I mean both as the viewer and also when you're putting a dio together what elements of composition do you think about?
I used to think it was enough to just have two vehicles on a base and that was a diorama now I try to incorporate different levels, differnt angles. I also want my dios to tell a story and I think about the moment in the story that the viewer is seeing.

Is it good to have a sub plot?

I've even started reading up on the Golden Section and the Fibonacci constant in terms of where I place my figures and vehicles in relation to one another and to the edges of the base. (With all that going on is it any wonder I rarely finish anything?)

Without making this a thread of everybody's favourite dios- what works for you? Or what are you trying to put across?

Hi Pat
Good thread. I have read all manner of suggestions and listened to much advice on composition.

For example, a prominent figure modeller once suggested never to include protagonists in the same space...i.e a figure should be firing at a distant unseen foe rather than one positioned in the same diorama. Cant say I totally agree, but there are no doubt composite points which aid a good diorama.

Early diorama work began as shadow box art, an enclosed boxed diorama where space and perspective could be manipulated. An unenclosed diorama, viewable from all sides adds complexity, where such manipulations are pretty much impossible. Makes the art more challenging, I suppose.

Cheers
Garth

Hello Pat, There are many aspects to a diorama. A good diorama should tell a story, but it need not be a "novel". The viewer should be able to tell what is going on. I remember one diorama that was supposed to depict a tank falling through the street into an underground factory. It was well constructed, painted, and very detailed. But, a lot of people, including me, upon seeing it, asked "How did a tank get on the roof of that building?". It was an idea that just didn't come off as intended. Originality can be important also, something out of the ordinary is more interesting. Of course finish and workmanship are important, but I have seen some dioramas that maybe weren't as technically well done as others, but were still more appealing to me. The one thing that lets down a diorama is poor composition. For example, a large diorama with everything on one side and a lot of dead space on the other. A tank on a base with a soldier walking alongside isn't a diorama. A tank on a base with two crewmen standing studying a map and pointing in two different directions arguing can be. Al

Yes Pat - most interesting. For me it's different each time.


When I did my 234/4 it was about an interrupted smoke break and the action (an aircraft) was not part of the scene. When I did my E-10 and T-34 it was about the vehicles being moving. When I did my Eastern Front dio I wanted a cold and depressing feeling.

I don’t think a lot about the story or theme, I get a general idea, then I start and let things form up as I go. I’m doing that with the E-5 I’m building right now which is a parts bin build so I throw in thing as I find them.

I do use most of the “standard diorama layout rules” such as:

angled to the base not square for visual tension
vertical background element for framing eg… tree, bldg, hill, etc…
odd not even numbers of objects
at least one figure for scale

Hope this helped but the diorama in definitely on the art side of the hobby (vs. the technical side) so I think there is no right or wrong answer.


Good Luck,
Tom

Hi Pat

Idea first.
Plan composition.
Then all the "tricks of the trade" to add interest, effect, experiment (don´t think Ive ever built a dio without experimenting on some idea/tip/inspiration piece/etc). You can add all the eye-candy in the world, but it won´t hide the lack of initial idea and composition.

This is my new plan (famous last word?) Too often in the past, I built a model, found suitable figure(s) and added a base ... and called it a diorama. I had great fun, but in hind-sight ... you soon start to realise what makes the difference between a "diorama" and a diorama. Unfortunately ... Ive made this same mistake all too often.

Great thread idea by the way. Hopefully more will chime in with thoughts and tips.

As far as what goes into a diorama I aim for something that doesn't need a lot of explanation as to what is being seen. I also have a golden rule that if I remove any vehicles the scene still makes sense. I've seen a lot of dioramas where things like drums and discarded equipment are used to fill dead spots but when you see photos of the base with no vehicle on it you see four little piles in each corner that on their own make no sense, as if there were four neat, even piles that the vehicle neatly parked inside of.

As for compostion I find that hard to quantify, I'm an architect by trade but have also worked in graphic art and 3D animation design so I tend to have an eye for balance which helps. I just think it's important for everything to work together as one object. I tend not to plan a diorama to fit a model but rather to design a complete unit from the ground up including vehicles, figures, buildings etc.

I'm currently in the preparatory stages of a diorama using 48 vehicles and 250+ figures so as part of the preperation I'm modelling it in 3D so I can fiddle with it in the virtual world before committing it to the physical world.

