USS Arizona - 1/350

[HubertB]

2 hours ago, DocRob said:

 

 I'm sometimes astonished about the bonding capabilities of CA, given the tiny gluing areas.

 

Cheers Rob

Me, it's the contrary. I always wonder why it does not bond the parts I want bonded 😂 !

Hubert

[DocRob]

1 hour ago, HubertB said:

Me, it's the contrary. I always wonder why it does not bond the parts I want bonded 😂 !

I never said, the parts where glued in the right spot when the bond is seemingly infinite. I decorated tweezers, fingers and whatever you can think off permanently with tiny etched parts .

Cheers Rob

[DocRob]

This peace of junk should transform into the superstructure . What have I done to be tormented with that kind of plastic. My sins must have been infinite, I hope I enjoyed them .

After hacking and slaying, sawing and grinding, cursing and chiseling, I removed what is only partly shown on the pic. There was more debris than usable plastic left, but it took a while to get there, mainly because I pre bent some of the then to add PE-parts, to cut everything to shape. All red in the manual has to go and it's a lot.

Cheers Rob

[HubertB]

The more I see this kit, the more it looks to me like an up-scaled Revell Arizona …

Hubert

[GazzaS]

Wow...   that's horrible.  I hope my Seydlitz isn't so bad.  I have a monster detail set for it.

[Peterpools]

Rob

I just can't imagine what you have done that was so bad as to have the modeling gods bestow this kit on you! Nice progress on removing all the offending parts and fingers crossed the parts being replaced with PE, the PE fits like a glove.  🤞

 

 

[KevinM]

5 hours ago, Peterpools said:

I just can't imagine what you have done that was so bad as to have the modeling gods bestow this kit on you!

Leave him alone Peter he's Repenting!

[DocRob]

22 hours ago, HubertB said:

The more I see this kit, the more it looks to me like an up-scaled Revell Arizona …

 

22 hours ago, GazzaS said:

Wow...   that's horrible.  I hope my Seydlitz isn't so bad.  I have a monster detail set for it.

 

21 hours ago, Peterpools said:

I just can't imagine what you have done that was so bad as to have the modeling gods bestow this kit on you! Nice progress on removing all the offending parts and fingers crossed the parts being replaced with PE, the PE fits like a glove.  🤞

 

17 hours ago, KevinM said:

Leave him alone Peter he's Repenting!

Thanks for your thoughts and condolences, I think Kevin is right . I've never seen the old Revell kits, but I can't think of a design as bad as this, mind, it's not an ancient kit.
I hope for your Seydlitz to be a better kit, I have a Queen Elisabeth from Trumpeter in stash, which looks decent.

Cheers Rob

[DocRob]

I've done crazier things than this, but this must have been long ago . Today I assembled one platform with PE and printed parts. This is something else than adding some PE parts here and there on a plane kit. I definitely have to burn my macro lens. The tiny stuff looks ok to my blurred eyes.

Cheers Rob

[Peterpools]

Rob

The details and PE look amazing - delicate work for a steady hand.

I normally reframe from shooting closeups with a macro lens as the images show details beyond what we can see normally. I try to depict in my photographs what a viewer would see is viewing the model in the flesh.

[HubertB]

22 hours ago, HubertB said:

The more I see this kit, the more it looks to me like an up-scaled Revell Arizona …

Hubert

Here is a link to a build thread of the Revell 1/426 AZ. 
The split of the superstructures in the middle of the portholes is typical of the mold technology of the time. Because of the cutting angles of the molds (a few degrees) imposed by the mold release constraints, a « vertical » wall of a superstructure was impossible, hence the splitting in halves.

But this was 1959 technology, where the concepts like spark-erosion of molds, or slide-molds, was not even a SiFi dream. Even if it’s not brand new, your kit took the easy way out of research, by copying a 64 years’ old kit

Hubert

[DocRob]

48 minutes ago, Peterpools said:

The details and PE look amazing - delicate work for a steady hand.

