SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

POLL / SURVEY: please respond!!

6382 views
108 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Valrico, FL
Posted by HeavyArty on Thursday, April 21, 2016 9:46 AM

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 P. Quintiliani - Field Artillery - The KING of BATTLE!!!

Check out my Gallery: https://app.photobucket.com/u/HeavyArty

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell

  • Member since
    December 2015
  • From: providence ,r.i.
Posted by templar1099 on Thursday, April 21, 2016 10:22 AM

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%.

"le plaisir delicieux et toujours nouveau d'une occupation inutile"

  • Member since
    January 2007
Posted by the doog on Thursday, April 21, 2016 10:38 AM

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. YesBeer

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. Smile As well as everyone whom I've neglected to personally thank for helping to flesh out this enjoyable discussion. Yes

  • Member since
    April 2006
  • From: ON, Canada
Posted by jgeratic on Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:34 AM

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

regards,
Jack

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Texas
Posted by wbill76 on Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:44 AM

the doog

That's a good point Bill. Smile 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. :)

 

 
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. Smile While I don't choose to regularly employ Scale Effect (or modulation) per se in my own methods and builds, that doesn't mean I don't respect the effort, visual results, and skill that it takes for someone else to pull it off convincingly. As you correctly point out, my own personal 'style', if you will, incorporates many different techniques and approaches depending on what I'm working on and what I want to achieve in the finish. I view them all as tools to use, or not use, and not necessarily an 'essential' element to be employed all the time. Smile 
 
As you point out, you use different styles/approaches depending on the subject/genre you're working on. I do the same thing. Beer The techniques of adding depth, shading, variation, etc. to a particular finish are tools in the arsenal to create a more visually interesting result, if you want that. That's the key...not everyone wants to always do that or do it to the level that might be currently 'in vogue'. Smile 
 
Exhibit A: 
 
 
Exhibit B: 
 
 
Exhibit C: 
 
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, England
Posted by Bish on Thursday, April 21, 2016 1:53 PM

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.

I am a Norfolk man and i glory in being so

 

On the bench: Airfix 1/72nd Harrier GR.3/Fujimi 1/72nd Ju 87D-3

  • Member since
    July 2014
Posted by modelcrazy on Thursday, April 21, 2016 2:00 PM

What are filters and dot filtering? 

Steve

Building a kit from your stash is like cutting a head off a Hydra, two more take it's place.

 

 

http://www.spamodeler.com/forum/

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, England
Posted by Bish on Thursday, April 21, 2016 2:11 PM

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.

I am a Norfolk man and i glory in being so

 

On the bench: Airfix 1/72nd Harrier GR.3/Fujimi 1/72nd Ju 87D-3

  • Member since
    October 2015
Posted by Modelrob on Thursday, April 21, 2016 3:51 PM
I have been following this thread and I find it very interesting. I think every hobby has it separation in techniques. I am also a photographer and I practice and work in the HDR technique and the disagreements between the realest and artistic modelers are nothing compared to the realistic and HDR camps in photography.
I can’t say for sure where I am because I have only completed 4 models and working on the 5th so I don’t have a lot of experience.  I think a lean to the artistic side I like heavy wreathing and chipping.  After 21 years in the service I am fully aware that no military would willingly allow its equipment to look like that because it affects combat readiness.   For me the artistic side appeals to me because it gives an exaggerated effect of what sustained combat would produce if a piece of equipment was used in sustained combat.  Examples that I could think of would be some of the last equipment at Stalingrad or any equipment lucky enough to stay operational from Kursk to the German Boarder these would be the exceptions that would show extreme wear and tear.  

 

In the end I think people just have a tendency to lean one way or the other just because it meets their inner sence of what looks good. I tend to look at each model and try to enjoy it as the modeler wanted to create it.  No matter what modeling is a form of creative release weather you are a realest or artist.
 
Robert
  • Member since
    December 2015
  • From: providence ,r.i.
Posted by templar1099 on Thursday, April 21, 2016 5:09 PM

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.

"le plaisir delicieux et toujours nouveau d'une occupation inutile"

  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Washington State
Posted by leemitcheltree on Thursday, April 21, 2016 5:22 PM

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!

Cheers, LeeTree
Remember, Safety Fast!!!

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Texas
Posted by wbill76 on Thursday, April 21, 2016 6:50 PM

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! Beer 

  • Member since
    January 2007
Posted by the doog on Thursday, April 21, 2016 8:54 PM

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..

  • Member since
    January 2007
Posted by the doog on Thursday, April 21, 2016 10:54 PM

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". Tongue Tied

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!!!! Wink) 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.

  • Member since
    January 2007
Posted by the doog on Thursday, April 21, 2016 10:56 PM

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... Big Smile

  • Member since
    January 2007
Posted by the doog on Thursday, April 21, 2016 10:59 PM

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.
 

Sorry if I was indelicate in my choce of words.
 

 
 
  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: East Stroudsburg, PA
Posted by TigerII on Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:00 PM

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.

Achtung Panzer! Colonel General Heinz Guderian
  • Member since
    April 2006
  • From: ON, Canada
Posted by jgeratic on Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:16 PM

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

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: Cavite, Philippines
Posted by allan on Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:22 PM

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."

 

No bucks, no Buck Rogers

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Texas
Posted by wbill76 on Friday, April 22, 2016 1:14 AM

I understand Karl and no worries buddy! Beer  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. Geeked

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. Cool 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. Smile

 

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • From: Maine
Posted by Stage_Left on Saturday, April 23, 2016 12:03 PM

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

  • Member since
    January 2007
Posted by the doog on Saturday, April 23, 2016 7:58 PM

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. Smile

  • Member since
    January 2007
Posted by the doog on Saturday, April 23, 2016 8:55 PM

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. Embarrassed

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. :)

  • Member since
    January 2007
Posted by the doog on Saturday, April 23, 2016 9:18 PM

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)

Smile

  • Member since
    December 2015
  • From: providence ,r.i.
Posted by templar1099 on Sunday, April 24, 2016 6:49 AM

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.

"le plaisir delicieux et toujours nouveau d'une occupation inutile"

  • Member since
    December 2015
  • From: providence ,r.i.
Posted by templar1099 on Sunday, April 24, 2016 7:05 AM

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.

"le plaisir delicieux et toujours nouveau d'une occupation inutile"

  • Member since
    June 2014
  • From: New Braunfels , Texas
Posted by Tanker - Builder on Sunday, April 24, 2016 9:27 AM

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.

  • Member since
    January 2007
  • From: Pearl River, Louisiana
Posted by claudez on Sunday, April 24, 2016 11:34 AM

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! SmileYes

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

    

 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Monday, April 25, 2016 6:07 PM

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

 

 

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    July 2014
Posted by modelcrazy on Monday, April 25, 2016 6:41 PM

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

Steve Smile

Steve

Building a kit from your stash is like cutting a head off a Hydra, two more take it's place.

 

 

http://www.spamodeler.com/forum/

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.