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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 

  

 

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?

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 

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.

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.

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. 

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 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.

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.

JTRACING

Definitely artisti, I just build stuff for fun and enjoyment, painting and weathering is my favourite part so I always do it the way I want to lol, that's why I rarely share my armour builds 

 

JT, this is not a dig at you in paricular, so please don't take this personally. But i see this sort of comment often. I can't speake for others, though i would imagine many are of the same mind. But even though i do not go for the artistic look, i also build for fun and enjoyment. Its just that for me the fun is the research, my own experiances and and trying new idas to get the model to look as much like the real thing, or at least as much as i tyhink the real thing would look like, as my limited skills and the materials to hand allow.

Guys, once again, thank you for everyone's input and honesty. Your answers are a real help to me and great fodder for conversation and for informative discussion. It's interesting that no one is really too dogmatic about their style or preference. Keep them coming if you would.

Definitely artisti, I just build stuff for fun and enjoyment, painting and weathering is my favourite part so I always do it the way I want to lol, that's why I rarely share my armour builds 

OK. I guess that I'll chime in here although I'm sure that the others here are just as reputable as I am concerning paint, and what techniques that they use, and why. I'll keep this short and sweet - to the point.

I'm of the REAL OLD school ideal of doing it accurately if it's something that your trying to replicate.  Do not deviate, or use artistic license unless you're doing your own thing. I also use a simple rule of thumb regarding modeling.

Do not do what's popular such as using what others suggest simply because they've read it somewhere, or because they know someone who did it, and got lucky with the results. I understand that not everyone here has the same level of experience. However there's no one way of doing things to achieve the same effect since there are so many mediums to use at our disposal these days. I guess that it comes down to a matter of what works for you, or rather what you can do with what you have on hand, and what you can do with it. I didn't read everyones' repsonse here just to keep from colouring, or infulencing my own opinion, or thoughts on this subject.

I don't use pen (ink) washes, or oil paints, or art acrylics, but that's because I use automotive paints, and enamels that are to be used on wood, metal AND plastic. I know how to weather without using chalk. I use painting techniques that are simple, and easy once you figure out how to do them. This is what we did back in the day, and it's what ILM, Apogee, and other studios before, and after them did before anyone thought of using ground up chalk sprayed with a clear coat. Plus the old school way of doing things was easier, and more durable with paint. No messy ink washes, or water based paints to ruin our models with.

Sandpaper, steel wool, baking soda, drywall mud, earthen clay, superglue, and papier mache were our tools of the trade for the most part. Regular house paint brushes, and old rags were what we used to weather vehicles with. Thinned down paint with various shades of other paint were applied to resemble weather effects of rain, dirt, rust, etc. to walls of buildings, houses, and machinery to look old although it was all new. It was hard to walk onto a set, and realise that a lot of this was FAKE!

Look at others, and what they use, and decide for yourself what you like, and how to do it. ME - I'm a purist, except for cars. I paint them the way I like them. Not neccesarily the same as the model box pictures.

~ Cobra Chris

This reminds me of a question I once polled about aftermarket PE and why people would use it.  It turned out it wasn't just for more accuracy, but some opted for it just simpley because it looked cool. 

So same result here, the 'artsy' tecqniques can be employd by all.  For some it's to make their build more accurate, while for others - well it just looks cool.

---------

As far as colour modulation goes, I keep it sublte.   I think the problem with this technique is when it is overdone on a flat surface(s), it creates a curved look, and that can be confusing - though some might think it a neat effect.   Another problem arises when decals are placed over said surface painted in this style.  IF the markings are not addressed in the same fashion, they look to be floating overtop the paint - not realistic, but if Salvador Dali was yor aim - success!  It can get worse with mutliple camou finishes ...

regards,

Jack

The Hobbyist

But I do agree that the "artistic" portion of most models lie within the "finish" of the model, not the build

First off thanks for including me as a modeller. I consider myself more of a hacker. What comes in a box is an accurate subject done to the best standard possible,subject to technology and materials. AM additions are a choice one makes to enhance the subject, ergo, I include those as part of the subject. I like,say,PE railings on ships,but I don't need or want a 6 piece hexagonal doo-dab under a 1/350 radar.Take a model,build it,it still represents an accurate presentation of the subject. Just me.

Hi , Karl ;

   I guess I fall into both schools ! If I am building for historical accuracy to reflect a certain moment in time then it's weathered to what it should be .If I am modeling for the " Neat Look " as in an aged but clean ship , well, then it's artistic I guess.

