Scale Effect
R.S. Millar
make my projects look as if they are the real thing as
viewed from a distance, or can I keep building them as if
they are miniature replicas of they real thing???
Randy
Marcel Huot
abides by it.
I'm not saying that those who agree or disagree with "scale affect" are
neither right or wrong.
After years of observation I have determined that something affects the
perception of color the more distance you put between the observer and
subject. I have also noticed that different color are affected differently.
Some become lighter than others at the same viewing distance. I'm not a
scientist or have a specific explanation for this. I will not quote ratios
and formulas.
I offer this experiment as proof:
Under outdoor sunlight,take an FS fan deck, put it against a vehicle,
Match the color as close as possible;
Then back up 5-10 feet. (This works best with dark colors)
Look at your paint chip and the vehicle at the same time.
Depending on the color you chose there will be a difference. The chip will
look darker.
After seeing this affect go back to the vehicle and re-match the paint
chip.
All will notice that there is something that happens to colors. The
opposite is also true under grey skies:usually colors darken...(depending
which color of course) and colors darken under wet conditions...Each color
reacts differently.
This is the interpretation I offer. Do the experiment and see for yourself.
Those who do not agree will be quite surprised. Those who swear by scale
affect will be dissapointed since the affect is not as heavy as some think
it is.
The bottom line is paint your subject the way you see it. I have seen 1/72
scale models who look fine in un-scaled downed colors and others who look
just plain too dark that the "no step" marking are obliterated while on a
photo of the real item they are a little more visible.
Take a photo of the real item which is about the size of your model or
close and use it as a rough guide.Even though color photos are not perfect
they can give you a good idea.
If no color photo is available you just have to "ballpark" it. Don't worry
about the color police because if your subject looks good to your eye and
your colors are in the accepted norm you should be okay.
Just my 2 cents worth;
Frank Huot
Mike
The idea is that if your looking at your model from 1' away then in 1:1
scale you'd be 48' feet away(or something like that) so the colour
should be distorted slightly by the 48' distance. This is what your
supposed to replicate on your model by lightening the paint. I
personally rarely use it but not becuase I don't agree with the theory,
it's just something else to worry about that lowers my production and I
find weathering the model ends up accomplishing the same effect.
BTW, build your models the way YOU want to not the way others do. I
have a friend who paints all his models with the full colour and he
never adds any weathering and they look fine.
--
Mike Dougherty
Toronto, Ont.
Canada
IPMS C4928
"Uh oh....."
- famous last words
Russell DeMeyere
May I humbly suggest that you build them exactly the way you want
to build them. This is a hobby, something done for personal
satisfaction and pleasure. Scale effect, which I understand and
use (within reason), is located in the antechamber of the dread
"Advanced Modeling Syndrome" (AMS). Traverse this road only with
the greatest of caution or the next thing you know...you will be
full detailing the interiors of armor models you intend to
display with the hatches shut or worrying about the proper
depiction of the seat belt anchor bolts on the back of the seat
of a 1/72 scale Me-109E!
"No, in that way lies...madness" Shakespere, King Lear
Good Modeling!
Russ, aka "Rhino"
--
Russ, aka "Rhino"
Stratman51
some sick IPMS judge...just to ruin modeling for those worry warts out there.
Think about it... when you see a real plane at a far distance...it is nothing
more than a black dot. So much for the "The smaller the object the lighter the
color" theory.
So if you go by their "rules" a 1/144 or better yet a 1/720 ship would more or
less be invisible it would be so light in color. Gimme a break!!!
Just my zwei pfennigs.
Bill Arnold
LeadSled58
Hi Bill,
Well, I hate to say this, but I used to agree with you. For years I thought
this was all nonesense and avoided it like the plague.
However last month I was doing a 1/48 Bf-109, a desert bird in Marseilles
markings. On the fuselage where the numbers go, the paint was darker, as if it
was freshly painted. So I toned down the tan by about 30-40% and used straigt
tan over those areas.
It didn't look quite right so I toned the paint down about 20% and sprayed the
panel lines and freehanded some patches over the upper surfaces.
