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.

This thread nearly got locked so try and keep responses to this one

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651593.page

But it got me thinking.

What are your guys views on airbrushes and stylistically what they can or cannot achieve on models. Theres been a lot of showcased models of late here on dakka with airbrushing, some good, some not so good.

Do you own/work with an AB, how do you find it? Are you an oldschool brush person? Both?

I tend to think for typical painting of 28mm infantry, airbrushing is a bit over rated at the moment amongst wargamers. Where airbrushes shine is gradients on reasonably large surfaces which aren't present on most 28mm infantry.

Though for things like tanks it is a great boost over traditional hairy brush painting.

I have an airbrush and I do use it... but knowing what I know now, meh, I probably wouldn't have bought it in the first place.

After it's all said and done. Time-wise it saves about 50% of my painting time, and increases my "happiness-with-my-painting" 50%. I still think painting my hand is useful, but turning out good looking models in large quantities, the airbrush is incredibly handy and worthwhile investment.

I think the best use of the airbrush is to create great blending on power armor and vehicles a larger accessories. Priming and Basecoat is still best done via Aerosol Primer like Army Painter.

The trick is to airbrush each shoulder pad, backpack, helmet, chainsword separately on toothpicks. This way you can really create dynamic contrast once you assemble the model for very nice results.

I also tried wet-blending with similar happy results, although it takes much longer. I can do on HQ that way but prefer to do 15 blood claws (about 60 pieces on toothpicks) with an airbrush and three hours time.

I have been using an airbrush for years but to be honest all I really do with it is prime and base models. But I really enjoy using the airbrush for what would otherwise simply be chores.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I tend to think for typical painting of 28mm infantry, airbrushing is a bit over rated at the moment amongst wargamers. Where airbrushes shine is gradients on reasonably large surfaces which aren't present on most 28mm infantry.

Though for things like tanks it is a great boost over traditional hairy brush painting.

I have an airbrush and I do use it... but knowing what I know now, meh, I probably wouldn't have bought it in the first place.

You know what's funny? I agree with your thoughts on the airbrush but disagree on the conclusion

I love my airbrushes for priming, bascoating, easy gradients, OSL, painting vehicles, layering terrain. I cannot understand how some people can paint everything with an airbrush and get all the little details in there without excessive masking (or just ignoring a lot of the little details)

@womprat49 -- those look great! are they 100% airbrush?

 Ratius wrote:
What are your guys views on airbrushes and stylistically what they can or cannot achieve on models.

They can do the exact same things as conventional brushes. The problem is not the tool, it's the "artist". Far too many commission painters have embraced a style I call "look at me, I have an airbrush!": lots of exaggerated shading (which may or may not correspond to areas of light and shadow on the "real" thing), giant blobs of white on every possible light source, etc. The goal is to provide the customer with something that's beyond the customer's ability (due to lack of an airbrush of their own) and make it as obvious as possible that all of the "advanced" tools and techniques were used, while spending as little time and effort as possible on the models to maximize profits. There's no attempt to refine the base coat by filling in the details, adding more subtle blending, etc, because that would require too much time to be profitable. And the results are inevitably terrible, because doing airbrushing well takes just as much time and effort as any other painting method.

On the other hand, when you have a good artist behind the airbrush all of those problems can disappear and it's just another tool in the toolbox. For example, this model was painted almost entirely with an airbrush (it's one of the examples in the FW painting books) and it doesn't suffer from any of the problems of the "look at me, I have an airbrush!" style:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
What are your guys views on airbrushes and stylistically what they can or cannot achieve on models.

They can do the exact same things as conventional brushes. The problem is not the tool, it's the "artist". Far too many commission painters have embraced a style I call "look at me, I have an airbrush!": lots of exaggerated shading (which may or may not correspond to areas of light and shadow on the "real" thing), giant blobs of white on every possible light source, etc. The goal is to provide the customer with something that's beyond the customer's ability (due to lack of an airbrush of their own) and make it as obvious as possible that all of the "advanced" tools and techniques were used, while spending as little time and effort as possible on the models to maximize profits. There's no attempt to refine the base coat by filling in the details, adding more subtle blending, etc, because that would require too much time to be profitable. And the results are inevitably terrible, because doing airbrushing well takes just as much time and effort as any other painting method.

