D
David 317
Guest
That's an excellent build Laurie. Well done Sir!\ said:
D.
Supacat Jackal airfix 1/48
- Thread starter Laurie
- Start date
-
- Tags
- completed
D.
D
dubster72
Guest
Very nice Laurie! Those modern vehicles look very busy & detailed.
I doubt that Eduard supply the pe though - I believe modern Airfix kits are made in India & China, so shipping the pe from the Czech Republic would seem expensive.
One thing that caught my eye, the oil drums appear to be ' perched ' on the ground, almost suspended above it!
I doubt that Eduard supply the pe though - I believe modern Airfix kits are made in India & China, so shipping the pe from the Czech Republic would seem expensive.
One thing that caught my eye, the oil drums appear to be ' perched ' on the ground, almost suspended above it!
L
Laurie
Guest
You are right Patrick there is lots going on. My preference is for busy models I find them more interesting.\ said:
Oil drums. They were just shoved around during taking photos. You can see on one has the mark from the White Tack. Poor attention to detail must have a word with my assistant. o_O
Photography not happy. Must invest in some photo lamps.
Laurie
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2014
- Messages
- 1,996
- Points
- 113
- First Name
- Gavin
Nice build, great finish!! 
As a military vehicle, I just don't "get" the Jackal and its "space frame" siblings......was armour only an after thought??:rolleyes:
Anyway, that's me venting about modern British AFV designs and not your skills, my apologies.:oops:
As a military vehicle, I just don't "get" the Jackal and its "space frame" siblings......was armour only an after thought??:rolleyes:
Anyway, that's me venting about modern British AFV designs and not your skills, my apologies.:oops:
L
Laurie
Guest
Interesting Gavin when building I often wondered on what principles or specification it was built.\ said:Nice build, great finish!!
As a military vehicle, I just don't "get" the Jackal and its "space frame" siblings......was armour only an after thought??:rolleyes:
Anyway, that's me venting about modern British AFV designs and not your skills, my apologies.:oops:
Although better than the Landrover and designed ? for the purpose it did seem to me just a bigger Landrover.
Assume it must be better for bomb blast than the Landrover. Also it did seem that it does not have enough protection for the personel.
That is especially the main gun position. I would have thought a bit of protection at least from small arms.
After all that said they make a fine model to build and display.
Laurie
takeslousyphotos
No Tears Please. It's a Waste of Good Suffering.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 4,295
- Points
- 113
- First Name
- Peter
The Jackal was designed for "speed and mobility"........ and I would think, that a .50 cal pumping out rounds is a pretty good protection for anyone. :D\ said:
.......... Whereas the Landrover was designed for farmers so they can take their pigs out for the day.
takeslousyphotos
No Tears Please. It's a Waste of Good Suffering.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 4,295
- Points
- 113
- First Name
- Peter
The Jackal was designed for "speed and mobility"........ and I would think, that a .50 cal pumping out rounds is a pretty good protection for anyone. :D\ said:
.......... Whereas the Landrover was designed for farmers so they can take their pigs out for the day.
takeslousyphotos
No Tears Please. It's a Waste of Good Suffering.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 4,295
- Points
- 113
- First Name
- Peter
The Jackal was designed for "speed and mobility"........ and I would think, that a .50 cal pumping out rounds is a pretty good protection for anyone. :D\ said:
.......... Whereas the Landrover was designed for farmers so they can take their pigs out for the day.
takeslousyphotos
No Tears Please. It's a Waste of Good Suffering.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 4,295
- Points
- 113
- First Name
- Peter
The Jackal was designed for "speed and mobility"........ and I would think, that a .50 cal pumping out rounds is a pretty good protection for anyone. :D\ said:
.......... Whereas the Landrover was designed for farmers so they can take their pigs out for the day.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2014
- Messages
- 1,996
- Points
- 113
- First Name
- Gavin
I agree to a point, but personally I still think it's a glorified Landy with a space frame - a total waste of money! There are probably numerous, more suitable products available on the international market.\ said:
That I believe is a whole separate debate.o_O
Laurie, my apologies once again for semi-hijacking the review of your great build.:oops:
I do agree, they make a good display!
P
phikoleoputra
Guest
Great build Laurie!!!
L
Laurie
Guest
No apologies necessary Gavin. I like to know and get info. about all the things I build. Makes them more interesting rather than building willy nilly (where does that saying come from ?).\ said:
Laurie
Looked up Willy Nilly says.
Old English wile hē, nyle hē, literally: will he or will he not; nyle, from ne not + willan to will 1
So there
L
Laurie
Guest
Just clearing out and found PE comes from the Czech Republic as printed on the PE Patrick. Looked to Eduard to me.\ said:
Laurie
S
Stevekir
Guest
\ said:
S
Stevekir
Guest
On photography I have often wondered what makes a model look really real (if that is actually possible). However, a good model is still that even if it doesn't fully trick the eye. That's for sure.\ said:
The top photo of one of the originals of your model (in post "More on the condition they worked in") is obviously and instantly seen as real. Why? One factor is the background. A good background helps to trick the eye. It is very difficult to get vegetation to look real and with that knowledge, when the eye sees what seems to be a real background, this can add to the illusion of reality throughout the scene (provided the actual models are really good).
