That's a loaded word, if ever there was one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism

That's just Wiki.....

What does "realism" mean to you in terms of your hobby of creating miniature replicas of things?

When you throw around a word like "realistic", your understanding of that word is meaningless to somebody else because they bring their own set of reality, likes, dislikes, prejudices and their whole life experience to bear.

I ran a bunch of rookies thru a flashover simulator last spring. It simulates when a room is suddenly engulfed in flames top to bottom. It gets REALLY hot, and unless you've experienced it before, its very unnerving. When we were done, one of the guys said "wow, that was realistic!".....which I thought was funny since he'd never done it before. His sense of "realism" was based on what he'd been told, and what he'd seen in movies.

I've been in a couple of flashovers for real (which is something we try to avoid) and hundreds of times in the sim. The sim....to me....is not "realistic" other than its freakin' hot. It lacks the emotional dimension, the adrenaline and 10,000 other little nuances, plus I know its a controlled situation.

What the rookie will discover...hopefully not very often, is that the flashover sim is the furthest thing from "realistic" he will find...when he gets more experience.

This encompasses "accuracy" and other words we use to try to define parameters in our own minds....to quantify things....which humans need to do in order to maintain context.

Point being, no 2 people....anywhere, about any subject, are going to agree on the parameters of words like "realism" and "accuracy". They are solely the property of single individuals. Those words have as many definitions as there are people....and especially when referring to things as subjective as model airplanes.

This is the crux of the "rivet counter" "it looks like a XXXX to me" argument, and all the various schools of finishing and detailing.

Ones definition of "realism" and "accuracy" changes like underwear (hopefully) and is as fluid as a river. You might me really anal about shapes and colors on 1 subject, and not care a whit on another. You get to pick.

You can't get too bogged down in what other people think is "realistic"....you have to make those choices yourself, for you. Its wonderful to discuss the things that you think are realistic with others because it broadens your own perspective, but in the end its still just you and what you like.

Just some random thoughts...

Well, each modeler knows what kind of results he´s looking for. For me, the less "toy/die cast looking" the model gets, the better, and I try to achieve that by means of pre-shading and weathering - I still have to try panel fading and other more advanced techniques. Recently I bought tamyia clear red, green and smoke for the first time - before that, I simply painted navigation lights regular green/red and was satisfied with it. Accurate? Realistic? Not really, nothing beats the replacement made of clear streched sprue/thermoformed, a little hole inside filled with clear paint etc. Until today I never tried it, but I´m inclined to say that quantity of detail is more important than "accuracy".

Just rambling.

To mine, I try to replicate what I'd see in real life while standing back far enough from a given real-life subject to photograph it in its entirety, which just happens to be the way we usually view (and photograph) models.

Panel line advocates, IMHO, tend to post close-up shots of real aircraft to make their point. Back away far enough to see that very same aircraft in its entirety and much of that "look" will disappear. With the possible exception of flat Gull Gray modern Navy jets, most aircraft look like pretty much all one big piece at distance.

What always kills it for me, again this is just me, is paint that's lightened to appear 100 feet away in scale but with panel lines darkened as though you're right on top of them on the very same model. Either you're 100 feet away or you're standing on the wing but IMHO ya can't have both. Don't get me wrong, though, some of the nicest-looking models I've ever laid eyes on are done this way, but the question you've asked is about realism and so is my answer.

I don't enter contests so this doesn't affect me personally but as the shading trends become more prevalent I can see where a modeler might feel pressured into doing it, whether he likes it or not, just so his work doesn't appear "lacking" compared to others' and this could possibly be a contributing factor to some of this hostility around here...feeling like the only baseball player NOT on steroids.

Personally, I enjoy seeing diverse styles of modeling. If we all built to one handbook this would be a pretty boring place to hang out, wouldn't it?

John

Because there is no "right" answer. That's the point...what "realism" means to you will never mean the same thing to any other single human.

Math and physics have "right" answers...art and creating miniatures do not.

Actually, you did when you asked "What does realism mean to you in terms of...?"

My response was titled "Everyone's eyes are different".

Like I said, no argument here.

It was rhetorical.....I was just kind of amazed at some of the hard and fast pronouncements about what was "realistic" and not in something that's inherently unrealistic.....namely, a plastic 1/48 replica of an airplane.

I think if striving for "realism" is your goal, then its a noble pursuit.....but its a solitary one because it cannot be shared by others due to their different concepts of the word between people.

