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.

One of these days I'll have to post comparison pics of my old models painted with hobby paints (primarily GW) and the new ones I've done with craft paints... and see if the critics of craft paints can tell which was which.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here's another question. I have a ton of paint comparison charts, some old, some new, and one 'company' that pops up is Federal Standard or US Federal standard, which is a mystery to me.

That's not Congressmen in Washington moonlighting as paint manufactures, is it?

Genuine question, because I have no idea what that 'company' is/was.

Gunze Sangyo is another one. Sounds like a Samurai warlord

No, it's just a standard set of colors used in government contracts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Standard_595

(And, in the context of scale models that often involve military subjects, obviously a very relevant system of describing colors.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
Advantage of GW paints is that it matches the GW painting guides and the GW colour schemes, and it will be difficult to get Space Wolves Grey somewhere else.

This is an important fact. With miniatures paints you're getting the exact colors you need instead of having to mix them from a limited set of primary colors. That's very important if you're trying to match a specific paint scheme in a historical model or keep your painting consistent across an entire army. So yeah, I could use art paints but the small amount of money saved doesn't come anywhere near justifying the inconvenience.

 Vulcan wrote:
One of these days I'll have to post comparison pics of my old models painted with hobby paints (primarily GW) and the new ones I've done with craft paints... and see if the critics of craft paints can tell which was which.

I use only craft paint and canvas paint too.

GW has done a good job brain washing people thinking their "miniature paint" is superior.

 DanceOfSlaanesh wrote:
GW has done a good job brain washing people thinking their "miniature paint" is superior.

It's hardly brainwashing. GW (and VMC, etc) paints are better than cheap craft paints. They're on par with nice art paints, but at that point you aren't saving any money and you're adding the inconvenience of custom mixing all of your colors.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here's another question. I have a ton of paint comparison charts, some old, some new, and one 'company' that pops up is Federal Standard or US Federal standard, which is a mystery to me.

That's not Congressmen in Washington moonlighting as paint manufactures, is it?

Genuine question, because I have no idea what that 'company' is/was.

Gunze Sangyo is another one. Sounds like a Samurai warlord

No, it's just a standard set of colors used in government contracts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Standard_595

(And, in the context of scale models that often involve military subjects, obviously a very relevant system of describing colors.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
Advantage of GW paints is that it matches the GW painting guides and the GW colour schemes, and it will be difficult to get Space Wolves Grey somewhere else.

This is an important fact. With miniatures paints you're getting the exact colors you need instead of having to mix them from a limited set of primary colors. That's very important if you're trying to match a specific paint scheme in a historical model or keep your painting consistent across an entire army. So yeah, I could use art paints but the small amount of money saved doesn't come anywhere near justifying the inconvenience.

Thanks for the explanation.

meatybtz wrote:

Drybrushing does not have to look chalky.. though yes. It usually does. Use of a glaze or wash after dry-brushing helps. Or limited area dry-brushing. My tanks to look chalky and I almost always dry-brush them .

From my past experience it depends on the pigment size of the colour and if you avoid it by useing a more liquid/thin colour for it. (most people use thick colours because it is easier/faster but this is were the chalky look comes from)

meatybtz wrote:

most of the tube based artist acrylics have a fraction of the pigment found in miniature paints and when thinned they end up with pigment separation and sundry problems. .

Because those are mostly ready to use colours and/or need acrylic liquids to be thinned down
high pigment colours are usually marked as such and to thick to be used directly out of the tube

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
PVA is PVA is PVA.

Sand isn’t. But I’ll just go buy Budgie Sand in The pet shop. One sack will laaaaaaast!

Glue? Revel is good. Citadel is usually good, but I did fall foul of a dodgy batch some years ago, which knackered a lot of models.

Brushes? Definite quality variation. Cheap is not value. Expensive is not value. Citadel’s ones are maybe a bit pricey, but very much up to the job. Other brands are available, but thanks to The Amazing Mr Duncan and his evil sidekick, Peachy, using the right Citadel Brush for right job is easily discerned.

