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.

Thud wrote: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.

To contrast, I've gotten rather sick of people making overly broad statements about airbrushing which has probably made me a bit quick on the trigger.

I had that Spitfire at my local hobby store a while back (getting some tips on how to improve from the owner who is an awesome painter) and someone else in the store commented "That looks good, but airbrushing is cheating, it makes it too easy" or something along those lines. I didn't say anything but I felt like whacking him over the head because that Spitfire took me close to 3 months to paint, working a few hours every couple of nights, probably close to 100 hours work in it, many of which were painstakingly airbrushing the different effects I wanted and then following up with hours of hairy brush with oils to emphasize panel lines and darken the control surfaces....

....only for some muppet to tell me I'm cheating

Now it's not the greatest model in the world by any measure, but I poured a lot of effort in to it so it is a bit irksome when someone says things like that. A lot of the hours put in to the model were prepping it for airbrushing, masking for airbrushing or indeed doing the airbrushing it self, going back and forward between highlights and shades to achieve just the right effect.

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.

Funnily enough the Crux is the only part of that model I hadn't painted yet It was still wearing the paint it had on it when I airbrushed the basecoat, it needs to be painted a grey-bone colour.

Ryan_A wrote:I'm a philosophy major.

For a philosophy major you didn't do a great job at constructing the poll.

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".

The smarter thing would have been to not include any options at all rather than only having options which are entirely negative, lazy, poorly painted, incorrect lighting are all things that can only be taken 1 way, negatively. Better to just say "I don't like them (if so, please post why)" rather than leading with such options.

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.

Well then you might want to edit your original post, because you said... "I feel like I am the only one who hates the ways these models look."

The reason I said "I don't understand why you'd get your knickers in a twist over the artistic style of someone else's models..." is because that's how your original post and poll present themselves.

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.

You just need to be better at analysing other peoples' work. Most people don't mind criticism when it's objective, thoughtful and presented in a positive manner.

Anyone is free to criticise the work in my gallery, just be objective and positive about it.

Disagreeing with a style is only "bad" if you make it bad. I've had long chats with the guys at the local hobby store on styles and techniques and no one is ever insulted, no style is ever put down as being "bad", we simply discuss what we do and don't like, discuss techniques of achieving certain results, discuss the various products on the market for achieving those results and praise each other for the things we do like about each others work.

Not a fan at all of airbrushing. Far too much faffing around for my liking. Don't get me wrong though, you can get amazing results with it if it's in the right hands.

vundere wrote:

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

Spoiler:

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.

Yes, that kind of highlights my point. What takes a model from soulful to soulless? Slightly too much airbrushed contrast? Not having a "rough" enough wash to make it look a bit dirty?

To me, that's mostly what people seem to mean when they say they hate airbrushed models, a little bit too much soft contrast and a little bit too clean, an effect you could achieve without an airbrush but is significantly more time consuming.

The other thing I think people don't like sometimes when they see airbrushed models is when there's a hazy look that comes from airbrushing colours that contrast too heavily, which can usually be fixed by applying a filter to blend the colours or having more intermediate steps when airbrushing.

In the end, it's just a style. The style doesn't actually have a lot to do with liking airbrushing or not other than that style is most easily achieved with an airbrush, as much more subtle effects can also be achieved (that you can't achieve without an airbrush).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
To contrast, I've gotten rather sick of people making overly broad statements about airbrushing which has probably made me a bit quick on the trigger.

Touché.

I had that Spitfire at my local hobby store a while back (getting some tips on how to improve from the owner who is an awesome painter) and someone else in the store commented "That looks good, but airbrushing is cheating, it makes it too easy" or something along those lines. I didn't say anything but I felt like whacking him over the head because that Spitfire took me close to 3 months to paint, working a few hours every couple of nights, probably close to 100 hours work in it, many of which were painstakingly airbrushing the different effects I wanted and then following up with hours of hairy brush with oils to emphasize panel lines and darken the control surfaces....

....only for some muppet to tell me I'm cheating

Now it's not the greatest model in the world by any measure, but I poured a lot of effort in to it so it is a bit irksome when someone says things like that.

