Do you model for looks or realism/accuracy

[Edbert]

Currently on my bench, needs another round of spraying.

 

[BOATMAN]

What is this reality of which you speak?

Seriously, this is supposed to be fun. I generally prefer as much realism as can be gotten from a scale model, but even with a microscope (Yes, I have used one on several builds. ) there's a limit. On the other hand, if you are modeling SF or fantasy, what is "real?"

And there are times I like a "factory fresh" or museum appearance.

De gustibus non disputandem est.

YES GUYS for me its like littlemarten says thats how i model
chrisb

 

[Holz44]

Sometimes it's just about trying something you haven't done before, new subject matter, new technique...
it's great to post pics,
get feedback,
but in the end,
it's me,
working at the bench,
getting into that groove,
riffing on some detail,
or feel,
or reference pic,
relating what I read or learned about
a vehicle,
a regiment,
a battle,
a locale,
to that object in my hand,
with only my tunes,
a cup of something tasty,
and my thoughts for company.

Excellent! That little "riff" of yours is VERY similar to what I try to feel when I build. Tunes, sipping something enjoyable, lighting, references laying all around, imagination running and "in the zone." Pure Bliss my Friend!

 

[fantacmet]

Somewhere in between. General accuracy but I really dont care if there only 154745 rivets and there should be 154746.

 

[Glenn S]

I am usually motivated to build a model after I have read a book or watched a movie about someone who used a particular aircraft or tank. I love their stories. I then try my best to build a model of that individual's particular a/c or vehicle. I strive for both accuracy and realism.
I love doing the research into the subjects. For me, striving to be as realistic and accurate as possible is my way of honouring the individual who inspired the build. It puts me into a state of flow that seems to make time go away.
My problem, lately, with this approach is that I have to learn to know when enough-is-enough. There comes a time when the Good Idea Fairy has to go to sleep and the kit needs to be put on the "finished" shelf.

 

[Littlemarten]

My problem, lately, with this approach is that I have to learn to know when enough-is-enough.

I resemble that remark. I recently added a detail to the tail hinge of the rudder on a 1/32 P-40E. Once assembled, it will hardly be seen, but it bugged me that it wasn't modeled in the kit. I am also guilty of adding detail so small it cannot be seen with the naked eye. It used to be worse: I sometimes took stuff into work so I could use the 10X-70X stereo microscope. This is called, A Detail Too Far.

 

[Glenn S]

I resemble that remark. I recently added a detail to the tail hinge of the rudder on a 1/32 P-40E. Once assembled, it will hardly be seen, but it bugged me that it wasn't modeled in the kit. I am also guilty of adding detail so small it cannot be seen with the naked eye. It used to be worse: I sometimes took stuff into work so I could use the 10X-70X stereo microscope. This is called, A Detail Too Far.

 

[warspite]

I like to do both. If a model is simply a type I like I am usually fine with just building and painting is right out of the box. I might do a little weathering but I don't go looking for any accurizing bits and bobs. When a model has a specific personal interest I try to be as accurate as possible. For instance I am a huge fan of the movie "Kelly's Heroes" and kitbashed a Tiger 1 and T-34/76 to make a representation of the Tiger-34 from the movie. I of course became a little, shall we say, obsessive about the details but I got 'er done. I even managed to find a 3D printed Karl -Otto and detailed him as much as I could. I like to think I did a good job but most importantly I am happy with it.

 

[Edbert]

I want it to look real, but not (always) a very specific unit/item. I make exceptions when building something like Douglas Bader's Spitfire or Dick Bong's Lightning, but in general terms I want each to look like a real item to the majority of viewers. Then again, I make exceptions to that too, to wit...

I think the answer is "it depends" and "I build for myself"

 

[Glenn S]

I resemble that remark. I recently added a detail to the tail hinge of the rudder on a 1/32 P-40E. Once assembled, it will hardly be seen, but it bugged me that it wasn't modeled in the kit. I am also guilty of adding detail so small it cannot be seen with the naked eye. It used to be worse: I sometimes took stuff into work so I could use the 10X-70X stereo microscope. This is called, A Detail Too Far.

Okay. A 70 power microscope may be too much.
Just a thought... could you imagine if the judges at model shows weren't allowed to wear glasses?