|
Post by underfire987 on Mar 16, 2012 22:51:41 GMT -9
I love miniture wargaming and i have recently heard of people using paper minis, i am very interested in it.
I am a painter one of my many hobbys and i am wondering if it is possible for me to say paint a canvas of a few minis and scan them up to the net were i can set it up as a pdf.
I am not too into the technical side of things such as the scaling and all, but do any of you know if this is do able and any suggestions?
your site was recromended by a few wargamers as the place i should go to ask this quesiton, look forward to hearing the feed back and thanks in advance.
( the paints are acrilic and it would be done on a pure canvas)
|
|
|
Post by dragnoz on Mar 17, 2012 1:41:52 GMT -9
Thats entirely possible, the only problem I can see is doing the backs of the figures and matching them up.
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Mar 17, 2012 3:08:03 GMT -9
Hi Underfire! Welcome to Cardboard Warriors. This is a very interesting experiment, you have in mind. I appreciate, that you are painting with real paint on a real canvas - things rarely done by your generation, I guess (that's really a guess ...). I think, in general it could be done. There are some obstacles though: 1. You need a passable scanner with good color reproduction. Don't be disappointed, if the output is differing (more or less) from your input (your acrylic painting) - as this is the usual phenomenon. Even with special cameras for art reproduction it is very difficult to reproduce material (= non-digital) art in a satisfying way. 2. If you are not working in the original scale on your canvas (= then you would be a very fine miniature painter, working with brush size 00 [?] or such ... ), you would need some Software to import and scale your scanned pic (e.g. the free and most excellent -> GIMP) to - let's say - 30 mm scale. 3. You need Software to set up the PDF: free -> Scribus or Open Office aka LibreOffice. 4. Make sure, your monitor/screen display is calibrated, that means: color-managed and color corrected to see the 'right' colors on your screen corresponding to their printed form. I recommend the free Software tool 'Quick Gamma' and tutorials from this site: quickgamma.de/indexen.htmlStep 4 (if you are new to this topic) is most important - or you could face catastrophic experiences when printing your PDF (= completely wrong colors/values). EDIT: Step 1 is not so much a problem - as you could correct and enhance alot with Step 2 (GIMP) - filtering and changing colors/contrast/sharpness as you wish. You have total control and freedom in the digital media. Acrylics would deliver a good color base - as acrylics are very intense. I am interested in the results. If you have something to show to us, then, please upload it! Greetings, Paladin
|
|
|
Post by gilius on Mar 17, 2012 4:30:23 GMT -9
Christopher Walker from Walkerloo Toy Soldiers paints his miniatures in large scale and scans them. I don't know anything about painting but maybe his site -- or contacting him -- might give other insights on the process. www.walkerloo.com/
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Mar 17, 2012 5:18:57 GMT -9
Thanks for this link, gilius. Mr. Walker produces astonishing large-scale Fine Art miniatures. Not the best in pose and proportions, I would say, but it is the only example, I know, to show, what it means to paint textures in 60 mm-scale traditionally. He uses Gouache (and ink) (fine pigmented water-soluble colors) - as these are the ONLY colors reproduced adequately by modern apparatus, IF you do this: "The final scans for print were made professionally in London and it was an expensive process." (Mr. Walker on his website) So, Gouache is used in professional illustration alot. But, @underfire, you will get good results without paying for high-end scanning services. Just don't overinvest in meticulous coloring on canvas/carton - you will change your colors in the digital process anyway. That's no sin. It's freedom.
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Mar 17, 2012 5:43:38 GMT -9
Welcome aboard Underfire! Incase you don't know, this site was started by Jim Hartman (the artist formerly known as onemonk, now Big Jim). His technique involved much sketching and tracing in the "real world" and digitising later. Here is his process. onemonk.com/Forum-files/Ghoul-design-tutorial.pdf
|
|
|
Post by aviphysics on Mar 17, 2012 6:08:55 GMT -9
If you happen to have a digital tablet (e.g. Wacom tablet) an alternative option is ArtRage Studio ($30, $60 for pro). My roommate uses it for some of his work. He says it is still different from actual painting but it is good for giving things that painted look.
