|
Gareth Gobulcoque posted:I've been super hyped to paint the oldcron that's been in my painting que in SENMM. Sure it looks bad and dumb, but also awesome. Shia Leboeuf macro goes here. I want to see a chromecron, you should totally do it. In other painting queue news my new Combined Army Starter box arrived this morning so now I need to decide what to paint tomorrow after I get some more primer. So I've gone from having nothing to paint two days ago to an rear end tonne. Current possibilities are: Imperial Assault - 9 Storm Troopers - 3 Probe Droids - AT-ST - Luke Skywalker - Jedi Hero - Beardy Hero - Generic Girl Hero - 2 Random Republic Troopers - 2 Giant cat things (I'm guessing Nexu from KoTOR/SWTOR) - 2 Scout Troopers with Big Lasers - 3 Imperial Agents - 4 Trandoshans Infinity - Umbra Legates - 3 Unidron Batroids - Maakrep - Fracta
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:10 |
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Next thing you know, people will say cel shaded minis ( http://gundamguy.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/1100-rx-78-2-gundam-animation-color.html?m=1 ) look bad and we'll start using real metal metallics again. People do say that. They're called Euro style painters. And also we're tap dancing on the edge of another dumb NMM vs TMM argument, yay! But you'll never convince me this isn't awesome: http://www.puttyandpaint.com/projects/3150
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
The only real way to get really good looking metal is to dip all of your figures in the molten remains of a Sisters of Battle army. It's a much better technique than TMM or NMM. Personally though, I am in the camp of metals dry brushed in a few layers of silver over black, then detailed with rust tarnishing. Either that or coated in multiple layers of black and brown wash then highlighted with a dry brush of the base for brass stuff. At least for well used stuff like swords, though it won't fit every aesthetic, but it will look less flat, which is a problem I see with TMM when I use it. Buffing and non Buffing metalizer paints are also pretty cool. Part of me has always wondered how a Necron army would look painted in Alclad aircraft aluminum. (Though fingerprints would become an issue most likely)
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
I'd argue that "TMM" means "using NMM-style techniques with metallic paints", not "drybrushing Boltgun Metal on the mini and calling it a day".
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
jadebullet posted:The only real way to get really good looking metal is to dip all of your figures in the molten remains of a Sisters of Battle army. It's a much better technique than TMM or NMM. That only really works for Grey Knights, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
JoshTheStampede posted:People do say that. They're called Euro style painters. And also we're tap dancing on the edge of another dumb NMM vs TMM argument, yay! That's a really cool piece. I don't really get the x vs y arguments, I like trying and often getting it wrong and can really appreciate when someone does a cool paintjob / effect whether its (SE)NMM, OSL, Brushed or Airbrushed, Monochrome etc.. No-one's going to convince me that this isn't both technically and visually impressive (SENMM):  That this isn't great (OSL galore):  And holy poo poo... (Pure awesome) 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:I'd argue that "TMM" means "using NMM-style techniques with metallic paints", not "drybrushing Boltgun Metal on the mini and calling it a day". I agree completely. I think people get it in their head that NMM is an "advanced technique that only true-rear end painters do" because there's no shortcut easy tabletop way to do it like there is with metallics. Real TMM is about as similar to that Boltgun/drybrush stuff as NMM is. To me it's always been a question of scale and style. Smaller or cartoonier/stylized minis get NMM, larger or gritter/realistic ones look better with metallics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Good TMM takes longer than good NMM for me. I, personally, would paint a lot more TMM if my lovely phone camera could even approach what the figure looks like in real life. Spend two hours carefully glazing metals and you take a picture that looks worse than drybrushed boltgun over black primer with a heavily pooled black wash.
