Arrrgrghhh!!

[Angel Barracks]

Why do companies have figures on their site with no images?
Do they not want sales?

/rant ends.

[Kitfox]

Pass.  I wouldn’t buy anything I can’t see online any more.

What are you looking for?  Someone may be able to post a picture..

Death to all fanatics!

[Prince Rhys]

Which company – ill message them offering my services for painting and photography now I have my new lightbox set up haha!

[Guy Farrish]

Because it takes time, effort, possibly a skill they haven’t got, maybe even equipment – not likely with the ubiquity of good cameras in phones (I haven’t got one!), decent lighting; and a different mind set. Bandwidth? Not likely these days but maybe when they first thought about it? Just stick the paper catalogue on line and they haven’t changed?

A company selling me figures in singles that doesn’t provide pics is a pain if I have to make a return to the past and send for a sample, but I’ll do it. Companies that will only sell me massive amounts in huge bags for their convenience and still not show me a picture of what I’m spending  wadges of dosh on can…go away. I don’t buy. Even if someone else has posted a photo.

Of course in many many cases other people will have bought some and put photos up on the web, so a little searching can (but not always) reveal what you’ll receive.

I still don’t buy from people who want to sell me a bag 50 officers.

[Angel Barracks]

The big culprit…

GZG.
I was looking at all these and hardly an image.

https://shop.groundzerogames.co.uk/25mm-characters-misc.html

[greg954]

Yep, frustrating isn’t it. I understand there’s a lot of faff involved but it reduces the chance of sales. A bad or an unpainted Pic is better then no pic at all.

GZG have been like it for years. Clearly don’t need to advertise their minis.

[Rhoderic]

The funny thing is that GZG used to have some old PDF catalogues with photos of many of the items that aren’t pictured in the webshop. They weren’t very good photos, but they were something.

[TerrainShed]

I was going to say what’s the problem, a Sherman is a Sherman and we all know what to expect from the more well-known producers.

But I see your point in this case. Biker babes? Bug eyed Martians? Could be anything.

Enjoy your gardening

Les & Alison

[Darkest Star Games]

I can’t throw any stones as I have have 4 codes with no images…  Just shear laziness on my part.  I should take care of that…

"I saw this in a cartoon once, but I'm pretty sure I can do it..."

[deephorse]

TerrainShed wrote:

I was going to say what’s the problem, a Sherman is a Sherman and we all know what to expect from the more well-known producers. But I see your point in this case. Biker babes? Bug eyed Martians? Could be anything.

When you’re in the market for 20mm WWII figures and equipment there are, unfortunately, far too many sellers that have gaps in the images on their websites.  I know what a German soldier of 1941 should look like, but how do I know that the manufacturer does if I can’t see what they are offering?  It goes far beyond knowing what a Sherman looks like.

Play is what makes life bearable - Michael Rosen

[ian pillay]

Tumbling Dice. I love the 1/72nd ranges. I have a bunch of Vikings and Saxons and a few of the 20mm WWI British. If they had more photos I would loose even more cash to them…😂

Tally-Ho! Check out my blog at…..
http://steelcitywargaming.wordpress.com/

[Mike]

deephorse wrote:

I know what a German soldier of 1941 should look like, but how do I know that the manufacturer does if I can’t see what they are offering?  It goes far beyond knowing what a Sherman looks like.

Yup. Not only accuracy of the subject but the quality and so much more that can only be discerned by seeing it.

[Rhoderic]

Mike wrote:

deephorse wrote:

I know what a German soldier of 1941 should look like, but how do I know that the manufacturer does if I can’t see what they are offering? It goes far beyond knowing what a Sherman looks like.

Yup. Not only accuracy of the subject but the quality and so much more that can only be discerned by seeing it.

Not to mention sculpting style and general aesthetic direction. Assumptions can’t be made about which aesthetic a figure or model has been sculpted in, even with historicals.

[ian pillay]

Rhoderic wrote:

Not to mention sculpting style and general aesthetic direction. Assumptions can’t be made about which aesthetic a figure or model has been sculpted in, even with historicals.

very true! Not many people buy without seeing a product but unfortunately us wargamers sometimes  have no other choice but to take a blind punt on figures.

Tally-Ho! Check out my blog at…..
http://steelcitywargaming.wordpress.com/

[OldBen1]

I love Gzg miniatures but the picture thing makes me mental.  Pendraken was like that too.  Sometimes you can find painted images in Google images.

[Muerto]

I’ve seen similar threads elsewhere where manufacturers come on and with great indignation list the reasons Guy mentioned (which I assume you’ve seen before too, Guy).

There are parts of my job I don’t like either. If I don’t do them, there will be consequences.

