Dazed and Confused

Quizenart

New member
Yes I am a newbie here to this site, but I have been reading and learning. I hvae been painting for serveral years now and I have come a long way, as I am sure evryone has. I unlike most had zero talent with art and colour and I am 100% self taught painter. Now it is time to ask some questions.... What the heck is this NMM thing that is always being refered to. I hear bad and good about it but I have no idea what I am reading as I do not understand the term. Is it an abbreviation? Somebody please enlighten me with an explanation and/or example. Thank you all for your time, and I hope you will have the patience to answer more questions in the future.
 

Badaab

New member
NMM is an acronym for Non-Metallic Metal.
Basically its the use of non-metallic paints to achive the same effect that metallic paints would. For instance, greys for silvers and yellows and browns for gold.
There are different degrees of the technique:
1.) The standard method, which is basically the substitution of the non-metallic paint for the metallic color (ie grey for silver).
2.) The sky-earth method, which incorporates the reflections of the model and its environment upon the metallic surface (there are some nice articles about this in the Articles section of this site, have a look!).
3.) The lightsource specific method uses a specific lightsource interacting with the metallic parts of the model (there\'s another wonderful article with pics illustrating this technique in the Articles section).

Hope that helps in the explanation.

Joe
 

No Such Agency

New member
By the way, Quizenart, a lot of people here are probably self-taught painters, and I bet many of us have had no formal artistic training. So you\'re not alone - I certainly didn\'t start out with an appreciation for light and shadow, or the colour wheel or anything. I just picked up some paint (Testor\'s enamels at first!), and some cool little metal guys, and painted.

Good luck trying NMM, if you can start practicing early, you\'ll probably get pretty good at it. Myself, I\'ve used metallics for too many years, and I\'m pretty used to that approach, so I\'m reluctant to switch to NMM...
 

Lai

New member
i\'m a self trained painter too...i started 7 years ago with a box of plastic orks from GW.
now i\'m trying NMM because i want to try new things and techniques...you\'re not alone!lol
 

vincegamer

Active member
Though the hobby has grown in the last couple of years, and you can apparently now go to some GW shops and get some basic training in painting, I suspect most of us actually taught ourselves; either by just buying some paints and trying or by doing some reading first (or a bit of both).
I too started with the Testor\'s enamels - the same ones I used to use on model car kits - and the crappy brush that came with them. I got along as best I could then gave up for years and now I\'m picking it up again and I\'m amazed at the resources available.
To this day I have still only personally known one other person who painted minis and have had no training in color theory. I bought a color wheel for the first time a couple weeks ago!
Now I\'m kind of curious how many here have actually studied art. ???
 

Badaab

New member
Vince, I attended a private art college for two and a half years, before changing direction and deciding I\'d like to become an academic. Color Theory has helped me the most when it comes to painting miniatures, because building a balanced composition will help out a figure just as much as nice highlighting.

As for being self-taught, I had friends in the hobby, who introduced me to WHFB 4th edition, and looking back, my Skaven army was really crappy (but hey, I was 15). So I picked up basic techniques from them, and continued to paint more often than I played (because they would always stomp my poor little rats into the ground).

Joe
 

Sand Rat

New member
Training?

Hell, back in the dark ages all we had to paint with was Testors model paint - or airtists oils - and no one showing us what to do unless we were extremely lucky.:D
 
S

Sturmhalo

Guest
There are three kinds of figure painters: those who do it really well, those who can paint well enough for the games table, and those who can\'t!

I\'m pretty much self taught. Some folks just have an innate ability! My degree in Fine Art has had no effect on my figure painting. A bit of advice can really help though. I spent years struggling using base coats, ink washes and dry brushing as prescribed by GW, and the results were pretty crap. I then bought a book called \'Heroes for Wargames\', an old book put together with the help of GW in the old days. I read it, took on board what it said, and the first figure I painted using the system it advocated turned out f\'ing amazing in comparison to my previous stuff!

