A very recent thread on the relative merits of the Tank Art and FAQ series of books got me thinking.

Is it a good thing for companies like Vallejo or AK to get into publishing when, at the end of the day they're promoting their own product lines at the expense of what may be a superior (alternative) product?

IMO, I believe they ARE correct in that all they are doing is maximising their investment by showing what can be done with their product ranges.

It's been around for years. Both Airfix and Tamiya have in-house magazines which although they are not exclusively showcases for their own ranges, do have that emphasis. In the Fantasy Wargaming world, Games Workshop have done the same (although on steroids compared to the others)both Airfix and Tamiya have published books (using their models as the subject). So why does an AM producer have to be any different?

One comercial step too far or a highly useful addition?

I have the latest book from Ammo by Mig on color modulation and I would HIGHLY recommend it. It also shows a couple bottles of vallejo in some of the images. While it is a great advertisement for Ammo paint, it is a GREAT resource for painting period. Regardless of the paint brands used.

I have no problems with a company promoting their own products in a book.You can either buy it or not.It's good to have choices and info.

I do believe that companies like Mig,AK,Vallejo and the like could have more info included with the product,especially when you buy a set.Sometimes it's just a little written on the bottle or box.

I saw two contrasting examples in the last few weeks. The first from Vallejo was a book on painting fantasy figures (not my personal cup of tea) but superlatively done and presented. The other from Games Workshop - indescribably bad.

I've always liked the Ammo/AK books I've bought. Yeah, they do talk about their respective products, but the information is applicable to many products. And I never felt like either company is like "mine is the only product you should use."

Plus, as a subscriber to the Weathering Magazines, I see all brands of products doing all sorts of techniques. If any of these books/resources makes people try something new/different or get into the hobby itself, then I'm all for it.

I agree with these comments - there seems to be a surprising level of honesty from the companies concerned?

I don't have any fundamental issues with companies doing this. In the end, if they make money, then they're around to develop, produce and sell me products that I might want.

I do think, though, that this "commercialization" of the art leads to a lot of formulaic finishing and stunts the growth of a lot of modelers' developing their craft, skill, and ultimately their own styles.

In my opinion, it also contributes significantly (and perhaps disproportionately) to "populism" as a substitute for rational criticism and assessment when it comes to judging models and model works.

Model examples depicted in some of these heavily commercialized books are often blindly promoted by their fans as the epitome of model art, when they were actually produced more to advertise and show-off products.

Often these same models are extreme examples that combine heavy doses of every conceivable technique and product. This is understandable if the reader and viewer can appreciate the intent of the author and publisher - to showcase as many products as possible in as few pages as possible.

However, average and novice builders often see these models as "ultimate expressions" and are convinced that because they've seen it in a book that only models finished just like that are "good." Anything less or different is "marginal." They then setout to precisely copy or replicate what they've seen.

"If I make my model look exactly like the one on page X of book A painted by Famous Modeler Z, then my model wil be great and the judges and online critics must give me the highest marks and complements."

Yet another fad is born of an otherwise useful technique that should be applied with consideration and restraint. Models become copycat caricatures instead of unique works.

As long as modelers can (and will) run these commercial works through a "mental filter" and take a critical look at them to appreciate what they're seeing and what the intent behind it was, then these sorts of books can be very useful, almost liberating.

These books can offer a veritable smorgasbord of techniques and methods. It's even more helpful if the modelers also have an understanding of the basics of the proprietary materials used. With such an appreciation, these works offer modelers choices and ideas that they can freely use as needed and desired.

(Which leads to a corollary discussion about how a reliance on proprietary finishing products robs a novice and intermediate modeler of learning many skills needed to progress and advance his art and style. If you don't know how to prepare a wash made from hobby enamel paint, then you're forever stuck using whatever proprietary potions you can get. If you never learn to mix colors, then you forever stuck with the color pallet in the paint rack. And so on...)

The problem is that far too few modelers see these possibilities.

What too many modelers see are formulas and recipes that they feel they must slavishly adhere to in order to produce some sort of "Mig Magic" on their own models. The result is limiting, stifling and stunting, and the works produced are just more of the same ol' same ol.'

