works for me.

Rick,

I have to agree with you. I use the real thing on my layout. But I need more of them, right now I only have about 4 large ones on my layout. What I need is not easy to come by (at least not color wise).

Charlie

Rick, don't hold back...

...tell us what you really think. 

I'd say you've done a pretty convincing job of creating Rick's World.

Jerry

Rick having seen your work

Rick having seen your work with scenery in photos I can say you have an eye for it, both with color and texture. There are some modelers who seem to have this talent, same with back drop painting, there are some very good ones out there.

Guys like me need to use pictures, in a lot of cases. Even with pictures I will not be as good as some but my results would be closer to the look I would be trying to get. Trying to get a stone by stone duplicate is not really what one is after I suspect, but a better feel for it or representation than could be had from memory.

There are some folks that do a great job and produce very realistic looking scenery with out the aid of photos. Then there are the rest of us that need the photos to help us.

Who's on first...

Humm

Sounds like someone may have criticized you layout.

Rick

DEEP breath. Build a tree.

Tom

Why "I" care

To me, railroad modeling is story-telling.  Does my story make sense?  Is it credible?  Are there holes in the plot?   Are the props believable?

Is my story

A tale

Told by an idiot,

Full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing?

If I'm writing a script for a play that no one will ever see, then it doesn't matter.  If I'm performing it for an audience then it matters a lot.

Why "I" care

To me, railroad modeling is story-telling.  Does my story make sense?  Is it credible?  Are there holes in the plot?   Are the props believable?

Is my story

A tale

Told by an idiot,

Full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing?

If I'm writing a script for a play that no one will ever see, then it doesn't matter.  If I'm performing it for an audience then it matters a lot.

Yes & No

Rick,

I have to say I both agree and don't agree.

Like you, my layout is made to have the look I like and am pleased with. To that end I hand carve my rocks as you do, paint backdrops, and make forests with a view to what looks good to my eye. 

Unlike you however, I don't have any prior "pictures" burned in my head from memory to work from. I grew up in the Midwest, but model a prototype based in West Virginia. As a result, I needed to consult real life scenes from the area on the prototype I model to get those all important pictures in my mind and train my eye so I could tell what looked good and what didn't. 

This was especially true when it came to carving my rock faces. I looked at tons of pictures of rock faces from the West Virginia area. I thought I had the right "picture" in my mind and started to carve away. What I realized though with my initial trials was I thought I had the "picture" in my mind after looking at photos, but really didn't. In other words I saw the photos with my eyes, but my mind didn't initially grasp what I was actually seeing that made a rock face look good.

That's when a lot of people here on MRH came to my aid. They pointed out specific details in the photos that made the rock face look real/good. As those details became more clarified in my mind, my rock carving trials became increasingly better looking, not to mention more realistic. As a result when I finally got around to carving the rock faces on my layout, I no longer needed to look at photos. I just carved away and made what I liked and thought looked good. I could never have done that though without the aid of the initial photos to train my mind and eye.  

If you have those "pictures" already burned in your mind, that's great! You're miles ahead of the game. To catch up to you though, the rest of us may need those photos to help us. 

I toned it down

I went back and re-read the post and it was a little harsh so I toned it down.  Nobody has recently criticized my layout.  I was just sitting on the front porch enjoying a beverage and it popped into my head.  Maybe I need to change my beverage!

Nothing Is Absolutely "Necessary"

Rick,

Of course one doesn't need prototype photos of anything, let alone of scenery.  But with the ubiquity of Google Earth, Google Streetview and Google Images, why deny yourself of these fingertip aids?  Its not like former eras when obtaining such photos required extended field trips and lots of 35mm Kodachrome film.

Awright, here it is since the subject came up: 

Paul Simon's "Kodachrome".  Enjoy.

Best Wishes,

Mark

I remember aguyin the modular club trying to make a desert scene

He put a little green grass sprinkled here and there in a predominately brown landscape.  It did not look right to me, but I could not figure our why.  Then I went through the desert on a trip.  I noticed that the desert scenery was a seemingly endless view of small native bushes with dirt in between them.  Of course, areas of sand dunes usually have no vegetation in the desert.  I came to the conclusion that while having a picture that I slavishly copy for scenery is not necessary, having a picture of the real thing helps to use to make a scene believable. 

Certainly no argument from me Rick...HAH!

Everyone who has been around here any length of time knows of my sometimes outspoken opinions on taking prototype modeling to what I consider extremes. I readily admit to modeling mostly from my imagination. Imagination is a crazy and funny thing though. At least mine is! It's constantly influenced by real world conditions and scenes. My scenic output is an amalgamation of real "prototype" scenes and model scenes. It's influenced by and also derivative of other modelers work. I readily admit that too. Of course, as most everyone knows, my main influence is "The Wizard of Monterey".

Are the real scenes that influence me put through some sort of unconscious filter? Most probably, how could they not be? Do I care? No...

