Realistic vs GW paintjobs
Donald Gates
"J.C. Giardino" <grd...@interserv.com> wrote:
>Hi folks,
> I'd like to get a poll going here on the subject of painting schemes.
>At any painting contest I've seen the winner is the one with the brightest paint job
>possible. While the figure with the best blending/detailing though blander paint job
>goes unnoticed by the judges.
Oftentimes, it seems, that "busy" models and paintjobs, if at least
moderately well-done will always win out over their calmer
counterparts, even if the calm model is of much higher quality. I
think the problem often lies with the judges who lack high enough
levels of painting experience/skill. A busy model catches the eye and
holds attention - minor flaws can easily be overlooked. I don't
necessarily agree about "brightest" always winning, but contrast
certainly seems a must.
>I paint both ways according to my customers preference but I find myself wondering why
>the "Neon" paintjob could actually win. In a game setting, if it were for real, the
>figure was painted orange pink and chartreuse green, I'm sure he'd be a very loud
>target for any incoming fire. While the guy with the chamoflage would be a more
>inconspicuous target.
GW often displays models (in WD and their game books) that almost
always have excessive levels of "highlighting" - particularly on their
vehicles. Although most every paint job looks tremendous, the extra
level of highlighting gives the models a fake, almost cartoon-esque
feel. This may lead judges to base thier tourney criteria on things
like high levels of highlighting - everyone recognizes that GW
painters do very good work (even if it doesn't always look
"realistic"), so they choose models that look the most like GW's as
the winners of their contests.
Personnally, I find it most disappointing when a model wins a contest
based simply on the model itself (as opposed to the paint job). I've
seen basic troopers that would knock your socks off lose to a special
character or moster model that was only so-so. It's an unfortunate
by-product of the judging process. The only ways to avoid this is to
either a) use pre-printed criteria and a point-system that breaks down
the model into component parts (and the participants must know about
the criteria well in advance); or b) have everyone paint the same
model. Since both of these are very difficult to acomplish, we'll all
just have to keep dealing with the downsides...
- Don
Buckaroo: Give her your jacket.
Tommy: Why Me?
Buckaroo: Because you're Perfect!
Tommy: You've got a point there...
J.C. Giardino
Hi folks,
I'd like to get a poll going here on the subject of painting schemes.
At any painting contest I've seen the winner is the one with the brightest paint job
possible. While the figure with the best blending/detailing though blander paint job
goes unnoticed by the judges.
I paint both ways according to my customers preference but I find myself wondering why
the "Neon" paintjob could actually win. In a game setting, if it were for real, the
figure was painted orange pink and chartreuse green, I'm sure he'd be a very loud
target for any incoming fire. While the guy with the chamoflage would be a more
inconspicuous target.
Anyway, not putting down either work here, just want to get an opinion out of you
people.
--
J.C. Giardino
Brushstrokes Figure Painting Service
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Brushstrokes
l8r
James Graham
"J.C. Giardino" <grd...@interserv.com> writes:
>Hi folks,
being an avid wh40k player, i've always been a fan (and creator) of
the more flashy style of painting...given, i would not want to be
dressed in bright red khornish power armour if i expected to avoid
enemy fire long enough to close to close combat, but sci fi and fantasy
wargames are most certainly not about realism...brighter painy jobs look
better (IMO) on the battle field then the more subtle realistic painting
schemes...given, my figs look somewhat cartoony, but they fit the
cartoonish world of the games i play...more realistic jobs look better
for more realistic (ie historic) games...
brighter paint jobs are unrealistic, but then again, so are a good deal
of games...IMO, it adds a more dynamic, exciting quality to the figure and,
therefore, the game...i also don't play historic wargames...
my $.02 (hmmmm...where's the cent symbol on my keyboard?)
|------------------------------------------------|
| Jim ... Germ ... germ...@expert.cc.purdue.edu |
| |
|"I'll eat your heart out like an Aztec, baby... |
| I don't give a hoot." --- The Cramps |
|------------------------------------------------|
Chris Pierson
In article <326416...@interserv.com>,
J.C. Giardino <grd...@interserv.com> wrote:
>Hi folks,
>
> I'd like to get a poll going here on the subject of painting schemes.
>
>At any painting contest I've seen the winner is the one with the brightest
>paint job possible. While the figure with the best blending/detailing though
>blander paint job goes unnoticed by the judges.
>
>I paint both ways according to my customers preference but I find myself
>wondering why the "Neon" paintjob could actually win. In a game setting, if
>it were for real, the figure was painted orange pink and chartreuse green,
>I'm sure he'd be a very loud target for any incoming fire. While the
>guy with the chamoflage would be a more inconspicuous target.
