NMM

[Brother Valerius]

I have to confess, I don't get the fascination highly skilled painters have with NMM. Is there a reason? Just to show off, because it takes more skill? Is it something that is regarded as being the "proper" way to paint, with metallic paints being regarded as a crutch? It just puzzles me because, without fail, I always find real metallic paints to look better than NMM. Now, there are many who will say that it's a personal choice, and NMM isn't the "right" way to paint metal parts... but there surely must be some reason that everyone who paints at a very high level chooses this technique. Can someone enlighten me?

[henrywalker]

to be honest i agree with you. i look at the NMM GW comes out with and it just does not look like metal in any way. it looks like someone is trying to make it look like metal. especially the new sword for the GKs.

 

with GKs i think metallic silver words are an issue because they would just look like the rest of the body.

 

still i do not like NMM, i tried to paint it once or twice and didn't find it hard just time consuming and irritating.

 

i don't know why it is used so much

[Boltergeist]

Part of it is the difficulty level I assume. The other part is that the painter can control ALL the highlights on the model to create a desired effect. If you use metallic or gloss paints, the highlights, glare, and so on is created by real light hitting the model, and will change depending on how the model is held or displayed. If you do NMM (or glow effects, etc), all the lighting can be controlled and therefore create a more cohesive finished product.

[DarKHaZZ13]

It has a lot to do with the lighting effects aswell.

f you paint all your highlights on (as you do) then the natural glint of metlic paint actually looks slightly out of place on a model.

NMM brings metalics down to model scale.

 

Apart form that, when done well it looks nice, and is a lot more subtle.

 

A key part of painting models (and in fact all art) is drawing attention where the artist wnats it to be drawn to.

In most cases this area is the face (obviously is less significant on helmeted models),

as this is where the emotion in art lies (facial expressions).

 

Obviously in some instances this isn't an issue, but if you have an awesomely painted model, with a great depth and detail, you want that to be the focus.

The vividity of metalic paint will draw the observers eyes to the metal, because of the natural way light is reflected off of it.

And that kind of makes all that effort wasted.

NMM in essence removes the reflectivity of the metlaic shards in the paint, which allows the painter to direct where the observer is looking.

 

DH

[henrywalker]

good points, i normally paint my blades not metallic at all for that reason.

 

doe anyone have examples of things like bolters being NMM?

[Gurth]

I have to confess, I don't get the fascination highly skilled painters have with NMM. Is there a reason?

I think a large part of it has to do with non-metallic metals —if they're done well — often looking better in photographs than the model does when metallic paints are used. This leads to the technique being used a lot to illustrate models in catalogs and on manufacturer's web sites, and that in turn causes a lot of people to think it's the "proper" way to paint metal areas on models.

[Tanhausen]

IMO, its more of a status issue than anything else...as well as fashion, of course.

 

I haven't tried them, but I've been told NMM, as mostly any paiting techinques, are not that hard...its just a matter of practice and knowing how to layer properly.

 

The problem with this techinque is abuse, as always. Seeing a model done completely in NMM (and we've all seen a few around) just seems...too much.

[Olis]

I reckon it's something to do with the quality of metallic paints on the market at the moment. They're ok but not as convincing as they could be. With NMM it can fool people into thinking the model is actually, say, chromed if it's done well and the viewing angle is right. Besides that, yeah, it is (partly) showing off because it's more of a challenge. I (usually) quite like the effect, personally. :huh:

[Hemal]

The best finish is actually acheived by painting true metallics using NMM techniques. When painted well, the finish is flawless and looks liek real burnished metal. However look at the Grey Knight swords and other NMM models such as Magmatrax. The effect is far superior to using basic metal + shading + highlighting...

[chromedog]

It's a skill thing, and a certain look. ALL painters (whatever media) do it. My style is sooo much better than yours, because it is harder.

 

It's not a new thing. Airbrush van art from the 70s showed it off, but before that, the actual original artworks were also done using it.

Metallic paints can't reflect light in the same way that a polished surface can. If you want to get a more 'realistic' look, you have to do something that looks like it could be polished metal, but isn't.

 

It's a comparatively new thing for miniature painters.

I personally think it's wasted on gaming pieces, but fine on display pieces.

