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)