Help with photo oils please
W. J. Christiansen
What are the differences, if any, between oils like "Marshall oils" and
regular oils. Please advise. Thanks much, Bill
LJ Powell
wjch...@mail.wiscnet.net (W. J. Christiansen) wrote:
> What are the differences, if any, between oils like "Marshall oils" and
>regular oils. Please advise. Thanks much, Bill
Marshall's are transparent, while ordinary oils are opaque and tend to
cover the photograph rather than tint it.
I understand that there are additives that make opaque oils
transparent, but I've never used them.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Louie Powell
<LJPo...@ix.netcom.com>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Tjkphoto
You are probably going to get a bunch of replies which state that any
artists' oils will work, and are cheaper than Marshall's. Yes, the others
work, but not well. They don't penetrate the emulsion as evenly or
predictably as Marshall's. They won't give you the option of
super-saturated color, and they will take longer to dry. The last thing
you want to do when learning something is saddle yourself with problems,
trying to adapt materials that " sort of " work to your application. IMO
you'll be able to learn more quickly with the Marshall's stuff. My most
recent folly in this area was a set of Pebeo oils - used them for a week
and decided to heck with it, went back to my Marshall's. I am in no way
connected to the Marshall's company or its distributors.
-- TeeJay --
margaret brezden
Hi
In my opinion, I don't think there is very much difference in
Marshalls oils and a good artist oil like Winsor & Newton. I
have used Winsor & Newton with good results for years and have
never had problems with application, or transparency etc. The
only difference I can readily see is price.
Margaret
James Baker
LJ Powell (LJPo...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: wjch...@mail.wiscnet.net (W. J. Christiansen) wrote:
: > What are the differences, if any, between oils like "Marshall oils" and
: >regular oils. Please advise. Thanks much, Bill
: Marshall's are transparent, while ordinary oils are opaque and tend to
: cover the photograph rather than tint it.
: I understand that there are additives that make opaque oils
: transparent, but I've never used them.
There is no difference other than opacity. ANY good
oil paint will work (e.g., Winsor and Newton).
The oils are opaque but just add a common transparent blender
or an alkyd-based medium (which also reduces drying time)
or safflower oil or linseed oil (add a drying accelerator
if you desire). Schmincke makes 35ml tubes of transparent
gel and drying medium (mix the two for transparency AND
faster drying).
That's all Marshall's does, but they charge an arm and a leg for
teeny-weeny tubes with some toothpicks, a few cotton balls, a little
bottle of turp/oil mix and only offer an extremely LIMITED palette of
colors. What a money-making scam, IMHO.
A $6 tube of Winsor and Newton extended with some medium
is probably the equivalent of 25 little tubes of Marshall's :-)
margaret brezden
Hi
>LJ Powell (LJPo...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: Marshall's are transparent, while ordinary oils are opaque and tend to
>: cover the photograph rather than tint it.
If you apply the oils correctly this will not happen.
>: I understand that there are additives that make opaque oils
>: transparent, but I've never used them.
>
I have never found the need to do this but I will give it a try . Maybe
it will give a different effect to the coloring.
James Baker wrote
>
>There is no difference other than opacity. ANY good
>oil paint will work (e.g., Winsor and Newton).
>The oils are opaque but just add a common transparent blender
>or an alkyd-based medium (which also reduces drying time)
>or safflower oil or linseed oil (add a drying accelerator
I have read your posts before James and you seem very knowledgeable
on the subject, I would encourage others to take your advice if they
want to save money.
deha...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Tjkphoto (tjkp...@aol.com) wrote:
: You are probably going to get a bunch of replies which state that any
absorbed. I've tried the regular oils but there is such a difference,
can't get the same effect plus they are very difficult to work with.
Marshall's may be more expensive but they also last a very long time.
I wonder if the finished product (the new trend of using opaque oils)
will last as long as a portrait done with Marshall's; I have some of the
latter that were done over thirty years ago and show only the slightest
sign of fading.
regards.....
