Pre shading and panel wash in 1/72

[dancho]

Weathering adds "a certain something." Because I'm a brush-painter, I had to invent my own techniques, and it's frustrating to see the cool kids spraying away and not be able to join the fun. But now I'm pretty confident in my "weathering" methods, which can be actually be applied to models that are "finished" and sitting on the shelf! This raises that possibility of "before and after" photos (like an ad for a exercise video).

 

An Academy P-51B before:

 

 

After focusing the camera and doing some post-shading:

 

 

Italeri P-51D before:

 

 

After focusing, post shading and putting the wheels on properly:

 

 

Toko IL-2M3 before:

 

 

After a dose of weatherfication:

 

 

Here's a video I made about weathering this model. (The post-shading was easy but hiring a director, voice talent, technical crew and equipment cost a mint!) NOW WHAT WOULD YOU PAY??? BUT WAIT!!!!!!

 

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think some folk get too hung up on the exact mechanisms by which different light patterns reflect off a subject and enter our eyeballs. Stating that scale construction details would be imperceptibly fine on scale models is fine but not really telling (some of) us anything we don't already know. Many modellers do have direct first hand experience of aircraft up close and personal.

 

Replicating the exact construction of a real subject, the lustre of the paint and even the uniformity of natural sunlight with which to view the subject is so incredibly difficult that I simply lack the talent, time or inclination to pursue further.

 

Whether the modeller uses substitute techniques to break up the uniformity of model paint on a featureless subject, or whether the prefer not to do anything that physically wasn't there in real life is up to them, but neither is more right or wrong than the other IMO, but many feel that substitute techniques to de-homogenise the painted surface (whatever those may be) often results in a finish more believable as a miniature replica than a desk-model style finish. How much is a matter also of personal taste. To me, less is more, but it's no skin off my nose if someone feels different.

 

The Israeli Mustang in dancho's post above mine is a case in point of something looking more natural with some improvised weathering than without.

[dancho]

One thing that bugs me is the use of certain language. For example, I can't recall just how many times I have seen (on a forum) a model being "damned with faint praise" when the praise includes the word "clean." Nobody mentions the outstanding work on the interior or the re-work of the landing gear--if it's a WWII aircraft and it's not weathered, then it's a "nice clean build." Everybody knows that that means. It means "not dirty enough." But just how dirty is "enough?"

 

To paraphrase Tolstoy (is BBC4 like PBS?) "all clean aircraft are the same--all dirty aircraft are different." Every aircraft has a story. The weathering has a history and a meaning, different in each and every case. Some American aircraft during WWII had badly faded paint. That's why they looked so "tatty." Faded paint. Other aircraft were painted in a slipshod way, without a primer or using inappropriate paint, and it peeled off in sheets (I'm thinking of Japanese Army planes). So you wouldn't use the same method to reproduce a funky looking B-17 with badly faded O.D. paint that you would use to recreate the Japanese Army plane with most of the paint tearing off. Furthermore, you wouldn't use the same method for a Japanese Navy plane with a good solid paint job that you would use to reproduce the improvised paint on the Army aircraft.

[ben_m]

3 hours ago, dancho said:

One thing that bugs me is the use of certain language. For example, I can't recall just how many times I have seen (on a forum) a model being "damned with faint praise" when the praise includes the word "clean." Nobody mentions the outstanding work on the interior or the re-work of the landing gear--if it's a WWII aircraft and it's not weathered, then it's a "nice clean build." Everybody knows that that means.

 

I might have been misinterpreting, and my words being read as something other than intended, but to me a 'clean build' doesn't refer in any way to the level of weathering, it refers to the neatness of the build, for example, seam elimination, correct alignment and angles, and clean masking of hard edges like canopy frames.

[Ed Russell]

1 hour ago, ben_m said:

 

to me a 'clean build' doesn't refer in any way to the level of weathering, it refers to the neatness of the build, for example, seam elimination, correct alignment and angles, and clean masking of hard edges like canopy frames.

+1

[dancho]

I dunno, man. I may be out of line, talking about "nice clean build" meaning "too clean"  but it sure seems that way to me.

