Today's efforts focused on the lower hull and the remaining pigment weathering. Some details were addressed first such as the addition of the turret mounted spare tracks as extra armor which was tacked carefully into place with glue to the undersides of the track faces on the top first then, once set, the sides were given the same treatment. The entire vehicle then received a coat of Testors Lusterless Flat in the spray can and then set off to the side for a couple of hours to thoroughly dry before further handling.
Since this vehicle is a desert vehicle and is already a light color, the pigment weathering was focused on the darker elements and giving them a dusty look vs. the entire vehicle where it wouldn't be visible in the end. I used Mig's Gulf War Sand and combined it with tap water with a drop of dish washing liquid soap to break the surface tension. The wet mix was applied to the entire lower hull, running gear, all the spare track runs, and various other items/areas that needed a dusty appearance. This was then allowed to air dry over the course of about an hour...this is another of those "hurry up and wait" stages, so I often use these to begin cleaning up the bench, sorting out the leftover parts, etc. to stay "busy" and not get in a hurry.
The Gulf War Sand application was now attacked and reduced by using a series of stiff bristled brushes and a combination of wet and dry Q-tips to adjust the look. I wear a dust mask during this phase to insure I don't get an overdose of inhaled fine particles and work in sections, avoiding putting too much stress on the tracks in particular. Once everything was in order, the tracks were permanently locked down with the desired sag by gluing them in place to the idler, return rollers, and road wheels.
The final step was to remove the blue tack from the driver's visor, the gunner's turret front port, and install the missing commander's cupola block. I very carefully applied a very small amount of black artist pastels to the inner surfaces of the muzzle brake and then dry-brushed some Afrika Braun to blend back any stray traces on the exterior.
This one will sit overnight and I'll give it a once-over to see if there are any other areas that need to be fine-tuned or adjusted, then it will be photo-booth time for the finished shots.
Total Session Time: 4.75 hours
Total Project Time: 71.50 hours
Hosted by Darren Baker
DML Pz IV F2 Afrika
wbill76
Texas, United States
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 05:05 PM UTC
scratchmod
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: November 07, 2008
KitMaker: 796 posts
Armorama: 763 posts
Joined: November 07, 2008
KitMaker: 796 posts
Armorama: 763 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2009 - 02:47 AM UTC
AWSOME... I love how it turned out, especially the red numbering on the turret. It was a pleasure to follow your build log. It was very informitive and helpful since I will be building this model soon and now know what to watch out for. Looking foward to your next build Bill.
Rob
Rob
wbill76
Texas, United States
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2009 - 03:14 AM UTC
Thanks Rob! Glad you enjoyed the ride and I'm looking forward to seeing you "wreck" this one myself.
jimz66
Connecticut, United States
Joined: December 15, 2006
KitMaker: 1,165 posts
Armorama: 1,105 posts
Joined: December 15, 2006
KitMaker: 1,165 posts
Armorama: 1,105 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2009 - 03:38 AM UTC
Great job Bill another very strong finish. Nice one.
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2009 - 04:12 AM UTC
Nice finish Bill. Very interesting to see the camo after weathering ... any heavier and it would all but dissappear.
Its not very trendy nowadays, but I still believe dark pin washing is necessary (burnt umber maybe?). You photography is excellent and shows the details, but the washes give some better depth to those details. A model viewed from some distance ... especially when a camo is used ... runs the risk of being very flat. Your choice .. just my 2 euro cents!!
Its not very trendy nowadays, but I still believe dark pin washing is necessary (burnt umber maybe?). You photography is excellent and shows the details, but the washes give some better depth to those details. A model viewed from some distance ... especially when a camo is used ... runs the risk of being very flat. Your choice .. just my 2 euro cents!!
marsiascout
Noord-Brabant, Netherlands
Joined: March 24, 2008
KitMaker: 1,247 posts
Armorama: 913 posts
Joined: March 24, 2008
KitMaker: 1,247 posts
Armorama: 913 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2009 - 04:47 AM UTC
Nice work Bill! I think I'm also gonna count my building time once this year.
