Some new tabletop stuff

[Avelorn]

I don't dislike any of the sculpts you did here. The first one Maria Roseblade, I've even painted myself. My suggestions were mainly from a business point of view.

I collect miniatures as well and have like Joek been shocked sometimes for what rates a rather standard clean space marine job (with lining technique) can go for while other beauties go for almost nothing. But a word of advise would be to not stray to far from the fluff in those cases to both attract collectors and gamers. The drycha is feeling well btw. and is positioned between some dwarfs by Shawn R.L and a barbarian female by Ali Mcvey. Really nice paintjob on that one btw.

 

[DrEvilmonki]

To make money from any endevour is alwyas based around how many people want the product, how much they will pay for it and how many people are producing it (of course other issues as well).

For all the bagging GW get they are the biggest player in the scifi/fantasy figure world and so their stuff is obviously the more sort after.Having said that I imagine there are a lot of people out there painting and selling the stuff.

If you are serious about making money from your figure painting your best bet is to record what you are painting, how long it takes to sell and for how much. I would paint a variety of figures but one thing you should be trying considering your speed and quality is painting some basic GW units, especially any new release stuff and seeing if selling units is worth your while.

But keep a record. You need to KNOW what is working for you, not just have a gut feeling.

 

[Chrome]

Around here I've seen GW minis painted like your 5yr old brother took it for a ride through the kiddie-park and still sell for way more than the seller bought it for, same goes for conversions. Of course, I am exaggerating a bit here but I think the GW gaming hype is obvious through that...

 

[ScottRadom]

What's a good sculpt? Ask 100 people and get 100 different answers. I think though that as everyone has pointed out a popular sculpt is an easier way to get business.

If you keep an eye on what the newest up and coming releases are gonna be it might bode you well to paint up a mini or two from that line and release them when the army books hit the shelves.

 

[fieldarchy]

hmmm well, I haven't really gotten any good answers to my question.

I am not having a bad time selling stuff, it's just that display stuff isn't selling right now. Gaming stuff is. So that's what I'm painting. Stuff for gamers. The limited time I have to spend painting it makes more sense to paint 5 minis versus 1. I'm more likely to get more from selling 5 than 1 regardless of quality.

And the reaper stuff has sold better than the GW stuff I've done. Soooo . . . I will paint reaper minis for now. But that wasn't what my question was about.

Since the hard criticism was that the minis posted in the thread and other minis I've painted are ugly horrible minis I want to know what makes a good mini? Why are the three minis I've posted in this thread ugly? Quantify it for me. Just saying that they are "shocking", "ugly", "horrible" tells me nothing other than the poster is a cantankerous ol' git What makes a good looking sculpt? I think GW sculpts are horrendous compared to Reaper. GW has a good popular game that is easily accessible but from a painters stand point the minis are ugly. I know I'm not the only painter who thinks that. Nor am I painting for war gamers alone, I want minis to appeal to all gamers.

So let's try this question again . . .

WHAT makes a good looking sculpt?
What are the qualities that people look for?
Is there a standard set of criteria people utilize subconsciously when choosing minis?

I've asked this question before and never got an answer really. But I kind of want one in order to take the criticism I've recieved seriously.

One of the rules in giving a critique is to explain your reasoning for your claim.

 

[fieldarchy]

maybe people are just intimidated by a girl who can paint, and are lookin' for any excuse to slag you off...
of course, being a girl, you will be compared to Jen, Marike, Natalia, and Amy...
Amy Brehm tried hard to step up her game to Marike's level, and it paid off with a few medals at Gerona last year...
you need to improve your metals, for sure...

jah

Well that's funny that you would say those are the people all girls are compared to.

Natalia recently has been putting up some really shite painting. It has the illusion of looking good but if you look closely at her pictures the paint looks a bit rough.

Amy has spent a lot of time perfecting her craft but she has the time and money to do so. From what I've gathered some has a privileged background though I could be mistaken.

Unfortunately I'm one of the better painters in the area in which I live. I'd say my competition painting/display stuff is at the level of amy's stuff a couple of years ago. I'm trying to get better but I also don't have the time to sit down and perfect a mini right now.

As far as my metals go, they are good, when I spend time on them. I'm not banking any more time on gaming stuff though. It doesn't pay off in the end.

 

[exilesjjb]

WHAT makes a good looking sculpt?
What are the qualities that people look for?
Is there a standard set of criteria people utilize subconsciously when choosing minis?

I've asked this question before and never got an answer really. But I kind of want one in order to take the criticism I've recieved seriously.

One of the rules in giving a critique is to explain your reasoning for your claim.

