Overdone Panel Lines

luftwaffle wrote:

If you don't like to do it, by all means don't.  I promise never to start a thread on why I don't like the way your model looks because you didn't wash the panel lines.

I think that's the crux of the problem. Not you, buy many others, do in fact make comments on why the panel lines need to be more prominent.

Shading panel lines has become an accepted practice to the point where, when it's not done (or done heavily enough), other modelers critisize and say the model "looks like a toy."

Personally I think that a subtle shading helps a bit. However, the effect can be taken too far.

What bothers me about this discussion is that we seem to be arguing the extremes. Either highlighted panel lines are realistic or they aren't; either do a heavy wash or none at all.

In fact, there's a ton of variation in real airplanes as there should be on our models. I started this thread when I noticed that the F-4J's from the '60s and '70s were really clean compared to the F-14s of the '90s and 2000s:

http://www.finescale.com/FSM/CS/forums/135134/ShowPost.aspx

Here are some answers I got:

The low-viz paint was a pain to keep clean vs the glossy grey and white. I was around the F14, A7, A6 and F18s in the late 80s and they were not clear coated. The paint finish was like 600 grit sandpaper and collected stack grime, non-skid residue, and exaust burns like metal to a magnet. Crew cheifs were always washing and polishing those planes, but after a while, they just gave up and would give them just a desalting wash down.

And

The gloss finishes of the 60's and 70's were easy to clean (i.e. wipe off) verses the scrubbing needed to get the grunge off the newer paint types. Working on F-4 & F-15's, in the 80's we where cleaning them so much that the paint was loosing it's rough finish and the powers that be made us stop but still wanted clean looking aircraft so we ended up painting a lot.

Having said that there's a lot of variation, the best bet is to check photographic references for a particular plane, when they're available, and try to match those.

In the end, this is a very solitary hobby. I build to please myself and to try to match as closely as possible what I see in a photo -- through the prism of my own biases.

Regards,

luftwaffle wrote:

The good of the discussion?  I'm failing to see where these discussions do all that much good.  Every couple of months we're presented with a plethora of reasons and scientific evidence why washed panel lines are "unrealistic".  Has anyone who uses wash in their panel lines abandoned the practice due to any of the evidence or opinions presented here?  My guess would be no.

I would agree with your assessment that builders who have their tradmark build styles are probably not going to change their style based on opinions to the contrary.  On the other hand, the area where this sort of discussion can be of benefit would be for readers who are new to aircraft building and have not really set themselves on a style.  For someone undecided or on the fence about whether or not to shade their panel lines, reading the various reasons given for shading or not may help them make a more informed decision about their next build.

luftwaffle wrote:

Personally I'm a little of tired of the implications that my models are unrealistic because I use a technique that some people disagree with.

Perhaps you are taking the discussion a bit to personally.  I didn't notice any comments directed at you personally or at any of your specific builds.  It makes no more sense for a person who shaded panel lines to be insulted by comments that shaded panel lines look unrealistic, and more than it would make sense for a person who does not shade panel lines to be insulted by comments that shaded panel lines look good.

luftwaffle wrote:

Debate is good up to the point where you start pissing people off and causing division.  When a new thread on this subject pops up next month and this is re-hashed, I'll just ignore it.

I do agree on that point.  I certainly thought that the comment on the AC-130 was over the top.

 

 

This pic belongs here. I was standing under the wing and took the photo approx. 15 feet up. That's right...this is a large aircraft. A picture says a thousand words.

Dragonfly

If your intention is to model realistically, and you can't see panel lines on the real thing, then why accentuate them on the model? Overdone panel lines look cartoonish and unrealistic.

And for those who feel the need to complain about this discussion, why not just ignore it and move on if it bothers you so much? We'll talk about what we want to talk about regardless of what you think ... 

 

I suspect the point of this is - your choice.

One thing I think we all should keep in mind, although I wouldn't have shaded to that extent, who's model is on the cover of FSM???

Dragonfly

wibhi2 wrote:

I suspect the point of this is - your choice.

Keep in mind that the maintenance crews (being avid modelers) preshaded the panel lines on the actual aircraft before painting the final coats of paint on the aircraft.  heh heh

In all seriousness though, I'm rethinking my viewpoint on the panel line discussion.  In each of the two examples, the panel line "weathering" is uneven.... something to keep in mind for those of us who choose to have weathered panel lines on our model. 

