I usually don't pay attention to these type of arguments, but I always thought a good artist was one who is good at bringing out "realism, or in other word, making the subject look real, which would in turn make it look more accurate, right? In other words, I never understood why a "clean" looking model is viewed as more accurate than a nicely weathered one. To answer your survey, I always weather my models to some degree; exhaust stains on a piston WW 2 fighter are almost a must. I use oil washes, some more stark than others, and fade and vary the cammo to some degree. Whatever method I use, try to keep it looking in scale with the model; i.e. No black washes on a light gray airplane, and no patch work of perfectly parallel pershade or postshade lines. 

I would consider myself more as an "Artistic" type.  I'm thinking about my last three builds.  They were each stand-alone models without any kind of diorama base or figures.  They are built to represent subjects on my shelf, so they should look good on my shelf.  However, I don't want them looking plain or fake on my shelf.  They each recieved some weathering, but only what I thought was appropriate for the subject and my shelf.  I took more artistic license with model weathering, than I concerned myself with realism in weathering.  

This is how I've been for the last three builds, but I am always trying to improve, change, evolve, switch-things-up.  I think most modelers do that, and I'm sure each modelers' view of artistic vs realism evolves as well.  

Chris 

Well Karl,

 I do what ever it takes to make my subject look real
as in a "moment of time” -  just like a picture.  Being that I
follow no particular style, I spontaneously go with what I feel is needed (most always “old school”) to get the look I want.

With that being said, I would have to say I'm definitely the old school artistic type.

 It's just a hobby to me - something I do when I feel like it and done the way I want to...... and never in a rush.
                                   

 I'll soon be putting up a project that will again clearly demonstrate how I do things and the results that I get with being impulsive. Most of you here are familiar with how I do things and know I try to make it entertaining for all.

  I hope ya'll find it interesting when it's completed in it's entirety.

Hello!

That's a nice discussion topic - like a one that can't be defitely concluded, so you can talk about it for generations...

I'd say I'm about accurracy - for me that's what modelling is about. Of course you have your Fantasy, Sci-Fi and the likes, but whatever is being done as a model, my requirement is that it should be internally consistent. Let's say it's a "paper panzer" - we'd probably all agree that it would be "wrong" to model the top of it very dirty while the tracks were squeaky clean.

Now there are those filters, pre-made washes, oils, pigments - and ads that try to tell you you just have to use 'em. I personally don't use those products - almost. Instead I try to get a period photo or two of the subject I'm modelling and duplicate the look using whatever works. For me accuracy means stay in touch with the real thing. Surprisingly it's very hard to find good colour photo showing the way the tracks of tanks in Vietnam really weathered - and if you do it turns out it depends very much on the type of soil that was present where that tank operated. It will look different in an Army tank operating on red clay, and different on a Marine tank operating along the beaches of Chu Lai.

Sometimes I also see people wanting to model something very much, but having no references to back it. That's when it's easy to make a mistake, lose the consistency, losing accuracy. It really pays to wait for those references, the models get better that way.

In the end an accurate model can be also pretty in it's own way anyhow, so that "artistic vs. accuracy" thing isn't a real conflict. So it's all about what you want to model - do you want to use Kit A or try Technique B? Or do you have a nice period photo and try to reproduce it as a dio? I think that's the difference we're talking about here.

Let me post two photos here, of my Duster, made almost "to specs" of a Vietnam Veteran who was it's TC in Khe Sanh and also supplied me with photos of the machine. Please decide for yourselves if that model is "accurate" or "artistic":

Thanks for reading and good luck with your modelling projects, have a nice day

Paweł

Guys, thanks for your responses! Nice to hear from you---please, keep the responses coming in!

Karl, art and beauty is definately in the eye of the beyholder. One person will see a wrong mantlet while another would say a figure posing a certain way would really help. First I think that anything that's thought provoking in a model or diorama is artistic, its just a matter of degrees. I've always thought of what we do "is" art because ten people can take the same kit and there will be 10 different outcomes, and great art is when you take any part of a model and if it stands on its own, thats really "good" art. The accurate guys are going after a different look, I think they want everything historically correct, who can fault them for that. So maybe these two words are inter-related because theres room here for everybody.  

Great subject.

