I don’t think anyone has mentioned yet the impact that judging has on this, too. That is, isn’t there a certain look that judges expect to see, and it may not be as accurate as you might think when you’re looking at your photo references of a subject. I think that too many aircraft kits are finished with overly-shaded panel lines, for example, but that for those who compete, they may be working to their perception of the judges’ expectations.
I see this in the figure world, where the European style of painting is popular. You look at a figure and the face seems washed out, the colors are ashen or gray. Apparently, this style produces a finish that looks good in a color photo in a magazine. But it doesn’t look real. And yet, since many who judge at the shows paint to this style, they have a subtle bias towards the style.
I’ve seen and heard enough at this point to know contest judging is very beholden to what’s “in vogue” with painting and weathering. I’ve seen comments that panel shading was inconsistent, or not at all present. Same with panel line washes. I firmly believe a lot of judging is biased toward these finishing cliches and that photo realistic finishing pays the price.
One of the many reason I have absolutely no interest in model contests myself. When you have to supply photo reference to support painting a panel in a mismatched color, or the sort but checkerboarded pre-shaded airplanes are getting the awards…there’s a problem
Do you ever go to airshows to see how a plane weathers? It does not have to be a military a/c. Wear and weather is a universal bugaboo. You shoulda seen the Boeing CH47-D that landed at my airport. It was a 20 year old machine that just had been decommissioned from the U.S. Army but had acutally spent time in Brazil. That was one sorry looking thing.
On those models with metalized finishes; you’ll never see shaded panels, except if control surfaces or other small details are made of other materials. However, on real a/c the danger of dissimilar metal corrosion makes this a big no-no.
Scale paint flaking is invisible to the naked eye at about 20’. That’s why I call my Comanche a prom queen at 30’.
The only panel lines are the gaps where control surfaces are. Even access panels that do wear would hardly be visible at scale distances.
All that said, I envy the modeling skills of those who make weathered, dirty a/c. And I do especially like the looks. I’m still using chalks and mechanical drafting pencils because I can’t master the airbrush.
So I got a new Badger Anthem 155 this morning so I can weather the tar out of 'em.
Me, either! Not to take away from those who like to compete, that’s great, that’s their choice. But it’s not for me. And regarding references, I remember an incident from AMPS about 10 years ago, when it was held in Havre de Grace, MD. A gentleman presented a model of an M1 Abrams in Desert Storm. A judge was taking it apart (figuratively), pointing out inaccuracies, especially in the stowage and some field modifications. He sniffed that “That’s not correct” or words to that effect, and the builder was standing nearby. He pointed out a binder full of reference photos and told the judge, “I know it’s accurate-that’s my tank.” The judge shrank down to about 2 inches and slunk away.
If I may refer back to figures, I look at photos of figures that Shep Paine painted, back in the day, or that Bill Horan painted, and others painting over the past 40 years. And I note that they paint assuming natural light and natural colors, without caring about how the figure looks in a photo. A photo will look like a photo looks. But their pieces were all meant to be seen with the naked eye, and they look natural, or at least, they don’t look washed out. It’s like looking at a painting or illustration in color. The bias towards the washed-out style, “Kabuki style”, a buddy of mine calls it, has even discouraged painters here from displaying their work or entering it in shows, because they feel that they will be discounted from the start.
Figures aren’t really my thing, so I don’t know much about it. I do know I see a lot of badly painted figures that people gush over. And what I mean by “badly” is how they are over accented, or they are overly “contrasty” and look nothing like reality. Very similar to the “Spanish school” but with figure painting.
I recently watched a very brilliantly done model with photo evidence get passed over for builds with the lame pre-shading and weathering “cook book” stuff and it just shouldn’t happen honestly.
i do modern armor and trucks and i don’t weather a lot. unless i have a photo i am matching, they usually aren’t beat up, rusted, or have a lot of paint chipping. usually its some pin washes and dust or mud. i will use appropriate colors but i try to find civilian applications so i can use oranges and yellows and blues or find an oddball camo scheme.
HAVING SAID THAT i go with artistic over 100% accurate. i like to do color modulation to base colors. i so oil filters and washes because i enjoy doing it and i really like to mix my own pastels for dust and dirt. i also like doing small bases for my builds.
Very true. Although the Military does like to present its’ best face to the public at air shows and will usually clean the snot out of any equipment displayed. Likewise for Warbirds owners. You don’t see car shows with a 57 Bel Air looking like it just drove across the Sonora Desert.
Yet tonal differences in panels are seen quite commonly on NMF aircraft from late WWII until the early 60s when Aluminum Lacquer was reintroduced for corrosion control and sealing purposes.
