Figure Magnification

[brian]

A topic i would like to discuss ,as since the advent of the digital camera, has become more pronounced.
I remember the days when a figure was only seen in the flesh unless the Figurines magazine etc, slapped it on the front page and in most cases because of figure being blown up you could see in my mind too much.Now with the advent of the digital camera the same could be said regarding figures being seen really close up.I remember seeing the likes of Bill Horans and Mike Blanks figures at Euro and was overawed by them.Then some magazine would blow them up and put them on the front page and they then didn't look so good as you could see the workings so to speak.Now the digital camera can do the exact same thing.The main point i'm trying to make is that there seems to be a lot of painters about that can blow their figures up to show amazing up close shots,but which will look quite different when seen in the flesh and there is the painters who will show photographs which can't be blown up when posted on a forum or website etc, but are nearer to what you will see in the flesh,at a show etc.
I've painted figures to what i would be totally satisfied with,then out with the old diggie camera ,and magnify it and hey presto it's like looking at a painting in an art gallery by one of the masters,brilliant,but go close up and YUK!!
So i thought i would have this ramble to see what other people thought of this subject.I envy the painters that can paint such detail but there again there is the Horans and Blanks style which is superb.
P.S. I was judging at Euro once when i saw one of the judges with a magnifier clipped to his normal glasses,so i brought this to the attention of the Chief judge and after some explaining that i thought this was a no,no the fella was told to remove them,mind you he must have been wearing them for some time until i spotted them.
I use magnification to paint with ,or i wouldn't be able to paint as my old eyes are wearing out,how many of you guys use magnifiers?
I've just read this back to myself and i've rambled on a bit ,but i hope you get the gist of what i'm trying to get across.
Look forward to your thoughts
Brian

 

[thegoodsgt]

Brian, I know exactly what you mean. In some ways, I think that even the figures painted by the best guys in the hobby weren't intended to be viewed any closer than maybe a foot. Photographs can definately make the best figures look almost amateurish. (Of course the positive aspect is that the rest of us rank-and-file painters can see exactly how figures are painted.)

FWIW, this phenomenon works the other way around, too. Twenty years ago many of us in the hobby were blown away by the models and dioramas built by Francois Verlinden and Bob Letterman, and rightly so. In late 80s I had the chance to stop by the VLS headquarters outside St. Louis and saw some of them in the flesh. They didn't look as good in person. It was almost as if they were painted and weathered specifically for publication.

Live and learn.

 

[megroot]

Brian,
I'm totally agree with you. I use magnifier's to. I looked in my hospital and find a very good one. I bought him trough a opticien. Excellent stuff.
But i totally disagree with judges who use them to judge a figure. In our competition it is forbidden.
Macro photography starts on 1:1. I think in the digital time macro is more 5:1. So it looks awefull. I agree. But even with the magnifier i don't see spots which i see on the picture.
Must i correct it. No, because with the naked eye i can't see it.

marc

 

[Einion]

I think it's interesting what paints/paintwork look good massively enlarged and which ones don't. Often something that does look good really close up seen in the flesh looks quite weak when photographed. Sometimes you see things that photograph really well but don't look as good in the flesh.

Brian might remember these Konnov figures from Euro 2005, which look much better in the flesh than in my photos (especially that detail view in post #14, ugh!)

Einion

 

[PJ Deluhery]

This observation certainly applies to fine art as well. When you look at the work of some of the Old Masters up close, it looks like complete chaos. Stand back far enough, and it pops into a beautiful painting.

That said, I don't approve of prohibiting magnifiers for judging or viewing. If you put your work out for the pubic, they should be able to view it - and judge it - as they see fit. Personaly, I think high magnification photos are a good thing, and I often use them to critique my own work since they provide an unbiased perspective.

It's your right as an artist to paint what you see in your own style, but it's also the viewer's right to view it and judge it as he wishes. If it looks a little different up close, so what? You're in very good company!

 

[bonehead]

Models, what is the object of them?

As P.J. points out, the best canvas paintings do not demand any great degree of close finesse to "work". In fact, many believe that such fussiness shows a lack of balance and flair. It is the artist who can do more with less who is most greatly revered.

