Weathering, Painting, Effects, etc.

[WarrenD]

Yes, we are covering a lot with one stroke. However, with this thread, I figured we could.

As for me and my house, my goal is to recreate something from real life in miniature as well as I possibly can. With that in mind, I see some methods or trends in scale modeling these last few years that have become very popular, but do not reflect reality at all.

On one the one hand we have:

- "Camelot! Camelot! CAMELOT!!!!! (It's only a model.)"   

and

- "It's your model, build it any way you like." - Dicta Ira (My apologies if I got the quote wrong Michael.    )

On the other hand we have:

"I'm going to replicate every single nut, bolt, washer, and wet fart stain that exists or ever occurred on the original."

The overwhelming majority of us fall somewhere in between, and where we fall sometimes varies on a sliding scale depending upon skill, time, interest, etc.

NOW, let's get on with: "How do we, or how should we, replicate light coming through CDL wings?" and other first world problems. 

Warren

[Matt Parvis]

To me, this is a recurring theme for modelling.  There is an "accepted" way of doing things and then someone comes along with a new style or method that gets them attention.  It then becomes popular and everyone starts to emulate it.  Of course, they need to do one better though so the new method gets exaggerated to the point it becomes cartoonish.  Verlinden and dry brushing come to mind, it started as a very subtle thing that brought a lot to the models Verlinden was building.  Fast forward a while and everything looked like it had white frosting applied.  It was/is the same thing with Mig, he started finishing models in a way that was different, and to my eye, less stylized, than what Verlinden had been doing, success follows and with success emulation and exaggeration until we end up where we are today.

For me, whatever the style/technique is, if I can see it, it is too much.  We can always see what techniques were used if we intentionally look for them, but, for those that I think are well done, I have to consciously think to look for the technique, be it shading/highlighting on a figure, weathering on a tank or whatever, before I can see what was done.  Shep Paine's work falls into that category for me, as does Per Olav Lund's and a bunch of others. 

Matt

[Ian from Doncaster]

I like the "ideal" of a very clean and factory fresh finish, much like Des achieves with great success.

However my builds often have minor snags and flaws, which I then cover up with weathering!  I agree, sometimes this can be over done, but I am happy that often an individual model can be used as a test piece for a certain technique.

To me, there are modellers who aim replicate the real aircraft in appearance and historical accuracy - this is great and what one would expect for commissioned pieces or for competitions.  However for myself, and I suggest for many others, it is more a case of enjoying the build process itself, and occasionally having a good look over the finished models on the shelf.  Depending on the quality of the photos, the readers on here won't see the models I build as clearly as I can, and my family aren't too fussed.

Now, for rib shading.  I always try to examine wing surfaces when I go to museums.  What I notice is mainly that the fabric appears glossier where it is stretched over ribs, but often (especially in PC10) the shade is the same over ribs and in between.  CDL undersides often show slightly cleaner and glossier covering over ribs, and a duller tone in between.

Looking at the point about overdoing weathering etc, then yes this can happen.  For example you would expect mud splattering and general grubbiness on lower wing undersides but I have seen an overdone model with upper wing ailerons just as dirty. 

As for colour modulation, I think in 1:32 a model looks better if fabric areas have some form of variety in the colour or finish, as too uniform may be toy-like, but this can be overdone too.  The difficulty (for me) here as with rib shading is that whilst the fuselage and wings can have modulation/shading/weathering etc then the model would look odd if these surfaces are then topped with glossy clean decals. 

Ultimately, I sit in the "it's my model so I'll please myself" brigade.  I am not going to worry too much over the accuracy of PC-10 or German mauve colours etc.  I do however value greatly the variety of techniques that everyone displays on here, free of charge and willingly, that I and others can learn from, and choose to replicate or not.

I think the tone of the forum is right.  If I or anyone else wants to research colouring/building/weathering etc and ask on here, many will offer advice.  I have yet to see the threads descend into arguments which I see on other forums in other fields.

[WarrenD]

I think the tone of the forum is right.  If I or anyone else wants to research colouring/building/weathering etc and ask on here, many will offer advice.  I have yet to see the threads descend into arguments which I see on other forums in other fields.

I sure didn't make my initial post to start an argument. In fact, I felt safe making the post precisely because I thought it wouldn't descend into an argument.

Warren

[Kreston]

Interesting thread...I come these WWI aircraft from many years as a figure painter.  I am of the school that less is more, especially when dealing with "scale" models.  I have seen many styles come and go in the figure painting world and never cared for the extreme shading and highlighting method...cool looking but often unrealistic results.  I like to add weathering to my models but keeping it subtle.  That is my preference and as Ian says "it's my model so I'll please myself".  This site is invaluable for picking up tips and techniques to add to my modeling bag of tricks.

