PDA

View Full Version : Oil over acrylic...words of wisdom?


digitalis
05-25-2007, 11:58 PM
Hi All - I have heard that it is quite legitimate to paint oil over acrylic. Does anyone have any experience with this, and is there any chance that there may be long term rejection between the media? I am aware that it must be oil over acrylic and not the other way around, and am curious to know some more about this.

I had a go at painting this way and found it to be very satisfying - I get the speed of underpainting in acrylic and the richness and workability of oil.
Here's my result - any feedback would be most welcome!http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/25-May-2007/99784-Mary-River.jpg

idylbrush
05-26-2007, 04:09 AM
Beautiful piece.

You may want to go through the web pages of the Smithsonian and the Guggenheim.

Seems to be rather a controversial subject these days. In part due to conservators. Seems to be a question of longevity. Since acrylics are basically a plastic with a different expansion coeficient than oils the conservationist seem to have some concern about the ability of oils to stay attached for long periods of time (centruries).

I might suggest reading up on it a bit and do what you feel best. I know many artists who work in this manner and have not yet seen any deterioration of quality.

Wondering if the Tate might have something on it as well. Also the Louvre might have a segment on conservation.

Just a thought.

Einion
05-26-2007, 05:12 AM
Thanks for posting the example piece David, nicely done.

Hi All - I have heard that it is quite legitimate to paint oil over acrylic. Does anyone have any experience with this, and is there any chance that there may be long term rejection between the media? I am aware that it must be oil over acrylic and not the other way around, and am curious to know some more about this.
There are quite a number of past threads on this, including this one (http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=421743) from just a week or so ago. I'd suggest hunting them down and reading some but bottom line there's no absolute info on this (lots of opinion, whether it's expressed as one or not) although the simple common-sense ideas like not using oils over a very smooth - shiny - acrylic layer are the way to go for

Quick-drying underpainting with the ability to work over in oils, to get the best of both mediums so to speak, seems to be the primary thing that most people who have worked this way, or want to, mention. It's certainly the main motivation for illustrators who paint in oils but use acrylic for the underpainting; since it'll dry practically immediately, when brushed over in oils they can begin work within minutes but know that the under layers won't budge.

BTW, as I always like to mention when the subject comes up there's no major difference in colour between oil paint and acrylic paint. Most of what separates work done in the two mediums are technique/method cues, but without too much effort it's possible to create acrylic paintings that pass as oils (even to experienced viewers I hasten to add) and there's no problem creating an oil painting that looks like it might be acrylic :)

Einion

jan409
05-26-2007, 07:19 AM
There are quite a few artists put oils on top of acrylics. Buck Paulson, and David E. Weaver are two that I know of. I have a few DVDs of David E. Weaver's and have watched Buck Paulson on PBS. I have done a few myself. I really like the results. You picture is lovely, Jan

Paulafv
05-26-2007, 06:46 PM
Beautiful painting, no matter the media.

digitalis
05-26-2007, 11:08 PM
Thanks to all of you for your comments - I think I will try to keep the two media separate where possible. I do know that it is uncommon now to use an oil based primer for oil - when I asked at a leading art supplier they told me that acrylic gesso was the universal ground and that was it! I'm sure this topic will bubble away for years, and in 500 years someone will stand up and say "See! I told you so!"
Happy painting everyone
David

dbclemons
05-27-2007, 10:31 AM
That "leading" art supplier is misleading you. It comes from their own "one size fits all" mentality, which may simplify things for them, but offers you fewer options.

tonyjazz
05-27-2007, 12:12 PM
David, I have never painted with oils. But, now I tempted since I work in acrylics. Thanx for the input, worked very well for you I see! I remember reading about Da'vinci trying out new kinds of mediums. One of his most famous, The Last Supper, I believe it is, suffered from this experimentation. But, if it has to do with a time line a of century or more, so what! I'm going for it soon........

digitalis
05-28-2007, 06:09 AM
Thanks David - I will shop around a bit more for appropriate primer!

Tony - All the best with your oil painting. I bet DaVinci wished he had a forum to bounce ideas around in his day!

1100ww
05-30-2007, 05:26 PM
Hi,

When painting oils over dry acrylic, do you have to put some kind of layer down first? I paint realistically, in thin layers/glazes. Just wondered if thinned-down oils could go right on top of the dry acrylic, or if you needed to coat the acrylic painting with some kind of varnish/linseed oil, etc.

