What's your take on my analysis? Do you have a favourite paint range? Let me know in the comments below....also, if you're not currently subbed (and 2/3rd of you aren't!), then if you would do me a favour and hit that button so I can get to 25K for the end of the year it would really be appreciated - it's free, and it really helps me out....thanks!
I started out with Tamiya and found it sprays ok and paints ok, but nothing earth shattering. Since then I have a fair amount of MRP, Gunze Mr Color, AK Interactive and a bit of Alclad II for the metallic colours. To be fair, I have tried Vallejo but I found it gummed up real quick in my airbrush, a problem I don't have with any of the other brands. Tamiya has a bit of an issue with tip drying, but retarder is avalailable and I use it when I remember it.
@@MannsModelMoments I have Tamiya, GSI/Mr color lacquer range, MRP lacquer, Alclad for metals and Vallejo for brush paints. I think Mr Color and MRP are the best but MRP are kinda hard to get here in the states and expensive since it is ready to spray, you get true 30ml where has most others you have to dilute to spray . Mr leveling thinner is the best thinner works with all Tamiya products. Mr thinner works with Vallejo believe it or not. But a lot of Japanese hobby paints are incredible too but they cater to the gundum world more. SMS paint range is a lot like MRP but I don’t have a lot from them again not easy to get in the states. Best primer is Mr surfacer and Badger Stynylrez Primers/ one shot by Mig. That’s my favorites I’d like to try Andrea Miniatures paints but same as before harder to get.
No. No favorite brand. I loved Poly Scale for a while but I mix my own colors now. You do anything enough you get good at it and my mixes almost always get weathered and that makes up for a lot of issues. Paint brands and lines come and go and I’ve taken 1st place and occasional best of categories awards at regional IPMS contests. Which is nice but I make models for myself. If I’m happy with it that is as far as it needs to go. I concentrate on technique very heavily as I mostly do 1/72 scale and hand brush as I feel airbrushing is mostly over scaled. I’m in it for my own satisfaction and more to relieve stress than make it.
@ I use acrylic. I don’t care much which brand. I invest in top quality mediums mostly Liquitex or Windsor Newton to hold the paint together. My brush work is done in thin multiple coats and I usually let dry overnight (work on multiple projects) usually have some official model paint mixed in as they have levelers and finer pigments in them serving as a base. I use embarrassingly cheap craft paint but my white and black are usually top notch and I only work with top quality primers and finish with Testors dull coat as I often have a patch work of sheens.
I think your best point is, that arguing about how accurate a colour is, is pointless. Many years ago whilst serving in the British Army, I was involved in painting 4 CVR(W)'s. Two large cans of paints were involved from the same manufacturer but different batches. We ended up with one Fox one shade of green, one Fox two shades of green and two Foxes the second shade of green. Fortunately putting the black camo patching on, made it far less obvious. Also having had two neighbours who were ex RAF WWII maintenance crews, they stated that paint shades could vary drastically from batch to batch, so you could have aircraft that were noticeably different in shades. Surprise surprise, no one cared as long as the machine did its job and they got home safe. As long as the colour is close, I'll use it on my models. There's more important things in life to worry about. Love your videos, especially these science ones. Keep up the good work.
Felt less bad about my models which were painted with mixing craft acrylics until it looks similiar enough with the reference after reading this comment
I absolutely never mix paints, I use the closest colour I have but I'll go a tad lighter rather than darker if I have the choice as weathering usually darkens the finish a bit. The reason being is that I am just about the only person to look at my models once they are done, my wife may glance at one and say "That's nice dear!" but that is all. Go with what makes you happy.
@martinoconnor4314 i had the exact same thought today when glanced my still in progress valentine. Yes... it is probably too brownish, too dark. But heck no-one ever is going to see it. Let's finish it!
Absolutely! Most of these ‘accurate colours’ are too dark for small scales anyway. Go with what looks right to you. Compared to the choice of my youth of Airfix or the basic Humbrol range from Woolies, if you can’t find a good match for any colour without mixing now there is something wrong with you!
The actual truth is that the front line colors used by ALL sides had variations of "pigment shift", due to different ingredients used because of the war effort....NONE of these colors were EVER an "exact match"....Relax, your paint schemes may be far more accurate than you think....
Don't forget that lighting in photos also has an effect on the colour perception too. I remember taking no end of photos of a tank at Duxford and some inside shots of a wessex at Newark Air museum trying to get the correct shades of black and green. Just 2 simple colours but you wouldn't belive the contrast that you could have. Just go with what looks right for you is the simple answer...
Even relying on photos can be debatable, especially on print film. In 1992 I took some photos of a Saab Draken, first with Kodak film and then immediately retook the photos with Fuji film. Kodak tends to yellow hues, Fuji to blue. The result? The Draken taken with Kodak looked a brownish hue; the same Draken taken within seconds on Fuji film looked a dark green.
Agreed, and Digital has the same issue, as the shades can vary quite widely depending on: 1) the lens (some lenses render light differently with warmercor colder tones. 2)the camera's sensor, different models even from the same manufacturer render images differently, nevermind thosefrom different manufacturers or different types of sensors. CCD sensors are known for their great yellows and reds, but are worse with greens and briwns than CMOS sensors. 3) the White balance chosen for the picture, which is often an artistic choice to convey an emotion or for example the weather and temperaturea. I think the differences are smaller than with film, but not completely out of the picture.
Very interesting piece of research. It confirms my assumption that you cannot get it right by using a single brand and that you cannot go wrong since back in WW2 the paint shades differed between factories.
@@basmoleman1488 even back in WW2 ww Germans hat RAL. And with that system todays color looks always the same. Maybe the brands for our hobby do it different. Go to a paint. Raft shop, let mix your RAL and you are good to go. Go to other and you get same result. It depends and the colors we use
Thank you for the great work on this controversial topic. I prefer to use AK Real Colors for spray painting because they are easy to work with. If I can't find what I'm looking for, I use Tamiya, Gunze and recently Mission Models. When it comes to aircraft colors, there are countless color sets available thanks to the manufacturers' sophisticated marketing. I find it more difficult with boats and ships. My favorite excuses for choosing the wrong color are scale effect, error by the maintenance crew and wear and tear. Best regards...
50 years ago I used to work in the lab of a paint manufacturer, we used to look at shades in artificial daylight, a lot of the time we used to take it to the window and look at it in real daylight, there was invariably a difference. Ambient light makes a massive difference to how you see colour, which you did touch on, .Back in the late sixties, early seventies when I began modelling Humbrol 30 and Airfix G5 dark earth (I think) looked right, regardless of whether they were correct , they looked right, and surely that is half the battle. As you so correctly summed up, and if I've misinterpreted this, please forgive me, if it looks right to you then that is what counts. I have a lot of paints by different manufacturers nowadays, I mix and match to see what works best. I do like your analysis, Best Regards
I currently work in a lab for paint manufacturing and we have updated a lot in 50 years for that exact reason. That difference is called metamerism and you can do some really cool effects with it using the same pigments they use on modern stealth aircraft called perylene dyes. They dont want us leaving the labs these days because we talk too much to the public about trade secrets it seems.
When I worked for British Aerospace at both Woodford and Hatfield back in the 90's.I always asked the guys in paint store for the best way to mix RAF colours, especially as the Mosquito was flying from Hatfield,their answer was,it doesn't matter,a mosquito built here was painted in a different shade to a mosquito built in Canada,same as a Lancaster built at Woodford would have a different paint colour to one built at Chadderton or even in Canada.just use what looks right to you, example,a 146 Regional Jet for Cross Air would have a slightly different red when painted at Hatfield compared to the red at Woodford
I'd take those anecdotes with a grain of salt (adjust size to liking). MAP used standards for a reason, including recipes and stock keeping DOTs for paints. Like in the demonstration, there will have been deviations but it certainly wasn't "just pick any old green off the shelf, job's done"
I live near Woodford I used to get on my bike and see what 146’s were there as a kid, some really random airlines with test regs on. I dare say I saw some of your handy work.
I'm colourblind, so I just have to trust what it says on the bottle. I had great fun trying to weather a Sherman by watering down paints significantly to make an earthy wash. I ran multiple colours past my best mate and his wife. My favourite was being told that an earth brown paint looked purple when diluted. 😂
Talking what is "THE" correct color brings to mind a model railway thing in the 1980s when I was going to custom paint some N scale N&W, Norfolk & Western passenger cars for a friend; he had slides taken at Roanoake, Virginia, of N&W passenger cars in the railway yard in I think the 1950s and 60s. 🚂🚃🚃 I very much remember one slide taken from an elevated vantage point where there were 5 discernibly different Tuscan Red hues among the various cars packed in to the yard. 🚢 And then I remember going down to the Navy base a few times in 1970s and 80s to watch Dad's ship return from deployment. Sometimes the ship would catch the light just right and you could see both different hues and different sheens of 'standardized' Haze Grey in multiple patches along the hull side.
Thanks for a very informative video. I tend to largely use Tamiya (enamels, acrylics and sprays) and SMS. I am generally very happy with what I have chosen. SMS has good British interior green (in my view) and generally good allied camouflage colours, including RAAF. The Tamiya spray can TS and AS ranges seem very good (at least they look good), and their enamels are fantastic for hand painting troops.
I was originally thinking that Humbrol would match RAF, RN colors better. But based on your video i guess that is wrong. As far as my favorite paint line....Model Master. Next is Humbrol, Tamiya & Mr Color. I have a large collection of Model Master paints. About 20 years ago a local hobby shop was going out business and i was able to buy his whole stock during his going out of business sale. This included the Military, Train and Car line of colors. I've sold many of duplicate or line of colors i dont use. But my stock is still huge. My 2 bits. Thank for the comparison video. Interesting to say the least. Merry Christmas to all.
Fascinating overview of some popular brand's efforts in colour mimicry! I have to mix a lot of my paints to acheive the effect I desire. I mix them up from artists' acrylics (no oils or enamels!) As long as I am happy with the end result, it has to be ok 😊
I used to use Gunze paints, but 15 or so years ago, they discontinued (at least here in Atlantic Canada). I had to switch to Tamiya over availability, and honestly despise them. No, the current Gunze-based lacquers are not the same. Recently I decided to finish a 1/72 Hawker Hurricane, and dug thru my old Gunze stock and found the primary colours. All the jars were still viable. Sprayed out, it looks awesome. Set it next to my 1/48 Tamiya Lancaster... the quality over the Lanc's Tamiya paint is astounding. Bring back my Gunze.
When i hand painted models, i used citadel paint & made my own mixes. They may not have been 100% acurate but they were close enough for me. Now that i have returned to hobby i decieded to use tamiya as i can get hold them quite easily & am learning how to airbrush.
I may be in a minority here, in that I use enamels and brush them on. For me, it is the contrast between colours that needs to be got right. My paints of choice, as a warship modeller, have been Colourcoats, first produced by White Ensign, then by Sovereign - a two-person husband-wife operation based on meticulous research that has overturned a lot of accepted wisdom on RN colours. They have recently stopped production, but there is hope that they have found someone who will take over the production of this excellent range. They also did aircraft and military colours, which also seemed very soundly researched. But as I said at the start, it is how the colours look together, given the scale factor, and whether they convey the effect one can see from photos, is what matters to me. As many have noted, on active service actual tones and hues varied greatly, and none more so on warships, which would get hasty paint jobs while in harbour, based on what was to hand - any paint being better than none!
