Guys, can you please tell me what is up and what is down on this rock? It’s only a part of the mold, not the whole. Is it very important or does it not matter at all?
The picture on Bragdons website is like this, but I don’t know if that’s the right direction either. I have sent him an email about it.
The way you first show it looks right to me. I like rock shadows.
If you flip it 180-degrees you should put rubble and debris on the ledges (where shadows are now) or maybe a bird’s nest.
If you were a rock climber the first position would be difficult; flipped it would be easier.
The first one looks correct.When parts of the rock face break away thay oftem leave such an appearance.
The first one looks right to me. Thats how all the rock face I’ve seen looks up north were I deer hunt. If you turn it sideways it looks wrong, rock doesn’t break off in that type of pattern.
The way you have it looks right but i guess either way would depending on how u finish of the top “the current bottom”.
Doesn’t matter which way you use as ‘up’. Subhorizontal ledges that tilt downward into the rock face tend to collect smaller rubble, vegetation, even standing water. The top image with overhangs looks plausible, rotating it 180 degrees or 90 degrees CW wouldn’t create any ledge ‘basins’ in which rubble would likely accumulate, and only 1 or 2 if rotated 270 degrees CW. If you use this part of the mold for other nearby outcrops, try to keep the joint planes in adjacent casts somewhat parallel. Joint patterns are regional.
BTW, don’t put too much trust in Bragdon’s rock names. For example, “…granite limestone” in mold #20 is nonsense. On the one you pictured (“Rock face w/intersect faults”), there’s no obvious displacement to indicate faulting, only jointing.
I agree. EL, turn the rock on its side, and look at it for a while. You will find that it looks perfectly natural with vertical breaks. Then, continue to turn it, but this time only 45 deg. It is still very natural. This is because the slips and breaks occur in any plane, and when the fines get eroded away over time, you are left with what you see.
For your purpose, you will have to study some detailed pho
The molds are designed to be used in all directions. If you change the angle, it doesn’t look like the same mold over and over again. The variety is what makes it interesting.
When I purchase molds, I picked the ones with rock that was shaped similar to the type of rock in the region that I am depicting. I agree that the names mean little.
Sue
The great thing about molds is that there is no right way. You get lots more variety my turning them different ways and piecing them together in different combinations. I did a rather large cliffside by reusing just a few molds and turning them different ways and combining them in differemt ways. The eye will never pick oup on the fact that the same mold has been used over and over again. The viewer will just see the rock face as a whole.
Actually, some eyes get paid for recognizing patterns in rock and can easily see when a mold has been repeated but rotated. [;)] However, it’s more difficult to see the repetition when linear and planer features in the mold, representing fractures or bedding, are maintained as subparallel to one another throughout the modeled outcrop.
I don’t know but from the side it just doesn’t look right.
Perhaps it’s the apparent convexity (curvature) of the casting surface as a result of barrel distortion of the image or a casting that’s thicker in the middle than the edges. Try to envision the rotated casting surface as a vertical face without the distortion, and ignore the casting’s edges.
I use my castings every which way, and break them up so that there are no obvious repeated sections, even though I’ve only got 2 large-sized WS molds. I even mount them flat on the ground - like rock ledge poking up through the earth in the middle of a field. In New England, even my back yard is like that.
huh?
I agree with MisterBeasley. I have been using 3 molds ( one large and 2 small ). I will use a section in one to cover the joint on the others. A ledge in one spot will be an overhang when rotated.
Sue
In a given area, joints and fractures in rock occur in certain orientations. If your modeled outcrop has them going every which way, it looks fake.
Shilshole : What do you mean by “subhorizontal” and “subparallel” ? I have never heard of those before; and probably why 1train1 said “huh”.
Electro : Which way looks best to you ? Which way fits your scene best ? You’ll find rock faces will have a “grain” (lines and faults) going in any direction, sometimes even forming loops depending on how the rocks were formed. Which ever way you put it, be sure to orient adjacent pieces so that the overall “grain” makes sense and looks natural.
I thought this was a philosophical question. [swg]
Nelson
That is half the fun. Doing your best to make it look realistic. I use Bragon Enterprises Geodesic Foam Rocks. If they harden too quickly, you just heat them with a hair dryer to make them mold into the s
I apologize for the geo-jargon. Sub- in these cases means within a few degrees of, or “sort of horizontal” and “sort of parallel”. Note in the image at the top the two joints that trend left-right and roughly divide the casting into thirds. They’re sort of parallel to one another and sort of horizontal.
In your reply to Electrolove, I’m puzzled by your reference to “loops”. But the effect one tries to reproduce is exactly as you said:
Geo-jargon would use fabric instead of grain. But your meaning is quite clear in context.