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.

Still looks like Putin to me

Da krimson barun wrote:

Bronzefists42 wrote:
Are they seriously trying to sell people barrel variations of the Hobbit cast.

Yeah and on the LOTR forums I go on plenty of people want them.I'm sooo serious.Also:Why are people complaining about the faces?Its not like its 4mm wide or anything..Its probably because people are so used to 40k/fantasy heroic scale.

I quite like the barrel dwarfs. A lot of LOTR/Hobbit stuff is meant for set pieces and diaramas rather than gameplay

I'd totally buy the barrel dwarfs if they didn't cost $110 and I didn't already have enough unpainted models to last a lifetime.

A true 28mm mini, painted with enough skill and detail that it can't tolerate being zoomed in too closely on?

Can't be done.

I think even with all the padding Jackson is inserting into the movies GW can only squeeze so much from the movies to turn into minis.

Where is my Stephen Fry mini though?

 azreal13 wrote:
A true 28mm mini, painted with enough skill and detail that it can't tolerate being zoomed in too closely on?

Can't be done.

I never said it couldn't. But people are suggesting the GW painting team are dumbing down their painting level to something achievable to little Johnny who's Mummy (Mommy for you 'Muricans) just bought him the new Hobbit set. However I think reality is more like that are still painting as good or better than the best 1%, just maybe not the best 0.01%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: What is that model? Can't find it on a google search.

I have to disagree with you on the painting quality allseek. The new book is full of terrible paint jobs. I a,m not a world class painter. However, I paint better than 90% of the armies in the new book. It's sad to see gw put suck low quality stuff in the next new book.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
But people are suggesting the GW painting team are dumbing down their painting level to something achievable to little Johnny who's Mummy (Mommy for you 'Muricans) just bought him the new Hobbit set.

Well, this theory has it's roots substantially before this thread. As I recall there was some 40k release that has visible mold mines and where the decals showed lots of silvering - that's when that line of speculation began, as I recall - but I'm sure someone like Kanluwen would be able to pin that down better than I.

@ASS
It's Stephen Rao from Corvus Belli for Infinity, which really are the benchmark for what level of sculpting and painting can be done in true 28mm




Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS

Sorry to AllSeeingSkink, appear to have called you an ass by mistake!

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I actually think they're painted quite well, they just aren't photographed well. There's a world of difference between the Fantasy/40k hero scale where you probably can paint detail fine enough to zoom in and LOTR scale where really, what looks good on an ACTUAL model doesn't look good zoomed in 10 times the size.

Definitely think this is a good point, and this same subject came up regarding criticism of some of the Mongoose/Warlord Judge Dredd miniatures. I think it's fair enough to say that the quality of a sculpt is a sliding scale, but that also what is really noticeable at tabletop level? For big-unit, mass battle systems it obvious matters less.

At least part of the problem here is the price that they are being sold at, they're firmly in small-quantity, collector market. And, compared to a lot of the other stuff that comes in at a similar price tag, it doesn't compare all that well.

 BrookM wrote:
Where is my Stephen Fry mini though?

The Master of Lake-Town is released 11th January.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
But people are suggesting the GW painting team are dumbing down their painting level to something achievable to little Johnny who's Mummy (Mommy for you 'Muricans) just bought him the new Hobbit set.

You were raised by a mummy?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


Still think you can paint better than that? Maybe you can, I'd suggest many people can't, I sure as hell can't.

I can barely boil an egg, but that doesn't mean I can't complain about an overcooked steak. I don't need to join the Screen Actor's Guild to know Paris Hilton can't act. Likewise, I shouldn't need to be a better painter to recognize that a face is seriously asymmetrical and poorly defined.

But yes, I can paint faces better than that.









Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:
...For that matter, the Legolas linked above is blown up in size an absolutely ridiculous amount. Anything is going to suffer badly with that much zoom.

Something to bear in mind is that WD painters are expected to produce very figures at a certain pace - "paint this unit/army/boxed set in Y time". They're not working on individual models where they can really take their time, nor are they painting for the absolute love and joy of it at therir absolute highest standard for 8 hours a day, 5 days per week.

