# Dipping before and after



## Don_Keyballs (Jan 14, 2010)

So I finally got around to painting my flyrant this past weekend. I used the 'dipping' method as I thought it would be the quick and easy way to finish the nids. (The model is actually too big to dip, but the principle is the same).

I haven't seen many examples out there of dipped models, so I thought I would share for all to see. :victory:


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

Not bad at all! A quick fix with some details and its a dirty fast and effective beast!


----------



## SwedeMarine (Jun 3, 2013)

This is actually quite good! Is the wash dry in the picture or still wet?


----------



## Don_Keyballs (Jan 14, 2010)

SwedeMarine said:


> This is actually quite good! Is the wash dry in the picture or still wet?


It was still a little wet. It takes about a full 24hrs for it to dry and not be 'sticky'. In the picture, it was about 4-5hrs after I coated it.

The dip will collect on the tips of the low points, so I will need to do a little trimming of the clumps to make sure the claws still have that 'sharp' feel... either that, or paint the clumps red so it looks like blood :grin:


----------



## Squire (Jan 15, 2013)

Does dipping _really_ save that much time? With a large brush an ink wash takes very little time anyway


----------



## SwedeMarine (Jun 3, 2013)

Squire said:


> Does dipping _really_ save that much time? With a large brush an ink wash takes very little time anyway


I would imagine on a large model then no not really as youre having to brush it on anyways. (unless you have enough of the "Dip" to dunk that entire model in. But if youre doing 40 Gaunts or marines or whatever then yes i would say it saves you an incredible amount of time as opposed to hand brushing each and every one of them.


----------



## lav25gunner (Dec 13, 2008)

Squire said:


> Does dipping _really_ save that much time? With a large brush an ink wash takes very little time anyway


There is a HUGE difference between a wash and a dip (polyurethane). 
The biggest differences are viscosity and molecular cohesion.

Think of wash as colored water that tints the model and is fluid enough to pool into the cracks/recesses.

Poly-U is extremely more viscous (thinker) and has a high attraction to itself (molecular cohesion). So it.... damn it, just look at the picture below. 

Look at the Ork arms. The one on the left was painted using wash, while the one on the right was painted using Poly.










This is one of the few dip v. wash pics I found so if anyone finds a better one, please post it.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

dipping is an abomination, possibly one of the worst if not the worst things to "be discovered" in the last 20 years of the hobby IMHO.

I simply cannot fathom why anyone would want to use this method on extremely expensive and highly detailed works of art, whats the rush? you have paid £40 for the model, take your time, enjoy painting it, show the model some respect.

leave the tinted wood varnish for your furniture! 

I hate Dipping, not sure if that's coming across


----------



## driller (Jul 26, 2013)

It does. These are not works of art. But it's a great hobby!

For dipping fans: I'm a very big fan of the Army Painter quickshades. Many will try to tell you that you can get the same results with DYI store varnishes and stuff. Not true at all: The Army Painter stuff produces much better results.

But after the quickshade dries, I never leave the figures as they are, I always do a lot of detail work afterwards.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Things about dipped models is that they normally looked dipped. The varnish tends to pool in areas that would not normally expect to be in shadows, and the thickness of the medium does lead to detail being obscured.

I don't have anything against somebody who wants to dip their models, I just see it as a quick way to something you don't enjoy. I have never seen such a large figure done using this technique and it looks very shiny right now. Is it going to be sprayed with a matt varnish to take the edge off the gloss look?

Dipping does tends to be a very decisive method amongst painters in my experience, people either love it or hate it. For people who are not really into painting models its just another tool to get figures on the table to look 'ok'.


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

Dipping is the dark side of the hobby, but, man, when you have 200+ orks or tyranids to paint...fuck the hobby, i want to field a painted army! gogo dipping machine, go! A proper dipped model is not so bad, either (the ork pic explain it good). You will not field the most artistic army but...you will field it


----------



## Don_Keyballs (Jan 14, 2010)

driller said:


> For dipping fans: I'm a very big fan of the Army Painter quickshades. Many will try to tell you that you can get the same results with DYI store varnishes and stuff. Not true at all: The Army Painter stuff produces much better results.


The flyrant was completed using the Army Painter quickshades. I based the model in bleached bone, added the secondary colours, then lathered on the quickshade. (Lathered a bit too much in some areas sadly).



humakt said:


> Is it going to be sprayed with a matt varnish to take the edge off the gloss look?


That is something I should look into, as the gloss look still remains after the models is completely dry.


Side note: For those who think that dipping is an abomination to the hobby...
I consider there to be 3 areas of interest with regards to 40k:

1. Modeling- I may not be the best in getting the right details, I like to think the little tweaks make the model your own. (Look at the Flyrant's Scy Talon feet for a tiny example).

2. Painting- I see all of these amazing well painted armies, and know how much time that has been put into them. I just don't have the time to do this. So its either play with unpainted models, which I believe is more of an abomination then playing with a model that has been dipped.

3. Playing the game- This is the whole reason why I got into 40k in the first place. The other 2 aspects are details that I am slowly getting into. 

:victory:


----------



## lav25gunner (Dec 13, 2008)

You have to get a matte varnish to take the shine away, it will not disappear when it dries. Try Testor's Dullcote spray.

