I doubt they'll replace the range entirely, the difference now between previous times is the days worth of YouTube tutorials on painting various figures with the existing paint range.
That's not to say they won't extend it and start to use dropper bottles. In fact I'd say they'll definitely do the first (and do on a regular basis - we got the new metallics and shades for Necrons with Indomitus and the old Forge World colours coming over when Contrast launched).
H.B.M.C. wrote: Well they didn't increase the price of paints during the last round of increases, so this would give them the excuse to put everything up.
The exact same thing I immediately thought when I read the thread's title.
Dysartes wrote: Given it's a Faeit rumour, my instinct is to say that it is doubtful this will happen.
Be fair. Faeit’s track record is patchy, but they only pass on rumours passed to them. There is an argument they could perhaps sift them, but it’s important to remember the host isn’t the one making up false rumours.
Ever since Kirby left the rumour mill has been rather dry. In general we get a small handful of rumours - sometimes we get a big leak, but in general its rare now. There's just no pressure on GW staff to risk jobs to let things slip when GW itself is showing us generally 3 month release windows and releasing stuff at a pretty fast rate.
So a LOT of sites that grew up in the rumour heavy Kirby era are basically running on dry so you get a lot more. "This thing started on Reddit and just spread" kind of rumours
Overread wrote: Ever since Kirby left the rumour mill has been rather dry. In general we get a small handful of rumours - sometimes we get a big leak, but in general its rare now. There's just no pressure on GW staff to risk jobs to let things slip when GW itself is showing us generally 3 month release windows and releasing stuff at a pretty fast rate.
So a LOT of sites that grew up in the rumour heavy Kirby era are basically running on dry so you get a lot more. "This thing started on Reddit and just spread" kind of rumours
I've concluded under Kirby they also had the "brilliant" idea to purposefully leak stuff as a form of advertising, and that thew new CEO decided (wisely) that was idiotic as it meant they couldn't control the NARRATIVE around the newly previewed products.
Overread wrote: Ever since Kirby left the rumour mill has been rather dry. In general we get a small handful of rumours - sometimes we get a big leak, but in general its rare now. There's just no pressure on GW staff to risk jobs to let things slip when GW itself is showing us generally 3 month release windows and releasing stuff at a pretty fast rate.
So a LOT of sites that grew up in the rumour heavy Kirby era are basically running on dry so you get a lot more. "This thing started on Reddit and just spread" kind of rumours
I've concluded under Kirby they also had the "brilliant" idea to purposefully leak stuff as a form of advertising, and that thew new CEO decided (wisely) that was idiotic as it meant they couldn't control the NARRATIVE around the newly previewed products.
Actually I think its the other way around.
Under Kirby they didn't allow leaks at all, they happened because GW was basically doing zero online marketing. The only marketing was pretty much White Dwarf and we only really knew of things from GW when they were a week or two out. This led to a lot of disgruntled people, esp because back then we were on the old style of codex/battletome updates so you could wait an entire edition and still not get an update to your rules. So I think there was more pressure from GW staff to try and appease fans and let us know what was going on because the company end wasn't letting on.
Heck don't forget the height of Kirby marketing was Age of Sigmar. Removing an entire major product line that was 30 years old overnight and replacing it with a boutique model line with joke rules. This was after spending the most money and marketing on Old World that they'd spent in a long while. They basically bigged up the End Times with marketing then dropped the game, marketing and all like a hot lead potato.
This was also the time that GW sent nasty letters to news sites spreading rumours, to the point where some sites outright stopped releasing any GW news (even official news) in protest.
The Kirby era GW wasn't seeding their own leaks, they were openly hostile and against them.
Current GW focuses on a generally 3 month preview window with some elements of longer term marketing too. They roll "With" the leaks and whilst I'm sure someone gets told off if they leak, GW is more likely to roll with it and use it as marketing (eg when a fiend kit wound up on ebay they made a marketing spoof video). They also most certainly seed their own leaks now as well. Again they roll with it "the Leaks Department and Potato Camera". GW today realises that leaks were something that culturally built up so they use it as part of their marketing rather than fight against it. At least openly, I'm sure if a leak happens outside of their control they do come down on the staffer who leaked the info, but in general publically they'll roll with it rathe than send out legal letters to news sites and deny things.
It's Faeit, so that's an "I'll believe it when I see it" from the start, but if there was any substance to this rumor, I'd prefer for GW to stick to pots. I like pots. If I have to put up with dropper bottles I may as well switch to a cheaper brand.
I hope so, I'm really tired of transferring my new paints to dropper bottles. I still have a few sealed pots that I will return for droppers if that happens.
I am in the minority as I paint straight from a pot, no pallet, and my skills show it.
If they switch to bottles, I just hope that they are similar enough to my Armypainter bottles, so that I can print more stands to shelve them better that the drawer they get tossed in now. I would also hope that they come in larger size bottles too. I do go through a lot of paints as I do projects and I would rather have a larger qty of paint per container than to have to buy multiples. Just picked up 4 of one pot this weekend as the local shop doesn't carry the Corvus Black and the other location has had troubles getting product in reasonable times. Of course there will be a higher price, or same price for less qty, but I am a glutton for being disappointed by GW.
This is only credible if accompanied with a price increase. Warhammer++/good community members can pay extra for an exclusive finecast skull agitator in each bottle.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Well they didn't increase the price of paints during the last round of increases, so this would give them the excuse to put everything up.
This was my own instinctive response. And knowing GW, they'll still find a way to make their new paint bottles prone to drying out.
Amusingly, I can see this happening. GW switching because dropper bottles are cheaper for them instead of their custom paint pots. And then, GW upping the price for us since there might now be one or two more ml of paint in the dropper bottles. Win-win for GW.
Maybe they're also changing paint manufacturers and the new one can only do dropper bottles?
Overread wrote: Ever since Kirby left the rumour mill has been rather dry. In general we get a small handful of rumours - sometimes we get a big leak, but in general its rare now. There's just no pressure on GW staff to risk jobs to let things slip when GW itself is showing us generally 3 month release windows and releasing stuff at a pretty fast rate.
So a LOT of sites that grew up in the rumour heavy Kirby era are basically running on dry so you get a lot more. "This thing started on Reddit and just spread" kind of rumours
I've concluded under Kirby they also had the "brilliant" idea to purposefully leak stuff as a form of advertising, and that thew new CEO decided (wisely) that was idiotic as it meant they couldn't control the NARRATIVE around the newly previewed products.
Was Kirby the one sneaking a WD into the loos to take photos on his phone
We joke about it now, but it was a pretty awful time back then for the community; forums and fan sites being given C&Ds, people really being afraid of even talking about stuff because they didn't know who GW legal would target next.
I know you still get the feeling that there are heads stuck up rectums in terms of how the company view themselves, but the relationship with the community has improved immeasurably since back then - absolute night and day.
Pacific wrote: Well I don't care so much about the bottles but what I will say is if they change names again, then that is it all of my GW paints are going out
Don't worry. GW will release a PDF that gives you the equivalent old names for the new paints, which you can then cross-reference with the previous PDF for the even older paints.
GW loves to see you use multiple documents to get your information.
Because of the large number of paints to update we'll be phasing this update in waves. Each wave will come with its own name converter document.
Note some paints might appear in more than one wave document, a few won't appear on any despite getting an update and some paints we'll name wrong so you have to check the FAQ/Errata document as well.
We'll also randomly stop uploading about 2/3rds of the way through.
Which sounds nuts but its true - GW hasn't updated the AoS Base Size chart in over a year now I think
Overread wrote: ...and some paints we'll name wrong so you have to check the FAQ/Errata document as well.
Fun fact. when my local store got its first batch of Contrast paints the Snakebite Leather pots were mislabeled Ultramarines Blue. I'm still using one of those pots.
Pacific wrote: Well I don't care so much about the bottles but what I will say is if they change names again, then that is it all of my GW paints are going out
Don't worry. GW will release a PDF that gives you the equivalent old names for the new paints, which you can then cross-reference with the previous PDF for the even older paints.
GW loves to see you use multiple documents to get your information.
No, no it'll be a printed book, the Warhammer 40k Paints Of The Grimdark Future Compendium, that's going to be full of errors and misspellings, that they'll FAQ in three weeks, and then promptly ignore the FAQ when reprinting the book in around a year.
The Elysian DROPPER trooper bottles will be some kind of proprietary shape* in order to keep them distinct from **non existent competitors to the hhhobby**.
They will be priced accordingly.
The first paints released in this new format will be texture paints.
*sigh* they will absolutely use distinctive, weird, short, fat dropper bottles that don't fit in with any storage solution designed around typical dropper bottle sizes.
kodos wrote: there are 5ml Dropper Bottles out there, so you gotta know what to expect
Imagine a container which holds 5ml of liquid....In the shape of a land raider...So at least hobbyists cant moan the iconic tank isn't getting any use....
I really hope they just put the current formula of paints into dropper bottles, aside from the technical ones like valhallan blizzard. I don't want to have to find new matching paints for my projects again and I have no problem with the current lineup of colors.
Wow, seems like I already got a few early production samples from somewhere. They are not labelled, but I‘d say that‘s Agrax Earthshade. I‘ll start using them immediately.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hm. That new smell reminds me of something…
Personally speaking i prefer flip tops because i can dip and control how much paint i take on the brush. Droppers i always find i end wasting an amount every time.
Nevelon wrote: If they do switch to droppers, I’ll have to finally get around to using a wet palette like everyone has been telling me to do for years now.
I like my bad habits. They’ve been getting me mediocre results for decades now, why should I change?
If they do revamp the paint range I want my Blue Ink and Deadly Nighshade back. I’ll deal with whatever the pots look like.
Same here, I might even have to stop liking my brushes
Nevelon wrote: If they do switch to droppers, I’ll have to finally get around to using a wet palette like everyone has been telling me to do for years now.
I like my bad habits. They’ve been getting me mediocre results for decades now, why should I change?
If they do revamp the paint range I want my Blue Ink and Deadly Nighshade back. I’ll deal with whatever the pots look like.
Same here, I might even have to stop liking my brushes
You don't have to like your brushes, but you should at least respect them.
Nevelon wrote: If they do switch to droppers, I’ll have to finally get around to using a wet palette like everyone has been telling me to do for years now.
I like my bad habits. They’ve been getting me mediocre results for decades now, why should I change?
you know that you just can screw off the cap and be done
advantage of Dropper Bottles is that it fits all people
I prefer pots for Contrast paints and Shades. I use wet pallette for Base and Layer paints so I guess that dropper bottles would make them more convenient to use.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Personally speaking i prefer flip tops because i can dip and control how much paint i take on the brush. Droppers i always find i end wasting an amount every time.
That's true but you also waste a bunch from drying out in the lid. You also waste an entire pot if you take a break from the hobby for a few years because they dry out completely. I've had to rebuy all my paints twice because of that. After the second time, I moved all my citadel paints to droppers except for shades and technical paints. There's some I haven't touched for 3-4 years and they're still in perfect shape, that wouldn't be the case with pots.
Nevelon wrote: If they do switch to droppers, I’ll have to finally get around to using a wet palette like everyone has been telling me to do for years now.
I like my bad habits. They’ve been getting me mediocre results for decades now, why should I change?
If they do revamp the paint range I want my Blue Ink and Deadly Nighshade back. I’ll deal with whatever the pots look like.
Same here, I might even have to stop liking my brushes
You don't have to like your brushes, but you should at least respect them.
I meant licking my brushes, far too early this morning. I have never liked brushes or respected them much either. They get thrown into boxes when they are not used, no plastic caps for the tips either.....and no soap to clean them...I am a terribad painter/ brush parent.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Personally speaking i prefer flip tops because i can dip and control how much paint i take on the brush. Droppers i always find i end wasting an amount every time.
That's true but you also waste a bunch from drying out in the lid. You also waste an entire pot if you take a break from the hobby for a few years because they dry out completely. I've had to rebuy all my paints twice because of that. After the second time, I moved all my citadel paints to droppers except for shades and technical paints. There's some I haven't touched for 3-4 years and they're still in perfect shape, that wouldn't be the case with pots.
That's down to pot and paint design, not an inherent flaw of pots. I've got 20+ year old Citadel paints in the old pots that are still liquid. Same for some of the first gen Privateer P3 paints (though they're not nearly as old, they've been untouched for years now), and a few obscure mixes of stuff that I don't even remember that are fine.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Personally speaking i prefer flip tops because i can dip and control how much paint i take on the brush. Droppers i always find i end wasting an amount every time.
That's true but you also waste a bunch from drying out in the lid. You also waste an entire pot if you take a break from the hobby for a few years because they dry out completely. I've had to rebuy all my paints twice because of that. After the second time, I moved all my citadel paints to droppers except for shades and technical paints. There's some I haven't touched for 3-4 years and they're still in perfect shape, that wouldn't be the case with pots.
I got the Citadel Ultimate paint set when they did the last one back in November 2016 and the paints are still fine. Only ones that have gone bad are Ceramite White and the Necron Compound dry paint. And they both went years ago, they're just bad paints. I mean, there might be others I've yet to discover, and some of the more commonly used base paints I've gone through the whole pot and replaced, but I've yet to open a layer paint after not using for a couple of years and discover it's dried out.
I'm not denying it happens, maybe it's the storage conditions, heat or humidity. But it's certainly not a universal thing.
He had the following idea;
What if those dropper bottles will look like Bolter rounds?
I remember reading one of the older generations of paint pots where based on a bolter round and one of the master sets had a water pot shaped like a bolter casing.
Looking at the original rumor and the rumor for the HH release date I think it’s referring to a paint set with figures like what 40K and AoS have.
There was a rumor that came up in the store recently for something new for the paint range coming in the Fall. It doesn’t sound big enough to be new bottles just an addition to the range. My thought was a change to the air paints possibly a real airbrush. One suggestion for a missing line that other companies have was pigments. I thought the pigment line got discontinued faster the the hand flamer shaped paint sprayer. Another missing type of paint that was suggested and is popular now are color shifting ones.
Citadel pots over the ages (entertainingly, possibly from a photo by Nevelon that was the first nice reference I found on the intarwab)
The "bolt Shell" is the brazen Brass one in this example. These were the absolute worst. Really rigid and shattery plastic, with a very tight tolerance screw thread. you either had them loose enough so the paint dried really quickly, or you tightened them once, and couldn't open them again. thankfully, it was back to flip-top quite rapidly after that one, even if the later flip-lids are not the most effective at stopping the paint from drying.
I know a guy that bought enter cases of the bright pink color in that style pot the Glistening Green is in(he was an Outrider at the time and cleared out what he could when GW switched) and is still using it today as his main Emperor's Children color.
I'm largely indifferent on droppers vs pop tops, the problem is just GW pop tops, I'm happy enough with P3 ones or the old GW ones from 25 years ago.
I do know people who hate droppers though, they specifically buy GW paints because they're NOT in droppers. These people usually paint straight from the pot and if they thin they just thin on the brush rather than a palette. So dropper bottles would change their workflow.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Personally speaking i prefer flip tops because i can dip and control how much paint i take on the brush. Droppers i always find i end wasting an amount every time.
That's true but you also waste a bunch from drying out in the lid. You also waste an entire pot if you take a break from the hobby for a few years because they dry out completely. I've had to rebuy all my paints twice because of that. After the second time, I moved all my citadel paints to droppers except for shades and technical paints. There's some I haven't touched for 3-4 years and they're still in perfect shape, that wouldn't be the case with pots.
I got the Citadel Ultimate paint set when they did the last one back in November 2016 and the paints are still fine. Only ones that have gone bad are Ceramite White and the Necron Compound dry paint. And they both went years ago, they're just bad paints. I mean, there might be others I've yet to discover, and some of the more commonly used base paints I've gone through the whole pot and replaced, but I've yet to open a layer paint after not using for a couple of years and discover it's dried out.
I'm not denying it happens, maybe it's the storage conditions, heat or humidity. But it's certainly not a universal thing.
Have you opened them all at some point? I've only noticed it being a problem after they're initially opened.
Granted, the current GW pots aren't as bad as the previous lines, I haven't had many of them completely dry out, but I have had several go thick and chunky at which point it's hard to bring them back to being as good as when they were first opened. Also some metallics which haven't fully dried but are pretty bad to use and I would replace them if I used them more frequently. Also a couple of paints where paint has gotten in the rim and I can't get it out fully (older GW pots it was pretty easy to clean the rim).
Pots vs dropper bottles is just personal preference, one isn’t better than the other. I tend to prefer pots but droppers for airbrush paints would be great.
