Over emphasis on recessed panel lines & modelers not double checking photo references?

Yep...I'm not a fan of it, but if that's what they want on the shelf, it's ok with me. I would hope winning a contest doesn't require such styles, but I have other issues that keep me from getting to even that point.

I've given up.

I know what the jets I used to be around looked like, so I don't gain anything by trying to tell people that the panel lines don't stand out as we see in the current trend. I used to try and explain what a pressure washer was for in a USN/USMC squadron, where people just weren't allowed to walk, etc.

I will build without them highlighted on my own models.

Besides, I was just amused at this line in a reference book

"Please note that the drawings cannot themselves be used as accurate guides for the kit modifications, since they are in many cases composite drawings showing many of the options and changes which could be applied to the model."

Which means that I bought two books because reviews described all the fantastic drawings in them,,,,,,,,and the drawings are really just "visual parts lists",,,which I could have (and did ) have done in text format.

Besides, three kits in the same scale from different manufacturers have different panel lines on them,,,,,,,and it would take a book of just panel line photos for EACH aircraft (including all the sub-types**) just to know which ones to rescribe.

I'll stick with just adding some shadow down in the joints between movable and fixed surfaces.

Rex

(**Early F-4B, Later F-4B and F-4J have different doors and locations on them,,,,,,,these are panel lines that actually open,,,,,,,,most kits ignore this or mold all their versions with the same panels,,,,,,,,USN or USAF,,,,,,highlighting these would just call attention to the fact that the panels weren't right on the model)

I haven't quite given up, but I really do wish that  some of the retired AF crew chiefs I know could have their say.

My good friend Airman Jim tells that a real aircraft is a nearly living beast. Big hunk of a lot of trivial little details.

My late friend Don told me that he never gave a thought to what the aircraft he flew looked like, totally unremarkable in his mind but he trusted them with his butt. Not a what-it-looks like kind of thing.

I see two important points in this thread.  First of all, I am one of those who feels that panel lines are often overdone, unless you are modeling a painted ramp queen.  Secondly, in the general discussion category there is a discussion on how many modelers seek out pictures of the subject they are modeling.  While those responding to the thread by and large do, those responding to the thread are a tiny group compared to all the model builders in the world.  I am often surprised at how many model builders do not seek out photographs.  Or try to find a prototype to take pictures of it themselves.  Some say that is the function of good box art, but I think many box artists are more interested in artistic presentation than accuracy.

I know in ship modeling there are two schools of thought.  One group is out to create the most accurate reproduction they can, the other wants to create the most beautiful piece of art they can.  But aircraft panel lines to me do not fit into this art versus accuracy thing.  Overdone weathering is neither accurate nor beautiful :-(

Do you mean a photo like this?

Yes, weathering can be overdone, but usually isn't. I have to tell you, in my opinion, this photo looks much cooler than a photo of a squeaky clean plane. But that's just my particular taste.

As a local judge (i.e. not nationals), I'm looking at skill and not art. If the wash/pre shading is skilfully executed, then it doesn't matter whether or not it suits my particular "taste."

Personally, I have a bigger problem with out-of-scale aerial wires. But that's another thread.

Chris

F-100 John

As having crewed the Hun & seeing Hun models in competition I've come to the conclusion that maybe a photo of the actual jet should be next to the model .  

Photos would prove a modeler doesn't have to over emphasize these gaudy & totally inaccurate panel lines.  Are modelers not doing their homework & are judges being 'swayed' by their errors?

Has anyone else noticed this?

F-100 John

I pretty much disagree with the logic behind this.  Here's why:

The panel lines help to make up for some elements that are lost in scale.  Yes, they are exaggerated (some more than others). But when standing next to a full scale aircraft there are lines that are visible to the eye (at least there are on the jets I fly).   Now this is impossible to recreate on a scale model because the lines would be microscopic...but we know they are there.  The panel lines help to fill in the blanks that our minds are already trying to fill.  For example, if I build an airliner but I leave the passenger boarding doors blank my mind's eye will place the doors approximately where they belong...because I know that they are there.  But the absence of the doors will create a bit of confusion because, again, I know that they are there but I can't see them.

