Pre/Post-Shading, Panel Line Washes, (now drifting into weathering in general): Why?

[Bertie McBoatface]

I'm inviting your comments and votes on something which fascinates me.

I've spent an interesting afternoon looking at colour photos of RAF WWII aircraft. (I appreciate that the colours themselves are unreliable evidence due to differential fading and wacky 1940s emulsions, BUT the tonal variations are clear.) I've also had a quick look at web pictures of more modern aircraft. The funny thing is that I can't find a single clear photograph of an aircraft with stripes such as I depict with pre/post-shading techniques. I see mucky marks caused by fitter's feet and spilt oil. I see random fading, chipping, and a host of variations from flat blocks of colour. But I can find nothing to suggest darkened stripes, however subtle, around panels or mechanical hinges, or emphasising internal structure through the aircraft skin(!).

The pre/post-shading fashion seems to have started about ten to twelve years ago. I remember seeing a copy of Fine Scale Modelling about that time with a cover photo of an Avenger looking as though it had been quilted. I scoffed back then. Yet now I do it. I've been doing it because everyone else seems to like it. Ready for Inspection posts with lots of stylized shading always attract much praise for the paintwork. But now I'm thinking I am blindly (lol) making my models less representative of the real thing with my strange stylistic habit.

The panel line wash craze is similarly baffling to me. I've always thought they were spurious and today I've been looking for evidence to refute my opinion. Well, from time to time I have found a panel line, occasionally a really dirty one, so I'll accept that sometimes a panel line wash is true to life. But on most aircraft this simply isn't the case and when it is apparent, it's only one or two lines. I think its really ironic that as moulding technology has improved and surface detail become ever finer and more representative, I increasingly exaggerate it with dark inks and powders, making finely etched plastic resemble the old Airfix/Frog/Matchbox kits of my youth perhaps

How did I ever get so weird? I think I am copying each other's models instead of looking at the real thing. Come to think of it, I've seen many comments saying that a modeller will use another modeller's model as a reference. Hmmm.

I think I'm going to stop using either of these techniques. I'm going to 'work from the original' (original photos, that is) and paint what I see. I'd probably better not enter any competitions though...

(Edited to remove what might be interpreted as criticism of other people's methods or making fun of their work. After all, it's only a hobby!.)

Edited May 8, 2013 by per ardua ad ostentationem

[prowler0000]

You have NO idea how often I have wondered this myself....

I think it has something to do with scale. If a panel line on the real subject is large enough to see, then in theory it should also be represented on the scaled-down equivalent. But if the model has the same line, & is visible, then scaled up, it would be enormous!! Currently I'm building submarines in 1/350. Most real-life pix of these things appear smooth, & any protrusions or dips in the hull would surely create drag (undesirable, to say the least...) or increase noise (again, less than a good thing!). But My current "victim", A HobbyBoss Alfa, has a liberal sprinkling of panel lines! SO now the question is: Do i give em a "slurry wash" to enhance their appearance, or leave em & let em fade into obscurity, Millie Vanilli-like?

To be honest, Panel line enhancement is no bad thing. It pulls the detail out of what can sometimes be VERY bland, Smooth subjects. But if the builder goes too far, they detract badly, & can just kill the finished model.

I think you've just opened up a HUGE can of worms here, Don! Expect some passionate posts!!!

[chadders]

I think it's down to the fact that over the last 20/30 years, other people's models have become more accessible for us to see with more and more magazines coming and going and of course the Internet. One person will see a technique on someone's model, and they'll replicate it. Then someone else sees it, then it will appear in a magazine and before you know it everyone uses that technique as standard. Look at recessed panal lines. How many of us scribed panel lines in the 70's? Back then it was very new, we were used to raised lines, then manufacturers started giving us ever finer lines, people with old kits with raised lines tried to replicate it. New tools appeared to make the task easier, and now we don't think twice about it. Sometimes it is a conformist/follow the leader type thing, where people think unless they use a certain technique or product then their finished item will not recieve the kudos of their peers. When all is said and done though, you buy the kit, you finish it how you want it. It's a hobby

[tomprobert]

You make some very interesting points here, and I must say I completely agree with you!

I have never been into using pre-shading or panel line washes, because as you rightly say weathering does not occur like this on real aircraft. It seems to be a faze that the hobby is going through, and modellers are of the perception that a panel line wash is a must to achieve a realistic finish... I personally feel the opposite is true.

