"A wargamers painting Guide?" Topic

The inspiration for this was, looking around on a lockdown walk yesterday and it struck me at how short a range detail just dissapered. Brick houses becam monatone, figures became block coloue no real shadeing as the image is too small. Hair or hood became indistinguishable. It occoured to me that some clever person may have beed able to codify some of this to make it easier.Now there are those whose idea is to paint the perfect figure, that fine but its not me. I am no artist and the only guy I know who I had time for went and passed away.

So is there a guide for philastines like me, who want a guide to the way to paint THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM to look passible and real at 4ft? I don't care about even a a foot away its too close I never get that close. I suspect its about knowing when its worth say just painting modern 1/144 troops one block colour and how to cheat if you need 2 or 3 coloures so it looks real but it's not. Black for faces or dark brown, my blokes cammo their faces up so as not to stand out.

Block colouring with a wash sounds like what you want.

Passible is a subjective standard. So is real. And it would vary by milieu, which you would also need to specify.

Like the standards you want to be universal but are not, neither is visual perception a standard. Sexual dimorphism and IQ are two different major factors that affect perception. Situation and intent are also important (the invisible gorilla experiment).

People actually see and process tons of information that their minds don't consciously acknowledge and catalog. However, that subconscious information affects people's interaction and understanding of objects.

No matter how monochrome you may consciously say a set of figures is, you are actually seeing subtle differences in colour that allow you to perceive the object as 3D and place it in 3D space. You can tell the difference between a real life wargame tabletop and a drawing of one.

Likewise, your mind will fill in gaps in visual representation.

That is a face. The person is happy. But it is really a black outline circle and a few other lines against a solid yellow fill. By the objective markers of algorithmic facial identity done by computers, that isn't a face.

If you line two colours on a figure, then just like two colours.

For figures, especially small scale ones, all you really see are their hats and faces. Yes, modern soldiers camo up, but tbh for most modern(ish) figures you can just paint them a drab base colour, pick out their guns in black, dob on some flesh, make sure their helmets/caps are done neatly then give them a wash. Job done.

Well, for small infantry, 15mm or less, spray paint a drab color. Do flesh on faces and hands, then the cap helmet. I wouldn't even wash them.

Interesting two of you mention flesh when often guys wear black gloves and cammo faces, so would dark green be better?
This is the point, it would be interesting to see what an artist would recommend. I often do guns black but much of a gun like the stock is green so that is already an inaccuracy on my part as I paint most of it black.

It is a matter of taste and, much more important, what you enjoy. If highly detailed painting is what you enjoy,then go ahead do that. If basic paint job is what you want them do that. There no right answer.

For me it is at least somewhat dependent on the scale of the project. For small 28mm, i.e. 20-40 figures, I'll go all out. For 50-150 I'll do a block plus wash. If I'm doing a large project, 500+ figures, it's block painting and away we go. Otherwise I literally would never finish a project ;)

I paint plastic Army Men figures. Here is a 54mm Army Man figure, simple block painting only where the color differs from the plastic! Then painted with The Dip, Minwax Polyurethane Stain, Royal Walnut color. This particular figure is made of green plastic, so a good example of the style of painting, and the finished look of it.

I can paint Army Men figures like this, in 5-10 minutes, per figure, assembly line style, including the time it takes to paint on The Dip! At arm's length, they look great. I also Hot Glue them to 2-inch squares of MDF, for bases, with different colors of sand, on the base, to really dress them up, for the tabletop. Here is another example of a finished figure (54mm).

They will not win any contests, but for simplicity, and speed, this is unbeatable, for what the end result looks like!

I take the same approach for my 25mm fantasy figures. If I can prime them in their major color, I will. Then I only need paint the parts that are different in color. I block paint them, then I apply The Dip, which brings it all together. Here is a 54mm Cave Man figure I use as a Hill Giant, for my AD&D games. His skin, is bare plastic, with a Minwax wash; hair, club, and clothes, are painted; the shield is added onto the original plastic figure, with E6000 Glue. Here is a 28mm Dwarf Male Warrior, and a 28mm Female Dwarf Warrior -- both done with simple block painting, followed by The Dip.

At arm's length, they look great, whether 25mm, or 54mm. The Dip works a treat on terrain pieces, as well, if a dark, weathered wash, is appropriate. It cannot be beat for speed, and efficiency. Period! Full Stop!

YMMV. Cheers!

