New Trends - Weathering and Battle Damage

[LunchBox]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I don't have a problem with NMM, I use it myself if I think the model itself will benefit from it.

 

What I was getting at, and it is along the same line as you weathering topic, is that for a years SENMM was on everything, and the vast majority of it was done very badly. But painters were doing it because it was easier to paint blue and brown with a white line inbetween than it was to try and do correct highlighting and shading.

 

Eventually people gave it up and began to work on real technique, or just stopped trying to be pro-painters. LOL.

 

I myself continue to struggle with realism in my figures. I know I can paint well, but I am not where I consider myself "on par" with the more notable painters.

 

Still I consider it an effort worth working on so I keep on keepin' on. I share what I have learned over the years in hopes of building up the community here in Texas and with whomever online has an interest.

 

Weathering is one of those things that I think is pretty hard to do well, and more often than not I find it is done like a bad Japanese Anime, over the top and with too much blood. :D

 

I knew what you meant...oppressor... B)

 

 

So, I read this thread. And its a great discussion. I'll add my two cents to it.

 

In our group I'm referred to as "The Artificer." I can model a bit, I can paint a bit and I take my time to make stuff look phenomenal. I also bust out great looking stuff (not awesome looking, just great) in record time. It takes me one night to paint an HQ well. I painted a space marine army completely and they were clean cut, no damage on them. Since I am rebuilding and doing another 3 armies, I decided that I'd do something a bit different with each. I am doing my Salamanders to look like they've been fighting. I am painting them up to look like they have been at war. The tanks have mud on the tracks, some chips, broken armor plates. The marines' armor isn't quite as pristine as when they first set out. They'll be clean, but gritty.

 

Now, what this helps me do is go "oh, I made a mistake trying to get this shoulderpad to look right. I can cover that with a bit of battle damage." This is not to say that I will do this for each and every mistake I make, but if the model is nearly done and I slip up with the brush over a part that took time, especially on a display piece... I may just add some damage to it because it would save time over trying to go back and reblend/touchup that part.

 

Hey Pants...when my dog was a puppy, he was mostly white, with a black butt, and black half way down his legs...we called him "Mr. Pants".

 

Anyhow, to your point, covering up errors with battle damage is fine, if that's what you want to do. It's the over reliance on it, and the subsequent "ooh-ahh" from spectators that gets to me. Using it as a means to enhance, or cover a few tiny errors isn't really the point I was making.

[Korloth Darkwolf]

Weathering is a necessary part of the painting part of the hobby but as with all techniques it has a place, purpose and limit. A really well painted clean and weathering free model will always look miles better than a shoddily done one with slapdash weathering. But a really well painted one with well thought out and applied weathering will give that extra bit of realism to the model. There are a few examples of good ones out there, but i can't place my hands on links at the moment.

 

Marines keep their equipment in as top condition as they can. Repairing a shoulder pad in the middle of a battle is out but it would be done as soon as they could, so I always feel that lots of damage is a big no on marines but that is my humble opinion.

 

I have battle damaged marines but there are probably at best 1 out of 10 in number and all have a story. My plasma cannon marines have damaged armour and lots of bionics (a fluff and gaming history choice due to my awful dice rolls!). I have a vet sergeant with lots of damaged armour and a chainsword strapped to the stump of his arm and a few others.

 

My point is i feel that the damage has to tell a story (even if its just that the tank has been through a pond!) and be applied to reinforce the painting and pose of the model, not to cover up for a defeciency in another technique. I'd rather see someone have a really good crack at a clean, decent paint job than say "but it's weathered" to a really poor one.

[GumbaFish]

I think you make some good points LunchBox and I would say I have to agree with you. I personally weather my marines and I am trying to paint mainly for fun and in enough quantity that maybe some day I will play again. But even I am aware of the effects of weathering, I try to paint the miniature cleanly so that I would be happy with it if I just left it there then begin to add the weathering because that is the sort of style I want for the army. But I do feel that it can be used as a crutch to cover up for lack of talent or desire or time and I know I do it myself sometimes when I think if I really want to do that 4th layer of white on my should pad trim or 'heck I'll just cover it up with weathering'. Now I know you were specifically not speaking concerning army painters but I ramble a bit and always give backstory, but I digress.

 

Concerning competition level painting I certainly agree weathering seems to be a hot trend at the moment that gets praise it doesnt always deserve. I feel I can usually pretty easily tell a really well painted mini that just happens to be excellently weathered from a so so one that uses it as a technique to get praise. But as you mention that doesn't mean a majority of joe gamers do understand this and instead just drool over whatever hot technique of the minute is circulating the internet. I think weathering is though of as an easy way to make something look better when in fact its pretty hard to make it look very convincing as I have humbly found out. I think its a worthwhile technique that takes time to perfect just like anything else, but just most people use it as a band aid maybe myself included.

 

I've rambled a bit and lost my train of thought but I think you have raised an interesting point and glad to see a discussion on it. Lately I have been really trying to learn some different techniques and paint a range of different miniatures just to try things out but I always somehow become more focused on trying to paint armies even though I don't play and haven't played in years, I suppose I hold out hope that I will play again someday even though it remains unlikely. I always enjoy your desire to learn more and push your talents and I think it has given me the nudge to want to start taking breaks from painting numbers every now and then to really take my time on one figure and see what I can learn. Now if only I could get some good white undercoat again I could try getting comfortable with that for some single characters to mess around on.