[Vaaish]

NMM is a fad that's been going around. If it's done well it is extremely effective at convincing the viewer of the surface properties however, because it's origins are in 2d painting techniques, it only does so at ONE particular angle. This can be great on a display piece or to help define areas that would be difficult due to the properties of true metallics, but it doesn't translate well into a 3d space under a variety of lighting conditions.

 

It can help make photographs much more effective since our eyes are trained to believe those painterly effects from the old masters and interpret them as the correct material but it's an illusion that is far less effective once the viewing angle is changed so I tend toward the metallic paint camp unless it's more of a diorama where the viewing angles can be constrained to force the piece to be viewed from a particular direction and angle that enhances the effectiveness of the NMM technique.

[Hemal]

NMM isn't really a fad - I remember when Dante and Tycho came out, McVey painted them in NMM as a demo of how to do gold without gold paint and it looks nice when done well but chalky when done badly. I'd love to be able to do it well, but lack the finesse in teh gradients required. As for teh GK swords - they are actually MIRROR finish, painted similar to NMM - NMM truly is applied to the Sangunor and not teh GKs anywhere that I can see on the models...

[WingsOfTheFalcon]

NMM is one of those things that when done well is great for display models but daft for gaming pieces.

 

As already outlined NMM is good for viewing from one angle but not from all.

 

Also unless you happen to be really good at NMM it really doesn't look like metal, so I'd advise metallic paints for most instances.

 

Hell, if metallic paints worked well enough for Mike McVey then they're good enough for me.

[madscuzzy]

Oddly, Sanguinor is NOT NMM. It is high gloss finish... kinda like the ones on car finishes, which is different from NMM, as it doesn't necessarily have to mean metals.

[S'jet]

Oddly, Sanguinor is NOT NMM. It is high gloss finish... kinda like the ones on car finishes, which is different from NMM, as it doesn't necessarily have to mean metals.

 

High Gloss.... Yes.

NMM.... Yes.

 

It looks like both tbh.... High gloss metal. But i believe the white dwarf with the NMM tutorial states it is NMM.... as its comparing both using Metallic paints and non-metallic paints side by side on certain models.

[Marshall_Brant]

White Dwarf #363 Blood Angels release. Pages 75-81. The words 'Non-Metallic Metal' are all over the article. The comparison is with: Tycho, Dante, and a Sanguinary guard NMM vs metallic.

 

I find NMM too time consuming to be used on anything other then display models. Even then I don't like it. I think of it as: "in the grim darkness of the far future everything is nice and shiny" whenever I see NMM. To me it's not 40K. I like my 40K to be Grimdark.

[Chapter Master Ignis Domus]

I agree. I tend to paukt my Deathwing à very, very dirty bone color, because nice clean armor just doesn't fit to me.

[koran]

The thing is a skilled painter doesnt have to make NMM look very shiny, it can look dull and worn or brassy if they want.

 

I will put up an example of something I painted but I really need to point out that I am a total NMM amateur but hopefully you get the idea.... NMM doesnt have to mean very bright, its about highlighting in the correct places to give the impression of metal.

 

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m16/NeilCollins_/Ultras/DSCF4365.jpg

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m16/NeilCollins_/Ultras/DSCF4401.jpg

 

As people have mentioned it can actually give a more accurate representation of metal at the scale of GW models than metalic paint. Its the exact same reason that people highlight models. They will be naturally highlighted by light anyway but the highlights are added to make them appear to be like a lifesized figure, not a model.

[HarasinCreed]

What colours do u use for your gold koran? Also i agree i think NMM looks great and u can make it look gritty.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

NMM was grabbed from yesteryears painting. They didn't have metallic paints back in the day, and so came up with a technique to make metals look, well, metallic.

 

Fast forward to the 2000s. Hobbyists, so the legend goes, became lazy with painting metallics. Undercoat, metallic paint, wash. It looked metallic and so was deemed good enough.

But if you ever wanted to paint to a higher than basic level, you'd never paint even you colours to such a basic standard.

 

Instead of just painting metallics to the same standard as colours, with highlights coming after the wash, the premiere hobbyists decided to go l33t as a backlash to 3-colour minimum painting.

Enter NMM for miniatures.

 

It does look amazing, for sure.

 

But what if you used NMM techniques with metallic paints.... the mind boggles....

