Guy
A Fixture
Gawd............I'm gettin old.........we're talking about my old wardrobe :lol: :lol:
Making the best of a weak sculpt?
- Thread starter MattMcK.
- Start date
Help Support planetFigure:
Blind Pew
PlanetFigure Supporter
I think what certainly can be said, and what is true in my own case is that as I've gotten older (or should I say wiser) my quality control has gone up. The words, "That'll do " are ones I don't use these days...
Johan
A Fixture
... Dunno, Q, ... I can still freak out when I hear Iron Maiden ... :lol:
But this is an interesting discussion. I will tell you people this : in my opinion : many figures from over 15 years ago still "have it", and some even will easily stand comparing with 21st century products.
On the other hand, but that's just my personal taste, I feel that the last decade the figure market has been flooded by much too many 54 crap, or (undersized
) turds if you like... mediocre sculpting and no originality.Wether you want to paint old or new crap, it's up to you in the end ...
Poste Militaire was mentioned here. They have set the standard for over a quarter of a century I believe. It is sad that they are gone.
Wlas
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2004
- Messages
- 393
A 'a pinch of salt'?Originally posted by quang@May 22 2005, 04:01 AM
Yes, but NOT until we see it!
And as we can only perceive what our brain (governed at every instant by our education, cultural environment and experience of life) allow us to see, we can understand why things that were genial and 'groovy'
So does the 'art' of the miniature figure then and now. I persist in saying that we should not be too rigid in our judgment.
To Matt's qualities of honesty and perseverance, there's a third one which IMO is as essential: the ability to look at one's own work with a pinch of salt.It doesn't amount to much but it does a lot to help breaking mental barriers and permitting one to persevere despite the difficulties.
Yeah, but what about those smelly and rash-inducing Afghan shepherd coats? :lol:
Q.
In the U.S. 'a grain of salt' implies the need for skepticism or to take something lightly. If this is what a 'pinch' is then I'm in agreement, Quang, but up to a point.
At this time nothing that has been done by a miniature artist that has changed or shaken the world. Sadly it has barely made itself known even in the world of Art alone. So we shouldn't take ourselves too seriously. Our work is relative to our small community and not much else.
'Yes, but NOT until we see it!' Well even if someone didn't have access to the rest of the world, or books, or television, or whatever....they SEE realism in themselves and in their immediate surroundings!
Everyday.
And if this individual has the passion for miniature art then he/she will naturally strive to achieve this realism. Fortunately no one has to be isolated or should be.
Quang, I believe you have a strong sense of empathy and disdain painful criticism towards others.
I'm with you on that. Criticism need not be harsh and crushing of the spirit. But criticism that is constructive ( it can be called tutoring ) is a blessing. I recall over the decades how Tom Holtz ( an extremely talented painter ) when shown a piece of work would always say: " I can see you worked very hard on this. " No matter how horrendous the painting was. Come to think of it, Tom said that about a lot of my work. Tom has always been an old-school gentleman who would never go out of his way to criticize someone's efforts. To do so is beneath him. But Tom also has a great deal to share....all one has to do is ask him.
So, Quang, getting back to Matt.
He's asked.
I'm listening to Pink Floyd as I type.
Life is good.....
MattMcK.
PlanetFigure Supporter
- Joined
- May 10, 2005
- Messages
- 674
Hello all-
I never expected this much philosophy over a simple question. I'm blown away by the diversity of approaches toward the answer, not to mention the way it appears everyone dressed 20-30 years ago :lol:
You know,whenI wrote the initial post, I was thinking "This little sucker has a good shape, but the features are poorly defined and the feet look like sausages. Do I keep reworking it, or start fresh, or give it a coat of paint and see how it looks?" That means, boiled down, "how lazy am I?"
After a week's break from the project I sat down this morning and went back to work on her. I can't settle for mediocrity, but there is also the issue of my currently limited sculpting skills. They won't get any better unless I use them though, and I'm happy to report I think there's some light at the end of the tunnel. And no matter the final result, as Quang points out, it's all a learning experience. Even if this one isn't the greatest, there will be others, each (hopefully) a bit better than the last.
Let's see what the next couple of sittings bring; maybe she'll work out after all. Then on to the Pteranadon!
Matt
I never expected this much philosophy over a simple question. I'm blown away by the diversity of approaches toward the answer, not to mention the way it appears everyone dressed 20-30 years ago :lol:
You know,whenI wrote the initial post, I was thinking "This little sucker has a good shape, but the features are poorly defined and the feet look like sausages. Do I keep reworking it, or start fresh, or give it a coat of paint and see how it looks?" That means, boiled down, "how lazy am I?"
After a week's break from the project I sat down this morning and went back to work on her. I can't settle for mediocrity, but there is also the issue of my currently limited sculpting skills. They won't get any better unless I use them though, and I'm happy to report I think there's some light at the end of the tunnel. And no matter the final result, as Quang points out, it's all a learning experience. Even if this one isn't the greatest, there will be others, each (hopefully) a bit better than the last.
Let's see what the next couple of sittings bring; maybe she'll work out after all. Then on to the Pteranadon!
Matt
I read passionately this thread, trying to evaluate all the opinions you express.
First of all, I would make it clear that I do not want to stir up an holy war, so please do not take my question as an attempt to arouse controversy, really, it's just a question, I would like to know what do you think about. Moreover, I'm at a very beginning level with painting, so do not reply 'you are saying that because you cant'. I'm the first which recognize its limits.
In this war against the medium, there is a question milling on my mind. In my previous life I was a programmer, with some knowledge of computer graphics. I'm not an expert, but most of times I can recognize when a picture has been manipulated with some program (Photoshop, Paintshop, etc. this really does not matter). Moreover, I think that everyone of you can recognize some difference between the 'official' pics and that taken during expos.
Now the question is: what do you think about retouching pictures ? There is some people (please do not misread, I'm saying 'some', not all), some 'master', which abitually retouches its pics, reaching an impressive result (where impressive must be read literally, not as a metaphor).
Photo retouching is just another medium to fight this war, or must be a forbidden weapon ?
First of all, I would make it clear that I do not want to stir up an holy war, so please do not take my question as an attempt to arouse controversy, really, it's just a question, I would like to know what do you think about. Moreover, I'm at a very beginning level with painting, so do not reply 'you are saying that because you cant'. I'm the first which recognize its limits.
In this war against the medium, there is a question milling on my mind. In my previous life I was a programmer, with some knowledge of computer graphics. I'm not an expert, but most of times I can recognize when a picture has been manipulated with some program (Photoshop, Paintshop, etc. this really does not matter). Moreover, I think that everyone of you can recognize some difference between the 'official' pics and that taken during expos.
Now the question is: what do you think about retouching pictures ? There is some people (please do not misread, I'm saying 'some', not all), some 'master', which abitually retouches its pics, reaching an impressive result (where impressive must be read literally, not as a metaphor).
Photo retouching is just another medium to fight this war, or must be a forbidden weapon ?
Guy
A Fixture
Back in the 35mm camera days we took pictures, took the roll of film to the Photo-lab and waited for them to return only to find out that more than 1/2 were not acceptable. Now in the digital camera days I can take the equivelent of a roll of film and with my Paintshop Pro program, slightly retouch, crop and otherwise enhance a photo that in the old days would of been trashed. We often had to wait for the magazines to come out with their photos of various shows only to find that they left out over 2/3's of them and chose what they liked. Now we can download the digital onto our computer and in the same day have what it took weeks to get before, a reasonable good photograph of a figure.
If it wasn't for the many photo enhancement programs available for our computers, many would not take the time to learn and process film. I have at last a Figure studio (for lack of any thing else to call my room) and would not have room for a darkroom needed for the older style of photo imaging.
With the advent of the computer and the digital camera and photoshop programs it has brought many of us close together to discuss our hobby and share where 30 years ago when I started painting figures we could only share this information and techniques at a show or club meeting.
IMHO the computer....the internet.....and digital photography has brought our hobby ahead by leaps and bounds and I am so thankful we have it.