 

A quick question to Lunchbox, how did you first decide/go about progressing to a high competition level? I have no desire, nor the skill to be competing at golden demons or the like but I really would like to be able to produce some nice single figures every now and then to break up rank and file work. Afterall I paint so infrequent now I might as well concentrate on one figure for a bit :rolleyes:

[doctor_wu]

Really weathering should only be done to how how the model would be in the 40k universe. Some chaos marines may not care that much if there stuff gets dirty if they are plague marines. Weathered and rusty pooseesed are also ok becuase I do not think a deamon would care to clean armor. Loyalists are more likely to be clean.

[LunchBox]

I think you make some good points LunchBox and I would say I have to agree with you. I personally weather my marines and I am trying to paint mainly for fun and in enough quantity that maybe some day I will play again. But even I am aware of the effects of weathering, I try to paint the miniature cleanly so that I would be happy with it if I just left it there then begin to add the weathering because that is the sort of style I want for the army. But I do feel that it can be used as a crutch to cover up for lack of talent or desire or time and I know I do it myself sometimes when I think if I really want to do that 4th layer of white on my should pad trim or 'heck I'll just cover it up with weathering'. Now I know you were specifically not speaking concerning army painters but I ramble a bit and always give backstory, but I digress.

 

Concerning competition level painting I certainly agree weathering seems to be a hot trend at the moment that gets praise it doesnt always deserve. I feel I can usually pretty easily tell a really well painted mini that just happens to be excellently weathered from a so so one that uses it as a technique to get praise. But as you mention that doesn't mean a majority of joe gamers do understand this and instead just drool over whatever hot technique of the minute is circulating the internet. I think weathering is though of as an easy way to make something look better when in fact its pretty hard to make it look very convincing as I have humbly found out. I think its a worthwhile technique that takes time to perfect just like anything else, but just most people use it as a band aid maybe myself included.

 

I've rambled a bit and lost my train of thought but I think you have raised an interesting point and glad to see a discussion on it. Lately I have been really trying to learn some different techniques and paint a range of different miniatures just to try things out but I always somehow become more focused on trying to paint armies even though I don't play and haven't played in years, I suppose I hold out hope that I will play again someday even though it remains unlikely. I always enjoy your desire to learn more and push your talents and I think it has given me the nudge to want to start taking breaks from painting numbers every now and then to really take my time on one figure and see what I can learn. Now if only I could get some good white undercoat again I could try getting comfortable with that for some single characters to mess around on.

 

A quick question to Lunchbox, how did you first decide/go about progressing to a high competition level? I have no desire, nor the skill to be competing at golden demons or the like but I really would like to be able to produce some nice single figures every now and then to break up rank and file work. Afterall I paint so infrequent now I might as well concentrate on one figure for a bit :wub:

 

Ah...your first 2 paragraphs tell me you 'get it'.

 

As to your last bit: I have always enjoyed the painting and modeling aspect of the hobby. I started as a gamer, and at one point, played every weekend. I started spending more and more time on each model, and really focussing on trying new things, and pushing myself as hard as I could. At first, I concenrated on intense conversion work, but later grew to desire painting excellence. I started winning a lot of local competitions, and "best painted army" at tournies became almost expected. From there, I realized I might be one of those few who could compete on a larger scale, without embarassing myself. I felt I could gauge my abilities best by competing in Golden Demon competitions, even though I had said I was not interest in that previously. My first GD was last year in Chicago, and I eeked out a silver in a relatively low competion category; 40K squad. However, I earned honorable mentions in the 2 single fig categories. This told me I was at least on the right path, although I had a ton of work to do, and a long way to go. This served as fuel for my passion, and drove me to push limits I never knew existed within myself. This year in Chicago landed me 3 demons, but as I stated earlier, only one (bronze in open) was a true indication that I was on the right path. While the others were still competitive, they were not to the level that the open category had jumped to. The class had over 50 entries, and took the judges 2 hours to place. Finally, my lowest demon trophy was my best award, and I showed myself that I could produce something that would rise above the fiercest of competition. Again, 2 honorable mentions in the single fig categories...again I realize I HAVE TO get better.

 

So, for me, the love of painting, and my intrinsic motivation to be the best fuels me forward. I use these competitions as an indicator of what I need to work on. For instance, a tiny little stupid error on my WFB single entry knocked it out of the placing. MY FAULT. As a painter, I should have been the first one to see the error...not the judges.

 

I cannot, and do not expect everyone out there to share my goals...but they are mine.

[Iacton]

Lunch!! You http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg148/Iacton/Smilies/175_censored.gif!!!

 

I've just read your comments on that competition thread, and a work mate ran into my office thinking that I was having some sort of seizure!! ;)

 

I quote... (amongst others :P )

 

Painting lacks any definition...the only good thing is the mini is in pain. I know I am.

 

Comedy gold. Thanks for brightening an otherwise drab day ;)

[ShinyRhino]

Interesting discussion.

I have also seen some "competition level" pieces that rely a lot on weathering that looks nice, but lacks the level of detail I'd appreciate on a "competition piece". Not sure if those guilty of this are using the weathering as a crutch, or are just impressed with a new skill they've learned.

