So, ever since I discovered the little god-machine called an airbrush, I have noticed something in person and online.
People hating on airbrushing and work done with an airbrush. By my local "Friends" at gaming nights, whenever I told a few of an effect was caused by an airbrush, they would get mad or say it was cheating.
I had one guy tell me that he is a better painter than me(He isn't) because he doesn't use an airbrush so his painting is more "Pure"
At a GW store, I was told by one of the regulars that airbrushing is "Pure Cancer" and shouldn't be allowed in the store(The owner had an airbrushed IMP Fists army he was working on)
When I look online, I see the same type of comments. one that stuck out was "Great, Another tutorial that uses an airbrush, why cant I find ones that use normal painting anymore"
Why the hate on airbrushing so much?

I think a lot of it, like the disdain for drybrushing in some quarters, comes from a lot of hobbyists' exposure being primarily the 'bad' stuff. Airbrushing, other than in the hands of a master, tends to be quite distinctive, and it's a style that many aren't fans of... And not knowing any better, they just assume that this is all airbrushes are capable of and write off the entire technique as a result.

There's also those (generally those who've never tried to do it) who think it's an easy shortcut (akin to just using a spray can) and therefore not on the same level as 'real' painting with a brush, which is perceived as requiring more skill. Which is, really, a little ignorant (since airbrushing is only easier for certain specific things) and a little weird...

At the end of the day, they're your miniatures. If you want to brush paint them, air brush them, or dip them in house paint, just do it. Paint for yourself, not the approval of others.

The real "cancer" is people shaming others by how they paint their miniatures.

If its is painted, just decent, who are you to say others that they are cheating? Or that they techniches are "cancer"?
Thats the kind of ignorant people that just don't want to learn new techniques.

Bad Airbrushing is bad airbrushing, just as painting bad is bad whenever the technique.

Ask how they got to the game store. If they respond with anything other than "I walked" accuse them of cheating.

Ask if they primed their army and if so, how. If they used a rattle can instead of a brush, express disdain and claim they cheated.

An airbrush is a tool. It is a piece of technology. It has strengths, but also significant limitations.

Best thread I ever saw on this topic was Doomthumbs' opinion on people who complained about dipping;

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/394884.page

Still makes me chuckle.

I heard one saying that vivid brush strokes feel more natural He wasn't hating on the airbrush in general though.

 insaniak wrote:
I think a lot of it, like the disdain for drybrushing in some quarters, comes from a lot of hobbyists' exposure being primarily the 'bad' stuff. Airbrushing, other than in the hands of a master, tends to be quite distinctive, and it's a style that many aren't fans of... And not knowing any better, they just assume that this is all airbrushes are capable of and write off the entire technique as a result.

There's also those (generally those who've never tried to do it) who think it's an easy shortcut (akin to just using a spray can) and therefore not on the same level as 'real' painting with a brush, which is perceived as requiring more skill. Which is, really, a little ignorant (since airbrushing is only easier for certain specific things) and a little weird...

At the end of the day, they're your miniatures. If you want to brush paint them, air brush them, or dip them in house paint, just do it. Paint for yourself, not the approval of others.

This is all that needs to be said. A lot of super well done miniatures start with an airbrush, and you'd never tell once completed.

I think most people who don't like airbrushing, don't necessarily hate the technique but rather don't like the transition heavy, overdone OSL look that took off a few years ago among commission painters.

Refusing to use an airbrush doesn't make you a "better" painter any more than refusing to use a hammer to drive in a nail makes you a better carpenter, in my opinion. You're just deliberately refusing to use a tool designed to make a certain job easier for the sake of boosting your ego, or just to say you can. I can respect someone who just wants the challenge, but for everyone else it's hobby elitism and nothing more.

The right way to respond to airbrushing is being happy that someone painted their army, which if anything is the REAL "cancer" of this hobby (second to the extremely negative and elitist community), if you're going to call anything about it "cancer" in the first place. And I'm saying that as someone who hasn't painted anything in years. I always found it incredibly irritating how everyone shames people for playing with unpainted armies or never bothering to paint at all, while also condemning the use of drybrushing or dipping techniques, or the use of an airbrush, to get an army painted up. You don't get to lament about people not putting in the "bare minimum" to get an army done and then give them gak for not doing it to Golden Demon quality, with only "approved" tools and techniques.

I notice this also. I was even told after a local painting comp by a GW manager that by using an airbrush for a blend on a weapon it "almost cost me the win" such was the hate people have for airbrushing.

In other events I've also experienced people going to great lengths to ensure I knew their models were painted "by hand".

It's almost as if people think that airbrushes just spray a fully painted model in one go!

Don't we have this discussion every few months?

Some people don't like airbrushes because they don't like the look it produces when used to create exaggerated blends. Some people don't like it because they feel it's "cheating".

At the end of the day, feth 'em, it's just another tool and if it gives you a look you like then go for it.

ingtaer wrote:
Best thread I ever saw on this topic was Doomthumbs' opinion on people who complained about dipping;

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/394884.page

Still makes me chuckle.

Oh my, what an insane thread! Haha

I hate airbrushes and paintbrushes equally and have taken to keeping my miniatures free of the impurity of paint.

When people ask me how I paint fast, or ask for advice on painting armies etc...my answer is simple: "Cheat".

Would you rather see an army of grey plastic across the table or something painted? My entire army is dipped (outside of vehicles) and hell yes I'll continue to cheat. My goal is simple - not to "lower" the level of the game aesthetic when I place models on the table --- my group happens to consist of excellent painters and people who take the table very seriously, as I do. We love great terrain and nicely painted minis.

I'm not entering painting competitions, so I will continue to "cheat" as often and as thoroughly as possible.

The only caveat here is that with so much fantastic stuff available, I find people have less and less excuses to not actually paint their damn minis. If you can spray paint a Space Marine a bas colour...paint his bolt gun and eyes and dip it...and then throw grass on the base, you have no excuse.

Never encountered such snobbery myself.

They're a mighty useful tool, especially if you like your tanks or Maureens - you can get your base coat on in pretty much no time.

It's jealousy. You have a nice tool that makes your life easier, and they do not. Therefore, you are a bad person and you minis are bad because it's unfair that you should have something nice because you were willing to spend money and learn a skill.

They feel you are trying to force them to buy a thing, because if they don't they can't keep up (with either the speed or quality of the paint job), and it's ALL about keeping up with the Joneses.

The very fact that one guy insisted he's a 'better' painter is pretty much proof of that. A 'better' painter doesn't turn up his nose at what works. Some effects would take hours with a hair brush that takes minutes with an air brush. That doesn't make it 'cheating' to use an airbrush, that makes it SMART to use an airbrush.

I don't find the style of "OMG OSL EVEYWHERE" I often see with airbrush armies all that appealing.

Other than my preference NOT to have MY armies painted that way, whatever helps kill off the hoard of unpainted mini's I am all for.

Your hobby, your money, your time, your life. Spend it how you will.

Just kill the unpainted mini's first...

Airbrushing is a tool in the arsenal. I have no issue with it, just like dry brushing. What I do have issue with is when it's the only thing done to a model and people act like it's beautiful. Some people get blinded by the amazing blends and highlights that can be produced and don't even notice that not a single detail is picked out or painted. Bleh.

It seems this thread pops up every month in the Painting and Modeling forum, I think its been discussed ad nauseam. Lets all go tell H.R. Giger's ghost that airbrushing is cheating.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
What I do have issue with is when it's the only thing done to a model and people act like it's beautiful. Some people get blinded by the amazing blends and highlights that can be produced and don't even notice that not a single detail is picked out or painted. Bleh.

That right there is your problem, you get that right? You're saying they are wrong for finding something beautiful, because YOU know better.

I hate people who airbrush because I don't have one.
Seriously. I want one and want to learn to use one.
I just hate people who have the time money and talent to have already gotten that done.
Rot in hades you airbrushing baguettes!

Of all the things to worry about in this world, to airbrush or not to airbrush is not one of them. They're your models. Roll them in glitter.

 dracpanzer wrote:
I don't find the style of "OMG OSL EVEYWHERE" I often see with airbrush armies all that appealing.

Too true. I feel many people's exposure to airbrushing is from various "studios" that'll slap a load of OSL and other gak on the latest GW release they've knocked out in a weekend just to be the first to have a painted example of it and it frankly is a terrible example of the art.

Personally I think not only is an airbrush cheating, but so is a handbrush.