But with our miniature models, we demand an artificial idea of "perfection". Why is that? I think the reasons are several:

1). First and foremost, a lack of imagination. Most people who are interested in miniatures are not artists. Because they do not think in "artistic" terms, they think of a rough or slap-dash rendering of tones to be amteurish or show a lack of skill. What could be considered brilliance on a canvas or in bronze is shunned as uncouth bilge on a miniature figure. This shows a lack of discernment and imagination. Sorry, having been both artist and miniaturist, that is how I see it.

2). I perhaps speak for myself here, but figures are primarily models of people. Modeling is a different ballgame than "art". I have built models all my life. The object of a model is to be the most perfect replica of a real object that the modeler is capable of. The best award winning models are always those which represent their subject with the greatest fidelity and finesse. Of course, this is a 180 degree contradiction to the artistic "less is more" dictum.

3). Modeling is more craft than art. Many will disagree with me here, but hear me out. Because we judge modeling on craft terms, those models that display the highest degree of craftsmanship are those that are most highly revered. There is no room for lumpy paint, little dingleberries of putty left over from the sculpting process, or interpretive "impressionist" renderings of details on our most respected models.

Of course this is an artificial pardigm. Our "craft" could have as easily taken a more expressive "interpretive" bent if the practitioners of it, culturally, had more artistic and less rigid ideas about what was "good or bad" modeling. But our limited ideation about what represents good modeling has given us the "perfection is best" model of modeling.

So be it.

However, if this is true, and I believe it is: grousing about people who use magnifiers to look at models is little more than churlish sour grapes!

Look around you at the shows folks. Most of us hobbyists are into our middle years, at best. I can no longer paint legible SS cuff titles on 1/35 scale figures like I could when I was in my twenties. Well into my fourth decade, the magnifiers became mandatory, rather than a helpful occasional work aid.

An unimaginative hobby that demands perfection over interpretation cannot complain about the tools necessary to achieve that goal! I think this rather blinkered prejudice has more to do with an individual's fear of being held to such high standards.

But it is the nature of the hobby, the cultural pardigm of our craft, that demands this kind of perfection. I sculpt and paint my models with a magnifier. I have no trouble with those who view them with the same instruments. If our hobby was a "six-footer" paradigm, such grumbles might be valid; But it isn't and they aren't.

Sorry folks. Go ahead and look at my stuff with the magnifiers. That is what I do. Frankly, many of us cannot see them well in any other way.......!

That is my view and I am sticking to it.

Cheers!!

Mike

 

[Cicero]

Hi all,

I can only say that my digital camera was one of the best purchases to ameliorate my painting. As Mike has stated I think we all strive to reproduce real subjects in miniature, and all this as realistic as possible.

Digital cameras and magnifyers too are both just instruments used to bring our work near to perfection. I couldn't live without them anymore. And yes, everyone - judges and clubmates alike - are free to judge my work using magnifyers. If they find something that is not up to their standards, they are free to decide and say so. Again, their criticism will be instrumental in my trying to do better and better each time I pick up a brush. But I'm sure this is a token of my nitpicking character ...

Johan

 

[brian]

I think it's interesting what paints/paintwork look good massively enlarged and which ones don't. Often something that does look good really close up seen in the flesh looks quite weak when photographed. Sometimes you see things that photograph really well but don't look as good in the flesh.

Brian might remember these Konnov figures from Euro 2005, which look much better in the flesh than in my photos (especially that detail view in post #14, ugh!)

Einion

Exactly the point i was trying to make.I saw this figure ( post 14 )up close without magnification and it was stunning.Now reading the posts to this thread there seems to be a difference of opinion.Correct me if i'm wrong but i think this figure was awarded a gold at Euro.Some of you who have made comment on this thread would have a judge slap on the magnifiers and then notice the offending detail ,which couldn't be seen by the naked eye, and given it a lower award.Is this right or wrong way to judge a figure? I've been honoured in the past, of seeing and handling figures painted by the masters of this hobby and would have found them wanting if magnified rather than being seen by the naked eye ,but masterpieces none the less.
I started this thread ,as i was interested in other peoples opinions whether i agreed with them or not.Lets not get too serious on this subject as it's a discussion i would have over a few beers with friends,just shooting the breeze,but this forum will have to do owing to distance between us and the lack of beer!
Brian

