From: lva (lva@pamho.net)
Date: 10/03/01-11:31:26 AM Z
Hi Judy,
> > Then grind some of it for a short time in a mortar with a pestle.
> > That grinding is not going to make the pigment particles smaller.
> > Due to careful decanting they are already smaller than they could
> > ever get in a mortar. But it turns the lumps into powder.
>
> This isn't clear -- wouldn't the smaller particles float to the top,
> so that they would be in the part decanted? Yet, I take the above to
> mean that you are using the "soup" that's left *after* the decanting.
Yes, during the first 20 or so rounds of decanting you keep the soup and
throw out the the sand that's settling at the bottom of the bucket.
After the last round of decanting you keep the soup and let it stand for
a day. Then you throw out the soup (which is more or less clear water by
now). The stuff at the bottom stays. That's your pigment.
> You also said yesterday that you can't mull the pigment smaller -- yet
> the day before you mentioned watching a particular color get brighter
> as you ground it smaller (was that capuut mortuum? )
Yep, that's the caput mortuum I've purchased from Kremer. It's kind of
an exception as it is pretty coarse. I don't know why that is so.
I'd like to find some caput mortuum in nature. Anyone knows how a caput
mortuum vein looks like???
The statement "Due to careful decanting they are already smaller than
they could ever get in a mortar" relates to the pigments I am digging
and decanting myself. Maybe I'm more careful than the industry. For them
time is money. For me time's well spent.
> I go into this because I'm still hoping to mull the (commercially
> bought) pigment with less mess... you say you add a lot of water and
> mull it that way. Is that just your "dug" pigment, or all?
My own pigments and most of Kremer's don't need any mulling. For an
8x10" print I put 3 ml of gum in a small mortar, add the pigment (0.10 -
1.0 gram), make a nice paste with the pestle, then add the dichromate,
stir it with the pestle and coat.
When I have a coarse pigment (such as Kremer's caput mortuum), I put a
few ml of water in the mortar, add the pigment and do some pestle
pushing for a while, until I like the color and the feel. In the
beginning it sounds and feels like you're grinding rocks, but after a
few minutes it already gets better. Then I let the thing sit in the
mortar over night, best in a warm place, and by next morning there's
fine pigment powder.
Instead of water, I guess one could do the same with gum just prior to
coating, but when the pigment is coarse the grinding takes a while. I
wouldn't do that with gum because some of the gum's moisture would
evaporate, which would throw one's known gum/moisture/dichromate ratio
off balance.
> I have a mixed reaction to the Wilcox book... there's a terrific
> amount of information in it... but sometimes his opinion obscures the
> info. More important, the book is 1990 (as I recall) and the companies
> change pigments & mixes all the time.
My copy is from 2000. He updates the book every few years.
> I've tried both the Linel and Senelier colors (Senelier attends
> College Art Association conferences & can be persuaded to part with
> samples), I didn't find either of them inspiring. In fact some of the
> Linel gouaches were both fluorescent and fugitive.
Linel's Yellow Ochre is pretty nice. But Kremer's (and my) powder ochres
are even better! :)
> My favorite watercolor now (& of other gum printers) is Daniel Smith.
> The catalog and tubes both list all pigments, along with
> lightfastness, and the catalog shows the colors brushed out. (More
> reliably than the Wilcox color samples, which really are.... um,
> *reaching* for approximate.)
His book is not supposed to replace a hand-brushed color chart. The
book's printed in 4-color offset. As you know there's no way in hell one
could ever reliably represent a range of watercolors in CMYK. He's just
a guy who sat down and brushed out every watercolor he could possibly
get his hands on and then scanned the results so the reader can roughly
see what he's talking about. I, for one, appreciate his efforts and am
sure his book has an effect on the industry.
Now I have his book here, so I can quote properly. Especially these
three comments turned me on to search for the real stuff:
> Burnt Sienna, Winsor&Newton, Cotman Range
>
> The paint handled well giving very good washes.
> It will also resist damage from the light on a
> permanent basis. But it is not Burnt Sienna.
> To offer it as such is a practice only acceptable
> in this industry.
> Burnt Sienna, Winsor&Newton, Artist Range
>
> The move from the use of the genuine pigment to
> one of the PR101s is a big step in the wrong
> direction. Burnt Sienna has long been valued for
> its wonderful characteristics. They are only
> echoed here.
> Burnt Umber, Winsor&Newton, Artist Range
>
> There will be a great number of painters who have
> never experienced true burnt umber because they are
> loyal to a company offering an undeclared imitation.
> A very poor practice. The paint is well made.
Greetings
Brahma
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/02/01-08:55:27 AM Z CST