Again, I'd suggest buying up the colours you find most useful while you can still easily get them. It's entirely doable to get hold of a lifetime's supply of what you need with a bit of time, money and effort.
Spoiler:
You know something I dont about GW ink stocks? Are those due to be discontinued colours? That is a lot of pots.
The Citadel shades have been reformulated so yes, everything in that larger pot size is being discontinued (huh, I guess Contrast/Lahmium medium will probably end up in Contrast size pots too) - and the Gloss shades are going away.
GW told us that all of the shades were being reformulated last year
Shade paints bring your miniatures to life by providing a dark tone in recessed areas to contrast with lighter colours on raised areas. The experts who make them know how vital Shades are, so they’ve reformulated the entire range to make it even better – Shades now flow even more smoothly into cracks and crevices, and colour the raised parts of your miniatures less, making them easier to use and more effective than ever before.
GW told us that all of the shades were being reformulated last year
Shade paints bring your miniatures to life by providing a dark tone in recessed areas to contrast with lighter colours on raised areas. The experts who make them know how vital Shades are, so they’ve reformulated the entire range to make it even better – Shades now flow even more smoothly into cracks and crevices, and colour the raised parts of your miniatures less, making them easier to use and more effective than ever before.
And from what I've read their reformulation made the colors much worse and thinned them extremely.
I would wait until some independent reviews are wild. It could be cool to see Tale of Painters made one to see if they have really improve the reactivation "feature", hehehehe
Again, I'd suggest buying up the colours you find most useful while you can still easily get them. It's entirely doable to get hold of a lifetime's supply of what you need with a bit of time, money and effort.
Spoiler:
You know something I dont about GW ink stocks? Are those due to be discontinued colours? That is a lot of pots.
Those are the previous formulations of GW's washes/shades (nuln oil/reikland fleshshade, etc and discontinued colours. I stocked up so I could continue using them the same way I have for the last X years and not have to change the way I paint certain thigns because "new formulation better". I also stocked up on a bunch of the recently discontinued colours as well. This happened during the relatively recent release of Contrasts Wave 2, where they also changed the formulation of the washes and the bottles from the larger ones to the Contrast-Sized ones.
At work on break right now so can't find the list - it'll be in one of these threads.
(search for "Juan Hildago New Citadel Shades" for a comparison image of "split" marines - he also has a YT video on them)
GW told us that all of the shades were being reformulated last year
Shade paints bring your miniatures to life by providing a dark tone in recessed areas to contrast with lighter colours on raised areas. The experts who make them know how vital Shades are, so they’ve reformulated the entire range to make it even better – Shades now flow even more smoothly into cracks and crevices, and colour the raised parts of your miniatures less, making them easier to use and more effective than ever before.
And from what I've read their reformulation made the colors much worse and thinned them extremely.
They are "better" if you are painting using the GW system. Or put another way, they're better at doing what they're designed to do: recess shade models.
They're worse at tinting models a specific colour, which is something lots of people also used them for. It does make a degree of sense though as Citadel now have Contrast for that job.
deano2099 wrote: They're worse at tinting models a specific colour, which is something lots of people also used them for. It does make a degree of sense though as Citadel now have Contrast for that job.
Well... some contrasts, at any rate, given how wildly inconsistent contrasts are on application.
They are "better" if you are painting using the GW system. Or put another way, they're better at doing what they're designed to do: recess shade models.
They're worse at tinting models a specific colour, which is something lots of people also used them for. It does make a degree of sense though as Citadel now have Contrast for that job.
Thanks for bringing up the old post.
Yeah, they've been redesigned for their most basic use, which to be fair is fine - especially for beginning painters. The new formulation also uses the same medium as Contrasts.
I picked up one set of the new ones, but I also wanted what's hopefully going to amount to a lifetime's supply (or close enough to it) of the old ones so I can still continue to use the same techniques for specific things. - And agreed with Albertorius that Contrasts are all over the bloody place with how opaque they are or aren't!
Also, so I still have a nice supply of stuff like Cryptek Armourshade Gloss and the other outright nuked paints and colours..
Well... some contrasts, at any rate, given how wildly inconsistent contrasts are on application.
Is there a strong contrast between different contrasts?
A handful just look like regular paint even with a single coat. A few are more like washes. The rest are true contrast paints. It honestly feels like 3 different types of paint being sold under 1 line because of the medium used.
Well... some contrasts, at any rate, given how wildly inconsistent contrasts are on application.