>
>Anyway, not putting down either work here, just want to get an opinion out of
>you people.
Put me down on the side of realism. With occasional exceptions (like the
Partha topaz dragon I just finished painting), I abhor the neon painting.
I'd rather have an olive-green, muted-looking squad of orcs than the
Attack of the Bubblegum Brigade.
While I've noticed the neon-favoritism phenomenon you mention (and have
occasionally discovered that I never had a hope of winning certain
competitions because of it), I have also seen the pendulum swing the other
way. Depends on the judges -- if they work/paint in the
need-sunglasses-to-look-at-it style themselves, they'll favor that. If
they prefer painting schemes that actually acknowledge the existence of
the colours brown and grey, they'll lean the other way. The best is
probably to have a mix of the two types on the judging panel, but perfect
worlds are so rare these days... :)
--
****************************************************************************
Chris Pierson ** Films to watch for: Swingers, Albino Alligator, Shine,
Game Designer ** Mother, Breaking the Waves, Prisoner of the Mountains
****************************************************************************
Rick Rutherford
Nero fiddled while J.C. Giardino (grd...@interserv.com) wrote:
: Anyway, not putting down either work here, just want to get an opinion out
: of you people.
:
Well, I just won my first painting contest (yay!) at a local store, and
got a $5.00 in-store gift certificate along with a couple of ribbons. :)
I was surprised at having won, since my entries were Traveller (RAFM)
and StarGrunt (CMD Designs) 25mm soldiers, painted in a "realistic"
fashion with dirt, dust, and a generally worn-out look, while the winners
in the other categories were brightly-painted Games Workshop fantasy
miniatures.
I always look for an interesting "realistic" way to paint my figures;
something that will help bring the figure alive and make it seem
believable despite the obviously fictional subject matter.
--
Rick Rutherford ri...@digex.net The above opinions are mine.
"It seems to me that the nearer painting approaches sculpture the better
it is, and that sculpture is the worse the nearer it approaches painting."
-- Michelangelo
mill...@umich.edu
> germ...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (James Graham) writes:
> being an avid wh40k player, i've always been a fan (and creator) of
> the more flashy style of painting...given, i would not want to be
> dressed in bright red khornish power armour if i expected to avoid
> enemy fire long enough to close to close combat, but sci fi and fantasy
> wargames are most certainly not about realism...
Hang on a second. I'll be the first to admit that orcs never attacked
a castle, and grav tanks don't exist, but that doesn't mean that
fantasy and sci fi aren't about realism. Granted: GW is nothing about
realism anymore. Its about cartoony styles and proportions. Judging
how realistic games are by the standard of GW is like judgeing sci fi
movies by the standard of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.
GW is the biggest miniature and game company period
Is it because their systems are superior to other companies? No. (If
you are going to flame me on this point be sure that you play
something besides GW stuff). Is it because their systems are cheepest
and thereby accessable to everyone? (rhetorical) NO. Is it because
their figs are superior to everone elses? Partly: Other companies
are beginning to close the gap. Is it because of their exposure?
Yes. Consider that they have the largest selection at stores (due to
them riding the wave that was 40k 1st edition and the best minis in
the old days). Consider White Dwarf: A monthly mag. with easy to
follow shallow stratagy articles, glossy full color pages, and only
advertising and articles telling you how good GW stuff is. If you
don't believe me look at the new issue and decide how much of it is ad
(whether blatant or subtle like the reprints from the new chaos
codex). Along with telling you what to buy they tell you how things
should look. I will admit that their style of painting is eye
catching and they are skillful at doing it. I have been painting for
11 years, and I can paint up to those standards, and for my Mighty
Morphin Space Marines thats how I paint them. For competition,
however, I paint in darker more realistic schemes. I have also come
in behind flashy pieces that I would literally be ashamed to show off
in a comptetition. "Realistic" is equated with sloppy (look at the
rank and file of the historical figs you've seen, this is not a
flame), and "Gaudy" is equated with Mike Mcvey's perfection. The
realistic stuff that has been painted by skilled people blows away the
neon stuff of GW IMHO. The trick with GW, though, is that what
catches people's eyes sells, they have PROFESSIONAL people to make it
look good, and a magazine to tell you that everything else sucks.
>brighter painy jobs look
> better (IMO) on the battle field then the more subtle realistic painting
> schemes...given, my figs look somewhat cartoony, but they fit the
> cartoonish world of the games i play...more realistic jobs look better
> for more realistic (ie historic) games...