When there are parts of my job I don’t know how to do, if I don’t learn them there will be consequences.

When there is equipment necessary for my job that I don’t have, if I don’t get it there will be consequences.

If your job, or side hustle, is running a small business and you don’t run it to the reasonable expectations of the clients, there will be consequences for your sales.

[Nathaniel Weber]

It is frustrating. There are a few companies, Britannia for instance, who I’ll buy without pics because I am confident I’ll like the mini (only been let down once).

I emailed one company, asking for a picture or description of one of their packs, and he responded a few days later: “Yeah, there’s a lot of stuff I need to do.”

Didn’t order those minis.

[Etranger]

Muerto wrote:

I’ve seen similar threads elsewhere where manufacturers come on and with great indignation list the reasons Guy mentioned (which I assume you’ve seen before too, Guy).

There are parts of my job I don’t like either. If I don’t do them, there will be consequences.

When there are parts of my job I don’t know how to do, if I don’t learn them there will be consequences.

When there is equipment necessary for my job that I don’t have, if I don’t get it there will be consequences.

If your job, or side hustle, is running a small business and you don’t run it to the reasonable expectations of the clients, there will be consequences for your sales.

The problem is that a lot of these companies are 1 or 2 man bands, possibly running as a sideline to a real job. It takes time, effort & equipment to take professional standard photographs, all of which costs money. In the case of old ranges, there may be minimal change to sales. I’ve got plenty of sympathy for those with massive back catalogues from pre flashy website days, where there really isn’t any incentive to do so. Mike’s example may well be a case in point. New releases on the other hand need to be shown properly …

That said, I’m sure that there are plenty of customers who would be willing to provide photographs of the finished figures to those pictorially challenged manufacturers. (and if not, why not?).

Or they could just charge more….

[MartinR]

I prefer pictures but I can live without them. I mainly buy historical stuff so it matters less. What pictures don’t show you is whether manufacturer As figures are a head taller than manufacturer Bs. Thank goodness for those dedicated people who put together comparison sites.

All of this a million times better than the good old days of sending off postal orders to dubious companies advertising in the back pages of Military Modelling.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[Not Connard Sage]

TerrainShed wrote:

I was going to say what’s the problem, a Sherman is a Sherman and we all know what to expect from the more well-known producers. But I see your point in this case. Biker babes? Bug eyed Martians? Could be anything.

 

I know what a real Sherman looks like, then there’s the old Airfix model kit…

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Angel Barracks]

Running a miniatures company myself I know how much of a pain I find getting images on the site.
I spend about 4 hours per 15mm model painting it.
Then as I have no photography skills and a cruddy old camera I take a gazzillion pictures until I get one that is as close to looking like the paintjob as I can.
Then I edit out the background and place it on the site, and if it is a human model I try and place it so that it is the same size as the others in real terms so you can see if Yasmina is taller then Eydis and if she in turn is bigger than Yel Ata.
Even after all that faff the images are still not as good as I would like.

Game reports in my comic book style to show off the models and give people inspiration for scenarios and set ups takes about 10 hours per comic strip, so a whole day.

I have a lot of other things I need to do during any given day but even so, I would not dream of selling something unseen.

If I had a massive back catalogue or say I bought a range off someone I would at least, take bare metal photos on a white back ground and start putting those images up.
If for some reason I did not have the time, I would offer to sell some at cost to a customer on the understanding they would do the photography for me.
If you really want to have images on your site, I am sure you could find a way, if you really wanted…?

In the end I purchased from Hasslefree which cost a small fortune and  some from Moonraker Miniatures.

[Muerto]

There’s the Eureka Minatures approach which is (or appears to be) a dark wash on bare metal followed by a black and white photo. It need not be art, though I think everyone appreciates the results of a good 10-hour process.

[deephorse]

Whilst professionally painted and photographed miniatures would be nice, there’s absolutely no need to do that for me. Bare metal with a dark wash is perfect for my needs.  I want to see the pose and the equipment carried by my prospective purchases.  AB, for example, do a fair few marching poses, which I would not find useful.  Thankfully their models are photographed so that you can steer clear of those figures if you want to.  Imagine buying a pack of WWII British infantry, sight unseen, and you get landed with a bunch of guys sauntering down a road.  I want to see what I’m buying and I avoid buying figures I haven’t seen.  As for Airfix Shermans, I have several and they still appear in the table to this day.  But that’s because I haven’t taken the time to learn the tiny differences between some of the Sherman variants, and I have no interest in doing so.  But play with the wrong ausfuhrung of a Panzer IV and I’ll be very upset!