Gareth Gobulcoque fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
JoshTheStampede posted:I agree completely. I think people get it in their head that NMM is an "advanced technique that only true-rear end painters do" because there's no shortcut easy tabletop way to do it like there is with metallics. Real TMM is about as similar to that Boltgun/drybrush stuff as NMM is.  I just prefer NMM due to enjoying the more stylized (anime) minis or giving them that effect. Also for the practical reason that painting with metallics gets everywhere and then you have to start using segregated brushes, pots, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
richyp posted:No-one's going to convince me that this isn't both technically and visually impressive (SENMM): It's impressive in pictures, but specular highlights are very dependent upon the angle of the viewer (even moreso with actual reflections), so the results are very dependent upon the background. Even well-painted SENMM can look "off" if the backdrop isn't a matching color. This applies just as much in computer graphics; for instance, see Subnautica's lighting model changes. With accurate illumination, the foreground objects look more like they belong. Diffuse reflection is another story. It looks pretty much the same no matter what angle the viewer is at, provided the "light source" is at a constant position relative to the object. Most OSL (including the one you posted) is diffuse reflection, so it looks right in a wider variety of circumstances (although you don't want to make the ambient light look too out of place). In general, I don't think most people have an issue with OSL because of this and because the light source is actually a part of the model. The benefit of using metallic paints is that they're a closer approximation of the viewing-angle-dependence of specular highlights. However, most still behave somewhat diffusely, since in the end, the specular highlights come from a bunch of tiny mica flakes. (Metallic paints that you buff to a shine are an obvious exception to this.) The end result is that metallic paints are great for a mid-range of specularity: stuff that's shiny, but not like the chromed exhaust on your hot rod. You can also use gloss varnish to get specular highlights, but I've never seen anyone use that to get a good metallic look, and I've never tried myself. Which style you prefer is entirely a personal choice, but both NMM and TMM have some distinct advantages in terms of what they can realistically depict. (I happen to like slightly-grittier miniatures, so I prefer TMM.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:
This is true, but materials like moist skin and leather and such also have specular highlights and no one uses special paints for those. I'm not sure why everyone harps on the supposed angle-dependence of NMM but doesn't care that highlighted faces and boots and poo poo have similar assumed lighting angles. Or should, anyway - if people are painting NMM without paying attention to where the light is coming from and applying that same lighting situation to the whole model, then yeah it'll look bad, and look bad in a very hard-to-put-my-finger-on-it way that a lot of people will just assume is "NMM is bad".
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
JoshTheStampede posted:This is true, but materials like moist skin and leather and such also have specular highlights and no one uses special paints for those. I'm not sure why everyone harps on the supposed angle-dependence of NMM but doesn't care that highlighted faces and boots and poo poo have similar assumed lighting angles. I dunno. I'd probably use a gloss/satin varnish for those. Skin's hard though since you can't really do subsurface scattering with paint. But then, glazes are probably close enough at small scales. But again, it comes down to preference. Not everyone paints their little guys to look realistic anyway. Avenging Dentist fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:I dunno. I'd probably use a gloss/satin varnish for those. Skin's hard though since you can't really do subsurface scattering with paint. But then, glazes are probably close enough at small scales. I think that's the interesting thing, for me the chrome/SENMM wont work in every environment (the same as a reflection map in 3D modelling is just a pre-rendered static image applied as the reflection source and doesn't work in the wrong environment) it's the fact that the person painted it in a way that mimicked what they were trying to achieve that impresses me, where as painting gloss varnish to actually get a real specular highlight from a real light source isn't as technical. I'm not saying that metallic paints or varnishes are bad, nor am I saying that any particular method is better than the other just that I'm impressed by a painters ability to realistically simulate lighting effects without actually using real world light. In terms of preference, as someone who doesn't really game with miniatures I tend to look at painted stuff more like a picture rather than a gaming object that has to look passable at every angle. For gaming purpose the basecoat, wash highlight is pretty much the de-facto method, works great and is pretty much how I paint most of my stuff, but if I'm looking through CMON or someother showcase site the ones that always stand out for me are the ones that do something where you have to double take whether it's just a light shined on a reflective surface or actually simulated well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Yeah, there's a reason it's called "tabletop level", and that reason is that unless you're entering Armies on Parade, zero people will ever give a gently caress what your gaming models look like but you. If they look bad no one cares - hell, playing against someone with a painted army is rare enough its awesome on its own - and if they look good you may get a "nice army". I put time into gaming models because I enjoy painting and want to get better and I have these models anyway, but I know it's all for me and not going to ever be like, ~recognized~
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
I find myself being more impressed by a high level of technical skill, but I appreciate a cool style more, even if it's not that great a paint job.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:I find myself being more impressed by a high level of technical skill, but I appreciate a cool style more, even if it's not that great a paint job. I'm so 100% with you there. I was actually talking about that with a friend yesterday and this is a great example of it (NSFW for a model with boobs): http://www.planetfigure.com/attachments/01-jpg.234748/ That's two box arts for the same model. The one on the right is by Pepa Sevaadra, and is super representative of her work: She mostly paints female figures, and has super smooth blends and all her models look like porcelain statues. I cannot even conceive of the talent needed to do that. But I don't actually like the style artistically. The one on the left is from some Korean dude I have never heard of before named Myeong-Ha Hwang, and looks like a painting - you can see brushstrokes in some places, the highlights on the face and nose are exaggerated and stylized, and to me it's just a much more interesting and pleasing work. It also shows how drastically the paintjob can affect the sculpt - the entire face shape looks different on those two models, and if you look at the unpainted sculpt, it's rather angular and she has sharp cheekbones and a pretty defined jawline and a strong nose, and Pepa's version looks a lot rounder and smoother, because she chose to smooth out and hide those features instead of accentuate them. And again, I can't even imagine having the vision and talent necessary to decide things like that and make them happen. Whereas I look at Hwang's version and think yeah, with enough practice and dedication I could maybe someday paint like that. It's also a minor gripe I have about companies choice of box art painters - Pepa is a pretty prolific one and it bothers me a little that I can't look at the box and see what the model actually looks like. Kiril Kanaev is another popular box art painter and is known for creating texture out of nothing - which makes it hard to look at the art and know if that cloth texture or whatever is sculpted on or just painted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
I finished the last of the Meganobz! They've been sitting on my painting table as I passed them over for Kommandos and other projects, but I've finally bulked the squad out to 9 of the big lugs.       And now that I've finished up the squad, here's all 9!     
