jecorbett Fascinating stuff Dave and things I had never thought about. As I state in a previous post, I live on a five acre wooded lot that is reclaimed farmland. The couple who sold me the lot 10 years ago and still live adjacent to my property told me it was farmland until about 1958 and was allowed to be reforested. (1)Mostly it is a mix of maples, white oaks, and cherry trees which have grown to the 70-80 foot range.(2) I've wondered why like trees didn't grow in clusters and your explaination makes a lot of sense.(3) Among the big strong trees are a lot of spindly ones of various species, some no thicker than saplings even though they have been growing for some time. I've seen many of these trees die before they reach maturity. Some I have been able to actually push over. (4) The mature trees don't have very wide canopies but tend to grow straight up.(5) When I cleared the land for the house shortly after I bought the property, I cleared roughly a 30 foot perimeter around the house although I did talk the builder into allowing me to keep one big strong white oak about 15 feet from the back door. Several of the mature trees on the perimeter died, I'm guessing from the strain on the root system from the grading of the land and the building of the septic system.(6) I've noticed that a number of the trees on the perimeter have sprouted branches into the clear zone. (7)Apparently trees are able to sense where there is sunlight and begin to grown outward as well as up.(8) I'm sure a arborist could give a more accurate description of the forces at work there. I see lots of vines which climb the trees, some reaching almost the top and in one severe case, I found a cluster of dead trees well short of maturity where a single vine seemed to have climbed one and spread to the rest of the cluster and apparently strangled the bunch. Fortunately, this was in the zone they needed to be cleared. (9) Depending on the weather, every year or two, one of my big trees will topple over, some from wind, some from the weight of ice, some simply because the root system was not strong enough to support them. This keeps me in firewood without ever having to cut down a mature tree just for that purpose. (10)
Fascinating stuff Dave and things I had never thought about. As I state in a previous post, I live on a five acre wooded lot that is reclaimed farmland. The couple who sold me the lot 10 years ago and still live adjacent to my property told me it was farmland until about 1958 and was allowed to be reforested. (1)Mostly it is a mix of maples, white oaks, and cherry trees which have grown to the 70-80 foot range.(2) I've wondered why like trees didn't grow in clusters and your explaination makes a lot of sense.(3) Among the big strong trees are a lot of spindly ones of various species, some no thicker than saplings even though they have been growing for some time. I've seen many of these trees die before they reach maturity. Some I have been able to actually push over. (4)
The mature trees don't have very wide canopies but tend to grow straight up.(5) When I cleared the land for the house shortly after I bought the property, I cleared roughly a 30 foot perimeter around the house although I did talk the builder into allowing me to keep one big strong white oak about 15 feet from the back door. Several of the mature trees on the perimeter died, I'm guessing from the strain on the root system from the grading of the land and the building of the septic system.(6) I've noticed that a number of the trees on the perimeter have sprouted branches into the clear zone. (7)Apparently trees are able to sense where there is sunlight and begin to grown outward as well as up.(8) I'm sure a arborist could give a more accurate description of the forces at work there.
I see lots of vines which climb the trees, some reaching almost the top and in one severe case, I found a cluster of dead trees well short of maturity where a single vine seemed to have climbed one and spread to the rest of the cluster and apparently strangled the bunch. Fortunately, this was in the zone they needed to be cleared. (9)
Depending on the weather, every year or two, one of my big trees will topple over, some from wind, some from the weight of ice, some simply because the root system was not strong enough to support them. This keeps me in firewood without ever having to cut down a mature tree just for that purpose. (10)
Glad you like it
(1) land that has been left that has been recolonised by stages by nature is different from land that has been "put back". Your plot sounds like it has been at least partly managed.
(2)The mix of trees seems odd...unless the site is downwind of that mix of types? The cherries seem particularly odd. Are they flowering (which I know can grow very tall 'cos I grew up with massive examples) or fruiting... which I would expect to be shorter and broader?
(3) As I said a whole bunch of seeds landing into "clean" ground may start at the same time. You can then get a cluster... but it may be a weak and spindly cluster. We had loads of ash, birch and silver birch along our railway banks in the south east. They were "invasive species" that shut out any chance for the odd more solid type that wasn't already well established. I don't think that any of them ever got to more than about 9" trunks... then again there was a change of policy and they were all mown down... which results in the root systems sending up loads of shoots if they are not grubbed out. This produces loads of shrub like trees which usually get up to about 8' tall before they get slashed down again... I don't know if this has a US equivalent?
(4) To this amatuer it sounds like what you have is pre-established trees that may have been left in during the farming period or deliberately planted - the cherries? Then you have self seeded (wind born) second growth. These are competing both with the existing trees and each other. The earlier trees will particularly have more established root systems and greater pull to draw on the water available.
(5) Don't know why you have this growth pattern. It sounds like the trees are not native to the soil type so that they may be getting an odd boost of nutrient for their type. This can be why an odd single tree that has been imported into a place by human or animal carrier can not just stand out by type amongst the locals but may sprout above them so that it really stands out. The RR is a good transporter of seeds...
(6) As well as disturbing the roots it is possible that you stirred up spores that had lain dormant in the ground for decades. These may have survived from trees rooted out. If so they would tend to act against any native trees that had migrated back into the land from nearby... the spores' food supply had come back!
From a RR point of view this can mean that trains act as transporters for spores and bugs as well as seeds... so, at least when the RR is new its effect can be devastating. In some respects this can tend to something approaching a monoculture along the ROW... the bugs and spores assist a limited number of plant types they don't attack successfully by weakening and wiping out their competition. This means the modeller may have less variety to bother about!
(7) You bet the trees grow into the open space! So does anything else... especially brambles!
This keeps the MOW and signal maintainers busy every year keeping the sighting lines Engineers need clear. From a model point of view this means that all plants should be modelled as mown/slashed back not just clear of the structure gauge but clear of sight lines as well. This will mean that tree branches will have been cut off many if not most/all years on the rail side of growth. This can show as old cuts or fresh.
One thing that we do every so often is clear cut back to the boundary. Everything, but everything, goes. This used to be burnt up leaving big bonfire patches... which then sprout charactistic growth due to the released nutrients... These days it is more likely that the small stuff (up to 9") will be chipped leaving piles or spreads of chippings... these deter re-growth of small and new stuff. Custom Models (???) make those nice pewter tampers and other stuff including hedgers...
In the early days men would have worked with axes, saws and billhooks. Scithing the grass (or mowing where flat enough) would have kept the grass down and the saplings with it as mentioned before. Later chain saws would do the heavier work... but it's a lot easier to run a scythe through small stuff than clear the larger growth...
