Getting started with airbrushing

One of the most common subjects of discussion and frustration in Facebook groups — after D-Day stripes — is airbrushing. Newcomers want to know which airbrush to buy, and once they have one in hand, they struggle with its use.

If you struggle, don’t feel bad. Airbrushing is one of the most challenging tasks in our hobby to master, in part because there are so many variables:

• Your airbrush
• The cleanliness of your airbrush
• The paint you use
• The thinner
• The paint to thinner ratio
• The air pressure you spray at
• Your technique
• The weather

If you’re new to airbrushing here are a few suggestions based on my experience over the years.

Purchase any double-action airbrush

There are many airbrushes on the market in every price range. And modelers are quick to offer suggestions for all of them. If you’re new, the best advice I can offer is to start with a double-action airbrush in the $30-$50 price range. I want to suggest the Iwata HP-CH that I use, but the $150 price tag is a bit much for a beginner. You can always upgrade as you build experience.

Select just two or three paints

When you’ve purchased an airbrush, your first decision will be which paint to use. It’s easy to be overwhelmed with the choices. You’ll find modelers who are strong advocates for each paint on the market, as well as some who will tell you avoid this paint or that paint at all costs. 

My advice is to but one color from two or three manufacturers so you can use them yourself and choose the brand you like the best. I’d probably recommend:

• Tamiya
• MRP
• Mr Hobby
• AMMO by Mig

In addition, purchase each manufacturer’s own thinner for now. There are alternatives, but if you’re beginning, best to keep it simple.

Experiment

Before you even think about using your new airbrush on a model you care about, spend a few weeks learning how to spray each of the paints you purchased. Your goal is to simply explore the characteristics of each paint given these two variables -- air pressure and paint-to-thinner ratio.

You’ve probably seen YouTube videos where modelers are pouring paint and thinner directly into the airbrush and mixing by eye. If you’re new, you’re better off building your experience by counting drops of paint and thinner and writing them down for future reference. When you find a combination that works for you, you’ll want to be able to use it over and over. You’re not mixing a lot of paint at this stage, just enough to see how well you can spray the paint. 10-20 drops of paint and thinner will be sufficient for you to apply overall coats of paint and fine lines.

Practice, practice, practice

When you’ve found a paint manufacturer and thinning ratio you like, the next step is to practice on old models. Your goal is to reach a point where you can apply paint to your model with consistent results. When you’re ready to commit paint to a model that’s important to you, the last thing you want is an unpleasant surprise, so taking time to continue to master your airbrush and paint is important.

I hope you find these ideas helpful. Airbrushing is hard, but if you’re diligent and persistent, there’s no reason why you can’t use your airbrush with good results.

P.S. On final thought.... For all that is holy in this world, please, please keep your airbrush clean! A little extra effort after each airbrushing session goes a long way to ensuring your most valuable tool can give you the results you seek.

The dilemma of D-Day stripes

This month we commemorate the anniversary of D-Day, so I thought it would be suitable to briefly write about one of the more popular topics of interest to modelers of World War Two era aircraft, D-Day stripes. Conversations about these markings on the forums are often contentious, but they shouldn't be. We can all pretty much agree on two points.

Some D-Day stripes were painted with great care.

And some D-Day stripes were painted seemingly with a mop from the mess hall.

And if you look hard enough, you'll find examples of D-Day stripes between these two extremes of neat and careless. That's good new for us modelers, because we can’t get D-Day stripes wrong, right? Well, sort of.

Here’s the rub. If you choose to paint perfectly applied D-Day stripes, your model may look like…a toy. Accurate, perhaps, but still toylike. If you choose to represent carelessly applied D-Day stripes and you paint them as poorly as they appear on that Boston above, people will think you’re a crappy modeler. Yes, a knowledgable modeler will realize what you’ve attempted to do, but your finishing skills will still appear to be subpar.

I did a quick image search in Google to look for models of P-47s, B-17s, etc. that feature D-Day stripes, and I discovered that the majority of modelers play it safe, applying fairly neat stripes. The results are generally effective. To be sure, I found some really nice models in the process and saved a more than a few for inspiration on future projects. But in general, it would seem we're reluctant to show sloppy D-Day stripes.

What makes a D-Day stripe “sloppy?” Well, it was poorly masked (or not masked at all), the paint was applied haphazardly, resulting in inconsistent coverage over the area, and the paint might have been applied with one very thick coat.

Knowing that, how do we show sloppy D-Day stripes on a model? I think the answer is, we don't. The key is striking a balance between what I refer to as accurate sloppy and representational sloppy. On an actual aircraft it would look something like this Spitfire, a photo that I'm sure you've all seen before. This is the general effect you should probably strive to represent on a model. Although the white paint seems to quite thick, these two artists have made a good attempt to keep the lines straight and the width of the lines consistent.

