May issue, Kit Reviews

The review models did look like toys. I am less likely to buy a kit reviewed in the mag when the sample looks like a poorly produced cheap Chinese toy. What the hell happened?

SST

I like seeing the "professional looking paintjobs" myself although that is not what I base my opinion of the kit on. As I know that I would not expect my models to look like the reviews due to everyone has their own style & methods. I look at the lines,details and overall presentation of the kit. Also important is the pro and cons that the builder comments on. Also I keep in mind that these guys are most likely  under the gun to get the kits done.

I have to say that some of the models in the kit review section recently have struck me as looking sort of...well, basic.  Especially the ships.

On the other hand, the purpose of a kit review, as I understand it, is to show the readership (including me) what the kit is like, as objectively as possible.  I believe there's a statement at the beginning of the column to the effect that all models illustrated are built "from the box."  I agree with that policy.  I'm always interested in seeing how a good modeler can improve and "personalize" a kit, through creative paint jobs, weathering, aftermarket parts, etc., but there are other places for articles about that sort of thing.  What I'm looking for in a review is an accurate description of the product.

I do have one question about that "dot filtering" technique.  I really like the effect; I'm primarily a ship modeler, but I think it may have some applications in that field.  What I don't quite understand is the terminology.  In what sense do those dots constitute "filters"?

Hi guys,

Thought I'd chime in briefly on behalf of our intrepid Workbench Review modelers. In fairness, I must tell you they're supposed to keep it basic. They build only what's in the box, and if they do add anything (such as rigging), they're supposed to mention it. These fellows contribute only in their spare time, so deadlines can be a factor, but they also have instructions to make no major modifications. All of them are top-notch builders, but they're not after trophies on this trip -- only a no-frills, honest look at what comes out of the box. Also, do keep scale in mind when you look at the pictures. In May, a couple of the models were greatly magnified by the pictures -- great for detail, but a little rough on the modeler's ego!

Regarding jtilley's question on the derivation of the term "dot filters," the "dots" are  multicolored dabs of paint applied to a base coat. Then, with a brush wet with thinner, the dots are blended together and mostly wiped away. The thin, colored coat that remains "filters" the base color -- like tinted glass, for example, but much more subtle -- lending warmth and textural depth to a monochromatic surface, or "bleaching" a painted surface as sunlight would. To see another example, look at Dennis Gerber's "waist gunner" vignette in last April's FSM.

And, yes, filters definitely have maritime modeling applications. They would be a great way to depict subtle shading on hulls and decks, which often are painted one color but never really look that way.

This technique is old hat to classic artists, but a relatively new technique to scale modelers -- please be assured it will come up again.

Most of all, thanks for reading.

Mark

Im pretty new here,but thought id give my opinion on the mag.Now iv been avoiding it,because i got the impression that it was a real fine scale and detail mag,for very experienced modellers.But i got the april issue,and was really pleasantly surprised as to how well it comes across to a basic modeller like me,and i cant wait for mays issue,but my local whsmith still has a couple of aprils on the shelf,and no may issues,so im patiantly looking out for it.Ill be a regular reader from now on i think,great mag,enjoy it very much.

I know its not always easy (I write reviews myself, but not for FSM) but the quality of reviews in FSM does seem to have deteriorated slightly of late. In the Revell Germany Lancaster review in the May edition, for example, no mention is made of the biggest single - and most noticeable - error, the over-shallow dihedral on the outer wings (is 2 degrees, should be 7). There have been a number of comparable errors in reviews in recent editions.

I don't have a problem with the models looking toy-like or too clean. Reviews are about the kit, not about the reviewer's modelling skills, beyond their ability to produce an accurate, clean, blemish-free model. Thus, the review model of the Tamiya 1/700 HMS Repulse does look too clean and toy-like, but that's how it would look, built OOB and according to the kit instructions. It would certainly have been wrong to have added any aftermarket, such as etch.

Cheers,

Chris.