Karl, i am curious. You say you are in the artistic camp, and speak as if you don't understand what a realistic buld is. But i got the latest FSM yesterday and was looking at your 97 Chevy S10. That to me is pure, 100% realisim at its finest.

i am, by 3rd career training, a technical illustrator doing graphics for training manuals. i am CAD and gfx arts trained. that means i create drawings s as realistically and accurate as possible unless they don't look right. then i change them to look better. it's all about training, not my artistic ego.

while i don't want something to look unrealistic i am in the artistic camp. i went through the anal just the right color stage and now if  it's close enough, given eyesight, lighting, realtime weathering, etc. i'm good with it.

i am creating a "presentation" piece and i REALLY like doing the flitering, washes, pin washes, powders and all that goes into it. i also build bases for many builds. if i am doing a build FROM A PHOTO i will forego creativity for accuracy. but trying to get it to look like the photo is creativity.

i suspect both sides are closer to each other than we think.

Bish

Karl, i am curious. You say you are in the artistic camp, and speak as if you don't understand what a realistic buld is. But i got the latest FSM yesterday and was looking at your 97 Chevy S10. That to me is pure, 100% realisim at its finest.

 

Ironically, when it comes to auto models in general, I'm 99% in the "Accuracy" camp. If you've seen some of my muscle cars, you would understand. But than again, I'll build a modified race car and throw generic decals and a random paint scheme on it and call it finished, because modified cars are so individualistic. Once again, it seems that the build dictates the style and the degree of that style as well .

I like to think that I finish my builds in the "accuracy" camp nowadays. I have never considered myself an artistic sort of person in this hobby. But I may use techniques on one build that I will not on others to achieve whatever finish that I am shooting for. And often times, especially with armor builds, those finishes will be influenced by memories of my own service time with AFVs under certain climatic conditions projected onto some historical vehicle under similar conditions. I suppose that could be called artisitc license.

In the past few years I find myself doing far more research than I used to in oder to get an idea for what my next project will be and how I want it to look when completed. I may try new techniques that I come across if I feel it will help to achieve the look that I want. Or I may pass on some because I do not feel it will do what be appropriate for my project. 

What is an accurate build? In my mind it something that represents the subject at a particular point in time. Whether that is when the subject is brand new and fresh off the assembly line, or after an extended period of hard use is up to the individual modeler. And any tecniques out there can be used to represent the same subject at whatever point of its' existance to do just that. 

this is a refreshingly professional discussion, which makes it enjoyable to read. thanks to everyone, many of whom i do GBs with, for keeping it that way. 

it almost seems like, especially in the armor community, we are pole vaulting over mouse turds.

the realism guys use artistic techniques to create their realism. the artistic guys use rerlistic information, ie what color and how thick the mud was, to portray a "generic" but correct tank in a "generic" but correct situation.

if we could find a picture of an AFV that could easily be recreated on a base without a lot of aftermarket stuff necessary but not disallowed and a number of us on both sides would be willing to do i bet the "difference" would be unnoticeable. 

really what is the difference ibetween Karl's soviet SPA on a base that represents one environment it was in and Bish's AR-555 diorama representing a luft '46 in a probable scene?

just me waxing verbosely on a dreary cold gray day. should be shorts weather by friday though. just springtime in the Rockies.

Both and both. 

I mean, when I build a replica I try to be as accurate as the pictures I took will get me there. However, I rarely finish these projects because they start taking too long and I get distracted by other 'artistic' project ideas.

90%+/- of my model builds are OOB and I try to be as accurate as possible with what the box provides only. 

Kit-mash, free stylin', artistic build projects is what it's all about in my epilog.

Karl your WWI memorial diorama is very artistic, even though it was built off a real vehicle the entire theme tells a very imaginitive story while some of your other AFV builds are quite authentic. Looks like your style varies too which is where most of us probable fall into.

This should be a great article, please keep us informed.

Terry 

waynec

this is a refreshingly professional discussion, which makes it enjoyable to read. thanks to everyone, many of whom i do GBs with, for keeping it that way. 

