POLL / SURVEY: please respond!!

I was sitting at the bench the other day and got to thinking about this thread. I know the issue is about artistic vs realistic finishes on vehicle models and it seems to be somewhat centered around the way light plays on the surfaces. It looks like some didn't think the lighting didn't need to be accentuated on the surfaces where there would be more sunlight hitting vs painting areas like under sponsons and such a bit darker. After all, isn't it a 3 dimensional model and it will cast it's own shadows and lightened areas? That's the part that got me thinking. Would some say the same for a figure model? It's 3 dimensional as well, right? Don't the best figure painters darken the recesses of the folds in the uniform and highlight the top edges where light hits it? Is that realistic or artistic? Why would it be acceptable as realistic on figures to highlight and darken but not on vehicles? Maybe the vehicles are a larger canvas and easier to see? LOL, just a bit of food for thought to gnaw on! Me I just paint and finish what looks good to me and try a few different approaches. LOL, some with disasterous results! 

You know, I've never considered that Airmen, Soldiers, Sailors, Marines would take time cleaning and detailing equipment to take pride and kill time. I should've. I remember hours wiping the sand off of helicopters, just because there wasn't anything else to do. Semper Fi, Chris

GlennH

What a fun thread to follow. My skills generally come down to glueing something together that I was on, or in and spraying it OD when done! Well except for the tires. I prefer realism. If you're gonna have mud on an APC's tracks in RVN some colors just don't get it. Some reds do. I think many folks may get their detail idea from photos online under certain circumstances. I know from 105 crews and a short time in battery that those howitzers were often pampered, shined, and cleaned and showed off like a new car. The last couple months I got to skate hauling ammo to FSB's. That darn 5ton was MY truck and when I had the chance I'd pull into a stream, wash it and follow up later with a nice coating of diesel fuel over everything for that showroom shine! lol. As far as rust, on equipment, I can't say it was non existent but I can't say I remember it either.

 

Thanks, Glenn----good to hear from another "Accurist" who has had actual time with these vehicles and sees them the way they saw them in real life. I think that's an important component of that particular stylistic choice. :)

redleg12

OK old buddy, you know where I am....accuracy. Now with that said the hobby is an art and we build our models in our studio. I will use some of the artistic methods to try to enhance the accuracy of what I am building.

With that said, I have spent way too much time on the 1 to 1 and their paint does not "modulate".

Now, like music modeling comes in many different variations from folk, rock to classical. Now there are always some genares a person does not like, but many others that are liked or at least appreciated. Sometimes it just does not fit like Karl playing folk music!

Hope that helps

Rounds Complete!!

 

 

Thanks for weighing in, Mike!!! Nice to see you looking in from time to time! :)

What a fun thread to follow. My skills generally come down to glueing something together that I was on, or in and spraying it OD when done! Well except for the tires. I prefer realism. If you're gonna have mud on an APC's tracks in RVN some colors just don't get it. Some reds do. I think many folks may get their detail idea from photos online under certain circumstances. I know from 105 crews and a short time in battery that those howitzers were often pampered, shined, and cleaned and showed off like a new car. The last couple months I got to skate hauling ammo to FSB's. That darn 5ton was MY truck and when I had the chance I'd pull into a stream, wash it and follow up later with a nice coating of diesel fuel over everything for that showroom shine! lol. As far as rust, on equipment, I can't say it was non existent but I can't say I remember it either.

OK old buddy, you know where I am....accuracy. Now with that said the hobby is an art and we build our models in our studio. I will use some of the artistic methods to try to enhance the accuracy of what I am building.

With that said, I have spent way too much time on the 1 to 1 and their paint does not "modulate".

Now, like music modeling comes in many different variations from folk, rock to classical. Now there are always some genares a person does not like, but many others that are liked or at least appreciated. Sometimes it just does not fit like Karl playing folk music!

Hope that helps

Rounds Complete!!

 

I LOVE that model, Tony! Nice job on it! What a rare beast! I just ordered one!

Thanks for your input!

Karl i've never really thought about what I am other than being just me and my hobby.

I do try to give each model a different look from all the others I build just to fend off bordom. This is my last build and it has a different finish from all the rest on the shelf.

 

Some of you folks have seen enough of my SPGs so where do I fit?

