What constitutes realistic painting?

[bonehead]

Apologies to Einion!

It seemed like I flamed his poll question about realistic painting. That was not my intent. I think a more appropriate question is: what do you think makes a paint job realistic?

Einion already made some suggestions. He stated that it is important to depict different textures, such as the dull texture of cloth, the satin of leather, the dull metallic sheen of hair, the polish of wood on a rifle, etc. I agree with this whole heartedly.

Another issue, which I do not often see addressed is the necessity of maintaining the relative color balance when rendering shading and highlighting on figures. For example: one color I see "abused" quite often is "Dark Blue". This is a common uniform color. The proper shade generally is very dark indeed. But I often see it rendered with bright highlights that make it appear to be more of a "middle" blue. Not good.

Equally, white is another color that frequently suffers from heavy handedness. It is a color which responds well to only the most restrained tonal variations. Heavy shading of white tends to turn it gray and muddy. For me, I prefer to err on the side of restraint rather than the over shading and highlighting that has become popular in recent years. If I stand six feet away from a figure and I cannot tell, precisely, which color the painter intended for each item on a figure, then I feel it is over painted. But, that is just me.....

Just some thoughts to get the ball rolling....

What do you think?

Mike

 

[Panzer]

You da man Mike!
Mrosko

 

[megroot]

I'm all your's Mike,
I just pain't figure's four years. I finded always hard to overdo. My clubmembers made me do it . So i highlight and shade maybe to much.
If i stop this, they always said the painting is not finished, you must..........
But i hope this pole make's me clear where to end.
For what is worth: The only painted fabric of wool that comes the right way is Young's Roman Bust, painted by Mike Butler.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/medrenfig/messages/?msg=2194.1
I never seen such fabric painted. Wooden grains are very difficult to paint (at least for me) on a 54 mm rifle.
I can go on. But, who knows, i read the solutions very soon.

marc

 

[Henri]

Hello Mike.
I fully agree with your opinion too. And I am happy you mentioned the dark blue as a colour regularly abused. It is particularly obvious when you see Napoleonic uniforms, like those made in the former "National blue" which became "Imperial blue" (Artillery, grenadiers, carabiniers etc...) I am always bemused to see the sky or pale blue highlights on this shade ,as it is very dark, nearly black. Another colour which suffers a lot is the red. However, I accept that it is a very tricky operation, if you have no idea of the the real sahde of o colour.

 

[KeithP]

I don't think that you flamed Einions poll question at all.

The discussion for me is very useful. My past couple of figgies I think that I have been painting them so that they look better when photo'd rather than "realistic" shading and highlights. So, the discussion is useful for me to remind me to focus on the tone qualities you noted above.

I do think that many of us of the lesser skilled nature, don't know how to get to that subtle shading you note for blue and white. So, we kinda flounder trying to figure it out and wait for some help.

I do recall several years back where lamp black or black was used almost exclusely to shade evertyhing... flesh tones... white... yellow... Now, this may be an an interesting technique but that did NOT look "realistic". IMO...

Keith

 

[bonehead]

Thanks Henri,

Red is indeed a difficult color. It is a "middle" color , neither light nor dark. With most middle colors, you can shade and highlight them freely. In fact, they look better if you do!

The problem with red is that there are no "good" colors to highlight or shade it with! Most dark colors turn it brown and muddy. The best tack is to go with something in a deep wine color. Deep purple (the color, not the rock band!) can also work, but must be used with caution if it is not to skew the color too much toward blue.

Highlights are even more troublesome. For years I saw many painter's "manuals" recommend using yellow. EEEEWWWW!!! ;oP

This mix invariably truned the color orange. It completely ruined the "redness" factor. Equally, white will turn red pinkish which, again, compromises the purity of the color. Yuck.

There is no good solution to the red highlight conundrum. The best is to use a combination of white and yellow and avoid highlighting it very much. In oils, try a vermillion color. In enamels or acrylics, a flesh tone (like Humbrol flesh) can be used in place of white/yellow since it is already a mix of white, red and yellow anyway.

These pics of my Custer bust show what I mean with both the Dark Blue and red colors. The highlights on the Dark Blue tunic were kept down to a deep mid-blue at the very brightest. Shading was done with pure black. I even used black oil paint to deepen this in the darkest shadows. This use of restrained highlighting allows the color to read as dark blue, any brighter than this and the color would start moving into the mid-range. The collar is a good example of middle blue.