All my models are exclusively finger painted, and anyone who uses tools to apply paint isn't a real painter.

When I first started, 30 years ago, I had to make my own brushes from harvested cat fur and take-out chopsticks, I volunteered to clean chalkboard after school so that I could make white paint. We didn't have Spartans, we had to blow pigment through straws...and only had one of those. I consider any other technique to be cheating


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously though, do whatever brings you the most satisfaction and ignore the naysayers. I use mine mostly for associating which delivers better results in less time. Obviously, just because you can e.g. OSL, doesn't mean you should

Anyone who thinks any method of decorating wargaming miniaures is "cheating" is an idiot. It's all about the end result.

Choose oil paints and turps, choose cheap craft-store acrylics or "proper" miniature paints, choose airbrushing. Choose free-hand painting unit emblems or decals, it's all the same in the end.

I chose heroin instead ... no, wait, wrong script, sorry.

The final result is all that matters. As long as you enjoyed yourself getting there, anyone who complains you did it the "easy" way is an idiot.

If by "cheating" they mean "having more free time to engage in other activities", then yeah, sure, I guess.

I'm a brush guy myself, mostly because acquiring one o fthe better machines would put me out of funds for a bit and I just do it for its own sake of a zen moment.

 Zach wrote:
It seems this thread pops up every month in the Painting and Modeling forum, I think its been discussed ad nauseam. Lets all go tell H.R. Giger's ghost that airbrushing is cheating.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
What I do have issue with is when it's the only thing done to a model and people act like it's beautiful. Some people get blinded by the amazing blends and highlights that can be produced and don't even notice that not a single detail is picked out or painted. Bleh.

That right there is your problem, you get that right? You're saying they are wrong for finding something beautiful, because YOU know better.

Read my post again. I said "I have issue with" which is pretty up front in saying it's my problem. Keep your preachy assumptions in your own vapid skull, thanks.

This is Dakka...the most dangerous place to have an opinion.

 Elbows wrote:
This is Dakka...the most dangerous place to have an opinion.

Wasn't that North Korea?

 John Prins wrote:
It's jealousy. You have a nice tool that makes your life easier, and they do not. Therefore, you are a bad person and you minis are bad because it's unfair that you should have something nice because you were willing to spend money and learn a skill.

They feel you are trying to force them to buy a thing, because if they don't they can't keep up (with either the speed or quality of the paint job), and it's ALL about keeping up with the Joneses.

The very fact that one guy insisted he's a 'better' painter is pretty much proof of that. A 'better' painter doesn't turn up his nose at what works. Some effects would take hours with a hair brush that takes minutes with an air brush. That doesn't make it 'cheating' to use an airbrush, that makes it SMART to use an airbrush.

I honestly feel it might be this, atleast with my FLGS guys who complain that me and some friends also buy too much and pay to win the game.

IMO the problem is not the airbrush, it's the "LOOK AT ME I HAVE AN AIRBRUSH" style that is popular with certain minimal-talent commission painters. They want to make models that their customers aren't able to do on their own, but they don't want to spend any time on it. So what's the easiest solution? Make it incredibly obvious that an airbrush (which the customer doesn't own) was used to paint the models, but don't bother to spend any more time than absolutely necessary. So you get dramatic shading that has nothing to do with where areas of light and shadow would be on the real thing, "OSL" that is just giant blobs of white sprayed over every possible light/lens/plasma coil/vent/whatever with no concern given to where the emitted light would fall (or if the thing in question would even emit light at all), zero attention given to fine detail work, etc. It all looks like trash that should go straight into a bucket of paint stripper, but because the customer can't duplicate the airbrush "effects" and apparently don't know any better they're willing to hand over their wallets. And then even people who aren't doing commission painting duplicate the "LOOK AT ME I HAVE AN AIRBRUSH" style, probably on the mistaken assumption that if people are paying money for something it must be a style worth learning from.

In contrast to this you have the kind of subtle airbrush work that is often found on historical kits. The airbrush is a useful tool for getting smooth coats with no brush strokes and for certain weathering techniques, but there's also a ton of conventional brush work involved and you probably couldn't tell which parts involved an airbrush without a very careful inspection and significant knowledge of painting techniques. And I don't think anyone can complain that this kind of thing is "not real painting" or whatever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zach wrote:
That right there is your problem, you get that right? You're saying they are wrong for finding something beautiful, because YOU know better.

They know better, I know better, anyone with a basic understanding of painting can know better. A model with dramatic airbrushed highlights (usually done with no concern for realistic light and shadow, because good shading takes work) but zero attention given to detail work is unfinished trash.

There are anti-airbrushers,
There are anti-chewed-stick daubers,
There are anti-dippers,
There are anti-drybrushers,
There are anti-weatherers,
There are anti-NMM effects, Object-source-lighting (OSL) and lots of other techniques, too.

An airbrush is a tool in an artist toolbox. Like a palette knife for oils, or a certain brush for watercolours, or a stippling brush for stencilling. No more, no less. Different applications require different tools, and sometimes the right tool for the job isn't the one you are using.

It is a tool, just like those who think using it is "cheating" are tools.

I see this question, or ones similar to it, posted pretty frequently. Someone does something new or less common, and describes a visceral and negative reaction from local gamers. And the reaction here is nearly always "it's your hobby, and the haters can stick it."

That's true here. I've seen plenty of airbrushed stuff, although I've never seen anyone criticize a paint job like the op. But yeah, airbrush if that's your thing. It's your hobby.

That said, I don't care for a lot of airbrushed armies for the reasons discussed. I don't generally like the look, as I focus more on details then blending. However, when used properly, the reality is that airbrushed models have a higher ceiling

 Polonius wrote:
"it's your hobby, and the haters can stick it."

Absolutely. If you're not painting my miniatures for me, you don't tell me how I should paint them.

BTW, Anyone want to scrape the molds line off and paint 8K of miniatures to advanced tabletop? You can use an airbrush...

Some people don't like that highly airbrushed style, but for better or worse it's now a thing in itself. I'd compare it to anime. There's some people who just can't stand it but it's now a thing. If i have to judge anything, i have the realm of my own personal taste (what i personally prefer) and a more general appreciation of what's done well and what is not.

As for airbrushing having it's place, well just look at the world class historical modelling out there. Airbrushing is an essential tool for that. There are great artists that have made their name mostly working with airbrush... for example H.R. Giger. For competition work, a lot of it is based on skill with the brush for making very tight and perfect blends but there's absolutely no reason why techniques like airbrushing, or drybrushing don't have a place there too if done with enough care and not just as a time-saving technique.

It's mostly the hate extreme OSL. I've seen dozens of riptides with neon bright blue glows and a sub par paint job

I've only airbrushed Terrain and top down basecoats

Peregrine wrote:IMO the problem is not the airbrush, it's the "LOOK AT ME I HAVE AN AIRBRUSH" style that is popular with certain minimal-talent commission painters. They want to make models that their customers aren't able to do on their own, but they don't want to spend any time on it. So what's the easiest solution?

Nailed it. When airbrushing started breaking into wargaming circles it was done by commission painters looking to cut as many corners as possible.

They know better, I know better, anyone with a basic understanding of painting can know better. A model with dramatic airbrushed highlights (usually done with no concern for realistic light and shadow, because good shading takes work) but zero attention given to detail work is unfinished trash.

And thus the negative association with airbrushing is born. The style of "obviously airbrushed but with no attention to detail" becomes identified with the use of the airbrush itself because the whole point is for the style to look as airbrushed as possible.

One local commission painter got on the bandwagon and caused a similar explosion of negativity around here. If there was detail under an arm or other overhang where the shade colour sprayed was dominant, he just couldn't be bothered to go back in with a brush and actually paint it. So you had belts and armour plates and all sorts of stuff that were just an airbrush gradient as if the detail wasn't there at all. So when people took these armies to tournaments they rightfully got 0 points for having parts of the model unpainted. Just like as if they had a face the same colour as the armour.

Now painting judges know that if you see an obvious airbrush gradient, there's probably unfinished parts hiding in the shadows. So it is associated with bad painting.

But that's true of any sloppy work. Just because you see gradient abuse with Photoshop, for example, doesn't invalidate it as a tool. Just because people abusing dry brushing doesn't invalidate brushes.

Airbrushing is known for some tell tale signs of amateur work. You see the same thing with standard brushes- tell tale signs of poor brushwork, unthinned paints, etc. But when done well, each of these can produce outstanding results, and some tools offer great advantages in speed or ease of use.

