filbert wrote:
Well, at its most basic, a wash can be regular paint that has been thinned down with water or similar so I would imagine that is what this guy is referring to. Catachan Green was an old Citadel paint colour now know as Castellan Green.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Paint_Range_Compatibility_Chart

 H wrote:
Well, I'd think that just thinning (that is, adding water or other solvent) just gets you to a "glaze."

If you want a "wash" you need to thin it (again, water, flow-aid, so on) but also make it more transparent by adding more medium as well.

But it really depends on how you conceptualize the difference between a glaze and a wash...

 Stormatious wrote:
Yea, i still do not understand glazes, every time i hear that word i think it means giving a more shiny or glossy effect.

 H wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:
Yea, i still do not understand glazes, every time i hear that word i think it means giving a more shiny or glossy effect.

Yeah, what I usually take it to mean is "extra thinned paint to achieve an incremental layer effect."

A wash though is not made to layer though really, but I've seen people paint things by using washes as glazes though. So, it isn't a hard line. It's really more of a question of technique.

I still think if you want to get near what GW (and most other company's) "washes"/shades are, you want to add water+flowaid and medium to the paint, rather than just water. In the video you link, the painter seems to be aiming for this "shading" effect, which I think means you do want some medium in there, but likely less than what is usually in say, a GW "shade" because I do think he wants to "tint" the whole thing. So, really this is in a really nebulous area between a glaze and a wash. If you want less overall tinting add more medium. If you want more overall tinting, add less medium.

In the end, filbert is exactly right in suggesting that you just need to experiment with different combinations of things to see which suits your technique/expected results.