32-inch Falcon Reference thread: COLORS.

[SD Studios]

To best-use this thread, we all will have to first agree to some postulates:

1) NO picture, no matter how good it looks, is the "perfect" reference. Flash, fore-shortening, shadows, distortion, etc, all occur and can give you a "false reading".

2) We are all humans. As such, pictures are subject to our interpretation. I have looked at a reference photo many times and missed a tiny detail, whereas someone popped up for the first time and said "Look at this detail". And even having seen the pic a hundred times, I NEVER saw it. Our brains are frail. We look at images with a "bias" going in. Our experience determines how we see things.

3) My eye doctor told me that most males have some level of color-blindness. We just don't know it. (I have taken the test many times and I know). I have a slight red-green deficiency. As an artist all of my life, I have "trained" myself to correct for it. But that is only because I have been fortunate enough to be taught by other professionals how to do it. You are most-likely not seeing color the same as someone else. Take that one in for a moment.

4) Color changes with light. Duck-egg blue is not the same color in direct sunlight as it is in flourescent light, or regular lightbulbs, or tungsten light. Color will change dramatically under different lighting conditions. So never be pragmatic about a color.

I hear you saying: "Sure, Steve, we all know that...duh".

Really? Then why I do constantly read people here discussing colors in a pic in a thread???

"It definitely is redder than Tamiya blah blah blah..."

"That X Wing sure looks white to me!!"

Really?

Colors on your monitor are LIT. They are completely different than under other conditions. THAT is why places like Pixar pay a fortune for calibrated monitors, and bulbs and lighting fixtures.

What settings are on your monitor? Is it digital or analog? Is it calibrated? How was the original picture taken? Was it scanned? What settings wre used? Was the original pic taken with a flash? Or sunlight? Are you partially color-blind? what bulbs are in your room right now?

See my point?

It is pretty-much absurd to argue about colors on the internet.

More later...gotta work.

[Guy Cowen]

Steve mate, we all really do appreciate what your saying, but you talk like someone has announced the definitive colour or the likes. People are allowed to debate & suggest & think things through for themselves even if you do find it trivial & unimportant.

Please consider that if someones says its def redder than this or that red they may be right you never know! There not saying it is a fact that it is this red & anything else is just bollox. But if it looks pink in a photo & someone's seen it in real life & it was def a dark red, then god forbid they suggest it in public.

You know a good way to do what your trying to do like Lee said was to educate.

Just repeating pointless information all the time is getting boring, if just simply viewing opinions about colour is so pointless due to the millions of factors involved then this hobby or any science wouldn't exist. We all know you have seen the real deal, so have many others in exhibitions or tours.

Again, we really all do appreciate you sharing your knowledge but please lets just do that and and discuss it.

When the Mverta Red 5 colour ref came out & it was deemed by him the holy grail of colour ref, it was just boring to listen to. Like all the millions of variants you have listed this to could never be taken as more than opinion by most.

I'm sooooo soooo so glad your not a school teacher by trade .

Its not absurd to discuss colour at all, it may be a little futile to discuss finite colour using internet as ref.

If I paint a twin Pod Green, are you telling me that suggesting it may be the wrong colour is not worth doing?

There is Dark Reds Brown Reds Green Greys blue Whites, and to a degree they can be visually correct using any ref but again I've never known anyone stake claim to perfection. Aside from You!

& before you start wiggling your bum like a happy puppy that you got someone's back up, you didn't. I'm just getting bored of being told the earth is round (but it aint a sphere) Debate?

S(*§9 I just thought if you look at earth from space the sea looks kinda blue, well try going to Blackpool I can tell you it aint blue!!!!

[asemblyrequired]

I would like a green Pod car. It would be a squadron from a different part of Cloud City that wasn't filmed .


-James

[krusinclone]

Colors will fade with time. Harsh lights will fade the color. Your flash might change the color. The dust will change the color. etc etc etc.

There are to many things going on to say what is the right color..

