Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: scarlowe on August 16, 2015, 10:16:33 PM
-
Hey y'all.
Well, I was sitting down painting some really lovely miniatures, and for some reason I mainly felt like I was going cross-eyed and realized I was cursing very regularly and getting somewhat frustrated.
After taking a nice long break, I pinpointed what had been bugging me. These last few years, miniatures have evolved quite a bit, probably mainly due to the widespread adoption of digital sculpting. One can't deny that digital sculpted models are often more pleasing to the eye than traditionally sculpted minis, they have more detail, tend to have more dynamic poses... there has also been the trend of truescale more anatomically correct proportions than our good old heroic cartoonish style. At the end of the day, all this makes for gorgeous miniatures, indeed. But... I'm finding more and more that it's also kind of killing the pleasure of the hobby for me, in a sense.
On that type of model, if feels like I'm spending most of my painting time just struggling with tiny, soft details, screwing up half of the time which means a second or third coat of paint that ends up flooding the said soft, tiny details, and I just end up doing a basic basecoat-wash-drybrush routine out of frustration. I hardly ever find larger surfaces that lend themselves to an actual paint job that aren't covered with 5 layers of crossing straps, equipment pieces so tiny and fiddly it's not even easy to see what it's supposed to be, or soft sculpted motifs that just kind of make the overall feel too busy. It's almost like the digital sculptors forget that someone is going to have to paint all that extra "junk", most of which don't have an eagle eye and surgeon hand like a professional painter does.
While all this makes for more "realistic" models, I'm not sure it actually makes for prettier, more enjoyable models. I mean, is this...
(https://waywardwarcor.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/rasail.jpg)
... really that much more aesthetically pleasing than this?
(http://dark-age.com/wp-content/gallery/aircaste/dag2218.jpg)
So, my question is... am I the only one who isn't terribly happy with the trend of much finer, fiddly, detailed models we've been seeing lately?
-
The trick about detail is, as you pointed out in a sideways way, not to over do it.
There's a trick of sorts in graphics. I don't know what's called, but what it boils down to a need to balance large plain or simple areas with little interesting detailed bits. This enhances both areas, and makes the whole more convincing overall.
If the whole model is just greebly detail (or lumpish plain blobs), it turns into a noisy mess that won't be very clear at all on a tabletop, much less be easy to paint.
-
Hello Scarlowe!
After you see someone like Tom Meier post a pic of a 4mm Napoleon, complete with buttons on it's coat, I don't know if you can say fine detail is the sole remit of digital sculpting!
But I agree with you in general. I've had a couple of mild rants about an apparent lack of detail and subtlety in some mini sculpting styles (Fram's lumpish plain blobs, I think), and I think digital sculpting is a tool that allows sculptors to add, zoom in on, or even physically manipulate these details much more easily. Trouble is, as you've already noticed, there's a bit of a trend in some gaming circles that assumes the more of that tiny, fine detail you pile on, the better the quality of the sculpt or mini.
And then there's another problem carried over from older styles, where some sculptors don't seem to know some fairly basic rules of anatomy and proportion. (even taking scale and casting considerations into account) You end up with some strangely-shaped figures that look like they've been rolled in an impressive amount of busy bling and greebling. (Especially with BrickApe's (http://www.brickape.com/2011/07/lets-talk-greebling.html) basic definition of the word.) Even in the boarding team example you posted: the second guy doesn't look terrible, and may be stylised, but I dunno if I'd call the lanky legs more realistic! It's the same kind of problem I've seen on Malifaux's new plastics - weirdly overlong shins creating a stilt-man effect...
It honestly feels a bit like superhero comics of the 90's: distorted bodies covered in hundreds of belt pouches and 'gritty' hatching that doesn't really add a lot. I personally hope there's a similar levelling-out, down the road.
-
So, my question is... am I the only one who isn't terribly happy with the trend of much finer, fiddly, detailed models we've been seeing lately?
Nope.
I've tried a few of those "tiny, full of details" kinda miniatures and for me personally, it just isn't worth the time and effort these minis demand.
I prefer larger minis with nice detailing... the kind where I can make the choice as to how much time and effort I put in and come to an acceptable result.
-
I was in a similar situation around a year ago - turned out I needed some specs for close up work! lol
That aside, I tend to put off painting overly detailed minis these days, much prefer simpler, more striking designs. I love detail, but there's a happy balance that must be met to tempt me to dip my tip (if I may be so bold). I definitely think there's a few minis that bristle with detail just for the sake of it - adding little to nothing to the overall effect (esp when viewed during an average game - arms length or further).
These days, if it takes me more than an hour or two to finish a mini, it's too long.
-
I was in a similar situation around a year ago - turned out I needed some specs for close up work! lol
That aside, I tend to put off painting overly detailed minis these days, much prefer simpler, more striking designs. I love detail, but there's a happy balance that must be met to tempt me to dip my tip (if I may be so bold). I definitely think there's a few minis that bristle with detail just for the sake of it - adding little to nothing to the overall effect (esp when viewed during an average game - arms length or further).
These days, if it takes me more than an hour or two to finish a mini, it's too long.
Ditto - although I do like fine detail. I am tending towards a multi-drybrush with selected detail approach as otherwise I will not see the end of my led pile before I'm dead.
-
Well ... Infinity-Minis seem to be a special case anyway. Their manga-eskical style is not everyones cup of tea to start with.
Also I often wonder, what they would look like without their gear and clothes - well, I hope, you donot get me wrong here ^^ - is there anything left but bones??
There are quite some gusy and ladies out there which arenot professionals, but can paint like hell.
First
If You let Yoourself get to much frustrated by other painters ... don't! Try to paint like You've got a da'Vinci, but paint like You can, not like others seem to be able to.
Second
use all the techniques You know. Brush these parts, wash those parts, if need be, careful brushwork for other parts. Very often for gaming purposes it is not absolutely necessary to paint all parts the same way You need to paint for close-ups.
Third
If You want to get better, get better ... learn with every mini You are painting.
The difference between a master and a beginner is just ... that the master went on doing it.
Fourth
check Your eyes, I think I need glasses for short distances, too ^^
-
Let me quote one of my favorite posters (myself):
Well, I asked if you wanted to know... ;)
first of all there is something as too much detail in a miniature. I know that may be just an opinion but I know I share it with a lot of veterans in the hobby. A 28mm miniature seen at an arm lenghts distance is the same height as a person standing about 25 meters away. My argument is that details not seen that far away should not be painted in on a 28mm miniature either. This is the reason I don't do eye whites for example. So unless you have a weaker than normal eye *) you don't paint detail which realistically should not be seen. 'Realism' is a tricky term to talk about in this hobby since perhaps 28mm miniatures are not very realistic to start with. My practical experience is however that it is better to train the 'naked eye' if I may call it that on painting the right amount of detail.
