What is a Gaming Table Quality Paint job - Level 5 on the Vote Rating? Changes are Needed!

[Rachel]

Originally posted by Griffonbait
What you have written strongly indicates the need for voting rank clarification. That is, greater detail on the ranks themselves.
1 - for poor/incomplete image, low quality paint job/hard to distinguish quality.
2 - for poor/incomplete image, average quality paint job
3 - for poor/incomplete image, high quality paint job (from what can be seen)?

Honestly? I don\'t see the point. If the ranks were so clearly defined then why bother posting pics? I could just compare any figure I paint to the standardised list and say \'yep, that\'s definitely an 8\', or \'no, only a 7, must try harder\'.

The variablity of it, and the tendency of a mini to settle on a score over time as enough people vote, is what I think makes the site interesting. Sure, *I* think it\'s an 8-9, but the majority of voters might settle on 7-8 with a lean toward 7, making it 7.3. Disappointing for me? sure. But if I only wanted things to rank in exactly the way I thought they should, there\'d be no point asking anyone else for their opinion.

I do think there\'s a trend to vote lower these days, but then again, there are minis scoring higher than any have ever scored... the 9.8s only showed up recently for any length of time. I think the audience is perhaps becoming educated . Some of mine have dropped recently after a short stint on page 1 (hence the short stint!), which indicates to me that a bunch of people thought perhaps that standards have changed .

bummer, I know, but what can I do but try to get better?

anyway, just thought I\'d get that in as despite the huge number of threads with this subject, I don\'t think I\'ve posted on one before

 

[kevd82]

This is purely an observation, not a complaint (although I would be lying if I said I was happy about this). I have voted on every figure on this site, and over the 2 years I have been active on this site I think I have developed a pretty good feel for judging painting. Up until about a month ago or so my votes were usually about the same as the average votes most miniatures were getting. I though I had a good idea what constituted any given score. But lately most of my votes are falling outside the ratings. I am seeing stuff that I thought was an 8 get rated in the 6 range, and there are ALOT of miniatures getting under 5 that I would have given a 5 in the past. For whatever reason, for good or for bad, the standards have seemingly (I say seemingly because I dont have any hard data to support this) changed.

I think kat pretty well stated this, but I wanted to add some support to her observations as well.

 

[farseerlum]

dauber what is your point?

my rant isn\'t that anything under 8 no use.

it is that anything under 6 really isn\'t going to keep me awake a night worrying if i scored it right.

people will give more thought out scoring over a higher rated peice. they are not going to spend any amount of time scoring a 4.

and no i don\'t want to see an entire army of single level 5 troops. give a couple of the best up and take that as a cue.

my only under 6 peice was higher when originally posted. i reposted it because i got a much better/clearer pic. it also makes me able to be rated overall.
yes i have to get some more pics. but i want it to be of better stuff than i already have. when that happens i will take the lower scoring stuff off. not because i\'m ashamed of them but because i would rather people show their best stuff and not clog up the system with the rest.

it\'s not that i can\'t be bothered scoring peoples low scoring minis. or that i can\'t be bothered helping a new painter.
it\'s that i am not going to be told that i have to grade it carefully.

it is low quality. if you want help i will give it but damned if i am going squable over a whether a minis should be a 4 or 5.

 

[darthfoley]

Just cause...

http://www.coolminiornot.com/?id=38692

Anybody tell me what the putz who ranked this a three said?

 

[U4-Welcome]

-> I do not find the colors and the face become effective so well, but otherwise she is completely good

That\'s what he said (more or less). Score one for Babelfish.

 

[PStafAllen]

Originally posted by Stripwalker
The sad fact is that this site is really coolmini_and_camera_ornot.com Face it, if you dont have a top end camera WITH a decent photo editing capability then even the best work will show like crap.

This is a tired excuse and a bad one.

You don\'t need an expensive camera, and any editing software needed can be found free in the form of GIMP. Time and care, sure, but you can\'t claim it\'s beyond the reach of anyone who\'s got the money and the time for miniature painting.

