Jump to content

Pre-Shading


TwoHands

Recommended Posts

I've seen models with heavy panel line shading that look fantastic, not realistic but look great nonetheless.  Isn't it up to the modeler how they want to paint their projects?  I see this a lot with armor guys.  Mig has some killer looking tanks that even he admits aren't realistic to scale.  A lot of things get over done because at this scale, the affects are difficult to capture from the real thing.  In the end it's really up the the modeler and the look they are going for.  

 

 

My point exactly. Each to their own, and if you take the model in context, not as an accurate exact representation, some can look really interesting in a good way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion- and let's face, these are all personal opinions- I think we have gone from too much pre-shading to now believing that any pre-shading is a no-no.  Granted, the patch-work quilt look is very unrealistic, but sometimes the subject aircraft DOES have heavy panel lines (& rivet detail) and DOES have some panel detail that is darker at the join.  Time and time again I read about somebody who works on real fighter jets, etc. and claims that they are kept in tip-top shape and heavy weathering is unrealistic.  Well, maybe that's usually the case, but not always.  Pre-shading brings out darker shadows that exist on the real deal.  Here are some examples of a heavily weathered F-4E that Scott Wilson (1st two) and I took (last pic).  Note the heavy panel lines and darker blotches all over the place.

 

GfHG2t.jpg

 

nZq5CB.jpg

 

CX5iN0.jpg

 

 

With a lot of pre-shading, NOT on every panel line, you can get something that looks fairly close like this:

 

 

UGXNCy.jpg

 

 

Another example of our Canadian CF-18's. 

 

 

IaVq1d.jpg

 

 

Note the very dark panel line shadows at the rear.

 

 

t7qf57.jpg

 

 

EunRw4.jpg

 

 

 

Some results with pre-shading...

 

 

qD5lKQ.jpg

 

byrvJl.jpg

 

 

As I mentioned already above, pre-shading every single panel line is overkill, but some pre-shading can create realistic results, depending on the subject you are trying to replicate.

 

 

Cheers,

Chuck

Edited by chuck540z3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion- and let's face, these are all personal opinions- I think we have gone from too much pre-shading to now believing that any pre-shading is a no-no.

 

 

I completely agree with that assessment. There definitely is a happy medium, and while artistic expression is part of it, I think some can be good depending on how its applied. 

 

I also agree that the results you got on the F-18, not unlike the ones I was trying to represent on my SU-30 504 are a more accurate representation of the actual 1:1. I think the hornet looks tremendous, and in that case the panel shading looks very effective. 

Similar to the effect I attempted to pull off on the rudder of 504:

 

SU-30_MKK_504_1-XL.jpg

 

DSC03194-XL.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

My point here is not to contradict any previous statements on pre-shading, its only that I agree with Chucks statement about the temperament swinging the other way.

I personally dont like the checkerboard/quilted look at ALL, but I think there can be a call for the technique.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One need look no further than typical HAF Vipers and Rhinos, to see extreme examples of grimy, heavily touched up examples. If a photo is included at a competition, the judges cannot hardly say that it's unrealistic (nor would they), as the reality, speaks for itself.

 

83LnjN.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of you have reached the point I wanted to make. There is a HUGE difference in what "looks good" and what's accurate. In a modeling contest accuracy should rule, but the most accurate model may not look as good as the "best in show".

 

Accuracy is so subjective for the average person, that it's nigh on impossible to measure or gauge appropriately.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. If you are trying to replicate a real machine, look at the real machine and replicate it. That doesn't sound too difficult a concept.

 

It all goes pear shaped when they IMAGINE what it looks like rather than find out what it realky looks like.

 

And then it gets worse when modelmaking is done primarily to impress others, or win competitions. Something eye catching is more tempting to do than something visually less interesting, but factually more accurate.

 

Same applies to rediculous models with a full bomb load, while having an engine change, with the pilots helmet precariously balanced on the cockpit sill..... Bleaugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CX5iN0.jpg

 

There are some great pictures here.

 

Taking this one as an example, for me the interesting thing is how many marks don't follow the panel lines. You need to be a pretty confident modeller to put in streaks and blobs that seem to spread randomly onto a model

 

Love that oily mess spreading top to bottom

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Clunkmeister

Posted by wunwinglow:

"Same applies to rediculous models with a full bomb load, while having an engine change, with the pilots helmet precariously balanced on the cockpit sill..... Bleaugh."

