# Perception vs. Actual; Painting your movie or TV SF model question...



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

My (& possibly other's) age old dilemma, do I paint it the way it _appeared_ to me in the movie or TV show, or the way the studio model looks in the (sometimes) harsh light of _reality_?
Or something in between?
Do we go artistic, detail perfectionistic, or a blend?

For ME, getting lines and physical details correct is the easy part compared to painting; the physical model is my meditation on simple technical replication, painting that end product is where _ART_ comes in IMO.
It it like that for you? Or do you find the construction difficult & the painting easy?

Thoughts? Anecdotes? Examples in pictures?


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Interesting subject! I'm more of a collector and not much of a modeler. Though I love the idea of model building, I'm just not talented enough and have the time and energy to commit to the hobby in order to do it justice. And this includes painting. But more to the point, I love a model that represents the studio miniature as it exists or existed. To me this makes for a more physical link to the show or movie and makes more tangible the idea of owning a part of the real miniature. This is partly why digitally-made sci-fi ships don't interest me nearly as much. I'm a big Trek fan but have little desire to own a model of the Enterprise B and so on. I like knowing that the model I have is a scale representation and looks very much like one that was built and filmed.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

For me, I detail my models the way I perceive the subject as seen on film. For instance, many of the Refit Enterprise models I see posted here show far more color variations in the finish, beyond the aztecing, than was actually seen sitting in the theater watching ST:TMP. I don't really care if the filming miniature looked that way, if the detail was lost during filming, then what resulted on the screen is what I strive to duplicate.

I could be in the minority on this, but that is how I model.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Depends on the subject. With TOS Enterprise, I am painting as a combination of both. The model will have mostly the characteristics of the way the studio model actually looks, but will have some looks as I remember from watching the show. As for the Refit Enterprise, I plan to paint it as the studio model was for TMP since the paint job was considered a work of art for its time. Other subjects, it may be more what I remember seeing unless I have more info on the actual studio model. The Botany Bay studio model looks like a plain brown, but on screen looks like a greyish color. I prefer the greyish so am painting it that color.


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

I try to duplicate how it looks to me, the only thing I really obsess over is duplicating the physical details of the model.


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

I paint how it looks best to me, a blend of both reality and on-screen looks.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

RSN said:


> For me, I detail my models the way I perceive the subject as seen on film. For instance, many of the Refit Enterprise models I see posted here show far more color variations in the finish, beyond the aztecing, than was actually seen sitting in the theater watching ST:TMP. I don't really care if the filming miniature looked that way, if the detail was lost during filming, then what resulted on the screen is what I strive to duplicate.
> 
> I could be in the minority on this, but that is how I model.


Interesting, I don't think you're in the minority.
This is my Art Asylum Wrath Of Khan Enterprise from last year that I decided to make look more like the Enterprise _I saw_ from that movie (it looked white when I bought it, much more like TMP-E). I tried to make it as it appeared in space scenes. I was just playing, really, but it came out better than I expected.

















Anyway, that's what I mean about 'art', I took a shot, moved out of my comfort zone a bit, and had fun in the process (after the nervious _I-hope-I-don't-frack-up-this-cool-toy_ thing :lol: ). 

I'd be interested in seeing pix of other's 'experimentations'!:thumbsup:


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Opus Penguin said:


> The Botany Bay studio model looks like a plain brown, bit on screen looks like a greyish color. I prefer the greyish so am painting it that color.


Yeah, the BB is probably one of the most extreme examples of how it actually was and how it appeared on screen. Although, the BB in studio pics next to the Enterprise in front of a blue screen looks more greyish than brown as well... so I'm not sure what that's all about there.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

I make it look "right" to me, regardless of what it's "supposed" to be. I look at shots of the model in different contexts, see which one looks about right to me, and match that. 

Life's too short to spend looking at a model that doesn't make me happy.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Chrisisall said:


> Interesting, I don't think you're in the minority.
> This is my Art Asylum Wrath Of Khan Enterprise from last year that I decided to make look more like the Enterprise _I saw_ from that movie (it looked white when I bought it, much more like TMP-E). I tried to make it as it appeared in space scenes. I was just playing, really, but it came out better than I expected.
> 
> 
> ...


