Weekend update
Added 2020-02-23 19:11:16 +0000 UTCHey there mates,
sorry for taking 2 days off, I needed a short break and there were, as usual, some duties around the house π
In the meantime I finished painting the Tiger, everything is sealed under 2 light coats of satin varnish and ready for some oil paint treatment. TBH, after not focusing on this model for 2 days I'm actually kinda happy with it. I think it might become a pretty unique model in the end and not "another Tiger". If everything goes well of course!
Just like on the Rutscher, I feel like this will be the most important step (or set of steps) - the oil dots will subtly blend the different colors together while also enhancing the worn look, washes will make every surface detail pop and they'll also make the paintjob look more tidy, and ambient occlusion will give it a more 3-dimensional look.
One of the final tasks that I did on Friday was painting the commander's cupola and respraying the gun barrel. I haven't painted a freehand camo in YEARS! And it definitely showed, it was definitely a learning experience. I might be reinventing the wheel, or as we say, rediscovering America, but the paint must be reeeeally thin and the air pressure quite low. Of course the result isn't perfect, but I think it'll do just fine for this model.
It made me think though. We know that most camouflages were applied in the field - and many photos show they were anything but perfect. Imagine getting a hold of a spray gun for the first time in your life with no knowledge on how to thin paints or operate the spray gun, and painting an entire tank with it. Now of course my point is not to make excuses here, but it makes me think... Of course, a camouflage with perfectly smooth color transitions looks oh so awesome, but we all like to make our models look anything but perfect - dirty, damaged, faded etc. Distressing is a good example - making a simple paint layer look "bad" π I think it comes down to experience - being so good with the airbrush that you can afford to make the camouflage look bad on purpose - so people can tell it was your intention and not lack of skill. What are your opinions?
And also, welcome to all new Patrons! πββοΈ
Comments
That's the thing I always try to tell people who diss cubism, impressionism, abstract or modern art. Their argument is always "I could paint that too" but they don't realize these artists had to come a long way until they developed their own style, which they transformed/simplified/whatever on purpose based on their experiences. Most artists who decided to go this way would be able to paint a hyper realistic portrait in a blink of an eye.
Night Shift
2020-02-25 10:49:12 +0000 UTCTHIS
Night Shift
2020-02-25 10:46:43 +0000 UTC"...being so good with the airbrush that you can afford to make the camouflage look bad..." This is it right here. One can argue (and people do) that impressionists painting's are just colored blobs, like Monet's Lily Pond, but the arrangement of those blobs is deeply appealing. I think that's the thing with weathering, and why I agree that the best chipping is done by hand. With more control, we're able to balance the 'randomness' in a pleasing way. I think camo is the same... rough camo does bring back some realisim for sure, but that doesn't mean you can't modulate that roughness to 'give the picture balance'.
Martin Underwood
2020-02-24 06:02:57 +0000 UTCI believe it's where 'artistic license' comes into it. A field applied camo that is authentic can make a model look like a blind 5-year-old made it and a beautifully applied airbrushed camo may not be accurate but damned sure looks nice. Somewhere in that area is the sweet spot.
Alastair Tattersall
2020-02-24 00:45:25 +0000 UTC
