Show us yours - Realistic modelling

[[email protected] 3,457]

51 minutes ago, Gedward said:

 

Sorry, I'll take my ball and go home. 

 

Not the intention of my post to put people off posting, but to encourage them to start their

own threads, showing how they make their models.

 

I would like to see how you got your buildings to that standard, but until they are 'planted'

in position on a layout they can't really be considered for this thread, no disrespect intended.

 

I've always considered this thread, and the similarly named 'How realistic are your models?'

to be the showcase of finished layouts (and models) that are indistinguishable from the real 

thing, and are something to aspire to. But they are quite often backed up by layout threads

and workbench threads, which are invaluable to appreciate how you got there.

Edited February 26 by [email protected]

[Gedward 1,210]

9 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

 

Not the intention of my post to put people of posting, but to encourage them to start their

own threads, showing how they make their models.

 

I would like to see how you got your buildings to that standard, but until they are 'planted'

in position on a layout they can't really be considered for this thread, no disrespect intended.

 

I've always considered this thread, and the similarly named 'How realistic are your models?'

to be the showcase of finished layouts (and models) that are indistinguishable from the real 

thing, and are something to aspire to. But they are quite often backed up by layout threads

and workbench threads, which are invaluable to appreciate how you got there.

 

Good points there, no offence taken. 

[Andrew P 121,152]

4 minutes ago, Gedward said:

 

Good points there, no offence taken. 

Your actual buildings do look superb, and far better than anything I would attempt, but as said, if in a Layout thread then others can learn from you obvious skills and once scenic work is complete, or nearly, then the pics will inspire many to reach your standards.

All the best.

Edited February 26 by Andrew P

[Western Aviator 1,944]

On 26/02/2021 at 09:07, [email protected] said:

Totally agree with this statement, I'm starting to get bored with scrolling through the 

obvious Work-in-Progress pictures, and the ones with the tension lock couplings on

show, just to find the inspiring pictures, that are difficult to tell from the real thing!

I agree. Plonking some track, a very basic model locomotive and a few other bits and pieces inside a cardboard box is not realistic and could only just, if you were a charitable sort, be called modelling. It’s a bit like taking a photo of a bag of flour, some sugar and eggs and posting it on a website thread for impressive cake baking. 

Edited February 27 by Western Aviator

[NHY 581 47,819]

1 hour ago, [email protected] said:

 

Totally agree with this statement, I'm starting to get bored with scrolling through the 

obvious Work-in-Progress pictures, and the ones with the tension lock couplings on

show, just to find the inspiring pictures, that are difficult to tell from the real thing!

 

This is a somewhat narrow minded view.  This has cropped up before. To the poster, their image fulfills the criteria. You may as well quote the image and comment 'Not good enough. Please remove ' 

Well it is to them. As you say, scroll past those images that in your opinion shouldn't be here. 

This thread contains a wide range of images demonstrating all levels of ability. If the image posted is, to the best of the members ability and in their eyes as realistic as they can do, then it deserves to be here. 

 

As the vast majority of my photos include stock fitted with tension locks then I guess that rules me out as well. 

 

My apologies. 

 

Please note- Image contains a tension lock. 

 

Rob. 

[Barry Ten 13,508]

I must admit when I posted some shots of my work-in-progress Mustang a few pages ago I was confusing this thread with the "show us your lockdown modelling" one which I'm sure we had back in 2020.

[[email protected] 3,457]

19 minutes ago, NHY 581 said:

 

This is a somewhat narrow minded view.  This has cropped up before. To the poster, their image fulfills the criteria. You may as well quote the image and comment 'Not good enough. Please remove ' 

Well it is to them. As you say, scroll past those images that in your opinion shouldn't be here. 

This thread contains a wide range of images demonstrating all levels of ability. If the image posted is, to the best of the members ability and in their eyes as realistic as they can do, then it deserves to be here. 

 

As the vast majority of my photos include stock fitted with tension locks then I guess that rules me out as well. 

 

My apologies. 

 

Please note- Image contains a tension lock. 

 

Rob. 

 

Firstly, please read my follow up post, where I try to explain more clearly, and encourage.

 

Secondly, I've never had an issue with those that have tried to make their model look realistic,

it's when it is really has had no thought put in to the picture composition,

often because it's obviously not finished.

 

Thirdly, all of your photos are excellent, because you rarely, if ever, see the coupling, because

you've made the effort to choose the angle, which is as important as the model's realism.

 

Your final line- I can't see it!

