(Alternatively Titled, "A Panel Line:
The Musical",
"Panel Line Fever" or
"Careful with that Airbrush, Eugene")
There's been a lot of talk
on the WW1 list recently about the current trends in artificially
induced shading and nasty black panel lines on aircraft
models, and naturally, being the opinionated bastard I
am, I've been compelled to add my two cents worth to the
discussion. This article then is an attempt to put that
two cents worth of opinion into a high yield savings account,
thus giving you a return of 110% of my views on the subject,
which by my reckoning will still amount to nothing more
than a hill of beans. A lot of hot air in other words.
So, what's all the fuss about, you say? What is all this
"pre-shading" and "post-shading" nonsense?
Why shouldn't we trace every panel line with the thickest,
blackest magic marker known to man? So what if we go mad
with the airbrush and spray dark lines between the ribs
on biplane wings so that they end up resembling the crosswalk
on the cover of a certain well known Beatles album? It's
dramatic and it looks cool, and isn't that the idea? Well
yes, and, errr... no, not exactly. Cool, yes. Dramatic?
I don't think so. I suppose it depends on what you're
trying to depict - a semblance of realism, or a Pablo
Picasso inspired abstract.
It would seem these days that we have become a bit obsessed
by the almighty panel line. "Where in hell are them
panel lines boy??!! Ah wants them panel lines to reach
out an' slaps me in thuh face!! Sure you gots you some
nice detail in thar and that shore is a purdy paint job,
but Ah cain't see no panel lines fer sh*t!! Wipe that
pre-shaded smirk off yer clock boy and gets me muh
damn panel lines!!!" Heard that before? No, nor
have I, but if there is such a backwoods, inbred, panel-line-obsessed
individual out there I'm sure he (or she) would sound
just like that. I kid you not.
You see, panel lines should accent a model, not define
it. Something that adds a bit of interest, a bit of life,
a bit of joie de vive if you like. To me, panel
lines shouldn't reach out, grab you by the squidgy bits
and give them a good twist until you lose the will to
live. They shouldn't be the dominant feature of a model,
they should be subtle, and subtle is exactly what
the current trend is not. Give a man (or woman) an airbrush
and next thing you know he (or she) is spraying black
lines all over the place. And if that doesn't get their
attention, then get the black ink out and run it into
all those pesky lines. Hell, do it anyway, whether you've
got their attention or not. By golly, we've got panel
lines now, yessirree Bob. Problem is, for the most part
they just aren't all that noticeable on the real thing
from any great distance. Oh sure there are exceptions.
Modern military jets can sometimes have a bit of staining
around the panel lines but this is more often the exception
rather than the rule, and even then they're never thick
black lines.
The diehard brush painters (and frankly I'm amazed some
people still insist on painting entire models by brush,
but that's a whole other rant) tried to blame the airbrush.
Some people even blamed the poor recessed panel line.
Still others pointed the finger at the so-called "Verlinden
Method". But the truth is that the blame lies squarely
on the wielder of the tool - be it paintbrush, airbrush,
drybrush, Basil Brush; whatever. Now take the winner of
the coveted "Best of Show" award at this year's
US Nationals. Lovely model, incredible detail, hours of
work, but all I see when I look at it is a mass of criss-crossing
black lines that completely ruin it in my opinion. Instead
of the focus being on the detail and construction as it
should be, the modeller has made overbearing panel lines
the focal point and everything else pales - quite literally
- in comparison. Did he look at a photo of a C-130 when
he made it and, if so, did it have thick black lines all
over it? I very much doubt it. So what he's got is a lovely
cubist rendition of a Hercules, not something that is
even remotely realistic in spite of the detail and hours
of work.
This fad has gone even further to the extent that fabric
covered wings are now depicted with dark stripes airbrushed
between the wing ribs to represent - well, to be honest
I have no idea what this is supposed to represent because
I have yet to see a fabric covered aircraft that looks
this way in reality. In model form it could only be best
described as someone who wields an airbrush like they
would a sledgehammer in a china shop. "Subtle? Sorry
son, I have no idea what you're talking about. Pass me
that chainsaw would you? I need to trim my short 'n' curlies"
Those that are in favour of this in-your-face method compare
it to an artist putting shadows on a painting to give
it more dimension and depth. Snow, for instance, is never
depicted as pure white but as a myriad of grays, off-whites
and pale blues. This is the same argument Harry Woodman
uses to justify "scale colour", and we all know
how I feel about that (and if you don't then click here
and you'll find out). Artists, however, work in two dimensions
(and we're not talking sculpters, obviously) and they
use these methods to create the illusion of a third dimension.
We're already working in 3-D, so excessive shading looks
exactly that - excessive. Why paint shadows on something
that creates them quite nicely all on its own without
any help from Atilla the Airbrusher? And again, any artist
worth their salt would hardly be representing snow with
lumps of black and white now would they? Unless of course
they wanted to use a lap dancing club for Pandas as a
visual metaphor for snow.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these people that
thinks we shouldn't have any panel lines whatsoever because
we can't hope to get them anywhere near scale. Though
it is true that even the finest recessed panel line would
still be a mighty gap if scaled up 72 times or 144 times,
I do think that a delicate smattering of panel line here
and there does add greatly to a model's appeal and interest
factor. Further more I will be the first to admit that,
though I do my best to err on the subtle side, I don't
always pull it off and a quick glance at the models on
this site - particularly in the 1/144th section - will
prove my point. Modelling is a constant learning process,
or should be. If dark gray paint was overbearing on a
white aircraft then next time I'll try a light gray paint.
Pre-shading? Post-shading? Get over it! Just because everyone
else is doing it doesn't mean it's right. Again, subtlety
is lost with these methods and all you'll end up with
is an airplane with a crossword puzzle superimposed on
it. "23 down; 4 letters: Vulgar slang for excrement."
Like scale colour, they've become modelling clichés
that many people indulge in because it's the latest "must
have" in the airplane fashion world. I find it particularly
ironic that people are using scale colour to represent
an aircraft parked 72 (or 48 or whatever) feet away yet
are then covering it in panel lines that stand out more
than they would on an aircraft parked right under their
noses.
Far be it for me to ruin everyone's fun, and that is ultimately
what this is supposed to be - a fun pastime. If panel
lines are the be-all and end-all of modelling for you
then go on, knock yourself out. But for those of you that
witter on about realism and accuracy, or have just written
an angry letter to the president of a major Japanese kit
manufacturer because you read on the internet that the
fuselage of their new and expensive Fliegeltrümpen
Fl223 kit is half a millimeter too short, may I suggest
you start actually looking at the aircraft you're
trying to depict? Does it have thick dark lines all over
it? No?? Then why does your model?!?
Back
to Articles/Reviews Main