It’s just like people saying a certain brand is better or worse then GW paints. It’s bull, some paints are better from some brands some are worse. I am yet to find a better red than Mephiston red, but metallics, there a bunch of other people doing amazing ones. Nothing is black and white, expect black and white!
My droppers keep clogging (and paper clips don't always work so I'm using my pin vise and the rare explosion doesn't help, either. Digging out the wet palette isn't impossible, but I'm lazy. Really lazy. Oh, and I hate painting.
Pots (the ones on the right, though) are betterish, because they don't clog. You can tell when the dried paint is building up, so you get the back of the hobby knife and scrape it out. Excellent way to procrastinate on the actual painting.
Instead of a wet palette (or even hobby paints), I'll almost always use caps of colored primers and craft paints. I'll also use kid's craft paint pots. The hobby paint doesn't have to match the colors.
However, I usually paint only to tabletop or advanced tabletop (no blending gradients of different colors), mostly on cheap Bones and boardgame plastic, and am more interested in getting through my boxes of shame than posting photos, pushing my skill set, or whatnot. IMO, You cannot see intricate details when you're actually playing with the miniatures and you're certainly not noticing the paint jobs when you concentrate on play.
That said, droppers for GW paints are overdue, since the paints are supposed to be for higher level painting. Keep the contrast and maybe washes in the pots?
I prefer pots. More control over paint. That said I'm not sure where the point about palettes comes in. I use one for both pots and bottles, neither rewards or penalises the use of a palette but it has been mentioned as a point of difference by several people now.
Lord_Valorion wrote: Dropper bottles will be the last nail in the coffin for me. Then I quit this <redacted> of a Hobby.
What's so horrific about dropper bottles?
Because I paint directory from the Pot. I don't dilute. And no, my models look good. Bottles and palettes Arena paint waste for me and need more preparation time. I Almosen don't have time for the Hobby because of work and the damn Kids, I paint in the night sonstiges for 15 mins. If I have to handle palettes and stuff, I just stop painting All along. And since I online play fully painted...End of Hobby.
JWBS wrote: I prefer pots. More control over paint. That said I'm not sure where the point about palettes comes in. I use one for both pots and bottles, neither rewards or penalises the use of a palette but it has been mentioned as a point of difference by several people now.
Not using a palette is an option when using pots.
It is not an option when using droppers.
I'm not saying it's necessarily a good option, but it's an option that some people like.
which I don't understand because nearly all dropper bottles have a cap you can screw off for the same "direct out of the bottle" painting as with regular pots
with some droppers this is actual easier than with some regular pots because of how they open
with pots I prefer to have a cap I can remove entirely to paint directly
if I cannot do this, the dropper is the next best thing
I mean I used a specific brand for a very long time simply because of their pots, but using Vallejo Droppers the same way is still possible
kodos wrote: which I don't understand because nearly all dropper bottles have a cap you can screw off for the same "direct out of the bottle" painting as with regular pots
with some droppers this is actual easier than with some regular pots because of how they open
with pots I prefer to have a cap I can remove entirely to paint directly
if I cannot do this, the dropper is the next best thing
I mean I used a specific brand for a very long time simply because of their pots, but using Vallejo Droppers the same way is still possible
Do you actually paint like this with droppers? Because the droppers I've used (Vallejo, AP and Reaper come to mind) it's technically possible to remove the cap, but practically speaking it's almost always jammed on and extremely difficult to get off. Like I have a few droppers on my desk right now and I can't get any of them off with my bare fingers. I'm sure with some pliers they'd come off. And then you need to put the cap somewhere, the ones I've seen would rest on their side so you're likely going to end up getting paint on the area because the cap will be full of paint from shaking it up prior to taking off the cap.
The only time I've bothered removing caps from droppers is either when they're empty and I plan to put paint into them, or when they're so caked in paint that they keep clogging up repeatedly, and yeah on those occasions I had to use pliers to get them off and it was a messy experience.
But yeah, GW paints can be a bit annoying when they don't stay open. They seem really variable, some stay open fine, others don't. The really old pots I'd find eventually the little tag would snap off (or you could just cut it I guess) then you could lay the cap next to the pot instead of it remaining attached.
depends on the colour, with washes/inks when I need a lot (like bases) I remove the cap (and for artist brands tubes/droppers which come in larger bottles as it is easier to get the needed amount)
AP ones are easier to get off and it is usually only the first time were it is difficult
for normal paint were I usually mix/match anyway I have a palette anyway
for some mixed colours I use the linked glass bottles (20 years old and they are still handy to fill from droppers to make your own mix in larger amount) normally for metals
PS: of course if GW is doing it I assume they use droppers with a fixed cap so you cannot re-use them
but in general you are still able to paint the same way as with pots
NAVARRO wrote: I have hundreds of different paints majority is Vallejos and GW's.
GW dry inside the pots so anyone worried about waste of a few drops on a dropper will have 100% of the paint dried out on pots.
Either way I have to replace GWs several times while my Vallejos still as good as new.
For that alone and not talking about prices or other pros and cons I prefer dropper.
I have had paint spoil in dropper bottles and not had huge issues with drying up from pots, clogging up from droppers is a bigger issue than drying out. It’s very annoying when you only want a small brush full of paint and your dropper bottle shirts out a huge blob onto your pallet.
That said, I don’t want Vallejo to switch to pots or gw to switch to droppers. I can live with either way round but it’s not a deal breaker, I will still buy the best paint for the job I am doing, who ever makes it and what ever pot it comes in.
Oops -- should have mentioned that, since I paint only to advance tabletop, most of my painting is six or so paint colors: brown, black, white, metal, gold, and two shades of green. Much easier to monitor the pots when you frequently use them (I just have a GW starter set I restored from half-dried). They're easy to scrape, and you can add medium to them to help restore them. I use colored primers, craft paints, kid's craft paints, and droppers as well.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I'm largely indifferent on droppers vs pop tops, the problem is just GW pop tops, I'm happy enough with P3 ones or the old GW ones from 25 years ago.
I do know people who hate droppers though, they specifically buy GW paints because they're NOT in droppers. These people usually paint straight from the pot and if they thin they just thin on the brush rather than a palette. So dropper bottles would change their workflow.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Personally speaking i prefer flip tops because i can dip and control how much paint i take on the brush. Droppers i always find i end wasting an amount every time.
That's true but you also waste a bunch from drying out in the lid. You also waste an entire pot if you take a break from the hobby for a few years because they dry out completely. I've had to rebuy all my paints twice because of that. After the second time, I moved all my citadel paints to droppers except for shades and technical paints. There's some I haven't touched for 3-4 years and they're still in perfect shape, that wouldn't be the case with pots.
I got the Citadel Ultimate paint set when they did the last one back in November 2016 and the paints are still fine. Only ones that have gone bad are Ceramite White and the Necron Compound dry paint. And they both went years ago, they're just bad paints. I mean, there might be others I've yet to discover, and some of the more commonly used base paints I've gone through the whole pot and replaced, but I've yet to open a layer paint after not using for a couple of years and discover it's dried out.
I'm not denying it happens, maybe it's the storage conditions, heat or humidity. But it's certainly not a universal thing.
Have you opened them all at some point? I've only noticed it being a problem after they're initially opened.
Granted, the current GW pots aren't as bad as the previous lines, I haven't had many of them completely dry out, but I have had several go thick and chunky at which point it's hard to bring them back to being as good as when they were first opened. Also some metallics which haven't fully dried but are pretty bad to use and I would replace them if I used them more frequently. Also a couple of paints where paint has gotten in the rim and I can't get it out fully (older GW pots it was pretty easy to clean the rim).
There's bound to be some I've never used, but certainly some I used when I first got them that are still good now. The metallics have separated a *lot* but a minute on a vortex mixer with an agitator in sorts them out. Admittedly I wouldn't want to shake them back to life by hand. But then I wouldn't want to shake up Scale 75 paints from new by hand either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: which I don't understand because nearly all dropper bottles have a cap you can screw off for the same "direct out of the bottle" painting as with regular pots
with some droppers this is actual easier than with some regular pots because of how they open
with pots I prefer to have a cap I can remove entirely to paint directly
if I cannot do this, the dropper is the next best thing
I mean I used a specific brand for a very long time simply because of their pots, but using Vallejo Droppers the same way is still possible
Not really? The whole point with a Citadel pot is it's a very large opening that you can safely get the brush in without risking fraying it, and then you can still see inside to see what the paint level is so you can see how much paint you're putting on the brush. You can't do that with Vallejo droppers, once you get the brush in you can't see what's happening.
The reality is that what'd be best all around is paints you use for painting the main colour of the model, for which you need loads of paint anyway, in droppers. And paints you use just for very small sections or highlights in pots. But unless you're only painting a single colour scheme that's constantly going to change so it's not really a possibility.
The reality is that what'd be best all around is paints you use for painting the main colour of the model, for which you need loads of paint anyway, in droppers. And paints you use just for very small sections or highlights in pots. But unless you're only painting a single colour scheme that's constantly going to change so it's not really a possibility.
They could sell all the paints in pots and also droppers.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I'm largely indifferent on droppers vs pop tops, the problem is just GW pop tops, I'm happy enough with P3 ones or the old GW ones from 25 years ago.
I do know people who hate droppers though, they specifically buy GW paints because they're NOT in droppers. These people usually paint straight from the pot and if they thin they just thin on the brush rather than a palette. So dropper bottles would change their workflow.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Personally speaking i prefer flip tops because i can dip and control how much paint i take on the brush. Droppers i always find i end wasting an amount every time.
That's true but you also waste a bunch from drying out in the lid. You also waste an entire pot if you take a break from the hobby for a few years because they dry out completely. I've had to rebuy all my paints twice because of that. After the second time, I moved all my citadel paints to droppers except for shades and technical paints. There's some I haven't touched for 3-4 years and they're still in perfect shape, that wouldn't be the case with pots.
I got the Citadel Ultimate paint set when they did the last one back in November 2016 and the paints are still fine. Only ones that have gone bad are Ceramite White and the Necron Compound dry paint. And they both went years ago, they're just bad paints. I mean, there might be others I've yet to discover, and some of the more commonly used base paints I've gone through the whole pot and replaced, but I've yet to open a layer paint after not using for a couple of years and discover it's dried out.
I'm not denying it happens, maybe it's the storage conditions, heat or humidity. But it's certainly not a universal thing.
Have you opened them all at some point? I've only noticed it being a problem after they're initially opened.
Granted, the current GW pots aren't as bad as the previous lines, I haven't had many of them completely dry out, but I have had several go thick and chunky at which point it's hard to bring them back to being as good as when they were first opened. Also some metallics which haven't fully dried but are pretty bad to use and I would replace them if I used them more frequently. Also a couple of paints where paint has gotten in the rim and I can't get it out fully (older GW pots it was pretty easy to clean the rim).
There's bound to be some I've never used, but certainly some I used when I first got them that are still good now. The metallics have separated a *lot* but a minute on a vortex mixer with an agitator in sorts them out. Admittedly I wouldn't want to shake them back to life by hand. But then I wouldn't want to shake up Scale 75 paints from new by hand either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: which I don't understand because nearly all dropper bottles have a cap you can screw off for the same "direct out of the bottle" painting as with regular pots
with some droppers this is actual easier than with some regular pots because of how they open
with pots I prefer to have a cap I can remove entirely to paint directly
if I cannot do this, the dropper is the next best thing
I mean I used a specific brand for a very long time simply because of their pots, but using Vallejo Droppers the same way is still possible
Not really? The whole point with a Citadel pot is it's a very large opening that you can safely get the brush in without risking fraying it, and then you can still see inside to see what the paint level is so you can see how much paint you're putting on the brush. You can't do that with Vallejo droppers, once you get the brush in you can't see what's happening.
The reality is that what'd be best all around is paints you use for painting the main colour of the model, for which you need loads of paint anyway, in droppers. And paints you use just for very small sections or highlights in pots. But unless you're only painting a single colour scheme that's constantly going to change so it's not really a possibility.
I think you're missing the point of dropper bottles. They are not meant to put a brush inside to get paint. You squeeze a bit of paint onto a palette and then load your brush. You have just as much (if not more) control of how much paint gets on the brush as you do with GW's pots.
NAVARRO wrote: I have hundreds of different paints majority is Vallejos and GW's.
GW dry inside the pots so anyone worried about waste of a few drops on a dropper will have 100% of the paint dried out on pots.
Well not for me.
Not for me either. I've got years old paints from the current pots. As long as they're sealed properly, i've never had an instance of drying in the pot.
LordAriakan wrote: I think you're missing the point of dropper bottles. They are not meant to put a brush inside to get paint. You squeeze a bit of paint onto a palette and then load your brush. You have just as much (if not more) control of how much paint gets on the brush as you do with GW's pots.
You maybe lost the conversation, the argument was being made that if you want to paint directly from the pot without a palette you could still do that with droppers, while that's technically possible I think for the most part that's much more of a pain in the arse than with pots.
LordAriakan wrote: I think you're missing the point of dropper bottles. They are not meant to put a brush inside to get paint. You squeeze a bit of paint onto a palette and then load your brush. You have just as much (if not more) control of how much paint gets on the brush as you do with GW's pots.
You maybe lost the conversation, the argument was being made that if you want to paint directly from the pot without a palette you could still do that with droppers, while that's technically possible I think for the most part that's much more of a pain in the arse than with pots.
The thought of someone actually attempting that is practically giving me heart palpitations.
Lord_Valorion wrote: Dropper bottles will be the last nail in the coffin for me. Then I quit this <redacted> of a Hobby.
What's so horrific about dropper bottles?
Because I paint directory from the Pot. I don't dilute. And no, my models look good. Bottles and palettes Arena paint waste for me and need more preparation time. I Almosen don't have time for the Hobby because of work and the damn Kids, I paint in the night sonstiges for 15 mins. If I have to handle palettes and stuff, I just stop painting All along. And since I online play fully painted...End of Hobby.
To each their own (obviously), but nowadays I don't see any other way for a good painting experience (and even a really quick setup if you only paint for very short sessions that aren’t weeks apart) than using a wet palette. I do have small children as well who tend to interrupt me, and I mostly paint a little after they've gone to bed.
The thing with a wet palette is, you have way more control about your paint and they don't dry out (at all) while you’re painting. When you’re done or get interrupted, just clip on the lid and the paint will wait for your return, for days - when you’re back just open the lid, continue. You are also much, much quicker changing between several different paints if you still have some on your palette, eg when correcting mistakes.
They can be made on the cheap, there are lots of tips online. Mine is a shallow plastic bowl with a sealed lid about 15cm (eg tupperware), a kitchen sponge-cloth thing cut to shape and soaked in water, and baking parchment on top. You may want to rinse the whole thing every now and then. Maybe give it a try, it really changes things.
That said, I use my remaining GW paints directly from the pot and thin them on the brush (or in the lid, to counteract drying from my slow painting), and I prefer Contrast and GW shade paints from the pot as well.
LordAriakan wrote: I think you're missing the point of dropper bottles. They are not meant to put a brush inside to get paint. You squeeze a bit of paint onto a palette and then load your brush. You have just as much (if not more) control of how much paint gets on the brush as you do with GW's pots.
You maybe lost the conversation, the argument was being made that if you want to paint directly from the pot without a palette you could still do that with droppers, while that's technically possible I think for the most part that's much more of a pain in the arse than with pots.
which depends on the pots and the droppers, not all are the same and the argument that droppers are always opaque and pots are always clear so you can see inside with one but not the other is far stretched
not all pots are practical to get the brush inside the pot and you pick the paint from the lid/cap, as well as not all droppers are practical to get brush inside and you pick the paint from the cap
so as soon as GW changes pots again, the big "advantage" of pots might be gone because it was not a general thing but a specific case for this certain pots and the next ones will be different
and most droppers I have are clear and I can see inside while this is not the case with the pots I have (for the main reason I removed the label from the droppers and not from the pots)
my problem here is a simple one, claiming that it is in general impossible to pick up colour with a brush from one type of bottle but always possible with another type of bottle and for that reason the person must quit painting, is bs (specially with visibility as an argument) as GW is not the only one using pots
PS: how practical those things are depends on what people are used to and the bottles
I think the current ones are the worst GW ever had and my favorite ones were the "Bolter" ones with the screw cap while I have no problem with taking the cap off from the AP droppers and paint from the pot
NAVARRO wrote: I have hundreds of different paints majority is Vallejos and GW's.