Is there a strong contrast between different contrasts?
A handful just look like regular paint even with a single coat. A few are more like washes. The rest are true contrast paints. It honestly feels like 3 different types of paint being sold under 1 line because of the medium used.
Yeah, and there's no real way to know what you're getting. They really should be labelled differently.
I'm also concerned about this whole "2 hours for them to become colourfast and not reactivate" thing. That wouldn't make them unusable, but just pointless for my own use case.
Stahly, Juan - could you comment on that in your reviews please?
Azazelx wrote: I'm also concerned about this whole "2 hours for them to become colourfast and not reactivate" thing. That wouldn't make them unusable, but just pointless for my own use case.
Stahly, Juan - could you comment on that in your reviews please?
2 hours for it to fully dry? Aren't these supposed to be speed paints?
Depends how you paint. If I'm painting the majority of a model in a single colour for a squad, I'm happy to do that then wander off and do something else for a couple hours before coming back to fill in details.
Azazelx wrote: I'm also concerned about this whole "2 hours for them to become colourfast and not reactivate" thing. That wouldn't make them unusable, but just pointless for my own use case.
Stahly, Juan - could you comment on that in your reviews please?
2 hours for it to fully dry? Aren't these supposed to be speed paints?
Azazelx wrote: I'm also concerned about this whole "2 hours for them to become colourfast and not reactivate" thing. That wouldn't make them unusable, but just pointless for my own use case.
Stahly, Juan - could you comment on that in your reviews please?
2 hours for it to fully dry? Aren't these supposed to be speed paints?
Yes, two hours:
Im lost for words here, not sure what to say when they errr say reactivation is a feature and that 2 hours is a good thing!
Its cringe the arguments used to clean the backlash of the first generation mistake.
I dont know how they would restart with a clean slate or what they could have said marketing wise in the video... sometimes better not say anything.
I wish them well I really do but man oh man gen 2 will need a lot of goodwill.
Well, there we are, then. People who aren't fussed and want to save a small amount per bottle (which I guess are the usual AP Warpaints customer base) and people who liked reactivation have something that they can purchase.
I'm not in those categories and this isn't going to suit my needs, so I'll just spend elsewhere. At least they're being upfront about the properties this time (after the previous backlash!), so people can make an informed decision.
NAVARRO wrote: Im lost for words here, not sure what to say when they errr say reactivation is a feature and that 2 hours is a good thing!
Its cringe the arguments used to clean the backlash of the first generation mistake.
I dont know how they would restart with a clean slate or what they could have said marketing wise in the video... sometimes better not say anything.
I wish them well I really do but man oh man gen 2 will need a lot of goodwill.
Yeah, I feel like they would have been much better off to have admitted from the start that the reactivation was unintentional and missed by their initial product testing, and then pivoted into offering ways to work with and around it, rather than the initial radio silence followed by the rather mixed messaging that they went with instead.
While I can't speak for everyone, I know for myself the whole thing left me feeling rather ripped off after going all-in for the set on launch, and with no interest in throwing more money at it, whereas a more honest approach from them at the start would have earned them some amount of leeway.
from a technical point, a 14 day drying time down to 2 hours is a big improvement, given the problem was present on certain colours anyway
will definitely try some of the red/yellow ones this time as I am really happy with the greens and the only problematic ones was the Sand/light Orange which really needed 14 days until I could paint over it to correct mistakes (though I worked around for other models by using it last)
Well, the Speedpaint 2.0 are dry to touch after 15, 20 minutes like other Contrast or one coat paints, but for them to fully cure (which means no reactivation) they are said to take 2 hours.
Some of the first gen Speedpaints never fully cured, you could always reactivate them even after weeks. So that's definitely an improvement.
Dawnbringer wrote: Depends how you paint. If I'm painting the majority of a model in a single colour for a squad, I'm happy to do that then wander off and do something else for a couple hours before coming back to fill in details.
Same here. SpeedPaints has allowed me to approach batch painting like a form of Zen mediation so the 2 hour window is perfect for me. I'm got more done in the last 6 months than the 3 years prior. I would feel bad for all the people that this isn't good enough for but some of it comes of as hobby elitism.
I am looking forward to these since the biggest issue I have with contrast paints is they dry too fast. I have maybe a minute or two work with them before they are too dry . I like to wet blend and it's very hard with contrast paints.
