Harry P.

I never knew they used those trucks to make tracked vehicles!

Future isn't wax, it's just clear acrylic. And it's not meant to shine boots... of course it cracked when the boots flexed and moved! But model car bodies don't bend and fold.

Very nice! And the door weatherstripping is a very nice touch. Well done!

Wow, Mike! That's beautifully done!

There are a lot of aftermarket sources for photoetched detail sets. here's just one: http://modelcargarage.com/store/pc/viewCategories.asp?idCategory=11

No, no, no! NEVER attach photoeteched emblems with super glue. Use either clear 5-minute epoxy, or better get, brush a tiny dab of clear enamel or acrylic on the spot where the emblem goes, let it tack up for a minute or two, and then attach the emblem using tweezers. This will give you plenty of time to finesse the emblem and get it placed exactly in the right spot.

I don't know what issues you had with that kit, never have seen the kit myself... but I'd say, judging from the photos, that you did just fine!

It's not the cost of the plastic, it's the cost of creating the masters.

Mostly anywhere from the "brass age" through the 50s. Building models of modern cars doesn't interest me in the least. Not to say that there's anything wrong with building modern cars... I just find the cars of the early part of the 20th century so much more interesting, design-wise.

The '57 Ford Skyliner also had a figure of a guy and a girl. Don't know why figures in models disappeared... it was pretty cool to have them included in the kit. My guess would be what it always is... it was a decision based on $$$.

I have a feeling you can meet a lot of interesting people that way. See an old junker in the yard, knock on the door and ask to photograph it. I'll bet more often than not there's an interesting story attached to that old junker. And I'll also bet the people would be willing to tell you that story.

So... you're new here. Apparently you have missed a lot of previous posts. BTW... where are the posts of your work?

You probably meet some quirky human "old clunkers" that way!

Those are great photos! So how did you do them? I mean, is it really what we see? A squirrel checking out your model? How did you get those shots?

Glad you like them! Time will determine whether I can keep them coming, though.

Yes, of course. But my comments were specifically regarding why Smith doesn't use figures in his photos, as Tony first pointed out in this thread. Because he knows they can't pass as "real." His TV interview reason was a nice story... but also a load of BS, IMO.

That figure is also very well done. But seriously... can you honestly say you would believe that to be a real person? That whole scene is very well done, I can't think of a way to make it any better... but to me, what gives it away as a model is the figure. That's my point. Figure models, even when done about as well as humanly possible, would probably never pass as "real" in a photo.

I'm shure...

And the bigger challenge for him would be that he needs not military figures in uniforms and in "military" poses... but "regular" people, male and female, wearing everyday "normal" '40s- '50s- '60s era clothes.

Yes, those are definitely well done. And they will definitely fool nobody into thinking they're real people.

"Pretty real?" Sure. Pass for a real person in a photo? No way. If he used detailed scale figures in his photos it would immediately give them away.

I defy you to show me any photo of any painted and detailed scale figure that I can't tell is real or not. No matter how well done, it's just not possible. Sure, a figure can be well done and very "realistic" in every way, but it would never pass as a real person in a photo.

Steve... I've been meaning to tell ya, 'cause it's been bugging me forever... but the word is sure... not shure. Whew! Finally got that off my chest! I've been holding it in for years now! MAN, that feels better! (please don't hate me...)

As far as I understand it, what he does is shoot the models either in front of scale backdrops that he built, or he positions the models in the foreground and shoots at a certain angle to capture the models and a real background, like trees, etc. In other words, they're straight photos... no Photoshop trickery. If that's his "M.O.," then I can see why he doesn't add people. I don't buy his "because I want you to imagine yourself in the image" story for one second! The real reason there are no people in his shots is because there's no way you can detail 1/24 scale figures to pass for "real" in a photo. And adding Photoshopped people into the photos would violate his "these are 'real' photos" rule. So no people. But even so... the guy has talent, no doubt.

I guess that scene just makes more sense to me if it looked like this: