Does it take time or talent?

[PaulinKendal]

A very useful exercise is to go around one of the great galleries and really look close up at the way the masters paint things like clothing and armour. Look at them from a distance, and then close up. The economy of effort is very revealing. They only put in what is required to get the effect they need.

+1

What strikes me when I do this exercise is how, as viewers, we see what we expect and want to see, not necessarily what is actually there.

Up close, the underlying structure of the artwork can become blatantly obvious and what we thought we were looking at from a distance simply disappears, as we're presented with brushstrokes, paint blobs, scratches and scrapes - the technical nuts and bolts the artist has used to deceive us.

What's odd is that in miniature painting there's often an emphasis on flawless, super-smooth, photo-realistic finishes, when a much more impressionistic approach might be just as impactful, if not more so. ( I may be saying this because I can't actually achieve those flawless finishes myself, admittedly!)

As miniature painters, we know we are tricking the viewers eye (or rather their brain) - that's what NMM and OSL are all about, after all.

So why are we so fearful of leaving an honest brushstroke that, from a normal viewing distance, does the job perfectly well?

[Tim Marlow]

What's odd is that in miniature painting there's often an emphasis on flawless, super-smooth, photo-realistic finishes, when a much more impressionistic approach might be just as impactful, if not more so. ( I may be saying this because I can't actually achieve those flawless finishes myself, admittedly!)

What is even odder is that the smooth photorealistic finish we aim for is not really photorealistic……..we emphasise shadows to a far greater effect than any photographer would, unless they were after an “artistic “ impressionist shot. A great way to see realistic faces is to pay attention to those on the TV. Everyone watches TV at some time, but none of us really pay detailed attention to what we see. Figures on there are about the same size as our models, but the exaggerated shadows we use are totally absent. It’s like trying to emulate David Baileys portrait approach by using Rembrandts high contrast techniques and world view………personally I prefer the high contrast approach, but am aware it’s artistic impression rather than real world emulation.

[JR]

I love making and converting figures but painting them is, to me, just a necessary evil.
The more I do it the happier I am with the results, so there's no doubt that practice makes perfect (or at least, better).
But I very rarely buy a figure for the 'pleasure' of painting it.

Says the surgeon

[PaulinKendal]

What is even odder is that the smooth photorealistic finish we aim for is not really photorealistic……..we emphasise shadows to a far greater effect than any photographer would, unless they were after an “artistic “ impressionist shot. A great way to see realistic faces is to pay attention to those on the TV. Everyone watches TV at some time, but none of us really pay detailed attention to what we see. Figures on there are about the same size as our models, but the exaggerated shadows we use are totally absent. It’s like trying to emulate David Baileys portrait approach by using Rembrandts high contrast techniques and world view………personally I prefer the high contrast approach, but am aware it’s artistic impression rather than real world emulation.

That's true - maybe it's Caravaggio we're trying to emulate?

[Steve Ski]

Man, I can tell I'm gonna have to stay up late or get up way early to keep up with you guys, sheesh, these are great comments and excellent points. You guys are bringing up a lot of important issues, some that are way past the beginner's stage, and some needed up front at the start. There's a lot here, so I'm going to pull some bullet points if yall don't mind, and expand on a few of them.

Marco certainly suggests that, far from being slow, painting in oils can actually be very quick indeed.

Bingo, excellent find, Paul. This is going to be a deep dive for me, time to study this guy's techniques. His accent is no problem, and thanks for that post! I will definitely let you know what I get out of it shortly.

Interesting points here Steve, however one thing I do disagree with is that you need to learn on larger scale figures. That is only true if you want to be a figure painter per se. To get effective results from 1/35 and smaller scales you need different techniques to those used on larger scale busts, so you cant learn the required techniques by painting them. You need to know what detail can be omitted and what is essential. You still need to know how to shade in the round and depict folds in clothes etc, but some texture techniques and detail work is simply not required.

Very true, Tim, good point, there would be no need for someone to go through all the time to learn just enough to paint decent figures for their dios, I agree. I was speaking towards the person who wants to learn figures in-depth and starting out large will amplify the techniques and processes that they would need to learn and understand. Point being, make it as simple as possible, then work towards the more intricate.

Another issue I have is with over detailed eyes in smaller scales. On a 200mm bust putting in sclera, pupils, irises, catchlights etc is necessary, but trying to do that on a 1/35 figure is a recipe for madness. All too often the figure ends up looking pop eyed and toy like. Better to get the shape of the eyeball correct and put in a suggestion of the iris.

No argument there, Tim, I agree completely. We've all seen it, but I have also seen some who are probably using a neutron microscope to get the pupils and that's not necessary and can be outright frustrating even attempting to do so.

