Level of obsession with paint shade accuracy

A very subjective topic of debate indeed,

Yes objects tend to take a blue tint when viewed at a distance, a good example is viewing foothills against the mountains. The further the hill the lighter blue the hue looks.

Yes the smaller the scale the lighter the hue should be, this again is up for debate. Many add white to the color to achieve this effect or 'scale effect'

No exact shades & hues are scrutinized at major contests unless they are totally off. 

No green paint should not be made lighter with yellow, No yellow is not a suitable color to dry brush said green paint. A good choice is light tan.

No Panzer gray does not look 'blue' in scale nor does dark gray fade to blue when subjected to the elements. This is a trend with 'artistic merit' it does look cool yet it can detract from realism if over done.

Yes many modelers obsess with exact shades. Yes they should if it allows them to be satisfied with their own work.

No they should not scrutinize others work based on the tint or hue of color that chose to use. A good point in another thread was 'Unless you were standing on the _______'s deck?...'

I do armour, & Start with the bottle of O/D I have to hand....

Everything else is opinion and/or OCD?

I flirt with this obsession every time I head into a build, but usually bail on it before I even hit primer. 

Unless the paint is a very modern paint, Desert Storm or later, the paints began to age as soon as they were rolled out of the shop.  Planes and ships spend much time exposed to the elements, especially sunlight with its UV rays that were deadly to older paints.  After a couple of weeks the hue and saturation of a paint depended much on what theatre of operation, time of year, etc.  Since I tend to weather a lot, I don't worry too much about the initial hue.

Photos in books and mags are not as good a reference as many assume.  Many things affect the color that comes from printing presses.

Nope...right out of the jar for me if it is close it works. I have too many other OCD things to worry about.

I don't worry about paint hue too much. Being a college kid, I have limited funds available to spend on my hobby, so I normally use what colors I have on hand and mix them to a shade that seems close. It's the TLAR method for me!

TLAR = that looks about right*

I don't obsess too much about the technique....

not much concern unless kit is to be entered in a contest

CallSignOWL

 

TLAR = that looks about right*

I usually use the colors recomended in the instructions... or as close to it as I can...

I try to be close,,, but again.. once the other"stuff" is added.. the base color gets "lost:"...

References can be a pain. The ink of paper in books is not identical to the actual paint just as the colours of the image on a computer screen are not identical.

I do have some paint chip charts that are handy from Humbrols and Polly S. Not much help if not using THEIR paints from the same batch used to make the charts though.

I have in the past created my own paint chip charts to show me what my paints look like atomized from my air brush. But you need to store them out of direct sun light sources too.

I'll never chime in on this question but just had to come and look to see how many worms have escaped the can already.  Not too bad... yet.

I use Model Master enamels mostly out of the jar.  I do some mixing (and I keep notes on proportions, etc for future reference), but colors, especially on German panzers is a variable thing. 

Its our money, our build.  I tend to go with the "looks right" standard of evaluation.  Obsessing over shades of colors is akin to counting rivets and bolt holes on road wheels.  Some people need a life.

I use the hand grenade approach. Close is good enough.

Unless the subject is being displayed in pristine condition, that is, it just came off the assembly line I don't bother.  With the various techniques being used, pre-shading, post-shading, washes, filters, pastels, etc. I don't think it would matter that much.

regards,

Jack

I rarely freak out over it. Unless I am trying to replicate a specific subject, that has an EXACT shade of paint, I go with a color that's close. People rarely, if ever, notice, especially because fading paint, dirt, scratches, and a whole host of variables affect the result.

Don Stauffer

Photos in books and mags are not as good a reference as many assume.  Many things affect the color that comes from printing presses.

Great point and I should know being in the media business. Customers automatically assume that what they see on white paper will look the same when printed on newsprint. Uh, no. Then don't get me started on RGB and CMYK.

That all being said, I try to get as close as I can to the described color. Like others have said, weathering will alter the original color anyways, so complete accuracy is pretty impossible to achieve.

Even with Desert Storm colors, nothing was ever standardized.  I've played with variations of Desert Sand/Gulf War Sand (Testors) and mixing FS colors.

But let me give you my sense of perspective on this.

20 years ago I deployed to the Gulf as part of the 2^nd Armored Cavalry Regiment.  And one of the first things we did when our armor arrived was to paint them in Desert colors.  With CARC (Chemical Agent Resistant Coating), which was designed to prevent chemical agents from bonding to our existing paint.

