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

[niart17]

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

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

I think the point Doog is trying to make is yes, you can definitely see panel lines like those on the f-14, but they are not uniform across the aircraft like most people show. your builds don't fall in that category Chuck, I find your weathering spot on. But you use multiple techniques and vary the surface to achieve great realism. What some do is just panel line pre-shading and call that weathered. It's not really weathered, its just emphasized panels. Not wrong, just not realistic.

Bill

[Thommo]

These days I like to work to reference pics when available and go as realistic as I can. Currently working to this one, but the three-bladed prop version, and my build which is nearly done has not really turned out as grubby as these look....but given that it has nearly been the death of me, I'm going to let it go through to the keeper and be happy with what I've acheived.

[DoogsATX]

I've been following Doog's blog for a while now and I too, more often then not, use black-basing instead of pre-shading. This being said, however, I wouldn't go as far as to say that pre-shading is simply wrong (and I don't think Doog's intention was to say it's wrong). I think, like any other building/painting technique, it should be kept in the modeling tool bag and used when needed. I've seen lots of great modelers use prep-shading to achieve very subtle and realistic results.

Rob

So, yes I agree with this, but a few clarifiers...

1 - I'm not against pre-shading. Hell, the black basing that I favor is basically just 100% pre-shade...the entire surface goes black and gets built up from there.

2 - What I'm not a fan of is *only* pre-shading panel lines. It leaves the rest of the paint too...pristine. And with the contrast it adds, it only makes that rest of the paint look even more monotone, which is where the quilting effect comes in.

3 - Glad this discussion is taking place, getting everyone thinking about how and why they paint the way they paint.

[DoogsATX]

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

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

Who doesn't love a filthy Tomcat!

Though, Chuck, I would argue that those examples make a strong case for black basing, or for much broader pre-shading that doesn't really follow the the panel lines (especially the one in flight). There's a ton of variation going on on the surface of both aircraft, and that's exactly the point I'm trying to make - panel shading alone misses the broader state of paint on the rest of the airframe.

[ChernayaAkula]

EDIT: :lol: Doogs posted while I was typing.

<...> which makes a strong case for pre-shading. Maybe not in a plaid pattern, but pre-shading would help a lot. <...>

But isn't that all he's saying? It's the uniform application of pre-shading that sticks to panel lines only that kills the effect. Five scale inches to either side of the panel line, on all panel lines, with the centre of the panel so sun-bleached that it's hard to discern what colour it was in the first place.

So, yes, Christine makes a case for pre-shading, but not on all panel lines. I think the red lines could use pre-shading, while the green ones don't (just a wash here). In case of the green arrow, there's the peculiar situation that the area next to the panel line is actually lighter than the panel centre.

And the Reapers bird you posted makes a great case for pre-shading if it includes the whole panel and not just the panel lines. And that the effect can be ruined by applying it on the whole model, while the forward fuselage of the real aircraft doesn't show high-lighted panel lines.

Edited September 22, 2015 by ChernayaAkula

[Darius at home]

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?

I don't think it would be advisable to pre-shade a model whilst carrying bombs.

Darius

[Crazy Snap Captain]

Someone should tell the Hellenic Airforce...

[Thommo]

Someone should tell the Hellenic Airforce...

Nice - pre-shaded with an Iwata too I bet.

[Kevan Vogler]

The picture of the Hellenic F-16 has has reminded me how dependant on the nation/service the aircraft is being used by. The Belgians let their Vipers, particularly their trainers, get grubby enough that it might well be worth some heavier wheathering in places were you building a model of one of theirs.

Here's a selection of their F-16s I've photographed from a variety of distances:

Even up close, not every panel line is defined. In fact, most seem to be indicated by a slight contrast in paint in their general area rather than a build up of gunk within them.

Staying with the example I've made of Belgian F-16s; were I to build a model of one, I would definitely feel the need to go a bit heavy around the flare box, where the wing flap rubs against the fuselage and the gun muzzle.

This past weekend I was at an airshow and hada chance to speak with a Belgian Viper pilot about his rather grubby two seater. He told me that top priority was to keep as many aircraft flyable as possible and that keeping them clean was quite far down on the list. He said that usually their Vipers only get cleaned at overhauls, very rarely at the squadron level.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Kevan Vogler

[11bee]

Someone should tell the Hellenic Airforce...

