Tabletop vs Display Painting for armies

[WolfDreamerNZ]

I haven't painted many minis in my life - but of the ones I have done - I have always tried to paint to display standard. This means lots of little things that show up well at close inspection range.

Now I am working on a WHFB Wood Elf army - and I am finding that if I set a few of my display painted minis on the table and view them from playing distance - they are nothing flash. All the little details are lost. Talking to a few friends - they said that is because they need stronger highlight/shadow contrast...almost cartoony to make them stand out from that far away.

So I have started researching - reading some old White Dwarf, looking at forums and CMON and it really is a mix out there. I'll show you what I mean....

White Dwarf - Issue 310 (Australian)

Very strongly contrasted figures - which I think look great at tabletop distance but not so great up close...

vs these finely detailed figures which look great up close but lack the umph at tabletop distance for me.

My question is - what do you think? Which do you prefer? Softer subtle colours with mega detail or brighter bolder figures that are best suited to stand out on the tabletop? Think about work you've seen, or played against...what did you like?

I look forward to your responses as this will help me decide the direction to go with this army. If I paint all of them to a display standard and it takes me a month or more to paint one unit - will it be worth it on the table? Jubilee - as you are working on this army as well - what do you think??

(Test paint schemes to be uploaded as soon as I get a model done in each style)

Thanks!

[Ritual]

Trust, me... if you're doing display pieces for, let's say a big "live" competition, you need to have plenty of contrast too, or your stuff will "disappear" in the cabinets, overshadowed by the rest of the entries. I saw that with many miniatures at Ravage Mix Open. They would look good under good lighting and close inspections, but totally anonymous in the cabinets. Whereas other things looked great from several metres, and of course, still looked great (if not better, still) when seen really close.

[Avelorn]

@Ritual: *raises hand*

[Wren]

I agree with Ritual that contrast is just as important for display minis as smoothness/polish/detail, and the best looking minis manage to showcase both aspects. In my early years of painting I got obsessed with the smoothness side of things, and it wasn't long before I could paint something that would photograph pretty well at larger sizes, but would be easily overlooked in a live setting. I'm still struggling with adding a good amount of contrast into my painting equation, it's a major weakness for me. I remember Amy Brehm talking about painting competition minis and saying she's aiming for a result where you can distinguish the basic shapes of things on the figure from several feet away so it stands out to judges and invites a closer look at the fine detail work.

For something you're going to play with, it seems like it makes more sense to me to paint in it in a method that will look good at the 1-5 feet you'll be playing with 90% of the time rather than paint it for the 10% of the time it'll spend getting a closer look from you or an opponent. I'm sure if you did closeup CMON pictures of individual minis from the two pictures you posted the elf would score far higher, but I agree with you that in the group distance shots the warriors have a much bigger visual impact.

It might be helpful to note that there are different kinds of contrast to consider when deciding on a colour scheme and how to paint it. Saturated colours like the bright blue and red on the warriors vs. unsaturated colours like the autumn ones on the elves. Dark vs. light is the big one we think of in terms of having dark shadows and bright highlights within an area, but it's also helpful to use a range of dark/light in the colours throughout a mini. The elves have pale skin, but all the other colours are midtones. If the greens or browns were much darker then the mid tone oranges and pale skin would cover a range and they'd probably stand out better. The amount of each colour can also provide good contrast - if those elves were mostly dark green or brown then the smaller areas of the pale faces would reallys tand out a lot more. Complementary colours are harmonious and provide contrast. These are colours opposite one another on the colour wheel, like green and red. It applies to different levels of colour purity and saturation, so a khaki green and brick red would still work and be less Christmassy.

I'd be interested to see your test schemes for what you're thinking of, and good luck making the decision!

[lauth81]

Ok ... I only play BloodBowl most of the time ... it's not necessarily a TT, but a boardgame, the problem's still the same. I found that contrast is very important and getting the highlights as much up as possible the key for attracting attention. BB tourneys normaly have "best painted team" competition and it's almost always the nice painted team with the bright highlights that win.

With my recent work on a Chaos team, I'll try to go there.