(8) particular species tend to particular habits but, if they can't grow the way they want to they will grow the way they can. Around RR this shows up when a seed gets into a weird place, like masonry around a tunnel mouth, and a tree does what it can. It also applies that when a tree keeps getting cut back on one side it will either stop bothering to waste its effort on that side or it will sprout furiously on that side. Shrubs and shrubby trees particularly do this. Some go underground and sprout suckers like crazy.
Also if a tree breaks, splits or falls over but stays rooted it will not always die but will often just start pushing up growth on the top and/or sunniest side. this is why hedge layering works (I don't know if you do that in the US). It would make a nice change to see some knocked over / split / etc trees modelled. One thing that I see these days is where trucks and/or dozers have damaged trees.
There are a couple of places I know where freight cars have gone down banks, been stripped of small parts and left. The trees they landed in that weren't cut for access have fought back. Derelict stock often has plant growth in or through it.
(9) Some "vines" are pretty much independent of the tree and only borrow its support, others are sapprophitic and others are parasitic... take your pick! If you want good trees on your plot I'd get in someone who knows what is what!
In recent years I've noticed a lot more dead trees that just hold up the ivy or vines. They soon lose their small branches - which suggests disease - and increasingly just become skeletons of thicker limbs. This can result from chemical pollution... and steam engines as well as diesels pollute...
(10) Weather! Loads of possibilities! Apart from the ones you list a very dry year will see trees reacting by deliberately dumping growth. They actually cut off food to limbs that they won't be able to get enough nutrient for... the limbs dry up, starve and drop off... the tree doesn't need so much food and so it survives... neat huh? Back in '76 when we were a bit dry the branches would come off at night with a stunning CRACK! It could really make you jump. There were trees you avoided walking near late in the day. This can also be modelled... well the fallen branches and/or trees`with wounds can...
Of course one big detail to model is limbs or whole trees that have fallen on or near the track. if you don't actually have the MOW gang clearing up you can have the results of the clear-up.
When a big wind hits a forest the trees at the front can be pushed over to lean on inner rows. This doesn't kill them but makes the whole front of the forest look weird... and it's a swine for felling.
Usually the trees with flat, broad shallow roots are the ones that go over singly or in lines when there's a bit of a blow. this usually means that there is a big pancake of roots exposed... something else to model to make a scene unique... If a tree topples across the boundary the stuff on the ROW will be cleared while the bit outside is the neighbours problem...
When a big feller falls he usually creates an area of damaged smaller trees and an opening that will see new growth and the daaged trees trying to recover. The carcass provides an incredible habitat for all sorts of things...
As you point out fallen timber may be scavenged for fuel...
There's lots of stuff here that can be selected from to add touches of detail that will move a model tree or forest from being just another bit of a general background to something with a little bit of detail that makes it different. These small variations go a long way to enhancing the overall effect.
Even cash crop lodge pine plantations have masses of different detail. We don't need to model much to shift a scene up from the bland...
doctorwayne Dave-the-Train For those of us east of the pond what is "polyfibre" please? Sorry for the confusion, Dave. It seems that the folks at Woodland Scenics don't know the correct spelling of the word "fibre". Here is their version. Wayne
Dave-the-Train For those of us east of the pond what is "polyfibre" please?
For those of us east of the pond what is "polyfibre" please?
Sorry for the confusion, Dave. It seems that the folks at Woodland Scenics don't know the correct spelling of the word "fibre". Here is their version.
Wayne
That looks HORRIBLE to me! (Sorry WS).
Please find a good hi-fi store and try out the accoustic wadding! It is so much finer and so much more suited to layering...
It seems to come in grey or white but you can lay out or hang up a sheet and spray paint it gently. You can spray it one colour or various... then you can cut it into suitable bits.
Sorry I'm a little bit biased...
Dave-the-Train MichaelWinicki doctorwayneMost get an application of polyfibre (generally, the more stretched-out and wispy, the better), then ground foam is added using hairspray from a manual pump applicator. That's the one! I know my trees took a dramatic turn for the better stretching polyfibre between the branches of Woodland Scenic armatures. It's not what type of armature that's important, but the polyfibre... And then lightly cover the polyfibre with ground foam. The polyfibre gives the tree what would be very difficult otherwise; a natural "airiness" to them. "airiness" That's the word I wanted! For those of us east of the pond what is "polyfibre" please? I'm delighted that one of the contributors weathers his trees. I've not got round to it yet but I've salted away pics showing the different colours on different sides of trees - and also ivy and stuff growing on them. I guess that a lot of that applies more to lone trees and foreground stuff than to whole forests. If anyone wants to get really technical... due to bugs and diseases trees grow at specific distances from others of their own kind. Basically an established tree will have achieved a resistance to bugs and diseases but still have them around. (In some respects it's not resistance but the tree is big enough to not be too damaged by the bugs). When any new tree (maybe from the original tree's seeds) tries to grow within a bug/disease fallout zone of the tree the bugs and diseases transfer to it and kill it off before it can get established. This clearly has an advantage for the original tree as it prevents competition. When the scientists looked further at this they expected to find all trees conforming to a pattern of more-or-less circular zones. What they found went way beyond this... they found zone patterns that went back to trees that had pre-existed the large trees that currently dominated the location but were long gone. I don't expect anyone to model this! The logic of waffling on is that this goes to some way to explaining the sizes of trees and different characteristics of different woodlands. In the big forests we find the large trunked tall trees... but we also tend to find them spaced out (in the geographical sense)... and the spacing means that there is usually some sort of undergrowth... maybe of different species of trees or different, more shrub like, plants. I think that one point that hasn't been covered so far is this variety of plant life by both type and height, I think that one of the things that looks wrong with a lot of modelled forests is the lack of this variety. BUT... where the system has been disrupted, as by farming - or quarrying or mining - and trees have come back... well there are whole processes of re-colonisation --- but these go some way to explaining why you can get lots of trees of the same type, close together on disturbed land. Basically if the original trees and bugs have gone and a whole load of seeds blow into disused land they all start at the same time... but then they grow in competition with each other. The main way for a tree to compete with a physically close rival is upwards to get more sunlight (and maybe to shade out other trees)... so you will get tall spindly trees from varieties that would normally be shorter and broader. [or the taller trees will out-compete the shorter, broader ones reducing the range of variety]. The third possibility is artificial planting... but as this is usually either designed parkland or a cash crop we have moved way outside of the original forest idea. It occurs to me that another variety of land that has been cleared, kept clear and then sometimes allowed to re-grow trees is railroad right-of-way. Except for the North East and built up areas a lot of ROW was much wider than the track needed. A lot was cleared for fuel, fencing and even ties among other things. Once a swathe had been cleared grasses would tend to be the early colonisers... late summer dry grass and steam locos are not a good mix if you don't want to melt your telegraph wires and damage your neighbours' properties... so the grass tended to be kept in check - it could also be used as hay to feed RR horses or be sold off - Keeping grass down prevents tree growth... Once deisels took over and priorities changed the trees could come back in the same way that they could on disused farmland, Therefore we might look for the trees along the immediate edge of the ROW to be spaced more closely, less varied in type and both more spindley and taller. Okay, so I'm figuring this out as I go along... but I suspect that there is a good case for looking for evidence of a specific "RR micro environment" for trees - and everything else - all along the side of RR tracks. I'm confident enough to express this because, as I figure it out, I know that something along these lines is what I have been looking at here in the UK for the last 30+ years. Two other things that massively show up "disturbed land" are brambles and nettles. These are early, powerful, colonisers. The huge problem "coloniser"/invader we now have is Japanese Knot Weed. It occurs to me that these RR caused changes to the environment are probably as significant as factories and junkyards along the trackside... we just haven't noticed them. The swathe cut by a RR is a bit like a major river - except that it doesn't change course. A river shifting course removes old chunks of scenery and creates opportunity for new scenery,,, Hmm... Time to stop waffling
MichaelWinicki doctorwayneMost get an application of polyfibre (generally, the more stretched-out and wispy, the better), then ground foam is added using hairspray from a manual pump applicator. That's the one! I know my trees took a dramatic turn for the better stretching polyfibre between the branches of Woodland Scenic armatures. It's not what type of armature that's important, but the polyfibre... And then lightly cover the polyfibre with ground foam. The polyfibre gives the tree what would be very difficult otherwise; a natural "airiness" to them.
