• Modelers Alliance has updated the forum software on our website. We have migrated all post, content and user accounts but we could not migrate the passwords.
    This requires that you manually reset your password.
    Please click here, http://modelersalliance.org/forums/login to go to logon page and use the "Forgot your Password" option.

A modeler’s quandary...

I've never done a diorama, got a couple in my head but never had the gumption to pull it off. But I think the visual interest would be more important that any accuracy in a dio. You can only see so much detail when you're standing over a table in a crowded hall. You gotta make it pop.
 
I have a couple in mind. One is large in size as it has a 1/32 Ju88 in it, but fairly simple. Doing a build from a couple of photos I have. The second is an armor one with a Panzer III J and a Kubelwagen on some hard pan Afrika Corp. Also from a photo. Right now I have too many things going to start the second and get back on the first.
 
For me, I think the diorama is the pinnacle of the hobby. All of the different skills coming together for an integrated story. The model shown doing its thing as Shep Paine famously said. The most impressive dioramas to me are from people like Aitor Azkue who often incorporates aircraft, figures, armor and scratch built elements into a single cohesive scene.

There is still a lot to be said about a well done stand alone model kit. I am impressed by the people who go the extra mile to scratch build and correct the kits as they come out of the box, but I have seen just as many impressive models built straight from the box.

That was a whole lotta words just to say, its all good. We may no longer be in the "golden age" of modeling, but it is a wonderful time with so many kits available of such a diverse list of subjects.

My goal has become, to build more dioramas, because I am such a fan of them. And the hope is to develop new skills and improve the others along the way. This is my goal, and to the rest of you I say - go build whatever makes you happy and enjoy the works of others along the way.

:good:
 
I have enough trouble getting the model done in a reasonable length of time lately, but maybe I could do a diorama if I started with a less complex model project.
 
What is "historically accurate"? What do you mean when you say historically accurate? If a model is not visually interesting why look at.

To me modeling has become all about the art of it; the colors, the depth, the life of the object or person being modeled. How does it really look? Anyone can build a Sherman and paint it O.D. and say it's accurate, but does it really look like that? Modeling to me is more then "absolute" accuracy. I stopped choking on every missed detail a long time ago. Nobody really cares about how many screw heads there are on the turret top of a panzer IV. If someone is counting the number of deck planks on your battleship Arizona they have the problem not your model.

I build for competition(I know a dirty word to some) so I go for "visual effects". I use different colors, panel shading, dry brushing, or whatever to get the observer to "see" the model at a distance. First impressions are everything. Accuracy and clean building of the model is an absolute because once you have drawn the observer in for a closer look the details better be there correctly.

I too will add updates or details to my models, they are more for my pleasure, or to add that extra "snap" to the model. Most casually observers will never know you did it and even some judges won't catch them either. To me a model must have good visual effects and a reasonable amount of accuracy to win the day.

I like all kinds of modeling. I have seen many wonderful dioramas, and many fantastic stand alone models. I don't see one as better then the other. I have seen some dioramas with a lot of good work, but were confused and too busy to tell a good "story". I have also seen stand alone models that were mucked up and cluttered with so much other junk that it was hard to tell what was under all that mess. They may have been accurate but not really visually pleasing.

I don't care what you build, but do your best work and if you are pleased with it...well that's one that likes it and isn't that really what it's all about.

B)
 
What is "historically accurate"? What do you mean when you say historically accurate? If a model is not visually interesting why look at.

To me modeling has become all about the art of it; the colors, the depth, the life of the object or person being modeled. How does it really look? Anyone can build a Sherman and paint it O.D. and say it's accurate, but does it really look like that? Modeling to me is more then "absolute" accuracy. I stopped choking on every missed detail a long time ago. Nobody really cares about how many screw heads there are on the turret top of a panzer IV. If someone is counting the number of deck planks on your battleship Arizona they have the problem not your model.

I build for competition(I know a dirty word to some) so I go for "visual effects". I use different colors, panel shading, dry brushing, or whatever to get the observer to "see" the model at a distance. First impressions are everything. Accuracy and clean building of the model is an absolute because once you have drawn the observer in for a closer look the details better be there correctly.

I too will add updates or details to my models, they are more for my pleasure, or to add that extra "snap" to the model. Most casually observers will never know you did it and even some judges won't catch them either. To me a model must have good visual effects and a reasonable amount of accuracy to win the day.

I like all kinds of modeling. I have seen many wonderful dioramas, and many fantastic stand alone models. I don't see one as better then the other. I have seen some dioramas with a lot of good work, but were confused and too busy to tell a good "story". I have also seen stand alone models that were mucked up and cluttered with so much other junk that it was hard to tell what was under all that mess. They may have been accurate but not really visually pleasing.

I don't care what you build, but do your best work and if you are pleased with it...well that's one that likes it and isn't that really what it's all about.

B)

Yeah, I agree and what I do as well. There is no right or wrong answer here, just wanted to see how things shake out group wise.
 
What is "historically accurate"? What do you mean when you say historically accurate? If a model is not visually interesting why look at.

To me modeling has become all about the art of it; the colors, the depth, the life of the object or person being modeled. How does it really look? Anyone can build a Sherman and paint it O.D. and say it's accurate, but does it really look like that? Modeling to me is more then "absolute" accuracy. I stopped choking on every missed detail a long time ago. Nobody really cares about how many screw heads there are on the turret top of a panzer IV. If someone is counting the number of deck planks on your battleship Arizona they have the problem not your model.

I build for competition(I know a dirty word to some) so I go for "visual effects". I use different colors, panel shading, dry brushing, or whatever to get the observer to "see" the model at a distance. First impressions are everything. Accuracy and clean building of the model is an absolute because once you have drawn the observer in for a closer look the details better be there correctly.