I love it! The simulated light pools look great! You are right, the Enterprise in TMP appeared overall white with aztecing and some gray detailing, despite what the filming miniature looke like under normal lighting and in TWOK it looked various shades of gray, despite what the filming looked like off screen.

Great job!!!


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

RSN said:


> in TWOK it looked various shades of gray, despite what the filming looked like off screen.


I must have seen Star Trek 2 & 3 fifty times EACH in the theatre (no joke), and I never detected any colour other than whites & greys on the hull, apart from the red lines. So despite recent studio model photographic & HD screencap evidence to the contrary, I made it look like it did in my memory. An artistic choice. 
Thanks, BTW.

Anyone got a Seaview they made the 'wrong' colour, or a Viper or a J2 or a Falcon that isn't studio perfect, but memory happy?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I want the physical detailing to be correct even if I never really noticed it before, but I want the overall appearance to be pretty much as I saw it onscreen.


----------



## edward 2 (Oct 6, 2010)

has any one done a 'how it would have looked after a 5 years in space.'
with all the wear of 5 years. 
i bet it would not look 'show room new'


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

edward 2 said:


> has any one done a 'how it would have looked after a 5 years in space.'
> with all the wear of 5 years.
> i bet it would not look 'show room new'


Hence the weathering that was added to the 11 footer. Mind you unless the hull is scorched by heat or marked by collisions with physical objects then in the vacuum of space it shouldn't show much wear and tear.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Warped9 said:


> Hence the weathering that was added to the 11 footer. Mind you unless the hull is scorched by heat or marked by collisions with physical objects then in the vacuum of space it shouldn't show much wear and tear.


Magnetically attracted space dust?


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

"Ahh! Green and orange nebula! Steer around it, Sulu! Steer around it!" 
"Too late, Captain! We're going in!"
"Damn it Sulu! We'll never get those nebula stains out!"


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I never thought there should be any type of streaking or weathering on ships like the Enterprise, that never entered a planets atmosphere. They had shields and deflectors to prevent anything in space from hitting the surface of the ship, otherwise a tiny spec of dirt would rip straight thru, so to me there should be no streaks and that is the way I have always painted it, again, it never translated onto the screen, even tough the filming model clearly had them.

I guess the thinking back then was along the lines of passenger aircraft inspection. They would look for nicotine streaks along seam lines from all the people smoking inside, to check for cabin preassure integrity!!


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

RSN said:


> I never thought there should be any type of streaking or weathering on ships like the Enterprise, that never entered a planets atmosphere.


I guess all of Enterprises' weathering comes from Tomorrow Is Yesterday....
:freak:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ I still think it's a matter of how easily the hull material is affected.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Warped9 said:


> ^^ I still think it's a matter of how easily the hull material is affected.


What? :lol:
There's a lot of crap in space, SOME of it will eventuall build up; can't run with screens & shields up _all the time_ in sublight....


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Chrisisall said:


> What? :lol:
> There's a lot of crap in space, SOME of it will eventuall build up; can't run with screens & shields up _all the time_ in sublight....


I would............space is dangerous.............and dirty it seems!!


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

RSN said:


> I would............space is dangerous.............and dirty it seems!!


Go ahead, drain the dilithium crystals faster.:tongue:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Chrisisall said:


> Go ahead, drain the dilithium crystals faster.:tongue:


It's why I would NEVER make Captain!!!!


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

RSN said:


> It's why I would NEVER make Captain!!!!


Ha ha, good one.

Hey wait- has this thread derailed?
No matter, I'm liking the conversation!

At 2170 degrees, Uhura issued a hull temperature _reading_. Not like, "We're in trouble now", just pretty hot. Tough hull IMO. I think running with screen & shields down in sublight is fairly standard, thus the build up of space crap.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Wasn't the nav deflector supposed to cover the space crap problem? http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Navigational_deflector


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

I'm getting ready to paint my Moebius Galactica following the paint instruction with the kit which says to use MM acrylics but none of them seem to match the greys in the image on the box and I'm assuming that's the way it looked onscreen.