[woody37]

I use the pastel method like yourself which I started using many years ago before I had an airbrush. Despite trying other methods, I've never seemed to master other techniques as well as this one. You've made a great improvement on your original finishes IMO

[TheRealMrEd]

I agree with Ben M above.

 

When I say "clean build", I'm usually referring to a model that's not necessarily weathered, may have no added detail or other fancy items -- just a very nice, neat build without any frills -- and most certainly, with no major errors showing, as Ben mentioned.

 

I consider this model I made of an F-94C right out of the box a "clean" model. Stock and no frills:

 

 

Not a great model, but presentable.

 

Ed

 

[Drift]

On 06/01/2015 at 22:42, Mike said:

I like building models, me. I don't get hung up on whether my style is the right or wrong way, although I do prefer some styles over others. I do think that people shouldn't be afraid to offer critical appraisal of people's work, but as we always say, it should be done in a polite, respectful way. Manners cost nothing, and "painful honesty" is just PR spin on rudeness.

At the end of the day we build for ourselves first and foremost, but as Ben rightly says, we like a bit of a pat on the back from time-to-time for the work we've done. I don't know about you guys, but I like to grow as a modeller, and won't stick to the same techniques I used as a kid because "it were good enuff fer me father, and his father before 'im". I'd like to progress, get better (although I think I've actually got worse lately), and strive to mimic the kind of finish that Ben achieves... damn him!

I'm against the "black goo" that Edgar talks about, although it's a phrase laced with disdain, and I know Edgar well enough to say that I can see panel lines in the photo he posted up, so I'm going to apply washes, but in order to get a realistic(ish) finish. If I'm going to weather a model, I'll try to at least base it on one or more pics, even if they're of other airframes/vehicles of the same type, but I can still appreciate the skills needed to do these wonderfully weathered-to-death models, that do look fabulous, if not realistic. So what? It's an art-form. There's no right way, and you can't please all the people all the time, as we find out Moderating the site! Do it for you, competition judges, or whomever, but don't slag other people's take on how a model should look because it's not the same as yours. At least not in public, within earshot, or on here. It's bloody rude! It's also as fruitful as banging your head against a brick wall, or saying that Picaso is a better artist than Degas because you prefer him.

Flippin' well said Mike!!!  We all have an on and an off day. 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Mike
Launguage Timothy!

[Mike]

6 hours ago, Drift said:

Flippin' well said Mike!!!  We all have an on and an off day. 

 

Thanks, but please remember we've got younger modellers looking at the site, so I've changed your post accordingly

[dancho]

Not to continue the argument until the end of time (probably) but why is it always a "nice" clean build? Not a GOOD clean build or a fine clean build. Always the "n word." Perhaps it's not the word "clean" that needs to go, maybe it's NICE. Be nicer that way, I think.

[Phantome]

It is interesting how our eyes deceive us with the finished product. Overly shaded and washed aircraft look unrealistic on their own. However, when they are photographed in a "natural" environment such as a fake sky, they often look more realistic than the more subtly done ones. It's a shame I don't have the link but there was once an extremely well made F/A-18 which if photographed on a white background would have looked overdone yet with a natural background looked not different from a photograph.

 

I too am of the belief that subtle weathering is better. I am not a huge fan of massive tonal differences guided by panel lines.

 

In recent months I have attempted to try some different things and have come up with an alternative that produced a pretty good result. I call this method the "Assymetric Three Tone" and it's entirely done through post-shading. Here's how it works:

 

1) Prime first and then paint the base color completely evenly

2) Whiten the base paint and thin heavily. Paint on the insides of random panel lines - not all of them! And certainly not symmetrically

3) Darken the base paint and thin heavily. Paint along all panel lines but do an extra heavy pass on certain panel lines, again not all of them, not symmetrically and irrespective if that panel had been whitened or not in step two.

 

The result of this is that with practically the same effort as post-shading, you have many more tonal changes. It looks far more worn out than with  a simple darker panel line/whiter panel technique thanks to the asymmetry and randomness of the tones.