 

 

 

I think I might have actually seen something similar a time or two at model shows.

 

A bomber down for some heavy maintenance, all inspection panels open, engines uncowled, up on stands with the gear halfway through a swing test,..... with all defensive armament nicely mounted on their swivel mounts and deployed, all ready for some heavy action, fully charged with belts fed into the breeches.

 

Or a Huey with the engine and transmission opened up for work, and the door guns sitting there nicely mounted and charged, all ready for some serious rock and roll...

 

Now, in my military career, any Sergeant Major I've ever come into contact with would have dropped a litter of kittens if he had ever seen that situation, and the guilty culprits would be on forever extra duties. :(

Edited by Clunkmeister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are some great pictures here.

 

Taking this one as an example, for me the interesting thing is how many marks don't follow the panel lines. You need to be a pretty confident modeller to put in streaks and blobs that seem to spread randomly onto a model

 

Love that oily mess spreading top to bottom

 

Richard

 

 

More food for thought.  Check out this Viper Aggressor....

 

https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/55.-F-16A.-NSAWC.-NAS-Fallon-with-Mount-Augusta-in-the-back-ground.jpg

 

Cheers,

Chuck

Edited by chuck540z3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't pre-shade very much.  I found that I tended to cover up any pre-shading during the painting process, especially if there is a two-tone scheme.  I find it useful to do it with random streaks and spurts on a monochrome finish.  But I don't follow the panel lines.  That looks too regular to me.  Randomness is what I want to see.

 

Whether it be chipping, shading, or those ridiculous looking long trails of airbrushed soot receding back from the tips of the gun barrels, any pattern that looks human-made turns me straight off.  I just quit looking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One need look no further than typical HAF Vipers and Rhinos, to see extreme examples of grimy, heavily touched up examples. If a photo is included at a competition, the judges cannot hardly say that it's unrealistic (nor would they), as the reality, speaks for itself.

 

83LnjN.jpg

My contest models were always displayed with a pack of photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the reasons I joined LSP. These kind of discussions are great and are food for thought.

 

It all boils down to the personal liking of the individual creating their masterpiece.

 

I've spent my entire adult life working on and being around aircraft. Some are immaculate. Some could use a wash. Some need to head to Depot and be stripped and redressed. But as general rule, if it's flying, it's dirty. Scuff marks from boots (unless it's a demo bird and boot covers are used), power cords dragged across drop tanks, pooling fluids that find their way to the fresh air, etc. Dirt and grime has a way of doing it's own thing. How you depict it is your deal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm from the school of light gray primer and spraying variant colors around to achieve my variation (this is twice as much work). I never spray black anywhere (unless it's supposed to be black) and even then, I usually use an off-black color (See tire-black). I've tried black pre-shade once and I wholeheartedly did not like the outcome, I also recently tried black basing on a test model and that looked pretty phony as well - In my opinion of course! Black basing suffers greatly from darker deeper colors. It seems to work best on USN Airplanes specifically. Since my first models, I've moved pretty far away from heavy weathering as a whole - I prefer cleaner airplanes as once you start heavy weathering off of a black and white photo, you start to enter into the artist rendition and away from the overall beauty of the machine - surely there are exceptions here! My preference has yet to let me down in the show scene - judges have never said "boy there needs to be more dirt on that airplane"

 

Just my 2 pennies, and of course it's only my opinion and preference. I wont poo-poo on anyone's work. I'm sure you can find a use for every technique on specific machines.

 

Justin

Edited by FunkyZeit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm from the school of light gray primer and spraying variant colors around to achieve my variation (this is twice as much work). I never spray black anywhere (unless it's supposed to be black) and even then, I usually use an off-black color (See tire-black). I've tried black pre-shade once and I wholeheartedly did not like the outcome, I also recently tried black basing on a test model and that looked pretty phony as well - In my opinion of course! Black basing suffers greatly from darker deeper colors. It seems to work best on USN Airplanes specifically. Since my first models, I've moved pretty far away from heavy weathering as a whole - I prefer cleaner airplanes as once you start heavy weathering off of a black and white photo, you start to enter into the artist rendition and away from the overall beauty of the machine - surely there are exceptions here!

 

Just my 2 pennies, and of course it's only my opinion and preference. I wont poo-poo on anyone's work. I'm sure you can find a use for every technique on specific machines.

 

Justin

 

I plan on black basing my Intruder for that reason! I feel it will bring out the tonal differences in the grays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...