What is the most efficient way to paint faces with good results?

it's all a matter of preference. this subject has been discussed and debated a million times. so, tell you what, if your interested, i have tutorial on painting modern soldiers posted in here perhaps on the next page by now. there is also a figure painting "contest" around the same area. in there are a bunch of links as well as modelchasm's acrylic painting you could check out. ultimately, there is no wrong or right way but the way you want to do it with the type of paints that give you your best results!

/forums/1170409/ShowPost.aspx

/forums/1174885/ShowPost.aspx

 

Quite simply, that article was useless: the results would be marginally acceptable from a 6 year old using 1970's vintage Tamiya blob faces. It uses what appears to be a Hornet head that cries for detailing and careful painting and over paints it with what appear to be too heavy coats. Bodge provided a really good acrylic tutorial here a couple weeks ago. What's kind of sad, is the author has a very nice Stuart that is bought down by this primitive technique.

Skimping on a figure's face is, IMHO, quite foolish. As humans, we are pretty much hardwired to recognize faces and facial patterns, heck, we see them in clouds and smoke, tree knots, water satins and burnt grilled cheese sandwiches.

Take the time and learn to do this right and you'll be happier with your end results and those who see your faces will respond very well to your efforts.

ajlafleche wrote:

Quite simply, that article was useless: the results would be marginally acceptable from a 6 year old using 1970's vintage Tamiya blob faces. It uses what appears to be a Hornet head that cries for detailing and careful painting and over paints it with what appear to be too heavy coats. Bodge provided a really good acrylic tutorial here a couple weeks ago. What's kind of sad, is the author has a very nice Stuart that is bought down by this primitive technique.

No kidding. That article is horrible. Horrendous. so is the painting of the example.( It says it's a Tamiya Fig., A.J.) Why he would choose to demo on  a cheap x-tra from his spares box-who knows? If he had started with a Hornet head he may have had a chance (to show us the most basic technique like I used when I was 7 !) The article is subtitled "finish faces like a pro" a pro what? Golf pro? Now I'd say the figures on the tank look fine in the carefully lit photos on the tank. The cover is a good looking cover. I'd hate to hear what newcomers to FSM think when they turn to that article. Probably couldn't print it.

Oh and for someone that wants to read a great 1/35 head painting article, here's a page full of several :

  http://www.missing-lynx.com/articles/articles_figures.htm

And...here's one of the best you'll find on painting heads with acrylics, at Vallejo :

  http://www.acrylicosvallejo.com/asp-inc/_modelis.asp?p1=ing&p2=modelcolortecnicas

The article isn't the greatest ... that we agree. However, Jim's technique isn't flawed, it works for him and he doesn't get bad results from it ....

With that said, I think that I need to touch on something for a sec ...... I think that a lot of people here have lost sight of the fact that someone's technique differs from others just as much as opinions do. Opinions, as are techniques, are not right or wrong .... they are what they are ... so let's please try to stay away from saying that someone's technique is flawed ... shall we.

At least for me, I think that the biggest thing(s) that due this article injustice is 1) A one-pager is NOT a how-to, and 2) Showing close-ups of a figure's face in progress is always an ugly sight. Even a finished face, IMO, shown close-up looks horrible. Just go back and look at ALL of my completed figures ... when you look at the progress shots taken of the faces, they all look retarded! But these are scale figures .... you're not supposed to stick your nose 3" from the fig to look at it. In the article, on the preceeding page, it says that all the figs on the Stuart were painted using this particular tech., and they don't look half bad ... why, b/c the camera is set back and not zoomed in.

... lastly .... if you go back and look at the article again .... he didn't even use the "how-to" figure in the Stuart to begin with!?!

Sorry, Scott, I have to disagree with you on this. I just came across this posting at Timelines. I don't know the guy, but here's a serious close up and a much cleaner job than the article offers.

modelchasm wrote:

Opinions, as are techniques, are not right or wrong .... they are what they are ... so let's please try to stay away from saying that someone's technique is flawed ... shall we.

Sometimes, opinions are quite flawed. If it's my opinion that the earth is flat and I believe that in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, I'm still wrong. If the author is happy with his results, that's fine. The problem is that it's no longer just his taste, but a major magazine saying this is how to paint a face. The ancient Testors' instruction sheets had better face painting informationback in the early 80's.

I maintain that one should learn (and be taught) the best methods to achieve good results.

when you look at the progress shots taken of the faces, they all look...

pretty bad.

In progress pics? Yeah, they ain't purty by any means. But here's http://www.mb-miniatures.com/port/index.php?HenryVIII]another SBS with in progress shots.

WHAT!!?!?!?! The Earth ISN'T FLAT!!!!! ....

As far as opinions go ... the saying still goes "like ____holes, everbody's got one" ... right or wrong. For me personally, I was taught never to just tell someone that their opinion was wrong. Its rude and inconsiderate. If someone has the opinion that the earth is flat, then they are ignorant and yes, as you pointed out, should be taught. However, all too often people just boost up and declare that, "hey, your opinion/ or technique is wrong," and they just leave it at that .... or it blows up into an arguement b/c people in this day and age can't have a discussion anymore. It always HAS to boil down to an "I'm right and you're wrong" conclusion.

That's just the point that I was trying to make ...

As far as the close-ups/ in progress shots, I was talking about progress shots from MY figure builds .... but, now thanks to you posting that link from Timelines, I now know that my figures all suck. I have since feed them to the garbage disposal gods and have taken up drooling as a hobby.

Thanks again for you input as well .... now I know the Earth isn't flat! ... but why then are maps flat?

If the author were posting here, I'd respond (if at all) differently, but what upsets me is the fact that this method is essentially being promoted (front page headline and all) by a mag which people use as nearly gospel...Look at how many posts on the correct way to do a sludge wash showed up after this was placed in the mag.

As to Marion's paint work...always a major inspiration. I've had the pleasure of meeting her and Alan at a few figure shows, very nice and supportive people.

modelchasm wrote:

.... now I know the Earth isn't flat! ... but why then are maps flat?

Ain't Texas got globes? (Oh, where we could go with this diversion! )

ajlafleche wrote:

Ain't Texas got globes? (Oh, where we could go with this diversion! )

... allllllll-riiiight .... getting into "hurtin' feelin's" territory ... (HAHA!!!)

I completely agree w/ you AJ ... I have no idea what FSM was thinking w/ this article. I've alread sent a comment to the editor about it.

i no longer offer opinions just thumbs up this way everyone is happy all the world is smiling and tinkerbell and fuzzy happy little elves dance in circles singing tra-la-la-la-la!!!! i didnt read the article or the mag so i cant comment which is y my tut is up there as it's all i have...right or wrong!

camo junkie wrote:

i no longer offer opinions just thumbs up this way everyone is happy all the world is smiling and tinkerbell and fuzzy happy little elves dance in circles singing tra-la-la-la-la!!!! i didnt read the article or the mag so i cant comment which is y my tut is up there as it's all i have...right or wrong!

....

modelchasm wrote:

The article isn't the greatest ... that we agree. However, Jim's technique isn't flawed, it works for him and he doesn't get bad results from it .... With that said, I think that I need to touch on something for a sec ...... I think that a lot of people here have lost sight of the fact that someone's technique differs from others just as much as opinions do. Opinions, as are techniques, are not right or wrong .... they are what they are ... so let's please try to stay away from saying that someone's technique is flawed ... shall we. At least for me, I think that the biggest thing(s) that due this article injustice is 1) A one-pager is NOT a how-to, and 2) Showing close-ups of a figure's face in progress is always an ugly sight. Even a finished face, IMO, shown close-up looks horrible. Just go back and look at ALL of my completed figures ... when you look at the progress shots taken of the faces, they all look retarded! But these are scale figures .... you're not supposed to stick your nose 3" from the fig to look at it. In the article, on the preceeding page, it says that all the figs on the Stuart were painted using this particular tech., and they don't look half bad ... why, b/c the camera is set back and not zoomed in. ... lastly .... if you go back and look at the article again .... he didn't even use the "how-to" figure in the Stuart to begin with!?!

  Oh Great ! Indy has to come back to comment.       Actually you have required it.  ~    So M.C. (Scott?) , you are saying that (in your opinion) opinions are neither good nor bad, neither right or wrong, nor is any one opinion a better opinion or a lesser opinion? Is that right? Do I have it? ~ Well (in my opinion) you are very wrong. What would be the point of having experts if thier opinions were no better? Here's a clear example to PROVE my point.  Your car won't start. You can't figure out what's wrong with it. Do you call a mechanic? Or ask your Mom? Do you ask some guy that happens to be walking by? Even if you have a friend to call that knows all about cars, you're still looking for an answer(opinion?) about what's wrong with your car from someone who's likely to have a better(more valuable,accurate,learned,useful)opinion than say the the guy dropping off your mail, or driving the bus you just had to catch. You may even know(or not know) the mechanic in town that seems to form the (best) opinions and cost you the least amount of (cash,hassle,uncertainty,time lost) <<---reasons to get a GOOD opinion. Sure anyone you ask may have an opinion, what's the value of that opinion? ---->IS a factor you'll wanna know.                 ~ Now , our language has developed so that I can say "Hey, it's a nice day" and I don't have to always say  "Hey in my opinion, it's a nice day". <--how weak is that? Seems to be the kind of language you are requiring. Sure I'm giving my opinion(it's taken for granted)and I'm no more an expert on nice days than you are, and I guess thats what you're kinda getting at. (there is an artist element here saying 'there is no right or wrong way') In a sense/ that can be true(in relation to an artistic choice) BUT, in answer to a technical question , a technical answer MAY be of more value than(it doesnt matter, do whatever you want.

The Thread here is:What is the most efficient way to paint faces with good results?   It's not what's the best way? Or  a better way than in that new FSM article(though he kinda asks that in the short text)  That's where I went wrong, right? Why put links to some great head painting articles in response to that? I should have just answered   : A spray can        Thats the most efficient way.      Good results --just a matter of opinion.

"the article isn't the greatest"  = An understatement

"Jim's technique isn't flawed "    It IS as shown in that article.       Maybe the article was ruined in editing.

"He does'nt get bad results"     Well. that is the subjective part.  (I said I liked the Mag cover) There are many, many painters that have written much better tutorials.(Even basic ones)  If Jim was here now, I'd just like to ask him how in blazes HE got the gig.    Somebody who's faces look good at ANY focal length, even close-up, isn't hard to find- (nice links A.J.) and the editors shoulda tried IMO if the cover is gunna say "Finish faces like a pro-"

I demonstrate how i paint faces here:

 /forums/1048067/ShowPost.aspx

At 25mm scale, these guys are only about an inch tall. You can get good results on small figures, you just have to practice it a bit.

 

 

those are some nice fantasy figures cosmic. not that im into that sort of thing...but still great job!!

... Sure, indy .... you're right ... my opinion is wrong. Whatever ....

I was simply offering up MY opinion on the matter ... not trying to sum up everyone elses into a statement of my own. Its fine if you disagree w/ my opinion, but its NOT fine to tell someone that their opinion is wrong. (And as it turns out .... this too is an opinion of mine). Also, you should confuse expertise w/ an opinion .... a doctor is SUPPOSED to know more than me, a mechanic is SUPPOSED to know more than me, my mother sure as hell knows more than me. I don't pay for opinions ... I pay for someone's expertise. If you pay people for their opinions ... well, that's your money I guess. But, I guess I get what you're saying ... if I was of the opinion that 2+2 was 5, yes, factually, I'd be wrong ... but (and here's my point) its not YOUR  place to tell me that.  

But .... we can go round and round here, but I'm really not all that interested ...

As I have to agree w/ others' opinions here lately ... I will be keeping my comments and my wrong opinions to myself. If anyone wants to hear them on a particular technique or subject, there's the PM buttom just below .... I guess I'll also have to start every posting from now on w/ a "disclaimer" of the definition of "IMO".

tr-la-la-la-la....tra-la-la-la-la...tra-la-la-la-la

indy, your getting too deep and analytical for those of use with only a 2 year college degree buddy! im not getting into another debate with you bud, i just think your dwelving too deeply into an unnecessary human psyche.

I have only tried one way, and it works for me, so that's the way I paint.

Valleo acrylic paints, they come in a TON of shades, they thin with water, they clean up with water, and they go on like silk.

Get some GOOD red sable brushes, I have a couple 000, some 00000 and 0000000, others tell my they don't hold enough paint, they are perfect for details like buckles, outlining pockets, etc.  Don't use the brushes on anything but the Vallejo paint.  You will also need a magnifier of some sort, I use optivisor, I know Schnobs uses a magnifying glass on an arm with a dedicated light. 

Here's how I painted my first resin figure with Vallejos,

/forums/1169916/ShowPost.aspx

In that thread, i discuss the colors and techniques I used, based on Vallejo website information, Schnob's help, and an excellent toot by Bodge on this forum.

Skip the flesh tones and get light sand and cork brown, mix 50-50 for flesh, that will save you the 3 bottles of "flesh" tones that are all too light. 

I am not an expert, but I got these results after only 3 figures.  That seems pretty efficient to me.      

There are a number of toot type threads in the past month, including a toot contest thread from about 3 weeks ago.

Bill    

Hey Bill ... AWESOME results! And if these ARE yor results after only 3x figs ... you're a fast learner!! HAHA!!! Glad you found a tech that works for you. Some people don't (Camo ... ), but I think (IMO) Vallejo acrylics are the best way to paint figures ... especially the flesh areas ... no matter how you finish them. VA paints just seem to give you that smooth, real-life look.

Again, nice job, Bill!

i'm sorry but i beg to differ scott!!! ()

.... Sorry Camo, you're right ... I forgot my disclaimer, therefore my opinion is automatically debunked .... when will I learn.

But for the record ... I don't think that I hate oils like you hate acrylics. At least I'm a LITTLE excepting....

 

 

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!! j/k buddy!!

I think that every type of paint has its place. I just like using acrylics on figures b/c of the finish they give, so I agree w/ Bill. However, its very hard to get a really nice, worn finish on a tank or A/C w/o a oil finish. I personally like to use dot weathering w/ oils on subjects like that. Unfortunatly, I haven't done one of those in quite a while.

yeah, well like i always say everyone has their own preference which is why you and everyone else paint with what they do! you are right though, and that's my preference, that i dislike water colors...errr...acrylics. anyway, going up to the inlaws for a few days, will keep in touch via her computer. have a good holiday gang!!

Thanks, modelchasm, I'm very happy with him, and he's most definiately my third figure.  I built up and painted two styrene DML nachtjaeger dudes that came with my E100, then this guy.  I have to tell you, resin is the way to go if you want to paint figures.  No matter what I did with the styrene guys, there just isn't enough detail to let me paint them well.

After banging my head against those two for a week or two, I picked this guy up and it seemed to be much easier.  

Bill    

I definitely agree w/ you on the resin figures. I usually stick to 120mm, but I'm finding out that 1/35 resin figs are worth it as well. The last set of plastic figs I did were for a 1/48 B-17 (the crew). They came out ok, but then again, they were getting closed up in the fuselage, so I really wasn't all that concerned.

Bill, I meant to ask you .... does having the magnifier really help you w/ your figures? I don't mean to pry, but is it b/c you have bad vision to begin w/ or do you find that it just helps you look closer at your layering and color blending? Just a thought .... I don't use one, but I'd consider it if I thought it would help me improve my figures.

The magnifier helps me tremendously.  I am nearsighted, but I wear contacts, and I see fine, I can read this post as I type it and it's standard font 2 feet away. 

I find that the magnifier helps me see so much better than the naked eye.  Painting things like straps, eyebrows, etc is just way easier for me when it's three times as large as the naked eye.  BLending and layering are easier for me, too. 

I know Karl and Edmund/Schnobs use magnifiers on their figures, and Edmund's figures and posts are what got me into trying figures to begin with.  Karl's are great, but he's been building a while, it was intimidating to me.  Schnobs started into modeling about when I did, and when I saw what he could do with figures, I decided to try it too.

Take a figure into a shop that will let you try on some optivisors, and look at your work, you might like it, I could never paint figures without one.  I use the number 7, it's at the high end magnification wise, but there is a 10 which is even stronger, but the focal length is about the end of my nose, and puts the work too close to me to be comfortable.  I think there are 3-5 lesser strength versions, too, and you can buy extra lenses so you can swap them out if you need too.

Try it, you'll like it!

Bill        

Hey, thanks Bill! Just might have to check one out ...

might have to eventually too if my eyesight starts to go due to age. right now i feel im fine...who knows though. made it up to the inlaws and am going to enjoy my time up here. ponder a few things and forget a few things!!!

Enjoy your time, brother ... Take a breather ... I'll do my best to catch up to your builds while you're gone! HAHA!!!

Take care.

Citadelgrad87 wrote:

The magnifier helps me tremendously.  I am nearsighted, but I wear contacts, and I see fine, I can read this post as I type it and it's standard font 2 feet away.  I find that the magnifier helps me see so much better than the naked eye.  Painting things like straps, eyebrows, etc is just way easier for me when it's three times as large as the naked eye.  BLending and layering are easier for me, too.  I know Karl and Edmund/Schnobs use magnifiers on their figures, and Edmund's figures and posts are what got me into trying figures to begin with.  Karl's are great, but he's been building a while, it was intimidating to me.  Schnobs started into modeling about when I did, and when I saw what he could do with figures, I decided to try it too. Take a figure into a shop that will let you try on some optivisors, and look at your work, you might like it, I could never paint figures without one.  I use the number 7, it's at the high end magnification wise, but there is a 10 which is even stronger, but the focal length is about the end of my nose, and puts the work too close to me to be comfortable.  I think there are 3-5 lesser strength versions, too, and you can buy extra lenses so you can swap them out if you need too. Try it, you'll like it! Bill

Look you guys, I know you're starting to think I'm one of the know-it-all types, but one day I hope you will begin to love me for my help & for my very informed opinions. You guys prolly should invest in one of these, most of the techs use them for close-up work in the Professional Model Shop I work in:

Re: opti visor?

Th Donagan IS the Opti-visor it's completely worth the $30 somthing dollars. I personally prefer the # 4 lens ( which is actually a 2X lens ) they break down like this: Item No. Focal Length Magnification LX-3 14 Inch 1.75x Power LX-4 10 Inch 2.00x Power LX-5 8 Inch 2.50x Power LX-7 6 Inch 2.75x Power I agree the #10 is too much magnifacation to really work. That $20 copy at hobby-expo is ok,unless you've ever tried one of these babies.  Here's a link to the maker: http://www.doneganoptical.com/optivisorlx.php      "From a recent thread here on these  /forums/1/1087784/ShowPost.aspx#1087784

Opti-visor...magnifier of champions.

Opti-visor...don't sit at your desk without it.

It's a rare session I don't have mine on at my modeling desk. There are about 7 figure guys in my club and I think we all have one of these. If your eyes are really good, you can get by without one, but after a, er, ah, certain age...

 

Opti-visor...magnifier of champions. Opti-visor...don't sit at your desk without it.

LOL- a very good Ad mock-up there -LOL

My eyes are VERY good, and I was resistant to use the visor as well at one time, but demands of the perfection needed on the job have required it. It's all about how closely you want to look at your work. Always looks better without the visor, but with it you can see every scratch when you file or sand.

Al, I owe you debt...Thank you for the link to Timelines Miniature Forums. Amazing, serious, world-class work to aspire to and grow with. I had to join right away. It's a place for civilized, mature, accomplished figure works.