Also, and this is a purely practical comment, is that magnifying lenses messes with your ability to focus. Your peripheral vision gets blurred so beside the ensuing headache I find it hard to take in the overall impression of the miniature and the painting you are doing on it.
Slightly more than my $0.05 but there it is. Smiley
*) and unless you enjoy painting the dry cleaning stub on the collar of a 28mm jacket for the sake of knowing it is there
This is a perspective which helps me in my choices.
-
Agreed, more detail doesn't necessarily make for a 'better' miniature.
However, it's not like we have no choice these days. In fact there's plenty. To be honest, if the miniatures you're painting are such a pain, why spend time on them at all? For most of us this is a hobby first and foremost, so the goal should be to enjoy what you're doing. Sometimes you're drawn to topics, periods, scales or rules that are out of that comfort zone, I know – but you may still decide if it's worth your (leisure) time, no need to feel forced.
My first purchase of Infinity miniatures was a complete failure: I'd seen the studio paintjobs, read up on fancy painting techniques and tried it. Results were fine for a first attempt. But I hated the process. My Infinity minis remained untouched for a year or so, until my interest was reignited and I dared to apply my usual painting routine (which is fairly 'impressionistic'). Well, I had a blast and haven't looked back at 'advanced painting' since. Still marvel at other people's work. But that's not for me, and I know it.
Btw, to be fair, the Infinity figures shown here are aliens, so their anatomy may be fine. Also, they're wearing "symbiont armour", so yes, they're actually naked. In regard to anatomy the most recent human sculpts are pretty realistic, though – if in an American-style comic book sense, which is a let-down for quite a few fans of anime designs (like me). Examples are Ariadna forces like some Mérovingiens or the currently released US troopers.
-
I’ve found out that you don’t need to fully paint but to indicate them. More and more often I’m trying to paint them over (and that is sometimes hard to do because of that inner voice telling you that this wouldn’t be right thing to do..:-)) with the color of the clothes around them and finally they receive just kind of a little spot or thin highlight of the metal/gold/whatever. For the gaming or even display purposes it’s usually more than enough.
-
Having got back into painting miniatures after more than two decades out, I much prefer painting models that were some years old when I first started than hyper-detailed modern ones. There are several factors in this.
First, models sculpted at the size they're cast are often more aesthetically pleasing than those that were sculpted at a larger scale and then shrunk. The mind plays funny tricks when it comes to sculpture (a lifesize statue generally looks much smaller for example; the Xi'an terracotta warriors would be giants if they came to life), and I think that something sculpted at 28mm by a skilled creator will generally read "truer" than a shrunk master.
Second, necessity is the mother of invention. And, conversely, when anything is possible, less interesting invention is required. Just as CGI has led to lots of unconvincing battle scenes in films, digital techniques have lead to unconvincingly dynamic poses. Modern GW orcs are much more dynamically posed than the Perrys' wonderful armoured orcs (http://www.solegends.com/citc/c15armouredorcs.htm) of the early 80s, but they're much the worse for it; they look crude and cartoony, even though the sculpting is crisper and the figures are much more animated. The earlier figures are all the better for being created within constraints; the dynamism afforded by modern techniques often detracts from the model. Those orcs again: many of the Perry ones are slouching, standing or simply marching - and they look much better than their modern equivalents, which are a mess of lunging, brandishing, duck-walking and generally posturing. I suspect that it comes down to the limitations of the traditional techniques - limitations that lead (in the hands of maestri like the Perrys) to restrained, natural-looking figures. In contrast, just as CGI tempts film-makers into extravagant and implausible elements in battle scenes, the freedom available to sculptors unconstrained by conventional techniques leads them to create overelaborate and over dynamic figures. When everything is easy, restraint and (to a degree) ingenuity go out the window.
Third, and in a similar vein, the freedom to create super-sharp detail (as in modern plastics) often leads to lapses in judgement. Back to the 80s armoured orcs: while they're suitably menacing and vicious-looking, they don't look as if they've been on intensive courses of anabolic steroids. The modern GW orcs do - and it makes them look ridiculous and even camp. I suspect that the modern trend towards steroidal miniatures is a result of the ability to produce highly detailed musculature in digital sculpting. If you can show all the muscles on a figure clearly, why not make them huge muscles? And the same applies with details on armour and the like. There's no need for restraint, and so aesthetics give way to excess.
-
When painting units I try to paint the standard bearer/command base the best, because if anyone wants to look closely at the unit that is what they look at,
When painting an individual (skirmish game figures) I MAY put more effort into it, BUT (as has been said) you do not look at it, while playing, as closely as you do while painting it.
Many 'tricks' can be used. I use:-
Dry brushing; Thin washes; Rubbing sharp edges with pencils; Gel pens; Very sharp 2B pencils for detail (Varnish after) etc. etc.
But remember, ' The Wargame miniature was made for YOU, not you for the wargame figure'
A friend once told me that if you are not enjoying it.... stop (After all it is supposed to be fun, isn't it ?
-
A bloke called Don Featherstone knew a bit about wargaming and used to say... while you're painting you're not playing, get them on the table.
:o
-
I do totally agree that the pleasure of the hobby is the most important aspect, but i'm conflicted in the sense that if I KNOW some tiny detail is sculpted in a scarcely accessible area of a model, it will bug me to ignore it. That darn inner voice, as you say Prof. Witchheimer. But then again I guess I should learn to settle with washing and drybrushing in these cases. Or at least remain in the same color hue, which is in fact often closer to source material than all the colors of the rainbow, since specific light or setting conditions and general wear and tear do tend to blend colors a bit more. Exception made for anime-type settings I reckon. Or flashy napoleonic uniforms.
and I think that something sculpted at 28mm by a skilled creator will generally read "truer" than a shrunk master.
I'd also tend to agree with this... for instance I find many Hasslefree minis a lot more appealing than many figures that are praised for their quality in fine detail. While they're far from un-detailed in many cases, they have a healthy balance. I think the core issue is probably that it's difficult to work on something when you are trying to use less "advanced" or "precise" tools than the original author. A traditional sculpt is made with hand-held tools and hence tends to remain accessible with hand-held tools. It sometimes feels like digital sculpts almost call for digital painting tools.
the freedom available to sculptors unconstrained by conventional techniques leads them to create overelaborate and over dynamic figures.