An bad gradient is a sign of poor control, and worth a ding itself; no need for speculation, whether airbrush or no.

I am anti-having-to-clean-my-airbrush.

jmurph wrote:But that's true of any sloppy work. Just because you see gradient abuse with Photoshop, for example, doesn't invalidate it as a tool. Just because people abusing dry brushing doesn't invalidate brushes.

The difference being that the signature appearance of hastily applied airbrush gradients are easily identified as such and have been associated with the tool itself.



This is why people hate airbrushing. Lazy gradients across details the painter couldn't be bothered to paint.

If you are going to use an airbrush, don't do that. And accept that others have poisoned the well for you and you are going to get resistance from your fellow gamers who have been disappointed with crap like that from every guy who buys an airbrush and thinks that suddenly makes them a commission painting genius. It was made even worse by commission painting companies that didn't paint their own stuff but instead took the commissions and then farmed them out to others. Now you have people with airbrushes painting at an even lower amount per miniature which means you need to get faster and do less per miniature. So better rely on that airbrush gradient even more.

The signature gradient of an airbrush is no longer seen as a sign of quality or accomplishment, but as a negative. Like fashion, tastes change over time, but right now, it's not a mark of quality.

Anyone who wants to see what good airbrushing looks like and how it fits into a larger process should check out Kenny Boucher from Next Level Painting. He uses an airbrush on almost everything he does, but he never, ever settles for the signature crappy gradient. There's always more glazing and highlights to be done and leaving details unpainted in a gradient is just never going to happen.

While i wont "hate" on anything i do greatly dislike lazily done work with air or hair brush equally.

that said i cant really say anything because im the laziest of them all

though i really hate poorly done osl like a lot.

I hate airbrushes with a passion that burns with the heat of 10,000 suns!

...Because I have the arthritis, so working that airbrush trigger is an unpleasant thing for me. However, BITD, I used airbrushes quite a bit. Now, not so much Man, are they useful. I hate not being able to use my Aerografos for any length of time. Bristle-brushing or Air-brushing, it is like using a hand-held hammer to drive nails, or using a pneumatic nail gun. Both have their places in the toolbox. (Acoustic Guitar or Electric Guitar...etc)

Nature abhors a vaccuum. In the absence of facts, it fills the head with ignorant opinions. This 'hate' for airbrushes is just that, ignorance.

As far as cheating goes, anything but airbrushing 'cave-man' style-- spit-painting-- is cheating. Ah, here's a link http://discovermagazine.com/1993/jul/paleolithicpaint240 there are others. I've seen video of this technique. Fascinating stuff.

 Red Harvest wrote:
I hate airbrushes with a passion that burns with the heat of 10,000 suns!

...Because I have the arthritis, so working that airbrush trigger is an unpleasant thing for me. However, BITD, I used airbrushes quite a bit. Now, not so much Man, are they useful. I hate not being able to use my Aerografos for any length of time. Bristle-brushing or Air-brushing, it is like using a hand-held hammer to drive nails, or using a pneumatic nail gun. Both have their places in the toolbox. (Acoustic Guitar or Electric Guitar...etc)

Nature abhors a vaccuum. In the absence of facts, it fills the head with ignorant opinions. This 'hate' for airbrushes is just that, ignorance.

As far as cheating goes, anything but airbrushing 'cave-man' style-- spit-painting-- is cheating. Ah, here's a link http://discovermagazine.com/1993/jul/paleolithicpaint240 there are others. I've seen video of this technique. Fascinating stuff.

every try these?

they seem better for people with hand issues.

though still expensive :/

 Polonius wrote:
I see this question, or ones similar to it, posted pretty frequently. Someone does something new or less common, and describes a visceral and negative reaction from local gamers. And the reaction here is nearly always "it's your hobby, and the haters can stick it."

That's true here. I've seen plenty of airbrushed stuff, although I've never seen anyone criticize a paint job like the op. But yeah, airbrush if that's your thing. It's your hobby.

That said, I don't care for a lot of airbrushed armies for the reasons discussed. I don't generally like the look, as I focus more on details then blending. However, when used properly, the reality is that airbrushed models have a higher ceiling

Exalted for truth. I have seen good and poor hand painted and good and poor air brushed.

Worry less about the detractors and play/paint how you want.

Air brush the bulk, paint the details reasonably, and you have an army you can be proud of

 jmurph wrote:
But that's true of any sloppy work. Just because you see gradient abuse with Photoshop, for example, doesn't invalidate it as a tool. Just because people abusing dry brushing doesn't invalidate brushes.

Airbrushing is known for some tell tale signs of amateur work. You see the same thing with standard brushes- tell tale signs of poor brushwork, unthinned paints, etc. But when done well, each of these can produce outstanding results, and some tools offer great advantages in speed or ease of use.

An bad gradient is a sign of poor control, and worth a ding itself; no need for speculation, whether airbrush or no.

IMO the difference is that lazy and unfinished work with a conventional brush is almost universally considered to be trash, while people can do similar trash with an airbrush but can get praise and sell commissions because of the LOOK AT ME I HAVE AN AIRBRUSH effect. If badly airbrushed models didn't keep getting so much positive attention and were properly criticized as trash (and the commission painters selling them were driven out of business for selling trash) there would be a lot less "hate" for airbrushes.

Airbrushing is without a doubt the best way to get perfectly smooth base coats and nice gradients for general shading. You can pull off things with an airbrush that are literally impossible with a normal brush, or would take many, many times as long.

Like others have said though, airburshing gets a bad rap from "pro painters" on eBay who literally base coat the model one color, then do two absurd points of OSL and call it a day. Probably in less than five minutes.

I dislike anybody that doesn't dribble paint on with a stick Jackson Pollock style, spit it from their mouth or use finger paints. Brushes and airbrushes are crutches for wannabe hacks who dislike the tactile sensation of using their paint the way the greatest cavemen master painters intended.

 Sidstyler wrote:
You're just deliberately refusing to use a tool designed to make a certain job easier for the sake of boosting your ego, or just to say you can.

Or because they figure better bit more effort than pay hundreds of euros for it or don't feel time spent learning it is worth it or don't want new models be out of touch in style with older models(same reason why many get pissed off when paints change. Annoying to paint additional troops to old army when shades might not match anymore!).

Plenty of good reasons and not just ego.

tneva82 wrote:
Plenty of good reasons and not just ego.

No, there really isn't a good reason not to buy an airbrush if you're serious about painting models. Even with a slim budget, a functional airbrush setup is definitely affordable and I'm of the opinion that if you have money to spare on the ridiculous price of most wargaming models, you could put some of that towards a versatile tool that will be well worth the cost of investment.

It's funny to me that the wargaming side of painting and modeling pushes back so hard against using an airbrush, because on the static scale modeling community had embraced them years ago (I build more scale models these days than I do wargaming minis).

Last time I looked, a good compressor and all the gear was well north of £100, not including re-arranging my workspace to fit the thing in (and the annoyance of having to poke a vent hose out an open window). I'm actually fortunate that I have the house to myself; I know other people with airbrushes who have to keep packing all the kit away because they have children; that eats into your actual productive time, as does keeping the kit clean.

The results I produce with brushes are acceptable to me; there's no incentive to take the trouble to change.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Last time I looked, a good compressor and all the gear was well north of £100

And have you look at GW prices lately? For the cost of two large models, you can have a perfectly functional airbrush setup. No, it won't be the best, but it will be good enough.

not including re-arranging my workspace to fit the thing in (and the annoyance of having to poke a vent hose out an open window).

My compressor, which is a rather large Iwata Power Jet, fits neatly under my desk. Small, tankless compressors take up almost no room and despite what people love to claim, they can serve quite well. Ventilation is a not really a problem; open a window if you're concerned about it or where a respirator.

I'm actually fortunate that I have the house to myself; I know other people with airbrushes who have to keep packing all the kit away because they have children; that eats into your actual productive time, as does keeping the kit clean.

I have kids and my hobby stuff is always out on my desk. My children aren't allowed to run roughshod all over my house and were taught early on that models and paint are off limits (something that holds true today even though they are older). Also, cleaning an airbrush doesn't consume nearly the amount of time people like to make it sound like it does. Other than rinse throughs for color swaps (akin to cleaning a hairy stick), a quick couple minute (at max) cleaning at the end of a sessions is more than enough to keep an airbrush running smoothly. In all honesty, it's probably the same amount of time I spend properly treating my paintbrushes. Really, people that claim it wastes too much time cleaning an airbrush are just looking for excuses for not owning one.