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

On ‎17‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 7:29 PM, dancho said:

Not to continue the argument until the end of time (probably) but why is it always a "nice" clean build? Not a GOOD clean build or a fine clean build. Always the "n word." Perhaps it's not the word "clean" that needs to go, maybe it's NICE. Be nicer that way, I think.

 

With respect, I think that's maybe more of a personal thing. If someone takes the time and effort to post a response to a Ready For Inspection thread, I'd assume that it was intended genuinely and not a snide dig. Those who don't like what they see tend to just move on without commenting and that's probably as it should be since even criticism intended to be constructive will usually land in a negative way.

 

At least that's what I think. If someone actually is being snide with their comments on my builds, I don't actually care because I have no regard for snide people anyway.

 

In other words, I think many people use the word "nice" because most of us are British men here and British men making models are probably more detached from their feminine sides than most demographic factions and would use the word "nice" because it's the first one that springs to mind and functions well. Many of us only have 2 conditional words in our normal vocabularies. If it's not described by a four letter swear word to signify badness, it's nice.

[Folkbox1]

On 04 January 2015 at 0:45 PM, johnnyboy said:

 I have already filled all the trenches on Airfix's Spitfire Mk1a resulting in a very blank looking bit of plastic but I am hoping that using Phil Flory toning of the main colors it will to stop it looking like a brick. Would love to hear your thoughts

John

 

I quite like the trenches on the 72nd kits.  Filled up with paint I find they give a very pleasing panel line effect without any shading (pre or post) washes or anything else.  With the added bonus that the visibility of the panel lines varies depending on which direction the light is coming from.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Folkbox1

[Ed Russell]

On 20/12/2016 at 0:56 AM, Folkbox1 said:

 

I quite like the trenches on the 72nd kits. 

 

With respect (it's your model after all) the vast majority disagree with you

 

 

 

[Folkbox1]

On 24 December 2016 at 11:04 AM, Ed Russell said:

 

With respect (it's your model after all) the vast majority disagree with you

 

 

I know but it's still a valid opinion and other's might like to try it on their models

[3DStewart]

On ‎24‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 11:04 AM, Ed Russell said:

 

With respect (it's your model after all) the vast majority disagree with you

 

 

 

 

How do you know what the "vast majority" think on this subject. 63 dislikes emailed to you in an unscientific poll about the Italeri Sunderland with a made up sample size of 3,000 counts for nothing.

 

As it happens I agree with FolkBox1 that intermediate depth panels do look quite good if left un-emphasised.

[Ed Russell]

I think your grasp of statistics is perhaps a little tenuous. Try reading a stats manual or consult statistically literate colleagues (as I did) before putting out a dogmatic opinion.

 

That said, I respect the right of any modeller to portray panel lines any way they like. My poll was for the edification of Italeri, who were quite appreciative, not to convince you or anyone else to change their modelling style.

[Cookenbacher]

I always enjoy this discussion on Britmodeller, because it's civil and educational. I'm still trying to define my modelling 'style' and it in itself is an interesting aspect of the hobby. I'm quite happy that there are different styles to be influenced by and I enjoy perusing RFI looking for ideas.

 

A while back, I was at a friend's house and thumbed through one of his coffee table art books and came across this quote from Bernini, a 17th Century sculptor, and it struck me that it applies to our friendly debate:

 

Sometimes in a marble portrait, in order to imitate nature properly, you have to do something that does not exist in nature. To render the dark color
that some people have under their eyes, you have to cut the place of that darkness out of the marble in order to create the effect of color, and with this artiface
make up for this defect in sculpture, which cannot otherwise render the effect.

 

This quote has given me more respect for the heavier pre-shading/panel wash school, and I've done some experimenting in that direction.

 

Regarding a 'nice clean' build, that is a bit of a holy grail for me, and if I've ever said it, it's to be taken as the highest of compliments: to be able to make a clean model that looks just like the real thing requires the utmost skill and talent in my opinion (see anything by MikeW, mirageiv or Stew Dapple to see what I mean).