I tend to stick to Ak and Vallejo with some Tamiya paints for certain applications, I have been deviating from "Standard" official paint recommendations for last 3 years, I find right out of bottle doesn't look right at smaller scale so I correct for scale and weathering. I found when in the Military no two vehicles with "the same paint job" ever looked identical anyways. There was always variation even on same vehicle paint on top of the AFV faded more than lower hull. So I go with the paint job I find satisfying.
For several reasons I have to use water based acrylics, so I've grown to like them. The best available are from the notable art house paint company Golden - they pioneered the use of acrylics for painting during the 1950s. Their thinnest version is called High Flow and they airbrush splendidly. Artists are picky and there is a lot of information concerning pigments and how well a coat covers. There are about 50 colors - so get yourself a model mixing book and fire away. Golden paints are all gloss but that is easily handled. Blick carries the whole range - Amazon may also. Because they're art house instead of modeling paints they cost less (unless they use ritzy pigments which can be very useful for mixing) and come in excellent plastic bottles. Keep them properly sealed and they'll last several years. Try one out - I'd suggest Neutral Gray, Titanium White or Carbon Black.
@@MannsModelMoments Thanks for the tip. It looks to me that these paints are much thicker than HiFlow. Blick has a house brand of matte acrylics that are very matte and very thick. Naturally you could thin them down but that might defeat the purpose unless someone has an airbrush medium that is matte.
@Ebergerud they are indeed much thicker than hiflow - they're ideal for brush painting, and can be thinner with standard airbrush thinners like Ultimate Products
That's nothing, try SCREEN matching anything from Star Wars or Star Trek. Sure we know the colors the filming model was painted, but you look at any filming model matched ship, and it looks like garish hell because it was painted for insane light levels to hit the film correctly then Processed through multiple layers of compositing.
As usual, a well researched and delivered topic Alex. Whilst colour match out of the bottle may be important, as you say, the qualities of the paint itself have a huge bearing - who is going to use a paint that consistently clogs or tip dries or doesn't adhere well. I'm only really interested in RAF subjects and my primary range is AK 3rd Gen but I also like Mission Models. My comparisons have included those two with Lifecolor, Hataka and Ammo.
Paint colors are somewhat relative. Are you depicting a factory fresh aircraft or one that was painted 6 months, 1 year or more ago. The effects of sun, dirt and wear will change the shade in many ways. When I worked on USAF aircraft, especially in the 60s-80s SEA paint scheme they would lighten and darken over time and no two aircraft ever were shaded the same. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Thanks Alex, what a confusing subject, but very interesting! With my colour perception issues I just go for the best match to my eyes, usually results it something acceptable, but always happy to learn more about the topic.
It's also worth considering that a colour changes depending on what's next to it, what's under it and how thin it is. A good example is vallejo model air RLM75. Whilst on it's own it looks completely off but put it in the context of RLM 74 and 76 and it's very accurate. A match for the colourcoats rlm75. One for the RLM rabbit hole is which colour chips you are using as a reference. There isn't really an excuse for the british colours due to precise and offical colour chips and info are published. At the end of the day the key question to ask yourself is does it look right for you and is the paint working for you.
The aurcraft you notice the biggest difference in colour are early WW2 USAAF in all over Olive Drab where the likes of a B-17 can be seen in umpteen different shades of it as its so big .... The Fighters though can also exhibit it
Nice work, it was surprising to me how varied a particular color was depending on whose bottle was used. I have the Federal Standard fan deck which I use only as a guide when color matching. The only time I try to exact match color is when it involves decals. Like with a modern aircraft build such as an F-4 Phantom in Hill grey where the printed tailcode letters and numbers color matched the opposing grey. The top color I mix has to match the decal ink the maker used, not Federal Standard. Plus I agree with scaledown effect of lightening the color depending on the scale of the model.
Very well thought out, and presented. Coming from the railway modelling background the same issues rage ... try 10 different modelers and they'll give you 10 different Brunswick greens... Paint what looks right to your eye, looking at references! Of course if you're colour blind... then maybe stick to the recommendations.
I like the Fauci-meme. And i prefer enamels and oil-paint. For accurate coloring: if you paint the windowsill with a given color and repaint it partly with the same paint from the same pot, the touched up part is different due time, detoriation, weather etc so i go with my own preferences. It is right when it looks right IMO.
Interesting analysis and very useful!. I have a lot of experience of colour matching within the garment embellishment business. Whilst DE is reasonable 'standard', No1 eye-ball is what we see with so when matching, this is really the decider along (of course) with the correct light source. I have had many arguments with adidas/nike etc. over what is a 'correct match', only to find they are looking under fluorescent lights in an office. Matching should be done in a calibrated light box with a D65 (6500K) light source, checking of course the person checking has correct colour vision! but still won't be the same in you home lighting. Therefore, one persons match is not necessarily another persons. That's before we get into actual mixing and matching in period, UV fading, field applications etc. I think the message is don't sweat the small stuff and just enjoy your modelling. Keep these coming, all knowledge is good.
I have to commend you highly for this presentation. Whilst I do try to get colours that supposedly match things like wartime paint chips, this in itself can cause all sorts of issues. When so-called experts cannot agree, what chance does the average modeller stand? Just look at the sometimes willing discussions on a colour like US Olive Drab! And, as you point out, we have the physics of spectrometry, human perception of colour, wear and tear on the actual aircraft/tank/whatever, and scale considerations (what looks right on a 1/32 scale Bf109E might look totally wrong on the same aircraft in 1/144 scale) to take into account. Even airbrushing versus using a hairy stick can impact upon the colours we perceive. Then after taking everything into consideration, we think we have nailed it, only to discover the real aircraft was painted in the field with non-standard colours, so we are probably completely wrong anyway! Nowadays, I tend to use a combination of water-based acrylics (e.g. Vallejo, AK, Lifecolor) and solvent-based acrylic lacquers (e.g. SMS, Hataka, Gunze) and, provided you take care of what goes over what, this works for the majority of colours I need. Occasionally, I will make a custom blend with compatible paints, but this is probably the exception than the rule. And, in the end like all parts of modelling, if you are satisfied with the result, that's what counts. After all, there will always be someone who thinks you are wrong and probably without justification, too. Though what on earth is Airfix thinking recommending Humbrol 30 for RAF Dark Green? 😖
Great Vid!!!! Me??? Wellll...... My approach is to use basic base coats on aircraft, for example I will use AK dark earth on one Spit and MRP dark earth on another. This gives a slightly different shade between aircraft, I then like to go to a custom mix sprayed on different panels to mix it up further. I do not like any two models to look the same.
There are good reasons for there to be variations in colour. First of all wartime paint production is not consistent, particularly German, even in the USA unaffected by bombing we can see huge variations in colour . Variations also occur due to how aircraft weather, they can really fade or darken the colour, Olive Drab is infamous for how it can vary in appearance as an example. The RAF also applied temporary mixes to add to the confusion. Consider also scale effect. Some paint companies (AK from memory included) allow for scale effect, lightening the colour for realism. When paint companies develop their colours they might take great care to copy a colour chip, ideally taken from an area protected from weathering. These chips can very in appearance for all the reasons mentioned. Plus, there are some companies, well Humbrol certainly, who have not been particularly bothered about accurate colours. The issues with their green 30 are well known.. Often what brand looks ‘right or wrong’ is affected by our individual experience and preferences rather than reality. I remember when I first for back into modelling 14 years ago I was still thinking that Humbrol 29/30 was the right look for RAF camo!! At the end of the day I would recommend not getting too worked up about it. Pick a brand of paint that suits you, for availability perhaps, or one you get along with and stick to that. Ideally a brand that has an extensive range of colours that are identified by the colour standard number (RLM, BS, FS etc). Me, my preference is for MRP’s lacquer range. It has all the colours I need, are airbrush ready, and spray like a dream.
Ah, the dreaded Humbrol 30 :D Yes, it's there for historical reasons only (stupid if you ask me) since back in the late 1960s they actually did have a somewhat accurate MAP DG that indeed was H.30. So they stick with that because every instruction manual has used that H.30. The closest in the Humbrol range was H.116 (matt) or the ones you mentioned. [edit] It was in the short-lived Humbrol Authentics range. Somewhere around the mid-1970s it became that horrible blue-green.
In the early 1980's I had collected a good amount of Humbrol tins as a teen in California because they were about the only source for a military color (before MM) and affordable. After airbrushing my 1/48 F-16A as Israeli AF, I thought the colors were very accurate looking - still do. Plus the pigment allowed me to thin it for tight edges.
This pretty much sums up what I have experienced with paint colors. Mixing your own has obvious benefits to correctness, assuming you know what colors to mix in to get shades correct. In my experience, this particular knowledge is somewhat lacking in modeling circles. By this I don't mean most modelers don't know what they are doing. What I mean is that for those of us who have difficulties with knowing the correct colors to use for mixes, finding good information (that is relevant to modeling), is somewhat hard to come by. I personally, have difficulties at times telling if something has a particular color tint to it that is completely unrelated to what the color is supposed to represent. For example a dark brown with a purple tint (maybe a bad example). This invariably leads to mistakes when I am trying to match color references I have. Of course another way to handle this, besides what looks right to the modeler, is for the modeler to never show their work to anyone else. Then their RLM 02 could be a nice shade of Pink and no one would be the wiser!! :)
Mixing is tricky because pigments don't mix the way light does. So for EVERY paint line someone would have to figure out all the ways each color mixes with each other color. The general consensus is it's not worth making a Recipe guide especially because even batch to batch they may be changing pigment depending on supply, cost etc, As long as the finished paint in the bottle matches their standard that's all they can do.
Even the light you are looking under can have a huge effect on perceived colours. I took some photos at one of the Duxford show. In the morning it was a little cloudy and at Midday was bright sunshine and then it clouded over later. The photos I took of the same plane at different times came out as completely different shades such that I had to check the codes to make sure it was the same Spitfire. Taken on two rolls of Kodak 64 from the same batch and printed at the same time and place. (It was 1981!) I’m happy using Tamiya and Vallejo Model Air. I often mix a little white for a highlights, which I think is used more by armour modellers.
Personally i vote for MR. Paint I was making a hungarian Mig-21 and i was searching for the correct colour and i tried to avoid MR Paint because it is expensive but i bought 3 of the colours from them. I bought all the "recommended " paints made some 50 paint chips and i went to a museum to compare the colours. My jaw droped from the colour accuracy of the MR Paint. You could only see the paint chip because it casted a little shadow. I found their other colours to my likeing and from that moment on i become a fan of their paint. Recently i am trying out the new MIG ATOM paints since like how they airbrush.
My only problem with MRP is whites need 10 layers of slowly building up while a Mr Color white will cover it in one pass. I use MRP as my backup paint since I have a fair amount of it and invested quite heavily into it.