 

I guess that what surprises me most is that we haven't heard from the "hardcore" realists; the ones who would have made them comment about "no filters in the motorpool". I've made suggestions before to various posters in the best of intentions and gotten a few pretty terse replies that seemed to infer that the techniques or steps that I suggested were somehow invalid simply because they were "new". Now, admittedly, maybe I misread that, but there seemed to be a whiff of out-of-hand disdain for the "artsy" approach from some guys, and I guess I am trying to understand that resistance to it.

I was at a museums a few weeks ago and I took some photos of the vehicles and I had this topic on my mind. And to be honest, I get what the "realists" are saying--most armor--at least in museums--is pretty basic looking in terms of paint and "weathering"--even these outdoor exhibits which would presumably be in the weather and elements. But to me, they look lifeless. The paint doesn't "fade" so much, they lack streaking, rust, chips, etc. But they don't excite me. They don't tell a visual story. THAT is my motivation for the "art" in my finishes. When I fade a panel or add a streak or a rusty ding, it's to fill in the story about the trials and tribulations of war, or effort, or struggle. It's a visual cue as to what this vehicle and its crew might have gone through.

I guess that what I'm trying to understand is what seems like a barely-concealed disdain for this trend which has taken place in modeling. And I also feel that, if this trend toward artistic finishes is so popular, is it precisely because o fthe emtional response that it generates in the viewer as well as the modeler making it? It certainly has taken over the modeling world, magazines, Youtube channels, etc?

jibber

Karl your WWI memorial diorama is very artistic, even though it was built off a real vehicle the entire theme tells a very imaginitive story while some of your other AFV builds are quite authentic. Looks like your style varies too which is where most of us probable fall into.

This should be a great article, please keep us informed.

Terry 

  

 

Karl, I don't know who you would consider the "hardcore realists" here. But I will play off your statement of "no filters in the motor pool". No there are not. But there is variety to be seen in the motor pool. At least in my experience. Vehicles certainly fade due to weathering by nature. And I was never fortunate enough to be in a unit where we received a full compliment of brand new vehicles at once so that they were uniform in appearance in every way. Most units I was in had hand me downs or rebuilds from an army depot that came in looking used or brand new, and were added to our oldr vehicles that we already had. Some displayed prominent fading while others not a hint.

I think if anywhere things get carried away is in the overuse of certain effects, particularly rust and chipping. As I have said before, some folks get a bit carried away with those techniques to make their project look like a range target that has been on the receiving end of shell fragments and machine gun fire, coupled with a sun drenched fade and tropical monsoon rust, from years of exposure to such hazards. I'm not saying that such things do  not exist on operational vehicles. They do, but mure subtely than is depicted on some builds.

 In the most favored subject area of WWII, the majority of vehicles had an operational service life of months, very rarely stretching over a year or so before being worn out, knocked out, or simply replaced with a newer model. Of course in prolonged campaign areas such as the Russian front, or backwater areas such as Yugoslavia and Norway, one will find more exceptions to this rule due to the peculiarities of the situations.

But on the other end of the weathing spectrum- dust and mud, the creativity of the artistic minded folks has greatly improved the realistic appearance of those common substances. Way better looking and far more realistic than simple washes and dry brushing from way back when.

I use both camps in my builds and actually never thought of it as being artistic but rather realistic in appearance. As I see it, both forms complement each other, making my model more accurate and realistic as I'm depicting a particular look.

But to me, they look lifeless. The paint doesn't "fade" so much, they lack streaking, rust, chips, etc. But they don't excite me. [/quote]

I had my 1 cent earlier so here's another 1 cent to make it my two cents. I think you've basically answered your query here with the last sentence in your above qoute. You can't pigeon hole emotive responses to art. And it is art. I greatly admire all the examples of finished models I have viewed here and in museums,etc. But I personally take more satisfaction in trying to build a subject that says ,to me, "this is what I am before time takes its effects." I do not dismiss any deviations or additions that enhances the vision of the artist,seems a little close minded to me. But Doog, I'm really looking foward to your article after you chew and digest all the input. Good luck.

the doog

 

waynec

this is a refreshingly professional discussion, which makes it enjoyable to read. thanks to everyone, many of whom i do GBs with, for keeping it that way. 

 

 

 

 

I agree, and I thank you all for your participation once again.

