Fun with paint

I think the age old question of modeling has been "what is the correct color?", and I've come to the conclusion that the answer to that is, there isn't one. There is no such thing as a realistic correct color
for anything.
.

There are, however, known technical color standards, or specifications. Even in that though, there are standards of allowable variations, and to add to the confusion nothing ages the same way and different climatic conditions also affect what something will eventually look. So.......what paint to buy?
Warning

To Quote Mr. Millman from a thread over at Britmodeller

"In all cases, the proportion of long-wavelength-sensitive cones to medium-wavelength-sensitive cones in the retina, the profile of light sensitivity in each type of cone, and the amount of yellowing in the lens and macular pigment of the eye, differs from one person to the next. This alters the relative importance of different wavelengths in a spectral power distribution to each observer's colour perception. As a result, two spectrally dissimilar surfaces may produce a colour match for one observer but fail to match when viewed by a second observer."



When it comes down to subjective visual colour matching the late Bill Leyh and I, exploring this subject in depth back in the early noughties, came to a conclusion that we termed "White Rabbit theory". That is that people making visual colour matches generally fall into one of two forms of natural bias. They either conclude colour matches based on the relevant brightness (reflectivity) being more important than actual hue, or vice versa, they focus on the hue and tend to disregard any differences of brightness.



That is difficult for people to accept because they always believe what they see and for example think that how they might see Humbrol 30, say, (alarming batch differences apart!) is how everyone else sees it. Well, many will but some won't and when it comes to communicating such individual perceptions it goes a long way to explaining why colour threads invariably run on and on. I've tested lots of colour match sites and the results in many cases have been alarming. Few if any quantify the matches as to closeness or differences and the same is true of hobby paint manufacturer comparisons where "equivalent" colours across ranges are not quantified - one man's match might well be another man's expletive.



Another real issue is the notion of scale colour where "full scale" colour, precisely matched, is often deemed too dark on small models. This is incorrectly attributed to aerial or atmospheric perspective (which refers to much longer distances than the typical scale distance in viewing a 1/72 model) but is actually related to field-size metameric failure which occurs because the relative proportions of the three cone types in the retina vary from the center of the visual field to the periphery, so that colours that match when viewed as very small, centrally fixated areas may appear different when presented as large colour areas, usually appearing lighter and brighter - dependent on illumination. In modelling the scale models or paint chips become the "small, centrally fixated areas" and therefore can appear darker when compared to full size objects seen in daylight. But attempts to offset this by simply lightening the paints are fraught with danger as the original character of the hue can be lost.



On top of all this individual preference for paint brands and types comes into play.



Conversely, as this thread also shows, the perception of "right" colour is often instinctive, based on little more than "if it looks right it is right". Whether that is caused by long term, repeated exposure to RAF Spitfire imagery (for example) imprinting on the brain or something more primeval that pre-dates colour science is difficult to say.

Click to expand...

Just a portion of the available DE/DG paints, none of which match the Spitfire in the picture.


For my purposes, finding a color that closely as possible matches a technical specification color chip is the best starting point. This, however is not 100% either, as the RLM 83 fiasco helps to point out. Setting aside that minor grievance, the quandary of using a color chip to chose a paint is that one has to first.......buy the paint to compare to the chip (I have way to much paint) So it's always nice when somebody else goes to all the trouble and expense.........


I've been keeping my eyes open for some RLM 72/73, and along comes AK Realcolors. So I buy some. AK have come under the gun for some of their color choices among other things, most notably by Mr.Starmmer. And then I'm reading on another forum some comments related to the accuracy of the RealColors line wherein one poster states that most of the RLM series is pretty close but the 72/73 is quite a poor rendition, I have also the early and late versions of RLM 65, the early version is pretty good, the later one is another story for another day......so I pull out my 72 and 73 and have a look.........doesn't look good. so I put some in the air brush and have a go. Here's a pointless pick of the results, if you look really close you can make out the demarcation line.


Here is another pointless pic with the relevant color chips


Actually they match pretty well in person. So there you go, if you are in the market for a good match for new RLM 72/73 then AK's RealColors are for you. I have used them, I do quite like them but they work best with their own thinner, and use a good solid clear coat before you use any decals softener as it will eat the paint if you don't.

