methods of voting....

[wokkers]

After reading a previous post titled \"Time to Rant\" I decided to ask this question. How do others vote for the minis they see here?

I personally base my votes on the overall look of the model, including the base, the model itself and the paintjob? Is this the right way?

I think my painting is about a 5, and so maybe i rate ppls models using my own work as a comparison. Is that right?

so tell me whaddya all think?

 

[nadinbrzezinski]

Why not?

Here is my method to my madness...

Technical skill... was the paint well applied? Is the color pallette pleasing to the eye... this is subjective but I think we can all agree that lche purple with oh dark chocolate brown will be harder to make it pleasing to the eye than lets say some contrasting colors.

Believe it or not, was the model cleaned? Some models, very few, show mold lines, or sprues, or things like that.

Can I see areas of white paint, as in primer, that is areas where paint was not applied evenly?

Now here is a scale I use, and is highly subjective. Oh and I do take into account years doing this.

1-3, Model has major flaws, and some might be due to photo quality, hence I am very reluctant to give somebody that. What major flaws do I mean? Mold lines, pieces of sprue, major gaps, that shoudl have been filled with oh green stuff or any equivalent putty.

4.- Slighly bellow table qualty, RaF, (I am far more liberal than most but I do teach five year olds how to slap paint on a model ok.) So if you have three tones of color on a model neatly applied, you will get a four from me... but I will take the time to give some pointers that I know, that though basic will help to improve your technique. Sometimes a simple thing such as a wash does amazing things for a model.

5-6 RAF, and as that states, dry brushing some details, at this stage maybe dressing the base a tad. I base this in any painting guide printed by any major company on how to produce RaF, for example see how to paint Ultramarines in the Ultramarine book, GW. There is no shading, very little drybrusing and a tad of base dressing. It is extremely basic and that is what I would like to see as an average on the table. Most people have time for that and are capable of having an atractive (at two feet) army in a fairly short time. No they are not the drop dead, wow kind of an army, but are effective and look good at the distance we all tend to play at. So they are pleasing to the eye and look far batter than the ever so popular primer white or black. Oh and as we collectively enforce our own neurosis about painted armies to a very high standard, we scare people away from the hobby... so consider that.

6-8, increasing skill from this very basic RAF that most companies encourage peope to do. By the way my young bloods locally are starting to achieve this level at times... and that is pretty good with an eight year old I use an internal sliding scale when doing this.

9 Oh my god drop dead, but there is something not quite right with the mini that is holding it from going the next step.

10, and yes I am quite liberal with them compared to others, I find no defect in the mini. The whole composition, from the base to the tip of the spear, is just amazing.

Oh and now lets see for vehicles.

Base coat, you might have put this together but not fitted it well, 1=3, it really depends on how well you did this.

4.- base color maybe up to two

5-6 neat aplication of color, some washes some weathering. Or if you chose the spankign brand new, it looks the part.

7-8 Weathering, some convesrions some times, dynamic poses.

9 See above, the model has something that does not push it above to ten.

10 OMG, this is perfect.

Now I do not let things like brand enter the equation. Why? If I did then my own biases (Don\'t like nekkid chicks that much, have given some nines and tens), I would vote my bias and give them a five... Why I don\'t find them that necesary in the hobby.

If a mini is technically good, it will receive a good vote. Sometimes if it is technically bad I refrain from voting and posting public comments. Why? A young blood does not need anybody telling them, your work is crap!

Now if I give a critique I will try to make it constructive, because I was told this once. When you point the ugly only, you enourcage that person to stop writing (writers club and I use that for painting now as well), When you tell them how to improve their work and do point at least a single good thing, you actually help that person improve. It is far easier to give a good review than a bad one, all the time.

And yes I am probably far less jaded and far more liberal with the numbers than some... but I also deal with this on an every day basis. We want to encourage the young to pick up the hobby, but if we overwhelm them with many techniques and then tell them... your work is crap... well they will do one of two things:

1.- Get out of gaming and painting altogether, not that I can blame them. Hey I almost got out when somebody said, women cannot paint... I think Haley is making that person eat his words, assuming he knows Haley is a she.


