Scale reflection

[john3m]

A few years ago, I read an article about Paint and scale models and reflections being in scale. According to the author Paint reflection should also be in scale at first I had to scratch my head to understand what they were talking about, but it kind of makes sense. When, I thought about it The author pointed out that if you took a car full size car and place it at 100 feet or whatever that makes it a scale of say 1/35 and you take a model car over the same scale at the relative same distance the Paint reflection would be different or somehow diminished on the full size car as the scale model which would be far more reflective. This has something to do with the inverse Square law Which in a nutshell says that photons from light will disperse as you increase in distance and they’re not as concentrated. Not sure how I would apply that to scale models yet but I just thought I’d throw it out there for raw meat maybe somebody can pick on it And explain it to me how we would do it.

[kyledehart5]

I don’t think I’m smart enough to figure this one out but it is a very interesting thought topic. I think that’s what makes some models so impressive when they look real. Reducing everything believably in scale down to the reflection is such a difficult thing. Very interesting to think on indeed.

[stikpusher]

It’s like the scale color theory. There are those who apply it, and those who do not. It’s a matter of personal choice of the builder. Lighting, humidity, dust, and several other factors enter the equation in real life

[kyledehart5]

Jul 17, 2024 22:11:08 GMT -5 stikpusher said:

It’s like the scale color theory. There are those who apply it, and those who do not. It’s a matter of personal choice of the builder. Lighting, humidity, dust, and several other factors enter the equation in real life

Oh absolutely. Just like the deep, deep world of wheels style glossy finishes on most model cars you see at shows. I will never but those guys that do sure are impressive. Personal choice again.

[Tobi]

Like Carlos pointed out, this goes in the direction of scale color theory.
In this case I would think you have to play with the degree of gloss, which will probably start looking crappy soon on car models, but it's the only application I can think of, where scale reflection could come into account.

I have also seen fake reflection on figures and busts, where an immitation of the surounding was painted on reflecting materials, like a polished warrior helmet.

[tcoat]

This is something I have always heavily leaned on. Scale, colour, shine, weathering , etc are very important to me. I take it a bit further though and use the scale converted to feet viewing distance.
A 1/24 car would be weathered, have a shine and detailed so that when viewing it from 3 feet I would aim for what you could see on the real thing from 24 feet. Even the shiniest of real cars does not have a mirror finish when you see it from 24 feet away.
A 1/350 ship would be done as if views from about 300 feet away so things like rust and stains would be blurred to the point of being almost invisible and not stand out in stark contrast as they often are depicted.
This if course is just one way to look at things but I personally believe that it results in more realistic models.

[john3m]

I browsed the internet  on color theory and felt like an overload of information for one day. i think ill stick to my crayons for the time being until I get much better at modeling.

[Steve Zuleski]

I'm leaning towards Carlos and Toby's thoughts on this, John. It's a bit heavy for me too, but maybe we do it not thinking, cause sometimes the color tones need to be lightened in smaller scale up close and sometimes they need to be darkened for depth perception and distance presentation. I wish I had paid attention in art class when color theory was discussed, cause even with a color wheel, I'm clueless, HA! Sorry, there you have it.

I can't speak for armor, AC, or cars, but for figure work I always keep in mind what "mood" I want to play for the camera when I'm done. That means color tones and lighting come in to play. Kinda like watching a movie play out in my head as I portray the action with the figures and scenery. It's that snap-shot of a moment in time I'm attempting to catch, which means everything up until that point has had a major role in the end result. When I look at my builds in the curio cabinet they look,........ok,......they look ok. But place them in front of the camera and proper lighting and they begin to play out the desired scene I was intending from the start.

Ok, now maybe I've gone too far down this rabbit trail myself, but this is an area I'm constantly working to perfect and I more than like not even consciously paying it much attention while I'm doing it. Wow, that was deep, sorry, John. HA!

[stikpusher]

Ski, your figure work is outstanding. Like a 3-D rendering of some classic paintings. Figures are certainly an area where lighting as done with the painting sure provides the setting for viewing the figure. Not so much scale effect as something else…. Simulated mood lighting I suppose.

[Tobi]

What I found for my personal preference, and I'm with Steve there, the smaller the detail/model, the starker the contrast that is needed. If you look at War Gaming figures, they are tiny, but work well with lots of contrast. This may not be realistic like tcoat explained, but otherwise you risk ending with just a blob.

[aaronw]

I find things like this or scale color theory interesting to consider. I think there is some validity to the ideas, but there are a whole lot of moving goal posts to consider. What is the scale, how far is the viewer from the object, what angle, what kind of lighting, and most important to me does it actually make the model look good?

The simple fact is our scale models live in a 1-1 world, all of this is a compromise.

