Oils and Acrylics?
corey.eiseman
> I want to start painting, but I need to know the difference between
> Oil and Acrylic paints. I know acrylics are cheaper. Does oil look
> better?
many hardcore painters i know swear by oils because the colors are
richer and more vibrant. I can see their point, but personally I still
prefer acrylics because they dry so much faster. It just werks better
with my working method, I usually like to do several layers seperated by
glazes, and I also jump back and forth between paint and charcoal, so
using acrylic helps me keep a rapid pace going. Oils take too long to
dry. I'm sure better painters than i could give good reasons to use oils
and not even get used to acrylics, but personally i'd recommend the
acrylics to someone just starting out. good luck and have fun!
viva la revolucion,
corey.eiseman
http://www.toegristle.com/
Alison A Raimes
<co...@toegristle.com> writes
>many hardcore painters i know swear by oils because the colors are
>richer and more vibrant.
What on earth is a *hardcore* painter ???
>viva la revolucion,
>corey.eiseman
>http://www.toegristle.com/
This is some of the finest art I have seen across the Web. Nice one !
--
Alison
Kenneth Beyer
Oil's are based around a oil (!) usually linseed (which has a slight yellow cast [it's a more refined version of the stuff you rub into cricket / baseball bats!]). Oils can take ages to dry, usually a week or so before you can paint over the previous layer. They can go brittle when they dry out completely (oxidize). Oil colour is usually more muted, more 'earthy', not as intense and 'plasticy' as acrylic, and more forgiving to the mistakes that you make (it's relatively easy to 'correct' mistakes with oil).
As to cost. You should be able to pick up student grade paint for both oil's an acrylics at roughly then same sort of price. You can usually get them in larger quantities as well!.
Corey hit the nail on the head when he said it's about your working
method. You may find yourself suited to acrylics because of the way you
paint. I'd suggest you get a tube or two of both oil and acrylic and try
them out, relative to each other. You may find yourself buying a set of
both oil's and acrylics because at the end of the day they are 'just' tools
of expression.
Ken Beyer
UK based Artist Painter
http://www.telinco.co.uk/beyer/splash.htm
Charles Eicher
>
>
>--------------40F0C602C93FE9DA5DD80B36
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Please don't post HTML on Usenet. HTML is for the Web, ASCII is for Usenet.
>Oil's are based around a oil (!) usually linseed (which has a slight
>yellow cast [it's a more refined version of the stuff you rub into
>cricket / baseball bats!]). Oils can take ages to dry, usually a week or
>so before you can paint over the previous layer.
I continually hear this is a "problem" of oils. Ridiculous. If you have to wait
a week for the paint to dry before you can continue painting, you are not using
oil paints correctly. With proper technique, you can overpaint even on fresh wet
paint. Its tricky, but it can be done. Look at some of the great "alla prima"
painters for examples.
>They can go brittle
>when they dry out completely (oxidize).
Actually, oil paints, once dry, are polymer plastics just like acrylics. They
retain their flexibility quite well over time. I invite you to examine some
acrylic paintings in about 400 years, and see how they compare to oil paints of
similar age.
>Oil colour is usually more
>muted, more 'earthy', not as intense and
Incorrect again. I can produce colors in oils that are just as intense as any
acrylics. Oils are well known to have superior qualities of transparency, and
unlike acrylics, tend to "glow" a bit from light reflecting off the internal
body of the paints.
>'plasticy' as acrylic, and more
>forgiving to the mistakes that you make (it's relatively easy to
>'correct' mistakes with oil).
I will agree with you there, since acrylic IS plastic. I hate the plastic look,
it doesn't look like real painting to me. If I wanted that flat, plasticky look,
I'd probably use enamels or encaustic.
As you note, Oil is really easy to correct, that's one thing I love about it.
Just get a pallette knife, do some scraping, get a rag and some turps, you can
go right down to the bare gesso.
>As to cost. You should be able to pick up student grade paint for both
>oil's an acrylics at roughly then same sort of price. You can usually
>get them in larger quantities as well!.
I generally recommend that people do not buy student-grade materials in ANY
medium. Many people have given up on oils because they make mistaken assumptions
about its qualities, based on inferior products.
>Corey hit the nail on the head when he said it's about your working
>method. You may find yourself suited to acrylics because of the way you
>paint. I'd suggest you get a tube or two of both oil and acrylic and try
>them out, relative to each other. You may find yourself buying a set of
>both oil's and acrylics because at the end of the day they are 'just'
>tools of expression.
I don't know anyone who starts painting with any concept of the working methods
involved. It grows on you as you work and discover the qualities of the medium.
Oils are traditionally used in art schools because they offer the widest range
of possibilities of working methods.
I do note, however, that a lot of my printmaking friends like acrylics. I
presume (judging from their works and working methods) that they are familiar
with working in unforgiving media where corrections are impossible, and that
they like the flat colors acrylics give, which can look like a print's colors.
Charles Eicher
>
>
>
>Charles Eicher wrote:
>>
>> In article <37C8487D...@telinco.co.uk>, Kenneth says...
>> >
>> >
>> >--------------40F0C602C93FE9DA5DD80B36
>> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>
>> Please don't post HTML on Usenet. HTML is for the Web, ASCII is for Usenet.
>
>
>message was not sent as HTML; it was simply sent as an attachment.
The message contained this sort of stuff (I'll have to change the "<>" to "[]"
so your newsreader doesn't try to parse it)
[!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"]
[html]
That looks like HTML to me. And it does not belong on Usenet.
John Haber
3-min works, lots of electric guitars.
John
Chris
Charles Eicher wrote:
>
> In article <37C8487D...@telinco.co.uk>, Kenneth says...
> >
> >
> >--------------40F0C602C93FE9DA5DD80B36
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Please don't post HTML on Usenet. HTML is for the Web, ASCII is for Usenet.
Though I agree with the rest of your post, please note that Ken's
message was not sent as HTML; it was simply sent as an attachment.
Cheers;
Chris
Alison A Raimes
<jha...@haberarts.com> writes
>>What on earth is a *hardcore* painter ???
>
>3-min works, lots of electric guitars.
>
>John
There's a man in the know ;-)
Aster Iske
says...
>
>
>I want to start painting, but I need to know the difference between
>Oil and Acrylic paints. I know acrylics are cheaper. Does oil look
>better?
Start with acrylics, if for no other reason than
that they clean up with water. They are not
necessarily cheaper than oils. Buy the best quality
you can afford, ie: professional grades. Just
be sure to ALWAYS keep your brushes in water while
they are in use and thoroughly wash out before
putting them away. Dried acrylic can ruin expensive
brushes.
corey.eiseman
> >many hardcore painters i know swear by oils because the colors are
> >richer and more vibrant.
>
yikes, i guess by 'hardcore' i just meant someone who is serious and
dedicated to painting specifically. Electric guitars are optional. I
only make the distinction because I consider painting one of many things
that I dabble in. This werks fine for me, BUT, i also know that I will
never be as skilled of a painter as someone who concentrates solely on
painting as their only artform. Those people are HARDCORE.
so maybe only makes sense to me, i use that werd a alot.
me and my wacky word associations.
Ken Beyer
result in an 'acrylic v oil's' mass debate I personally have absolutely
no problems with either oil's or acrylics and use both (amongst other
things!) in my own work. . Ken.
