NMM: - A triumph of style over substance. Discuss.

[Rachel]

Originally posted by supervike
Sometimes the NMM effect is done so well, that is becomes the focus of the entire miniature.

Oh, absolutely! I\'ve seen mini\'s with a fairly average overall paintjob, but an attractive or experimental nmm bit, and they\'re only being rated on the fun parts. It\'s like the in-model-light-source thing (or whatever the kids are calling it these days). I think that\'s at the stage nmm was at a year or two ago - overly impressing some but turning off others who \'don\'t get it\' or \'don\'t like it\'.

The same effect occurs with freehand . No matter how boring the rest of the model, or inappropriate the 2d work, if it\'s done well the mini\'ll end up rating somewhere in the 9s. ah, I dream of one of those...

It\'s a shame it doesn\'t work both ways, as I\'ve seen some stuff being rated very poorly for the overall when all they\'re asking for is opinion on a specific part (which is usually done quite nicely).

 

[jimcheney]

Lets change the name

First, I\'d like to say that I hate calling the technique NMM - it sounds silly. 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 say 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\'m going to post this as a new topic too, since I think I might be trying to hi-jack this one.

 

[SoulFire_pt]

Just a style...

I believe it\'s all a matter of style.


As others already said, NMM (or FM is a style more suited for a \"comic\" or \"cell\" look, I have yet to see more than a handful of models with \"realistic\" looking NMM (more on that later), but on those the NMM is so similar to MM that the two blend together...

There a consideration to take a in account, NMM looks a LOT better on a photo than on your hands, the technique is based on \"faking light sources\" and while this works in 2d (as you can see on pretty much any decent artwork featuring metal bits), it loses consistency when you are able to change the angle from which you see the model, when this happens, the illusion is broken and that sword suddenly looks very different...

It also takes in account our perception of things, a grey sword (even with a poor NMM work) will seem metalic for a simple reason... how many swords have you seen that were not made out of metal?... on a similar note, an object not commonly made out of metal will not seem to us to be metallic unless the work is flawless.


To sum up. NMM when done by a good painter looks great, but saying that a model painted in NMM looks \"realistic\" is wishful thinking at the very least... take for example Boby Wong\'s (sp?) Ultramarines or his Bloodquest squad. Seamlessly blended? Sure. Looks great? Surely. But realistic? Not by a fat chance... they look like fresh out of the marine factory, not a spec of mud on their boots or legs even tough they are threading trough a battlefield, not a dent, or scratch on they armour even tough they are supposedly fighting a battle...

(But that\'s pretty much how 9/10 marines or other similar models look like.. I just picked Wong\'s models as they are the perfect example of cartoony models).

Now take for example Victoria\'s models, they almost seem alive (I swear I saw those orcs move! , yes, they might not be as flashy as the others but they look simply stunning. Victoria\'s use of NMM is in such a way that you strain your eyes trying to figure if that is NMM or MM... that were NMM makes the transition into the \"realistic\" that where NMM starts looking like the one we see constantly in 2d works.


To end as I started... I believe it\'s all a matter of style...

Cheers,

Eduardo

 

[laurence]

Never Make Marmelade

Around Christmas time 2002 I caught the FM (NMM) bug and my new goals for 2003 were to be able to paint good looking Silver & Gold FM\'s (NMM\'s). Faux Metal\'s seemed to be the talk of the town, NMM this and NMM that, it seemed that every web-site I visited had some reference to NMM, I was excited just to learn what these three letters stood for. I wrote e-mails to my favorite painters asking them for advise on FM\'s (NMM\'s) however neither of them replied to me. And then I found CMON..... Anyway, I love \'M\' & \'FM\'s (NMM\'s) as much as eachother and think that \'FM\'s (NMM\'s) serve to give the artist more techniques to choose from when considering what way to paint your mini therefore making this artform even more interesting than it already is. If its your cup of tea by all means sip from the cup. I think that both VM\'s (NMM\'s) and \'M\'s are both here to stay. Cheers.

