Scale effect and details.

[Uruk-Hai]

G-day Figureteers!

During the discussion of sculpting chain mail the issue of how much detail should be seen on a scale figure came up. I would like to discuss this topic further but instead of hijacking that thread Ive chosed to start this new one.

One thing I think many is missing when discussing this is at which distance is the figure/model supposed to be viewed? The distance is very relevant to the level of detail.

I would like to divide the viewers in three categories with three distances of viewing.

The showvisitor.
Visits a show, glances through the entries, not necesseraly a modeller himself.
Distance: 1,5-1 meters (5-3,2 feet).
This could be prepared to watching the real thing (54mm or 1/32) from a distance of 48-32 meters (157-105 feet).

The modeller.
Modeller and contendant himself who like to see others work to get inspired and learn from it.
Distance: 1-0,4 meters (3,2-1,3 feet).
This could be prepared to watching the real thing (54mm or 1/32) from a distance of 32-13 meters (105-42 feet).

Judge/Friend.
The people who are allowed to go behind the rope and pick the piece up to view it real closely. This could also be a friend visiting your home.
Distance: 0,4-0,15 meters (1,3-0,5 feet).
This could be prepared to watching the real thing (54mm or 1/32) from a distance of 13-5 meters (42-16 feet).

This makes the issue rather complicated as there are different levels to fullfill detailing in. If we do not control the distance like in a shadow box for instance.

Another factor is what the viewer believes should be seen and his ecpectations. This could change depending on the type of viewer and how he feels towards the subject being portrayed and his views on the hobby. There are many examples when "wrong" looks right in the modelling world. This is usually explained as "artistic license". Its somtimes about making an illusion.

Ive often noticed on shows that figures/models that looks interesting from the first distance mentioned usually doesnt look good in the third and vice versa? There are execptions of course, but generally speaking.

This does not only apply to sculpting as I see it, but also when it comes to shading and highlighting as well as weathering.

I would really like to read your input and views on this as this is an important and often discussed matter in our hobby. But at the end of the day it always comes down to the modeller himself to make that decision.

Cheers

 

[Figure Mad]

Hi Janne

Interesting synopsis. It could also be put in a different way, from the modellers side.

A. when you begine to paint and construct your own models you model them for yourself and your own pleasure, therefore your attention to detail may at a low level.

B. You begin to want more realistic detailing and strive to achieve better building, finishing and painting. Your attention to detail has gone up a level.

C. You build, construct and paint your models and figures to enter local competitions and club shows, your attention to detail is now at a high level and you start to add in more detail and start to increase your painting skills.

D. After entering the competition side of things, you suddenly start to realise that you have to build, detail and paint your models as if you are the judge. your attention to detail should be limited only by ability, practice and available reference.

at the end of the day the model is only as good as you make it.....

well thats my thoughts........anybody else...?

Dave

 

[Pete Wenman]

Guys hi

Another consideration is whether the figure will be seen in the flesh or via a photo.

I understand it is generally accepted that the lighting for photos has the effect of eliminating 2 levels of highlight/shadow from a figure.

This has resulted in well painted figures looking less so in a photo. with figures being painted for photos having too great a contrast between light and shade, and so looking odd in reality.

Hope you can understand what I'm trying to say here.

Bottom line when painting figures " less is more"

my 2p worth

Pete

 

[Figure Mad]

Hi Pete

Totally agree I have just started to paint my figures with a digital camera and laptop by my side

on a personal note, what part of kent you from, no where near welling....?????

Dave

 

[Alan]

deleted

 

[Pete_H]

My thoughts on this subject are pretty much along the lines of those of Alan's. I would like to add, though, one thought with regards to painting detail with a show and/or a judge in mind: don't . As someone wise from New Jersey once wrote, "be your own worst cricit." Paint for yourself and nobody else.

 

[Einion]

Hi Janne, this is an interesting question and I would think that it would be best separated into considering sculpting and painting separately. Off the top of my head, sculpting is then subdivided into two basic groups: for yourself and for production. For painting: for yourself, for shows/other viewers and, I hate to bring it up but I suppose one has to consider it, too look good in photographs.

Sculpting
When you're sculpting or constructing something for yourself I think you should seek to recreate everything physically possible within your skills. There are lots of parallels in other sectors of the hobby (see more below) where the more detail you include, in scale, the better the model looks at any viewing distance - even if you can't discern it properly the eye can see fine detail from a couple of metres away and the finesse gives a greater impression of quality than a simplified representation of the same subject would.

