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.

Hi everybody!

I was just going through the gallery voting on this month’s entries in the painting competition and it occurred to me that I’ve never seen a definition of what the different grades mean. After a quick search in the forums, gallery homepage and articles I don’t think it has been discussed.

Now, obviously, it’s a subjective decision and I don’t think having a hard and fast rule would work, but I’m curious to see how other people are interpreting the scale? Top and bottom I think are going to be fairly obvious, but it’s the middle ground that could be interesting. Here’s mine for starters:

1. Terrible. The “it’s my first model and I just dunked it in a pot of enamel”; minimal colours, details totally obscured by thick gloopy paint, etc.
2. Slapdash. Thick paints messily slopped on, without much effort.
3. Either very basic, with unpainted areas (on a finished model - I don’t tend to vote on WiP) or someone obviously trying to do a better job, but lacking the skill/experience. The classic “you need to thin your paints!” territory.
4. Basic, three colour minimum. No effort to pick out details. Could also be someone trying more advanced techniques, but not well executed (we’ve all been there with the childish freehand writing/symbols, etc.)
5. The old tabletop standard; basic colours neatly done, with some details picked out, but no real shading, highlighting etc. A bit flat. Simplplistic basing (e.g. just flock or sand)
6. What I think of as the “modern” tabletop standard, details picked out in addition to base colours, with basic shading or highlighting and a decent base.
7. A very nice tabletop standard, low end of GW catalogue style. The kind of painting that if your opponent unpacked an entire army at this level it would delay the start of your game whilst you went and ogled all the models. Neat, sharp and detailed.
8. Centrepiece models. Starting to get into wet blending, good but basic freehand, basic OSL, that kind of stuff. Where I think most GW catalogue jobs fit.
9. Competition quality. Starting to edge into photo-realistic. Advanced freehand and super detailed shading, blending, etc.
10. Breathtaking. The kind of model that just makes you stop dead as soon as it pops onto the screen.

It’s interesting writing it up like this, because I found it hard to do the lower end; I guess people don’t tend to post as much stuff up at that quality? Anyway, looking forward to some other opinions.

I agree with your list. And also the fact that the low end is very hard to quantify, and rarely seen. If people are painting at that level, they are probably not posting a lot of pics. Even if they are, it’s probably because they want to improve. And getting to at least a basic table-top level is not that hard given a little advice and minimal effort. So there are probably not a lot of “early” pics in galleries.

When I vote I tend to keep my fingers on the 5-6-7 keys, as the vast bulk of what’s here on Dakka falls into that range. There are of course higher end works. When trubovoting through the gallery, if it makes me stop and “wow” then I need to figure out where on the 8-10 range it is. Very rarely do I give out 10s. It has to stop me dead in my tracks with how amazing it is, and then when looking at details, I realize it’s even more amazing then I first thought.

I generally paint around a 6 personally, both in my own opinion and how people vote. Obviously, some models end up better then others. Or worse.

I end up around a 7, which I’m perfectly happy with. I could probably get my stuff painted quicker if I dropped the detail, but I don’t play much, so I’d rather spend the time doing a good job.

The one thing that bugs me slightly is, even if I put a lot of time and effort into a model, I can’t seem to break into the 8+ range. And I don’t have the time/patience to develop the techniques to do so. I don’t want it for the rank and file, but it would be nice to have that extra level for centrepiece characters.

I largely agree with your list, although to me a basic tabletop starts at 4 as it allows greater wiggle room in the higher numbers. I tend not to vote on what I consider lower end paint jobs as it can feel a little insulting to some people to receive votes from anonymous or named sources. I know I definitely felt like that when I was younger because the lack of feedback is the stinger.

If I was to put myself somewhere on the list, I'd put myself mainly on a 7, pushing 8 when I do something with particular care and attention. I'm in the process of learning advanced techniques so I would like to try and get into the highest numbers at some point.

I don't vote/browse the gallery here, but for that kind of 1-10 scale in general I'd call it something like this:

1a: Trash. Blobbed on paint, sloppy brush marks everywhere, obviously doing the absolute minimum to meet a "three colors" rule, etc. Everything in the OP's 1-4 categories goes here, it all sucks and there's no point in trying to separate it into precise scores of how bad it is. Really this should be a "does not qualify for scoring" but a 1 is the lowest possible score.