A great example of real weathering. I don't see every single panel on the aircraft highlighted with 8" black borders. That's the effect that some modelers achieve.

While we are on the subject of weathering, this aircraft is also a great example of how grubby the undersides of most tactical jets get. Never ceases to amaze me when I see a jet with weathered upper surfaces and the belly is pristine.

[DoogsATX]

Someone should tell the Hellenic Airforce...

Greek jets are almost a rule unto themselves - especially the HAVE GLASS-coated F-16s, which tend to weather in very extreme and weird ways.

But this picture is a fantastic example of paying attention to the whole airframe. The forward fuselage up ahead of the intake could certainly be a candidate for pre-shading, but look at the stabs, or look at the inner pylon staining on the wings. Look at the variation in the tan-gray. Just pre-shading panel lines would miss everything else going on with that glorious airframe.

[Scott R Wilson]

Someone should tell the Hellenic Airforce...

Reminds me of one time while I was in the 526 TFS at Ramstein working on F-4Es. We were on one of our twice a year 30 day deployments to Decimommannu AB, Sardinia, Italy. The RAF ramp was next to ours, and on this occasion they had two FG.1 Phantoms from 43 Squadron and two from 111 Squadron. One of their jets broke and was brought into the hangar we shared. A bunch of us went to look at it and someone remarked about how dirty it was. One of their technicians replied, "What, wash an airplane? Surely you must be joking."

Many of our jets had patched and faded paint but we washed them rather often (an awful chore to be assigned to) so they were pretty clean.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Scott R Wilson

[Gordon Shumway]

In the end folks, it's your model that you are building, do with each as you wish, paint them as you like, weather them as you see fit.

[niart17]

In the end folks, it's your model that you are building, do with each as you wish, paint them as you like, weather them as you see fit.

A sentiment I totally agree with and I think from what I can tell so does Doog. Having said that, what if how one sees fit is "as realistic as possible"? In that case, isn't a nice tutorial about the do's and don'ts a very helpful thing? Information about how one person perceives realism is just as valid as another's true? So why would a subject like this cause such "controversy"? I happen to agree with his assessment of realism. It doesn't distract from those builds that don't follow his thoughts. It just means it's different. My two cents anyway.

Bill

[DoogsATX]

In the end folks, it's your model that you are building, do with each as you wish, paint them as you like, weather them as you see fit.

While this is true, I think it's really limiting.

When I was building models as a kid, I knew one other kid who kind of put effort into them. I knew of no adults who modeled. The local hobby shop was in a really sketchy part of town and I got most of my kits from Michaels (back when they had a solid modeling aisle). My sole source of learning and improvement was the occasional issue of FSM.

I did what I wanted, painted how I liked, but in a complete vacuum.

When I came back to this hobby, I found an online community fully formed. I found new ideas and techniques and debates and tutorials. I found disagreements that forced me to think about what I was doing and why. And every single one of those made me a better modeler.

So yeah, while there's definitely a "you go play in your corner and I'll play in mine" aspect to modeling, IMO shutting things down at that limits everyone's potential.

[Aurora Mark]

Brilliant point. Now, not to ride in on your coat tails here, but I do agree to a point. Take this hobby like Hockey up here. Some play to simply play for fun. Others are destined for the NHL. In the middle you have all calibres of play. Some are competitive, others are not. And this is much like model building.

There are those that build just for fun, and do what they can. Follow the instructions, put it together, and at the end of it, call it a day until the next time. Just as you would with pick-up league play.

Then there are those of us who want to build something that is as close a representation to the real thing as possible. And just like in competitive hockey, we study reference material, practice, and often leave our comfort zone in the hopes to get better.

This topic of preshading or not and how to paint a model just right to get that finish, well, it's another example of a tool or an approach to achieve that.

I'll take my approach to markings as an example. I don't like decals. For anything. I don't like the carrier film, and I also don't like how they react differently to weathering techniques. So I opt to use paint masks and paint the larger markings on while using dry transfer stecils for everything else. To me, this allows more for a representative look of my subjects. Now, can the same be achieved with decals? Most of the time, sure. But with a lot more work to "hide" the carrier film. And I am not going to say that decals are horrible to use, they just don't give me the satisfaction of that 'end state' look that I want.

Where am I going with this? Just like preshading panel lines or painting things black first, there are methods of pushing a build to get that look.

