Beeing fairly new to modeling and beeing initially extremely impressed by the "spanish" school I must say I'm starting to sway over to the less rust / not overdone side.
I also think there are plenty of opportunity to improve that particular "school"(realism?). Better material definition, correct values, hue, modulation (yes, i would say it should go into the realism category when done right).

While it's easy to be impressed by the sheer amount of detail and "stuff" on a heavily weathered model (to the point where the eye gets lost in it all) there is definitely something appealing to see a perfectly executed finish with just a bare minimum of weathering. Maybe it's a purist thing where one starts to see the effort put into creating that "simple" finish?

Hi.

Do you know differences between REAL and LOOK LIKE REAL. Concerning the weathering, sometimes it could be true sometimes nothing but a trick. We can see the condition of rust, chipped in the military vehicles but most of them are not excessive condition as you know. Ordinary people, especially non modeler, could feel reality when they see the excessive weathered tank model. Because they could see the excesive rust or chipped condition in their real life easily whether they know real tank weathering condition or not. For exemple in the bulldozer, deserted cars, rusted can, streaking walls and so on. But I don't know the exact weathering condition of real WWII vehicles. IMHO. Sometimes we feel reality when we see Millennium Falcon model applied heavy weathering including streaking, rusting, chipping and so on. But most of us exactly all of us have never seen the said space ship. Then don't be too serious and nervous. Then there is no rigid answer about weathering the model IMHO. Then Lets relax and enjoy the modeling.

Quoted Text

---

At present, there is a fashion to depict excessive deterioration of the paint finish itself. We have a multitude of effects, notably preshading and filters, which show the paint to be faded (or oddly, supersaturated with color), and give a variegated finish not seen in the real world. Real paint doesn't fade very quickly, and the entire Second World War only lasted six years. Furthermore, paint doesn't fade preferentially at the center of a panel and not around the edges. Real paint fades according to how much direct sunlight it has received.
The simple fact is, for wartime vehicles, most of these effects are a complete waste of time, because the actual paint was nearly always covered by a layer of dust or mud, and that's what builders should concentrate on, not giving "color depth" to the Olive Drab or 4BO Green with six different filters.

---

I agree very much with the above.

But of course the problem with adding lots of dust or mud to a 1/35th scale model is that you loose Depth, if you remember the old trend for adding a lot of pastel chalk to a model to create dust effects, the first thing lost was a perception of depth to the model, everything could sometimes become very flat and featureless, the model would very often loose its detail.

As much as I dislike the current trend for over dramatic painting, in effect turning the model into a little 'drama queen', it does give the model a huge amount of depth, and brings out all the detail and features of the model, this in effect is the endless problem with 1/35th scale modelling, you are shrinking a real life subject down to such a small size that it looses its detail and features so easily unless painted in a dramatic fashion.

I find it kinda funny because dry brushing to a certain extent went out of fashion simply because a lot of people started saying that it wasn't realistic, but it has the same effect, it brings depth to the table, adds drama, drama created by light, or the effect of light falling on a surface, it makes small objects come alive.

And that is the objective of painting and finishing, to make a small object come alive.