Mottled Pre-shading.. Why?

[VectorDancer]

Good Evening,

 

I was wondering why I am seeing alot of mottled pre-shading lately. Is there a reason for this? Any benefits?

 

Kind Regards,

 

Clarkey

[Ade H]

In the context of which discipline in particular? That will affect my answer.

[VectorDancer]

Just now, Ade H said:

In the context of which discipline in particular? That will affect my answer.

So I've seen mottled pre-shading on WWII aircraft before camouflage I'd applied. 

[Bertie McBoatface]

I think it's just something of a fashionable thing to do right now. There was pre-shading, coloured pre-shading, zenithal -pre-shading, mottling, black basing, post shading, oil dot modulation, etc etc etc. These things come and go as we copy each other's ideas and models. Some of them seem quite outlandish at times and bear little resemblance to historical photos and some of them look really interesting even so. Some of them do appear to simulate the references rather well. It was ever thus. 

 

I believe that a lot of the current new ideas originated in Spain with MiG and AK products and recipe books. The Spanish style emphasises contrast and colour modulation. I'm a big fan personally while I don't think it's particularly 'realistic' (whatever that actually means. 🙂)

[VectorDancer]

14 minutes ago, Bertie Psmith said:

I think it's just something of a fashionable thing to do right now. There was pre-shading, coloured pre-shading, zenithal -pre-shading, mottling, black basing, post shading, oil dot modulation, etc etc etc. These things come and go as we copy each other's ideas and models. Some of them seem quite outlandish at times and bear little resemblance to historical photos and some of them look really interesting even so. Some of them do appear to simulate the references rather well. It was ever thus. 

 

I believe that a lot of the current new ideas originated in Spain with MiG and AK products and recipe books. The Spanish style emphasises contrast and colour modulation. I'm a big fan personally while I don't think it's particularly 'realistic' (whatever that actually means. 🙂)

Thankyou for the reply. It looks amazing on some of the more weathered aircraft but I just think I'll stick to panel line pre-shading

[Ade H]

Quite the opposite. It may be a fashion for some people, I suppose. They may be the same people who only copy what they see others doing because they assume it to be "right" and clever, without ever asking why. This is not about fashion; it is about trying to improve and refine the process. For me, my process as it stands now is driven by two big changes to my thinking: (1) working backwards from a clear image of what I want the model to look like, and (2) realising that there is no boundary line between "painting" and "weathering". The latter begins long before the former ends. For successful weathering, especially at its most subtle, I don't really want any single panel of a vehicle to be left as a blank canvas before OPR is used because it becomes much harder to produce a refined finish.

[Bertie McBoatface]

Just now, VectorDancer said:

Thankyou for the reply. It looks amazing on some of the more weathered aircraft but I just think I'll stick to panel line pre-shading

 

Whatever you choose is right for you. The hobby is broad and generally welcoming, I have found.

[Ade H]

I read in your original question a possible concern about realism, but using panel line shading is almost always the antithesis of realism.

[Bertie McBoatface]

5 minutes ago, Ade H said:

my process

 

That's what I mean by the hobby being broad, there's room for everyone to have their own way of doing things. I agree with you about trying to improve - I like my next model to be my best, but I know many modellers who are happy to follow the same procedures over and over again, perhaps to build up a consistent collection, or perhaps because they just like to do it that way? I find the motivations of different modellers as fascinating as their models. Since being here on BM, I've become a lot more open to the infinite range of different approaches. It's one of the nicest things about the forum, I think.

 

Tell me Ade, what do you mean by 'a refined finish', I'm not really clear on that? Also what is OPR?

 

 

[Ade H]

Oh, I thought that "refined finish" was self explanatory.

 

But I'll give you an example using dust washes. If we're being completely realistic, we can justify some tide marks in dust because we can always find a photo which backs it up; but nevertheless, it feels like a careless oversight, so I try very hard to minimise them. Checking for such oversights is the one thing which pushes me to take photos of work when it's close to finished, so that I can spot what I couldn't see at the desk.

