# check out these models!



## SteveT (Oct 13, 1999)

Has anyone seen this guys build-ups? They appear on the Major Matt Mason website....I love his variations on the Creature from the Black Lagoon! Pretty darn cool! But lots of people still paint that base brown or another earthy color where I think the base is supposed to be WATER! That aside, I think this guy does a really nice job. One of the best I've seen. I also love SM Clark's build-ups. Always have.


http://www.majormattmason.net/stevendemarco/


----------



## Cro-Magnon Man (Jun 11, 2001)

Yep, he's a great modeler, and like you say, his versions of the Creature are pretty involved and elaborate; interestingly, he's gone for a yellow gut on all three. But his Godzilla is the kit which really shows his ability and his ideas, absolutely brilliant.
His Bighorn Sheep is another great piece of work, but strangely his Black Fury horse kit doesn't seem to have received much attention.


----------



## the Dabbler (Feb 17, 2005)

YUP, I checked out the whole site, now I think I'll go erase all mine from the Gallery !!


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Don't give up hope Dab! We don't know this guy's situation. He may be retired and build models all day long. Not all of us get that luxary. He may have also worked in some kind of model building studio where he was trained in the first week to know how to paint something where it has taken some of us years to master. Besides, isn't this fourm all about sharing our ideas on painting, building and having fun?

I personally like my own models and will continue to display them with pride even if they don't look as fancy as some other people's stuff here. Maybe someday I'll join the ranks of the "OH...look at that guy's models" elite, but it isn't really that important as long as I can share my ideas and inspire others.


----------



## beck (Oct 22, 2003)

nice stuff there . i do like the Godzilla . 
hb


----------



## Frankie Boy (Feb 28, 2002)

Yeah, I've seen this guy's stuff before. Very impressive.
One of the things that impressed me the most was the treatment he gave to the Wolfman's face - particularly with the eyebrows and the nose (or should I say the muzzle?)


----------



## aurora fan (Jan 18, 1999)

B.C. (Before Computer), I thought my own Aurora models were best they could be, at least they were as good as I could imagine. Then, A.C. (After Computer) as I found Aurora sites and places like this great hobby board, I discovered I was average in comparison to others. Possible a "C" student at best! I still plug along and get better as I go but the amazing skills of the artist's who post here leave me in awe to this day! Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Rebel Rocker (Jan 26, 2000)

I remember seeing this before. Really glad to be reminded of this guy's work. Truly inspiring to look at it all again!!!

Wayne


----------



## the Dabbler (Feb 17, 2005)

You've got a good point MadCap. Trouble is, I AM retired, and DO get to build models all day ( although I don't always ) and I HAVE had some training in art. BUT, I'm not discouraged, I DO have fun and that's the name o' that tune !!
Right now I'm erecting new shelves to get some models off the dining room table before company comes !!
At least that guy's work is something to strive for.
Dabbler


----------



## Cro-Magnon Man (Jun 11, 2001)

I think I've worked out that guy's secret; he puts about four layers of colour down on each feature, and doesn't allow any area to look like it's just one colour. He paints, drybrushes, washes, then probably drybrushes again, so that every space and feature has several shades or markings, even if it's just a hand or a bit of armour on a dinosaur. And drybrushing and washing are relatively quick, so he can take less time than it would appear.


----------



## Scott Hasty (Jul 10, 2003)

Anyone that can make a Big Frankie look like that should be made a God of figure finishing!


----------



## the Dabbler (Feb 17, 2005)

I think Cro-Magnon is right. It looks like EVERYthing has 'depth' and multi-layering, and no doubt clear coat sealing in between adds to the effect.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Sorry Dab, didn't mean to insult you...which I probably didn't anyway.

Could be that the guy did layer his paint jobs. I do it with mine and my monsters come out with depth. I learned some of these skills from following the articles in Amazing Figure Moddler. 

You know Dab, I don't think I have seen your stuff. Could you post a pic or two?