To me it looks fabulous! And I was a skeptic too. I think for the most part I
am going to do the tone down business just to weather the aircraft, not try and
guess a scale for the paint.
Happy modelling.
Tom
Rob de Bie
says...
>
>I feel that "scale affect" is a pretty personnal thing and not everybody
>abides by it.
>
>I'm not saying that those who agree or disagree with "scale affect" are
>neither right or wrong.
I have yet to decide which side to join. But I learned something recently
that might be of interest.
I was ready to paint a 1/144 YF-23 in FS 36118, a pretty dark grey. 1/144
scale should mean a substantial scale effect, i.e. quite a lot of
lightening. But then I found out that this would conflict with the decals
(stars&bars, USAF lettering), that were only a fraction lighter then FS
36118. Using a scale color would 'inverse' them. So I decided to use
full-strength color.
And the result? I found it very realistic, and I even feel that it is
slightly too light! This surprised me a lot. So I'm not so sure about
scale colors anymore.
But please judge for yourself:
http://www.kolibri.lr.tudelft.nl/people/students/fun/rob/YF-23.htm
Rob de Bie
"I don't know! I'm not some .. rocket .. uhhh .. some rocket ship or
something!" (Butthead)
Don Stauffer
amount of haze and cloud cover (which changes color temperature of
ambient lighting, even with the same shade of paint.
Further, once an object has been pushed out the door into solar UV
environment paint starts fading and chalking (though less so today than
with WWI and WWII paints).
A model will look different depending on whether in sunlight, under
incandescent light, fluorescent light, etc.
Photos in magazines and books cannot be relied upon because color off of
printing press is subject to a number of sources of variations.
On the other hand, weathering of any sort with chalking paint, dust,
grime, exhaust stains, etc. sure does add a lot to a model. I agree
with the philosophy- "if it looks right it IS right."
--
Don Stauffer in Minneapolis
home web site- http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/
home email- stau...@gte.net
work email- stau...@htc.honeywell.com
Ostall
>Think about it... when you see a real plane at a far distance...it is nothing
>more than a black dot. So much for the "The smaller the object the lighter
>the
>color" theory.
Actually, colors turn grey with distance. That "black dot " you see in the
distance is grey. Your brain tells you it is black to compansate for the
distance.Try this: take something black outside and see if you can find
anything in the distance that is as dark.
-John
Lasse Hillerøe Petersen
>Keep in mind that the appearance of a surface depends on time of day,
>amount of haze and cloud cover (which changes color temperature of
>ambient lighting, even with the same shade of paint.
>
>Further, once an object has been pushed out the door into solar UV
>environment paint starts fading and chalking (though less so today than
>with WWI and WWII paints).
>
>A model will look different depending on whether in sunlight, under
>incandescent light, fluorescent light, etc.
>
>Photos in magazines and books cannot be relied upon because color off of
>printing press is subject to a number of sources of variations.
>
>On the other hand, weathering of any sort with chalking paint, dust,
>grime, exhaust stains, etc. sure does add a lot to a model. I agree
>with the philosophy- "if it looks right it IS right."
Indeed. Everything you say is true. But none of those dependencies are
related specifically to the scale of a model. Therefore "scale effect" is
nonsense.
-Lasse
Lasse Hillerøe Petersen
(Ostall) wrote:
That may be so. But the distance we talk about is relative to the original
object, so scale is not involved. If you want to build a 1/72 scale
Fletcher (the ship) to be seen at a distance of 20 meter, corresponding to
a real distance of 1440 meter, then you may want to tone down the paint to
compensate for the fact that it will not get as grey over 20 meter
distance as it would over 1440 meter. But this is an extreme example. At
"normal" viewing distances, I doubt that the corresponding real distance
has any significant effect. In any case, any greying of paint should be
based on the real distance _only_ and is thus not related to the scale of
the model. Therefore talking about _scale_ effect is absurd.
As I have said recently:
_Scale effect_, understood as the addition of an amount of white to
colors, based only on the scale of the model to be painted, is WRONG!
