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 watched the Pate the Wargamer compare video a few days back, it was fair and comprehensive.
It also told me many things.

I will be getting Speed Paint ASAP, I was going to anyway, but I have also topped up my Contrast paint supply. Currently Contrast is used by me as a layer paint, and I only use it 'raw' in certain circumstances, to me the big question will be what is I use Speed Paint as another form of layer paint, but for difficult applications and combo them together with Contrast and other paint lines.

Another video showing painting with Speedpaints

I think one of the positive things it that the range seems different enough that it fills in some of the weaknesses in the Contrast range - notably the darker blues/purples in Contrast are awful, and they seem better here.

 stahly wrote:


I have tried to paint a more nuanced picture in my review: https://taleofpainters.com/2022/01/first-look-speedpaint-by-the-army-painter-better-cheaper-than-contrast/

I also find that Speedpaints are a little thinner and a little more difficult to control, but they also dry a little smoother with less pooling. The Squidmar review is a bit one-sided and very much focused on his personal painting style, which doesn't really correspond to the idea of Speedpaint/Contrast.

Thanks for that review, I always add extra layers over contrast to highlight and the reactivation of speedpaint kills it for me, I can't be doing highlights over an area then have the basecoat melt into it, probably in a patchy manner and having to varnish seal constantly just isn't acceptable as a fix.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Oathmark Revenant hero painted mostly with Army Painter Speedpaints

Ohh what colors/technique did you use to accomplish that?? I love it, I want to use that scheme for one of my armies.

 stahly wrote:

I have tried to paint a more nuanced picture in my review: https://taleofpainters.com/2022/01/first-look-speedpaint-by-the-army-painter-better-cheaper-than-contrast/
I also find that Speedpaints are a little thinner and a little more difficult to control, but they also dry a little smoother with less pooling. The Squidmar review is a bit one-sided and very much focused on his personal painting style, which doesn't really correspond to the idea of Speedpaint/Contrast.

I think the speedpaint looks better, something about the coloration feels more dramatic and cleaner than contrast.

Looking at some reviews looks like it flows better into the recesses and has a glossier finish witch probably helps with the flow.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Oathmark Revenant hero painted mostly with Army Painter Speedpaints

Ohh what colors/technique did you use to accomplish that??

It is not mine. It was posted on Northstar Miniatures FB. If I remember correctly there was a description of techniques used on the model too.

scarletsquig wrote:

 stahly wrote:


I have tried to paint a more nuanced picture in my review: https://taleofpainters.com/2022/01/first-look-speedpaint-by-the-army-painter-better-cheaper-than-contrast/

I also find that Speedpaints are a little thinner and a little more difficult to control, but they also dry a little smoother with less pooling. The Squidmar review is a bit one-sided and very much focused on his personal painting style, which doesn't really correspond to the idea of Speedpaint/Contrast.

Thanks for that review, I always add extra layers over contrast to highlight and the reactivation of speedpaint kills it for me, I can't be doing highlights over an area then have the basecoat melt into it, probably in a patchy manner and having to varnish seal constantly just isn't acceptable as a fix.

Agreed!
Stahly - if you're able to do a follow-up as you said you might, I'd be very interested in finding out which Speedpaints don't reactivate when painted over.

> Sigh, I really want to like AP because dropper and price are a big plus, but it really looks like it's only good at painting extremely textured surfaces you will only touch once.

Yeah, that. And with washes and colored primers, I was able to buy only one or two bottles and integrate them into my existing paint set. I keep getting the impression that GW and AP want you to buy a whole set of paints.

As a generic fantasy miniature painter, I don't have many uniformly colored miniatures (eg. demons, boars). Most of my miniatures have small and distinctly colored areas. I figure contrast paints lose their speed advantage when you have the overhead between colors of cleaning your brushes, unclogging eye droppers dripping paint to your palette (I'm so lazy I prefer paints with caps), and, worst of all, if and when one color of paint goes into an area where you don't want it and you have to repaint it.

Dunno why Goobertown cares about AP Speedpaint, when GH pulled off their own contrast paint formula, which uses matte medium, acrylic ink, and a little flow aid. Still, if you're a new painter who hasn't sunk $$$ into conventional hobby paints and aren't used to speedpainting, then, sure, contrast. My painting sped up dramatically when I switched to colored primers and washes.