Lars
Lars
sauceman
Ontario, Canada
Joined: September 28, 2006
KitMaker: 2,672 posts
Armorama: 2,475 posts
Joined: September 28, 2006
KitMaker: 2,672 posts
Armorama: 2,475 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2009 - 05:05 AM UTC
Nicely done Bill!
I will have to try the liquid soap technique for the pigments, sure looks nice.
cheers from the mudpit
I will have to try the liquid soap technique for the pigments, sure looks nice.
cheers from the mudpit
wbill76
Texas, United States
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2009 - 05:35 AM UTC
JimZ, thanks as always for following along!
Frank, I agree on the two-tone shade variations not really tolerating much in the way of heavy weathering in order to maintain their contrast. It made for some different challenges in the weathering as a result. I agree with you about using pin washes and they are a mainstay in my preferred approach. They are needed to provide depth and avoid the "flat" appearance you mention. I actually tested Burnt Umber first for the pin wash and the contrast was too stark, particularly on the RAL 8000 colors, so opted for the more subdued Raw Umber instead. If I had used the Burnt Umber I would've had to go heavier with the pigments to get the toned-down look whereas the Raw Umber achieved that for me at the start. If you go back and look at the pre- vs. the post- wash photos, the difference is there but not as dramatic as you might expect with a Burnt Umber application. Appreciate your comments as always and value them more than the 2c Euro for sure.
Lars, thanks! I'll admit it was an interesting exercise to see just how much actual time was required...the cost per hour of enjoyment was very low in the end, about $1.50-$2.00 USD, I can't think of much out there that can compete with that!
Rick, just be sure to use a small drop only...you want just enough that when you swirl the water a few soap bubbles will form at the top but not make suds/foam. The end result is that you can use it just like a wash but it's much more forgiving and flexible for removal/adjustment.
Quoted Text
Nice finish Bill. Very interesting to see the camo after weathering ... any heavier and it would all but dissappear.
Its not very trendy nowadays, but I still believe dark pin washing is necessary (burnt umber maybe?). You photography is excellent and shows the details, but the washes give some better depth to those details. A model viewed from some distance ... especially when a camo is used ... runs the risk of being very flat. Your choice .. just my 2 euro cents!!
Frank, I agree on the two-tone shade variations not really tolerating much in the way of heavy weathering in order to maintain their contrast. It made for some different challenges in the weathering as a result. I agree with you about using pin washes and they are a mainstay in my preferred approach. They are needed to provide depth and avoid the "flat" appearance you mention. I actually tested Burnt Umber first for the pin wash and the contrast was too stark, particularly on the RAL 8000 colors, so opted for the more subdued Raw Umber instead. If I had used the Burnt Umber I would've had to go heavier with the pigments to get the toned-down look whereas the Raw Umber achieved that for me at the start. If you go back and look at the pre- vs. the post- wash photos, the difference is there but not as dramatic as you might expect with a Burnt Umber application. Appreciate your comments as always and value them more than the 2c Euro for sure.
Lars, thanks! I'll admit it was an interesting exercise to see just how much actual time was required...the cost per hour of enjoyment was very low in the end, about $1.50-$2.00 USD, I can't think of much out there that can compete with that!
Rick, just be sure to use a small drop only...you want just enough that when you swirl the water a few soap bubbles will form at the top but not make suds/foam. The end result is that you can use it just like a wash but it's much more forgiving and flexible for removal/adjustment.
H_Ackermans
Gelderland, Netherlands
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2009 - 06:39 AM UTC
This may sound incredibly weird, but this Pz IV reminds me of Captain Picard at the start of Insurrection, when he wears that band on his bald head. It's that trackrun on the turret.
Anyway, it still looks awesomly good, Bill, really exquisite, top job once again!
Anyway, it still looks awesomly good, Bill, really exquisite, top job once again!
wbill76
Texas, United States
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2009 - 07:31 AM UTC
Quoted Text
This may sound incredibly weird, but this Pz IV reminds me of Captain Picard at the start of Insurrection, when he wears that band on his bald head. It's that trackrun on the turret.
Anyway, it still looks awesomly good, Bill, really exquisite, top job once again!