Terry

I dunno if I belong here or even where I'd come on the chart. I like to add some pre-shading and colour modulation but I shy away from large amounts of rust and chipped paint. I guess I'd say I see all the techniques as a large buffet, I move back and forth picking out one here and one there trying different stuff out to see how I like it. I suppose in time maybe I'll settle on something or the other but it's too much fun right now trying out everything. 

disastermaster

Well Karl,

 I do what ever it takes to make my subject look real
as in a "moment of time” -  just like a picture.  Being that I
follow no particular style, I spontaneously go with what I feel is needed (most always “old school”) to get the look I want.

With that being said, I would have to say I'm definitely the old school artistic type.

 It's just a hobby to me - something I do when I feel like it and done the way I want to...... and never in a rush.                                

 

Pretty much describes me. I usually wing it and see how the build develops.

I like to peruse as many photos as I can find. I then take the vehicle as is depicted in said photos, the theatre in which it served and put it all together to create a 3D piece of history.

I use what ever I have available to replicate the look I want. I have no fear of stripping something to bare plastic and starting over if I feel I need to.

I feel wear and tear must look reasonable. Crew activity, normal operation and combat all lend their own unique aspects to the overall appearence. 

I don't think I lean either way, my builds fall under the "artform" catagory. 

My feet are firmly in the realistic camp but with the understanding that i may use artictic licence to achieve what i want. But sticking to a line of procedure is not what realisim is about. By sticking to the same procedure, it seems to me you end up with the same results. Building for a realistic result will require you to acheive differant results depending on the build, so a differant procedure.

A factory fresh finish can be as relistic as a very dirty well worn one. And to achieve the result we want, we may often turn to the same tools as those who wnat an artistic finish. Correct, there are no filters in the motor pool (or MT as we say in English ). But then again, my plastic model has not been driven round a battle field or sat out in the sun and ran, so we need to use aristic licence to replicate this. It no differant to replicating painted on markings with decals.

And rust and chiping should never be a no no, metal does chip and it does rust. But it all depends on how much you apply it. I think there can be a fine line betwen realistic and artistic, and artictic finish seem, at least to me, to be realistic finishes but taken further.

I have no idea what old school is, but i have no issues with useing some of the more recent methods and tools, many of which we have the artistic crowd to thank for, to get the realisim i wish to achieve.

I am an accuracy guy with minimal weathering since i was in a helo squadron in the Navy and washed our birds often.I look for referance photos to see how much any a/c gets dirty that i am going to build and follow the K.I.S.S. method.

Guys,

This is great---good responses. all, and a wealth of opinion and information to help me flesh out this premise that I'm working on.

I'm currently working on a project that will attempt to show the differences between "accurate" vs "artistic" painting styles.

However, it is necessary to FIRST accurately ascertain what exactly is meant by an "accurate finish". When I asked "Is it necessarily 'old school'", what I am asking is, is an "accurate finish" generally predicated on the old standard of "base coat + washes + drybrushing = finished"? You know, without filters, without panel shading, without "alll that jazz"? Are those techinques "taboo" to a builder who is more drawn to the "accurate" camp?

These questions are important, because I want to avoid any hint or suggestion of a condescending tone when comparing the two. At this point,  these new techniques are very often spoken of as "advanced" techniques, and so it's perilously easy to unintentionally insinuate that an "accurate" builder who intentionally declines to use them is somwhow lacking in skill or initiative. I want to avoid that inference at all costs, and I should state here that I DO NOT hold that view anyway, but I think that soime people could defensively take it that way if I extol what I see as the "virtues" of these techniques.

Thanks for your input, everyone. The more of you that give a comment here, the wiser I become on the subject, and the more representative and accurate the article should be. Thank you for contributing here.

This may not answer the question directly but I tend to look at any project be it a figure, a piece of armor, aircraft or ship model as an exercise of imparting a three dimensional appearance to whatever it is. I am primarily interested in figure sculpting and painting so I have always used shading and highlighting as the basis for all finishes. Base coat - dark shade - highlights then go back and blend.. Oil paint and brushes for figures, airbrush and acrylics for hardware. Weathering is usually washes where appropriate and dry brushing. The environment that the original existed in determines the amount of wear and tear weathering such as paint chips, rust, etc.... I personally feel that it is very easy to overdo weathering and subtlety is the key to a convincing finish. I believe it is important to work toward emphasizing a models features by drawing the viewers attention to them in a subtle but effective manner. 

I like to build and paint in a way that a vehicle could apper. If I build a tank that has been through hell and back, that doesn't mean that there was a tank that looked exactly like that. I do look at photos and what other had done to get an idea/motivation but my builds don't necessarily represent an actual vehicle from this or that unit in this or that condition on this or that place.