[Treadwell]

Originally Posted by SD Studios

It is pretty-much absurd to argue about colors on the internet.

Well, you brought it up in the first place.

[ralphee]

Originally Posted by Treadwell

Well, you brought it up in the first place.

Yeah, nail and head spring to mind.....what was he talking about again......i forget?

lee

[Guy Cowen]

Has anyone considered the fact that the due to age, bad lighting, poor reference & Back lit computer screens that the colours we're painting our replica ILM models may be off?

I think that white would be a good colour to start with for things like the Falcon & X wings, then again..... somethings telling me that this might, just might, be wrong......call it a hunch or what ever but has anyone thought of using a grey like colour to paint a falcon?

I'm thinking or repainting my Perfect MR Falcon, the one with no lights and one of the mandibles slightly misaligned ( boy I hope Phil hasn't done this to his silly scratch build).

Hey its pretty good fun this Joking (jest lark) you can say what ever you want and then just retract it all the time. Cool


Sorry Steve, I promise to stop messing around in class, I dont want to get detention. I'm just giddy waiting to see some pics :lo

I am smiling

[Art Andrews]

Originally Posted by Guy Cowen

Its not absurd to discuss colour at all, it may be a little futile to discuss finite colour using internet as ref.

We all know the shortcomings of the internet, monitors, digital photography, multiple lightings, and years of aging. SD statements about it being pointless to debate color reminds me of another post that was recently made regarding the futility of striving for "screen accuracy." To me, if one is intent on taking such a nihilistic view of the hobby, why are you even bothering at all? From a technical aspect, will we ever achieve perfect accuracy with the pieces we are replicating? Of course not! Does that mean we should just give up and quit because we won't ever reach that goal or that we shouldn't discuss it or keep striving for greater and greater accuracy? Again, if you feel that we shouldn't, then why are you here?

[SD Studios]

Ok, nevermind. You are right guys.

Why AM I here?

I will stop now.

People can rip each other to shreds and it goes on for pages, but I say "you can't judge colors on the internet" and try to clearly and helpfully explain why, and I am a "troll".

I am done here.

[Zombie Killer]

Thats lame. Odd yes, troll NO. Unfortunatly some people are unable to ignore what they don't like. If this were my site the tattle taler would be banned. Don't like the thread MOVE ALONG and stop telling others what to say and do! It's UNBELIEVABLE that people can't disagree without being jerks and try to shut others up.

Thanks for the Montana Gold #7000 "Diamond Gray" anyways Steve.

[Ghadrack]

This is a total headscratcher. Yesterday I thought someone had irished up their coffee and was pissed about being second guessed on color schemes for models. But I wasn't sure because that thread spun off into space like Vaders tie out of a death star trench.

I was expecitng this thread to be about showing some color data, instead I read, "arguing about colors on the internet is impossible. I quit!"

I'd be interested to hear from the OP, what caused these posts in the first place, because I'm just bumfuzzled, not that my curiousity means a hill of beans.

Personally, I'm a "get it close enough that I'm happy and be done" kinda guy, but I find reading about the originals and the methods used pretty fascinating, so I check out these threads, but always take the "You got 7 parts per million too much vanilla frosting in your sandstone grey aaarggh!" stuff with a grain of salt.

[Talisen]

So I'm guessing people don't mind discounting the fact that Steve physically saw the falcon in the archives (not in a scratched plexiglass case in a poorly lit museum)? That he compared colours under one fixed light source. And would rather assume their screencaps and flash blown photos (of a model in a scratched plexiglass case in a poorly lit museum) are more reliable?

I guess we're never going to get those pantone colour numbers (cause who wants an international colour standard to go by)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but really, unless you have fact to back it up and proof of this to show, why muddy the water??

[Guy Cowen]

Steve, its not what you say, its the manor you choose to say it. A few of us chose to reply in the same manor & now who's got his knickers in a twist. Learned behaviour mate, Learned behaviour..

