I prefer accuracy in my models over the artistic. I have succumb to filling in panel lines on modern aircraft but am moving away from that.

There's no right or wrong. It's a matter of personal preferences.

"Lots of the weathering I see on model forums done on a/c are over done."

From the point of view of accuracy, sure. But that by no means puts it in the overdone category.

I agree with GM and mississippivol. Sometimes less weathering goes a long way.

I agree...most is overdone, when compared to the real thing.

For me though, most "clean" builds are not very interesting. There's also a line where overdone becomes OVERdone...then I'd rather see a clean build! A little goes a long way!

As GM said, there is no right or wrong way. Which do you want to model, a fresh aircraft off the assembly line, in between showing some use or a hard working one? I do agree that less is more so I tend to just show some use and try to be accurate working off from my reference material.

This reminds me of the "rust on tank tracks" debate :)

Not necessarily overdone, but weathered out of scale is what I usually see. Streaks or washes way too dark or the streaks or stains themselves too large. Or, the whole aircraft weathered heavily but no weathering of the tires, gear, or pylons and ordinance. 

I always go with accuracy over artistic.

Its all about personal preference, yes (my personal preference being realism), but honestly, Ive heard much more negative comments from modelers on exaggerated weathering than from a kit sticking with accuracy. In fact, most negative comments Ive heard about accurate builds stem from the fact that the commenter/s were mostly unaware that the finish was actually based on photos.

And yes, one can "overdo" weathering.  Ive seen a low-viz F-14 kit uniformly covered with patch up paint work (like the patchwork has become the camo itself), and quite a number of pre-shaded, post-shaded plane and helicopter kits sporting uniformly faded/oxidized paint.  One look and you know its overdone.  

I try to consider both.

To me the biggest accuracy issue is the plane with dozens of mission markings on it, but a pristine finish with no weathering.  Another issue is prominent black panel lines with little other weathering.  Painted aircraft usually show very subdued or even invisible fabrication seams, but may show access panel seams prominently.

Even bare metal finishes may not show much of fabrication seams- I have a new book showing some bare metal airplanes with virtually invisible seams-, but one can still see the panels due to different alloys or metal finishes on the various panels.

Weathering aircraft is always a sticky point I think.

I watched a you-tube video last night saying preshading is always wrong and you should only prime in black then use layers of paint to give a weathered look. Interesting points but I wasn't completely convinced.

As always in this we all know it comes down to if your happy with it then its right. I've personally never seen an aircraft as weathered as some people go but that doesnt mean its wrong.

Phil  

It's not a question of overdone or underdone - look at any aircraft and you'll see examples that are pristine, and examples that are beat to hell. Well, except for the F-106. I've never been able to find an example of one of those being anything other than just slightly not clean. 

It's a question of poorly done. Panel lines all uniformly shaded to the extent that the aircraft looks like something Burberry would sell. Heavy panel line shading but otherwise perfectly clean, smooth paint. Uniform "middle-out" fading in each and every panel. 

"There's no right or wrong" - eh, if that's the case, explain the Star Wars prequels. If you're going for a realistic depiction of a particular subject, you have an actual, objective goal post against which to judge it. 

It seems to me that a lot of "it's artistic expression" is an ex post facto thing. I mean, all the butthurt around dimensional accuracy, detail accuracy and color accuracy definitely points to a striving for realism, but then it gets chunked out the window when the painting and weathering start? 

If it's someone's goal to create a stylized finish that looks like it's been run through the HDR process a few too many times, great. More power to 'em. But in my experience modelers who explicity take that stance are relatively few and far between. A lot of what I see that would count as "overdone" strikes me more as just following the "established" weathering cookbook, as FJ says above.

I always for for "artistic" over "accurate". But that's not saying that the two are mutually exclusive. They're not. Neither is better, or worse. It just depends on what you're trying to say with your model, what audience you're trying to reach.

Modeling is not a one-dimensional hobby. There are those who build to create bone-stock representations in miniature, and those (like me) who model in order to convey an emotional or evocative message.

I am known for "heavy weathering". I do my models that way because, to me, it shows the rigorous and tough conditions that the vehicles operate in, but more so than that, the role that they play in the balance of the world. It's serious, deadly, impactful in so many ways. In another way, it complements the rough, masculine character of the man who man these machines of destruction.