Tjkphoto
Hold on a minute on this price difference, folks. A Marshalls 19cc tube
costs $12 - $15 per ounce. A Winsor and Newton premium ( that's what it
takes to equal the pigment density of a Marshall's) costs $15 - $20 per
ounce. This price difference thing is true, but in reverse.
People should also try comparisons on evenness of coverage. Take two
all-white matte 8 x 10s, cover one completely with Marshalls and the other
with a so-called $6 oil, then start buffing them both down, hard. The
difference will be apparent quickly. You're in for a long session of
puttering trying to get the " cheapy" to appear homogeneous, with
intensity of color.
-- TeeJay --
James Baker
Tjkphoto (tjkp...@aol.com) wrote:
: Hold on a minute on this price difference, folks. A Marshalls 19cc tube
I posted about using Winsor and Newton oils (or any other good
oil such as Grumbacher) as an option to Marshall. The above
post is in error particularly in light of using mediums which
can triple the volume of the tube of oil and make them as "easy"
to use as Marshall's and you have an unlimited palette of colors
available).
A 37ml tube of W & N is $4.50 to $6.50 for the majority of colors
(only cobalts and carmine is more expensive). 90% of these are rated
extremely permanent (lightfast). There is no such thing as "premium"
W & N, but they do make a less expensive "Winton" line of oils
which cost $6.90 for 200ml. Talens Rembrandt Extra-Fine oils
are $5 for 40ml and are made of pure pigment and poppyseed oil.
These are very high quality Dutch oils despite the lower price.
Talens works equally well on photographic prints.
Anyway, I just offered my post as a response to the original question
about oils for hand coloring. I am an artist and I also use photo
media in my work. For those of you who feel more comfortable to stay
the "straight and narrow" or have some emotional or financial attachment
to Marshall's, that's fine --I apologize for offering my suggestions.
But, if you are actually interested in coloring photo materials
by experimenting with a multitude of techniques (after all, a good
artist is one who isn't content with simply copying what's already
been done), I invite you to attend my next workshop at Duke University
on April 12th. I will cover toning (using organic materials and
conventional toning materials --horrors!! organic materials you say??)
and print coloring and tinting. Another workshop is scheduled for
the end of April. During the coming fall semester I will teach an
eight week course at the Duke University Bryan Center.
What I'm obviously trying to express here is that I did not post my
recommendations in a flip or ignorant manner..... but you're still
welcome to enroll in my classes :-)
I simply offered (from my many years of personal experience)
some advice concerning the use of oil paint. There is no right
or wrong in art-making but materials are very expensive and alternative
methods are always welcome in the art world. Art-making is also
about experimenting and discovering techniques that allow you to
successfully express the content/meaning of your work.
Ben Weiner
deha...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () writes:
: Tjkphoto (tjkp...@aol.com) wrote:
: : You are probably going to get a bunch of replies which state that any
: : artists' oils will work, and are cheaper than Marshall's. Yes, the others
: : work, but not well. They don't penetrate the emulsion as evenly or
: : predictably as Marshall's. They won't give you the option of
: : super-saturated color, and they will take longer to dry. The last thing
: : you want to do when learning something is saddle yourself with problems,...
: I agree here. Marshall's colors are much more intense and easily
: absorbed. I've tried the regular oils but there is such a difference,...
: I wonder if the finished product (the new trend of using opaque oils)
: will last as long as a portrait done with Marshall's; I have some of the
: latter that were done over thirty years ago and show only the slightest
: sign of fading.
Funny, I was in the Metropolitan Museum of Art the other day and
they had some paintings there that were done with opaque oils.
I don't think most had faded very much. Some of them were at
least a hundred years old!!!!
[Insert twenty smileys for the humor impaired]
Seriously, good oils, including the decent oils you get in stores,
are pretty damn permanent as far as color fastness goes. [There are
oil paintings which have faded terribly, of course, but nearly all
modern oils are designed to avoid impermanent pigments.] I can't say
anything about the effect of the oil on the photo paper though, but
you have that problem with any type of oil.
