NMM

[stormwarning]

Ok, the other day I heard an interesting point of view on NMM (Non-Metalic metalic). While most people think it is an amazing looking style, this person thought it wasn\'t quite that.
It is adding a 2D style to a 3D surface. Upon hearing this opinion I found that I agree with the idea. So I want to hear your opinion of this subject.

 

[Nelson]

And the sky is blue...

http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/viewthread.php?tid=5972

http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/viewthread.php?tid=5057

Oh, well, looking at both those threads, it seems that they don\'t really tell you much other than that people are fed up with the discussion.....

Ok, the other day I heard an interesting point of view on NMM (Non-Metalic metalic). While most people think it is an amazing looking style, this person thought it wasn\'t quite that.
It is adding a 2D style to a 3D surface. Upon hearing this opinion I found that I agree with the idea. So I want to hear your opinion of this subject.

I think the question here is: So? I don\'t really care if it\'s a 2-D technique. I like it, and honestly, most metals at this scale don\'t reflect the light a whole bunch more realistically. I like both equally....

\'Nuff said.

 

[james9487]

Basically, sure metallic is more realistic (I mean come on, the paint is made of little bits of metal!) but NMM is more challenging and when done correctly, it can look stunning, whereas anyone can use metallic paint fairly effectively.

 

[darthfoley]

Originally posted by james9487
Basically, sure metallic is more realistic (I mean come on, the paint is made of little bits of metal!) but NMM is more challenging and when done correctly, it can look stunning, whereas anyone can use metallic paint fairly effectively.

\'Fairly effectively\', perhaps, but mastery of metallics is a different thing entirely. I think to say either of them is easier than the other is a misnomer - there are people that can do NMM that can\'t use metallics well, and vice versa.

Course, these points have all been brought up before in the previously referenced threads... lol

 

[Legacy Account]

Originally posted by james9487
Basically, sure metallic is more realistic (I mean come on, the paint is made of little bits of metal!)

I would beg to differ. Metals are not strictly \'silver\' or \'gold\' (which are really facile imitations of real life!), but shiny, reflective surfaces. They reflect their surroundings. Study some polished armour carfully. You won\'t see \'silver\' but the colours of its surroundings and plenty of bright, white highlights reflecting the light sources. A flat coat of metallic paint can never achieve this effect. Even highlighted metallics will struggle to fairly represent metals in this way.

This piece is a fantastic case in point:

 

[frenchkid]

Yay another NMM thread

Well as other have said I don\'t think metalic do refelct like real metals would anyway, I do think they are more realistique though. So I guess that in the end it depends on preference. And about doing a 2d technique on 3d don\'t we do that with everything when painting a mini ??? I mean shading and highlighting is a 2d technique.

 

[t_haye2]

t to answer your question, i agree, i apreciate real metallics much more, but that doesn\'t stop me painting nmm once every so often, it\'s an interesting technique.

 

[Klute]

Why do we still waste time talking about this subject.
Both techniques can look good.
Both techniques can look bad.
Both techniques can look average.
There are no rules to what style you can or cannot use to paint miniatures.
I like using both depending on the mini I am painting.

Metallic paint has small flecks of metal in right.Even though they are small they must still be way out of scale to say grains of steel.So \"real\" metallics to me are just as false as nmm,senmm.

WHY CAN\'T WE JUST LEARN TO LIVE TOGETHER.