With respect, the logic behind requiring a picture as a reference for the judges is flawed.  Should the picture be taken at a certain angle with a certain kind light shining on it?  Should the picture be taken from a few feet away or a few hundred feet away?  The pic taken from a few feet will show alot more detail than the pic of the exact same plane from a few hundred feet away.  So which do I use?  Every picture would really need to be taken from the same vantage point under the same lighting.

What about accuracy?  If we are going to be so critical of panel lines then what about angles of leading edges or thickness of wings, etc?  Should every judge now carry a protractor and measure the angle of the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer on the model to compare it to the picture?  If we use a reference pic then do we need to recreate every stain and streak exactly as it appears on the real plane?  How about bug splatters on the windshield?  Where does it stop?

And yes, I have seen several models where the lines are way overdone and I don't like the way they look.  But generally, the lines tend to give the model a busier appearance.  The lines help me to see a scaled down version of a real airplane as opposed to a model that looks like....a model.

The judging guidelines really don't emphasize weathering or OOB accuracy in the plastic (like panel lines, thickness, etc.)  They emphasize craftsmanship.  So let's say that you have 2 of the exact same models competing against each other and the only difference is that one guy washed his panel lines and the other guy filled his lines in with putty.  If all things are equal (no seams, flawless paint, symmetry, etc...) who wins?  Personally, I'd most likely pick the model with the washed lines.  Again, to me this makes the build look scaled down more.  Also, this is assuming that the lines were washed with an appropriate color and they weren't rescribed to some ridiculous depth or size.  For example, there is a guy over on ARC who uses a micron pen to fill his lines in.  I'm sorry, but it looks terrible (if that builder is reading this I apologize, but its true).  In this case I'd go with the builder that filled in his lines.

These are my opinions, of course, so please don't take this as an attack on your idea.  I'm just explaining why I disagree.

One small point about the line saying that not many people use photos,,,,,all but the very newest books I have are sold out, some have been released in later editions and some reprinted, and those are sold out.

So, someone is buying the books (with photos inside) to the tune of entire book runs,,,,,and back in the olden days, book runs were pretty substantial. (Kalmbach once told me in a letter that "less than 10,000 books is a failure", and that was in the nineties)

Rex

I would guess that the folks who don't use photos of the actual subject being modeled don't feel they have to be bothered by looking up and studying the heck out of their subject. They just wanna build for fun or experiment in painting and weathering, regardless of it being 100% accurate. The one thing that can't be argued is: that there is a photo out there to support almost anyone's weathering style. So I see no use debating the subject. I will say that some models I do see that have way excessive preshading or post shading, is mainly due to the modeler being new at the technique, and he or she is still trying to hone their skills.

One does not need to buy books for every model one does.  Don't forget libraries.  And, nowadays, a google image search will usually turn up a lot of images on any model subject.  When you go to google's home page, select the "image" option in the upper right corner before starting the search.  I have found many photos of even quite obscure aircraft and ships.

I wasn't saying anything about people having to buy books.

I was saying that they all sold out, which means that people bought them. We can then surmise that some modelers may have seen one of the 10,000 or more in the print run, or bought them themselves. Adding the library into the equation *increases* the likelihood that modelers are using those photos to model with, it doesn't decrease it. The places that pop them up onto the internet also add to the number of eyeballs that have seen, and maybe used, those photos.

so, for any given print run,,,,,,,MORE people are using them than just the number of copies sold,,,,,,,unless the number of book owners that bought them to put them on Ebay later for a killer profit outnumber the books seen by more than one reader.

Rex

(I will be convinced that no one wants accuracy when threads start showing up asking people to stop helping the thread starter, instead of asking for info and photos, lol)

Panel lines are often and unfortunately over exaggerated. In real life panels are flush together, and yes there is a visible seem, its not noticeable from 25+ feet away. I have been to many airshows and seen many a plane and jet close up. I always do panel lining extremely light, almost not visible unless you closely look at the model. I do just enough to suggest seperate panels. Areas around gun ports and ehxaust though will get heavier weathering and panels on say landging gear bay doors will get slightly heavier panel lining. Just my two cents though.