 

[bonehead]

Exactly the point i was trying to make.I saw this figure ( post 14 )up close without magnification and it was stunning.Now reading the posts to this thread there seems to be a difference of opinion.Correct me if i'm wrong but i think this figure was awarded a gold at Euro.Some of you who have made comment on this thread would have a judge slap on the magnifiers and then notice the offending detail ,which couldn't be seen by the naked eye, and given it a lower award.Is this right or wrong way to judge a figure? I've been honoured in the past, of seeing and handling figures painted by the masters of this hobby and would have found them wanting if magnified rather than being seen by the naked eye ,but masterpieces none the less.

Would a judge suddenly lower his opinion of a figure after looking at it under magnification? If I were a judge, I don't believe I would. But this might be different for others. If a figure looks good to the naked eye, if it is the best looking figure on the table, it will get an award regardless of what appears under the magnifier.

To my mind, this is not an issue. Frankly, many of us need a manifier to get a good close look at a figure. You would not fault a crippled person for using a wheel chair. Why fault a modeler, or a judge (one hopes that our judges are modelers as well!) who needs a little help with his peepers?

I started this thread ,as i was interested in other peoples opinions whether i agreed with them or not.Lets not get too serious on this subject as it's a discussion i would have over a few beers with friends,just shooting the breeze,but this forum will have to do owing to distance between us and the lack of beer!
Brian

Sorry Brian! My taste for bombastic hyperbole may have overtstated things. But, I do this to make a point. Please accept my apologies if I have caused offence. This was not my object and I am sorry if it was taken that way.

I am a professional modeler. Magnifers have become, not just another tool in my tool box, but an absolute neccessity for continuing my craft. There was a time when I felt exactly as you do. I thought that magnifiers were the satanic tools of only the most evil "judges".

This stems from my early days of building models, where I thought that those old fuddy-duddy IPMS types, with their ponderous Victorian optical aparatus, aperture penetrating pen-flashlights and their musty minds full of circumscribed modeling dogmatism, were the very embodiment of the self-appointed thought police. It seemed their only interest was to suck all of the fun and games out of modeling rebels like myself. (Well, at least I do not have any problems with authority!)

But, now that I require those confounded optical enhancers to practice my craft, my feelings about them have softened. I still think there are pedantic, buzz killing, agents of doom who occasionally haunt the halls of our modeling shows. But, I no longer identify them with those optical devices.

Honestly, if certain models look inferior under the bright lights of magnification and in enlarged photos, then I think this shows that the modelers in question (myself included) have some distance to cover before they achieve that rarified goal of "perfection". Far from being an unfair "leveler" of skill sets, I think that such technology should be spurring us on to improve our skills; rather than looked down upon as performing the humbling service of preventing us from resting on our comfortable laurels.

That which humbles us, teaches us. That is my opinion anyway......

Brian, thanks for the beer mate!! Sorry for any ruffled feathers.

Cheers!!

Mike

 

[blaster]

Hi all,

I am a great admirer of the way Bill Horan paints. His magnified figures look great even under magnification, with all those brush strokes precisely laid to suggest detal and less than perfect rendition. That is artistry, same as a Rembrandt or Whistler painting with impasto painting to suggest details.

Rgds Victor

 

[brian]

Good to hear the different opinions to this topic.I personally feel that there is a diversity in this great hobby of ours and that to me is not such a bad thing.The object of this topic was to ask a question that most people have thought about but probably not spoken about.
Mike ,no offence taken i assure you, but one little criticism,will you stop using such big words as i'm wearing out my dictionary looking them up.(only joking)
Merry Christmas to you all.
Brian

 

[bonehead]

Mike ,no offence taken i assure you, but one little criticism,will you stop using such big words as i'm wearing out my dictionary looking them up.
Brian

Indubitably!

Mike

 

[georges64]

Quote:
Originally Posted by brian
...will you stop using such big words as i'm wearing out my dictionary looking them up...
Brian

Indubitably!

Mike

What do I say myself, who am obliged to translate each time to try to understand what is being written on the forum !

georges.