Now, pulling the ref from under our feet, well lets be honest you where never going to post it anyway so, Rattle & Pram are truly separated now. What a blinkin shame.

[omes72]

Steve you set the challeng & gave up pretty quick. Thats a little disapointing. Its obvious you know what your talking about but just need to remember this site & others are for people to communicate & share. Theres obviously also plenty of Industry people & artists on this site of high caliber. You would know that when you set the challenge. Despite your seemingly arrogant stance I thought someone was finally going to start coughing up some resources (as stated) to help the community, which dispite your abrupt opening would have been more than admirable. There are alot of people who know what your saying though there are plenty of us still learning the basics. Maybe you could continue in a less condiscending aproach? (see smiley faces)

[Aurora]

Originally Posted by Ghadrack

This is a total headscratcher. Yesterday I thought someone had irished up their coffee and was pissed about being second guessed on color schemes for models. But I wasn't sure because that thread spun off into space like Vaders tie out of a death star trench.

I was expecitng this thread to be about showing some color data, instead I read, "arguing about colors on the internet is impossible. I quit!"

I'd be interested to hear from the OP, what caused these posts in the first place, because I'm just bumfuzzled, not that my curiousity means a hill of beans.

Personally, I'm a "get it close enough that I'm happy and be done" kinda guy, but I find reading about the originals and the methods used pretty fascinating, so I check out these threads, but always take the "You got 7 parts per million too much vanilla frosting in your sandstone grey aaarggh!" stuff with a grain of salt.

I would agree it would be interesting to see test done that would replicate how they built there models all useing different types of paint or material only changing one variable at a time

I would be willing to bet you would find a sample that match the film version under harsh studio lights not the aging paint that is on them currently

[tk1608]

What ?....so no piccys then..

I was looking forward to that, if we could've seen the pics then we could have made our own minds up as to how to make it look, it's all subjective anyhoo....as long as it looks in the ballpark it don't matter what colour primer went where and when, does it ?

Darn.

Phil

[Aurora]

primer can make a major difference when you try an compare colors:

a darker primer can cause the top/finish coat to be a darker hue. But if you use a lighter primer on the top/finish coat can be much brighter then entended. A great example happens with yellow use of black as a primer cause the yellow to look much darker. Now if you use a a white you will find your yellow will be a much brighter yellow almost to point were it looks pastel

It also happens with paint that has a mirror finished a darker primer causes the top coat to look much darker give the "mirror" reflection a much deeper (A great example a darker base coat will make the surface looks a bathroom mirror). Compared to using a ligher base like white causes the mirror finish to be a much lighter makes for a brighter sliver (a example of a ligher base coat it makes the surface look like brushed aluminium).

A simple rattle can can show this very will. You can use the same paint but have different primers an you will notice a difference in color if you compare the two objects that you paint

[Proper]

Originally Posted by Guy Cowen

Steve, its not what you say, its the manor you choose to say it. A few of us chose to reply in the same manor & now who's got his knickers in a twist. Learned behaviour mate, Learned behaviour..

Now, pulling the ref from under our feet, well lets be honest you where never going to post it anyway so, Rattle & Pram are truly separated now. What a blinkin shame.

Amen to that!

[tk1608]

What I meant was that I don't want to get too hung up about the finer points, I just wanted to see the ref stuff for myself and then decide how to get somewhere close...

Ah well, there's still some great pics out there, so it's all good..

Phil

[Bondo Fett]

Personally, I'm a "get it close enough that I'm happy and be done" kinda guy, but I find reading about the originals and the methods used pretty fascinating, so I check out these threads, but always take the "You got 7 parts per million too much vanilla frosting in your sandstone grey aaarggh!" stuff with a grain of salt.[/QUOTE]

I second that emotion, Ghadrack. Since I will never see the 5' Falcon any closer than behind the scratched plexiglas in a dark museum then I will have to rely on (my own subjective interpretation of) the best possible references and methods provided by the generous and enthusiastic members of this forum. Gotta say, Pantone #'s is a pretty good place to start.

