Is there such a thing as "Scale Gloss"?

[Rabbit Leader]

Apologies if this question is not in the correct category / or has already been asked!.

OK - we have all heard about the theory of Scale Colour, I was just wondering if the same applies to the overall sheen of an aircraft.

Q - Is there such a thing as "Scale Gloss"?

Lets take a subject like a RAF Gloss Sea Blue Neptune. In 1/72 scale would this look correct if a full gloss was applied - I am thinking probably not.

Although stated as gloss, would a Semi-Gloss sheen be more appropriate? Does the percentage of gloss change with changes in scale?

I am actually building a 1/72 Aussie Post-War Civilian Mustang that was painted overall Gloss Red.

Link - http://grubbyfingersshop.com/index.php?main_page=popup_image&pID=216&zenid=bef6ebffd6c45464ee28f548eaca61b9

I've applied a number of coats of Humbrol Clear, however it looks too toy-like to me. I'm thinking that perhaps in 1/72 scale a Semi-Gloss sheen would be more akin to Full Gloss - not sure.

Anyway, this topic may have already been discussed, however I have not been able to find anything on here to suggest so.

Thanks for looking and / or answering.

Cheers .. Dave.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Rabbit Leader

[Parabat]

I think there is such a thing. To my mind, a semi-gloss or satin finish is a good 'scale gloss' without looking toy-like, as you mention. Smaller detail items however, can really benefit from a full gloss to have the necessary tonal variation, but a full airframe would look unrealistic. It may be ok for a really high-gloss display plane though.

[MilneBay]

Yep - semi-gloss or satin. Use whatever your preferred paint manufacturer offers. I use Humbrol.

Edited September 24, 2013 by MilneBay

[Test Graham]

I agree. This is difficult when modelling any aircraft not immediately out of the paint shop. That superb reflectivity just doesn't last. Even without the effect of any significant time, the full gloss looks fine on small items but a large structure has different reflection patterns.

Quite how a modeller is supposed to distinguish between a satin finish representing a gloss one, and a satin finish representing a smooth matt one, is one of those impossible (or at least very difficult) problems. Perhaps because in real life there is little difference between them, or because what the eye can distinguish in large scales it cannot equally distinguish on small items?

[richdlc]

in my opinion, glossyness is Ok for natural metal finishes, and race-planes. Otherwise I always finish my builds with either Testor's dullcote or Mr Hobby UV cut

[Work In Progress]

In my experience the best way to get something that looks like a gloss-painted full size aeroplane in good order is to give it a good solid final coat of satin varnish and then polish it with car wax and a soft lint-free cloth.

[Vanroon]

I tend to go for an enamel full gloss finish and cut it back with very fine wet-n-dry and/or a polishing paste.

1200 to 2400 to 3000 papers and Tamiya Compound are the materials of choice. Use the compound with a piece of wool suiting for best results.

G

[Nigel Heath]

I always think a full gloss coat looks wrong on scale model aircraft, satin coats give a better representation IMHO or the dulling techniques mentioned above sound good, bit more work though.

[Rabbit Leader]

All,

Very appreciative of all your comments above. It's great to know that you can think of a question and expect to get some sound advice from modellers all over the world.

I'm off to get some Satiny / semi gloss stuff as soon as the shops open..

Once again - thanks for all the tips and good advice..

Cheers.. Dave.

[AnonymousLL45]

try the Alclad Light Sheen, look about right

[Pete in Lincs]

Or, Enamel matt on a good primer (Halfords).

Allow to dry for 2 days.

Polish with soft (T shirt) cotton cloth until happy.

For the tight bits use an old electric toothbrush.

Works for me.