The results I produce with brushes are acceptable to me; there's no incentive to take the trouble to change.

That's fair enough I suppose. Personally, I could never go back to using only a hairy stick on anything, let alone wargaming vehicles or any kind of scale model.

{edited to remove more pointless bickering )

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Plenty of good reasons and not just ego.

No, there really isn't a good reason not to buy an airbrush if you're serious about painting models. Even with a slim budget, a functional airbrush setup is definitely affordable and I'm of the opinion that if you have money to spare on the ridiculous price of most wargaming models, you could put some of that towards a versatile tool that will be well worth the cost of investment.

It's funny to me that the wargaming side of painting and modeling pushes back so hard against using an airbrush, because on the static scale modeling community had embraced them years ago (I build more scale models these days than I do wargaming minis).

Couple hundred euros. And again it takes time to learn to do more than base coatting. Not all paint enough that it's worth that. Also airbrushed model will look different to brushed model so your army will look badly out of sync if you switch in between.

Must use airbrush is just egoism. You use the one that is right _for you_.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
But that's true of any sloppy work. Just because you see gradient abuse with Photoshop, for example, doesn't invalidate it as a tool. Just because people abusing dry brushing doesn't invalidate brushes.

Airbrushing is known for some tell tale signs of amateur work. You see the same thing with standard brushes- tell tale signs of poor brushwork, unthinned paints, etc. But when done well, each of these can produce outstanding results, and some tools offer great advantages in speed or ease of use.

An bad gradient is a sign of poor control, and worth a ding itself; no need for speculation, whether airbrush or no.

IMO the difference is that lazy and unfinished work with a conventional brush is almost universally considered to be trash, while people can do similar trash with an airbrush but can get praise and sell commissions because of the LOOK AT ME I HAVE AN AIRBRUSH effect. If badly airbrushed models didn't keep getting so much positive attention and were properly criticized as trash (and the commission painters selling them were driven out of business for selling trash) there would be a lot less "hate" for airbrushes.

That is a really good point. There are a lot of airbrush "artists" pushing terrible work as "pro". I particularly hate the badly sprayed "OSL". Still, it seems odd to impute shoddy work by sketchy people to the tool itself.

 Desubot wrote:


every try these?

they seem better for people with hand issues.

though still expensive :/

I have. In fact, At the NOVA Open I ran a painting contest some years ago where we gave away Grex airbrushes as prizes. I found that the trigger is no better than that of a regular airbrush as far as comfort goes. And the pistol handle requires some, to me, awkward wrist and arm motions for painting miniatures. It's a nice enough airbrush, but it's not for me. Thanks for the suggestion though.

Real *Pros* use whatever tool is appropriate for the job.

I think the hate for airbrush and the hate for dry brushing is silly. I think when used in combination with other techniques you get amazing results. It's just when you ONLY airbrush that it can make things looks a bit toy like that throws people off.

I do all my weathering with dry brushing and it works perfectly, and air brushing has its time and place we're it makes things WHAO

I don't get the dislike. It seems easy to do really good effects. Or, at least, skilled painters make it look easy to paint some really good effects. Wish I had one.

Winter wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I think a lot of it, like the disdain for drybrushing in some quarters, comes from a lot of hobbyists' exposure being primarily the 'bad' stuff. Airbrushing, other than in the hands of a master, tends to be quite distinctive, and it's a style that many aren't fans of... And not knowing any better, they just assume that this is all airbrushes are capable of and write off the entire technique as a result.

There's also those (generally those who've never tried to do it) who think it's an easy shortcut (akin to just using a spray can) and therefore not on the same level as 'real' painting with a brush, which is perceived as requiring more skill. Which is, really, a little ignorant (since airbrushing is only easier for certain specific things) and a little weird...

At the end of the day, they're your miniatures. If you want to brush paint them, air brush them, or dip them in house paint, just do it. Paint for yourself, not the approval of others.

This is all that needs to be said. A lot of super well done miniatures start with an airbrush, and you'd never tell once completed.

I think most people who don't like airbrushing, don't necessarily hate the technique but rather don't like the transition heavy, overdone OSL look that took off a few years ago among commission painters.

One particular example standing out.... *Cough* Chaos Dwarfs *Cough* Blue Table *Cough*

I love well done OSL above all other techniques - but badly done OSL is absolutely horrible looking.

The Auld Grump

Airbrushing has a place in the hobby. I neither like or dislike it. It's just another tool/technique in the hobbyist's tool box to me.



If somebody gets a severe case of butthurt over somebody's airbrushed models, then they have some issues to work out.

Airbrushing is also a classic case of people, on both sides, confusing normative judgments (good/bad) with declarations of taste (personal preference).

The airbrush is pretty objectively superior in a number of applications, but also has a high barrier of entry between cost, logistics, and learning to use it skillfully. It also requires more set up and tear down time. So, for base coating an army, it's clearly superior, but for picking out three different colored pouches on a single fig, it's clearly inferior. Even outside of external factors, airbrushed base coats, blending, and thin effects will look better (or take a minute fraction of the time) than regular brush.

That all said, people are allowed to simply not like the look. An airbrushed army won best painted at a local RTT, when I would thought it below average in terms of look. But that's just a matter of taste. As long as expression of taste are given respectfully, and made clear that they are such, they are inviolate. You cannot make me prefer airbrushed models to hairy brushed ones, at least at standard hobbyist quality.

Also, there's the old school mentality. I spent decades learning to wetblend with 4 different shades to make seamless gradients that can now be done nearly instantly. I won't lie, it rubs a bit.

Again though, I have no issues with the tool, as long as it's not your only one. Hell, I have an airbrush.

 frozenwastes wrote:

Anyone who wants to see what good airbrushing looks like and how it fits into a larger process should check out Kenny Boucher from Next Level Painting. He uses an airbrush on almost everything he does, but he never, ever settles for the signature crappy gradient. There's always more glazing and highlights to be done and leaving details unpainted in a gradient is just never going to happen.

Love Kenny Boucher. He's one of my biggest inspirations in painting. Even though I don't own an airbrush, I can learn a lot from his videos by trying to replicate the airbrush effects with a brush, and he always does extensive brushwork on each model as well.

nareik wrote:
Personally I think not only is an airbrush cheating, but so is a handbrush.

All my models are exclusively finger painted, and anyone who uses tools to apply paint isn't a real painter.

I can't tell you the number of the times I've seen something advertised as "hand painted" only to learn they were actually done with a brush.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Plenty of good reasons and not just ego.

No, there really isn't a good reason not to buy an airbrush if you're serious about painting models. Even with a slim budget, a functional airbrush setup is definitely affordable and I'm of the opinion that if you have money to spare on the ridiculous price of most wargaming models, you could put some of that towards a versatile tool that will be well worth the cost of investment.

My airbrush set up cost me 130$
that is 3 kits of space marines really
now I spent quite abit on supplys, Rubbing Alchohol, Vegetable Glycerin, but nothing TOOO cheap

 Polonius wrote:
Airbrushing is also a classic case of people, on both sides, confusing normative judgments (good/bad) with declarations of taste (personal preference).

No, if I dislike something, it's objectively bad.

If you dislike something, you're subjectively wrong.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:


I can't tell you the number of the times I've seen something advertised as "hand painted" only to learn they were actually done with a brush.

That's like, fraud!


THIS is hand painting!

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Plenty of good reasons and not just ego.

No, there really isn't a good reason not to buy an airbrush if you're serious about painting models. Even with a slim budget, a functional airbrush setup is definitely affordable and I'm of the opinion that if you have money to spare on the ridiculous price of most wargaming models, you could put some of that towards a versatile tool that will be well worth the cost of investment.

My airbrush set up cost me 130$
that is 3 kits of space marines really
now I spent quite abit on supplys, Rubbing Alchohol, Vegetable Glycerin, but nothing TOOO cheap

3 kits of Space Marines could be a big deal for some people. A lot of people just buy their armies kit by kit. I know it sounds insane but when I started I actually only purchased what I painted () and it would take me several months to paint 3 kits worth of Space Marines.

Also money isn't the only issue, having a place to setup a decent spray booth is a barrier for many people even if they have the money. I live in a big house at the moment but there's a good chance my compressor and booth would end up on ebay if I moved somewhere smaller.

