What paints for Dark Earth / Dark Green ?

[stevehnz]

By the same token, it could be that my tin is a good match, another may not be so. Two tins of Hu 30 I tried recently while looking for a green for something else showed quite considerable variation.

Steve.

Edited April 19, 2017 by stevehnz

[John Laidlaw]

2 hours ago, Greenshirt said:

I think it was matched to a photo

 

That makes sense, actually, and trying to match a colour that seems to have vanished completely within a couple of years of the end of WWII is a little like trying to work out what Malta Blue was. The whole thing's a can of worms, anyway .

[Bedders]

On 18/04/2017 at 2:43 PM, Fernando said:

Hi, everyone,

 

I use Xtracrylixs through and through, and occasionally they peel off. I use Alclad Grey Primer.

 

I have found Xtracrylixs Dark Earth just a little too light, conversely, Xtracolour too dark. Regardless of their gloss or semi gloss nature, once you try to make any colour effect (preshading, light coats, "mottle covering", etc.) they become rather flat, so a gloss topcoat is mandatory. For this I use Xtracrylixs Clear Gloss applied with a brush. Then, an artist's flat acrylic varnish to restore mattness.

 

Fernando

 

I too found Xtracolour dark earth too dark, and different to their acrylic version. Their enamel and acrylic Sky are also two different colours. Slightly frustrating if you want to touch up an enamel paint job with a couple of spots of acrylic on a brush. Instead you lose 8 hours of your life which you won't get back, while the enamel correction dries.

 

Justin

Edited April 20, 2017 by Bedders

[Nick Millman]

One significant presumption running through this thread is that visual colour matching is consistent from person to person. It just isn't. 

 

"In all cases, the proportion of long-wavelength-sensitive cones to medium-wavelength-sensitive cones in the retina, the profile of light sensitivity in each type of cone, and the amount of yellowing in the lens and macular pigment of the eye, differs from one person to the next. This alters the relative importance of different wavelengths in a spectral power distribution to each observer's colour perception. As a result, two spectrally dissimilar surfaces may produce a colour match for one observer but fail to match when viewed by a second observer."

 

When it comes down to subjective visual colour matching the late Bill Leyh and I, exploring this subject in depth back in the early noughties, came to a conclusion that we termed "White Rabbit theory". That is that people making visual colour matches generally fall into one of two forms of natural bias. They either conclude colour matches based on the relevant brightness (reflectivity) being more important than actual hue, or vice versa, they focus on the hue and tend to disregard any differences of brightness.

 

That is difficult for people to accept because they always believe what they see and for example think that how they might see Humbrol 30, say, (alarming batch differences apart!) is how everyone else sees it. Well, many will but some won't and when it comes to communicating such individual perceptions it goes a long way to explaining why colour threads invariably run on and on. I've tested lots of colour match sites and the results in many cases have been alarming. Few if any quantify the matches as to closeness or differences and the same is true of hobby paint manufacturer comparisons where "equivalent" colours across ranges are not quantified - one man's match might well be another man's expletive.    

 

Another real issue is the notion of scale colour where "full scale" colour, precisely matched, is often deemed too dark on small models. This is incorrectly attributed to aerial or atmospheric perspective (which refers to much longer distances than the typical scale distance in viewing a 1/72 model) but is actually related to field-size metameric failure which occurs because the relative proportions of the three cone types in the retina vary from the center of the visual field to the periphery, so that colours that match when viewed as very small, centrally fixated areas may appear different when presented as large colour areas, usually appearing lighter and brighter - dependent on illumination. In modelling the scale models or paint chips become the "small, centrally fixated areas" and therefore can appear darker when compared to full size objects seen in daylight. But attempts to offset this by simply lightening the paints are fraught with danger as the original character of the hue can be lost.   

 

On top of all this individual preference for paint brands and types comes into play. 

 

Conversely, as this thread also shows, the perception of "right" colour is often instinctive, based on little more than "if it looks right it is right". Whether that is caused by long term, repeated exposure to RAF Spitfire imagery (for example) imprinting on the brain or something more primeval that pre-dates colour science is difficult to say.  

 

Nick

[BIG X]

Wow!!! - Thanks Nick

 

Actually I completely understand all of the above & agree with it all.  In my industry I work with inkjet media & lamination films, amongst other things.  Even when people with "trained " eyes look at images that have been printed on the same paper / at the same time / in the same printer / with the same inks & the same settings - they often comment that images that are subjected to gloss lamination look "brighter" or "more punchy" than images that have been subjected to matt lamination.  They very often say "the black looks grey" on a matt finished piece.  But the effect is only noticeable because they are looking at the 2 images - side by side.  When you show the average person the same image one at a time & ask them what the difference is - they think it is a trick question - as in stand alone situations they both look perfectly fine.  That is the magic of reflectance.  

