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 do both and I don't feel I am a cheater...

The primer and basecoat are done with the airbrush and then I move to brush.

I have been learning more and more to use the airbrush for shading and highlights but I will always get back to the trusty brush. I am also trying to learn more about blending with the brush. I feel I am developing the skills in parallel.

Also, mid project varnishing is something that I would never do without the airbrush. Soo worth it.

I actually don't know who or where the term "cheating" came in. This thread was merely a question of "if you suck at brush would you be better with air?" I actually have a airbrush somewhere, but never thought about using it for minis.I suck at brush (doing art proved that)

KINGPIN54 wrote:
I actually don't know who or where the term "cheating" came in. This thread was merely a question of "if you suck at brush would you be better with air?" I actually have a airbrush somewhere, but never thought about using it for minis.I suck at brush (doing art proved that)

On the other hand, some people still call washes cheating... I thing it might be a matter of perspective and envy.

Well, then you are a cheater!!lol, I've read a lot about airbrushing and washing and and and, what about if you don't even paint your own models? Is that cheating?NO ITS NOT.
And what if the dude you are PAYING to paint your models does it with a airbrush?does that make you a dbl cheater?NO

KINGPIN54 wrote:
Well, then you are a cheater!!lol, I've read a lot about airbrushing and washing and and and, what about if you don't even paint your own models? Is that cheating?NO ITS NOT.
And what if the dude you are PAYING to paint your models does it with a airbrush?does that make you a dbl cheater?NO

What I do consider cheating however is when people compete in painting contests with someone elses paintjobs. But that is a tangent from the subject.

Finally found the "painting cheating thread".
Always worth dusting off:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/394884.page

It just doesnt correlate to anything.

Would you raise H.R. Giger from the dead and tell him his airbrush work was cheating? Art is art, the end result will be what it is.

Hackneyed/gimicky techniques get their much deserved ire, but the tools used should be irrelevant.

I figured art was managing to get what is in your head out into the world.
Sometimes the technique used is so skilled it can overshadow the idea.
I figure anything is fair game getting it out there.

I think the "it's cheating" idea comes from the idea (popular in painting contests) that the goal of painting is to execute the most difficult techniques, not to produce an interesting piece of art. It's the same reason why every contest piece has to have NMM/OSL/freehand/etc regardless of whether it makes much sense from an artistic perspective. So from that point of view airbrushes/washes/etc would be cheating, as they make it easier to get a good result. If you use a wash for shading then you aren't carefully hand-blending 1000 separate layers with a single-hair brush, and everyone knows that the only painter better than the guy who does 1000 layers is the guy who does 2000 layers.

(Yes, it's a stupid way to look at it, and I don't endorse it at all. I'm just trying to explain where it comes from.)

 Peregrine wrote:
I think the "it's cheating" idea comes from...

I don't actually think the "it's cheating" idea is all that prevalent.

People talk about "some people say it's cheating" or "there's an idea that it might be cheating" but I've rarely actually come across people who think that way.

Even in this thread we've had a dozen posts talking about airbrushing being cheating.... except no one has presented themselves as a proponent for the idea that it's cheating.

I'm sure some people exist who think it's cheating, but I tend to think they are an insignificantly small proportion, by at least an order of magnitude I hear people defending how it's not cheating than I hear people suggesting that it's cheating.

The closest I hear is that some effects are "cheap" rather than "cheating", that is, they take the easy way to achieve an effect but it doesn't look as good to the critical eye, and it's something I hear more in the context of finescale modelling than wargaming because the high-end modellers are typically aiming for a high level of accuracy which requires a lot of time and skill. For example someone who painting a scale WW2 plane that is photorealistic (which takes a huge amount of effort) vs someone who just threw a bunch of airbrushed preshading and washes which hide any flaws and may draw the eye of a less critical viewer but are actually inaccurately portray the aircraft.

And certainly I haven't heard the idea that airbrushing is "cheap", rather that specific techniques which may or may not be applied with an airbrush are "cheap" (like excessive preshading or unrealistic OSL).

 Talizvar wrote:
Finally found the "painting cheating thread".
Always worth dusting off:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/394884.page

Awsome awsome awsome, that thread well worth the read! Thanks

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
People talk about "some people say it's cheating" or "there's an idea that it might be cheating" but I've rarely actually come across people who think that way.