GW dry inside the pots so anyone worried about waste of a few drops on a dropper will have 100% of the paint dried out on pots.
Well not for me.
Not for me either. I've got years old paints from the current pots. As long as they're sealed properly, i've never had an instance of drying in the pot.
I'm still using paints in pots from 2016, with no issue, so.
NAVARRO wrote: I have hundreds of different paints majority is Vallejos and GW's.
GW dry inside the pots so anyone worried about waste of a few drops on a dropper will have 100% of the paint dried out on pots.
Well not for me.
Not for me either. I've got years old paints from the current pots. As long as they're sealed properly, i've never had an instance of drying in the pot.
I'm still using paints in pots from 2016, with no issue, so.
Good for you lads thats not what happens to me and apparently to plenty of people too, just google it and see loads of tutorials on how to revive dried out GW's etc... Its a well documented issue and has been mentioned several times on Dakka too.
Doesn't matter since we have totally different experiences with it.
I also noticed it happens more to light colours like whites and creams but metallics bad too...
May I add that in more than 20 years I can only recall 1vallejo drying out on my large collections of miniatures paints ( not even mentioning fine art paints in this mix).
my problem here is a simple one, claiming that it is in general impossible to pick up colour with a brush from one type of bottle but always possible with another type of bottle and for that reason the person must quit painting, is bs (specially with visibility as an argument) as GW is not the only one using pots
Sure. But this is a thread discussing GW pots and the post I replied to you specifically said you could paint directly from the bottle with Vallejo droppers which is totally impractical.
NAVARRO wrote: I have hundreds of different paints majority is Vallejos and GW's.
GW dry inside the pots so anyone worried about waste of a few drops on a dropper will have 100% of the paint dried out on pots.
Well not for me.
Not for me either. I've got years old paints from the current pots. As long as they're sealed properly, i've never had an instance of drying in the pot.
I'm still using paints in pots from 2016, with no issue, so.
Good for you lads thats not what happens to me and apparently to plenty of people too, just google it and see loads of tutorials on how to revive dried out GW's etc... Its a well documented issue and has been mentioned several times on Dakka too.
Doesn't matter since we have totally different experiences with it.
I also noticed it happens more to light colours like whites and creams but metallics bad too...
May I add that in more than 20 years I can only recall 1vallejo drying out on my large collections of miniatures paints ( not even mentioning fine art paints in this mix).
Yeah, people have different experiences, but when you make declarative statements like:
"GW dry inside the pots so anyone worried about waste of a few drops on a dropper will have 100% of the paint dried out on pots." it's fair for people to correct it. Because "anyone" using GW paints won't have that experience. Just some people. We don't really know why it effects some people and not others, whether it's climate or the way the paints are being used, but regardless it's not something that happens to everyone, and it's wrong to say that it does. Just like none of us pointing out it's not happened to use aren't denying it happens to other people.
my problem here is a simple one, claiming that it is in general impossible to pick up colour with a brush from one type of bottle but always possible with another type of bottle and for that reason the person must quit painting, is bs (specially with visibility as an argument) as GW is not the only one using pots
Sure. But this is a thread discussing GW pots and the post I replied to you specifically said you could paint directly from the bottle with Vallejo droppers which is totally impractical.
NAVARRO wrote: I have hundreds of different paints majority is Vallejos and GW's.
GW dry inside the pots so anyone worried about waste of a few drops on a dropper will have 100% of the paint dried out on pots.
Well not for me.
Not for me either. I've got years old paints from the current pots. As long as they're sealed properly, i've never had an instance of drying in the pot.
I'm still using paints in pots from 2016, with no issue, so.
Good for you lads thats not what happens to me and apparently to plenty of people too, just google it and see loads of tutorials on how to revive dried out GW's etc... Its a well documented issue and has been mentioned several times on Dakka too.
Doesn't matter since we have totally different experiences with it.
I also noticed it happens more to light colours like whites and creams but metallics bad too...
May I add that in more than 20 years I can only recall 1vallejo drying out on my large collections of miniatures paints ( not even mentioning fine art paints in this mix).
Yeah, people have different experiences, but when you make declarative statements like:
"GW dry inside the pots so anyone worried about waste of a few drops on a dropper will have 100% of the paint dried out on pots." it's fair for people to correct it. Because "anyone" using GW paints won't have that experience. Just some people. We don't really know why it effects some people and not others, whether it's climate or the way the paints are being used, but regardless it's not something that happens to everyone, and it's wrong to say that it does. Just like none of us pointing out it's not happened to use aren't denying it happens to other people.
Sorry to say but your argument does not stick.
By your line of thought people expressing and flagging their personal experience is wrong because well "its not everyone experience"... Which means everything that anyone says about their experience on anything is fundamentally wrong Either way it happens to me and to plenty others (even some on this tread) so yep take or leave it. Not my problem.
The use I give to them is exactly the same use I give to my Vallejos and they live on the same space, im not talking a few paints either I have way too many.
Galas wrote: I never knew people had such strong opinions about their paint's containers until this thread.
It comes up from time to time. I occasionally wish people had even stronger opinions, because then we could just get posts that tell us that the poster's preferred way of painting is the objectively correct one and everyone else is having fun the wrong way. It would oftentimes be a less wordy and more efficient way of saying the same thing.
Galas wrote: I never knew people had such strong opinions about their paint's containers until this thread.
Oh, I've seen this exact conversation get kinda heated on FB.
I prefer droppers because the best practice is avoid putting your brush directly in the source container so that you don't contaminate (with dust, liquid, other colors, etc.) the whole thing. This is true for miniature painting or house painting. Droppers make things easier in that context.
Note that I'm not saying anyone is doing it *wrong* by putting their brushes in the pot. If that's *right for you*, have at it. "Best practice" doesn't mean "law". It does mean "best practice" however, and that's why there is a very legit rationale behind using droppers.
Edit: Regarding GW pots, you can add me to the list of people who've had issues with the current version. They aren't awful. They're CLEARLY better than the old bolter round pots, which would dry out unopened on the shelf. But I've had fewer bad experiences with dropper bottles. The P3/Cote D'Arms/old GW pots are great too if pots are your thing.
Galas wrote: I never knew people had such strong opinions about their paint's containers until this thread.
It comes up from time to time. I occasionally wish people had even stronger opinions, because then we could just get posts that tell us that the poster's preferred way of painting is the objectively correct one and everyone else is having fun the wrong way. It would oftentimes be a less wordy and more efficient way of saying the same thing.
If you lived through the glory days of sore thumbs opening the GW paints from the 90's, then years of trauma through the screw top era of paints drying out (assuming you could even get into them), then you'd understand why paint pots are so important. Kicking around in a draw somewhere I probably still have my old Testors gold enamel that I haven't been able to get open for roughly 30 years
Personally I'm not too fussed so long as the paints keep well over my occasional years of absence from the hobby and aren't a bloody nightmare to get open, for all my bitching about GW's pots I'm not rushing out to buy a bunch of dropper bottles to swap them to (though have considered getting a bunch of coat d arms pots over the years). However, I've met people who refused to even try Vallejo because of the droppers.
Sorry to say but your argument does not stick.
By your line of thought people expressing and flagging their personal experience is wrong because well "its not everyone experience"... Which means everything that anyone says about their experience on anything is fundamentally wrong
Of course you're allowed your personal experience. But that's not what you said. You said, and I quote:
"GW dry inside the pots so anyone worried about waste of a few drops on a dropper will have 100% of the paint dried out on pots."
If you said, "My GW paints dry inside the pots so I get 100% of the paint wasted anyway" that'd be fine.
But what you did was take your own personal experience, and claim it to be universal. Then you got annoyed when people went "it's not universal it doesn't happen to me".
You said "GW dry inside the pots" - for you they do, but not for everyone. You can argue you were just stating your own personal experience there and phrased it badly, but then you said "anyone worried about waste of a few drops on a dropper will have 100% of the paint dried out on pots". You said "anyone". Maybe you meant anyone will have some issues as you get dry bits around the edge of the pot, which would be true... oh no, you said "100% of the paint dried out".
You said something that was a declarative statement, which was just nonsense, because it's fun to bash GW, and then you got defensive when it was pointed out your experience wasn't universal.
Galas wrote: I never knew people had such strong opinions about their paint's containers until this thread.
Oh, I've seen this exact conversation get kinda heated on FB.
I prefer droppers because the best practice is avoid putting your brush directly in the source container so that you don't contaminate (with dust, liquid, other colors, etc.) the whole thing. This is true for miniature painting or house painting. Droppers make things easier in that context.
Note that I'm not saying anyone is doing it *wrong* by putting their brushes in the pot. If that's *right for you*, have at it. "Best practice" doesn't mean "law". It does mean "best practice" however, and that's why there is a very legit rationale behind using droppers.
Edit: Regarding GW pots, you can add me to the list of people who've had issues with the current version. They aren't awful. They're CLEARLY better than the old bolter round pots, which would dry out unopened on the shelf. But I've had fewer bad experiences with dropper bottles. The P3/Cote D'Arms/old GW pots are great too if pots are your thing.
I'd say it's a stretch to say there even is a "best practice" when it comes to miniature paints so long as the person is getting their models painted and is happy with the result (which seems to be a pretty high bar in this hobby).
In GW style the Dropper bottles will be made of glass, so not only will it take a long time for the paint to dribble out since you won't be able to squeeze the sides, but if you drop it of your paint table it will shatter into painful shards and you will lose your overpriced paint completely.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: If you lived through the glory days of sore thumbs opening the GW paints from the 90's, then years of trauma through the screw top era of paints drying out (assuming you could even get into them), then you'd understand why paint pots are so important. Kicking around in a draw somewhere I probably still have my old Testors gold enamel that I haven't been able to get open for roughly 30 years
Trauma? I won't have you speak ill of the screw tops. Where do you think did I get my bulging muscles?
Galas wrote: I never knew people had such strong opinions about their paint's containers until this thread.
Oh, I've seen this exact conversation get kinda heated on FB.
I prefer droppers because the best practice is avoid putting your brush directly in the source container so that you don't contaminate (with dust, liquid, other colors, etc.) the whole thing. This is true for miniature painting or house painting. Droppers make things easier in that context.
Note that I'm not saying anyone is doing it *wrong* by putting their brushes in the pot. If that's *right for you*, have at it. "Best practice" doesn't mean "law". It does mean "best practice" however, and that's why there is a very legit rationale behind using droppers.
Edit: Regarding GW pots, you can add me to the list of people who've had issues with the current version. They aren't awful. They're CLEARLY better than the old bolter round pots, which would dry out unopened on the shelf. But I've had fewer bad experiences with dropper bottles. The P3/Cote D'Arms/old GW pots are great too if pots are your thing.
I'd say it's a stretch to say there even is a "best practice" when it comes to miniature paints so long as the person is getting their models painted and is happy with the result (which seems to be a pretty high bar in this hobby).
I mean...I think we can come up with endless examples of alternate ways of achieving certain tasks that may give an acceptable result but are less than ideal for legitimate reasons. I'd also offer that the reason that 'best practices' exist are so that people maximize their chances of being happy with the end result.
I'd say it's a stretch to say there even is a "best practice" when it comes to miniature paints
Not getting dust and contaminants into your paint is best practice no matter what you're painting. Whether someone cares about that or not is up to them.
Galas wrote: I never knew people had such strong opinions about their paint's containers until this thread.
Oh, I've seen this exact conversation get kinda heated on FB.
I prefer droppers because the best practice is avoid putting your brush directly in the source container so that you don't contaminate (with dust, liquid, other colors, etc.) the whole thing. This is true for miniature painting or house painting. Droppers make things easier in that context.
Note that I'm not saying anyone is doing it *wrong* by putting their brushes in the pot. If that's *right for you*, have at it. "Best practice" doesn't mean "law". It does mean "best practice" however, and that's why there is a very legit rationale behind using droppers.
Edit: Regarding GW pots, you can add me to the list of people who've had issues with the current version. They aren't awful. They're CLEARLY better than the old bolter round pots, which would dry out unopened on the shelf. But I've had fewer bad experiences with dropper bottles. The P3/Cote D'Arms/old GW pots are great too if pots are your thing.
I'd say it's a stretch to say there even is a "best practice" when it comes to miniature paints so long as the person is getting their models painted and is happy with the result (which seems to be a pretty high bar in this hobby).
I mean...I think we can come up with endless examples of alternate ways of achieving certain tasks that may give an acceptable result but are less than ideal for legitimate reasons. I'd also offer that the reason that 'best practices' exist are so that people maximize their chances of being happy with the end result.
If someone paints quicker straight out of the pot then for them perhaps that's the best practice, because the end goal is a painted model rather than a pot that is free from contamination.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: If you lived through the glory days of sore thumbs opening the GW paints from the 90's, then years of trauma through the screw top era of paints drying out (assuming you could even get into them), then you'd understand why paint pots are so important. Kicking around in a draw somewhere I probably still have my old Testors gold enamel that I haven't been able to get open for roughly 30 years
Trauma? I won't have you speak ill of the screw tops. Where do you think did I get my bulging muscles?
Bulging thumb, forefinger and wrist I assume? I think that's inflammation rather than muscles.
Sorry to say but your argument does not stick.
By your line of thought people expressing and flagging their personal experience is wrong because well "its not everyone experience"... Which means everything that anyone says about their experience on anything is fundamentally wrong
Of course you're allowed your personal experience. But that's not what you said. You said, and I quote:
"GW dry inside the pots so anyone worried about waste of a few drops on a dropper will have 100% of the paint dried out on pots."
If you said, "My GW paints dry inside the pots so I get 100% of the paint wasted anyway" that'd be fine.
But what you did was take your own personal experience, and claim it to be universal. Then you got annoyed when people went "it's not universal it doesn't happen to me".
You said "GW dry inside the pots" - for you they do, but not for everyone. You can argue you were just stating your own personal experience there and phrased it badly, but then you said "anyone worried about waste of a few drops on a dropper will have 100% of the paint dried out on pots". You said "anyone". Maybe you meant anyone will have some issues as you get dry bits around the edge of the pot, which would be true... oh no, you said "100% of the paint dried out".
You said something that was a declarative statement, which was just nonsense, because it's fun to bash GW, and then you got defensive when it was pointed out your experience wasn't universal.
Mate with all due respect your forging a really weird narrative and tangent.
Universal what? Fun to bash what? Annoyed and defensive?
You seem inclined to say people are wrong if they dont comply with what you think they should be writing on a forum about paint pots.
Like I said take it or leave it its your problem.
IF they ever do, I hope they bring back paint sets. It's frankly pretty weird that they no longer sell paint sets other than the tiny ones that come with a couple of figures.
Galas wrote: I never knew people had such strong opinions about their paint's containers until this thread.
Oh, I've seen this exact conversation get kinda heated on FB.
I prefer droppers because the best practice is avoid putting your brush directly in the source container so that you don't contaminate (with dust, liquid, other colors, etc.) the whole thing. This is true for miniature painting or house painting. Droppers make things easier in that context.
Note that I'm not saying anyone is doing it *wrong* by putting their brushes in the pot. If that's *right for you*, have at it. "Best practice" doesn't mean "law". It does mean "best practice" however, and that's why there is a very legit rationale behind using droppers.
Edit: Regarding GW pots, you can add me to the list of people who've had issues with the current version. They aren't awful. They're CLEARLY better than the old bolter round pots, which would dry out unopened on the shelf. But I've had fewer bad experiences with dropper bottles. The P3/Cote D'Arms/old GW pots are great too if pots are your thing.
I'd say it's a stretch to say there even is a "best practice" when it comes to miniature paints so long as the person is getting their models painted and is happy with the result (which seems to be a pretty high bar in this hobby).
I mean...I think we can come up with endless examples of alternate ways of achieving certain tasks that may give an acceptable result but are less than ideal for legitimate reasons. I'd also offer that the reason that 'best practices' exist are so that people maximize their chances of being happy with the end result.
If someone paints quicker straight out of the pot then for them perhaps that's the best practice, because the end goal is a painted model rather than a pot that is free from contamination.
I guess, if the 3(?) extra seconds it takes to move paint to a palette represents a substantial time savings. TO ME, that's not a terribly strong argument, but whatevs. And of course the pot-to-mini scenario implies one isn't thinning, mixing, or manipulating the paint in any way. Again, not that anyone is required to do any of those things. But they may lead painters to better results, which is why GW's own videos show their painters using palettes.
You can do whatever you want. My point here is just that there's some actual rationale behind not painting from the pot.
