Voting and NMM

[Beelzebrush]

Having just spent a short while browsing some of the minis on this site, I find it a little puzzling as to peoples basis for awarding points when voting. Some of the minis I looked at are clearly an 8+ effort but are averaging less than 7 and in some cases just above 6. A good example, and I hope reposting someone elses work is acceptable, is
http://www.coolminiornot.com/index.php?id=7343
I would think that by the average, voters are saying that this mini rates slightly higher than table standard! This is clearly not the case.

Maybe it\'s because it has been painted using metallics and not NMM. If this is the case, what is the current view on this. Is the use of metallics, which still require a bit of skill to apply well, seen as being somewhat obsolete and invalid? Whilst I quite like NMM, when done well, it can come across as being a bit 2D. Is this now the way to paint minis or is it a \'flavour-of-the-month\' passing trend?

Just my observations during my week of being registered to CMON so what the heck do I know

 

[Otter]

Wow, you must have one spiffy table if that little guy is below par. The image is small, but IMO he is a good, solid 6. Maybe even more, but technique is hard to judge on him.

I think that NMM is not a fad, as a lot of people have been using the technique for quite some time, but it\'s a kicker to do right. Everyone seems to be working to figure out execution, so it\'s talked about more in the forums, maybe even rated more highly by others working to achive the same technique.

Lurch has a guide to voting that might help you with voting \"fairness\". He posted it yesterday in a similar thread, but I am sorry as I don\'t recall the thread\'s name. Just check around for \'voting\" or so.

- Otter
\"Never send a ferret to do a weasel\'s work\"

 

[Beelzebrush]

Hi Otter

I think you misread what I had written.. I wasn\'t saying that the fig pictured was under-par, I was puzzled as to why it was running with an average vote of 6.2... When 6.2 seems to suggest a quality only marginally higher than a table-top mini... I think this mini is 7.5-8 and as it\'s not possible to vote in .5 increments I voted it an 8. I know the pic is a little small but it\'s still fairly easy to see the technique... This mini is just one of lots that have puzzling low-end averages..

It wasn\'t my voting that I was too concerned with

 

[Otter]

lol at myself!

You are completely right and I misread. I guess I am so used to those posts that yell about the so-called \"ugly\" pieces that I misread what you were saying.

With that in mind, tho\', I\'m still going to have to say that the image you posted is a 6. It looks very well done from this size and distance, but it\'s too tiny to judge more than that. If the image was bigger, it would probably shoot up the score.
But again, voting is so ambiguous anyhow it\'s hard to really get a good idea of the \"worth\" of a figure or a paintjob in some ways.

Sorry again about the misunderstanding on your original post!

- Otter
\"Never send a ferret to do a weasel\'s work\"

 

[vincegamer]

Well, I gave it a 6 and let me say that even by this site\'s posted standard, 6.2 is not \"marginally higher than table-top.\"
5.2 would be \"marginally higher than table-top.\"
This piece is clearly well above average as its 6.2 average shows. It may be worth more, but as Otter said much is hard to tell. For instance, I can\'t for the life of me figure out what those things are on the sides of his head. Looks like Princess Leia hair. A bigger shot would probably clear that up. I think the purple and the bone parts are expertly blended. The gem needs work.

As to NMM, I\'m not a fan, so the fact that the painter used metalics didn\'t hurt the score I gave. Great NMM is truly stunning, and poor NMM is truly awful so it\'s a risky business, and in general may get better scores because of the difficulty it presents.

There are nearly 250 votes on that mini, so we can assume that\'s a representative score. After you\'ve been here longer and seen some of the mind-blowing stuff on the site you will begin to think that a 6.2 is actually a nice score.
Oh, and you CAN vote in .5 increments simply by going back to the mini and voting again. Your average is counted so give it a 7 and an 8 same as a 7.5

 

[mlavanish]

I would give that a 6 as well. Tabletop I would rate as all the surfaces being painted an appropriate color while staying inside the lines, the base finished, and little or no attempt made at shading or highlighting. Clearly there is some drybrushing going on here, and some layering on the clothing. For that, a 6. For a 7, clearer and more pronounced highlighting and shading, and maybe some more work on the base. 8 would be a great paint job. 9-10 absolutely stunning, which I could probably not award to this model in any case no matter how well it was painted. It\'s just not a great figure to start. But I reserve this bias for 9s and 10s.