I'm a bit baffled by the lengths people will go to to protect GW's honour. The purpose of painting the models is to sell them. And if the staff painters can't make them look decent, why would anyone choose to buy the models? It's incredibly poor marketing for a company that claims to "make the best model soldiers in the world".

Compare this to advertising for other products. When you see a commercial for food, you don't see the food you're actually buying, you see the idealized, studio recreation. I look at these paintjobs, and it's like being shown a mouldy burger.

The only real explanation is that GW has lowered its standards for this product line; sales are driven by the movie and the licensing, not the appearance or quality of the models, so it's not worth the time to do better.

It's not a question of "protecting GW's honour", it's a question of dealing with the constant naysaying.

I have Legolas and Tauriel both, given to me as Christmas presents along with some Mirkwood Rangers and Palace Guard. The sculpts are actually quite good. Whoever painted the models should be reprimanded because the sculpts are not the issue.

So you agree they were poorly painted, but consider it "naysaying" when this is pointed out?

@Mastif

I love the fact you started by making a fanatic argument about recognising something isn't good doesn't require you to be good at it then upped the anti by following it with "And I am pretty fething good at painting faces despite that." I know your words didnt say that but your pictures did.

Great painting.

 Mastiff wrote:

Spoiler:

This looks like her making good her escape from a scene that would horrify all non-Japanese readers.

Great painting.

 Mastiff wrote:

So you agree they were poorly painted, but consider it "naysaying" when this is pointed out?

No, I just consider the constant negativity about every single leaked image to something GW related to be "naysaying". It is pervasive and not limited to strictly this topic.

Also, in regards to Angel Giraldez's painting? The man is insanely talented. Some of the models he's made look good for Corvus Belli are absolutely atrocious sculpts.

 Mastiff wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


Still think you can paint better than that? Maybe you can, I'd suggest many people can't, I sure as hell can't.

I can barely boil an egg, but that doesn't mean I can't complain about an overcooked steak. I don't need to join the Screen Actor's Guild to know Paris Hilton can't act. Likewise, I shouldn't need to be a better painter to recognize that a face is seriously asymmetrical and poorly defined.

But yes, I can paint faces better than that.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Very nice painting... however again we're talking scale. The first model is a Warhammer Dark Elf I believe? The heads of Warhammer models are gigantic compared to LOTR/Hobbit. I'm not all that familiar with the Mad Hatter model, but looking at Wyrd miniature scale comparison, they look like a similar scale to 40k/Fantasy, not LOTR.

Again, I didn't mean to say LOTR models are painted to competition standard or anything like that. If you look at Golden Daemon LOTR winners from years gone past, they look better than what GW is painting for their advertising, but the gap isn't nearly as big as I think people are making out.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:

So you agree they were poorly painted, but consider it "naysaying" when this is pointed out?

No, I just consider the constant negativity about every single leaked image to something GW related to be "naysaying". It is pervasive and not limited to strictly this topic.

It isn't GW related, it's gakky miniature related. If there is a correlation between the two, well....

Also, in regards to Angel Giraldez's painting? The man is insanely talented. Some of the models he's made look good for Corvus Belli are absolutely atrocious sculpts.

Spoiler:

This is an example I can immediately bring to mind. The actual sculpt has very little of the facial detail, with the nose being nothing but a slight 'bump' and the eyes being gigantic saucers. I genuinely thought she was miscast, but after getting four of the blisters containing her and the male Moderator that I was going to use as the basis for a conversion I realized that she genuinely just does not have much facial detail.

That a miniature produced in the smallest scale where any sort of level of facial detail is feasible doesn't have wrinkles and beauty spots isn't surprising, that some people are capable of reproducing astonishing results regardless, is not surprising. That GW are happy to let pictures of second rate paint jobs be published because not a single one of their studio of professional miniature painters is capable of getting even close to the results Giraldez can? That is more surprising.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:

So you agree they were poorly painted, but consider it "naysaying" when this is pointed out?