Galas wrote: I never knew people had such strong opinions about their paint's containers until this thread.
Oh, I've seen this exact conversation get kinda heated on FB.
I prefer droppers because the best practice is avoid putting your brush directly in the source container so that you don't contaminate (with dust, liquid, other colors, etc.) the whole thing. This is true for miniature painting or house painting. Droppers make things easier in that context.
Note that I'm not saying anyone is doing it *wrong* by putting their brushes in the pot. If that's *right for you*, have at it. "Best practice" doesn't mean "law". It does mean "best practice" however, and that's why there is a very legit rationale behind using droppers.
Edit: Regarding GW pots, you can add me to the list of people who've had issues with the current version. They aren't awful. They're CLEARLY better than the old bolter round pots, which would dry out unopened on the shelf. But I've had fewer bad experiences with dropper bottles. The P3/Cote D'Arms/old GW pots are great too if pots are your thing.
I'd say it's a stretch to say there even is a "best practice" when it comes to miniature paints so long as the person is getting their models painted and is happy with the result (which seems to be a pretty high bar in this hobby).
I mean...I think we can come up with endless examples of alternate ways of achieving certain tasks that may give an acceptable result but are less than ideal for legitimate reasons. I'd also offer that the reason that 'best practices' exist are so that people maximize their chances of being happy with the end result.
If someone paints quicker straight out of the pot then for them perhaps that's the best practice, because the end goal is a painted model rather than a pot that is free from contamination.
I guess, if the 3(?) extra seconds it takes to move paint to a palette represents a substantial time savings. TO ME, that's not a terribly strong argument, but whatevs. And of course the pot-to-mini scenario implies one isn't thinning, mixing, or manipulating the paint in any way. Again, not that anyone is required to do any of those things. But they may lead painters to better results, which is why GW's own videos show their painters using palettes.
You can do whatever you want. My point here is just that there's some actual rationale behind not painting from the pot.
Furthermore to this, pots function is not only to make it easy to transfer paint in small doses to minis or palletes depending on your favourite way of doing things, but also to actually store paints and keep them airtight enough so they dont dry out. Has Gorgon also noted some pots dry out unopened which to me reinforces the idea that the design of these pots is not good enough for that either.
Also painting from pots with those huge lids open leads to the so common pot spills accident we see everyday...
BigOscar wrote: IF they ever do, I hope they bring back paint sets. It's frankly pretty weird that they no longer sell paint sets other than the tiny ones that come with a couple of figures.
They started doing this at the GW locations:
While you’re there, collect the paints you’ll need to bring your new Tyranid friend to life, and get the tenth pot free with the Pick ‘N’ Mix Paint Set. You can choose whichever paints you like and the most expensive one is free, so design an eclectic new colour scheme and make that project happen this year.
The text is pulled from the Tyranid coin+model bit, but it has been going on since Contrast was released.
BigOscar wrote: IF they ever do, I hope they bring back paint sets. It's frankly pretty weird that they no longer sell paint sets other than the tiny ones that come with a couple of figures.
They started doing this at the GW locations:
While you’re there, collect the paints you’ll need to bring your new Tyranid friend to life, and get the tenth pot free with the Pick ‘N’ Mix Paint Set. You can choose whichever paints you like and the most expensive one is free, so design an eclectic new colour scheme and make that project happen this year.
The text is pulled from the Tyranid coin+model bit, but it has been going on since Contrast was released.
My FLGS gives me 10% off plus a point system that basically equals another 10% in store credit. The GW "deal" seems much worse. Oh btw I have to drive 30 mins past 5 FLGS to get to the 1 Warhammer store in a 200 mile radius to take advantage of it. I can see why it might be helpful to a new player who doesn't realize it or the GW cultists that seem to hang out at the GW store and refuse to buy anything elsewhere but it isn't much of a deal for 99% of playeers
Plus it's not really a "set." A set is a curated collection towards a common theme, such as a collection of faction colours or aimed towards executing NMM or perhaps a range to help someone get started. What GW offer is a pretty weak bulk buy discount.
Most paint sets have some paints in colors that just don’t match your scheme, and are wasted.
The GW gives you the most expensive paint for free, where many “buy x, get one free” give you the cheepest.
Not every FLGS gives discounts.
This is a discount from GW. Kinda rare.
Could it be better? Yes. Is it a bad deal? Not really. Sure, it’s not a curated starter set, but the GW staffer can talk to the buyer and get them the paints they need to paint their models, and save a bit of coin.
Aye, but GW is already 20% more expensive than getting them elsewhere, so giving me essentially 10% off when I buy 10 still isn't the deal of the century for me.
In contrast, I remember buying the Base Paint starter set back when they first launched them and it was a nice starter set of the core base colours, all at a very reasonable price, available at discount from my local gaming store. Lovely stuff
For those who like pots I would argue that it is easier to move paint from droppers into pots than vice versa. So far the only paint I've moved over to droppers are stuff like contrast and washes.
(For those who say I could buy other brands the problem is that brand availability near me is very low. However, my FLGS is looking into shipping Scale75 so who knows)
TBH normal paint you'd use with wet palette is OK with dropper bottles, but specialist paints, technicals, shades, contrast and such you use straight from the pot would be useless from droppers and/or hugely wasteful. The pots thing is kinda a meme now, I bet if GW was using the droppers instead some people would bash them and praising pots every second post
People are arguing about personal preference and taste. There is no right and wrong here. Pots, dropper bottles, what ever. It’s the paint that counts.
If I had to choose a container for all paints it would be the dropper bottles with a flip lid, like Kimera paints use. All the benefits of both. But they get bunked up a treat so still not perfect.
Azreal13 wrote: Plus it's not really a "set." A set is a curated collection towards a common theme, such as a collection of faction colours or aimed towards executing NMM or perhaps a range to help someone get started. What GW offer is a pretty weak bulk buy discount.
Galas wrote: I never knew people had such strong opinions about their paint's containers until this thread.
Oh, I've seen this exact conversation get kinda heated on FB.
I prefer droppers because the best practice is avoid putting your brush directly in the source container so that you don't contaminate (with dust, liquid, other colors, etc.) the whole thing. This is true for miniature painting or house painting. Droppers make things easier in that context.
Note that I'm not saying anyone is doing it *wrong* by putting their brushes in the pot. If that's *right for you*, have at it. "Best practice" doesn't mean "law". It does mean "best practice" however, and that's why there is a very legit rationale behind using droppers.
Edit: Regarding GW pots, you can add me to the list of people who've had issues with the current version. They aren't awful. They're CLEARLY better than the old bolter round pots, which would dry out unopened on the shelf. But I've had fewer bad experiences with dropper bottles. The P3/Cote D'Arms/old GW pots are great too if pots are your thing.
I'd say it's a stretch to say there even is a "best practice" when it comes to miniature paints so long as the person is getting their models painted and is happy with the result (which seems to be a pretty high bar in this hobby).
I mean...I think we can come up with endless examples of alternate ways of achieving certain tasks that may give an acceptable result but are less than ideal for legitimate reasons. I'd also offer that the reason that 'best practices' exist are so that people maximize their chances of being happy with the end result.
If someone paints quicker straight out of the pot then for them perhaps that's the best practice, because the end goal is a painted model rather than a pot that is free from contamination.
I guess, if the 3(?) extra seconds it takes to move paint to a palette represents a substantial time savings. TO ME, that's not a terribly strong argument, but whatevs. And of course the pot-to-mini scenario implies one isn't thinning, mixing, or manipulating the paint in any way. Again, not that anyone is required to do any of those things. But they may lead painters to better results, which is why GW's own videos show their painters using palettes.
You can do whatever you want. My point here is just that there's some actual rationale behind not painting from the pot.
Yes, but to be completely fair, the "Droppers get less brush / airborne contaminant inside them" is also not exactly a compelling reason to give them the superlative title of "BEST practice" either. I've painted for many years, I'm a good painter, I take it seriously, and I can honestly say that I've never had an issue with contaminated paints. My brushes are about the cleanest thing in the immediate vicinity when I'm painting (I suppose apart from my hands, which also get a thorough washing before each session), so the best practice moniker in this case reminds me of marketing spiel tbh.
gorgon wrote: I guess, if the 3(?) extra seconds it takes to move paint to a palette represents a substantial time savings. TO ME, that's not a terribly strong argument, but whatevs. And of course the pot-to-mini scenario implies one isn't thinning, mixing, or manipulating the paint in any way. Again, not that anyone is required to do any of those things. But they may lead painters to better results, which is why GW's own videos show their painters using palettes.
You can do whatever you want. My point here is just that there's some actual rationale behind not painting from the pot.
A few seconds repeated many times is many seconds, and it requires you to have a clean palette on hand.
You can do whatever you want. My point here is just that there's some actual rationale behind not painting from the pot.
Personally I use a palette and I don't really care one way or the other.
But I've met folk who just dip their brush in their water pot, use the tongue of the pot to pick up some paint, then straight to the model when basecoating and if doing detail work they may wipe some paint off on the back of their hand first. For those people, having decent pot options is a good thing versus everything just going to droppers, and I've been told straight to my face that the reason a person didn't like Vallejo was the pots.
P3 are the other ones that are available around this area that use pop tops, but I've not been too impressed with the handful of P3 paints I've bought over the years. Humbrol had a range of pop top acrylics and those pots were worse than GW's for drying out, which was a shame because they were actually good paints, at least the ones I tried. There was only one hobby store nearby (the variety that sells airfix and RC models, not wargames) that sold them and he was getting rid of them because they weren't popular among scale modellers who tended to prefer the old school enamels and alcohol paints, also they were often dried out even from brand new.
I have quite a few P3 paints, some probably bought at least 8 years ago that have never dried out in the slightest. My GW paints all seem to die at random.
Dendarien wrote: I have quite a few P3 paints, some probably bought at least 8 years ago that have never dried out in the slightest. My GW paints all seem to die at random.
I like the P3 pots, they're great, and I have some P3 paints that I imagine are over a decade old and they still work fine.
I just don't particularly like the paints themselves. The ones I've tried seem to be light on pigment and quite thin. Good for doing many thin coats, but sucky for doing speed painting techniques which is 95% of what I do.
Personally in the GW range I head straight for the "base" range, or in the Vallejo range I try and get the military colours which tend to be very good coverage, and P3 didn't seem to compete with those (unless I just bought bad colours, maybe I'm forming an opinion on not having tried enough of them).
Putting aside whether or not they're a good thing in any objective sense or whether the rumour is true, personally I prefer droppers and would like it to be, the main issue is just what TalonZahn mentions: the quality of the bottles.
There are some nice, robust droppers out there and so long as they use those I'd consider it a positive change. Even if they only did it with the Air paints, I'll still be happy because I can badger everyone I know to save me their empties to reuse, since getting hold of the good bottles as a punter is a huge pain in the bum.
> If I had to choose a container for all paints it would be the dropper bottles with a flip lid, like Kimera paints use.
Same design as craft paints!
Shake the bottle, remove the cap, paint from the cap. Even if you add a little paint that's a different color, the small amount won't matter, at least for advanced tabletop.
First time I've heard of Kimera, but will look out for them if they're ever on sale!
ced1106 wrote: > If I had to choose a container for all paints it would be the dropper bottles with a flip lid, like Kimera paints use.
Same design as craft paints!
Shake the bottle, remove the cap, paint from the cap. Even if you add a little paint that's a different color, the small amount won't matter, at least for advanced tabletop.
First time I've heard of Kimera, but will look out for them if they're ever on sale!
Spoiler:
I've not used them, but from what I've seen of other people using them there's a little tab that plugs the hole so you're not really going to get much paint in the cap to use. Though also from what I've seen the caps get messy pretty quick.
I'd be slightly worried that style of pot would spray paint at me when I open and close them, simply because Vallejo's metal colours sometimes do that... if a bit of paint gets in the cap when you snap it closed or snap it open it sprays a few little dots of paint. I've learned to cover the cap when opening and closing them so I only end up with paint on my hands rather than over my clothes or desk. I don't know if this can be a problem with the Kimera bottles, just saying it is with the Vallejo metal colours which use a similar looking bottle.
I quite like the containers for the Revell Aqua range.
Square on the outside with a cylinder shape inside for the paint. The lid removes completely and clips onto the base to form a palette rather than taking from a flip top lid.
Over engineered, uses more plastic but as stable as you like. I can only recall actually knocking over a paint pot once in 28 years but the Aqùa ones are potentially a solution for an uncommon problem.
> I've not used them, but from what I've seen of other people using them there's a little tab that plugs the hole so you're not really going to get much paint in the cap to use. Though also from what I've seen the caps get messy pretty quick.
Thanks!
> I quite like the containers for the Revell Aqua range.
> Tamiya acrylics are pretty unique. Little round glass jars.
EDIT: Hate these, too. Mine also get stuck, and somehow dry out. How am I supposed to thin the paint in the jars -- especially when the thinner needs thinning?
Clear Red is good for blood effects. You can use the clears for quick-and-dirty gem gloss, but I suppose gloss varnish would do the same? Not entirely satisfied, but I've tried clears on transluscents.
JWBS wrote: Tamiya acrylics are pretty unique. Little round glass jars.
They're probably not as bad as GW's screw tops from years gone by, but I don't particularly like them. I've had a few jam up on me. A couple I've torn off the label because to get the cap off I had to dunk them in boiling water. I haven't had one fully dry out, but I have had a couple go thick.
They also outgas, if you put a bunch of them in a sealed plastic container and leave them to sit for a while, when you open said container you'll get a face full of alcohol fumes.
I do like the paint though, particularly for airbrushing. If you need to lay down a vibrant red or yellow they are better than most acrylics I've used.
Dendarien wrote: I have quite a few P3 paints, some probably bought at least 8 years ago that have never dried out in the slightest. My GW paints all seem to die at random.
I have just a few of P3s, not very easy to get them here but I can only say good things about them. Colours are amazing and pots are airtight so they keep paints spot on.
I wish I had more.
TBH normal paint you'd use with wet palette is OK with dropper bottles, but specialist paints, technicals, shades, contrast and such you use straight from the pot would be useless from droppers and/or hugely wasteful. The pots thing is kinda a meme now, I bet if GW was using the droppers instead some people would bash them and praising pots every second post
Again, kind of depends how you use them. Washes in GW pots are great as I normally just use them straight from the pot. Contrast can be similar, but the problem is that if you want to mix two contrast/wash colours, or dilute them with medium for a thinner wash/colour, then you have to get them on to a (dry) palate. Which means either taking brushloads over and over, or trying to tip some in or (best I could come up with) using small pipettes.
The reality is there are many times I think "it's handy I don't have to faff about with putting this wash on a palette" and other times I think "I wish this was in a dropper bottle".
You're right about the meme thing though, the pots are always used to bash GW paints but I do wonder how many people are out there thinking "man, I love GW paint, it's the best, I'd buy it if only it was in dropper bottles". Versus how many would go "well I'm glad they've seen sense but I prefer Vallejo anyhow". Or "yeah but they're still overpriced". I'm not sure GW would actually gain much.
I use army painter washes which come in the dropper bottles and I’ve grown to like it since I prefer thinning my washes down anyways. Washes are super easy to move to a different pot too.
BigOscar wrote: Aye, but GW is already 20% more expensive than getting them elsewhere,
except not every store offers a discount over the GW prices.
You don't have access to ebay, amazon, or the many other discounted online retailers? You don't have any FLGS in a 20-30 minute drive that offers discounts? Man, what part of Canada do you live in?
BigOscar wrote: Aye, but GW is already 20% more expensive than getting them elsewhere,
except not every store offers a discount over the GW prices.
You don't have access to ebay, amazon, or the many other discounted online retailers? You don't have any FLGS in a 20-30 minute drive that offers discounts? Man, what part of Canada do you live in?
The prices for GW paint on Amazon is almost always more than what you would pay in a store that does not offer discounts.
ced1106 wrote: > If I had to choose a container for all paints it would be the dropper bottles with a flip lid, like Kimera paints use.
Same design as craft paints!
Shake the bottle, remove the cap, paint from the cap. Even if you add a little paint that's a different color, the small amount won't matter, at least for advanced tabletop.
First time I've heard of Kimera, but will look out for them if they're ever on sale!
Spoiler:
I've not used them, but from what I've seen of other people using them there's a little tab that plugs the hole so you're not really going to get much paint in the cap to use. Though also from what I've seen the caps get messy pretty quick.
