"15mm WWII Soviet 50mm Mortar Teams from Peter Pig" Topic

Wow.

This is the same outfit that did the incredibly funkadelic job on your CD Marines, isn't it?

TMP link

It's possibly conceivable that Ukrainians might think that the USMC comes in Day-Glo shades, but there's really no excuse for their being so far off on Soviet uniform and equipment colors. They really have no eye for color at all, apparently.

So Bill: it looks like you subscribe to the motto, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice? Yeah, sure!"

Allen

Huh. These have inexplicably bright green helmets and weapons, too:

TMP link

Something wonky with your camera, or are you going for a consistently unhistorical look?

"It's possibly conceivable that Ukrainians might think that the USMC comes in Day-Glo shades"

Shall I get Galina to paint some and see if she gets the same result? :-)

You could, but I suspect she would not.

I was thinking of the two of you when I posted that!

Allen

So Allen, if I understand you correctly, your main criticism here is that the helmets are the wrong shade of green?

When compared so something like: picture or picture the colour you have appears to be completely off.

It may be that the camera/lighting combination is making the green a little on the lumy side. At least, I hope it's the camera!

"your main criticism here is that the helmets are the wrong shade of green?"

There are wrong shades and then there are wrong shades. Day-glo green wasn't generally a common Russian colour.

The reason for the discrepancy in the pack description (mortar packs usually have two mortars and six crew vs these which have eight figs and three tubes) is because the mortars are moulded onto the gunners base – so you get eight figs. The larger mortars come as separate pieces.

And the mortar:

picture

link

[Note that they were phosphatized, not painted.]

And the Maxim in the previous Showcase:

picture

link

picture

Surely photos (both of originals and models) may not capture the true color, and monitors may not display them properly.

But the helmets, mortars, and machineguns in these two Showcases seem far too rich in the blue end of green, and not sufficiently subdued.

Just as with the helmet photo links that Geoff posted, there was certainly variation in paint shades, as well as subsequent weathering. (Yes, that third Maxim looks surprisingly bright on the yellow end--but it's awful close to what Vietnam-era US OD vehicles would frequently weather to in the mid-70s; heaven knows I repainted enough of the real thing…)

And as you can see, it's not very hard to pull up images that clearly show what should and should not be painted on weapons: the receiver and muzzle of the Maxims were be phosphatized, not painted; the mortar not painted at all. That's easy stuff to get right.

I'm also not excited about the color chosen by Old Guard for the field uniforms, but there's probably more accetable variation there. I just think it looks a little greenish, too.

Allen

Galina was looking through it. There is quite a disparity between these figures and the quality shown on their gallery.

Galina says, anyone want any figures painted? :-)

On 15mm I exaggerate shadows and highlights, to make a more striking miniature. I've painted 15mm in very accurate colours and the end result looks featureless at arms length. To each his own.

This is the same outfit that did the incredibly funkadelic job on your CD Marines, isn't it?

To be fair, they got a bum steer by using a plastic figure company's painting reference. (I failed to provide painting instructions for that project.) I consider the figures to conform to the references they used.

Well, the current fashion seems to be to expect a painting service to not know anything. But I think that's a weak excuse.

Allen

Day-glo green wasn't generally a common Russian colour.

I try to hit a happy medium, which means that TMP pictures may look a bit dark on cathode-ray type monitors (especially older ones), and a bit bright on "flat" monitors and laptops. I'm seeing a darkish green here, what you see…

…the mortar not painted at all.

So what color should it be?

I'm also not excited about the color chosen by Old Guard for the field uniforms…

It's darker than the troops I painted myself, but as you say, there was plenty of variation in real life.

"So what color should it be?"

Apparently, you are working on becoming qualified as a pro painting service.

THE COLOR IN THE PICTURES!!!

Allen

Variation, yes; but within bounds.

The info is out there:

picture

link

Even plastic soldier box art can get things right:

picture

As far as I can see, both Galina and me used FOW suggested colours, with heavy shadowing and drybrushing to make details pop out. Some people like it, some don't. If these were 28mm or 54mm, the technique, colours and result would have been different.
WWII pictures vary a lot, and Soviet uniforms did more than anyone else. I am sorry if I did not get the shade you consider appropiate.
And I do not run a painting service; the Editor asked me for a workbench report, and I agreed to. In the article I explained that the intention was to illustrate quick painting methods to get miniatures on the table ASAP.
Again, sorry it did not quite matches your high expectations. Maybe it would be a good idea if you did a Workbench Report to show us how you do it?