When we have digitized his actual paintings it always seems like we loose a lot. I think this is because paint is really a 3D medium with textures, specularity, etc. A lot of that gets lost in digitizing.
As for digitizing. We use a (slightly older) high end digital camera with the image taken from far enough away to not create noticeable distortion (~20 feet for his typical painting size). Good lighting is really important. If we can we will use sunlight at dusk, which has a very even diffuse quality to it and gives good color reproduction. This technique does destroy the specular quality of the paint, but that seems to be what people want in a print.
edit: additional: When selecting a camera you should consider that 8MP will give you roughly 8"x10" at 300 DPI. The ability to shoot in RAW format will make tweaking the image on computer easier. A tripod and the option to shoot with manual exposure is also a must. I think these features are available in many lower end cameras these days.
To get the best picture, using the camera's timer function so that you aren't touching the camera when it clicks the photo helps reduce camera shake a lot.
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Mar 17, 2012 7:19:07 GMT -9
Solid advice for camera setup, aviphysics. Cool. Yes, I have read positive things about ArtRage. Lots of brush simulation. And affordable ... . What is expensive, is the Wacom - as there is no real alternative to this. Even the used ones will cost some bucks ... . But: if Underfire loves painting with a real brush touching rippled canvas and smelling, seeing intense Acrylics (Oilpaint/Tempera would smell even better to me ... ;D) - why should he exchange it for a Wacom and ArtRage? My experience with Digital Art is: you get used to all the comfort - and you are getting lazy (the layers and the rubber tools/filters will do the trick ...) - this will not make you a better artist in the end. And digital art on your HD is pretty lame in comparison to the real thing on canvas. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by aviphysics on Mar 17, 2012 8:54:56 GMT -9
Solid advice for camera setup, aviphysics. Cool. Yes, I have read positive things about ArtRage. Lots of brush simulation. And affordable ... . What is expensive, is the Wacom - as there is no real alternative to this. Even the used ones will cost some bucks ... . But: if Underfire loves painting with a real brush touching rippled canvas and smelling, seeing intense Acrylics (Oilpaint/Tempera would smell even better to me ... ;D) - why should he exchange it for a Wacom and ArtRage? My experience with Digital Art is: you get used to all the comfort - and you are getting lazy (the layers and the rubber tools/filters will do the trick ...) - this will not make you a better artist in the end. And digital art on your HD is pretty lame in comparison to the real thing on canvas. Just my opinion. The Bamboo tablets aren't to expensive. My roommate uses the small one of these when he is on the road. At home he uses a larger one. His models have been replaced by the Bamboo Create $165 and Bamboo Connect $70. Not to pricey compared to a large format scanner or even a cheap camera. Even a medium sized Intuos 5 is only $340. In terms of cost. The money for those paints and the canvas material add up quick. My roommate actually rocks it real old school and doesn't even paint on canvas. He uses thin sheets of wood instead. On top of saving him a few bucks he likes the surface better for some reason. He recently switched to some hybrid acrylic stuff that is supposed to blend more like oil paint but not take a month to dry. The downside is that it is much more expensive then the acrylic he was using. Digital art seems to be just another medium and you have to get used to working differently. In terms of resolution, you have to get used to only seeing part (sometimes a small part) of you work at any given time.
|
|
|
Post by glennwilliams on Mar 17, 2012 9:05:55 GMT -9
What is expensive, is the Wacom - as there is no real alternative to this. Even the used ones will cost some bucks ... . I've got a medium sized Wacom. I just read a review of the new Cintiq which replaces keyboard and monitor--I drooled all over the $2600 price. Acrylic and canvas seem OK in the real world, eh? Good luck with the project, and I really hope we get to see the results.