 

Great Thread btw

Tony lee

Again, I appreciate everyone's responses---I've learned a lot and am writing up my article now. Not going to post the body of it here with my "conclusions" so that it's "fresh" if it gets published. :) Thanks again for everyone weighing in!!!

Wow, drop off the grid for a while and I come back to fun stuff...... I'm an "accuracy over art" kind of modeler, as a general rule, and use washes, both detail and over-all, pastels and powders, and very minor chipping if appropriate. Rust is no-no unless I 'm building a derelict. And that's all I have to say about that. For now.

But upon further contemplation, I use the same techniques in modeling that are found in "art", specifically painting. Well okay then.

Not contradictory at all. I think it's just a hisitorically culture perception of what an artist is, Van Gogh, Rembrandt, etc. I posted my definition earlier and if I could figure out cutting and pasting here I would've included it. But our endeavors here certainly fall under the activity of art. Plus I've seen your work and modesty might be involved. Believe me, I have nil in artistic ability, I flunked stick people ( no offense !) , but here I am a practicing artist. Go figure.

I personally do not consider my work art. But friends and acquaintences who have seen my hobby work do. And yet there sure is artistry in well built and finished models made by other folks that I see. A bit contradictory I suppose.

Stik, interesting video you linked there, I enjoyed it. 

Seems people both inside and outside the hobby don't consider scale modeling as art.  Maybe the column choice from the opening post, that people are to place themselves in, should be either accurate or hyperrealism?

regards,

Jack

I could not have said it better than that Stick, thanks. 

Steve 

Here is an interesting take on the artistic aspect of this hobby. Not Art vs Reality, just the artistry of the hobby itself. I will say that the artistry displayed here is most realistic!

https://vimeo.com/163135235

 

 

the doog

Hi guys,

I'm working on an article dealing with the never-ending "Artistic vs Accurate" weathering debate that pops up every now and then on just about any forum you go to. It's going to be tied to a modeling project that I'm going to be doing.

I want to ask each one of you: what "school" do you fall into?

Do you consider yourself an "Artistic" modeler? -- Or are you an "Accuracy" guy?

For the "Accuracy" guys: help me understand this...we in the "Artistic" camp have our own line of procedures that we generally follow; our own set of "standards" (?) I guess, and our own vernacular: "panel shading". "Filters". "color modulation" etc....but what, in YOUR mind, constitutes an "accurate" model?

Do you have a set "standard" and method, like "base paint coat, washes, drybrushing, done"? Is chipping a part of that? I have heard the statement "There are no filters in the motor pool". So do you use any other "tricks" that have come into vogue lately? Pigments--yes or no? Is rust a big no-no?

Please help me define what your collective ideal for an "accurate" build actually is. Is "accurate" synonymous with "old school"?

I would appreciate anyone who would take take the time to offer your thoughts and opinions!

the doog, Karl

 

Here goes the incoherant ramble..Well, I am a history guy and I strive to be accurate in my depictions, but sometimes take artistic license in my builds. I am a recent convert to black basing for vehicles and I do acrylic slurry prewashes for aircraft to bring out fine(muted) recessed detail. For me the test is when I can bring up a black and white photo of the topic  I am attempting to model and if it's difficult to distinguish from my efforts. ( It rarely happens, but this is the ideal, for me.)then I am satisfied i did it justice.I do as much research as I can on a particular topic to see if what I am attempting is remotely close to what I envision the finished item(s) should( or does) look like. I use various media, but my kits are mostly plastic and PE. I am an enamels guy. Not ready to jump on the acrylics bandwagon. I grew up with pactra and testors, floquil, and now am gaining appreciation for Allclad lacquers( Their exhaust manifold color is nothing short of brilliant) I hoard floquil weathered black and aeromaster paints as I find them perfectly suited to airbrushing with small thinner to paint ratios. When building dioramas I exploit whatever materials will get me to my desired result. I 'll use celluclay, styrofoam,  putty, basswood, balsa, cut bits of brass.. I'll add light and sound effects if I can find reasonable sources. I want my models to look like reasonable renditions of the actual subjects, not like cheesy toys on strings in bad B grade monster flicks.