 

[hagness]

to not denigrate the hobby

I find it extremely unconscionable that the best artists can be judged by amateurs in a public forum that really serves to denigrate the hobby as a whole. In spite of my initial support for CMON, as far as I can tell it has served no ultimate purpose of good. This thread is a perfect example.

The consensus of the general masses is that it takes an excellent artist to pull off NMM effects. So who are we to judge something that we can\'t do ourselves, much less do better? We can try to simulate Monet\'s (the famous 2D artist) works, but can we really critique it in a way such as \"it doesn\'t resemble nature in a realistic way\"? That\'s total BS, and not useful to anyone.

CMON would be just as beneficial to me if the ratings system were done away with. Maybe that would discourage the amateurs from attempting to make themselves look better by putting down the best artists of our precious hobby.

 

[stephen(TS)]

tee hee, what a silly poll and discussion question :|~

Not to be to blah about this, but - NMM, faux metal, what ever; a)will not replace traditional metals, b) does look great when skillfully done, c) anyone who wants to should take a crack at it, d) many professionals / otherwise skilled painters are not skilled at the technique.

e)There should always be a place for amateur critiques, we do not live in a solitary world.

 

[SoulFire_pt]

to hagness

Maybe you should read my post again... if you do you might find that my point is that there are different styles and to each their own.

Can we say that a Monet is better or worse than a Rembrandt? Not really... they are different artist and have different techniques and styles.

Now, if \"amateurs\" as you call me could not make comments about someone\'s work without \"doing better\" that would make most of these forums and the comment system quite pointless wouldn\'t it?... Not to mention that to say something about a movie you must be a director with a better movie already made...

What I did, was take two reference artists that everyone here would know and compare their styles, and no matter how good Bobby Wong\'s blending on his Ultras is you cannot cal that a \"realistic\" (as in trying to emulate some kind of reality) model. Is that a bad thing? Of course not! It\'s simply his style... some people will prefer that style while others prefer Victoria\'s or any other style in between, pretty much how some people will prefer a Monet to a Salvador Dali...

Cheers,

 

[Emerald]

@hagness: Sorry, but the \"If you can\'t do it better, you cannot have an opinion\" argument doesn\'t hold any water. I\'ve heard it a million times, applied to a million different topics and I always disagree with it. If only people who can do a better job are entitled to a valid opinion, how can anyone comment on Michael Jordan, Shakespeare or Mozart? Does my inability to write better that Faulkner prevent me from criticizing his work? I think not.

Also, this argument only seems to pop up whenever someone receives a bad comment. I\'ve never seen anyone react to a good review with something like \"You can\'t do it better, so shut up\"

Truly great athletes, writers, painters or whatever always listen to critiques, wherever these might come from. As long as it is not simply an attack and it has something to bak it up, every opinion is valid.

 

[t_haye2]

End of the day, I believe it is just a fad, albeit a very nice one. I do find it interesting that a lot of people seem not to be able to handle \'normal\' metallics and therefore go for the NMM option. If you paint metallic colours by using blending , inks and such the effect can be very pleasing indeed!(just like you would use flat colours)
I find that NMM works well on high-fantasy(Reaper, Rackham), but a bit poo on GW stuff.
The thing is, it will only fit with models that will benefit from a very crispy clean look, not models that would look cooler when they\'re a bit down and dirty.
I am dabbling in the NMM camp at the moment(When I finish the models I\'m working on, I will post them, honest-even if their crap-doing Golborak at the moment), but I think that I\'m still hanging on to natural looking metallics(check Jakob Nielsen\'s metallic styles, or Joe Hill for instance, gorgeous!!). This doesn not mean I think that people like Cyril, who do wonderful NMM are less in my book, it\'s just that I prefer the slightly more realistic look.

 

[Infidel Castro]

Hagness, you are so far off the mark, and so far up your arse, it\'s incredible! This is an open forum, full of people with opinions and thoughts and at the very least an understanding of what is good and bad with a paint job.

