You don't have to be perfectly neat to look neat

Posts

[Unknown user]'s Avatar
IBBoard
Administrator, Commissar
Administrator
Commissar
Progress to next rank:
 
38%
 
Posts: 4222
Joined: 20 Mar 2001, 20:24
Location: Worcestershire, UK

You don't have to be perfectly neat to look neat

Postby IBBoard at 16 Jun 2009, 20:06

I'm not being critical of the artist here (I know I couldn't paint anything that well) but looking at the Harlequin by Keith Robertson in WD354 (June 2009) I noticed that you don't have to be perfectly neat for a model to still look neat.

If you look at some of the close-ups of the checker pattern (which is, admittedly, quite a small and intricate pattern) some of the edges look a bit rough. Yet on the standard sized image the pattern looks fine and quite crisp.

It just goes to show that you don't always have to be perfectly smooth to look good at a normal viewing distance - scale can be forgiving in hiding some blemishes :)
Out now: Dawn of War Texture/Skin Downloads
At v0.1: WarFoundry (open source, cross-platform, multi-system army creation application)

[Unknown user]'s Avatar
NBKFuzzy
Standard Member
Standard Member
Progress to next rank:
 
68%
 
Posts: 118
Joined: 23 May 2009, 10:37
Location: Austin, Texas - United States of America

Re: You don't have to be perfectly neat to look neat

Postby NBKFuzzy at 17 Jun 2009, 18:36

I spend about a day painting every new model I get, especially Guardians and Aspect Warriors, and Stingers. Faclon/Fire Prism grav tanks are the easiest model in all of 40k to paint, I find.

I don't really use harlequins, so I have never tried painting one. I just payed attention to the White Dwarf this month and saw that picture, and your right about it being rough around the edges. I might have to order me a similar model now!
My muse is a fickle bitch, with a short attention span.

[Unknown user]'s Avatar
IBBoard
Administrator, Commissar
Administrator
Commissar
Progress to next rank:
 
38%
 
Posts: 4222
Joined: 20 Mar 2001, 20:24
Location: Worcestershire, UK

Re: You don't have to be perfectly neat to look neat

Postby IBBoard at 18 Jun 2009, 19:16

Unless it's a mark they didn't notice, or a strange intentional blob/highlight, the biggest messy bit is the back of the purple and blue arm where there's a white blob on it (it looks like paint rather than a printing error!).

The yellow and black checks aren't terrible, but when you look closely then he's definitely not gone for a perfect triangular corner with each later of paint :)

As for the other models you mention, I can imagine grav tanks are quite easy to paint! It normally takes me about four to six hours to get a batch of models to a stage I'm happy with (undercoat, shading wash, repeat mid-coat and highlight for most troops) but it has been a while since I painted again. Not as long as the last time I didn't paint for a while, but probably a month or so.
Out now: Dawn of War Texture/Skin Downloads
At v0.1: WarFoundry (open source, cross-platform, multi-system army creation application)

[Unknown user]'s Avatar
NBKFuzzy
Standard Member
Standard Member
Progress to next rank:
 
68%
 
Posts: 118
Joined: 23 May 2009, 10:37
Location: Austin, Texas - United States of America

Re: You don't have to be perfectly neat to look neat

Postby NBKFuzzy at 19 Jun 2009, 05:44

I say "easiest to paint in all 40k" with inexperience because I havent painted every model, let alone every army! I like Eldar best obviously, but I have some Necron warriors and a Tomb Spyder, some Dark Eldar bikes and wyches(kinda like a harlequin you could say?) I have a ton of IG soldiers, and Cadian Sentinals. I never have tried space marines, believe it or not.

I started 40k because they were fun to paint and looked cool, then I started playing!
My muse is a fickle bitch, with a short attention span.