The new Missouri Valley Western

[railnerd]

Again, the effects are a bit more pronounced in real life. Not completely happy with the results, but certainly better than the untouched cars. Perhaps more practice will help improve my technique. Suggestions?

Err on the side of subtlety.  I think the cars look great. 

[MVW]

Thanks, guys. I wholeheartedly agree on the subtlety thing. It's very easy to go overboard, especially for this era.

None of the "finished" cars have received a final shot of dullcoat, which will certainly tone down the effect of the weathering powders (which were applied sparingly). In fact, I'll probably have to add a bit more powder after the dullcoat.

Jim

[MVW]

Just playing around with GIMP.



I was a (light) Photoshop user for many years, but am just learning GIMP. Thought I'd see how tough it would be to add a sky. Didn't worry too much about the mask boundaries this time around, but it wouldn't take much to do this right. Kinda fun, and pretty easy.

Jim

[MVW]

Before and after pics of Class III weathering treatment:





The Santa Fe box car would be 10 years old. A couple things:

1) I'm really having a difficult time getting an accurate depiction of the weathering effects. I'm stuck with using my phone as a camera, and have few options in regards to the lighting. This car is considerably grimier (darker) in person.

2) For a car this age in this era (1955), would it be appropriate to add some rust? How about a bit of streaking from the white paint? I have those powders on hand, but am hesitant to overdue it.

3) I've had little luck finding adequate online sources for 1950s-era freight car pics. Suggestions?

Jim

[C855B]

...
2) For a car this age in this era (1955), would it be appropriate to add some rust? How about a bit of streaking from the white paint?
...

Not really. Recall that this would still be the era of "home road" loading and per-diem tariffs, so it would spend only short periods off-line. That means for Southwestern roads, not a lot of time in humid climes. It would just get dirtier, and dirtier, and dirtier, and dirtier, .... You get the gist.

[MVW]

Kinda happy with how these Class IIIs turned out.





Very tempted to come back and see if I can add a bit of rust along those rivet lines.

Have some reefers lined up for the Class IV treatment, but that may have to wait a bit.

Jim

[MVW]

Still weathering. Three bright, shiny models of old reefers:



After the Class IV fade/soot treatment:







I was wondering if the box car treatment would transfer well to wood reefers, which seem to "dirty up" a bit differently than box cars, IRL. But so far, so good, I think. OTOH, I think I'll forego any burnt sienna wash, and maybe provide a couple raw umber washes instead.

Jim

[MVW]

These hardly look like sisters anymore:




Ready to pop the trucks back on these two and get 'em back in service.





Little bit of a difference in board width, eh? The "Eatmor" is from Atlas, while "Priebe" is from MT. I have no idea if both are accurate (did ACF use wider boards?), but here's a shot of a North Western reefer from 1954.



The car above would have been two years old when the picture was taken. The two I weathered would have been on the rails close to 25 years. These are Class IV weathering jobs, meaning there will only be a couple cars on the layout looking older/dirtier than these.

Only two cars left to finish my "dirty dozen" project. Then maybe back to some track laying.

Jim

[MVW]

Sorry for the rather ham-handed attempt, but I'm checking the limits of my phone camera, lighting, etc. The crude GIMP work I'm not fretting at this point.

I'm very tempted to get a photo flood lamp, and/or seeing what my daughter's digital SLR can do.

Jim

[MVW]

Yeah, after playing around with a DSLR for a few minutes, I think I'll relegate my phone to things like ... making phone calls.



Wasn't much concerned with composition here, just trying to see what could be done with actual layout lighting. Looks like ... quite a bit. There will be a bit of a learning curve with the camera, but it should be fun.

Jim

[peteski]

Jim, I wouldn't dismiss the smart phone cameras just yet.  With the small lens located in a corner, you can take photo from low angles not possible with a DSLR camera.  And if you check out some of @Chris333  photos, you might change your mind.  There is a discussion about this in . . . the Photography section of this forum.  https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=42359.0

And, not to rain on your parade, but that photo doesn't do much for me. The loco and cars up front are out of focus. You need to increase the depth of field (use higher f-stop setting), which requires more light or slower exposure.

Here is one of my favorite photos taken by Chris with his smart phone.  So realistic!


Or another smart phone photo taken from a low angle, not possible with DSLR

[LIRR]

nice work, very subtle and realistic...it's easy to overdue weathering

[MVW]

@peteski, thanks for the reminder of that thread. Some useful stuff there, before it degenerated into an "up the down vote" quagmire.   

Good times.

I'd forgotten about the "open camera" app. Will have to check that out.

And don't worry about raining on my parade -- I wasn't running one. I had about 20 minutes to play around with a DSLR for the first time, so I snapped some shots using a number of different settings, just to see what effect they had. Didn't use a tripod, and as I said, was hardly thinking about composition. The thing I found encouraging about that shot was the fact that my layout lighting was apparently adequate ... for a time when I'm able to actually figure out how to manually control the camera. I was a reporter for many years, so I'm fairly familiar with using a SLR, but the DSLR isn't quite as straightforward, the manual is shitty (no index), and I was pressed for time. Maybe I'll have time to play around more this weekend.

@LIRR, thanks! I've enjoyed the brief dive into weathering, and have been encouraged by the results so far.

Jim

[mcjaco]

Yeah, after playing around with a DSLR for a few minutes, I think I'll relegate my phone to things like ... making phone calls.



Wasn't much concerned with composition here, just trying to see what could be done with actual layout lighting. Looks like ... quite a bit. There will be a bit of a learning curve with the camera, but it should be fun.

Jim

Much better.  And seeing how some test photos look on a PC monitor can be helpful too.  They don't all need to be works of art.  As you said here, before the comments rolled in, it was merely a test on lighting. 

[MVW]

Much better.  And seeing how some test photos look on a PC monitor can be helpful too.  They don't all need to be works of art.  As you said here, before the comments rolled in, it was merely a test on lighting.

Bingo! I tend to use TRW a little differently than most. For me, the best way to improve the looks of my layout is to see how it photographs, and to see those photographs on the monitor. Yeah, I aspire to posting "work of art" photos some day, but I'm no where near that point. And neither is my layout. In that last photo, only about half of the yard is done, and the part that's ballasted is only about 90% done. That C&NW box car at right isn't even on the track. None of the buildings have been completed; only about half have received any weathering. Even the "trees" aren't complete (on the right is a WS armature straight out of the bag; haven't even bent the branches yet.)

But posting that photo -- with all its flaws -- gives me something to refer back to when I consider improvements.

When I have time, I may re-stage this scene a bit and shoot it from a slightly lower angle ... while working toward a maximum depth of field. Really, all I'm trying to do is see how that first block of weathered cars photographs.

Jim