Advanced techniques / considerations for painting display minis

[rabblerouser]

For the black: Don't paint with pure black. Paint everything else a bit brighter than you normally would (just a little bit). And instead of black use something that is nearly black (mixing green and purple can sometimes be useful, if it's too dark add some grey). This dark colour will be your black because your other stuff is a bit brighter there will be a value contast (very bright versus ver dark). Now you can add bkack for shading and use it pure for blacklining. In the same way (not really the same) that complementary coloours contrast each other and that pale and very saturated colours support each other do bright and dark colour work together. In a post above I linked to a site with colour perception experiments. Try these and you will see how colour perception depends on neighbouring colour. We don't see things isolated from each other.

 

The studio painters for rackham do this ALOT

[mario]

Okay, so what if you want to paint white models, on snow bases?

 

-Legacy40k

Snow does reflect light (doesn't absorb much) but does scatter it around. So forthe shading you would use your atmosphere's colours (for a normal day on earth try blue grey). And because snow does reflect much ou would nothave deep shadows. So not much shading and blacklining. BUt always remember that you have to scale for the size of the miniatures. Pure white in snow can get lost and invisible. For a miniature I would just not use the pure snow scenario and a lot of white parts because that reduces the redability of the miniature too much (if you try to paint it too realisitic).

[Plasma]

Very good guide Boltman, and I found a perfect example of what you described in your scriblings (I think you know of the model's existence):

 

Behold, the best miniature ever ( :) ), by Yellow One, http://coolminiornot.com/119497

[Chronophague]

Behold, the best miniature ever ( sleep.gif ), by Yellow One, http://coolminiornot.com/119497

Every has their own opinion, so your statement only applies to your own opinion of the model. I don't really agree that that is the best miniature ever. :)

 

Cheers

[Plasma]

Behold, the best miniature ever ( sleep.gif ), by Yellow One, http://coolminiornot.com/119497

Every has their own opinion, so your statement only applies to your own opinion of the model. I don't really agree that that is the best miniature ever. :)

 

Cheers

 

 

I know I know, just trying it to sound more grandiose :)

[madscuzzy]

Hope you guys don't mind me adding a few cents.

 

In terms of colour theory, we have 3 instances of colour. Just to be clear with everyone, we have hue(colour), saturation/luminosity/intensity and value.

 

Saturation/luminosity/intensity = a more intense or saturated version of a colour. This is done by having as pure a colour as possible. Most GW paints are high saturation colour... giving a sense that it is 'brighter'.

 

Value = The addition or subtraction of black and white. Playing with these colours gives you monotone colours. Also sometimes refered to as being brighter and darker. The terms brighter and darker tend to be flexible as it describes both saturation and value. But then again, these tend to be more layman terms, hence the confusion.

 

Now playing with colour is interesting as there are many ways to go about doing this. As mentioned by boltman and mario already. I'd like to point out that playing with complementary colours can be quite risky, unless you know what you are doing. Complementary colours mix together to form a grey and brown. In fact, using complementary colours [/i]desaturates colours. This is also done by adding browns/greys, as since the colours can make brown/greys (since all colours have red, green and blue in them... so some form of brown/grey will occur). This 'forces' the desaturation. So 2 colours of the same intensity actually do NOT work together. When put side by side, they look the same. In a sense they both fight for attention, but if looked at in a black and white photo, they look the same. What one has to do, is to push one colour down and bring the other up, or in another words, make one colour recede. And to do so, we normally use a darker colour.

 

A dark colour can be made up to 2 types. Desaturated or low value or both. Desaturated colours tend to be dull. We add black to colours to push them back. No matter what people say, black IS used. There is no way to get other values. Hues and saturation yes. Values no.

 

A bright colour can be high saturation or high value. Now comes the tricky part. when does one use what? By most standards, adding a bit of each or both works fine. For example

 

Scab red(med sat, med value) - Blood red(high sat, high value)

Dark Fleshtone(low sat, low value) - Red gore(med sat, med value) <-- these have a bit of purple in them

Enchanted blue - lighning bolt blue - Ice blue

 

You get the drift? <-- NOT Colour D.