G'day fellas

I can only agree with the comments expressed above. If the companies want to educate us in the use of their products, and we can produce a better model as a result, fine. However (and maybe I'm just a stubborn bugger), in the end, while reading Tank Art and the like (and I own the first two volumes), I'm still going to do my own thing, which, I believe, is what modelling is all about.

I quite agree with Mike in that there could be a tendency for judges to judge models against the standards illustrated, which is not necessarily a good thing. One of the issues I have with Tank Art is that most of the models are very heavily weathered, which photos prove is not necessarily the norm.

My ten cents, for what it's worth.

Regards

Rob

This an absolutely fundamental point IMO...

I only read them for the pictures .... honest

Thoroughly agree with mike roof's post. What worries me is there is a tendency to weather every AFV like it has spent 5 years in the front line, out in the open and been driven through countless walls, all without any servicing or cleaning. Now while this is certainly true for vehicles seeing combat (but not always)I very much doubt that oeacetime vehicles would be allowed to get in such a state, certainly not British ones as several tank crew have told me. Another problem is that in competitions nowadays it seems that unless it looks like a scrapheap it's not being considered in the running and also accuracy of build is being ignored. It's becoming all artistic looks and no substance. I'd be interested what others think?

Regards,
Andy

Pretty much agree with that. I'd go a little further and say that there's also a certain 'dogma' has entered with almost an established style. Possibly because some people see the 'names' in the hobby as finishing in a certain way so it has to be blindly followed? I don't think that this is their intention, but it certainly has created a new orthodoxy which i'm not particularly comfortable with....

I think what Mike has said here gets to the crux of the matter in regards to the important idea of modelers developing their skills and their own style. After all- how do you think the modelers behind these companies came up with the products they sell in the first place? It was their style and their ideas that influenced the products they brought to market.

Perhaps the best way to develop ones own skills and style is to experiment with techniques and products- the more the better. And it shouldn't be confined to one area of modeling either- there are things aircraft modelers do that can and will help AFV modelers and so on. The only way to find out how it might benefit you as a modeler is to try it.

Sticking solely to the guidelines laid out by one book or another will mean you don't perhaps get the benefits of seeking out other ways of doing things.

Books such as we are discussing certainly help- and they definitely inspire. I've bought and used several over the years and still get them out when I want to refresh how to go about doing something they describe. But its also good to plough your own furrow as the saying goes.

It's likely that when we start we're subject to the 'prevailing style'. For myself, the style in the old Monogram booklets (Shep Paine?) was highly influential along with Verlinden's. Nowadays there seems to be a tendency for a slavish following of techniques such as Color modulation?

Is this really to do with the judging criteria at the bigger shows or is it something else?

Judging at some of the shows I have been too has been more like, who are the big wigs in the club hosting, and they are the winners!

The local IPMS club here constantly awards two members all the time, regardless. One of them is a real mouth piece and if he does not win he makes the club suffer till the next show. And he enters models that everyone in the club know are his, as he enters in the club contests through out the year. And he brings back the same models year after year.

At an AMPS show recently, anyone not a member of the local club was scored extremely harshly, with the club members getting the higher marks.

This is why I don't enter models in shows anymore.

I think there is a distinction to be drawn here between commercial promotion of models and construction products and the commercial promotion of proprietary finishing products.

Promotion of proprietary finishing products results in copycat finishing styles that are difficult for many modelers to break away from. Investments of time and (especially!) money tend to make a lot of modelers timid and reluctant to deviate from cookie cutter finishing "systems."

Monogram (through Shep Paine) and Verlinden were using their written works to primarily promote their kits and construction products (the books themselves being products too for Verlinden). The model artists, mostly Paine and Verlinden, emphasized technique and method when it came to finishing without resorting to an implied (or explicit) reliance on finishing product brands.

It's worth noting though, that these were still commercial "how to" works, and the finishing styles of the model artist were certainly influential. Keep in mind that it was Verlinden who introduced the modeling world to oil-dot color modulation more than two decades ago.

However, in my opinion, proprietary finishing "systems" are the main issue. It's sort of the "paint by numbers" equivalent to fine art, only with these systems being promoted and endorsed (even developed) by respected model artists, way too many model builders get trapped in a finishing box that they can't break out of.

These modelers reach a point in their own development where they lack the fundamental skills and knowledge to branch out and create their own methods because all they've ever known and used were finishing products that were off the shelf.