I was always taught that a "wash" of turp + thinned down oil was a necessary step in starting an oil painting--for the oil paint to adhere well to the canvas. Obviously, if you've blocked in a painting in some detail with acrylics, you wouldn't want to just go washing over that.

So, in other words, can you go straight from the acrylic, to the glazes of oil paint?

Thanks a lot!

Einion
05-31-2007, 03:32 AM
When painting oils over dry acrylic, do you have to put some kind of layer down first?
No. There's a bit more information above, and in the other threads referred to.

I was always taught that a "wash" of turp + thinned down oil was a necessary step in starting an oil painting--for the oil paint to adhere well to the canvas.
No. Many people start straight in with thick paint, it's just relatively common to build in layers, the first usually being thinned a fair bit.

Einion

Nitsa
05-31-2007, 05:58 AM
I'm no expert but the same question brought me to this conclusion some months back...

I believe acrylic gesso has slightly different qualities to acrylic paint in that it is designed as a ground to which things can absorb. Acrylic paint has a plastic type film which is not so absorbant.
Therefore, I believe it is fine to acrylic gesso as an oil painting base. This means one could create an underpainting in gesso before going in with oil colour.

Like I say, I am no expert and my research is based on just a few examples and opinions, nothing more....but the above made sense to me.

jocelynsart
05-31-2007, 07:01 AM
Liquitex product site has info on this subject as well.
It is not recommended due to acrylic remaining flexible and oil not. The oil paint could potential crack and such in the future, and you could lose the artwork. There is adhesion issues.
The thickness of the acrylic layer matters though. A thin tinting wash I used to do, in acrylic, and the oil on top, is still fine after 20 years for me.
Jocelyn

Te_Wheke
05-31-2007, 07:01 AM
I switched from oils in my brush work to acrylics back in the early eighties. I did paintings on canvases and boards primed with acrylic gesso, then painted in acrylic paint, and after that dried I would sometimes paint in oils over the top.

I have never had any problems using this method. I have done quite a bit of research into archival quality of acrylic as well as other mediums and pigments. The standard gesso used today as a primer is acrylic gesso basically calcium carbonate chalk mixed with acrylic emulsion (binder) and preservatives, very similar to acrylic paint less the chalk.

I guess the main problem behind allot of the suspicions about acrylics failing to holding up over the years is due to its youth as a medium.
The oldest acrylic paintings are between 50 - 70 years old, and there were reports of some of the early binder emulsion formulations deteriorating after a few decades. The modern binders are better than the early attempts but only time will tell if they will actually hold up over the centuries like oils, and fresco.

I think that if you are painting in acrylics try to use an acrylic medium/extender to thin or mix,,, instead of just using water to thin as too much water will weaken the acrylic emulsion or binder. Use a good brand of artist quality acrylic paints as they would have more lightfast pigments and theoretically more durable binders.

Last but not least Good Luck, we will check back is a few centuries to see how they are holding up. ;)

digitalis
06-01-2007, 05:51 AM
I have decided after all this productive debate to play it safe and keep the two media separate. I will look around for a good oil based primer/gesso (hard to find in my nick of the woods) for the oils and keep each picture to one solvent only.
I know the oil over acrylic(thin) works like a treat, but I can't testify to it's archival qualities.
I will take Jocelyn's advice and look up the liquitex site - Happy painting all!

objectivistartist
06-01-2007, 08:56 AM
Personally, I think this worrying over these works lasting into eternity is twaddle - basically overblown head expansion... paint with what works for you, on the subjects of interest to you, and not worry of the distant future - ye not be there in any case.....

digitalis
06-02-2007, 02:27 AM
Thanks Robert - what you say is right. I wasn't losing any sleep over it, but I was wondering if there was a definitive answer out there that I had missed - no one likes to make obvious mistakes!
All the best - David

Einion
06-02-2007, 06:43 AM
Personally, I think this worrying over these works lasting into eternity is twaddle - basically overblown head expansion...
I agree, up to a point. There's a difference though between worrying about how one's work lasts in the timeframe of 20-40 years (roughly within the artist's own lifetime) and on into the centuries*.

