28mm chunky or slim proportions?

[Alan maguire]

I have the impression that Genarater is conducting some market research before he has a go at sculpting some new figures....

Yes your right . i have my own style that im sticking with but im always intrested in what other peoples opions are on the subject.

Thanks for your input!

[Alan maguire]

oh...
depending on what You want to sculpt or intend to express with the sculpt, every proportion has it's justification. I am afraid I have no preference other that I don't like pinheads or banana hands 

see what You find on statuesque site and the various approach

I want to sculpt a man/woman etc, etc  and not somthing that your brain indentifys as a man if that makes any sense?

[Alan maguire]

I'm sure all sorts of compromises are made when sculpting figures and I can accept that. However, my preference would be to avoid, if possible, the cartoonesque but what I really don't like are those figures with hands the size of tennis rackets! Figures I do like are Offensive Miniatures, Perry and Empress.

Hands are a big thing for me too, one of the romans i sculpted has hands that are too big in my own opion and need to redo his hands and maybe others too.

Thanks for your input

[Alan maguire]

Middling, like Copplestone or Statuesque. 

Thanks for your input!

[Alan maguire]

I know this has been posted above - but I like Cartoony.

Tony

Is it because their easy to paint Tony or you just like the looks ? proportions?

[Alan maguire]

Not to be too much of a party-pooper () but I think we've had this discussion here on LAF about 100 times already!

Maybe a poll would settle it? A statistical snapshot of LAF public opinion on the matter...

It's just personal taste at the end of the day. For what it's worth, my sense is there are a few wargamers who are addicted to the squat-munchkin look, just because it's what they've been used to since the days of Minifigs. Then there are a few people who will only go for ultra-willowly figures. Most people seem happy somewhere in the middle - which luckily, is where the majority of capable modern sculptors seem to pitch their work.

somewhere in the middle sounds good to me, balanced proportions but not to spindely, and good detail for painting enjoyment. I think painting plays a big part in what people like.. You think?

[Alan maguire]

I have a few figures that are of the ultra-realistic willowy sort, and I'd agree they're mostly display oriented and not well suited to gaming. Also they can be very fussy to clean, as the same depth of seam offset can "bite" a lot deeper into the shapes/details, relatively speaking, so you have to be a lot more meticulous and thoughtful to avoid ruining the sculpting.

On the other hand, I avoid stocky figures almost like they were diseased. It almost always goes hand in hand with sloppily rendered detail and bizarrely bad proportions, and is ultimately completely unnecessary for it's alleged purpose (see below), so I just regard it as "bad sculpting" rather than an actual style.

Hasslefree's been mentioned, and I'd agree that that style hits the "best of both worlds" pretty nicely. It's just toned down enough in all the right ways/places to feel realistic (even if it technically isn't), but without making the figure fragile. As important is the way detail is handled: really fine, dense detail looks nice, but doesn't survive casting as reliably, and can require more complex painting to achieve the same level of quality or (paradoxically) realism in the result. I like how Kev White triages detail, giving you good, natural-looking broad strokes to build on, but without getting either too dense or too oversimplified/blocky.

Intresting what you said about good or suitable for gaming or for display, does that mean it more or less comes back to painting? easy/fun  to piant ?

[Alan maguire]

Thank you All for your input!.
Its very intresting to hear your opions on this subject. if i missed anyone with a reply then my apoligies and thank you!  

Here is an Arab civilian *W.I.P*  ignore his height as i'll do his feet last. next to him are some 28mm romans that are finished.

[eilif]

I would have to say it depends. 

For sci-fi I like the some what cartoony, but-but-not-GW style of Copplestone-scupted Grenadier (now EM4) Future Warriors and I-Kore Junkers. Also the slightly larger incarnations such as current copplestone, West Wind and east riding miniatures and many others.

However, I like a nice "true" slim proportioned figure as well.  GW's LotR figures look quite nice to me and many of the Shadowrun figs are quite good. If I were to get into medievals, it would be Perry plastics all the way.

For Fantasy, I'm all over the place. Thick, thin, chibi, etc...

I have noticed that many figures these days have gotten slimmer, not by actually slimming, but by growing taller.  Alot of the 30-32mm figs out there are the same width and thickness of earlier figures, but are taller, so they are thinner in their larger scale.  RAFM's modern and steampunk figures seem to be a prime example of this.

[former user]

I want to sculpt a man/woman etc, etc  and not somthing that your brain indentifys as a man if that makes any sense?

I believe I do

check out statuesque miniatures and the different proportions that are served
he is playing with gender issues quite well I think

[Connectamabob]

Intresting what you said about good or suitable for gaming or for display, does that mean it more or less comes back to painting? easy/fun  to piant ?

