Re: Track Weathering & NOW structure weathering
- My wife is the structure weathering expert in my household. I think
that I promised that I would do an article in Ztrack telling the
world all about her techniques...maybe this Fall.
My rather limited talents in the structure weathering regard include
using india ink washes (a couple of drops of ink in a small bottle of
rubbing alcohol), dry brushing with various colours of paints, rust,
white, grimy black etc., dusting with weathering chalks, washes with
rust solutions and applications of ground cover materials for ivy,
and mosses. Just a few ideas...
Keep us informed of your 4-seasons project. I know you can, I know
you can, I know you can...
--- In z_scale@y..., "kianholstead" <kianholstead@y...> wrote:
> My next question for the group is about WEATHERING STRUCTURES.
> with what?, solution dilution %'s?, tips? tricks? etc. What works
> what doesn't.
> And Jeffery, I've decided to make a go at making my Cortina into a
> seasons layout! Thanks for the photo inspiration!
> I think I can, I think I can, I think I can...
> Thanks again,
I think there's no need to be that critical about depth of field.
You are just pushing the technology to the limits. The Tuborg car
is an extreme close-up. And the green train shot from an angle is
because it requires a lot of depth of field. It's no use to compare with
those pictures somebody else took. They just show the advantage of
scales in this case. I don't know whether other digital cameras have
smaller apertures available or whether an expensive digital SLR would
help in this case, but I think that's about as good as it gets with
current state of technology.
Kari Tanskanen ktanskan@...
Tampere University of Technology Machine Design Laboratory
Ole Rosted wrote:
> Ok - they *are* a little out of fucus :-))
> So are mine!
> I'm beginning to think that light - lots of light - is fundamental to
> close-up photography. In fact I believe that taking the pics outdoors
> on a lightly clouded, sunny day is the best way to get an even - and
> sufficient - lighting.
> What camera do you use? ( you may have told us but either I haven't
> seen it or I have forgotten it) Talk about "volatile memory" :-((
> I have added a page to my close-up "site" at
> if anyone cares to see (some of) my attemts. I had some trouble with
> the navigation buttons (at the bottom of the pages. But they are
> working now.
> I didn't take the *good* pics on the pages, and my search for the
> artist hasn't revealed him/her.
> regards Ole Rosted
On Fri, 03 May 2002 10:07:51 +0300, Kari Tanskanen wrote:
>I think there's no need to be that critical about depth of field.
>You are just pushing the technology to the limits.
What else are limits for? :-)
Thanks for the mental support, Kari, I am/was sitting here feeling
dumber and dumber. By no means an unfamiliar feeling, but nevertheless
difficult to get used to.
> They just show the advantage of bigger scales in this case.
That must be the only situation for Z to be disadvantageous?
>I don't know whether other digital cameras have
>smaller apertures available or whether an expensive digital SLR would
>help in this case,
I do!! - According to specs - that is. The Nikon DX1 and D100 have all
the things I need. Unfortunately I do *not* have what Nikon needs =
6.000 usd. OK the D100 is "only" half that price, but still beyond my
And even if it weren't, I'm not convinced, that a better camera would
help me. There are people that can do whatever they want using a bent
nail and a piece of band-aid. And there is me. Sad but true :-(
Never mind - I'm having great fun anyway!
>but I think that's about as good as it gets with
>current state of technology.
regards Ole Rosted