If you paint for yourself only, then you can do what you want and who's to dictate otherwise?
But if you paint to sell there is a certain understanding that the customer is entitled to something produced to a certain standard, in terms of workmanship. Now a lot of modern art ignores any ethical considerations of this kind - and the ongoing condition of quite a bit of it reflects this directly! - but do we want to be one of those kinds of artists?

*Although it is certainly possible to work with that kind of lifespan in mind, without a great deal of additional effort.

Einion

Te_Wheke
06-02-2007, 09:35 AM
I agree, up to a point. There's a difference though between worrying about how one's work lasts in the timeframe of 20-40 years (roughly within the artist's own lifetime) and on into the centuries*.
If you paint for yourself only, then you can do what you want and who's to dictate otherwise?
But if you paint to sell there is a certain understanding that the customer is entitled to something produced to a certain standard, in terms of workmanship. Now a lot of modern art ignores any ethical considerations of this kind - and the ongoing condition of quite a bit of it reflects this directly! - but do we want to be one of those kinds of artists?*Although it is certainly possible to work with that kind of lifespan in mind, without a great deal of additional effort.

Einion
Well Put, Einion

I would not want to put out any work with my signature on it that was not produced with the highest possible quality materials available to me, and with the greatest light fastness and longevity possible.

I don't think striving for quality and integrity of work is merely “overblown head expansion” or “twaddle”, if that's the case in your world I am sorry for you. :confused: I sell my work in Galleries, if you sell your work on Ebay for pennies I would cut you some slack otherwise,,,

I think statements like that merely reflect an artist's willingness to compromise and is the problem with allot of the garbage around today. When I purchase art work I ask questions about the medium, pigments, paint brands, materials etc., as I want to be able to pass it down as a lasting heirloom or investment purposes otherwise what is the point?

When I am in the market to buy something from someone who claimed to be an artist and if I heard him/her make statements like that about using materials that lack quality and the low regard for those who strive for it, I would be out the door like a flash, no matter how good I may think it is, as crap materials = crap art when you intend to sell your work IMO.

When the work is created only for today and if the artist’s definition of quality only means it won’t fade away in a few day’s, week’s, months, or a few years and that would be good enough for the so called “artist” I can only shake my head, what a shame, you may as well create your work on news print with fugitive pigments or wax crayons from a childs pencil case.

I am very happy that Michelangelo Bounarroti did not adopt this attitude compromising his work, cutting corners, when he painted the Sistine Chapel or we would all be allot poorer for it. On the contrary he employed the best technology and materials of his time. He used fine aged lime putty and pure lightfast pigments to produce his frescos so 500 years later we are still able to appreciate the fruits of his artistic expression and probably will for many more centuries. Why should 21st century artist's be content to produce work of inferior quality or longevity that an artist painting centuries ago??

Good Onya digitalis for trying to keep the quality in, you are obviously serious about your work.

objectivistartist
06-02-2007, 11:40 AM
But if you paint to sell there is a certain understanding that the customer is entitled to something produced to a certain standard, in terms of workmanship. Now a lot of modern art ignores any ethical considerations of this kind - and the ongoing condition of quite a bit of it reflects this directly! - but do we want to be one of those kinds of artists?That is not what is really being discussed here - no one is suggesting 'cheating' the customer.... but the plain fact is, like it or not, MOST art is not worth worrying over 'the highest grade' of materials, nor is the 'lesser grade' an affront to the buyer [we're not talking of Rose Art materials here].... most concerned on this matter haven't really 'wet the whistle' in their art, yet worry over the eternity of whatever they may produce - and that IS twaddle... Michaelangelo was an established artist before doing the Sistine ceiling, so citing him is just throwing a straw dog....

Einion
06-02-2007, 02:19 PM
But if you paint to sell there is a certain understanding that the customer is entitled to something produced to a certain standard, in terms of workmanship. Now a lot of modern art ignores any ethical considerations of this kind - and the ongoing condition of quite a bit of it reflects this directly! - but do we want to be one of those kinds of artists?
That is not what is really being discussed here - no one is suggesting 'cheating' the customer....
In relation to those that sell, not working in a manner which provides at least a moderate assurance of stability is cheating the customer in a way; whether it's conscious or not (done with deliberate intent) is irrelevant.

