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.

Still sounds like one (or more) of;

A) Fear of change
B) Bitterness about airbrushes because of not owning one
C) Difference of opinion on what is artistic

Ok, that's probably an overly harsh list of reasons.

However in a world full of demonic monsters with skullacne, space elves and giant stompy robots still using medieval style melee weapons... how can you complain about the realism of lighting effects on them?

I like the airbrush, even these "lazy" painted models look much better than also lazy by hand painted models!

None of the poll answers are very good. In fact, they're pretty much all terrible.

This isn't even an airbrush or no airbrush argument, but rather an opinion on styles. Personally, I don't like the 'American style' of non-metallic metals (NMM), even though some of the best miniature practice it. I think it looks fake and cartoonish despite the fact that it's an extremely time consuming technique that requires a large amount of skill to pull off; I much prefer the 'European style' of true-metal metallics.

I have painted plenty of models using only an airbrush, including this one:



And this one:



Save for some details on the pilot figure (which at 1/72 scale is pretty small), no paint was applied using a paintbrush.

Also, airbrushing isn't some "new fad" either. There have been people using the airbrushes in miniature paint for quite some time and even longer in general scale modeling.

Not voting because the poll options are bat-gak crazy and probably represent accuratley absolutely no ones views on the matter.

I love my airbrush, it's a great tool but it's just that, a tool, same as any other kind of brush. And like hand brushes you can use a variety of techniques to aply them for achieving a whole raft of effects and, just like with hand brushes, they take time and patience to learn them. I don't particularly like these heavily contrasted lighting and highlighting effects, but those models aren't for me so it really doesnt matter, and obviously there are plenty of people who are fans of those effects and people who have a problem with that need to get themselves sorted out.

I think it also needs to be pointed out that a lot of these "airbrush only" commission works are, in all likely hood, the cheapest level of detail option available. The whole point is to be able to knock out a decently painted army, regarldess of what you think of the style, quickly and cheaply so that the commissioner doesn't have to wait around for months on end to get to use his toys. If you're happy with what you paid for, nobody else has anything to complain about.

 Imateria wrote:
I think it also needs to be pointed out that a lot of these "airbrush only" commission works are, in all likely hood, the cheapest level of detail option available. The whole point is to be able to knock out a decently painted army, regarldess of what you think of the style, quickly and cheaply so that the commissioner doesn't have to wait around for months on end to get to use his toys. If you're happy with what you paid for, nobody else has anything to complain about.

Indeed.

Interestingly enough, I can recall seeing very similar complaints back when dipping started to become a big thing in the scifi/fantasy gaming community... and before that, it was people complaining about drybrushing.

Murrdox wrote:
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.

So what you're saying is there's an easier way to do things.... and that's a bad thing?

I think it is just your perception, I think the general state of modelling and painting has vastly improved from 10 years ago. The basic level of knowledge is better than it ever has been and the plethora of tutorials is better than it ever has been. I think the only downside is with the amount of people using airbrushes in tutorials, newbies might get the impression they have to buy in to it or they won't be able to get models that look as good (and frankly, even though they can, it's going to take them longer.... which is why airbrushes have become so popular in the first place, lol).

And just to be clear, while I don't particularly like the look of excessively airbrushed models, I think that Awaken Realms guy/gal is a pretty good artist, definitely in the top couple of percent of painters. Even if you don't like the style, he/she has very good colour selection and applies it in a way that is striking... THAT'S why people like it. Even though I have an airbrush my models are a long way off looking that good because I lack the artistic talent to pull it off (even though I'm not a huge fan of the style, I'd be more than happy if my armies looked that good ).

Murrdox wrote:
Everything Murrdox said

Totally agree.

Murrdox wrote:

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. ..... now you've got a bunch of hobbyists who aren't really that engaged with the hobby anymore.

Using a different tool is not "dropping out of the hobbyist community" and saying that those who use an airbrush "don't care about learning advanced techniques" is a bit assumptive of what countless strangers think. I would argue that buying an airbrush is the very definition of learning a new technique. My first two attempts at miniature painting failed as I was terrible at it. That was in the 80's when WH40K came out. As an adult with some time and disposable income, I tried again and again found that I was more patient but could only achieve table top quality. I was ready to pack it all away but I made the decision to buy an airbrush. This was a turning point as was fun to use and I liked the results. I can say with 100% certainty that my "engagement" in the hobby was renewed. Because I stayed with the hobby, my brush skills got better as well. I have branched out into weathering, rigging LED light circuits, resin casting, and complex conversions all because the airbrush allowed that first small victory where my models did not look like ass.

How bad is it really that an airbrush allows someone to work faster? In the real world, the goal is to "work smarter not harder" and the airbrush is a means to this end. Are not wet blending and glazing not just other more time-consuming ways to get a smooth color transition? When you see those tutorials on the brush techniques, it is always with a small model like an individual figure, never a vehicle. The point is that the airbrush is a tool that is good for specific applications but not others. With the amount of details on today's 40K stuff, there is no way anyone is going to use an airbrush exclusively to paint everything. It is a tool to use with other tools to get a job done. For every example of an airbrushed model that looks like it was just done super quickly to the bare minimum, there must be 100 that were done with a brush to the same degree of completeness. The "cartoon" look and outrageous OSL are also not always done with an airbrush but when they look bad, the airbrush is naturally the bad guy as it is the easiest tool to use for these "looks".

Using an airbrush is also not something that everyone is good at as soon as they start. There are countless posts about issues that new users have encountered with questions like how to thin paint, what pressure to run at, etc. It takes practice to get it right. Too many times have I seen the "cheating" comment and I would bet that the majority who say it , have never even tried an airbrush and in many cases are a long way off on being proficient with the regular brush. The users on this forum are generally fantastic as even when the submitted work is really bad, people always find good points and the harshest criticism is to "thin your paint a little more". However, there is open scorn about using an airbrush or a product like Quickshade. I don't think I have ever seen a post about using Agrax Earthshade or Nuln oil and calling it cheating despite their nickname as "liquid talent".

This issue is too complicated as it blurs the lines between tools, techniques and painting style.

What the feth is this thread ? An airbrush is a tool, just as a regular brush is.

Bad painting is bad painting, regardless of what tools are used. I might as well put up a picture of Little Jimmy's first painted mini and say "Hand Brushing is Bad !!11!!!"

Now here's some tank porn by Adam Wilder (warning ! an airbrush may have been used)

For me, the most jarring part about airbrushing is when OSL is poorly done. It can look really, really fake. I just don't like when the painter seems to think "I'll just hit a couple of random areas with bright green or blue and... done". I know I wouldn't want to pay for results like that.

HOWEVER, playing against such an army is better than playing against an unpainted or primer coated army.

Airbrushing is a great skill to have. I have one and sometime use it for basecoating or initial zenethal highlights. Airbrushing isn't really suited for fine detail work in the same way that a large drybrush isn't suited for fine detail work.

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


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.

yeh its more common than people are suggesting.... it looks awful to me but ive actually seen armys like this win best painted at large events lol. to each his own i guess

 Kriswall wrote:
For me, the most jarring part about airbrushing is when OSL is poorly done. It can look really, really fake. I just don't like when the painter seems to think "I'll just hit a couple of random areas with bright green or blue and... done". I know I wouldn't want to pay for results like that.

95% of the time I don't like OSL at all. Actually, 100% of the time on table top models, the only time I think it's appropriate is a diorama.

When you're viewing models under bright lighting and the models have been painted as if they're walking around in daylight, OSL just looks weird. Not to mention the fact people rarely realise how light actually works (eg. red light shining on a blue surface should not reflect any of the light, or very very little of it).

I have seen some dioramas done where it's worked well because the artist has made the whole scene appear as if it's darker than usual and the artist has complete control over ALL the light on the scene, not just a random blob of blue that is surrounding a plasma gun for some reason.

But that doesn't have to do with airbrushing, because you paint OSL without an airbrush and still get it wrong, it's just more time consuming

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
For me, the most jarring part about airbrushing is when OSL is poorly done. It can look really, really fake. I just don't like when the painter seems to think "I'll just hit a couple of random areas with bright green or blue and... done". I know I wouldn't want to pay for results like that.

95% of the time I don't like OSL at all. Actually, 100% of the time on table top models, the only time I think it's appropriate is a diorama.

When you're viewing models under bright lighting and the models have been painted as if they're walking around in daylight, OSL just looks weird. Not to mention the fact people rarely realise how light actually works (eg. red light shining on a blue surface should not reflect any of the light, or very very little of it).

I have seen some dioramas done where it's worked well because the artist has made the whole scene appear as if it's darker than usual and the artist has complete control over ALL the light on the scene, not just a random blob of blue that is surrounding a plasma gun for some reason.

But that doesn't have to do with airbrushing, because you paint OSL without an airbrush and still get it wrong, it's just more time consuming

99% agreed. OSL is misused MOST of the time, but does have it's place. Light OSL around glowing lights isn't terrible, but it needs to be understated. An inset LED isn't going to illuminate the surface it's embedded in. I painted the linked image using a pretty simple dry brush technique for the OSL. My intent was to go with a pretty understated effect showing the greenish slime stuff to be glowing up onto the underside of the Deff Dread. I think I pulled it off ok. Spraying the whole area with green paint via airbrush would have looked awful.

I have been using the old hairy brush for years and getting quite good at it, started out with enamel paint and got into oils.
Then found that fancy kind of paint called acrylic: made me angry how good that paint went down.
So painted acrylics for a bit and learned a few tricks with shading with inks and technical pens.
Then silly things like "Nuln oil" and stuff like that came out and shading detail that looked awesome and took little effort... cheating I tell you.
Then I got on the airbrush 3 years ago.... a few false starts... the freaking thing is awesome.
I HATE how smooth it puts down paint, HATE how a graveled base is covered in seconds, HATE how I can block paint in minutes not hours... I HATE that darned thing.
BUT, I have found now that there is a point that no matter how fine an airbrush you get and all the masking in the world will not substitute for a few details and washes done by brush.

I can appreciate anything getting painted, that is a given.
I do agree that at some point there is a "tabletop" standard for some airbrush work that should not be passed off as "pro-painted".
An easy sign of this is just look where no masking off was done or the zenithal lighting is all over the place.

For a prime example of needing more work than just a few shots of airbrush:
A great example of pure airbrush painting is this guy "Next Level Painting" I can learn a lot on airbrush techniques from this guy (they ARE awesome) but his style is just not my thing:
http://nextlevelpainting.blogspot.ca/
They get this cartoon look to them, like cell shaded caricatures:
http://www.spikeybits.com/2014/03/40k-how-to-airbrushing-the-knight-titan.html

Then there is these guys who show that a mixture of tools give you a good result:
http://taleofpainters.blogspot.de/2014/02/tutorial-how-to-paint-blood-angels.html

It is just another technique and like with any form of art it is not for everyone.
I am just happy (HATE!) that the airbrush is available, certain results it does so well in minutes what takes me hours with a brush.

 Ryan_A wrote:
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.

I agree, I am not crazy about the whole, lets completely airbrush the entire army. It may look good from afar but up close it looks awful. You definitely need the right balance of airbrush and hand brush.

There is one studio in particular (not going to name any names), that really over does it with an airbrush (seems like a 90/10 ratio). His prices on ebay for the time he must put into them are ridiculous. As in charges way to much, it seems like he takes pics of the models from afar so it looks great... but up close... no detail.

 Talizvar wrote:
I have been using the old hairy brush for years and getting quite good at it, started out with enamel paint and got into oils.
Then found that fancy kind of paint called acrylic: made me angry how good that paint went down.
So painted acrylics for a bit and learned a few tricks with shading with inks and technical pens.
Then silly things like "Nuln oil" and stuff like that came out and shading detail that looked awesome and took little effort... cheating I tell you.
Then I got on the airbrush 3 years ago.... a few false starts... the freaking thing is awesome.
I HATE how smooth it puts down paint, HATE how a graveled base is covered in seconds, HATE how I can block paint in minutes not hours... I HATE that darned thing.
BUT, I have found now that there is a point that no matter how fine an airbrush you get and all the masking in the world will not substitute for a few details and washes done by brush.

I can appreciate anything getting painted, that is a given.
I do agree that at some point there is a "tabletop" standard for some airbrush work that should not be passed off as "pro-painted".
An easy sign of this is just look where no masking off was done or the zenithal lighting is all over the place.

For a prime example of needing more work than just a few shots of airbrush:

Spoiler:

A great example of pure airbrush painting is this guy "Next Level Painting" I can learn a lot on airbrush techniques from this guy (they ARE awesome) but his style is just not my thing:
http://nextlevelpainting.blogspot.ca/

Spoiler:

They get this cartoon look to them, like cell shaded caricatures:
http://www.spikeybits.com/2014/03/40k-how-to-airbrushing-the-knight-titan.html

Spoiler:

Then there is these guys who show that a mixture of tools give you a good result:
http://taleofpainters.blogspot.de/2014/02/tutorial-how-to-paint-blood-angels.html

It is just another technique and like with any form of art it is not for everyone.
I am just happy (HATE!) that the airbrush is available, certain results it does so well in minutes what takes me hours with a brush.

that next level stuff looks awful.... it looks like a neon cartoon toy. airbrushes are "cheating" in certain aspects but frankly im personally sick of taking hours to basecoat models. i want an airbrush so so so badly but i can really only see using it for basecoats and maybe a few other things. every centerpiece ill ever paint will be most likely 100 percent brush

my biggest hate is the airbrushed nonsense on ebay that they sell for 300 bucks lol. go ebay pro painted bloodthirster and laugh at how gakky it is vs how much they charge.

eosgreen wrote:
airbrushes are "cheating" in certain aspects

No, they really aren't.

An Arbrush is an optional tool. That is it. I use both Airbrush and hand painting for my models. The only issue I have with Airbrushing is the bad OSL done with them. Too much overspray etc. Then again that can be done with hand painting as well it just so happens to happen more with Airbrushes.

airbrushes are "cheating" in certain aspects

Uh NO

I never really see airbrushed models in person, so I enjoy looking at them online. Of course, I'm probably mostly seeing the upper end of the skill spectrum.

 jasper76 wrote:
I never really see airbrushed models in person, so I enjoy looking at them online. Of course, I'm probably mostly seeing the upper end of the skill spectrum.

You're seeing people who can afford to competently photograph and upload/post images, which means a certain amount of finance and tech skill. So yes, another barrier between the average painter and your online viewing.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

eosgreen wrote:
airbrushes are "cheating" in certain aspects

No, they really aren't.

yes they are. theres a reason there used to be airbrush and paintbrush brackets for competitions. certain things an airbrush does, a brush cant compete with. for example blending large scale models. i suppose i could spend 1k hours to attempt to compete but um... yeh....

it drastically reduces the time it takes to paint and makes certain tasks easier. its harder to paint without leaving brush strokes and things of this nature than with an airbrush. certain effects are also made easier with an airbrush.

- it isnt cheating in the normal sense of the word but it feels dirty.

- do you play starcraft 2? airbrushes are like forcefielding ramps. it isnt "cheating" but everyone hates you and thinks you are a dick

eosgreen wrote:
...certain things an airbrush does, a brush cant compete with.

Indeed. Similarly, when you want to paint something blue, using blue paint does a better job of it than orange.

I'm not seeing the issue here.

eosgreen wrote:
- it isnt cheating in the normal sense of the word but it feels dirty.

You know what? You're right. From now on, I'm going to class people who use an airbrush in the same category as those stinking hobby-destroyers who do their basecoats with any brush bigger than a size 0.



It's not 'cheating' in any sense of the word to use a technique or tool that is faster or easier than some other technique or tool. It's just using a different technique or tool.

 insaniak wrote:

eosgreen wrote:
...certain things an airbrush does, a brush cant compete with.

Indeed. Similarly, when you want to paint something blue, using blue paint does a better job of it than orange.

I'm not seeing the issue here.

eosgreen wrote:
- it isnt cheating in the normal sense of the word but it feels dirty.

You know what? You're right. From now on, I'm going to class people who use an airbrush in the same category as those stinking hobby-destroyers who do their basecoats with any brush bigger than a size 0.



It's not 'cheating' in any sense of the word to use a technique or tool that is faster or easier than some other technique or tool. It's just using a different technique or tool.

thats not an equal comparison. it would be like you are using blue paint and im using the ingredients that make blue paint that i mix on the model

im not saying using tools that make a job easier is not smart, im simply saying that its a lot harder to use a brush to do most of the stuff an airbrush does with little effort. its more like using a metal bat vs a wooden one. the wooden bat is harder to use so why do pros use one? because if lesser players get half the connection a pro gets with a wood bat, he sends that gak outa the park every time and that wouldnt be fun. airbrush is great but it takes away so much of the skill required to do the same job as a brush.

would you call autotuning cheating? autotuning is like an airbrush and my natural brush talent is being dirtied next to the airbrushes easy shading.


youre not gonna like this last part but what would you know about the complaints of airbrush vs brush. i looked at your gallery, you havent experienced the problems high level brush paintjobs exp. so how would you know.... you have a black templar chaplain that is edge highlighted with a blue line. have you ever messed with grey paint at a seriously seamless level shading a tank? do you know how fickle grey is? what about red. do you know how many people struggle with shading red lol? airbrushes make those problems a joke....

when people ask me "dude did you airbrush that blade?" thats when you know all that hard work was worth it. the sad part is that it can be done effortlessly with an airbrush in 1/10th the time with 1/10th the skill. just go get really good with a brush and airbrush then come back to me

Yes, using an airbrush is cheating, just like using a can of spray paint or any model that's drybrushed is clearly an indication of cheating. Oh, decals too. Give me freehand or give me death!

Models should be judged by the ability of the hobbyist to paint them with one paintbrush and the cyan, magenta, yellow, white, and black paints!

/snark

I mean, c'mon. It's just a tool. It takes paint and sprays it out. An airbrush and compressor can be had for as little as $80 -- less than a full set of really nice sable brushes. They aren't exotic. It's like saying the guy with greenstuff and sculpting tools is cheating because they can do things that someone without can't. Airbrushes sound all exotic and complicated until you use one, and then it's like, "oh, well, that's simple."

I think fully or mostly airbrushed models can look good or look like poo, no different than models painted with anything else.

If it's a look you like, though, good on ya. But either way, it's silly is paying someone for an army of these models that has that "airbrushy look", because anyone can do that with very little practice, and it really doesn't take long to, uh.. "master" the sort of model that has big panels, some glowy spots, and a bunch of sponging..

 Talys wrote:
Yes, using an airbrush is cheating, just like using a can of spray paint or any model that's drybrushed is clearly an indication of cheating. Oh, decals too. Give me freehand or give me death!

Models should be judged by the ability of the hobbyist to paint them with one paintbrush and the cyan, magenta, yellow, white, and black paints!

/snark

I mean, c'mon. It's just a tool. It takes paint and sprays it out. An airbrush and compressor can be had for as little as $80 -- less than a full set of really nice sable brushes. They aren't exotic. It's like saying the guy with greenstuff and sculpting tools is cheating because they can do things that someone without can't. Airbrushes sound all exotic and complicated until you use one, and then it's like, "oh, well, that's simple."

I think fully or mostly airbrushed models can look good or look like poo, no different than models painted with anything else.

If it's a look you like, though, good on ya. But either way, it's silly is paying someone for an army of these models that has that "airbrushy look", because anyone can do that with very little practice, and it really doesn't take long to, uh.. "master" the sort of model that has big panels, some glowy spots, and a bunch of sponging..

the word cheating is the wrong word but people get so stuck up on it they keep missing the point. anyone who says airbrushing is cheating is refering to the level of skill needed to accomplish the same level of results. decals look gakky but its much harder to freehand my beil tan heart and eldar rune symbol than it is to slide transfer one.

thats all people are really saying. airbrushing is EASIER they just call it "cheating"....


edit - whats with the sensoring of curse words lol. im one google search away from the most horrible things a man can see but god forbid on that same machine someone say the curse word for poo

Anyone that thinks airbrushing is easier has obviously never used one. Cleaning and maintenance are a pig.

Anyone that thinks an airbrush is cheating should be mixing their own paint from pigment and using their own hair to make brushes, as demonstrated here the last time this utterly stupid bait thread happened;

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/394884.page

 Talys wrote:
Airbrushes sound all exotic and complicated until you use one, and then it's like, "oh, well, that's simple."

Press button, receive paint.

I'd put more effort into replying but at this point it's very clear that this topic is clearly someone fishing to receive validation and back-patting for their dislike of a particular technique. It's neither constructive nor asking for help, and doesn't offer a solution for anything.

Airbrushing is becoming more accessible, yes. If you compare the array of figures, paints and devices that we have now to the 80s, almost everything in your hobby box would be fething revolutionary. Etched brass, resin molded bases, laser cut items. Plastics that fit together flawlessly.

If it irks you that people are paying money for things they enjoy and you don't... Well that's energy you could really be expendiing positively.

I hate when people have more money than me and like things that i don't like, they're the worst.

kb_lock wrote:
Anyone that thinks airbrushing is easier has obviously never used one. Cleaning and maintenance are a pig.

Anyone that thinks an airbrush is cheating should be mixing their own paint from pigment and using their own hair to make brushes, as demonstrated here the last time this utterly stupid bait thread happened;

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/394884.page

it is a bait because cheating is the wrong word. the proper phrase is "less skilled"

A drill requires less skill than a hammer. Ban drills!