I too will add updates or details to my models, they are more for my pleasure, or to add that extra "snap" to the model. Most casually observers will never know you did it and even some judges won't catch them either. To me a model must have good visual effects and a reasonable amount of accuracy to win the day.

I like all kinds of modeling. I have seen many wonderful dioramas, and many fantastic stand alone models. I don't see one as better then the other. I have seen some dioramas with a lot of good work, but were confused and too busy to tell a good "story". I have also seen stand alone models that were mucked up and cluttered with so much other junk that it was hard to tell what was under all that mess. They may have been accurate but not really visually pleasing.

I don't care what you build, but do your best work and if you are pleased with it...well that's one that likes it and isn't that really what it's all about.

B)

Yeah, I agree and what I do as well. There is no right or wrong answer here, just wanted to see how things shake out group wise.

Just explaining my answer. :laugh:
 
What is "historically accurate"? What do you mean when you say historically accurate? If a model is not visually interesting why look at.

To me modeling has become all about the art of it; the colors, the depth, the life of the object or person being modeled. How does it really look? Anyone can build a Sherman and paint it O.D. and say it's accurate, but does it really look like that? Modeling to me is more then "absolute" accuracy. I stopped choking on every missed detail a long time ago. Nobody really cares about how many screw heads there are on the turret top of a panzer IV. If someone is counting the number of deck planks on your battleship Arizona they have the problem not your model.

I build for competition(I know a dirty word to some) so I go for "visual effects". I use different colors, panel shading, dry brushing, or whatever to get the observer to "see" the model at a distance. First impressions are everything. Accuracy and clean building of the model is an absolute because once you have drawn the observer in for a closer look the details better be there correctly.

I too will add updates or details to my models, they are more for my pleasure, or to add that extra "snap" to the model. Most casually observers will never know you did it and even some judges won't catch them either. To me a model must have good visual effects and a reasonable amount of accuracy to win the day.

I like all kinds of modeling. I have seen many wonderful dioramas, and many fantastic stand alone models. I don't see one as better then the other. I have seen some dioramas with a lot of good work, but were confused and too busy to tell a good "story". I have also seen stand alone models that were mucked up and cluttered with so much other junk that it was hard to tell what was under all that mess. They may have been accurate but not really visually pleasing.

I don't care what you build, but do your best work and if you are pleased with it...well that's one that likes it and isn't that really what it's all about.

B)

Yeah, I agree and what I do as well. There is no right or wrong answer here, just wanted to see how things shake out group wise.

Just explaining my answer. :laugh:

And much appreciated!
 
So what about historical accuracy, can you score points for presenting the USS Enterprise as it appeared after it's 1982 cruise to the Med (I don't know if it cruised to the Med in 82, just sayin')? Who would know what it looked like other than a USS Enterprise historian?
 
So what about historical accuracy, can you score points for presenting the USS Enterprise as it appeared after it's 1982 cruise to the Med (I don't know if it cruised to the Med in 82, just sayin')? Who would know what it looked like other than a USS Enterprise historian?

I guess this begs the question, score points with whom?
 
Documentation.....Documentation you must have documentation. At AMPS you get one point for that. :rotf
 
So what about historical accuracy, can you score points for presenting the USS Enterprise as it appeared after it's 1982 cruise to the Med (I don't know if it cruised to the Med in 82, just sayin')? Who would know what it looked like other than a USS Enterprise historian?

I guess this begs the question, score points with whom?

The score keeper? :rotf

You mentioned years ago that modelers in the US are too caught up in the rivet counting. They turn a blind eye to the artistic side of things.

Do you feel like that's still the case? Anyone?
 
So what about historical accuracy, can you score points for presenting the USS Enterprise as it appeared after it's 1982 cruise to the Med (I don't know if it cruised to the Med in 82, just sayin')? Who would know what it looked like other than a USS Enterprise historian?

I guess this begs the question, score points with whom?

The score keeper? :rotf

You mentioned years ago that modelers in the US are too caught up in the rivet counting. They turn a blind eye to the artistic side of things.

Do you feel like that's still the case? Anyone?

Oh yeah the rivet guys are still out there. I think it may be more about paint colors and tones. Weathering is still a big deal and I think really over done.

:)
 
Oh yeah the rivet guys are still out there. I think it may be more about paint colors and tones. Weathering is still a big deal and I think really over done.

:)

I agree on the weathering bit Terry. I spend a lot of time looking at photos, especially of aircraft. While there is wear and tear and with war time planes, a lot of the weathering and highlighting is overdone. While the heavy panel lines might look good artistically, most photos don't show near that much weathering or delineation.
 
So what about historical accuracy, can you score points for presenting the USS Enterprise as it appeared after it's 1982 cruise to the Med (I don't know if it cruised to the Med in 82, just sayin')? Who would know what it looked like other than a USS Enterprise historian?

I guess this begs the question, score points with whom?

The score keeper? :rotf

You mentioned years ago that modelers in the US are too caught up in the rivet counting. They turn a blind eye to the artistic side of things.

Do you feel like that's still the case? Anyone?

Oh I still think North America is eons behind the rest of the world in finishing techniques, but we are making progress.
 
I was judging at a local show and some numb*uts started in on how certain colors were just wrong!

I asked him how many angstroms off the colors were? He looked at me like I was a heathen (which I am) and a defiler of children (which I'm not). He then went one about weathering being insufficient...

Oddly, he didn't win a single ribbon, medal, trophy or whoopee cushion.

My bottom line will always be: Did you enjoy building it and are you satisfied with the result.

We are and always will be "boys playing with toys." Have fun!
 
Back
Top