Painting brick walls - looking for advice

[CRL]

Even the best modelers have a distance at which the model vs real illusion breaks down. IMHO, the best layouts achieve congruence between the different areas (scenery, structures, track & train) at approximately the same viewing distance. Personally, I tend to prefer modeling to an overall general effect distance of about 2-3 feet for n-scale. Much closer than that and the general effect begins to break down in one or more major areas.

[robert3985]

I’m sorry Bob but I take issue with some of your statement. Some of us aren’t trying to win an NMRA award with our layouts or models.Some of the tooling of these kits are 40+ years old with grossly out of scale brick/mortar detail. There is nothing wrong with putting lipstick on a pig of a model and doing your best to make it look ok, and there is nothing wrong with having a “good enough” mentality. If those of us with any sizable layout treated every single element as a piece that should win an award we would just about never have a relatively completed layout. Maybe you want every piece of rolling stock to be a 40 hour project, plenty of us do not. I’ll end it with I’ve seen many efforts that look great to the eye when looking close to a model, but when subject to macro photography don’t hold up. Some of those efforts are amongst the best layouts I’ve witnessed.

Uhhhh...what do your comments have to do with what I wrote?  My comments address the imaginary "3 foot rule", which encourages an attitude that any detail you can't see at the magical 36" distance isn't worth applying.  My comments don't say a single thing about what is right or "wrong".  Believe it or not, I also have a "good enough" mentality...some things being good enough when viewed from a far distance, and other things being good enough when viewed with my Nikon DSLR equipped with my Micro Nikkor 60mm f2.8 lens at two inches.  A distance of 36" has absolutely zero relevance.  What if my objective in model railroading has nothing to do with having "...a relatively completed layout."???  You enjoy model railroading the way you want, and I enjoy it the way I want...and some fracking "rule" about details not visible at a magical viewing distance of 36 inches not being worth it, has NOTHING to do with my enjoyment.

Bob, for some it's a hobby and not a job!

I'm sorry you think model railroading is a job.  I'm very happy with my wonderful hobby of detailing N-scale models and running trains without any bogus "rule" telling me that anything I can't see at 36" isn't worth adding to my models.

Even the best modelers have a distance at which the model vs real illusion breaks down. IMHO, the best layouts achieve congruence between the different areas (scenery, structures, track & train) at approximately the same viewing distance. Personally, I tend to prefer modeling to an overall general effect distance of about 2-3 feet for n-scale. Much closer than that and the general effect begins to break down in one or more major areas.

Thank you for your personal opinion.  Is your opinion governed by a "rule" stating that 36 inches defines what details are worthy or not worthy??  Good!  Because there is no "rule" that governs that aspect of the hobby.  In my personal opinion, there are areas that should be highly detailed and other areas that should be impressionistic...a pleasing (to me) combination of construction and art, with absolutely zero influence by an imaginary "rule" or a magical distance of 36 inches.

If I'm not being clear enough, let me state it again.  The "Three Foot Rule" is bogus.  Details are worth applying if you think they are, and not worth applying if you think they're not.  36 inches has NOTHING to do with an "ideal" or "normal" or anything viewing distance.  If YOU want to incorporate the bogus "Three Foot Rule" in your modeling, then go right ahead if it pleases you...BUT don't tell me that it's a "rule" that applies to me, or anybody else, because it is NOT a "rule"...it's an attitude that excuses a modeler's lack of desire to apply details that can't be seen at the mystical distance of 36 inches, and for you, that's perfectly okay.  If that's what you want, then by all means, go for it!

For me, I'll abstain.   

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Missaberoad]

If I take my glasses off I can't tell if the trains have trucks from 3 feet away... 

I don't railfan from a city block away either... 

[Maletrain]

This seems like a pretty silly argument. 

Nobody has made a "rule" that N scale needs to be detailed no more than necessary to look good from no closer than 3'!.  At most, it is a joke, like "good enough for government workers."  (Yes, I know that "Good enough for government work" was once a compliment when the government had first introduced standards, but times have long since changed, and "government quality" is no longer any compliment.) 

But, N scale models, like most models, are most typically viewed from a standing position on a layout that is anywhere from 30" to 54" off the floor.  So, 3' is a common viewing distance from eye to model.  Not a rule, but a reasonable measure of what will be noticed and what won't in an average scene.  And, of course, some of us have better eyesight than others, too.