I'd be slightly worried that style of pot would spray paint at me when I open and close them, simply because Vallejo's metal colours sometimes do that... if a bit of paint gets in the cap when you snap it closed or snap it open it sprays a few little dots of paint. I've learned to cover the cap when opening and closing them so I only end up with paint on my hands rather than over my clothes or desk. I don't know if this can be a problem with the Kimera bottles, just saying it is with the Vallejo metal colours which use a similar looking bottle.
To be fair, I have had that happen to me with the current GW pots as well.
As a heaven that often paints straight from the pot I hope they don’t.
I can understand the air range swapping but for their target audience pots make more sense. Little Timmy painting his first model isn’t using a wet pallet!
I like a pot I can open one handed, dislike the Vallejo style droppers for that and I lose the lids, and the holes get bunged up. Those revel ones look interesting but in. Bonkers and unnecessary but cool. Are the paints any good!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tamereth wrote: As a heaven that often paints straight from the pot I hope they don’t.
I can understand the air range swapping but for their target audience pots make more sense. Little Timmy painting his first model isn’t using a wet pallet!
But he could use a pallet, like a plate or old tile or bit of plastic card or even a piece of baking parchment. Could and should.
Tamereth wrote: As a heaven that often paints straight from the pot I hope they don’t.
I can understand the air range swapping but for their target audience pots make more sense. Little Timmy painting his first model isn’t using a wet pallet!
If Little Timmy follows any of the hundreds of painting tutorialsGW has posted on YouTube then he will be using a palette pad or something similar.
Honestly the vast weight of painting guides online now show pallets and wet pallets as being pretty much as standard as getting a brush and water pot for painting. Heck even my early GW paint sets had a plastic insert that gave you a cheap pallet.
All Duncan's GW videos he uses one.
Using a pallet instead of the pot has been such a mainstay feature that its likely good enough to assume the majority paint that way; or at least are encouraged to paint that way.
Tamereth wrote: As a heaven that often paints straight from the pot I hope they don’t.
I can understand the air range swapping but for their target audience pots make more sense. Little Timmy painting his first model isn’t using a wet pallet!
If Little Timmy follows any of the hundreds of painting tutorialsGW has posted on YouTube then he will be using a palette pad or something similar.
My observation has been that not everyone attempts to follow tutorials. They find their own way with the assistance of tutorials, rather than rigidly adhering to them. GW's tutorial painting method is pretty mediocre for getting armies painted quickly and it also sucks for painting to a high standard.
The value of them for me was primarily seeing what colours work well together for a scheme rather than following their methodology.
Yiu don’t have to follow the step by step, but if everyone in every tutorial is using a pallet then you should as well, like said above, paint, water pot, brush, pallet…..all basics.
The way GW used their brushes in their tutorials would also lead to them having a short lifespan.
Andykp wrote: Yiu don’t have to follow the step by step, but if everyone in every tutorial is using a pallet then you should as well, like said above, paint, water pot, brush, pallet…..all basics.
You "should" do whatever the hell works for you. If that's painting straight from the pot, more power to you.
The challenge for the vast majority of wargamers is not painting an army to a high standard, it's actually getting an army painted at all, so I'm all for whatever makes it easier for people to get their armies done and on the table, and for some people they prefer painting directly from the pot.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: You "should" do whatever the hell works for you. If that's painting straight from the pot, more power to you.
The challenge for the vast majority of wargamers is not painting an army to a high standard, it's actually getting an army painted at all, so I'm all for whatever makes it easier for people to get their armies done and on the table, and for some people they prefer painting directly from the pot.
What users think they want and what actually best addresses their needs don't always align.
I'll use a palette if I'm going to be painting one color for a while, like doing basecoats. For general purpose I go straight from the pot and just toss in a few drops of water at the end so its keeps consistency. Though on the other hand, much of that is because I dislike the process of putting paint from a pot to a palette and if everything was droppers I'd use it a hell of a lot more.
Generally speaking I find most painting tutorials of little value to me because they are either showing basics I already know, painting things to a higher standard than I want to do for my armies, or showcasing some get-rich-quick-esque technique about how to paint an army in 2 hours and it totally didn't take longer, honest.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: You "should" do whatever the hell works for you. If that's painting straight from the pot, more power to you.
The challenge for the vast majority of wargamers is not painting an army to a high standard, it's actually getting an army painted at all, so I'm all for whatever makes it easier for people to get their armies done and on the table, and for some people they prefer painting directly from the pot.
What users think they want and what actually best addresses their needs don't always align.
That's an absurd position to take on painting direct from the pot. "Best addresses their needs", so what exactly are their needs that aren't being met if they choose to paint straight from the pot?
AllSeeingSkink wrote:That's an absurd position to take on painting direct from the pot. "Best addresses their needs", so what exactly are their needs that aren't being met if they choose to paint straight from the pot?
Voss wrote:OK, wow. I haven't seen a variation of Blizzard at its most toxic in quite a while. That's a classic.
'You think you do but you don't.'
Okay, apparently what I took to be a self-evident truth needs explanation.
Sometimes people know the optimal process for reaching their goal. Sometimes people prefer suboptimal practices as a result of bad product design, and better product design can remove obstacles and enable them to adopt a better solution. And sometimes, yes, what people think they want and what they actually need are completely different. I'm genuinely sorry if your first exposure to this concept was Blizzard being pig-headed, Voss, but it's ground truth in product design.
So, yeah, this isn't art school, but often 'don't bother learning from instruction, just do what feels right to you' isn't going to yield the most efficient way to achieve your goals either.
In my experience, hobbyists who paint directly from the pot tend to do so either due to lack of experience, or a perception that the hassle of transferring paint from a pot to a palette via brush outweighs the benefits (as in NinthMusketeer's post above). The former GW is clearly trying to address with their tutorial videos. If the latter can be improved through pot design, then people who currently paint from the pot because transferring paint is annoying will switch, even if their current solution 'works for them'.
Are there painters who really genuinely prefer painting from the pot over using a palette, even if using a palette represented no additional inconvenience? Probably, but if they're a small minority then GW's product design really shouldn't be catering to them at the expense of everyone currently struggling to get the damn paint onto a palette one brushful (right up the ferrule) at a time.
In any case, I'd sooner expect to see paint pots that don't suck to pour from, so that both camps can be happy. Or maybe droppers for the airbrush paints. But probably not a range-wide switch to droppers.
Its a really difficult subject to try to determine what is optimal or not when it comes to painting from the pots.
Different painters want and do different things and thats fine.
This isn't an art school or people don't want to follow tutorials or any instructions is just a poor argument since, unlike in the old days that we had no internet or instructions and was a nightmare and waste of time and money to trial and error ( I still have nightmares with the tiny enamel metal pots), now you are spoiled with tutorials/information and in less than a day you can track down the paint results you want to achieve and check how its done... Ignoring all that is IMO not optimal practice.
GW sells pallets, thinners and widely advises you to thin your paints etc so its safe to assume that this is the intended use of GW paints and pots.
Besides paints have different consistencies some may need more thinning than others.
Dendarien wrote: I have quite a few P3 paints, some probably bought at least 8 years ago that have never dried out in the slightest. My GW paints all seem to die at random.
I have just a few of P3s, not very easy to get them here but I can only say good things about them. Colours are amazing and pots are airtight so they keep paints spot on.
I wish I had more.
I've got pretty much the entire P3 paint line except for the inks, they are up there with Scale75 as my favourite paints to use.
Their black, reds and skin tones are some of my most used paints (and I have a hell of a lot of paints!).
Their only paints that have seemed to lack pigment are their yellow and oranges, but that's the nature of paints in general rather than a P3 issue.
It's the paint thinning argument again. Most paints need thinning, hence you need a palette. If a paint doesn't need thinning, and you're not mixing it, why bother with a palette?
Citadel paint pots suck. Even their plastic glue is trash. Regular super glue is far better. And Vallejo paints are also far easier to use and better. GW air brush paint in comparison is utter trash.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:That's an absurd position to take on painting direct from the pot. "Best addresses their needs", so what exactly are their needs that aren't being met if they choose to paint straight from the pot?
Voss wrote:OK, wow. I haven't seen a variation of Blizzard at its most toxic in quite a while. That's a classic.
'You think you do but you don't.'
Okay, apparently what I took to be a self-evident truth needs explanation.
Sometimes people know the optimal process for reaching their goal. Sometimes people prefer suboptimal practices as a result of bad product design, and better product design can remove obstacles and enable them to adopt a better solution. And sometimes, yes, what people think they want and what they actually need are completely different. I'm genuinely sorry if your first exposure to this concept was Blizzard being pig-headed, Voss, but it's ground truth in product design.
So, yeah, this isn't art school, but often 'don't bother learning from instruction, just do what feels right to you' isn't going to yield the most efficient way to achieve your goals either.
Going to be honest, you should have lead with that (though in a far less condescending fashion than 'don't bother learning from instruction' or 'self evident truth,' for Gork's (or Mork's) sake), rather than your previous post.
In my experience, hobbyists who paint directly from the pot tend to do so either due to lack of experience, or a perception that the hassle of transferring paint from a pot to a palette via brush outweighs the benefits (as in NinthMusketeer's post above).
Great! So, maybe someone should try to establish that the hassle does outweigh the benefits.
There's been a lot of grand declarations and sweeping condemnations and... not a lot of anything of educational value.
There's a reason why I went with the Blizzard line.
Voss wrote: Going to be honest, you should have lead with that (though in a far less condescending fashion than 'don't bother learning from instruction' or 'self evident truth,' for Gork's (or Mork's) sake), rather than your previous post.
Well, AllSeeingSkink was literally saying that painters should do what 'works for them' instead of following tutorials. I tend to feel that neglecting instruction from people who know what they're doing, especially when there's such a strong consensus, is really not how you maximize your own efficiency. I've got a couple of hobbies, and in every single one I've seen at least one person swear up and down that their way 'works for them', until they actually give things a try the way the pros tell them to and find that there is some merit to the more common practice.
That said I apologize if those quips came across as condescending. Please take it more as late-night minor exasperation from my end.
In my experience, hobbyists who paint directly from the pot tend to do so either due to lack of experience, or a perception that the hassle of transferring paint from a pot to a palette via brush outweighs the benefits (as in NinthMusketeer's post above).
Great! So, maybe someone should try to establish that the hassle does outweigh the benefits.
There's been a lot of grand declarations and sweeping condemnations and... not a lot of anything of educational value.
There's a reason why I went with the Blizzard line.
Like another commenter pointed out, GW is using palettes in all of their tutorials. They directly show transferring the paint, thinning it out, and painting it that way. So, there's plenty of instruction showing you the 'right way' to paint- though I suppose not on the level of outlining the exact reasons, because then they start to invite questions like 'so if palettes are so great, why do your pots suck so much for using them?'. Honestly, GW's messaging is I think a little too corporate; a video talking about how easy it is to spill an open pot of paint and why you should instead transfer it to a palette would seem rather out of character to me.
But going back to my comment about product design, a big part of UX is also about designing products that intrinsically help educate your users about the right ways to use them and make it as painless as possible to do so, rather than telling them what to do and expecting them to make a painful transition or take a leap of faith. If GW wants people to use palettes, the right way to do that isn't to just tell you that you should be using a brush to transfer paint to a palette, it's to also make it as easy to use a palette as possible.
I'm thinking that including a little square of palette paper with every paint pot would be overkill, but there could be some merit to a 'buy [X] bottles of paint, get a free palette pad' scheme. That way new painters who are just getting spun up are already getting a palette just by buying their initial set. And of course, dropper bottles rather than pots make the transfer process tremendously easier, but a pot design with an integral pour spout could be a compromise. Or maybe a fat dropper bottle that threads in the middle, so it's easy to infer how it's meant to be used (it's a dropper), but still allowing you to open it up if need be.
Point being, with a better paint pot they wouldn't need to put out PSAs explaining why palettes are useful or showing how to properly get paint onto one. I mean, while I always like to see explanatory material, it's 2022; the general rule of thumb is that if a user needs to pull out a manual or go to Youtube to figure out how to use your product, you've already failed.
Voss wrote: Going to be honest, you should have lead with that (though in a far less condescending fashion than 'don't bother learning from instruction' or 'self evident truth,' for Gork's (or Mork's) sake), rather than your previous post.
Well, AllSeeingSkink was literally saying that painters should do what 'works for them' instead of following tutorials.
I'm pretty sure I was saying that people tend to not (and shouldn't feel compelled to) follow tutorials rigidly, instead using what they find useful rather than trying to follow them verbatim.
I've learned heaps of stuff from tutorials over the years, I don't think I've ever actually followed one though.
And of course people should do what works for them, it's absurd to think otherwise. The only time it's worth interjecting and telling someone they're doing something wrong is when they might hurt themselves/someone else by doing it "wrong" or it's plainly obvious they are trying to achieve something and aren't going to reach that goal with their current method. That's why I asked "what is their needs that aren't being met"?
Obviously if someone is struggling with the paint coming out chunky and too thick, you'd advise that person to try using a palette and play around with thinning solve that problem, but I've met people who have no trouble with producing results they are happy with whilst still painting direct from the pot, and occasionally I do it myself.
I'll probably be horribly admonished for saying this, but thinning your paint isn't actually super important for painting miniatures*** Most hobby paints are ballpark the right consistency already and in the grand scheme of things you don't lose a lot for not thinning. The old meme of the space marine with so much paint on his face that you can't see the detail isn't actually a *thinning* problem, it's a *quantity* problem. Half the thinning you do on a dry palette is just overcoming the evaporation you are getting while moving the paint around rather than it being a terrible consistency out of the pot. Now of course two thin coats better than one avoid brush streaks blah blah blah, but if you're looking for the most bang for your buck in terms of getting decent looking models on the table quickly, painting unthinned isn't the end of the world *assuming* the painter understands what it feels like when paint genuinely becomes too thick and gluggy to apply smoothly and can compensate accordingly.
***Of course qualifying that statement with "table top quality" miniatures. That said though, I painted this lass with entirely unthinned oils and I'm pretty happy with how she came out as a display model, I don't think you'll find too many tutorials telling you that you should paint with unthinned oils, but hey, it "worked for me"...
Probably, but if they're a small minority then GW's product design really shouldn't be catering to them at the expense of everyone currently struggling to get the damn paint onto a palette one brushful (right up the ferrule) at a time.
Firstly, I'm not convinced they are a small minority because I see such people all the time in the local hobby stores, and secondly those other people can just buy the droppers made by half a dozen other companies. Why would we want homogeneity in our different painting options?
Also the *correct* way to remove paint from a pot isn't to use your brush and get paint up the ferrule Someone needs to watch some tutorials and follow them rigidly on how to correctly remove paint from their pots!
Hell, go over to some scale model forums on airbrushing and they'll tell you that you shouldn't be dropping paint straight into your airbrush cup anyway, and instead use a stirrer potentially in a completely separate cup. On many levels they're right... doesn't stop me from squirting paint straight into my airbrush cup
I mean this whole thing is just an absurd discussion, if people prefer pots to droppers I have no problem with that. I personally don't really care either way, pros and cons and all that. I've heard lots of "it's the wrong way to do it" and not a lot of compelling reasons why someone should feel, well, compelled to not do it.
The most compelling reason I have for not painting directly from the pot is in summer my room gets so hot and dry that paint will start noticeably drying in the pot itself, but most people don't let their houses get to 30-40°C so I'm guessing that's not an issue for most other folk
Point being, with a better paint pot they wouldn't need to put out PSAs explaining why palettes are useful or showing how to properly get paint onto one. I mean, while I always like to see explanatory material, it's 2022; the general rule of thumb is that if a user needs to pull out a manual or go to Youtube to figure out how to use your product, you've already failed.
Thank you for demonstrating the surreal absurdity which results when someone applies the company store mentality to painting.
Please don't learn how to paint from a company store.
catbarf wrote: Like another commenter pointed out, GW is using palettes in all of their tutorials. They directly show transferring the paint, thinning it out, and painting it that way. So, there's plenty of instruction showing you the 'right way' to paint- though I suppose not on the level of outlining the exact reasons, because then they start to invite questions like 'so if palettes are so great, why do your pots suck so much for using them?'. Honestly, GW's messaging is I think a little too corporate; a video talking about how easy it is to spill an open pot of paint and why you should instead transfer it to a palette would seem rather out of character to me.
Do wish they wouldn't thin their paints with the same water they wash out their brushes in though... I keep 2 water pots - one for washing out brushes, and one pot of clean water used only for thinning paints.
