HMS Victory and Le Redoutable at Trafalgar (1/300)

[Martocticvs]

If you want faster drying for oil paints, you could consider adding a little alkyd medium, like Liquin - but sounds like you've thinned it enough that it wouldn't make much difference. Might be useful if you want a thicker layer though.

[wefalck]

In oil-painting there are indeed two fundamental strategies: either one 'dilutes' the paints with 'binder', i.e. lineseed oil, and achieves a 'glazing', or one dilutes with a solvent, i.e white spirit or terpentine, and achieves a 'washing'. Glazings obviously take much longer to harden then washings that have been deprived of the binder. One can also use so-called siccatives, drying oils, to speed up the process of polymerisation.

My concern would have been that a paint too much deprived of binder would not adhere very well to the surface and gets rubbed off by the following applications of washings. Obviously this is not a problem in your case.

It is also good to know that the white spirit does not seem to attack the acrylic paint base-coat. I may have to try this myself. What brand of acrylics do you use?

[marijn van gils]

Indeed, no problem at all for scale modelling applications!

You are correct about the two strategies of achieving transparent effects with oil paints. Glazes are a very classical technique in traditional oil painting, already used by the Flemish Primitives like Van Eyck. It works great for that, but it has some disadvantages for modelling purposes: long drying time (like you mesntioned) an it usually dries glossy.
Diluting with white spirit has the big advantage that it helps the oil paint to dry mat; it feels like it de-greases the paint somehow.

There are modelling application where one works with undiluted oil paint, figure painting being the most obvious example. In that case, drying times are a bit longer, and the paint is a bit more fragile to subsequent heavy applications of white spirit.

White spirit is a pretty mild solvent and doesn't dissolve properly cured layers of enamel and even oil paints, which is exactly the reason for choosing it as a dilutant. On acrylics, it has no effect whatsoever, no matter what brand.
I airbrushed with Tamiya and AK Real Colors acrylics, diluted with Tamia lacquer thinner. So these are effectively not really acrylic paints, but rather lacquer paints. I did some hand-painting of base colours with AK 3rd generation acrylics, which are true acrylic paints.
The white spirit I use is just the regular stuff from the hardware store; nothing fancy. I use the odorless (or odour-arm) version.

[Martocticvs]

Glazes should ideally be done using transparent oil paints, not regular ones diluted to within an inch of their life with medium. You risk significant yellowing later if you do that.

[Dan K]

Love that technique, Marijin.

[wefalck]

Whether oil-paints are 'transparent' really depends on the pigment. Some colours can be achieved with dye-like pigments, while others (think ochre) are essentially opaque.

The likeliness of yellowing depends on the quality of the lineseed-oil used as medium.

[Willie]

Hi there Marijin and all,

These effects are as subtle and hence as realistic as can be, and will no doubt add lots of interest and life to the final scene. Every time I see your thread I am speechless.

Nice going and very best regards from Spain,

Willie.

[marijn van gils]

Many thanks Dan and Willie!

Glazes should ideally be done using transparent oil paints, not regular ones diluted to within an inch of their life with medium. You risk significant yellowing later if you do that.

Whether oil-paints are 'transparent' really depends on the pigment. Some colours can be achieved with dye-like pigments, while others (think ochre) are essentially opaque.
The likeliness of yellowing depends on the quality of the lineseed-oil used as medium.

But as mentioned before, why would one use glazes (thinning the oil paint heavily with linseed oil) for scale modelling applications anyway?
It makes the paint dry veeery slowly and glossy, two attributes we always try to avoid (also for figure painting)...

[wefalck]

I wasn't specifically referring to modelling. It was a general comment pointing out the difference between 'glazes' and 'washes'. I could see applications in larger-scale models, say for simulating woods.

[marijn van gils]

Fair enough Eberhart!


Meanwhile, I base-coated the shot damage.

The starting point:


I painted the holes with a fine (size 000) and high quality brush (Windsor & Newton series 7) and enamels (Humbrol 72). I usually dredge the thick stuff (pigment) from the bottom of the tin, and thin that with White Spirit so it flows nicely from the brush.
Around the holes, I paint the shape of wood splintering and paint peeling, more or less following what I had engraved in the plastic.