As for the \"cool mini and camera\", I reckon maybe \"Cool mini and pic\", but frankly that\'s not a \"sad fact\", it\'s an obvious side effect of the format of the site, or of any similar site, and certainly shouldn\'t be any kind of surprise or revelation.
Since we obviously can\'t all see each mini IRL we have to use pictures. Pictures vary, and capturing the \'essence\' of a miniature in photographic form is not simple, but complaining about it won\'t change that. Borrow a camera, or save up for six months (like I had to) and use the time to work through the pile o\' unpainted minis that graces the corners of ANY mini-collector\'s rooms. Read the extremely helpful photography tutorials on this very site, then spend an hour trying things out and you\'ll end up with better pics for the rest of your time here. Colour/light balancing and cropping of pics takes all of 20 minutes to learn and less than a minute to do per picture, and will help not only your score (which isn\'t all that important to most folks), but will also help you get what you feel is a \'true\' representation of all your hard work, which is much more satisfying.


P.

 

[dauber22]

Originally posted by farseerlum
dauber what is your point?

my rant isn\'t that anything under 8 no use.

it is that anything under 6 really isn\'t going to keep me awake a night worrying if i scored it right.

Sorry. I guess I misinterpreted your comments. And its kind of a hot button for me at times.

Thanks for the further explanation and clarification.

 

[finn17]

Finn\'s mighty software strikes again...

Originally posted by darthfoley
Just cause...

http://www.coolminiornot.com/?id=38692

Anybody tell me what the putz who ranked this a three said?

According to my foolproof translator they said:
\"I find the colors and the face doesn\'t come so well to the validity, but otherwise she/it is gnz good\"
If they hadn\'t voted a three, you could almost take that as a compliment, or an insult, or something. Lucky old you

 

[finn17]

Hehehe.....

Originally posted by dauber22
And its kind of a hot button for me at times.

Really!

 

[klute_in_the_valute]

I think the problem is that everyone has a different take on scoring.Now lets say I post a mini and most people think its table top and give it 5.Then some others come along and think the same and give it 1.Bang you end up with a 3 and sit and cry thinking that by the guidlines your mini is table top but its only a crap 3..Honestly unless there are very strict guidelines then we are always going to get these threads.
Maybe its the title of table top quality thats confusing us all.
How about Display Quality
1=poor display=base colors
5=good display piece=good color scheme,shadow,highlight,neat,eyes etc
10=excellent display=hey wow take a look at that
This is a site to show off your good paintjobs-conversions not your rank and file table top quality minis.
Can I breathe now,
,
,
ahhhhhhhh

 

[CrazyIvan]

I\'m gonna take a stab at this:

Look at the community you are posting to. The people here adore painting, do it a great deal, and consider it an art. Thus, their average acceptable quality is much higher.

I come here for the evaluations, not the numerical rating, because it\'s badly skewed. I\'m deathly proud of my 4.6 Freecompany archer.

 

[darthfoley]

Originally posted by finn17

Originally posted by darthfoley
Just cause...

http://www.coolminiornot.com/?id=38692

Anybody tell me what the putz who ranked this a three said?

According to my foolproof translator they said:
\"I find the colors and the face doesn\'t come so well to the validity, but otherwise she/it is gnz good\"
If they hadn\'t voted a three, you could almost take that as a compliment, or an insult, or something. Lucky old you

Foolproof? Sounds like the one for me!

I appear to be quite grumpy with a low blood sugar at 4AM...

 

[darthfoley]

Originally posted by CrazyIvan
I\'m gonna take a stab at this:

Look at the community you are posting to. The people here adore painting, do it a great deal, and consider it an art. Thus, their average acceptable quality is much higher.

I come here for the evaluations, not the numerical rating, because it\'s badly skewed. I\'m deathly proud of my 4.6 Freecompany archer.

Indeed...I\'m proud of all my little ones, no matter what the score they receive here.

