To detail or not to detail?

[scarlowe]

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...


... really that much more aesthetically pleasing than this?


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?

[FramFramson]

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.

[Vermis]

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 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.

[Ray Rivers]

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.

[Supercollider]

I was in a similar situation around a year ago - turned out I needed some specs for close up work! 

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.

[Vanvlak]

I was in a similar situation around a year ago - turned out I needed some specs for close up work! 

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.

[Drachenklinge]

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 ^^

[Hammers]

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.

[Mad Doc Morris]

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.

[Prof.Witchheimer]

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.

[Hobgoblin]

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 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.

[has.been]

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 ?

[Harry Faversham]

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.

[scarlowe]

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?

[Captain Blood]

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