----------



## Paper Hollywood (Nov 2, 2011)

This question really depends on what your final goal is with the model. If you're trying to reproduce a studio model exactly, you'd want to come as close to what the original modelers used. However, the model may have been painted a particular color because of the color of the lights and the type of film being used, thus the spacecraft might not have appeared that color on film/TV at all.

I like to see models that are painted the colors we perceived them in the film, myself. I've even seen some figure kits based on old black and white films that were done entirely in grayscale tones. We can never really reproduce reality. We only deliver our personal impressions.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Paper Hollywood said:


> We can never really reproduce reality. We only deliver our personal impressions.


I like the way you phrased that!

I've always been fascinated by the fact that some dudes draw a picture, fabricte some parts, cannabalize others, glue the mess togethes, spray it with as colour, draw on it with pen & pencil, then get it lit & photographed & colour corrected and everything.....and *then* we poor souls are left to try and replicate _ALL that_ by _sight_ years or decades later. :freak:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

My answer is a great big "it depends on my mood."


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I want the model to look like what it's supposed to represent rather than a miniature with exaggerated colours and line work that due to lighting are barely noticeable onscreen anyway.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Chrisisall said:


> I guess all of Enterprises' weathering comes from Tomorrow Is Yesterday....
> :freak:


Or radiation from the First Federation space buoy

The Romulan nuke detonated at close range

Giant space amoeba goo

and sloppy humans performing exterior maintenance.

Just say'n


----------



## edward 2 (Oct 6, 2010)

Chrisisall said:


> What? :lol:
> There's a lot of crap in space, SOME of it will eventuall build up; can't run with screens & shields up _all the time_ in sublight....


would they be up if the ships in orbit of a planet or at a starbase ?
i think they only come on if the ship is moving at 200mph or faster ?
that has to be a speed at which its not needed?

the hull should be able to handle anything under 200mph, but it would leave a mark?


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

edward 2 said:


> the hull should be able to handle anything under 200mph, but it would leave a mark?


Depends... is it non-stick?:tongue:


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Paper Hollywood said:


> This question really depends on what your final goal is with the model. If you're trying to reproduce a studio model exactly, you'd want to come as close to what the original modelers used. However, the model may have been painted a particular color because of the color of the lights and the type of film being used, thus the spacecraft might not have appeared that color on film/TV at all.
> 
> I like to see models that are painted the colors we perceived them in the film, myself. I've even seen some figure kits based on old black and white films that were done entirely in grayscale tones. We can never really reproduce reality. We only deliver our personal impressions.


What makes it even more frustraiting is the fact that the new Galactica is CGI instead of a physical model and I'm one who prefers to have a built and painted model look the way it does onscreen.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

irishtrek said:


> What makes it even more frustraiting is the fact that the new Galactica is CGI instead of a physical model and I'm one who prefers to have a built and painted model look the way it does onscreen.


CGI ships hold little interest for me to model generally, it might have to do with some part of my brain not recognizing them as someting you can really make...:freak:


----------



## wjplenge (Apr 14, 2011)

One discussion I followed on this topic pointed out a problem with a model painted with paints adjusted for a scale effect, one I think is most noticible on sci-fi kits. The paint job is scaled, but the decals aren't.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

wjplenge said:


> One discussion I followed on this topic pointed out a problem with a model painted with paints adjusted for a scale effect, one I think is most noticible on sci-fi kits. The paint job is scaled, but the decals aren't.


What do you mean?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Proper2 said:


> What do you mean?


It's been a subject of discussion as long as I've been building models, back in my IPMS days in the '70s. the thought is that if you are building a scale model of an airplane, the paint (and markings), it should be toned down to reflect that you're looking at a 'real' object from a distance, so matching colors to exact FS specs is completely 'wrong'. Weathering should almost not exist, no panel lines whatsoever, color demarcations should be blended and blurred and so on. 

And that should apply to any markings. Every color should be 'grayed' to reflect atmosphere scattering and fog effect. Not sure how that works in space, from 'real space' photos I've seen I'd think the larger hull markings of the Enterprise should be SUPER black, almost like giant vinyl stick-on letters/numbers. 

