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.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Honestly, if that's the result then why does contrast even exist? Yeah, GW has fixed the pooling issues but it seems like they've only done it at the expense of removing the "one coat shading" part. The one on the right is a lot smoother but it also has no depth, you'd need to do a conventional shade + highlight process on it to get to an acceptable standard.

I do hear what you’re saying. But, I’d like to counter that an easy bright yellow base layer is in itself a desirable result? By no means what we know Contrast for, but a result likely to be popular unto itself?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Honestly, if that's the result then why does contrast even exist? Yeah, GW has fixed the pooling issues but it seems like they've only done it at the expense of removing the "one coat shading" part. The one on the right is a lot smoother but it also has no depth, you'd need to do a conventional shade + highlight process on it to get to an acceptable standard.

I do hear what you’re saying. But, I’d like to counter that an easy bright yellow base layer is in itself a desirable result? By no means what we know Contrast for, but a result likely to be popular unto itself?

apparently some of the new contrasts aren't really contrasts but are basicly just inks, and yeah.. as Mad Doc said, just being able to get a bright clean yellow in one pass, is desirable in and of itself.

Those yellows look amazing, and the reds look very interesting too. Contrasts used as gw sells them to be look awful but they are great paints to use to make the most of their transparency over value sketches and as filters. They are basically inks but the coverage of those yellow is very interesting to me.

Contrast was first advertised as a quick way to paint

and now it is just a different way for classic GW painting with base and highlight

so yeah, there is not much contrast any more to the contrast paints, but more expensive regular ones

CadianSgtBob wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Honestly, if that's the result then why does contrast even exist? Yeah, GW has fixed the pooling issues but it seems like they've only done it at the expense of removing the "one coat shading" part. The one on the right is a lot smoother but it also has no depth, you'd need to do a conventional shade + highlight process on it to get to an acceptable standard.

You could also watch one of the videos posted before getting all clever from a thumbnail.

There's 6 that work like that and 21 that work like classic Contrast.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I do hear what you’re saying. But, I’d like to counter that an easy bright yellow base layer is in itself a desirable result? By no means what we know Contrast for, but a result likely to be popular unto itself?

But then why call it contrast? It's completely counterintuitive if you're using the same brand name to describe two separate product lines: a "one layer for basic tabletop" system and a high-opacity base layer for conventional painting (which is somehow not the same as the existing product line of high-opacity base layers).

If it was made using the Contrast medium, then it would be perfectly acceptable to call it a Contrast paint even if it doesn't necessarily work like a Contrast paint normally does.

 kodos wrote:
Contrast was first advertised as a quick way to paint

and now it is just a different way for classic GW painting with base and highlight

so yeah, there is not much contrast any more to the contrast paints, but more expensive regular ones

They were pitched as that but are so much more versatile than that, they are basically inks. And can be used in so many ways, believe it or not there are more ways to paint than the gw way, and contrast paints are just one tool in your toolbox to get the results you want. Even GW painting tutorials use them in many different ways. They are not “just a different way for classic GW painting” at all.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
So the verdict is in. Looks like I'll be spending 150€+ on new Contrasts huh. Wish I hadn't wasted money on Scale75 Instants and AP Speedpaints.

I'm not sold on the new Contrasts. There's a couple of interesting colours in there, the purple and the blue-green interest me as currently I've not used a good purple in the "one coat" market.

The low-contrast Contrasts in the new range don't really interest me. Like, cool, it's a quick way to lay down a well saturated yellow... but how often do I actually want to do that? Almost never. I'm almost always aiming for a slightly desaturated yellow in which case the existing Contrasts are good or good old Averland Sunset.

I'm 50/50 on AP speed paints now. Ironically, the reactivation thing makes them bad for actual speed painting, but they are a lot easier to get a smooth coat than contrasts, so I've come around to them when I want to do a quick basecoat on a model where pooling will be hard to control.

Never tried the Scale75 Instants, you don't like them?

The main thing I'd be interested in is if these Contrasts are significantly better than the old Contrasts for controllability. If somehow they make something as controllable as AP Speed Paints that didn't take an eternity to dry and didn't have the bleeding issues, it'd be all over that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
apparently some of the new contrasts aren't really contrasts but are basicly just inks, and yeah.. as Mad Doc said, just being able to get a bright clean yellow in one pass, is desirable in and of itself.

