Perhaps this topic might persuade returning painting challenge contenders to put more thinking into their models. What do you who are participating in the voting look for when casting in your vote? What criteria is important to you and how do you tie-break so to come down to a single choice?

These past painting challenges have been very abundant and ultra competitive. So how do you narrow down your choice when the entries are tight? Like this Lurtz one is hard to choose where as in the Aragorn challenge Macgothmog's realism swept the majority of the votes. I personally look for depth in color, the more shades the better. Next would be those small little details and how much thought is put into them. If I can't separate them after that by weighing the small errors and flaws, that's when I look to the base and how much detail is put into that. Another thing that really effects my decision is picture quality, which sucks that your camera possibly plays a huge part in how admirable your painting skills can be. For pictures: focus, sharpness, lighting, angles, and up close large shots to see small details are very important. I just got myself a new camera going from a 3.2mp to 6mp, slightly better, but couldn't use it in this recent challenge because I couldn't figure out the flash.

Anyway in light of this Lurtz challenge, what do you guys look for in making your vote?

_________________
My Lotr backlog: 305/952[][][][][][][][][][]32% completed
Painting Lineup: Mumakil x2, Rohan Heroes x8, Haradrim, SKoDA

Very interesting thread here.

In order if importance:
Depth through highlights
Vibrancy if possible
Range of color
Contrast
Small details

Ultimate Tie Breakers
The Base
Eyes

_________________
Backlog Reduction Oath

My WIP: viewtopic.php?f=50&t=21545&start=40

1st thing I look for are visible flaws such as mold (mould) lines, bare metal/plastic, chips and other imperfections. Also, if the rim of the base is clumped with paint and/or basing material, or streaked with paint, it's "points off". Then I look at the "cleanliness" of the painting. Are there colors where they shouldn't be? For example, is there silver from the armor on the cloth or skin?

The accuracy of the highlights/shades are also important - meaning, are there 3 layers of highlights on the cloth, but only 1 layer of highlights on the skin? They should be equal, or close to. Do the colors blend well together, or are they just slapped onto the model without thought/care? Doesn't matter if it's "codex colors", if they are presented well, the model could be any color combo.

Have the details been done? Buckles, buttons, feathers, pommels on daggers, lacing/stitching, teeth/claws, etc., symbols?

Is the model vibrant or does it look flat? A model can be monochrome or have a muted pallatte (spelling), but still be vibrant.

Are the eyes done well, or does the model appear to be: a) shocked, b) looking in 2 different directions, c) o.0 type eyes?

Tie breakers can include amount of conversion work put into the model, basing, and personal touches.

For in-person competitions, I will look at the model away from a display base if present, unless the display part of the competition.

As far as looking at images, I will adjust the zoom level in/out to get a clearer picture. If you look at the ones I took for my model this month, it's a little fuzzy at 100%, but drop it down to 80% and it's much clearer.

But anyway, if you want my personal opinion, bare metal/plastic, visible mould (mold) lines, flash and other gribblies that should have been cleaned off are cause for passing the model by, despite how well the paint job might otherwise be.

Something that is beyond what the person posting the picture is normally doing. My vote goes almost always to the one who is doing something beyond what I've seen them doing normally. So it's really the progress during the past months, or something absolutely spectacular like MacMig's painting last month.

-- Pasi

As posted above, something "wrong" (mold likes, gaps, paint runs, etc.) creates a quick negative impression that is hard to get past after. Assuming proper care and attention though you move on to what does get you excited.

I'm impressed with the skills of people that paint (for lack of proper terms) the 'evy Metal / GW way that I'm used to seeing on 40k and such models. I don't mean this in a negative way at all as it really does require significant brush control and paint modulation. Dead Marsh's Lurtz is a good example of this. Edge67 has elements as well such as the cloak on the victim and some of the details on Lurtz. These look great, but almost "too great".