[dean48ws]

This is a heavy subject in my opinion. Does it also include paint scale if there is such a thing? For example, if I buy paint from the local Caterpillar dealer to paint a 1:25 scale model of a Cat dozer, is this correct or does it need to be model specific paint? Laugh you might but when Dad went to produce scale trains using genuine railway paint, it became a major stumbling block. Personally, I don't care but can you see where I'm coming from?

[Tobi]

Jul 19, 2024 3:07:58 GMT -5 dean48ws said:

This is a heavy subject in my opinion. Does it also include paint scale if there is such a thing? For example, if I buy paint from the local Caterpillar dealer to paint a 1:25 scale model of a Cat dozer, is this correct or does it need to be model specific paint? Laugh you might but when Dad went to produce scale trains using genuine railway paint, it became a major stumbling block. Personally, I don't care but can you see where I'm coming from?

You buy paint from your Caterpillar dealer and paint your 1:1 Cat Dozer here and there and you will find they are not the same color.

[tcoat]

Jul 18, 2024 17:37:06 GMT -5 john3m said:

I browsed the internet  on color theory and felt like an overload of information for one day. i think ill stick to my crayons for the time being until I get much better at modeling.

Don't try to go down the technical rabbit holes of theories but more just what looks right in the scale. As some of the guys have said the "proper" colour in 1/1 scale may look totally wrong in 1/72. It is of course all subjective to the viewer anyway. 

Jul 19, 2024 0:13:57 GMT -5 Tobi said:

What I found for my personal preference, and I'm with Steve there, the smaller the detail/model, the starker the contrast that is needed. If you look at War Gaming figures, they are tiny, but work well with lots of contrast. This may not be realistic like tcoat explained, but otherwise you risk ending with just a blob.

Ah contrast is needed to get the right perspective appearance in the scale. Artificial shadows as well. The contrast just doesn't have to be the focal point but more the accent.

Base paint on a 1/350 sub
Colour is totally wrong per references but that will change. Details when viewed from 3 feet are impossible to see.



One coat of Tinted Future for contrast only. Details pop, artificial shadows appear, paint colour changed to more appropriate tone. Blotches look extreme when viewed close up or in pictures due to gloss.



Once flat coated rust and grunge are implied but not stark. In 1/350 scale  the view would be about the same as the real thing at 300 feet away and you just simply would not see rust as a separate colour but more of a tonal difference in the grey. To be visible as rust the patches would have to be tens of feet wide and even the very worst of the vessels would not have that.



When viewed from about 3 feet all the detail is evident but not in your face.

[cbaltrin]

My initial reaction would be to think something would be shinier in scale. I mean, if  I sanded a 1/1 car with 8000 grit… wouldn’t I have to sand a 1/24 replica with 192,000 grit to get the same scale smoothness? 

[eaglecash867]

Jul 19, 2024 6:35:02 GMT -5 cbaltrin said:

My initial reaction would be to think something would be shinier in scale. I mean, if  I sanded a 1/1 car with 8000 grit… wouldn’t I have to sand a 1/24 replica with 192,000 grit to get the same scale smoothness? 

That's my thinking as well, that a 1/25 or 1/24 scale car painted to replicate the sheen of the typical, no clear coat, lacquer paint of a 1/1 from the 60s or 70s would look almost semi-matte or matte if it was blown up to 1/1.  Seems like the size of the pores in the paint surface would get magnified and make it look more matte.  I don't know what's "right", all I know is what looks right to me. 

On the aircraft side of things, I recently played around with the HAVE Glass paint combo that MRP offers, with one of the two components being a matte clearcoat infused with metallic particles.  Even in 1/48 scale, it looked way too "sparkly" to me, and if blown up to 1/1 would probably look like an old metal flake paintjob.  I ended up finding out that rubbing powdered graphite into the grey basecoat gave me a finish that looked right to me, when comparing it to the 1/1 F-35A.

It's a lot like the old debate on the visibility of panel lines on an aircraft from so many feet.  There are some who insist that they can't be seen on 1/1 aircraft from so many feet.  I just have to say "OK...you do you" in those debates, because my experience for the past 31 years with 1/1 aircraft tells me otherwise.  Some are pristine, and you can't see the panel lines...but most aren't, and you can definitely see panel lines.  Airliners, contrary to conventional wisdom, are actually some of the worst when it comes to the finish being maintained in pristine condition, because they're hard-working aircraft.

Count me in the "just go with what looks right to you" camp.  

[tcoat]

Jul 19, 2024 6:35:02 GMT -5 cbaltrin said:

My initial reaction would be to think something would be shinier in scale. I mean, if  I sanded a 1/1 car with 8000 grit… wouldn’t I have to sand a 1/24 replica with 192,000 grit to get the same scale smoothness? 