doctorwayneMost get an application of polyfibre (generally, the more stretched-out and wispy, the better), then ground foam is added using hairspray from a manual pump applicator.
That's the one!
I know my trees took a dramatic turn for the better stretching polyfibre between the branches of Woodland Scenic armatures.
It's not what type of armature that's important, but the polyfibre... And then lightly cover the polyfibre with ground foam.
The polyfibre gives the tree what would be very difficult otherwise; a natural "airiness" to them.
"airiness" That's the word I wanted!
I'm delighted that one of the contributors weathers his trees. I've not got round to it yet but I've salted away pics showing the different colours on different sides of trees - and also ivy and stuff growing on them. I guess that a lot of that applies more to lone trees and foreground stuff than to whole forests.
If anyone wants to get really technical... due to bugs and diseases trees grow at specific distances from others of their own kind. Basically an established tree will have achieved a resistance to bugs and diseases but still have them around. (In some respects it's not resistance but the tree is big enough to not be too damaged by the bugs). When any new tree (maybe from the original tree's seeds) tries to grow within a bug/disease fallout zone of the tree the bugs and diseases transfer to it and kill it off before it can get established. This clearly has an advantage for the original tree as it prevents competition. When the scientists looked further at this they expected to find all trees conforming to a pattern of more-or-less circular zones. What they found went way beyond this... they found zone patterns that went back to trees that had pre-existed the large trees that currently dominated the location but were long gone. I don't expect anyone to model this!
The logic of waffling on is that this goes to some way to explaining the sizes of trees and different characteristics of different woodlands. In the big forests we find the large trunked tall trees... but we also tend to find them spaced out (in the geographical sense)... and the spacing means that there is usually some sort of undergrowth... maybe of different species of trees or different, more shrub like, plants.
I think that one point that hasn't been covered so far is this variety of plant life by both type and height, I think that one of the things that looks wrong with a lot of modelled forests is the lack of this variety.
BUT... where the system has been disrupted, as by farming - or quarrying or mining - and trees have come back... well there are whole processes of re-colonisation --- but these go some way to explaining why you can get lots of trees of the same type, close together on disturbed land.
Basically if the original trees and bugs have gone and a whole load of seeds blow into disused land they all start at the same time... but then they grow in competition with each other. The main way for a tree to compete with a physically close rival is upwards to get more sunlight (and maybe to shade out other trees)... so you will get tall spindly trees from varieties that would normally be shorter and broader. [or the taller trees will out-compete the shorter, broader ones reducing the range of variety].
The third possibility is artificial planting... but as this is usually either designed parkland or a cash crop we have moved way outside of the original forest idea.
It occurs to me that another variety of land that has been cleared, kept clear and then sometimes allowed to re-grow trees is railroad right-of-way.
Except for the North East and built up areas a lot of ROW was much wider than the track needed. A lot was cleared for fuel, fencing and even ties among other things. Once a swathe had been cleared grasses would tend to be the early colonisers... late summer dry grass and steam locos are not a good mix if you don't want to melt your telegraph wires and damage your neighbours' properties... so the grass tended to be kept in check - it could also be used as hay to feed RR horses or be sold off - Keeping grass down prevents tree growth...
Once deisels took over and priorities changed the trees could come back in the same way that they could on disused farmland, Therefore we might look for the trees along the immediate edge of the ROW to be spaced more closely, less varied in type and both more spindley and taller.
Okay, so I'm figuring this out as I go along... but I suspect that there is a good case for looking for evidence of a specific "RR micro environment" for trees - and everything else - all along the side of RR tracks. I'm confident enough to express this because, as I figure it out, I know that something along these lines is what I have been looking at here in the UK for the last 30+ years.
Two other things that massively show up "disturbed land" are brambles and nettles. These are early, powerful, colonisers.
The huge problem "coloniser"/invader we now have is Japanese Knot Weed.
It occurs to me that these RR caused changes to the environment are probably as significant as factories and junkyards along the trackside... we just haven't noticed them.
The swathe cut by a RR is a bit like a major river - except that it doesn't change course. A river shifting course removes old chunks of scenery and creates opportunity for new scenery,,,
Hmm...
Time to stop waffling
Fascinating stuff Dave and things I had never thought about. As I state in a previous post, I live on a five acre wooded lot that is reclaimed farmland. The couple who sold me the lot 10 years ago and still live adjacent to my property told me it was farmland until about 1958 and was allowed to be reforested. Mostly it is a mix of maples, white oaks, and cherry trees which have grown to the 70-80 foot range. I've wondered why like trees didn't grow in clusters and your explaination makes a lot of sense. Among the big strong trees are a lot of spindly ones of various species, some no thicker than saplings even though they have been growing for some time. I've seen many of these trees die before they reach maturity. Some I have been able to actually push over.
The mature trees don't have very wide canopies but tend to grow straight up. When I cleared the land for the house shortly after I bought the property, I cleared roughly a 30 foot perimeter around the house although I did talk the builder into allowing me to keep one big strong white oak about 15 feet from the back door. Several of the mature trees on the perimeter died, I'm guessing from the strain on the root system from the grading of the land and the building of the septic system. I've noticed that a number of the trees on the perimeter have sprouted branches into the clear zone. Apparently trees are able to sense where there is sunlight and begin to grown outward as well as up. I'm sure a arborist could give a more accurate description of the forces at work there.