Great stuff gentlemen, lot's off interesting viewpoints.  :)

This is about the 65th reply to the original post. I can't believe it's dragged on this far. Isn't it about time we closed this post & got on with some modelling. Next thing you know we'll all be sitting in front of our screens debating whether we should be using Interior Green or Zinc Chromate.

 

Well, at least it was when I started typing my response.

shaun68 wrote:

…Next thing you know we'll all be sitting in front of our screens debating whether we should be using Interior Green or Zinc Chromate.

You mean we're not???!!!  …

scottw76051 wrote:

If your intention is to model realistically, and you can't see panel lines on the real thing, then why accentuate them on the model? Overdone panel lines look cartoonish and unrealistic. And for those who feel the need to complain about this discussion, why not just ignore it and move on if it bothers you so much? We'll talk about what we want to talk about regardless of what you think ...

 

I think it might be important for you to realize that this topic has ben posted before, in one form or another, and debated ad-infinitum....... I see you have nine posts on the site, so obviously you can't relate, ergo your negative commentary.

crockett wrote:

scottw76051 wrote: If your intention is to model realistically, and you can't see panel lines on the real thing, then why accentuate them on the model? Overdone panel lines look cartoonish and unrealistic. And for those who feel the need to complain about this discussion, why not just ignore it and move on if it bothers you so much? We'll talk about what we want to talk about regardless of what you think ...      I think it might be important for you to realize that this topic has ben posted before, in one form or another, and debated ad-infinitum....... I see you have nine posts on the site, so obviously you can't relate, ergo your negative commentary.

The number of one's posts doesn't minimize the content or diminish the value of their opinion. My point remains: if you don't like the thread, simply don't participate in the discussion. Do you actually think that complaining about the thread will dissuade others from participating? Just move along if you don't like it.  We will continue to discuss it as long as we like.

You should follow your own advice.

shaun68 wrote:

This is about the 65th reply to the original post. I can't believe it's dragged on this far. Isn't it about time we closed this post & got on with some modelling. Next thing you know we'll all be sitting in front of our screens debating whether we should be using Interior Green or Zinc Chromate.   Well, at least it was when I started typing my response.

Well, if we didn't have these discussions and debates, and all we did was "got on with some modeling", there wouldn't be a reason to have this forum, would there? I fail to understand the logic of those who try to tell others what they should be talking about. There are untold number of threads in these forums that you can go to if you don't like this one, or YOU can choose not to participate in any of them, and "get on with some modeling". I for one will continue to enjoy the fascinating debate regarding panel lines...

 

crockett wrote:

You should follow your own advice.

??????????

scottw76051 wrote:

shaun68 wrote: This is about the 65th reply to the original post. I can't believe it's dragged on this far. Isn't it about time we closed this post & got on with some modelling. Next thing you know we'll all be sitting in front of our screens debating whether we should be using Interior Green or Zinc Chromate.   Well, at least it was when I started typing my response. Well, if we didn't have these discussions and debates, and all we did was "got on with some modeling", there wouldn't be a reason to have this forum, would there? I fail to understand the logic of those who try to tell others what they should be talking about. There are untold number of threads in these forums that you can go to if you don't like this one, or YOU can choose not to participate in any of them, and "get on with some modeling". I for one will continue to enjoy the fascinating debate regarding panel lines...

I really don't want to start a flaming war, or actually, add to one, but is it still a discussion when people are getting mad and insulting each other? There are some good points made here, but it still goes back to somebodys signature, build what you like, like what you build. People come in here to gripe about the thread because it is a good place to let off steam, well some anyway, I am just noticing how there seems to be a lot of tension going on now that we are deeper into the discussion? Can't we all just get along???

eizzle wrote:

scottw76051 wrote:  shaun68 wrote: This is about the 65th reply to the original post. I can't believe it's dragged on this far. Isn't it about time we closed this post & got on with some modelling. Next thing you know we'll all be sitting in front of our screens debating whether we should be using Interior Green or Zinc Chromate.   Well, at least it was when I started typing my response. Well, if we didn't have these discussions and debates, and all we did was "got on with some modeling", there wouldn't be a reason to have this forum, would there? I fail to understand the logic of those who try to tell others what they should be talking about. There are untold number of threads in these forums that you can go to if you don't like this one, or YOU can choose not to participate in any of them, and "get on with some modeling". I for one will continue to enjoy the fascinating debate regarding panel lines...   I really don't want to start a flaming war, or actually, add to one, but is it still a discussion when people are getting mad and insulting each other? There are some good points made here, but it still goes back to somebodys signature, build what you like, like what you build. People come in here to gripe about the thread because it is a good place to let off steam, well some anyway, I am just noticing how there seems to be a lot of tension going on now that we are deeper into the discussion? Can't we all just get along???