So in the case of the Refit Enterprise, as a bold example, one should NOT see ANY 'aztek' effect or pattern, just a blended pearly white. According to this painting concept.

naturally there's a good deal of discussion and each side fights to the death.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Steve H said:


> naturally there's a good deal of discussion and each side fights to the death.


My phaser is on stun. No need to go Ron Tracey on this subject.:thumbsup:


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> It's been a subject of discussion as long as I've been building models, back in my IPMS days in the '70s. the thought is that if you are building a scale model of an airplane, the paint (and markings), it should be toned down to reflect that you're looking at a 'real' object from a distance, so matching colors to exact FS specs is completely 'wrong'. Weathering should almost not exist, no panel lines whatsoever, color demarcations should be blended and blurred and so on.
> 
> And that should apply to any markings. Every color should be 'grayed' to reflect atmosphere scattering and fog effect. Not sure how that works in space, from 'real space' photos I've seen I'd think the larger hull markings of the Enterprise should be SUPER black, almost like giant vinyl stick-on letters/numbers.
> 
> ...



Yeah, that makes sense. It's the difference between something looking like a toy and a miniature replica.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Steve H said:


> It's been a subject of discussion as long as I've been building models, back in my IPMS days in the '70s. the thought is that if you are building a scale model of an airplane, the paint (and markings), it should be toned down to reflect that you're looking at a 'real' object from a distance, so matching colors to exact FS specs is completely 'wrong'. Weathering should almost not exist, no panel lines whatsoever, color demarcations should be blended and blurred and so on.
> 
> And that should apply to any markings. Every color should be 'grayed' to reflect atmosphere scattering and fog effect. Not sure how that works in space, from 'real space' photos I've seen I'd think the larger hull markings of the Enterprise should be SUPER black, almost like giant vinyl stick-on letters/numbers.
> 
> ...


I get it. And I'm inclined to agree.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I think going with the onscreen appearance should hold sway if the real model color is radically different such as in the case of the purple Vulcan shuttle. Otherwise, something reasonably close to the actual model color will probably provide a good approximation. 

The STOS 1701 presents an unusual problem since the footage was shown through many different filters during various composite special effects sequences and appeared different colors at different times. Since the original was a very "normal" looking gray as commonly painted on sea going vessels, that seems to be the logical compromise, IMHO. With grays, the great thing is that they can appear different colors in different lighting situations so getting the exact shade, IMHO, is not that big of a deal as long as it's fairly close.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I think we all agree that in the end, one should paint it (and ANY model) the way one feels comfortable with, what makes one happy.

Painting the Enterprise silver because "that's what it looked like on my 9 inch B&W TV back in the '60s" is just as valid as an exacting paint chip match from the studio model. Of course, execution can make a difference. Rattlecan silver overall looks a bit slapdash, while carefully applied tones, shades and variations of silver with different levels of buffing could make a really stunning display.

I'm not sold on the concept of 'scale paint'. Kind of seems to me that's an excellent thing for a shadowbox diorama, trying to re-create a specific image or something, but it just doesn't quite sit well for general open display in my mind. I dunno.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I've always wanted to see a TOS _E_ or TMP refit painted silver, even buffed. That could be kinda freaky cool.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> Of course, execution can make a difference.


Yes, agreed. Execution is as important as doing something a certain way (provided you have a reason for doing it that way). One of my design instructors in college used to say: "I don't care what it looks like, as long as you have a reason for it looking that way." So, since everybody's tastes are different, execution (aka TECHNIQUE or SKILL) becomes the key ingredient in a successful model, in my opinion.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

mach7 said:


> Or radiation from the First Federation space buoy
> 
> The Romulan nuke detonated at close range
> 
> ...


It's an established fact that the "rust ring" is actually oxidation from the Olympian moisture in Apollo's big green fingers...

:tongue: M.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

MGagen said:


> It's an established fact that the "rust ring" is actually oxidation from the Olympian moisture in Apollo's big green fingers...
> 
> :tongue: M.


Funny. I'd heard it was from the nicotine stains on the fingers of the sound stage technicians.


----------



## Gary7 (Jan 2, 2013)

Trekkriffic said:


> Funny. I'd heard it was from the nicotine stains on the fingers of the sound stage technicians.