This talk of amateurs judging the best forces me to ask you this question:

What standard do you consider your work to be at?

I won\'t get personal on this subject, though right now I really feel like flaming at you quite nastily :flame:. However, here is an excerpt from your message:

\"CMON would be just as beneficial to me if the ratings system were done away with. Maybe that would discourage the amateurs from attempting to make themselves look better by putting down the best artists of our precious hobby.\"

It\'s almost obvious, but have you not considered that CMON was made for a community and not just for you? The rating system is probably 90% accurate, and once people become au fait with styles they are quickly able to see the quality of work for what it is.

Your ratings put you in the strictly AMATEUR range and I see from your posting that you have PLENTY to say about this site. If you are happy to do this, then other AMATEURS are fine to comment on superior works (I do so regularly). This site and its \'ethos\' far supercede the attitude of a jumped up weenie like you! And long may it be so.

And why would the best painters post their work if they weren\'t happy with this arrangement? Thought of that? Eh? In fact you can talk to most of them through the forums...I know I have :moon:.

MY ANGER IS RIGHTEOUS AND MY WRATH IS JUST :innocent:.

That\'s all for now.

Rev

 

[mouse]

My takes...

NMM or SENMM to me is an art. A way of achieving something differently. And as most will agree, it is an ardous and difficult manner to achieving that effect.

However, to truly say that NMM/SENMM is more beautiful or appealing than metal is silly. What will it look like if that shiny new car is done in NMM and not real metals? In the past, the artists don\'t have the luxury of our technologies and hence had to resort to emulating metals on their paintings.

I give higher score for NMM/SENMM not for their sheer beauty but for the level of difficulty that the artist undertook to demonstrate his/her skills. No more no less (although at times it does exeggerate the beauty of metal ).

However, as in a previous posting, I agree wholeheartedly with Chrispy. I sickens me that when someones does NMM, especially SENMM, and got all the ideas all wrong, such as lighting and the sky-earth aspects confused, but cos it was still beautifully done, they were applaud and awarded high marks. That\'s quite sad and depressing.

I know that Elouhard and Chrispy (in their articles) taught that the sky directly above is darkest and the sky at the horizon is lightest and the earth vice versa. But the manner that these artists employed it as a mantra is ridiculous! I know that I cannot paint like them but to see them making such blatant errors of light makes it hilarious to be awarded such high scores!

Athough I wouldn\'t say that NMM/SENMM is a fad and it\'ll pass. It wasn\'t invented now (it was done eons again) and it definitely has had its place.

But don\'t penalise a piece without NMM/SENMM just as you will reward a mini with it (get my idea?? )

Eg. original mini with metallics = 7
\"oh, it doesn\'t use NMM/SENMM, i think i\'ll give it a 6\"

Eg. original mini with NMM = 6
\"oh, the artist did well with achieving good results with NMM, i think i\'ll give it a 7\"

Hence, both pieces are likely to achieve 7 instead.

 

[Corvus]

I haven\'t been following this thread, but here\'s my opninion

I just have two levels of painting:

1) the as-good-as-I-can-do quality, or showcase quality: I use NMM here, because it looks better I think, but takes more time to do. But time is not an issue when working on this kind of models.
2) the gaming quality: I try to find a good balance between speed and quality, and I think normal metallic paints fit nicely in this idea.

 

[Tuubje]

Originally posted by hagness
I find it extremely unconscionable that the best artists can be judged by amateurs in a public forum that really serves to denigrate the hobby as a whole. In spite of my initial support for CMON, as far as I can tell it has served no ultimate purpose of good. This thread is a perfect example.

The consensus of the general masses is that it takes an excellent artist to pull off NMM effects. So who are we to judge something that we can\'t do ourselves, much less do better? We can try to simulate Monet\'s (the famous 2D artist) works, but can we really critique it in a way such as \"it doesn\'t resemble nature in a realistic way\"? That\'s total BS, and not useful to anyone.

CMON would be just as beneficial to me if the ratings system were done away with. Maybe that would discourage the amateurs from attempting to make themselves look better by putting down the best artists of our precious hobby.