Paints? Well. As with any art medium, just gotta experiment some. Citadel Paints? I think I can comfortably call them a Benchmark. They’re reliable. They’re formulated especially for the job at hand. Vallejo are likewise, but as someone with no Flgs, too much of a sod for me, compared to schlepping off up the hill to visit my local GW and get what I need. Much like their brushes, Citadel Paints are neither good, nor bad. But they have set quite the bar for ‘average’.

Tools? Well, again for convenience sake I’ve got Citadel products. But I’ve used clippers in a couple of actual proper jobs. And those lacked the ‘fine’ point of Citadel’s offerings. So without any claim Citadel’s are therefore the best, it does show all tools are not created equal. To the point they’re not something I’d source online.

YMMV.

I'm not saying you're an idiot or anything.

But if you want Vallejo paints, and I do recommend them for the price, and the fact that you get more than the GW equivalent, and the quality is very good, and the brush on primer is excellent, then you can buy them from this thing called Ebay.

the dakka paint comparison chart is very good at matching things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

meatybtz wrote:

Drybrushing does not have to look chalky.. though yes. It usually does. Use of a glaze or wash after dry-brushing helps. Or limited area dry-brushing. My tanks to look chalky and I almost always dry-brush them .

From my past experience it depends on the pigment size of the colour and if you avoid it by useing a more liquid/thin colour for it. (most people use thick colours because it is easier/faster but this is were the chalky look comes from)

meatybtz wrote:

most of the tube based artist acrylics have a fraction of the pigment found in miniature paints and when thinned they end up with pigment separation and sundry problems. .

Because those are mostly ready to use colours and/or need acrylic liquids to be thinned down
high pigment colours are usually marked as such and to thick to be used directly out of the tube

The chalk effect from drybrushing, especially when you're doing vehicles in the desert, or Afrika Korps or 8th Army for Bolt Action, is to be welcomed at times. So there are welcome uses of the chalk effect.

Of course there is

Winter camo for WW2 needs that chalk effect to look good and is best done with nearly solid white

For OSL or fire not so much

Thats why im glad i tried out a cheap 5 dollar spray paint cans, and found it works just as well, and for now on i will be using that and never again buying 1 smaller can that costs over 30$ from GW. So its definitely worth trying cheaper things first before you start buying the more expensive, just to see if its worth while spending more money.

Peregrine wrote:So yeah, I could use art paints but the small amount of money saved doesn't come anywhere near justifying the inconvenience.

"[S]mall amount... ...saved" actually means "less than one-quarter of the price and almost five times the volume" vis-a-vis Citadel (12ml, $5.40 plus HST) v. Michael's (59ml, $1.19 plus HST) and the "inconvenience" is all of holding your phone up next to the colour swatches that Michael's helpfully put out. You might *gasp* have to pick up a bottle and... look at it.

Took me all of forty seconds to pick up matches to the GW Pink Horror Paint Bundle.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Peregrine wrote:So yeah, I could use art paints but the small amount of money saved doesn't come anywhere near justifying the inconvenience.

"[S]mall amount... ...saved" actually means "less than one-quarter of the price and almost five times the volume" vis-a-vis Citadel (12ml, $5.40 plus HST) v. Michael's (59ml, $1.19 plus HST) and the "inconvenience" is all of holding your phone up next to the colour swatches that Michael's helpfully put out. You might *gasp* have to pick up a bottle and... look at it.

Took me all of forty seconds to pick up matches to the GW Pink Horror Paint Bundle.

Peregrine said "art paints", not "craft paints". Art paints are brands like Liquitex, not Apple Barrel or Folk Art.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Peregrine wrote:So yeah, I could use art paints but the small amount of money saved doesn't come anywhere near justifying the inconvenience.

"[S]mall amount... ...saved" actually means "less than one-quarter of the price and almost five times the volume" vis-a-vis Citadel (12ml, $5.40 plus HST) v. Michael's (59ml, $1.19 plus HST) and the "inconvenience" is all of holding your phone up next to the colour swatches that Michael's helpfully put out. You might *gasp* have to pick up a bottle and... look at it.

Took me all of forty seconds to pick up matches to the GW Pink Horror Paint Bundle.

Peregrine said "art paints", not "craft paints". Art paints are brands like Liquitex, not Apple Barrel.

Cost difference is the similar, 100ml Liquitex cost less than 12ml GW

Fair enough.