    Regarding other specifics from your inquiry.. Rust is entirely dependent on final disposition of the object. streaking and staining will occur. tracks on (active)tanks will discolor, overheat and blue somewhat, but rust would be light.( in MY opinion)If the tank is sitting out in the sun on a concrete pad at a museum, it's tracks will likely be rusted. rubber pads would be somewhat lightened , cracked, chunks missing , etc..same with roadwheels.

     Washes and pigments can add to the depth of objects, but like anything else can be overdone. Haven't attempted pinwashes yet, though I can see where some color modulation can turn monochromatic finishes into something fantastic, or it can turn that prized 75 dollar tank kit into a circus clown car if its overdone.. I find powdered graphite and chalk pastels to be invaluable weapons in the modelers arsenal.Huge fan of drybrushing.

     Panel lines and preshading.. always a controversial topic.. I say research the actual aircraft and see if it occurs on the real thing first. Remember restored aircraft are not always maintained the same as active duty ones. I personally prefer to use black tube acrylic that has been slathered onto clear bare plastic surfaces,before I paint the top coat on aircraft. If that aircraft has been exposed to salt air, sand, etc, I weather accordingly. Doped fabric fades at a different rate than stressed aircraft aluminum  so I make certain that my control surfaces are distinct from the wings or empennage assemblies.

So, long winded dissertation notwithstanding, I am an old school guy who strives for accuracy , while sometimes taking artistic license to get there.

 

regards.

 

Claude

    

 

Hi , Karl ;

  I have to pipe back in here for many reasons , specifically the reactions in life to models , no matter how they're finished .

   In a recent show there were folks who actually said , and I quote " What a "Pretty " tank ", or  "hey, that plane sure looks dirty , they don't let real ones get like that do they ? " The model , An A-10 just finished with a mission according to the description under it.

 Now to model for historical appearance takes BOTH artistic and realistic modeling .Sure does . I have seen absolutely gorgeous 1/700 ship models .Till , you got close that is . Totally out of scale tertiary equipment , too many ladders and gun tubs looking like cast concrete .

     The trick is to go as far as you are comfortable with then ASK another modeler whom you admire that maybe does what seems to be " Magic " on his builds . If he's a good person and a real modeler , he will willingly share what he did to get the look you are after . If not he's a sufferer of Egoitis .

   Yes , that is common for a variety of reasons . The main reason is it gets him many wins , perhaps , so he feels like he is a better modeler in the genre than the folks around him .

        I have had folks ask me ,  "Why did you only put one anchor on that ship "? Well , if it is a client build or one of my own , that means the ship only had one when I photographed it ! I model to a time . Not a type or class . If I was to do the Cruiser Rochester for instance . I would do her as a nasty looking , heavily weathered ship ( from years waiting ) to this grey streaky lump of a ship in the Mud at Bremerton , Washington .

   Why ? well, that was the way she looked when I saw her . The idea of Artistic or Accurate I believe rests in the individual builder .I have learned all the techniques and I use what looks right for the model I am doing , based on the time I saw the actual object or a photo thereof . this leaves a Wide span of interpretations .

     How do you decide as a judge ? I tell my teams . Firstly and most important , Look at quality of build .( seams , panels etc.) then read the description and study the model with new eyes .You might be blessed and see the model exactly as the builder intended , or not . Here is where the Fuzzy enters . Do you weather ? If not , How do you know it is realistic or artistic ?

     See , there is a lot that goes into observing the model as well as building it and presenting it . If you are into cars say , Okay, someone does the Open Road Chassis mounted camper and truck .It's all shiny and clean on a plain base . Oh , There's another one , weathered , muddy with a camp scene outside .Some dents in the camper and the truck , fading paint and obviously occupied camper with leftovers on the stove and in the sink and an unmade bed .

     Now here's the rub . Which one gets the prize . One that looks like it is on the sales lot or one in use ? Again , it has to be in the eye of both the creator of the model and the observer as well . Me , Well I like them all .Some do extensively continue to do things that are not present on the real things , but that's the way they ( the builder ) wants it . May modelers continue to enjoy their hobby .     T.B.

the doog

Feel free to express your opinions or impressions, or to leave examples of your own.

---

Just when I thought I was out,they pull me back in. Karl,all those examples are accurate,clean ( as seconded to Allans' comment ) and artistic. To my limited exposure to this hobby the "argument" seems to be about techniques.

allan

I dont know about the others, but when I call a build a "clean" one, what I mean is that the build is practically devoid of flaws, like paint seep, cracks, gaps, etc. Thats why I usually say "crisp and clean build."

