Actually I think photo enhance models is the next breakthrough.We already seen photos used as backdrops and there was a article in one of the N Scale magazines telling how to built a freight car using photos as the sides and ends.
So,no,you're just bordering on the next modeling breakthrough.
It's not cheating, but it does have its applications, as noted in a few of the posts above. If you can detect it easily, it's not the right solution. If it looks "too real" compared with the rest of the layout, it's not the right solution. (This is one of the more successful arguments against photo backdrops.)
I think that as long as your models are not reduced to boxes skinned over with photos, then you've probably managed to incorporate it as "one more tool in the modeller's tool box".
Andrew
The general thought seams to be that it's not cheating.I say go for it, as long as it's not right under your nose you'll probably never know the difference.
Anything you do short of carving your own shingles from pine and nailing them down is cheating.
If it looks in real life anywhere as good as the photo, go for it.
I would like to thank everyone for their input. I was a little surprised by the over-whelming popularity of option #3 (its not cheating). I was thinking that option #2 (depends) was going to be the most picked.
You have told me what you think, now it is only fair that I tell you what I think.
I voted for option #2 (Depends. If used sparingly to "enhance" the model, it would be acceptable.)
Maybe its from looking at picture after picture, reading article after article, showing modeling of such a high degree and the unbelievably hard work that goes into it, that just made it seem a little “wrong” to me.
To those of you who are familiar with how I model, that probably sounds strange coming from me. I could never be accused of being a rivet counter, far from it in fact. The first couple of years, I couldn’t have cared less about “prototype” (I still don’t worry about it), but over the last year or so, I have been striving for more believability and not being so quick to say “good enough”. This last project that I have been working on is by far the most detailed and time consuming model I have ever done…..it seemed a little “cheap” (as my kids would say) to use a printed picture (it does look that good in person btw) instead of a 3D material.
As many of you have expressed though, It’s really not about “cheating”….it’s about doing the right thing for a given situation. I don’t want to spend the money on a commercial product and I darn sure don’t want to sit here and cut 1000”s of individual shingles
.
I will experiment on these prints and see if I can add a little hint of texture, so I can at least say I did SOMETHING!.......LOL!
I need to remember......"If you're having fun, you're doing it right!"
Thanks guys
Many years ago I read an opinion expressed by one of the model engineering fraternity. He as commenting about some factor in contest judging involving their equivalent to body filler. He said "I hope somebody submits a model made entirely of [body filler] and wins a prize!" (exact comment no longer available).
Spitfire responded to someone who listed all a commercial models shortcomings to her (as she bought it) "Yes, and I know it's powered by an electric motor in the firebox instead of burning coal and water."
Most of my buildings have a roof of printed cardboard, sides too. I have a couple to which I added shingles or slates, just to show I could do it.
If it satisfies you go for it. it looks ok in the pictures, but i think it might end up looking kind of flat without that roof texture, but that's me.