Lockark wrote: I am finding these very interesting, and my 1st question is I would how these paints look applied over a Silver Base coat
Read somewhere they were demoing it over Leadbelcher as well.
Nice, I hope someone took pics of the finished model
Edit: This is probably why Forgeworld discontinued their transparent paint range, because I imagen you may be able to do alot of the same stuff you could with thows with these ones. I'm starting to suspect their is alot you could do with these paints other then just speed painting armies
DanceOfSlaanesh wrote: I just painted speed painted up this blood reaver in 30 minutes to showcase what it looks like if you take regular acrylic paint and thin it with just water.
Everything is just one layer of paint.
Tell me, is there any significant difference to what GW is showing?
The models with contrast paint on them have smoother transitions between the darker areas and the lighter ones. They are also more vibrant although that could be attributed to color choice.
DanceOfSlaanesh wrote: I just painted speed painted up this blood reaver in 30 minutes to showcase what it looks like if you take regular acrylic paint and thin it with just water.
Everything is just one layer of paint.
Spoiler:
Tell me, is there any significant difference to what GW is showing?
The models with contrast paint on them have smoother transitions between the darker areas and the lighter ones. They are also more vibrant although that could be attributed to color choice.
Even if you compare similar colors? For example the beige on those blue eldar example compared to the skull on the axe of my blood reaver?
Lighter colors tend to look better when painting like this.
Anyways I think both my and GWs looks just as blotchy. And both looks crap. Not seeing any magic here.
DanceOfSlaanesh wrote: I just painted speed painted up this blood reaver in 30 minutes to showcase what it looks like if you take regular acrylic paint and thin it with just water.
Everything is just one layer of paint.
Spoiler:
Tell me, is there any significant difference to what GW is showing?
The models with contrast paint on them have smoother transitions between the darker areas and the lighter ones. They are also more vibrant although that could be attributed to color choice.
Even if you compare similar colors? For example the beige on those blue eldar example compared to the skull on the axe of my blood reaver?
Lighter colors tend to look better when painting like this.
Anyways I think both my and GWs looks just as blotchy. And both looks crap. Not seeing any magic here.
They are comparable, yeah. I think what the contrast paints allow you to achieve versus watering down/thinning acrylics is consistency and ease. It's why people would buy an orange instead of mixing a red and a yellow paint.
And as a cover-all solution to unpainted models? I agree. The Space Marines I've seen painted with the stuff just... don't look good. However, the contrast paints look like they'll be an excellent way to achieve smooth shading on fabrics and organic surfaces*. Especially when you highlight them as has been shown in the thread. To me, they're just another tool to be added to the tool box. And I am really excited to try painting cloaks with them.
*Expect for human flesh tones. I have never seen a touted quick and easy solution to painting human skin that looked decent.
GaroRobe wrote: I think a big component would be how many could you paint in a short time?
Would you be able to batch paint a large number of bloodreavers and get the same result in a short period?
Yeah I could. Its one layer of paint. It doesn't get much easier.
Not any difference to what GW is trying to sell.
It sounds like you have your mind made up, so I'll just have to disagree with you. I'd much rather have 3 pots of something that does this for me and power through 30 models than have to keep a palette going and keep watering and keep up consistency. It's just easier.
I get that you're trying to prove you can do the exact same thing with one layer of paint. Okay? Don't buy it. I'd much rather have the convenience of the technique already bottled and ready to go.
They are comparable, yeah. I think what the contrast paints allow you to achieve versus watering down/thinning acrylics is consistency and ease. It's why people would buy an orange instead of mixing a red and a yellow paint.
Yes, this. You're going to save time simply opening a pot and applying Contrast rather than watering down all the paints you need and retain consistency throughout an entire session. It's simpler, and simpler is quicker.
I really don't think the watering down the paint quite achieves the same effect. Watered paint pools more aggressively whilst leaving more uneven and somewhat desaturated finish. Different painting mediums exist for a reason.
Crimson wrote: I really don't think the watering down the paint quite achieves the same effect. Watered paint pools more aggressively whilst leaving more uneven and somewhat desaturated finish. Different painting mediums exist for a reason.
Its true that it happens, when you water down too much.
Yeah, the black doesn't look good. I really don't think you can do good black with these as it is a colour which requires sharp highlights. But look how strongly saturated the rest of the colours are and how smooth of most of the transitions are. This most definitely is not just added water. It is not magic in a pot, but this seems like a very useful sort of paint to me and I can't wait to try it.
Crimson wrote: I really don't think the watering down the paint quite achieves the same effect. Watered paint pools more aggressively whilst leaving more uneven and somewhat desaturated finish. Different painting mediums exist for a reason.
Its true that it happens, when you water down too much.
But isn't that also true for GWs contrast paint?
Look at this black, is it really that good?
Spoiler:
I'm with you on these paints being pointless to those of us who know how to turn paints into "washes".
Although I am glad these will be available for the apparent majority who don't know how or can't be bothered to.
But I also agree with others that thinning with water doesn't quite achieve the same affect. Sometimes it leaves "grainy" textures. At least for me it does.
That's why I make washes using Lahmean medium. It seems to "suspend" the pigments and distributes them smoothly, pooling in the same manner as the new Contrasts.
But again, I appreciate that these will be available for others and can see them being a useful tool.
For me, I'd rather just have a pot or 2 of Lahmean medium and make my own out of the paints I have or cheap hobby store acrylics.
GW have 'invented' Army Painter Skeleton bone spray, Halfords Grey primer spray and a slightly larger variety of coloured washes than Army Painter make with GW silly names.
All the fan boys say "woohoo to our GW gods", etc, and buy 34 more paint pots.
I will probably be stripping the majority of my half-painted Crimson Fists models to give this a try. If I can get decent coverage with the rattle cans, I will probably be set. Heck, spraying white primer and then coating with the paint pot version of the undercoat might be fine. If this works as well as it is supposed to, I will probably apply the same technique to my Blood Angels and Skitarii. If the yellow actually works well, my 30K Imperial Fists might actually get painted as well.
If batch painting squads goes well, this might just get me a fully painted army in a month or so. Yay?
Edit: That actually looks like a pretty decent spread of paints. Bring 'em on!
GW have 'invented' Army Painter Skeleton bone spray, Halfords Grey primer spray and a slightly larger variety of coloured washes than Army Painter make with GW silly names.
All the fan boys say "woohoo to our GW gods", etc, and buy 34 more paint pots.
$$$
#nothing new at all
TBH I don't get the appeal of Army painter.
-Every bottle paint I got from them off a rack it was chalky, and alot of the bottles will explode in the mail by the time it gets to me.
-Their spray primers all came out thick and gloopy for me.
I legit feel like I wasted by money trying to buy their paints/painting system and have thrown everything I've own of theirs out at this point.
Crimson wrote: Yeah, the black doesn't look good. I really don't think you can do good black with these as it is a colour which requires sharp highlights. But look how strongly saturated the rest of the colours are and how smooth of most of the transitions are. This most definitely is not just added water. It is not magic in a pot, but this seems like a very useful sort of paint to me and I can't wait to try it.
Crimson wrote: I really don't think the watering down the paint quite achieves the same effect. Watered paint pools more aggressively whilst leaving more uneven and somewhat desaturated finish. Different painting mediums exist for a reason.
Its true that it happens, when you water down too much.
But isn't that also true for GWs contrast paint?
Look at this black, is it really that good?
Spoiler:
I'm with you on these paints being pointless to those of us who know how to turn paints into "washes".
Although I am glad these will be available for the apparent majority who don't know how or can't be bothered to.
But I also agree with others that thinning with water doesn't quite achieve the same affect. Sometimes it leaves "grainy" textures. At least for me it does.
That's why I make washes using Lahmean medium. It seems to "suspend" the pigments and distributes them smoothly, pooling in the same manner as the new Contrasts.
But again, I appreciate that these will be available for others and can see them being a useful tool.
For me, I'd rather just have a pot or 2 of Lahmean medium and make my own out of the paints I have or cheap hobby store acrylics.
-
I have to disagree about them being pointless for more experienced painters. I've *never* achieved a result that smooth and vibrant with a single coat, either of GW shades or washes I made myself. Especially when you're talking about the darker or more saturated colours in the new range. Cutting down anywhere from 3 to half a dozen applications(I really, really hate yellow), with consistent colours and no need to "find" the consistency myself each time? Yeah I'll pay GW prices for that.
Crimson wrote: Yeah, the black doesn't look good. I really don't think you can do good black with these as it is a colour which requires sharp highlights. But look how strongly saturated the rest of the colours are and how smooth of most of the transitions are. This most definitely is not just added water. It is not magic in a pot, but this seems like a very useful sort of paint to me and I can't wait to try it.
Spoiler:
Green paint with water.
GW still better?
The GW one looks abit cleaner to me TBH. Your's is close tho.
Edit:
Here is the side by side. You get more of a clean panel line on the GW stuff comparing the shoulder pads. The GW stuff also keeps more of it's bright colour. Like the pigment density is a bit stronger then just "watered down paint" is the impression I get. Also using a better binder then straight water. Just my educated guess comparing the two.
Your model look cool and ghosty. Looks like one of those GWs wraith paints, really. But if one wanted the model to actually look green, then that was not what happened. The highlight areas are very desaturated and pale, many of the edges are white.
And there is IMO the point to these paints. I could experiment with different mixes and techniques to get a similar effect with stuff I already have. Or I could save time(and money in wasted test models) by using the contrast paints straight out of the pot.
Ok DanceofSlaneesh, we get it, you can do just as well as the new GW paints. Fair play to you sir.
Also, you may wish to consider that other people will have a differing skill level to you and that those people may find these new paints useful due to their convenience.
If at any point in this thread you have began a sentence with "I can do the same thing by mixing..." then you're missing the entire point. These are the Easy-Bake Ovens of painting, so of fething COURSE you Master Chefs can do better with your fully equipped kitchens, no gak sherlock!
These are pre-mixed "beginner" paints aimed at intro painters and lazy painters to get an OKish result with almost no work. Most people on this board can already probably paint better than the Contrast effect with only minimal effort. That is not the point of these.
If you really want to convince people that they don’t need to spend extra money on this new range you should probably just skip to showing us that you can get a nice smooth, bright yellow in one layer.
Buying a specially formulated paint is easier yet.
These? These will help me get a fully painted army with minimal fuss. And if I stretch to perhaps an edge highlight, or a thinned wash, they’ll look pretty spanky, very quickly.
TBH I don't get the appeal of Army painter.
-Every bottle paint I got from them off a rack it was chalky, and alot of the bottles will explode in the mail by the time it gets to me.
-Their spray primers all came out thick and gloopy for me.
.
Their sprays, washes and quickshades are the reason people are fans of Army Painter. Their acrylics work best with a very specific painting style, and so a lot of people find them to be not too their liking.
Not sure what happened with your sprays... I've had nothing but good results.
The range of colors is going to be the selling point for the Contrast paints. Will be interesting to see what other ranges come up with in response.
Obviously it is, it took you several tries to get even somewhat similar result on a small area and it is still not and exact match!
Do you somehow think that painting mediums are a scam? That they do actually affect the properties of the paint and are just water?
Now, I obviously cannot tell for sure what the exact effects are until I have tried them myself, but it seems pretty clear to me that these are just not watered down normal paints. They are more like something between a super saturated glaze and a wash.
TBH I don't get the appeal of Army painter.
-Every bottle paint I got from them off a rack it was chalky, and alot of the bottles will explode in the mail by the time it gets to me.
-Their spray primers all came out thick and gloopy for me.
.
Their sprays, washes and quickshades are the reason people are fans of Army Painter. Their acrylics work best with a very specific painting style, and so a lot of people find them to be not too their liking.
But sure what happened with your sprays... I've had nothing but good results.
I'll second that. I've been using AP sprays for most of the last decade, and its always been silky smooth.
Probably the best spray I've used since the (very) old Armory paints in the early 90s. Still miss those, coated really well and had no problems until they re-designed the line, slapped the Dork Tower logo on them and promptly went into a merger and wandered out of the business of hobby supplies.
As someone who aspires to compete at the top of Crystal brush and can achieve this effect with thinned downned paints, These are amazing.
But like I said, these will look better on organic models then ones in armor.
Yes, these can be acheived with other products, but what people fail to realize is these are GW products, and keeping people buying GW products is what Gw wants.
I think my favorite thing about these paints is that they're apparently really good for putting on other basecoats. Someone else mentioned in another thread that they're good for getting effects and stuff.
I watched a video from a guy that was there and got to play around with the paints.
Apparently they are slow drying like a wash (no surprise there) and the layers are incredibly thin. Like a tenth as thin. So it is very important to seal the layers in since they can rub off easily. Whatever the medium it uses is, it isn't durable like normal shades.
You also cannot mix them with other paint or use other mediums. Well you can, but the effect is lost. You can mix them with each other though.
Oh and I guess they will work over any primer, GW just made these new colors because they happen to be good for the effect but there isn't anything preventing you from using other undercoats and getting the effect.
They seem like fun and would definitely take the skill out of painting with glazes for folks that are not super familiar with how to do it. I still think these would look miles better over a zenethial undercoat though.
It's definitely not something I would end up using (hate GW pots and their cost, so I'd probably avoid it altogether) but if removing one or two steps is going to get people to actually paint their fething models...I'm all behind it.
I often paint quite a few minis, but I'm a huge proponent of cheating and simply getting stuff on the table. If this is another form of cheating and people are convinced enough to actually use it to paint...all the better.
I do absolutely agree this is nothing game-changing...but putting it in a crappy designed pot and selling it to the masses is a good move for GW. (I've seen people paint with washes and watered down paints for years - it's not new at all).
There are qualities of paint beyond what the finished product looks like. The pigment density and separation, how it behaves off the brush, surface tension on the model etc etc etc
Personally, I find most heavily watered paint a struggle to work with.
I'll be giving the Contrast line a shot. As someone else mentioned, it's just another tool at your disposal
I am interested in these, but I'm not sure I'm exactly enthused about them. Many years ago after reading a post here, I painted grots by priming them white, washing them with a green wash, and then picking out details. The way they are using them here does not look very revolutionary or new. But perhaps I am not truly understanding what they do.
TBH I don't get the appeal of Army painter.
-Every bottle paint I got from them off a rack it was chalky, and alot of the bottles will explode in the mail by the time it gets to me.
-Their spray primers all came out thick and gloopy for me.
.
Their sprays, washes and quickshades are the reason people are fans of Army Painter. Their acrylics work best with a very specific painting style, and so a lot of people find them to be not too their liking.
But sure what happened with your sprays... I've had nothing but good results.
The range of colors is going to be the selling point for the Contrast paints. Will be interesting to see what other ranges come up with in response.
I've used two different Army painter spray cans at different times and so far had a 100% failure rate with them. I'd been priming models with spray cans for 20 years at that point and feel like I had a pretty good feel for it, but with Army Painter sprays, every model came out a mixture of poor coverage and blobby, detail destroying overspray. I think their washes are terrific, so I don't have anything against the company as a whole, but I feel like their spray primers are trash - at least in my limited anecdotal experience.
I think the biggest draw to these contrast things, as you say, is filling in the color shade gaps that I have. I do remain open minded they are actually some amazing new thing - I play to try at least a few of them to find out firsthand. But even if they're just more of the same, "the same" is always good to have more of in different variants.
Ouze wrote: I am interested in these, but I'm not sure I'm exactly enthused about them. Many years ago after reading a post here, I painted grots by priming them white, washing them with a green wash, and then picking out details. The way they are using them here does not look very revolutionary or new. But perhaps I am not truly understanding what they do.
TBH I don't get the appeal of Army painter.
-Every bottle paint I got from them off a rack it was chalky, and alot of the bottles will explode in the mail by the time it gets to me.
-Their spray primers all came out thick and gloopy for me.
.
Their sprays, washes and quickshades are the reason people are fans of Army Painter. Their acrylics work best with a very specific painting style, and so a lot of people find them to be not too their liking.
But sure what happened with your sprays... I've had nothing but good results.
The range of colors is going to be the selling point for the Contrast paints. Will be interesting to see what other ranges come up with in response.
I've used two different Army painter spray cans at different times and so far had a 100% failure rate with them. I'd been priming models with spray cans for 20 years at that point and feel like I had a pretty good feel for it, but with Army Painter sprays, every model came out a mixture of poor coverage and blobby, detail destroying overspray. I think their washes are terrific, so I don't have anything against the company as a whole, but I feel like their spray primers are trash - at least in my limited anecdotal experience.
I think the biggest draw to these contrast things, as you say, is filling in the color shade gaps that I have. I do remain open minded they are actually some amazing new thing - I play to try at least a few of them to find out firsthand. But even if they're just more of the same, "the same" is always good to have more of in different variants.
This is similar to my experiences with the spray cans.
As for the washes I bought two of the same at the same time, and the consistency was different between the two. One was more concentrated then the other. This was not fixed with shaking.
My opinion of Army painter from my anecdotal experience was that they have consistency issues. I'm happy for people here mentioning they've had great experiences. But I have had terrible luck with them, and don't believe they have good QC. I will always suggest ranges like GW, Vallejo, and Reaper over them.
Edit:
So I remembered looking at this and assuming the metallic red effect was because the new paint line was going to add colour metallics. It seems we may have seen the new contrast paints in use already?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Doupt it, those are the box art models.