I have never seen an aircraft with uniform weathering around the edge of panels, or seen an aircraft covered in dark panel lines either. It is important to remember that when standing a reasonable distance from an aircraft it is very unusual to see any panel lines at all. When we build a model we are in essence looking at it as if we are standing some distance away from it, and therefore very little of the surface detail would be visible.

I also completely agree about your points on the paint weathering randomly and being patchy, and this is what try to re-create on my builds as that what is seen on the real thing.

I too scratch my head when a model appears on the table and it is covered by pre-shaded and darkened panel lines and the comments all come in saying how wonderful the paint work is and realistic it looks. You then see a picture of the real aircraft and not a panel line is visible, and there certainly is no shading around the edge of the panels...

A fantastic build of a Tamiya Lancaster comes to mind which often pops up from time to time, which was detailed beautifully and made to some of the highest standards I have ever seen, until he painted it! To me it looked like a patch-work quilt, and was completely over-done. Pictures of the real aircraft show nothing of the sort, and this for me ruined what would have been a superb model.

It's certainly a very interesting point for debate, and will no doubt raise some serious passion in those for and against panel line enhancement. But as Chadders says, it's hobby and how people chose to finish their models is entirely up to them. Calling a model covered in panel lines and nice neat shading of the panel edges 'realistic' though certainly is not true... in my opinion anyway!

Tom

[Duncan B]

Do you use scale effect when painting or just blast the colour from right out of the bottle? Do you sand off all that lovely detail that in real life you would only be able to see if stood right on top of the actual aircraft? How thick would those hydraulic hoses added in the wheel bays be if to scale? Is it really possible to see the seat buckles and switches in the cockpit from 48 feet away?

People make models for a host of reasons and I suspect trying to accurately depict a scaled, 100% accurate "mini me" of the real thing probably doesn't come top of the list, it certainly doesn't for me. Sure, I like to have a model that is accurate enough to be recognisable but if I had to make it 100% accurate and to scale in my chosen 1/72 the model would most likely look dull and lifeless with no visible variation in tone or shade, a bit like a Corgi die cast model in fact with correct shape and colour but somehow uninteresting.

A friend of mine, who regularly displays on here to almost unanimous praise, uses all the artistic tricks of pre and post shading, panel washes, chipping, fading and more. Ask him if it is accurate and he'll tell you he doesn't care as he just builds them for fun, it's a hobby. His models are stunning works of art in my opinion but that is all they are. He has no intentions of making a "lifelike" image when he makes those models.

I also try to use these techniques but recently I made a model without the pre and post shading, it looked dull and visually uninteresting in comparison to its shaded siblings so I will be back to shading on my next models. Is Michaelangelo's David a true representation of a human? Not with hands that size he ain't!

Duncan B

[JohnT]

Interesting

I posted a thread some time back about panel lines suggesting that the width of the panel line on the real thing was usually so tight you would have trouble getting a thumb nail in the joint. Not always but mostly

Take that down to even 1/32 and you should not be able to see them far less in 1/48 or 1/72

Bit like airframe instructional stencilling which IMHO does not transfer well to smaller scale models as they tend then to look like the have had an attack of measles. But I appreciate others prefer otherwise.

Duncan

Re Michelangelos David - it ain't just the hands though it might have been cold in the studio that week

[alex]

mostly, I apply panel line washing where there is a gap in the "real life", such as aileron hinges, service covers, etc. to simulate the shadow the small gap leaves. I agree that many moderlers overdo it, especially when they use black for the washing. I use a dark brown-dark grey, sometimes even a medium grey. It can add some realism to the model, but you're walking literally a thin line...

Same for preshading. I did it a few times, it can add to the realism, if applied carefully(!)

About the raised rivet lines: I once noticed on a Super Puma that there is in fact a darker line! it was according to the airflow (horizontal on the stabilizer, and 45° downwards under the engine), and definetly a darker area. I assume it was because of some small turbulences behind the rivet heads, where the exhaust fumes had time to stain the paint.

Edit: I didn't vote, because it depends too much how it's done - if not too strong, I feel it adds realism. If overdone, it starts to look a bit toy (or model-) like.

Alex

Edited May 5, 2013 by alex

[JackG]

I'm guilty of using some of the above mentioned techniques as well, but at the same time try to keep it subtle. It is distracting when applied heavily, and what it really does is create 3D appearance on what is suppose to be just a flat surface. Another example is when individual camou colours have their own shading conforming to it's outlines. Some people are mesmerized by these techniques and make the mistake of equating it to the real deal.