Dawnbringer wrote: Depends how you paint. If I'm painting the majority of a model in a single colour for a squad, I'm happy to do that then wander off and do something else for a couple hours before coming back to fill in details.
Same here. SpeedPaints has allowed me to approach batch painting like a form of Zen mediation so the 2 hour window is perfect for me. I'm got more done in the last 6 months than the 3 years prior. I would feel bad for all the people that this isn't good enough for but some of it comes of as hobby elitism.
That sounds well and good, and even fits what I'd like to consider my style of painting too. But sometimes, When the moon is right, the wife and kids all have their own things to do, I can sit for hours and try to knock out a huge amount of painting. In those times I don't want to be constrained by the product that's called a speed paint which hinders me getting a project done on my schedule. I don't have to wait 2 hours for my paints to not reactivate. I have not had that issue with Contrast paints, and when these are billed as just as good/better than GW, but have this huge disadvantage, then it's a bad product. It's called a speed paint, not a speed up and wait paint.
kodos wrote: from a technical point, a 14 day drying time down to 2 hours is a big improvement, given the problem was present on certain colours anyway
will definitely try some of the red/yellow ones this time as I am really happy with the greens and the only problematic ones was the Sand/light Orange which really needed 14 days until I could paint over it to correct mistakes (though I worked around for other models by using it last)
Sure, it's better than it was (that particular bar was pretty low!) but it's also not useful for speed painting units, nor working on individual models that you'd like to get finished in a reasonable timeframe...
doing bulk painting with 20-40 models at a time 2 hours downtime for non-reactivation is not an issue, even over night is not a problem, you just use the problematic colours last (waiting several days is a problem)
this is not different to any washes or inks, apply them last until you make a break or go to bed, you just need to know which colours need it
while being able to remove the paint with water after 10/15 minutes is a bonus to correct mistakes, also with regular acrylics not only inks/washes (this is not something intentional here but still)
Dawnbringer wrote: Depends how you paint. If I'm painting the majority of a model in a single colour for a squad, I'm happy to do that then wander off and do something else for a couple hours before coming back to fill in details.
Same here. SpeedPaints has allowed me to approach batch painting like a form of Zen mediation so the 2 hour window is perfect for me. I'm got more done in the last 6 months than the 3 years prior. I would feel bad for all the people that this isn't good enough for but some of it comes of as hobby elitism.
Elitism to not want paint that slows your painting?-)
kodos wrote: depends on what you mean by speed painting
doing bulk painting with 20-40 models at a time 2 hours downtime for non-reactivation is not an issue, even over night is not a problem, you just use the problematic colours last (waiting several days is a problem)
this is not different to any washes or inks, apply them last until you make a break or go to bed, you just need to know which colours need it
while being able to remove the paint with water after 10/15 minutes is a bonus to correct mistakes, also with regular acrylics not only inks/washes (this is not something intentional here but still)
I have been batch painting units for ASOIAF, so generally 12 or 24 models at a time. I’m using the slap chop method, so I can knock out a full unit in under 2 hours if the three layer basecoat is done. Same sort of effect doing Blood Bowl teams as we have begun a league, so up to 16 models there using the same method. I am not an artist, but decent enough tabletop painter.
A two hour wait between colors would have killed my projects.
Theophony wrote: A two hour wait between colors would have killed my projects.
well, you would not paint that way with an ink/wash technique in the first place
just from this pic,looks like you are doing multi-layer on black base with classic acrylics, were as the method for speed paints (or ink/wash/contrast/whatever) is one colour and one layer per area on white base
just to be clear, the reactivation is an issue if you want to paint over an existing layer (for whatever reason) or work on areas were the colours would flow into each other, hence people who wanted to use Speedpaints as cheap alternative instead of Contrast for blending techniques had a big problem
so for example the banner background would be a single layer blue, same as the coats, and the first model would be dry by the time you are thru with all the of them to paint the weapons brown etc.
Theophony wrote: A two hour wait between colors would have killed my projects.
well, you would not paint that way with an ink/wash technique in the first place
Snip, were as the method for speed paints (or ink/wash/contrast/whatever) is one colour and one layer per area on white base
.
Mate with all due respect your making some damn big generalisations on diferent techniques... so cut the "this is how you should do it speech"
Inks, washes and contrasts are errr different things and applied differently and not all on white base
Speed paints take more time to dry than any other popular* counterparts or even general acrylics - its has simple as that so yeah lets not dwell too much into it.