On one hand you defend people who are blowing off steam, on the other you ask why can't we all just get along. This is a forum, and people are going to say what they feel, whether it's about a model, or about someone's post. Who says anybody isn't getting along? Why must there always be those who try to tell people what they should or shouldn't say? Coming in and complaining about the thread, or trying to be the great benevolent moderator isn't going to influence anyone one way or the other. We are going to participate in the forum the way we see fit, and as long as we aren't violating the rules set forth by FSM, then that's ok. If someone wants to make a ridiculous post about why we are talking about something instead of just moving along, that's their right. If someone wants to point out how ludicrous that is, then that's ok too. Trying to regulate who posts what is just a waste of your time in my opinion, but again, of course, you have the right to do it if it makes you feel better. "Build what you like, like what you build" is a noble mantra, but if you avail what you build or how you build it to this forum, then it is subject to comment. Spirited debate doesn't equal "not getting along". If people want to argue, why do some people think it's their place to referee the discussion? Feel free to do so, but just don't get your feelings hurt to have it fall on deaf ears.   

 

Comanche, your absolutly right. I also spend alot of time around aircraft and i believe some of these lines are overdone. most modern combat aircraft actually have beveled panels and doors that actually overlap a little and are very hard to see seperations.In fact, these lines done any where near scale would be very, very small. What can be seen is  subtle changes in color or texture that affect the absoption and scattering of  light from their surfaces. Very hard to reproduce in scale but  really neat if you can .
Cheers.

dragonfly wrote:

This pic belongs here. I was standing under the wing and took the photo approx. 15 feet up. That's right...this is a large aircraft. A picture says a thousand words.

Interesting photo.  Of all the thousands of photos and aircraft that I have seen over the years, this one seems to have a weathering pattern that most strongly accentuates panel lines and is what modellers are attempting to suggest by preshading and washing panel lines.  Nonetheless, with respect to the panel line pre-shading discussion, I'm not entirely sure which side of the debate that photo's thousand words fell.  On one hand, it actually does have some paint darkening that runs along a number of the panel lines, thus supporting the pre-shading concept.  The panel lines themselves are dark, whether by dirt or lighting, thus lending support to the idea of using a dark wash to highlight the panel lines.

On the flip side,  there is a lot of shading that falls within the panels as opposed to the joints, and likewise there are a lot of panel lines and lengths within panel lines that show no significant shading.  Even where there is shading, it is very blotchy and of very uneven width.  The panel lines themselves, although fairly dark, are extremely fine, even at the scale of the photo which is quite large.  All in all, I think the weathering, although significant looks a lot more ragged than the usual neatly airbrushed panel lines.

The scale of photo too throws a monkey wrench into its value for guiding one's weathering effects.  Since this is how the plane looks at 15 feet, the effects seen here are what would need to be duplicated at a viewing distance of 2.5 inchs if you're building in 1/72 scale or 3.75 inches in 1/48 scale.  Without a magnifier my eyes really can't focus much closer than about 8 inches (48 scale feet in 1/72 scale or 32 scale feet in 1/48) and from the normal viewing distance of a foot or two, the scale viewing distance would vary from about 50 to 100 feet in 1/48 and 75 to 150 feet in 1/72.  The question thus becomes what does the aircraft look like at fifty or hundred feet?  At a distance, it is possible that the color darkening is even more obvious or maybe the shadings seem even more random.  Or maybe not.  The panel lines themselves might be interesting at a distance.  Obviously due to the limitations of injection molding, even the most delicately engraved lines are way overscale, however since the human eye can detect dark on light more easily than light on dark, perhaps even from a distance the panel lines themselves might stand out, although they might blend, and again unless you're looking that the aircraft from a scale viewing distance, its really difficult to tell.

Andy

Thank you for your opinion of me scottw76051, however I feel you failed to grasp the gist of my point. But I'm not going to let it spoil my Friday night.

shaun68 wrote:

Thank you for your opinion of me scottw76051, however I feel you failed to grasp the gist of my point. But I'm not going to let it spoil my Friday night.

