I model in 1/87 and I have notice that a lot of scenery detail seems to be “too course or heavy” weathered siding, beams or other things.
As an example, my fence looks good when viewed from standing height, but in a close up picture it appears too large. The fence is home built, but I see (to me) the same thing in scenery postings on this site.
In defense, no pun intended, I don’t think our eye would pick up detail if it were true scale. Anyone else notice this or agree?
That’s one of the reasons we have modeling from “good enough” to museum quality. Some of my stuff isn’t real good, but few notice unless they’re up close and know the subject matter. Some I would like to think is museum quality. But it takes more time to do the museum quality level and running trains vs building is a distraction–LOL.
That’s why there’s such a thing as the, “Three foot rule.” (In my case it’s the 1 meter rule, since I model using metric dimensions.)
If your model diorama is going to be displayed in a museum, where little Johnny’s father can literally put his nose against the intervening glass, then you have a need for absolute scale fidelity. For an ordinary layout, especially one designed primarily for operation, fidelity is trumped by strength. If that fence was built with scale-size framing and spider-silk mesh, how long would it survive?
This is the reason that I prefer to avoid photo-mural backdrops. The detail is TOO good - usually better than the 3-dimensional items in front of it. I find that distracting.
For me, visual effects are a ‘good enough’ item. It’s better to have most of them fairly mediocre. That way, the one or two truly unique or outstanding items will be more obvious.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - to the 1 meter rule)
Lee,That’s one reason of many I decided good enough/close enough modeling style was the best approach for me to take.
I really don’t like cameras…They show all mistakes even though the model looks good to the naked eye.
Even pictures of great models and layouts will show the flaws–one will see the flaws after the wow factor and if one knows anything of nature,every day scenes,natural weathering process and railroading…
One doesn’t even need to be a “expert” modeler to see that-just keen observation while railfaning and of our surroundings is all that is needed…
You can use finer wire. It makes things a little trickier, but it’s doable. And get a set of small jewelers files to clean the solder joints. You’ll also want a fine tip for your soldering iron, if you don’t have one already.
I made the HO scale fence below using tulle and brass wire (don’t recall exactly what size.) The end posts can be a little thicker. Back in the '90s, Model Railroader had a comprehensive article about fence construction. I don’t remember the exact issue but it has a lot of good info in it.
Yes, many details are “heavy” or oversized. This is particularly noticeable in some of the cheaper product lines. The larger parts are more rugged and less likely to break making assembly easier. This is especially true as the scale gets smaller.
Pictures of models tend to emphasize this because most are taken at close range. Again the smaller the scale the bigger the problem. You can frequently guess the scale of the model just from how coarse the detail appears in the photograph.
OTOH for normal viewing of the layout, small details may “disappear” if they aren’t a little oversized. For small scales - anything smaller than O, I would go with what looks good when actually looking at the model as opposed to what looks good in a photograph.
But if you enjoy contest modeling or model photography, then go with the finer detail and/or work in a larger scale.
Sure is a sharp looking fence.
My fence was made out of steel wire and Fiber Glass window screen cloth. It serves as a deterrent in case a loco is upset along the edge of the layout. I had heard about Tulle but wasn’t sure of the strength.
i read that someone asked John Allen his opinion about how realistic a locomotive he detailed looked. John set it on his layout and John, being a professional photography, took a ground level picture from the proper angle/height above the ground as if photographing a full-scale locomotive.
the photo exposed many deficiencies, the modeler added many more detail parts and won first prize in a contest.
Another thought to keep this in perspective. Applies to sound just as much. In scale terms you aren’t viewing it from three feet away. Rather you’re 300 feet away. Details disappear pretty quick at that distance. So capturing the overall look is more important than superdetail, at least in those terms. That’s another reason why more detail is important in larger scales; you are relatively that much closer. Likewise for sound. Cranking the speaker up my sound cool for a minute, but in relative terms, you’re hundreds of feet or more, unless you’re standing right at the crossing.
Good point, never thought of it that way. I model in HO. My own standard is “close enough”, which means the scene is plausible, but not necessarily exact. It has to look right, and that’s the key.
I have visited several rail oriented museums with operating display layouts. Surprisingly, they were built to less than exact standards, with general scenery, and rolling stock built for durability, vs. accuracy. They all conveyed the intended message, without being “exact”.
To my perception, commercially available code 83 flex track appears “clunky”, so I now use code 70. Yet one can find numerous photos of fantastic looking model railroads using the same code 83 flex track.
Finer detail is nice, but lacks durability. The key is to find the level thay you can live with.
Interesting observation you’ve made about the coarseness of details. I’d add that the advent of high-megapixel digital cameras has also changed the nature of what’s “acceptable”.
In the pre-digital days, taking photos of models/layouts was difficult and inconvenient. To cite one reason why, think of all the problems associated with matching lighting to film. The result is that few people took photos of their work, unless they were preparing an article for publication.
Contrast that to today, where we regularly shoot pictures of our models and layouts as reminders of what we’ve done, to share on web sites/blogs, etc. And when you realize that the photos we shoot can actually end up several times the size of the model that was the subject of the photo, then the coarseness of our models is really obvious. The “three-foot rule” works until you start looking at a layout through the viewfinder of a digital SLR - then the “three-inch rule” applies.
But - I think it’s also a good thing. I think our modeling has benefitted from this closer inspection. We work harder to make things better. At least, I know I do, and I know my hobby has benefitted from the need to overcome the challenges of closer inspection.
Cheers!
Trevor Marshall
Port Rowan in 1:64
An S scale model of a Canadian National branch line terminal in Southern Ontario:
I had a similar observation about scale last night but it related to laser cut structures. I placed a newly constructed general store next to a boarding house and the store looks like nscale compared to the HO boarding house. Holding a ruler up to each door showed a scale "foot " difference but to my eye it is much larger.
Funny thing though, most of my friends that come over to see the progress don’t ever linger on one spot long enough to notice the little things… but the camera sure does.
HERE is fence of LION. The fabric is that wedding vale material purchased at Walmart. The vertical poles are straight pins. A fine wire was wrapped around the pins for the horizontal pipe, and the material was glued on.
Over the years it has fallen down (see by the tree on the right). LION does not mind, the same fence in Brooklyn has also fallen down.
I think that we often times, when in persuit of modeling ideals and exactitude, forget how much variation exists in the full sized world. using fences as an example, look at the varieties of 6 foot tall chain link fences. Some are constructed with large diameter posts set in concrete, some are quite frail, with light weight mesh-even when new. Most folk when building a real life fence build the best that they can and leave it at that. Accounting for that degree of variation is reasonable in modeling- build the best that you can and leave it at that point, until you can make a better one.
Just in case no one else mentions it, I do like how you weathered the parking spaces!
I am fond of reminding people what the dictionary definition of a ‘model’ is:
A “model” is simply a REPRESENTATION of something. Not an EXACT copy of, or “to exact scale of” something.
Therefore, things that are actually “out of scale” or “oversized for scale” or even “undersized for scale” work if they are a “representation” of what is being modeled!
Our eyes percieve things differently anyway, hence, trompe l’oeil, often just painted on details, can fool the eye into believing a three dimensional item is really there.
That modeler was none other than Cliff Grandt of Grandt Line parts and details fame. It was a picture of IIRC an O-scale heisler that Cliff had built for the NMRA national contest. The photo revealed many details, that at first looked good to the naked eye, but the photo showed how clunky they really were.
When the loco was re-built Cliff redid every detail, and did things like using 35 scratched built brass parts, just in the air compressor alone. And yes he did win that year.