...but the plain fact is, like it or not, MOST art is not worth worrying over 'the highest grade' of materials, nor is the 'lesser grade' an affront to the buyer [we're not talking of Rose Art materials here].... most concerned on this matter haven't really 'wet the whistle' in their art, yet worry over the eternity of whatever they may produce - and that IS twaddle...
It's undeniably true that most of the membership are just leisure artists and the bulk of members who do sell, almost by their very nature, aren't 'names' - i.e. if one is a busy working artist one generally wouldn't have time to contribute regularly to a forum of this nature.

However, not being a skilled professional is not necessarily a reason to compromise on workmanship (and to some extent on materials). In relation to my closing comment, I've mentioned a few times in Oil Painting that it may not actually require any additional effort to paint in an archival manner v. something a little slapdash. And even if great longevity is desired - for whatever reason, even personal vanity - you really don't need to do anything extreme.

Whether or not it's twaddle for painters of a certain level to think about this and work this way is a subjective determination; you're free to think so and others are free to disagree on that point.

...Michaelangelo was an established artist before doing the Sistine ceiling, so citing him is just throwing a straw dog....
I didn't mention Michelangelo, so that point shouldn't really be lumped in with the rest.

Einion

Te_Wheke
06-03-2007, 02:19 AM
That is not what is really being discussed here - no one is suggesting 'cheating' the customer.... but the plain fact is, like it or not, MOST art is not worth worrying over 'the highest grade' of materials, nor is the 'lesser grade' an affront to the buyer [we're not talking of Rose Art materials here].... most concerned on this matter haven't really 'wet the whistle' in their art, yet worry over the eternity of whatever they may produce - and that IS twaddle... Michaelangelo was an established artist before doing the Sistine ceiling, so citing him is just throwing a straw dog....
I guess I am the one who threw the straw dog, what ever the heck that means? At the risk of getting into a silly debate about something that everyone knows the answer too, if you are being honest with yourself, I'll respond.

Clever colloquialisms and slang aside, if you are a professional artist you should be concerned with the quality of your work and its longevity. In the original post David was asking for advice about the feasibility or painting one medium "oils" over another "acrylic" in an attempt to maintain the integrity of his work and not compromise it.

If you are a new student, hobbyist, create only for yourself or family and friends or simply don't give a ratz-arse about such matters, I wouldn't classify you as a serious or professional artist, so using the best materials may not be essential to you, your art, or reputation. Judging by David’s work, and conscientiousness about the quality of work he is what I would classify as a professional artist and he realises that his choices reflect on him, and I think other artists in his area could be affected as well.

For example, I also produce archive prints, so do quite a few other outfits that do not pay top dollar for the same expensive lightfast pigmented inks, archive papers and canvasses that I choose to use. I have had potential purchasers complain about prints that start to fade after only 6-9 months and sometimes need to defend my product. These other prints were produced with cheap, fugitive dye based inks, or plain old poor quality inks, instead of the archival pigmented inks with lightfastness ratings of many decades even centuries.

These poor quality prints have put many customers off purchasing actual "archival" prints from the rest of us. This negative attitude is generated by a few who choose profit over quality and reflects badly on everyone who produces prints, even those of us who strive to produce a quality product and pay large sums for superior materials. I was tempted but chose to resist the lure of a large savings at the expense of my reputation.

This is one reason why I advise serious artist's to use the best quality materials they can afford. Besides I Do Loose Sleep Over Such Issues. I can sleep well in the knowledge that my materials are of quality and will not let me or my customers down, so I can loose sleep over the quality of my work instead, the way it should be.;)

At the end of the day, it's your choice and you will have to decide for yourself and live with the consequences if any. As for me I will continue to use quality materials and refuse to purchase inferior products or art work from those who do, Twaddle is as Twaddle does. :D

1100ww
06-03-2007, 02:55 PM
Hi, this is something I've been pondering for a while...


(1) - I just found out Liquitex makes a "clear gesso". I was skeptical of how transparent it is, so I went the the local art supply + checked it out, made a swatch. It is pretty transparent, and dries VERY flat--maybe flatter than your average gesso.

What do you guys think about blocking in a canvas with acrylic, then coating it with Clear Gesso? Seems like you could paint oils over that.



(2) - Liquitex also makes a series of acrylics called Basics MATT. Supposedly they dry to a super-flat sheen. I wonder if they'd be a good surface to go over with oil glazes.