It's the contest judges' perceptions of realism everyone's really vying for here, who knows...like I said, I'm not in that world but if I were, others' perceptions of realism would probably factor into my modeling style whether I liked it or not, and I'm not sure I'd like THAT. Could explain some of the hostility surrounding this issue.

John

"realism" doesn't really play a huge part in contest judging....and very few people model for contests.

The hostility comes into play when other people don't conform to your perception of "realism" and you are so weak willed that you see that as an attack upon yourself. You buy XXX new kit and you are delirious about it...."whoo hoo!!"

You fondle the plastic bits for a while, then biddy-bop over to the ol' HyperScale to express your happiness....only to find that some guy has gotten there ahead of you....and isn't as impressed with your new kit as you are....in fact, he sorta hates it looks like.

How can that be? I mean, he's "bashing" something that has brought joy and light into your life. You now feel less joyful....and somebody has to pay for that, so off we go...

Or, one guy just can't figure out how so many people can be swooning over this model that has accentuated panel lines and faded paint....it looks like a demented caricature of an airplane....NO airplane ever looked like that! You can't even SEE panel lines on the real thing more than 2 feet away.....so off we go...

Humans seek validation constantly.

Or on the other hand.. One  happens to be weak minded enough to repeat comments about "accuracy" without having verifing them (often not even owning the product in question) .  This mightly fellow counts on the weight of others (whom shoulders he proudely stands - proclaiming for ALL to hear that "this kit sucks" - EVERYONE SAYS SO") well except the guy who's not afraid to call a spade a spade and quantify these errors in practical terms - he often is flamed and called names.. I know this -how?

Oh my - laughing out loud..

 

 

Says "this kit blows dead hippos" never means that's the way it is....again because everybody has different ways of looking at accuracy and realism....what whatever the hell that word was Mark used earlier

He can cite chapter and verse, pour over drawings and pictures and draw diagram after diagram....and it will mean nothing to a guy who thinks "well, it looks like a storch to me", and will mean something entirely different to a guy who has studied storchs 100 ways from Sunday his whole life.

All we can do, is do what we do....throw our thoughts and perceptions out there, exchange ideas and information and take from that whatever we are seeking for ourselves.

lobbed a sword at doesn't make you King!

Oh...wait, wrong thread

Never Mind!

There are nicely maintained aircraft, and the one like that "S-Box" B-17. D-Day stripes were applied extremely neatly and with a broad brush haphazardly.

Except for the most contemporary, most of us have never experienced the reality of the aircraft we model.

But, given their limits, photographs can express the reality of the time (I don't accept uncorroborated eyewitness accounts, even reincarnated pilot may not remember). Looking at as many as we can, and giving careful consideration to what we see, we can learn a lot.

As for me, I gave up on realism. I could never interpret in model paints, and chalk and washes what I saw and what was in my mind. My models are unrealistic, unless factory fresh. But even so, I can understand the concept of interpreting reality to create "realism" in a model.



There is no such thing as an unbuildable kit, just some kits one may consider not worth building.

The fancy French word being "trompe de l'oeil". If I could succeed in building a miniature of something that could potentially fool the eye into believing that it's the real thing, then I'd have succeeded 100%. Obviously something that's 1/48 actual size can't possibly do that in a normal setting, but when photographed against a natural background it definitely could. Ian Robertson's models and his photographic techniques (among others) prove it. I've taken a number of photos he's posted on HS and turned them into b&w, and have fooled folks every time with them. They simply can't believe they're models. Part of that involves having the artist's eye and being able to SUBTLY weather the model to the point that it literally fools the eye into believing that it's really 48 (or 32, or whatever) times larger than it really is. That's why I don't hold with the Tammy Faye Bakker weathering/post shading look - it simply doesn't look like a real airplane shrunken down. It looks like a highly stylized artistic interpretation of an airplane shrunken down.

That's my interpretation of realism.

