The physical reason for pre-shading.

[WhiskySierraKilo]

Hi, I may be completely off the mark but I wonder what the physical reasons are that result in pre-shading in the modelling world.

Apologies if this has been covered before.  Please point me in the right direction.

 

I see many pre-shaded effects on model aircraft.

They look good and I like the look.

They are a compelling look.

But it got me thinking.

 

Generally the lines along spars are given a darker effect.

If this is the case on real aircraft, so be it.

 

But why is this so ?

[dov]

Interesting question, the same I do have. After getting involved in painting techniques many decades ago, I tried to get more information.  Leonards da Vinci brought me a little further. Looking on a real plane, in real life, and after that the same on a photo: What differences you notice? Some or any?

The real a/c exists only in your memo. 

Repeat the same once again,  and print the photo and watch both at the same time.  What is the difference? Some or any or nill?

The mind playes havoc!

Believe me.

Let me know what you think. 

Other exammple: take somewhere an old steel plate. From real railway, or somewhere else.  Which color you count?

Happy modelling 

[ckw]

I'm not convinced by preshading - as in darkening the panel lines and adjacent. To my eye it looks a bit hyper real ... like HDR photos. Not for me - but then much in modelling is a matter of fashion and taste.

 

However this is different to varying paint tones on some panels - which can be very effective and looks realistic to my eye, particularly on larger scales. Not sure it's always worthwhile at 1/72nd with some exceptions.

 

Cheers

 

Colin

[stuartp]

Personally I don't get it, like filling in all the panel lines with black wash which was all the rage a few years ago. The real thing fades and collects dirt, sure, but for me pre-shading doesn't capture that. Over-spraying panels does, washes do, dry-brushing does (but can also be overdone). 

 

I should point out that I'm personally coming at this as a railway modeller who builds the occasional aeroplane, most of my stuff reflects BR 1960s steam - i.e. not cleaned since the day it was last painted. 

[thorfinn]

I recall having seen a number of WIPs from very talented modelers showing elaborate pre-shading...which is then (in the photos, at least) literally completely invisible once the top coats are applied.

I have no problem with highlighting panel lines, if one likes that look...but for me pencils, charcoal powder or dry-brushing seem much easier (and more controllable) ways of doing it.

[noelh]

I always saw pre shading as an attempt to induce a more realistic shadow in panel lines. The idea being that when overpainted with the top colour the panel lines would appear darker. But as Thorfinn says it nevertheless becomes all but invisible once painted. 

 

Better in my view is to apply a wash or similar that is sympathetic to the colour scheme and appropriate to the subject. Deep black lines on a model with already too deep panel lines looks wrong and toylike.

 

There's no harm in pre shading though. On a light coloured or silver scheme it might even be visible.

Edited September 20, 2021 by noelh

[iainpeden]

Any pre-shading I do always gets covered however carefully I brush paint.  😉

[Sabrejet]

On many matt finish aircraft, as panels are removed, you will get grease and grime ingrained along panel edges. So that part of the effect works. However, most panel lines are adjoining skin demarcations rather than removeable access panel lines, so 100% coverage is unrealistic.

 

But if you really want a laugh, Google "colour modulation", which is/was rife in armour modelling. It usually results in a bizarre-looking model but many folks swear by it. A case of The Emperor's New Clothes for sure.

[Giorgio N]

Pre-shading, as post-shading and all similar techiques, is mainly a way to fool the eye to see the model as a bit more "3-dimensional" than it is something that can be needed when trying to reproduce an object of a certain size and subject to a certain light that creates certain effects with a model that is many times smaller and subject to completely different light.

In addition the same technique can be used to highlight certain aspects of the condition of an aircraft, for example the fact that dirt tend to ,accumulate into panel lines and around other features and the differential fading of different parts of the aircraft paint due to age and weather effects.