 

 

[Phantome]

On 1/3/2017 at 6:23 PM, 3DStewart said:

 

How do you know what the "vast majority" think on this subject. 63 dislikes emailed to you in an unscientific poll about the Italeri Sunderland with a made up sample size of 3,000 counts for nothing.

 

As it happens I agree with FolkBox1 that intermediate depth panels do look quite good if left un-emphasised.

 

I know that some people these days dislike "experts" but as an economist and therefore with formal training in statistics, a sample of 70 people out of a population of 3,000 is actually pretty representative, with a margin of error of around 6% either way. That means that since 90% in the sample disliked trenches (63 out of 70), at least 84% of the total population dislike them... and possibly as many as 96%.

 

 

[Shane]

16 minutes ago, Phantome said:

 

I know that some people these days dislike "experts" but as an economist and therefore with formal training in statistics, a sample of 70 people out of a population of 3,000 is actually pretty representative, with a margin of error of around 6% either way. That means that since 90% in the sample disliked trenches (63 out of 70), at least 84% of the total population dislike them... and possibly as many as 96%.

 

 

 

Self selecting survey population, from an unrepresentative segment of the overall model buying and building population. This is why actual scientists laugh at them.

 

Engineers and computer scientists too if I'm any example

 

Shane

[Phantome]

5 minutes ago, Shane said:

 

Self selecting survey population, from an unrepresentative segment of the overall model buying and building population. This is why actual scientists laugh at them.

 

Engineers and computer scientists too if I'm any example

 

Shane

 

Nobody said it was a survey of the overall model buying/building population, if it was, Italeri would have done the survey in model shops not on a forum. Clearly they value the opinion of more seasoned modellers.

 

Yes, you can argue that the main weakness of the poll is that the sample is not random but it's a bit of stretch to say that an outcome of 90% dislike is of no representative value whatsoever.

 

P.S. a degree in economics is more statistics heavy than any science, engineering or comp sci degree. Only mathematicians, actuaries, and finance majors have us beat. We can still lie with numbers though

[Ed Russell]

9 hours ago, Shane said:

This is why actual scientists laugh at them.

As an "actual scientist" I don't see anything to laugh at. Not sure what your point is.

 

Let me re-iterate again for at least the third time........

1. The survey was statistically sound. As noted above by someone who actually understands the black art of stats, the "self-selection" was not a bar to this and I'm sure Italeri took it into account when assessing the results.

2. The purpose was to give Italeri information. it became their "property" after completion.

3. They encouraged me to give a summary of the results and mention it when appropriate.

4. It was not to encourage or denigrate any particular style of finish for their models or to change other peoples' perceptions or practices of modelling styles.

5. My own (and for that matter, anyone else's) personal preferences are irrelevant to the interpretation of the survey. I did it out of interest, some involvement with Italeri and as a result of many comments on my Sunderland build where my personal preferences were obvious.

[Shane]

11 minutes ago, Ed Russell said:

As an "actual scientist" I don't see anything to laugh at. Not sure what your point is.

 

 

 

The notion that a survey self selected from "engaged" modellers is a close analog to a sample of the full population..

 

I can run a survey in my home to determine what modellers are like. It will prove that 100% of them are 60 year old bald men who prefer WW1 aircraft. But if I step outside the doors and ask everyone at my model club the answer will be very different, and if I ask everyone buying models at the local model shop it will change again, and if I somehow ask *every* modeller it will change again. Extrapolating from a group willing or wanting to respond to an Italeri survey tells you ONLY what those people prefer.

 

Shane

[MalX]

On 17/12/2016 at 04:53, TheRealMrEd said:

I agree with Ben M above.

 

When I say "clean build", I'm usually referring to a model that's not necessarily weathered, may have no added detail or other fancy items -- just a very nice, neat build without any frills -- and most certainly, with no major errors showing, as Ben mentioned.

 

I consider this model I made of an F-94C right out of the box a "clean" model. Stock and no frills:

 

 

Not a great model, but presentable.

 

Ed

 

that looks great, the problem you have with natural Aluminium is you can not duplicate it in paint, not even Alclad.............it has to be metal kitchen foil only.......