"GETTING HIGH??? How high should a hi-light be?" Topic

I've been fiddling away with the Three Color Method now for a couple of years and the "highlight" still defeats me…

Please scroll down to see Spencer Keen's fine chasseurs:

link

The highlightS are too pronounced on the breeeches for me, but his eye for color is masterful.

How "high" SHOULD a high-light be? Is there a ratio you use? Do you try to create "folds" like the below (or does that look like THE MUMMY to you?)

link

link

What say you, all?

Or do you like the more "airbrushed" look of the, say, Historex 54mms?

link

I know what you mean, but realize that they will be looked at from a distance so you need to bring them out quite distinctively

I like the pronounced highlights and the "created" folds, but different strokes (literally, in this case) for different folks. There is no SHOULD, it's personal preference.

"personal preference"…

EXACTLY. Paint so they are to your liking. The minute anybody tells you it is wrong, move on. Style is "style". Paint, enjoy, paint some more. Life's too short to need approval for your collection and painting style.

Brent

I agree with the above that this is a matter of personal preference. Moreover there are fashions in miniatures painting just like in anything else. People will get sick of one style or another and switch over.

Personally -- the white trousers of the barvarians in the 2nd link look like horizontal stripes, there seems to be too great a variation between the shadow and the highlight. I would say the shadow is too dark, rather than the highlight too bright.

But, and it is a major but, there is a big difference between how a figure appears under macro photography and on a gaming table.

The 54mm historex one looks very nice, but it is much bigger so natural light and shadows has a bigger effect.

At the end of the day, you are spending the time painting the figs, so go with a look and style that you like.

To me, it's not the lightness of the highlight, it's the 'jumps' between colours. I don't like that style in the pics you posted, of the discrete bands of shade and highlight. Especially on flesh areas.

Compare the highlighting on this guy: link

(OK, granted it takes ages; you wouldn't want to do an army like that, but still).

Yeah, Andrew, that's the layered look, many coats, gradually getting lighter. Nicely done, but seen mostly -- for some reason -- on fantasy more than historical. Wonder why.

I think the "Dallimore method" works very good when the painter is careful where the shades are painted. Making folds and creases where there are none can make the trousers look wierd -- baggy pants anyone? Too sharp contrast and you have mummy syndrome.

In the pictures above I very much like Spencer Keen's chasseurs, I don't think the highlights too great on the trousers. The bavarians have white trousers -- always tricky -- and I don't think the highlights are too prominent. However, the horizontal bands to make the trousers seem a bit more loosefitting than I think they should be.

I have found that if you do that style the Foundry paint system is very useful. In most cases their highlight colours are just spot on.

They look great to me, my compliments. I agree with most posts here, it's a matter of personal preferance.
On a gaming table at a distance, the hightlights look perfectly normal. Up close they may look a tad odd.
Artwork is like that, some will look great from a distance then up close it looks odd. It's how the painter decides to create his art.

These are very well done, but I agree with you in that I don't like the exaggerated folds and creases, and especially the circles around the eyes. I much prefer the style used by the model soldier collectors. I think your figures should look like a photograph. That being said I've taken a lot from Ken Dallimore's technique, just not to that extreme.

Sorry, Kevin Dallimore.

15-25% highlight, 50-60% midtone, 15-25 percent shdaow. And sometimes what you need is deeper shadows, not higher highlights. It's the contrast between the two that gets you a well shaded figure. And sometimes when people aren't sure why their minis are looking dull and they want to take the next step, that step is most often--higher highlights and deeper shadows. They need to push it to get a better looking figure, but their eyes need to get used to it. I tell most of my students to take it as far as you think is good, and then go at least one step hiogher and one step darker.

Now, that said, this is for minis you're taking a bit more time with…

Hi everyone!

Just one mans opinion but I think scale is important too. When it comes to highlights (and the examples in the pics above are stunning!) you can go mad with 25s and it only seems to make them better (which is one of the things I love about 25s) I have found painting 15s, where often painters are interested in a more panaramic effect too many highlights tend to wash out the colour (when viewed from the table). Here is an exert from painting article I wrote recently link

Colour
18th century armies are without doubt among the most colourful around. Here is a little advice on getting the best and brightest from your miniatures.
I will say this a number of times in this article, and I'll say it again here – avoid ‘sharp' paint. Top of the list would be Games Workshop and of course any gloss paints on the market. While glossy or sharp paint may intuitively seem to be the way to get your guys as colourful and ‘standing out' as possible, it has, in fact the opposite effect. The more matt, or the flatter the paint is, the more armies and colours tend to stand out.

In addition, don't highlight too much! When I was a bit younger I used to like to show off my painting prowess/command of technique, by applying 5 progressive layers of highlights to every jacket (each coat adding progressively more white, for those not in the know) to get ‘an amazing illusion of depth.' The net result is the colours get washed out, red becomes orange or pink, blue becomes baby blue (!) yellow becomes cream, etc. Apply highlights certainly, but don't go crazy (thank God I hear you all say!).

Recently, a technique I have been using to good effect to get vibrant red, uses two different paint manufacturers together. I start with Games Workshop ‘Blood Red' (yes I know what I just said about GW above, but stay with me!) which is thin and changes to a nice dark maroon colour over black undercoat, and then apply a very heavy (not sloppy) dry-brush of gouache: in this case Jo Sonja's Cadmium Scarlet. For fantastic blue, I start with Games Workshop Royal Blue, then as above add Jo Sonja's Cobalt Blue Hue and then the tiniest scrape of Jo Sonja's Aqua on the most exposed edges. The sharpness of the GW gives a good foundation and the warmth of the gouache gives vibrant colour and attracts the eye. I have found the results to be brilliant.

I should mention the above method is just my way, and plenty of other painters use other methods with results that are just as effective.

Very interesting Pessa, alas, I couldn't get into your link.

link

Hi, sorry about that. Here is the link again if you are interested. If it doesn't work simply go to koenigkrieg.com and go to the 'hobby' section…

PessaOO,
Very nice, Old Glory figures on AB horses ?
regards,

Yep, you guess it! Though there are some nice new figures appearing for the 7YW in 15, for me the Old Glory range is still the best (I reckon their 7YW range is the best OG have ever released in 15mil). Having said that, their horses are an abomination IMHO. It was someone on these boards (from memory) who gave me the idea to replace them with AB horses, which are wonderful and sold seperately…particualrly the 'leaping/rearing hv cav' horses which are awesome for officers and the occassional front rank model.

It costs a bit, but for me its worth it.

Lovely effect, all those figs, pessa.