Ace-Garageguy

Odd how the good ol' USA USED to have a seemingly endless supply of clean, safe water. It was one of the things Americans could pretty well take for granted, living in a highly "civilized" country. My, how things change, with all this " technological progress". I understand the National Guard is now distributing drinking water in the area, and that the "algal bloom" blamed for the contamination is attributed to agricultural runoff containing nutrients the little algae thrive on. A permanent fix may well take a long time to achieve, including significant changes to how agriculture is managed in the Lake Erie watershed. From the AP: The toxins that contaminated the drinking water supply of 400,000 people in northwest Ohio didn't just suddenly appear. Water plant operators along western Lake Erie have long been worried about this very scenario as a growing number of algae blooms have turned the water into a pea soup color in recent summers, leaving behind toxins that can sicken people and kill pets. In fact, the problems on the shallowest of the five Great Lakes brought on by farm runoff and sludge from sewage treatment plants have been building for more than a decade. While residents around Ohio's fourth-largest city were being told to avoid drinking tap water for a second day, discussion began to center around how to stop the pollutants fouling the lake that supplies drinking water for 11 million people. Full story here: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/tests-needed-ohio-city-water-back-24824800

I'm wanting to move forward with some long-stalled builds, and some of them require metallic colors. I've come across some Duplicolor colors labeled as "pearl" which seem to have finer flake (and look more in-scale than the ones labeled "metallic"), but I was wondering if anyone remembers any particular colors, especially silvers (for candy basecoats) that are finer-flaked than average. Also, any recommendations of non-rattlecan, very fine metallics would be appreciated too. Do Scale Finishes colors have especially fine flake metallics, for instance?? I DO have some very fine pearl powders, but I'm trying to avoid a lot of custom mixing in the immediate future.

VERY helpful, too. I haven't stayed current with drag-racing technology, and your pix help fill a significant gap in my knowledge. This site is becoming more and more a one-stop resource for the builders who want to get the details right.

Leave your wallet somewhere with $100 in it and see how that works for you.

I started collecting vintage Hot Rod, Rod & Custom, etc. mags again back in 2005. I gave them all away back in the days when flatheads were looked on as good for nothing but boat anchors and scrap metal, about the time I fell in love with my first Porsche. It's when I started to re-read the old articles that I realized how much entirely useful information I'd been exposed to during my early hot-rod phase. Everything from an understanding of the effect of the timing and lift of camshafts to an in-depth education on magnetos was to be found on those old pages. There's a guy close by who supplements his retirement income buying and selling them, and I've traded some of my more pristine copies for the dog-eared and coffee-stained ones I prefer...the ones that actually get used in the shop for reference.

I may have to be having one of those. Looks like it's set up for opening doors too, judging from the 'bay pix.

Who would think that model-car building could become as divisive as say, politics or religion? We ALL get something from this hobby, but WE ALL DON'T HAVE TO GET THE SAME THING. We're ALL here because we enjoy the hobby, and there's no "ONE WAY" to do it. I won't tell anyone how they SHOULD enjoy it, and I don't expect to be told. EVERY time the subject of scale-fidelity, or striving to do better work, or competition (or a host of other going-beyond-slapping-things-together-and-calling-it-good-enough topics) comes up, it soon becomes a battle launched by the "I build for FUN and MYSELF" cadre, with finger pointing and a sly attempt to make those who want to take things to a higher level feel guilty for wanting to achieve. I don't get it. Somebody, please oh please explain what the deal is. Can't we all just enjoy our broadly-shared interest, live and let live, and ditch the arguing? One more point. Those guys content with "slapping-things-together-and-calling-it-good-enough" don't really have much to add to a conversation exactly because they're not looking to improve, develop new techniques, or build at a higher level. There's only so much anyone can say about a non-caring build style, but I rarely, if ever, see those builders attacked because they didn't come up to other builders' expectations. They MAY be offered constructive criticism, but nobody tries to make them feel morally inferior because they don't have higher standards. Is the simple act of HAVING HIGHER STANDARDS interpreted as a threat by the ones who don't?? Come to think of it, this seems to be a pretty common happening everywhere. Just another "human" failing, I suppose.

These big old Mopars are so striking, I sure wish more of them had survived in the 1:1 world. I remember there being a time in my life when I looked down my nose at Detroit-iron land-yachts (me being a newly minted sports-car snob), but in retrospect I realize these were really beautiful cars and did exactly what they were intended to do.

Yessir, that's where I found the pic. I was looking for a cheap and funky getaway for a post-Labor Day trip and came across the little town that has the little car. Looks like my kind of place. At least I know that whatever I drive down there, I'll be able to outrun the cops.

Using Photoshop the way Harry does to create digital renderings for his work is every bit as "legitimate" an art form as paint-and-brush. It's hard, it is definitely a complex skill-set that takes much time and effort to master (I've fiddled with it enough to be able to say this with some actual knowledge), and as he says, it's just another tool in a creative person's toolbox. It can, however, also be used to create false impressions.