>
> brighter paint jobs are unrealistic, but then again, so are a good deal
> of games...IMO, it adds a more dynamic, exciting quality to the figure and,
> therefore, the game...i also don't play historic wargames...
You know, I wouldn't touch anything except for GW for a long time.
Then at conventions I began to play some historical stuff. Wow. I
had alot of fun. Now I still play GW stuff (occasionally), but I also
don't ignore other systems or minis.
Um... i think Grandpa Smurf (me) has wandered off the path of this
thread, sorry. I think my answer to the poll is Blade Runner over
Thundercats anyday.
> my $.02 (hmmmm...where's the cent symbol on my keyboard?)
ditto
John Crimmins
"J.C. Giardino" <grd...@interserv.com> wrote:
>Hi folks,
> I'd like to get a poll going here on the subject of painting schemes.
>At any painting contest I've seen the winner is the one with the brightest paint job
>possible. While the figure with the best blending/detailing though blander paint job
>goes unnoticed by the judges.
>I paint both ways according to my customers preference but I find myself wondering why
>the "Neon" paintjob could actually win. In a game setting, if it were for real, the
>figure was painted orange pink and chartreuse green, I'm sure he'd be a very loud
>target for any incoming fire. While the guy with the chamoflage would be a more
>inconspicuous target.
>Anyway, not putting down either work here, just want to get an opinion out of you
>people.
>--
>J.C. Giardino
>Brushstrokes Figure Painting Service
>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Brushstrokes
>l8r
Frankly, I can see both sides. Yes, the subdued Cammo pattern looks
more realistic, and it can actually be useful on the table, but....
For SF figs, you can justify some really weird paintjobs. One of our
people made some nice 15mm foam buildings, and then painted them in
this bizarre blue/red/silver cammo pattern. They look kind of silly
just sitting out on the shelf, but when surrounded by some of the SF
plants we use (cheap aquarium plants are a wonderful thing) and some
of the brighter lichen we use, they blend in amazingly well.
Besides, after painting your eight thousandth figure in cammo, it's
kind of nice to use some bright colors for a change.
John Crimmins
john...@voicenet.com
Kennedy How
J.C. Giardino wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I'd like to get a poll going here on the subject of painting schemes.
>
> At any painting contest I've seen the winner is the one with the brightest paint job
> possible. While the figure with the best blending/detailing though blander paint job
> goes unnoticed by the judges.
>
> I paint both ways according to my customers preference but I find myself wondering why
> the "Neon" paintjob could actually win. In a game setting, if it were for real, the
> figure was painted orange pink and chartreuse green, I'm sure he'd be a very loud
> target for any incoming fire. While the guy with the chamoflage would be a more
> inconspicuous target.
>
> Anyway, not putting down either work here, just want to get an opinion out of you
> people.
Boy, here's a subject of much discussion amongst the gamers in my
group. Most of us are of the realism area, nobody out in the field has
parade ground uniforms or paint jobs; you gotta have the grunge and the
BO. To this end, they use the "black prime, drybrush" method. On the
other side (a couple of us) we like to be reasonably clean in our
painting, we hate a sloppy look, which kinda goes against the "field"
look. We might have some minor weathering, but on the whole, most of
our minis look pretty clean overall.
On of my "weatherbeaten look" friends entered a Battletech Mercenary
Unit at Gencon's Minis painting contest a few years back, he had the
mechs, scratchbuilt a couple of dropships and some vehicles, etc.
Everything just like it would be for a middle-of-the-road unit with less
than pristine gear that is landing/has just landed on an enemy world.
He lost to a "GW" level unit; I don't think he even placed. As a long
time gamer and minis painter, he didn't really care all that much, his
unit looks much better on the gaming table duking it out with an enemy
unit, in his mind, the parade ground unit looks way out of whack in a
long campaign.
My $0.02.
Kennedy
John Crimmins
I can see both sides of this issue. Yes, on the one hand Camouflaged
minis look more realistic, at least when considered in terms of modern
military units. They are also, at least theoretically, harder to see
on the table, which makes them less likely targets (Now the damned GW
back banners--those are a mistake! When a friend demoed a 40k game
for us, all the officers got picked off REAL fast because their back
banners made them visible through whatever cover they were in. We use
a relatively realistic line of sight system, using periscopes, and
they were the only targets visible).
On the other hand....
