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.

I am interested in these, but I'm not sure I'm exactly enthused about them. Many years ago after reading a post here, I painted grots by priming them white, washing them with a green wash, and then picking out details. The way they are using them here does not look very revolutionary or new. But perhaps I am not truly understanding what they do.

 insaniak wrote:

 Lockark wrote:

TBH I don't get the appeal of Army painter.
-Every bottle paint I got from them off a rack it was chalky, and alot of the bottles will explode in the mail by the time it gets to me.
-Their spray primers all came out thick and gloopy for me.
.

Their sprays, washes and quickshades are the reason people are fans of Army Painter. Their acrylics work best with a very specific painting style, and so a lot of people find them to be not too their liking.

But sure what happened with your sprays... I've had nothing but good results.

The range of colors is going to be the selling point for the Contrast paints. Will be interesting to see what other ranges come up with in response.

I've used two different Army painter spray cans at different times and so far had a 100% failure rate with them. I'd been priming models with spray cans for 20 years at that point and feel like I had a pretty good feel for it, but with Army Painter sprays, every model came out a mixture of poor coverage and blobby, detail destroying overspray. I think their washes are terrific, so I don't have anything against the company as a whole, but I feel like their spray primers are trash - at least in my limited anecdotal experience.

I think the biggest draw to these contrast things, as you say, is filling in the color shade gaps that I have. I do remain open minded they are actually some amazing new thing - I play to try at least a few of them to find out firsthand. But even if they're just more of the same, "the same" is always good to have more of in different variants.

 Ouze wrote:
I am interested in these, but I'm not sure I'm exactly enthused about them. Many years ago after reading a post here, I painted grots by priming them white, washing them with a green wash, and then picking out details. The way they are using them here does not look very revolutionary or new. But perhaps I am not truly understanding what they do.

 insaniak wrote:

 Lockark wrote:

TBH I don't get the appeal of Army painter.
-Every bottle paint I got from them off a rack it was chalky, and alot of the bottles will explode in the mail by the time it gets to me.
-Their spray primers all came out thick and gloopy for me.
.

Their sprays, washes and quickshades are the reason people are fans of Army Painter. Their acrylics work best with a very specific painting style, and so a lot of people find them to be not too their liking.

But sure what happened with your sprays... I've had nothing but good results.

The range of colors is going to be the selling point for the Contrast paints. Will be interesting to see what other ranges come up with in response.

I've used two different Army painter spray cans at different times and so far had a 100% failure rate with them. I'd been priming models with spray cans for 20 years at that point and feel like I had a pretty good feel for it, but with Army Painter sprays, every model came out a mixture of poor coverage and blobby, detail destroying overspray. I think their washes are terrific, so I don't have anything against the company as a whole, but I feel like their spray primers are trash - at least in my limited anecdotal experience.

I think the biggest draw to these contrast things, as you say, is filling in the color shade gaps that I have. I do remain open minded they are actually some amazing new thing - I play to try at least a few of them to find out firsthand. But even if they're just more of the same, "the same" is always good to have more of in different variants.

This is similar to my experiences with the spray cans.

As for the washes I bought two of the same at the same time, and the consistency was different between the two. One was more concentrated then the other. This was not fixed with shaking.

My opinion of Army painter from my anecdotal experience was that they have consistency issues. I'm happy for people here mentioning they've had great experiences. But I have had terrible luck with them, and don't believe they have good QC. I will always suggest ranges like GW, Vallejo, and Reaper over them.

Edit:


So I remembered looking at this and assuming the metallic red effect was because the new paint line was going to add colour metallics. It seems we may have seen the new contrast paints in use already?

Doupt it, those are the box art models.
Those are painted by their best with not even GW paints sometime.

Box art or not, they do look like they have a red wash over gold paint, with a highlight added here and there with silver.

So yes, quite likely a sneaky preview.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Doupt it, those are the box art models.
Those are painted by their best with not even GW paints sometime.

I don't think it was painted fully with contrast. It's one part I suspect was done with it. The red metallic effect.

Also in recent times GW has made a big deal about anything you see on the box, you need to be able to get a Warhammer TV video showing how they painted it.

