I use the exact paint shade.
Then I add 10% white for scale distance, pre shade, gloss coat it for decals, another gloss coat for the wash, wash, dot filter, flat coat, highlight panels, anti monochromatic filter, pin wash, sludge wash, polish, weather with pastels, grafite powder on the metal parts, paint chips, post shade
ehhh, so basically I go for “close enough”
in a way, we all use standards of one kind or another
now, put down those buckets of tar and I’ll explain what I mean
if using TLAR,do you then go and figure out a new Panzer Gray for each new tank you build?,or do you use your favorite mix to paint the next one with, also?
when doing a green US Sherman, a green Rus T-34 and a green Japanese Chi-Ha,do you use the same green for all of them?,or do you vary them for each service
Me, I go to FS lists, pick out the colors that best match by Mk ! eyeball, looking at any and all ranges,and then developed a palette of paints to use on my models, using whatever company paints as long as I don’t try to “cross type enamels with acrylics”
TLAR is a standard,and as Hans said,you don’t go and used totally “wrong” shades of a color on purpose,
Rex
No. I use MM Panzer Grey for all, right outta the rattle can. Same with all German armor, they get Panzer Gray, Afrika Mustard, or Dark Yellow, depending on the theater. I change the shades of color with the weathering. Same as the “real world” , my armor starts “Factory Fresh” and gets faded/dirty/repainted/chipped/ after it gets decaled and rolls off the “assembly line”.
Shermans get MM OD (the factory thing again), Ivan’s stuff gets a Euro-Dark Green (although they used whatever was laying arund, if they got painted at all, like during Stalingrad), and I haven’t built any WW2 Jap. armor… They’re just too “silly-looking” for lack of a better term… Same with Italian, French, and a few Brit tanks, like the Churchill…
Regardless of the country of origin though, I stick with rattle cans for armor, since 99% of them are one-color and I can paint them in their overall color in about a minute with 'em… If I need a comuflage finish, like the MERDC or NATO camo on modern US armor, I still paint the basic color with the a rattle can of the color that covers the largest portion… I’ll airbrush (or brush-paint, if it’s a field-applied finsh) the other camo-colors in afterwards…
Still not too bad. Only 3 pages after 4 days.
Yeah. Right. 
I don’t get that rubic’s cube thing, Tom?
I like to be in the Ball Park …
As Han’s earlier post says, paint weathers and changes. So what exactly are we trying to match?
It’s a classic color optical illusion. The ‘blue’ tiles on top of the left cube and the ‘yellow’ tiles on top of the right cube are actually the EXACT same shade of gray. Google ‘color-constancy illusion’.
ahhh, I get it now
well, that whole “can’t determine colors from old photos” thing doesn’t come up for me,there is only one photo of any use to “us” that the color is not obvious on the tail
for irony, Squadron now owns both the book series and the decal series that opposed each other in their conclusions on that color,one says Insignia Blue on the tail, the other says Dark Red/Maroon
since both are “wrong color usage” on that Crusader,most modelers just build the next cruise for that aircraft, when the color “went by the regs”,and was just Red trim
I’m fortunate in that any Black and White photos I have to work with have color photos to complement or support my color choices,even if I have to look at shades of gray, we know what color contrast fills in the color for us
Rex
Every kit i build/paint is an experiment for me. That said I don’t obsess over the paint shade or technique. Maybe one day i will build the one kit where all these puzzle pieces will fall into place. Then and only then I might pull some OCD. Until that day… its is just like Bgrigg says “Close is good enough.”
I start with a color chip that is considered “the standard”. I look for a paint that is close, otherwise I’m just guessing.
Example: FAA Extra Dark Sea Grey (EDSG). FS 36118 is considered “close” but when I compared the FS fan to an EDSG chip, EDSG is bluer whereas 36118 more gray and not as dark. Yes, that’s to my eye (I’m not colorblind) and in different lighting. MM/Acryl EDSG appear true to the FS; Humbrol is also too gray but not as much as MM and Aeromaster was spot on for fresh EDSG. Unfortunately EDSG was known to fade/shift to an even bluer shade.
Now the guessing part. If I didn’t know what EDSG was supposed to look like, I’d only know it was supposed to be, not just dark, but EXTRA DARK. It’s a SEA GRAY. So do I use Tamiya Dark Sea Gray (XF-54) and add some black to make it darker? I tried that before I had the standard chips and compared to photos my finished models just didn’t look right, not enough blue. Nobody faulted me (they weren’t interested in FAA), but…I KNEW it wasn’t right.