 

OPR = Oil Paint Rendering. If you've ever read a Tankart book, then you've read about it from the master who invented it: Mike Rinaldi. I often cite his YT channel.

 

To put that in the context of my earlier comment, what I want from a surface when it comes time to put oils on it and get it to its final appearance is something to work with. A completely monochromatic surface, especially if all the panels are the same, is harder to work with; but a varied panel (how it's varied can, well, vary!) gives a nice base for any technique which has low opacity. And pretty much all OPR is low to medium opacity, being built up in layers to create depth.

 

Hopefully, that all makes sense. It's sometimes difficult to explain with words only.

Edited November 6, 2021 by Ade H
Added explanation

[Ade H]

@VectorDancer Clarkey, as you're not watching this thread, I'll tag you just to say that you're welcome to ask me to clarify any of my waffle if needed.

[Ratch]

Seems utterly pointless to me. More of a Look what I can do rather than anything realistic.

[Ade H]

What a defeatist and extremely cynical attitude. Do you take no pride in your work? If you don't want to use a technique, that is your prerogative, but don't criticise those of us who want to do whatever we can to make better models. And please tell us how you go about incorporating random surface wear, fading, and discolouration into a paint finish to match photo references.

 

 

Edited November 7, 2021 by Ade H

[VectorDancer]

9 hours ago, Ade H said:

@VectorDancer Clarkey, as you're not watching this thread, I'll tag you just to say that you're welcome to ask me to clarify any of my waffle if needed.

It was late at night and I fell asleep .

I have been sorting my kids out this morning and just managed to get onto here to read the comments. Apologies I'll make sure my time schedule is better next time.

Edited November 7, 2021 by VectorDancer

[Ade H]

Nothing to apologise for. I think you misunderstood me. I was just interested in whether we/I had gone some way towards answering your question and if not, I was happy to clarify anything.

[VectorDancer]

Not at all, thanks for the replies. 

[Ray_W]

I use this technique to varying degrees on most aircraft builds. I primarily model in 1/48. I see it as another technique in the box of tricks and a very important one that I use regularly. I have come to like it a lot for subtle colour, tonal and, importantly, textural variations that definitely breath life into the top coats. I am not much into over emphasising panel lines and prefer subtle colour variation unless the subject really calls for it. For example, a well-used USN low-vis scheme. The mottle coat is not the end of the finishing process where a variety of other techniques can then come into play dependent on the subject.  I also find that photos of my work do not truly capture the variation. However, to my eye when looking at my finished builds "in-the-flesh", there is a realism I like.

 

Other benefits is reduced paint usage and thinner coats.

 

Give it a try.

 

It is worth checking videos on the process as follows. An advocate of the black basing technique although he is adding some other base coat variations these days. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yQNHVFf0uU

 

I am not tied to any one technique and I am always experimenting. My modus operandi is always try to match the finish to what I see in actual photos of the subject. The important word in this sentence is "try".

 

Note that I tend to use this technique less for 1/35 AFV builds where a range of other finishing techniques start to take precedence like @Ade H mentioned as presented by Mike Rinaldi on his YouTube channel. 

 

Hope this helps.

 

Ray 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ade H]

@Ray_W Ray, you've phrased very well the thinking which I wanted to get across. If I could give that two 'likes', I would.

Edited November 7, 2021 by Ade H
typo

[Longbow]

Pre-shade or mottling, prior to top coat, is just a personal preference. It’s about what do you think works for you, in order to attain a look your after, with the finished article. 
 

Everyone has personal preference, and find what “works” for the individual. 
 

It also adds depth to base coat, tone, and variations to mimic wear patterns. 
 

I’ll bet no two modelers paint the same way, or use the same process. It’s personal, like showing a clean Hawker Typhoon, straight off the factory floor, or a Typhoon flying 3 to 4 sorties a day, from a muddy forward operating base, somewhere in Europe.  

One would say, aircraft never looked that dirty.  Wanna bet ? 🤣

 

Personal preference of technique, that’s all. How do I get from A to Z.