Another possibility was that they used thinned Blood for the Blood God over the metallic paint.

Man how does everybody has so nicely cut nails? Mines are a disaster and I don't even bite them or anything.


(Sorry I know this is offtopic but whenever GW does some kind of paint presentation theres an infinite amount of pics of miniatures and giant fingers)

I am willing to give them a go on ork/grot skin, 'nids, and maybe Imperial Fists. Looking forward to some of you posting results in the Dakka painting forums next month.

 DanceOfSlaanesh wrote:
You guys are free to use the paint, seriously, I don't care.

I simply presented an alternative way. Gatekeeping? What the hell man haha.

Good luck with your painting guys.

Im gonna go paint some now, for I have the power to mix water and paint! so I do not need to wait for GW so I save both TIME and MONEY!

Dam, it has been a long time since I have seen such blatant epeen-stroking. It would be bad enough if you could actually replicate the GW effect, but to fail twice and then brag about it? Impressive.

What I don't think people are realizing is that these paints are with the gloss overtop of them. They wont look like that right out of the bottle. So you have priming time, paint the contrast and wait for it to dry, then paint the gloss on top of it to seal it in.

Also Dance of Slannesh, if that model you painted was in the spoiler pic people would be say how awesome and revolutionary it was..... Keep drinking the kool-aid people.


If they do make yellow easier to look nice with one coat tho, I will go down to the local geedubz and take a look at them then see where I can buy the same thing at half the price just like all of GW's over priced hobby stuff that people swear by even though it's just re-branded brushes, paints etc ....

 FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:
What I don't think people are realizing is that these paints are with the gloss overtop of them. They wont look like that right out of the bottle. So you have priming time, paint the contrast and wait for it to dry, then paint the gloss on top of it to seal it in.

Also Dance of Slannesh, if that model you painted was in the spoiler pic people would be say how awesome and revolutionary it was..... Keep drinking the kool-aid people.


If they do make yellow easier to look nice with one coat tho, I will go down to the local geedubz and take a look at them then see where I can buy the same thing at half the price just like all of GW's over priced hobby stuff that people swear by even though it's just re-branded brushes, paints etc ....

Yes, most paint does involve waiting for it to dry

What is the original brand? For the paint that is, I've never seen anyone advocate GW brushes.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 DanceOfSlaanesh wrote:
You guys are free to use the paint, seriously, I don't care.

I simply presented an alternative way. Gatekeeping? What the hell man haha.

Good luck with your painting guys.

Im gonna go paint some now, for I have the power to mix water and paint! so I do not need to wait for GW so I save both TIME and MONEY!

Dam, it has been a long time since I have seen such blatant epeen-stroking. It would be bad enough if you could actually replicate the GW effect, but to fail twice and then brag about it? Impressive.

I only responded to those who freely wanted to challenge me on my opinion. I posted pictures and counter arguments. And a discussion was had.

Your comment however, are nothing but trying to bash me for no reason what so ever.

 DanceOfSlaanesh wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 DanceOfSlaanesh wrote:
You guys are free to use the paint, seriously, I don't care.

I simply presented an alternative way. Gatekeeping? What the hell man haha.

Good luck with your painting guys.

Im gonna go paint some now, for I have the power to mix water and paint! so I do not need to wait for GW so I save both TIME and MONEY!

Dam, it has been a long time since I have seen such blatant epeen-stroking. It would be bad enough if you could actually replicate the GW effect, but to fail twice and then brag about it? Impressive.

I only responded to those who freely wanted to challenge me on my opinion. I posted pictures and counter arguments. And a discussion was had.

Your comment however, are nothing but trying to bash me for no reason what so ever.

You washed watered paint over a zenithal priming. Adding water is a great trick, congratulations, but you are not addressing surface tension, pigment suspension or viscosity. I know you are very impressed with yourself but formulating paint is a lot more complicated than 'add water durrrrr'. Did you get a good result in your example (again, pretending like the binary priming had nothing to do with the shading lol), yes you did. Will every paint do that with water? Nope. Depends on the pigment density, inherent amount of acrylic suspension, and native surface tension. Once any of those things are out of whack you can get very poor results indeed. You are over-simplifying because it serves your ego and apparently that is something you are badly in need of by your behaviour in this thread, but regardless you are doing yourself and your audience a disservice by beating the horse to death here.

