Afv painting lighting style

[Muchmirth]

Hi all, my quandary is a clunky as the title I’ve posted (it’s a difficult one to phrase correctly). Everyone has their own style or preferred method for painting/weathering armour and I had just seen a guide posted on Pinterest.
(Won’t let me post here at the min for you to actually see)

It shows three well known methods for painting lighting on a tank. These being panel lighting, Zenithal lighting and modulation. I’m still too new to modelling to say I have particular preference, as still experimenting with each model. The guide did make me wonder, it suggests  pros and cons of each style (now I know their is no wrong or right answer to this, that it is in-fact a matter of preference) and wanted to gauge other modellers preference, take a poll if you will of that others did or thought was best. As we are a shy and retiring bunch not very keen on giving our opinions (only kidding by the way). So who prefers what out of the three options or do they have fourth or even fifth options not listed? 

[Ade H]

Oh, Paul, you've picked quite a controversial topic! Not very controversial for me, but I suspect that some of the more... traditional modellers do prefer their vehicles to be a single shade of a given colour no matter what. 😉

 

The problem with that is that it simply doesn't look real if (important emphasis) the vehicle's shape should be creating some dynamic range. It's because the light falling on a small object can't create quite the same degree of dynamic range as the same kind of light cast on a large object; so if we give it a little help, it gives more size and weight than is really there.

 

As I studied digital design, the example which I use is something called ambient occlusion, which is basically what people such as 3D game designers use to work out all the highlights and shadows, etc. There's no real light source, so we need to be given the impression of one, otherwise everything would look really flat and unnatural.

 

Now, I'm not too sure what distinction your source may have made between "panel" and zenithal lighting, but the latter is the term with which I'm more familiar (in design and in our hobby). It's about imagining where the light source/s is/are and shading and/or highlighting accordingly. I know that you've done a bit of figure painting, so you're probably familiar with this idea as we all do it on figures' clothes and faces. That's ambient occlusion on a small scale, as is post-shading to create shadows around components on a vehicle.

 

If I was asked to identify the distinction between those two terms, I would probably say that panel lighting sounds as though it doesn't necessarily represent a particular light source, but is (I assume) just aiming to reflect (ha!) the angles of panels. For example, very angular vehicles like Merkavas and especially Magachs strongly benefit from higher dynamic range, distributed between the various different angles. Without it, they would look unnaturally flat. If I had some photos of my Magach up on Flickr, I'd share one here.

 

Last up, you listed modulation. That's a very controversial term. To me, it can simply mean any alteration of brightness, hue, or saturation over a surface for whatever purpose. Because that's pretty much all that it means when working with colour. But to other modellers, it's a loaded word which makes them shudder as they imagine some extreme variations even within each panel, let alone across the whole vehicle. Here's quite an extreme example which is too much for my taste, even though I appreciate the finesse of that build. An even more extreme and off-putting example is Adam Wilder's LVT buffalo, seen in his second book.

 

The problem with these extreme takes is not that they are inherently bad or wrong or whatever. It's that critics use them as arguments against any modulation and they really do put off people who may want to make some progression or change of style, but don't want that look.

 

Which would I, or should you, use? Well, it's easy for a designer to say, I suppose, but I believe that there is much to be gained by being open minded to new and different techniques and styles; and thinking about such things as style, art, colour, and light in the context of modelling. Having some crossover knowledge from things like photography and art can be helpful, but it's certainly not essential for anyone to play around with light and colour.

 

Some people don't want to think deeply about any of this, and that's absolutely fine; but it's how I think about creative things. Each to their own (and I mean that) but I don't want to finish every model the same as the last one. It's boring! I also think that there is no one style which works every time, for every model, and that's really important.

 

Just a short essay today. 😁

Edited January 26, 2022 by Ade H
clarity

[Muchmirth]

Thanks Ade for your interesting take. … I know it’s a potential can of worms (did t mean it to be) and forgot to list the “no shading/no lighting technique/option. Just good to see what others do as our hobby (or even more controversially raised recently “art!”) is usually carried out in isolation (not the covid type, ha) also meant to say thanks for the da Vinci  soap/brush cleaner reviver tip. I got a bar and it’s amazing how much gunk it pulls out the bristles, now my brushes are back up to scratch! 