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Ok, just to compair...Here's my take on the Wolfman:










And in Black and White:










And here's his: 

http://www.majormattmason.net/stevendemarco/wolfman.htm

(The site wouldn't let me right click on the image.)

Ok, so which one looks better? Mine which is a clean build and has multi-layers or Steves that has more of a comic book apperiance with heavier shading? Mine that has a custom adapted Lon Chaney JR look about the head, or Steve's that is straight out of the box? 

When it all boils down to it, both have good points and both have bad. It's all how you look at the build itself and what you PERSONALLY think is better for you. 

I also found out that getting judged in contests is no real way to know either because in one contest you could walk home with 100 trophies and the next, you walk home empty handed. 

And in addition, Steve's models may have been published in a magazine and I know mine have not yet been, but then again, Steve may have contacted the magazine where I didn't.

Instead, my models made it into Monster Hobbies advertisements because I paid for them to be there.

Cest Lavie and build for yourself. :dude:


----------



## the Dabbler (Feb 17, 2005)

MadCap : " You know Dab, I don't think I have seen your stuff. Could you post a pic or two? "

Not having my own site, I put some in "My Gallery" here. However the poor workmanship on them is only surpassed by my lousy photography with bad ( i.e., "cheap" ) cameras, (still learning the new digicam) so don't get your hopes up. BUT, at least I got guts !!

Dabbler

PS. Your comparison ( above ) isn't quite fair MC, 'his' has pro phography, yours doesn't so it's tough to compare objectively.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

I dunno....... 

To me it looks like it's overdone (all of his work). Perhaps he works under tube fluorecent(sp) lights or something. I don't think his stuff would look very good under natural sunlight. IMHO


----------



## Frankie Boy (Feb 28, 2002)

Y3a: "To me it looks like it's overdone"

— Overdone? I don't really understand that comment. His work doesn't look any more "overdone" than some other modellers' work I've seen. And if they are "overdone", they are expertly overdone. Whether the end result personally appeals to you or not is another question.

" I don't think his stuff would look very good under natural sunlight."

— I would hazzard to guess that his models would look impressive under any lighting conditions, and even more so when viewed in real life.

Dabbler: "PS. Your comparison ( above ) isn't quite fair MC, 'his' has pro phography, yours doesn't so it's tough to compare objectively."

That's an accurate comment. On the quality of the photography alone, we're comparing apples and oranges.

In the final ananlysis, the realtive quality of this technique or that is whatever gives you the most pleasure and personal satisfaction. Furthermore, I believe that whether you look on expert or amature work, there's always something to learn.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Either he overdoes it on purpose, or he's using the wrong light. it lacks the smooth transition between colors and hues, and you really shouldn't see the brush strokes, but in some cases you do. I've seen a LOT of figures where the paint job looks HORRID when photographed in natural (Out doors) lighting. They only look 'good' when carefully lit. I DID state in my post that I think he used Flourescent lights, which tend to flatten the appearance of the figures paint, so The modeler "fixed" it by overdoing it. Do you understand?


----------



## Frankie Boy (Feb 28, 2002)

Oh, I understand your argument. I just don't agree with it. The guy went to the bother of getting someone else to photograph the models. Dabbler suggested it was a pro. If that's true, no pro would use flourescent light. But even if it's not true, the relative sharpness of shadows, and the fact that there are two of them (indicating two different light sources, one on either side of the model) safely rules out flourescent lighting.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

NOT FOR PHOTOGRAPHING THEM!!! WHEN THE GUY PAINTED THEM!!! Jeez.


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

It is a nice looking image.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

I love the guys work! I always enjoy other peoples stuff and can always learn something from them.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

MadCap Romanian said:


> We don't know this guy's situation. He may be retired and build models all day long. Not all of us get that luxary. He may have also worked in some kind of model building studio where he was trained in the first week to know how to paint something where it has taken some of us years to master.