All this “I paint straight from the pot and it’s fine” stuff, or “just do what works best for you” is rubbish. The fact is the vast majority of acrylic paints we use are designed to used on a pallet and thinned. It is how they are designed. Not doing so is literally using the wrong, as in not how they are designed to be used.
So unless you are using a brand that is “straight from the pot” then no, you are doing it wrong. Even if you are new. If you take anything from a tutorial, it should be use a pallet. If you are starting out, thinning your paint and using a pallet should be lesson number one. It looks better and is easier to paint with.
As for using paints from the pot on smaller models, 10mm. I would thin less and want a thicker consistency for smaller models to aid control to an extent.
Andykp wrote: All this “I paint straight from the pot and it’s fine” stuff, or “just do what works best for you” is rubbish. The fact is the vast majority of acrylic paints we use are designed to used on a pallet and thinned. It is how they are designed. Not doing so is literally using the wrong, as in not how they are designed to be used.
Andykp wrote: All this “I paint straight from the pot and it’s fine” stuff, or “just do what works best for you” is rubbish. The fact is the vast majority of acrylic paints we use are designed to used on a pallet and thinned. It is how they are designed. Not doing so is literally using the wrong, as in not how they are designed to be used.
Except washes and contrast which get used a lot.
And get contaminated very easily.
But I've learned here that there is no better or best way. If a painter is fine with using a downward stabbing motion to jam paint onto minis, then it's more than just their preference...it's also what's best and cannot be improved upon, and no one should say otherwise.
Andykp wrote: All this “I paint straight from the pot and it’s fine” stuff, or “just do what works best for you” is rubbish. The fact is the vast majority of acrylic paints we use are designed to used on a pallet and thinned. It is how they are designed. Not doing so is literally using the wrong, as in not how they are designed to be used.
God forbid someone use something in the way it wasn't designed to be used!
That's by far the most convincing reason I've heard so far. </sarcasm>
I'd also contend that most mini paints are prethinned to the point where they're largely fine being used unthinned, though I'm not going to try and get in the head of the designer to figure out exactly what they were thinking when they designed them, but I assume it was to get them in the ballpark of the correct consistency out of the pot. In fact it's a complaint I've heard a few times over the years, that many hobby paints are too thin out of the pot and that makes them hard to use in techniques that prefer thicker paint. If we're talking about artists acrylics, yeah, they have a paste-like consistency and need to be thinned in order to flow.
Andykp wrote: So unless you are using a brand that is “straight from the pot” then no, you are doing it wrong. Even if you are new. If you take anything from a tutorial, it should be use a pallet. If you are starting out, thinning your paint and using a pallet should be lesson number one. It looks better and is easier to paint with.
And what if you're experienced and still do it
New painters are the ones I would tell to use a palette because it makes it easier to learn how to paint. But there's blokes who have been painting for decades and are perfectly happy with the results they are getting that paint from the pot.
Maybe I've missed it, but I'm still yet to see an actual compelling reason why someone shouldn't paint from the pot if it aligns with their painting style. "It wasn't designed to be used that way!", "That's how it's done in the tutorials!" and "It's wrong!" are not compelling reasons. "Paint should be thinned" is a more compelling reason, but even that is far from a hard and fast rule and there's plenty of times painting unthinned works perfectly fine.
I'm really not sure why people are being so ardent about needing to use a palette when they also can't come up with good reasons, or perhaps are so shallow in their thinking that they genuinely believe "because it was done that way in tutorials" is actually a good reason.
It depends what you're doing. If I just need to paint a black dot for an eye I'll grab a GW pot and grab a tiny bit of paint, wipe it off on the lid and dot it on. I'm not going to put in on my wet palette first. Same for if I'm doing tiny bright sharp highlights. If I want that sharp contrast then I'll go direct from the pot. In those circumstances, I definitely waste less paint than squeezing the tiniest amount I can from the a dropper bottle onto a palette.
If I want my colours more transparent, so the highlights blend in more, then obviously I'd thin the paints.
I'm baffled that there are "purists" on either side of this that can't see it both ways. I'm not saying you *need* pots: you can still put a bit of paint onto a dry palette for that sort of painting, it's just slightly more inconvenient and uses more paint. Just like it's slightly more inconvenient to get a larger quantity of a base colour onto your palette with pots.
I might not be the greatest painter, but in a way, I always paint directly from the pot. Or rather, I store all my paints in droppers and keep a working supply in microcentrifuge tubes (usually 1.5 ml). I never have things like contamination, don't have issues with paint drying out, and can paint just the way I like it. Sure, it might not be up to some higher standards, but I'm not interested in achieving such things. I just want minis that look good enough from a distance.
Everything with palettes and the like sounds like something that only really helps those aiming for higher levels. For those of us who don't, why should we worry about it at all?
Andykp wrote: All this “I paint straight from the pot and it’s fine” stuff, or “just do what works best for you” is rubbish. The fact is the vast majority of acrylic paints we use are designed to used on a pallet and thinned. It is how they are designed. Not doing so is literally using the wrong, as in not how they are designed to be used.
God forbid someone use something in the way it wasn't designed to be used!
That's by far the most convincing reason I've heard so far. </sarcasm>
I'd also contend that most mini paints are prethinned to the point where they're largely fine being used unthinned, though I'm not going to try and get in the head of the designer to figure out exactly what they were thinking when they designed them, but I assume it was to get them in the ballpark of the correct consistency out of the pot. In fact it's a complaint I've heard a few times over the years, that many hobby paints are too thin out of the pot and that makes them hard to use in techniques that prefer thicker paint. If we're talking about artists acrylics, yeah, they have a paste-like consistency and need to be thinned in order to flow.
Andykp wrote: So unless you are using a brand that is “straight from the pot” then no, you are doing it wrong. Even if you are new. If you take anything from a tutorial, it should be use a pallet. If you are starting out, thinning your paint and using a pallet should be lesson number one. It looks better and is easier to paint with.
And what if you're experienced and still do it
New painters are the ones I would tell to use a palette because it makes it easier to learn how to paint. But there's blokes who have been painting for decades and are perfectly happy with the results they are getting that paint from the pot.
Maybe I've missed it, but I'm still yet to see an actual compelling reason why someone shouldn't paint from the pot if it aligns with their painting style. "It wasn't designed to be used that way!", "That's how it's done in the tutorials!" and "It's wrong!" are not compelling reasons. "Paint should be thinned" is a more compelling reason, but even that is far from a hard and fast rule and there's plenty of times painting unthinned works perfectly fine.
I'm really not sure why people are being so ardent about needing to use a palette when they also can't come up with good reasons, or perhaps are so shallow in their thinking that they genuinely believe "because it was done that way in tutorials" is actually a good reason.
I must admit I was being a bit arsey last night and came over more militant than I am really, I am ardent about using a pallet because it is, easier, produces better results, allows more control over consistency of paint, volume of colour, effect of the paint in the model. By using straight from the pot or bottle, you lose any control over the properties of the paint bed you are basically colouring in, but you are also making life harder for your self as the paint flows less well and and is harder to control and produces less pleasing results. If you just want to colour your models in, you are still better off thinning your paints.
As the paints are designed to be thinned, what is a reason not to thin them? Saying it suits your style is fine but very few painters who don’t thin their paints have a style they have given any thought to, or have much understand of how they are manipulating the properties of their paints bumpy using them neat. They are just being lazy, but actually making life harder for them selves.
I had a friend who would not use a pallet but struggled to paint, as soon as I got him thinning his paints he was so much happier, he admitted that the paint went on easier and everything he found frustrating about painting was eased.
Dolnikan wrote: I might not be the greatest painter, but in a way, I always paint directly from the pot. Or rather, I store all my paints in droppers and keep a working supply in microcentrifuge tubes (usually 1.5 ml). I never have things like contamination, don't have issues with paint drying out, and can paint just the way I like it. Sure, it might not be up to some higher standards, but I'm not interested in achieving such things. I just want minis that look good enough from a distance.
Everything with palettes and the like sounds like something that only really helps those aiming for higher levels. For those of us who don't, why should we worry about it at all?
It's not just about standards though, it's about ease/speed. Sometimes it's quicker and easier to use a palette too.
Like, one of the worst pieces of advice I got when I started painting was "don't buy nice brushes, they're expensive and you'll ruin them". I mean, that's true for 5 minutes until you've learned not to get paint in the ferrule and to clean them afterwards, but for the first year I ended up using Army Painter and GW brushes untill I finally went, "let's see how expensive these expensive Windsor and Newton brushes are". Oh, seven quid. Less than the cost of most stuff I'm painting. And they made painting *so* much easier. I'm not sure they made the end result better but they made it so much easier and more enjoyable. And given the cost of everything else in the hobby, were hardly expensive.
If you've tried a bunch of different things and found the one that works for you that's great but equally if you've never tried a palette it might also be worth trying. But then I find experimenting with new techniques and stuff fun in and of itself. That's part of the fun for me. If it's not I get sticking with what you know.
Andykp wrote: I must admit I was being a bit arsey last night and came over more militant than I am really, I am ardent about using a pallet because it is, easier, produces better results, allows more control over consistency of paint, volume of colour, effect of the paint in the model.
Yeah I was probably overly snarky with my reply, sorry.
By using straight from the pot or bottle, you lose any control over the properties of the paint bed you are basically colouring in, but you are also making life harder for your self as the paint flows less well and and is harder to control and produces less pleasing results. If you just want to colour your models in, you are still better off thinning your paints.
Painting straight from the pot the idea (at least when I do it) is to keep the brush wet, so if the paint is starting to flow poorly you give the brush a swirl in the water before going back to the pot.
As the paints are designed to be thinned, what is a reason not to thin them? Saying it suits your style is fine but very few painters who don’t thin their paints have a style they have given any thought to, or have much understand of how they are manipulating the properties of their paints bumpy using them neat. They are just being lazy, but actually making life harder for them selves.
Speed is the primary reason, and convenience in needing one less thing on your desk when painting.
The way I see painting miniatures for wargaming, it's just a balance between time and quality. When many years ago I timed myself painting to see where I was spending my time I was really surprised because little of my time was actually spent applying paint to model, it was doing all the other stuff. Stuff like opening and closing pots, removing the paint from the pot, playing around on my palette to get the consistency just right, getting the brush and model at the right angle to apply the paint smoothly, a few seconds later when the paint on my palette starts drying and I have to revive it with more water and play around getting it back to the right consistency.
Learning that if I'm just trying to block in a colour, compromising my usual perfectionism to let me lay down paint faster in order to spend more time on other things that had a bigger impact on quality could, in some circumstances, be the better way to go.
I had a friend who would not use a pallet but struggled to paint, as soon as I got him thinning his paints he was so much happier, he admitted that the paint went on easier and everything he found frustrating about painting was eased.
Teaching someone how to initially paint I think it's a good idea to teach them to play with consistency, but once they know what they're doing and make the logical choice to either keep thinning or to go back to painting from the pot I don't really see anything wrong with that.
Perhaps my personal experience is a bit warped, because I started painting wargaming models when I was 10 or 11-ish but I had been painting scale aircraft models with enamels since I was 6-ish so by the time I got my first miniatures, a box of 5th edition Bretonnian Archers, I didn't have a problem laying down a smooth coat of paint even though those models were painted half with enamels and half with acrylics. Try painting the wing of a 1/32 aircraft with a small round brush and you'll learn the meaning of bumpiness Rather my struggle was learning how to highlight, shade, use washes (inks back in the day) and something I still don't know how to do, pick colours that work together
Hell, if someone knows how to paint the right colours at the right value in the right areas but does it splotchy with unthinned paint and a worn out brush, IMO that will look infinitely better than someone who lays down perfectly smooth coats of colours that don't work in the wrong areas. It's why some art courses teach value first, colour second, application methods third (especially when painting life-like). Us miniature painters often get too bogged down in techniques and tricks.
Andykp wrote: I must admit I was being a bit arsey last night and came over more militant than I am really, I am ardent about using a pallet because it is, easier, produces better results, allows more control over consistency of paint, volume of colour, effect of the paint in the model.
Yeah I was probably overly snarky with my reply, sorry.
By using straight from the pot or bottle, you lose any control over the properties of the paint bed you are basically colouring in, but you are also making life harder for your self as the paint flows less well and and is harder to control and produces less pleasing results. If you just want to colour your models in, you are still better off thinning your paints.
Painting straight from the pot the idea (at least when I do it) is to keep the brush wet, so if the paint is starting to flow poorly you give the brush a swirl in the water before going back to the pot.
As the paints are designed to be thinned, what is a reason not to thin them? Saying it suits your style is fine but very few painters who don’t thin their paints have a style they have given any thought to, or have much understand of how they are manipulating the properties of their paints bumpy using them neat. They are just being lazy, but actually making life harder for them selves.
Speed is the primary reason, and convenience in needing one less thing on your desk when painting.
The way I see painting miniatures for wargaming, it's just a balance between time and quality. When many years ago I timed myself painting to see where I was spending my time I was really surprised because little of my time was actually spent applying paint to model, it was doing all the other stuff. Stuff like opening and closing pots, removing the paint from the pot, playing around on my palette to get the consistency just right, getting the brush and model at the right angle to apply the paint smoothly, a few seconds later when the paint on my palette starts drying and I have to revive it with more water and play around getting it back to the right consistency.
Learning that if I'm just trying to block in a colour, compromising my usual perfectionism to let me lay down paint faster in order to spend more time on other things that had a bigger impact on quality could, in some circumstances, be the better way to go.
I had a friend who would not use a pallet but struggled to paint, as soon as I got him thinning his paints he was so much happier, he admitted that the paint went on easier and everything he found frustrating about painting was eased.
Teaching someone how to initially paint I think it's a good idea to teach them to play with consistency, but once they know what they're doing and make the logical choice to either keep thinning or to go back to painting from the pot I don't really see anything wrong with that.
Perhaps my personal experience is a bit warped, because I started painting wargaming models when I was 10 or 11-ish but I had been painting scale aircraft models with enamels since I was 6-ish so by the time I got my first miniatures, a box of 5th edition Bretonnian Archers, I didn't have a problem laying down a smooth coat of paint even though those models were painted half with enamels and half with acrylics. Try painting the wing of a 1/32 aircraft with a small round brush and you'll learn the meaning of bumpiness Rather my struggle was learning how to highlight, shade, use washes (inks back in the day) and something I still don't know how to do, pick colours that work together
Hell, if someone knows how to paint the right colours at the right value in the right areas but does it splotchy with unthinned paint and a worn out brush, IMO that will look infinitely better than someone who lays down perfectly smooth coats of colours that don't work in the wrong areas. It's why some art courses teach value first, colour second, application methods third (especially when painting life-like). Us miniature painters often get too bogged down in techniques and tricks.
Speed, painting with properly thinned paints is actually quicker because it takes only a second to thin the paint, especially if you just want to apply it and get an even coat, but thinned paint goes on better, flows around detail better. So speeds up the actual application it’s a false economy.
As for your point around not spending enough time actually painting, for me prepping your paints is part of the process but that’s preference I suppose. And what you want as the end result. For me the process is the point, I enjoy all aspects of painting and it is the vast majority of my hobby time, much more than playing sadly.
I think a lot of people who don’t enjoy painting or see it as a means to an end would enjoy it a lot more if they were shown how to make it easier to do and easier to get better results. Soon many would stop looking at is as throwing some paint on gaming pieces and an essential and enjoyable part of the hobby.
I personally have progressed from the GW base/shade/highlight method to playing with airbrushes, oils, pigments and inks, thinking about light and volume and contras, getting into colour theory and using the properties of the paints to get the results I want, and I am not artistic at all but a huge aspect of the hobby has opened up to me and it literally all started with thinning my paints, that’s was the first step in that journey.
PS, my entry in to painting was the same as yours, model planes and enamels then miniatures and acrylics. Just a few years earlier possibly, 1989/90 was when I Started on minis.
Speed, painting with properly thinned paints is actually quicker because it takes only a second to thin the paint, especially if you just want to apply it and get an even coat, but thinned paint goes on better, flows around detail better. So speeds up the actual application it’s a false economy.
Depends how far you go - if you thin enough you need two coats instead of one (which, if you want smooth, you probably should be) then it's going to take much longer even if the paint does go on easier.
Andykp wrote: Speed, painting with properly thinned paints is actually quicker because it takes only a second to thin the paint, especially if you just want to apply it and get an even coat, but thinned paint goes on better, flows around detail better. So speeds up the actual application it’s a false economy.
I'd say if you find it significantly slower to apply unthinned paint than thinned paint, you're probably doing it wrong But I dunno, maybe it's just me, if I were entering a speed painting competition I'd certainly throw thinning out the window.
