WWII Weathering Fallacy or Truth. Accuracy.

[BarleyBop]

focal length of my mind

Haha. As odd as it seems, this is probably the closest to the truth... though your eyes have the lenses, and the receptors, 'sight' happens in the visual cortex, and is mostly interpolation and interpretation in your mind, filling in details that aren't there, missing things that are, because your mind has usually already decided what you are seeing before you really look.

We tend to think that sight is objective, but we have been trained since birth and enculturated to see the world in a certain way. Like it or not.

Walk through the forest with someone who has spent their entire life there, and they will see things much differently than you even though it is exactly the same light landing on their retinas as yours.

 

[urumomo]

yep , it's all in the head .
color doesn't exist .
And even if 2 sets of eyeballs are sending the same signal , the brains interpreting the signal will be different .

 

[Jakko]

Walk through the forest with someone who has spent their entire life there, and they will see things much differently than you even though it is exactly the same light landing on their retinas as yours.

Not sure that's to do with the light so much as with knowledge about/experience with the subject matter. It's no different from approximately 99.9% of the population being able to tell you no better than that this:—



is "a tank", while a large part of the remaining people can tell you it's "a German Panther tank" but not really anything more substantial. Part of the remainder of that can tell you it's "a German Panther Ausführung D" while a smaller part still will tell you things about its details (twin rather than one sight opening in the mantlet, for example) and what this means for the relative production date of this particular tank.

 

[Peppylepugh]

^^^^
I'm not sure how the eye actually works compared to a lens, but in photography, a 50mm lens was considered

I'll start by trying to figure out the focal length of my mind

probably

"normal". It gives roughly the field of view you get with your eyes.

That aside, the scale assumption is that you are viewing that model from 3' away. The assertion is that anything you would see at that viewing distance would be visible at 105' in real life. I call BS on that one as a premise for detailing. You may be able to walk up to that 1:1 tank or airplane and be mere feet away. That's the equivalent of viewing your model from inches. If someone wants to paint dirt on shovel handles, I think it looks fine. Real shovels have hand prints. Real airplanes have stains. Neither one has a glorious pre-shaded grid pattern laid out on the flat surfaces. Just my preference.

Afternoon gentlemen.
I had seen a mathematical equation someone had figured out, for what was all that, to get all that.
Normal viewing distance as I understand it, is
One foot. Then the 35X works out.
An average freight trailer is 53'. Can you see the wood grain at that distance? Walk towards it by two basketball goals, see any?
I don't disparage the dedication that goes into this. The practice, technique. It's not something I believe I need. And I wouldn't say so to anyone, when their hard work is on display. No offense to anyone here that practices this art.
It's too much for an average beginner, to try and accomplish out of the box and shouldn't square off his wheels, if he can't. But, it's in all the hobby magazines and that's the bar.

 

[Peppylepugh]

Credit:
Panzer Aces 52, 2016
Carlos Alba López/Modeler.

 

[Edbert]

... is mostly interpolation and interpretation in your mind, filling in details that aren't there, missing things that are, because your mind has usually already decided what you are seeing before you really look.

I did a lot of illustration back in the day, it was actually my day job for almost a decade. One thing you learn very quickly when using photographs as a reference is that the mind will accept that photograph as real when an EXACT drawing of the thing as seen in the photo looks "wrong". This is not necessarily "filling in" details, it is filtering them out.

Your subconscious accepts the weird angle of the discus-thrower's arm as accurate (even if the lens is distorting it, or the muscles and sinews are, or the 1/200th of a second frame-rate) but when rendered as a painting you'd say that artist messed up that arm.

So the artist will be forced to or learn to adjust their drawing to make the mind happy with what it sees, even if it is technically inaccurate.

 

[BarleyBop]

Not sure that's to do with the light

Exactly, its what is in the head that makes the difference, even if the signal (light) is the same...

Your subconscious accepts the weird angle of the discus-thrower's arm as accurate

It will be interesting to see, in twenty years, after people have been sufficiently mislead, duped and cheated by photographic looking AI images, and virtual unreality, just how this whole discussion will go!

I did a lot of illustration

Nice! I hope you will bring other insights to our discussions and in your build process posts, from your particular perspective (pardon the pun!)

Perhaps we could start a separate thread on the mechanics of sight, cognition and visual design principles as applied to model building. Not everyone's cup of tea, but there is a lot there to share and learn.

 

[Sailor]

Yes agree specially the over shading of panels that look very unrealistic. I prefer marbling to break up the monotone colors.

Pannel lines are like religion, " I know what I believe, don' confuse me with the facts". Weathering in general is all about various sects. I am convinced that most air craft modelers build models of panel lines. When you look at there model they "pop". I endeavor to build my models based on a specific photo of it in action. If you have a different criteria of what you want your model to be, that is fine; it is your model!

 

[MJY65]

Pannel lines are like religion, " I know what I believe, don' confuse me with the facts". Weathering in general is all about various sects. I am convinced that most air craft modelers build models of panel lines. When you look at there model they "pop". I endeavor to build my models based on a specific photo of it in action. If you have a different criteria of what you want your model to be, that is fine; it is your model!

I'll admit to being a panel liner. I probably do more than is realistic, but try to differentiate between an actual movable gap like gear doors, flap-wing joints, aileron-wing joints (darkest/dirtiest), access panels (smaller and not as dark) and riveted on panels (finest and lightest). My goal is that you can see the largest real life gaps from the greatest viewing distance. Sometimes, I am more successful than others and will never get it perfect.

 

[OldManModeler]

Credit:
Panzer Aces 52, 2016
Carlos Alba López/Modeler.

View attachment 136478

Those tool handles are a prime example of this topic. In the article narrative: "Just like it happens in real life"......

"Who was there Sarge? You or me"? ....Paraphrased from the deadly accurate TV show Rat Patrol. LOL @BarleyBop reminded me of that quote.

Yet, it is accepted as authentic in the modelers realm and to the uninformed.

But it is all good. And it looks cool to some. And some modelers swear by it.

That is the beauty of scifi modeling. It only happened in your imagination and there is no authenticity.

Be well. Model on.

Eric

 

[Edbert]

I'll admit to being a panel liner. I probably do more than is realistic, <snip>

So do I, even while saying it is not realistic.

Why?

Because I like it, and it is my model, my paint, and my time.

I do think that despite all the opinions, that is one thing that most will agree with, do it the way you want, even if going all Pollock on it.