Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => Workbench => Topic started by: Curryman on 08 August 2009, 06:01:19 AM
-
I'm a big fan of the famous "Dip" technique. I use it a lot because I need to get a lot of minis painted fairly quickly for my website reviews. Well, I just discovered (to my sorrow) that this super-easy method can have a super-big flaw that leads to blotchy, ugly-looking minis that may be ruined forever! If you're a Dip user you owe it to your minis to check out this article:
http://thescreamingalpha.com/2009/08/07/the-dark-side-of-the-dip/
(http://thescreamingalpha.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/darkdip3.jpg)
Melodramatic enough lead for you? I always wanted to do one of those. :)
-
Well, I just discovered (to my sorrow) that this super-easy method can have a super-big flaw that leads to blotchy, ugly-looking minis that may be ruined forever!
And you are surprised, why?
I've always thought that sticking one's figures into a tub of stain gloop and expecting them to look any good was a poor substitute for actually painting them...
If people don't have the time / artistic ability to do a connoisseur paintjob on their minis, fair enough.
Personally though, I'd rather see a good, clean, 'one-layer' basic paintjob any day, than a figure covered in sticky brown slop encouraged by companies wishing to sell tins of the stuff trying to convince people that it looks like 'shading'.
As ever, each to their own I know. I'm sure some people like the effect.
-
Well, while I never used the dip, I imagine it might be something I'd try if I ever was to paint a large army of skeletons or mummies.
-
@Captain Blood I respect your opinion, Cap'n. I realize the dip is somewhat controversial and not to everyone's taste. But to answer your question, I was surprised because I used to get really good-looking results and then started getting grimy, gunky results. It took some little experimentation to trace the problem, and since I know a lot of people use the technique, I thought it would be worthwhile to share my results. As always, YMMV.
-
I'm a little sceptical too. I'm willing to be converted by examples of good results, but up to now I have yet to see the dip method produce much but grimy and gunky-looking figures. I have seen a fair few examples on TMP over the years, and so far I'm not convinced.
Lazy fellow that I am though, I'll happily eat my words and jump ship to this method in an instant if you show me it can work well.
-
I thought it didn't look too shabby in this thread:
http://secretsofthethirdreich.com/forums/index.php?topic=1438.15 (http://secretsofthethirdreich.com/forums/index.php?topic=1438.15)
I think it's not a magic solution though and will work better with some colours and textures than others.
-
@Captain Blood I respect your opinion, Cap'n. I realize the dip is somewhat controversial and not to everyone's taste. But to answer your question, I was surprised because I used to get really good-looking results and then started getting grimy, gunky results. It took some little experimentation to trace the problem, and since I know a lot of people use the technique, I thought it would be worthwhile to share my results. As always, YMMV.
I respect your opinion too Curryman. I really like your reviews :)
I just think there's an element of The Emperor's New Clothes with the whole current vogue for dipping, washing and inking as a substitute for painting.
Of course the people that make all these products have an incentive to persuade everyone that they're the best thing since sliced bread.
And I know there are plenty of excellent painters who use these things to good effect...
But dipping? Actually dipping figures? :? ::) ;)
-
It's ideal for smaller scales. I've used a brushed on form of the Dip on 20mm figures, and it looks better than my attempts to paint in the shades and highlights, IMO.
In 28mm, as WK says, it's ideal for mass painting skeletons and mummies. It's not so ideal for more colorful figures in 28mm, though. That's when you start to see the "grungy" appearance. It has it's place, but it's not really appropriate for every figure.
-
And you are surprised, why?
I've always thought that sticking one's figures into a tub of stain gloop and expecting them to look any good was a poor substitute for actually painting them...
If people don't have the time / artistic ability to do a connoisseur paintjob on their minis, fair enough.
Personally though, I'd rather see a good, clean, 'one-layer' basic paintjob any day, than a figure covered in sticky brown slop encouraged by companies wishing to sell tins of the stuff trying to convince people that it looks like 'shading'.
