I'm looking for any ideas beyond the obvious use of cottonballs painted gray with a needle and tiny thread threaded thru them all the way to the ceiling to give the illusion of a continuously rising column of smoke. My location is against the backdrop so the thread idea should work well...
Andy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milwaukee native modeling the Milwaukee Road in 1950's Milwaukee.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/196857529@N03/
Seems like a good technique to me. You could experiment with trying to shred the cotton as it makes it's way up. Sorta like the technique for trees, with the spray.
Just a thought.
Mike.
My You Tube
Speaking only for myself, I have never seen "modeled" smoke from a smokestack look anything but toylike. Where it's been done, it looks about as realistic as the smoke from a model steam locomotive.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
If you are really close to the backdrop, then you could have one cotton ball, and then smoke painted on the backdrop.
Smoke disperses quickly, so not all the way to the ceiling before dispersed completely.
Andy,
Are you looking for a solution that looks good on the layout, or for when photographing the layout?
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Don't know your era but after about 1975the EPA just about eliminated smoke from factories. Steam yes. Smoke no. Steam will evaporate fairly quickly so all the way to the ceiling would not be prototypical in most cases
Bad idea in my opinion even if only for photographing purposes. You would be better off photoshopping the smoke plume. Here is a classic photo from Trains magazine.
Rich
Alton Junction
My 1st mentor (Charles "Bill" Day) used a cotton ball. It looked quite realistic.
ndbprr Steam will evaporate fairly quickly so all the way to the ceiling would not be prototypical in most cases
Down here the humidity effects how far the steam rises from stacks.
The Sugar Mills in Clewiston put out a lot of steam. If the humidity is near 100% the steam goes on forever. On a drier day, the steam evaporates within about 100 feet of the stack.
SeeYou190 Andy, Are you looking for a solution that looks good on the layout, or for when photographing the layout? -Kevin
Kevin,
I'm just wanting to make the most realistic looking plume possible, but not thinking about photography per se. By my definition however, achieving the former would be good for the latter as well.
To answer a few other questions: this layout is set in the early 50s. The plume would be directly against the backdrop, and it would cover a 90 degree angle in the backdrop where the layout intrudes into a little alcove.
The Milwaukee Road WarriorI'm just wanting to make the most realistic looking plume possible, but not thinking about photography per se.
OK, because that is a huge difference. There are lots of options that look good in photographs that look terrible in person. Same with water.
I have no solution for the actual modelling of smoke. On my previous two layouts, I put the smokestacks against the backdrops and painted the smoke onto the sky. This was easy, but it was unconvincing and left a lot to be desired.
Not sure how much 'smoke' you want, but a lot of cases steam locomotives did not have plumes of smoke unless working hard against a gradient for example.
On my layout I just wanted a my locomotives with a 'little smoke'.
David
To the world you are someone. To someone you are the world
I cannot afford the luxury of a negative thought
Pruitt Speaking only for myself, I have never seen "modeled" smoke from a smokestack look anything but toylike. Where it's been done, it looks about as realistic as the smoke from a model steam locomotive.
Absolutely have to agree with Mark ..... In the old days with manually operational, film camers, and his own dark room, John Allen made some of the most incredible smoke filled photo's I know of. He used a combination of apeture settings and speed so he could move and blur finely torn and pulled steel wool hangin out of an engine or factory. He could also wave over the image in the darkrooom and lighten areas to enhance white steam or various whisps. It was never an exact science and I bet he had quite a bunch of photo's that went into the trash bin... But, still today, some of those photographs stand the test of time as stand alone examples of how good old tech could get.
There are so many tricks to use today with computers a photo with smoke is childsplay to a competent computer program wiz.
As for three dimensional smoke that is convincing... what Mark said. Even at 6 or 7 feet it is obvious it is cotton or some material..... I've tried this for clouds and with back lighting and viewing from a good distance you can do OK, but most layouts have the viewer within 3 feet of any scene. Leave it to their imaginations.
From the Ashes ; "The Great Divide"
https://www.facebook.com/Great-Divide-Lines-423511918192732/?modal=admin_todo_tour
NorthBrit Not sure how much 'smoke' you want, but a lot of cases steam locomotives did not have plumes of smoke unless working hard against a gradient for example. On my layout I just wanted a my locomotives with a 'little smoke'. David
My fault for not being clear: I'm not hoping to add smoke to locos or anything other than an industrial smokestack or two that will reside at or near my backdrop. Smoke on a loco would look childish, and smoke from a smokestack might too, which is why I wanted to pick brains on the forum first.