ILM weathering question

So here's something I've been trying to wrap my head around...

Typically, a lot of us begin our weathering process with some sort of wash to darken panel lines and create shadows around raised details. However, when looking at a lot of shots of classic ILM studio models from the original Star Wars films, it's pretty obvious that their weathering process often darkens the raised edges, while leaving the gaps between the panels and edges of raised details fairly unshaded. (I've attached a picture for reference.)

Are they using pastels? A light airbrush pass? Dry brushing?

It seems to be a pretty "signature" ILM look to their models, particularly of the 70's and 80's era. Anyone savvy on the technique?

I've never really understood this "technique" as nothing of size gets grubby in this way in nature. Just look at the world around you.

The easiest way of reproducing it is just handle your freshly pained model with really greasy hands

It's a combination of things. Sanding and chipping to allow the black undercoat to show, misting of darker colors over the color coats, dry brushing , splattering etc. Washes are about the only technique not used, at least not generally. I've never cared for the wash look, except where an oil spill effect is what you're after. But real heavy panel line washes to me look like those paintings done on black velvet.

In the pic you posted you can see some fine black marks where the white is chipped away, and the large black spots where parts are now missing. The white scratches seen elsewhere on the Falcon is white styrene showing where the paint was ground away with a Dremel.

You know that you can use light colours as panel line washes aswell!?
Infact i think it is more realistic to use a whitish dusty semi opake colour to use as panel line wash,..it not only represents dust and chalk but at the same time light effects bouncing from raised edges.
I think besides avoiding to cover the panel lines by darker colour ,by doing mist coats or spraying from greater distants, ilm also used mat whitish/dusty washes in the panel lines to indicate light effect and worn/chipped basecoat on edges.
These light panel line washes are/can be different in intensity/opakeness within a singe panel line,..sometimes panel lines were deepened by dark paint aswell to create a more 3D effect .
This will give it a more 3D effect,....you'll see allot of white chipping with a darker center,...some were created by scratching trough the colour layer revealing the light base coat and in the center dark/black,..some were painted on with thick white/light paint with a dark gray/black/rusty brown area painted in the center.
What i learned from character make-up techniques is that you will splatter thinned colour to break up the uniformity airbrush look,..so after blue airbrush pass you'll do a thinned out blue splatter ,after red a red splatter after grey a grey splatter etc.
So idealy you'll use all the colours as airbrush passes followed up by a splatter of the same thinned out colour.
I think that movie miniature models should be considered as characters and do need "make-up" to enhance their prominent features or make them more subbtle.

My own experience, I do panel line black washes for bigger scales up to 1/72. For everything beyond, like 1/144 for Bandai kits I like to use a really,really,reeeeeeaaaaalllly pointy pencil for the panels, no matter if raised or deeper panels.

The above pic is not my favorite ILM version of weathering. It looks like they smudged a white paint job with some black and brown pastels. Its almost a reverse/negative look. The crevasses are white. That's not where dirt goes in reality.


This Slave 1 pic is my favorite. It shows some streaking, probably airbrush blasts and panel line washes.

View attachment 835733
ILM definitely did washes, however they were not washes in the sense that is often applied to scale modeling these days. The general view I've gathered from all the reference shots I've seen is that their process began with a black base coat/primer coat.
This was then usually thoroughly covered the base color (reeferwhite/light gray whatever you want to call it) so that very little of the black base showed through except in the extremely deep crevasses, I don't think it was really used at all as preshading. Also the colored panels would be applied at this point via airbrush.
Finally when it came time to dirty up the surfaces it looks like they started with airbrushing mist coats along physical features define the deep areas, You can see the dark misted gray along the shoulder of the Falcon in the photo I posted. After the mist coats the streaking and blast marks would also be applied in rust and black colors. All of this airbrushing would tend to build up on the high points, resulting in the look that many of the studio models had for the original trilogy, and in the image example you posted of the falcon docking ring.
Post the airbrushing we come to washes and dremel damage. It looks like a motor tool was used to cut into the model for scratching and revealed the underlying primer/basecoat and bare plastic. Most of these areas of bare plastic look pretty clean which would tend to imply that they were done post airbrushing.
Finally the washes! It's pretty clear that the models were painted with flat enamels and don't look to have been gloss coated at any point which would tend to result in any washes staining on the surface rather than pooling in crevasses. In the photo example I posted you can see the washes didn't confine themselves to the panel lines and look to travel wherever the brush traveled. In addition to that it also looks like occasionally the thinned out wash paints were also splattered via toothbrush? Wide paintbrush? all over the model to break up the surface.
In the end I think any real attempts to imply surface depth between physical features and panel lines like we might typically recognize really wound up on the shoulders of the effects people lighting and casting strong shadows during filming.
It really looks to me that ILM certainly used washes, but again not in the sense that many people think at first. They were certainly not black panel line washes applied on a glossy surface as is so commonly done in scale modeling these days.