But if someone made a paint that got rid of mold lines, filled in gaps, and primed my miniature while I painted, I'd be there!

 ced1106 wrote:


But if someone made a paint that got rid of mold lines, filled in gaps, and primed my miniature while I painted, I'd be there!

Ha ha that would be the epitome of human ingenuity!

 Azazelx wrote:

scarletsquig wrote:

 stahly wrote:


I have tried to paint a more nuanced picture in my review: https://taleofpainters.com/2022/01/first-look-speedpaint-by-the-army-painter-better-cheaper-than-contrast/

I also find that Speedpaints are a little thinner and a little more difficult to control, but they also dry a little smoother with less pooling. The Squidmar review is a bit one-sided and very much focused on his personal painting style, which doesn't really correspond to the idea of Speedpaint/Contrast.

Thanks for that review, I always add extra layers over contrast to highlight and the reactivation of speedpaint kills it for me, I can't be doing highlights over an area then have the basecoat melt into it, probably in a patchy manner and having to varnish seal constantly just isn't acceptable as a fix.

Agreed!
Stahly - if you're able to do a follow-up as you said you might, I'd be very interested in finding out which Speedpaints don't reactivate when painted over.

I'm at it! My in-depth video review will be drop before the 19th, which is the release date of the starter set.

I've reached out to my contacts at The Army Painter and they said the reactivating is a side effect of the medium they use, but it would only tend to happen with Speedpaints containg yellow pigments – so yellow, orange, red, and some of the greens, but I'll have to try for myself. It's an issue no other review has pointed out so far, at least the ones I watched, maybe because Games Workshop and Contrast bashing generates more clicks on YouTube?

Another video about testing Speedpaints

 ced1106 wrote:
> Sigh, I really want to like AP because dropper and price are a big plus, but it really looks like it's only good at painting extremely textured surfaces you will only touch once.

Yeah, that. And with washes and colored primers, I was able to buy only one or two bottles and integrate them into my existing paint set. I keep getting the impression that GW and AP want you to buy a whole set of paints.

As a generic fantasy miniature painter, I don't have many uniformly colored miniatures (eg. demons, boars). Most of my miniatures have small and distinctly colored areas. I figure contrast paints lose their speed advantage when you have the overhead between colors of cleaning your brushes, unclogging eye droppers dripping paint to your palette (I'm so lazy I prefer paints with caps), and, worst of all, if and when one color of paint goes into an area where you don't want it and you have to repaint it.

Dunno why Goobertown cares about AP Speedpaint, when GH pulled off their own contrast paint formula, which uses matte medium, acrylic ink, and a little flow aid.

Probably a mix of factors:

1. Convenience, sometimes you don't want to deal with mixing stuff yourself.
2. Sponsorship/revenue streams - I assume like most big social influencers that Goobertown gets paid for his reviews by the publishers, etc. If not, then he definitely generates revenue through traffic, which means he has a good reason to do reviews on products that would generate views on his content.
3. His homemade contrast isn't that good and doesn't flow the same way contrast does. Its a nice approximation but not a 1:1 analog and doesn't quite do the same things that contrast does.

 stahly wrote:


I've reached out to my contacts at The Army Painter and they said the reactivating is a side effect of the medium they use, but it would only tend to happen with Speedpaints containg yellow pigments – so yellow, orange, red, and some of the greens, but I'll have to try for myself. It's an issue no other review has pointed out so far, at least the ones I watched, maybe because Games Workshop and Contrast bashing generates more clicks on YouTube?

I am very interested again! I think Contrast fills my needs in yellows, oranges, and to some extent reds pretty well. I will be very happy to pick up blue, purple, and black Speedpaints, and use old school approaches to green if I have to. A decent blue Speedpaint with a clear yellow over the top might be a good compromise for green.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:

 stahly wrote:


I've reached out to my contacts at The Army Painter and they said the reactivating is a side effect of the medium they use, but it would only tend to happen with Speedpaints containg yellow pigments – so yellow, orange, red, and some of the greens, but I'll have to try for myself. It's an issue no other review has pointed out so far, at least the ones I watched, maybe because Games Workshop and Contrast bashing generates more clicks on YouTube?

I am very interested again! I think Contrast fills my needs in yellows, oranges, and to some extent reds pretty well. I will be very happy to pick up blue, purple, and black Speedpaints, and use old school approaches to green if I have to. A decent blue Speedpaint with a clear yellow over the top might be a good compromise for green.

