Almoravid Warriors, XI-XII century AD

[PhilC]

Hi everyone.

Last year, I took some time to add a few Almoravid warriors to my (very) small band. The first ones have been painted years ago, poorly photographed and displayed on Hät website - they were issued from a test shot grape.

Several years have passed before they received reinforcement, and now, it is interested to show the differences between them: different painting style, and different camera

In the first batch of painting, I used only matt paints, dark brown underlining, highlights with at least 3 or 4 layers, no washes.. that was really nice, but was a very long technique: I spent at least 3 or 4 hours on each mini.

In the second batch, I have given up underlining, I now use a lot of inks (mainly dark brown, but also others, such as sepia), and usually 2 layers of highlights (more on central figures) - about 1 hour and a half per mini.


Let's begin with a family picture.


Light infantry: slinger and archers skirmishing


Heavy infantry: fierce spearmen




The complete warband so far:


To compare today's pictures with the old ones, there you are one of the photos made for the Hät website:


It really makes a difference, don't you think ?

More pictures and infos on my blog: http://philotepsfigures.blogspot.fr/

[Wiking]

Are there really two painting technique?
Maybe the last pic they are different to the others?
All figure I can see are paint very nice.


Interesting is that, you change your style and paint from 3 to 4 now with wash 1,5 hour for a figure.

[Peter]

Lovely painting technique! Like them all!

[Ben90]

Great bunch of soldiers!

[Marvin]

Very impressive work with these HaT figures.

[Carlos]

3-4 hours each mini!... and it was worth it, cause the result are marvelous.

[santifernandez]

Really nice paint.
Santi.

[MABO]

I like your painting, but also the figures. They are special but good as a warband. I have them in mind for the house of Dorne (GOTh)

[PhilC]

Thank you all for your kind comments.

I like your painting, but also the figures. They are special but good as a warband. I have them in mind for the house of Dorne (GOTh)

Oh, good idea, I would like to see the result. Their golden yellow tunics are very attractive.

I think that these minis can also be used as Haradrims - just have to find out how to represent Mumakils

[Cryns]

Hi PhilC,

Your painting work is fantastic, very good! My admiration for both styles.

But euh.... your presentation, escpecially your supporting text is euh... very confusing You suggest the second 'batch' (thats only one pic in fact) is the new style because your write:

I have given up underlining, I now use a lot of inks

but then you come op with this single pic of this second batch which is said to be the old one????? It becomes more confusing because the first batch you present us show both strong underlining AND use of washes.
But reading your text once more, I can only conclude this new style was in fact the old style. Logging into your website makes clear the softfocus picture is the old style. Or are there 3 different styles?

Also I notice nobody of the repliers refers to the difference between both styles.
Only Wiking thinks there is no visible difference.
Is that because they don't understand what is what? (I think they are afraid to tell you they don't understand it either ) or is my brain running slow?

[despertaferro]

Great painting job.

Of course, I like the recent ones the most...

[PhilC]

Thank you all for your comments.

My apologies if my text was not clear. I wanted to take new pictures today to illustrate the differences between the two painting styles, but I was not happy with the result. So let's explain with only a few (limited english ) words:

- what I call "the first batch" represents the minis I painted in 2008, before I used any wash on the minis. The underlining was painted with a thin brush, and it was a very long process. In the first post of this topic, the last picture is a 2008 picture, it shows minis painted that way.

- what I call "the second batch" represents the minis painted these days. I now use a lot of washes, and I don't underline with a brush anymore. Except for the last one (as explained above), the pictures were taken a few days ago, and they gather the minis from BOTH batches, because I thought that the differences between them would be visible. I understand that it is not the case, so my initial text was very confusing.

I hope that it is clearer this time

[Cryns]

Thank you PhilC for explaining.

they gather the minis from BOTH batches

I did not notice that but I can see it now.
So lets compare both styles now.

The old style is very subtle, soft and most impressive because this style is not used and shown very often. The Arabian geometric pattern on the shield is incredible good freehand paintingwork!

The new style is much more well known so less personal but it creates a stronger image. Using more dark washing and lining (not to confuse it with underlining I think ) makes it appear much clearer in combination with the background (ground, bush).

Now we come to a very interesting subject: why do actors on a stage need make up while they play a character that does not use make up in real life?
Why do 1/72 figures need dark lines, washes and highlights, even if the sculpting is superb? Real people don't have highlights and dark lines, do they?

I think the two different painting styles you show us explain a little of it:
Full size objects have more relief and detail compared to small size ones and on top of that there is a difference in reflecting the light.

I think that is why your new style looks better from a distance and in pictures, though your old style comes closer to reality if we take it literary.