.

[fewr9fkr9595]

.

[Stephen]

That's good to know, thanks for taking the time to give us the info.

[davidelvy]

Thanks for the review. They sound quite good. 

My only question concerns accuracy. I note that the label refers to an FS number. I presume, therefore, that the paints are matched to the FS standard of the closest match to the RAF colours, as opposed to attempting to match the RAF colours themselves. 

Some will take the view that a close match is good enough and it is helpful to know the starting point for the sake of consistency. Others may think that if the match is to the FS standard then it will never be "accurate".

[fewr9fkr9595]

8 hours ago, davidelvy said:

 I note that the label refers to an FS number. I presume, therefore, that the paints are matched to the FS standard of the closest match to the RAF colours, as opposed to attempting to match the RAF colours themselves. 

 

 

Thats true, there is also an ANA number on it. So perhaps it's a dark green they have made that is close enough to match 3 greens than having 3 separate greens that most people won't distinguish between? 

 

In the thread where I am building this, there are 6 different green and greys so far. So the view we can take is only one can be right, or all 6 are close enough? What with scale effect, weathering etc and then the lighting the picture is taken under and the screen you are viewing it on. 

 

One of the reasons for doing the thread was to show that in the end they all look about right if they are close enough, especially when viewed in isolation. 

 

Something I have learned from this project aswell is that the relationship between the colours affects the overall outcome. As in the contrast. You can have the best dark green in the world but if the ocean grey is off a bit then the whole scheme can look wrong. 

 

Example, brand X has a both a 'dark' dark green and ocean grey which makes the contrast look ok so the scheme looks right. Whereas with brand Z the dark green is spot on but the ocean grey is too light, so there is too much contrast and the scheme looks wrong. 

 

With some of the builds I have done some brands have ocean greys that are too blue, or too light, so makes the greens look off. Another has a green that is too light etc etc. 

 

With this hataka paint review it was more about how they work which is the deal breaker for me. 

I would rather have paint that is 90% there colour wise and a dream to work with than a paint that is a 100% match but a pig to get decent results with. 

 

With this hataka paint, to me the colours look good (point 7 above), perhaps both a little light but the contrast between them works so I am happy with it. Plus its an doddle to spray. 

 

Compared to say the ak air I used on another build which has a 'light' ocean grey and a very deep dark green so that the plane looks like a caricature. Plus it was a pig to spray.

 

No prizes for guessing which paint brand I will use again when I do more spitfires...

 

Hope all this rambling makes sense!

 

[Stew Dapple]

If you're happy with it then it's good enough, but that Dark Green doesn't look right to me, light or dark I can let slide, but it just looks too blue to me. Might just be my screen, of course, and in any event: your model, your way.

 

Cheers,

 

Stew

[fewr9fkr9595]

13 hours ago, Stew Dapple said:

If you're happy with it then it's good enough, but that Dark Green doesn't look right to me, light or dark I can let slide, but it just looks too blue to me. Might just be my screen, of course, and in any event: your model, your way.

 

Cheers,

 

Stew

 

Blue? That's interesting! Isn't it strange our perception of colours?

 

Here's six shades together now - 

 

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235019759-eduard-exotic-spitfire-sextet-extraordinary-exhibition-eessee-in-172/&page=7

 

[Atlis]

I've bought a few bottles to test few weeks ago. Some of your statements are debatable or a matter of personal preference, but all in all, they are very good paints with a finish not as good as Mr Color (Gunze C) or MRP - the pigmentation is clearly coarser and they don't work as well when highly diluted. They are also very difficult to chip. But they are definitely on par with Mr Hobby (Gunze H) and Tamiya.

 

Their biggest advantage is low odour, which is normally not associated with lacquers, and it could be and important argument for those who didn't want to use lacquers because of that. Prices are also very competitive (at least here where I live). 

Edited May 15, 2017 by Atlis

[fewr9fkr9595]

1 hour ago, Atlis said:

 They are also very difficult to chip.

 

That's a bit of an unfair comment - it goes without saying as any type of lacquer paint would have the same situation - because they're alot tougher & water will not dissolve them... I would never try to use the hairspray technique to remove lacquer!

 

In terms of painting 1/72 spitfires I got just as good results with these as mr p and mr c. So to me they are just as good if that makes sense? There may be other (undiscovered to me yet) scenarios of painting where the others may have an edge...? but for what I did above they did great.

Look at the camo demarcation in the above pics. I can't do any better than that freehand with the other two... Which is what I based my comparison on. 

 

Hope this makes sense!

[Atlis]

Tony - it's quite fair comment honestly. The fact that lacquers chip hard is a actually a plus because you have much greater control over the chipping process. And hairspray/chipping medium method works with absolutely brilliantly with say MRP or Gunze. Yet Hataka is almost too hard to chip. And I know it, because I've tried.

 

 

 

 

[fewr9fkr9595]

2 hours ago, Atlis said:

Tony - it's quite fair comment honestly. The fact that lacquers chip hard is a actually a plus because you have much greater control over the chipping process. And hairspray/chipping medium method works with absolutely brilliantly with say MRP or Gunze. Yet Hataka is almost too hard to chip. And I know it, because I've tried.

 

 

 

 

 

Ok fair enough, we learn something everyday. Will try chipping lacquer acrylics one day. 

 

But critiquing a paint for not chipping well is like slagging a car off because it doesn't float in a lake. It's not what it was designed to do. The last thing a paint maker wants is their paint to come off easily on purpose. Defeats the point of paint?

Apart from some recent 'washable' paints by the likes of ak interactive I don't think manufacturers claim to make their paint just for the purpose of chipping? (Although some do produce a chipping fluid now - jumping on the bandwagon so to speak) In fact I reckon most probably try to find ways to make their acrylics more durable and wear resistant to withstand masking tape and clumsy model makers like me!

[m4rky]

Hi, I am interested in trying out this paint as I am getting annoyed with acrylics (tip dry etc), but have been put off from Laquers due to not having a spray booth (just an open window!).

 

Did you use Hataka's own Orange thinners with the paints or another brand?
How is airbrush cleaning afterwards? Did you just use anything special or straight cheap cellulose thinners?

 

Cheers

[fewr9fkr9595]

11 hours ago, m4rky said:

 

Did you use Hataka's own Orange thinners with the paints or another brand?

 

Yes mate, you can make out the bottle in the pics 👍🏿

Low odour stuff very good and works with mr color too. 

And yeah used some cellulose thinners afterwards to clean.

(My spray booth is in the garage)

 

Tony

[m4rky]

21 hours ago, Tony Oliver said:

 

Yes mate, you can make out the bottle in the pics 👍🏿

 

Doh... Cheers for the info.

I think I might give them a try as they seem to be producing some interesting sets. The Modern US and Modern British Tank/AFV sets looks good