Perfect light

[squidders]

I was looking over some of my minis the other day and made an observation...

Some are quite dark in the flesh as it were. They look great under perfect light such as right next to a light source, under camera flash or in bright daylight though.

I wonder if this is a function of better lighting available to people painting minis or not.

the net result is though that they don\'t look as good in normal light. I mean, I know they may be superbly painted but it takes a lot of effort to bring it out.

Other minis I have, I assume were painted to look bright or under not so good lighting, look far better in far poorer light and so look better more of the time.

I wonder if those painters investing in lighting rigs and daylight bulbs for painting, are shooting themselves in the foot a little?

After all, the best possible light certainly isn\'t the most common.

What are peoples thoughts on this?

 

[Dragonsreach]

Originally posted by squidders

I wonder if those painters investing in lighting rigs and daylight bulbs for painting, are shooting themselves in the foot a little?

In some respects I agree with you on this.
Generally I paint under an Anglepoise Office desk lamp and use that for the primary lighting.
But my wife always takes a look at the figure under natural daylight. And of course the figures get displayed under natural daylight or in a GW Cabinet.

Plus... if you are going into competitions than you can\'t control the lighting for example at the NEC, So you have to Paint to compensate for that.

 

[green stuff]

Message original : squidders
They look great under perfect light such as right next to a light source, under camera flash or in bright daylight though.

...

the net result is though that they don\'t look as good in normal light. I mean, I know they may be superbly painted but it takes a lot of effort to bring it out.

I\'m sorry, but I\'m a bit at a loss here. I think you answered your own question.

If the mini you\'re painting is aimed for badly lit places or gaming standards, then exagerating the contrasts does help viewing it. But if you\'re aiming for a serious display level, then you might as well do the most for it.

\"Serious\" conventions will have proper lighting. Two weekends ago, I was at the Lugdunum Open, which is a \"small\" venue compared to other conventions (500 participants from various european countries, over 700 entries). They put the entries in a hall that has big window openings that flood the room with sunlight in addition to the main lights.

Here\'s a link to some pics taken by one of the participants :

http://milinet.free.fr/pn_modules/Gallery_models/index.php?show_heading=list&dir=Lugdunum%202008

And here are the official pics (gallery still being completed) :

http://www.lugdunum-figurines.com/evenements/Lugdunum%202008/lugdunum%202008%20photos/index.html

 

[squidders]

Well, I wasn\'t after a direct answer as I don\'t think it\'s that type of question. I was just after peoples thoughts on the subject. Which people would rather go for and what minis they have seen that work in either way, or even both ways.

Just making conversation really

 

[squidders]

p.s. the quality of work in those galleries is fabulous!

 

[green stuff]

Message original : squidders
Just making conversation really

 

[Ritual]

IMO, you should always go a bit further with contrast then what might seem necessary under the light you work with. Even with decent lighting you will not have the same effect as your work lighting and the minis will look flatter. When you display your minis (either at home or at shows) there will be a more general lighting (i.e. not pinpointed directly at your mini) and strong contrast will make the mini stand out more. That is generally desirable!

 

[green stuff]

@Anders : True, but the fronteer between minis that \"pop\" and cartoonish contrasts (which can be a style on its own) is slim.

 

[airhead]

Originally posted by green stuff...\"Serious\" conventions will have proper lighting. Two weekends ago, I was at the Lugdunum Open, which is a \"small\" venue compared to other conventions (500 participants from various european countries, over 700 entries). They put the entries in a hall that has big window openings that flood the room with sunlight in addition to the main lights.
...

I feel that is the exception rather than the rule. Most convention centers that I have been in have little or no availble natural lights. Most of the minis are displayed in retail-type glass cabinets with flourescent lights - definately not color corrected.

This includes the one GD I have been able to attend.

 

[green stuff]

GD FR at the Stade de France (and before that at La Cité des Science) had reasonably good lighting with big window openings. The only drawback for that event is, although they don\'t use glass cabinets, they do use glass protection panels (but with the crowd, it is understandable), so taking pictures in those conditions is quite difficult even though you can look over the panel to see the minis without the shine of the glass.

