WWII Weathering Fallacy or Truth. Accuracy.

[BarleyBop]

35 feet

Ha, put that way, seems pretty ridiculous doesn't it!
But so perversely satisfying, especially if you darken the wood where grubby hands would have grabbed it!

 

[Deleted member 11187]

Ha, put that way, seems pretty ridiculous doesn't it!
But so perversely satisfying, especially if you darken the wood where grubby hands would have grabbed it!

Exactly.
I get the technique and the practice, but c'mon.
It's not real. Realistic on its own, sure. As a standalone model in and of itself. Yep. Very realistic. On the side of a Ferdinand in the foothills of the Gustav line at 35-40 feet.
Mmm, I'll mentally give it a pass.

 

[OldManModeler]

Having been here a few times...
https://www.mclbbarstow.marines.mil/

And seen vehicles like this, and many others....

They don't look like a model kit.

They are serious. They are transport and killing machines. The reality is bland and in-your-face serious. No video games. No fun. No fine weathering.

In the middle east it's just sand colors and more sand grit in your mouth and clothes. Orders and protocol. There isn't much fun about it. It was the same in WWII. It was and is a sad place to be.

It's get it done to save your country or other countries that value Freedom.

But we, in the plastic scale world... This modeling of scale models is an Art.

You are ALL artists. ARTISTS.

Not necessarily warriors. But appreciated still.

Carry on.

Be well. Model on.

Eric

 

[OldManModeler]

So, find the joy in building plastic kits of historical value, and that can indeed be joyful. Do it out of your personal respect in doing quality in your achievements. Or for the sake of history. Or as respect to the men and women who died for freedom...

..... So later, you could buy and build plastic kits of armor or cars or aircraft, or whatever. And be free.

 

[Jim62]

Though I like to see other folks weathering, I've taken to doing clean builds on my aircraft. They just look better to me on my shelves.

 

[urumomo]

Show me a picture of the wood grain on an hickory Ace Hardware shovel handle at 35 feet and I'll buy lunch.

IDK if that's a good analogy .
I assume you are saying that a 1:1 human eyeball one foot away from a 1/35 model would see what the 1/35 eyeball would .
But the 1:1 eyeball is a 175 mm objective lens at that scale ( internet says the average pupil is 2 to 8 mm diameter depending on light , so I pick the middle @ 5mm for this )
The 1/35 pupil is a pinpoint .
or maybe I haven't had enough coffee .

 

[MJY65]

^^^^
I'm not sure how the eye actually works compared to a lens, but in photography, a 50mm lens was considered "normal". It gives roughly the field of view you get with your eyes.

That aside, the scale assumption is that you are viewing that model from 3' away. The assertion is that anything you would see at that viewing distance would be visible at 105' in real life. I call BS on that one as a premise for detailing. You may be able to walk up to that 1:1 tank or airplane and be mere feet away. That's the equivalent of viewing your model from inches. If someone wants to paint dirt on shovel handles, I think it looks fine. Real shovels have hand prints. Real airplanes have stains. Neither one has a glorious pre-shaded grid pattern laid out on the flat surfaces. Just my preference.

 

[urumomo]

I consider scale modeling to be a multidisciplinary art .
People should do what they want .
Go all Jackson ******* on that battleship if you want .

The camera comparison to the whole giant eyeball thing -- I need to look into later this evening .
what is the F-stop of my eyeball ?
I need to re-watch some old Six Million Dollar Man episodes . Get it going on .

 

[MJY65]

I consider scale modeling to be a multidisciplinary art .
People should do what they want .
Go all Jackson ******* on that battleship if you want .

Agreed. I build little toy plastic airplanes. If model builders were "normal", we'd be embarrassed to admit it.

 

[urumomo]

I'll start by trying to figure out the focal length of my mind

probably

 

[BarleyBop]

focal length of my mind

Haha. As odd as it seems, this is probably the closest to the truth... though your eyes have the lenses, and the receptors, 'sight' happens in the visual cortex, and is mostly interpolation and interpretation in your mind, filling in details that aren't there, missing things that are, because your mind has usually already decided what you are seeing before you really look.

We tend to think that sight is objective, but we have been trained since birth and enculturated to see the world in a certain way. Like it or not.

Walk through the forest with someone who has spent their entire life there, and they will see things much differently than you even though it is exactly the same light landing on their retinas as yours.

 

[urumomo]

yep , it's all in the head .
color doesn't exist .
And even if 2 sets of eyeballs are sending the same signal , the brains interpreting the signal will be different .

 

[Jakko]

Walk through the forest with someone who has spent their entire life there, and they will see things much differently than you even though it is exactly the same light landing on their retinas as yours.

Not sure that's to do with the light so much as with knowledge about/experience with the subject matter. It's no different from approximately 99.9% of the population being able to tell you no better than that this:—

is "a tank", while a large part of the remaining people can tell you it's "a German Panther tank" but not really anything more substantial. Part of the remainder of that can tell you it's "a German Panther Ausführung D" while a smaller part still will tell you things about its details (twin rather than one sight opening in the mantlet, for example) and what this means for the relative production date of this particular tank.