    What most folks don't understand here Karl, is simple .No ship is perfectly clean, unless, it's a builders model , just out of the drydock or in a case somewhere . Now with wood ships , even new, they look weathered to a degree .It's all in how you look at it ( sorry about the pun ! ).

  All in all I believe after judging Aircraft , Armor , Ships and Cars , I have learned it's all preffrence of the builder. based on what they know and what they want . For instance .I pre-shade the bows of ships to enhance the curve of the ship's sides both vertically and horizontally . Why ? Well , it makes it more " Accurate " looking from a distance .    T.B.

Here's my 1cent: taking into account that accuracy is a scale representative of a subject, in whatever medium ( plastic,wood ,resin),then you have to rely on the manufacturer for that. Eveything else done to finish that subject is artistic. How far the artistic expression is taken is naturally in the hands of the artist. 

[quote user="Bish]

You also mentioned lightening the paint on top. Again, we both use this method, but again i think for very differant reasons. But let me ask you this, why do you do it. Is it for accuracy or artistic effect.

[/quote]

Good reply, all--THANK YOU for your replies!

.....Bish, thanks too for taking the time to explain your position in depth; I appreciate it. I definitely use the "scale effect" for a decidedly Artististic reason, but I also firmly believe that it there is a powerful argument to be made that lightening the paint is indeed "realistic". I told this story before--at Aberdeen, I tool a paint chip from the side of the German Leopard I and compared it to the paint on the tank. At a foot away, it was indistinguishable from the tank's coat. However, stepping back a good 20 feet or so, there was a marked, distinguishable difference between the "darker" paint chip and the actual 1:1 vehicle. The tank itself "appeared" MUCH lighter.

My argument for the "artistic" side is that the perception of a model is as important as as the actual "accuracy" as far as the paint used or the detailing done. Think of the difference between landscape painters such as some of the great artists of the American West who captured the grandeur of the new frontier in hyper-realistic paintings, and then consider the work of modern artist Thomas Kincaide who uses light in dramatic fashion to make his paintings almost "glow"-- astyle known as "Luminism". Each are viable modes of expression in their own right but each are different in tone and presentation. One seeks to portray the scene without embellishment; the other seeks to emphasize certain aspects of the visible color/light spectrum in order to perhaps evoke an emotional response or to convey the artist's own feeling about his subject. I think that the same thing can be done in this hobby.

It's interesting to hear form both camps, and honestly it's enlightening to know that there ae not as sharp or stringent divisions between what one camp deems "allowable" (?) or not. I hope that more people continue to weigh in. :)

Well, in that case yes, I've moved away from the wash, dry-bush school. I've never had much luck with over-all washes and now use only pin washes. And I stopped dry-brushing except in certain circumstances years ago. 

I notice though that the models that almost always win in local shows are the ones that are perfectly clean, with every tiny bolt-head and detail picked out with a pin-wash. I'm not at the point of feeling comfortable with lots of dirt and grime but I do like a little. 

I definatly would not say base coat-washes-dry brushed-finished. Again, follwing this set procedure brings repetitive results which completly misunderstands what accruate building is about. I definatly would not say filters, panel shadeing and so on are taboo. But i just don't think they would be done to the same extreme. What we are trying to replicate is the lok of the real thing, and tat can't be done with ust a wash and a dry brush. As a diorama building, i want my build to fit into the scene. Let me stress, i do not mean fit in with the base, but the scene i am trying to portray.

I will try out any technique i think may get me the results i want, if i don't like it, fine, i know that does not work for me. So far the only technique that i have seen that would be a no-no for me is modulation. 

And i woukd like to make this clear now to any one who may be confused about this, because i have seen some misunderstanding. IMHO, modulation is not accurate. Artistic yes, but not accurate.

But let me here address a couple of things you raised in my 251 thread. You said about filters,

'' that filters are meant for VERY subtle shifts in the tone of a color''.

I have tried dot fitering and ready made filters. I like the former but not the latter, but in neither do i see any of the things people say they use them for, such as depth. But i still use dot filtering, but for i think a very differant reason to what you are trying to achieve.

You also mentioned lightening the paint on top. Again, we both use this method, but again i think for very differant reasons. But let me ask you this, why do you do it. Is it for accuracy or artistic effect.

I like to build and paint in a way that a vehicle could apper. If I build a tank that has been through hell and back, that doesn't mean that there was a tank that looked exactly like that. I do look at photos and what other had done to get an idea/motivation but my builds don't necessarily represent an actual vehicle from this or that unit in this or that condition on this or that place.

Hope it makes sense...

Cheers