Home Forums General General Is it just me?

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 20 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #136781
    Angel Barracks
    Moderator

    I often find myself looking at figures that other people like and can’t help but see what seems to me an obvious ‘problem’.

    The latest one was of this, nice figure and would buy it should I need a 28mm figure of that style.
    But immediately something struck as very odd with the sculpt.

    Anyone else see what this grumpy old sod sees, or is it just me?

    #136782
    Rhoderic
    Participant

    Is it the thickness of the hands and wrists?

    I think we’re all grumpy old sods about completely different little details when it comes to miniatures and (especially in my case) terrain. I know there have been times when I’ve asked you, Mike, to spot what annoys me about some miniature or terrain piece, and after several wrong guesses I’ve had to explain what exactly it is. Which says something about me, not you.

    #136783
    Angel Barracks
    Moderator

    Is it the thickness of the hands and wrists?

    Kind of.

    #136785
    Rhoderic
    Participant

    I think my brain tends to filter out the stylised proportions of wargaming miniatures, within reason. Many, perhaps most, of the CAD-sculpted figures with correct anatomical proportions that I’ve seen look impersonal and soulless to me, so it’s a “careful what you wish for” type situation in my mind.

    #136789
    Darkest Star Games
    Participant

    Oh yes, it’s not just you.  I get that there needs to be some concession on figures so you can not only cast them but be able to paint them and have them stand up to some abuse.  But I prefer my minis more realistic, which is why I went with SHQ 20mm minis for my first Vietnam.  They look delicate compared to other 20mm figs, but they also look realistic.  Had a lot of M-16 barrels break though….

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

    #136792
    telzy amber
    Participant

    Hands. I know they are hard to sculpt but they tend to be massive.

    #136795
    OldBen1
    Participant

    I guess sculpting is subjective.  I thought she just looked petite!

    #136798
    Patrice
    Participant

    I have this figure (not so well painted…) and I just had a look at it. Yes the hands are a bit too large especially the part under the thumb behind the pistol, however if you look from different directions it’s not so obvious and also the rolled sleeve adds to this impression. I must say I’m really not troubled with this. For some contexts I use almost only Copplestone’s and Bob Murch’s figures, for some other games Paul Hicks’ and some others, and I avoid to mix them.

    http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
    https://www.anargader.net/

    #136799
    irishserb
    Participant

    I was going to say that the belt and holster are too high on the waist.  Seems that bolstering or unholstering the pistol would be awkward.

    From time to time, I have to build models and mock-ups of actual people, where we have measured or scanned dimensional information from the person.   We also have data from various anthropometric studies.

    Curiously, they always have “incorrect” proportions, matching neither our study data, nor the conventions that I was taught in art.

    One thing that I’ve learned is that what I was taught in art about aesthetically pleasing human proportion often utterly conflicts with my engineering experience.

    I guess the trick is to keep proportions within the typical range of human variation, say ranging between 25th to 75th percentile dimensions, or maybe even a more narrow range to please most people, most of the time.

    I do tend to cringe, when gamers talk about “correct” proportions, or similar terms, in absolute terms, as it is a very gray subject.

    Then you add in the pragmatic considerations regarding scale, casting methods, sculpting medium, etc.,  it can make your brain hurt.

    I’m always fighting with myself, when making stuff, struggling to maintain both accuracy and utility.

     

    #136806
    Rhoderic
    Participant

    I have this figure (not so well painted…) and I just had a look at it. Yes the hands are a bit too large especially the part under the thumb behind the pistol, however if you look from different directions it’s not so obvious and also the rolled sleeve adds to this impression. I must say I’m really not troubled with this. For some contexts I use almost only Copplestone’s and Bob Murch’s figures, for some other games Paul Hicks’ and some others, and I avoid to mix them.

    Slightly alarmed to hear that Copplestone and Hicks might not mix well. I have several projects in which I’m intending to use figures by both sculptors. I own figures by both (none yet painted in the case of Hicks) but don’t think I’ve ever bothered comparing them side-by-side.

    #136808
    OldBen1
    Participant

    Pulp Figures and Coppelstone for me are the gold standard.  Many of them are strange and wonderfully sculpted.  Gzg is often chunky too.  I often find the realistic thin sculpts look a little light,

    #136822
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    ALL, yes all, figures are grotesquely proportioned compared to a real human’s anatomy. Don’t even get me started about the clothing and equipment.

    It’s something you have to accept. Or not 🙂

     

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #136823
    Mike
    Keymaster

    ALL, yes all, figures are grotesquely proportioned compared to a real human’s anatomy.

    I dunno, I have seen a few digitally designed and printed ones and they are not that out of scale, but as a result they do look ‘odd’ by their nature of being more accurate.

    #136826
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    ALL, yes all, figures are grotesquely proportioned compared to a real human’s anatomy.

    I dunno, I have seen a few digitally designed and printed ones and they are not that out of scale, but as a result they do look ‘odd’ by their nature of being more accurate.

     

    It’s nearly always the hands, or the heads. Then again, some figures look like stumpy dwarves, and others like they’ve been on the rack 🙂

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #136840

    #136951

    Had a lot of M-16 barrels break though….

    Which, in my ‘umble opinion, makes ’em about as much use as a chocolate teapot!

    "Wot did you do in the war Grandad?"

    "I was with Harry... At The Bridge!"

    #136953
    Patrice
    Participant

    Slightly alarmed to hear that Copplestone and Hicks might not mix well.

    That’s why I think that most of my adventurers will never see the SCW, but they will see the Mexican Revolution and the RCW (if painting goes well).

    But that’s me, other gamers may see things differently.

    http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
    https://www.anargader.net/

    #137006
    Sane Max
    Participant

    I genuinely seem to be anatomy-blind, I don’t notice these sorts of things at all on human figures.

    Oddly, i DO notice when it’s Horses. Maybe I just think ‘toy soldier’ when looking at a human, and only go ‘Horse’ when I see a horse. Or in the case of some manufacturers, ‘Not Horse’. There is one company whose figures I really like, but if you showed me a horse that looked Like their horses, I would tell the owner their dog needs to go to the vet.

    #137042
    deephorse
    Participant

    Minifigs horses with square bums?

    Trust science, not the scientists.

    #137052
    Sane Max
    Participant

    No Names, no Pack Drill. But no, not Minifigs, much more recent than that.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 20 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.