Brickin' the Wall

[Zox]

I've been working on the Kankakee railroad station, and I've been color-matching the brick to this:



Here's a closer-in sample:



However, I've found another picture (by someone else) that was shot on a much sunnier day. Here's a sample:



So, which should I be trying to match? I need to decide soon, because while it's not hard for me to change the color of the walls, the smaller brickwork (corbels, cornices, and the like) will be a bit of a pain since I have to change them individually.

Recommendations?

[wazzou]

One thing to remember, is that color has a scale and you should make allowances for that.  Also, there will be variations for shadows like under canopies, so I would go with the lighter of the two, IMHO.

[GaryHinshaw]

I would go for sunny, but it's more important that it "look right" under the lighting it will most commonly be seen under.

[peteski]

How about a color in between the dark and light samples? 

Seriously, trying to color match things from photographs is futile (as you can well see in just 2 photos). Every photo taken in different lighting conditions or even by different cameras will yield different results.  Ewen the printer used for printing the photos or the display you are viewing the photo on can change the shade of the color. And then you have do deal with the lighting conditions under which the model is displayed.

I would follow the advice already given earlier and use whatever color looks right on the model.  I also think that color might have to be "scaled" (or lightened) to look right.  But the final judgment will be done by you, using the ambient light which will be illuminating your model.

[pnolan48]

Zox,

After 50 years in the printing industry, all I can say is: don't rely on any color photo. Both color extremes were printed/published/imaged on the Web, which is not reality. It's not only the lighting, it's more the photographer and what the camera was set to take, and then the post-processing, be that in a darkroom or in Photoshop, as peteski pointed out. There is no color standard for most Web images.

I noticed that the sky in the "dark brick" image is nearly pure white--so I guess cloudy day, but the image is balanced overall. I'd go with peteski's recommendation. I myself would go with the darker image, but then many of my layout images portray rather gloomy weather days, and older structures in the PRR regions, which would be--well--sooty.

[peteski]

I noticed that the sky in the "dark brick" image is nearly pure white--so I guess cloudy day, but the image is balanced overall.

I thought about that one for a while too and I think I see well-defined  shadows in that photo (lamp poles and under window sills). That would imply that the sun is out.

[Zox]

Both color extremes were printed/published/imaged on the Web, which is not reality.

The "dark brick" image is mine--I shot it in September 2011 while on a trip back home. The color is what my camera recorded, with default settings in landscape mode, with no manipulation.

I thought about that one for a while too and I think I see well-defined  shadows in that photo (lamp poles and under window sills). That would imply that the sun is out.

The sun was indeed out, but at a glancing angle to the front of the station.

Pete, you're right about not trusting the image, though. After a bit more digging, here's another shot, taken moments later from almost exactly the same position, with the only difference being that I zoomed in to capture the door detail:



(The trashcan is on a post, lest anyone think the aliens from Area 53 have moved over to this module.) 

I think what happened was that I was pointing too close to the sun, so the camera stopped down to (unsuccessfully) avoid "burning in" the sky. This made the brick look dark--even though it was strongly lit by the sun, it was still much darker than the sky. The "sunny" picture was shot looking away from the sun, and the zoomed-in picture had a lot less sky in it, so both of them rendered the rest of the scene as lighter.

Because of the comments here, the additional photographic evidence, and the fact that the Cow Palace (the usual place this will be viewed) is lit about as well as Dracula's home theater, I think I'm going to go with the lighter color.

[Zox]

So I went from this:



To this:



Yeah, I think I'm going to like the lighter version better. It looks a lot more cheerful. And since "gloomy and foreboding" weren't things I associated with the station, this is probably closer to the way I perceive it in real life.

Thanks for the suggestions!

[Dave Schneider]

Rob,

I may have missed something here, but what is your building technique? Are rendering this so you can print it out and do a paper/card overlay?

Best wishes, Dave

[Zox]

I may have missed something here, but what is your building technique? Are rendering this so you can print it out and do a paper/card overlay?

That's basically the idea, yes. I'll have to experiment a bit, but right now I'm thinking three layers of cardstock for the walls--brick, window/door frames, and windows/doors--over an acetate "glass" backing layer, and then some additional bits of cardstock and styrene for surface relief (such as the corner corbels).

This is similar to the way Lee and I did the windows for his Cumberland station, which were two layers of cardstock. The biggest difference is that, since I'm creating the walls and windows in the same process, I can try to do everything as wall-sized units. Since Lee was working with pre-existing walls, he had to place the windows individually--it would have been nearly impossible to get everything to line up perfectly otherwise.

I'm starting by creating all the 2-D elevations, and then I'll start breaking the building down into boxes and layers for 3-D assembly. Hopefully it'll be slightly less complicated than the 3-D puzzle of Notre Dame my mom bought and never finished...

[peteski]

Rob, I do like the lighter version of your artwork but IMO, it is just a bit too light. However, as we already discussed that, the JPG file shown on the forum (along with the brightness and contrast settings on my monitor) might not really show the actual color rendered by the printer and viewed in-person.  The important thing is that you like it. 

[pnolan48]

. .

That is way overexposed. The walkways are totally burned out, as is the sky. The wires coming down from the top left corner are nearly burnt out. Go darker. There's nice shadow detail here--so maybe base your color on the brick in the shadows?

[Zox]

Okay then, here's an assortment (the numbers are the R in the RGB of the brick):
200 ("sunny"):

180:

160:

128 ("shady"):


What say ye?

[Dave Schneider]

I think that 160 looks pretty good (and the irony is great). One comment. I tried doing this a while back and wasn't happy with the results. It look too flat and devoid of texture. I think the issue is the lack of subtle shadows at the mortar lines. You can this effect in the sunny photo you posted. Is there anyway to do this in your software? You might be stretching the limits of printing resolution however. Just something to think about before you go all in.

Best wishes, Dave

[peteski]

I also like 160 but as I said earlier, my montoir brightnest and contrast might be set totally differetntly from yours and besides, the color produced by the printer myght be different than what you or me see on the screen.

Color matching on a computer (screen, printer) is very difficult. There are color profiles that can be uploaded and enabled and monitor calibration equipment can be used to match everything so you get WYSIWYG printing. But that costs thousands of dollars and it is usually used by professional printing or publishing companies.

Go with what looks good to you.