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.

There are anti-airbrushers,
There are anti-chewed-stick daubers,
There are anti-dippers,
There are anti-drybrushers,
There are anti-weatherers,
There are anti-NMM effects, Object-source-lighting (OSL) and lots of other techniques, too.

An airbrush is a tool in an artist toolbox. Like a palette knife for oils, or a certain brush for watercolours, or a stippling brush for stencilling. No more, no less. Different applications require different tools, and sometimes the right tool for the job isn't the one you are using.

It is a tool, just like those who think using it is "cheating" are tools.

I see this question, or ones similar to it, posted pretty frequently. Someone does something new or less common, and describes a visceral and negative reaction from local gamers. And the reaction here is nearly always "it's your hobby, and the haters can stick it."

That's true here. I've seen plenty of airbrushed stuff, although I've never seen anyone criticize a paint job like the op. But yeah, airbrush if that's your thing. It's your hobby.

That said, I don't care for a lot of airbrushed armies for the reasons discussed. I don't generally like the look, as I focus more on details then blending. However, when used properly, the reality is that airbrushed models have a higher ceiling

 Polonius wrote:
"it's your hobby, and the haters can stick it."

Absolutely. If you're not painting my miniatures for me, you don't tell me how I should paint them.

BTW, Anyone want to scrape the molds line off and paint 8K of miniatures to advanced tabletop? You can use an airbrush...

Some people don't like that highly airbrushed style, but for better or worse it's now a thing in itself. I'd compare it to anime. There's some people who just can't stand it but it's now a thing. If i have to judge anything, i have the realm of my own personal taste (what i personally prefer) and a more general appreciation of what's done well and what is not.

As for airbrushing having it's place, well just look at the world class historical modelling out there. Airbrushing is an essential tool for that. There are great artists that have made their name mostly working with airbrush... for example H.R. Giger. For competition work, a lot of it is based on skill with the brush for making very tight and perfect blends but there's absolutely no reason why techniques like airbrushing, or drybrushing don't have a place there too if done with enough care and not just as a time-saving technique.

It's mostly the hate extreme OSL. I've seen dozens of riptides with neon bright blue glows and a sub par paint job

I've only airbrushed Terrain and top down basecoats

Peregrine wrote:IMO the problem is not the airbrush, it's the "LOOK AT ME I HAVE AN AIRBRUSH" style that is popular with certain minimal-talent commission painters. They want to make models that their customers aren't able to do on their own, but they don't want to spend any time on it. So what's the easiest solution?

Nailed it. When airbrushing started breaking into wargaming circles it was done by commission painters looking to cut as many corners as possible.

They know better, I know better, anyone with a basic understanding of painting can know better. A model with dramatic airbrushed highlights (usually done with no concern for realistic light and shadow, because good shading takes work) but zero attention given to detail work is unfinished trash.

And thus the negative association with airbrushing is born. The style of "obviously airbrushed but with no attention to detail" becomes identified with the use of the airbrush itself because the whole point is for the style to look as airbrushed as possible.

One local commission painter got on the bandwagon and caused a similar explosion of negativity around here. If there was detail under an arm or other overhang where the shade colour sprayed was dominant, he just couldn't be bothered to go back in with a brush and actually paint it. So you had belts and armour plates and all sorts of stuff that were just an airbrush gradient as if the detail wasn't there at all. So when people took these armies to tournaments they rightfully got 0 points for having parts of the model unpainted. Just like as if they had a face the same colour as the armour.

Now painting judges know that if you see an obvious airbrush gradient, there's probably unfinished parts hiding in the shadows. So it is associated with bad painting.

But that's true of any sloppy work. Just because you see gradient abuse with Photoshop, for example, doesn't invalidate it as a tool. Just because people abusing dry brushing doesn't invalidate brushes.

Airbrushing is known for some tell tale signs of amateur work. You see the same thing with standard brushes- tell tale signs of poor brushwork, unthinned paints, etc. But when done well, each of these can produce outstanding results, and some tools offer great advantages in speed or ease of use.

An bad gradient is a sign of poor control, and worth a ding itself; no need for speculation, whether airbrush or no.

I am anti-having-to-clean-my-airbrush.

jmurph wrote:But that's true of any sloppy work. Just because you see gradient abuse with Photoshop, for example, doesn't invalidate it as a tool. Just because people abusing dry brushing doesn't invalidate brushes.

The difference being that the signature appearance of hastily applied airbrush gradients are easily identified as such and have been associated with the tool itself.



This is why people hate airbrushing. Lazy gradients across details the painter couldn't be bothered to paint.

If you are going to use an airbrush, don't do that. And accept that others have poisoned the well for you and you are going to get resistance from your fellow gamers who have been disappointed with crap like that from every guy who buys an airbrush and thinks that suddenly makes them a commission painting genius. It was made even worse by commission painting companies that didn't paint their own stuff but instead took the commissions and then farmed them out to others. Now you have people with airbrushes painting at an even lower amount per miniature which means you need to get faster and do less per miniature. So better rely on that airbrush gradient even more.

The signature gradient of an airbrush is no longer seen as a sign of quality or accomplishment, but as a negative. Like fashion, tastes change over time, but right now, it's not a mark of quality.

Anyone who wants to see what good airbrushing looks like and how it fits into a larger process should check out Kenny Boucher from Next Level Painting. He uses an airbrush on almost everything he does, but he never, ever settles for the signature crappy gradient. There's always more glazing and highlights to be done and leaving details unpainted in a gradient is just never going to happen.

While i wont "hate" on anything i do greatly dislike lazily done work with air or hair brush equally.

that said i cant really say anything because im the laziest of them all

though i really hate poorly done osl like a lot.

I hate airbrushes with a passion that burns with the heat of 10,000 suns!

...Because I have the arthritis, so working that airbrush trigger is an unpleasant thing for me. However, BITD, I used airbrushes quite a bit. Now, not so much Man, are they useful. I hate not being able to use my Aerografos for any length of time. Bristle-brushing or Air-brushing, it is like using a hand-held hammer to drive nails, or using a pneumatic nail gun. Both have their places in the toolbox. (Acoustic Guitar or Electric Guitar...etc)

Nature abhors a vaccuum. In the absence of facts, it fills the head with ignorant opinions. This 'hate' for airbrushes is just that, ignorance.

As far as cheating goes, anything but airbrushing 'cave-man' style-- spit-painting-- is cheating. Ah, here's a link http://discovermagazine.com/1993/jul/paleolithicpaint240 there are others. I've seen video of this technique. Fascinating stuff.

 Red Harvest wrote:
I hate airbrushes with a passion that burns with the heat of 10,000 suns!

...Because I have the arthritis, so working that airbrush trigger is an unpleasant thing for me. However, BITD, I used airbrushes quite a bit. Now, not so much Man, are they useful. I hate not being able to use my Aerografos for any length of time. Bristle-brushing or Air-brushing, it is like using a hand-held hammer to drive nails, or using a pneumatic nail gun. Both have their places in the toolbox. (Acoustic Guitar or Electric Guitar...etc)

Nature abhors a vaccuum. In the absence of facts, it fills the head with ignorant opinions. This 'hate' for airbrushes is just that, ignorance.

As far as cheating goes, anything but airbrushing 'cave-man' style-- spit-painting-- is cheating. Ah, here's a link http://discovermagazine.com/1993/jul/paleolithicpaint240 there are others. I've seen video of this technique. Fascinating stuff.

every try these?

they seem better for people with hand issues.

though still expensive :/

 Polonius wrote:
I see this question, or ones similar to it, posted pretty frequently. Someone does something new or less common, and describes a visceral and negative reaction from local gamers. And the reaction here is nearly always "it's your hobby, and the haters can stick it."

That's true here. I've seen plenty of airbrushed stuff, although I've never seen anyone criticize a paint job like the op. But yeah, airbrush if that's your thing. It's your hobby.

That said, I don't care for a lot of airbrushed armies for the reasons discussed. I don't generally like the look, as I focus more on details then blending. However, when used properly, the reality is that airbrushed models have a higher ceiling

Exalted for truth. I have seen good and poor hand painted and good and poor air brushed.

Worry less about the detractors and play/paint how you want.

Air brush the bulk, paint the details reasonably, and you have an army you can be proud of

 jmurph wrote:
But that's true of any sloppy work. Just because you see gradient abuse with Photoshop, for example, doesn't invalidate it as a tool. Just because people abusing dry brushing doesn't invalidate brushes.

Airbrushing is known for some tell tale signs of amateur work. You see the same thing with standard brushes- tell tale signs of poor brushwork, unthinned paints, etc. But when done well, each of these can produce outstanding results, and some tools offer great advantages in speed or ease of use.

An bad gradient is a sign of poor control, and worth a ding itself; no need for speculation, whether airbrush or no.

IMO the difference is that lazy and unfinished work with a conventional brush is almost universally considered to be trash, while people can do similar trash with an airbrush but can get praise and sell commissions because of the LOOK AT ME I HAVE AN AIRBRUSH effect. If badly airbrushed models didn't keep getting so much positive attention and were properly criticized as trash (and the commission painters selling them were driven out of business for selling trash) there would be a lot less "hate" for airbrushes.

