Also not everything should be ‘eavy metal boxart that someone spent weeks making perfect. Most people don’t want to pay what that cost, at all.

​@LuckySecond Most people do not have the skill to pull off 'Eavy Metal.

@@charleshowie2074 it’s easier than you think but it ain’t slapchop a zenithal and dump contrast on it. That’s for damn sure and most people don’t have the skill for even that.

Having no standards and saying it's all subjective is how you end up with the lowest possible option which is what this is.

@@FleshCloud-ey5ro I never said that quality was subjective, but the term 'finished' absolutely is. Methods to 'speed paint' generally don't win awards, but get results that look good enough on the tabletop and only break down on closer individual inspection of the models. Some people want to spend hours on every figure, some people want to get their armies done and on the table so they can game. Both are valid approaches for what is ultimately a hobby.

@@ShatteredMatter No. It's not valid to half paint an army and call it done. It's insulting to your opponent.

@@FleshCloud-ey5ro Where's that written? This is a hobby, people can play with unpainted models if they want, or even 2D printed standies. The game rules function either way. You seem to have a set opinion on how people should engage with the hobby, but yours is just a single viewpoint which isn't really worth much. If you refuse to play people because they don't have armies/warbands painted you your exact specifications then you're in your rights to do so, but getting offended over it is childish.

@@ShatteredMatter No they can't.

“No please im your very cool 100$ plastic toys you gotta respect me-“ *”get airbanged lol”*

airbanged. Let's see if we can make that catch on XD

I think there is a common misconception among many players that the eavy metal style is the ONLY style to paint models. There are loads of different styles that look just as good and can be done quicker. Gw likes to push their style because it’s easy to teach with the available tools they sell, but I think people often forget that there are more ways to paint!

@@heresyhobbyist Totally agree also eavy metal style is easy to read/photo @brother_wesley GW used to display like hobbyist quality works in books/white dwarf etc

Let's not pretend people would be painting HM style even if releases were slower; some people barely "paint by numbers" and that's totally fine; you wouldn't want your miniature line to look bad on the box covers though, would you

@@heresyhobbyistit’s also worth noting that eavy metal is also a style that’s optimized for box art. It’s a good reference in my experience but the absolute rule.

You’ll get there keep at it!!!

So true. I get especially annoyed everytime i see something like "how to paint a marine in one hour" i'm like, yeah bro, try to basecoat an imperial fist, even if you have an airbrush the yellow coat alone will take you at least 15 minutes if you want to get to a decent color strength. They just use the easiest colors like metal or blue and skip half of the mini.

Same. I always get overwhelmed and have to stop, then do it all over again on the next model.

@@Mikey__R the ever repeating cycle 😭

Spot on. You have helped articulate a thought which hasn’t fully crystallised for me. I didn’t mean to criticise other artists for their work, merely to point out these differences and you’re totally right

Also screw you squidmar how dare you telling me base black templar is “very ugly/wrong” and your version is somehow better.

I completely agree. I wouldn’t be surprised if in a few years time they are able to use AI with their videos to make the models appear painted so they don’t even have to do the basic airbrush layers they do now.

This is how army painting has been for decades. The point is to get the army to look like an army, and that doesnt need or even want a high level of work done. It demands a uniform and tidy level. Back in the day i painted many armies of many units of many ranks of Warhammer. You paint the front rank well (as in faces and shields) and the rest could be done with a shovel and devlan mud wash and they would look fine. 40k was even easier as each marine needed even less effort. The real mystery to me is why people would pay anyone to paint to a level anyone could do. But then again time is the most precious resource anyone has so maybe i do understand. That custodes army should be a good example and inspiration. Cool weapon effects aside anyone could do that pretty much. That should be inspiring. It would have been to me way back in my painting youth.

I know Play On usually has Artell paint their miniatures if they're something that needs to be done quick and isn't a 'home army', that someone normally runs.

I also asked them for a quote just to see their fees and they are outrageous. They quoted me $1000 for a single 40k Primarch! Got it done by a pro commission painter for $250 at a box art level instead. You are basically paying a middleman a ton of cash with Siege.

I agree on the edgehighlight part of your comment. There is no need to edgehighlight everything. But there are things I agree with podger. Removing mould lines isn't that much work, but it makes a hugh difference in my opinion. Painting neat is also very important in my opinion. Stick to the basics, you don't need to use any specific techniques and all. But please. Try to paint neat. Look at the example in the video. The deathwing symbol isn't painted neat. That is just the result of way to less time or laziness. If you don't see that, or if you don't have an issue with that, fine. But this remains a valid point for criticism. I don't like to watch battlereports when the miniatures are painted that messy. And I know a lot of people who think the same. That does not mean that I would refuse to play against an unpainted or messy painted army. But I just prefer to look and play against a neatly painted army.

@@Backpflaume666 We all have preferences, but they are only preferences and not law. I’ve personally bounced off this hobby before because I didn’t think I could paint good enough - thanks, ‘Eavy Metal. It’s the most common part of the hobby that alienates new players and there is no good reason to shame large channels for showing off easy to achieve painting styles.

​​​@@6Grey6malkin6 But that is not the point of this video. You can play warhammer with miniatures that are not painted at all if it works for you. But Podgers examples all came from big KZfaq channels which have a hugh audience and therefore a big influence. Play on Tabletop obviously spends a good amount of money for video equipment and editing. Their overall production quality is high, but some of their miniatures don't hold up to that standard. And this annoys me. It should be the other way around: nice looking miniatures should be the priority. High video resolutions and sloppy built and painted models don't fit together well. They set their priorities wrong. Other big channels are able to show nice looking miniatures AND have a good video quality (Tabletop Tactics for example). And for that reason their videos are a joy to watch.

@@Backpflaume666Again: hard disagree with you and the video. There’s already such a ludicrous standard through official GW channels. Let the standard for some unofficial large channels be achievable for newbies and people who are happy with tabletop standard. You can still watch the ones you like, but let everyone else have their own channels too without being labeled as lazy, unfinished, or inadequate in anyway. If you don’t like it, watch something you do like instead. But this isn’t a problem and no one needs to address this in a KZfaq video.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​@@6Grey6malkin6 I also disagree with you. Why should 'Newbies' see a sloppy paintjob and think: 'oh yeah, this looks achievable, I can paint that sloppy, too.' No. When I started painting, I also disliked it when people did a sloppy piant job. I always wanted to see cool and good looking armies. That means NOT that you have to paint like the GW boxart standard or use the latest fancy painting techniques. If you paint your miniatures neatly and if you build the miniatures without hugh gaps and if you remove mouldlines, that is usually enough to make me happy. For me painting miniatures is a bigger and more important part of the hobby than playing the game. It is a craft hobby. I especially like that. And again, big channels with high video production set their priorities wrong, when they do tons of video editing but show badly painted armies. A sloppy built or painted miniature remains a sloppy built and painted miniature and better video production which shows every little detail of these sloppy miniature actually makes it even worse. Big channels like play on tabletop could do better. The deathwing terminators are objectively speaking unfinished. Just watch the video: lots of details like the lenses, the wax of the purity seals and so on are NOT painted at all. And everything that is painted isn't painted especially neat. Even small channels are able to show very nice miniatures and this is quality content for me: channels which show nice miniatures. I want to see that. I don't want to see over the top video editing and professional studios. If the miniatures look bad, it is not for me. Play on Tabletop is not for me. That is right. I can't stand it. And this is sad, because they COULD do better. They have the ressources to paint their armies by a professional studio. But they don't want that (obviously). So I don't watch them. By the way: when the channels are small, I don't have this problem to the same degree, because I know that the people doing the channel are not fulltime KZfaqrs. So my expectations are not the same and because the video quality is usually lower, I don't see the miniatures in HD resultion so it is a whole different story.

A lot of it is the lighting, camera, and background. I get this same issue too, where the close-up picture on my phone looks like butt, but in person or under a lightbox with my DSLR, they looks amazing.

@@darkeraeris Yeah I suppose thanks. I glazed them a couple of times to smooth out the gradients and its helps a bit and they look still great in real life. But seeing that so blatantly obvious difference, you got to wonder how much these KZfaqrs antiicipate on how things will look on camera and that this doenst necessarily reflect how the paint jobs look in reality.

I fully agree! But these models basically look better on camera than they actually do in reality and it’s worth a conversation - can feed into that melting pot of hobby expectations we all have to manage

But he is fair. It is fair to speak about that. There is always room for improvement in any activity. Why not talking about ways to improve the look of miniatures? I am glad that someone finally adresses this.

All good points.

Yeah agreed. Judging another person’s paint job for not adhering to your own concept of ‘finished’ is extremely damaging. I had a friend who used to do this to my minis and it ruined my motivation to paint for years, as I never felt my work was ‘good enough’ to his standards. We need to stop worrying about how other people want to paint their models, and work on improving ourselves. Judge not lest ye be judged, etc.

Yeah I thought hard about this. Without sounding arrogant I honestly think my models look way better. But not necessarily on screen. A huge part of this is the camera and lighting/editing. All my photos are taken on an old iPhone. I’m working on a new camera which should improve things massively. It’s also a style choice of what translates well onto screen. But fair enough I’m not saying my style or ability is better, but I certainly put more time an effort in

Podgers minis are better (at least from a technical standpoint)! He is a good and very neat painter. And he paints better than most other KZfaqrs for shure. That is how it is. If you can't see the difference, that isn't Podgers fault. Sergio is not a fair competition. He is one of the most renowned painters in the world. Sergio spends hundreds of hours on one single miniature. Sergio isn't an army painter he paints for golden demon. That is a hugh difference! You don't need to be Sergio to see that Podger is right, when he criticises the models from the video. I agree with every single point he makes.