looking for the most realistic chipped paint efect...

[Hermesminiatures]

The foam method is definitely not a cheat, sorry. It is at least as realistic as using a paintbrush. If you prefer brushes, that’s fine, and you do a very good job with them, but that doesn’t make the foam method “cheating”. It’s used by many highly respected modelers and is seen pretty universally as the best chipping method available.

rios, it seems that maybe you haven’t really learned to use some of these techniques before writing them off. I wouldn’t write off oil filters just because you had thinner problems, you can get rid of the lines by coating the model in thinner before application or by giving the whole model a coat of thinner after all the filters are completely cured.

Your work is really good, but that doesn’t mean that your methods are the only way to get those results.

[TMN1]

I’ll show you some pictures of “real” chips maybe they can help a bit. These are from 2 Tiger tanks that i shot some pictures of at Bovington last weekend, these are museum vehicles and both have been repainted after the war, so this is NOT real war time chipping or combat chipping, however it looks realistic and are in the right places, side skirts and tool brackets.

The first is a Kingtiger with production turret. Look at the rear most side skirt, and then i also have a close up of this chipping.

The other is a tool clamp on a Kingtiger with the so-called Porsche turret.

[Carves]

The trouble with chipped paint is that is is almost invariably overdone in 1/35 scale. As a technique, it has taken on a life of its own where modeler 1 does a little and it looks good, modeler 2 uses 1 as a reference, and adds more, modeller 3 uses 2 as a reference and adds more, etc. Before you know it, people are producing models that look like abandoned heaps that have been sitting out in the elements for 50 years.

Uses original photos as reference. You’ll find very little chipping, partly because these things didn’t last very long.

Avoid using earth moving equipment as a reference. That stuff is typically a lot older than any WW II tank during the war and has been intentionally rammed into the ground repeatedly.

[#ditto] I totally agree. As I build more tank and read more war jurnal and war photos, plus there is a topic regarding how long does a WWII AFV last during the war. I come to realized that German tank (especially) hardly get a chance to get really rusty and heavily chipped.

All I can see from the war photos are normal wear and tear, minimal chips and ding only to those areas that are heavily traffic by crew and stowage.

I can still recall a photo of a winter camo Stug that was lately pulled out of it’s mud grave for more than 40 years. And to my surprise the winter camo is still fully intact.

However, there are things thats always there, those are;

• Rain steaks
• Dust, mud
• Paint worn out (not chipped or dings)
• Oil spils and splasses

I think that when I’m modelling a tank, I’m trying to impute the feeling of what the vehicle has been through, as well as an intangible, amorphous characterization of what the vehicle represents–power, destruction, invincibility, fear, horror, etc,…[snip]

Doog also has a point here, it is important to feel what the tank we are modelling been through.

Just use reference photo of a tank that you are trying to depict. It is best to plan a head before even start building the model. And when the weathering stage begin, always start light weathering then add as accordingly. Remember that it is easy to add more weathering then to take them off.

---

Ben

[jthurston]

First, let me say that compelling arguments have been made in both directions here. Personally, I agree that chipping is mostly wayyy overdone, BUT I like it. Here’s one of my 251’s with the extra-heavy (and yes, intentionally overdone) chipping:

(bear in mind that this build had other weathering stuff done as well, about as subtle as a jackhammer - but you can see the idea)

As Doog pointed out, sometimes it’s all about conveying an idea, more than replicating an exact, historically-accurate copy of a particular vehicle at a particular moment.

The technique I generally use for my chipping doesn’t neccesarily mean I have to overdo it, either. I do that because I think it looks cool, but you can use this technique lightly and create only minor chipping in areas of excessive wear & tear, if you prefer.

All I do, actually, is apply a very small amount of paint (you decide which color, but I always use either Tamiya or Vallejo acryllics), directly to the edges to be chipped, using a sponge brush:

Sponge brushes like these can be found at Hobby Lobby. I think I paid $3.00 for a bag of 50. Apply the paint using the pointy edge of the sponge, not the flat sides.

[rios]

Let’s talk about the issues one by one Hermesminiatures.

First, about filters If you wet the surface before applying acrylic filter, there will be no edge lines at all. Whiile, using oil, you’ll still get the lines and have to dab off with clean thinner. Besides the fluid property of the thinner, this also has to do with the fact oil dries slowly, and unevenly.

I’m not saying dabbing/rewetting the surface cannot get rid of the lines, but that also spread your paint pigments around in an unwanted way. As a result, oil filters would make the model looked dirty. Not the dusty kind of dirty, rather the filters get mixed up and float around, especially near the bondries.

I meant, the whole purpose behind using filter instead of washes is so it’s more controllable and clean, both in the horizontal plain and vertically. Why not use the best suited materials for the job?

I recognized people still use oil filters, that doesn’t mean it’s advantagous compared to acrylic filters. Some pros still rely on dry brushing instead of filters, does that mean it’s better?

I’m not experienced with the foam method like you, never claimed to be. However, from the very limited exposure to it, I’ve already noticed some significient disadvantages.

For example, We all know chips are uneven, so not all chipped areas are rusted. How are you ever going to diplict that with the foam method?

If you can paint the rust color within the smallest dots of exposed undercoat produced by a foam (the other way around isn’t feasible because you don’t produce one dot at a time with foam), then you really don’t need to use the foam method do you?

From what I’ve seen, everybody that uses foam method paint their chips with single color. Whether it’s mixed or right out of a bottle, that’s simply not right. You’ll never find real chips that’s completely rusted through out ( look closely at the chips on the tool clamp TMN1 posted please), so in a way, this method by itself does not produce realistic chips.

Another problem is the size and location of the dots. You cannot control these percisely with the foam method for obvious reasons. I agree the foam products looked ok from a distance, but if you looked from a close distance, the size of the dots are uniformed throughout, that isn’t realistic either.

email me and I’ll sent you full size pictures of the painted chips, you’ll know what I meant.

Nicoletti466@gmail.com

I’m not saying my method is the only way to get the right results. And it’s not a “method”, just plain painting… I don’t like it either, it’s tedious work and very time consuming, and I’m opened to other shortcuts like everyone else.

The foam method IMHO isn’t a good way since it doesn’t produce realistic enough paint chips that could stand up to close inspections. It’s not a shortcut, because it doesn’t reach the destination, therefor I considered it a cheat. Does that not make sense at all?