But, when the item on a layout is particularly interesting and attention-getting, it will probably get closer scrutiny.  But, just about any scene is going to show some unrealism when viewed "from 2" with a macro lens."  Maybe Bob doesn't include any human figures in his scenes (which is also not that realistic), but, if he does, I would be very surprise if he can provide an N scale human face that looks "super-detailed" through a macro lens focused at 2".

Each of us needs to decide how much time and effort we want to dedicate to each element of our models.  Trying to be "equal" to every one of the best efforts posted by others for tiny parts of their layouts will result in a feeling of frustration and inadequacy, and probably result in giving up the hobby.

So, while Bob does admit that even he "also [has] a 'good enough' mentality", his post seems to indicate that he doesn't think that looking good from 3' is good enough for anything, but rather just an excuse for laziness (which Bob describes as "only an excuse for not taking the extra effort to make models that withstand close-up photography and observation with Optivisors or high-powered reading glasse."  The problem, as I see it, is that Bob's definition of "good enough" is trying to set the acceptance bar where most of us are not interested in trying to reach it, except perhaps for a few favorite items.

[peteski]

I think Bob simply dislikes the "3 foot rule" statement.  There is no such official "rule" in model railroading. He is ok if people don't detail their models to the Nth degree - just don't say that those models are specifically built to fulfill the 3 foot rule.

[Angus Shops]

"The railz just wanna have fun."
 I made that up, but what I mean is, that while I personally lean toward a more a more prototypically correctly detailed model 'a la Bob' (a level of skill still beyond me), I absolutely respect the other end of the modelling continuum. I really value the insite and model building skills of the 'top modellers' but the Railwire needs to remain inclusive of all levels of skill. This can also be an expensive hobby (and getting more so), and the hobby needs to be accessible to those who can't afford to lay out big bucks for the finest products to continue to exist, and these people need to participate in forums like this.
I'm sure Bob meant no offence. Clearly he is rankled by the idea that there is something called a 'three foot rule' used as an excuse not to try for a 'six inch standard'.
Geoff

[Maletrain]

I think Bob simply dislikes the "3 foot rule" statement.  There is no such official "rule" in model railroading. He is ok if people don't detail their models to the Nth degree - just don't say that those models are specifically built to fulfill the 3 foot rule.

I just don't agree with [Peteski's assessment that Bob thinks] we should stop using "the 3 foot rule" words in our speaking or posts.  I just don't think it is anything but an attempt at humor when something is known to be imperfect but is not likely to detract from a scene.  If Bob considers somebody to be lazy for even speaking that way, then that is Bob's problem.  Let's not make that our problem.

But, maybe I am against a "brick wall" on that?  [hint: segway back to painting brick walls, please]

[MK]

I think we should now call it the 1 Meter Rule to protect the innocent.   

[Missaberoad]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[Maletrain]

"Remember when TRW was 'Better modeling through peer pressure'"

I took that as humor, as well.  So, I do not get bent-out-of-shape when somebody posts it.

Actually, TRW is a great source of great ideas and good information that leads me to make better models.  Pushing ain't polite.  (Constructive criticism is not "pushing", at least in my view.)

[peteski]

Mmmmmm!  Orange Milanos!

[CRL]

Thank you for your personal opinion.  Is your opinion governed by a "rule" stating that 36 inches defines what details are worthy or not worthy??  Good!  Because there is no "rule" that governs that aspect of the hobby.  In my personal opinion, there are areas that should be highly detailed and other areas that should be impressionistic...a pleasing (to me) combination of construction and art, with absolutely zero influence by an imaginary "rule" or a magical distance of 36 inches.

In answer to your question— absolutely not. I feel, if anything, that 3’ might be a reasonable minimum standard for a modeler to use for evaluating their own work but it’s certainly no rule. If the subject continues to look good as you get closer, that’s even better. More details should emerge the closer the viewer gets, but many times, that’s when the textures begin to break down. Ballast becomes too course, wood siding gets fuzzy, paint gets rough looking, ground cover looks like ground foam, details look over sized, and bi-focals stop working.   