I see lots of vines which climb the trees, some reaching almost the top and in one severe case, I found a cluster of dead trees well short of maturity where a single vine seemed to have climbed one and spread to the rest of the cluster and apparently strangled the bunch. Fortunately, this was in the zone they needed to be cleared.
Depending on the weather, every year or two, one of my big trees will topple over, some from wind, some from the weight of ice, some simply because the root system was not strong enough to support them. This keeps me in firewood without ever having to cut down a mature tree just for that purpose.
Dave-the-TrainFor those of us east of the pond what is "polyfibre" please?
Well folks, this has certainly been a very interesting and informative thread with many different and effective ideas noted. I have bookmarked this for my reference as I continue to plug away at the plaster/terrain stage and will certainly be referring back to this many times over. Thanks to all who took the time to put together tutorials and some magnificent photos. I certainly got way more of an education than I initially thought I would get and this thread alone is better than going back through many past issues of tree making articles from the hobby press! You guys are the best!
Matt
Thank you for the kind words, Michael.
You're certainly right about the cost of tree-making as compared to locomotives, rolling stock, or structures, but, like most other aspects of our hobby, we also have options as whether to "buy" or "build" (or a combination of both). A package of polyfibre will go a long way when it's properly stretched and thinned, and ditto for the ground foam. If you organise your tree-making, you can easily achieve almost zero waste of the foam.
I usually work on the floor of the layout room, spreading out newspapers for each colour of foam, and sometimes also for each grade (fine/medium/coarse). I usually apply the colours starting with the darkest first, and working progressively through to the lightest. Not all trees use all of the colours or grades, either. By applying each over its own section of newspaper, the excess is easily recaptured for re-use, and at the end of the tree-making session, it's simply returned to its original container. The finished trees, if not installed on the layout as they're built, are simply stuck into a chunk of foam (the insulating kind, not the uphostery stuff) to dry.
As for the tree canopies of the original question, once the foreground trees have been constructed (personally, I'd leave their installation until after the background canopy was in place) it would seem to me that it would be a much more economical use of polyfibre to build tree-tops over natural (twigs or weed stems) armatures. This would give the more irregular shape mentioned earlier, while using very little polyfibre for each treetop. The amount of ground foam needed would probably be similar to that required for the "puff ball" type, but nowhere near what you'd use for a foreground tree. If you can find upholstery foam in a suitable dark colour (and at a reasonable price - I had some given to me, but found it fairly expensive in local fabric shops), I think that it might be a useful alternative for background canopies. Simply tear or cut it into irregular shapes, apply a few shades of ground foam and glue it in place. You could also pre-plant pieces of twigs, skewers or even nails into your scenery foam or plaster, then impale the chunks of foam, with or without glue.
Very nice doctorwayne!
To me, most of us are going to have our layouts for years, and it's not like decent tree making material costs and arm & a leg either... At least not compared to most of the stuff and equipment we need or use on our layouts. And it doesn't take that long to crank out some decent looking trees.
Well, I shot 52 photos of "trees", some to show results which I liked, others that I didn't like, and others that had been "improved" from their original appearance. I also saw a few things that I hadn't noticed before, as many of the photos were shot "from the layout", at angles from which one would not normally be able to view. I've cropped a few to get rid of unrelated background stuff (mostly support structure for an eventual second level of the layout) and have edited-out most of the useless ones.
EDIT: Since this response has turned into a fairly lengthy one, I didn't include other photos that I have, on file, of over-all views of the individual areas. If anyone needs to see a view in its over-all context, I'll be glad to post one if requested.
Here's a couple of my early attempts, which were made by dipping flowers clipped from a Spirea bush into clear urethane left-over from a furniture project. I sprinkled ground foam over the dripping mess, then hung them upside down to dry for several days. The individual twigs were too thin to support the heavy "crown", so I bunched them using florist's tape:
Here's an older photo showing another which was supposed to represent a lone elm growing in a pasture, a common sight in my modelled area and era. I combined several trees similar to those in the first two photos to create a larger one, then added some polyfibre and some more ground foam:
I thought that this was a big improvement over the original, but before I got too swell-headed about it, someone remarked that it looked like a big, furry umbrella. I left it in place anyway (it's simply poked into a hole drilled in the plaster scenery) and simply photographed around it. Recently, while shooting some train pictures in the same general area, I had an idea to improve the original "improvement":
I like it better (not very objective, I know), but looking at the pictures makes me think that a few more wispy branches "dangling" from the outer part of the crown might make it good enough to match some photos of real ones that I have.
Here's the Masonite "hills" of which I spoke earlier. The "sky" here is a coved inside corner also constructed from Masonite. I cut a profile of hills on another piece of Masonite, painted it dark green ('cause that was the most suitable colour that I had on hand) then sprinkled some ground foam onto the wet paint. After it dried, I installed it against the curve of the "sky", slipping the bottom edge behind the back of the plaster-on-screen scenery, which doesn't quite meet the "sky". While it was an improvement over just plain sky, it looked too dark and too one-dimensional. Ultimately, I ended-up giving it (while it was laying flat on the floor) the full ground foam/wet water, dilute white glue treatment, followed, eventually, by a light overspray using a can of grey automotive primer:
While there are some trees in the mid-foreground, there are many more to be planted here, most likely as an orchard. The line of bush/brush/trees immediately in front of the "hills" is made-up from coarse bits of lichen, covered with some polyfibre, and an application or two of ground foam:
I added a second piece to extend the background "hills" completely around the curve, achieving a degree of three-dimensionality where one overlaps the other:
These semi-background evergreens were meant to represent cedars, but, to me, the colour especially looks more like junipers. At least they break-up the scene a bit in this "outskirts of town" view. The trees are between 35' and 60' high in HO scale, and were made from the flowers of a butterfly bush, dipped in urethane and coated with foam. (They're much too limp without the added stiffness of the urethane coating):
This same corner of the layout also features a small creek, mostly hidden by small trees and bushes. It looks better in person, although the profiles of the trees are still too round-looking for my tastes - the camera really seems to accentuate that aspect of them:
Here's an overhead view, with the "water" visible. Some of the lichen used as underbrush obviously needs another application of ground foam :
Here are some smaller trees and bushes made using the original "dipping" technique, clustered in a cut near a tunnel:
Behind them is a right of way for the telegraph line as it climbs above the tunnel. The small trees are twigs from an unknown bush, with a few wisps of polyfibre and some ground foam. The low brush, in the foreground, front of the background and beside the building, is foam-covered lichen, while the row of higher "brush" and the "trees" behind that are made from strips of white upholstery foam which I had sitting around. I painted it dark green, using a brush or by dipping it right into the gallon can, then stretched some polyfibre over the top, and added some ground foam:
Here are a couple of aerial views, plainly showing the ruse. The "woods" atop the hill is also a block of soft foam, with a few short twigs sticking out the top to break-up the profile of the polyfibre covering. The area at the top of the second picture, below, will be right beneath the beginning of the benchwork for the second level, so probably won't be very visible in normal viewing:
Here, beyond the pick-up with the floating front wheel (now that's a smo-o-oth ride!) are a few small trees, about 25' or less, and fairly young by the looks of the spindly trunks. Twigs of some sort (goldenrod, from late fall, works well for branch structure, especially if you resist the temptation to leave all of the flowers in place) form the armature. With the flowers still in place, they may also be useful as background "fill", with some polyfibre to thin-out the extremities and, of course, an application of foam. Behind those saplings, more painted upholstery foam, then nothing but sky. (The view on this part of the layout looks south, over Lake Erie, which is obviously at a lower elevation. )
Some larger trees along the riverbank, with lichen/ground foam "undergrowth".