 

[Deleted member 11187]

^^^^
I'm not sure how the eye actually works compared to a lens, but in photography, a 50mm lens was considered

I'll start by trying to figure out the focal length of my mind

probably

"normal". It gives roughly the field of view you get with your eyes.

That aside, the scale assumption is that you are viewing that model from 3' away. The assertion is that anything you would see at that viewing distance would be visible at 105' in real life. I call BS on that one as a premise for detailing. You may be able to walk up to that 1:1 tank or airplane and be mere feet away. That's the equivalent of viewing your model from inches. If someone wants to paint dirt on shovel handles, I think it looks fine. Real shovels have hand prints. Real airplanes have stains. Neither one has a glorious pre-shaded grid pattern laid out on the flat surfaces. Just my preference.

Afternoon gentlemen.
I had seen a mathematical equation someone had figured out, for what was all that, to get all that.
Normal viewing distance as I understand it, is
One foot. Then the 35X works out.
An average freight trailer is 53'. Can you see the wood grain at that distance? Walk towards it by two basketball goals, see any?
I don't disparage the dedication that goes into this. The practice, technique. It's not something I believe I need. And I wouldn't say so to anyone, when their hard work is on display. No offense to anyone here that practices this art.
It's too much for an average beginner, to try and accomplish out of the box and shouldn't square off his wheels, if he can't. But, it's in all the hobby magazines and that's the bar.

 

[Deleted member 11187]

Credit:
Panzer Aces 52, 2016
Carlos Alba López/Modeler.

 

[Edbert]

... is mostly interpolation and interpretation in your mind, filling in details that aren't there, missing things that are, because your mind has usually already decided what you are seeing before you really look.

I did a lot of illustration back in the day, it was actually my day job for almost a decade. One thing you learn very quickly when using photographs as a reference is that the mind will accept that photograph as real when an EXACT drawing of the thing as seen in the photo looks "wrong". This is not necessarily "filling in" details, it is filtering them out.

Your subconscious accepts the weird angle of the discus-thrower's arm as accurate (even if the lens is distorting it, or the muscles and sinews are, or the 1/200th of a second frame-rate) but when rendered as a painting you'd say that artist messed up that arm.

So the artist will be forced to or learn to adjust their drawing to make the mind happy with what it sees, even if it is technically inaccurate.

 

[BarleyBop]

Not sure that's to do with the light

Exactly, its what is in the head that makes the difference, even if the signal (light) is the same...

Your subconscious accepts the weird angle of the discus-thrower's arm as accurate

It will be interesting to see, in twenty years, after people have been sufficiently mislead, duped and cheated by photographic looking AI images, and virtual unreality, just how this whole discussion will go!

I did a lot of illustration

Nice! I hope you will bring other insights to our discussions and in your build process posts, from your particular perspective (pardon the pun!)

Perhaps we could start a separate thread on the mechanics of sight, cognition and visual design principles as applied to model building. Not everyone's cup of tea, but there is a lot there to share and learn.

 

[Sailor]

Yes agree specially the over shading of panels that look very unrealistic. I prefer marbling to break up the monotone colors.

Pannel lines are like religion, " I know what I believe, don' confuse me with the facts". Weathering in general is all about various sects. I am convinced that most air craft modelers build models of panel lines. When you look at there model they "pop". I endeavor to build my models based on a specific photo of it in action. If you have a different criteria of what you want your model to be, that is fine; it is your model!

 

[MJY65]

Pannel lines are like religion, " I know what I believe, don' confuse me with the facts". Weathering in general is all about various sects. I am convinced that most air craft modelers build models of panel lines. When you look at there model they "pop". I endeavor to build my models based on a specific photo of it in action. If you have a different criteria of what you want your model to be, that is fine; it is your model!

I'll admit to being a panel liner. I probably do more than is realistic, but try to differentiate between an actual movable gap like gear doors, flap-wing joints, aileron-wing joints (darkest/dirtiest), access panels (smaller and not as dark) and riveted on panels (finest and lightest). My goal is that you can see the largest real life gaps from the greatest viewing distance. Sometimes, I am more successful than others and will never get it perfect.

 

[OldManModeler]

Credit:
Panzer Aces 52, 2016
Carlos Alba López/Modeler.

View attachment 136478

Those tool handles are a prime example of this topic. In the article narrative: "Just like it happens in real life"......

"Who was there Sarge? You or me"? ....Paraphrased from the deadly accurate TV show Rat Patrol. LOL @BarleyBop reminded me of that quote.

Yet, it is accepted as authentic in the modelers realm and to the uninformed.

But it is all good. And it looks cool to some. And some modelers swear by it.

That is the beauty of scifi modeling. It only happened in your imagination and there is no authenticity.

