RE: Pigments for Tri-Color-Gum?

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Loris Medici wrote:
> I must admit I don't want exact - accurate colors much ... some play in
> tolerances and unforeseeable variations are OK - I see that as the part
> of the process.

In my experience the designation "staining" or "non-staining" is pretty
much irrelevant for our purposes... Our pigment is a small portion of the
mix, which has a much larger volume of gum arabic, which will either soak
off if not hardened, or become image if hardened. The mechanics of
watercolor painting are quite different, and "staining" means the raw
paint won't lift off with the wet brush... tho in my experience this also
is relative.

Chris says she found a "staining" pigment did stain when used without
added size on the paper (Chris: did you try exactly the same motions and
conditions with a "non-staining" paint?). I generally do size the paper,
so can't speak to that. But again, I note that watercolor painting is
done directly, without an underlying added size -- or for that matter a
previous coat that's been "tanned" or hardened as both dichromate and (I
believe) cyano do. Which is to say that in any event there are probably
conditions that inhibit that "staining" in our practice.

Those designations could have some relevance of course, but not much I
think -- They're meant for WATERCOLOR painting, which uses light veils of
color thinned only (as a rule) with water, and little if at all meaningful
in gum printing.

I'd suggest also that the designations "transparent" & not transparent
are, for the reasons you cite, not crucial (or I've not found them so) if
you want a particular color. Our pigment is applied exceedingly thin
(would you say 1 part paint to 10 parts other?) & especially with tricolor
negs, as you say odds are not all in the same spot. Now think of a
traditional watercolor painting -- the whole theme & aesthetic is utmost
delicacy of interleaving washes.

But one more word about "quinacridone" red -- it's a while since I've
bought any except for the Daniel Smith PV 19 quinacridone red, but you've
got to use the number not the name as guide, since the companies play fast
& loose with names -- sometimes for instance they call it (if I recall
correctly) quinacridone magenta... Then Rowney Permanent Rose turns out
to be quinacridone red, but is so dilute it takes 3 times as much (at
least) to get the same color, which then throws your consistency off.
Which is to say you can't say "covering power" unless by brand.

I don't know about today, but in the past, Rowney & Winsor Newton (among
others) did not put the pigment # on the tube. For this & its price (afaik
the cheapest) DS is best -- tho you do have to pay for delivery.

Of course there's no doubt that dry pigment is cheapest, but I find it a
nuisance to weigh and mix -- and, for whatever reason, I may be a lazy
mixer, I find it much grainier than tube paint in the print. Sometimes
that grainy look is dandy, but sometimes I want smooth, which seems to be
more trouble, even when/if possible. But a little paint goes a long
way... even working 12 by 18 inches, a tube of whatever color seems to
last long enough so that cost isn't an issue (especially the economy size
DS).

Happy gumming,

Judy
Received on Tue Nov 25 20:12:08 2003