Figuring it out

[Chuck Doan]

I saw a beautifully painted ¼" scale version of a Modelu figure on Facebook. I liked the relaxed pose, so I sent off an order for a 1/16th scale version that I could stand next to my machines to give an idea of their size vs. a person.

Modelu filled my order very promptly, and I would also like to thank the Royal mail and the USPS for their efforts on the amazingly fast delivery. The quality is excellent, with no print lines and only a few tiny support nubs to sort out.

So, now I have to decide if I will paint him up, or just give him a coat of primer. I may give it a try since I can always re-apply the Greycote. Something for my retirement.

[Bill Gill]

That is a good looking figure. If you painted it anything thing close to how you paint your models and dioramas, he it would convince all of us that a real person was in a photo of your typical real item.

That said, there is the idea of having a gray figure (or perhaps white) to indicate it's there solely to give a sense of scale, and perhaps indirectly through its apparel, the time frame. That would be equivalent to the giant penny or €uro oft referred to as having been used as a prop to fool viewers into thinkng a real object was a only model.

I mentioned white as an alternative to gray because I've seen very realistic, all white lifesized mannequins used in museum exhibits and galleries that  played a dual role: populating lifesized dioramas to "flesh" out exhibits with 'people'appropriately attired and posed, yet also obviously not real nor realistically colored to not distract, and indicate they are not the focus of the scene.   

The white figures are quite effective in rooms/settings with mostly dark backgrounds and objects, but since you photograph most of you individual models against a white background, neutral gray seems a good choice. Not only does that fufill the purpose of the white mannequins, but it also could assist the color balance of the photo for the camera/viewer and show up against the white background.

Or, you can get a second figure, spend your retirement painting it hyper-realistically and have the rest of us take up ceramic figurine collecting  .

[finescalerr]

The figure is outstanding but I would prefer to see your models without it.

If you want it just to convey a sense of relative size, you could use it as is, but not in more than one photo of a series.

On the other hand, figures, no matter how excellent and well painted, may detract attention from the stunningly superb models behind them so I would avoid making a figure part of any display.

One last thought: I have yet to see any figure as realistic as a living thing. Your models, though, are indistinguishable from a full size counterpart. So you could paste and appropriately scale a photo of yourself or someone else into a photo of your model. Just make sure the light and shadows of each shot match.

Russ

[Lawrence@NZFinescale]

An interesting discussion...

A few thoughts:

• Modelu figures are widely considered state of the art, but to be honest I'm not all that impressed.  They are extremely good compared to what came before (and currently on the market), but only middling in terms of what is possible today. Faces in particular lack sharpness and defined features. That's particularly true in larger scales like this.
• Modelu are based on scans from life - a very good technique for achieving natural poses, not quite so good for detail.  Having said that scanning is a rapidly evolving technology and yesterday's scans won't be as good as tomorrow's by some margin. I've done figures from digital models that have better detail - but relaxed and realistic posing and detailing are more difficult and I wouldn't claim my figures are 'better'. On the other hand poses that fit accurately with other elements of the scene (drivers with hands on controls etc) are much easier to achieve.
• Some of the military painters do superbly realistic figures so I wouldn't rule out a fully coloured figure. Good figures add a lot to a scene, but the choice to use them depends on what the modeller is trying to convey.

My gut feel at present is that scanned figures are a really good start, but some digital work could improve them quite a bit. Obviously that's beyond you if you lack the inclination, skills, hardware and software to DIY.

[Ray Dunakin]

That is a great looking figure. Even unpainted it looks better than any others I've seen. If any figure could work along side your incredible models, I'd say it's this one -- especially with your skillful paint work.

[TRAINS1941]

Even if you don't use in your display.

I think you should give a shot at painting the guy.  If it came out hall as nice as your other work it would be a home run!!

Jerry

[Chuck Doan]

Thanks for the comments and insight! I knew he would never be a "convincer", but maybe someday I might try to paint him up. I can always go back to Grey easily enough. And don't worry Russ, his contract is only for occasional work.

[finescalerr]

Chuck, are you really getting close to retiring or was that just a wisecrack? -- Russ

[Chuck Doan]

I am packing my chute, but I'm not standing at the door yet.

[WP Rayner]

I agree with Russ on this issue. Though the figure appears to be well modelled, miniature animate figures and creatures, regardless of how realistically painted and finished, rarely if ever, add any measure of believability to a model. They can certainly help express a narrative, but beyond that I view them as a distraction. I realize your intent is to show the size of the model relative to a figure of the same scale, but I don't think that is important or even relevant. What is most impressive is not the size of the model in reference to a miniature figure, but the size of the model compared to real life. You used to use a penny to indicate the scale of the model, which was immediately effective in communicating clearly the size of the model and your unmatched skill.

The chute is packed... excellent. Years ago, after he'd been retired for a few years, my father told me he was busier than he had ever been when he was working full time. I didn't believe him at the time, but now that I've been retired for just under 10 years, I understand what he was saying. Some of it of course is a factor of aging. We slow down and it takes longer to do everyday things. When I spend an afternoon cutting the lawn, I need a nap and whisky to recover afterwards.

[Peter_T1958]

The chute is packed... excellent. Years ago, after he'd been retired for a few years, my father told me he was busier than he had ever been when he was working full time. I didn't believe him at the time, but now that I've been retired for just under 10 years, I understand what he was saying.

I retired two years ago and I completely agree with you 


Concerning the figure, among military modellers such a question does not exist! A figure is simply a part of the modelling job. BUT, although I am working in that fields too, I never added a figure to one of my models. The reason is simple : My painting skills are simply not good enough (or better: rather poor) and a figure out of my hand would spoil the whole modelling attempt.
If I could paint like i,e. Mike Butler I would have no hesitation! Here an example (not to hijack this thread) just to illustrate.



As Chuck's masterpieces are static dioramas, why not give a try? I am convinced, Chuck will comes very close to the example I posted here 😉

[Hauk]

It`s an excellent figure, too bad he is such a poser!

[Lawrence@NZFinescale]

My 2c...

A principle I have often expressed is that any model is as convincing as it's least convincing component.  The eye is unerringly drawn to discordant elements which always spoil the overall impact.

Even Lego models can work quite well when it is just Lego.  Consistency is the thing.

So if Chuck can work up a figure to something like Peter's example and to the same level of convincing detail as the tractor, then including a figure is going to add something.  In the unlikely event that he cannot, then the figure is best omitted or left in grey/white as suggested by others. Nothing lost in having a go though.

The quality of the figure and it's finishing is one thing, but it's convincing integration into the scene (pose) is another. Difficult to do with stock figures. The figure Peter shows is excellently finished, but importantly also communicates life in the pose.

[finescalerr]

Aha, the Rule of Consistency! I can remember nobody on this forum but Lawrence ever referring to it and it is absolutely crucial. It is at the heart of why Paul and I prefer to exclude figures.

Now an equally important question for Chuck: When you retire will you still have access to SolidWorks or will you have to change 3-D CAD programs?

Russ

[Chuck Doan]

Thanks for the further insight! I can pretty much guarantee that I will not be able to paint this figure that convincingly. Figure painting is about as close to art as miniatures get. I may give it a try just for fun, but regardless, he will only appear as a size comaparator. The coin works well too, but many people have no idea how big something is to a person, and he has already served well for that.

Russ, I am working on that issue, I would hate to lose access to all the models I have already created.