MP

I think this is a good way to "measure" how well a model achieves the objective of capturing the character of the real thing. When I build a model, I'd like to find a photo of the subject, and ideally we'd have a complete walkaround of every single aircraft at every point in time of it's career or at least the period one wants to represent the model. Clearly not possible, so the next best thing is to find photos of representative subjects - similar unit/airforce/timeframe/environment and make assumptions based on that as well as knowledge of the mechanics and workings of the subject. As has been shown in other threads on this subject, one can always find individual photos to substatiate your point of view; "saying that you can't see panel lines - look here", and "panel lines should be invisible on a model - see below" and photos are enclosed for evidence to support their views. Both camps are right, but I'd like to think that the truth is somewhere in between these extremities. If one considers aircraft as a normal distribution, there are few aircraft that will look extremely weathered and few aircraft that will be entirely spotless - the majority will be somewhere in between. Of these "in between aircraft", there will be some aircraft that are cleaner of centre and others will be dirtier of centre. If you look at photos of real aircraft that are neither superclean or superdirty, see if there are any areas that are dirier than others. Are there any clean areas where it's hard to see panel lines for example? Look at your own car a week after you washed it - there may be some deposits of brakedust on the wheels - more on the front than the rear. It might have a thin layer of dust on it, or if you've driven in the rain, the lower body will be dirtier than the roof. Faded paint? Most likely on the bonnet, roof and the bootlid, but less advanced on the sides. Engine sweating or leaking oil? Spilled some fuel the last time you filled it up? You're not likely to see any evidence of that around the passenger door for example. This sort of "differential weathering" makes the model look more credible IMO as it reflects the way real life mechanical objects "live".

I am trying to avoid using the word "accuracy", as that implies almost 100% fidelity to the original which is very hard to achieve, and I for one can't do it even with photos to work from. Enclosed are a few photos of my Spitfire using early copies of the recently released Barracudacals in order to illustrate the difference of accuracy vs credbility. As you will see, my model is not accurate in all respects, but I would like to think that I have captured the character of the subject. Feel free to agree or disagree though...

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

Jens

I disagree slightly regarding accuracy. Accuracy, to my understanding, is a measure of the faithfulness of something to adhere to design parameters. For a scale model, that means that everything measures out to proper dimensions compared to reliable data for the item being replicated. Length, width, height, depth, contour, camber, etc., etc. Precision as it relates to model manufacturing and building is the ability to consistently produce the same- hopefully desired- results within a narrow standard of deviation.

I'll go out on the limb here and opine that companies with good quality control (like Eduard, Tamiya, and Aires) tend to produce reasonably accurate items with a high degree of precision. Of course, both the strengths and weaknesses in the product will be precisely recreated with every run for decades.

Certainly, examples of consistent precision and accuracy can be found among the resin industry- but there are those that produce parts that may be accurate, but suffer from lack of precision from run to run. Again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and its the customer/modeler's prerogative to maintain their own standards for accuracy and precision. Some care alot, some don't- each to his own.

the degrees of "accuracy" that people care about. I'd submit that any 1/48 replica of a 1:1 thing cannot be "accurate" 100%. Accuracy is also about human perception. I have no clue if the Hasegawa 109s or Hasegawa spitty's are "accurate" in my mind's eye....because I cannot see where they differ from a 1:1 item. I can see that the HobbyCraft panthers are not "accurate" for some reason.....it just leaps out at me. Its a huge deal....its a deal breaker.

The other point is...will I have that same attitude 10 years from now, when no further suitable F9F is available? Will I care as much? Will the missing 3 inches in the Hasegawa 109s start to bother me at some point if I stare at them long enough?

Its all dynamic...no 2 people care about exactly the same things at any given time, and those cares are fluid depending on a myriad of factors.

 Thats the crux of the issue really.  To me realisim means "it looks real to me".  This might happen in a model that isn't particularly shaped right - but if I look at  a photo, it tricks my eyes into not being sure if it's real or not.  Lighting, finish and weathering are the key details. Fred Shammas is the king of realistic IMHO.

Others look for dimensional accuracy and want nothing else - simple clean finish. A realistic model to them is one that is a dimensionally shrunken version of the prototype.

I remember once when I was at this contest with a guy who was in my club and he was telling me how awful this 110 model was (it was so extremely overweathered it really didn't look right to be honest).   Then he found this Corsair model that was uber clean - and he begain telling me how much better it looked - much more "realisitic"..  Well I disagreed and we got into a pretty heated argument.  My point was that they both were about the same "unrealistic" just on different ends of the spectrum. He was saying that the Corsair might have been built to represent the plane out of the factory - which was bogus.  It had repainted markings slightly visible on the fuselage, kill markings, and even fake gun ports painted on..   To me the Corsair was unrealisticly clean and  the 110 was unrealisticaly dirty.  While he never would agree with me that the corsair wasn't unrealistic, I did manage to get  him to conceed that his definition of realisim was different than mine and thus we just agreed to disagree.  

I am never shy about debating realisim - I know what looks "real" to me. This is why realisim can never be considered in judging  (all definitions aside)  it's just too hard to get everyone to agree what realisim is as a practical matter.