Abilty + knowledge = good mini\'s :D
 

hawkwood

New member
training?

to begin with none then i decided i wanted to become a graphic artist and did A levels in both fine arts and graphic design found that the industry was moveing way to far towards computer design for wy tastes so meanderd around for about 8 months after finishing my A levels. Got a job painting up samples for a painting service at 45p per figure which lasted for 3 months before i decided hay i can do this on my own and make more money at it . i spent another 2 months working for the same guy while i got everything into place to go it alone quit and havent looked back since. as all my teachers were prety much useless includeing the $%^$ that i worked for i consider myself prety much self trained. and yes in my opinion if you follow the workshop recomended way of painting your figures will turn out rubish

hawk
 
S

Sturmhalo

Guest
Yeah, I can never understand why GW advocate the old ink wash/dry brush technique when most of their painters don\'t use that technique!

Way back when I used to buy WD they would have little six stage painting guides in the \'eavy metal section. You know, stage one undercoat and they have a pic of a space marine painted white. Then the next pic would show all the base colours painted, then another stage would show ink washes, another drybrushing, then details, and finally the finished piece... which was always painted using a very expert blending technique rather than the slap and slosh method they\'d just explained! :mad:

And how bloody lazy are folks these days? The manager asked my opinion of how to get a good base colour for his spacewolves that wasn\'t too blue. I suggested a mix of whatever colours and then he said \'but then I can\'t use the spacewolves grey spray paint to base coat my models\'.

1. Mixing paints together and applying them by brush is ok. I know some folks aren\'t sure if they\'re \'allowed\' to do this, but you can!

2. Why bother asking my opinion if you\'re just going to spray them all bloody spacewolves grey anyway!?

The same guy also told me how after all these years he\'s just realised you can add water to paint so it doesn\'t go on so thickly! I suppose if GW don\'t say it\'s ok, no one thinks to try it!
 
I\'ve never taken any lessons from the dudes at the GW shop in town- mostly because their output (in display cases and on the demo tables) is just ok - course they are painted for gaming - and I do see evidence of drybrushing and sloppy inking all over the figs there.

However the \'eavy Metal articles in White Dwarf are UNPARALLELED. It\'s a constant stream of advanced techniques (mostly the \"layering method\" - fairly frequent inking tips, rare on the drybrushing, no nmm) but most important: high quality recipes for colors including some rough ratios for mixing.
I would say that 90% of my thinking on painting comes directly from these articles, and I look forward to those more than anything else in the mag.
Newbies who are reading this: DO NOT DISMISS the value of these - they are really terrific. and can turn you from a crap painter into, at worse, an adequate one over night. (assuming you follow the examples closely and have all the materials . . . i know I know . . they only list GW products . . .! )

Now all that said, they do on occasion run painting articles that are not \'eavy Metal ones that are intended to get many troops painted quick - these resemble the painting guides that come in the WFB box and some of the codexes and are not as good. But anything labeled \'eavy Metal is worth a serious look no matter what particular game pieces are being painted.

I know I sound like a fanboy but I know good painting when I see it and I see it more **regularly** from GW publications than from any other source.
 

Lai

New member
i know...it\'s hard to explain to my friends that you can water the paint and pass it on the drybrush to get a better finish.not speaking of layering...

for myself,i didn\'t know what is NMM or SENMM before join CMoN.i not even thought about it...and light of magic weapons reflecting on the mini and other things....thanks to you all!
 

IcarusFalling

New member
Back in the day.....

Way way waaaay back when I started painting it was all my brothers fault. He started playing RT and I just followed suit. lol So there began my painting days.

So what helped me the most in learning how to paint?
There was, along time ago, a painting guide that GW put out. All I can remember was the cover was yellow. I still have it, but it\'s at my parents house still. This guide was wonderful. Tips on basing miniatures. Tips on colour choices. Ink wash techniques. BLENDING GUIDE. There was about three different methods described in detail of how to get perfect blends and which one would be ideal for what purpose. That guide helped me more than anything and everyonce in awhile I\'ll read the whole thing over to make sure I haven\'t forgotten anything.
 
