The eyes have it ...

[Russ]

Hey, all -

In a recent WIP thread, I posed the question: "... I typically apply a small smear of clear acrylic (Pledge Floor Care) to the eyeballs when I think they're done (I'm not always correct in thinking they're done, though). The intent is to present a naturally glossy surface, and provide for natural light reflection. Which, of course, can play a little havoc with photography.

I realize that others forego the clear coat and paint catchlights instead. Thoughts from everyone on pros/cons of applying a clear coat to eyeballs (on the figure, not our own) "

SO - any thoughts on clear-coating eyes vs. paint-and-highlight?

 

[Nap]

Hi Russ

This is very much a personal choice imo , I put catchlight in and sometimes add a diluted wash of satin varnish

Others use gloss varnish and no catchlight

I've never used Pledge or similar

If your happy with what you do that's fine .......what do you prefer ?

Really good article here https://www.planetfigure.com/pages/Mark-Benette-Eye-Tutorial/

Nap

 

[Russ]

Thanks, Nap! Which brings me to another issue:

I've been working mostly busts, mostly 1/9 - 1/12 scale. I've read books, magazines, and articles; watched videos until my own eyes bleed; and finished eight busts with eyes, and FOR THE LIFE OF ME, I cannot figure out how to get the detailed effects shown in that article! The box art invariably shows that kind of detail (I'm assuming that many box arts are pics of professionally finished pieces). Yet, the exposed area of the eyeball in these scales is so small that I just can't get the consistent black surround, striated iris, the perfect pupil, the perfectly unnoticed shading ...

It doesn't seem to matter how large or tiny a brush I use (my fave is a "nail art" brush). I can tell when the paint is too thick, but there's more to eyeball success than that. Am I being impatient? Have I not found the secret to proper thinning?

I'd tear my hair out, but a) I don't have that much to spare, and b) all I'd do is look at it and think about how to match the hues ...

TIA for any help/suggestions!

 

[Babelfish]

Thanks, Nap! Which brings me to another issue:

I've been working mostly busts, mostly 1/9 - 1/12 scale. I've read books, magazines, and articles; watched videos until my own eyes bleed; and finished eight busts with eyes, and FOR THE LIFE OF ME, I cannot figure out how to get the detailed effects shown in that article! The box art invariably shows that kind of detail (I'm assuming that many box arts are pics of professionally finished pieces). Yet, the exposed area of the eyeball in these scales is so small that I just can't get the consistent black surround, striated iris, the perfect pupil, the perfectly unnoticed shading ...

It doesn't seem to matter how large or tiny a brush I use (my fave is a "nail art" brush). I can tell when the paint is too thick, but there's more to eyeball success than that. Am I being impatient? Have I not found the secret to proper thinning?

I'd tear my hair out, but a) I don't have that much to spare, and b) all I'd do is look at it and think about how to match the hues ...

TIA for any help/suggestions!

I’ve said this before on here: I am convinced that some of the eye detail we see in enlarged images online and in books is digitally manipulated.

I mean: Tiny blood vessels and iris detail on a 54, 75 or even 90 mm figure??! Pull the other one!! I’m sorry but I just don’t buy it. No-one can paint that small, I don’t care how good a painter they otherwise really are.

- Steve

 

[bigtodd]

This question came up about ten years ago maybe here or on another forum. They mentioned that if you gloss the eyes it looks as if the person is crying.

But if it is a dot on the iris it can add depth to the look. I have only see it work on big 200mm plus size figures.

 

[Blind Pew]

Such advice to use gloss varnish on eyes used to be found in what is now really old and mostly obsolete modelling books & magazines. I really am not aware of anybody still doing it. Todd is right, it can only work in the larger scales. Even then, yep, it makes the guy look like he's watching the end of 'Casablanca' or something. I'd only use it thinly and sparingly.

Catchlights, again I am not at all sure of many people doing them these days. I haven't used them for many years, mind you, painting gladiators helps! Again, I'd use them on a figure-by-figure basis. Some are enhanced, some not.

I concur with Steve as well. I'm convinced that in some cases we do see post-painting digital manipulation going on. That's why my stuff looks awful on a monitor. Honest!