In the clip to the new ST movie, the Enterprise can be a submarine. That might cause some rust. :tongue:


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Trekkriffic said:


> Funny. I'd heard it was from the nicotine stains on the fingers of the sound stage technicians.


So.... would you add it in in the interest of accuracy-?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Chrisisall said:


> So.... would you add it in in the interest of accuracy-?


To me the "Rust Ring" was just make-up that was applied to the top of the primary hull to accentuate the contour under the bright studio lights, like heavy blush on actors cheeks.

I always omit it when I paint the hull for that reason.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Makes sense.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

RSN said:


> To me the "Rust Ring" was just make-up that was applied to the top of the primary hull to accentuate the contour under the bright studio lights, like heavy blush on actors cheeks.
> 
> I always omit it when I paint the hull for that reason.


OTOH the current 'painting thought' (the idea of bold pre-shading) in some circles would believe that there SHOULD be some shading variation in order to make the contour 'pop', a type of exaggeration indeed similar to theatrical makeup application. 

As he says, the 'rust ring' was most likely to help keep the contours from getting lost in processing and runs thru the optical printer, but there's another factor I think gets forgotten.

Back in the '60s, color TV was really a new thing for the mass consumer. B&W TVs were still in the majority of homes across the U.S. and every production had to face the dual devil of being bright and colorful and exciting, yet also 'reading' well on all those B&W sets. We know, famously, how Spock's skin tone had to be played with and adjusted, the original concept of reddish skin just 'read' badly in B&W. (and maybe not badly per se to your and my eyes, but perception is reality when a studio exec says something). I would have to assume that the same concerns and thinking went into painting the Enterprise and other models. This also seems to confirm (at least in my mind) that the shading of paint on the Klingon cruiser was more about defining shapes for low-res B&W TVs than actual 'Klingon spec factory camo'. 

Which, again, full circle, is perfectly correct if one paints in the 'pre-shading' style.


----------



## edward 2 (Oct 6, 2010)

proper2 said:


> yes, agreed. Execution is as important as doing something a certain way (provided you have a reason for doing it that way). One of my design instructors in college used to say: "i don't care what it looks like, as long as you have a reason for it looking that way." so, since everybody's tastes are different, execution (aka technique or skill) becomes the key ingredient in a successful model, in my opinion.


very true.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

edward 2 said:


> very true.


The concept of every one here filling threads with pictures of _precise studio model replicas_ only is frankly boring. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations is what I find... fascinating.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

wjplenge said:


> One discussion I followed on this topic pointed out a problem with a model painted with paints adjusted for a scale effect, one I think is most noticible on sci-fi kits. The paint job is scaled, but the decals aren't.


'Scale Effect' comes from 'Atmosphere', Since there is no 'Atmosphere' in space, then I don't subscribe to it on space borne objects.

Planes, ships, tanks, sure.


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

Well, in my case, I prefer to paint both versions of my favorite sub in the different shades the original studio props were painted, even though on my color TV screen the Seaview always looked "blue" in the underwater scenes. However, because of this thread, I just MAY try painting a 1/350 Moebius one blue with a white underside someday, just for giggles.
I did, in fact, use a "perceived" color when I made a "Gemini XII" from a Polar Lights Jupiter 2; the pilot episode was shot in black and white, and the craft shown is obviously NOT silver. I found painting the hull white to be not quite right, nor painting it a very light beige, but I found USAF Light Grey made my build much more "screen accurate" for me, and am pleased with the results.
I am also remembering the days when model kit instructions said "for painting reference, use the picture on the boxtop as your guide", or words to that effect.
Your original posed question, "percieved vs. actual", was a very thought provoking one, indeed; thanks for bringing up the subject! :thumbsup:


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Seaview said:


> I did, in fact, use a "perceived" color when I made a "Gemini XII" from a Polar Lights Jupiter 2; the pilot episode was shot in black and white, and the craft shown is obviously NOT silver. I found painting the hull white to be not quite right, nor painting it a very light beige, but to me, USAF Light Grey made my build much more "screen accurate" to me, and am pleased with the results.