Those are painted by their best with not even GW paints sometime.
I don't think it was painted fully with contrast. It's one part I suspect was done with it. The red metallic effect.
Also in recent times GW has made a big deal about anything you see on the box, you need to be able to get a Warhammer TV video showing how they painted it.
I am willing to give them a go on ork/grot skin, 'nids, and maybe Imperial Fists. Looking forward to some of you posting results in the Dakka painting forums next month.
I simply presented an alternative way. Gatekeeping? What the hell man haha.
Good luck with your painting guys.
Im gonna go paint some now, for I have the power to mix water and paint! so I do not need to wait for GW so I save both TIME and MONEY!
Dam, it has been a long time since I have seen such blatant epeen-stroking. It would be bad enough if you could actually replicate the GW effect, but to fail twice and then brag about it? Impressive.
What I don't think people are realizing is that these paints are with the gloss overtop of them. They wont look like that right out of the bottle. So you have priming time, paint the contrast and wait for it to dry, then paint the gloss on top of it to seal it in.
Also Dance of Slannesh, if that model you painted was in the spoiler pic people would be say how awesome and revolutionary it was..... Keep drinking the kool-aid people.
If they do make yellow easier to look nice with one coat tho, I will go down to the local geedubz and take a look at them then see where I can buy the same thing at half the price just like all of GW's over priced hobby stuff that people swear by even though it's just re-branded brushes, paints etc ....
FabricatorGeneralMike wrote: What I don't think people are realizing is that these paints are with the gloss overtop of them. They wont look like that right out of the bottle. So you have priming time, paint the contrast and wait for it to dry, then paint the gloss on top of it to seal it in.
Also Dance of Slannesh, if that model you painted was in the spoiler pic people would be say how awesome and revolutionary it was..... Keep drinking the kool-aid people.
If they do make yellow easier to look nice with one coat tho, I will go down to the local geedubz and take a look at them then see where I can buy the same thing at half the price just like all of GW's over priced hobby stuff that people swear by even though it's just re-branded brushes, paints etc ....
Yes, most paint does involve waiting for it to dry
What is the original brand? For the paint that is, I've never seen anyone advocate GW brushes.
I simply presented an alternative way. Gatekeeping? What the hell man haha.
Good luck with your painting guys.
Im gonna go paint some now, for I have the power to mix water and paint! so I do not need to wait for GW so I save both TIME and MONEY!
Dam, it has been a long time since I have seen such blatant epeen-stroking. It would be bad enough if you could actually replicate the GW effect, but to fail twice and then brag about it? Impressive.
I only responded to those who freely wanted to challenge me on my opinion. I posted pictures and counter arguments. And a discussion was had.
Your comment however, are nothing but trying to bash me for no reason what so ever.
I simply presented an alternative way. Gatekeeping? What the hell man haha.
Good luck with your painting guys.
Im gonna go paint some now, for I have the power to mix water and paint! so I do not need to wait for GW so I save both TIME and MONEY!
Dam, it has been a long time since I have seen such blatant epeen-stroking. It would be bad enough if you could actually replicate the GW effect, but to fail twice and then brag about it? Impressive.
I only responded to those who freely wanted to challenge me on my opinion. I posted pictures and counter arguments. And a discussion was had.
Your comment however, are nothing but trying to bash me for no reason what so ever.
You washed watered paint over a zenithal priming. Adding water is a great trick, congratulations, but you are not addressing surface tension, pigment suspension or viscosity. I know you are very impressed with yourself but formulating paint is a lot more complicated than 'add water durrrrr'. Did you get a good result in your example (again, pretending like the binary priming had nothing to do with the shading lol), yes you did. Will every paint do that with water? Nope. Depends on the pigment density, inherent amount of acrylic suspension, and native surface tension. Once any of those things are out of whack you can get very poor results indeed. You are over-simplifying because it serves your ego and apparently that is something you are badly in need of by your behaviour in this thread, but regardless you are doing yourself and your audience a disservice by beating the horse to death here.
I simply presented an alternative way. Gatekeeping? What the hell man haha.
Good luck with your painting guys.
Im gonna go paint some now, for I have the power to mix water and paint! so I do not need to wait for GW so I save both TIME and MONEY!
Dam, it has been a long time since I have seen such blatant epeen-stroking. It would be bad enough if you could actually replicate the GW effect, but to fail twice and then brag about it? Impressive.
I only responded to those who freely wanted to challenge me on my opinion. I posted pictures and counter arguments. And a discussion was had.
Your comment however, are nothing but trying to bash me for no reason what so ever.
You washed watered paint over a zenithal priming. Adding water is a great trick, congratulations, but you are not addressing surface tension, pigment suspension or viscosity. I know you are very impressed with yourself but formulating paint is a lot more complicated than 'add water durrrrr'. Did you get a good result in your example (again, pretending like the binary priming had nothing to do with the shading lol), yes you did. Will every paint do that with water? Nope. Depends on the pigment density, inherent amount of acrylic suspension, and native surface tension. Once any of those things are out of whack you can get very poor results indeed. You are over-simplifying because it serves your ego and apparently that is something you are badly in need of by your behaviour in this thread, but regardless you are doing yourself and your audience a disservice by beating the horse to death here.
So many wrong things....
I absolutely did not use zenithal priming.
I simply added water to the paints until it felt right and painted the freakin model. I wanted to show that you don't need any expensive paint to do that.
in MY OPINION i think the result was similar.
Do you really thing i am proud i could WASH a model!!! Don't know what to say.
I simply presented an alternative way. Gatekeeping? What the hell man haha.
Good luck with your painting guys.
Im gonna go paint some now, for I have the power to mix water and paint! so I do not need to wait for GW so I save both TIME and MONEY!
I wasn't going to respond to this post. But here I go.
I called you a gate keeper because you are condescending to people, you keep telling them they are wasting their money as you post inferior results with "just add water". You are also clearly giving bad advice since you have no understanding of surface tension, binders and pigment suspension as others have said. I'm novice painter and even I can tell your blowing smoke up your own behind with your advice. please just stop embarrassing yourself.
You continue to respond to people in very condescending laungugage since this one, and do yourself no favours.
Do you really thing i am proud i could WASH a model!!! Don't know what to say.
Yes I do.
Please resume gaslighting yourself in front of everyone if you think it is fulfilling some kind of purpose of value, or making you look good. It's not the content of what you are saying, it's your attitude and comments like 'I painted more today than all of you combined' that waste whatever goodwill your points could generate. It was valuable for you to demonstrate that the effect contrast gives is not unique or hard to replicate. It was a disservice to simplify it to 'add water to any paint that's it' as if there is nothing more to it that you should know.
By the way, I agree with you generally, I am not impressed with the contrast line as it does not produce a result I would seek at all. I realize the goal is speed over quality, but even a one coat wash/ink hybrid with a higher than normal suspension ratio still pales in comparison to the speed of batch painting with an airbrush. If you have 1000 minis sitting grey in your closet, get an airbrush.
I simply presented an alternative way. Gatekeeping? What the hell man haha.
Good luck with your painting guys.
Im gonna go paint some now, for I have the power to mix water and paint! so I do not need to wait for GW so I save both TIME and MONEY!
Dam, it has been a long time since I have seen such blatant epeen-stroking. It would be bad enough if you could actually replicate the GW effect, but to fail twice and then brag about it? Impressive.
I only responded to those who freely wanted to challenge me on my opinion. I posted pictures and counter arguments. And a discussion was had.
Your comment however, are nothing but trying to bash me for no reason what so ever.
You washed watered paint over a zenithal priming. Adding water is a great trick, congratulations, but you are not addressing surface tension, pigment suspension or viscosity. I know you are very impressed with yourself but formulating paint is a lot more complicated than 'add water durrrrr'. Did you get a good result in your example (again, pretending like the binary priming had nothing to do with the shading lol), yes you did. Will every paint do that with water? Nope. Depends on the pigment density, inherent amount of acrylic suspension, and native surface tension. Once any of those things are out of whack you can get very poor results indeed. You are over-simplifying because it serves your ego and apparently that is something you are badly in need of by your behaviour in this thread, but regardless you are doing yourself and your audience a disservice by beating the horse to death here.
So many wrong things....
I absolutely did not use zenithal priming.
I simply added water to the paints until it felt right and painted the freakin model. I wanted to show that you don't need any expensive paint to do that.
in MY OPINION i think the result was similar.
Do you really thing i am proud i could WASH a model!!! Don't know what to say.
You haven't even come close to the contrast effect, the result is similar in that you have used a brush and put paint on a model.
Let's just call it what it is , you're just trying to knock a genuinely decent tool that alot of people in the community really could find useful. If another manufacturer had released this everyone would be doing back flips and mocking GW because there paint range would be pointless etc ...sad really
I don't understand….? I must have communication problem..? I was trying to talk and figure out this product?
So much hate from everywhere. Can you talk about product please and not about me???? I only respond when people attack me. But now its attack of the clones.
DanceOfSlaanesh wrote: I don't understand….? I must have communication problem..? I was trying to talk and figure out this product?
So much hate from everywhere. Can you talk about product please and not about me???? I only respond when people attack me. But now its attack of the clones.
Correct on all fronts.
Time for everyone to remember rule #2 and stay on topic guys, and also rule #3, which is not to spam, which is repetitive restatements of the exact same thing over and over.
And yes, rule #1, which is be polite. DOS, again, I think your demo's were valuable to the conversation and well worth talking about. But putting valuable information in hostile message that elevates yourself and denigrates others is self-defeating. Take that in the spirit it is given, to try and help you get the kind of response you were obviously expecting, not the one you got.
Red Corsair wrote: I watched a video from a guy that was there and got to play around with the paints.
Apparently they are slow drying like a wash (no surprise there) and the layers are incredibly thin. Like a tenth as thin. So it is very important to seal the layers in since they can rub off easily. Whatever the medium it uses is, it isn't durable like normal shades.
You also cannot mix them with other paint or use other mediums. Well you can, but the effect is lost. You can mix them with each other though.
.
A tenth as thin? That sounds like the exact opposite of what they're describing on the community page. That honestly sounds like water with food coloring.
WarCom wrote:Contrast is a new type of paint designed to make awesome results accessible to anyone, fast. With Contrast, you’ll have everything you get from a Base and Shade, but in a single application and a single coat.
Advertising rhetoric vs actuality of the product aside, what they're describing doesn't involve thin layers at all.
I could make a video where i thin the paints.
I think the result is very similar, some agree with me some not.
But the only way we can know is when we can buy the contrast paints and try it side by side.
I saw some pics that look bad, way more then my test. But also some pics which look better, but some had highlights and bases.
So, yeah, these are similar looking, as far as behavior, to Army Painter Quickshades and Vallejo Washes, but there looks to be a pretty large range of them, which is not a bad thing.
Can you make similar stuff using your favorite paint brand and water (and likely some flow improver and very probably a glaze medium of some sort)? Sure. Can you do it for cheaper? Most likely. But these still have a few advantages in that you can have a consistent mix for across a lot of models.
Are these aimed at expert painters? No, I don't think so. I think these are aimed at, as some of the earlier hype about them tried to impart, beginning painters who have mountains of grey plastic.
I didn't think it would be truly revolutionary (and in fact one of my bets was a "dip," which these essentially are; the other was an airbrush which was bust, obv.), but there's not a whole lot you can do on that front, honestly. They are another tool that anyone can use. You don't have to use them (I most likely will grab a couple to try out, but since I don't usually do the 3-step thing and tend towards more wet blending or void blending/feathering, don't see myself using them a lot), but if these mean that I will see less unpainted models on the table across for me, then yeah I'm all for them.
Okm guys as someone whose NOT that great a painter but has figured this out I'm gonna let you in on a little secret, most if not all GW technical paints are, not strictly speaking., nesscary. they're something a skilled painter can make due without, but thats not who they're aimed at. they're aimed at people who AREN'T good painters and making things easier on them. Most 40k players, statisticly speaking, proably aren't expert painters. they also may not know of the host of third party options.
DanceOfSlaanesh wrote: I could make a video where i thin the paints.
I think the result is very similar, some agree with me some not.
But the only way we can know is when we can buy the contrast paints and try it side by side.
I saw some pics that look bad, way more then my test. But also some pics which look better, but some had highlights and bases.
This is a much more productive post than your previous ones. Well done. And I would agree with you. Your example versus the GW examples were not too much different. Again, it's really about convenience. As has been said previously, I'm not too sure how much this is going to affect veteran painters, but people who are looking to get models on to the table quickly, it could be a tool to allow the them to do that. If it makes it easier for people to get going in the hobby (even if it is just as easy to water down your paints), then I say go for it.
MajorTom11 wrote: Time for everyone to remember rule #2 and stay on topic guys, and also rule #3, which is not to spam, which is repetitive restatements of the exact same thing over and over.
And yes, rule #1, which is be polite. DOS, again, I think your demo's were valuable to the conversation and well worth talking about. But putting valuable information in hostile message that elevates yourself and denigrates others is self-defeating. Take that in the spirit it is given, to try and help you get the kind of response you were obviously expecting, not the one you got.
Very well said Major Tom and can everyone please bear this helpful advice in mind.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the topic of Contrast, whilst it is just ink of a different type I am pretty happy to be able to pick some new ones, I still have some from the paint set in the 90s but they wont last for ever. The yellow especially is very helpful as its the only way I can get a half passable result.
Spoiler:
The yellow there aint great but its GWs old yellow ink over a white undercoat with a slight bone drybush and then a very light cover of army painter soft tone.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the topic of Contrast, whilst it is just ink of a different type I am pretty happy to be able to pick some new ones, I still have some from the paint set in the 90s but they wont last for ever. The yellow especially is very helpful as its the only way I can get a half passable result.
Spoiler:
The yellow there aint great but its GWs old yellow ink over a white undercoat with a slight bone drybush and then a very light cover of army painter soft tone.
Did you do anything at all to the ink or is it just a single coat over the undercoat?
Undercoated Army Painter flat white, light drybrush GW Ushabti Bone, one coat of Citadel Yellow Ink straight from the pot.
Spoiler:
Edit; Looked through the photos again and notice quite a lot of slops on pretty much every mini, wonder how they will advise to clean those up. I would guess using regular base/layer paints so it will be interesting to see how close these new paints match the current offerings.
Red Corsair wrote: I watched a video from a guy that was there and got to play around with the paints.
Apparently they are slow drying like a wash (no surprise there) and the layers are incredibly thin. Like a tenth as thin. So it is very important to seal the layers in since they can rub off easily. Whatever the medium it uses is, it isn't durable like normal shades.
You also cannot mix them with other paint or use other mediums. Well you can, but the effect is lost. You can mix them with each other though.
Oh and I guess they will work over any primer, GW just made these new colors because they happen to be good for the effect but there isn't anything preventing you from using other undercoats and getting the effect.
They seem like fun and would definitely take the skill out of painting with glazes for folks that are not super familiar with how to do it. I still think these would look miles better over a zenethial undercoat though.
They dried in about 10 minutes, max. I dunno if I’d call that slow drying, especially with the amount you slather on.
Amazing first day at #warhammerfest2019 talking about Contrast paints! I’ve had a lot of fun with these new wonder paints - most recently using them to paint up my latest #WarhammerUnderworlds warband- the Thorns of the Briar Queen.
So, I used zenithal sprays from black up to white to undercoat. Basilicanum Grey (God juice) glaze over that. Then 2 different greens glazed on the bottom of the cloaks. Various contrasts used on weapons, wood, Flesh etc. All highlighted once.
All done with rattle cans. It’s Chaos black spray all over. Once dry, I sprayed Mech standard grey from above. Then Grey Seer from above. Lastly, a dusting of white from above. Baslicanum Grey contrast + a lot of medium wash blends all colours together.
I used the contrast paints in conjunction with the rest of the range
Do they get darker if you add more? Can they be tweaked with Lahmen medium?
They sure do. Expect loads more info coming soon
Did you whack a cheeky highly on them after the contrasts did their thing?
So 10 years ago GW came up with the easy and fast painting system called Citadel Washes.
Similar to the previous sold Citadel Inks, but without a glossy or shiny finish and better flowability
Perfect for fast painting as Primer+Details+Wash is enough, specially for SciFi models like Space Marines or Tyranids
Worked well as coloured (matt) Washes now completely replaced other companies Inks that all had either a shiny/glossy finish (Tamiya, Schmincke, Winsorw&Newton) or were only brown/black (Army Painter, Vallejo).
But than GW replaced those Washes for the new and better system of Base/Layer/Shade.
As matching 3 colour system painted over primer as much better than Primer+Wash.
And people learned from GW that base colours need to be opaque and cover everything which made it hard to get them into the fast painting techniques used before.
Now we get Washes back, which is a good thing as we have now a wider colour range and more Primers.
Advertised as the new thing that was not there before and make speed painting a thing
People going crazy as now official GW painting technique can do things that were not possible with official GW painting technique before, except if you used an old guide still referring to Washes.
And my personal enthusiasm is limited as the questions is will they last longer than the last time, how much will they cost and is there really an difference compared to colours from other companies (as old Washes are now available from other too).
Gimgamgoo wrote: All the fan boys say "woohoo to our GW gods", etc, and buy 34 more paint pots.
Or maybe they've created another painting ecosystem that allows people to achieve results far and beyond what their own personal skill levels would allow them to create, making them very interested in this product.