On the other hand, when you have a good artist behind the airbrush all of those problems can disappear and it's just another tool in the toolbox. For example, this model was painted almost entirely with an airbrush (it's one of the examples in the FW painting books) and it doesn't suffer from any of the problems of the "look at me, I have an airbrush!" style:

Possibly part of the problem is also the customer.

The artists do not have to do all the over the top beyond cartoony shadowing, which often doesn't even match up across the model from the imaginary light source that is causing the shadowing. We see pictures people post of things they have worked on, and in the case of commissioned things we do not know what has trasnpired between the artist and the person who commissioned the work. Did they say "give me a level 3 and put shadows everywhere" or did they say "heres 400 dollars, paint these as best as you can for that much"

a lot of the shadowing/OSL/glare/etc ends up just being camouflage painting, in a sense, because it masks that the model was painted relatively quickly with possibly not as much care as should have been put in with a bunch of 'effects' that to many people from a distance are eye catching, but up close do not look as good.

I think airbrush is best as a tool, and used to make basic color schemes on models with some details, shadowing, or blending, but the model should have the finer details finished with brush techniques. Especially for non vehicles. There are many times I see terminators, or other standard infantry airbrushed 2 colors, with a third minor off color for eyes or something, and the paint looks even and is blended, but the model looks unfinished.

that tank looks awesome, because it does not have exaggerated shadowing, or weathering. Shadowing and weathering are 'realistic' effects, when you take an effect you are adding to a model that is supposed to make it look more real than a model, you should make the effect itself realistic, otherwise it will not look good, and will probably look bad up close when people are actually inspecting it. Sometimes I think the artists forget that the model is not a flat surface, it is 3-d and will have natural shadowing/etc on its own. Perhaps they add all of the extra shadowing/etc because of how they light the models for pictures, but it still looks grossly exaggerated too often.

I have an airbrush, I am slowly learning to use it (hindered mostly by space), and I LOVE IT. I paint a lot of vehicles, and frankly I COULD NOT reproduce my airbrushed vehicles with a airbrush. However, as many have stated, it's another tool, that's all. It doesn't replace traditional brush work, but should compliment it. In the picture of the tank above there is a lot of brushwork that goes into that thing once the airbrush is dealt with.

I am getting tired of lazy OSL using an airbrush; just firing some bright colours at a plasma cannon doesn't mean you can paint OSL.

Ultimately, it is partly down to taste, I see very, very good infantry done with an airbrush, and I also see some that look, unfinished, as another poster has said.

Honestly I don't think there is much to debate. Some people use an airbrush more than others. Some people don't like the results of using an airbrush that much. Everyone has their own personal preferences. In competitions, airbrushed work often wins, but rarely when it is the primary media used. Often times it is the people that combine a wide range of tools and techniques that produce the truly mind-blowing stuff.

In general though, airbrushes are relatively easy to use and achieve mediocre to high results from. Therefore, airbrushes have made the overall quality of painted armies higher and we see less grey plastic on tabletops. That something everyone can relish in.

Its not really much of a debate.

an AB is a tool

Just like a Brush is a tool

You can create amazing works of air with ether or both.

That said. my PERSONAL opinion is that the base coating work with an airbrush makes for very nice smooth surfaces and blends on bigger areas but not very sharp highlights. it can look bad on some things.

As well i REALLY dislike the over use of "OSL" where they take the light color and just spray over the whole thing. it often ruins models that would otherwise be amazing.

Not sure what is up for debate?

Airbrush is a tool, the same as a brush, a knife, sculpting tool, a file... whatever.

Some tools you just need to have, some are just handy to have.
Airbrush is the latter.