S

Sturmhalo

Guest
It certainly sounds as if the WD articles are far better now than they were years ago. I always felt they were conning readers by showing beautifully painted figures and then advocating techniques that weren\'t particularly good! However if that\'s all changed now, then so much the better.

Does anyone remember those old articles in WD on how to paint whole armies in like 5 minuites? They were some of the poorest painted models I\'d seen in WD at the time! Still, I\'ve seen worse in the stores. What about figures undercoated white (spray of course!) and then given a heavy blue ink wash!
 
I\'ve only been really aware of GW for 2 years but Sturmhalo . . .ya you\'re right. At a shop in North Dakota (of all places) they had a ton of the old WFB army books and the painting was god-awful - as were the how-to\'s. All bright primary colors, garish and bold. Not at all cool. I\'ve even seen White Dwarf pages from just 3-4 years ago that I cant believe anyone found much use in . . .
But man check out the new stuff - esp the LOTR minis. I\'m guessing that were one to submit a photo from the current tutorials here on CMON they would probably average no less than 8.5? 8.6? 8.7? over time . . .
They\'ll be dinged for sculpt more than the paint job nowadays . .
 

No Such Agency

New member
they had a ton of the old WFB army books and the painting was god-awful - as were the how-to\'s. All bright primary colors, garish and bold. Not at all cool.

Subtle colour schemes have never been in the GW playbook, as far as I can tell. I think perhaps the original developers of the \"official style\" were heavily influenced by anime? (I mean anime like Macross, not Grave of the Fireflies...)
 
S

Sturmhalo

Guest
Yeah, even back in the 80\'s some of the old ads for space marines had some pretty horrible looking colour schemes, just check out solegends.com.

I think it was in the early 90\'s that the painting really went down hill. You know, the same time GW started marketing everything at pre-teens! Mind you it wasn\'t just the painting that suffered back then.

GW certainly seem to have gone for a far more natural appearance with their LOTR paint jobs. Even the figures are sculpted in a more realistic style.
 

Infidel Castro

New member
They\'ve hit the middle ground with LotR, having gone back to a good painting guide format but still painting quite a few as it is for a skirmish game. I do think they are too layering-oriented which is not necessarily a bad thing, only back in the early-mid nineties they had Mike McVey blasting everyone away with his work based on blending techniques. Dumbed down a bit these days? That\'s for others to decide but I know what I think...

Even further back when John Blanche and then Phil Lewis were doing Eavy Metal, they were really, really experimental. They would have pages of minis each month painted by \'friends\' of GW/citadel/WD and these would then be treated to an index page where the more interesting pieces had a 50-100 word write-up, even down to three or four paint mixes to achieve colours!:wow:
So what I did was go through all of the magazines I have, get all the painting tutorials torn out and then put them in a file! Sacrelige! Still, I\'ve got a good painting guide of my own to browse when I feel like trying something unusual :D
For example, I\'m still looking for a convenient time to try out a Colin Dixon flesh tone he used for Norse Dwarves about 12-15 yrs ago. That\'s one crusty old mix of paint, I have to tell you. But he mixed it all the way though the clever bugger. Now, he was never the best of the GW painters, but he was still doing his damndest to learn (funny, he was an artist - yet couldn\'t really paint???). Now he sculpts.

If you had a chart/histogram of WD relevance to top painting, I reckon it peaked at about 1988-1994, then plummeted, then seems to have had a wee renaissance in the last couple of years.

Anyone seen Tim Prow\'s painting in the last 5 yrs? He was a sweet painter too.

About NMM, learn to walk before you run. Make sure you are happy with your overall technique so that you can approach NMM witha bit more confidence. But again, metallics are still very good. Just need patience :innocent:
 

IcarusFalling

New member
Originally posted by Sturmhalo
It certainly sounds as if the WD articles are far better now than they were years ago. I always felt they were conning readers by showing beautifully painted figures and then advocating techniques that weren\'t particularly good! However if that\'s all changed now, then so much the better.

Actually the guide I\'m speaking of is quite old. 1986-88 some time in there.
 
Back To Top
Top