Frank

 

 

How's your Eduard Emil coming along these days? I haven't seen an update since May when you craftd the new spinner port. I hope you haven't stalled the build, because it was looking like voodoo magic to me!

 thanks Erik,

Im $8K poorer but we are about done.  I will resume the build once I get things more less back together downstairs - it's been a hell of a thing.  You think building a trumpeter kits is an expensive/time consuming proposition- try remoding your upstairs!

But alas I have a happy wife (and grantite countertops!) -  so it's wasn't a total waste of time.  

 

Frank

 

 

One can have a "realistic" looking Hase 1/48 MK. IX , but it ain't accurate. I've seen some beautifully done inaccurate kits, and some badly done accurate kits.

Personally I see these as two different issues.

Can we represent realism(reality?) using a 1/48, 1/72, etc. model?



There is no such thing as an unbuildable kit, just some kits one may consider not worth building.

different degrees of it....according to our own personal understanding and definition of both those words and how they relate to each other.

I like the look of molded in seat belts better that PE ones....I think they look more "realistic"....but neither molded in resin or PE are truly "accurate" representations of seat belts shrunk 48 times. Neither is really "realistic" in strict terms of accuracy, just the fluid definition in my own mind of which thing represents a realistic 1/48 seat belt.

Not only was the clean corsair not realistic, it wasn't accurate (in it's appearance)  either..  To me they are the same thing - I guess we can mix words but it comes down to a couple hard headed guys who are sure they are right and in reality they both are. 

It's pointless to quantify realisim beyond the individual's preference.  I can't say " your model would be more realisitic if you dusted your wheels" because I'm wrong if I'm talking about everyone's perception, I'm right if I'm talking about my own perception. If you agree with me you might dust your wheels (or not).

If a model has a bad shape  - then it's not accurate - no argument.  But the ability of an accurately shaped model to look "accurate" is an entirely different thing..

Anyway - the point is that you have to be REALLY careful when commenting about realisim regarding others work because it has many different meanings in many different dimensions.  I think most people know this - some just sort of accidently put thier foot into it, but others are doing it to cause a disturbance - and that's really what all this energy and activity is all about.  Not about realisim  ironically enough.

  Frank

Then it seems we both share the same belief that the ends of the spectrum deviate very far from "realism" which tends to be a more center of the spectrum issue.

That B-17 that Lynn posted was amazing. But in looking at hundreds of B-17 picture you realize that is out towards the end of the continuum of reality. How many lasted that long to look that bad?

I do have a preference for "clean models" such as Mike Grant does, those done by the long missed Robetr Ferrero. My reasoning is odd. I approach it with the idea that they are models, and I enjoy seeing the quality of the build (perhaps I lean to "Clean of center"). I often find that when there is over weathering and dark panel lines and over riveted detail (this would be "Overdone of center"), my eye is taken from the model as a whole and I see incongruous pieces of the model.

Overdone is also odd in perspectie in that it represents reality only if we were standing right next to a real aircraft or holding a 1/48 model up to one's nose. Viewing distance is often left in the dust.

I guess why people react negatively to the Overdone Of Center model is because of the fact that the embellishments are noticeable and the absence of them is not. It is the effort to take realism to new bounds, or push the envelope, that draws attention and negative comments.








There is no such thing as an unbuildable kit, just some kits one may consider not worth building.

John Vojtech's AC-130H Gunship at NATS.....truly amazed. Spent probably an hour staring at it. It filled my heart with gladness that a fellow human being created something that cool.

I thought it was the least "realistic" model I'd seen recently. It didn't look to my eye like a shrunken AC-130....it looked like a superbly crafted gimmicky model of an AC-130 with a hyper stylized paint job.

Did I mention that I stared at it for an hour?

I bet if you showed that thing to 1,000 guys, you'd get 1,000 different opinions of it...but I bet all 1,000 would admit to having enjoyed every second they looked at it.

If a guy had spent a bunch of time trying to create a perfect, scale rendition of what his mind sees as a truly "accurate" AC-130 that you'd swear looked just like a real 130 from a few feet away....I bet it wouldn't have nearly the viewing enjoyment John's did.

Just 1 more little wrinkle in the fabric....

aircraft at a paticular time in its career.


Brandon

Verisimilitude--the appearance of being true or real. All the 'accuracy/realism' arguments get back to making plastic and allied materials in a small scale look like something made of metal/wood/whatever in a much larger scale. Even paint is affected--scale effect, perceptions of weathering, how close actual applications were to technical specs.

