Hi. I was talking to a guy at the local hobby shop this week end and we got on to the subject of some of the armor models and dios. that are presented in some of the various magazines, and how after reading some of the articles and pouring over the pictures it just makes me want to set the garbage can next to the desk, sweep it all off, and look for another hobby.

He told me that he didn't think, on average, that what you see in the magazines are near as good as what they appear to be on the page. He has a friend who has seen some of a world known modeler's stuff (I won't mention the name here), 'in the flesh' and he told him that they weren't near as good as they appeared to be on the printed page. Really sort of over done, or gaudy in real life.

Now I'm not saying that there aren't some fantastic modelers out there. Craftsmen and masters in their own right, but after the conversation with this guy I'm beginning to wonder just how much of these models are real and how much is camera 'filler, or other such techniques used in that field, as opposed to the real thing.

Anyway, out of curiosity, I thought I would put this out here to see what others think and if they have the same general opinion as this gentleman on the subject.

Thanks and take care, Sgirty

interesting thought,

for me there are two kinds of model.

photo realistic ones, and naturally realistic ones.

photorealistic ones like you say often look over done, and unrealistic in real life. this is why i dont dry brush, it doesnt look realistic to the naked eye, but on film its a different matter.

naturally realistic models, i.e look real to the naked eye look poor on film, they are drab and uninteresting, much like the finish on a real afv!

i think most modellers try to create something in between, to get the best of both worlds.

cheers

joe

Many model magazines used to be the first place you would find out about new products and techniques. With the advent of the internet, new product reviews pop up all over the place, but usually hit first at the same few sites (Perth comes to mind for armor, Starship Modeler for sci-fi).

These almost instantaneous reviews have caused monthly or bi-monthly magazine to suffer from a bad case of "jet lag". By the time they print the "/news" it has been hashed and rehashed on the various discussion forums.

One of the benefits of a hard copy magazine is its portability. Quality reading time in the household lavatory would be difficult to do with a computer, even if you had a laptop and wireless networking.

Some older magazines have even become quite valuable. Try searching eBay for some of the older MMiRs. Those things can go for quite a bundle.

As far as the quality of work enclosed within the pages, to each his own. The builder probably thinks his submitted work is pretty good.

Model photos, are a "forced" guided tour of the model. Not to defend or attack the practice, I use it myself when I post here.

A photo of anything is the photographers view, you don't get to pick your own view of the subject. The persective, angle of view, and distortion of scale are all used to put the subject in the best "light" to the viewers eye in the mind of the photographer. If you got to walk around it, in "real life" you may have a different opinion of the subject, which is fine and proper.

I don't think we are talking about retouching or airbrushing over blems here, just good photography.
I've seen a few (some of my own) models photographed and, you look and say is that the same model?

Just my two cents, I don't think it's a big deal just something else to take at face value. They must start out as pretty good models (some here have had thier's published), I've never seen one of mine in print.

Hi sgirty, I know what you mean about some fantastic looking models appearing "overdone" when viewed up close. I guess it comes down to the preferences of the builder and how they are intended to be viewed.

As for how much enhancement goes on with the pics before they are published I don't know, but I bet many of us use software to alter our pics before putting them here for people to see. I don't mean to hide faults or anything like that but simply to correct the colours to how they appear to the naked eye.

Digital cameras are fantastic but I've rarely taken a pic of a model without having to adjust the colour balance to make the photo true to the model.

Sirgty, it really comes down to what so many people here keep saying, you model for yourself, not for others. If you're happy with the way your model looks then it doesn't matter if it looks like what you see in the magazines. I've never seen a model shown in a magazine in "the flesh." If it didn't look as good, or even if it looked better, that really shouldn't make me feel any differently about my own models. God knows I find enough faults with them myself. I can only say that I have plenty of room for improvement based on my own standards, I don't have to keep comparing them to others.

