Ok, I\'m truely Baffled now
- Thread starter Lurch
- Start date
stormwarning
New member
i tink some people rate lower when they see a pic more than once
I\'ll probably get flamed, but your highlighting isn\'t that good Trevor. You\'ve basically picked out the raised areas with a lighter colour. Less contrast in the robes with a wider, smoother transition. Also, position your highlights based on where light falls, now just on edges and raised areas.
Yeah, thats a fair comment, for my next work, I\'ll have a go at trying to accentuate the highlights according to a light source.
I\'m happy with my sorceror, I wanted a faded hard highlight. I was just surprised it scored the same as something that was painted incredibly simply for rank and file.
I\'m happy with my sorceror, I wanted a faded hard highlight. I was just surprised it scored the same as something that was painted incredibly simply for rank and file.
Scottdsp748
New member
Trevor, I think the sorceror is cool, and i like the highlighting style you used...gives him sort of a glowing, magical....sorceror! 
look. I\'d like to see what that mini would score on a regular base though, as I am not wild about the foliage. As for the legion guys, I think their heads are especially cool...truthfully I\'d rate both of them a 7 (and did).
Lurch, your photos were better the first time, IMO...especially the executioner.
look. I\'d like to see what that mini would score on a regular base though, as I am not wild about the foliage. As for the legion guys, I think their heads are especially cool...truthfully I\'d rate both of them a 7 (and did).Lurch, your photos were better the first time, IMO...especially the executioner.
Thanks.
It occurred to me that I didn\'t explain myself very well, what I was trying to show was that the CMON score is not based on the painting alone, but the overall \"feel\" of a mini.
LotD have a very striking look, that looks very good with only basic painting, the only thing on those minis that has more than a single shade highlight is the flames and bare heads. The Sorceror has washes, glazes and multi shade highlights.
However, in terms of coolness they are the same.
It occurred to me that I didn\'t explain myself very well, what I was trying to show was that the CMON score is not based on the painting alone, but the overall \"feel\" of a mini.
LotD have a very striking look, that looks very good with only basic painting, the only thing on those minis that has more than a single shade highlight is the flames and bare heads. The Sorceror has washes, glazes and multi shade highlights.
However, in terms of coolness they are the same.
I\'ve noticed that I tond to get lower scores than my minis deserve, and I think my problem is the same as your repost\'s. Basically, the closer a pic you take, the more \"flawed\" your mini will look to the viewer unless they are really good AND they take the time to examine the pic. Your first pic looked better because it wasn\'t as macro. Lucky you, at least you use NMM, that helps the scores a bit. Personally, I brag about my low scores, as I think they\'re pretty hilarious. Course, I do have a very, ahem, well-developed ego...
DennisMech
New member
I took a look at your minis. I think the scores are very resonable.
Valander
Member
@Lurch
I think that the \"problem\" is two-fold:
1. The smaller pix seem \'smoother\' in their color transitions. This doesn\'t mean the model itself doesn\'t have smooth or rough transitions, but it may influence the \'gee, that\'s good blending\' ideas of voters. The larger pix show more of the color division lines, and may appear to be less smooth. This is probably partially due to the magnification that you get when you post a picture of a model that is 2x or more of \'life size\'.
2. The newer pix are all a bit darker and don\'t seem to have as much contrast. I could see this affecting how votes went, too.
I believe that you\'ve already got both of the comments I made from others, but I wanted to offer a suggestion on how to maybe fix it: In your photo-editing software, you may want to play with the \'smoothing\' setting if you save your file to .jpg. Sometimes, the picture is far grainier than the model would look like in real life, and a little smoothing can help to make it look more like the actual model.
I have the same problem with some of my stuff, especially since I\'m still using a low resolution camera (640x480!). I practically have to smooth/blur it to make it look anything like the model itself...
I think that the \"problem\" is two-fold:
1. The smaller pix seem \'smoother\' in their color transitions. This doesn\'t mean the model itself doesn\'t have smooth or rough transitions, but it may influence the \'gee, that\'s good blending\' ideas of voters. The larger pix show more of the color division lines, and may appear to be less smooth. This is probably partially due to the magnification that you get when you post a picture of a model that is 2x or more of \'life size\'.
2. The newer pix are all a bit darker and don\'t seem to have as much contrast. I could see this affecting how votes went, too.
I believe that you\'ve already got both of the comments I made from others, but I wanted to offer a suggestion on how to maybe fix it: In your photo-editing software, you may want to play with the \'smoothing\' setting if you save your file to .jpg. Sometimes, the picture is far grainier than the model would look like in real life, and a little smoothing can help to make it look more like the actual model.
I have the same problem with some of my stuff, especially since I\'m still using a low resolution camera (640x480!). I practically have to smooth/blur it to make it look anything like the model itself...