A summary through my early morning meanderings here is this, different scales and modelling problems need different approaches! If you are building a dio where a dozen smaller scaled figures are being used as a supporting cast to a multi element scene, full shading and detail work using oil blend techniques over many weeks of work is probably not an effective use of your limited hobby time. On the other hand, if you are building a vignette of just one or two figures that are the sole focus of the piece, then the more detail you can get in the more interesting it will be to look at.

I would say yes, and no. Different scales do require different approaches and the time involved is great with the number of figs, naturally, but I'm a slow painter anyway, so it's no bother, just a given in the equation. Time invested is just that, regardless of my actual time per day available, imo. How fast are you wanting to put out a dio or vignette might be the question here. There again we're talking about who wants to go full out and learn figures in-depth or just enough to get by to fill their dio.

I agree to an extent. When I eventually assembled and displayed my French Fusiliers diorama I felt like I had wasted a lot of effort with it because the detail was overshadowed by the whole. But then again, I had enjoyed the process. So therefore it was an effective use of my hobby time. But I'm quite sure that if I had had my work hat on, and especially supervising rather than doing the work myself, I would definitely have been urging restraint on the detail and more efficiency!
I think the answer is, you do whatever you enjoy doing

And Neil takes this right to my point. If I'm enjoying what I'm doing, time is not in the equation unless I'm reaching burn out, then it matters. Example, painting 11 tartans. That can drive anybody bonkers and lead one to crawl the walls after the third attempt. Tartan patterns don't come in paint cans, especially in 1/35th scale, UUUGGG! Neil, I'm there man, I'm there

A very useful exercise is to go around one of the great galleries and really look close up at the way the masters paint things like clothing and armour. Look at them from a distance, and then close up. The economy of effort is very revealing. They only put in what is required to get the effect they need.

You nailed it, Tim. Learning from the masters is a sure way to understanding this art form. If I had a museum close by, I'd be there myself doing exactly that. Getting someone started in the learning process would benefit greatly from a few trips to see the masters, no doubt. Being a student of your chosen art is the key, imho, spot on, Tim!

As miniature painters, we know we are tricking the viewers eye (or rather their brain) - that's what NMM and OSL are all about, after all.

So why are we so fearful of leaving an honest brushstroke that, from a normal viewing distance, does the job perfectly well?

For me personally, it's an issue I've dealt with all my life, being anal retentive and the constant need to improve. My goal has always been to make my figures get off the base and "walk", so to speak, as I saw when I was in my early teens. That so impressed me, as you can tell it's still with me today. I'd have a hard time leaving anything out of place or undone, or even a brush stroke.

What is even odder is that the smooth photorealistic finish we aim for is not really photorealistic……..we emphasise shadows to a far greater effect than any photographer would, unless they were after an “artistic “ impressionist shot. A great way to see realistic faces is to pay attention to those on the TV. Everyone watches TV at some time, but none of us really pay detailed attention to what we see. Figures on there are about the same size as our models, but the exaggerated shadows we use are totally absent. It’s like trying to emulate David Baileys portrait approach by using Rembrandts high contrast techniques and world view………personally I prefer the high contrast approach, but am aware it’s artistic impression rather than real world emulation.

This is pointing to what I mentioned a while back, if I'm reading this correctly, concerning the overexaggerated results we often see from some acrylic presentations almost to the point of cartoon or commercial artistry. I know a lot of painters love this approach, but that's not life as we actually see it, I agree. I prefer to work towards a natural life like appearance.

Here are two examples from Planetfigure.com of two different artists, one using oils, the other acrylics. Both of these guys are at the top of their game and an inspiration for me personally. It's obvious to me if you are determined, the medium is just a tool, nothing more.
https://www.planetfigure.com/threads...y-1908.468474/ David, call sign: MENTAL DENTAL
https://www.planetfigure.com/threads...inished.55883/ Mike_the_Kiwi, Butler

[PaulinKendal]

Those two figures are just inCREDible, aren't they?!

[Tim Marlow]

I seem to remember Mike Butler posting in this site occasionally. He was a friend of Andy Belsey, who used to post a lot but seems to have drifted away now. Pity because his WW1 stuff was superb.

[Steve Ski]

Those two figures are just incredible, aren't they?!

Crazy, ain't it? I feel like a Candy Striper next to those two, sheesh!

I seem to remember Mike Butler posting in this site occasionally. He was a friend of Andy Belsey, who used to post a lot but seems to have drifted away now. Pity because his WW1 stuff was superb.

Yep, both drop in at Planetfigure from time to time. That WWI museum work they did together a while ago was incredible.

[Tim Marlow]

Crazy, ain't it? I feel like a Candy Striper next to those two, sheesh!


Yep, both drop in at Planetfigure from time to time. That WWI museum work they did together a while ago was incredible.

Actually I meant scale model forum, not PF Steve The WW1 stuff was blogged on here (and previously on the now defunct Military Modelling site) as it was built by Andy.