A guy in our gaming group painted up a bunch of 15mm buildings, and
camouflaged them in blue, red, mustard yellow, and silver. Sounds
hideous, right? And yes, sitting on the shelf they do look a little
ridiculous. However, on the table, surrounded by the yellow and red
lichen we use for our SF games as well as the weird looking SF plants
we made (cheap aquarium plants can be a wonderful thing), they
actually blend in pretty well. The guy who panted them was as
surprised as anybody.
Also, after you've painted your two hundredth figure in cammo, it
feels kind of nice to drag out the bright colors and use them for a
change. Hell, who knows what spectrum aliens might see in? Maybe
purple and fluorescent green IS cammo from their viewpoint. If you see
in the infrared, you want to blend heat patterns, rather than colors.
I dunno. Maybe I'm just trying to justify some of my more outrageous
paint schemes, but those are my thoughts.
John Crimmins
john...@voicenet.com
Karen Boelter
The other possibility is that in the year 40,000 with Energy and
bio-scanners so efficient it doesn't make much difference if you blend in to
the surrounding or light up like a neon sign.
Then too it might be fairly easy for Space Marines to color their power
armor so that the colors you most often see are the Chapter colors (for
dress or garrison duty) with long involved campaigns authorizing
coloration to match the Theater of Operations.
Tirion
Christine Herbert
In article <543mua$c...@news1.voicenet.com>,
kelly green. Most are very bright and visable woth one major exception.
My eldar scouts are painted in a very mutted brown and hunter green. grey
and black colors mix in for certain details.
The argument of realistic vs GW styles would seem, to me at least,
not to be that big a deal so long as you think you figures look good. But
if you going for a representation of their function as well, so long as
your not painting bull's-eyes on their fronts, the only ones that really
need camo are scout's and assasins.(thats for sci/fi figs) Medeivel figs
can also be very colorful.( just look at any of the historical coats of
arms.) It all depends on the time frame historically or fantasticly as to
wheather a color scheam is appropriot.
Yes i know i started to ramble. :}
Just my opionion/.02 later
Chris
m.j.e...@uk22p.bull.co.uk
On 15 Oct 1996 17:18:39 GMT, ri...@ss4.digex.net (Rick Rutherford) wrote:
> Well, I just won my first painting contest (yay!) at a local store, and
> got a $5.00 in-store gift certificate along with a couple of ribbons. :)
> I was surprised at having won, since my entries were Traveller (RAFM)
> and StarGrunt (CMD Designs) 25mm soldiers, painted in a "realistic"
> fashion with dirt, dust, and a generally worn-out look, while the winners
> in the other categories were brightly-painted Games Workshop fantasy
> miniatures.
>
CMD Designs, they are from Ground Zero Games. CMD (Paul Copeland) does
ships for Full Thrust and 1/300 scale SF armour. CMD has now been taken
over by GZG, but Paul will continue to design ships and vehicles for
Jon.
Most of the Stargrunt ranges are scuplted by Kev White or Mike Owen (I
think).
Mike Elliott, GZG
--
Posted using Reference.COM. http://www.reference.com
InReference, Inc. accepts no responsibility for the content of this posting.
Steve Carroll
IF you're talking about sf miniatures set in a high-tech future, colorful
uniforms may not really be a hindrance to a soldier. IF YOU ASSUME that
all forces have reliable, heat-sensing, light-amplifying,
identification-friend-or-foe (IFF), satellite-linked visors in their
helmets, simple visual camouflage probably isn't necessary. A figure not
in solid, opaque cover can be seen, period. Given that, wild and crazy
uniform colors and markings might be used.
If you might ever be facing a low-tech enemy, of course, you might want
visual camouflage, because they will rely on actual naked-eye sighting.
Also, if the forces involved generally fight in large-scale battles, and
not skirmishes, individual camouflage is probably less necessary. When
your column is being shelled, it doesn't matter if you, as an individual,
can be seen or not.
Steve
Ray
In article <326416...@interserv.com>, grd...@interserv.com says...
I read all of the responses to date...very interesting.
I have spent years and years developing my painting skills in plastic
modeling. I got quite good at it, as my IPMS First Place regional trophy and
many other wins can attest.
When I started playing 40K my first impulse was to paint them "realisticaly".
I soon realised, however, that painting a "realistic" figures for 40K was a
contradiction. 40K is a cartoon universe so I paint cartoon figures.
I also play The Sword and the Flame (historical British colonials). I *do*
paint these 25mm "realisticaly" as that type of paint job fits the game.
And by the way...in many periods in history armies *did* go into battle in
full dress. My British colonials wear their red coats. The Bengal Lancers wear
their dark blue dress tunics and striped turbans. My Space Wolves go into
battle in polished power armor.
