From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 04/23/03-07:08:37 AM Z
Actually, there are three issues being confused here. One is the amount
of pigment in the mix, one is the opacity or transparency of the
pigment, and the third is the thinness or thickness of coating, which
IME is determined to a large extent by brushing technique. I may have
inadvertently compounded the confusion by careless phrasing which seemed
to equate less pigment with a thinner coating. While there is some
overlap certainly, they are different issues.
kt
Katharine Thayer wrote:
>
>
> It seems to me this question sets up an unnecessary dichotomy, and at
> the same time confuses thickness of coating with opacity.
>
> I agree with Livick that with the right pigment mix, two coats should be
> plenty to achieve a full tonal scale. But this has little to do with
> opacity, as suggested above. Opacity is a quality of a pigment. Using
> an opaque pigment, or goauche, which is very opaque, one might "cover
> the paper" with a very thin coat. And conversely, a fairly thick layer
> of a transparent pigment may not "cover the paper" because of the
> transparent nature of the pigment; the paper will always show through.
> Most people who print transparently would consider that a good thing,
> not a bad thing, because the light striking the paper and reflecting
> back through the gum layers creates color complexities and depths that
> simply can't be achieved with an opaque treatment. So it depends on the
> desired outcome, whether opacity or transparency is "better."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 05/01/03-11:59:55 AM Z CST