1b: "LOOK AT ME I HAVE AN AIRBRUSH" trash. Yes, we get it, you own an airbrush and are capable of using it to spray paint vaguely in the direction of a model. Your shading is cartoonish and overdone, your OSL is just a bunch of giant white blobs on random parts of the model, and the whole thing is clearly done as quickly as possible to get the commission done and move on to the next victim customer. People may be gullible enough to pay money for this trash, but it's still trash. This ranks below even bare minimum work because, unlike a newbie doing the bare minimum on their first models, the people responsible for this stuff are supposedly professionals who should be capable of better.

3: Bare minimum. Competently executed with all parts of the model painted the correct color, but very basic "base coat + dip" methods. Credit for making the effort to do better than the trash, but it's still the low end of painting.

5: Basic tabletop. Add a competently done wash (including multiple colors if appropriate) instead of the dip on a 3/10, and do some basic highlighting/basing/etc. Perfectly acceptable for gaming pieces but nothing that makes it stand out in a tournament full of similar armies.

7a: Advanced tabletop. Add conversions, weathering, advanced shading techniques, scenic bases, etc. The kind of painting that, when you see it applied to an entire army, is damn impressive and one of the best armies in the room. It's as good as you can reasonably expect to see on an entire army but may lack some of the extremely precise and time-consuming refinements of a painting competition piece.

7b: Soulless "I want to win a painting contest" pieces. From a technical point of view they're amazing. Lots of dramatic shading with very clean blends, freehand on every possible surface, NMM turning every conceivable metal surface (even ones that would realistically be dull and dirty) into polished chrome, etc. From an artistic point of view? Not so much. There's no unifying theme to it all, no reason for all of the advanced work. The model is just a carrier for the painter's attempt to show off how well they can execute techniques, is completely interchangeable with any other model, and is probably picked in a cynical attempt to be the kind of model that wins painting contests instead of because the artist loves it. So it gets a decent score but not a great one.

9: Amazing. Technique is on a 7b level but the model has character and makes sense. Freehand is saved for things that should have detailed patterns on them on the "real" model, and therefore has more impact. NMM is only used for things that should be polished chrome, and may not even be seen at all. Maybe, because this is a more realistic/historical style of painting, colors are all very subdued and detail is brought out with realistic weathering. The composition of the model and scene (if any) matter and aren't sacrificed just to cram in another "advanced technique". Could easily win a painting contest but may not be as memorable as a true 10/10.

10: Godlike. This isn't really something that can be put into words. Something about the piece just blows away the viewer and makes you remember it.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I largely agree with your list, although to me a basic tabletop starts at 4 as it allows greater wiggle room in the higher numbers. I tend not to vote on what I consider lower end paint jobs as it can feel a little insulting to some people to receive votes from anonymous or named sources. I know I definitely felt like that when I was younger because the lack of feedback is the stinger.

If I was to put myself somewhere on the list, I'd put myself mainly on a 7, pushing 8 when I do something with particular care and attention. I'm in the process of learning advanced techniques so I would like to try and get into the highest numbers at some point.

Interesting. As bad as it may sound whilst im happy to judge others work objectively, I find it impossible to judge my own work.
All I see is flaws and mistakes and pretty much all of my own work looks like a trashfire to me

I mostly agree with the list by OP(not peregrine because he clearly hates and is prejudiced airbrushes ) but Id group point 1&2 together

But isnert a point between 8-9
I.e. Competent wet blending, competent OSL but not quite competition standard.

 Argive wrote:
(not peregrine because he clearly hates and is prejudiced airbrushes )

I don't hate airbrushes, it's a useful tool that can get great results when used properly. What I hate is the "LOOK AT ME I HAVE AN AIRBRUSH" style used by certain commission painters. The gullible customer doesn't own an airbrush, the commission painter does, and they want to make everyone as aware as possible that this elite tool was used but not have to spend more time than necessary before moving on to the next victim customer. So instead of shading that makes sense for a given lighting condition you get random extreme gradients all over the model. Instead of subtle OSL with careful blending and attention to what areas a light source would actually illuminate you get giant blobs of white paint sprayed over every object that could conceivably emit light. Etc. The problem is not the airbrush, it's lazy and clumsy airbrush technique that produces results being held up as some kind of high-end product deserving of commission payments.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I largely agree with your list, although to me a basic tabletop starts at 4 as it allows greater wiggle room in the higher numbers. I tend not to vote on what I consider lower end paint jobs as it can feel a little insulting to some people to receive votes from anonymous or named sources. I know I definitely felt like that when I was younger because the lack of feedback is the stinger.

Counter: My 'kukushka' paintjob was rated 5.75, which stung. But they were right it was crap, even by my standards. So I repainted her and she's, I think, much improved.