When one is sculpting or making something that will be cast commercially this consideration can unfortunately go right out the window, as essentially the master must be made so that it will cast efficiently. So if you are sculpting for a white-metal producer for example who will be using vulcanised rubber moulds, a drop in the level of detail and how finely things can be represented versus the same subject cast in resin from a silicone mould might be necessary, e.g. sharp edges, deep undercuts.

Painting
Regardless of whether you paint only for yourself or for other considerations the model should look good both from a distance and up close and personal. This isn't always possible, some subjects with very uniform colouring look relatively uninteresting from a distance and only shine when viewed more closely. As you've mentioned some models look good from further away but then when you see up close they don't look as good; this is probably down to the quality of the blending, the delineation between one colour and another and the overall sharpness; the choice and use of colour might be another, shadows that are too rich would be something that would jump out at me, but you'd usually spot this from far away.

Painting for shows and/or other viewers amounts to pandering to the expectations of others. For myself I think this isn't the right approach to take - being happy with the model for yourself should be the primary motivation IMO - and as you point out their expectations (judges included) may not be quite what you think they are; this is the primary reason I think one should paint for oneself. However commercial considerations may apply and are perfectly reasonable if that's one's driving force; if you intend to sell most or all of your production and there is a current vogue for very dull colouring, extreme contrast or whatever, then by all means fill it if you want to. The graphic design world has exact parallels with this and we shouldn't think that our hobby is special or be precious about it; and far more exalted artistic work than ours has at times amounted to nothing more than giving the buyer what he wanted - our museums are full of them.

Painting so that something photographs well, as a goal; well there's nothing inherently wrong with this I suppose as long as it doesn't detract from how the model looks in reality. Many of us who travel to shows have seen models that looked good in a photograph but disappointed in the flesh. For box-art, sure, why not? Otherwise? Nah.

Originally posted by Uruk-Hai
There are many examples when "wrong" looks right in the modelling world. This is usually explained as "artistic license". Its somtimes about making an illusion.

I think you're right that in certain cases things that could be considered technically "wrong" could be about creating a specific illusion - painting a round figure with an imaginary single lightsource for example.

However I have read justifications/explanations of deliberate changes and exaggerations that I don't think hold water. The one that I usually think of is an article I saw many years ago which explained that making the rake (?) on the wheels of a vintage car greater than the X degrees on the real thing (even in what to us is a very large scale) was the only way to give the correct illusion. I didn't really buy it at the time and now years later I'm sure this is wrong; any of us who have ever done aircraft modelling know that getting the dihedral exactly as on the real plane is the right approach.

Similarly in figures, with regard to the physical structure, with very few exceptions what is correct (i.e. accurate to the original in dimension, shape etc.) is what will look correct at a smaller size - the profile of a sword, the length of a rifle, the curve of a shield and so on, they should all be exact recreations of the real thing reduced to the appropriate scale.

Painting is a very different aspect however because it's much more personal and open to taste so there is little that could be considered absolutely wrong or right. However, in the context of a single piece things can be inconsistent and out of place. For example if a model is clearly intended to be realistic and there is an item that is glossier or more matt than it should be then that is obviously wrong. In the wider context, on the one hand you have those that like very realistic portrayals and on the other a very clean, brilliantly coloured, tidy little model for the display case is what they want and either approach is fine. Where we run into problems in the our sector of the hobby I feel is where something is presented as the former while being very much not, for any number of reasons.

Einion

 

[Pete Wenman]

Dave aka Figure Mad

on a personal note, what part of kent you from, no where near welling....?????

No, I live down in Herne Bay, am a member of the Faversham club, but we visit the Welling Show each year.

I have a couple of trophies from there. (One even says " First" on it )

If you have been to the Welling show over the last 5+ years I will have been there also :lol: , same goes for Gravesham.

We'll have to meet up some time.

Pete

 

[rodsginger]

Hi guys

Very interesting thread.
Why are we in this hobby could give another spin to painting/modelling effect at illusion. I think that the aspects already mentioned ask the same question as what the great masters of yeterday years asked. Will this work for me? A new style would come to the light of day and become popular, many would flatter by copying and away it goes.

Personally I paint for myself. Some like my style, some loath it. At the end of the day I am left with figures either displayed in the cabinet or hidden away in the darkest recess of the house. I would like to think that all of my figures are capable of being displayed. Some I like, some are 'not so' liked.
In this process, I paint for me and if others enjoy their viewing experience that is cool. Some figures look good eyeball to eyeball and some look good on film.

My painting has changed over the years, either new ways or new medium. I try anything and if it works for me I will continue with it. Needless to say I soak up ideas/hints/thoughts on how to improve and give it a go. Some work, some don't.