Every tool has its job with its own strengths and flaws. Knowing when to use which tool to get the desired finish is key. Which only comes with experience (be it first or second hand experience)

edit~ Fortunately for all of us, theres a wealth of second hand experience on offer here, if you dont like it, take note of how not to do your own... atleast theres always that.

i am a brush person...
i've had an airbrush for twenty years, and still never bothered to play around with it...
there are still so many techniques that i am trying to perfect with the brush, like transparent cloth, NMM, OSL...
then I want to play with water effects and clear resin...
after that, i may start learning how to use my airbrush...

learning to use the airbrush is very low on my list of priorities as a painter, especially since my focus is on 28mm human-ish sized models for competition...

cheers
jah

It all comes down to taste, does it not? Some people like bright, flashy, cartoony paint jobs and others prefer grittier, grounded, more realistic techniques. I don't feel their's such thing as objectively bad painting, just different strokes for different folks.

See what I did there?

It's a tool, much like the other brushes in your toolbox.

It requires its own set of skills to master - no different to oils v acrylics, really.

I've got two. Newer used either of them on something smaller than my hand for more than basecoating - they're fine for that - but if you are ONLY basecoating with one, an expensive airbrush is overkill.

I love my airbrushes. I use them to prime, basecoat, varnish, and most recently have really gotten into coloring with inks. The shading and under highlights are amazing.

That being said, its a tool, not the be all end all of painting. I still use a brush for fine detail work on models.

 womprat49 wrote:
Priming and Basecoat is still best done via Aerosol Primer like Army Painter.

I disagree slightly.

Sometimes, priming with an aerosol can is best and sometimes it isn't. For instance, I recently painted a 1/350 scale model of the submarine USS Michigan (SSBN-727) for a family friend. That model was a little over 19" long from bow to stern (ballistic submarines are quite large) and was a bit difficult to handle, so I opted to use Tamiya Surface Primer to prime it instead of using my airbrush. I did this for a couple of reasons: the Tamiya primer cures fast and takes to sanding very well and it was much quicker to prime the model with an aerosol can as opposed to my airbrush.

That being said, I much prefer to prime smaller models with my airbrush using Vallejo Surface Primer and more recently, Alclad II Primer/Microfiller (which is lacquer based). The Alclad stuff is a superior product (covers better, adheres better, and sands well) but being lacquer based makes it a little more involved.

I am airbrushing my minis for 6 months now with a fairly cheap set but I had previous experience with airbrushing. On the downside: As a whole it is not a cheap thing to do and I actually think it is using up more paint than paintbrushing does.

It saves me so much time. The layers of paint are thinner than what you could achieve with a brush. Putting on varnish is done in no time as well which makes washing more efficient and better. I like sharp light and shadow contrast on models, airbrush is a great tool to achieve that, even if you refine the gradients with brushwork later on.

Yesterday evening after work I assembled, primed, basecoated and finished the bases for a terminator squad. All in about 3 hours. I can get an assembled tank basecoated with super smooth ambient occlusion in 15 minutes.

Bottom line: Love it, I just wouldn't do certain tasks without airbrush now. Of course it is no replacement for good brush work.

 Talys wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I tend to think for typical painting of 28mm infantry, airbrushing is a bit over rated at the moment amongst wargamers. Where airbrushes shine is gradients on reasonably large surfaces which aren't present on most 28mm infantry.

Though for things like tanks it is a great boost over traditional hairy brush painting.

I have an airbrush and I do use it... but knowing what I know now, meh, I probably wouldn't have bought it in the first place.

You know what's funny? I agree with your thoughts on the airbrush but disagree on the conclusion

I think it just comes down to having more models that aren't suited to airbrushing than are. I end up looking for models that are suited to airbrushing rather than using the airbrush for my existing armies. The only army I have that I think would benefit greatly from airbrushing would be Tyranids, but I already have painted a crap ton of them in my hairy brush scheme and I have no intention of repainting them.

With regards to priming and basecoating, after the novelty wore off I realised it was quicker to use a spray can than an airbrush anyway, lol.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

With regards to priming and basecoating, after the novelty wore off I realised it was quicker to use a spray can than an airbrush anyway, lol.

I stopped using cans when I got my airbrush because:
- Much better control of the paint ( = thinner layers of paint)
- Better and cheaper choice of colors which is becase you would usually Basecoat in more than 2 colors (e.g. base, armor parts, cloth parts, skulls) and I won't have all that in cans.
- I think every model benefits from at least a slight ambient occlusion or zenithal highlight. Even if you prefer low contrast basecoat. You can't really do that well with cans.

But hey, to each his own

I would still use a rattle can primer ~ theyre solvent based paints and are more durable than most acrylic airbrush paints.

You could spray solvent based paint, but theyre a pain to clean out of the airbrush when a rattle can is cheap and disposable.

I've had access to an airbrush for years and still choose rattle can primers over airbrush ones for this reason.

HairySticks wrote:
I would still use a rattle can primer ~ theyre solvent based paints and are more durable than most acrylic airbrush paints.

You could spray solvent based paint, but theyre a pain to clean out of the airbrush when a rattle can is cheap and disposable.

I've had access to an airbrush for years and still choose rattle can primers over airbrush ones for this reason.

Tamiya Liquid Surface Primer, Mr. Surfacer, and Alclad primers are all solvent based are only slightly more involved that something like Vallejo Surface Primer. A respirator or a spray booth is definitely a good idea to use with them and you need to thin them with lacquer thinner (Mr. Surfacer and Tamiya at least, the Alclad primer is ready to go out of the bottle), but they clean up just fine so long as you the proper cleaner (denatured alcohol works well and Alclad makes their own airbrush cleaner which works well too).

One rattle can costs less than a large bottle of Vallejo Surface Primer, but the Vallejo stuff will last much longer making it cheaper in the long run. Of course, if you use a high quality rattle can (such as the ones offered by Tamiya) the price is much higher, although worth it. Still, the main draw to using an airbrush to prime a model is the degree of control you have over the application of the primer.

I will echo ScootyPuffJunior on the priming thing

The main advantage is that you lose zero detail priming with an airbrush, and it is very easy to prime it colored, or basecoat it afterwards with exactly the same paint that you're going to use a regular paintbrush with. If you miss a little tiny bit, *puff* and you're all good to go.

The other very significant advantage, as ScootyPuffJunior mentioned, is that if you paint a lot of models, the airbrush will pay for itself many, many times over. One big jug of Vallejo Surface Primer (around 500ml?) is about $20, and will paint thousands of points of worth of models. I buy the colored ones in the little size (I'm going to guess 15ml), and that primes me several vehicles plus several squads.

In the realm of spray primers:

That new Corax White spray was actually really sweet. A buddy of mine showed me a primed model of it -- MUCH better than the old Skull White. My favorite spray white is the Mr. Hobby one, but it's as expensive as hell.

The trick to not doing thick layers with a rattle can is to do short bursts and don't point the can directly at the model when you start spraying, sweep across it quickly.

Airbrush primer is cheaper (primarily because you don't waste as much) but the rattle cans are faster and IMO easier (not as much set up, don't have to clean out the AB at the end, doesn't clog and creates a better cloud of spray rather than the narrow cone you get with an AB).

Even though the AB primer is cheaper, I could have bought about 10 cans of primer for the same price as the airbrush set up which would last me years.

I have only tried Vallejo's primer though, which I really don't enjoy spraying. I'd be interested to try what Tamiya and Gunze have to offer as I generally prefer their stuff anyway.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The trick to not doing thick layers with a rattle can is to do short bursts and don't point the can directly at the model when you start spraying, sweep across it quickly.

Yep, that works just fine. However, the amount of control even knowing what you are doing is not anywhere near like what you have with an airbrush. However, most of time that amount of control isn't needed (like in the my first example about priming the huge ass submarine I painted), but when it comes to some a little more complex, I'll use my airbrush over a rattle can ten times out of ten.

Airbrush primer is cheaper (primarily because you don't waste as much) but the rattle cans are faster and IMO easier (not as much set up, don't have to clean out the AB at the end, doesn't clog and creates a better cloud of spray rather than the narrow cone you get with an AB).

Of course, that is all subjective. When it comes to my airbrush, there is no setup time because it's always out; I have a dedicated hobby area in my basement. If I want to prime something with an rattle can, I need to carry everything (the models, rattle cans, something to put the models on, something else to block overspray) upstairs and out into the backyard. If want to prime something with my airbrush, I reach over and flip my compressor on and I'm ready to go.

Even though the AB primer is cheaper, I could have bought about 10 cans of primer for the same price as the airbrush set up which would last me years.

Well, the thing to remember is that the airbrush has uses beyond priming a model whereas a can of primer does not. I use aerosol primers much less often than I use airbrush primers, but I can chew through a brand new can of Tamiya Surface Primer in week or so. On the contrary, I've had the same two 200mL bottles of Vallejo Surface Primer (Grey and Black) for at least two years and still have plenty left in both of them.

I have only tried Vallejo's primer though, which I really don't enjoy spraying. I'd be interested to try what Tamiya and Gunze have to offer as I generally prefer their stuff anyway.

Tamiya Liquid Surface Primer is a lacquer-base thick, putty-like substance that needs to be thinned with lacquer thinner. Mr. Surfacer is a similar product with the added bonus of coming in a couple different finishes that vary in smoothness (Mr. Surfacer 1000 is the best for general use).

Of course it's all just preference in the end. I just like to offer a counter because so often people make it sound like airbrushes are the best thing since powered sex toys. For every person I hear about loving their AB I hear someone who bought one and it now just gathers dust or they only use it for mundane tasks.

I've had my airbrush for almost 2 years now and my opinion on it is mostly "meh". If my compressor died tomorrow I probably wouldn't bother replacing it (or if I did it would simply to avoid having an army half airbrushed and half not).

Saying that you don't like airbrushes because of what some people do with them is like saying you don't like paint brushes because you don't like the way some people paint with them.

Airbrush = investing. The cheapest airbrush near me is 60+ euro and unless I dont dedicate myself to painting minis it's no use buying. But if I had one I will use it mainly for Priming and Basecoat and then do the small details with hairbrush. But... why spent 60 euro on this when I can just spray coat and prime with a spray can?

In addition, airbrushed models look damn beatiful and the tutorials like: How to paint SM with airbrush are really impressive but... not matter how good, smooth and finished they are they just look unatural to me. So, unless you are not going to brush a lot of vehicles and just units better keep hairbrushing

I've just finished reading giraldez' new book, and I have to say, I love what he does with an airbrush, so much so, that I'm away to order a cheap set just to experiment with. (I've been brush only for more than 20 years on and off).

I have a bunch of pan-o stuff that I'm going to try and put his tips into practice on.

That said, I can't think of much gw armies that would suit the style he uses. Maybe eldar? I like my gw old school...

Like anything, I guess it's picking the right selection of tools for the job. I couldn't imagine painting a tyranid army without drybrushing, but like an airbrush, you can overdo that too.

When airbrushing looks good, it looks great.

When it doesn't - eurgh. It looks lazy and sloppy. I believe I recall someone on here saying it looks cake frosting. Yeah, I could agree with that.

There's a studio that often posts in Showcase and whilst their skill far outstrips mine, it looks like they just blast a bit of colour here, a bit there, call it OSL and then onto the next commission.

 Dullspork wrote:
Saying that you don't like airbrushes because of what some people do with them is like saying you don't like paint brushes because you don't like the way some people paint with them.

I'm not sure anyone has ever actually said that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 monders wrote:
There's a studio that often posts in Showcase and whilst their skill far outstrips mine, it looks like they just blast a bit of colour here, a bit there, call it OSL and then onto the next commission.

I think some people just genuinely like that look, the cartoonish look of strong contrast with soft blends. I personally don't, but then I also don't like anime and there's people who love that *shrugs* Each to their own. I can see how that look would be appealing in the context of a model that draws the eye from some distance. I think as internet dwellers we can get a bit over excited about models that photograph well rather than models that look good in real life (not that the ones that photograph well necessarily look bad in real life, but rather just because something doesn't photograph well doesn't mean it also looks bad in real life).

EDIT: Actually, in the context of the models that were linked in the first post.... I think they look fine. They aren't necessarily an aesthetic that everyone is going to like, but IMO they look good and I'm sure that style appeals to a lot of people. I can't see anything technically wrong with them other than they have a bit more contrast than I personally like, nothing to get your knickers in a twist about.