There's also the issue that some people don't like the hazy look that airbrushed blending gives and prefer the look of hairy brushed paints, it can look rougher and more organic which on some things I prefer.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, ever since I discovered the little god-machine called an airbrush, I have noticed something in person and online.
People hating on airbrushing and work done with an airbrush. By my local "Friends" at gaming nights, whenever I told a few of an effect was caused by an airbrush, they would get mad or say it was cheating.
I had one guy tell me that he is a better painter than me(He isn't) because he doesn't use an airbrush so his painting is more "Pure"
At a GW store, I was told by one of the regulars that airbrushing is "Pure Cancer" and shouldn't be allowed in the store(The owner had an airbrushed IMP Fists army he was working on)
When I look online, I see the same type of comments. one that stuck out was "Great, Another tutorial that uses an airbrush, why cant I find ones that use normal painting anymore"
Why the hate on airbrushing so much?

1. Why do you care about the opinions of others?
2. Airbrushing can be an impressive additional technique, especially for the Emperor's true heroes (the guard). It is also excellent for real models (TM).
3. The next time someone comments, bring your airbrush and spray them in the face.* Be sure to ask others to criticise this most recent work, but always in a respectful manner**

*Just joking. I would just unholster your wiener dog (what do you mean you aren't carrying a wiener dog???)and let nature's perfect predator explain it to them.

**Kill Bill O-Ren Ishii's speech to the Yakuza council.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
The real "cancer" is people shaming others by how they paint their miniatures.

If its is painted, just decent, who are you to say others that they are cheating? Or that they techniches are "cancer"?
Thats the kind of ignorant people that just don't want to learn new techniques.

Bad Airbrushing is bad airbrushing, just as painting bad is bad whenever the technique.

The Spaniard speaks wisdom.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Plenty of good reasons and not just ego.

No, there really isn't a good reason not to buy an airbrush if you're serious about painting models. Even with a slim budget, a functional airbrush setup is definitely affordable and I'm of the opinion that if you have money to spare on the ridiculous price of most wargaming models, you could put some of that towards a versatile tool that will be well worth the cost of investment.

My airbrush set up cost me 130$
that is 3 kits of space marines really
now I spent quite abit on supplys, Rubbing Alchohol, Vegetable Glycerin, but nothing TOOO cheap

3 kits of Space Marines could be a big deal for some people. A lot of people just buy their armies kit by kit. I know it sounds insane but when I started I actually only purchased what I painted () and it would take me several months to paint 3 kits worth of Space Marines.

Also money isn't the only issue, having a place to setup a decent spray booth is a barrier for many people even if they have the money. I live in a big house at the moment but there's a good chance my compressor and booth would end up on ebay if I moved somewhere smaller.

There's also the issue that some people don't like the hazy look that airbrushed blending gives and prefer the look of hairy brushed paints, it can look rougher and more organic which on some things I prefer.

So, save up from not buying a few kits and buy the set up, and there are portable/collapsable airbrush booths out there.

I for one simply don't have the space for a spraying booth, otherwise I would have one. Airbrushes are nice, but they're not practical for 100% of people.

 kronk wrote:
That's like, fraud!


THIS is hand painting!

Spoiler:

4 colours if you count the basecoat. Good enough for tourney play.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, save up from not buying a few kits and buy the set up

You're thinking like an established gamer who probably has more models than they can paint and/or a decent pool of money to spend on this hobby.

For someone who doesn't have a lot of money, maybe has a couple of hobbies they enjoy and is buying their stuff piecemeal, an airbrush is going to be a decent investment. Personally not one that I'd say is a must have.

and there are portable/collapsable airbrush booths out there.

It can still be a pain in the arse to setup depending on your living situation. In the painting and modelling things often come up along the lines of "I have no where to exhaust fumes" or "is it okay to spray with no ventilation" or "can I spray outside because my spouse/significant other/housemate can't stand the smell?"

And portable airbrush booths + compressors + airbrush stands still take up space. Consider people who might live in a small studio or 1 bedroom apartment (or even worse, a small 2 bedroom apartment with someone who hates clutter ).

You also ignored my "some people just don't like it" comment.

You could also add people who are 1 army wargamers (yes they do exist, maybe not on dakka but in the real world I've met some ) with an already established paint scheme that they can't squeeze an airbrush in to.

Overall, yeah, there's plenty of reasons not to buy an airbrush or not to recommend an airbrush to certain wargamers.

Yep, I live with my girlfriend in a very small apartment in a very expensive city and it's cluttered enough already. I have the money and the desire for an airbrush setup, but it just isn't happening until we move.

I bought my airbrush for the sole purpose of painting Magnus as he released and i have yet to paint him as it is taking me longer to get to an acceptable skill level to paint him up to what i want than it took me to get to a decent level with a hair brush. I paint about 3 hrs a day 5 days a week and in about 6 months i still dont feel like im good enough, obvious base coats and small blends are easy enough but to get actually good with an airbrush where people dont think you used an airbrush for the sake of using an airbrush takes a lot of practice. The space I havent found it to be too much of an issue as I just murder anyone who complains about noise or inhaling vast amounts of blues and greens. Also im lucky i live in a spacious place where I can have an entire room for hobby.

People are allowed to not like airbrushing if they feel like it.

However, they really shouldn't be making criticism of the technique into a personal thing.

 frozenwastes wrote:
Anyone who wants to see what good airbrushing looks like and how it fits into a larger process should check out Kenny Boucher from Next Level Painting. He uses an airbrush on almost everything he does, but he never, ever settles for the signature crappy gradient. There's always more glazing and highlights to be done and leaving details unpainted in a gradient is just never going to happen.

Another good example is Angel Giraldez, who uses the same technique. His reason was simply speed - the rate he needs to paint minitures due to his commitment to Corvus Belli and his own freelance and commission work means he needed a faster way to paint. Airbrush the base colours and initial gradients, and brush for the detail work.

 -Loki- wrote:

Another good example is Angel Giraldez, who uses the same technique. His reason was simply speed - the rate he needs to paint minitures due to his commitment to Corvus Belli and his own freelance and commission work means he needed a faster way to paint. Airbrush the base colours and initial gradients, and brush for the detail work.

He also does a fair bit of hairy stick work too

Yeah, I'll come clean. I've done that.

I've seen land raiders with random bits of their flat pannels glowing for no discernible reason and rolled my eyes. I've (probably) appeared disinterested when someone tells me they achieved a cool effect with an airbrush. And yes, I've shown preferential treatment to an effect that clearly took hours to do with brush work over an arguably nicer looking effect that was done quickly it an airbrush as an afterthought.

I don't own an airbrush, my condo doesn't really have a layout that's conducive to me having one. (Proximity to windows = surrounded by pristine white carpet). As a consequence of that my painting is strictly limited to what you can attain with a brush, which is what I'm eager to hear about when I ask others how they achieved an effect: if I can do it myself I really want to know how it's done, if it's only doable with an airbrush it takes everything I have to just be polite and not let my disappointment show.

But as far as video tutorials I have no patience for it at all. I've probably left a comment like the one described in the OP, once or twice. Nine times out of ten if I'm looking up a painting guide it's because I'm looking for good complimentary highlight colours, or I'm in a panic spiral over what order of colours I should use when basecoating or something. And nine times out of ten every video I find is a three-part series of 'spray this colour', 'spray that colour', and the occasional 'be very careful not to (obvious bad thing) so you don't break your airbrush'.

Now, I would argue that the majority of people looking up videos on how to paint something are new to the hobby. And I absolutely agree that at least some of them are looking for guidance on how to use their airbrush, I understand this. But you don't need a separate video for every conceivable space marine colour scheme if your core technique is identical. And when you, him, and the other guy are releasing a video every other day about how to paint blood angels, yet again, it's getting harder and harder to find advice on how to paint a consistent, streak-free yellow.

That said, I'm pretty thankful for warhammer tv, they provide a solid baseline and have alleviated like 90% of that frustration.

 Captain Joystick wrote:
Yeah, I'll come clean. I've done that.

I've seen land raiders with random bits of their flat pannels glowing for no discernible reason and rolled my eyes. I've (probably) appeared disinterested when someone tells me they achieved a cool effect with an airbrush. And yes, I've shown preferential treatment to an effect that clearly took hours to do with brush work over an arguably nicer looking effect that was done quickly it an airbrush as an afterthought.

