"Painting styles - the 'Dallimore' or the 'Dip'" Topic

A few years ago you couldn't move at a show or browse a forum without bumping into figures painted in the 'Dallimore'* style, ie black undercoat and base colour followed by 2 or more highlights. Now it seems this has given way dipped or washed figures where a light undercoat or just basecoat have been used with details added before the dip or wash.

Now I'm no painting snob and have used both systems in the past. The dip/wash is a really quick method to get armies on the table really fast. But I have to say from an 'artiste' point of view the block colour with highlights looks better than the cover all dip/wash. Whilst perhaps giving a figure an authentic campaign worn and dirty look, dips/washes do tend to make figures look very 'samey'. I like figures to pop on the tabletop. Dip/washes can of course be highlighted up to a great standard but in the main I see figures left as they are following the dip/wash.

Any thoughts/comments/opinions?

I learned the wash/dip technique decades ago but tend to block paint, ink wash, then pick out details/highlights nowadays. Trying to combine the speed of one method with the 'pop' from the other. Not that I always succeed, but I'm getting better.

I'm old fashioned, white prime, block base colors, followed by darker shade washes then final brighter shade dry brush. The results have always pleased myslef and folks I've sold to or painted figures for.

I do the black undercoat with block colours on top at the moment, as I work mainly with 15mm I don't bother with too many highlights, if any! However, I recently tried the dipping technique and was really impressed by it. As I was half way through painting a Japanese force for WW2 in my traditional style I carried on, but I think I will go for the dipping style on whichever new army I decide to go for.

If you think dipping makes the figure dull, you could always try painting some highlights over the dip when it's dry?

I use the wash as opposed to the dip on my figures, but to me it's one and the same – the lazy man's approach to shading. Gives pretty good results for very little effort.

I use the Dallimore method pretty exclusively. I sometimes wash, but only specific areas of the figure.

Depends on the effect. With Napoleonics and other figures I want to have brighter tones, I will
White undercoat
Block paint
Wash/dip applied with a brush
coat with protective layer
Highlight with brighter tones

For WWII and similar "dirty" periods I leave out the last step

Since I have started painting some 15mm peter pig figures I have changed my 'style': 1.Black primer. 2. Wet wash Bone White. 3. Wet wash base colour. 4. Highlight. 5. Dark Glaze. 6 Black ink coat diluted in Klear. 7. Gloss coat. 8. Matte coat. As this is my first 'serious' attempt at completing an army I am pleased with the visual effect whilst appreciating that they are never going to win any awards…..thats what my 25\25mm figures are for…..I wish!!!

I always thought the Dallimore method had a bit of the Kabuki look to it. IMO of course.

The first things I saw painted in the "Dallimore Style" were the hideous Tarzan and Jane in the Foundry catalog. I dubbed them the "Butcher's meat cutting chart" style.
I haven't changed my mind. You still see faces similarly done. They look like those pictures of ACW generals with the droopy eyes. And that's just the women!

I have seen articles where Mr Dallimore uses Army painter to finish tanks and 15mm infantry so I am not if there is any difference

I'm rubbish at painting so I use a wash. It's much easier…..

For heavily armoured figs, Dallimore method; for brightly coloured ones, white undercoat and 'the dip'

I generally paint 15mm or smaller. I use a variety of methods, and a good example is here.

The Dallimore dip anyone! a combo of both for me as and when needed, good for old tired eyes as the dip method ( I use mainly acrylic wood stain and liquid shoe shine for tight type detail,15mm faces etc) then a highlight over it then the matt vanish and a further bright highlight if needed, large areas some dip some the Dalli 3 tone depending, this gives me the best of both styles and does not blunt the colours too far with the dip method and does not make the figure too cartoonish using the Dallimore method – tend to use a black/ white undercoat sprayed on, then key my work with humbrol enamels (block or undercoated depending, then on to the normal acrylics ( recent use of thinned oils in pure turps as the dip and blot method have been promising too if slower). cheers all

I am firmly with John the OFM re "Dallimore" style. I much prefer to see a more subtle shading than you get with the three shades technique. I particularly dislike seeing horses painted in this way.
My ideal is to use the " wet in wet" technique that water colourists use, but it is is difficult and time consuming to get right with anything other than a single figure at a time. As a compromise, I often use very dilute washes and build up layers that way. On well sculpted figures, this gives the required shading and highlighting.
I have used the "dip" and agree that it can give a rather muddy appearance, but used carefully, with a brush, I think it can be very effective on Dark Age and Ancient figures, especially if you then take a bit of time to pick out highlights and then matte varnish.
My big objections to the "dip" ( I am referring to the Army Painter version) is that is ridiculously expensive, it dries up too quickly in the tin and it needs smelly brush cleaner. I am going to try out some of the "home-made" versions using Klear polish or similar, which should overcome these objections.

The Dallimore style is designed for table top viewing exaggerated detail and punchy colours…not to everyones taste and certainly not realistic. I think it's my favourite however for what it's trying to do. I've seen a few armies ( ancients ) painted in washes and dips and have come up quiet well but it's a fine line…very easy to get figures looking more like a smear of dysentery than an army.

For painting mass quantities of figures, at the "good enough to game with" standard, The Dip/Magic Wash can't be beat. I use it on plastic Army Men figures, 25mm-30mm fantasy figures. It is also fantastic for WW II vehicles, and terrain.

I agree, it can make things look "muddy" (Tudor/black is less "muddy" than Royal Walnut/dk brown, but both colors have their place), but I am OK with that. I want to paint as quickly as possible, and get my figures on the table to game with. Life is about trade-off's, and this one is easy to make, for me. YMMV. Cheers!

I prefer the older faded style of highlighting over Dallimore's heavy handed approach – which is usually even worse when people imitate it … all panda eyes and tiger striped tunics

So … for quality, 30mm flats are the best these days, for general use, dips and washes (which at least give some authentic fade) … and for the bin – just my feelings – Dallimore/Foundry style (honestly, just plain colours would be better) ..

Then again, for 15mm and smaller (at least) I prefer gloss varnish (which brings out the colours nicely) so what do I know?

Phil

Much as I love the effect of my two-shade layer painting, it is very time consuming, and more importantly, my eyes are no longer up to distinguishing the rise and fall of metal/plastic simulated cloth the way they once were – so I've decided to let the dip find them for me.

For 28mm ACW I more or less "Dallimore" all flesh, entire command stands, and cav. For rank and file infantry (I have Dallimored some infantry units such as sharpshooters) arty I wash with Citadel Agrax Earthshade, Agrax Nightshade, and Army Painter's Washes. I find this routine to be fairly efficient with attractive results.

For 28mm WW2 I Dallimore flesh and for the most part wash everything else.

The thing with the Dallimore style is that not everyone's brain works the same. With some people their brains naturally "reassemble" the shading to create one colour….whilst others genuinely see the three separate colours and will never understand how those figures could ever be considered convincing.