Interpreting ILM painting techniques in scale modelling

[Jaitea]

There has been a bit of a discussion on the 'Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon' thread,....the topic is about panel lines on general Star Wars scale kits,.....& whether to accentuate them when painting (darken) or to replicate the actual appearance of the original studio models where there appears to be no added paint effects

I personally don't adhere to rules,...I do what pleases me,....I analyse what reference photos I see of the ILM models & interpret them in the art I do,.....if I feel like adding extra depth to the model I'll darken panel lines

I would hope this thread will expand to any tips on weathering,...chipping techniques,... masking etc

J

 

[3Dsf]

Hm. It seems to me there are a lot of issues that can be opened up by this. For one thing, it seems clear that different techniques were used at ILM - often on the same model! Especially more complex models that were worked on by many different people. And many models were built hastily to get something ready for the camera the next day.

For another, scale in painting is really important. A mistake a lot of people seem to make is to faithfully replicate the colours used in a large ILM model on a smaller-scale replica. But it doesn't work that way. Paint scales as well, and small models need to have more subtle colour contrasts and variations than large models. This is well known in model railway circles, where someone painting an N scale engine is going to paint it very differently than an O gauge engine.

Add to that the vagaries of the source materials we have to work from - mostly photos taken by different people under different lighting conditions at different times with different recording media. And if we're looking at screengrabs which have gone through layers of optical processing, or photos taken 40 years later of a faded model in an exhibition hall.

Or even why things were painted the way they were. Often movie props aren't painted to look good to the eye, but to look a specific way on film. An extreme example is the colour scheme used in the original 1960s Dr Who TARDIS console. The prop was apparently built with very strange colours, not because it was supposed to look like that to the actors on set, but because the show was black and white, so it was painted to have specific shades of grey! The Star Wars films weren't black and white, but did involve complex optical processes to overlay various moving elements, and these processes all shifted the colours.

So really, I stick with the 'if it makes you happy!' argument. I'm going for stuff that reminds me of what I saw on screen. In the case of the Falcon, that means I'm going to aim for a much paler and lower-contrast Falcon when I'm finally ready to paint it.

But some people seem happy with Falcons that look like they've been rolling around a muddy field for a while. Or use dark black panel lines, making it look like an outlined comic strip. I've even seen photos of people who have stuck bright purple LEDs inside their Falcon engine fans or have cockpit lights that flash in sequence like some fit-inducing disco. If they don't care that that's not remotely screen accurate, then it's all good!

 

[ggriffaw]

I doubt the original models were built to stand up to up close scrutiny. We general saw them in motion on screen. I don't see any issue with making models for display more detailed than the originals.

I totally agree with taking scale into account as well.

How you finish a model depends on what you are trying to accomplish. There is a difference between trying to create an exact replica of the ILM originals and creating a scaled representation of the ship we see on screen that can be studied up close. If trying to recreate the original models, they probably should be studio scale as well.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk

 

[DARTH SABER]

Agreed.
Theres no right or wrong way to recreate these ships.

Some people may want to recreate the model used in the film , or do their own interpretation, or accentuate details, etc

I often go for recreating the models used in the film but sometimes I stray away and have some fun and take some artistic license such as the McQuarrie inspired XWing.








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Automaton]

IMHO panel lines are fine on most scale models unless you do them too dark. For me, it's not about whether the props have lines painted on but how pronounced shadows look in most situations. I also tend to paint stuff to match the colour grading used in the movies rather than the prop colour. When it comes to weathering, I think it's whatever gives it the right personality. I rusted up my R4-D5 as he's a battered and abused droid. A bit of dirt didn't give him enough contrast with my R2.

 

[newmagrathea]

I think that it comes down to taste and how you are going to display it. I'm not a fan of heavy panel lines, I think it looks cartoonish. The only exceptions I would give are if it is a model designed after a drawing such as the McQuarrie X-wing, Millennium Falcon, or anime ships, gundams, etc. I think a lot of people over look how they are going to display the model and do too much or to little to make it display correctly. Lighting is a big factor on making your model look natural, you don't need dark shadowy panel washes if you have real shadows. Also the background that your model is set against changes the appearance of it, on a light background it looks darker, on a dark background it looks lighter.