This is kinda approaching strawman territory, though. I don't consider airbrushing "cheating" or "low-effort" or whatever else. I simply dislike the air-brush aesthetic.

Take this for example. By all accounts, this is a pretty good paint job, by a very talented artist. I can't do anything like this. But I don't like it. Particularly, the build-up of the greens on the jetbike (and vehicle) bonnets have an aesthetic I don't care for at all. It's not the worst example, as with others there is no shading in the recesses and the air-brushed layers alone make up the highlighting, creating a different effect to the "traditional" painting style, but it's still something that makes it (to me) appear mass-produced, and soulless. Even in those cases when it's not. That's just my opinion on the aesthetic, though, and not a criticism of skill, effort or labour intensity.

Funnily enough the Crux is the only part of that model I hadn't painted yet It was still wearing the paint it had on it when I airbrushed the basecoat, it needs to be painted a grey-bone colour.

Hehe.

 Thud wrote:
This is kinda approaching strawman territory, though. I don't consider airbrushing "cheating" or "low-effort" or whatever else. I simply dislike the air-brush aesthetic.

It wasn't really intended as an argument at all so much as an amusing anecdote (or perhaps not all that amusing ).

Mostly I'm just referring to making sweeping claims. Saying you don't like airbrushing is a bit of a sweeping claim when it's a specific type of airbrushing that is the problem and often the thing separating a model that looks excessively airbrushed and one that doesn't is the application of a filter or a wash to tone down the contrast and make the model look a bit less clean.

I admit I also can find it irksome like, in the OP, you get statements like "nothing but airbrushed" being bad but it's fine to "get down a base layer".... as if there's no in between. People can spend ages building up highlights and shading with an airbrush that are so subtle they don't jump out at you, but significantly change the look of the model. It's certainly more than just "getting down a base layer".

If all I wanted was to get down a base layer I'd buy a spray gun, not an airbrush

Take this for example. By all accounts, this is a pretty good paint job, by a very talented artist. I can't do anything like this. But I don't like it. Particularly, the build-up of the greens on the jetbike (and vehicle) bonnets have an aesthetic I don't care for at all. It's not the worst example, as with others there is no shading in the recesses and the air-brushed layers alone make up the highlighting, creating a different effect to the "traditional" painting style, but it's still something that makes it (to me) appear mass-produced, and soulless. Even in those cases when it's not. That's just my opinion on the aesthetic, though, and not a criticism of skill, effort or labour intensity.

Yeah, I definitely understand where you're coming from.

For me personally, I really like that force from Awaken Realms. I think it looks quite amazing and obviously a lot of effort went in to it (I also prefer the earlier images in that thread which are slightly more subdued than the later ones).

BUT, I wouldn't like that same aesthetic on an Imperial Guard tank, or a Space Marine army, or a Panzer IV or a Hawker Hurricane. To me a large part of the reason it looks good is specifically because it's on a Harlequin army. The aesthetic is over the top, garish, heavily contrasting.... just like Harlequins.

I have to ask, what were you hoping to get out of this topic, OP?
You couldn't have been ignorant to the devisive nature of the subject, and you're not asking for advice, so it seems to be setting the ring for other people to fight it out.

Personally, I came into airbrushing as an artist on paper. I know people who can produce photorealistic portraiture and eyelash narrow sketching with them. Myself I can just about write my name with one and it'd pass for being a mechanical pencil signature. To use them on models is the next step, but a large departure in terms of understanding. 3D space wrapping around, and the physics of paint are very different.

As for other people using them, as long as I'm not paying them or being asked to comment, how another person paints is about as much my business as the air freshener in their car.
The only difference between a bad painter with an airbrush and a bad painter without, is how much money they spent.

I will say there's a tangible amount of bitterness online towards airbrushes from the camp that don't use them. Ranging from the feigned disinterested approach, to passive aggressive "they're unnecessary, you can get any result with patience" to outright calling it cheating.
If you're that invested in another person's work, take a step back and consider a different use of your time.

