Is there more reason than just for looks that we typically use Matt enamels?

[Jockabilly 576]

Oh no! Too Late! ..... Just kidding and thanks for the advice. 

Signwriting enamels are formulated for use on all materials, wood, plastic, over other paints and metals, basically any material that would be used for a shop front or boards. There aren't any nasties in them such as anti corrosion chemicals or solvents other than white spirit/naptha as far as I know. 

I've suffered lovely crackle finishes in the past but they generally it has been when I've attempted to lacquer over metallics with an acrylic lacquer. I suspect it's due to different drying rates and expansion/contraction co-efficients. A very annoying thing to have happen when you have spent days re-spraying a motorsickle or guitar I can tell you!

Edited September 19 by Jockabilly

[Jockabilly 576]

OK Folks, were here are the results of todays experiments..... 

First pic is a single coat of black signwriters gloss on the 1/72 Spitfire Mk.1a. Unfortunately I wasn't taking enough care and so there are a few particles of dust and brushmarks - I went back and pushed the paint around a little more when you really never should and should always either move on and get better coverage with a second coat or remove it all and start again. 

This shows a single coat of signwriters black enamel (Craftmaster brand) 

Blackwing | Marty Wilson | Flickr

The next picture is with the addition of a single coat of white signwriters enamel and a single coat of sliver gloss signwriters enamel (These two paints are from AS Handover) With the white I mucked about and mucked it up but the silver was done properly and shows little to no brushstrokes although it did show up that I hadn't completed got rid of the seam under the nose but not really visible in this scale and certainly not with my eyesight. 

Spitsign | Marty Wilson | Flickr

[Gorby 21,725]

The silver does look good.

[Mad Steve 25,134]

That looks alright, the silver looks very good though. 

I really do take my hat off to you lot that paint with Brushes, especially when you get such fabulous finishes. 

[Jockabilly 576]

I think I might actually leave the white the way it is as, with the grey of the plastic showing through (All brush strokes were from fore to aft) it actually looks, at least to my eye like it would work well as part of the 'weathering'. 

I have never used that silver before as it's typically frowned upon to use silver or gold paint in signwriting where you should be using silver, Aluminium or Gold leaf. Most signwriting supplies companies don't even offer a Silver or Gold enamel but ASHandover do Silver, Gold and Bronze and so I bunged some tins in with my last order some time ago. 

In other news I am planning at some point to experiment with using aluminium leaf to cover an NMF model. 

Edited September 19 by Jockabilly

[Mad Steve 25,134]

Now that would be interesting to see. 

[Tolvcat 5,201]

14 minutes ago, Jockabilly said:

I think I might actually leave the white the way it is as, with the grey of the plastic showing through (All brush strokes were from fore to aft) it actually looks, at least to my eye like it would work well as part of the 'weathering'. 

I have never used that silver before as it's typically frowned upon to use silver or gold paint in signwriting where you should be using silver, Aluminium or Gold leaf. Most signwriting supplies companies don't even offer a Silver or Gold enamel but ASHandover do Silver, Gold and Bronze and so I bunged some tins in with my last order some time ago. 

In other news I am planning at some point to experiment with using aluminium leaf to cover an NMF model. 

Back in the dim and distant I tried something similar with the foil from a Kit Kat. Gave up in the end  as I didn't have a glue that would hold it down without eating the plastic. Would love to see it done by someone who knows.

Andy

[Mad Steve 25,134]

1 minute ago, Tolvcat said:

Back in the dim and distant I tried something similar with the foil from a Kit Kat. Gave up in the end  as I didn't have a glue that would hold it down without eating the plastic. Would love to see it done by someone who knows.

Andy

Gimme a while and i'll find the clip of the guy that covered the 48th B29 with Aluminum Foil (like your normal kitchen foil)

[Jockabilly 576]

I've seen a few things about people using foil and it can work well but even kitchen foil is thick where aluminium leaf is as thin as a thin thing. The process involves painting a 'size' onto the surface which is basically an oil based varnish which comes with drying times calculated for an hour, four hours, 12 hours in average temperatures. You paint it on thin, for ease of use you can tint it with ordinary enamel paint so you can see where you've painted it, and then, in an hour, or four etc. you apply the leaf to it. The trick is trying to get it down smoothly and cleanly as, once stuck you can't really manipulate it. Each piece of leaf would need to be very carefully place to get a good finish. 

 

[steelpillow 1,022]

One of the traditional things with gold or silver leaf is to apply a primer of a particular colour to bring out the lustre. We modellers do the same thing with our shinier metallic paints. For high silver finishes, a gloss black undercoat is the thing (not white as one might assume). For gold, the European classical tradition is matt red for a warm glow, the Islamic is yellow for a light, airy feel. There are probably others.

