I haven't had the chance to read the article yet,  but I have learned a lot of things from being here on the forums. 1) Have fun and enjoy the hobby. 2) Relax and take your time. And most importantly 3) Not all of my builds have to be museum quality builds, and that I learn from the processes of the build. I have been in the hobby on and off for 15 years and I am still learning all sorts of tricks and tips that the veterans of these forums have been kind enough to share with me. they have also put up with I'm sure are some pretty stupid questions from me as well and to date I have never gotten a condescending reply from anyone. Instead I have received nothing but respect and the gentle nudging  associated with genuine constructive criticism. If Mr. Humble can't remember those basic "rules" so to speak of the hobby then maybe it is time that he either found a new interest and or its time to take a giant step back and re-think his views of the hobby. I'm sure when I say this that almost all of us on here are in this hobby for the love and enjoyment of taking a bunch of plastic and turning it into what looks to us as a work of art.

Hear, hear Souda99. I share your sentiments. I, too, am intimidated in trying new techniques as well. I'm talking about simple things like pre-shading, post shading, weathering, simple and complex camo shcemes, etc.. However, I am more than willing to try to overcome them. Will I go a little overboard with it or will it be not enough or too light? I don't know until I tackle it on head-on and do it. I won't know until I try and practice myself on a scarp kit.

I need to just go with the flow and determine myself if it's good enough - for myself. Will I ask on these forums if I'm doing it right? You betcha. That's the beauty of asking for constructive criticism. If I'm doing it wrong, I want to know so I'll know what I need to do.

Maybe Mr, Humble has no new challenges left for him to try. If so, maybe it is time for him to find another hobby.

.

This is a great discussion, and I'm thankful for everyone who has contributed.

A couple years ago, when "extreme weathering" started becoming vogue, I penned an editorial to FSM in defense of it which unfortunately never got published. Perhaps it was too "new" then to matter? But what I said is what I'll say now: when I model, I'm making MY "Art". My model is an expression of what I feel about the model, whatever it is, and the way that I portray it is an attempt to convey to the viewer with that "feeling" that I want them to "get". The destructive nature of war, the daunting battle against impossible odds, the hard slog through an endless string of deprivations, heartbreaks and horrors.  I'm telling a story, a narrative, with each dent, rust spot, dust streak, etc. In the same way that Hollywood always portrays a "hero" guy with a big, bloody scratch down the side of his face to show that he's been through hell, so am I making these visual cues as to what my model "went through". Extreme accuracy is fine for those who value that aspect, but "Art" is about imagination and revelation and communication through imagery. That's my bailiwick.

As far as Mr Humble, I truly and genuinely believe that many who criticize "over-weathered" models in his manner are simply insecure about their own level of skill, and they either lack the will or the drive to improve, and yet are uncomfortably conscious of the inevitable comparison of their own simplistic  finishes with the more skillful presentation. Sorry if that peeves anyone off, but  I'm not condescending to anyone; I have seen many a beautifully finished "clean" model here, and I enjoy them just as much as any. But I just think that the motivation to criticize the modeler who takes the time and effort (and let's not forget the financial investment these days--yikes!) to render such artistic finishes has to be rooted in a little bit of jealousy. Otherwise, why would it bother you at all? Unless you're the kind of person who thinks that homogeneity in all things is the only way for the world to be? Man, good luck with that!

I tend to be forthright and honest in my critiques here, and have run into some nasty confrontations because of it. But that's not going to change my honest style. Some guys handle it perfectly in the best intent of the manner and spirit in which it is offered--in the same manner in which it was offered to ME when I came to this site. Honest critique helps a modeler improve if they are open to it. But some guys' egos can't handle it. I often wonder why they're here at all.

As far as FSM publishing it, I'm not bummed about it. It serves to remind us that there are people out there who think like this, so the next time you inexplicably lose an award at a contest to a "clean" model with mold lines and knock-out marks still proudly beaming, just remember Mr Humble and his ilk. :) You've just been "Humbled", ha ha,...!

Karl, I agree with what you say regards modelling your way. The problem I have is that the ''extreme'' weathering has now become so popular it is almost pushed as the only way to model. My biggest concern is that many who may be new to modelling may think its done to be accurate, but it is not. I like my builds to be as accurate as possible, given the constraints of a plastic model and my own skills and excepting that a little artistic interpretation is unavoidable.

For example, i know you believe in the idea of using the paint to create interest. I don't. For me, the subject is interesting enough as it is. Another example is putting an AFV ''into'' the ground rather than on it to show how heavy it is. Again, I don't agree. I know how heavy a Tiger is, and anyone who looks at a model tank, even if they know nothing about that vehicle, will know it weighs a lot.