Now a word about the painting procedure. It was more than just painting over the woodland camouflage.  First, the whole vehicle was coated in zinc phosphate.  Then, a primer was put on and left to dry.  The CARC was then sprayed (or rollered on).  The actual procedure would have reminded you of the various color schemes of ME-109’s in the field.  How’s it look, Ernst?  Looks good to me, Hauptmann.

There were many variations of color during Desert Storm.  What was dark tan for 3 ID was different from the pinkish tan of the 4/2 helicopters.  Depending on the mixture, procedure followed (sometimes no primer was used) and underlying colors, it could vary in color quite a bit, even in vehicles of the same battalion.

With that in mind, don’t stress to much about whether the color is “accurate.”

There is one other thing that occurred in the desert that should help relieve your PMRS.  

Many of the vehicles were painted in Al Jubayl, the Saudi port where our VII Corps off-loaded.  The 325^th Maintenance did a lot of the painting work, mostly with sprayers who wore respirators, and operated a high-tech painting rack.

But our Regiment had already moved out into the desert in order to provide screening for the rest of VII Corps.  When it came time to paint our armor, we had to use local contractors for our 300 tanks and IFV’s.

As a young and cautious Captain, I watched the whole thing from upwind. Our contractor wanted to make it like a car wash.  He built this metal contraption with sprayers on three sides. All we had to do was button up the driver and have him follow radio instructions as he moved forward. (All glass was taped up so he couldn’t see.)  

However, in actual use the CARC clogged up the sprayers pretty quickly.  So it was necessary to put civilians to work and spray the armor by hand, and sometimes with brushes and rollers.

None of the Saudi’s wore masks.  There weren’t any available. After awhile, some of them started spitting up blood.  They would be pulled off the line, and replaced with new people.  Others would start hacking and coughing up mucous.  They were not removed from the line until their work became uneven.

After a week, we had all the vehicles painted.  We’ll never know how many Saudi’s suffered debilitating illness because of it.

So the next time you have problems with a clogged nozzle, or your tan isn’t quite the right shade, remember what it took to paint the armor in the field. 

Oh, and use a paint booth. And maybe a mask.

Very rarely do I custom mix a color. Otherwise I just use what is out of the bottle/tin for the color specified in the instructions. That being said, the are certain colors I prefer, just as a matter of personal choice. For OD, with all its variations, I like certain brand shades over others for particular eras. And has already been pointed out real stuff weathers once in use. I saw much of that firsthand in my own Army career on MERDC, Tri Color, Desert CARC, and other schemes. And as above, once model weathering starts, the original paint shade is lost anyways... In a nutshell, I find a base color that Ilike and think looks right, out of the bottle, and go from there...

stcat

Even with Desert Storm colors, nothing was ever standardized.  I've played with variations of Desert Sand/Gulf War Sand (Testors) and mixing FS colors.

 

But let me give you my sense of perspective on this.

 

20 years ago I deployed to the Gulf as part of the 2^nd Armored Cavalry Regiment.  And one of the first things we did when our armor arrived was to paint them in Desert colors.  With CARC (Chemical Agent Resistant Coating), which was designed to prevent chemical agents from bonding to our existing paint.

 

Now a word about the painting procedure. It was more than just painting over the woodland camouflage.  First, the whole vehicle was coated in zinc phosphate.  Then, a primer was put on and left to dry.  The CARC was then sprayed (or rollered on).  The actual procedure would have reminded you of the various color schemes of ME-109’s in the field.  How’s it look, Ernst?  Looks good to me, Hauptmann.

 

There were many variations of color during Desert Storm.  What was dark tan for 3 ID was different from the pinkish tan of the 4/2 helicopters.  Depending on the mixture, procedure followed (sometimes no primer was used) and underlying colors, it could vary in color quite a bit, even in vehicles of the same battalion.

 

With that in mind, don’t stress to much about whether the color is “accurate.”

 

There is one other thing that occurred in the desert that should help relieve your PMRS.  

 

Many of the vehicles were painted in Al Jubayl, the Saudi port where our VII Corps off-loaded.  The 325^th Maintenance did a lot of the painting work, mostly with sprayers who wore respirators, and operated a high-tech painting rack.

 

But our Regiment had already moved out into the desert in order to provide screening for the rest of VII Corps.  When it came time to paint our armor, we had to use local contractors for our 300 tanks and IFV’s.

 

As a young and cautious Captain, I watched the whole thing from upwind. Our contractor wanted to make it like a car wash.  He built this metal contraption with sprayers on three sides. All we had to do was button up the driver and have him follow radio instructions as he moved forward. (All glass was taped up so he couldn’t see.)  

