2002p51

This one is almost as old as the movie. It's built from an original issue AMT kit sometime in the seventies. I've posted this one here before. It's from the new kit. This one has been seen on here also. It's made from a bunch of leftover parts from various Revell '32 kits. And of course, Revell's famous "Orange Crate". How about 1/8 scale?

Are talking about the rear engine car? If so, these photos probably won't be much help either but the paint on both cars was very similar. I shot these at Orange County Raceway in 1970. I remember this being one of the most beautiful fuelers of the day. The car has some orange fogging in the there that you can just barely see in the photos. I think if I was going to try to paint a model of this today I would use regular solid colors, something like chrome yellow and some orange, and then shoot the whole thing with a clear pearl. ( I think Tamiya makes a clear pearl) It's a challenging paint job, that's for sure.

It's not dumb. It's way too large in diameter though. It would be like a pro street tubs. Not the look I'm after. Looking at the photos Harry posted I think these can be made from some thick enough Evergreen sheet to give me enough material to round 'em off.

Marc, I'm not really sure what shape the wheel wells are supposed to be. (I tried a Google image search and nothing showed the bed.) The depression in the sides of the bed are round and not sort of three sided like yours are.

I have only this much of an AMT '61 Ford pick-up: It's basically just the body, front grille/bumper, chassis pan,"glass", and complete interior. Modelhaus has the hood I need, the taillights, and the rear bumper. What I need from youse guys are some ideas about, or sources for, the bed floor and inner wheel wells. I can most likely scratch build the bed floor easy enough, but those inner fenders pose a problem. The plans for this truck will require an open bed so please don't suggest some sort of bed cover. Thanks. Now you can go back to your leftover turkey.

I agree with you on the altered wheelbase kits; useless chassis. And those AMT Modified Stockers are indeed horrible and should be banished. But I think the "Firefighter Mustang" is okay.

Well, those original Revell tri-five Chevys were pretty bad but the absolute worst kit I ever had to build was the Accurate Miniatures Can Am McLaren! It took lots of frustration and effort to get things to fit and the stance, when finished, was a mile high. Body panels fit poorly with huge gaps. I did a review in that other magazine when the kit first came out and once the story was done and photos were shot, that monstrosity went right in the trash! It's the only model I ever threw away in my entire life!

Also the "where"? I have family that lives at the Jersey Shore and one of these meetings just might be the perfect excuse for a road trip.

Absolutely beautiful job. And thank you for NOT putting overspray on the chassis! That always gets waay over done!

1,440 feet.

That's just excellent. Stance, finish, everything.

The color is shot over a base of Testors Boyd's White Primer. And yes, airbrushed, I never use spray cans.

Nice save!

Neat little car and great photos!

ROM?

Yep, me too. It will probably go up there this Sunday!

Perfect. Looks like it's right out of the pages of "The Rodder's Journal"!

I just got this done last night. This is really a conglomeration of things left over from other projects. The body, chassis, and interior are Revell's '32 highboy kit. The grille and grille shell are from an old AMT '32 Ford kit. The wheels and tires are from Monogram's old Don Edmonds supermodified. The color is Testors Stoplight Red Metallic. The interior is Testors Boyd's White Primer on the seats and door panels and Insignia Red on the floor. The steering wheel is from my spares box and the shifter is from the Revell '32 five-window coupe. The engine is from the new Revell '32 Ford five-window coupe kit with valve covers from my spares. The headers are from spare parts also. It's becoming more and more rare for me to do any work on the underside of a model because it just never gets seen. But I was just in the mood to do this one. The exhausts are modified kit exhaust. I basically just shortened them up. The connections from the headers are made from .080" Evergreen rod. Everything else is kit stock. I'm happy with it. There are a couple of minor problems. The right rear wheel is slightly out of alignment, not sure how that happened. The grill shell is a little too low. It's below the scrub line. I tried to section one and it looked terrible so I just went with a full length one. And you can't see it because I Photoshopped it out, but snapping the grille in place chipped the paint on the edge of the shell so I gotta touch that up later.

Absolutely, just send me the plane ticket and pay for the hotel stay and I'm there! Only kidding. Skip keeps me in the loop with the newsletter so it's just like I'm there with you guys!

Be careful not to confuse dimensions in pixels with resolution. Going from 1600 x 1200 to 800 x 600 is changing the size of the image but not the resolution. Resolution is always expressed in "Pixels per Inch" or just PPI.

No, that's on this real '40 Ford. But it's less than an inch long.

PeteJ's post is all you need to know about digital photography. Especially; "Better to spend money on optics than pixels.", and:"The photographer - Cameras are a tool." Mega pixels are a marketing tool that camera makers have latched on to in order to take advantge of the typical consumer's belief that bigger is better in all things. As somebody else mentioned, 72 pixels per inch is the standard resolution of most computer screens. If you're posting photos on here or anywhere on the web, a higher resolution than 72 PPI is just wasted file size. This photo is 72 PPI, and 500 x 278 pixels. Do the math and you see that it's only 139,000 pixels and that's waaay less than one mega pixel! Most of you would probably be surprised to find out that this photo was shot with a 12 year old, 1.9 mega-pixel camera. It's a Nikon Cool-Pix 950! It has few manual controls, no manual focus, but it does have good glass and a macro setting. And yes, I have done publishable magazine quality photos with it! One final point, and that's just to clarify something else that PeteJ said; "Ability to shoot long exposures - AKA adjustable aperture - The longer the exposure the greater the depth of field" Technically Pete, it's the small aperture that creates greater depth of field, not the long exposure. The long exposure is a necessary by-product of the small aperture. Depth of field is controlled in two ways; aperture and/or lens focal length. Small aperture = large DOF Large aperture = shallow DOF Long focal length = shallow DOF Short focal length = large DOF For all of my model photography (like the '40 Ford above) I use a 105 mm lens, set on f16 or higher. I shoot at 1/60 shutter speed because I have the luxury of studio style strobe lights. Here's the set-up I use: If you have to shoot with less light than that or outdoors, you can adjust exposure times to suit. And yes, a good sturdy tri-pod is a must. Sorry if I went on too long. I love photography almost as much as I love cars!

Just finished this Revell '40 Ford Standard coupe. Paint is Testors Gloss Gull Gray. The interior is two-tone gray. So what makes it a hot rod? How about a flathead with Ardun heads and eight Strombergs?

That's excellent. I'm not buying the twenty minutes part, but that's excellent work.

Right out of the box. Stock '36 wheels.