[Steve Ski]

Actually I meant scale model forum, not PF Steve The WW1 stuff was blogged on here (and previously on the now defunct Military Modelling site) as it was built by Andy.

Roger that, Tim, but they post on PF as well, so they do get around. https://www.planetfigure.com/threads...ctions.116564/ Besides, who could ever forget the clothes pinned face?:tears-of-joy:

Paul, I'm still digging into Marco's vids. He's got some useful techniques and helpful hints. If he's now making a living painting figs on YT, he's doing something right, so this is worth more study.

P.S. Marco is also using additives to speed or slow the drying time, which I do not do. I only use plain old paint thinner, been doing that for years and years.

[Steve Ski]

A few more vids from different painters.

https://www.youtube.com/@SmallSoldier

And this is nuts, very impressive;

[Miko]

So, back to my question, “Does it take time or talent?” Yall can tell me, but I know the answer. Hint, it can be a little of both.

I'm pretty sure it's both, my figure painting goes back to my school days wargaming society in the 70's, I still have a small British 'Napoleonic' army in lead from those nice people at 'Minifigs', not sure what to do with them really?

More recently driven by my girl, I'm curious about resin 'Garage Kits' from Japan, some 'interesting' subjects for sure, but I do enjoy the anime characters they produce, some YouTube channels show really remarkable results can be achieved with time and patience

Miko (Does Gunpla count?)

[Steve Ski]

Miko (Does Gunpla count?)

I would think so, why not?

[Gavalaar1980]

Just read this, and thanks for broaching an interesting question.

Figure painting requires both talent and practice to be proficient. It's not something that anyone can 'just do'. What I love about it is that it combines art and craft. You will need artistic ability and craft skills for a decent result. Also a steady hand, endless patience, a perfectionist mindset and cocktail sticks for painting eyeballs!

So in summary with practice anyone could improve but for next level figures you will need talent too. As for my own ability I'm unsure of my level, non figure painters say they are amazing but the opinion of fellow painters counts, hence why I'm on this forum. I would never assess my own ability, I'm too modest for that. You can generally gauge whether someone is genuinely impressed by a project or not, the praise is gushing as opposed to a standard platitude.

Like yourself I am 100 percent self taught. Never watched a single tutorial.

What I am certain of is that every figure painter on here is a master of the unique esoteric craft! And I do think where it gets to a point where you can't improve or get much better, because your work is so bloody good....

One final point is that if you're happy with the result then it doesn't matter what others think although praise is preferable after investing your soul into a project and having it dominate your life; which we all do when we're in the zone!


Regards,

Gavin,

[PaulinKendal]

Hey Gavin, your post made me go back and look at your figure work, and it is genuinely very good indeed (no platitudes here!) I'm not in the least surprised that non figure painters are amazed by your work - what we all do as figure painters is indeed amazing, and you're no exception in that.

But it would be silly to suggest there's no room for improvement. If you've got better in the past (and you certainly have) there's no earthly reason to think you can't improve further, going forward.

For myself, I know there's room for improvement with my own painting. I never finish a model and think "Ah, perfect!", and I bet you no other figure painters on here, however good they are, ever do that either!

Accepting that there's room for improvement is accepting that you're getting better, and that's a great thing. To be honest, if I wasn't improving I'm not sure I wouldn't change to something else - the process of learning how to do stuff better and better is just so addictive. If I'm not learning (i.e. not improving) then what's the point?

The question of talent versus practice is a vexed one. The more I paint, the less I think talent matters. The one talent I value over any other is perseverance - you simply have to put the practice in! And perseverance ensures we continue to practise, even when the improvements aren't readily discernible - we all plateau from time to time.

At the very top level there is a certain creative vision that might be an inherent talent and not actually learnable. But I'm not sure even about that. Perhaps, as you paint and paint and paint, as the ability to wield a brush expertly becomes intuitive, that creates space for creativity to flourish. (I'm not at that level yet, but I'll let you know if I ever get there!)

Like yourself I am 100 percent self taught. Never watched a single tutorial.

I wonder why you don't watch tutorials? There is absolutely no substitute for practice, and watching tutorials can sometimes take over from the actual hands-on practice. But there are some genius painters out there generating fantastic, instructional content, that could radically improve your painting. They've certainly helped me.

I'm a big believer in shamelessly copying others to generate your own style. It sounds counter-intuitive, I know, but I think copying others helps us master the motor skills and techniques we need to be able to go our own way.

One final point is that if you're happy with the result then it doesn't matter what others think although praise is preferable after investing your soul into a project and having it dominate your life; which we all do when we're in the zone!

This is spot on! The way this entirely frivolous thing we do can take over every waking hour is quite remarkable - it's a bit bonkers, but it's just so great!