Another feedback thread

[ElderMind]

I saw that thread while perusing the dakka site. I definitely need to add lighting. An overhead LED desk light is what I'm using now, over a square lampshade lined with a white paper background. I'll see about one of those light boxes this weekend.

The thing I can't reconcile is the f stop. Some say max it out to prevent depth of field issues, while some recommend the opposite. I'll just keep playing with it...

 

[ElderMind]

Another photo attempt. Thoughts?

View attachment 25726

 

[Dragonsreach]

The thing I can't reconcile is the f stop. Some say max it out to prevent depth of field issues, while some recommend the opposite. I'll just keep playing with it...

Overall the "F" stop can be complicated, but for all intents and purposes the smaller the Fstop the sharper the image appears and the more of the figure appears in focus. However there's a curve of performance on all lenses at macro focusing which means that the apparent focus may be "better" at some distances than others. In macro terms F22 is not necessarily your friend, try F8 then F11, then F16 to find the 'sweet spot' for your camera/lens. It is a trial and error process until you find the best setup or the one that you are most happy with, because after all you're painting for yourself not us!

 

[ElderMind]

I'm happy with my painting results, but the challenge of getting a photo to look like what I see is frustrating. There's a lot of shading on the face, for example, that creates a nice gradient from the highlight to the shadow. It barely shows up on a picture though. Similarly, the shield comes out weird in the photo. It doesn't have that much contrast in person (neither does the armor, for that matter).

I think I've figured out the depth of field issues with the f stop though. White balance and focus are my next hurdles.

 

[Kretcher]

Regarding the shield I guess you have used metalics? they are very difficult to get a good photo of, I do believe that people try to use as much inderect light as possible to remove reflections from the metalics.

But I do think your photos are going in the right direction, just keep up the good work.

/Kretcher

 

[Man11coR]

I know how you feel, I too have been on hiatus for about 10 years and the standard has really shot through the roof. I have to add though, that I suspect a lot of academically trained painters have taken up the hobby, because you don't see many figures on their game base. They all seem like art show pieces. Gives me the ill feeling of ringers.
But the work speaks for itself, some extremely gifted artists creating absolute masterpieces.

 

[Dragonsreach]

I know how you feel, I too have been on hiatus for about 10 years and the standard has really shot through the roof. I have to add though, that I suspect a lot of academically trained painters have taken up the hobby, because you don't see many figures on their game base. They all seem like art show pieces. Gives me the ill feeling of ringers.
But the work speaks for itself, some extremely gifted artists creating absolute masterpieces.

Hmmm, not too sure of that being the case, more like a lot of painters adopting classical techniques to achieve their desired results.

But in reference to the gaming bases comment, more figures being done as display pieces and for competitions in the top ranks than for gaming.
Personally my gaming stuff is very simple paint jobs since I prefer to paint for comps, other people and my own pleasure more than anything else.

 

[Man11coR]

I see. Well I haven't been around the scene for a long time so it was just a feeling I had. I also love the painting aspect more than the gaming side of it. There aren't many games that truly respect the time and effort you put into really good pieces. Most of the rules seem extremely arbitrary and self serving.
One thing that I have noticed though, is that even the truly inspiring paint jobs don't often hold up to close inspection, or close up photos. The paint often looks chalky and blotchy. I think this is due to the tutorials insisting on a 1:1 water to paint mix. This destroys the emulsifier's ability to leave a solid and plastic like consistency. And I don't even know what the idea behind black primer is, it makes no sense at all considering acrylics are transparent. I've seen a lot of very dark and chalky looking minis in shop displays because of this.
I am actually tired of the acrylics limitations and am developing an enamel technique based on the figures natural 3 dimensions and the influence of comic book coloring. It works well as long as the lines are perfectly executed and only requires 3 stages of color. I hope to have some photos as soon as I get a decent camera and a scratch build light box.
This technique sprang from the laborious amount of time it takes to paint armies, but it retains the same striking effect in a minimalist way.

 

[ElderMind]

Regarding the shield I guess you have used metalics? they are very difficult to get a good photo of, I do believe that people try to use as much inderect light as possible to remove reflections from the metalics.

But I do think your photos are going in the right direction, just keep up the good work.

/Kretcher

It is painted with metallics, and I also suspected that was a big contributor to the problem. I think I will work on correcting some of that in Apeture, but that feels like cheating...

 

[ElderMind]

I see. Well I haven't been around the scene for a long time so it was just a feeling I had. I also love the painting aspect more than the gaming side of it. There aren't many games that truly respect the time and effort you put into really good pieces. Most of the rules seem extremely arbitrary and self serving.
One thing that I have noticed though, is that even the truly inspiring paint jobs don't often hold up to close inspection, or close up photos. The paint often looks chalky and blotchy. I think this is due to the tutorials insisting on a 1:1 water to paint mix. This destroys the emulsifier's ability to leave a solid and plastic like consistency. And I don't even know what the idea behind black primer is, it makes no sense at all considering acrylics are transparent. I've seen a lot of very dark and chalky looking minis in shop displays because of this.
I am actually tired of the acrylics limitations and am developing an enamel technique based on the figures natural 3 dimensions and the influence of comic book coloring. It works well as long as the lines are perfectly executed and only requires 3 stages of color. I hope to have some photos as soon as I get a decent camera and a scratch build light box.
This technique sprang from the laborious amount of time it takes to paint armies, but it retains the same striking effect in a minimalist way.

It seems like the spray primer contributes to the lack of smooth texture, and I use liquid primer. I don't get a chalky texture, but that could be for other reasons besides primer. I do think you have a point about the consistency issue from using water, and I bought a bottle of retarder to experiment with. I'm not sure about the transparency of the paint though. I have white, gray and panzer gray (essentially black) primer, and don't see a difference between the finished pieces. I mix gray and panzer gray primer to get a medium gray.

I don't think most paint jobs hold up to magnification (which is what macro photography is essentially doing), since there's only so much detail you can get. I wear 2.5x magnifying glasses when I paint, and while it's smooth to my eyes the camera distorts (or reveals?) what I see. There is no blotch of silver on the Dwarf's right calf, for example, but it looks that way in almost every photo I've taken. I think it's the way the metallic flakes are aligned and reflecting light into the lens. I'll keep painting for me and not the camera though. Otherwise it's a bit like complaining that a Monet is just a bunch of colored splotches if you look closely...

 

[Man11coR]

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was referring to your work. I was actually referring to some of the top painters on the site. You can get perfect clarity with blending, without much trouble. and it will hold up to macro scrutiny. I can say this because my own minis are smooth and still vibrant. This means nothing of course because I don't have a camera to display them, and besides, they were painted over ten years ago. I don't have the patience these days to use 9 tones of blend anymore.

 

[ElderMind]

I didnt' think you were talking about mine, but even if I did I'm not so naive to not acknowledge my limitations. I was using my dwarf as a convenient example.

I thought your post was interesting, and offered a somewhat different opinion. Yes, some slayer awardees can get those ridiculously smooth textures. This paladin painted by Zach Lanier (the 2nd one on the link) is insane. The blending on the face even appears to have rouge on the cheeks and eye-shadow on the upper lids. Incredibly smooth blending. The jewel is smaller than the head of a pin in real life (I have this miniature), and I'm amazed that he got that amount of detail. BUT, the highlights on the armor and shield appear as blotches at that level of magnification. That's not a criticism, but an example of the point that it is very difficult (if not impossible) to have a mini hold up to macro-scrutiny. They shouldn't have to, and at times they won't if you want an effect for normal viewing.