Well said halfyank

Ive only ever seen a few models "live" that appeared on the net or magazines. Some were from Ulf Andersson ... knocked out russian 122 for example, and those two last dioramas by Per Olof Lund .. "Hun in the sun" and the one where a T34 has fallen into a sewer and some german are throwing a jerry can strapped to grenades. I can quite honesly say that the photographs I have seen will never do any of these justice. I have inspected them from every angle and so close my breath was settling on them.
Im lucky enough to live in Stockholm where there is some great modellers and at the IPMS open every year I see the best of what Scandanavia has to offer. Over the last 3 years, I have seen countless top notch models that never make magazines. This doesnt make them lesser models though!
If you are going to print photos, of course you want them to look their best, and possibly conceal that one little flaw that wasn´t seen earlier. Thats what you are paying bucks for. I guess the main aim of these is to provide inspiration. If you get inspired, it has been a success. So even if a model is not the best ever, but is inspiring or inventive, it is still well worth publishing and paying the money for.
Magazines are not just about the pictures either ... its the article that goes along with it. So, I guess to be a frequently published modeller, you not only have to model, but be able to back it up with knowledge and text.
I have more or less stopped buying magazines now as here, they cost around $9 each and some up to $20, and the quantity is less all the time, making way for more and more advertising. No way Im spending money on a mag that is 50% ads. Even some of the modellers I used to love getting their articles, appear boring now with lines like my "usual method" or "as explained in issue XXX".
Long live sites like this, where there is so much talent and al the inspirationthat is needed.

Another thing that helps me when I second guess my abilities...look at where you are now as to when you began the hobby, we all have to start some where and we all get better as we continue.

I also play guitar-- I've had many blows to my idea of my abilites when I try to be a "master" i feel like I'm aweful and can't do this or that-- blah blah blah.
But I stop and remeber when I couldn't even finger a simple chord and now....

We just have to take things in steps, we gotta walk before we can run. And don't forget, practice makes perfect!

Sean

hey, have you seen that article in the june issue of Military in Scale(for those of you who know about it) there is this article on the italeri 1/72 Leopard, he said I'm not positive of the scale of this model. That is because I'm a modeller, not a Mathematics major. It looks like a Leopard 1A4 and that is my only concern. The kit cost me $5 US and the base cost me $2 US, so I may have invested $10 US in this little piece of history. i hope you enjoy it as much as I did. Have fun and build a model" This really was some inspiration for me to build a model even if model wasn't really the most accurate or the best. bye

I been able to see the dioramas built back when Verlinden and Letterman were together and shown in an empty store in a shopping mall, at Miniature World before it closed and several times since. It's almost the other way around. No photo can do justice to a great diorama.

The depth is lost. The majesty of a superdiorama is impossible to recreate in photos. Now, when we can take "virtual tours" of a dio and zoom in or out and pan up or down and go around, then we might have something.

Sealhead

I have found that in Model Railroader, photos of layouts are sometimes retouched after being taken and some modelers go to GREAT lengths to set up shots with lighting and such and the pictures are so real that you have to look for unbelievable facets.
I am so looking foreward to unleashing my photographer fiance on my layout to match it up against some of the "Masters" that show up on the pages of my favorite magazines!
In fact, I am looking foreward to being one of the "Masters" that people see and want to emulate, knowing full well that my girl will have as much to do with that as much as I.

Cuhail

I attend a couple of model shows a year. I have seen some absoluetly grand dioramas that never made it btwn the pages of Fine Scale or others. Persoanlly, I use these awesome things as well as pics in the mags as an inspiration to do better. Tony Greenlands building Armor book is what got me away from building mediocre airplanes into what I consider competition level tanks.

Hmmmm, good question sgirty,

I'll throw my 'yakkity-yaks' worth in here if it's alright. (I'll make an effort to keep it short).

