leemitcheltree

In reality - I prefer making a model that looks......"right".....not too much, not too little. 
"Realism", when compared to "artistic license", is a VERY subjective thing.  One modeler's perfection is another's nightmare.
I've seen the most incredibly detailed, HEAVILY weathered C-130 (on Hellenic Modelers, maybe?)....and whilst it was one of the finest models I've ever seen constructed, the weathering (for me) detracted from an incredible build.
BUT......to the person who made the model, it was perfect.  And that's good enough for me.
I work in the largest manufacturing facility in the world as an engineer on the 777 line, and once painted and ready to deliver,  pretty much the only panel lines you see (from 100 feet away) are passenger, cargo, gear bay doors, and control surfaces.  Trust me.  Especially for the 787.  Smooth as a baby's bottom.
But modelers continue to show all sorts of fuselage and wing panel lines on modern airliners.  Are they wrong?  No.....they made it, so to them, it's right.
Again....that's good enough for me.
Yes.....trying to capture a moment in time is something I like to do - but it's MY build.  If I like it.....then my efforts were worth it.  If someone else doesn't, well......that's their opinion, it's valid, and they're entitled to it. 
The long and short of it........it's YOUR build.....run with it.  And enjoy!

 

That's a great attitude, and one to which I am moving...

Bish

 I now there are some in the realistis camp who can be rather rude and offensive to those who don'ty build there way. But on the flip side, at least from what i see, there seems to be a touch of, for want of a better word, arrogance, with some of the artitstic crowd.

Bish I totally agree with you there, and to be honest, I completely understand that "arrogance" because I have felt that bit of ego myself at times and have probably inadvertantly conveyed that at times in the past. In fact, that's one of the reasons why I am asking this question--I don't want to be "that guy".

I think I can speak as to why and where it comes from, intentional or not.

I think that I should clarify first, however, that I rather erred in the actual focal point of what I meant by "accurate"--I didn't mean an "accurate" build in terms of details; I an strictly speaking of the finish.

Now, I don't think I'm stepping on anyone's toes when I say that when I picture a model that is devoid of filters, panel shading, Scale Effect, pigments, etc, I am probably looking at a model that is finished with a basic base coat, a wash, brybrushed, and maybe airbrushed or brushed-on dirt or dust. In all honesty, a style exactly like I used to model in. Please, don't anyone look for any condescension in that remark; there is none intended. That's just how I finished basically before all these newer techniques came into the hobby.

When I discovered the "Spanish School" of finishing/modeling, I felt like I'd found an epiphany and revolution all in one, and an answer to my modeling prayers, which was basically like "How can I get a more dynamic and eye-catching finish?" The rich, dynamic, saturated tones of this style made me promise myself that I would learn how to do what I saw in the magazines, no matter what it took.

In no time, this style had taken the modeling world by storm, and reactions to it were pretty much almost universally positive. Every magazine out there seemed to rush to cover modelers and models which showed this style and provided instruction on how to pull these technique off effectively. When I came to the FSM forums in Jaunuary of 2007, one of my first full build threads was my Hetzer, which eventually made the cover in an article. That lead to me getting commission work for another company where another Hetzer model was featured on a product insert. Reactions on the forums I was on was amazing--nearly everyone complimenting the builds and questions and queries all 'round as to how to do this technique or that.

So it was probably inevitable that there would be a backlash from some guys. And honestly, after doing SO well with this style both financially and personally (in contests, magazine coverage ,etc) and with the whole Armor modeling world fully invested in it, and with guys asking left and right for advice and help, I was honestly shocked when I started seeing not just negative responses from some guys when I would suggest this or that, but genuinely hostile reactions---remember that older guy who built the big T28 and was absolutely riled up when I suggested some lighter paint to help break up the montone green finish? That wasn't the first, just the most recent I remember, but anyway, speaking for me only, I felt like, "ok, the whole modeling world is onto this like a hair on a biscuit and if you don't want to get noticed with your 'old school finish', then whatever..." My attitude was partly built on pride, partly defensiveness, but also on ignorance---I didn't actually understand that--like Gino--this guy didn't necessarily see his model as an "art project", but as a "real vehicle". So the arrogance comes with the incorrect belief that, since everyone seems to be talking and doing this style because it's the new "hot trend", that everyone naturally wants to learn how to do it---and that if you didn't, well you were just either stodgy, jealous of the success of those who were riding this wave, or just lacking the courage to try something new and different--especially when the "old school way" of finishing was something from which I/we had personally come "before I/we were so enlightened" (sarcasm!!!! ) I hope that I've put this right---note that I do NOT feel this way now, but it's easy to see how this attitude grew and why. I can admit it now because it's something in my past. Again, the question that I asked in this thread is my liberation from this kind of pride, and I am learning a LOT form peoples' input and honesty here.