Goober didn't mention it in his initial review, but in his more recent video he brought up the issue of paint reactivating and commented that you either need to apply it carefully or varnish between coats. He specifically showed the purple colour as having this issue by applying some medium over it to reactivate it.

I really liked the effect Goober got by applying it over a black/white primed model, I've seen others (maybe Marco Frisoni?) doing the same thing with contrast paints, but usually in a much more controlled and time consuming manner. Goober got pretty good results quickly with it.

I think both GW and Army Painter should advertise prepainting as a way to get better results, as it's super quick to prime a model black, drybrush it grey and then white prior to applying the contrast/speed paint. Could also try priming dark brown instead of black, or the complementary colour of the main colour you'll be using on the model.

I liked the video put up by Geek Gaming Scenics, where he paints an entire LotR goblin army by slathering them in speed paint and then just drybrushing over them. That feels like what I would probably use them for, when I need a bunch of miniatures painted so they don't look terrible, in a hurry with no real effort.




Also, with Goobertown, it is pretty much worth remembering that he is the miniatures equivalent of a kids TV presenter or someone like Bob Ross. The guy loves everything, always positive and just seems to enjoy life. So pretty much everything I've seen him use, he's pretty positive about, even when he's not crazy about something he seems to find positives. That seems to be just who he is

BigOscar wrote:


Also, with Goobertown, it is pretty much worth remembering that he is the miniatures equivalent of a kids TV presenter or someone like Bob Ross. The guy loves everything, always positive and just seems to enjoy life. So pretty much everything I've seen him use, he's pretty positive about, even when he's not crazy about something he seems to find positives. That seems to be just who he is

Which is completely 100% admirable and arguably more helpful in terms of review quality than someone who doesn't do the same.

chaos0xomega wrote:

BigOscar wrote:


Also, with Goobertown, it is pretty much worth remembering that he is the miniatures equivalent of a kids TV presenter or someone like Bob Ross. The guy loves everything, always positive and just seems to enjoy life. So pretty much everything I've seen him use, he's pretty positive about, even when he's not crazy about something he seems to find positives. That seems to be just who he is

Which is completely 100% admirable and arguably more helpful in terms of review quality than someone who doesn't do the same.

In what world does every review being positive help assess the objective quality of a product in any way? Logically, it would do the opposite.

because the attitude is different

being positive about the product helps you the same way as being negative, it points you to the thing it is good or bad

if the review stays positive and the only thing they say is "the product is cheap", tells you as much as a review with a 30 minute rant of what other more expensive products can do better

 kodos wrote:
because the attitude is different

being positive about the product helps you the same way as being negative, it points you to the thing it is good or bad

...no?
If they're relentlessly positive about everything, then they're gonna present everything as good, never bad, and thus will present a decent product in the same way as a bloody disgrace that never should've been made, not informing you of really anything.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
because the attitude is different

being positive about the product helps you the same way as being negative, it points you to the thing it is good or bad

...no?
If they're relentlessly positive about everything, then they're gonna present everything as good, never bad, and thus will present a decent product in the same way as a bloody disgrace that never should've been made, not informing you of really anything.

Unless you can point to an actual example of this from the reviewer in question, you're arguing about the definition of 'positive' rather than the value of positive reviews. Move on.

Goobertown is a legend. He has so many genuine fun ideas like the random painting blind packs etc. Super chilled.

Besides if he doesn't like something he says so... for example the swamp Orcs he said they are not fun and way too serious etc.

Either way all kinds of reviews are important for you to make up your own mind. God, bad, sugarcoated, salty... all is good keep them coming.

> Unless you can point to an actual example of this from the reviewer in question

Well, there's a site called Amazon that has too many such reviews.

When internet shopping was a new thing (go ask grandpa), businesses were reluctant to allow online reviews, fearing negative ones. Turns out the reverse. Online reviews tend to be positive, making it difficult sometimes for a consumer to make a choice. When three stars is a bad review... well, talk about grade inflation.

As a reviewer myself (doing it less, since I can just buy stuff on sale you have two reasons why a good review is suspect:
1. The reviewer gets free stuff. Besides the obvious not paying, the reviewer may present positive reviews to get more free stuff.
2. It takes work to write and film a review. Why bother if you're not passionate about the product? Why write a negative review (which is often not fun to write) when you have a positive one to review (which allows you to enjoy another aspect of a a product, develops your presentation skills, and often involves advocacy).