I like airbrushing as a whole. I just don't like pure airbrushed models. I see the airbrush as a tool to get certain stages done faster and get effects that you can't get (or at least not well) with a regular brush. I think the time you save with an airbrush should then be used for some regular brush techniques. Also some people get carried away with the airbrush and do too much with it or go too extreme with the techniques. Sometimes subtle is better. It all comes down to knowing how to balance things and to be willing to do the regular brush work as well. The best looking models use not just airbrush, but the entire toolkit of techniques.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
I have to ask, what were you hoping to get out of this topic, OP?...I will say there's a tangible amount of bitterness online towards airbrushes from the camp that don't use them.

I wanted to get a good ratio on where everyone stands on the issue, thus the poll.

I'd just like to say, for the record, I've been using airbrushes for about a year and a half. I both love it and recommend getting one. However, the pure airbrushed models, in which there are several people who understand what I mean by this, are still an eyesore to me.

edited for spelling

None of the responses on the poll come close to an accurate answer.

What is your opinion on models that seem to be exclusively airbrushed?

Answer - If the end result is good, then I will probably like it. If the end result is not good, then I might not like it.

Also not sure why you're referring to it as a 'craze'. Airbrushing is a thing, just like painting with a brush. The only reason you're seeing more of it than you might have once done is that there are a larger variety of more affordable airbrush setups on the market these days.

At the end of the day, it's a technique like any other - done well, it will look good. Done badly, it won't.

 Ryan_A wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
I have to ask, what were you hoping to get out of this topic, OP?...I will say there's a tangible amount of bitterness online towards airbrushes from the camp that don't use them.

I wanted to get a good ratio on where everyone stands on the issue, thus the poll.

I'd just like to say, for the record, I've been using airbrushes for about a year and a half. I both love it and recommend getting one. However, the pure airbrushed models, in which there are several people who understand what I mean by this, are still an eyesore to me.

edited for spelling

They're bland, sure, but no worse than Little Timmy's First Space Marines daubed in primary colours and slathered in metallics. Everything has a learning curve. Learning subtlety for the airbrush is definitely one as well.

What the christ is going on in this thread

I HATE obviously airbrushed models. If you're using an airbrush as a tool to get a clean base coat with no brush strokes, subtle weathering techniques, etc, that's fine. But the "LOOK AT ME I HAVE AN AIRBRUSH" style that certain commission painters use is just awful. The goal seems to be giving the client models that were obviously painted with an airbrush while spending as little time as possible on doing it right. So you get ugly over-done OSL, ridiculously exaggerated shading that rarely has anything to do with areas of light and shadow on the "real" model, etc. And the result is just garbage. Most of those models belong in a bucket of paint stripper, if not the trash can.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Everything has a learning curve. Learning subtlety for the airbrush is definitely one as well.

The problem is that some of the people producing this stuff are experienced commission painters. We're not just picking on poor newbies and their first efforts here.

I don't really care for your options. I don't want to buy painted models, whether by brush or by airbrush. So it's not even part of my thinking in judging the quality of a model's paint.

Also, I don't think airbrushing is a craze, period. Anymore so than using techniques or items from Model Railroading is a craze. It's more a new tool that's being/been discovered.

Any tool or technique can be overused.

What about drybrushing?

I don't like it, generally, but it tends to be an entry level type painting that gets people started easily with a horde for instance. Or, like anything else, it can be used in situations that warrant it, where it's hard to do anything else.

Just because I don't care for a technique, I would not ignore the use/value of it, if I felt it was appropriate or necessary to get the effect I wanted.

Basically my stream of consciousness here is leading me to this point - better painted armies, by any means, than unpainted armies. If an airbrush only is what people feel they need, if drybrushing only is what people feel they need, if spray painting with a rattle can is what people think they need to get it on the table to play, then more power to them. At least they're trying.

The only truly ugly model to me is the unpainted one deliberately left that way.

 Peregrine wrote:
The problem is that some of the people producing this stuff are experienced commission painters..

Which isn't really a 'problem' at all, since the studios that consistently sell that sort of stuff are obviously finding customers who like it. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

 Peregrine wrote:
I HATE obviously airbrushed models. If you're using an airbrush as a tool to get a clean base coat with no brush strokes, subtle weathering techniques, etc, that's fine. But the "LOOK AT ME I HAVE AN AIRBRUSH" style that certain commission painters use is just awful. The goal seems to be giving the client models that were obviously painted with an airbrush while spending as little time as possible on doing it right. So you get ugly over-done OSL, ridiculously exaggerated shading that rarely has anything to do with areas of light and shadow on the "real" model, etc. And the result is just garbage. Most of those models belong in a bucket of paint stripper, if not the trash can.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Everything has a learning curve. Learning subtlety for the airbrush is definitely one as well.

The problem is that some of the people producing this stuff are experienced commission painters. We're not just picking on poor newbies and their first efforts here.

This. This is exactly how I feel and exactly what I am talking about. Thank you Peregrine!

 insaniak wrote:
Which isn't really a 'problem' at all, since the studios that consistently sell that sort of stuff are obviously finding customers who like it. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

The problem is with the quoted post, about how the airbrush has a learning curve, not with the existence of bad airbrushing work. Buttery Commissar's suggestion about the reason for bad airbrushing isn't accurate because it isn't just newbies that are doing it.

Also, the fact that people are gullible enough to pay money for that stuff doesn't make it good work.

 Ryan_A wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I HATE obviously airbrushed models. If you're using an airbrush as a tool to get a clean base coat with no brush strokes, subtle weathering techniques, etc, that's fine. But the "LOOK AT ME I HAVE AN AIRBRUSH" style that certain commission painters use is just awful. The goal seems to be giving the client models that were obviously painted with an airbrush while spending as little time as possible on doing it right. So you get ugly over-done OSL, ridiculously exaggerated shading that rarely has anything to do with areas of light and shadow on the "real" model, etc. And the result is just garbage. Most of those models belong in a bucket of paint stripper, if not the trash can.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Everything has a learning curve. Learning subtlety for the airbrush is definitely one as well.

The problem is that some of the people producing this stuff are experienced commission painters. We're not just picking on poor newbies and their first efforts here.

This. This is exactly how I feel and exactly what I am talking about. Thank you Peregrine!

Ahh, now I see what the topic was for.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Ahh, now I see what the topic was for.

Shhh! I'm trying to find out who is on my side in the upcoming war.

I don't see it so much as a craze - as a painting method that just took a while for gamers to latch onto.

Scale modellers have been doing it for decades.

It's no different to the NMM "craze", the "realistic weathering" craze with all the different weathering powders, etc.

In the old days (1980s and earlier) we would make our own weathering powders by grinding up artists pastel chalks and applying them, then varnishing to seal them in. You young people with your premade powders will never know that. :p

 Ryan_A wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Ahh, now I see what the topic was for.

Shhh! I'm trying to find out who is on my side in the upcoming war.

You'll never get unification amongst the Pro-Brush Movement as you forgot to take into account the internal schism that is air source.
Those with compressors staunchly fighting off the smaller Canned Air party and the Lesser Spotted Car Tire Tribe can be seen in the bushes clutching their totems/explosive air source.
Then there's that guy over there with a beard who swears if it's not from a hand cranked 1970s air pump, you're not really doing the work yourself.

Love airbrushing, wish I was better at it lol. I like it to get all the undercoating and lots of tedious stuff done so I can spend my time focusing on the details.

Like edge highlighting an entire black power armor army? To gak with that. Zenith all highlight all the armor, couple of washes and then bamn spend all my time on details.

I think all airbrushed armies look good, but there is a different feel to them compared to when someone goes in and does most of it with brush strokes.

 Peregrine wrote:
I HATE obviously airbrushed models.

After opening your post like this I can't read the rest of it without picturing anything but a whining child. "STOP LIKING THINGS I DON'T LIKE!"

Actually that's a bit harsh, when I hang out with my 3yo niece and nephew they're never that bad

I guess it's not a new whining, in the historical models community long before airbrushes became common in wargaming people would complain about other people overly using their airbrush when painting historic models.... but at least then it had some grounding in reality because you were trying to recreate something that actually existed in real life, not a fantasy/sci-fi miniature that can look however you want to imagine it to look. Even there it was annoying because it created a division between cranky people who cared too much about what other people did with their free time, but at least the argument made sense.

Some people like excessive soft contrasting on their models and are willing to pay money for it.... get over it. Just because other people like it doesn't affect you in the slightest.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Ryan_A wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Ahh, now I see what the topic was for.

Shhh! I'm trying to find out who is on my side in the upcoming war.

You'll never get unification amongst the Pro-Brush Movement as you forgot to take into account the internal schism that is air source.
Those with compressors staunchly fighting off the smaller Canned Air party and the Lesser Spotted Car Tire Tribe can be seen in the bushes clutching their totems/explosive air source.
Then there's that guy over there with a beard who swears if it's not from a hand cranked 1970s air pump, you're not really doing the work yourself.

Take a exalt!

Well, for certain tasks, I find the airbrush perfect.
For example, I'd been doing camo by hand on my German vehicles, then I got an airbrush and tried it. The models below were painted with exactly the same colours.
- Sprayed Khaki, Used Vallejo reflective green and chocolate Brown. They were then both washed with Army Painter strong tone. I drybrushed the edges with Khaki and added mud.

Are these fully airbrushed? Nope. Could I paint them with just an airbrush? Nope.

Who does paint with just an airbrush? I'm sure everyone that airbrushes uses multiple techniques.
I wouldn't use *just* a # 4 brush on a mini. I'd use a selection of tools and brush sizes. The airbrush is just another tool.

Even those figures that people claim have been airbrushed and nothing else, still tend to look like they've had some type of wash in the recesses to me.
Is the OP really looking at armies ONLY airbrushed? Is there a thread by those people complaining about that "hairy brush craze"?

I'll take the thread more seriously when I see pics from the OP showing me all those airbrush-only armies.


PS: Are my models realistic? I certainly doubt it. But I do know the airbrushed one gets more comments on how good it looks on the game table than the handpainted one.


Handpainted:


Airbrushed:

Done well they can be ok, but people who can airbrush well tend to also be able to use a brush to finish the model off. A lot depends on the force, the style suits some models better than others.

That said I'd prefer to play against a somewhat "oh look another one" airbrushed army of varying quality than another grey or silver legion.

I can fully appreciate a really well done model that incorporates some Airbrushing. People can do some really awe-inspiring work with Airbrushes. There's nothing wrong with that.

What I have an issue with are two types of people: Lazy-Man Airbrushers, and Lighting Effect Airbrushers (sometimes they are the same)

Lazy Man Airbrushers simply Airbrush their models with little to no extra work. Sometimes they don't even bother to paint the eyes. Maybe they do some brush touch-up here and there. Maybe there is a shade. Maybe they do a single highlight. There is usually a horrible lighting effect. involved.

What makes Lazy-Man Airbrush jobs like this extra bad is that they frequently show up as "Pro Painted" ebay items from commission websites.

As an example, I submit for evidence this horrible Awaken Realms airbrush job:



Now I don't have an issue with commissions, and in my mind you get what you pay for. I don't know how much money this person paid Awaken Realms for this model, but I hope it wasn't a whole lot of money, because a whole lot of time and effort did not go into this paintjob, comparative to the amount of time and effort one would normally spend on a model of this size.

That brings us to the lighting effects... oh god the lighting effects. One reason this infuriates me is that for some reason everyone seems to think it looks incredible. They think whatever the lighting effect was took a huge amount of time and effort and skill. It didn't! It took 10 seconds! It's a couple spritzes with a couple colors with an Airbrush! You can learn how to do it by watching a 30 second YouTube video, and probably you can get it right your first try! You don't even really need to practice!

The second reason it infuriates me is that people decide to apply lighting effects to things that clearly should not be light sources. Case and Point, the symbols of Chaos on the model above. Why are they glowing blue? That doesn't even make any sense. The lighting effect isn't even universally applied... the entire symbol isn't glowing... the light source is coming from the middle!

I submit for evidence this Greater Brass Scorpion:

http://imgur.com/a/Q3dlP

Why do the rivets glow? Search me. It's a shame because the blending job is actually pretty good, and this is still a WIP model. But you see what I mean.

Since Airbrushes have become less expensive and more popular to the hobby, I see fewer and fewer examples of people really honing their painting skills to make really incredible models. It seems like people are less interested in learning new techniques than they used to be. Nobody "ooohs" and "ahhhs" over someone's incredible blending skills or NMM skills or freehand. People go nuts for an airbrush job that didn't take half the skill or practice or talent.

Hey it's your hobby, you paint your models the way you want them to be painted. If you're happy with them, great. If you want crazy lighting effects, go nuts. It bugs me more how the COMMUNITY reacts to these airbrush jobs, paying top-dollar for commissions, thinking they are geniuses at blending, and really ignoring paint jobs from truly talented artists.

^ eh, it sounds like you're devoting an incredible amount of energy to being concerned that other people arent 'oohing and aahing' over what you think they should.

People exalt impressive works. Go to coolminiornot and look at the top works there, its mostly traditional brushwork that is truly mindblowing.

I can no more be upset over someone liking what you consider hackneyed painting than I can be upset over people paying for a Justin Bieber concert. I know the jazz musician down the street deserves that money more, but thats how the art economy functions.

Murrdox wrote:
It bugs me more how the COMMUNITY reacts to these airbrush jobs, paying top-dollar for commissions, thinking they are geniuses at blending, and really ignoring paint jobs from truly talented artists.

...except people don't do that. I've seen several threads where painters post their work and get hounded for too much airbrushing. They also occasionally get praised, but why shouldn't they? If someone likes the paint job then they are free to post compliments. Often those paint jobs even though they might lack the technical skill can subjectively look good because they were smart about choosing a striking colour scheme and on 28mm models sometimes that's all a person wants, something that looks neatly done and is striking.

And "truly talented artists" don't really get ignored. In fact I'd say Awaken Realms is a pretty good artist who gets disproportionately hounded because he/she chooses to use that style (and it's not a lack of skill because he/she has demonstrated an ability to wield a hairy brush as well).

I really don't care how other people paint or have their models painted, as it's absolutely none of my business. Their toys, their time, their money. Whether or not I like it is entirely incidental and irrelevant. If I'm playing against it, all that matters to me is that I know what is what.

 Iechine wrote:
^ eh, it sounds like you're devoting an incredible amount of energy to being concerned that other people arent 'oohing and aahing' over what you think they should.

People exalt impressive works. Go to coolminiornot and look at the top works there, its mostly traditional brushwork that is truly mindblowing.

I can no more be upset over someone liking what you consider hackneyed painting than I can be upset over people paying for a Justin Bieber concert. I know the jazz musician down the street deserves that money more, but thats how the art economy functions.

I really don't devote much time or energy into disliking airbrushing. In fact I feel like I wasted some time on making my post too long.

Maybe it's subjective on my part. But 10 years ago it feels like the painting and hobby community had more engagement. There were more threads on Dakka and Coolmini and other websites with meticulous step-by-steps on how to get certain kinds of results with certain kinds of techniques on certain kinds of models. Things like this were in heavy demand from talented artists. There were so many different ways to paint things. Now, when someone posts a cool picture of a cool model, and someone wants to learn how to do that, the conversation effectively ends when you get to "it's airbrushed".

Since airbrushing became popular it seems like a lot of that community engagement has gone by the wayside. A percentage of hobbyists effectively dropped out of the hobbyist community and bought airbrushes since they can get better results easier and with less time than it takes to learn how to paint with a brush. Then these people don't really care about learning advanced techniques. Take that Awakened Realms model I posted earlier. Can you get better results with an airbrush on that model in a couple of hours than you would have if you'd painted it all with a brush? Absolutely. If you're an inexperienced painter, will you get a better result with an airbrush than you will with a regular brush? Probably. But now you've got a bunch of hobbyists who aren't really that engaged with the hobby anymore.

It used to be the case I'd see awesome models constantly. I'd wonder "How'd they do that" and I'd research to try and find out. I'd practice those techniques myself, trying to become better as a painter. I'm still trying to be better as a painter with each project that I do. But more often than not nowadays I don't see as many great models that aren't airbrushed, and the mediocre airbrushed models seem to get just as much attention as the people with tons of talent who airbrush their models. Maybe it's just my skewed perception, but that's the trend I seem to be noticing.