[AoM]

For a game with a model count as high as WHFB, I'd strike a balance. You can still get good looking minis without having to do them as well as you'd do for a competition piece. I wouldn't necessarily go for the hugely different highlights like those Chaos Warriors, though. If you're using 7-9 layers for a blend between your base color and the highlight for a display piece, try 3-5 for the gaming army. Same for the shading. Find little ways to cut corners while still working towards the same types of things you look for on a display piece.

As Wren said, color choice plays as much of a factor as light/dark contrast. Using colors that work well together, but also stand out separately to the eye is important. Those Wood Elves just kind of blend together to a general brown. Sure, there's green, a skin tone, and two kinds of leathers, but the over all effect leaves the models just looking like a general tan mini.

Painting for display/competition doesn't mean your models won't catch attention for 5 feet away. Look at the case at any competition and you'll see that some models stick out easily (and not for negative reasons).

Check out this picture. Angel painted these up as the studio models for Infinity, and they are definitely "display" models, but you can see from these shots of the individual shelves that the individual models still look good from further away.

[WolfDreamerNZ]

Thanks guys...I am taking it all in. Last day of work for the week tomorrow and then I will get my two test figures finished...both in the same scheme - just different levels of complexity.

AoM: I am floored by those models! Who painted them? Are there close ups? A CMON gallery or website? And any tuts?

Looking forward to seeing what you all think....I am going to try my first real conversions with this army as well - so this will be a long term project. I am still working on other bits - so hopefully I will get something finished to show you soon....

[v22TTC]

They were painted by Angel Giraldez. His English is a bit of a barrier so he doesn't really do tutorials, beyond describing which colours he used.

To see the minis up close you really need to visit the Infinity site. On the home page the factions are listed on the left, with links to the minis from different angles. Or a less fiddly and time consuming way would be to check the top thread (more or less) in the Miniatures part of their forum.

Home page:-

http://www.infinitythegame.com/eng/default.asp

Beautiful minis, many sculpted by ex-Rackham sculptors... the minis that got me back into the hobby, in fact. Enjoy!

[v22TTC]

Was thinking about your topic question today and though I'm firmly in the realm of inexperience here, it seems from what I've read that a similar dilemma might apply to whether you want a display mini to look great in either photos or to the naked eye (exaggerated highlights and NMM being preferable for photos etc)....

I'd be really interested to hear if this is the case and answers to your question, since they have a bearing on what I'm painting too (I'm in a similar boat to yourself).

[Ritual]

I wouldn't say that NMM is better if you want photos to look as good as possible. You can get photos that look just as good with metallics. But, NMM will always look a little better in photos than in real life, as it is always obvious it's NMM when you look at the mini in hand.

And, as I mentioned earlier... you need very much contrast (i.e. a wide spectrum from darkest shadows to lightest highlights) if you want display minis to stand out and look impressive. This is of course more important if you paint for big competitions or other public displays, than if you paint minis only to put in your own cabinet. But, even then, your minis will be eye-catching from a greater distance and not only if you lean close to the cabinet and look carefully, if you up the contrast.

[PaintMinion]

So really, the question you're asking is, how do you make them striking enough in the display case to catch a judge's eye in a competition? Or just anyone's eye in your dipsplay case at home? two different scenarios!

You guys have mentioned contrast, (both color and intensity-spot on Wren!), but also, if you're painting for competition, neatness counts. If models look sloppy up close, they don''t make the cut. They must look good both while glancing through the case, as well as in the hand.

Your two pictures are interesting because I'm not happy with either one as a judge, but it depends on what else is in the case as to how high these two would go. The bright cartoony side of the blue shields would catch my eye, but are they painted well enough to pass muster close up? And the elves, well, they would get a close look, too, but they're bland and heading into monotone.

At Gen Con I have had to judge between two pieces that were like this...one looks great close up and the other looks great from tabletop distance. If the painting technique and artistry is considered to be the same, I would judge the elves as the more detailed of the two which bumps it up a notch. I'm sure a couple of my judges would even say "They're elves, they're suppose to blend in!" But then, is their more artistry in the presentation of the bright blue guys, or in the sameness of the elves? Then it switches to the Blue Guys. BUt Tech quality is with the elves I think...depending on how well blended the shading is and how well shaded it is.