As ever, each to their own I know. I'm sure some people like the effect.
I don't use it but I must say that evidence shows that it can produce good enough results. I do however agree that I don't trust it to work consistently well and did not do so long before I read this article.
-
The Dip is inconsistent, and will eventually turn to glop in the container. So basically, it has the same qualities as Game Workshop's paint. lol
-
Ouch! Saucer of cream for Mr. Tiger... lol
-
Forgive me for a little threadomancy, but I finally got around to putting up some pics of my dipped figures on my blog. The first figs I dipped were HO scale people, got a pretty nice effect overall, especially on the guy with the pick, but I left too much of the dip on the figures and ended up with shading where I didn't need it. The second time I dipped some Last Night On Earth zombies. I was more careful with them and used a piece of tissue paper to wick away excess dip right after dipping. I think those came out pretty good. If you're interested here are some pics:
HO scale people - As you can see, there is too much dip at the hem of the lady's skirt.
http://ljshobbyspot.blogspot.com/2009/07/dipping-ho-people.html
LNOE Zombies - I think the dip worked much nicer with these
http://ljshobbyspot.blogspot.com/2009/08/dipping-some-last-night-on-earth-lnoe.html
This is one of my best results:
(http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b215/Luckyjoe_/Miniatures/Zombies/LNOEHorrorclixsizecomparison1-1.jpg)
I've been reluctant to try the dip method; I had a can of minwax sitting on a shelf over a year while I worked up the nerve to try it. But then I looked at some of my recently painted stuff and decided it probably couldn't make them look worse. ;D
Luckyjoe
-
I thought it didn't look too shabby in this thread:
http://secretsofthethirdreich.com/forums/index.php?topic=1438.15 (http://secretsofthethirdreich.com/forums/index.php?topic=1438.15)
I think it's not a magic solution though and will work better with some colours and textures than others.
Personally not keen on dipping at all. I don't think it works for figures of more than one colour, the shading's all wrong. Skellies and lizardmen and other single block colours maybe.
I don't think you can lump dipping in floor vanish or wax with techniques such as paint or ink washes, ink line work and glazes. These products and techniques have been around for a long time and are as much part of a painters arsenal as blockwork, linework and wetblending.
Sticking your figures on drillbit and dunking them in a pot of gloop is a whole different ballgame and not one for me, though I do accept it has in place for quick and dirty wargamming armies but not for individual pieces.
The Commander
-
I've watched conversations go 'round and 'round on painting forums about the potential of dipping figures in minwax polyshades. I would say the consensus is that it yields no better or worse results than dipping a figure in ink, or dipping a figure in a finely prepared vallejo model color wash. It that sense it is only a single means to an end; to cover a figure in one general shade of color and hope it all falls into the crevices attractively. The end result isn't entirely a function of the material, but the technique. Basically everyone can agree there is no magic solution to make awesome looking painted figures where there is no real time, technique, or practice behind the effort.
That said, I use minwax polyshades for a variety of purposes in my painting, and while I abandoned dunking my models long ago, I'll heartily brush the glop on when my goal of time and quality necessitates it. All the miniatures painted below were first base coated normally, then "dipped" in tudor satin or antique walnut, dullcoated when totally dry, then highlighted very simply. The only extra effort made was on metallic areas which were painted in many successive NMM layers.
(http://www.hqtc.org/joomla/images/morfeoshow/jerrett_s_ye-7044/big/acheron.jpg)
It isn't perfect, but it isn't a pile of trash I'd say was "ruined" by the dip, and it was all accomplished a fair bit faster than my usual method, excusing of course curing time for the minwax (I was sleeping so it doesn't really count, does it?) . There are properties to minwax polyshades and other like materials that do not exist in acrylic paints. Why limit ourselves if we can find value in those properties?
