|
Post by afet on Sept 6, 2009 19:50:41 GMT -9
Hi, Jabbro.
I finally printed and cut your Fantasy NPC Encounter set, and I thought I would offer some feedback.
I really like this set. In particular, I like the expressions and gestures of the characters. The shading is well done as well.
However, the expressions read much better on the screen than when they are printed and cut and on the table. I think this is the result of a few factors. First, the size of the heads and hands is anatomically correct. This would be a positive thing in most circumstances, but with paper minis, I think the heads and hands need to be slightly over sized. Skin tone is also a bit of an issue. On the Swashbuckler and the bartender, and the Hunter, the small faces and dark complexions combine make it hard to see their expressions. In fact, overall I think I would lighten the tones a bit on these figures.
In my opinion, the figures that read the best on the table are the elf warrior and the serving wench. With their paler skin and lighter clothing, even though their faces are small, you can still see their expressions.
I hope this is helpful. Thanks for these figures, Jabbro. They have filled a gap in my minis collection. I look forward to more of your work.
Cheers,
|
|
|
Post by jabbro on Sept 7, 2009 6:39:56 GMT -9
Thanks, Afet. I doubt I'll change proportions too much at this point. I want to keep everything about the same. I'll keep that in mind about the skin tones, though. I'll try to either keep things light or use some more dynamic highlights on the faces.
Thanks again for the feedback. Outta curiosity, what type of paper did you use to print them?
|
|
|
Post by onemonkeybeau on Sept 7, 2009 7:47:03 GMT -9
Yeah, that was my question too, what kind of paper did you print them out on?
I printed these guys out on Matte Photo paper and they seemed just fine to me... even at 15mm, which is quite small.
As I'm sure you know, sometimes when using regular cardstock the ink tends to bleed a bit resulting in a not-so-clean-kind-of-fuzzy look.
onemonkeybeau
|
|
|
Post by squirmydad on Sept 7, 2009 10:39:04 GMT -9
Jabbro, you might also try using a finer tipped pen when inking. I know my colors com out more clean with very thin lines, and may help bring out the detail of smaller anatomy. JIM
|
|
|
Post by jabbro on Sept 7, 2009 17:00:05 GMT -9
Thanks for the suggestion, Jim. I've been trying to use the smallest pen for the details like faces and such, but I did not always do that. I'll keep an eye out on the Egyptian set for the details and see how they print.
|
|
|
Post by squirmydad on Sept 7, 2009 17:09:50 GMT -9
I used to use an 05 technical pen, but now use an 01 on everything and haven't looked back. It's easy enough to boost the outlines in the coloring phase. JIM
|
|
|
Post by afet on Sept 8, 2009 6:33:11 GMT -9
Yeah, that was my question too, what kind of paper did you print them out on? I printed these guys out on Matte Photo paper and they seemed just fine to me... even at 15mm, which is quite small. As I'm sure you know, sometimes when using regular cardstock the ink tends to bleed a bit resulting in a not-so-clean-kind-of-fuzzy look. onemonkeybeau I printed them on Staples 110lb cardstock. I suspect that it is a combination of my aging inkjet and the paper. The fine detail is not nearly as important for the paper terrain, but I may just consider investing matte photo paper for the minis. Thanks for the feedback on my feedback
|
|
|
Post by squirmydad on Sept 8, 2009 7:11:14 GMT -9
I can really recommend the matte photo paper for figures, I won't use anything else anymore. There are cheap places to get it if you look. Just try some and compare to the figures printed on cardstock and you'll be amazed how much more color and detail there is. JIM
|
|
|
Post by jabbro on Sept 8, 2009 7:42:08 GMT -9
The paper does help a good bit. I had the same issue with an old printer and card stock. I upgraded both, but I imagine that just the paper would make big difference. I see what you mean about some of the faces, though. I'll keep an eye out not to make them too dark.
|
|
|
Post by bobrunnicles on Sept 9, 2009 20:52:15 GMT -9
Is this more of a printer paper combo issue? I use regular cardstock on the colour laser printer at work and things look pretty detailed from where I sit
|
|
|
Post by baxar on Sept 10, 2009 0:20:15 GMT -9
I have absolutely no problems with my cheap HP printer and regular cardstock.
|
|
|
Post by jabbro on Sept 10, 2009 5:00:07 GMT -9
Thanks Bob, and Baxar for the vote of confidence. Maybe it is time to give the old printer a boot, Afet. I don't know. I know major alignment issues on my other printer gave figures some serious fuzziness. Maybe you can recalibrate it. My old printer failed to calibrate even with the software patches on the move from XP to Vista. Of course it could be all those DIY ink refills I did.
|
|
|
Post by anitangel on Sept 10, 2009 10:35:32 GMT -9
Why is the complaint? You have a cool printer now Jabbro. But seriously Jim is right, when we compared the printed results on card stock to matte photo paper we were amazed ourselves. I still don't know where you can get it for cheap, and a whole bunch of them though.
|
|
|
Post by squirmydad on Sept 11, 2009 6:45:01 GMT -9
|
|
|
Post by old squirmydad on Sept 11, 2009 8:57:45 GMT -9
This is now a better deal than Office Depot; $12=50 sheets. I use an old hp-deskjet6520 to print everything. For figures I use the matte photo paper and they really shine, even with that old printer.
|
|
|
Post by anitangel on Sept 11, 2009 12:09:01 GMT -9
Thanks for the info Jim. We haven't looked online. That sounds good!
We have been using a paper that was called presentation paper, 28 cents per sheet, and it is very thin (120g/m2). I guess that was the difference.
I've now looked online just out of curiousity and found out that walmart sells them only online for 17 cents per sheet and almost double the weight 200 g/m2 as our previous paper. Why don't they sell it in the stores so one could find it?! Thanks for making me look these up, now I know a place to order it from.
Do you know the specs (g/m2) from amazon? Those few cents might worth the thickness of the paper. I cannot find it out online.
|
|
|
Post by squirmydad on Sept 11, 2009 13:02:14 GMT -9
The stuff I use is 45 lbs. I like the slightly lighter weight, as it's easier to cut. JIM
|
|
|
Post by anitangel on Sept 12, 2009 6:22:56 GMT -9
Thanks. The one in walmart are 52 lbs. Is it too tough to cut for a guy with a Silhouette SD?
|
|
|
Post by squirmydad on Sept 16, 2009 15:53:16 GMT -9
Nope, 52# paper should cut very well with the cutter. The only issues I've seen or heard from are with 100# and over. And even then, run the cut twice and it cuts fine. JIM
|
|