I must admit I thought this:
... was him getting his marching orders. Hey ho.
Research
- Thread starter tr1ckey66
- Start date
Well I gave him a chance and he blew it.
Well its not often I have had to ban a member so i will ask @john to check I have done it proper but he should now be banned.
I can understand you lads 110% I hoped that my comment would have stopped comments without having to close the thread.
Could I just ask that in the future if there is a problem with a member just drop the mods a message. Lowering yourselves to their level is not the solution, and just gives me even more work
I can understand you lads 110% I hoped that my comment would have stopped comments without having to close the thread.
Could I just ask that in the future if there is a problem with a member just drop the mods a message. Lowering yourselves to their level is not the solution, and just gives me even more work
Sorry Ian, my fault entirely. He just got under my skin on a bad RA day. I apologise to you and anyone else I upset with my clumsy attempt at humour.
G
I like (laughing) 'you tube' where so many of our cousins across the atlantic give themselves titles like 'Sniper Story' or 'Deep Intelligence' and then cut together undocumented details/clips of what is happening (in this case Ukraine) in a war zone/conflict... And then proceed to tell the viewer that this happened or that happened, when in fact it did not...When did the Ukrainians obtain M50 'Ontos???? Or we can have the latest guff! of 'The Russians and Chinese on exercises together'.... 'Where they were intercepted off the Alaskan coastline'.... cut to a Russian Bear and an obviously marked Ukrainian Mig (in peactime), then cut to F-16's being filmed from a Russian 'Bear'? and on and on the presenter drones.... Or how about the crud being put out about the B-58 'Hustler' - it becomes embarrassing just watching it.... But they want us to believe it is true...
So many 'authors' today spend far too much time surfing the internet for snippets and cutting and pasting, when in fact if they took the time to actually visit the area they are talking about (Oh! they cannot because they could get shot or dropped of a building) and then looking at the actual vehicle/plane they may just gather some usefull information....
And the mainstream media are as much to blame with their 'factual' documentaries, which turn out to be on the most part inaccurate. Current examples are to be seen today where a lot of back-peddaling is taking place around current news events over the last weekend and the week before which have turend out to be anything but what they were screaming about....
I do my research using a clear photograph or three of the same subject. Failing that I will look at and compare various images of the same subject and from those build a representation of the vehicle (WW1/WW2) with my current build being based on one vehicle but with a photo later found of another of the same kind. And as Scottie pointed out a good walkaround set of images, or even better someone that is actually working on or has access to the real vehicle (M109 Doher).
This after all is a MODELLING FORUM and not a dating society or magic circle gathering, we are here to make models, discuss the mistakes in a produced kit, rubbish it if that is required, but in the end we build models as a hobby. And if we find incorrect 'facts' in a publication be it paper or media that we know to be wrong, then write to the author/producer and correct them.
If you are seriously researching a model to the point of infinate accuracy and you know of the subject residing in a collection/museum and really want to slide under its belly to check if the drain plugs are in or not, then contact the owner/museum/collection outline what you want, and more than likely you will get a favourable response. Unfortunately for ship modellers this may not be the case and you will have to work with what you have or can obtain, and when I look at your model with my ignorant eyes, I will see a model, and will judge it as such but I will not be counting the rivets around the funnel, but a visit to the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich could develop your research even more.
Right Ian, bag packed, hat on and suitcase at the ready for the boot out the door....
So many 'authors' today spend far too much time surfing the internet for snippets and cutting and pasting, when in fact if they took the time to actually visit the area they are talking about (Oh! they cannot because they could get shot or dropped of a building) and then looking at the actual vehicle/plane they may just gather some usefull information....
And the mainstream media are as much to blame with their 'factual' documentaries, which turn out to be on the most part inaccurate. Current examples are to be seen today where a lot of back-peddaling is taking place around current news events over the last weekend and the week before which have turend out to be anything but what they were screaming about....
I do my research using a clear photograph or three of the same subject. Failing that I will look at and compare various images of the same subject and from those build a representation of the vehicle (WW1/WW2) with my current build being based on one vehicle but with a photo later found of another of the same kind. And as Scottie pointed out a good walkaround set of images, or even better someone that is actually working on or has access to the real vehicle (M109 Doher).
This after all is a MODELLING FORUM and not a dating society or magic circle gathering, we are here to make models, discuss the mistakes in a produced kit, rubbish it if that is required, but in the end we build models as a hobby. And if we find incorrect 'facts' in a publication be it paper or media that we know to be wrong, then write to the author/producer and correct them.
If you are seriously researching a model to the point of infinate accuracy and you know of the subject residing in a collection/museum and really want to slide under its belly to check if the drain plugs are in or not, then contact the owner/museum/collection outline what you want, and more than likely you will get a favourable response. Unfortunately for ship modellers this may not be the case and you will have to work with what you have or can obtain, and when I look at your model with my ignorant eyes, I will see a model, and will judge it as such but I will not be counting the rivets around the funnel, but a visit to the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich could develop your research even more.
Right Ian, bag packed, hat on and suitcase at the ready for the boot out the door....
G
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"
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"
G
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:
View attachment 515048
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.
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!"
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!"
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?
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?
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.
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.
….and that’s not taking into account that before the late 1980s all paint manufacture quality control was matched by eye…..it really is a case of what looks right is right, not what is right looks right……
Exactly, without getting that backwards, HA!
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)
:tears-of-joy: :tears-of-joy: :tears-of-joy: :tears-of-joy:
It even varies with the degree of tiredness and mental state of the viewer…..and if you have synaesthesia you are on a hiding to nothing.…..it will not only have to look right, it’ll have to taste or sound right as well…..
G
Textured, flavoured paint, for the synaesthetic modeller.
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?'
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?'
Legal Notice
scalemodelling.co.uk is a privately operated online discussion forum. All content posted by members reflects their own views and opinions and does not necessarily represent those of the forum owners or administrators. While reasonable efforts are made to moderate content, no responsibility is accepted for user-generated material. By using this site, you agree to comply with UK law and the forum rules.