-
The Dip is inconsistent, and will eventually turn to glop in the container. So basically, it has the same qualities as Game Workshop's paint. lol
Now now, I've used GW paints for some time. Though I do admit they are a tad thick, bit that's nothing a little thinning doesn't fix.
I used to do the 'paint on' dipping back before it really was all that popular, but have since then moved on. I still use thin washes and whatnot, but never like then.
-
I honestly couldn't tell you much about the modern state of GW's paints. I swore off them for good when I lost seventy bucks or more worth of paint to the miserable "bolter shell" pots they used for some years between the old (excellent) flip-tops and the newer-style pots that have been around for quite a while now. Suffice it to say I don't buy GW products any more.
-
It isn't perfect, but it isn't a pile of trash I'd say was "ruined" by the dip, and it was all accomplished a fair bit faster than my usual method, excusing of course curing time for the minwax.
That is certainly not bad! Quite the contrary. :) I think you are reiterating, but with better wording, what I and others are trying to say: it's just a technique but it is being oversold as the 'silver bullet' for great and quick results.
-
There are plenty of poorly painted miniatures out there that have had no contact with dip. That of course does not mean that people give up on the painting techniques used to paint those figures. Bad dipping is bad dipping but good examples of the process exist too.
There is a time and place for dipping figures and not all dipped figures look like they are covered in brown glop (although a hell of a lot do). Basically it is just another technique that can be learned: use it if you like it, dont if you dont.
Contextually, talking about it on a forum such as this, where many contributors spend very large (and probably unrepresentative) amounts of time painting their figures to very exacting standards further skews things, implying that the tehnique is in fact worthless, which it isnt. Its a horses-for-courses thing IMO.
By way of example, pretty much everyone reading this has a "lead mountain". Dipping figures can definitely help to increase turnover and get some of that dead stock onto the gaming table quickly and at a reasonable standard (which is the main purpose of the whole exercise for many people).
Im not trying to offend anyone or anything but I think that a lot of people who have spent many, many years perfecting their painting skills (often on large armies that take a long time to complete) are slightly irritated when presented with dipped figures that took such a vastly shorter length of time to paint (albiet to a... variable standard). This I think can be a factor regarding peoples sometimes emotional (in my opinion, obvioously) responses to the popularity of the dipping process.
Painting miniatures to a display standard has its own appeal and tends to use different techniques than those used to get a gaming forces ready to play with. Personally my tastes these days are more towards getting the projects finished rather than getting each figure completed to a very time consuming level (which is often unnoticable during actual gameplay anyway). I was more obsessive before for many years and while I am glad that I have many figures painted to a high standard (no pictures as yet, sorry) my preference these days is to to complete a project so that I can play a game with it. This was a goal that often eluded me in the past due to the large amount time required. The trade off of time versus quality has meant that dipping reinvigorated my interest in the hobby in recent years, allowing me to complete projects that have literally been sitting around in boxes for over twenty years. I am happy with the tradeoff.
Just because a technique is used to poor effect on many miniatures does not imply that the technique itself is worthless (as ably illustrated by number9 above). I dont want to sound too zen (because Im not) but I think that people get a little too offended by the concept for their own good. Its a live and let live thing.
(sorry for going all PBS at the end there...)
-
I have dipped lots of miniatures which were purely intended for gaming. I am a slow painter and I tend to spend way too much time on details and blending (unless it's the LPL where it's impossible ;)). For instance, my Warmachine&Hordes buddy loves the game but hates the hobby. He started playing after we agreed I assembled and painted his miniatures for him. If I didn't he wouldn't play as he simply hated that side of the coin. So far this works out very well. But it does mean I keep the painting fast and simple and dipping is one of the best ways of doing miniatures fast and to get great gaming results.
So far I have used two dips: wood stains and the Army Painter. I started out with the Wood Stains and although they are cheap and the results are okay, the results aren't as good as with Army Painter's dip. The AP dip gives more stable and controlled results and they look a lot better.