I assumed, and that's why you don't assume.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Peregrine said "art paints", not "craft paints". Art paints are brands like Liquitex, not Apple Barrel or Folk Art.

Yes, exactly. I'm talking about respectable art paints not the cheap trash you can buy at Walmart. Those paints will be cheaper per volume than GW (or other miniatures paints) but because they are sold in a limited range of primary colors they will also have a much higher waste rate from having to custom mix your colors. So yeah, you save a bit of money in exchange for a lot more inconvenience and inconsistency but it's far from "just spend $5 to buy all of your paints" like some anti-GW people try to present it.

Also, a lot of the time the supposed volume savings on non-miniatures paints exist only in theory. You'll benefit for the primary colors of your army but for a lot of detail colors the amount you need for an entire army is so small that a single pot of GW paint is enough to last for years. Getting 100mL vs. 12mL doesn't really pay off if your expected need is only 5mL for the next decade.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
EDIT

and are a company like Tamiya really going to make 100,000 pots of paint in Japan, and ship it to Europe or North America?

Or does common sense say it would be cheaper and quicker to get a factory in Europe or America to make it there, and save on shipping costs?

No, economic sense says depending on a lot of factors, plopping plus-size containers on cargo boats on the regular may well be cheaper and quicker than setting up a factory, renting said factory, buying all the relevant equipment, power and etc, and paying EU or American wages.
It may be cheaper. But if it is, its the result of deliberate economic analysis, not 'common sense.'


As others have said, PVA and tools are rebranded and marked up.

Paints are also made elsewhere and branded, but there are a lot of variations in quality and right paints for the job (and no, I don't mean GW's 'system' of base, layers, shades and whatever).
Brushes have a huge quality variation. A cheap off-brand kiddie brush for watercolors isn't going to do you any good.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Peregrine said "art paints", not "craft paints". Art paints are brands like Liquitex, not Apple Barrel or Folk Art.

Yes, exactly. I'm talking about respectable art paints not the cheap trash you can buy at Walmart. Those paints will be cheaper per volume than GW (or other miniatures paints) but because they are sold in a limited range of primary colors they will also have a much higher waste rate from having to custom mix your colors. So yeah, you save a bit of money in exchange for a lot more inconvenience and inconsistency but it's far from "just spend $5 to buy all of your paints" like some anti-GW people try to present it.

Also, a lot of the time the supposed volume savings on non-miniatures paints exist only in theory. You'll benefit for the primary colors of your army but for a lot of detail colors the amount you need for an entire army is so small that a single pot of GW paint is enough to last for years. Getting 100mL vs. 12mL doesn't really pay off if your expected need is only 5mL for the next decade.

^^^Pretty much this. I don't think the argument that you just get more is all that important, ultimately. I have a Deathwatch army at about 2000 points and I think I've used about 80% of a pot of GW black while painting it (that's along with other models I've also painted inn that time). And that's for a colour that's used on literally every model I've ever painted. Detail colours like metallic or things like red or blue for details are used much less frequently and run out so infrequently the time saving of never having to mix anything far outweighs the cost and time saving from using cheaper paints. If you needed a new pot of paint after every 2-3 squads I could understand the argument.

 Peregrine wrote:

Yes, exactly. I'm talking about respectable art paints not the cheap trash you can buy at Walmart. Those paints will be cheaper per volume than GW (or other miniatures paints) but because they are sold in a limited range of primary colors they will also have a much higher waste rate from having to custom mix your colors. So yeah, you save a bit of money in exchange for a lot more inconvenience and inconsistency but it's far from "just spend $5 to buy all of your paints" like some anti-GW people try to present it.

Also, a lot of the time the supposed volume savings on non-miniatures paints exist only in theory. You'll benefit for the primary colors of your army but for a lot of detail colors the amount you need for an entire army is so small that a single pot of GW paint is enough to last for years. Getting 100mL vs. 12mL doesn't really pay off if your expected need is only 5mL for the next decade.

Don't know if the situation in the US is that different.
I use art supply in the first place because I have 2 stores in town while would need to drive to the next town for a GW store while there would also be ones carrying Army Painter and Vallejo.