 

Bish

A true realist will have to build every kit differantly as every piece will have its own story. Quite often with artistic builders, i see kit after kit that although they are in differant schemes, they all look the same. Some one finds a technique they like and stick with that and that alone. And yet they are fawned over.

Now see, that's funny because I feel exactly the same way about some other builds that I see that you could call "realist" finishes. Not a veiled insult, just a truthful statement. I do get it what you say about "sticking with one technique" though, but I think that what you're seeing there may be someone trying to perfect a certain technique throughout several models. I, however, do try to vary my finishing techniques and never follow a "script" too closely.

 

Bish

I think because the artistic approach has been promoted by so called 'experts' with exotic names, those who don't follow it are looked down upon.

I wouldn't go that far. The "experts" are indeed fantastic modelers, and I dare offer that some are indeed true pioneers of modeling much like Shep Paine and Verlinden were. And let's face it--every technique needs a name of some descriptive nature. Some of them also have financial interests in promoting their products, and so they have a vested interest in pushing them. For them, acceptance translates directly into profit. But like I said, I think that for many of the other artistic types, they may be somewhat prideful because they ae looking at their own progression and adoption of these tricky techniques and feeling prideful about it. Some of them get some recognition and reputation inflation because of their mastery of certain techniques. I certainly understand that temptation having traveled the same road in the past.

jgeratic

Was wondering, but do autobuilders (none military subjects), do they use scale effect when painting the bodies?     

regards,
Jack

 

I don't. I'm not aware of any that do. Gloss paint refracts light much differently than Flat paint. It's really like a different medium---although I WOULD use it on a military truck or car for instance..

modelcrazy

What are filters and dot filtering? 

 

 

Filters are, generally speaking, a very thin paint (think of a wash or thinner type application) overlay over a base coat or camouflage scheme. The purpose is to shift or alter the overall color by applying the 'filter' to change the visual result vs. just applying an opaque layer of paint. Dot filtering achieves the same result but does it by applying small dots of paint (usually oils but not always) and then blending the dots together with a thinner-dampened clean brush to achieve variation in the base scheme. The techniques are related in the sense of what they do to the underlying base coat but their means of application are very different. HTH!  

In reality - I prefer making a model that looks......"right".....not too much, not too little. 
"Realism", when compared to "artistic license", is a VERY subjective thing.  One modeler's perfection is another's nightmare.
I've seen the most incredibly detailed, HEAVILY weathered C-130 (on Hellenic Modelers, maybe?)....and whilst it was one of the finest models I've ever seen constructed, the weathering (for me) detracted from an incredible build.
BUT......to the person who made the model, it was perfect.  And that's good enough for me.
I work in the largest manufacturing facility in the world as an engineer on the 777 line, and once painted and ready to deliver,  pretty much the only panel lines you see (from 100 feet away) are passenger, cargo, gear bay doors, and control surfaces.  Trust me.  Especially for the 787.  Smooth as a baby's bottom.
But modelers continue to show all sorts of fuselage and wing panel lines on modern airliners.  Are they wrong?  No.....they made it, so to them, it's right.
Again....that's good enough for me.
Yes.....trying to capture a moment in time is something I like to do - but it's MY build.  If I like it.....then my efforts were worth it.  If someone else doesn't, well......that's their opinion, it's valid, and they're entitled to it. 
The long and short of it........it's YOUR build.....run with it.  And enjoy!

Going through all this so far it seems to me that this culture of model building has three sub-cultures:realists, detailers and actualists. I believe that the vast majority swim in between all three.

 

the doog

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. :)

 

Karl, if i can just pick up on the comment you have made about the responses from people on trying certain techniques.

I now there are some in the realistis camp who can be rather rude and offensive to those who don'ty build there way. But on the flip side, at least from what i see, there seems to be a touch of, for want of a better word, arrogance, with some of the artitstic crowd.