[Bish]

IMHO, it comes down to whether you want artistic or realistic. Of the 3 example you listed i have only heard of modulation, but i am guessing the principles are the same. I don't think it should be contraversal, we should all be able to finish our models as we wish. I only take issue with those (usually the ones trying to sell the products) who push these ideas as realistic. While i and i think most modellers have no issue with adding shadeing to recessed panel line, i think where the problem lies is with the idea that panels look lighter in the middle than they do at the edge. I don't do that and i have found that most guys who, like myself, have first hand experiance with the real thing don't either.

 

My only tip would be to decide what type of finish you want and practice different ones until you are happy. Took me 4 years of trial and error before i felt i was able to get the full range of weathering finish to fit the scene i was doing. But one thoguht for you if you do want the realistic approach. You have put this in the WW2 section, and most armour in WW2 didn't last to long before it was taken out or replaced. I drove the same Warruior FV 511 for 6 years. It did 2 tours in Iraq, 12 months on salisbury plain on and off, and it certainly was not modulated and there was not much chipping on it eitehr.

[Ade H]

This is about lighting and the recreation of it on 3D shapes, therefore the age or wear of a vehicle is irrelevant to whether it needs any form of occlusion to look realistically scaled. Did you read what I wrote earlier?

Edited January 26, 2022 by Ade H

[Bish]

I did ye. But i'm afraid i'm just a humble GRUNT so half of it went over my head. I just know what looks right and what doesn't to my eye. And that doesn't mean every build looks the same, in fact i often find with those who use these lighting efefcts, thats exactly what they get, build after build that looks exactly the same. And each to their own.

[Kingsman]

When I have to worry about the angle of the sun or even the presence of sun, time of day, season of the year and so on when painting I think it might be time to give up!  I can imagine the conversation with a competition judge that my model is painted as being up-sun on a bright day in northern France early in the afternoon in mid-August whereas his colour expectation is that of a dull day in central Germany early in the morning in October....................................

 

This degree of artistry might work in a diorama setting in a fixed location with a fixed viewpoint but on an individual model I do have to question it as they will be seen from multiple angles in different ambient light conditions.

 

But maybe I'm just missing the point..................

[Ade H]

Slightly, I think, yes. For one thing, no-one should ever say that you or any of us "have to worry". But is it not OK to encourage thinking more about what we do and why? This need not entail any worrying at all.

 

On a general note, discussions about the artistic aspects of finishing models and why we may use a certain style or technique should be welcomed on modelling forums; yet it often feels to me that they are actively discouraged.

 

On reading your comment about judging, I can't be sure whether you have just misunderstood the intent of zenithal lighting or you were being a bit facetious, but it's really not as complicated as you're making it out to be. One could take it as far as to reflect the angle and intensity of light; which would add to the story telling. But more commonly, it is used simply to reflect light from above and, mostly importantly, create the shadows which it casts. That's how it gives a model more shape and it's why I have used it.

 

In any case, this need not involve judges. I paint models out of my own creative imperative; never to pander to IPMS criteria or any other kind of contest. I have zero interest in turning creative endeavours into formal competitions (the same goes for photography). if I have any judge, it's me; and if I have any competitors, it's the great master modellers who inspire me to improve. So, my models pretty much are only seen from the angle which I've chosen and in a small range of lighting at home.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Ade H

[Muchmirth]

Ok so seems like two for two so far. Two votes for none lighting and two for lighting/effects or variation. 
  Bish I take your point with me posting this in ww2 just it’s my area of interest and your right the turn around of armour during the conflict would have been a lot sooner than modern times (quite jealous you were in a tank, missed my calling) not that the light effects would alter on a modern day tank to a Second World War one. 
   Das Abteilung I see what your saying about competitions but I think the effects are supposed to be subtle enough to look real more about the scale effect and should fit with the tank. I don’t think they should stand out too much or try to tell the time and season and place their in (zenithal for instance is just dark at the bottom and light at the top. So the running gear would be a slightly darker shade than say the commanders turret as that’d generally be closer to the sun unless your in that tiger which got blown upside down during operation good wood)  if that kinda makes sense and so probably these models get  judged and graded the same as the straight up realistic approach without any lighting effects. It is a artistry your right and it is also a preference and no one will say your wrong or right just interested to see who likes what, the realism approach or artistry approach. Thank you for commenting. 

[Kingsman]

I was bringing in some past discussions on colour and how the same colour can - logically - look very different under different lighting conditions.  Of course we see this every day with online images of the same subject taken at different times under different ambient light conditions, and of course with different cameras - and different film stock, developing and scanning for older non-digital images.  But maybe there was a bit of tongue in cheek...................