Charles Eicher wrote:
> In article <37C8487D...@telinco.co.uk>, Kenneth says...
> >
> >
> >--------------40F0C602C93FE9DA5DD80B36
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Please don't post HTML on Usenet. HTML is for the Web, ASCII is for Usenet {{it's
> supposed to post in both html AND plain text (ASCII)The point of sending in both html and text is that the html version appears as it was writen, with formatting of the text content as is}}.
>
> >Oil's are based around a oil (!) usually linseed (which has a slight
> >yellow cast [it's a more refined version of the stuff you rub into
> >cricket / baseball bats!]). Oils can take ages to dry, usually a week or
> >so before you can paint over the previous layer.
>
> I continually hear this is a "problem" {{I never suggested it was a problem!}} of
> oils. Ridiculous. If you have to wait a week for the paint to dry before you can
> continue painting {{I can have a layer of paint 'touch dry' in half a day}}, you
> are not using oil paints correctly {{it is generally accepted that Oil paint takes
> longer to dry then Acrylic, regardless as to whether that's one day, one week, one
> month or one year!}}. With proper technique, you can overpaint even on fresh wet
> paint {{What you suggest is something only an EXPERIENCED artist/painter, such as
> yourself, would know how to do, the chap who posted the original query has
> inferred that he didn't know much about the subject hence the question!}}. Its
> tricky {{it's not tricky to do at all!}}, but it can be done. Look at some of the
> great "alla prima" painters for examples.
>
> >They can go brittle
> >when they dry out completely (oxidize).
>
> Actually, oil paints, once dry, are polymer plastics just like acrylics {{no
> they're not. Oil paint or rather the Oil medium itself 'oxidizes' and 'cures' it
> doesn't 'dry' or 'set' as does a water based product such as acrylic. It is a
> polymer resin purely because of the nature of what properties a combination of
> molecules have when combined in a particular fashion. Oil is not at all like the
> polymer plastic of acrylic's}} They retain their flexibility quite well over time.
> I invite you to examine some acrylic paintings in about 400 years, and see how
> they compare to oil paints of similar age {{preservation of paintings over time is
> not particularly to do with the medium used but more to do with the correct
> preparation of the painting surface before you start, a badly prepared painting
> will fall to bits regardless as to what medium you used to paint it in the first
> place! External environmental circumstances will assist (or not!) in the
> preservation of certain works over other's}}
>
> >Oil colour is usually more
> >muted, more 'earthy', not as intense and
>
> Incorrect again. I can produce colors in oils that are just as intense as any
> acrylics {{so can I}}. Oils are well known to have superior qualities of
> transparency, and unlike acrylics, tend to "glow" a bit from light reflecting off
> the internal body of the paints {{a question of 'technique', you can do things to
> acrylic that will allow you to do virtually the same thing as oil paint}}.
>
> >'plasticy' as acrylic, and more
> >forgiving to the mistakes that you make (it's relatively easy to
> >'correct' mistakes with oil).
>
> I will agree with you there, since acrylic IS plastic. I hate the plastic look,
> it doesn't look like real painting to me. If I wanted that flat, plasticy look,
> I'd probably use enamels or encaustic.
> As you note, Oil is really easy to correct, that's one thing I love about it.
> Just get a pallette knife, do some scraping, get a rag and some turps, you can go
> right down to the bare gesso {{you can just paint over mistakes made with
> acrylics! (as you could do with oil)}}.
>
> >As to cost. You should be able to pick up student grade paint for both
> >oil's an acrylics at roughly then same sort of price. You can usually
> >get them in larger quantities as well!.
>
> I generally recommend that people do not buy student-grade materials in ANY medium
> {{does it ever occur to you, before you baffle people with your extensive
> knowledge, that people who ask these types of questions are usually asking because
> they can ill afford the expense of professional quality materials, because they
> either haven't the money nor the inclination to buy pro' gear from the out set
> only to find that they don't get on well with what ever medium they happened to
> have bought!?. You and I can afford pro' gear because it's what we do!, it's our
> job description.}}. Many people have given up on oils because they make mistaken
> assumptions about its qualities, based on inferior products {{you work with what
> you've got and can afford, 'upgrading' to pro' stuff when you can}}.
>
> >Corey hit the nail on the head when he said it's about your working
> >method. You may find yourself suited to acrylics because of the way you
> >paint. I'd suggest you get a tube or two of both oil and acrylic and try
> >them out, relative to each other. You may find yourself buying a set of
> >both oil's and acrylics because at the end of the day they are 'just'
> >tools of expression.
>
> I don't know anyone who starts painting with any concept of the working methods
> involved. It grows on you as you work and discover the qualities of the medium
> {{that is why it is suggested buying "..a tube or two of both.." types of medium,
> as this can be found out along the way}}. Oils are traditionally used in art
> schools because they offer the widest range of possibilities of working methods.
> I do note, however, that a lot of my printmaking friends like acrylics. I
> presume (judging from their works and working methods) that they are familiar with
> working in unforgiving media where corrections are impossible, and that they like
> the flat colors acrylics give, which can look like a print's colors {{depending on
> the type of work they do, if you were to quiz them as to why they use acrylics
> they would probably answer that the 'health and safety inspectors' (respective
> governmental 'environmental agency's'- in fact the US has much tougher health and
> safety standards for this type of thing then here in the UK) don't like solvents
> or any other toxic material used in the 'oil' based colours to be present in a
> working environment}}.
{{the bottom line: my own experience tells me that regardless as to how
much you
may or may not know about painting et all, when a beginner or someone
with limited
knowledge about art and painting and asks you a question you shouldn't
'baffle them
with bullshit' because that's what they'll think your doing, you of all
people
should know this- I read in one of these posting that you are a teacher
/ lecturer?
Is that correct?}}.
corey.eiseman
> I will agree with you there, since acrylic IS plastic. I hate the
> plastic look, it doesn't look like real painting to me. If I wanted
> that flat, plasticky look, I'd probably use enamels or encaustic.
I tend to think that with the right technique and some matte medium, the
plasticky look can be all but eliminated from acrylic painting. And I
definitely don't agree with you that ALL acrylic paintings look flat.
I'd bet that has more to do with the painting itself than the kind of
paint used. I've seen some acrylic work that was anything but flat.
There is a technique i am thinking of that utilizes layer after layer of
clear medium at intervals throughout the painting. The results often
have quite a bit of depth and transparency to them, in my opinion. When
looked at closely, you can sometimes see individual brushstrokes
embedded in the multiple layers of clear plastic. It is a look and
technique that I am personally fond of, and i have never really seen it
duplicated in oils.
> I don't know anyone who starts painting with any concept of the
> working methods involved. It grows on you as you work and discover
> the qualities of the medium.
This is very very true. Another good reason to buy a few tubes of each,
i suppose. I started on acrylics very young and never touched oils until
much later, and in retrospect i'd say that had a huge influence on my
working method. i don't regret it, but if i had started out on oils i
would probably be a much different painter.