[Jockabilly 576]

With the gold leaf I think it is, in part at least, that the gold itself is so thin as to be almost transparent. I did wonder about using a water gilding technique (something I've never done or know a great deal about) because you can 'burnish' the leaf in water gilding but I suspect that the clay bole would really stuff up the surface details. I seem to recall that one of the leaf suppliers offers a slightly heavier aluminium leaf and I had an idea that, using a heavier leaf, combined with spraying a water/soap solution over the oil size to temporarily lubricate it, might allow the leaf to be burnished down for a smoother more polished finish. All experiments for the future. I will also probably try tinting the size with black to see what sort of effect that might produce. 

[Jockabilly 576]

Just a wee update - 

I am continuing to paint the Spit in gloss signwriting enamels and I think it's going pretty well. They cover well and, although I am getting some brushstrokes I think it's down to not quite getting the consistency of my paint right and moving fast enough across the surface. I haven't noticed it filling in any details and, in fact, I would be inclined to  do a wash over the next model first as, using a signwriting chisel the colour doesn't get down into the panel lines etc. unless you really push it in. I think that Matt paint let you get away with more (they hide dust especially compared to gloss) but I suspect that once the decals are on and a coat of satin varnish goes over the top the finish will be fairly good and, with work, I could see it producing excellent results. I suspect that, thinned down, these paints would work rather well through an airbrush too. I will keep at it for a bit and I'll post the pics of the model once I've got the decals and satin varnish on. Of course, for my next trick, I need to really work at mixing up matches to the Humbrol enamels as the colours I've used at the moment are just 'close enough' rather than exact. 

[steelpillow 1,022]

I generally find that, although matt looks good on first drying, when you apply the satin, the brush strokes suddenly start showing up. Apply a full gloss, and - oh, dear! Any finish other than super-matt needs immaculate brushwork underneath.

I cheat by thinning the paint and applying multiple layers. But I suppose signwriters cannot afford that luxury and actually have to be good at it.

[Jockabilly 576]

I think painting with a brush is somewhat of a zen practice. You need to force yourself to keep the strokes smooth and even and resist the natural temptation to 'scumble' the paint in as if you were painting a house and, despite years of practice I still find myself getting somewhat slap happy unless I'm fully focused. I am also finding that it helps not only achieve smooth clean work but also preserve detail if I basically paint an individual panel at a time. There is something pleasing about this process. One thing that the gloss paint is showing up that I need to do something about is the amount of dust in my workshed. I have a powerful vacuum in there and I think that I need to run it for at least a few minutes prior to any painting given just how much dust, however tiny the particles may be, that I can see appearing on the finish. 

Sometime within the next couple of days I hope to be able to slap a coat of satin on this one and then I'll get an idea of whether it shows promise or not. At the moment I think it does but it's definitely not the 'mask, spray, repeat' of airbrush work by any stretch of the imagination but I do have a fancy for taking more of a 'painterly' approach to my models at the moment and treating them almost like 3D canvases. 

[steelpillow 1,022]

6 hours ago, Jockabilly said:

treating them almost like 3D canvases. 

Some denizens of this forum will by now be sick of me attributing the technique of multiple layers of thinned paint  (aka washes) to Rembrandt. Only after I had watched a wonderful documentary on the Old Master by the almost-as-great forger Tom Keating, and tried it out on my Spitfires, did I realise that it was how the airbrush community do it too.

Rembrandt also used multiple thin washes to progressively modify a different base colour, typically to build up shadow. I have found it a superb technique for other things too, such as weathering effects or heat-oxidised Merlin ejector exhausts.

More and more, I too am learning to think of them as 3D canvases.

[RWG686 40,787]

6 hours ago, Jockabilly said:

treating them almost like 3D canvases. 

 

6 minutes ago, steelpillow said:

I too am learning to think of them as 3D canvases.

The two of you should write a 'how to do' bit in the 'Hints and Tips' section.

I have been brush painting for 60 years and although I have an airbrush, I still prefer the satisfaction of a brush job.

Despite that I am happy to learn your layered method.

[Jockabilly 576]

Well being a painter on canvas at times, a sort of modeller, one time graphic designer, one time signwriter and one time tattooist I have always been throwing colour around one way or another the problem is thinking about dragging techniques from one discipline into another needs a real conscious effort and I tend to compartmentalise my alleged knowledge into each discipline. 

Of course the Old Masters were working in oils that took days, weeks, months and even up to a year or more to dry so pushing paint around was something they could do whenever they weren't quite happy with something. People think that these painters appeared almost by magic on their canvases but, in reality, they evolved over quite some time. What makes those guys great is that they had a vision and evolved their techniques to achieve it and they were right at the edge of what their materials could do. It's truly remarkable even how few colours they had at their disposal and not the vivid colours we have access to now as a starting point for our colours. 

When it came to thin washes they realised that they could build up incredible depths by layering transparent colours over each other. 

When it comes to our models, especially war worn aircraft of WWI and WWII it's hard to avoid wanting to stick to pristine. solid colours and force myself to replicate the wear, variety of 'sheens' and colour variance across the airframes in service and then try to make them look realistic in 1/72 scale. This is all going to be a real learning curve to me having not built WWII aircraft in 1/72 scale at all in a long long time and not done any real weathering on such kits before. I suspect that, at some time, I will even be getting the artists oils out or the Artists Alkyds at least. 