Not too long ago I saw a post from an individual who is a huge proponent of said methods, and his reason was that reality was boring - so there you have it. The subject was a Spitfire - honestly, how can that aircraft ever be boring?

regards,

Jack

[Mike]

I've moved away from pre-shading, but still introduce a variety of tones in the colours that I paint, as an attempt to add visual interest. I will probably always panel line wash, but try to keep it subtle, and close(ish) to the real thing.

Just as a heavily pre-shaded and dark panel lined aircraft looks unrealistic, so does a completely clean aircraft painted in large swathes of monotone colour with nothing to attract the eye. One looks like a patch-work quilt, the other looks like a diecast toy.

Moderation in the application of techniques is the way of introducing some realism to your model, whilst making it visually interesting. Try to adapt your approach to each model you make. A Red Arrows Hawk won't look good with a heavily bleached paint job, in just the same way that a war weary B-17 won't look right with a beautiful glossy finish. 'orses for courses. Checking your reference material is also a good way to get your weathering right, and when the moaners tell you it wouldn't look like that in the real world, you can point them at your pictures and gleefully thumb your nose at them

Remember though - it's a hobby, and it's supposed to be for fun and relaxation. If you find it's getting to the stage where all you can do is criticise others methods for enjoying their hobby and make fun of other people's work, then perhaps it's time you stepped away from the keyboard, and sought psychiatric help before it's too late

[colin]

The thing is were making something that represents the real thing. If you paint it one overall colour then yes, you would be correct,but people when they look at your model don't think well that's what it should look like from 30 feet away, no they go wow look at all the detail on that, seat belt/buckles, rivets,bolts, and such like, and how do you manage to paint all those details and 'make' it look real.

You see most people who look at my models haven't got a clue what they are, or look like in real life

[buccymad]

i am quite lucky in that my "other hobby" is oil painting ,i often work from a picture ,spending ages trying to replicate what is in the picture ,every little detail,shape ,shade and form .

what i end up with is a painting that looks nothing like the picture as as far a realism goes ,but looks like a fair representation of a painting of said subject .

people look at my paintings and instantly recognize that they are looking at an aircraft coming into land or shooting off into the blue,the same goes for my models .

in my head the next model i build will be super dupper realistic ,but when its finished(every twelve lunar cycles at present) it is never as good as i envisioned it ,but i still end up with something that is instantly recognizable as the chosen subject ,and for me that is enough

as far as shading i always go down the post shading look as, like some have said ,i have yet to see a picture of an aircraft with that much tonal variation on its surface,the only time i have seen an actual aircraft that was "pre shaded" was on a fire dump

[Doug Rogers]

I personally am not a big fan of pre-shading, it's just not what I see in real life. I do think that a subtely post shaded model and some discreet panel line washing can enhance the look of a finished model.

For me it's usually a case of less is more.

[davidelvy]

We may talkm of realism, but what we end up with is a representation of what is real.Techniques such as pre-shading appear more realistic than a flat, over all finish - even though that may be how the aircraft left the factory. Throw in scale and it is all a compromise.

I have an idea of what I would like to achieve, but I know many modellers have other ideas. I will not condemn anyone for using a technique I would not use myself and often learn something from them.

[Bertie McBoatface]

If you find it's getting to the stage where all you can do is criticise others methods for enjoying their hobby and make fun of other people's work, then perhaps it's time you stepped away from the keyboard, and sought psychiatric help before it's too late

Hello Mike,

I've edited my initial post to remove any possibility of criticising or making fun of others, which was never my intention. I was just curious to hear what others thought of these techniques, and to get a poll of the majority view. And maybe to foster some healthy debate?

On the other hand, I find your suggestion (that I should stop posting and seek psychiatric help) surprisingly personal. I am a sensitive soul and easily hurt.

[pte1643]

This is a debate that will just run and run... There is no real definitive answer.

While it's true that "real" aircraft are not manufactured in this way, there are certain examples that certainly show a similar effect in real life.

Just last week I was standing next to the F-15 at Duxford (the one just outside the "American Hangar")...

You can definitely see dark lines on that... Especially around the nose/cockpit area. I remember thinking about the subject of preshaded "Panel Lines" at the time.

[Giorgio N]

The visibility of panel lines on real aircrafts can be debated ad nauseam with no clear answer: for any single picture of a real aircraft where panel lines are not visible there's another picture of another real aircraft where panel lines are clearly visible.

The same is true for dirt of any kind.