[Dedalus5550]

Part of the problem is that we base this on what we see in photos. If we could all run down to the local museum that has original studio models that have been kept in ideal conditions to prevent any color distortion, it would be one thing. But we have to base our models on what we see in pictures--no matter how much they distort the colors. We also look--for the most part--at our models in person. I'm not gonna shoot a coat of paint on, wait for it to dry, take a picture, and then look at the picture to see if I got it right. A lot of us do this for model shows and contests, as well. We can't bring our model and then tell people to look at photos of that same model rather than look at the one we brought. There is some amount of sharing online, but now we're talking about different cameras (and totally different eras of cameras) and different photographers (with different training and experience). To me, it really comes down to whether what I see--be it my own model or one I see online or at a show. And under what lighting.

Consider how aircraft modelers (maybe others, too) use a light color like white in their paint to create "scale effect". The paint is supposed to be based on the actual, real color of the real aircraft. What's more perfect than that? But from the pictures and even real exposure to the real aircraft, we decide those colors look too dark. I noticed this when I was in the army and had access to real helicopters--I was an avionics tech with access to the flightline. The paints for modern helicopters at the time (1990s) were fairly accurate compared to the real ship--I even got samples of actual wet paint. But on the model, it looks terrible--to me. So when someone paints his ship in what he thinks looks closest to screen grabs, etc., so what. He's gotten the look that he likes. But if it's close to the color that we all see, then what's the problem?

Um, the obvious--have you been to my house? To the house of how many other modelers' houses? This is simple logic, and you'd do poorly on the LSAT when it relates to logic. Since PICTURES don't compare to the real thing, then how does one look at PICTURES of my model and tell someone that his model doesn't match the real kit. Moreover, how does this same person look at a model in person and compare it to pictures he's seen of the real studio model. Or has he seen the real model and remember enough to say how well it compares to that original?

Or what about when I've painted part of a model and forgot the mix of paint. I guess and come up with a mixture to match. But I shoot another part or spare plastic and then compare it to the other part. And then I stare with my mark 1 eyeball, and can't tell. I can't figure it out. I have two things in front of my eyes--no pictures, no cameras, no photogs, no etc.--and I can't figure it out. Another person looks at pics from 30 years ago and at online pics of mine, and says this and that.

Give me an effen break.

[Colin Droidmilk]

It's an interesting point, all this. Photo ref is of course far from useless in making valid observations regarding the true colour of an object. If, in a pool of, say 25 pics of Red Jammer taken between '76 and the present, the model appears in every picture to have a considerably warmer red than the stripes of X-wings in a similar pool of 25 pics taken over the same period then it's odds-on it was painted with a warmer red.

Nevertheless, to achieve the exact colours of these models is impossible in the strict empirical terms SD is talking about. But that isn't what we're aiming for here. It's like... if you look at an off-key photo of The Mona Lisa, the relationship of colours still always looks great, the colour mastery is still visible, even if the hue has been shifted. It's that authentic relationship between the colours that we're after, presented within a reasonable ball-park hue. Pools of ref photos give us an adequate enough idea of the ballpark hue.

If I do Red 3, and since I have no access to the actual Red 3, and since Red 3 looks great in Jason's ref. pics, then I aim to recreate what I see in those photos. If I match those photos, then success is total; it really shouldn't matter a gnat's arse if the real model is shifted a couple of nanometers along the hue scale.

Recreating a colour perfectly is impossible - even when you have the damn model in font of you. On Thunderbirds they could never mix up the same green they used for the first Thunderbird 2 model. They tried and tried and gave up. I really don't think we need worry about that kind of exactness.

[krusinclone]

Please keep in mind that the photos most people go from are when the models were being filmed or worked on, or even when they had been CLEANED up when on tour. The OP had a great opportunity to have face time with the models in the archive, but it was also said that they were not allowed to clean off the dust and dirt. So how can he or anyone really say that they know the correct color??