They don't really look like inks to me either, they kind of are something new.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
Contrast was first advertised as a quick way to paint

and now it is just a different way for classic GW painting with base and highlight

so yeah, there is not much contrast any more to the contrast paints, but more expensive regular ones

They're a way to lay down a solid vibrant and saturated colour quickly. Currently, even with a white undercoat, it takes a few coats to get a nice saturated yellow or a nice saturated red, or you start with a desaturated version of the colour (like the Base range) and add a glaze to bring back the saturation, which still means multiple coats of paint. These new Contrasts fill that niche.

Personally I think it's a pretty small niche though, as I rarely ever want a high saturation pure red or pure yellow or whatever. But maybe they're really useful and I'm just not creative enough to figure out that use, lol.

Not convinced having wildly different acting paints under the same name is a particularly helpful bit of marketing strategy. Sure, an avid painter might look them up beforehand and know some of them are more like washes that will barely tint the raised sections but nicely colour the crevices, then some of them have no contrast to them at all but have super bright coverage, but to the average joe walking into a shop and seeing them, having them under the same name seems pretty unhelpful.

Why not just call the inky ones something different? Then have the others split into two groups, saturated or subtle? This way seems like a great way of getting people to buy paint, discover it doesn't work they want, then get annoyed and not buy any more of your paint

 Ghaz wrote:
If it was made using the Contrast medium, then it would be perfectly acceptable to call it a Contrast paint even if it doesn't necessarily work like a Contrast paint normally does.

No, it's not acceptable at all. As a user of the product I don't care what ingredients went into it, I care about how it behaves when I paint with it. If it says contrast on the pot I expect it to behave as a contrast paint: one-coat coverage with clearly defined highlight and shadow areas. If it instead acts like a base paint and gives me a high-opacity base coat it isn't doing what it says on the pot and I'm going to be incredibly annoyed that I wasted my money on the paint and now have to strip the model to re-paint it with actual contrast paint. And because I now know I can't trust the product descriptions I'm going to be reluctant to buy any more GW paints in the future.

Yes it is, because GW decided it is and it’s their product. Having a dozen or more types of paints would just lead to unnecessary confusion. If it’s a Contrast paint (and it is) then call it that.

 Ghaz wrote:
Yes it is, because GW decided it is and it’s their product. Having a dozen or more types of paints would just lead to unnecessary confusion. If it’s a Contrast paint (and it is) then call it that.

"Whatever GW says is automatically right" is hardly a compelling defense against the argument that GW is making a mistake. And it is not a contrast paint in the only way that matters to the user. It does not shade the model like contrast paints are expected to, it behaves more like GW's existing line of base paints.

also saying contrast lets you know what medium to use to dilute it

Andykp wrote:

They were pitched as that but are so much more versatile than that, they are basically inks. And can be used in so many ways, believe it or not there are more ways to paint than the gw way, and contrast paints are just one tool in your toolbox to get the results you want. Even GW painting tutorials use them in many different ways. They are not “just a different way for classic GW painting” at all.

they are basically Inks, something that caused a big rage with the first release if you said it because Contrast are totally something different than Inks

I am glad that there are more different Inks out there, specially for niche colours that are complicated to mix
but were the original line was offering something slightly different with some colours (not all of them work the same way or give as good results) we are now back to have more expensive Ink

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Contrast was first advertised as a quick way to paint
and now it is just a different way for classic GW painting with base and highlight
so yeah, there is not much contrast any more to the contrast paints, but more expensive regular ones

They're a way to lay down a solid vibrant and saturated colour quickly. Currently, even with a white undercoat, it takes a few coats to get a nice saturated yellow or a nice saturated red, or you start with a desaturated version of the colour (like the Base range) and add a glaze to bring back the saturation, which still means multiple coats of paint. These new Contrasts fill that niche.

