This hobby is big enough to allow some to have more realistic trees and others not so real.
I did not read Larry’s posts as particularly ‘whiney’…
BTW…I did enjoy the tree article for what it was…if some think the trees looked a little puffball like …big whoop.
sheeesh.
I believe those that know me on this and other forums know I prefer urban ISLs over any type of layout…I’m mildly surprise you don’t know that.
Now,I am neither whinny nor a malcontent and I fully believe those that knows me on this and other forums knows I speak my thoughts pro or con on the matter and the majority as accepted that…
Sorry,those puff ball trees look just like green balls and lumps of cotton just like they did in the 80s…
Nothing you can say will change my views of puff ball trees…
What is an ISL?
Industrial Switching Layout.
–Randy
Sorry, Larry, No, I don’t follow you around and did not know you prefer layouts without trees, which of course would make you an expert on trees.
I would guess your seeing that I tend to tell it like it is, also.
Had any of you who find it so easy to be critical, ever written an article on anything what so ever, you might have a little more respect and admiration for all the hard work and effort that goes into doing so!
Sorry, Larry, No, I don’t follow you around and did not know you prefer layouts without trees, which of course would make you an expert on trees.
Maybe just maybe living (10 years) and railroading(6 1/2 years) in the foot hills of the Appalachian Mountains (Southern Oh/Northern Ky area) disqualifies me from knowing what a forest should look like?
Surely you jest if you think that.
Had any of you who find it so easy to be critical, ever written an article on anything what so ever, you might have a little more respect and admiration for all the hard work and effort that goes into doing so!
No,I’m not a author nor do I wish to become one.
You seem to be mighty upset and making a big to do out of nothing…
Did you write that article?
Again,nothing you say will convince me balls or lumps of green cotton looks like a forest.
I keep telling people…
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder…some like it, some do not.[:-^]
This hobby is big enough for both sides of the strawman to exist…
I don’t have the article with me, but I think he did mention visiting the U.S. area he had modeled.
The discussion is getting away from being of any help here. I see both points about the appearance of the “puff balls”, Yes, if they are too uniform in shape, size and color it won’t represent a true forest canopy. This is not to say that the area modeled wouldn"t look this way, but as to using the trees as more of a backdrop to blend for distance, it can work. I find that using various shapes, sizes and colors will tend to have the scene more believable.
This spot sat for some time deciding on just how to finish the type of forest. Many club members worked on all types of trees and doing up trays of puff balls, long before actual planting.
The hillside has many puffballs placed throughout, but wanted to show a “mixed” forest especially where this is up close and @ or above eye level. Trees of stretched polyfiber as well as some forgroung production ones were planted to gain the effect we wanted.
If you end up w/ too uniform a look to the overall canopy, doctoring up some of the tops w/ dusted on varying colored foliage, fine grasses etc, even dust the tops to highlight w/ yellow spray paint to simulate sunlight. This and adding some forground trees, twigs for dead trees all will work to break it up and give a far better realistic look.
Now let’s be nice!
Odie,If you’re happy with your cotton ball trees…[tup]
Personally I don’t like balls or lumps of cotton painted green with green ground foam sprinkled on but,to each his own…
Bob,I fully agree the forest trees need to vary in height…It probably wouldn’t hurt to have some fire breaks in modeled forest as well.
In your pic, they work rather well, regardless of the actual canopy itself. It’s the same as to have a simple backdrop as not to detract from the impressive forground scene.
Yes i can find many spots here in New England that will have that same look, but mostly is a distant view of the tree covered hills. This is why many times I will air brush a light grey/ blue"fogging" to the painted backdrop the same distance perspective can be shown on the distant puffballs muting the brighter greens.
Another note: the coloring, shades of the greens will differ in varying types of lighting. I had sceniced one entire area of the layout under fluorecent lighting, once the hallogen track light were installed, the greens were so far off. I had to doctor up all the ground cover to gain the same look.
Odie,I’m use to looking at the foot hills of the Appalachians in Southern Ohio and Northern Ky as well as the foot hills East of Mansfield and if I were to model a forest I would model those woods.
It may cost a small fortune but,I would use Woodland Scenics tree kits with lots of old growth trees since that’s what I’m use to seeing…For the background forest I would try to blend in photos of the hills in Southern Ohio.
Has anybody tried that?
Thank you for posting these photos. This is EXACTLY the look I’m after as I begin to forest my hills. Excellent job!
Not upset, simply tired of reading critisism of the good work of others! Anyone can be a critic, it takes no skill what so ever!
It’s also easy enough to find out who wrote the article and no, it was not me. However, I have written a few articles which have been published.
That is true enough but,not everybody will agree and I just happen not to agree with cotton balls painted green with green ground foam sprinkle on passing as trees but,if a modeler is happy with such “trees” then so be it.
What would have impress me more instead of MR rehashing a 20 year old method would be a article on blending modeled trees and photos of tree covered rolling hills together after all we are in the computer age.
I’m highly impress with roads that continue for “miles” into the distance by blending in a photo of a road to a model road or a photo of a cornfield blended in with a modeled cornfield on the backdrop…One thing that wowed me was a ISL that had industrial photos blended in with the modeled structures.The layout was only 16" wide but,thanks to the photos it looked miles wide.
I fully believe the same can be done by blending tree filled hillside photos with model trees to make realistic looking forest that extends for “miles”…
How about this then:
No computer involved though. Note that I haven’t painted or ballasted the track here. There was an article on blending roads into backdrops by Tom Johnson, I think in the October, 2010 issue of MR.
Rob,First that looks good…I like the way the road goes uphill and then curves down hill out of sight-its going some where.
Now with a long photo of the rolling hills of (say) Southern Oh with 3-5 rows of modeled trees in the foreground would capture the overall feeling of Southern Ohio…
Tom’s good a excellent modeler that has inspired me in several ways.
See this topic on RR-L…
An interesting side note on the trees article in this issue is that Brooks Stover, the author of this article, is also an author of book on modeling trees, advertized in this very issue of Model Railroader! Obviously the staff at Model Railroader feels Mr. Stover is expert enough on the subject to warrant Kalmbach’s publishing his book!
I cannot imagine being an editor with Model Railroader, having to come up with articles that appeal to those just getting into the hobby and others that have built several layouts over decades. It seems to me you could never find that perfect balance… but they try.
Gotta give them credit for that.
Personally I think that, all things considered, they do an excellent job.
Jarrell
Yeah,Kinda like a infomercial or prelude for his book.This isn’t the first infomerical or prelude article I’ve seen MR do for a adveriser or “expert” modeler that wrote a book…It won’t be the last either.
As many already knows the term “Expert” fails to impress me since “expert” is toss about like a Frisbee and means just as little…