From boardgames, Undead Viking was criticized for being positive about everything he reviews, leading to the claim that his reviews weren't helpful. In fact, he got involved in some sort of KS games controversy over a review of his. I'll agree, then, that positivity makes it difficulty to make a comparative decision between one reviewer's review of one of his reviewed product vs. another. OTOH, If you read between the lines, what a reviewer *doesn't* review may be telling. He may not have enough of an argument to make a proper review, yet if he had a negative first impression, that might be enough to make a decision about a product. Either that, or he didn't get the free stuff he wanted.

I don't bother with videos for reviews, since, as a reader of written reviews, I can skim a review and jump to the negative parts, then read the positive ones if I'm still interested. I find it a waste of time to watch a video review only for it to end without telling me the information I'm looking for. I also don't watch or read reviews for entertainment, though would understand why someone would watch a review channel for its entertainment value (particularly Shut Up and Play (?) or any channel with a pretty girl...). Video tutorials, meanwhile, I find invaluable, since -- other than boardgames -- I mostly have to learn by seeing.

Still, someone has to pay for these things, and if you're not, guess who is (even with those annoying YT ads). Consumer Reports specifically only reviews products they pay for, but charge a subscription fee for it. Customers who want "free" reviews are obviously winning out (our family dropped our CR subscription decades and I was just reading several for some games on sale so all I can say is good luck and don't have poor impulse control like I have (Ooo... Judge Dredd: Helter Skelter on sale at Osprey!).

EDIT: As for pictures, I have to dismiss those, too. As an advanced tabletop painter, I know that a picture doesn't tell you how much skill or time is the paintjob versus the product. More importantly, most miniature pictures are shown close-up. Unless you play your miniature games by pushing a miniature around with your nose, this really doesn't matter, especially with boardgamers.

For board games, any review can be useful as you'll still get an idea how it plays regardless of how the reviewer approaches it. For paint I think it's different as even with real-time footage of the painting happening, it still doesn't really show you how it feels to use, how easy it is to apply and so on. Opinion is much more important at that point.

 ced1106 wrote:
> Unless you can point to an actual example of this from the reviewer in question

Well, there's a site called Amazon that has too many such reviews.

You realize, of course, that you didn't actually answer to what insaniak said, right?

BigOscar wrote:

Also, with Goobertown, it is pretty much worth remembering that he is the miniatures equivalent of a kids TV presenter or someone like Bob Ross. The guy loves everything, always positive and just seems to enjoy life. So pretty much everything I've seen him use, he's pretty positive about, even when he's not crazy about something he seems to find positives. That seems to be just who he is

Uh, Goobertown's review of Contrast was "don't buy, make your own washes"

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

BigOscar wrote:


Also, with Goobertown, it is pretty much worth remembering that he is the miniatures equivalent of a kids TV presenter or someone like Bob Ross. The guy loves everything, always positive and just seems to enjoy life. So pretty much everything I've seen him use, he's pretty positive about, even when he's not crazy about something he seems to find positives. That seems to be just who he is

Which is completely 100% admirable and arguably more helpful in terms of review quality than someone who doesn't do the same.

In what world does every review being positive help assess the objective quality of a product in any way? Logically, it would do the opposite.

The default for reviewers who don't like something is to typically focus on the negatives and the reasons why they don't like it and in the process overlook the positives entirely. If you're able to not like something but still tell me what it does well then you're being more helpful to me than just telling me it sucks.

 ced1106 wrote:
Words

Agreed. I usually don't bother looking for product reviews on storefronts or from big influencers on youtube. If I want to know how a product performs, I'll look on dakka to get a "real consumers" input or watch tutorial videos, etc. on youtube to see a product being used in a practical application by someone who didn't get it for free, etc.

> tutorial videos, etc.

Good point. My Dad does handyman work, and he watches tutorial videos all the time. Why? Because he has an actual problem (or knows he may have one in the future) and needs to fix it.

