Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

johnnyboy

Pre shading and panel wash in 1/72

Recommended Posts

Since I become a member of this forum I have used both on making 1/72 aircraft but after a discussion with a fellow modeler we decided to visit my local airfield (North Weald) during last summer. Standing a measured 72 ft and using the Mk1 eyeball I was lucky enough to be able to look at the P40,P51,Hurricane and the Spitfire of the Hanger 11 collection. Admittedly these are all modern Warbirds and not service aircraft but it became very apparent that panel lines and even the gaps of the control panels were almost invisible at this distance. When I finish the two S.H Buchon that I am building for my sons Duxford collection I am aim to build my own collection of B O B aircraft using the Airfix 1/72 range of aircraft. 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

Edited by johnnyboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all a matter of personal taste, agreed you may not be able to see the panels on a real aircraft at that 'scale distance' but on models they tend to look too toy like if just painted and no details 'pop' if you see what I'm getting at.

I tend to highlight the panels but don't use black, I try to mix using oils a colour that is suitable for the finished model

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artistic interpretation, IMO way over done by most modellers. But when done "right" it does give an awesome result. My view, less is more. Having said that it is so easy to go too far. I have always been told when it looks like it is still not enough stop there as it enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artistic interpretation, IMO way over done by most modellers. But when done "right" it does give an awesome result. My view, less is more. Having said that it is so easy to go too far. I have always been told when it looks like it is still not enough stop there as it enough

Couldn't agree more.

Big thick over-emphasized panel lines look rediculous and can(IMHO)make a well built and painted

realistic model look pretty silly.

My adage is "Paint what you see,not what you think you see".

In other words,I'll simulate wear,tear and dirt/oil stains where they're supposed to be

because my aim is to create a (if possible)"historic snap-shot in time"of a subject.

TBH,if I'm in RFI and see a post of a subject I like and the modeller say's they've pre-shaded this,

post-shaded that and pin-washed the other,then I'll usually come out of the post without looking

any further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion on pre-shading is that it's "so last year." The way I see it those that are still doing it these days are a little behind in the trends of the hobby.

I approach the paint and weathering as an artistic endeavor. I'm not trying to replicate what a real world aircraft looks like - necessarily. If you don't want your model to look like a toy the key is tonal variation. Pre-shading gives that, but it's in a way that panel lines dictate where the variation is. Initially it's interesting because it adds depth, but the pattern is too predictable. Black basing and modulated build up in addition to filters with oils seems to be the new "thing" and I think it's much more visually interesting.

RevellJunkers88-10_zpsc6144c09.jpg

In the end though...you should be building for you and if you like the results of whatever you're doing - do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is definitely one of those points where artistic versus technical accuracy comes into play. The question has to be....who is going to view the results(and care)? If it is just you then do whatever pleases you the most, if it is for a competition then you have to do what the judges expect and what is in current vogue. If it is for exact scale accuracy then panel lines should be how they look at that scale and not how you think they look, and finally, if it is for general consumption say in a museum or display then accentuated panel lines are possibly a good idea as they show clearly to the un-initiated how the craft was put together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Ju88 illustrates the position very well. As a piece of craft it is certainly very cleverly done, with a lot of skill, but my reaction is largely negative because the overall effect is unreal. Apart from anything else, there's a mix of what is meant to be a highly weathered main finish (let's pass on whether that in itself appears reasonable, it does seem to be a genuine attempt) yet without signs of wear or dirt, a complete lack of exhaust stains (on what was notoriously a very dirty aircraft) and fresh shiny markings. It attempts to be immaculate and non-immaculate at the same time, so can't help but look wrong. Something like this looks much more "like a toy" than a more "plain jane" approach.

As for such sneers as "so last year", "behind the trends" and "artistic endeavour" - condemned out of your own mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I become a member of this forum I have used both on making 1/72 aircraft but after a discussion with a fellow modeler we decided to visit my local airfield (North Weald) during last summer. Standing a measured 72 ft and using the Mk1 eyeball I was lucky enough to be able to look at the P40,P51,Hurricane and the Spitfire of the Hanger 11 collection. Admittedly these are all modern Warbirds and not service aircraft but it became very apparent that panel lines and even the gaps of the control panels were almost invisible at this distance. When I finish the two S.H Buchon that I am building for my sons Duxford collection I am aim to build my own collection of B O B aircraft using the Airfix 1/72 range of aircraft. 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

The panel lines might be almost invisible at that distance but don't foget in 1/72 scale most panels lines are far wider than they should be, so like Colin says not doing anything with the panel lines can look wrong.