I normally reframe from shooting closeups with a macro lens as the images show details beyond what we can see normally. I try to depict in my photographs what a viewer would see is viewing the model in the flesh.

I know about your dislike for macroed model pics Peter, but I want to show what I've done in my build threads, ugly or not. I've learned a lot from detail photos, so  Iwil provide them, at leas until I can't rectify the build quality anymore .

Cheers Rob 

[DocRob]

44 minutes ago, HubertB said:

Here is a link to a build thread of the Revell 1/426 AZ. 
The split of the superstructures in the middle of the portholes is typical of the mold technology of the time. Because of the cutting angles of the molds (a few degrees) imposed by the mold release constraints, a « vertical » wall of a superstructure was impossible, hence the splitting in halves.

But this was 1959 technology, where the concepts like spark-erosion of molds, or slide-molds, was not even a SiFi dream. Even if it’s not brand new, your kit took the easy way out of research, by copying a 64 years’ old kit

Have you forgotten to embed the link Hubert? I'd really like to see this old kit and determine the difference between nostalgia and crap, in my case.

Cheers Rob

[HubertB]

Oops ! The problem of being as old as the Revell kit 😂

https://brexitmodeller.com/forums/topic/29213-uss-arizona-1426-scale-revell-kit-with-toms-model-works-pe-detail-kit/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-158790

Hubert

[HubertB]

And another link …

https://modelshipworld.com/topic/18824-uss-arizona-by-popeye-the-sailor-revell-1426-scale/

Hubert

[Peterpools]

29 minutes ago, DocRob said:

I know about your dislike for macroed model pics Peter, but I want to show what I've done in my build threads, ugly or not. I've learned a lot from detail photos, so  Iwil provide them, at leas until I can't rectify the build quality anymore .

Cheers Rob 

Rob

Got ya and completely agree; as a learning tool to fine tune your work, nothing better. I do take a lot of macro shots and only use it as a way of critiquing my own work and seeing what I need to redo or fix.

 

[GazzaS]

Those directors look great!

[Bill_S]

Impressive work thus far, Rob. This is precisely why I don't build ships!

[DocRob]

13 hours ago, HubertB said:

Oops ! The problem of being as old as the Revell kit 😂

It's not old, Hubert, ageless is the term . Thanks for the links, there are definitely a lot of similarities above the deck line with the ancient Revell kit and mine. The hull is different, halved vertical and has different portholes and casted railings. The superstructure looks very familiar though, as are the turrets.
Whatever Hobby Boss had in mind with this kit, they failed. It's maybe cheap, but it's not worth the money and I wouldn't have touched it without the extras in the Eduard boxing.

Cheers Rob

[DocRob]

13 hours ago, Peterpools said:

Got ya and completely agree; as a learning tool to fine tune your work, nothing better. I do take a lot of macro shots and only use it as a way of critiquing my own work and seeing what I need to redo or fix.

It's not so much about critique Peter, I'm my worst inquisitor here. To me macro shots are a part of my style of documentation and the macro lens is my standard, when photographing my work, not only because it is able to show the detail close up, but also, because with it's 90 mm focal length, it depicts correctly, without the strange effects, wider angled lenses have.
I often refer to others build logs as a reference and appreciate detailed information, bein it pics or written content. I sometimes used my own logs, where I failed to remember certain steps of long finished builds.

Cheers Rob

[DocRob]

10 hours ago, GazzaS said:

Those directors look great!

 

6 hours ago, Bill_S said:

Impressive work thus far, Rob. This is precisely why I don't build ships!

Thank you Gary and Bill, I completely understand what you mean Bill and I'm not sure, If I may follow your path soon. The only exception are wooden ships, I really enjoy to build. It's rewarding and more of a flowing process than this Arizona project, which is more of a fight sometimes.

Cheers Rob

[Peterpools]

Rob

I see your point and completely agree.

