I was in a pensive mood and brought out the old master...

[Hammers]

...namely Shepard Paine (the man brought me into this hobby 25 years ago).

He writes as follows on scale painting:

"Viewing a 54mm miniature five inches away is the same as looking at a real person 15 feet away. ...To test this, hold a figure at your closest focusing distance, and back up until someone in the background appears the same size as the figure. ... This experiment demonstrates two principles. First, you can safely ignore any details that can't be seen at this distance, because if you can't see it in real life you should not be able to see it on the model either. The detail that you do see is not fully discernible in it its true form, and appears as a pattern of highlights and shadow..."

"Another fact of scale distance comes increasingly into play as the figure gets smaller. This is the "hazing" effect of the atmosphere as the viewing distance increases. ... Even at 20 feet colors will appear slightly dimmer than they are at arms lenght ... [This means] that you should work with a slightly more subdued palete than you would on larger figures. ...
Scale lighting also changes with smaller figures. [All miniatures need] supplimentary shadows were necessary to compensate for the difference between a 1/32 figure an the full-size lighting conditions under which it is seen. It follows then that the ... that the smaller the figure, the greater the contrast necessary to bridge this gap [and vice versa]."

I know most experienced (but not all) painters has a intuitive feel for this but do any of you apply these theories as an afterthought when you are painting?

[Buddha]

I accept Shep's analysis of the effects of scale distance on colours and details. My method of painting is based on viewing distance. I am not a wargamer so I do not have to consider how my pieces look on the table, I base my style on how a piece looks to a viewer taking up the normal pose of holding the piece at roughly half-arms length [the usual viewing distance]. If my colour/shade transitions are smooth at that distance and the detail looks right and the colour tones do not jar then the paint job is good. There are no scientific measures of this "rightness", only experience and the opinion of your viewer can bring one into this zone.

[Fortescue-Smythe]

That is really insightful. Any chance of a full quotation of the source? Sounds like I might want to get a copy.

Actually, I think one might expand that line of reasoning to other styles, too. I myself seem to fall into the category outlined by Mr Paine, but how about this: if you want your mins to have a comicbook feel, examine them at a distance which equals their dimensions to those found on characters in graphic novels, read at the usual half-arm's-length. If it looks similar, you're close to the mark.

[Hammers]

That is really insightful. Any chance of a full quotation of the source? Sounds like I might want to get a copy.

Actually, I think one might expand that line of reasoning to other styles, too. I myself seem to fall into the category outlined by Mr Paine, but how about this: if you want your mins to have a comicbook feel, examine them at a distance which equals their dimensions to those found on characters in graphic novels, read at the usual half-arm's-length. If it looks similar, you're close to the mark.

Exactly. Shepard Paine comes works mainly in the 1/35 and larger military modelling area (where I think  a lot of us started to) and in this where hobbyist tend to judge the results based on the level of realism.

Wargamers seem, as a whole, to have grown somewhat different standards, maybe depending on sub-genres. Pulp, SF and fantasy* pull inspiration not primarely from reality but from artwork, illustration and "the inner eye".

I think this is interesting because I still after so many years find myself torn between choosing between realism and a more expressive style. There is a recent post by of a Fallschirmjäger squad which I think is a good example of how well realism may work. On the other hand I think Steve Deans and our own Lt Hazel's work (just to mention one of many) shows how well a more cartoony style may work.

Anyway, get your hands on this book if you can:

To me it is a seminal work on miniature painting and the one that took me from splashing paint on Airfix toys to the next step. Mr Paine is a bit of an intellectual but he combines theory with solid practical tips on sculpting and painting with different media.

*) with the possible exception to LotR miniatures

[walktapus]

I once made this little comparison for proportions and details :



From left to right, real person, Italeri 20mm, Foundry 28mm, Old Glory 15mm

Note you can't see the eyes of the real person. I never paint the eyes of my minis, even on Copplestone's. I pretend it would be a waste of time but in fact I would be unable to do them properly  :mrgreen:

[Hammers]

Note you can't see the eyes of the real person. I never paint the eyes of my minis, even on Copplestone's. I pretend it would be a waste of time but in fact I would be unable to do them properly  :mrgreen:

One of the most notable conventions in wargaming painting. As eye white acually realistically should look pink on a miniature up to, say, 1/25th scale, I tend to only paint the eyes of minis when they have dark skin or when they should look slightly crazy or frenzied.