I really like the idea of painting oil over acrylic, but I'm not going to do it seriously, unless I can figure out a reliable way to do so.

digitalis
06-05-2007, 02:29 AM
This has turned into a wonderful debate! - For my part, I aspire to be the best I can and part of that involves buying the best materials I can afford. Any picture I sell means more to me than an exchange of money and picture (hope this doesn't sound corny) and I know that I would feel a bit of a fraud if I got caught out knowingly trying to scrimp on my methods and materials.
My gesso container specifically tells me that it is fine for oil paint, but just for the sake of "giving it a go" I have ordered some oil based artist's primer/gesso. When I have tried it out I will report back and let others know how it goes.
Te - What kind of prints were you doing? I have tried those Giclee prints from a couple of my originals, and despite dealing with someone I trusted, I have seen some of them appearing to fade or take on a colour shift. This has prompted me to drop the idea like a hot potato. I wonder what other people's experiences are.

Te_Wheke
06-05-2007, 06:51 AM
Hi, this is something I've been pondering for a while...


(1) - I just found out Liquitex makes a "clear gesso". I was skeptical of how transparent it is, so I went the the local art supply + checked it out, made a swatch. It is pretty transparent, and dries VERY flat--maybe flatter than your average gesso.

What do you guys think about blocking in a canvas with acrylic, then coating it with Clear Gesso? Seems like you could paint oils over that.



(2) - Liquitex also makes a series of acrylics called Basics MATT. Supposedly they dry to a super-flat sheen. I wonder if they'd be a good surface to go over with oil glazes.



I really like the idea of painting oil over acrylic, but I'm not going to do it seriously, unless I can figure out a reliable way to do so.
1100ww

Liquitex makes some good quality products, I have not used their clear gesso yet but have used their artist quality acrylics for years the good thing about them is that they supply you with technical information about their product which means they care about and test their paints for important properties. I have included a technical info pdf link that list's some important details about their paints.

http://www.liquitex.com/Products/PaintTechInfo.pdf

Also I am not certain but I think that the basics line is like a student quality paint and may not have the same archive properties of their pro line of paints. You should have a look at their site to investigate that further.

I have painted oils over acrylics for maybe 25+ years and have not had a problem with the oils not sticking to the acrylic paint, or acrylic gesso surface, I also tend to put an extra UV protective coating over my work when they are fully cured.

Good Luck

Te_Wheke
06-05-2007, 08:17 AM
This has turned into a wonderful debate! - For my part, I aspire to be the best I can and part of that involves buying the best materials I can afford. Any picture I sell means more to me than an exchange of money and picture (hope this doesn't sound corny) and I know that I would feel a bit of a fraud if I got caught out knowingly trying to scrimp on my methods and materials.
My gesso container specifically tells me that it is fine for oil paint, but just for the sake of "giving it a go" I have ordered some oil based artist's primer/gesso. When I have tried it out I will report back and let others know how it goes.
Te - What kind of prints were you doing? I have tried those Giclee prints from a couple of my originals, and despite dealing with someone I trusted, I have seen some of them appearing to fade or take on a colour shift. This has prompted me to drop the idea like a hot potato. I wonder what other people's experiences are.

digi,

I think your attitude about your work is admirable. You are Obviously Serious about your craft and I think it is to your credit. I know there are some who may think that people who are serious about these sorts of issues are somehow conceited as if to say, Who are we to want our work to last for generations? Or why are we so concerned with quality, we are just wasting our money, no one really cares. Well I care, and you care, and we are not alone, is that not enough? I think people who sell artwork and knowingly produce it with low quality materials are doing themselves and their customers a dis-service.

Re-my prints, I was in the IT and imaging industry for many years, my company worked on some very large well known movie projects in NZ. We also did allot of archive printing as well. I learned allot about the process and saw that allot of what was being passed off as archive prints were not at all. Many were printed with dye based inks which are highly fugitive and would fade after only months, or poor quality third party inks were used the fading would occur after maybe a couple years. There are some serious issues to consider when attempting to reproduce your work as an archive print or Giclee. Allot of knowledgeable printers are not even aware of the archive potential and failures if done correctly or incorrectly.

If the prints are made using archive paper/canvas and high quality pigmented inks that have been tested under UV simulation and have achieved a good light fastness rating, you can be confident that you have something that will last at least several generations if cared for properly. UV radiation, sunlight tends to eat away at pigments over time. To find pigments that can resist uv radiation, oxidation and other environmental factors that damage everything is tough. Not only is our art work being eroded but you and I are being attacked by these same forces. If you were to leave a colour newspaper out in the sun for only a day you will see what you are up against, just lay something over part of it to block the sun for later comparison.