Car shine and true colour is a fun one to get in scale. Even full size can vary massively depending on the light source so getting scale shine and/or colour right can depend a lot on what lighting you plan to display it under most of the time. 

For example I am not sure what gloss or even colour I would do my car in since it can very different depending on conditions. What I do think though is that the super gloss just would not look right in 1/24.

Although all of the following are quite different they are all "correct" so it really is just a matter of what the modeler likes best.

Inspection booth intense lighting.



Very strong sunlight

 

Evening indirect light



Overcast

[tcoat]

Jul 19, 2024 7:32:07 GMT -5 eaglecash867 said:

Jul 19, 2024 6:35:02 GMT -5 cbaltrin said:

My initial reaction would be to think something would be shinier in scale. I mean, if  I sanded a 1/1 car with 8000 grit… wouldn’t I have to sand a 1/24 replica with 192,000 grit to get the same scale smoothness? 

That's my thinking as well, that a 1/25 or 1/24 scale car painted to replicate the sheen of the typical, no clear coat, lacquer paint of a 1/1 from the 60s or 70s would look almost semi-matte or matte if it was blown up to 1/1.  Seems like the size of the pores in the paint surface would get magnified and make it look more matte.  I don't know what's "right", all I know is what looks right to me. 

On the aircraft side of things, I recently played around with the HAVE Glass paint combo that MRP offers, with one of the two components being a matte clearcoat infused with metallic particles.  Even in 1/48 scale, it looked way too "sparkly" to me, and if blown up to 1/1 would probably look like an old metal flake paintjob.  I ended up finding out that rubbing powdered graphite into the grey basecoat gave me a finish that looked right to me, when comparing it to the 1/1 F-35A.

It's a lot like the old debate on the visibility of panel lines on an aircraft from so many feet.  There are some who insist that they can't be seen on 1/1 aircraft from so many feet.  I just have to say "OK...you do you" in those debates, because my experience for the past 31 years with 1/1 aircraft tells me otherwise.  Some are pristine, and you can't see the panel lines...but most aren't, and you can definitely see panel lines.  Airliners, contrary to conventional wisdom, are actually some of the worst when it comes to the finish being maintained in pristine condition, because they're hard-working aircraft.

Count me in the "just go with what looks right to you" camp.  

This where the viewing distance levels the playing field. The idea is that the effect of viewing the model from 3 feet is the same as the real thing from the scale distance (so 20 feet or so for most cars). This removes the magnification issue. 

[dean48ws]

Jul 19, 2024 4:00:11 GMT -5 Tobi said:

Jul 19, 2024 3:07:58 GMT -5 dean48ws said:

This is a heavy subject in my opinion. Does it also include paint scale if there is such a thing? For example, if I buy paint from the local Caterpillar dealer to paint a 1:25 scale model of a Cat dozer, is this correct or does it need to be model specific paint? Laugh you might but when Dad went to produce scale trains using genuine railway paint, it became a major stumbling block. Personally, I don't care but can you see where I'm coming from?

You buy paint from your Caterpillar dealer and paint your 1:1 Cat Dozer here and there and you will find they are not the same color.

100% right there, most touch up paints make the touch up look worse than the damage! The question becomes is the difference due to paint fade on the original machine, the effect of degreasing and washing compounds on the original paint, the colour of the under coat or just the fact there is some variation between paint batches even when made to the same formulas?

[jeaton01]

Jul 19, 2024 9:56:41 GMT -5 tcoat said:

Jul 19, 2024 7:32:07 GMT -5 eaglecash867 said:

 because my experience for the past 31 years with 1/1 aircraft tells me otherwise.  Some are pristine, and you can't see the panel lines...but most aren't, and you can definitely see panel lines.  Airliners, contrary to conventional wisdom, are actually some of the worst when it comes to the finish being maintained in pristine condition, because they're hard-working aircraft.

Count me in the "just go with what looks right to you" camp.  

I once talked to a fellow who owned an aircraft paint shop who much preferred painting airliners compared to something like a business jet.  He could do a sloppy job on an airliner and no one really seemed to care, but a run or any blemish on a business jet brought out instant wrath.

[eaglecash867]

Jul 19, 2024 9:56:41 GMT -5 tcoat said:

This where the viewing distance levels the playing field. The idea is that the effect of viewing the model from 3 feet is the same as the real thing from the scale distance (so 20 feet or so for most cars). This removes the magnification issue. 

I'm thinking more in terms of how those pores in the paint reflect/scatter light as opposed to viewing distance. The semi-mirror finish I have on my Boss 351 in 1/25 scale seems to look just about right when compared to photos of the real thing in the same color. As the continuing discussion in the thread is showing us, it's all highly subjective.