I don't think it's usually explicit, but the idea is there. For example, treating NMM as inherently superior to metallic paints because it's an "advanced" technique implies that anyone who gets good results without NMM doesn't deserve praise because their work wasn't as difficult. And once you've established that the most important thing about painting is how difficult the techniques you're using are you almost have to believe that anyone who doesn't accept a similar difficulty in their own work is "cheating".

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
People talk about "some people say it's cheating" or "there's an idea that it might be cheating" but I've rarely actually come across people who think that way.

I don't think it's usually explicit, but the idea is there. For example, treating NMM as inherently superior to metallic paints because it's an "advanced" technique implies that anyone who gets good results without NMM doesn't deserve praise because their work wasn't as difficult. And once you've established that the most important thing about painting is how difficult the techniques you're using are you almost have to believe that anyone who doesn't accept a similar difficulty in their own work is "cheating".

I think NMM were just a flavour of the month thing, same with OSL. Though one advantage of NMM in competition painting is that it lets you effectively create artificial lighting on the metallic areas that matches the non-metallic areas so I can see why, in the context of that style painting, it might be desirable.

But either way, that's talking about a specific technique which is rather subjective. In the context of airbrushing? The idea that it's "cheating" does not seem to be a commonly held belief at all.

I'm a painter who sometimes uses an airbrush to apply paint to a model. An airbrush is a tool, another brush in the tray.

Not a cheat.
Just another technique to master.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
People talk about "some people say it's cheating" or "there's an idea that it might be cheating" but I've rarely actually come across people who think that way.

I don't think it's usually explicit, but the idea is there. For example, treating NMM as inherently superior to metallic paints because it's an "advanced" technique implies that anyone who gets good results without NMM doesn't deserve praise because their work wasn't as difficult. And once you've established that the most important thing about painting is how difficult the techniques you're using are you almost have to believe that anyone who doesn't accept a similar difficulty in their own work is "cheating".

I think NMM were just a flavour of the month thing, same with OSL. Though one advantage of NMM in competition painting is that it lets you effectively create artificial lighting on the metallic areas that matches the non-metallic areas so I can see why, in the context of that style painting, it might be desirable.

But either way, that's talking about a specific technique which is rather subjective. In the context of airbrushing? The idea that it's "cheating" does not seem to be a commonly held belief at all.

Now you mention it, it has come up lately at all.
However, 2 years or so ago (I'd just bought an airbrush and was browsing threads for tips and ideas) it was much more prevalent.

Social progress!

Yeah, I think in a roundabout way you do not want to be labeled as a painter OR airbrusher (seems odd since airbrush IS painting).

I paint.
I am not defined by the method.
Possibly by the medium but not by my tools.

I also do not like airbrush to be even remotely thought of cheating: I am fairly new to it in the scheme of things and I am quite excited with various results.
Heck, sometimes angry with the results being so fast and simple I label it as "just wrong" for what I would have to do with a brush.
Plus this fine tool makes getting my armies into presentable form onto the table to play so much faster it is a boon to me.

In the not too distant future I will be able to 3D model my miniatures, print them out with pigment coloring with built-in shading and I am sure THAT would be considered cheating.
We all respect obvious effort, just no sense making it hard for yourself unless that form of self-torture is meant to be the art.

I am sure you could build a house with a hand saw and a hammer too....and then take pride for not using power tools....but that does not mean its a good idea to let your ego of being great with a cross cut saw stand in the way of using the right tool for the right job.

My airbrushes are just as useful as my kolinsky sable brushes, my precision files or putty knives.

Learn as much as you can about everything, experiment and find what works for you and let your satisfaction with your methods and results be what drives you.

I'm looking to get an airbrush in the next month or so.
I'm aware of all the amazing effects and techniques you can use them for, but frankly it'll be my undercoat and basecoat machine for the foreseeable future, as I frankly don't have massive amounts of time and my domestic situation means aerosols are all sorts of problems.

But one thing I'd say to the OP - flashy techniques are all well and good, but just remember two to begin with;
1) be neat and thorough at every stage, whether that's assembly or painting, and
2) never use paint straight from the pot!

It's rushing/being messy that make minis look bad. A block painted mini with zero effects may well look basic, but if it's been painted well it will still look good.