It's ok Herbert...it does sound wierd, but I know exactly what you are talking about and now I have that same image stuck in my head!
Thanks for the comments and glad you enjoyed the ride with me.
wbill76
Texas, United States
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2009 - 10:11 AM UTC
This one is now done and on the shelf!
exer
Dublin, Ireland
Joined: November 27, 2004
KitMaker: 6,048 posts
Armorama: 4,619 posts
Joined: November 27, 2004
KitMaker: 6,048 posts
Armorama: 4,619 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2009 - 10:23 AM UTC
Good work Bill.
So having finished it how do you think the two color scheme stand up against the one color desert scheme we usually see- in terms of visual impact?
So having finished it how do you think the two color scheme stand up against the one color desert scheme we usually see- in terms of visual impact?
wbill76
Texas, United States
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2009 - 10:40 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Good work Bill.
So having finished it how do you think the two color scheme stand up against the one color desert scheme we usually see- in terms of visual impact?
Thanks Pat! You raise an interesting question...to me the two-tone scheme is a subtle difference vs. say the contrasts we normally would see with the three tone dunkelgelb-rotbraun-olivgrun scheme, but it's still more visually "interesting" to me at least vs. the one color "desert yellow" approach. I can easily see how it would be hard to pick out the two colors in a black-and-white photo, even in color and good lighting the contrast is not very high.
wing_nut
New Jersey, United States
Joined: June 02, 2006
KitMaker: 1,212 posts
Armorama: 674 posts
Joined: June 02, 2006
KitMaker: 1,212 posts
Armorama: 674 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2009 - 10:50 AM UTC
It looks great Bill. I would think that camo would be even more effective. There really isn't ever that monotone of a background.
bill_c
Campaigns Administrator
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,553 posts
Armorama: 8,109 posts
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,553 posts
Armorama: 8,109 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2009 - 11:56 AM UTC
Quoted Text
How do you think the two color scheme stand up against the one color desert scheme we usually see- in terms of visual impact?
It's interesting to note how the Axis spent a lot of time and effort on camo, while the Allies did relatively little. I was over on the Soviet section the other day, and someone was complaining about how "dull" Russian tanks from the Great Patriotic War are: green, green, green and green, unless whitewash in Winter.
Frankly, the desert scheme doesn't make the tanks look any less prominent than if they were panzer gray. The photos of the region are without feature for the most part, so the tanks would stand out in relief.
I like it because's it's what the Wehrmacht stipulated, whereas most of the model makers are feeding up "yellow."
wbill76
Texas, United States
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2009 - 12:37 PM UTC
Thanks Marc, appreciate the comments. It's true that desert environments are never just one color...there's scrub vegetation and differences in the terrain as well that can inflence things to a degree.
Bill, I wanted to give it a try because it is what was ordered and to satisfy my curiosity as to what the scheme would look like once on a finished build. I personally prefer this over the straight "desert yellow" and will do a III G in the earlier '41 scheme at some point in the future, not sure when though.
As far as the camo properties go, the intent is usually to break up the vehicles outlines and make it less recognizable, not hide it completely. From ground level, it's likely that the camo pattern wouldn't have helped much but from the air would've been a very different story. The desert war in N. Afrika involved quite a bit of danger from the skies as well as from the ground...that's why the extra tracks are on the roof of the tank where the armor was thin and vulnerable to air attack (as well as plunging artillery fire, another danger not often considered in tank warfare). Take for example the common N. Afrika scheme below used by the Luftwaffe...and you can see why looking more like a clump of bushes would be to your advantage vs. just a solid color object easily picked out from the air.
Bill, I wanted to give it a try because it is what was ordered and to satisfy my curiosity as to what the scheme would look like once on a finished build. I personally prefer this over the straight "desert yellow" and will do a III G in the earlier '41 scheme at some point in the future, not sure when though.
As far as the camo properties go, the intent is usually to break up the vehicles outlines and make it less recognizable, not hide it completely. From ground level, it's likely that the camo pattern wouldn't have helped much but from the air would've been a very different story. The desert war in N. Afrika involved quite a bit of danger from the skies as well as from the ground...that's why the extra tracks are on the roof of the tank where the armor was thin and vulnerable to air attack (as well as plunging artillery fire, another danger not often considered in tank warfare). Take for example the common N. Afrika scheme below used by the Luftwaffe...and you can see why looking more like a clump of bushes would be to your advantage vs. just a solid color object easily picked out from the air.
