[PAINT] Quick highlighting question
Brine Pool
question. Should the base layer be the base color mixed with a touch
of black? Or should it be the base color? The test model I've done I
used a bit of black in the mix. My base is a teal color with a bit of
green mixed in. Should I use a different color other than black? Or
is all of this purely a personal preference? In any case, the model I
painted already greatly exceeded my expectations, even though I need
to improve a few things on the next models.
Brian
David Gausebeck
Highlighting looks a lot better than you initially expect, doesn't it?
:)
I haven't tried mixing the base coat with black, but I've found it
useful to do something similar. When applying a wash to the model
(after basecoat, before highlighting), I use a very thin wash, and
apply it over the entire model, even on flat areas. I may also apply
extra in crevices, etc.
This makes the entire model slightly darker than whatever color was
used for the base coat, and it means you can use the original base
coat color to blend between highlighted areas and the surrounding main
color. It has the disadvantage of making it a little harder to touch
up open areas, since the base coat paint is no longer a perfect match,
but the color difference usually isn't enough that it looks bad.
Probably the best example I have of the results is
http://gausebeck.com/wraithlord.jpg
The base coat is Space Wolf Grey, and the wash is Shadow Grey. I then
highlighted with white, then blended it in two layers: a 1:1 mix of
SW Grey and white, and then straight SW Grey.
Here's one more pic, with only one layer of blending:
http://gausebeck.com/scorpion.jpg
IIRC, the colors for that one are: base of Scorpion Green, washed
with Green Ink, highlighted with a mix of Scorpion Green and Bilious
Green, then blended with straight Scorpion Green.
-Dave
Richard Lobinske
>question. Should the base layer be the base color mixed with a touch
>of black?
Depends on painting style really. You can do this and then just add
progressively lighter colors, leaving this in the deepest contours as the
shadow tone. I commonly apply the base color, than the shadow tone as a
directed wash or by blending, then the highlight by drybrushing or blending.
>My base is a teal color with a bit of
>green mixed in. Should I use a different color other than black? Or
>is all of this purely a personal preference?
I would experiment a bit to find what looks right to you. With that color,
black may be a bit too intense, a dark green added to the base may work better
for preparing a shadow tone.
Death before dishonor,
Nothing before coffee
Shameless website Plug: Military Life on Saipan, 1944-1945
http://members.aol.com/RLobinske/Saipan.html
This is a cookie-free website
Greg
It depends on the colour, really. Some colours will not look good if
black is added to them. Also, if your base colour is very dark -
let's say it's Midnight Blue, for example - then obviously you don't
need to add black to it. So my preferred method of painting is to
start with a colour that already is sufficiently dark, such as
Scorched Brown, Dark Angels Green, etc, and use that as my base
colour.
Also, instead of adding black to your base colour, you could add one
of these darker colours for a more subtle effect. For example, if you
were painting goblins, your base colour might be Goblin Green mixed
with a small amount of Dark Angels Green.
As with most aspects of painting, there's no hard set of rules to
settle every situation, so just do what looks good. :)
-Greg
----------------------------------------------------
Can't stand your job?
www.escape.ca/~mdpglc
John Hwang
>I've started doing highlighting on my models and I have a quick
>question. Should the base layer be the base color mixed with a touch
>of black?
Depends on the effect you're going for. If you mix in black or white for your
base colors or shadows, repectively, then you'll end up with a somewhat
desaturated (i.e. less "colorful") result.
Also depends on your primer color. If priming black, you'll get some of this
automatically.
>Or should it be the base color?
Depends on the base color. If you have, and can use, a darker base color, then
by all means use it for your base. That's what I do.
Experiment to see which one you like.
>The test model I've done I used a bit of black in the mix.
>My base is a teal color with a bit of green mixed in.
OK.
>Should I use a different color other than black?
I'd have used navy blue for my base, and worked up to teal.
>Or is all of this purely a personal preference?
Mostly. There are reasons to choose particular colors and bases, but if you're
starting out, it probably doesn't matter. I'd have chosen navy blue, because
it's very dark and very "cool", so it probably makes a slightly better shadow
color than green.
>In any case, the model I painted already greatly exceeded my
>expectations, even though I need
>to improve a few things on the next models.
Hence, starting with rank and file, not Characters.
--
--- John Hwang "JohnHw...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
John Hwang
>Probably the best example I have of the results is
>http://gausebeck.com/wraithlord.jpg
>Here's one more pic, with only one layer of blending:
>http://gausebeck.com/scorpion.jpg
I've always liked these. Tho if I were doing them, I'd probably add a bit more
contrast in the weapons and a contrast color for the WL's head before calling
them "done".
Anton Svärd
"Brine Pool" <bgristGO...@calpoly.edu> skrev i meddelandet
news:5evgavgc0smpue3u8...@4ax.com...
As you've probably noticed there are nearly as many ways to do this as there
are painters.
Personally I always start with a black basecoat, and highlight my way up
from there to whatever colour I want. For dark colours, some of the black
will be showing, for light ones it will be completely overpainted. But by
using successively lighter shades I never have any troubles with the paint
not covering the black. With enough layers the result gets very good, the
disadvantage is that it is very time consuming; I estimate 2 hours for a
plastic goblin with 6 layers of skin and 3-4 layers of everything else.