Airbrushing is without a doubt the best way to get perfectly smooth base coats and nice gradients for general shading. You can pull off things with an airbrush that are literally impossible with a normal brush, or would take many, many times as long.

Like others have said though, airburshing gets a bad rap from "pro painters" on eBay who literally base coat the model one color, then do two absurd points of OSL and call it a day. Probably in less than five minutes.

I dislike anybody that doesn't dribble paint on with a stick Jackson Pollock style, spit it from their mouth or use finger paints. Brushes and airbrushes are crutches for wannabe hacks who dislike the tactile sensation of using their paint the way the greatest cavemen master painters intended.

 Sidstyler wrote:
You're just deliberately refusing to use a tool designed to make a certain job easier for the sake of boosting your ego, or just to say you can.

Or because they figure better bit more effort than pay hundreds of euros for it or don't feel time spent learning it is worth it or don't want new models be out of touch in style with older models(same reason why many get pissed off when paints change. Annoying to paint additional troops to old army when shades might not match anymore!).

Plenty of good reasons and not just ego.

tneva82 wrote:
Plenty of good reasons and not just ego.

No, there really isn't a good reason not to buy an airbrush if you're serious about painting models. Even with a slim budget, a functional airbrush setup is definitely affordable and I'm of the opinion that if you have money to spare on the ridiculous price of most wargaming models, you could put some of that towards a versatile tool that will be well worth the cost of investment.

It's funny to me that the wargaming side of painting and modeling pushes back so hard against using an airbrush, because on the static scale modeling community had embraced them years ago (I build more scale models these days than I do wargaming minis).

Last time I looked, a good compressor and all the gear was well north of £100, not including re-arranging my workspace to fit the thing in (and the annoyance of having to poke a vent hose out an open window). I'm actually fortunate that I have the house to myself; I know other people with airbrushes who have to keep packing all the kit away because they have children; that eats into your actual productive time, as does keeping the kit clean.

The results I produce with brushes are acceptable to me; there's no incentive to take the trouble to change.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Last time I looked, a good compressor and all the gear was well north of £100

And have you look at GW prices lately? For the cost of two large models, you can have a perfectly functional airbrush setup. No, it won't be the best, but it will be good enough.

not including re-arranging my workspace to fit the thing in (and the annoyance of having to poke a vent hose out an open window).

My compressor, which is a rather large Iwata Power Jet, fits neatly under my desk. Small, tankless compressors take up almost no room and despite what people love to claim, they can serve quite well. Ventilation is a not really a problem; open a window if you're concerned about it or where a respirator.

I'm actually fortunate that I have the house to myself; I know other people with airbrushes who have to keep packing all the kit away because they have children; that eats into your actual productive time, as does keeping the kit clean.

I have kids and my hobby stuff is always out on my desk. My children aren't allowed to run roughshod all over my house and were taught early on that models and paint are off limits (something that holds true today even though they are older). Also, cleaning an airbrush doesn't consume nearly the amount of time people like to make it sound like it does. Other than rinse throughs for color swaps (akin to cleaning a hairy stick), a quick couple minute (at max) cleaning at the end of a sessions is more than enough to keep an airbrush running smoothly. In all honesty, it's probably the same amount of time I spend properly treating my paintbrushes. Really, people that claim it wastes too much time cleaning an airbrush are just looking for excuses for not owning one.

The results I produce with brushes are acceptable to me; there's no incentive to take the trouble to change.

That's fair enough I suppose. Personally, I could never go back to using only a hairy stick on anything, let alone wargaming vehicles or any kind of scale model.

{edited to remove more pointless bickering )

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Plenty of good reasons and not just ego.

No, there really isn't a good reason not to buy an airbrush if you're serious about painting models. Even with a slim budget, a functional airbrush setup is definitely affordable and I'm of the opinion that if you have money to spare on the ridiculous price of most wargaming models, you could put some of that towards a versatile tool that will be well worth the cost of investment.

It's funny to me that the wargaming side of painting and modeling pushes back so hard against using an airbrush, because on the static scale modeling community had embraced them years ago (I build more scale models these days than I do wargaming minis).

Couple hundred euros. And again it takes time to learn to do more than base coatting. Not all paint enough that it's worth that. Also airbrushed model will look different to brushed model so your army will look badly out of sync if you switch in between.

Must use airbrush is just egoism. You use the one that is right _for you_.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
But that's true of any sloppy work. Just because you see gradient abuse with Photoshop, for example, doesn't invalidate it as a tool. Just because people abusing dry brushing doesn't invalidate brushes.

Airbrushing is known for some tell tale signs of amateur work. You see the same thing with standard brushes- tell tale signs of poor brushwork, unthinned paints, etc. But when done well, each of these can produce outstanding results, and some tools offer great advantages in speed or ease of use.

An bad gradient is a sign of poor control, and worth a ding itself; no need for speculation, whether airbrush or no.

IMO the difference is that lazy and unfinished work with a conventional brush is almost universally considered to be trash, while people can do similar trash with an airbrush but can get praise and sell commissions because of the LOOK AT ME I HAVE AN AIRBRUSH effect. If badly airbrushed models didn't keep getting so much positive attention and were properly criticized as trash (and the commission painters selling them were driven out of business for selling trash) there would be a lot less "hate" for airbrushes.

That is a really good point. There are a lot of airbrush "artists" pushing terrible work as "pro". I particularly hate the badly sprayed "OSL". Still, it seems odd to impute shoddy work by sketchy people to the tool itself.

 Desubot wrote:


every try these?

they seem better for people with hand issues.

though still expensive :/

I have. In fact, At the NOVA Open I ran a painting contest some years ago where we gave away Grex airbrushes as prizes. I found that the trigger is no better than that of a regular airbrush as far as comfort goes. And the pistol handle requires some, to me, awkward wrist and arm motions for painting miniatures. It's a nice enough airbrush, but it's not for me. Thanks for the suggestion though.

Real *Pros* use whatever tool is appropriate for the job.

I think the hate for airbrush and the hate for dry brushing is silly. I think when used in combination with other techniques you get amazing results. It's just when you ONLY airbrush that it can make things looks a bit toy like that throws people off.

I do all my weathering with dry brushing and it works perfectly, and air brushing has its time and place we're it makes things WHAO

I don't get the dislike. It seems easy to do really good effects. Or, at least, skilled painters make it look easy to paint some really good effects. Wish I had one.

Winter wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I think a lot of it, like the disdain for drybrushing in some quarters, comes from a lot of hobbyists' exposure being primarily the 'bad' stuff. Airbrushing, other than in the hands of a master, tends to be quite distinctive, and it's a style that many aren't fans of... And not knowing any better, they just assume that this is all airbrushes are capable of and write off the entire technique as a result.

There's also those (generally those who've never tried to do it) who think it's an easy shortcut (akin to just using a spray can) and therefore not on the same level as 'real' painting with a brush, which is perceived as requiring more skill. Which is, really, a little ignorant (since airbrushing is only easier for certain specific things) and a little weird...

At the end of the day, they're your miniatures. If you want to brush paint them, air brush them, or dip them in house paint, just do it. Paint for yourself, not the approval of others.

This is all that needs to be said. A lot of super well done miniatures start with an airbrush, and you'd never tell once completed.

I think most people who don't like airbrushing, don't necessarily hate the technique but rather don't like the transition heavy, overdone OSL look that took off a few years ago among commission painters.

One particular example standing out.... *Cough* Chaos Dwarfs *Cough* Blue Table *Cough*

I love well done OSL above all other techniques - but badly done OSL is absolutely horrible looking.

The Auld Grump

Airbrushing has a place in the hobby. I neither like or dislike it. It's just another tool/technique in the hobbyist's tool box to me.



If somebody gets a severe case of butthurt over somebody's airbrushed models, then they have some issues to work out.

Airbrushing is also a classic case of people, on both sides, confusing normative judgments (good/bad) with declarations of taste (personal preference).

The airbrush is pretty objectively superior in a number of applications, but also has a high barrier of entry between cost, logistics, and learning to use it skillfully. It also requires more set up and tear down time. So, for base coating an army, it's clearly superior, but for picking out three different colored pouches on a single fig, it's clearly inferior. Even outside of external factors, airbrushed base coats, blending, and thin effects will look better (or take a minute fraction of the time) than regular brush.

That all said, people are allowed to simply not like the look. An airbrushed army won best painted at a local RTT, when I would thought it below average in terms of look. But that's just a matter of taste. As long as expression of taste are given respectfully, and made clear that they are such, they are inviolate. You cannot make me prefer airbrushed models to hairy brushed ones, at least at standard hobbyist quality.

Also, there's the old school mentality. I spent decades learning to wetblend with 4 different shades to make seamless gradients that can now be done nearly instantly. I won't lie, it rubs a bit.

Again though, I have no issues with the tool, as long as it's not your only one. Hell, I have an airbrush.