Theophony wrote: A two hour wait between colors would have killed my projects.
well, you would not paint that way with an ink/wash technique in the first place
just from this pic,looks like you are doing multi-layer on black base with classic acrylics, were as the method for speed paints (or ink/wash/contrast/whatever) is one colour and one layer per area on white base
just to be clear, the reactivation is an issue if you want to paint over an existing layer (for whatever reason) or work on areas were the colours would flow into each other, hence people who wanted to use Speedpaints as cheap alternative instead of Contrast for blending techniques had a big problem
so for example the banner background would be a single layer blue, same as the coats, and the first model would be dry by the time you are thru with all the of them to paint the weapons brown etc.
I detailed how I did these models in my blog. Sprayed Black primer, Zenithal Grey primer, Drybrushed light grey (Longbeard grey). The rest is pure contrast paints. Like I said, I batch painted this whole unit in under 2 hours. I am not a skilled very neat painter as the faces and hair covered each other and colors from the cloak did cover areas of other colors. Reactivation in those areas would have been terrible.
one note is the bannerman was done separate from the 2 hours, but I had painted Victarion instead in the 12 man unit.
Places like the gorget on his chest had Aggros dunes applied and then a light coating of I believe skeleton horde on top of that to help darken the tones in parts. I know that is what the contrast paints are suppossed to do naturally, but I did the second layer to accentuate it even further and give more depth.
This is what my 12 year old made with the V1 speed paints (and AP Washes):
Spoiler:
Reactivation was a problem on one of the Nightmares models (the orange top armour on the model in the middle) because he used Sand/Orange first and Light Green/Yellow later
On the tank, he used light Green/Yellow first and the Sand/Orange on top, no problem
I used the same Sand on the priest (as an experiment with zenithal priming and washes as another layer), needed to wait a week until I could make the hair because of the reactivation (why it is still white on the pic, hence next time hair first and body later), 2 hours waiting compared to that is not an issue
Speed paints take more time to dry than any other popular* counterparts or even general acrylics - its has simple as that so yeah lets not dwell too much into it.
* not talking about oils here
Oil paints, certain Washes, some Inks, some regular Acrylics, a lot of Primers etc
2 hours to be fully cured is not unusual
Vallejo Airbrush Primer takes 12 hours to be cured, you can work with it after 2 hours but need to be careful what you touch as you can simp rub it off the plastic
There is a difference between the time needed to workable and the time to be fully cured and 2 hours not unusual long or the longest time among all the paints
"Over night" would be a regular time
Talking about generalisation but than making one yourself
Cut it down to "the colours you use are cured in less than 2 hours", though I doubt you ever tested it if you acrylics can be removed with water and a brush after 2 hours
Kodos first you say all techniques are the same and applied the same way (white BG) and that a user here is doing it wrong...which is not an accurate review at all.
Now your putting oils, "certain paints" Which sure you can find enamels or those funky pigments special effects etc on the same plate...
We are talking Speed paints, waterbased, acrylic... and you know it. Stop putting the goal bar higher at each post and accept that even if your particular way of painting of waiting 2 hours for each coat, overnight, whatever, is fine for you but its not OK for a line called Speedpaints.
Not going any further because your not really listening at this point.
If you use them for a different technique, and they don't work like a different colour that works for that technique, it is on how you use the colours and not how those were made
I can use a Vallejo Wash like an AP Speedpaint, but a GW Wash won't work that well if used that way (at least the ones I have)
Yet I won't say GW makes bad washes and that those are unusable
And simple saying that all regular colours used for miniature painting have a curing time of minutes and not hours is the biggest bs I have seen for a long time now
And the GW Red I used on the weekend could still be removed with water after 30 minutes, I know because I made a mistake and corrected it that way
But I guess this is just Citadel making bad colours as "real" paints don't react with water after minutes
There is a difference between it is not an issue and it is not happening at all
kodos wrote: Painting with Speedpaints is all the same
If you use them for a different technique, and they don't work like a different colour that works for that technique, it is on how you use the colours and not how those were made
The technique they "army painter" showed on the video was that the main goal for Speedpaints 2.0 was to apply paint on TOP of the speedpaint... and to do that was 2 hours.
It's not me sorry.
legionaires wrote: I would feel bad for all the people that this isn't good enough for but some of it comes of as hobby elitism.