 

I'm one of those people who likes a clean, fresh paintjob on my Marines. I can appreciate the aestetics of some wear and tear, and even got a little tutorial from Todd Swanson on the matter a while ago. But, rusted, busted armor just isn't my bag. I like my hard-edge highlights, and am very proud of my freehanded Ultramarine and squad symbols. I've done a grand total of ONE battle-damaged Marine:

 

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z43/goalie20/Warhammer%2040K/random1.jpg

 

I only painted him this way because I use secondhand parts a lot to keep my hobby costs down. I couldn't get his shoulderpad filed clean and smooth without wrecking the rims, so I painted it as a blast/scorch mark. To be honest, I feel like I failed badly at the effect. But, I paint for a cathartic release, and so I can put painted models on the field of battle.

There's also the intimidation factor of mucking up a perfectly painted model (at my level, anyways) with brown paint or sticky dust. If I bork it up, I have to start all over, and lose hours and hours of work.

 

But, that's neither here nor there, really. I'm no competitive painter. In the realm of competition (from a less-skilled painter's view) weatherers walk a very thin line. Too much and you look like a fop, and not enough looks like you're running at half-strength. There IS a profusion of weathering lately, as can be seen everywhere. It's the "in" style right now, like NMM was before that.

 

And now I'm rambling, so I'll step off the box.

[mario]

I will just start with the easier point regarding GAR's second example:

You don't give much information so this is based on the assumption that both miniatures were of similar high quality and the judge used "decal versus freehand icon" as a final judging criteria and decided for the decal because he (the judge) thought that the decal looked better and that miniature won. It's that simple and the judge in this case would not be afflicted by stupidity for that choice. If the judging was based on some sort of "how good does it look" criteria then there are no points for effort. How would you even judge effort without seeing the whole creation process?

 

If I (for example) participate in a cooking contest (in this fictional case the same dish is to be prepared by everyone) then I do not deserve points if somebody else made the dish faster or used some trick (as long as it stays within the rules). And the same goes if my dish were to taste worse even though I needed more time to finish it. If someone else made it faster and better then they should get points and not me for my great effort. If there were some sort of prize for effort then it could well be that the judges think my work should deserve it. In this case only.

 

 

The second point is this whole thread. To use an isomorphic argument: LunchBox, you should try getting the same blending that you do with wet blending. It seems that you use this multi glaze technique as a crutch to avoid learning wet blending which could get the same result but would need more of a different effort. :lol:

 

Each and every technique you (not you you but everyone you) learn to use you use as a crutch to paint better, cleaner, easier, faster, and smarter. Period. Some learn what they need to get a specific effect and are happy with that, others learn for the sake of learning and exploring. Declaring some type of use of some technique as a crutch is myopic and not the observance of a new trend.

[LunchBox]

Lunch!! You http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg148/Iacton/Smilies/175_censored.gif!!!

 

I've just read your comments on that competition thread, and a work mate ran into my office thinking that I was having some sort of seizure!! :(

 

I quote... (amongst others :D )

 

Painting lacks any definition...the only good thing is the mini is in pain. I know I am.

 

Comedy gold. Thanks for brightening an otherwise drab day ;)

 

I enjoyed it...some of my comments were a bit 'pointed'...but I'm an @$$. It looks as if the board was given a general warning...suspiciously after my post...lol

 

The second point is this whole thread. To use an isomorphic argument: LunchBox, you should try getting the same blending that you do with wet blending. It seems that you use this multi glaze technique as a crutch to avoid learning wet blending which could get the same result but would need more of a different effort. ;)

 

Each and every technique you (not you you but everyone you) learn to use you use as a crutch to paint better, cleaner, easier, faster, and smarter. Period. Some learn what they need to get a specific effect and are happy with that, others learn for the sake of learning and exploring. Declaring some type of use of some technique as a crutch is myopic and not the observance of a new trend.

 

Hi Mario...I understand your take on this, but it misses my point a little. My observation of this trend has brought me to what I feel is a reasonable conclusion that there are in fact painters out there that use this as a crutch...not so much the "crutch" itself. My personal feelings about weathering are relatively clear...I feel it should be done to enhance a model, not dominate it. As to your point...I understand your "argument", but I've already been through the wet blending stage...it's a basic technique. I have since moved on to other, more complicated techniques, and aim to learn even more. Actually, and I realize this isn't the point, but wet blending and glazing yield vastly different results, and it's nearly impossible to achieve the same level of depth, tonal variance, and realism through wet blending.

 

Obviously, a lot of this is subjective.

[barek]

I've just read your comments on that competition thread, ...

Please, where?

[Starks333]

I will just start with the easier point regarding GAR's second example:

You don't give much information so this is based on the assumption that both miniatures were of similar high quality and the judge used "decal versus freehand icon" as a final judging criteria and decided for the decal because he (the judge) thought that the decal looked better and that miniature won. It's that simple and the judge in this case would not be afflicted by stupidity for that choice. If the judging was based on some sort of "how good does it look" criteria then there are no points for effort. How would you even judge effort without seeing the whole creation process?