I mix Tamiya acrylics to the correct shades or use Gunze's lacquers due to their large selection of colours. I use Replikator's mixes - which to my eye are accurate. I think when working with multiple colours, seeing how your paints look together is essential in presenting a realistic depiction of the subject you are painting. For example, a too brown Dark Earth plus a too light Dark Green would not realistically depict those two colours on say, an early war Spitfire.
My attitude is that there is a balance to the thing with room for venturing a bit in to both ways of doing the thing. There is where I am now at this age, building models for my own entertainment & there is also building models as a sort of historical record. For my own entertainment the classic 'close enough is good enough' works for me & for the historical documentation approach to model making, wanting to get as close to the official standard historic hue as possible makes sense.
@@PaulOldfield-ne6rg I'm going to say there is indeed some subjectiveness, note, some, in it when it comes to the painting of the model and matching paint colors. And I say that based on 2 factors. First one is the lighting the individual modeler is working in when trying to match a paint hue to a reference chip. Lighting is well known to affect perceived color. And then there is biology and perception of color. In my case, one eye sees things ever so slightly redder and the other sees things ever so slightly greener. 🎨 And much to my amusement, it is red on the left, green on the right, like navigation lights. 😆I am pretty sure that my personal eyeballs are not the only ones at variance from the universal standard. Now, true, paints can be factory mixed to a standardized hue. For what amount of specific precision at what price? And what happens if/when the paint manufacturer buys prepared pigments from subcontractors and there is variance at that level of production? Again it becomes a question of what level of specific precision for what price? Are model building consumers willing to pay the prices for superior precision?
AK Real Colours my favourite,MR. Hobby next (all sorts) and Life Colours. I like my vehicles heavy weathered so how long im close to original colour im not fussy about. But it is me.
Humbrol appear better to my eye but I am very colour blind. I go off my comparisons with pictures and memories. Humbrol have issues with painting and spraying but to my eye...
I've known for a long time that Humbrol 30 is WAY off - I always thought it too blue. For preference, I've used Humbrol 163 (Dark Green Satin) since that looks closer to my eye. As an aside, I understand the Humbrol 'Authentics' were discontinued when it was discovered that QC tests were comparing a sample with one from the previous batch, NOT a master colour chip, hence the shades drifted over time.
Even guys painting planes for the living says paint color is relative. Best way for me is to mix color using good photo reference since most people as viewers also compare to photos/movies etc.
With a few egregious exceptions-that Humbrol 'match' for RAF dark green is outstanding-the bigger issues in matching colour are: scale; field ageing; and prototypical batch disparities. From that perspective I go along with the 80:20 rule: close enough is good enough.
When I've been painting camo I try and find the colours which give the best contrast between them. I found the Airfix chosen Humbrol colours are not distinct enough. I found the Vallejo BS colour versions were much more distinct when used together. One thing that I find does affect the colour is the final varnish you use. I tend do prefer a mix of Vallejo Matt with a few drops of Gloss. I don't want a perfect matt finish as at scale it just looks wrong. When scaled down a matt surface would appear more like a satin as the surface imperfections get smaller.
I will always use the TLAR method. As my mate puts it, instructions are just manufacturers opinions. I will use it as a guide but will often go with the most pleasing shade that’s close enough. So, the “That Looks About Right” method is my preference.
I tend to get sets and paint up using the recommended colours from that, partially because my colour vision isn't that reliable. One of the reasons I don't use Gunze is simply that their RLM 74 and 75 look too close to me. Chasing colour matches doesn't make sense to me because I don't trust period colour photos, museum birds are often repainted and I can't always tell the difference! I definitely don't trust Mig Ammo though - even I can tell that their colours don't look right! FWIW - I've got the AK real colours books so I'm taking their word for it that they've done the research
I bought Ammo Mig Atom Carmine, because it's the only carmine I could find. But when mixing it the paint turns a lot more blue than I expect from carmine. Very strange. Lovely color otherwise. I'm going too try some other shades. They have many interesting ones.
Thank you for this interesting and enlightening video. As someone who sometimes measures modelling colours to find matching paints myself, I have some questions and additions. My biggest problem in this is actually to find good reference values for the original colours. You can find L*a*b* Values for most colours on the internet but often it is not clear, how these were obtained. With some luck there is information on standard illuminant and observer, but usually not on measuring geometry. Leave alone the fact, that some of the colours are out of production (like RLM colours) and/or have been removed from the standards (like RAL7028 Dunkelgelb) decades ago. So, what have they actually been measuring? And how might the paints have changed in the seventy or so years since their application? One aspect of colour which is difficult to represent for paint manufacturers is the appearance of the colour for different illumination types (metamerism). For the modeler this results in an interesting situation: The model is usually viewed under (whatever type of) artificial illumination but should have the appearance of natural daylight illumination… And then someone comes and takes a photo using a flash. At one point or other the colours will always be distorted. When using Delta E values, one should be aware, that the L*a*b* colour space is not completely perceptually uniform. So, for an observer a DeltaE of 2 in yellow is quite something different than a DeltaE of 2 in green or blue. For comparison of different renditions of the same colour this irrelevant but if you look across the whole colour range, using a measure like CIEDE2000 (which is a modified DeltaE) might yield better results. But coming back from colour theory to more practical questions for the modeler. One thing which is important for me is, that the different colours on the model should not only be correct but also should harmonize with each other. Sometimes the colours are good matches for every single colour of the camo scheme but grouped together it still looks odd. So, my approach to this is usually to make a test chart applying the colours in larger (5x5 cm) patches directly bordering each other to get an impression how they work together. Sometimes applying an additional layer of gloss/matt coat helps since some paints really change their appearance with different topcoats.
Agreed on all points. The references I've used are from spectrophotometric measurement of researched paint chips wherever possible...there's always a question mark, but again, it's the base point that one starts from....again, the main point is to not slavishly believe what is presented, but to use ones own eyes and brain...it's our hobby after all, we should enjoy it and be happy with what we want to do with it!
@@MannsModelMoments Thank you. For me it's more scientific interest than anything else. As a physisist, I can't resist to make a measurement if I have a sample and the instruments at hand ;) For me, modeling has a scientific and an artistic component. And one of the secrets to scale modeling is, that not everything which is correct (based on measurements) looks realistic in a model. Sometimes you have to exaggerate or tone down certain aspects of the model to make it look right...
Exactly so - yet many complain about "the depth of panel lines" on an aircraft, for example, not understanding they're not representing the ACTUAl thickness of panel lines, but tare there to help catch washes to achieve an illusion of depth that would be otherwise difficult for the majority to achieve....
I've never cared about how accurate a paint is, to a point. If it's drastically different than yeah I care but with so many variables in how a colour would have looked IRL I really don't care.
You could also take into account that the shade for one standard can change from one lot number to the next from any given manufacturer..it depends on where they source their pigments from, who is in charge of the mix that day, or how their mixing machine is calibrated if it automatically meters in the pigments to the mix...way too many variables for accurate 100% reproduction every single time....shade on my model could also differ from the shade on your model even if both of our paint bottles are brand new and from the same lot # because you may have shaken your bottle better than me, thereby dispersing the pigments differently throughout the carriers...I get it as close to accurate as I can by my eye, and leave it at that. Favorite paint line is whatever is easiest to work with at the time...
I am CP3 (red/green colourblind) and hate trying to match colours, for me it is the worst part of the modelling experience for me and have to rely on a paint manufacturer having the colour needed or on family members to try and help me create the colour needed.
The smaller the scale is the brighter and not the strong the color has to be. Otherwise it didnot look real and realistic. It looks abit to colorful. But that are onle my two pence to this topic. But hey great video!
Metrologists have a saying "You can't measure absolutes, you can only measure comparatively." That means having verified original chips, and verified chips of EVERY available paint line. Then matching the Originals to the best match agnostic of brand under the exact light and background the model will be displayed. EVEN THEN, Batch Variation and in bottle age are also going to change things. As well as ground tone you're painting onto, applied paint layer density, and even, particulate matter density in the air. And that's just matching the CALL OUT, try matching an old paint job at a museum under lights selected for luminosity not CRI value, and heaven forbid the horrors of museum upkeep painting that comes out of a Latex paint pail crudely color matched and brushed on thick enough to fill screw heads. You could time travel and buy a pint of the actual paint from the actual factory and odds are two pints won't be identical in the same BATCH.
I use Tru-Color paint. Over 500 colors. Easy to use, dries fast, mask friendly. No pigment clumping over time. Best stealth paints. Also does car and rail paint.
Interesting - never heard of them before....they seem to be a US brand so that's maybe not surprising! From looking at their website the colours seem a bit saturated to my eye, but it would be interesting to test them...maybe you should write to them and suggest they send me some samples for review!
@ I’m a bit OCD when it comes to details of what I’m trying to replicate. Paint colors are a part of that OCD. But I’m not a rivet counter either. I model for myself I’ll never take any of my stuff to a show. So with my ADHD I’ve never completely understood the color laws like values and hues.
@@P-47D_theJug same here, I could never find a path to anything in a color wheel or bottles of paint or hue’s numbers until I realized or was told to mentally visualize a stack of 5 more above it and 5 more below, each one adding white going up the layers (reducing saturation-making tones)and adding black as you go down (increasing saturation-making shades) so the wheel in your hand are the hues and the imaginary stack are the gray scale with the bottom one black (1 on gray scale) up through the stack decreasing black until you get to the hue on the wheel and then start adding white until you get to 10 making “tones” losing saturation. All the info is on the wheel but until I saw it that way I couldn’t achieve anything with it. TLDR I know but thought it might help.
When you see a modern professional colourists paint booth and you hear about some aspects of colour science you then wonder about the validity of any hue of paint. Now dial in the quality of pigments available during a world war, the accuracy of scales, the need for rapid production, the colour of undercoats, the effects of UV light, dirt and surface contaminates and we have not yet started the discussion of scale effect. Now tell me again which colour is correct. I think a representative colour is probably good enough.
I'm trying to mix colors on my own. My biggest problem is finding the actual reference colors in the first place. Soft copies or printouts of color standards available online are not real options for obvious reasons. Any suggestion how I can get hold of color standard palettes for reference? Or any suggestion on how to mix relatively accurate colors without comparing them to a physical sample?
@@MannsModelMoments that would help for sure, less of a hassle to research them. Still, the problem remains to find the actual comparison for mixing. The options I see are: 1. buy physical color palettes (should be the best way, but expensive, and not necessarily available for historical colors) 2. print the online color palettes (highly inaccurate) 3. refer to the online color palettes on screen (also highly inaccurate) 4. Use color finder phone apps with in built color palettes for reference (not sure which one is accurate, if any, and even using 6500k light, the results change depending on so many things, maybe I just haven't yet figured out how to do it) Is there any other way? Does anyone know of a good color finder app? For now, I go old school, i.e. mix, judge if sensible based on my understanding of how the original color looked like, move on. 🤣
It’s a hobby. Use whatever paint works for you, give it your best shot. If you want to go in depth on paints do so and if you’re happy to use a particular brand do so, mix your own, fine, use a mix of paints from different brands, fine. Just enjoy it at what ever level you’re at. However I was surprised to the variance when compared to the standard. More disappointing when you pay a premium for these niche paints marketed as super accurate matches. For me I find Mr Hobby excellent paints for ease of use and results. Thanks for the video interesting and surprising or is that disappointing?
