pre shading

[markmarples]

ive just done a guide on my forum, i thought id share it with you guys aswell

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Mainly_Military/index.php?showtopic=218&hl=

[PR19_Kit]

Hmmmm, I've never been convinced of the logic of this pre-shading stuff but it seems to be 'flavour of the year' just now, especially amongst kit reviewers in the major mags who seem to give the impression that no model of any scale is complete without it.

I disagree totally, as far as I can see it makes a model, especially a smaller scale one, look exactly what it is, a model. A real aircraft viewed from a similar range that most model photos are taken, ie from far enough away to see the entire model in one shot, wouldn't show any panel lines at all!

Please someone tell me what it's all about......... 

[RussC]

I have seen examples of it for the past 10 years or so. Even tried it in a few builds over the years. I think its highly over rated.

I'm going to posit that the source of it is artistic versus visual, in that shading panel lines highlights them and thus accentuates model shapes, and the very crisp molding of some modern kits like Fujimi. So you almost have to decide on what your model really is, a replica made to represent an item in the full scale world----or are you creating a piece of graphic art? Something that carries a message as well as a basic shape or set of shapes.

 Like a lot of things in the hobby such as weathering, it has been overdone and yes, it has become doctrinaire among the "model contest" part of our fold.

 It was an especially acute debate in my niche of the hobby, the 1/144th scale world. There have been arguements, both good natured and less so that in the small scales the impression that a model makes should be either like a photograph or impressionistic:

Photograph- your model as viewed sitting on a table would be equivalent to an observer seeing it from 500 feet or further THEREFORE

No weathering, paint chips, not even panel lines- fill and sand them down, just leave the control surfaces. And your colors had better be diluted by the requisite 35 to 45 percent with white. In fact, transparencies really cannot convey the real appearance of glass so paint your cockpit glass over dark or light blue or black if you must, anything but clear.

Impressionistic- build it like you are standing on it or next to it and conveying what you see, bring that out and let the eye decide...the eye is not a camera focal plane and the brain it feeds is certainly not either. Distances and angles and contrasts and hues will all make sense because everyone has had a chance to walk up close to an aircraft, tank, locomotive or automobile and understand its form.

  No set rules, no one answer.

[PR19_Kit]

..... because everyone has had a chance to walk up close to an aircraft, tank, locomotive or automobile and understand its form.

I wouldn't recommend doing that with a B-2........ 

I do take your point though, especially so with 1/144 scale models. My airliners all have decal windows, either black or dark grey. Not only does it look better to my mind, it saves drilling and filing and filling all those ZILLIONS of holes!

[markmarples]

i see your point guys, and totally understand, but saying that, i see planes built and perfectly painted but that isnt reflected in real life, iven in some photos you see pannel lines http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/carrierairwingfivebg_1.htm but i agree not all

i think its down ot the individual aircraft and what the modell wants to achieve, i think the spitfire i made, would not have normally been like htat as it was post war and sparkley, but i did that for the guide

saying that some heavily weathered spits vb's i prob would


so all in all i think it comes down to the fact of 'its your model do what you want with it and have fun!'

[NARSES2]

so all in all i think it comes down to the fact of 'its your model do what you want with it and have fun!'

Exactly, and I for one view modelling as an art form to some degree and there are as many schools of art as stars in the sky, so you pick the one the feel at home with and work within that

[matrixone]

I am a big fan of using pre-shading and the key to using it effectively is to not have it too uniform and too heavy.
There are many models I have seen on a certain well known modeling site where the builders used the pre-shading method but it was done so heavily that it actually made the models look more like toys than real aircraft. Like any weathering technique you have to know when to stop or otherwise your model will cross the line from looking like a scaled down weathered aircraft into looking like a childs toy.

Below is a 1/32 scale Fw 190D-9 I built in 2011 and the undersurfaces were pre-shaded even though I know its hard to see but thats the way it should be done...you don't want the pre-shading to be the first thing you notice about the model, you want the pre-shading to blend in with the other weathering techniques used.


And here is another recent model I built this time in 1/48 scale that also had the undersurfaces pre-shaded.

Both of these models would have been very bland looking if the undersurfaces were painted with just RLM 76 alone without the pre-shading.

Matrixone

[PR19_Kit]

Matrixone,

I tend to agree with you about the two examples you've shown, but they are LARGE scale, 1/32 and 1/48, and it's different ball of wax to doing it in 1/72.

The width of the shade line and the depth of the colour itself are the two deciding factors, plus the real depth of the panel line scored into the model. The panel line on a 1/72 scale model needs to be MUCH less deep than it does in the larger scales, and any pre-shading should be commensurately less dense and less wide. Sadly this does not seem to be the case in too many magazine reviews I've seen, they tend to lay it on with a trowel!

[RussC]

Matrixone,

I tend to agree with you about the two examples you've shown, but they are LARGE scale, 1/32 and 1/48, and it's different ball of wax to doing it in 1/72.

The width of the shade line and the depth of the colour itself are the two deciding factors, plus the real depth of the panel line scored into the model. The panel line on a 1/72 scale model needs to be MUCH less deep than it does in the larger scales, and any pre-shading should be commensurately less dense and less wide. Sadly this does not seem to be the case in too many magazine reviews I've seen, they tend to lay it on with a trowel!

  Uh ohhhhhh, you just seeded the idea of zimmerit on aircraft ! 

[RussC]

I am a big fan of using pre-shading and the key to using it effectively is to not have it too uniform and too heavy.
There are many models I have seen on a certain well known modeling site where the builders used the pre-shading method but it was done so heavily that it actually made the models look more like toys than real aircraft. Like any weathering technique you have to know when to stop or otherwise your model will cross the line from looking like a scaled down weathered aircraft into looking like a childs toy.

Below is a 1/32 scale Fw 190D-9 I built in 2011 and the undersurfaces were pre-shaded even though I know its hard to see but thats the way it should be done...you don't want the pre-shading to be the first thing you notice about the model, you want the pre-shading to blend in with the other weathering techniques used.

Both of these models would have been very bland looking if the undersurfaces were painted with just RLM 76 alone without the pre-shading.

Matrixone

  I'll say the same as PR19 and agree with you too as to the quantity used, you make it look easy. And those oil stains are perfect too BTW. Of course if you brush paint, like me- the whole topic disappears except I did figure out a way to do pre-shading in 1/144 using chalks/pigments and a old spotter paintbrush cut down to a stump. But the key was the same as yours- light touch, and less-is-more.

  Some models out there look like they were assembled with blowtorches or with TIG welders set for kill.