---

Seconded.

A longtime modeler and member here suggested to me in a PM that I post some photos of what I perceive as "accurate" or "clean" models vs "Artistic". I thought about that a bit and since I don't want to use anyone else's models as examples of one perceived style or the other (they may not agree with my characterization) I thought I would "A/B" my own to show what I feel I was trying to say in a post a few posts back about the way I used to model and where I am today. In my way of thinking (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!) I used to finish my models as "clean"--standard weatehring techniques and no filters, pigments, or "tricks"-- a base coat in one shade, a wash, and drybrushing. "Dirt" was either sprayed on or stippled on with a brush. Of course, everyone knows basically what I model like now. IN each one of these photos, the first model is the "clean"; the 2nd model is the "artistic" model. I prefer the look of the models on the rIght now, as I tend to favor the dynamic appeal of the "art" in the fininshing techniques I'm using now. Feel free to express your opinions or impressions, or to leave examples of your own.

1. Leopard 1, then and now (modulated green tone)

2. Panzer IV-D (modulated grey tone)

3. Wirbelwind - VK 4502 (Hintern) (modulated Yellow tone)

Sdkfz 234 / King Tiger (winter finish)

Stage_Left

Hi Karl,

I've been thinking about this very topic for the last few months myself, not simply as a point to ponder for it's own sake but more in terms of contest judging (a separate conversation). Nonetheless, I've read from several sources, not the least of which is a blog by Matt McDougall (DoogsATX- who I haven't seen in these parts in some time). He's postulated several theories on building approaches and thrown them out for discussion, one of them being accuracy in finishing. That, like your query, has generated some good thoughts and has caused me to focus thoughts on my own approach(es). Some of what I've considered has been said here. Also, a caveat: I haven't finished many models, but I've taken some different approaches to the finish of each and in between I've read A TON about what's going on in both the 'artistic' and 'realistic' camps.

Like some, I take a 'close to the vest' approach- I lean toward the 'realistic.' However, I'm absolutely excited by the approaches that you and others take (originating in the 'Spanish School'?). I think that those approaches can enhance a 'realistic' approach- bring a finish to somewhere in between, perhaps reflecting what an actual combat vehicle looked like? I realize that combat vehicles (and anything else, really) actually reflect a broad spectrum of appearance, so perhaps the 'true' appearance involves a range of techniques and levels of application (T-34 from Kursk to an M113, having just visited the motor pool and wash rack after a Reforger exercise- or a freshly restored museum piece). I've also realized recently that a very basic, unweathered finish, done technically well (however lacking to whatever degree as 'realistic'), can also be quite legitimate from a pure modeling standpoint.

I must throw kudos your way, Karl. You've become masterful at modeling techniques and storytelling, and now continue to seek 'enlightenment.' Having read your posts on here for five-plus years, I sense that this is the kind of person you are, and great discussions such as this are a result.

Dave

 

Dave, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this and also, thank you for the kind words. I'm very humbled by them.

I also agree that sometimes a "clean finish" can be very difficult to pull off correctly, and can also be a definite crowd pleaser if done thoughtfully and with skill. I may have to try one of those soon. :)

wbill76

That consistency does drive a more uniform end result at a certain level, if everyone's using all the same stuff in the same way, it starts to lose its specialness. Kind of like painting a gun barrel in primer only, the first few times it adds individual distinction but after the 20th or 100th guy does it, not so much. 

 

You're absolutely right abour that, Bill. I can't remember what forum it was, but one noted modeler said "We all use the same stuff and techniques now; all of our models look the same."

Now, I would agree to a degree, but I wouldn't say that there aren't modelers whose craft stands out from the crowd. There are some guys that are just ...... scary-good.

But I myself have resisted some of these trends--like the painting of certain conspicuous parts in Primer red--after Adam Wilder's work popularized that and everyone seemed to utilize it...boy it's hard to be original now these days, eh? A problem for the guys like you and me that get published, but not so much for the guys who just build for fun and themselves.