@ so in addition to the color chips you’re comparing to, you’ve completed paint draw downs and taken spectrophotometer readings of all the paint brands you’ve compared with those chips?
@@CFster Casey did all the heavy lifting on this and has kindly been working with me and providing all the data. You can get slightly less accurate results using a D65/10 colorimeter for the Lab values too if you want to do this sort of thing yourself. In terms of representing the results digitally, it's a conversion from the spectral data to Lab and then into Hex RGB for the screen,
Surely it is the custom, in this fine hobby of ours, that when two modellers meet they will start arguing about colour. Congratulations to all the manufacturers for giving us all these various shades so that we can keep the tradition going. Club nights would be so much duller without it!
The chart showing the overall deviation by manufacturer does not dissapoint me in who's last. I recently bought the Atom paintvset for RAF to try as i heard good things on how they spray and they do go down well. But the colour match is awful, and that's from someone who is colourblind. The Nakajima paint is nowhere near as our host states. Funny I've always had issues with getting Mig paints to spray for me. They either tip dry/clog or i seem to add 1 more drop of thinner and it seems to destroy the paint. Don't think I will buy any more of Migs products.
Model trains are maybe even more contentious. I’ve seen a few heated conversations at shows about the myriad greens and probably the most problematic colour combination of blood and custard coaches.
I do enjoy these science lessons as let's face it we all paint our kits, but " What Colour"? It is a common question that constantly comes up. I dare say, if you do have a correct colour for a camo scheme, and the other colour is out then that to may effect the correct one too. I build a lot of British vehicles and getting the right Deep Bronze green is seemingly impossible. I do have a small pot of actual Deep bronze green. Just about all the model paints look close to the original. Until the whole kit is painted.
Tamiya range, the super LP , acrylic, and sprays cans, the big Mr hobby range and their surfacers are amazing , and Humbrol's old school enamel tins are still the best colour matches especially for the old vintage airfix kits.
I found none of the hobby manufacturers make very accurate ones so I make my own paints, like none of them use perylene dyes which is what all modern planes use and very few use cadmium(as far as we know) which while cant be airbrushed, it is the most accurate for these colors since thats what they used and still use.
Hi. Thanks for the vid. One extra thing touched on below. The function and structure of the eye and do you actually see the same colour as the person next to you. Variations in the mix and distribution of rods and cones about the focal point and the way they are wired up to the brain. Nerves aren't "standard" connections nor electric wires. And then there is all the variations during development including colour blindness and then cumulative eye damage and aging . If you and I look at a standard colour chip we aren't seeing exactly the same colour. Light is converted to an ionic impulse to the brain and then there is interpretation within that particularly structured brain. Chuck in everything else discussed here and its a complete shambles. Which just re-enforces what you say, if you think it looks good just be happy with the result. Have fun. If the hobby causes stress instead of reducing stress...well that's not a good thing for ones health in the long run. Frankly, we are pretty spoilt for hobby paint now days. Mr Hobby (GS) airbrushes delightfully. Booth/Mask. SMS and Alclad are both excellent. Booth/Mask. Lifecolor brushes really nicely but airbrushing is a building up subtle layers thing but nice matt colours. Model Air is great but I do thin it a wee bit more 80/20 Thinner/Flow improver. (And its a bit less hassle to use - not stinky). Model Colour/Panzer Aces again nice with a touch of water when brushing/glazing? Tamiya are great for spraying and brushes well with their retarder (but I gave them all to a mate who's just starting out and on a budget). Have a Hakata Air set for the Armee de l'Air but haven't tried them yet. Cheers. Have a nice Christmas. Matt🦘
Their are 2 big issues affecting the exact match of colours. The pigments for the paints for the real thing can have shortages and so changes the values. Evan presumably safe colours like US olive drab are not safe as the government changed the mix values for the army about 3 times during WW2 and there were inter services variations as well. The second big issue is that hobby paints also change over time and sometimes dramatically. I've been collecting Vallejo paints since 2001 and buying the same colour every 3 years or so. I now have highlight, mid tone, and shadow across most of the range. Finally, colour photos can be misleading. If the image is from the film, there are 2 basic types. There is fast film for low light, but generally puts a slight red shift to the colours. The other type is daylight film that puts a slight blue shift to the colours. How much depends on the exposure and skill of the photographer. Also different brands of film are slightly different. Digital cameras give you many more issues on colour shifts. Also, time of day impacts as well. Unfortunately, matching an exact colour is a very slippery slope. Fortunately, colour shifts can slightly change mood that can be used to our advantage. As the modeller, I can only say go with what feels right to you after viewing many sources.
None are. Modellers get too hung up on this. Even if someone has an original "80" year old paint chip book from around WWII, time, conditions stored, touched and even the paper it was adhered to as "it" ages ( and the glue it's self ) can have effects on the paint chip. Real period colored photos, are also subject to, time of day, weather conditions, direction photo was taken, type of camera, type of film, etc, and like the paint chip, how was the original photo or negative effected by time and storage. Paint manufactured, shades can vary from manufacturer, just like uniforms can vary from different manufacturers. Or how was the paint applied at the factory, again temperature, humidity, how close or how far was it sprayed on, will effect the paint. Or how was it mix, what ratio or what paint thinner was used. It was not common for the Germans in WWII to mix their paint in the field with whatever source they had on hand, such gasoline etc. Then, even as modellers, if you had the MOST correct paint in the world, and "black base", it will darken that color. So no, I don't worry about things like that. Besides, why worry about the color, when the majority of modellers are going to weather and age it anyway, seems an oxymoron? Btw, my paint of choice is MRP, BEST paint I have ever used, PERIOD! Not based on how "close" the color is to the so called original, but on the absolutely ease of use, and the fact, it has made the airbrushing process fun again, rather than a lesson of frustration.
colour matched to what? an 80 year old paint job or a colour photo....a close enough colour is close enough, i don't get too wound up about "accurate" colours
This is why hate tamiya painting instructions, they always tell you to use so many differnt colors (only suggesting theirs) and mix them for no reasons. This is why instructions from indipendent model kit makers are way better for painting instructions, the search for the right color based on actall apearence and not name.
I jut have to scratch my head and laugh about this argument because once the subject is exposed to the elements for a while it has already changed , I used to paint full size vehicles and once they have been in the elements the shades have already changed🤣😂😂
Everytime you hear that it's impossible to nail down an exact paint shade: Think about the guys in a car repair shop who fix scratches or other kind of car body damages: They can do it. If not, then everyone would notice immediately. So yes, of course there are correct paint shades. It just depends on which source material you are using. Lighting effects, paint fading, scale effects etc. are the things you can talk about AFTER you got the correct shade (hue+value+chroma). But there are, in principle, correct paint shades.
Talking about a car repair shop is completely different than talking about a scale model. In that example you DO have the subject, the paint and the same conditions as I mentioned would be required - you don't have that in modelling.
@@MannsModelMoments This doesn't invalidate any of my points. As I said, there IS (in principle) a correct shade for that one particular real-world aircraft (or whatever) you like to replicate. The question is: Can you identify it? To be honest, for most older (pre-1950s/60s) aircraft or vehicles this will be very hard or even impossible to achieve, but you can at least try to approach it (by checking original relics under different lighting conditions for example). But saying that "there is no such thing as a correct shade" is just plain wrong.
@@Tzeka I had to invest in a mid 1970's bottle of Testors Sapphire blue metallic to best match the color my older brother and I used when he was helping me build my Revell 57 Chevy (which he soon after blew up with an M-80 and didn't confess until months later) back then. He recently sent me two kits with an apology, so I am now building both to match the original best I can.
@@TzekaWell, you're obviously so much more in the know than all the rest of the world, tell us, oh great guru, how shoudl we proceed?? You're not, of course, and you ARE wrong. As many others have commented, including people who have worked on present-day, real-world vehicles, military equipment isn't produced in the same way as cars. There's no grand production line where shells are sprayed by robots with a shade prepped in bulk. Vehicles from the same batch or unit are often finished differently, or the same with different batches of paint made in slightly different ways or from different sources - so (as I said were you listening) - you would need the subjects and paint used at the time to have the "correct" shade for that INDIVIDUAL subject. You're obviously one of those people that are involved in those pointless circular debates which I'm simply not interested in. You have also missed the point completely - we strive for accuracy, but ultimately this is a hobby about representation and creativity, and as long as you're happy with what you do, it doesn't matter what small-minded people with monopurposed beliefs think.
on another note: there is no 'perfect' rendition of any color, due to the simple fact that the difference in scale changes how the human eye sees color.
before watching, i'm gonna guess the most accurate colors are found in old fashioned tin pots of enamel paints like revell and humberol. i also predict you will end up with ICM scoring unnaturally high.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
What's your take on my analysis? Do you have a favourite paint range? Let me know in the comments below....also, if you're not currently subbed (and 2/3rd of you aren't!), then if you would do me a favour and hit that button so I can get to 25K for the end of the year it would really be appreciated - it's free, and it really helps me out....thanks!
I started out with Tamiya and found it sprays ok and paints ok, but nothing earth shattering. Since then I have a fair amount of MRP, Gunze Mr Color, AK Interactive and a bit of Alclad II for the metallic colours. To be fair, I have tried Vallejo but I found it gummed up real quick in my airbrush, a problem I don't have with any of the other brands. Tamiya has a bit of an issue with tip drying, but retarder is avalailable and I use it when I remember it.
@@MannsModelMoments I have Tamiya, GSI/Mr color lacquer range, MRP lacquer, Alclad for metals and Vallejo for brush paints. I think Mr Color and MRP are the best but MRP are kinda hard to get here in the states and expensive since it is ready to spray, you get true 30ml where has most others you have to dilute to spray . Mr leveling thinner is the best thinner works with all Tamiya products. Mr thinner works with Vallejo believe it or not. But a lot of Japanese hobby paints are incredible too but they cater to the gundum world more. SMS paint range is a lot like MRP but I don’t have a lot from them again not easy to get in the states. Best primer is Mr surfacer and Badger Stynylrez Primers/ one shot by Mig. That’s my favorites I’d like to try Andrea Miniatures paints but same as before harder to get.
No. No favorite brand. I loved Poly Scale for a while but I mix my own colors now. You do anything enough you get good at it and my mixes almost always get weathered and that makes up for a lot of issues. Paint brands and lines come and go and I’ve taken 1st place and occasional best of categories awards at regional IPMS contests. Which is nice but I make models for myself. If I’m happy with it that is as far as it needs to go. I concentrate on technique very heavily as I mostly do 1/72 scale and hand brush as I feel airbrushing is mostly over scaled. I’m in it for my own satisfaction and more to relieve stress than make it.
@@bradywomack9751 What do you use as your base paint to mix?