But its much more than that. That photo of the original is exceptionally sharp, showing a lot of sharp detail. Many real edges are not rounded but are themselves sharp. The harsh sunlight greatly contributes to sharpness and I have done lots of experiments with one light (and a white card reflector on the other side to improve shadows) which improves things. Another factor helping the sharpness is the quality of the camera. The one used to take the original's photo seems a good one. Another is depth of field. This is difficult with a diorama but the only fuzziness in real photos is usually confined to distant background like hills. But actually even those still look fairly sharp to the viewer on the ground because he/she usually moves the line of sight, and therefore the focus of the eyes, around the scene. Also I think something in the model very close to the camera should not be fuzzy and if that is impossible it should be removed (for the same reason that applies to distant hills: in a real scene the viewer's eye will re-focus on a nearby object).
Also, objects in the scene should look very like they do in reality. Cloth bags etc. should not be shiny and need to have a fabric-like surface, tarpaulins need to drape with no stiffness etc. Cobbles and bricks should not be uniform and should have signs of wear or flaking. A broken window or pane, a cobweb, leaves or rubbish gathered in a corner help. And lots of objects strewn about like tools, bottles, boxes, a partly eaten sandwich!
And then there are the figures. A real photo of mechanics re-arming a Spitfire shriek reality: the texture of the skin, the folds in the uniforms, the bent posture, hair. (If I am wrong, please post some examples.)
We humans see other humans every day of our lives and can tell a model instantly. I have never seen a model figure in a diorama that is really convincing.
Has anyone other factors that help realism?
L
Laurie
Guest
Actually Steve I like objects which are close to the central subject to be at times slightly slightly or mostly out of focus as they give depth or 3d effect to a picture. The eye is drawn directly to the subject. Same with background I do not always like the background to be in focus.
What you do need is a traditional camera to achieve that. All in focus then open up F22 and well lit all in focus. With F22 the subject should be very sharp at least as far as the camera will allow. F2 subject only well lit just the subject in perfect focus dwindling of to the back and fore ground out of focus. In this case the subject will not be as sharp due to the aperture being wide open. Also remembering that depth of field is one third in front of the subject focused and two thirds behind. Playing with that as I used to with video gives some interesting pictures.
On back grounds some like the aircraft tank etc.to be the sole point of interest. Some, as I do, like the model in its environment.
Could also be said that sharp corners and edges are not authentic as our eyes at the distance would not see that sharp as a camera portrays.
Now got myself some photo lights with day light bulbs so I have no excuse. Also I have come out of lazy auto mode and gone into aperture priority.
Laurie
What you do need is a traditional camera to achieve that. All in focus then open up F22 and well lit all in focus. With F22 the subject should be very sharp at least as far as the camera will allow. F2 subject only well lit just the subject in perfect focus dwindling of to the back and fore ground out of focus. In this case the subject will not be as sharp due to the aperture being wide open. Also remembering that depth of field is one third in front of the subject focused and two thirds behind. Playing with that as I used to with video gives some interesting pictures.
On back grounds some like the aircraft tank etc.to be the sole point of interest. Some, as I do, like the model in its environment.
Could also be said that sharp corners and edges are not authentic as our eyes at the distance would not see that sharp as a camera portrays.
Now got myself some photo lights with day light bulbs so I have no excuse. Also I have come out of lazy auto mode and gone into aperture priority.
Laurie
That is a cracking little build Laurie. Tons of detail, excellent paint and you nailed the weathering.
Top job.
Top job.
L
Laurie
Guest
Thanks Ian very kind of you. Also I really enjoyed building and finishing this vehicle. A year ago I would not have thought I would enjoy military vehicles.\ said:
Laurie
Hi Laurie, It's an interesting subject that you and Steve have been talking about and definitely something I will be experimenting with when I manage to build some models that I think warrant some better "shots"\ said:
I enjoy my photography and have got a remote studio setup as well but I have an idea that photos taken outside in natural light will show the best results. Also bear in mind that SLRs or DSLR's coupled with a good quality prime lens will almost always have a sweeter sharper image across the whole image at around f8 when you start closing the aperture past that and especially down to the f22 mark you will get a loss of quality and diffraction will occur.
Phil
L
Laurie
Guest
Yes agree Phil. Above I was actually illustrating the depth of field settings not the optimum sharpness. Will have to experiment to see what difference there is in sharpness. I just have an Olympus E410which comes with the standard 17.5-45mm lens. Nothing special but interesting to see. I will blow them up in my editor which will give a interesting answer and publish them to show the difference.\ said:
Laurie