Gloves and camo is very unit/period specific. WW2 grunts certainly not. Not Desert Storm either.

But hands and face give the visual cues that this brown blob is a dude, and not a shrub. But heck, spray one color, do the helmet and call it a day.

Surely you want him cammo. We have had "fun" when folk (including me or especially me) have "lost" figures or confused them as the cammo worked. Better than any rules you can write.

Sgt Slag never seen or hear of that. I guess looking at some vids its called Quick Shade over here. Has some potential.

Quick Shade is a very expensive hobby miniatures hobby version of Minwax Polyshades. It is virtually the same product, only twice the price of Minwax…

The Quick Shade flavors correspond to the Minwax Royal Walnut (dark Brown), and Tudor (Black). Make sure to purchase only the Tudor, never anything marked, Black! The Black will not work as a wash, it has too much black pigment, turning the figures almost entirely black. Don't ask how I know… They make a water-based formula, if you want to try that.

The figures can be fully cured/dried, by placing them into a Slow Cooker/Crock Pot, set on Low: 170 F. There is no explosion risk, in a Slow Cooker -- no flames, no sparks. Bake them inside, for 30 minutes, and they will be fully cured.

If you use Semi-Gloss, they will still be rather shiny. A matte clear coat will dull them nicely. Cheers!

This is the point, it would be interesting to see what an artist would recommend.

Why do you believe people here are not artists?

I think the problem is that none of us include myself are artists as we lack the science of perception that underlies any attempt to do a decent job.

Fr instance there will be at least an underlying basics at which iare vital, that frankly I don't have the time to generate unless I have to.

For example, inspecting an aerospece part there are minimal sizes of cracks that can be detected by the naked eye. In art there has to be a similar rule of thumb as to the minimum detectable feature as a function of range. Therefore it should be possible on inspecting a figure what is is not worth painting given a range. Now there will be a modifier to some extent due to contrast. Now it will take better than me to define that in a useful manner but I am sure it has been done if there is any reason at all in art. I would expect that perhaps like the colour circle there could be a Contrast Table to gauge standard levels of contrast. This may help in defining where a figure may be left say black requiring less painting and still be at an optimum effectiveness at war game ranges.

Even I recognize there is an element of painting for an optimum range, to much subtle detail for close in viewing makes can make a figure worse at longer viewing ranges.

none of us

Really?

The science of perception is exactly what I put in the above post. If you don't want to bother to engage on that topic, that is fine. The question is why you project your shortcomings in this area on others.

Although "none of us… are artists", I would submit that many of us put some time and effort into producing an attractive figure or model.
My last "best painted army" award was back in 1985, but I still believe in putting good looking models on the table, even in 15mm.

You have an amazing tendency to make outlandish statements and then assume that everyone agrees with you.
If you want to spray paint a figure black and then paint his face and hands green, go for it. I'm not about to tell you what to do.

Funny, I earn a living painting figures – I believe that makes me an artist of sorts…

Ah Jeezuus H. you guys, c'mon, if the guy likes his paint job ROCKING!!!! As long as you can tell from a reasonable distance what the figure is supposed to represent, what DIFFERENCE does it makes. Whatever happened to:
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Being mildly contentious sometimes helps folk to think long and hard about the subject.

Real Artists do not to me include types who duplicate Cambels Soup can sables on a piece of paper and call it art (Con Artist yes). von Schwartz ver 2 is right, beauty is in the eye of the beholder but "art" without the background of science become the triumph of art over common sense, that is my PERSONAL opinion. Hence looking for some science rather than like I was taught at school(many many years ago) a pathetic "just go with the flow". I suppose such a bad start left me with a jaundiced view of many so called artists. Art without science to me is like an English "pub with no beer" truly a sad thing to behold.

Being mildly contentious

insults people, their experiences, and capabilities. Well, not mildly contentious. But completely discounting that someone else might have knowledge, skills or abilities that you don't does.

like I was taught at school(many many years ago) a pathetic "just go with the flow".

Maybe you should have tried public school in America. In rural nowhereville where i grew up we got art theory and art history in elementary and middle school. Art teachers were required to give homework and tests, and to grade them. You can't grade someone's aesthetics.

But given that, when the theory behind perception and how it relates to wargaming and miniatures, why didn't you respond to that?

I don't get what Art without Science has to do with painting toy soldiers… As said, if you want to spray your figures a dark colour and blob on some green then do it.