I think you will get a different answer from everyone but for me a sculpt that I concider good is one with good clean details, I have just got the Mcvey figures they are very good spyglass do it for me. Perry miniatures are good clean figures but some of GW plastics are not.
I have painted for gamers all my life (since I could hold a brush) and for them the figure must look good at 3' roleplay customers would want a more display std. I guess all I can say is find a market that you can work with at stick to it. I can paint better that tabletop but why when I know I can sell the tabletop stuff just as well.
I like the figures you have painted and your flesh is top notch, IMO these are to good for a gamer and should be with a roleplayer.
To sum up I guess you need to find out what your local market wants and give them that for me ATM it is 15mm Flames of war.

hope I have not rambled on to much
James

 

[Chrome]

I'm one of those who don't find the minis you posted horrible. But sure, if I'll use them as examples of what I do and don't like: Looking at the dwarf girl's eyes, I'm pretty sure it's not your painting that makes her eyes and face asymmetrical, that is something that makes me back away from a mini quite fast. The fact that she has a light version of the old GW-arm-sweat-lord-pose does not speak in her favor either. My absolute favorite among those three is the first, it is simple, rather well proportioned and it has a quite dynamic feel to it despite the 'photo shoot'-stance. But all three have some appeal to me, First thought when I saw the first mini was 'Ooh, sexy pirate girl', I absolutely adore the female part of the gryphon lady, the rest feels a bit off, perhaps it is the proportions... And the dwarf lady is downright cute, definitely not the best of the three but it still works.

To me the difference between a good and a bad sculpt is the proportions, the closer to realism you come, the happier I am, the difference between a good and a great sculpt is the level and quality of detail, especially in and around the face, this is very individual depending on the overall look and feeling of the mini but not too much but it should still be noticeable. Third is the pose, the more dynamic the easier it is to like the model regardless of whether the actual sculpt is good or not, the less dynamic the higher are my demands on the skills of the sculptor, but this doesn't really add to my overall view of the mini, more to the 'Wow' effect at first glance.

I so hope I made sense there...

 

[Ritual]

It is hard to say what is a good or a bad sculpt, as everyone will have different opinions about it. All you can get are personal opinions. I think most people can agree when I say that Jacques-Alexandre Gillois, for instance, is a better sculptor than ANY sculptor working for GW or Reaper, but does that mean that his sculpts are objectively better? I think so, but that's just my subjective opinion, so I don't think you can say in general that higher skill equals better sculpts. People simply put different weight on skill. I happen to put a great deal of weight to sculpting skill, as I find it more rewarding to paint well sculpted, more believable figures.

Concept and design is another important thing for me. That is where I think Reaper is seriously lacking. Most of their output is simply endless remastication of tired old D&D fantasy clichés that's been done to death. As I understand it, the sculptors are never given any concept designs to work from, and with the production tempo Reaper has I find it rather expected that the results will be uninspiring and lacklustre. There are sculptors who successfully work without concept designs, but I think that is done under rather special circumstances. Kev White never sculpts Hasslefree sculpts from sketches or any such things, but he uses his style and his idea about Hasslefree as a guide. I do think he works from designs when he does freelance work. The point here is, that the idea behind the mini is as important as the sculpting skills. If a company says to a sculptor "sculpt us another half-elf paladin" it is simply not going to be a very exciting mini, because how many such figures aren't already out there on the market? Sure, you can do a different take on it and make it more original and appealing, but that takes a bit of design effort.

You probably think you still haven't got an answer to your question but this is the best I can do. I could give you a list of minis I think are good and sculptors I think generally do good stuff, but that would just be my opinion. The next guy would probably give you a different list.

 

[jahminis]

this is a really silly question to expect a definitive answer to...
everyone has their own opinion on what makes a good sculpt, and that's how it should be...
personally, i'm a huge fan of GW, especially 40k minis...
Space Marines are my favorite, and have been for over 20 years, even when they were crappy sculpts...
that's just an opinion, not a dictate that everyone should paint Marines...

the first sculpts i bought were old Citadel Chaos Dwarves...looking back now, they are horrible sculpts, but they sure fired the imagination...
there was a guy with his face in his chest, and a crazy tentacle arm...
a guy who hopped on one leg, and another i don't remember...

what these classic sculpts did was inspire me to paint...
if you paint what inspires you, fine...
have fun, and don't sweat other people's opinion of the mini...