Hope it makes sense...

Cheers 

I definatly would not say base coat-washes-dry brushed-finished. Again, follwing this set procedure brings repetitive results which completly misunderstands what accruate building is about. I definatly would not say filters, panel shadeing and so on are taboo. But i just don't think they would be done to the same extreme. What we are trying to replicate is the lok of the real thing, and tat can't be done with ust a wash and a dry brush. As a diorama building, i want my build to fit into the scene. Let me stress, i do not mean fit in with the base, but the scene i am trying to portray.

I will try out any technique i think may get me the results i want, if i don't like it, fine, i know that does not work for me. So far the only technique that i have seen that would be a no-no for me is modulation. 

And i woukd like to make this clear now to any one who may be confused about this, because i have seen some misunderstanding. IMHO, modulation is not accurate. Artistic yes, but not accurate.

But let me here address a couple of things you raised in my 251 thread. You said about filters,

'' that filters are meant for VERY subtle shifts in the tone of a color''.

I have tried dot fitering and ready made filters. I like the former but not the latter, but in neither do i see any of the things people say they use them for, such as depth. But i still use dot filtering, but for i think a very differant reason to what you are trying to achieve.

You also mentioned lightening the paint on top. Again, we both use this method, but again i think for very differant reasons. But let me ask you this, why do you do it. Is it for accuracy or artistic effect.

Well, in that case yes, I've moved away from the wash, dry-bush school. I've never had much luck with over-all washes and now use only pin washes. And I stopped dry-brushing except in certain circumstances years ago. 

I notice though that the models that almost always win in local shows are the ones that are perfectly clean, with every tiny bolt-head and detail picked out with a pin-wash. I'm not at the point of feeling comfortable with lots of dirt and grime but I do like a little. 

[quote user="Bish]

You also mentioned lightening the paint on top. Again, we both use this method, but again i think for very differant reasons. But let me ask you this, why do you do it. Is it for accuracy or artistic effect.

[/quote]

Good reply, all--THANK YOU for your replies!

.....Bish, thanks too for taking the time to explain your position in depth; I appreciate it. I definitely use the "scale effect" for a decidedly Artististic reason, but I also firmly believe that it there is a powerful argument to be made that lightening the paint is indeed "realistic". I told this story before--at Aberdeen, I tool a paint chip from the side of the German Leopard I and compared it to the paint on the tank. At a foot away, it was indistinguishable from the tank's coat. However, stepping back a good 20 feet or so, there was a marked, distinguishable difference between the "darker" paint chip and the actual 1:1 vehicle. The tank itself "appeared" MUCH lighter.

My argument for the "artistic" side is that the perception of a model is as important as as the actual "accuracy" as far as the paint used or the detailing done. Think of the difference between landscape painters such as some of the great artists of the American West who captured the grandeur of the new frontier in hyper-realistic paintings, and then consider the work of modern artist Thomas Kincaide who uses light in dramatic fashion to make his paintings almost "glow"-- astyle known as "Luminism". Each are viable modes of expression in their own right but each are different in tone and presentation. One seeks to portray the scene without embellishment; the other seeks to emphasize certain aspects of the visible color/light spectrum in order to perhaps evoke an emotional response or to convey the artist's own feeling about his subject. I think that the same thing can be done in this hobby.

It's interesting to hear form both camps, and honestly it's enlightening to know that there ae not as sharp or stringent divisions between what one camp deems "allowable" (?) or not. I hope that more people continue to weigh in. :)

Here's my 1cent: taking into account that accuracy is a scale representative of a subject, in whatever medium ( plastic,wood ,resin),then you have to rely on the manufacturer for that. Eveything else done to finish that subject is artistic. How far the artistic expression is taken is naturally in the hands of the artist. 

Hi , Karl ;

   I guess I fall into both schools ! If I am building for historical accuracy to reflect a certain moment in time then it's weathered to what it should be .If I am modeling for the " Neat Look " as in an aged but clean ship , well, then it's artistic I guess.

    What most folks don't understand here Karl, is simple .No ship is perfectly clean, unless, it's a builders model , just out of the drydock or in a case somewhere . Now with wood ships , even new, they look weathered to a degree .It's all in how you look at it ( sorry about the pun ! ).

