Generally expected/accepted figure viewing distance

[Russ]

Hey, all -

I don't care how good one is, if the viewer gets too close, the flaws become evident (this was one of my earliest lessons from detailed photography - yeesh!). But what's an appropriate, expected viewing distance for figures and busts?

In my years of modelling tanks and planes, I've always felt that ~1 foot is the expected viewing distance for just about any scale. Is it the same for the world of figures and busts? Or should one expect the typical viewer to climb up the tailpipe, so to speak?

TIA for any thoughts!

Russ

 

[DEL]

I would tend to agree that about a foot is good when examining most models.
This gives a reasonable in-scale interpretation of how the eye would naturally register details at a distance.
The fact is though that when pieces are in what is after all painting competitions small margins seem to count.
So I can understand the need for closer examination but IMO this should not involve any form of magnification.
D

 

[Russ]

@D: Yeah, contests are a different thing. I often judge at our local IPMS yearly show; once the field is narrowed in a given category, the examination distance gets closer ... and closer ... and closer ... I've got cheater glasses and even a magnifier I often use when it gets down to the gnat's eyelash between two entries. But that's a different game from "normal" display conditions.

 

[Helm]

In my case, I prefer my figures to be viewed from about 100 yds away, so they look their best.
Steve

 

[Wayneb]

In my case, I prefer my figures to be viewed from about 100 yds away, so they look their best.
Steve

And to be judged by Mr. Magoo............

 

[DEL]

@D: Yeah, contests are a different thing.

Again purely my opinion, there has to be an optimum level/distance for comparison.
If two or more figures viewed at a given distance require magnification to separate them then this is taking it too far.
If they all look 'right' to normal vision and the painting technique is solid then all should be awarded accordingly.
D

 

[DEL]

In my case, I prefer my figures to be viewed from about 100 yds away, so they look their best.
Steve

..... taking a bit of a risk there .....

 

[Russ]

Again purely my opinion, there has to be an optimum level/distance for comparison.
If two or more figures viewed at a given distance require magnification to separate them then this is taking it too far.
If they all look 'right' to normal vision and the painting technique is solid then all should be awarded accordingly.
D

What you seem to be poking at, in part, is the judging criteria. IPMS judges entries in a comparative way, i.e. which model is "best" compared to the other entries in that category (there are guidelines, of course, but ultimately it's your entry vs. all the others). With this approach, there must be one and only one 1st-place winner in each class. It also means that a really poor model can - if it's judged to be better than all the other entries - take home the Gold.

AMPS, on the other hand, judges to criteria, such that if your entry ticks off all the official criteria for Gold, that's what you get; same for Silver and Bronze. That means you can end up with multiple 1st-place/Golds in a given category. You can also end up with NO Golds in a category. In fact, theoretically, you can end up with NO awards, if no entries fulfill at least the Bronze criteria.

 

[Warren SMITH]

Judges do have a hard job, which I do not envy..

 

[Russ]

Judges do have a hard job, which I do not envy..

And the payscale stinks. Worse than umpires, but on a par with HOA Board members.

 

[DEL]

What you seem to be poking at, in part, is the judging criteria.

Not a poke simply an opinion. I think you'll find most members on here are very conversant with judging systems but for new members it's always welcome to have the variations explained comprehensively and clearly.
Judging is unenviable and it's hats off to those who take it on.
Over the years in various figure competitions I've seen judges having to assess figures painted in oils, acrylics, water colours and inks in the same categories. Being able to consider the skills shown by the painter in these various mediums takes a level of objectivity and knowledge that is way beyond mine.
Unfortunately this objectivity is not always evident and I can think of a few occasions where stunningly well painted figures were known to have been ignored in favour of a particular judges own preferred medium.
Going back to your original point about viewing distance, for me the big change has been the meteoric rise in skills of acrylic painters in historical and particularly fantasy figures. Some of the work in this medium is now breathtakingly beautiful, driven to some extent by the advances and variety of paints available but more specifically by younger painters who have come into the hobby and are pushing the standard to levels that most of us ancient oil and enamel painters would never have contemplated.
A decade or so ago many acrylic painted figures could not cope with being viewed at less than two feet nowadays they can cope with well less than a foot.
Doesn't make things any easier for judges.
D.

 

[Russ]

@Del: EXCELLENT point about the different mediums. I've never heard of anyone demonstrating a judging preference in cars/planes/tanks/etc., but I can totally see that being an inherent bias - and a discernible difference - with figures. I'm experimenting with acrylics and oils, and I can often tell the difference in the finished product (or will, if I ever finish one). Not that one is better/worse than the other, just different.

I must access the ancient tequila and seek its wisdom on these points.

 

[Babelfish]

A very interesting thread with some excellent observations. And I agree with your original point Russ that very few (if indeed any) model will appear totally flawless once a certain level of magnification is reached (although of course generally speaking, the better the painter the more magnification it takes to reach that point).

Photography can also make a difference when it comes to the internet or printed media. Poor photography can make an excellent piece look ordinary, while good photography can flatter a ho-hum effort (as can jiggery-pokery with PhotoShop and similar editing tools).

- Steve

 

[Nap]

Hi folks

Been following this , great responses , might just be me but I agree that 12" is about right ......for the smaller scales , for the larger some people i.e. Judges will sometimes pick up a entry for closer looks

Photography will always highlight things , each painter will be happy with their completed model of course

Steve raises some good points ref pictures and photoshop

What does grit me a bit is when the optivisors come out ......no disrespect intended

Just have fun in the hobby

Nap

 

[NigelR]

One aspect of all this is the context of the figure. A single figure is going to be viewed much more closely than figures in a vignette or a diorama. In a vignette or a diorama you are viewing the "scene" so the figures have to fit the scene. The individual figures aren't likely to be inspected by the viewer as closely compared to a single figure.

As someone that's done more dioramas than single figures recently, I'm comfortable that my figures look good in a scene. But as individual pieces they could be better and definitely wouldn't compare favourably to well painted single figures. Which is why I'm currently trying to improve my single figure painting skills.

Photography can also make a difference when it comes to the internet or printed media. Poor photography can make an excellent piece look ordinary, while good photography can flatter a ho-hum effort (as can jiggery-pokery with PhotoShop and similar editing tools).

A valid point, which is why I have to upgrade my photography equipment. My ancient 6mp DSLR is too grainy and doesn't reproduce colours as well as the current generation cameras. It's ok for pictures of aircraft and dioramas, but it doesn't reproduce single figures well (again, back to viewing context).

What does grit me a bit is when the optivisors come out ......no disrespect intended

Just have fun in the hobby

A necessity of age I am afraid. I have to use an optivisor to paint 54mm figures, even with glasses I can't see enough detail.

I recently saw some 28mm wargames figures that I painted over 30 years ago. The flags were hand painted by me (this was long before the printed paper ones everyone uses now), and on a small 28mm French Napoleonic flag I had hand painted every word of the inscriptions on the flag and every word was legible. That was done without glasses. I couldn't even do that with an optivisor these days.......

 

[MCPWilk]

That depends on the scale. The detail you would expect to see on a 1/6 scale figure at 1 foot is what you would expect to see looking at the full size figure at 6 feet. Likewise the detail seen on a 1/15 scale (120mm) figure at 1 foot is what you would expect to see looking at the full size figure at 15 feet etc. For other scales, 90mm = 1/20; 75mm = 1/24, 54mm = approx. 1/32

Mike