As for your point around not spending enough time actually painting, for me prepping your paints is part of the process but that’s preference I suppose. And what you want as the end result. For me the process is the point, I enjoy all aspects of painting and it is the vast majority of my hobby time, much more than playing sadly.
I think a lot of people who don’t enjoy painting or see it as a means to an end would enjoy it a lot more if they were shown how to make it easier to do and easier to get better results. Soon many would stop looking at is as throwing some paint on gaming pieces and an essential and enjoyable part of the hobby.
I personally have progressed from the GW base/shade/highlight method to playing with airbrushes, oils, pigments and inks, thinking about light and volume and contras, getting into colour theory and using the properties of the paints to get the results I want, and I am not artistic at all but a huge aspect of the hobby has opened up to me and it literally all started with thinning my paints, that’s was the first step in that journey.
PS, my entry in to painting was the same as yours, model planes and enamels then miniatures and acrylics. Just a few years earlier possibly, 1989/90 was when I Started on minis.
I'd say that's a case of "each to their own". I like painting a good model here and there, that sorceress I posted on the previous page is probably the first display miniature I've painted in about 6 years, haha. But if I'm going to spend a lot of time on a model, it'll generally be a scale model plane (particularly WW2), where it's not uncommon for me to spend 100 or 200 hours on a single model.
I just do not find painting rank and file models interesting or fun or relaxing. My Space Wolves army died a painful death due to me picking a scheme that too long to paint and my painting of it drew to a crawl because by the 2nd squad I wanted to gouge my eyes out whenever I saw the "Shadow Grey" colour. My first Lizardmen army (not the models in my gallery) I painted over the course of 2 weekends and if you picked up any one model it looked mediocre, but as an army of 80 or so models it looked good, at least to me. My Tyranids... you can basically follow the quality where the first models were okay, they got a big better, then they got significantly worse as I just got sick of painting them, haha. My Tyranids are what really pushed me to start investing time in learning how to paint things faster not just better.
For me, I care about how my armies look, but I've learned to care less about what an individual model looks like. I recently spent 4 or so hours painting a Night's Watch regiment and as a regiment it looks cool, an individual model in that regiment looks no better than models I was painting when I was 12 And I'm totally happy with that. That sorceress model took me longer to paint all by herself, but it's a rare miniature that inspires me to spend that sort of time on a single model.
But yeah, each to their own...
My TL;DR.... don't assume someone is doing something in a way perceived as "wrong" simply because they're ignorant, maybe "wrong" is simply "different".
Dolnikan wrote: I might not be the greatest painter, but in a way, I always paint directly from the pot. Or rather, I store all my paints in droppers and keep a working supply in microcentrifuge tubes (usually 1.5 ml). I never have things like contamination, don't have issues with paint drying out, and can paint just the way I like it. Sure, it might not be up to some higher standards, but I'm not interested in achieving such things. I just want minis that look good enough from a distance.
Everything with palettes and the like sounds like something that only really helps those aiming for higher levels. For those of us who don't, why should we worry about it at all?
It's not just about standards though, it's about ease/speed. Sometimes it's quicker and easier to use a palette too.
Like, one of the worst pieces of advice I got when I started painting was "don't buy nice brushes, they're expensive and you'll ruin them". I mean, that's true for 5 minutes until you've learned not to get paint in the ferrule and to clean them afterwards, but for the first year I ended up using Army Painter and GW brushes untill I finally went, "let's see how expensive these expensive Windsor and Newton brushes are". Oh, seven quid. Less than the cost of most stuff I'm painting. And they made painting *so* much easier. I'm not sure they made the end result better but they made it so much easier and more enjoyable. And given the cost of everything else in the hobby, were hardly expensive.
If you've tried a bunch of different things and found the one that works for you that's great but equally if you've never tried a palette it might also be worth trying. But then I find experimenting with new techniques and stuff fun in and of itself. That's part of the fun for me. If it's not I get sticking with what you know.
I did try it out a little, but back when I started they certainly weren't a thing I was aware of. And I think that my speed is just fine. I also tend to combine painting with other things, like playing RPGs so the ease of my little tubes really helps. And I do thin my paints. In fact, I can often get them to the right consistency in the tubes so I don't have to bother doing that again and again. But then again, I also keep some demiwater and pipets around to add more water if necessary.
For brushes, I find that I don't really notice the difference between them. The one thing that matters is the size. Bigger ones easily become harder to use for fine details, which probably isn't the biggest surprise.
I've been painting straight out of the pot for over 30 years, and it's working fine for me.
I have a wet palette that I use when I need to mix paints or do some fancy blending, but this is maybe only 5% of what I do.
I always thin my paints though - a brand new GW paint is almost always too thick so I always thin them down by adding a few drops of water/medium into the pot and giving it a good shake. Sometimes I need to repeat this once or twice before the pot is empty.
Speed, painting with properly thinned paints is actually quicker because it takes only a second to thin the paint, especially if you just want to apply it and get an even coat, but thinned paint goes on better, flows around detail better. So speeds up the actual application it’s a false economy.
Depends how far you go - if you thin enough you need two coats instead of one (which, if you want smooth, you probably should be) then it's going to take much longer even if the paint does go on easier.
It probably comes down to technique too, when I'm blocking in colour I use a soft bristled filbert brush to get most of the paint down then touch up with a round brush. Using a filbert appropriately sized for the area you're painting with thick-ish paint and applying strokes on big areas but using a stabbing motion to get it a consistent thickness around the detail is probably the quickest way to get a layer of paint on a model (without air tools) that still looks decent.
Andykp wrote: I must admit I was being a bit arsey last night and came over more militant than I am really, I am ardent about using a pallet because it is, easier, produces better results, allows more control over consistency of paint, volume of colour, effect of the paint in the model.
Yeah I was probably overly snarky with my reply, sorry.
By using straight from the pot or bottle, you lose any control over the properties of the paint bed you are basically colouring in, but you are also making life harder for your self as the paint flows less well and and is harder to control and produces less pleasing results. If you just want to colour your models in, you are still better off thinning your paints.
Painting straight from the pot the idea (at least when I do it) is to keep the brush wet, so if the paint is starting to flow poorly you give the brush a swirl in the water before going back to the pot.
As the paints are designed to be thinned, what is a reason not to thin them? Saying it suits your style is fine but very few painters who don’t thin their paints have a style they have given any thought to, or have much understand of how they are manipulating the properties of their paints bumpy using them neat. They are just being lazy, but actually making life harder for them selves.
Speed is the primary reason, and convenience in needing one less thing on your desk when painting.
The way I see painting miniatures for wargaming, it's just a balance between time and quality. When many years ago I timed myself painting to see where I was spending my time I was really surprised because little of my time was actually spent applying paint to model, it was doing all the other stuff. Stuff like opening and closing pots, removing the paint from the pot, playing around on my palette to get the consistency just right, getting the brush and model at the right angle to apply the paint smoothly, a few seconds later when the paint on my palette starts drying and I have to revive it with more water and play around getting it back to the right consistency.
Learning that if I'm just trying to block in a colour, compromising my usual perfectionism to let me lay down paint faster in order to spend more time on other things that had a bigger impact on quality could, in some circumstances, be the better way to go.
I had a friend who would not use a pallet but struggled to paint, as soon as I got him thinning his paints he was so much happier, he admitted that the paint went on easier and everything he found frustrating about painting was eased.
Teaching someone how to initially paint I think it's a good idea to teach them to play with consistency, but once they know what they're doing and make the logical choice to either keep thinning or to go back to painting from the pot I don't really see anything wrong with that.
Perhaps my personal experience is a bit warped, because I started painting wargaming models when I was 10 or 11-ish but I had been painting scale aircraft models with enamels since I was 6-ish so by the time I got my first miniatures, a box of 5th edition Bretonnian Archers, I didn't have a problem laying down a smooth coat of paint even though those models were painted half with enamels and half with acrylics. Try painting the wing of a 1/32 aircraft with a small round brush and you'll learn the meaning of bumpiness Rather my struggle was learning how to highlight, shade, use washes (inks back in the day) and something I still don't know how to do, pick colours that work together
Hell, if someone knows how to paint the right colours at the right value in the right areas but does it splotchy with unthinned paint and a worn out brush, IMO that will look infinitely better than someone who lays down perfectly smooth coats of colours that don't work in the wrong areas. It's why some art courses teach value first, colour second, application methods third (especially when painting life-like). Us miniature painters often get too bogged down in techniques and tricks.
You said you did that mage with oils, that’s my new thing I’m learning with, used to use them just for weathering and a wash here and there. Just learning now to use them for highlights and and general painting, they are fantastic. So much fun, such good results and so forgiving. My new advice to beginner painters is, try oils! They’ve blown my mind and opened up so many opportunities. Scale modelling is great but not sure I have the attention to detail that you need. Love the process and admire the skills.
Now we have reached a consensus on droppers vs pots (there is no consensus) how do we all feel about the idea of tubes? I am all for it, not used thee but intrigued.
Andykp wrote: Now we have reached a consensus on droppers vs pots (there is no consensus) how do we all feel about the idea of tubes? I am all for it, not used thee but intrigued.
I already posted about this and I would be all for it.
Good tubes will keep paint safe for a loooong time, easy to store too.
It's quite hard to paint straight from the tube. Suggesting thinning is needed, which is where it all started in the first place.
I thin, simply by plastering some paint onto a plastic takeaway tub lid, and mixing in some water. When it dries, add water. When it gets thin, add paint.
These paints are very thick, like oil paint consistency, much thinner and tubes would be self defeating, it would just pour out. I am planning on giving these a try soon as.
I really wouldn't like that kind of packaging because it just feels so wasteful for the small amounts I usually use for miniatures. But then again, I'm no fancy painter.
Andykp wrote: Now we have reached a consensus on droppers vs pots (there is no consensus) how do we all feel about the idea of tubes? I am all for it, not used thee but intrigued.
If you want to eat your paint tubes are the best solution.
Andykp wrote: Now we have reached a consensus on droppers vs pots (there is no consensus) how do we all feel about the idea of tubes? I am all for it, not used thee but intrigued.
I like the idea but aren't good ones horribly expensive since they need a very high pigment density to stay opaque-ish when thinned?
One of the pros I think is some techniques favour a thick paint, like wet blending, or intentionally adding texture to a model (e.g. cross hatching or dotting paint on to create a textured fabric or leather).
Oguhmek wrote: Tubes work for oil paint because it's thick and you often thin it on the palette with turpentine/oil anyway.
Depending on your technique you don't always even use a palette - some artist squeeze the paint out directly on the canvas and use a spatula to paint.
Wouldn't try this on a miniature though.
Oils can be applied to models in a very thick unthinned coat if you want. You just clag it on, then when you come back with your blending brush you "stab" at the paint to blend it, which also smooths it out and makes it conform to the surface.
I've never attempted doing the same with super thick (like heavy body type thick) acrylics, the fast drying time I imagine would make it difficult to do, but I have had luck applying moderately thick acrylics and using a similar stabbing motion as I use with oils.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: You said you did that mage with oils, that’s my new thing I’m learning with, used to use them just for weathering and a wash here and there. Just learning now to use them for highlights and and general painting, they are fantastic. So much fun, such good results and so forgiving. My new advice to beginner painters is, try oils! They’ve blown my mind and opened up so many opportunities. Scale modelling is great but not sure I have the attention to detail that you need. Love the process and admire the skills.
Using oils definitely boosted the quality of my display models because it's much easier to start with a value sketch without worrying about blending, then blend it as desired afterwards.
I remember one YouTuber saying "blending is one of the best things you can do to improve painting quality" (paraphrased) and another YouTuber saying "blending is secondary to a good value sketch", I tend to agree with the latter.
Painting with acrylics I always find what I picture it my head isn't what appears on the model, I always overdo the shades, or overdo the highlights, or not have enough of my midtone. Using oils kind of solved that struggle for me.
Andykp wrote: Now we have reached a consensus on droppers vs pots (there is no consensus) how do we all feel about the idea of tubes? I am all for it, not used thee but intrigued.
I like the idea but aren't good ones horribly expensive since they need a very high pigment density to stay opaque-ish when thinned?
One of the pros I think is some techniques favour a thick paint, like wet blending, or intentionally adding texture to a model (e.g. cross hatching or dotting paint on to create a textured fabric or leather).
Oguhmek wrote: Tubes work for oil paint because it's thick and you often thin it on the palette with turpentine/oil anyway.
Depending on your technique you don't always even use a palette - some artist squeeze the paint out directly on the canvas and use a spatula to paint.
Wouldn't try this on a miniature though.
Oils can be applied to models in a very thick unthinned coat if you want. You just clag it on, then when you come back with your blending brush you "stab" at the paint to blend it, which also smooths it out and makes it conform to the surface.
I've never attempted doing the same with super thick (like heavy body type thick) acrylics, the fast drying time I imagine would make it difficult to do, but I have had luck applying moderately thick acrylics and using a similar stabbing motion as I use with oils.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: You said you did that mage with oils, that’s my new thing I’m learning with, used to use them just for weathering and a wash here and there. Just learning now to use them for highlights and and general painting, they are fantastic. So much fun, such good results and so forgiving. My new advice to beginner painters is, try oils! They’ve blown my mind and opened up so many opportunities. Scale modelling is great but not sure I have the attention to detail that you need. Love the process and admire the skills.
Using oils definitely boosted the quality of my display models because it's much easier to start with a value sketch without worrying about blending, then blend it as desired afterwards.
I remember one YouTuber saying "blending is one of the best things you can do to improve painting quality" (paraphrased) and another YouTuber saying "blending is secondary to a good value sketch", I tend to agree with the latter.
Painting with acrylics I always find what I picture it my head isn't what appears on the model, I always overdo the shades, or overdo the highlights, or not have enough of my midtone. Using oils kind of solved that struggle for me.
Those scale 75 paints are heavy in pigment but not that expensive, compared to gw or Vallejo.
Value Sketches is the other thing that has moved my painting in in recent months, changed entirely how I think about light interacting with the model. I love the idea of placing the model in an environment and seeing how the light would impact the colour choices and saturations etc. it’s lead me into deeper colour theory (not my strong suit at all) and then using the best medium to get the volumes you want. Marco frissoni started it for me, just happened across a couple of his videos and now I’m fully down the rabbit hole.
I do think wargaming could do with some good introductory "how to paint" tutorials, like, not "how to thin" or "how to do a brush stroke" or "how to edge highlight" or "how to use a wash" but more along the lines of "this is what makes a good model look good and a bad model look bad". Maybe it's just me, but I think wargamers tend to focus too much on technique and not enough on how to make good artistic choices.
It's taken me decades of getting snippets of knowledge here and there to get to the point I'm at and still have a lot to learn, but in reality it's not THAT complicated and I actually learned a lot when I started watching some canvas painting tutorials.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Those scale 75 paints are heavy in pigment but not that expensive, compared to gw or Vallejo.
Hmm, that's still a step up over GW paints which I'd already describe as expensive, and from what I understand the scale 75 paints aren't as dense in pigment as true heavy body artist acrylics.
Granted you get a lot of paint for your money, it's more a question of how much you need to spend to get the number of individual tubes you need.
But yeah, it's on my "things I'd like to try" list, just haven't gotten around to it.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I do think wargaming could do with some good introductory "how to paint" tutorials, like, not "how to thin" or "how to do a brush stroke" or "how to edge highlight" or "how to use a wash" but more along the lines of "this is what makes a good model look good and a bad model look bad". Maybe it's just me, but I think wargamers tend to focus too much on technique and not enough on how to make good artistic choices.
It's taken me decades of getting snippets of knowledge here and there to get to the point I'm at and still have a lot to learn, but in reality it's not THAT complicated and I actually learned a lot when I started watching some canvas painting tutorials.
I agree. There is a ton of stuff out there for “how” to paint, but I see a lot less on “why”. Techniques over theory. Just some basic color wheel stuff can help tremendously with model composition and help inform questions like “how should I base my models” or “what color should I paint the gems”. Tons of how-to’s, but a lot less on if a grass base or martian dust would better suit your Imperial Fists, or if rubies or amethysts set off the green cloak?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I do think wargaming could do with some good introductory "how to paint" tutorials, like, not "how to thin" or "how to do a brush stroke" or "how to edge highlight" or "how to use a wash" but more along the lines of "this is what makes a good model look good and a bad model look bad". Maybe it's just me, but I think wargamers tend to focus too much on technique and not enough on how to make good artistic choices.