i have a lot of great sculpts in my collection that i wish i could get around to painting...
i'm especially inspired by the french sculptors, but their pieces are for games that are not really popular among the gamers, thus you have to get lucky with the right customer...
i would love to paint up some of the 2 shoe boxes full of Ilyad minis that i have, but they are not going to appeal to the same number of customers as the latest GW character model...
not to mention, i can't justify the same basic rate for a rare mini that i'm gonna spend more time on because it deserves it...

i'm not anti-Reaper, but i can say that i have yet to paint one of their minis...
i have a couple bags of their metal, and some of the sculpts are really cool...
they just don't really grab me, and they don't fit well into my market strategy...

i'm fan of a lot of their sculptors, and friends with a few of 'em...
guys such as Todd Harris, Werner Klocke, Tre Manor, Ben Seins, Matt Gubser are all sculptors i like, but it's their work for other companies that really inspires me...
Tre has done a wonderful job on the Red Box minis, they stand head and shoulders above his Reaper stuff...
Werner does incredible stuff for his Freebooter line, which have inspired me to paint...
Todd and Ben do great work for Crocodile Games, but they have the awesome concept art of Des Hanley to work from...

i'm not a fan of Sandra Garrity's sculpts, which may be my problem with your latest pirate lass...
Sandra is a nice lady, and it's fun to watch her work at cons, but i don't enjoy painting her minis...
i've done 2 so far, and i'm not inspired by the next one, but i'll sure as hell paint her, 'cause i don't want to get a real job...
i won't be bothered when people vote her a 6, and say she's ugly, 'cause i'll have the money in my pocket...

the Harpy Lady just doesn't do anything for me as a sculpt...
Harpies and such are cool characters, but don't inspire me to paint like an armoured warrior does...
i'm sure someone could use it in their rolplaying games though...

the Dwarf chick is a cute little mini...
i just think you could have given her a quick wash to shade the metals before you called her done...
i think that your metals are your weak point, even on the display stuff i've seen (such as Orion and the other Wood Elved you painted for GD last year)...
it's a shame that you don't see that there is room for improvement here...

a professional painter should strive to get better with each mini painted...
people will see the slight new thing that a painter tries out, and watch them grow, and become fans of the artist...
next thing you know, your prices are rising, and people are knockin' on your door to give you work...

this is a very difficult racket...
i've been working in the industry for 5 years, and i still feel like i'm payin' my dues...
i'm still thankful every time i get a painting credit, and feel it is only adding to my resume...
it's also a means to an end...
the more industry work, and published minis, the more awards won, it is all to be able to get demand and price from collectors up there where i can feel like i'm earning what i'm worth...
until then you have to be humble, work hard, and take your lumps...
until then it's a struggle against hundreds of people who can paint just as well as me, and would love to be in my position...
until then it's a fight against people who would charge a lot less for the same job, while i still have to eat...

so keep at it...
do what you do, and just put in the work that it takes to drive up the demand for your minis...

cheers
jah

 

[freakinacage]

Quantify it for me. Just saying that they are "shocking", "ugly", "horrible" tells me nothing other than the poster is a cantankerous ol' git

that probably is the closest to the truth.

anyway you can't define beauty and everyone has different ideas (as the post have proved)

 

[ScottRadom]

Well I can be specific about what I DON'T like in the sculpts you painted here, if you like.

Pirate chick. Nothing wrong from here, like that mini, though it's not one I would ever see myself painting. Nothing to really crit, it seems okay.

Harpy chick. Ugly as hell. It looks less like a monster and more of a woman wering amonster suit. The hands look abotu as close to a lady wearing big fancy monster gloves as I've ever seen. The legs look comical, and remind me of Dave Grohl dressed up in the "Tribute" Tenacious D video. I just find nothing appealing about this mini.

Dwarf Chick. Ugh. WTF is up with the pose? The open mouth breathing was a poor decision I think. It reminds me of something from one of those crappy dance/gymnastics movies and she's standing there telling someone "They just got served" as she tries to catch her breath. But the head jutting forward with the hammer things posed "just so" combined with the mouth breathing just doesn't hack it for me.

As for the painting, I think you've got a real knack for faces, especially the eyes. I wouldn't purposely paint any of those figs, but the way you did the eyes, especially on the dwarf is very, very good.

 

[Legacy Account]

Calling anything the Russian bird has painted "really shite painting" is a stretch in my book, and I'm no fanboy by any means...

Anyway, here you go:

First fig: It's generic fantasy dullness incarnate. The sculpt looks stodgy and slightly soft. The weapons are particularly shocking. Is it supposed to be female? Look at those arms and hands! Definitely transexual.

Second fig: Looks like a conversion thrown together out of a bits box. Can't say I'm overwhelmed by the sculpting of the feathers on the wings or the hands. Again big and manly.

