Mobelwagen Flak 43 3.7cm Complete 09-01-08

Panther F wrote:

Hey Bill, I like the looks of the running gear (heck I like it all) but just how much water is added to the mixture of piments?  I mean, is it soupy, muddy, what consistency would it be called?

Jeff, that's a good question and one that's hard to answer exactly...but it's more a soupy level of water vs. muddy...the idea is to have enough pigment (or less water) that it can be applied/spread easily without the surface tension of the water becoming an issue but without being a thick/pasty application as that uses up a lot of pigment for no appreciable gain since the excess is going to be removed anyway. I use an old prescription bottle cap as my mixing bowl and generally add water up to the inner lip, so I'm talking just a couple of ounces of water at most. HTH.

WOW! nice job I realy like the dirt around the running gear. 

Nice finish, Bill.

As always, I dig your track/suspension mig-weathering technique. Thanks for the interior shot - needed that. Really like how the ammo came out...looks great in the belt.

Another winner!

Well, I'm back! ----damned re-formatting of this computer! 

Bill, it's certainly a nice build; nice PE work, and its got your identifiable style, etc--but this model just cries out for figures--I probably asked you this before, but what's your take on doing/adding figures?

Also, could you indulge me and photograph a few shots against a white background? I really want to see if it's my cimputer screen or what that makes the paint look a funny shade?

the doog wrote:

Well, I'm back! ----damned re-formatting of this computer!  Bill, it's certainly a nice build; nice PE work, and its got your identifiable style, etc--but this model just cries out for figures--I probably asked you this before, but what's your take on doing/adding figures? Also, could you indulge me and photograph a few shots against a white background? I really want to see if it's my cimputer screen or what that makes the paint look a funny shade?

Wondered where you disappeared to for a while doog, glad you're back! Yes, you've asked before about figures and my answer is still the same! Figures aren't my thing, just don't have the interest to devote to the time, effort, cost, etc. involved in adding them to a build.

Let me see what I can do about photos on a white background...since I shoot all my photos on manual settings with the Canon SLR, I'll have to recalibrate the white balance and some other things in order to shoot with a different background and have it be an "apples to apples" comparison on the colors you're seeing with the current setup.

wbill76 wrote:

the doog wrote: Well, I'm back! ----damned re-formatting of this computer!  Bill, it's certainly a nice build; nice PE work, and its got your identifiable style, etc--but this model just cries out for figures--I probably asked you this before, but what's your take on doing/adding figures? Also, could you indulge me and photograph a few shots against a white background? I really want to see if it's my cimputer screen or what that makes the paint look a funny shade? Wondered where you disappeared to for a while doog, glad you're back! Yes, you've asked before about figures and my answer is still the same! Figures aren't my thing, just don't have the interest to devote to the time, effort, cost, etc. involved in adding them to a build. Let me see what I can do about photos on a white background...since I shoot all my photos on manual settings with the Canon SLR, I'll have to recalibrate the white balance and some other things in order to shoot with a different background and have it be an "apples to apples" comparison on the colors you're seeing with the current setup.

Another excellent build Bill, congrats.

Terry.

Bish wrote:

Been a real pleasure to watch this build. Has deffinatly given me a few pointers for when i get round to mine and will deffinatly be getting the LR gun, which i wouldn't have even heard of if it wasn't for your thread.

Thanks Bish, glad to be of service! Can't tell you how many things like that I too have picked up along the way from seeing others use them on their projects...like Biffa's use of Griffon clamps for example.

Terry, good to hear from you as always, thanks!

Bill

I watched as you took us through and what is great when you get to the end....I don't have to go to the museum to see this kind of work.

Nice...as usual

Rounds Complete!!

Doog,

Sorry for not posting this up sooner, but it took longer than I thought to get time to play around with this and get the settings right on the camera.