> Oils are traditionally used in art schools because they offer the
> widest range of possibilities of working methods.
this is probably a bit of a prejudice on the part of the art schools. I
don't really think oils offer a wider range of possibilities, just a
*different* range. The reason most art students can't get a wide range
out of acrylics is because they are told from the start that they're
inferior to oils. In one of the painting classes I took when I was in
art school, the teacher required oils but I ended up getting special
permission to use acrylics for financial reasons. (i already had a huge
collection of acrylics and could not afford to switch over.) The teacher
was very much prejudiced in favor of oils, for many of the same
reasons...acrylics are plasticky, flat, fake colors, etc. Anyway, by the
end of the class he surprised me by saying that he was impressed with my
use of the medium. He said that i had made some good paintings that
semester that could not have been done with oils at all. He also said i
had done some paintings that were surprisingly 'unplasticky,' which i
think impressed him the most. So i tend to think acrylics have just as
wide of a range as oils, unfortunately its just not explored as much in
the art skools.
Aster Iske
>this is probably a bit of a prejudice on the part of the art schools. I
>don't really think oils offer a wider range of possibilities, just a
>*different* range.
I teach acrylics to beginners simply because of
the fact that you can do so much more with them
than with oils because of the 'glue' ability of
acrylics vs oils. And as for my own works, I challenge
anyone to tell whether I used acrylic or oil. I work
equally in both mediums, depending on the subject matter
and my mood of the moment. I like each medium for different
reasons -- very subjective reasons. Even I can't tell
which medium I used and so I mark it on the back of
each finished work.
Andries
I use different techniques with different extents in oils. Of course you can
use also extents in acrylics but you have to work with extra extenders
unless you use past-acryl (but that is again not so easy on glazing). So in
acrylics you have to know were you should use these effects. In oilcolour it
is easy to paint very thin and easy to change it in a bigger mass. The
material will adapt on much more techniques. This works more spontanious to
me.
Then something about the problem of drying.
You can easily paint in wet oilcolour. But it is wrong to paint in halfdry
oil-surfaces. You should wait at least two weeks to overpaint it (when you
paint not to thick). When you use a bigger mass it is even dangerous to
overpaint a big halfdry mass. It will accelerate the proces of antiquety. In
oilpainting it is always better to work wet in wet or wet over dry. Not
between it. The better the underlying surface is dry the stronger will be
the oilour. A good example is the work of Titian. He worked sometimes for
several years on a painting with several long drying-periods. His paintings
are still in a very good condition. These problems are enough reasons for
many to prefer acrylics in stead of oilcolours. But for me these problems
are only rich posibilities.
If you want to know more about this you should read Max Doerner's book about
paintingtechnique.
Charles Eicher
I don't know if I can really even respond to your remarks, due to your extremely
odd method of inserting comments in the middle of other comments. It is
exceptionally hard to even tell which comments are yours. I suggest you look at
a other usenet poster's techniques and emulate them, which would make it a LOT
easier to respond to your comments in detail.
>>I continually hear this is a "problem" {{I never suggested it was a problem!}}
>>of
>>oils. Ridiculous. If you have to wait a week for the paint to dry before you can
>>continue painting {{I can have a layer of paint 'touch dry' in half a day}}, you
>>are not using oil paints correctly {{it is generally accepted that Oil paint
>>takes
>>longer to dry then Acrylic, regardless as to whether that's one day, one week,
>>one
>>month or one year!}}. With proper technique, you can overpaint even on fresh wet
>>paint {{What you suggest is something only an EXPERIENCED artist/painter, such
>>as
>> yourself, would know how to do, the chap who posted the original query has
>>inferred that he didn't know much about the subject hence the question!}}. Its
>>tricky {{it's not tricky to do at all!}}, but it can be done. Look at some of
>>the
>> great "alla prima" painters for examples.
What a mess that was! What I am saying is, people often are scared away from
oils because they don't know it is possible to paint wet over wet. That would be
a mistake. Every medium has its tricks, and learning them is the way to mastery.
>> Actually, oil paints, once dry, are polymer plastics just like acrylics {{no
>>they're not. Oil paint or rather the Oil medium itself 'oxidizes' and 'cures' it
>>doesn't 'dry' or 'set' as does a water based product such as acrylic. It is a
>>polymer resin purely because of the nature of what properties a combination of
>>molecules have when combined in a particular fashion. Oil is not at all like the
>> polymer plastic of acrylic's}}
Dried oil paints are precisely like plastic, they are polymerized hydrocarbon
chains. They ARE plastic.
They retain their flexibility quite well over time.
>>I invite you to examine some acrylic paintings in about 400 years, and see how
>>they compare to oil paints of similar age {{preservation of paintings over time
>>is
>> not particularly to do with the medium used but more to do with the correct
>>preparation of the painting surface before you start, a badly prepared painting
>>will fall to bits regardless as to what medium you used to paint it in the first
>> place! External environmental circumstances will assist (or not!) in the
>> preservation of certain works over other's}}
That is not the issue. Assuming equally prepared supports, I am willing to bet
on the oil painting outlasting the acrylic.
>>
>> >Oil colour is usually more
>> >muted, more 'earthy', not as intense and
>>
>> Incorrect again. I can produce colors in oils that are just as intense as any
>> acrylics {{so can I}}. Oils are well known to have superior qualities of
>>transparency, and unlike acrylics, tend to "glow" a bit from light reflecting
>>off
>>the internal body of the paints {{a question of 'technique', you can do things
>>to
>> acrylic that will allow you to do virtually the same thing as oil paint}}.
Sure, you can give them body with acrylic medium. It doesn't have the same
effect.
>>{{you can just paint over mistakes made with
>> acrylics! (as you could do with oil)}}.
In oils, the underpainting has an effect on the final color, due to that
"internal refraction" I talked about. You'll get a quite different effect
painting a red oil color (even a solid, loaded red) over a white than over a
black. I haven't noticed this effect is as strong in acrylics.
>> {{does it ever occur to you, before you baffle people with your extensive
>>knowledge, that people who ask these types of questions are usually asking
>>because
>>they can ill afford the expense of professional quality materials, because they
>>either haven't the money nor the inclination to buy pro' gear from the out set
>>only to find that they don't get on well with what ever medium they happened to
>>have bought!?. You and I can afford pro' gear because it's what we do!, it's our
>> job description.}}.
Don't twist my words. It is precisely my point that professional materials are
actually CHEAPER in the long run. When I switched to extra-fine grade oil
paints, I was astonished at how much more tinting power they had, and how much
less pigment I had to use. It cost me less to use quality materials than it did
to use student grade ones. I remember I used to buy tube after tube of one
particular pigment (a cheap alizarin crimson) but when I bought a tube of really
good quality alizarin crimson, it just seemed to last forever and ever, due to
its strong tinting power.
>> I do note, however, that a lot of my printmaking friends like acrylics. I
>>presume (judging from their works and working methods) that they are familiar
>>with
>>working in unforgiving media where corrections are impossible, and that they
>>like
>>the flat colors acrylics give, which can look like a print's colors {{depending
>>on
>>the type of work they do, if you were to quiz them as to why they use acrylics
>>they would probably answer that the 'health and safety inspectors' (respective
>>governmental 'environmental agency's'- in fact the US has much tougher health
>>and
>>safety standards for this type of thing then here in the UK) don't like solvents
>>or any other toxic material used in the 'oil' based colours to be present in a
>> working environment}}.
That is ridiculous. These people were printmakers, and they consistently work
with some of the most hazardous materials used in artmaking. Toxic chemicals
mean nothing to them. I actually asked some of them why they liked acrylics, and
most of them specifically said it was for the flat colors.
