Panel lines and extreme silliness .

Ah yes, the ol' "it's not the most realistic/accurate/most bestest way to do it, so it must be wrong" thread. I just love these.

I agree with Karl, and I take issue with the idea that "most" builders go for strict accuracy over an artistic representation. Go to any show or contest and take a look. There are as many painting styles as there are builders represented.

Take some well-known examples - Mike Grant tends to build aircraft clean as a whistle. Jamie Haggo weathers the absolute hell out of everything. Is anyone really going to try to convince me that one of these master model builders is doing it wrong? You may prefer one style over the other, and that's OK! But that doesn't give anyone a platform for criticizing well-executed model building just because we don't happen to like it.

I will grant you that some people have funny ideas about how models are supposed to look. I was judging at a contest about six months ago and another judge criticized an aircraft model for not having any exhaust staining, this despite the fact that A) it bore no relevance to judging the model, and B) it was a fighter jet where the exhaust nozzles are the absolute rearmost point of the aircraft. I asked him just what he expected the exhaust was supposed to stick to after it exited the aircraft, and he looked at me like I was from Mars. Thirty seconds later he was back to talking about jet fuel compositions in Eastern Bloc countries, as though the builder had committed some gross error in his research by not covering the entire empennage in soot. You kinda want to smack people like that.

Bottom line is, we really need to quit crapping on each other for being creative in what is essentially a creative activity.

Kevin he isn't criticizing it, I don't think.  Just saying what is Realistic.  

I like your two comparables you linked.  Very interesting.

Gee ;

You are right on with the second last subject . Oh , that's right  ,we are talking models here , Right !

Karl ;

  I don't mean to be dogmatic . I've just seen too many models not even get an " Honorable Mention " at shows and that is a shame . The Panel lines put off the judges on what was otherwise a  superb example of model building and painting skill .   T.B.

Why I don't enter competitions, reason #6. I could give a rat what a judge thinks. Others enjoy it, not me.

Now you know;

I wouldn't enter a contest now if you paid me .I don't even judge them any-more for that same reason . I just go and harass the vendors and look at all the " as my friends say , all the pretty little models ", ( UGH ! ) T.B.

Speaking of PLMs, 80 degrees at lunch, took my sandwich  to the park. A truly fine day.

MIflyer

I will grant you that some people have funny ideas about how models are supposed to look. I was judging at a contest about six months ago and another judge criticized an aircraft model for not having any exhaust staining, this despite the fact that A) it bore no relevance to judging the model, and B) it was a fighter jet where the exhaust nozzles are the absolute rearmost point of the aircraft.

One of the problems is that people have this idea of how things are supposed to look. Beginning artists are often cautioned about actually observing what they are trying to paint, rather than suppose they know what things look like.  Too many modelers need to spend more time at airports looking at airplanes rather than just assuming they know what airplanes look like.  Our brains tend to simplify and employ a shorthand on what things look like

For airliners, generally, the "No-Visible-Panel-Line" thing runs true.

I've worked in 787's for more than 4 years....and other than doors, radomes and control surfaces, the thing is as smooth as a baby's bottom, everywhere - even fuselage joins.  Same goes for 747/777/767's, too.  

Unless....it's one of the old Pam-Am 747's, which were often filthy.....and on those, panel lines abounded.

I think that this photo says a great deal. You can see some panel lines, but not as heavily as is seen on the trends nowadays amongst the "in" modelers. And it represents from about the distance one would be looking at a build on a contest table...

OOOh, I like that rubbed off faded paint effect.

The planes you saw at the airport and on the carrier were obviously not very realistic :)

 Hey, Stikpusher :

Now See ! That's a good looking model .Oh , It isn't ?

tankerbuilder

Karl ;

  I don't mean to be dogmatic . I've just seen too many models not even get an " Honorable Mention " at shows and that is a shame . The Panel lines put off the judges on what was otherwise a  superb example of model building and painting skill .   T.B.

A contest is being held locally this weekend but it appears there has been some difficulty convincing folks to be judges....................

When I visited the Intrepid Museum a few years ago, I found that the real airplanes on the Intrepid looked very unrealistic.  I thought they were poorly made 1:1 scale models.  

Depending upon the aircraft manufacturer, they just might have been ;)

CodyJ

Kevin he isn't criticizing it, I don't think.  Just saying what is Realistic.  .

I'd agree if he hadn't said he'd mark down anyone who did.

tankbuilder

This is , by the way , one criteria that will get a zing  from me in judging !

I have to laugh at the Squadron catalogs and website.  Every description includes "Kit features fine engraved (or raised) panel lines."  

I drive by the 787 plant twice a week and on the 787's parked outside and the Dream Lifter nearby, I can't see any lines on them. Some right off the road about 100 feet from the road. I've only showed them once in a while on a heavily weathered build but usually don't pay any attention to them.