 

I guess that what surprises me most is that we haven't heard from the "hardcore" realists; the ones who would have made them comment about "no filters in the motorpool". I've made suggestions before to various posters in the best of intentions and gotten a few pretty terse replies that seemed to infer that the techniques or steps that I suggested were somehow invalid simply because they were "new". Now, admittedly, maybe I misread that, but there seemed to be a whiff of out-of-hand disdain for the "artsy" approach from some guys, and I guess I am trying to understand that resistance to it.

I was at a museums a few weeks ago and I took some photos of the vehicles and I had this topic on my mind. And to be honest, I get what the "realists" are saying--most armor--at least in museums--is pretty basic looking in terms of paint and "weathering"--even these outdoor exhibits which would presumably be in the weather and elements. But to me, they look lifeless. The paint doesn't "fade" so much, they lack streaking, rust, chips, etc. But they don't excite me. They don't tell a visual story. THAT is my motivation for the "art" in my finishes. When I fade a panel or add a streak or a rusty ding, it's to fill in the story about the trials and tribulations of war, or effort, or struggle. It's a visual cue as to what this vehicle and its crew might have gone through.

I guess that what I'm trying to understand is what seems like a barely-concealed disdain for this trend which has taken place in modeling. And I also feel that, if this trend toward artistic finishes is so popular, is it precisely because o fthe emtional response that it generates in the viewer as well as the modeler making it? It certainly has taken over the modeling world, magazines, Youtube channels, etc?

 

I do wounder these days how many of those hardcore realists are out tehre. I have seen some comments on here in the past, such as you can't paint it that colour or do this to it. But those seem few and far between.

I am in the camp which is happy for others to model as they wish. And while i might give advice and suggestions, i hope in a constructive and polite manner, i am more than happy for who ever i give that advice to to do with it what they will.

I have how ever felt a trend from the other side where realisim is looked down on, we have all heard of the disdain for the rivet counter, and if you don't do it artistically, you are doing it wrong. And to repeat my earlier comment, this has got to the point where many don't understand why they are doing a certain thing and believeing that the artistic approach is realistic.

But i would like to pick up on a couple of your comments.

''But to me, they look lifeless. The paint doesn't "fade" so much, they lack streaking, rust, chips, etc. But they don't excite me.''

For me, the subject itself is what excits me, if it didn't, i would not build it. And you say you are telling a story by taking the approach you are. But the story can be told better, i think, by the realistic approach. The 251 i am building, for example. It will show a vehicle sat on the Russian steppe. But the weathering will show a vehicle that gone through a hard time, through a tough winter, and it helps tell the life of that vehicle.

And just as you feel you need to take the approach you do to make it exciting, i know you are in the camp that says a vehicle must be 'in' the base to make it look heavy. Again, i don't agree, i look at a piece of armour and i know its heavy. But, i guess its just a differant mindset. Some are artistic some are not.

I know there are people from both camps from all walks of life. But one thing i have noticed is that most of those who have first hand experiance with the real thing, seem to be in the realisim camp. And like Stik, i have many years hands on with armour in the real world. And believe me, nothing a museum does can replicate what a well used vehicle will look like.

And i guess this has an effect on us when it comes to what we build and how we build it.

the doog

 

 

I was at a museums a few weeks ago and I took some photos of the vehicles and I had this topic on my mind. And to be honest, I get what the "realists" are saying--most armor--at least in museums--is pretty basic looking in terms of paint and "weathering"--even these outdoor exhibits which would presumably be in the weather and elements. But to me, they look lifeless. The paint doesn't "fade" so much, they lack streaking, rust, chips, etc. But they don't excite me. They don't tell a visual story. THAT is my motivation for the "art" in my finishes. When I fade a panel or add a streak or a rusty ding, it's to fill in the story about the trials and tribulations of war, or effort, or struggle. It's a visual cue as to what this vehicle and its crew might have gone through.

 

 

I get your point very clearly here. And I will say that museums are a starting point to looking at AFVs. Especially if you want to tell their 'living" stories. Last summer my AMPS crew was fortunate to have a tour to a few musems on Camp pendleton, as well as the facility where the vehicles are restored before they are put into those musuems. The difference is night and day between what the receive and what they put out. Damaged parts are replaced, everything is stripped down, steam cleaned, pressure washed, repainted, restored, etc. When the restoration is complete, the vehicle is put on display, and looks great, but it loses those individual quirks that many vehicles take on during their service lives. You no longer see the bent or missing fenders, mud flaps etc. The exhaust stain build up on the stacks. The fuel spillage from those late night refuels on 2 hours sleep. The grease seepage from road wheel hubs from constant operator maintenence. The "clear" spot work into the dust coat from the crew mounting and dismounting at that spot.

