Weather Fading Effect

[LaurieS]

I fell into my own way of producing a fading effect.

Felt it needed, for me, a slow build up so that I could control the amount and intensity.

I use Vallejo all the time except for fading etc . For fading I use Lifecolor as it seems better for this work.

An Iwata HP BH which I got special for this. Fitted with a .2 needle/nozzle. I pull the pressure down to about 8 to 10 PSI.

Wait for the base coat to fully cure which enables time where an area or part has not as required to be wiped away.

I dilute the paint with Vallejo Flow Improver 50/50 or more. With this thin mixture and slow application it gives time to build

up and for me to get better results. The Flow Improver stops clogging. This is what I achieved on an Apache.

Laurie

">http://

">http://

Edited May 30, 2016 by LaurieS

[Basilisk]

Hi, basilisk,

"Experimenting with gloss/satin/matt variations" would immediately prompt the "uneven shine in surfaces" statement by judges. Points would be immediately taken!

I have to say that I am "immediately prejudiced" against the so-called "Spanish School". The technique they display is really amazing, but the results, from the point of view of a "reality check", can be argued. That said, my observations on the two examples provided in your post would be:

Fernando, it looks I hit a raw nerve of yours Maybe you didn't read the first paragraph where I stated "weathering is a very personal thing".

I have my view and opinion and you have yours - and they are obviously not the same. But I hope you do feel better now.

- A naval aircraft is seldom as weathered as the F6F in the book's front page, for several reasons. First, the enviroment is "cleaner" of dust than an airstrip (though probably not of oily grime). Second, the aircraft "sleeps inside" (down the hangar deck) at least part of the time, diminishing sun fading. Third, the crew cleans it often, to keep the corrosive salt out.

I didn't show this picture of the book cover as an example of fading, but to list a source which shows lots of different weathering techniques. And I agree with your analysis of the picture to some degree (some naval aircraft are badly worn) - BUT this picture is a classic example of the "Spanish School" and it is this over the top effect I (and YOU) dislike.

- The Spitfire looks much, much better. I guess those tiny colour dots are then faded away in the direction of airstream. The effect on the outer wing panel, where that has presumably been done, is very nice. However, in the PC screen looks so subtle that it really makes me wonder if it is worth at all (quite the opposite to a normal "Spanish School" effect!)

JEPEG compression definitely doesn't help with showing subtle effects. For me "less can be more" when it comes to fading and weathering - and I thought I mention that I don't like the Spanish School...

But then... what are those shiny blobs around the gun muzzle holes protecting tape meant to be? Glue? TMK, the tape was self-adhesive; even if it wasn't, did the crews (who performed that operation previous to every flight) just smear the glue over such a bigger than needed area? it looks like it detracted at least one mph per gun! Also... would not the tape (and the glue!) catch powder residue as guns were fired? Then, why they are showed clean?

"Experimenting with gloss/satin/matt variations" would immediately prompt the "uneven shine in surfaces" statement by judges. Points would be immediately taken!

Never say never.

And no residue in the cartridge exhausts on the wing's underside (presumably they could have been added later)? All the gun covers do fade evenly in exactly the same degree? Even those on the roundel?

I did.

Finally... did the ground crew wear mountain footwear or was the wing root attacked by a grinding machine tool? Uh,

Maybe.

Uh, additionally... were the exhaust stacks burnished bronze?

Don't think so.

I do not want to sound like "a pompous bottom", but we are talking about someone regarded as a genius and a guru of weathering, so the bar should be set at the highest level. Of course, a picture showing exactly the effects performed on the models would overthrow these objections.

Fernando

My apology if my comments in my original post came across like I am a genius and a guru of weathering. I said what works for me and shown an example how a genius and a guru of weathering I do the fading - nothing more, nothing less.

I am certainly no guru in weathering as the Spitfire was the first model (together with a Hurricane) I made after a break of 33 years and I still constantly learn by experimenting with many other techniques.

I appreciate your reply and you do have some valid points mentioned which could be done better and I keep them in mind on my next builds. To close, please let me repeat once more the first paragraph of my original post.

... at the end you have to experiment until you come up with a finish YOU like as weathering is a very personal thing.

Sorry for going a bit off topic, but I thought a reply was needed.

Cheers, Peter

Edited May 31, 2016 by Basilisk

[LaurieS]

- A naval aircraft is seldom as weathered as the F6F in the book's front page, for several reasons. First, the enviroment is "cleaner" of dust than an airstrip (though probably not of oily grime). Second, the aircraft "sleeps inside" (down the hangar deck) at least part of the time, diminishing sun fading. Third, the crew cleans it often, to keep the corrosive salt out.