I'm all about learning new techniques for weathering. I always ask people how they do their chipping effects because I've not been 100% happy with how mine have turned out. I bought the Vallejo chipping medium the other day but have not tried it just yet, it's supposed to be similar to the hairspray technique but better. I'll post my thoughts on it when I get around to playing with it. I'm also really into preshading lately, I've had really good luck with it on my Bandai A-wing.

 

[Axlotl]

When I first learned about putting washes in panel lines, I did it all the time, on everything.
It made me feel like a pro.
Now, though, I only put washes in places where fuel, oil, water, or dirt would collect.
I never use straight black - not even for oil stains.
I differentiate panels by preshading and painting different colors on them before I do the first color-coat.
For example, on a natural metal P-51 I'll prime it with grey, then mask and paint some panels white, some black or brown, then spray my silver base coat over that.
On painted planes, I use watercolors to stain the matte paint around the edges of panels that get handled a lot, like gun bays, radio and oxygen access, engine cowlings, etc.
After everything else is done (final matte finish) I'll put little flecks of silver around the edges of these panels, too.
Subtlety is my new modus operandi.

 

[Inquisitor Peregrinus]

One irritating factor in scaling paint on a lot of genre models is figuring out whether to represent atmospheric effects. Like the distance haze da Vinci applied to the background of the Mona Lisa. But there's no air in space, so those affects are inaccurate for spacecraft (unless, I suppose, they're displayed landed). But our brains expect it, due to our terrestrial experience, so it looks "wrong" if scaling isn't done... *headdesk* Becomes a very subjective thing.

For my part, I opt for nonscaled for in-flight, and scaled for grounded. For panel lines, I never do more than just a slightly-darkened mix of the base color. Unless there's reason for collected grime in the recesses.

--Jonah

 

[Hunk a Junk]

I will use a wash often just to add some artificial shadow or add separation between detail pieces. For example, I'll add some grey wash to the molded on piping on the Falcon to give the illusion that the pipe is three-dimensional instead of just raised half round plastic.

Model making, for me, is about illusion. I'm using tricks and techniques to give the illusion that this small piece of plastic is a full-sized metallic spaceship that flies between planets. I try to go for a happy medium between what the ship looks like on screen and what the original miniature looks like. In the case of the Falcon, there were multiple miniatures and no two were exactly alike. The ship looks different from model to model, film to film, and shot to shot. My FM Falcon was a mash-up of elements from the 5-footer, the 3-footer, and the on-screen appearance. My upcoming Bandai, however, I'm going to try to make as close to the original ILM miniature as I can. Each presents an artistic challenge.

 

[JHY]

Military and railway modellers have a huge range of opinions (and techniques) about creating a realistic appearance; all that diversity even though they have real machines as references! Modelling ILM subjects involves numerous different models, versions, cgi etc but ultimately we have no definitive reference.
It is your model, your time,money and skills so do and enjoy what you want, relax and have fun.
Friends and family usually feel that I over research and modify, but honestly (with one or two exceptions) my research is modest and the modifications usually few and straightforward. I know that many build better detailed more accurate models than I do, but I'm still improving and having fun.

 

[Jkirkon]

Military and railway modellers have a huge range of opinions (and techniques) about creating a realistic appearance; all that diversity even though they have real machines as references! Modelling ILM subjects involves numerous different models, versions, cgi etc but ultimately we have no definitive reference.
It is your model, your time,money and skills so do and enjoy what you want, relax and have fun.
Friends and family usually feel that I over research and modify, but honestly (with one or two exceptions) my research is modest and the modifications usually few and straightforward. I know that many build better detailed more accurate models than I do, but I'm still improving and having fun.

Having fun, and building what YOU like, is what this hobby is all about.

 

[Sluis Van Shipyards]

Painting and weathering are my weakest skills, but I just do whatever I think looks right. Unless some of the original ILMers comment and say it looks like crap, I'm usually happy. :lol

 

[Matte Painter]

What techniques were and were not used in the original trilogy might be a more fun basis for discussion though:


So what was used? I've observed:
- Black basing (black or near black primer)
- Airbrush shading (for exhausts and deposits as well as to fake additional panels with loose masks)
- Dry brushing
- Gouging, sanding and chipping (sandpaper, dremel etc)
- Spattering and flicking
- Pens and markers (like those little dashes all over the Millenium Falcon)


...and what wasn't used:
- Washes
- Panel line washes (aka pin wash)
- Powders and pigments (less sure about this one, some of the gentle shading looks more like this than could be achieved with airbrush or dry brush)
- Pre-shading or marbling
- Painted chipping


Please add anything I've missed. I realise multiple people worked on a single model and of course these models were produced over a 6 year period but I think this covers everything I've observed personally.
I think the Prequels are a completely different situation, ignoring the CG models, the physical models appear to show more sophisticated techniques and could be an entirely separate list.