If you're talking about me here, I do indeed have Hobby Elitism towards (standard) Warpaints and their "Army Painter Fans" since I've read so many times how important it is to so these people that the awful (standard warpaints) product is that little bit cheaper than paying fractionally more for a good product that you don't have to fight/works easily. On their expensive GW models.
So my Hobby Elitism is Notsomuch towards this product, which clearly just Is Not For Me if it takes 2 hours before you can paint over it before the pigment reactivates.
I still use the AP washes pretty much daily. I'm also not opposed to trying their Air range one day, though they're not easily accessable individually, and I'm pretty gun-shy of purchasing a full set through the post.
Kodos - a weird hill to choose to die on, mate. I use Vallejo Black Primer as my main black paint instead of whoeverer's regular hobby acrylics. Sure I can choose to rub it off if I make a mistake, but I can also work with and over it after letting it dry for just a minute or two. It's Apples and Oranges compared to discussing contrast-style paints and the reactivation issue/"feature" of these "Speed"paints.
There's a few colours that I'll be picking up, their black, burgundy and dark red in particular look very nice. I'll mostly be sticking with Vallejo and Citadel for these types of paints though.
So, here is my review. Being one of the people who criticised the original Speedpaints' reactivation, I tried to keep it as unbiased & impartial as possible. Here are my thoughts:
Now, if only there was a one-coat paint that didn't use primer!
Cheers. Maybe that will be the next gen of one coat paints!
I hope not. I can handle various primers for various materials, but I would not like the soup you would need to concoct to do a brush on primer basecoat combo that works on metal, plastic and resin. there would still be overlaps and that requires more things to learn. So Citadel One Coat Primer yellow doesn't go over PVC but the red does, Citadel One Coat Primer white is slightly grey when painted on metal, but looks Ok on plastic, while Vallejo One Coat Primer is better on metal but has a gloss undertone that doesnt work with blues...
Things are complex enough with not all Contrasts working the same. Priming is currently simple, even if it is an additional step.
GW base colours range comes close though, so long as you only paint over plastic. The entire series of Hachette productions are based on this method. There are no primers used in any of their campaigns, you paint basecoat directly over plastic, with the starter brush and are expected to get results.
Agreed on the non-written reviews. Seems sometimes like writing is on its way to be lostech sometimes >_>
Also... ooof. I like the way the original speed paints flow on a mini and how they dry more slowly and give a more balanced effect. Having to seal them before doing anything else felt like a small price to pay. These... seem to have changed that, yes, but with a whole lotta new drawbacks.
Ah well, no matter. I'll wait for the XPress paints range to get more... well, range.
insaniak wrote: Difficult to tell much from the quality of that video, but they just look like regular metallics.
Have a bunch sitting here. Still need to play around with it some more, but I'd like to add a couple points to that:
(1) They flow *and* cover incredibly easily and well. The coverage is relatively flat-ish - takes more of an edge to leave a sharp highlight than contrast paints IME, but OTOH coverage on flat(ter) surfaces is far more even; less splotchy, if you will.
(2) This guy's zenithal is almost a basecoat. You use these on something that has a little more effective dynamic range in the zenithal, those gradients and shadows shine through very visibly, and very directly.
(3) Even just at a fairly cursory glance at the first model he does,* do note that there is, in fact, a good bit of pooling around rivets etc that does give a nice depth effect. Normally you'd at least apply a wash over your first coat to do this, right? This basically provides similar wash-esque shading except with far less splotchiness and uneven gloss, in my so far limited experience.
No, it's not a magical-display-quality-paint-job-button. But from the first model I tried these out on, I was /sold/ for any tabletop quality paintjobs where I can/would zenithal. Honestly the video does not remotely do it justice.
*agree that the quality isn't good enough for a paint test video, so not really inclined to sit through the rest!
Having played around with my speedpaints 2.0, they work well for what they're intended to be, Slapchop friendly paints. They cover well and quickly, and honestly no contract equivalent that I have seen creates table ready shadows and highlights outside of a few colors in each range.
They're easier to work with than contract, and have a wide range of colors. You can use a bit of water to thin them, and they dry matte.
I've done a lot of terrain in the past week and didnt experience the cracking, but I also didnt use a hairdryer.
Some of the colors seem cloudy, mainly the pastels. I'm thinking the opacity is intended as a highlight, almost as though they were mixed with Dana Howl's go to VMC Pale Sand.
Bossk_Hogg wrote: Having played around with my speedpaints 2.0, they work well for what they're intended to be, Slapchop friendly paints. They cover well and quickly, and honestly no contract equivalent that I have seen creates table ready shadows and highlights outside of a few colors in each range.
