Lets discuss viewing distance for miniatures.

[Uruk-Hai]

Hi Figureteers!

What do you think is the optimal viewing distance for your miniatures?
I mean at what distance do you want the detail and shadows to look its best?

I think I am a bit moderate in my shading but this is because I want my figures to look at their best in 2dm-5dm (7 1/2" - 19 1/2") range in normal light. I have however noticed that they don stand out as much as others at a longer distance, like when on a displaytable at a show when just strolling by? Also they seem to be harder to photograph?

So let your opinions loose on this Figureteers.

Cheers
Janne Nilsson

 

[Anders Heintz]

Well, I am all for looking at the figure as close as you can, but should be eye catching at an arms length as well.

 

[khorgor]

in my wargaming days we had a joke about the "5 foot rule" where figures looked great at that distance :-P

but these days, I want to try and get to a level where something will look great from far away and close up.

so yea - my optimal viewing distance is very close. butr avoid trhe macro cameras

 

[Ulrich]

In my opinion my best viewing distance will be an arms length. But to see how it is paint I have a look as close as I can.

So I paint that it look good very close and try to do the same for the distance "arm length". So it will be always a compromise I think

Ulrich

 

[tonydawe]

Hi Janne,

You've posted an interesting technical question mate.

My thoughts are that the size and scale of the figure will determine the optimal viewing distance. For example, a large size figure, say 1/6th scale is best viewed from 1 metre away, but of course if it's entered in acompetition it must be painted so that it stands up to much closer scrutiny.

Shep Paine in his excellent book "Building and Painting Scale Figures" addresses this issue on page 34, where he says that viewing a 54mm figure from 5 inches (15 cms)away is equivalent to looking at a real person standing 15 feet (3.5 metres) away.

His argument is that it is unrealistic to paint details that would not be visible in scale distance. If you can't see the details on a man standing at that distance, then there is no reason to paint those details on your figure, as they will not be to scale.

I understand his point, but I think most painters try to satisfy themselves that they have painted all the details they can paint to the best of their ability, without considering if those details will be visible to others when viewing the figures on a table from a distance.

I for one don't paint with an audience in mind. I paint to satisy my own sense of what looks good to me, and I hope that others will have enough sense to view my figures from an appropriate distance to get the best overall impression. If they want to scrutinise a figure from very close distance, I'm confident the little details will stand up to that level of scrutiny.

 

[Einion]

What Anders said, pretty much ditto for me.

I think, if possible, miniatures should be painted so they look good from a distance (more than arm's length) while being refined and detailed enough to repay very close viewing for anyone that cares to. Obviously the scale of the piece has some bearing, since a 1/35 single figure is a lot harder to see at 2m than a 1/6 scale bust!

It's quite possible to have stuff that looks good at a distance and the closer you get the less good it looks - e.g. rough surface, brushmarks/tidemarks in the paint become evident - which is something I think it's best to avoid. Fine for wargaming stuff or something that can only be viewed from a distance, not for single display figures though.

Einion

 

[brian]

The subject we're talking about has become more relevant since the advent of digital photographs on the internet.I've been painting for about 20 years and i still don't know what is the most advantageous when it comes to viewing figures.
I've seen the best painters figures at shows which have blown me away,but then some magazine has the said figures on their front page and the don't stand up to that much magnification as they tend to look really rough.A typical case regarding this viewing topic would be one of my favourite artists Mike Blank.His figures when seen at a show are outstanding from a distance and at arm's length, but if scrutinised really up close you'll see the workings of his paint work,so to speak.His figures are still superb none the less.
On the other hand there are some painters who can show you a figure on the internet so close that you can see up his left nostril (just about) but when seen in the flesh it looks totally different.To summarise,it all depends on the figure painter as there are so many different styles.My own opinion is that i was lot happier and content painting figures pre-digital camera times.I reckon you should be able to see the figure in all it's glory at arms length and at normal reading distance which is approx 14 inches.
Brian

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Intresting thoughta from many people here.

But if you shade a figure to look good at more than armslength distance, wouldnt it look overdone when looking close? And of course how much contrast is too much? As well as too little?

Of course the scale matters, but I would say that you compensate bigger scale with lesser contrast? And the problem is when you look at the figure closer than the painter intended you to do? At least in Shadowboxes you can make a minium distance.

In another discussion about Battle Barbies, the 1/6 Dragon Figures, some people say that shading isnt important. I tend to differ and have other problems with the appearance of these. However I think you can get away with not shading in 1/3 scale but not in 1/4.

Also how much magnification is acceptable for us painters. I dont think Mike Blank´s work show brushmarks in general, in fact that is one of the things Ive been impressed by?

Cheers
Janne Nilsson

 

[chippy]

As I paint purely for myself and not looking to enter competitions I like to work on about 3-4 feet for shelf and cabinet display at home , although I've taken a few figures along to some modelling shows to help fill out my local clubs stand I was quite pleased how they looked when walking around the the stand from the front , but I may have to erect a small picket fence 12 inchs around them to stop onlookers getting closer
chippy

 

[theBaron]

I like Shep's rule of thumb, and it jives with a similar rule we have in the theater, when we light a stage. You light for a viewer sitting, on a very rough average, about 40 feet away from the actors. As with the stage, so as with figures.

Prosit!
Brad

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Adding a few thoughts to this discussion. If you have very harsch contrast in the shading, doesnt that also limit the variation of tones in the colours?

Cheers
Janne Nilsson

 

[Einion]

It can, but it's not automatic. Higher contrast might conceivably mean more variations in colour are present, not less. Although in practice some very contrasty work is a little shy on subtlety.

Einion

 

[blaster]

Rgding scale modelling, is it feasible to model individual bicycle spokes in 54mm or 1/35 scale? There are a few brass etch sets sold for this purpose but even these look overly sized. Furthermore, their flatness shows up.

Rgds Victor

 

[Bluesking]

I'd say 2-3 feet max, after that my eyesight is crap!!!!!

 

[Einion]

Rgding scale modelling, is it feasible to model individual bicycle spokes in 54mm or 1/35 scale?

It's certainly possible but whether it's feasible is another matter. Theoretically one could make stretch sprue for this, with the added bulk of the paint I imagine you could get an awesome effect... assuming the assembly hadn't driven you insane beforehand.

The etched-brass ones aren't perfect as you say, but being a big step up on what they're replacing I think they're a good compromise between truly in-scale and workable.

Einion

 

[blaster]

Good point on feasibility. You can definitely see bicycle spokes at an imaginary 15feet distance. But I think that stretched sprue or even the tiniest wire is still too thick to use. Alternatively, if one left the spokes out, it would surely be as valid a representation as trying to model imperfect spokes.

Rgds Victor