This leads to another aspect that is kind of problematic too, the topic of duplicates in a squad. It never used to bother me to have duplicate models when the said models all looked fairly "standard". I mean, two dudes wearing the same gear, carrying the same weapons and aiming a gun or forming a shield wall WOULD look very similar, to not say identical. However, this trend of over-dynamic and over-elaborate figures lead to models that are much too "individual", I find. Like... how many people in a single squad would be in some ridiculously hollywood-esque position and at the same time be wearing the same distinctive gear? And these over-dynamic figures tend to be a fair deal less conversion-friendly, since they most of the time have odd joints or assembly points, or are simply too fine, fiddly and fragile to comfortably hack apart. Even some recent multipart kits have pretty much a single assembly possibility if you're keen on having natural-looking stances. Thoughts?
-
I think this must be a problem which affects mainly sci-fi / fantasy miniatures?
Can't say I've really noticed an abundance of extra detail on historical figures. They all seem much the same as they used to be.
In fact, when it comes to historical plastics (with the notable exception of the Perrys) I would say the detail is mostly softer and less well-defined / more sketchy than on most metal figures...
Certainly too much fiddly detail is not the painter's friend. I guess that's why so many people rely on washes to such a great extent - because they help to define the small details without the need to actually paint them.
The issue of anatomy is a different subject, but I agree the current 'in' genre of stylised, super-slim, overlong-limbed sci-fi figures (Infinity, Governance of Technology etc) look just as silly as the chubby little 25mm wargames munchkins of yesteryear. But at least I suppose the skinny sci-fi look is a conscious style / design choice on the part of the sculptor or manufacturer. You either like it, or you don't.
Let me quote one of my favorite posters (myself):
This is a perspective which helps me in my choices.
I love this.
Such unwavering self-esteem is greatly to be prized :D
-
You need to decide if you are painting to play with the figures on the tabletop or for photography on the internet. I think too many people see figures that have been painted over many, many hours and well-photographed without thinking that you can't see that detail when you are playing with them so why spend the time painting it?
Mike
-
I think this must be a problem which affects mainly sci-fi / fantasy miniatures?
Can't say I've really noticed an abundance of extra detail on historical figures. They all seem much the same as they used to be.
The option to add spurious detail to historicals isn't quite as tempting as it is for fantasy. Historicals are garbed in what people wore, either uniforms or native/civilian clothes, and this pretty much dictates what the sculptor can sculpt. Likewise the poses for historicals need to facilitate ranking up miniatures or using equipment as it was designed to be used, so firing stances that are realistic rather than leapy jumpy Infinity stuff (I'm ignoring the old Airfix 'gun over head, hopping' poses here, let's pretend they never happened).
-
You need to decide if you are painting to play with the figures on the tabletop or for photography on the internet. I think too many people see figures that have been painted over many, many hours and well-photographed without thinking that you can't see that detail when you are playing with them so why spend the time painting it?
I don't see why you can't do both, though limiting uses to either play or internet photography is a bit of a stretch. I mean you can enjoy having a well painted warband/gang/force/army rather than a basecoat-dip functionnal one without having the motivation of gloating on internet or showcasing your talent. It's just a question of if you're going to do something, may as well do it as well as you can. Yeah, it may be physically impossible to spend hours and hours on one model if you need to line up 300 of them for a game, but in the case of skirmish games, it's doable. And the overdetailed minis tend to be precisely for skirmish games.
Also many of you seem to assume that the complaint is related to some kind of self-imposed competition with studio painters and such, which is absolutely not the case. It has nothing to do with how good some people are in comparison to the vast majority. It isn't a contest unless you want to make it one.
I was simply wondering what other people's thoughts were regarding the aesthetic value of extensive/abusive detail VS the dose of tedium and technical difficulties it invariably creates.
-
At some point I think most people have these very thoughts regarding detail and poses - sooner rather than later if you happen to play more Sci-fi/Fantasy skirmish games than mass-battle games or historicals.
My personal feelings (in general terms) are that selected and well-judged detail enhances, but that mindless over-detailing detracts. I have noticed over time and across the internet a trend that many people seem judge a model's "quality" based on how much detail it has, rather than anything else. I suspect this comes from a majority having an introduction to wargaming through GW (and who have long been terrible for over-loading their models with far too much unneeded detail).
Being more specific in terms of model ranges, I have found that the recent digital sculpts for Infinity figures have made them easier to paint, not harder. Infinity figures had been getting smaller, more detailed, and more hunched-over for a good while, and the return to bigger models with more rationalised details has been a welcome one (from my own point of view at least). Painting hand-sculpted weapons that had been reduced to the size of staples (and had tiny wobbly lines because they were too small to sculpt straight) was never fun even if they were more realistically-scaled to the models carrying them.
The new Malifaux plastics on the other hand seem to have made it their mission to produce models with faces too small to paint, and too flimsy to glue to a base securely. In addition, rather a lot of the new models are so dynamic, that it's unlikely you'll get them in a case easily. Don't get me wrong, I like the new Malifaux plastics well enough, and the quality is very good - but many of them are just far too wispy and acrobatic for me.
My personal dislikes when it comes to painting are more specific though; detail that's too fussy to make out properly (rows and rows of buckled straps on a model's boots or forearms being stand-out examples), blobby hands and feet (no excuse for blobby hands especially), and poorly-sculpted faces and hair (makes very hard work for you to rectify with paint alone).
I also hate that key details seem to be right where a mould-line needs to be, and that not only ruins the details further anyway, but makes it nearly impossible to put a brush to them - inevitably, the worst mouldlines coincide with my list of least-liked nitpicks too. :-X
Depending on what they are, I sometimes paint things like buckles in fairly light colours, and then just successively wash with darker colours until it looks sensible - this produces a smoother and sharper effect than a drybrush and wash. Likewise, with blobby hands, I simply paint the whole area in flesh, pick out the gaps between fingers with a dark liner colour (ignoring the sculpted fingers) and then add knuckles with sharp highlights. "Ignoring" the detail like this and just colouring it in as it suits you instead is a neat way around a lot of these issues - even if it looks a bit ropey, it's pretty hard to tell when its finished anyway!
One of the things I liked about the original line of metal Malifaux figures was that they painted up pretty fast - they suffered from The Nitpicks, but were otherwise very easy to paint up as they had little other extraneous detail.