No, I just consider the constant negativity about every single leaked image to something GW related to be "naysaying". It is pervasive and not limited to strictly this topic.

It isn't GW related, it's gakky miniature related. If there is a correlation between the two, well....

If you want to keep saying that it's a gakky miniature versus someone who actually has the model saying it is a more than passable sculpt, then be my guest. This isn't a question of aesthetics or poor posing or any number of other issues which would be my own go-to complaints. You're choosing to focus on a painted model which was shoddily painted, for whatever reason, and insisting it is the miniature itself.

Also, in regards to Angel Giraldez's painting? The man is insanely talented. Some of the models he's made look good for Corvus Belli are absolutely atrocious sculpts.

Spoiler:

This is an example I can immediately bring to mind. The actual sculpt has very little of the facial detail, with the nose being nothing but a slight 'bump' and the eyes being gigantic saucers. I genuinely thought she was miscast, but after getting four of the blisters containing her and the male Moderator that I was going to use as the basis for a conversion I realized that she genuinely just does not have much facial detail.

That a miniature produced in the smallest scale where any sort of level of facial detail is feasible doesn't have wrinkles and beauty spots isn't surprising, that some people are capable of reproducing astonishing results regardless, is not surprising. That GW are happy to let pictures of second rate paint jobs be published because not a single one of their studio of professional miniature painters is capable of getting even close to the results Giraldez can? That is more surprising.

You do realize that Giraldez basically paints twenty models a month, at most, right?

The guy is insanely talented--but he also basically has no real deadline or multiple ranges to work for, etc.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:

So you agree they were poorly painted, but consider it "naysaying" when this is pointed out?

No, I just consider the constant negativity about every single leaked image to something GW related to be "naysaying". It is pervasive and not limited to strictly this topic.

It isn't GW related, it's gakky miniature related. If there is a correlation between the two, well....

If you want to keep saying that it's a gakky miniature versus someone who actually has the model saying it is a more than passable sculpt, then be my guest. This isn't a question of aesthetics or poor posing or any number of other issues which would be my own go-to complaints. You're choosing to focus on a painted model which was shoddily painted, for whatever reason, and insisting it is the miniature itself.

Let's face it Kan, when it comes to GW stuff, yours isn't the most objective opinion I could seek out, and unless you're willing to post me your miniature for my own personal inspection, I'll base my opinion on GW's own promotional material which I reasonably assume is produced to show their products in the most favourable light

Also, in regards to Angel Giraldez's painting? The man is insanely talented. Some of the models he's made look good for Corvus Belli are absolutely atrocious sculpts.

Spoiler:

This is an example I can immediately bring to mind. The actual sculpt has very little of the facial detail, with the nose being nothing but a slight 'bump' and the eyes being gigantic saucers. I genuinely thought she was miscast, but after getting four of the blisters containing her and the male Moderator that I was going to use as the basis for a conversion I realized that she genuinely just does not have much facial detail.

That a miniature produced in the smallest scale where any sort of level of facial detail is feasible doesn't have wrinkles and beauty spots isn't surprising, that some people are capable of reproducing astonishing results regardless, is not surprising. That GW are happy to let pictures of second rate paint jobs be published because not a single one of their studio of professional miniature painters is capable of getting even close to the results Giraldez can? That is more surprising.

You do realize that Giraldez basically paints twenty models a month, at most, right?

The guy is insanely talented--but he also basically has no real deadline or multiple ranges to work for, etc.

Why is that my problem? If a miniature company expects me to part with my money for their product, the onus is on them to convince me. I don't care if Giraldez holds a brush tipped with fairy eyelashes in his left nostril to paint, and only does so when the moon is full and the wind is from the West.

He is one person, GW's have a team of pro painters to call on, apparently neither individually or collectively able to paint that miniature in a manner that I, or evidently many other people, subsequently become excited to own it.

