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.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Also, are we just getting to the point where all paint ranges are becoming homogenous? Like, do we need EVERY paint range to be "base shade highlight" or whatever? My understanding was that Model Color was supposed to be a military history based colour palette, so surely it's not a range that needs that (historic modellers typically pick the colour that they think looks most historically/artistically accurate and then mix their own shades, highlights, scale effects, fading, etc).

It definitely feels that way.

I think the problem is a lot of these companies seem to be getting led along by the wargaming painting influencers who've come to prominence in recent years. Thus the move towards all these brands aiming to be "matte and opaque" as if it's the holy grail of all miniatures paints, because that's generally what these youtubers want out of them.

Maybe I'm just an old grog who doesn't like change, but paint ranges being uplifted for the sake of change used to be what GW were derided for, but now it seems if you really like a certain paint you'd better stock up before the inevitable marketing of a "new 'better' reformulation" hits.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Also, are we just getting to the point where all paint ranges are becoming homogenous? Like, do we need EVERY paint range to be "base shade highlight" or whatever?

Vallejo had a BSL chart in the pamphlet for the old Game Color paints (don't recall if they had one for the Model Colors) so it's not really something new for Vallejo.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
My understanding was that Model Color was supposed to be a military history based colour palette, so surely it's not a range that needs that (historic modellers typically pick the colour that they think looks most historically/artistically accurate and then mix their own shades, highlights, scale effects, fading, etc).

That's more about equivalents such as those found in the Model Color & Liquid Metal Color Charts, the Vallejo Model Air Historical Color Reference Guide, the AK Interactive 3rd Gen. Acrylics Equivalence Table and the AMMO Acrylic Paints Conversion Chart than paint triads, but it does give you an appropriate highlight and/or shade for your base color.

More information what colours work best for Highlight and shadow is welcome anytime... I don't know why is that even an issue... just because you have more info does not mean you need to follow it.

As for bubbles most fluid acrylics did that in the past, in fact trying out Proacryl acclaimed bold titanium white and does that. Again it's not an issue at all.

Only issue with Vallejo has been availability. I understand new update of big ranges causes issues but I gave up waiting and went with say... GW which was not my 1st choice but way more available at this time.

 Arbitrator wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Also, are we just getting to the point where all paint ranges are becoming homogenous? Like, do we need EVERY paint range to be "base shade highlight" or whatever? My understanding was that Model Color was supposed to be a military history based colour palette, so surely it's not a range that needs that (historic modellers typically pick the colour that they think looks most historically/artistically accurate and then mix their own shades, highlights, scale effects, fading, etc).

It definitely feels that way.

I think the problem is a lot of these companies seem to be getting led along by the wargaming painting influencers who've come to prominence in recent years. Thus the move towards all these brands aiming to be "matte and opaque" as if it's the holy grail of all miniatures paints, because that's generally what these youtubers want out of them.

Maybe I'm just an old grog who doesn't like change, but paint ranges being uplifted for the sake of change used to be what GW were derided for, but now it seems if you really like a certain paint you'd better stock up before the inevitable marketing of a "new 'better' reformulation" hits.

Yeah, I think mentioned that a couple of pages back that IMO they are trying to hard to appease youtubers who all paint in a very similar way so want very similar paints (paints that are relatively thin, high flow, matte, etc). Not necessarily saying those are "bad" properties, but it does feel like we're getting more and more paint ranges but they're all supporting the same style of painting rather than being unique.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Also, are we just getting to the point where all paint ranges are becoming homogenous? Like, do we need EVERY paint range to be "base shade highlight" or whatever?

Vallejo had a BSL chart in the pamphlet for the old Game Color paints (don't recall if they had one for the Model Colors) so it's not really something new for Vallejo.

Not really saying it's new for Vallejo, but is it something required in every paint range?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
My understanding was that Model Color was supposed to be a military history based colour palette, so surely it's not a range that needs that (historic modellers typically pick the colour that they think looks most historically/artistically accurate and then mix their own shades, highlights, scale effects, fading, etc).

That's more about equivalents such as those found in the Model Color & Liquid Metal Color Charts, the Vallejo Model Air Historical Color Reference Guide, the AK Interactive 3rd Gen. Acrylics Equivalence Table and the AMMO Acrylic Paints Conversion Chart than paint triads, but it does give you an appropriate highlight and/or shade for your base color.

Yeah, what I was saying with that point is that for a paint range that is more focused on historics, the equivalency stuff is more important than the triad stuff because once you have the midtone you want for a historic colour, you usually mix the shade and highlight yourself based on artistic preference rather than trying to also find an out of the bottle shade or highlight.

Believe me, I have a drawer full of German Dunkelgelb, above my drawer full of British Dark Earth


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NAVARRO wrote:
More information what colours work best for Highlight and shadow is welcome anytime... I don't know why is that even an issue... just because you have more info does not mean you need to follow it.

My understanding is they removed some colours and filled out the range with new colours that better fit the triad-style of paint ranges.

As for bubbles most fluid acrylics did that in the past, in fact trying out Proacryl acclaimed bold titanium white and does that. Again it's not an issue at all.

It's not an issue depending on the painting style, clearly it's enough of an issue for other peoples' painting style that enough people pointed out to Stahly for him to include it in his review.

Only issue with Vallejo has been availability. I understand new update of big ranges causes issues but I gave up waiting and went with say... GW which was not my 1st choice but way more available at this time.

It seems like every paint range release (except GW) comes out piecemeal, and rarely comes out in Australia at the same time as the rest of the world. I end up going to the hobby store and asking every couple of weeks and them repeating "no idea". Props to GW to actually getting stuff out in time with their marketing.

There were a few colors removed and added, but it's predominantly the same range. Don't know why it's an issue that they're communicating what the triads could be rather than saying nothing and having people just figure it out for themselves.

I'll add that since availability can be an issue at times, the triad system is valuable when buying paint over the internet. That way we can have an idea of what paints pair together rather than looking at a PDF color chart online and hoping.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah, what I was saying with that point is that for a paint range that is more focused on historics, the equivalency stuff is more important than the triad stuff because once you have the midtone you want for a historic colour, you usually mix the shade and highlight yourself based on artistic preference rather than trying to also find an out of the bottle shade or highlight.

Maybe they're trying to make the Model Color line less focused on historicals and more of an all-purpose paint line?

Juan Hidalgo's review of the new Game and Model Color paints:

 Arbitrator wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Also, are we just getting to the point where all paint ranges are becoming homogenous? Like, do we need EVERY paint range to be "base shade highlight" or whatever? My understanding was that Model Color was supposed to be a military history based colour palette, so surely it's not a range that needs that (historic modellers typically pick the colour that they think looks most historically/artistically accurate and then mix their own shades, highlights, scale effects, fading, etc).

It definitely feels that way.

I think the problem is a lot of these companies seem to be getting led along by the wargaming painting influencers who've come to prominence in recent years. Thus the move towards all these brands aiming to be "matte and opaque" as if it's the holy grail of all miniatures paints, because that's generally what these youtubers want out of them.

Maybe I'm just an old grog who doesn't like change, but paint ranges being uplifted for the sake of change used to be what GW were derided for, but now it seems if you really like a certain paint you'd better stock up before the inevitable marketing of a "new 'better' reformulation" hits.

While I agree that the industry is maybe leaning a bit too hard on influencer culture to drive its marketing and some decisions, I don't really think it's a fair criticism of Vallejo in particular to talk about "new better formulations". It's been almost 30 years since they last changed even the packaging and longer in terms of their formulation I think? GW have gone through three possibly four ranges in that time, they're not in the same league at all. And really it's not a particularly fair criticism in general I think, as barring a couple of specific examples - one of which, Speed Paints, was to correct what most customers perceived as a defect - most ranges have only done one reformulation if any at all, it's more that we've had a lot of new ranges with arguably superior properties and the old guard reformulating to try and catch up all in the last couple of years or so.

I'll have to say after finally getting some time in with the 'new' Game colour paints, I'm not finding them much different from the old ones. (Xpress clearly excluded). That's talking from a consistency perspective, I've not tried to directly colour match yet.

 Dawnbringer wrote:
I'll have to say after finally getting some time in with the 'new' Game colour paints, I'm not finding them much different from the old ones. (Xpress clearly excluded). That's talking from a consistency perspective, I've not tried to directly colour match yet.

Stahly covered color matching in his Game Color review from last year. Fortunately, I'm starting all of my BattleMechs with the new paints so that's not a concern for me

 YodhrinsForge wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Also, are we just getting to the point where all paint ranges are becoming homogenous? Like, do we need EVERY paint range to be "base shade highlight" or whatever? My understanding was that Model Color was supposed to be a military history based colour palette, so surely it's not a range that needs that (historic modellers typically pick the colour that they think looks most historically/artistically accurate and then mix their own shades, highlights, scale effects, fading, etc).