I would advise against getting a magnifier for painting though - too much strain on your eyes (can't be good), and it makes painting too much like actual work (ditto). I would instead recommend a comfortable workspace and plenty of bright light so that you can see what you're doing - anything so small you need a magnifier for is probably not worth detail-painting that far.
With regard to the pose of sculpts... I don't mind dynamic sculpts for skirmish games. You are normally unlikely to need more than two of any sculpt, and will likely need just the one, so they can be more eye-catching IMO. Mainly, I like the more dynamic poses as an excuse to make fairly elaborate bases - something I'd never bother with if I had to paint 70+ models for an army, but which is actually rather fun when you only have to do eight or ten.
When it comes to multipart kits... Well, I like a couple of split torsos/legs and some separate arms in a kit for the sake of having some flexibility/variety, but for the most part I usually prefer single-piece torso and leg parts. This leads to a more consistent model pose, and I prefer these more natural poses and the fewer mouldlines they entail personally. If the models in a kit are all part of a unit, then similar poses is probably to be expected even just from a "realism" perspective, no? ;)
-
I don't see why you can't do both, though limiting uses to either play or internet photography is a bit of a stretch. I mean you can enjoy having a well painted warband/gang/force/army rather than a basecoat-dip functionnal one without having the motivation of gloating on internet or showcasing your talent. It's just a question of if you're going to do something, may as well do it as well as you can. Yeah, it may be physically impossible to spend hours and hours on one model if you need to line up 300 of them for a game, but in the case of skirmish games, it's doable.
Well this sums up my approach exactly.
I like to paint to a high standard - because why would you not try to paint as well as you are able to?
I then like to photograph my figures and show them, enter painting competitions and so on. (I try to go easy on the gloating though ;))
Then I play games with them.
90% of the figures I paint are to be played with. Only a very few here and there are showcase-only.
But because 95% of my stuff is historical / pseudo historical, I don't have to deal with endless skullz and buckles and exaggerated sci-fi style detailing.
The sci-fi figures I like the best are Pig Iron, which have a delightful absence of extraneous detail and are a joy to paint as a result.
So yes, I would do both. Paint as well as you can and with as much detail as you want, enjoy painting them, and then enjoy playing with them. And avoid figures which have too much detail just for detail's sake :)
I'm ignoring the old Airfix 'gun over head, hopping' poses here, let's pretend they never happened.
lol
Ah yes, at least a couple of ludicrous or inexplicable poses in every set - happy days ;)
-
Just as CGI has led to lots of unconvincing battle scenes in films, digital techniques have lead to unconvincingly dynamic poses. Modern GW orcs are much more dynamically posed than the Perrys' wonderful armoured orcs (http://www.solegends.com/citc/c15armouredorcs.htm) of the early 80s, but they're much the worse for it; they look crude and cartoony, even though the sculpting is crisper and the figures are much more animated. The earlier figures are all the better for being created within constraints; the dynamism afforded by modern techniques often detracts from the model. Those orcs again: many of the Perry ones are slouching, standing or simply marching - and they look much better than their modern equivalents, which are a mess of lunging, brandishing, duck-walking and generally posturing. I suspect that it comes down to the limitations of the traditional techniques - limitations that lead (in the hands of maestri like the Perrys) to restrained, natural-looking figures. In contrast, just as CGI tempts film-makers into extravagant and implausible elements in battle scenes, the freedom available to sculptors unconstrained by conventional techniques leads them to create overelaborate and over dynamic figures. When everything is easy, restraint and (to a degree) ingenuity go out the window.
Third, and in a similar vein, the freedom to create super-sharp detail (as in modern plastics) often leads to lapses in judgement. Back to the 80s armoured orcs: while they're suitably menacing and vicious-looking, they don't look as if they've been on intensive courses of anabolic steroids. The modern GW orcs do - and it makes them look ridiculous and even camp. I suspect that the modern trend towards steroidal miniatures is a result of the ability to produce highly detailed musculature in digital sculpting. If you can show all the muscles on a figure clearly, why not make them huge muscles? And the same applies with details on armour and the like. There's no need for restraint, and so aesthetics give way to excess.
I agree with most of what you say, though I'm not so sure that the over-the-top aspects of some modern sci-fi/fantasy minis are the fault of digital sculpting. I think you can still put zany poses and inflated muscles on a bit of wire and putty! Look at the GW Catachans and Chaos Marauders, for instance, or old Celtos and Confrontation stuff.
Personally I think it's got something to do with the general increase in, and demand for, sculpting sophistication in those genres, perhaps fuelled by other pop-culture media. Seems to be quite a few comments around the web about Infinity's manga styling, at least! I agree that digital sculpting can give a boost to that, in ways; but in the end it's just a tool and doesn't provide knowledge, reference, style, or a certain awareness. As I said earlier, I think that's the real problem. Too often it's 'sophisticated' in specific, limited, even - dare I say - misguided ways.
I'd say that's likely the source of the 'restraint' you mention - fantasy viewed through knowledge and awareness, a solid grounding of anatomy and figure construction, and an idea of the finished product and it's purpose. (I hear you guys about unit blocks made up of individual 'characters') Most oldschool sculpting, including some lauded sculptors, doesn't look great to me. There's maybe a distinctive style, a couple of gimmicks, but often a lack of meat under the gravy... or something... in my view. Same as today. But in the same way, then, as now, there sculptors who stood out. The Perrys, Tom Meier, Julie Guthrie, etc. (Ah... Julie Guthrie, and John Dennett, and Nick Bibby, and so on. If you want to talk about natural-looking oldschool sculpting vs. badly exaggerated modern examples, I could bend your ear about their dragons.)
It's why I'm irritated by the whole "Ayyy! It's fantasayyy! Do what you like!" thing. There's an element of truth there but too often it sounds like an excuse for that lack of knowledge and awareness, a handwave for lack of restraint, a block against trying harder; at least for professional, commercial ventures.
Pity it sells so well... :?
Even some recent multipart kits have pretty much a single assembly possibility if you're keen on having natural-looking stances. Thoughts?
I'd say that's true of older styrene kits too. (i.e. GW's) In fact, I'm with you in that I wish some modern kits limited their poses a little more! Gripping Beast Saxons and Fireforge infantry, for example - I'm not fond of the squatting poses alongside the tall-standing ones, especially if they have to go into the same unit block.
Personally I feel less worried about limited poses in a kit these days. I see it as similar to what you say about duplicate minis in a squad, only there's still more customisation possible.