 

Now we have some colours that don't follow that norm:

Goblin green (med sat, med value) - dead flesh (med sat, high value)

Ultramarines(med sat, med value) - Ultramarines+white ( med sat, high value)

 

There are certain colours that can get away with adding white. Blues, greens, purples, yellows work. We register them as lighter versions of the same colour. Other colours like red don't as we register the colour as pink, which is another colour altogther. So for instances like reds, we add yellow, which makes it orange, an even more intense colour. Of course we can add yellow AND white... so essentially we add a pale yellow which gives a more 'satin' look.

 

Blues and purples being use to shade as they are both cool colours. Technically EVERY colour has a warm and cool variant, but in most cases, we use half the colour wheel as warm and the other half as cool. Cool colours, as we are used to, recede, and warm colours stand out. It's just they way light works, or rather, what we are used to. The sky is blue... the further it gets, the more desaturated it gets. A bright light is intense, and we can see the bright colours like yellows etc (Don't stare at lamps now, kids.) So by default, we use take colours like so to shade our models. And to do so, we HAVE to add black. Purple is a very interesting colour as for some strange reason, it is everywhere, in some slight form or intensity.

 

Again, intensity comes into play. Intense blue and black can work. Intense purple... well, sometimes it doesnt work. It can but hmmmm... you give it a try.

 

Colours, as mentioned can have both a warm and cool variant. This can be done by mixing in a different colour to make it lean to a particular aspect. Eg, Bad moon yellow is 'cool', sunburst neutral and golden yellow warm. The 3 yellows can differ a bit in value or intensity, but when you look at them, thats what the eye sees.

 

Contrast occurs when 2 items, in this case colours, standing side by side, allows the viewer to define a clear difference in them. There are 3 types of contrasts. Again, hue, value and saturation. In most cases the easiest contrast is black and white. Adding black makes a colour 'darker' and adding white makes a colour 'lighter'. A saturated colour and a desaturated colour will offer contrast too. Colour contrast is done when, in the extreme case, opposite colour(complementary). Of course you have other colour stuff like triadic, split colours etc... but again, the key here is contrast. Shade and highlights are based contrast, so you can combine any of the 3 to play around with for this aspect. You can play the monotone method by adding black or white, or you can play the saturation method (in which case, the entire model is desaturated but only the highlights are picked out and intensified to pure white... a very common tradtional painting technique), or you can play the colour method, where you have say blue as your base, highlighting to turquiose and green and yellow and white, while shading with purple and dark red(which is almost brown).

 

highsat_highvalue

http://www.scuzworks.com/SL40K/colour/highsat_highvalue.jpg

highsat_midvalue

http://www.scuzworks.com/SL40K/colour/highsat_midvalue.JPG

highsat_lowvalue

http://www.scuzworks.com/SL40K/colour/highsat_lowvalue.jpg

 

midsat_highvalue

http://www.scuzworks.com/SL40K/colour/midsat_highvalue.jpg

midsat_midvalue

http://www.scuzworks.com/SL40K/colour/midsat_midvalue.jpg

midsat_lowvalue

http://www.scuzworks.com/SL40K/colour/midsat_lowvalue.jpg

 

lowsat_highvalue

http://www.scuzworks.com/SL40K/colour/lowsat_highvalue.jpg

lowsat_midvalue

http://www.scuzworks.com/SL40K/colour/lowsat_midvalue.jpg

lowsat_lowvalue

http://www.scuzworks.com/SL40K/colour/lowsat_lowvalue.jpg

 

might add stuff laters if i can come up with any more... was teaching some people on this for actual painting... haha... most of the time it just blurred past haha :)

 

scuz

[Boltman]

Very informative, and most importantly, well written, clear, understandable. Thank you for taking the time to write this up Madscuzzy ^_^

 

 

Boltman

[CRasterImage]

I like the concept of paint colors over white.

Very reminicient of "Water Color" techniques.

[PsychosisPC]

Sheeeshh I feel like I just walked into an egghead convention, and being an engineer I have been to plenty of those. And what is this all about

This is aimed at the painter with some experience, beginners beware.