Bottom line...paint to fit the game. If you want to paint to win painting
contests change to 54mm, its a lot eaiser to paint. But whatever path you
take, make sure that you are enjoying it.
--
Ray Rangel
----==== 8915 Mansfield ====----
------====== San Antonio, TX 78251, USA ======------
----==== ----- xr...@texas.net ------ ====----
http://lonestar.texas.net/~xray
Allan Goodall
Karen Boelter wrote:
>
> The other possibility is that in the year 40,000 with Energy and
> bio-scanners so efficient it doesn't make much difference if you blend in to
> the surrounding or light up like a neon sign.
Sorry, I've heard that justification before and it doesn't wash. This is the same
thing I heard about GW's Land Raiders with flat (i.e. non-sloped) sides. There will
ALWAYS be a need for camouflage. What if your forces found a way to blind the other
side's scanners? It won't matter because you've gone and painted your troops bright
pink! In fact, the other side might stop issuing expensive scanners to their lower
end troops since you've made your own troops so easy to see.
Unless the future produces a situation where there are NO resource constraints,
you will also try to squeeze out every bit of advantage you can.
As for the poll, put me down in the realistic camp. I like the flashy GW paint style
in certain circumstances (brightly painted starships, the occasional dragon or demon
diorama), but I prefer a natural paint job. Take a look at some of the beautiful
models in model builders magazines. Most GW style painters couldn't hold a candle
to a properly painted Tiger tank diorama from Scale Modeller or one of those other
magazines.
--
Allan Goodall, Sales and Marketing Systems, Kodak Canada, Inc.
INTERNET: WORK: all...@kodak.com HOME: agoo...@sympatico.ca
VOICE: (416) 766-8233 ext 35473 FAX: (416) 760-4597
Visit the Kodak Web site at: http://www.kodak.com
Henrik Pedersen
Hi J.C.
> I'd like to get a poll going here on the subject of painting schemes.
>
First of all... I am for the GW-paint-style...
I think it's important to make the miniature look realistic... But I
think the real art of painting miniatures is not to paint them with the
most realistic colors, but to make the miniature look good...
See, what I mean is: When I started painting 7 years ago most of my
paints were brown and green shades - since most fantasy-miniatures wear
leather and green (robin-hood-like) colors.
I found out that adding more colors would make the miniature look blurry
and not at all good... When I paint (ex. a forrest goblin from Games
Workshop) I normally use just 4 base colours... Goblin Green, Blood Red,
Sunburst Yellow and a brown or a bone color..
I find that the trick is (since the miniature is so small) to still be
able to see what it is... To make the details on the model stand out
with a lot of contrast...
Does this make sense? :)
A good question by the way... I've discussed it with my friends a lot of
times...
Have a nice day :)
Henrik
--
Henrik Pedersen
Mark A. Renye
> models in model builders magazines. Most GW style painters couldn't hold
a candle
> to a properly painted Tiger tank diorama from Scale Modeller or one of
those other
> magazines.
I will strongly disagree. The choice to paint in a bright, cartoon detail
style does not diminish the fact that the painter is technically a great
painter. I feel that the GW staff painters, especially Mike McVee, are
some ofthe best scale model painters out there. If the subject matter
doesn't call for a realistic paint job than you can't put them down for
not painting in the "proper" style.
--
Mark A. Renye
"I am NOT a number, I am a FREE MAN!!"
Rob
Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> IF you're talking about sf miniatures set in a high-tech future, colorful
> uniforms may not really be a hindrance to a soldier. IF YOU ASSUME that
> all forces have reliable, heat-sensing, light-amplifying,
> identification-friend-or-foe (IFF), satellite-linked visors in their
> helmets, simple visual camouflage probably isn't necessary. A figure not
> in solid, opaque cover can be seen, period.
> Steve
From personal experience it doesn't matter how much hi-tech thingummy
whatsits you have for spotting, if you drop them in a river or the
batteries run out after several days over use you are back to good
old Mk1.eyeball. Given the state that wars tend to end up in after
a few years, irregular supplies, equipment nearing breakdown, badly
trained men filling the gaps I think that the use of observation aids
would become less and less common. To the PBI (Poor Bloody Infantry)if
the use of camouflage gives him as little as a 1% better chance of
staying alive he will take it, after all 1% can mean the difference
between life and death. Having said this what constitutes camouflage
in other eco-systems may not necessarily be recognisable as camouflage
in another, arctic cammo makes a fine target in the jungle.
Rob Draper
R.J.D...@shu.ac.uk