Weathering, whats your opinion?

[viper3111]

As there is a bit of a discussion going on about weathering I thought I would move the post to here so we can air our opinions.

Please keep it civil and no digs at anyone, thanks


This may be of interest to some of you, it explains the effect of scale on paints

This is the RLM chart

http://www.cybermodeler.com/color/rlm_comp.shtml

[HighlandSniper]

Damned if I could ever get my head around that ... ... ...

[viper3111]

It confuses the out of me as well Rob, I just thought it may interest someone (any one? )

[HighlandSniper]

Cybermodeler published this article on Scale Colouring on Friday, I'm afraid to say I didn't make much sense out of it either.

To be absolutely honest, there are aspects of modelling today which IMO have gone way OTT - in this I mean excessive weathering, pre-shading and in particular use of ridiculously dark washes to emphasise panel lines. If the panel lines seen on some models shown on other fora/modelling site were scaled up, we'd have 1:1 aircraft with 2" gaps between panels and colour schemes reminiscent of subdued tartan.

In my opinion, we should be striving to achieve realism as a scale representation of the real thing, not to over-emphasise what would be seen in reality which is what so many supposedly top-notch modellers are doing today. Luckily, I've never seen this demonstrated among the excellent models I've seen here on FC.

[viper3111]

I can see where you are coming from Rob, Im new to the whole weathering thing my self. I do look at some builds and think its a bit of overkill but thats just my opinion. Then I see others that I think look a bit 'bare' and could use a bit of weathering so I guess its down to good old personal choice.

As there are so many aspects to the hobby I try and not just post things that are relevant to myself or what I like and I try to research other products and techniques. We all may learn something or we may think its pointless but thats how it goes.

These charts on 'scale effects on paints' are beyond me but it was an interesting read.

[HighlandSniper]

I've been weathering on and off for a long time, but not on aircraft models (AFVs in the seventies, but only scratching the surface if you'll pardon the pun, and weapons/kit etc. for 1/6th military figures for the past decade or so) so in reality I'm just a beginner as far as aircraft are concerned.

One sites like Cybermodeler and Hyperscale there are some incredible paint jobs, but often the effect of pre/post-shading and weathering is more appropriate to 1:1 than 1:48/1:32. I'm not mentioning names, but there's one well-known modeller in the British magazine/book world who is in my humble opinion the master of hugely over-done panel lines and weathering. Classic examples are Gulf War 1 Buccaneers, Tonkas and Jaguars - heavily weathered in real life, but so many models of these are way-way over done.

I feel guilty criticising because the models I'm talking about are better than I can aspire to, but still over-done and thus (in my opinion) wrong.

Am I being hypocritical with my comments - possibly yes - but forums like this are here to vent ones gripes and annoyances.

[Trenchard]

Personally I like a weathered model, so long as its accurate.

I do sometimes wonder what the modeller was trying to achieve when you see a model weathered that looks as though its been sat in outside storage for ten years, yet is representing a current in service jet.

[viper3111]

Ive seen some models that are cacked in weathering and as you say look like they have been sat out in the fens for 20 years rather than frontline aircraft. Its a bit of a shame but I think thats what makes our hobby interesting. There is so many different ways of doing things that not one model is the same as the other.

When I was doing my Avnger I 'copied' some chaps build on the net but I added my own twist to it and as I hadnt got the same washes he used eg sandy brown I just used dark dirt on its own in the cockpit. It was so simple but very efective.

I do pre shade some builds but not to much (dependant on the subject)

[HighlandSniper]

I do sometimes wonder what the modeller was trying to achieve when you see a model weathered that looks as though its been sat in outside storage for ten years, yet is representing a current in service jet.

Thank goodness I'm not the only one - that's exactly how I see it, Buccaneers supposedly in service which look like XV863 after ten years on the gate at Lossie, not after a few weeks in the Gulf.

US Navy carrier-borne aircraft are perhaps an exception, as these can be very heavily weathered in reality after a long operational cruise, but many modellers still over-do even these.

As for pre-shading - this works well, but within reason - you just have to follow build threads on some sites to see how excessively this can be done - we just have to look to a certain member here to see how it ought to be done eh Shaun

[Trenchard]

US Navy carrier-borne aircraft are perhaps an exception, as these can be very heavily weathered in reality after a long operational cruise, but many modellers still over-do even these.

Totally agree an F14 after a cruise is a real patch work affair paint and weathering wise. Yet the jets returning to Cottesmore from Khandahar looked little different to the based aircraft.

[Sheff]

It's an age-old saga. I remember arguments over weathering thirty years back when I joined IPMS and there's no real conclusion. It's just down to personal taste. As Highlandsniper says, the really impressive effects produced by some modellers look brilliant, but the effect is totally unrealistic. If realism was the aim, then you'd have to fill all the panel lines and virtually eliminate all the weathering, unless it was something like a USN F-14 or a Danish F-100, but the "reality" effect looks pretty uninspiring on a model, so it's always tempting to slightly overdo it, for artistic effect.

