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.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
I'm not arguing (have no reason to wish to do so), but where do you encounter these differences on display that it's clearly based on geography? I'd be genuinely curious as I'd not realised, thinking the Internet the great equaliser.
That sounds sarcastic as feth, but I assure you it isn't.

Just follow some of the high profile miniature painters out there and you'll see it. Again, this isn't some hard and fast rule that all painters from certain areas have to paint this one way, but there is a definite trend when it comes to certain styles.

It's possibly because I live in Europe, but I think of high profile NMM and I immediately think of Kabuki, Rackham, Golem Studios, etc. and they're quite close to home. I don't disagree with you because I don't have reason to, but I wonder if like I say, it's down to geography and what we are exposed to?

I can't say I've noticed the American NMM and Europe TMM trend either, but then I'm Australian I was sure a lot of the NMM I'd seen had come from Europe, especially eastern Europe, but maybe I was mistaken.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
I would posit that one does not need to be a chef to understand that raw sewage is unsafe to eat.

the better you are as a painter the more troubles you come to understand is all i am saying

i once was having a conversation with someone about struggling with red and grey glazes. i said "im having issues with the pigment etc blah blah" to which some guy comes up to us and in true socially inept nerd fashion interjects his insightful "really red is so easy how are you having issues"

i then ask the person to show me his models he painted red which he is VERY proud of of which he simply painted GW style of base, wash, rebase leaving lines at armor cracks/plates edge highlight, lighter edge highlight. this is by most peoples standards a very well painted model but im talking about a blend so perfect your eye cant even see the transition of colors that takes hours to do. he doesnt know any better, he CAN'T know any better.

so to your example, it would be like a person describing how horrible war is having fought in one vs someone who has not. sure you understand a GENERAL idea but you don't know anything CLOSE to the guy whos been there and done that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

eosgreen wrote:
- most people are TERRIBLE painters. i mean AWFUL. that being said a really poorly airbrushed model like that bloodthirster has inherent shading that airbrushes provide and look good from a distance will REALLY appeal to most people and take VERY little time to accomplish. it completely DESTROYS anything most people can even do and what ive learned is that most people who cannot paint well, also cannot really take notice to most of the detail a high standard paint job entails. its just a thing ive noticed.

I'm not sure if this is support for airbrushes or condemnation of them.

If you can paint a model quickly that appeals to people.... err... that's the whole idea of a business?

You don't get brownie points for doing things the hard way

Also I think you exaggerate what "very" little time things take to accomplish. Faster? Yes. Though still long enough that you are going to end up charging 2-4 times the cost of the model to earn minimum wage.

If the pictures in your gallery are yours then you are obviously a decent painter, but have you actually used an airbrush? If so did you watch the clock? It can feel fast because the paint gets laid down quickly, but once you include the extra effort involved in setting it up, mixing your paints to the right consistency, adding masks to the model, spending a few minutes cleaning it out between colour changes plus the time at the end. It's quicker for large models, no doubt, but it's not some magical "instant complete" button, for small models that are going to require a lot of masking I'd hazard a guess and say it's not much quicker than brush painting for high standard stuff.

im condemning them for competitions when competing with people using brushes and supporting them for commission work against people who are crying "its not actually well painted it looks terrible"

i agree mixing and cleaning is terrible but, thats why you do large monsters or large assembly line style. the markups on these new large as hell models are very rewarding imo. if i wanted to make money selling models I would most likely do wraithknights and the sort, doing 6 at a time. i imagine this would cut down on the "slow" parts about airbrushing significantly

eosgreen wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
I would posit that one does not need to be a chef to understand that raw sewage is unsafe to eat.

the better you are as a painter the more troubles you come to understand is all i am saying

i once was having a conversation with someone about struggling with red and grey glazes. i said "im having issues with the pigment etc blah blah" to which some guy comes up to us and in true socially inept nerd fashion interjects his insightful "really red is so easy how are you having issues"

i then ask the person to show me his models he painted red which he is VERY proud of of which he simply painted GW style of base, wash, rebase leaving lines at armor cracks/plates edge highlight, lighter edge highlight. this is by most peoples standards a very well painted model but im talking about a blend so perfect your eye cant even see the transition of colors that takes hours to do. he doesnt know any better, he CAN'T know any better.

I would say that it is exposure, not talent, that is linked to understanding.
Hear me out here... I paint to an adequate, albeit weird standard. But I live near to WHW's museum, I've been to Golem Studios technique days, I live with an ex citadel catalog painter. It doesn't make me any better at painting, but I know exactly where on the grander scale I stand, and how results are achieved through hours of work, and in many cases, repeats and failures. Outside of miniatures I've done degrees in fine art, and understand methods that I'm likewise incapable of performing. But I can appreciate what went into the pieces I study.
Dave at your FLGS may only know what he's seen in White Dwarf, and the various miniatures in front of him at the store. He doesn't know why it's red, he just know it is indeed, red.
Seeing the bigger picture (or even realising it exists) is not a gift everyone has, but likewise an individual's talent may not be indicative of their own understanding.

Dialling it back from a war comparison, if you are looking online to buy something for your life, say a USB device, you look at reviews. You seek out experiences from those who have similar taste to your own. You don't think, "Well this guy couldn't build the keyboard, I'm only going to take opinions from engineers and factory workers."

eosgreen wrote:
im condemning them for competitions when competing with people using brushes and supporting them for commission work against people who are crying "its not actually well painted it looks terrible"

I cam see where you're coming from, but I think in the end it just comes down to having good judging in a competition rather than separating them.

I mean, it is just a tool, the painter can choose to use it or choose not to use it based on what they want to achieve. The only benefit I see in having separate categories would be so people who can't afford them can compete separately, but even there that only really applies to large models, on a 28mm infantry model I don't think there's much to be gained by airbrushing.

When it comes to larger figures I've seen some pretty impressive work with oils that I rank highly and were achieved in just a few minutes (though you then have to wait a day or two for it to cure before moving on to the next part, and like anything painted to a high standard there's usually lots of tweaking that goes on to make it just right).

I enjoy how passionate the discussion is getting, shows many like their painting or appreciate seeing it.

I think there are two ways to appreciate art:

1) How well the artist got that image out of their head and into the world.
2) How technically proficient the artwork was performed.

I like seeing pointillism as art and marvel at the work, not so much seeing a dot matrix printout.
If I have to use dirt, crayons and a ballista to get what I have in my head into the world... so be it.

I have professed my HATE for the airbrush because all those hours getting good with blending with hairy brush I now drop and reach for the airbrush... it is just so pretty and a time saver.
The airbrush seems like a cheat because it is such a shortcut for painting even the worst of surfaces.

What we are most complaining about in this "airbrush craze" is that the method is better known: the general public now knows how little work and time went into these "pro-painted" airbrush works and are expecting them to up their game with all that time saved.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
I'm not arguing (have no reason to wish to do so), but where do you encounter these differences on display that it's clearly based on geography? I'd be genuinely curious as I'd not realised, thinking the Internet the great equaliser.
That sounds sarcastic as feth, but I assure you it isn't.

Just follow some of the high profile miniature painters out there and you'll see it. Again, this isn't some hard and fast rule that all painters from certain areas have to paint this one way, but there is a definite trend when it comes to certain styles.

It's possibly because I live in Europe, but I think of high profile NMM and I immediately think of Kabuki, Rackham, Golem Studios, etc. and they're quite close to home. I don't disagree with you because I don't have reason to, but I wonder if like I say, it's down to geography and what we are exposed to?

Like I've said, of course there are painters and studios that are really talented and focused on certain styles, regardless of where they are located. What you have to look at is the competitive circuit; in the States it's typically more focused on technical skill (super smooth blends, freehand, clean lines, etc.) whereas the European, especially Central and Eastern, it's typically more focused on overall presentation (story, setting, mood, etc.).

The 'European style' is exemplified by artists like Roman Lappat (who uses an airbrush pretty often so I guess that makes him a 'cheater' according to some people), Alfonso Giraldes, Sergey Popovichenko, and Kirill Kanaev. 'American style' is exemplified by artists like Alison Bailey, Jen Haley, and Marike Reimer.

Obviously, lots of other people around the world paint in a similar style as they do and there are lots of painters that blend the two styles together.

mockingbirduk wrote:
Can everyone hold on replying to this thread for 20 minutes while I go buy some popcorn please?

To stay vaguely on-topic: I don't necessarily disagree with many of the points made in the original and follow-up posts, but I very strongly agree with Buttery that "but your eloquent approach is sullying it significantly."

There's a couple of the people replying to you that seem to have wilfully mis-understood or isolated parts of your posts as well. There's still a smidgeon of potential in this thread, but I'm not holding my breath.

Winterdyne - that mini you posted as a '90% airbrush' example - I really like it, but there are tons of details I have trouble seeing being done with an airbrush - are we taking 90% of the painted surface, or 90% of the time spent? Not getting at you - I've just never taken on a project of that type and size so have no clue about it!

More like 90% of the visual impact. To achieve a similar job with a hairy stick would have taken significantly longer and been considerably more taxing to the point that that particular style is only really achievable with an airbrush. Yes, it's doable by hand, but the chance of a screwup in a blush is ridiculously high. I'd have had to quote two or three times what I did to do it confidently. By hand that blue would have easily been 90% of the job. Five mixes, smooth blushes on that many surfaces.... Uh, no. Airbrush time.

In terms of actual time, I'd say that one was close to the normal 30-30-30-10 of build, base coat, detail and finish. Airbrush extensively on the blue, zenithal work on the base as well as priming and varnishing. There's a lot of freehand style chipping on there. If I wanted to use airbrush techniques either hairspray or salt work could have gone on, but that would be a more realistic, gritty look than I wanted and would have put the airbrush time clearly into th majority on the piece (more like 30-50-10-10).

Honestly, I think the difficulty of a particular tool does matter in one way: if something is easy then it's a lot more tempting to over-use it. If glow effects require lots of tedious layering with a brush and a lot of skill to be able to blend the colors properly then you're probably going to be very restrained in how you use them. You're only going to invest that kind of effort if you think that a model absolutely needs it. But if it's something you can do in a few seconds with an airbrush then you're a lot more likely to give in to the impulse to spray some "OSL" all over the model. And so you get garbage like the examples posted earlier, where a decent looking base coat is absolutely ruined by horrible glow effects. Take away the airbrush and it's a much better model.

 Peregrine wrote:
Honestly, I think the difficulty of a particular tool does matter in one way: if something is easy then it's a lot more tempting to over-use it. If glow effects require lots of tedious layering with a brush and a lot of skill to be able to blend the colors properly then you're probably going to be very restrained in how you use them. You're only going to invest that kind of effort if you think that a model absolutely needs it. But if it's something you can do in a few seconds with an airbrush then you're a lot more likely to give in to the impulse to spray some "OSL" all over the model. And so you get garbage like the examples posted earlier, where a decent looking base coat is absolutely ruined by horrible glow effects. Take away the airbrush and it's a much better model.

People actually have to like the look of OSL and the glowingness for them to bother doing it. It's not like you buy an airbrush and think "oh, I have an airbrush, I better do OSL" You might do that once, just to see what it looks like.... but then to actually go ahead and paint an army like that, you have to like the look.

I mean, I prefer realistic looking models to cartoonish looking models.... but I'd rather have a cartoonish looking army that I painted in a month vs a realistic army that would take me 5 years and I give up after a month anyway And the cartoonish model doesn't necessarily look objectively bad anyway.

I actually think an airbrush is an inappropriate tool for most OSL effects. You get the bloom, but you don't get sufficient control over direction.

winterdyne wrote:
I actually think an airbrush is an inappropriate tool for most OSL effects. You get the bloom, but you don't get sufficient control over direction.

I'm not an expert like you, but I always figured if you wanted to get good OSL effects with an airbrush you'd have to do masking to get a separation on panels of slightly varying orientation and then come back with a hairy brush to pick out edges.

That said, as I'm mentioned previously in this thread, I'm not really a fan of OSL to begin with. There's precious few times I've seen OSL I liked and it was always on dioramas rather than table top models.

I don't own a Air brush However I would like to own one mainly for large models and base coating and maybe to use for power armor.I mean most large tanks and things are painted in real life with paint guns so it does help make things look more realistic if done right, But I also love to do brush work. A airbrush is like a hammer you can get a lot done but you are going to need a knife or screwdriver sometimes. Could you imagine trying to paint eyes with an air brush? It works best if you just stay away from the overpowering OSL. I may be a wargamer but I have been outside in the daylight. When out in such daylight I have never seen a red or blue light so powerful it radiates out from its source covering anything withing 10 feet with that hue or color of light. Militarily it also makes no sense a mean neither does bright red armor but why would you ever bolt a bright blue light to your battle suit? Or run your land raiders head lights in the day. I think if you want to do things like lighting it turns out much better just to take the time and install leds into your model and let the laws of physics do the work of OSL for you.

I have seen some great work done with airbrushes but it has always been detailed with a brush and it looks great.


I personally don't care about speed and can and have spent a good 30 mins to a hour painting one guardsmen. I also like to paint then assemble all my models and paint areas that will most likely be covered for the most part but when someone picks up any one of my models I want each to have such detail that nothing loses it appeal at 3 inches away or less."planing to get a super fine brush and a some head gear with a magnifying glass to paint with....I will probably use it on every model, Guardsmen included. (it was at this point I realized I had a perfection issue) . I will have these models forever and spend a good chunk of money on them.

I always hated to see paint jobs rush for tournaments or general play and when it is done poorly not do to a lack of skill but simply a lack of willingness to even pick up a brush. it pains me. Why spend 30-40 dollars on 10 space marines just to slap paint on them and throw them on the table when you could have took the time and done much better. I mostly saw this with flavor of the month armies.
"something new came out that is overpowered better slap it together and throw some paint on it so i can pwn everyone before they realize how to break the new list. "

I would much rather face a half painted army that is getting a great paint job then a army that is so poorly painted just to get the paint on it and on the table.

Now don't take this as me being some sort of painting elitist. I don't put people down who try to really paint their things even if it looks bad at least they tried I might even make suggestions on details or how to do some things or at least point them to a place that can help them improve their skill. I am also not to good myself and my first models look like i dipped them in paint. (which for being 12 when i first started I think I may have done just that,)

eosgreen wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
I would posit that one does not need to be a chef to understand that raw sewage is unsafe to eat.

i then ask the person to show me his models he painted red which he is VERY proud of of which he simply painted GW style of base, wash, rebase leaving lines at armor cracks/plates edge highlight, lighter edge highlight. this is by most peoples standards a very well painted model but im talking about a blend so perfect your eye cant even see the transition of colors that takes hours to do. he doesnt know any better, he CAN'T know any better.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

eosgreen wrote:
- most people are TERRIBLE painters. i mean AWFUL. that being said a really poorly airbrushed model like that bloodthirster has inherent shading that airbrushes provide and look good from a distance will REALLY appeal to most people and take VERY little time to accomplish. it completely DESTROYS anything most people can even do and what ive learned is that most people who cannot paint well, also cannot really take notice to most of the detail a high standard paint job entails. its just a thing ive noticed.

I'm not sure if this is support for airbrushes or condemnation of them.

If you can paint a model quickly that appeals to people.... err... that's the whole idea of a business?

You don't get brownie points for doing things the hard way

Also I think you exaggerate what "very" little time things take to accomplish. Faster? Yes. Though still long enough that you are going to end up charging 2-4 times the cost of the model to earn minimum wage.

If the pictures in your gallery are yours then you are obviously a decent painter, but have you actually used an airbrush? If so did you watch the clock? It can feel fast because the paint gets laid down quickly, but once you include the extra effort involved in setting it up, mixing your paints to the right consistency, adding masks to the model, spending a few minutes cleaning it out between colour changes plus the time at the end. It's quicker for large models, no doubt, but it's not some magical "instant complete" button, for small models that are going to require a lot of masking I'd hazard a guess and say it's not much quicker than brush painting for high standard stuff.

im condemning them for competitions when competing with people using brushes and supporting them for commission work against people who are crying "its not actually well painted it looks terrible"

i agree mixing and cleaning is terrible but, thats why you do large monsters or large assembly line style. the markups on these new large as hell models are very rewarding imo. if i wanted to make money selling models I would most likely do wraithknights and the sort, doing 6 at a time. i imagine this would cut down on the "slow" parts about airbrushing significantly

Well the guy might (even though it sounds like ignorance in that case) just prefer the 'eavy metal style of painting over other styles of painting? You do realise that super smooth blends is a matter of stylistic choice and not something that is inherently superior?

On the airbrush vs brush discussion:
I have a friend who is an amazing painter (on canvas as well as on miniatures). He paints with an mute, "earthy" palette, often using the old foundation paints. He has a way to use the direction of the brush strikes to create amazing looking miniatures. Since I can't create the same effect with an airbrush, he must be cheating.

I've been painting a long time, but admittedly I know f**k all about the particulars of airbrushing. I was always under the impression that airbrushes are used to apply basecoats and blending effects to large areas of a model -which certainly looks superior on tanks and other large figures. However I wasn't aware you could "completely paint" a squad model using one, ie. down to the fine details, eyes and highlights. How easy or practical is this to do vs using a fine detail brush? Until I read some of the posts here, I assumed you couldn't achieve much accuracy with a template weapon like an airbrush.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
I've been painting a long time, but admittedly I know f**k all about the particulars of airbrushing. I was always under the impression that airbrushes are used to apply basecoats and blending effects to large areas of a model -which certainly looks superior on tanks and other large figures. However I wasn't aware you could "completely paint" a squad model using one, ie. down to the fine details, eyes and highlights. How easy or practical is this to do vs using a fine detail brush? Until I read some of the posts here, I assumed you couldn't achieve much accuracy with a template weapon like an airbrush.

You can't, practically. The amount of masking required is so time consuming that a hairy stick is faster.

There has been a lot of idiocy in this thread.

I've learned that airbrushes continue to be an invaluable and productive tool, and that threads attempting to blackball their use are full of self aggrandizing idiocy.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
I've been painting a long time, but admittedly I know f**k all about the particulars of airbrushing. I was always under the impression that airbrushes are used to apply basecoats and blending effects to large areas of a model -which certainly looks superior on tanks and other large figures. However I wasn't aware you could "completely paint" a squad model using one, ie. down to the fine details, eyes and highlights. How easy or practical is this to do vs using a fine detail brush? Until I read some of the posts here, I assumed you couldn't achieve much accuracy with a template weapon like an airbrush.

Closest detail the average user is going to get is shading eye sockets and highlighting small lenses. At some point, for an infantry model, you'd have to pick up sticks.

You can undoubtedly get away with it on vehicles and monsters, and many do it well ( in those cases, not "getting away", but excelling). But for human faces, eyes, gems, things we seek specific detail in, it's usually necessary to break out a brush.

winterdyne wrote:

 thegreatchimp wrote:
I've been painting a long time, but admittedly I know f**k all about the particulars of airbrushing. I was always under the impression that airbrushes are used to apply basecoats and blending effects to large areas of a model -which certainly looks superior on tanks and other large figures. However I wasn't aware you could "completely paint" a squad model using one, ie. down to the fine details, eyes and highlights. How easy or practical is this to do vs using a fine detail brush? Until I read some of the posts here, I assumed you couldn't achieve much accuracy with a template weapon like an airbrush.

You can't, practically. The amount of masking required is so time consuming that a hairy stick is faster.

There has been a lot of idiocy in this thread.

Even just painting my WW2 aircraft the amount of masking involved can be longer than if you'd just painted the thing with a hairy brush. Even on a small plane I'll spend a couple of hours masking stuff. Actually I'm positive that if I hairy stick painted my aircraft instead of airbrushing them I could do it faster, you can really chew through the time depending on what techniques you are using.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 thegreatchimp wrote:
I've been painting a long time, but admittedly I know f**k all about the particulars of airbrushing. I was always under the impression that airbrushes are used to apply basecoats and blending effects to large areas of a model -which certainly looks superior on tanks and other large figures. However I wasn't aware you could "completely paint" a squad model using one, ie. down to the fine details, eyes and highlights. How easy or practical is this to do vs using a fine detail brush? Until I read some of the posts here, I assumed you couldn't achieve much accuracy with a template weapon like an airbrush.

Closest detail the average user is going to get is shading eye sockets and highlighting small lenses. At some point, for an infantry model, you'd have to pick up sticks.

You can undoubtedly get away with it on vehicles and monsters, and many do it well ( in those cases, not "getting away", but excelling). But for human faces, eyes, gems, things we seek specific detail in, it's usually necessary to break out a brush.

The smallest details I can realistically paint with an airbrush are 1-2mm wide lines, 2mm if I need the detail to be consistent, 1mm if I don't mind being off by a little bit. There's always going to be a little bit of overspray (there is always a bit when airbrushing, which is why you need to make sure your masks are a good couple of inches wide when masking panels). And to do so is VERY time consuming. I was determined to get a realistic looking soft edged camo scheme on some 15mm Panzer IV tanks. This took me longer to do than if I'd just painted it by hand, and it took a lot of fething about with different paints to figure out what worked best (I settled on Testors enamels, I couldn't get lines that looked as nice with acrylics). These lines are 1 to 1.5mm thick.





My first attempt was this guy, the lines on this are more like 2-4mm thick (painted with I think Vallejo Model Air).

Thanks for the replies, gives me a better idea. Think I'll just stick to my brush. Nice and all as some of that blending is, it seems like it involves a fair bit of extra hassle.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

eosgreen wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
I would posit that one does not need to be a chef to understand that raw sewage is unsafe to eat.

the better you are as a painter the more troubles you come to understand is all i am saying

i once was having a conversation with someone about struggling with red and grey glazes. i said "im having issues with the pigment etc blah blah" to which some guy comes up to us and in true socially inept nerd fashion interjects his insightful "really red is so easy how are you having issues"

i then ask the person to show me his models he painted red which he is VERY proud of of which he simply painted GW style of base, wash, rebase leaving lines at armor cracks/plates edge highlight, lighter edge highlight. this is by most peoples standards a very well painted model but im talking about a blend so perfect your eye cant even see the transition of colors that takes hours to do. he doesnt know any better, he CAN'T know any better.

I would say that it is exposure, not talent, that is linked to understanding.
Hear me out here... I paint to an adequate, albeit weird standard. But I live near to WHW's museum, I've been to Golem Studios technique days, I live with an ex citadel catalog painter. It doesn't make me any better at painting, but I know exactly where on the grander scale I stand, and how results are achieved through hours of work, and in many cases, repeats and failures. Outside of miniatures I've done degrees in fine art, and understand methods that I'm likewise incapable of performing. But I can appreciate what went into the pieces I study.
Dave at your FLGS may only know what he's seen in White Dwarf, and the various miniatures in front of him at the store. He doesn't know why it's red, he just know it is indeed, red.
Seeing the bigger picture (or even realising it exists) is not a gift everyone has, but likewise an individual's talent may not be indicative of their own understanding.

Dialling it back from a war comparison, if you are looking online to buy something for your life, say a USB device, you look at reviews. You seek out experiences from those who have similar taste to your own. You don't think, "Well this guy couldn't build the keyboard, I'm only going to take opinions from engineers and factory workers."

i can get down with this though i suppose you have met the exception to this rule, i have. also damn im jealous of your proximity to that studio. i read about them a while ago and I would KILLLLLLLL for someone who was even SLIGHTLY better than me to bounce off of. im in an area devoid of talent and it took me till the internet became "better" to get good.... i just constantly googled and read whatever i could but as a guy who learns while doing/seeng in person it was hard as hell to get better.... so jelly atm let me crash at your place for a year ye? :p

I don't think I'm the exception, I'm just giving examples of lifestyles - I'd say that nearly everyone who goes online to read articles or watch tutorials is already stepping and pushing. Travelling and having opportunity is only half - curiosity and willingness to ask is the other.
Many people out there will be content to live the Citadel/GW Hobby(tm) life forever. Many will not understand that they can indeed peer over the fence into other realms.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
Thanks for the replies, gives me a better idea. Think I'll just stick to my brush. Nice and all as some of that blending is, it seems like it involves a fair bit of extra hassle.

Airbrushing can be great, but it's not a magic bullet. It can potentially speed you up, but only if you design your schemes around it. On armies with lots of detail it's not going to speed you up at all though. And it's really good for doing large stuff. A hairy brush can be better for smooth transitions over a small area, but an airbrush is miles better for smooth transitions over a large area.

A lot of the things I mentioned above would be alleviated if I wasn't painting historic models, as that forces you in to certain techniques to recreate things that actually existed in real life, but if you are doing sci-fi fantasy you can change the style to suit the technique you want rather than having to use specific techniques to create a realistic style.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Many people out there will be content to live the Citadel/GW Hobby(tm) life forever. Many will not understand that they can indeed peer over the fence into other realms.

In the realm of wargaming, I'd say somewhere between 95 and 99% of people are just happy to get an army on the table.

If you care about figure painting as an artform, you'd be doing yourself a disservice only looking at wargames, figure painters and scale model painters have been creating awesome works of art for decades and the community is tailored to perfecting the art of it rather than just getting 100 models painted so they can get a game in before the next rules change

If you aren't scratch building the ENTIRE model, you're cheating....

http://paulbudzik.com/models/pby.pdf

http://paulbudzik.com/models/tempest-construction/tempest-construction.html



I'm sure many people don't appreciate Paul's models, but they absolutely blow me away because of how mind blowingly realistic they are and how much of it is scratch built.

when painting things like historic models an airbrush mimics them best imo. painting camo is dog without an airbrush to me. stippling looks, imo, garbage.

OP get an airbrush if you can afford/have the setup. its well worth ti

also you are the exception. ive taught tons of people simple things that years later they cannot do see or understand. latent talent in both doing and seeing is a thing, not everyone has potential.

I'll toss my hat in this ring.
I personally prefer hairy brushes to airbrushes. Since I have only used an airbrush once (didn't end well) my experience is minimal. I will say that used as a tool for large surfaces/zenithal highlighting/basecoating it is a godsend. For everything else though, I'm going with a hairy brush

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
If you aren't scratch building the ENTIRE model, you're cheating....

http://paulbudzik.com/models/pby.pdf

http://paulbudzik.com/models/tempest-construction/tempest-construction.html



I'm sure many people don't appreciate Paul's models, but they absolutely blow me away because of how mind blowingly realistic they are and how much of it is scratch built.

...

There are no words sufficient for this.

As someone who voted for "don't like them" I'd like to say that whenever I see miniatures that are airbrushed for an effect that would have looked better done with a brush I feel like it's going to encourage someone else to go and buy an airbrush thinking that it can replace talent.

That makes no sense. If that effect would look worse than it would done with a brush, how on earth is that going to encourage people to do it that way...?

 Quarterdime wrote:
As someone who voted for "don't like them" I'd like to say that whenever I see miniatures that are airbrushed for an effect that would have looked better done with a brush I feel like it's going to encourage someone else to go and buy an airbrush thinking that it can replace talent.

That's nonsense. I can blend with a brush perfectly well. Right now I'm painting an entire space marine company, and I get about 2 hours a week to paint. The only way I'll get that done to the standard I want is to use my airbrush. A lot of people on this thread seem to forget that not everyone in the hobby has that much free time for it, and so a tool to speed up tasks like blending is a godsend.

Also, where have you got this idea that talent is absent from airbrushing? Scroll back and take a look at winterdyne's leviathan dreadnought. If people think that they will automatically produce work like that merely by using an airbrush, they are in for an expensive reality check.

Anyone thinking "Airbrushing is easy mode" has clearly never done it.

This is prep for one model, multi part construction for easier blends and minimal masking takes so much time, it would be faster with a brush in a lot of ways.

Like anything, it is how you do it and what you want to achieve, which is why this would be better off in the religion and politics section instead of the serious business that is painting and modeling

 JamesY wrote:

Also, where have you got this idea that talent is absent from airbrushing? Scroll back and take a look at winterdyne's leviathan dreadnought. If people think that they will automatically produce work like that merely by using an airbrush, they are in for an expensive reality check.

Actually the airbrush work there is about as simple technically as you can get; one of those times where just taking your time with the tool, doing very simple work gives you an effect that is prohibitively difficult to achieve with other means. That's why I used it as an example of an airbrush method. I wouldn't say I was an expert airbrush user; I'm certainly still learning tricks and good situations to use the tool.

Angel Giraldez' work (infinity studio painter) is pretty inspirational for more complex work.

But I think this sums it up; this is a real world hobby we engage in. There is no 'cheating' any more than you can cheat at breathing. You end up with something painted to a standard and style you like, or you don't. I find the talk of such and such a method being a cheat or shortcut dismaying.