Building models and the existance of online communities go hand in hand. Constantly evolving. At one point in time model building evolved to accentuate panel lines and rivets. In many examples this new technique helped to add to the finished look. It created something else; artistically motivated schemes that brought life and colour to the models (whether the actual aircraft had that or not). Has this method been identified as falling short when it comes to representing what the actual subject looks like? As we've seen, in many cases yes. Is the blog entry written (and the subject of this thread) done anything to help? YES!

Here we have a new method and technique shown to us as a way of bridging the gap between models and actual subjects a little further.

In no way did I take that article as the end all, be all. Rather, I found that just like weathering, or highlighting details with dry brushing silver, there is a time and place for preshading. Further, here is a fantastic method to achieve depth and tone in an overall paint scheme that better represents the subject.

I also took something else away. If I want to achieve something specific in a kit, I need to do my homework. The real thing isn't stained or weathered uniformally because of the same reason. So if I want to show hydraulic stains, oil streaks, gun dust, fading from the sun, wear and tear from daily use, etc., no single approach will achieve this. Instead, a variety of techniques need to be used, and I thank you Doogs, for showing us all another tool to use.

Mark.

[Mfezi]

Although I appreciate the passion with which people always seem to discuss this point, I really think one should be careful of not trying to force your own opinion of what a model should look like onto someone else. Or point fingers at someone who has a different opinion of what constitutes accuracy. Suggesting various techniques that you can add to your toolbox to achieve a desired end-result is of course fine, but there are definitely differences in what people interpret as realistic.

I'll just put out one example - the argument of something that "won't be seen in 72nd scale": That is not really true - a perfect reduction of a full-scale aircraft will still have panel lines and rivets if you look at it close enough. And you cannot prescribe what viewing distance you are trying to scale down. So, one person may see a model devoid of surface details as having a "realistic 1/72nd scale look", while someone else will look closely and ask "what happened to the panel lines?". Having trenches that would be 5" wide in full scale is obviously also not accurate. So, we are sitting with the dilemma of no surface detail (which is not accurate), trenches and divets for panel lines and rivets (which are not accurate) or perfectly scaled minute little panel lines and rivets (which are not physically possible with current plastic molding technology). So, you have to compromise somehow, and different people are going to accept different compromises on this point - none of which are truly accurate or "correct".

The same goes for depicting weathering: Besides the fact that the actual original aircraft may be clean or dirty depending on the exact day of its lifetime that you are depicting, getting the weathering balance right is damn difficult: A little too much and it looks cartoonish (to some people, but realistic to others) or too little and it looks like a die-cast model (which look more realistic to some people and, well, like a die-cast model to others). It is difficult to get it perfectly right and that point of perfection is definitely a subjective one where not everyone is going to agree on where the point lies. Even a photograph of the real thing is not conclusive - lighting and the quality of the picture is going to have a huge influence on what kind of details show up. On some black and white world-war two era photographs you have difficulty distinguishing the various camouflage colors from each other - such a picture is useless for determining how visible the panel lines would have been "in real life" or the more subtle weathering points. So, a certain amount of guess work have to be used in what the real aircraft looked like in the flesh. It is easier with modern aircraft, but even there it is not completely straight forward: If you look around the web you will find many pictures of B-2s that look like they have a perfect, monotone finish, where photographs of the same aircraft in different lighting show up a host of variations in color tone - some of which are real and some of which are due to reflections.

Just on the point on panel lines: I have been blessed with a career where I got to do flight testing in a very wide range of conditions and with a wide variety of aircraft from many different countries. I have actually seen aircraft with panel lines that looked exactly like some modelers depict them: In this case, because there was dirt buildup in the panel lines and the aircraft was then washed. The left-over dirt in the panels caused a very high contrast panel line while the rest of the surface was pretty clean. I also saw a similar effect one a polished natural metal aircraft where the polish created a black residue that remained in the panel lines, with the rest of the aircraft all clean and shiny. These two cases were exceptions - but they did happen. I'm not saying high contrast panel lines in general are accurate, but one can also not say they never happen.

I know what my own preferences are on models - and it varies among the era, aircraft type, air force, conditions, etc., that are being depicted. But I would never try to convince anyone that my view is the "one correct way" and everything else is unrealistic.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Mfezi