Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was prompted to start this thread by two things.

1) The recent Tyranid and Hobbit releases, and my own opinion that the studio paintjobs on display were not very good (which I feel is a trend for the 'Eavy Metal team of late).

2) The launch of the Warhammer Visions picturebook, which appears to be nothing more than glossy spreads of studio-painted models.


So my question to Dakka is... How do you feel about studio paintjobs? Do you find them inspiring? Misleading? Pointless?


There seem to be several schools of thought on the matter:

Games Workshop - Showcase an "achievable" paintjob executed using their advertised techniques and paint line.

Privateer Press - Commission the best paintjobs you have the time/money for (early PP studio paints were pretty rubbish, but they're pretty good these days, I think).

Malifaux - Abandon studio paintjobs entirely and just show renders. Apparently this was done because customers were complaining that painting the models masked deficiencies in the sculpts?

Infinity - Hire a tremendous artist to paint everything to a standard well beyond the average gamer.

Reaper - Provide pictures of the unpainted sculpts, but also multiple painted examples from a broad range of painters (no single studio artist/team, so more variable quality).


For my part, I like the Infinity strategy. I want to be inspired by a studio paintjob. I want it to show off the sculpt in the best possible light, and demonstrate what I one day might be able to achieve. I found the new Tyranid models distinctly uninspiring in terms of paint because they looked like (skillfully-executed) technique exercises more than works of art.


Am I alone in this?

You're not alone, though I favour the Reaper approach. Here's what the mini looks like, here's what you can achieve with it.

Any one of the them is fine by me.

Infinity approach.

For those of use who strive to improve our skill, inspiration is welcome.

I never liked the Studio paintjobs; I vastly preferred when they would have a showcase of somebody's personal army or maybe some painting tips/tricks that they do for a usually average-level of paint versus the "Masterclass" style.

I thought that the new SM codex had some really nice minis in it, I really like the spreads they do. Yet... the bases... they seems so.. slapped on.

Heck, even I can do a better base than the Eavy Metal team, and I suck!

I like the way Reaper does it. With the mix of paintjobs they show some of them are things to aspire to, some are indicators of what I can currently do.

Reaper Miniatures is my 6th favorite thing.

I like seeing the professional results for the studio armies, but I also like seeing other people's armies to see what they have done.

I kind of like seeing companies release both the 'Amazing' style (for product advertising... Show me what I wish my paint jobs would look like) and 'Attainable' (for secondary galleries and what I am really hoping I can attain).

If its about showing the model in the best light, then the Infinity approach is best I believe. The Reaper approach is good too though. I agree with the new tyranids, I thought they didn't seem to be painted as well as they could have been, and when its meant to be showing off new releases, they should be making them look amazing.

I'm glad Malifaux abandoned their old approach as the models didn't look amazingly well painted, and what was worse, they would photograph them in the worst angle possible, making the whole thing very unappealing.

For me though, the Infinity approach is the best, but then they have the best sculpts too.

I think old GW 'Eavy Metal style was completely awe inspiring, when they let the individual artists loose on a model and gave them a long time to interpret their own version of it, amazing. The last one I remember is the AOBR Ork Warboss, utterly amazing.

Now they just seem a bit bland, more like "here's what you can do with our new patented paint system in a couple hours"

To be honest, I am in two minds about this kind of thing. The GW paintjobs are fine for website pics/box pics ect, as they show you 'what the models look like', which is, ultimately, the point of them.

However, I was bitterly disappointed by the failure of WH Visions to go beyond that. The studio schemes do their job, but I would have thought that a magazine devoted entirely to show off painted models would be more interesting and varied. The pics seem to mostly be ultramarines Vs Leviathan and Behemoth Nids, something we've all seen thousands of times before. I had hoped for and expected far more of a range of stuff.

Hobbyist-submitted content, super-quality Golden Demon level minis, showcases in different styles and techniques (maybe even with tutorials). Basically a combination of stuff that inspires you to paint well and stuff that shows you how. Give us a showcase of some of the best models in painting, and treat them like the art they are, and give us tabletop quality models with detailed tutorials on how to achieve that look.