You know that should be more like "Beginners Ignore unless you have an art background". A beginner painter needs to master basics before he even thinks about a lot of this stuff.

 

This is where you must determine what you want to do with a model. As a side note, Magmatrax and Hellblade, as fancy as they look, are aimed at tabletop style. Fancy, but tabletop nevertheless, because realism is not the concern, just impressive effects.

That's a really interesting statement also, you spent how many hundreds of hours on those mini's and you are suddenly declaring them as "Tabletop", come on. Realistic does not always equal display. And cartoony does not always equal Tabletop Style.

 

Don't get me wrong I find the thread semi-interesting, kind of makes you think a bit more about color and the dynamics that display it, and Madscuzzy's input is really well done. Do I get a college credit for reading that Mad? :P

 

And maybe I am just getting a strange impression that this is just a little display of.....well maybe its just best that it is left unsaid....

 

---PPC

[Artimis Vergadin]

Wow. Come in and leave nothing except how its wrong.

 

Tabletop style = highlights are sharp and are blatantly obvious to the point of, when put on a table are very visible. Flashy effects such as reflective armor, and reflective NMM is still tabletop style. Maybe not tabletop quality, but still in the style.

 

Tabletop style and cartoony are closely related.

 

Even if you have an artistic backround, painting miniatures is almost completely different. Dealing with canvas as a flat surface, then dealing with 3D is quite a challenging move. So even for beginners with an art backround, this is not possible. It is suggested before that you learn the basics, whic if you do have an art backround will go by quicker.

 

Just a little display of what? Some guy helping people out, i don't know, but this article has improved my painting crazy fast. In a weekend I learned more than I could have if i tried to figure it out on my.

 

Artimis

[Grey Knight]

I think you must have mistaken Boltman's words for tabletop quality, not tabletop style, as the two are quite different. If i have this right then tabletop style is the cartoony painting style most of us use to paint our stuff, It can look really stunning and nice and all, but it isn't REALISTIC. Realistic styles on the other hnad try to be as close to what the mini would look like where it a real guy and he had been frozen in time, without the reflection of light being able to change. I think what i aid might eb confusing, but whatever.

 

Thank you Boltman and Mudscuzzy for your wonderful advice, lately I've been looking at trying to improve my painting style and this thread is gonna be of great help

 

 

BTW happy day of the devil all 6/6/06

[dogfender]

If it was truely table top mini the ammount of time and effort really wouldnt have been put into like that. yes by all means he wanted a lovely model to play with, but was made to win a competition, it did that, its not table top quality, esp if it won the entire thing. However it does not rule out its table top playability :P

[Damocles]

Boltman, once again you begin an intriguing discussion about advanced techniques. Truly great.

 

Personally, I think it's a bit amusing how I've learned this stuff in school, and have it seem boring, and then apply it to models, and have me thinking about new ways of using color. Certainly, complimentary and clashing colors can be extremely useful (if you know what you're doing) - shading, contrasting or leading your eye around a model.

 

And about this argument about "tabletop quality" - It's stupid anyways. But, Boltman never said that it was painted to a tabletop quality. That would be the shading/basecoat/highlighting basics used for painting armies quickly and having them look good.

 

He said tabletop style. Extremely flashy, striking from a distance and up close. Like someone said about Magmatrax, "You look at Magmatrax and it kicks you in the face!"

 

If you saw Hellblade in real life, would it be completely dirt-free? Would regular armor and metals glow from within, and have everything pop out at you? Probably not. Realistically, it would be way more subdued. With tabletop style, it just looks way cooler.

[Boltman]

That's a really interesting statement also, you spent how many hundreds of hours on those mini's and you are suddenly declaring them as "Tabletop", come on. Realistic does not always equal display. And cartoony does not always equal Tabletop Style.

 

And maybe I am just getting a strange impression that this is just a little display of.....well maybe its just best that it is left unsaid....

 

How quickly someone's intentions can be misinterpreted... :huh:

Let me also misinterpret your own post as insinuating that I, among others, am looking to flatter myself because of this post I started.