Shaun - my post says nothing about my opinion of you. I was addressing your comments, not making a statement about you personally. And I certainly hope you have a wonderful Friday night!

ABARNE wrote:

dragonfly wrote: This pic belongs here. I was standing under the wing and took the photo approx. 15 feet up. That's right...this is a large aircraft. A picture says a thousand words. Interesting photo.  Of all the thousands of photos and aircraft that I have seen over the years, this one seems to have a weathering pattern that most strongly accentuates panel lines and is what modellers are attempting to suggest by preshading and washing panel lines.  Nonetheless, with respect to the panel line pre-shading discussion, I'm not entirely sure which side of the debate that photo's thousand words fell.  On one hand, it actually does have some paint darkening that runs along a number of the panel lines, thus supporting the pre-shading concept.  The panel lines themselves are dark, whether by dirt or lighting, thus lending support to the idea of using a dark wash to highlight the panel lines. On the flip side,  there is a lot of shading that falls within the panels as opposed to the joints, and likewise there are a lot of panel lines and lengths within panel lines that show no significant shading.  Even where there is shading, it is very blotchy and of very uneven width.  The panel lines themselves, although fairly dark, are extremely fine, even at the scale of the photo which is quite large.  All in all, I think the weathering, although significant looks a lot more ragged than the usual neatly airbrushed panel lines. The scale of photo too throws a monkey wrench into its value for guiding one's weathering effects.  Since this is how the plane looks at 15 feet, the effects seen here are what would need to be duplicated at a viewing distance of 2.5 inchs if you're building in 1/72 scale or 3.75 inches in 1/48 scale.  Without a magnifier my eyes really can't focus much closer than about 8 inches (48 scale feet in 1/72 scale or 32 scale feet in 1/48) and from the normal viewing distance of a foot or two, the scale viewing distance would vary from about 50 to 100 feet in 1/48 and 75 to 150 feet in 1/72.  The question thus becomes what does the aircraft look like at fifty or hundred feet?  At a distance, it is possible that the color darkening is even more obvious or maybe the shadings seem even more random.  Or maybe not.  The panel lines themselves might be interesting at a distance.  Obviously due to the limitations of injection molding, even the most delicately engraved lines are way overscale, however since the human eye can detect dark on light more easily than light on dark, perhaps even from a distance the panel lines themselves might stand out, although they might blend, and again unless you're looking that the aircraft from a scale viewing distance, its really difficult to tell. Andy

Excellent analysis, Andy.

I suppose you can count me in the 'over emphasised' camp, but it is purely my own style, I'd probably agree that you simply don't see panel lines so sharply defined in real life as my builds, however to me it looks visually pleasing to break up the monotony of a painted finish and accentuate detail with a panel wash, it might not be totally realistic, but I like it ;)

I agree. I've been on the flightline at airshows and RAF bases and the panel lines rarely show from any distance. Photos can sometimes enhance the appearance of panel lines. Probably due to colour effects in the processing.

In the club in Glasgow ,Scotland I used to be in we had a professional model maker in our ranks who usually removed virtually all surface detail from his models.

Frank

wdolson2

"They fail when they over do the panel lines..."

"If people want to continue the practice, it's their model and they can do what they want..."

I think we are just pointing out that it isn't accurate unless..."

A very interesting discussion.....we've had our own similar ones over in the Armor community. (I was directed here by a totally tangential discussion in the General Modeling forum).

I think the quoted statements above are significant in capturing what I feel is the unbridgeable void that will always separate proponents of either camp: the fact that, to a modeller who will always lean toward the "artistic" side of representing a particular subject, "accuracy" per se is not--and will never be--the primary concern.

Though there's no doubt that an argument can certainly be made regarding just plain old bad technique or experience, I think that the difference between the two "camps" is as distinct as say, "Conservative" vs "Liberal"--perhaps even in our genes.

I regularly paint my base coats in what some guys undoubtedly feel are the most garish gradients of shading and "light", forcing the "scale perspective" of light and shadow. From an artistic point of view--and within the modelling community---this approach seems to have served me well, even though I"m sure it drives some purists nuts.

In the end, it depends on what you're trying to convey with your model--an "accurate", museum-like depiction, or an "artistic" rendering designed to elicit some emotional response. Personally, I go for the latter every time.