As a frankly not very good painter in the grand scheme of things, especially when I look at people's work online, although I do occasionally put out what is by my rather low skill level a half decent model (I and my style of (bad) painting seem to be stuck in the 90s), I'd love for this "new" "contrast" paint to be the instant-highlight paint that it is claiming to be. Especially as I still have 2/3 of my Warhammer Quest (1995) core set to paint, and I'd like to achieve instant (or at least quick and easy) highlights on the skin of the Minotaurs, among other models I've not yet painted.
However, I question what the few people who are promoting it are being paid, and I question GW's truthfulness about the product.
I have noted that when using Citadel Air (or other similarly thin paints) you can sometimes get an almost instant highlight, at least with Abaddon Black Air, but it's nowhere near as perfect looking as GW are showing in their promotional material for this new contrast paint and I question whether indeed they have formulated a paint that is that perfect.
I'm sure like their shade washes, if you put them on all over the model with no regard for being accurate, you will always have to clean up these contrast paints in the same way you do with their shade wash paints, most likely due to blotchy results on the flatter/larger areas of a Space Marine's armour for example, the legs, the knee pads if present, the shoulder pads etc.
I just cannot see a Space Marine turning out how the example picture on the GW promotional web page showing the stages of painting with "contrast" paints vs the more "classic" way of painting says it will, all nicely highlighted with a very "pro" look just by slopping some paint on it, which is what GW seem to want you to believe. There has to be additional painting involved..
I want to see it done, live and unedited either in person or on youtube, before I start shelling out for yet more emperor's clothes...
I don’t know about using it for nice models but I think I’m go8ng to paint up War of the Ring using these. I wonder if that is part of the draw- the huge number of mini heavy board games and increasing desire for pre-washed and pre-painted minis.
If this had been available when i started painting last year I'd have probably used it. Now though, I'm not sure Ill change because I've built up quite a collection of paints and brushes for the techniques I've already been using...
Gimgamgoo wrote: All the fan boys say "woohoo to our GW gods", etc, and buy 34 more paint pots.
Or maybe they've created another painting ecosystem that allows people to achieve results far and beyond what their own personal skill levels would allow them to create, making them very interested in this product.
But by all means, call me a GW fan boy.
Exactly this. I mean I can paint about as well as the results I got trying it out yesterday, but it takes me a hell of a lot longer, and I get frustrated. I was actually excited about painting yesterday, for the first time in god knows how long.
Only thing that I can see being a real negative is that I don't think that Contrast paint being good for vehicles or anything that has large, flat surfaces.
Sotahullu wrote: Only thing that I can see being a real negative is that I don't think that Contrast paint being good for vehicles or anything that has large, flat surfaces.
To be fair, that's true of most "shortcut" brush techniques - drybrushed vehicles often look rubbish as well, and a basic base & edge highlight job looks pretty flat even if it is the neatest. If you want to paint big, flat surfaces with a brush and have them look fantastic, you'll be doing dozens of extremely thin glazes. Large flat surfaces are pretty much the only subject I'll admit that airbrushes are flat out the better tool for the job if you want to do it quickly.
As to the zenithal undercoat, seeing those Shadespire ghosties, I'm not actually sure the black was a benefit. I think I'll start experimenting with a two-tone zenithal approach using a flat neutral grey and either of the new sprays, and if areas need additional definition after the application of the contrast paint I'll add it by hand. That approach also allows for deepening the shadows with different colours. I'll also try adding a drybrush of pure white over the two-tone undercoat and see how good the contrast paints are at blending that highlight into the gradient.
It depends on the drybrushing, really. Even on things like Eldar tanks, proper drybrushing can pick up the panel edges well. Better than edge highlighting sometimes, as that often emphasises the individual panels at the expense of the overall shape.
What's the consistency of these new Contrast paints like? From their video it looks like they're more viscous than inks or washes, but perhaps not quite as thick as the "gem" paints. That means you quite probably could paint a Leman Russ or Rhino with them, although you might want to do one surface at a time so it can be left to dry while horizontal. A quick drybrushed highlight to bring things together and you're good to go.
OK for "lazy" painters? That's unnecessarily derogatory. An army painted like this will look better, IMO, than one where three models are painstakingly washed, blended, glazed and detailed and the rest is bare plastic, and leaves you more time to spend that effort on the characters and centrepieces. The thing I'd need to look into is how well the result of using these paints sits next to "traditionally" painted models. Hopefully a model painted Macragge Blue with a Nulkn Oil recess shade then highlighted with Calgar Blue and Fenris Grey looks the same kind of blue as that Intercessor Squad close by done with Ultramarines Blue.
I do have to take slight issue with H.B.M.C. about the names making sense, though. "Snakebite Leather", for instance, no more tells me that the paint is brown than "XV-88" does.
Well, at least "leather" was an implication of it being brown, rather than the name of a battlesuit that might not have a single brown color on it in many armies?
Unfortunately for me, I still prefer some of my drybrushing methods over washes, though I use them too. For instance my favorite way to do Ork/c skin is to use Armypainter Angel Green (I used to use Dark Angels green) and then a quick drybrush of Vallejo's replacement for the old Snot Green, which doesn't take much time at all and I think looks great.
It'll be interesting to see what the new paints do, as I already find that just the existing GW color washes and Armypainter Strong tone and Dark Tone are good enough. This Lord Relictor was painted with just simple base colors, with the existing Beil-Tan Green wash over a Vallejo green base, AP Strong Tone over AP Bone, Cadian Flesh and Relictor gold, and Dark Tone over AP Gunmetal. The two sections of grey were a quick drybrush over a base coat, although Dark Tone would probably have worked there, too, but I like a slightly chalky effect to stone. The only part I am not happy with is the red leather weapon haft wraps, but I'm not sure any wash is going to do better than what it did, and I was unwilling to highlight every edge manually.
I'd say that the two main parts of the name - "snake" and "leather" - give us a better real-world approximation or even just educated guess over what the colour could be compared to XV-88, The Fang or Necron Compound.
AndrewGPaul wrote: "Snakebite Leather", for instance, no more tells me that the paint is brown than "XV-88" does.
Depends on how long you are into GW stuff as Citadel already had a colour of that name 20 years ago and most of the older guys will know better what exactly that colour is than XV-88
It'll be interesting to see what the new paints do, as I already find that just the existing GW color washes and Armypainter Strong tone and Dark Tone are good enough. This Lord Relictor was painted with just simple base colors, with the existing Beil-Tan Green wash over a Vallejo green base, AP Strong Tone over AP Bone, Cadian Flesh and Relictor gold, and Dark Tone over AP Gunmetal. The two sections of grey were a quick drybrush over a base coat, although Dark Tone would probably have worked there, too, but I like a slightly chalky effect to stone. The only part I am not happy with is the red leather weapon haft wraps, but I'm not sure any wash is going to do better than what it did, and I was unwilling to highlight every edge manually.
Interested in this comparison also. The method you speak to (color block base colors, AP/GW washes) is how I paint the majority of my armies.
I'm a fan of any painting method that saves time. The undead shadespire warband posted looks to be a very promising way of using these new paints (zenithal priming, all over wash, glaze with additional colors, cheeky highlight). It's more work than the '1 thick coat' but still a very fast painting method and results in a higher quality finished piece based on the images posted over the last couple of pages.
I simply presented an alternative way. Gatekeeping? What the hell man haha.
Good luck with your painting guys.
Im gonna go paint some now, for I have the power to mix water and paint! so I do not need to wait for GW so I save both TIME and MONEY!
Dam, it has been a long time since I have seen such blatant epeen-stroking. It would be bad enough if you could actually replicate the GW effect, but to fail twice and then brag about it? Impressive.
I only responded to those who freely wanted to challenge me on my opinion. I posted pictures and counter arguments. And a discussion was had.
Your comment however, are nothing but trying to bash me for no reason what so ever.
You washed watered paint over a zenithal priming. Adding water is a great trick, congratulations, but you are not addressing surface tension, pigment suspension or viscosity. I know you are very impressed with yourself but formulating paint is a lot more complicated than 'add water durrrrr'. Did you get a good result in your example (again, pretending like the binary priming had nothing to do with the shading lol), yes you did. Will every paint do that with water? Nope. Depends on the pigment density, inherent amount of acrylic suspension, and native surface tension. Once any of those things are out of whack you can get very poor results indeed. You are over-simplifying because it serves your ego and apparently that is something you are badly in need of by your behaviour in this thread, but regardless you are doing yourself and your audience a disservice by beating the horse to death here.
Yea plus he obviously used procreate! I mean yo ucan see it right there in the picture
I mean if this helps get armies on the table faster and help people to actually paint stuff I don't really see a problem with these paints. I know I have a bunch of project in limbo because damn they take awhile to paint! Anything that speeds that up is good in my book.
Red Corsair wrote: I watched a video from a guy that was there and got to play around with the paints.
Apparently they are slow drying like a wash (no surprise there) and the layers are incredibly thin. Like a tenth as thin. So it is very important to seal the layers in since they can rub off easily. Whatever the medium it uses is, it isn't durable like normal shades.
You also cannot mix them with other paint or use other mediums. Well you can, but the effect is lost. You can mix them with each other though.
.
A tenth as thin? That sounds like the exact opposite of what they're describing on the community page. That honestly sounds like water with food coloring.
WarCom wrote:Contrast is a new type of paint designed to make awesome results accessible to anyone, fast. With Contrast, you’ll have everything you get from a Base and Shade, but in a single application and a single coat.
Advertising rhetoric vs actuality of the product aside, what they're describing doesn't involve thin layers at all.
I don't see how that has anything to do with how thin the paint drys. It's all in the medium. You can slather a model in wash and a model in the same volume of paint and they will dry with very different thickness in layers.
Red Corsair wrote: I watched a video from a guy that was there and got to play around with the paints.
Apparently they are slow drying like a wash (no surprise there) and the layers are incredibly thin. Like a tenth as thin. So it is very important to seal the layers in since they can rub off easily. Whatever the medium it uses is, it isn't durable like normal shades.
You also cannot mix them with other paint or use other mediums. Well you can, but the effect is lost. You can mix them with each other though.
Oh and I guess they will work over any primer, GW just made these new colors because they happen to be good for the effect but there isn't anything preventing you from using other undercoats and getting the effect.
They seem like fun and would definitely take the skill out of painting with glazes for folks that are not super familiar with how to do it. I still think these would look miles better over a zenethial undercoat though.
They dried in about 10 minutes, max. I dunno if I’d call that slow drying, especially with the amount you slather on.
To the touch probably, doesn't mean they have fully cured. With such thin layers if you don't wait at least 30 minutes your gona hate yourself when you pull paint if you try painting over them or handle the models to much.
Yup, thought so - the trick for their new undercoats is "they come out with a really smooth finish", so whack a gloss varnish over any undercoats you like and the contrast paints should behave in exactly the same way as with the "official" ones.
They're adding the two new undercoat colours to the base paint range as well apparently, which will be good for touch-ups if you over-apply any of the contrasts.
@Red Corsair- it doesn't. I wasn't questioning the drying time, which seemed reasonable. I was questioning the part about 'a tenth as thin' and 'lots of layers' for something described as a one coat system.
Actually quite enthused by these paints as it is similar to a technique I try and employ at the moment. My 30K Imperial Fists are washed over a white undercoat and have a similar effect. I will echo the thought that it looks slightly crappier on vehicles but that is a trade-off I personally am willing to accept because of the speed involved with the technique.
Again, personally speaking, I would rather have a fully painted army rather than the sea of grey I currently have so anything that can get me actually finishing projects for once and within my own lifespan is only a good thing IMO.
Better washes over white paint is nice, but hardly revolutionary. It's more of a marketing shift on GW's part to sell you watered down pigments and proprietary spray primers rather than touting "2 thin coats" of less watered down pigments. People were already using GW washes over white quite successfully.
I tend to prefer saturated colors and sharp highlights, so this isn't tremendously useful for me. It might be useful in keeping saturated colors but getting stronger shading (i.e. less layers of wash/glazing), but I don't do a ton of glazing to begin with.
One downside based on the pictures shown so far, is that the paints are quite messy (not surprising given the fact they're applied in a thick coat and meant to flow well) - you see colours run over into ajoining areas, or opposite a gap you've but your brush through. The very nature of the paints however means you can't restore the area with the original colour: you have to restore the undercoat, then carefully apply the contrast paint just there. Using a simple base+wash makes corrections a lot easier. The fact that these contrast paints look different over different undercoats makes it tricky to get a single colour of paint that can be used for touch-ups.
Maybe mixing the contrast paints will help a little, but the second issue seems flexibility. The inbuilt wash means bright green will always be washed with bright green, while a dirtier brown or darker black might look much better in the recesses in some contexts. In some examples shown, the colours are more vibrant and rich in pigment in recesses (logically, it's where the paint pools) than on the raised areas, which is not ideal. Mostly noticable on relatively flat surfaces like the Eldar; the cases where only the very edge has a near-white highlight look better. Again, base+wash of choice seems preferred, especially as some dark brown/black washes can sometimes be applied across most of the model.
The greatest benefit or obstacle might finally be the consistency. Previous posters said this was the main advantage compared to thinning with water or medium, but over the years I've had plenty of Citadel paints that were much thinner or chalkier than they were supposed to be. To get consistent results, these pots also have to have consistent quality: time will tell...
Some common misconceptions I read about Contrast paints and Army Painter products in this review:
The Army Painter's Quickshade Inks are actually the equivalent for the Citadel Shade range (or Citadel's old washes) and have the same properties as them. I wrote an in-depth review with a lot of comparison images between Citadel Shades and Quickshade Inks a while ago here: https://taleofpainters.blogspot.com/2019/04/review-army-painters-complete-warpaints.html
Contrast paints are comparable to the two Nighthaunts technical paints: A similar medium like a wash that helps the pigments to settle in the recesses, but more opaque pigments. They'd probably be more similar to Vallejo Game Colour Inks, and I will definitely compare these with Contrast paints on the blog once they're out.
The new Contrast primers are probably light grey/bone glossy primers. The gloss makes the surface smoother, which will reduce the surface tension of the Contrast (or wash) paint, improving the flow so the pigments can settle better in the recesses. Try this effect with your Citadel Shade paints and/or Quickshade Inks by adding a coat of gloss varnish to your model, it will reduce the amount of pooling especially on larger flat areas.
The Army Painter Colour Primers come in 22 colours and you can achieve very nice results with them, just make sure you shake them for at least a minute, and spray in long, sweeping burst at a distance of no more than 20 cm - a bit closer than most other primers. Otherwise the pigment will dry in the air and the finish will be fuzzy. And better apply two or three thin coats instead of one thick coat. More advice here: https://taleofpainters.blogspot.com/2019/05/review-army-painter-colour-primers-and.html
stahly wrote: Some common misconceptions I read about Contrast paints and Army Painter products in this review:
The new Contrast primers are probably light grey/bone glossy primers. The gloss makes the surface smoother, which will reduce the surface tension of the Contrast (or wash) paint, improving the flow so the pigments can settle better in the recesses. Try this effect with your Citadel Shade paints and/or Quickshade Inks by adding a coat of gloss varnish to your model, it will reduce the amount of pooling especially on larger flat areas.
The primers aren’t really glossy, just matte like normal.
Having looked through more examples/experiences... I'm not sure. I'll have to try it for myself, because the potential seems there and despite claims otherwise do not see another product that actually behaves the same way. It definitely does not give the same result as just watered-down paint does. I am more concerned about issues like what Coenus mentioned with it bleeding into other areas.
I also feel like I need the quote about "GW black knights" who auto-dislike products. A bunch of 'this is nothing but watered down paint, anyone who disagrees is a GW fanboy' alongside a bunch of 'this could be great for convenience/inexperienced painters.' Regardless of how good or bad the paints turn out to be, the former position seems less reasonable.
Tangui Jollivet / Melcor TWHaegemonia.@Jollivettangui wrote: So for those Who doesn't go to #WarhammerFest2019 that the models I've take with me. The red metalic armor it's contrast over gold. The flesh of the possessed is only contrast paint. Those Tau are mostly contrast paint, except edge highlight or the lense. Aske anything!
NinthMusketeer wrote: Having looked through more examples/experiences... I'm not sure. I'll have to try it for myself, because the potential seems there and despite claims otherwise do not see another product that actually behaves the same way.
Previous GW Washes did exactly the same, but they were never advertised as 1 Layer to get the job done but in addition to regular Citadel paints.
But lot of people used it that way and were therefore angry that GW removed them after while to promote their current Base/Layer/Shade system
I am really surprised that people forgot about those in such a short timeframe or just never believed those guys on the internet that White Primer + Citadel Wash allows very good results very fast, as GW told them they are not meant to be used that way.
GW 2019: this is the best Paint ever, there has never been something like this before and painting armies will be much fast now
People jumping the hypetrain as 1 Layer over white primer was impossible until that day
GW 2011:
I could understand it if a different company would have made them in the past, but it was GW itself who did it. Therefore I won't understand the hate against people who say that this is nothing special. It is not, it was done by GW before but killed again for unknown reason (maybe they did not sold enough other paints any more) and now re-invented after people already have found alternatives
It is really good that GW brings those old Washes finally back, as my last bottle Asurmen Blue is getting empty and there is no similar dark blue Wash out there, with a wider range of colours.
