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.

More and more I am seeing airbrushed armies. Don't get me wrong, airbrushing is a great way to get down a base layer after you prime your model, especially with large models and models with larger, flat surfaces. What I mean about "airbrushed armies" are those armies that are nothing but airbrushed. You can often tell them apart by their extreme use of highlights, shading, and lighting effects. I've seen this technique become more and more prominent in the past few years. I see people post pictures of their army and people just love how it looks. I've seen "professionally" painted armies on ebay go for double or triple their retail price because they use what looks like, an airbrush exclusively.

I feel like I am the only one who hates the ways these models look. Obviously a good bunch of people really like these models, otherwise they wouldn't get so much praise and wouldn't sell for such a high price. What do you think?

A big THANK YOU in advance for participating in this poll and/or this thread!

NOTE: The poll is about those models which seem to be exclusively airbrushed, not the use of airbrushing mixed with other techniques.

Personally I don't like the look of the pure airbrush stuff.
I understand that painting models that way is a very quick and easy way to get a lot of models painted to a decent enough standard compared to brushwork, and if you're a commission painter or just have a large army you want to get painted quick then I see why you'd go down that route.

I can also see why people like them, as they make liberal use of OSL and other fancy eye-candy techniques.

So yeah, if you want a cheap commissioned army or just don't have much patience, it's a perfectly valid way to paint up your models and I don't think less of anyone for doing so.

not sold on fully airbrushed models, but I would kill for a cheap airbrush to help me speed along basecoating the armor of my vehicles and marines

It's simply an artistic style, I don't understand why you'd get your knickers in a twist over the artistic style of someone else's models unless you see them as offensive or not fitting the theme of 40k.

There's a lot of artistic styles that I personally don't like, but I still appreciate the time and effort that people put in to them.

Models are rarely "exclusively" airbrushed anyway. It's almost impossible (and would be highly time consuming) to do so.

There's nothing wrong with using an airbrush to do your highlights and shades, it just means they'll be softer and not as sharp which is why people usually also apply an oil wash and/or edge highlights at the end to get the sharp shadows and highlights. I use an airbrush to do highlights and shades, but it's not plainly obvious until you look a bit closer.

Why not add in some pictures to the OP with some examples of what you feel makes airbrushing so horrible.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Why not add in some pictures to the OP with some examples of what you feel makes airbrushing so horrible.

I don't want to hurt peoples feelings.

I am sure we are all grownups here and can take seeing some examples. And the painters I am sure would stand by their work.

I can't say I have ever seen a model which has been "purely" airbrushed and claimed as finished.

 Brennonjw wrote:
not sold on fully airbrushed models, but I would kill for a cheap airbrush to help me speed along basecoating the armor of my vehicles and marines

Iwata Neo
I have 2 Iwata HP-Cs which are more or less the flagship of gravity feed small needle. The NEO is essentially the same gun made in Taiwan.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I am sure we are all grownups here

Lol, I've seen too many fights on dakka dakka to believe that.

 Ryan_A wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I am sure we are all grownups here

Lol, I've seen too many fights on dakka dakka to believe that.

So you thought you'd post this thread and start one. Bravo

I'm sure if you post a link to ebay or something it'd be fine (rather than taking a picture from someone's personal gallery).

It is important to explain what you mean for people who might not understand so they don't get put off airbrushing completely

The number of times I've heard something like "airbrushing is cheating" makes me want to bash people over the head with a 40k rulebook after I've just spent a month painstakingly airbrushing a model that I could have painted in a couple of days with a few spray cans and hairy brush

I dislike airbrushing. To me it just doesn't look right.

For those asking OP for examples, for me you could take any airbrushed army. For example, any of those posted by the commission studios in the showcase forum here on Dakka. They're obviously very good at what they do, and much better than I will ever be, but I really don't care for the result. I guess I feel it looks like mass-produced, soulless and boring products instead of inspired works of passion. Subjective opinions being subjective.

@AllSeeingSkink; please don't reduce people's dislike of something to "getting one's knickers in a twist." You're on a forum where people exchange opinions. Some people don't like things that others like. It's ok. Doesn't mean they spend their days fuming over how other people are painting their minis incorrectly. I often see you posting in Dakka Discussions on the state of GW, and you seem like a well-reflected guy, and I'm sure you've noticed some people there who, let's just say, aren't. See what I'm getting at?

 loki old fart wrote:

 Ryan_A wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I am sure we are all grownups here

Lol, I've seen too many fights on dakka dakka to believe that.

So you thought you'd post this thread and start one. Bravo

I don't see anyone arguing. Everyone has simply stated their opinion. And everyone has been polite and on topic with the exception of you. I request that if you do not want to talk about the topic, please do not post at all. If you do decide to post about the topic in this thread, please be extra cautious to be civil. Thanks!