 

Steve

[BIG X]

My final "experiment" - if you can call it that...

...or "messing about with paint exercise" - running from 6pm tonight is as follows...

 

Down to the garage for the messy bit...

 

2 x 2mm thick A4 white card with clay coted liners (absorbs moisture very quickly)

Both cards get a quick coat of humbrol grey primer via a rattle can (which I was using previous to getting my airbrush last week)

Card one then gets a coat of humbrol dark earth again with a rattle can & card two gets a good coat of humbrol rattle can dark green

 

Back to the house to set the boards to dry in my office & off for a large glass of wine.

 

...sometime later - I have 2 pieces of matching A4 card - which I have cut 2 circular holes in as "masks".

Both original cards will then get a vallejo blast of both old style & new style dark earth & dark green through the mask holes.

 

If my previous experiments are proved correct - I should have a NEW style dark earth that is "close enough" & an OLD style dark green that "isn't too offensive to my eyes".

Then I'm off for another large glass of white wine and chuck the "wrong vallejo variants" in the bin.

 

I fully appreciate that both the original humbrol finishes aren't right - but hey - this is all for fun - I'm not about to go entering any competitions - I'm just here to enjoy myself.

 

Now I'm off to chill that wine for later

[BIG X]

Well - last nights tests went exactly as planned - but the really interesting thing is related to one of the above posts.

 

I never really appreciated how truly MATT the humbrol rattle cans are.  They are completely flat with zero reflection under multiple lighting conditions.

 

The four vallejo colour circles I sprayed on came out as expected - but they have a definite SATIN sheen to them.

 

Tonight I am going to over spray both cards with a full matt varnish - this should give the truest comparison - for me anyway.

[stevehnz]

Looking forward to seeing the results, I enjoy tinkering with colour samples too, a bad influence is that Millman.

Steve.

[BIG X]

1 hour ago, stevehnz said:

Looking forward to seeing the results, I enjoy tinkering with colour samples too, a bad influence is that Millman.

Steve.

I called over to see Mike in Chester (root admin) yesterday & we were discussing getting images up on the site.  I haven't tried it yet (nothing worthy of the praise or criticism of the good folk on here).  I had a go this morning with google photos - to no avail - but I will get it figured & try to post some images.  I know the colours won't be right - but it will hopefully show the "differences".  

[BIG X]

On ‎18‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 19:07, SovereignHobbies said:

MAP chips in the RAF Museum approved book

Could I ask...  "MAP chips in the RAF Museum approved book" - What are these & how can I get hold of them or the approved book...

Thanks in advance,

Steve

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

6 minutes ago, BIG X said:

Could I ask...  "MAP chips in the RAF Museum approved book" - What are these & how can I get hold of them or the approved book...

Thanks in advance,

Steve

 

Hi Steve,

This is what you're looking for. Long out of print but they do come up on second hand book websites regularly.

 

There's a fold-out set of painted chips in the back. This is an older photo I took for specific purposes so I apologise that it's covered in my own chips too.

 

If you're interested, this is how close the "nearest Federal Standard" colours are to the MAP chips for Dark Earth and Dark Green aren't - the FS34079 match to Dark Green is probably the best of all the FS595 "matches". It goes to show how the word "closest" doesn't mean "good" when it comes to trying to match across standards:

 

British Standard 381C is quite expensive at around £240 a copy I think, but the current standard still matches well against the MAP chips above.

 

[BIG X]

5 minutes ago, SovereignHobbies said:

 

Hi Steve,

This is what you're looking for. Long out of print but they do come up on second hand book websites regularly.

 

There's a fold-out set of painted chips in the back. This is an older photo I took for specific purposes so I apologise that it's covered in my own chips too.

 

If you're interested, this is how close the "nearest Federal Standard" colours are to the MAP chips for Dark Earth and Dark Green aren't - the FS34079 match to Dark Green is probably the best of all the FS595 "matches". It goes to show how the word "closest" doesn't mean "good" when it comes to trying to match across standards:

 

British Standard 381C is quite expensive at around £240 a copy I think, but the current standard still matches well against the MAP chips above.

 

Hi Jamie,

 

Thanks a million for going the extra mile - I will have a trawl around "flea-bay" & "glamazon" for second copies - it seems very interesting.

 

Cheers - Steve

[BIG X]

On ‎19‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 23:25, stevehnz said:

While Hu 30 is wrong for RAF Dark Green, Hu 29 is generally considered as a decent match for RAF Dark Earth. It looks good to my eye against the MAP chips in my copy of the RAF museum book.

Steve.

Latest news...

