Is Preshading worth it?

[Banana11000]

Is preshading monotone coloured camouflages really worth it?

Cheers,

Colin

Edited August 11, 2015 by Banana11000

[denstore]

Yes. :)

[Joe Hegedus]

No. I think selective application of varying lightened tones after is better.

[Lancer512]

IMHO if done more subtle and in combination with postshading, as Joe suggested, it is definately worth it. But preshading alone doesn't look realistic to me.

[Sebastijan]

It depends on the subject... Paint usually fades from the borders of the panel towards the center of the panel, which is exactly opposite to the effect preshading creates. Lately I've stopped using it, as I can achieve far better results using postshading and oil colours...

[plasticWerks_JL]

IMHO if done more subtle and in combination with postshading, as Joe suggested, it is definately worth it.

+1

Just another tool in the toolbox

Edited August 11, 2015 by plasticWerks_JL

[Banana11000]

Thanks guys :)

[ChippyWho]

Can't really see the point. Real-world subjects are not pre-shaded, and most of the #1 finishes I've seen (and only dream of achieving) are done with selective applications of lightened shades as suggested by Mr Hegedus, and skillful weathering after painting.

[ShawnV.]

I have to agree with Mr. Hegedus myself. Mind you I'm still a rookie and don't know much about such things.

[jinmmydel]

Not usually. Most of the time it's either completely covered, or not. And when it isn't is simply looks too dang uniform for my taste. No, you're not going to see a similar look on real world subjects, but that doesn't matter. Scale models are artistic interpretations, and they need depth. But I don't think pre-shading is the way to do it.

I much prefer black basing and post-shading.

Black primer followed by a mottle of the base color.

Blended with highly thinned base color

Clear coats and weathering bring it all together.

Same topside

Tonal variation without uniform panel line highlighting. This is how I like it. YMMV

[Dmanton300]

I maintain the best place for pre-shading is someone else's model.

[galileo1]

Not usually. Most of the time it's either completely covered, or not. And when it isn't is simply looks too dang uniform for my taste. No, you're not going to see a similar look on real world subjects, but that doesn't matter. Scale models are artistic interpretations, and they need depth. But I don't think pre-shading is the way to do it.

I much prefer black basing and post-shading.

...

Tonal variation without uniform panel line highlighting. This is how I like it. YMMV

I couldn't agree more. Black-basing is the way I do it as well. Got the idea from Doogs' Models and I have never looked back.

By the way, amazing 109, Jinmmydel!

Rob

Edited August 12, 2015 by galileo1

[denstore]

Just another tool in the toolbox

Exactly. It's one technique, among many others. Not the one and only, but not without it's merits either.

[compressorman]

Jinmmy Del, the finish on that 109 is stunning. I will surely try that 'pre-mottle' technique on my next model.

Chris

[zark]

Take it such as "cooking instructions"!!! You need many ingredients to make a dish tastier...adding only salt sometimes worth the effort, but is not enough for the "near perfect" dish...you will defiantly need to add pepper ...garlic...onions and so on ...you get the message! Good quality "meat" to start with is sometimes a "must" for new "Chefs"...but an experienced one...can cook absolutely everything!!!....Now I feel hungry!!!

[Joel_W]

I'm not a fan of pre-shading as the result is mostly over done and looks like a predetermined checkerboard pattern. I much prefer post shading using lighter shades of the base color applied randomly to emulate paint fading, and darker tones to recessed areas for a shadow/modulation effect.

Joel

[falcon20driver]

That black primer is EPIC. I'm completely changing my plans for my next paint session.

[slayermk1]

I tried to preshade some kits but with all the postshading and weathering technics I use it basically doesn't show so for me it's a waist of time. But that's me, like someone said: it's not a mathematical law. If you're comfortable with it use it.

[Jennings]

IMHO, about 90% of pre-shading I see makes the models look like Tammy Faye Bakker makeup. Real airplanes don't get dirty from the inside out, they get painted, and then the paint gets dirty, faded, etc. That's how I weather models - the same way it happens on the real airplane. A lot of pre-shading makes models look like they're quilted. Totally unrealistic and faddish.

[Joel_W]

IMHO, about 90% of pre-shading I see makes the models look like Tammy Faye Bakker makeup. Real airplanes don't get dirty from the inside out, they get painted, and then the paint gets dirty, faded, etc. That's how I weather models - the same way it happens on the real airplane. A lot of pre-shading makes models look like they're quilted. Totally unrealistic and faddish.

Jennings,

Well said.

Joel

[plasticWerks_JL]

IMHO, about 90% of pre-shading I see makes the models look like Tammy Faye Bakker makeup. Real airplanes don't get dirty from the inside out, they get painted, and then the paint gets dirty, faded, etc. That's how I weather models - the same way it happens on the real airplane. A lot of pre-shading makes models look like they're quilted. Totally unrealistic and faddish.

I've seen these criticisms on a number of threads, and I hadn't put much thought into it until this one. Seems to me pre-shading gets a bit of a bad rap, and it's sort of "out of fashion".