Myself, I rarely watch tutorial videos (I'm not the handyman guy -- I'm the consumer information guy, so I look up written articles on the web) so, evidently, I don't have a problem right now that needs fixing. (When I was trying to paint hair and learn OSL, not that I use either nowadays, you bet I was watching videos.) And, growing up as a technology consumer, almost everything I'm pitched fixes "a problem I didn't know I had", aka. the "solution looking for a problem". The problem about the solution" is that most of these solutions are, at best, incremental. (As I said earlier, I'd buy any paint that removed mold lines. Oh, and I'm looking for a brush that keeps its tip even if I only rinse it.) Yet, at the same time, you not only have to buy a new product, you often have to learn a new skill set (and discard an old one), and this cost is hidden within the hype. (So, no, I'm fine with forums and don't use social media, either, you kids get off of my lawn.)


> You realize, of course, that you didn't actually answer to what insaniak said, right?

You realize, of course, that I don't find these review videos helpful to watch, right? I'm not going to watch a review that doesn't answer my questions so turns out to be little more than a commercial. I actually find the term "social influencer" ironic, as these videos rarely influence me, and watching a video isn't a social activity.

EDIT: Oh, and the best way to show one's argument creds is to post a follow-up post that says the same thing someone's said before. And did I mention that I'm looking for a paint that saves me the time and frustration of painting eyes? Because I totally am.


> For paint I think it's different as even with real-time footage of the painting happening, it still doesn't really show you how it feels to use, how easy it is to apply and so on.

Yeah, that's definitely a problem. I bought Stynylrez black primer, and it was great for not only priming, but as paint. I later bought their white primer and now I have a $12 bottle of air bubbles. As for boardgames, some consumers used to believe, "try before you buy". But that was pre-internet, before FOMO and self-quarantine took over. (Not to mention buying more stuff to reach free shipping...) You'd see the occasional "paint and take" event at a miniatures convention or FLGS, but they're obviously more expensive than to ship free product, and even more difficult to do during the pandemic. Main problem with video boardgame reviews that you don't see in painting ones is that often you may need to play a boardgame a fair amount to understand the game design and deeper strategies. In fact, BGG has written "First Impression" posts that aren't comprehensive reviews, but are there for those who want to know about a product as soon as it comes out. Anyway, the more popular video reviewers has so much product to review that, not only do they turn away product, but, more importantly, don't always have the proper time to review a game. (OTOH, video unboxings and "learn how to play" are implicit disclaimers that the video is not a proper review.)


> I liked the video put up by Geek Gaming Scenics, where he paints an entire LotR goblin army by slathering them in speed paint and then just drybrushing over them.

Thanks for the video. I also think constrast was oversold for paint applications beyond its original intent. Yes, other painters want to be creative, but, like handymen, I'm fine with "the right tool for the right job".

Or, at least tutorial videos when I don't have the right tool and need to fix something.

 ced1106 wrote:

> You realize, of course, that you didn't actually answer to what insaniak said, right?

You realize, of course, that I don't find these review videos helpful to watch, right? I'm not going to watch a review that doesn't answer my questions so turns out to be little more than a commercial. I actually find the term "social influencer" ironic, as these videos rarely influence me, and watching a video isn't a social activity.

So, answer's no, then, you can't, or won't, point to an actual example from Goobertown. Right on.

Interesting to note that you seem to feel qualified to rate his videos as you don't appear to actually watch them.

(I don't usually do either, but I really wouldn't be as categoric).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The default for reviewers who don't like something is to typically focus on the negatives and the reasons why they don't like it and in the process overlook the positives entirely. If you're able to not like something but still tell me what it does well then you're being more helpful to me than just telling me it sucks.

Also, this, yeah. Usually someone absolutely positive will tell me more about products than someone absolutely negative, who usually will only tell me it's manure.

 Albertorius wrote:

 ced1106 wrote:

> You realize, of course, that you didn't actually answer to what insaniak said, right?

You realize, of course, that I don't find these review videos helpful to watch, right? I'm not going to watch a review that doesn't answer my questions so turns out to be little more than a commercial. I actually find the term "social influencer" ironic, as these videos rarely influence me, and watching a video isn't a social activity.

So, answer's no, then, you can't, or won't, point to an actual example from Goobertown. Right on.

Interesting to note that you seem to feel qualified to rate his videos as you don't appear to actually watch them.

(I don't usually do either, but I really wouldn't be as categoric).

I know right? This does not make any sense but hey, sure!
How can someone say he doesn't watch a review that doesn't answers his questions... If you dont watch you dont know... unless your questions are totally unrelated to the review then yeah