Personally I think it's a pretty small niche though, as I rarely ever want a high saturation pure red or pure yellow or whatever. But maybe they're really useful and I'm just not creative enough to figure out that use, lol.

for me, for a pure high saturated red and yellow I have the Liquitex Inks and the new Contrast look like to be more similar to those (were the original ones offered something that was a little different)

like the Promo/Review Video with the Yellow/Blue Marine, this is something you would do with the Liquitex ones, while with "Contrast" I would expect to not need to make edge highlights
(we are back to have more expensive Inks and Washes that are marketed as brand new way to paint and big improvement)

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

The Nighthaunt Gloom changing is a perfect example of why I can't justify using Citadel paints for big projects anymore. The whole range changed once, there's every chance it can/will happen again.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Yes it is, because GW decided it is and it’s their product. Having a dozen or more types of paints would just lead to unnecessary confusion. If it’s a Contrast paint (and it is) then call it that.

"Whatever GW says is automatically right" is hardly a compelling defense against the argument that GW is making a mistake. And it is not a contrast paint in the only way that matters to the user. It does not shade the model like contrast paints are expected to, it behaves more like GW's existing line of base paints.

It's their product, not yours, so yes if they want to call it Contrast then that is their right. If you don't like it then make your own and name it whatever you want.

 Arbitrator wrote:
The Nighthaunt Gloom changing is a perfect example of why I can't justify using Citadel paints for big projects anymore. The whole range changed once, there's every chance it can/will happen again.

Nighthaunt Gloom and Hexwraith Flame were basically the prototypes for the Contrast paints. It doesn't make sense to leave these two that will require a different medium. Changing (and improving) two paints out of a line of hundreds of paints makes it a pretty small chance that it will happen again.

Relying on the forgeworld air paints is clearly a bad idea though. They went end-of-life there, were eventually brought back into the main citadel air line when Contrast came out, and many have just gone last-chance-to-buy again.

Juan Hidalgo compares the new Shades to the old...

 Ghaz wrote:

Nighthaunt Gloom and Hexwraith Flame were basically the prototypes for the Contrast paints. It doesn't make sense to leave these two that will require a different medium. Changing (and improving) two paints out of a line of hundreds of paints makes it a pretty small chance that it will happen again.

Nighthaunt Gloom looks very different to the current version, despite it being the designated "use this as the primary colour" for one of their main armies.

Also as I said, they changed the entire line only ten years or so again so it isn't like there's not a precedent for this kind of thing.

 kodos wrote:
they are basically Inks, something that caused a big rage with the first release if you said it because Contrast are totally something different than Inkst)

Inks and contrast are different things, an ink has a specific chemical composition and technical definition which contrast paints do not meet (key is in the name, its illegal in many areas to market a paint as an ink or an ink as a paint), though the end result is that they both behave similarly as far as our plastic dudes are concerned.

 Ghaz wrote:
Juan Hidalgo compares the new Shades to the old...

...did he hate the old washes that much? Because otherwise if comes off as... shilly? (he loves them all, without a single one being stated as worse, even though a fair amount of the tones change, and hey, yeah, smaller pot but you get better paint, so no problemo)

That's basically what all the reviews have said. They're better but cost more.

 Crimson wrote:
That's basically what all the reviews have said. They're better but cost more.

Dunno, tbh. I do like the fact that the current nuln oil and agrax earthshade helps me make easy filters in addition to just regular washes.

Nuld Oil, for example, feels like is completely different from what it was, and it currently works great to dull down metals.

Guess I'll have to stock up those at the very least.

EDIT: There's also another issue, now that I think about it, and it's that washes, when compared with contrast paints, tend IME to be easier to work with, move around and taking off excess with a brush than contrasts, that as soon as they start to dry tend to leave ugly skid marks. If all the new washes area ctually contrast paints... well, that's an issue.

 Albertorius wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Juan Hidalgo compares the new Shades to the old...

...did he hate the old washes that much? Because otherwise if comes off as... shilly? (he loves them all, without a single one being stated as worse, even though a fair amount of the tones change, and hey, yeah, smaller pot but you get better paint, so no problemo)

Yeah, he hates them, I spoke to him during the seminar, no shilling. I wasn't fond of the old Shades either. Remember, we're paint nerds. Even if the result is just 10% better we happily throw our money at it

But as you can see in my review (https://youtu.be/tDyU_qUO-sY) or in his stream, the new washes tint and stain a lot less while still creating deep shadows in the recesses. Some painters might prefer more tinting, but what I want from a wash is a smooth finish, and the new Shade paints deliver in this regard, which makes them a lot better in my book. I could do without the price increase obviously.

 stahly wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Juan Hidalgo compares the new Shades to the old...