Instead, we get the same old 'Eavy Metal paintjobs which are not technically brilliant, aren't anything different to what we can see online, and are far from inspirational. They're solid paintjobs, but the only stuff in the mag review that met what I expected was the Golden Demon winner's gallery, nothing to do with GW's own painting. I'm sure the Eavy Metal painters can achieve that standard, but they aren't given the freedom or outlet to do so. WH Visions would have been the perfect place to really show off what a skilled painter can do with their models, but no, we just get a battle report that is basically a comic strip with minis and about 10 words of text, and a variety of pictures of exactly the same Nids that I could find in 360 HD just a few mouse-clicks from here.

So, to answer the question, there's nothing wrong with the GW studio painting in that it fulfils its purpose of showing off the minis, but for them to release them in a 'premium' magazine is just wrong. It's like a film company expecting you to pay £7.50 for a bunch of pictures box covers.

GW used to showcase excellent paintjobs and conversions in their army books and in White Dwarf. Some time in the last 6-8 years they moved away from that, to the point where we have this: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440049a&prodId=prod2250006a

Look at the 360 spearman. While he does have decent eyes, his skirt, shield, spear and base are atrociously painted. The base is chipped to hell.

Then I look at the revamp of WD and their paint splatter section. All of it is the WD team showing you how to mediocre your way to tabletop. Who is that benefiting? There are TONS of tutorials out there for new painters. We've always suspected that GW only cared about new players, but by completely abandoning advanced tutorials it's quite clear. The full DVD/Book painting set the released is an absolute joke.

GW used to have "How to Paint X" books, and those books were pretty decent as they showed off how to achieve a good number of looks.

IMO, Rakham had the BEST studio painting I've seen from a company. Every single piece was a work of insane French art.

Malifaux is the worst IMO, because they don't even show the actual model, but a render. And given their render team is apparently sort of stupid and have never heard of perspective, you end up with some models just out of scale with the others because they were in the foreground/background of the artwork and therefore appeared to be bigger/smaller if you just make a literal translation of the piece. The detail is also more pronounced on their renders than the actual product, making them largely useless.

A mix of Reaper and Inifinity is my preferred method. Show me the unpainted version, and show me something that inspires me.

I wouldn't mind a mix of all of them to be honest. Except that busted-ass Malifaux solution, I mean that's just hurting.

I don't mind too much,

as long as I can see the real unpainted figure somewhere convenient so I can see what I'm actually getting

in more specific terms

I'd prefer stuff I intended to paint to be done to 'general decent painter' standard so I can aspire, but not be too put off by unachievable greatness

If I'm never going to paint it very high end competition wining paintjobs are ideal, admire the talent without too close a comparison with my own lesser work

I like the Forgeworld style. Here's a decent paintjob for most things, now go and look at how well we can paint with some of our character models. And have lots of pictures of unpainted, in case the paint removed some of the detail.

I prefer Infinity style. The studio paintjob is supposed to (at least in my mind) show the model in the best light possible, to both grab the potential purchaser and serve as inspiration during the eventual painting.

It's great to also be able to see the model unpainted/on the sprue, to judge the quality of the sculpt, itself. Seeing what hobbyists of varying skill levels can achieve with the model is nice, too. The thing is, we have the internet. With a quick search, we can find unboxing videos, various color schemes, kit reviews, etc. from a whole range of sources - blogs, message boards, etc. While you might be able to find one or even a few amazing paintjobs by talented artists, the only guarantee is if it starts in the studio.

Remember Confrontation? Oh my god those were some amazing painters. I like the Infinity approach - show me some gorgeous minis and leave me to wallow in my own tears.

 DFo wrote:
So my question to Dakka is... How do you feel about studio paintjobs? Do you find them inspiring? Misleading? Pointless?

When they're good, on a good minature, I find that inspiring. Seeing a beautifully painted, awesome miniature makes me want to buy that miniature and see what I can do with it.

Games Workshop - Showcase an "achievable" paintjob executed using their advertised techniques and paint line.

This has been one of the bigger disappointments for me. The 'eavy Metal crew used to be superb (other than during that period in the early '00s where they were instructed to tone down their paintjobs so that people wouldn't be 'put off' by unachievable awesome) but the current trend of using 'eavy Metal just to showcase their 3-step paint range is sad, and the studio minis nowhere near as exciting as a result.

