Figure painting

[healey36]

Very nice looking pieces, Jon. Hoplites are sharp! I need to get back to the lead pile...

Paul

[G3750]

Good lookin' as could be, 2RailJon.
Murph

Amen to that. Are they defending the pass at Thermopylae?

Jon - where did you get that girl taking off her top? I have a seedy hotel to populate.

George

[2railjon]

George, here:
http://www.arttista.com/

[healey36]

Arttista tramp:



Filthy bum...

Healey

[rogruth]

I don't think I could have painted that stuff when I had good eyes.

Wait, I NEVER had good eyes. Glasses since 1940.

[chuck]

Roger said:

I don't think I could have painted that stuff when I had good eyes.

Wait, I NEVER had good eyes. Glasses since 1940.

Glasses since I was three (Amblyopia) (aka 60+ years).

It isn't just about visual acuity and manual dexterity. A fair amount of figure painting success is a result of learning to use combinations of washes and dry brush techniques. If the figures are well sculpted you just try to bring out/emphasize the sculptors work. If they are poorly sculpted you try to hide the sins (and usually the figures) by placing them as far away as possible from prying eyes. Too much detail work at 1/40 scale and lower and the figures may start to look creepy, especially the eyes and mouth.

Like getting to Carnegie Hall you also need to practice, practice, practice.

[healey36]

That's spot on, Chuck. Block-painting, then a series of washes and dry-brush applications will usually do the trick. Some of Arttista's casts are well detailed, some not so much (the tramp looks like he has a catcher's mitt for a right hand). That's probably a function of the age of the mold. After years of painting wargames figures, I've moved to a "if it looks good from two feet, it's probably good enough" philosophy. That said, the camera will reveal the lack of detailed painting and the short-cuts taken.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

......the camera will reveal the lack of detailed painting and the short-cuts taken.

This is one of the reasons why I take photos of my models while they are under construction - part record keeping (how did I do that one 15 years ago?), but more to the point here, the camera is a totally impartial critic and is brutally honest in all ways. If your model can pass close up photography on your big computer monitor, then it's probably going to pass muster.

[healey36]

What really kills me is the camera reveals all the flaws, most of which I can’t even see wearing the magnifier. The eyesight has really gone to hell in the last ten years. My time painting buttons, eyes, and other details are disappearing in the rear-view...literally.

[chuck]

I've been using GE Bright Sitk Daylight 16 watt (100 watt equivalent) for modeling purposes (and kitchen duty). These are almost too bright. I like the harsh shadows the Bright Stik creates to highlight seams, flash, sinks, almost any casting flaws.

[healey36]

I have a halogen in my bench-lamp, which produces decent light, but the accompanying heat makes me feel like a burger at McD’s. I need to replace it with a quality LED, but I’m wondering if that obscures the color tints at all. Almost certainly brighter.

[chuck]

Be very cautious with Halogen bulbs. They produce a lot of heat (can actually start fires) and they are very rich in UV radiation, including the short wave stuff that can cause skin cancer and eye damage. Compact CFL's especially the cheapo twisty types seem to leak a lot of long wave UV and cause accelerated fading. I was an early adopter and had been using them in the basement for a number of years (like +10). I started to see significant fading of printed material (including box art) over the last 2-3 years (third gen "generic" replacements) and switched the bulbs out with bright white LED's (75 watt equivalents).

Newer "white" LED's are much broader in spectrum coverage and most of the daylight bulbs are either full spectrum or very close. Bright white and soft white are more prone to color shifting. I see that Ott has migrated to LED technology as well. I did do a comparison between an older Ott CFL true light and a quality daylight LED (i.e. established brand name, not ACE or or any "house brand"). I was photographing my Corvette collection and wanted two sources of light. The bulbs were not identical in lumen output but I did not detect any obvious color shifts in the models under direct observation or in the photo's taken with the lights.

BTW, the LED's weigh in at about 1/2 the weight of the CFL, produce almost no heat, and they seem to last forever. The first LED bulb I bought (for $12) was to use in the range hood since I did not want mercury any where near the food. It's still running after 7 years. This is 7 years of continuous use and I mean 24/7 for that entire period of time. We use the range hood light as a night light for the kitchen. The only time it isn't running is when there is a power outage. The bulb only uses 12 watts while producing more light than incandescent that it replaced. 80%+ efficient.

[healey36]

Arttista tramp and his car:



Model A resin-casting by Rusty Rail.

Healey

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Nicely done.

[chuck]

Great work. Is he trying to make 7n7 in the 7 Up can?