Jump to content

Whizard Hlavaz

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Whizard Hlavaz

  1. Whiz- I don't have any Rackham, but I'll look at the Citadel next time I pop in. It's a haven for older OOP stuff.


    That's very kind, Jeff. Thank you, but please don't go out of your way. I threw that out there only in the event someone has a model or two they bought but then thought "eh, why did I buy this thing(s)?" I'll trade for the blister or single model or whatever. But only if the models are unwanted. You know the kind... flipping through your blisters, shaking your head... I'll never paint this piece of crap. It's not even nice looking. Damn Fiannas (Tell me folks aren't stuck with a boatload of Fiannas. They seemed all the rage a few years ago. LOL ::D: )

  2. I agree Madog. I find many, if not all, of the triads to be too close together in value to provide enough contrast from shade to final highlight for my taste. While I don't have my paint handy as to offer advice on specific color selections to supplement the value range, I will say you will find decent selections do exist in the collection. You'll be able to shift easily in both directions.


    In any event, the final range of contrast is up to you. Just decide how dark your shadows should be for your liking and likewise with your highlights (which I often bring up to ivory/white on fair skin -- particularly nose and cheeks and forehead. Ivory is a great color.)

  3. I'm definitely in, yes. Looking forward to it. Color me confirmed.


    On a side note -- I've been filling in bits and pieces on my metal Confrontation collection by Rackham. If anyone has any they bought but don't care for and would like to trade, I'll bring my bin of blistered Reaper stuff and trade in your favor by either weight or number of models or whatever you deem fair, considering metal Confrontation figs are OOP. I particularly like Acheron and Mid-Nor models.

  4. Hi Thasia. I think you're going to have a challenge making fur appear dirty. Dirt is easy to render with paint on flat surfaces, but the broken surface of fur may be difficult if you don't start with a light enough base coat. You may be better advised using a "dirty" product like a dust or something, but as we're painters, it's worth a shot to try with paint. You can always redo it.


    So... I'd use a light base coat and be easy with the shade. I'm thinking something like a tan or lightish yellow brown with a flat earth shade, not too dark. Then I'd highlight up to near ivory. After this, I'd use black and dark grays to simulate oily stains. Maybe some dark-dark brown red for blood. You could try the same with a gray base, but I'd worry that any stains would appear as poor shading than render as dirt.


    Now if you want a dusty look, you could try the gray with some drybrushed tans, but then again -- you may be better off using a dusting product.


    In either event, you're likely going to need to render other parts of the model (flesh, leather, weapons) with some dirt and grime to ensure that the illusion reads across the model. This likely the best way to "inform" the viewer that the model is dirty.


    Now on cloth and leathers, don't forget to use crosshatch technique to apply the dust. This will give some texture and weave to the cloth surfaces and scratches to the leather.


    Anyhow, good luck. ::):

  5. Whiz, I appreciate your logical step by step methodology! I think I'm starting to get a handle on using this thing now.


    My pleasure. Looks like you're far beyond to where I wanted us to step back. That photo is looking nice. I'm glad you feel you were able to find a comfort zone without having to actually start at "step 1" again as I wanted you to do. Good work. Lovely photo.


    Beyond that, lovely-lovely skintones. I can't wait to see this figure fully painted.


    Let us know if you need any more help.


    -D. ::D:

  6. You were set to macro? Ok. You're much too far away from the mini I should think. I'm not familiar with your camera, but in general macro is used when the film plane (focal plane) of the camera (usually delineated by a circle with a line through it imprinted on the case toward the rear of the camera) is within 12" or less (depending on the camera). If the camera is farther out than that, you don't need macro. It's for focusing on small objects up close within that focal range.


    Anyhow, let's work with a few things. Can you determine your resolution? In terms of size? 600x800 for instance. 768x1024? Likely much larger. Let's get that straightened out before we look at other settings. You can find this setting under your menu options. Set it LARGE. Then set the quality to best. This will produce large file size photos, but that's fine. Let's start there and then take a shot on auto (the little green box on the dial, most likely).


    Thought here: Does Photobucket auto-crop hosted photos? This second raw photo again seems far, far, far too small to be the orginal in-camera photo.

  7. She's not real colorful, but if you were chained left at see, neither would you ;)


    Well, that would depend on the number and species of crabs crawling beneath my skin. For instance, take my cr... err.... ah.... nevermind. :unsure:




    Very nice piece. She's subdued, to be sure, but very attractive. Nice job.

  8. More information would help. Do you know what all your settings were? (ISO, f-stop, resolution, quality setting, distance to mini and or zoom ratio, macro or not, etc.)? These things make a difference.


    If you were shooting on "auto", there's likely things we can do to help you out to reduce the grain. Regardless, it's a nice photo. I wouldn't fret too much. There's only a little to improve.


    As far as auto correction and the color of the blue background are concerned -- you auto corrected the original with the color card included, right? You didn't crop then correct. You need to correct then crop. And I don't say this to sound condescending, I just want to make sure you understand how the process works.


    Also understand, the grain could come from .jpg compression when you prepare for the web. Bottom line, is we need more info. on all your settings.


    EDIT: I opened your raw photo. Is that the actual size of the original you edited? If so, the problem is you've blown up the image too far. That's where your grain is coming from. It's better to resize digital photos by sizing DOWN, not up. You need to shoot a larger resolution and reduce. Not shoot small and blow up. Blowing up adds pixels, which causes grain.


    As far as the blue is concerned, I auto-corrected the colors and the background seemed to come out fine. You'd have to compare.

  9. I would think letting them air for a few days and thoroughly dry out should do the trick. But I am just hazarding a guess here. Worse comes to worst, I'd prime with a "sealing" primer first if you really want to salvage them. Something like "Killz" though diluted, I'd imagine.


    At any rate, I just wanted to say that I really love this story. Brings me back to college when I cooked down some chicken bones to strip the meat in hopes of drying the bones for necklace making. Forgot the crock pot on top of my roommate's closet for several weeks... smell? Funny thing was, he was pledging a fraternity at the time and didn't do laundry for weeks. So the other guys in our quad thought he was just a dirty grot. LOL!


    Needless to say, I secreted out the crock pot when I realized the source of the smell. Threw the whole thing out. :;):


    /hijack ::D:

  • Create New...