This is the main difference between yesterday (Paine and Verlinden) and today. Even with trying to replicate the finishing styles of the earlier generation of masters, modelers had to develop their basic skills and knowledge which laid the foundation for advancement. Today, modelers can reach for a product and replicate an effect without any real understanding of what it is they're using or why it works. When they're confronted with some new finishing challenge, they can't overcome it. They wind up searching for some new SBS/how-to and a new product line to use to achieve the new result they want. Time, money and individuality are all lost...




In my opinion, it's something else.

However, that something else has to be addressed and confronted head on in the specified judging criteria.

Style preferences and personal biases for particular finishing methods, materials and "looks" have to be discouraged from judging. Judges need to be told that they should assess and critique from the point of view of the builder and NOT from the position of how they, the judges, would have done it.

Judge the skill and the craftsmanship in the context of the style of the builder and not as a comparison to your own preferred style or techniques.

This is difficult, and it requires judges to restrain and control their own human nature which is to give preference to what they personally like. Judges must recognize this tendency and resist it. Judging team leaders must recognize it with their judges and correct it before it influences the scoring.

I can't speak for other judging systems, but I know firsthand that AMPS has made a significant effort in the last 3-4 years to emphasize just these points in its Field Judges' Training. There are, however, a lot of certified AMPS judges that received their training before this new emphasis and there are a lot of others who volunteer to judge who have never received the training.

Also, "home field" advantage in local shows is difficult to overcome in any system. The best cure for that is for more of the "visitors" to step up and volunteer to judge.

If someone attends and enters a model show, but then sits back and lets others do all the judging, what usually happens is that all the judges are from the local club. At the end of the show, those same guys have to face their friends at their next club meeting.

If you attend and enter, then judge. Keep the "home team" honest and help share the load. If you want the judging to be fair, then be willing to do more than just complain about it after the fact.

Certainly not ALL judges, but kinda makes you think....

From reading the above, it seems that something has changed, and that some modellers are not happy. There seems to be some vague half-consensus that it relates to the way that new finishing products and techniques are unwittingly consumed by other modellers, but that some show judges, book authors and paint vendors are also to blame, even if only by some kind of law of unintended consequence in which increased choice and information has unfortunately led to a self-limiting style.

It doesn’t seem to me that there is a uniform style of model making on display on this site, although it is probably true that new styles have arisen over the last decade or so, partly as a result of the greater choice of products; I suspect also the ability to buy such products and to discuss techniques and to see thousands of other modellers’ works on the internet, as well as the relative buying power of older modellers plus the comparative affordability of airbrushes compared to 40 years ago, also has something to do with it.

Part of the argument on this page is that “too many” modellers have become slaves to technique partly because books such as FAQ2 (Mig has been cited a few times) appear to encourage them adhere to pre-set formulae. I think it is worth looking at something he wrote in that book:


I don’t really have a big issue with the overall premise that a certain style has arisen that may – or may not – predominate among the winners at competitions. I’m also neutral over the arguments over whether models are over-weathered or not. I’m happy to see models like that, as well as those that have that “used but impeccably maintained” look. (Often that division seems to me to divide in any case along the lines of modern vs WW2 fans.) What both styles (there isn’t two of course, but a spectrum) have in common is that both can be executed with different levels of skill, competence, inspiration, originality, etc. etc. (fill in whatever you like here, it’s all valid as a judgement criteria).

There are some things that make me uneasy in this thread though. It is a kind of charge that some people are telling others how to do things and are somehow controlling them and it produces something that “I don’t like”. A feeling about people that they should kind of “learn the hard way” because it produces something like “character”. The idea that what some people are doing is “all wrong” and that they “just don’t get it”.

You know, what keeps coming to my mind is that TV programme from a few years ago, “Grumpy Old Men”.

I brought up this very issue, on ML and they crucified me for it.

If there's a tendency on display it seems to be the one of polarisation and divisiveness. Detailers against build'n'buyers, weathering against factory fresh, and a ton of personal angst thrown in for good measure. Not just this site, if anything it's getting much more common amongst the modelling community.

I assume most of the anti weathering comments are directed at competition frustration? Because I ask you guys, how many over weathered and over techniqued models do you see on this site? Not many I'd wager. You only have to look at the feature models to see that.

