|
bhsman posted:This is just about the greatest thing.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:33 |
|
|
Fast_Food_Knight posted:All dark elves should be on snow bases because thats what mine have I'm doing (awful) snow bases for my blood angels, so I don't want to repeat. I'm going with Valhalla. Beyond the bases themselves the movement tray edges look pretty cool so that's nice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 03:01
|
|
|
Ughh snow bases used to be edgy and cool. Now they're so...pedestrian. Time to change all my bases.  j/k obviously, snow bases own, 4:20 base in snow every day
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 03:10
|
|
|
Fyrbrand posted:j/k obviously, snow bases own, 4:20 base in snow every day  Even though I've based literally one mini so far.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 03:12
|
|
|
Dale-Taco posted:This is just about the greatest thing. I believe it won golden daemon for 2007? I remember seeing it in White Dwarf right when I got into the hobby and I came thiiiiiis close to starting Dark Angels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 03:57
|
|
|
PaintVagrant your basing kits own almost as much as my warham photo skills blow I think tomorrow I'm gonna bust out the heavy duty poo poo and try getting some photos that don't turn out like total poo poo. EDIT: Jesus gently caress, I almost regret posting that loving thing. That is really not a good photograph, yet it is somehow the best one I got.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 05:09
|
|
|
I've remembered what it is that I hate about metal models. godamn mold lines more specifically... removing godamn mold lines from metal models  beginning to regret my march oath of 5 wraithguard but meh, needs must and all that.. better get used to it given that a good chunk of the eldar range is still metal 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 10:12
|
|
|
I so prefer removing mold lines on metal models to plastic ones. I'm always shaving away too much on the plastic, and that's hard to do with the metal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 10:16
|
|
|
My problem is the one mold line/bit of flash that you always overlook until you finish priming, then there it is, staring up at you from the middle of your loving model, mocking you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 10:24
|
|
|
What do y'all think about "limited edition" models? Back in the Rackham metal days I used to hate that there were miniatures that I probably couldn't get my hands on due to limited numbers, but now that I've been able to get a few, I am a little scared. Do I paint these things up? Do I leave them in original packaging? What if I do paint them up and they look like rear end? Will the other 299 people who own the same piece laugh at me? I know it comes down to "do what you want: it's your mini!" but I guess I just want to hear thoughts on this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 10:29
|
|
|
Do what you want, it's your mini. Also, stop fearing nerds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 10:34
|
|
|
I dislike not being able to get a super cool miniature because it was only sold at event X or on day Y. Trying to create a market for tiny little men to forever be kept in their blisters is stupid. They're there to be painted, and with that in mind everyone should be able to paint one. At the least they should make them available after a year or two.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 10:36
|
|
|
Just break that bad boy out of his blister and be done with it
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 10:39
|
|
|
I will paint these things up. I will fear no nerds! "I dislike not being able to get a super cool miniature because it was only sold at event X or on day Y" - I have bought mini's in the past that were a little pricey because they were exclusive ones, only to have the same ones released a little later on at regular price
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 10:50
|
|
|
I have a handful of WoC limited models like Archaon on foot and the Chaos Battle Standard guy, but the one I really want is the Wolfpriest. It's probably one of the coolest LEs out there. Oh, and while I'm sure it's nothing impressive to the English Warhams, but I also have the Bugman's Brewery exclusive Bugman on barrels who kicks a lot of rear end. I fully intend to paint them all, one day. Archaon is the closest to being actually finished.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 13:46
|
|
|
Doombull incoming:    
Skarsnik fucked around with this message at 12:23 on May 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 13:47
|
|
|
Skarsnik posted:Doombull incoming: You know, for a roided up cow, that looks sweet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 14:35
|
|
|
Seconding, that's a very sweet paint job on a pretty awesome model.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 15:09
|
|
|
What do yall think of the P3 paints? I'm about to start painting some warmachine minis, and I've always used GW paints before, and I'm thinking about jumping brands. I've heard lots of good things about Vallejo model series, but my brother and a good friend of his (who is a pretty badass painter) use P3. Was curious to have some of your input about this. I'm half tempted to just stick with GW because I can find it locally, and it's what I know/am comfortable with. I do hate the paint pots and love the droppers though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 15:18
|
|
|
Korwen posted:What do yall think of the P3 paints? I'm about to start painting some warmachine minis, and I've always used GW paints before, and I'm thinking about jumping brands. I've heard lots of good things about Vallejo model series, but my brother and a good friend of his (who is a pretty badass painter) use P3. Was curious to have some of your input about this. I'm half tempted to just stick with GW because I can find it locally, and it's what I know/am comfortable with. I do hate the paint pots and love the droppers though. P3 have their uses, I use a handful, the first to spring to mind are battlefield brown and the two menoth whites (base & highlight) but they only tend to get used painting bases, not overly fond of them for painting minis themselves. Prefer Vallejo and citadel foundations for that job.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 15:30
|
|
|
ANAmal.net posted:PaintVagrant your basing kits own almost as much as my warham photo skills blow Nice man, is that the static or turf?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 16:22
|
|
|
Korwen posted:What do yall think of the P3 paints? I'm about to start painting some warmachine minis, and I've always used GW paints before, and I'm thinking about jumping brands. I've heard lots of good things about Vallejo model series, but my brother and a good friend of his (who is a pretty badass painter) use P3. Was curious to have some of your input about this. I'm half tempted to just stick with GW because I can find it locally, and it's what I know/am comfortable with. I do hate the paint pots and love the droppers though. I use mostly p3. Its good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 16:24
|
|
|
ANAmal.net posted:PaintVagrant your basing kits own almost as much as my warham photo skills blow How are you taking your pictures? That picture isn't really out of focus as such, you just have a very narrow depth of field so that only a small slice of it is actually in the focal range. I'm guessing that you're using a low f-stop on your camera or possibly a the Flower/Close up mode? That helps with getting enough light in but it makes it really hard to get the whole miniature in focus. The best way to get a picture is really to use a tripod. If you have enough control over your camera, set it to a high f-stop to increase your depth of field. This will also push the shutter speed way down, which is why you need to mount it on a tripod so that you can use as long an exposure as you need. If you don't have actual f-stop control, maybe you can set it to the 'Mountain/Landscape', which should push for a high stop and better depth of field. You may need to push the camera to overexpose a bit, too, judging by the shadows. Sometimes a camera will meter based on the white background and underexpose the actual model - if you can adjust the focus/meter framing to work from the model that would help, too. Disclaimer: I don't actually do any of the stuff above because my painting is bad and good pictures make me hate my work, but technically it should help.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 16:34
|
|
|
Hey, where's a good place to buy a bunch of regular and 40mm bases on the cheap?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 16:55
|
|
|
PaintVagrant posted:Nice man, is that the static or turf? Static, though admittedly I rushed through that one, in complete disregard of the tips sheet you included in the box, because I really badly wanted to see how it looked. I think the glue underneath was still wet when I was doing the drybrushing, and I slopped way too much on there when I was trying to get the grass to stand up. Considering this is the first model I've actually based, I'm OK with the results, but when I do the rest of the squad tonight I'm intending to half-rear end it a lot less. Enormous line-by-line quote breakdown of Ashcans's post incoming. Sorry for the long quotetrain, but I thought it was a v. good post and I wanted to give it the reply it deserved.  Thanks for the tips, man.Ashcans posted:How are you taking your pictures? That picture isn't really out of focus as such, you just have a very narrow depth of field so that only a small slice of it is actually in the focal range. I'm guessing that you're using a low f-stop on your camera or possibly a the Flower/Close up mode? That helps with getting enough light in but it makes it really hard to get the whole miniature in focus. That one was at f/6.3, 200mm, I think ISO400, with image stabilization on, hand-held, from the other side of the room. Getting enough light is always a problem in that room (this was at night, so no natural light), so I gave the 70-200 VR lens a shot - the hope was that the VR would hold the thing still long enough to let me shoot slow and still get decent shots. Unfortunately I still had it too open (f/6.3 isn't enough), and on top of that, I forgot that long focal lengths just poo poo all over depth of field. I took the oath complete shots at I think f/8 or f/11, which I think I'm going to stick with, because those looked a bit better. I went with the long lens as an experiment because none of the glass I have can get close enough to fill the frame with an inch-high model without being well inside the minimum focusing distance of the lens. I actually think it sort of worked in that regard, though there are still other problems. Well, that's not entirely true, the 50mm 1.8 can do it, but the DoF on that... Ashcans posted:The best way to get a picture is really to use a tripod. If you have enough control over your camera, set it to a high f-stop to increase your depth of field. Yeah, I've come to realize, albeit far too slowly, that hand-holding with available light is never going to work. Next up is trying a tripod or a speedlight with a diffuser. I have both a good tripod and an SB600, so I think some combination of the two will let me light these loving models up brighter than the surface of the sun. Ashcans posted:This will also push the shutter speed way down, which is why you need to mount it on a tripod so that you can use as long an exposure as you need. Exactly. I need either more light (to shoot fast) or a tripod (to shoot slow). I have both, I'm just not using them, because I'm probably a retard. Ashcans posted:If you don't have actual f-stop control, maybe you can set it to the 'Mountain/Landscape', which should push for a high stop and better depth of field. Part of the reason my situation is slightly embarrassing is because I actually have a decent SLR and I'm shooting in full manual. I promise I'm not this bad at shooting larger objects, but god help me I cannot take pictures of these tiny loving things to save my life. Ashcans posted:You may need to push the camera to overexpose a bit, too, judging by the shadows. Sometimes a camera will meter based on the white background and underexpose the actual model - if you can adjust the focus/meter framing to work from the model that would help, too. I've noticed it doing this, yeah, and I usually overexpose a couple of stops, going by the built-in lightmeter. ANAmal.net fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Mar 4, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 17:05
|
|
|
All the expensive camera equipment in the world is worth gently caress all without proper lighting. If you can see any sort of real shadow in the pic, youre lighting rig doesnt have enough lights. I use one above, and one on each side, and I use (probably too strong) 100w style halogen daylight bulbs. If I was buying the rig again, Id drop the wattage but still use the 3 daylights e: and follow the directions in the kit for maximum static grass "standuppery"
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 18:15
|
|
|
Photography derail!  ANAmal.net posted:That one was at f/6.3, 200mm, I think ISO400, with image stabilization on, hand-held, from the other side of the room. quote:I went with the long lens as an experiment because none of the glass I have can get close enough to fill the frame with an inch-high model without being well inside the minimum focusing distance of the lens. I actually think it sort of worked in that regard, though there are still other problems. quote:Part of the reason my situation is slightly embarrassing is because I actually have a decent SLR and I'm shooting in full manual. I promise I'm not this bad at shooting larger objects, but god help me I cannot take pictures of these tiny loving things to save my life. I can't provide any help on the diffuser, I have the SB400 flash but I don't have a diffuser and get minimal use out of it. The biggest difference is really just going to be in bothering to get your setup right with the lightbox, tripod, etc. Like I said, this is something that I never actually do because its a pain in the rear end, but its probably the easiest fix. If you have other stuff painted, getting set up and taking a whole bunch of pictures makes it seem like less of a hassle/waste of time. Edit: PV is right, equipment can only do so much to compensate for lovely conditions. If your lighting is just bad it can help, but getting good lighting in will make it much easier to sort out the DoF problems as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 18:19
|
|
|
fffff it turns out that cork noticeboards are actually the thinnest possible layer of cork over a core of corrugated cardboard. Oh well, just ordered a sampler of cork tiles from ebay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 18:20
|
|
|
All I know about my DSLR is that when I take a picture and it starts making all sorts of grouchy gronk noises as it adjusts, I know I hosed up the f-stops or the lighting is bad I shoot in full manual using my lightbox, manually white balance it before shooting, and then shoot at +.7, or 1.0. I then photoshop, and usually lower the brightness by about 10 and raise the saturation by about 10. Daylight bulbs are color correct, but I cant seem to get enough light without killing the colors a bit, so a saturation adjustment is usually needed :\
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 18:23
|
|
|
Anyone thinking of switching away from GW paints should note that no-one on the planet makes a paintpot as loving poo poo as GW, also, P3 & Vajello both make pretty drat good paints, and if you can't find them cheaper than GW I'll be amazed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 18:44
|
|
|
Hey, be glad that GW gave up those hex screw-cap pots, those were even worse. I have hex flip-tops from 1995 that still hold paint, but all my screw-tops dried up in months. loving things. How are the metallics for P3? I have pretty much only bought Vallejo paint recently (except for GW washes) but I wasn't really taken by their metallics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 18:49
|
|
|
Cakefool posted:Anyone thinking of switching away from GW paints should note that no-one on the planet makes a paintpot as loving poo poo as GW, also, P3 & Vajello both make pretty drat good paints, and if you can't find them cheaper than GW I'll be amazed. p3 just got a price increase, but is still cheaper than GW afaik. The only problem with their pots is that the paint can build up around hte edge, making them hard to close, which can lead to that little tab thing that holds the top on to break. Which sucks. So clean your pot lids and youll be fine
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 18:49
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:How are the metallics for P3? I have pretty much only bought Vallejo paint recently (except for GW washes) but I wasn't really taken by their metallics. P3 metallics are pretty hard to come by, they had such batch consistency issues that they recalled them all a couple months back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 18:54
|
|
|
Yeah, their silver colors are fine, but all their golds/brass/etc are garbage. So are GW's though, the problem is that the pigments are too expensive so they water them down and then they dont cover for poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 18:56
|
|
|
PaintVagrant posted:Yeah, their silver colors are fine, but all their golds/brass/etc are garbage. So are GW's though, the problem is that the pigments are too expensive so they water them down and then they dont cover for poo poo. Which is why pros use silvers washed with brown/sepia to do bronze/gold. Or so I've heard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 18:58
|
|
|
I pretty much try to avoid watering down metallics if I can help it- the gold/brassy ones at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 18:58
|
|
|
 fukkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 19:02
|
|
|
Best silver I've ever used is a pot of 'Inscribe' lovely water-reducible craft paint, cost me 99p like 3 years ago. Dropper top, I've thinned it almost down to a wash & it doesn't clump. I'll be pissed when I finish this pot but it's 60ml, so should last me another 5 yrs at present rate 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 19:02
|
|
|
Ive started to mix GW gold and mithril silver together, and use that as a basecoat, then sepia wash it
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:33 |
|
|
PaintVagrant posted:
PV has a 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 19:10
|
|