 

Perhaps this is better as a wider discussion under the general modelling forum.  It doesn't just apply to WW2 military models.  If you believe in it then it applies to ships, aircraft, figures, scenery and indeed all forms of modelling.  Aircraft are somewhat easier because they naturally have defined upper and lower surfaces, but curved fuselages - as they usually are - would be an interesting challenge.

 

I worry that we are in danger of scaring people away from the hobby by pushing the expectations beyond us ordinary folk with ordinary skills.  The counter-argument being that this is always how the hobby has developed and improved from the days before Verlinden when we didn't even use washing and dyrbrushing.  Maybe Miguel Jiminez and others are just taking up that baton and moving it along.  As well as also making money by selling us the products to go with their ideas, of course.  The self-perpetuating prophecy.  Verlinden generally used available finishing products, just differently.

[Ade H]

"If you believe in it". Putting it like that, it's as if we're discussing a religion rather than just a way to be creative with finishing. I don't feel that anyone has to be consistent in deciding whether or not to use a particular style on a given model, which is how that comes across. That would be restrictive and boring, just the same as never using different and new styles.

 

Yeah, general principles of light and shadow can be applied to just about any painting. Anyone who has highlighted a tree's foliage from above, added highs and shadows on stowage, or painted figures has, knowingly or otherwise, represented light.

 

"I worry that we are in danger of scaring people away from the hobby by pushing the expectations beyond us ordinary folk with ordinary skills." I worry excessively about a lot of things in life but how other people perceive modelling isn't one of them. Their expectations are entirely their own; other people's opinions of our work have value, but if any modellers fret too much about what others think, they should step back and rethink that, rather than risk being held back by it. And I'm not going to let the possibility of their fretting influence how I finish models or whether I discuss these topics. All modellers, new or old, can choose whether to adopt new ideas, but it would be a pity if people just dogmatically refused to consider anything different. I love how this hobby continues to develop even in the short time in which I've been involved.

 

I honestly believe that I'm an ordinary modeller with ordinary skills; but maybe my personal perspective is skewed and I've got better than I think. There are many things which I can't yet do, but I don't let that put me off trying, despite my self-doubt. Not news, but this can be a complex and challenging hobby -- it's partly why it holds my interest -- and I think that it's up to every participant to get what they want from it.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Ade H

[Bullbasket]

I can see some flak coming my way (and I expect that this thread is being watched), but I have a strong feeling that this is the sort of thing which puts off a lot of people, young or not so young, ever getting involved with the hobby. I'll nail my colours to the mast straight away. I build models to enter them into competitions and also now and again, to be published in various modelling magazines. I finish them to the best of my ability, but one thing that never comes onto my horizon is thoughts about light. Before anyone says it, yes I have read all that has been written in this thread, but I have to say that the majority of it went flying over my head. The day that I have to worry about the lighting and modulation and any other new fangled method of finishing, is the day that my modelling knives get put away, and I get out the knitting needles. After all, isn't this hobby supposed to be about having fun.

 

John.

[Ade H]

John, I don't know who would send you flak and I hope that you didn't think that I may do so. Your view is perfectly valid and valued, as is your style of finishing (if you have a single style).

 

I see that you share DA's concern about people being put off, but until I see evidence of it happening, I really doubt that it would. It certainly shouldn't, for reasons already covered. You also seem to share his concern about having to worry about these things, so my reply is the same: you absolutely don't; none of us does; it's 100% personal choice how deeply any of us goes into any hobby. In your case, the only thing which may change that is if your competition judges start favouring some style which you don't use, but I think that's unlikely given how conservative IPMS judging apparently is.

 

I think that you're both worrying about nothing.

 

In my first post, I touched on the possibility of extreme takes (and this point can apply to any style) turning off conservative modellers if they react negatively without also considering whether there may be something in the technique which they could adopt in a more subtle form. I hope that modellers are open to that possibility because I think that the adoption and, above all, adaptation of new ideas is what creates more varied models.

 

I lately realised that I've started to develop a personal style (or range of styles if you prefer) and it's the willingness to play around with different ideas which has got me there. But I know that this doesn't matter to everyone and that's absolutely OK. I'm probably more aware of it because of my career choices, in which being in some way distinctive really mattered.