But, the vast, vast majority of wargamers like well painted figures on detailed battlefields because wargaming is a visual and tactile hobby NOT just about gaming pieces. Otherwise you might as well play with counters and use a boardgame…

No one cares if it doesn't accurately represent the view of real person from that distance – they want to see a pleasing visual 3d representation of a soldier from the time period they are playing.

Mike

I think your last sentence sums the matter up perfectly, Mike!

But I hope that what is a 'well painted' and/or 'pleasing' toy soldier will remain a matter of personal taste, not become one standard or style to which every one must aspire.

Arthur,

I think you worry too much about pressure from other people in the industry showing off their painting. There has never been a standard people have to adhere to any more than there will be a standard set of rules!

The "butchers cut" style of Kevin Dallimore flesh painting never caught on around here and I block paint and perhaps wash figures without any attempt at 3 levels of shading (I did go through this phase and then dry brushing and other styles) and I'm happy with the figures I produce.

The nice thing about wargaming is that, despite the commercialisation of a lot of it, it is still a very indiviual hobby where you can do what you like and no one can tell you that you are wrong.

Mike

Even in with my inexpereience in such things, I can see that the "quality" of a figures appearance certainly for 15mm and below and with limited experience with 1/32, detail blurs out and actaually what looks good at 6" looks worse at say 4ft than somthing that was painted for a 4ft range. Strength of colour and contrast may need to be artificilly enhanced to get a better picture at range. I have to confess I have not beed able to do this as well as I would like due to my lack of knowledge, hence the request at the start.

It I have to say I am supprised why the antipathy exists. Is it just that figure painters are only interested at an optimum viewing range of say 6" as that is where they will be viewed in a glass case, and accept the dergadation at longer ranges?

That's fine, if is that is the case and would explain the irritation shown by some as the default viewing range has little to do with optimum while playing. Slotcar enthusiasts by slot cars they never intend to run to any extent they buy them for show which is much the same thing.

Sureley the attempt to get a bit of science and fundamentals of percetions to help folk get the optimum paint job in the minimum time does not require such vitriol.

The trouble is that the "optimum paint job" is in the eye of the beholder. You have to work it out for yourself.

The problem is that you really are almost alone in wanting an optimal paint job in minimal time…

Most wargamers I know like painting and want to produce a figure that represents the uniform in all its details. Even those that don't paint want to buy well painted figures with detail on them…

It doesn't matter that you can't see the detail while playing the game.

Mike

It I have to say I am supprised why the antipathy exists

Me too. Several people have talked to you about the criteria. You just ignore them. Why the antipathy?

No, no he is not, Black Hat Miniatures Mike. I, and many others, enjoy playing, far more than painting. I speed paint, usually investing around 10 minutes, per figure, including The Dip Technique application time. I assembly line paint, organizing my figures by pose, applying the same brush stroke to each figure within a pose group, until the figures are done with their block painting. Then I brush on the Minwax, in rapid succession.

When I paint plastic figures, I use the color of the plastic, when possible, painting only the bits that are a different color. The Minwax seals the paint in, beneath a thin coating of polyurethane stain.

I paint fast, only striving for a decent appearance at 3+ feet distance. That is how I view them, 99% of the time. I paint for the 99%, not the 1%. I eschew this mantra as much as I can. Too many people have left the hobby because they failed to achieve Golden Demon levels of painting. Too many people push this level of painting, which pushes people out of the hobby, as they are unable to achieve that level of painting.

If a person achieves satisfactory results using simple techniques, they can always up their painting game, later, should they decide to do so. Pushing newbies to paint to GW Golden Demon levels, is foolish. Give them initial successes in the early days of their participation in the hobby. Let them decide after that. Some will push themselves to paint to a higher standard, some will be happy where they are.

If block painting plus The Dip Technique was shared and encouraged, I believe we would retain many more people within our hobby. I blame not only GW, but the majority of snobbish gamers, in many of the forums, for driving newbies away. YouTube, and the majority of forums, actively discourage people from simpler painting approaches. Sad, really. Cheers!

Sgt, Slag +1.

Using a phrase sanctioned and approved by The Editor, the statement that striving for a decent paint job, and wishing to improve is "driving people away from the hobby" is "ludicrous in the extreme".
I wish to make it clear that this not to be construed as a personal attack, but an analysis of the statement.