In this view, taken from the middle of the river, the backdrop is to the right (about 6"), while the aisle is about 2' to the left. The lichen is easily recognisable :
However, the same area (beyond the bridge, below) when viewed from the aisle doesn't appear quite so objectionable:
Here are the wooded banks of the river seen in one of my previous posts, as seen from the aisle:
More upholstery horizon trees, as the backdrop curves, at left, around the corner of the room. The livestock is N scale:
The road behind the car curves past some twig trees, then literally disappears as it passes into some "blob trees", made-up of lichen and/or soft foam, with polyfibre and ground foam applied. Beyond that, excuse me while some more soft foam trees "kiss this guy".
As seen from the bridge, the river below curves around a bend and disappears
According to local lore, there's a waterfall just upstream from the bend. While there is a drop of about 30' there is no waterfall or even upper river. Instead, a grouping of mostly evergreens (modelled with small "bottle brush" trees, covered with polyfibre and ground foam) "suggest" a river wandering off towards the backdrop:
The background in the last view, above, definitely needs a bit of "tweaking", but it doesn't look too bad when view from a distance:
As I mentioned earlier, it's not my intention to hold up any of these pictures as anything more than an example of "this is what I did". If you find any of it of use for your own further development of a particular technique, please feel free to expand on it as you see fit. If, by showing my "false starts", you get a laugh, or merely realise that it wasn't a very good idea, then perhaps the time that it's taken you to wade through this will at least be worthwhile. Part of the point of showing both decent and not-so-decent results is to show you that you shouldn't be afraid to try - either one of these techniques or one suggested by someone else, or even one that you thought of yourself - and that you should also not worry if it doesn't turn out quite the way you expected. The only true failure occurs when you don't even bother to try.
doctorwayne jecorbettBeautiful work, Wayne. Besides the great looking foliage, the lineside details add a lot to the scene. Are your foliage colors from commercial products or did I understand you to say you airbrush them. I like your colors better than the ones on my layout, expecially your darker greens. What brand(s) do you use? Thank you for the kind words, John. The trees are made from natural plant material for the trunk/branch structure: mostly weeds, ornamental shrubs and flowers, or clippings from bushes. I sometimes bind smaller stuff together with florist's tape to get a thicker trunk and/or a fuller branch structure. The trees and bushes in the photos above are my first useable efforts - I'll try to take some pictures of the less-successful attempts, too, and add them to this thread. Most get an application of polyfibre (generally, the more stretched-out and wispy, the better), then ground foam is added using hairspray from a manual pump applicator. I use the cheapest, unscented brand, and the manual sprayer allows you to add the stuff that the pick-up tube can't reach to the next bottle, so there's very little waste. Also, the spray is less forceful than an aerosol, and therefore less likely to undo the previous application. I use Woodland Scenics stuff pretty-well exclusively, as it's all that I've seen around here. I start with the darker colours first, usually Medium Green, then an application of Light Green , followed by some Burnt Grass, and perhaps a touch of Yellow Grass. I've more-or-less decided that I'm modelling "early June", so the fairly bright colours aren't too out of place. While I've yet to spray trees with my version of "distant blue/grey haze", I have done so on a piece of Masonite "hills" that sit against the "sky". (Picture to follow.) As is the case when trying to illustrate a specific subject, most of my available photos show that specific subject only on the periphery of something else, so I'll try to post some "tree" shots to use as illustrations. I intend in no way put them forth as great trees, though, as they're very close to being my first attempts - I was pleased with most, but see room for improvement, as I'm sure others will, too. Be back shortly. Wayne
jecorbettBeautiful work, Wayne. Besides the great looking foliage, the lineside details add a lot to the scene. Are your foliage colors from commercial products or did I understand you to say you airbrush them. I like your colors better than the ones on my layout, expecially your darker greens. What brand(s) do you use?
Are your foliage colors from commercial products or did I understand you to say you airbrush them. I like your colors better than the ones on my layout, expecially your darker greens. What brand(s) do you use?
Thank you for the kind words, John. The trees are made from natural plant material for the trunk/branch structure: mostly weeds, ornamental shrubs and flowers, or clippings from bushes. I sometimes bind smaller stuff together with florist's tape to get a thicker trunk and/or a fuller branch structure. The trees and bushes in the photos above are my first useable efforts - I'll try to take some pictures of the less-successful attempts, too, and add them to this thread. Most get an application of polyfibre (generally, the more stretched-out and wispy, the better), then ground foam is added using hairspray from a manual pump applicator. I use the cheapest, unscented brand, and the manual sprayer allows you to add the stuff that the pick-up tube can't reach to the next bottle, so there's very little waste. Also, the spray is less forceful than an aerosol, and therefore less likely to undo the previous application. I use Woodland Scenics stuff pretty-well exclusively, as it's all that I've seen around here. I start with the darker colours first, usually Medium Green, then an application of Light Green , followed by some Burnt Grass, and perhaps a touch of Yellow Grass. I've more-or-less decided that I'm modelling "early June", so the fairly bright colours aren't too out of place. While I've yet to spray trees with my version of "distant blue/grey haze", I have done so on a piece of Masonite "hills" that sit against the "sky". (Picture to follow.)
As is the case when trying to illustrate a specific subject, most of my available photos show that specific subject only on the periphery of something else, so I'll try to post some "tree" shots to use as illustrations. I intend in no way put them forth as great trees, though, as they're very close to being my first attempts - I was pleased with most, but see room for improvement, as I'm sure others will, too. Be back shortly.
So since we use the same materials, it would seem the key is in layering the foliage. I'm a big believer that layering is the key to most good scenery so I feel a bit silly that I didn't think of that for the poly tree foliage. To me, the Medium Green by itself is just too vibrant which seems artificial to me. Apparently, by layering on the light colors, that gets toned down quite a bit. The funny thing is I just did an area where I was creating some undergrowth and didn't like the Medium Green in that either so I topped it with Burnt Grass and it looked much better. I don't know why I didn't think to carry that approach over to the tree foliage. Oh well. Live and learn.