/Anton
--
Pigs are fer eatin' - not fer sittin' on.
Myrmidon
bgristGO...@calpoly.edu, Brine Pool shouted out the following words
of wit...
I generally don't recommend mixing pre-packaged commercial 'black'
paint with a color - it's fine as a wash by itself - but black paint mixed
with a color will deaden it or make it muddy rather than dark. If you
want to make a base layer or darken it so that the main color and
highlights will stand out - try the following. Use a dark or dull version
of the complimentary color. Even if you mix that with the base color you
intend to use - you'll get a dark neutral or black paint that won't be
'dead' like most commercial black paints tend to be. Once you paint on
your main color - the complimentary color in your shadowed areas and
creases will cause your main color to have more 'pop' or in other words
give it the illusion of greater depth and roundness. White paint can also
have the same sort of effect - it'll make a color become more pastel and
washed out rather than simply 'lighter' or less intense. This is why you
can't simply add 'white' to red without it eventually becoming pinkish
rather than 'light red'.
Not sure if you're familiar with the concept of 'hot and cold colors' -
but by using cooler/neutral colors and compliments in your shadowed areas,
and warmer and purer colors on your raised surfaces and highlights you can
get some wonderful effects.
Also - remember that in nature there's almost Zero 'pure white' due to the
way the cones and rods in the human eye work. Look at clouds against a
blue sky - if you look for a moment or two, you'll notice that the bright
or 'white' areas of the clouds tend to take on an orangish tint.
Hope that helps,
Myrmidon
--
#1582. I think they call it Warhammer "40K" because that is how
much you are going to have to make per year in order to play.
- Eric Noland
# 1082. Pound for pound I can buy cocaine cheaper than
raise a Warhammer army
- Roy Cox
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/gwprice/
****
RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org
Or...
Spectre
"Myrmidon" <Im...@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1913077d3...@news-server.woh.rr.com...
(snip)
Myrmidon, have you been taking art classes? That is some in depth
information. You must be a painter. Another good way to practice is to take
a model you don't have much use for and paint it all in greys, then when
you're satisfied use it as a model for matching the values of the areas.
Also, look for the lightest light and the darkest dark when you are looking
at your example and duplicate them exactly with the relative value of your
color. One other thing, think of your differing values as shapes, simply put
the right shape in the right spot and repeat until it is finished, perfect.
Have fun!
Myrmidon
wolf...@earthlink.net, Spectre shouted out the following words of wit...
Yeah, I'm not bad when I put aside the time to get something done.
Just been way to busy for to long to get anything done lately, though once
I get settled in my new home, things look like they'll be better in the
time department.
> Another good way to practice is to take
> a model you don't have much use for and paint it all in greys, then when
> you're satisfied use it as a model for matching the values of the areas.
Actually, this is the base of a full color oil painting technique.
Start with the underlying painting done in grey scale values as you've
suggested. Once that's done - apply very thin washes of various colors
over the painting - building up slowly as the underlying layers dry. It's
slow - but the color depth is fantastic.
> Also, look for the lightest light and the darkest dark when you are looking
> at your example and duplicate them exactly with the relative value of your
> color. One other thing, think of your differing values as shapes, simply put
> the right shape in the right spot and repeat until it is finished, perfect.
> Have fun!
>
Reasonable suggestions. Remember that the eye distinguishes more
shades (values) of light and dark on closer objects and less on those
farther away, so you can also use that by painting the interior folds of
cloaks and other small items with slightly less detail, while pulling more
out of the face for example. The same is true of color where the eye sees
distant colors as having less intensity and hue - they're not as bright,
and they seem to become more neutral as they receed into the distance.
Niaccurshi
"Brine Pool" <bgristGO...@calpoly.edu> wrote in message
news:5evgavgc0smpue3u8...@4ax.com...
Deffinately listen to Myr's advice, the act of mixing black into other
colours rarely works...experiment with mixing other colours in to keep the
colour looking like it's a darker version of the original, not a greyer
version of the original.
I personally base the whole model white (unless metalic models) and then
make a thick black wash out of ordinary black paint with a little water, and
liberally cover the model. More than anything with a white basecoat, this
makes sure you can see all of the dips and grooves.
After that it's a case of heavily drybushing the whole model with the main
colour (orks would be green, humans in a fleshy colour, skeletons in a bone
colour) then working on that, using a lighter colour to moderately drybrush
the right area's (usually ending in flat area's being this lighter colour,
only more "covered" area's being left dark. Then it's a case of lightly
drybrushing with a much lightened version of the main colour to pick up the
edges. Occasionally, depending on the model, I will wash the area I'm
painting with a speicifally darkened main colour wash before applying the
final light drybrush, but this all depends on the model. Likewise
occasionally it's needed for an edge tracing, to run a brush very lightly
over the extreme edges of the model to pick them up even more.
--
-Lee
The marxist formerly known as La Grief!
This was my old sig, now it's my new one. Deal with it.
Spectre
(snip)
> > Myrmidon, have you been taking art classes? That is some in depth
> > information. You must be a painter.