Now if there is one technique that leaves me less than enthralled when I see it on a build in most cases I would say it is the one that is supposed to simulate lighting conditions, by painting the upper surfaces in a particular manner. I can see where it has a place, like a forced perspective shadow box diorama. But when you think about it, by using that technique, one is really nailing things to a particular moment- high noon at such and such location under cloudless skies due to the angle of the light. No accounting for clouds, haze, morning, afternoon, dawn dusk, etc. The look when done right is certainly artistry and has a place in our bag of tricks for modelers. But I dont think that I will ever use it unless I do one of those forced perspective or shadowbox displays. More power to the guy who can, does, and pulls it off right.

templar1099

But I personally take more satisfaction in trying to build a subject that says ,to me, "this is what I am before time takes its effects."

 

Bish

I have how ever felt a trend from the other side where realisim is looked down on, we have all heard of the disdain for the rivet counter, and if you don't do it artistically, you are doing it wrong. And to repeat my earlier comment, this has got to the point where many don't understand why they are doing a certain thing and believeing that the artistic approach is realistic.

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE with the 2nd statement--"we" don't understand. Honestly. And to be perfectly honest, it's easy to feel "pumped up" about mastering a certain technique or finishing manner and to wonder why another modeler isn't interested in learning it when you yourself think it "makes" the model. I admit that I used to feel that way sometimes, because having come from making my models in the "old school" way of paint-wash-drybrush-done, the learning-of new techniques and methods of using certain mediums definitely felt like a big "progression" to me.

We have a thread here on the armor page somewhere where a poster said he wanted to learn intermediate weathering techniques because he didn't want to "ruin" the model. I admit that I've wondered sometimes how many guys are just scared to try something new because they don't know exactly what they're supposed to do and don't want to screw up a finish that they know they can just leave as-is and call it done? This is why, I suppose, I'm alwasy suggesting this or that---I take it for granted that people want to "progress" as I have--maybe that's why it is puzzling when someone says "No, I'm not interested in that". It's myopia on my part, certainly---but that's why I'm asking the question. I really DO want to understand what makes people prefer one style over the other. Is it fear or insecurity with trying new things? Or is it a dogmatic insistence that "real tanks in the field don't look that way", or is it just resistance to change? Or---do they just like them that way?

I admit my ignorance on this--and that's why I ask. So that I DON'T sound cocky or judgmental about it in the future, and so that I don't feel as if it's a subtle disparagement when someone ignores or rejects a well-intended suggestion. I genuinely want to know, and I think it's great to actually discuss this without getting heated about it.

Bish

For me, the subject itself is what excits me, if it didn't, i would not build it. And you say you are telling a story by taking the approach you are. But the story can be told better, i think, by the realistic approach. The 251 i am building, for example. It will show a vehicle sat on the Russian steppe. But the weathering will show a vehicle that gone through a hard time, through a tough winter, and it helps tell the life of that vehicle.

And just as you feel you need to take the approach you do to make it exciting, i know you are in the camp that says a vehicle must be 'in' the base to make it look heavy. Again, i don't agree, i look at a piece of armour and i know its heavy. But, i guess its just a differant mindset. Some are artistic some are not.

I know there are people from both camps from all walks of life. But one thing i have noticed is that most of those who have first hand experiance with the real thing, seem to be in the realisim camp. And like Stik, i have many years hands on with armour in the real world. And believe me, nothing a museum does can replicate what a well used vehicle will look like.

And i guess this has an effect on us when it comes to what we build and how we build it.

 

I would definitely disagree about the "in the base/heavy" thing. I think that being "in the base" is actually "realistic" as pertains to the laws of Physics. "Air space" under a 60 ton vehicle sitting on dirt or mud just doesn't really look "real" to me, from a scientific (?)  point of view.