Just a bit of warning. When spraying the matte varnish it is essential to spray multiple thin coats of varnish. If you over spray the varnish you'll get a weird 'cracking' effect.
It is better to do multiple light coats and let each coat completely dry before you do the next one.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

To add to @lav25gunner point about varnish you also need to make sure that you spray in warm conditions and with room temperature varnish else you will get a horrible frosting effect which will ruin the model.


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

I personally think dipping is just plain lazy, take the time to do the model justice.


----------



## lav25gunner (Dec 13, 2008)

Achaylus72 said:


> I personally think dipping is just plain lazy, take the time to do the model justice.


First of all, not every one can do the model justice. In fact I would say that 80% of the models I've seen are trash. Most people just want to play and don't care what their models look like. It's only on sites like this one that people seem to care and put an effort into their painting. I know that I come here to see the work of better painters and I try to copy what I see.

Secondly, you could argue that Army Painter, washes, airbrushing and a ton of other things are lazy too. I never understood why some people have such a strong negative opinion about some of these products. It's just my opinion, but it seems to me that people get mad because they had to learn the hard way and they feel cheated when new products or techniques come out.

I personally don't see anything wrong with airbrushing, washes, dipping, etc. I'm actually excited to play against painted armies, regardless of how they got painted.

You simply cannot argue with the results, specially when you have a swarm army like Nids or Orks.
Look at how little work was put into these models and the difference that dipping made. So why would you begrudge someone taking a shortcut when the end results are so drastic. You could finish a single model in 10 minutes versus 2-6 hours. Imagine the time you'll save on those large horde armies.


----------



## Nordicus (May 3, 2013)

I think that dipping has it's own camp in the painting department - Usually there's layering, airbrushing, wetblending and now dipping. Each painter swears to his technique and few rarely mix them. Each has their strengths, their weaknesses and their target group. 

I can see the advantage in dipping, as not everyone wants to spend as much time as others (Yupp, I spend ridiculous amounts of time on painting) on getting their miniatures to a decent standard. To them, the dipping technique is a totally valid way of getting them to a good standard.

It's all up to the eye of the beholder if it's to the standard they like - But it cannot be discredited as a non-valid form of painting.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

I think dipping can be useful for certain people. But it still needs care and attention to get good results. It is a different way of doing washes but I am still not convinced it is any quicker.

To get a good looking miniature you will still additional work as the Bretonnian archer above shows.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

I've often considered using dipping to get through mass amounts of models, but, I never seem to buy the stuff when I can. 
In defense of the dipping though, even army painter recommends doing some detailing after the model is dry from dipping. Not a bad idea as even when I wash some of my stuff I still want certain areas cleaner than they would be with only the shade.

Has anyone dipped things like vehicles? Meaning Rhinos and the like?


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Lav has a point, you cant argue with the results, those models look like they took zero effort to achieve


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Those are the perfect examples of dipping application though. I agree it can do wonders for those that do not have the time or skill to paint. I don't mind dipping, I don't do it myself though. It is just another means of painting a model and like all other means of painting there is people that can do it well and there are people that fuck it up.


----------



## driller (Jul 26, 2013)

I recommend brushing on the Army Painter quickshade instead of dipping. This way pooling at the wrong place is avoidable. The result is controlled and very satisfactory.



scscofield said:


> Those are the perfect examples of dipping application though. I agree it can do wonders for those that do not have the time or skill to paint. I don't mind dipping, I don't do it myself though. It is just another means of painting a model and like all other means of painting there is people that can do it well and there are people that fuck it up.


^This.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

I saw a YouTube video of a guy that made a adapter for a cordless drill. He would dip a model attached to the drill. He would then stick it through a hole in the top of a cardboard box. Spin the model for a bit and done. It seemed to work well.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

It'd have to be at pretty low RPM I imagine, would also want to make sure the mini was very firmly glued together and attached to the base as well.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Aye there was lots if disclaimers. Want to say the instructions on the dip say to shake the excess off so you would need to it to be secure that way too.


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

I have been convinced those models from the before to after are amazing, so i forgot my own mantra.

If you like the end result of what you have done then that is the ultimate goal.

Thanks for opening my eyes.


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

When it became apparent I was never going to finish an army painting them normally, I tried dipping. The results were great. I used ArmyPainter Quickshade Soft tone. The latest results are on my Project Log on this forum (http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/showthread.php?t=114615&page=4).

Of course, the colour scheme requires a lot of work both before and after the dip is applied, but then that's me. I can't do anything simply when it comes to painting


----------



## tricktroller (Jan 27, 2012)

I run bugs, and my original thought was to use a dark wood varnish on brown black and tan models to make them look like roaches.

I decided instead to go with a much different scheme which you can see on my thread in my sig. I haven't posted pics of all of my dipped models but I love the shiny buglike look they give my Nids.

Having seen people who are truly amazing painters and modellers, I have to say that I am glad for a method like dipping for my army. I am not exceedingly talented in either of those departments.


----------



## Jolnir (Feb 11, 2014)

If fielding a painted army for competitive play is the number 1 priority, then dipping is a pretty decent option. If creating a masterpiece is your goal, then dipping is not an option.

Dipping isn't an abomination, but merely a means to an end. It just depends on what your goals are.


----------