[WitchfinderGeneral]

I think this is a very interesting and important subject.
To have the figures look good on the table you don't need much details. I guess a figure with a lot of sharp details will even look inferior to a figure with more simple details.
Usually I'm not so much troubled by this, because I mostly paint for my showcase. But I've been painting some 15mm's the last days and you don't have to paint MORE details to have them look good, you have to paint LESS details! Actually 15mm figure on the table represents a person some hundred feet away.

[Captain Blood]

Note you can't see the eyes of the real person. I never paint the eyes of my minis, even on Copplestone's. I pretend it would be a waste of time but in fact I would be unable to do them properly  :mrgreen:

One of the most notable conventions in wargaming painting. As eye white acually realistically should look pink on a miniature up to, say, 1/25th scale, I tend to only paint the eyes of minis when they have dark skin or when they should look slightly crazy or frenzied.

Oh how fervently I agree with you both... It's one of my pet hates, and the pics by walktapus really make the point.

If you stand a hundred metres away from a person, you can't see their eyes - just the shadows of their eye sockets.

And yet it has become the norm in wargames figure painting to insert great big bug eyes, serving to make often quite realistic little model people look like cartoon caricatures. Why do painters do it? One can only assume it's because it is the 'received style'.

There's a huge amount to admire in 'the method' as practised, codified, and widely promoted by Messrs Dallimore, Dean, et al. But the painting in of exaggerated eyeballs (where the sculptor has usually only provided eyelids or slits) is not one of them!

[fatgoblin]

need to point out that the regular human head is tiny compared to their miniature 28mm cousin...  If you were to blow up the fella's head to the same size as the miniature, you might get this...  (was bored out of my brain with work)

(ok, thats a statue, not a person, but the proportions are closer to real people than our 28mm 'scale')

[walktapus]

Wow. Stunning examples !  

And you definitely did not exagerate the eyes. But not many painters have the skills to do so.

Still it's a matter of taste and depends if you prefer a painted mini that looks good at close quarter or only some that look good from some distance and in groups. For the same painting time I prefer swarms of average minis than a few better painted ones. When I win the lottery I will have lots of really beautifully painted minis  ::

And I agree with WitchFinder : sometimes the minis that look best as groups from a distance are not the ones that look best in a close-up, but it's more especially for smaller scales.

[Captain Blood]

Guess it's really back to a subject which I'm sure must have been covered many times over on this forum: Why do so many 25mm/28mm wargames figures look like squat munchkins with outsize heads and hands, no necks, and stubby arms and legs? Is it something to do with what's 'cast-able' in the process, what is a sufficiently robust end product, or is it just a matter of the received style - everybody makes wargames models that look like this to a greater or lesser extent, so the squat look becomes the conventional norm?

In this context, I think the new Saxon figures by R J Eastland (carried in the UK by North Star) look extremely interesting, since although some of the poses look slightly strange (due I suspect to casting constraints) there's been a clear attempt to actually sculpt the figures in a reasonable approximation of human proportions - and they look so much better for it. The same goes for the eBob 'Rebellion' figures - a clear attempt to produce slimmer figures that look more like real miniature people.

I love the work of Messrs Copplestone, Owen, Hicks, Collier and The Perrys. I have squillions of their figures. They are much better than a lot of other stuff out there. But I recognise they are to a greater or lesser extent still caricatures, not accurate representations.

Interesting times...

[Hammers]

I hope you have seen Tom Meiers work. He has oodles to the about scale. Oodles.

[Le matou rouge]

But I recognise they are to a greater or lesser extent still caricatures, not accurate representations.

Yes indeed, and tha the way I (we ?) like it ! :wink:

Play with TAMIYA otherwise - and thanks Dom for the link...

Meow,
Matt

[Hammers]

Most people seem to be concerned with consistencey between the figures they wargame with or in some other way put together. Height, stockiness etc... Thus all these miniature comparaison photos that are floating arround.

[revford]

Most people seem to be concerned with consistencey between the figures they wargame with or in some other way put together. Height, stockiness etc... Thus all these miniature comparaison photos that are floating arround.

That's the key thing for me, I look for consistency over scale accuracy.

It's odd really as I try hard to stick to carefully scaled vehicles and guns, then go for cartoony figures to crew them.