So, I\'ve been rating minis here for 3 years and have only begun to submit entries for a few weeks.
I would like to know if there is more consensus way of rating.
I try not to let the manufacturer dictate a handicap.
I tend to see 40k and Warmachine models rated higher than an equivalent Rackham or Corvus Belli model. Much of this has to do I suspedt because you tend to get more serious of collector painters for certain model lines so they hold these models to higher standards.
I\'ve also read a few posts talk about, \"Just do a REALLY good job on the face and you\'ll get higher rankings.\"
or
\"Without at least 3 or 4 photos, you can\'t get a better rating.\"
or
So what metrics do you guys use to rate the figs.
Personally, I try to follow the rating scheme so 5 is straight tabletop: fully painted, painter stayed within the lines and has a shadow and a highlight. Pretty much painting out of the pot. No Zenithal light.
6 is when they take care with the paint application, use better blending and start to employ better base work. maybe a touch of Zenithal light.
7 is when you start refining the blending steps, start getting cleaner (i.e. creating more depth), improved basing, more zenithal light and a hint of some mid range shadows, highlights.
8 is when you start to need the better photos and focus to start looking for the minute details. Zenital light and/or atmosphere and feel of the model needs to start coming to life. Model prep needs to be clean and the base should also contribute to the atmosphere of the model.
Blending should be pretty damn impressive by now and the model over all starts to pop out at you. The model is display level but still something you might see on the tabletop.
9 is when everything becomes seemless and reaching perfection. Color theory is well employed and executed, model prep is superb, and your eyes begin to dance over the entire fig. Usually the painter is going beyond just studio intent, using either some freehand, new techniques, and creating a presence that you rarely see. Its nearly impossible to find mistakes.
10 is well when a tear comes to your eye and you feel like holy light is gracing the model.
But if there are some other metrics I could/should be using, I\'d like the hear them.
Things like the painter added in a Photoshop signature don\'t swing for me (its not on the model).
I would like to know if there is more consensus way of rating.
I try not to let the manufacturer dictate a handicap.
I tend to see 40k and Warmachine models rated higher than an equivalent Rackham or Corvus Belli model. Much of this has to do I suspedt because you tend to get more serious of collector painters for certain model lines so they hold these models to higher standards.
I\'ve also read a few posts talk about, \"Just do a REALLY good job on the face and you\'ll get higher rankings.\"
or
\"Without at least 3 or 4 photos, you can\'t get a better rating.\"
or
So what metrics do you guys use to rate the figs.
Personally, I try to follow the rating scheme so 5 is straight tabletop: fully painted, painter stayed within the lines and has a shadow and a highlight. Pretty much painting out of the pot. No Zenithal light.
6 is when they take care with the paint application, use better blending and start to employ better base work. maybe a touch of Zenithal light.
7 is when you start refining the blending steps, start getting cleaner (i.e. creating more depth), improved basing, more zenithal light and a hint of some mid range shadows, highlights.
8 is when you start to need the better photos and focus to start looking for the minute details. Zenital light and/or atmosphere and feel of the model needs to start coming to life. Model prep needs to be clean and the base should also contribute to the atmosphere of the model.
Blending should be pretty damn impressive by now and the model over all starts to pop out at you. The model is display level but still something you might see on the tabletop.
9 is when everything becomes seemless and reaching perfection. Color theory is well employed and executed, model prep is superb, and your eyes begin to dance over the entire fig. Usually the painter is going beyond just studio intent, using either some freehand, new techniques, and creating a presence that you rarely see. Its nearly impossible to find mistakes.
10 is well when a tear comes to your eye and you feel like holy light is gracing the model.
But if there are some other metrics I could/should be using, I\'d like the hear them.
Things like the painter added in a Photoshop signature don\'t swing for me (its not on the model).