I distinguish between showing a vehicle on a base with some figures (what I have mostly done) and a diorama. For me a diorama should tell a story and not leave any open questions unless so desired by the builder. Otherwise I also know the basic rules: one focal point, no parallel lines to the base, etc.

Cheerio!

What makes a diorama work for me?
Now let's see....
First of all it should tell a story indeed. It should look as if the moment in time has frozen and the dio has been cut out of a larger scene. Suggesting that there is more then what you see is vital, I think.
There doesn't have to be 1 focal point; there can be more as long as they interact with each other in a way that makes sence.
I do not fully agree with avoiding the line of the frame and of the diorama being the same. It can work, but you have to make sure it doesn't look static.

What I really dislike are the Verlindendio's, as I call them. This means that the dio's are littered with ammo and guns and such. That is a cheap way of getting rid of "empty" areas and one that doesn't make much sence.
Also overcrowded/overfilled dio's are a big no-no for me. I believe in many cases "less is more"... and adding to many figures, vehicles and gear can be deadly to an otherwise good diorama.

What I really miss in diorama's is the thing that make "real life" work; emotion! Such as things as humor, sorrow, anger or joy, which will give a diorama life.

well, as a viewer, the thing that gets me in dioramas is when they imitate some sort of a "scene". You have the diorama in front of you, but there is something happening. what you (I) have in front of you is a "still picture" showing something like this, for an example https://armorama.kitmaker.net/forums/142793&page=1 . you get a look at something happening in the middle of a battle, while things are "still happening" (in the imagination, of course!). So, the diorama has neither beginning nor end: it's a captures scene from a much bigger thing.

I do not build dioramas and cannot comment on story or composition or figure placement. I do look at a lot of them and know what I don't like: everything covered in washed out earth tones. Military vehicles are drab things, painted drab colors, and covered in drab dirt. Most armor modelers take that palette of colors and apply it to _everything_. The resulting dioramas look washed out, dirty, and visually boring. I would much rather look at a well done tank standing watch in a beautiful spring meadow than stuck on a muddy road. Or parked in front of a brightly painted, intact building with civilians going about their business than a ruined one with drably painted soldiers everywhere. I like to see colors other than umber, sienna, tan, and faded green.

-Doug

I won't go into the larger aspects of composition and theme, as that is very much a personal choice, and others have written far better essays on those subjects (Sheperd Paine's book is a good place to start). I do like to see as much thought going into the textures and content of the ground work and debris as go into the model itself.
I, too, always disliked Francois Verlinden's tendency to scatter artillery shells and bits of equipment like an artist arranging fruit for a still life--it never made any sense (that and his absolute refusal to install slings on any infantry weapons).
And rubble should look very busy, with bits ranging from sections of wall, down to individual bricks, half bricks, and chips. The worst offenses can be avoided simply by visiting a demolition site. You'll be struck by how much gray cement dust there is on everything (at least until the first hard rain). And amidst all the brick and concrete, there are bits of twisted wire, fractured pipes, bent and crushed electrical conduit, wooden joists, steel beams, plaster and lathe, smashed bits of furniture, and lots of things that simply can't be identified at all. And if you are depicting a large demolished building, realize that all of those missing walls turn into mountains of rubble in real life. I despair every time I see a corner of a ruined Gothic church in a diorama on an otherwise empty street with a tank driving past with no trouble. Apparently the shoemaker's elves have hauled away hundreds of tons of material overnight.

My biggest thing with Dio's is that it has a "point" rather than just a display of the individuals building skills. I've seen so many great looking builds, but they simply lacked "heart" and "plot". What seems to work best for me is the interplay between the background (the base with whatever scenery is present), Human elements, and machinery. Too often one is overlooked in favor of another. The one thing that drives me nuts is when something is placed in a dio just to fill space with absolutely no rhyme or reason. Be it figure or fuel drum, if they don't fit the story or make sense then deep 6 em.

I'll go with everyone else on composition, storyline etc. but I prefer working on a round base and allowing the scene to be viewed from all sides. It necessitates a little thought in the planning stage but makes the viewing a bit more interesting in my opinion. The added benefit is when you get bored looking at the dio on a book shelve...quarter turn and you get a brand new perspective.
Cheers,
Charles

Some very good points have already been made, of course dioramas are a personal taste and everyone has their opinion of what they do and don't like, however, I think there are two more 'theoretical' rules that if followed should always produce a good scene:

1. The Vision
Before putting glue to plastic you should have a vision of the scene in your head. This can, and in fact will change slightly as the build progresses, but having that target for how the scene will look is important to make sure everything else falls into place correctly.