 

[Chrispy]

To me, NMM is a high-low thing.. If it doesn\'t work, it\'ll detract from the mini. If it does, it will add. I\'ve seen very few NMM paint jobs that were middle ground, and of those they usually have areas were the armor color is too large. I don\'t automatically vote up because something has NMM, but I don\'t vote down if it doesn\'t. Basically, it\'s may personal taste and how well it is blended/executed.

Bleah! :|~

 

[Jericho]

I agree with Chrispy, NMM is a very hit-and-miss technique.

Regular metallics look decent pretty much regardless of how you do it (I\'m assuming everyone undercoats and does at the least some drybrushing here). It\'s a fair bit of work to get it to look great, but it takes some really bad metallic work to force a model down a notch or two.

Bad NMM, on the other hand, really takes away from the general impression of the mini. With the way people view NMM right now, it grabs most of the attention of the model and if it doesn\'t deliver then the mini in general probably won\'t do too well.

 

[Decado]

NMM vs. Metalics Voting

I agree with chrispy and jericho for the most part... I personally think that amazing NMM is being done by alot of people now so it has take away from the novelty, so now i feel that it is just above par when compaired to good metalics.

Where as amazing metalics such as that laid down by Jakob Rune Neilson is far beond even the best NMM

 

[Infidel Castro]

Quote by Decado:

Where as amazing metalics such as that laid down by Jakob Rune Neilson is far beond even the best NMM

Out of interest, who is Jakob Rune Neilson? I\'d like to see some!

 

[Sturmhalo]

I think NMM does tend to get rated more highly than plain old metallics. Though it is a far harder technique to get right. If it\'s done really well then the results can be spectacular. Otherwise it can appear a little dull. Definately a technique to be mastered.

I sometimes get the impression though that NMM has a certain snobbery attached to it. Much like incredibly over worked bases or not using gloss varnish at all for anything!

 

[kannan_fodder]

I\'ve noticed that NMM seems to get higher votes at times, but there\'s also some pretty amazing NMM work posted on this site. For example: http://www.coolminiornot.com/?id=15363

And speaking from experience, it\'s not the easiest technique to use!

 

[Chrispy]

Another thing to remember with NMM, though, is no matter how well it\'s done, It can never 100% fool the person into thinking it\'s metal. This is basically because the effect is weirded out if the light source on the model and the light on the NMM is in different dirctions. Also, I\'v not known many sword to have that perfect Sky-Earth look on them in real life...

But Hey! That doesn\'t matter, as it is art and when working with smal figures, the defination must be better than in real life, or the subtlties are blurred together... Like my vision normally is

 

[Decado]

Quote from reverend


Out of interest, who is Jakob Rune Neilson? I\'d like to see some!




he is an amazing painter from the UK... past sword winner and a bunch of deamon from the Games Day over there. I know this year he took a gold in the single 40K also placed in the large scale... but i guess i should have looked as I spelled his name wrong it is Jakob Nielsen... hope that helps his stuff is kind of hard to find pics of online but if I come across any i\'ll let ya know.

 

[finn17]

Is this thread really going anywhere?

Sorry, but this debate escapes me totally. The original image being discussed has such a (IMO) crappy photo that it is barely recognisable. I can tell it\'s a bloke holding a stick above his head. I can tell it has been painted with slightly more care and skill than average. Therefore it\'s a six. I can\'t see enough detail to award any more. As to what techniques the painter is using I would have to be bloody psychic to figure it out as the image is so small. The only NMM I can see here is, Needs More Magnification.

 

[Chrispy]

Ah, I just answered my own question siting here (DID I have a question last time?) But definatly NMM with metallics looks great. It\'s shiny and defined in places it should be, and it also shines according to the actual light source. For those of you who thing I\'m crazy (which I am, but not for think NMM can work with metallics) I know theres a great example out there but I forget where it is.

I would have to applaud people who do this, as I have a crappy time with metallics and blending, and if executed correctly, I\'d give it a better score but sadly few people are trying this technique.

I must sing Twisted Sister\'s \"Were Not Gonna Take It\" now. (Christina Aguleria is Dee Snyder, I know it!!)