>
> Yeah, I'm not bad when I put aside the time to get something done.
> Just been way to busy for to long to get anything done lately, though once
> I get settled in my new home, things look like they'll be better in the
> time department.
I haven't done anything since december. I think it's my addiction to 40k.
Perhaps one day I'll start doing 40k related pieces.
>
> > Another good way to practice is to take
> > a model you don't have much use for and paint it all in greys, then when
> > you're satisfied use it as a model for matching the values of the areas.
>
> Actually, this is the base of a full color oil painting technique.
> Start with the underlying painting done in grey scale values as you've
> suggested. Once that's done - apply very thin washes of various colors
> over the painting - building up slowly as the underlying layers dry. It's
> slow - but the color depth is fantastic.
Another way to enhance the depth of the project is to always remember that
positives and negatives border any actuation of differing value. When your
eye has learnt to see properly these instances become very pronounced and
prominent, in every instance I might add and bring with them an undenyable
layer of depth when consistantly represented. Once you can do this with
color you have really accomplished something extraordinary.
>
> > Also, look for the lightest light and the darkest dark when you are
looking
> > at your example and duplicate them exactly with the relative value of
your
> > color. One other thing, think of your differing values as shapes, simply
put
> > the right shape in the right spot and repeat until it is finished,
perfect.
> > Have fun!
> >
> Reasonable suggestions. Remember that the eye distinguishes more
> shades (values) of light and dark on closer objects and less on those
> farther away, so you can also use that by painting the interior folds of
> cloaks and other small items with slightly less detail, while pulling more
> out of the face for example. The same is true of color where the eye sees
> distant colors as having less intensity and hue - they're not as bright,
> and they seem to become more neutral as they receed into the distance.
True. It seems like after a certain distance objects start becomming cool
pastels and they do. Learning to actually see things close up also
consistantly reveals a vast array of subtle color shapes. This is what I
like to do, find those colors and stress those shapes, it makes for a very
vivid representation but is also a bit time consuming.
Andy O'Neill
> Another way to enhance the depth of the project is to always remember that
> positives and negatives border any actuation of differing value. When your
> eye has learnt to see properly these instances become very pronounced and
> prominent, in every instance I might add and bring with them an undenyable
> layer of depth when consistantly represented. Once you can do this with
> color you have really accomplished something extraordinary.
"Actuation of differing value"... Eh?
Are you saying there's always a contrast... where there's a contrast?
Contrast will always make detail more noticeable.
One of the points of black lining, eg.
My 2p.
The mind interprets input via the eyeballs, you perceive things rather than
see them.
Thus you see stuff that ain't really happening.
For example, the image on your eyeballs is up-side-down.
Your head fixes this.
I perceive it ain't worth the time me spending 4 hours painting each figure.
30 minutes is more my sort of timescale for 30mil.
The way people perceive stuff:
The darkest shadows are next to the brightest highlights, this is a contrast
thing.
The eye is drawn to detail.
Put some detail on a figure, like a patch or some such and someone will
notice this particularly.
Their over-all perception of how much time you spent painting detail on the
figure will increase.
OTOH
If there's too much detail on there - too fussy or too many colours - the
viewer won't be able to see the detail for the details...
Their overall perception of quality will go down.
Because there's more detail in the foreground in real life, something with
more detail is assumed to be foreground.
If it ain't then you'll quickly notice there's "something wrong" in a
painting ( or figure, but to a lesser extent ).
This is why a painting which is crystal clear and highly detailed in both
foreground and foreground looks odd.
In reality, there's haze makes distant stuff hazy AND you focus on near
stuff and the rest looks even hazier.
You look at stuff and categorise it.
So if you look at a figure and it looks kind of like a bloke, you expect
internally to deal with it as a bloke.
You look people in the eye, so if a figure is big enough to see the eyes,
you will look it in the eye.
No eyeballs, cross-eyes or pop-eyes will be PARTICULARLY noticeable.
Distance and darkness tend to be associated with neutral tone.
Artists use purple or similar.
Purple plus black in lo-lights works with more colours than one might think.
Modellers often use purple for pre-shading ( I waffle on a bit about
pre-shading on my web page as it's a technique I routinely use).
The eye doesn't care much about the dark bits when it's deciding what colour
something is as a whole, the highlights will influence the perceived colour
much more...
Spend more time worrying about the highlights than lo-lights.
OTOH, if you paint an area the lo-light colour first you create work for
yourself.
Acrylics are translucent.
You will have to work harder to get the same brightness for the mid tone if
you paint over a dark layer.
You will then have to work even harder to get the same brightness of
hi-light.
All this stuf and things like reflected colour and the colour wheel are the
kind of thing any aspiring artist needs to know.
If you go to college or university, there will be a whole bunch of art
students can explain all this at length.
You might even find a teacher/lecturer enthusiastic enough to explain it to
you.
At school art teachers might even find it fairly refreshing some student
approaching them with a positive interest.
A night school class might be something to consider.
Although.... I strongly recommend oils over acrylics for this sort of
painting.
Oils are pretty cheap.
Definitely buy the type of thinner has reduced odour though!