Nah: durability. Super realistic proportions makes exposed limbs very spindly in 28mm. If the figure's got limbs reenforced with heavy sleeves, or cloaks, or being posed against the body, or other such stuff, then they're okay. But it's not unusual to see such figures that are 95% okay... but that last 5% is the ankles   .

They do look great, mind you, and are ideal for pure display stuff. Just not good gambles on the tabletop.

An interesting note here is that resin fares better than metal at this thinness. Well, provided the maker hasn't scrimped on the resin quality. At that thinness, good resin springs but stays intact, while metal bends if you look at it wrong. I have a few spindly realistic resin figures I would only hesitate to put on the table because of their cost, but only one metal one that I'd put on the table because it'd be durable enough (and even there, I had to replace a sword blade because the metal one was too flimsy even for display).

As far as paint goes, for me personally it's more about the detail density than overall proportions or detail fineness. I like figures that have well rendered form & detail, but which don't have a really high detail density. High detail density makes things more complex to paint to a given standard (i.e. not simply more work to paint to completion, but more work to make it look as good), and takes away a bit from painter creativity. Really really super fine shallow detail gets softened or disappears under paint/primer and thus is wasted.

Think of it this way: you're sculpting a pair of pants (trousers for you UK people), a torn flap at the knee is good detail, abraded but not torn knee is bad detail. If you're sculpting a tweed jacket, sculpting elbow patches is bad detail (too shallow: better represented with paint alone, and better to give the painter choice if he/she wants to paint the jacket as something completely different without patches).

Here's an example of a good "realistic" figure:
https://www.coolminiornot.com/shop/miniatures/studio-mcvey/seraphine-le-roux-limited-to-750.html
Detail is crisp, and in some cases quite fine (waist chain and jewelry), but is always topographically high-contrast, and strategic, like punctuation, instead of being everywhere. The majority of surfaces are very subtly well rendered in shape, but a blank canvas in texture. The body is a single column and the ankles are protected by the dress which goes all the way to the floor. The extended arm is thin, but is actually well crossbraced by the draping/winding snake. If this were metal, I'd worry about the snakes head/neck getting bent, but it's good resin, so 100% table safe (aside from being an expensive "collector's" figure, that is). And yes, I own this figure so that's a first hand tested assessment.

Here's an example of a bad (IMO) "realistic" figure:
https://www.coolminiornot.com/shop/miniatures/cmon-miniature-archive-1/cmon-contest-7-mini-dark-age-lilith-limited-edition-888.html
Detail density is still mostly good here: large surfaces haven't been cluttered with shallow emroidery or baubles or super fine seams/wrinkles. HOWEVER, those spikes on the dress are a nightmare: in metal they get bent/smished easy, and Godzilla help you if there's a mold seam running through them (and there is). The body, head and arms are all good durability wise (again: mostly a column, right arm against the side, left arm is bulked by a sleeve and forms a nice triangle brace with the body). Check those ankles though: with a base acting as a moment arm, this figure will bend at the ankles easily, especially since the pose has them lined up nice with the body right above. That's the sword I was talking about above BTW: bends if you just breathe at it, almost literally. You cant tell in that pic, but it's sculpted realistically thin as well as narrow... yeah. Had to replace that with a bit of wire bent and filed to shape. I prefer realistic weapons to the paddle swords and phone pole spears that are inexplicably common (they don't need to be THAT beefy to be durable), but there are limits to how thin you can make things, and that one is well over.

Some of that is subjective: there are highly skilled painters who have no trouble with ultra shallow/fine detail, and people who like having a ton of detail density to dig into. Most painters though will either have a harder time with it, or will find it slows them down too much, or (like me) preffer opportunities for creative filling-in-the-blanks.

[Alan maguire]

I believe I do

check out statuesque miniatures and the different proportions that are served
he is playing with gender issues quite well I think

Just had a look at statuesque miniatures and they are well sculpted and your right about proportions .
I like them but theres somthing about them thats niggling me, cant put my finger on it 

[Major_Gilbear]

@ Connectamabob:

Wow, how roughly do you treat your figures? I find that very thin ankles, thin sticky-out arms etc are a pain, but rarely do my miniatures suffer the level of abuse you describe!  

@ Genarater:

I prefer slimmer more realistic proportions. I also like a good amount of flow or movement in a model usually, since I wargame with mine and feel that this improves the visual aspect of the game for me. If they are static poses, then I expect to see some "attitude" conveyed through them (like this one liked to above).

A good example of my preference is Satuesque Miniatures. They are a little stylised proportion-wise, but are slim and dynamic whilst still being robust and painting-friendly.