 

Basically, it is for great painters to use technique over resource, to show their stuff.

[koran]

I basically follow the GW sanguinor guide.

 

Basecoat black

50/50 Calthan brown and snakebite leather

snakebite leather and a spot of bleached bone

70/30 snakebite and bleached bone

30/10 snakebite and bleached bone

bleached bone highlight on some areas

selectively wash areas to be darker with dark flesh and water (better with glaze medium)

selectively wash with dark flesh mixed with black and water (again better with glaze medium)

selectively wash with purple wash

pin point skull white where the light will hit the metal

 

Thats it for the gold. You just change the amour of highlighting to get a more brass colour.

 

The GW guide explains it really well (though not sure the WD number its in, sorry).

[puck]

Here's a link to an article on light sources:

 

http://www.coolminiornot.com/articles/1106...ighting-effects

 

This is really where NMM becomes a necessity. When the model is lit from a source that is not overhead like a muzzle flash or a torch you can't use straight metal paints because they will ruin the effect of the odd light source.

[tylermenz]

I personally have mixed feelings about NMM. I think that RM (regular metal) is easier to paint, and that poorly dont regular metal will beat poorly done NMM, but that Well done NMM will beat well done RM.

 

Part of the reason I believe this is is detail. With NMM you are able to control the contrast of the paints better, and give a more defined paint job. When you highlight a spacemarine's armor, you get to decide where the light is coming from, but if you use metal paints, you lose that ability. NMM also allows painters toput realistic metallic effects on small models, namely sky/eath effects. Metallic paints, depite having a sheen, do not reflect images, only light.

 

The benefit that Metallic paint does have over NMM is that it is shiny, it reflects light, and you can therefore get very good definition between shiny/nonshiny parts.

 

I looked up a few pictures on Coolminiornot to sho some examples:

here is a high rated marine using regular metals:

http://coolminiornot.com/pics/pics11/img4523e9ba0ea8a.jpg

As you can see there is really no highlighting on the metal, despite high levels of detail on the rest of the miniature.

 

Here is an example of very well done NMM

http://coolminiornot.com/pics/pics13/img496a414927881.jpg

The metal on the models fits in with the painting style and highlighting on the models. Personnally to me it looks a lot more realistic. you can see the differences between light and shadow and it really works for the models. If the painter would have just painted them shining gold, it would have looked a lot worse.

 

After saying all that, I like a combination of the two techniques the most. Using metals paints and inks in a way that gets a similar result equal to NMM. The benefit of combining the two techniques is that you get two types of variation on the model, a change from light/dark AND a change from Shiny/Dull.

 

Here is one of the best pictures that I could find using both techniques:

http://coolminiornot.com/pics/pics10/img43b41bf05cc75.jpg

The model is obviously painted with metallics, but there are slight changes in color in relation to shadows or changes of light on the model as well. The depth of the model is just fantastic to me, and the whole things still goes together.

 

I think that a lot of high level painters do NMM because putting a single layer of metal paint next to an armor pad that has 35 layers of highlighting and other techniques would look odd.

 

thats just my opinion

[Brother Melice]

CYRIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? I miss that guy from coolminiornot.com, such a master...

 

As goes for NMM, when executed correctly and well, it can bring a model to life, you have some beautiful examples posted here already, but on a table top level, it's something you would not see, because of the time it takes to do it....

 

a matter of personal tastes mostly. Some are fanatical with it, some hate it....

[Shadey]

Yeh as people have touched on above, people did get lazy with metalics. I was largely self taught with painting so I never even thought to treat them different than other paints, why would I? So there developed a distaste for metalics, not because of anything inherent to the medium but because of how people were using them.

 

Also yes, there exists snobbish derision when it comes to things that are easier. Instead of judging something base on it's own merits or lack of it lets judge it on how hard or easy it is to do so I can feel superior to you because I accomplished something harder.. An example I saw was someone mentioning something to the effect of 'real' painters paint the shadows and highlights of a chip when it comes battledamage, without actually chipping the armour (plastic). Even though the end effect was almost identical, apparantly taking a chunk out of your armour was an inferior technique. <_<

 

Also Tylermenz, if they are doing one layer of metallics then they are being lazy. There is no reason they can't get the same attention as the example you posted shows.