If it wasn't for the many photo enhancement programs available for our computers, many would not take the time to learn and process film. I have at last a Figure studio (for lack of any thing else to call my room) and would not have room for a darkroom needed for the older style of photo imaging.
With the advent of the computer and the digital camera and photoshop programs it has brought many of us close together to discuss our hobby and share where 30 years ago when I started painting figures we could only share this information and techniques at a show or club meeting.
IMHO the computer....the internet.....and digital photography has brought our hobby ahead by leaps and bounds and I am so thankful we have it.
quang
A Fixture
Hello Luca,
If by 'photo retouching', you mean post-processing/enhancing operations like cropping, adjusting contrast, luminosity, colour balance and sharpening, it's a definite YES and an absolute must.
As a matter of fact, EVERY digital image, whether it's a digicam shot or a scan, needs a certain amount of post-processing if only to make it suitable to the intended output (web image, desktop printing or offset printing). It's the equivalent of the 'old-school' darkroom and photo-etching pre-press operations and therefore, indispensable for a good picture.
If by retouching, you mean adding things that were not on the original shot like details, textures, extra colours,..., let's say that, contrary to the general belief, 'cheating' on a digital image is time-consuming and requires more-than-average expertise and high-end hardware (like calibrated monitors,...) to be totally convincing. And what use is a cheat if it's not convincing?
There's an easier, faster and smarter way to do it: TAKE A GOOD PICTURE to begin with. Which leads us to your next question:
Like I said, the difference is NOT in the Photoshopping, it's in the conditions of the shooting. Official pictures are generally taken in a controlled environment where the photographer can make the most of the lighting, backdrop and camera capabilities. Lighting is primordial to a good picture as it defines the shadows and highlights to make the final picture more 'readable' (just like a good paint job does!)
An obvious parallel would be the difference between a portrait taken in a studio by a professional photographer and a holiday snapshot.
So the next time you see a nice picture of a figure, think 'photographer' before thinking 'Photoshop'
I hope this answers your questions.
Q.
nagashino
A Fixture
Good Morning all!
I've been watching this thread with interest, and am in accord with many of the points raised. My love affair with figure painting goes back to the early 60's, so I can certainly agree that the hobby is on a different planet now to way back then, and that the advances in DTP and reprographics have given us all the facility to be critical consumers, and above all, has changed the way we view (and paint) figures.
I agree with Quang on the "abilities" of the magazine photographers. How many of you have looked at a stunning magazine photograph of an award winning piece, and gone on to view the actual item, only to find it is rather less attractive "in the flesh". And how many of you have bought a figure on the strength of the box-art, only to find the contents of the box disappointing or downright rubbish.
However, this is skewing away from the main focus of the thread. Is a "crap" figure worth persevering with? My bench is littered with half-done figures, many of them I would put in the "crap" category. But each one has given me an opportunity to exercise my painting techniques, so although none of them may ever be displayed, they have all played their part.
Good luck with the vignette Matt :lol:
Phil
I've been watching this thread with interest, and am in accord with many of the points raised. My love affair with figure painting goes back to the early 60's, so I can certainly agree that the hobby is on a different planet now to way back then, and that the advances in DTP and reprographics have given us all the facility to be critical consumers, and above all, has changed the way we view (and paint) figures.
I agree with Quang on the "abilities" of the magazine photographers. How many of you have looked at a stunning magazine photograph of an award winning piece, and gone on to view the actual item, only to find it is rather less attractive "in the flesh". And how many of you have bought a figure on the strength of the box-art, only to find the contents of the box disappointing or downright rubbish.
However, this is skewing away from the main focus of the thread. Is a "crap" figure worth persevering with? My bench is littered with half-done figures, many of them I would put in the "crap" category. But each one has given me an opportunity to exercise my painting techniques, so although none of them may ever be displayed, they have all played their part.
Good luck with the vignette Matt :lol:
Phil
quang
A Fixture
Same here, Phil!
With the difference that they're all of my doings. :lol: :lol:
Q.
Thanks for your reply.
It is obvious that the pc, the digital cameras and so on are a great advance. It is obvious too that adjusting contrast, color balancing, etc. is a must. The pictures which comes from the camera are absolutely rough and must be adjusted. And yes, I know that the quality of the picture depends on how it was taken, including the light, the exposure times, the film (used or emulated), etc.
Colours, as an absolute entity, does not exist, it depend on the light and on how the surface reflects it, aside all the physical theory behind. I was using a projector to print my own photos, so I can understand you when speaking about this, I'm not an expert, but there is something I know, as I know that there is a real difference between 'classical' (reflex) and digital photography.
I'm not sepaking of this, I'm asking about retouching photos, which is a different task. This does not means that all the beautiful pictures we see are retouched. They can be balanced, corrected, etc., but this for me does not mean retouched.
Let me use an example. If I know that a color must be white, I expect to see it as white. White can be more or less bright, dark, it can tend to gray, yellow, ocre, but must be white. Now if I see that white becoming sand, that is not white but sand. I can do a reverse engineering, trying to alterate the colour balancing to see how the others colours changes. But if when getting back the sand to the white, the black, which in this figure must be black, goes to red, so something wrong happens.
Most of the posted pictures are balanced, etc., that is right but I'm not talking about this. Take 100 pictures of different guys, 98% are right, but there is a 2% which is retouched, I'm saying retouched, not balanced or adjusted. A gold helm, which is painted as pure gold, cannot goes by itself to a beautiful, ancient, thousand bronce tones colour. If you see, with your eyes, a figure really good painted, surely it is a beautiful painted figure, but that is, a painted figure. Such figure cannot transform itself in a figure where all brushstrokes disappears, where colours blending seems to come from a make-up artist and where colours saturation transforms the flesh into a painting of Tiziano.
And no, I do not agree about the learning curve/usage times of photo retouching tools. Such tools are surely complex, but not so hard to handle.
I'm sorry, but english is not my language, so I cannot express it as I would. My only fear is to be misinterpreted, I'm not speaking of all the beautiful pictures we see, only about this 2%.
It is obvious that the pc, the digital cameras and so on are a great advance. It is obvious too that adjusting contrast, color balancing, etc. is a must. The pictures which comes from the camera are absolutely rough and must be adjusted. And yes, I know that the quality of the picture depends on how it was taken, including the light, the exposure times, the film (used or emulated), etc.
Colours, as an absolute entity, does not exist, it depend on the light and on how the surface reflects it, aside all the physical theory behind. I was using a projector to print my own photos, so I can understand you when speaking about this, I'm not an expert, but there is something I know, as I know that there is a real difference between 'classical' (reflex) and digital photography.
I'm not sepaking of this, I'm asking about retouching photos, which is a different task. This does not means that all the beautiful pictures we see are retouched. They can be balanced, corrected, etc., but this for me does not mean retouched.
Let me use an example. If I know that a color must be white, I expect to see it as white. White can be more or less bright, dark, it can tend to gray, yellow, ocre, but must be white. Now if I see that white becoming sand, that is not white but sand. I can do a reverse engineering, trying to alterate the colour balancing to see how the others colours changes. But if when getting back the sand to the white, the black, which in this figure must be black, goes to red, so something wrong happens.
Most of the posted pictures are balanced, etc., that is right but I'm not talking about this. Take 100 pictures of different guys, 98% are right, but there is a 2% which is retouched, I'm saying retouched, not balanced or adjusted. A gold helm, which is painted as pure gold, cannot goes by itself to a beautiful, ancient, thousand bronce tones colour. If you see, with your eyes, a figure really good painted, surely it is a beautiful painted figure, but that is, a painted figure. Such figure cannot transform itself in a figure where all brushstrokes disappears, where colours blending seems to come from a make-up artist and where colours saturation transforms the flesh into a painting of Tiziano.
And no, I do not agree about the learning curve/usage times of photo retouching tools. Such tools are surely complex, but not so hard to handle.