2. The story
Diorama's are supposed to tell a story and so you need to know yours inside out in order to portray it to others. It will also help you make every decision in your build. If you know where the AFV/person has been and where they are heading then you will be able to model/paint them accordingly, and things like the groundwork and weathering will relate directly to the story you have for the scene.

I always follow these two rules and they so far have served me well!

James

Assuming basic modeling skills are adequate or better , it's story, STORY, STORY.

It needs to be clear to the viewer without needing to know some esoteric or even well known historic event. A title should only be needed to give it some placement in time and space, but the viewer should know what's happening right away. If the builder has to give a lengthy explanation of what is supposed to be happening, the dio is a failure. A dio builder should never have to say, "Well, it could happen like that."

Think of your diorama as a written story. Each piece/figure is a sentence or a paragragh. You can write evocative sentences combined into precise paragraphs, but unless each one works well with the other sentences and paragraphs, you end up with word salad. That's the case with the dio Al Bubnis references above. Lots of individually excellent sentences and paragraphs but a disjointed story.

Elements MUST work together. If there's action/combat, people aiming guns, etc., every figure in the scene is a potential target and should be acting as such, taking cover, crouching. Adding a figure walking upright with his BAR at port arms when a guy next to him is aiming his M1 makes no sense.

Research your subject. Don't have a guy standing immediately behind a TOW launcher, RPG or bazooka that's about to be fired. Don't have figures under the muzzle of a tank in combat. Think about how a piece of equiopment got where it is and how it will work and what, if any, effect it will have on its surroundings when used.

Consider where your figures are placed in relationship to other elements. If they're moving, where were they an instant before and where will they be in the next instant? Did they just walk through a solid wall or are they about to run into the side of a tank? Not all sitting figures are the same. A figure sculpted to be seated as a driver will have his legs at a different angle than one dangling his feet off a wall.

It's good to know rules of composition and how to draw a viewer into a scene. Don't have every figure looking in all different directions. Have them looking AT something. That said, it's okay yo have one figure looking out to help engage the viewer. Try to have straight lines pull the viewer to the central focus of the scene.

It's good to study the layout of well accepted artists or to attend stage plays and observe how the actors are placed on the stage by the director. Note how the various elements bring you into the scene, Generally, hard, straight lines across the scene act as an emotional barrier while the same element placed at an angle will bring you in.

But after it's all said and done, it still comes back to the story.

I gues I agree with there having to be a focal point in combat scenes. But what about non-combat scenes? Consider some soldiers taking a rest at a building... or setting up some kind of defensive position. Then you could have different soldiers doing different things. A couple checking their weapons. On guy maybe drinking.. another boiling water for some tea.. etc. Would something like that make a bad dio then because it doesn't have one focal point all the figures are concentrating on?

As for what I like in dios... well, I like the scene to make sense in general. I also like the attention to all the small details that sometimes people might overlook. Where and how the figures in the dio leave their weapons. Where they are pointed if marching or sitting. Like Al said, no one standing behind a guy who is about to fire an RPG... which I did see once in a dio on another site!

As for my own work, I first imagine a certain scene or situation for a certain vehicle, then I look for whatever buildings or trees that fit what I have in mind, then I make a rough drawing just to see if the scene works and is "doable". Sometimes the idea sounds good in my head, but I start to draw it out and it seems too big or complicated so I forget about it. And finally, I try to imagine myself as one of the figures in the scene and think of how I might be feeling or doing in such a situation.

Good post, by the way. Good to hear people's views and ideas.

Hisham

Just my $1.50.
Been through the entire gauntlet of what should or shouldn’t be.

My rules of thumb, if using a photo, (which is the way I prefer building a diorama) make sure that if it’s in the photo it’s in the diorama. If adding more out of frame so to speak, make it like it should be then blow it up, at least you know all the parts are there.

I see a destroyed house and expect to see shingles, furniture, personal items, etc… did they move to Sweden before the battle took place or what?

If you build a wall with a chunk blown out of it build the chunk blown out, then break it up. Even if you have to build individual bricks to do it

Problems occur when proper research is not done and/or it is labeled incorrectly. Don’t call it Tarawa and use black sand and no sea wall. Don’t call it Holland and use a windmill found in Italy.