@
I use acrylic. I don’t care much which brand. I invest in top quality mediums mostly Liquitex or Windsor Newton to hold the paint together. My brush work is done in thin multiple coats and I usually let dry overnight (work on multiple projects) usually have some official model paint mixed in as they have levelers and finer pigments in them serving as a base. I use embarrassingly cheap craft paint but my white and black are usually top notch and I only work with top quality primers and finish with Testors dull coat as I often have a patch work of sheens.
I think your best point is, that arguing about how accurate a colour is, is pointless. Many years ago whilst serving in the British Army, I was involved in painting 4 CVR(W)'s. Two large cans of paints were involved from the same manufacturer but different batches. We ended up with one Fox one shade of green, one Fox two shades of green and two Foxes the second shade of green. Fortunately putting the black camo patching on, made it far less obvious. Also having had two neighbours who were ex RAF WWII maintenance crews, they stated that paint shades could vary drastically from batch to batch, so you could have aircraft that were noticeably different in shades. Surprise surprise, no one cared as long as the machine did its job and they got home safe. As long as the colour is close, I'll use it on my models. There's more important things in life to worry about. Love your videos, especially these science ones. Keep up the good work.
Felt less bad about my models which were painted with mixing craft acrylics until it looks similiar enough with the reference after reading this comment
Epic. YT should automatically pin this comment at the top of any string involving model paint shade accuracy.
I absolutely never mix paints, I use the closest colour I have but I'll go a tad lighter rather than darker if I have the choice as weathering usually darkens the finish a bit. The reason being is that I am just about the only person to look at my models once they are done, my wife may glance at one and say "That's nice dear!" but that is all. Go with what makes you happy.
Me too. I think there are only one or two people watching my models. So, if the tank/ vehicle/ aircraft, looks cool to me, well, I'm happy with that 😂
@martinoconnor4314 i had the exact same thought today when glanced my still in progress valentine. Yes... it is probably too brownish, too dark. But heck no-one ever is going to see it. Let's finish it!
Absolutely! Most of these ‘accurate colours’ are too dark for small scales anyway. Go with what looks right to you. Compared to the choice of my youth of Airfix or the basic Humbrol range from Woolies, if you can’t find a good match for any colour without mixing now there is something wrong with you!
The actual truth is that the front line colors used by ALL sides had variations of "pigment shift", due to different ingredients used because of the war effort....NONE of these colors were EVER an "exact match"....Relax, your paint schemes may be far more accurate than you think....
Same situation for me as I built for myself, with family and a friend or two might like at them. But I have been known to mix paints.
Don't forget that lighting in photos also has an effect on the colour perception too. I remember taking no end of photos of a tank at Duxford and some inside shots of a wessex at Newark Air museum trying to get the correct shades of black and green. Just 2 simple colours but you wouldn't belive the contrast that you could have. Just go with what looks right for you is the simple answer...
Even relying on photos can be debatable, especially on print film. In 1992 I took some photos of a Saab Draken, first with Kodak film and then immediately retook the photos with Fuji film. Kodak tends to yellow hues, Fuji to blue. The result? The Draken taken with Kodak looked a brownish hue; the same Draken taken within seconds on Fuji film looked a dark green.
Agreed, and Digital has the same issue, as the shades can vary quite widely depending on:
1) the lens (some lenses render light differently with warmercor colder tones.
2)the camera's sensor, different models even from the same manufacturer render images differently, nevermind thosefrom different manufacturers or different types of sensors.
CCD sensors are known for their great yellows and reds, but are worse with greens and briwns than CMOS sensors.
3) the White balance chosen for the picture, which is often an artistic choice to convey an emotion or for example the weather and temperaturea.
I think the differences are smaller than with film, but not completely out of the picture.
Very interesting piece of research. It confirms my assumption that you cannot get it right by using a single brand and that you cannot go wrong since back in WW2 the paint shades differed between factories.
@@basmoleman1488 even back in WW2 ww Germans hat RAL. And with that system todays color looks always the same. Maybe the brands for our hobby do it different. Go to a paint. Raft shop, let mix your RAL and you are good to go. Go to other and you get same result. It depends and the colors we use
This is why I don’t worry being 100% on target. If it looks right it’ll be right.
Thank you for the great work on this controversial topic. I prefer to use AK Real Colors for spray painting because they are easy to work with. If I can't find what I'm looking for, I use Tamiya, Gunze and recently Mission Models. When it comes to aircraft colors, there are countless color sets available thanks to the manufacturers' sophisticated marketing. I find it more difficult with boats and ships.
My favorite excuses for choosing the wrong color are scale effect, error by the maintenance crew and wear and tear. Best regards...
Interesting video, Alex. Thank you.
The biggest surprise to me was how well Revell came out, considering what a comparatively narrow range they have.
50 years ago I used to work in the lab of a paint manufacturer, we used to look at shades in artificial daylight,
a lot of the time we used to take it to the window and look at it in real daylight, there was invariably a difference.
Ambient light makes a massive difference to how you see colour, which you did touch on,
.Back in the late sixties, early
seventies when I began modelling Humbrol 30 and Airfix G5 dark earth (I think) looked right, regardless of whether they were correct
, they looked right, and surely that is half the battle.
As you so correctly summed up, and if I've misinterpreted this, please forgive me, if it looks right to you then that is what counts.
I have a lot of paints by different manufacturers nowadays, I mix and match to see what works best.
I do like your analysis,
Best Regards
@@philipriley99 FYI, Airfix M5 was matt Dark Earth
I currently work in a lab for paint manufacturing and we have updated a lot in 50 years for that exact reason. That difference is called metamerism and you can do some really cool effects with it using the same pigments they use on modern stealth aircraft called perylene dyes.
They dont want us leaving the labs these days because we talk too much to the public about trade secrets it seems.
When I worked for British Aerospace at both Woodford and Hatfield back in the 90's.I always asked the guys in paint store for the best way to mix RAF colours, especially as the Mosquito was flying from Hatfield,their answer was,it doesn't matter,a mosquito built here was painted in a different shade to a mosquito built in Canada,same as a Lancaster built at Woodford would have a different paint colour to one built at Chadderton or even in Canada.just use what looks right to you, example,a 146 Regional Jet for Cross Air would have a slightly different red when painted at Hatfield compared to the red at Woodford
I'd take those anecdotes with a grain of salt (adjust size to liking).
MAP used standards for a reason, including recipes and stock keeping DOTs for paints. Like in the demonstration, there will have been deviations but it certainly wasn't "just pick any old green off the shelf, job's done"
I live near Woodford I used to get on my bike and see what 146’s were there as a kid, some really random airlines with test regs on. I dare say I saw some of your handy work.
I'm colourblind, so I just have to trust what it says on the bottle.
I had great fun trying to weather a Sherman by watering down paints significantly to make an earthy wash. I ran multiple colours past my best mate and his wife. My favourite was being told that an earth brown paint looked purple when diluted. 😂
Talking what is "THE" correct color brings to mind a model railway thing in the 1980s when I was going to custom paint some N scale N&W, Norfolk & Western passenger cars for a friend; he had slides taken at Roanoake, Virginia, of N&W passenger cars in the railway yard in I think the 1950s and 60s. 🚂🚃🚃 I very much remember one slide taken from an elevated vantage point where there were 5 discernibly different Tuscan Red hues among the various cars packed in to the yard. 🚢 And then I remember going down to the Navy base a few times in 1970s and 80s to watch Dad's ship return from deployment. Sometimes the ship would catch the light just right and you could see both different hues and different sheens of 'standardized' Haze Grey in multiple patches along the hull side.
Thanks for a very informative video. I tend to largely use Tamiya (enamels, acrylics and sprays) and SMS. I am generally very happy with what I have chosen. SMS has good British interior green (in my view) and generally good allied camouflage colours, including RAAF. The Tamiya spray can TS and AS ranges seem very good (at least they look good), and their enamels are fantastic for hand painting troops.
I was originally thinking that Humbrol would match RAF, RN colors better. But based on your video i guess that is wrong.
As far as my favorite paint line....Model Master. Next is Humbrol, Tamiya & Mr Color. I have a large collection of Model Master paints. About 20 years ago a local hobby shop was going out business and i was able to buy his whole stock during his going out of business sale. This included the Military, Train and Car line of colors. I've sold many of duplicate or line of colors i dont use. But my stock is still huge.
My 2 bits. Thank for the comparison video. Interesting to say the least.
Merry Christmas to all.
Fascinating overview of some popular brand's efforts in colour mimicry!
I have to mix a lot of my paints to acheive the effect I desire. I mix them up from artists' acrylics (no oils or enamels!) As long as I am happy with the end result, it has to be ok 😊
I used to use Gunze paints, but 15 or so years ago, they discontinued (at least here in Atlantic Canada). I had to switch to Tamiya over availability, and honestly despise them. No, the current Gunze-based lacquers are not the same.
Recently I decided to finish a 1/72 Hawker Hurricane, and dug thru my old Gunze stock and found the primary colours. All the jars were still viable. Sprayed out, it looks awesome.
Set it next to my 1/48 Tamiya Lancaster... the quality over the Lanc's Tamiya paint is astounding.
Bring back my Gunze.
When i hand painted models, i used citadel paint & made my own mixes. They may not have been 100% acurate but they were close enough for me. Now that i have returned to hobby i decieded to use tamiya as i can get hold them quite easily & am learning how to airbrush.
Citadel are really nice paints to use, really like the metal colours.
I may be in a minority here, in that I use enamels and brush them on. For me, it is the contrast between colours that needs to be got right. My paints of choice, as a warship modeller, have been Colourcoats, first produced by White Ensign, then by Sovereign - a two-person husband-wife operation based on meticulous research that has overturned a lot of accepted wisdom on RN colours. They have recently stopped production, but there is hope that they have found someone who will take over the production of this excellent range. They also did aircraft and military colours, which also seemed very soundly researched. But as I said at the start, it is how the colours look together, given the scale factor, and whether they convey the effect one can see from photos, is what matters to me. As many have noted, on active service actual tones and hues varied greatly, and none more so on warships, which would get hasty paint jobs while in harbour, based on what was to hand - any paint being better than none!
I tend to stick to Ak and Vallejo with some Tamiya paints for certain applications, I have been deviating from "Standard" official paint recommendations for last 3 years, I find right out of bottle doesn't look right at smaller scale so I correct for scale and weathering. I found when in the Military no two vehicles with "the same paint job" ever looked identical anyways. There was always variation even on same vehicle paint on top of the AFV faded more than lower hull. So I go with the paint job I find satisfying.
For several reasons I have to use water based acrylics, so I've grown to like them. The best available are from the notable art house paint company Golden - they pioneered the use of acrylics for painting during the 1950s. Their thinnest version is called High Flow and they airbrush splendidly. Artists are picky and there is a lot of information concerning pigments and how well a coat covers. There are about 50 colors - so get yourself a model mixing book and fire away. Golden paints are all gloss but that is easily handled. Blick carries the whole range - Amazon may also. Because they're art house instead of modeling paints they cost less (unless they use ritzy pigments which can be very useful for mixing) and come in excellent plastic bottles. Keep them properly sealed and they'll last several years. Try one out - I'd suggest Neutral Gray, Titanium White or Carbon Black.
