The Perfect Miniature: bring out the ingredients

[Margo]

The response I received on my latest miniature got me thinking: what is it that makes a paintjob perfect? And the answer came immediately: the successful application of well-known techniques. The keywords here are “well-known”. Let me explain what I mean.

If someone paints a miniature using unconventional techniques and effects, people often start questioning it. Isn’t it because sometimes innovation doesn’t fit within the accepted and established frameworks of what a good miniature “should look like”? I guess so. So whenever someone leaves a cloak without freehand, people start saying things like “it looks empty and lacks freehand”. Or in case of matte NMM the most likely response would be “you don’t have bright highlights and reflections”. One of the most popular comments now is “the paintjob lacks contrast”. Well, what if the painter didn’t want too much contrast? Doesn’t matter, because it seems like extremely bright highlights signal that the paintjob is good, and anything other than that automatically marks it as inappropriate.

So, what do you think are the ingredients for a “socially-accepted” Perfect Miniature?

Here is my list:

1. Excessive highlights everywhere
2. Shading has to be done from dark to light; other variations like switches of color do not count, unless colors are highly contrasting
3. NMM; ideally with reflections and glares
4. No large areas of clothing should be left without freehand

Your call.

 

[EArkham]

Very interesting observations!

I, too, have noticed the issue with highlights. For a long while, I thought people preferred to see figures that had obvious layering rather than good blending. Many comments left me baffled, such as suggestions to add highlighting when the figure already had highlights up to pure white or bleached bone. My scores actually improved when I stopped blending. Baffling.

In addition to your list, I\'d note that the miniature itself matters a great deal. A beautiful paintjob on an older figure means far less than if it was the same quality job on a new figure. In addition, if you\'re the first to post a painted version of a brand new figure, your score will also tend to be higher.

Kep

 

[tzor]

First of all, I tend to be an old fahioned person. A perfect miniature is intutitively obvious to the casual observer. A perfect miniature\'s photograph is dependent on the photographer, and the monitor that is displaying the photograph that it\'s not always obvious to a casual observer.

The combination of photography and magnigication does strange thigns to minis. I threw a mini on a contest recently. I\'ve looked at the minis for hours, and the naked eye never notices that there is a minute bare spot on the tip of the thumb. BAM! On the photograph it shows up like someone taking a bluefish and slapping your face with it. I\'ve made photos at home and when I see them at work I find the contrast bad. Reason? Different monitor.

 

[supervike]

I think there is a trap to the scoring and \'socially accepted\' minis that you describe.

I got caught up in that at one time, and tried to paint things that would \'score\' well (they didn\'t) but my goal was to please the monitor and photo, not so much the real life. I am now aiming to paint minis that just please me in real life, the photographing and voting are just a fun side part.

I\'d like to think there is no such thing as a \'socially accepted\' mini, but there surely is. I still vote on \'cool\' factor above all else. Character of the mini (and this can be attained through paint as well) is probably my most influencial component.

 

[mrteal]

I\'m with vike on this one. Whatever looks cool to me. I don\'t care about how much highlighting or blending you did. I am not advanced enough to understand and break down how I rate minis....just I rate on instinct and I don\'t think about it.

 

[Ritual]

I\'m with you on the freehand thing, Margo. That has bothered me as well, a few times.

The other points on your list might be \'conventions\' among painters, but I\'d say they are so for a reason; not just out of habit. A paintjob that lacks in contrast (i.e. shading as in darker tones and highlighting in lighter tones) makes the paintjob look flater no matter how interesting techniques that have been used to execute it. Flat paintjob = less wow factor!

Of course, you may paint your mini however you chose to and experimentation is always good, but if you post your minis and ask for comments you will get some and you will hear people\'s opinions in the matter. Some might like what you do and some might be more critical.

I don\'t think at all, that people only want to see conventional paintjobs!

Oh, and the point about excessive highlights I don\'t agree with at all. Too much highlights will ruin a paintjob, just as well as too much of anything else.

 

[Herb the bitter]

Well here\'s my list, not necessarily in this order:

1. Good contrast
2. Relatively novel mini or novel paint scheme. Newer minis tend to be sculpted better, but old minis can become cool again if not seen frequently.
3. Good coherence of colors.
4. Good blending.
5. Gotta admit freehand helps

I think the Rackham painters use switches of color effectively on some models, but I think it\'s hard to do. I appreciate what you were trying on the Slaanesh champion, but I found the red/purple switch aesthetically unpleasing, just my opinion. But I also don\'t like that fabric in real life either.

 

[airhead]

Margo, you\'ve asked 2 questions:
\"The perfect mini\" in the title
or
\"The perfect paint job\" in your first sentence

But ultimately, I think you want \"The perfect score\"?

