Don't get me wrong; I greatly appreciate talent. Maybe it has something to do with building airplanes taking a more realistic approach to modeling our subjects, but I feel most everyone here is a modeler first and might consider themselves artists second at best. Some of the other genres of kits allow a more interpretive method of painting and weathering, where one is more comfortable to try schemes that likely never existed. I mean, anything you paint on a dinosaur model is pure conjecture, right? We have no real life examples so now we base their appearance on our expectation of similar living species. You can paint a model car any way you like, as you can do that in real life.
But while one might smile at the notion of painting a B-52 in the polka-dot assembly ship pattern Shep Paine demonstrated in the pamphlet that came with the Monogram B-24 kit, I'm pretty sure that never happened. Same with those Tiger tanks that are so rusty and chipped they look like they fell in a saltwater tank, got fished out, and were dried by firing rust flakes at them with a high-pressure hose. They pull Stugs out of bogs that are in better shape. And don't even get me started on modulation. I know many people dig it, but I don't quite understand the point of simulating light fall from a particular direction, unless you are sure you can align the model with the room lighting. I understand it is to create contrast and make an otherwise monotone paint job more interesting, but at heart it is about the illusion of light catching various points on the model and using different shades of base coat to create light/shadow points where you want them--rather than where natural falling light would place them. Maybe I just have a sensitivity to types of lighting. One of my biggest peeves still with CGI is how they still haven't quite gotten to the point where light hitting CGI characters matches the living actors. This is sorely obvious to me in the Marvel and DC films, as well as Star Wars. When I see the Hulk, for example, all I see is a big chunk of pixels that was plainly inserted into the footage. It's like watching modern day versions of old B-movies where the giant spider is horribly spliced into the scene with the stock footage of screaming city people, only not as entertaining to me. Okay, so I went from a rant on going too far with technique to one about bad CGI. It happens. But then I am the kid who stood up at the end of "E.T." and proclaimed loudly to my dad and brother, "Why is everyone crying? It was just a puppet."