 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.
![Cool [8D]](/emoticons/icon_smile_cool.gif)
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-"