Oh man....you are getting totally lost and this tread is getting bored thanks to you.

Sincerily you try to talk here like you know everything about everything and what I think is that you try to be something that you aren't.

You, ovibisuly try to make complicated something that is easy, and the people scape from these always boring subjects!

You are confused and lost, and...to paint a couple models nice, don't give you the enought credit to prove what you said.

You Call in a wrong way WASH to Filters, and later you say that you know what a is filter, but because I produced like a product, now you say that you want to avoid that name. Funny.

You said that you was making effects with oild since long time ago. You say that your model have modulation now. But you are against that. Can you keep clear your mind, EE?

You have not idea what Modulation means in ART and you are telling me that I doens't know the meaning.

You insist to see your model in 1 cm square to see how many tones we can find, and all that I can see is a bad applied heavy wash. I have seen your other models and I cannot find anything intersting, like your famo, or the boring King Tiger.

You are mixing concepts, ideas, techniques and personal things in this tread and you are not a constructive person. You just entry here telling to everybody that all that they do is wrong and your way is right.

To me, I cannot get any positive thing in your messages, specially when you mix personal stuff.
The worse thing is try to explain something to anyone who don't want to understand.

What I recomend you is just SHUT UP and come back to paint models, BTW, take some photos and post here, in facebook or in any magazine, and share your ideas trought articles, without say that other mothods is not valid just because you don't like it. And let the people choose what they want to do.

One more time, you doens't give arguments to explain why the things must be made only in your way. Just just say: This must be like this, but not like that.


And to finish this dirty tread , thanks to you, of course, I will tell you: don't push me to talk in public about your bussines ways, because will rain a lot of shi*t over you. Again, I repeat you, in case that you like hear your self, that I am not in Mig productions since 2 years ago, but I can say very CLEAR that you relacthionship with Mig Company doens't end ....good. As well as illegal actions was made from your side. Fortunatly, you are not the ONLY CHINESE GUY that know, and many other friends from mainland China informed me about your....funny bussines.

Anyway, you are lucky that I changed my life and now I doens't take care about that. Continue with your PE company, with your superultra realistic but boring models and try to have clear ideas when you entry to post here. I get sick! I don't know if american friends can undertsand all that you said, but not me man, specially when you continue change your terms, ideas or thoughts.

Under my opinion, Moderators can lock this tread right now. It haven't sense since the begining, because since the begining you was attacking directly to many modellers in an ugly way.

Bye LILI !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yes, yes, weakness or what ever you want. Do you think I get intimidated by you?

Come on Lili....everything that i wanted to tell you is in my posts! I don't want to lost more time with you. This is public place, not a boxing ring!.

The modellers around here will move to collect pokemon cards after reading this whole tread!

You haven't nothing better to say!



MIG

fascinating discussion, although the subtle personal jibes are rather petty and frankly embarassing

Right, I'm a figure painter who dabbles in AFVs. I paint light and shade onto my figures. I see no reason why methods such as CM cannot be used as a viable way to paint a vehicle if that is the choice as a modeller.

At the World Expo I saw a couple of models that made an impact (well hundreds, but not relating to this thread).

First was a Russian tank crashing into water with some infantry dismounting in a hurry - the figures were superbly painted and would do very well entered as single figures - a rare sight on AFVs - but because of this I felt the tank lacked that same form and shape that the figure painting created - don't get me wrong - the tank was superbly painted, but it did seem to lack that extra something.

The second model was Adam Wilder's Panther he used to demonstrate CM. That was fascinating to look at up close - so much interest, shape, form - I spent ages looking at it - it seriously did not look fake - I was surprised how good it did look. But conversly, it lacked a figure!!!!!!!

So whether they thought of it first or not, it's the guys who bring it to our attention, demonstrate how it's done and inspire by opening up the possibilities who I thank! (and see a business opportunity - fair play!)

But the bottom line is how you chose to paint your model is up to you. Whether you like it or not is subjective. There is no right and wrong. Which seems to be what's being said here by one individual - who's models are very good too - very good technically but fail to inspire me - persoanlly - because this is all subjective

This is the same arguement i have. Figures are three demensional and yet we paint shadows and highlight on them, why cant this technique apply to armor models? To each their own but it seems that certain people have a history with each other here and unfortuanetly showing itself in this thread. Way too many personal attacks and animosity. Its a hobby, come on guys.

Great! finally someone use the head in this tread!
The example that both of you made with the figures is just a perfect example. Sometimes is not necesary to many explanations when an example is really good!

The point is (under my opinion), brian haven't entry in this tread to be constructive or interested by what Iain and others were doing. reading his emails since the begining , we can see clearly that he was frustated for any reason.