Assuming that troops are attempting to 'blend in', you could go to the extreme of using empty bases. (They're there, you just can't see them.)

For night games, you could paint everything monochromatic.

Or, troops usually getting into the mud, you could paint everything sepia monochromatic.

And, troops moving around a lot, you could also paint them as blurred!

Using a phrase sanctioned and approved by The Editor, the statement that striving for a decent paint job, and wishing to improve is "driving people away from the hobby" is "ludicrous in the extreme".

You could argue that setting a high standard makes it hard for newbies to feel welcome or feel that they measure up.

I am not saying paint to golden demon standard or paint to more than you are doing. I am saying that the majority of gamers I KNOW want to represent their figures with a reasonable paint job which looks good. Rather than spraying black and paintng 2 dabs of green…

I am NOT saying that anyone should even paint their figures if they don't want but that in MY experience people do want to paint their figures to a level where you can admire them at 6" or a a foot not 6 feet…

I started the hobby playing little wars with unpainted plastics but once I saw painted figures I wanted to have those – it inspired me to play games with painted figures – it didn't put me off.

Mike

I agree with John – producing figures to a standard you are happy with isn't driving people away from the hobby.

That is like saying that Usain Bolt's performance stops people running…

You could argue that setting a high standard makes it hard for newbies to feel welcome or feel that they measure up.

Nah, not really. Mostly, people who compare themselves to others and then self-censor their behaviour will find a reason to exclude themselves, no matter the external stimulus.

Now, boorish behaviour along the lines of "This is how I do it, and anyone who believes different isn't a real wargamer." will end up driving people away. Hopefully, only from people with such behaviour.

Black Hat Miniatures, " the problem is that you really are almost alone in wanting an optimal paint job in minimal time" clearly you move in different circles to me where games and not paint count.

Personally I see folk put off when expected not to start until they have, to me, excessively painted miniatures just for a game.

Me I encourage folk to play if necessary with unpainted figures, but do encourage them to just paint one colour (spray) just like we did as kids with Airfix or equivalent.. If they want more that's fine but it is not a requirement and in my mined should never be so.

All:

Back in the mid-2000's, I taught an introductory tabletop wargaming class to boys, ages 10-12. It was offered through my local Community Education system, run by the Public School system. My classes were run twice per year, usually, for four years. Each class sold out, and they always asked me to run additional classes, to meet the demand. I typically ran three classes, each one being full.

I subsequently taught a class on basic painting, and terrain-making, which also sold out.

I have been a TMP member since prior to 2000. I have read many a recurring post about the graying/dying of the historical miniatures gaming hobby. It is a recurring theme, which crops up every one to two years, it seems.

My push to advocate simpler, faster, easier painting techniques is aimed solely at bringing new players to the table. I became interested in wargames around 12 years of age. I did my best to introduce young boys to wargames, 15 years ago. My views are based on what I experienced teaching my classes to enthusiastic youngsters, back then. For adults, I introduce them to the quick and easy GEtGW Dip Technique, as it gets them successfully painting, very quickly. If they decide to go beyond that level, that is their choice.

I really don't play historical games anymore. But I do game with Army Men, as my rules play fast, furious, and they are more fun than a Human Being ought to be allowed. I do prefer my Army Men painted, but I don't require it; some of my gaming buddies (historical gamers, all) prefer they not be painted. Me, I just love to play miniatures. I am not a hyper-realistic painter, nor terrain maker. I'll game with felt rivers and roads, but I really prefer to avoid exceptionally painted mini's in a game. They will be damaged in handling, sooner or later, which is a reality I accept, but some mini's owners do not. Oops! If that is the case, do not bring them to the table… ;-) Damage happens. I can't afford to invest 2-12 hours in painting a miniature, then have it damaged in play -- by me, or anyone else! When my 10-minute paint jobs are damaged, I sigh, but I knew it would happen anyway. It is just the price I pay for using them in a game.

I do, however, care about promoting miniatures gaming with young people. For that reason, I aimed to lower the bar, as much as I can, to entice newbies into a fun, rewarding series of hobbies.

In my classes, even simple block painting of non-tan/non-green areas of Army Men figures, was a challenge to the youngsters. Even with the simple, reliable, Dip Technique, it was a challenge for the kids. If you want to see young people take up the hobby, train them up young, with basic, fast, simple, GEtGW techniques.

That is my story, and I am sticking to it. Cheers!