But at least I suppose the skinny sci-fi look is a conscious style / design choice on the part of the sculptor or manufacturer. You either like it, or you don't.
True dat. >:D
The option to add spurious detail to historicals isn't quite as tempting as it is for fantasy. Historicals are garbed in what people wore, either uniforms or native/civilian clothes, and this pretty much dictates what the sculptor can sculpt. Likewise the poses for historicals need to facilitate ranking up miniatures or using equipment as it was designed to be used, so firing stances that are realistic rather than leapy jumpy Infinity stuff
Yup!
I don't see why you can't do both, though limiting uses to either play or internet photography is a bit of a stretch. I mean you can enjoy having a well painted warband/gang/force/army rather than a basecoat-dip functionnal one without having the motivation of gloating on internet or showcasing your talent. It's just a question of if you're going to do something, may as well do it as well as you can. Yeah, it may be physically impossible to spend hours and hours on one model if you need to line up 300 of them for a game, but in the case of skirmish games, it's doable. And the overdetailed minis tend to be precisely for skirmish games.
Agreed. I don't think a mass-battle rank'n'file grunt needs the same attention as a detailed skirmish character, but, well, they're not held at arm's length all the time. ;) Used to go to a club where some guys painted their armies to a really basic standard, worse than anything I've seen online, just quick, thick basecoat strokes over a black undercoat. Being put on a table didn't improve them much. (They used to needle me a bit about taking so long to paint too - even with just tidy basecoats and a wash - rather than 'get minis on the table'; but I don't think I could bring myself to do that to my minis.)
My personal feelings (in general terms) are that selected and well-judged detail enhances, but that mindless over-detailing detracts. I have noticed over time and across the internet a trend that many people seem judge a model's "quality" based on how much detail it has, rather than anything else. I suspect this comes from a majority having an introduction to wargaming through GW (and who have long been terrible for over-loading their models with far too much unneeded detail).
My personal dislikes when it comes to painting are more specific though; detail that's too fussy to make out properly (rows and rows of buckled straps on a model's boots or forearms being stand-out examples), blobby hands and feet (no excuse for blobby hands especially), and poorly-sculpted faces and hair (makes very hard work for you to rectify with paint alone).
I also hate that key details seem to be right where a mould-line needs to be, and that not only ruins the details further anyway, but makes it nearly impossible to put a brush to them - inevitably, the worst mouldlines coincide with my list of least-liked nitpicks too. :-X
I would advise against getting a magnifier for painting though - too much strain on your eyes (can't be good), and it makes painting too much like actual work (ditto). I would instead recommend a comfortable workspace and plenty of bright light so that you can see what you're doing - anything so small you need a magnifier for is probably not worth detail-painting that far.
When it comes to multipart kits... Well, I like a couple of split torsos/legs and some separate arms in a kit for the sake of having some flexibility/variety, but for the most part I usually prefer single-piece torso and leg parts. This leads to a more consistent model pose, and I prefer these more natural poses and the fewer mouldlines they entail personally. If the models in a kit are all part of a unit, then similar poses is probably to be expected even just from a "realism" perspective, no? ;)
Yup! Also, I agree that washes can help with some details, if you can rig them right. And I think Malifaux had it's share of flimsy models before Wyrd got into plastics. Had to trade my Guild hunter because the leg joints were so tiny and annoying. I kept the Guild guardian but it had the same problem: wee skinny robot legs with wee skinny, highly rotatable, robot hip joints, intended to hold up big chunks of metal in the form of a big robot torso and big robot arms weilding a big robot sword and robot shield...
The sci-fi figures I like the best are Pig Iron, which have a delightful absence of extraneous detail and are a joy to paint as a result.
Something I try to keep in mind with my own sculpting. Makes sense! The finished sculpt and whatever detail your skillz allowed you to put on it aren't it's sole purpose and endpoint. People then have to paint them before playing with them, so why make it more of a chore or more awkward than it needs to be?
-
And I think Malifaux had it's share of flimsy models before Wyrd got into plastics. Had to trade my Guild hunter because the leg joints were so tiny and annoying. I kept the Guild guardian but it had the same problem: wee skinny robot legs with wee skinny, highly rotatable, robot hip joints, intended to hold up big chunks of metal in the form of a big robot torso and big robot arms weilding a big robot sword and robot shield...
Oh, I quite agree that there used to be some Wyrd metals that suffered just as you say. However, the new plastics seem to make this the norm rather than the exception. :?
Also, they've traded things like blobby hands for... yet more vaguely-sculpted straps-n-buckles. Sigh. ::)
-
Heh... you haven't seen a flimsy model 'til you've held one of Taban's Eden miniatures. You're liable to break off an arm if you
sneeze on it. But more seriously, I've bought Eden miniatures that were bent... at the CHEST (and a big barrel chest at that). Don't even get me started on spears or the like. :P
Also, they've traded things like blobby hands for... yet more vaguely-sculpted straps-n-buckles. Sigh. ::)
The type of straps you mention is in fact a good 50% of my issue with many recent figures... you know how in GW's stuff it's the size of your pauldrons and hat that determine how important you are? Seems like in places like Malifaux it's how many teeny tiny belts and straps you have. They have em around the calves, the forearms, tend to have 3 to 5 around the waist, not to mention the ones criss-crossed around the chest.
But because 95% of my stuff is historical / pseudo historical, I don't have to deal with endless skullz and buckles and exaggerated sci-fi style detailing.
The sci-fi figures I like the best are Pig Iron, which have a delightful absence of extraneous detail and are a joy to paint as a result.
Yes, historical models are great for that. No frills, down to business. That's one aspect of the "historical fantasy" trend that's quite nice - some of the fantasy ranges are starting to get a bit toned down.
I love Pig Iron minis also. The Kolony Ferals are really awesome. Among others.
-
I love Pig Iron minis also. The Kolony Ferals are really awesome. Among others.
Yeah. My favourites :)
-
The type of straps you mention is in fact a good 50% of my issue with many recent figures... you know how in GW's stuff it's the size of your pauldrons and hat that determine how important you are? Seems like in places like Malifaux it's how many teeny tiny belts and straps you have. They have em around the calves, the forearms, tend to have 3 to 5 around the waist, not to mention the ones criss-crossed around the chest.
Those on the plastic models are even worse though; due to moulding limitations, most of them don't even have proper detail (like buckles) that you can wash over to bring it out. :(
-
I agree with most of what you say, though I'm not so sure that the over-the-top aspects of some modern sci-fi/fantasy minis are the fault of digital sculpting. I think you can still put zany poses and inflated muscles on a bit of wire and putty! Look at the GW Catachans and Chaos Marauders, for instance, or old Celtos and Confrontation stuff.