I think some of the problems you mention such as uneven spreading
of the pigment, and taking longer to dry, are because painters'
oils are very thick out of the tube. Generally, unless they are looking
for that real thick impasto textured look (example - Willem de Kooning),
painters will thin the paint with an oil painting medium. This makes
the paint smoother and it goes onto the canvas faster, and dries
faster.
This is in no way to criticize you for preferring Marshall's -
just to let people know that there are standard oil painter's
tricks which may help. Or not.
I used to make oil painting medium out of (I think) one-third
linseed oil, one-third damar varnish, one-third turpentine.
This is for use on canvas, you might want a different formula
for use on photo paper. You can buy pre-mixed medium in the jar
or even gel medium in a tube, which is probably much more convenient.
Tjkphoto
Amen to James Baker's post regarding right/wrong and experimentation.
Saturated colors are an option, but there are wonderful hand tinted
photographs in which color is almost imperceptible. The transparency of
oils which we've been rattling about is also a non-issue for artists such
as Holly Roberts, who obscures nearly all of each underlying photo with
opaque oils. And gosh, we haven't even gotten to pencils yet, or screen
printing over photos, or Xerox transfer over photos, or all of them
together over photos. . .
-- TeeJay --
margaret brezden
Hi
>: I agree here. Marshall's colors are much more intense and easily
>: absorbed. I've tried the regular oils but there is such a difference,...
With the artist oils I use. I have no trouble with spreading or the colorr
being even. I also read somewhere that Marshalls Oils have two types of oil- t
the regular colors and ultra colors - the choice depends on what you are
coloring.
>
>: I wonder if the finished product (the new trend of using opaque oils)
>: will last as long as a portrait done with Marshall's; I have some of the
>: latter that were done over thirty years ago and show only the slightest
>: sign of fading.
Most of the handcoloring done years ago was then called handtinting and it was
exactly that. On most portraits, very pastel colors were used and any
fading would have happened because of improper care. such as hanging in direct
sunlight etc. Any artist oil is known for its permanance.
I've just bought some Liquin by Winsor & Newton. It can be miixed with the oils
and it is supposed to improve the flow of oil and increase transparency. I am going
to try it and see what the difference is from using straight oils.
Margaret
margaret brezden
Hijb...@email.unc.edu (James Baker) wrote:
>
>
>Anyway, I just offered my post as a response to the original question
>about oils for hand coloring. I am an artist and I also use photo
>media in my work. For those of you who feel more comfortable to stay
>the "straight and narrow" or have some emotional or financial attachment
>to Marshall's, that's fine --I apologize for offering my suggestions.
>
obvious from all your posts that you have the knowledge and experience
that enables you to share the valuable information you have.
Thanks for taking the time.
Margaret
margaret brezden
Hi,
tjkp...@aol.com (Tjkphoto) wrote:
The transparency of
>oils which we've been rattling about is also a non-issue for artists such
>as Holly Roberts, who obscures nearly all of each underlying photo with
>opaque oils.
I guess Holly Roberts is looking for a different way to express the image
she has photographed and to do so chooses to obscure the image by applying
the oils heavier than normal.
If you look at the work of Jill Enfield and Mary Ellen McQuay who both use
Winsor & Newton artist oils for much of their hand-coloured work, you will
see how these oils are just as transluscent as Marshalls.
Every artist has their own style, and the materials we use to achieve this
style is our choice. There is no easy way when you want to achieve a
piece of work that will be special/
Margaret
. .
--
LJ Powell
margaret brezden <brez...@intergate.bc.ca> wrote:
> Hi,
>tjkp...@aol.com (Tjkphoto) wrote:
>Margaret
>
Margaret is absolutely right - the final determination of what is
right or wrong is how it fits with the artists vision.
I use only Marshalls oils but my reason is that I don't have nearly as
much time to devote to my photography as I would like, so I have to
standardize on tools and processess which I know to work dependably -
I just don't have time to experiment. Now, when I retire - - -
> --