Advocates of this effect claim that the atmospheric interference over the
distance to the object modelled warrants such a process. However, it is
easily seen, that if you:
1) assume that the atmospheric effect over short distances (0 to 5 meter)
negligible
2) consider four models of the same original object (say, an Me109), in
scales 1/144, 1/72, 1/36 (scale selected for easy calculation, for a
practical test, a 1/32 scale model would be adequate) and 1/24
3) place these four models accordingly:
Scale Distance to viewer (in meter)
1/144 0.5
1/72 1.0
1/36 2.0
1/24 3.0
Then all these models depict the original Me109 at a 72 m distance, which
means they should all look exactly the same. For this short distance,
model color differences should be negligible, so they must therefore all
be painted the same colors. Q.E.D.
This argumentation assumes that a color looks the same within the 0 to 5
meter range. This assumtion is quite easy to check for validity. One day
when my time permits, I will do a test, using the percentages of white
recommended for these scales by Testor.
-Lasse
Don Stauffer
My point was that no matter how hard you work on getting the paint just
right for any single reason- scale viewing distance, for example, it
will probably end up being wrong for some other distance. I have seen
color photos of the same exact airplane taken with different films on
different days, and the range of colors on the photographic print are
astounding :-(
Consequently, I personally do not take great care in trying to obtain
paint that is supposed to duplicate a manufacturers color with cars, or
official DOD colors for military aircraft.
TGS1000
off your glasses?
Just wonderin'
Tom Smithdeal
Lasse Hillerøe Petersen
>Lasse Hillerře Petersen wrote:
>
>My point was that no matter how hard you work on getting the paint just
>right for any single reason- scale viewing distance, for example, it
>will probably end up being wrong for some other distance.
Possibly. My view is that if it is painted a good approximation of the
original color, weathered and faded as appropriate, then it will
automatically be sufficiently right for most viewing conditions. If the
same color was changed by adding white depending on scale, then it would
probably not be right. I frankly admit that this is pure common-sense
reasoning on my behalf, I have not done any testing yet.
But let me take an example: I want to model a captured FW-190, painted red
(probably insignia red) by US forces, with US insignia. Now, I believe
Testors recommend 10% white (or is it more?) for 1/72 scale. I have a
strong feeling I would get a quite odd color if I where to add any white
to the insignia red. If I get time, I will try mixing some red to the
recommended ratio in this weekend, and let you know the results. I doubt I
will put it on the model, though.
> I have seen
>color photos of the same exact airplane taken with different films on
>different days, and the range of colors on the photographic print are
>astounding :-(
This is very true, but not _really_ very related to the subject under
discussion.
>Consequently, I personally do not take great care in trying to obtain
>paint that is supposed to duplicate a manufacturers color with cars, or
>official DOD colors for military aircraft.
Hwo do you handle metal surfaces? Paint them grey, a greyish metallic
color, or polished SnJ (or something similar)?
Personally, I feel that getting as close as possible to original colors is
good because that is the best way to avoid a wrong color, and simply
because it is interesting. It may not be perfect, but it is the least bad
solution. Just using some random olive drab paint (oh, I'm out of Humbrol
155, I'll just use 66) definitely is wrong to my eyes. I call the extreme
of the other approach (use a color that looks right) "impressionism", and
while there is nothing wrong with that, it just isn't my choice.
In any case, I hope you will agree that _scale effect_ as a claimed
generally valid/scientific method, should not be recommended as such,
regardless of any merit it may have _as an impressionistic method_.
-Lasse
Frank C. Crenshaw
cynical views about contests judging). I agree with Tom, at some level.
Adding white to the paint can do good things to the overal finish. I
don't know why, I don't really care why -I do not have a degee in art and
have never studied atmospheric physics. But the effect can look quite
realistic. On the other hand a few people have decided that unless you
use "scale effect" you are doing something wrong. I totally disagree
with this mindset and hope that people realize that scale effect is not
"mandatory" to make an accurate model.
Another thing to consider about your doing Marseilles 109F.. It was in
the Lybian desert. It got very dusty and I seriously doubt it was ever
washed (water is too important in the desert to be washing planes with).