 

However, in actual use the CARC clogged up the sprayers pretty quickly.  So it was necessary to put civilians to work and spray the armor by hand, and sometimes with brushes and rollers.

 

None of the Saudi’s wore masks.  There weren’t any available. After awhile, some of them started spitting up blood.  They would be pulled off the line, and replaced with new people.  Others would start hacking and coughing up mucous.  They were not removed from the line until their work became uneven.

 

After a week, we had all the vehicles painted.  We’ll never know how many Saudi’s suffered debilitating illness because of it.

 

So the next time you have problems with a clogged nozzle, or your tan isn’t quite the right shade, remember what it took to paint the armor in the field. 

 

Oh, and use a paint booth. And maybe a mask.

A friend of mine was with the RAF in Saudi during that same time. They ran out of their "official" paint and started using house paint, which would only last one mission before the sand and wind would scour the paint off. They used paint rollers to repaint, and the adherence to the official paint chip was shall we say a bit footloose? If you built a Tornado and a Typhoon and painted one tan and one pink, you would be more accurate than a slavish adherence to the standard.

Now we just need to convince some of these contest judges...

I use the same criteria as they did when they came out of the factory/production line.....

CLOSE ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK....

C

carsanab

I use the same criteria as they did when they came out of the factory/production line.....

CLOSE ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK....

C

In this case...literally

There’s an exception that no one has mentioned, one that has bitten me on the butt more than once, so I thought I might bring it up for discussion: SPACE.

The problem can be summed-up with a variant of that old tagline: IN SPACE NO ONE CAN HEAR YOU SCREAM that the color looks wrong (because it does!). Color modulation, scale color, all the rest — they all assume that that you have this flimsy thing called “air” and when you don’t… (It’s what logicians call an unstated assumption.)

I know this isn’t going to thrill you rivet-counters, but this is a two-headed snake: When the real image looks fake:

How to make the fake look real? (As this doesn’t:)

This isn’t a question; it’s just something SF and Space modelers have to deal with, more than most. It’s a piece of a larger topic: what do you do when what’s photographically accurate just doesn’t look believable (AKA Hollywood vs. reality).

What fascinates me are people who obsess over ancient photos and try to exactly match the paint to the photo.

That seems flawed to me for several reasons. First of all, the photo has faded. Say it is a WWII photo, that is around 70 years of sitting (probably in someone's attic at best) wearing on the photo, or slide, or negative. Secondly, early color film had a pretty noticeable color shift. Look at something shot on Kodachrome, Ektachrome, or even a Technicolor movie if you have any doubt. These mediums all produce beautiful colors, however, they are not a perfect reproduction of reality.

As for me, I don't really obsess much at all. If it looks right, it's good enough for me. I don't compete.

Far too many variables to consider. The elements, method of application, variation within the same manufacturer, etc. Approximate shade is good enough for me.

You'd better obsess about it, lest the paint police knock on your door.

Another thought that comes to mind in this discussion is mixing paint.  I have some buddies that will not build a model unless they can buy the correct shade of paint in a bottle.  There is nothing wrong with mixing your own colors, as long as you stay within the same brand and type (do not mix acrylics and enamels, for instance).

The human eye is actually a pretty good color matcher if you have a reference (within the limits of what I have already said about accuracy of printed photos).  If you are reluctant to try it, pick up a book on oil or acrylic painting at a library, and maybe even buy a color wheel at an art store.  Mixing your own paint opens up a whole world of new colors.

One simple mix is adding a little flat white, flat gray, or flat tan to flat black to make a more realistic tire color.  Give that a try as an intro to mixing your own colors.

TLAR is a good one, as is my favorite, "DILLIGAF", when Rivet-Counters strike... Even made a smilie for 'em..

It translates to "Does It Look Like I Give A "F"(F-word here)?"

My concern for the right shade of O/D was cured after seeing a photo of a B17 that looked like it had been painted up using about six different shades....and thats before thinking about how the tint in the picture might have changed.

Reading about painting during Desert Storm also confirms your chances of getting 100% perfection are nil.

IMO does it look right... after reading up about it ? The main thing to watch is kit color schemes as they ll be geared into convenient paint colors which might not be right.(Was it was Revell who years ago had box art with a P51D with a lot of red, which should have been O/D (tho that may ve been correct in the instructions)?  Im sure Ive built US Navy planes with the undersides shown as white.