H_Ackermans
Gelderland, Netherlands
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2009 - 01:50 PM UTC
I also believe that driving around in desert sand, throwing up dust and having it settle on your tanks, will lend them a rather solid desert yellow look
wbill76
Texas, United States
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 02:55 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I also believe that driving around in desert sand, throwing up dust and having it settle on your tanks, will lend them a rather solid desert yellow look
No doubt about it Herbert! Looking at black and white photos of dusty vehicles makes it virtually impossible to discern the camo pattern, so it would make sense to deduce that these vehicles clearly aren't panzer gray so "desert yellow" was born!
bill_c
Campaigns Administrator
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,553 posts
Armorama: 8,109 posts
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,553 posts
Armorama: 8,109 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 05:34 AM UTC
Wow! That's an amazing photo. I stand corrected. Never seen something from the air, but as you point out, the camo might make a real different from a few thousand feet.
H_Ackermans
Gelderland, Netherlands
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 06:06 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextI also believe that driving around in desert sand, throwing up dust and having it settle on your tanks, will lend them a rather solid desert yellow look
No doubt about it Herbert! Looking at black and white photos of dusty vehicles makes it virtually impossible to discern the camo pattern, so it would make sense to deduce that these vehicles clearly aren't panzer gray so "desert yellow" was born!
If you take a look at some of the vehicles in the PanzerWrecks books, none of them are in North Africa, but even those have solid monotone colors due to dust setting on them in several cases.
But besides dust, also exposure by the camera and type of film used plays a role.
Going over my Tiger-B pics, there are several that could be mistaken for monotone Dunkel Gelb, instead of the actual 3-tone camouflage pattern.
bill_c
Campaigns Administrator
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,553 posts
Armorama: 8,109 posts
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,553 posts
Armorama: 8,109 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 06:49 AM UTC
Quoted Text
But besides dust, also exposure by the camera and type of film used plays a role.
That's a good point, Herbert.
Camera lenses prior to the 60s were not generally coated. Kodak introduced the first coatings in 1939, and was supplying coated lenses to the military during the war. Zeiss-Icon of Switzerland developed coatings prior to WWII on their Contax line, but Leicas, for example, did not (according to my quick research overview) have coated lenses until 10-20 years later. A Leica was a popular camera with Wehrmacht officers, for example, so there will be a noticable similarity to snapshots in German wartime photos and those from 1950s America. It was not until Japanese popularized the SLR (single lens reflex) camera in the 1960s under the Nikon and Pentax names that coated lenses became ubiquitous.
Coatings do several good things for photography:
a.) improve color
b.) reduce "ghosts" and flare (the flecks of white that appear when shooting towards a light source like the sun)
c.) increase contrast
The lack of contrast is one reason why old photos often look "flat" and monochromatic. The films used are also an issue. Old film has a very low contrast ratio, which tends to make the renderings of color less apparent. Coatings were so revolutionary that Leica called their coated lens line "T" for "transparent."
Sorry for the long-winded aside, LOL, but I used to make some nice money with cameras.
H_Ackermans
Gelderland, Netherlands
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 07:07 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextBut besides dust, also exposure by the camera and type of film used plays a role.
That's a good point, Herbert.
Camera lenses prior to the 60s were not generally coated. Kodak introduced the first coatings in 1939, and was supplying coated lenses to the military during the war. Zeiss-Icon of Switzerland developed coatings prior to WWII on their Contax line, but Leicas, for example, did not (according to my quick research overview) have coated lenses until 10-20 years later. A Leica was a popular camera with Wehrmacht officers, for example, so there will be a noticable similarity to snapshots in German wartime photos and those from 1950s America. It was not until Japanese popularized the SLR (single lens reflex) camera in the 1960s under the Nikon and Pentax names that coated lenses became ubiquitous.