I don't own an airbrush, my condo doesn't really have a layout that's conducive to me having one. (Proximity to windows = surrounded by pristine white carpet). As a consequence of that my painting is strictly limited to what you can attain with a brush, which is what I'm eager to hear about when I ask others how they achieved an effect: if I can do it myself I really want to know how it's done, if it's only doable with an airbrush it takes everything I have to just be polite and not let my disappointment show.

But as far as video tutorials I have no patience for it at all. I've probably left a comment like the one described in the OP, once or twice. Nine times out of ten if I'm looking up a painting guide it's because I'm looking for good complimentary highlight colours, or I'm in a panic spiral over what order of colours I should use when basecoating or something. And nine times out of ten every video I find is a three-part series of 'spray this colour', 'spray that colour', and the occasional 'be very careful not to (obvious bad thing) so you don't break your airbrush'.

Now, I would argue that the majority of people looking up videos on how to paint something are new to the hobby. And I absolutely agree that at least some of them are looking for guidance on how to use their airbrush, I understand this. But you don't need a separate video for every conceivable space marine colour scheme if your core technique is identical. And when you, him, and the other guy are releasing a video every other day about how to paint blood angels, yet again, it's getting harder and harder to find advice on how to paint a consistent, streak-free yellow.

That said, I'm pretty thankful for warhammer tv, they provide a solid baseline and have alleviated like 90% of that frustration.

Pretty harsh, my friend. Pretty harsh.

As far as video tutorials go, you can pretty much substitute some kind of blending for airbrushing based on your preference, whether it be layering, glazing or wet blending. You can probably even use the same colors. Nearly every paint job has to have some brushwork done at some point, and most videos I've seen reflect this.

Also, look at the work of Kenny Boucher of Angel Giraldez as mentioned in this thread and tell me they aren't amazing painters. They also both have a large body of work in terms of lessons and tutorials that I have found extremely helpful, in spite of the fact that they use an airbrush and I don't.

I dislike airbrushing because it's noisy, takes a lot of space, needs good ventilation, and because the stupid thing requires constant maintenance to keep working (don't ask about the time I tried Tamiya "Sand"), and sometimes spare parts can be hard to find, and that's before the pain in the rear that's masking.

I understand airbrushing to basecoat, or do some subtle weathering to change a color. But generally I don't like the obvious effect of fully airbrushed models. I've seen many 'pro' painted models that look like they were airbrushed, slapped on quick fine highlights and done. And the result is not even well detailed or good looking. It's like the tension between pc gamers and console gamers. Plus youtube is loaded with how to paint videos with airbrushes everywhere. Seeing as how I don't have an airbrush....well thank god for Duncan.

A ton of HR gigers artwork is done by airbrush and it looks incredible. I think it's a good tool in the right hands. But when it's used lazily then its noticeable for sure.

I paint everything by hand, sometimes that hand is holding an airbrush.

I bought one for about £100 all in, bought it to prime things with as I was fed up with having to wait for good weather to prime outdoors.

Its paid for itself many times over in primer rattle cans saved.

The fact it can also do base colours is a bonus.

Don't go much beyond basic zenith highlighting of base colours before the rest is done by a brush, OSL where used is brushed just because I find it easier.

If anyone accuses me of cheating (only happened once, from someone who appear to have used a rattle can, dry bush and dip, all the same shade of blue, and a splurge of a chrome colour for metals) I tend to just say "yes, why yes I did", and leave it at that, anyone who wants an argument can go elsewhere.

your models, your paint, your time, your choice

 Desubot wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

Another good example is Angel Giraldez, who uses the same technique. His reason was simply speed - the rate he needs to paint minitures due to his commitment to Corvus Belli and his own freelance and commission work means he needed a faster way to paint. Airbrush the base colours and initial gradients, and brush for the detail work.

He also does a fair bit of hairy stick work too

He does. Like I said in my post, he uses airbrushes to do basecoats and initial shading, then swaps to brushes. This lets you quickly get blends done while still getting the finer details done by brush. That speed is the reason he adopted the method.

I have used anairbrush for perhaps 4 years - for all those who say it's quicker - you haven't considered the masking needed, or the cleaning, let alone the frustration of 'why is it clogging this time for no reason'

I find it great for small scale vehicles (10/15mm) and have not tried anything 28mm yet, but it's required so much brush work after that it is only a stage I a process to me

All the good painters, be they scale modellers and not gamers, or miniature painters, have it as just an early stage in a larger process.

All the people who have caused the negative reaction to airbrushing use it as their entire process. Or they just pick out the bare minimum with a brush at the end.

All the negative reactions people have won't stand up to results. So anyone with an airbrush who isn't happy about how people seem to be looking down on it now instead of praising it like they did 5 years ago just needs to up their game and use it as part of a larger process.

 Bottle wrote:

ingtaer wrote:
Best thread I ever saw on this topic was Doomthumbs' opinion on people who complained about dipping;

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/394884.page

Still makes me chuckle.

Oh my, what an insane thread! Haha

That thread brought a tear of joy to my eye


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I use an Airbrush. I use it becuase I can layer base paint better and can create subtle effects. However I am a HORRIBLE painter. So the airbrush helps me cut down on base coating, setting up and spraying large areas. If you don't like that, so what?

This is MY HOBBY, take your opinions and go away. Those don't belong in competitive environments and only belong in your head.

I started air brushing 20 years ago. Never on models though. I personally don't care for the look. That said, if other people do it, I don't care. If you like the look and are capable, go for it. It's tougher to do well than most people think. Just my opinion.

 beezley1981 wrote:
I started air brushing 20 years ago. Never on models though. I personally don't care for the look. That said, if other people do it, I don't care. If you like the look and are capable, go for it. It's tougher to do well than most people think. Just my opinion.

I've seen this sentiment expressed on several occasions through the thread and I don't understand it. Airbrushing doesn't have a "look." It's a tool/technique that allows for certain styles to be more easily achieved, but there's nothing inherent to an airbrushed mini over a hairybrushed mini that need look any different, other than stylistic choices.

I agree that the forced high contrast that seems popular, what Peregrine calls the "look I have an airbrush!" technique, isn't attractive, but then I don't like all the stupid high contrast NMM and other techniques employed by hairy brush painters either, it's less about producing a convincing replication of the subject in miniature, which is what I feel is my main aim in painting a model, and more about the painter just saying "look what I can do!" in the same way. There's no argument that in some instances the technique displayed is impressive, and often way beyond anything I'd even attempt, I just don't find it aesthetically pleasing. That doesn't mean I dismiss all hairy brush painted models as not liking the look.

My airbrushed models are still very much in what I'd consider my more "realistic" style, and most require an equal amount of hairy brush application to achieve a result I'm happy with, and the only real clues that I've airbrushed them are gradients smoother and whites cleaner than I can paint by hand. But you'd need to know my own personal limitations as a painter to be sure, because there's unquestionably people out there doing the same level with hairy brushes by hand.

 beezley1981 wrote:
I started air brushing 20 years ago. Never on models though. I personally don't care for the look. That said, if other people do it, I don't care. If you like the look and are capable, go for it. It's tougher to do well than most people think. Just my opinion.

I haven't done it, I was just going by the reasons Angel says he does it.

CS: How did you decide on using your method of combining Airbrush with Brush techniques? It’s certainly an effective method that has proven to provide stellar results.

AG: I work as painter and companies want quality and a low cost. I paint many miniatures and I have [deadlines] so during years I’ve development my method which is the combination airbrush and brush.

Now many painters are using this method because this method is easy.

While he says 'easy' and not 'fast', he talks about having many deadlines, which is why you'd want to do things faster.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Airbrushing doesn't have a "look." It's a tool/technique that allows for certain styles to be more easily achieved, but there's nothing inherent to an airbrushed mini over a hairybrushed mini that need look any different, other than stylistic choices.

To demonstrate: this Stormsword was painted almost entirely with an airbrush (the step-by-step explanation is in one of the FW painting books), but would you know that if I hadn't told you? Maybe if you have a lot of experience with historical modeling you might recognize some techniques that are difficult to do well without an airbrush, but it certainly doesn't have anything in common with the "LOOK AT ME I HAVE AN AIRBRUSH" style. That style is a problem with low-talent (usually commission) painters throwing together ugly garbage as fast as possible, not the tool they're using to do it.

Airbrushing is sterile and lacks personality compared to something that is hand painted. I don't care for it.

That is just a matter of preference, though, and I can admire a well-done airbrushing job and I certainly don't look down on people who airbrush their models. i just prefer the alternative.