Firstly, we often see little digs at the realist. Rivet counter, rust police and so on. And i get the feeling that those who build realistic builds are maybe seen as poor modellers, less skilful. Being a realist builder can be hard work because you have to remember you are building for yourself as your view of realisim will be differant than others. And you are likely not to get the same responses as an artistic builder will get. This is especialy true with aircraft.

A true realist will have to build every kit differantly as every piece will have its own story. Quite often with artistic builders, i see kit after kit that although they are in differant schemes, they all look the same. Some one finds a technique they like and stick with that and that alone. And yet they are fawned over.

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

I think because the artistic approach has been promoted by so called 'experts' with exotic names, those who don't follow it are looked down upon. If i see an artistic build, wether finished or in progress, i don't feel the need to ofer advuce to make it more realistic, unless its clear the builder wants that. If i know the builder is an artistic one, you for example, then i will simply appreciate the build for what it is.

What are filters and dot filtering? 

Gino, i am very much in the same camp as you, i to have never seen a vehicle where the outer edge of panels was darker than the inside.

But, where i differ is in my view of some of those techniques. Excessive rusting and chipping, i think they have there use in realisim builds if you are doing an old rusting hulk. I see no use for colour modulation, but filters, and especialy dot fitering, certainly do have a place in the realists tool box.

The question is, how you use them. The problem we have as realists is that if we want realistic builds that are not just out of the factory, we have to replicate the efefcts of wear tear and mother nature. And for this we have 2 options.

The first to to run our model around the garden for 6 months and leave it outside for nature to do its work. The other is to use, for want of a better word, special effects, to re-produce these. And the artistic crowd have some very good toos that we can use with our own variations.

I can understand with the way you finish that these may not be needed, but i hope you won't dismiss them completly from the realist bench as they can be very useful.

the doog

That's a good point Bill. I guess most "Master modelers" these days seem to use these techniques; at least SOME, if not all of the new ones. Even you, who disdains the Scale Effect thing has adapted the oil dot technique to a new variation.

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. :)

 

Was wondering, but do autobuilders (none military subjects), do they use scale effect when painting the bodies?     

regards,
Jack

HeavyArty

I have read some of this thread and avoided posting in it.  I was asked by Doog to voice my opinions, so here goes...

Most of you know my opinions on the "artistic", fad finishing methods that have become popular as of late; ie.: filters, dot-filters, panel line shading, pre-shading, post-shading, color modulation, excessive paint chipping, rusting, etc., etc., etc...  To me they are all unrealistic.  So yes, I squarely fall on the accurate or realistic side of modeling. 

I have been active duty US Army for 22 years and have never seen a tank or any other military vehicle or aircraft that the outer outline of a panel is darker than the center, never seen an active tank chipped and rusted to the point where it looks as though it has been abandoned and left to rot for 50 years, etc...the list goes on.  I don't consider what I do as art or artform.  I simply build models of the vehicles I work with and other historical military vehicles.  I build them as I see them in the field every day, not as some artform that has to look all weird and unrealistic.  I don't care if others think they are not dirty enough, or don't have outlined panels, etc.  I generally build for myself as well so I am not looking for some model show judge (who usually has no clue about actual military vehicles) to give me atta boys.

For weathering, I see no need to do anything other than the tried and true methods of washes and drybrushing, maybe some dusting with pastel chalks, not the latest pigments gimmick.  I also don't see the point in covering a perfectly good paint job and build in mud and muck unless you are displaying it in a diorama where there is a bunch of mud for it to collect and get mired in.  So generally, I prefer to gently weather my builds to enhance the details and show a bit of the environments they work in, but still show the vehicle. 

So there you have it.  My ideas, you can form your own as you like.

 

Gino, thank you sincerely for adding your two cents. I genuinely appreciate it, as you are one of the premier builders on this site, who is well-known as a "realist", and who is outspoken in defense of their style. Your contribution is of significant value in this discussion.

Your response is exactly what I was hoping for--honest, unapologetic, and perfectly expressing its core motivation. " I don't consider what I do as art or artform.  I simply build models of the vehicles I work with and other historical military vehicles.  I build them as I see them in the field every day, not as some artform that has to look all weird and unrealistic". Who can argue with that? It's honest and plainly stated. And yet one has to compare it to other modelers who lean more into the "realist camp" and it's obvious that once again there's no "carbon copy" reason, or singular reason.