Golden have a range called SoFlat which are completely matte
@@MannsModelMoments Thanks for the tip. It looks to me that these paints are much thicker than HiFlow. Blick has a house brand of matte acrylics that are very matte and very thick. Naturally you could thin them down but that might defeat the purpose unless someone has an airbrush medium that is matte.
@Ebergerud they are indeed much thicker than hiflow - they're ideal for brush painting, and can be thinner with standard airbrush thinners like Ultimate Products
I build tanks from Girls und Panzer and believe me it is an adventure trying to "accurately" color match paint schemes from a Japanese anime.
That was an anime I really loved. The Hetzer is my favourite character, and the KV-2 falling over after each side shot-meme is priceless.
That's nothing, try SCREEN matching anything from Star Wars or Star Trek. Sure we know the colors the filming model was painted, but you look at any filming model matched ship, and it looks like garish hell because it was painted for insane light levels to hit the film correctly then Processed through multiple layers of compositing.
I miss the Aeromaster warbird colours, loved that range 🤗
As usual, a well researched and delivered topic Alex. Whilst colour match out of the bottle may be important, as you say, the qualities of the paint itself have a huge bearing - who is going to use a paint that consistently clogs or tip dries or doesn't adhere well. I'm only really interested in RAF subjects and my primary range is AK 3rd Gen but I also like Mission Models. My comparisons have included those two with Lifecolor, Hataka and Ammo.
Paint colors are somewhat relative. Are you depicting a factory fresh aircraft or one that was painted 6 months, 1 year or more ago. The effects of sun, dirt and wear will change the shade in many ways. When I worked on USAF aircraft, especially in the 60s-80s SEA paint scheme they would lighten and darken over time and no two aircraft ever were shaded the same. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
I just use the colour that looks best for me! End of discussion! Great video, and happy Christmas and all the best for 2025👍👏
Thanks Alex, what a confusing subject, but very interesting! With my colour perception issues I just go for the best match to my eyes, usually results it something acceptable, but always happy to learn more about the topic.
It's also worth considering that a colour changes depending on what's next to it, what's under it and how thin it is. A good example is vallejo model air RLM75. Whilst on it's own it looks completely off but put it in the context of RLM 74 and 76 and it's very accurate. A match for the colourcoats rlm75. One for the RLM rabbit hole is which colour chips you are using as a reference. There isn't really an excuse for the british colours due to precise and offical colour chips and info are published.
At the end of the day the key question to ask yourself is does it look right for you and is the paint working for you.
The effect of a colour looking different when with other colours is what is known as "enhanced contrast", hence why I mentioned that in the video.
The aurcraft you notice the biggest difference in colour are early WW2 USAAF in all over Olive Drab where the likes of a B-17 can be seen in umpteen different shades of it as its so big .... The Fighters though can also exhibit it
Nice work, it was surprising to me how varied a particular color was depending on whose bottle was used.
I have the Federal Standard fan deck which I use only as a guide when color matching.
The only time I try to exact match color is when it involves decals. Like with a modern aircraft build such as an F-4 Phantom in Hill grey where the printed tailcode letters and numbers color matched the opposing grey. The top color I mix has to match the decal ink the maker used, not Federal Standard. Plus I agree with scaledown effect of lightening the color depending on the scale of the model.
Something to consider regarding paint colors - On the real vehicles out in the weather, it fades or discolors quickly. Add dirt as the garnish.
And is it a cloudy day? Sunny Day? Two hours to sunset? Is it under a tree? Parked next to a white marble building. It never stops.
Very well thought out, and presented. Coming from the railway modelling background the same issues rage ... try 10 different modelers and they'll give you 10 different Brunswick greens...
Paint what looks right to your eye, looking at references! Of course if you're colour blind... then maybe stick to the recommendations.
About 8% - 1 in 12 - men have congenital red-green color blindness in different gradations.
I like the Fauci-meme. And i prefer enamels and oil-paint. For accurate coloring: if you paint the windowsill with a given color and repaint it partly with the same paint from the same pot, the touched up part is different due time, detoriation, weather etc so i go with my own preferences. It is right when it looks right IMO.
The good thing about being an artist is being able to combine your own colors. At 70 years old, I still use quality Mercedes-Benz car polishes!
Interesting analysis and very useful!. I have a lot of experience of colour matching within the garment embellishment business. Whilst DE is reasonable 'standard', No1 eye-ball is what we see with so when matching, this is really the decider along (of course) with the correct light source. I have had many arguments with adidas/nike etc. over what is a 'correct match', only to find they are looking under fluorescent lights in an office. Matching should be done in a calibrated light box with a D65 (6500K) light source, checking of course the person checking has correct colour vision! but still won't be the same in you home lighting. Therefore, one persons match is not necessarily another persons. That's before we get into actual mixing and matching in period, UV fading, field applications etc. I think the message is don't sweat the small stuff and just enjoy your modelling. Keep these coming, all knowledge is good.
Must be an interesting job! Do you need a 56 year old apprentice? :)
I have to commend you highly for this presentation. Whilst I do try to get colours that supposedly match things like wartime paint chips, this in itself can cause all sorts of issues. When so-called experts cannot agree, what chance does the average modeller stand? Just look at the sometimes willing discussions on a colour like US Olive Drab! And, as you point out, we have the physics of spectrometry, human perception of colour, wear and tear on the actual aircraft/tank/whatever, and scale considerations (what looks right on a 1/32 scale Bf109E might look totally wrong on the same aircraft in 1/144 scale) to take into account. Even airbrushing versus using a hairy stick can impact upon the colours we perceive. Then after taking everything into consideration, we think we have nailed it, only to discover the real aircraft was painted in the field with non-standard colours, so we are probably completely wrong anyway!
Nowadays, I tend to use a combination of water-based acrylics (e.g. Vallejo, AK, Lifecolor) and solvent-based acrylic lacquers (e.g. SMS, Hataka, Gunze) and, provided you take care of what goes over what, this works for the majority of colours I need. Occasionally, I will make a custom blend with compatible paints, but this is probably the exception than the rule. And, in the end like all parts of modelling, if you are satisfied with the result, that's what counts. After all, there will always be someone who thinks you are wrong and probably without justification, too. Though what on earth is Airfix thinking recommending Humbrol 30 for RAF Dark Green? 😖
I mix my paints all the time, there's some white or black in the mix pretty much whenever I'm painting
Great Vid!!!! Me??? Wellll...... My approach is to use basic base coats on aircraft, for example I will use AK dark earth on one Spit and MRP dark earth on another. This gives a slightly different shade between aircraft, I then like to go to a custom mix sprayed on different panels to mix it up further. I do not like any two models to look the same.
There are good reasons for there to be variations in colour. First of all wartime paint production is not consistent, particularly German, even in the USA unaffected by bombing we can see huge variations in colour .
Variations also occur due to how aircraft weather, they can really fade or darken the colour, Olive Drab is infamous for how it can vary in appearance as an example.
The RAF also applied temporary mixes to add to the confusion.
Consider also scale effect. Some paint companies (AK from memory included) allow for scale effect, lightening the colour for realism.
When paint companies develop their colours they might take great care to copy a colour chip, ideally taken from an area protected from weathering. These chips can very in appearance for all the reasons mentioned. Plus, there are some companies, well Humbrol certainly, who have not been particularly bothered about accurate colours. The issues with their green 30 are well known..
Often what brand looks ‘right or wrong’ is affected by our individual experience and preferences rather than reality. I remember when I first for back into modelling 14 years ago I was still thinking that Humbrol 29/30 was the right look for RAF camo!!
At the end of the day I would recommend not getting too worked up about it. Pick a brand of paint that suits you, for availability perhaps, or one you get along with and stick to that. Ideally a brand that has an extensive range of colours that are identified by the colour standard number (RLM, BS, FS etc).
Me, my preference is for MRP’s lacquer range. It has all the colours I need, are airbrush ready, and spray like a dream.
Ah, the dreaded Humbrol 30 :D
Yes, it's there for historical reasons only (stupid if you ask me) since back in the late 1960s they actually did have a somewhat accurate MAP DG that indeed was H.30.
So they stick with that because every instruction manual has used that H.30.
The closest in the Humbrol range was H.116 (matt) or the ones you mentioned.
[edit] It was in the short-lived Humbrol Authentics range. Somewhere around the mid-1970s it became that horrible blue-green.
In the early 1980's I had collected a good amount of Humbrol tins as a teen in California because they were about the only source for a military color (before MM) and affordable. After airbrushing my 1/48 F-16A as Israeli AF, I thought the colors were very accurate looking - still do. Plus the pigment allowed me to thin it for tight edges.
This pretty much sums up what I have experienced with paint colors. Mixing your own has obvious benefits to correctness, assuming you know what colors to mix in to get shades correct. In my experience, this particular knowledge is somewhat lacking in modeling circles. By this I don't mean most modelers don't know what they are doing. What I mean is that for those of us who have difficulties with knowing the correct colors to use for mixes, finding good information (that is relevant to modeling), is somewhat hard to come by. I personally, have difficulties at times telling if something has a particular color tint to it that is completely unrelated to what the color is supposed to represent. For example a dark brown with a purple tint (maybe a bad example). This invariably leads to mistakes when I am trying to match color references I have.
Of course another way to handle this, besides what looks right to the modeler, is for the modeler to never show their work to anyone else. Then their RLM 02 could be a nice shade of Pink and no one would be the wiser!! :)
Mixing is tricky because pigments don't mix the way light does. So for EVERY paint line someone would have to figure out all the ways each color mixes with each other color. The general consensus is it's not worth making a Recipe guide especially because even batch to batch they may be changing pigment depending on supply, cost etc, As long as the finished paint in the bottle matches their standard that's all they can do.
Even the light you are looking under can have a huge effect on perceived colours. I took some photos at one of the Duxford show. In the morning it was a little cloudy and at Midday was bright sunshine and then it clouded over later.
The photos I took of the same plane at different times came out as completely different shades such that I had to check the codes to make sure it was the same Spitfire. Taken on two rolls of Kodak 64 from the same batch and printed at the same time and place. (It was 1981!)
I’m happy using Tamiya and Vallejo Model Air. I often mix a little white for a highlights, which I think is used more by armour modellers.
Very helpful, many thanks.
Glad it was helpful!
Excellent presentation!
Thank you kindly!
Personally i vote for MR. Paint
I was making a hungarian Mig-21 and i was searching for the correct colour and i tried to avoid MR Paint because it is expensive but i bought 3 of the colours from them. I bought all the "recommended " paints made some 50 paint chips and i went to a museum to compare the colours. My jaw droped from the colour accuracy of the MR Paint. You could only see the paint chip because it casted a little shadow. I found their other colours to my likeing and from that moment on i become a fan of their paint.
Recently i am trying out the new MIG ATOM paints since like how they airbrush.
My only problem with MRP is whites need 10 layers of slowly building up while a Mr Color white will cover it in one pass. I use MRP as my backup paint since I have a fair amount of it and invested quite heavily into it.