I've tried many times on TMP to encourage people to rely on their *eyes*: to paint what they see. All too often it appears that people simply *don't* see, or as in your case, they fall back on the "Me used FOW suggested colours" safety net--despite the many instances where those have been shown to be demonstrably wrong.

If you went the PBN route and used Vallejo 894 for helmets (or--all the saints and angels preserve us--"Catachan Green") uncritically, then yes: people who has actually seen or laid hands on Soviet kit are going to think they look odd.

Allen

"…Galina and me…"

These aren't by Galina.

These are her painting:
picture
picture
picture
picture

I don't think the issue is so much with the stylised painting (which I don't personally like, but that's an individual choice as you say), as the fact that the helmets are quite clearly the wrong green (far too blue) and the equipment has also been painted where it shouldn't be.

Galina doesn't run a painting service either (hence her suggestion that maybe she should paint a few for some people), but she also refuses to paint anything unless I provide her with some good reference – and do you know how hard it is to find an original full colour photo of a Roman soldier??

Geoff

Take your pick:

picture

Allen

@ GeoffQRF: I stand corrected, it was Old Guard Painters that did the mortars.

@ aecurtis: Yes, usually I go the PBN way when I am not familiar with the subject. I guess everybody should be forbidden to paint any unfamiliar periods until we get a 6 month course on appropiate colours for WWII Soviets, for example.

But what really surprises me is the amount of vitriol you pour on the paintjob on some miniatures that you did not pay for, in an article that didn't cost you anything. Did the helmet colour really offend you that much?

Not vitriol. Just disappointment that TMP standards are so low, when it comes to showing exemplars of painting to the membership. The Workbench and Showcase seem to be aimed at the lowest common denominator of TMP reader, and are not intended to inspire people to do better. It's like (in the old days) the "everyman's" Miniature Wargames, compared to the paintwork in Wargames Illustrated over which readers lusted.

Fortunately there are other fora to view when a painting porn fix is required!

And oh, by the way: six-month courses are not necessary. It only takes a few seconds to Google "Soviet 50mm mortar" or "Soviet Maxim" in Google Images to check which parts are painted (and to see accurate original colors) and which parts aren't. Sorry if that very minimal effort is too much for some.

Allen

Allen only mentioned Galina because she's also Ukrainian.

It 'may' be the light/photography (fluorescent lights have a green tinge, with digital cameras you don't seen so much variation as you used to between Agfa and Fuji film), but I'd still say those helmets are the wrong side of green.

The Soviet helmet, in just about everything you look at, is the yellow side of the green spectrum, especially as it fades. Those in the photo are distinctly on the blue side – Allen may not have a dog in the fight, so to speak, but he's far from wrong.

Oh, I see. You pine for the "Good Old Days". I specifically did that report for gamers that are either starting, or have a mountain of lead that they need to paint quickly. There are modellers that already know how to paint and get very good to excellent results. These articles are clearly not aimed at them.

If you are if the "Rivet Counter" persuasion, indeed there are other fora where people have endless discussions about the right shade for every piece of equipment.

I wonder why, instead of lashing out, you don't suggest the right colours for the job on hand. And people wonder why this hobby is not growing and "greying" out!

Not vitriol.

Allen, you neglected to mention that you dislike foreign painting services because of their low prices, which you feel prevents you from charging appropriate prices for painting.

Just disappointment that TMP standards are so low, when it comes to showing exemplars of painting to the membership. The Workbench and Showcase seem to be aimed at the lowest common denominator of TMP reader, and are not intended to inspire people to do better.

Not every wargamer wants to be a show-winning painter – TMP shows the work of a variety of artists and painting services.

"So what color should it be?"

Apparently, you are working on becoming qualified as a pro painting service.

THE COLOR IN THE PICTURES!!!

The picture doesn't show the item in war-time use in the field. That's why I'm asking – would it be black, gray, or what?

"Allen, you neglected to mention that you dislike foreign painting services because of their low prices, which you feel prevents you from charging appropriate prices for painting."

No, I don't feel that "prevents" any such thing. My main criticism stems from the frequent examples of simply bad work, and the repeated excuse offered that those services shouldn't be expected to know anything.

"Not every wargamer wants to be a show-winning painter – TMP shows the work of a variety of artists and painting services."

I don't expect everyone to be an award-winner painter. *I* don't want to be an award-winning painter***. But isn't it a good thing to want to improve, in anything one does? Maybe not.