...did he hate the old washes that much? Because otherwise if comes off as... shilly? (he loves them all, without a single one being stated as worse, even though a fair amount of the tones change, and hey, yeah, smaller pot but you get better paint, so no problemo)

Yeah, he hates them, I spoke to him during the seminar, no shilling. I wasn't fond of them either. Remember, we're paint nerds. Even if the result is just 10% better we happily throw our money at it

But as you can see in my review (https://youtu.be/tDyU_qUO-sY) or in his stream, the new washes tint and stain a lot less while still creating deep shadows in the recesses. Some painters might prefer more tinting, but what I want from a wash is a smooth finish, and the new Shade paints deliver in this regard, which makes them a lot better in my book. I could do without the price increase obviously.

Thanks for that. How about the way it works? Do they behave as contrasts when starting to dry?

 Albertorius wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Juan Hidalgo compares the new Shades to the old...

Spoiler:

...did he hate the old washes that much? Because otherwise if comes off as... shilly? (he loves them all, without a single one being stated as worse, even though a fair amount of the tones change, and hey, yeah, smaller pot but you get better paint, so no problemo)

Answered in his earlier video starting at about the 1:07 mark.

 Albertorius wrote:

 stahly wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Juan Hidalgo compares the new Shades to the old...

...did he hate the old washes that much? Because otherwise if comes off as... shilly? (he loves them all, without a single one being stated as worse, even though a fair amount of the tones change, and hey, yeah, smaller pot but you get better paint, so no problemo)

Yeah, he hates them, I spoke to him during the seminar, no shilling. I wasn't fond of them either. Remember, we're paint nerds. Even if the result is just 10% better we happily throw our money at it

But as you can see in my review (https://youtu.be/tDyU_qUO-sY) or in his stream, the new washes tint and stain a lot less while still creating deep shadows in the recesses. Some painters might prefer more tinting, but what I want from a wash is a smooth finish, and the new Shade paints deliver in this regard, which makes them a lot better in my book. I could do without the price increase obviously.

Thanks for that. How about the way it works? Do they behave as contrasts when starting to dry?

A bit, when you apply them, it takes a moment and then the capillary effect starts like crazy and pushes the darker pigments/dyes into the recesses, I found you need to be watchful and soak up any excess wash as it gathers quickly in the recesses. However, unlike Contrast, you have a longer timeframe manipulating them, being able to push them around and such. I found Contrast starts to dry very quickly and then it's easy to get tears and blotches when you want to move them around with your brush. Hope that makes sense

 Ghaz wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Juan Hidalgo compares the new Shades to the old...

Spoiler:

...did he hate the old washes that much? Because otherwise if comes off as... shilly? (he loves them all, without a single one being stated as worse, even though a fair amount of the tones change, and hey, yeah, smaller pot but you get better paint, so no problemo)

Answered in his earlier video starting at about the 1:07 mark.

Hm... that's worrying, actually. IME contrasts are quite finickier.

I'm also a bit worried about hexwraith, as I love how it works and how easily it allows me to do stuff like space marine lenses and the like (below is a spilered image od a leviathan I did a while ago, the green is all hexwraith directly over metal and white).

 Albertorius wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Juan Hidalgo compares the new Shades to the old...

Spoiler:

...did he hate the old washes that much? Because otherwise if comes off as... shilly? (he loves them all, without a single one being stated as worse, even though a fair amount of the tones change, and hey, yeah, smaller pot but you get better paint, so no problemo)

Answered in his earlier video starting at about the 1:07 mark.

Hm... that's worrying, actually. IME contrasts are quite finickier.

I'm also a bit worried about hexwraith, as I love how it works and how easily it allows me to do stuff like space marine lenses.

I don't know if they used the same formula as Contrast. The way I understood it from the guy who develops all the paints at GW was that they used the knowledge they gained from developing Contrast to improve the Shade paints formula.