But it is nothing new or special, more like correcting a bad mistake (killing their best painting product) and I do not jump on the hypetrain because I am not sure if they will stay longer or be removed again like the last time.
I'm staring down the barrel of painting all of the 'grunts' for at least two horde armies in the near future.
In fact, I've already started. Calling it a horrible experience is putting it mildly. Even applying basic shading to over a hundred GEQ, then turning around to do it with Termagants and Hormogaunts, is not my idea of a fun time.
From the results shown here, I am whole heartedly on board with these paints. I can't wait to get my hands on them.
Tangui Jollivet / Melcor TWHaegemonia.@Jollivettangui wrote: So for those Who doesn't go to #WarhammerFest2019 that the models I've take with me. The red metalic armor it's contrast over gold. The flesh of the possessed is only contrast paint. Those Tau are mostly contrast paint, except edge highlight or the lense. Aske anything!
Spoiler:
Ok, if the black can give a similar effect over a metallic base coat to the red shown here? Iron Hands all the way baby
Edit- I'm trying to not get too hyped, but this could also work great for Lucius AM. Especially with the new primer. Honestly part of me hopes that these paints don't live up to the hype, because I could easily get sucked into a lot of stuff that I would normally avoid.
Tangui Jollivet / Melcor TWHaegemonia.@Jollivettangui wrote: So for those Who doesn't go to #WarhammerFest2019 that the models I've take with me. The red metalic armor it's contrast over gold. The flesh of the possessed is only contrast paint. Those Tau are mostly contrast paint, except edge highlight or the lense. Aske anything!
Spoiler:
Ok, if the black can give a similar effect over a metallic base coat to the red shown here? Iron Hands all the way baby
Yes! I haven't found a method I like yet for my iron hands. Maybe this? We will see.
Voss wrote: @Red Corsair- it doesn't. I wasn't questioning the drying time, which seemed reasonable. I was questioning the part about 'a tenth as thin' and 'lots of layers' for something described as a one coat system.
It's not billed as a one coat system. It's 3, base, contrast and seal coat. Because its such a thin layer. Not really understanding why that's an issue, it goes on liberally, but pools in the recesses and drying thin, so it is delicate but that isn't necessarily bad. Thin is good because you can build up more layers of blending.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Having looked through more examples/experiences... I'm not sure. I'll have to try it for myself, because the potential seems there and despite claims otherwise do not see another product that actually behaves the same way.
Previous GW Washes did exactly the same, but they were never advertised as 1 Layer to get the job done but in addition to regular Citadel paints.
The images you posted make it obvious that they are NOT the same. The washes give a transparent ”ghostly” look, that the contrast paints do not.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Having looked through more examples/experiences... I'm not sure. I'll have to try it for myself, because the potential seems there and despite claims otherwise do not see another product that actually behaves the same way.
Previous GW Washes did exactly the same, but they were never advertised as 1 Layer to get the job done but in addition to regular Citadel paints.
The images you posted make it obvious that they are NOT the same. The washes give a transparent ”ghostly” look, that the contrast paints do not.
And you can add, different Primer Colour, (and yes pure White VS Beige makes a huge difference), different Primer surface, and different colour of the Wash to the reason why they colours do not look identical.
But the overall behaviour and principle behind it is the same.
and those models:
Spoiler:
do not look different than those models I have seen in the past painted only with Washes
the exact colour is different but the overall look is the same as it always was with Primer+Wash
NinthMusketeer wrote: Having looked through more examples/experiences... I'm not sure. I'll have to try it for myself, because the potential seems there and despite claims otherwise do not see another product that actually behaves the same way.
Previous GW Washes did exactly the same, but they were never advertised as 1 Layer to get the job done but in addition to regular Citadel paints.
The images you posted make it obvious that they are NOT the same. The washes give a transparent ”ghostly” look, that the contrast paints do not.
While I am sure they are not the exact same paints, your exaggerating a bit. Any glossing on the old ones happened in the deeply pooled recesses and goes away as soon as you dull coat the models. Your dull coating the new stuff anyway if you want the paint to last. I imagine these are more pigment rich.
I am excited for new paints, variety is never bad, and these will be another tool. But it is strange that folks are acting like the new paints are that much different. I think people are not realizing that a lot of the more decent looking models folks have shared still have an edge highlight. Those two tau models for example would not look nearly as impressive without all the armor panels being edge highlighted.
Voss wrote: @Red Corsair- it doesn't. I wasn't questioning the drying time, which seemed reasonable. I was questioning the part about 'a tenth as thin' and 'lots of layers' for something described as a one coat system.
It's not billed as a one coat system. It's 3, base, contrast and seal coat. Because its such a thin layer. Not really understanding why that's an issue, it goes on liberally, but pools in the recesses and drying thin, so it is delicate but that isn't necessarily bad. Thin is good because you can build up more layers of blending.
One coat of the contrast paint. As opposed to multiple layers. Or shades/washing/highlighting on top of base and layers.
This isn't complicated.
I'm intrigued by the white one... I have a slough of unpainted Space Marines that I bought and built as White Scars, but never painted. Mainly because white is a giant pain to line and highlight.
Voss wrote: @Red Corsair- it doesn't. I wasn't questioning the drying time, which seemed reasonable. I was questioning the part about 'a tenth as thin' and 'lots of layers' for something described as a one coat system.
It's not billed as a one coat system. It's 3, base, contrast and seal coat. Because its such a thin layer. Not really understanding why that's an issue, it goes on liberally, but pools in the recesses and drying thin, so it is delicate but that isn't necessarily bad. Thin is good because you can build up more layers of blending.
One coat of the contrast paint. As opposed to multiple layers. Or shades/washing/highlighting on top of base and layers.
This isn't complicated.
Mate, your the one hung up on their tag line not me. You keep bringing it back up lol. It has the pigment to saturate the area in one coat, sure, that doesn't mean your not going to paint on top of it. All the good looking examples shared so far have been edge highlighted.
EDIT: I think your misunderstanding my initial post you quoted. The layer of paint is 1/10th the thickness doesn't mean you need to add another 9 layers. It just means the layer is very thin. You seem to think I was suggesting it took multiple passes when I was simply touting the impressive quality it has due to it's pigment content. Thin layers is always better, you can always seal you dudes when they are done to protect them. The recomended seal coat is the only other layer I was suggesting was necessary, because you don't want the layer to become damaged.
Ok, anyone who is familiar with my posting history will know I'm not reluctant to give GW both barrels if I feel it's warranted, but I don't get why we've apparently got a tag team going on of people who seem highly motivated to decry the new product without, I'm sure, having tried it?
I mean, sure, it isn't revolutionary and there are ways of getting similar results already, but why is it a problem that more people will have access to a product that could give them the ability to paint more models to a higher standard than they may have felt they otherwise could? There's not just a technical element to these paints but a market visibility element too, and I'm not going to knock anything that might give me an ability to do something new/better/more quickly, and if it doesn't then I'll just not buy any more.
Was thinking of whipping up an Imperial Fist army( got the minis, just need to paint them ) but getting the yellow just right was a pain in the ass. And then there is loads of genestealers that need a lick'o'paint too...
hotsauceman1 wrote: IMO with these new paints, there is no excuse for unpainted armies
There are always reasons (not excuses, reasons) to have unpainted armies. It's either foolish or insulting to claim that these paints are some kind of instant magic wand solution.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Seems some Scrote decided to steal some of the demo pots, and has put them on eBay for a ridiculous price.
What an arse.
Arse, probably. Ridiculous price? 40 pounds for six nearly full bottles. Isn't that pretty close to the retail price? If the shipping to US was not so silly...
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Seems some Scrote decided to steal some of the demo pots, and has put them on eBay for a ridiculous price.
What an arse.
Arse, probably. Ridiculous price? 40 pounds for six nearly full bottles. Isn't that pretty close to the retail price? If the shipping to US was not so silly...
T
We haven't seen the retail price yet have we? Using Hexwraith Flame as an equivalent price, six bottles would be £28.50.
hotsauceman1 wrote: IMO with these new paints, there is no excuse for unpainted armies
There are always reasons (not excuses, reasons) to have unpainted armies. It's either foolish or insulting to claim that these paints are some kind of instant magic wand solution.
Hey look a new range that does exactly what 2 other previous ranges did before GW killed them.
The red over gold seems to give a very similar effect as using the old FW inks, which hopefully means I can stop trying to find the red FW ink to keep doing my 30k thousand sons.
And the old washes with the original talent in a bottle devlin mud, I had a mate at the open day who said they look and feel a lot like the old washes some even smell like them.
As for why some people seem down on them I guess saying your reinventing the wheel and then rolling out your.new.round wheel will do that.
I will pick the new undercoats up if there not more expensive than the current.overpriced cans and some of the contrasts to do a comparison with the old washes which I still have quite a lot of
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Seems some Scrote decided to steal some of the demo pots, and has put them on eBay for a ridiculous price.
What an arse.
Arse, probably. Ridiculous price? 40 pounds for six nearly full bottles. Isn't that pretty close to the retail price? If the shipping to US was not so silly...
T
We haven't seen the retail price yet have we? Using Hexwraith Flame as an equivalent price, six bottles would be £28.50.
I was using the USA colonial tax price. $7.80 x 6 = $48.60, which is 36.01 pounds, only 4 pounds over the US retail price assuming the prices are the same as the Hexwraith paint..
And, its gone: " This listing was ended by the seller because there was an error in the listing"
I’m a reluctant painter, and the easier the products make it, the more enthused I am.
It also opens up a good number of armies to me, which I wouldn’t consider before due to the time it’d take to paint them. Guard, Orcs/Orks, Gobbos, Nids, Beastmen, Skaven. Loads.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Having looked through more examples/experiences... I'm not sure. I'll have to try it for myself, because the potential seems there and despite claims otherwise do not see another product that actually behaves the same way.
Previous GW Washes did exactly the same, but they were never advertised as 1 Layer to get the job done but in addition to regular Citadel paints.
But lot of people used it that way and were therefore angry that GW removed them after while to promote their current Base/Layer/Shade system
I am really surprised that people forgot about those in such a short timeframe or just never believed those guys on the internet that White Primer + Citadel Wash allows very good results very fast, as GW told them they are not meant to be used that way.
GW 2019: this is the best Paint ever, there has never been something like this before and painting armies will be much fast now
People jumping the hypetrain as 1 Layer over white primer was impossible until that day
GW 2011:
Spoiler:
I could understand it if a different company would have made them in the past, but it was GW itself who did it. Therefore I won't understand the hate against people who say that this is nothing special. It is not, it was done by GW before but killed again for unknown reason (maybe they did not sold enough other paints any more) and now re-invented after people already have found alternatives
It is really good that GW brings those old Washes finally back, as my last bottle Asurmen Blue is getting empty and there is no similar dark blue Wash out there, with a wider range of colours.
But it is nothing new or special, more like correcting a bad mistake (killing their best painting product) and I do not jump on the hypetrain because I am not sure if they will stay longer or be removed again like the last time.
I used those washes quite a lot (I don't have any more because I used it all) and still have models that I speed-painted that way. So yeah, I 'remember' perfectly well how it looks. And it does not look like these new paints do. The passive-aggressive 'you are too blind to see it' tone certainly does you little favors; perhaps it is your eyesight simply lacking the clarity to make out the distinction?
Once i have tried them and they do a decent job then I'm probably going to pick up a set of the paints. Chances are I will still use my current time consuming (I am an especially slow painter) for my GW models but will instead use the Contrast paints to get through some of the miniature board game backlog I have.
Based on the videos I could see myself knocking out the entire wave 1 of the Hellboy board game in a weekend and the Journey in Middle-Earth models over a few evenings.
I will still stick to metallic paint and wash for the metals as I don't think Contrast pulls them off well enough I can see adding some Contrast techniques to my current painting method such as using them over metallic to get some nice coloured metal.
Here's a great video if people haven't seen it of how quick you can paint with this and how dark/rich the colors are. There's also some good info in here.
For those that don't want to watch, here's the takeaway.
GW will release two primers that are made to work best with Contrast paints. They are NOT NECESSARY, but are formulated to be super smooth (much smoother than Corax White). This means that as long as you have a very smooth base coat, the Contrast paints will work just fine.
They will work over metallics, they work with other paints, you can use washes over them to change the colors, etc.
DO NOT ADD WATER. They need no thinning and actually work worse with water.
Those are the key things that I heard from the salesperson in the video
Here's a great video if people haven't seen it of how quick you can paint with this and how dark/rich the colors are. There's also some good info in here.
For those that don't want to watch, here's the takeaway.
GW will release two primers that are made to work best with Contrast paints. They are NOT NECESSARY, but are formulated to be super smooth (much smoother than Corax White). This means that as long as you have a very smooth base coat, the Contrast paints will work just fine.
They will work over metallics, they work with other paints, you can use washes over them to change the colors, etc.
DO NOT ADD WATER. They need no thinning and actually work worse with water.
Those are the key things that I heard from the salesperson in the video
It's the same video that was posted by Chikout HERE if you've already seen The 2Ps Podcast video.
DO NOT ADD WATER. They need no thinning and actually work worse with water.
So... what do we thin them with?
After all, they're in GW pots, so some will be half dried out when you buy them. The rest will dry out rapidly like most GW paints seem to in those pots.
DO NOT ADD WATER. They need no thinning and actually work worse with water.
So... what do we thin them with?
After all, they're in GW pots, so some will be half dried out when you buy them. The rest will dry out rapidly like most GW paints seem to in those pots.
... to help you experiment with this new paint, we’ll also be launching a new Contrast Medium which gives pros even more opportunities to play with this new paint’s unique properties...
DO NOT ADD WATER. They need no thinning and actually work worse with water.
So... what do we thin them with?
After all, they're in GW pots, so some will be half dried out when you buy them. The rest will dry out rapidly like most GW paints seem to in those pots.
The Contrast Medium they announced. Similar to Lahmian Medium, but will maintain the Contrast properties.
Freeflow44 wrote: Contrast paint sounds great, but if GW really want to get me excited, just start selling paint in proper dropper bottles
I detest roller bottles, but I paint straight from the pot and I am not a great painter. I’ve only had three pots since they switched from the old bolted shell style bottles to these that have dried out, each of those were because I either added water or left the lid off .i have army painter and some Vallejo in dropper bottles and have them all set aside as I hate wasting it by pouring out more than I ever use.
Freeflow44 wrote: Contrast paint sounds great, but if GW really want to get me excited, just start selling paint in proper dropper bottles
I detest roller bottles, but I paint straight from the pot and I am not a great painter. I’ve only had three pots since they switched from the old bolted shell style bottles to these that have dried out, each of those were because I either added water or left the lid off .i have army painter and some Vallejo in dropper bottles and have them all set aside as I hate wasting it by pouring out more than I ever use.
This is me. I've never had issues with Citadel paints drying out unless I left the bottle open. Dropper bottles would be great, but there's too much hyperbole about the Citadel paint pots.
I dunno, I think they suck, and this is after 20+ years with GW. The lid is especially bad, as paint always wicks into the lid at the back under the hinge, so I periodically have to scrape out the inner ring of dried paint.
Not as bad as the old style with a twist lid, but still behind all the competitions' offerings. Hell, I still have pre-bolter shell snap-top hexagonal pot GW paints that are still good (anyone remember colored metallics like Amethyst Purple?). Even those would be better than the current bottles. The tops just suck.
hotsauceman1 wrote: IMO with these new paints, there is no excuse for unpainted armies
Honestly with coloured primers, washes, etc...there hasn't been an excuse for years.
Coloured primer does one colour. Models generally have more than 1 colour in them. No good method to do in one step what has been shown with stock colours(mixing with water etc isn't quick and consistent enough). Ap's products might be similar but availability is issue. These will be available at your store without needing specific order with delay. Definite plus
These are great for new painters, but they still demand accuracy and patience. Paint all at once and you will have colours running into each other and causing havoc, much better to take the time and let each colour dry. Neatness is also a necessity, so thinking you are going to get a 100+ model army painted up in a week may be taking it a bit far.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: These are great for new painters, but they still demand accuracy and patience. Paint all at once and you will have colours running into each other and causing havoc, much better to take the time and let each colour dry. Neatness is also a necessity, so thinking you are going to get a 100+ model army painted up in a week may be taking it a bit far.
They will probably be fine for batch painting. By the time you reach the end of the line, the initial color will probably be dry enough to move on to the next one. If you just work on just one dude at a time, it will be a disaster.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: These are great for new painters, but they still demand accuracy and patience. Paint all at once and you will have colours running into each other and causing havoc, much better to take the time and let each colour dry. Neatness is also a necessity, so thinking you are going to get a 100+ model army painted up in a week may be taking it a bit far.
They will probably be fine for batch painting. By the time you reach the end of the line, the initial color will probably be dry enough to move on to the next one. If you just work on just one dude at a time, it will be a disaster.
For sure, just concentrating on one colour at a time will be best and it will be amazing for troop types that are mainly one colour of skin or armour (well I am not fully sold on the technique for non-organic surfaces but time will tell). I am intrigued to see how Apothecary White works as well.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: These are great for new painters, but they still demand accuracy and patience. Paint all at once and you will have colours running into each other and causing havoc, much better to take the time and let each colour dry. Neatness is also a necessity, so thinking you are going to get a 100+ model army painted up in a week may be taking it a bit far.