  All in all I believe after judging Aircraft , Armor , Ships and Cars , I have learned it's all preffrence of the builder. based on what they know and what they want . For instance .I pre-shade the bows of ships to enhance the curve of the ship's sides both vertically and horizontally . Why ? Well , it makes it more " Accurate " looking from a distance .    T.B.

The Hobbyist

But I do agree that the "artistic" portion of most models lie within the "finish" of the model, not the build

First off thanks for including me as a modeller. I consider myself more of a hacker. What comes in a box is an accurate subject done to the best standard possible,subject to technology and materials. AM additions are a choice one makes to enhance the subject, ergo, I include those as part of the subject. I like,say,PE railings on ships,but I don't need or want a 6 piece hexagonal doo-dab under a 1/350 radar.Take a model,build it,it still represents an accurate presentation of the subject. Just me.

This reminds me of a question I once polled about aftermarket PE and why people would use it.  It turned out it wasn't just for more accuracy, but some opted for it just simpley because it looked cool. 

So same result here, the 'artsy' tecqniques can be employd by all.  For some it's to make their build more accurate, while for others - well it just looks cool.

---------

As far as colour modulation goes, I keep it sublte.   I think the problem with this technique is when it is overdone on a flat surface(s), it creates a curved look, and that can be confusing - though some might think it a neat effect.   Another problem arises when decals are placed over said surface painted in this style.  IF the markings are not addressed in the same fashion, they look to be floating overtop the paint - not realistic, but if Salvador Dali was yor aim - success!  It can get worse with mutliple camou finishes ...

regards,

Jack

OK. I guess that I'll chime in here although I'm sure that the others here are just as reputable as I am concerning paint, and what techniques that they use, and why. I'll keep this short and sweet - to the point.

I'm of the REAL OLD school ideal of doing it accurately if it's something that your trying to replicate.  Do not deviate, or use artistic license unless you're doing your own thing. I also use a simple rule of thumb regarding modeling.

Do not do what's popular such as using what others suggest simply because they've read it somewhere, or because they know someone who did it, and got lucky with the results. I understand that not everyone here has the same level of experience. However there's no one way of doing things to achieve the same effect since there are so many mediums to use at our disposal these days. I guess that it comes down to a matter of what works for you, or rather what you can do with what you have on hand, and what you can do with it. I didn't read everyones' repsonse here just to keep from colouring, or infulencing my own opinion, or thoughts on this subject.

I don't use pen (ink) washes, or oil paints, or art acrylics, but that's because I use automotive paints, and enamels that are to be used on wood, metal AND plastic. I know how to weather without using chalk. I use painting techniques that are simple, and easy once you figure out how to do them. This is what we did back in the day, and it's what ILM, Apogee, and other studios before, and after them did before anyone thought of using ground up chalk sprayed with a clear coat. Plus the old school way of doing things was easier, and more durable with paint. No messy ink washes, or water based paints to ruin our models with.

Sandpaper, steel wool, baking soda, drywall mud, earthen clay, superglue, and papier mache were our tools of the trade for the most part. Regular house paint brushes, and old rags were what we used to weather vehicles with. Thinned down paint with various shades of other paint were applied to resemble weather effects of rain, dirt, rust, etc. to walls of buildings, houses, and machinery to look old although it was all new. It was hard to walk onto a set, and realise that a lot of this was FAKE!

Look at others, and what they use, and decide for yourself what you like, and how to do it. ME - I'm a purist, except for cars. I paint them the way I like them. Not neccesarily the same as the model box pictures.

~ Cobra Chris

Definitely artisti, I just build stuff for fun and enjoyment, painting and weathering is my favourite part so I always do it the way I want to lol, that's why I rarely share my armour builds 

Guys, once again, thank you for everyone's input and honesty. Your answers are a real help to me and great fodder for conversation and for informative discussion. It's interesting that no one is really too dogmatic about their style or preference. Keep them coming if you would.

JTRACING

Definitely artisti, I just build stuff for fun and enjoyment, painting and weathering is my favourite part so I always do it the way I want to lol, that's why I rarely share my armour builds 

 

JT, this is not a dig at you in paricular, so please don't take this personally. But i see this sort of comment often. I can't speake for others, though i would imagine many are of the same mind. But even though i do not go for the artistic look, i also build for fun and enjoyment. Its just that for me the fun is the research, my own experiances and and trying new idas to get the model to look as much like the real thing, or at least as much as i tyhink the real thing would look like, as my limited skills and the materials to hand allow.