Neither approach is right or wrong, I believe both have there place. But the artistic approach has taken such a hold, those who try to model with a more realistic approach seem to be overlooked or even looked down on.

If I see a model that has colour modulation and I know that's what the builder wanted, then fine, I can except it for the nice looking build it is. If I see a lot of rust on some tracks, I may mention that its not accurate, but if the builder says he know but he likes the look of it, that's fine with me.

I really do think its time for those with both approach's to respect each other, give constructive comments where we feel warranted, but excepting that the builder but prefer a different approach to ourselves.  

I think the heart of the matter won't benefit from a contribution from me at this point.

However, an observation, and I think Karl touched on it.

"Why would FSM publish this?" and "I'm surprised they printed this" etc. has been asked earlier. Not exact quotes, as I don't want to single any one out, but in that vein.

Well, they are FSM, they are really great editors, they know what they are doing.  I think it's right, if well written, to give folks a say in how they feel, and I respect the magazine for that.

I

I would hope that FSM will always publish stuff like Mr. Humble's letter.

After reading it myself, I believe some folks missed his point.  His letter's subject was about the current trend in modeling that everything has to be weathered and sometimes to an extreme.  He seemed to say to me, as I read the letter, that the point of many modelers WAS the weathering and not building a representation of the actual subject matter.  Hence his comment regarding using an iron-like rust on a fiberglass fender.

You can disagree, etc., but please don't jump his stuff, and call for FSM to not print things with which you will disagree.  One of the first things I learned many years ago as a journalism student was, "never interfere with an individual's right to make a jerk of himself."

Perhaps Mr. Humble did, but there's no reason why his views can't be noted and discussed openly on the forum and in the magazine as they should be.  Even if they aren't currently popular.

I've noticed some trends over the past few years, that I'm not very fond of myself.  Some, like under shading of aircraft panel lines, make for a very attractive paint job and give the model lots of depth, but I don't care for it.  I've spent a fair amount of time around aircraft over the years and never seen one as some model builders made them.  It appears that that trend is fading some now (so to speak) and I, for one, am happy about it.  If you want to under shade your model to the cows come home though, more power to you!  As I've said the technique can be very attractive, but personally I've seen too much of it.

Just keep it fun.

My copy of FSM arrived too, and I read Mr. Humble's letter. I agree with Mike. Perhaps Mr. Humble could have chosen a few of his word more carefully, but the letter amounts to a personal, legitimate opinion - of the sort to which we're all entitled.

It's also worth noting that Mr. Humble's big interest is model cars, a topic about which I know next to nothing. I can certainly see room for the view that an well-executed, unweathered, shiny car model is a fine thing.

I found myself disagreeing more strongly with the letter headed "A few observations." That writer asserts that "most, if not all, AFVs and aircraft are kept spotless so they can fight properly." That's probably closer to the truth today than in previous decades, but countless photos of scratched up aircraft and dented, muddy, baggage-strewn tanks establish that the generalization dousn't apply to WWI, WWII, Koea, or Vietnam.

To each his/her own. As I understand it, there's a highly prestigious European ship model organization that bans weathering from its competitions. I have no use for that sort of behavior.

jtilley

.

I found myself disagreeing more strongly with the letter headed "A few observations." That writer asserts that "most, if not all, AFVs and aircraft are kept spotless so they can fight properly." That's probably closer to the truth today than in previous decades, but countless photos of scratched up aircraft and dented, muddy, baggage-strewn tanks establish that the generalization dousn't apply to WWI, WWII, Koea, or Vietnam.

I do think that contributor may need to make a few more observations, especially when it comes to armour. Modern aircraft may be clean most of the time, since working at RAF Lakenheath I have noticed how clean the F-15's are. But I guess that's the advantage of operating from a hard surface airstrip and not the desert floor or the Russian steppe.

But you show me a clean AFV, even a modern one and I will show you one that's just been painted.

Bish

Karl, I agree with what you say regards modelling your way. The problem I have is that the ''extreme'' weathering has now become so popular it is almost pushed as the only way to model. My biggest concern is that many who may be new to modelling may think its done to be accurate, but it is not. I like my builds to be as accurate as possible, given the constraints of a plastic model and my own skills and excepting that a little artistic interpretation is unavoidable.

For example, i know you believe in the idea of using the paint to create interest. I don't. For me, the subject is interesting enough as it is. Another example is putting an AFV ''into'' the ground rather than on it to show how heavy it is. Again, I don't agree. I know how heavy a Tiger is, and anyone who looks at a model tank, even if they know nothing about that vehicle, will know it weighs a lot.

Neither approach is right or wrong, I believe both have there place. But the artistic approach has taken such a hold, those who try to model with a more realistic approach seem to be overlooked or even looked down on.