 

to be a judge, of anything, you need to have already been there or at least understand what it is you are judging, because until you know how something could look with more advanced effort put in, you cannot compare the levels that seperate

 

perfectly clean edge highlighted flat colours, may not have errors, while the blended piece has a few, but you cant simply compare them, because they arent the same, you need to relate

 

edge highlighting, is far easier, requires basic understanding and effort to accomplish, its an effect that does not work for certain things/shapes, it has no depth, and lacks character

blending, even with a few errors, is a much more advanced technique, that requires much more knowledge..it can have depth, character, and texture

 

now assume that the blending is well done, but has only a couple small errors(maybe a tiny stain or rough blend here and there)

 

saying that one is better because its error free is like awarding mediocrity, and it not only burns those who put the extra time in, but it makes those who paint mediocrely actually think they are high quality...Tim Holly for example...he might as well be the posterboy for this type of reaction, because he has daemons and slayers awarded because hes the best of the mediocre, he thinks his style is unique or excellent, but it is completely lacking in any sound artistic development, but it is very clean and well executed in terms of "his style"...do you give him awards because hes great at it?...remember this is not canvas art, so you dont have as much freedom as the human brain will always think a 3D object should appear 3d, and that means following rules for light

 

it is no longer a competition like a sporting event, where the ones who work harder almost always win(flukes aside)...it now becomes an opinion battle, which is just ridiculous....art is based on science for a reason...marketing is science, and both are psychology, which is why there are rules, some are more important than others, but like sports, until you understand the rules, you cant "officiate" or judge them...there is always room for errors in judgement, and "missing the call"

 

but im tired of this whole "judging is opinion" crap, its an excuse, thats all it is, and it is not "fair", nor acceptable(in large competitions) for those who put the time in, to be burned because the judges know nothing(whether its sports, cooking, art related, or taste testing)

 

 

If I (for example) participate in a cooking contest (in this fictional case the same dish is to be prepared by everyone) then I do not deserve points if somebody else made the dish faster or used some trick (as long as it stays within the rules). And the same goes if my dish were to taste worse even though I needed more time to finish it. If someone else made it faster and better then they should get points and not me for my great effort. If there were some sort of prize for effort then it could well be that the judges think my work should deserve it. In this case only.

 

the comparison is not the same however

 

anyone can place a transfer, anyone can edge highlight, not everyone can blend(as it requires knowledge, not just to follow a step by step)

 

painting is 3 stages:

 

basics 1-10

blending(mid level) 1-10 (11-20)

advanced 1-10 (21-30)

 

each stage requires a progression, notice how blending starts back at stage 1, yet is still a progression?...now this does not mean horrible blending should be awarded, but well done blending(say a 6-8) should in most cases beat out a 10 in edge highlighting....some extreme exceptions aside

 

The second point is this whole thread. To use an isomorphic argument: LunchBox, you should try getting the same blending that you do with wet blending. It seems that you use this multi glaze technique as a crutch to avoid learning wet blending which could get the same result but would need more of a different effort. <_<

 

Each and every technique you (not you you but everyone you) learn to use you use as a crutch to paint better, cleaner, easier, faster, and smarter. Period. Some learn what they need to get a specific effect and are happy with that, others learn for the sake of learning and exploring. Declaring some type of use of some technique as a crutch is myopic and not the observance of a new trend.

 

while you are correct in the utilization of the meaning, you are off in the underlying meaning...a crutch is only a crutch when you cant admit that it is a crutch, its a form of denial

 

the most common crutches in this hobby:

 

-i could never paint like that....this is the "i dont understand" crutch...instead of asking questions you tell yourself you couldnt do it anyways...this is a crutch that prevents you from exploring

 

-im not an artist....this is the "i have no confidence" crutch, its about opinions, the person is acting as if their opinion actually matters in improving, when it does not, the focus on personal opinion on everything, is a lack of confidence, and a crutch as it prevents improvement because it prevents the inflow of correct knowledge and understanding, because the personal opinion is all that matters....this also known as the "its my style" crutch

 

now weathering is a crutch at times, because it is simple to do(in most cases its in the 1-10 bracket) and people use it to make up for their lack of blending skills...this is horrendously visible in military modelling, the models are literally flat colour with weathering added and everything goes "ZOMGS ITS SO AMAZING" ....for what? the fact he applied some weathering techniques half decently? to an already excellent "sculpt"?....now if they actually took the time to work light, colour, and advanced methods(texture and so forth) they would create much higher quality work with more depth and range

 

its ok to explore and continue to look into things and eliminate older techniques as you progress, as long as you remember the older techniques exist, and when the time comes, use them when needed

 

wet blending is a handy technique, it creates a nice effect and it can be used quite well, the problem is that its not as suitable for 28mm figs because the surfaces are often sharper, or smaller, its not easy(or practical) to control wet paint, but it is easy to control damp paint....i often mix wet blending with my glazing technique for quicker painting(in fact my gold daemon in chicago, the ogre, the apron was painted in about 20-40min because i did a lot of wet blending)

[GAR]

WOW, I'm chiming in again.

 

Ok so to answet the question about my first example.

 

The minis in question were a throne of judgment and my Capt. Tycho.

 

The throne was basicly painted, no highlights, no shading and drybrushed metallics with decals applied to the scrolls.

 

My capt. Tycho

 

tycho link

 

I think what Lunch box was getting at were those who think they are really better than they are using weathering to make up for a lack of any real skill.