You can never make yourself better by putting someone down, only in your own eyes maybe, but not towards the rest of the community.
Me, I am an amateur, but I come to CMON to gain ideas, to improve myself and to look up to people who are far better than me. People like Chrispy (no Haley here ), make me WANT to paint. CMON is a source of inspiration.
And NMM can be done by anyone willing to try, but an excellent artist can make it look like it is, excellent. And if you can\'t handle the fact that the art here can be voted upon, maybe you are in the wrong place, because the sites name is \"cool mini or not?\", so you will be judged if you post a mini. \'If ye doesn\'t want to be judged, don\'t post\' is an old, newly-ressurected saying in COMN\'ese.
And please, i can\'t really keep quiet about this one: \"I find it extremely unconscionable that the best artists can be judged by amateurs in a public forum that really serves to denigrate the hobby as a whole.\" <-- I think someone got a \'4\' on their mini.
We look up to these people and we share a passion for a hobby. Denigrate the hobby? Oh please....

 

[halon]

As may have already been stated, NMM faux metal or whatever you want to call it is not a new technique. It started with paintings in ancient times to simulate metallic paints because they had no way to make them. Now if the point is to learn to simulate the reflections shading etc. of metal then by all means practice and learn SENMM and NMM. It is a good way to learn how to paint metallics better. When done right metallics are up to a 7 step process and can be indistinguishable from real metal, and it is just as hard to paint well as any of the NMM techniques I\'ve seen. The one real problem with metallics is the grain size in the suspension. And that\'s more paint selection and photography than anything else. When folks enlarge a picture 4x normal life size to show you the detailing you start running into a problem where you\'re seeing things you don\'t normally see with the naked eye...like grain size. And since NMM doesn\'t have that problem people and companies that post pictures of enlarged figures tend to prefer seeing things painted with NMM. But when well done metallics and NMM are viewed side by side and at arms length it\'s really pretty difficult to see any real superiority between the two styles.l

 

[laurence]

Fries on the shoulder

Originally posted by hagness
I find it extremely unconscionable that the best artists can be judged by amateurs in a public forum that really serves to denigrate the hobby as a whole. In spite of my initial support for CMON, as far as I can tell it has served no ultimate purpose of good. This thread is a perfect example.

The consensus of the general masses is that it takes an excellent artist to pull off NMM effects. So who are we to judge something that we can\'t do ourselves, much less do better? We can try to simulate Monet\'s (the famous 2D artist) works, but can we really critique it in a way such as \"it doesn\'t resemble nature in a realistic way\"? That\'s total BS, and not useful to anyone.

CMON would be just as beneficial to me if the ratings system were done away with. Maybe that would discourage the amateurs from attempting to make themselves look better by putting down the best artists of our precious hobby.

What a load of rubbish!!! As most people would agree CMON is a place where miniature painters can learn new ideas and share their interest and passion for this artform with other artists.

As far as I can tell the forums serve to encourage and nurture miniature enthusiasts/artists, and in no way denigrates artists of any rank. This is a place to throw ideas around, vent your love for the art, discuss ways of improving on techniques etc, etc.

In reality CMON works to positively promote miniature art and without it many mini artists might still be in the dark ages ( I know I would be).

I think you really need to examine where you were coming from when to made the comments you made!!! Are you in some way holding a grudge because of your own frustrations as an artist, are you an emotional person etc??

We all start out as amatuers however thankfully for sites such as these we may realise our goals sooner than expected and express ourselves. Any person with half a brain, integrity and a little respect, dignity and all that jazz can recognise when someone is putting someone else down in order to prop themselves up, which I might add seldolmly occurs here at CMON.

I really believe you\'re speaking for yourself here and in no way voice the collective views of the miniature community as a whole. NMM is a tricky technique to master as is M, hell miniature painting in general is pretty damn hard and anyone who takes the time to produce a fine looking mini whether it be \'cartoonish\', \'realistic\', \'M\', \'NMM\', Sky Earth, Lavender, Acromatic etc,etc, if its done honestly with patience and skill it gets its deserved merit regardless.

