In the "pet peeves" topic someone mentioned that building for the camera is different than building for the naked eye. That actually explains why my models, which, I think, are improving, look so disappointing on photo.
For some reason the effects need to be very subtle to look good. (Ever since I dropped the washing techniques in favour of pre- and postshading, my models look better on photo -and real life as well.)
Is that real? Do you agree with this theory? What’s the general consensus? Why does it happen? After all, the same brain processes the image.

I don't know if things look better or not, but almost invariably the are larger. I will often see a flaw in a photo that I couldn't see at the work bench.

Ditto to what Al says. I often see a flaw in one of my 1/72 scale kits when it has been photographed and on display 10 times larger on my computer screen.

I think that this relates more to figure painting than vehicles. Figures can look very flat in a picture, and to emphasise the detail and shadows, figure painters use extreme highlighting and shadows, which will improve the figure when viewed on a 2D picture (either box art or computer screen). I'm not a great fan of this technique, as inevitabely people will try to 'improve' by increasing the effect, ending up with almost cartoon like features, or pre-shading a 'tic-tac-toe' grid on their model... . As with all techniques, the trick is to be subtle, 'less is more'.

Cheers
Henk

It's real. I actually use this to my building advange. I build to eye and then take pictures and review them to look for flaws.

I take it at face value with the knowledge that it exists. If a model is going to be viewed only by photos then I pay closer attention. If it's for me only I may not do it at all. If I did contests I would do both, sometimes photos show you things you miss, sometimes the flash shows you details you miss.
I think it's a size thing, where the image is blown up as mentioned. I think it has to do with visual distractions. When you look at a model in front of you - you pick what the subject is. A photo forces you to review what the photographer wants as the subject. Plus you can look at a photo over and over.

Sorry to get that one a bit late.

I read recently Bill horan's book where he said that he first had the idea to raise the contrast between the tone of the figures he was painting becasue as he was not sure of the lighting he would get when he shows of his stuff in contests, his figures would everytime appear more or less correct. So that rejoin what Henk says.
But then i really wander how you can "build your dioramas/figures for the camera " really..

technically there's a bit of problem numeric vs figures: no matter how many coats of matt varnish you put, your figures pics will appear more or less glossy it seems..

An old trick when building a model is to put a coat of primer on it so that you will see the imperfections, but i agree with Al & Scott that another good one is to take a picture, then with the zoom you can easely see the things that don't fit -even more that you are in front of your computer, not on your workbench and that allows you to see your stuff with a new eye.

but my point would be that with all these pictures of models that are taken.... Most modellers don't really put their stuff at the back on their cars and drive 100 miles for a show -and even if they do, that will affect maybe 100 people 10 seconds while his eye will stop on the specific model. except for well known modellers It won't 't really matter and I think it's with internet that the modeller will get his public.

*I mean, the picture of the model is the piece of art ultimately, not the model*.

With programs like Photoshop you can even make disapear the ill painted bits, here's a pic of one of my dioramas that i retouched heavily in order the borders to disapear. Where does the real diorama end? i'm unhappy with the face of the guy as he's a cossack and he looks a bit german and doesn't have any beard, OK I take photoshop and I add a beard..
;)
JB

Thats the thing, innit? You never know how real it is. Did he patch up that seam line with an exacto or with the brush tool on Photoshop? I must admit I have been tempted, but then thought, why? Who am I trying to impress? I can live with the criticism.

I build for the eye, & I do mostly figs. I even hold off on the shadows a bit as I prefer to let the light create its own shadows. Lately, though, I've been taking pix to check the details (like Scott), and correcting them. I am realistic with this though. I don't worry about brush strokes that show up at 10x coz u cant see it with the naked eye.

I don't think I ever will build for the camera.

hey David,
Didn't you were tempted sometimes to take your graphic software and make disapear all borders near you figures? To actually embed your own work in the vast history or landscape behind?
I agree, that's not modelism anymore, more computer graphics, but what for a great temptation!
Now i saw what it could look like, and that i was happy with the result, I went back to a normal blue background or a sky picture when i take pictures -it's more honest with the viewer I think...

Yeah, Jean, I have tried it actually. I've dropped in background pix and superimposed the title onto the ground, stuff like that. I draw the line at actually extending the dio groundwork or adjusting colours or increasing contrast to make the paint look sharper. I wouldn't tamper with the actual model or dio.

I do know guys who will adjust eyes on Photoshop. I am pretty savvy about the software and have spotted a couple of these, but if you are careful no one will notice really.