 

I liken this to the numerous "drybrush masters" who can do anything better than anyone else and are only to happy to tell the rest of us about it.

 

Weathering is just another tool for them to 'flaunt" their superior skills. I have seen this going for a bit of a while and never paid much attention to it because to me, it was just another crappy paint job.

 

I was always mnore annoyed with the SENMM crowd who endlessly crank out blue and brown crappy figures or the never ending Grey Knights which still look like really bad broken mirrors dunked in mud and smurf blood.

 

Anyhoo, my opinion is any judge who knows anything about painting will recognize this. One of the reasons I love the higher end competitions ( GD,gencons Reapercons) is because the judges know what they are looking at.

 

Nothing against the local redshirts and others. I love these guys for the helpfulness, encouragement, creativity and enthusiasm, but there are some of them who could not tell the difference between a smurf and an Ultramarine. Not that there is a difference, but I digress. :wub:

[LunchBox]

*Starks is also a member of our "elitist" colony; who produces beautiful works of art, and sees only flaws.

[Vagrant]

luchbox i have seen your minis and i love them. they are always very fresh and pleasing to the eyes. i dont feel like your models are covered in feces after pounding through the sewers chasing lictors. i feel that way with alot of entries in comps. my first painting comp was at a gw shop in mi. i took first over one of the other store managers from a neighboring city. now i am not claiming that i am some awesome painter, but someone that is better than people that are usually pretty good for a non competitive area. anyways, i also paint in a similar style as that that could be considered clean. i dont really use alot of any washes and what not. that being said, i have noticed that alot of gw employees (stores) use ALOT of washes. i think that its just becoming a trend in the "scene" that starts with the company and spills out. i remeber when the washes came out it was all that i could hear about at local shops, magazines, websites, and podcasts. its odd how trends get started, look at the rick roll. it started on 4chan and now is a world wide thing. we dont know how or why, but it is. idk. i am not the best at expressing how i feel with letters and key strokes, but i hope people can see what i am trying to say.

 

i look at it this way too. its style changing with time. look at bob ross. lol. i know its a wierd analogy. i think that he is a great painter. so is guido guidi (transformers comic artist), but i would not be able to compare the two. apples and oranges when it comes to style an technique.

 

plus i know what it feels like when things that have nothing unique about them wins and yours can be spotted out of a group and praised for its uniqueness and talent.

 

okay no more making a fool out of myself :D

[Arschbombe]

now weathering is a crutch at times, because it is simple to do(in most cases its in the 1-10 bracket) and people use it to make up for their lack of blending skills...this is horrendously visible in military modelling, the models are literally flat colour with weathering added and everything goes "ZOMGS ITS SO AMAZING" ....for what? the fact he applied some weathering techniques half decently? to an already excellent "sculpt"?....now if they actually took the time to work light, colour, and advanced methods(texture and so forth) they would create much higher quality work with more depth and range

 

 

Fascinating. You are so far down the rabbit hole of elite figure painting that you have completely lost perspective. For you it's all about the process, not the result. It's like a long time painter who has used oils exclusively complaining about new artists who use Paintshop Pro. "they never mix their own colors! Amateurs all!" It doesn't matter how good the finished product looks, it's how "properly" it was done. Thirty are the techniques thou shalt use and the number of techniques shall be thirty. Know all 30 or you are a dilletant unworthy of consideration.

[Starks333]

Fascinating. You are so far down the rabbit hole of elite figure painting that you have completely lost perspective. For you it's all about the process, not the result. It's like a long time painter who has used oils exclusively complaining about new artists who use Paintshop Pro. "they never mix their own colors! Amateurs all!" It doesn't matter how good the finished product looks, it's how "properly" it was done. Thirty are the techniques thou shalt use and the number of techniques shall be thirty. Know all 30 or you are a dilletant unworthy of consideration.

 

++++edit, i may of mislead some people by using the word "technique" instead of the word "application"....a well done and advanced application of a technique will yield a better result 9/10 times...the technique itself, is not as important as everything has its use.....weathering is often very basic on most kits, and only the very bets use them in a more advanced fashion

 

 

no no no, this is mentioned in the spot about blending, the advanced technique if done well, will usually yield a better result....a simple technique, like weathering is only as good as the rest of the work, or if used in conjunction with other techniques...if you weather edge highlighted models, they are still edge highlighted models

 

as for the oil painter reference, it is actually a good one, in certain respects, because a lot of the digital painters are handicapped because they dont have to walk through the progressions

 

and this comment is exactly what im referring to in my judging comment: "It doesn't matter how good the finished product looks, it's how "properly" it was done. "

 

your average person, can not SEE how a piece would look better with the suggested improvements, or with more advanced work put it...so when the advanced painters see something and go, oh thats so basic, its so easy to do, its because it is...and it doesnt look as good as more advanced work....now if you are comparing two theoretical pieces, well thats different because again if you cant see what advanced is, then you wont be able to do the comparison properly

 

weathering is a bit less so, because simple weathering techniques can look great on advanced work...my reference was doing no painting, and simply using weathering techniques to do all the work for you

 

heres an example:

 

a piece by darren latham, eavy metal, always considered one of the "best"

 

http://www.coolminiornot.com/172822

 

its horribly flat(no depth), no emotion, no character, theres nothing to it, except that its VERY clean, whether it is a "style" or not doesnt matter its basic, its extremely well done basic, but its basic

 

and now heres Rusto's work:

 

http://www.coolminiornot.com/104897

http://www.coolminiornot.com/157383

 

this piece is slightly messy, but because he uses more lighting and colour the piece has tenfold more character

 

the second piece is again, same thing

 

and if rusto lost because his work is a bit rougher in places, you think thats fair or a good judgement?

