So what do we think of my weathering philosophy? Effect over technique?

https://armorama.kitmaker.net//features/34

Basically I was trying to stress simulating a weathering history for a vehicle rather than just using techniques like drybrushing, etc. to make a model look weathered.

Paul--certainly an interesting and thought provoking article. I played with several methods. Using acrylics as the wash then higlighting has its dangers. When using a brown wash on the facial areas, I think it looks fine. It also goes into the recesses of the uniform quite well. Now, using the same base, I placed it on the interior of my flat white M-8. Results were okay, but not great. I must not have gone back and taken up the damp residue in a thorough enough manner. Building washes have come out better. I recently spray a base of Germman Panzer Gray on a stone bridge from CMD. Allowed it to dry for 24 hours thenn put an acrylic base flat black wash over her. Nice effect on the stones. Then, I highlighted with flat white and light gray. Keep the articles coming. Well done, thanks
DJ

Paul,

Great article, this is one of the reasons I like it here so much!! You have given an in-depth look at the idea of weathering...super! I can take a look at it and make up my own mind about how I want to do it!!

Great!

Great article Paul;
I got the pretty much same line when doing my models.
As you I consider the weathering efficient when you look to the model and feel that it came out of the battle.
Keep showing us your inspiring work!
Cheers!

I must tell you I am most anxious to try Paulo's method for winter camouflage. Has anyone else applied his technique?
DJ

Indeed, a very well written article, Paul. Well layed-out.

Paul,
Thank you for an excellent article. We share some of the same views on weathering. I rarely weather my models as i prefer an almost factory fresh look. I am just finishing a Steyr Tractor for my first modeling contest (I built my first model over 40 yrs ago) and plan to do light weathering. It has always been my contention that any model not weathered stands no chance in the average contest. Your article is very thought provoking and is a keeper. I've printed it out to include in a binder of modeling articles I keep.
Isn't it great that we have Armorama to share our views?

Paul,
Great article! I've just started modeling only six months ago, and weathering seems to be the greatist challenge of modeling. This gives me some new ideas to try out! Any other advice for novice modelers out there would be helpful! Scott

Uhhh, good article Paul, concisely written. Any article that makes you stop and think, is good material. I whole-heartedly agree with you in principle. For example the sequence of "weathering events" is an excellent point. Further, your "damaged parts" section is spot on, refering to the usual usage of burning the plastic (possibly a hold over from our childhood days) to simulate dents and such. But, (and weathering is where I love to experiment) some of your methods lad are indeed new to me. So, with that said. I would like to continue this train of thought and ask others how, for example, they do their washes presently.
Gentlemen?

To start it off, how many members stick with the same mediums in both main coats and washes (acrylics/acrylics), (enamels/enamels)?
How many use oil washes? (this is my present method).
How many use acrylics with printers ink as a washing medium?

Just curious as to everyone's present method of weathering since, in my opinion, weathering is the 'meat' of authenticity

BTW, Gunnie....you need to answer this question. Please.

Tread.

Okay Tread :-)

I don't believe in washes - and I do not perform the technique on my models. I prime (pre-shade though I loath that term) my models in Flat Black, Grey, or Brown if painting a Sand / Yellow tone, and then layer my color coats on top of this. I don't drybrush either, as I agree with Paul - this mimics nothing in Nature at all, but is a European modeler's technique to make a model stand out in photography. I feel I can reproduce depth, color, tone, and fade with the airbrush on my models. I let the observers judge the end result.

I do employ oils for weathering thread to make rope, make a fuel stain, or for engine grime. I'm big on using oils for wood effects on plastic parts.

I'm with Paul on the other points in his article too - I especially like the sequencing and diagram of paint fade / wear. I am the type of modeler that he indicates likes to spotlight the mechanical beauty (my words ) of a piece of ordnance. Though I prefer not to battle damage my models - I can replicate these effects, and I agree with his sentiments there. They would be my approach in spirit too.

Paul - many thanks for submitting your views. I think there are a hundred ways to paint OD Green on a model, and no single view is going to satisify all. I think learning a range of techniques and approaches makes the novice and "master" miniaturist all that much better in creating an illusion we all share and enjoy.

Hopefully Tread - I hit on all the points you wanted me to respond too.

Gunnie

One other thing about weathering; I've got a book by Miguel Jimenez "MIG" on weathering military vehicles... Unbeleavable stuff, takes a whole new approach with layering, rain marks and simulating battle damage, without washing and drybrushing and other "unrealistic" techniques (I haven't said that... )... I think MIG wrote some articles for Missing Links so you can take a look there for a quick preview of his techniques.

I have a Warrior that is waiting on my bench and I can't wait to try some of the MIG's tips and tricks on it. BTW, the book is called "Rarities"...

Mario M.

Thanks Maki, for your reply, and the name of the book. I'll look for it over at Amazon.com What kind of methods are you using now?

Tread.

