plutarch 64 | 20 Jan 2016 5:13 a.m. PST |
Just completed although, if it does get mixed-in again with another thread on WWII aircraft carriers, I really don't mind (thanks for noticing Deadhead):
More here for anyone interested: tinmountain.blogspot.com.au |
ThePeninsularWarin15mm | 20 Jan 2016 6:52 a.m. PST |
Very well done. Only critique might be the blue is so dark it almost appears to be black. That might just be the picture though. I don't recognize the basing system, that's different. |
plutarch 64 | 20 Jan 2016 8:04 a.m. PST |
Thanks but, no, the Foundry French blue is one of the things I have been most happy with:
And I can't help but over-use it at times:
And that was probably just a shameless excuse to post a few pictures… |
wrgmr1 | 20 Jan 2016 10:02 a.m. PST |
Very nice work! I like the blue. |
Timmo uk | 20 Jan 2016 10:05 a.m. PST |
These look great. I agree the blue should be so dark that it looks nearly black – like the real uniform. |
ThePeninsularWarin15mm | 20 Jan 2016 10:45 a.m. PST |
"These look great. I agree the blue should be so dark that it looks nearly black – like the real uniform." I'm certain any unit in the field would not match that description. |
Widowson | 20 Jan 2016 2:09 p.m. PST |
I agree, that's a fantastic blue. I've just emailed my local to ask if they carry it. |
Timmo uk | 21 Jan 2016 11:17 a.m. PST |
"I'm certain any unit in the field would not match that description." How certain can you be, where you there? If you view the real uniforms that survive, they are a very dark blue which looks nearly black in some light just like these beautifully painted figures. I've seen a few of the real surviving jackets in Portugal, have you? The French uniforms are equally a very dark blue, of course it's your choice if you aim to replicate the real thing or do otherwise. I actually think it's really refreshing to see somebody paint their figures like the examples shown here, with reference to the real thing rather than with a toy like brightness. I know re-enactors are sometimes frowned on by wargamers but if you look at the dark blues they are often wearing these are very dark looking – black in some lighting conditions. I imagine they are at least trying to get the right cloth colours. As very dark blue weathers it will become less saturated and tend towards a greyish blue but not a brighter blue. Same way that blue jeans wear. A different theatre but apparently/allegedly at Waterloo Napoleon couldn't initially tell the difference between the Prussians and the French at distance as they both looked black when both in fact where wearing dark blue. |
ThePeninsularWarin15mm | 22 Jan 2016 7:20 p.m. PST |
@Timmo, Because we have records stating how cheap the dyes were, how they ran and faded from rains and sunlight. The cloth was dipped multiple times to get to that original color. Not everything you see in a museum claiming to be an original is. Anything that survived was probably not worn in the field for any given period of time. We're not in disagreement about whether it's dark blue or not, but when you paint them almost black, you only do it for your preference, not for realism. And if you're happy with that, then enjoy it. |
plutarch 64 | 23 Jan 2016 4:07 a.m. PST |
Definitely a question of personal preference, although I think that the second picture of the 14th Tavira is perhaps more representative of the Foundry French Blue. The shade is definitely a very dark blue and absorbs the light, but the base and highlight are quite a bit lighter. I do feel it is the best I have yet come across in terms of replicating indigo-based dyes however, and certainly matches what I have seen in places like Les Invalides and elsewhere, although I can't actually recall having sighted a Portuguese uniform first-hand as Timmo has done. I think the thing that struck me the most was how dark they actually were, and can remember being in a Napoleonic antique shop across from the Louvre (Art et Chevalerie from memory) and being quite surprised that they were as dark as they were. I blame the 60's cover art on Airfix Waterloo French Infantry for that. I have always preferred the parade ground look as opposed to that of a year into a campaign, as I believe the former leaves us with something that is more readily recognisable in terms of the combatants we are attempting to represent. As you say though PeninsularWarin15mm, each to their own, and it is ultimately a matter of individual taste. |
Timmo uk | 23 Jan 2016 7:39 a.m. PST |
@PWin15mm I think where you and I differ is that I'm trying to paint the effect of what the figures look like when the real thing is seen at a distance to make them appear say 18 – 28mm tall and that is invariably dark. Colours of wool based uniforms seen at distance are typically not the bright colours that many acrylic colours tend towards and eye witness accounts mention dark masses of troops. By the time any firing troops had been in action I suspect they look an awful lot darker! I don't paint piping on my figures either – it's impossible to paint it in scale on 18mm figures and again wouldn't really be visible at distance – again that's my impressionist approach. As Plutarch 64 notes – when you see the real uniforms (not all those in European museums are fakes) the colours are much more subdued and much, much darker than many wargamers paint their models. This holds true even if the uniforms on display are fakes or reproductions. Lots like their figures to 'pop' on the table but I don't care for that look as I like the style of painting that Plutarch demonstrates. If any of us wanted to really paint realistic campaign weary figures (and I have done in the past) then our French would usually be in greatcoats and I suspect many of our AngloPortuguese would be in brown locally made trousers. White coats wouldn't really be white etc etc Enjoy your painting! |
archiduque | 25 Jan 2016 10:04 a.m. PST |
|
Edwulf | 25 Jan 2016 3:39 p.m. PST |
|
FreemanL | 28 Jan 2016 5:39 a.m. PST |
Completely agree on painting how the real article looks over any artist impression. Well done to you sir! Larry |
plutarch 64 | 28 Jan 2016 8:14 p.m. PST |
Thanks for the kind words, much appreciated. |