well this is getting annoyingly interesting.

i am a technical illustrator and a graphics artist which seems oddly similar to the realism and artistic thoughts on modeling. what that means is i professionally draw for accuracy UNLESS it doesn't look right or convey the correct information in the training manual. than i get a little artsy so the student understands the drawing. 

as i menrtioned earlier i gravitate towards the arttistic side when it comes to painting and weathering, hopefully with some common sense thrown in because that is part of the fun.

I have used weathering and excess stowage to cover "mistakes" and I HAVE DONE IT 1-1 SCALE. we had a desert camo scheme on my tanks when i got to germany. we had to have 30% sand so, when we repainted, we looked at our load plans and painted all those areas sand that would be covered by track blocks, road wheels, duffle bags, etc. guess that counts as hiding "mistakes."

i have had modern tanks, even my new A2s, look pink after 3 weeks in the field in a red clay area, thick mud on the underside and dinged fenders.  after the wash rack and a good cleaning they look pristine on the pad. funny though on the pad the end conectors, steel wear plates and metal parts of the track are rusty. in the field in the dirt and mud there is no rust on the running gear. 

a T-34 that survived Kursk and the counterattacks afterwards would be a tad more weathered than one rolling out of the tank factory at Stalingrad to be destroyed 2 blocks up the road.

a Toyoda pickup in my driveway certainly iless beat up than a Libyan rebel technical.

SO i will continue to enjoy the WIPs of both sides of the issue, learn new stuff, try new techniques, and keep what i like. i will continue to post WIPs, welcome constructive critiscism and suggestions, and improve. i don't have any national awards but in the last 2 years i have a number of regional ones which is an indication my modeling is improving because, in part, to the information here (and from doing some of the less frequented categories i like to build in.[8-|)

a suggestion. try building dinosaurs. no one really knows what they looked like so anything is possible. (shameless plug for a GB)

The weathering debate has got to be the atomic bomb of modeling topics.

I've been modeling since 1976-77.  My real career has gotten in the way now and then, like all of us.  I've always tried to learn. I remember going into the old Ace Hobbies in Manhatten in the 80's, used to go in every time I was working in town.  They had a large display case of models that were at a level I had never seen before. These were armor models in 1/35th scale that looked real. And I mean real. I've always held myself to that standard, and will never forgot that place or experience.

I write professionally. In writing there's a saying that fiction is the stylized rendition of reality. I can tell you if it's not, it doesn't work commercially.

For a military scale model to appear as reality it needs something more than just paint. Auto or F1 models can be extrememly clean and still look real. Military models not so much.

So anyone should be able to do whatever they want to do. There are very few color photographs from WWII to help us.  I try to stay accurate, but I am not a rivet counter per se. My BR-52 is stylized from one example in a museum, theres nothing to confirm the camo was used in the war.

I'm now completing the large Revell A-400. This is a new aircraft that is very clean. In order to achive some level of reality I'll have to do something to it. A wash of some type, otherwise it will look like a very detailed well built toy. This would be different than weathering a Spitfire after it flew a week of sorties in 1941.

Overall aircraft are a totally different weathering beast than that used for armor, for obvious reasons too long to list.  Aircraft, Armor, Ships....were talking apples, oranges, and bananas.

I try not to go overboard with weathring, but have at times.

 As long as you're having fun and keeping yourself to your own standards of excellence, wherever that is, then you win.  Unless you are commisioned by a museum etc. then accuracy would become much more important.

I consider myself a master modeler and realize that I'll never stop learning or getting better. However realize that almost none of the products that are available today existed for the modelers that created those models at Ace, all those years ago,  that are the benchmark of excellence I continue to aspire to.

Bish

 

 

I would certainly agree with your preferance for accuracy over artistic, though i definatly would not use the term carictures, i certainly don't agree that the artistic approach is done to cover up faults or because of laziness.

 

As I said, there's got to be more going on here than meets the eye...?

It is just a hobby, and we all get content from it in differant ways. If some are just happy to throw it together and call it done, thats their choice. If others choose to go the artistic route, again, thats there choice.

Karl and myself are at opposite ends of the debate, but i have learnt as much from him as anyone else. I learnt to push myself and strive to improve. Even if in the end i decided that Karls end resuylts were not what i wnated to achieve, i was still able to learn.

spiralcity

I disagree. Building models is a hobby to be enjoyed by everyone, young and old. There is not a definitive black and white, either, or, to model building. There are many reasons why someone may enjoy this hobby, and it should be fun above all else. Why would anyone want to spend hours doing something they do not enjoy? Many people just want to put something together to put on a shelf and have little care in the authenticity of their creation. I like to put together a clean build every now and then, or I just may put together a cheap old kit, and spruce it up with out going overbaord, because I find weekend builds to be fun. Other times I may take months building a kit. I am not commisioned by anyone to build accurate models, nor would I enjoy doing so. Many modelers experiment with new techniques, or are just trying to improve on old techniques. Why would you look down your nose at such people? Thats pretty harsh when talking about someone who is doing something for enjoyment. If your a die hard historian and need everything accurate, thats fine, but calling others bad modelers because they may not share your views is just pure nonsense and inaccurate.   First and foremost, have fun. Artist do live and breathe and many enjoy this hobby.

