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've been testing paints for reviews as I mentioned earlier but everything has been on hold because I don't want to mischaractarize a product...

I've been on the phone with Army Painter and they sent me replacement paints. We've confirmed that I am mixing them properly. Is this just how the paints are?

If so, except for flatteners (brush stroke eliminators) the pigment density is right on par with craft store paint. Which is bad, real bad. Useless even.

Before the pics get started my mixing method involves hand shaking with an 8mm glass ball inside.
Then I put it on my robart paint mixer for at least 2 minutes.

In addition we've tried scraping the sides and using a metal mixing spatula improvised from some of my sculpting tools.
Nothing has worked. The new bottles are the same as the old bottles.

Now, the pictures. Examples line up with their associated Bottles/Brands. With the first Army Painter Paint being my old one and the one next to it the replacement (one of quite a few) they sent me. None of the paints are thinned at all, no water, damp clean brush





But before I throw them in the round file, the question remains. Is this a USER error or is a supposedly much vaunted paint really this bad. It's properties are utter crap, and that's being nice. You cannot thin it without the pigment separating out. If you don't thin it, it can reef (raised areas) around the edges of your stroke and it is very high build so two layers are out unless you want to cover all your detail with thick binder. That raised dense area of pigment on the edge of the brush stroke can be catch your nail. None of the others do. Even a drop of water and the pigment falls out of the mixture and you can't even use it as a glaze. Its slightly better than craft paint at this point and I wouldn't give these paints to my worst enemy. I'd at least want my enemy to field a well painted army.

That is the same experience I have had, as well as another local painter.

Watery consistency with zero coverage. I don't own/use an airbrush so I can't comment if they're better that way, but the four random bottles I've purchased (different colours, from different stores at different times) are all borderline useless.

Shame since I love their sprays and their dips, etc. Sorry, but I think this is normal.

 Elbows wrote:
That is the same experience I have had, as well as another local painter.

Watery consistency with zero coverage. I don't own/use an airbrush so I can't comment if they're better that way, but the four random bottles I've purchased (different colours, from different stores at different times) are all borderline useless.

Shame since I love their sprays and their dips, etc. Sorry, but I think this is normal.

Damn, I really hate to release a video that bags hardcore on a company that otherwise has a great rep. So be it. Roundfile and A black mark. At least their washes are nice and, as you say, their sprays are nice.

It just makes no sense to release a paint like this to the hobby. Yet tons of people report good results. I can't imagine how. I should add that these came in the mail today. So they had all the vibration and shaking that would be entailed in US shipping ( a lot). So they've been really agitated. LOL.

From a long time painter (not just hobby paints) this characteristic of uneven pigment in the medium is indicative of a chemistry or formulation error. As in, not something that would be "intentional" but instead a "bad batch" or other error. Which is why I have trouble with this. With craft paint, we know its junk, everyone knows it's junk but it tends to cover better than this does even because of the uneven pigment distribution and flow.

Note that also flow aids and other emulsifiers don't seem to help the pigment distribute evenly. I suppose I could throw some of my alcohol agents at it and see what happens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I had some Pinata Color Claro Extender on hand (I use Pinata Color, alcohol based inks for canopies and anything translucent that I want to have a significant color tint, works great). So I added it to the Army Painter Paint. I also tried Vallejo Flow Improver, Vallejo Airbrush Thinner, Vallejo Glazing Medium, and GW Lahmian Medium.

All of the water based mediums resulted in the pigment not dispersing properly into the solution. No matter how I controlled the ratios.

However, the Claro Extender, immediately suspended the pigment in an even fashion through the medium. While still quite translucent as it was well thinned, the results show that the medium Army painter is using is the issue and is preventing even mixing and application of the existing pigment. Pic bottom left and left three swatches are Claro Extender, two coats.

The initial stripes were re-painted with FOUR layers to achieve that level of smoothness.



The Claro Extender does seem to impact the overall binding strength, which is expected as the alcohol base is breaking down the binder agents in the Army Painter paint.