I don't care about the justifications- the GW paint jobs here are terrible for a professional release, and aren't they on the box art, too?

Ugh!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:

So you agree they were poorly painted, but consider it "naysaying" when this is pointed out?

No, I just consider the constant negativity about every single leaked image to something GW related to be "naysaying". It is pervasive and not limited to strictly this topic.

Sure, but automatically defending GW, even when they produce what you admit is "shoddy work", is no better than automatic negativity, is it? This is clearly poor quality, but people are still throwing out excuses for that work as if it was unreasonable to hold GW painters to the higher standard of quality they put into their other models.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Very nice painting... however again we're talking scale. The first model is a Warhammer Dark Elf I believe? The heads of Warhammer models are gigantic compared to LOTR/Hobbit. I'm not all that familiar with the Mad Hatter model, but looking at Wyrd miniature scale comparison, they look like a similar scale to 40k/Fantasy, not LOTR.

Again, I didn't mean to say LOTR models are painted to competition standard or anything like that. If you look at Golden Daemon LOTR winners from years gone past, they look better than what GW is painting for their advertising, but the gap isn't nearly as big as I think people are making out.

No... just no. I post a fraction of the work I produce. I have Infinity, Wyrd, Rackham, Citadel, RAFM, Celtos, Wargames Factory, Battletech and about a dozen other lines from over 30 years of painting. I'm familiar with true 28mm scale, even if I don't have photos available on this site. I've painted enough dwarves and halflings for D&D to know how small faces can get, and they were metal as well.

Rushed work is rushed work, and it's clear from these models that they did not take the time to blend or correct their mistakes. There are a thousand reasons why the deadline did not allow them to produce better work, but I'm only concerned about what they released and photographed.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


Still think you can paint better than that? Maybe you can, I'd suggest many people can't, I sure as hell can't.

I can barely boil an egg, but that doesn't mean I can't complain about an overcooked steak. I don't need to join the Screen Actor's Guild to know Paris Hilton can't act. Likewise, I shouldn't need to be a better painter to recognize that a face is seriously asymmetrical and poorly defined.

But yes, I can paint faces better than that.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Very nice painting... however again we're talking scale. The first model is a Warhammer Dark Elf I believe? The heads of Warhammer models are gigantic compared to LOTR/Hobbit. I'm not all that familiar with the Mad Hatter model, but looking at Wyrd miniature scale comparison, they look like a similar scale to 40k/Fantasy, not LOTR.

Again, I didn't mean to say LOTR models are painted to competition standard or anything like that. If you look at Golden Daemon LOTR winners from years gone past, they look better than what GW is painting for their advertising, but the gap isn't nearly as big as I think people are making out.

Please tell me that you aren't saying that the less than 1mm diference in the size of the face is the reason why a professional painter can't achieve the same results as an amateur one? (I'm assuming that Mastiff is an amateur and not a professional, great work on those faces btw!).

Also you've already been show several Infinity miniatures that are the same size (if not smaller), than those Hobbit models, continuing to insist in this line of defence despite being shown several examples to the contrary seems to be arguing for arguments sake by this point.

PhantomViper wrote:
Please tell me that you aren't saying that the less than 1mm diference in the size of the face is the reason why a professional painter can't achieve the same results as an amateur one? (I'm assuming that Mastiff is an amateur and not a professional, great work on those faces btw!).

Also you've already been show several Infinity miniatures that are the same size (if not smaller), than those Hobbit models, continuing to insist in this line of defence despite being shown several examples to the contrary seems to be arguing for arguments sake by this point.

Don't put words in my mouth. Amateur or professional I don't really care, I've already stated time and again I know the GW isn't competition standard, I've already said I agree they could be painted better, hell, I'll even show you one which actually IS a LOTR GW model...

http://www.coolminiornot.com/111269

My point is that way too big of a deal is made of the painting because with models of that scale you need almost need a magnifying glass to see the difference and the GW sculpts are actually very good for their size. The picture of Angel's model next to a 1 cent coin, the LOTR models heads are the same or smaller size but greater detail (at least the ones I own and compared to a 1 cent coin).

