I found this article on painting this camo and figured i should share it with you guys. Although this is for wargaming and not modeling, i still think it is a valuable rescource.

http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=110&art_id=866


This is another article on the site that may help you out


http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=110&art_id=285

Modelling Waffen-SS Figures by Calvin Tan
Osprey ISBN 1-84176-837-5
Covers how to paint Plane Tree, Oakleaf, Pea, and Italian camo.
Best book on the market for painting SS camo.

Yes it's a good book and beautifully illustrated - and you can't argue with Calvin's results.

But I'm not so sure it's a really a "beginner's" book, dealing as it does with super-detailing, conversions etc. besides painting. I think too that some of the paint mixes that he tells the reader to concoct are overly (even unnecessarily) complex.

Personally (as someone with relatively little experience in painting SS camo) I've found articles here and elsewhere on the Net and in print that have helped me more (and of course all the books & articles in the world are no substitute for practice, practice and more practice).

Just my take - and no disrespect meant to Calvin, who's undeniably a master in this field.

- Steve

great link the one below is quite useful to

http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=110&art_id=285

I'll agree that Calvin's book is brilliant, and there's no doubt that I'm a huge fan of his works but... I must admit that while he achieves amazing results, his technique is not for everyone and can be difficult to master. I tried it briefly last year, but had to halt the project due to a household move - I'll try pick it up again this year.

If you want some great painting SBS's you actually don't even need to leave Kitmaker. All you need to do is check out Historicus Forma's Features >> Painting section. Don't get caught thinking HF is only historicals, they cover all genres of figure modelling and most tutorials are written with the beginner modeller in mind

Rudi

Agree a bit tricky to get used to Calvin's technique's ,but well worth it

I have to agree his paint mix's are very/over complexed, but still a great book

Calvins book is excellent and like anything published by any one in this genre, it is a reference and starting point for each individuals style. It is his style and a guide to develop your own. As for the overly concocted formulas, I look at it this way. Calvin and others have developed a skill set that makes them an icon of their hobby. With this also comes the belief from the reader that his way must be right and there are expectations that the reader will assign to this work. So possibly he feels that he must try and formula mix his paint to make what he considers a pefect match. Otherwise there will be complaint that he didn't.
In reality I think that within the context that the art is presented, it will work if it is close. There is too much emphasis put on exact color matches, taking into consideration things like weathering, scale effect etc. that are agonized over and in some cases overly pontificated about. Has any one seen a judge show up at a show with a color spectrometer to analyze a paint finish on a Tiger, its crew or any number of subjects? Close is good enough. So long as you don't "color outside the lines" too much and livery your SS Grenadiers in purple and neon green pea dot or autumn foiliage, keeping within the reasonable expectation of what it should look like based upon your references so that the viewer can see that yes those are SS Panzer Grenadiers wearing autumn oakleaf and they are throwing rocks at their Heer counterparts sporting splinter pattern zeltbahns, its all good.
The idea that something has to be dead on is futile if you take into consideration:
60 years of oxidation, wear and tear. Color shift of film stock when the photo was originally taken. Color shift as a result of film processing. Atmospheric effects when the original was shot (dust, cloud cover, angle of sun, fog, temperature inversion etc) exposure and shutter speed factors. The idea that if it was pulled from a book then there were separations shot, and there would be a color shift from that. Inks and presses used during the printing process, including paper stock. If from a computer then color shift as a result of monitor calibration and or luminosity. Each facet will make a difference indivdually and compounded exponentially when combined.
Close is good enough...ask yourself does it look like what you wanted to paint? Then that is the success. Trying to copy someone elses style will only end in multiple failures till you achieve a similar result and even then there is an indivudality of each piece.
To again there is the eye/brain connect/diconnect. It would almost be impossible to exactly match something but you can fool the eye into making the brain believe that within the context of the setting it is seeing what it believes to be correct. A good example of that would be painting 1/35 scale miniatures with modern marpat digital camo.
If it looks like a duck and is in the right setting.......

Good post, Chevalier (I've snipped it for brevity).

With regard to the statement I've lifted, I agree entirely.

For example, such is the range of (for example) Vallejo colors that it should be no problem to find any of the the basic camo colors may need for pea, oakleaf, zellbahn or plane tree without the need for bothering with all this 2:3:1:2 mixing ratio malarkey.

Vallejo now even do specific shades for SS camo.

Sure, Calvin's results are mind-boggling - but it's all down to his skill as a painter and years and (I assume) years of PRACTICE - not to exact mixing ratios of this paint or that.

No need for all that complexity at all - which is why I feel that this book (good though it is) loses a point or two due to that.

- Steve