Ooooo, got a picture of that you could put up here??:woohoo:


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

Chrisisall said:


> Ooooo, got a picture of that you could put up here??:woohoo:


 
Sorry, I would if I owned or even had access to a digital camera. As it is, I don't even own a cell phone (yes, I'm the last of the old fashioned hold-outs; I even still use an abacus to figure out my taxes)!


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

ClubTepes said:


> 'Scale Effect' comes from 'Atmosphere', Since there is no 'Atmosphere' in space, then I don't subscribe to it on space borne objects.
> 
> Planes, ships, tanks, sure.


That's a good point. Although, to me the more important issue would relate to the tendency of a model to have certain exaggerated or "fat" details like panel lines, rivets, spindles, etc. It's hard to faithfully duplicate these to make a model look like a true-to-scale shrunken version of the real thing. For example, the PL 1:350 Enterprise grid lines... Without renewing the age-old debate, these grid lines were never really meant to be panel lines (at least they weren't on the studio model), and even if they were, they wouldn't be as wide and as deep as they are on the kit.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Seaview said:


> Sorry, I would if I owned or even had access to a digital camera.


Dude!!
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-Cyber-...334768?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item1c3097bc30
There are hundreds of affordable ones there!:thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Seaview said:


> Sorry, I would if I owned or even had access to a digital camera. As it is, I don't even own a cell phone (yes, I'm the last of the old fashioned hold-outs; I even still use an abacus to figure out my taxes)!


Yet, you're posting on a virtual forum utilizing a computer.


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

To my eye, when I watch Star Trek The Motion Picture, etc., the Enterprise always looks like a very light shade of grey, with the aztek adding hints of aluminum and pearl when she's in the drydock. In the deep-space shots, the hull goes to a darker grey, again with metallic flecks from the aztek. I've built the old AMT kit several times, and the last one I built (about 20 years ago), I actually did a paint simulation of the deep-space, self-illuminated effect, starting with a dark grey base color, and dry-brushing (no access to an airbrush, at the time) the lighting effects. Didn't turn out too bad, IMHO. 

(And yes...I did paint some of the "aztek" engraved panels.  )


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

The vast majority of the time I'm firmly in the "as it appeared on screen" camp. I might look at photos of the studio model(s) to get the little details right, but for color I want to build what I saw.

A good example of this (for me, anyway) is the NCC-1701-D. I was surprised when I found out the base color of the ship is supposed to be Duck Egg Blue because to me it always looked gray on our tv screen; the only time it ever actually looked blue was the scene in _Star Trek: Generations_ when the primary hull crash landed on Veridian III, and it was _hideous_.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

1701ALover said:


> the last one I built (about 20 years ago), I actually did a paint simulation of the deep-space, self-illuminated effect, starting with a dark grey base color, and dry-brushing (no access to an airbrush, at the time) the lighting effects. Didn't turn out too bad, IMHO.


Turned out great IMO!!!:thumbsup:


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Since I end up doing home SPFX with many of my models I paint them for that use. I pay a lot of attention to the type of finish from very flat to super shiny. I painted one of my Jupiter 2's in "Steel" which is a flat silver gray. The other is painted with std 'Silver'. I painted a Nautilus (Disney version) in dark browns with some rust, and then found out the model was always filmed as a sillouette and it was bare brass! Many years ago I painted an MPC AT-AT with colors I mixed just for that model (Extremely bad idea) But 20 years later I can't match the paints. My HO scale steam engines are painted to look like brand new from the paint shop (super glossy, no weathering) then weathered with as close to the real colors of the rust, soot, greases, sand and calcium deposits. I model the wet weathering with gloss clears, and the rest are all as flat as I can make it. Understanding what weathering ends up on top of another is important.


----------



## Prowler901 (Jun 27, 2005)

1701ALover said:


> To my eye, when I watch Star Trek The Motion Picture, etc., the Enterprise always looks like a very light shade of grey, with the aztek adding hints of aluminum and pearl when she's in the drydock. In the deep-space shots, the hull goes to a darker grey, again with metallic flecks from the aztek. I've built the old AMT kit several times, and the last one I built (about 20 years ago), I actually did a paint simulation of the deep-space, self-illuminated effect, starting with a dark grey base color, and dry-brushing (no access to an airbrush, at the time) the lighting effects. Didn't turn out too bad, IMHO.
> 
> (And yes...I did paint some of the "aztek" engraved panels.  )


That looks really cool! I like the way you "simulated" the lights. Very clever. :thumbsup:


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Yet, you're posting on a virtual forum utilizing a computer.