So as much as I\'ll agree with you Kev that good lighting conditions are an exception, it is doable and making it known is the only way I see to make things change.

Concerning GD UK and the NEC, it\'s clear that cabinets don\'t show the entries in the best way, but the big screen TVs and the projection during the ceremony are elements towards a working solution.

After the World Expo, it\'ll be interesting Anders that you give us your opinion on how entries are presented there .

 

[Ritual]

Originally posted by green stuff
@Anders : True, but the fronteer between minis that \"pop\" and cartoonish contrasts (which can be a style on its own) is slim.

That depends very much on what colour scheme you\'re using. If you use bright, saturated colours, yes (but then you\'re already bordering on cartoonish due to the colours you use)! If you use duller, more \"natural\" colours, no, IMO!

And yes, I will study how people present their entries at WE. It will be interesting!

 

[Avelorn]

I understand exactly what you mean and this is a very good question.

This answer won\'t be that greatly structured but I hope you can gain something from it. I disagree with some notions earlier here in the thread, and I will try to say why!

My opinion:

No your not shooting yourself in the foot when using good lighting because transistions will show up more under good lighting, and you can\'t really paint what you can\'t see.

However this is a very real problem!! I can compare in my collection of miniatures as well and even under halfdecent daylight some seem darker and doesn\'t come to their full right except under my paintinglight. It has nothing to do with if the style is cartoony or subtle. It\'s about the colours achieved, how bright and saturated they are. You can even have transitions from black to white but a mini with not that much contrast between light and dark can seem more contrasted depending on the vibrance of the colours used. It might also look more realistic...

Now what some of us usually do is desaturate the colours to make them look more \"realistic\". Which means our perception of realism under our desktop lamp! In real life not that many colours are vivid and bright. But is that a function of the property of colour? No it\'s a function of the lighting or rather our perception of light. We humans see less colour in lowlight conditions.

A bright summers day the same colour would look different.. again it\'s not about realism. I can give you tons of wellsaturated reference pictures from reality and paintings. So what we do is making something in good lighting seem like it is poorer lit. Which will lead to when the object we\'ve painted is in fact poorly lit it will look too greyish. If glazes of colours to say colour cheeks are too subtle it won\'t show up under most lightingconditions except your desktop lamp.

And finally and not the least it depends what primer used. The same colours, same style and technique used on different primers will yield different results. That\'s why I have gone back to a white primer, as that is the primer that is easiest to get exactly the colour you want on. It\'s always easier to subdue a saturated colour over white then to get a light and saturated colour over grey or black. However black and grey have other advantages and depending on the style you use it might not be that much of a difference.

So to add the \"always go a bit brighter then yo feel comfortable\" I would also add \"always go a bit more saturated then you feel comfortable\" (IF you\'re aiming for realism.. I wouldn\'t say the same to a painter who paints cartoonish as we all know how that can go... j/k ). The result under good lighting will not differ that much as you have gone more saturated on all colours (it can be a problem with some cameras though). But the result in low-light conditions will be greatly improved. The mini will look more striking!

You can of course adapt a style that is very desaturated. But still if you are painting under a good light go a bit more saturated then you think!

And don\'t forget to compare the results you get in different lightingconditions!

 

[demonherald]

interesting points..
I have real light issues at the moment and I\'m just in a resettling phase..
I have always made a point when it comes to doing live competition pieces to view the model under as many light sources as possible...particularly under the same source as the comp is using....

makes a big difference...

generally I don\'t worry about it too much unless I lose drastically loads at photo stage then upping the highlights a bit helps...

but for example my last GD pieces for the first time I viewed them in daylight .. bobbed them in a loacal GW cabinet ,,, looked at them under normal exhibition hall style lighting and noted changes each time until I finally got a balance I was happy with.. it\'s amazing how much extra thought and work is involved when ya start going into these things.....