[NHY 581 47,819]

26 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

 

Firstly, please read my follow up post, where I try to explain more clearly, and encourage.

 

Secondly, I've never had an issue with those that have tried to make their model look realistic,

it's when it is really has had no thought put in to the picture composition,

often because it's obviously not finished.

 

Thirdly, all of your photos are excellent, because you rarely, if ever, see the coupling, because

you've made the effort to choose the angle, which is as important as the model's realism.

 

Your final line- I can't see it!

 

 

My apologies. I was putting my own response together and missed your follow up. Thank you for your kind words. 

 

That said, let's just give people a chance. The last thing anybody wants is for any upset to be caused or any confidence knocked. 

 

Oh and there is one......

 

 

Rob

Edited February 26 by NHY 581

[[email protected] 3,457]

22 minutes ago, NHY 581 said:

 

 

My apologies. I was putting my own response together and missed your follow up. Thank you for your kind words. 

 

That said, let's just give people a chance. The last thing anybody wants is for any upset to be caused or any confidence knocked. 

 

Oh and there is one......

 

 

Rob

 

No problem, I never meant to dissuade anyone, just point them in the right direction,

hopefully to start their own thread. 

 

I suppose I was trying to remind people of the thread title, which states realistic modelling,

not W-in-P workbench or layout threads, it was, possibly a, poorly worded, complaint more

about being off-topic, than 'that's rubbish, please remove'.

 

Finally, although that T/L was sort of visible, it could easily be mistaken for another different 

coloured stone in the wall behind, confirming my point about composition.

Edited February 26 by [email protected]

[Andrew P 121,152]

Anyone like pictures of Wagons?

[Barry Ten 13,508]

Norfolk Southern SD80MACs on an intermodal train crossing Gator Creek, SC:

 

[John Besley 1,036]

16 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

Chris, I think you are doing yourself a disservice. Given that it's N gauge l think this is excellent.

Looks very good, do you have a layout topic?

[Captain Kernow 33,955]

6 hours ago, Gedward said:

 

Sorry, I'll take my ball and go home. 

Please don't, or if you feel you still want to, could you direct us to a thread with images of your layout, please?

 

That last photo, especially with the backscene, seemed very 'Belah' to me, lovely.

 

Edited February 26 by Captain Kernow

[westerhamstation 13,998]

The Westerham Flyer.

[Gedward 1,210]

7 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

Please don't, or if you feel you still want to, please direct us to a thread with images of your layout, please.

 

That last photo, especially with the backscene, seemed very 'Belah' to me, lovely.

 

 

Thanks Captain, my layout is called Bovey Tor.

[Chris Chewter 5,218]

Talking of tension lock couplings. Here's one that I forgot to pull out of the NEM socket!

 

 

Edited February 26 by Chris Chewter

[NHY 581 47,819]

20 minutes ago, Chris Chewter said:

Talking of tension lock couplings. Here's one that I forgot to pull out of the NEM socket!

 

 

Top image, Chris. 

 

Rob. 

[Mike_Walker 735]

Those last two pictures are simply divine.  I thought my own efforts were pretty good but they pale to mediocre compared to these.

[gwrrob 87,050]

A 94xx class pannier 9440 seen at Tigley Junction in between duties in the summer of 1957.

 

[Barry Ten 13,508]

For those who get worked up about tension locks, here's the ideal product:

 

 

 

Seriously, unless you're using dead-scale 3-links, any coupling system is going to be a bit of a compromise.

[John Besley 1,036]

Hopefully my pics of Exhill all taken are acceptable - to put these in their context these where all taken back when I had a layout in 1982/3, long since gone, these where taken with a Pentax MTL3 and close up lens ring, multiple flash and diffusers all pre digital so no editing on a PC apart from tweaking now on my phone... in those days the USA  was leading the way with excellant photos in Model Railroader, Kadee couplings which I had to get direct from the states...

 

My point is to show what was Realistic Modeling then...

[Chris M 3,038]

3 hours ago, John Besley said:

Looks very good, do you have a layout topic?

Not here. As it is an N gauge layout I have a topic on N gauge forum. https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=47727.0

[Cowley 47521 766]

A couple from Lapford.

Sorry but two of them are in black and white because I couldn’t always afford colour film back then...

 

 

 

[Alister_G 19,316]

Found one from Ladmanlow not seen before:

 

 

Al.

[Cowley 47521 766]

9 minutes ago, Alister_G said:

Found one from Ladmanlow not seen before:

 

 

Al.

That’s lovely.