I know that more than a few people stop painting, then (digitally) photograph the piece. Then they'll examine the image for flaws that the naked eye doesn't pick up. Eg, sometimes shading can look bad in a photo but fine in real life.

 

[Alex]

Eyes are one of the most difficult thing to paint and to get right..
First of all, you need high magnification and a good understanding of how your particular paint is behaving.
And most importantly, you need to keep going and redo them as many times as required until you feel satisfied..

 

[bigtodd]

Eyes are one of the most difficult thing to paint and to get right..
First of all, you need high magnification and a good understanding of how your particular paint is behaving.
And most importantly, you need to keep going and redo them as many times as required until you feel satisfied..

Redo them over and over and over again. Everyone told me when I started painting, you needed to do the eyes first. That lasted about a hot minute. I almost always do the last now. Hmmmm, maybe that's my problem??????

 

[Alex]

Redo them over and over and over again. Everyone told me when I started painting, you needed to do the eyes first. That lasted about a hot minute. I almost always do the last now. Hmmmm, maybe that's my problem??????

I always do the face at the end (including the eyes) in order to protect this most important part from any mishap during the whole painting process

 

[Blind Pew]

Funny. I do the face - in particular the eyes, first. My rationale being that it's such an easy thing to get wrong, that if I end up stripping it, I won't be undoing any other good stuff. One of the trickiest things in modelling is stripping part of a figure. Stripping a whole figure is easy.
Eyes are tricky though. You get them wrong and the whole figure fails.

 

[myouchin]

I’ve said this before on here: I am convinced that some of the eye detail we see in enlarged images online and in books is digitally manipulated.

I mean: Tiny blood vessels and iris detail on a 54, 75 or even 90 mm figure??! Pull the other one!! I’m sorry but I just don’t buy it. No-one can paint that small, I don’t care how good a painter they otherwise really are.

- Steve

https://www.planetfigure.com/threads/jeffshius-miniatures-120mm-panzer-crew-2.614780/


There is a very serious contradiction between these two statements.


If you are going to publicly "name and shame" people in such a way, you really should have cast-iron, unimpeachable evidence of whatever it is you accuse them of doing.

That's a very admirable statement. I agree. But there is no "unimpeachable evidence" anywhere in this thread.


It's not enough to just suspect someone.


That's exactly right. However, in Japanese slang, this is called ``boomerang''.What was done in this thread is just defamation.

 

[theBaron]

?????

 

[Tommy Brown]

View attachment 480444

https://www.planetfigure.com/threads/jeffshius-miniatures-120mm-panzer-crew-2.614780/


There is a very serious contradiction between these two statements.


If you are going to publicly "name and shame" people in such a way, you really should have cast-iron, unimpeachable evidence of whatever it is you accuse them of doing.

That's a very admirable statement. I agree. But there is no "unimpeachable evidence" anywhere in this thread.


It's not enough to just suspect someone.


That's exactly right. However, in Japanese slang, this is called ``boomerang''.What was done in this thread is just defamation.

It is ludicrous to see member targeting, trolling another member using google translate copy and paste to reply and comment to the the wrong thread/post or hijacking another thread.

 

[Babelfish]

View attachment 480444

https://www.planetfigure.com/threads/jeffshius-miniatures-120mm-panzer-crew-2.614780/


There is a very serious contradiction between these two statements.


If you are going to publicly "name and shame" people in such a way, you really should have cast-iron, unimpeachable evidence of whatever it is you accuse them of doing.

That's a very admirable statement. I agree. But there is no "unimpeachable evidence" anywhere in this thread.


It's not enough to just suspect someone.


That's exactly right. However, in Japanese slang, this is called ``boomerang''.What was done in this thread is just defamation.

Now that I've finished laughing at your comments, I'll just post a quick reply.

There's no contradiction at all. The two cases aren't even remotely comparable on any level. I could spend an hour sitting here explaining why, but I've got far better things to be doing.

Suffice to say that in English, we'd call your ramblings "comparing apples and oranges". Or simply "just a very silly post".