Next up, Dark Earth and Dark Green, Based on reading through a number of threads on Britmodeller for the moment I've decided on 3 colors to represent Dark Earth and Dark Green, Vallejo 70.893 Dark Green, 70.921 English Uniform, and 71.323 BS Dark Earth to manipulate the other 2. with that I had a bit of fun playing around with some paint, helped very much by me already having that paint So I thought why not add a new elevator and some touch ups. Painted using my Badger 100, haven't broke out my 2020 just yet, just to show that once you get the hang of it Vallejo does spray very nicely.





If any one cares to add anything to this thread please feel free

Good stuff Tim, can o' worms it is. Vallejo Model Air colours were a nightmare when they first came out, RLM 74 & 75 come to mind and the original RAF Dk. Earth was very dark. From Britmodeller I've heard the RAF Dk. Earth is bang on according to the paint chips at the IWM(?). The problem for me and maybe others is, does my LHS have the old paint or did they restock. I've been collecting paint mixes from here, there and everywhere. Someone posts a model and says the made their own mix, I always ask for the mix. I have three Tamiya Dk. Earth combos. They are quite close in shade and will help wit weathering

When I was researching our RCAF Hurricane colours, one of my contacts had available original British Ministry of Air Production (MAP) colour cards for the WW2 era. He stores them in such a way that keeps deterioration to a minimum but, even so, acknowledges that some changes to these original colour cards can happen over time even when taking precautions.

The seemingly endless discussions over the "right" colours is all very interesting to me but, for my models, I tend not to get too excited about getting a colour to be "exact" for the very reasons repeatedly mentioned; application technique, batch variations, natural deterioration over time, plus weathering will all affect the colours of individual aircraft even when considered to be painted the same colour at the factory. That said, until better evidence emerges, I refer to reputable publications with colour chips to mix my base colours and go from there.

Using WW2 era colour photos as a reference is not particularly accurate. As an indication to show what the colour was, it's fine - for example, was it grey, or brown ?
But for actual tonal reproduction, there are far too many variables.
Even if one has access to the original picture - that is, the actual original first print or transparency - the variables are multitude.

First thing to consider is the exposure when the pic was taken, was this 'bang on' ?
Next is the processing of the film negative, and the exposure when making the print. Variations to either, or both, will effect final colour balance, brightness and contrast.
With a transparency, given that the original exposure was as correct as possible for the lighting conditions, then the developed image is more likely to be more accurate, as the transparency film is first a B&W negative, with subsequent emulsion layers incorporating colour dyes and colour couplers, which are developed in a single process, producing the colour positive image.
However, over time, even with virtually perfect storage, these dyes and colour couplers will alter (fade, as a basic explanation), leading to an altered image, even if just minimally so.

Next to consider is the reproduction of the image - to a print, or on the printed page - where the production of the required black and white half-tone negatives for the latter, from either an original print, or a second or third generation print, is particularly important. These are used to make the printing plates, and a minimum requirement, depending on the printing process used, is four plates ( and consequently four negatives to produce these ), covering Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black inks.
Production of these negatives, and the printing plates, introduces yet another set of variables.
The type of paper stock, and the 'weight' of the inks used, will also affect the final printed image.
After all of these processes have affected the final product, it is then perhaps copied, and eventually ends up as an electronic image on a computer screen, again with a multitude of variables.

As an example, the Spitfire photo posted in the first post, shows a Mk.II of 72 Sqn, over the Northunberland cost, between Boulmer and Warkworth, an area I know well and have flown over a number of times, and I have seen a number of examples of this fine image - all of which are different, in tonal and colour reproduction, ranging from fairly pale, with the camouflage green looking quite bright, to quite dull, with the colours looking 'muddy'.
This has also been apparent in the background, with the beach looking sandy and strewn with seaweed, or, as in one example of the picture, looking correct, with rock strata covered in seaweed, and darker in appearance, and the colours on the aircraft looking much more 'authentic' - as viewed, but by no means an accurate guide to the actual colours, which, in this instance of course, are very weathered and grimy !

As for actual model painting, what is normally referred to as 'scale effect' needs to be considered.
Using the actual paint applied to the real aircraft would give a much darker visual appearance to, for example, a 1/32nd scale model, and even darker as the scale gets smaller, and therefore some adjustment needs to be made to counter this effect.
Then there is the question "Is it factory fresh, or depicted after being out in all weathers for a number of months ?"

My personal way of 'measuring' if a model finish is accurate, or more correctly, 'scale authentic' is quite simple - if the overall colour, shade of colour and tones look right, then it's good enough !