2.- These people will stay in gaming but never again pick up a brush. Qute frankly, I can\'t blame them for donig that either.

So that is my take on this.

Nadin

 

[Mahon]

good post, Nadin!

I mostly agree with your scale. As I wrote somewhere else for me it\'s:

1 - crap, a crime committed to minis...
2-3 - poor, still need to learn
4 - poor or simple tabletop, something lacking to make it satisfying for me to play against an army of such minis on a tabletop. anyway not bad.
5 - average tabletop - at least something like this should be used for gaming: neat, yet simple, maybe some basic drybrushing or washing?
6 - good tabletop - really satisfying to meet somebody playing with such minis
7 - between good tabletop and a good display mini. Advanced techniques were used, the mini is interesting but not \"great\"yet
8 - great mini, display thing
9 - amazing, really impressed me, I found it very inreresting for some reason
10 - unforgettable...

And I am the kind of person who finds constructive comments a good thing. When you know what is wrong with your minis you can improve your skills and become better ad better

Anyway I agree with you that many people might be discouraged by negative feedback they receive or even by seeing some masterpieces - eg. Haley\'s or Wong\'s minis...

And BTW the photo quality plays a major role too - as you must have noticed yourself

 

[nvstudios]

Very simple:

1 I can\'t tell what the model is, it looks like it hasn\'t been painted, it\'s the most retarted conversion I\'ve ever seen.

2 I can tell what is it but I\'d be offended if I was forced to field it. The picture quaility is usually very poor.

3 The model is painted but it\'s poor color selection, no higlights, no ink, not full coverage with the paint, the base isn\'t done, or I can\'t see the picture.

4 The model is done with single colors, no highlights, no ink, or the base isn\'t done.

5 The model is painted, the base is done, the color selection isn\'t gawdy, it\'s done cleanly, and it\'s been washed, inked, or basically highlighted. It\'s an average model for the field... and honestly, I don\'t expect much to give a 5.

6 The model has a decent attention to detail and looks to be \"done\". Done being highlighted well, decent job on the base, and so on. It\'s a mini that I\'d field. I wouldn\'t be offended to own it.

7 Someone who has gone above the call of duty by making a decorative base, doing a nice conversion, putting on several layers of highlight, good color selections.

8 To get this high, you\'ll have to start blending colors. A well done conversion is great, several is better. You really need a decorative base. Handpainted symbols like tattoos or maybe a picture on a cloak would be great.

9 This is truly the pinnacle of most minis. You\'ve chosen GREAT colors. You\'ve done an awesome job on your base. You\'ve done something to make your model stand out from the pack. The colors are all blended and generally very smoothly. The mini appears to have been attacked with one helluva plan in mind. Done and executed successfully.

10 Quite simply, I can detect no flaw. I agree with what you\'ve done, the model really appears to come to life. The eyes are full of spirit, the flesh looks like it would be warm to the touch.

To date I\'ve given a whopping 3 10\'s, maybe 5 9\'s, and 10 8\'s. Most minis rank in at 5-7.

 

[number9]

My voting method feels rather complicated and I have a hard time settling on scores sometimes. The only real rule of thumb I stick by is \"line highlights versus blend highlights\". A model with clean basecoats and apparent sculpted details enhanced typically gets a 5. Nice line hilights gets a 6 and nice blend highlights gets a 7. Rating 8\'s, 9\'s, and 10\'s is much trickier and really is very subjective in how I like models presented. I personally don\'t like a lot of clutter on figures, or extraneous detail for the sake of \"looking complicated\". I prefer clean lines and smooth blends and thus I tend to reward minis that employ those methods well most favorably. Its a complex balance to achieve between showing off the model with your painting, or showing off your painting with the model (if that makes any sense). At the other end of the spectrum, I only rarely dip below 5 and typically then only to a 4, and if I\'m gonna go lower I\'d leave a comment as to why I felt it should be so.