And than there is the price difference, buying the most expensive one is not necessary, same as not going for the cheapest as different manufacturer have different ranges going from standard viscosity and pigment density to high transparent or super thick stuff.
And non is just carrying the basic colours.

I mean the standard stuff comes in 100ml tubes for 2,6 to 3,9€ and there are 30 to 50 colours to chose from, depending on the specific brand
And while I have some of those for years without seeing them getting empty, the basic colours that are used everywhere have seen the 3rd bottle being gone

And basic Black/White are those that I buy in 1.5 Liter bottles (to re-fill the smaller ones) as they are also used for terrain more or less gone within a year

The expensive stuff would be 7,8€ for 60ml, which is 1,12€ for 12ml (GW is 3,6€ for 12) and there are 170 different ones.

I have my share of GW paints here, just to try different things, and they are not bad but not really worth the price as they are not better than the cheaper "expensive" ones.
Except for their Washes, and those were removed for the "much better" base/layer/shade system just to be back again, but the industry kept up and you get similar stuff from others too.

So here the time will tell (no news about the price yet) if they are worth the money compared to Liquitex or Schmincke

And if you say one bottle lasts for years or an army. In my experience one bottle is gone after 2 larger models (or 1 Land Raider)

One way that Craft paints and Miniature paints show their difference is if you use a wet palette - the Craft paints streak and separate, or at least the Americana brand paints do. Their large particles for pigment do not take watering down as well.

Still worth it for terrain and basing.

I have also seen more UV sensitivity in regards to inks used for washes and glazes than in the paints - with one of my favorite Brown inks (Higgins' Waterproof) fading to a purple over time. (Their Fadeproof does a much better job of survival.)

The Auld Grump

 kodos wrote:


And if you say one bottle lasts for years or an army. In my experience one bottle is gone after 2 larger models (or 1 Land Raider)

Now I really want to know how you're painting your Land Raiders! Even using GW red, which is a pretty horrible colour for coverage, I've never seen even 1/4 of a pot of paint used on a single model the size of a Land Raider. It's pretty rare for armies to be made up of a huge number of very large models (Nids possibly the only ones?) so even if one model can take a lot of paint, the paint will still likely last a very long time.

No, unfortunately paint is not paint, and different brands can have very different working properties, depending on who the manufacturers are.

This is particularly evident when you get round to airbrushing with relatively small nozzle diameters - you will start to notice pigment grind differences between different manufacturers; a result of different suppliers of pigment. You'll also really start to appreciate which brands contain more drying retardant than others.

There are also binding agent and medium differences between even acrylic manufacturers.

Note; early Citadel Colour (round pot) were made by Cote d'Arms. I think this early rebranding (red handle GW brushes were Rosemary & Co) is the source of a lot of this confusion. But still, after more than 30 years in the game, there are some paints from some manufacturers that you cannot get from any other. Vallejo's Panzer Aces range in particular are IMO quite unique, or at least I've not found a usable analogue in other ranges.

Actually, I'm not sure who made the original Citadel paints in round pots. the range that Cote d'Arms currently sells is sold by them in round pots, but they're the equivalent of the second Citadel paint range that came in hexagonal pots (not the much-maligned "bolter-shell" pots with the screw tops; those were the third range). There were several significant changes when that first change took place in the early 1990s; in general the paints got more vibrant (apart from Titillating Pink being replaced by the less flourescent Tentacle Pink) and some colours (those used for base coats for Ultramarines and Blood Angels) vanished completely.

In addition, some colours were mixed in-house (although the actual paint was made externally); the original Goblin Green was made that way, which is why no two pots of Goblin Green in the 80s / early 90s were the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm not saying you're an idiot or anything.

But if you want Vallejo paints, and I do recommend them for the price, and the fact that you get more than the GW equivalent, and the quality is very good, and the brush on primer is excellent, then you can buy them from this thing called Ebay.

That does require more forward planning than I can usually uster, though. I'm currently using Abaddon Black because I've run out of Vallejo Game Color Black and I've not had a chance yet to place an Amazon order.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

 kodos wrote:


And if you say one bottle lasts for years or an army. In my experience one bottle is gone after 2 larger models (or 1 Land Raider)

Now I really want to know how you're painting your Land Raiders! Even using GW red, which is a pretty horrible colour for coverage, I've never seen even 1/4 of a pot of paint used on a single model the size of a Land Raider. It's pretty rare for armies to be made up of a huge number of very large models (Nids possibly the only ones?) so even if one model can take a lot of paint, the paint will still likely last a very long time.

