too much

[richdlc]

my 2p worth

 

coming from an armour background, I love my weathering.  Some aircraft in my opinion have to be weathered (example Corsair, Skyraider, most Japanese WWII types).  How heavily you do it is up to you.  My rule of thumb is - if you can see it on the real thing, if you have a photo that shows heavy weathering, then it's OK to replicate it on your model.

 

As others have said - it depends who you are building it for and why.  If you like it, then that's your objective achieved.  

[Babelfish Steve]

Build, paint .......... and be happy!

 

- Steve

[scvrobeson]

My rule has always been consult the references. If I have a photo of the plane I'm building, or of a similar plane in the squadron under the same circumstances, I feel comfortable trying to match that. With my B-25, I had multiple color photos of the exact plane I was building, so was able to use that to my advantage. And I still had people telling me I hadn't painted it properly, even with color photos not two feet away.

 

 

 

Matt 

[ericg]

A great debate and one that has been kept above board. Certainly on other sites it would have degenerated into a messy debacle by now.

 

Here are my thoughts: it is certainly a trend that has become more common place lately. It is easy to overdo but it is one technique that I think is very important to master correctly. Remember we are trying to trick the eye that it is looking at a real aircraft and not a model. The model doesn't have the benefit of the natural light bouncing off panels so we need to create the impression that it does. I think of pre shading as part of the paint finish package; that it is only a component of the final finish. Aircraft are made of many different panels that reflect light differently. A model that doesn't have a subtle persuade can often look a little flat

 

Eric

Edited November 6, 2013 by ericg

[bigern007]

Well stated everyone....I agree,and, I disagree!!   What do I know Anyhoo??

 

At least a civil discussion.     Do it your way and enjoy our great hobby!!       Ernie   

[Out2gtcha]

Every time something like this gets posted, the thread always goes the same way - people post something perceived as critical, a few agree, then a few more say don't criticize, its a hobby, etc. and someone does a google search and posts some images of exceptions in an attempt to defend the thing being criticized.   

 

That being said, I don't think anyone here would disagree that each model is the modeler's own work, and they should do what they want.  

 

However, using the excuse of modeling = "art" to excuse/defend over-the-top weathering is not a good argument.  It would work better to justify someone painting their Spitfire purple with pink stripes.  In that case, it is clear that the Spitfire model is "art" in that it in no way attempts to mimic or represent a real Spitfire.  Why do modelers weather their models?  Is it to create "art", or to try to make their model look more like the real thing (realistic)?  I think I can safely say that 99% of the people here (except maybe Stephen - who really does use models to make his art) weather their models in an effort to make it look more realistic, rather than trying to create a piece of "art".

 

I think we can all agree that realistic weathering is hard to do.  But, it seems most want to do it, and try to do it, so I would think that discussion/feedback on what looks realistic and what does not look realistic would be welcomed, since it would seem we are all trying to do weathering that looks realistic.  Like any advice, each person can decide to ignore it or embrace it.

 

I also think everyone here is an adult who can think for themselves, so let's not shy away from discussions like these, but rather embrace them as an attempt to help all of us achieve the modeling results we are after.  I know that I personally appreciate it when someone points out something to me that I might have done wrong (hopefully in time to fix it), and I enjoy seeing the techniques used by others so that I can decide it there is a better way to get the modeling results I am after.

 

Doug

 

 

I do think you bring up some valid points Doug. I didnt want to admit it at first since Im usually in the "do as you wish with your model" camp overall,  but the point of most of us attempting at least emulate weathering is a fact vs outright interpretive art. Stephen aside, as I have seen the art side, but have not seen any attempts at weathering on a scale realistic model to compare them to.

 

I guess my definition of "art" in this case, is in the aspect of taking a lump pile of plastic and interpreting it into something that is each our own. True, when I see an obviously over-weathered model (especially one being over weathered for the situation its in) I tend to think more negatively of it just based on the fact that my personal preference is fore more mild weathering save certain circumstances.

 

I think that was more to my original point, of the discussion being good, but the overall thread is still being based in opinion................which Im not saying is a bad thing overall..............its just more subjective.

[wunwinglow]

Can I introduce a word that I don't think I have seen yet in this discussion? That word is 'believable'. The point at which weathering, or any other aspect of the model, starts to fail to convince me, is the point when the illusion of reality also fails. It is an illusion of course, a trick, a fiction, but no less enthralling if the modeller can pull it off successfully!

 

So many things contribute to a successful model, and the really skilled modeller will bring the whole together, without any aspect sticking out to break the spell. This could be the weathering, but has to include all the other aspects of the hobby as well; no point in perfect sooty gunsmoke stains, if there is a gluey fingerprint on the canopy. No point in perfect oil stains if the tailplanes are not square. No point in a crash diorama with perfect crumpled alu minium it the model is placed hard up against a solid wall, which would have been demolished in the crash! Worst I ever saw like this was a wrecked tank that had its turret blown clean off, while it was in a ruined church. You could tell it was a church because the windows were all stained glass. But 4 feet away from an explosion that had lifted a 8 ton turret clean out of the diorama? I doubt there was a window left in any building within 100 yards! But 4 feet away?! Illusion shattered instead, just completely unbelievable.

 

So, is it too much, or not enough? Do you believe it? You answer your own question.

 

Tim

[Haggis]

This is a great discussion despite having all the usual forum debate clichés!

 

One thing I think is very important is references, look at the real thing and then decide to try and replicate what you can see, how you get there doesn't really matter as long as you achieve what you set out to achieve.  In fact, even if you don't that's also valuable as you will have learnt something.  Something I have seen recently is people expecting to read forums, study magazines and books, watch the DVD and then expect to be brilliant at it straight away!  As with everything in life, it takes practice and many failures to get good!

[brewer]

This is certainly a great discussion with good points from all sides. Being a young guy still trying to find my "style", I can see the merit in all approaches to finishing models - factory fresh, used and abused, exaggerated, etc - and have much respect for a well-built model of any style.

 

With the platitudes out of the way (though sincere) I'll throw my opinion into the ring. Factory fresh, shiny models just look like toys to me. Personally I like a model that really grabs your attention. I like the way the "spanish style" really stands out, though as with everything it can be overdone. Like Jamie, I think references are important and enjoy trying to duplicate what I see in photos of actual aircraft. My ideal finish is somewhere in between a flashy, stylistic approach and a photorealistic weathered model.

[nzdavidh]

I tend to avoid subjects that don't require weathering. It's one of those skills I would love to master... its the bit of the process that really brings modelling to life for me.

 

I have to admit to be being a bit of a fan of pre-shading as a weathering technique but not the meticulous outlining of panel lines using black paint approach. To my eye that always results in a cartoon like effect. No matter how subtle the effect, if I can pick black preshaded panel lines the illusion is ruined for me.

 

I like using a more random approach and pre-shading colours that compliment the range of tones you're aiming for at the end of the process (which means you'd almost never use black as a pre-shading colour). I also tend to avoid shading the panel lines, focusing instead on particular areas that might have weathered and leaving others alone. I see it as one more technique in the tool-kit so wouldn't write it off completely (reflecting on some of the early comments in this thread regarding pre-shading).