I'm guessing nobody bothered to read his biography, where it explains he works as a professional artist.

Not that I'm much better at it, but he needs to work on hiding seams. His passion appears to be painting, but some of his color choices (particularly the aforementioned Creature build-ups) are too garish for my tastes. He seems to prefer bright colors that stand out, while I prefer a much more subtle and realistic finished appearance like he achieved with his Aurora Wildlife and Prehistoric kits; a simple matter of taste really, I'm not trying to say one school of thought is better than the other. Some truly nice work!


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

IF you "LIKE" the garrish job of the artist has done - it's OK. I tend to do research on the actual costume, make-up etc involved and try and make mine look like that. The CFTBL model is case and point. The original underwater suit has been touched up to look good underwater, where the water tends to flatten out the details and shapes, whereas the above water version has more small details and is an entirely different presentation of the Creature. I like the underwater version better. Frankensteins Monster (Karloff/Jack Pearce) color pictures are rare but DO exist. as well as those of the Mummy, and Lugosi's Dracula. Painted to match the photos, they LOOK LIKE the originals when photographed in the same style of lighting. Same for modern monsters like Alien or the Queen Alien, or any other when the same process is used. Use the correct colors and textures, and photographed in the same light and you can't go wrong. Evenwhen doing machines or Star Ships the same applies. Are there any "interpretations" of the good old NCC-1701 you have seen and liked?


----------



## Cro-Magnon Man (Jun 11, 2001)

He seems to prefer bright colors that stand out, while I prefer a much more subtle and realistic finished appearance like he achieved with his Aurora Wildlife and Prehistoric kits;[/QUOTE]

Yes, he has a good range of colours and finishes, and some are more sober and realistic than others. But I've found that if you try a subtle and realistic finish for the monsters, such as Frankenstien, Wolfman, Creature, Dracula etc, you get two results: firstly the finished kit can look unfinished, like it's still needs some life and colour added to it; and secondly, the finished kit ends up looking like everyone else's version of the same kit! 
Most versions of the Phantom, Hunchback, King Kong, Bride, Prisoner, even Dr Jekyll, that you see on the Internet and elsewhere, when finished in realistic colours, tend to look pretty much the same as all the others.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

> PS. Your comparison ( above ) isn't quite fair MC, 'his' has pro phography, yours doesn't so it's tough to compare objectively.


Dabbler, please explain.

To my understanding, "Pro Photography" uses techniques such as the rule of thirds, perspective, depth of field, points of interest, angles and the like. I don't see any of those techniques used in his photography, just a simple, generic, straight forward picture shot "Dead On" to the subject matter. 

Or are you saying that because he used a digi cam and enough light to make for a perfectly clean image that he's more "Pro" than I am because I opted for more of a "Horror look" by using lower level light and more shadows as well as used tripods, a 35mm camera from the 1960's, focused lighting, and all the techniques I learned from winning the Photography award in Grade 9. Therefore, I'm not sure what you mean by "Pro Photography" and how I miss the mark.

My pics are closer to the mood set in the original films instead of these "Crystal clear" images found all over the world in the rest of the pictures you see anywhere on the net. That's the type of art I am striving for, something you'll remeber.

Unlike the comparison pointed out by Zombie 61, I do make an effort to hide my seam lines on my figures. In fact, I won a first place trophy for my Frankenstein because there was no seam lines to be found on the kit, in addition to the excellent paint job, etc. 

There's only one kit that has visible seam lines, and that's the Mummy, simply because he was a Luminators kit and I accidently dropped him after painting him which split the seam lines in his legs close to his feet. I didn't want to go back and fix it because I know that the glue will affect the paint and I don't have the inclination to do touch-up.

Also, I'm not sure there is anything as a "Professional Artist". Art is a "Taste" type of thing. A very good artist doesn't seem to be recognised as one until he has died, such as Van Gough, Rembrant or the like. 