Same arguments have drifted-around over the shade of colours used. Ian Huntley used to write long, tedious articles about paint references and the results of the fading effect, depending on the distance from which you view a model. He (rightly) calculated that to look at a model from a distance of 3-4 feet, you would be seeing a real aircraft from a distance 72 times that (or whatever scale the model is), therefore the paint should be faded accordingly with the addition of white, to represent the effect that lighting has on real aircraft. Great theory, but when you actually finish a model like that it just looks odd, so nobody actually does it! Then of course you have to consider that you almost always look at a model under artificial light, whereas you usually look at real aircraft in natural light - so they always look completely different.

Then there's the question of paint references and how people obsess over FS and BS numbers, but real paint on real aircraft never looks like the official spec for more than a few days in any case. Look at the Dark Green on Vulcans - it was nearly brown after a few months! Doug Feeney often used to remind people of the folks in the paint shop at Mildenhall who sometimes patched-panels on US navy aircraft. Did they faithfully copy the appropriate FS numbers? Nope, they drove over to Halfords and bought some paint cans that looked about right!

So there's nothing you can do to get the "right" finish, simply because there isn't one. You just have to go for whatever you happen to like. At one time I dabbled with the art of filling panel lines and using pencil lines to represent panels, and it gives a realistic effect but not a very pleasing one. A mate of mine build airliners in 144th scale and carves great grooved panel lines out of them with a "P-cutter". As we both say, if the panel lines were scaled up they'd be about a foot deep on the real thing, but yet on the finished model the effect is impressive. Likewise, if you don't have panel lines you have nothing that a paint wash can run into, and these days if you don't paint wash, your model looks naked as far as some people are concerned! Then there's this nonsense about "Pre-Shading" which has been fashionable for a few years. Of course, we'd all been doing this for decades but by the opposite (and easier) route of simply spraying-in the centre of each panel with a slightly lighter shade after the top coat had been applied. Now some folks are touting this concept as "Post Shading" as if it's something new!

There are always fashions in the modelling world, so it's tempting to go with the flow sometimes, especially if you exhibit at shows and want to fit-in with everybody else. But ultimately it's your hobby and you are better off just doing what suits you and pleases you the most. Good grief, one of my old mates used to build all his models and finish them with his own "personal air force" unit markings! People could be arrested for that these days - I did talk him out of it eventually before the Plastic Thought Police caught him!

I think one of the problems is that far too many people take their lead from magazine pundits now, which is a risky business because there are no guarantees that the author has a clue what he's talking about, and of course no divine ruling which states that his approach is the best one. But modellers copy other modellers. Look at the "weighted tyres" business. When I started out, you rarely thought about altering a tyre, then Alan Hall and Chris Ellis started suggesting flattening the bottom surface with a hot knife. Then some folks started adding filler to bulge-out the side walls, and now there's a whole accessory market churning-out resin bulged wheel replacements for every kit. Trouble is, in many cases, the real aircraft's tyres don't bulge at all, but we now have a nation of model aircraft all of which seem to be suffering from pneumatic leaks - and ultimately it's all been because of magazine fashions. Fundamentally, I think a lot of modellers have a nasty habit of building all their models without ever looking at a real example of the machine they're modelling - not even so much as a photo. And of those that do bother to do some research (and heaven-knows there's enough reference material available these days), many seem to suffer from the "non-artist" affliction of looking at something but not actually seeing it - you know - assuming the sky is blue when it was perhaps grey or pink, and assuming the grass is green when it's brown.

Maybe the best plan is to just finish the models however you like and look at them from a distance under subdued lighting?! It's a bit like Ernie Lee's old line about the wisdom of spending time detailing the inside of a cockpit. His advice? Breathe on the inside of the canopy and slam it shut!

[viper3111]

I think you have summed it up pretty well there Tim. This is your hobby so if it looks good to you then thats all that matters, and if you enjoy doing it then you have accomplished the whole point of the hobby. If you didn't enjoy it then you wouldn't do it.

The only time this is different is when you enter competitions where people judge you on this sort of thing, our comp isn't like that as we will look at everything about the model. The weathering will be just a small part of it. I personally dont enter competition as I dont feel I would be up to there standards (and I cant enter ours as Im a judge and I supply the prizes so I just treated myself to a kit instead maybe another time ). This is why I started the comp on here so every one can join in, what ever your ability.

I do enjoy weathering but sometimes I look at a model Ive just finished and think it could do with a bit extra. The places I tend to spend the most time on is the cockpit and engines. I know most of the time you cant really see either but I just enjoy doing it and it doesnt bother me if I have to cover ether of them.
A good example of this is the Trumpeter 32nd P-47, it has all the ducting and vents inside the fuselage for the engine and supercharger. None of this will be seen but I will still paint it all as I get a bit of a kick knowing its in there.

Any one else have any views on the subject?