Play is what makes life bearable - Michael Rosen

[Etranger]

MartinR wrote:

I prefer pictures but I can live without them. I mainly buy historical stuff so it matters less. What pictures don’t show you is whether manufacturer As figures are a head taller than manufacturer Bs. Thank goodness for those dedicated people who put together comparison sites.

All of this a million times better than the good old days of sending off postal orders to dubious companies advertising in the back pages of Military Modelling.

You should try doing it from the other side of the world! COVID has returned postage times to the 1980’s….

[Not Connard Sage]

deephorse wrote:

As for Airfix Shermans, I have several and they still appear in the table to this day. But that’s because I haven’t taken the time to learn the tiny differences between some of the Sherman variants, and I have no interest in doing so.

 

No need to bother, the Airfix kit isn’t any of them 🙂

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[deephorse]

Not Connard Sage wrote:

deephorse wrote:

As for Airfix Shermans, I have several and they still appear in the table to this day. But that’s because I haven’t taken the time to learn the tiny differences between some of the Sherman variants, and I have no interest in doing so.

No need to bother, the Airfix kit isn’t any of them 🙂

Now you’ve done it.  I’m going to get out my copy of Hunnicutt and see what’s wrong, or right, with the Airfix kit!

Play is what makes life bearable - Michael Rosen

[Guy Farrish]

Odd thing about the Airfix ‘Sherman’ though – when you look at it, you know it’s a Sherman, not a (long boring list of every other allied tank).

So in representational terms on a wargame table, it works just as well as a vastly more expensive ‘accurate’ model.

As for the pictures thing, I’m going to be argumentative and say it suddenly occurs to me we are all being a bit prissy. Infinite choice has spoilt us. Searching for the perfect has made us enemies of the good enough.

As with Airfix’s Sherman, oh all right then – ‘Sherman’ – does it actually make a blind bit of difference to the game? In case anyone gets the answer wrong – it is ‘no’.

Okay if I want a diorama piece or my hobby is actually military modelling or I am obsessive about Sherman variants, but if it shows me where the tank, troop, squadron etc is on the table – does it matter all that much if it has the right turret configuration? How far does wysiwyg  go? All those parade dress horse and musket chaps with shakos on at Austerlitz, or tricoleurs at Wagram etc? Who cares?

I know some of you do -deeply (and I still don’t want to buy a mutant goblin when I’m looking for a French tirailleur) – but a perspective moment suddenly hit me.

And as Etranger said many (most) of these people are running a sideline – maybe they don’t want to expand with all the hassle that entails of staff, national insurance, pension provision, insurance, rates etc.

A polite request for a photo seems fine – castigating people as if they have broken a major religious law of consumerism seems – harsh.

[Sane Max]

As people have said, this comes up a lot. and yes, as customers we demand pictures. But there are several manufacturers who have pretty much said outright ‘Can’t be bothered, you don’t like that, don’t buy from me, i really don’t care’ and I find that sort of refreshing.

‘The customer is always right’ can be taken far too far, and it’s a nice change to sometimes hear ‘I do this for my own reasons, if you don’t like that, tough luck. Bye’ 🙂

[Angel Barracks]

Not sure I would class being told however politely that my custom is not wanted would be a nice change, especially when simply asking to see what the product I was thinking of buying looks like.
I would certainly never use that vendor, ever.

[Not Connard Sage]

Guy Farrish wrote:

Odd thing about…

 

I don’t disagree with much of that, when I was a young wargamer ‘close enough’ was good enough. If you wanted to game WWII in 1/72 (and there wasn’t really any other scale (scales, remember them?)) Airfix** was about all there was. If you needed something ridiculously exotic – like a M13/40 or a 2 ton truck, it was off to Airfix magazine back issues to convert something or Almark scale drawings to scratch build it. So yeah, I look fondly on the old Airfix Sherman, the JS-Whatever it was, the Panther Ausf. D, no E, no…er G? and the rest. Not to mention the execrable German infantry (what was that AT gun supposed to be?), ‘Infantry Combat Group’, US Marines etc.

We have been spoilt for choice over the last three decades, and the focus has shifted from the game to the chimera of ‘accuracy’, to the detriment of the former IMO. I’m as guilty as anyone, but I still have happy memories of shoving inaccurate Shermans, Churchills, Panthers, and StuG IIIs around using Grant’s rules. Because I knew no better.

Where I do disagree is this shiny, lovely new stuff comes with a premium price and some of it is still crap. Some of the 3D printed stuff especially, although the cost is less. So I’d like to see a picture of it before I spend the kid’s inheritance on a platoon of the things, ta.

