(GEN) Reference Book "Plates"

Just an observation and a question... It's been widely discussed that
the modern printing processes employed to produce books (read reference
books we, as modelers, use) are more or less incapable of accurate
reproduction of colors. To boot, there are some WWII colors we have no
idea what they truly looked like. Now, a couple weeks ago, I bought an
Osprey book on WWII German armored cars; in it, there are several
'plates' - I still could never figure out why they call them that...
So, here we have an artist's representation of what they feel a vehicle
would look like (deduced from black-and-white images), printed on what
they know is an inaccurate medium...
Why do they still do this? Why go through the trouble of rendering an
image when the atrist's subjectiveness and the printing process they use
may be suspect? Why not just give more actual photos?
Just wondering...
Frank Kranick
"The funny thing about arguing on the internet is that even if you win,
you're still retarded."
-Noozer (from the ongoing crossposting nonsense)
Reply to
Francis X. Kranick, Jr.
Loading thread data ...
They do it because it looks nice in print and it gives you a general idea of what the colors look like in the scheme.
"Francis X. Kranick, Jr." wrote:
Reply to
Ron
Wrong. Modern printing processes can easily _and_ consistently reproduce more shades of a colour than the average eye can see. Actually, even "fossile" printing processes can do that too, although a bit less consistently.
Now, considering that "standards" such as RLM, for instance, were defined by a bunch of multisyllabic words instead of precise proportions of cyan, magenta, yellow and black (or Pantone numbers), the problem of "accurate reproduction of colours" is, at the best, an interesting theme for a late evening hair-splitting party at the local IPMS club. Provided that there's a good log fire, cuban cigars and some old armagnac, of course... And no heavy weapons anywhere near.
Because a)modelers buy them, b)a colour plate is _not_ a colour reference chart and c)if they printed colour plates in B/W, you'd be asking why they do that too.
Reply to
[SM04]Serge D. Grun
Sorry to hear of your disdain for hair splitting and IPMS but I didn't ask about those things... It has more to do with printing than color choice or cigars. I don't need you reminding me of futile arguments of colors used on models (been there, done that) and I didn't ask about your take on German paint descriptors. I'm not asking if Model Master Zinc Chromate Green is too yellow or if a particular Olive Green is too blue.
I'm sorry you took the low road on this but there's still not an answer to be found from your response. See your 'a' above - no answer there... Why would a publisher go to the lengths of hiring an artist/renderer to create a plate when (see your 'b' above) a color plate is not a color reference chart, ergo, the obvious implication is that it is not accurate? I've yet to see a lavender Duece-and-a-Half in a color plate but maybe I shouldn't be surprised when I finally do. There - I've made it plainer for you to understand better. Maybe you can think a little more and leave the attitude at the door - see your 'c' above.
Frank Kranick
Reply to
Francis X. Kranick, Jr.
Well, personally, I find "paintings" much easier to use as a reference, than "photos". For example, consider the cockpit illustrations in the old Squadron "In Color" series. Those are WAY more useful than a similar photograph. In a painting, the artist has much more control over the lighting, composition, etc.
Reply to
Greg Heilers

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.