Pete

[Navy Bird]

I had the same concern when I was finishing my Grumman XF10F Jaguar. The Glossy Sea Blue paint (while exhibiting the correct amount of gloss for a full-scale aircraft) left the model looking toy-like. My answer was to use Floquil Flat as the top varnish (since it leaves a very nice eggshell sheen). I felt it gave me the "scale gloss" I was looking for. Alclad Light Sheen does almost the same thing. Here is how it came out:

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234942572-172-grumman-xf10f-1-jaguar/

Cheers,

Bill

[Rabbit Leader]

I had the same concern when I was finishing my Grumman XF10F Jaguar. The Glossy Sea Blue paint (while exhibiting the correct amount of gloss for a full-scale aircraft) left the model looking toy-like. My answer was to use Floquil Flat as the top varnish (since it leaves a very nice eggshell sheen). I felt it gave me the "scale gloss" I was looking for. Alclad Light Sheen does almost the same thing. Here is how it came out:

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234942572-172-grumman-xf10f-1-jaguar/

Cheers,

Bill

Thanks Bill,

Sound advice there and I think the proof is in the Pudding - That Grumman thing really looks the part..

Cheers .. Dave.

[Nigel Heath]

I too really liked the look of that excellent model, I never knew they used a modified Spitfire instrument panel in it either.

[Rabbit Leader]

I had the same concern when I was finishing my Grumman XF10F Jaguar. The Glossy Sea Blue paint (while exhibiting the correct amount of gloss for a full-scale aircraft) left the model looking toy-like. My answer was to use Floquil Flat as the top varnish (since it leaves a very nice eggshell sheen). I felt it gave me the "scale gloss" I was looking for. Alclad Light Sheen does almost the same thing. Here is how it came out:

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234942572-172-grumman-xf10f-1-jaguar/

Cheers,

Bill

Bill,

While I think about it, I'm sure my LHS does not stock Floquil, however does have Alclad. My kit has several coats of Humbrol Clear which actually is very nice to use.

Do you think the Alclad will go over the Clear without too many problems. I was thinking about giving it a blast with Humbrol Satin from a Rattle can as I was very happy with their Matt version.

Cheers .. Dave.

[Jennings Heilig]

Is there such a thing as "Scale Gloss"?

Absolutely. Go out to a car park and look at a really shiny, glossy, clean new car from across the distance of the lot. Now walk up and look at it from five feet away. The atmospheric particulates scatter the light, making glossy things appear less so at a distance. Something known by painters as far back as Leonardo and Michelangelo.

That's why a super glossy scale model looks like a toy.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Jennings Heilig

[Navy Bird]

I too really liked the look of that excellent model, I never knew they used a modified Spitfire instrument panel in it either.

Well, I used the Spitfire panel, I'm not so sure that Grumman did!

Bill,

While I think about it, I'm sure my LHS does not stock Floquil, however does have Alclad. My kit has several coats of Humbrol Clear which actually is very nice to use.

Do you think the Alclad will go over the Clear without too many problems. I was thinking about giving it a blast with Humbrol Satin from a Rattle can as I was very happy with their Matt version.

Cheers .. Dave.

I don't use Humbrol so I really don't know if Alclad would affect it. You've speaking of Humbrol Clear enamel, right, not the acrylic? I spray Alclad Klear Kote over enamels all the time. Come to think of it, I spray it over Gunze acrylics all the time too. Your best bet is to test it on something that's not an heirloom, like a sheet of styrene card stock. And I like the idea of giving the Humbrol Clear Satin a try, too.

Cheers,

Bill

[Rabbit Leader]

Well, I used the Spitfire panel, I'm not so sure that Grumman did!

I don't use Humbrol so I really don't know if Alclad would affect it. You've speaking of Humbrol Clear enamel, right, not the acrylic? I spray Alclad Klear Kote over enamels all the time. Come to think of it, I spray it over Gunze acrylics all the time too. Your best bet is to test it on something that's not an heirloom, like a sheet of styrene card stock. And I like the idea of giving the Humbrol Clear Satin a try, too.

Cheers,

Bill

Actually Humbrol's Clear is quite a new product. I believe I read somewhere here before that it was closely based on the original "Klear" that seems to have disappeared / changed names / changed formulas etc. The Humbrol product is water based and I will most certainly test whatever I choose (still deciding) on a test piece first.

Thanks for all your recommendations - there seems to be quite a few options out there, however I believe my original question has been well and truly answered by all above.

Thanks you

Cheers .. Dave

[Navy Bird]

Ah, now I understand. For what it's worth, I've sprayed Alclad Klear Kote Flat and Light Sheen over Future with no problems.

