I am going suspect that this may have been talked about before, but I feel like bringing up again.

So after looking at both pictures of real airplanes and models, I notice in the modeling world, we tend to exaggerate our panel lines, and yes I am guilty of it. Why do we do this? I know it does look good on a model, but why when it may not be totally realistic? So when at a show, do you get docked marks for not doing panel lines? Even though with out them, it would be "more realistic".

I am just curious why we do it?

I agree with you Kevin. It looks very unrealistic to have panel lines exaggerated. But if someone wants to do that it is their model and they can. I have been around 1:1 scale aircraft for a long time, mostly military, and even at their dirtiest (just before a wash or major service, you still can't see panel lines 99.9999% of the time.
If the panel lines were like the ones on many of the models built here and on other sites they would be 1 cm wide at the least..

I remember in the old days panel lines were a big no no. Matchbox kits were always caned for having really obvious ones.

I guess things change and at the moment it is very popular to do the lines. I have to admit that a model does look very good with the panel lines highlighted. An aircraft with the panel lines seems to have a lot more detail than one without the lines.

I suppose it is in the camp of painting a model a series of progressively lighter colours, colour modulation, to give it a scale sized real world impression.

Indeed, what you all say is true, and I find it especially fascinating that, as a group, we insist that the build be as technically accurate as possible, but when it comes to the finish, it is generally the highly exaggerated and often totally unrealistic use of artistic license that gets the highest praise

I dare say that if you make a 100% technically accurate build and put a highly realistic finish on it, 9 times out of 10 you'll lose out to an significantly inferior build with an eye catching, inaccurate finish. (hopefully that axiom would not hold at, say, the IPMS nationals, but I bet you know what I mean).

Then again, there is a fairly valid argument that has existed for centuries (and probably millenia) that certain aspects of sculpture need to be exaggerated in order for it to be sufficiently expressive to seem realistic, and panel lines and excessive variations in faded panels is one of the few avenues we have available for that given how we do strive for scale accuracy in our building process (sculptors, for example often modify body proportions, but we restrict ourselves from that path). I often use this notion to allow myself to stop being pedantic about exact shapes and let myself accept something that gives the proper impression (which is usually much easier to achieve!).

As an experiment, I've been thinking about building a monogram F-106 (for the "Delta Dawn" campaign) and just sanding off the raised panel lines and not bothering to scribe replacements. Looking at pictures of that aircraft, they always looks very clean and devoid of lines other than the canopy, control surfaces, etc. Perhaps some very fine/light lines drawn on top of the paint or some work on subtle differences in panel colors if that seem entirely too "flat"