Yes, that's certainly true. I suspect some of the problem, though, does stem from the ability to add more and more detail (in musculature as much as anything else).
Personally I think it's got something to do with the general increase in, and demand for, sculpting sophistication in those genres, perhaps fuelled by other pop-culture media. Seems to be quite a few comments around the web about Infinity's manga styling, at least! I agree that digital sculpting can give a boost to that, in ways; but in the end it's just a tool and doesn't provide knowledge, reference, style, or a certain awareness. As I said earlier, I think that's the real problem. Too often it's 'sophisticated' in specific, limited, even - dare I say - misguided ways.
I think that's very true too. I suspect that computer games and comics have often outweighed history and literature as the main influences on fantasy miniatures over the last couple of decades. If you look at, say, the marvellous Asgard orcs of the early 80s, it looks like Jez Goodwin had paid a lot of attention to what Tolkien actually wrote about orcs. And another factor is that miniatures were less influenced by other miniatures. Look at how many of today's orc ranges are influenced by GW's massive, tusked and prognathous orcs rather than by JRRT or (in another direction) the AD&D Monster Manual.
I'd say that's likely the source of the 'restraint' you mention - fantasy viewed through knowledge and awareness, a solid grounding of anatomy and figure construction, and an idea of the finished product and it's purpose. (I hear you guys about unit blocks made up of individual 'characters') Most oldschool sculpting, including some lauded sculptors, doesn't look great to me. There's maybe a distinctive style, a couple of gimmicks, but often a lack of meat under the gravy... or something... in my view. Same as today. But in the same way, then, as now, there sculptors who stood out. The Perrys, Tom Meier, Julie Guthrie, etc. (Ah... Julie Guthrie, and John Dennett, and Nick Bibby, and so on. If you want to talk about natural-looking oldschool sculpting vs. badly exaggerated modern examples, I could bend your ear about their dragons.)
Yes - those dragons! The Meier, Bibby and Dennett dragons are extraordinary - and I can remember a time when most of the Dennett ones were £1.95 each. And yes, there were plenty of less exalted sculpts around too. Today, I think, there's a huge amount of talent (more so than 30 years ago), but much of it seems misdirected (to my doubtless non-commercial tastes, at any rate!).
It's why I'm irritated by the whole "Ayyy! It's fantasayyy! Do what you like!" thing. Ther's an element of truth there but too often it sounds like an excuse for that lack of knowledge and awareness, a handwave for lack of restraint, a block against trying harder; at least for professional, commercial ventures.
Couldn't agree more! Oversized weapons are a particular bugbear of mine here. If you look at early Citadel orcs, they were often armed with little hand-axes or humble javelins, all of which looked perfectly natural and improved the overall look of the miniatures.
A couple of other thoughts. I do think the internet has had an odd influence on miniature painters, in that many are painting for photography unconsciously (even if they're consciously aiming for the gaming table). As evidence, I submit the decline in gloss varnishing. To my mind, the most spectacular painted miniatures are those by Aly Morrison and John Blanche in the early 80s (as seen in Heroes for Wargames and the like). Those were heavily glossed and looked all the better for it. I actually think that most miniatures look better with a gloss finish on the tabletop, not least because the gloss adds depth and brilliance to mediocre paintjobs (it certainly helps with mine!). Every time I walk past a GW store (I seldom enter), I'm struck by how drab the miniatures on display look. The gaming shops of my childhood often displayed miniatures that may not have been any technically better painted, but looked better because of white undercoats, brilliant colours and gloss varnish. I quite appreciate that really top-notch painters might want their work unobscured by shine, but for most of us mortals, a gloss finish accentuates the positives.
The other thing is that a lack of detail often leaves space for creativity on the part of the painter. I've been converting an Age of Sigmar miniature into a chaos warrior, a process that has involved shaving off huge amounts of detail from the armour and shield, as well as replacing the oversized hammer. The size of the figure and its shield gives great scope for painting - but not if it's cluttered with all manner of fussy detail. If a figure has armour or robes, the painter can add sigils or stripes or whatever with brush and pen. I think a great many modern figures leave less room than they should for the painter to "add value" through creative decoration.
-
Briefly on gloss varnish: I hate the wet-look finish on the majority of models personally. On some models, it's fine, but not for the majority. Therefore, I can safely say that I have not been influenced by "photo-shoot" models here - personal preference still triumphs!
With regards to Age of Sigmar... A lot of the detail is designed for a specific style of painting. Details like inscriptions are recessed in to accept washes, and insignia like that on the shield is raised to make drybrushing possible. It does make painting pretty quick, but it also makes everyone's models look pretty much the same.
-
Briefly on gloss varnish: I hate the wet-look finish on the majority of models personally. On some models, it's fine, but not for the majority. Therefore, I can safely say that I have not been influenced by "photo-shoot" models here - personal preference still triumphs!
It's a perfectly honourable position, much as I disagree with it! :D
But I do think that the fact that so many more people are photographing their miniatures and displaying them online has had a huge impact here. In the early 1980s, gloss was very much the norm. Almost all the miniatures in Gary Chalk and Joe Dever's Tabletop Heroes column were glossed, for example. Now, it's relatively unusual (and often consciously "retro"). It's much easier to take a good photo of a matt-finished miniature.
With regards to Age of Sigmar... A lot of the detail is designed for a specific style of painting. Details like inscriptions are recessed in to accept washes, and insignia like that on the shield is raised to make drybrushing possible. It does make painting pretty quick, but it also makes everyone's models look pretty much the same.
Yes, I do little but drybrush and wash. But I'd much prefer to add my own inscriptions and insignia. I think the sameness of many modern fantasy figures is a little unfortunate, and I think a lot of it (in GW's case) can be traced back to Warhammer's transition from an RPG/skirmish game to one of massed battles (with the third edition specifically). Beforehand, figures that were designed primarily for RPGs often looked as if they had an existence outside their unit; they might have loot or captives (some early trolls!) or other accoutrements not specifically related to fighting. And they might have unorthodox weaponry (darts for some of the armoured orcs for example, along with javelins). But, as Warhammer became more regimented (strict army lists, restricted weapon options), so did the figures.
