Firstly let me set the record straight then I'll open a can of worms followed by my questions at the end.
On my desk at the moment is a steam roller from H Zettelmeyer, HMV Hamburg Harbour, WPS PS Pevensey, Modelik Tramlok and Aveling Porter, Orlik Famo Rubezahl, Fordson Type F and a Russian kit of HMAS Sydney in 1/200, 1910 Flying Merkel, just to name a few.
So you see I model with card and paper, I really like using these materials and find them to be the most suitable for many applications, especially for small models and details.
Boat and ship superstructures, some hulls, buildings, trains, tanks, in fact almost anything with straight surfaces is great built from card.
I haunt the internet seeking ideas and inspiration and many are absolutely superb and just to pick one out, look at the Enrico's MAZ 537G from E63papermodels, it is amazing, but many card models I see are let down purely because card is not a suitable medium.
Card does not do compound curves except in the hands of a few experts.
An aircraft does not have a nose looking like a flower bud about to bloom, the mudguards of a Dussenburg do not have a dozen slits in their sides or a hull does not look like, well, pieces of paper stuck to a skeleton and a motorcycle does not have a frame that appears to be made from drinking straws.
Then there are expensive card kits of sailing ships that come complete with paint so as the builder can try to make the cardboard look like wood when for the same money you can buy a complete wood kit and build a model ship from real wood and simply varnish it.
So, why persevere with paper, when some components of a model would be much better if constructed from a more suitable material or in a different way?
Or is it that if a paper model incorporates any medium other than paper then it is no longer considered a "paper model" ?
How about a nose cone laminated from decreasing diameter card discs then sanded? Or frames and pipes made from round solder or plastic? Or the bottom half of a hull being planked prior to fitting plates?
My $100 HMAS Sydney will not have a wonky looking hull and if I can't get it right then I'll waterline her because in my opinion a model should look like miniature version of the original.
Don't bite my head off, it's just my thoughts.
I do not criticize anyone's work as we all enjoy what we do and we love our results or we wouldn't keep doing it.
Your thoughts??
On my desk at the moment is a steam roller from H Zettelmeyer, HMV Hamburg Harbour, WPS PS Pevensey, Modelik Tramlok and Aveling Porter, Orlik Famo Rubezahl, Fordson Type F and a Russian kit of HMAS Sydney in 1/200, 1910 Flying Merkel, just to name a few.
So you see I model with card and paper, I really like using these materials and find them to be the most suitable for many applications, especially for small models and details.
Boat and ship superstructures, some hulls, buildings, trains, tanks, in fact almost anything with straight surfaces is great built from card.
I haunt the internet seeking ideas and inspiration and many are absolutely superb and just to pick one out, look at the Enrico's MAZ 537G from E63papermodels, it is amazing, but many card models I see are let down purely because card is not a suitable medium.
Card does not do compound curves except in the hands of a few experts.
An aircraft does not have a nose looking like a flower bud about to bloom, the mudguards of a Dussenburg do not have a dozen slits in their sides or a hull does not look like, well, pieces of paper stuck to a skeleton and a motorcycle does not have a frame that appears to be made from drinking straws.
Then there are expensive card kits of sailing ships that come complete with paint so as the builder can try to make the cardboard look like wood when for the same money you can buy a complete wood kit and build a model ship from real wood and simply varnish it.
So, why persevere with paper, when some components of a model would be much better if constructed from a more suitable material or in a different way?
Or is it that if a paper model incorporates any medium other than paper then it is no longer considered a "paper model" ?
How about a nose cone laminated from decreasing diameter card discs then sanded? Or frames and pipes made from round solder or plastic? Or the bottom half of a hull being planked prior to fitting plates?
My $100 HMAS Sydney will not have a wonky looking hull and if I can't get it right then I'll waterline her because in my opinion a model should look like miniature version of the original.
Don't bite my head off, it's just my thoughts.
I do not criticize anyone's work as we all enjoy what we do and we love our results or we wouldn't keep doing it.
Your thoughts??
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire