Re: Representing paint failure


Jim Betz
 

Hi,

David Bott has brought up something that is important. Perhaps
even -very- important ...

I know several model railroaders who compliment the weathered
freight car models they see - and say stuff like "Gee, I wish -I- could
do that kind of weathering." ... and their trains are unweathered and
have been unweathered for years. And when asked when they are
going to weather their own trains they always answer with "when I
know how to do it".

David is saying "guys are 'intimidated' by the completed/finished
work of others" and I agree! Learning to weather is a 'process'.
We need to encourage others to -start- the process. Some of the
ways we can do that are to sit down with some friends and some
models and some paints and actually -do- some weathering ... and
then to put the brushes into their hands for them to experiment on
their models ===> right then and there.

One of the key elements of weathering is "observing the prototype" -
but it isn't the only one.

Lastly - a constant irritation of mine is guys who learn "just one
way" (or thing to do) and then do that same thing over and over
again ===> with very little variation from car to car (or year to year).
I like to describe 'successful' weathering using the following words:

A layout yard full of cars that "look all the same" ... UNTIL you
study the individual cars in the yard and then you start to
see the differences between the cars. And the more you study
the more differences you see.

One of my "go to"/"go back to" techniques that I have found is
important in that "all the same and all different at the same time"
result is using considerable amounts of weathering by hand. I'm
not saying I don't also use an airbrush ... I'm saying that if you
haven't done some of the weathering using a brush you hold in
your hand that you won't achieve the same results.

Example - look at the Delano picture recently posted - notice how
the "paint failure" is different from car to car! Reflect also on how
quickly you picked up on the big picture "this is a steam era yard".

I've seen layout yards that look like that pic - and it was no
accident! Thanks David for pointing out one of the reasons
why many guys never seem to get started on "weathering".
- Jim B.

6b. Re: Representing paint failure Posted by: "David Bott" @MDHokie lwulffe_doc Date: Mon Jan 4, 2016 5:54 pm ((PST))
Having watched a recent weathering mini clinic on Train Master TV, my theory (not experience) is that the modelers are not
satisfied because the peeling paint models lack the feathering transitions and layers of obscuring grime that most
prototypes exhibit.
I bet if the undercoat paint had a very dilute addition of the body color or there was another technique to use a series of
dilute washes over the paint used to create the bare metal, like Michael Gross only more, they would like the results even
more. Great blog entry because it shows that even accomplished modelers have things to learn!
As I strongly believe, if you aren't making mistakes, you are not learning!
I get tired of MR photos because they tend to show the final iteration of the strength of an accomplished modeler.
People don't identify with perfection. Blogs and videos have begun to show the experimentation and failures that
precede virtually every beautiful model. That flavor of trial and error will inspire more modelers than any museum
quality model shown complete.
Bob Ross became famous for showing his mistakes and how he recovered to create "happy little accidents." I'm
glad to see entries like this! They show me I have room to contribute something...now to get my weathering
gear out and show you what I mean! Sent from Dave Bott' iPhone

Join main@RealSTMFC.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.