Mini:

• There are certain brands that seem to score better than others.
• Dynamic pose. The one you linked to is kinda static.
• As EArkham said, the number of times that people have seen it helps/hurts. It takes a pretty amazing space marine to impress me.
• Boobs or lots of skin helps

Paint:

• Something different, but not too different. Skin in shades of violet can be really eye-catching - or really flop.
• Freehand seems to boots most scores a point.
• Shading/blending - seems as if cloak has to go from near black to near white.
• NMM
• OSL
• Eyes & faces are generally the make/break point for me. If the artist can get an expression out of the eyes and face, that is worth a lot. If they look like a manakin, not so good.

*edit* BASE: Gotta have a beutiful base that blends seamlessly into a diaroma, yet allows the mini to come out and be used on the tabletop (as if...)

 

[Avelorn]

Well. If you take a look at the most highscoring miniatures lately they generally don\'t have that many things in common. Many are historicals with wonderful play of lights others are Nmm monsters with lighteffects. I think what constitutes a \"perfect\" paintjob is a perfect application of the things tried. And obviously not all highscoring pieces will please all.. I have been generally fed up with highscoring minatures with large freehandbanners.

I comment to see if the painter gets an \"ahaa\" reaction. Then what I say have a meaning to them.. if they think it\'s fine as it is I of course fully respect that. And with my comments I know their might be tons of others that disagree with me, even I tend to disgree with me! sometimes I look at old comments I\'ve written and wonder what I was talking about. But when trying to be helpful with the comments.. and to help people improve you have to have some sort of reference of what you think. I hope I don\'t come across as \"either it\'s my way, or the highway\" that\'s not my intention.

But at the same time.. I am promoting my painting ethos with my comments. I have arguments for what I think is apropriate.. as do all others. So if someone applies to little shading, I will of course comment on that. For me that is a basic thing, I might argue that the realistic 3d factor is lost and that it will look inconsistant under different lighting. Myself I really appreciate a good work of lights. I have seen several highscoring and awardwinning people that I don\'t think put enough contrast on their minis and that makes them IMO look uninteresting IRL while it can work somewhat on picture. But on the other hand there are some (not all) really cool jobs by a few artists that lacks normal shading and highlighting and treats the miniature more or less like an area of freehand. So I make exceptions even from my basic rules, and I incorporate new things into it. If noone did the entire miniatureworld would be static, and evidently it\'s not.

oh. one note on the highlight thing.. many people say it needs highlight when it needs shading. Some don\'t sepparate much between the two. (Before I started going here I didn\'t).

As a summary, I don\'t think there are any general crowdpleasers. It depends on where you are with your own painting and what. I mean some while ago the historicals might have been sniped more becasue they are booring? Now parts of the Spanish team and many others fantasy people seem to have discovered the world of historical miniatures (me being one). But that is just mere speculation..

..to be cynical I\'d say the biggest most importart thing for scoring and making perfect paintjobs is fans! Oh.. and how good you are at taking pictures.

 

[Avelorn]

bwah! post 666 this can mean no good! *flees*

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by airhead

Mini:

• There are certain brands that seem to score better than others.
• Dynamic pose. The one you linked to is kinda static.
• As EArkham said, the number of times that people have seen it helps/hurts. It takes a pretty amazing space marine to impress me.
• Boobs or lots of skin helps

Funny, I was just about to say that.

It also helps, when you\'re female, to place scantily clad pictures of yourself on the forums to get a flock of drooling fanboys, and also direct all attention to yourself.

Walks away whistlinglol

 

[funnymouth]

good thread.
i think people do tend to fall in to that habbit of looking for trendy techniques. what if the artest WANTED dull looking steel without hotspots; in most cases i can tell based on other painting elements if that was what they were going for, and i vote appropriately. in high end minis i find that what turns an 8 to a 9 to a 10 is the elusive compositional element, not the fancy techniques (like hyperreal blending).

i have been dinged a few times for color composition, at first i used to fight it by trying more conventional themes, but i found that i was unable to. i want my bright, intense color schemms and surreal bits, its part of my painting style (wow! i have a style now! ).

keep submitting what you think is cool and it just might catch on, or at least the regulars will be able to recognize it -you never know, you just might start the next trend!.

 

[dauber22]

How to Achieve the Perfect Score

(tongue pressed firmly in cheek)

1) Frequent the CMON Forums. Post frequently enough to be recognizable, but be sure to avoid controversial topics so as not to piss anybody off. Ask respectful questions to improve your skills and never argue with \"the Elders\".

2) Carefully select your mini. Something new is better. Something pre-release is Best! However, its probably best to avoid either Rackham or GW because GW fanboys hate Rackham and Rackham fanboys hate GW. Oh! And Boobs! Boobs are a definate + if not a must. Bare boobs = even better. You say your figure is male? That\'s okay. Get out the green stuff and give it boobs anyways. you can always say its Slaanesh or whatever.