Some people do tend to ruin the look of a model by using black, or an almost black wash on lighter finishes.

If you have filled all the panel lines you could always draw them back on to have nice subtle lines http://themodelmakersresource.co.uk/articles/article013.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The panel lines might be almost invisible at that distance but don't foget in 1/72 scale most panels lines are far wider than they should be, so like Colin says not doing anything with the panel lines can look wrong.

Some people do tend to ruin the look of a model by using black, or an almost black wash on lighter finishes.

If you have filled all the panel lines you could always draw them back on to have nice subtle lines http://themodelmakersresource.co.uk/articles/article013.html

Thanks for all reply's so far guys, As to your post Tbolt I have been giving some thought as to rescribing very lightly though the primer coat but not to preshade these with a dark color but just as a guide to were I can add tonal changes to the main camouflage paints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I have seen real aircraft that are heavily weathered and pre-shading could replicate the effect. I too think it is often overdone by modellers. It does seem to have become a fashionable thing to do rather than a necessity based on the condition of the real subject. To me it often detracts from an otherwise well built and painted model. I totally agree with Graham's comments above, that Ju-88 looks like it was taken from the production line and left in a desert for 40 years to get so faded without the real-life type of weathering it should have and therefore not representative of a WWII aircraft even after dozens of missions.

I don't understand why there is a need to spray black along every panel line to give the pre-shading effect - surely if there is any tonal variation to be seen it wouldn't follow such a predictable pattern? The upper surfaces are likely to suffer the effects of the sun fading the colours but it a far more subtle variation and why would the under surfaces need pre-shading? Also many modellers condemn manufacturers for the depth of the panel lines and yet use a black wash after painting to emphasise all of them. I can understand panel lines around an engine or exhaust for example collecting dirt/oil stains but not all the others. Panel joints on many aircraft are sealed anyway so there shouldn't be much of a line to see.

If people want to be using very artistic techniques on their models that's fine with me - it's their model and they can do what they like. For me the problem is when a technique is seen as being the only correct way to finish every model. Model magazines are a prime example of this as every single issue seems to be full of pre-shaded models. There does seem to be a large number of modellers who base their model on one they've seen either in a magazine or online without any reference to photos of the real thing and this is where the exaggerated probably effects come from.

If a model needs tonal variation in the paint I would much rather see the artistic skills of someone who knows how to use an airbrush properly and use it with slightly lighter/darker shades of the base colour.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it doesn't matter, if you pre-shade, post-shade, use filters or whatever it's the end result that counts, and they are some guys that can use all different techniques and the model can look realistic and/or really good, but there are some people that seem to struggle with it and the finish doesn't look realistic or that great because they way overdo the effects, instead of keeping it subtle, but if they think it's great then that's up to them.

Personally my own weathering on my models is kept fairly subtle, but some people might they look a bit boring, but sometimes on the real thing the finish is a bit flat, so we all have to make that decision if we want realistic looking or nice looking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The panel lines might be almost invisible at that distance but don't foget in 1/72 scale most panels lines are far wider than they should be, so like Colin says not doing anything with the panel lines can look wrong.

Some people do tend to ruin the look of a model by using black, or an almost black wash on lighter finishes.

If you have filled all the panel lines you could always draw them back on to have nice subtle lines http://themodelmakersresource.co.uk/articles/article013.html

It amuses me when some one does the panel lines on the black underside of a heavy bomber

with a pale grey !!!

What's that all about??????

In all the books I have on Lancasters,I've never seen one with it's panel lines highlighted in pale grey :fraidnot:

I mean come on,it looks hilarious :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used this photo, many times, to illustrate what a well-used airframe can look like. Black dirt does not ooze through panel lines, and it seems to be generally forgotten that many panels were overlapped, substantially riveted, then covered by two or three coats of paint. Add in that the overlaps, as far as possible, went from front to back, the deepest gauge, on the fuselage, was less than .75mm, and less than .5mm on the wing, and the question has to be, how would thick black dirt a. get through, then b. stick there? IIA_zps3b767b59.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It amuses me when some one does the panel lines on the black underside of a heavy bomber

with a pale grey !!!

What's that all about??????