I don\'t know about you but I wan\'t all of us to keep on improving, all of us to be satisfied with our achievments, and I see this site as a place that provides an opportunity for all to improve.

And really, the \'ol you can\'t do it so therefore have no right to judge thing is getting very damn tiresome!!!

I don\'t mean to get narcy with you, but your comments insulted you, me and all of the by and large altruistic and honest members of this fine and upstanding community...

\'Welcome to the Cruel World\'

 

[]V[etalhead]

I\'m still getting the ahng of painting do damn small, but I\'m a relatively accomplished painter and artist in ym own right. Personally, I don\'t care for most NMM. On the vast majority (all but one or 2 minis that were astounding) of the NMM pieces I\'ve seen here, the only reason your mind interprets the NMM as metal, is because you know a sword is supposed to be metal, or a belt buckle is metal.

While it does give an interesting look to the weapons and metal parts, most people do not think about how a piece of metal would behave under a given lighting situation, they simply bring out the piece\'s 3D nature.

Basically, go for the NMM look, but fo God\'s sake, don\'t ignore physics and look at some real metal while you work.

 

[Caenem]

To start off with, I have yet to post a mini on this website. So, according to some, I should keep my opinions on the work displayed here to myself, because I obviously do not have the eye or talent to speak.

Seriously though, this site has made me a much better painter. It\'s done this by showing me the many many options there are to painting. There isn\'t just the \"GW \'eavy metal way\". There\'s underpainting, NMM (or FM), layering, blending, light sourcing, etc.
I personally like the idea of NMM. I\'ve done some HORRIBLE jobs at it, and some I think are ok. It might lose it\'s flashiness for me once I can consistently replicate it at will, but I doubt it. I never liked how metallic paints looked on my finished mini\'s. (BTW, just to show I don\'t completely hate metallics, I still have a special spot for Tin Bitz in my paint box) As an artist, you have to push yourself and try new things. Otherwise you get stuck doing the same thing all the time. I ask you, what\'s wrong with trying a \"new\" technique? Is there such a horrendous problem in trying to expand your painting skills that NMM should go away and never be seen again? I find it curious that some people rave and drool like rabid wolves and feel the need to insult NMM work as a whole. It\'s a different technique. That\'s all. If I want to paint an illusion on my mini, I can and I will. After all, we\'re all painting illusions, aren\'t we?

 

[elouchard]

mouse,

I don\'t remember writing an article on nmm but I do remember Chrispy\'s. Good stuff.

btw, are you saying that I get high score only because of my bad nmm? I know I\'m no expert but I don\'t think its that bad.

 

[U4-Welcome]

I think Metalhead has a point when he says NMM looks metallic because we know it\'s supposed to be metallic. Not always, of course, highly skilled painters can do it really realistically, but I\'d say it also depends on the lighting and angle of the photo - just like any standard highlighting. SENMM certainly doesn\'t look like it should if you tilt the mini and look at it from underneath - yeah, who\'d do that, but anyway. My point is that to achieve good NMM, you need mad skillz, of course, as well as a good photo.
Example : I\'m currently having my first go at SENMM. I thought it out to make it, I think, as real as possible. Well, it still looks like blue and brown So much for the mad skillz. But if I concentrate and look at it from a certain angle, well, it does finally start looking like it should : sky reflected on a shiny surface.

 

[mouse]

oh...the sins of language...

especially mine...

Originally posted by elouchard
mouse,

I don\'t remember writing an article on nmm but I do remember Chrispy\'s. Good stuff.

btw, are you saying that I get high score only because of my bad nmm? I know I\'m no expert but I don\'t think its that bad.

elouchard, my reference to artists ain\'t you and Chripsy...its the others who read the articles (sorry, my mistake that you wrote one of the article) and followed it blindly...my most humble (finn the stalker - not humid ) apologises for this misunderstanding.