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
SRM posted:I finished the last of the Meganobz! They've been sitting on my painting table as I passed them over for Kommandos and other projects, but I've finally bulked the squad out to 9 of the big lugs. More of this, less neverending arguments about technique
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Fyrbrand posted:More of this, less neverending arguments about technique Hey discussion of technique is fun. But also point taken! Here's what I have been working in tonight:   
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
I struggle with simplicity vs technique in my own painting. Simple themes, well executed, look better to me than a complicated technical theme. At least on an army level. One of my goals for when I start painting again is to simplify, streamline, and focus on the basics. Compare:    With:  Wow that looks really good!  Yeah pretty cool  A sea of copper and its all blurred together in my head  What is even going on here? My army looks great zoomed in, but on a tabletop level a well done mono color theme beats it imo. Part of my problem is my style, but part of it's just color choice and where I am putting my highlights. If I could paint a deeper copper with more clear highlights I think it would help. They do look pretty good in their element though, but it's not often they fight on painted trench terrain:   
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
Now that I look at my minis maybe it's my bases that are the culprit. They blend in with my models.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
Fyrbrand posted:More of this, less neverending arguments about technique WHY NOT BOTH?!?!?!?!?  And one for our resident Iron Warriors player:  Alexi Demidov, I am jealous as gently caress over your airbrushing skills.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 11:38
|
|
|
Today I'm giving my cousin the gift of ham, with the new space marine paint set and some tools. He's said he'd like to try painting one of them, so now he gets everything he needs
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
I'm not the best painter, but I'm really proud of my Shermans. They still need decals glued on, which I might gently caress up, so have some photos before I do that:     They're for Flames, so 15mm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
BULBASAUR posted:Now that I look at my minis maybe it's my bases that are the culprit. They blend in with my models. I feel like a martian red for basing would provide a sharp enough contrast with your paint scheme to make the models more defined and less blended together.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
BULBASAUR posted:Now that I look at my minis maybe it's my bases that are the culprit. They blend in with my models. It is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
What gold paints are good? I'm using GW Ruric Armor Gold, and the coverage on it is really terrible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:What gold paints are good? I'm using GW Ruric Armor Gold, and the coverage on it is really terrible. Vallejo Liquid Gold is great, but a bit tricky to work with since it's an alcohol-based paint. If you want regular acrylic paint, their Model Air line is good stuff. Also, consider putting a layer of light brown tan over the model before putting on gold paint. It helps with coverage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:What gold paints are good? I'm using GW Ruric Armor Gold, and the coverage on it is really terrible. I'm guessing you're using Auric Gold? That one is god awful for coverage. Either apply another gold like Retributor first, or a brown, and then do a few coats of Auric. Or look at an alternative paint line like Slimnoid suggested.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
GW's Balthasar gold covers pretty well too. For non-GW stuff I've had good results with P3's Brass Balls. Auric Gold is just for highlights and needs to go over a good base.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:What gold paints are good? I'm using GW Ruric Armor Gold, and the coverage on it is really terrible. It helps to undercoat with a non-metallic in a similar color (so in this case, something like a leathery brown or an ochre). If you're looking to branch out into other lines, I've heard good things about Scale75's metallics (still need to try them myself!).