John
doctorwayne jecorbett I agree with what you say about color. One of the problems is what is commercially available. I use WS ground foam for foliage because that is what my LHS stocks and I need a source where I can go get more whenever I need it. I use primarily Light Green and Burnt Grass (think olive) coarse foam because the darker Medium Green and Dark Green shades look very artificial to me. These look a bit too light to me but that don't stand out like the darker shades. The only WS shade I think that looks right is their Blended Turf but I've never seen that in the coarse texture. Another useful colour would be a blue/green, or even a blue/grey, which would eliminate the need to airbrush such colours onto background trees (at the backdrop) to suggest distance. I had some that I used on a previous layout, but I don't know the manufacturer and haven't been able to locate anything similar. I still have a large area of layout that needs almost total coverage with trees, so am following this thread with interest. Of the trees already in place, most are homemade using locally available plant armatures, usually covered with polyfibre and sprinkled with ground foam. I've found that varying tree sizes, within reason, can add to the illusion of depth, and that, for my modelled locale of southern/southwestern Ontario, sixty-footers are big enough to look plausible without overwhelming the trains or the rest of the scene. Most are 40'-ers or smaller, though, like the ones in the picture below. Many of these are alongside a stream here, and are taller than they appear in this view, which cannot be seen from normal viewing angles. Here's what you'd see from the aisle (viewed at eye-level): Wayne
jecorbett I agree with what you say about color. One of the problems is what is commercially available. I use WS ground foam for foliage because that is what my LHS stocks and I need a source where I can go get more whenever I need it. I use primarily Light Green and Burnt Grass (think olive) coarse foam because the darker Medium Green and Dark Green shades look very artificial to me. These look a bit too light to me but that don't stand out like the darker shades. The only WS shade I think that looks right is their Blended Turf but I've never seen that in the coarse texture.
I agree with what you say about color. One of the problems is what is commercially available. I use WS ground foam for foliage because that is what my LHS stocks and I need a source where I can go get more whenever I need it. I use primarily Light Green and Burnt Grass (think olive) coarse foam because the darker Medium Green and Dark Green shades look very artificial to me. These look a bit too light to me but that don't stand out like the darker shades. The only WS shade I think that looks right is their Blended Turf but I've never seen that in the coarse texture.
Another useful colour would be a blue/green, or even a blue/grey, which would eliminate the need to airbrush such colours onto background trees (at the backdrop) to suggest distance. I had some that I used on a previous layout, but I don't know the manufacturer and haven't been able to locate anything similar.
I still have a large area of layout that needs almost total coverage with trees, so am following this thread with interest. Of the trees already in place, most are homemade using locally available plant armatures, usually covered with polyfibre and sprinkled with ground foam. I've found that varying tree sizes, within reason, can add to the illusion of depth, and that, for my modelled locale of southern/southwestern Ontario, sixty-footers are big enough to look plausible without overwhelming the trains or the rest of the scene. Most are 40'-ers or smaller, though, like the ones in the picture below. Many of these are alongside a stream here, and are taller than they appear in this view, which cannot be seen from normal viewing angles.
Here's what you'd see from the aisle (viewed at eye-level):
Beautiful work, Wayne. Besides the great looking foliage, the lineside details add a lot to the scene.
davidmbedard No there no reason we cant have scale trees.....sounds like people just making excuses for what they have done. Who says that you have to model a 50 story building. With a valence, you can absolutley model the portion of the building that reaches the valence.....same with a mountain. Sorry, selective compression has nothing to do with height. David B
No there no reason we cant have scale trees.....sounds like people just making excuses for what they have done.
Who says that you have to model a 50 story building. With a valence, you can absolutley model the portion of the building that reaches the valence.....same with a mountain.
Sorry, selective compression has nothing to do with height.
David B
Well if we do as you suggest and build our mountains up to the valence, we then have no sky. No sky means no illusion of depth. You will see nothing but mountain at the back of your layout. Essentially, you will have a green wall (or brown if you live out west). That's fine if that's what you want but most of us want to see a horizon. That means drastically scaling down the mountains, and if you do that, you need to scale down the trees as well.
It would take almost 6 feet of height to accurately portray even a 500 foot peak in HO. About 4 feet in N scale. Not many of us have that kind of vertical space so we compromise. We scale down our mountains and our trees which creates the illusion they are actually farther away from the track than they really are. You are free to put scale sized trees on your layout, but most of us can live with something a little less than that. After all, we want the focus on the trains not the background. The trains are the star of the show. The scenery is the supporting cast. For that reason, I can live with something that is less than 100% accurate.
The first layout in the current Great Model Railroads features Raton Pass in New Mexico and it has a beautiful mural of the mountains painted on the backdrop. It isn't even close to being photo realistic but that wasn't the purpose. The purpose was to suggest depth on what is a very narrow shelf railroad. It accomplishes just that. To me that is the purpose of background scenery and backdrops. It is there to suggest that the layout extends beyond the basement walls. If it does that, then it is mission accomplished.
jecorbettI agree with what you say about color. One of the problems is what is commercially available. I use WS ground foam for foliage because that is what my LHS stocks and I need a source where I can go get more whenever I need it. I use primarily Light Green and Burnt Grass (think olive) coarse foam because the darker Medium Green and Dark Green shades look very artificial to me. These look a bit too light to me but that don't stand out like the darker shades. The only WS shade I think that looks right is their Blended Turf but I've never seen that in the coarse texture.
jecorbettdavidmbedard Why are everyone's trees so juvenile? Forests tent to be established with mature and post-mature trees....which are typically much, much taller than locomotives. David B It's a form of selective compression. I live on a five acre wooded lot in central Ohio and am surrounded by 70-80 foot trees. To make scale trees that tall, you would need 9-10 inch trees in HO. That would dwarf most layouts. In N scale, you might be able to get something a little closer which is one of the advantages of N scale, but that is a world I dare not venture into.
davidmbedard Why are everyone's trees so juvenile? Forests tent to be established with mature and post-mature trees....which are typically much, much taller than locomotives. David B
Why are everyone's trees so juvenile? Forests tent to be established with mature and post-mature trees....which are typically much, much taller than locomotives.
It's a form of selective compression. I live on a five acre wooded lot in central Ohio and am surrounded by 70-80 foot trees. To make scale trees that tall, you would need 9-10 inch trees in HO. That would dwarf most layouts. In N scale, you might be able to get something a little closer which is one of the advantages of N scale, but that is a world I dare not venture into.