Again, to my understanding, a "Professional Artist" is a person who can sell his art on a professional level. He may not be the best artist out there, and I've personally seen items where I can honestly say that I could do it 100% better, but he can still sell them. Again, it's a matter of being in the right place at the right time and having something that's sellable to a paticular crowd.

I've also seen more "Amature" modelers turn out items that are 100% better than so called artists because many artists simply are not model builders. Sure, they can take interesting photos or build wonderous sculptures out of 10 strange items they found in the trash bin, but when it comes to building an AMT '69 Mustang, it looks like something the dog barfed up. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT saying this guy is bad or anything, and I do admire his models, but I know from experiance with art because my family have all won awards, and continue to win awards for art going back to the 1920's with my grandparents and continuing on for 3 more generations with my nieces and nephews. 

Both my sisters are excellent with paintings and my middle sister sells her paintings on the internet. (I guess that makes her a pro?) My older sister won awards and the like for her paintings as well. However, she once built a model of a 1957 Ford and you could litterally light a match off the body because the paint had such bad orange peel. (Looked like the dog barfed it up!)

Also, what does a "Pro Artist" do that makes him a pro? Is he a "pro" when it comes to portraits, landscapes, still life, abstracts, photography, murals, cartons, architectural drawings, medical drawings, model building, sculptures, free form, or modern art? Can he do all of these in a 100% pro way, or only 1/3rd or less? Did the artist major in still life and dabble in models or the other way around. Basically, where is he comming from?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not mad at anyone here and I'm not trying to elevate myself or whatever. All I'm trying to discover is what makes a "Pro" a "Pro".


----------



## the Dabbler (Feb 17, 2005)

Sheesh ! If I'da knowed ya was gonna get mad I'da never said nuttin' !


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Dab....I'm NOT mad.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Just getting people to think. 

By the way, good morning! :wave:


----------



## the Dabbler (Feb 17, 2005)

However, Since my simple comment seems to have spawned a rather verbose negative reaction and techical disertation upon the photographic sciences I will elucidate on my thought processes.

It was merely my belief ( and still is ), that the intent of this, and similar forums, was for modelers to convey to others of like disposition, their MODEL work, prowess, and techniques, and in the most viewable and clearest manner possible, the results of their artistry as pertains to: MODELS !! 

It was not my understanding that this was also intended to be a scholastic laboratory for. although arguably tangentially related, the production of cinemagraphic epics.

Is so, well then, EXCUuuuuuSE ME !


----------



## the Dabbler (Feb 17, 2005)

Funk & Wagnall :
Professional; "one who pursues as a business some vocation, occupation, or sport...especially one who engages for money, as opposed to amateur"

"of or pertaining to a special occupation, often for gain : as opposed to amateur"


----------



## Frankie Boy (Feb 28, 2002)

The much of the content of this thread has to be some of the silliest ever posted.


----------



## the Dabbler (Feb 17, 2005)

OH good, that was my intention, to prove a point.
Fini


----------



## Brent Gair (Jun 26, 1999)

If I may add a comment...

I very much like the work of the artist in question but I do see the point about his work being "over done".

I would observe that is not so much a short-coming as it is a matter of style. It seems to me that he has adopted a theatrical style of painting in the same way that you often see theatrical makeup for live stage performances. At an opera, performers will often be in rather garish make-up for the benefit of audience members who are sitting a fair distance away and who would otherwise have trouble making out the features of the players.

Figure kit makers often do the same. We paint in shadows and highlights because those things, even though they occur naturally, are barely distiguishable at a small scale.

Now, we take the efforts of this model artist, enlarge his work and then display it on computer monitors at eye-level about 18" from our face.

I'm not surprised it looks overdone. It was most certainly intended to be seen as most figure kit art is intended to be seen. The builder likely expected it to be seen under normal room light, at it's natural size, sitting on a shelf a few feet from the viewer. It's bound to look odd on a 19" LCD monitor in front of your nose.