Why GW insists on posting zoomed in photos when the models aren't painted to a zoomed in standard, I don't know. If they even just halved the size of their images, so that they are still zoomed in but not absurdly so, the scratchiness in the feathering on the faces would blur in to your monitor's pixels and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I will totally agree that The Hobbit models are massively over priced for what they are. Especially in Australia. I actually really like the new Legolas, Tauriel and Mirkwood Rangers, I'd buy them all if it weren't for the fact to buy them all would cost $190 for only 14 models, most of which are plastic and the rest are failcast.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Please tell me that you aren't saying that the less than 1mm diference in the size of the face is the reason why a professional painter can't achieve the same results as an amateur one? (I'm assuming that Mastiff is an amateur and not a professional, great work on those faces btw!).

Also you've already been show several Infinity miniatures that are the same size (if not smaller), than those Hobbit models, continuing to insist in this line of defence despite being shown several examples to the contrary seems to be arguing for arguments sake by this point.

Don't put words in my mouth. Amateur or professional I don't really care, I've already stated time and again I know the GW isn't competition standard, I've already said I agree they could be painted better, hell, I'll even show you one which actually IS a LOTR GW model...

http://www.coolminiornot.com/111269

How am I putting words in your mouth when you've repeatedly stated that the difference in painting quality is due to the difference in miniature size?

And why are you posting pictures of a miniature from 2005 when what is being discussed here is the latest batch of Hobbit miniatures?

No one is arguing that the original LOTR miniatures where pretty good, what people are saying is that this new batch isn't up to that old quality be it in painting or sculpting.

PhantomViper wrote:
How am I putting words in your mouth when you've repeatedly stated that the difference in painting quality is due to the difference in miniature size?

I've said people are being excessively pedantic because of the miniature scale you'd need a magnifying glass to see the difference. I didn't say the difference in quality is because of the difference in scale, the difference in scale makes the difference in painting quality less significant.

And why are you posting pictures of a miniature from 2005 when what is being discussed here is the latest batch of Hobbit miniatures?

I posted the picture because unlike Mastiff's example, it IS actually the same scale (not that Mastiff's images aren't brilliantly painted... but lets compare apples to apples here). There's a big difference between a 5mm head and a 4mm head in how much detail, blending, etc you can fit on it and how it looks when you blow both of them up to 30mm high with a zoom lens.

No one is arguing that the original LOTR miniatures where pretty good, what people are saying is that this new batch isn't up to that old quality be it in painting or sculpting.

I have a couple of old LOTR books sitting on my lap, I'm flipping through the pages and not seeing where the quality in either painting or sculpting is massively different. The zoom level of the images isn't as extreme so I can't tell whether they did better or worse blending, but the actual painting quality on the level which you can see from the images and sculpt quality (the latter of which is damned near impossible to tell from the images in my books) is on par with what I'm seeing of the current batch of Hobbit models. Some are better, some are worse. Some of the Aragorn paint jobs I'm looking at from this 2005 LOTR publication look worse than the online images I'm seeing of the Hobbit models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, this discussion is becoming increasingly pointless. I may not have been in the hobby for 78 years and be able to paint golden daemon standard, but I can tell that a 4mm face blown up to 30mm is not an accurate representation of anything much unless you have some reference to go next to it. These sculpts look good to me, beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course, and the paint job from the pictures looks up in the top 1% to me, the photography however leaves a lot to be desired.

In short, models look good, prices are absurd, paint job is debatable. Lets move on.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Amateur or professional I don't really care, I've already stated time and again I know the GW isn't competition standard, I've already said I agree they could be painted better, hell, I'll even show you one which actually IS a LOTR GW model...

http://www.coolminiornot.com/111269

My point is that way too big of a deal is made of the painting because with models of that scale you need almost need a magnifying glass to see the difference and the GW sculpts are actually very good for their size. The picture of Angel's model next to a 1 cent coin, the LOTR models heads are the same or smaller size but greater detail (at least the ones I own and compared to a 1 cent coin)

Your point is invalid. This is not a magnifying glass, it is an image GW is using to promote their model:



This isn't being pedantic. We aren't commenting on the models at 1:1 size because that is not what GW is using to sell their models, are they? They are relying on these photos.