According to some of the reviews, the paints actually dry relatively fast, like 10 minutes. That's a lot faster than most washes which take closer to 30 to completely dry on a model.
And a lot of the speed comes down to the kind of model/army you're painting.
Skeletons? Prime > Contrast bone > metal parts > Done
Orks? Prime > Contrast green > Contrast cloth > metal parts > Done
Tyranids? Prime > Contrast A > Contrast B > Done
Seraphon? Prime > Contrast scale color > Contrast shield color > metal parts > Done
Imperial Fists? Prime > Contrast yellow > Red trim > metal parts > Done
As soon as you throw in more detail or a more complicated scheme, it gets a lot more difficult and you have to be pickier about how you use these paints. Things like the checkerboard pattern on Orks will not be contrastable. Howling Griffons, just no. Ulthwe eldar? Better off painting the old fashioned way between that black and bone color. Black Legion? They're black and gold... Sure you could use the black Contrast, but that doesn't help you with the gold part. Same with Custodes. No gold Contrast. You're better off priming gold and then washing agrax or reikland.
But for a good 90% of armies, these paints will be a godsend. Anything organic (daemons, goblins, sylvaneth) are all going to be stupidly easy. I'm already regretting priming some of my models black. My next army I'll be priming white in prep for Contrast.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: These are great for new painters, but they still demand accuracy and patience. Paint all at once and you will have colours running into each other and causing havoc, much better to take the time and let each colour dry. Neatness is also a necessity, so thinking you are going to get a 100+ model army painted up in a week may be taking it a bit far.
Batch painting is your friend. Unless they take significantly more to dry than shades shouldn't be issue. I have never really had to wait. If i feel like continuing just start with models i washed first
I can see what GW is trying to accomplish with these paints, but I don't really like the results that much. A lot of the photos of Contrast painted miniatures have a very particular look, a kind of watercolor-like effect for lack of a better word, and that's not compatible visually with anything I've ever painted (aside from maybe some of my wash painting experiments). This is a completely subjective viewpoint, but I'd go so far as to call a lot of the contrast-painted models actually unpleasant-looking in some undefinable sense.
I can see the use of some of the shades for particular effects, but for an established painter with a preset workflow and preexisting paint schemes, they have less to offer than for those looking to start new armies from scratch.
I can see the use of some of the shades for particular effects, but for an established painter with a preset workflow and preexisting paint schemes, they have less to offer than for those looking to start new armies from scratch.
Those people aren"t really the target audience though. Guys with tons of unpainted are
NinthMusketeer wrote: The passive-aggressive 'you are too blind to see it' tone certainly does you little favors; perhaps it is your eyesight simply lacking the clarity to make out the distinction?
the passiv-agressive was not intended, sorry if it read that way.
The difference is there, but there are also 4 times the colours and different primer available, allowing different combinations. There is a special medium to thin them down and a new varnish, also effecting the outcome.
Of course, I am not sure until I tested and compared them to others, but I don't expect them to be that different or being something completley new (most intresting one will be White anyway, as if this one works well over grey Primer it will speed up a lot my Napoleonic armies and I have a good reasons to finally get some Austrians)
But I can already see people being disappointed if their expectations are not met after the first trial, as it will still take time to learn how to handle them to get something like those models shown on the promo pictures (as those have seen some additional work and not just 1 Layer out of the bottle).
NinthMusketeer wrote: The passive-aggressive 'you are too blind to see it' tone certainly does you little favors; perhaps it is your eyesight simply lacking the clarity to make out the distinction?
the passiv-agressive was not intended, sorry if it read that way.
The difference is there, but there are also 4 times the colours and different primer available, allowing different combinations. There is a special medium to thin them down and a new varnish, also effecting the outcome.
Of course, I am not sure until I tested and compared them to others, but I don't expect them to be that different or being something completley new (most intresting one will be White anyway, as if this one works well over grey Primer it will speed up a lot my Napoleonic armies and I have a good reasons to finally get some Austrians)
But I can already see people being disappointed if their expectations are not met after the first trial, as it will still take time to learn how to handle them to get something like those models shown on the promo pictures (as those have seen some additional work and not just 1 Layer out of the bottle).
I know you feel strongly they are the same. But this pic kinda proves they really aren't. No wash new or old GW has made would saturate the gold so much to create a effect like this. You would see alot more of the gold/silver showing thru instead
Spoiler:
Even GW's glazes don't give you a effect like that. I think their is a lot of interesting effects one will be able to achieve
I can see the use of some of the shades for particular effects, but for an established painter with a preset workflow and preexisting paint schemes, they have less to offer than for those looking to start new armies from scratch.
Those people aren"t really the target audience though. Guys with tons of unpainted are
Well, yes and no. I mean, I am a guy with tons of unpainted. But the thing is, they're all unpainted models for armies I already own, and I would have to do considerable experimentation to match existing paint schemes for (insofar as that's even possible). I don't know how common the scenario of someone with an entirely unpainted army is.
I am curious about the potential for Contrast paints for painting white armor and other light tones, where traditional washing and highlighting is often either too aggressive and darkens the result too much, or requires you to custom-mix your own washes and paint tones to an infuriating degree.
I know you feel strongly they are the same. But this pic kinda proves they really aren't. No wash new or old GW has made would saturate the gold so much to create a effect like this. You would see alot more of the gold/silver showing thru instead
Spoiler:
Even GW's glazes don't give you a effect like that. I think their is a lot of interesting effects one will be able to achieve
That looks more like Tamiya Clear Red over Gold, but there are also additional Silver Highlights on the Red colour.
So it is difficult to say if it is one layer or more and what other additional steps were done.
Freeflow44 wrote: Contrast paint sounds great, but if GW really want to get me excited, just start selling paint in proper dropper bottles
GW's current lids are the best they've ever had; easy to clean and if kept clean they form a decent seal IME. By comparison, my Vallejo bottles have split lids, split nozzles, it's hard to get the paint out of the screw threads and when they separate, there always seems to be a build-up of pigment-free medium collected in the nozzle, no matter how hard I shake. And then there's the unexpected paint volcanos - I only want to paint a couple of gems and suddenly the red paint is fountaining out of the bottle like an arterial wound.
The latter is probably something I'm doing, perhaps by storing them horizontally like wine bottles, but then with flip-top pots I can store them whatever way I want and the paint stays where it should.
Dropper bottles are fine for those who want them, but "proper"? Nah, just "different".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah I've tried glazes over stormhost silver. Takes a lot of coats to build up a metallic colour effect.
I used Druchii Violet over Army Painter Plate Mail Metal for Fulgrim and some Phoenix Terminators. Two coats did the trick.
GW seems to be learning their lesson. Instead of watering down (and thereby making more use of the scant 12 mL bottles they use...) they're creating a product you apply quite heavily to the mini - much in line with their "douse the entire model in wash" approach of years past. At $4.55 per bottle (12 mL @ $4.55 vs. something like Vallejo at 17 mL @ $2.75-3.00) they're going to make a load of money if they bump this by a buck or two.
I own 107 termagants and 92 hormagaunts. This new set will be a godsent. Whoever has had to paint a horde army ever while needing to run a job and a family at the same time will be so happy with the new range.
I painted my Blackstone villains using just washes, and got results not too far from the contrast range, but mine were a bit more pastel. I could probably have avoided this by adding inks to my washes (for some I added regular paint, but you can only add so much before it doesn't really pool enough to provide the desired effect). And people have been getting better results with similar techniques for years.
But I guess the target audience is made of people who aren't spending loads of time researching painting techniques, and who are reluctant to mixing multiple paints from different companies to achieve the desired effect.
The contrast range gives a one-pot solution, which appears like a new solution for many people who only know about mini painting through GW's range and videos.
I have no idea how successful it's going to be though. I know some people who don't paint at all, and I suspect this won't change anything for them; they don't mind playing with grey plastic, and even 5mins/fig when you have hundreds waiting in line is quite daunting.
Many people (including me) prefer to paint to a higher standard. I could see myself using some of them on specific projects where I just want the stuff to not be grey (like my Blackstone stuff, or some board game with low quality figs). Otherwise, they need to fulfill a new role that isn't just "pigment-rich wash over white basecoat". Maybe they're great for wet blending for instance. If using a couple different contrast paints (or the same one mixed with two different normal paints) allows me to wet blend robes effortlessly, then I could get on board.
The two similar paints they released with the nighthaunt received some mixed reviews at my store, even when they were the "official" way to paint them. Most good painters felt like it just wasn't good enough, and though the models needed a lot more blending and highlighting. Out of the nighthaunt players I know, I don't think a single one has a force painted with white+hex-whatever+drybrush. It's either a grey horde or robes painted with a lot more care.
fresus wrote: .
I have no idea how successful it's going to be though. I know some people who don't paint at all, and I suspect this won't change anything for them; they don't mind playing with grey plastic, and even 5mins/fig when you have hundreds waiting in line is quite daunting.
Then there are those who don't want to spend time but have to say to attend tournaments(by far majority tournaments here are painted only. Especially big competive ones)
I can see the use of some of the shades for particular effects, but for an established painter with a preset workflow and preexisting paint schemes, they have less to offer than for those looking to start new armies from scratch.
Those people aren"t really the target audience though. Guys with tons of unpainted are
I mean, this is the third time, but maybe it will sink in for you chaps eventually: plenty of experienced painters with an established workflow paint this way now, at least for the "blocking in your colours" stage, and from what I've seen of them it will cut down that part of the process from 3-6 applications of wash/shade with ~30 minutes of dry between each, to a single application of contrast with ~10 minutes to dry.
These aren't just putting a quick & easy technique in the hands of newbies, they also simplify and speed up the "using washes/shades as a glaze" style of painting quite a lot.
Not every experienced painter just does the base>shade>layer system but neater, or is striving for Crystal Brush-level wet blending.
I know you feel strongly they are the same. But this pic kinda proves they really aren't. No wash new or old GW has made would saturate the gold so much to create a effect like this. You would see alot more of the gold/silver showing thru instead
Spoiler:
Even GW's glazes don't give you a effect like that. I think their is a lot of interesting effects one will be able to achieve
That looks more like Tamiya Clear Red over Gold, but there are also additional Silver Highlights on the Red colour.
So it is difficult to say if it is one layer or more and what other additional steps were done.
I would say main difference between old and new would be the amount of pigments and you needed 2 or 3 layers from the old one.
Yeah, that picture is from earlier in the thread, from a guy that says he want to Warhammer Fest and did that in the demo pod by putting one coat of red over the gold base.
And you say it looks like Tamiya clear?
OK, either that guy is lying or you need to review your opinion.
I know you feel strongly they are the same. But this pic kinda proves they really aren't. No wash new or old GW has made would saturate the gold so much to create a effect like this. You would see alot more of the gold/silver showing thru instead
Spoiler:
Even GW's glazes don't give you a effect like that. I think their is a lot of interesting effects one will be able to achieve
That looks more like Tamiya Clear Red over Gold, but there are also additional Silver Highlights on the Red colour.
So it is difficult to say if it is one layer or more and what other additional steps were done.
I would say main difference between old and new would be the amount of pigments and you needed 2 or 3 layers from the old one.
Yeah, that picture is from earlier in the thread, from a guy that says he want to Warhammer Fest and did that in the demo pod by putting one coat of red over the gold base.
And you say it looks like Tamiya clear?
OK, either that guy is lying or you need to review your opinion.
It looks more similar to Tamiya Clear Red than old Baal Red over a metallic base not that he used Tamiya colours on that model.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: You can thin with water. Darren Latham was thinning them with water during the eavy metal demo. The ratio is less I think but it can still be done.
I was told not to use water with them as it makes them dry with tide marks.
I know you feel strongly they are the same. But this pic kinda proves they really aren't. No wash new or old GW has made would saturate the gold so much to create a effect like this. You would see alot more of the gold/silver showing thru instead
Spoiler:
Even GW's glazes don't give you a effect like that. I think their is a lot of interesting effects one will be able to achieve
That looks more like Tamiya Clear Red over Gold, but there are also additional Silver Highlights on the Red colour.
So it is difficult to say if it is one layer or more and what other additional steps were done.
I would say main difference between old and new would be the amount of pigments and you needed 2 or 3 layers from the old one.
Yeah, that picture is from earlier in the thread, from a guy that says he want to Warhammer Fest and did that in the demo pod by putting one coat of red over the gold base.
And you say it looks like Tamiya clear?
OK, either that guy is lying or you need to review your opinion.
It looks more similar to Tamiya Clear Red than old Baal Red over a metallic base not that he used Tamiya colours on that model.
Here is the person's original tweet claiming it was done with the contrast red over gold. If you dont belive him, ask him yourself.
Well I'm sold, let the naysayers knock it all they want GW paints have always been great in my opinion, if I can save time getting an army into battle and still look well painted I'm happy.
Back from Warhammer Fest and have managed to unpack and sort myself out. I was very intrigued by what the new paint was going to be and my original guess of base colours in can's and a dip system wasn't actually 100% off the mark!
I attended the seminar talking about this too and it was super interesting (done by the chap who actually worked on developing these paints). The range was originally designed to replicate the base colour + shade of certain common citadel paint schemes - so the Ultramarines Blue Contrast paint will give a very similar effect to Macragge Blue + Drakenhoft Nightshade. The "highlight" effect was actually an added bonus!
Despite it being advertised as "slap it on and watch the magic", you still need to control what you're doing. Poor brush control and letting it pool will make a model look just as bad as if you'd done the same with any paint! This is why the examples in the cabinet were a mixed baggage because somebody with good brush control and managing where the paint went gets a superior result to somebody who's flopped it everywhere. It's also worth noting that using this on large flat areas will have the same issues as washing a large flat area - they're designed to be used on miniatures with lots of details and texture.
The paint range uses an entirely different base medium which appears to have a special mix of flow aid and retarder in (amongst other things). It's designed to go on "thick" but dry thin and as has been mentioned already does require a varnish to protect it else it risks being rubbed off during handling. A new varnish has been developed that should replicate the satin finish of the range and be more reliable than the current varnish (very much a case of each version of the varnish being better than the last).
The new base medium is very fragile and you will lose the unique "Contrast" properties if you add water or something using a different base (e.g. Lahmian or a regular Citadel Colour paint). However the Contrast range are basically a high transparency paint so adding it to other paints or thinning it down with other mediums will turn it into glazes and similar. This is certainly where the 'Eavy Metal have been experimenting with it. It also acts very similar to the old "Tint" range if you add it to a metallic - so adding Blood Angels Red to Stormhost Silver will give you a red metallic.
White undercoat is very tricky to create as there is only one pigment that can be used as a base (Titanium - well, technically there are two, but using Lead pigment is frowned upon). This means that in order to develop a white undercoat the way to make it more reliable is to add other pigments to it - the two new colours are (brown) White and (grey) White - they will also have colour matched Base pots released at the same time. The new Contrast paints will work over any undercoat, however for the intended effect you want to use a lighter colour (over black just look weird). I can see lots of people achieving some very clever effects over metallic undercoats.
Size wise the new pots are a little bigger than the regular paint's (but smaller than Shade paints). The pot of Contrast Medium is the same size as a Shade paint (let's hope we also get Lahmian in that size too!)
I did the following in the last five minutes of the event - trying to cram every colour I could get my hands on (they only had 10 available to play with). I was actually very surprised with how far the paint went, so don't feel you're going to need to purchase gallons of the stuff to paint an army. I took very little care over this and with a bit of highlighting wouldn't have an issue playing with or against an army done like this (though using all these colours may give you a migraine or nightmares). Even where the paint has pooled you've not actually lost much detail.
I know you feel strongly they are the same. But this pic kinda proves they really aren't. No wash new or old GW has made would saturate the gold so much to create a effect like this. You would see alot more of the gold/silver showing thru instead
Spoiler:
Even GW's glazes don't give you a effect like that. I think their is a lot of interesting effects one will be able to achieve
That looks more like Tamiya Clear Red over Gold, but there are also additional Silver Highlights on the Red colour.
So it is difficult to say if it is one layer or more and what other additional steps were done.
I would say main difference between old and new would be the amount of pigments and you needed 2 or 3 layers from the old one.
Yeah, that picture is from earlier in the thread, from a guy that says he want to Warhammer Fest and did that in the demo pod by putting one coat of red over the gold base.
And you say it looks like Tamiya clear?
OK, either that guy is lying or you need to review your opinion.
It looks more similar to Tamiya Clear Red than old Baal Red over a metallic base not that he used Tamiya colours on that model.
Here is the person's original tweet claiming it was done with the contrast red over gold. If you dont belive him, ask him yourself.
Ah. Sorry Kodos. I read your post as if you thought we were trying to trick you or something. lol So I under wanted to link the source of the image, to help clear up any confusion.
On the bright side now I'm thinking of thows old "I can't believe it's not butter" commercials. "I can't believe it's not tyamiya clear red!" Witch tbh is this is a Tyamiya clear red that dosen't eat my paint brushes, that is super awsome.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I think those models show that there is a little more care needed in application that GW let on. That is fine, but the blue has me worried.
I mean, the biggest leap any new painter can take in quality is simply being neat. Different paint products aren't going to remove that element.
Yeah, no magic product is going to help you color inside the lines. Painting with washes is always slightly messy, because they run, but you can minimize it by being careful with the application. It's certainly not a case of just slopping it on willy-nilly.
