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.

 Todosi wrote:
Generally when people say the consistency of milk, they mean whole milk. Most people buy 1% or 2% milk which is much thinner in viscosity. If it helps you, think of the consistency of cream instead.

I think it's best not to use those terms at all. What I call whole milk is still waaaay too thin. What we call cream here is probably too thick. But I know those terms are regional and may mean something else somewhere else (hell, I know they meant something different here in this very city when my Dad was a kid, lol).

I think, as a community, we need to stop using dairy products as a measure of viscosity Milk also has massively different surface tension to paint, so even if you found milk that was the correct consistency it would not behave anything like paint of the same consistency, so as a newbie painter you can't easily make a comparison as the milk flows differently at the same viscosity. Then you have the fact you don't want the same consistency for different techniques anyway... you can actually get away with quite thick paint if you know how to apply it when just doing a basecoat and for doing well blended highlights you use something heaps thinner.

Basically I want to find the person who looked at his/her paint and thought "ya know, this is like milk, I'm going to tell people to make their paint like milk". I want to find that person... then I want to punch them in the nose

I blame the french, I'm British, its what we do

But how else would we compare paints thickness, "the thickness of the tears that drop from a SOB player when they see every other army getting new models"? or "the sweat on a GW white knights brow as he argues about how the fluff written by ward is the best fluff in fluff history"?

Ok, ok. I'll clarify the situation. By milk like consistency I meant full cream milk thats been left out for a couple of hours and started to turn. :-) hope this helps. Lol.

Just don't mention milk. or cream. or w/e. Thin it until it doesn't leave brush marks on a test surface. Not more than that. Even cream here in the US is too thin. even if left out. You'd have to paint 50 layers, and the paint would run.

What counts as a test surface? can I use the severed head of my enemies? or have I got to test it out on a test model

 DukeBadham wrote:
What counts as a test surface? can I use the severed head of my enemies? or have I got to test it out on a test model

Go to GW > ask for free marine > test paint on that > strip > rinse> repeat

*puts down bloodied axe* oh.


Anyway...would you guys like a P&M blog of my cygnar army? I mean I do plan to post pictures as I complete more.

 DukeBadham wrote:
What counts as a test surface? can I use the severed head of my enemies? or have I got to test it out on a test model

I always keep a few bits of primed sprue on my painting desk so I can test things on a surface the same as the model I'm about to paint.

Evertras, the tip regarding pressing the brush loaded with watered down paint against a towel briefly to remove excess moisture... gold. So simple, but that's gonna make my life easier

Hey y'all, I now have a blog, check the link in my sig if you like!

Dude, "table top quality" is something pretentious people say to distinguish from "professionally painted" like we are the common rabble. I think it looks pretty good, and I would always be thrilled to have a painted army on the other side of the table.

To improve: I put a brown wash (aggrax earth shade) over a shiny gold (auric) and it looks really good. Maybe try that to kick that gold up a level? I have also used a lighter color on large panels like that to kinda give a zenith highlight look. Possibly something to experiment with?

Dessorag wrote:
Dude, "table top quality" is something pretentious people say to distinguish from "professionally painted" like we are the common rabble.

Where are you getting this from? I'm pretty sure it's a commonly understood term used by many wargamers with little to no pretention involved in its usage whatsoever. Maybe you just have a local community with a high proportion of pretentious people?

Dessorag wrote:

To improve: I put a brown wash (aggrax earth shade) over a shiny gold (auric) and it looks really good. Maybe try that to kick that gold up a level? I have also used a lighter color on large panels like that to kinda give a zenith highlight look. Possibly something to experiment with?

Well I just put a small wash of Delven Mud over my gold (Gehennas Gold) and first impressions is it makes the gold look more beaten and worn, which sorta works. I'll let folks know more tomorrow when its dry and I'm not busy despairing about how much getting Gallant in my army is gonna cost me (Need the multipart kit, the upgrade kit, the scenic base, and probably some more paints)

Well quick update I have experimented with Dessorags advice, it give the gold a dirty, beaten almost bronzey look I feel...I like it

On the term of consistency:
I once watched a youtube tutorial where the..erh.. author? spoke about the same issue with the all too common "milk" consistency. It is too thin for my tastes as well. He thinned his paint down to airbrush with a somewhat easy trick:
He mixes the paints (like I do) in those small plastic shot glasses. Add the thinner, then stir the colour in. Then use the brush to drag some colour up the glass. if it flows back, but leaves a mostly opaque layer and sticks to the surface, it is a good consistancy. Works for me like a charm, no clogging, no spattering.
So for hairbrushing that should be a good consistency as well.

 DukeBadham wrote:
Well quick update I have experimented with Dessorags advice, it give the gold a dirty, beaten almost bronzey look I feel...I like it

If you want to bring a little brightness back, a quick little drybrush of the original gold color over the raised areas can look nice.

Haha thanks for all the tips!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not sure if you can see how the wash has affected the gold paint but it has:






Automatically Appended Next Post:
What sort of conversion could I use this guy for?

 Evertras wrote:

 DukeBadham wrote:
Well quick update I have experimented with Dessorags advice, it give the gold a dirty, beaten almost bronzey look I feel...I like it

If you want to bring a little brightness back, a quick little drybrush of the original gold color over the raised areas can look nice.

Yup a lite dry brush pulls back to traditional gold as well, while leaving the depth. Cygnar does strike me as stuffy like the ultramarines but my favorite ultramarines have that more weathered look to their gold, glad you like it!

I just painted the sunburts on my grey charger, then promptly repainted it grey, then repainted the sunburt, then gave it a wash to give it a dirty look, its growing on me just like this scheme has