Is there such a thing as "Scale Gloss"?

[Jennings Heilig]

I don't think there is such thing as scale gloss.

Michelangelo and Leonardo daVinci didn't call it that, but it most certainly does exist. It's a well established technique to make a small scale representation look more convincingly real. Whether you believe it or not is beside the point. But it most definitely exists.

[AnonymousAA72]

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.

Yep.

[Nick Millman]

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.

I don't think that is necessarily the ultimate aim of every model at all. I have seen plenty of models that are clearly meant to be models involving no deception and none the worse for that. In fact those models that achieve the illusion you describe (without other media being involved) are probably few and far between.

The perception that a model is a model does not mitigate any delight in viewing it. In fact it is often the recognition of miniaturisation that stimulates that delight as the expressions on the faces of people viewing a model railway layout reveal. No-one is really trying to pretend those trains circling model towns and villages are the real thing!

Viewed at its most basic a model of a Corsair, say, finished in Xtracolor Sea Blue Gloss and not toned down says "This aircraft had a glossy finish" avoiding the risk of ambiguity as to what is being depicted. I can see nothing wrong in that whether it looks like a "toy" or not. It is an art form of individual expression with a sliding scale of scale fidelity compromises.

Nick

[Work In Progress]

It is an art form of individual expression with a sliding scale of scale fidelity compromises.

I have nothing to add at this point but just wanted to see that said again.

I might even get it printed on a T-shirt.

[MilneBay]

Michelangelo and Leonardo daVinci didn't call it that, but it most certainly does exist. It's a well established technique to make a small scale representation look more convincingly real. Whether you believe it or not is beside the point. But it most definitely exists.

It isn't really - there is no evidence other than modellers' anecdotal claims that these or any other other artists did that. What they were doing was reproducing the natural effect that the atmosphere has on objects at varying distances. Which is quite different to actually changing the colour values of a model to depict a mythical distance. Models are built at various scales as scale replications, with all the difficulties that miniaturisation entails, of the real object therefore their colour should be that of the original not what someone is supposed to perceive at a distance. If I am looking at a model I am not viewing it at a scale distance I am viewing as close as possible to see if it replicates the 1/1 original - not to see if it replicates the original seen through the natural fog of the atmosphere. To do that all I need to do is take off my glasses. The reduction of parts to scale does not effect their colour - do you see scale ships with reproduced brass parts with those parts painted in some pale shade of brass? Of course not. If that was the case we would simply paint most models under 1/18 a shade of blue grey. I really am amazed at the traction that this idiotic idea of scale colour has achieved.

[Nick Millman]

What they were doing was reproducing the natural effect that the atmosphere has on objects at varying distances.

It's not fog in the atmosphere! It is the natural diffusion of lightwaves reflecting "colour" over distance and the "receiving" effect of that on human perception and the brain.

Nick

[pigsty]

t is the natural diffusion of lightwaves reflecting "colour" over distance and the "receiving" effect of that on human perception and the brain.

I once heard it explained thus: the sky is blue because of the diffusion of sunlight at certain wavelengths. This is done by the atmosphere. Very distant objects appear more blue the further away they are, and this is done by the atmosphere too, just the same. Essentially, if you look at something a long way off, you're looking at it through a lot of sky - and the sky isn't just what's directly above you.

[Nick Millman]

. .. and the sky isn't just what's directly above you.

It is actually. The sky and the atmosphere (both of which change constantly) being two different things in terms of perception.

"The sky, also known as the celestial dome, commonly refers to everything that lies a certain distance above the surface of Earth, including the atmosphere and the rest of outer space."

Good luck with the concept of travelling through the sky in order to walk up the street to the bus stop.

But you got the diffusion of lightwaves in there. They are either transmitted, refracted, reflected, or absorbed but the "fog" idea (Rayleigh scattering) is not universally accepted because the precise nature of light and how it travels is still debated as theory.

And red sunsets on the distant horizon are not blue . . .

Nick

[Nigel Heath]

Well I think that smaller scale models do actually look more realistic if the darker colours are lightened up a bit.

My opinion and my eyes and that's what I'm sticking to.

[Brad]

It isn't really - there is no evidence other than modellers' anecdotal claims that these or any other other artists did that. What they were doing was reproducing the natural effect that the atmosphere has on objects at varying distances. Which is quite different to actually changing the colour values of a model to depict a mythical distance. Models are built at various scales as scale replications, with all the difficulties that miniaturisation entails, of the real object therefore their colour should be that of the original not what someone is supposed to perceive at a distance. If I am looking at a model I am not viewing it at a scale distance I am viewing as close as possible to see if it replicates the 1/1 original - not to see if it replicates the original seen through the natural fog of the atmosphere. To do that all I need to do is take off my glasses. The reduction of parts to scale does not effect their colour - do you see scale ships with reproduced brass parts with those parts painted in some pale shade of brass? Of course not. If that was the case we would simply paint most models under 1/18 a shade of blue grey. I really am amazed at the traction that this idiotic idea of scale colour has achieved.

....and we have a winner. Very well said!

[Greenshirt]

I have nothing to add at this point but just wanted to see that said again.

I might even get it printed on a T-shirt.

Order me one as well, please.

Tim

[Greenshirt]

And red sunsets on the distant horizon are not blue . . .

Nick

I understood that to be from filtering of blue from the white light, due to refraction and thickness of the atmosphere at sea level. But I admit I may not be remembering my physics very well.

Tim

[wellsprop]

Gloss does make models look like toys IMO. Its fine on racers etc but for most british wwii a/c's I use matt varnish, IMO this makes it look more realistic and really highlights weathering. For restored warbirds I use satin.

Ben.

[Aidrian]

Gloss does make models look like toys IMO.

The problem with a straight gloss varnish is that the various reflections and especially the highlights don't really scale because the light source you use hasn't also been scaled down and that tends to lead to a slightly "dipped-in-treacle" effect.

For a gloss finish use a satin varnish and let it dry right through - a week or so - then polish it with a really soft cotton cloth making sure that you do get right into the corners to avoid a patchwork appearance; cotton-buds (Q-tips) are helpful here.

Success will depend on having a really smooth paint job under the varnish as the process will tend to polish only the high spots where there any rough areas in the paint, which looks as bad as it sounds. Prepping with a gentle rub down using 3000 grit paper used wet may be useful if the surface isn't dead smooth - the final polish will bring the finish back to a nice simulation of a gloss finish. You won't normally need any sort of polishing compound for most service finishes, but if you a doing a high gloss finish you might want to go a little further.

For a smooth/satin prototype finish you can polish a model finished matt in the same way - the polishing takes away the dead flat appearance and brings out a few highlights providing a nice simulation of a scale smooth paint job - polish a little longer for a "scale" satin finish

[Space Ranger]

A little bit of a sheen makes any aircraft model look more realistic, in my opinion. Someone, somewhere, a long time ago, dictated that every military aircraft model should have a dead flat finish, but real aircraft, even camouflaged military examples, are not dead flat unless they have been sitting in a boneyard for years.

All working aircraft have a bit of a shine to them, if only from leaking fuel, oil, and hydraulic fluids that get distributed over the airframe. And a close scutiny of photographs will disclose that markings and insignia sometimes have a different degree of reflectivity (i.e., shine) from that of the camouflage finish, especially if the aircraft is new.