Heck, I'd look odd on a 19" monitor in front of your nose...well, I look odd all the time but that's another story.


----------



## the Dabbler (Feb 17, 2005)

Ah BG, a little self-deprecation, I like that.
I see your point about the guy's style. My point of contention is that postings on forums are mainly to show others your work/style/technique as clearly as possible, and not present them as a "theatrical show" in itself. So the photos just need to convey those traits without being a Hollywood production and detracting from the model itself. Good pix are essential to that aim though. MY pic postings are obviously the "what not to do" examples.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Ah Dab, I shouldn't be so quick to get upset that you call me an "Amature" because you technically don't know what I do for a living, so I forgive you. 

I will let you know that I do use my models and photography to promote my hobby store, Monster Hobbies, so technically, I do make a living off my photographic ability, so that does put me in the rank of a "Professional", and advertising is one of the stronger points of my business, including the radio spots in which I record numerous ammounts of voices to an audience of advid radio listeners. 

If the "Art to tell a story" way of photography is upsetting to you, then I can gladly show more "Precise" photos. I'll get a roll ready and set it up and get them up and running on the web. It would also give me a chance to test a new flash unit I bought for the old camera. 

Also, my friend says he can take some pics of my models with his 4X6 camera which should also yield in a more superior print. I can't wait to get into that because I also think my camera might be in the market for a professional cleaning as well. Remeber that it is from the 1960's and won't be as precise as the more modern camera.

I do have one question for you though, why do you always put your work down? Have confidence and pride in what you're doing and let's see your ability.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

What!! No pictures in your Photo Album MadCap.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

In my photo album? It's here : http://public.fotki.com/ursulescu/

Just click on the albums you want to see.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Dab, I just looked through your Photo Gallery and I like your models actually, esp the Frantics set. It's very wild and crazy! 

I will say that I think some of the photographic problems you are encountering are due to "Light bounce-back" from your flash hitting the model and then returning into the camera lense .... I think this is known as light refraction, but I can't remeber the term. You can really tell in the photos of the Bride and the Stooges.

Also, in the picture of "Them", you are getting out of focus, probably by standing too close. If you have a "Fixed Lense" camera, this tends to happen more often than not because the lense focal plane is limited. If you get too close, the lense can't compensate for the distance. A good way to test the focal distance is to use a tri-pod and a simple tape measure.

Set the camera up on the tripod away from the model and take a picture. If this picture is out of focus, take a measurement and then write it down somewhere noting that at that paticular distance, the model will be out of focus. Then move the camera / tripod back and and take another picture and re-measure and so on until you hit that "Perfect" focal point. This is the limit on how close you can get to the picture. 

I also noted that your Bates Mansion looks great too, however, shoting the pic with a cardboard box background in the basement doesn't work so well. Instead, I would suggest taking the model outside and photographing it in broad daylight with a tree background. Can't find a tree background? Then put the model somewhere where you can aim the camera into the sky. The resulting photo shold look like it is taken from the viewpoint of someone standing on the steps, about to enter the mansion.


----------



## Cro-Magnon Man (Jun 11, 2001)

Er...by the way, did anyone notice how the Godzilla kit has been built with one foot in the air, not planted on the ground as normal, but hovering over/descending towards its next bit of demolition? Pretty good, I thought.


----------



## the Dabbler (Feb 17, 2005)

Thanks for the critique and photo tech advice MadCap. ( and the nice comments re:my models ) The earlier pix were taken with a cheapo ( $26) non-focusing digital. ( now history ! ) Some taken with 35mm film and uploaded. I have recently bought a Fujifilm Finepix 360 but haven't taken time to 'master it' yet. I DO have an improvised tripod/mic stand ( Yup, I'm a Hillbilly guitar picker/singer wannabe ) but haven't found a good backdrop as yet or an area satisfactory for photo work ( YES, my joint is REALLY crowded with "STUFF" !! ) and the western Pa. weather doesn't always cooperate. I WILL save your post for reference.
Dabbler

PS. the $26 job didn't have a flash I had to use room lighting and desk lamps.


