Excerpt from egroups mini-painter discussion list.
Subject: Lighting Angles (shading and highlighting)
| egroups mini-painter - Message #14947 Ah, these are very interesting questions. First, regarding your "where is the light source" question: Yes, the light is assumed to come from above, and shines downward in a cone, illuminating high points of the figure. Anything that would not have this light from above fall on it is assumed to be "in shadow" and, therefore, should be painted a slightly (to greatly) darker shade. Similarly, anything that directly receives this light should be a light shade of the basic color. Your second question, regarding unusual sources of light, like that from a power sowrd, is more interesting. Alternative light sources, like a power sword, a campfire, etc, would be expected to light miniatures in unusual ways. It wouldn't take a great painter to recognize this and depict it with some highlighting, perhaps hued (blue or red respectively), from the direction of the sword or campfire. Thus a Space Marine's face and upper arms could be tinged blue from his upraised power sowrd, or a fantasy character's face might be tinged red from his upraised torch. Indeed, I have often wondered about how succesful it would be to try to paint this effect. Fire effects, for example, would be very interesting. If a mini is holding up a torch, presumably his/her need for the torch has come about because the mini is in a dark environment. Painted with this in mind, the mini's face and body toward the torch would be harshly lighted in shades of red and orange, while the mini's body away from the torch would be painted almost completely black, with only greyish or ruddy red accents to show highlights. This would be a very interesting painting exercise and effect, and I would LOVE to see anyone's experiments in this direction. The problem, however, is that this assumes a sort of "line of progression" between the light source, the air, and the figure surfaces. In other words, if you were to look at an actual person holding a torch, you would see the brightly lit torch (A), you would see the very air (almost) between the torch and the person's body lit(as a sort of nimbus of greater brightness)(B), and you would see the effect of this on the person's body (C). In the miniature, on the other hand, all we see are the torch (A) and the lit surfaces of the mini's body (C); thus we are missing the lit air in between (B). This makes it difficult to infer the lit air in between, which, in turn, makes the unusually lit surfaces of the mini's body hard to interpret and understand. An additional problem is that we are viewing the mini under some kind of overhead lighting conditions, thus the lump of lead is actually lit from above, and we find it difficult to overcome this reality to believe the illusion of the alternate light source. Whew, how's that for a diatribe? Jason
|
| egroups mini-painter - Message #14954
- Yes, I agree. What I meant was, horizontal surfaces will receive the most of this "direct" or "ambient" light, and should be a lighter hue. Vertical surfaces will receive less of this light and will be a slightly darker hue. Anything approaching an "undercut" surface will receive even of this light, will be "in shadow", and will receive the darkest hue. "Direct light", therefore, means that the surface receives this light, whether from the sun, a light bulb, a torch, or a power sword, without any obstructions in the way. - For that matter, when we paint minis the mini is in direct light (ie: the glare of our several bulbs). It is always a challenge to recall that the mini should be painted as if in ambient, or "natural" light, which, indeed, does not cast as great amounts of shadow. Minis often look great when painted under our 300 watt bulbs, but look suddenly strangely unnatural when viewed under more natural lighting conditions.