[Alan maguire]

Nah: durability. Super realistic proportions makes exposed limbs very spindly in 28mm. If the figure's got limbs reenforced with heavy sleeves, or cloaks, or being posed against the body, or other such stuff, then they're okay. But it's not unusual to see such figures that are 95% okay... but that last 5% is the ankles   .

They do look great, mind you, and are ideal for pure display stuff. Just not good gambles on the tabletop.

An interesting note here is that resin fares better than metal at this thinness. Well, provided the maker hasn't scrimped on the resin quality. At that thinness, good resin springs but stays intact, while metal bends if you look at it wrong. I have a few spindly realistic resin figures I would only hesitate to put on the table because of their cost, but only one metal one that I'd put on the table because it'd be durable enough (and even there, I had to replace a sword blade because the metal one was too flimsy even for display).

As far as paint goes, for me personally it's more about the detail density than overall proportions or detail fineness. I like figures that have well rendered form & detail, but which don't have a really high detail density. High detail density makes things more complex to paint to a given standard (i.e. not simply more work to paint to completion, but more work to make it look as good), and takes away a bit from painter creativity. Really really super fine shallow detail gets softened or disappears under paint/primer and thus is wasted.

Think of it this way: you're sculpting a pair of pants (trousers for you UK people), a torn flap at the knee is good detail, abraded but not torn knee is bad detail. If you're sculpting a tweed jacket, sculpting elbow patches is bad detail (too shallow: better represented with paint alone, and better to give the painter choice if he/she wants to paint the jacket as something completely different without patches).

Here's an example of a good "realistic" figure:
https://www.coolminiornot.com/shop/miniatures/studio-mcvey/seraphine-le-roux-limited-to-750.html
Detail is crisp, and in some cases quite fine (waist chain and jewelry), but is always topographically high-contrast, and strategic, like punctuation, instead of being everywhere. The majority of surfaces are very subtly well rendered in shape, but a blank canvas in texture. The body is a single column and the ankles are protected by the dress which goes all the way to the floor. The extended arm is thin, but is actually well crossbraced by the draping/winding snake. If this were metal, I'd worry about the snakes head/neck getting bent, but it's good resin, so 100% table safe (aside from being an expensive "collector's" figure, that is). And yes, I own this figure so that's a first hand tested assessment.

Here's an example of a bad (IMO) "realistic" figure:
https://www.coolminiornot.com/shop/miniatures/cmon-miniature-archive-1/cmon-contest-7-mini-dark-age-lilith-limited-edition-888.html
Detail density is still mostly good here: large surfaces haven't been cluttered with shallow emroidery or baubles or super fine seams/wrinkles. HOWEVER, those spikes on the dress are a nightmare: in metal they get bent/smished easy, and Godzilla help you if there's a mold seam running through them (and there is). The body, head and arms are all good durability wise (again: mostly a column, right arm against the side, left arm is bulked by a sleeve and forms a nice triangle brace with the body). Check those ankles though: with a base acting as a moment arm, this figure will bend at the ankles easily, especially since the pose has them lined up nice with the body right above. That's the sword I was talking about above BTW: bends if you just breathe at it, almost literally. You cant tell in that pic, but it's sculpted realistically thin as well as narrow... yeah. Had to replace that with a bit of wire bent and filed to shape. I prefer realistic weapons to the paddle swords and phone pole spears that are inexplicably common (they don't need to be THAT beefy to be durable), but there are limits to how thin you can make things, and that one is well over.

Some of that is subjective: there are highly skilled painters who have no trouble with ultra shallow/fine detail, and people who like having a ton of detail density to dig into. Most painters though will either have a harder time with it, or will find it slows them down too much, or (like me) preffer opportunities for creative filling-in-the-blanks.

I checked the GOOD figure and its a nicley sculpted miniature , nice proportions and its gotlife in it, which i think is very important or atleast it is to me, the Bad miniature i like aswell but totaly get what you mean about the ankles, the ankle issue in correct proportions is somthing that can be got around with thicker ankles but then that would defeat the whole *correct proportions* sculpting . its a case of compromise or risk of breakage, its a frustrating choice for the sculptor and for the gamer, but then ive seen many figures with very thin parts and they were ok, when ive painted figures in the past for gaming tables i'd alsways finish off the figures in 2 coats of matt boat varnish and that seemed to add some strenght to the thin parts like swords and ankles etc, etc and cant recall ever having any breakage.....

[former user]

I like them but theres somthing about them thats niggling me, cant put my finger on it 

they are not the only well sculpted miniatures
the reason why I pointed You there is because he is sculpting two different scales/proportions. take a closer look
that might illuminate Your queries