Weathering

[31Tiger]

Useful:

http://www.migjimenez.com/img/cms/PDF/StepbyStep_F16_ENG.pdf

The article does give a good explanation on the techniques used and they are useful on some subjects , personaly i think its a bit overdone on this subject ( yes i know vipers can get very dirty but an USAF F-16 in this state...)

Edited June 13, 2015 by 31Tiger

[Crazy Snap Captain]

Whoa! Way overdone is an understatement! I haven't even seen HAF birds in that state. But nice tips anyway. Thanks for the link!

[Darren Roberts]

Looks more like a Navy finish than it does AF. I'm in the "It's way overdone" camp. But, that's the artistic side of modeling. Just don't say it's realistic.

[Spruemeister]

If you want to sell weathering products, subtlety isn't an asset.

Rick L.

[Don]

I think that article has some good info and techniques. I would probably try my hand at my own variation of some of what the author did, especially on USN aircraft or aircraft that have seen some heavy combat (i.e. World War II Pacific theatre aircraft). The model is a little too heavy handed on the weathering for my personal tastes but to each their own I say.

Nice article... thanks for sharing.

Regards,

Don.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Don

[Janissary]

Thanks for the post. I like the techniques and the exaggerated look for its instructional value. Once you grasp the technique, you can be more restrained using it, but seeing the stretched too far is actually useful in this case. F-16 may not be the best subject but I'd rather see a jet rather than a prop, so this is fine with me.

[I.Martin]

Overdone, too much but undesrtand it being the advertising panphlet of the brand products.

[Joel_W]

I do like the overall weathering effect, but the panel lines are all just too dark, and too symmetrical.

Joel

[erik_g]

I have compiled a small list of arguments against excessive weathering. Facts heard from various expert through the years.

The weathering is over done, it never looks like that. All aircraft are well maintained and completely unifom in colour.

Aircraft are never chipped, since they are touched up immediately after any paint has been chipped away..

Air forces are very careful with their paint mixes, so that all aircraft are uniformely painted in the exact same hue.

Modern gunpowder leaves no residue and no soot marks on the fuselage

Theese are only photos that I have taken. I have also seen pics from Afghanistan showing that "helicopters and aircraft never get dirty since they are washed all the time". On saturday I took some photos of HMS Ocean showing that "modern ships never have rust om them".

/E

[dehowie]

Mmmm never say never...

[11bee]

Nice pics of grundged up F-16s but they still look nothing like that waaaay overdone model in the link above.

Slavishly outlining every panel line in a dark color is not a realistic way to weather an aircraft (despite the hundreds of models shown here on ARC that use that technique).

Edited June 15, 2015 by 11bee

[Darren Roberts]

The pictures are comparing apples and oranges. Absolutely aircraft get dirty, nasty, and ratty. I think very few people would ever hold to the statement that aircraft are always clean. If you look at the pictures, even the very dirty ones, the panel lines still aren't visible in a uniform, dirty manner. Very few modelers can achieve what is seen in the pictures above. It's not just about pre-shading and highlighting the panel lines. It's about having an artistic eye to capture the various hues of colors within the panels themselves and being able to realistically apply paint touchups. The F-16 in the weathering article doesn't replicate any of the weathering seen in the pictures above. I think that's what most people mean when they say it's overweathered. Another way of saying it is that it's not weathered realistically, but rather artistically.

[Joel_W]

Darren,

Well said. I've never been a fan of pre-shading because of the symmetrical patterns it produces with the same exact colors and hues. There is a trend now by expert painters like Jorge that lighten, darken panels, mixed in with rust/paint chipping, and color modulation that looks very realistic. Take a look at his current Tamiya 1/32 scale F4U-1A, and you'll see just how realistic it can get. But as you said, you need an artistic eye, and artist skills to achieve those kind of results. Unfortunately, neither of which I possess.

Joel

[Darren Roberts]

Darren,

Well said. I've never been a fan of pre-shading because of the symmetrical patterns it produces with the same exact colors and hues. There is a trend now by expert painters like Jorge that lighten, darken panels, mixed in with rust/paint chipping, and color modulation that looks very realistic. Take a look at his current Tamiya 1/32 scale F4U-1A, and you'll see just how realistic it can get. But as you said, you need an artistic eye, and artist skills to achieve those kind of results. Unfortunately, neither of which I possess.

Joel

The Corsair is gorgeous! I can only dream of producing a result like that. I'm in the same boat you are. My mind sees what the final product should be, but my hands just won't cooperate! :D

[pookie]

Pre-shadowing has never look realistic to me. It looks like perfectly even varicose veins on an aircraft skin. In fact pre-shadowing just jumps at me immediately. Weathering is random, random is the key word. You cannot apply the same pre shadowing through the whole airplane and expect it to look authentic. I use the same paint I painted the model with and then mix separate small batches of paint highly diluted with soapy water and a bit of other colors like brown, blue, yellow to create different hues of the same basic color. Then I use a very thin brush and pretend I am a 1/48 aircraft mechanic touching up spots through the plane.

Edited June 15, 2015 by pookie

[chuck540z3]

Mmmm never say never...

You can tell that all of those pics have heavy computer editing that has boosted the contrast. Here's an example I took of a heavily weathered QF-4E...

Crank the contrast a bit, and it looks a lot like those Viper pics above, which have exaggerated wear and tear....

I also agree that the weathering in this article is way overdone- at least 50% overdone.

