Jump to content

Inkwash Vs drybrushing (Bear with me Im new)


rundinj
 Share

Recommended Posts

inks/washes:

paint mini in main colors

use a wash or ink on the mini

highlight with the original color and after it with a brighter color

 

Another usage of ink/washes is putting them after you paint the highlights, to get a smoother transition. For this isse, you should try first a thinned down wash. If it is not enough try it a little thicker.

 

If you use washes, always try a thinned down version first, because it can ruin your mini!

 

Drybrushing;

Drybrushing is for strong structured area (dont have better words in the moment for it) like:

fur, hair, chainmail, armor decoration, rips, skeletons, some clothes... and more.

 

Drybrushing is not good for skin, use highlighting/layering techniques for it!

But sometimes it is ok, if you want this effect.

For a beginner it is ok, too, because it gives fast results.

 

 

First Miniatures I would paint on, are metal mini's. It is always easier to remove paint from the mini from a metall mini.

Edited by Teskal
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 25
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Don't buy Ink expecting it to be a ready mixed wash in a bottle! The Army Painter Inks are, but most inks are not!

 

Yep, and there is no difference in a ink or wash. Both are based on ink and do the same think. But they react differently from company to company.

 

I don't like the vallejo washes, especially sepia and black. It dries dirty. Don't know how to explain it better in english.

 

Coat D'Arms still produce the old colors from GW, like the chestnut ink, which was really good for creating leatherlike appearance.

 

A friend of mine created something similiar to washes, but out of Oilpaints and I think turpentine.

 

I made some of my washes after this recipe:

Les' Wash Recipe

Only drawback of Les' Washes are that they creat much bubbles, because they need always shaking before using them. But I don't use them directly out of the paint-bottle, so it is ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Don't buy Ink expecting it to be a ready mixed wash in a bottle! The Army Painter Inks are, but most inks are not!

 

Yep, and there is no difference in a ink or wash. Both are based on ink and do the same think. But they react differently from company to company.

 

I don't like the vallejo washes, especially sepia and black. It dries dirty. Don't know how to explain it better in english.

 

Coat D'Arms still produce the old colors from GW, like the chestnut ink, which was really good for creating leatherlike appearance.

 

A friend of mine created something similiar to washes, but out of Oilpaints and I think turpentine.

 

I made some of my washes after this recipe:

Les' Wash Recipe

Only drawback of Les' Washes are that they creat much bubbles, because they need always shaking before using them. But I don't use them directly out of the paint-bottle, so it is ok.

Not always true - sometime a wash will be opaque, other times translucent, still others transparent.

 

Most inks, on the other hand, are transparent - exceptions are white (more useful than you might think) and some blacks.

 

I favor Higgens' Fadeproof inks.

 

The Auld Grump

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will also add that many inks (in particular the old "bolter bottle" GW pots) are not only water-based, but also water-soluble. Which means you need to let them dry thoroughly and entirely before applying paint over them, lest they reactivate and smear or run.

 

Not all inks do this, and I get the impression the industry has been excising such soluble inks, but it's not a bad plan to test new inks in a place you don't care about first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Don't buy Ink expecting it to be a ready mixed wash in a bottle! The Army Painter Inks are, but most inks are not!

 

Yep, and there is no difference in a ink or wash. Both are based on ink and do the same think. But they react differently from company to company.

 

I don't like the vallejo washes, especially sepia and black. It dries dirty. Don't know how to explain it better in english.

 

Coat D'Arms still produce the old colors from GW, like the chestnut ink, which was really good for creating leatherlike appearance.

 

A friend of mine created something similiar to washes, but out of Oilpaints and I think turpentine.

 

I made some of my washes after this recipe:

Les' Wash Recipe

Only drawback of Les' Washes are that they creat much bubbles, because they need always shaking before using them. But I don't use them directly out of the paint-bottle, so it is ok.

Not always true - sometime a wash will be opaque, other times translucent, still others transparent.

 

Most inks, on the other hand, are transparent - exceptions are white (more useful than you might think) and some blacks.

 

I favor Higgens' Fadeproof inks.

 

The Auld Grump

 

The quality of washes or inks are very different from producer to producer. Like you said not all washes and inks are the same.

If the washes are opaque, they have the wrong surface tension or are not watery enough.

 

Games Workshop used sometimes washes and inks for their old products, but with no really difference. Coat deArms renamed GW Chestnut ink only in Ink Wash - Chestnut. And the old Brown Wash into Ink wash - Brown.

 

Washes and ink should have have lower surface tension than normal paints, so higher parts will not hold much of the color of the wash/ink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Don't buy Ink expecting it to be a ready mixed wash in a bottle! The Army Painter Inks are, but most inks are not!

 

Yep, and there is no difference in a ink or wash. Both are based on ink and do the same think. But they react differently from company to company.

 

I don't like the vallejo washes, especially sepia and black. It dries dirty. Don't know how to explain it better in english.

 

Coat D'Arms still produce the old colors from GW, like the chestnut ink, which was really good for creating leatherlike appearance.

 

A friend of mine created something similiar to washes, but out of Oilpaints and I think turpentine.

 

I made some of my washes after this recipe:

Les' Wash Recipe

Only drawback of Les' Washes are that they creat much bubbles, because they need always shaking before using them. But I don't use them directly out of the paint-bottle, so it is ok.

Not always true - sometime a wash will be opaque, other times translucent, still others transparent.

 

Most inks, on the other hand, are transparent - exceptions are white (more useful than you might think) and some blacks.

 

I favor Higgens' Fadeproof inks.

