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.

I have a question that should be filed under the category of "mild annoyances".
What are your feelings of photos of miniatures that include pictures of fingers lovingly embracing them.

As long as you've taken a decent pic of the mini & your fingers aren't obscuring it?
Then I've no feelings either way about this.

ccs wrote:
As long as you've taken a decent pic of the mini & your fingers aren't obscuring it?
Then I've no feelings either way about this.

I know it is just a personal preference (artistic license). I have nothing against artistic photographing of fingers per-se, but in the context of miniature photography, I don't think it should be included.

Over the years of viewing miniature photos, I am beginning to develop something of a pet peeve against it. (like I have against hole-less boltgun barrels).
I think it can be distracting to the viewer who is focusing in on the details of the miniature. I mean, it can be frustrating to see a stupendous paint job on an amazing sculpt,
only to have the visual effect of it ruined by big meaty hooks latched on the mini.

I have no problem with it, fingers gonna fing.

It’s not as professional as it could be.

I don’t have a problem with it, but I think if you want to have a really neat looking photo showcasing the mini, you should get a light box/other set up with a background. I want to see the mini, have that be the focus of the picture. Not your out of focus workbench, or your fingers.

I think drilling gun barrels is a good comparison. Those who don’t are not doing things wrong, it’s just a little detail that helps take their work to the next step. You can snap a quick held pic of you mini, and we can see it. But you want a professional level one, you need to step up your photo game.

I don't really have an issue with a fan showing a model held in the hand when wanting to show it off so long as the fingers are not obscuring the model. I appreciate that for many photogrpahy is a whole other skill that they don't have and might not have the kit for; so holding the model lets them angle it more readily and get what limited light they do have on it.


I don't see it as a problem nor even really "see" the fingers as such unless they are holding it so ham-fisted that you can't actually see the model or the part they are trying to draw your attention too.



Personally my biggest peeve is companies that only show 3D renders on store pages. In my view a 3D render is great to see, but show me the ACTUAL model too. Cast and at least undercoated if not given a tabletop standard level of painting. Show me how it really looks when cast and when not a digital perfect example.
Plus digital renders have no sense of scale to them, it could be 1 inch tall or 20 inches tall and a 3D render communicates none of that to the viewer. A physical model at least gives a better idea of relative proportions and of how it will look when you buy and assemble it.

Show the actual thing you are selling not a concept design of it.

That, I think, is a far greater crime than a few fingers.

 Overread wrote:
I don't really have an issue with a fan showing a model held in the hand when wanting to show it off so long as the fingers are not obscuring the model. I appreciate that for many photogrpahy is a whole other skill that they don't have and might not have the kit for; so holding the model lets them angle it more readily and get what limited light they do have on it.


I don't see it as a problem nor even really "see" the fingers as such unless they are holding it so ham-fisted that you can't actually see the model or the part they are trying to draw your attention too.



Personally my biggest peeve is companies that only show 3D renders on store pages. In my view a 3D render is great to see, but show me the ACTUAL model too. Cast and at least undercoated if not given a tabletop standard level of painting. Show me how it really looks when cast and when not a digital perfect example.
Plus digital renders have no sense of scale to them, it could be 1 inch tall or 20 inches tall and a 3D render communicates none of that to the viewer. A physical model at least gives a better idea of relative proportions and of how it will look when you buy and assemble it.

Show the actual thing you are selling not a concept design of it.

That, I think, is a far greater crime than a few fingers.

That is one thing fingers add over a more professional set-up: scale. There have been minis I thought were much larger scale then the standard gaming ones due to the level of detail on them. But once I learned that they were 28mm, my mind was blown. I thought they were busts. Or dioramas that fit on a quarter.

With what we work with, being able to tell the scale of a piece is both hard and critical.

Agreed!

I was really surprised when I saw Infinity models for the first time in person because their photos make them out to be quite large, esp for the paintwork. When I actually saw them I was blown away how small and slight they were and thus also how high grade the paintwork on their display models is.


Heck there's a reason almost every KS uses a Space Marine in a size comparison photo - most people own one or have seen them enough to know their scale and size. Like fingers its a means to give a real world reference point people can relate too which better helps them understand what you're showing in a photograph.

I admit I judge people's nails

My fingers are in a lot of my pictures and i hate them

Other people are fine though

Sometimes, it is useful to get a sense of scale.

For WIP images I really do not mind. For "finished" shots I am less of a fan.

However, I much prefer pets to photo-bomb miniature pictures.

 Overread wrote:
Agreed!

I was really surprised when I saw Infinity models for the first time in person because their photos make them out to be quite large, esp for the paintwork. When I actually saw them I was blown away how small and slight they were and thus also how high grade the paintwork on their display models is.


Heck there's a reason almost every KS uses a Space Marine in a size comparison photo - most people own one or have seen them enough to know their scale and size. Like fingers its a means to give a real world reference point people can relate too which better helps them understand what you're showing in a photograph.

Forgive the belated response time...
I have seen coins used too, for size comparisons. Only slightly better than centimeter rulers, I suppose. Problem is, there is no universal hand or finger standard either. Imagine Andre the Giant's hand and fingers holding a mini (when he was alive, of course), as compared to a toddler (who, you probably would not want to hold your mini).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
It’s not as professional as it could be.

I don’t have a problem with it, but I think if you want to have a really neat looking photo showcasing the mini, you should get a light box/other set up with a background. I want to see the mini, have that be the focus of the picture. Not your out of focus workbench, or your fingers.

I think drilling gun barrels is a good comparison. Those who don’t are not doing things wrong, it’s just a little detail that helps take their work to the next step. You can snap a quick held pic of you mini, and we can see it. But you want a professional level one, you need to step up your photo game.