 

I understand what you mean PsychosisPC, I agree that there is a thin line here that *could* seem like trying to show off. It also very well could be having the best intentions in the world and try to teach back what you learned. In my defense I did say Tabletop STYLE, the gang here got it right, as in a particular style, as opposed to techniques aiming for realism. You gave it a negative connotation that is all your own interpretation. How could you think for a minute I'd spit on the hundreds of hours I spent making those models "just to appear superior"? There are much better ways to flatter your ego than take precious time and write about the latest stuff you've learned so that others might benefit too. I invented nothing. All I know I either copied from someone else by observing their models or I was straight up told how to.

 

I only wrote the first post you know, all this fancy artistic theory added by others is for the most part above me (though I am thankful for their input), I'm an engineer just like you, art is a curiosity not a calling. That is also why I stepped down when Mario started answering questions, he seems more qualified when these advanced concepts are involved. Are these the actions of someone seeking ego flattering, stepping down? Now why did mario not make a post of his own a long time ago to teach us these things if they already knew, I'd like to know :huh:

 

After the hours I spend every day answering private painting questions to give back to the community that taught me in the first place, and staying an active part of the community as opposed to many painters of renown that suddently dissappear (now I know why), I'm offended that you would insinuate such things in my regard.

 

The B&C is there to share all aspects of the hobby. If this topic is pompous to you, don't you think ridiculing those trying to teach it is a bit harsh?

 

 

Boltman :(

[ixupi]

After the hours I spend every day answering private painting questions to give back to the community that taught me in the first place, and staying an active part of the community as opposed to many painters of renown that suddently dissappear (now I know why), I'm offended that you would insinuate such things in my regard.

 

The B&C is there to share all aspects of the hobby. If this topic is pompous to you, don't you think ridiculing those trying to teach it is a bit harsh?

 

Funny how easily art spurs arguement huh? Well anyhow, let me one of those to say thank you Boltman. I started off at the very bottom when it came to painting six months ago. I used fricken enamel! Haha, I still have my first mini for laughs. Now, six months later I am able to do NMM and have no way of 'describing' it as far as artistic terms. So this is where I disagree that you HAVE to be familiar with art terms and techniques to get a grasp on this. Mini painting is by far, a much different task than painting on canvas other any other medium. I can't draw, can't paint on canvas, but picked up mini painting quickly and well. Thanks partly to you, Boltman.

 

I actually laughed when you said "this is tabletop quality" and I laughed because I understood what you meant by that. No matter how crazy it sounded, because you were aimming to show off in your own light, not necessarily in a realistic manner. Which I think we agree ultimately is 'display quality.'

 

Not much else I can say without fanning the flames so i'll just back off now, but like I said thanks and keep up the good work!

[mario]

Regarding Boltmans last post:

I know that I bashed his dread a bit (or some more) when he showed it here because it was more of the same and didn't have weathering and battle damage and all the "funny stuff" that you would see on some berserker machine. Now that he wrote about this being tabletop style and intended for gaming I understood his reasoning a bit better. When he presented his dread he wrote that he will be using it in games but it wasn't that clear for me what he meant with that.

 

Why I did not write that post:

Well like Boltman I am not an artist and it's just curiosity that is driving me. That I know a bit more about light and advanced colour theory than him is only the result of me being involved with this for a longer time.

 

All the post in this thread that I made can easily be found in articles online. I never wrote a complete article for the B&C on this topic but I think I posted links to these article. These articles are not that related to the B&C so they don't fit the FAQ. And why should I repeat all that stuff when it surely will get lost on the PCA section. Most stuff without pictures in the PCA section seems not interesting enough and people don't react to it. But when I answer in some peoples threads they read it because it's related to their problem so I am not just talking to some fluffy clouds.

 

 

It's funny that people are able to look at pictures and use this smilie a lot :o. But are not willing to actively look for information to make their stuff look as good. This thread was a nice chance because people started asking questions so the the answers were probably more useful for them than if I had just written some boring article (without pictures) on colour theory. The "Boltman factor" makes people read threads B).

