Interesting topic

[RobH]

Interesting subject for sure. Here's my work shy ramblings on the subject.

Guess there are a number of things involved here.

First off, there are a lot of different skin colours out there, and all react differently to exposure to the elements.
Then who is our subject, where has he been, what has he been doing? A ginger haired pale skinned scotsman in the tropics who has just run up a mountain in full kit? Or an olive skinned greek who has been on campaign for a year in his own country.
In most time periods there will be exceptions as we as a species have always migrated and travelled and mixed our genes across the globe!

You could paint a figure how you like, but would probably always have to explain to the viewer why he looks a particular way if it doesn't adhere to the viewers' preconcieved ideas of how he may look....

regarding scale; well the armour and aircraft folks tend to lighten a real colour as the scale reduces, and I guess we do the same. As stated elsewhere, we need to accentuate the highlights and shadows somewhat otherwise the figure doesn't look right, and the accentuation increases as the scale decreases (just look at the 28mm crowd).

(that was influenced by one too many coffees today)

whoops..better get back to work.................

 

[Shane]

It may have been said earlier--I didn't read every posting--but ancient writers noted the pale skin of the Celts. I believe the references were to warriors who you'd expect to be out in the weather alot.

Shane

 

[RobH]

but ancient writers noted the pale skin of the Celts

Who were the ancient writers? The skin may have been paler but only relative to the writers' skin. Not necessary white pale (I know you weren't suggesting that, but you know what I mean)!!! It's a big subject, and we could go on for ages.

Robin, I would suggest you paint the skin of your 3 figures in colours that best suggest thier environment and ethnic origin. It is, of course, up to you; there's no hard and fast rules!

great subject!

 

[Lou Masses]

Robin. It takes me 2 pages to put things into context wiseguy!

I would think a person who spends all of his adult life outdoors would have a ruddy complexion. If not tan, it would at least be darker and more weathered. I have never seen anyone who works out doors all year round for most of their life look pale. It is not so much a "tan" as it is a weathering of the face.

 

[Shane]

Rob,

Could have been Caesar, Herodotus, Diodorus, Srabo, Tacitus...don't have my books handy so I can't say who.

"Pale" is relative, I guess. Still I imagine there is plenty of variation.


Shane

 

[megroot]

Hello Guys,

I read this again and again and again. I read the answers. I i thought everybody is trying to get the real skin color.
Whell i work in the hospital and asked to the dermatologist. He is the expert in skin and maybe in skin colors.
He tould me just one thing: There is no standard color for skin. Every skin, pale, tan, dark, yellow, red or whatever react different on the sun and weather.
For shure is that when your more in the sun, and it doesn't matter what colour you have your skin is gonna to change.
It change's to a darker color. This happenens trough the reacting off the pigment in the skin. Some people have more other people have less. The more pigment the darker the skin and vice versa.

So he said to me, whatever skin color you paint it is the wright colour. You are in control over the paint and the brush. Let's say, it is the freedom off the artist. When you do it in your own eyes wright than it is wright.
But never paint a pale paint on a african.

What more can i say, or contribute to this discussion

Marc

 

[Lou Masses]

Marc,

That about covers it pretty clearly methinks.

Lou

 

[Robin]

Lou

I think you often bring sanity to discussions like this, 2 pages dood aint much for you. though here Marc has written a great post.


Thanks for the help guys

Robin

 

[Lou Masses]

Robin,

I didn't think you wanted a magnum opus on tans.

Thanks
Lou

 

[Jimmy S]

Ha that got you all thinking eh? There are no hard and fast rules of course or else we'd all be doing it the same wouldn't we? I look at the one's I like, and try my variation on that. Another point is that we know what we have achieved but does some judge or more importantly a member of the public who is viewing the work know what we after? Finally (for me) I think anyone who does Native Americans well is on the skin tone track.

As for the cam cream topic I loved the example pictured. Robin's Arnhem airborne figure is crying out for that "put it on 3 days ago and haven't washed since" look. yes in 54mm....yes it can be done.....no doubt someone will have a go. Cheers for a great thread.

 

[quang]

Originally posted by sharpie95@Nov 2 2004, 02:02 AM
Another point is that we know what we have achieved but does some judge or more importantly a member of the public who is viewing the work know what we after?

Good point, Sharpie-san!