    A very fine statement.  I may be wrong, but I feel a lot of people don't post pictures because they are uncomfortable posting their version of modeling "fun".  There is an amazing pool of talent here , and I throughly enjoy seeing their "artistic" and "realistic" creations.  I would also like to see pictures of less ambitious modeling done for fun.  It would increase traffic and make us more close knit.  

    I do get better as I continue to model, but it isn't a goal.  For the last few years I have found that I like the finishing process less.  I love the building part.  I'm probably going to end up with a lot of models where the only paint will be on the interiors.  I would feel like a heretic showing that on the FSM forum, but it's the only way to visually show that I"m having fun modeling.

     Maybe the magazine could add a subsection for " Not Ready For Prime Time Fun".  I am going to post pictures this year.  There are a couple of group builds I'm interested in and I plan to join and finish them, paint and all.

                                                                                 gk

I disagree. Building models is a hobby to be enjoyed by everyone, young and old. There is not a definitive black and white, either, or, to model building. There are many reasons why someone may enjoy this hobby, and it should be fun above all else. Why would anyone want to spend hours doing something they do not enjoy? Many people just want to put something together to put on a shelf and have little care in the authenticity of their creation. I like to put together a clean build every now and then, or I just may put together a cheap old kit, and spruce it up with out going overbaord, because I find weekend builds to be fun. Other times I may take months building a kit. I am not commisioned by anyone to build accurate models, nor would I enjoy doing so. Many modelers experiment with new techniques, or are just trying to improve on old techniques. Why would you look down your nose at such people? Thats pretty harsh when talking about someone who is doing something for enjoyment. If your a die hard historian and need everything accurate, thats fine, but calling others bad modelers because they may not share your views is just pure nonsense and inaccurate.

First and foremost, have fun. Artist do live and breathe and many enjoy this hobby.

If you look at model building as an artistic expression, then there is no wrong or right way to weather, if you build for historical accuracy then thre is a wrong and right way to weather.

I usually build both ways, some times I like something as close to the orginal as possible, otther times I just build what pleases me.

I have never been a fan of shading panel lines with black. I never thought that technique looked accurate in any sense of the word. Some modelers handle the technique better than others, but most go overboard and everything looks too tidy. I have browsed thousands of WWII photos and I have never come across anything resembling the technique of line shading. That dosent make the technique wrong, or bad, I just dont find it accurate, unless handled skillfully and in moderation.

Hey !

 I usually err on the lite side . It took three days to clean my real bird an let's face it after surviving WW 2 She was no Hangar Queen .

 For the most part my planes are done to reflect natural metals as in post WW -2 and Pre Vietnam . My real bird had paint on her outside from delivery till I sold her .

     After all , how clean is an old B-25 gonna be , if it flies ? And she is still doing that , albeit in FarnBorough , England . Gosh , I miss the old gal . I just don't miss the costs involved .

 Life changed and I still love the old bird .      T.B.

I don't mind seeing heavily weathered aircraft, but most often the way it is applied does not look natural.  An example would be a two tone surface.  All the edges of the camouflage are still virgin from any wear, and only the centers of the shapes are weathered.  

regards,

Jack

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we don't immediately brand a heavily weathered model "overdone" just because it's heavily weathered. Im a fan of weathered planes myself, even weathered my B737 (its in these forums somewhere)!

But the way a modeler does the heavy weathering is quite another thing. It could be in the style, the pattern (yes some of what I've seen sported patterns lol)! etc. In the examples I mentioned, I asked the builders, and at least one of them honestly said its "art."

Would you guys still not consider "overdone"....

A low viz F-14 with just 3 shades of gray --- 2 shades being the base color, and the third splattered evenly all around as patchwork.  Like the deck crew took all the spray cans on board and went crazy one morning. And the tails remaining immaculate.

An AF F-4 heavily and uniformly oxidized as to look like it spent time in Davis Monthan, but obviously representing an operatonal unit. It's got RBF tags and bombs. 

or a French jet  with Tigermeet markings and livery almost turned black because of what I'd call sludge wash?

Id give our fellow modelers some slack. They may not have seen all you've seen as far as real birds go, but we haven't seen the aircraft models they've seen and talk about.

;)

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. 

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...

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.................

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. 

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.

Zombie dio?

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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! 

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".

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.

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.

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.

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  

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.