Dust does create a sort of patchy lightened appearance. Now if you apply
this same technique to Gallands 109F it will not look right at all (but
might look "cool"- but cool is not necessarily accurate). Obviously
different planes in different places weatherd differently. I try to
consider the field conditions that the plane was in when painting it. I
personally prefer this method to the "add 20% white" and wash all panels
in black ink" method. If you are going to reasearch the exact cockpit
layout, scribe the correct tire tread patterns and all the other insane
things we builders do, why just add 20% white to the paint without any
basis other than an oppion that is it better to do it that way? If you
think it looks cool, that is great, but lets be careful there, the
stylized faded paint with dark panel lines does look cool, but it is
usually not even close to accurate.
just $.02
--Frank Crenshaw
In article <19990121093142...@ng116.aol.com>,
leads...@aol.com says...
> >As far as the "scale effect" goes... I personally think it was dreamed up by
> >some sick IPMS judge...just to ruin modeling for those worry warts out there.
> >Think about it... when you see a real plane at a far distance...it is nothing
> >more than a black dot. So much for the "The smaller the object the lighter
> >the
> >color" theory.
> >So if you go by their "rules" a 1/144 or better yet a 1/720 ship would more
> >or
> >less be invisible it would be so light in color. Gimme a break!!!
> >Just my zwei pfennigs.
> >
> >Bill Arnold
> >
>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Well, I hate to say this, but I used to agree with you. For years I thought
> this was all nonesense and avoided it like the plague.
>
> However last month I was doing a 1/48 Bf-109, a desert bird in Marseilles
> markings. On the fuselage where the numbers go, the paint was darker, as if it
> was freshly painted. So I toned down the tan by about 30-40% and used straigt
> tan over those areas.
>
> It didn't look quite right so I toned the paint down about 20% and sprayed the
> panel lines and freehanded some patches over the upper surfaces.
>
> To me it looks fabulous! And I was a skeptic too. I think for the most part I
> am going to do the tone down business just to weather the aircraft, not try and
> guess a scale for the paint.
>
> Happy modelling.
>
> Tom
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------
Frank Crenshaw fccr...@usgs.gov
Computer Specalist
USGS Grand Junction, CO (970) 245-5257 ext. 3018
"If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you"
Don Stauffer
That could well be. I do not lighten the main color I use for
painting. I use an airbrush, but more like some folks use chalk. I
paint the model with the appropriate color, as close to the actual paint
color as I can get. Then, after it is try, and I have done all the
decal application, gloss or matt overcoating, etc., I mix up batches of
main colors, and add even more than 10% white. I then set the airbrush
at a very thin setting. sort of combine the effects of paint fading and
other effects as I go. Only on small scale ships do I go over the whole
model, as would be appropriate to scale effect. This overspraying gives
me, IMHO, better control than actually mixing the finish color with
white.
Don Schmitz
> original color, weathered and faded as appropriate, then it will
> automatically be sufficiently right for most viewing conditions. If
> the same color was changed by adding white depending on scale, then
> it would probably not be right. I frankly admit that this is pure
> common-sense reasoning on my behalf, I have not done any testing yet.
I think it is impossible to "prove" what the right paint colors be.
Human visual perception is a lot more complex than simple optics would
predict - your brain does a lot of non-linear processing. For example,
television images are not very accurate as to color and shape: try
putting a ruler to the screen and you'll see most straight edges are
curved. Turn it off and the color of the silvery-gray screen is the
color that shows up as black. Years ago when I studied TV repair, the
instructor told us to bias color balance toward blue, as most people
found the blue-tinted picture more "vibrant" and "realistic". Yet when
you watch a TV show, you don't notice the distortion and screwed up
colors because your brain does some mapping to make it match what it
expects to see.
My thinking on scale effect is that while you're brain is very
forgiving, there are some extremes where it just gives up and you think
"thats not natural". One of the more noticeable extremes is a fully
saturated color (no white component) on large surfaces. You will find
very few such surfaces in real-life - most any "flat" finished
real-world object will have a noticeable white cast under bright
sunlight. Paint a model with a saturated color then view it under room
lighting and it doesn't look "natural", especially if there is a
"whitened" model sitting next to it.