I don\'t envy the painting judges at miniature competitions as it is a very difficult field to rate. I try my best to be fair and consistent, but sometimes I just don\'t like certain effects on certain models even though they may require an impressive amount of painting skill and patience. If I\'m giving a model a score that goes against the grain of its previous scores (like giving a 5 to a model with a 7 ranking, or a 7 to a model with a 5 ranking) I\'ll leave a comment why I think so.

More often than not the average scores displayed for the figures here is quite consistent and true to my feelings and even though there may be a few \"low score snipers\" out there, I just don\'t think they have that much impact over the long run.

By the way, I think this site is one of the best things to happen to this hobby on the internet, despite its few flaws

 

[Errex]

I usually vote according to this:

10.- A flawless paintjob, excellent presentation and an appealling subject.

9.- A flawless paintjob, excellent presentation, but the subject is not one of my favs. (Let\'s say, a tactical space marine)

8.- Good all-around job, but not overly impressive, sensible basing, and attention for detail. Historicals and bigger pieces rarely would get higher than 8 from me.

7.- Bright, clean jobs, some times with conversion work. They usually display interesting techniques to achieve specific effects.

6.- Bright, clean jobs, mostly RaF stuff that could be used as examples for basic techniques. Painting \'within the lines\' is sometimes enough.

5.- A simple paintjob. Minimal shading, often no highlights, but at least, no primer showing.

4.- Rarely it gets lower that this. Flash, bent limbs, bad sculpts and looking as if they were dropped on a paint tub.

Add 1 to the score if the mini has nostalgic appeal.

Now, this are some automatic score deductions from me:

Adding the legend \"You can buy if you like\" on a clearly sub-par mini gets an automatic -2.

Posting others people\'s work: -5 :flame:

NMM, done badly: -1 . Really, it\'s hit and miss situation this one. If done well, it\'ll get you beaucop points, if not, down you go.

That\'s pretty much how I vote

 

[nadinbrzezinski]

And that is apart of the problem, yes 52 mm is bigger, as in historicals... it takes DIFFERENT skills to make them look that good. Thuogh most people for some reason think it is easier to make them look good. It is just as hard, and I might suggest pick up and Inquistor model and well, try it.

Size should not matter at all, or Errex, brand or model. I have seen pretty impresive tactical marines and more shitty ones than I want to remember, and after realizing just how few (For third edition that is) my hubby has, well I guess I will have to start painting ultra marines.

 

[The Raging Gaijin]

1 - At least you primed it.
2 - It was dipped in paint
3 - A brush was used
4 -The mini is painted neatly, with no highlighting or detail work.
5 - Gaming Quality (think of HeroClix)
6 - Gaming Quality but neatly painted.
7 - Gaming Quality with drybrushing/blending. (Lines of demarcation between on layer and the next are evident.)
8 - Competition Quality - Neatly painted, colors highlighted and fully based. Blending should be evidenced, if not fully mastered.
9 - Competition Quality with smooth blending
10 - Golden Demon Quality - If I saw this at Games Day, I\'d expect it to make First Cut.

And conversions always push it up a notch or two, depending on difficulty. (I admit bias on the conversion end.)

I frequently give 9s and 10s on this site.

The Raging Gaijin

 

[Errex]

Well, my post saying that historicals or bigger models rarely get higher that 8, is not because some bias towards size, or the supposed lower skill involved in making one of those look good.

It´s just that I find most commercial historical kits BORING. Some are nice, like Phillipe\'s vampires, but really, a bust of an 18th century hussar does not rock my boat. Nonetheless, if the piece is technically correct, it is getting an 8, wich is, in my opinion a fair rating for a job well done, but not really appealing to my particular tastes.