[Joel_W]

Chuck,

An excellent point with respect to the use of digital enhancement. Your example really delivers that point better then I've ever seen before.

Joel

[VFA-103guy]

I think pre-shading is another form of the weathering process that's highly overrated..in some cases, it looks good, other times it looks too uniform. To each his own I guess, but I prefer my own simple technique as shown below on the the Tamiya F-14 I'm working on..loads of variation on the weathering make for a more realistic finish I think.

[Joel_W]

VFA-103 guy,

very nicely done.

Joel

[Aigore]

Good ole weathering techinique debate again? :P/>

OK, here´s my 2 cents...

They are all good if used right...yup, weatering techinques are tools in our tool box and each tool have their uses. Bashing one tool over another is rather pointless, it´s all about how they are used. Saying preshading is wrong is probably based on the view of how you´ve seen it´s been used in a particular model and that says more of the user of the technique than of the technique it self.

I see weathering as a process that involves a multitude of techiques...there is not one that is "The Technique" and I´d never deny myself a good tool just because I´ve seen it used in a way I don´t like in a build, that doesn´t take away the potential of it adding something to the whole as being a part of the process.

You can get by with using only one tool....but for the best result you probably have to use more than one tool.

Over and out

Oh PS..MiGs weathering is most likely over done just to show the products not the model itself :D/>

Edited June 15, 2015 by Aigore

[Darren Roberts]

Good observation, Aigore. Using a number of techniques in small amounts across the entire model can result in a very realistic look.

Nice looking 'Cat there, Brian. Seeing that makes me want to go to DQ.

[Finn]

Here is a CF-18 weathered:

http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?original=67348&site=combatcamera&catalog=photos

Jari

[Rex]

It is not so much that people are saying "aircraft never got dirty"

It is much more a case of push-back when people insist that aircraft never got clean.

I can guarantee that every aircraft was clean at least once in its lifetime, if not more than once. But, unless there is some shot taken at just the right time as in the photos above, no one can guarantee that every aircraft actually survived long enough to get dirty.

For example, I didn't take photos of the TA-4 coming to Yuma from a NARF that crashed, burned and was a total loss at the approach end of the runway. (you'd have to know what a NARF is to understand that that particular aircraft didn't get dirty) IF I had taken a photo, though, it would have been of a pristine military aircraft, fresh from NARF. And if it had survived a while, it wouldn't have looked like that F-16 for a very long time.

And I am constantly reminded by modern modelers that there is something wrong with my shadow. It only seems to point away from me in one direction,,,,,not in all directions at once as it does on a model aircraft's panel lines.

"Overdone" doesn't mean that people are saying "don't weather at all",,,,,they are just saying to do it to add realism to a model that you think looks wrong when it is too cleanly built. NOT just to include it on there because it is the latest thing.

hmmm, "latest thing"

I have a question,,does it have to be pre-shaded, post-shaded, salted, gun powder streaked, diesel fuel leaked, Tensachromed with hydraulic streaks, then sludge washed, oil painted, pastel chalked, and then clear coated?

Or does it still count as "modern techniques" if a few of the above is left off the model. I am asking because since it is so clear that leaving out a "modern technique" means it is no longer a "serious model",,,,,,,doesn't it have to have ALL of the various techniques used on it to be "truly a serious, modern model"?

And all of this is for modelers that "can't be arsed" to get the shapes right, because ignoring that part gets the deal to the painting stage faster, and lets the "artistry" start sooner.

I'll "believe in" this realism talk when people start running each color's panel lines with slightly different shades of each matching color, meaning that the VF-151 CAG tail would have the panel lines of the Red part of the tail in a Red, the Green in a Green, the Blue in a Blue, then the main part of the tail in a gray, and the white rudder part in an extremely light gray. As long as gray washes everywhere, it's just Eye Shadow to me.

[Aigore]

Hey, eye shadownis good stuff for weathering! :D

It's a hobby, we tend to forget it's for joy and relaxation sometimes...specially in forums like this.

We build for different reasons, some like the artistic approach to painting and weathering, some try to depict reality in minute detail and some just wants that particular model on the shelve.

Each category brings something to the hobby....I consider myself a mix of the first two and I'm not afraid of experimenting.

Live and let live, give each other some respect and creds. We're all from different walks of life and joined by this wonderful hobby.

Some of the debates going on are repeating and never comes to any conclusions other than that we like different things.

Some views are diametrically opposite and can never meet and those debates often ends in flame wars because the passion each feel for their respective views. You would just have to accept that there is no right nor wrong and just have to respect each others views, agree to disagree and move on.

[Darren Roberts]

There are some very good points on this thread. The F-18 pictured above is indeed very dirty, but it still doesn't have every panel line and rivet evenly dirty. There are two things that I shake my head at sometimes. The first is when an extraordinarily built model goes off the deep end with weathering. Like Rex said, they take the time to correct any inaccuracies on the airframe, and then finish it with a completely unrealistic finish. We have a gentleman in our contest area that builds the most flawless models, and then he has inky black panel lines with paint chips, no matter what the subject matter is. The second is when a company like Trumpeter gets ripped for having rivets all over the model, but then a modeler will use a ponce wheel to do the same thing, and those same modelers that ripped Trumpeter (or any other company, really) are falling all over themselves about how good all those rivets look. :rolleyes:/>

Edited June 16, 2015 by Darren Roberts