I remember once a guy who came over and showed me his bust of Geronimo for appreciation. The skin was OLIVE GREEN. What can I say? The guy was obviously proud of his efforts and he surely did SEE things that way.

The main thing which defines Art is the artist's PERSONAL vision. No personal vision = no Art.

Saying that a skin tone is too pink, too pale, too green or too ...orangey is like saying that Van Gogh was worthless because his skin tones were too blue! Thus denying the painter the right to his own personal vision and at the same time defeating our own claim that what we're doing is Art.

As far as I'm concerned, a good skin tone simply has to LOOK good on the finished figure. It's not a formula issue. You just can't use the same skin mix on a figure which is predominantly green (like, say a Berdan's Sharpshooter) and on another one which is predominantly red (like a Canadian Mountie).

To take one step further, the skin tone has to reflect the MOOD of the figure. You cannot paint a cheering, extrovert fellow the same way you do a defeated, depressed character.

To get back to the very issue which started this thread, I don't know what Hardy's reply was but if it's only: "I did it so because that's the way I saw it", it would be a perfectly legitimate answer to me.

Q.

 

[Lou Masses]

I guess then it's sort of like painting polka dots on a napoleonic uniform. If the craftsmanship is there, who cares eh?

 

[quang]

Originally posted by Lou Masses@Nov 2 2004, 09:40 AM
I guess then it's sort of like painting polka dots on a napoleonic uniform.

It's called POINTILLISM.



Q.

 

[Lou Masses]

Yep. And if done well, should win an award-regardless of "historicity".

 

[michelange]

To return from on the subject, if I understand, how to represent well a dye, a color of skin. A figure of 54mm represents about a man of 1,80 Meter. at approximately a distance from 10 to 12 meters. Every morning, I travel by the subway, and when I look at people with 10 Meters. I never see as many details, of nuances on a painted figure. Conclusion: the details are exagerated, accentuated, forced and especially NOT realists. A painted figure in a real way would undoubtedly be "ugly". Thus it is necessary to interpret, and thus each one is free IMHO to interpret to represent what is pretty for him. Here is my contribution of 2 cents. Bruno

 

[Steve Arthur]

Originally posted by Robin@Oct 31 2004, 05:58 PM

Question is , are soldiers tanned /weathered or not despite where they come from

Robin

I can't really comment on the use of colors at this point given my newbie status, but I can comment on what soldiers look like in the field for an extended period from personal experience. Despite all of the hygiene lectures, extreme weather lectures, personal protection lectures and the list goes on, soldiers in the field tan, burn, and get dirty, (pretty stinky too, but that does not apply here ) at times unshaven, but seldom do they retain any fair complextion they might have had. So, I would need to agree that they should be on the tanned side. I would like to add, they tend to turn blue too--Reforger of 85 comes to mind for a lot of blue faces :lol:

Best Wishes
Steve

 

[Lou Masses]

Steve,

Wouldn't that be a hoot! "Scented figures" for the ultimate in realism!

Lou

 

[quang]

Originally posted by michelange@Nov 2 2004, 11:01 AM
Thus it is necessary to interpret, and thus each one is free IMHO to interpret to represent what is pretty for him.

T'as tout compris, Bruno!

A bientôt, (à Sèvres?)

Q.

 

[Dan Morton]

Didn't read all the posts carefully. Just a suggestion, if it wasn't made earlier. If you want "authenticity" (whatever that is), then, for the modern period at least, why not take a look at watercolors and oils done by artists living at the time [and if possible, serving in the army being depicted]? At the very least you will see how a talented artist living through the period painted the faces [and everything else] of soldiers around him. To name just one example - Friedrich L. Scharf, a German soldier-artist serving on the Eastern Front during WWI. His work is summarized in a Schiffer book by Charles Woolley, "In the Service of the Kaiser".

Note that I am not talking about the idealized and highly stylized pictures done by many artists mostly to depict uniform colors, equipment, etc. Scharf's pics are of guys 'in the field'.

My 3 centavos chucked in...

All the best!

 

[Steve Arthur]

Originally posted by Lou Masses@Nov 2 2004, 11:29 AM
Steve,

Wouldn't that be a hoot! "Scented figures" for the ultimate in realism!

Lou

Remembering what we smelled like after 30-40 days in the boonies, no showers and just a spit bath--they would need to issue gas masks at the shows.

We made skunks do a 180.

Steve