 

[saleo]

Everyone has their own level of paint job that equates to table top quality. I full paind and shade every figure in my army. In my 15mm armies, every figure gets full facial details. I don\'t care if you can\'t see them from 3 ft away on the table. That is my level of table top quality.

I don\'t judge the figures on the site to that standard, but all votes are arbitray based on the perception of the viewer. Changing the \"rules\" will make no difference.

 

[snowdog]

Table top

\"think one of the probs is CMON is a mini site and a painting site...it\'s not really a gaming site IMO and, as I have said before, a gamer\'s view of tabletop is different from a painter\'s view of tabletop.\"

to quote finn.........

thank you finn, you hit the nail on the head. snobby painters don\'t like gamers rating their showcase stuff and gamers don\'t like snobby painters rating game pieces. it\'s not apples and oranges just like the finn said.

i do okay here top half of the group and such good, not great. last rtt i went to, i score 18 and tie with another guy. so out of 38 armies i\'m top 2, but here i\'m small potaotes. it\'s truely not the same standard by far.

btw, another guy gets 3 \"player\" votes so we tie. he has better battle points and wins.

go figure.............

:|~

G~

 

[kevd82]

Originally posted by snowdog
\"...snobby painters don\'t like gamers rating their showcase stuff and gamers don\'t like snobby painters rating game pieces.

so those of us that just paint are snobby?

 

[PStafAllen]

Originally posted by kevd82

Originally posted by snowdog
\"...snobby painters don\'t like gamers rating their showcase stuff and gamers don\'t like snobby painters rating game pieces.

so those of us that just paint are snobby?

No, those of us that are snobby and paint are snobby painters.
P.

 

[LouisCypher]

my trend is to consider good level painting between 6 and 8...

than i consider the base: basing a model is a very quick process if you are not looking for a masterpiece so i don\'t accept unfinished bases and i subtract a vote from them... the 5-6 level is for minis that may look good from a certain distance (tabletop level... that\'s it!) and <4 for really bad ones...
the 8-10 depends on may factors: they are all very good, so i focus on details, pose, conversion, base...

i found my votes to be a little higher than the average rating in most cases, but i think they deserve that, so i don\'t mind!

cheers

Luca

 

[kevd82]

Originally posted by PStafAllen

Originally posted by kevd82

Originally posted by snowdog
\"...snobby painters don\'t like gamers rating their showcase stuff and gamers don\'t like snobby painters rating game pieces.

so those of us that just paint are snobby?

No, those of us that are snobby and paint are snobby painters.
P.

True, but the connotation of his statement (since painters are listed as snobby but never gamers) makes me think I am being called snobby... oh well, i have been called worse lol

not seriously complaining here, just found the wording of that amusing is all.

 

[stresingj]

Rating standards

Originally posted by Thri-Keen Priest
Let\'s face it: This is a community of hardcore enthusiasts with very high expectations. Personally, for a 5, I expect a mini to be neatly painted, with some degree of shading to it. A six requires something extra, like a really effective color scheme and some good basing. Models without a face impress me less; faces are the best part!
If a model lacks any shading, and/or has a sloppily painted face, I\'ll likely give it a 4 or even a three. My idea of a 1 is a model that is just painted all one color, with maybe a couple black dots for eyes or something.
I have no idea why people don\'t seem to like my barbarian, #2201. (Is it because he\'s not wearing power armor? ) By my standards it\'s at least a 5 if not a 6. Ah well. One thing I can say is that the intense competition on this board has definitely inspired me to reach for a new level in my painting. Just you guys WAIT for my next entry! HARR!!!

You hit the nail on the head, so to speak. It all comes down to standards, and everyone has a different standard for tabletop quality. I checked out your barbarian, and I would probably rate it a 5, but the picture quality isn\'t the best so that may have a negative bearing on your overall score. There are other miniature ratings boards (Black Orc comes to mind) where the rating standard is very explicit. Which makes it much easier to rate individual minis and generally yields a higher score than CMoN, which is much more subjective.

Cheers,
Jack