Pointe du hoc diorama

[Guest]

I'm sorry that you feel that way.Sorry if I offended you or any other artists on this thread. None intended.

Your talents are far greater than mine.

These dioramas are not model teaching tools but but are made for the purpose to tribute all of those veterans who served, past and present.

There is a time and place for how to lessons and if you wanted a how to lesson then maybe that's where you should be looking.

I mean that in a good way not a sarcastic one.

Nick

What you say is fair enough Nick & your trade secrets are probably exactly that, but I feel this forum is a place to share ideas & techniques. In my 3 years+ of being a member, no-one has ever failed to share their ideas.

In fact, most of what's posted in this forum is both a tribute of sorts & a ' how to ' lesson. That's how we learn & progress.

Cheers

Patrick

[HAWKERHUNTER]

well guys this is where I am at with all this. If these images have been touched up, enhanced or what ever then in my mind its a bit unfair to all the guys who work so hard on there models to make them so lifelike without such aids. What we should be showing is the model as it is in order for people to appraise it fully. I cant see any harm in showing the model in its completed state and then including some shots that you declare have been touched up for effect. I want to complement someones skill with a model not a computer so with that in mind I find that I cannot pass comments on these models based on these pictures because I dont know what is real and what is not.

[tr1ckey66]

...and that's one point of view.

Personally I can see that there is an obvious talent painting the figures and vehicles. The diorama has been produced with whatever post production techniques he/they has at his/their disposal because building such a diorama in 1/35 is impractical. I don't take it as an insult as a modeller, and as an Art Director by trade I can see most of the post production work done (i know, for instance, that there is only one landing craft shot twice). Maybe that's why I don't see it as an insult?

You want to know how the water is done - well, looks like a plastic sheet with fibre brake water to me with a bit of blur to hide the edges. But I think you're missing the point. They've achieved a great result one particular way. Do you really just want to copy what they've done?

I know this. These guys are not the first to use photo editing software on this forum. I know for a fact that Tyrrel has extended some backgrounds on his dioramas (which is perfectly understandable). Does it offend me knowing he has? Absolutely not. Does it detract from his obvious modelling talent? No. Photoshop will not turn a poor model into an award winner it can however help in it's presentation.

Personally, I always finish my dioramas so they can be viewed as a whole, but I don't see that as the only way. I see lots of dioramas on this site with lots of 'model eye view' shots and no hint of the diorama as a whole. Is that cheating?

I do kind of agree with you in so much that I would far rather see a superbly finished vehicle, figure or aircraft than a poor diorama. This tendency toward putting everything in a diorama smacks a little of 'playing at soldiers'. This diorama however does not fall into that category. I can see how it's been done and except it for what it is.

well done guys

Paul

[Guest]

I'm with Steve (hawkerhunter) on this. I think it would have been better showing the dio without the enhancements. I don't mind a photoshopped background, but personally I think some of the excellent work in this dio was spoilt by trying to work out what was real and what was computer generated

Cheers, Andrew

[spanner570]

Consider this....A lot depends on how individuals interpret the word 'Enhancement'

Take two examples:- Graham (fenlander) posted his little french scout tank on here, and the background was a photoshop picture of a forest.

I did some elementry water colour background paintings for my Omaha Beach Landing.

Both backgrounds were greeted favourably, but they were enhancements whichever way you look at it, and not modelling as such.

I don't really see the difference between what Graham and I did to the computer generated stuff on this and the Pegasus dio.

I understand that to some folks might think what has been done as sort of 'Bending the rules' but let's chill a bit and just accept the images for what they are......Excellent painting and quality pictures.

Ron

[Ian M]

Sorry Ron I have to disagree. Its one thing to put the model in front of a background picture, as it is still the model that is the focus.

Would it be accepted if I took a few photos of say a torpedo boat that I had built, then photoshop it onto a photo of a real motor boat, post it and sit back and wait for all the "Wow thats a great dio, fantastic sea and the wake from the boat is really well done".......

I accept the pictures for what they are, digitally altered images that distract from the models.

Ian M

[Guest]

Perhaps it should have been stated that the pictures were computer-enhanced right at the start?

Personally I'm with Ian, to really work the builds should be able to be viewed 'as is' & without any extra computer help. It's fine to add a bit after if there's the original to compare with. Otherwise we could all do stuff to our pictures & erase or hide any mistakes etc.

I like putting a background to a dio, it's a bit like taking B/W shots to give it that 'authentic' look.

Cheers

Patrick

[Guest]

well I originally posted to see the before and after pictures. didn't realise that it would start a great debate, and am sorry to those that think it's spoilt the thread.

as we're all being honest here, I will say that there's a lot more done to the images than a little tweak here and there. I agree that the fact that they're digitally enhanced should be mentioned in the first case.

background images and props are acceptable in my mind, you can see what's been altered in these cases. if fully manipulated images are needed then what quality is the original model?

what I would like is an answer to my original question on my first post that seems to have been missed when the OP replied.

[Guest]

Hello Colin. I believe that now I understand the evasions and some answers.

Looks like a very informative Forum with plenty of intelligent members.

I'm Nick AKA bspnick and I'm representing Battle Scene Productions. We create some of the most realistic military related diorama scenes in the industry for collectible toy soldier manufacturers, dealers, collectors and the like. Our main goal is to keep history alive by telling historical stories using collectible toy soldier miniatures. Most of our scenes are scratch made. We have been published in several magazine and have been working on a multi episode WWII documentary called THE GREAT CRUSADE using the same miniatures, veteran interviews, etc...

I hope you all enjoy our tribute to veterans in the form of miniature dioramas.

Stay well,

Nick AKA bspnick

This is from the web Historum.

http://www.historum.com/european-history/39710-spanish-civil-war-diorama.html

[HAWKERHUNTER]

:emo2:now I am totally confused

[Guest]

And me!

[michaelm]

Me too.?????

[spanner570]

Nick, I've just wandered over to the web site Polux has mentioned and had a look at your Spanish civil war Bf109 dio.

Whilst looking I couldn't help but notice that it shows you have been suspended from that site indefinately. Seems a bit harsh for just posting one of your works.........

Ron

[Guest]

Ahhh so Polux isn't Nick! He copied that from the other forum.

I was getting most confused there, thinking they were one & the same!

Cheers

Patrick

[Guest]

i am even more confused than you lot because on the comments on the other site mentioned it says that "The figures and aircraft are pre-built and numbered so there wasn't any model building involved with them. Scratch building some of the other items in this scene is another story. so are you just making the scenery then nick?

also are the landing craft models or photo scenery,how can you tell?