"Do you get what you see?" Topic

In this day and age of digital sculpts and high end paint jobs to promote Kickstarters and new projects, do you as the consumer believe that you get what you see down to the finest detail? Or, are you buying an image that you enjoy?

Basically, things have changed from the line drawings and photos in magazines to what can be done digital on a computer. And, since I am some what old school about my miniatures (still like to physically look before buying), I have often wondered what the expectation of today's gamer is when comes to looking at miniatures that is digital renderings or is a prototype painted to such a high detail that the average will never achieve.

What is your impression of the actual bare naked miniature once you have it in hand?

I've been very happy that products have met or exceeded expectations. The minis that have looked really good as a screen image of pre-production models have largely been exceptionally good live and in real 3-D.

…and on the other hand there's these:

@lovejoy,

Wow, those are bad.

The only figures that i have purchased via kickstarter, and that i was very disillusioned after getting the, were the Reaper Bones. They are not enjoyable to paint and a lot of detail is very soft. I gave them all away.

I have the third Zombicide series and i think their figures are superb. Very crisp detal. The Mantic figures are getting better, but the first ones from deadzone are just too fidly and soft details. It is very annoying to assemble figures that don't fit properly. I know you can get this with metal, but the metal can bend a bit.

I think you really need to go with a company that has done a few before.

Well for me -- I feel that the marketing world is rife with this kind of stuff -- I do not care to remember how many hamburgers, fish sandwichs, meals, etc I have purchased and they was no where near what was shown on the picture.
Then I started buying miniatures and for a long time I fell for pictures of miniatures with the "million" dollar paint job I had seen in a Glossy and when the minis arrived they did not look like that picture!! In fact one time I had Andy from Old Glory UK buy me over $300 USD worth of minis (he tried to warn me)and when they arrived --in the trash they went.
Now its the digital sculpts that many times we are shown digitally enlarged and improved figures that at that stage are essentially drawings -- oh well- it must work as the advertising world keeps doing it????
By the way --Old Glory is coming out with a new bottle of pills -- you loose weight, eat what you want, and do not have to exercise --watch our adds for this!!!
Regards
Russ Dunwaway

Do you see what you get? This sort of issue can occur with old-fashioned spin-cast metal figures, too.

A case in point: Old Glory's Ottoman range. Leaving aside the artillery, this is in two parts: Constantinople to Vienna 1450 – 1690, and (reeking of irony) The Long Decline 1690 – 1890.

The figures for the earlier phase of Ottoman history are, I think most would agree, among the company's best, and OG rightly proudly showcases them on the website in glorious close-up such that every detail is visible, and they impressively dominate the full-colour centre-spread of a WAB supplement. However, pride in the second-phase figures, sculpted by a different designer, seems to be of a lower intensity: they're so far from the camera lens that you can really only make out their general outlines, and might understandably therefore miss the fact that there was a significant step-down in quality in 1690. Having bought a couple of packs before I was aware of the difference I can fully understand OG's reluctance to thrust them as boldly into the limelight as they have the figures for the Ottoman glory years.

Henry, in terms of metal figures, what you point our is true with a lot of lines.

The issue has to deal with digital sculpts or images, which are often shown to the consumer verses the end metal product. This is often done, because on Kickstarter a person is trying to raise the capital to bring the digital images to the consumer either in the form of plastics or metal.

In the case of Old Glory photos, of which the photos were taken by an independent source and not arranged by Old Glory, you are dealing with a finished product. Digital sculpts are not a finished product, and therefore can be effected by necessary adjustments in order to make the figure cast able, resulting in the loss of some detail and sharpness one sees in the digital image.

Some people like some things -- some people like other things. One thing one person loves another person hates.
All I care is that I do not get anymore letters as long as an epistle pointing out perceived faults in figures (real or unreal) --this minutiae is terrifying to me!!! LOL !!!!
Regards
Russ Dunaway

I never back a KS that can only offer renders of models.

@Russ – those pills sound great, will renew OG Army membership ASAP

The two issues are broadly related, Mr Miniatureships, in that they concern photogenic perceptions of quality.

I'm merely saying that there should be consistency: images shouldn't be used selectively to highlight only figures the manufacturer feels are worthy of showcasing, whilst disguising inferiority in others. Only the sort of close-up photography used for the 1450 – 1690 figures allows the customer to make an informed judgement about quality. Whilst there would undoubtedly be some expense involved, perhaps it would be advisable to re-shoot the less informative images. After all, they've served for many years, so OG can't say it hasn't had value from them.

As regards the sculpting of the later Ottoman figures, it's only relatively inferior when set alongside the earlier figures, other OG ranges of the same standard – of which, I might add, there are a good many – and some other high-end brands. And as Russ suggests, I'm sure there are people who favour the Hinchcliffian (is that a word?) style over the more nuanced sculpting techniques we've come to expect in recent years – but I do think the customer should be provided with sufficient visual information to permit him/her to see exactly what's on offer.

I will still disagree.

Digital sculpts are really concept art. They still have to go through a molding process. This process is digital, the sculpting can be altered by another program when in the tooling process. Plus, some detail, as with greens will be lost.

Pictures of metal miniatures, bad or not, are still photos of end product. What you see is the result of molding process, and not something prior to molding.

The digital image is always the best foot forward of the process. The digital image is big, bold and in your face, and kinda comes with a promise, this is what you will get, minus nothing.

If the only image is a digital render, I assume they won't look as good.

Though I've bought sight unseen before so I guess no huge loss.