P.S. This is the first video I have seen of yours and you highlight a fact that vexes me to this day. I did 3.5 years if art in high school and learned bugger all. The only success I ever had was turning a block of clay into a self supporting human figure and I did that based on my biology class. The whole colour theory thing was never covered, nor depth of field or in depth shading. Still annoyed I got to the 90's before I started learning this stuff.
Your video is one of the best on flat vs. volumetric painting. From a theoretical perspective - perfect! Below is some food for thought. - Show the same model with the same colors instead of two different models with two different colors. - How does the primary color of the model impact how to paint volume? Imperial Fists vs. Black Legion [challenge!], for example. - The studio lighting affects the shadows on the red terminator, so it looks more volumetric than the lighting on the soldiers. It's possible to take a picture of the terminator and then paint in the shadows as shown in the photograph. Will that ruin the model if the location of the studio lighting is changed? Or does it even matter? - A lot of RU-vid studio lighting is for the camera, so when a volumetrically painted mini is shown in a video, the lighting is diffuse enough to make the volumetrically painted mini look correct vice using harsh lighting. - Take a squad of 10 miniatures, arrange them in a circle so they're facing each other, and then tell me the location of the lighting source for the entire squad based on how they're painted. - Does an entire army need to be painted with the light source in the same location? How does it look if it isn't? What about squads? - The above being said, what is the best location and time of day for minis, so they address all of the things I've mentioned above? - Is it possible to volumetrically paint a mini with multi-sourced lighting and still have it look correct? - If people pick up an individual mini that's painted flat and look at it within inches of their face, it will look flat, but how does it look in a display cabinet or on a tabletop when playing a game? - As you said, either way is perfectly acceptable. It's really up to the hobbyists to decide how they want to paint and enjoy their minis. Cheers!
So this might be the wrong format for my response due to its length, but here goes. I love watching model painters paint figures with that volumetric style. Miniac, Ninjon, Dana Howl etc... But I would not apply that method myself because I'm painting soldiers for gaming and there are just too many (Imagine exasperation). But here is the thing. I did a Death Guard army for Armies on Parade. I used contrast paints for the most part and it was a voyage of discovery. I used darker colours and at the end I found using two or three greys left such natural light shifts in the models when I put the greens on. Further a little shading over the base colours and voila' highlighted curve crests and shaded recesses with details. I started painting Airfix Napoleonics and they were definitely flat. When you have 120 figures plus command teams in a square the actual light did the shading. So for me volumetric painting is for the artist.
I tend to prefer going to a "flat" style using your definition - I tend to view my painting recently as painting game pieces, so things like being able to distinguish what's going on and read the battlefield are very important, which also ties into colour choice like using a 2nd edition 40k style yellow barrels for special weapons and the like. It's also easier to tie into what your opponent has brought to the table, and what your battlefield looks like, so while it's not necessarily the "best" or "realistic" look on what's going on, it doesn't ever really clash, which you can end up with with more dramatic lighting. I do have a variant on the thinking about this style that I haven't really seen brought up elsewhere: my lighting for the models that I'm painting army-wise tend to be kind of like "outside, around 11 AM on a clear day". That is, a distant bright source hovering somewhere above (though usually above and in front of the model) but overwhelmed by a uniform "wash" light. As a result, shapes and material and how they reflect and getting a consistent lighting approach on the model still matters, but it de-emphasizes anything overly dramatic over the entire model, and hence over the entire army. In practical terms, I have a subtle push of highlights to the tops of the volume areas and a subtle push of shadow to the bottom, but since things are largely lit evenly everywhere, this doesn't push to extremes. Within that framework of (mostly) uniform lighting, I then can apply point spotlights as necessary to create any specific effects I'm looking for (OSL as an example). I also go to one principle I picked up somewhere along the way where I try to use the whole spectrum of value on a model - some spot should be black, and some spot should be white, and everything in between should be used. That again helps build up contrast and readability of the model and elements while allowing hue shift to deal with a lot of the lighting colour.
Thank you for spending the time to share your thoughts! It sounds like you have found a method that is working for you and that to me is one of the most important things you can find.
I think that the middle road is best. Volumetric for expressive elements , flat for still. Why? If we are talking whole miniature hobby, you play with minis, and from my experience real light source obscure much of valumetric, so it is effort put to waste, on the other hand, what was flat now have shades and shadows. So I use valumetric for clothes, irregular pieces or heads, flat on armors and weapons etc
Great video! I'm thinking of getting back into miniature painting after a quite a break, so im starting from a place of complete beginner hood. Would you recommend starting wiith flat painting and then once im comfortable moving towards something akin to volumetric painting?
I actually prefer flat painting. I guess there is a bit of middle ground like adding scratches and dirt and gradients which is still fine. But what I generally dislike is the look of shading and especially highlighting.
@@WrathofMinis well maybe I've never seen good ones and more overdone ones. But I guess since the real lighting rarely matches you always can notice it.
I did enjoy this video but I did feel you spent a little too much time reiterating points (especially the “you can choose not to do this bit”). As someone who isn’t very experienced with it, I would have liked to understand how to achieve volumetric lighting some more.
I have to ask Because i am interested in topic What are some competition level flat painting artists and their work. Is there any recent you could recommend? Dont really remmember seing any of flat painted models for a really long time.
Generally Eavy Metal painting from GW is considered flat. However, these ideas are more like blueprints and no one generally is completely one thing or the other. Check out Gavin Garva on instagram, he does phenomenal work.