 Azreal13 wrote:

I've seen this sentiment expressed on several occasions through the thread and I don't understand it. Airbrushing doesn't have a "look." It's a tool/technique that allows for certain styles to be more easily achieved, but there's nothing inherent to an airbrushed mini over a hairybrushed mini that need look any different, other than stylistic choices.

I mean, sure, technically air brushing doesn't all have one style. I don't think people look at a model, think it looks awesome, and then find out it was airbrushed and hate it. a lot of armies look airbrushed from across the room.

 Peregrine wrote:
Maybe if you have a lot of experience with historical modeling you might recognize some techniques that are difficult to do well without an airbrush, but it certainly doesn't have anything in common with the "LOOK AT ME I HAVE AN AIRBRUSH" style.

Pretty much, yes. Painting any kind of scale model (car, AFV, aircraft, etc.) without an airbrush is just a waste of time. It is impossible to paint something like a 1/32 scale P-51 without an airbrush and expect to get a result anywhere near as good as if you used the proper tool. In fact, when people on a forum, Reddit, or in person ask for advice on getting into modeling, the number one response that I give is to buy an airbrush and learn how to use it.

Indeed, painting something like soft edged camo is about a million times easier with an airbrush. Hell, even hard edged camo is easier with an airbrush. The amount of blending and time it would take to replicate this kind of camouflage would be asinine:

 Saber wrote:
Airbrushing is sterile and lacks personality compared to something that is hand painted.

Nearly everything on this model was painted with an airbrush, aside from the weathering which was a combination of oils, enamels, and pigments:



Not to toot my own horn, but I don't think it's possible to look at this model and say it has no "personality" or is "sterile."

 Polonius wrote:
I don't think people look at a model, think it looks awesome, and then find out it was airbrushed and hate it.

People in this thread have admitted to doing exactly that.

For most the hate only comes if it's obvious to the point that the lazy broad gradients dominate the model while the person painting it thinks they're the pope of chili town for painting such an awesome model so easily.

I love airbrushes and brushing by hand as there are things that each can do that the other can't and the idea that one is necessarily 'superior' to the other is ridiculous.
(I also think that one of the main things that make people go UGH AIRBRUSH is that too many model painters try to use object source lighting without actually understanding how light works.)

I think people get confused between two elements of what makes up "art".
There is being technically proficient in a technique like pointillism where the work and skill is readily admired no matter the subject.
There is also the idea or image in the person's head and trying to bring it into the world: some are more successful than others.

I can understand some idea of the hate when using one technique can take hours while another can take minutes for a similar result.
I admit I got a little "angry" when I started getting good results with airbrush and wished I got to it sooner.

As far as I am concerned there is no "cheating" if the intent is to get the image in your head down to a physical object.
That would be like saying 3D CAD and 3D printers is cheating over traditional sculpting.

Molding, kit-bashing, dips, shades, acrylic inks, press-molds, there is so much out there that has changed, heck shading "washes" seemed like cheating to me when I first saw what some acrylic with matt-medium and flow-aid can do.

Next we can complain about decals as cheating rather than painting them on... or the use of stencils.

I do not CARE at all what techniques were used (but fun to try to figure them out) as long as the end result is awesome.

As we all get more experienced at seeing airbrush work, it will expose those folk who brightly spray an area for "source lighting" for the lazy gits they are.

In the end, we always appreciate effort as well as the end result, because if your art costs you nothing, that is what it is worth.

Interesting points, Talizvar.

I'll admit, I heard of home made decals and thought they sounded like they'd look cheap and lazy, but then saw some examples that blew me away!

 Azreal13 wrote:

 beezley1981 wrote:
I started air brushing 20 years ago. Never on models though. I personally don't care for the look. That said, if other people do it, I don't care. If you like the look and are capable, go for it. It's tougher to do well than most people think. Just my opinion.

I've seen this sentiment expressed on several occasions through the thread and I don't understand it. Airbrushing doesn't have a "look." It's a tool/technique that allows for certain styles to be more easily achieved, but there's nothing inherent to an airbrushed mini over a hairybrushed mini that need look any different, other than stylistic choices.

Well then I'll say that I don't care for the look of an atomized gradient from one color to another, haha. It always looks "chalky" to me. The examples in this thread all look awesome! That said, yes I can tell they were airbrushed, and no, it's not my thing. When I see it on a car or a t-shirt, I have the same feeling. I don't hate it or consider it cheating, I personally just won't paint my models that way.

Personally I couldn't care less how someone went about painting their models. I mean I think a bigger issue would be the number of people who don't paint their minis at all.

There is quite a bit of bad airbrush work out there though which I think is where most of the hate comes from. Always keep in mind though that it's all just creating art, and the main rule in art is that there are no rules. Do whatever you damn well please that gets the job done.

I own an airbrush and don't think it's cheating, but I do have an intense dislike of "van art" style paintjobs that a lot of airbrushers do.

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
There is quite a bit of bad airbrush work out there though which I think is where most of the hate comes from. Always keep in mind though that it's all just creating art, and the main rule in art is that there are no rules. Do whatever you damn well please that gets the job done.

The hate doesn't come from bad airbrushing. Otherwise people would be getting the same hate for simply bad brush paint jobs. The hate comes from a bad airbrushing, then shoved in your face saying 'look how awesome this is because I airbrushed it/someone airbrushed it for me'.

There's a local guy who keeps on trying to do commission work with an airbrush and his stuff is primed, sprayed the base colour and then zenithal highlighted with straight white (regardless of the base colour, so a lot of his red is pink for example). A few details are picked out (not even the majority of details actually on the model-- loads of aquillas on space marine chests the same colour as the armour) and then that's it. He then shows up at every event and store and tries to hard sell people on people having him paint their stuff for him.

People have started getting pretty direct with him and anyone else trying to pass off lazy zenithal as a finished paint job. Doubly so if they start talking about painting for money. Lots of "so when are you going to put some paint on your preshaded primer job?" and "wow that looks bad, did Joe teach you how to paint?" and my favorite "being a beginner with an airbrush is like knowing a little bit of kung fu. You're a danger to yourself and others."

Anyone actually skilled with an airbrush quickly realizes that the steps done with an airbrush really make up a minority of the time spent painting a model and concentrate more on the glaze, highlight and weathering work that needs to follow. It was cool that around 10 years or so ago miniature painters started paying attention to the process used by scale model builders, but many only seem to have imported a fraction of the overall process.

@frozenwastes: Spot-on with the beginner at Kung-fu comment.
I started leaning on airbrush to get block-painting done since I find that element of painting "soul-sucking" so then I can lean on my detail brush-work that I am better skilled at and spend less time "painting by numbers".
Yes, I too am at the Zenithal highlighting stage of things but since I do Black Templar it creates better results than most.
My cheat/lazy/bad habit is not masking the legs of a model when I spray the base so that a bit of mud/dirt is lightly sprayed on the boots: that is realism!

I agree the bigger issue is getting anyone to have painted models at all, I would not want to discourage a "bad airbrush" job if they are new at it.

People trying to sell services for painting on the merit of beginner airbrush skills... yeah, that bubble may need to be burst.

It was terribly funny when my "block painted" by airbrush models were viewed by some new players at my FLGS and they said "I could never paint like that.".
I kinda flipped out and said that they certainly can and most likely do far better after a few months, it is "only" airbrush application, rattle-can results would be similar.
Getting better at masking methods now which is where the real skill starts kicking in.

Working on models in general, there is ALWAYS something new to learn and get better at.

ryzouken wrote:
Ask how they got to the game store. If they respond with anything other than "I walked" accuse them of cheating.

Ask if they primed their army and if so, how. If they used a rattle can instead of a brush, express disdain and claim they cheated.

An airbrush is a tool. It is a piece of technology. It has strengths, but also significant limitations.

You wouldn't know that from the way some people talk about them.

Look, most of the examples in the OP are arseholes(I don't see how grousing about trad painting tutorials becoming scarcer relative to airbrush ones is "hating", but hey ho), but lets not pretend this is all big meanie-weenie grognard brushpainters at fault. I've been called a "fething idiot" to my face because I don't use an airbrush, I've seen airbrush users tell people who don't want to get one because of the cost that "if you're that poor you shouldn't even be in the hobby", and there's a generally slightly evangelical tone on display from many airbrush users that gets grating after a while(a favourite is when someone asks for advice on a specific technique and the "have you heard of our Lord & Savour, airbrush?" crowd descend to tell them they shouldn't bother using such antiquated methods and just buy an airbrush instead).