--
Regards,
Andy O'Neill
www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.htm
or, for no javascript and a faster load...
www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sitemap.htm
Spectre
"Andy O'Neill" <noido...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:zRwqa.240$MH3...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> <<>>
>
> > Another way to enhance the depth of the project is to always remember
that
> > positives and negatives border any actuation of differing value. When
your
> > eye has learnt to see properly these instances become very pronounced
and
> > prominent, in every instance I might add and bring with them an
undenyable
> > layer of depth when consistantly represented. Once you can do this with
> > color you have really accomplished something extraordinary.
>
>
> "Actuation of differing value"... Eh?
> Are you saying there's always a contrast... where there's a contrast?
> Contrast will always make detail more noticeable.
> One of the points of black lining, eg.
I'm saying that when a dark edge meets with a light edge that the dark edge
turns darker and the light edge turns lighter on the plane they meet on.
>
> My 2p.
>
> The mind interprets input via the eyeballs, you perceive things rather
than
> see them.
> Thus you see stuff that ain't really happening.
> For example, the image on your eyeballs is up-side-down.
> Your head fixes this.
You perceive things until you learn to see. Painters see things differently
than other people because they are taught to see things how they really are
rather than how they appear to be.
>
> I perceive it ain't worth the time me spending 4 hours painting each
figure.
> 30 minutes is more my sort of timescale for 30mil.
To each his own.
>
> The way people perceive stuff:
>
> The darkest shadows are next to the brightest highlights, this is a
contrast
> thing.
Yeah, thats what I said.
> The eye is drawn to detail.
The eye is drawn to patterns and movement.
> Put some detail on a figure, like a patch or some such and someone will
> notice this particularly.
> Their over-all perception of how much time you spent painting detail on
the
> figure will increase.
> OTOH
> If there's too much detail on there - too fussy or too many colours - the
> viewer won't be able to see the detail for the details...
> Their overall perception of quality will go down.
> Because there's more detail in the foreground in real life, something with
> more detail is assumed to be foreground.
Ok.
> If it ain't then you'll quickly notice there's "something wrong" in a
> painting ( or figure, but to a lesser extent ).
> This is why a painting which is crystal clear and highly detailed in both
> foreground and foreground looks odd.
> In reality, there's haze makes distant stuff hazy AND you focus on near
> stuff and the rest looks even hazier.
> You look at stuff and categorise it.
Huh?
> So if you look at a figure and it looks kind of like a bloke, you expect
> internally to deal with it as a bloke.
> You look people in the eye, so if a figure is big enough to see the eyes,
> you will look it in the eye.
That would be the eye being drawn to the radial pattern of the eye not the
eye being drawn to the eye. Radial pattern draws the eye second to none,
thats why people like looking at titties so much because they naturally form
a radial pattern.
> No eyeballs, cross-eyes or pop-eyes will be PARTICULARLY noticeable.
> Distance and darkness tend to be associated with neutral tone.
> Artists use purple or similar.
> Purple plus black in lo-lights works with more colours than one might
think.
> Modellers often use purple for pre-shading ( I waffle on a bit about
> pre-shading on my web page as it's a technique I routinely use).
Distance is associated with cool colors not 'nuetral tone.'
> The eye doesn't care much about the dark bits when it's deciding what
colour
> something is as a whole, the highlights will influence the perceived
colour
> much more...
Unless you have learned to see. Once you have learned to see properly then
everything simply becomes shape and pattern.
> Spend more time worrying about the highlights than lo-lights.
> OTOH, if you paint an area the lo-light colour first you create work for
> yourself.
> Acrylics are translucent.
No, no, no many acrylics are opaque unless you thin them down.
> You will have to work harder to get the same brightness for the mid tone
if
> you paint over a dark layer.
> You will then have to work even harder to get the same brightness of
> hi-light.
Measuring the varying degrees of value is a simple matter of finding your
darkest dark and your lightest light, once those are etched in determining
the rest of the values becomes childs play.
>
> All this stuf and things like reflected colour and the colour wheel are
the
> kind of thing any aspiring artist needs to know.
Yeah the color wheel is pretty important but I'm not sure what you mean by
reflected color, explain?
> If you go to college or university, there will be a whole bunch of art
> students can explain all this at length.
> You might even find a teacher/lecturer enthusiastic enough to explain it
to
> you.
Yeah, I've been to college bro thats where I learned it all. Color theory is
a monster but there are certain laws which make it easier to define things
once you learn to see properly.
> At school art teachers might even find it fairly refreshing some student
> approaching them with a positive interest.
> A night school class might be something to consider.
> Although.... I strongly recommend oils over acrylics for this sort of
> painting.
> Oils are pretty cheap.
> Definitely buy the type of thinner has reduced odour though!
Yeah, thanks for the lesson bro. Maybe you should take your own advice
sometime?
Myrmidon
> news:zRwqa.240$MH3...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > <<>>
> >
> > > Another way to enhance the depth of the project is to always remember
> that
> > > positives and negatives border any actuation of differing value. When
> your
> > > eye has learnt to see properly these instances become very pronounced
> and
> > > prominent, in every instance I might add and bring with them an
> undenyable
> > > layer of depth when consistantly represented. Once you can do this with
> > > color you have really accomplished something extraordinary.