|
|
|
Post by aviphysics on Mar 17, 2012 9:13:41 GMT -9
What is expensive, is the Wacom - as there is no real alternative to this. Even the used ones will cost some bucks ... . I've got a medium sized Wacom. I just read a review of the new Cintiq which replaces keyboard and monitor--I drooled all over the $2600 price. Acrylic and canvas seem OK in the real world, eh? Good luck with the project, and I really hope we get to see the results. I have totally wanted a Cintiq for years. I recently came across a 24" infrared touchscreen with broken back light that I plan to fix. No pressure sensitivity but should still be fun.
|
|
|
Post by underfire987 on Mar 17, 2012 10:26:45 GMT -9
wow tons of info , it does seem alot more complicated than i thought it would be but that is good to know as well, i am having a run in with my free time being cut down abit due to much needed work coming my way.
i will however be doing some expermentation and looking at these free programs and seeing what i can come up with thanks again for the advice everyone and i do hope to continue with this project and get you all some results.
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Mar 17, 2012 10:43:04 GMT -9
aviphysics, only 340,- ? I have an old (used) medium-sized Wacom. Works. Bamboo could be a bit too small. But I have heard/read, that too large is also not an option (aka Cintiq) - it's quite uncomfortable. I just wanted to hint at the full package cost, if Underfire should be new to digital production. Well, painting on Wood is pretty hardcore (= medieval). You must take care of the cracking/bending by humidity and overall conditions. Not easy. You need several coats of special oil mixtures to prepare for painting. Yes, painting with high quality materials is (very) expensive - though it depends a bit on the planned sizes Underfire has in mind ... . There is one point to 'real' painting/drawing, which should not be underestimated: Underfire holds an 'original artwork' after the process in his real hands. That's still the only value counting in the traditional art market. That's the reason, why alot of MtG artists are still working with traditional materials - to sell their pieces afterwards for very high collector's prices ... . The Cintiq, @glenn and Aviphysics, I suppose, that's a toy not really needed. Sometimes my own hand and pencil are annoying while scribbling on paper due to bad light conditions. I don't need a simulation of real world art processes, I just need brand new technical solutions for hard to solve problems: color adjustment, corrections and last, but not least mixing layers, 2D with 3D or texture/material painting - and COMPOSITION (mass scenes) - are sometimes impossible without the digital media ... . EDIT: @underfire, have fun with the Software, but don't let you be dragged too much into the technical details. Keep it very basic and simple. Please, concentrate on your real world paintings - as the overall quality of your minis will depend on that in the first place. The Software is only for corrections and enhancements - it will not replace good design and painting/drawing skills ... .
|
|
|
Post by aviphysics on Mar 19, 2012 12:41:59 GMT -9
aviphysics, only 340,- ? I have an old (used) medium-sized Wacom. Works. Bamboo could be a bit too small. When I say "only $340" I am thinking about the cost relative to the cost of materials for painting and however one would choose to digitize them. $340 isn't that much in comparison. My roomy originally used my Medium Intuos3 until getting the bamboos. He thought he was gonna have problems with the size, but it turned out fine. I think his Bamboo is actually nicer to hold which is better for people that work that way. As you sort of said larger isn't necessarily better. Resolution matters but even the smallest Bamboos will kick the but of your computer screen. Most important are what sized hand motions you are comfortable with, how much room you have on your desk, and whether or not you like to hold the tablet. The full story on how my roomy paints on wood is that he uses plywood, which naturally resists warping, and adds a frame along the back edge, which also helps. They do still warp a little but not so much you would really notice once it is hung on a wall. He uses a spray primer which isn't that expensive. He says this is basically the cheapest option he is happy to paint on. I haven't researched it myself. He paints a variety of stuff but most of his art related income comes from Doctor Who related paintings and prints there of. We sort of found out how popular this stuff was on accident after he showed off a painting of the 10th Doctor he did just for fun. Paintings sell for a lot but he doesn't sell very many of them. He sells a lot of prints though. I don't think even he knows what the income breakdown is but I bet it is a pretty even split. The thing I really like about digital art is that I practice all day without spending more money on materials and I can catalog everything for later reference. A little off topic but I love digital painting for my daughter (almost 5 now). Very cool to have the library of works to see how she has progressed.
|
|