The points Jennings makes about the final product looking quilted and unrealistic aren't really the fault of the technique, but the builders' use of it. You can certainly find examples of models where pre-shading is way overdone and does make the final product look unrealistic. Point being, the builder should master the subtlety of the technique and do some research (if absolute realism is the goal), rather than just load up panel lines with thick swaths of black paint, just because. Discounting the technique as a whole seems a bit disingenuous. As I mentioned further up in this thread, it's a tool in the toolbox, and may not be right for all applications.

The other point about aircraft weathering over the paint also contains some validity, but I'd counter with the idea we're building representations of reality, and not reality itself, so we shouldn't be bound to "thats the way it happens on the real thing" if you can achieve similar results through a technique like pre-shading.

FWIW, I think we should be encouraged to learn as many of these techniques as we can, the proper time to use them, and most importantly how to combine them subtly to achieve the finish we're most happy with. It shouldn't really be about which technique is better or worse, but which is appropriate for the desired result.

-JL

Edited August 17, 2015 by plasticWerks_JL

[Thommo]

Not usually. Most of the time it's either completely covered, or not. And when it isn't is simply looks too dang uniform for my taste. No, you're not going to see a similar look on real world subjects, but that doesn't matter. Scale models are artistic interpretations, and they need depth. But I don't think pre-shading is the way to do it.

I much prefer black basing and post-shading.

Black primer followed by a mottle of the base color.

My Aztek was behaving so badly before I got a new nozzle, my panel-line pre-shading looked pretty similar like the above anyway :lol:

But I like this idea, will have to give it a go, though it may entail buying a few more jars of flat black. I've been pondering how to get a dirty look on under the Sky Grey on the sides of my Malta Gladiator cos in ref pics they look pretty messy around the front half of the fuselage. And here is my answer thanks Jimmy

[Mfezi]

I have to agree with plasticWerks_JL. One could ask the same question whether "postshading is worth it" or whether "drybrushing is worth it" or whether "weathering is worth it". If you don't apply it appropriately, your results are going to look out of place. If I drybrush every single raised detail "just because", then the model is going to look like a cartoon. If I splatter the whole aircraft model with dirt, it is going to look like a cartoon. However, because those techniques can make it look silly when applied incorrectly, doesn't now mean that those techniques have no place in your toolbox. I like looking at a photograph (or in some cases, recalling from memory where I had something to do with the real thing) and then deciding which techniques would be appropriate where. There are times where preshading can be pretty effective in achieving a certain effect, but it is seldom where it would be appropriate to use preshading to turn the entire painted surface into a quilted pattern. Use it, along with your other tools, where appropriate. I am very skeptical of those that claim that one particular technique is the be-all and end-all. Look at photographs of your aircraft (or similar ones), decide how you want your model to look, and then use a combination of preshading (if appropriate), postshading, washes, filters, drybrushing, powders or whatever combination of techniques help you to arrive at your desired final result.

There is one thing I can say about preshading: If the effect it too stark, you can add more and more coats of your paint until the preshading disappears. It is one of the easier techniques to correct if you don't like it.

[jinmmydel]

Thommo, I use a black primer in lieu of black paint. :) Glad you're thinking of giving it a try though. It's a great technique, but it is more work.

Which brings me to this...I don't really like the "is it worth it" bit of this. To me that implies laziness. I've been known to be lazy and to take shortcuts, and I fight doing it constantly because you just get better results with patience.

The black basing I mentioned above is even more work than pre-shading and yeah it's definitely worth it. The results in the end aren't as stark as you'd think they'd be, but compare the finish to one where someone just laid down and even opaque coat of paint and the difference is striking.

I'm thoroughly in the artistic school on this too. I don't try and replicate reality. In scale it is usually too flat...too monotone...too boring. I'm trying to create an artistic representation that has some variance and tonal depth and interest to the finish. That being said, I don't like the way preshading does it...at least not in the way the heavy patchwork, black out every panel line, method works. I agree with Jennings...it just looks bad...too uniform.

I also don't think it's going out of favor at all...I think it's more prevalent than ever...because frankly it's the fastest and easiest way to get tonal variation...which people seem to want, but don't think it's "worth it" to do more advanced shading techniques.

[Banana11000]

Which brings me to this...I don't really like the "is it worth it" bit of this. To me that implies laziness. I've been known to be lazy and to take shortcuts, and I fight doing it constantly because you just get better results with patience.

The whole "Worth it" thing could have been worded better. Sorry about that. What I really should have said was "Is preshading a practical or effective way to create simple colour variations or are there any different methods you commonly use that produce better and more eye catching results?" I guess that's just a long way of me asking if there are better methods that one can use that will produce better more pleasing results? The whole airbrushing scene is pretty new to me. I just made the jump from brush painting to airbrushing two months ago. So I don't really know all of the techniques and different methods that can used. I like the idea of black basing and applying the colour in an uneven fashion to create a more lifelike appearance. But how exactly is it done? :) I guess when I made this topic I should have specified that I am looking for alternatives to the simple preshading method. Sorry for the rambling and thanks for the comment.

Cheers,

Colin