I can talk about what I want with my models. I cannot talk about what I want with your models. I can talk about what I want a producer/merchant to offer on the open market. I cannot talk about what you ought to want. So where in this morass is there room to talk about accuracy or realism or even verisimilitude? The answer is that every comment, backed by scholarly rigor or not, is accompanied by the implied perception of the author that others might care as much or as little as he does, and every one of us then must adjust our reading to take into account that degree of involvement or disengagement.

You know, I will never warm up to the over-weathered models that others here find so exquisite. They completely lack verisimilitude to me, and smack of the triumph of technique over discretion. But that cannot gainsay that some folks enjoy building that way, and a lot of others like looking at them. And, truthfully, are not we better off for all the various ways the hobby can be interpreted? Orthodoxy, whatever it embodies, leads to prejudice and stifles creativity. Our community is small enough without emphasizing schismatic differences.

Mark - I like you words. Personally i differ in that I do like the "spanish school" of finishing. But I think your points are well made and cut to the heart of what we do.

"And, truthfully, are not we better off for all the various ways the hobby can be interpreted? Orthodoxy, whatever it embodies, leads to prejudice and stifles creativity. Our community is small enough without emphasizing schismatic differences."

Here,here!

I say Vive la difference!

A Friday night discussion on Hyperscale that hasn't gone pear shaped - surely not!

Cheers

Jonners



A mighty wind is blowing, blowing you, blowing me.....

good at it, so I build the way I have always done.

Cheers,

Derek of Toronto OFE

...that there are many realisms.
Noun: ism - a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school.

What is real is inarguable. What is accurate is inarguable. What takes place in these 'discussions' are arguments over different isms. Realisms and accurisms abound.

My realism can beat up your realism

"What is real is inarguable. What is accurate is inarguable. "

I am not sure these are necessarily always true. If I have a pile of sand, it is real. If I remove one grain of sand, it is still a pile of sand and real, but since it is no longer a perfect match is it accurate?

If the process continues, when is it no longer real? Or if I am modeling the pile of sand, how close is accurate?

We have learned that even actual aircraft coming off the assembly lines can differ in measurement, perhaps only by small amounts, but they can and did differ. Suppose the factory dimensions state the Fruitbat F Mk IV had an overall length of 23' 5 1/4" and a production example was 23' 5 7/8" while another was 23' 4 3/4". If accurate is absolute as your statement seems to imply, then which measurement is correct?

I agree with you 100% with regards to the 'isms', but my reality is that even 'real' and 'accurate' are not always absolutes.

...it depends. I'll use aircraft models in this example. Most models are someone's replication of an actual a/c that existed in the past. It was a real item with real contours and dimensions (we won't get into colors). Not having access to the real item any longer makes it impossible to ascertain it's 'realness'. It's realness is obviously a moot point but it did exist. I understand what you're saying but my point was that there is such a thing a real and accurate but they do differ from item to item, i.e. you can model a specific P-51 or you can model a generic P-51. The generic model wouldn't require exacting accuracy as it's not a model of a real item. The closest you could come to reality would be to use the manufacturer's blueprint.
Inarguable was probably not the best word to use as pretty much anything is arguable to some people. Even reality.

cannot be collectively cornered.And it is why Art has so many wonderful venues.

I suspect as soon as you "scale" something, there are changes that should be made to give it some life... There are deviations from strict "shrinking the real thing down" that help the small version in its appeal to be accepted as a small version of the real thing.

Even a photograph, as a smaller version of a real scene or object, won't absorb the eye's and mind's attention like the real thing. There's just stuff missing.

I wonder why aircraft modelers can scope every nuance of a paint scheme, but can't do the same with discoloration and wear. The danger is to wear and emphasize things too "regularly" over the model. Control surface and panel line emphasis are good, but emphasizing every panel line on the whole airframe is too much of a good thing, I think. Selectivity is the key. That, and restraint... keeping your scale enhancements within the bounds of subtlety. You want to give the model a push toward representing reality, not overwhelm it.

Just like a good bass player, a good enhancement treatment will disappear within the total, but you'd miss it if it wasn't there.

Tough to do. I'm still working on it.

Hey Scott great choice of subject for discussion!

Mind if I chime in..?