Cheers,

Bill

[AnonymousAA72]

Gloss-is-gloss and matt-is-matt, and ne'er the twain and all that! The problem is on full size aircraft, say on a Gloss black RAF Hawk (wrong forum I know) , the metal skin is puckered and rivetted, giving a far from smooth finish. The gloss paint applied therefore falls into these indentations, and is reflected accordingly. BUT its still gloss. Scaling this down to a model is virtually impossible, though I have seen effective attempts at this 'puckered skin' effect - certainly in larger scales. Its for this reason that gloss finishes on model aircraft look wrong - and they can indeed look very 'toy-like'. The compromise is to tone this effect down by adding satin or matt varnish to the finish, and whereas this certainly does improve the end result by reducing its toy-ness, it ain't necessarily right.......

[Nick Millman]

It's a complex beasty about which much theory is currently being explored and tested. Essentially in terms of human perception gloss rating does diminish with distance but the curve followed between gloss rating and distance also depends on surface and illumination. A gloss surface is "recognised" as a result of reflective highlights and the way those appear depends on surface size and angle as well as distance. Shiny cars look shinier on sunny days at greater distances than on dull overcast days. The highlights can't really be scaled down so on a model they "tell" the brain it is a small sized object.

Particulates in the atmosphere "fogging" the gloss is a good one but if that were true photographs of distant mountains reflected crystal clear in the still water of a lake would not be possible. It has more to do with the limitations of distant vision and human eyesight not being able see the reflected highlights at distance as well as the diminishing receipt of reflected "colour" as the light entering the eye becomes more diffuse over distance.

Nick

[The original Kit Builder]

On the other hand, if one of the prominent features of the real machine is the refection of the fin flash on the tailplane, say, then you need to be glossy enough to replicate that.

Even high gloss finishes show weathering and some subtle streaks and smears can seriously reduce the toy-like appearance, whilst maintaining a decent shine. Surface and pin washes aren't just for work-horses.

Of course, another way to have your cake and eat it, is to finish the model so that an all-over sameness of finish is avoided. This gives you a variation in the shine from point to point and breaks the bright lines, though it does take practice

[Brad]

I don't think there is such thing as scale gloss. Saying that 'it looks toy like' is opinion and everyone can have a different opinion on how a model looks. Think of an aircraft that is high gloss, an air racer lets say that are polished up really well and look immaculate. Would you build up the kit of that aircraft and paint it in gloss, matt or semi gloss? I would paint it glossy, because that's a fair representation of the aircraft. People might say 'it looks toy like' or 'it looks funny in gloss' but if the real aircraft is, then it might look toy like to some, but it will be a realistic finish. Every aircraft has a different finish to it and I'd just go with a gloss or matt that matches the real aircraft if you have a picture, or failing that, make an educated guess.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Brad

[Navy Bird]

Another thought of mine, however hare-brained it might be: A high gloss finish on a model often looks "too thick" because the thickness of the paint (or the clear varnish) doesn't scale down. It's pretty much the same thickness on the model as it is on the real thing. Consequently, the model's surface must be exceptionally smooth, not unlike the preparation for a natural metal finish.

I have seen many high gloss models of automotive subjects (typically competition or custom cars) and when I ask the modeller how he achieved it, I almost always hear Micro-Mesh followed by automotive lacquers and finally hand rubbing and polishing until the desired finish is obtained. The results achieved in such a way are stunning, and far more realistic than simply painting high gloss, or over-coating with clear gloss varnish.

Cheers,

Bill

[Jennings Heilig]

Gloss-is-gloss and matt-is-matt, and ne'er the twain and all that! ... and whereas this certainly does improve the end result by reducing its toy-ness, it ain't necessarily right.......

Wellllll, I don't know that I'd say that. "Right" is in the eye of the beholder. That's like saying if you modify the color to compensate for scale color effect that it ain't right. If the intent is to fool the eye and the brain into thinking this tiny replica is the real thing - and that's the ultimate aim of any model of anything, then anything you do to achieve that goal is right, by definition.

To carry your idea further, if you didn't build the model out of riveted aluminum alloy and use real rubber for the wheels and real steel for the shock struts, it ain't right.