Note that with enamels, even my restrained shading and highlighting of the red turned it into a dull "madder" looking color. This is about the best you can do with the Humbrol paints I was using. It would be easier to keep the color bright and intense with oils or acrylics since they tend to have brighter pigments than the dull Humbrol flats.

Notice also how I was careful to keep the clothing perfectly flat. You cannot get a remotely "realistic" look to clothing if it is not dead dull. Satins and silks would be the only exceptions here. I actually use pearlescent pigments when rendering those. Also note the difference in brightness between his buttons and badge and the braiding on the shoulder tabs. The braid was done by mixing gold paint into sand and brown shades. This gives it a slight metallic sparkle while maintaining a distinctly matte and dull appearance.

I didn't intend this to be a tutorial, but pictures speak louder than words.... !

Mike

 

[bonehead]

I don't think that you flamed Einions poll question at all.

I do recall several years back where lamp black or black was used almost exclusely to shade evertyhing... flesh tones... white... yellow... Now, this may be an an interesting technique but that did NOT look "realistic". IMO...

Keith

Keith,

Whoever recommended using black to shade everything didn't know what they were talking about! I am sure the appearance of their figures would have been the first clue for that. If you like your figures real sooty looking, then this is a fine recommendation!

So, what do you shade colors with? It depends on what you are painting with. I paint with hobby enamels and can only speak with experience about those. With Humbrols, the battle is always against the colors turning dull and lifeless. This is not a problem with either acrylics or oils. In fact, with oils, the opposite is true: the battle is to ensure that colors do not become too bright and garish. How many of us have seen those brightly colored figures that look like flourescent circus clowns?

With Humbrols your best bet is to always shade or highlight each color with darker or lighter variations of the same color! Middle blue is shaded with dark blue and highlighted with light blue. DUH!

These colors should be picked carefully. Make sure that the light, middle and dark shades have the same hue variation. For instance: if the blue is slightly greenish in HUE, use highlight and shadow colors that reflect this greenish hue. If none are available, then it is a simple matter to mix in the corresponding green to the difficient color.

With dark colors, shading with black is usually a safe bet. With light colors, highlighting with white is also a safe bet. In fact, in many cases, those are the only colors which are lighter or darker than the "base" color. Then you simply select the appropriate dark tone for light colors (mid brown for shading sand or beige for instance) or light tone for dark colors (mid green for dark green for instance).

It ain't rocket science folks. I have found that the use of color wheels and such things are more of a nuisance than a help. A little common sense goes a long way. Keeping things simple is always a better choice than burdening yourself with a bunch of "expert" dogma and complication.

It is really easy to be easy, but most if us make it difficult!

Cheers!!

Mike

 

[diosytexas]

hello. that bust of custer IMO is the best i have seen of that man. i read a artical that i think was on this forum not to long ago . forgive me but i cant remember by who. this chap is one of the ''good '' if i may use that term painters. his look on it was if your painting red the high light should be the colour red you want and get darker from there which he said applied to all colours so the highlight colour is what comes out of the tube and you darken down from there. i am of course taking about fabric. i agree texture should appear different from leather to wool. but it seems every one has a different slant on how to highlight/shade colour. in the end is it in the eye of the beholder? . dave.

 

[bonehead]

hello. that bust of custer IMO is the best i have seen of that man. i read a artical that i think was on this forum not to long ago . forgive me but i cant remember by who. this chap is one of the ''good '' if i may use that term painters. his look on it was if your painting red the high light should be the colour red you want and get darker from there which he said applied to all colours so the highlight colour is what comes out of the tube and you darken down from there. but it seems every one has a different slant on how to highlight/shade colour. in the end is it in the eye of the beholder? . dave.

Hello Dave,

Thanks!

This is a different "take" on painting for sure. But think about it for a moment: Painting something with shadows and no highlights is equivalent to living life with the depressing low spots, your regular "equilibrium", but no high spots like joy or euphoria! Have a day! l

Why would you choose to do this? If you look at some of the great paintings of Rembrandt, for instance, by eliminating the highlights, you can pretty much eliminate the whole painting. Some of his best paintings were primarily highlights coming out of a dark murky shadow. The "beholder" in this case would be looking at a painting of a dark uniform gloom..... Hell, take some Prozac and you can eliminate that too!