I see what you mean

Laurie

">http://

[Fernando]

Wow, man, too many things to answer.

First the easy one: Laurie, that is a fabric surface. If you look at the metal parts in that very plane, they are pristine in comparison. The reason is obvious: metal corrodes, fabric doesn't (there are others that come to my mind: the first is that that machine was surely repainted in the "Atlantic antisub scheme" from a normal TSS -the surface under the White looks like a dark gray-, probably with little or no surface preparation, therefore compromising paint adherence). Moreover, the picture shows "paint flaking". The book cover shows "sun fading", and "grime", which are entirely different propositions (the Stringbag even looks "clean"!). So my point stands. BTW, your helo looks good.

Now, "Hi, Basilisk"!

First a couple of disclaimers: I had thought that every picture you posted came from Mr. Quijano's work (so high I ranked your technique!). That's why I put the words "genius" and "guru". Wasn't meaning that you were claiming such a position. Then, I agree with the fact that weathering is a personal view; but if you are posting yours (arguably as "the way things should be made"), I am in the same position.

The front cover: you did not post it as an example of fading, I understand... but Mr. Quijano did! it is in the cover of his book; therefore, one must conclude it shows the way he thinks weathering should look (taking the thing to the extreme... it is true that you posted it, as an example... Good that you do not like "Spanish School"; certainly, your work in the Spit's wing undersurface proves your are true to your sayings)

The wing root: the pictures do show extreme chipping, but not to the extent, IMHO, shown in the model. The Australian one is irrelevant due to the different conditions. Even so, the picture of the 72nd Sqn. machine shows less chipping and a much more pronounced weathering in the rest of the wing. That correlation is one of the things I was pointing out: how much weathered should a surface be "in general" to show such a chipping.

The wing leading edge: if you look at the picture, THE WHOLE leading edge shows a darker (and probably shinier) paint. That's more probably a repaint of a badly chipped surface than glue in the protective tapes, which were self adhesive.

The residue: the lack of residue in the tapes stands. The lack of residue aft of the cartridge exhausts has evidently been added (just as I thought it would); it is a picture not previously posted..

The exhaust stacks: the new picture shows it better. But it ranks as "new evidence" Anyway, it looks far too shiny IMHO compared to the aforementioned picture.

Gentlepersons, a pleasure to debate with you.

Cheers from Bonn,

FErnando

Edited May 31, 2016 by Fernando

[Red five]

Find some pictures of what you are making and copy them. If anybody says you've done it wrong, produce a picture. I'll be adding oil stains, light exhaust marks, scrapes on the mudguards, wear on the tips of the props and some dirt to the wing roots on my DH88 to represent a few test flights and a journey to Australia. No fading but some shadowing to add scale.

Andrew

Edited May 31, 2016 by Red five

[Mike]

I want to achieve the effect of weather fading of the paintwork on my models. I use acrylics almost exclusively.

Any tips or hints would be greatly appreciated.

Just to remind everyone of OP's original intent. he's looking for hints on how to do it, not whether weathering is the fount of all things wrong with society... and yes, OP stands for Original Poster, AKA Sky Pilot

[LaurieS]

Wow, man, too many things to answer.

First the easy one: Laurie, that is a fabric surface. If you look at the metal parts in that very plane, they are pristine in comparison. The reason is obvious: metal corrodes, fabric doesn't (there are others that come to my mind: the first is that that machine was surely repainted in the "Atlantic antisub scheme" from a normal TSS -the surface under the White looks like a dark gray-, probably with little or no surface preparation, therefore compromising paint adherence). Moreover, the picture shows "paint flaking". The book cover shows "sun fading", and "grime", which are entirely different propositions (the Stringbag even looks "clean"!). So my point stands. BTW, your helo looks good.

Not so Fernando. I have a host of photos for when I built one of these beauties. The paint on the meatl suffered terribly.

A lot of the metal was in fact galvanized. The paint system for galvanizing was in fact very primitive and with the Swordfish

actually on deck or in a catapult the weathering was extreme on all parts of the aircraft.

On this subject a lot depends on circumstance. Is the aircraft military vehicle on exercise or at work in theatre. Which country

is it working in and which conflict. Which season. Afghanistan idiotically hot Falklands equally darn cold like freezing with

seawater freezing in the wind.

Also to enter the picture how far do you go. In Afghanistan I collected a large number of pictures of the Merlin I was building.

There were extremes. Depending on which part of Afghanistan the Helicopter was working. Which part of the year. Which

worked in the areas where they landed and took off from sandy area creating a sand blasting effect.

