Quoted Text
Quoted Text
Now folks, feet are feet, paint is paint, and dirt is dirt.
When you speak in absolutes where none exist, you lose the argument.
Anyone who works for a paint company can tell you paint is not just paint, that there are types formulated for all manner of surfaces and degrees of durability. If paint is paint why devise new formulas rather than just keep using the same one if it makes no difference? Are you attempting to say there is no difference in an industrial primer and my bottle of Vallejo acrylic?
Are the feet of a 140-lb person going to produce the same ground pressure as those of a 180-lb person?
Is terrain marked by topsoil containing multitudes of small stones and larger rocks going to have the same effect as the silty loam of a flood plain? That's about the same as saying 80-grit and 320-grit sandpapers have the same abrasive quality. And considering soil studies were part of my undergraduate degree, I am far from inclined to agree with your view on dirt.
Usually you have a lot of good things to say but that was not one.
I apologize for being facetious. I was trying to imply, in exasperation, in general terms, that footwear, regardless of type, will inevitably pick up dirt, which in turn will grind into paint, regardless of type. A point I’d tried to make several times in three other postings. To say otherwise is ridiculous. If it weren’t true, and we could figure out how to make it untrue, we’d be able to retire wealthy. I doubt that a reasonable person, even walking across loamy soil, would take off their footwear, and purposefully run the dirty sole over the hood of a new car. You must agree that sandpaper is sandpaper, and abrasive, regardless of “grit”. Sorry if I hadn’t made that clear in the previous posts. But you are right, my comment was not useful.
I believe this entire string was started with the individual poster asking if “chipping was historically correct”. He’s been given multiple answers based on opinion. Some of which have been from direct experience and even photographic proof. The discussion has since devolved into “scale effect”, a reasonable question for a modeling forum. Models are art. I’ve seen some beautiful models without any wear or “chipping” in museums, and on contest tables. And built more than a few myself, currently residing in a museum (aircraft). They represent the prototype, but not the “life” of the prototype. That static “clean” piece is just one way to depict miniature artwork. Another way is to convey a sense a occupation and use, through mediums such as “mud” “dust” “weathering” and chipping”. Can “chipping” be overdone on a model? Yes of course. But if done correctly, it can also be used in conveying a sense of movement and occupation to a static model, much the same way a 2D artist conveys mood through color, light and shade. Or as a figure painter uses various colors and shades to bring life to a 1/35 face. To say it shouldn’t be done because it’s not in “scale” overlooks the fact these machines were used, and accrued wear in their use. We work in an art form, and miniature vehicles cannot possibly be as “accurate” as the real thing. They can however, be made to look “like” or “similar” to the real thing, well beyond a simple miniature representation of the prototype. But, I guess like any other form of art, some will like it and others won’t. However, I can attest, through experience, that “chipping” is in fact, historically accurate. Which is what the original poster was asking. How he intended to portray it is unknown. As a solution, I’d propose that instead of offering opinions on wether or not chipping occurs in real life, we discuss how to accomplish “scale effect chipping” and share methods for depicting it. That way we all benefit.
As for me, I have my feet (no pun intended here] firmly planted in both camps. I have models I want to display as clean museum pieces. I also have models in which I’ve depicted a fair amount of wear, including chipping, primarily in diorama settings, to convey “life”. A clean, museum piece model does not look correct crossing a trench or rolling down a road. Depicting ”chips” really depends on a variety of factors, but for starters, I like to use a very fine pointed oooo brush to repeatedly place lighter or darker dots and random lines and shapes over and around areas where logical wear occurs. I usually use a lighter or darker acrylic paint, contrasting slightly with the original surface (color depends on the subject). I use a minimalist (less is better) approach. And yes, I too am frequently (but not always) put off when viewing a mass of indiscriminate pockmarks and scratches produced by the “hairspray” technique. Although there are some applications where that technique is acceptable (to me anyway) primarily in depicting destroyed or severely damaged vehicles, or in vehicles with whitewash overcoats, but that’s not really “chipping” is it? It’s more of a failure of one type of paint over another, or the total destruction of a painted surface through violent reaction. So those are my techniques for depicting “chipping”. It’s an art form that mimics reality. As for ”accuracy”— its good to keep in mind that models are art, not reality. An artist tries to capture that reality, that’s all.
VR, Russ