Real life has highs, lows and in betweens. Taking out one of these things can make it simpler, but it isn't very "realistic"....

Mike

 

[Jim Patrick]

Saw this a couple of days ago and meant to respond then but I got a little side tracked here in Korea. First of all, great topic Mike (and Enion ). It's this sort of discussion that has been missing for awhile that's sorely missed.

For me, "What Constitutes Realistic Painting?" is three fold and closely followed my painting progression until I abruptly stopped (don't give up hope for me guys, I'll get back to it one day).

First, as has already been stated, is learning about colors and the color wheel. Complimentary (or correctly placed) colors are so important to the finished piece as it's much more pleasing to the eye. I found myself taking time completely away from painting just to see how the color wheel works (I still don't understand it completely) and applying that to my painting. Much to my dissappointment, nearly everything I was doing up to that point contradicted the Color Theory at nearly every turn. Not that I ever came close to mastering it, I just had a working knowledge of it. For instance, Using Mike's Custer bust, when highlighting dark or prussian blue, I started using tourquoise or teal colors. While using green to highlight blue may seem crazy at first (it did to me at least) if used in the right amounts, it gives a much more pleaseing, gradual increase in tone.

Second, is beter described by Shep Paine as the Stop Sign Rule. Or you could just call it painting using an overhead light. Once I slightly understood colors, I needed to learn where to place them. Naturally, I placed the same highlight at the bottom of the figure as I did at the top. But I jump ahead of myself. The important thing was to place the highlight at the top of the fold and not under the fold which I rather ashamedly did for quite some time.

Third, is once you understand the second one, is learning where or sometimes more importantly, where not to place a shade or highlight! Also, working hand in hand with that is the fact that the same highlight on the shoulder of a figure will not be seen at the bottom, generally speaking.

To sum up my thoughts on this, the most realistic looking figures are painted with the correct colors, placed in the correct locations. A paticular subject doesn't effect me one way or another as I have learned to look at the colors used. This more often than not told me what was wrong with my figures more so than anyone could critique them. For me, it's all in the colors. Regardless if they are primary or secondary, it's all in the colors.

Jim Patrick

 

[Einion]

Apologies to Einion!

Not a problem I assure you I was intending for the poll to lead directly to a discussion about accuracy/realism in some form.

It seemed like I flamed his poll question about realistic painting. That was not my intent.

Not at all. Nothing to worry about.

Einion

P.S. Your Custer bust is one I was thinking of specifically earlier on when replying to you in the other thread! Since it was one of the first (if not the first) models I saw where freckles had been represented, instead of the far-too-common 'monolithic' representation of skin on the face and neck.

 

[tonydawe]

Mike/ Einion

Thanks to you both for raising this very interesting subject.

I've made a few comments on pF about the current fashion for extreme highlighting and shading, which IMHO tends to make figures look very clean and "pretty" but its too stylized. This style of painting is great for box art photos, because it really does present the figure in its best possible light, however I think it lacks realism.

I'm no expert at the correct colour mixes but I work on the theory that mid tones will be approximately 50% of the value of the base colour, and the extreme tones will be 75-90% of the base colour. I add white to achieve highlights and black to achieve shadows.

My major gripe is a general reluctance on the part of many top modellers to add mud stains and other external effects that help to tie a figure to its groundwork and reflect the real living conditions of the figure. I'm sure we've all seen pics of figures on bases that are supposed to represent winter snow and slush, and yet the boots and pants are as clean as a whistle. Equally, tankers uniforms without oils stains, infantry without mud stains on the elbows and knees etc etc.

From my own experience, a soldier's uniform (and to a lesser extent his skin) becomes quickly ingrained with the colours of the dirt he's forced to live and fight in, and these colours build up in layers on the surface of the uniform in just a few short days. After a few weeks of living, sleeping, eating and fighting in the same clothes (and without the benefit of regular showers, washing machines and clothes lines) most soldier's uniforms become faded, mouldy, lice infested, dirt encrusted and thoroughly filthy in a very short space of time.

As I've said before, I strive to "keep it real" as much as I can.

Cheers

 

[Uruk-Hai]

And heres my contribution to the debate, well not exactly my own but I think you will get the idea. Last line sums it up pretty well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4oKXagF3IE

Cheers