It definitely feels that way.

I think the problem is a lot of these companies seem to be getting led along by the wargaming painting influencers who've come to prominence in recent years. Thus the move towards all these brands aiming to be "matte and opaque" as if it's the holy grail of all miniatures paints, because that's generally what these youtubers want out of them.

Maybe I'm just an old grog who doesn't like change, but paint ranges being uplifted for the sake of change used to be what GW were derided for, but now it seems if you really like a certain paint you'd better stock up before the inevitable marketing of a "new 'better' reformulation" hits.

While I agree that the industry is maybe leaning a bit too hard on influencer culture to drive its marketing and some decisions, I don't really think it's a fair criticism of Vallejo in particular to talk about "new better formulations". It's been almost 30 years since they last changed even the packaging and longer in terms of their formulation I think? GW have gone through three possibly four ranges in that time, they're not in the same league at all. And really it's not a particularly fair criticism in general I think, as barring a couple of specific examples - one of which, Speed Paints, was to correct what most customers perceived as a defect - most ranges have only done one reformulation if any at all, it's more that we've had a lot of new ranges with arguably superior properties and the old guard reformulating to try and catch up all in the last couple of years or so.

I don't mind them reformulating it. I mentioned in a previous post that the model colour range was very inconsistent, some colours were awesome and others were terrible.

I just wish they reformulated it with the same strengths it used to have and work on some of the problematic colours, instead of making it an expansion to the Game Color range.

And it's the strengths and weaknesses of the GC range that make it feel like, as with many modern paint ranges, they're built around people who like to paint in a certain way, so even across multiple manufacturers it's a bit like we're heading towards one big paint range with similar strengths and weaknesses, instead of a bunch of unique ranges that you choose from based on how you like to paint.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 YodhrinsForge wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Also, are we just getting to the point where all paint ranges are becoming homogenous? Like, do we need EVERY paint range to be "base shade highlight" or whatever? My understanding was that Model Color was supposed to be a military history based colour palette, so surely it's not a range that needs that (historic modellers typically pick the colour that they think looks most historically/artistically accurate and then mix their own shades, highlights, scale effects, fading, etc).

It definitely feels that way.

I think the problem is a lot of these companies seem to be getting led along by the wargaming painting influencers who've come to prominence in recent years. Thus the move towards all these brands aiming to be "matte and opaque" as if it's the holy grail of all miniatures paints, because that's generally what these youtubers want out of them.

Maybe I'm just an old grog who doesn't like change, but paint ranges being uplifted for the sake of change used to be what GW were derided for, but now it seems if you really like a certain paint you'd better stock up before the inevitable marketing of a "new 'better' reformulation" hits.

While I agree that the industry is maybe leaning a bit too hard on influencer culture to drive its marketing and some decisions, I don't really think it's a fair criticism of Vallejo in particular to talk about "new better formulations". It's been almost 30 years since they last changed even the packaging and longer in terms of their formulation I think? GW have gone through three possibly four ranges in that time, they're not in the same league at all. And really it's not a particularly fair criticism in general I think, as barring a couple of specific examples - one of which, Speed Paints, was to correct what most customers perceived as a defect - most ranges have only done one reformulation if any at all, it's more that we've had a lot of new ranges with arguably superior properties and the old guard reformulating to try and catch up all in the last couple of years or so.

I don't mind them reformulating it. I mentioned in a previous post that the model colour range was very inconsistent, some colours were awesome and others were terrible.

I just wish they reformulated it with the same strengths it used to have and work on some of the problematic colours, instead of making it an expansion to the Game Color range.

And it's the strengths and weaknesses of the GC range that make it feel like, as with many modern paint ranges, they're built around people who like to paint in a certain way, so even across multiple manufacturers it's a bit like we're heading towards one big paint range with similar strengths and weaknesses, instead of a bunch of unique ranges that you choose from based on how you like to paint.

