Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by peteski

  1. Before anyone gets too critical, the red car I showed was done that way by design for the Rat Rod CBP.

    It was never intended to look like a concourse restoration. You're probably the first to notice that detail.

    It is your model Steve, so you can obviously do as you please.  I was just pointing out what jumps right out at me (maybe I'm extra anal, but that's usually a good thing when building models).:D It just seems lately that I have seen not properly aligned lenses on several factory-stock models.  If I was judging them I would deducts points for that.



    This one was build with the M.V. lenses:


     photo image_zpszdy0kpun.jpeg

    This one was build with Krystal Klear over the molded lenses:

     photo image_zpsrcem5uz8.jpeg

    (unfortunately the Krystal Klear wasn't totally dired when I took this pic)


    The MV lenses have very realistic looking reflectors, but the smooth lenses don't look realistic. Headlamp lenses (used in the standard U.S. specs headlamps) have optical facets molded in the glass.   Lack of that detail really kills the realism. I've scribed the facets into the MV lenses in the past but it is a tedious process which (since it is done freehand)  is not perfect.

    Speaking of the headlight lens optics (facets), I see lots of modelers not paying attention to how those facets line up. In real cars the headlamp unit is keyed to only fit in the headlamp holder one way. That is because the headlamp optics produce asymmetrical beam of light. If not installed properly the headlight could blind incoming cars, or not illuminate the road properly. The general rule is that the majority of the lines (facets) in the lens need to be perpendicular to the road surface.  If they are not the realism is lost again. The above model has the lines in the lenses not perpendicular to the road. It might look cool, but it is not realistic for a road vehicle.

    It doesn't take any extra time or effort to properly position the kit-supplied lenses, but it makes a big difference in realism.

  3. Same experience here. The paint dries but remains soft for years.  When I contacted Jameston he sent me a bottle of hardener to mix with the paint.  But since I din't need to paint anything at that time I just let the bottle of hardener sit. It ended up hardening in the bottle.  So I guess the non-clearcoat paints are 2-part paints which need hardener (catalyst?) to set them hard.  I prefer less hassle hobby-paints or automotive touch-up paints.

  4. As a bit of a packrat I save various glass bottles from used up hobby paints like Testors and Floquil. Alos the glass Gloss and Dullcote bottles (those IIRC are 1.5 oz.).  I have also bought empty Floquil bottles (from Micro-Mark). Another source of all sorts of glass bottles (and zillion other packaging items) is http://www.freundcontainer.com/ . I buy bottles, cans and jars from them.  Surplus materials vendors also sometimes have all sorts of small bottles available. Check out https://www.sciplus.com/ .

  5. Not bad.  Just make sure that the lighting and the angle of the shadows on your model matches the shadows in the backdrop photo.  Otherwise human eye will subconsciously pick that up and the photo won't look "right".  Of course the scale height of the camera needs to be similar to the camera's height in the 1:1 photo so the perspective is similar.

    As far as the base/driveway, you could simply cut off all the visible pavement in the photo then you won't have to worry about matching the base to the pavement in the photo.

  6. Buffing will not polish out Metalizer chrome. It depends 100% on the glossiness of the black base coat and on a semi-dry application  of Metalizer. Metalizer's metallic flakes need to lay flat on the glossy undercoat to produce a polished metallic finish.  If the base coat is not very glossy then no matter how much Metalizer you apply, the "chromey" finish will not happen.  If you apply the Metalizer too heavily or too wet then the metallic flakes will no flatten down on the glossy base - again, you won't get  the "chromey" finish.

  7. He's either lost what was left of his mind, or he's totally trolling us...

    I have a strong suspicion that the price is just a typo. I've seen similar typos in other eBay listings.  Most likely a $20.00 item. Check his eBay store and you will see that his other items have "normal" prices.  Bit inflated for my taste, but still more reasonable than two grand!

  8. I use a Nikon Cool Pix 8700 camera I bought back in 2005.  This shot was done using 2 halogen shop lights. Since the camera's lens only stops down to f8, I took several frames ad gradually changing focused areas and combined them into a large-depth-of-field composite using Helicon Focus software.  Original photo is 5Mp is size - this is a low-res copy for the Web.


  9. Find out what specific chemicals are in the paint or thinner which you used when you got sick, then look up the MSDS sheets for them to see what effect they can have on people.

    Is this the same paint/thinner you have used in the past without problems?

    Another possibility is that since you were already sick (probably had a cold or flu since you couldn't smell), maybe it wasn't the paint which made you sick but the combination of you being sick and inhaling fumes just made you sicker?

  10. Peter, I have to agree but for a different reason.  In the old days(like 40 years ago) the SLR was the best camera on the market.  This is because you actually got to see through the lens.  Other cameras(called viewfinders) had a separate peep hole that had it's own lenses.  The SLR let you see what was actually going to be exposed on the film. 

    That was then.  Now we have "D"SLR's because of the old days.  The SLR portion still does the same thing, but in my opinion is a redundant mechanism that is left over from the old days, kind of like your appendix.  Why? Well with a modern digital display you are actually looking at what the CMOS sensor  is seeing which is what you will get for a picture.  Why would putting a mirror in front of the CMOS sensor and looking at that be in any way better than just looking at the video display and the actual picture you will record?  It wouldn't. 

    Well, to me there is a difference.  First of all, the optical viewfinder of a DSLR comes in handy in bright sunny conditions.  It beats an external  LCD screen any day.  Yes, I know, there are digital cameras which have a digital viewfinder (my CoolPix 8700 actually has one so I can switch between the outside flat screen or the digital viewfinder).  But the problem is that the resolution and display speed of the digital viewfinder limits what I see.  If for example I'm trying to take a photo of something rather small like a bird or a plane flying high across clear sky I can't really see it in the digital viewfinder.  I can also see the pixels of the viewfinder display which is a bit annoying. Same goes for a fast moving subject - the digital viewfinder screen has a bit of a lag.

    With true DSLR, your eye is viewing the outside world directly through the lens and you can easily see the objects I described above.  But for just average or studio photography I agree that there really isn't a need to have an optical viewfinder. Actually, when I use my CoolPix 8700 to take staged model photos at the model contest, I hook up its video output to a 19" flat panel LCD monitor sitting on the table and my viewfinder becomes 19" in size. I can see the subject clearly and so can people standing around (or even several feet away).

  • Create New...