I do think that what Bish and Stikpusher said rings true. You guys who are real soldiers understandably seem to tend toward a less-artsy interpretation and draw upon your considerable experiences with real armor in your modeling. The realization of this fact is an important and significant aspect of this discussion.

Again, thanks for taking time out of your day to leave a reply, Gino. As well as everyone whom I've neglected to personally thank for helping to flesh out this enjoyable discussion.

HeavyArty

I don't consider what I do as art or artform.

---

Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual,auditory or performing artifacts-artworks,expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill,intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power. Other than that I agree with you 90%.

I have read some of this thread and avoided posting in it.  I was asked by Doog to voice my opinions, so here goes...

Most of you know my opinions on the "artistic", fad finishing methods that have become popular as of late; ie.: filters, dot-filters, panel line shading, pre-shading, post-shading, color modulation, excessive paint chipping, rusting, etc., etc., etc...  To me they are all unrealistic.  So yes, I squarely fall on the accurate or realistic side of modeling. 

I have been active duty US Army for 22 years and have never seen a tank or any other military vehicle or aircraft that the outer outline of a panel is darker than the center, never seen an active tank chipped and rusted to the point where it looks as though it has been abandoned and left to rot for 50 years, etc...the list goes on.  I don't consider what I do as art or artform.  I simply build models of the vehicles I work with and other historical military vehicles.  I build them as I see them in the field every day, not as some artform that has to look all weird and unrealistic.  I don't care if others think they are not dirty enough, or don't have outlined panels, etc.  I generally build for myself as well so I am not looking for some model show judge (who usually has no clue about actual military vehicles) to give me atta boys.

For weathering, I see no need to do anything other than the tried and true methods of washes and drybrushing, maybe some dusting with pastel chalks, not the latest pigments gimmick.  I also don't see the point in covering a perfectly good paint job and build in mud and muck unless you are displaying it in a diorama where there is a bunch of mud for it to collect and get mired in.  So generally, I prefer to gently weather my builds to enhance the details and show a bit of the environments they work in, but still show the vehicle. 

So there you have it.  My ideas, you can form your own as you like.

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.

 

True, and a good point in theory. But just to clarify, Stik (---I'm admittedly cutting-n-pasting much of this from my previous response, just in case you're like me and don't alwasy read every single post reply. } A 3D object surely DOES have its own shadows and highlights. But Scale Effect 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. (and again, I admit that I definitely DO deliberately exaggerate that disparity).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".

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.

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.

Thanks for weighing in here.

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".

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

 

Thanks for weighing in, Jack. I'm trying to remember who took the effect past the "old" way of doing it. No doubt it HAS become more exaggerated in the recent past, and I am one of its biggest proponents.I do so because I bring it back into proper "tone" with the subsequent weathering. By itself, at first though, it definitely looks a bit much.

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

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'!  

 

That's a good point Bill. I guess most "Master modelers" these days seem to use these techniques; at least SOME, if not all of the new ones. Even you, who disdains the Scale Effect thing has adapted the oil dot technique to a new variation.

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. :)

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

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.

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. 

Hi, Karl, thanks for the great discussion. I'm not necessarily in the artistic camp, however I have never considered it a reason to disregard the techniques as they greatly expand a modeler's capabilities to capture what's being seen on a 1:1 object. Case in point was a Helldiver in a past fsm article that I felt accurately portrayed a picture that showed heavy weathering. Can't get that with paint, wash, drybrush. 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. I don't think I could see projecting shadows on an aircraft without creating a forced perspective diorama.

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. 

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

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!

 

Thanks too, aardvarkm and everyone else who is taking the time to answer! :)

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?  

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 agree with that too, the 'realists" seem to be guys who have experience. I, on the other hand, am completely clueless as to what these vehicles look like in "real life" beyond a museum piece. Maybe that's why I'm able to "imagine" them outside of the "box" of realism? And maybe that's why the realists don't like that approach--maybe it seems "heretical"? I dunno, just thinking out loud here..but it may have some validity?

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. :)

 

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!

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."

 

Thank you----this is a significant statement, because it gets to the heart of your motivation. That is a very good descriptor of what makes you finish the models the way that you do. Thank you for the explanation!