"Has paint chipping gone too far?"

[RC_Hill]

Just saw this...it's something worth nullying over, I believe....

Has Paint Chipping gone to far? (http://www.armorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=77478&page=1)

Any takes on this guys?

RC

[MartinD]

A discussion without an end in sight ... well, that's my point of view. Everyone builds models their own way. So if someone would like to make a tank look like some hundred enemy soldier have been throwing rocks all day long, that's fine for me.
Do you want to build a nice, pristine but dusty tank, with just a few chips at the usual places, fine as well. You also make your own choice, and when you feel happy with it ... that all that matters, imho

MartinD

[MikkoH]

Intresting thread indeed. Personally I think subtle chipped paint looks great but is it realistic is diffrent question. I think it depends quality of paint and so on. Secondary camo paint wears out more than original paint. e.a winter or desert camo. And also on field applied second and third camo colour can wear out showing underneath original colour. Small arms fire can on some occasion chip paint. I don't personally chip paint of my models so much, more I use dust effect. But every body make their models as they feel best for em, realistic or not. Just my 2 cents.

Cheers Mikko

[Uruk-Hai]

The problem as I tend to see it, is that its stated that chipping is unrealistic as it didnt occur. Therefore its wrong to do it.

And if this people admit it being possible its WAY overdone in modelling.

The people with the arguments mentioned above seems to prefer to build vehicles thats not wheathered or shadowed at all? And with the statements above its supposed to support their builds to be more realistic? Thats not the case in my humble opinion. However of course some will overdo it, but their critics often cant see the chipping and weathering on real vehicles. Ive often seen pictures posted as support of clean vehicles were you can see rust, chippings and dirt?

I probably always will prefer and overweathered, overshadowed and overchipped vehicle before an underweathered, undershadowed or underchipped one.

My view is to see were the vehicle is and what it has gone through to come to this state. Then I adopt the wheathering as I see fit too its history and surroundings. If I have the opportunity I use artistic license but sparingly and within reason.

On the other hand I cant help to note that some builders always do chipped models and the vice versa, I personally would like to see variation from both sides.

Heres a picture of whats on the workbench right now. Almost done. I considered it not heavy weathered/chipped nor light. Its OOTB by the way.

http://photos.kitmaker.net/PH0T0_ENTRY_Z/2034/M4A3_76mm_04_web_600.jpg

http://photos.kitmaker.net/PH0T0_ENTRY_Z/2034/M4A3_76mm_02_web_600.jpg

Cheers

[MikkoH]

Janne you got point in there. To my opinion no paint chipping or wearing or no weathering is wrong also, if man can use word wrong. Everybody has their right way to do their models and you can never ever please everybody. Always there is somebody who says that your model is too dirty or too clean. I myself like weathered vehicles. Cause if tank is clean so it has just rolled out of factory. Couple of miles on road and there is fine dust on it. Go offroad and mud is building up immediately. And if we look at close up pics of german armour we see wear aroud hatches and so on. Everybody should do that kind of models they like or can. Somebody like more chipping than others. By the way I do like your sherman, nicely weathered and I don't see much chipping in there. :lol: It looks pretty realistic. I myself have the same M4A1 and was going to do it dusty South African in Italy. One mention I have to, colour of hatches. To my knowledge they were painted O.D not white but can be wrong. Just my 2 cents more.

Cheers Mikko

[brokeneagle]

Well here's my 2 cents..................................
People should model how they wish. They should also remember that it's about FUN and satisfying the need of the modeller to create something , in scale, that is pleasing to look at in context with what they read [and percieve] of history.
Having said that it is a natural progression, as we become more experienced modellers, to try to be more accurate and true to history but in regards to painting we must also keep a balance between what is absolute and what is creative. If we all stuck to the book and painted exactly what was real then you may as well get a house brush dab some US ARMY GREEN or GERMAN YELLOW and slap it on and walk away because that is what was done. You might add some dust and the odd chip but the depth and creativity that drives the interest [for me anyway] would be gone. Remember also that we are representing in scale which requires a certain amount of effect to make it look real.
IT'S FUN TO WEATHER
I feel modellers need to make sure that we balance our effects and have fun taking a fair shot at what COULD have been because none of us were actually there. :)
I 'll climb off my painting soapbox now :lol:

By the way Uruk-Hai, great looking Shermy! ;)

[Panzergrenadier]

Ian,

Couldn't have said it better. :thumb: ;)


And cool Sherman.


Siim

[Uruk-Hai]

Thanks for the comments.
And yes, the inside of the hatches have been victim for artistic license. :)

Cheers