I get the impression the gw painters are in a rush to get things done most of the time. wouldnt surprise me if gw cut the number of painters then overwork the ones that they keep. its not that they are bad painters, they are clearly great painters and could do amazing things with enough time. they also seem to have many restrictions, are limited to only the gw paint range and they cant do anything fancy with airbrushing. im guessing if they use an airbrush it is only allowed to be used for base coating.

id like to see anyone do better under the restrictions that they have.

kb305 wrote:
I get the impression the gw painters are in a rush to get things done most of the time. wouldnt surprise me if gw cut the number of painters then overwork the ones that they keep. its not that they are bad painters, they are clearly great painters and could do amazing things with enough time. they also seem to have many restrictions, are limited to only the gw paint range and they cant do anything fancy with airbrushing. im guessing if they use an airbrush it is only allowed to be used for base coating.

id like to see anyone do better under the restrictions that they have.

I don't think it's a time issue at all. It's quite clear from looking at recent 'eavy Metal that they're just being limited to the current paint pallette, in order to sell the 'base-colour-edge' painting system.

 DFo wrote:
I was prompted to start this thread by two things.

1) The recent Tyranid and Hobbit releases, and my own opinion that the studio paintjobs on display were not very good (which I feel is a trend for the 'Eavy Metal team of late).

2) The launch of the Warhammer Visions picturebook, which appears to be nothing more than glossy spreads of studio-painted models.


So my question to Dakka is... How do you feel about studio paintjobs? Do you find them inspiring? Misleading? Pointless?


There seem to be several schools of thought on the matter:

Games Workshop - Showcase an "achievable" paintjob executed using their advertised techniques and paint line.

Privateer Press - Commission the best paintjobs you have the time/money for (early PP studio paints were pretty rubbish, but they're pretty good these days, I think).

Malifaux - Abandon studio paintjobs entirely and just show renders. Apparently this was done because customers were complaining that painting the models masked deficiencies in the sculpts?

Infinity - Hire a tremendous artist to paint everything to a standard well beyond the average gamer.

Reaper - Provide pictures of the unpainted sculpts, but also multiple painted examples from a broad range of painters (no single studio artist/team, so more variable quality).


For my part, I like the Infinity strategy. I want to be inspired by a studio paintjob. I want it to show off the sculpt in the best possible light, and demonstrate what I one day might be able to achieve. I found the new Tyranid models distinctly uninspiring in terms of paint because they looked like (skillfully-executed) technique exercises more than works of art.


Am I alone in this?

You may not be alone, but I'm not with you.

Seriously, though, I see where you're coming from. I often feel the same way about conversions. I'm an able converter, but I'm absolute rubbish at painting. To be honest, even the GW paintjobs are well beyond my ability. I prefer seeing models done in paint schemes that I might conceivably be able to do myself. I'm much more inspired by something I think I can accomplish. A DIY show might inspire me because, hey, I can do that. Michael Jordan doesn't inspire me to play basketball, because nothing I do in my life is going to, at this point, bring me up to the level of skill he could showcase in his heyday. If someone is trying to advertise their brand of minis to me, and trying to use my own inspiration as a selling point, they should make the finish line seem attainable.

Base-color-edge.. Blech.

Highlighting looks silly to me. I applaud those who do it though, because I can't achieve it myself at the moment.

Infinity style all the way, i will never reach that level, but they look awesome!

A well painted model helps me personally to inspire me.

But in reality paint the model your way because at the end of the day its you who is painting the model not them.

 kronk wrote:
Reaper Miniatures is my 6th favorite thing.

The first five being Booze, Bacon, Broads, Boobs, and Alliteration?

I prefer studio paintjobs to show me what the model can look like in that game's aesthetics. So I liked the dark, grim paintjobs of Malifaux, the high level, bright paintjobs of Infinity. The high tabletop of PP (idk why, everything looks like I can achieve it), GW paintjobs I never really cared for, and Reaper shows me unpainted and painted, which I like.

Really just depends. I'm not a huge fan of the unpainted models from Wyrd, as I didn't care if there were defects, that's what people on the internet were going to tell me before I bought it, but as someone said. Inspiration is always nice.

The studio paintjobs provided a standard to aspire to, or exceed. Of late they seem to have slipped a bit.