 MajorTom11 wrote:

 DanceOfSlaanesh wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 DanceOfSlaanesh wrote:
You guys are free to use the paint, seriously, I don't care.

I simply presented an alternative way. Gatekeeping? What the hell man haha.

Good luck with your painting guys.

Im gonna go paint some now, for I have the power to mix water and paint! so I do not need to wait for GW so I save both TIME and MONEY!

Dam, it has been a long time since I have seen such blatant epeen-stroking. It would be bad enough if you could actually replicate the GW effect, but to fail twice and then brag about it? Impressive.

I only responded to those who freely wanted to challenge me on my opinion. I posted pictures and counter arguments. And a discussion was had.

Your comment however, are nothing but trying to bash me for no reason what so ever.

You washed watered paint over a zenithal priming. Adding water is a great trick, congratulations, but you are not addressing surface tension, pigment suspension or viscosity. I know you are very impressed with yourself but formulating paint is a lot more complicated than 'add water durrrrr'. Did you get a good result in your example (again, pretending like the binary priming had nothing to do with the shading lol), yes you did. Will every paint do that with water? Nope. Depends on the pigment density, inherent amount of acrylic suspension, and native surface tension. Once any of those things are out of whack you can get very poor results indeed. You are over-simplifying because it serves your ego and apparently that is something you are badly in need of by your behaviour in this thread, but regardless you are doing yourself and your audience a disservice by beating the horse to death here.

So many wrong things....

I absolutely did not use zenithal priming.
I simply added water to the paints until it felt right and painted the freakin model. I wanted to show that you don't need any expensive paint to do that.
in MY OPINION i think the result was similar.

Do you really thing i am proud i could WASH a model!!! Don't know what to say.

 DanceOfSlaanesh wrote:
You guys are free to use the paint, seriously, I don't care.

I simply presented an alternative way. Gatekeeping? What the hell man haha.

Good luck with your painting guys.

Im gonna go paint some now, for I have the power to mix water and paint! so I do not need to wait for GW so I save both TIME and MONEY!

I wasn't going to respond to this post. But here I go.

I called you a gate keeper because you are condescending to people, you keep telling them they are wasting their money as you post inferior results with "just add water". You are also clearly giving bad advice since you have no understanding of surface tension, binders and pigment suspension as others have said. I'm novice painter and even I can tell your blowing smoke up your own behind with your advice. please just stop embarrassing yourself.

You continue to respond to people in very condescending laungugage since this one, and do yourself no favours.

 DanceOfSlaanesh wrote:


Do you really thing i am proud i could WASH a model!!! Don't know what to say.

Yes I do.

Please resume gaslighting yourself in front of everyone if you think it is fulfilling some kind of purpose of value, or making you look good. It's not the content of what you are saying, it's your attitude and comments like 'I painted more today than all of you combined' that waste whatever goodwill your points could generate. It was valuable for you to demonstrate that the effect contrast gives is not unique or hard to replicate. It was a disservice to simplify it to 'add water to any paint that's it' as if there is nothing more to it that you should know.

By the way, I agree with you generally, I am not impressed with the contrast line as it does not produce a result I would seek at all. I realize the goal is speed over quality, but even a one coat wash/ink hybrid with a higher than normal suspension ratio still pales in comparison to the speed of batch painting with an airbrush. If you have 1000 minis sitting grey in your closet, get an airbrush.

 DanceOfSlaanesh wrote:

 MajorTom11 wrote:

 DanceOfSlaanesh wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 DanceOfSlaanesh wrote:
You guys are free to use the paint, seriously, I don't care.

I simply presented an alternative way. Gatekeeping? What the hell man haha.

Good luck with your painting guys.

Im gonna go paint some now, for I have the power to mix water and paint! so I do not need to wait for GW so I save both TIME and MONEY!

Dam, it has been a long time since I have seen such blatant epeen-stroking. It would be bad enough if you could actually replicate the GW effect, but to fail twice and then brag about it? Impressive.

I only responded to those who freely wanted to challenge me on my opinion. I posted pictures and counter arguments. And a discussion was had.

Your comment however, are nothing but trying to bash me for no reason what so ever.

You washed watered paint over a zenithal priming. Adding water is a great trick, congratulations, but you are not addressing surface tension, pigment suspension or viscosity. I know you are very impressed with yourself but formulating paint is a lot more complicated than 'add water durrrrr'. Did you get a good result in your example (again, pretending like the binary priming had nothing to do with the shading lol), yes you did. Will every paint do that with water? Nope. Depends on the pigment density, inherent amount of acrylic suspension, and native surface tension. Once any of those things are out of whack you can get very poor results indeed. You are over-simplifying because it serves your ego and apparently that is something you are badly in need of by your behaviour in this thread, but regardless you are doing yourself and your audience a disservice by beating the horse to death here.

So many wrong things....

I absolutely did not use zenithal priming.
I simply added water to the paints until it felt right and painted the freakin model. I wanted to show that you don't need any expensive paint to do that.
in MY OPINION i think the result was similar.

Do you really thing i am proud i could WASH a model!!! Don't know what to say.

You haven't even come close to the contrast effect, the result is similar in that you have used a brush and put paint on a model.
Let's just call it what it is , you're just trying to knock a genuinely decent tool that alot of people in the community really could find useful. If another manufacturer had released this everyone would be doing back flips and mocking GW because there paint range would be pointless etc ...sad really

I don't understand….? I must have communication problem..? I was trying to talk and figure out this product?
So much hate from everywhere. Can you talk about product please and not about me???? I only respond when people attack me. But now its attack of the clones.

 DanceOfSlaanesh wrote:
I don't understand….? I must have communication problem..? I was trying to talk and figure out this product?
So much hate from everywhere. Can you talk about product please and not about me???? I only respond when people attack me. But now its attack of the clones.

Correct on all fronts.

Time for everyone to remember rule #2 and stay on topic guys, and also rule #3, which is not to spam, which is repetitive restatements of the exact same thing over and over.

And yes, rule #1, which is be polite. DOS, again, I think your demo's were valuable to the conversation and well worth talking about. But putting valuable information in hostile message that elevates yourself and denigrates others is self-defeating. Take that in the spirit it is given, to try and help you get the kind of response you were obviously expecting, not the one you got.

 Red Corsair wrote:
I watched a video from a guy that was there and got to play around with the paints.

Apparently they are slow drying like a wash (no surprise there) and the layers are incredibly thin. Like a tenth as thin. So it is very important to seal the layers in since they can rub off easily. Whatever the medium it uses is, it isn't durable like normal shades.

You also cannot mix them with other paint or use other mediums. Well you can, but the effect is lost. You can mix them with each other though.
.

A tenth as thin? That sounds like the exact opposite of what they're describing on the community page. That honestly sounds like water with food coloring.

WarCom wrote:Contrast is a new type of paint designed to make awesome results accessible to anyone, fast. With Contrast, you’ll have everything you get from a Base and Shade, but in a single application and a single coat.

Advertising rhetoric vs actuality of the product aside, what they're describing doesn't involve thin layers at all.

I could make a video where i thin the paints.
I think the result is very similar, some agree with me some not.
But the only way we can know is when we can buy the contrast paints and try it side by side.
I saw some pics that look bad, way more then my test. But also some pics which look better, but some had highlights and bases.

So, yeah, these are similar looking, as far as behavior, to Army Painter Quickshades and Vallejo Washes, but there looks to be a pretty large range of them, which is not a bad thing.

Can you make similar stuff using your favorite paint brand and water (and likely some flow improver and very probably a glaze medium of some sort)? Sure. Can you do it for cheaper? Most likely. But these still have a few advantages in that you can have a consistent mix for across a lot of models.

Are these aimed at expert painters? No, I don't think so. I think these are aimed at, as some of the earlier hype about them tried to impart, beginning painters who have mountains of grey plastic.