We must try to keep polite and friendly this place, avoid the lack of respect and try to get ONLY POSITIVE things with what others are doing.

Totally agree with both of you guys.

Well, I started this conversation with the objective of exploring some concepts and ideas.
Also, to inspire others to try something that perhaps they had not explored yet.
Unfortunately for all of us, the conversation has been derailed ( several times ) by one bad apple with alterior motives.
With a few opportunities to repair the integrity of this conversation, this individual has repeatedly relapsed into using language designed to bait the participants into a personal argument instead of a discusion about color & artistic license.
I want to say that I am sorry to all of you who came to this thread looking for some insight and instead found an individual with alterior motives making an effort to ruin an otherwise good conversation.
I hope that we can have this conversation again real soon, with a clear objective and a peacefull road to that objective.
Once again, I am sorry to those who came looking for a learning experience and found a worm in the apple.

This is a real good example of weakness, the insult:

I think Mr. Miyagi just schooled you in your own dojo, D man. . . . .

Lain, dont worry about it, not your fault. I love when we have meaningful conversations about techniques but i hate when they get all jacked up like this. Unreal. I did learn a lot either way from this thread and im going to try them out on my next model. I havent built anything in probably 6 years. Im currently setting up a modeling space and should have it finished soon then ill get going on this.

Im am a bit confused though, i keep seeing MIG responding to posts i cant see and i noticed that i cant see any of Brians posts from earlier. Did something happen?

thanks! Name calling! nice one!

very grown up!

Still - you can make and paint very good models - I like them. I admire your technical skills.

I think that there can be many different approaches to making models, Yours is one, Mig's is another. Mine is another, and Dave's yet one more. We all will have slightly different objectives when we make a model. I guess you and Mig are at the oppostite ends of the spectrum. Both valid, both with something to add,

but unfortunately being rude and offensive to me and Dave brings nothing to the debate

Hey Brian, i just want to be sure you understood something, i totally agree with quite a lot you are saying, i guess its the tone thats throwing me off . Anyway, i think the one thing you are missing it that not everyone wants total reaslism in their models. Some want the ultra-realism that is your style of painting and others want to take a more "artistic" approach (and im not saying yours isnt art). I just dont get why one has to be wrong and one has to be right. It would a boring hobby if every model looked the same wouldnt it?

Oh, and for reason i wasnt seeing any of your posts for the last day or so. Not sure why but when i hit the unhide all button they all came back. Not sure if i accidentally hit it or what.

AS for being a zealot, not sure why that word was thrown out there. People have the right to varying opinions. Im not saying that the CM technique is the best or that i blindly follow what MIG and Lain say, but i do like how it looks and i do think it has a place in the hobby. Nothing more....nothing less.

Oh my gosh!

Sometimes genius and madness seems to be very close together! Please stop this egocentric ranting of what one said and the other one answered (or missed to do).

Back to the topic (and this wasn't 'Brian kicking Miguel' or vice versa):
modelling techniques evolved over times. Some hypes surfaced, others vanished. One driving factor was and is industry, admirable work by some and nowadays the internet and digital photography. So nothing evil in new technologies and no need to follow at any cost. And please remember there is a stage BEFORE even priming: BUILDING!
My personal opinion (and no absolute truth, since I'm no pope of modelling!) on CM is, that I'll give it a chance, but only on modells I plan to wheather quite heavily, since it looks easily overdone to me without a certain amount of filters, streaks, dust and mud. And, personal opinion, too, I'll avoid showing my summer 41 KV-II baked all over with mud only to use a certain technique. But my April/Mai IS-2 may see some CM, although subtle ;-)

Only my 2c

Volker

And now: room for the guys with the "high hats"

Brian, I am sure that you ignored the comment because there was nothing you could come back about it. As long as you keep trying to bully people here on the forums, you will find people like me Iain, Mig and many others that will continue to stand up to you. When you have something to ADD to the conversation we will all be here to listen as long as you are being "constructive" and not DEstructive.

As Mig stated plainly and I alluded to previously, get out and look at real vehicles in the field, not just photos. You are a good technician but you need to learn be to be civil too. Cheers.

I guess that's the problem i have, youre opinion of what a makes a model good differs from mine and many others. I enjoy realism and i also enjoy what you call pretty. I dont think a "realistic" model that is boring and does not grab you attention is a good model, but that is my opinion. I enjoy a model that combines both being realistic with being pretty and i think using CM can produce that affect. Also, i dont look at armor modeling from a pure armor modelers perspective since i start modeling with figures. With figures you do create artificial shading and i love how it looks when done right, i also think the same thing can apply to armor modeling. Arent pin washes artificial shading? Isnt dry brushing artificial shading? Yet both techniques are widely used. I think CM can fit into the same category and a model should not just be written off because it used the technique.