> >
> >
> > "Actuation of differing value"... Eh?
> > Are you saying there's always a contrast... where there's a contrast?
> > Contrast will always make detail more noticeable.
> > One of the points of black lining, eg.
>
> I'm saying that when a dark edge meets with a light edge that the dark edge
> turns darker and the light edge turns lighter on the plane they meet on.
>
strip of columns varying from very dark grey/black to light grey/white?
When seen side by side, the strips begin to take on the illusion of a
fluted column - as in the interior part of the strip looks to be of a
different value than the edges. Almost as if the interior is recessed
slightly. Even though the brain knows it isn't, it still interprets the
visual data that way.
> >
> > My 2p.
> >
> > The mind interprets input via the eyeballs, you perceive things rather
> than
> > see them.
> > Thus you see stuff that ain't really happening.
> > For example, the image on your eyeballs is up-side-down.
> > Your head fixes this.
>
> You perceive things until you learn to see. Painters see things differently
> than other people because they are taught to see things how they really are
> rather than how they appear to be.
>
Slight correction there - there are multiple ways for the brain to
interpret the visual data. The eye only generally collects the data in
one way. It's the brain that does the processing. I've seen it explained
by dividing vision into 3 types of 'seeing'.
1. Basic - you see everything, but the brain only registers just enough
detail or data to meet the purpose it's working on. Such as walking
without running (painfully) into solid objects, or the numbers on a house
when looking for a specific address. This is the sort of 'seeing' that
most people spend the greatest amount of time using on a daily basis.
2. Memory - you see something, and it reminds you of previous events. You
see a dog leash, and it reminds you of your favorite pet when you were a
child. Again, this isn't so much taking in current visual data, as
recalling old symbols and experiences from memory.
3. Detailed - this is taking a long slow look, and consciously noting
details of shape, size, color, scale, perspective, etc. While this is
highly useful for artistic and scientific/design purposes, it's often
overkill on regular day to day stuff (not to mention time consuming which
is the over ridding factor for most people).
> >
> > The way people perceive stuff:
> >
> > The darkest shadows are next to the brightest highlights, this is a
> contrast
> > thing.
>
> Yeah, thats what I said.
>
> > The eye is drawn to detail.
>
> The eye is drawn to patterns and movement.
The eye is drawn to the following items as it uses them to judge
distance and depth. (Important factors for survival and prevention of
pain and injury.)
Color - objects of greater hue or intensity appear visually closer. (Hot &
cold colors also affect these perceptions.) Neutral colors tend to recede
visually.
Contrast - objects of greater contrast appear visually closer. Those
objects with the greatest number of variations and highest contrast of
light and dark tend to appear closer to the view than those with few or no
variations or little contrast between the object's lightest and darkest
areas. The eye perceives those things with high contrast as 'having more
detail' or being closer (which means you should in theory see more
detail.)
Movement - real or illusionary (patterns often create the illusion of
motion - such as a tight inward spiral.) [The peripheral vision is highly
acute at detecting motion. If you want to get the best field of view to
see what's behind you without turning your head, look down when you look
left or right. Also at night, use peripheral vision to detect motion as
it works much better than focused vision at night.]
<massive snippage of other stuff I don't have time for...>
> >
> > I perceive it ain't worth the time me spending 4 hours painting each
> figure.
> > 30 minutes is more my sort of timescale for 30mil.
>
> To each his own.
>
Hehe, here we get to the heart of the matter. Personally, I spend more
time on my rank and file figures, and less on the heros (which I know is
opposite the way many gamers do it). But over all, I get a generally more
cohesive and better painted army than many of them I've seen, and frankly
I like painting so I don't mind the time spent when the visual result is
pleasing to me.
Spectre
Yeah it is.
Ever seen a
> strip of columns varying from very dark grey/black to light grey/white?
Never.
> When seen side by side, the strips begin to take on the illusion of a
> fluted column - as in the interior part of the strip looks to be of a
> different value than the edges. Almost as if the interior is recessed
> slightly. Even though the brain knows it isn't, it still interprets the
> visual data that way.
Hmm.
Ok, thats interesting.
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > The way people perceive stuff:
> > >
> > > The darkest shadows are next to the brightest highlights, this is a
> > contrast
> > > thing.
> >
> > Yeah, thats what I said.
> >
> > > The eye is drawn to detail.
> >
> > The eye is drawn to patterns and movement.
>
> The eye is drawn to the following items as it uses them to judge
> distance and depth. (Important factors for survival and prevention of
> pain and injury.)
The eye is drawn to patterns as well as the others you've listed (for
survival reasons as well). Basic radial patterns such as breasts and more
directional patterns such as muff these things are key to our survival as a
species and the eye finds these things naturally pleasing.
I enjoy painting guys too but I'm not hardly the best at it. I just paint
them as best I can, I'm better on larger canvases.
John Hwang
>You perceive things until you learn to see. Painters see things differently
>than other people because they are taught to see things how they really are
>rather than how they appear to be.