>{{the bottom line: my own experience tells me that regardless as to how
>much you
>may or may not know about painting et all, when a beginner or someone
>with limited
>knowledge about art and painting and asks you a question you shouldn't
>'baffle them
>with bullshit' because that's what they'll think your doing, you of all
>people
>should know this- I read in one of these posting that you are a teacher
>/ lecturer?
>Is that correct?}}.
You are incorrect. I am just a painter. I am not attempting to baffle anyone, I
am only relaying some practical tips I learned in the process of learning
painting. I was quite skeptical of these techniques until I learned them from
other painters, much better painters than me. We have been through this
discussion many times before, and nobody has ever accused me of trying to baffle
anyone.
Gus & Gloria
fast and I refuse to put anything in it. I'm probably going to have to
go with oils.
Why don't you get a "starter" set of both and try them out for
yourself. See what works best for your methods and style. Creating
something that in your eyes is "good" is definitely worth it.
--
Gloria: "And on the Fifth Day God Created Birds" nuff said!
Gus: "I Can Talk ... Can You Fly?"
Charles Eicher
>
>Charles Eicher wrote:
>
>Painting 'wet into/over wet' is probably the first thing a beginner would do!
>it's
>kind of in our nature to be messy. The results are frustrating and don't work
>because
>they don't know how to control the brush or the paint; not that "...they don't
>know it
>is possible to paint wet over wet..." there is a difference.
Right. Most of these early students, when painting wet into wet, only manage to
produce an ugly mix colloquially known as "calf-shit brown." The trick is
overpaint without dragging up the underpainting. That is what I refer to as
"painting wet on wet."
>> Dried oil paints are precisely like plastic, they are polymerized hydrocarbon
>> chains. They ARE plastic.
>
>I'll have to get back to you on this one (if you have the details of the book
>you read
>this from I'll take a look, I'm always interested in finding things out about
>paint
>itself)
I think Mayer deals specifically with this issue. But acrylics polymerize
rapidly upon drying, oils take much longer to achieve a stable chemical state.
>> In oils, the underpainting has an effect on the final color, due to that
>> "internal refraction" I talked about. You'll get a quite different effect
>> painting a red oil color (even a solid, loaded red) over a white than over a
>> black. I haven't noticed this effect is as strong in acrylics.
>
>What you are referring to is a technique not a technical hitch, it is possibly
>your
>own lack of technique regarding acrylic that fails to give you the desired
>effects
>your after not the acrylic itself. (You do say that you don't like acrylic full
>stop,
>which would account for this).
well, I've seen plenty of acrylic paintings, as well as sharing a studio with a
person who only used acrylics, so I could see the underpaintings as well.
Acrylic, as I've seen it used, just tends to be more opaque, and doesn't take as
much effect from the underpainting as oils. But the point may be moot, not many
people give any thought to their underpainting.
>A beginner doesn't see professional paint as being '...actually cheaper in the
>long
>run..', they see it in terms of "...how much for a f**king tube of paint..."!.
Right. Which is why I'm trying to warn people against being "penny wise but
pound foolish." Get the better materials, you deserve them.
>> When I switched to extra-fine grade oil
>>paints, I was astonished at how much more tinting power they had, and how much
>> less pigment I had to use.
>
> What were you using before you 'switched to extra fine grade oil paints'?
In this specific case, I was using Rembrandt alizarin crimson, one of the worst
quality paints I ever used, but I ran out and the art supplies shop had no other
alizarin in stock (?!!?!).. But later, I switched to leFranc & Bougeous
Alizarin, and I was amazed at how much more accurate the color was (Rembrandt
was way too pinkish) and it had much better tinting power.
>>It cost me less to use quality materials than it did to use student grade ones.
>
>So you did use student grade paint to start with?!
I started painting with W&N paints (not the cotman, regular W&N), which at that
time (long long ago), were artists grade, but lately, I consider them merely
student grade.
>Look, the point is that regardless as to it's economical cost in the long run;
>which
>you now see with hindsight, I'm sure we could all as artists say the same thing,
>the
>short term is what generally governs what novice artists buys, if s/he can pick
>up
>three tubes of paint for the price of one then that's what they'll do. Generally
>they
>are testing the waters and cannot afford to loose £50 or £60 ($80-$90) on buying
>paint
>that they may not like using. You make it sound as if you were one of the
>fortunate
>few who could afford to buy pro' gear from the out set (your comments above
>reveal
>this not to actually be the case!).
Actually, I am usually just as broke as the typical painting student, and I was
REALLY broke when I started in art school. I even used to scavenge in abandoned
lockers at the end of the semester, to scrounge abandoned paints. But I still
was kinda picky, I'd leave the crappy stuff for other scroungers.
>Besides what's wrong with starting out using student grade stuff and learning
>the
>ropes that way, it can be read between the lines that you are effectively
>prohibiting
>people from starting to paint by stating that they should only use expensive pro
>gear.
>maybe they're only wanting to paint to pass the time and have no intention of
>being a
>'proper' artist and just want to paint.
No, not really. What I'm really saying is that artist grade materials handle
differently from student grades, and tint differently, and that while oils (in
particular) can be hard to handle, some of the difficulty comes from poor
quality materials. If you learn with inferior materials, you learn some odd
techniques. I was even surprised when I upgraded some paints from Artist's Grade
to Extra-Fine, and my colors were even more intense, and handled much
differently. It would be nice if these materials were cheaper, but hey, life
isn't always fair.
>Probably because the people that respond are 'old hats' at painting and using
>the
>'usenet' and news groups, they understand and have no problems with what you
>say. To a
>novice this 'place' can be an intimidating experience both with respect to
>painting
>and using news groups. You have to ask yourself, something which I have noticed
>using
>usenet, where are these people who ask these initial questions, it is rare for
>the
>original poster, if a first time user, (their brief messages generally give them
>away)
>to respond to subsequent answers. Unintentionally you have created a group where
>a
>hard core of you make it difficult and intimidating for novices to sum up the
>courage
>to write. That is why you've never had any problems.
well, I am equally sure that there are hundreds of people who lurk and never
post, but learn something from our discussions. I know its true, I've
occasionally gotten email from people, saying so.
On the other hand, if there is any real problem in this newsgroup, its with the
cranks and crackpots like Mani Deli, who don't even make an attempt to provide
any positive information, and can only criticise and flame.
>The guy that ask the initial question is probably thinking to himself (or not!)
>'..what the hell have I done? I only wanted to know what the difference was
>between
>oil and acrylic paint..'. one's water based and water soluble the other one
>isn't!!!.
Gee, its a good thing he didn't ask about the difference between water-soluble
oils and regular oils!
Hey, anyway, getting answers from Usenet is sometimes like trying to get a drink
of water from a fire hose. But ultimately, none of it matters. As I am fond of
saying, "The problems of painting are all solved at the tip of the brush."
Ken Beyer
To the matter at hand.
Charles Eicher wrote:
In article <37C95BBA...@telinco.co.uk>, Ken says...I don't know if I can really even respond to your remarks, due to your extremely
odd method of inserting comments in the middle of other comments. It is
exceptionally hard to even tell which comments are yours. I suggest you look at
a other usenet poster's techniques and emulate them, which would make it a LOT
easier to respond to your comments in detail.