 

if it was rusto vs rusto with better blending, then naturally since they are of equal skill level you begin to look at the technical aspects, such as blending, proper lighting, and so on

 

but you have to eliminate pieces based on their skill level, again there are exceptions to this...some pieces with incredibly basic work can be quite effective, where as some with advanced work dont turn out as well as the work put into them because the figures arent well designed for the effect the person was after

 

 

 

 

Alex

[mario]

Obviously, a lot of this is subjective.

Yeah, that's what my post was about. Who are we do assume that using some technique is a crutch. Read the second paragraph that you quoted again. You are effectively disregarding the creators' point of view regarding his work and pushing yours as the right one. If you want to act as a critic then you do that from your point of view and not as some global authority. That is the problem I have with your argumentation.

 

And the "use wet blending!" section had the :P for a reason. As you wrote; it is kinda hard/useless to emulate one techiques effect with another in this case.

 

Starks333: The original poster made it sound as if the judge rewarded the trick (decal) and not the effort (freehand), and that the point of my paragraph. Or in other words: If we had to write a essay on a topic the the one who uses more and complexer words does not get points for these words if that person only lightly touches the essays real topic. These competitions have rules and everything goes as long as you stay within these boundaries.

 

Tim Holly gets his awards because the judges like his work most. That has nothing to do with effort because the rules (in this competition) are primary based on "fitting in the Games Workshop universes" and painting quality. They say nothing about being painted realistically or regarding your point of view on optimal miniature art. You are missing the point of the competition.

 

...do you give him awards because hes great at it?

If his work fits the competition's criteria then, absolutely, yes! They should give him the award if they think it is worth it. Everything else would make the competition pointless.

 

...remember this is not canvas art, so you dont have as much freedom as the human brain will always think a 3D object should appear 3d, and that means following rules for light

Really, are you sure about that? What about abstract or kinetic sculptures that are not based on representational art? If you want to base your work on traditional representational art that is your choice but (for some time now) art is not restricted to the depiction of things. You seem to forget/ignore that other people have other priorities and you are not the art police. :P

 

Judging is always subjective. If you want something that even comes close to real objectivity you would need a large amount of judges who are knowledgeable about the topic but not biased (or the bias should be distributed as evenly as possible) and who judge an anonymous competition. Or something like that.

 

Guess what, life is not fair and would be really boring if everyone would objectively like the same things. And if these large competitions are really so unfair the boycott them. It seems that they evoke more anger in you than they are worth.

 

anyone can place a transfer, anyone can edge highlight, not everyone can blend(as it requires knowledge, not just to follow a step by step)

Really, have you seen how much alchemy in the process of applying transfer properly so it looks good and not out of place. If I were to judge a perfect transfer versus and slightly shaky freehand I would give the transfer more points and would probably only be able to guess that it is an transfer because of the near perfect quality of the glyph.

And everyone can learn to apply a transfer, to edge highlight (it's not as if we have some intrinsic skill for that), and everyone can learn to blend (my guess is you are talking about blending and lighting and not just blending from one colour to another, otherwise it would be just a step by step tutorial).

 

You got the definition of crutch right (I think) but then it seems that LunchBox is complaining about deception/illusion/trickery and not about a crutch.

 

Is it really a crutch (or even deception) if people paint flat colours, then apply weathering on the miniature, and are happy with it?

 

GAR, from your description and link I would have chosen your miniature is the criteria was painting quality, and the other one if it was big-ass machine[/b]. Nice Tycho.

 

And back again:

as for the oil painter reference, it is actually a good one, in certain respects, because a lot of the digital painters are handicapped because they dont have to walk through the progressions

The tools are used to create the work, they do not do it without a creator. Prejudices based on tools; you really want to go down that road? Why don't we all start by grinding our own pigments then?

 

"It doesn't matter how good the finished product looks, it's how "properly" it was done. "

Lets assume two painters, one using the simpler layering highlight, paints better than someone else who uses the harder wet blending technique. Both paint the same miniature according with a realistic lighting scheme. You really would propose that the wet blender should win because the work was harder even if the aim of the competition were to give the award to the better painted miniature?

 

 

Way to much blahblah from me.

[LunchBox]

I think assuming an "artist" is exploring their own style by relying on techniques like this is akin to saying a guitar player can pick up a trumpet and make beautiful music.

 

My real concern is that some painters out there are fooling themselves into thinking they are improving. If they want to flop, that's their business...but it's irritating to see people bust their zippers over the basic application of a basic technique, over a basic model.

 

You know what the best thing I ever won at a competition was? This year...at the Chicago Games Day. It wasn't demon trophies...it was hearing a group of painters that I really look up to tell me it was amazing how much I'd improved in only a year.