Oh, FFS, if this isn't the biggest load of shit I've seen since GW claimed
their latest shenanigans were aimed at protecting their IP instead of grabbing
more $$$...
Painters see things *exactly* the same as other people. They have the same
rods and cones in their eyes as the rest of us. They may represent it
visually, choose to interpret it differently, know a few tricks, but they
certainly aren't on any sort of "higher plane" than the rest of us.
Spectre
"John Hwang" <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
news:20030426123520...@mb-m22.news.cs.com...
> "Spectre" wolf...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >You perceive things until you learn to see. Painters see things
differently
> >than other people because they are taught to see things how they really
are
> >rather than how they appear to be.
>
> Oh, FFS, if this isn't the biggest load of shit I've seen since GW claimed
> their latest shenanigans were aimed at protecting their IP instead of
grabbing
> more $$$...
>
> Painters see things *exactly* the same as other people. They have the
same
> rods and cones in their eyes as the rest of us. They may represent it
> visually, choose to interpret it differently, know a few tricks, but they
> certainly aren't on any sort of "higher plane" than the rest of us.
If you were to spend some time in a school for painting you would see the
difference, until then you are just blowing hot air.
Anton Svärd
> > Painters see things *exactly* the same as other people. They have the
> same
> > rods and cones in their eyes as the rest of us. They may represent it
> > visually, choose to interpret it differently, know a few tricks, but
they
> > certainly aren't on any sort of "higher plane" than the rest of us.
>
> If you were to spend some time in a school for painting you would see the
> difference, until then you are just blowing hot air.
You mean one of those places artsy types go to in order to feel important
even though they have no marketable job skills?
Spectre
"Anton Svärd" <anton...@telia.com> wrote in message
news:xYyqa.5742$dP1....@newsc.telia.net...
No I mean one of those places artsy types go to learn to paint.
Myrmidon
johnhw...@cs.com.no.com, John Hwang shouted out the following words of
wit...
> "Spectre" wolf...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >You perceive things until you learn to see. Painters see things differently
> >than other people because they are taught to see things how they really are
> >rather than how they appear to be.
>
> Oh, FFS, if this isn't the biggest load of shit I've seen since GW claimed
> their latest shenanigans were aimed at protecting their IP instead of grabbing
> more $$$...
>
> Painters see things *exactly* the same as other people. They have the same
> rods and cones in their eyes as the rest of us. They may represent it
> visually, choose to interpret it differently, know a few tricks, but they
> certainly aren't on any sort of "higher plane" than the rest of us.
>
brain does the interpretation, there are some vast differences in how
things are 'seen' by various people. Dyslexia anyone? While Dyslexia in
specific may not be a wholely psychological disorder - there are a whole
host of other visual disorders that have nothing to do with a person's
cones and rods being damaged. You might also want to check my reply to
spectre, as I pointed out what others have noticed - the difference in
visual usage patterns. Artists, engineers, and scientists as well as
various craftsmen tend to use a lot of the 'detailed seeing' where as
other professions and people tend to use it far less. However, even then,
artists still tend to 'see things differently'. If you ever want to have
fun with a group of architects or engineers - take them outside, sit them
down in front of a tree with a fair amount of foliage with pad and pencil
in hand, and then tell them to draw 'the spaces in between the leaves'.
Most of them are so used to looking at and doing object oriented drawing
that reversing it into a spacial only assignment drives them nuts.
Artists tend to be able to do it either way as they are less object
oriented, and more size and shape oriented while not caring if it's an
object or a space that they're describing.
Also - check out the MMPI (Minnesota Mental Personality Inventory) a
psychologic inventory which is a huge battery of 500 plus questions. The
creators of this test gave it to a large number of patients diagnosed with
a variety of mental illnesses, and looked at the results for various
patterns and trends. Then they used the same test on a variety of people
from various professions who were believed to be of sound mental health.
After which they also looked for patterns and trends. Interestingly
enough - artists and people of artistic bent tended to score high in many
of the same areas of the test as people diagnosed with Schizophrenia. :)
Maka
> >Probably the best example I have of the results is
> >http://gausebeck.com/wraithlord.jpg
>
> >Here's one more pic, with only one layer of blending:
> >http://gausebeck.com/scorpion.jpg
>
> I've always liked these. Tho if I were doing them, I'd probably add a bit more
> contrast in the weapons and a contrast color for the WL's head before calling
> them "done".
That and you'd take all the stuff off by the wraithlords feet.
Gausebeck ruined the purity of the plastic base. Oh, do you mean 11
shades darker when you say contrast?
-Maka
incrdbil
wrote:
>
>If you were to spend some time in a school for painting you would see the
>difference, until then you are just blowing hot air.
>
So they genetically alter your eyes or something?
Or perhaps you mean that you are trained to look at certain features
in a subject, then match up a painting method to bring that out in a
work. That's not exactly 'seeing' differently, any more than a
talented baseball scout 'sees' how a person swings differently than
you are I may--they simply know what they are looking for.