Too many modelers use a wide-angle lens on their camera or phone when photographing their work, which terribly distorts the subject as the area closest to the cameras is much larger (wider) then the rear. Focal lengths between 50-105 are perfect for model photography, as there is almost no distortion nor compression. I normally shoot at 70 mm so I have a little more working distance and when needed, I use a Nikon 105 Macro. 

I also do as you, use my photographs to check my work and see what needs to be corrected or I'm able to move on. I apologize for using the wrong terminology as there is a difference between close up and macro, I prefer close up for modeling, just a personal choice and works better for me.

I tend to get carried away when it comes to photography, as I spend many more hours with my cameras in the field, in post and printing then at the bench. I shouldn't let one passion become entwined with the other.

 

 

 

[DocRob]

1 hour ago, Peterpools said:

I see your point and completely agree.

Too many modelers use a wide-angle lens on their camera or phone when photographing their work, which terribly distorts the subject as the area closest to the cameras is much larger (wider) then the rear. Focal lengths between 50-105 are perfect for model photography, as there is almost no distortion nor compression. I normally shoot at 70 mm so I have a little more working distance and when needed, I use a Nikon 105 Macro. 

I also do as you, use my photographs to check my work and see what needs to be corrected or I'm able to move on. I apologize for using the wrong terminology as there is a difference between close up and macro, I prefer close up for modeling, just a personal choice and works better for me.

I tend to get carried away when it comes to photography, as I spend many more hours with my cameras in the field, in post and printing then at the bench. I shouldn't let one passion become entwined with the other.

Modeling and photographing are both passions of me, so feel free to write your thoughts about both, Peter. I have to admit, that I became sloppy when it came to digital photography and my old exploring spirit of analogue times never recovered full. I still experiment a lot with photography, but documenting my modeling steps, with the camera, I'm often a bit lazy, when it comes to perfect lighting, the best aperture or even the best setting and I never post process my pics, except for size reduction.
The X's and O's of photography are still etched into my DNA, but I would need more time to regain the experimenting spirit, I had earlier. 
Quality photography is important, documenting work in modelling, I think, because it's the only way to explain or judge, except using words. 

Cheers Rob

[Peterpools]

Rob

I enjoy your model photography - sharp, clear and so very well done. It's easy to see and appreciate your photographic technique and I always knew you were there. Yup, it's in your DNA. You might have lost a small bit of the edge but not much and your model photography is exceptional. 

As you, I've had a passion for photography since my early teens and have never stopped and love the X's and O's as much as the creative side. I went digital as it took hold and do love it as it allows a different approach and the post work is awesome - no darkroom and mess. I've always been a Nikon shooter but the past few years have also rediscovered film and shoot nearly as much film as I do digitally. My film camera of choice these days is a wonderful medium format Bronica ERTsi with three lens and assorted accessories. Heavy and getting heavier every year as I get older. Just so rewarding shooting film and doing everything manually and the old way. I do shoot manually with the Nikon as well, as I'm old school.

I know I go way overboard in how I do things and almost all my images I post on the forum are focused stacked from at least four, five or six files and stitched together in Photoshop - ridiculous I know but I do find it a lot of fun and no DOF issues. I don't spend much time on them, just wanting them to be sharp and clean.

Peter  

[DocRob]

I ran in some trouble again with the build up of the superstructure, as I realized, al compartments folded from PE have a 'roof'. I hadn't checked it and left a bit of the structure on the underside of the platforms as a guide line for the compartments. This was easy fixed for platforms one to three, but the top one was already finished with fragile PE and printed parts. On the pic you can see the underside before surgery.

Somehow I managed to get rid of the plastic without destroying the assembled parts, using a bench full of tools. Dabbing the sweat from my forehead, I continued with building up the superstructure, which is only stacked on the above pic.

Platform by platform, I continued, until this was done according to the manual. I hope all 'connections' to other component fit, which is very difficult to check beforehand.
Now this is what I achieved, I'm not entirely satisfied, but I'm still completely out of my comfort zone with this build. Slightly strange angles only depict the state of the art of American engineering scale wise .

After:

Before: (Find the 1247 differences )

Cheers Rob