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.

Hey all,
I'm sure most people have seen the 'eavy metal masterclass painting guide for captain sicarius. If not, here's the direct link to it on the GW website: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m220363a_Captain_Sicarius_Painting_Masterclass

Anyway, I've been attempting to replicate the exact armor color (which is absolutely brilliant btw, incredible color scheme) based on the depicted images, but I haven't been able to get anywhere near it. The guide claims to use regal as a base, then multiple highlight layers from there. However, it seems no matter how perfectly you replicate the instructions, you absolutely cannot achieve the same results for armor color. I'm starting to believe the guide is somewhat fake. Has anyone had success achieving that look? And could you please enlighten everyone as to which colors are actually used?


Really I'm most curious in just knowing the true base color, because there is absolutely no way it is regal. I thought maybe a mix of regal and enchanted, or even mordian and enchanted, but it cannot be pure regal as the guide claims.

I am pretty sure all the guides are exactly those colours they claim. It does matter how thinly you dilute you paint when you layer it up. According to the instruction, you need to layer quite a bit.

Might just be the photography/lighting.

leohart wrote:I am pretty sure all the guides are exactly those colours they claim. It does matter how thinly you dilute you paint when you layer it up. According to the instruction, you need to layer quite a bit.

To be honest I've always thought they left out techniques and colours (especially ones used for highlighting). Maybe not the case for masterclass...

GW is well known for their "step 1, step 2, step 9987...Master piece!" instructions. They do skip not absolutely skip steps, but they do not detail all of the items in each step.

So they will say that it was a few layers, when it is in fact 20. Or that they highlighted with white, when it was white mixed with regal blue in different quantity ratios over the course of 15 separate highlights.

Do the best you can and make a model your own instead of just copying the GW one. You will like it better if it is your own creation and not just a copy of someone else's work.

Judging by the pics, they definitely don't look like they began with regal blue at all...

I would guess that it's an issue of lighting. I don't really see why they would lie about the colors that they are using.

That said, I am sure that they do several layers beyond what they really imply. The problem is that painting isn't such a formulaic process that you can simply do it step by step and come out with something amazing...it's a bit more organic than that; what I'm trying to say is that it's ok if yours isn't exactly the same...The funny thing about being an artist is that you're almost ALWAYS going to be your own biggest critic...little things that bug the crap out of you, most other people will never notice. So relax, and just enjoy the result that you have worked hard to achieve.

@Joyous_Oblivion: it might not look like it is regal blue direct from the pot, but then many colours look different on camera and printed materials. Plus, dilution of the paint does create a different tone.

hahaha Yep, the guides are regularly 'faked'. 'EM painters do not exclusively use GW products. If they do use another company's products though, the guide will tell you to use the closest thing to it from their own ranges.

Just enjoy the ride, treat the articles as mere guidelines, and learn the lesson being taught.

Don't concentrate on the finger...

Orki wrote:hahaha Yep, the guides are regularly 'faked'. 'EM painters do not exclusively use GW products. If they do use another company's products though, the guide will tell you to use the closest thing to it from their own ranges.

Just enjoy the ride, treat the articles as mere guidelines, and learn the lesson being taught.

Don't concentrate on the finger...

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Seriously.

The 'Eavy Metal painters do in fact, exclusively, use GW products on the Studio projects/tutorials.

For their own projects, they will mix and match.

lol

This was the result of my attempt at following the instructions in the Masterclass book:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/432708.page

Granted, I'm not the best painter in the world and I'm (hopefully) improving the more I work but I'd say it's pretty close. The problem is that the colors they use are better suited for Crimson Fists than Ultramarines. Another issue is that they do many very thin coats on each step where you or I would only do one or two.

From those I know who have talked to 'Eavy Metal painters, they don't always use GW paints for every project. They also use a good number of techniques which I've never seen GW promote, such as wet blending and using things like glaze mediums.

I seriously doubt that painters of that level would limit themselves to GW paints only.

For personal projects, the 'Eavy Metal painters would use whatever they want. For stuff intended for publication, I expect they'd stick to what GW sells. After all, they are doing this work specifically to sell GW paints and GW figures. It really doesn't do them much good to be using paint from a third party company and then saying it's really "this" or "that" GW paint.

The Forge World guys, on the other hand, are the ones who tend to go off the reservation.

Here's a thought: if the heavy metal guys only ever used GW paints, then wouldn't they have to redo all the promo pictures on the website whenever the paint range is updated? Like it just was a few months ago?

I have noticed that recently, the step by steps in WD are no where near as good as the finished model. For example.in June's issue the hand of the White Scar Termy looks crap in the stage by stage, but the finished.model looks nice. Maybe they leave out steps so no one can achieve awesome painting like 'Eavy Metal and they can claim superiority.

Thanks for the replies guys. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks the guide is a little off.

So what do you guys think is the basecoat they start with? At this point I actually just want to find out for the novelty of knowing, not so much because I want to replicate it. I'm quite fond of the pure regal basecoat.

Nothing to do with the actual article, but I took a look at your other threat with the image and that looks fantastic mate, I wouldn't worry about replicating what other people are doing! Stick with whatever you're doing!

(Although I reckon Sicarus is a glory hog!, go 4th company!)

When was this masterclass first put up? Maybe the paint was OOP when they made it and just said Regal being the closest.

I have seen several non-GW painting products on the EM desks they used to show in GW. Maybe things have changed in the studio (they have everywhere else), but EM painters did not limit themselves before. As was already stated, EM uses may products that GW does not carry. Glazes, blending mediums, varies inks, etc. are all used by the EM team on actual production models.