I have the big 3's Luftwaffe color chips, Ullman, Merrick and Eagle Editions, and now AK's book as well. Both Ullman's and AK's are derived of the printing process where as Merrick's and Eagle Editions use actual paint, but reproduced by different manufacturers, and have been acknowledge to degrade. The discrepancies between those 4 are actually limited to early and post 1940 RLM 65, only Merrick and AK knowledge this, with AK's having a greenish cast and Ullman's being percievably a light grey, and RLM 83, with AK's being blue., everyone else is green.

What's interesting is that between the big three, the early war colors are quite consistent, but the later colors tend to vary noticeably, with 81 and 83 being so close in their difference, more so then 72/73, that it's difficult to believe that they would be 2 different colors with 2 different designations, so I tend to go with Ullman's interpretation which would definitely make sense for flying over the Mediterranean, no different in my mind then the blue Spits of Malta fame.

fubar57 said:

Good stuff Tim, can o' worms it is. Vallejo Model Air colours were a nightmare when they first came out, RLM 74 & 75 come to mind and the original RAF Dk. Earth was very dark. From Britmodeller I've heard the RAF Dk. Earth is bang on according to the paint chips at the IWM(?). The problem for me and maybe others is, does my LHS have the old paint or did they restock. I've been collecting paint mixes from here, there and everywhere. Someone posts a model and says the made their own mix, I always ask for the mix. I have three Tamiya Dk. Earth combos. They are quite close in shade and will help wit weathering

Click to expand...

That's interesting,there is no notable difference between the one I have and HU29. HU116 is just a touch darker then Vallejo's 893, which is supposed to be bang on, at least that's the impression I get from what Jamie of Sovereign Hobbies has to say about it. As Andy says, Dark Earth is a difficult one to pin down, and since I have a few Commonwealth kits waiting in the wings I'm trying to decide which version of paints I'm going to use as a starting point. If I had a color chip the decision would be a bit easier........

Terry, I never use a picture to decide what color something should be, there are even some out there where it has been acknowledged that the color in the pic is not even close to color that it is in person ie. green vrs. brown.

Maybe Andy might remember when these landed at the museum, my wife was quite surprised at the difference between what she saw and what showed up in the pictures. I'm sure the weathering artists would have a heyday replicating this thing but in truth, in person what looks to be Olive Drab is actually flat black. The markings are semigloss black, making them a bit more difficult to make out then in the pictures, and there was no variation of the green in sheen or shade. It was actually pretty monotone plan Jane clean. In fact the landing gear is closer to the actual color of what's on the fuselage.


But one can establish what a color most likely should be based on documentation an relics as well as what pattern those colors were applied in. As with this Helicopter, the Spitfire in the original post may not have been so ratty looking in person as it is in the picture, and one can be fairly certain that it was not originally painted in Light Earth and Light Green as the picture might suggest, based on the documentation of the time.

Here is my original bottle...

...compared to Gunze...

....compared to yours, somewhat...

I read the title of the thread, and my dirty mind immediately thought something different and not related to scale modeling...

Well that puts a whole new perspective on the subject doesn't it. Yeah, I remember that chopper at the museum Tim.

Yep, that's known as "anomalous reflection".
Although more common with colour film emulsions in certain light conditions, it can also happen, sometimes, with digital imaging.
With a film emulsion, the film is "seeing" what is actually fairly close to the real pigment shade, as the film records close to "true" colour rendition, as opposed to what the human eye perceives.
In digital imaging, the effect is similar, as the camera sensor attempts to compensate for the mix of shades and the lighting.
Back in the early to mid 1980's, with the then "newer generation" of professional colour negative film emulsions, with higher speeds, greater resolution and finer silver halide 'grain', it was quite common in, for example, wedding photography, particularly with "machine processed" prints, for the client to complain, as the groom's suit may look a dark, reddish brown, or purplish brown, when it was in fact black. This was the effect of the lighting, and the dyes in the fabric of the suit (which we would see as black) being recorded, by the film emulsion, closer to what they actually were, if inspected under a microscope.
A professional photographer/ photo lab of the time would be able to compensate for this, by 'manually' printing, adjusting colour filtration and exposure on the print, whereas today, this is done in one of the various computer programmes available for photo editing..