People are pointing out the painting quality is poor, and GW is responsible for the quality. They are also the ones responsible for the marketing images; they choose the size and quality, and have decided to highlight their lack of attention to detail. This diminishes the apparent quality of the sculpts, because people think "...if that's the best their professional studio painters can do..." It's not the best they can do, and you know that.

In short, GW made a bad call to promote the new minis with these images. You agree with all of this, but keep making excuses for them regardless.

I disagree - I dont consider those anywhere near poor quality paintjobs. They can be better sure, but poor quality? Maybe LOTR etc is targetting a different demographic where they dont want to do intimidate with full on professional paintjobs. Has been said before that that could be an issue - those are higher end table top quality paintjobs and someone (who probably knows what they are targetting) has obviously made a conscious choice to have them painted that way.

Those are massively blown up models and they shouldnt be. I have seen their LOTR in real life and they look really good - not amazing, not brilliant but just good solid paintjobs.

 fullheadofhair wrote:
I disagree - I dont consider those anywhere near poor quality paintjobs. They can be better sure, but poor quality? Maybe LOTR etc is targetting a different demographic where they dont want to do intimidate with full on professional paintjobs. Has been said before that that could be an issue - those are higher end table top quality paintjobs and someone (who probably knows what they are targetting) has obviously made a conscious choice to have them painted that way.

Those are massively blown up models and they shouldnt be. I have seen their LOTR in real life and they look really good - not amazing, not brilliant but just good solid paintjobs.

This is a fallacious argument.

You dont walk into a car showroom and see cars with mud all over them and some light paint scuffs "because that's how they will look when they're owned by a real person"

You don't see pictures of the drinks in Starbucks or food in McDonalds with slightly wonky garnishes or stuff slopped over to one side because that's how you'll likely receive them.

It is an utter folly to promote your product with images which are anything but showing them in the best possible light, if for no other reason than everyone else does this, so the consumer will assume you're doing the same.

With miniatures, I want to see aspirational images that encourage me to try and improve what I can do personally and give me a benchmark as to what can be done. These days, with no false modesty, I can say that my best is beginning to approach what I see scoring 7s and 8s on CMON, I just need to achieve that consistently and make a few improvements and I'll be happy. Now, perhaps not everyone feels the same way (I always have, even as a teenager barely capable of laying down and even coat of paint on a vehicle, I still aspired to be as good as I could be, I was just a lot further away from it) but I bet images of amazingly painted miniatures and armies is what hooked the overwhelming majority of posters here into the hobby, not pictures of poorly photographed models, with "good enough" paint jobs.

FYI: The Mirkwood Ranger Captains?
It seems that the male has a sculpted flaw. I took a look at the blister today, debating buying it and it most definitely is a flaw where the right eye is sculpted without a 'lower lid' and it matches to the poor paintjob.

It's easier to convert a Ranger Captain from the plastic Mirkwood Rangers anyways.

 azreal13 wrote:
This is a fallacious argument.

You dont walk into a car showroom and see cars with mud all over them and some light paint scuffs "because that's how they will look when they're owned by a real person"

You don't see pictures of the drinks in Starbucks or food in McDonalds with slightly wonky garnishes or stuff slopped over to one side because that's how you'll likely receive them.

You're not supposed to put that car together or make your own burgers. so back at ya with that fallacious argument.

The vast majority of GW customers can just about put three colours on their miniatures without turning them into shapeless blobs. For them, the paintjobs are perfectly adequate and a good point of reference.

We're talking about how a company represents it's products (or I was at least) so I stand by my point, unless you're suggesting that GW should stop posting pics of painted minis altogether and just post pics solely of the kit in pieces or on the sprue?