Third fig: Just a shocker. Appallingly bad figure. It has almost zero fine detail, awful pose, the armour is truly WTF? and the weapons are a joke. This one shouldn't have got past the 'sketch on the back of a fag packet' stage...

To sum up, they all look as though they were sculpted in the 80s or early 90s. There's a real naivety about them (both conceptually and technically) that the best contemporary miniature sculpting has left behind. There are also technical deficiencies - soft, detail-free sculpting and mainly one-piece poses that are optimised to fit in a mould, not for dynamism. Again, fine for 20 or even 10 year old sculpts, but they're lacking when compared to the best and most up to date figures.

I just went down the main page and culled some images:

Look at the detail and crispness of the sculpt!

Static pose, but movement in the cloak. Look at the detail in the sword hilt. Again, crisp.

Detail in this is pretty incredible - look at the chainmail!

And this one shouldn't need anything pointing out. Just look at it!

Seriously, even if we leave the style/genre of figure out of it, if you can't see how backwards those figures are in comparison, then there's something wrong with your eyes!

You also make the mistake of lumping all of a company's figures together, making out that it's an all or nothing choice as to whether their output is good or bad. Utterly ridiculous as most employ a multitude of different sculptors and produce across multiple genres. It's easier to dislike the work of an individual sculptor - I can't stand faces on (most of) Werner's minis and one of the reasons I don't like much of Reaper's stuff is that they use the same handful of sculptors who just don't cut it as far as I'm concerned. Tre is knocking out some good stuff and Reaper would be well advised to utilise his skills fully. I guess it's all dependent on how much they pay and how quickly they get them produced but it seems like they just pay for speed/quantity and not for quality.

Did I even mentioned concept artwork yet?

 

[Infidel Castro]

Well, well, well!

I certainly didn't mean to start a fire here. This is my first view of the post since I called the sculpts shocking, and I'm miffed by a few things that have been said, particularly by Jahminis. He thinks I might be intimidated by her being a woman painter. You know what, maybe that's just it: the fact that Meg is a woman and a painter scares the bejesus out of me . We've given them the vote and now they're painting and talking like our equals. The whole thing stinks, and the sooner women are put back in their boxes under the bed, the better, etc....

Idiot.

What constitutes a good sculpt? Well, I'll leave that to the poster above (cheers Scott) but will add that quality design and execution of a worthwhile concept is where the good shit is at. Unfortunately, Reaper is miles away from being where it's at. I've no doubt that, out of their 30,000+ generic tat miniatures, there's some decent work. Sadly, it's few and far between. As a VERY (occasional) picky miniature buyer, it makes me cringe to see the sculpts Meg has painted and displayed here. I just can't think of anything worse praising them for. Yes, Meg is a good painter (though - ironically - it's she herself who seems to have problems with female painters), but it surprises me that she can't determine genuine quality from tat. I believe that certain qualities overshoot personal tastes and can be universally appreciated. The Reaper pieces under discussion are light years away from quality; I'm sure some people do like these sculpts, but I bet the same folk probably think that laminate flooring is better than real wood and that this sofa:

is better than this sofa:

or this (and I'm drooling at the simplicity of it all):

http://image.restorationhardware.com/is/image/rhis/prod2590070_FALL07?$PD$

Horses for courses should only goes so far. After that, quality should be obvious.

 

[Infidel Castro]

anyway you can't define beauty

Maybe, maybe not, but you can call a turd a turd. And you can even try polishing it.

 

[Infidel Castro]

that probably is the closest to the truth.

anyway you can't define beauty and everyone has different ideas (as the post have proved)

Cantankerous? Possibly. Sensible more like. Able to discern quality from dross? Absolutely!

 

[freakinacage]

Maybe, maybe not, but you can call a turd a turd. And you can even try polishing it.

indeed, it is hard to say what you like but easy to pick holes is stuff you don't

it's also easy to quote people and put all the quote in one reply so you dont end up with 3 posts in a row, lazy git!!!

 

[Infidel Castro]

indeed, it is hard to say what you like but easy to pick holes is stuff you don't

it's also easy to quote people and put all the quote in one reply so you dont end up with 3 posts in a row, lazy git!!!

I'll be honest, i'm having trouble with the multiquoting :messed:

 

[freakinacage]

I'll be honest, i'm having trouble with the multiquoting :messed:

aye i have no idea how to use the multiquote thing tbh. i just open up the quotes in different tabs and cut and paste them together

 

[Infidel Castro]

Hard work! I'm a feeble user