And it's everywhere someone wants to create a misleading impression...

So am I.

I've seen references to using foil to mask before, and the pulling-up-paint issue has occurred to me, because even tape can pull paint that's not well-stuck. Some guys in my club use foil to get razor-sharp lines on racing stripes and such, but I don't know what kind of prep they're doing under their base color to insure against pull-up.

Exactly.

Very pretty. The trim removal on the front fenders / doors is a nice touch too.

I respectfully disagree. That "look" is what I occasionally see on posted models. It's as obvious, to me, as a second nose on the Mona Lisa.

Well, maybe what I think I'm seeing sometimes isn't in fact model-improvement-through-technology, but just manipulation of the entire image. The second shot there has, to me, the "look" that just shouts "manipulation", but I see that the model itself hasn't been altered, only the characteristics of the image...two different things. I think fixing foil to make it appear perfect, or adding "foil" when it isn't really there, or similar tricks, should be disclosed...at least by posters on the board. I also realize that some guys are SO good that their work is almost unbelievable. I've seen some of it up close and personal, where no "tricks" could disguise or enhance anything.

People engage in hobbies for a variety of reasons. Some people simply want to "pass the time" doing something that requires little real effort or intellectual involvement. Fine. Some other people prefer to spend their free time learning new skills, developing old ones, and producing well-crafted things of beauty in the process. Also fine. Each modeler's (or hobbyist's) expectations are different, and no one can define them for anyone else. But there still seems to be some animosity from the ones who prefer to expend minimal effort, directed towards the ones who choose to get more involved...and I just can NOT understand why. I'll never criticize a model that's obviously put together with little effort, with grainy paint, poor fit, glue smudges, etc. If that is what the builder wants or that's all he's capable of, that's OK by me...but I'll never praise it either. Effort and skill get my praise, not just going through the motions mindlessly...in anything. But the whole POINT here is that even the least-skilled builder shouldn't care if his work is praised or not, unless his motivation for showing it here is to get feedback and constructive criticism, helping him to develop as a modeler. The level each of us chooses to build at is the result of many personal decisions and attitudes and life-experiences. The most highly skilled builder shouldn't be motivated by a desire for praise either. The only valuable satisfaction from accomplishment, on ANY level, comes from INSIDE. And that, I believe, brings us back to the definition of "I build for fun, I build for myself".

Spraying the "sealer" over BUFFED metalizer will destroy the polished-metal appearance, and return the look to muddy silver paint (at least it has whenever I've used it). I've been getting around to trying a water-based clear that shouldn't have any effect on the appearance, but so far have not done the testing. The "sealer" is entirely unnecessary, as the buffed polished-metal appearance lasts well if not handled (assuming it's done correctly).

That will certainly be a change, because up til now, I've been looking for ways to build to AVOID having to foil. This technique, and Cruz's panel-line darkening method, will add to my satisfaction with my own models immeasurably.

This AMT parts-pack contains a smallblock Chevy V8 with 2 build options, an old blown 392 Chrysler FirePower Hemi, a V8 Pontiac, again with 2 optional setups, and a Corvair flat-6. The Allison aircraft engine in the background is also in there. You do NOT get 7 engines, as the package photo suggests, but the 5 you DO get are very good quality. Revell also made excellent engine kits over the years. The last release of the smallblock Chevy V8, Pontiac V8, Ford 427 V8, and the Cadillac (labeled wrong as a 354 but actually correct for all 331-365-390 engines) didn't sell well, and they can be had cheap on ebay. Revell also made a Buick "nailhead" and a blown Chrysler Hemi in the lineup years ago. They are both exceedingly rare and somewhat expensive now.

Thanks Tom, for taking the time to post the advice. I've watched a couple of videos and wasn't particularly impressed with the results shown, but your recommendation to use pieces well larger than the intended coverage area makes perfect sense. I was also completely unaware that the stuff took almost zero force to cut. That was the part that had me concerned most...marring the paint permanently if my lines wavered during the cuts and required correction, as I'm SURE they will until I get a real feel for it.

Well, since you work with the technology professionally, I'd think you'd be able to recognize a re-touched image even quicker than I can. Some things are just too perfect to be true, or colors too even, or the flakes in a particular "metallic" paint appear to be smaller than anything commercially available (these things I know), or reflections just a little off, or textures differ from image to image, etc. There's also a "look" that images have when they've been "colored", and it's as obvious to me as the old hand-colored postcards made from black-and-white photos were. If you look at some advertising that shows images of the product in several colors, it's painfully obvious it's all the same basic image, and the "color" has been changed digitally. The same "look" appears on some models here occasionally. I routinely sharpen the focus of the images from my older camera, or tweek the color balance to compensate for ugly lighting, or lighten or darken the image for clarity, but I never enhance the model...ever, ever, ever.