In all the books I have on Lancasters,I've never seen one with it's panel lines highlighted in pale grey :fraidnot:

I mean come on,it looks hilarious :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

IMO it comes from Wargaming. Anyone who has played W40K or even Fantasy Warhammer knows that black gets edged/highlighted with grey and blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used this photo, many times, to illustrate what a well-used airframe can look like. Black dirt does not ooze through panel lines, and it seems to be generally forgotten that many panels were overlapped, substantially riveted, then covered by two or three coats of paint. Add in that the overlaps, as far as possible, went from front to back, the deepest gauge, on the fuselage, was less than .75mm, and less than .5mm on the wing, and the question has to be, how would thick black dirt a. get through, then b. stick there? IIA_zps3b767b59.jpg

I'm not sure it's generally forgotten that a lot of aircraft have lap joints, rather more that most models haven't got them, which just makes it difficult to do something with the relatively large recessed line we have on our models.

OxgAoVS.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Horrifying negativity here! If someone enjoys a particular finishing style, and painting like that makes them happy, I won't be ranting about why I find it wrong, infuriating or hilarious, I would feel rude doing that.

Would Edgar and Graham be kind enough show examples they think do look good? Maybe some of your own builds?

I think jimmydel's Ju-88 looks great- the photographic lighting is might be exaggerating the specularity of the finish, but is still looks very nice indeed: what scale is it?

As I am so modest(!), I will post my own work to me laughed at/told it looks wrong/like a toy (which 99% of the population would think any plastic aeroplane is):

(1/48 Hasgawa)

FR-2013-009.jpg

fr-rfi-005.jpg

WIP thread

RFI thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that ben,is exactly the sort of skilled "historic snapshot in time" work that lifts

the men above the boys.

I've looked at your RFI,that is a perfect example of sympathy for the subject using

extensive research and high skills on the airbrush.

You've perfectly replicated the hard worked well worn look that the Typhoon was

renowned for.

Quite clearly,you've "painted what you see,not what you think you see"

If you want my opinion,that looks as though you could climb in and take off,it knocks

the finish on that Ju88 right back into last week.

Here's one of mine(not as good as your Tiff),Airfix's 1/48th Seafire XVII:

E-Baystuff002.jpg

E-Baystuff001.jpg

Edited by Miggers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the sort of subject that actually depresses me as a modeller. There is no 'right' way of building a model, it is down to each individual to select which techniques best work for them. For me the whole debate on pre-shading verses post-shading is moot anyway as I paint with traditional brushes not an airbrush; that sort of precludes me from achieving those sort of finish effects :shrug: . As for certain styles being 'so last year' because the current trend is for something else, well, the word 'trend' sums it all up. It's all another bit of willy-waving from the 'My model is better than yours because...' brigade.

It certainly isn't necessary to use 'The Latest Style' to win competitions; good competitions judge on the quality of the build. In other words is it well built? no gaps/seam lines, stray blemishes in the surface, is everything straight and correctly aligned? Is the paint finish smooth and even? are the decals properly applied. If two models go head to head in a comp and one wins because it is finished in the latest style, then that comp loses all interest from me.

Just my tuppence worth :shutup:

Regards

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Horrifying negativity here! If someone enjoys a particular finishing style, and painting like that makes them happy, I won't be ranting about why I find it wrong, infuriating or hilarious, I would feel rude doing that.

Would Edgar and Graham be kind enough show examples they think do look good? Maybe some of your own builds?

I think jimmydel's Ju-88 looks great- the photographic lighting is might be exaggerating the specularity of the finish, but is still looks very nice indeed: what scale is it?

As I am so modest(!), I will post my own work to me laughed at/told it looks wrong/like a toy (which 99% of the population would think any plastic aeroplane is):

(1/48 Hasgawa)

]

WIP thread

RFI thread

I wouldn't say it is that negative, people were asked their opinion on weathering of panel lines and they are just giving them. We like different things - give 20 people the same airframe to model and you would probably get 20 quite different models.

Building a model is like doing a painting on canvas of a real scene - each artist will come up with something different and people will have their favourite, but none of them are "wrong".

Your Tempest is very nicely done, showing a lot of skill and it's a good example of a heavily weathered aircraft that doesn't look over done to me, a look that isn't easy to get (and is way beyond my skill level).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the sort of subject that actually depresses me as a modeller. There is no 'right' way of building a model, it is down to each individual to select which techniques best work for them. For me the whole debate on pre-shading verses post-shading is moot anyway as I paint with traditional brushes not an airbrush; that sort of precludes me from achieving those sort of finish effects :shrug: . As for certain styles being 'so last year' because the current trend is for something else, well, the word 'trend' sums it all up. It's all another bit of willy-waving from the 'My model is better than yours because...' brigade.

It certainly isn't necessary to use 'The Latest Style' to win competitions; good competitions judge on the quality of the build. In other words is it well built? no gaps/seam lines, stray blemishes in the surface, is everything straight and correctly aligned? Is the paint finish smooth and even? are the decals properly applied. If two models go head to head in a comp and one wins because it is finished in the latest style, then that comp loses all interest from me.