[HighlandSniper]

I too agree wholeheartedly with what Tim says. I mentioned a certain nameless self-appointed magazine expert who has had considerable influence of how things are today. One huge factor which also influences things is that a huge number of skilled modellers have no experience of real aircraft - or for that matter no interest in them - and thus have no idea of how to properly portray them. This is a major reason why I prefer this forum to the hard-core modelling ones, because we are aircraft enthusiasts as well as modellers, and a lot of us tend to model the aircraft we know, photograph and love.

It's not just modelling which encourages artificial effects and follows fads - I used to be very active in club photography and the exhibition circuit. There, in order to do well you have to pander to the ridiculous foibles of the judges, and thus you end up taking photographs to suit judges and exhibition panels more than anything else. After a number of years I said to myself "to hell with that" and went back to photographing what pleases me. I think modelling should go more in this direction, but I also think accuracy to the real thing is far more important than following trends encouraged by magazines.

[viper3111]

I honestly hadn't thought about that one Rob, as you say this is a forum mainly for aviation enthusiasts rather than as you say a 'hard core modelling forum'. I think that was what put me of the other forums dedicated to modelling. They were all very critical about who did what and why and they were more worried about over exaggerating things, rather than making it realistic. Those that didn't tow the line seemed to be ridiculed, hence I only belong to three forums (FC, Harborne and Relish models). But Im not saying these others are bad, they just weren't for me.

As you said we come from an aviation interest background, whether it be in the RAF, military photography, radios or other. I personally was an aircadet and I worked on aircraft at Duxford for many years with my uncle. So I have seen aircraft in many different states of repair from being on dumps right up to shiny front line aircraft.

I do try and get realism into my builds especially the ones I will be doing for the show, but I do also enjoy going a little over board (within reason)

[HighlandSniper]

I joined Britmodeller and LSP forums around Christmas and have already been put off by the elitism and cabal mentality demonstrated on both, plus the way one or two after market manufacturers who post are treated as super-humans who can do no wrong.

I like the FC modelling forum - there's enough expertise among other members to help others, plus where my abilities allow I can offer help without being told "what do I know" as happens elsewhere.

[Gary West]

This old one again - I'm not sure I understand why people find this question so difficult - it's easy honest!

When you build a kit, you build a model of the REAL thing, a REAL aircraft (for instance). I mean a specific aircraft rather than type.

So you simply copy your subject - if your subject is highly weathered, then so should your build. If your subject is clean.......you get the idea.

I recently completed this highly weathered Canberra -





It represents the Canberra fleet as usually seen in their latter life, so very well worn was the order in most cases. Exactly what I wanted.

To me weathering is no different to any other area of building a kit, unless you are a what-if builder, the weapons fit, markings, scheme etc has to be accurate and weathering is part and parcel of that.

Build what you see!

[viper3111]

Although I do agree with that, I do feel that there should be a bit of artistic lisence as some models that I build, pictures are few and far between. Like the Ely gate gaurd I will be doing, there are pictures of it but it is in varing different states of repair and the pictures arnt always clear or they are black and white. Other arcraft that I build the pictures of the 'in service' aircraft are in black and white and very hard to see what colour the 'dirt' is. There are some types which are only to be found in musesums and are therefore either realy shiny and well looked after or very 'green' and un loved. Neither of which represents the aircraft when it was 'in service' so unless you were lucky enough to be there and pictured that exact aircraft in enough detail to model I think it should be up to the individual.

A good example of this is Thomas christans aircraft from the 361st FG, there is an argument going on about the colour of it. Some say it was blue on top others say it was green. Urban Drew who flew 'Dertoit miss' said "there wernt any blue aircraft at bottisham" but others say there were. My mums husband grew up in Bottisham at the time and he says he thinks there were blue aircraft. So I built both colour aircraft.

[Gary West]

I do feel that there should be a bit of artistic lisence as some models that I build, pictures are few and far between.

Well this is a valid point of course Shaun, and I have to say that I am a bit of a research nut prior to any build. However, if artistic licence is required, then surely the whole "should I or shouldn't I weather" question goes out the window anyway?

[viper3111]

Good point,
I do try to research all aircraft I build, thankfully I found some pictures of the exact Rafale I was doing so that helped on that one. But I think that if you cant find the exact aircraft then you could look for pictures of that type in the same time frame, base, campaign and go by them. But who am I to say how people should do there aircraft.

I think that if you think it looks good then thats all that matters, again only my own personal opinion.
There are some realy good points on this subject coming up, any one else?

[Flyingmonster]

Good point,
I do try to research all aircraft I build, thankfully I found some pictures of the exact Rafale I was doing so that helped on that one. But I think that if you cant find the exact aircraft then you could look for pictures of that type in the same time frame, base, campaign and go by them. But who am I to say how people should do there aircraft.

I think that if you think it looks good then thats all that matters, again only my own personal opinion.
There are some realy good points on this subject coming up, any one else?

For my competition build I have done that. I have found pictures of the exact machine I am building and have then found paticular resourses that cover the aircraft in more general terms. I am then going to use them to create the best I can and hopefully do the aircraft some justice I think it is always good to do the odd bit of research as you never know what you will learn or could miss out!!