Lets not forget many of the demo examples from the event itself are likely rushed and not painters at their best, or even done by people who are good painters to start with. I think we'll want to wait a little once its in peoples hands and once they've played around with it for a bit before giving final judgement.
Though that said its looking more and more like its going to become a very big staple in many peoples workflow - for some as a main paint, for others as a supporting paint.
Someone posted up a video on youtube about the contrast paints and even showed an Imperial Fist. Definitely going to get the appropriate yellow, at least. Now, its just a question of cost...
casvalremdeikun wrote: I think those models show that there is a little more care needed in application that GW let on. That is fine, but the blue has me worried.
I mean, the biggest leap any new painter can take in quality is simply being neat. Different paint products aren't going to remove that element.
insaniak wrote:Yeah, no magic product is going to help you color inside the lines. Painting with washes is always slightly messy, because they run, but you can minimize it by being careful with the application. It's certainly not a case of just slopping it on willy-nilly.
Yeah, I know. I don't think it will be as bad as this picture shows. I just worry because that is the first model that doesn't look all that good, IMO. And since the dark blue is going to be a staple of my painting process (Crimson Fists), I would like to see more examples. The Black Templar looks great, so my Deathwatch will have a decent time. I don't think these will look good on large panels, so my Skitarii (Graia) vehicles won't likely see Black Templar, but the two different reds will be good.
Given how viscous it is and the level of pigment in the solution, I'm rather excited to try some of them out.
At the end of the day, I can't imagine switching over to using them heavily but they seem like they'd be a great addition to my toolbox.
(And I fully expect to see gobs of armies with this stuff just slopped in on blocks and... I'm honestly okay with that when compared to just flat grey plastic.)
Jjohnso11 wrote: I use a wet pallet. I wonder if it would be fine to continue using it or if I will need to go straight from pot to model.
Since the use of water was discouraged, as far as I know (and it keeps being said), probably pot to model. The demo video shows it being almost bucketed on to create build up in the ridge details.
So, since I basecoat everything black, then basically drybrush all the paint on, would it work to just basecoat everything white now, apply the 'contrast' black paint, and then start dry brushing? I'm assuming you can paint on top of the contrast paints.
Jjohnso11 wrote: I use a wet pallet. I wonder if it would be fine to continue using it or if I will need to go straight from pot to model.
They're inks. You won't need a palette. Just go from the bottle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skullking wrote: So, since I basecoat everything black, then basically drybrush all the paint on, would it work to just basecoat everything white now, apply the 'contrast' black paint, and then start dry brushing? I'm assuming you can paint on top of the contrast paints.
You probably could, but I'm not sure what you would gain by doing that, rather than just carrying on with the black basecoat.
skullking wrote: So, since I basecoat everything black, then basically drybrush all the paint on, would it work to just basecoat everything white now, apply the 'contrast' black paint, and then start dry brushing? I'm assuming you can paint on top of the contrast paints.
From what we've seen, yes, absolutely. Once the Contrast paint is dry, it's the same as any other acryllic paint. You can use washes, highlights, drybrushing, any of that stuff that you'd normally do after it's dry.
Not big fan of them. Target are beginners. So if novice painter use any colour like yellow blue whatever. On space fella armour, then black on bolter. And if go over the edges. Then what?... Will be looks even more crappy then simple opaque paint job. Cuz another go with colour don't cover black.
Then you do the same thing as would now when a darker colour get onto a lighter area. Tidy up with a bit of base coat and then reapply the lighter colour. As others have said, no amount of magic in a pot can substitute for being neat.
With transparent colours Im afraid that in novice hands will ends messy anyway. GW do great work with hype and selling stuff (nothing wrong with that). Lets wait and see when target folks start using them. Not fancy advertise pictures.
So, the transparent aspect has me really interested, but also slightly nervous as well, simply because of application.
I used to use Angron Red from FW over a gold basecoat for my Thousand Sons, however, painting it with a brush was a real PITA. It was much much easier with an airbrush.
Now, if this can achieve a similar effect via brush as when using the airbrush with the older clear paints then it’ll be an insta buy for me, but watching thin clear paint continuously run from all the flat sections of my 30k marines when using a brush was just frustrating. I’m getting the impression these are slightly thicker though, so I’ll remain optimistic for now.
That said, has anyone got any thoughts on how these might react when applied with an airbrush, based on their Warhammer Fest experience?
Mc Devil wrote: With transparent colours Im afraid that in novice hands will ends messy anyway. GW do great work with hype and selling stuff (nothing wrong with that). Lets wait and see when target folks start using them. Not fancy advertise pictures.
A lot of these pictures are when "target folks start using them". And your concern over novices is irrelevant - that applies to any painting method, after all.
Mc Devil wrote: With transparent colours Im afraid that in novice hands will ends messy anyway. GW do great work with hype and selling stuff (nothing wrong with that). Lets wait and see when target folks start using them. Not fancy advertise pictures.
A lot of these pictures are when "target folks start using them". And your concern over novices is irrelevant - that applies to any painting method, after all.
Unless this is being marketed as an easy system for novices to get good results.
Mc Devil wrote: With transparent colours Im afraid that in novice hands will ends messy anyway. GW do great work with hype and selling stuff (nothing wrong with that). Lets wait and see when target folks start using them. Not fancy advertise pictures.
Guess you forgot people already got their hands on trying these paints. But hey it's only few days past so ancient history ;-)
Y'all who laugh about the noob friendly method for beginners only and not worthy of a seasoned veteran, have you ever had to paint 200+ gaunts or boyz? This thing is a godsent.
Yeah, I think it's more about speed for acceptable results than newbie friendly.
I'm a decent painter, but I know I'm slooooowwwww. I have all those Death Guard from Conquest, and I know as things stand I'll never get around to doing anything with them. If I could take all of them, use Contrast, and get them out in a month that would be amazing.
Mc Devil wrote: With transparent colours Im afraid that in novice hands will ends messy anyway. GW do great work with hype and selling stuff (nothing wrong with that). Lets wait and see when target folks start using them. Not fancy advertise pictures.
A lot of these pictures are when "target folks start using them". And your concern over novices is irrelevant - that applies to any painting method, after all.
Unless this is being marketed as an easy system for novices to get good results.
Look, painting within the lines is something everyone has to learn and no paint or technique is going to fix that.
Toddlers learn to colour within the lines, I'm sure a teenager/adult can learn to paint in the lines.
Everything else that comes after, shading & highlighting, that dramatically increase the way a model looks compared to completely flat colors looks to becomes much much easier with these paints.
Mc Devil wrote: With transparent colours Im afraid that in novice hands will ends messy anyway. GW do great work with hype and selling stuff (nothing wrong with that). Lets wait and see when target folks start using them. Not fancy advertise pictures.
A lot of these pictures are when "target folks start using them". And your concern over novices is irrelevant - that applies to any painting method, after all.
Unless this is being marketed as an easy system for novices to get good results.
Look, painting within the lines is something everyone has to learn and no paint or technique is going to fix that.
Toddlers learn to colour within the lines, I'm sure a teenager/adult can learn to paint in the lines.
Everything else that comes after, shading & highlighting, that dramatically increase the way a model looks compared to completely flat colors looks to becomes much much easier with these paints.
I've been quoted twice now and I dunno if either of you know what I was saying or not. To clarify, guy 1 said these paints will still look messy in the hands of a messy painter (novice). Guy 2 said that it's irrelevant if these paints will still look messy when used by novices because all paint does when used by novices. Guy 3 (me) said that it probably is relevant if these are being marketed as an easy way for novices to get not-messy paints.
Mc Devil wrote: With transparent colours Im afraid that in novice hands will ends messy anyway. GW do great work with hype and selling stuff (nothing wrong with that). Lets wait and see when target folks start using them. Not fancy advertise pictures.
A lot of these pictures are when "target folks start using them". And your concern over novices is irrelevant - that applies to any painting method, after all.
Unless this is being marketed as an easy system for novices to get good results.
Look, painting within the lines is something everyone has to learn and no paint or technique is going to fix that.
Toddlers learn to colour within the lines, I'm sure a teenager/adult can learn to paint in the lines.
Everything else that comes after, shading & highlighting, that dramatically increase the way a model looks compared to completely flat colors looks to becomes much much easier with these paints.
I've been quoted twice now and I dunno if either of you know what I was saying or not. To clarify, guy 1 said these paints will still look messy in the hands of a messy painter (novice). Guy 2 said that it's irrelevant if these paints will still look messy when used by novices because all paint does when used by novices. Guy 3 (me) said that it probably is relevant if these are being marketed as an easy way for novices to get not-messy paints.
A certain minimal level of ability will always be required when painting.
This paint looks to give better results with less skill, which is good for novice painters.
I really don't think these paints are merely for novices. I'd say that I'm pretty experienced painter, and I do a lot of my painting via thin translucent layers of paints, washes and glazes over white(ish) undercoat. It seems that these let me do what I already do, except faster and possibly better. For good results you obviously need to use other techniques as well, but these will still help on many steps of my painting.
I can't think of a time in the last thirty years where it's been easier to get paint on to your models with minimal effort and achieve amazing results with out having a degree in fine art.
GW never get the credit they deserve, any painting tool that helps anyone put painted models on the table should be appreciated in my opinion even if it doesn't work for you.
I wish I had hours to lavish on an army but I don't ,but if can crack out a squad in a few hours and it still looks table worthy then what ever GW are charging for these paints will be worth it.
Obispudkenobi wrote: I can't think of a time in the last thirty years where it's been easier to get paint on to your models with minimal effort and achieve amazing results with out having a degree in fine art.
GW never get the credit they deserve, any painting tool that helps anyone put painted models on the table should be appreciated in my opinion even if it doesn't work for you.
I wish I had hours to lavish on an army but I don't ,but if can crack out a squad in a few hours and it still looks table worthy then what ever GW are charging for these paints will be worth it.
I do have a degree in fine art and I'm still super exited about these paints!
JWBS wrote: Guy 3 (me) said that it probably is relevant if these are being marketed as an easy way for novices to get not-messy paints.
But that's not what's being presented; you've invented that yourself. All the marketing material is about speed and reducing steps in the process.
Well that's fine then. I genuinely didn't know whether this was the case (I have't read even 5% of this thread, I know that these paints are not for me, I'm a black undercoater so these are almost pointless in most cases) so I wasn't inventing the claim, just positing that if this indeed was the case, then it would be relevant (point still stands).
JWBS wrote: Guy 3 (me) said that it probably is relevant if these are being marketed as an easy way for novices to get not-messy paints.
But that's not what's being presented; you've invented that yourself. All the marketing material is about speed and reducing steps in the process.
Well that's fine then. I genuinely didn't know whether this was the case (I have't read even 5% of this thread, I know that these paints are not for me, I'm a black undercoater so these are almost pointless in most cases) so I wasn't inventing the claim, just positing that if this indeed was the case, then it would be relevant (point still stands).
Choice of undercoat is supposed to be dictated by the paint you want to put on top of it. Not the other way around.
JWBS wrote: Guy 3 (me) said that it probably is relevant if these are being marketed as an easy way for novices to get not-messy paints.
But that's not what's being presented; you've invented that yourself. All the marketing material is about speed and reducing steps in the process.
Well that's fine then. I genuinely didn't know whether this was the case (I have't read even 5% of this thread, I know that these paints are not for me, I'm a black undercoater so these are almost pointless in most cases) so I wasn't inventing the claim, just positing that if this indeed was the case, then it would be relevant (point still stands).
Choice of undercoat is supposed to be dictated by the paint you want to put on top of it. Not the other way around.
We all have our ways. When I used to paint I generally undercoated in black http://www.coolminiornot.com/87280?browseid=7533503 sometimes grey http://www.coolminiornot.com/174858 , rarely white. Main reason was because I often found deep shadows to be unsatisfactory whenever I did white. I generally only used white when I was painting yellow / cream, etc etc etc on top. Anyway that's by the by, I disagree that undercoat is "supposed" to be dictated by top coat.
At the end of the day, painting is always a compromise between how much time you want to invest in a given mini, and how good you want it to look.
This seem to provide a new option at one end of the spectrum for people who don't know/want/care for creating their own pigment-rich washes.
I'm still not sure it has much use for people who want to paint more details. The minis painted with contrast, then highlighted normally don't looks a good as base + shade + highlight in my opinion. The shadow provided by the contrast paint doesn't look quite right to me.
But I suppose there are some colors/textures combinations for which it can be a faster and maybe better way to obtain results similar to what you get using standard techniques (small pieces of fabric come to mind).
I'm still not sure it has much use for people who want to paint more details. The minis painted with contrast, then highlighted normally don't looks a good as base + shade + highlight in my opinion. The shadow provided by the contrast paint doesn't look quite right to me..
Slopping it on and hoping for the best isn't the only way to paint with inks. The other approach is to use multiple really thin layers to gradually build up colour, which is a technique used by a lot of high end painters to get smooth shading and gradients from one colour to another. The colour range available in these opens up all sorts of possibilities there.
JWBS wrote: Guy 3 (me) said that it probably is relevant if these are being marketed as an easy way for novices to get not-messy paints.
But that's not what's being presented; you've invented that yourself. All the marketing material is about speed and reducing steps in the process.
Well that's fine then. I genuinely didn't know whether this was the case (I have't read even 5% of this thread, I know that these paints are not for me, I'm a black undercoater so these are almost pointless in most cases) so I wasn't inventing the claim, just positing that if this indeed was the case, then it would be relevant (point still stands).
Choice of undercoat is supposed to be dictated by the paint you want to put on top of it. Not the other way around.
We all have our ways. When I used to paint I generally undercoated in black http://www.coolminiornot.com/87280?browseid=7533503 sometimes grey http://www.coolminiornot.com/174858 , rarely white. Main reason was because I often found deep shadows to be unsatisfactory whenever I did white. I generally only used white when I was painting yellow / cream, etc etc etc on top. Anyway that's by the by, I disagree that undercoat is "supposed" to be dictated by top coat.
Soooooo you adapted your base coat to get the top coat effect you wanted. Looks like you adapted, why are you reluctant to adapt again if this might speed up the process or even give a better outcome?
In the end these paints are to help people get their armies done, not necessarily for them to win competitions. If painting for competition purposes is what your after then I can understand why you’d be willing to spend hours on a single model. I just want a squad/ army/ gang at a tabletop quality to play the game.
This product line is meant for a particular segment of the customer base. Some people are acting like they're going to be forced to use it. That obviously isn't the case, unless GW starts discontinuing its paints, but what's important is that is gives people an opportunity to get models painted and on the table top that much more quickly... fewer unpainted models on the tabletop is only a good thing.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Y'all who laugh about the noob friendly method for beginners only and not worthy of a seasoned veteran, have you ever had to paint 200+ gaunts or boyz? This thing is a godsent.
How many models from your 200 will one bottle last though, and what would the price be?
If you want to paint X number of bodies, you might as well invest into airbrush and/or acrylic soft body craft paint, buy a giant tube of paint, 3 liters of acrylic medium, dishwash soap and make yourself a cistern of paint/wash/whatever for your gigantic mass of models. And if you don't want to do it yourself - you can always probably find someone with airbrush who would do it for you.
Painting hundreds of models with a brush and using GW white primer, oh, sorry, special Citadel Contrast Spray Primer TM and washes I mean Citadel Contrast Paints TM would probably be the most expensive and time consuming way of doing it.
JWBS wrote: Guy 3 (me) said that it probably is relevant if these are being marketed as an easy way for novices to get not-messy paints.
But that's not what's being presented; you've invented that yourself. All the marketing material is about speed and reducing steps in the process.
Well that's fine then. I genuinely didn't know whether this was the case (I have't read even 5% of this thread, I know that these paints are not for me, I'm a black undercoater so these are almost pointless in most cases) so I wasn't inventing the claim, just positing that if this indeed was the case, then it would be relevant (point still stands).
Choice of undercoat is supposed to be dictated by the paint you want to put on top of it. Not the other way around.
We all have our ways. When I used to paint I generally undercoated in black http://www.coolminiornot.com/87280?browseid=7533503 sometimes grey http://www.coolminiornot.com/174858 , rarely white. Main reason was because I often found deep shadows to be unsatisfactory whenever I did white. I generally only used white when I was painting yellow / cream, etc etc etc on top. Anyway that's by the by, I disagree that undercoat is "supposed" to be dictated by top coat.
Soooooo you adapted your base coat to get the top coat effect you wanted. Looks like you adapted, why are you reluctant to adapt again if this might speed up the process or even give a better outcome?
In the end these paints are to help people get their armies done, not necessarily for them to win competitions. If painting for competition purposes is what your after then I can understand why you’d be willing to spend hours on a single model. I just want a squad/ army/ gang at a tabletop quality to play the game.
I'd say the main reason that I'm reluctant to adapt is because I'm well past my adaption phase. In fact some might say I'm old as balls (I've been alive for over three decades!). My days of experimenting, in fact my days of painting full stop, were mainly in my second decade. I tried quite a few different things (including white undercoats) and eventually found what I liked best.
(in all seriousness I am generally averse to trying new stuff when it comes to painting because I tried and failed at a lot of stuff and it lead to a lot of time wasted, half painted minis, and bad paint jobs. I've found what works for me and I'm content with it).
topaxygouroun i wrote: Y'all who laugh about the noob friendly method for beginners only and not worthy of a seasoned veteran, have you ever had to paint 200+ gaunts or boyz? This thing is a godsent.