I want my models to start with the right color (TLAR applies, after the standard is checked). Having spent time in the paint shop with USN jets over the last 30 years, I know how much even FS can vary, so I’m not pedantic about the finished product, so long as it looks right. But not all grays (or is it greys) are equal.
Does that make me OCD? It’s a hobby, and to me, it’s MY hobby. If that’s the way I enjoy my hobby, then
and I will NEVER criticize how YOU enjoy YOUR hobby.
That’s my [2cnts]
Tim
Tim, you might want to give LifeColor’s home site a look,ignore the lack of Italian translations,the color patches have English labels under them
I remember the EDSG being there, and a good color match for the Luftwaffe’s post war Green for their Jets
with the current paint brands out there,we have no choice but to use TLAR compared to FS,there is a pretty big fact missed in reading the FS text pages in the book of chips,the paint companies seem to have interpreted based on one line in there, that doesn’t say what most modelers believe it says
as a Green shirt in the corrosion shop,I’d guess that you are one of the few other guys that believe like I do,I clearly remember the “green tinted gray” on helo’s that “common knowledge of FS” says “can’t be true”
I used TLAR with FS and Munsell to come up with my paint palette, and I like it fine,I don’t claim that anyone else has to, though,there are many ways to approach this hobby and still have fun
my theory is that I had to choose an Insignia Red to build anything,so, how I chose it made a difference to me
Agree, Rex. I will, when my current stores of paints are depleted, look to Lifecolor for replacements. It’s a good paint, brushes AND airbrushes well. And it’s acrylic to boot.
Tim
You know, on second thought, I actually have two schools of thought on this.
The first is definitely TLAR - but I’d define that as breaking away from indicated colors and finding something else that “looks better”. Case in point - I was building a P-47 earlier this year that called for an Insignia Red cowl and Insignia Yellow rudder. But the IR looked too dark and dull compared to the pictures, and the IY looked way too pale. So I swapped them for Guards Red and some RAF yellow.
To me, that’s TLAR.
The second school of thought is FICE. F’ It, Close Enough. Applies to the notoriously variable colors that either differed by who applied them (different factories using different mixes), by how they weathered, or just lack of overall quality control. Intermediate Blue. Olive Drab. Pretty much an WWII Soviet color. Once, I got all pissy about getting Intermediate Blue exactly right…but it was so not worth the effort. So these days, when I encounter a pesky color like that, I find a jar of something and say FICE.
perfect Doog
your P-47 illustrates all the modeling ideas,if you consider that you can claim “scale effect” for your TLAR choices on those two colors,it also goes along with “it’s my model”,another very valid point in this hobby
it reminds modelers that even though “Joe says it’s FS 12345” they still have complete control of what they do with that information
This is topic a country music song waiting to happen. Just throwing in two orthogonal purgatories of mine, consider these two photos:
!(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa429/FoeDoze/WotW M2 Half Track/Tank_4_Enlarged.jpg)!(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa429/FoeDoze/WotW M2 Half Track/Tank_4_Enhanced.jpg)These are two versions of the same image from scene 101 of the 1953 film “The War of the Worlds”. The top is as it was shown in the movie; the bottom is the result of stripping the Day-For-Night or nuit américaine (“American night”) filter that Michael D. Moore (2nd unit Director) used.
So one obsession is which is “right”? Obviously the answer is “it depends”. Are you are looking for details pertaining to US Army Reserve M4A1(76)W Sherman tank 30126777? or are you trying to replicate the scene from the movie?
My orthogonal puzzlement is this: A movie isn’t objective reality. It’s an illusion, a fake, and there are foul-ups. (In scene 141, this M4A1 is “disintegrated”; in scene 151, Ann Robinson & Gene Barry duck behind the same vehicle.) I claim that the same thing is true for any reference: there’s no such thing as “objective reality”.
“Right and wrong do not exist in graphic design. There is only effective and non-effective communication.” — Peter Bilak, ILLEGIBILITY
okay, I’m bailing on this topic
my IQ is a bit higher than what Sniper posted a few days ago,and I am getting totally lost
I am not able to comprehend how somehow “throwing out all standards” and just painting it to some imaginary “right” can result in a model looking “good”
I’m perfectly able to acknowledge that TLAR is a valid standard, and I have said so for years
I’m just not able to get OD for a tank, by starting with either pink and adding colors to it,or starting with the surrealist’s “fish” and getting a plane