I didn't think it would be truly revolutionary (and in fact one of my bets was a "dip," which these essentially are; the other was an airbrush which was bust, obv.), but there's not a whole lot you can do on that front, honestly. They are another tool that anyone can use. You don't have to use them (I most likely will grab a couple to try out, but since I don't usually do the 3-step thing and tend towards more wet blending or void blending/feathering, don't see myself using them a lot), but if these mean that I will see less unpainted models on the table across for me, then yeah I'm all for them.

Okm guys as someone whose NOT that great a painter but has figured this out I'm gonna let you in on a little secret, most if not all GW technical paints are, not strictly speaking., nesscary. they're something a skilled painter can make due without, but thats not who they're aimed at. they're aimed at people who AREN'T good painters and making things easier on them. Most 40k players, statisticly speaking, proably aren't expert painters. they also may not know of the host of third party options.

 DanceOfSlaanesh wrote:
I could make a video where i thin the paints.
I think the result is very similar, some agree with me some not.
But the only way we can know is when we can buy the contrast paints and try it side by side.
I saw some pics that look bad, way more then my test. But also some pics which look better, but some had highlights and bases.

This is a much more productive post than your previous ones. Well done. And I would agree with you. Your example versus the GW examples were not too much different. Again, it's really about convenience. As has been said previously, I'm not too sure how much this is going to affect veteran painters, but people who are looking to get models on to the table quickly, it could be a tool to allow the them to do that. If it makes it easier for people to get going in the hobby (even if it is just as easy to water down your paints), then I say go for it.

 MajorTom11 wrote:
Time for everyone to remember rule #2 and stay on topic guys, and also rule #3, which is not to spam, which is repetitive restatements of the exact same thing over and over.

And yes, rule #1, which is be polite. DOS, again, I think your demo's were valuable to the conversation and well worth talking about. But putting valuable information in hostile message that elevates yourself and denigrates others is self-defeating. Take that in the spirit it is given, to try and help you get the kind of response you were obviously expecting, not the one you got.

Very well said Major Tom and can everyone please bear this helpful advice in mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the topic of Contrast, whilst it is just ink of a different type I am pretty happy to be able to pick some new ones, I still have some from the paint set in the 90s but they wont last for ever. The yellow especially is very helpful as its the only way I can get a half passable result.


The yellow there aint great but its GWs old yellow ink over a white undercoat with a slight bone drybush and then a very light cover of army painter soft tone.

 ingtaer wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the topic of Contrast, whilst it is just ink of a different type I am pretty happy to be able to pick some new ones, I still have some from the paint set in the 90s but they wont last for ever. The yellow especially is very helpful as its the only way I can get a half passable result.

Spoiler:

The yellow there aint great but its GWs old yellow ink over a white undercoat with a slight bone drybush and then a very light cover of army painter soft tone.

Did you do anything at all to the ink or is it just a single coat over the undercoat?

Undercoated Army Painter flat white, light drybrush GW Ushabti Bone, one coat of Citadel Yellow Ink straight from the pot.


Edit; Looked through the photos again and notice quite a lot of slops on pretty much every mini, wonder how they will advise to clean those up. I would guess using regular base/layer paints so it will be interesting to see how close these new paints match the current offerings.

Well... I guess I don't have to worry about touting the benefits of the "Wet over White" technique anymore.

I'll just uh... sit over here. Setting trends before they're trends. Sigh. Never appreciated in my time.

I wonder how these will look with zenithal priming.
Black undercoat, top coat of Just the wraith bone.

 Red Corsair wrote:
I watched a video from a guy that was there and got to play around with the paints.

Apparently they are slow drying like a wash (no surprise there) and the layers are incredibly thin. Like a tenth as thin. So it is very important to seal the layers in since they can rub off easily. Whatever the medium it uses is, it isn't durable like normal shades.

You also cannot mix them with other paint or use other mediums. Well you can, but the effect is lost. You can mix them with each other though.


Oh and I guess they will work over any primer, GW just made these new colors because they happen to be good for the effect but there isn't anything preventing you from using other undercoats and getting the effect.

They seem like fun and would definitely take the skill out of painting with glazes for folks that are not super familiar with how to do it. I still think these would look miles better over a zenethial undercoat though.

They dried in about 10 minutes, max. I dunno if I’d call that slow drying, especially with the amount you slather on.