To mask representational sloppy stripes, you can toss aside the idea that you can paint them without masking. Maybe your grandfather did so on his P-51 in 1944, but in scale (even 1/32 scale) masking goes a long way to your achieving a good foundation for the stripes, even sloppy ones. The tape you cut for the masking doesn't need to be cut perfectly sharp and straight. You can score your tape partially through and then carefully pull the tape to create a mask with a slightly ragged edge. The degree of raggedness depends on the scale — the larger the scale, the more ragged it can be.

And then there’s coverage. When you apply each of the white and black stripes, you don’t have to apply a complete coat of paint. A thin to medium application of paint provides sufficient basis for a subsequent application of very thin paint applied with a brush, which is an attempt to represent the application of paint by brush on the actual aircraft. If you apply a thin coat of paint, leaving just the impression of brushstrokes, the in-scale effect should be ideal.

Here's my Hasegawa 1/72 B-26. Look closely and you'll see that the edges of the stripes aren't perfect; I left some imperfections to suggest that they weren't too carefully applied. I also did some chipping, assuming that the paint probably wasn't as durable as that which was applied in the factory. These stripes don't capture the effect quite like I had in mind, so you can be sure the next time around I'll vary my technique a bit and see what comes of it. (And you can bet that if I do another B-26 I'll spend more time fitting the landing lights properly.)

Finally, despite my joking about there being too many discussions about D-Day stripes, this recent WIP of a Typhoon on Britmodeller provides good advice for sizing your stripes.

Solving the problem that is yellow

I often see conversations on ARC and other forums about painting yellow. It seems to be one of the more challenging colors to work with. I've never had to paint a large area of yellow myself, but with a few models in the stash that will eventually call for yellow (T-6/SNJ, T-28, Blenheim), I've been anxious to see if it’s as hard a color to apply as people seem to imply. Of course I'd use my paint of choice, Tamiya.

Before accepting the challenge, it might be helpful to briefly review basic color theory.

Three attributes define all colors:

• Hue – the simple name for a color, such as yellow, red, blue.
• Lightness – a color’s value in terms of whether it can be described between two poles of light and dark (or black and white).
• Saturation – a color’s colorfulness, that is, whether it’s intense or dull or somewhere in between.

Let’s talk about hue. I’ll share a simple thought: Yellow, even a specific pigment such as FS 33538, is basically…yellow! As I suggested in this post a year ago, don’t obsess over finding or using a “correct” yellow for your model. Be content with a color that any reasonable person would identify as yellow.

That leaves us with lightness and saturation. There are many factors that affect the specific yellow that you see on a 1:1 scale airframe. There’s the sun's illumination and its light being filtered through clouds, real-world weathering, variations in the manufacture of the color used on the actual aircraft, the correct mixing and application of the paint in the factory or field, etc. Likewise, there are many factors that affect the specific yellow that you see on a scale model. The light in the room, scale effect, the paint you used, your ability (and a viewer’s ability) to correctly see color, and the memory that you (and a viewer) have of what they think the correct color should be.

Those factors affect the lightness and saturation of the colors that we see. Accepting these variables and knowing that you cannot control all of them makes it easier to be comfortable applying a color to your model that looks like yellow.

The challenge with painting yellow is the opacity of most paints. They generally don’t cover well, so you have to use a thick application or many thin applications. The former is problematic because thick paints don’t flow efficiently through an airbrush, and the latter is problematic because many layers of paint tends to obscure detail.

With all this color theory in mind, I set out on an experiment by selecting a suitable model, Sword’s 1/72 Northrop N-9MA Flying Wing. Pretty crude kit, but the point of the project was learning how to paint yellow not superdetailing. Nevertheless, I added a few things here and there, particularly splitter plates inside the leading edge air intakes, and I had to scratchbuild a new front landing gear when the kit piece broke.

Earlier this week I arrived at the painting stage. First I applied a suitable blue to the underside of the aircraft, custom mixed by eye. Simple.

Then I thought through an approach to yellow that would address the challenges I described earlier. Most modelers suggesting a white undercoat prior to the yellow. I’m not one to apply bright, true colors to my models, so I decided to try something different. I wanted to try a tan color with a marked yellow hue. I decided on Tamiya XF-59 Desert Yellow mixed 50:50 with XF-3 Yellow, the paint I would use for the main color. I theorized that tan would provide a deep primer color that would not subsequently require copious amounts of yellow. And I was right; the color was perfect for a reasonable application of yellow.

In thinking about the final yellow, I’d read that opacity was problematic, so I decided to follow this “tan theme” and mix a bit of the same Desert Yellow into the main yellow color, which I theorized would increase its opacity. I used Tamiya XF-3 Yellow, XF-59 Desert Yellow, and XF-2 White in a 4:1:1 ratio respectively, the white used to bring down the color a bit for scale effect. Again, the result was a satisfactory color that, I think, is slightly lower in saturation than it would’ve been had had I used the pure yellow out of the bottle.

I’m very happy with the result, especially after some subtle post-shading, though to be self-critical I don't think I used the right color to tint the yellow. A pin wash and weathering will ultimately follow, which I expect will alter the finish a bit.

As you approach painting challenges, I encourage you to think outside of conventional wisdom. Follow your intuition. Try something new. Make your own path. You might be surprised what you learn along the way.