I print my own photo’s, digital art, reproductions of my original art. Since I hate the word Giclée I prefer to use "museum quality print". I use my own large format printer and pigmented inks that have been tested and rated at 92 - 200 years before fading begins depending on the colour. I also use archival papers and canvases, basically the best available to me.

There are a host of factors that go into producing a good reproduction or print in the first place. You need to calibrate your monitor, also set the profile on your image files setting the colour space, and also profile your ink, paper combinations for each paper, canvas type as the available colour gamut will change with each new paper or canvas you print on. If you or your printer has access to a spectrophotometer you are in luck and can make your own accurate profiles (for best results) otherwise you can go to web sites where you can download targets that you print off on your printer send away and they will profile for you not cheap when you use many paper types but neither is a spectrophotometer.

You also need to use archival papers and canvases to print on. I also use a UV inhibiting liquid laminate over the top of all my prints to add a further layer of protection. All this attention is costly, there are printers who will print with pigmented inks for $200 - $300 per A1 print but like you I found the results pretty shocking. The cheapy chains that do it for less will probably be even worse. If I didn't know that I could do it correctly myself I would have run for the hills too. But like they say if you want something done right, do it yourself.

P.S. I have recently begun to experiment with Buon Fresco technique i.e. Michelangelo Buonarroti because if done correctly a Fresco will easily last for many centuries.

digitalis
06-05-2007, 05:50 PM
Thanks T for that wealth of information! I haven't had a lot of experience with the giclee prints (I don't like the sound of the word either) but I am a bit sceptical of the claims being made about their longevity.
Did I read correctly that you handle the archival printing process yourself?
If so, do you print for other artists? Personally, I would rather go the extra distance to get a quality result from a fellow artist than gamble with printer/ shopkeepers.

All the best

David

Te_Wheke
06-05-2007, 07:46 PM
Thanks T for that wealth of information! I haven't had a lot of experience with the giclee prints (I don't like the sound of the word either) but I am a bit sceptical of the claims being made about their longevity.
Did I read correctly that you handle the archival printing process yourself?
If so, do you print for other artists? Personally, I would rather go the extra distance to get a quality result from a fellow artist than gamble with printer/ shopkeepers.

All the best

David

No worries,

The modern day pigmented inks are actually quite light fast, from some of the data I have used to research them, good pigmented inks can last as long as or longer than many acrylic paint formulations. If I didn't think the print (if properly cared for) would last a life time which is what 92 - 200 years represents I would not even bother with it.

The same testing process that is used on paints is used on pigmented inks and it is basically simulation of the uv radiation exposure over a period of time on the pigments. For example if your painting was hanging on your wall for 100 years it would encounter an estimated amount of uv light during the day and from artificial light at night. They will test the pigments applied in a print to a source that simulates a measurable environment and of course it is accelerated. It is still a bit of guess work, as "Real World" conditions can still throw everything off, and to be honest everything will fade eventually, acrylics, oils, fresco, dirt, rocks, good pigments merely slow the rate of fade.

For example if we wanted to calculate approx how much light a print that hung continually in a lit home environment would receive in 75 years of light exposure, we could estimate some typical parameters average daily exposure of 200 lux for 8 hours per day, 7 days a week. The weekly exposure would equal 11,200 lux hours. Then 11,200 lux hours for 52 weeks a year would equal 582,400 (.58 megalux) lux hours per year or 43,680,000 (43.6 megalux) lux hours of exposure over 75 years. Now we could expose the print to a light source continuously to simulate the yearly exposure and continue until the print begins to fade to get some actual fade rating. There are several testing standards e.g. ASTM, Blue Wool etc., so my theoretical example above would probably produce different results because their parameters may be different.

To complicate things further each colour uses a different pigment and each one of these fades at a different rate, so for instance matt black has a rating of 200+ years before fading and yellow 90 or so, therefore since a print is made up of many colours it is still a bit of a turkey shoot as to how long the over all print will last before fading but under tested lighting conditions you could assume 90 years before the yellows start to fade. Also if it is in a more severe lighting environment like my conservatory where bright UV light enters from sun up till sun down prints would fade even faster. I have prints hanging in this room for this purpose I want to see if they will start to fade under these harsh conditions and so far so good. I have a print that I did 6 years ago that has been hanging in that room for 5 years and still looks new, only early days though.

