05-17-2009, 09:00 AM
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:
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.
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.