How many models from your 200 will one bottle last though, and what would the price be?
If you want to paint X number of bodies, you might as well invest into airbrush and/or acrylic soft body craft paint, buy a giant tube of paint, 3 liters of acrylic medium, dishwash soap and make yourself a cistern of paint/wash/whatever for your gigantic mass of models.
Painting hundreds of models with a brush and using GW white primer, oh, sorry, special Citadel Contrast Spray Primer TM and washes I mean Citadel Contrast Paints TM would probably be the most expensive and time consuming way of doing it.
Seriously have you read the thread or looked at the actual product advertisement and descriptions as well as on hand reviews?
You can use ANY primer, the new GW primer is just smoother for a better finish, but any will work.
You don’t need to slather this stuff on, just brush regular, the one thick coat is a nod to the “Two thin coat line” and is there way of saying it will take less time to paint.
Airbrushes aren’t free, decent ones cost money and I e never been able to get good results (although I’ve never spent much time using it).
The speed and. The videos of a plaguebearer being painted to a great tabletop (in my opinion) level would mean horde armies CAN be knocked out fairly quickly. I started GW models over 25years ago now with Skaven, then undead, then orcs and goblins before switching to 40k, this is before death star blocks but still 30 clanrats pushing a bell was bad.
JWBS wrote: Guy 3 (me) said that it probably is relevant if these are being marketed as an easy way for novices to get not-messy paints.
But that's not what's being presented; you've invented that yourself. All the marketing material is about speed and reducing steps in the process.
Well that's fine then. I genuinely didn't know whether this was the case (I have't read even 5% of this thread, I know that these paints are not for me, I'm a black undercoater so these are almost pointless in most cases) so I wasn't inventing the claim, just positing that if this indeed was the case, then it would be relevant (point still stands).
Choice of undercoat is supposed to be dictated by the paint you want to put on top of it. Not the other way around.
We all have our ways. When I used to paint I generally undercoated in black http://www.coolminiornot.com/87280?browseid=7533503 sometimes grey http://www.coolminiornot.com/174858 , rarely white. Main reason was because I often found deep shadows to be unsatisfactory whenever I did white. I generally only used white when I was painting yellow / cream, etc etc etc on top. Anyway that's by the by, I disagree that undercoat is "supposed" to be dictated by top coat.
Soooooo you adapted your base coat to get the top coat effect you wanted. Looks like you adapted, why are you reluctant to adapt again if this might speed up the process or even give a better outcome?
In the end these paints are to help people get their armies done, not necessarily for them to win competitions. If painting for competition purposes is what your after then I can understand why you’d be willing to spend hours on a single model. I just want a squad/ army/ gang at a tabletop quality to play the game.
I'd say the main reason that I'm reluctant to adapt is because I'm well past my adaption phase. In fact some might say I'm old as balls (I've been alive for over three decades!). My days of experimenting, in fact my days of painting full stop, were mainly in my second decade. I tried quite a few different things (including white undercoats) and eventually found what I liked best.
(in all seriousness I am generally averse to trying new stuff when it comes to painting because I tried and failed at a lot of stuff and it lead to a lot of time wasted, half painted minis, and bad paint jobs. I've found what works for me and I'm content with it).
Must be hard to find those old paints from back then if your unwilling to adapt. KIDDING
aka_mythos wrote: This product line is meant for a particular segment of the customer base. Some people are acting like they're going to be forced to use it. That obviously isn't the case, unless GW starts discontinuing its paints, but what's important is that is gives people an opportunity to get models painted and on the table top that much more quickly... fewer unpainted models on the tabletop is only a good thing.
Yeah, agreed.
All I see with Contrast is gooey glazes, this isn't going to change how I paint one iota. I'll continue making my own with Matte Medium and inks, there's nothing about this product that you can't already do.
But if Contrast leads to more people painting their armies, that's a good thing.
There are a lot of people who lack the skill / confidence to paint their models. This is just a lower buy in for them, it's going to save them time and spare them the anxiety of learning something they don't really care about.
The indirect benefit to serious painters is that mild sense of irritation you choke back when you see an unpainted army will diminish. Over time, there will be fewer of them.
Theophony wrote: The speed and. The videos of a plaguebearer being painted to a great tabletop (in my opinion) level
It is not a great tabletop level. And people have been using washes over light primer for ages to quickly paint for tournaments and stuff.
I e never been able to get good results (although I’ve never spent much time using it).
Makes sense.
I would say for all the money spent on Citadel products over years, one could definitely afford themselves an airbrush. If you had to paint hundreds of models, you would probably already found out all the better ways of doing that. Which is why I pointed out that this new product is not really "a godsend" for people who need to paint lots of models.
Shadenuat wrote: I would say for all the money spent on Citadel products over years, one could definitely afford themselves an airbrush. If you had to paint hundreds of models, you would probably already found out all the better ways of doing that. Which is why I pointed out that this new product is not really "a godsend" for people who need to paint lots of models.
Airbrushes are not an option for some people for simple space reasons.
Although it is being marketed to target GW customers, it is a scam. ^_^ The real target market is miniature board gamers, so now you can fairly quickly batch out all the CMoN miniatures. ;-) Although joking but that is what I'll be using it first on, at least at first, to get rid of all my board game grays. ^_^
The Phazer wrote: Airbrushes are not an option for some people for simple space reasons.
If you can find space for multiple armies of hundreds of models, you can find space for anything else.
Remember, the point I was answering was about painting horde armies and many models.
Dark Severance wrote: Although it is being marketed to target GW customers, it is a scam. ^_^ The real target market is miniature board gamers, so now you can fairly quickly batch out all the CMoN miniatures. ;-) Although joking but that is what I'll be using it first on, at least at first, to get rid of all my board game grays. ^_^
I think it's most effective for completely new people who just want to paint 30 marines, 2 tanks and play their 1000 points, or have a few small (1000 points) armies and don't plan on increasing their armies, as they just want a small set of miniatures painted and ready for casual play. If you don't plan on expanding your army, then there is no reason to buy large paint sets, because they would just waste space. So even though you overpay for Citadel products, since you only need a minimum, it's not a big deal.
aka_mythos wrote: This product line is meant for a particular segment of the customer base. Some people are acting like they're going to be forced to use it. That obviously isn't the case, unless GW starts discontinuing its paints, but what's important is that is gives people an opportunity to get models painted and on the table top that much more quickly... fewer unpainted models on the tabletop is only a good thing.
Well for some folks here GW peed in their cheerios this morning.. and every day.
Shadenuat wrote: I would say for all the money spent on Citadel products over years, one could definitely afford themselves an airbrush. If you had to paint hundreds of models, you would probably already found out all the better ways of doing that. Which is why I pointed out that this new product is not really "a godsend" for people who need to paint lots of models.
Airbrushes are not an option for some people for simple space reasons.
Or for noise reasons, I'm not sure my neighbours would appreciate hearing a compressor running at 2am("But but but" I can already here someone rushing to post - there are quiet ones, yes, and ones with big tanks, and they're both a lot more expensive than the basic cheapie import jobs that most people will buy and which airbrush advocates can use to say "it's cheaper than buying citadel"). Or for simple preference reasons. Something airbrush evangelists tend to forget is that's it's actually perfectly OK to simply prefer painting with a normal brush.
aka_mythos wrote: This product line is meant for a particular segment of the customer base. Some people are acting like they're going to be forced to use it. That obviously isn't the case, unless GW starts discontinuing its paints, but what's important is that is gives people an opportunity to get models painted and on the table top that much more quickly... fewer unpainted models on the tabletop is only a good thing.
Well for some folks here GW peed in their cheerios this morning.. and every day.
Pretty much. I mean, when both HBMC and me are excited by a GW product, that should probably be a warning to even the most dedicated GW Disliker that they're probably being unreasonable, but hey ho.
I get why people might not need or want a product like this, but I don't get the need to convince other people not to want it. Other people using it isn't going to hurt you.
Albino Squirrel wrote: I get why people might not need or want a product like this, but I don't get the need to convince other people not to want it. Other people using it isn't going to hurt you.
It will hurt he people that paint armies for a fee. Even basic paint jobs for people so they can play in tournaments which require three color minimums.
JWBS wrote: Guy 3 (me) said that it probably is relevant if these are being marketed as an easy way for novices to get not-messy paints.
But that's not what's being presented; you've invented that yourself. All the marketing material is about speed and reducing steps in the process.
Well that's fine then. I genuinely didn't know whether this was the case (I have't read even 5% of this thread, I know that these paints are not for me, I'm a black undercoater so these are almost pointless in most cases) so I wasn't inventing the claim, just positing that if this indeed was the case, then it would be relevant (point still stands).
Choice of undercoat is supposed to be dictated by the paint you want to put on top of it. Not the other way around.
We all have our ways. When I used to paint I generally undercoated in black http://www.coolminiornot.com/87280?browseid=7533503 sometimes grey http://www.coolminiornot.com/174858 , rarely white. Main reason was because I often found deep shadows to be unsatisfactory whenever I did white. I generally only used white when I was painting yellow / cream, etc etc etc on top. Anyway that's by the by, I disagree that undercoat is "supposed" to be dictated by top coat.
Obviously you do think undercoat is supposed to be dictated by topcoat, since you yourself let your choice of topcoat (yellow/cream) dictate your choice of undercoat (white). In any case, if you already have your painting style and contrast paints don't help you with it, that's fine. But it's not because you couldn't possibly figure out how to use a white undercoat.
Dark Severance wrote: Although it is being marketed to target GW customers, it is a scam. ^_^ The real target market is miniature board gamers, so now you can fairly quickly batch out all the CMoN miniatures. ;-) Although joking but that is what I'll be using it first on, at least at first, to get rid of all my board game grays. ^_^
That's my intended use as well. My 40K armies are mostly complete at this point, so I'm not going to switch techniques midway through.
I have a few hundred minis from the Conan Kickstarter, dozens from the Dungeon Saga one, 50 or so from Descent and its various expansions, a couple dozen more from Mansions of Madness. All would benefit from being brought from grey plastic to a rough tabletop standard in a quick manner.
Even something like Twilight Imperium might look better for the hour or so investment of "spray a fleet, slap a coat of the appropriate Contrast colour on top, wait 20 minutes, slap a coat on the bottom, wait 20 minutes, spray some varnish".
topaxygouroun i wrote: Y'all who laugh about the noob friendly method for beginners only and not worthy of a seasoned veteran, have you ever had to paint 200+ gaunts or boyz? This thing is a godsent.
How many models from your 200 will one bottle last though, and what would the price be?
If you want to paint X number of bodies, you might as well invest into airbrush and/or acrylic soft body craft paint, buy a giant tube of paint, 3 liters of acrylic medium, dishwash soap and make yourself a cistern of paint/wash/whatever for your gigantic mass of models. And if you don't want to do it yourself - you can always probably find someone with airbrush who would do it for you.
Painting hundreds of models with a brush and using GW white primer, oh, sorry, special Citadel Contrast Spray Primer TM and washes I mean Citadel Contrast Paints TM would probably be the most expensive and time consuming way of doing it.
Painting clothes(maybe 2 different colour, skin, weapons all with airbrush is hell of a tough to get cleanly. Especially fast(no masking etc)
We all have our ways. When I used to paint I generally undercoated in black http://www.coolminiornot.com/87280?browseid=7533503 sometimes grey http://www.coolminiornot.com/174858 , rarely white. Main reason was because I often found deep shadows to be unsatisfactory whenever I did white. I generally only used white when I was painting yellow / cream, etc etc etc on top. Anyway that's by the by, I disagree that undercoat is "supposed" to be dictated by top coat.
Obviously you do think undercoat is supposed to be dictated by topcoat, since you yourself let your choice of topcoat (yellow/cream) dictate your choice of undercoat (white). In any case, if you already have your painting style and contrast paints don't help you with it, that's fine. But it's not because you couldn't possibly figure out how to use a white undercoat.
Yeah mate. It was cos I preferred the overall look of a black undercoat. Well versed in white undercoat, prefer black, for reasons stated.
Pretty much. I mean, when both HBMC and me are excited by a GW product, that should probably be a warning to even the most dedicated GW Disliker that they're probably being unreasonable, but hey ho.
This alone is what sold me
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the comment earlier about if you’re painting X number of models this would cost more because of the number of pots needed.
I can’t see there will be a cost difference here.
For every pot of this used. Let say you only use half a base colour. So you have to buy two contrast pots.
But by the contrast descriptor, you know don’t need to buy a shade or layer in question for that colour.
So that’s already two contrast to three of the other.
I think for some projects they might work. I shall give them a try on my GSC Kill Team, not painted yet, so no worries about trying to match anything anyway (as that may be an issue for me. I know they say they are trying to match colours. But for marines, similar doesn’t cut it. Power armour has to be exact.
If this is good as a method for me. It would be a slow transition, as I’ve got lots of black spray, and base/layer/shades that I’d want to not have wasted.
But on the whole. Excited by the prospects, even if it’s just for when I teach my son to paint with them..
Danny76 wrote: For every pot of this used. Let say you only use half a base colour. So you have to buy two contrast pots.
But by the contrast descriptor, you know don’t need to buy a shade or layer in question for that colour.
Only if you follow Citadel paint guides. Acrylic Medium, Black and White/some other colors (depends on the color) can be your "Shades" and "Layers".
How many models from your 200 will one bottle last though, and what would the price be?
{snip}
Painting hundreds of models with a brush and using GW white primer, oh, sorry, special Citadel Contrast Spray Primer TM and washes I mean Citadel Contrast Paints TM would probably be the most expensive and time consuming way of doing it.
Back when the Devlan Mud/Badaab Black series of washes was first being previewed, GW's promotion was to prime a bunch of eldar weapon sprues white and slather each weapon with a different color using a tank brush. I saw the bone effect achieved with Gryphonne Sepia and was immediately glad I never primed my Deathwing black. I used pretty much the entire promo pot of Sepia painting these 25 terminators with the "1 heavy coat" technique GW is advocating for the Contrast paints, did the main bone color on all 25 in a few hours and did all the accent colors/detailing the following day, it took me longer to do the Land Raider and 3 Dreadnoughts than it did the infantry. So a 12ML paint pot did 25 complete large infantry head-to-toe in a single color heavy coat. I'd assume a double-sized pot would do twice as many models, so you could reasonably expect a single pot of Contrast to do at least 50 or so infantry. If you needed multiple colors becuase they have pants or shirts or flak armor etc then each pot will go that much further. If they retail for $9 a pot and you get 50 figures painted in a couple afternoons worth of work, I'd say that's money well spent.
The people saying these aren't revolutionary and that the old washes did the same thing are only partially correct. While the old washes (and current AP washes) did do the exact same thing, they only did it for a few very specific pastel effects. The Gryphonne Sepia/AP Light Tone over white is still my favorite way to do bone, so I'm looking forward to trying these out and maybe adding a few here and there where it's appropriate. I've never liked the blue-over-white or the green-over-white washed out pastel colors that most of the wash effects gave you, so having these much darker browns and blues and true reds and such have me tentatively excited.
Most of my stuff nowadays is aribrushed and then washed with oil paints or enamel washes, but there's some armies like my Tohaa that don't have a single major color that can be airbrushed. I'm looking forward to trying these Contrast paints on the 60 Tohaa I have primed pale green
Danny76 wrote: For every pot of this used. Let say you only use half a base colour. So you have to buy two contrast pots.
But by the contrast descriptor, you know don’t need to buy a shade or layer in question for that colour.
Only if you follow Citadel paint guides. Acrylic Medium, Black and White/some other colors (depends on the color) can be your "Shades" and "Layers".
If you know how to do that. If you have the time to do that once you do know. If you can be bothered doing it even if you do have the knowledge and the time.
I will happily pay GW a bit extra over a bottle of something else if it means I don't have to fanny about with mixes and five different types of medium and artist inks each time I start a new project. These do all the hard work for you and you can mix them together like normal paints, so with the selection of colours they have available I should be able to pretty easily make any colour with any level of saturation I like.
Kalamadea wrote: I saw the bone effect achieved with Gryphonne Sepia and was immediately glad I never primed my Deathwing black
Picture is pretty small.
But yeah, bone is something you can do with white primer and a Wash. I personally find layering bone color over brown and highlighting it much cleaner and attractive.
As for all the ML counting (I don't think 25 models is that much), IDK, medium + paint is still less expensive than Washes I think, since paint is paint and you can use it however you want, and Medium is cheap and having it allows you to get infinite amount of glazes by mixing it with any paints you want.
Yodhrin wrote: If you know how to do that. If you have the time to do that once you do know. If you can be bothered doing it even if you do have the knowledge and the time.
I know people are afraid of mixing paint, but it's pretty much the basics of why painting is fun and its best quality.
I am not sure why would you need 5 types of medium, provided you stick to one brand of paint. But whatever, this is closer to talking about how far are people ready to go with painting than discussing if actual Contrast is worth it or not.
I am not sure why would you need 5 types of medium, provided you stick to one brand of paint. But whatever, this is closer to talking about how far are people ready to go with painting than discussing if actual Contrast is worth it or not.