 

[Scarecrow Joe]

From that list I usually apply:

1. Base coat (not always though, the Bandai models are molded in colors very close in hue to the original ones). If thats the case I apply a very fine sanding to get rid of the shine and provide grip or apply directly a matte clear coat.

2. Washes I do sometimes before or at times after the matte coat. Sometimes I apply a gloss coat to do the washes. Sometimes also I do some selective washing and also panel lines. That depends on what the model tells me it needs (yes they talk to me, )

3. I used a lot more airbrushing in the past, still do, but Im preferring powders lately. With them I can do almost everything the airbrush can, but it takes, at least to me, more time. I find a better control with powders too.

4. I add some damage with the Dremel, the hobby knife but usually do these before starting any base coat, before any weathering. Any damage I plan beforehand.

5. I apply drybrushing here and there depending on the model. Also I do some spattering, not always to add some textures. Preferred method is using a toothbrush and apply it randomly with the hue of your choice, running the thumb over it. The closer you do the bigger the circumference of the dots or splatters. The more distance you make fro the model the finer these become.

6. Recently Im very fond on using graphite powders. They give a metallic finish that paint cannot reproduce. It must be used in small amounts though. I also use an art pencil, soft one to simulate old scratches and the look of polished steel. I emulate the polish surface frequent friction can create which has this grayish bright finish. For fresher scratches I use Vallejo Chrome. I also used art pencils for the multiple panels in my Star Destroyer Zvezda model. A similar method was used for the original.

Ive never done any preshading, marbling paint chipping. I guess I use a mix of ILM preferred methods and classical methods used in general modeling. Ive never tried to match my models to exaclty emulate the ILM look because, IMO it was a finish only good enough for the big screen. On close inspection they look sloppy but served their purpose as it was expected.

 

[kokkari]

...and what wasn't used:
- Washes
- Panel line washes (aka pin wash)
- Powders and pigments (less sure about this one, some of the gentle shading looks more like this than could be achieved with airbrush or dry brush)
- Pre-shading or marbling
- Painted chipping

I will have to respectfully disagree that they did not use washes. In this photo of the 32 inch Falcon they clearly have used extremely thinned paint around the airlock. I would say that is a wash.

 

[DARTH SABER]

I will have to respectfully disagree that they did not use washes. In this photo of the 32 inch Falcon they clearly have used extremely thinned paint around the airlock. I would say that is a wash.
View attachment 737245

I think what most are referring to is a penal line wash that goes around the entire panel for the purpose of accentuating the lines.

A small wash that simulates oil or fluid streaks in a controlled area is common though.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kokkari]

I think what most are referring to is a penal line wash that goes around the entire panel for the purpose of accentuating the lines.

A small wash that simulates oil or fluid streaks in a controlled area is common though.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought that same thing originally, but I noticed that he made a point to point out the two in his post, "washes" and "panel line washes". So according to this, Yes, I respectfully disagree.

 

[Scarecrow Joe]

I agree with kokkari. I think they indeed used washes judging by some of the images Ive seen. And it makes sense! They were running against time so a quick wash followed by a rapid cleaning with a rag is a rapid easy way to accentuate details.

 

[DARTH SABER]

I thought that same thing originally, but I noticed that he made a point to point out the two in his post, "washes" and "panel line washes". So according to this, Yes, I respectfully disagree.

I guess its good to be specific since there are different types if washes-

-Broad washes, which usually cover large areas and are used to stain the panels and panel lines.

-Controlled washes which usually cover a small area of a panel or line or both.

-Panel line washes which are specifically used to accentuate the majority of lines between panels.

I would say out of those three ILM only really used the second.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Matte Painter]

Yeh, I'm not sure I would call that a wash in the sense most people use washes now. I mean, it doesn't look like there has been any attempt to then wipe away the paint. So I guess this is more of a localised staining. I'm okay with calling it a form of a wash, but it's not what I often see people do. Though it is certainly a technique I've not listed in either the observed or not observed lists, just not sure I have a name for it exactly.

I remember seeing some similar watery looking splodges in a mustard colour on the madible side walls too.