3) Paint it in the most approved style of the moment. Currently, that includes:
-high contrast
-excessive freehand
-NMM (careful though. SENMM seems to have fallen on hard times of late) Metals? Pa-lease! That is so Last Century!
-OSL. What? Your figure has nothing that would logically be glowing? Doesn\'t matter. He could always be wearing an enchanted belt buckle or shoestrings or something. Oh wait! The Boobs! You can\'t possibly go wrong with Glowing Boobs!

4) Basing - You want your base to be as large and complicated as possible. Important elements to incorporate are flowing water, chemical ooze, snow, plant life, complicated tile patterns, oriental rugs & lava. It doesn\'t really mater which of these you choose, but you\'ll really want at least three of them.

5) Take the perfect picture. It should be at least magazine quality. Be careful not to get too close though or it will show off any flaws that might have crept in. It doesn\'t matter that in real life they\'d be microscopic. If they show in the picture, they are still flaws. One possible alternative to taking your own pictures is to hire Richard Avedon. Unfortunately, Alfred Steiglitz has passed on.

If you do these things, you should have at least a fair chance of getting a 7. Oh! I almost forgot! When you post it, be sure to include the letters GD in the title! It doesn\'t actually have to have won a Golden Deamon or even have been entered. Just mentioning those letters will give it a certain penache. And a lengthy description including personal tribulations, cute puppies, and babies can\'t hurt.

 

[Herb the bitter]

Originally posted by dauber22
(tongue pressed firmly in cheek)

Damn Dauber, I wish I had more time as I think it would be fun making a(tongue in cheek) mini that incorporated all these things.

Actually I think you came up with a way to score lower than Left Talon of Roc. Now that would be impressive.

 

[Mosch]

Orginal gepostet von Evil Dave
It also helps, when you\'re female, to place scantily clad pictures of yourself on the forums to get a flock of drooling fanboys, and also direct all attention to yourself.

I couldn\'t think of anyone who\'d whore himself out like that. Really, the idea is completely ludicrous.

I am pretty sure for the perfect score you need perfect blending. And boobs. Perfectly blended boobs. In a pinch you can have a bare butt (enjoy my incredibly witty \"pinching\" pun). On the mini. Except when your female, then it wouldn\'t hurt on either.

Seriously, blending and a lot of skin seem to be the winners, followed closely by freehand on every bit that is big enough to allow a brushstroke (the time of plain leather cloaks is over). OSL has also been applied onto surfaces where I never thought it possible.... CMON has more glowing eyes on the page than an eighties horror movie.

 

[Evil Dave]

Hey, you could actually do glowing boobs in a tasteful way.
Just think of how some cartoons draw faieries or pixies as pure energy.
That would actually be damn cool to see someone paint that well.

 

[Wren]

Originally posted by airhead
Boobs or lots of skin helps

For this one I would say to a point. If you take a mini like Hasslefree\'s concubine or pole dancer, I think even a skilled painter would be unlikely to get one of those past a 9 in score. I think both of those are lovely sculpts, but I think most people take the view that while painting great looking skin is a challenge, painting a mini that\'s just skin, hair, a couple strips of cloth and maybe one other simple element is not as challenging as painting some more complex sculpts that are going to bring out painting techniques for different textures and so on.

I don\'t disagree with Airhead\'s point, I would just phrase it as \'a mini the majority of viewers will think is hot helps\'.

Originally posted by airhead
Freehand seems to boots most scores a point.

This is one I begin to wonder if there\'s a bit of a divide between serious painters and general observers. I\'ve had opportunities in tutorials at cons to ask several top level painters their opinions on freehand, and they pretty much seemed in agreement that there are a lot of minis/situations where freehand is better off not used or used sparingly/carefully in a lot of situations, and that a good blend impressed them more.

I think what impresses people is good brush control. Freehand is a technique that demonstrates the painter\'s level of brush control to people at any level of painting knowledge, including none at all. Seeing the skill in some other techniques takes a lot more knowledge of painting, how acrylic paint works, etc.

Originally posted by airhead
*edit* BASE: Gotta have a beutiful base

I think this is one that I would add to Margo\'s original list of \'socially accepted\' perfection - people expect to see a clean, cool looking and story telling base. The only ones that get away with anything else are Rackham studio painters.

Originally posted by Avelorn
oh. one note on the highlight thing.. many people say it needs highlight when it needs shading. Some don\'t sepparate much between the two. (Before I started going here I didn\'t).

I think we need to send a PM to all new picture posters to that effect so they can help translate their comments. ;-> It\'s taken me like two years to figure out that often this comment just means \'I want to see more contrast\' rather than being specifically about the level of highlights only.