(see above)
>>I continually hear this is a "problem" {{I never suggested it was a problem!}}
>>of
>>oils. Ridiculous. If you have to wait a week for the paint to dry before you can
>>continue painting {{I can have a layer of paint 'touch dry' in half a day}}, you
>>are not using oil paints correctly {{it is generally accepted that Oil paint
>>takes
>>longer to dry then Acrylic, regardless as to whether that's one day, one week,
>>one
>>month or one year!}}. With proper technique, you can overpaint even on fresh wet
>>paint {{What you suggest is something only an EXPERIENCED artist/painter, such
>>as
>> yourself, would know how to do, the chap who posted the original query has
>>inferred that he didn't know much about the subject hence the question!}}. Its
>>tricky {{it's not tricky to do at all!}}, but it can be done. Look at some of
>>the
>> great "alla prima" painters for examples.What a mess that was! What I am saying is, people often are scared away from
oils because they don't know it is possible to paint wet over wet. That would be
a mistake. Every medium has its tricks, and learning them is the way to mastery.
Painting 'wet into/over wet' is probably the first thing a beginner would do! it's kind of in our nature to be messy. The results are frustrating and don't work because they don't know how to control the brush or the paint; not that "...they don't know it is possible to paint wet over wet..." there is a difference.
>> Actually, oil paints, once dry, are polymer plastics just like acrylics {{no
>>they're not. Oil paint or rather the Oil medium itself 'oxidizes' and 'cures' it
>>doesn't 'dry' or 'set' as does a water based product such as acrylic. It is a
>>polymer resin purely because of the nature of what properties a combination of
>>molecules have when combined in a particular fashion. Oil is not at all like the
>> polymer plastic of acrylic's}}Dried oil paints are precisely like plastic, they are polymerized hydrocarbon
chains. They ARE plastic.
I'll have to get back to you on this one (if you have the details of the book you read this from I'll take a look, I'm always interested in finding things out about paint itself)
They retain their flexibility quite well over time.
>>I invite you to examine some acrylic paintings in about 400 years, and see how
>>they compare to oil paints of similar age {{preservation of paintings over time
>>is
>> not particularly to do with the medium used but more to do with the correct
>>preparation of the painting surface before you start, a badly prepared painting
>>will fall to bits regardless as to what medium you used to paint it in the first
>> place! External environmental circumstances will assist (or not!) in the
>> preservation of certain works over other's}}That is not the issue. Assuming equally prepared supports, I am willing to bet
on the oil painting outlasting the acrylic.
As was pointed out, the preservation of paintings generally has nothing to do with the paint itself but the way in which the support (canvas or whatever) was prepared BEFORE painting began. You shouldn't exclude the question of '..well what about all those oil paintings that are and have fallen to bits....' One of the other responders to this discussion pointed out there may very well be a certain amount of 'snobbery' and bias towards oil paint inherent in this issue. If it were physically possible to go back in time and have Botticelli do two versions of the 'The Birth of Venus' (c.1480's) then maybe we could go some way to actually solving this peculiar catch 22 argument. (Simulated tests, whist they serve a purpose still cannot account for all sorts of unforeseen circumstances that effect the preservation of paint).
>>
>> >Oil colour is usually more
>> >muted, more 'earthy', not as intense and
>>
>> Incorrect again. I can produce colors in oils that are just as intense as any
>> acrylics {{so can I}}. Oils are well known to have superior qualities of
>>transparency, and unlike acrylics, tend to "glow" a bit from light reflecting
>>off
>>the internal body of the paints {{a question of 'technique', you can do things
>>to
>> acrylic that will allow you to do virtually the same thing as oil paint}}.Sure, you can give them body with acrylic medium. It doesn't have the same
effect.
You can do the same thing with oil's, they're also called mediums and extenders!
>>{{you can just paint over mistakes made with
>> acrylics! (as you could do with oil)}}.In oils, the underpainting has an effect on the final color, due to that
"internal refraction" I talked about. You'll get a quite different effect
painting a red oil color (even a solid, loaded red) over a white than over a
black. I haven't noticed this effect is as strong in acrylics.
What you are referring to is a technique not a technical hitch, it is possibly your own lack of technique regarding acrylic that fails to give you the desired effects your after not the acrylic itself. (You do say that you don't like acrylic full stop, which would account for this).
>> {{does it ever occur to you, before you baffle people with your extensive
>>knowledge, that people who ask these types of questions are usually asking
>>because
>>they can ill afford the expense of professional quality materials, because they
>>either haven't the money nor the inclination to buy pro' gear from the out set
>>only to find that they don't get on well with what ever medium they happened to
>>have bought!?. You and I can afford pro' gear because it's what we do!, it's our
>> job description.}}.Don't twist my words. It is precisely my point that professional materials are
actually CHEAPER in the long run.
When I switched to extra-fine grade oil
paints, I was astonished at how much more tinting power they had, and how much
less pigment I had to use.
It cost me less to use quality materials than it did to use student grade ones.So you did use student grade paint to start with?!
I remember I used to buy tube after tube of one
particular pigment (a cheap alizarin crimson) but when I bought a tube of really
good quality alizarin crimson, it just seemed to last forever and ever, due to
its strong tinting power.
Besides what's wrong with starting out using student grade stuff and learning the ropes that way, it can be read between the lines that you are effectively prohibiting people from starting to paint by stating that they should only use expensive pro gear. maybe they're only wanting to paint to pass the time and have no intention of being a 'proper' artist and just want to paint.
> I do note, however, that a lot of my printmaking friends
like acrylics. I
>>presume (judging from their works and working methods) that they are familiar
>>with
>>working in unforgiving media where corrections are impossible, and that they
>>like
>>the flat colors acrylics give, which can look like a print's colors {{depending
>>on
>>the type of work they do, if you were to quiz them as to why they use acrylics
>>they would probably answer that the 'health and safety inspectors' (respective
>>governmental 'environmental agency's'- in fact the US has much tougher health
>>and
>>safety standards for this type of thing then here in the UK) don't like solvents
>>or any other toxic material used in the 'oil' based colours to be present in a
>> working environment}}.That is ridiculous. These people were printmakers, and they consistently work
with some of the most hazardous materials used in artmaking. Toxic chemicals
mean nothing to them. I actually asked some of them why they liked acrylics, and
most of them specifically said it was for the flat colors.
This is 'just' a style of painting (printing) it isn't the only thing acrylics can do.
>{{the bottom line: my own experience tells me that regardless as to how
>much you
>may or may not know about painting et all, when a beginner or someone
>with limited
>knowledge about art and painting and asks you a question you shouldn't
>'baffle them
>with bullshit' because that's what they'll think your doing, you of all
>people
>should know this- I read in one of these posting that you are a teacher
>/ lecturer?
>Is that correct?}}.
You are incorrect. I am just a painter. I am not attempting to baffle anyone, I
am only relaying some practical tips I learned in the process of learning
painting. I was quite sceptical of these techniques until I learned them from
other painters, much better painters than me. We have been through this
discussion many times before, and nobody has ever accused me of trying to baffle
anyone.
Probably because the people that respond are 'old hats' at painting and using the 'usenet' and news groups, they understand and have no problems with what you say. To a novice this 'place' can be an intimidating experience both with respect to painting and using news groups. You have to ask yourself, something which I have noticed using usenet, where are these people who ask these initial questions, it is rare for the original poster, if a first time user, (their brief messages generally give them away) to respond to subsequent answers. Unintentionally you have created a group where a hard core of you make it difficult and intimidating for novices to sum up the courage to write. That is why you've never had any problems.