Dioramas require more research because you’re modeling a location not just the tank that passed through it.

One other finer point to make is when you go through the trouble of counting bricks, furniture, roof shingles, place it all out as perfect as you can, spending months constructing the thing, provide a book with all the references so people can see everything you’ve done. Then have someone say “The sand is the wrong color.”
That’s why they don’t allow hidden weapons at the contests.
Bob

Hello

Three things needed

A.story
B.story
C.story
look at your favorite dioramas...99% all tell a story.

I like a dio to tell me a story. After that, it should have a "flow" to it. Drawing the eye to an area of action - aka "the story". I like balance on the scenery. Having all the tall items to one edge does not appeal to me unless it is the back drop or "stage" for the action in the story.

A difficult task is finding the right amount of "clutter". Spacing this the major items too close or too far away can ruin the flow. I like a compact dio, but sometimes you have to spread it out.

I also like little surprises in a diorama. Small animals eavesdropping on the action. The enemy sneaking up on the unsuspecting.

Sub-stories are fine, as long as they are part of the whole theme. Like chapters in a book.

Large, sprawling dioramas are impressive - when done right, but many times the dio relies on the size rather than the substance. A large dock scene is impressive, but what is the story? Even if the build quality is good, there has to be more.

I always like reproduced photographs. You only have one view to use as reference, and the rest is interpreted.

In the end, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Wow, great responses, sorry it took me so long to get back to a thread that I started but my PC is down so I'm graabing a few minutes of internet time in an internet cafe.

Lots of great points but Yes it does all come back to story, even if a modeler doesn't have great skills people will be forgiving of that if he tells a great story. For me increasingly I'm coming around to the idea of less is more.
I think a dio can have more than one focal point as a movie can have a main and a sub plot.

I like big dios- as long as they tell a story but last year at Euro Militaire I saw big dios that showed off the modelers impressive skills but there was no real point to them.

Having said that I'm planning a big dio for the Miniart building Campaign next year.

As for rules as we all know they were made to......be broken. the challenge is to break them and still make it work.

Having built lots of dioramas I find there are two kinds. 1 - simple representation types and 2 - story telling dioramas.

I prefer the story types. These have to have a central theme and story and are born from an idea and not a model.
Simple representations need accuracy because they are simply trying to put context on a subject and not necessarily telling a story.
For both of these details, details, details separate a good diorama from a great diorama. Solid execution is a must. The best story and the most creative scene can be destroyed by a seam line on an arm or a gap in armor plate.
I like 'easter eggs' too, when a hidden nugget is in a diorama, a rabit hidden in the bushes, or a figure hiding behind a tree, or a poster that is actually the builders face....

i look at diorama building as an art , like painting and photography ,
you are working with elements to portray a story ( the better ones do anyway )

and once you start getting into building at the higher level you are working with a lot of art techniques some that are obvious like composition but some of wich that are not as obvious ( like negative space for example ) may be worked with unconciously but as a gift to work out where things are laid out

i like examples that can manage to show a good artistic layout of more or less factual events

spot on historical acuracy such as colours rivet counting and exacting equipment spec come as secondary to me

telling a story and a good layout are the most important to myself

For once I have to disagree with you Scott, i hate that. that's the reason why at every show you've got 3 'shh' kind of dioramas with a German guy hiding in some diorama corner.
if you have to get more than 12 words to explain the story of the diorama, that's not a good story.

To me a diorama has got to tell some sort of story. It doesn't have be Shakespeare or overly dramatic. Some of my favorites are simple "day-in-the-life" kinds of scene's. And I always enjoy well executed humor. That story more often than not comes from the figures, not the vehicles. Posing vehicles on a diorama base is all well and fine, but to me that isn't a diorama its just a vehicle display. The vehicles (if any are used) help set the scene, but they usually don't tell the story.

My preference is also to keep it simple. I don't like dio's where there's lots of (usually unrelated) stuff going on here and there. One story with perhaps a bit of comic relief or curiousity on the side to tease the really observent is perfect.

I relate to what Gerald Owenshas to say about the random melancholy of strewn debris completely covered in cement dust.

I was in NYC on 9/11 and saw plenty of that first hand.




Upon further reflection, I guess some of my own personal melancholy is showing through tonite.

Apologies to all....