The pioneers of what I call super weathering like Mig, Adam Wilder et al don't post here anymore. Probably for the reception they get.

There's another site I regularly visit and in the Constructive Comments forum you'd be absolutely right in saying 90% of the posted builds are highly weathered and finished, and that they get the most interest. Some are OTT to my taste but I still don't see why that's necessarily evil, it's a personal choice. It's not often I see a plainer model posted anywhere and the weathering brigade jump on it to say where's the modulation and 6 pigment filters. They just ignore it and move on.

You know what we all need to do - show some respect and encouragement - to newbies, super detailers, those who use finishing products and the plain factory fresh finishers alike. Make a comment and try to be helpful and positive. The threads like this get far too many comments and views while posted models are very lucky to top a dozen ....

I just hope we can keep this site open minded and appreciative of all modelling types as I'd hate to see it slide in ways that many others have.

Brent

Well there is one thing that, above all, makes this site perhaps the best place on the net to share our hobby and that is its civility and level-headedness. You rarely see a thread here get out of hand or down-right nasty. Sure it happens from time to time but the majority of even 'heated' discussions here are often respectful and interesting- like this one here for example. So I think this is a good place to discuss these things.

I think we also must remember that this is a hobby- it is supposed to be relaxing and enjoyable. I would tend to say that as long as someone has enjoyed their build then they have done it right.

However, if you have asked for constructive criticism or are entering a contest to be judged then obviously more than just your satisfaction via enjoyment is taken into account- i.e. you want to see what others think about your efforts in the wide world of modeling.

I would also hope that here we wouldn't shout someone down simply because they have a difference of opinion regarding how to finish a model. If we didn't have wide ranging and respectful discussions on such things then weathering wouldn't be the fascinating subject that it is.

IMO, it sure is. In fact, it's because of the money being brought in by those products that allow them to print/assemble and distribute these books, which aside from showcasing their own products contain a plethora of information that if studied and dissected and actually put into practice can raise the understanding of how various mediums behave as well as raise level of work of anyone willing to put in the work.

While I may have grown up on Verlinden, Letterman and Paine, there came a point in time where I wanted to continue to grow beyond a simple raw umber wash and dry-brush highlight.

I wanted more from my finishing and while those 'old school' techniques were working, they were in fact very 'cookie cutter' and often produce a pretty predictable result. I wanted to grow, to do that, I needed new influences.

I sought out those who finish their models to my liking and studied them and their techniques. I spent years dissecting the text of my favorite modelers articles. I spent countless hours reverse engineering their finished photos and put it all into practice at the bench. I can honestly say that while I owe a great deal to some of these guys whom I've learned from over the many years, my style is definitely my own.





Absolutely agree, but it's nothing new IMO.

I have seen just as many 'old school' models where the raw umber wash on a CARC sand vehicle resembles that cute goth chick at the coffee shops heavily applied eye makeup, and the amount of, and color choice of the dry-brushing resembles cake frosting. This isn't the fault of the technique, nor the person who invented it or his method of explaining how to apply it. These effects are 'overdone' and not what our original masters did to their models or intended for us to do to ours.

It's merely the same exact thing that happens today, where someone takes a technique and applies it far beyond it's intended use. The only difference being that it's so old and ingrained into the minds of many, that it is simply accepted, when it is just as much 'overweathering' as any new technique that is applied too heavily.





But why does that worry you? If Joe Modeler wants to spend his hobby doing that to his models, who cares? Why should what any one person chooses to do be of anyone else's concern?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm honestly asking why anyone else would lease that much real estate in their minds to what others do...

When I'm at my bench creating my latest works, there couldn't possibly be any less of a concern with what others do/think. I build for me. Those that like what I do, like it. Those that don't like what I do, don't. But either way, I'm still going to do it my way because that's what I enjoy.

When the day arrives where I suddenly concern myself with what everyone else is doing, well I guess that will worry me too, and I'll put down my airbrush.





Well, partly agree...

about the 'not having any understanding' part.

Having said that, like I mentioned in the other thread, there are no magic potions or paint by number systems that anyone can just follow along and reproduce what they see in these books. They absolutely cannot simply buy the product and pull it off, (although they may think that) they still need to know how to apply it, how to remove it, how to blend it, where and when what color choice works and why... this is where these books really come into their own. IF one wants to apply themselves, they can learn to work with anything, whether it be a convenient pre-made wash, or a gallon of household paint they got at a yard sale.