Warning: GW stores, tournaments, or other
official sanctioned events may cause brain damage. Research
shows that you must be pretty F***ing stupid to pay full retail
in their stores or through their mail order to these
GW, this one is for you
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
John Hwang
>(John Hwang)
>> >Probably the best example I have of the results is
>> >http://gausebeck.com/wraithlord.jpg
>>
>> >Here's one more pic, with only one layer of blending:
>> >http://gausebeck.com/scorpion.jpg
>>
>> I've always liked these. Tho if I were doing them, I'd probably add a
>> bit more contrast in the weapons and a contrast color for the WL's
>> head before calling them "done".
>
>That and you'd take all the stuff off by the wraithlords feet.
>Gausebeck ruined the purity of the plastic base.
Actually, I believe all of my WLs are based and flocked, and some even have
decorative "bits"...
> Oh, do you mean 11 shades darker when you say contrast?
Not necessarily. For the weapons, I'd add a bit more highlighting so the
detail shows better. For the head, yeah, I'd go with a dark blue-grey color.
John Hwang
>"Anton Svärd" <anton...@telia.com> wrote in ...
>>
>> > > Painters see things *exactly* the same as other people. They have
>> > > the same rods and cones in their eyes as the rest of us. They may
>> > > represent it visually, choose to interpret it differently, know a few
>> > > tricks, but they certainly aren't on any sort of "higher plane" than
>> > > the rest of us.
>> >
>> > If you were to spend some time in a school for painting you would see
>> >the difference, until then you are just blowing hot air.
Really? It seems to me that you're the one blowing smoke to dress up the
obvious.
>> You mean one of those places artsy types go to in order to feel important
>> even though they have no marketable job skills?
>
>No I mean one of those places artsy types go to learn to paint.
So, when you write "No", above, you actually meant "Yes". OK.
And people think *I'm* arrogant...
John Hwang
>johnhw...@cs.com.no.com, John Hwang shouted ...
>> "Spectre" wolf...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>
>> >You perceive things until you learn to see. Painters see things
>> >differently than other people because they are taught to see
>> >things how they really are rather than how they appear to be.
>>
>> Oh, FFS, if this isn't the biggest load of shit I've seen since GW claimed
>> their latest shenanigans were aimed at protecting their IP instead of
>> grabbing more $$$...
>>
>> Painters see things *exactly* the same as other people. They have the same
>> rods and cones in their eyes as the rest of us. They may represent it
>> visually, choose to interpret it differently, know a few tricks, but they
>> certainly aren't on any sort of "higher plane" than the rest of us.
>
>Visually, yes. But since the eye just supplies the data, and the
>brain does the interpretation, there are some vast differences in how
>things are 'seen' by various people.
Agreed.
>Dyslexia anyone? While Dyslexia in
>specific may not be a wholely psychological disorder - there are a whole
>host of other visual disorders that have nothing to do with a person's
>cones and rods being damaged. You might also want to check my reply to
>spectre, as I pointed out what others have noticed - the difference in
>visual usage patterns. Artists, engineers, and scientists as well as
>various craftsmen tend to use a lot of the 'detailed seeing' where as
>other professions and people tend to use it far less.
OK, sure. I'm an artist, engineer, and a craftsman, and I *still* think
Spectre's full of shit here. I think he's just dressing things up to obscure
things, much as any other specialist likes to do to show off.
>However, even then, artists still tend to 'see things differently'.
That's only because of the rampant drug use and lack of sleep during school,
constant starvation after graduation due to inability to find a job that pays
actual salary...
>If you ever want to have
>fun with a group of architects or engineers - take them outside, sit them
>down in front of a tree with a fair amount of foliage with pad and pencil
>in hand, and then tell them to draw 'the spaces in between the leaves'.
*What*?
>Most of them are so used to looking at and doing object oriented
>drawing that reversing it into a spacial only assignment drives them
>nuts.
I think this depends on the people. Good designers understand "space", and I
would actually expect any *good* architects to do quite well here, as it's a
relatively simple mental translation. Same with any *decent* engineer, knowing
"where stuff will go"; for a packaging engineer, it's a trivial exercise.
>Artists tend to be able to do it either way as they are less object
>oriented, and more size and shape oriented while not caring if it's an
>object or a space that they're describing.
Again, I think this depends on the people.
>Also - check out the MMPI (Minnesota Mental Personality Inventory) a
>psychologic inventory which is a huge battery of 500 plus questions. The
>creators of this test gave it to a large number of patients diagnosed with
>a variety of mental illnesses, and looked at the results for various
>patterns and trends. Then they used the same test on a variety of people
>from various professions who were believed to be of sound mental health.
>After which they also looked for patterns and trends. Interestingly
>enough - artists and people of artistic bent tended to score high in many
>of the same areas of the test as people diagnosed with Schizophrenia. :)
No comment. :)
Spectre
> "Spectre" wolf...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >"Anton Svärd" <anton...@telia.com> wrote in ...
> >>
> >> > > Painters see things *exactly* the same as other people. They have
> >> > > the same rods and cones in their eyes as the rest of us. They may
> >> > > represent it visually, choose to interpret it differently, know a
few
> >> > > tricks, but they certainly aren't on any sort of "higher plane"
than
> >> > > the rest of us.