It has been said on this forum by others that "real machines don't modulate" or something to that effect. However, that's missing the whole point. You're not building a real machine; you're "modeling" a miniature. And light does not act the same on a small model the way it does on a large, real 1:1 object. So you have to learn to reproduce what the human eye "sees" when it perceives a 1:! vehicle. ANd that involves adding shadows, highlights, washes, etc.

Just as you will always have modelers on both sides of the aisle making diametrically-opposite versions of any given model, you will have the same disparity between people in the audience and judges alike. Nobody's "right" of "wrong". There's just your opinion, and it's no more correct or in error than anyone else's.

DoogsATX

It seems to me that a lot of "it's artistic expression" is an ex post facto thing. I mean, all the butthurt around dimensional accuracy, detail accuracy and color accuracy definitely points to a striving for realism, but then it gets chunked out the window when the painting and weathering start? 

 

Probably the best argument Ive read so far.

Here's my mind set in general; a) museum quality display, b) ordinary wear and tear, c) distressed. Having the resources available now as opposed to my childhood has allowed me the opportunity to enhance my skills. I have 2 stashes, one to build and practice newly acquired techniques  and one for subjects that I will not touch until I am confident that my skills are honed enough to attempt. I am currently practicing the techniques of weathering on my "throwaways" in an attempt to get my better subjects to fall into the ordinary wear and tear category. The most pleasing builds,to me, are those that create a subtlety, a mere perception, of an effect on that subject. In trying to achieve this I believe that scale in all things is the most important trait that affects the finished product. I aim for museum quality by practicing distressing and applying to"in service".

Hey DoogATX, missed having you around! Hope you and the family are well. 

Funny a guy in our local IPMS club linked an article on your website the other day so I was thinking about you and wondering where you went! 

I don't think anyone has mentioned yet the impact that judging has on this, too.  That is, isn't there a certain look that judges expect to see, and it may not be as accurate as you might think when you're looking at your photo references of a subject.  I think that too many aircraft kits are finished with overly-shaded panel lines, for example, but that for those who compete, they may be working to their perception of the judges' expectations.

I see this in the figure world, where the European style of painting is popular.  You look at a figure and the face seems washed out, the colors are ashen or gray.  Apparently, this style produces a finish that looks good in a color photo in a magazine.  But it doesn't look real.  And yet, since many who judge at the shows paint to this style, they have a subtle bias towards the style.

Do you ever go to airshows to see how a plane weathers? It does not have to be a military a/c. Wear and weather is a universal bugaboo. You shoulda seen the Boeing CH47-D that landed at my airport. It was a 20 year old machine that just had been decommissioned from the U.S. Army but had acutally spent time in Brazil. That was one sorry looking thing. 

On those models with metalized finishes; you'll never see shaded panels, except if control surfaces or other small details are made of other materials. However, on real a/c the danger of dissimilar metal corrosion makes this a big no-no. 

Scale paint flaking is invisible to the naked eye at about 20'. That's why I call my Comanche a prom queen at 30'. 

The only panel lines are the gaps where control surfaces are. Even access panels that do wear would hardly be visible at scale distances. 

All that said, I envy the modeling skills of those who make weathered, dirty a/c. And I do especially like the looks. I'm still using chalks and mechanical drafting pencils because I can't master the airbrush. 

So I got a new Badger Anthem 155 this morning so I can  weather the tar out  of 'em. :)

Me, either!  Not to take away from those who like to compete, that's great, that's their choice.  But it's not for me.  And regarding references, I remember an incident from AMPS about 10 years ago, when it was held in Havre de Grace, MD.  A gentleman presented a model of an M1 Abrams in Desert Storm.  A judge was taking it apart (figuratively), pointing out inaccuracies, especially in the stowage and some field modifications.  He sniffed that "That's not correct" or words to that effect, and the builder was standing nearby.  He pointed out a binder full of reference photos and told the judge, "I know it's accurate-that's my tank."  The judge shrank down to about 2 inches and slunk away.

If I may refer back to figures, I look at photos of figures that Shep Paine painted, back in the day, or that Bill Horan painted, and others painting over the past 40 years.  And I note that they paint assuming natural light and natural colors, without caring about how the figure looks in a photo.  A photo will look like a photo looks.  But their pieces were all meant to be seen with the naked eye, and they look natural, or at least, they don't look washed out.  It's like looking at a painting or illustration in color.  The bias towards the washed-out style, "Kabuki style", a buddy of mine calls it, has even discouraged painters here from displaying their work or entering it in shows, because they feel that they will be discounted from the start.

i do modern armor and trucks and i don't weather a lot. unless i have a photo i am matching, they usually aren't beat up, rusted, or have a lot of paint chipping. usually its some pin washes and dust or mud. i will use appropriate colors but i try to find civilian applications so i can use oranges and yellows and blues or find an oddball camo scheme.