The guy that ask the initial question is probably thinking to himself
(or not!) '..what the hell have I done? I only wanted to know what the
difference was between oil and acrylic paint..'. one's water based and
water soluble the other one isn't!!!.
Derek Jones
several makes and found some of the colours had a basic synthetic look
to them almost as if the pigments were on the whole synthetic. Colours
such as the earths usually gave the game away.
I have recently begun to use Golden Acrylics from (I think) New York and
I find these much the best. When colours are mixed and white added some
lovely tinted silvers and greys are obtained and when thinned they seem
almost gouache like. Has anyone thoughts on these paints or other brand
names? Derek Jones
Ken Beyer
Talen's 'Rembrant' found them a bit to creamy in texture, and then there's
the usual Winsor & Newton (which were OK) and Daler Rowney (I didn't get on
well with at all!). There are one or two others used in the past that I
can't remember the name of now!, but I found Goldens to be about the best
(quality/cost wise as well!).
Derek Jones wrote:
Ken Beyer
corey.eiseman
>
> Which acrylics do the artists who use them favour?
I agree that Golden is great, and also Winsor Newton has a line of
acrylics (I think they are called 'Galleria,') that is also very good.
> I have used used several makes and found some of the
> colours had a basic synthetic look to them almost as if
> the pigments were on the whole synthetic. Colours
> such as the earths usually gave the game away.
I don't know if i'm reading into this wrong, but I believe oils and
acrylics are both made using the exact same pigment. So, if 'earths'
look more synthetic to you as acrylics, its most likely because of the
acrylic medium itself, and not the pigment. Personally, tho, i don't see
it. (Does a truly synthetic pigment color somehow look *less* synthetic
as an oil?)
anyway, this discussion brings back good memories about the time a
friend and I arranged a tour of a house paint manufacturer...the people
there were really friendly, and we managed to take home some pigment
"samples", a box of paint cans full of pure pigment, a dozen colors. It
was amazing. So we have since made all kinds of paint with it, both oils
and acrylics, and have experimented with different mixtures and making
our own colors. It's incredibly fun and messy. We even made oil pastels.
All from the same pigment just different medium.
I would definitely recommend for any artist to experiment with making
homemade materials instead of exclusively relying on store-bought stuff.
It is very educational. Although i wouldn't necessarily recommend this
to a beginning painter.
blah.
viva la revolucion,
corey.eiseman
co...@toegristle.com
http://www.toegristle.com/
Charles Eicher
says...
>
>
>I bought a set of liquitex acrylics and I don't like 'em. The worst
>thing is the lack of control with the big soft brushes that came with
>it. I put the brush down on the canvas board or paper and it just
>collapses.
Buy some new brushes. You'll have to do that soon enough, acrylic just ruins
brushes.
>The stupid book I bought recommends using big brushes. How
>can you get any details with big brushes?
By using a bigger canvas.
>I like detailed paintings,
>not sloppy ones. Painting is so expensive. I think I should've just
>gone with colored pencils, a lot cheaper, easier, and no mess.
Colored pencils are an even bigger pain than acrylics.
>I hate
>all these art books that tell you hardly anything. Man I just flushed
>a lot of good money down the toilet for crappy paint and a crappy
>book.
Don't give up now! You've just started, it takes a while just to get going. I
usually tell people, it takes at least 10 crappy paintings before you even get 1
painting with a FEW good points. In the meantime, you're doing what I call
"gathering valuable negative information." You now know a few things that DON'T
work, and you don't have to waste your time trying those techniques any more. I
always say that you only learn by making mistakes, and learning from your
errors, so get out there and start making mistakes!
Anyway, if I could offer some personal advice:
Go to the art store buy some cheap hog-bristle brushes. They're stiff, come in
all different sizes, and I use them almost exclusively. Start working in more
general images, don't go for the detail on your first pass over the canvas. You
can add detail as you refine the painting, and your technique gets better. I'd
rather produce a painting with good color and composition overall but kinda
vague and lacking detail, than focus on the details immediately and lose your
overall perspective on the whole painting. And don't give up until you've
produced a LOT of bad paintings! If you focus on how you think the image is
SUPPOSED to turn out, but DOESN'T, you don't end up learning anything. Rome
wasn't built in a day.
Aster Iske
says...
>I don't know if i'm reading into this wrong, but I believe oils and
>acrylics are both made using the exact same pigment. So, if 'earths'
>look more synthetic to you as acrylics, its most likely because of the
>acrylic medium itself, and not the pigment. Personally, tho, i don't see
>it. (Does a truly synthetic pigment color somehow look *less* synthetic
>as an oil?)
I think that one of the things that is happening with
many paint manufacturers of artist colors, at least
in the USA, is that they are trying to make their
paints less toxic by using dyes instead of pigments,
in many cases, and by using pigments derived from
less toxic sources than the heavy metals used in
colors in the past. By doing so, they've created some
pigments and dyes that look nice by themselves but
they seem to not intermix well otherwise. I've noticed
this happening particularly with acrylics and I assume
it's because acrylics, being water based paints, are
used by children whereas oils are usually kept from
children due to the flammability and toxicity of the
mediums used for mixing and cleaning up oils.
Old Hen
participate much because I'm a photorealistic wildlife artist and I guess folks here
just *hate that* and I get called all sorts of names for it.
Anyhoo, thanks. I get valuable info by reading your posts and just wanted to say
thanks.
Charles Eicher wrote:
--
Ken Beyer
successful UK artists (established named artists!). It is comforting to
know that even they go through a struggle to paint a picture. If you can
get past the 'half way' mark then things start to fit together. Just
battle on with it, throw the paint around a bit!.
Ken Beyer
UK based Artist Painter
http://www.telinco.co.uk/beyer/splash.htm
Checkin It Out wrote:
> I bought a set of liquitex acrylics and I don't like 'em. The worst
> thing is the lack of control with the big soft brushes that came with
> it. I put the brush down on the canvas board or paper and it just
> collapses. The stupid book I bought recommends using big brushes. How
> can you get any details with big brushes? I like detailed paintings,
> not sloppy ones. Painting is so expensive. I think I should've just
> gone with colored pencils, a lot cheaper, easier, and no mess. I hate
Philip Ayers
using poor quality paint or yer blind. Oils are still more intense at most
tonal ranges than Acrylics because as I've been told by technicians "the
binder in Acrylics can't hold as much pigment as oil can". I'd love to
switch because I find Acylics attractive for lots of reasons. But
Intensity of color is the biggist weakness....if you use the colors out of
the tubes they aren't bad(good Quality anyway) but if you mix them they
tend to go to shit fast. Actually shit's a pretty good color if it
surrounded by a lot of other shity colors, if you can did that?. I mix
most colors but since I've been doing a lot of gouaches and watercolors
for the last 6 months I find "near"tube color sometimes is better. The
acrylic surface is still a problem but not as big as it once was.
In article <7qa1a4$p...@edrn.newsguy.com>, Charles Eicher
<cei...@inav.net> wrote:
> >Oil colour is usually more
> >muted, more 'earthy', not as intense and
>
> Incorrect again. I can produce colors in oils that are just as intense as any
> acrylics. Oils are well known to have superior qualities of transparency, and
> unlike acrylics, tend to "glow" a bit from light reflecting off the internal
> body of the paints.