-
If you look at, say, the marvellous Asgard orcs of the early 80s, it looks like Jez Goodwin had paid a lot of attention to what Tolkien actually wrote about orcs. And another factor is that miniatures were less influenced by other miniatures. Look at how many of today's orc ranges are influenced by GW's massive, tusked and prognathous orcs rather than by JRRT or (in another direction) the AD&D Monster Manual.
True! I remember the time I got chewed out for being disappointed that the Mantic orcs were copies of the GW orcs. Apparently they're completely different because they're not quite as bucket-jawed and huge. ::) lol I think I've moaned before that most orcs around these days are divided between a few older styles and a lot of the GW-style gorilla-faced Hulks. Not altogether great when you're scoping out future replacements for official LotR orcs.
Yes - those dragons! The Meier, Bibby and Dennett dragons are extraordinary - and I can remember a time when most of the Dennett ones were £1.95 each. And yes, there were plenty of less exalted sculpts around too. Today, I think, there's a huge amount of talent (more so than 30 years ago), but much of it seems misdirected (to my doubtless non-commercial tastes, at any rate!).
Agreed! I only got into wargaming after the turn of the century, and spent the next couple of years immersed in GW; but when I started to look around at what else there was and what had gone before, I knew I had to get my hands on some of those old Grenadier dragons. They still hold up extremely well, IMO. The jewel in my collection has to be the dragonlisk (http://www.coolminiornot.com/1888) by John Dennett. Took a while between finding out about it, and finding it on ebay. The trebor-mint nodules are a bit funky, but I like it from the overall weight and attitude, to individual bits like the turn of the head (looks like it had just swivelled to fix on an unusual sound, before the photo was shot) complete with wattle; the actually-reptilian curve of the jaws; the tendons and muscles under the skin wrinkles of the limbs (something Nick Bibby* is praised for too); the way the toes of the feet spread, grip, or are just held neutrally; the design of the wing that deftly combines those of pterosaurs (https://pterosaur.net/anatomy.php) and birds (http://lh4.ggpht.com/-uWmQMv_QLL4/UvoQzaw0IJI/AAAAAAAAC3o/3qOhQmgcae0/skeletionbirdforelimb13.jpg)... I'm an unapologetic fanboy. At the least it makes a difference from some of the slightly confused, scaly-bodybuilder spikosaurs that've cropped up since.
* I'm in awe of what Nick does these days (http://nickbibby.com/?page_id=813), some of which is confident to go without a lot of surface greebling, and doesn't suffer from that. :)
Although I'll repeat one of my heretical thoughts in that, while Tom Meier is rarely matched with humanoid sculpts and his dragons aren't bad, I think that he sometimes has a bit of trouble with non-human figures. The GoT dire wolves for Dark Sword don't entirely convince me, for instance. But then he's not the only masterful human sculptor with that bit of a blind spot.
Couldn't agree more! Oversized weapons are a particular bugbear of mine here. If you look at early Citadel orcs, they were often armed with little hand-axes or humble javelins, all of which looked perfectly natural and improved the overall look of the miniatures.
The choppas of modern orcs could make decent coffee tables, I think.
Interesting point about gloss varnish. I think I'd fall on Gilbear's side of the fence, TBH, but I understand how gloss brightens colours and adds depth. And aye, already mentioned my thoughts on cluttered minis. :D Recently I would've bought a pile of those sea elves from the last Warhammer start box, but then I would've wanted to scrape most of the marine designs off their shields. A load of bother.
-
This is sort of funny, because I've actually been pushing myself to add details to flat areas recently for fun and skill-testing. In the past week I've painted a bunch of text and diagrams into codices, tabby patterns on a cat, a garish floral vest, a burberry-esque coat liner (on a coat that had no liner), and and an argyle sweater.
But when the detail is pre-made for you, you can't really choose to do that sort of thing yourself.
I also hate that key details seem to be right where a mould-line needs to be, and that not only ruins the details further anyway, but makes it nearly impossible to put a brush to them - inevitably, the worst mouldlines coincide with my list of least-liked nitpicks too. :-X
In this day and age, any caster who allows a mold line to run across a face should be buried in quicklime. >:(
-
I used to spend far far longer painting a mini than I do now. The biggest difference is now I enjoy the painting and I get LOTS of stuff painted.
Indeed. I agree with most of the above but i still like to paint a complex once in a while. ;-)
-
Almost all the miniatures in Gary Chalk and Joe Dever's Tabletop Heroes column were glossed, for example.
I wonder if some of the reasons are as mundance as cost and available materials though?
For example, casting models in lead is (was?) cheap, and that's why models were made in lead in the first place. Likewise ordinary gloss varnish is easy to obtain in small posts for fairly cheap compared to more high-grade specialist varnishes that might only be available at a premium and in much bigger containers. That the gloss varnish also helped to seal the lead figures and protect them from "lead rot" was likely a happy side effect that later became good practice.
Nowadays, lead has been substituted for tin-rich lead-free alloys, sculpting is done on the computer, and paints are specialiy formulated for the sole task of painting models.
So, perhaps it's just that things have moved on in a lot of ways, and that it's not just model photo-shoots and fasionable arty styles that influence people. I mean, the models I see in magazines and books often bear little resemblence to many people's figures - not so much in terms of technical skill or raw talent, but rather in that many people paint quickly to a simple standard with washes and drybrushing over a black undercoat in order to "get through" enough figures to play a big (often GW) game - and it's how many of them were taught (again, often by GW) in the first place too.
Anyway, if it helps, I do in fact gloss varnish all my figures (which is one way I know I don't like the finish!), right beforfe I re-varnish them with a very flat matte to give me my preferred aesthetic. ;)
In this day and age, any caster who allows a mold line to run across a face should be buried in quicklime. >:(
And yet, it still happens; along with mold lines that are perpendicular to the direction of a model's hair to ensure the maximum amout of fannying about to remove them. >:(
-
A traditional sculpt is made with hand-held tools and hence tends to remain accessible with hand-held tools. It sometimes feels like digital sculpts almost call for digital painting tools.
That is an excellent observation!
-
I wonder if some of the reasons are as mundance as cost and available materials though?
For example, casting models in lead is (was?) cheap, and that's why models were made in lead in the first place. Likewise ordinary gloss varnish is easy to obtain in small posts for fairly cheap compared to more high-grade specialist varnishes that might only be available at a premium and in much bigger containers. That the gloss varnish also helped to seal the lead figures and protect them from "lead rot" was likely a happy side effect that later became good practice.
Nowadays, lead has been substituted for tin-rich lead-free alloys, sculpting is done on the computer, and paints are specialiy formulated for the sole task of painting models.