Das ist richtig gut geworden! Vielen Dank 👍👍👍
I mix Tamiya acrylics to the correct shades or use Gunze's lacquers due to their large selection of colours. I use Replikator's mixes - which to my eye are accurate. I think when working with multiple colours, seeing how your paints look together is essential in presenting a realistic depiction of the subject you are painting. For example, a too brown Dark Earth plus a too light Dark Green would not realistically depict those two colours on say, an early war Spitfire.
It’s all subjective, people overly obsessive about the “correct” color take the fun out of modeling. Use which ever color looks right to you.
Hence my reason for not joining IPMS
I totally agree with you. Nothing more difficult to explain what kind of color a color is. So many people, so many opion.
It’s not subjective. It needs to be a quality controlled system within an acceptable range, not a lottery.
My attitude is that there is a balance to the thing with room for venturing a bit in to both ways of doing the thing. There is where I am now at this age, building models for my own entertainment & there is also building models as a sort of historical record. For my own entertainment the classic 'close enough is good enough' works for me & for the historical documentation approach to model making, wanting to get as close to the official standard historic hue as possible makes sense.
@@PaulOldfield-ne6rg I'm going to say there is indeed some subjectiveness, note, some, in it when it comes to the painting of the model and matching paint colors. And I say that based on 2 factors. First one is the lighting the individual modeler is working in when trying to match a paint hue to a reference chip. Lighting is well known to affect perceived color. And then there is biology and perception of color. In my case, one eye sees things ever so slightly redder and the other sees things ever so slightly greener. 🎨 And much to my amusement, it is red on the left, green on the right, like navigation lights. 😆I am pretty sure that my personal eyeballs are not the only ones at variance from the universal standard.
Now, true, paints can be factory mixed to a standardized hue.
For what amount of specific precision at what price?
And what happens if/when the paint manufacturer buys prepared pigments from subcontractors and there is variance at that level of production?
Again it becomes a question of what level of specific precision for what price?
Are model building consumers willing to pay the prices for superior precision?
AK Real Colours my favourite,MR. Hobby next (all sorts) and Life Colours. I like my vehicles heavy weathered so how long im close to original colour im not fussy about. But it is me.
Humbrol appear better to my eye but I am very colour blind. I go off my comparisons with pictures and memories. Humbrol have issues with painting and spraying but to my eye...
I've known for a long time that Humbrol 30 is WAY off - I always thought it too blue. For preference, I've used Humbrol 163 (Dark Green Satin) since that looks closer to my eye.
As an aside, I understand the Humbrol 'Authentics' were discontinued when it was discovered that QC tests were comparing a sample with one from the previous batch, NOT a master colour chip, hence the shades drifted over time.
Even guys painting planes for the living says paint color is relative. Best way for me is to mix color using good photo reference since most people as viewers also compare to photos/movies etc.
With a few egregious exceptions-that Humbrol 'match' for RAF dark green is outstanding-the bigger issues in matching colour are: scale; field ageing; and prototypical batch disparities. From that perspective I go along with the 80:20 rule: close enough is good enough.
When I've been painting camo I try and find the colours which give the best contrast between them.
I found the Airfix chosen Humbrol colours are not distinct enough. I found the Vallejo BS colour versions were much more distinct when used together.
One thing that I find does affect the colour is the final varnish you use.
I tend do prefer a mix of Vallejo Matt with a few drops of Gloss. I don't want a perfect matt finish as at scale it just looks wrong. When scaled down a matt surface would appear more like a satin as the surface imperfections get smaller.
I will always use the TLAR method. As my mate puts it, instructions are just manufacturers opinions.
I will use it as a guide but will often go with the most pleasing shade that’s close enough.
So, the “That Looks About Right” method is my preference.
And you'll probably be much happier than someone who endlessly argues about "the correct shade" too!
I tend to get sets and paint up using the recommended colours from that, partially because my colour vision isn't that reliable. One of the reasons I don't use Gunze is simply that their RLM 74 and 75 look too close to me. Chasing colour matches doesn't make sense to me because I don't trust period colour photos, museum birds are often repainted and I can't always tell the difference!
I definitely don't trust Mig Ammo though - even I can tell that their colours don't look right!
FWIW - I've got the AK real colours books so I'm taking their word for it that they've done the research
What were your mixes (brands, colors and amounts)?
@@JessWLStuart covered in my ICM mixing videos
I bought Ammo Mig Atom Carmine, because it's the only carmine I could find.
But when mixing it the paint turns a lot more blue than I expect from carmine.
Very strange.
Lovely color otherwise. I'm going too try some other shades. They have many interesting ones.
Thank you for this interesting and enlightening video. As someone who sometimes measures modelling colours to find matching paints myself, I have some questions and additions.
My biggest problem in this is actually to find good reference values for the original colours. You can find L*a*b* Values for most colours on the internet but often it is not clear, how these were obtained. With some luck there is information on standard illuminant and observer, but usually not on measuring geometry. Leave alone the fact, that some of the colours are out of production (like RLM colours) and/or have been removed from the standards (like RAL7028 Dunkelgelb) decades ago. So, what have they actually been measuring? And how might the paints have changed in the seventy or so years since their application?
One aspect of colour which is difficult to represent for paint manufacturers is the appearance of the colour for different illumination types (metamerism). For the modeler this results in an interesting situation: The model is usually viewed under (whatever type of) artificial illumination but should have the appearance of natural daylight illumination… And then someone comes and takes a photo using a flash. At one point or other the colours will always be distorted.
When using Delta E values, one should be aware, that the L*a*b* colour space is not completely perceptually uniform. So, for an observer a DeltaE of 2 in yellow is quite something different than a DeltaE of 2 in green or blue. For comparison of different renditions of the same colour this irrelevant but if you look across the whole colour range, using a measure like CIEDE2000 (which is a modified DeltaE) might yield better results.
But coming back from colour theory to more practical questions for the modeler. One thing which is important for me is, that the different colours on the model should not only be correct but also should harmonize with each other. Sometimes the colours are good matches for every single colour of the camo scheme but grouped together it still looks odd. So, my approach to this is usually to make a test chart applying the colours in larger (5x5 cm) patches directly bordering each other to get an impression how they work together. Sometimes applying an additional layer of gloss/matt coat helps since some paints really change their appearance with different topcoats.
Agreed on all points. The references I've used are from spectrophotometric measurement of researched paint chips wherever possible...there's always a question mark, but again, it's the base point that one starts from....again, the main point is to not slavishly believe what is presented, but to use ones own eyes and brain...it's our hobby after all, we should enjoy it and be happy with what we want to do with it!
@@MannsModelMoments Thank you. For me it's more scientific interest than anything else. As a physisist, I can't resist to make a measurement if I have a sample and the instruments at hand ;) For me, modeling has a scientific and an artistic component. And one of the secrets to scale modeling is, that not everything which is correct (based on measurements) looks realistic in a model. Sometimes you have to exaggerate or tone down certain aspects of the model to make it look right...
Exactly so - yet many complain about "the depth of panel lines" on an aircraft, for example, not understanding they're not representing the ACTUAl thickness of panel lines, but tare there to help catch washes to achieve an illusion of depth that would be otherwise difficult for the majority to achieve....
I've never cared about how accurate a paint is, to a point. If it's drastically different than yeah I care but with so many variables in how a colour would have looked IRL I really don't care.
"a closer match than I'm showing," I see what you did there.
I don't like to have everything super-serious! :-)
You could also take into account that the shade for one standard can change from one lot number to the next from any given manufacturer..it depends on where they source their pigments from, who is in charge of the mix that day, or how their mixing machine is calibrated if it automatically meters in the pigments to the mix...way too many variables for accurate 100% reproduction every single time....shade on my model could also differ from the shade on your model even if both of our paint bottles are brand new and from the same lot # because you may have shaken your bottle better than me, thereby dispersing the pigments differently throughout the carriers...I get it as close to accurate as I can by my eye, and leave it at that. Favorite paint line is whatever is easiest to work with at the time...
I am CP3 (red/green colourblind) and hate trying to match colours, for me it is the worst part of the modelling experience for me and have to rely on a paint manufacturer having the colour needed or on family members to try and help me create the colour needed.
The smaller the scale is the brighter and not the strong the color has to be. Otherwise it didnot look real and realistic. It looks abit to colorful. But that are onle my two pence to this topic. But hey great video!
Metrologists have a saying "You can't measure absolutes, you can only measure comparatively." That means having verified original chips, and verified chips of EVERY available paint line. Then matching the Originals to the best match agnostic of brand under the exact light and background the model will be displayed.
EVEN THEN, Batch Variation and in bottle age are also going to change things. As well as ground tone you're painting onto, applied paint layer density, and even, particulate matter density in the air.
And that's just matching the CALL OUT, try matching an old paint job at a museum under lights selected for luminosity not CRI value, and heaven forbid the horrors of museum upkeep painting that comes out of a Latex paint pail crudely color matched and brushed on thick enough to fill screw heads.
You could time travel and buy a pint of the actual paint from the actual factory and odds are two pints won't be identical in the same BATCH.
Absolutely!
I use Tru-Color paint. Over 500 colors. Easy to use, dries fast, mask friendly. No pigment clumping over time. Best stealth paints. Also does car and rail paint.
Interesting - never heard of them before....they seem to be a US brand so that's maybe not surprising! From looking at their website the colours seem a bit saturated to my eye, but it would be interesting to test them...maybe you should write to them and suggest they send me some samples for review!
Wow this is way down the rabbit hole. Thanks for sharing
You bet!
@ I’m a bit OCD when it comes to details of what I’m trying to replicate. Paint colors are a part of that OCD. But I’m not a rivet counter either. I model for myself I’ll never take any of my stuff to a show. So with my ADHD I’ve never completely understood the color laws like values and hues.
@@P-47D_theJug same here, I could never find a path to anything in a color wheel or bottles of paint or hue’s numbers until I realized or was told to mentally visualize a stack of 5 more above it and 5 more below, each one adding white going up the layers (reducing saturation-making tones)and adding black as you go down (increasing saturation-making shades) so the wheel in your hand are the hues and the imaginary stack are the gray scale with the bottom one black (1 on gray scale) up through the stack decreasing black until you get to the hue on the wheel and then start adding white until you get to 10 making “tones” losing saturation. All the info is on the wheel but until I saw it that way I couldn’t achieve anything with it. TLDR I know but thought it might help.
First time watching one of your videos, so excuse me if my question has been answered elsewhere. Where are you getting the 'standard colour' from?
Yeah I covered this in the Luftwaffe mixing video
When you see a modern professional colourists paint booth and you hear about some aspects of colour science you then wonder about the validity of any hue of paint. Now dial in the quality of pigments available during a world war, the accuracy of scales, the need for rapid production, the colour of undercoats, the effects of UV light, dirt and surface contaminates and we have not yet started the discussion of scale effect. Now tell me again which colour is correct. I think a representative colour is probably good enough.
Quite reasonable, the issue is with people who lost the ability to use reasoning.
Very informative, thanx.... 8-)
I'm trying to mix colors on my own. My biggest problem is finding the actual reference colors in the first place.
