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.

Voss wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
Just had a read of Blanche's assessment of contrast paints, I know he's inclined to be positive about the paints but the browns and yellows he's used actually would make me consider trying a similarly styled army. Good stuff.

It certainly gave me the impression that the new Nighthaunt models actually look good with a proper color scheme.

Mud on mud is a proper color scheme?

Yes.

Eh, while it would be interesting to read how he achieve the effect of some of the different sections in the close ups, you really need to consider how it would look on the tabletop. An army painted like that would be an undifferentiated swirl of Browns, with lots of lost detail (even more so than the unzoomed images in that article, because IRL they won't be in front of a white background). GW minis are really designed for color schemes that contrast at least a little bit.

A miniature really isn't a Rembrandt where people are supposed to sit for several hours doing art appreciation things. Ideally the paint should help identify the model, not hide its identity (even as a side effect)

I don't disagree with you in general, but specifically in the case of ghosts blurred lines, reduced contrast and a limited selection of colors is, in my opinion, strictly superior to the 'Eavy Metal way of painting to separate individual parts from each other with clear lines and contrasting colors. The latter is good for marketing, showing off all the detail the model has. It doesn't do anything to bring across the non-corporeal nature of the miniatures, however. I think Blanche does a wonderful job of that.

It's not like the models he painted are strictly mud on mud, as you put it. He has light and dark to work in some contrast, along with main colors of yellowish and reddish brown to give the models structure. Additionally there are spots of different colors like bone and metal, albeit tinted to blend in with the rest of the model. Those parts do stand out, however. Finally he throws in something that looks like green to add some more contrast.

I'd say that gives the individual models plenty of definition, even at their actual size on the table. Would you want an entire army like that? Probably not if it consists mostly of things with similar silhouettes. This kind of painting requires you to work with the physical shape of the models a lot more than you would with a neater paint job that uses more, and more contrasting colors. It probably wouldn't look good to have a ghoul or ghost or daemon horde in front of you. If you can throw in some cavalry and monsters to break apart the infantry, though, that would instantly look a lot better.

There's also the difference between someone painting a model, and someone painting an army.

I absolutely agree that an army should have a scheme which helps visually clarify what each unit is. And I can see how Blanche's style doesn't really achieve that. As an opponent, I ideally want to be able to glance at your current deployment, and come away with at least a reasonable idea of what's what, and importantly what I'm about to pick a fight with. The style in that article could occlude such visual reference. When it looks like a horde o'brown, it could be difficult for me to tell a Chainrasp from a Bladeghiest, particularly as AoS doesn't prevent us from bubble wrapping one unit within another. If I can't readily tell what's what, I'm at an unfair disadvantage, as I can all too easily misread a units combat potential.

But John Blanche is a painter of models. He's not so much painting playing tokens, but Art. It's intended for display, as a demonstration of his preferred technique. So for his purposes, a miniature is there for others to appreciate as a piece of art.

It's in the same rough vein as their recent Concept Army article. If it's your bag, go for it. If not, it's still someone else's, so appreciate it as you can, but don't knock the painter for going a bit leftfield.

I do see how it might not be very visually friendly for a tabletop setting but his style can be easily modified to make the focal point of an army even stronger like Lady Olynder for Nighthaunt or another centrepiece.

I'm considering painting up a Skaven horde of clan rats like this because it really shows off that they're a seething mass of bodies rather than a rank and file army. Dirty and gritty is how I imagine a Skaven army and the ability to give bright details is easily done by having bright eyes or warpstone weapons.

He also takes Rembrandt as inspiration for his pieces, they're not meant to be Rembrandts or to be looked upon as such and I do like how he's actually using an artist's eye when painting.

 Binabik15 wrote:

They do have videos and WD articles featuring more advanced techniques, though. They could promote Contrast with a wider range of applications than the sloppy Intercessor video. Take that video (from Pete?) where the Ridgerunner is getting pretty nice weathering done with Contrast and highlight this use case as well. Show colours using additive mixing by layering yellow over blue to get green where they overlap thanks to the transparency,

I mean, apparently they're already selling well enough, but they sit on months or years of experimentation with those paints, show what crazy effects they can give outside of "basecoat with a wash and sort of a highlight".

And they put up every tutorial for regular paints the day they launched? Who says they won't put up advanced tutorials later? You don't expect them to blow up everything at once?

And they also feature more advanced techniques by experienced painters on WarCom:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/06/13/painting-with-contrast-sam-lenzgw-homepage-post-3fw-homepage-post-2/

 stahly wrote:


I don't know, I think Pete is doing something wrong with his Contrast paints. His results all look very patchy, I guess he applies it too thinly so the medium can't do it's magic.

This is actually something I've been noticing in a lot of videos both positive and negative - it seems like a lot of painters are being far too conservative in the application, trying to "control" the Contrast as they would a normal paint or wash, but from what I've seen it works best if you (carefully)slop it on really heavy and then go back with your brush cleaned off to clear up excess where you don't want it.

What some people have said is “if you think your putting it on too think you probably need to add a bit more”. It seems that you need a lot of it, and this is going to be a learning curve for many of us.

tneva82 wrote:

 Binabik15 wrote:

They do have videos and WD articles featuring more advanced techniques, though. They could promote Contrast with a wider range of applications than the sloppy Intercessor video. Take that video (from Pete?) where the Ridgerunner is getting pretty nice weathering done with Contrast and highlight this use case as well. Show colours using additive mixing by layering yellow over blue to get green where they overlap thanks to the transparency,

I mean, apparently they're already selling well enough, but they sit on months or years of experimentation with those paints, show what crazy effects they can give outside of "basecoat with a wash and sort of a highlight".

And they put up every tutorial for regular paints the day they launched? Who says they won't put up advanced tutorials later? You don't expect them to blow up everything at once?

I expect nothing, but their own promotional video introducing Contrast paints by painting an Intercessor all over, reapplying Wraithbone on areas they needlessly painted and then slop on some more contrast is pants and selling their own product short. If you disagree, fine.

Citadel paint app has been updated. It now has battle ready and parade ready paint schemes for all models using the standard painting method, they have also added contrast parting method for certain models which has also been broken down into battle ready and parade ready versions.

Is there a way to access that on a proper computer?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If I can't readily tell what's what, I'm at an unfair disadvantage, as I can all too easily misread a units combat potential.

I find that is a "courtesy" I extend for my opponent and myself:
A consistent colour scheme.
I have applied it across my entire Imperial based armies.
It lends coherency when doing any "soup" as well: you always know what you are facing and who's army.

Plasma = Green
Viewports, cockpit glass or readout displays = Green.
Most normal weapons = Red
Power weapons = Blue
Lascannons = Blue
Combat weapon in general (other than plain knife) / power glove (not fingers) = black / yellow hazard stripe.
Most bases = "Raw Sienna" Liquitex.
Flamers = Copper near the nozzles.
Melta = Brass with a bit of burnt purple look.

Blah..... anything that can make this mess of colour look better with high contrast is appreciated.
Most forms of lens or glow is all a good candidate for the high contrast paint.

This method I set out for myself makes taking on anything a long process.

That's neat, I do something very similar but with different colours!

Plasma = Blue
Viewports = Blue
Most Normal Weapons = Green
(IG) Bolters = Black
Lascannons = Red
Melta fuel = Purple
Melta Nozzles = Copper
Flamer Fuel = Red
Flamer Nozzles = Copper
Autocannons = Yellow
Multi-Lasers = Gold
Power Weapons = Blue
All Bases = Sand with Agrax washed over top, with spotty static grass.

I'm really looking forward to Contrast for new projects.

So perhaps someone can tell me how this works.
When you go into GW and sit to paint (in my store I see people say painting and such sometimes, just like a random weekday let’s say).
Can you test out paints or are those people just taking their own?

And equally I know people have been going into store and trying Contrast, and getting given a Primaris to donit on, is this something that keeps going after release do we think/know?
Or is it just during that preorder period..?

I don't know if they have a unified store policy on painting right now. Long ago, the painting stations were for anyone who wanted to paint and the store would have a selection of paints you could use. Then GW made each store subject to the decisions of the individual managers and some stores had no in store painting, others had bring your own everything, others had a "boot camp" program where you had to pay for painting lessons. A couple years back they had a "customer experience" person go from store to store to figure out what works best and at this point I have no idea whether a common policy has been implemented. Call the store and ask.

Danny76 wrote:
So perhaps someone can tell me how this works.
?

Last week my local GW had a bunch of ETB models they had primed with the news sprays, plus a box they had Zenithal highlighted. Folks were able to sit down with a staff member and try out the various contrast paints.

As a bonus you were able to keep your test model.

I have to agree with what some people are saying. Some of the You tubers seem to be applying the contrast paints thinly as if they were a wash, instead of putting it on a little thicker and allowing it to do its magic.

In the Contrast and Classic combined video it's interesting how Peachy put the black contrast paint over a Mechanicus Standard Grey base. Over a white base coat it looks a bit poor and doing two coats makes it look a bit shiny. Maybe the grey base is the way forward for that.

Personally, I'll be picking up a selection of colours for my collection. But I'll wait for it to be a regular stock item, I can't be bothered with all the rushing to the shop and grabbing them while stocks last thing.

I liked Peachy's paint job on that SCE, I think it's quite a good example of what you can do with contrast alongside the standard range. Not a fan of the gloss top coat though.

I think Sam Lenz' article sealed the deal for me if I hadn't been convinced in their uses already. He made it very tutorial-esque instead of what the other artists have done by just commenting saying it's good.

I ordered a bundle from my local GW as they're doing the online deal too. It feels a little like an impulse buy but it gives me an excuse to pick up some shades and base paints without being completely mauled.

Danny76 wrote:
So perhaps someone can tell me how this works.
When you go into GW and sit to paint (in my store I see people say painting and such sometimes, just like a random weekday let’s say).
Can you test out paints or are those people just taking their own?

And equally I know people have been going into store and trying Contrast, and getting given a Primaris to donit on, is this something that keeps going after release do we think/know?
Or is it just during that preorder period..?

At my store, new people can have a painting demo, where they're given a stormcast or primaris mini and allowed to use the store paints. But that's only for their very first time.
Then you can use the painting tables (which you can book in advance), but you need to bring all your stuff (they only provide water pots and paper towel).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Video from miniac:




A lot more critical than most we've seen so far.

The only good review so far. He's on point as always.

13.30: he says "GW are saying to people you can paint better with this product".
No, imo they are not. They are simply saying you can paint faster, with less "hassle" and less experience.

Nothing wrong with that.

Miniac is horrible. He tries to mimic popular YouTube'rs that fabricate drama to generate clicks.

 Shadenuat wrote:
The only good review so far. He's on point as always.

Yep thats a good review from miniac.

 oni wrote:
Miniac is horrible. He tries to mimic popular YouTube'rs that fabricate drama to generate clicks.

Ya think?

"The TRUTH behind..."

So glad that 'miniac' is here to set us all straight. LOL.

I think Miniac summed up my opinion on contrast with a little bit more negativity than I would have given.

I think he complains too much about how it was advertised. GW always push their products as the best ever, that's how they work. Think back to finecast for instance. No point crying about an advertising technique that will face a bit of backlash.

A lot of the negativity I’m seeing can be characterised as people using Contrast paint badly then blaming the paint.

All of the positivity from experienced painters can be characterised as, here’s an interesting new paint that can do some things better than standard acrylic paint.

I know which one I’m listening to. I’ve not bought any Contrast paint and I’m not rushing out to get some, but I will probably get some one day.

I have used some and I am getting some, specifically to close gaps in my painting style that I can close the old-fashioned way but don’t normally want to because it takes fething ages to layer up all those glazes.

The hype of finecast isn't really an endorsement of GW's integrity in advertising.

I thought this was like one of the only honest reviews so far. People are really hyping this product and I think a lot of hobbyists are going to be set up for disappointment.

This is the only review I've seen that ends up pointing out the contradiction of a wash like application and the use of it to pick out all the separate colours. The new painter at the beginning of the video encounters this almost immediately.

And the sheen is real. Matte varnish for sure.

Contrast is good, and I've always been a fan of thinner paints over white primer as a fast way to paint. I plan on getting some, but I think there's going to be a lot of people who are disappointed when they finally put brush to model with these.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
A lot of the negativity I’m seeing can be characterised as people using Contrast paint badly then blaming the paint.

So given that miniature painting involves actual techniques I think we're going to see a lot of frustrated people who "use the paint badly" as new painters.

All of the positivity from experienced painters can be characterised as, here’s an interesting new paint that can do some things better than standard acrylic paint.

I know which one I’m listening to. I’ve not bought any Contrast paint and I’m not rushing out to get some, but I will probably get some one day.

Listen to both! The issues people encounter aren't fake. The utility of the paints once you know what to do with them is real as well. When someone uses it badly, learn from their mistakes and accept the limitations of the medium. When someone uses it well, remember the technique.

There's just no reason to be on a team for or against on this. It's paint.

I think having a majority of your models painted at a 7 is much more functional than having almost no models painted at a 10. I've known people that sit in their house and never play because "painting isn't done yet"

Its not just GW, all companies hype their products. They are in business to make money and they need your money to go to them rather than someone else. I can remember the hype when textured basing paints first came along and Vallejo was sold as unprecedented professional quality when it first became available. I think GW got it right in allowing people to have a go in advance, I used it and liked it. At the end of the day if I can get some nice colour washes from my convenient local GW then I'm not going to complain but neither am I going to use contrast exclusively. They just add to the variety of techniques available which can hardly be a bad thing can it?