Contrast does seem to be really key to a lot of voters/commenters. I\'ll mark higher for smoothness over visibly stripey contrast, but I get the impression I\'m in the minority.

Aside from all of that, I don\'t disagree with the people suggesting that there are a lot of non-painting factors that can contribute to scores. I don\'t think the hottest new sculpt and a legion of fanboys will give a sow\'s ear the score of a silk purse, but I do think some of those factors (or lack of) can make a point or two\'s difference sometimes.

 

[Avelorn]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
Hey, you could actually do glowing boobs in a tasteful way...

Yeah, right! in your dreams..

 

[Evil Dave]

or even a female fire elemental...

 

[StarFyre]

very interesting

I\'ve commented on a few things; not in the same way, but as questions.

My issues were blending (not because I am upset that I can\'t do it properly yet, but in terms of real life).

I took some metal objects outside and via sunlight/reflections, there isn\'t a perfect blend created on the metal. Most of the time, even with light sources very far away, perfect blending just doesn\'t happen in real life to the extent that people paint them. My take, people want the minis to look perfect, as opposed to real.

Anyways, rant off

For me, the most important part of a miniature/model is artwork. Is this a piece of art.

Cedric, Sebastian, Sven, and myself discussed this at Games Day UK briefly (well the day before during some drinks ), what we thought of miniatures/models as art.

I think it was sebastian that mentioned, people seem to think, if you sculpt a statue of jesus or something..it\'s art, but you sculpt a dragon, it\'s not, yet the tools, skills, time needed is essentialyl the same. In same veign, the skills used to do large freehand banners, can be moved over to canvas painting or any flat surface painting of pictures)....not 100%, but the idea is the same...

From that, I find the most important aspect for a model is ... is it art?

For example, there was a winner in spain 2 or 3 years ago..a gold or silver i think. A modifed demon prince walking down giant rock steps with light sourcng from the hell below all over. Someone posted in comments that it\'s not the best painted thing there.

from my limited skill, i would agree. I don\'t see super blending all over, etc, however in terms of art? the freehand on the blade, the giant scope of the scene, the colours, the eye catching detail...I\'d prefer that model in my room than even victoria lamb\'s stuff or magmatrax, etc. Just cause, it appeals to me as art (I like the over the top, explosive type stuff, instead of the more subdued but technical painting masterworks).

I don\'t think NMM is needed for scores. Tidico (I can never remember how to spell this name!!! ) does excellent metallics, as does Nano, and their scores are very high. Also, many sword winners in france, spain, italy use metallics more often than NMM, and IMHO, they can easily compete and beat the stuff seen in north america, which is often NMM.

I think it\'s all appeal on the site.

The top 4 or 5 works by Victoria, JohnnyKS, silphid, nano, poupee..are just beautiful in all aspects...show pieces, art, models, look, etc. I don\'t think they have excessive hilights. Poupee seems to have painted a very clean miniature (If i remember his work), nano\'s is dirtier, darker on metallics which makes it look grittier and the most realistic of the bunch.
Magmatrax...need I say more? speaks for itself the work, nmm and gorgeous lines of it. the demonhunter inquis by johnny? ok..that detail and freehand on such a small figure? yeah...work of art, and victoria? well...what else to say..LOOK AT ME....IT\'S lit. gorgeous as well.

I think if these painters used their skills in other stuff (ie. silphid used metallics, nano used NMM, victoria did ...well, less sculpting/conversion and did a regular piece, poupee went for a dirtier look, and johnny did less freehand and a more realistic tone, i think I would score them the same...

Trying to look for the actual skill behind what they have done and trying to imagine what story it tells, i think the best raters here do.

My rant continues...

for example, someone here said painting for themselves is what they do (i think supervike) and i agree.

Silphid mentioned to me that my paris GD entry, even if it\'s painted perfectly (it\'s not...i am so gonna get crushed ) hehe may be too extreme. Too over the top, not realistic, and the pose of the mod, while logically, is fine, at first glance, may seem..wrong! he then told me, but to do whatever makes me happy as I\'m the one who has to keep it essentially.

No one else can see my vision for why i am doing what i am doing; it\'s impossible, unless the base of my model has a plaque explainting everything on it. To me it makes sense, but to others, all the banners for example, could be seen as an attempt (and bad one) at easy points via freehand. For me..it\'s part of what I envision.

I also do suggest freehand whenever possible, but I think it\'s a good thing to practice in terms of pure art...if you aren\'t here to learn, don\'t bother post your works IMHO.


Thus, i would have to disagree with margo\'s statement on extreme hilites, etc.

I don\'t think all the best works follow those, and I don\'t think it\'s necessary.... but of course, it does help...it shows more skill and effort

Sanjay