>
> >'plasticy' as acrylic, and more
> >forgiving to the mistakes that you make (it's relatively easy to
> >'correct' mistakes with oil).
>
Philip Ayers
In article
<p.ayers-0909...@pppa18-resaleprinceton1-4r1060.saturn.bbn.com>,
p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip Ayers) wrote:
> If you find oils" MUTED"
>>>>>>>>when compared to oils<<<<<<<,
blackcat
Philip Ayers <p.a...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:p.ayers-0909...@pppa18-resaleprinceton1-4r1060.saturn.bbn.com.
..
> If you find oils" MUTED" compared to Oils, then I'd have to say you're
> using poor quality paint or yer blind. Oils are still more intense at most
> tonal ranges than Acrylics because as I've been told by technicians "the
> binder in Acrylics can't hold as much pigment as oil can". I'd love to
> switch because I find Acylics attractive for lots of reasons. But
> Intensity of color is the biggist weakness....if you use the colors out of
> the tubes they aren't bad(good Quality anyway) but if you mix them they
> tend to go to shit fast. Actually shit's a pretty good color if it
> surrounded by a lot of other shity colors, if you can did that?. I mix
> most colors but since I've been doing a lot of gouaches and watercolors
> for the last 6 months I find "near"tube color sometimes is better. The
> acrylic surface is still a problem but not as big as it once was.
I can't respond on the oil comment but I would like to about your experience
with watercolors. I used watercolors for many years (and felt much as you do
now) before I learned about the pigment properties of many of the tube
colors I used. You can divide watercolors into three groups, staining,
transparent, and granulating - thats when the pigment has almost a chalk
like substance. Cerulean Blue is a good example. Why is this important.
Well when you mix a staining pigment such as alizarin crimson with cerulean
blue then add another color you get as you say 'shit'. and what's worse you
can't lift it out.
One way to keep from getting 'shit' is to make sure you have enough pigment
on the paper, use less water, and always keep a color temperature dominance,
then the pigment properties will not be so important. :)
Jenny>
Charles Eicher
>
>I can't respond on the oil comment but I would like to about your experience
>with watercolors. I used watercolors for many years (and felt much as you do
>now) before I learned about the pigment properties of many of the tube
>colors I used. You can divide watercolors into three groups, staining,
>transparent, and granulating - thats when the pigment has almost a chalk
>like substance. Cerulean Blue is a good example. Why is this important.
>Well when you mix a staining pigment such as alizarin crimson with cerulean
>blue then add another color you get as you say 'shit'. and what's worse you
>can't lift it out.
Hey, that was interesting. Please elaborate. This explains a LOT of the troubles
I have with watercolor. I never heard of this method of categorizing watercolor
pigments before.
Old Hen
(as with lifting out) that I've encountered with certain colors and have been
completely frustrated with.
Philip Ayers
WATERCOLOR to be a perfect medium and if you use good paint it works the
way it always has. NO...my "shit" comment was concerning cheap acrylic
paint which have low pigment content.<blac...@cetlink.net> wrote:
> Philip Ayers <p.a...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:p.ayers-0909...@pppa18-resaleprinceton1-4r1060.saturn.bbn.com.
> ..
> > If you find oils" MUTED" compared to Oils, then I'd have to say you're
> > using poor quality paint or yer blind. Oils are still more intense at most
> > tonal ranges than Acrylics because as I've been told by technicians "the
> > binder in Acrylics can't hold as much pigment as oil can". I'd love to
> > switch because I find Acylics attractive for lots of reasons. But
> > Intensity of color is the biggist weakness....if you use the colors out of
> > the tubes they aren't bad(good Quality anyway) but if you mix them they
> > tend to go to shit fast. Actually shit's a pretty good color if it
> > surrounded by a lot of other shity colors, if you can did that?. I mix
> > most colors but since I've been doing a lot of gouaches and watercolors
> > for the last 6 months I find "near"tube color sometimes is better. The
> > acrylic surface is still a problem but not as big as it once was.
>
> I can't respond on the oil comment but I would like to about your experience
> with watercolors. I used watercolors for many years (and felt much as you do
> now) before I learned about the pigment properties of many of the tube
> colors I used. You can divide watercolors into three groups, staining,
> transparent, and granulating - thats when the pigment has almost a chalk
> like substance. Cerulean Blue is a good example. Why is this important.
> Well when you mix a staining pigment such as alizarin crimson with cerulean
> blue then add another color you get as you say 'shit'. and what's worse you
> can't lift it out.
>
M.
are also staining colours.
Examples:
alizarin crimson
thalo blue
Granular/non-granular is a textural quality.
Staining/non-staining is an absorption quality.
Opaque/transparent is an optical quality.
Some granular colours such as terre verte are
semi-transparent others like cobalt violet are
opaque.
Then there are the permanency ratings which are even more
important.
Marilyn
Charles Eicher wrote:
>
> In article <Cs_B3.92$Gk4.7...@news1.i1.net>, "blackcat" says...
> >
> >I can't respond on the oil comment but I would like to about your experience
> >with watercolors. I used watercolors for many years (and felt much as you do
> >now) before I learned about the pigment properties of many of the tube
> >colors I used. You can divide watercolors into three groups, staining,
> >transparent, and granulating - thats when the pigment has almost a chalk
> >like substance. Cerulean Blue is a good example. Why is this important.
> >Well when you mix a staining pigment such as alizarin crimson with cerulean
> >blue then add another color you get as you say 'shit'. and what's worse you
> >can't lift it out.
>
M.
including University level:
The WATERCOLOR Book: Materials and Techniques for Today's Artist
by David Dewey
1995
ISBN 0-8230-5641-4
See page 77 for a complete example of my previous post.
Marilyn
Erik A. Mattila
The transparent/opaque frontier used to be defined by dyes vs. pigments. Dyes, such
as the lakes (scarlet lake, crimson lake etc.) are soluble compounds. while pigments
are insoluable, suspended in their binders (gum arabic for watercolors) as a
colloidial solution. The interaction with a substrate, such as paper, is the same as
either dying a fabric or painting on a fabric. If you dye a cloth, turn it over, it
is colored throughout. If you paint on it, and turn it over, the backside is not
affected. If you looked at some fibres from a piece of Arches that has been stained
under a microscope, the fibres would be coloed throughut, while a piece that had been
painted, would show pigment particles on the surface of the fibres. Obviously the
pigments can be 'lifted' successfully, while the dyes cannot.
I'm not certain, but I think that most of the old 'lakes' have been replaced with
synthetics, due to the archival issues that have become important to artists. The
lakes were derived from vegetal dyes, and were notoriously un-light fast. You may
still be able to find lakes, since they do have some historical value. (Maybe very
valuable to forgers, eh?).
I would think that the contemporary criteria of transparent/opaque pigments would
become clearer if you viewed the pigment under a microscope. You would see the
transparent pigments would look like colored table salt, and light would travel
through the particle. Opaque pigment particles viewed the same way would show
something like grains of colored charcoal, which light bounces off. This only
effects the tinting power of pigments, since the transparent pigments will be
influenced by colors that are underneath them, and the opaques not. But even this
would not be true in water-color painting, where both are applied as trasnparent
washes - meaning there is a lot of space between pigment particles that shows the
substrate (or underpainting).
