock structures, I have to ask a question that may prove me wrong: When you refer to "textured" surfaces, does that mean that there is an actual 3 dimensional surface (i.e. I can feel a rough surface with my finger) or is it only a 2 dimensional depiction of a textured surface (i.e. smooth to the touch)? Dave
You are correct the textures are printed two dimensional (they are actually smooth). However if they are a good color and have well done shading they can actually be more effective than many three dimensional materials which are often too uniform and/or out of scale. Weathering can make them even more effective. Spraying with dullcoat or a similar product greatly reduces any sheen.
At thet NMRA convention in Sacramento there were, up front - inches from the viewer, some O scale buildings on a layout, that were as good or better than most buildings made from other materials. It was not obvious they were paper unless one actually touched them.
Also some modelers, particularly in larger scales, use individual paper "boards" and paper shingle strips to make them 3 dimensional. ( 40+ years ago I made clapboard siding from mainila folders and shingles from bond paper in HO scale and later did the same in N scale) Materials such a brick and stone can be printed on texrured paper. This can be very effective on the right textured paper.
Look at the photos on Clever Models site to see what can be done with paper. In addition to the photos in the Gallery and Get Models section, there are photos of some fantastic models built by their customers. shown in the Blog and others linked to in the Discussion section.
The Paper Modelers site I linked in an earlier post show what is being done with (a partial list) airplanes, ships, cars/trucks, military equipment, buildings, full size and scale replica rifles and pistols, etc.. There are some automobiles and trucks that photographed in an appropriate setting could be mistaken for real
DSCHMITT:
Thank you for answering my question about the smooth surface of the 'textured' sheets of cardstock.
I don't wish to cause a fuss here, but in my mind the two dimensional surface is a distraction. It doesn't work for me. The concept of printing on three dimensional textured paper is interesting, but unless the textured pattern matched the print pattern I think it would look phoney to me.
I am not passing judgement on anyone's modeling techniques, and I am sure that there is a lot of skill and devotion put into making cardstock structures, but they aren't for me personally.
CTVALLEYRR:
Thanks for making me aware of the availability of actual textured cardstock sheets. I will keep them in mind when I get into my next structures.
About the "sheen" that I have said distracts me, it is not whether the the surface is dull or shiney. It is a question of whether or not I am seeing actual shadows in the nooks and crannys. It is the lack of those nooks and crannys (3D texture) in what I have seen so far that throws me off printed cardstock. When I model a clapboard wall in styrene there are real shadows and that is what catches my eye and makes it look realistic to me.
Anyhow, I think we might be at the dead horse part of the discussion. Thanks again everyone for sharing your views. Sorry if I have hijacked the thread.
Cardboard structures are quite common in the UK "railway modelling" scene. The British certainly have mastered the art of avoiding that flat look you mention.
Take a look here:
Scalescenes
Looking at pictures many of them look great but again, it is a picture of a picture. Being originally from Missouri I have to see them in person to really know how good they look compared to three dimensional structures from three dimensional materials.
Hi CTValleyRR
I too have used masking tape for tar paper only I used it for the large sheet version of the roof.
works well.
Also experimented with sand paper as a base for whitewashed rendered walls got mixed results with that
Not sure I used a fine enough one as texture before painting white, its murder on the knife blade
but I think it would work with a fine enough grit ??.
Wonder if glass paper would work for that decorative quartes stuff on some buildings thoughts??.
Painted strips of fine sand paper might work for those disgusting aluminium cheap imitation roof tiles
hon30critter It is the lack of those nooks and crannys (3D texture) in what I have seen so far that throws me off printed cardstock. When I model a clapboard wall in styrene there are real shadows and that is what catches my eye and makes it look realistic to me.
It is the lack of those nooks and crannys (3D texture) in what I have seen so far that throws me off printed cardstock. When I model a clapboard wall in styrene there are real shadows and that is what catches my eye and makes it look realistic to me.
This is what gets me too.
A few months ago, there was that article by Paul Dolkos where he was putting all sorts of styrene details and castings on printed cardstock buildings. All I could think was in the amount of time you took getting the photos, editing them for use, and all that, you could have just taken a sheet of clapboard styrene or wood and...well you know where it goes after that.
Hi NittanyLion
Creating decent buildings particularly like some of those produced by the Hobby giants, who have inspired many of us to attempt greatness.
Have and will always be the greatest thieves of time
A properly built kit takes time regardless of the material it is made of.
If you happen to have a flash of genius or just a though that if I do this it will be better suited to the railway it takes longer.
But if you decide to scratch build or bash a kit it takes longer again.
Some structures do work better with more than one material type being used, it all depends on what you are trying to produce and how.
What matters is the end result and was the task enjoyable.
CT Valley RR,
First of all, I did not bash anything. I made an honest appraisal of what I saw the drawbacks of cardstock structures would be on what I have seen up to this point.
Second, if you read all the posts you would have seen that I am going to try one and see what I think.
Finally, I left Missouri 33 years ago and occasionally go back to visit family but am still a "show me" kind of guy. Will repost to this thread after I try one or two sructures our of cardstock.
Wow, you guys wouldn't have made it in the hobby before 1975. Before sheet styrene was available, models were made of Strathmore board, drawing paper cardstock available in a variety of thicknesses. Back in the 1970's Wayne Wesolowski had articles in the magazines all the time. He's the guy that makes museum quality models. I've made numerous cars and buildings from cardstock and paper. When done right they look as good or better than the styrene models, especially if you are modeling wood.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com