To me realism is about creating a model that looks as real as I can get it but that route often makes my models something of a contradiction. When I build aircraft models I care little for the absolute accuracy of the basic kit, but Im passionate about the finish, the quality of the paintwork and the weathering. In so do, I tend to fall within the Spanish school of finishing and so my aircraft models often look stylised, but hopefully attractive facsimiles of the original aircraft that Ive chosen to model.
When I build armour and dioramas the opposite is true. I go to immense lengths to make the models appear as real as I can and so I paint them to look as close as I can to reality. Of course I have to photograph the result for the magazine, but I also use the images to see if the completed pieces capture to the look of the full-sized objects; if they dont, Ill rework them until they do..!
So to me realism is the recreation of an artifact in miniature as it actually looks, rather than how I imagine to, which can often be an extremely difficult trick to pull off and one that causes me an immense amount of frustration!
Oh and BTW I attended the US Nats when John Voitech brought in his AC-130 and like you I spent hours looking at it. Stylised yes, realistic, possibility not (unless youre talking about the otherwordly levels of detail..!!!) but quite simply the best aircraft model I have ever seen. Period

Laters! Spence

http://www.militaryinscale.com/

?v=1235689763

THAT is what you try to achieve. That's why some of those "artistic" techniques that are not realistic make some models look so very good! Modeling is part art and part engineering. If you try to reproduce EVERY nut, bolt, and rivet you may be realistic, but it'll probably also be unappealing. Doing just enough to make the model look authentic, no matter the techniques combined, is a way of capturing realism without resorting to exact duplication. Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

My first thoughts ran along the lines of debating and mixing it up with all the stuff that's been written in answer to this one, but, alas, reason returned and I'm just gonna say the following. ..it's too much I know...

Realism is a considerably different word than real and has a totally different purpose within the discussion. From my perspective "realism" is the attempt to create an "ILLUSION" of reality (real). That activity, by definition cannot possibly have, nor does it need to have, all that much in common with the thing being modeled. Only the "real" can have that anyway. Our attempt then is to convince someone, or perhaps ourselves, that what we're seeing faithfully re-creates the "visual appearance" of the subject. I could write a whole chapter (I've done it before!) on just how spurious the "visual appearance" of anything can be but, in modeling at least, it's a less elusive commodity so we'll leave it at that.

What all this means to me when I'm working on a model is that I'm after the way the object (subject of the model) looked at the time I intend to create the illusion of the "perceived" reality of it. Like Plato said: "all art is a lie". If that's not bad enough I'll throw in the spooky fact that we can't actually SEE anything we're looking at! Eliminate light and you don't see; it's that simple. So what does this have to do with modeling? Only everything because what ya gotta do is recreate the way that LIGHT looks when it's reflected off of the subject. I doubt that it's necessary to point out how different that can be due to numerous factors. Nonetheless, it's only a matter of recreating an illusion of an illusion. This is why the constant soul searching for "What's the CORRECT color to use on something is virtually irrelevant. You only need to create (by any means) how the color looked under certain circumstances and due to numerous factors to achieve the ILLUSION of how it looks to a viewer at a given time and from a given point of view. What this means of course is that it's impossible to make the model look to have a significant degree of the "ILLUSION" from any but an extremely limited number of views. An example is the model that "caused" the preceding "kafuffle" over what does and does not look real. That close up shot of the bottom showing the consistently dark panel lines and so on does not look real.....that is IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH! Set the model 12-15 feet away and in surroundings that are supportive and it will look much MORE convincing. As is the mantra on your thread, I concur...it's all relative. Cheers, LL



So a friend says: "cheer up things could be worse; so I cheered up and sure as hell Things Got Worse!

I remember seeing someone's model of an F-111 in standard SEA camoflage. Pretty sure it was the Academy 1/48th F-111A.The builder had obviously spent hours scribing panel lines, and running a wash into said lines, along with many streaks representing oil, hydraulic fluid, and whatever else might leak. The result was what many folks would call a masterful job of weathering.
The problem I had was that, having actually worked on the Aardvark during my time in the USAF, I never saw an airframe that actually had such visible panel lines. Up close, the skin of the aircraft was smooth and unbroken. The crewchiefs and assistants kept their aircraft clean. It was a matter of pride and professionalism, and NO ONE is more professional than a USAF crew chief. (No, I was not a crew dog. I worked in an Avionics shop. We greatly respected and admired the flightline troops, and we were proud to support them.)
So, was the Academy F-111A I referred to a "bad" model? Of course not. It was a fine example of the modeler's art of interpretation. It's just that, in the real world, F-111A's didn't actually look that way.

"It is required, you do awake your faith."
Shakespeare
The Winter's Tale