I dunno, while there is certainly some convergence happening, it more just seems like the general quality is increasing and companies are organising their ranges in a way that's easier for beginners to understand, neither of which seems like a bad thing? There are beginner scale modellers as well, and thanks to systems like Bolt Action and FoW there are more "casual" historical gamers out there these days who want something that looks reasonably authentic but don't want to spend two weeks immersed in Osprey books and researching dye availability in Norfolk in late 1943 to figure out exactly what colour to paint their British Infantry, so a triad system to help beginners land in the right ballpark seems like a positive thing, it's not like you *have* to follow it and they don't seem to have actually changed many of their colours to do it, just arranged the ones that largely were already there. I don't personally *care* whether a paint is more matte or not since I always do a finishing varnish and I don't paint under studio lighting, but it being more matte isn't a downside. I'm not a competition painter so I don't often thin the hell out of regular paints to make glazes and filters(I do the lazy version with washes and contrasty paints), but the paint being able to do that isn't bad is it? The higher load of finer pigment that allows it seems like a positive even as it makes coverage better by default. And honestly I think whether a given range previously fit someone's preferred style of painting was more accident than intent, most people were buying paint based on either price or regional availability.

It kinda seems like your main issue is a perceived reversal of "status" between Model Colour and Game Colour.

 YodhrinsForge wrote:
It kinda seems like your main issue is a perceived reversal of "status" between Model Colour and Game Colour.

No, not really, the triad thing was just an observation of one thing where it seems paint ranges are converging instead of diversifying, and in the case of a historics-focused paint range really isn't important (with historics, the main thing is to have an accurate mid tone). The other is the focus on painting styles used by "influencers", again it seems like paint companies are trying to generally pander to the youtube voices as that can make or break the marketing.

And also disappointed that it seems like I'm losing a paint range that I liked for a very specific reason - high opacity paints that worked well with quick application techniques. I say that knowing I haven't tried them, but when reviews like Stahly's says "taking your time can help avoid the problem" my first thought is "gak, the whole reason I liked model colour is I didn't have to take my time".

Also curious how well it works as a drybrushing or sponge technique paint.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 YodhrinsForge wrote:
It kinda seems like your main issue is a perceived reversal of "status" between Model Colour and Game Colour.

No, not really, the triad thing was just an observation of one thing where it seems paint ranges are converging instead of diversifying, and in the case of a historics-focused paint range really isn't important (with historics, the main thing is to have an accurate mid tone). The other is the focus on painting styles used by "influencers", again it seems like paint companies are trying to generally pander to the youtube voices as that can make or break the marketing.

And also disappointed that it seems like I'm losing a paint range that I liked for a very specific reason - high opacity paints that worked well with quick application techniques. I say that knowing I haven't tried them, but when reviews like Stahly's says "taking your time can help avoid the problem" my first thought is "gak, the whole reason I liked model colour is I didn't have to take my time".

Also curious how well it works as a drybrushing or sponge technique paint.

I find that the argument that companies pander YouTubers and then you personally follow some of these YouTubers words without trying the paints a bit funny.

Cant fault Vallejo for quality and price and served me well for many long years before all this madness of everyone making their own painting ranges... Tweaks to a good line are welcome and Vallejo has been extremely shy of revamping the range... but like I said availability or in my case the lack of it killed it a bit... for now. One of the few companies I trust due to an exemplar past experience.

 NAVARRO wrote:
I find that the argument that companies pander YouTubers and then you personally follow some of these YouTubers words without trying the paints a bit funny.

I'll try it, that's why I keep qualifying my statements by saying I haven't tried it yet, but it's not available in Australia so all I can go off is Stahly's opinion.

And there's a bit of a difference between "I'm buying this paint because youtuber likes it", and "this information provided by a youtuber makes me think I won't personally like it". Stahly seems to really like the new Vallejo ranges, so your comment would make more sense if I was saying I'm really looking forward to it based off Stahly's comments.

But I find Stahly to be one of the better reviewers, too many other youtubers let their own likes and dislikes get in the way of evaluating the product. At one point I considered doing paint reviews myself - I'm not a good painter but I am an engineer so I think I could do decent objective paint reviews that focus on the properties more than "I like this because...". Though I don't think people would care, I think people would rather have flashy reviews from someone who can paint an award winning model

Tweaks to a good line are welcome and Vallejo has been extremely shy of revamping the range... but like I said availability or in my case the lack of it killed it a bit... for now. One of the few companies I trust due to an exemplar past experience.

Feels less like tweaks are more like changing how it behaves to me.

Availability of Vallejo in Australia has generally been good, other than around the actual release date itself, but I've never had any issue getting older Vallejo ranges.

Nah its not what was on the content of the review that swayed you etc... its more you seem not too keen on Reviewers/paint brands interacting in some ways... yet you see those YouTubers and kind of listen. Thats funny because Your the reason those interactions happen

I tend to be more influenced by painting tutorials and painters with a particular/specific body of work that backs them up, that I admire, rather than reviewers or celebs... For me the work you do should speak for itself and in this specific case I have seen good examples of these Vallejo paints being applied.