Be well. Model on.

Eric

 

[Edbert]

I'll admit to being a panel liner. I probably do more than is realistic, <snip>

So do I, even while saying it is not realistic.

Why?

Because I like it, and it is my model, my paint, and my time.

I do think that despite all the opinions, that is one thing that most will agree with, do it the way you want, even if going all ******* on it.

 

[Deleted member 11187]

Exactly, its what is in the head that makes the difference, even if the signal (light) is the same...

It will be interesting to see, in twenty years, after people have been sufficiently mislead, duped and cheated by photographic looking AI images, and virtual unreality, just how this whole discussion will go!

Nice! I hope you will bring other insights to our discussions and in your build process posts, from your particular perspective (pardon the pun!)

Perhaps we could start a separate thread on the mechanics of sight, cognition and visual design principles as applied to model building. Not everyone's cup of tea, but there is a lot there to share and learn.

Barley,
maybe, the separate thread could be placed on the 'Color Orange', where you had opened with a fairly good start on the mechanics of vision.
That's if urumomo, doesn't mind the change in the direction of his thread.
Chitchat, I believe is where it probably should go.

 

[blakeh1]

I think people underestimate the amount of weathering that can show on things, but there is a fine line

At least as far as aircraft go, fading, splotchy, patchy paint is the most common. I remember reading somewhere from one of the people who actually painted the real things that whenever a part had to be serviced, that part got a fresh paint coat which over time resulted in a patchwork look of the F-14 for example.
While there may not be rust, other things like grime, dirt and oil staining can build up quickly depending on a number of factors
Also I am sure during WWII a lot of stuff was painted quickly, with paint they may not been so durable

for example, this SBD shows exhaust staining, odd colored lower cowling panel that had most likely been replaced and painted with a fresh coat while the others had already faded, chipping along seams or flaps

These had been through months at sea most likely on a carrier suffering from fading/dulling/bleaching of the paint

Now compare that to a well maintained, modern restored one that probably has much better glossy quality paint

and this helldiver had most likely been out at sea for a while on a carrier and you can see the chipping of the stencils, faded paint, some repainted parts, and general wear

compare that to what seems like a trainer on a base somewhere that looks new

Moving on to modern jets, you see examples like this of things that have been deployed for some time. They look much more weathered than the one at stateside airshows or bases

or compare those to the more "show piece" CAG type birds that are most likely given better care

But even then you can see dirty spots, or worn spots

 

[blakeh1]

...

 

[blakeh1]

I struggle trying to stride that fine line of too much and "cool looking" vs too little and "boring"

I have learned to avoid heavy washes and panel lines in favor of uneven and faded with minimal chipping and limiting it to certain areas prone to it

Certainly not the best by far, and I have seen much better weathering, but this is an example of my attempt at not trying to go overboard, but still have make it look weathered

and trying to match that "sloppy", repainted area look

or that general faded, grimy patches look

 

[blakeh1]

also, there is painting to peoples perception/expectation vs reality

For example most people would pick a brown or dark brown to paint a tree trunk, when in reality most trunks appear almost like a faded grey with just a hint of brown, or other colors that are "anything but "brown"

But paint a grey tree and people probably think it would look weird

So it can be similar with weathering, and sometimes what may not be right, actually looks more right or real than something more accurate

 

[airdave]

Points to remember about weathering as seen in photos:
Every surface reflects what is around it.
Glossy surfaces react differently than matte finishes.
Viewing distance changes what you see and when you see it.
Colour is completely dependent on, and affected by, lighting.
Cameras and photographic processes can alter everything you see.
Old colour processes can be overstated and/or extremely erroneous.
Modern photos are usually affected by user manipulation.
Photograph the same subject from two different angles and get two different subjects.
Two viewers will often see two different things.
Never trust an eye witness.
Get context.
Never trust a photo.

Tip:
Visit a Museum, and look for the unrestored finishes. (Many museums have examples of these)

 

[MJY65]

^^^^

I'd add that color film was pretty scarce during WWII. The later colorizing of many of those weathered plane photos may have involved more creative artistry than what we put on plastic models.

 

[blakeh1]

Also, context for weathering is very important

For example, you are not going to see rust on desert vehicles since there will be very little moisture to create the rust. You're going to have lots of fading and dust/dirt, maybe some scratches and chipping or worn areas, probably some oil/exhaust staining, but no rust

airshows and the like are also great places to see real examples in person

Like here you can see the subtle streaking and other weathering

 

[blakeh1]

^^^^

I'd add that color film was pretty scarce during WWII. The later colorizing of many of those weathered plane photos may have involved more creative artistry than what we put on plastic models.

There certainly are photos that were later colorized, but there are some good actual color photos like the ones I posted. IIRC they were from some Time Magazine cover and were originally taken in full color
There are also a number of high quality films that were done in full color, but even then, it can be hard to judge the true colors due to a number of factors