"granulation" seems to be mechanical problem (or virtue) with some cobalts,
ultrarines, earths affected by the Ph value of the water you use. It can be reduced
by using distilled water.
But I'm not so smart. I didn't know all of this. Most of it (except the old
pigment/dye comments) are copied off the Winsor & Newton web site here:
Very interesting stuff.
Erik Mattila
Charles Eicher
<p.ayers-1009...@pppa44-resaleprinceton1-4r1060.saturn.bbn.com>,
p.a...@mindspring.com says...
>
>I'm -not- agreeing with any comments you make below. On the contray I find
>WATERCOLOR to be a perfect medium and if you use good paint it works the
>way it always has. NO...my "shit" comment was concerning cheap acrylic
>paint which have low pigment content.
no, you're still responding to someone elses remarks. I also diagreed with those
remarks about oils being muted, and I said that oils have excellent saturation
and deep color. Its right in there, but the attribution is apparently mangled.
>In article <Cs_B3.92$Gk4.7...@news1.i1.net>, "blackcat"
><blac...@cetlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Philip Ayers <p.a...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:p.ayers-0909...@pppa18-resaleprinceton1-4r1060.saturn.bbn.com.
>> ..
>> > If you find oils" MUTED" compared to Oils, then I'd have to say you're
>> > using poor quality paint or yer blind. Oils are still more intense at most
>> > tonal ranges than Acrylics because as I've been told by technicians "the
>> > binder in Acrylics can't hold as much pigment as oil can". I'd love to
>> > switch because I find Acylics attractive for lots of reasons. But
>> > Intensity of color is the biggist weakness....if you use the colors out of
>> > the tubes they aren't bad(good Quality anyway) but if you mix them they
>> > tend to go to shit fast. Actually shit's a pretty good color if it
>> > surrounded by a lot of other shity colors, if you can did that?. I mix
>> > most colors but since I've been doing a lot of gouaches and watercolors
>> > for the last 6 months I find "near"tube color sometimes is better. The
>> > acrylic surface is still a problem but not as big as it once was.
>>
>> I can't respond on the oil comment but I would like to about your experience
>> with watercolors. I used watercolors for many years (and felt much as you do
>> now) before I learned about the pigment properties of many of the tube
>> colors I used. You can divide watercolors into three groups, staining,
>> transparent, and granulating - thats when the pigment has almost a chalk
>> like substance. Cerulean Blue is a good example. Why is this important.
>> Well when you mix a staining pigment such as alizarin crimson with cerulean
>> blue then add another color you get as you say 'shit'. and what's worse you
>> can't lift it out.
>>
Charles Eicher
Or restorers. I recently noted a video I saw about the restoration of Holbein's
Ambassadors. There was a fascinating sequence about the crimson lake, and
researching whether it had faded significantly. They showed a curator making
crimson lake with a glass plate and mahl, grinding up these encrusted lac things
(they're icky accumulated secretions from lac beetles apparently) with linseed
oil. Surprisingly, they said that these lakes held up well over the centuries,
and that they often hold up better than a lot of other colors.
[snip of much interesting technical discussion]
I'll have to consider that at more length. I'm working on a specialized pigment
problem that's been vexing me for many years. This could be a new way to attack
the problem.
M.
which is not mentioned is that oil painting can be sanded,
while acrylic painting just rubs off if you try to sand down
one layer. Of course, there are probably not that many painters
here who like to sand their paintings.
Marilyn
Marge Inal
>You can divide watercolors into three groups, staining,
>>transparent, and granulating - thats when the pigment has almost a chalk
>>like substance.
>Hey, that was interesting. Please elaborate. This explains a LOT of the
troubles
>I have with watercolor. I never heard of this method of categorizing
watercolor
>pigments before.
>
And that's where those Hobbiest Books that some
people in this newsgroup have been denigratring pay for themselves.
I haven't seen a 'good' watercolor book, including
the EXPLORING COLOR by Nita Leland that didn't
mention the properties of the various watercolors.
In EXPLORING COLOR Nita walks you through the
various qualities of watercolors in chapters
on: Transparency and Opacity, Staining Quality,
Tinting Strength, Granulating Colors, and Spreading
Colors. Her is filled with
vivid color renderings to illustrate her various
points. And she doesn't hesitate to compare
popular manufactured brands either (page 36).
Philip Ayers
have to be extremely careful doing it though or you could poison yourself
over time. Nasty diseases have been attributed to heavy metals in
paint...and lead is only one. Cadmiums are very bad.
...however I wonder since you can't sand acrylics is there any problem
with layers or "lean over fat"? I'm feeling like oils are just to
constricting lately mostly because I have to leave a painting for too long
sometimes and I want lean over fat~!
M.
gives the painter a tortured surface.
As for tech. info. on acrylics, try the Golden Web site.
Have not heard of fat over lean or vice versa being a problem with
acrylics but I have heard of an impasto so thick it fell off its
ground onto the floor.
But then that could be considered performance/installation art. ha!
If you have never tried acrylics before get
Primary yellow, cyan & magenta (this one is expensive!)
some matte medium and go for it. You can use acrylic gesso
or just size your surface with the medium and then some white paint
if you want the white. Use synthetic brushes as acrylic tends to
stick into bristles. Mixing with water only, gives a very flat
finish. Kiss your brushes good-by if you don't wash them right away.
By the way, you can sand acrylic on a wood panel, very carefully and
even then, without much control.
Marilyn
mark webber
> Jim Dine uses a sander as an eraser. I love that idea because it
> gives the painter a tortured surface.
Ouch! It probably takes a long time for the painter to heal, too!
M.
Correction:
It gives the artist a tortured surface on which to paint.
But a little torture can inspire a painter as well.
As Picasso is _supposed_ to have said,
"I paint to ease the pain."
Marilyn
Robert Millard
I use the same WC groupings as yours, except I label what you call
granulating as "opaque/sedimentary" which no doubt I gleaned from some art
book years ago.
Bob
Marge Inal
>By the way, you can sand acrylic on a wood panel, very carefully and
>even then, without much control.
I'm not sure what you're problems might be with
sanding, but seems to me that the way you handle
the acrylics will make a huge difference in how
the sanding works. I know artists who use heavy
layering of acrylic gel and use all sorts of
objects for scratching and scoring the surfaces.
One of the best I've seen online you can see
too at: www.karenjacobs.com
The problem with viewing photos of her works
is that you can't see the highly tactile surfaces
that are the critical feature of her paintings.
Karen is a HIGHLY successful New Orleans based
artist who has gone from very realistic watercolor
paintings to very abstract acrylics in her career.
She is beginning to move into encaustics of late
because of that medium's normally crude surfaces.
Marge Inal
\
>As Picasso is _supposed_ to have said,
>"I paint to ease the pain."
He must have been referring to chigger bites.
I used to paint clear nail polish on them until
I discovered acrylic varnish. Where I live now
I don't have to worry about chiggers though,
just all manner of biting flies!
L. Drew Davis
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>The transparent/opaque frontier used to be defined by dyes vs. pigments. Dyes, such
>as the lakes (scarlet lake, crimson lake etc.) are soluble compounds. while pigments
>are insoluable, suspended in their binders
"Lakes" are made from an otherwise colorless insoluble particle
("pigment", if clear were a color) that has been stained with a dye.
They're sort of a hybrid of dyes and pigments.