***It's been, shoot, over thirty years now, since the first and only embarrassing painting competition we entered. After arriving at our first duty station at Fort Knox, we read an announcement for a model show (IPMS, I think) in Louisville. As a lark, the missus and I went, and entered a handful of 25mm figures (two Ral Patha elves and a TA-HR adventurer, I think, if anyone cares). We didn't expect any results against the 54- and 77mm collectors figures entered. We left to go shopping for a bit, and returned to discover that I had taken first and third, and my wife had taken second. Very embarrassing…

Since then, we've never entered another competition, and I'm not much inclined to "show off" my work in public. That's not my thing. I've tried from time to time to post suggestions here for people to improve their results with different techniques, often alternatives to expensive hobby products, and I firmly believe that good painting is worth a little thought and analysis before putting brush to figure.

"The picture doesn't show the item in war-time use in the field. That's why I'm asking – would it be black, gray, or what?"

There are two pictures, both in color. Both show a mortar in original condition, as it would have been used in the field. As I said, they were not painted, but phosphatized (or a similar process); not every piece of military equipment gets painted!:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkerize

link

link

As the last item especially indicates, the processes used often resulted in different colors and appearance. So I ask you: what color do *you* see when you look at those photos of mortars--or look at an M1, or a Bren, or whatever?

Some see black when looking at a Parkerized weapon, and paint the model black. Some see grey, and paint it grey. Some see a metallic color. And some are told, "Use Boltgun Metal," and apparently that looks right to them. Some see whatever they see and paint the model with chrome…

So again: what color do you see?

Allen

My main criticism stems from the frequent examples of simply bad work, and the repeated excuse offered that those services shouldn't be expected to know anything.

Allen, I just don't get why you think every painting service in the world must be an expert on uniform and equipment colors. While that would be nice, I just don't think it is a requirement.

It's not, and I've *never* said they needed to be "expert". I would expect a painting service to have a modest library for the subjects *they* advertise they paint, and to know how to look things up.

As this thread shows, it's only the work of a few seconds online to differentiate between a pretty obvious error and the real thing.

But then, if I go to the doctor with the sniffles, I sort of expect him to be able to prescribe a remedy without going to an online forum and asking a bunch of *patients*, "Hey, I've got this other patient with the sniffles. What should I prescribe?"

Or I could just go to Mexico, walk in a pharmacy, and buy a bunch of random pills and potions… Maybe that's the analogue for offshore painting services. Either you tell them exactly what you want, or you get a bottle of "Extracto de Propoleo Eucaliptico y Mentol con Miel Natural" 'cos there's a cute cartoon bee on the box.

Allen

Allen, why do you keep harping on the idea that some of these painting services are "offshore"? Does that make them second-class somehow?

Personally, I expect a painting service to provide painters. If they happen to be researchers too, that's nice.

"Allen, I just don't get why you think every painting service in the world must be an expert on uniform and equipment colors. While that would be nice, I just don't think it is a requirement."

Actually, I don't think I agree with that statement. While it may not be a requirement to be an acknowledged expert, if you are offering a professional paint service of historical items, you should at least be prepared to undertake some basic research.

I'd still like to see an article by aecurtis.

I'd still like to see an article by aecurtis.

We're in negotiations now!

if you are offering a professional paint service of historical items, you should at least be prepared to undertake some basic research.

What about "Jill the Fantasy Painter," who is glad to paint your historicals if you'll just tell her how to do it? That's still a valid painting service.

If a painting service has to do research for a painting project, I'd think they should charge a fee for that service.

>>> Allen, why do you keep harping on the idea that some of these painting services are "offshore"? Does that make them second-class somehow?

Because they seem to provide the worst examples of painting skill and lack of knowledge, at least among those you've chosen to showcase. They seem to be also the most vocal about needing customer-supplied references in order to do reliable work (as echoed by the cautions from many TMP customers).

"If a painting service has to do research for a painting project, I'd think they should charge a fee for that service."

You're more than welcome to pay it!

Allen

But since it seems to upset you that I "harp", or am in some way fixated on these very poor performers, I will make you a New Years pledge: no comments from me on *any* work done for TMP by painting services, "pro" or amateur, for the rest of 2009.

And I shall also refrain from offering uniform or other reference assistance on TMP. That seems a fair trade-off: no criticism, no crutch.

Allen

Allen, I just wish you would treat all of the painters equally – whether from the U.S. or not.

Also, I think if your comments had been more constructive rather than confrontational, they would have been better received. If you had simply pointed out that the mortar was the wrong color, wouldn't that have been sufficient?

Allen, I just wish you would treat all of the painters equally – whether from the U.S. or not

Oh, I don't know, he rather likes my (Ukrainian) wife's painting: TMP link
"Geoff, ask your lady to paint them!"

If you had simply pointed out that the mortar was the wrong color, wouldn't that have been sufficient?

Given that there are also other things clearly off, I think it would have been an understatement.