This is one of the many reasons I never read the painting advice in GW. You only ever got a fraction of the required knowledge to complete a task. The "How to paints..." are a total waste of money because of this same reason. They are just EM articles republished.

If you really want to learn good techniques then visit some of the blogs and watch some of the youtube vids. They are more helpful than GW will ever be.

Again, good luck.

Seriously? That marine of yours is completely awesome. Your models are completely awesome. I do not understand how you are complaining. I think you are just judging your own work far too hard. I do agree with you on the Skulltaker fire thing, but I have that same issue trying to blend red orange and yellow together, and I think it's a matter of extra thin glazes. I, however, want mine to be dayglow bright. If you did learn how to paint like this from a book, that book was worth its weight.

It's called RGB color versus real color. I worked in the sign and graphic industry for over a decade. You cannot truly compare what you see on your computer or even printed to what something will look like with actual pigments.

Deadshot wrote:When was this masterclass first put up? Maybe the paint was OOP when they made it and just said Regal being the closest.

That Masterclass is from a WD when Sicarius was first released. So Regal Blue was still present.

The thing to realize is that the 'Eavy Metal team when painting these models was instructed to paint a model to the "best possible standard".
They used multiple thin layers, to achieve the 'perfect' coloration.
They spent long hours on these models to make sure that they stand up to precise scrutiny.


When you look at these models and say "Hey. That doesn't match what I'm doing at all!", it's not because they've lied to you. It's because they've done things in such a way that they're getting the "best results" possible from the tools that both you and they are working with. They are painting things to such a standard that when people look at them they think "Wow. This is truly one of the best models I've ever seen!" not "Oh wow, I can do that with a few paints and a layer of Devlan Mud!".

Shepherd23 wrote:I have seen several non-GW painting products on the EM desks they used to show in GW. Maybe things have changed in the studio (they have everywhere else), but EM painters did not limit themselves before. As was already stated, EM uses may products that GW does not carry. Glazes, blending mediums, varies inks, etc. are all used by the EM team on actual production models.

Actually...look at the current crop of Finecast models which have been painted. They're all using the new paints and glazes, washes, etc.

When those did not exist, you would have been right...to a point. More on that in a moment.

This is one of the many reasons I never read the painting advice in GW. You only ever got a fraction of the required knowledge to complete a task. The "How to paints..." are a total waste of money because of this same reason. They are just EM articles republished.

Part of the biggest issue was simply that the EM team did a lot of their own "custom" blends for various projects. The "How to..." are to match the Studio armies, not the personal armies. To match those personal armies? It required alot of extraneous knowledge.

If you really want to learn good techniques then visit some of the blogs and watch some of the youtube vids. They are more helpful than GW will ever be.

Not to rain on your parade a bit here, but there's a reason that to most of the people on forums and blogs GW isn't "helpful".

Most of us have extensive knowledge and have gone out of our way to work/create our own techniques to reach certain goals. To a beginner, those blogs and Youtube videos can be kind of detrimental or even downright discouraging. The GW things are quite simple to follow.

Orki wrote:
Don't concentrate on the finger...

Because the moon is not the finger?


In any case, why don't you make tutorials yourself, Orki? I'd be interested in that.


Also, when I was starting in painting the GW tutorials were helpful but only up to a certain point. And my paintjob back then never looked like GW ones even when I followed their guide. It kind of reminds me of this photo:

WARNING: sorta strong language ahead.

I know what you did wrong on sicarius. The wash step was not done in an "all over" wash, but rather applied very delicately to the cracks an recesses on the model. Look at his kneepad on your model vs. his kneepad in the masterclass. You will see that yours is much much much darker, and has indications of a wash drying on the flat surfaces. You can see it plainly on the backpack too. Your highlights as well seem to be overlapping each other a little, though at that distance it is hard to tell. This leaves the model without the blended gradation of highlights that make a big part of the armor in the masterclass.

In addition, Based on the white on your banner, I would guess you may have needed to do a larger number of thinner coats to get the same effect as the EM team.

Now, With all that said and your question answered, I do want to say your work is absolutely brilliant, and you've done a wonderful job on Sicarius. There's a little bit of constructive criticism to be given, which is in the thread you posted it on, But overall, you've done a wonderful job on the highlights, the armor, and especially the neatness of your lines and the differentiation of the armor pieces. I also would like to highly praise your freehand, you did a wonderful job.

The masterclasses are GW understanding that the paint guides they provide are targeted at simpler schemes, and the masterclass is an all out blowout of the exact techniques and steps used.

As others have said before, painting is not formulaic enough to be able to reproduce the exact same effect even when following the same steps, and the EM painters definitely use their own difficult to define painting techniques, regarding how they hold a brush, how they move it, how they approach a project, and how they interact with their paint a physical way, and there's no way to express that in a guide. That's what you are well on the way to developing your own version of, and it will serve you well.

I also want to say that the new how to paint cit. minis guide really is step by step physically showing brushes painting paint onto models, and I was very impressed with it's clarity and how helpful it is to new painters. It's certainly enough to get you to a level where you don't need guides to get results you want, and even then it provides the skeleton of a lot of schemes, so not useless even if you do know how to weild a brush. (sorry, I know that sounds like an advert, but I promise you it's just a really enthusiastic review)

Wait, where is Trapper's version of Sicarius?

ah, my mistake, I was commenting on breotan's version, and didn't realize it was not trappers. It is very late. The basics stand, but the advice and tone were intended for the OP, my apologies.