Now, those were not hard and fast guidelines, just an approximation at how I find most of my votes distributed after a while.:innocent:

 

[Mahon]

in reply to number9\'s post:

you\'re right: \"low score snipers\" (or \"mowers\" - I\'m not sure if they\'re as selective as snipers) don\'t have much influence in longtime terms. But when you have 10 votes and your score goes remarkably down due to 1 next vote, you may get angry (\"what is this fu***r doing??\").

in reply to nadinbrzezinski\'s post:

yes - large minis require different approach. applyingng techniques used with smaller minis would make larger models unrealistic, exaggerated and comic-style.
larger models aren\'t easier but simply different. OTOH they are more likely to become impressive things.

Don\'t think I\'m justifying myself - I haven\'t ever pained any of those larger-scale minis. :innocent:

 

[Triumph]

It looks like most people use basically the same scale with just minor tweeking.

1- never use. If a model is so bad to merit a 1, I just try to avert my eyes and go to the next one.

2- This is that bad figure but it looks like there was some effort put into it. Mostly painted between the lines. very sloppy.

3- Basic colors are down. and that\'s it.

4- a 3 score with the beginnings of more techniques. basic drybrushing, washes

5- your basic RAF troop. nothing over the top but painted with what I call a 3 foot standard. The model looks great from at least 3 feet away. Fine detail appears and more attention to the basing.

6- Call this the 2 foot std. Eyes are painted in well. the more advanced techniques are starting to be employed( smooth blending etc.) bases become a little more elaborate. Minor conversions are present.

7- This is that figure that non-painters stare at but painters still find flaws in. Everything is very clean but fine detail work is still not always present. I find this is the level most painters plateau on until they really start to develop their own styles.

8- these are the figs I would expect to see at a painting comp. They have all the right pieces and just need to put everything together. The figs are smooth and crisp. They employ the advanced techniques. The fine detail really starts to shine but something is still missing to take it to that next level.

9- These are the miniatures that would win 99% of all painting comp. They have no visible flaws. These are what I call the 6\" figs. Look great even up close. Not only are these miniatures painted to a high standard but they have that missing something, which I think is Originality. Show me something that I have never seen done before.

10- WOW!! Perfection. That oh so rare miniature that inspires us to try to go beyond our abilities. Victor Hardy\'s Bloodthirster comes to mind( if you do not remember it or have never seen it flip through the new hordes of Chaos army book for WFB) Totally original take on the BT. It was a flawless presentation.

I try to look at the figure itself and the effort put into presenting it. I try not to focus on the make, or the genre, or even the scale. A well painted figure is a well painted figure.

 

[kahoolin]

i think when you vote you just have to look at the entire miniature, inc the base, which can make or brake a model.
I\'m not gonna brake down the scores and analyze what each point should be, coz i think it should be judged individually on each model. Conversions etc might not have a great paint job, but i look at the idea behind it etc. All in all i take each mini as they come and then i have a look at the painters profile and then vote.

 

[Garyo]

I know for a fact Errex votes better than 8\'s on 54mm figs. It\'s pretty clear to me that you shouldn\'t put too much weight on what people vote for you posted mini\'s. Two of my postings made first cut at Games Day and one of them is struggling to stay above a 6.... The pettyness is mildly amusing. My thought is share your stuff with the greater whole. I learn from all I see here and helps my skills grow.

Garyo

 

[marcq]

I must confess to much more subjective voting. For me, it is a combination of technique, color selection and composition, and the figure itself.

I\'m very sparing in the 10s but have rated a few figures 10. Pretty sparing on the 9s. Not too stingy with 7s and 8s. An 8 for me is very good technique with a composition I find very pleasing. Seven might have some technique flaws or composition problems but is still nice.

I\'ve never rated less than a 4. Most people have put enough work into the figure to merit at least sub-table top quality.

I do dock for poor pictures (it\'s a good way to encourage better pictures). I don\'t tend to like the large slabs of metal you find on many science fiction figures and am puzzled by the generally high ratings of some of these figures.

I wish you had to post figure size when posting your picture. There are some figures I like that I\'m sure are fairly large but without knowing how large, it is hard to assess the level of technique.

For the record, I gave up painting when sivousplay blasted past me long ago in ability. All you painters blow me away in technique and I\'m quite impressed by the work.

Marc