Jump to content

I don't know who this guy is, but he GETS it!!


Recommended Posts

You caught me. I really do care. I loose sleep over it at night. Seriously. I don't know how I will go on if folks continue to pre-shade. How will I live anymore? I guess I better just stop building and curl up in by bed and sulk. Thanks!

Oh, and:

Baloney: nonsense

Bologna: disgusting lunch meat....you hungry or somin? <----more internet "tough talk" :taunt:/>

You are very welcome. Now go play nice with all the pre-shaders and rivet counters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question. Since it has been established that the Spanish School method weathering is inaccurate, and should therefore not be used on accurate models, is it still OK to use it on Trumpeter kits? :unsure:

Ben EvilSmile.gif.pagespeed.ce.UjKg82nnzE.gif

Edited by Ben Brown
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question. Since it has been established that the Spanish School method weathering is inaccurate, and should therefore not be used on accurate models, is it still OK to use it on Trumpeter kits? :unsure:/>

Ben EvilSmile.gif.pagespeed.ce.UjKg82nnzE.gif

LOL... Classic post!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also another question comes to mind...should you pre-shade a false canopy if the flaps are extended and wings are folded while carrying bombs?

Only if you are building a Tomcat because the F-14 (rest her aluminum soul), could truly do no wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who have REALLY gone off the deep end with their model weathering (and I now hate you for that mental image. I also expect this thread to devolve in that direction).

Well on the face of it, things seem to be coming along just fine.

There, I picked up some of the slack for ya ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I do agree generally with the concept that many models have too much "plaid" pre-shading, comments like these are, in my opinion, much too strong:

"My intent is to talk about shading panel lines (mainly pre-shading, but also post-shading), and why – if you’re pursuing a realistic or verisimilitudinous finish, it’s a terrible technique that should be shunned and mocked."

"But for all the good panel line shading does, it’s bullshit."

Here is a few examples of real CF-18's I have photographed. Most panel lines are fairly sharp, rivet detail is obvious for the most part and there are some grimy areas where pre-shading can definitely help to make a model look "verisimilitudinous"

Back1.jpg

LAU-116-2.jpg

LAU-116-1.jpg

TailHoles4.jpg

Tail6.jpg

Tail4.jpg

Now my attempt to replicate the very same jet- using pre-shading. It's not plaid, but some panel line areas are darker than others, because they exist on the real deal.....

Finalfix8.jpg

So what's my point? Pre-shading can be a valuable painting technique sometimes- at least in my opinion.

Edited by chuck540z3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tail6.jpg

Now my attempt to replicate the very same jet- using pre-shading. It's not plaid, but some panel line areas are darker than others, because they exist on the real deal.....

Finalfix8.jpg

So what's my point? Pre-shading can be a valuable painting technique sometimes- at least in my opinion.

And it can but note that while you chose to highlight the panel lines on the starboard vertical fin of your very nice Hornet, the pictures you posted of the real thing show that there are no such panel lines visible. It all comes down to "artistic license". I personally like the way your model looks, just using this as a means to highlight that one person's approach to realism can contradict another persons.

There will never be a "right" way to finish a model.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And it can but note that while you chose to highlight the panel lines on the starboard vertical fin of your very nice Hornet, the pictures you posted of the real thing show that there are no such panel lines visible. It all comes down to "artistic license". I personally like the way your model looks, just using this as a means to highlight that one person's approach to realism can contradict another persons.

There will never be a "right" way to finish a model.

Agreed, but that's because there is a deep panel line on the resin tails that doesn't really exist. All panel lines were washed, so you get what you get, even if a panel line or two does not look realistic. Most are fairly accurate, so you go with it.

Since that build, I now try to surgically color panel lines (and pre-shade) that are easily seen, but not others. The panel lines on the front of the A-10 are subtle, while the ones behind the cockpit are usually very dark and obvious. Subtle re-shading and panel line wash brings this out.

