I've been in this hobby for over 40 years ,so i've seen all the different trends.Ever since fantasy stuff started becoming more and more popular,i'm bemused, when all these styles have crossed over to the historical stuff,which to my mind doesn't work.The advent of the airbrush,and all the different angles of light and NMM,which i admit looks stunning in the photographs,but when seen in the flesh they're not easy on the eye, and that's being politeThe other thing that get's up my nose is the photographs that you can see up a figures left nostril.If i was a collector i would be hesitant to purchase a figure/bust etc sight unseen.Remember this is historical stuff i'm talking about.Textures are the latest trend which is good ,but only when it's not over done ,which is the case sometimes.I've been lucky to meet up with some of the greats,i.e. Bill Horan,Latorre,Adrian Bay etc,etc,.and judged at Euro many moons ago.
My greatest delight is attending shows and seeing figures with the human eye,which according to Bill Horan is 14 inches.Don't get me wrong,the workmanship that goes into these figures is stunning,but to me it doesn't stand up when seen in the flesh.
Just my humble opinion.
Brian

Interesting and there will be as many views as there are shades of acrylic paint.
For my taste I like models of all types to look as if they've actually been doing something other than posing for a clothing catalogue. Many of the highly regarded pieces today are beautifully painted but tip over into the ornamental at least as far as I'm concerned, and let's face it you all know I'm right
Some busts, mainly airbrushed, end up looking like glazed porcelain.
Too much emphasis particularly in the fantasy field is given to 'contrasting colours' as a means of making a piece 'pop'. Personally I don't have a problem with a predominantly Brown figure on brown groundwork on a brown base. Plenty of scope to use different tonal values to create a visually interesting result.
D

More than just two sides. Some of us still paint in the classic glossy tradition, too...



I'm not a fan of the washed-out "Kabuki" style, myself.

Prost!
Brad

There was a member of the West of Scotland Club who specialised in military bands in the traditional style.
They were spectacular. All represented specific parades and he could name each musician.
Often wonder what became of them.

There are as many views on this as there are painters. This is certainly a thought-provoking thread indeed. The ideal viewing distance for a figure is a perhaps an individual thing, but I wouldn't argue with Bill Horan's theory, between 1-2' seems about right to me.
I've always said that the fantasy side brought with them some world-beating ideas in terms of the presentation of figures, some of which has been adopted into the historical side which began to look old-fashioned by comparison. I've only got one gripe - seeing a level of detail of painted figure that you wouldn't see in real life.
I'd also agree that some figures have been painted to look good in digital photography and that doesn't always translate when you see them in the flesh. This can sometimes be the case when NMM is depicted.

Thanks, Nap! But gee, I've got a gallery...



https://www.planetfigure.com/useralbums/the-army-of-frederick-the-great.144/view

I have another one for my Kaiser's Army collection, but apparently I forgot to go back and add pictures! I have to remedy that.

Prost!
Brad

There are some really good painters in the UK who work in the gloss style. I've known some of them through the Treefrog Toy Soldier forum. The late John Staniforth was one; he rebuilt Britains and other classic hollowcast toy soldiers as his raw materials, and then painted them in the gloss style. He did some mounted bands, as well as a great collection of cowboys and Indians, and some collections expanding on some of Britain's specialty catalogs, like the fox hunt sets. John Firth is another, and his figures look like glazed porcelain when he finishes. His figures are really beautiful to see.

I should note that we're not really painting like the original toy soldiers, which were glossy and colorful, but very simply done. They had to be, to produce as many as possible and as cheaply. I don't know of anyone these days who puts pink or red dots on a figure's cheeks, for example, or just two dots for eyes. But it's a nostalgia for the glossy toys of the past that drives us, I think.

I like to use figures that are relatively well-detailed, too. Old Staddens and new Tradition kits, Imrie-Risley, Phoenix, Russell Gammage's Rose Miniatures, Ulrich Puchala, Peipp, Rylit, and similar figures or kits when I can find them, are the raw materials I use. And in 54mm. My goal is to create as large a display as possible, in the subjects I like.

I do paint in matte style, too, but for the figures that go with my scale models. I grew up building Monogram, Revell, Airfix, and similar brands in the 70s, and it's natural that a plane or a tank has at least 1 crewman to go with it.

By the way, we, the MFCA, still have Toy Soldier categories in our exhibition-Old and New. Both categories are for painters who work in toy soldier finish, with Old being those who use figures available before 1980 (roughly), like Staddens, I/Rs, etc) and New for the newer makers after, like King & Country, John Jenkins, etc. Figures must have been modified/repainted/reworked in some way to be eligible; you can't just open a box and put them in (though there have been some who did-red and blue plastic RevWar figures, for example, years ago, when we were still in Valley Forge. I gave the guy credit for his enthusiasm, but no award).

Anyway, I have fun!

Prost!
Brad

No long drawn out explanation from me.......But wouldn't it be boring if we all used the same paints, styles and methods to use our creative ability to produce an end result that makes us content in some form of artistic accomplishment..............................It all looks good from far away .

Wayne

First up... the airbrush. That's a tool that's been in use for modelling since the 70s so no new thing that has come from fantasy at all. Can blame scale modelling and film modelling for that one. End of the day though, it's a tool which can be used for many different things and I've even seen sculpted cloth quickly painted with an airbrush and it looked like satin.

Lighting direction was inspired by old paintings and even the classic method described by Bill Horan of painting as if light is coming from a halo above is directional lighting (also known as zenithal from directly above). Shifting your light direction slightly in a direction can actual give your painting a bit more life and something of interest. It doesn't have to be a massive shift in direction and can be subtle.

NMM can look amazing in the hand but takes a hell of a lot of work and understanding of how a material reflects surroundings. People are still experimenting with it too and it very much depends on whether you like to fix shading and highlights as if your painting is a photo captured in time or whether you paint generally so shading and highlights move depending on local light at the time of viewing. Just a personal preference and neither is wrong.

As for there being an ideal viewing distance. Nah. Doesn't exist. You should be able to view at multiple distances ranging from about 2m to about 20cm. 2m catches the eye, draws them closer and you should still be able to enjoy looking up close. But to do that you need to be checking at different distances and under different lighting during the process.

The other side to all of this though is you paint your way. You want to paint like an illustration... do it. Wany to go Carravagio style with bold reds and contrast... do it. Want to paint in the same way as modellers did in the 80s... do it. It's your hobby at the end of the day. If you go to an art gallery and just look at oil painting you'll still see a huge variety of style so why limit yourself?

It isn't just contrasting colours that fantasy painters use (and not always either as harmonious colours can work just as well). There is also contrast of value, contrast of definition, contrast of material, contrast of finish, contrast of saturation, luminosity, and so much more. To say it's all "contrasting colours" actually writes off a lot of methods used by canvas painters which have been experimented with on miniatures.

.... contrast of opinion.....

Definitely. Though it bugs me when someone's feedback when you ask for critique is "needs more contrast" without stating which type. Usually they mean contrast of value (light/dark) because that's the only type they've heard off in the painting echo chamber.