Don't let facts slow you down

Someone recently asked this question (paraphrased) on one of the armor forums:

I think M1 Abrams and M2 Bradleys arriving for service in Desert Shield in three-tone NATO camouflage. Some or most were repainted in desert tan after arriving. My Desert Storm M1A1 I'm building will not have much weathering but I'm wondering about the underside of the tank. What color would it be? Were the backside of the wheels and road arms repainted tan or left in the original colors.

A while back I wrote about painting what you see. This is a perfect example of how you can apply that principle to your models. Look at this photograph of an M1A1. What color is the underside, assuming you were low enough to see it at this distance?

The underside looks black to me, because it's in heavy shadow. It might be sand, black, or pink. I don't know, and for my purposes in building a model, I wouldn't care. Painting the underside black, dark grey, or dark green would offer the viewer a reasonable representation of the tank in scale.

That, my friends, is painting what you see. It's a simple approach to scale modeling that diminishes the sometimes overwhelming burden of research and documentation and lets us build models the way our minds see aircraft, vehicles, and ships in the real world. I enjoy research as much as the next guy, but sometimes I just want to move a project forward without a quest for the facts slowing me down.

Take Two

I would be remiss in adding a note about this person's specific question. I don't know the answer, but absent any definitive proof we have to rely on logic and intuition to surmise what probably happened back in 2006. If I were responsible for tasking my soldiers to paint the tanks in my battallion, I wouldn't expect them to crawl under every vehicle to paint their underside and back of the wheels. That effort would seem to me to be a waste of time and paint and ultimately add little or no value to our efforts to camouflage the vehicles.

Does research -- even if you enjoy it -- slow you down?

Your vomit is the wrong color

If you've ever painted a room in your house you've probably been amused by the paint names as you considered your options in the local Home Depot. Pensive Sky, Blushing Apricot, April Mist...who comes up with this stuff?

After receiving Squadron's latest 20 percent discount offer and paging through their new products (looking for something that's actually in stock) I stumbled upon Vallejo Vomit Special Effect.

My mind immediately pondered a number of random thoughts and musings:

• Is there someone who actually needs this color?
• If you need to portray vomit, what's so hard about mixing the color yourself?
• I've never actually seen a diorama in which a figure is vomiting.
• Can a single color adequately represent all forms of vomit and the countless variations of vomit contents?

I Googled Vallejo vomit and was surprised to discover a number of other weird colors in their line, such as Filthy Brown, Plague Brown, Parasite Brown, Charred Brown, and Scrofulous Brown. Mind you, the irony of so many gross variations on the color brown is not lost on me considering my last name is Brown. And yes, I admit I had to dust off my dictionary to learn what scrofulous means!

I also found that the wargaming paint manufacturer Citadel produces a number of similarly grotesque colors: Dead Flesh, Snot Green, Bubonic Brown, Scab Red. I guess these are targeted at the zombie enthusiasts among us and those of you modeling 14th century soldiers.

What made me laugh the hardest was finding Smelly Primer (yes, that's the actual name), from Citadel. Brilliant! Maybe it's just me, but if a primer isn't smelly I question its efficacy. Isn't that why everyone loved Floquil's grey primer? Or were we all just too high to realize we had other options.

I've shared my thoughts here about how lazy we're becoming and I've wondered why some people can't seem able to paint what they see, but finding Vallejo Vomit makes me think we're past a tipping point where craftsmanship has been replaced by paint-by-number solutions. Should I vomit in between my laughing fits at the hilariousness of these colors or should I just paint of figure of me vomiting?

So you think you're a good painter?

Bill Horan, a prominent figure painter in that corner of our hobby, is known for using paint to imply or suggest shapes on 54mm figures that aren’t actually there. For example, one of his books shows the bottom of a soldier’s boot and what appears to be a hole in the sole. You would think he used an X-Acto knife to actually scribe a hole, but when you read the nearby text you learn that it’s only paint; a small dark color represents the hole itself and a lighter color suggest the highlight of the edge of the hole. Horan and other figure painters use similar techniques to show, for example, the tiny highlight on the crest of a bronze button or to "paint" a crease on a uniform without actually sculpting it.

These are just a few examples of how scale modelers use trompe-l'œil techniques to imply shape and form no present on the actual model. I’ve always been amazed by an artist’s ability to fool the eye like this. Even when I know better, my eye still sees what it wants to see!

That’s why I was excited to see Keng-Lye’s work via Artist a Day on Facebook. (If you enjoy art, you should Like their Facebook page or visit their web site.) Every day they highlight an interesting new artist and his/her work. Keng-Lye takes trompe-l'œil to a level I’ve never seen, using not just paint, but multiple layers of clear resin, and three-dimensional objects to trick the eye into seeing three-dimensional fish and other sea life.

As a scale modeler, I sometimes think about how I can use trompe-l'œil techniques on models. It’s another way of thinking about a model not just as a replica but as a representation, one that reflects artistic skill as much as engineering skill.