[eaglecash867]

Jul 19, 2024 18:39:01 GMT -5 jeaton01 said:

I once talked to a fellow who owned an aircraft paint shop who much preferred painting airliners compared to something like a business jet.  He could do a sloppy job on an airliner and no one really seemed to care, but a run or any blemish on a business jet brought out instant wrath.

Exactly. One of the divisions of my company does nothing but paint work on business jets, and it's exactly as he said. But even on business jets, the owner/operator is going to be playing a constant game of whack-a-mole with paint issues. Pressurized aircraft are kinda hard on paintjobs just from the inflation and deflation of the pressure vessel due to the pressure differentials. It starts to crack the paint, and especially on airliners you start to see large strips on the fuselage where the paint is peeling off. Heh...and now they also have PC surface prep and priming to contend with, which doesn't last nearly as long as the old-school methods...but that's a whole other can of worms.

[Tobi]

Jul 19, 2024 18:28:49 GMT -5 dean48ws said:

Jul 19, 2024 4:00:11 GMT -5 Tobi said:

You buy paint from your Caterpillar dealer and paint your 1:1 Cat Dozer here and there and you will find they are not the same color.

100% right there, most touch up paints make the touch up look worse than the damage! The question becomes is the difference due to paint fade on the original machine, the effect of degreasing and washing compounds on the original paint, the colour of the under coat or just the fact there is some variation between paint batches even when made to the same formulas?

Hard to put your finger on the right spot. It's a little bit of everything, I'd say. Modelers seem to be especially obsessed with the RAL system. If they would ever see the industrial reality, even factory fresh...

[Steve Zuleski]

Jul 18, 2024 23:30:55 GMT -5 stikpusher said:

Ski, your figure work is outstanding. Like a 3-D rendering of some classic paintings. Figures are certainly an area where lighting as done with the painting sure provides the setting for viewing the figure. Not so much scale effect as something else…. Simulated mood lighting I suppose.

The trick to doing a convincing figure in smaller scales is not just the contrasting lines, creases, etc, but creating the "shadow" effects that gives the illusion of the lighting, distance or size. I think box dioramas would be the best way to explain my thoughts on how this works with figures, Carlos. I can think what I'm trying to say, but not always explain correctly what I'm trying to say, doooeeeeeee.

This is one of the biggest reasons I stick with oils so the blending and fading of shadows and highlights appears more natural. Acrylic addicts have mastered this today to great effect, but I still see plenty of over exaggerated applications making it almost appear cartoonish, if ya know what I mean. The classic painters from the long-gone era of Rembrandt had this mastered incredibly well, way, way back then. When choosing paint tones for my figures the scale does come into effect, but subconsciously, since I just do it without thinking, been doing it for so long. Like Toby was saying, a uniform color in 1:1 is not the same as what is should be and how you'd paint it in scale, naturally.

I'm thinking once you get to the point where this issue becomes easier to recognize as you build and plan, the math and all the calculations will no longer be necessary, if you did them at all. What looks right and natural to your eye in the smaller scale will probably be more correct than you might think, because your perception will tell you something is wrong, or something is right.

[aaronw]

Jul 20, 2024 8:54:13 GMT -5 Steve Zuleski said:

Jul 18, 2024 23:30:55 GMT -5 stikpusher said:

Ski, your figure work is outstanding. Like a 3-D rendering of some classic paintings. Figures are certainly an area where lighting as done with the painting sure provides the setting for viewing the figure. Not so much scale effect as something else…. Simulated mood lighting I suppose.

The trick to doing a convincing figure in smaller scales is not just the contrasting lines, creases, etc, but creating the "shadow" effects that gives the illusion of the lighting, distance or size. I think box dioramas would be the best way to explain my thoughts on how this works with figures, Carlos. I can think what I'm trying to say, but not always explain correctly what I'm trying to say, doooeeeeeee.

This is one of the biggest reasons I stick with oils so the blending and fading of shadows and highlights appears more natural. Acrylic addicts have mastered this today to great effect, but I still see plenty of over exaggerated applications making it almost appear cartoonish, if ya know what I mean. The classic painters from the long-gone era of Rembrandt had this mastered incredibly well, way, way back then. When choosing paint tones for my figures the scale does come into effect, but subconsciously, since I just do it without thinking, been doing it for so long. Like Toby was saying, a uniform color in 1:1 is not the same as what is should be and how you'd paint it in scale, naturally.

I'm thinking once you get to the point where this issue becomes easier to recognize as you build and plan, the math and all the calculations will no longer be necessary, if you did them at all. What looks right and natural to your eye in the smaller scale will probably be more correct than you might think, because your perception will tell you something is wrong, or something is right.

Figures are tough. Done poorly I find that shading skin tones often results in the figure looking filthy rather than creating the effect of shadows. Even more so than weathering, I try to have a less is more attitude when adding shading to figures.