 

Whilst still on the trail for an "inoffensive" Dark Green - at least I have reached an almost zen like state with the Dark Earth.

 

The new version of dark earth from vallejo model air (323) is a 99% match to my beloved humbrol 29 rattle can.  The humbrol is very matt & the vallejo is quite satin - but after an over spray of both with a matt varnish - the vallejo patch "almost" vanishes on the bigger patch of humbrol - which means a match.

 

SO - I am going with STEVEHNZ - "Hu 29 is generally considered as a decent match for RAF Dark Earth" - Thanks Steve

[sapperastro]

BIG X, did you find a suitable Dark Green and Sky after all your tests? I like how you found an acrylic equivalent of Humbrol 29, which has always been my favourite Dark Earth as well.

 

PS: If anyone suggests Humbrol Acrylic, things will get ugly

Edited September 7, 2017 by sapperastro

[johnd]

For those wondering what to do with all the pots of Hu 30 they've accumulated, the old advice always used to be to add red to it. I don't recall the ratio but messed about with this a while back and it certainly brought it closer to RAF Dark Green, to the point where I would actually use it on a model.

 

John.

[BIG X]

56 minutes ago, sapperastro said:

BIG X, did you find a suitable Dark Green and Sky after all your tests? I like how you found an acrylic equivalent of Humbrol 29, which has always been my favourite Dark Earth as well.

 

PS: If anyone suggests Humbrol Acrylic, things will get ugly

Yes I did...

 

...the only trouble is I'm at work and can't remember the numbers - I've set an alarm on my phone to remind me to come back to you tonight.

[PhantomBigStu]

I use xtralicrylix as I do for most colours, and at least for the raf ones its exactly what In my mind it should be, wether my mind is right or not is another question entirely

 

also sorry to thread hijack but is releated to the subject trying to find a reasonable match for raf dark green on diecast, any thoughtas?

 

Edited September 7, 2017 by PhantomBigStu

[Smithy]

I've been using Humbrol's 163 and 29 since getting back into modelling in 2001 and I'm very happy with them. Interestingly I bought a retool Airfix kit a wee while back and I see they've changed their suggestion to 163 now instead of 30.

 

[Wm Blecky]

Woody, in the past, I've used Floquil flat (reefer) white or even a light flat or reefer grey to act as a primer.  The Floquil paint bite onto the plastic surface really well and as it was a flat paint, what ever I applied on top of it, was able to bite into it.  I do not recall having any issues as you are experiencing.  Sadly, as Floquil is no longer available, my stocks are drying up and I am now looking for suitable equivalents.

[BIG X]

6 hours ago, sapperastro said:

BIG X, did you find a suitable Dark Green and Sky after all your tests? I like how you found an acrylic equivalent of Humbrol 29, which has always been my favourite Dark Earth as well.

 

PS: If anyone suggests Humbrol Acrylic, things will get ugly

Well I'm home from work now - so here is what I have settled on - I suppose some picture might help - this thread shows what I used on a Hurricane...

 

I use Vallejo Model Air...

 

SKY TYPE S - 71.302 - I use 2 parts of this with 3 parts 0f 71.001 WHITE 

DARK EARTH - 71.323 - I tried various but this is spot on

DARK GREEN - 71.015 - This is actually RLM71 OLIVE GREY

 

I hope that helps - Steve

[timbo33]

I'm doing the same Airfix Hurricane (note to self - need some aftermarket decals now...) and have just bought a set of Vallejo Air, which I love the finish of when dry - just ever so slightly satin and silky smooth. Reading through this thread I was getting a bit worried - I have Xtracylix, but find it hard to get a good finish (it doesn't respond well if over-thinned...) and Lifecolor acrylics, as wellas the Humbrol Acrylics, but I don't like airbrushing these. I was definitely getting very confused but your conclusion seems to be that the Model Air colours are OK? I may have to do some back to back tests before I commit to my model!

[SeaVenom]

I've used Tamiya Flat Earth on my Battle of France Hurricane as I didn't have any Dark Earth and just wanted to get on with it.    It looks pretty good to me but I'd be interested to hear peoples opinions on whether it's ok or not.

[BIG X]

4 hours ago, timbo33 said:

I'm doing the same Airfix Hurricane (note to self - need some aftermarket decals now...) and have just bought a set of Vallejo Air, which I love the finish of when dry - just ever so slightly satin and silky smooth. Reading through this thread I was getting a bit worried - I have Xtracylix, but find it hard to get a good finish (it doesn't respond well if over-thinned...) and Lifecolor acrylics, as wellas the Humbrol Acrylics, but I don't like airbrushing these. I was definitely getting very confused but your conclusion seems to be that the Model Air colours are OK? I may have to do some back to back tests before I commit to my model!

works for me.