 

Feh! I'm an "anomoly", I guess! Besides, it's a "patience is a virtue" dial-up! :tongue:


----------



## DCH10664 (Jul 16, 2012)

Perception vs. Actual ?? For me it's definately "Perception". I paint my models to match my memories, in many cases. And if my memories and/or perceptions don't match the studio model, then so be it. Modeling, and displaying my models are for MY pleasure. And have to suit ME. If others choose to build and paint to 100% match a studio model, and that is what pleases them. Then that's fine. I just prefer my models look like what I remember.

An example would be the Enterprise. I would never paint an Enterprise any shade of gray. I always precieved the Ol' girl to be an off white. And that's how I have painted some. I know now that I am wrong in my color choice. But again, it's just MY perception. And if a model doesn't look right to me, I'm not going to put it out for display.

And speaking of the Enterprise..... Chris, I've never seen anyone do what you done to simulate the lighting. That is cool beyond compare !! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

DCH10664 said:


> And speaking of the Enterprise..... Chris, I've never seen anyone do what you done to simulate the lighting. That is cool beyond compare !! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


Thanks!
I have a 537 that I'm gonna paint similarly when I get to it (soon). My 'test subject' came out well, this one will be waaaay better. No seams, better detail. Canabalized sensor array from a Reliant, the works. Just for me, just for fun.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I go with all the representations of a ship (on screen and models) are tryingt oshow you a 'real' ship, when I chose to paint certain details a little more vividly I am going for the "Oh, that is what it really looked like" impression. I build them for personal enjoyment, I figure a lot of people are making exact matches for a particular filming model and doing a better job at that than i ever could. There are enough perfect replicas out there, I want to do something fun with mine- few ever see what I build anyway...


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Chrisisall said:


> Turned out great IMO!!!:thumbsup:





Prowler901 said:


> That looks really cool! I like the way you "simulated" the lights. Very clever. :thumbsup:


Thanks, guys! Yeah, I was very proud of her 20 years ago.  Hindsight being what it is, I don't think I'd have gone with as dark a base color. The flash of the camera kinda washed it out, but it was pretty dark. I've got a 1:350 refit that I started a couple of years ago, when I still had space to build, etc. Unfortunately, I was forced to move to a MUCH smaller place, and don't really have the space to be able to work on her. But my plan for this one, when I finally get back to her, is to use a light grey for the base color, do an aztek with a mix of pearl and aluminum, using paint templates, and decals for the strongbacks/deflector dish surround. Haven't decided if I'm going to simulate the lighting on this one, or not. It obviously would be a lot more subtle on a lighter base coat, but it would give the hull a little more life, since I'm not skilled at doing practical lighting. Hmmm....


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

1701ALover said:


> Thanks, guys! Yeah, I was very proud of her 20 years ago.


 Should still be.


> But my plan for this one, when I finally get back to her, is to use a light grey for the base color, do an aztek with a mix of pearl and aluminum, using paint templates, and decals for the strongbacks/deflector dish surround. Haven't decided if I'm going to simulate the lighting on this one, or not. It obviously would be a lot more subtle on a lighter base coat, but it would give the hull a little more life, since I'm not skilled at doing practical lighting. Hmmm....


I'm just becoming skilled at it, and it's really not all that difficult if_* I*_ can do it. But my modeling roots go way back, and I just have more fun NOT lighting a model. My E 537 will not be lit. HOWEVER, if I was doing a 350, I'd sort of feel _compelled_ to light it.
I wouldn't want to look back & wish I did!


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

Chrisisall said:


> Should still be.
> I'm just becoming skilled at it, and it's really not all that difficult if_* I*_ can do it. But my modeling roots go way back, and I just have more fun NOT lighting a model. My E 537 will not be lit. HOWEVER, if I was doing a 350, I'd sort of feel _compelled_ to light it.
> I wouldn't want to look back & wish I did!


