So what does the community here consider good tabletop quality?

[Zappadaddy]

Hi all,

I\'m a returning painter who\'s just now getting back into painting and miniature gaming after taking a 3-year long break.

I\'m not looking to win any Golden Demons, only paint to a nice tabletop quality. However, the bar on this site seems set pretty high for even mid-range painters. I used to think that \"tabletop\" meant at least 3 colors, some shading and highlighting, relatively neat job, and a nice base flocking. Yet I see that minis that meet these base requirements are routinely rated 3-4 (which I would think means sub-par quality.)

Before I start posting some of my latest creations, I\'d like to know if my idea of \"tabletop quality\" is way off base. I\'m also about to give up hope of getting back into painting if I have no hope of cranking out the bare minimum.

 

[nels0nmac]

Hi Zappa. This subject was brought up by me in a recent thread. Link to the thread and read to your hearts content and hopefully your question will be answered.

Link

 

[nels0nmac]

As a further reply to your post; you need to paint for YOUR pleasure and not for what other people think. If YOU are happy with how you are painting then that is all that matters. By visiting this site you stand a good chance of improving. The forum is a great way to get comments on how you can improve and the articles list has pretty much everything you need to pick and choose the style you want to take.

If you do post pics here to be voted on don\'t take the comments to heart, especially if you think you will be towards the lower end of the scale; some people can be quite mean with their comments. However the forums are more likely to turn out constructive criticism that will help you improve.

Don\'t give up. Come on in and join the party

 

[freakinacage]

Originally posted by Zappadaddy
I used to think that \"tabletop\" meant at least 3 colors, some shading and highlighting, relatively neat job, and a nice base flocking. Yet I see that minis that meet these base requirements are routinely rated 3-4 (which I would think means sub-par quality.)

i would agree with you there. also, it has to be fairly neat. it depends on the mini as well. i have seen some voted really badly because it doesn\'t look amazing but the mini is quite small and has been blown up so you can see those flaws. i try to bear that in mind if i can, although sometimes it\'s hard if you don\'t know the mini

 

[skeeve]

Nothing less then this

http://www.coolminiornot.com/210313

Seriously though... \"community\" doesn\'t have an opinion. Community is composed of individuals with different opinions on the subject. Personlly, I would consider armies shown during \"armies on parade\" event during the last Baltimore GD to be of good table top standard.

 

[cassar]

skeeve if thats your idea of table top quality then im in big troublelollol

 

[Einion]

Hi and welcome.

Originally posted by Zappadaddy
Before I start posting some of my latest creations, I\'d like to know if my idea of \"tabletop quality\" is way off base.

What does it matter? Paint to a level you\'re happy with. Improve if and when you want to, have time to work on it.

Scores are based on a whole wealth of things, not just the painting, and quite apart from anything on photos; on-screen images are usually not good representations of something and personal taste/bias has a huge influence on the numbers.

Einion

 

[squidders]

It matters to those who care I guess...

To me tabletop paint works very badly in isolation... If I see a single mini specifically painted to table top standard it usually works badly.

However, in the proper context as part of a squad, regiment or army a neat, well coordinated paint job can work very well indeed.

I think this:

http://www.coolminiornot.com/169666

is a good example as I would give the minis probably mid 8\'s individually but as a larger group they look awesome.

As has been said, good photos help, if you want people to look at your minis let them see them.

Cheers,

Joe