Some of the Merlins were in terrible shape (not talking mechanically here) . Do you go for good condition when they arrived.

Do you go for for the terrible state which may not look authentic in model making terms. Or as I did the half way house which

to me looked palusible for any one viewing the model and for really my satisfaction.

I like to see aircraft and military vehicles for what they are manufactured for. In theatre where they look real presented in a

conflict diorama setting. But that is for me. Depends entirely on the character of the person.

Laurie

Edited May 31, 2016 by LaurieS

[LaurieS]

Oh woops eee. Sorry boss.

But thought it relevant as how you would go about it.

Laurie

[Fernando]

Not so Fernando. I have a host of photos for when I built one of these beauties. The paint on the meatl suffered terribly.

A lot of the metal was in fact galvanized. The paint system for galvanizing was in fact very primitive and with the Swordfish

actually on deck or in a catapult the weathering was extreme on all parts of the aircraft.

Hi again, Laurie,

My first point stands. In that very machine, the difference between the "paint flaking" in the fabric surfaces and that in the metal ones is immediately appreciable. The second also stands. One thing is "paint flaking" (a mostly violent process -actually tearing away flakes of paint- which is the product of operations as you cite), and another VERY different is "sun fading", which can be seen in shore based naval aircraft, but much less so in carrier based ones. Naval aircraft were washed often, to carry away salt, and the paint retouched, to avoid corrosion. The F6F in the book cover I am discussing shows "sun fading" and "grime dirt", not "paint flaking".

I agree with the other points, of course. But "extreme weatherers" seldom pay attention to reality; they have mastered a technique (and a quite complex one) and they just apply it to any model.

Yours,

Fernando

[Fernando]

Just to remind everyone of OP's original intent. he's looking for hints on how to do it, not whether weathering is the fount of all things wrong with society... and yes, OP stands for Original Poster, AKA Sky Pilot

Sir, you are entirely correct. But I thought that throwing an apparent novice (the OP) with such techniques was a bit over the top. Therefore I tried to show that even those refined techniques could be argued and a much basic approach adopted with good results. My apologies if I stranded myself.

Fernando

[Basilisk]

Wow, man, too many things to answer.

First the easy one: Laurie, that is a fabric surface. If you look at the metal parts in that very plane, they are pristine in comparison. The reason is obvious: metal corrodes, fabric doesn't (there are others that come to my mind: the first is that that machine was surely repainted in the "Atlantic antisub scheme" from a normal TSS -the surface under the White looks like a dark gray-, probably with little or no surface preparation, therefore compromising paint adherence). Moreover, the picture shows "paint flaking". The book cover shows "sun fading", and "grime", which are entirely different propositions (the Stringbag even looks "clean"!). So my point stands. BTW, your helo looks good.

Now, "Hi, Basilisk"!

First a couple of disclaimers: I had thought that every picture you posted came from Mr. Quijano's work (so high I ranked your technique!). That's why I put the words "genius" and "guru". Wasn't meaning that you were claiming such a position. Then, I agree with the fact that weathering is a personal view; but if you are posting yours (arguably as "the way things should be made"), I am in the same position.

The front cover: you did not post it as an example of fading, I understand... but Mr. Quijano did! it is in the cover of his book; therefore, one must conclude it shows the way he thinks weathering should look (taking the thing to the extreme... it is true that you posted it, as an example... Good that you do not like "Spanish School"; certainly, your work in the Spit's wing undersurface proves your are true to your sayings)

The wing root: the pictures do show extreme chipping, but not to the extent, IMHO, shown in the model. The Australian one is irrelevant due to the different conditions. Even so, the picture of the 72nd Sqn. machine shows less chipping and a much more pronounced weathering in the rest of the wing. That correlation is one of the things I was pointing out: how much weathered should a surface be "in general" to show such a chipping.

The wing leading edge: if you look at the picture, THE WHOLE leading edge shows a darker (and probably shinier) paint. That's more probably a repaint of a badly chipped surface than glue in the protective tapes, which were self adhesive.

The residue: the lack of residue in the tapes stands. The lack of residue aft of the cartridge exhausts has evidently been added (just as I thought it would); it is a picture not previously posted..

The exhaust stacks: the new picture shows it better. But it ranks as "new evidence" Anyway, it looks far too shiny IMHO compared to the aforementioned picture.

Gentlepersons, a pleasure to debate with you.

Cheers from Bonn,

FErnando

Fernando, instead of debating the aspects of weathering, which Mike rightly pointing out is not what the OP is asking, why don't you tell us instead how do you show the fading of paint on your models.

Cheers, Peter