Why this obsession with smoothness

[SebastianRushworth]

Why are we in the mini painting community so incredibly obsessed with making the blending on our minis as smooth and seamless as physically possible? This kind of attention to smoothness is really unparallelled in regular 2D art (excepting digital art where smooth blending is a comparative doddle). Is this some kind of collective phase we\'re all going through or is it something else?

 

[airhead]

I know what you mean, shadows have lines and boundries. Only soft curvey things in indirect light have smooth blending. Hard angular things in point source lighting have hard shadows.

 

[Ritual]

When you say \"we\", I\'m sure you mean \"some\" or \"a lot of people\" and not \"everyone\"!

I think a certain level of smoothness is essential to make the illusion of the mini being bigger than it really is believable. If you can see obvious streaks or brush strokes it kind of ruins the illusion, at least for me. On the other hand, if you obsess too much about the smoothness I think other aspects get overlooked and the result easily ends up looking too clinical and \"soul-less\". IMO, a good balance between smoothness and texture effects, weathering and such effects is important for a good result.

 

[Modderrhu]

It seems to me, that we look at 2D artwork, whether it\'s Luis Royo or vehicle decals, and we try to emulate. We look at fantastically smooth airbrushing that looks (almost feels) like real chrome, and we want to achieve the same thing.

But, what\'s really easy to do in 2D is much more difficult in 3D. We don\'t have the angle/lighting advantages of 2D - 2D artists create their own light source. We also don\'t have the advantage of the airbrush on such a minute scale. Thus the obsession with not accepting the perceived limits of our media and subject.

I think...

 

[green stuff]

I\'m pretty much with Anders on this one. If the paint surface doesn\'t look smooth, then it won\'t look good on close inspection. But I\'m affraid Seb you might be mistaking paint surface smoothness and blending smoothness (as in a smooth color gradiation transitions).

Having seen up close Allan\'s and Cyril\'s minis, they are probably the smoothest paint jobs to date, and yet they have so much textures painted in. My point is, they paint smoothly but the surfaces aren\'t monochrome and are full of details.

Sorry to bang the nail like that .

I honestly think that if people want to paint something else than just \"toy soldiers\", then being able to paint a smooth surface should not be a goal they should aim for, it\'s an ability they should already have or quickly learn. The next step is usually adding micro-details and light effects, and working on scene compositions. After that, your imagination is your only limit.

This might seem a bit ... elitist, or pretentious for some, but I honestly think that painting smoothly can quickly be taught given the right conditions and should not be a barrier to be able to move on to the funner stuff .

 

[Ogrebane]

Art is cyclic and subjective. I wish I could do the smooth blend but I go for the hash areas atm. Good point tho.

 

[Ritual]

Originally posted by green stuff
Having seen up close Allan\'s and Cyril\'s minis, they are probably the smoothest paint jobs to date, and yet they have so much textures painted in. My point is, they paint smoothly but the surfaces aren\'t monochrome and are full of details.

Pretty much what I was aiming at, but I\'m not sure I expressed myself as well as Cédric. :innocent:

 

[green stuff]

@Anders : No, I prefer your explanation, especialy the \"the result easily ends up looking too clinical and \"soul-less\"\" part .

 

[SebastianRushworth]

Very good points raised so far. I think Airhead has banged the nail on the head. Many people are so obsessed with smooth, gradual gradations that they forget many shading transitions are quick and sudden.

 

[tzor]

I guess it all depends on what you are blending and why. There are reasons to blend and there are resons not to blend. There is a major difference between the 1:1 ratio of the eye and the magnified ratio of the camera so that comes into play as well.

Basically, there is a special system in the human eye that does edge detection. If you have a transition from light to dark, the eye will place a slightly darker section on the dark side of the transition, and a slightly lighter section on the light side of the transition. This makes the transition easier to see.

If you dont\' want this transition seen, you need to be careful about the gradients. But if you really want it to be seen, sometimes the mini is too small for the eye\'s firmware to work, so you have to do the process manually. (That\'s a big reason for darklining by the way.)

Personally I like them both ways, it all depends on how it is done.

 

[EricJ]

2d painting went through a long period where artists struggled to work out all the fine details of how to perfectly represent reality in there works. Over 100\'s of years this was perfected and in doing so, many ways freed the artist to pursue other goals which didn\'t focus on perfectly realistic subject matter.