They're easier to work with than contract, and have a wide range of colors. You can use a bit of water to thin them, and they dry matte.
I've done a lot of terrain in the past week and didnt experience the cracking, but I also didnt use a hairdryer.
Some of the colors seem cloudy, mainly the pastels. I'm thinking the opacity is intended as a highlight, almost as though they were mixed with Dana Howl's go to VMC Pale Sand.
Honest question on that point: are you using these over a flat basecoat, rather than zenithal (or similar preshading)? Because that's where the semi-transparency really shines IMO, and using them over flat coats certainly works but it's hardly making the most of it...
She rates AP Speedpaints as being the best overall, doesn't mention the cracking issues. She also says that GSW's Dipping Inks are bad because they are too thin, then praises another range for being very thin...
Being totally honest there are very few people producing this kind of content that I trust to be unbiased. We know that companies like Army Painter have made deals with influencers to promote their product in the past.
She rates AP Speedpaints as being the best overall, doesn't mention the cracking issues. She also says that GSW's Dipping Inks are bad because they are too thin, then praises another range for being very thin...
Being totally honest there are very few people producing this kind of content that I trust to be unbiased. We know that companies like Army Painter have made deals with influencers to promote their product in the past.
Thanks for that. It saves me clicking on that kind of video. Theres only a few I trust too and usually those are 5 start painters which means they have a pigment understanding far superior to errrr content creators wannabe painters.
for her not mentioning the cracking issue, just means it was not an issue for her
and I never had that issue as well, so calling that biased because some people just don't encounter it is not fair
also stahly does not mention it, so I guess he is biased too
she rates them first over contrast because all colours she got are working the same, which is not the case with contrast
and most reviews mention this as the main problem with contrast as well, that some colours work and others don't and if you don't know about which one those are before you buy, it is a big prolem
It's not just these painters. It's the entire internet. If you're not paying for the review, odds are that somebody is. You can certainly research the reviewer (stahly I trust from another AP wash review), but I find watching video reviews of content I'm only mildly interested in to be drudgework, rather than of interest, while I can get info about a product much faster with a written review or comments in a forum. Colored primers and washes are less expensive and work fine, although I'm waiting for the paints which remove mold lines, myself.
There's certainly a nomenclature issue with Contrasts, because they are really multiple ranges that do different things squashed into one, with no indication of which is which.
kodos wrote: for her not mentioning the cracking issue, just means it was not an issue for her
and I never had that issue as well, so calling that biased because some people just don't encounter it is not fair
also stahly does not mention it, so I guess he is biased too
I never said that she was biased for not mentioning the cracking issue. I simply said that she didn't mention it.
I said that there were few content producers who I trust to be unbiased, for all sorts of reasons. Bias is everywhere, unconcious or otherwise, to not accept that is a little naive, IMHO.
kodos wrote: she rates them first over contrast because all colours she got are working the same, which is not the case with contrast
and most reviews mention this as the main problem with contrast as well, that some colours work and others don't and if you don't know about which one those are before you buy, it is a big prolem
Yes, the inconsistency within the Contrast range has been mentioned many times at this point, it's definitely a barrier to the newcomer.
kodos wrote: for her not mentioning the cracking issue, just means it was not an issue for her
and I never had that issue as well, so calling that biased because some people just don't encounter it is not fair
also stahly does not mention it, so I guess he is biased too
she rates them first over contrast because all colours she got are working the same, which is not the case with contrast
and most reviews mention this as the main problem with contrast as well, that some colours work and others don't and if you don't know about which one those are before you buy, it is a big prolem
I'm not biased, but I didn't encounter any cracking, despite testing the Speedpaint 2.0 on multiple (miniature) spray primers, airbrushed models sealed with polyurethane varnish, and of course on acrylic paints. In the video, Gray Scalp mentions the cracking only occurred on models airbrushed with Liquitex Ink, which has a super glossy finish, which might be the issue. Maybe he also got a bad batch or didn't shake the paints enough? Army Painter's quality control can be so and so from my experience. Anyways, if I found cracking an issue, I would have said so, as I did with the first gen's reactivation.