I've mentioned before that when I was a young boy and growing up a stone's throw from NYC, I was privy to getting 'backstage' as it were, at the Museum in New York City (now called 'the Museum in the City'), as well as the New York State Military Museum upstate.
So, I got to see (even though I couldn't process it as well as I should have.....I was young and not really realizing what I was 'privy' to ) some real experts at diorama/model-making.
When it comes to dioramas, Sealhead made a good point with his "the depth is lost" remark. But at the same time, what must be remembered is that the majority of these dioramas are designed with a generally fixed POV in mind. Is every single face on each figure a 'masterpiece'?.....No. But the main focal point figures are. Is the 'flowing river' effect the same back underneath the canopied trees the same as right at the camping spot?.....No. But the 'camping spot' and the accuracy of the clothes the figures are wearing is impecable and historically accurate.

When I became high school age, I took up photography and did a little modeling work. To make a loooong story short, suffice it to say that the women who posed for the pictures looked quite different from the final shot as they did when they walked in the door. So, photo-manipulation is certainly a possibility in regards to the displaying of models, but my impression is, is that it is generally limited to lighting and the correction of same.

And there's also the comparison of what I'll call the 'Euro' style (I just know I'll get some flak for this, but I did get this phrase originally from a magazine) and.......everybody else's 'style'. And, what I'm talking about (in short) is the excessive use of both washes and especially DRY-brushing. Again, I won't go into a long tirade about the pros & cons, but I will instead share one of the very first, and primary lessons I learned about miniature model making, and that is; "Paint to scale". Meaning, don't try to make the subject matter larger than it is (unless there's a specific reason why). If the 'accent' you try to apply to your subject matter looks like an 'accent', then you've gone too far. Doing work like that is simply a subconcious 'pat on the back', and actually works to make the model look like a 'model', and not a miniature version of the real thing.
I will not mention any names (for fear of 'flame'), but a significant amount of "Masters" unfortunately employ too much 'accent' in their work for my tastes. And as a comparative example, I will cite someone's work (and I will name names) that I genuinely feel is truly an accurate 'miniaturist' in his heart, and who's work honestly exemplifies a 'pure' form of creating a miniature example of the real thing. His work is never overdone, and I dare you to find any decent amount of either washing or drybrushing on any of his pieces.
The person I'm talking about, and the one who I would indeed pay to sit as his student, is our Gunnie.
If you haven't already, take some time and peruse his site guntruck.com . His stuff is simply magnificent.
{said in a whisper}
(psssst.......Jim, you can send the $20. you paid for this endorsement to me anytime you want. ).

But, now that I've discovered I have broken my original promise, and not kept this post short......I will simply shut-up now...................................

Tread.

Much of it comes down to taste, "I like what I see." But there are other times when objectively speaking the models are poorly done. There are times I've glanced through mags and found the work featured to be downright poor, as bad, or worse, than what was in the old Challenge publications in the late 70's. There was a recent cover article in FSM where the model was just plain bad, especially the figures. (Yeah, we all have to start somewhere, but I wouldn't want to be judged by my work of 25 years ago!) There was a cack page armor add in FSM recently as well that had silvering so bad , the model would have been hard pressed ot make first cut at any local show!

So, yeah, IMHO, some "magazine models" are quite weak and not deserving of the coverage they were given.

Gee - only 20 bucks!?! Man - that was worth at least $25! :-)

Thank you Tread! I echo your sentiments - a great many of what's lauded as "master" work(s) out there are really vogue and overdone. Wait until the next "fad" hits the scene...

I won't try to further "pontificate" here and espouse my modeling views - I feel I do with my miniature work already. In answer to the original question in the thread:

In my experience, magazine photos tend to be more impressive than the actual model viewed in person. I've seen many "great works" too in person, and feel the camera was most kind. The Internet is kind as well.

A lot of a miniature's "presence" is lost in photography and on the Internet. Great miniature work captures and creates and illusion best viewed in three dimensions. Though it bears mentioning that cameras and the Internet can only do so much. There is a point where no photo-trick can overcome a mediocre miniature effort. Much of what's printed in (some) magazines are nice works in their own right. Many publications are pretty weak in quality. But, as your skill level increases and you know what to look for - the "glitz" becomes less and less attractive in the end. So do model magazines in general...