Thing is I don't purely dip miniatures. Most of the times it is a combination of dip and regular paint. This also makes sure you don't get that "dipped look" which you can get.
In addition, I don't "dunk" miniatures in the dip. IMO this is silly as you don't have *any* control. I apply the dip with brush. Therefore I can see very well how it behaves, if it is enough dip and I can easily get rid of excess with a dry brush. Control is the key for me.
Here are some examples of my dipped miniatures:
Warmachine Cryx Bane Knights, Bane Thralls and Bane Lord Tartarus
http://www.paintoholic.nl/images/baneknights.jpg
http://www.paintoholic.nl/images/banethralls.jpg
http://www.paintoholic.nl/images/tartarus.jpg
Painted these for my Cryx army. I started by priming these miniatures with a silver primer. I then blocked in the bone and gold parts and then dipped the miniatures with wood stain. After the dip had dried I added greenish oxidation on the gold parts, painted the skirts with greenish blue and finally paint the OSL on the eyes. Fast results and they look nice on the table during games.
Skorne Paingivers + Void Spirits & Skorne Feroxes
http://www.paintoholic.nl/images/skorne.jpg
http://www.paintoholic.nl/images/feroxes.jpg
I painted these for the LPL for my buddy and did them in two ways. The Feroxes (the beasties) were dipped only with Wood Stain and the Paingivers were all dipped with FAP and Wood Stain. The bone colors were dipped with Wood Stain over pure white and the clothes+weapons+skin with FAP. This gives a nice blackish shade that provides a lot of contrast. Ideal for these miniatures.
The cool thing with the dip on these miniatures is that the dip makes doing this type of layered armor a breeze (if I regularly painted it, I would have gone insane). Just prime white, dip, done 8).
Cthulhu Cultists
http://www.paintoholic.nl/images/cultist_leader.jpg
http://www.paintoholic.nl/images/cultists.jpg
http://www.paintoholic.nl/images/cultists2.jpg
http://www.paintoholic.nl/images/elitecultist1.jpg
http://www.paintoholic.nl/images/elitecultist2.jpg
http://www.paintoholic.nl/images/elitecultist3.jpg
http://www.paintoholic.nl/images/elitecultist4.jpg
http://www.paintoholic.nl/images/elitecultist5.jpg
I primed these with a dark red primer and then dipped them with Wood Stain. This gave them a quick and nice shade. I then highlighted them with dark red and red and had some nice robes.
Cthulhu Mummies
http://www.paintoholic.nl/images/mummies.jpg
Simplest paintjob ever for me. I primed them white, painted them bone and dipped them with FAP. That was it :D. 20 minutes time for all three including basing.
Natives
http://www.paintoholic.nl/images/tribal1.jpg
http://www.paintoholic.nl/images/tribal2.jpg
http://www.paintoholic.nl/images/tribal4.jpg
http://www.paintoholic.nl/images/tribal5.jpg
I did all the bonish parts with dip. I first painted these parts with VMC Deck Tan (best bone/khaki color *ever*) and then dipped them. Worked perfectly on the shields and skirts. The rest was painted normally.
-
Cthulhu Mummies
http://www.paintoholic.nl/images/mummies.jpg
Simplest paintjob ever for me. I primed them white, painted them bone and dipped them with FAP. That was it :D. 20 minutes time for all three including basing.
Very effective! Cudos.
-
Very effective! Cudos.
Yup agreed that single colour minis usually come out nicely, (mummies and skellies are good examples).
What I don't like to see is say a mini with green red and blue, all shaded with the same oak brown. Doesn't look right.
Happy to conceed that there is a place for dip but it's the overuse and 'silver bullet' 'holy grail' of painting pitch that doesn't sit well.
Thanks all for sharing.
The Commander
-
Agreed. Painting a miniature and dipping them entirely with one color isnt my thing either (unless when you're using the Dark Shade of FAP; a blackish dip).