An airbrush is just a tool, much like a regular brush. The results will vary depending on the skill of the person using it. I've seen some astonishing air brushed stuff and some really rather mediocre, even poor, stuff that's done by people who are clearly either too lazy or insufficiently skilled to utilise their airbrush more effectively.

There is an air brush equivalent of 3 colours an a wash, there is also an airbrush equivalent of Painting Buddha and their ilk.

 Thud wrote:
@AllSeeingSkink; please don't reduce people's dislike of something to "getting one's knickers in a twist." You're on a forum where people exchange opinions. Some people don't like things that others like. It's ok. Doesn't mean they spend their days fuming over how other people are painting their minis incorrectly. I often see you posting in Dakka Discussions on the state of GW, and you seem like a well-reflected guy, and I'm sure you've noticed some people there who, let's just say, aren't. See what I'm getting at?

Well I wasn't talking about YOU specifically....

The OP said he "hates" the way these models look, "hatred" carries the connotation of being an intense feeling, not just a casual disliking. So much so that he decided to make the effort to post a poll about it, probably took several minutes of his time to do so, he didn't even give an option like "I don't like them but it doesn't bother me" or "I don't like that particular artistic style", the only options were "I don't like them because they are lazy/poorly painted/incorrect" and "I hate them". That seems like getting ones knickers in a twist to me.

For those asking OP for examples, for me you could take any airbrushed army. For example, any of those posted by the commission studios in the showcase forum here on Dakka. They're obviously very good at what they do, and much better than I will ever be, but I really don't care for the result. I guess I feel it looks like mass-produced, soulless and boring products instead of inspired works of passion. Subjective opinions being subjective.

It does need clarification because there's pretty much no such thing as "exclusively" airbrushed models and people who aren't experienced in airbrushing often end up making ignorant comments about airbrushing in general while imagining something very specific (the technique of using an airbrush to create extreme contrast). You can actually use an airbrush for the exact opposite purpose, for SMOOTHING out contrast changes.

I mean, do you consider these models to be looking like massproduced, soulless and boring products? I'd hope not, they're not expertly painted or anything like that, but I would be disappointed if someone thought of them as "soulless", but they're mostly done by airbrush and then detailed with a hairy brush...

I think that airbrushing is fine, as long as it doesn't look rushed. Just look at the huge commission sites, it feels like they don't put in any sould or work into it. I hate it. Sure, I'd love to have an airbrush for basecoating and zenithal highlights, but I'd stick to brushwork for everything else.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


I mean, do you consider these models to be looking like massproduced, soulless and boring products? I'd hope not, they're not expertly painted or anything like that, but I would be disappointed if someone thought of them as "soulless", but they're mostly done by airbrush and then detailed with a hairy brush...
snip

I think OP is referring more to minis in the vein of this one


This is not the best example, but it's one of the clearest ones I could find right off the bat. Basic colours with slight shading, spray a bunch of glowing points on it and call it a day.

Most commission painters will have more detail than that, but you can often still clearly see the "feathering" from airbrush spray and a bunch of glowing points strewn about.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Thud wrote:
@AllSeeingSkink; please don't reduce people's dislike of something to "getting one's knickers in a twist." You're on a forum where people exchange opinions. Some people don't like things that others like. It's ok. Doesn't mean they spend their days fuming over how other people are painting their minis incorrectly. I often see you posting in Dakka Discussions on the state of GW, and you seem like a well-reflected guy, and I'm sure you've noticed some people there who, let's just say, aren't. See what I'm getting at?

Well I wasn't talking about YOU specifically....

The OP said he "hates" the way these models look, "hatred" carries the connotation of being an intense feeling, not just a casual disliking. So much so that he decided to make the effort to post a poll about it, probably took several minutes of his time to do so, he didn't even give an option like "I don't like them but it doesn't bother me" or "I don't like that particular artistic style", the only options were "I don't like them because they are lazy/poorly painted/incorrect" and "I hate them". That seems like getting ones knickers in a twist to me.

Obviously you weren't talking about me since I hadn't posted yet. Fair enough about the poll options, though. I guess I'm just a bit quick on the trigger, since I've gotten rather sick of the "You don't love it? Then GTFO" comments that seem to crop up everywhere around here.

It does need clarification because there's pretty much no such thing as "exclusively" airbrushed models and people who aren't experienced in airbrushing often end up making ignorant comments about airbrushing in general while imagining something very specific (the technique of using an airbrush to create extreme contrast). You can actually use an airbrush for the exact opposite purpose, for SMOOTHING out contrast changes.

I mean, do you consider these models to be looking like massproduced, soulless and boring products? I'd hope not, they're not expertly painted or anything like that, but I would be disappointed if someone thought of them as "soulless", but they're mostly done by airbrush and then detailed with a hairy brush...

You're right. Clarification is in order.

I like the Terminator, for instance. But the airbrushing on that is more along the lines of an undercoat before it's been painted normally. The exception being the Crux Terminatus which has that airbrush-feel.

I suppose what I mean when I refer to airbrushed models is when layers of airbrushed paint replaces "traditional" shading and highlighting.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The OP said he "hates" the way these models look, "hatred" carries the connotation of being an intense feeling, not just a casual disliking. So much so that he decided to make the effort to post a poll about it, probably took several minutes of his time to do so, he didn't even give an option like "I don't like them but it doesn't bother me" or "I don't like that particular artistic style", the only options were "I don't like them because they are lazy/poorly painted/incorrect" and "I hate them". That seems like getting ones knickers in a twist to me.

I'm a philosophy major. As such, I have done quite a bit of studying (*compared to the average person) on aesthetics. I am of the camp that believes when a person says "I don't like that style", that there is a reason behind it. I believe that if a person believes they simply don't like a style for no reason, that there is actually a reason behind this that they just do not understand. Aesthetics is such an untouched category in modern day scholastics that I believe many people think they "just don't like a style for no reason" are simply people that aren't versed enough and don't understand themselves in the area of aesthetics enough to understand why.

From this, when I gave the option of "I don't like them. They seem lazy/poorly painted/incorrect lightning/etc" I hope it is clear(er) that the "etc" was put in there to cover all other reasons that "people don't like them". Furthermore, you say I did not give an option of "I don't like them but it doesn't bother me". I wouldnt think I would need to, since my option "I don't like them . They seem...." doesn't imply that the person is bothered by it.

Finally, to address "hate" and "getting knickers in a bunch". My final option was "I hate them! When I see a person use them, I want to follow them home, smash their models with a hammer, then throw their airbrush and air compressor against the wall!". I thought it was clear that it was a joke. I wouldn't think anyone would believe that I would follow somebody home, smash their models with a hammer and throw their airbrush and air compressor against the wall. It was meant as a joke, as such a notion is rather ridiculous.

The reason I posted this was not because I "hate" the models. The reason was for me to try to understand people's tastes and to see if I was alone in not liking the models in question.


Note: Despite several people believing linking pictures of an example would be fine, I still believe it would potentially damaging. I realize that some people are not getting what I am referring to when I talk about "overly airbrushed", but I feel enough people understand what I mean for this thread to work. Sorry to the people who don't understand what I mean, but you not understanding is simply a casualty of me trying to not step on the toes and alienate painters.

 sockwithaticket wrote:
An airbrush is just a tool, much like a regular brush. The results will vary depending on the skill of the person using it. I've seen some astonishing air brushed stuff and some really rather mediocre, even poor, stuff that's done by people who are clearly either too lazy or insufficiently skilled to utilise their airbrush more effectively.

There is an air brush equivalent of 3 colours an a wash, there is also an airbrush equivalent of Painting Buddha and their ilk.

This is the way to see it. For certain methods, airbrushes make things so much easier/faster/more effective, for others they offer nothing a brush doesn't. Either used on their own, or the two used in concert, will produce a result that directly correlates with the skill of the operator. Give a poor painter the full gamut of tools, techniques and materials and you still won't get a great model; give a great painter a limited selection and you'll still get something that looks good!

For the vast majority of us that fall in between those extremes, the airbrush is not something to dismissed out of hand, but equally, not something that should be considered 'necessary' to be a skilled painter.

vundere wrote:


I think OP is referring more to minis in the vein of this one

.

Your thinking seems logical.

 Ryan_A wrote:

Note: Despite several people believing linking pictures of an example would be fine, I still believe it would potentially damaging. I realize that some people are not getting what I am referring to when I talk about "overly airbrushed", but I feel enough people understand what I mean for this thread to work. Sorry to the people who don't understand what I mean, but you not understanding is simply a casualty of me trying to not step on the toes and alienate painters.

Showing examples isn't a problem as long as you're not doing it to show it off as an example of how not to do things. Disagreeing with someone's choice of style is not the same as saying their work is bad or has no merit. I linked one earlier, I don't think it's an ugly paint job, but it does showcase some of the things being discussed in the thread.

vundere wrote:
Disagreeing with someone's choice of style is not the same as saying their work is bad .

In one of my recent posts on this page, I talk about aesthetics. In this, I say that I believe disagreeing with a "style" is the same as thinking it is bad.

Edit: To clarify. Since there is no objective "bad" in aesthetics (since it is based on opinion), thinking something is bad or thinking you don't like something, is saying the piece is bad.

 Ryan_A wrote:

vundere wrote:
Disagreeing with someone's choice of style is not the same as saying their work is bad .

In one of my recent posts on this page, I talk about aesthetics. In this, I say that I believe disagreeing with a "style" is the same as thinking it is bad.

For the purposes of a more concise discussion about paint jobs rather than a philosophical discussion on aesthetics, I'm going to stick with how it is commonly used in conversation.

Not finding something appealing does not mean you need to think that it's bad/inferior/etc., we all have our own personal preferences and views, disregarding anything that does not adhere to them as bad would be rather narrow minded.

I like jokes.

To me, the main problem is not the airbrush but rather people who get paid for it/win prizes in tournaments for it. And yeah, it feels like "easy mode" for painting, just because you have an airbrush.

Of course, reality isn't that simple. It's a tool you need to learn to use, after all.

vundere wrote:
I'm going to stick with how it is commonly used in conversation.

Not finding something appealing does not mean you need to think that it's bad/inferior/etc., we all have our own personal preferences and views, disregarding anything that does not adhere to them as bad would be rather narrow minded.

I know many are of the field that think this. However, I do not. If I believe something would be offensive, I won't post it. If everyone thinks saying the N word or talking bad about the LGBT community is fine to do, I still won't do it because I believe it is wrong.

Edit: And you are right, we shouldn't be turning this into an aesthetics debate. I said I'm not going to show examples. I would appreciate if people stopped asking me to.

 Ryan_A wrote:

vundere wrote:
I'm going to stick with how it is commonly used in conversation.

Not finding something appealing does not mean you need to think that it's bad/inferior/etc., we all have our own personal preferences and views, disregarding anything that does not adhere to them as bad would be rather narrow minded.

I know many are of the field that think this. However, I do not. If I believe something would be offensive, I won't post it. If everyone thinks saying the N word or talking bad about the LGBT community is fine to do, I still won't do it because I believe it is wrong.

Edit: And you are right, we shouldn't be turning this into an aesthetics debate. I said I'm not going to show examples. I would appreciate if people stopped asking me to.

Well, if you're not prepared to show examples then maybe refrain from starting a debate on this? Random strangers on the internet are not you, if you want them to be on the same page as you, examples are probably going to be needed. I mean it's already caused misunderstandings in this thread as seen earlier. If you're debating something visual, you're gonna need visuals.

PLEASE READ!
To the people requesting pictures from me to show an example: I am not going to show any. The decision has been made and will not be changed.


To the people not understanding the type of airbrushing models I am talking about: I am talking about models which have been exclusively airbrushed. They often have over-exaggerated OSR and lack fine details, extreme shading, and a lack of lining. There have been plenty of people who understand what I mean. If you still do not understand, I would suggest looking up terms like "Object source lighting, shading, etc" in the context of 40k. If after this you still do not understand, I am sorry, but you are simply a casualty of my refusal to post a picture as an example.


TO REITERATE! I WILL NOT SHOW A PICTURE AS AN EXAMPLE. IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEAN, IM SORRY, BUT I STILL WONT SHOW A PICTURE.

Look at this hack, airbrushing exclusively. That practically painted itself!



But in all seriousness, yea, I admit that there is a certain aesthetic style that looks more comic book like out there and it sells well. But...thats as far as one can really go with that. They dont paint themselves, and they arent more or less
than anything else. If someone likes it enough to spend money on it to own it and play with it, then clearly there is a demand for that style and you shouldnt let it bother you. Golden Demon painters are still going to go on being awesome
with their brushwork just as the airbrushers continue to do cartoony Tau armies. There's plenty of room for it.

If an airbrush army wins at a tournament with best painted, then congratulations are just as in order as if they had done it with brush strokes.

 Ryan_A wrote:
PLEASE READ!
To the people requesting pictures from me to show an example: I am not going to show any. The decision has been made and will not be changed.


To the people not understanding the type of airbrushing models I am talking about: I am talking about models which have been exclusively airbrushed. They often have over-exaggerated OSR and lack fine details, extreme shading, and a lack of lining. There have been plenty of people who understand what I mean. If you still do not understand, I would suggest looking up terms like "Object source lighting, shading, etc" in the context of 40k. If after this you still do not understand, I am sorry, but you are simply a casualty of my refusal to post a picture as an example.


TO REITERATE! I WILL NOT SHOW A PICTURE AS AN EXAMPLE. IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEAN, IM SORRY, BUT I STILL WONT SHOW A PICTURE.

Mate, that's really not going to hep the discussion along at all. A picture says a thousand words is quite apposite here. You can describe what you mean 'til you're fingers are bleeding from typing, but the surest way of conveying it is a picture. That way everyone knows exactly.

Clearly you've decided against that, but I do think that is going to be counterproductive and produce the kind of debate you might want.