Even without considering the above, there's the fact that we modellers are not painting a real aircraft but a reproduction that is 144/72/48/32/24 times smaller than the real thing. If we paint our smaller reproductions in the same way as the real aircrafts are painted they will look different (some might say toylike) because the light will never create the same shadows and highlights that we see on the real aircrafts. Hence the need of "artistic" techniques to reproduce these effects in scale.

The various pre/postshading techniques, the washes, the addition of filters and so on are all part of these techniques used to trick the eye into thinking it's looking at something real. Of course in some cases the job is done right, in others it's overdone or simply done wrong. Moreover, any modeller has her/his personal view of what the final effect should be, adding to the variety of finishes we can see.

[Mike]

On the other hand, I find your suggestion (that I should stop posting and seek psychiatric help) surprisingly personal. I am a sensitive soul and easily hurt.

Oh, don't worry I wasn't having a dig at you, but there are some very "unusual" individuals out there that spend all their free time castigating others for enjoying their hobby in a different way than they do.

[CliffB]

Just looking on the web for some photos of my planned build for the Helicopter GB and here it is..

Strewth!

Cliff

[cheeley]

Glad to see you back and posting again Don.

I use some shading on my models in order to make them look interesting to me, I try to keep it light. As you've stressed in your post, it's all based on personal preference. I concur with what Mike says, a completely clean finish can look too much like a Dinky toy to me. Heavy shading of the patchwork quilt variety is also something I'm not keen on. I think sometimes it's a case of the modeller showing off technique, and trying to make the kit stand out from legions of others. I think it's definitely 'in fashion' though, and I know that I certainly try to replicate techniques used on models that I see on the 'net that I consider aesthetically pleasing.

My overriding feeling is that as long as I'm building for my own enjoyment, and I'm happy with the result (or as happy as I can be when I'm criticising my own work!) then there can't possibly be a right or wrong way of doing things.

A bit of a wishy washy answer I'm afraid

Chris

[hacker]

Also l remember reading about a USAAF directive about clean planes. The idea was the dirtier the plane the more battle active it was. I am trying to find that directive cause l know l have it here somewhere but units would intentionally make their aircraft look the part so maybe dirty panel lines were there.

[Duncan B]

Just looking on the web for some photos of my planned build for the Helicopter GB and here it is..

Strewth!

Cliff

So what are you going to build then?

[Bertie McBoatface]

mostly, I apply panel line washing where there is a gap in the "real life", such as aileron hinges, service covers, etc. to simulate the shadow the small gap leaves. I agree that many moderlers overdo it, especially when they use black for the washing. I use a dark brown-dark grey, sometimes even a medium grey. It can add some realism to the model, but you're walking literally a thin line...

Same for preshading. I did it a few times, it can add to the realism, if applied carefully(!)

About the raised rivet lines: I once noticed on a Super Puma that there is in fact a darker line! it was according to the airflow (horizontal on the stabilizer, and 45° downwards under the engine), and definetly a darker area. I assume it was because of some small turbulences behind the rivet heads, where the exhaust fumes had time to stain the paint.

Edit: I didn't vote, because it depends too much how it's done - if not too strong, I feel it adds realism. If overdone, it starts to look a bit toy (or model-) like.

Alex

Just looking on the web for some photos of my planned build for the Helicopter GB and here it is..

Strewth!

Cliff

Blimey! Helicopters with raised rivets under the exhaust area have the stripes (but only in that area)! This is exactly the kind of close observational approach that I intend to adopt. I have some helos to build too!

Thanks guys!

[CliffB]

Blimey! Helicopters with raised rivets under the exhaust area have the stripes (but only in that area)!

But thankfully not when shiny new.

My salvation Duncan!

Cheers Don

Cliff

[Dave A]

Hey Don, nice to hear from you! I think Mike above has it right - it's all about avoiding the 'Dinky Toy' effect. We KNOW what we're making is a little thing covered in a small amount of paint, but we do what we can to make it look LIKE something different.

[MikeC]

Also l remember reading about a USAAF directive about clean planes. The idea was the dirtier the plane the more battle active it was. I am trying to find that directive cause l know l have it here somewhere but units would intentionally make their aircraft look the part so maybe dirty panel lines were there.

I'd be very interested to see that directive when you find it - military ethos usually dictates that smartness = pride in yourself and your unit = higher morale = greater fighting efficiency. There is also the complement to that, which is "Look after your kit/weapon/etc, and it will look after you".

Back to the original discussion: I haven't voted because I can't fit my views into the options. I use these techniques if I think it will enhance the model I am building. Do some modellers lose sight of why these techniques exist, and just use them for the sake of it?