My British Paras test figure

[Auspainter]

Here's my first figure for a bunch of Artizan Designs figures I'm doing. Any comments on improvements or tips are most welcome!

[Orctrader]

First tip is...post larger photos!

What I can see looks good, but the photos are so small it's as if the figure is a long way away.   

[tin shed gamer]

I'm afraid I'd have to agree 
As it's difficult to see all your detail work,from the pictures you've posted it does look like you've fallen For the most common 'oops' it looks like your use to painting muskets,The furniture  a '303 covers the barrel.so no metallics/greys on the top just the same colour as the rest of the stock .
If you haven't then see Orctrader's comment
I'd make the colours in th smock contrast a little more sharply as they are lovely tones but look a little lost . I've no doubt they look great close up but I think your hard work will be lost to the naked eye on a table top. They run the risk of just looking an odd shade of brown at that distance ( guilty of it myself .Big fan of natural colours ,a subdued pallet runs the risk of being killed by distance, that said if you make the contrasts between the smock colours a little sharper,at table top distances they'll look like muted tones)
Hope that doesn't sound like preaching .
I hope to see more soon.
Mark.

[Auspainter]

Thanks for the tips. And yes I'd been doing quite a few muskets haha. I had originally done the straight colours as a glaze but found that they were too sharp for my liking so I blended them in a little, maybe too much. Once I get the hang of the glaze it should be a little less subtle but not too sharp. Hopefully

[Cubs]

Yeah, can't really make out the detail at that size. Funny enough, I personally go the other way with the Denison patches - I try to make it look faded and battle worn, but then I'm not really painting for tabletop gaming.

The rifle barrel thing is a classic and I suspect most of us have done something similar at one time (I know I did). As Tin Shed said, it's wood all along, top and bottom until you get to the end.

Looks really nice though.

[Auspainter]

Sorry for the crappy photo quality guys, I should've just put the link to my blog and you can enlarge the pictures there. I can't figure out how to enlarge them on here!

http://rogerspaintworks.blogspot.com.au/
The pictures are definately better on there

I actually followed your guide Cubs haha but I couldn't get the glaze quite right and it came out too dark. How do you mix up your glazes/what do you use? I just paint for fun as well so I usually go for a more realistic effect (as best as I can do anyway)

[Cubs]

I actually followed your guide Cubs haha but I couldn't get the glaze quite right and it came out too dark.

I just thin it out with glaze medium and water until it seems right. There's no definitive recipe as such, I just do it till it seems right and usually somewhere in the right area. 

[tin shed gamer]

I wouldn't worry. DPM's are one of those things  gamers and painters miss the point of.(partly because of what gaming is and partly because they don't come accross them in there intended use).
The early smocks,were hand painted so no one can truely tell you your wrong.
A painter like Cubs will spend a lot of time and effort painting all the angles and rain drops in splinter pattern.Which is what 'we' expect good brush smiths to do.The real splinter pattern at this distance (so you look an inch high)blurs out which is what its ment to do,infact it looks very similar to Denison.
British infantry and recce units were fond of wearing it.
A sniper is a prime example of the contradiction of what we do,as we need to see a scrimed figure thats hiding in plain view.
As mentioned is a good feel you've got to your miniatures so keep doing what your doing.
Mark.

[flags_of_war]

He looks great mate

[Auspainter]

Thanks fellas I'll keep at it 

[Cubs]

The early smocks,were hand painted so no one can truely tell you your wrong.

Absolutely. Some of the early mark Denisons do look like 'Friday afternoon' jobs don't they, with barely a patch of colour on them. If Aus is following one of my old methods I do point this out for the MkI (and possibly MkII, I'm not sure), but I think he's on about the strength of the shade and consistency of the paint in the patches as opposed to the pattern itself.

[tin shed gamer]

  I wouldn't dream of commenting on a method that someone's following and its author is advising on.
No my point was there are some may variables to how a DPM reacts and looks in real life,
So if it feels right then great .
If it's for me rather than a commission then it's bums on seats,that matter ,and a less is more approach is what I use,on my own stuff.if you paint to competition standard every figure then it's going to be an awfully long time before have enough for a game.
The figure looks good ,I'd love to see some more.As for the whys and the where for's of the technique then that's down to you.
Mark.

[Cubs]

No my point was there are some may variables to how a DPM reacts and looks in real life,
So if it feels right then great .

Bang on. You look at any group of squaddies on exercise now and see the variety of shades they have on show, even with supposedly the same kit. Exposure to the elements, how dirty it is, how wet it is, how new it is, all these will change the look of the garment, not to mention that the Denison went through several different marks during WW2, all manufactured in a slightly different way. I always think if we truly painted these things accurately, half the time we should just splatter them with mud and dust from head to foot.

[Truscott Trotter]

This is the site I am trying to follow for mine,
http://camopedia.org/index.php?title=Denison_smock
and the particular Mk that took my fancy

[Harry Faversham]

In his book 'Men at Arnhem' Major Tom angus told his soldiers to remove their rank badges from their smocks as he thought they made them a mark for enemy snipers... you'd have been on a right fizzer for Parachute Wings as loud as that matey!