Given that there are also other things clearly off…

See above. The helmet is not "dayglo green" – if you see it that way on your monitor, sorry, but as explained above, the original figures are not that way, nor do the photos look that way to me. Monitors vary.

Bill's house, Bill's rules. I'll just STHU from now on.

Allen

I don't get the criticism of Allen here at all. The figures in the showcase are not painted accurately, that should be clear to anyone with an internet connection and 10 minutes of google images fu. I simply cannot accept the excuse of "I'm too lazy to look up free info on the internet so I winged it with the colour." In this day and age there is so much free, and good, info on uniforms on the internet I just can't accept that. Hell, all you have to do is search the TMP message forums to find many useful links to good sites.

The figures in the showcase are not painted accurately…

Can you be more specific? The helmet is green, the uniforms are khaki…

That's like saying emerald and lime green are the same. Can you really not see the difference between those 2 greens?

"The helmet is green"

Are you really serious? The helmet is the wrong "shade" of green and the weapons are not painted correctly as they were in the field. How much more specific do you want. This is not an issue of the quality of the painting. I have no problem with someone who paints like a fingerless monkey, but makes an attempt to get the colours correct. I've seen some beautifully painted figures that were just totally ahistorical.

I guess I have enough respect for those real Soviet soldiers who fought facism to spend 10 minutes on the internet to try and get their uniforms and equipment painted correctly. Apparently, I seem to be in the grumpy old man minority who thinks that the whole point of historical (as opposed to fantasy or sci-fi) wargaming is about the history part. I guess I should have looked at these and said "coolio."

"I specifically did that report for gamers that are either starting, or have a mountain of lead that they need to paint quickly"

But this isn't that, is it. You seem to be talking about a completely different article.

This is a showcase article of figures painted by a professional painting service. The Showcase is "…where the Editor takes a peek at various products – including some of the latest releases – sent to us here at The Miniatures Page." I'd actually say that I feel the Showcase should be used to show some of the best, to inspire and encourage people to paint.

We all know that we see something beautifully painted and are inspired to try and emulate it, even if we are not up to the task. I look at my painted figures from 10 years ago and realise just how much my painting has changed, mainly from looking at eye candy images and techniques, plus a degree of practice, a sprinkle of experimentation and a chunk of good luck.

I don't know whether the instructions sent were wrong or non-existent, or what references were used, but the colour and items painted are clearly not correct as presented.

I don't know if Bill's photography lights and digital camera have skewed the colour and somehow 'fluoresced' the green to the wrong side of the spectrum.

I am aware that I am looking at a 50mm photo of a 15mm (less than that as the particular image I am looking at is kneeling) and at that size every single flaw is magnified. It is quite possible that, in the hand and to the normal eye, they look quite reasonable, although I suspect the green will still be the wrong side of the spectrum.

I am aware that there is some creative flexibility in painting a small miniature (small miniature? Superfluous. Miniature…), as we adjust for scale, light, etc.

This isn't a workbench article about high speed painting. It's a showcase article. Articles like this shouldn't be about, "this was the fastest I could paint them", they should be seeking to inspire people to want to paint well.

This isn't a knock on Old Guard – well, not much of one. Their gallery images (mainly of pre-1900 figures) are of a much higher quality than represented here. But something has clearly gone very wrong with this job.

Let's call a halt to the pointless criticism. If Bill's happy that "green helmet and khaki uniform" equates to "accurate Soviet paint job", then let him be happy with the figures.

Like this happpy… well, I guess by those standards he must be a Soviet naval infantryman:

picture

Allen

That's like saying emerald and lime green are the same. Can you really not see the difference between those 2 greens?

I'm looking at the original figures, and the original photos, and the helmet is not "lime green". If you are seeing lime green, then the problem is due to difference in monitors.

…the weapons are not painted correctly as they were in the field…

If you mean the mortar, correct. I've seen Soviet 80mm mortars in green, but the only color picture I've seen of 50mm mortars shows it with "bluing" (though it's a 1940 pre-war mortar).

Sigh. I'm not seeing lime green on any of my (4) monitors. Mind you, I'm not seeing a yellow hue of green either, which they should be to be correct. That was an exaggeration to make a point. The helmet was a completely different green from the green that these appear to be painted.

To say "the helmets are green, what's the problem", which seems to be what you are saying, has to draw into question whether you are seeing any difference.

To say "the helmets are green, what's the problem", which seems to be what you are saying, has to draw into question whether you are seeing any difference.

That's not what I was saying. I was trying to pin down Hastati's vague charge that the figures weren't "painted accurately." Wrong color is one thing; wrong shade of the color is another.

We are historical wargamers. The wrong shade of green IS the wrong green.