HAVING SAID THAT i go with artistic over 100% accurate. i like to do color modulation to base colors. i so oil filters and washes because i enjoy doing it and i really like to mix my own pastels for dust and dirt. i also like doing small bases for my builds.

the Baron

 

 

I see this in the figure world, where the European style of painting is popular.  You look at a figure and the face seems washed out, the colors are ashen or gray.  Apparently, this style produces a finish that looks good in a color photo in a magazine.  But it doesn't look real.

Zombie dio?

Comanche pilot

Do you ever go to airshows to see how a plane weathers? It does not have to be a military a/c. Wear and weather is a universal bugaboo.  

Very true. Although the Military does like to present its' best face to the public at air shows and will usually clean the snot out of any equipment displayed. Likewise for Warbirds owners. You don't see car shows with a 57 Bel Air looking like it just drove across the Sonora Desert. 

Comanche pilot

 

On those models with metalized finishes; you'll never see shaded panels, except if control surfaces or other small details are made of other materials. However, on real a/c the danger of dissimilar metal corrosion makes this a big no-no.  

Yet tonal differences in panels are seen quite commonly on NMF aircraft from late WWII until the early 60s when Aluminum Lacquer was reintroduced for corrosion control and sealing purposes.

Comanche pilot

The only panel lines are the gaps where control surfaces are. Even access panels that do wear would hardly be visible at scale distances.  

I think that depends upon the particular aircraft's service life and usage, as well as paint/color scheme. Some obviously will show more staining than others. This photo was taken at least 800 feet away (standard peace time drop altitude is 800 ft AGL- combat drops are done at 500 feet) yet many panel lines as well as control surfaces and access and gear door panels are visible here. In 1/48 that would be rougly 15 feet away...

All that aside, I dont do 100% artistic or 100% accurate for my weathering, but perhaps a 3 parts accuracy to 1 part artistry mix when weathering. I want to replicate as best I can the point in time that I am choosing to replicate on that particular build. Some show heavy use, others minimal. Depending upon what I turn up in research for my project.

the Baron

 "That's not correct" or words to that effect, and the builder was standing nearby.  He pointed out a binder full of reference photos and told the judge, "I know it's accurate-that's my tank."  The judge shrank down to about 2 inches and slunk away.

That reminds me about an incident I had at a car show where I was displaying my 1955 210 Chevy 2 door hartop. Some guy started talking crap that a 210 hardtop didn't exist and that it was all made up. He quickly hid under a rock when I stepped up, pulled out the GM documentation from the trunk and showed him the Vin Plate. Too many "experts" out there. 

Many years ago I found myself in southern Illinois just in time for the Scott AFB open house. I knew a guy, who knew a guy, so we went there early on a Saturday morning. 

There, amidst all the picture perfect Air Force aircraft, sat a F14. This baby was obviously just off the boat. She was at least seven different shades of gray owing to the corrosion control taking place while underway.

You know how that is, Seaman Doofus gets handed a can of spray paint and some steel wool. Rub, rub, spritz, spritz until the entire airplane looks like a "modern art masterpiece". 

I have photos somewhere, but that was two wives ago, so I'll pass on posting references for now. 

My point is, that to accurately model that Tomcat, depicting how she looked at that point in time, would probably make most folks say it was "overdone". 

But it wasn't.................

I think that many folks get caught up in the latest weathering fads that they do their builds out of context for how the real thing likely looked. A P-40 in North Africa is gonna hve a service life of less than a year, but will be in harsh sunny dusty climes for that time. An F-105 will be sitting in the south East Asia monsoon climate for a year or more (nearly half the production run becoming combat losses in over 3 years of hihg tempo ops). An F-111 in Europe will be sitting out of the weather in a Hardened Aircraft Shelter for years on end, armed on alert or flying training sorties and much less likely to show severe weathering over its' longer life span... And then there are carrier based aircraft...

Folks modelling them like that.

Yes I agree, but there is an entire segment of the population that doesn't know a Tomcat from a litterbox. 

That's the group that would look at an accurately finished post cruise airplane model and say WTF?

I know many car modelers, with no military background, that look at one of my weathered tank builds and just can't comprehend it.