Conclusion: Army painter DOES have enough pigment in it's paint, the issue is the even distribution of said pigments and how it lays down (medium). I think they need to go back and re-evaluate their chemistry and find a better solution.

Have you tried adding anything to the bottle to mix the paint? A small ball bearing or similar, this looks like it just not mixing thoroughly and my Army Painter paints have this issue too. I have a bag of stainless steel bearings that I put a couple of in each pot or bottle these days.

Rik

 Rik Lightstar wrote:
Have you tried adding anything to the bottle to mix the paint?

Rik

meatybtz wrote:

Before the pics get started my mixing method involves hand shaking with an 8mm glass ball inside.
Then I put it on my robart paint mixer for at least 2 minutes.

My wife bought me the mega paint set for Yule last year, and I've had much the same results. With the exception of a few colors out of the 50+ the set came with, they have little to no coverage. I've learned to use it as a tool though. If I want to make a slightly different shade from the GW paint, I mix the Army Painter color with it. It's how I'm painting my Goliath gang with their orange pants. It's also good for making things look worn or dirty.

EDIT: Need more coffee before posting.

Sorry but, just because a paint have little coverage, doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it.

All paints have different pigments that can be translucent or opaque.

Its not army painters fault you don't know this.

I've had very similar issues with the Army Painter paints I've bought - about 10 different colours. They just don't seem to mix well, the pigment and the medium separate out and you get very patchy coverage. I love their washes and sprays but I won't buy any more normal AP paints, generally stick with GW or Vallejo. Having said that, the only colour I've got that seems to work is the AP gun metal, which is excellent. Very smooth, whereas the Vallejo metallics I've used have tended to be a bit grainy due to using quite big metal flecks in the pigment.

 DanceOfSlaanesh wrote:
Sorry but, just because a paint have little coverage, doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it.

All paints have different pigments that can be translucent or opaque.

Its not army painters fault you don't know this.

Its not about level of being opaque or not it is about the evenness of pigment distribution and the behavior of the medium. I have plenty of translucent paints.

This operates as a bad glaze because of the uneven flow out of the paint, leading to streaking. There is no place in the hobby for a bad glaze that is super high build.

There is plenty of pigment in the Army Painter paint to give good coverage but the pigment is patchy in distribution in the medium. I've shown this by using an alcohol base to breakdown the water based medium and freeing the pigment to distribute properly. Coverage then becomes normal and comparable to the rest of the paints by other manufacturers.

If you think this is "ok" paint, do you think that streaky, uneven paint is good paint? It covers and lays down only marginally better than craft store paint. Nothing wrong with their pigment level or the quality of their pigment, the issue is their medium.

Some are better or worse than others in their line but none of them operate properly.

Is this maybe the reason it seams to produce quite good result when airburshed as your already adding an thinner and also introducing the paint to the piece in a different method?

As most people recommending army painter paint that I have seen use an airbrush atleast to some extent.

Army Painter washes are great. Their paints are pants. I switched for this coverage reason (or lack thereof).

It seems to me you are trying to paint a bright fairly translucent green over a dark undercoat. That wont work with any brand.

Do you expect a bright saturated yellow to cover in 1 layer too?

It sure works a lot better with other brands, so I'd consider that a start.

While I agree that army painter paints are thin - I like them like that.

I have to add very little water if any, and the layering I can get is super smooth. I learnt early to base Metallic paints black and everything else white. It is important for thin paint.

Dance of Slannesh is correct - these paints require multiple layers and different base colours, not a one brush wonder.

I'd hesitate to say that they're a 'much vaunted' paint for their quality, much more for being cheaper than the other miniatures brands.

I was out of the hobby for 5 years or so, and all of my old Citadel paints had pretty much dried up in that time. To get myself back up and running with a lot of paints for not that much cash, I ordered the Army Painter Mega Paint set about 18 months ago because it was on offer. My experience with their paints could probably best be summed up as inconsistent - some of them have been nice to use and covered acceptably well, while others have been pretty hopeless. I enjoy that they exactly colour match the spray cans, but it's still a pain to touch up the bit you missed with the spray can, or the bit you went over, when it takes multiple coats with the brush to do it. There are some colours that I really like and seem to work well - Gorgon Hide, Gunmetal, Toxic Mist and Monster Brown come to mind - but for the most part I'm slowly migrating to Vallejo for the improved coverage.

This isn't to say that you can't get good results with them; my Salamanders and Deathwatch are pretty much exclusively painted with Army Painter and I think they turned out well, you just might need more coats than other brands. I am contemplating what to do if I want to expand those armies though, using more Vallejo, like perhaps getting good coverage with the closest VMC shade and then a top coat of Army Painter just to match it into the models I already have.

Producing paint with coverage issues is a bit odd considering the way they market themselves as a fast way to get an army on the table with the spray, basecoat and dip thing that they promote. It's not going to be particularly fast if the paints require loads of coats.

 Bellerophon wrote:
I'd hesitate to say that they're a 'much vaunted' paint for their quality, much more for being cheaper than the other miniatures brands.

I was out of the hobby for 5 years or so, and all of my old Citadel paints had pretty much dried up in that time. To get myself back up and running with a lot of paints for not that much cash, I ordered the Army Painter Mega Paint set about 18 months ago because it was on offer. My experience with their paints could probably best be summed up as inconsistent - some of them have been nice to use and covered acceptably well, while others have been pretty hopeless. I enjoy that they exactly colour match the spray cans, but it's still a pain to touch up the bit you missed with the spray can, or the bit you went over, when it takes multiple coats with the brush to do it. There are some colours that I really like and seem to work well - Gorgon Hide, Gunmetal, Toxic Mist and Monster Brown come to mind - but for the most part I'm slowly migrating to Vallejo for the improved coverage.

This isn't to say that you can't get good results with them; my Salamanders and Deathwatch are pretty much exclusively painted with Army Painter and I think they turned out well, you just might need more coats than other brands. I am contemplating what to do if I want to expand those armies though, using more Vallejo, like perhaps getting good coverage with the closest VMC shade and then a top coat of Army Painter just to match it into the models I already have.

Producing paint with coverage issues is a bit odd considering the way they market themselves as a fast way to get an army on the table with the spray, basecoat and dip thing that they promote. It's not going to be particularly fast if the paints require loads of coats.

This is just the sort of reply I was looking for. Someone who has actually "completed" a model with their brush on paints. Do you have some examples you'd share. I'd like to compare. I have some more pictures to post later, yes, including a white background (makes things worse, a neutral grey is hides many a failure).

In theory their paints would work just fine if you were painting them over their spray base coat and all you were doing was highlighting or blending to highlights, which is to say, glazing your way up to a highlight.

Coverage can be forgiven, we all paint with multiple thin coats. THIN being the key word here. With Reefing from the brush strokes (where all the pigment ends up to either side of a brush stroke) and the high build medium they use, that's not multiple thin coats. That's like slapping on several layers of citadel base paint, undiluted, like the equiv thickness as 3 or 4 base paint (right from the crappy pot).

There is nothing wrong with the pigment levels, the real issue is the pigment is not evenly distributed in the medium and cannot migrate easily while drying or during application.

A real head scratcher to be sure because I honestly would be challenged to produce a result that didn't look... well awful... though I've seen my fair share of crushingly awful paintjobs on my 2nd hand figure buys.. but I think this would look like someone applied elmer's glue with paint mixed in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dr. Mills wrote:
While I agree that army painter paints are thin - I like them like that.

I have to add very little water if any, and the layering I can get is super smooth. I learnt early to base Metallic paints black and everything else white. It is important for thin paint.

Dance of Slannesh is correct - these paints require multiple layers and different base colours, not a one brush wonder.

I'd love to see a layer by layer shot of this. Seriously. Not sarcastic at all. I desire to see what people are saying is smooth. My experience is the number of (not so thin) layers required is such that there would be no detail left, let alone the reefs and brush strokes.

The fact is, these paints are not thin, they are thick (medium). They do have enough pigment to cover very well. All you have to do is destroy the medium and the pigment will spread and even out and look quite good.

Also, both of you don't seem to notice that I compare this to an Airbrush paint... which is a lot thinner than the Army Painter. You talk about thin coats but that doesn't compare to how most of us define thin coats as airbush paint thin or even thinner but above a glaze. If an airbrush paint flows out smoother, flatter, less brush strokes, and more even coverage. Sorry. No match here.

The reason it requires many coats to cover is because you are using a fairly translucent paint on a dark background.

The reason you believe the pigment is "not evenly distributed in the medium" is because when a paint is translucent, the thicker areas of paint will appear darker and the thinner areas will have the undercoat shines through more.

As opposed to a opaque pigment which will have an even color no matter how thick or thin.

 DanceOfSlaanesh wrote:
The reason you believe the pigment is "not evenly distributed in the medium" is because when a paint is translucent, the thicker areas of paint will appear darker and the thinner areas will have the undercoat shines through more.

No, that's not why he believes the pigment is not evenly distributed, as he's explained at least twice now.


I've only tried out a couple of the Army Painter acrylics so far, and my results have been a little mixed... Their bright red was awful to begin with, but improved a lot after the addition of a glass bead and a ridiculous amount of shaking - I didn't have the problem you do above with the reefing, but it's certain'y more translucent than I'm used to. Their Ash Grey is considerably better - solid coverage doesn't take as many coats.

I've found over the years that every brand has good and bad colours - I'm still experimenting with Army Painter and a few other brands to find a paint set from amongst them that I like best.

There is nothing wrong with the distribution of the pigment. To give you an example of the difference between an transparent and opaque pigment:



Compare those two red for example, both have the same amount of pigment on the paper on both the thin and thick part. Yet, on the transparent one you can see the paper, not because there are less pigment there, but because its transparent.

Basicly this is what you will get with any paint brand, all use both transparent and opaque pigments.
Its not bad or good colors. If you think a brand produces better colors then its because they use more opaque pigments but that's just your preference. Since opaque pigments are generally more darker and earthy in their tones. If you like to paint with very saturated colors you got to go with transparent pigments since that's what they usually are. That does not make them bad, just a matter of taste.

I don't get it...

You have various different shades of a mid tone green you're painting ONE coat directly on to black and moaning about coverage?

...You're painting it on black..
BLACK.
...what did you expect?

I was given a handful of these when I started to move back into the hobby a couple of months ago. Then I managed to purchase a few more from my local toy shop. The sales men said that many gamers involved with historical gaming quite liked them.

All the paints I obtain I keep painted swatches in a white page book so I know what I have and roughly how the paint looks when it dries and how it acts. It also allows me to make notes as I go along. These paints I had mixed feelings about at the time I painted a swatch for each of the colours I had. I noted that browns were very good. However yellows, reds and oranges were weak. All needed a second coat for good coverage and the problem brighter colours many more . I use the browns for painting miniatures but gave up quickly on yellows, reds etc.

The brown Tone shades however are excellent and I would not hesitate to obtain more when required. These seem to be Army painters star paints.

I put another note at the bottom of my test page........similar in consistency to version 1 citadel paints. Anybody remember using those cylindrical upright pots and how bad some of the colours were to apply?. I felt we are talking of a quality acceptable in the 1980's.

A lot of the time, (unless I am painting over the same Armypainter spray color as a base to clean up missed spots), I tend to use a similary-colored base coat of a Citadel Base color, and then a layer of ArmyPainter.

Essentially, I find that Army Painter colors do well over a similarly-toned basecoat, but are are pretty crap for coverage over a black or white (or even light grey, which is what I usually use) primer coat, unless its a very dark color over black, but even that's iffy.