Sayonara!

- Steve

 

[Babelfish]

?????

I know !!

I think I'll have a pint of whatever it is he's drinking .

It is ludicrous to see member targeting, trolling another member using google translate copy and paste to reply and comment to the the wrong thread/post or hijacking another thread.

It is ludicrous in the extreme. But hilarious at the same time. This guy (whoever he is) is tying himself in knots .

He's not a bad painter though to be fair.

- Steve

 

[Tommy Brown]

I know !!

I think I'll have a pint of whatever it is he's drinking .



It is ludicrous in the extreme. But hilarious at the same time. This guy (whoever he is) is tying himself in knots .

He's not a bad painter though to be fair.

- Steve

He is also a sculptor. He had done work for Alexandros Models. I have dealt with him before. He likes to drag you into argument. He keeps drag you on and on with his so call research to prove you are wrong. I finally gave up and stop response to him. Another nutcase.

 

[Babelfish]

He is also a sculptor. He had done work for Alexandros Models. I have dealt with him before. He likes to drag you into argument. He keeps drag you on and on with his so call research to prove you are wrong. I finally gave up and stop response to him. Another nutcase.

Yeah I've checked out his posting record and he does have "form".

- Steve

 

[Wayneb]

Ever button your shirt the wrong way........?

Marty Feldman

 

[myouchin]

I forgot to add this link. If you look at this thread from 2017, anyone can understand what is being talked about in this thread now.
↓
https://www.planetfigure.com/threads/%EF%BC%B7%EF%BC%B7%EF%BC%92-us-infantry-nco-alpine-miniatures-1-35.89947/


Accusing someone of false facts without providing any evidence is defamation. Six years later, it happened again.I didn't start it but I guess I have the right to say something.

Now that I've finished laughing at your comments, I'll just post a quick reply.

There's no contradiction at all. The two cases aren't even remotely comparable on any level. I could spend an hour sitting here explaining why, but I've got far better things to be doing.

Suffice to say that in English, we'd call your ramblings "comparing apples and oranges". Or simply "just a very silly post".

Sayonara!

- Steve

I think your two statements are contradictory. I don't understand why you think the two statements are not comparable.

Could you please explain the reason in a way that even a very silly person like me can understand? I think that proves your intelligence more than making snide comments or singing provocative chants.

 

[Babelfish]

Accusing someone of false facts without providing any evidence is defamation. Six years later, it happened again.I didn't start it but I guess I have the right to say something.

I think your two statements are contradictory. I don't understand why you think the two statements are not comparable.

Could you please explain the reason in a way that even a very silly person like me can understand? I think that proves your intelligence more than making snide comments or singing provocative chants.

Oh dear. You just don't get it do you?!

*Defamation* and *expressing an opinion* (or scepticism) are NOT the same thing.

I have expressed my opinion in pF threads about the micro-eyes-painting thing. The clue is in phraseology such as "I don't buy it", "I suspect", "I am convinced" and "it looks". All of these are indicative of an opinion - which people are (or should be) free to express, change or indeed change back as they see fit.

Here's another example: Poster A uploads a photo of a strange, shadowy shape in an old castle and says "Look at this photo that I took of a ghost". Poster B then responds with "Wow! Great ghost photo!" while Poster C says "Nah, it can't be. I'm not buying it. I don't believe in ghosts, that must be some special effect of the camera". Poster C is expressing an opinion, but his comments aren't defamatory. And if Poster A wants to prove it's a genuine photo, then it's up to Poster A to provide evidence that it's genuine. It's not up to Poster C to prove that his own opinion is correct.

The micro-eyes thing is on the same level. Statements of opinion cannot be regarded as defamation, and you calling it such is just plain old silly.

What is potentially defamatory however is someone posting up on a public forum someone else's actual name and a part of their address, and accusing them (without providing proof) of what is essentially property rights theft.

You're welcome!

- Steve

PS: And if you want to play the "thread archaeology" game, here are your very words from the 2017 thread that you link to above (page 2, second-to-bottom post):

"Hello Steve, I welcome your candid opinion ....... I am never angry about your opinion"