So, perhaps it's just that things have moved on in a lot of ways, and that it's not just model photo-shoots and fasionable arty styles that influence people. I mean, the models I see in magazines and books often bear little resemblence to many people's figures - not so much in terms of technical skill or raw talent, but rather in that many people paint quickly to a simple standard with washes and drybrushing over a black undercoat in order to "get through" enough figures to play a big (often GW) game - and it's how many of them were taught (again, often by GW) in the first place too.
Anyway, if it helps, I do in fact gloss varnish all my figures (which is one way I know I don't like the finish!), right beforfe I re-varnish them with a very flat matte to give me my preferred aesthetic. ;)
Glad to hear it!
It's an interesting hypothesis, but I think the gloss vs matt debate has been going on for a long time - it was certainly alive and kicking in the early 80s. I think it's more likely to be a matter of evolving aesthetics. For example, in this article (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-igtGAoMRsq0/USNC7bXsVmI/AAAAAAAACcE/jRsJi1QdR6o/s1600/scan0018.jpg), Aly Morrison says that gloss "gives good tough protection and brings out the depth and brightness of the colours you have used." Earlier in the same article (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7swHyPlJ6sc/USNCpOVnehI/AAAAAAAACbY/yrlEZ5rLjt8/s1600/scan0016.jpg), he says this:
"The general feel I like to get on a figure is that of porcelain or ceramics. I don't particularly like the finish to be too 'authentic'. These are fantasy figures and that's how I like them to look."
I think John Blanche says something similar (in Heroes for Wargames, perhaps?) about using several layers of polyurethane gloss varnish to give a porcelain-like effect.
I wonder if the tipping point (for fantasy figures at least) might have been an article by Rick Priestley (I think) in which he recommended the black undercoat for mass production of armies. It was in one of the early Citadel compendiums or journals. It was around that time that Warhammer went from a "large skirmish" game (like today's Lion Rampant) to a really big affair - which meant less time for porcelain effects, I suppose.
-
I think the excessive over-detailing and very dynamic posing is down to three things really; scale-creep, multi-part figures and sculptors becoming separated from the production process.
Scale-creep has resulted in what were 25mm figures now often being 35mm. That's a massive increase in volume and surface area, and so putting on extra detail is much easier. And many view (wrongly, IMHO) detail work to be the mark of a great sculptor, so they want to see that extra space covered with detail.
Multi-part figures have made the dynamic posing options much more open, and also again increased the available surface area of the sculpt. But they can be a pain to build, use and store - or even simply impossible to produce.
As for sculptors becoming separated from the production process - this is the real issue for me. Digital sculpting has certainly exacerbated the problem, but exposure on the internet generally has massively increased the number of people sculpting minis, whether digitally or physically. Most of these people will not have a full understanding of the production process; whether the figures will be tooled for plastics, vulcanised for metals, or RTV moulded for resins. They aren't aware of the positioning of mould fill gates, air traps, undercuts, mould line positioning, volume loss or any of the other production issues that affect a miniature.
As a result, they just sculpt the coolest looking, most dynamic, high detail sculpt they can. And then people coo over it on the internet, and say how great it is. But the resulting miniature will often be a nightmare to put together, paint and store.
Personally, I don't think of myself as a sculptor; I think of myself as a miniatures designer. That means I'm not sculpting to make the coolest sculpt, I'm sculpting to make a usable model. Every step of the way, my focus is on how to get the figure to look good, while being easy to cast, easy to store, and preferably a single piece model. But this is something I've only really come to terms with in the last few years, once I seriously looked into the production processes, and familiarised myself with everything involved.
And I think we could resolve most of the problems people have with overly detailed, overly dynamic sculpts if more sculptors were involved with the whole process, not just making a flashy render or green to post on the internet.
Incidentally, without wishing to derail the thread, I just thought I'd mention to Vermis... I don't know if you know this, but Nick Bibby is finally back to sculpting a dragon! Here's a pic from his facebook page:
(http://tinyurl.com/oal5c36)
Sometimes my dreams do come true! :D
(PS - gloss varnish is evil...)
-
Interesting point Lovejoy.
I suppose what you make the models in also has a bearing on how you design a model to best take advantage of that medium.
I guess you can see the truth of what you say in the the sculpts of people who do work closely with the manufacturing process or who make their own models - Perrys, Andy Foster, Mike Thorpe, Kev White, (yourself!) to name a few.
Saying that, I am aware that some of the "bad habits" may indeed stem from good habits; details like pouches and grenades are used to fill in parts on a model that would struggle to mould well or would leave an undercut too severe for the mould. I guess that once you start adding detail -with good intentions- it can be hard to stop. :P
Also, that dragon! :-*
(I need to stay away from buying giant expensive dragons that I'll never build or game with though... :'()
(PS - gloss varnish is evil...)
lol
-
One of the best "design" elements I've ever seen on miniatures and which amazes me hasn't been more widely duplicated are Mark Copplestone's bug-eyes.
Copplestone doesn't sculpt eyes the way most sculptors do, as a faithful shaping of eyes in tiny form, no, instead he makes them little balls that protrude from the face. But this actually works amazingly well, because those are the easiest eyes to paint in the world. The dark tone or wash you use for blacklining the eyes flows around it, it's dead easy to dab on the white on the raised prominence, and even painting pupils is simple because again, the surface is raised and not recessed. When painted they look perfectly fine and don't read as "bug eyes" at all.
-
Personally, I don't think of myself as a sculptor; I think of myself as a miniatures designer. That means I'm not sculpting to make the coolest sculpt, I'm sculpting to make a usable model. Every step of the way, my focus is on how to get the figure to look good, while being easy to cast, easy to store, and preferably a single piece model. But this is something I've only really come to terms with in the last few years, once I seriously looked into the production processes, and familiarised myself with everything involved.
And I think we could resolve most of the problems people have with overly detailed, overly dynamic sculpts if more sculptors were involved with the whole process, not just making a flashy render or green to post on the internet.
Good points, Michael!
Incidentally, without wishing to derail the thread, I just thought I'd mention to Vermis... I don't know if you know this, but Nick Bibby is finally back to sculpting a dragon! Here's a pic from his facebook page:
*snip*
Sometimes my dreams do come true! :D
Woo! An actual reason to join facebook! I was just thinking too, imagine if polymer clay was introduced to the industry a decade or two earlier, what sort of dragons and other things might he still produce?
This sort, I suppose. :D Brilliant stuff. Ironically, I'm loving all the little details.