I can generally tell from 3’ if some particular scene deserves a closer look. Of course, turquoise & pink aquarium rocks used for scenery never looks good.

[muktown128]

Mmmmmm!  Orange Milanos!

No, those are Mint Milanos!

[peteski]

No, those are Mint Milanos!

Are we going to argue over those now?! 
Speaking of which, I just tried the semi-new Lemon Milanos, and those are pretty tasty too.
As for the mint flavor, Girl-scout Thin Mints are awesome. And I miss the long-gone  Nabisco Mystic Mint Cookies, if you remember those.

[robert3985]

In answer to your question— absolutely not. I feel, if anything, that 3’ might be a reasonable minimum standard for a modeler to use for evaluating their own work but it’s certainly no rule. If the subject continues to look good as you get closer, that’s even better. More details should emerge the closer the viewer gets, but many times, that’s when the textures begin to break down. Ballast becomes too course, wood siding gets fuzzy, paint gets rough looking, ground cover looks like ground foam, details look over sized, and bi-focals stop working.    ...

I am really curious as to why you think that evaluating your modeling work from three feet away as the primary viewing distance is valid?  When working on a kit, or kitbashing, or scratch-building something in N-scale, you work close up...with magnifiers if you've got "old" eyes like me and many others...not from 36 inches away.

Truthfully, I've never measured how far away I am when working on a model, but just for sh!ts and giggles, I put on my Optivisor, unboxed a random freight car and measured my observation distance if I were going to do something like change a truck or body mount a coupler...and that distance is right at 6.25".

Then, I decided to measure just how long my right arm is from my chest to my fully extended middle flipping-off finger...and it's 5.5" short of 36"...31.5"...and I'm 6' tall.

I am completely baffled as to why anybody working in N-scale would think that the primary distance for evaluating their work on a model should be three feet!?!    I can't actually hold a model using my own hand 36 inches away from my eyes, and since I have to use at least one finger and my thumb to hold it...which bends any finger I use away from full extension and I need to flex my wrist slightly backwards and my arm naturally bends at the elbow a bit,  the actual maximum distance I can get my model away from my eye is going to shorten that initial arm-length distance by maybe 8 inches to around 22 inches.

That's a whopping 14" closer to my eye than your "minimum standard" distance for model evaluation.

And I can't see any rivet detailing, what kind of trucks, if there are any panel lines, or what kind of brake wheel is on it, if there are grab irons or not...much less what kind of grab irons...and there's no way I can read the car number, or the build date, or the lettering on the car ends....and this is at a distance of approximately 22 inches...14 inches short of your "reasonable minimum" distance of 36 inches.

Your concept of starting to evaluate your model from 36" then working closer seems a$$-backwards to me.  When I'm working on a model, I start close up.  I don't set the model on my work bench and walk away from it so I can view it at 3 feet first.  That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.  When I buy a car or engine at my LHS, I don't back away from the wall display three feet to get a more valid evaluation of the model...I put my eyes right down on it first so I can see more of its features, which gives me (or anybody for that matter) more information for my brain to make a well-informed choice as to where I want to put my money.  If the lighting is bad at my LHS (and it is) I use my smartphone's "magnifier" feature with the LED turned on.

As for "...textures begin to break down. Ballast becomes too coarse, wood siding gets fuzzy, paint gets rough looking, ground cover looks like ground foam, details look over sized..."  I can show you easy ways to overcome ALL of those "coarseness" problems...such as, use scale-sized real-rock ballast that's been de-dusted (first you have to know what size real ballast rocks are), use Styrene siding instead of wood, or seal and wire brush any fuzz away before painting, paint using proper brush and airbrush techniques, don't use ground foam as ground cover (how about static grass, or buried felt?) and finally, replacing over-sized details which are bothersome with more correctly sized details....and all of those techniques (and many others) are well-documented here at TRW for anybody who wants to do a simple search.

Using your 3 feet as a possible ideal model evaluation distance,  it would be about 90% as effective to evaluate my models if I just shut my eyes and called it "good enough".  Seriously.

And finally...

...Of course, turquoise & pink aquarium rocks used for scenery never looks good.

Gotta remember Ed's Law before making any absolute statement about model railroading that uses the word "never".... 

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore