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 like Infinty, but they have the best 28mm game models on the market (second over all). Reaper nice too, as you get to see the unpainted and a few painted, picking colors some time sucks it helps to see a few patterns.
Peter: As we all know, Christmas is that mystical time of year when the ghost of Jesus rises from the grave to feast on the flesh of the living! So we all sing Christmas Carols to lull him back to sleep.
Bob: Outrageous, How dare he say such blasphemy. I've got to do something.
Man #1: Bob, there's nothing you can do.
Bob: Well, I guess I'll just have to develop a sense of humor.
Inspiration model all the way. Hell, people know the man behind Infinity paintjobs' name (Angel Giraldez) due to the stunning way he paints equally stunning miniatures.
I like GW's studio paintjobs, and I've thought they were always a very good standard to aspire to. Yeah, there are better painters out there, but most of them aren't hired to paint entire armies in a month or what have you. I do like that White Dwarf was showing battle reports with non-studio armies for a while again though, as it gets boring seeing the same models month after month, especially with how personal an army can be.
Infinity approach, easy. I love having something to aspire to - it keeps me eager to achieve more, and keeps me inspired to try to better my skill with each model. Studio paintjobs should be the cream of the crop.
I'm a fan of PP's take on 'studio' quality paintjobs, originally they sucked but now they're pretty spiffy and the thing I like about them is that the paintjobs aren't impossible to achieve.
Same with GW and Reaper honestly.
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points)
Frankenberry wrote: I'm a fan of PP's take on 'studio' quality paintjobs, originally they sucked but now they're pretty spiffy and the thing I like about them is that the paintjobs aren't impossible to achieve.
Same with GW and Reaper honestly.
I like PP for the same reasons. The army wide shots in the back of the books are always great. Infinity shows me what the top all time looks like, so I enjoy that as well.
Didn't GW "dumb down" their painting line with the latest release of paint? Wasn't it targeted at making painting easier and quicker (even at the expense of quality)?
WH40K Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.
DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+
28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
Not Infinity's method at all, honestly? Beautiful models, but as a bellow average painter the jobs they have on them are...off putting. I'm actually a little scared to even try one of those models.
I rather like reapers way of doing it, seeing two or three examples are always handy to help seeing how certain colours look on a model.
- 1250 points
Empire of the Blazing Sun (Combined Theaters)- 1950 points
FUBAR Starship Troopers- Would you like to know more?
GENERATION 9: The first time you see this, copy and paste it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation. Consider it a social experiment.
Brother SRM wrote: I like GW's studio paintjobs, and I've thought they were always a very good standard to aspire to. Yeah, there are better painters out there, but most of them aren't hired to paint entire armies in a month or what have you. I do like that White Dwarf was showing battle reports with non-studio armies for a while again though, as it gets boring seeing the same models month after month, especially with how personal an army can be.
they are good, anyone saying otherwise must spend too much time on coolmini. they have typically line highlighted the whole model twice plus given full attention to all details.
it is not that achievable unless you're a good painted and have massive amounts of free time.
Brother SRM wrote: I like GW's studio paintjobs, and I've thought they were always a very good standard to aspire to. Yeah, there are better painters out there, but most of them aren't hired to paint entire armies in a month or what have you. I do like that White Dwarf was showing battle reports with non-studio armies for a while again though, as it gets boring seeing the same models month after month, especially with how personal an army can be.
they are good, aInyone saying otherwise must spend too much time on coolmini. they have typically line highlighted the whole model twice plus given full attention to all details.
it is not that achievable unless you're a good painted and have massive amounts of free time.
There are those of us that would consider line highlighting a whole model twice, along with the rest of the GW approved base, layer, dry and wash method more akin to paint by numbers than art.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
Brother SRM wrote: I like GW's studio paintjobs, and I've thought they were always a very good standard to aspire to. Yeah, there are better painters out there, but most of them aren't hired to paint entire armies in a month or what have you. I do like that White Dwarf was showing battle reports with non-studio armies for a while again though, as it gets boring seeing the same models month after month, especially with how personal an army can be.
they are good, anyone saying otherwise must spend too much time on coolmini. they have typically line highlighted the whole model twice plus given full attention to all details.
it is not that achievable unless you're a good painted and have massive amounts of free time.
This would seem to better imply that GW's models have too much extraneous detail and clutter, if it takes massive amounts of free time simply to line highlight an entire model. All that takes is a tiny bit of patience and half decent brush control.
I love awesome studio paint jobs, especially the Infinity models, but as far as the criticism of 'Eavy Metal goes...'Eavy Metal paint job > no paint job, in my opinion. Would you rather see people put out decent tabletop-quality armies or just not bother painting at all because they'll never be on the same level as Angel?
Desubot wrote: Why isnt Slut Wars: The Sexpocalypse a real game dammit.
"It's easier to change the rules than to get good at the game."
Kinda torn on this one, but I actually think GW have at least the right principle on this one for once. Whilst I can look at jaw dropping top of the line paint jobs for hours, they're just too damn intimidating! So having a "good but achievable with a bit of practice" paint job for catalogue pages, new releases, etc. is a good idea IMHO (although I agree that there is a debate to be had about what level is good enough).
Actually to me the catalogue page must have three things:
1) A decent set of painted views from at least three angles, so that I can get an impression of the whole mini;
2) similar views with the model unpainted so that I can see the level of sculpted detail;
3) a picture of the sprue, preferably from both sides, so that I can see how it goes together and start planning how I want to repose or convert it (or use the bits).
Sadly lacking in a lot of cases.
Having said that, for the magazine articles ( beyond release pics), I think they should go for broke; get the best damn conversions and paint jobs in there as inspiration, but always, always, show how it was done, so that the reader can at least try to replicate the effect. They may not succeed, but as a friend once told me "experience is what you get when you didn't get what you want"
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
kb305 wrote: they are good, anyone saying otherwise must spend too much time on coolmini. they have typically line highlighted the whole model twice plus given full attention to all details.
it is not that achievable unless you're a good painted and have massive amounts of free time.
I won't say that the studio paint is ugly, but they are as-of-late, more basic compared to the painting of yester year. Current studio models are heavily edge highlighted instead of blended, and where blends exist, they are a result of shading with inks. I used edge highlighting in 3rd edition lots. It takes little effort if you have good brush control and gets you great results with virtually no time invested. While paint-work on character models is generally still of a high quality, shortcuts have been taken on monstrous creatures, vehicles and squads. These look great in the tabletop spreads, but not so good under scrutiny when they do the blow-ups on the website.
kb305 wrote: they are good, anyone saying otherwise must spend too much time on coolmini. they have typically line highlighted the whole model twice plus given full attention to all details.
it is not that achievable unless you're a good painted and have massive amounts of free time.
I won't say that the studio paint is ugly, but they are as-of-late, more basic compared to the painting of yester year. Current studio models are heavily edge highlighted instead of blended, and where blends exist, they are a result of shading with inks. I used edge highlighting in 3rd edition lots. It takes little effort if you have good brush control and gets you great results with virtually no time invested. While paint-work on character models is generally still of a high quality, shortcuts have been taken on monstrous creatures, vehicles and squads. These look great in the tabletop spreads, but not so good under scrutiny when they do the blow-ups on the website.
paint up these then and post a picture:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m990143a_99120101084_BADeathCompany2_873x627.jpg It's just a little bit of simple edge highlighting that anyone with a little brush control can do in no time at all right?
so go ahead and paint a couple death company up just like that. let us know how long it takes you too, it should be virtually no time invested.
I want very very big high pixel close up pictures too so I can scrutinize the work like youre doing.
and please. you are nowhere even close to that first eldar you posted. not even in the same ballpark.
Anything with some degree of skill invested is an inspiration for my ham-handed approach to painting. I'll go with Reaper, because at least that is POSSIBLY attainable by someone like myself.
WAAAGH Sparky! 1400 (ish) - On the rebound!
Kommander Sparks DKoK 1000 (ish) - Now on the backburner
- Men, you're lucky men. Soon, you'll all be fighting for your planet. Many of you will be dying for your planet. A few of you will be put through a fine mesh screen for your planet. They will be the luckiest of all.
kb305 wrote: they are good, anyone saying otherwise must spend too much time on coolmini. they have typically line highlighted the whole model twice plus given full attention to all details.
it is not that achievable unless you're a good painted and have massive amounts of free time.
I won't say that the studio paint is ugly, but they are as-of-late, more basic compared to the painting of yester year. Current studio models are heavily edge highlighted instead of blended, and where blends exist, they are a result of shading with inks. I used edge highlighting in 3rd edition lots. It takes little effort if you have good brush control and gets you great results with virtually no time invested. While paint-work on character models is generally still of a high quality, shortcuts have been taken on monstrous creatures, vehicles and squads. These look great in the tabletop spreads, but not so good under scrutiny when they do the blow-ups on the website.
paint up these then and post a picture:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m990143a_99120101084_BADeathCompany2_873x627.jpg It's just a little bit of simple edge highlighting that anyone with a little brush control can do in no time at all right?
so go ahead and paint a couple death company up just like that. let us know how long it takes you too, it should be virtually no time invested.
I want very very big high pixel close up pictures too so I can scrutinize the work like youre doing.
and please. you are nowhere even close to that first eldar you posted. not even in the same ballpark.
i think you need to learn some humility.
'You can't do better therefore you can't comment' is not a counter argument.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
For those of use who strive to improve our skill, inspiration is welcome.
I don't know if I would call it inspiration. I think the paint jobs on Infinity models are so ridiculously beyond anything I could ever achieve that it's demoralizing. It reminds me of the time my parents smashed my violin in front of me because I would never be the next Yo-Yo Ma.*
paint up these then and post a picture:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m990143a_99120101084_BADeathCompany2_873x627.jpg It's just a little bit of simple edge highlighting that anyone with a little brush control can do in no time at all right?
so go ahead and paint a couple death company up just like that. let us know how long it takes you too, it should be virtually no time invested.
I want very very big high pixel close up pictures too so I can scrutinize the work like youre doing.
and please. you are nowhere even close to that first eldar you posted. not even in the same ballpark.
i think you need to learn some humility.
Advancing straight to personal attacks are we? I'm flattered that you think that my poorly photographed gallery models, painted to table-top quality are worthy to compare (unfavorably) against a professionaly painted 'Eavy Metal Eldrad. Due to my overwhelming hubris, I'd like to think that I generally paint to an acceptable table-top level.
Advancing to the crux of your arguement - if your opinion is that I sucketh too much to have an opinion on the current crop of studio paintjobs, from what lofty pinacle of painting do you lay down your judgement? If the studio paintwork is deemed beyond the reach of an (IMHO) average hobbyist, surely you must be commenting from the vantage of at least an equal level?
You don't have to be a chef to think the cooking's not very good. I see your points keezus, and can definitely agree with you on some of them. That being said, I think even the more "basic" paintjobs you're talking about, like the Tau Fireblade, look pretty dang good. Just not as good as the better examples, like the old Eldrad. GW's shift from blending to line highlighting happened a long time ago though, like just after 2nd edition. 3rd edition's painting standards were much lower than they are now if you ask me.
There are those of us that would consider line highlighting a whole model twice, along with the rest of the GW approved base, layer, dry and wash method more akin to paint by numbers than art.
That's really just splitting hairs. They're all valid techniques that any painter can and should use when it suits them. Your post comes off as really, really snobby.
I think GW go for the More attainable look for the mini's posted in Battle reports and on box art. As said before Probably to try and sell the fact that if you buy there HOW TO PAINT minitures booklet, the paintbrushes and the paints, then you too can achieve the same look. Its more of a selling point. I like the Infinity approach, as all the mini's look stuning and it makes me want to buy them.
You can tell the differenc between models in GW that have been Painted by the Average joe studio team and those that have been painted by an Eavy Metal painter that is not using the damn booklet to paint a mini.
Forge world are totaly different alltogeather. FW seems to be who ever had a couple of nights spare to throw some mini's togeather for the website. However if you email FW and ask them what coulours they used to get what you see. they will quite happily tell you they use Minitaire, vallejo and Tamiya paints as well as GW range. Seems strange that they dont force FW to use GW paints on the display models.
Latest Blog Post: 7th edition first thoughts and pictures.
The vast majority of you are suffering from three things that are clouding your ability to view this rationally. In order of least to most severe, I'd say...
1. Nostalgia vision. You remember how much you enjoyed seeing the old 'eavy metal paintjobs and thus they seem "better."
2. GW hatred. Anything about modern GW must be hated at all costs by some members of this and other online communities.
3. Finally, the Dunning-Kruger effect. I'm guessing most of you probably have decent enough skills, but not enough that you can perceive how good the 'eavy metal team is. Edge highlighting is incredibly difficult to do well, most people who claim to be able to do it are actually pretty sloppy. Considering the photography under which citadel miniatures are scrutinized, as well as the fact that this team paints ENTIRE ARMIES, several a year, to this standard, is impressive.
I have looked through the galleries of those of you on Dakka who claim to have a superior knowledge of color theory, blending, etc. and most you are not even close to as good as you think you are. Thus, Dunning-Kruger, when unskilled people can't tell they are unskilled for that very reason, and thus overestimate their own abilities and underestimate the abilities of professionals.
You talk about 'eavy metal's "boring" or "bad" color choices, yet everything in the 90's was red! Apparently that was ok, though, because you didn't hate GW back then like you do now. Again, we are back to my nostalgia criticism. Keep in mind also, that I'm not saying you have to be as good as eavy metal to criticize them, I'm saying that because you lack skill you are unable to see how much work their style really takes. The Eldrad above is an old school mess, sloppy and lacks good defining lines. It looks "soft." And the blending is not particularly impressive, especially the purple cloak. Purple does not enjoy the same depth of spectrum as say, blue, and it makes this kind of sloppy blending even more jarring. Look at the newer Saim Hann Farseer pointing out his immaculate NMM-painted witch blade. A far superior, cleaner piece. 'Eavy metal is clearly just as good, I would argue better, than they've been in the past, in part due to superior sculpting.
Wales: Where the Men are Men and the sheep are Scared.
I preferred the way Gw models used to be painted compared to now, mind you I am talking about 3-5 years ago before the new paint system rather than 10 + years. I don't think the paint jobs are bad by any means, they are far beyond what I can achieve for certain. However I enjoyed looking at the older Eavy Metal stuff far more than I do the current crop of miniatures.
I understand why they do it and it kind of makes sense but it removed some of the excitement from me.
My Ideal system would be a cross between the reaper, infinity and GW systems where there would be 3 photos one of just the model, one of an achievable paint job and one of an amazing one. Of course thats probably just unneeded extra cost on the part of the miniatures company.
Again, 'I haven't seen you do better so you're not allowed to comment' is not an acceptable response to criticism.
If you compare the studio paintjobs of Corvus belli and GWCB makes GW look like toys.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
Wales: Where the Men are Men and the sheep are Scared.
jonolikespie wrote: Again, 'I haven't seen you do better so you're not allowed to comment' is not an acceptable response to criticism.
If you compare the studio paintjobs of Corvus belli and GWCB makes GW look like toys.
For the most part I agree but I think its valid only when people claim its easy, or that they can personally do better. Thats still not saying they are not allowed to comment though, just that their assertions and claims should be backed up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/13 23:57:55
You don't have to be a chef to think the cooking's not very good. I see your points keezus, and can definitely agree with you on some of them. That being said, I think even the more "basic" paintjobs you're talking about, like the Tau Fireblade, look pretty dang good. Just not as good as the better examples, like the old Eldrad. GW's shift from blending to line highlighting happened a long time ago though, like just after 2nd edition. 3rd edition's painting standards were much lower than they are now if you ask me.
There are those of us that would consider line highlighting a whole model twice, along with the rest of the GW approved base, layer, dry and wash method more akin to paint by numbers than art.
That's really just splitting hairs. They're all valid techniques that any painter can and should use when it suits them. Your post comes off as really, really snobby.
except you probably should be a chef if you are going to claim that the food is simple, that anyone could cook like that and that you yourself could do equal or better in half the amount of time.
saying you dont like it is one thing but taking it that far is just idiocy and arrogance unless you can actually back it up.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/14 02:43:42
You don't have to be a chef to think the cooking's not very good. I see your points keezus, and can definitely agree with you on some of them. That being said, I think even the more "basic" paintjobs you're talking about, like the Tau Fireblade, look pretty dang good. Just not as good as the better examples, like the old Eldrad. GW's shift from blending to line highlighting happened a long time ago though, like just after 2nd edition. 3rd edition's painting standards were much lower than they are now if you ask me.
There are those of us that would consider line highlighting a whole model twice, along with the rest of the GW approved base, layer, dry and wash method more akin to paint by numbers than art.
That's really just splitting hairs. They're all valid techniques that any painter can and should use when it suits them. Your post comes off as really, really snobby.
except you probably should be a chef if you are going to claim that the food is simple, that anyone could cook like that and that you yourself could do equal or better in half the amount of time.
saying you dont like it is one thing but taking it that far is just idiocy and arrogance unless you can actually back it up.
Right, because every food critic is a Michelin star chef, and every movie critic an Oscar winning director?
Lacking an ability to do something does not preclude one from the ability to judge it's quality, nor the amount of skill or ability that went into it's execution.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
I see merit in both GW's and Corvus Bellis styles.
I do like to see what models can look like with a consistent, achieveable scheme. Simple techniques, such as base, wash, layer, highlight, done well across a lot of models, is nice to see. It's how I paint and it's nice to see on stuff I might consider buying.
However, I also like seeing a model absolutely stunningly painted. Angels work for Corvus Belli is that - at times I can't even fathom how he paints that well. It's inspiring, and makes me want to try techniques I don't do and better my painting.
While I do like the models Wyrd is putting out, and am considering buying a couple of crews to try the game out, I don't like the method of 'here's some 3D renders, make of it what you will'. Even considering it was seeing the models before they are touched by a brush doesn't work for me. I'll see that when I build them, and the renders don't have things like mold lines or join gaps.
The Eldrad comparison really shows how much the paint (and photo) quality standards have dropped.
The angle of the first photo is far more flattering than the second, not to mention the chopped off feet and other detail in the second photo. Not chopping off people's feet in photos is one of the first things one learns in photography...
Paint example; the Gems: Twenty six (so far, there are probably more) gems that are painted in the first version are not painted in the second version (mostly on helmet and back spike).
timd wrote: the Gems: Twenty six (so far, there are probably more) gems that are painted in the first version are not painted in the second version (mostly on helmet and back spike)
I've noticed a lot of that on recent Eldar stuff too, it almost looks like even the guys up in the studio at GWhq don't even know which of them are bumps in the armour and which are gems.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points) 
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.
- 1250 points
1400 (ish) - On the rebound!
1000 (ish) - Now on the backburner