I think that depends upon the particular aircraft’s service life and usage, as well as paint/color scheme. Some obviously will show more staining than others. This photo was taken at least 800 feet away (standard peace time drop altitude is 800 ft AGL- combat drops are done at 500 feet) yet many panel lines as well as control surfaces and access and gear door panels are visible here. In 1/48 that would be rougly 15 feet away…
All that aside, I dont do 100% artistic or 100% accurate for my weathering, but perhaps a 3 parts accuracy to 1 part artistry mix when weathering. I want to replicate as best I can the point in time that I am choosing to replicate on that particular build. Some show heavy use, others minimal. Depending upon what I turn up in research for my project.
That reminds me about an incident I had at a car show where I was displaying my 1955 210 Chevy 2 door hartop. Some guy started talking crap that a 210 hardtop didn’t exist and that it was all made up. He quickly hid under a rock when I stepped up, pulled out the GM documentation from the trunk and showed him the Vin Plate. Too many “experts” out there.
Many years ago I found myself in southern Illinois just in time for the Scott AFB open house. I knew a guy, who knew a guy, so we went there early on a Saturday morning.
There, amidst all the picture perfect Air Force aircraft, sat a F14. This baby was obviously just off the boat. She was at least seven different shades of gray owing to the corrosion control taking place while underway.
You know how that is, Seaman Doofus gets handed a can of spray paint and some steel wool. Rub, rub, spritz, spritz until the entire airplane looks like a “modern art masterpiece”. [:D]
I have photos somewhere, but that was two wives ago, so I’ll pass on posting references for now.
My point is, that to accurately model that Tomcat, depicting how she looked at that point in time, would probably make most folks say it was “overdone”.
Not really. There’s plenty of folks modeling them like that. They are all over the internet actually, but yeah there’s always that yahoo who will say “overdone” having never actually seen a photo much less the real thing.
There’s this amazing thing called Google Images and there’s so many photos showing filty airplanes it’s absolutely ridiculous how much the “overdone” thing gets thrown around.
I think that many folks get caught up in the latest weathering fads that they do their builds out of context for how the real thing likely looked. A P-40 in North Africa is gonna hve a service life of less than a year, but will be in harsh sunny dusty climes for that time. An F-105 will be sitting in the south East Asia monsoon climate for a year or more (nearly half the production run becoming combat losses in over 3 years of hihg tempo ops). An F-111 in Europe will be sitting out of the weather in a Hardened Aircraft Shelter for years on end, armed on alert or flying training sorties and much less likely to show severe weathering over its’ longer life span… And then there are carrier based aircraft…
Oh yeah I agree. And there are those in the modeling community that don’t know what a properly weathered one would look like either. There’s a lot of the “it’s overdone they’d never let an airplane get that dirty” folks. Someone unfamilar with the hobby can be easily excused, a modeler, meh, not so much.
A low viz F-14 with just 3 shades of gray — 2 shades being the base color, and the third splattered evenly all around as patchwork. Like the deck crew took all the spray cans on board and went crazy one morning. And the tails remaining immaculate.
An AF F-4 heavily and uniformly oxidized as to look like it spent time in Davis Monthan, but obviously representing an operatonal unit. It’s got RBF tags and bombs.
or a French jet with Tigermeet markings and livery almost turned black because of what I’d call sludge wash?
Id give our fellow modelers some slack. They may not have seen all you’ve seen as far as real birds go, but we haven’t seen the aircraft models they’ve seen and talk about.
There’s this thing called Google Images which honestly should be more than enough reference to reality for most modelers to at least get close. Again, I don’t t say the problem is “overdone” it’s poorly done, and that’s and important distinction.
Overdone implies that it’s too much, or over the top. The F-14 you descirbed would be perfect, yes. Because as you describe it’s completely a possible look, but if it’s too much, symetrical, and over the top it’s over done.
Now, if you went crazy with rust spots and streaking, and mud caked on the wheels that would be poorly done.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that we don’t immediately brand a heavily weathered model “overdone” just because it’s heavily weathered. Im a fan of weathered planes myself, even weathered my B737 (its in these forums somewhere)!
But the way a modeler does the heavy weathering is quite another thing. It could be in the style, the pattern (yes some of what I’ve seen sported patterns lol)! etc. In the examples I mentioned, I asked the builders, and at least one of them honestly said its “art.”
I don’t mind seeing heavily weathered aircraft, but most often the way it is applied does not look natural. An example would be a two tone surface. All the edges of the camouflage are still virgin from any wear, and only the centers of the shapes are weathered.
I usually err on the lite side . It took three days to clean my real bird an let’s face it after surviving WW 2 She was no Hangar Queen .
For the most part my planes are done to reflect natural metals as in post WW -2 and Pre Vietnam . My real bird had paint on her outside from delivery till I sold her .
After all , how clean is an old B-25 gonna be , if it flies ? And she is still doing that , albeit in FarnBorough , England . Gosh , I miss the old gal . I just don’t miss the costs involved .