So as a judge, I'd flip flop until I could discuss it with another judge and look at my criteria and have a soda. But both would get looked at.

Now simply for the diplsay case...those Wood Elves need a base, placement and constrast would definietly help there, something needs to "pop" them or "pop" something on them to make them stand up tall and look important.

[v22TTC]

Cheers! I'm certainly with the using colour theory to provide a natural impact and overall crafts`man'ship, but I suppose I'm saying if all that were equal.

To use an example, in IP for the red round it was mentioned how digital cameras mess up reds (something I didn't know) and how much of the highlighting was lost. So if you were painting a piece solely to be photographed would it be best to exaggerate the highlights on the red for a better pic, to the point it would look over the top to the eye in reality?

[sorry WolfDreamerNZ, if this seems like a 'jacking, but it seems to me to relate to your question....]

[Ritual]

I would rather experiment more with lighting and camera settings to achieve good looking photos, than paint stuff that doesn't look good in hand only to compensate for poor photography. That being said, I always "exaggerate" highlights regardless of what the minis are for. I don't see it as exaggerating even. I think minis look better in general with a bit of "oomph" in the way light and shadow is rendered. It makes minis more eye-catching when seen from a distance and make people want to get a closer look. And, when seen close up, it creates a more dramatic atmosphere and simply becomes more interesting (IMO, of course, but I know many great painters who have the same opinion and it seems to work for your favour in competitions).

Of course, to succeed in competitions, like PaintMinion said, it takes more than just good contrast, though.

[WolfDreamerNZ]

Thanks everyone for discussing this with me - I am learning alot here. After talking about this with a fellow painter this morning - we seem to have hit on what is bothering me about it.

My elves - like the ones pictures - utilized very desaturated colours. Carl called them creamy colours. I used GW's new foundation paints in a green, purple, ochre and brown scheme. Nice up close but put the mini on the tabletop and it tended to just blend in with no impact. My highlighting was started with additional subtle colours - leading to a very "same tone all over" paintjob. Carl suggested it was the vibrancy of the colour that was lacking - not the paint job.

So onto CMON to look for figures that stood out even as thumbnails - that showed the vibrancy of colour in using the hues similar to the ones above. Here were a few I really liked...

Photography wise - I couldn't say that I paint for photos - but I know what you mean - I do think there is much skill involved in getting photos right - and many people have said photography eats the subtler highlights - so the same rule of display applies -

"Paint your highlights til your happy - then go two levels higher"

It works!

[demonherald]

some interesting points on here thought I'd throw my two penneth in...

comp vs tabletop...... or display versus tabletop ... I treat them as totally different beasts....

judging at GW GT's and other smaller local tournaments and looking at armis then it's the overall impact of the army that first catches attention....This is generally achieved with a unifying colour scheme..generally at least one strong colour element..the number of discussions w have had away from the tables where as judges we refer to "the blue elves" "the green chaos guys" etc.. tidily painted and neatly ranked and based models with nice banners are the order of the day...Skirmish troops such as the elves pictured are bonus point models..It doesn't take much to make them stand out..generally rather than the models paint cheme with skirmishers it's the base work.... I can recall a wood elf army about a year ago where the skirmishers all had tree and hedge pieces on the base and the minis were all but lost on them until closer inspection and this approach fit well with their background and how the minis work and was different enough to warrant a oooooh kind of reaction.....A centrepiece should be just that but at the same time tie with the force....I've seen some amazing uber Lords of death and destruction mounted on a Dragon that look absolutely amazing and on their own are fantastic models but didn't tie with the armies at all.perhaps the biggest deciding factor I have found has always beeen the basing..when all else is equal a nicely carried out and consistent base scheme works for the army..

I always painted armies and worked for GW for a number of years filling all those display cabinets and display armies were a different beast....The right balance of colour and basing scheme neatly done coupled with extra fine details kept the interest long enough for display purposes..did it matter on the tabletop that all the arines had hand painted markings and names on their shoulder pauldrons...No..did it matter when they were being displayed...Yes....

competition is another different best and this also splits further into it's own components.....

an online comp is wholly dependent on photography and higher contrst can help..but as Ritual says experimenting with camera and ight settings is preferable to painting purely for pics but it can be a useful tool..neatness is key for photography as tiny little imperefections show up..I'm always moaning about pictures but slowly getting better ..my style doesn't lend itself well to photography but as my photography improves I am slowly getting to a point where I am happier with the results..(thanks Matty your tips have been a massive help) Some pieces require strong lighting some more directed and muted all depends on the atmosphere of the piece....faces are a particular problem for photography for me..higher contrasts are helping but I'm not going all out to change my style purely for photography .

in the hand competitions require a different approach.. I can only really say from my own experiences judging and competing at the UK GD but some of the principles apply to all comps...

