Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 warboss wrote:
Yeah, the technique is overdone but it seems to be on the downswing now. It was getting way too garishly used a year or two ago as took the place of "way over(ab)used painting technique" spot from NMM which had it clinched for a few years.

I've always disliked NMM. It looks good on pictures, but then when it comes to an actual model it just looks soooo wrong. What makes a metallic look metallic is the way it reflects light which is not a static feature, NMM looks good on a model that you only ever view from one angle (ie, a picture), but on an actual physical model that you see in real life, it just looks very wrong.

It obviously takes a lot of skill to achieve good NMM, but IMO it's approaching metallics from the wrong way.

I love it on plasmaguns and meltaguns because it really helps the special weapons stand out from the rest of the squad which helps in placing them and spotting them during games.

I think 0-1 major OSL effect per model works best, when there are multiple competing sources it can detract from the model.

Whenever i see a plasmagun that doesn't glow with barely contained power it makes me sad. The marines already have gorilla arms and giant heads, a bit of over the top scifi glow doesn't really make it much more unrealistic.

wtnind wrote:
I love it on plasmaguns and meltaguns because it really helps the special weapons stand out from the rest of the squad which helps in placing them and spotting them during games.

Where exactly do meltaguns glow/OSL from?

I think that 90% of the problem comes from intensity. Many of the gaudiest examples of OSL that give it a bad name come have examples where the light output from the figure is way more powerful than it should be. Space marine helmet lenses look fine with a little glow. It shouldn't look like there's a spotlight shoved up in there.

I like the lighting effect as it can add a little more atmosphere to the model. However, if I remember correctly, I've seen a Youtube army being showcased and the models were mostly an undercoat with a lighting effect painted on them and it just looked... ehh... iffy.

If you can do it well and you don't do it too much, go for it.


I had a shot at it with one of my Chaos... somethings... and I'm pretty sure that the light is too dim, but I like it!

BAD OSL lighting effects are incredibly overdone.

In the past year or two, airbrushes have really taken off in popularity with your average hobbyist. Nowadays, it's almost rare to see a large model such as a vehicle that is NOT airbrushed in some way. Some people are great with airbrushes, some people... are not.

What I'm incredibly tired of seeing is headlights, plasma coils, and weapon barrels that are simply spritzed with some airbrush color, then some white as OSL. It seems like most Tau, Necron, and Eldar models I see nowadays are all done like this. I have nothing against airbrushes, and you can do some awesome stuff with them. But doing lighting effects like this just ruins the model for me.

The picture that the OP posted is AMAZING OSL effects that I love, and wish I could personally paint. However, I'm so tired of seeing it done like these examples. Most of these paint jobs would look MUCH better without the lighting effect:

Murrdox wrote:
BAD OSL lighting effects are incredibly overdone.

In the past year or two, airbrushes have really taken off in popularity with your average hobbyist. Nowadays, it's almost rare to see a large model such as a vehicle that is NOT airbrushed in some way. Some people are great with airbrushes, some people... are not.

What I'm incredibly tired of seeing is headlights, plasma coils, and weapon barrels that are simply spritzed with some airbrush color, then some white as OSL. It seems like most Tau, Necron, and Eldar models I see nowadays are all done like this. I have nothing against airbrushes, and you can do some awesome stuff with them. But doing lighting effects like this just ruins the model for me.

The picture that the OP posted is AMAZING OSL effects that I love, and wish I could personally paint. However, I'm so tired of seeing it done like these examples. Most of these paint jobs would look MUCH better without the lighting effect:

QFT. Those look like someone's shining a focused bright blue neon light on those spots.

I like OSL when done to a professional/perfect standard, or one that just "fits." For example, the OP's picture. Or when the Ogre Firebelly model was released, on of the 'Eavy Metal team painted it so that each surface facing the fire in its hand was illuminated, but the surfaces facing away were not. So the top of its belly plate was lit faintly, but the unferside was not.

Bumping this after reading the more recent OSL topic...

 Guildsman wrote:
Space marine helmet lenses look fine with a little glow. It shouldn't look like there's a spotlight shoved up in there.

Personally, I think light sources that cast even 'a little glow' on surrounding surfaces - assuming daylight conditions, at least - need to be fairly intense. In my opinion, the problem with a lot of OSL effects is that they aren't: The lesser, reflected light is just the same intensity and colour as the light source, which IMO would only happen in a highly mirrored surface (and even then it might be muted a little) In some of the examples Murrdox posted, for instance, it really does look like someone just sprayed too much paint on, overshooting the edges of the blue or red part. In eyes and eye lenses it often looks like an amount of eye shadow that'd shock a glam rocker. (In the bottom tau pic, aside from colour it doesn't look too much different to the orange effect. Which confuses me a bit. Is the orange OSL too? Or rust? Or camo?)

In those cases the effect needs to follow the example of the pics Yonan posted in the last page: Emphasise the light source by pulling the glow way back, or make the deepest or most central part of the effect bright white.
And that's the problem with the middle tau pic. I assume there's supposed to be some kind of Tron-like glowing line effect going on there; but the brightest whites are outside the recessed lines, and the recesses are almost the darkest part of the effect!

Overall, I think it needs just a modicum of understanding of how light and colour work, that an average gamer wants to replicate but can't be bothered learning. The kind that asks for exact hold-your-hand recipes to paint very simple colours or patterns, and who thinks technical paints are a great idea and the ultimate shortcut to painting effects - "Just use official GW a-bit-of-sand-in-normal-paintTM! Just slap some fluorescent turquoise paint on it!" (There's another painting fad I hope dies out quick[er]: the need to bung eye-weltering verdigris on every metallic surface that isn't bright silver)

Here's something that might be somewhat relevant. That's a very good blog for learning about light and colour effects, and how they apply to general painting, from one of America's most respected artist-illustrators. Take a shufty through the tags and archive.

I like it done to Plasma Guns but when it is overdone on the eyes of models I Think it takes away a lot of detail.

I actually don't think they are overdone, but I do think it depends on context.

On something that's meant to be realistic, or semi-realistic, less is definitely more. On historical models especially I think painters really should think very hard about whether to use OSL, and probably restrict it to dioramas (keeping it very subtle even then). In such cases real-world accuracy is more important for me than special effects.

However, for something like Warhammer, the setting is already extremely larger-than-life so using special effects to make minis stand out even more does no harm. However, unless it really is integral to the them of the army I still think it should be restricted to a few models such as leaders or special weapons, just so the effect isn't diluted by repetition.

My night vision goggles, and rifle scope didn't glow at the front just the back veiw port. So really military style figures (if real) would have a disadvantage if the lenses of their helmets glowed brite or just a little, it would be easy for the enemy to spot them. However, it's pretty cool to look at on a figure, that being said, it can be over done.