Tread - I humbly appreciate your compliments! Contrary to popular belief - I do weather my models. However, I do not OVERWHEATHER my miniatures. My effects are subtle, and you've gotta get close to see them. This is part of the scale effect, and when standing casually looking at a bunch of models on a display table - you're really more than a hundred scale feet away from the model. What would you be able to see at that distance? Our eyes are not in 1:35 scale - so the light gathering power of our eye is immense in comparison, but pretend to be 1:35 scale in size to get what I mean. I really try to build my models with that thought in mind. You should not be able to see clearly some of the effects some modelers render on a miniature - especially from several footsteps away!

I feel a lot of modelers get duped into over doing it just to get the point across to a judge or observer that the model is really weathered. A lot of modelers have sought me out after a round of judging and told me so.



On my M10 Tank Destroyer here, the weathering is extreme (for me). The photo is taken at a scale distance of some 20 feet. The camera doesn't compensate for light-gathering power, suffice to say it is way more than the human eye in scale. The mud on the suspension and running gear is over a scale inch in thickness in places. There are rusting streaks, fuel stains, and medium paint wear on highpoints and regular crew access points for ingress/egress. But, when you're at a museum collection and stand at the same distance from the actual vehicle, how much of this detail does your eye gather? I take photos from the same viewing distances as a casual modeler would, and really try to weather my models accordingly. I also take photos in black & white too - as this really helps to illustrate the effects of your weathering as compared to period photographs. When it looks right in black & white - it looks good to me in color.

Dave Khan is a fellow competitor and friend - and one of the AMPS Masters. If you have a chance to go to AMPS this year, and he attends with a model, take a close look at how subtle his weathering is. Mark Ford has compared our work to each others - and I can only take that as a compliment. I believe we share the same philosophies on weathering miniatures. It is a critical part of the illusion to draw the observer in closer to the model. And, the closer you get - the more you should "see". Bullet holes, battle / use damage, staining, rain streaking, all the "fun" stuff of weathering is what makes armor modeling the challenge that it is. I just take a subtle approach - and want to knock your socks off when you come in close to the model - like I am when I climb onto one to take pictures and dream a little...

Gunnie

Tread, I used to be an "wash and drybrush" modeler. As I wasn't completely satisfied with it I tried other things..
On my latest armor model (it was IDF Blazer I made two years ago... yes, I know I work slow.. ) I tried washing the model with dark brown/black wash, but I applied the wash to the ENTIRE model not just to the recesses.. Of course, at first this was totaly accidental, however I liked the outcome. The original color of the tank got a bit darker, the details were accentuated and it didn't need drybrushing. It is a great thing because you can change the color of the model bit by bit by applying several light washes... and you still get a wash effect in the recesses. BTW, I work with Humbrols and haven't tried this with acrylics or oils.
As I understand MIG developed simmilar technique and brought it to perfection. He calls this "layering" and combines it with some other techniques to achieve unbeliavably realistic results... BTW I don't think they have it at Amazon... I bought mine from Historex Agents, UK.

Mario M.

I''ll throw in a couple of comments, based on my experiences with real vehicles:

1. Once a military vehicle has been used it is never really clean again, short of repainting. The most common "weathering" I've seen is a lightening of the base color on the lower part of the vehicles. This is caused by the dust that is ubiquitous in military training areas. The dust builds up on the vehicle, working from the ground up. Because modern flat military paints have a rough texture, the dust sticks, and even after washing a little remains in the paint. Even scrubbing with detergents won't take it out, so the paint appears lighter on the lower sections of the vehicle. I have found that misting "dust" colors (virtually always light, even in areas with dark soil), heavier on the lower parts of the vehicle, replicates this effect very well. Of course, if the vehicle has not been washed, then the dust buildup is worse.

2. Most modern paints, notwithstanding the dust issue above, do not hold mud very well. As the mud dries, it tends to flake or chip off, and only really builds up in tight corners or on shelves (no, not like the shelves in your model dungeon...I mean flat or near flat areas on the vehicle). Modern fender/mudguard systems work pretty well, so the mud tends to stay below them. Staining in foot traffic areas is usually restricted to footprints and such, since the crew will normally try to knock the mud off their feet before mounting, or after getting partially on the vehicle. Remember that this is their home, whatever kind of vehicle it is, and muddy trespassers are usually verbally abused. The upshot is that mud buildup is not normally a generalized thing, and mud build up tends to fall away as the vehicle moves around. Oh, and it is most unusual that a vehicle of any type is not washed following EVERY operation, before returning to the motorpool. The US Army in particular has invested enormous amounts of money in high tech, non-polluting, dirt and oil trapping washracks at nearly every installation around the world.

3. Silver highlights (to simulate wear) are very unusual on any military vehicle of any age or ownership. Ditto, bright orange rust or rust stains. First, damage to metal components usually results in a dull gray metallic mark, rather than a bright silver mark. The exception to this is aluminum, which looks like, well...aluminum, when it is damaged. If the damage rusts, the rust is nearly always dull, dark red-brown. This would be infrequent, since noticable damage is usually cleaned up and repainted as soon as possible, although not always in a matching color. So go really easy on the bright silver or orange "highlights".

I hope this is of some use.

Many thx Maki, and appreciate the 'real world' input ARENGCA. Once again, some great input floating along in current of these forums.
Somebody REALLY needs to file and catagorize all this great information in an easy to access Armorama.com databank....(arms folded, tapping foot here...)

...anybody listening...?

Tread.

BTW...will you check out Gunnies M10 above, is that good, or what!?!

Tread.

I have never really perfected my weathering techniques, and I am sure I have made all the beginner mistakes. I think the level of weathering a vehicle comes down to this:




That said if your AFV is in a diorama then it's a whole new discussion. Not to pick on Ken's Sherman (still in progress) but I think his level of weathering would depict a tank that had perhaps gone through some of the worst fighting in the Winter of '45. I have seen pictures of muddy Sherman’s with remnants of their winter wash and certainly the look of this project is close to those real-life examples. If it was me however I would only employ this level of weathering if the vehicle was going to be placed into a dio. To me you almost need the muddy tracks to be in well....mud. Otherwise on it's own I think the mind has a tendency to think....hey....there's no mud on this table surface? Where did all that mud come from???

But maybe that's just me. And while I agree with a lot of what has been said here. I think it's also important to point out that this hobby has a long-standing history of sanitizing the depiction of the subjects we do. For the most part this is probably a good thing (no decapitated soldiers etc.). But I think psychologically this also happens with AFVs as many people would rather depict AFVs somewhat "fresh-off-the-boat" then in the field for a long time.

Jim

Jim has hit a couple of nails on the head! There is a lot of sanitization in our hobby. Unfortunately, I think this comes from the competition arena. Somehow, a tank that looks like it has been to the Battle of the Bulge and back is looked upon as a curiousity. Some people even think that all the muck, slime, and damage is somehow an attempt to cover up sub-standard construction. To make it worse, some armor modelers even admit that they use the technique to cover up "boo-boos" on their models. Little wonder why this thought persists.

To compensate, some accomplished modelers go to the extreme left of the equation - and limit such weathering and wear effects to the point the vehicles look fairly "new" - so as not to be accused of covering up construction flaws. A buddy of mine politely puts my weathering (in general) in a class of a vehicle that "has been just driven down the road - for a short period of time". He's currently in the Army, and he means no harm. I giggle at the observation - probably because it's correct! But, there's another factor there too beyond the competition aspect. I have not had the fortune to serve in these vehicles, or climb all around them, or like Sabot - have 'em at hand when they're getting refurbished. In the absence of such real-time experience, we'll go with what we feel we know best.

The mud example Jim cited is great - and it's why I put the M10 on a clodded, earthen base. Eventhough the mud is dried - with some wetter spots - it helps convey the purpose of the weathering better than parking it on the white linen surface of the display table. In the case of a heavily worn tank, it is difficult to convey the same "feeling" without putting the model into a dioramic setting. And, if the modeler doesn't - the model tends to look overdone.

As always, there's much food for thought here...

Gunnie

Hey I remembered my password!

Anyhow... thanks for all the feed back on my article. I have always been fascinated by weathering, it is probably the *thing* that delineates AFV modelling from other types of modelling.

Just a few more points:

Concerning dry-brushing for the scale-effect: I've seen this stated in the past, dry-brushing successive lighter shades of the base colour to compensate for the scale effect, highlighting in other words, never seems to be practiced by other types of modellers, cars, aeroplanes, ships, etc. So why do we do it? Seems that proves that it is a "fad", if you know what I mean.

Winter white wash: The technique I described certainly looks good, however a while ago someone on my site posted an interesting messages about using an athlete's foot spray remedy. This stuff sprayed on a white substance that could easily be scratched up and rubbed off like winter white wash paint. Has anyone tried this?

Paul--did you see Paulo's article and photos on the T-34? If not, may I recommend you consult the photo gallery. His method was to paint the vehicle with the white colration then highlight it with a base color. In the case of the T-34 it was a green highlight with liberal doses of rust. Beautiful job.
DJ

Athlete's Foot medicine!?! Oh my - I knew armor modelers were resourceful, but I never envisioned trotting outta the Drug Store with a can of Desenex for model building.

I think I'd like to see that technique in action...

Gunnie

Nice model T-34 paulo; I had not seen that.

This is a similar method to another model I've seen wher ethe builder used an earth colour as a base and them drybrushed green overall. This simulated a very dusty vehicle quite well. It was a T-34 too.

Hey Fellas, was thinking of posting this on a seperate Forum, but since there has already been a decent quantity of feedback concerning 'weathering' right here in the aptly named Forum 'weathering'...I will toss this on the table right here.
I was looking through my little library of modeling books regarding the subject of weathering, and happily re-found my 'Panzer's Tactics' book by Chris 'Panzer' Mrosko.
Here's the question, with no set-up. What does everyone think of his methods?

Tread.

O.K. maybe a little follow up. His winter wash technique is excellent in my opinion.

Loaded question Tread! :-) Chris is an old and personal friend, and I'd never bag on a friend. His techniques and methods are expedient and an expression of his individuality - like mine are, or anyone elses.

(How's THAT - mabye I should run for political office )

Gunnie