 

I imagine the master-guitarist Stevie Ray Vaughn (RIP) was flabergasted by the success of power-chord pounding one trick pony bands like AC/DC.

[Starks333]

Tim Holly gets his awards because the judges like his work most. That has nothing to do with effort because the rules (in this competition) are primary based on "fitting in the Games Workshop universes" and painting quality. They say nothing about being painted realistically or regarding your point of view on optimal miniature art. You are missing the point of the competition.

 

no, see a competition, by default is a place to go to compete, to compete is to put in work, to constantly improve in order to best the others.....but if there are no guidelines other than what the judge thinks is cool, there is NO WAY to improve, and thus it is no longer a competition

 

If his work fits the competition's criteria then, absolutely, yes! They should give him the award if they think it is worth it. Everything else would make the competition pointless.

 

so what you are saying is if say a child were to judge(same level of knowledge) but because hes a kid and happens to like transformers, he picks the tau crisis suit that looks very plain...but thats ok, because as a judge, he has the complete right to disregard the duty of putting effort into the competition to officiate it as fairly as possible, and just choose one he likes to look at

 

this is essentially what you are saying, im just using a ridiculous example

 

but duty is opinion, and subjective, but so is law, and murder, so until people actually begin to agree that it isnt subjective it always will be...like murder, it was fine before as long as you had the "right/power" but now its not as much...unless of course you do it the right way, like to protect yourself, or someone, or perhaps just lie about it....its ok then

 

then people realised they were getting screwed...and woke up

 

 

Is it really a crutch (or even deception) if people paint flat colours, then apply weathering on the miniature, and are happy with it?

 

this is just the thing that pisses me off

 

if the world was ever ACTUALLY happy nothing would ever be wrong...THAT is real life

 

truth is, art is always gonna be an individual thing, because everyone pulls out the opinion and bull<DELETED BY THE INQUISITION>...it will never ever actually get better, people will never actually get more knowledgeable with it either...it does make me sad to know so many people ruin something with their selfishness

 

or wait, i guess im also selfish, for actually caring that people learn what is actually correct...factually....oh...no wait that one is subjective as well...since selfish is a point of view...damn, i thought i was getting somewhere

 

Lets assume two painters, one using the simpler layering highlight, paints better than someone else who uses the harder wet blending technique. Both paint the same miniature according with a realistic lighting scheme. You really would propose that the wet blender should win because the work was harder even if the aim of the competition were to give the award to the better painted miniature?

 

lets not, because once again you are measuring the wrong aspect....its not the work, its the difficulty level

 

and believe it or not, difficulty level in art has a direct correlation to the end result...because just like math, the more advanced the more specific and detailed you get

 

 

i guess now i remember why i feel like throwing my GDs out...they are worth nothing, and no one "cares" whether they win or not...except the ones who are actually painting to improve, and use most of this stuff already, but even half of them act like winning doesnt matter....

[flintlocklaser]

and believe it or not, difficulty level in art has a direct correlation to the end result...because just like math, the more advanced the more specific and detailed you get

 

Dang, I guess Mark Rothko and Piet Mondrian aren't good artists after all. Oh wait...

[GAR]

i guess now i remember why i feel like throwing my GDs out...they are worth nothing, and no one "cares" whether they win or not...except the ones who are actually painting to improve, and use most of this stuff already, but even half of them act like winning doesnt matter....

 

AH but remember, the only contests that matter are the ones with real competition. A Golden Demon is not something just anyone can say they have.

 

While some of the competitions over the last few years have been notoriously weak in comparison to others, Atlanta GD most notably in my opinion, still to have the right to say you are a demon winner, or the nice big fat check and trophy fr Gen con or reaper con, in painting circles is huge.

 

I myself and constantly trying to improve. I aspire to go an compete in the UK and Europe ( yes I know the UK is part of Europe, but most Brits I know scoff at that, as does a Scot to being a Brit. I dunno, I'm from Texas and it all kinds lumps together for my simple mind).

 

ANyhoo, there will always be those who don't get it, as well as there will be those who do get it and then there are still those who fit somewhere in between.

 

One of the most amazing things I have noticed over tha last 10 - 15 years is just how much everything has improved. Go back and look at whar was a Slayer Sword winner years and years ago. Most of that would be lucky to make 1st cut by the current standards. Sorry to the past winners, but it is true.

 

As such, the bar has been raise so much that it seems to be ever evolving and improving.

 

The other thing is it is hard to do somethig that is fresh and new. That being said many of us are trying to keep up or emulate that which is popular. I myself do not much care for current trends. I am more concerned with what I am trying to achieve, that delicate balance between realism, subtlety and eye-catching quality. I know these seem like they are counter to one another, but they are'nt really.

 

Anyhoo, my thoughts again.

[Starks333]

One of the most amazing things I have noticed over tha last 10 - 15 years is just how much everything has improved. Go back and look at whar was a Slayer Sword winner years and years ago. Most of that would be lucky to make 1st cut by the current standards. Sorry to the past winners, but it is true.

 

technically, if i were to be the sarcastic self, you cant ever "improve" at art if its subjective....since improving is factual based, and requires comparisons...you could also not learn art, since learning requires comparison, which is based on fact......