[RAGIII]

Well I am ready to give my opinion and I hope it doesn't hurt  I can remember a LOT of trends and styles in my 50 plus years of building. My honest opinion is I like all of them to a degree! Someone mentioned that not all are building to the same pre requisite. I have learned to appreciate the BEAUTY of the Rib shading, panel shading, see through, etc. etc. Artistic values vary with the creator and I TRULY like the Multitude of interpretations we see here on this site. As for me those who read my Modeling resolutions probably saw that I mentioned PAINTING WHAT I SEE! I found myself TRYING to emulate some of the more creative Modelers and their effects. I am now going to focus on painting a More realistic aircraft. That being said a Pup will have a BUNCH of Oil Stains on the underwings and DR1s will have Blotches and scrapes  As for figures any theatrical likeness is simply my ineptness at blending rather than not following Sheps books. JMHO,
RAGIII

[Matt Parvis]

As for figures any theatrical likeness is simply my ineptness at blending rather than not following Sheps books. JMHO,
RAGIII

I'm with you on that one.  I continue to struggle to find the sweet spot between so little shading/highlighting that you can't see it and so much that you can't see anything else.  I've got lots of books for inspiration, my copy of How to Build Dioramas is falling apart from having been read so many times (I've owned it since the mid-80s) and I still don't like the results I get for the most part.  Once in a while I'll get what is in my mind's eye and that gives my hope it isn't a lost cause, but then I move on to the next section/figure/whatever and...

Matt

[eindecker]

This is all good stuff. I have learned so much about painting, and that includes dry brush, air brush, oils, washes, pastels, that my builds continually improve. Working with armor models taught me a great deal too, and I like to do one now and then to experience different techniques and effects.

I'm approaching my WWI painting and weathering to achieve a varied hue and color on the monotone surfaces, and slight emphasis on detail with a combination of dry brushing and pastels instead of oil or acrylic washes. Then, there is the color pencil prop technique. Add a modest amount of environmental effects — dirt, oils, etc. and call it good. My current project, the Roland C.II, Scheme A with the captured Lewis gun, will be a challenge with the large blue areas and white wing sections.

I also congratulate all of us for carrying on a courteous and informative discussion of this topic. This is an example of a healthy and supportive modeling forum. It's great and continues to be my internet modeling home.

[Gisbod]

I think it's interesting for people to have different styles. None are right or wrong - it's subjective. I appreciate a well finished model regardless of the technique. It's a bit like artist's paintings - each one has an individual style.

I still enjoy looking at more 'abstract' models - appreciating the skill of the artist. To my mind, the quality of the finish is what we should be lauding - not critising other people's styles because they're different to ours!  (I mean this generically and not this forum!  )

My individual bugbear is seeing distinctly averagely painted models win contests because they're a big project over an exquisitely finished 'simple' model.

Personally, I like to find a photo that inspires me and try and copy what I see 


Guy

[Ssasho0]

As a fairly new to the hobby (just 3 years) I'm still willing to try all the different things and sometimes going a bit "over" is normal, but I must say that I also like the "less is more" school or when pictures are available, working to match them as good as possible with my limited set of skills.
I thoroughly enjoy all the builds shown here and I generally try to replicate the techniques that I like the most, without actually mattering if they look realistic or not, I just have to like them. Still I think, this is normal for fairly inexperienced modeler like myself, that is looking for ways to increase his skill set.
I absolutely and equally adore the super realistic build like Bertl’s or the Des-like factory fresh approach and all those in-between and stealing ideas from all of them.
Recently I tried to replicate few pictures on a particular Fokker EIV and the result was too dirty for my liking but quite realistic, unfortunately I don’t really liked it because it is too “dirty”. Still this was a very important build for me as I tried new weathering techniques and they seem to working, no matter if I like the “weathered” look or not.
Regarding the ribs, I also think that the color differences around the ribs themselves are not that big as on many of the builds, BUT this is not a real a/c and sometimes in scale, if you want something to be visible, you have to overdo it, or to do it bigger – out of scale.
At the end I would like to say BIG “THANK YOU” to all of you, for sharing those wonderful builds and explaining all the ways to achieve the desired effects.

Best regards,
Sasho

[Ian from Doncaster]

I think the tone of the forum is right.  If I or anyone else wants to research colouring/building/weathering etc and ask on here, many will offer advice.  I have yet to see the threads descend into arguments which I see on other forums in other fields.

I sure didn't make my initial post to start an argument. In fact, I felt safe making the post precisely because I thought it wouldn't descend into an argument.

Warren

Precisely - this must be the only forum I have seen where different points of view don't descend into point scoring arguments.

[RAGIII]

I think it's interesting for people to have different styles. None are right or wrong - it's subjective. I appreciate a well finished model regardless of the technique. It's a bit like artist's paintings - each one has an individual style.

I still enjoy looking at more 'abstract' models - appreciating the skill of the artist. To my mind, the quality of the finish is what we should be lauding - not critising other people's styles because they're different to ours!  (I mean this generically and not this forum!  )

My individual bugbear is seeing distinctly averagely painted models win contests because they're a big project over an exquisitely finished 'simple' model.

Personally, I like to find a photo that inspires me and try and copy what I see 


Guy

That's pretty much how I feel too. Although I prefer the 'less is more' approach for my own models I also like to see people exploring the possibilities.

I think I may have been a little unclear in my comment. When I said I liked all of the Methods Trends to a degree I meant exactly what you two are saying. I have learned to APPRECIATE even the Most Artistic Interpretations and see the beauty in the results. Thanks for being more clear than I was 
RAGIII

[ALBATROS1234]

bottom line its your model do what makes you happy. and what looks realistic to your eye. everyonr sees things differently, one guys eye might catch this or that detail wheras another guy maynot notice this or that and highlight other things. its all fun, we do it because we enjoy it. there is no right or wrong in art and thats what this is art.

[compressor man]

bottom line its your model do what makes you happy. and what looks realistic to your eye. everyonr sees things differently, one guys eye might catch this or that detail wheras another guy maynot notice this or that and highlight other things. its all fun, we do it because we enjoy it. there is no right or wrong in art and thats what this is art.

Well said.
Chris