 

The Auld Grump

 

The quality of washes or inks are very different from producer to producer. Like you said not all washes and inks are the same.

If the washes are opaque, they have the wrong surface tension or are not watery enough.

 

Games Workshop used sometimes washes and inks for their old products, but with no really difference. Coat deArms renamed GW Chestnut ink only in Ink Wash - Chestnut. And the old Brown Wash into Ink wash - Brown.

 

Washes and ink should have have lower surface tension than normal paints, so higher parts will not hold much of the color of the wash/ink.

The washes that came to mind were the old Chessex line - which had some wonderful inks, some washes of... variable qualities, and some of the best metallics that I have seen. With the caveat that some of them also had the scariest warning labels that I have seen aside from pesticide cans.... More than one person picked up a bottle of the excellent Chessex Candy Apple Red, looked at the warning label, got as far as 'changes in the bone marrow, the appearance of blood and protien in the urine, and adverse effects in the central nervous system; including diziness, spasms, respiratory failure, and death' and then put the bottle down and went to wash their hands... repeatedly. ::P:

 

I still have some of those jars, the paint is long gone, but those warning labels never fail to bring a smile to my lips.

 

The Auld Grump, the Candy Apple Red was even better than the Reaper Ruby Red... if somewhat more dangerous.

Edited by TheAuldGrump
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't buy Ink expecting it to be a ready mixed wash in a bottle! The Army Painter Inks are, but most inks are not!

 

Yep, and there is no difference in a ink or wash. Both are based on ink and do the same think. But they react differently from company to company.

 

I don't like the vallejo washes, especially sepia and black. It dries dirty. Don't know how to explain it better in english.

 

Coat D'Arms still produce the old colors from GW, like the chestnut ink, which was really good for creating leatherlike appearance.

 

A friend of mine created something similiar to washes, but out of Oilpaints and I think turpentine.

 

I made some of my washes after this recipe:

Les' Wash Recipe

Only drawback of Les' Washes are that they creat much bubbles, because they need always shaking before using them. But I don't use them directly out of the paint-bottle, so it is ok.

Not always true - sometime a wash will be opaque, other times translucent, still others transparent.

 

Most inks, on the other hand, are transparent - exceptions are white (more useful than you might think) and some blacks.

 

I favor Higgens' Fadeproof inks.

 

The Auld Grump

The quality of washes or inks are very different from producer to producer. Like you said not all washes and inks are the same.

If the washes are opaque, they have the wrong surface tension or are not watery enough.

 

Games Workshop used sometimes washes and inks for their old products, but with no really difference. Coat deArms renamed GW Chestnut ink only in Ink Wash - Chestnut. And the old Brown Wash into Ink wash - Brown.

 

Washes and ink should have have lower surface tension than normal paints, so higher parts will not hold much of the color of the wash/ink.

The washes that came to mind were the old Chessex line - which had some wonderful inks, some washes of... variable qualities, and some of the best metallics that I have seen. With the caveat that some of them also had the scariest warning labels that I have seen aside from pesticide cans.... More than one person picked up a bottle of the excellent Chessex Candy Apple Red, looked at the warning label, got as far as 'changes in the bone marrow, the appearance of blood and protien in the urine, and adverse effects in the central nervous system; including diziness, spasms, respiratory failure, and death' and then put the bottle down and went to wash their hands... repeatedly. ::P:

 

I still have some of those jars, the paint is long gone, but those warning labels never fail to bring a smile to my lips.

 

The Auld Grump, the Candy Apple Red was even better than the Reaper Ruby Red... if somewhat more dangerous.

Jeebers Cripes, I can only guess through reverse engineering what pigments might have been in that paint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The washes that came to mind were the old Chessex line - which had some wonderful inks, some washes of... variable qualities, and some of the best metallics that I have seen. With the caveat that some of them also had the scariest warning labels that I have seen aside from pesticide cans.... More than one person picked up a bottle of the excellent Chessex Candy Apple Red, looked at the warning label, got as far as 'changes in the bone marrow, the appearance of blood and protien in the urine, and adverse effects in the central nervous system; including diziness, spasms, respiratory failure, and death' and then put the bottle down and went to wash their hands... repeatedly. ::P:

Jeebers Cripes, I can only guess through reverse engineering what pigments might have been in that paint.

I like my hobby. I don't like my hobby that much.

 

Anything that makes "blood and protein" appear in my urine... nuuuu thankoo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From an artist's point of view, a wash is thinned paint and/or ink. A surfacant (which is something that lowers surface tension and suspends the particles longer) is often used in washes to allow the pigment particles to flow away from the high points on a model and into the valleys, changing the value (brightness) and creating darker areas in those valleys. Some of the particles will remain on the high points, darkening the whole area. They also change the chroma (color saturation) of the area washed, dulling down the color.

 

Ink is different from paint in that it is very dense in finely ground pigment, with no carrier (also called a hiding pigment). The carrier (often but not always titanium white in acrylic paints) is the part of the paint that makes it opaque; this is why paints are opaque but inks are generally not. Inks are also used for glazing, which is where you apply them full strength to an area to change the hue (color) of the area being inked, such as blue to green using a yellow glaze. You can also create a glaze by mixing paint or ink with acrylic medium or PVA glue (Elmers in the US). This works well for shading skin.

 

That's probably more than you wanted to know about washes and inks. :unsure:

 

Drybrushing is much simpler, and has been explained well by others. The only warning I would give for drybrushing is "less is more". It will look so cool you want to keep going, but it will quickly look chalky.

 

As with anything in life, you have to try these techniques to get a feel for them.

Edited by DocPiske
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...