Very respectfully , I have to disagree in part with this. On one hand I can see panel lines that are the showcase of an exterior finish to be inaccurate. On the other hand I can see them brought out , in moderation, to add a little detail and depth to a paint job. I don't think I'd go out on a limb to call what another person does in modeling "extremely silly" though. That's kind of going a little far I think.

Mustang :

   This was not intended to be that way .It was intended to get folks talking , which it did . Now you sir , have to admit the idea of emphasizing panel lines has gone to the far extreme , don't you ! That is the silliness I was referring to . Any builder can do it the way he or she wants , but if it's overdone , to me , it ruins all the other hard work that may have gone into an otherwise great build !

mustang1989

On one hand I can see panel lines that are the showcase of an exterior finish to be inaccurate. On the other hand I can see them brought out , in moderation, to add a little detail and depth to a paint job

Yeah , Mustang :

   I get you .Trouble is at my age I engage the keyboard like my mouth . Without thinking sometimes !

      You know I love modeling and all aspects of it  . I just don't like folks getting hurt at a show by obvious " dingers". Yes , I would and did,  zing it , BUT I made it a point to explain to the modeler in question why , face to face and gently as always .

    I've seen to many leave modeling because someone said something about their model and then didn't explain why  . A modeler who competes , especially , cannot learn without a teacher . Soooo , That's where I base my comments . I taught the subject for over four years in public and then three at the V.A. in Martinez , Ca. Many prize winning graduates.

   I just want folks not to get laughed at ! That is the cruelest form of criticism , don't you think ?      T.B.

tankerbuilder

I've just seen too many models not even get an " Honorable Mention " at shows and that is a shame . The Panel lines put off the judges on what was otherwise a  superb example of model building and painting skill .

and I've seen it go the other way too... some judges get fixated on the "10 foot" view of over-weathered models. I've seen Best in Show go to an overly pre- and post-shaded model that didn't deserve it IMHO.

all things being equal such as clean build, straightness, finish (aside from weathering) and decal work... my vote always goes to the model that most accurately represents the subject.. sometimes that has meant setting aside models with excessive pre-shading and black inked panel lines that were otherwise superb.

To sum up a fairly representative discussion RE: the panel line debate:

- Some like it, some don't.  Like all hobby model building, it is a matter of personal taste.

- It is so much fun to do that some go (in the opinion of certain others) too far

- It is an attempt to portray realism that sometimes isn't objectively realistic (when compared to the real thing.)  That however does not matter at all if the builder is happy.

- There are probably exceptions (for example, I've seen some very heavy 'panel lines' on some airliner wings that obviously were ready for the "wash rack" that would have put the heaviest weather-fiend to shame.)  In short, conditions vary.

Most modeling techniques that go beyond a strictly clean layer of paint are attempts to portray the apparent 'visual complexity' that full size objects present to the eye, in order to fool the observer (however slightly) into believing the model *is* the real thing.  That is how we 'believed' the Millennium Falcon wasn't a five foot long construct but a spaceship - the layers of tiny parts, chipped paint, tiny splatters, decals, etc. all gave a complexity of texture and reflectance far beyond what it should have been for something that size.  It is literally playing with light...

Hmm!

Regards, Robert

Now ,

      You hit on something that is very important in modeling . Playing with light ! If for instance paint a 1/400 Buckley in Sea Blue out of the bottle you have just rendered the model a dark Blue mystery  ! Why ?  well that dark , and nothing can be clearly seen . And yes , it was my mistake ! Now you have to use a flashlight just to see the detail !

   Whereas , If I had toned the paint to be right for that scale it wouldn't be so bad .Same goes for any model . Now cars may be an exception .There though , I use dark greys and so on in the engine compartment to lighten up the space that if not colorful , can become the dark Hole of Calcutta on your model ! This " Playing with Light " goes across the whole spectrum of modeling as far as I am concerned .

I just finished a 1/72 Hellcat by Academy models. On the box cover it states "Fully engraved panel lines and rivet details". Well the finished fuse looked like a sliced up hot dog

cs.finescale.com/.../165873.aspx

LMAO...good one.....I've been in the airline industry for 20 years.....5 years on the 787 line in Everett....almost a year on the 777 program......and other than doors, control surfaces and radomes....not a panel line to be seen.

Yeah !

See ! that's what I was talking about . I worked for four years as a ferry pilot and cockpit designer/ builder for Falcon Jet . Now all those pretty birds were natural because they weren't finished .Some panels on the engine pods could be defined but not most unless you were two feet away from the bird !

     We're talking about a Bird that was triple the weight of my super large four slide Motor-coach with a full load of fuel !

Leemitcheltree, What shop are you in?...I'm in 777 Wing Majors...2nd shift.