Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by TrainsRMe:
Originally Posted by Moonson:

I must add, though, that sometimes having no figures at all makes its own statement, doesn't it.

 

 

FrankM.

Some people make a difference by their absence!

Yes, indeed, and sometimes that absence can be a detriment or a welcome change for the better of all.

Originally Posted by Gary Graves:
Originally Posted by Moonson:

Agreed.

 

FrankM.

You have the best looking people Frank. What kind are they and where did you get them? Handpainted yourself? 

Aside from using Artista and Preiser figures, depending on the scene, I mostly use hand-painted figures, imported from England and Australia, by:

Roy Baker

Bakers Railroad Shop

1-845-887-4596

 

If you want to tell Roy I gave him the credit for the figures you like and contact for you to him, tell him Frank M. of Layout Refinements sent you.

P.S. Though you may have seen these scenes by me previously, here are some of my favorite figures that Roy makes...

details, woodcutter's cottage

IMG_0718edx

IMG_8958-b

f

IMG_0704

IMG_8332

Local Floral & Crafts Center

Attachments

Images (7)
  • details, woodcutter's cottage
  • IMG_0718edx
  • IMG_8958-b
  • f
  • IMG_0704
  • IMG_8332
  • Local Floral & Crafts Center
Last edited by Moonson

I don't want to be a contrarian, and I certainly do not mean to detract from all of the amazing scenes shown in this thread.  But, I have to admit that I have mixed feelings about people in the scenes that I model. I do use them occasionally, but they always bother me a bit. There is just no way that one can build or buy models of human beings that are fully-convincing. The famous "uncanny valley" gets you every time.

 

I recently came across the following quotation from the famous ultra-realistic modeler Alan Wolfson, who never uses people in his scenes:

 

When people appear in a miniature environment, your attention is automatically drawn to them because it’s so obvious they’re not real; their presence points to the fact that it’s an artificial environment.  Without the people there as markers of unreality, you can really get lost in the scene and formulate your own narrative.

 

Originally Posted by Avanti:

I don't want to be a contrarian, and I certainly do not mean to detract from all of the amazing scenes shown in this thread.  But, I have to admit that I have mixed feelings about people in the scenes that I model. I do use them occasionally, but ...

 

I recently came across the following quotation from the famous ultra-realistic modeler Alan Wolfson, who never uses people in his scenes:

 

When people appear in a miniature environment, your attention is automatically drawn to them because it’s so obvious they’re not real; their presence points to the fact that it’s an artificial environment.  Without the people there as markers of unreality, you can really get lost in the scene and formulate your own narrative.

 

A (lone) figure as a distraction ?... as a  "marker of unreality" ?

h

...or as a guide into a narrative intended by the modeller/author of the story?

IMG_2773

I enjoyed reading your perspective, Avanti, and am glad for your thought-stimulating input on the topic. You invite a potentially interesting conversation.

FrankM.

Attachments

Images (2)
  • h
  • IMG_2773
Last edited by Moonson

Thinking about this use or non-use of figures further, let me suggest that the presence, number, or absence of figures determines the message and completes the scene. For example:

 

A couple figures present = not a busy day or place; no figures would = a nearly derelict place; numerous figures would = a popular place of business....

4

One lone rascal is a different message than an empty doorstep or a line of people waiting to get in, isn't it...

5b

Several customers = a popular plant nursery; no figures would = ?

Colleens

Here, school is about to be in-session; if there were no figures at all present, school is in-session, or it is Saturday.

IMG_0261

IMG_0260croppd_edited-1

To me, figures are essential, unless I want to craft a narrative that is empty of human involvement.     FrankM.

Attachments

Images (5)
  • 4
  • 5b
  • Colleens
  • IMG_0261
  • IMG_0260croppd_edited-1
Last edited by Moonson

I love the scenes/dioramas depicted here with such skill.

 

But these are for adult viewers--meaning viewers who appreciate and recognize SCALE proportions.