I'm sorry, but english is not my language, so I cannot express it as I would. My only fear is to be misinterpreted, I'm not speaking of all the beautiful pictures we see, only about this 2%.
quang
A Fixture
Hello Luca,
I understand your concern. But I haven't yet seen a picture using such extreme Photoshop 'magic' and at the same time remaining convincing.
As a matter of fact, the best commercial pictures of figures I've ever seen are the Elvis figures made by McFarlane. Their photography is stunning. The figures look so alive yet the painting is fairly plain, nowhere near the standard that we, figure painters, are accustomed to. And I can assure you that it's NOT Photoshop wizardry, it's all in the lighting. I know because because I bought one to figure out how they've done it
. Let's not waste our time discussing about allegations. Can you show us a precise example so that we can comment on?
Q.
It could be very easy to post here some pics, saying 'that's', but I do not want to start another crusade. This is not the right place to do it. I do not want to crucify anyone and I don't want to be crucified too...
I think every guy can acts as preferred, as well I think every guy deserves all my respect (at least until he respects me).
So, why my post ? Only to know what do you think about. Everyone of us can easily see what I'm talking about (I suppose). A private debate between me and you, for example, does not have the same meaning when practised in a public forum. Mine would not be a public accusation, only another thread about the painting's philosophy (if there is one...).
A
Alan
Guest
deleted
Alan, I'm not looking for this, I've just expressed my opinion, without insulting or charging, which of course is not related to the work of Quang. I just seen things that I don't understand, and considering the nature of this thread I was thinking this was the appropiate location to discuss them.
I was wrong, it seems there are taboo about which nobody can talk. I received a lot of personal messages from a lot of people, 'it's me?', 'why this kind of tricks from you?', 'what are you looking for?', and so on.
When I was talking about a private conversation 'between me and you', I'm not referring to the 'you' as you Alan (just as an example), or as 'you' Quang or to other people, I was talking about a private conversation between two guys, in the abstract meaning.
To avoid an holy war, I think that pics must not published here. I was just asking about my doubts and about what is correct and what is wrong. The only way I know to learn is to ask.
But if a such conversation is the prelude to a new crusade, so I'll back to the 'hey man, how cool is that!!' commentary, so all the people can live happy. That's is my fault, english is not my language, before starting 'philosophycs' topics, I must learn it better. In the meanwhile I'll keep posting only sentences like 'Wow, I love that!", which cant be misunderstood (I hope...).
Sorry for the inconveniences.
Luca
I was wrong, it seems there are taboo about which nobody can talk. I received a lot of personal messages from a lot of people, 'it's me?', 'why this kind of tricks from you?', 'what are you looking for?', and so on.
When I was talking about a private conversation 'between me and you', I'm not referring to the 'you' as you Alan (just as an example), or as 'you' Quang or to other people, I was talking about a private conversation between two guys, in the abstract meaning.
To avoid an holy war, I think that pics must not published here. I was just asking about my doubts and about what is correct and what is wrong. The only way I know to learn is to ask.
But if a such conversation is the prelude to a new crusade, so I'll back to the 'hey man, how cool is that!!' commentary, so all the people can live happy. That's is my fault, english is not my language, before starting 'philosophycs' topics, I must learn it better. In the meanwhile I'll keep posting only sentences like 'Wow, I love that!", which cant be misunderstood (I hope...).
Sorry for the inconveniences.
Luca
Wlas
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2004
- Messages
- 393
Lol.
This thread went from a request for advice from Matt, to a pleasant discussion that included the history of miniature art and varied philosophies on such to something
( photo enhancing of work ) that should have been a separate thread. Tangents can be annoying when they have little in common with the original line of thought.
This thread went from a request for advice from Matt, to a pleasant discussion that included the history of miniature art and varied philosophies on such to something
( photo enhancing of work ) that should have been a separate thread. Tangents can be annoying when they have little in common with the original line of thought.
quang
A Fixture
OK, guys, chapter closed. Let's move on! 
Q.
Q.
A
Alan
Guest
deleted
Anders Heintz
A Fixture
Hehe! I remember our discussions at Chicago and Atlanta Alan, somewhat philosophical as well, the psychology of sculpting...! I guess somethings work better in person then online.