There is thicker enamel paint (streaking effects) there are thinner enamel paints (washes) and still even thinner enamel paints (filters). I have seen far more examples of modelers who think they can do just as you say, buy said product and slosh it around thinking they have the magic potion. The results always speak for themselves though and more often than not, serve to exemplify how not to use the products.






I wasn't going to comment on judging, I felt it was a derail to the topic that I didn't want to help perpetuate.

but it's true. I am just as tired of the judging rants as I am of the over weathering rants. First time I entered a show, I didn't get what my friends said I should.

Funnily enough, they all got upset and cried foul. I chose to take the comments on the sheets and go home and work on what I read. Low and behold, the next show I placed fairly well. I took those judging sheets home and worked on those comments for a year.

The last time I entered a show (back in 2012) I received a perfect score, some of those friends who cried foul at my initial scores three years prior were still crying foul as they picked up their judging sheets that year. We can either put all of our energy into complaining, or we can try and figure out why we are getting the marks we are getting and fix it.





Agreed.

I know that I personally work very hard taking photographs of the entire build/paint/weathering sequence as I go, always concerned with capturing the moment as to not leave the reader guessing. I then try to craft my 3000 words in a way so that it wont bore the more talented guys but wont leave the average joe out of the loop.

Then I see it mentioned on Armorama that if you're getting any kind of financial renumeration for your efforts, you're not giving back to the hobby.

Having spent a great deal of time over the years working with and conversing with some of the hobbies more talented artists, I can say with great confidence that this does in fact lead to this;




Which is IMO a bit of a shame. Regardless of their business pursuits and goals, people of that caliber have so much to offer those who want to learn new ways and improve their own modeling skills.

Having said that, I will say that when I compare the numbers of posted forum topics around the interwebs (Yes Matt, even yours on ML) against the printing/sales numbers, the silent majority is at home at their benches reading these publications and working on their own skill-sets.

Modelers have to share some of the responsibility when it comes to whether or not they are simply 'fan bois' blindly following the guy in front, or denouncing anything new or out of their comfort zone. For every ten modelers on the forums waxing lyrical about the evil corporate whores taking our monies, there are ten more pushing forward and developing their skills with the assistance of these books.




*note, these are merely opinions and thoughts, they are probably different than yours, that doesn't make them right or wrong, nor does it make them personal attacks against your opinions or thoughts, your milage may vary, wash with like colors, build what you like, like what you build.

I don't believe that it's a matter of building "character" or that "what some people are doing is 'all wrong,'" as in some kind of attitude that "back in the day we built models the old fashioned way - barefoot through the show, up hill both ways to the hobby shop... You young whipper-snappers..."

What I do believe is that far too many (not all, but even one is too many) modelers develop a reliance and dependence on proprietary finishing products used in formulaic ways. This is fine up to a point, and it can certainly produce very nice results quickly and easily.

However, once a modeler reaches a point in his personal development of skills and craft, he can find himself without the basic knowledge of how and why he's been able to achieve his results. Those results have been possible because of the products used and formulas followed and not because of the skill and (especially) the knowledge of the modeler.

It's at this point that the modeler finds himself confronted by a desire to do something new, but lacking the skills and knowledge to do it.

We see evidence of this all the time here. Just consider all of the questions that get asked about "what's the color I should use" or "what sequence should I do something" or "what proprietary product do I need to use?" and so on.

These guys have been confronted by tasks that most should be able to figure out given their apparent skill levels, but they can't.

I submit that it's because many of them simply lack the understanding behind the products and processes that they've used up to that point. As long as they stick with the program in the book, based on that specific vendor's products, all is good. But if they want to do something new and different, then they're at a loss as to how to go about it.

It's not a matter of "character," but a matter of the skills and knowledge to advance and grow, one of limitations and potentials.

If I "hate" anything or get "grumpy" about something, that something is people being held back from their goals and not realizing their potentials.

No they didn't. They gave, like here, their responses to your comments. See here.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47211/thread/1425299402/Over+Weathering

I think you got the correct responses you deserved based on what you said.

It all comes down to this: Are you concerned with your own models or someone else's models?