 
:thumbsup: Wise man! I understand the concept of "regret" very well; I felt compelled to build a second 1/129 scale 4-window Seaview with lighting a couple of years after I built my first one without lighting and was frustrated by not being able to view the control room details. :dude:


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

I am working on a PL 1701-D. I changed up the colors a little bit because A) I suck at mixing colors and B) the colors I picked were close enough. I also messed up the order in which I painted the colors, and put dark on top of light (for the blue areas).

But I think I like the effect of it better personally than the actual studio model.










Those are all I have done at the moment... ha

Entire album


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Chrisisall said:


> if I was doing a 350, I'd sort of feel _compelled_ to light it.
> I wouldn't want to look back & wish I did!





Seaview said:


> :thumbsup: Wise man! I understand the concept of "regret" very well; I felt compelled to build a second 1/129 scale 4-window Seaview with lighting a couple of years after I built my first one without lighting and was frustrated by not being able to view the control room details. :dude:


Yeah, I know. I'm kinda thinking this first 1:350 Refit will be a test of my painting skills, and then, once I'm in a better financial state (hopefully sooner rather than later!!), I'll build another, with full-out lighting and a few accurizing add-ons, using - and improving on - the painting skills I learn on the first one.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

1701ALover said:


> I'll build another, with full-out lighting and a few accurizing add-ons, using - and improving on - the painting skills I learn on the first one.


If I only had _room_ for even ONE 1/350 E.....


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Chrisisall said:


> If I only had _room_ for even ONE 1/350 E.....


Or the _time_ ... I only have one big refit in me.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

SteveR said:


> Or the _time_ ... I only have one big refit in me.


Before I go to the next realm, I will do a 1/350 TOS E... as Sargon is my witness!


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Chrisisall said:


> If I only had _room_ for even ONE 1/350 E.....





SteveR said:


> Or the _time_ ... I only have one big refit in me.





Chrisisall said:


> Before I go to the next realm, I will do a 1/350 TOS E... as Sargon is my witness!


Hahaha...yeah, time and space to display are issues for me, too. But, as Capt. Kirk is quoted as having said, "If something's important enough, you make the time." And if I finish the thing, I WILL find a place to put it...even if I have to hang my roommate's stuff from the ceiling! :thumbsup:

And yes...my other "grail" project is the 1:350 TOS E. Again...someday...!


----------



## NTRPRZ (Feb 23, 1999)

Just my two cents. I painted my AMT Enterprise Camoflauge Gray, and I will do the same with the 350 Enterprise. THere will be some weathering, but not much. 

I just got mine the day before yesterday, so I'm still absorbing the wonderfullness of it all!


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

I wonder if anyone has considered using a slightly brighter, pearlescent grey, or one that glows, since the original ship on screen looks like it literally glows almost from within from being so well lit in the studio (especially on a high-contrast 1960s TV before a remastered HD image). I remember the ship looking white, in fact, on my TV in 1969! (Yes, I'm old enough to have watched premiere episodes Fri. nights on NBC.)


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Proper2 said:


> . I remember the ship looking white, in fact, on my TV in 1969! (Yes, I'm old enough to have watched premiere episodes Fri. nights on NBC.)


On my 13" B&W TV back then I was SURE it was white. But in 1971 we went COLOUR, baby!


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

How about a white pearl aztec? Lou?


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Proper2 said:


> ...I remember the ship looking white, in fact, on my TV in 1969! (Yes, I'm old enough to have watched premiere episodes Fri. nights on NBC.)


Same here, except I was watching since the show premiered in 196*6*. :dude:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I remember one time for a local IPMS contest in the '70s I knocked together a Tech Manual-style Destroyer (stupid monopod design  ) and painted it with some kind of somewhat Ivory tinted White rattlecan, it turned out looking pretty nice. Of course if I knew then what I know now...


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Yup, and even when we went to a color set by 1970, the star of the show still looked as white as... well, the stars to me:










And the 1968 AMT model that was molded in white plastic didn't help the situation...


----------