Regards,

Michael

Original member of the "Gang of Six"

R.I.P. Verne Niner. The time I got to know you was way too short my friend.

the Old Master at work

Berhhard Stein on shaping mountains.  You can watch it with the sound off and still get the idea, even if you don't speak German (or you don't want to listen to a 1990's synthesizer soundtrack).  Classic techniques.

Galen

 "While I believe that this

Why do you think it's different modeling rolling stock? Why not just model it too from memory as you like it? Most folks are more familiar with scenery than rolling stock so more likely to know your scenery is "wrong" than you rolling stock ? .......DaveB  

Good point, DaveB.

I've yet to weather any rolling stock so I'm going to have to wait and see.

100% Grade "A" Pure

Hi Rick,

I agree with your sentiment 100%, and also with DaveB's corollary to the principle.  It's funny that I've been having these same thoughts for a while now, and considered posting, but held back.  So I'm glad to hear I'm not alone.

I think the key is your statement "please the modeler".  I know in my own world I often have tried to use prototype photos for scenery and weathering.  What I usually get is frustration, as I don't know how to achieve that look, or my attempts fall way short.  What usually happens is I say to myself, "oh heck, this is too difficult and I know what I want it to look like.  Plus this is the color of paint and ground foam I have, so let's just give it a go!"  When I do that, I have great fun, and I'm always pleased with the result.  To me, THAT's model railroading!

Photos

I don't recall anybody saying you MUST use prototype photos.

Most of the time somebody suggests using prototype photos it involves somebody asking about something (what should I do, how does this look, does it look right).  In those cases it is suggested (not required) that the person study some prototype photos to see what it looks like so they end up with something that looks plausible.  One of the most common is weathering.  Its really easy to end up with funny patterns or overweathering that distract more than they enhance.  In those cases people frequently receive advice to "look at some prototype photos".  There are threads where somebody just makes it up, then questions what they did because they think it doesn't look right in the end.

I think sometimes the point is to learn the highlights.

We don’t always understand what makes things appear correct. I agree with Dave that weathering can be tricky because it actually varies widely in real life depending on the age and use of a car. 

Changing beverages

 "I was just sitting on the front porch enjoying a beverage and it popped into my head.  Maybe I need to change my beverage!"

I only change the beverage if I fall off the porch. You're still good.

Rick S.- LOL!

Thanks for the chuckle!

...

You may use the recipe in the beginning, but as you progress, you'll use it less and less...

You’ve got a point, Rick.

I can see your point about making your layout look good by your own viewpoint. This is a hobby and as such should provide an element of fun, or at least pleasure. I remember when I was a school kid going to a Museam in Philadelphia, probably the Franklin Institute. They had an exhibit of Pennsylvania industries set up in various dioramas that seemed to be in HO scale. There were models of mines, factories, wharves and docks, etc. They were built to “good enough” standards with some minor inperfections rather than fine-scale levels. But they left a lasting impression on me. “That’s how I want to build a layout someday” stuck in my mind. Who knows, nowadays maybe they’d seem crude, but I doubt it. 

I guess I’ve learned to limit how much reality I want in my HO world. I don’t want graffiti or ghetto scenes or urban decay down there, or abandoned factories and boarded up houses. I’m modeling the blue collar world I grew up in, but that was a reasonably tidy place back in my day. You’d see cars sitting on cinder blocks in somebody’s back yard, collections of junk, odd lumber, shaggy alleys, dumpy garages etc but most folks kept things up pretty well. An abandoned house was unusual, graffiti unheard of with a few exceptions. Cops would hassle kids a lot but real crime was nothing like it is now. Drug addiction and the resultant Street crime was at a much lower level.

So it seems I must model in a similar manner to Rick. If I were to model an actual scene I’d like to have photos as a guideline, as memory forgets too much fine detail and actual size, but for normal modeling my mind’s eye works well enough for generic scenes.

Barry P

Agree Somewhat

Hi, Rick, I would agree scenery pictures are not needed to get the landscape to look right. I would have a difference of opinion on the structures, if a person was actually trying to duplicate in scale a certain building. I have been doing some exhaustive research on finding pictures of trackside buildings from the 1950's era in my hometown, in order to build the best replicas of the buildings that existed at the time. Almost all of the original trackside buildings from my chosen era have been torn down with the exception of the passenger depot, two creameries (changed to different businesses) one grain elevator and one brick warehouse building.

it has been extremely difficult to find any appropriate pictures from any source, and those I do find are either from the 1920's or earlier or from the 1970's to modern times. I don't do much scratch building of models and prefer to kit bash existing available kits to get the building I want on the layout. One of my fellow club members always tells me as far as building an accurate model that "you are the only one who will know if it looks right", I have to agree that is true, but for me I am my toughest critic and it does have look as close to the real life picture as possible. Jim