08-20-2009, 06:34 PM
nkp_174 Wrote:Wayne, I agree that most (myself frequently included) use the paints straight from the bottle. Like you've done with subtle variations, I plan on doing the same since boxcar 632 was in a rainstorm while 633 was coated in soot...and now they look different. It seems that variation on a single wooden car is very important as well, and hence the weathering techniques relating to it. I've done this some...especially with exposed wood. It is amazing how much effort goes into thin, non-uniform coats of paint!
Previously, I have had mixed results with pre-thinned paints. The worst results were with my "russian iron" blend. I've also made the mistake of failing to label which ones were or were not thinned! I plan on still using Floquil and such for specific colors. I'm ordering Scalecoat's NYC grays since they are matched to the original NYC paints (I can't recall if they are straight or adjusted for indoor lighting...oh well)...but I plan on experimenting with shades of boxcar red since I use so much of it. Anything that requires mixing, I'd like to experiment with alternatives using craft paint.
Good to know that the pigments can't always get close to what is expected. I wouldn't be surprised if that is why artist acrylics are so much more expensive (along with the fineness of the pigment, purity, and quality of the binder) I have a few other shades, and I've previously experienced non-true blacks (especially with dyes). Historically, boxcar red was made with rust as the pigment...I don't recall the binder. Brown-Red, white, and black were dirt cheap while yellow, orange, and greens were very expensive (hence their application to reefers in the 19th century). I know that one of the major problems with color identification is finding an accurate paint chip (one that has layers undisturbed by UV)...or knowing the exact technique used to develop the negative...and knowledge of the pigments/binders in use at that time. My mind spins a bit on such details...especially since yellow, mint green, and white have the exact same ID on many types of black & white photos...and so I perform the same sort of best guess that the person used whom drew the plans from photos. It never ceases to amaze me the fights that D&RGW people get in over "green" boiler jackets...or 1960s modelers as to what is CB&Q red. Perhaps the coolest thing ever found for identifying colors is a paint chip index included in Bruce MacGregor's incredible Birth of California Narrow Gauge...it is a reproduction of exact colors used by Carter Brothers...from paint chips by Carter's paint supplier. I don't know if they are faded, or if they are accurately reproduced in the book (I'd guess they are the nearest pantone equivalents), but it is really cool and the original dates from the Carter era.
I'll give lacquer thinner a try with my old airbrush. If it works, I'll use it with the acrylics until I trust them. Recently, my VL locked up and I discovered another place I never knew could get gummed up. My previous experience ruining the H caused me to be militant about cleaning the $80 VL.
Mountain Man, have I ever complained about or insulted your modeling? Have I ever complained about or insulted anyone on here's modeling? No. And I don't think that many "rivet counters" whom actually partake in the hobby do complain...there are a number of us on here. Like Brakie says, I always make some concessions when building a model (everyone does)...and I am aware of most of them. We all make concessions to maximize the fun. It is always upsetting when new info comes to light which shows that mistakes were made, but it is better to build and enjoyed than to never build at all.
I wasn't aware that I personally attacked you. I was under the mistaken impression that this was friendly forum discussion.
As I have stated before, I don't post any of my modeling work here, because I don't believe this to be the kind of forum that is receptive to non-standard ideas. The rapidity with which people here take offensive confirms that.