Just my tuppence worth :shutup:

Regards

Tom

I disagree - I always paint with an airbrush and the only weathering I have done with it is exhaust stains. Everything else has been done with washes, dot filters and chalk pastel - no airbrush involved and I've never pre-shaded in my life. Painting with brushes doesn't really restrict your weathering.

As for trends, they don't bother me, I do what I feel is best to get the look I'm after and don't worry about what everyone else is doing, unless they come up with a great idea that makes things easier or better for me.

Edited by Tbolt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Build what you like, how you like it. There is no 'right' or 'wrong'. To state that one style is wrong because it has been around a while is laughable.

Duncan B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree - I always paint with an airbrush and the only weathering I have done with it is exhaust stains. Everything else has been done with washes, dot filters and chalk pastel - no airbrush involved and I've never pre-shaded in my life. Painting with brushes doesn't really restrict your weathering.

As for trends, they don't bother me, I do what I feel is best to get the look I'm after and don't worry about what everyone else is doing, unless they come up with a great idea that makes things easier or better for me.

I never said that painting with a brush restricts my weathering, just that you cant really pre or post shade with a traditional hairy stick. I'm like you in that I use washes, pastels, dry-brushing etc when I feel that some weathering is appropriate :). I've developed a style of my own over the years and that's what I feel each modeller eventually discovers (and should aim for).

It just concerns me that there is a perceived pressure for models to look a certain way.

Regards

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said that painting with a brush restricts my weathering, just that you cant really pre or post shade with a traditional hairy stick. I'm like you in that I use washes, pastels, dry-brushing etc when I feel that some weathering is appropriate :). I've developed a style of my own over the years and that's what I feel each modeller eventually discovers (and should aim for).

It just concerns me that there is a perceived pressure for models to look a certain way.

Regards

Tom

Well you did say "that sort of precludes me from achieving those sort of finish effects" which to me sounded like restricted. And you can pre and post shade - you don't need an airbrush for that, I post shade with pastels, like I said I've never pre-shaded, but do a search and you will find info on pre and post shading without the use of an airbrush.

Edited by Tbolt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Horrifying negativity here! If someone enjoys a particular finishing style, and painting like that makes them happy, I won't be ranting about why I find it wrong, infuriating or hilarious, I would feel rude doing that.

Would Edgar and Graham be kind enough show examples they think do look good? Maybe some of your own builds?

I do most humbly apologise; I did not realise that, having reached an age when I feel my hand skills are no longer good enough, it also precludes me from having an opinion and trying to help a questioner. Perhaps you would care to show any occasion when I've said that a modeller shouldn't do what he likes with his own kit?

Funny, really, since I always strove to get photos of real aircraft, and make my models look as much like them as possible, which is why I supplied that horrifyingly negative photo of a real aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Miggers for your flattering post, but I disagree that I was painting what I see. I've never seen panels like I depicted, with such different colour tones- adjacent cowling panels have preshading of bright orange and green, which has tinted the top colours significantly, and paint chips painted using orange-grey on one panel, and green grey on the adjacent panel; something I have never seen, but that looks interesting to me in a scale model.

Edgar: I never said you couldn't say whatever you want, nor that you opinion was not wanted, nor that stating it here was wrong; I said I would feel rude saying things like black never 'oozed' from below panel joints, implying that people who use strong black washes in panel lines must think that, and are ignorant.

And of course I can't quote you as saying people shouldn't do what they like to their models, you misunderstand me if you really thought that was the sentiment that I found horrifying.

I just thought that someone who is so interested in model realism might have tried to achieve what they like think is how a model should look like themselves, at some point, it doesn't have to have been a recent build. I also asked if maybe you have liked someone else's models.

We have some excellent work displayed on this site, and some people put almost as much effort into modelling as you do into research. I think we should spend more time celebrating what we think is great, than saying only what we think is wrong. I'm sorry that asking you to show anything you have enjoyed about other's builds seems to have caused you sadness- I was trying to refocus the thread into positivity; I am sorry it did not inspire that in you.

Here are some recent builds I have really enjoyed, mainly due to their shading and washes:

Libor/redboost is a master modeller, his work is consistently flawless in my eyes. http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234973549-redboosts-creatures/

This Hellcat is beyond words, in 1/72
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234918173-f6f-3-hellcat-eduard-172/

Beautiful Russian Spitfire
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234960781-supermarine-spitfire-mk-ixe-azmodel-172/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...