Good discussion, Bish, thanks for the explanations. :)

stikpusher

I get your point very clearly here. And I will say that museums are a starting point to looking at AFVs. Especially if you want to tell their 'living" stories. Last summer my AMPS crew was fortunate to have a tour to a few musems on Camp pendleton, as well as the facility where the vehicles are restored before they are put into those musuems. The difference is night and day between what the receive and what they put out. Damaged parts are replaced, everything is stripped down, steam cleaned, pressure washed, repainted, restored, etc. When the restoration is complete, the vehicle is put on display, and looks great, but it loses those individual quirks that many vehicles take on during their service lives. You no longer see the bent or missing fenders, mud flaps etc. The exhaust stain build up on the stacks. The fuel spillage from those late night refuels on 2 hours sleep. The grease seepage from road wheel hubs from constant operator maintenence. The "clear" spot work into the dust coat from the crew mounting and dismounting at that spot.

THAT is very cool info to know. I mean, I rather "instinctly" felt that (?) already but it's very interesting to hear a first-hand account.

stikpusher

Now if there is one technique that leaves me less than enthralled when I see it on a build in most cases I would say it is the one that is supposed to simulate lighting conditions, by painting the upper surfaces in a particular manner. I can see where it has a place, like a forced perspective shadow box diorama. But when you think about it, by using that technique, one is really nailing things to a particular moment- high noon at such and such location under cloudless skies due to the angle of the light.

lol, that's called "Scale Effect", and it was first proposed and advocated by Tony Greenland, if you remember him and his best0selling book. I can tell you that THAT technique is like my modeling lynchpin; I use it in every build and advocate it, always, as it is--in my opinion--rather like the difference between drawing a flat circle and and then drawing a  sphere, with shading underneath and highlights on the top. It's ironic, because in my way of seeing it, it actually makes the model LOOK more "accurate". Weird, huh, how we can be so far apart on that?

And no offense taken, but it's worth noting that in your previous response, you said:

               "What is an accurate build? In my mind it something that represents the subject at a particular point in time. Whether that is when the subject is brand new and fresh off the assembly line, or after an extended period of hard use is up to the individual modeler. And any tecniques out there can be used to represent the same subject at whatever point of its' existance to do just that."

--- now, I may misunderstand you, but that almost sounds like a contradiction if you read both of the boldfaced statements? You said earlier that "accurate" is building something "at a particular point in time", but then you seem to infer that the use of Scale Effect lighting technique leaves you cold because it "freezes a subject in a particular point in time".  I guess I'm just confused by that?  

ardvark002

hi doog. i have been thinking about this post all day, and have come to the following conclusion. that i'm both. I love building, mostly aircraft. I built a 1/24 beaver with black windows {decal &some paint} and realized that it looked great. now if i build closed window, fuselage 1/48 kits which you can,t see the interiors on I black the windows and put my time in the exterior to make a nice static display model. I try to do good detail , but my main goal is to build a nice static reproduction. that' my thing. luv this community everybody keep on modeling!

 

It seems scale effect has become a very complicated technique.  Was it not originally just toning down the overall colour of the subject by adding a few drops of white, the ratio determined by the scale being worked in (the smaller the scale, the more white one would add).   Or was this  known as something else? 

Karl, glad you posted that graphic of the circle and sphere.  This is exactly what  I alluded to in my initial post, but maybe I didn't use the right technical term.  Anyhow, I just don't see how rendering the properties of sphere onto flat slabs of armour  will make it more realistic.  I admit it does look interesting, and when I do use it, the realist in me keeps it very subtle.

regards,
Jack

Hmm, that's interesting SP, since colour modulation or whatever you call where you lighten the paint as you move up the model is one of the few newer techniques I use. Personally I just find it more interesting on the plain jane olive drab and dark green of Second World War US, UK and USSR vehicles.

You're right there about the only time the real thing would look this way is at noon with the sun directly overhead but still I just like the contrast added with the shadows and highlights, kinda reminds me of painting a figure. Just seems to 'pop' more than painting it all the same shade of olive drab and then adding a few pin washes and a little drybrushing. 

stikpusher

Karl, I don't know who you would consider the "hardcore realists" here. But I will play off your statement of "no filters in the motor pool". No there are not. But there is variety to be seen in the motor pool. At least in my experience. Vehicles certainly fade due to weathering by nature. And I was never fortunate enough to be in a unit where we received a full compliment of brand new vehicles at once so that they were uniform in appearance in every way. Most units I was in had hand me downs or rebuilds from an army depot that came in looking used or brand new, and were added to our oldr vehicles that we already had. Some displayed prominent fading while others not a hint.