As miniature painters I sort of see a similar process happening, albiet at an excellerated rate due to the speed at which communication happens now days. We are getting darn close to figuring out the techniques to perfect a feeling of reality in miniature artwork, and I hope that will then free us to then work in a different direction.

However, at the same time, miniature painting is far different because we\'re typically not creating the whole piece, since we\'re painting on a miniature. And that miniature also was typically created striving to perfect a representation of reality...so the goal of the painter is almost built in by the goal of the sculptor.

Anyway, I think there is room for growth on the artistic side of our hobby, just who\'s going to do it?

 

[frenchkid]

smooth transition is essential when required.... not hard to understand But dosn\'t mean you can\'t do harsh shadows when it\'s required.
Good painters don\'t have smooth transition everywere, only where it\'s necesary.

 

[EricJ]

Originally posted by frenchkid
smooth transition is essential when required.... not hard to understand But dosn\'t mean you can\'t do harsh shadows when it\'s required.
Good painters don\'t have smooth transition everywere, only where it\'s necesary.

Smooth transitions is just a style, it\'s never required unless you choose that style

 

[Thecadian]

erm yes i dont like my models smooth hats why they never are


or maybe i just cant paint that good

yes definatly the second one

james

 

[Infidel Castro]

Well, I\'m a fan of contrast and extremes, so people like Qaio Xhong (is that an horrendous misspelling or what lol) are the kind of folk who interest me. The felle Eric just above me appeals to that style as well, as did Petethemighty (where is his brush!) and the ever consistent Spacemunkie. I love the smooth stuff for what it is, but I have my own view of what minis are about and I lean towards that stuff. Nano is a good one too. Sounds like Mork and Mindy lol

 

[green stuff]

Message original : EricJ
Smooth transitions is just a style, it\'s never required unless you choose that style

I tend to dissagree. It should be decided by the material you\'re trying to represent, the lighting of the scene, and the atmosphere you\'re trying to portray IMHO. It\'ll feel wrong if you impose it on a mini that isn\'t designed for that.

As for the goal of the painter, if he can\'t sculpt, he still has the choice of the mini, of the composition of the scene, and the type of base he\'ll be using.

 

[Dedwrekka]

Originally posted by EricJ

Originally posted by frenchkid
smooth transition is essential when required.... not hard to understand But dosn\'t mean you can\'t do harsh shadows when it\'s required.
Good painters don\'t have smooth transition everywere, only where it\'s necesary.

Smooth transitions is just a style, it\'s never required unless you choose that style

Gah! Now you tell me!

 

[Avelorn]

There is a difference between sharp and streaky. The difference lies in that sharp look like emulated light while streaky look like it\'s painted. I have no doubt that you will notice the difference between someone who CAN paint smooth transitions but beacuse of the selected lightsource etc. choose to do it sharp.

As for doing it on purpose and creating an effect. Sure.. Eric hit it right on. As did Anders with his comment on making the mini seem like a larger object. But actually most of us try to emulate those sharp \"from an object close by\" shadows with darklining. Because that is what sharp shadows is.. shadows from a close object.

When I look around in my room I don\'t see many brushmarks.

 

[vincegamer]

I agree that it\'s just a style, and possibly a trend. Looking at 2D art we have periods: Classical, Impressionist, Expressionis, Photo-realist, Surreal. Because we are generally trying to immerse ourselves in the fantasy world of a tabletop game or RPG, we go for realism, and that requires smooth blending because the blend is really representing a solid colored object reflecting light differently at different angles.

Now, with some figs such as pulp style or superfigs, you might get away with a different style since the sculpt itself is not going for realism.

Personally I look forward to the day someone invents impressionst miniature painting.

 

[SebastianRushworth]

Just for some examples of people who often don\'t seem to care too much about the smoothness of transitions, but still produce interesting stuff, one could look at Kirill Kanaev or John Blanche\'s minis.

I\'m gonna have to go with Eric and say it\'s a style choice, but a style that has really become all-encompassing in our little community. If you don\'t go with uber-smooth transitions people probably will think it\'s because you can\'t or are too lazy rather than because you want to go with a different style.

Personally I think contrast, placement of light and shadow, colour choice and texture are at least as, if not more important than smoothness of transitions.