 

But young children don't recognize scale, and they aren't limited in having "fun" with grossly out of scale scenes.  I have painted metal ice-skating figures that were grossly out of scale skating on a tiny Platicville pond from my childhood that provided a lot of fun; and tiny plastic cars that were way under scale that we enjoyed alongside the giants.

 

So, I applaud the modeling skills of our members, but hope the pursuit of "scale" doesn't limit the play value of trains for youngsters.

Last edited by Pingman
Frank, I might be mistaken but I thought Roy Baker once had a website and email. Awhile back I tried to find him or anyone who carried his figures. I did find one but they said they hadn't heard from him in over a year. Are you sure he is still producing figures and if so is there any way of seeing what might be available?

Thank you.
Jerrman
Originally Posted by Jerrman:
Frank, I might be mistaken but I thought Roy Baker once had a website and email. Awhile back I tried to find him or anyone who carried his figures. I did find one but they said they hadn't heard from him in over a year. Are you sure he is still producing figures and if so is there any way of seeing what might be available?

Thank you.
Jerrman

Hi Jerrman, Yes, Roy had a website, but when I Googled it for my reply above (see Nov 5) to Gary Graves, I could not get anything useful. Roy does not maintain the site himself; one of his sons does it for him but doesn't keep it up.

 

Roy definitely does still conduct his miniature figures business - Bakers Railroad Shop -  and had his usual table in the Orange Hall at October's TCA Meet @ York. Also, he is planning on displaying again at the W.Springfield, Massachusetts show in a few months.

 

For your convenience, I'd recommend: (a) use the phone number I provided above for Roy and mention me as your connection... (b) Refer to the several photos I have in my replies to this thread as something of a "catalog" of many of his figures. If you want me to search my records for more of his figures featured among my work, I'll do so if you want.

FrankM.

Originally Posted by Avanti:

I don't want to be a contrarian, and I certainly do not mean to detract from all of the amazing scenes shown in this thread.  But, I have to admit that I have mixed feelings about people in the scenes that I model. I do use them occasionally, but they always bother me a bit. There is just no way that one can build or buy models of human beings that are fully-convincing. The famous "uncanny valley" gets you every time.

 

I recently came across the following quotation from the famous ultra-realistic modeler Alan Wolfson, who never uses people in his scenes:

 

When people appear in a miniature environment, your attention is automatically drawn to them because it’s so obvious they’re not real; their presence points to the fact that it’s an artificial environment.  Without the people there as markers of unreality, you can really get lost in the scene and formulate your own narrative.

 

I can understand that, when in reference to that guy who did VERY real photos of scenics with model cars. You would only know they were NOT real if figures, no matter how "good", were included. Fortunatly, we 3-railers need not worry about such trivia.

Did everybody see the layout on the 3rail forum thread, "One beautiful train on a stunning layout" ? Remarkable to me was that I saw only six figures of humans on the entire, vast layout, two at a logging company site and four at what appeared to be a rural RR station. That's a very interesting concept to me, with plenty to consider.

Interesting observation Frank. In my opinion, the presence or absence of figures on an O scale layout is more noticeable than on an HO or smaller scale layout. The smaller scales tend to have structures and scenery dominating the trains, making figures and other details less noticeable. Our O scale layouts usually don't have the space for large structures and scenery, relative to our trains, so people and other details stand out more. I have researched photos of industrial complexes and noticed that it is difficult to see any people in the pictures. The people are indeed there, but in order to get the entire complex in the picture, the photographer had to be so far away that the people barely showed up. Therefore, I think we would notice figures, or the lack thereof, in O scale more than in the smaller scales. Of course this is just a theory of mine and I could be completely wrong.   

Originally Posted by Karl S:

 In my opinion, the presence or absence of figures on an O scale layout is more noticeable than on an HO or smaller scale layout. The smaller scales tend to have structures and scenery dominating the trains, making figures and other details less noticeable.

I think you're right - I never thought about that.

Add Reply

Post

OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Ste 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
800-980-OGRR (6477)
www.ogaugerr.com

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×