Sadly, photographic composition (which used to be taught in High Schools), has to be relearned in this present generation.
It's just easier to whip-out your cell phone and click away, since digital photography is relatively cheap and easy on a per photo basis.
This practice of (deliberately) including fingers would never have happened back in the more expensive days of darkroom chemical film development.

No matter the camera technology, I somehow always manage to get a portion of my fingers on the edges of the visual field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I admit I judge people's nails

If I was to do such a thing you would see some hard-bitten nails.

Funny that you mentioned it, It reminded me of a few years back when I declined a job applicant for a microbiology tech position because she had very long sculpted nails and when I questioned whether or not she could part with them, she refused to consider doing so. I did this for her own safety. Not wanting to risk her puncturing her gloves and getting a cuticle staph infection or paronychia, I declined her application. Today it would probably be considered illegal, putting the company at risk of committing some sort of "gender discrimination", on the basis of not providing some kind reasonable accommodation (and so-on and so-forth).

 jdouglas wrote:


Sadly, photographic composition (which used to be taught in High Schools), has to be relearned in this present generation.
It's just easier to whip-out your cell phone and click away, since digital photography is relatively cheap and easy on a per photo basis.
This practice of (deliberately) including fingers would never have happened back in the more expensive days of darkroom chemical film development.

No matter the camera technology, I somehow always manage to get a portion of my fingers on the edges of the visual field.

There are mountains of rubbish film photos. That big difference was that because there was no internet you often never ever saw them. You only saw the professional photography or the amateur who, because of prices, was perhaps a little more keen and thus would at least make an attempt at quality. So it gave and impression that people were better then than they are now. The core difference is simply that photography is vastly more accessible and sharable.


As for composition, its my observation that schools are in general teaching art very poorly. In fact the whole subject has gained an aura of mystical elements over the years to the point where there are a number of generations who are convinced that art is something you're "born with". That you have to "have the eye" otherwise you might as well not try. I put it down to schools spreading this concept of you either being an arts or sciences student (with sports creeping in as a 3rd option at some schools) and that your brain was wired up to work only within those boundaries. This then being reinforced by several generations of art teachers who honestly either:

a) Don't have a good enough grasp of the technical and mechanical side of art to teach it
and/or
b) Don't have the time in slots in the week to be able to teach it to the students.

The result is "natural talent" students get fawned over by staff and encouraged, whilst those who show no "natural aptitude" are mostly ignored and hoped that they don't elect to study it further.



Sadly this has created generations who can't draw even at a technical level and have no concept of even basic fundamentals of compositional theory. Photography (where my other hobby is) tries, but has got latched onto the "rule of thirds" to the point where its almost rolled out as the only theory. Others, in my experience, have even the viewpoint that learning theories limits your creative potential because you're always "following rules" and art is about "freedom" from those rules. When in actuality there are lots of creative and compositional theories and whilst you might be "breaking" one rule you're actually following another and like as not weighting the creation toward one rule over another. Something that effective compositional teaching would impart ot students.

 Overread wrote:

 jdouglas wrote:


Sadly, photographic composition (which used to be taught in High Schools), has to be relearned in this present generation.
It's just easier to whip-out your cell phone and click away, since digital photography is relatively cheap and easy on a per photo basis.
This practice of (deliberately) including fingers would never have happened back in the more expensive days of darkroom chemical film development.

No matter the camera technology, I somehow always manage to get a portion of my fingers on the edges of the visual field.

There are mountains of rubbish film photos. That big difference was that because there was no internet you often never ever saw them. You only saw the professional photography or the amateur who, because of prices, was perhaps a little more keen and thus would at least make an attempt at quality. So it gave and impression that people were better then than they are now. The core difference is simply that photography is vastly more accessible and sharable.


As for composition, its my observation that schools are in general teaching art very poorly. In fact the whole subject has gained an aura of mystical elements over the years to the point where there are a number of generations who are convinced that art is something you're "born with". That you have to "have the eye" otherwise you might as well not try. I put it down to schools spreading this concept of you either being an arts or sciences student (with sports creeping in as a 3rd option at some schools) and that your brain was wired up to work only within those boundaries. This then being reinforced by several generations of art teachers who honestly either:

a) Don't have a good enough grasp of the technical and mechanical side of art to teach it
and/or
b) Don't have the time in slots in the week to be able to teach it to the students.

The result is "natural talent" students get fawned over by staff and encouraged, whilst those who show no "natural aptitude" are mostly ignored and hoped that they don't elect to study it further.



Sadly this has created generations who can't draw even at a technical level and have no concept of even basic fundamentals of compositional theory. Photography (where my other hobby is) tries, but has got latched onto the "rule of thirds" to the point where its almost rolled out as the only theory. Others, in my experience, have even the viewpoint that learning theories limits your creative potential because you're always "following rules" and art is about "freedom" from those rules. When in actuality there are lots of creative and compositional theories and whilst you might be "breaking" one rule you're actually following another and like as not weighting the creation toward one rule over another. Something that effective compositional teaching would impart ot students.

Sometimes teaching unfortunately stifles creativity. Art is somewhat more flexible in that regard. Different from Banking and Finance, where you must follow the rules, and creativity is largely illegal and frowned upon. From what you said, the same applies to the Music Scene. Had Jimi Hendrix followed the rules, he would have probably ended up living in utter obscurity.

It's more about learning how and why compositional theories work. If you learn not just the "rule" but the theory behind the rule then you understand the concept and why it works. Once you understand why it works you're then able to manipulate that concept.

You can "break" it to go for a different effect deliberately.


The same is true in almost any other field. There are rules that are very hard to near impossible to break and there are those more easily manipulated. Finance if absolutely full of manipulation, even within the rules.