 

 

The other thing is it is hard to do somethig that is fresh and new. That being said many of us are trying to keep up or emulate that which is popular. I myself do not much care for current trends. I am more concerned with what I am trying to achieve, that delicate balance between realism, subtlety and eye-catching quality. I know these seem like they are counter to one another, but they are'nt really.

 

Anyhoo, my thoughts again.

 

no, its fine, you are one who gets it.....you know a competition is for competing...you know improving comes with learning what works and what doesnt

 

what people fail to realize, is your opinion will affect your work indirectly anyways...because your true opinion comes from the heart, which is the emotion you use when competing in sport, or any form of inspired work

 

style is a result, because your mind will always affect your body and how it functions, your thoughts are controlled by the same thing

 

opinions when used in a discussion to defend something is basically a form of denial

 

 

 

and believe it or not, difficulty level in art has a direct correlation to the end result...because just like math, the more advanced the more specific and detailed you get

 

Dang, I guess Mark Rothko and Piet Mondrian aren't good artists after all. Oh wait...

 

 

and since some people cant seem to read an entire post.....i said canvas art is different, it takes out the 3d element and requirements....you are more free because you are less restricted as the surface is already flat, you have the option to do flat art or 3d art...figure painting has th same thing, except that it comes in the form of freehand

 

 

shape isnt something you can control on a figure, its already there, unless you sculpt it, its not the same

 

shape is different on a canvas than in fashion, because of the 3d effect

 

i could go on and on, but why bother

[flintlocklaser]

what people fail to realize, is your opinion will affect your work indirectly anyways...because your true opinion comes from the heart, which is the emotion you use when competing in sport, or any form of inspired work

 

style is a result, because your mind will always affect your body and how it functions, your thoughts are controlled by the same thing

Opinion is good!

 

opinions when used in a discussion to defend something is basically a form of denial

Oh no! Opinion is bad!

 

 

 

and believe it or not, difficulty level in art has a direct correlation to the end result...because just like math, the more advanced the more specific and detailed you get

 

Dang, I guess Mark Rothko and Piet Mondrian aren't good artists after all. Oh wait...

 

 

and since some people cant seem to read an entire post.....i said canvas art is different, it takes out the 3d element and requirements....you are more free because you are less restricted as the surface is already flat, you have the option to do flat art or 3d art...figure painting has th same thing, except that it comes in the form of freehand

 

 

shape isnt something you can control on a figure, its already there, unless you sculpt it, its not the same

 

shape is different on a canvas than in fashion, because of the 3d effect

 

i could go on and on, but why bother

 

Why bother indeed. In one post you say that complexity of technique is all that is important. Then you backpedal when presented with counterexamples. Yep, no point in continuing this discussion.

[lmyrick]

It seems to me some people are taking their 'art' and their elite little clubs (with the ones 'who get it', and not the ones who don't), and possibly themselves, way too seriously. If you can't have fun with it, and someone liking something other than your work pisses you off, why are you doing it?

[Dark Sensei]

Oh my... Elitism again !!!

 

I confess I didn't read everything but I have my 2cp to bring about the difficult relation between "painting and elitism".

To my humble opinion, those two words are false friends.

 

Painting is an activity while elitism is mainly a relation to Ego and people looking/listening you. Everyone here paints so everyone is a painter. No more, no less. Another absolute rule is that everyone has many many thing to learn (and that can be wrote on spanish team forum or creafig and many others).

To many people I play with, I'm a good painter and they often ask me advises (and that's a responsability for most often, answers are not that easy to find). To me, some friends have a painting level I'll never ever reach (A. Carrasco is not the least of them but in my dreams I crush his irritating tiny fingers to powder... Damned little bugger !8) ).

So I ask you, who is the Elite ?

I am ? LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Allan is ? (I can tell you this is far from beeing his opinion upon himself while our skills are nothing but a joke compared to his).

Lunchbox is ?

Bushido ?

...

 

Seriously this is a stupid debate. If you like to beleive you're some sort of elite, well you probably are.

 

And GD results do not tell so much so be humble about it. Some GD are far easy than others, some category are too, some years are and most of all, people competing against you make all the difference. Talent is necessary but luck is the master-word.

I recently repainted for some guy the work of an arrogant GD painter who took it quite bad (and that was huge fun I promess... Kinda like "Who are you ? I'm a GD winner and what about you ?..") and that piece of fun is the centre of the debate between painting and feeling elitist.

 

The only good attitude if you want to progress (and true elitism is a quest for progress) is to work on a regular basis, share technique and grab hints, try different minis and styles (that's my flaw, I always paint the same things) and (IMHO) go to museums see real painters with talent, see colour analisis (from Degas) dark shames (from spanish school) and everything that suits your style (or corrects your flaws) and start again layering pigments on minis with a humbled mind.

 

BTW and back to original debate, I agree with Lunchbox about the place given to over-weathering on minis. Well, its a fashion like another (remember a few days ago when a mini had to be in NMN to win...). Weathering should "bring" something and nit hide your flaws of course. Though weathering is maybe amongst the best way to achieve a fact tabletop army with a nice overall look.

You can nevertheless have heavily weathered minis of extreme quality (but its rare).

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r226/Da...rdias01-800.jpg

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r226/Da...-boba04-800.jpg

or

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r226/Da...Photo208351.jpg

 

DS

(once again, sso for poor english)