I've used an entire pot of Macragge Blue painting the Ultramarines from the Warhammer 40,000 Conquest partwork.

In my experience I rarely run out of paint, the only thing I find myself buying a lot of is washes.

With the price of the models you are buying, I couldn't skimp out on the paints themselves. I understand PVA glue and texturing materials. I personally have never used craft paints for my models, but having seen people who have there is a subtle difference in quality and when it comes to paying for that higher end product, you are paying for those subtle differences.

Just my two cents.

 DanceOfSlaanesh wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
One of these days I'll have to post comparison pics of my old models painted with hobby paints (primarily GW) and the new ones I've done with craft paints... and see if the critics of craft paints can tell which was which.

I use only craft paint and canvas paint too.

GW has done a good job brain washing people thinking their "miniature paint" is superior.

I'd be honestly interested in seeing good yellow, red and white paint jobs done with craft paints.
I'm a craft paint user, too, but find those colors are much harder to do than when I use the GW paints.
Greens, browns, and blues? Yeah, craft paint does those just fine.

I like hordes so while YMMV, yeah, volume is an important consideration for me.

I'm also a poor and so even in the extremely unlikely event I only ever use 5ml of a paint, I'd rather pay $1.19 for that 5ml than $5.40.

Again, your mileage may vary. I don't overly care if you fritter away your money on the Emperor's New Clothes. Harm Principle, innit?

EDIT - FWIW, I'm perfectly willing to accept that the paint you use does make a difference if you're painting at a winterdyne/DV8 level. I have no experience and so if they say so, I'll accept that. However, that does not change the simple fact that at the level the other 99.98% of us paint at, it makes not a bit of difference what paint you use.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

EDIT - FWIW, I'm perfectly willing to accept that the paint you use does make a difference if you're painting at a winterdyne/DV8 level. I have no experience and so if they say so, I'll accept that. However, that does not change the simple fact that at the level the other 99.98% of us paint at, it makes not a bit of difference what paint you use.

Oh sod off it. Stop putting us on a pedestal; no great artist ever started great. We all started from somewhere, painting like garbage, and we put in the time and effort to hone our skills to something resembling artistry.

It's not like we paint like garbage until we hit a certain milestone, and then we have some arbitrary checklist that allows us to unlock certain types of paints. "Can we blend? Yup. Can we glaze and feather? Sure can! What about freehand? Got some of that? Great! Can't do NMM though? Oooh sorry, looks like we can't allow you to use Vallejo Model Colors yet. Maybe you'll just have to settle for these P3 paints instead."

We (the collective we, speaking for this arbitrary 0.01%) use great quality paints because they allow us to produce great quality work. They're tools, just like using a good brush gives you better control and paint application.

Good paint (and brushes) don't make you a good painter, but they enable you to, because they're well suited to the techniques required to produce good work.

The reverse is true; using poor quality tools holds you back, because they are ill-suited to (or completely inappropriate) for the techniques required to produce anything other than mediocrity.

But as you say, YMMV.

Well, Tamiya is definitely NOT water based, all the Reaper paints I bought sucked and were hardened messes, and I’ve been relatively happy w/most GW paints (except white, that can “suck my nuts”, to quote Abraham). So no, those three ranges are all different. Tamiya has been my go-to for clear coat (which’ll change, since their range is so small compared to what GW is giving us), but GW has been for everything else. Looks like this’ll be a GW house for paint completely now.

My 'day job' is as an artist and I make most of the paints I use, myself, but still generally default to 'hobby paints' for minis because they have certain properties that make them far better for that use than other acrylics.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Well, Tamiya is definitely NOT water based,...

I believe Tamiya acrylics are solvent-based, but are still water-soluble - so can be thinned and brushes cleaned with water.

Paint is just paint in a sense that you shouldn't limit yourself to just one brand.

If you are loyal to the budget then so be it.
If you are loyal to the brand then so be it.
Just enjoy your hobby.