Said exactly: The same can be said for why you don't see 50 story buildings on layouts. (unless you're Rod Stewart! )
CNJ831 Several points that really should be addressed further... It is indeed true that in the real world, when viewing a broad and complex landscape, the brain registers only about a half of what the eyes actually see, "filling in" the rest do to the overwhelming complexity, especially toward the outside of the field of view (this in itself is a very intersting subject when it comes to camoflage and explaining seeing supposedly odd events/things that aren't really there). HOWEVER...when viewing a restricted area, like a small portion of a layout seen relatively close-up, most everything before the viewer is being seen with the central area of vision and in great detail and the same situation does not prevail. This is why puffball trees look so unrealistic. Likewise, there really can't be any modeled transition from detailed Super Trees to the puffballs at any point as one moves away from the viewer, since the viewer will immediately precieve any such break.
Several points that really should be addressed further...
It is indeed true that in the real world, when viewing a broad and complex landscape, the brain registers only about a half of what the eyes actually see, "filling in" the rest do to the overwhelming complexity, especially toward the outside of the field of view (this in itself is a very intersting subject when it comes to camoflage and explaining seeing supposedly odd events/things that aren't really there). HOWEVER...when viewing a restricted area, like a small portion of a layout seen relatively close-up, most everything before the viewer is being seen with the central area of vision and in great detail and the same situation does not prevail. This is why puffball trees look so unrealistic. Likewise, there really can't be any modeled transition from detailed Super Trees to the puffballs at any point as one moves away from the viewer, since the viewer will immediately precieve any such break.
I've solved that problem my transitioning from Super Trees to WS Armatures to the puffballs. Generally I only need one row of the WS trees to create the illusion. You can see through the Super Trees to the WS trees but you can't see through the WS trees to the puffballs.
The same holds true if you attempt to place say a house in a clearing well back from the front of the layout. If you place more detailed trees immediately surrounding it, the eye will precieve the sudden change in the level of detail between it and the surrounding forest.The only real way to give the impression of great distances on the layout is to employ a graduated series of ground foam "leaf" sizes, decreasing from front to back. That will be far more likely to trick the viewer. Even better is to simply avoid creating scenes of considerable depth, unless the scene can be complosed of a series of distinct hills layered to convey increasing distance. In that situation, other rather more complex tricks can be employed to fool the viewer and make the scene look truly realistic.
I did exactly that in the photo I posted earlier in this thread. Near the front of the layout I have a clear cut line for the telephone poles. I then have a row of WS trees before resuming with puffballs that become gradually smaller as I worked up the hill. Near the top is a road and two N scale houses for forced perspective and more WS trees before filling in to the back with more puffballs. I think it works well.
The point also came up about the rather spindly nature of Super Tree trunks, with the point being made that forest trees often have stout trunks. But again, it matters exactly where and when you are modeling. In much of the eastern U.S. the trees, even in heavily wooded areas, are typically young second growth, often on former farm land and often becoming established post-1960. Such trees, usually densely packed, have experienced slow growth and have very spindley trunks, even though their tops may reach 60'. In my area of NY and I'm sure a great many other areas, stands of trees with trunks more than a foot or so in diameter are very much the exception. In Canada, or the Pacific Northwest logging regions, I'm sure that the situation is quite different and the modeling would have to reflect this.
I live on just such a lot. My five acres of woods were farmland until the late 1950s. You are right that the typical diameter is about one foot but that is more the 1/8" in HO scale and the largest Super Tree trunks I've seen are nowhere near that.
MichaelWinicki Brilliant thread. One of the best tree threads I've come across in a long time. Mark me down as a non-puffball guy. I spent a lot of time researching trees and taking pictures of canopies here in western New York and western PA over the summer and fall. And puffball forests are much too round at the top... Too much "puff" if you will. Real canopies in this neck of the woods are much more "pointy" where each individual tree comes through... You don't have a big puff, but much more of a point. Even at a great distance you don't have the round "spherical" look that puffball trees create. And when it comes to colors, most layouts don't use anywhere near enough tree colors– even in the peak of summer, the number of greens mother nature throws at us is extraordinary. Granted we can't replicate every single color, but I think we can use more color variation.
Brilliant thread.
One of the best tree threads I've come across in a long time.
Mark me down as a non-puffball guy. I spent a lot of time researching trees and taking pictures of canopies here in western New York and western PA over the summer and fall. And puffball forests are much too round at the top... Too much "puff" if you will.
Real canopies in this neck of the woods are much more "pointy" where each individual tree comes through... You don't have a big puff, but much more of a point. Even at a great distance you don't have the round "spherical" look that puffball trees create.
And when it comes to colors, most layouts don't use anywhere near enough tree colors– even in the peak of summer, the number of greens mother nature throws at us is extraordinary. Granted we can't replicate every single color, but I think we can use more color variation.
Puffball trees don't have to be round mounds. I make mine by tearing off a handful of polly fiber and wadding it up in my hand. This creates a variety of sizes and shapes, mostly irregular. Now the points tend to get rounded off when foliage is applied, but they still don't look like Christmas ornaments. Again I say, you aren't creating trees with puffballs, you are creating a forest. It is meant to be a background for what we focus on in the foreground. Puffball tree canopies are simply intended to suggest a forest, not look like one.
Wow CNJ you took a great thread and made it even better!
Solid point about the transition between using real trees and puffballs... You're 100% right. You just can't do it cleanly. No matter what you do you end up trying to transition from an area that looks one way to one that looks totally different– And it's very apparent...
The point also came up about the rather spindly nature of Super Tree trunks, with the comment being made that forest trees often have stout trunks. But again, it matters exactly where and when you are modeling. In much of the eastern U.S. the trees, even in heavily wooded areas, are typically young second growth, often on former farmland and often becoming established post-1960. Such trees, usually densely packed, have experienced slow growth and have very spindley trunks, even though their tops may reach 60'. In my area of NY and I'm sure a great many other areas, stands of trees with trunks more than a foot or so in diameter are very much the exception. In Canada, or the Pacific Northwest logging regions, I'm sure that the situation is quite different and the modeling would have to reflect this.
Another aspect not so far touched upon here are the effects of atmosphere in modeling. Believe it or not, I weathered my forests! The density/moisture/amount of atmosphere between the viewer and more distant objects in the real world distinctly alters what the viewer sees in the way of color intensity and definition of detail. This is something one quickly learns in landscape painting and is why most of even the very best looking model railroad photos can't be mistaken for the real thing, even at first glance. I really can't go into detail here about this (a separate thread perhaps?) but it should be a significant consideration for the advanced hobbyist.
CNJ831
Here is a tree using a Woodland Scenic armature as a base...
