The lead photo bush

The bush in the lead photo looks a bit sad (to me at least) almost made me skip the article, but the others pictured on subsequent pages look great.  A nice technique that hopefully translates to HO scale well.

lead photo looks realistic

I have been observing undergrowth and forests as I drive around. I find it ironic that I thought the bush looked more realistic than the first commenter, exactly because it was not bursting with leaves. I think we are used to looking at the plants and shrubs lining the edges of the roads (which are open allowing the plants to get maximum sunlight) and in well tended parks, lawns, and corporate facilities where they are fertilized and trimmed to grow to their full genetic potential. Part of my commute goes through a park that has protected forest and river lands and logging and thinning of trees hasn't occurred in over years. Most of the undergrowth is struggling under the hardwood tree canopy to find light and competing hard with other species at the edges.  It can grow long and spindly as it seeks light and can be a bit bare where deer and other herbivores have a snack. In other words, it looks just like the first photo!

A wild mixture of weak and strong plants at the foot of a water tower along the rails seems just right.  I've also noticed that the color and robustness of the vegetation near tracks where soot, cinders, oil and sand are sprayed randomly from equipment and pesticides are sprayed purposefully to protect the right of way tends not to be the most robust examples of the plant kingdom. And creosoted wood is full of poisons designed to preserve the wood structure. It leaches into the ground and makes the area around it not exactly the place one would find a bush in full bloom!

It is a challenge, but the way to make realistic scenery (just like in weathering) is not to model your idea of what is there, but to model what you see. It takes training to record what you see. Artists use this tendency for humans to "fill in the blanks" with expectations to draw one side of a glass or vase so the viewer "fills in" to make the object more symmetrical than could be drawn by hand. But the artists are also trained to notice things that most do not--like the spotch of purple or lime in what looked like a pure grey and brown rock outcropping. And when they add that blotch to a scale plaster rock, it looks so much better than one simply painted gray with a wash of black india ink. So for me, the bush was exactly  why I liked the photo. 

And I liked the article because it gave me a clear description of the technique the author employed to get that bush as well as those in full bloom.  I was fine that it was aimed at F scale!  The techniques scale well in my opinion.  I used fibers of sissal twine to create weed clumps by inserting them in a hole. It had not occurred to make the clump a bit sparser, spray with adhesive and add leaves to get a bush or shrub.  I wonder if, instead of tying the end inserted in the ground, you inserted the fibers into a puddle of hot glue on wax paper?  Then you could make a bunch of "peel and stick" bushes!

I agree with dmbott

I agree with dmbott ... I chose that lead photo precisely because finally here is a technique for modeling all those sparsely foliated, scraggly bushes. Modeling fully foliated bushes with most any technique is easy. I want some way to model bushes like you see in the photos below of real life bushes.

location, location, location

OK good point, that bush does look right for some areas, or some seasons.  My comment was coming from the viewpoint of summertime in the northeast, where most bushes you see are completely green.  But even then Dave makes a good point about undergrowth in less plant friendly spots.

making bushes

Great tip.  Thanks for sharing.

Ken