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
BULBASAUR posted:Now that I look at my minis maybe it's my bases that are the culprit. They blend in with my models. I think you're right. Individually your dudes' paintjobs are awesome, but they just meld into this mass of dusty metal and hazard stripes - which isn't exactly a bad thing, but it's not as visually impressive as it could. I kind of agree about the martian ironearth bases or the like - your dudes are very muted and desaturated, so something a little bit brighter that contrasted with your Marines would make them pop a little more, I think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Drake_263 posted:I think you're right. Individually your dudes' paintjobs are awesome, but they just meld into this mass of dusty metal and hazard stripes - which isn't exactly a bad thing, but it's not as visually impressive as it could. I kind of agree about the martian ironearth bases or the like - your dudes are very muted and desaturated, so something a little bit brighter that contrasted with your Marines would make them pop a little more, I think. I went with the opposite with my old DA models.  The model itself is neat and clean, but the bases are rusted and grungy-looking. It gives a sharper contrast and makes the model stand out more and prevents them from blending together. Contrasts are important for models of this scale, as it helps differentiate them from their environment and makes them easier to spot three-odd feet away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
This thread inspired me to start painting again, but my paints were being weird. It all ended up inside the center of the brush hairs somehow, meaning I had to break through the outer layer of hairs to get any paint down. Obviously made it impossible to do anything precisely. This happened with both Citadel Dwarf Flesh and Vallejo Beasty Brown, thinned with purified water. Does anyone have any idea what the what happened?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
^^^^ how thick was the paint, and did you wet your brushes before hand? Also what brand or where did the brushes come from? That's a really weird issue I don't recall ever seeing myself. I've been trying to think of an army to put together, and I was trying to come up with a theme. I really love the rainbow egg resin kits, the problem is they're very much not 40k. But how about if paired with death corp soldiers, would they look a bit more fitting? They do have that alternate ww2 era of technology, just more stream lined like it comes from a world where they apparently remember how to shape/weld steel rather than riveting flat panels together. http://www.maschinenkrueger.com/joomla/ That guys site has the most reference photos of work I've found so far. I also have Not-Sisters coming eventually from that tgg kick starter, but that's a ways off and those obviously won't fit at all with the rainbow egg resin. The Navigator House this guy came up with is something else that inspired me, mostly with his scratch built knight and vehicles. ( http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/584689.page?userfilterid=84355 ). It seems like something similar in terms of scratch building vehicles and armour for the sisters would fit together well? Do either of those sound like something that would be visually interesting/worth putting the effort into, and still fit the 40k realm? VolatileSky fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Mar 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:I feel like a martian red for basing would provide a sharp enough contrast with your paint scheme to make the models more defined and less blended together. Drake_263 posted:I think you're right. Individually your dudes' paintjobs are awesome, but they just meld into this mass of dusty metal and hazard stripes - which isn't exactly a bad thing, but it's not as visually impressive as it could. I kind of agree about the martian ironearth bases or the like - your dudes are very muted and desaturated, so something a little bit brighter that contrasted with your Marines would make them pop a little more, I think. Thanks dudes, that makes a lot of sense. I never really considered all my models together in one place, which sounds dumb, but I started painting a single model at a time. I'll do some red earth bases and see what it looks like. Sisko also suggested a dark grey or cold blue, but I'm not sure how that will blend in with everything else. Slimnoid posted:I went with the opposite with my old DA models. Would you suggest I go with simple, neat, and clean bases?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
BULBASAUR posted:Would you suggest I go with simple, neat, and clean bases? I'm not sure what would be 'neat and clean' bases for Horus Heresy other than like...an Eldar craftworld. I only used mine as an example of contrasts, and that is what I think is missing from your models. Individually they're fantastic, and even in a group they could look great if your bases just had a more dynamic contrast to them. Martian red is one suggestion. Water or swampy/sewage bases is another. Hell, even just adding more green vegetation would help. Your IW are already dirty and grungy so it naturally follows "let's put them on the same kind of base to match their armor" but as you're aware, it all blends together into an indistinct image. .
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
BULBASAUR posted:Would you suggest I go with simple, neat, and clean bases? For one thing, it looks like the rims of your bases are dark grey. It's really similar to the dark bits of the armor; maybe paint them pure black? Although, I think another reason your guys blend together compared to the other armies you posted is that you put them physically closer together. In your shots, there's no negative space between them to divide them up. In particular, the shots other armies ensure that all the marines overlap at most one other marine, whereas many of your guys overlap 2 other dudes in the back row. A lot of the guys in the back are >50% hidden.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Any particular place to buy brushes from? All LGS sell at best GW or P3. I could hit up a craft store or an art store. I think I'm looking for a natural bristle. I used to use a Windsor Newton. I need to grab some primer too. P3 Black was my go-to. It worked fine for me in the past so I'm inclined to stick with it. It's been awhile though so I'm open to suggestions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:10 |
|
|
Amazon, Dick Blick, or your friendly local art supply store should have good brushes. I usually just go through Amazon or Dick Blick's website because I'm lazy. As for primers, everyone who uses Tamiya Fine Grey Surface Primer seems to love it; if you're set on using black primer, I'm not sure what's best, although most black primers are pretty good (white primers are another story).
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 06:23
|
|