I dare say that, for me, the whole thing is like 'who is asking the question and what kind of answer to they want/expect'. We all look at things through a different set of eyes are thereby view things different.
Like I have said, good thread, good discussion.
Paint for yourself, I say.

Rod

 

[Randy Myers]

I echo the comments of the others here, and say: paint to please yourself first. If you look at your own work with a critical eye, you will never be entirely pleased, and will continue to grow as a modeler.
Paint as much detail as you are able to, with the goal of creating a figure that's aesthetically pleasing, and also simulates realism. Mail links, or a tartan pattern would practically be indecernable in 54mm, but the figure certainly looks more interesting with these details enhanced, and you communicate to the viewer what these items represent.
Painting to please show judges is an excercise in frustration and sorrow, IMHO.

 

[Guy]

I can only echo the thoughts of the above members and add only one thing. Over the 30 plus years of miniature painting I have seen so many good painters paint for the judges eyes........and now they no longer paint due to repeated dissapointments. By all means........paint for yourself....and no one else.

 

[Anders Heintz]

I agree about most things said in the thread so far. However, if we were to paint realistically, the figuers would be so boring, very monotone, as if we saw a human being from 32 (54mm fig, 1/32) meters away, you wouldnt be able to make out much, especially no highlights and shadows.

I prefer to call my painting as "painting for effect rather then for realism". It may just be a lame excuse for poor painting and not being able to make them look 'real' but I like strong contrasts, and in real life you would be hard pressed to find someone with almost white highlights and almost maroon shadows on their face.

Like Alan said, it really isnt realism that controls the size or level of acctual detail on a figure but the markets and the trends. Just look at those gigantinc so called 54mm, they would measure up to be some big people!

 

[John Long]

Originally posted by Randy Myers@Jan 8 2005, 07:21 PM
Painting to please show judges is an excercise in frustration and sorrow, IMHO.

I couldn't agree more. The thing is judges will be different people at different shows. So which judges are you are you going to paint to please? Scahms, MMSI, Tulsa.....

Learn what makes a good figure and trust your own judgment. If you pull the details off properly everyone will be able to tell what you're trying to depict.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Thanks for your inputs Figureteers!

But Im think this goes off a bit or perhaps I expressed myself correctly. Of course one should paint for ones own amusement but Id like to hear more about the distance the figure is viewed and the level of detail one should sculpt or paint in.
My main reason was to point out the difference of detail that could be expected depending on the viewing distance.

I think many of us are being humble. I believe that we can not say that we only paint for ourselves, because we want some recognition from our piers (it wont necessarly be in the form of awards), we also care about what looks good, what is correct and most of us want to develop. Otherwise there would be little need to participate in the modelling community. I admit that I myself is competitive but only til the point that this streak make me do my best or better. In addition we also need each other criticism as you often miss obvious errors like you have a blind spot on the figure youre working on.

Regarding photos, Ive experienced that figures without or with very little shading often looks very good in photos but not in real life. I believe figures should be seen in person for best effect. Within the 0,5 meter range.

Usually Im taken away as I see work by Mike Blank and Bill Horan blown up in magazines. Sometimes 400% and they still look awsome. I hate to look at my own work enlarged as I tend to see all the faults and sloppy blending.

Cheers

 

[Anders Heintz]

Tjena Janne!!

I like to look at figures close (like 4-10 cm or so) so I can see all the details and the techniques used. To little detail is visible beyond a meter for my taste.


I think that you are right about the pictures, however, in my experience from going to shows in the states and then seeing them in pictures I have found that 99% of the figures look 10 times better in person then in the pictures.

I also agree about not only painting for one self. If I paint something that I think is really good, and others trash it, it is a disapointment, while if I paint something (or sculpt for that matter) that I don't think is very good and others praise it it makes it worth while.

I guess in one way it don't really matter what the person who made the piece thinks, it is the others reaction to it that matters, as one cannot always judge ones own pieces without having some sort of a bias.

The best thing about forums like this is that they drive you (or atleast it does me) to do better. You get some comments about your stuff, and if you want to improve you simply have to open your mind and try new things that are suggested to you. Its kinda like capitalism I reckon, if you have the drive and want, you have all the resources right infront of you here at pF to do better.

 

[Alan]

deleted

 

[Einion]

Hi Anders, I take your point but I can see the basic highlights and shadows on a person 32 metres away Anyone with better eyesight than I have (lots of the members here!) would be able to see even more.

Alan's point about getting the basics right before you worry about details/texture etc. is of course spot on; if you don't get the anatomy, proportions and 'body English' believable then no amount of fine detail or a beautiful paintjob will resurrect the model. If anyone has the MM Euro special they can see a number of examples of exactly this

Einion