If I see a model that has colour modulation and I know that's what the builder wanted, then fine, I can except it for the nice looking build it is. If I see a lot of rust on some tracks, I may mention that its not accurate, but if the builder says he know but he likes the look of it, that's fine with me.

I really do think its time for those with both approach's to respect each other, give constructive comments where we feel warranted, but excepting that the builder but prefer a different approach to ourselves.  

I kinda look at it this way: truly, anyone of even novice skill can put a model together and dutifully put a coat of paint over it and if they are of intermediate skill and experience may even do a little bit of pin washes and light drybrushing ala Shep Paine. I mean, that is pretty much Modeling 101 at this point. Now, the whole extreme weathering craze CAN get out-of-hand with rusty tracks and plainly implausible or unrealistic effects, but I have to be honest--when someone asks for critique or suggestions, I automatically assume that they want weathering tips because of the huge leap in the ability to weather various wear and terrain effects realistically now that has come with all of these new pigments and products.If you picture a hypothetical line-graph or timeline of weathering competency and effectiveness in the last twenty years, there would be a huge upward swing at the far end. So I naturally assume that people want to take their skills from "left to right", and to learn how to make these effects happen. Some people have gotten mightily bent out of shape when I've made suggestions to that effect, some not.But it doesn't mean I don't respect a guy whose preference is a "clean" finish.

I also think there's something lost in the translation of your description of modeling a "realistic" tank vs what I would call "realistic". I think that a modeler can realistically finish a tank either way. Realistically clean, or realistically dirty. Even when I've seen "clean" tanks in museums or on display, where they haven't been driven for many months or years, they still have subtle variations in the tone, depth, and cleanliness of the finish--even if they don't necessarily have "dirt" on them ala "road travel". THAT is what I think much of this "trend" seeks to duplicate, not just the more obviously-thrashed tanks.. I just honestly don't think--no disrespect to anyone who disagrees either--that an un-weathered coat of paint right out of a bottle is "realistic". But again, there's nothing wrong with that type of finish if that's your preference,

I also think of it in another way: communicating non-verbally. Like what you said about putting a tank "into" a setting as opposed to "on" it. Since our brains communicate with more than words and have the abilities to assimilate non-verbal cues that we may not even know we're sending, I believe that the placement of a tank "into" terrain telegraphs an "unspoken" message of ponderous weight and power to the viewer. And I think that perhaps more "artistically tuned" people place more value and emphasis on things like this than perhaps other more...."mathematical"? "detail-oriented"? "realistic"?--what's the right word?--people do. And perhaps they do it more instinctively than the opposite type? If this is true, it may be not that big of a surprise that the opposite camp doesn't "get" it.? 

Maybe it's just me but after getting my issue and reading the comment Mr. Humble seems more confused and frustrated than offended (he did use the term exasperated).

I guess I'll weasel out of this by coming down pretty much in the middle here. I'm not a big fan of beat-all to blazes stuff but most of the stuff I see at local shows of armour that's pristine as it came out of a car wash with every single teeny tiny rivet carefully outlined with a pin wash seems a little too far in the other direction. Course what do I know, those guys win awards, I don't!

I think of it as artistic and technical. We all have both to some degree, and to me anyway, the best builders have a lot of both. That's really not what this is about though. Unless someone specifically asks for an opinion I only comment positively. Happy to offer advice if someone wants it, otherwise I keep it to myself. I think most of us see a style we like and try to emulate the techniques used, always trying to get better. We all put a lot of time and effort into our work and feel happy enough with the results to share it. If the person who built the model is satisfied with the results, that should be enough.

Jay  

I finally got a chance to read the letter.

Sounds to me like an old California gearhead hotrodder. I've known many. Everything is all about deep handrubbed flawless finishes. Comb your hair in the chrome etc.

An old grouch; I know a few of those too!

Perhaps in real life he owns a Gran Torino ;)

More like a chopped 32 Ford.

I'm sorry, but I really don't think that short letter was such as to justify name calling. Mr. Humble expressed an opinion, with which I largely disagree. He could perhaps have used a couple of better word choices - but that can be said about lots of posts on the Forum. (Some of them I really have to work to read.)

The subject is an important one in the world of scale modeling, and certainly worthy of discussion. But I suggest we steer this thread away from personal attacks.

The publication of the letter was a decision on the part of the FSM editorial staff. If their intent was to simply present one modeler's point of view, as in "opinions are like belly buttons - everyone has one", then there are a lot of opinions expressed here that are very dearly held. If the intent was to smack the hornet's nest, it's been a big success!

Happy modeling!

stikpusher

Perhaps in real life he owns a Gran Torino ;)

Stik, you and me think WAAAYYYY too much alike. I was thinkin' the same thing! You MUST be a Clint fan, right?