PicFinal12.jpg

BTW, I brought this model to a model contest last June and somebody pointed out that I had "missed" some panel lines with the wash. You can't win!

Edited by chuck540z3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pre or post shade all you want. It is all up to you, but if you look at a 1/72 model at say 12 inches away and scale up to 1/1 you would be looking at the thing at 72 feet. How many panel lines you going to see at that distance on the real deal? The main thing you will see is the fading of the paint and where fresh paint is spotted on at. I do not pre shade or even post fade due to the fact its just one more thing that go wrong for me. USN aircraft get washed every 28 days give or take a few days. I talked to my buddies who stayed with VFA-151 after I left and even with them flying war time missions they said they still had to wash the aircraft. Do aircraft get dirty in between washes? Yest they do but at the distance you would have to view it to see the detail you would have to be real close to see that. Which means you would have to be a lot closer to a 1/72 model to be able to see the same details. The kit panel lines are really over sized for the scales we build so it shouldn't matter much, it's all up to the modeler. That's my two cents on the matter! But what do I know I am a nobody!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a difference between a modeling technique and the results produced by that technique. Just because the results are bad doesn't mean the technique is bad or useless. I would say the issue is those using the technique do not do a good job executing it. Again, the problem is not with the technique.

Here is Honza's F-14 from a few years ago:

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=179413&st=115

He used line preshading. After the base coat, he followed up with post shading. To my eye, the overall outcome is pretty convincing and deliciously subtle. Again, preshading is one thing he used and with several other layers, the results look alright. This may be what doog means wen talking about color layers. This is one way of doing it. If you asked Honza whether he likes this now, maybe not. But that does not mean that preshading in itself as a technique is wrong.

On a separate note, I sometimes see the argument that real planes don't weather in that order. The act of applying line preshading may not be how real airframes weather, but you cannot judge a technique based on whether it follows the real weathering patterns.

For the record, I don't use line preshading but that does not mean that I won't ever use it, or that I find it useless. It is just another technique in one's repertoire.

The example of the F-14 you posted proves doog's point perfectly. While the Tomcat model looks pleasing to the eye, Gull Gray/White aircraft didn't weather like that. It's artistic, not realistic. That's all doog's is saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I brought this model to a model contest last June and somebody pointed out that I had "missed" some panel lines with the wash. You can't win!

And that pretty much sums up the entire debate.

I'm not a big fan of highlighted panel lines but when I build my models without something like this, they often look too bland. It takes a true master to find an even balance. One of these days, maybe I'll come close.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The example of the F-14 you posted proves doog's point perfectly. While the Tomcat model looks pleasing to the eye, Gull Gray/White aircraft didn't weather like that. It's artistic, not realistic. That's all doog's is saying.

Your point brings up another great example of where pre-shading of an F-14 model could work very well. Check out these pics of "Christine". Heavy, heavy panel lines everywhere. You can almost see the "pre-shading" already!

EDIT: See post #73

Before anybody says that this heavy weathering wasn't typical, I can show you hundreds of pics of flying F-14's that look pretty close.

Edited by chuck540z3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, but that's because there is a deep panel line on the resin tails that doesn't really exist. All panel lines were washed, so you get what you get, even if a panel line or two does not look realistic. Most are fairly accurate, so you go with it.

Since that build, I now try to surgically color panel lines (and pre-shade) that are easily seen, but not others. The panel lines on the front of the A-10 are subtle, while the ones behind the cockpit are usually very dark and obvious. Subtle re-shading and panel line wash brings this out.

BTW, I brought this model to a model contest last June and somebody pointed out that I had "missed" some panel lines with the wash. You can't win!

Exactly - preshading is not a death sentence, because you can overspray it to make it as garish or subtle or entirely invisible as you like on different parts of the model.....especially once you swap your Aztek for an Iwata which only took me 15yrs to figure out (now there's an issue worth pulling noses over :D )

Edited by Thommo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to start this comment with the intent of stirring the pot. Not at all. I will also not wash things down by going the "artistic is artistic" route. I will just give my two cents, a bit of an opinion, and very little fact to this.