The place I'm used to seeing this is auto chassis which are often
painted flat black straight from a spray can. These just don't look
right - the detail disappears and you loose the perception of depth,
and there aren't any darker colors avaialble to do a wash. Using one
of the "lightened" blacks looks a lot better to me. The railroad guys
do the same thing with steam engines - I think Floquil even has a
"locomotive black" in their line.
I agree the idea of scale effect is overblown - as long as you do
something to avoid saturated colors, either whitening the paint a bit or
weathering it to simulate dust and dirt, you can fool the brain enough
for it to come out right.
My two cents,
Don Schmitz
I agree that the idea of a formula for how much white to add based on
scale seems far fetched, but the basic idea of lightening colors on
models - either directly
the theory that any such formu
component under good lighting. If you
gaholton
Jerry 47
Don Stauffer wrote in message <36A8D5...@htc.honeywell.com>...
>Lasse Hillerře Petersen wrote:
>>
>> In article <36A882...@htc.honeywell.com>, stau...@htc.honeywell.com
wrote:
>>
>> >Lasse Hillerře Petersen wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >My point was that no matter how hard you work on getting the paint just
>> >right for any single reason- scale viewing distance, for example, it
>> >will probably end up being wrong for some other distance.
>>
>> Possibly. My view is that if it is painted a good approximation of the
>> original color, weathered and faded as appropriate, then it will
>> automatically be sufficiently right for most viewing conditions. If the
>> same color was changed by adding white depending on scale, then it would
>> probably not be right. I frankly admit that this is pure common-sense
>> reasoning on my behalf, I have not done any testing yet.
>>
Brooks Moses
choice, and need not vary from scale to scale.
Ok, ok, you've baited me. :)
There are several flaws with your argument. First, you have _not_ shown
that the planes are necessarily painted the same color as the
prototype. I would claim that they should not be....
Perhaps you are making the claim that since 1/72 and 1/24 scale models
are the same color, one can simply extend that to 1/1 scale models --
i.e. the prototype. This has a problem as well: "color differences
should be negligible" does _not_ mean the color differences are
identical. Even though the differences are negligible on the models,
when you use them to do a 2400% extrapolation (which is what you are
doing when you say the model is painted the same color as the prototype)
those tiny differences become magnified into something significant.
Second, and this is the main argument -- since "scale effect" is
modelling atmospheric haze, and since atmospheric haze varies depending
on how far the viewer is away from the vehicle while "scale effect" does
not, "scale effect" can _only_ be accurate for _one_ viewing distance of
the prototype. Obviously, the models in your example should be painted
the same color, since they are modeled as being the same distance away
from the viewer. If, however, one took the more standard approach of
using a set distance to the model (which means the prototype is farther
and farther away as you go to smaller scales) then the planes would need
more and more "scale effect" in the smaller scales.
Clearly this distance is a matter of _personal_ choice -- if you tend to
be used to seeing aircraft far in the distance behind military fences,
you'll want lots of "scale effect" to make them look like you usually
see them. If you are used to looking at them while you safety-wire the
landing gear nuts, you won't want nearly as much. Since smaller scale
airplanes tend to visually appear "farther away", it's common practice
to add additional "scale effect" to smaller scale planes to reflect
that.
I hope this makes things a little clearer, and reminds those of you who
are sure that there is only one correct formula for scale effect that
that's not the case, and it's a matter of personal preference based on
intended apparent viewing distance to the model.
Please return to your modeling. Show's over. :)
- Brooks
Kim A. Fowler
directly proportional to the extent to which an individual is
afflicted with ARMS (Anal-Retentive Modeler's Syndrome).
Personally, I use the TLAR (That Looks About Right) system.
;-)
(I used to have ARMS -- but I'm feeling much better now, thank you!)
Kim A. Fowler
Photographer/Graphic Designer
Boise, Idaho USA
ANTI-SPAM MEASURES IN USE
Add my last name to the front of
the E-mail address to respond.
R.S. Millar
Boy does THIS make me feel better!!!
:)
Randy