I blocked posts from that person months ago, only realised this had happened while searching the forum.
-
-
I'm not one who strives for total accuracy, although I very much admire those who do and enjoy seeing how they go about it.
Having said that I do try to research the subject I'm building. I have a reasonable selection of books and I use the internet.
Now here's my problem. My currrent build is the Buccaneer. Modern so lots of nice, clear, coloured, reliable photos. Easy to find what I need. But if I build a WW2 model the photos are usually grainy, poorly focused and black and white. Clear, coloured photos are invariably restored vehicles which have the issues already mentioned.
I find it very, very difficult to interpret those old photos. I have followed builds from people like Jakko who put up the photos they're using and explain what they are seeing and even then I don't always get it!!
I think that there is a skill in "understanding" these old images, a skill I just don't have.
"Oh look, the whatsit is hinged on the left with two hinges and positioned just to the right of the thingy" Half the time I have trouble seeing the whatsit in the first place! :flushed:
Anyway I will muddle on and continue to get pleasure from watching the likes of Jakko, Scottie, Mike and the rest and think "How the h*** did he notice that"
Comment
-
That is exactly what it is. Basically, you need to have a good deal of experience with the real thing, either in the flesh or from looking at photos of it and reading texts written by people who know what they’re talking about, but you also need experience in looking at photos and paying attention to details in them. This is not a skill you can just go and learn, I think,¹ but one that you gradually pick up by doing just that: learning more about the subject and because of that spotting what you’ve learned in photos (or on the real thing), as well as spotting things that don’t fit with what you know about the subject.
Advice often given to people who want to write novels, is to read everything they can. Much the same applies when wanting to add details to (or correct mistakes in) model kits, if you ask me: read what you can on the subject, look at photos of it, etc. That knowledge will eventually begin to stick and you’ll find it coming up automatically. You know you’re getting there when you start to do things like correcting the commentary on TV documentaries
¹ Though militaries do try to teach this sort of thing, for vehicle/aircraft/ship recognition. However, owning a few manuals for that, the methods they use are almost more bewildering than useful to me. Look at these pages from a Dutch Army manual on tank recognition²:
[ATTACH]515048[/ATTACH]
I mean … going about learning the shapes vehicles can have and then going through a mental checklist of “Is the turret diamond-shaped? Yes. It could be an M10, then.” feels so weird. I look at that photo at the upper left and go, “M10, early type without turret counterweights.” But then, I realised quite a while ago that I recognise AFVs and many aircraft with about the same amount of mental effort as I do faces of people I know (and I’m not making a joke here).
² Voorschrift nr. 1211: Handleiding Tankherkenning, 21 February 1953.
Comment
-
Pretty impressive comments on this thread and I'm glad it got booted back up, minus the misfit, of course.
We build history in miniature, so IMHO, why not try to get it right, if we can. Sometimes I run into that proverbial wall and have to drop that "artistic license" card on the table. This is a hobby after all, and I try not to get too hung up if all honest attempts have been made to be accurate.
I personally try to be as historically accurate as possible with anything I do unless I state otherwise. Long before the inet it was bi-weekly book orders from the Military Book Club here in the states. The inet has made things much simpler and considerably cheaper to conduct my research nowadays. I can get anal retentive at times and most often I have pics pinned all along the shelf railing in my model bunker and on two separate easels in front of my work space. I will also acquire videos on the subject and have those rolling as I'm working. In other words, full immersion is usually how I build, from the concept drawing to the final brush marks. Like so many of you have already stated, the research is half the fun, for me too. I love it!
When preparing to build my "Hue City" dio I was fortunate to search for and find the author of "Phase Line Green: The Battle for Hue, 1968" by Nick Warr. Turned out that he lived within 6 miles of me and after an initial meet at a local coffee house, he invited me to his home to see his research material. That office was plastered with research material on Nam, maps of Hue City and the Citadel on the walls, and everything else within that battle zone. Books, photos, VHS tapes of his latest return trips, etc. One conclusion I came to after leaving his house, Nick was still there, in the Nam. Nick was instrumental in the accuracy of that build and all credit to him for his gracious assist in getting me over that research hump. I was even able to contact Col Ret. Myran Harrington who was, I believe, an administrator at the Citadel Academy back east at the time. He was very helpful too. He's the officer depicted holding the radio next to the M48. That dio would have been in Col. Harringtons office if I knew it would have arrived in one piece.
Not all of us are going to find a Nick Warr or have hands on our subject and only have the available intel we find from diligent research, no matter where we find it. If that's all we've got, we go with it, and someone might advise that something is missing or incorrect later on. This happens to me all the time. If I'm not too far along, I'll go back and correct upon verification, but usually the advising party will provide the intel to support the issue being addressed.
So long story short, for me, researching a subject is almost as fun as "Sniffin paint and gluin my fingers together!"Give Blood, Play Rugby, cause everyone knows football is for whimps!Comment
-
This is a fascinating thread to me, because I mainly paint fantasy subjects, so I am completely free to do what I like, unencumbered by any need to do research.
However...
I seem to remember seeing something about paint colour accuracy. It suggested that, if you are looking at your model at a (scale) distance of about, say, half a mile, then the colour would be altered by all the atmospheric pollution (I think) - the same effect that causes distant hills to look much bluer than if you were standing on them. So you can never get an authentic colour match.
Have I misremembered that? What's the solution?Comment
-
Paint colour accuracy is a myth Paul, no matter what the manufacturers tell you. You can match colours under identical controlled conditions (known light colour temperature, light intensity, etc…) but these do not exist in real world conditions. There are just too many variables.Comment
-
I just saw this inquiry on another site asking basically the same thing. From my personal experience it's not a major issue, but how "dark or light" an object appears in scale is a factor. I know when I painted a helo with actual military camo paint it made the model darker than it should be in presentation, and if I'm not mistaken, model paint co.'s take that into consideration. I never really pay much attention to it other than getting close to the color I need and not be too dark or light. By a long shot, I'm no expert in this field, just my personal experience.
And therein lies the freedom of artistic license, and that's awesome, Paul! You as well as all figure painters know that shadows and highlights make the figure come alive. Getting exact color accuracy can get into nuts-and-bolts bean counting, and to some it's vital, to others, no biggy. Historical accuracy on uniforms, etc., is a sketchy issue, imo, even having the actual article in hand, because a uniform fades over time and so on.
Well said, Tim, too many variables.Give Blood, Play Rugby, cause everyone knows football is for whimps!Comment
-
Really is, so many variables, colour perception changes through for example the time of day and weather conditions
What if a subject is modelled in the middle of the night with no artificial light, doesn't matter what colour we paint it we can't see it anyway!
When I built air superiority grey jets a while back I used an aerosol can of Halfords grey primer, no one noticed.
Miko (secret is knowing when to stop, perfection isn't fun to attempt)Comment
-
Textured, flavoured paint, for the synaesthetic modeller.Comment
-
Well, here's one about colour matching. As some here know I do BEF vehicles, which are in the, back then, recently introduced, G3 plus G4/G5 colours; three different greeny/browny colours replacing overall 'bronze green.' No need to be more specific than that
The ministry directives to vehicle manufacturers includes a line to the effect that 'the paints used must match the specified shades to within ten per cent by eye'
To which I usually say 'Wait. What?'Comment
Comment