Do you weather your aircraft in an attempt to duplicate an historically accurate rendition of the a/c or because you enjoy the artful technique and the looks of it?
Lots of the weathering I see on model forums done on a/c are over done.
I prefer accuracy in my models over the artistic. I have succumb to filling in panel lines on modern aircraft but am moving away from that.
There’s no right or wrong. It’s a matter of personal preferences.
“Lots of the weathering I see on model forums done on a/c are over done.”
From the point of view of accuracy, sure. But that by no means puts it in the overdone category.
If you see a light at the end of this tunnel (thread), there will be a train attached to it. And yes, it’s mostly overdone.
I agree with GM and mississippivol. Sometimes less weathering goes a long way.
I agree…most is overdone, when compared to the real thing.
For me though, most “clean” builds are not very interesting. There’s also a line where overdone becomes OVERdone…then I’d rather see a clean build! A little goes a long way!
As GM said, there is no right or wrong way. Which do you want to model, a fresh aircraft off the assembly line, in between showing some use or a hard working one? I do agree that less is more so I tend to just show some use and try to be accurate working off from my reference material.
I don’t think there is a such thing as “overdone.” I think there is absolutely poorly done. And there is a lot of that out there. There is absolutely no shortage whatsoever of photographic evidence form WW1 to today of filthy, worn, beaten aircraft. There’s also no shortage of clean ones eiter. So it just depends on what you’re after.
I don’t think model painting and weathering is or should be “artistic interpretation.” It should be replication of the real thing. The modeling world relies too heavily on just throwing the same techniques at models regardless of realism. Prime, pre-shade, paint, panel line wash and other washes with no real aim other than just following the assumed “process.”
This reminds me of the “rust on tank tracks” debate 
Not necessarily overdone, but weathered out of scale is what I usually see. Streaks or washes way too dark or the streaks or stains themselves too large. Or, the whole aircraft weathered heavily but no weathering of the tires, gear, or pylons and ordinance.
I always go with accuracy over artistic.
Its all about personal preference, yes (my personal preference being realism), but honestly, Ive heard much more negative comments from modelers on exaggerated weathering than from a kit sticking with accuracy. In fact, most negative comments Ive heard about accurate builds stem from the fact that the commenter/s were mostly unaware that the finish was actually based on photos.
And yes, one can “overdo” weathering. Ive seen a low-viz F-14 kit uniformly covered with patch up paint work (like the patchwork has become the camo itself), and quite a number of pre-shaded, post-shaded plane and helicopter kits sporting uniformly faded/oxidized paint. One look and you know its overdone.
The reason there even there are to show shade on panel line that is to small to reflect the shade properly. Some models have deeper and wider panel lines and a black on that time always looks to be to much. I my self have not masters panel lines at all mine are rather to dark or to faint. 
But the models that do catch my eye the most are light fine done panel lines just enough to see it. With good weathering its a thing of beauty. When I Finnish my marder3 I’m going to pick a fine line aircraft maybe my MENG 1/48 ME-410 and try to perfect that panel line one more time.
I try to consider both.
To me the biggest accuracy issue is the plane with dozens of mission markings on it, but a pristine finish with no weathering. Another issue is prominent black panel lines with little other weathering. Painted aircraft usually show very subdued or even invisible fabrication seams, but may show access panel seams prominently.
Even bare metal finishes may not show much of fabrication seams- I have a new book showing some bare metal airplanes with virtually invisible seams-, but one can still see the panels due to different alloys or metal finishes on the various panels.
Weathering aircraft is always a sticky point I think.
I watched a you-tube video last night saying preshading is always wrong and you should only prime in black then use layers of paint to give a weathered look. Interesting points but I wasn’t completely convinced.
As always in this we all know it comes down to if your happy with it then its right. I’ve personally never seen an aircraft as weathered as some people go but that doesnt mean its wrong.
Phil
Historical accuracy. Most peacetime equipment is fairly well taken care off. But wartime is another story. Look up color WWII pics and see the beating some stuff took
It’s not a question of overdone or underdone - look at any aircraft and you’ll see examples that are pristine, and examples that are beat to hell. Well, except for the F-106. I’ve never been able to find an example of one of those being anything other than just slightly not clean.
It’s a question of poorly done. Panel lines all uniformly shaded to the extent that the aircraft looks like something Burberry would sell. Heavy panel line shading but otherwise perfectly clean, smooth paint. Uniform “middle-out” fading in each and every panel.
“There’s no right or wrong” - eh, if that’s the case, explain the Star Wars prequels. If you’re going for a realistic depiction of a particular subject, you have an actual, objective goal post against which to judge it.
It seems to me that a lot of “it’s artistic expression” is an ex post facto thing. I mean, all the butthurt around dimensional accuracy, detail accuracy and color accuracy definitely points to a striving for realism, but then it gets chunked out the window when the painting and weathering start?
If it’s someone’s goal to create a stylized finish that looks like it’s been run through the HDR process a few too many times, great. More power to 'em. But in my experience modelers who explicity take that stance are relatively few and far between. A lot of what I see that would count as “overdone” strikes me more as just following the “established” weathering cookbook, as FJ says above.
I always for for “artistic” over “accurate”. But that’s not saying that the two are mutually exclusive. They’re not. Neither is better, or worse. It just depends on what you’re trying to say with your model, what audience you’re trying to reach.
Modeling is not a one-dimensional hobby. There are those who build to create bone-stock representations in miniature, and those (like me) who model in order to convey an emotional or evocative message.
I am known for “heavy weathering”. I do my models that way because, to me, it shows the rigorous and tough conditions that the vehicles operate in, but more so than that, the role that they play in the balance of the world. It’s serious, deadly, impactful in so many ways. In another way, it complements the rough, masculine character of the man who man these machines of destruction.
It has been said on this forum by others that “real machines don’t modulate” or something to that effect. However, that’s missing the whole point. You’re not building a real machine; you’re “modeling” a miniature. And light does not act the same on a small model the way it does on a large, real 1:1 object. So you have to learn to reproduce what the human eye “sees” when it perceives a 1:! vehicle. ANd that involves adding shadows, highlights, washes, etc.
Just as you will always have modelers on both sides of the aisle making diametrically-opposite versions of any given model, you will have the same disparity between people in the audience and judges alike. Nobody’s “right” of “wrong”. There’s just your opinion, and it’s no more correct or in error than anyone else’s.
Probably the best argument Ive read so far.
Here’s my mind set in general; a) museum quality display, b) ordinary wear and tear, c) distressed. Having the resources available now as opposed to my childhood has allowed me the opportunity to enhance my skills. I have 2 stashes, one to build and practice newly acquired techniques and one for subjects that I will not touch until I am confident that my skills are honed enough to attempt. I am currently practicing the techniques of weathering on my “throwaways” in an attempt to get my better subjects to fall into the ordinary wear and tear category. The most pleasing builds,to me, are those that create a subtlety, a mere perception, of an effect on that subject. In trying to achieve this I believe that scale in all things is the most important trait that affects the finished product. I aim for museum quality by practicing distressing and applying to"in service".
Hey DoogATX, missed having you around! Hope you and the family are well.
Funny a guy in our local IPMS club linked an article on your website the other day so I was thinking about you and wondering where you went!