But what I strive for in my own work and what catches my eye in others is when someone pulls off great detail while having a very natural (often considered 'dull' ) appearance on the model. Draked and S83 got this with their Lurtz entries IMO. I like to see a model that looks like a still image from the behind-the-scenes clips or as if you are viewing the real actor/character from an appropriate distance. Often this will mean little to no eye detail, for example, so when someone gets that "just right" balance of a hint of eye detail without making it obvious (and I don't even mean over-sized...just what many people do well for "display great" doesn't ring true to me for "realistic") it makes the face pop.

Look at these two for example for what I mean about faces with subtle eyes and muted but obvious details. I think the scale is appropriate. This "style" of appearance are what I strive for in models rather than the more typical GW styles. I'm not there yet, but life is a journey.




There are many other things, proper shade and highlight and an equal attention to skin, cloths, armor (sometimes people spend so much time on one or not nearly enough on another). The base is important and again here my personal tastes are not always in line with what the community as a whole tends toward. But even a great base isn't going to make up for issues with the model, but a very poorly executed or plain base can hurt your impression of the figure even if at a subconscious level.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

First of all:
Painting
Face
Highlights
Custom color
No conversions!

Really? That's an interesting thought. Is it just for the painting challenge (you think the playing field should be level, perhaps) or for the hobby in general?

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

The first thing I look for is the overall quality of the paint job (colour choice, blending, details etc). If there are a number of entries that are of a similar standard then I'm looking for participants that have improved or tried a new technique. Personally I'm not influenced by an elaborate conversions or bases (that said they do not stop me from voting for a entry if it meets the rest of my judging criteria). However, I won't vote for a mini that doesn't at least have a basic basing job (if can manage it then anyone should be able to).

_________________
".......but the power of the Ring could not be undone."

No... It's just for the painting challenge...

Ok...that makes sense.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

What sways my vote...hmmm.
Well, to be honest...attention to detail. Slapping paint on a model, putting a wash on it, and then adding a highlight or two does nothing for me. It's all about the detail work (eyes, teeth, belt buckles, arrow fletching, etc) that does it for me.

_________________
No one feels as helpless as the owner of a sick goldfish.

Personal progress, attention to detail, eyes, bases, realistic tones.

_________________
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
Jake

Yeah, I have to admit I'm a sucker for detail, too. You can rarely impress me with (even magnificent) colouring and highlighting, but with detailing much easier, task easily accomplished.

On the subject of conversions, just like the base work I'll only take that into consideration if the paint jobs of the entries are equal with hardly enough flaws to decide on one, then I'll give the extra points to the one who did conversion work for the effort and creativity put in. So in other words conversion work is just a tie breaker for me.

_________________
My Lotr backlog: 305/952[][][][][][][][][][]32% completed
Painting Lineup: Mumakil x2, Rohan Heroes x8, Haradrim, SKoDA

I admit it's a bit random, but I'm not very good at analysing paint jobs anyway, so my vote is mainly swayed by my first reaction. If I immediately think of something "That's nice" or "Ow, that's ugly" I vote accordingly. Then, I look at what I can see of depths, vibrancy, neatness, etc, and then as a tie breaker come originality/execution of any conversions (you don't get a minus for not converting, but if you have, I judge the work) and the base.

_________________
"... Telchar wrought it in the deeps of time."
-On Andùril, The Lord of the Rings

a small envelope of cash usually does the trick

_________________
The Southern Fiefdoms: http://www.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=21928

Smooth

PS - stickied.

_________________
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
Jake

Looks like I should start organize some contests to

_________________
Ours is the fury!

i'm not a very god judge of quality, but when i vote the quality of the picture is usually important, i have never voted for a blurry picture or one that makes it tough to even see the detail.

a cool base, especially one that fits in with he LOTR story is often the thing i go for.

That's funny you said everything apart from the most important in my eyes and that is realism.

For instance, PowerofWill's Sauron with the Mount Doom on his back was by far the best paint job, anyone disagreeing would be crazy, but he isn't winning. I didn't vote for him as that is not how i see Sauron appearing, i voted Valpas because in my eye's that is most how i envision Sauron appearing. That is all!