That wouldn't have happened if people weren't honest about the work.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I largely agree with your list, although to me a basic tabletop starts at 4 as it allows greater wiggle room in the higher numbers. I tend not to vote on what I consider lower end paint jobs as it can feel a little insulting to some people to receive votes from anonymous or named sources. I know I definitely felt like that when I was younger because the lack of feedback is the stinger.

Counter: My 'kukushka' paintjob was rated 5.75, which stung. But they were right it was crap, even by my standards. So I repainted her and she's, I think, much improved.

That wouldn't have happened if people weren't honest about the work.

That's fair, I guess I would rather have feedback as to why something I painted was crap rather than a bunch of people voting on the image. I have my fair share of low rated images and I understand why they were voted on so harshly but without the feedback at the time it was very disheartening so I'd rather not do the same.

In regards to your comments Peregrine, I largely agree with you, there are a lot of people on Instagram that use airbrushing as a crutch, but when you see the likes of Les from AwesomePaintjob use an airbrush you see the difference immediately. It's a good start to get good results fast but like everything, it's a combination of things which make a model look great.

It's the same reason I don't vote on WIP pictures, if something obviously isn't finished why are you voting on it? I disable voting on my WIPs but I feel some people don't care.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Argive wrote:
(not peregrine because he clearly hates and is prejudiced airbrushes )

I don't hate airbrushes, it's a useful tool that can get great results when used properly. What I hate is the "LOOK AT ME I HAVE AN AIRBRUSH" style used by certain commission painters. The gullible customer doesn't own an airbrush, the commission painter does, and they want to make everyone as aware as possible that this elite tool was used but not have to spend more time than necessary before moving on to the next victim customer. So instead of shading that makes sense for a given lighting condition you get random extreme gradients all over the model. Instead of subtle OSL with careful blending and attention to what areas a light source would actually illuminate you get giant blobs of white paint sprayed over every object that could conceivably emit light. Etc. The problem is not the airbrush, it's lazy and clumsy airbrush technique that produces results being held up as some kind of high-end product deserving of commission payments.

Out of interest, do you use/have you used an airbrush?

 Argive wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Argive wrote:
(not peregrine because he clearly hates and is prejudiced airbrushes )

I don't hate airbrushes, it's a useful tool that can get great results when used properly. What I hate is the "LOOK AT ME I HAVE AN AIRBRUSH" style used by certain commission painters. The gullible customer doesn't own an airbrush, the commission painter does, and they want to make everyone as aware as possible that this elite tool was used but not have to spend more time than necessary before moving on to the next victim customer. So instead of shading that makes sense for a given lighting condition you get random extreme gradients all over the model. Instead of subtle OSL with careful blending and attention to what areas a light source would actually illuminate you get giant blobs of white paint sprayed over every object that could conceivably emit light. Etc. The problem is not the airbrush, it's lazy and clumsy airbrush technique that produces results being held up as some kind of high-end product deserving of commission payments.

Out of interest, do you use/have you used an airbrush?

Nope. But you don't need to use an airbrush to recognize minimal-effort airbrush work that looks like .

 Peregrine wrote:

 Argive wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Argive wrote:
(not peregrine because he clearly hates and is prejudiced airbrushes )

I don't hate airbrushes, it's a useful tool that can get great results when used properly. What I hate is the "LOOK AT ME I HAVE AN AIRBRUSH" style used by certain commission painters. The gullible customer doesn't own an airbrush, the commission painter does, and they want to make everyone as aware as possible that this elite tool was used but not have to spend more time than necessary before moving on to the next victim customer. So instead of shading that makes sense for a given lighting condition you get random extreme gradients all over the model. Instead of subtle OSL with careful blending and attention to what areas a light source would actually illuminate you get giant blobs of white paint sprayed over every object that could conceivably emit light. Etc. The problem is not the airbrush, it's lazy and clumsy airbrush technique that produces results being held up as some kind of high-end product deserving of commission payments.

Out of interest, do you use/have you used an airbrush?

Nope. But you don't need to use an airbrush to recognize minimal-effort airbrush work that looks like .

How can you possibly know how much effort goes into getting basic airbrush results/skills if you have never used one? Therefore how can you quantify minimal effort? How can you have a reference point? You cant. But then again, you just don't care do you. You are said that commission painters that do a basic job on minis with an airbrush are lower than someone who just slops paint on a model with zero effort as long as "they base and dip/wash.." which is the very basiciest of basiscs and is more or less impossible to feth up...