One coat is usually not enough, so I added a second for more opacity:


Both coats are painted in quick succession, working in groups of about four holes. This way, the paint of the first coat will not dry completely and everything will remain �workable� for the next step: refining the shapes.

This I do with a clean fine brush, slightly moistened with White Spirit (= dipped in White Spirit, and then wiped on a paper towel). I gently wipe the tip of the brush along the edges to dissolve the paint, both removing paint and moving paint around, thereby adjusting these edges.
The difference is most noticeable on the hole in the black whale, where I had been particularly unprecise with the second basecoat.


After about four holes, I can move on to the next batch of four, and so on until every hole is painted.


That was of course very much enlarged. This is the effect on the entire model:



I won�t lie: this is rather fine work and does take a fair amount of time and thus patience. It took me about 4 to 5 hours to paint every hole on the entire ship.

This is only the basecoat for the shot holes. I will still add shadows and highlights later for more depth. I will also add smaller flakes/splinters. But I will paint the planking lines first, so I can use those as a guide.

[ModelMonkey]

Wow. That looks so good.

Thank you for taking us to school, Marijn!

[wefalck]

Agree, already looks quite convincing and one really appreciates the 'labour of love'.

Just wondering about the shot-damage below the waterline: I gather the copper-sheathing might be ripped, frayed (or cleanly punched) and partially pulled into the hole. The French and other navies from the 1860s or so on carried out systematic experiments on shots effecting ships' walls (wood and iron) and published engravings of the mock-ups in journals and internal documentation. Perhaps one can find some information there on the effect of round shot on coppering ...

[marijn van gils]

Many thanks Steve and Eberhart!


Thank you very much for thinking of that Eberhart! I hadn't yet considered that the shot hole I (on purpose!) placed below the waterline will have to interact somehow with the copper plating... Even while painting the 'wood'!
I'll search for those illustrations. But if you run into them somehow, please don't hesitate to post them here!

[MartinJQuinn]

Wow. That looks so good.

Thank you for taking us to school, Marijn!

What Steve said. Wow indeed.

[Dan K]

Marijn, your work on these shell holes is both fascinating and extraordinary. A real artist at work.

[marijn van gils]

Many thanks Martin and Dan!


Meanwhile, I painted the shadows.

The starting point:


With the same 000 high quality brush, I painted all the shadows with oil paints (raw umber plus a little black):


When the paint is touch-dry but not hardened, excess paint is removed and any unwanted hard edges are feathered with a clean fine brush moistened with white spirit:


Like with the shot holes, I work in small section at a time, applying paint and feathering before moving to the next section. This way, the paint remains easy to blend.


In armour modelling, this technique is usually called �lining� or �lining the shadows�. It serves the same purpose as a pin-wash, but the paint is kept much thicker so it doesn�t run around the details.

The advantages over a pin-wash are that:
- you can paint the shadows more precisely, exactly in the places where you want them;
- by keeping the paint thicker, you can achieve much darker and deeper shadows (which would take repeated pin-washes to achieve).

The disadvantage is that it takes a bit more blending of the edges, and therefore more time. The entire hull took me about 7 or 8 hours.
So, if you�re not the most patient modeller, this technique is probably not for you and a pin-wash will serve you better. But for me personally, the extra depth and control is worth it. And it allows me to enjoy every detail on the model once more�


My setup for this technique:
- oil paint on paper tear-off palette
- white spirit
- 2 brushes: one to apply paint, one to blend
- paper towel to wipe the blending brush



Note the fine lines on the palette. I test the consistency of the paint, and the amount of paint on the brush, for every brush-load by quickly drawing a couple of lines. I also remove excess paint this way.

There are multiple patches of paint on the palette, originating from different sessions.


The result:


And a comparison:
Before:


After (with the stern facing temporarily attached):


The shadows mostly serve to add depth to the model and bring out the detail.
But note how they also remove the overly dusty look from the dark areas, because I used them to remove the very light dusty paint that ran around the details.

Before:


After (except for the figurehead, which will be painted later):


And the entire hull (at a size that is closer to how it looks in the flesh):

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

I'm just following you through in absolute awe, Marijn...

Makes me al the more conscious about the extreme skill of all the great painters... and that modelers (including me) should take those more seriously before jotting on some paint onto a model...

Maarten

[wefalck]

I learned about the idea of 'lining-in detail' in a book on figure painting that I bought on my first visit to London as a teenager in 1972. I applied the technique to the first 1:35 figures I painted, but somehow was never really convinced. Well, at that time I only used Humbrol-paints and probably quite big brushes. Then I realised what my problem was, apart from the too heavy lines (which were also shown in the book): the shadows created are not realistic, because they are all around the details, while in reality that should appear only away from light sources or in otherwise shaded areas. As at about the same time I learned a bit to paint in oils (as in art), I went for more naturalistic and feathered shadowing.

In the end, this is perhaps a question of taste and aesthetic feelings, but the 'eye-brow' above the closed gun-port may be a point in case: there is a heavy line around the upper edge, which is not very realistic. The upper edge of the brow should be somewhat lighter than the vertical wall of the hull, there may be even a slight highlight along the outer edge. Similar considerations would apply to the various mouldings of the galion and the stern-galleries.

I may be actually wrong, because in the magnification of the close-up photographs things look different from looking at the model in normal viewing distance. Such exaggeration may be valid, when painting for such viewing distance. Looking forward to your comments.

Whatever I said above, I think this is a magnificant paint-job ... if it wasn't I wouldn't probably bother to comment

P.S. I didn't yet get around to look for those images of the effect of shots on various types of mock-ups.

[marijn van gils]

Many thanks Maarten and Eberhart!

if it wasn't I wouldn't probably bother to comment

Don't worry, I'm exactly the same (I tend to comment more on projects I find more interesting), so I take all your comments as a token of interest and thus positive! Anyway, discussion is a good thing!

And you're very correct.
On modern figure painting, shading (and highlighting!) not only serve to bring out the detail, but foremost to emphasize the shape of the entire figure and everything on it by emphasizing (thus exaggerating) the natural shadows and highlights. The default direction for these is with the light coming from directly above ('zenithal lighting'), but other directions are possible too (and very much explored in figure-painting, and sometimes in armour modelling too).

When doing armour dioramas 20 years ago, I picked up this principle from figure painting and started applying it to my last couple of armour models too, and nowadays to ship models. But I only apply it on the details, not on the entire model like with figures or the 'modulation' style/technique often used on armour models, because that is not the 'look' I want for my models.

So with details like the eyebrows, I do try to follow this principle:
- shadows on the underside of the eyebrows are painted on the (horizontal) underside of the eyebrow, not on the (vertical) side of the hull.
- shadows at the top of the eyebrow are painted against the (vertical) side of the hull directly above the eyebrow, not on the (horizontal) top of the eyebrow.

That is a big advantage of lining versus pin-washes: you can choose exactly where to place the shadows, whereas with pin-washes it just runs into the corners and crevices.

But the emphasis is on 'try' to follow that principle: on very small items like this, it is hard to be so precise and paint does get into the corners...
It is of course hard to see how much these photos are enlarged. The open gunport is 3,5 mm wide; he eyebrows and rigols are only 0,2 mm thick. Honestly, even with optivisors on I can't see as much as on these photos...
The last two photographs (of the entire hull) are still larger than real life, but they give a feeling of what it looks like when you hold the model in your hand (not from far away, just with the naked eye). But if I only show these photos, the techniques in the step-by-steps won't be visible...

Shadows at the top corners of items like the eyebrows are indeed not strictly realistic according to the theory on how light falls, but they do help to make the detail stand out. Best is to keep them very fine and/or lighter, and most importantly try not to get them on the area that will be highlighted.

The shadow above the eyebrow over the closed gunport is a little deceptive because a large part of it is also the shadow under the upper whale, which was not painted under the rest of the whale yet in the 3rd photo. It is more visible in the 5th and 7th photos.
But on the rigol above, you can see that I do still add a fine shadow above detail indeed. Not strictly realistic indeed, but a conscious exaggeration to make detail more visible.

Like you suggested, highlights are necessary to complete the 3D-effect we're trying to achieve here. These will be placed (as much as I can...) on top of the details to follow the zenithal light (as opposed to on the protruding 'front' or outer edges).
But don't worry, the highlights are the next step!

[Neptune]

This is quite a painting school! All that's left now is to try I guess (and miserably fail )

Great results in any case. Certainly on that bow part and the similar structures on that aft, it appears to be a huge added value for the model.