 

Once we understandthat these are "artistic" techniques aimed at achieving a certain effect the choice of preshading instead of other techniques is then just up to the modeller's preference, some like it and some don't. Personally I never use preshading and I prefer to postshade, but when done properly both can achieve the same effect. Of course it's possible to use both techniques combined. If we want to look at the matter from the perspective of the real aircraft, clearly preshading rarely occurs while post-shading in a sense is what happens on the real aircraft: the thing leaves the factory with a certain paint and then a number of external factors change the paint resulting in a number of effects.

Not that preshading never happens in real life, there are a number of cases when the look of a paint scheme is affected by what is below the final coat but it is much less common than the effect of weather, dirt or touch-ups on an aircraft surface.

 

So, are there "physical" reason for preshading ? Rarely. Are there reasons to use the technique ? Yes, to achieve certain effects. Is it the only technique available ? Not at all, there are others.

 

 

 

[noelh]

1 hour ago, Sabrejet said:

But if you really want a laugh, Google "colour modulation", which is/was rife in armour modelling. It usually results in a bizarre-looking model but many folks swear by it. A case of The Emperor's New Clothes for sure.

I had a look at it. Definitely some bizarre effects. They remind me of the style many figure modellers use. In effect it's a 3D painting. It's a perfectly legitimate approach but it's not a miniature replica of the real thing.  It also seems to be a lot of trouble and effort. But if it makes the modeller happy then it's all good.

 

[Giorgio N]

20 minutes ago, noelh said:

I had a look at it. Definitely some bizarre effects. They remind me of the style many figure modellers use. In effect it's a 3D painting. It's a perfectly legitimate approach but it's not a miniature replica of the real thing.  It also seems to be a lot of trouble and effort. But if it makes the modeller happy then it's all good.

 

 

The problem is that a uniformly painted model is not a miniature replica of the real thing itself, as doing this will result in a much "flattened" version of what the real thing appears to our eyes. Now most examples of colour modulation I find on the web and I've seen in real life tend to be taken to the extreme (guess it's the excesses of the so called Spanish School..." but the concept per-se has some merits and is not too different from the principles behind some other common techniques. Think for example of the work aircraft modellers often do on cockpits: a lightened base colour followed by a wash on the areas in shadow and then a drybrushing to highlight details and make them more visible... it is in the end a way to increase the 3-d effect in an area that is hit by very little light and that without some kind of "artistic" work would look featureless.

I guess it's a matter of understanding when too much is too much, as with pre and particularly post-shading. It should also be said that when these effects are applied in what is IMHO a more realistic and subtle way, they often do not show much in pictures so much that I wonder if some of the tutorials I see online exagerate things on purpose.

[Dave Swindell]

5 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

I guess it's a matter of understanding when too much is too much, as with pre and particularly post-shading. It should also be said that when these effects are applied in what is IMHO a more realistic and subtle way, they often do not show much in pictures so much that I wonder if some of the tutorials I see online exaggerate things on purpose.

You've touched on a good point there Giorgio - what appears as subtle and realistic when viewed in real life can be completely lost when viewed in print or on the computer screen, and conversely if it's done to appear subtle and realistic in print or on screen it can appear grossly overdone when viewed in real life. 

You're wasting your time being ultra subtle and realistic if the effects are lost in photography and that is where your audience is, but if you've emphasised effects so that they're subtly visible in print don't be surprised if you get marked down in a show competition for overuse of techniques.

This is not new, or even recent, it's been used by the film industry for may decades, and Francois Verlinden was doing it years before anyone had heard of Mig Jimenez or the Spanish School.

As you say, if you're doing tutorials your audience needs to see the effect you're creating, which may lead to some over emphasis of this which is then again over emphasised by those attempting to emulate it. 

As most of us aren't any where near the skill level of the masters. this can lead to a lot of over exaggerated  effects being seen at shows and on forums etc.

It's part of the learning process, the trick is recognising when you've overdone it.