I have been asked by local artist's and photographers if I would print their work for them too, but I only do it because I want to produce the best work I can, and I really don't enjoy it at all and would farm out my own work if I could. I really don't have the time either and can barely keep up with my own work load, and really don't need the extra stress and hassle, so unfortunately I don't do it for anyone else not even family, which doesn't make me very popular at family BBQ's. If you started to print your own work you would probably understand why I don't do it for anyone else.

The equipment is accessible to us now still a bit of an investment and learning curve but I believe that the artist taking control of his or her own work is the best solution, unless you could find a GOOD source for it. Good printers are around, they have to be, and it is probably a more practical way to get started though it won't be cheap. My printer was doing A1 size canvases for me @ up to $350 stretched each. The quality materials wise was good but technically they sucked 40% of the time and I wouldn't accept them. I finally got so frustrated I went out and bought 20k worth of gear.

If you are armed with the information and the printer knows what you expect and you have the knowledge that they have equipment and materials that can produce truly archival prints give it a go. There are new HP machines that my suppliers have been trying to get me to switch to that have 200 year ratings across the board even for the colour inks. Something new for me to investigate further.

1100ww
06-06-2007, 12:35 AM
* Still waiting on a response from Liquitex about the questions I had above.

digitalis
06-06-2007, 04:14 AM
Thanks T for yet another treasure trove of info - and I completely understand your not spreading your printing skills around - time and sanity are priceless commodities! I will do some investigation from your information - I will know exactly what to ask the printers and the folk who sell the machinery. Much obliged!

1100ww - I checked out the Liquitex site and read about the clear gesso - it does sound interesting - I will keep an eye out for the reply they give you.

Andrewcody
06-06-2007, 04:54 AM
It has been done for years.
Most primer is acrylic, so not sure what all the fuss is about

1100ww
06-06-2007, 03:24 PM
Hi,

I emailed Liquitex with some questions about oil over acrylic; here's their opinion from one of their Technical Advisors (who, by the way, was very nice).



Thanks for your inquiry. One of the most important factors to consider
in regards to oil on top of acrylic paint, is flexibility. Acrylics
retain 33 percent of their original flexibility, while oils retain only
1-2 percent. Applying the 'brittle' oils on top of the more flexible
acrylics could cause cracking issues in the oil film. So, if you'd like
to over paint acrylics with oils, you'd need to consider painting on a
rigid surface like wood panel.

The Clear Gesso may be use on top of the acrylic underpainting. It
will adhere well to the acrylic paint. But, the Clear Gesso is not
'crystal clear'. The non-crystalline silica which is important for adhesion
of the oil color, prevents the Clear Gesso from being completely
transparent. That said, the Liquitex Clear Gesso is one of the clearest on
the market and 1-2 thin coats should be sufficient. A test piece will
help you know if you like the particular look of the Clear Gesso.

The logic behind your idea to use the Basics Matt underneath is sound,
however, Basics Matt would still require a layer or two of Clear Gesso
before applying oil color on top.

I hope this information is helpful. Thanks for your interest in our
art materials.

Kind regards

perel
06-07-2007, 02:43 AM
Personally, I think this worrying over these works lasting into eternity is twaddle - basically overblown head expansion... paint with what works for you, on the subjects of interest to you, and not worry of the distant future - ye not be there in any case.....

:lol:I agree with Robert.

Retha:wave:

Einion
06-08-2007, 03:21 AM
It has been done for years.
Most primer is acrylic, so not sure what all the fuss is about
Not the same, as covered in a number of prior threads.


To give an example of how careful you have to be in this area:

Thanks for your inquiry. One of the most important factors to consider in regards to oil on top of acrylic paint, is flexibility. Acrylics retain 33 percent of their original flexibility, while oils retain only 1-2 percent. Applying the 'brittle' oils on top of the more flexible acrylics could cause cracking issues in the oil film. So, if you'd like to over paint acrylics with oils, you'd need to consider painting on a rigid surface like wood panel.
While I don't really disagree with the conclusion it does overlook/sidestep the flexibility of the support. How flexible is a canvas now? In 40 years? In 140 years?

Einion