Here it is with the white background:

And with the blue:

wbill76 wrote:

Doog, Sorry for not posting this up sooner, but it took longer than I thought to get time to play around with this and get the settings right on the camera. Here it is with the white background: And with the blue: Thanks Bill! Hmm? Veeeeddy interesting! On the white background,--to me--the colors seem darker--which is totally the opposite of what I had expected. However, the way my eyes perceive it, it seems "truer" to color for some reason. Maybe I'm just used to my own pictures? On the blue background, the colors seem "warmer", or "brighter"; the blue pics seem "prettier", but for some reason want to confuse my eyes...--did you use a different lighting in either? Or are they both the identical lighting/flash? I'm at a loss at the results! Can you notice a noticeable/same difference on your monitor?

Doog,

I used the exact same lighting for both shots. The only difference is that I recalibrated the white balance for the white background vs. the blue, but even that didn't make an appreciable difference. I didn't do any editing or adjustment in Photoshop or other software. I don't use a flash, just positionable lighting.

On my monitor the white background picture is indeed darker, which is one of the reasons I don't use the white background, even for the tri-tone scheme. The blue background is actually more representative of what the actual model looks like while the white background shows everything darker and would require editing to get it back to a "representative" state. The only thing the white background shows better, ironically, is the weathering on the decals/markings...but then I expect that because they are predominantly white and the camera will "see" that clearer with a white overall background.  It's a small trade-off but one I normally accept as it's very small in the grand scheme of things.  

One of the other reasons I don't use the white background is that the camera picks up the detail better, IMHO, with the blue background. Notice, for instance, the detail level on the gun muzzle flash in the blue vs. the white. I can't really explain why, but my camera prefers the blue background and produces better photos as a result. This is true whether the photo is a WIP or a finished one.

I will say that at first-glance, the white background does produce a more "truer" impression to the eye...but when I placed the model on my desk and compared it to what was on the monitor, it wasn't as "real" vs. the blue if that makes any sense.

 Hello wbill76,

 Been following the discussion of backdrop colors. (WARNING!)These are statements from some one who is not a  photo expert, but has had similar problems (and still does) with white backgrounds. the only way to compensate for the additional reflected light from the white background was to set the F-stop for more exposure. Problem with this is the pic can become harsh (over exposed) and a tripod is absolutely required. If the camera is set to auto or in aperature it will pick up on the "extra" reflected light and reduce the F-stop for less light resulting in a darker pic as compared to the blue background. The blue background is actually absorbing some of the colors from the light spectrum where as white reflects the entire spectrum.  Can only guess that this is what is happening because like that which was stated earlier these are statements made from a person who has no photoghraphic background what so ever! Just a shot in the dark

 OBTW, that is a stunning work wbill76, regardless of the background color.

 Best Regards,

Mobious, that is some amazingly astute information! Thanks for posting it!

Bill, yeah, that's so weird--but now I think I understand it, thanks to Mobious.  I have had the same result with my pics--note the same pattern here in this photo of my KT--taken under similar conditions, if not exactly at the same time...

[/img] 

Hmm...now I'm wondering what is the way to go...

Thanks for the impromptu experiment! 

 Hello wbill76,

 Will be picking up blue background material for next pics. Thanks for bringing this up doog.

 Best Regards,

Mobius,

I shoot in full manual mode with my SLR with the exception of it using the auto-focus points since I work with the macro lens almost exclusively and always work to center and get multiple points of focus to insure an all-around good depth of field. You're right about manually setting the F-stop for longer exposures and the results that can produce, some photographers do that deliberately to produce just those sorts of stunning effects. I use the light meter settings and capability of the macro lens to sense how long to keep the shutter open based on the focus points and distance/light available unless I tell it differently. When these photos were taken, the amount of time and F-stop were roughly the same in terms of exposure and you can see the results.

Doog,

Glad it was helpful for you. I've been using a blue background for a long time now and found it was the best with a wide variety of cameras from the point-and-shoot to the SLR I use now...especially since online, the photo is the model. At one point in time I even experimented with a blue foreground and white background and vice versa, but that produced some rather, shall we say, "unusual" results.