As a general rule I'd say if you can easily identify the technique that's been  used to achieve the effect in the viewing medium intended, it's been overdone.

At the end of the day, its your bench, your rules - if you and your audience are happy with the result, job done.

 

[Mike]

I don't bother with pre-shading and haven't done for years now, as it's one of those techniques that you can't easily fix if you overdo it, and if you under-do it, it shows up like the proverbial sore thumb as a line of black paint lightly covered by the top coat.  I prefer to put down a solid coat of paint over my chosen primer (sometimes black), and then work on altering the shades by noodling with my airbrush, but keeping an eye on readily available references so I don't get carried away.  I think colour modulation as I'll call it can be like plucked eyebrows.  You pluck them a little higher each time because you've become used to the look, so that eventually you're drawing them in just under your hairline and everyone's looking at you agog.   For that analogy you have to assume that we all have hairlines and pluck our eyebrows for it to work.  I once saw an old lady on the train (in the 1990s), and here eyebrows were so ridiculously high that it could have only been that explanation unless she got ready in a hall of mirrors

 

Modelling books usually over-egg the pudding and take the techniques to the extreme, but you don't have to.  It's easier to learn from a shade that differs greatly rather than one that barely shows up, so that's what I assume with every modelling book like that.

 

Check your refs, exercise moderation in modulation and over all, have fun.  Just don't do a heavily weathered Red Arrows Hawk, as everyone will laugh at you, and with good reason - the polite ones will just do it when you're not around  

[RainierHooker]

As with anything, I think the answer is invariably "it depends". Having worked on military aircraft for the majority of my adult life, I can say that there is usually a definite definition around panels and structural lines, especially on flat or matte painted aircraft skin and structure. Chalk it up to dirt, dust, grime, oil, and a cast of thousands of young mechanics and crews touching, scuffing, or just touching the aircraft. Not to mention the different materials and finishes put on the aircraft at the point of manufacture or at the depot down the line.

 

Case in point:

 

This portrait is on my aircraft in Iraq, at the time 098 was only three years old and had less than 900 hours on her. Her paint was practically new by army aviation standards. Yet even then, there was subtle shading in the paint and panels, most evident around where those damn VHP seals had leaked oil everywhere. The black "fretting" (which we called chinook cheese) hasn't set in yet, but can be found around practically every removable, and semi-removable, panel of practically every aircraft that has been around for more than a minute. Chinook cheese, for those that don't know, is a black paste or slime that accumulates at the panel lines when oil gets between them and they rub together. Also note the dark circular pattern caused by the "remove-before-flight" flag on the heater inlet where it had buffed the flat finish of the paint smooth, coming off as darker in photos. I can think of no way of achieving this effect without some sort of shading technique.

 

Of course the watch word is nuance. Were I modeling my first train-wreck of a clapped out 'hook I would go hog wild with shading and weathering. She was 40 years old and had been through a lot by the time I signed for her. But I still wouldn't go so far as to make her look like something out of a dystopian sci-fi film.

Edited September 20, 2021 by RainierHooker
grammar

[noelh]

You make a good point @RainierHooker many modern military aircraft get filthy particularly on active service. I remember being up close to a USN Hornet and nearly every panel seemed to have a black outline It's a well known aspect of USN carrier based aircraft. 

 

So black lines can be appropriate. Even on civil aeroplanes. Sharing the hangar with our planes once was a Rockwell Aero Commander. It was well used and scruffy. Near the nose were several removable panels which had very obvious and black dirty outlines. I remember thinking that if I  modelled it like that. It would look overdone.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2021 by noelh

[Nigel Bunker]

I suspect in 20 years times fashions will have changed and there may well be a topic on Britmodeller in 2041 saying 'Is anybody still pre-shading?'.

[kiseca]

I've seen it done to great effect, and I've seen it overdone, and I can say the same about any other weathering effect. I also haven't mastered it, which is also something I can say about any other weathering effect.

