Cool kit, for sure, but not without some serious scaling and proportion issues itself. It was a grail of mine too, like the old Aurora double '34 kit, and just as disappointing when I finally got one. For one thing, the grille-shell is WAY too large, even for 1/24.
After you get the "copied" yellow flash on Pbucket, try "Ctrl-v" on your keyboard instead of "paste". You should get the image code, and the photo will appear when you "post" or "save". This works every time for me, since 2012, and DON'T bother with the "insert other media" box !!! NOTE: You have to hold down the"Ctrl" key and the "v" key simultaneously.
It's not the same as what you said in your ORIGINAL post, which is what I went by. Precision in communication is important, especially when you're trying to get technical advice and information.
In your ORIGINAL post, you say you used "bondo glazing & spot putty", which is this SINGLE-part product, #907. It's RED. Looks kinda like the same package, NOT AT ALL THE SAME. The product I recommended is Bondo Professional Glazing and Spot Putty #801, which is buff when mixed properly. Good luck.
I would really be interested in researching the differing abilities of illustrators who first had the talent, and then developed it into what must be Harry's level of exceptional eye-hand coordination (what every good artist has to have in bucketloads) to work with traditional media and THEN made the switch to digital...as opposed to someone who's never developed the skills to use pencil, pens, paper, brush and the like, and has trained ONLY using digital media. I work with a man, Gary Overacre, who spent his career as a commercial illustrator using traditional media, and who never made the transition to digital...got out of the business actually, as it was coming in.
...and exactly the reason, very well stated, that I'm such a strong proponent of trying to get young people involved in model-building...or really anything that requires manual as well as intellectual skills and dexterity.
Good looking model, and I have to agree with both yours and Tim's opinions on this. Getting a hot-rod to have the initial "man, that's so right !! " factor takes somewhat more finesse than the designers of this kit had, but at the same time, the mere availability of all the cool parts and options in a single box makes this one a must-have for anyone who really wants to build hot-rod models based on early Fords.
Yes sir. The 2-part Bondo "Professional Glazing and Spot Putty" is my primary go-to product now. It's the most fine-grained of all of the similar products I've ever used, which makes it ideal for model work. It's also rather thinner (lass viscous) and spreads easily, and tends to self-level. The thinness of the product makes it a little tricky to do heavy vertical fills, but if you use your brain and let gravity help, you're golden. It also adheres VERY well to styrene that's been sanded with 180 grit paper. The last, and possibly best, feature of the stuff is that besides coming in 1:1 shop-size containers, it also comes in modeler-friendly tubes (with the catalyst in a separate tube, included, as always with 2-part fillers). Available in most real-car-parts chain stores.
Ah, the truly awesome power of technology to propel us into a far, far better future is simply mind-boggling. Yes, when the marketing mavens get a hold of something, it's a sure sign it's arrived. A new mainstream opportunity to add cost to a product without adding any value whatsoever.
I have several of the "Blueprinter" double-dragster kits and was very surprised to find they all have WIDE treaded rear tires in addition to the slicks. REALLY wide, like some of the old Mickey Thompsons. Appropriate under something like this...
The people who said digital would never be for serious photographers simply didn't understand the technology's function enough to be able to envision how it would mature. I haven't kept up with the technical data, but at one time, I seem to remember that the highest resolution digital CCD can produce finer "grain" than the sharpest film. I'm fully aware of the amount of image manipulation that can be done in both analog work and digital, and I feel they both have their places. The difference comes with personalities...whether a man would prefer to do his "darkroom" work with chemicals, filters, enlargers, etc., and develop a very intimate relationship with the process (which admittedly doesn't offer anywhere near the breadth of options as digital manipulation does), or prefer to sit, mouse and click. "Process" is rapidly falling out of favor in every sphere. The desire for instant gratification and effortless ease of use applies equally to photography as to anything else. Of course, to work at Harry's level of proficiency in digital media, you have to really have your stuff together too. There's definitely a lot of "process" in what he does.