Airbrushing simple gradients and getting half clean results is bloody hard on miniatures as they are tiny effin things and requires A LOT OF practice.
Only a slight pull on the trigger will splurge your entire mini in the wrong colour. Its a lot harder to tidy up a fethed up airbrush error than it is a single brush stroke error.. It also required an investment in half decent equipment obviously which is a commitment in and of itself. Airbrush is a tool in a painters arsenal and is here to stay and I wont agree with anyone discrediting genuine skill just because it doesn't fit traditional idea of painting from way back when before these were commonly available. I'm far more comfortable with wet blending than I am with airbrushing infantry sized detail. Its a craft.

Its a style in and of itself I think. Its neither wrong nor right but it involves skill. Some people want their minis to look great from a few yards away on the table top. Some want full details from a foot away.

 Argive wrote:
How can you possibly know how much effort goes into getting basic airbrush results/skills if you have never used one?

Because I've also seen quality airbrush work. It doesn't take hands-on experience to look at a model with OSL and see that it's just a single blob of white paint sprayed on something that might possibly be a light source, and then compare it to good OSL where the artist took the time to use multiple layers and build up a subtle OSL effect. What else do you call that besides a lack of effort?

You are said that commission painters that do a basic job on minis with an airbrush are lower than someone who just slops paint on a model with zero effort as long as "they base and dip/wash.." which is the very basiciest of basiscs and is more or less impossible to feth up...

Yep. I give points for effort when it's a newbie trying their best, when a supposed commission painter posts work that deserves to go straight in the paint stripper they get a 1/10 for being lazy and/or having no idea how light and shadow work.

Airbrush is a tool in a painters arsenal and is here to stay and I wont agree with anyone discrediting genuine skill just because it doesn't fit traditional idea of painting from way back when before these were commonly available.

I guess you skipped over the part where I said that an airbrush is a useful tool and have no problem with it? There have been plenty of models that used an airbrush at some point(s) in the process that I've been impressed with and would rate highly. But those are not the quality airbrush work getting 1/10s.

I'm with Peregrine. You dont need to have extensive experience in doing something in order to understand the quality of the outcome. Otherwise how would food and film critics continue to make a living

So just because someone uses an airbrush for the first time and goes bit too trigger happy on the OSL it needs to go in the strip bin? Or is this only reserved to a commission painter whose use of airbrush to generate OSL does not meet your esteemed arbitrary standards? What are we even discussing here...

How do you know what a customer wanted lol. If someone likes that kind of ott OSL work on their models and that's what they (the customer) wants for a basic table top standard then what even the eff do you have a problem with? Do you think someone who orders commission and says "I want quick and dirty table top standard" would expect good blending work? Would someone who pays for a high end commission accept basic level airbrush do over? there are levels to commission work and what customers are paying.

Anyway. I'm not getting drawn into any further clap trap merry go round discussion lol. You've made your principles very clear and the disdain you have for airbrush is pretty clear by your language.. Good luck to you on yer ventures sir...

 Argive wrote:
You've made your principles very clear and the disdain you have for airbrush is pretty clear by your language.

I see, now that you're tired of posting straw man arguments you'll make your dramatic exit from the thread. Perhaps instead of building straw man arguments you could read what I actually said, which is that airbrushes are fine and a very useful tool and that my problem is with airbrush work?

You really cant see the difference in the language you use in these three points??? Ok..

1a: Trash. Blobbed on paint, sloppy brush marks everywhere, obviously doing the absolute minimum to meet a "three colors" rule, etc. Everything in the OP's 1-4 categories goes here, it all sucks and there's no point in trying to separate it into precise scores of how bad it is. Really this should be a "does not qualify for scoring" but a 1 is the lowest possible score.

1b: "LOOK AT ME I HAVE AN AIRBRUSH" trash. Yes, we get it, you own an airbrush and are capable of using it to spray paint vaguely in the direction of a model. Your shading is cartoonish and overdone, your OSL is just a bunch of giant white blobs on random parts of the model, and the whole thing is clearly done as quickly as possible to get the commission done and move on to the next victim customer. People may be gullible enough to pay money for this trash, but it's still trash. This ranks below even bare minimum work because, unlike a newbie doing the bare minimum on their first models, the people responsible for this stuff are supposedly professionals who should be capable of better.

3: Bare minimum. Competently executed with all parts of the model painted the correct color, but very basic "base coat + dip" methods. Credit for making the effort to do better than the trash, but it's still the low end of painting.

5: Basic tabletop. Add a competently done wash (including multiple colors if appropriate) instead of the dip on a 3/10, and do some basic highlighting/basing/etc. Perfectly acceptable for gaming pieces but nothing that makes it stand out in a tournament full of similar armies.

What you are appear to be saying that someone might produce nice clean work, table top standard, but because it has been done using an airbrush it should be better and a newbie that slaps on some basecoat and wash giving and ugly result is better. You are therefore discriminating vs airbrush work by saying bad airbrush work is worse than rally bad brush work.... Or average/middle of the road airbrush work is worse than bad brush work im not sure to be honest. This to me demonstrates you don't respect the skills and experience involved in achieving those results and are willing to gak on them just because of the technique and tools used.

You then put a cheeky caveat in saying "well some airbrush brush work is ok" = "see I have nothing against airbrushes because I said that"

Consider myself dramatically exiting again now because its actualy quite fun

Oh look who's back again after all.

 Argive wrote:
What you are appear to be saying that someone might produce nice clean work, table top standard, but because it has been done using an airbrush it should be better and a newbie that slaps on some basecoat and wash giving and ugly result is better.

No, I am saying that it is NOT "nice clean work". It's work that belongs in a bucket of paint stripper. The airbrush is only relevant because in my experience the primary offenders are "LOOK AT ME I HAVE AN AIRBRUSH" commission painters and newbies doing their first basic painting attempts don't do those things.

This to me demonstrates you don't respect the skills and experience involved in achieving those results and are willing to gak on them just because of the technique and tools used.

I don't respect the "skill" involved because the results are . Spraying a giant blob of white paint on every conceivable light source is not skill. It's garbage.

You then put a cheeky caveat in saying "well some airbrush brush work is ok" = "see I have nothing against airbrushes because I said that"

There's nothing cheeky about it at all, it's just simple truth. This model was painted primarily with an airbrush:



It's a really good model and an excellent example of how to do detailed weathering at a high level. In no way does the use of an airbrush hurt the (hypothetical) score I would give to it. So yes, the issue is in fact airbrush work and not the tool itself.

Ok and now one of those primary offender please.

And then followed up by something you ranked higher I.e. base coat and wash.

That way you can illustrate what you mean as you're not doing a good job with words and just keep saying " " airbrush.

 Argive wrote:
Ok and now one of those primary offender please.

No, because singling out someone's work to be labeled " airbrushing" would be a violation of forum rules. You'll just have to use your imagination here.

Well yeah... you obviously have to be obnoxious.. not like there's another way to communicate.

Not like you could just say I think this is better than this of course...

Anyhow. I guess that's that then.

Im not sure how a reasoned response to a question about subjective choices by an individual leads to so much "you are wrong and a bad person for having such a rating system."

I think it's entirely reasonable to rate more highly someone who is inexperienced but trying compared to someone who may be more experienced but is obviously banging out substandard work just to make content. Difference between mass produced rubbish produced cynically compared to something hand crafted with a bit of passion.

 Flinty wrote:
Im not sure how a reasoned response to a question about subjective choices by an individual leads to so much "you are wrong and a bad person for having such a rating system."

I think it's entirely reasonable to rate more highly someone who is inexperienced but trying compared to someone who may be more experienced but is obviously banging out substandard work just to make content. Difference between mass produced rubbish produced cynically compared to something hand crafted with a bit of passion.

Because if one is using a metric of "passion/handcraftedness" and deciding arbitrary it doesn't apply to someones work just because someone used a certain tool and using ideology to assign a label to someone's work based on nothing other than prejudice, to assign value to an aesthetic result is not logical to me. Assuming "its easy and therefore should be better" without any prior experience, or being open to new ideas is also not logical or constructive.

If you treat models as art then yes. Very subjective like what you like, whatever style floats your boat..

OP was about coming up up with a standard to measure result. If you come up with a metric by assigning overall value to techniques used, and the driving rationale is prejudiced vs a tool, I think this is a fundamentally flawed metric. It's all very subjective, sure. Discounting visibly better overall objective result based on a specific ideology stemming from unfounded bias born from inexperience is not logical or constructive.

As far as I can tell someones is trying to say there is a proper way to paint, and basic airbrush skills are not part of this proper way of painting..
Some of the airbrush work is almost cell shaded cartoony effect.. It is a specific style... Aesthetically it might not be for everyone. Sure. Personally I'm not a big fan and prefer taking time with wet blending. But saying it doesn't involve skill or passion and therefore is worthless is just silly..

I don't know if that makes sense. I'm trying to use words to explain my point of view. Apologies if I'm not doing a good job.