Weathering, Painting, Effects, etc.

[WarrenD]

All-Righty Then!

(NOTE: I am not directing any of my comments at anyone here, but are directed at the scale modeling world in general, unless stated otherwise.)

I said earlier today that I'd start a new thread having to do with weathering, painting, paint effects, etc. so as not to hijack Guy's build thread on his wonderful H-B.

Michael Scarborough brings up some important points regarding this, and some of the current trends or fads that seem to be creeping into the recreation in miniature of our time period. Years ago this was addressed at length on the WWI Modeling List, and I'll bring up some points that were brought up then.

Kabuki Theater
Michael very rightly, in my very humble opinion, brought up the "stage make-up effect" that we've seen of late. It would seem, especially in certain circles, that each new build becomes a new contest of sorts in trying to highlight and shadow to the point it's gone to an extreme. I remember award-winning builds from years ago (Michael cites the work of S. Zaloga [his work is great!], and I have cited Shepherd Paine's work as examples) that have very subtle, but context-correct weathering that come no where near some of what's being put out today. It seems like some folks have to "one up" the previous guy to the point the finished products resemble kabuki theater actors more than a replica of the full scale machine. It's just too much.

Weathering
     World War I aircraft should not look like metal trash bins that have been left outdoors for a year. Yes, I know these aircraft could get dirty, especially the rotary-powered a/c with the staining from their exhaust, etc., from oil spills, paint chipped off of metal panels from maintenance crews, etc.   Mud gets spattered from rolling down a wet, muddy field, etc. However, we have to remember that the majority of these a/c had very short service lives, and were maintained at a high level. (An interview with Herr Timm, Voss' mechanic, he said after each flight of that Tripe he spent hours scraping off the congealed castor oil, etc. from the airframe.)
       The various air forces and manufacturers spent untold hours researching ways to keep UV rays, etc. from deteriorating a/c fabric, etc. Combine that with the fact that these a/c were cutting edge technology for their day, and I (we?) have to conclude that they wouldn't be left out in the weather to end up looking like a faded out F4U Corsair on Tarawa Atoll. Yes, I know there are exceptions, and I'm sure folks can show me countless photos of nasty, beat up, faded a/c. However, for each one of those beat up a/c, there are dozens more showing fairly well-kept machines, etc.
Some years back I saw photos posted of a beautiful SPAD build. A wonderful build except for one thing: the modeler made it look like it had made several bombing runs through the oily smoke of Ploesti. The poor thing was covered with soot, smoke, etc.

Lighting and Light Effects
     There is just not going to be any good way around this unless you can restrict the viewer's angle. (Remember Shep Paine's chapter on shadow boxes anyone?) I can just the confusion and stress at a contest where each individual is going to get to set up his own light source. Ain't gonna happen in my opinion. Funny, I still think Shep Paine's figures are the gold standard, and he kept his blending of light & shadow pretty subtle.

Thought? Complaint? Am I branded a heretic now? 

Well, this should start the ball rolling on what I consider a VERY long, but hopefully productive thread.

Warren

[WarrenD]

Exactly!

Warren

[petrov27]

Afraid I have not done much weathering or special paint effects myself but slowly have tried to add a little bit to my latest builds.

One trend that has taken me a while to get my mind around is heavy rib-shading effects that are seen on some builds these days. When I first got into WWI a/c modelling, I remember a big complaint with many existing kits at the time was the over-emphasized rib detail and "sag" of the fabric between ribs that was cast into the flying surfaces - magazine articles on such kits referred to that as the "starved cow" effect. Many modelers removed that detail, smoothed the wing surface flat and added subtle rib tapes from decal strips or very thin plastic.

Now that we have WNW and others doing a good representation of rib tapes and a proper "flat/taught" fabric (not sagged) between rib stations, the trend is to add the "starved cow" look via shading.....

I am not bashing the process of the rib shading - i have started to do it myself as it does add visual interest to otherwise flat boring areas (in particular on PC10 or other schemes that are all one shade) but it just was something that struck me as a little funny in retrospect? Thoughts?

[ctefehinoz]

Gents,
         I'll agree that less is more and running A/C would have been well kept, but having examined surviving WW1 Aircraft I wonder how much everything (fabric, wood, metal) has deteriorated over time? This despite the fact that there has been "soft" lighting where they are (or have been for decades).

I'll just say for my own nefarious purposes, I'll use an approximation of colours, mostly from MisterKit . Other's I'll just do as best I can. From everything I've seen, I think that used/not abused will be my motto.

As for lighting - for me personally (with my vision getting blurrier every year)...something mild and LED'ish covering around 2/3 to 3/4 of the model? That will be a tough one no matter what!

Regards
Ctefehinoz

[ALBATROS1234]

i agree for the most part and want to add that i dont understand the way the figure painting guys make the orange skin tones with the over contrasted shading. my local hobby shop has displays by local modellers and i would say that 90% have this orangish skin tone.last year i did my first figure. it was the richthofen bust from the old dml dr.1 red baron kit. as i was determined to not repeat this foolishness i used myself and my skin tone as reference. i looked at myself in the mirror and looked at the bust alongside myself as well. the result i was very happy with and it took best figure overall at the local contest. so there are alot of people out there that agree too.