Gunnie

I find this an interesting topic, with interesting answers and opinions. So I'll throw my 2 cents in the ring. (with inflation it's worth about .00002 cents today)

Photographically speaking, I believe each of us try to show our work in the best way possible. I have noticed even here, we post our photos, for all to see, and critique, and we try to show the best assets of our labour. If I have a cranked wheel, or a seam, it is only natural, and normal that I will try to avoid showing it, by shooting at a camera angle that doesn't maginfy this mistake. (Photos can not only hide mistakes, but will maginfy them also) Of course these are for viewing pleasure, not for competition. Hopefully encouraging others to enjoy this hobby as much as I do, reguardless of mistakes and faults.

Like everything in this hobby, there are good and bad, somethings well worth the money spent, others a total waste of money, and fourtunately most fall in the middle. I'm personally a person who enjoys taking a cheap, doggy kit and improving it with scratch-built items, (for me that's the fun of modelling) other prefer the mega buck kits, with loads of after market parts, (for them that's the fun of modelling), as long as we enjoy the hobby, what ever floats your boat is fine with me.

Unlike a magazine, I do not have a product to sell, just a hobby to enjoy. I've seen some resin after market detail and replacement set sold, that are well worth the money, and I've seen others that are nothing more than a kit part with a strap, or nut and bolt added, still containing the damn ejection pin marks from the kit. I've seen great photo etched sets, and I've seem totally useless ones, that are over priced, and contain only a few items that can actually be used. What I don't see are many honest reviews of doggy crap, in magazines.

I do find them here though. And I believe the reason we seem to have the most honest reviews here, and at a few other sites, is because of the fact that most of us actually spend our money on a product, we know our ability as modellers, and know if we could have taken the time to scatchbuild the thing, or add that detail from sprue, wire, foil, or simple plastic shapes, perhaps with a little carving, and shaping.

New people here don't realize they have some of the finest modellers in the world here at this site, that are more than willing to share their talents, and experence, to help the newcomers improve their work. Sometimes the comments may seem rude, but we also need to remember that some are speaking a second or even third language. I struggle speaking and writing one...... New Joisey........

I hope I haven't offended anyone with my opinion on magazines, do I read them, yes I do, do I read them like I use to, no I don't. I find I can get the needed information here for free, from people just like me, modellers helping modellers, become better modellers.

I'M GETTING OFF MY SOAP BOX NOW!!!!!!

I use to read Fine Scale Modeller, but since I discover Armorama I´m feeling less interest in the magazine.

When I don´t know how to do something I ask here in the Forum and someone answer my request, when I want to know about a kit, same thing, and the best of all is that the responses are from real modellers from real life, not from an editorial staff trying to sell one or another brand of kits or something.

I believe that the only advantage that you have in the printed material is that you can carry it with you to the bathroom and to the bed. :-)

Sir, I would pay dearly for a week with you. I obviously don't say any of this for some self-serving reason. My genuine motivation is respect for what you do......that is all. I see your attention to detail as awe inspiring. I also see your attempt's at rendering a particular piece accurately, as (as the newer generation says) fresh! And ( for the record), I am not in the least hesitant to say it. Unfortunately, too often we hesitate to say something from our heart because of fear from 'detracting' from ourselves........please?.....no need for that amoung friends!......I feel very much the same way about many other members here (I will refrain from naming 'names').
The 'Bottom-Line' here is (as our fine Grumpyoldman has already said); We have a very VALUABLE commodity here at Armorama........( I don't doubt for a second our fearless leader 'Staff_Jim' know's). A true sharing experience "goin' on".......

I for one...and I feel certain I'm not alone...feel we've, as a 'community of spirits', created a genuine place, where, we feel totally confident that our 'time spent'........is both appreciated......and an honourable thing...........

I only hope I'm not being overly emotional.....(fact is....I've had a couple glasses of 'vino'....)

Tread.