What we should aspire to...

[Einion]

Notice that the very dark colors of Billy Bishop's leather coat and Custer's dark blue tunic have deliberately avoided the use of extreme contrast in the highlights. This is done so that these colors read "true" from any viewing distance. There can be no question which color (or material) was intended on any parts of these models because the colors and sheens were carefully chosen to depict them in a "realistic" manner.

The soft sheen of Bishop's coat says leather - and is distinctive from the less carefully tanned leather of his fug-boots. The bright shine of Custer's buttons says brass and is in contrast to the dark dullness of the "gold" lace on his rank tabs. If I had photographed these figures more carefully, you would also see the gloss "wetness" of the eyes and the slight bit of metallic paint mixed into the hair tones to give that little bit of "metallic sheen" that is reflected from hair by the light passing through the translucent hair shafts.

This should be required reading for those looking to up their game in the painting stakes.

Einion

 

[bonehead]

This should be required reading for those looking to up their game in the painting stakes.

Einion

Yeah, especially if they are allergic to gold medals. This is just the ticket for that perpetual silver medal! It works for me!

Mike

 

[Jamie Stokes]

Ok,
have printed all this out, and it will go in the reference folder, to be read again and again.

From what I can gather (as a novice paint splasher), is that there can be too great a contrast between highlights and shadows on the same bit of cloth/ fabric/ figure. (There seems to be a current trend to paint to this level of 'pushed' contrasts)

Figures may be well painted, yet be given a coat (or have the effect) of dead flat finish which removes the visual effects of Texture.

An example; average WW2 soldier, flat finish to his clothing/ uniform, canvas webbing should be flat overall, leather webbing or straps should have a slight sheen where they are buffed by lots of physical contact. Other leather, such as boots or rifle slings (leather) may have a flat finish, due to scuffing or lack of handling. Metal buckles etc have a light sheen. Steel should have a graphite (lead pencil style) sheen, brass (unless polished for parade) should actually be a warm tone of 'gold', a sheen but not a high gloss effect (I'm thinking a gold cut with a brown wash, say ochre or burnt umber)

Skin tones; eggshell- is that a slight sheen effect? (and very slight, rather then a high gloss sweating buckets effect)

Hair - this is the first time I have ever encountered the idea of adding some metallics to hair to represent the sheen result from light refracting as it passes through hair strands......[pop] that was the sound of my brain stretching to a new dimension

For blond hair, I suspect either aluminium or brass/ gold. depending on whether the hair is platinum, yellow blond or mouse blond.

Ok, hopefully I got most of that mostly correct. Let me know if otherwise.

I like the comment about the highlights (or lack of pushed highlights) on Custers Jacket & Bishops jacket keeping the effect real over any distance. Whether the viewer is backing away from or getting 'nose to nose' with the figure.

Mike, Brent, Einion, very good information and ideas, thanks for sharing....

Cheers (and a little dazed)

 

[Jerry Hutter]

Gee Mike, You are always gold in my book! I have learned much about scale effects, subtleties and textures looking at the figures you have produced over the years. From Buffalo soldiers to pilots and every human in between, you get it right. I have nothing against the current extreme style of painting and in some cases that extreme works well. What bothers me is the loss of individual style. In years past I could spot a particular artists work at a show without looking at a card on the table. Everything these days has a certain sameness to it. I think you have to balance style and effects carefully, Cloth should still look like cloth, leather like leather, etc.

Jerry

 

[alexwencho]

bonehead's Custer

...and now as the present owner of Mike's "Custer"...I consider every hard earned dollar ($s) well spent in this investment.
thank you again, bonehead,
alexwencho

 

[grenadier]

Yeah, especially if they are allergic to gold medals. This is just the ticket for that perpetual silver medal! It works for me!

Mike

Bonehead, your painting skill is above gold medal standard and has been for years.

 

[alexwencho]

ab-so-lute-ly!

absolutely!

Bonehead, your painting skill is above gold medal standard and has been for years.

 

[bonehead]

Bonehead, your painting skill is above gold medal standard and has been for years.

Not good enough for a gold at Euro. But it has been ten years since I was there..........

 

[carl reid]

It is a fantastic piece Mike!

I was in the same class that year at Euro. I think we got the same colour.... But your Custer has always been a favorite of mine!

 

[Brent Fordham]

Any painting method that could be considered some form of special effect should be reserved for exactly that - special effects

I've really started to notice this as I've experimented more with the "artistic" style. There are some places where it doesn't seem to work well. It also appears to be less effective on certain colours (combinations of already highly contrasting tones - black and white being the best example).

Would it be fair to say that those who use real-world paint chips as the standard for scale paint would also tend to be those who don't want as much weathering, don't use as much/any colour modulation, have their aircraft pristine or nearly so?

Yes, I would say that's a fair evaluation. Not always, but often.There are often raging debates on aircraft boards as to whether or not aircraft modellers are artists or artisans/craftmen. The ones arguing for the latter are usually the same who discount the various techniques for shading/modulation etc. as being unrealistic.

But, if we hew to the idea that the photos are the actual "finished" piece, then this overpainting can look quite ridiculous.

Absolutely. In other conversations regarding this topic, we often speculate if the painting style was done more for the camera than for viewing with the naked eye under normal lighting conditions. But as you stated, it takes considerable skill to pull it off well. At its best, it's certainly striking. And anything that is that divisive in terms of provoking such different tastes to come out must be doing something right . But in photos, it certainly doesn't look realistic. It does seem to have a better effect when used on smaller scale work and viewed from a distance.

At a recent major show, we saw top works where the flesh tones had large patches of highlight that were nearly pure white. I remember Glen H. saying how he supposed if he wanted to do better in the competition, he'd have to start incorporating this into his own work. We both learned our figure painting from the same person, and were taught to never use more than a tiny point of white to highlight flesh (using oils). That was almost 10 years ago - how times have changed! I suppose it's kind of like doing well in school. Once you learn what the teacher likes, good marks are easy

Anyhow, as Mike mentioned, I also hope to find a balance between the two styles. Right now, I'm exploring the "overpainting" side of the pendulum. In doing so, I'm hoping to discover how aspects of this style can best suit my own personal style.

I really appreciate the comments and replies in this thread and time people have taken to give us their thoughts. Thanks everyone!

And Mike, your Bishop and Custer pieces are brilliant!