[Squiffy]

An interesting topic, Warren.

Few of my 72nd scale builds have any weathering but now I'm on with my first ever 32nd build I've been looking into it, both on here and in books/photos of the real aeroplanes.

The shading around the ribs on the upper surfaces I just don't get it.

I see many photographs where the ribs appear lighter but, of course, they are not painted a different colour, so it must be the way the light is hitting/being reflected on them. Why shade around them to add an extra darkness (which looks like dirt) and not highlight them if you want to break up the 'flat, boring' areas instead?

[stefanbuss]

What i personally fail to understand is that certain approaches tend to spread like a virus, to be seen so often (and so often badly applied), that you start hating them.

Three examples, two coming from the armor guys:
1. Panel shading. Looks nicely, if not overdone. There seems to be the "spanish school" that now even uses black inks on every gap they can find. (Remember Air Modeller's Special on WNW kits? It contains one chapter on the W.29, where you can see this Panel shading used nearly everywhere (But the modeller, D. Zamarbide, decided to use an aftermarket Spandau, but took the wrong one. Bad research. I had to laugh, when I saw that. Famed modeller, modelling style done to death, combined with bad research? Harhar)). This looks so toy-ish.

2. "Colour Modulation", a style of changing the tone of larger panels etc., invented by A. Wilder and MiG and now used by everyone. My personal opinion is that this may work, if done subtly (subtle? I dunno, as usual), but tends to be overdone most times. Just a hype to sell some paint.

3. Weathering, completely overdone. Not only the sootish example given by WarrenD, but the terrible "parked in the desert for twenty years, and being trown at with large rocks constantly during those twenty years" type that is called "the spanish school (again)" in the armor guys' playground. Paint that is so scruffed it does not only reveal the primer, but the metal parts beneath that as well. Unbelievable.

I must confess being a fan of three different modelling guys: a) Shep Paine (i still have his books, and yes, I rember the chapters on boxed Dioramas), b) "our" Brad Cancian and c) "our" Wolf, Wolfgang Henrich. Both b) and c) apply a believable amount of weathering onto their aircraft.


And i think this is the way to success: No clean aircraft (unless all of your airfraft are done like this, like Des does), but weathered ones. But, apart from photographic evidence, only subtle amount of weathering. You still have to be believeable. Doing it like this, the toy-effect of models will disappear very quickly.

Stefan

[gcn]

What I dislike about these threads is firstly the assumption that everyone who builds scale models is attempting to recreate an historically accurate piece and secondly it becomes a I'm right they're wrong debate.

For example I'm pretty mleh to the Mona Lisa but I enjoy the scream or Van Goghs Wheatfield, but we know out of the three which is the most accurate representation of the original scene.

I paint in a style (albeit with average ability) that I like to look at, not a style I think will be accepted by the masses and if that includes techniques that makes the model look differently than it would have looked 100 years ago then so be it. I also like to attempt different techniques on different models to ensure the process remains fresh and sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't.

By all means say it's not to your taste but don't say it's wrong unless the builder has stated he is building a 100% accurate representation of the real thing. Then back it up with proof.

I agree with some of the points made, but for different reasons than listed above.

If we all painted in the same style it would soon become pretty boring.

[stefanbuss]

I paint in a style (albeit with average ability) that I like to look at, not a style I think will be accepted by the masses and if that includes techniques that makes the model look differently than it would have looked 100 years ago then so be it.

I definitely agree. What I absolutely dislike is the hype that seems to follow when a famous modeller "invents" something, for whatever reason. Years ago Francois Verlinden used dry-brushing (to good effect, i find) - but who is using this style of painting still? To stay with the example i already used, of A. Wilder and MiG: They came up with this "colour modulation" style (in my opinion to promote sales of their paints), and now you are being told to be "old-age" when you don't use colour modulation on whatever kind of model you are building. I think it is important to find your own style (and not jump onto the wagons that are being driven around and promoted for whatever the reason may be).

[drdave]

Agreed. I would counter you point Warren. I think many builds are a bit under weathered.
Most photos of aces mounts and colourful aircraft of the period are taken just after the paint scheme has been done, with a posing pilot nearby, precisely to catch a photo of his new pimped ride. They then flew 5 sorties some days, losing about a gallon of oil at least per mission. Belched out like satans black or at least greenish smoke into the slipstream. Pilots didn't wipe their feet getting in either!

Look at the TVAL birds after a 2h flight. Castor oil everywhere. I doubt voss's team managed to scrape off every bit of goop if it needed a wallpaper scraper. Equally, they used petrol soaked rags, which make the surface shiny not Matt, and thinned the paint finish.

The best thing is a photo of the bird to work from, bearing in mind they were sometimes cleaned up or new. If you want it to look new, fine. Equally, wind socks have plenty of photos of captured aircraft photographed soon after capture before repainting, which are filthy, mucky and oil stained.

