SENMM is it me?

calabdark

New member
ive recently been studying senmm and nmm in general, and have found imo that the examples ive seen first hand as it were, seem more convincing in photo than they do in rl, the senmm/nmm looks pleasing to the eye and pretty but just isent as convincing in the flesh(pewter) as it is in a 2d format( which shopuldnt be surprising i guess, as it is essentially a 2d technique), i was curious to what other people think about it?
 

Klute

New member
No it isn\'t you.

Most light sourcing techniques require the figure to be looked at from the correct viewpoint for it to be effective.
There are exceptions of course.

Its acceptable becuase here we are painting for thge screen which is 2d.
 

airhead

Coffin Dodger / Keymaster
Concur. Lots of SENMM would look odd of your viewpoint was higher or lower than the painter intended. Look at one of those gazing balls then slowly squat down and notice how the reflection changes and the horizon line moves with you.

That said, a good SENMM is a beautiful thing to see. Like this one:
http://www.coolminiornot.com/20274
 

freakinacage

New member
that axe is a classic (as is most of his senmm). i feel that the darklining around his bracelet and knuckleduster really lets the model down though (in my opinion)
 

Ebonbuddha

New member
Yeah. I think thats one of the advantages/uses of NMM and SENMM; it looks good in a 2D enviroment. But in reality, it comes up lacking.

Metallics are perfect for gaming and real world paiting contest. At leats thats my opinion. But I could be wrong.
 

supervike

Super Moderator
what Klute said....


Speaking of 2-d..I saw once in a scale modelling magazine how a fellow would take 3-d models and paint them to look like a 2-d magazine cover. He used a Spider-man and Hulk model kits, and the result was amazing. Without really looking hard, you couldn\'t tell. BUT (this is where it gets back to your point) I just wonder what they would look like in real life...would the result be ruined? I\'ll see if I can find the mag and scan in the photos....
 

Spacemunkie

New member
Hmmm, decent NMM should look as good in the flesh as in the pic IMO....

I still think that expertly finished NMM gives a better representation of metal than metallic paint. Metal looks the way it does \'cos it reflects light, not because it\'s \'silver\'. Metallic paint just doesn\'t do this - you end up having to use NMM/SENMM techniques anyway to get it to look right...
 

calabdark

New member
Originally posted by Spacemunkie
Hmmm, decent NMM should look as good in the flesh as in the pic IMO....

I still think that expertly finished NMM gives a better representation of metal than metallic paint. Metal looks the way it does \'cos it reflects light, not because it\'s \'silver\'. Metallic paint just doesn\'t do this - you end up having to use NMM/SENMM techniques anyway to get it to look right...

hmmm , i really dont believe this is the case personally, particularly with senmm , the horizon line is static on a mini, and the colours in a reflection in rl r vary depending on the environment, and i find when looking at senmm and nmm for that matter in its real 3d state my brain tends not to be fooled into seeing it as reflective metal as it does in a 2d photographic state, i remember goatman once describing his own senmm as appearing to him as looking rather more like nicely blended colours rather than highly reflective metals. i wonder if all the minis on cmon were judged on how they appeared in rl if wed see such a domination of these techniques in the top rated minis, i suspect we would as most of the GD except for in the uk seem to be dominated by painters utilising this technique ,but i think we would see higher scores for high quality minis painted with metallics, as i think it is quite difficult to get a digi pic which truely shows off true metallics to good affect.
 
Back To Top
Top