Dakimbrell

The effect is not based on the light source. It is a well noted effect cited in numerous books such as he Kookaburra Luftwaffe Painting Guide on page 5..."the camouflage colors should not be strictly as laid down in any RLM color charts, but should be a few shades lighter if one is to achieve any sort of realism." The method we use to apply decals....a clear gloss, the decal, a clear gloss and then a clear flat also sharpens and brightens the colors. This is a method similar to that of the 17th century Dutch Masters like Rembrandt and van Dyke. Everything old is new again. I also saw an F-4 Phantom with the rescue arrow painted off register...just like a few decal sheets I have seen. Dak

That's one of mine, also. But I have pictures of tanks in North Africa where the tracks are clearly not sinking into the soil. However, they are making some tracks on the surface. Dak

Yes, I have noticed this on several models over the years. Dak

I would disagree. Far too often colors look too dark to be correct. At Chattanooga, I judged a Panzer IV that was almost black looking. Of course, we don't judge the color, but shade has a definite visual effect, and when it comes down to the final points, not looking "right" can cost you a first place, or bump you to fourth place. Noting that the paint used on a model is the real color is wasted on me as a judge leaving me unimpressed. But an exact shade of paint is absurd. There are simply too many variables. Dak

I was not criticizing the use of real automotive paint. I was criticizing the idea that the real color is the correct shade for a smaller model. If you are trying to make the model look realistic, the color should be lighter the smaller the model. If you put the real thing and the finished model together under the same light, most will say the model is a darker shade of paint. So yes, I find it silly to use the real automotive paint straight out of the can to achieve a visually authentic look. Dak

I basically have said this numerous times, but immediately get told we don't judge any of this, which is nonsense. Which is why I started this string in an effort to get people to discuss what elements are important and why. Tor example, accuracy and authenticity imply slightly different things. That you have a client that wants something a particular color is not an issue here...perhaps not even relevant. That is a whole different ball game from doing a model for a contest. Instead of satisfying one person, your are trying to satisfy several who all have a different opinion. First, there is yourself...what color looks correct to you. Then there are the judges who may disagree and those that are sticklers for that mythical perfect color. And everyone may be wrong anyway. Hinze the wisdom of not judging shade of color. But that does not mean some things are not simply wrong. Dak

Maybe you did, but I haven't worried about the exact color since 1976. Even though the Haze Grey was manufactured in a modern plant under peace time conditions, we still mixed the cans of paint to ensure consistency. Anyone that thinks there is an exact shade of paint beyond a color chip, is living in a cloudy cookoo land. The true check of a beginner is the "What is the best shade of...."question. The smaller something is, the darker the same shade of paint will look on it. I always find it a bit silly when a friend uses a real car paint on his model. Dak

People get different signals from IPMS. On the one hand, we say build what you enjoy and do your own thing. Then we do the contests and get very picky about what gets trophies. The guy who did a lot of work.....but got all sorts of stuff wrong from authenticity to basic craftmanship.... wonders why he didn't win anything. Why is filling a seam so important? Look at all that detail I added! Look how big my diorama is! Dak

Building a model is the boring part, to me. Research makes it interesting. Having a fairly accurate kit to start with is a plus. This allows me to be creative. Obviously, most members like authenticity. The range of books which are available and the increasing accuracy of kits proves that beyond a doubt. Interstingly, I know a guy that feels filling seams is boring and takes away from the fun of building and painting. (His exact words.) He thinks it is unfair for IPMS to worry about seams and such. Go figure! Dak

That is why we don’t judge shade of paint. There are simply too many variables. Still, people will build stuff and do things without even looking at the most basic references. I’ve seen engine decks opening the wrong way, “tank crew” wearing infantry harness, markings put on backwards, etc. New information comes out all the time, so it is understandable some things get done wrong, but some stuff is pretty silly.....like a Me-109 G10 done in Battle of Britain markings. Why? Because the builder assumedall Me-109s were the same. Dak

I agree, but at the same time realize these are things often hard to judge without first hand knowledge. Every operational vehicle I have been on or in is covered with foot prints. Still, many build their models as a case of immaculate perception. But it isn't fair for someone to do things correctly, but lose to a model with a lot of inaccurate, but aesthetically appealing details. I would love to see someone do a piece for the Journal on the basic dos and don'ts of modern armor stowage. It wouldn't have to be an in depth thing, just a photos and such showing authentic things. The more people know will make them better builders and judges. Dak

Actually, I was obliquely trying to say was that those who support hiding names don't trust the judges to be honest. As for me, I think the judges are honest and the system works well enough that childishly hiding the name is pointless. I don't believe the hundreds of National judges are in the least prejudiced by articles, web posts, or names in plain sight and at no time did I say they were dishonest, except in your imagination. Nick, you refer to this conversation as feckless. How so? I am politely questioning an unnecessary and outmoded tradition. While it may be a somewhat trivial subject, it relates to time being wasted at the National contest for no good reason. The tradition has no basis in solid fact and no one has produced any proof to support it, while the opposite is true. If you think about it, it actually hiding the names is a bit of an insult to the integrity of those judging. I say names should be visible because IPMS judges are scrupulously honest and do not need or want to be treated like children. Dak, National Judge

While many speak of hiding the names as a way to ensure objectivity, there is no data to support the concept. It is just an unnecessary custom we have carried over for the past four decades. There are numerous groups which show the builder's name and have no problem. I'm still trying to figure out...if the judging is inherently honest....why showing the entrant's name would prejudice at least three judges and those supervising them. If a model has been published in the Journal or other magazine, wouldn't that prejudice some people, also? "It's been published, so it must be good, right?" At one seminar in Chattanooga I saw at least one model which was in the competition. Might that not prejudice some people? Dak

However, as I have repeatedly said in numerous posts, on numerous strings, SHADE of color cannot be judged because there are too many variables. The best you can achieve is aesthetic appeal. Dak

It took you long enough. I did it to see who would catch it. Part of the point about getting things correct. People will miss the obvious. Dak😁