 

funny. my first tank platoon had 2 M60s and 4 A1s in 7th army desert camo, faded, chipped, dinged fenders. we transitioned to A2s 8 months later and every tank was the same coming out of the battalion paint shop. colonel had a cow one day because one tank had a green no. 2 road wheel instead of it being brown. this lasted until first field exercise. 

the doog

 

 

stikpusher

Now if there is one technique that leaves me less than enthralled when I see it on a build in most cases I would say it is the one that is supposed to simulate lighting conditions, by painting the upper surfaces in a particular manner. I can see where it has a place, like a forced perspective shadow box diorama. But when you think about it, by using that technique, one is really nailing things to a particular moment- high noon at such and such location under cloudless skies due to the angle of the light.

 

 

 

lol, that's called "Scale Effect", and it was first proposed and advocated by Tony Greenland, if you remember him and his best0selling book. I can tell you that THAT technique is like my modeling lynchpin; I use it in every build and advocate it, always, as it is--in my opinion--rather like the difference between drawing a flat circle and and then drawing a  sphere, with shading underneath and highlights on the top. It's ironic, because in my way of seeing it, it actually makes the model LOOK more "accurate". Weird, huh, how we can be so far apart on that?

 

And no offense taken, but it's worth noting that in your previous response, you said:

               "What is an accurate build? In my mind it something that represents the subject at a particular point in time. Whether that is when the subject is brand new and fresh off the assembly line, or after an extended period of hard use is up to the individual modeler. And any tecniques out there can be used to represent the same subject at whatever point of its' existance to do just that."

--- now, I may misunderstand you, but that almost sounds like a contradiction if you read both of the boldfaced statements? You said earlier that "accurate" is building something "at a particular point in time", but then you seem to infer that the use of Scale Effect lighting technique leaves you cold because it "freezes a subject in a particular point in time".  I guess I'm just confused by that?  

 

Is that "scale effect"? I was always under the impression that scalle effect was the lightening of the paint to take into account distance, and is applied uniformly. What I am referring to is a technique that replicates lighting and shadow by leaving shadowed lower surface areas darker and upper highlighted surfaces lightened. Simillar to what is seen on figures but on aircraft of vehicles. The guy who gave a presentation on the technique at one of our IPMS Chapter meetings called it something else IIRC, and not scale effect.

And yes, taking my statements from two different posts do contradict one another. Modeling realisticly does nail down the subject at a particular moment in time. But the enhanced or enforced lighting technique does not do much for me in most cases. Even when it's on a base, unless it is done in a shadow box type display, the over emphasis of shadows and highlights strikes me as more artistic than realistic. Taking a painting or drawing technique for two dimensional use and projecting it onto a three dimensional subject to make certain aspects stand out or fade away more. I understand and appreciate it, but at the same time it does not wow me. On canvas or paper, it is a necessity to give the illusion of depth, on a three dimensional subject, it is not.

the doog

And I also feel that, if this trend toward artistic finishes is so popular, is it precisely because of the emotional response that it generates in the viewer as well as the modeler making it? It certainly has taken over the modeling world, magazines, Youtube channels, etc

I've not weighed in on this as I've felt like it would just be repeating what others have to say, but on this particular point, I think I've got something to add. Don't underestimate the 'challenge' aspect that certain techniques represent...many of these techniques require several additional steps, uses of various paints/materials to achieve, and a more complex/layered approach to a finish. In the old days, it was left up to the individual to try to 'figure it all out' on their own...maybe piecing it together from different builders by talking to them, seeing their work, etc. and then trying to replicate or develop it yourself in a largely trial-and-error fashion. Now much of that information is more readily available through forums, books, clubs, social media, contest demos, etc. It's democratized the 'how to' information in combination with the explosion of ready-made materials like paints, washes, pigments, etc. to provide individuals with the tools to attempt things that they probably wouldn't have otherwise tried before. That, in turn, has made the 'artistic' methods as you've defined them for this discussion more widely known, accepted, and, for better or worse copied, creating a cycle of 'new' techniques, methods, whatever being introduced, then refined, then modified, etc., etc.