It's taken me decades of getting snippets of knowledge here and there to get to the point I'm at and still have a lot to learn, but in reality it's not THAT complicated and I actually learned a lot when I started watching some canvas painting tutorials.
That would actually be pretty helpful. I'm not the greatest when it comes to colours (I once gave a guy a green torch without realising it until my friends asked my about the cool green torch, I thought it was standard red and orange) and have to clearly mark the bottles. For my medievals it's relatively simple because I can just follow the rules of tincture, but for many other things, I'm constantly thinking that my colour choices look awful to everyone else.
Keep in mind that most acrylic colours pots ranges in the miniature world are organised in 3 tonal variants of the same colour. Meaning it makes it easier to highlight and darken the same medium tone but it conflicts with, the so much important tutorials about colour mixing. Once you are comfortable colour mixing then probably 2/3 of the tonal pots are easy discarded.
All tutorials are really important since they all in some way speed up your knowledge I cannot say this enough times but do check the huge online catalogue of free tutorials. 1 hour of tutorials can save you weeks of pain in trial and error.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I do think wargaming could do with some good introductory "how to paint" tutorials, like, not "how to thin" or "how to do a brush stroke" or "how to edge highlight" or "how to use a wash" but more along the lines of "this is what makes a good model look good and a bad model look bad". Maybe it's just me, but I think wargamers tend to focus too much on technique and not enough on how to make good artistic choices.
It's taken me decades of getting snippets of knowledge here and there to get to the point I'm at and still have a lot to learn, but in reality it's not THAT complicated and I actually learned a lot when I started watching some canvas painting tutorials.
I agree. There is a ton of stuff out there for “how” to paint, but I see a lot less on “why”. Techniques over theory. Just some basic color wheel stuff can help tremendously with model composition and help inform questions like “how should I base my models” or “what color should I paint the gems”. Tons of how-to’s, but a lot less on if a grass base or martian dust would better suit your Imperial Fists, or if rubies or amethysts set off the green cloak?
Color theory isn't a subject that can really be covered in a short video or two. The color theory Wikipedia article can give you an idea of how it works. GW has done articles covering color theory in regards to miniatures before in White Dwarf (August 2017).
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I do think wargaming could do with some good introductory "how to paint" tutorials, like, not "how to thin" or "how to do a brush stroke" or "how to edge highlight" or "how to use a wash" but more along the lines of "this is what makes a good model look good and a bad model look bad". Maybe it's just me, but I think wargamers tend to focus too much on technique and not enough on how to make good artistic choices.
It's taken me decades of getting snippets of knowledge here and there to get to the point I'm at and still have a lot to learn, but in reality it's not THAT complicated and I actually learned a lot when I started watching some canvas painting tutorials.
I agree. There is a ton of stuff out there for “how” to paint, but I see a lot less on “why”. Techniques over theory. Just some basic color wheel stuff can help tremendously with model composition and help inform questions like “how should I base my models” or “what color should I paint the gems”. Tons of how-to’s, but a lot less on if a grass base or martian dust would better suit your Imperial Fists, or if rubies or amethysts set off the green cloak?
Color theory isn't a subject that can really be covered in a short video or two. The color theory Wikipedia article can give you an idea of how it works. GW has done articles covering color theory in regards to miniatures before in White Dwarf (August 2017).
As for the choosing the colors of your base...
Were the guides in WD any good? I've barely read any WD in the past couple of decades, haha.
I'm certainly not the person to write such a tutorial... but my observation is wargamers need more like a practical guide to making stuff look good.
Attempts at explaining colour theory are often way too oversimplified to be useful to wargamers (it's often the same advice given to sign writers to make their signs more readable, lol, like using complementary colours to boost readability, try to have a red spot colour, increase contrast, etc). Also theory based on scientific knowledge of how the eye works often gets bundled together with subjective interpretations. My observation has been the colour wheel can be manipulated to fit damned near any colour scheme you want OR is used to massively limit combinations, all depending on who you ask
Topics that I think would be useful...
- Specular vs diffuse reflections and mimicking surface texturing... even painters who have very good technical skill with smooth creamy blends can produce NMM that looks like stone instead of metal because the balance of reflections is wrong. This feeds into what makes a fabric look like a fabric and painted armour look like painted armour and metal look like metal. There is also an affect here of the lighting type, weather it a sunny day or a cloudy day affects how reflections and contrasts appear on different surfaces.
- Light directions, painting volumes and value sketching... this is starting to become better understood in the community, but personally a lot of what I've learned is snippets picked up from a guide there, a youtube video here, a forum post there. I've not seen it explained well from the ground up in the wargaming context and when it is explained people tend to focus on getting the creamy blends rather than what is actually important, which is placing different colours in the right area. My knowledge has been boosted a bit with some of Trovarian's videos where he critiques amateur painters, and also I watched some oil canvas painting videos from the YT channel "Draw Mix Paint". Draw Mix Paint is what taught me the right colours in the right places can produce superb results with minimal or amateurish blending, whereas a perfectly blended painting can still look like arse.
- Value vs colour... this is something I only learned really recently... value is more important than colour! Getting the correct lightness and darkness in the right places can produce good looking results even if the colours are wrong. Logically this makes sense, because a model that looks good and believable with full colour saturation will also look and believable when desaturated to black and white, but a bad one will look weird when desaturated. There are paintings where the colour has been interpreted but the value was bang on so it still looked amazing.
- Lighting type impacts on the model... we are effectively painting lighting onto our models, okay so you know where the light is coming from, but how does your light impact different colours? Say you have a red area, you highlighted it by mixing orange into it, on the same model you have a green area, what should you mix into the green for the highlight? Same with shades, what colours can be used for shading what colours, and what implication does that have on other parts of the model that are different colours. Materials also come back in here also. So often you see a model and one colour will look good by itself, and another colour will look good by itself, but they look like they were photographed under different lighting conditions and photoshopped together instead of being unified.
- Desaturating colours using greys and browns, why and how to do it, and doing it across multiple colours in a way that ties them together.
- How to use different types of contrast... value contrast, colour contrast, warmth contrast.
- Use of different surface finishes and how that plays into the lighting, materials, and texture discussion. We can just throw a matte varnish over everything, but is there smarter ways of making different levels of sheen work for you?
- Use of filters, either directly by applying a filter or using a painting style that appears like a filter.
- What artistic simplifications can be made... we're not always trying to paint to 100%, or even if we are maybe it's an artistic interpretation rather than an attempt to simulate a reality.
- What shortcuts can be taken to speed up processes with what impact on the final result....
- Different artistic interpretations. We all know about trying to get creamy blends, but what about intentionally using rough scratchy blends or patchy blends? There's lots of styles that just don't get explored by wargamers, or if they do it's by accident rather than intent (which often means it doesn't work well).
I think all the stuff mentioned above strikes at what makes a good model look good, above and beyond just mechanically getting the techniques right, like having good brushwork, smooth coats, etc. Like, you can have a good looking model with technically poor brushwork and rough paint and mediocre blends.
In general one thing I've really struggled with for many years was having a vision and realising it on a model. Usually I have a vision but can't realise it, so if I get a good result it's mostly due to luck than design, or at most because I know how to paint something in a certain way so that affects my vision rather than my vision affecting my methods.
The other one is, yeah, we're not all trying to paint a golden daemon winning model, so what artistic choices can we make to still produce good looking models faster.
Marco Frisoni often baffles me with his use colour, value, surface finish, etc... once he's done I can kind of see why it works but I'd never have the knowledge or creativity to come up with such a scheme and the process behind implementing it by myself.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Were the guides in WD any good? I've barely read any WD in the past couple of decades, haha.
It was a decent article, covering complementary, analogous, triadic and monochromatic schemes. They also covered a few examples, such as the following when the Imperial Knights were first released and showing that the 'Eavy Metal painters don't always get it right the first time:
When the Imperial Knights came out, the Army Painters and ’Eavy Metal painted a load of colour variants to establish the colour schemes for the main houses. We gave House Terryn a triadic colour scheme of blue, red and yellow, but it didn’t work, the yellow was too bright and dominating. Instead, we took the yellow panels and re-painted them an off-white. The effect of this is twofold. First, the off-white is now a neutral colour – it sits alongside the black and is unobtrusive in the colour scheme. You can still see it, but it never dominates. Secondly, it meant that the gold armour trim would not clash with the yellow panels. The gold now acts as the third colour in the triadic colour scheme, but it’s clearly more subdued than the blue and red.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Were the guides in WD any good? I've barely read any WD in the past couple of decades, haha.
I'm certainly not the person to write such a tutorial... but my observation is wargamers need more like a practical guide to making stuff look good.
Attempts at explaining colour theory are often way too oversimplified to be useful to wargamers (it's often the same advice given to sign writers to make their signs more readable, lol, like using complementary colours to boost readability, try to have a red spot colour, increase contrast, etc). Also theory based on scientific knowledge of how the eye works often gets bundled together with subjective interpretations. My observation has been the colour wheel can be manipulated to fit damned near any colour scheme you want OR is used to massively limit combinations, all depending on who you ask
Spoiler:
Topics that I think would be useful...
- Specular vs diffuse reflections and mimicking surface texturing... even painters who have very good technical skill with smooth creamy blends can produce NMM that looks like stone instead of metal because the balance of reflections is wrong. This feeds into what makes a fabric look like a fabric and painted armour look like painted armour and metal look like metal. There is also an affect here of the lighting type, weather it a sunny day or a cloudy day affects how reflections and contrasts appear on different surfaces.
- Light directions, painting volumes and value sketching... this is starting to become better understood in the community, but personally a lot of what I've learned is snippets picked up from a guide there, a youtube video here, a forum post there. I've not seen it explained well from the ground up in the wargaming context and when it is explained people tend to focus on getting the creamy blends rather than what is actually important, which is placing different colours in the right area. My knowledge has been boosted a bit with some of Trovarian's videos where he critiques amateur painters, and also I watched some oil canvas painting videos from the YT channel "Draw Mix Paint". Draw Mix Paint is what taught me the right colours in the right places can produce superb results with minimal or amateurish blending, whereas a perfectly blended painting can still look like arse.
- Value vs colour... this is something I only learned really recently... value is more important than colour! Getting the correct lightness and darkness in the right places can produce good looking results even if the colours are wrong. Logically this makes sense, because a model that looks good and believable with full colour saturation will also look and believable when desaturated to black and white, but a bad one will look weird when desaturated. There are paintings where the colour has been interpreted but the value was bang on so it still looked amazing.
- Lighting type impacts on the model... we are effectively painting lighting onto our models, okay so you know where the light is coming from, but how does your light impact different colours? Say you have a red area, you highlighted it by mixing orange into it, on the same model you have a green area, what should you mix into the green for the highlight? Same with shades, what colours can be used for shading what colours, and what implication does that have on other parts of the model that are different colours. Materials also come back in here also. So often you see a model and one colour will look good by itself, and another colour will look good by itself, but they look like they were photographed under different lighting conditions and photoshopped together instead of being unified.
- Desaturating colours using greys and browns, why and how to do it, and doing it across multiple colours in a way that ties them together.
- How to use different types of contrast... value contrast, colour contrast, warmth contrast.
- Use of different surface finishes and how that plays into the lighting, materials, and texture discussion. We can just throw a matte varnish over everything, but is there smarter ways of making different levels of sheen work for you?
- Use of filters, either directly by applying a filter or using a painting style that appears like a filter.
- What artistic simplifications can be made... we're not always trying to paint to 100%, or even if we are maybe it's an artistic interpretation rather than an attempt to simulate a reality.
- What shortcuts can be taken to speed up processes with what impact on the final result....
- Different artistic interpretations. We all know about trying to get creamy blends, but what about intentionally using rough scratchy blends or patchy blends? There's lots of styles that just don't get explored by wargamers, or if they do it's by accident rather than intent (which often means it doesn't work well).
I think all the stuff mentioned above strikes at what makes a good model look good, above and beyond just mechanically getting the techniques right, like having good brushwork, smooth coats, etc. Like, you can have a good looking model with technically poor brushwork and rough paint and mediocre blends.
In general one thing I've really struggled with for many years was having a vision and realising it on a model. Usually I have a vision but can't realise it, so if I get a good result it's mostly due to luck than design, or at most because I know how to paint something in a certain way so that affects my vision rather than my vision affecting my methods.
The other one is, yeah, we're not all trying to paint a golden daemon winning model, so what artistic choices can we make to still produce good looking models faster.
Marco Frisoni often baffles me with his use colour, value, surface finish, etc... once he's done I can kind of see why it works but I'd never have the knowledge or creativity to come up with such a scheme and the process behind implementing it by myself.
To me it feels like colour theory (around miniatures) tries to be too smart and correct instead of addressing actual basics. The colour wheel is a tool you can use to simplify your decision making process, not a law that has to be followed. To me, the most important lesson when it comes to colour theory as a whole that everybody should know is that "everything is relative" and that lighting is an integral part of the whole thing. Trying to address colours in the abstract and without talking about lights (even very simple ones) can feel like an important part is missing to the whole topic, especially if somebody tries to go into details. It's like driving instructions without a steering wheel, probably possible but rather cumbersome.
Contrasts amplify the difference and the higher the contrast the bigger the difference appears to be. If you have a mainly dark miniature, the few bright parts on it with look even brighter (and the other way around), same for saturation (if everything is grey and brown the few colourful spots will stand out more), similar with colours opposite of each other on the colour wheel (they contrast each other the most while those closer to each other look less clashing).
Having these three contrasts (hue, value, and chroma) gives you all the variables to play with (plus they are the name of a site that goes into detail on the technical side of colour theory, for those who are interested: huevaluechroma. there's quite a bit to read but it also has a lot of graphics that explain things really well). Knowing that colours are relative to each other (and depend on the colours around them for their own effect) and not fundamentally immutable things should be freeing. There are a lot of "rules" around colour choices and built on a good foundation they all lead to a "if I want this effect, then doing this should work" interpretation instead of a "you have to use this specific bottle of paint to get that exact effect" constraining effect. It makes even tutorials that focus too much on the specific bottle of paint increase in usefulness.
This will be unpopular, but I have absolutely zero problems with current pots. On the contrary, droppers from either SC75, Vallejo, Army Painter cause me more headache (they clog, they don't mix properly, they still leak if pressed too hard), so I would not like to see them change the type.
BTW a friend of mine found a curious way to prevent his Citadel paints in pots from drying out. Note thas this only works on complete new pots.
He removes the backside of the pot's caps completly with a sprue cutter. He has now to place the cap seperate because it is no longer connected to the pot but he has no longer the issue of paint running behind the cap.
He is doing this since nearly 1,5 years and no longer has any dried-out citadel paints.
RazorEdge wrote: BTW a friend of mine found a curious way to prevent his Citadel paints in pots from drying out. Note thas this only works on complete new pots.
He removes the backside of the pot's caps completly with a sprue cutter. He has now to place the cap seperate because it is no longer connected to the pot but he has no longer the issue of paint running behind the cap.
He is doing this since nearly 1,5 years and no longer has any dried-out citadel paints.
I had considered trying that, but figured it'd be annoying because the lids don't have a flat top any more like they had many years ago.
The really old pots (the same type used by P3 and Cote d Arms) would occasionally break off and, yeah, you'd just place the cap next to the pot while you were using it.
I have so much crap on my painting desk, that I can prop up the open paint pot at an angle, and the paint drips into the pot, not behind the cap! I'll get the paint sometimes from the "tongue" of the cap, rather than the pot.
(entertainingly, possibly from a photo by Nevelon that was the first nice reference I found on the intarwab)
and the rare explosion doesn't help, either. Digging out the wet palette isn't impossible, but I'm lazy. Really lazy. Oh, and I hate painting.
Most hobby paints are ballpark the right consistency already and in the grand scheme of things you don't lose a lot for not thinning. The old meme of the space marine with so much paint on his face that you can't see the detail isn't actually a *thinning* problem, it's a *quantity* problem. Half the thinning you do on a dry palette is just overcoming the evaporation you are getting while moving the paint around rather than it being a terrible consistency out of the pot. Now of course two thin coats better than one avoid brush streaks blah blah blah, but if you're looking for the most bang for your buck in terms of getting decent looking models on the table quickly, painting unthinned isn't the end of the world *assuming* the painter understands what it feels like when paint genuinely becomes too thick and gluggy to apply smoothly and can compensate accordingly.
Someone needs to watch some tutorials and follow them rigidly on how to correctly remove paint from their pots! 