Other Example: Seen some great GW contrast tutorials and Im mainly traditional mix paints guy, so yep! impressed with those painters tuts and got loads to try out because, lets face it, its a personal experience, and Im happy with that. Have to say these are really good for tinting things fast.

Theres a place for YouTubers and interactions with the brands are ok too. Other industries seem fine with that and I think that our microcospic niche needs all the sponsors and diversity it can get.

Either way I expect updated Vallejos to be more available next year, meanwhile I spent about £100 in paints this year on GW and others, Missed chance Mr V.

 NAVARRO wrote:
I tend to be more influenced by painting tutorials and painters with a particular/specific body of work that backs them up, that I admire, rather than reviewers or celebs... For me the work you do should speak for itself and in this specific case I have seen good examples of these Vallejo paints being applied.

You should watch Ninjon's review of the old Army Painter line, where basically the conclusion was "it doesn't matter what paint you use" I think Trovarian might have said something similar, if you're painting to a high standard then the paint brand you use becomes less important.

But, I couldn't care less what the body of work of the reviewer is, I have my style which is different to most popular youtubers and I'm not trying to win awards. Even though those types of paint jobs are what attracts the views on youtube, I reckon it's a minority of painters that actually aspire to do it themselves.

Rather, I'm looking for objective statements that I can apply to how I want to use the paints. "Paint bubbles when painted too fast" is an objective statement, how important it is might be subjective, but it tells us that they probably used a lot of surfactants in the paint to increase flow but likely lacks the self levelling properties of some other paints.

There's some youtubers I watch because they paint awesome models, but I'm not trying to recreate their style so I have little interest in their subjective opinions.

I actually think people who try to speed paint armies are the ones who need good paints far more than someone painting for a competition. You can paint a competition winning model with basically any paint, but to speed paint an army... well, there's no way to speed paint an army with paints that aren't suited to it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
I tend to be more influenced by painting tutorials and painters with a particular/specific body of work that backs them up, that I admire, rather than reviewers or celebs... For me the work you do should speak for itself and in this specific case I have seen good examples of these Vallejo paints being applied.

You should watch Ninjon's review of the old Army Painter line, where basically the conclusion was "it doesn't matter what paint you use" I think Trovarian might have said something similar, if you're painting to a high standard then the paint brand you use becomes less important.

But, I couldn't care less what the body of work of the reviewer is, I have my style which is different to most popular youtubers and I'm not trying to win awards. Even though those types of paint jobs are what attracts the views on youtube, I reckon it's a minority of painters that actually aspire to do it themselves.

Rather, I'm looking for objective statements that I can apply to how I want to use the paints. "Paint bubbles when painted too fast" is an objective statement, how important it is might be subjective, but it tells us that they probably used a lot of surfactants in the paint to increase flow but likely lacks the self levelling properties of some other paints.

There's some youtubers I watch because they paint awesome models, but I'm not trying to recreate their style so I have little interest in their subjective opinions.

I actually think people who try to speed paint armies are the ones who need good paints far more than someone painting for a competition. You can paint a competition winning model with basically any paint, but to speed paint an army... well, there's no way to speed paint an army with paints that aren't suited to it.

I think when someone paints and talks about their experience/preferences it's not subjective at all, it's an opinion based on experience, and their experience is documented by a body of work that gives you context... meaning, say a painter that paints mostly bright cartoony miniatures and uses X brand because it gives him vivid results this tells you very objectively that X brand is potentially good for cartoony colours... etc.
As for painters level of expertise and comp-vs-army speed paint, I think that makes no difference on the quality/content of videos... in fact I learned more about contrast from not so expert painters. The only difference is that an expert painter can use any paint and push it to its limits. Best learning you can have is watching someone with not much experience making mistakes, you learn a lot from that while you learn little from a pro painter that paints the same immaculate way over and over again for dozens of videos

I also dont agree with the sentiment that is inferred many times, that Vallejos is intended for pro painters...Vallejo always been about diluted paints/layers and some did bubbles, that did not change, the new matt finish is to unify look and actually thats better for newbies since they will end up with one unified finish that can then seal at their desire, as opposed to paints with different finishes that you really need to manipulate them at different stages and tone some up/down so that the satin does not clash with the matt halfway your painting project.

I only got one new Vallejo, pigment seems a bit stronger but unfortunately I was not able to get a full set yet, it's going to take some time before I have that.