How far one chooses to go in pursuing the 'latest' methods largely depends on the 'what' you're building, the 'why' you're building it (for contest as an example), and the 'who' you're building it for (yourself, someone else, your local club, etc.). Being able to clearly define people as belonging to one 'camp' or 'school' of thought when it comes down to strictly finishes is not as easy or clear-cut as it once might have been. I've seen some heavily detailed models with huge amounts of AM, scratch-built details, etc. added to produce a more 'accurate' model then get tricked out in the latest 'artistic' paint finishing techniques to produce a visually stunning and masterful completed model. By its very nature, it would defy strict classification as an 'either/or'!  

wbill76

 I've seen some heavily detailed models with huge amounts of AM, scratch-built details, etc. added to produce a more 'accurate' model then get tricked out in the latest 'artistic' paint finishing techniques to produce a visually stunning and masterful completed model. By its very nature, it would defy strict classification as an 'either/or'!  

 

I have have seen some VERY negative, disdainful responses to suggestion to different modelers to try this or that technique, and I guess that I am trying to understand what is behind THAT kind of emotion. We're getting closer to undrstanding it, I believe, but I hope some more people weigh in. :)

jgeratic

It seems scale effect has become a very complicated technique.  Was it not originally just toning down the overall colour of the subject by adding a few drops of white, the ratio determined by the scale being worked in (the smaller the scale, the more white one would add).   Or was this  known as something else? 

Karl, glad you posted that graphic of the circle and sphere.  This is exactly what  I alluded to in my initial post, but maybe I didn't use the right technical term.  Anyhow, I just don't see how rendering the properties of sphere onto flat slabs of armour  will make it more realistic.  I admit it does look interesting, and when I do use it, the realist in me keeps it very subtle.

regards,
Jack

 

For me though, that circle/sphere graphic is more or less a visual "reason" for why I do it.

mississippivol

I'm not sure that the circle/sphere illustration is correct as the model is three dimensional itself, and projects it's own shadows from whatever light source is around.

Just for clarification--and no to turn this into an advocacy thread for my "signature technique" but...--the technique takes into account the noticeable difference in the way that light refracts from the surface of a 1:35th scale object vs a 1:1 object. It's a noticable difference, and you can "prove" it by looking at a paint chip against a large painted surface (it's identical to the color tone) and then walking away about 50 feet and looking at it again. The painted surface will appear lighter than the chip.

This is why sometimes you go and try to find a paint color to repair the chip in your car and you think you've got the right color in the store, but when you apply it, it's way-off. Same thing if you've ever chosen a paint color from a sample paper at a Lowe's or Home Depot, and then you go home and paint it on your wall and it's not the color you expected. That's "scale effect".

stikpusher

Is that "scale effect"? I was always under the impression that scalle effect was the lightening of the paint to take into account distance, and is applied uniformly. What I am referring to is a technique that replicates lighting and shadow by leaving shadowed lower surface areas darker and upper highlighted surfaces lightened. Simillar to what is seen on figures but on aircraft of vehicles. The guy who gave a presentation on the technique at one of our IPMS Chapter meetings called it something else IIRC, and not scale effect.

Hmm, I never heard of that term; I suppose it's possible that in some colloquial dialects it's called something different, but the original term was "Scale Effect". Maybe you're correct though; maybe the way that I use it--the exaggerated tone that is later brought down by weathering--has its own unique name? If it does, I don't know it. It's almost like an over-emphasis of post-and-pre-shading? Interesting food for thought. When I'm doing it though, I'm thinking of it as deliberate "Scale effect" and significantly, for the reasons that Tony Greenland originally stated for its relevance.

stikpusher

On canvas or paper, it is a necessity to give the illusion of depth, on a three dimensional subject, it is not.

 

It's also one of the reasons that early CGI in movies didn't look "real" or "seated in the frame" in low-budget movies. They didn't have the technological devlopment yet to accurately track and replicate the way that light behaved in a "real" environment. So the portrayed refraction of the light off of the subject was slightly different than what you brain was processing from other objects in the film. It affected the perception of the object, monster, whatever...scale effect is an attempt to "fool" the eye into perceiving the model to be larger than it actually IS.