[drdave]

Actually, I suppose the real point is that weathering a type of artistic impression. Personally I prefer realism, but there's an abstract school popular at the moment.

I like the change of creating a realistic weathered finish as that is the fun part, that makes a model look like a real plane. It's actually more important to the look of the model than the method of rigging, turnbuckles etc, which only get noticed if you look hard.

It's also my own preference not to laminate props. Yes, occasionally in photos the laminations stand out like a new Ikea chopping board, but equally, at scale distance, they can't easily be seen and were often painted or darkly varnished, or repaired. Laminations look caricatured sometimes, especially the real wooden props.

[Chris Johnson]

I started out trying to emulate Shep Paine's and Steve Zaloga's work, as it seems so realistic. Personally, I think their results stand the test of time.

Cheers,

Chris

[drdave]

Id like to be able to re create a convincing  CDL with oil soaked through it in patches. Could be done with Aviattics new transparent CDL decals.

[eindecker]

We have seen these discussions on other forii in the past, and similar ones over "accuracy", paint colors, etc. They all can be roughly divided into schools of thought regarding what a model should represent. Consequently, while there are likes and dislikes there is certainly no correct way to paint a model. Or to "accurize" one either. I like models to look either new, which was the case for all aircraft at the beginning of their service life, or somewhat used but not abused and weathered to death. I like using techniques that bring out some details that would otherwise be difficult to see such as with dry brushing, pastels or light washes. The Eindecker is one of my favorite WWI planes, and from the photographs, they got very grungy very quickly. While I like to represent a certain amount of castor oil staining, I don't like to go to extremes, even though that would be realistic, because I think it would detract from other aspects and features of my model that I would like observers to see.

I once got involved in an armor modelers argument over gun barrels. It was pretty obvious from contemporary photos that armor gun muzzles and muzzle brakes did not discolor from firing. Especially the German ones because they used primarily smokeless powder. That turned into a bar fight. But, really, what does it matter if one wants a smoky muzzle brake and another does not?

I recall this discussion began with discussion of how to best to paint a figure or model to represent light from a particular direction, and so that a viewer would get the benefit of that. I suspect that unless one uses a shadow box or controlled light source – difficult to do at a public contest venue – one has to make a choice and stick with it.

I will admit to being impressed by the painting and weathering techniques I've seen on line and at shows. Some are obviously overdone to my taste, but again, they seem to make a positive impression on many of the visitors who see them. Most are not to my liking if they are over-done and remove the model too far from a believable representation of the real thing. I think some aspects of the "Spanish School" are very nice and I like to use them in certain areas and parts of my models, primarily to bring out detail or features that would otherwise fade into the background. I do not like, or see the need for, the extreme WAD (wear, abuse, damage) I see inflicted on many armor models.

I tried that method on a Tamiya 1:48 Russian armor piece and it certainly stood out. It was also fairly easy to disguise some of my modeling warts and mistakes with a liberal appliation of WAD materials. I haven't done that since.

[Michael Scarborough]

I'm glad Warren started this thread but, IMHO, we're trying to cover several different and large issues in one stroke.

Most of what I had intended to say I have already said in different posts.

I feel extremely fortunate for two reasons: my dad was an aviator and noted aviation historian and was a constant source of "reality" when it came to making realistic models. Further, he lead the teams on the restoration of the Grumman Wildcat at the Smithsonian, the Grumman FF1 at Pensacola, and of our own Fairchild 24. I was a member of each team and learned to rib stitch at age 14. I also got to crawl all over lots of old airplanes and really look at them, both in storage and at many, many air shows. We also started a replica Fokker Dr. 1 that was, unfortunately, never finished, but I grew up with Warner engines and old WWI vintage wheels in the garage.

The other reason I feel exceptionally blessed is that I make my living as a visual artist. By it's very nature, visual art means seeing. Anyone setting about to learn any form of visual art will quickly discover that learning to make good art is firstly about learning to see. So, for me, re-creating a model begins with seeing lots of pictures of the real object I am hoping to re-create.

While I am counting my blessings allow me to add that I feel blessed to know Shep Paine as well as Greg di Franco, Mike Blank and Bill Horan. I have created bases for their figures. I do not add this to toot my own horn, but to say that I have been privileged to have had some very in depth and interesting discussions on the concepts of recreating objects in miniature....be they airplanes, tanks, or people. The same rules apply. That is simple physics.

In Shep Paine's book on figure painting he introduces the now famous Stop Sign Rule; The concept that light coming from above strikes the 8 sides of a stop sign in diminishing amounts the closer it gets to the bottom. Top: full daylight; bottom, full shadow...and in between top and bottom, highlights gradually turn into shadows. It is my understanding that this is the concept between color modulation in the armour world. This is what Andrei Koribanics did in his aircraft builds. But he did it subtle and gradually so that it wasn't obvious.

So yes, as I've already stated, the whole bulging rib thing makes no sense to me. And, allow me add, I have slopped lots of dope onto lots of Irish linen and, if it's colored dope, I have yet to be able to see the fabric through it.

But, everyone see things differently.

That's my two cents.

Cheers from NYC,
Michael