Lets change the name of NMM - better definitions please!

jimcheney

New member
I dont like the name for the technique known as NMM - it sounds silly, and it rolls too many different effects under one umbrella, which leads to confusion. I also see some miniatures out there that, while they look nice, they conflict sylistically.

Why not call it FM for \"faux metallic?\" At least that is somewhat descriptive and avoids a self-contradictory moniker. It also ties the technique into the body of work that it is really part of - faux finishing.

Also, I think the rackham models are shooting for a more \"cel-shader\" look which complements their mini style. Most of their applications dont actually look like metal so much as they look like animation cels.

True faux metallics are another thing altogether, I first saw the technique in the 2ed WH40k Angels of Death codes, where the BA honor guard\'s gold helmets were painted to look like gold using no metallic colors - just how it would look if rendered as part of an illustration.

So please, lets start a more precise naming convention for painting techniques. I propose FM for faux metallic finishes that actually simulate metal, and CS for cel-shading techniques that work to make the miniature look like animation characters.

I think defining terms in this way not only makes it clearer to talk about, but allows beginners to better get a grasp on what they are looking at.
 

Chrispy

Active member
I was in Advertising desgin and if it\'s one thing with people, it\'s that they use the product name they were given. People do it all the time by asking for a Coke instead of a soda, or a Band Aid instead of adhesive medical strips.

So when someone wants to change the name of NMM, it would be very hard for people to accept. I use the contraction when I\'m typing but in my mind and when talking, I take the time to say \"Non Metallic Metal\". Belive me, it\'s more confusing in other languages, in French they refer to it as MNM... Which is a candy and a rapper over here. :p
 

finn17

New member
Hmmm...acronym city..

Hi Jim

Sorry, but I am going to take issue with you here right away.

Let me tell you why..

I work in education and I use a language that is almost impossible for the layman to understand as it is almost solely composed of acronyms.

I would be very reluctant to see the \'hobby\' to go in this direction. It puts off newcomers, who are the life blood of any hobby and serves to create a false elitism.

IMHO we paint toy soldiers at the end of the day. I know this description might upset some people, but that is what we do. Creating an artificial language to describe this process is ultimately self-destructive IMO.

I have just read a book which describes my feelings better than ever I could. Richard Dawkins in \'A Devil\'s Chaplain\' talks about the \"Law of Conservation of Difficulty\" :

\"Obscurantism in an academic subject expands to fill the vacuum of it\'s intrinsic simplicity\"

In a nutshell, physicists go to great lengths to simplify their language, media studies people go to great lengths to complicate theirs.

Sorry for the rant, and it is definitely not personally directed at you Jim, but I am just suffering from AA (acronym allergy)
:|~
 

jimcheney

New member
Military Man

I\'m in the Army, so I am daily awash in acronyms. Army people think that acronyms lend legitimacy to insignificant programs :)

I really dont want to create a lexicon, I just want people to be clearer in the their speech and references, and to use appropriate distincitions when appropriate. I certainly dont think that anyone will change what they call something, and no sort of quorum here will affect anything widespread, but I thought the point needed to be made - I still defend my distincitions.
 

finn17

New member
All\'s fair in love and mini painting...

Hey Jim!

I am more guilty than you. I have just tried to make an academic argument about the painting of toy soldiers, so by my own criteria I am damned.
Hoisted by my own petard!!
Bugger!lol
 
Back To Top
Top