I approach competition pieces with a few thoughts in mind....

Firstly a story.....the piece needs to have a reason for being and a setting that suits and tells it's own little story..

conversion and modelling need to be spot on.

from a distance it needs that draw point...this can be done a few different ways.... main ones are colour, Bling and wow.

a strong overall colour can immediately catch attention....and draw a closer look.

Bling is anything from banners to complex base to crazy conversion..This again draws a second look..

after that it is down to the details and the approach here is not to give anything to mark them down..check check and check again and never think ...It'll do... start with a 10 and knock a point off for every highlight out of place joint not quite right colour that doesn't look finished and so on.. make a note and correct...

GDUK has literally thousands of models and making them stand out in the not so well lit hall is as much a challenge as the actual piece...amazing models get overlooked every year because they are just missing that one little point that catches attention..

Also knowing the UK comp I know how important the background is to the judges (I mean at the UK every judge is a writer designer or developer ..they know their stuff and that's what they look for more than probably any other comp... The French are big on realistic lighting and shadows and one highlight slightly out of place can blow a potential winners chance...The italians have a flamboyant style with only a few key players on their circuit and their styles dictate Freehand is often a big factor...and so on ...

The main thing for me with any piece I work on though is hang what it is being used for ,,bugger who's looking at it....I paint what I enjoy to a level I want and that's the end of it....can I see the tattoos on the table top ..No but I know they are there....Can everyone see the symbols on the soles of the feet of my dread..no but I know they exist and at the end of the day that's more important to me than any other aspect of painting...

(that was a long 'un)

[v22TTC]

Nice one! I can see that being a post I come back to more than a few times, Demonherald. Interesting stuff....

I'm the original cantakerous ol' swine so I was fully with your last paragraph. I just haven't quite found my style yet - or rather set of styles (I hope!) - and am open to all the new info I can get. [Old school 2D art background, little 3D experience and with all the joys of digital photography and computer software to look forward to....]

But one thing I'm certainly doing is experimenting with dramatic light and shadow, so thanks Ritual for what you wrote - makes me feel like I'm on the right track.

[Have solemnly vowed to actually finish a mini and learn how to take and post pics of it by the end of the month - you'll see my meagre efforts then... will feel like less of a fraud then.... ]

[WolfDreamerNZ]

Thanks for the great insider view DH!

Here is a pic of my basecoat scheme as it was - I am starting a new group of four and going to try the brighter colour scheme with the same ideas...see if that helps for more standing out on the table.

[PaintMinion]

"Paint your highlights til your happy - then go two levels higher"

It works!

I make people in my classes chant ..."Higher Highlights, Deeper Shadows" a few times. Remember that it's not always the highlight that's needed, but the contrasting darker shadows that give depth and interest.

[Wren]

Absolutely! In online feedback you'll often hear people say they think it needs more highlights, but almost always read that as more contrast. I was highlighting up pretty high fairly early on, It's only been the last year and a half or so that I've really started to focus on the shadows, and if anything I find sometimes I'm not taking the highlights up as high as I used to but the end result pops a lot more. Finding the right balance and working on getting more pop is still my big struggle.

I like your colour scheme quite a bit, but then I'm a big fan of the green-purple-orange triad. :->

[PaintMinion]

I'm thinking darker on the dark greens and lighter on the light greens, as in higher contrast between the colors...mostly done by shdaows on the dark green and highlights on the light green...otherwise, I'm a fasn as well of the color scheme...but if you use purple, you must youse teal somewhere as well. Hasn't anyone taught you proper purple ettiquette? ;-)

[WolfDreamerNZ]

Ahhhh - yes I do believe I have heard that somewhere before....:thinking: