Politically Correct Panel Lines
(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?!?