- That's arguable. Lots of people paint very severe shading (and highlights). This just has to do with one's preferences. We know that in miniature, we have to accentuate the amount of shadow and highlight; indeed, create unnatural amounts of shadow and highlight, to make the figure look "natural". The degree of one's accentuation, nevertheless, is a subjective thing. Jason |
| egroups mini-painter - Message # 15044 Just thought I'd chime in with my two cents. I've never tried to achieve artificial lighting effect from torches, glowing swords etc, but when confronted with challenges like this I like to stand upon the shoulders of giants and look at art, in particular fantasy art. The great (I think anyway) Larry Elmore has a wonderful pic that shows the effect of
firelight on the colour of his characters: Here we can see that the characters close to the fire have very harsh yellow and orange highlights whilst Raistlin's red robe has been shaded to black because he is out of the firelight and Caramon shows the transition between the two effects. We can also see that the chracters close to the fire have the colours of their clothes shifted towards yellows. Avoiding the discussion about this being a deliberate act of story telling, I will leave off by saying simply that I should stop trying to analyse this piece of art for people far more talented and qualified than I (Laszlo et al) ;^) I hope this gives some of you some food for thought. |
| egroups mini-painter - Message # 15053 I'm going to add my thoughts on this again. I think that part of the ability of the artist in the painting linked below to depict the effects of the fire on the people (and objects) surrounding it is due largely to the number of people and objects surrounding it. Light coming from unexpected sources provides something of a visual puzzle for the viewer. He or she needs to collect a number of clues in order to determine why objects are being lit in such an unusual manner. In real life, and in canvas paintings, part of the answer to the puzzle is provided by the actual light being cast by the object (this clue is not available in miniature-painting). In the painting included below, the number of people and objects who/that are being lit in a uniform manner gives us evidence of what is doing the lighting. In the miniature world, it would be far easier to paint a set of miniatures (versus a single miniature) all being lit by the same lighting source. For example, they might be four miniatures surrounding a fire (much like the art). They would each be painted with highlights facing the fire. I can't imagine that this would be very difficult (although certainly challenging). I think, however, that it would be far more difficult to paint a single miniature lit by an unusual source, if only because the single miniature provides only one set of clues as to where the light comes from. This set of clues is even more necesry in miniature-painting, because the light itself is not depecited; rather, one merely sees the effects of the light. The challenge is to accurately deopict these effects. Somebody recently posted pictures of the Star Wars minis and another figure holding a torch (I believe) that were good examples of this difficult effect. While well done, on the other hand I think there were some problems with these minis (especially the fire-wielding ones). The only reason to be holding a torch is because there is little or no other light. Thus, to be painted in such a way as to suggest no light, but light from a torch, not only should the surfaces facing the torch be harshly (and red-ly or yellow-ly) painted, but the surfaces away from the light need to be painted in very dark hues, with only the highest highlights accentuated. Even then, this would be a difficult trick to pull off simply because the miniature viewer must be in light to be able to view the miniature. The natural light in which the viewer stands makes it difficult to accept the unnatural lighting depicted in the miniature. Whew, another long diatribe. Forgive me, I've actually been thinking about this a little myself recently. I don't think that I would try to depict this effect on a standard three-dimensional figure. However, it would be interesting, challenging, and certainly possible on a series of flat miniatures. These minis often come in sets, with scenery pieces, and when arranged together are similar in style and painting requirements to an actual painting on canvas. Painting a set of flats surrounding a fire would be easy, and because these flats are often mounted in a frame on black velvet, the velvet would simulate the night lighting conditions, making the harsh glare of fire-lit clothes and faces, on the one hand, and the dark shadows of the sides away from the fire, on the other hand, more believeable. Well, if you've gotten this far, thanks for reading.
|
| egroups mini-painter - Message # 15060 In my opinion, you are correct. Since a model is 3 dimensional, the light will always fall on a different part depending on the source and the angle of the light. What I always do is simply place the highlights on raised areas. Any area that is raised will always be reflecting more light than a lower spot (where you would place the shadows). In reality, it is impossible to get it perfect for every angle of viewing, but simply lightening the raised parts should give you the most realistic look for each angle.
|
| egroups mini-painter - Message #15074
- You are absolutely correct. However, most to all minis ARE intended to be depicted under outdoor lighting conditions. Hell, the "upper edges" rule would even apply to most minis assumed to be under indoor, overhead lighting conditions. The only time to paint in some other manner is if you have a specific other light source in mind, and (I would argue) if that light source is depicted in the mini (ie: if the mini is holding that torch, light saber, etc.). - I, indeed as you suggested, paint my round miniatures as if they twirl on an axis, with light shining down on them from above, coming from every overhead direction in equal amounts. Unless it is obvious that light SHOULD be coming from some other direction, then this method should be used.
|
