While trying to decide on roofing material for my coalhouse trestle, I wanted to see what a shake roof would look like on it. I scaled down a roof picture, made multiple copies, and loosely put them in place. Looking at the results, I could see a wooden shingle roof would look pretty nice. After posting pics on my layout thread...a notion that I was not anticipating came up: Why not use the printed material?

Here are some pics of what I'm referring to:







I have my own opinion about using the print-outs...but I would like to hear yours.

Please cast your vote in the poll

Thank you

No, I don't think that it is cheating. I'm sure that some others will but I don't. As long as it is a good photo it is acceptable. :-)

Nope, it's not "cheating" by a long shot. If it we me, I'd make the decision whether to keep it or not by how it looks, not how a photograph of it looks. You cannot see actual texture or dimension in a photo, but in real life it might not look like it does in a photo. If it looks OK and suites you, by all means, keep it without the guilt of cheating.

Cheaters never prosper!
But that roof sure looks like a winner!

I don't see where it is cheating it looks just fine to me.

Here's another vote for the "not cheating." The photo looks great. If you have visitors who don't notice that the roofing is printed rather than fabricated, then I'd say it's good enough.

It all boils down to your personal druthers and the amount of time you have for modeling.

Nice work.

Tom

My answer is: It depends. It depends largely on the effect you're looking for. Photo/printed surfaces don't have the texture of real wood. Looked at from an angle, they're going to be shiny and smooth, unlike the shake roof you're depicting. If you can live with that, go for it.

There was an article in the the winter 2009 Modelers' Annual by Russ Reinberg about building a boxcar with printed sides and roofing. The car looked very good in pictures, but the author's post-mortem included the following statements:

Quote:... when I wrote a comprehensive article about modeling with cardstock, I explained it replicates painted wood excellently but real wood is better for unpainted wood. I want to amend that statement: Real wood also is better for modeling distressed painted wood.

As I look at the boxcar from angles where light reflects off the sides and ends, its finish is too smooth and uniform for the degree of weathering on the artwork. The texture resembles the scribed styrene on a commercial plastic model. I scribed grain into the boards of a different car side with the same artwork and it helped.

...Printed card, even after embossing, has too little of that third dimension for a very weathered finish.

So the short version is, it's the texture that makes wood siding and shake roofs look good, especially if we're going for weathered or distressed effects. Printed surfaces just can't come up with the textural depth to reflect that reality.

Steve i dont think its cheating at all, i think it looks great on the roof

Of course it's not....No more than using plastic "brick" walls...The "realism" effects might be a greater concern, as mentioned by others....

Any way you slice it...on those pics it sure looks cool...!!!

Squidbait is correct about the texture - from some angles, the texture evident may disappear under the glare of your lighting. However, some of that texture, the rough surface of each individual shingle, can't be replicated in HO, at least if you wish it to be "to scale". The part that can be replicated is the edges of each overlapping course and the spaces between the individual shingles.

You could, with a little work (well, maybe quite a little) capture the overlap. Starting with twice as much printed paper as is required to cover the roof, cut along the line between every two courses, making sure that the bottom edge of each strip follows the lower edge of the printed shingles - this means that the "shadow" area between courses is always removed from the lower edge. Glue the bottom strip in place, then position the second strip so that its lower edge lines up with the shadow line between the two courses on the first strip. As you continue up the roof, each course will overlap the previous one by the length of a shingle.

Creating the spaces between individual shingles is possible, but quite a bit more work. A knife could be used to slice between the shingles on the lower course of each strip before it's applied - scissors will not work as well, as the edge on one side of each cut will be pushed down (that's good), but the other side will be pushed up (that's not so good). Even a knife blade drawn along the cut line may lift the edges slightly - I'd use a chisel-type blade, preferably double-ground, simply pressing it through to make each cut.

All of this work should give a roof with the appearance of individual shingles, but you'll still have the possibility of that glare being visible from certain angles, since you'll still be using the same paper.

Which leads us to the available options of what material to use for the shakes/shingles. Real cedar shingles vary in size from 16"-24" long and 3/8"-1/2" thick, and applied with varying "reveals". Shakes can be anywhere from 18"-24" long and 3/8" to 1" thick, with varying amounts of reveal. In HO scale, a real inch translates to about .011".
If you can find real wood in this thickness, stripwood in two or three widths would be your easiest choice - simple cut a whole bunch just slightly longer than the length which you wish to show on your finished roof (you can't do as the prototype, covering the top half of each preceding course unless you're also willing to sand a taper on the top edge of each shingle). Toss them all into the same pile, mix them together, then divide them into 3 or 4 groups, staining each group a slightly different shade. When dry, mix them all together again, then get up on that roof and start shingling.

If thin-enough wood isn't to be had, you're left with paper (again) or styrene, either of which should be available in sheets from .005" to .010" thick. Chances are, you'll need to paint either to get a suitable range of colours, and, of course, you're also back into the "cut into strips, then cut into shingles" operation.

Once you apply your hand-made shingles, you'll still need to weather them to get those shadow lines and to blend the various colours to get the nuances of shading shown on your printed roof.

If you're planning on entering your model into a contest, then by all means go with whichever of the individual shingle routines seems most suitable. Of course, then you should also redo your track with real wood ties, and alter the method you've used around the openings for dumping the coal. There are probably lots more compromises that you've made to get this far, too, (as we all do) so you'll really need to re-think the whole project.

Of course, this is for use on your layout, so there's no need to re-think the whole project, and nothing to stop you from going to extremes on the roof (it is, after all, the most visible part of the building) if you wish.
In my opinion, though, the printed paper roof, with perhaps a very light overspray of heavily thinned (at least 90% thinner) paint to kill any possible sheen, is your best choice. If you want the 3-D look of individual shingles, the Campbell ones do a good job while eliminating most of the hard work. They'll look even better if you colour them after application, then highlight them with some dry-brushing.

Wayne

The use of "photograph detail" has been around for as long as color photographs. This is where the "three foot" rule applies. At three feet, and beyond, it's extremely difficult to determine if the detail is actual, or photo(printed), and can be used with impunity. Just don't "overdo" it.
In cases closer than three feet, some detail can still be used, as in signs, curtains or drapes inside a window, cutouts for the windows of stores(mannequins, paintings, things that add interest but would be "models in themselves").
Photos/printed pictures, can be used close up with a little embossing to give them texture. If any of us has ever painted a backdrop, or used a photo backdrop.....we've "cheated". The only caveat is that we should never use photo/print, where it can easily be identified as photo/print. Embossing, cutout, and, where possible flat overspray all can make a photo/print harder to detect.
It's all part of the practice of deception, that includes vehicles with two "front ends"(or two rear ends), parked in front of a mirror so that the reflection looks like another vehicle, behind the physical one, or using forced perspective.
Limiting the line of site, helps these effects be more convincing.
Using photo/print, as a substitute for modelmaking, where the modelmaking would be the better choice, is cheating, kind of like (here's where I get slammed for my big mouth) using all ready to run!

Hi Steve,

No i dont think its cheating at all if the printout is as good as yours there

I think its brilliant and it looks terrific!
Ralph

Like my father used to say:

Try it, if it looks good then keep it, if not, try something else.

Steve Wrote:I have my own opinion about using the print-outs...but I would like to hear yours.

Nooooo, in my book it's not cheating but what about yours? Judging by the extreme amount of work you've put into this structure already, and knowing you, I'd say you'll never be happy with that and you'll end up doing it "your way" later on anyways.