Realising that I could buy empty pots on ebay was a nice discovery for me. For anyone that's at the stage of writing down ratios or having to remember what amount of each colour to mix for every painting session yeah it can be a huge headache, but once you start mixing full pots together the reward far outweighs the effort required (can't say I've ever added pure black or white to a colour though. Maybe a touch of black to a dark blue wash, but even for extreme hilights I much prefer adding something like very light grey as opposed to pure white).
JWBS wrote: can't say I've ever added pure black or white to a colour though. Maybe a touch of black to a dark blue wash, but even for extreme hilights I much prefer adding something like very light grey as opposed to pure white).
Depends on color you're working with. White to red is whatever, but white to blue can work. I even saw very well painted miniatures with edges highlighted by layering actual white paint.
As for pots, I think you can buy them also at craft stores, I've seen some.
Danny76 wrote: For every pot of this used. Let say you only use half a base colour. So you have to buy two contrast pots.
But by the contrast descriptor, you know don’t need to buy a shade or layer in question for that colour.
Only if you follow Citadel paint guides. Acrylic Medium, Black and White/some other colors (depends on the color) can be your "Shades" and "Layers".
If you know how to do that. If you have the time to do that once you do know. If you can be bothered doing it even if you do have the knowledge and the time.
I will happily pay GW a bit extra over a bottle of something else if it means I don't have to fanny about with mixes and five different types of medium and artist inks each time I start a new project. These do all the hard work for you and you can mix them together like normal paints, so with the selection of colours they have available I should be able to pretty easily make any colour with any level of saturation I like.
That’s also arguably more purchases.
So take out ‘shade’ and ‘layer’ for other pots of something. That’s still a purchase of more pots.
Vs the Contrast number.
I think people that want to just need to try them.
Those that like them, switch over to them, or start out with them if new.
Much like at various points people made the switch to whatever brand they now back over GW ones.
I like the method I do. Will try this. It may get added to my repertoire, won’t replace everything, but a welcome extra perhaps.
Yodhrin wrote: Or for noise reasons, I'm not sure my neighbours would appreciate hearing a compressor running at 2am("But but but" I can already here someone rushing to post - there are quiet ones, yes, and ones with big tanks, and they're both a lot more expensive than the basic cheapie import jobs that most people will buy and which airbrush advocates can use to say "it's cheaper than buying citadel"). Or for simple preference reasons. Something airbrush evangelists tend to forget is that's it's actually perfectly OK to simply prefer painting with a normal brush.
I don't mean to evangelize, but I often see hobbyists be oddly anti-airbrush for spurious reasons. Space? My cheapo Harbor Freight airbrush and compressor fit in a shoebox with room to spare. Noise? It's quieter than my microwave; I have no idea where people get the idea that airbrush compressors are loud. Ventilation? Cheap spray booth, doubles as a paint station for normal brushwork. All of it together cost the equivalent of about a hundred quid, which has paid for itself by eliminating the need for spray primer or varnish.
Personal preference is one thing, but for certain tasks (like mass undercoats, or zenithal highlighting) it really is the best tool for the job.
I don't mean to evangelize, but I often see hobbyists be oddly anti-airbrush for spurious reasons. Space? My cheapo Harbor Freight airbrush and compressor fit in a shoebox with room to spare. Noise? It's quieter than my microwave; I have no idea where people get the idea that airbrush compressors are loud. Ventilation? Cheap spray booth, doubles as a paint station for normal brushwork. All of it together cost the equivalent of about a hundred quid, which has paid for itself by eliminating the need for spray primer or varnish.
Related story - the first time I brought home a f2.8 70-200mm lens the front of the lens was MASSIVE. It was insanely huge and I was scared as anything taking it out hte first few times. It was huge, impossible to control, I was likely to smash it into a million things.
Today I consider it quite a modest lens, big but not huge. In fact I'm really used to the size and if I go a while without using it sometimes I'm amazed how much "smaller" it appears when I get it out of the bag.
Perceptions on what we are not used to are different from what we are used too even if the item itself has not changed one bit. A new air compressor is going to be loud; an airbrush require huge amounts of space etc... in those early days when a person is unsure of the new setup.
Yodhrin wrote: Or for noise reasons, I'm not sure my neighbours would appreciate hearing a compressor running at 2am("But but but" I can already here someone rushing to post - there are quiet ones, yes, and ones with big tanks, and they're both a lot more expensive than the basic cheapie import jobs that most people will buy and which airbrush advocates can use to say "it's cheaper than buying citadel"). Or for simple preference reasons. Something airbrush evangelists tend to forget is that's it's actually perfectly OK to simply prefer painting with a normal brush.
I don't mean to evangelize, but I often see hobbyists be oddly anti-airbrush for spurious reasons. Space? My cheapo Harbor Freight airbrush and compressor fit in a shoebox with room to spare. Noise? It's quieter than my microwave; I have no idea where people get the idea that airbrush compressors are loud. Ventilation? Cheap spray booth, doubles as a paint station for normal brushwork. All of it together cost the equivalent of about a hundred quid, which has paid for itself by eliminating the need for spray primer or varnish.
Personal preference is one thing, but for certain tasks (like mass undercoats, or zenithal highlighting) it really is the best tool for the job.
Best tool for the job n your opinion. Spray cans work perfectly fine for those jobs in my experience, and the long-term additional expense is, like these new paints, a price a lot of folk are willing to pay for convenience - rattlecans don't need to be cleaned or otherwise cared for beyond a quick inverted blast to clear the nozzle when done, they don't require equipment to use at all, nor do they require any appreciable degree of skill to use, or need you to fanny about thinning and mixing stuff.
You're very much operating from a place of "these things are not problems for me, so they are not problems at all", a common attitude among airbrush evangelists.
It's not an opinion when most comission work and speed painting is done with a help of that exact tool.
Also, rattle cans, especially cheap ones, are all kinds of not fine in comparison, starting with what you breathe in and level of quality and control, and the fact that, well, they don't come in all the colors you want.
Theophony wrote: The speed and. The videos of a plaguebearer being painted to a great tabletop (in my opinion) level
It is not a great tabletop level.
No, it's a fantastic tabletop level.
A 'great' tabletop level is fully painted in basic colours. Any sort of shading and highlighting is an extra.
This is one of the downsides of the internet giving people such free and easy access to pictures of superbly painted mniatures - it skews our opinion of what a bog standard paintjob should be expected to look like. There is no shame in having an army that's just block painted in basic colours. The Contrast range lets you do that with shading and highlighting. The end result is no more messy than many of the 'traditional' paintjobs I've seen out there in the real world, and a darn sight better than many.
Yodhrin wrote: Or for noise reasons, I'm not sure my neighbours would appreciate hearing a compressor running at 2am("But but but" I can already here someone rushing to post - there are quiet ones, yes, and ones with big tanks, and they're both a lot more expensive than the basic cheapie import jobs that most people will buy and which airbrush advocates can use to say "it's cheaper than buying citadel"). Or for simple preference reasons. Something airbrush evangelists tend to forget is that's it's actually perfectly OK to simply prefer painting with a normal brush.
I don't mean to evangelize, but I often see hobbyists be oddly anti-airbrush for spurious reasons. Space? My cheapo Harbor Freight airbrush and compressor fit in a shoebox with room to spare. Noise? It's quieter than my microwave; I have no idea where people get the idea that airbrush compressors are loud. Ventilation? Cheap spray booth, doubles as a paint station for normal brushwork. All of it together cost the equivalent of about a hundred quid, which has paid for itself by eliminating the need for spray primer or varnish.
Personal preference is one thing, but for certain tasks (like mass undercoats, or zenithal highlighting) it really is the best tool for the job.
Best tool for the job n your opinion. Spray cans work perfectly fine for those jobs in my experience, and the long-term additional expense is, like these new paints, a price a lot of folk are willing to pay for convenience - rattlecans don't need to be cleaned or otherwise cared for beyond a quick inverted blast to clear the nozzle when done, they don't require equipment to use at all, nor do they require any appreciable degree of skill to use, or need you to fanny about thinning and mixing stuff.
You're very much operating from a place of "these things are not problems for me, so they are not problems at all", a common attitude among airbrush evangelists.
Rattlecans run out of paint really fast and are incredibly wasteful of paint.
Yodhrin wrote: Or for noise reasons, I'm not sure my neighbours would appreciate hearing a compressor running at 2am("But but but" I can already here someone rushing to post - there are quiet ones, yes, and ones with big tanks, and they're both a lot more expensive than the basic cheapie import jobs that most people will buy and which airbrush advocates can use to say "it's cheaper than buying citadel"). Or for simple preference reasons. Something airbrush evangelists tend to forget is that's it's actually perfectly OK to simply prefer painting with a normal brush.
I don't mean to evangelize, but I often see hobbyists be oddly anti-airbrush for spurious reasons. Space? My cheapo Harbor Freight airbrush and compressor fit in a shoebox with room to spare. Noise? It's quieter than my microwave; I have no idea where people get the idea that airbrush compressors are loud. Ventilation? Cheap spray booth, doubles as a paint station for normal brushwork. All of it together cost the equivalent of about a hundred quid, which has paid for itself by eliminating the need for spray primer or varnish.
Personal preference is one thing, but for certain tasks (like mass undercoats, or zenithal highlighting) it really is the best tool for the job.
I got an airbrush for mass under coats, and I much prefer a rattle can. Spent much more time cleaning the airbrush than anything else.
"Ugh, GW paint is going to be soooo expensive and you can ONLY use it with the proprietary spray paint, and how much do you even get? It'll only cover like the foot of a single model even if you use the whole pot!"
It's like there's a group of trolls in here trying to convince people not to buy this paint? What does anyone care if someone else buys a paint?
A. yes GW paint is expensive. It's expensive paint for expensive toy soldiers. If you don't want to pay the money, then don't buy it, nobody is holding a gun to your head.
B. You do NOT need their specific spray paint. The key is that you need a smooth coat of primer on the model, which is difficult for many white primers to do because they can come out chalky or gritty. Airbrush primer will be great for this because it can go on real smooth. Contrast also works over metallics, greys, and other colors, but the key part is to have a nice, smooth coat of primer.
C. You get slightly more than a regular pot of paint and slightly less than a shade. One pot of shade can easily cover the entire chassis, very liberally, of two Imperial Knight models, including their bases, and still have some leftover. The Contrast paints will likely be similar in coverage. You'll be able to get dozens of infantry done without worrying about running out of paint, and if you run out... buy more? See point A if you're about to open your mouth about the money.
But anyway, people that are adamant GW haters won't be convinced by this. I'll be called a GW fanboy or whatever and I don't care. I'm going to get these paints and I'm going to have a nice easy time catching up on my backlog.
A 'great' tabletop level is fully painted in basic colours. Any sort of shading and highlighting is an extra.
Not sure if serious.
Very serious.
You're not likely to win awards in a painting competition with wash-painted models... but 'tabletop level' isn't about winning awards, it's just about having coloured models on the table. So if your models are painted in appropriate colours in more or less appropriate places, it's 'tabletop level'.
There is a reason why minimal level for tournaments is three colors. Usually, it pretty much means painted in base colors. Anything less is closer to unpainted model, so does that mean that unpainted model is less than "great"? What is then good, average, mediocre or bad? Should we aspire to only having models covered in basic colors and think of ourselves as "great" at any level?
Danny76 wrote: For every pot of this used. Let say you only use half a base colour. So you have to buy two contrast pots.
But by the contrast descriptor, you know don’t need to buy a shade or layer in question for that colour.
Only if you follow Citadel paint guides. Acrylic Medium, Black and White/some other colors (depends on the color) can be your "Shades" and "Layers".
Which of course adds price for acrylic mediums etc and consistency will be lot harder to archieve. Especially after months or even years. I have stopped doing custom mixes precisely because trying to get shade just right after 3 years of not painting for that army can be royal PITA.
The people who want to do that are NOT main target group for the paint. Not everybody has interest nor skill to do the custom shade 100% matching shade over and over and over again. Even after long gaps.
Didn't main group had trouble when Citadel put some of their own stuff out of production though?
I think it goes both ways here. I never used any prepared washes, and so never had a panic attack if one of them went out of production or my local store stopped shipping them. If your whole army depends on one of those though, and they stop producing them, and you never mixed your own stuff, aren't you at worse position?
But I see your point, i.e. consistency is important.
A 'great' tabletop level is fully painted in basic colours. Any sort of shading and highlighting is an extra.
Not sure if serious.
Very serious.
You're not likely to win awards in a painting competition with wash-painted models... but 'tabletop level' isn't about winning awards, it's just about having coloured models on the table. So if your models are painted in appropriate colours in more or less appropriate places, it's 'tabletop level'.
I agree with this most out of anything in this post.
For table top standard, it’s great to have it like that..
Amazing, fantastic, unbelievable etc are all further levels of work on them.
It’s great to see a model with colour on every part. That’s that.
————
Shadenuat wrote: Noone called people who want to use these paints a fanboy or a troll.
But those which don't think these paints are worth it are:
- Black Knights
- Airbrush Evangelists
- Elitists
- Gatekeepers
- Trolls
...just from the some of the comments previously.
Although I agree Shadenuat, those things were said about people against this.
There were for sure posts going the other way too, saying GW fanboys will just buy whatever and such.
But it always goes both ways with such things.
I’d rather we just see people using these when they come, with great results, so people can see what could be achieved.
Then everyone can make a decision.
————
Also, left off the list of reasons not to airbrush (I think I saw, space, noise and price?).
-Set up/clean up. - it has been discussed before, and people just say, oh it doesn’t take long, and it’s easy to do etc.
But the point is, it still takes time. Where justa quick undercoat with a can, or a quick pot opened d some colours put on - that is just quicker.
And it suits some (me included), if I had a whole day aside, then who knows, but that’s not something that works for me.
(I also think of paint wastage, pouring into the airbrush, some will be wasted in the lip etc. Then pouring and back in the pot, the whole airbrush jar seems to have it still all up the sides, you don’t get that back. But a minor thing I know..)
-Skill. A funny one, as you won’t have it till you do it. But it is enough to put some people off. How much paint or models wasted to get to the point when you can do it.
Danny76 wrote: I also think of paint wastage, pouring into the airbrush, some will be wasted in the lip etc.
I don't think there is any other champion of paint wastage as the Citadel (TM) pot.
How much paint or models wasted to get to the point when you can do it.
You cannot become better without first being bad and making mistakes. Might as well never paint then.
There were for sure posts going the other way too, saying GW fanboys will just buy whatever and such.
I don't think people are "fanboys", they just got some results and are using tools which worked for them. It's normal. I'm not critical of just some random person. I am however critical of Citadel way of painting because I think it doesn't teach people important basics and to love painting. Their whole obsession is to make painting to end as soon as possible as like some sort of a chore between buying models and playing. While taking more money from people than what I consider reasonable and selling stuff which I just find kinda bizarre.
-Set up/clean up. - it has been discussed before, and people just say, oh it doesn’t take long, and it’s easy to do etc.
But the point is, it still takes time. Where justa quick undercoat with a can, or a quick pot opened d some colours put on - that is just quicker.
That may be true initially, as you learn how to use the tool, but now that I've been doing it for several years I can honestly say I can prime a dozen models in zenithal priming via airbrush in the same time it would take me to gather them up, take them outside, hit them with one coat of spray primer, wait long enough for them to try to bring them back in. Like all things, it's a matter of practice.
The anti-airbrush arguments are usually from those that haven't invested the time to learn to use the tool, in my experience. Now, sure, there are definitely some valid arguments (need space for a spray booth if you want to do it regularly, initial lay out expense), but the knee-jerk reactions are just as bad as the "fanboy" reactions from others.
After going to using an airbrush for even just priming and sealing, I won't ever go back to using cans. I don't ever have to care about weather, dropping models on the way back in, etc. Yes, I'm fortunate in that I have the space to have a spray booth set up, and realize that not everyone has that option.
"Ugh, GW paint is going to be soooo expensive and you can ONLY use it with the proprietary spray paint, and how much do you even get? It'll only cover like the foot of a single model even if you use the whole pot!"
It's like there's a group of trolls in here trying to convince people not to buy this paint? What does anyone care if someone else buys a paint?
You fancy pointing any of the group of people out? I'm probably being a bit paranoid but when I read that thing about the group I briefly suspected that I might be among them. I've been reading the last half dozen pages of this thread, and re-reading it again, as far as I can see there are three basic points of views. The first group seem to be saying "Wow this looks great, I'm excited to try this out!" (Fine by me!). The second group seems to be saying "Meh. Not for me, I can't see the value here" (Yay, that's my opinion too!). Then the third group, the group that I don't understand, the group that seems a bit strange to me, is saying stuff like "It's like there's a group of trolls in here trying to convince people not to buy this paint? What does anyone care if someone else buys a paint?". (A quote from you!). Like I say, I'm imagining that I'm in the second group, and I can only think that the people in this third group (the group I don't understand, the group that I'm grouping you into) are talking about the people in my group! They certainly aren't talking about the guys in the first group are they? Then again maybe I'm not following the conversation properly and there aren't any groups at all (That's probably most likely! I'm tired and your talk of a sinister "group" probably has me reading things into the situation that aren't there).
GoatboyBeta wrote: Anybody else mentally queuing up potential projects and uses for these paints? I'm up to four with just the blacks and greys already
I'm starting a 30k Emperor's Children army that will be done completely in the purple Contrast paint. No better way to paint 100 marines than to slap on a coat of Contrast.
yeah I'm all for them.