**yeah, Roco Minitanks. Never liked ’em 🙂

 

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[MattH]

I agree it’s baffling why some manufacturers don’t bother to post pictures of their stuff. No need for fancy photographic gear and lightboxes etc. The miniatures don’t even need to be painted or even assembled – just take a basic pic on a phone in reasonably decent lighting (either outdoors in daylight or with a couple of desk lamps). It doesn’t stop me from ordering, but it is off putting.

https://shellsplash.blogspot.com/

[Guy Farrish]

I’d forgotten the AT gun!

PTSD I think

A 2.8 cm schwere Panzerbüchse 41 (sPzB 41) I’m told – (someone will be along to correct me shortly).

And what about the Bex Bissel carpet cleaner/Panzerschreck?

Roco Minitanks were HO weren’t they? Had a tank (no idea what) on a tank transporter – bought in a fishing tackle shop for some reason – maybe it was a weight really.

But, yes – if I’m forking out high value electrons I want to see what is promised to turn up.

[Sane Max]

deleted as added nowt to the discussion

[Mike Headden]

Am I the only one who wants pictures because, much of the time, whatever I’m going to use the figure for it’s not what the figure nominally represents?

There are 100 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who can work from incomplete data

[Geof Downton]

Mike Headden wrote:

Am I the only one who wants pictures because, much of the time, whatever I’m going to use the figure for it’s not what the figure nominally represents?

In a word, no.

One who puts on his armour should not boast like one who takes it off.
Ahab, King of Israel; 1 Kings 20:11

[Nathaniel Weber]

I think basic photos of the minis are sufficient. No need for art shots or.for them to be painted. I agree with the above that Eureka’s approach (also Thoroughbred, the US naval warfare manufacturer) is perfectly fine for knowing what I’m buying.

[Muerto]

Sane Max wrote:

… several manufacturers who have pretty much said outright ‘Can’t be bothered, you don’t like that, don’t buy from me, i really don’t care’ and I find that sort of refreshing. ‘The customer is always right’ can be taken far too far, and it’s a nice change to sometimes hear ‘I do this for my own reasons, if you don’t like that, tough luck. Bye’ 🙂

But then I wonder, just can’t be bothered taking photos, or can’t be bothered making good miniatures either? It goes back to the original question though: Do they not want sales? If they do it for their own reasons other than sales, then that’s fine I guess.

 

But really, do you want to buy:

Navy Models and Books
MT63 Chesapeake £24.00
(Historical blurb)

Black Cat Bases
Cat Servant with dueling pistols £2.00
He is 28mm to eye.

Old Glory Miniatures
Product ID: CD-200 M4 Sherman $27.00
15mm scale – 3 Tanks

 

Or do you want to buy:

Navy Models and Books
MT63 Chesapeake £24.00
(Historical blurb)

Black Cat Bases
Cat Servant with dueling pistols £2.00
He is 28mm to eye.

Old Glory Miniatures
Product ID: CD-200 M4 Sherman $27.00
15mm scale – 3 Tanks

 

Okay, as noted above the need for a Sherman photo is debatable, but I do like to look at the tracks.

Those are all pretty point-and-shoot, but I’m enthused by all 3 products now. I really don’t think the one man band argument cuts it – anyone who’s posted to the workbench thread has done photos like the above, and they suffice.

All 3 companies do have some other products with more careful photography, so you can have levels, too.

[telzy amber]

Not Connard Sage wrote:

If you needed something ridiculously exotic – like a M13/40 or a 2 ton truck, it was off to Airfix magazine back issues to convert something or Almark scale drawings to scratch build it

I did that. I can’t recall the books name but it had a colour drawing of an M13/40 on the front.. perhaps the background was a red/black diagonal. All glossy pages black and white photos. I did 5 from sheet plastic. I thought they looked good. No photos of course, no camera.

[Etranger]

Muerto wrote:

Old Glory Miniatures
Product ID: CD-200 M4 Sherman $27.00
15mm scale – 3 Tanks

Okay, as noted above the need for a Sherman photo is debatable, but I do like to look at the tracks

From a modelling viewpoint that Sherman is a bit dodgy, (that turret is squashed for one thing) but that may be due to distortion in the photographic process, rather than in the model itself….

It is however, recognisably a Sherman (as was the Airfix one..)

[Sane Max]

YERSSSSSSSS…… but then we hit a different issue. There is a very well known miniatures company, who puts a painted photo on every entry on their website.

They look wonderful. I have a big box of their stuff unpainted, because it turns out they have an EXCELLENT staff painter, and the figures are totally Meh. Not bad, but very Meh.

Same goes for tanks which turn up covered in flash or mold lines that would shock a 1980’s wargamer. what you see does not have to be what you get.

[Author]

Posts