GMorrison

I finally got a chance to read the letter.

Sounds to me like an old California gearhead hotrodder. I've known many. Everything is all about deep handrubbed flawless finishes. Comb your hair in the chrome etc.

An old grouch; I know a few of those too!

Andy :

I just came from Papermodelers.com and saw a beautiful example of real weathering on a liner . It's the S.S. Canberra returning troops from the Falklands war ! Check out nature's " Overweathering " T.B.

Coming in a little late to the discussion, but I'm also one who doesn't understand the trend in overweathering.  I can't really comment on armor since I'm and aircraft guy, but the trend of excessive pre-shading and excessive post-weatherng is puzzling to me.  For example, at a show recently we judged a modern fighter jet (I won't be more specific than that to protest the innocent :)).  I have seen the real aircraft personally and many photos of it.  The real example is kept immaculate by its caretakers - not even a hint of grease on the landing gear, control surfaces, etc.  The model had some of the finest craftsmanship I have ever seen - seriously fine detail, perfectly aligned, perfect finish, cockpit, everything... but, every panel line was blacked inked and faded from almost black to the correct color towards the center of the panel.  On the real aircraft you can hardly see any panel lines and the paint is virtually perfectly uniform even in close up photos.  There is the paradox in my mind: the modeller spent so much time accurately representing the subject then added a fictionalized weathering to the finish - why?

I can only guess that it attracts more attention; but, at least in my personal viewpoint, it detracts from an otherwise splendid representation of the real subject.

Well, as many others have said, it all boils down to each individuals desire and what they enjoy - and that's really what it is all about :)

Lockon

Coming in a little late to the discussion, but I'm also one who doesn't understand the trend in overweathering.  I can't really comment on armor since I'm and aircraft guy, but the trend of excessive pre-shading and excessive post-weatherng is puzzling to me.  For example, at a show recently we judged a modern fighter jet (I won't be more specific than that to protest the innocent :)).  I have seen the real aircraft personally and many photos of it.  The real example is kept immaculate by its caretakers - not even a hint of grease on the landing gear, control surfaces, etc.  The model had some of the finest craftsmanship I have ever seen - seriously fine detail, perfectly aligned, perfect finish, cockpit, everything... but, every panel line was blacked inked and faded from almost black to the correct color towards the center of the panel.  On the real aircraft you can hardly see any panel lines and the paint is virtually perfectly uniform even in close up photos.  There is the paradox in my mind: the modeller spent so much time accurately representing the subject then added a fictionalized weathering to the finish - why?

I can only guess that it attracts more attention; but, at least in my personal viewpoint, it detracts from an otherwise splendid representation of the real subject.

Well, as many others have said, it all boils down to each individuals desire and what they enjoy - and that's really what it is all about :)

I think it is a bit tricky especially with modern aircraft. I work at RAF Lakenheath and have noticed the same thing in regards to how clean the planes are and how there is not a panel line in sight. Unfortunately to many it makes for a bland looking aircraft. I must admit that on a couple of modern jets I built recently, my first in a long time, I did add a little to the panel lines, though I tried to keep it to a minimum so it was only just visible. But its something to get away from but still get a nice looking aircraft.

But I think as model builders we have a pre conceived idea as to what something should look like.

I think it takes a lot of restrained finesse to properly do panel lines on aircraft that are kept in shelters and well maintained. Like you said Bish, a little something to show that they are there, but certainly not the heavily weathered look that seems to dominate all the "look at this" magazine and Internet articles. Like the overall gray look of modern combat aircraft vs the high visibility ceremonial or CAG marking birds, it's about dialing it back a notch or two in order to catch interest. A less is more approach currently out of vogue.

while i agree we see trends that can be overdone, and i am guilty of that too, it really is the modeler's choice. i learned oil washes by doing too little,  than too much,  as i worked toward the baby bear solution. Unless i am trying to recreate a specific vehicle or scene with photo examples i just do what is fun but within the broad parameters of "realistic". for example i don't rust up exhaust systems on modern war trucks because they don't rust. i do add a hint of dark rust on tracks because i think it adds some color and, as Bish said, it's also expected.

i like to weather and do washes and color modulation so i do. it's fun. it's relaxing, and i like the outcome. While i do build with contests in mind, it is not a primary concern. i do know i have gone back and added washes to older kits that didn't win and sometimes place.

i suppose the same argument could be made for all the "junk" some folks hang on ww2 American and German vehicles. it's hard to compete against that even with a clean build of a monocolor soviet vehicle but it is what it is.  My solution DO DINOSAURS.  they are like doing armor, figures, and sci fi all in one.