Hi Karl,

I've been thinking about this very topic for the last few months myself, not simply as a point to ponder for it's own sake but more in terms of contest judging (a separate conversation). Nonetheless, I've read from several sources, not the least of which is a blog by Matt McDougall (DoogsATX- who I haven't seen in these parts in some time). He's postulated several theories on building approaches and thrown them out for discussion, one of them being accuracy in finishing. That, like your query, has generated some good thoughts and has caused me to focus thoughts on my own approach(es). Some of what I've considered has been said here. Also, a caveat: I haven't finished many models, but I've taken some different approaches to the finish of each and in between I've read A TON about what's going on in both the 'artistic' and 'realistic' camps.

Like some, I take a 'close to the vest' approach- I lean toward the 'realistic.' However, I'm absolutely excited by the approaches that you and others take (originating in the 'Spanish School'?). I think that those approaches can enhance a 'realistic' approach- bring a finish to somewhere in between, perhaps reflecting what an actual combat vehicle looked like? I realize that combat vehicles (and anything else, really) actually reflect a broad spectrum of appearance, so perhaps the 'true' appearance involves a range of techniques and levels of application (T-34 from Kursk to an M113, having just visited the motor pool and wash rack after a Reforger exercise- or a freshly restored museum piece). I've also realized recently that a very basic, unweathered finish, done technically well (however lacking to whatever degree as 'realistic'), can also be quite legitimate from a pure modeling standpoint.

I must throw kudos your way, Karl. You've become masterful at modeling techniques and storytelling, and now continue to seek 'enlightenment.' Having read your posts on here for five-plus years, I sense that this is the kind of person you are, and great discussions such as this are a result.

Dave

I understand Karl and no worries buddy!  It's all good, I just wanted to be clear about it especially since in the following sentences you talked about some of the severe reactions you've gotten from orher builders and used the same term in that context. 

You and Bish also raise a good point about the 'pushing' of styles. I remember way back in 2002 when pigments first started to appear and were all the rage. People reacted fiercely on both sides, product lines sprang up to meet the new market demand, and a new generation of 'master' modelers made their reputations and profited off their signature methods and materials. The same arguments were used then as now regarding realism vs artistry. 

Fast forward to the present and now you can buy premixed everything, packaged sets for all your needs, books, etc. It's become its own industry supporting the hobby. So that also adds an agenda to market and boost sales. Not that there's anything wrong with that of course.  That consistency does drive a more uniform end result at a certain level, if everyone's using all the same stuff in the same way, it starts to lose its specialness. Kind of like painting a gun barrel in primer only, the first few times it adds individual distinction but after the 20th or 100th guy does it, not so much. 

My personal approach is to try out the techniques that I think will be useful to achieving my desired result and/or streamlines the process by reducing time or steps needed to get there. Call me a pragmatic artistic realist. If a tool proves useful, I hang onto it. If not, the experience is still informative. Model time is always precious and because my preferred medium is enamels, some of the popular techniques out there don't work for me or need to be modified or adapted to get a useful outcome. 

 

Bish

Yet you build a modern aircraft and don't fill in the panel lines, and the most likely comment is 'clean build'.

 

 

 

Bish,

I dont know about the others, but when I call a build a "clean" one, what I mean is that the build is practically devoid of flaws, like paint seep, cracks, gaps, etc. Thats why I usually say "crisp and clean build."

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't refract (or refraction) the result of light rays passing through a different medium, such as water.  An example would be viewing a paint brush in a clear glass of water.  I though it was flat and gloss surfaces that reflect light differently?

------------------------------

Anyhow, the above might be an answer as to why some don't use techniques that produce such contrasting surfaces, as most often military vehicles are in a flat finish?

Another take on the sphere - suppose you could consider the flat grey ones are military, but I can appreciate that some people feel the need to spruce things up a bit to make them more visually interesting.

regards,

Jack

I am more the accurate builder, although I know I've been bashed a little on this site due to certain inconsistencies in my models, since I like putting them in dioramas. But the subject matter of the diorama is what drives me to make them as accurate as I remember them or as I see in the information material that I get online or thru books and historical pictures. But I always like to put my own spin on a model that will make it a conversation piece.

wbill76

Disdain is such a strong word...it implies a complete rejection, sense of illegitimacy, and lack of appreciation, none of which is an accurate reflection of my views.

Bill, I apologize for carelessly choosing that word; honestly I didn't intend any of the connotations which you listed. You told me in your last thread that you didn't really go for the panel lightening look--that's what was in my mind.