----------



## Brent Gair (Jun 26, 1999)

With all this talk of photographic technique, I have finally tried using the Hobbytalk Photo Album. I've tended to avoid it because I'm not a big fan of having to shrink my photo files so drastically but it is nice to have a "permanent" spot here.

I've posted a few photos that most of you would have seen before so don't expect any revelations . I'm posting them here more for purposes of technique. I'm pleased with the photo quality in terms of the way the models are lighted and detail is preserved (despite shirinking 5MB files down to 45KB). I'm going to try and get a few more in there.

One really cool thing I've notice is that the EXIF information is visible*. Very neat because it allows you to see exposure information about the picture.


http://photos.hobbytalk.com/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/1969

*Although most of the EXIF for my Smith and the Robot is gone...probably the result of post processing.


----------



## the Dabbler (Feb 17, 2005)

Yup Brent, have seen 'em before, but still look good and still impressed by the flying sub & batplane especially.
Dabbler


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Hey Dab, for backdrop I used a towel in some of The Phantom of The Opera kit pictures but you could use a white sheet as well. 

Start off with a 3x6 or larger table. Use some books or whatever to raise the back of the sheet high enough above the model. Then let the front of the sheet fall off the front of the table. It should have a natural curve when viewed from a side view. 

When your model is placed in such a setting, it will eliminate the "Horizion line" that you are getting in the Frankenstein / Creature type shots and give your background the more professional "smooth transgression" feel. 

Note the difference :










Here's the Phantom standing in front of a piece of spray painted styrofoam. The styrofoam is standing straight up and down in relation to the table. There is a visible horizion line at the phantom's feet.










Here's the same model standing in front of a bath towel set up in the way described above. Note that there is a smooth transgression and no horizion line. 

You don't need a towel, however. If you have the money for it, a large piece of paper draped in the same fashion will do. Just stick to a neutral colour that won't detract from your model or cast strange light reflections onto your model, such as a red.

As for your tri-pod, check Walmart. They usually have a good selection ranging from $25-$45. Mine's a Samsonite and it has the adjustable camera base which can tilt the camera up to 90% in all 4 axis and can stand up to 7.5' tall. It even has a level on it.


----------



## LT Firedog (Nov 14, 2001)

“Look at all the colors`” FAR-OUT!” I love it all. I get ideas from any build I see. Art is in the eye of the beholder (Even though I think calling PEE in a glass jar “ART” is stretching it a bit). I even like looking at little kids build –ups or old kits from the 70s & 80s... Sometimes the colors give me a different perspective or strike a cord to try something new. The one thing I love is his approach to color. I will say I wouldn’t rule out to try this approach on some of my builds in the future. I guess the one complaint I have with his work is that he seems to take that same approach or style to all his work. Comic book style is how I look at it. But gosh I think it’s awesome. 

Hey DAB, I’m still a hose-er might move to the tower truck in the near future. Short on time (what’s new?), My wife is still kicking the CA’s butt.
Talk to you all again soon


----------



## the Dabbler (Feb 17, 2005)

Good to hear from ya Firedog, congrats to the wife & best wishes !!! Is the tower truck a promotion or lateral move ?

Sheesh, now MadCap assumes I have a 3'x6' table that ain't loaded with 'stuff', AND a clean towel !!?? My impromptu tripod will work ok though. I DO have several colors of 3' and 4' paper rolls left from my sign days. I'm making note of all of this !! Now if someone can loan me some energy and stamina.......two heart attacks, several artery blockages and supposed emphysema have slowed me down. And that &%@#*%$ birthday last week didn't help for moral support.
But sedentary model building is just the ticket !!

Deteriorating and Decaying Dabbler


----------