First, if someone is going to build and weather a model, a fantastic way of showing a paint scheme, panel lines, rivets, and dirt/grime as being accurate, is to have photographs of the subject. So this narrows it down to a rough (or exact) date, with photo reference that can be used, and compared. This way, if someone mentions about dirty or not dirty enough, etc., there is something that cannot be argued, ready at hand, to show that the builder did their best to represent a specific subject, on a specific date, in a specific way. There are some subjects that I have done this with, and I've seen a few here, including Thommos Malta Spitfire (Brilliant work good Sir!).

Now, if someone wants to use their talents and artistic ability to show a model in a particular way, who are we to stand in anyone persons way?

There are so many truly incredible fantastic models that look VERY realistic, models that look absolutely amazing and very nicely finished with the builders unique touch, and models that are both. Do I think that judging at a national or local level should be able to distinguish between realistic finish and artistic finish? Absolutely.

The argument of panel lines from a distance, what stains will be seen, and will not be seen, shading, etc., that all comes down to what the builder wants. If we as viewers don't like it, we can certainly say so, but I don't think we should hold things against the builder.

So, to sum myself up - if you want to build a model and have fun in any way to shade, preshade, not shade, go for it. BUT, if you're going to claim that a model is finished in a realistic manner, be able to show it, that's all. There can be a difference.

Just my two cents. Thanks for reading.

Mark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pre or post shade all you want. It is all up to you, but if you look at a 1/72 model at say 12 inches away and scale up to 1/1 you would be looking at the thing at 72 feet. How many panel lines you going to see at that distance on the real deal? The main thing you will see is the fading of the paint and where fresh paint is spotted on at.

Not to argue on a fine point, but the only problem with this is the person viewing the model isn't also 1/72 scale so it's not really an accurate 1/72 scale arrangement. The field of vision and visual distortion based on distance isn't the same so it's not as simple as being the same as 72 feet away.

I am one of the ones who think that over emphasis, or more to the point, too consistent accenting of panel lines isn't really accurate. I wouldn't tell anyone they are doing it wrong based on that opinion, I just prefer models that aren't overdone. I think consideration should be given in to the stated goal of a model. IF the modeler is trying for as realistic a model as possible, then there is nothing wrong with pointing out what one considers not accurate looking. If a modeler is building for the sake of their own vision of what is right, then they are right. One of my art teachers use to approach this in a very diplomatic way. He would look at a portrait drawing and tell someone, "if your goal was to capture an accurate likeness then you need to work on this and this...etc.." But if he felt you were putting a stylistic spin on the subject then there was no wrong. I mean look at Picasso. He really didn't get it right, but one can't argue with his success even if you don't like the style.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

A clean aircraft without pre-shading/post shading but lots of TLC. A 1:32 scale Pitts S2C prototype kit.

I like 'em clean and shiny

My 1:32 scale scratch-built Grumman AA1A also very clean but that is the way I keep the 1:1 scale bird as well

Barney

That's great Barney, but what if you're building an F-14 Tomcat just before retirement?

Christine1.jpg

VF101.jpg

More pics here, which makes a strong case for pre-shading. Maybe not in a plaid pattern, but pre-shading would help a lot. I watched this Cat perform for the last time at Nellis AFB in 2004.

Nellis Tomcat

Edited by chuck540z3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question. Since it has been established that the Spanish School method weathering is inaccurate, and should therefore not be used on accurate models, is it still OK to use it on Trumpeter kits? :unsure:/>

Ben EvilSmile.gif.pagespeed.ce.UjKg82nnzE.gif

I really don't like some of the bantering going on about Doog. One of the better modelers I've ever seen. Think it's also time to head off the fridge for a beer to cool down.

Now for your comment. I've come to the conclusion with Trumpeter kits (and some other brands) that one needs a quart of "The Knot". to get in the mood. That bottle will make you forget Trumpeter ever existed!

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...