Hairy stick and blowy brush. Both are good. I have zero time for the idiots who get personal about it though. If someone shows me a miniature that they have painted to the best of their ability, even if it isn't great, it's still an achievement regardless of how they got there.

I have an airbrush set up but I find it a difficult learning curve because kids and life and PTSD leave me without the time to learn to use it properly. One day, maybe...

I am a little disturbed that people get into each other's face about performing hobby art... like really?
I usually just feel happy seeing someone try.
If asked to "critique" I start off saying what they did well, what can be done to make it better and possible pitfalls to avoid and mention what methods are "hard" to do.

Any statement starting with "If you cannot afford XXXXX maybe you should not...." is being an elitist jerk plain and simple (and most likely actively seeking to be "better" than their peers).
EVERY hobby can be done on a budget, it just takes a little more patience and research.
We all have varying incomes and there can be something learned in frugal acquisition rather than frittering away our money.
It is hard enough to drag people away from their video games and create stuff why be that guy and be a barrier to entry in a hobby we supposedly like?

My tools do not define me as a hobbyist.
It is the application of technique that is distinctly my own that gives me joy in my hobby.
As that article by "Doomthumbs" presents, there can be much creativity found just in the application of "art" (which he showed in abundance) so I would caution people to be slow to judge.

Typically I find snarky comments are made by those with little confidence who get upset when they see others improve with great strides better than they had.
If I contributed to someone becoming awesome and exceeding my skills at what they do, I look at it as a privilege not a failure on my part.

Airbrush gives some good and immediate results, just those passing it off as "skill" on their part is where we get into the "dislike" element.

I only dislike it when they're like this:
*sprays a flat blue onto a light*
"Look I did a zenithal OSL!"
*sprays all other lights bumps and vents the same*
"So much OSL, much pro painted!"


It makes gradients easy to do, and hell getting one would speed the crap out of my own painting, but it's not an automatic awesome if that makes sense. There's still underlying yet different techniques that need to be grasped, it's certainly not a shortcut to things like perfecting OSL.

 n0t_u wrote:
It makes gradients easy to do, and hell getting one would speed the crap out of my own painting, but it's not an automatic awesome if that makes sense. There's still underlying yet different techniques that need to be grasped, it's certainly not a shortcut to things like perfecting OSL.

I agree.
Yes, airbrush can give a nice diffused "spot-light" rather easy.

Knowing the angle to apply, changing shade layers an progressively reducing the spray area and possibly some creative masking is where skill can be demonstrated.
I find that for a model to be painted with some measure of detail requires at least 3 different shades for the same surface (possible colour) to show some depth to it.

I guess we all are rather humbled that even spending years painting you can always point to others that FAR exceed our skill in painting.
So when someone claims "pro-painted" the expectations are rather ridiculously high.
I have a hard time understanding people that think they are "awesome" and cannot honestly see how much of a beginner they are and get all upset if any criticism is given to work they charge money for.
I think that makes them more than fair game.

 Talizvar wrote:
I think people get confused between two elements of what makes up "art".
There is being technically proficient in a technique like pointillism where the work and skill is readily admired no matter the subject.
There is also the idea or image in the person's head and trying to bring it into the world: some are more successful than others.

I can understand some idea of the hate when using one technique can take hours while another can take minutes for a similar result.
I admit I got a little "angry" when I started getting good results with airbrush and wished I got to it sooner.

As far as I am concerned there is no "cheating" if the intent is to get the image in your head down to a physical object.
That would be like saying 3D CAD and 3D printers is cheating over traditional sculpting.

Molding, kit-bashing, dips, shades, acrylic inks, press-molds, there is so much out there that has changed, heck shading "washes" seemed like cheating to me when I first saw what some acrylic with matt-medium and flow-aid can do.

Next we can complain about decals as cheating rather than painting them on... or the use of stencils.

I do not CARE at all what techniques were used (but fun to try to figure them out) as long as the end result is awesome.

As we all get more experienced at seeing airbrush work, it will expose those folk who brightly spray an area for "source lighting" for the lazy gits they are.

In the end, we always appreciate effort as well as the end result, because if your art costs you nothing, that is what it is worth.

Fantastic post, you pretty much said what I wanted to but way better. There are so many different techniques out there now its amazing. The most amazing thing tho is the amount of information we have at our finger tips now. We really do live in the golden age

 FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:
Fantastic post, you pretty much said what I wanted to but way better. There are so many different techniques out there now its amazing. The most amazing thing tho is the amount of information we have at our finger tips now. We really do live in the golden age

Thank-you, the compliment is appreciated.
I have participated in many a lively discussion on the "elitism" of those who prefer seeing painted miniatures.
You are very correct that compared to the "dark ages" of when I started models (early 1980's) there is little excuse for not knowing how to do something because you cannot find the information.
I think that is why I have settled on appreciating effort over how good the model actually is.
Getting good is a process of hard work and with huge luck, maybe some innate talent (those people I respectfully hate... you know who you are).
In normal life I say "For every 5 minutes of me being brilliant, cost me at least 2 hours of appearing to be an idiot earlier in my life."... no comments on the ratio I have been living my life.

"Golden Age?" it is a very good time I am sure, what technology gives it can also take away: we have more painting resources than ever but I bet far less people physically paint than a decade ago.
That COULD be mitigated by how many people electronically paint.
I seem to remember spending WAY too much time playing with the army painter in Dawn of War.

Some people consider their way of doing things the right way and that they are morally superior in doing things in this fashion. Even when there are better tools and technologies out there they will adamantly refuse to adopt them and insist their method is somehow superior or the other method is inferior. It's like a kind of brand loyalty.

I will say I don't care for the "airbrush look" as Peregrine describes it. It's tacky, overblown and lazy. I would never pay for it nor would I ever encourage someone to do so. However, airbrushing has it's place. Airbrushing makes basecoating a breeze and can make transitions look natural in a way regular brushes simply can not. It is also incredibly helpful in making camouflage. WW2 german tanks in particular benefit from airbrush camo.

And those people who look down on others for dipping/drybrushing etc. can go take a hike. Just because not everyone has the desire/patience/ability to layer paint doesn't make their efforts any less valid. If the end result looks great who cares how they got there?

 Talizvar wrote:
I guess we all are rather humbled that even spending years painting you can always point to others that FAR exceed our skill in painting.
So when someone claims "pro-painted" the expectations are rather ridiculously high.
I have a hard time understanding people that think they are "awesome" and cannot honestly see how much of a beginner they are and get all upset if any criticism is given to work they charge money for.
I think that makes them more than fair game.

Indeed, by all means you should be proud of your own work but becoming arrogant about it becomes self limiting cause you stop trying new things and stop learning easier or faster ways to get the same effect. The two most important things are to learn to take criticism and to just keep practicing; there will always be someone better but rather than be discouraged by it it can be used as motivation if someone wants to keep improving.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Some people consider their way of doing things the right way and that they are morally superior in doing things in this fashion. Even when there are better tools and technologies out there they will adamantly refuse to adopt them and insist their method is somehow superior or the other method is inferior. It's like a kind of brand loyalty.

Funny, I came across this in gaming terms: the "scrub" mentality.
People who apply extra rules and their own "morality" on the rules to a game.
It ultimately becomes self-limiting and boils down to not playing the same game as others.
What makes it worse is expecting others to follow those same unwritten self-made rules.
Looking on a proven and valid art technique / strategy as invalid or cheating loses sight of the fact people are trying to get a good or better result.
If by airbrush I get a better result than your hairy brush is that cheating?
Seems petty to me, I do not get angry when others paint better than me (unless they are ridiculously good, then comments of "now that is just showing off!" are made).

We know what looks good.
We become more discerning as we are exposed to more of a thing (like my whisky and Scotch...).
Appreciation for an effort and appreciation for an art result can be two different things, and if we are lucky, seeing both is an honor to behold.

How can someone "cheat" painting their models. A painted model is a painted model and I would much rather play a painted army than an unpainted one. I will still play someone with an unpainted army...because a game is a game and some folks don't have time or the desire to paint.

My two cents,

CB

Airbrushing can great if you've got the time and effort under your belt to make it so. Personally I use a brush on my minis because its what I'm familiar and comfortable with but when it comes to me working on a prop for a client I'll use whatever gets the best results the fastest, not doing so is a disservice to them and something no reasonable professional or anyone serious about their work is going do.