Soft copies or printouts of color standards available online are not real options for obvious reasons.
Any suggestion how I can get hold of color standard palettes for reference?
Or any suggestion on how to mix relatively accurate colors without comparing them to a physical sample?
I'll be publishing the standards I've used if that helps....
@@MannsModelMoments that would help for sure, less of a hassle to research them. Still, the problem remains to find the actual comparison for mixing. The options I see are:
1. buy physical color palettes (should be the best way, but expensive, and not necessarily available for historical colors)
2. print the online color palettes (highly inaccurate)
3. refer to the online color palettes on screen (also highly inaccurate)
4. Use color finder phone apps with in built color palettes for reference (not sure which one is accurate, if any, and even using 6500k light, the results change depending on so many things, maybe I just haven't yet figured out how to do it)
Is there any other way?
Does anyone know of a good color finder app?
For now, I go old school, i.e. mix, judge if sensible based on my understanding of how the original color looked like, move on. 🤣
It’s a hobby. Use whatever paint works for you, give it your best shot. If you want to go in depth on paints do so and if you’re happy to use a particular brand do so, mix your own, fine, use a mix of paints from different brands, fine. Just enjoy it at what ever level you’re at. However I was surprised to the variance when compared to the standard. More disappointing when you pay a premium for these niche paints marketed as super accurate matches. For me I find Mr Hobby excellent paints for ease of use and results. Thanks for the video interesting and surprising or is that disappointing?
Where are you getting your color samples from.
@@CFster covered in my Luftwaffe mixing video
@ so in addition to the color chips you’re comparing to, you’ve completed paint draw downs and taken spectrophotometer readings of all the paint brands you’ve compared with those chips?
@@CFster That's correct. In fact, you need to prepare multiple samples for each paint.
@ you took those readings, or did someone else? Was it Casey? Under what conditions? And how did you represent them digitally for the video?
@@CFster Casey did all the heavy lifting on this and has kindly been working with me and providing all the data. You can get slightly less accurate results using a D65/10 colorimeter for the Lab values too if you want to do this sort of thing yourself.
In terms of representing the results digitally, it's a conversion from the spectral data to Lab and then into Hex RGB for the screen,
Surely it is the custom, in this fine hobby of ours, that when two modellers meet they will start arguing about colour. Congratulations to all the manufacturers for giving us all these various shades so that we can keep the tradition going. Club nights would be so much duller without it!
Haha true!
The chart showing the overall deviation by manufacturer does not dissapoint me in who's last. I recently bought the Atom paintvset for RAF to try as i heard good things on how they spray and they do go down well.
But the colour match is awful, and that's from someone who is colourblind. The Nakajima paint is nowhere near as our host states.
Funny I've always had issues with getting Mig paints to spray for me. They either tip dry/clog or i seem to add 1 more drop of thinner and it seems to destroy the paint.
Don't think I will buy any more of Migs products.
Model trains are maybe even more contentious. I’ve seen a few heated conversations at shows about the myriad greens and probably the most problematic colour combination of blood and custard coaches.
I do enjoy these science lessons as let's face it we all paint our kits, but " What Colour"? It is a common question that constantly comes up. I dare say, if you do have a correct colour for a camo scheme, and the other colour is out then that to may effect the correct one too. I build a lot of British vehicles and getting the right Deep Bronze green is seemingly impossible. I do have a small pot of actual Deep bronze green. Just about all the model paints look close to the original. Until the whole kit is painted.
Tamiya range, the super LP , acrylic, and sprays cans, the big Mr hobby range and their surfacers are amazing , and Humbrol's old school enamel tins are still the best colour matches especially for the old vintage airfix kits.
My experience with Valejo: Yes, they have a broad range. But the named shades are often nothing what they claim to be.
I found none of the hobby manufacturers make very accurate ones so I make my own paints, like none of them use perylene dyes which is what all modern planes use and very few use cadmium(as far as we know) which while cant be airbrushed, it is the most accurate for these colors since thats what they used and still use.
Hi. Thanks for the vid.
One extra thing touched on below. The function and structure of the eye and do you actually see the same colour as the person next to you.
Variations in the mix and distribution of rods and cones about the focal point and the way they are wired up to the brain. Nerves aren't "standard" connections nor electric wires.
And then there is all the variations during development including colour blindness and then cumulative eye damage and aging .
If you and I look at a standard colour chip we aren't seeing exactly the same colour.
Light is converted to an ionic impulse to the brain and then there is interpretation within that particularly structured brain.
Chuck in everything else discussed here and its a complete shambles.
Which just re-enforces what you say, if you think it looks good just be happy with the result.
Have fun. If the hobby causes stress instead of reducing stress...well that's not a good thing for ones health in the long run.
Frankly, we are pretty spoilt for hobby paint now days.
Mr Hobby (GS) airbrushes delightfully. Booth/Mask.
SMS and Alclad are both excellent. Booth/Mask.
Lifecolor brushes really nicely but airbrushing is a building up subtle layers thing but nice matt colours.
Model Air is great but I do thin it a wee bit more 80/20 Thinner/Flow improver. (And its a bit less hassle to use - not stinky).
Model Colour/Panzer Aces again nice with a touch of water when brushing/glazing?
Tamiya are great for spraying and brushes well with their retarder (but I gave them all to a mate who's just starting out and on a budget).
Have a Hakata Air set for the Armee de l'Air but haven't tried them yet.
Cheers. Have a nice Christmas. Matt🦘
@@MatterusOD There's a great Kursgesagt video on whether the green that I see is the same as the green you see....the short answer is, it's not!
Their are 2 big issues affecting the exact match of colours. The pigments for the paints for the real thing can have shortages and so changes the values. Evan presumably safe colours like US olive drab are not safe as the government changed the mix values for the army about 3 times during WW2 and there were inter services variations as well. The second big issue is that hobby paints also change over time and sometimes dramatically. I've been collecting Vallejo paints since 2001 and buying the same colour every 3 years or so. I now have highlight, mid tone, and shadow across most of the range. Finally, colour photos can be misleading. If the image is from the film, there are 2 basic types. There is fast film for low light, but generally puts a slight red shift to the colours. The other type is daylight film that puts a slight blue shift to the colours. How much depends on the exposure and skill of the photographer. Also different brands of film are slightly different. Digital cameras give you many more issues on colour shifts. Also, time of day impacts as well. Unfortunately, matching an exact colour is a very slippery slope. Fortunately, colour shifts can slightly change mood that can be used to our advantage. As the modeller, I can only say go with what feels right to you after viewing many sources.
None are. Modellers get too hung up on this. Even if someone has an original "80" year old paint chip book from around WWII, time, conditions stored, touched and even the paper it was adhered to as "it" ages ( and the glue it's self ) can have effects on the paint chip. Real period colored photos, are also subject to, time of day, weather conditions, direction photo was taken, type of camera, type of film, etc, and like the paint chip, how was the original photo or negative effected by time and storage. Paint manufactured, shades can vary from manufacturer, just like uniforms can vary from different manufacturers. Or how was the paint applied at the factory, again temperature, humidity, how close or how far was it sprayed on, will effect the paint. Or how was it mix, what ratio or what paint thinner was used. It was not common for the Germans in WWII to mix their paint in the field with whatever source they had on hand, such gasoline etc. Then, even as modellers, if you had the MOST correct paint in the world, and "black base", it will darken that color. So no, I don't worry about things like that. Besides, why worry about the color, when the majority of modellers are going to weather and age it anyway, seems an oxymoron? Btw, my paint of choice is MRP, BEST paint I have ever used, PERIOD! Not based on how "close" the color is to the so called original, but on the absolutely ease of use, and the fact, it has made the airbrushing process fun again, rather than a lesson of frustration.
Wow! What a mess. They all need to ‘just’ modify their mixes so that they are accurate. This is science not art.
colour matched to what? an 80 year old paint job or a colour photo....a close enough colour is close enough, i don't get too wound up about "accurate" colours
just made me insecure about my choice of paints haha (i mainly use model air)
This is why hate tamiya painting instructions, they always tell you to use so many differnt colors (only suggesting theirs) and mix them for no reasons. This is why instructions from indipendent model kit makers are way better for painting instructions, the search for the right color based on actall apearence and not name.
I jut have to scratch my head and laugh about this argument because once the subject is exposed to the elements for a while it has already changed , I used to paint full size vehicles and once they have been in the elements the shades have already changed🤣😂😂
@@helmutvorlaufer6647 laugh about what argument? Did you watch the video??
Everytime you hear that it's impossible to nail down an exact paint shade: Think about the guys in a car repair shop who fix scratches or other kind of car body damages: They can do it. If not, then everyone would notice immediately. So yes, of course there are correct paint shades. It just depends on which source material you are using. Lighting effects, paint fading, scale effects etc. are the things you can talk about AFTER you got the correct shade (hue+value+chroma). But there are, in principle, correct paint shades.
Talking about a car repair shop is completely different than talking about a scale model. In that example you DO have the subject, the paint and the same conditions as I mentioned would be required - you don't have that in modelling.
@@MannsModelMoments This doesn't invalidate any of my points. As I said, there IS (in principle) a correct shade for that one particular real-world aircraft (or whatever) you like to replicate. The question is: Can you identify it? To be honest, for most older (pre-1950s/60s) aircraft or vehicles this will be very hard or even impossible to achieve, but you can at least try to approach it (by checking original relics under different lighting conditions for example). But saying that "there is no such thing as a correct shade" is just plain wrong.
@@Tzeka I had to invest in a mid 1970's bottle of Testors Sapphire blue metallic to best match the color my older brother and I used when he was helping me build my Revell 57 Chevy (which he soon after blew up with an M-80 and didn't confess until months later) back then. He recently sent me two kits with an apology, so I am now building both to match the original best I can.
@@TzekaWell, you're obviously so much more in the know than all the rest of the world, tell us, oh great guru, how shoudl we proceed??
You're not, of course, and you ARE wrong. As many others have commented, including people who have worked on present-day, real-world vehicles, military equipment isn't produced in the same way as cars. There's no grand production line where shells are sprayed by robots with a shade prepped in bulk. Vehicles from the same batch or unit are often finished differently, or the same with different batches of paint made in slightly different ways or from different sources - so (as I said were you listening) - you would need the subjects and paint used at the time to have the "correct" shade for that INDIVIDUAL subject.
You're obviously one of those people that are involved in those pointless circular debates which I'm simply not interested in.
You have also missed the point completely - we strive for accuracy, but ultimately this is a hobby about representation and creativity, and as long as you're happy with what you do, it doesn't matter what small-minded people with monopurposed beliefs think.
The only historically accurate colours are made by Foundry miniatures . They are all triads
I don't think that's true
scale, scale and scale
on another note: there is no 'perfect' rendition of any color, due to the simple fact
that the difference in scale changes how the human eye sees color.
@@daveyjones5702 yes, I mentioned this in the video
before watching, i'm gonna guess the most accurate colors
are found in old fashioned tin pots of enamel paints like revell and humberol.
i also predict you will end up with ICM scoring unnaturally high.
@@daveyjones5702 nope