Dave-the-Train jecorbetttatans The one big mistake people make is painting their trees one solid color, every trees has many different colors, even a stand of the same species of tree you can see many variations , in green trees add a bit of yellow to some branches, remember there are shadows, the inside of the tree is much darker than outer branches, I live in an area of massive hardwoods and the trees vary in size( do the same on your layout) and there are always a few evergreens poking up here and there, get a book on painting trees from an art store. as some others quoted, get away from your forest looking like a smooth bunch of green painted cotton balls. I think that's good advice for foreground trees and even for single trees in the background but for background forests, it is not necessary to work in the same level of detail. When we look at distance woods, we see a cluster of trees that tend to blend together and we don't see that same level of detail that we do when we look at a single specimen or at trees up close. As with all forms of scenery, the amount of detail needed diminshes as the distance increases. I would suggest that we can takethis further. It's not just distance that affects what we see... but whether we pay attention to it. Without waffling to much - our brains are pretty busy just processing what we need to see or select to pay attention to. In order to cope with the mass of information available we filter out huge amounts. A big part of this involves "not bothering" with loads of stuff that is "normal" / that we are "used to". On the other hand we very rapidly pay attention to anything that is new,sudden,unusual or (particularly) a threat. We can use both things. For the first we can get ourselves to assume that because there are very realistic trees in sight in the foreground then all the rest are very accurate. We can then elaborate on this by creating a focus point that will attract attention. When this is very detailed it will "confirm" what the brain is already assuming. So if we highly detail the front row of trees and maybe the second and then gradually reduce the level of detail as we go back we will have a good start... but then if we insert something into the trees, a track way,building or whatever and both make that highly detailed and apply the same concentration of details atound it... then we will further convince ourselves of the overall level of detail... that we are not actually looking at or paying attention to. This is the art of camoflage... making everything "normal" and, where appropriate, distracting attention away from things we don't want attention paid to.
jecorbetttatans The one big mistake people make is painting their trees one solid color, every trees has many different colors, even a stand of the same species of tree you can see many variations , in green trees add a bit of yellow to some branches, remember there are shadows, the inside of the tree is much darker than outer branches, I live in an area of massive hardwoods and the trees vary in size( do the same on your layout) and there are always a few evergreens poking up here and there, get a book on painting trees from an art store. as some others quoted, get away from your forest looking like a smooth bunch of green painted cotton balls. I think that's good advice for foreground trees and even for single trees in the background but for background forests, it is not necessary to work in the same level of detail. When we look at distance woods, we see a cluster of trees that tend to blend together and we don't see that same level of detail that we do when we look at a single specimen or at trees up close. As with all forms of scenery, the amount of detail needed diminshes as the distance increases.
tatans The one big mistake people make is painting their trees one solid color, every trees has many different colors, even a stand of the same species of tree you can see many variations , in green trees add a bit of yellow to some branches, remember there are shadows, the inside of the tree is much darker than outer branches, I live in an area of massive hardwoods and the trees vary in size( do the same on your layout) and there are always a few evergreens poking up here and there, get a book on painting trees from an art store. as some others quoted, get away from your forest looking like a smooth bunch of green painted cotton balls.
I would suggest that we can takethis further. It's not just distance that affects what we see... but whether we pay attention to it. Without waffling to much - our brains are pretty busy just processing what we need to see or select to pay attention to. In order to cope with the mass of information available we filter out huge amounts.
A big part of this involves "not bothering" with loads of stuff that is "normal" / that we are "used to". On the other hand we very rapidly pay attention to anything that is new,sudden,unusual or (particularly) a threat.
We can use both things. For the first we can get ourselves to assume that because there are very realistic trees in sight in the foreground then all the rest are very accurate.
We can then elaborate on this by creating a focus point that will attract attention. When this is very detailed it will "confirm" what the brain is already assuming.
So if we highly detail the front row of trees and maybe the second and then gradually reduce the level of detail as we go back we will have a good start... but then if we insert something into the trees, a track way,building or whatever and both make that highly detailed and apply the same concentration of details atound it... then we will further convince ourselves of the overall level of detail... that we are not actually looking at or paying attention to.
This is the art of camoflage... making everything "normal" and, where appropriate, distracting attention away from things we don't want attention paid to.
My thinking exactly Dave and you said it better than I did. That's why I use a mixture of Super Trees and WS trees for the foreground and it creates the effect I want. Sure, if you stare at a puffball tree for very long, you can see it for what it is, but how many people will do that. It is the same reason effective forests can be painted on a backdrop without painting individual trees. I used to watch the Bob Ross painting series on PBS and that was how he painted his backgrounds. The artist's trick is to suggest that there is more there than meets the eye.
I love Super Trees but they do have one drawback. When using them to depict larger trees, their trunks are too small. I don't think such narrow trunks could support a large tree in nature. When I do find a nice big bushy section of Super Tree to depict a large tree, I will place it in a cluster of trees where it's trunk is not too noticeable. I also avoid placing a Super Tree near the front of the layout where a clumsy elbow can snap it off. If I do put one near the front, I will surround it with WS trees for protection.
Hi again,
This post push me to make some research on the web with google about the plant which made the super trees armature.
If you ask "ecume de mer plante" on a google search, you can find a lot of informations about or little trees.
The scientific name is "TELOXYS ARISTATA" or for us "Ecume de mer" or "Zeeschuim".
Links are offerd to seeds distributor even on Ebay; I find seeds for 1.70euros for one bag of seeds.
Now , we are farmer, no more model railroaders!
Marc
Hi from Belgium,
My expansion of my Maclau River in Nscale go to an Appalachian look which need a lot of canopy on the vertical scenery.
I am not convinced by the puff balls trees and I am looking for something like a "cluster foam" canopy for the background. In foreground I will use like super amatures trees.
This wonderful layout is in HO but the hills are all covered with cluster of foam. www.zanestrains.com
He covered these acres of hills with a carpet like system; hardshell is made and after piece of roughly 12"x15" heavy paper are covered on the workbench with hotglued cluster foam. These carpets are glued on the hardshell. Seems are covered with individual pieces of cluster.
About the super trees the armature come from a natural plant. The name in french is "écume de mer". I don't remenber the scientific name but you can find it on the net.
It growth in the north of Europe and probably in the north of America. Seeds are avaible here in Europe at seeds flowers distributor. The armature are the flowers of the pant which is a pretty blauw flower.
It growth easily and come down in autumn. You just need to dry the flowers and after....you know what to do with it.
I see above a tutorial about making foam, nice; did anyone have a tutorial about to make cluster foam?
That is certainly true if replicating long or vast distances. But in the case of my mountain as pictured, the scene there is only about 3' deep with the mountain going up steeply. Likened to CNJs scenery, there would need to be highly detailed trees of full size starting up the slope for a good distance before tapering off to smaller less detailed trees further toward the top. I know every single tree in full detail need not be placed, but interspersed with tree tops inbetween made of the super tree material should do the trick I think. You shouldn't be able to see any trunks and only a bit of branches the higher the mountain goes I believe.