 

For me, it's more successful when trying to make panels different shades than when trying to make panel lines stand out.

 

 

 

 

[Lewis95]

Just my two cents here. And some aren't going to like it.

 

Modelling is personal to each person, it is in a way, a form of art. If you want to build exact replicas and spend 6 weeks tinkering with paint for the perfect replica, that's fine. It's what you enjoy and that's your hobby. 

 

Personally, I think preshading is fantastic for making dramatic models. Heavy weathering? Go for it! It's a piece of artwork at the end of the day. 

 

However, one of the worst aspects of this hobby are those that display such shoddy behaviour towards those who do preshade or go heavy with the weathering. Its quite often you see these people saying things like "you've ruined your model" or "preshading is ridiculous because....". But I honestly don't think I've seen the reverse of that situation or someone being ridiculed for not weathering or not preshading. But for some reason, preshading is taboo and worthy of being pooped on.

 

It's a hobby. It's an individuals art. And if I'm being honest, I'd much rather look at a well executed, heavily weathered and preshaded Bf109 than another Spitfire built to be an exact replica of a photo from 1942 with absolutely nothing going on in the visuals department. 

 

But do I moan and whinge that it's not been preshaded or not had a panel liner? No.

 

So why can't we all just get on with the fact that we build these models for ourselves and different people prefer different things instead of drawing lines in the sand over accuracy?

 

[Lord Riot]

On 20/09/2021 at 17:27, RainierHooker said:

Of course the watch word is nuance. Were I modeling my first train-wreck of a clapped out 'hook I would go hog wild with shading and weathering. She was 40 years old and had been through a lot by the time I signed for her. But I still wouldn't go so far as to make her look like something out of a dystopian sci-fi film.

Sounds like a few women I’ve known! 

[Paul J]

I don't like preshaidin despite the model looking good. To me, aircraft for example, with enhanced dark panel lines look like they have been flying in coal mines and applying pre shading before final top coat is like putting on dirty underwear.

[Alan P]

It's a technique, as Giorgio suggests. It produces an effect for painted models that breaks up uniform paint shades and layers.

 

I would draw the line at saying it produces realism. Pre-shading on its own without extensive other subtle shading and staining techniques just doesn't look realistic to me, and I've spent my adult life around aircraft of varying degrees of dirtiness.

 

But then again, each to their own, looks are entirely subjective, and there's nothing wrong with aesthetics over accuracy.

 

Just don't pretend it's a realistic finish.

[Pritch]

When I started modelling in the 50s, the only small paint pots were primary colours of gloss house paint. I mixed the right colours, but was always disappointed by the result - the models looked like toys. Then I discovered artists' eggshell varnish. The difference was amazing!

Substitute modern products and application methods and that's still what I do, except for subtle exhaust staining where it's typical. Even oil stains make it look like I've messed up the painting. I bear in mind that nearly everyone who sees my models has never seen the actual aircraft or even a photograph of it.

Every aircraft had a factory finish at one stage.

[Lewis95]

3 hours ago, Alan P said:

I would draw the line at saying it produces realism.

Aye, I wouldn't go as far as pre-shade proclaiming realism but there's a fine line somewhere between subtle variations in panels and flat colours IMO. Finding a realistic balance in scale is a whole other battle.

 

[Parrahs]

On 20/09/2021 at 20:54, noelh said:

So black lines can be appropriate. Even on civil aeroplanes.

A picture I took back in the long lost halcyon days of going places for vacation (aka 2019)

[noelh]

1 hour ago, Parrahs said:

A picture I took back in the long lost halcyon days of going places for vacation (aka 2019)

I remember way back in '89 looking out at the wing of a TWA L-1011 out of JFK and thinking how filthy it looked. Then the  flaps were lowered and the  absolute filth that was revealed in the space normally occupied by them was shocking. I seem to remember I  took a similar picture to the above.

 

I doubt TWA would have used that  jet for the publicity photos.😄