Mel and Bob,

I'd go with gondola too. [snip]

Mel and Bob,

I'd go with gondola too. [snip]

I don't like acrylic because it doesn't/can't lay flat in most cases. I switched to Dullcoat against my better judgement.

    In the same age category I have some "Dullcote Lacquer" and a bottle of "Scalecoat" S51 flat glaze.  Lacquer is easy to deal with and I also have a couple of pints of Scalecoat thinner.  Will let you know when I do some samples.

-- 
Jon Miller
For me time stopped in 1941
Digitrax  Chief/Zephyr systems, 
SPROG, JMRI User
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS

I have used it for over 20 years and it has always been water based

    I don't agree with that.  Have Micro Coat Flat right in front of me.  Just smelled it.  It's an oil base paint.  It's been a while so I don't remember what I thinned it with.

    The new stuff says water or alcohol.  What I'm worried about is how flat is the new stuff.  Also read reviews (just some) that said it dried glossy which I'm worried about.  Will get some and just try it I guess.

-- 
Jon Miller
For me time stopped in 1941
Digitrax  Chief/Zephyr systems, 
SPROG, JMRI User
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS

Photo: DL&W 70793

Nice shot of this car. Is it a flat car or a gondola?

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-26-19/X6139.jpg

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA

Another video as part of the series I have been doing has been uploaded to YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQOr0CRinzM

This one is on M of W cars that I have been building.

Jack Burgess

From the Erie-Lackawanna list today:

 

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-28-19/X6844.jpg

 

Brian Rochon

Bob Webber wrote:

What is going to happen is that institutions selling photos, drawings and other things digitally will have to increasingly turn to software that blocks attempts to download, copy, and other wise use something.  Which will drive up costs and cut down on  usability, flexibility,  and customer satisfaction.  When some knowingly disregard promises they made, it hurts every body.

   Comments about abuse of licensing and permission are quite correct. But I think Bob is wrong about what institutions "are going to do." In fact, my impression is that many institutions have given up on this issue, and are increasingly posting uncontrolled images on the web. Selling digital images is a VERY low-income idea, and I suspect many are simply deciding to make images available. Otherwise they languish in darkness.

People have said $6 is too much to pay for an 8x10 print.  I'd dearly love to see how they propose to store stock and to visit shows on less.  It can not happen.  Smithsonian charges $50 - or more.  

        Of course this is entirely right. But those who charge huge prices, such as the Smithsonian, either believe they can get it because they have great material, or are trying to make images into a "profit center," as business schools faithfully teach you to do. I'd bet the profit is microscopic and shrinking.

Tony Thompson

tony@...

This is an issue with digital images - people *WILL* copy, share and post on the internet.  They have since the inception (which is one reason Microsoft's process is so convoluted and pricey now).  They will also copy & share things that were specifically and explicitly forbidden by the license they signed (same).

You may disagree with the concept, then you shouldn't sign the license (which is a whole issue unto itself with EULAs being printed in -5 pt script and running on for chapters).  

What is going to happen is that institutions selling photos, drawings and other things digitally will have to increasingly turn to software that blocks attempts to download, copy, and other wise use something.  Which will drive up costs and cut down on  usability, flexibility,  and customer satisfaction.  When some knowingly disregard promises they made, it hurts every body.

You may wish for better copies in PDF form (which isn't the best vehicle) and be able to ...well...make it portable (as the name implies) for your own purposes.  That is and likely will be fine.  It's the people who post such images on the internet (and or pass copies along to friends and manufacturers as their own) that kill offerings and drive up prices.  

I'd love to hear "solutions" (off-line or at Cocoa) as we have had to stop supplying some materials until some of this is resolved.  It *WILL* make images harder to view, it *WILL* make images harder to come by, it *WILL* result in "policing" - people insist that anything on the Internet must be free, and any material feeding it must be too. They also insist that anything they "own" is theirs to do with as they please.   That will kill more than you know.

People have said $6 is too much to pay for an 8x10 print.  I'd dearly love to see how they propose to store stock and to visit shows on less.  It can not happen.  Smithsonian charges $50 - or more.  Others do as well, mainly due to "pirates", but also to sensibly defray costs.  Feeling that it is the sellers problem (to pay for acquisition, maintenance, repair, and logistics) is simply uninformed or deliberately and willfully ignorant - and the reason many things available in the past & today will not be leaving archives - you'll have to visit them in order to look, and cameras and phones will not be allowed. 

At 10:44 AM 12/27/2019, Tim O'Connor wrote:

My issue with Kalmbach is their proprietary images - If the images were good quality in
a PDF format, I would get the entire MR/Trains/Classic/etc and load them onto my hard drive.

Bob Webber