I prefer using charcoal/pastel powders for panel lines- IMO a lot of black washes give the model an outlined cartoon look. Powders fill unevenly, giving things a more natural look. I have not tried preshading yet, but I am going to experiment a bit with that on my next build.

ILM has a lot of interesting techniques but most of them are designed for the filming application- they look great when moving but a lot rougher in person when you have time to study them, With a couple of exceptions (commissioned projects for commercials) everything I build is for static display so I just try to make it look good to my eye.

I am by no means an expert, but I have been learning the technique and I'll share what I know.

It's all done with light misting coats through an air brush, after the base panel colors are laid down and some of the weathering, you then come back with a misting of the base coat. Also, there are filter colors laid down as a mist, like Grime (or similar). There are no pastels or oils used, no washes. Some inks. The splatter effects are achieved with low pressure through an air brush (you can get a similar effect with a toothbrush). The larger size of the studio models makes achieving the technique a bit easier than when working at 1/72. At 1/144 I probably wouldn't even try it. I'd use pastels, or something similar...that's just too tiny (for me) to get good results with an air brush.

For some of the best tips on the ILM style join the Archive-X facebook group. Even if you don't use the paint, the technique is the same. There is a lot of great knowledge there! It's a really friendly group of people that are always willing to share!

Star Wars filming models were painted in a way to give the best impression of the ship while it was traveling through the frame on the screen. So, as a modeler, you have a choice about whether to emulate the ILM style or go for something more realistic looking. Neither choice is wrong, it's all about what you like. I prefer the ILM style, so that is how I paint my star wars ships.

Thanks guys.

I don't think this is a look I want to *exactly* replicate on my Star Wars models. I agree that the technique, particularly in a lot of shots of the original Falcon, don't look that great on a static model. However, I do want my builds to feel like they could have been studio models, yet still look good as display pieces. If that makes sense.

So this is more just wanting to know what they were doing.

To me, when I see the hi res pics of the actual ILM models.....they very often look like crap. I think the recreations of late have by far the best looking paint jobs,, IE some of the master replica MF's, The X-wings built by RL Bleaker, Some Star Wars builds by Guy Cowen, Jaitea and Haystack Hair (HH), just to name a few heavy hitters. These guys have got it down. When I want a really great reference I look to their paint jobs.

I agree with your viewpoint on the models. I like to style them after the studio scale models, but give them a more realistic appearance. Something a little more true to life, I guess. I want to be able to look at my models and be convinced that they are real.

One outstanding thing about ILM Star Wars models- they give a personal history when you look at the. When I see dings, dents and burn marks I can just imagine what might have happened to create those imperfections. When I build I like to do the same, perhaps not matching the original filming models point for point (there are plenty of others already doing that) but to give each subject some history so when you see it you feel you are just capturing a moment in it's long life. I try to avoid building hero ships because it invites a direct comparison, I would rather have fun doing my own instead of slavishly duplicating a reference

Richard Baker said:

One outstanding thing about ILM Star Wars models- they give a personal history when you look at the. When I see dings, dents and burn marks I can just imagine what might have happened to create those imperfections. When I build I like to do the same, perhaps not matching the original filming models point for point (there are plenty of others already doing that) but to give each subject some history so when you see it you feel you are just capturing a moment in it's long life. I try to avoid building hero ships because it invites a direct comparison, I would rather have fun doing my own instead of slavishly duplicating a reference

Click to expand...

Adam Savage has said many times that he likes to create a story in his mind about how whatever he's building got the way it is. I liked that idea, so it's something I also try to do. If nothing else, it slows me down and makes me take a little more care in what I'm doing, instead of just slapping grime down.

I agree with you on that ..having seen some of the ILM models in person at an Star Wars exhibition I was surprised to see how sloppy they looked compared to what I seen on screen... but people wasn't supposed see them in the public anyway they were built for studio filming so I understood that.