Coatings do several good things for photography:
a.) improve color
b.) reduce "ghosts" and flare (the flecks of white that appear when shooting towards a light source like the sun)
c.) increase contrast
The lack of contrast is one reason why old photos often look "flat" and monochromatic. The films used are also an issue. Old film has a very low contrast ratio, which tends to make the renderings of color less apparent. Coatings were so revolutionary that Leica called their coated lens line "T" for "transparent."
Sorry for the long-winded aside, LOL, but I used to make some nice money with cameras.
Well, it is very informative and explains many of what has become "fact" being factually myth. People gauge colors for armour based on B/W pictures and use as basis for that, the info they collected over the years.
For instance, the olive green Tiger-E myth still exists because people judge certain pictures based on this presumption. They see for instance a Tiger with a darker hue than the surrounding desert and neglect to incorporate the photo is shot towards the sun, and the Tiger is shown darker due to backlight effect.
All those factors, make it impossible to tell colors, even from color pictures, as what it is.
Some filmfootage exists of Tiger-B 332 at Aberdeen after it was shipped there. And the turret numbers if you see them you can see them as Blue on white, or as Black on White. Just depends on what you want to see.
And that is what makes it so difficult and also entertaining to discuss. The orders on one side, and photographic and filmed "evidence" on the other.
bill_c
Campaigns Administrator
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,553 posts
Armorama: 8,109 posts
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,553 posts
Armorama: 8,109 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 07:22 AM UTC
Quoted Text
And that is what makes it so difficult and also entertaining to discuss. The orders on one side, and photographic and filmed "evidence" on the other.
The biggest challenge is reconciling the orders with the field practice. I corrected a FLAK 36/37 caption on the DAK site as actually being a Type 18 88, and the webmeister insisted that a lack of spare parts meant a "mix & match" was going on trying to keep guns in service (he pointed out that in November of '42 only 4 88s were in service due to these problems).
That's all very interesting, but first of all, I try to follow the same prohibition doctors do when diagnosing an illness: "if you hear hoofbeats, don't assume zebras," and pay attention to what you're looking at. I politely pointed out that, while swapping parts might be a practice employed by PAA and DAK, the photo clearly shows:
1.) A Type 18 carriage (OK, maybe they used a working 18 carriage)
2.) a Type 18/36 azimuth control consol (blinking lights instead of the dials added onto the Type 37)
3.) round support pads on the cruciform mount (Type 18)
4.) stabilizing stake holes inboard of the pads (Type 18)
5.) The Eighty-Eight: A Visual History of German 8.8 cm FLAK Guns in WWII states no 37s were shipped to N. Africa.
While there's no way to be CERTAIN some DAK repair Oberfeldwebel didn't plop a Type 36 onto a Type 18 mount, it's a stretch IMO, especially without evidence (I'm expecting he'll find a caption on the back stating just that and making a fool out of me, LOL! ). And unless he can produce something showing Type 37s going across the Mediterranean, it's definitely not a Type 37.
My other guiding principle is PEC:
PLAIN
EVERYDAY
COMMON
AmiPolizeiFunk
Berlin, Germany
Joined: July 25, 2008
KitMaker: 101 posts
Armorama: 96 posts
Joined: July 25, 2008
KitMaker: 101 posts
Armorama: 96 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 07:28 AM UTC
Beautiful tank Bill. My son and I really enjoyed the 5 pages of pics. Any chance for some real close close-ups?
Cheers!!! Great thread
Cheers!!! Great thread
wbill76
Texas, United States
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 08:01 AM UTC
Bill, Herbert, another compounding factor is the quality of whatever photo (sometimes a reprint from a negative, other times copies of copies, etc.) the publisher is using as well...when we were having the discussion in the DAK thread about III Ns being delivered, the quality of the photo I had vs. the one Charles Reading had was striking...and produced VERY different color tones as a result. It certainly makes for some interesting discussions!
Jdd, thanks for the comments and am glad you and your son enjoyed it. Unfortunately these are all the photos I can post at this time due to potential publication.
Jdd, thanks for the comments and am glad you and your son enjoyed it. Unfortunately these are all the photos I can post at this time due to potential publication.