 

I don't have a camera and can't show my work so answering question or helping out is the only thing I can do to make the PCA more intereting (just reading this forum doesn't make it a better place). Yes if I could show pictures I would and I would use these to write articles. That I started writing a small article here was only because Boltman is one of the few who really hunt for information so on the one hand I wanted to expand on what he wrote (and probably give him some other point of view) because it's one of the few chances here for stuff like that and on the other hand I wanted to help out because I knew that otherwise he would have been writing a lot the posts that I wrote and he's written some really good articles and answered a lot of questions regarding his work. He wrote me an answer to a PM regarding this topic before he poseted it here that was about as long as the post that started this thread. You can see my writing here as a little "thank you" to him.

[-Q-]

Starting off again saying I very strongly admire Boltman's accomplishments in case anything comes out wrong. :wub:

 

I think the problem is that he's sort of outgrown the majority of the BnC. I think it's *great* that he takes the time to post such long explanations of what he's learning to share with us here but most of the board is still trying to figure out good blending and/or are looking for the *quick* answer to SENMM.

 

Regardless of what one *thinks* about his attitude, his results are real. He came here (& other painting resources) as a novice, set a lofty goal, and *WORKED* at that goal. This should be inspiration but the problem is that it was a *lot* of work. People don't want to put in the dedication that Boltman does/has. However anyone reading these same things he has can make the same achievements if they put forth the same dedication. I think that's why he comes back here with posts like this and his NMM tutorial thread from long ago. (In which people asked for quicker versions because it's too complicated :o)

 

If you don't like what these guys are saying or if it's too advanced for your painting level... move on. I did ;) I bookmarked the thread, thanked him for his time, and went back to looking for pretty pictures and beginner questions I could help out with. For those that want to be earning Golds and Slayers in a few years, these posts are a great guide to compliment your *practice* B)

[Freakiq]

Great tutorial Boltman, an inspiration as always. ;)

 

Now if I could only find the time to try out your techniques...

[Grey Knight]

I've thought of a question which i don't know why i didn't ask before.

 

Which products are recomended for making your paints dry slower or seems more transparant, as to let thelayer under it blend well. Other than water of course. Also how should we mix these in? (e.g Paint:Water:Product= 1:3:1 or something like that)

[Boltman]

I recommend a thing called Galze medium. Valljo Moddel and game color ranges have one. I'Ve tried about 1 part paint 1 part water 1 part medium and it helps make the paint layers easier to spread about smoothly. Be warned that it will give your paint a shiny gloss when dry,. so don'T use too much else ruin your hilighting effect qith unwanted glare.

 

 

Boltman

[aretziel]

read this last night and once again now in the morning and it

[dogfender]

Edit: actually id rather just put ;) :wink: :devil: to explain what was said, i know others arnt that blind and see the contradictions.

[redthirst]

Edit: actually id rather just put :( ;) :wink: to explain what was said, i know others arnt that blind and see the contradictions.

 

... i must be blind... :devil:

[John Thompson]

Be warned that it will give your paint a shiny gloss when dry,. so don't use too much else ruin your hilighting effect qith unwanted glare.

This is easilly countered by adding either Matt Medium or even some Matt Varnish to the mix. These are both colourless and give a matt finish. Be warned though, that adding Matt Varnish will 'thin' the paint even more; (eg less paint per drop of the mix.. If that makes sense..). Matt Medium can come in all kinds of forms, mine is a thick paste that can be thinned down with water and will make even Tamiya Clears (like Smoke) loose all gloss!!

 

Also, adding more Glaze Medium to a paint mix makes it better for subtle colourchanges on a model. The Medium gives you very good contoll over a glaze and apparentely 'breaks' something called 'surface tention', whatever that mey mean. All I know is that it makes the glaze dry up even and not form puddles like when you use just water to make a glaze..

 

Nice read Boltman, I might try some of these things on my Commander Culln model once I know what to do with him.. Mario's stuff is probably good, but a bit over my head, but thanks anyway for the time spent trying to explain! Well apreciated..

 

John T

[mario]

Edit: actually id rather just put :cuss :cuss :cuss to explain what was said, i know others arnt that blind and see the contradictions.

Could you rephrase that so it's easier to understand?