I guess that a lot depends on what you want too. I'm thinking I want a 3D 'artists impression' of an aircraft as it might have looked in it's working life rather than trying to figure out exactly how it looked at a particular moment in time based on old black and white photos or worrying that the shape of the kit is six inches too narrow at point A etc. I don't have the precise mind required for rivet counting so I couldn't do it even if I wanted to. Much more of a slap dash jazz man really who likes the dream more than the reality. 

[Mad Steve 25,134]

'Much more of a slap dash jazz man really who likes the dream more than the reality'

I like that Marty... 

[steelpillow 1,022]

1 hour ago, RWG686 said:

The two of you should write a 'how to do' bit in the 'Hints and Tips' section.

Not a bad idea, so I dashed over there and wrote this:

 

[Miggers 8,463]

On 17/09/2023 at 15:27, Mad Steve said:

 I would really like to see that Saucepan 

Even less get a clout round the 'ear'ole with it.

Some very,very good info here boys.

I use sable artists brushes,clean them with a thinners(usually celly or Firwood's 113)then give 'em a good massage

with Fairey wicklid then a good rinse in warm watter,seems to work well .

[Jockabilly 576]

Well folks, I have pretty much completed my test piece spitfire. Roughly two coats of Signwriters gloss enamel followed by two thin coats of Humbrol satin enamel. Yes it ain't perfect, including the seam between the two halves! but I think it shows a lot of promise. The only problems I encountered in the whole build was being a bit heavy handed with the decal setting solution. A section of the roundel on the starboard wing went all stringy and horrible so I had to paint in that patch using Craftmasters Azure blue signwriting enamel which happens to be a perfect match. 

There was no sanding or cutting of either the gloss paints or the overlying varnish which would have easily eradicated the brushmarks, dust particles etc. but I wanted to examine how the finish would go without cutting back or otherwise perfecting the finish. 

Finishedspit3 | Marty Wilson | Flickr

Finishedspit2 | Marty Wilson | Flickr

finishedspit1 | Marty Wilson | Flickr

 

[Mad Steve 25,134]

That looks alright Marty, very smooth finish. 

[Thatsmyboy 1,603]

I don't necessarily buy the "always been that way" sort of argument.  I only brush paint models and, hate brush painting any sort of gloss finish. For purely practical reasons, it's easier to brush and, get a superior finish using matt instead. The paint flows better and, even thinned, has superior covering abilities. I don't use gloss paints or varnish. I know a lot of modellers insist that you must at least have a gloss surface to put decals on but, I've never bothered and, never had any major issues by not doing so.

If people want to use gloss paints, that's fine by me. It's their choice and, their model.

[steelpillow 1,022]

On 19/10/2023 at 02:19, Thatsmyboy said:

...have a gloss surface to put decals on but I've .,. never had any major issues by not doing so.

Lucky boy. It depends a lot on the quality of the paint and the decals. Are there any brands you prefer/avoid?

Edited October 21 by steelpillow

[Jockabilly 576]

I am shortly going to embark on a round of painting after having been working to assemble half a dozen kits ready to start the painting process. One of the things I find curious is the fact that matt enamels are so often claimed to 'cover better'. I am not so sure about that. I don't know exactly what the 'matt' agent in paint is but I think it just might be finely ground glass which, of course even ground to a powder is still partially transparent and, in a matt paint replaces some of the solid pigment. I suspect that what it does is appear to cover better by simply stopping a lot of the light being reflected directly back at the viewer and scattering it. One significant factor in the whole debate of gloss, matt, brush, airbrush is how it actually affects the colour as viewed by the observer. Typically a glossy finish appears darker than a matt finish and so the same colour of paint applied as a Matt, Gloss or Satin will appear to be different shades, add that to the scale effect on colour not to mention the light it's viewed in and then add on the differences between the typically spherical particles as laid down by an airbrush versus the flattened particles as applied by a brush and it becomes a whole new minefield in the realism versus impression battleground and rivet counter versus dreamer. |There is a very interesting analysis of the difference between airbrush and brush painting on the 'look' of the paint in the book 'Airbrush' by Radu Vero. 

I guess at the end of the day the whole thing is, if you are happy with the way you do your models then carry on doing them that way or, if you are a tinkering and generally nosy and inquisitive git like me, have at it and experiment At the end of the day my models are just a fun diversion and focus for my imagination so, if I make a mess of one and something doesn't quite work it goes in the bin and another example of that kit is pulled from the stash or bought and I learn from my mistakes. 

One thing I will say is that gloss paints do cover very well with the correct technique, correct paint, correct consistency and correct handling but it's a learned and difficult to master skill. I'm not there yet but I have known a number of very experienced signwriters and coach painters in the past who could produce paintwork in a single thin coat that was as smooth as glass, solidly coloured and didn't bear a single brush mark but it was the result of years and decades of practice, a very steady hand and a dep knowledge of their craft.