 

About fun, I've never really bought into that oft-written assertion. Fulfilling, challenging, interesting, enjoyable; yes. Tick next to all of those.  My enjoyment of it comes partly from overcoming its challenges, of which there are many. Fun? Not so much. One would have to lead a sheltered life to never have experienced more fun than making models! 😉

[John Tapsell]

3 hours ago, Ade H said:

but I think that's unlikely given how conservative IPMS judging apparently is.

Interesting comment - care to expand on it?

[Ade H]

I was just going by several recent discussions about it on podcasts and elsewhere over the last few months. See also Will Pattison's recent video about it.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Ade H

[Muchmirth]

Thanks for your input John, your a true pro, your models are fantastic so I take heed from your perspective and good to know you don’t worry about lighting techques when your finishing models. Cheers

[Bullbasket]

15 hours ago, Ade H said:

I see that you share DA's concern about people being put off, but until I see evidence of it happening, I really doubt that it would.

Sadly, I have. Before I moved to France, I was a member of a local IPMS club near to where I lived. I know of a couple of occasions when new members had brought their completed models to put into the monthly competition, being put off by so called "experts" on the subject. They never bothered attending any subsequent meetings. To me, unless someone has declared that their model is an exact replica of the original, they can paint it any colour that takes their fancy. I'm waiting for the day that someone produces a model of a T34 and paints it pink! Let the experts be dismissive of that and end up with egg on their faces. There's one in the tank museum in Prague. I've got a photo of it somewhere.

As for the word "fun". I suppose it depends on how you see the meaning of that word. A lot of people on BM sign off with the phrase "have fun". Personally, I think it's relevant as I enjoy (for the most part) building and finishing models, and to me, I'm having fun. That's not to say that in my life I haven't experienced something which was more fun, but I can't talk about that on here as it's a family orientated site.

As to IPMS judges. I have no problem with them. Many times I've either received nothing , or just a commended. When I've looked at the models which received a higher accolade, I've usually agreed with it. The only time when I have been surprised by the outcome was last year when I picked up and gold, bronze and commended. That was one time when I did think that the judges had got it wrong as there was one model in the class which I thought was better than mine.

 

John.

[Bullbasket]

1 hour ago, Muchmirth said:

Thanks for your input John, your a true pro, your models are fantastic so I take heed from your perspective and good to know you don’t worry about lighting techques when your finishing models. Cheers

Thanks for the positive words. They're much appreciated. One thing that I will concede is that whilst at Telford last year, I picked up a couple of bedside lamps with LED bulbs, specifically for taking photos of my models. It wasn't because I wanted anything fancy for the job, just that the illuminated magnifying lamp that I had been using, was insufficient for the job.

 

John.

[spruecutter96]

I think that a small section of the model-making community conveniently forget that this undertaking is a HOBBY. If anyone builds and paints a kit in under an hour and they are pleased with the results, do any of us really have a God-given right to criticize their efforts? No, we don't. 

 

Aspire to be a better model-maker, by all means.... Just remember it really ain't life-or-death. 

 

Chris. 

[Ade H]

At no point have I criticised another modeller's work or style. I have been at pains to do the polar opposite throughout.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Ade H

[spruecutter96]

30 minutes ago, Ade H said:

At no point have I criticised another modeller's work or style. I have been at pains to do the polar opposite throughout.

I wasn't actually referring to yourself, Ade. Just commenting on the ego-driven comments I have often heard at model-shows or things I've read on-line. This is a general comment, not a personal one, I can assure you. 

 

Chris. 

[Ade H]

Oh, I see. I wondered if you may have been, but I misunderstood you.

[spruecutter96]

No problem at all, Ade. It is all too easy to "project" an incorrect meaning or tone on to words on a computer-screen. I have done it myself on numerous occasions.

 

I think sometimes folks get angry at stuff just for the sake of it - I'm not implying this was the case on this thread, BTW.   

 

Cheers and Happy Modelling. 

 

Chris. 

[Scargsy]

On 27/01/2022 at 09:19, Bullbasket said:

I'm waiting for the day that someone produces a model of a T34 and paints it pink! Let the experts be dismissive of that and end up with egg on their faces.

I've been meaning to do a recreation of Stompie for some time...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandela_Way_T-34_Tank

 

[Muchmirth]

11 hours ago, Scargsy said:

I've been meaning to do a recreation of Stompie for some time...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandela_Way_T-34_Tank

 

That’s a great story attached to stompie…. I like the fact the gun faces toward the council offices and permission to use the site for a “septic’ tank.

Edited January 30, 2022 by Muchmirth
Spelling