> >> >
> >> > If you were to spend some time in a school for painting you would see
> >> >the difference, until then you are just blowing hot air.
>
> Really? It seems to me that you're the one blowing smoke to dress up the
> obvious.
Not at all, I'm simply pointing out the signal to noise ratio. You are
claiming an understanding from an ignorant position. You can't even
comprehend the difference until someone shows it to you and 'that' is a
process.
>
> >> You mean one of those places artsy types go to in order to feel
important
> >> even though they have no marketable job skills?
> >
> >No I mean one of those places artsy types go to learn to paint.
>
> So, when you write "No", above, you actually meant "Yes". OK.
No, I meant exactly what I said, not what you would have liked me to say.
Spectre
"incrdbil" <incr...@spammebabyflinthills.com> wrote in message
news:3eaad3b8....@news.flinthills.com...
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 16:38:10 GMT, "Spectre" <wolf...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >If you were to spend some time in a school for painting you would see the
> >difference, until then you are just blowing hot air.
> >
>
> So they genetically alter your eyes or something?
Not at all but it does change the way you see things.
>
> Or perhaps you mean that you are trained to look at certain features
> in a subject, then match up a painting method to bring that out in a
> work.
No, I mean you learn to see differently. Without having the experience to
understand what I'm talking about others are like fish out of water.
Spectre
"incrdbil" <incr...@spammebabyflinthills.com> wrote in message
news:3eaad3b8....@news.flinthills.com...
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >If you were to spend some time in a school for painting you would see the
> >difference, until then you are just blowing hot air.
> >
>
> So they genetically alter your eyes or something?
Not at all but it does change the way you see things.
>
> Or perhaps you mean that you are trained to look at certain features
> in a subject, then match up a painting method to bring that out in a
> work.
No, I mean you learn to see differently. Without having the experience to
understand what I'm talking about others are like fish out of water.
>That's not exactly 'seeing' differently, any more than a
Spectre
(snip)
> OK, sure. I'm an artist, engineer, and a craftsman, and I *still* think
> Spectre's full of shit here. I think he's just dressing things up to
obscure
> things, much as any other specialist likes to do to show off.
How am I trying to show off? I already said I'm not the best miniature
painter so wtf? You are trying to read to much into it my freind, showing
off is a non issue since I've never even met any of you. Keep tooting your
horn though bro it's kind of amusing watching you squirm.
(snip)
incrdbil
wrote:
>
>Not at all but it does change the way you see things.
>No, I mean you learn to see differently. Without having the experience to
>understand what I'm talking about others are like fish out of water.
>
again, how you 'see' isn't changed--what you look for, is changed.
It's just a semantics argument, mostly.
Spectre
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 19:41:07 GMT, "Spectre" <wolf...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >Not at all but it does change the way you see things.
>
> >No, I mean you learn to see differently. Without having the experience to
> >understand what I'm talking about others are like fish out of water.
> >
>
> again, how you 'see' isn't changed--what you look for, is changed.
> It's just a semantics argument, mostly.
I guess.
John Hwang
>"John Hwang" <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote
>> OK, sure. I'm an artist, engineer, and a craftsman, and I *still* think
>> Spectre's full of shit here. I think he's just dressing things up to
>> obscure things, much as any other specialist likes to do to show off.
>
>How am I trying to show off?
Everybody *else* here is taking pains to keep their responses clearly
understandable to the layperson, the non-professional painter. When they use
non-basic terminology, they *explain* it.
You're making the claims about how artists see "differently", without any
explanation or clarity behind them.
Try responing in regular English, that may be helpful.
>it's kind of amusing watching you squirm.
Huh?
Spectre
> "Spectre" wolf...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >"John Hwang" <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote
>
> >> OK, sure. I'm an artist, engineer, and a craftsman, and I *still*
think
> >> Spectre's full of shit here. I think he's just dressing things up to
> >> obscure things, much as any other specialist likes to do to show off.
> >
> >How am I trying to show off?
>
> Everybody *else* here is taking pains to keep their responses clearly
> understandable to the layperson, the non-professional painter.
I have done the same, would you like to reread the whole thread? I think you
should. Just because 'you' don't understand what I've said does not mean I
haven't explained myself clearly. Why don't you ask Myrmidon if he
understands what I've said? He has a depth of knowledge which you can't even
comprehend and that is simply because no one has showed you. The sad part is
that just because you are confused about the topic that you think everyone
else is full of shit, can't you see how idiotic that is?
When they use
> non-basic terminology, they *explain* it.
Ok, it is the emphasis that changes the way you see as a painter, it is
something that cannot be guessed at it has to be experienced.
>
> You're making the claims about how artists see "differently", without any
> explanation or clarity behind them.
There is only one way to clarify the experience and that is to experience
it.
>
> Try responing in regular English, that may be helpful.
I have, yet you still hold your ignorance up to the sun and shout that it is
your god. My origional post demonstrated a recognition of Myrmidons depth of
knowledge, which is something you have consistantly overlooked in your vain
attempt to understand something you know nothing about.
>
> >it's kind of amusing watching you squirm.
>
> Huh?
Keep it up, I'll shoot down all your ignorant veiws, subject changes and
revesrals my freind.