Thanks Terry explains a lot and I do appreciate it

So.......some more fun with paint, a while ago Gunze discontinued this set so they came to command a higher price, if you could find one. On Ebay they were going for anywhere between $25+ and $40+, the paints in it were exclusive to it, but Gunze said that they were going to offer them up individually. Interestingly though, I found this set for $15 dollars from a seller in Japan so I snapped it up. And then I found some sellers of individual bottles for about $4.50 each .......but hey, I got a nice box for the extra buck fifty



So how do they compare? Well they are typical MR.Color and similarly Tamiya Lacquers so if you've used those you are familiar. They are a little nicer to use then Hataka's, but Hataka's are still good and they play nicely with Tamiya's Lacquer thinner.
Here is Hr.Color C363 Medium Sea Grey over Tamiya's XF83 Medium Sea Grey 2, Mr.Hobby's has a slightly bluish cast over the Tamiya color.


And with Hataka's version, which has a much greater bluish cast to it, which will probably make it a good choice for the interior color of some forth coming Yak builds........



C362 Ocean Grey is darker then Hataka's, and is almost indistinguishable from HU 106 but for the slightly bluish cast, C361 Dark Green is also very close to Hataka's Dark Green



Vallejo's 70.893 is supposed to be the closest match to Dark Green


Both Hataka's and Mr.Hobby paints are a bit darker and a touch greener. A little XF49 Khaki toned things down a bit, that's the nice thing about these lacquers, like enamels one can mix and match between brands. Top is Mr.color, left lower Vallejo, bottom left Tamiya.

To me Tamiya's is a bit to light and to green, so I won't be using that. I do like Vallejo's, and Vallejo has worked well with the lacquers for me.

OK so here I am, VMS thinners, how well do they work?

Actually pretty good. As advertised on the website.

Green "Acryl" icon denotes a product suited to work with water-based acrylic paints. They come in plastic dropper bottles and glass jars. This product is compatible with acrylics by Vallejo®, Humbrol®, Tamiya®, Revell®, Model Master®, Italeri® Gunze® (only H series), Pactra® and equivalents. Not suited for solvent-based acrylics (Gunze® C series) and enamels!

Click to expand...

He Offers both premixed, and concentrated to which you add distilled water, video. I picked up the concentrate which is supposed to give you a total of 500ml once it's been mixed and comes with a handy storage bottle. Don't let the vinegar fool you. it actually tastes like water




And a quick test run with some Vallejo Modelcolor using my Badger 100 with medium needle.

Meh, not bad........

Then to get serious with the stuff, as I only have Vallejo, Tamiya and Gunze, I decided to start with some Gunze Aqueous and see how that went.


Again with the Badger 100 medium, using a 2 - 5 paint to thinner mix. The paint laid very nicely, but trying to mottle wasn't all that good, most likely as it needed a bit more thinning.


I decided to switch to my Sotar 2020 and thin it a bit more which gave a much better result.







Definitely an improvement, but I found doing the lines and mottling a bit trickier then when I use my preferred Lacquers. How that compares to Mr.Hobby's Aqueous thinner I can't say as I've never used it, but for general painting and even fine detailing VMS's thinner plays well with these paints, so is a viable alternative to the Lacquers or Aqueous thinners in my opinion.

Next up some Vallejo, again with the Sotar,






Here I'd say that VMS is actually better then Vallejo's own thinner. One of the tests is to see how far I could get before I needed to clean the dried paint off the needle, and i never had to. I did find it still liked to hang up in the tip a bit, but a good blast would clean that out well enough, fine lines and mottling were no problem.

And last but not least Tamiya.



Here I'd say that VMS works well enough and roughly on par with X20a , but Lacquers still work the best I think.

Good stuff Tim. One of the things I'll have to check out is the overall cost. Not now though.....its late and math hurts my head

I'll just add that the stuff has a mild soapy smell which is hardly noticed.

Good stuff. I know people have great success using IPA with Tamiya and I'm keen to try it after I get through my X-20A.

I think the main difference between IPA and X20a is that the X20a has a retarder in it, and from my experience works a bit better. But for me I now use Tamiya's or even general Lacquer thinner, and Mr.color thinner all of which work the best.

Crimea_River said:

Good stuff. I know people have great success using IPA with Tamiya and I'm keen to try it after I get through my X-20A.

Click to expand...

Mixing Tamiya in with an IPA must leave a nasty aftertaste, or what do you say Terry, old sausage?

I noticed it more than once, while working for the Swedish version of the MOD, that batches of paint could be somewhat different in shade, not alarmingly different, but you could that it was either a smidge darker or lighter between two tins of paint....painted far too many splinter camouflaged vehicles we has!!