I think different painters have different paint styles and the way "they do things". Like with first gen Speedpaints, the way I used them (like Contrast in a more controlled way, painting on top of them, using them for glazes) made the reactivation a deal breaker, while other people who used them more like advertised, as single layer paints only, never had any issues (perhaps it was also a lack of experience to recognize the problem). Or with Green Stuff World's Dipping Inks, which Lyla ranked pretty low in her video (even though she said she only tested a handful). I reviewed the whole range and gave them a quite high score, though I can also recognize the issues she has with them, and thus why she would, based on her preference, give them a lower score.
I also did a ranking a while ago, and my results are quite different from hers. Which doesn't mean that hers are wrong. People can and should draw their own conclusions in the end, so I try to make my thoughts and criteria as transparent as possible in my reviews.
stahly wrote: I think different painters have different paint styles and the way "they do things".
Honestly, this is the crux of pretty much the entirety of *ALL* discussions based around the hobby/profession of painting.
People need to locate a person that either paints similar or a person they aspire to paint like and then follow along.
I love the way Marco Frisoni paints, but that much oil isn't for me. I love Squidmar, but not his style. I like Miniac and the paint he uses, but his "futzing" bothers me. I like Ninjon and the paints he uses, but not how he gets to his end product sometimes. I love Vince V, his videos, his attitude, etc... so I tend to pay more attention to his process... and so on with Latham, Lenz, Stahly, et al.
I don't like others, and tend to pay less (if any) attention to what they post, say, do, etc.
I went hard into Contrast, can't stand AP, like Vallejo, and LOVE Golden High Flow.
Find your people and listen to them for best results.
Well I'm done with Army Painter. Their original metallics formula changed to crap, I bought speed 1.0 set (though now kind of glad but such a limited palette), and 2.0 cracks insanely badly no matter what I try. They have torched what was originally decent good vibes towards an early gw competitor.
Bossk_Hogg wrote: Having played around with my speedpaints 2.0, they work well for what they're intended to be, Slapchop friendly paints. They cover well and quickly, and honestly no contract equivalent that I have seen creates table ready shadows and highlights outside of a few colors in each range.
They're easier to work with than contract, and have a wide range of colors. You can use a bit of water to thin them, and they dry matte.
I've done a lot of terrain in the past week and didnt experience the cracking, but I also didnt use a hairdryer.
Some of the colors seem cloudy, mainly the pastels. I'm thinking the opacity is intended as a highlight, almost as though they were mixed with Dana Howl's go to VMC Pale Sand.
Honest question on that point: are you using these over a flat basecoat, rather than zenithal (or similar preshading)? Because that's where the semi-transparency really shines IMO, and using them over flat coats certainly works but it's hardly making the most of it...
Even over a zenithal its just the pre-shading doing the work. Yeah, it sorta shows through, but the paints tend to be too opaque without watering them down with medium IMO.
She rates AP Speedpaints as being the best overall, doesn't mention the cracking issues. She also says that GSW's Dipping Inks are bad because they are too thin, then praises another range for being very thin...
Being totally honest there are very few people producing this kind of content that I trust to be unbiased. We know that companies like Army Painter have made deals with influencers to promote their product in the past.
It has the "Includes Paid Promotion" tag. Now that could just be referring to the short Squarespace trail at the top, but equally could be sponsored by any of the paint companies involved. The legal requirement to include that tag is really helpful but damn they really dropped the ball on not also insisting on listing the name of the company that paid you on it. For videos covering multiple products with in-video ads for unrelated things, it's much less useful!
I'm definitely suspicious of reviews involving AP products because I know they have "reached out" to a lot of content providers.
Edit: I'd just like to point out that I'm not painting everyone with the same brush. Thanks for the reviews Stahly, you are among the few that I consider to be unbiased, for what it's worth
I think with the ranges of paints available now no one should be married to one brand as the best. Most the companies make some paints that are outstanding and others that aren’t as good in any given range.
I find myself now using a paint or two from loads of different ranges so I have the best metallics, best glazing paints, best for coverage of given colours etc. because of this I find unbiased reviews or demonstrations vital but hard to find.
And you are right how you use a paint will effect which is best for you. The army paint speed paints have been pretty much dead to me since hearing all the reactivation stuff because that would drive me mad.
> Find your people and listen to them for best results.
Or give in to impulse buy sales and try out something new!
Frex, I picked up some Badger Freak Flex paint to reach free shipping (even though I don't have an airbrush and it worked fine for a glossy surface for some swamp terrain. As my Tamiya clears slowly dry out I'll be using Freak Flex for anything glossy.
. Not hanging around for 3.0 for sure.
