Paper Texture and Sizing questions

[Neobie]

Hi all, hope I am posting this in the right place...
(I'm a newbie as far as Watercolor painting goes, and can't find the answers when I searched

As far as I understand, Cold Pressed paper has a rough texture, and Hot Pressed paper has a smooth texture. I was under the impression that Hot Pressed (smooth) also meant that paint would stay on the surface better and be easier to both work with (blend better) and "lift." I'd like colors to stay clearer, purer (not be so absorbed into the paper) and luminous.

What I've tried:

Cold pressed paper didn't give me a clean illustrative look, illustration board I used got damaged from me trying to lift too much (and fibers so soft that they would ball up - it was a mess )

What I'm about to try:

I've got a collection of papers, and about to try some lifting preparation medium and gum arabic on hot pressed paper. (Hope this works better!)

Someone suggested today that I can add gelatin (from the grocery store!) 1 tsp. gelatin to 1/2 litre of water when stretching paper in order to give it more "sizing." Would the gelatin yellow over time or deteriorate? Can gelatin be used in 'professonal' work you would sell to someone or give as a gift?

Any answers or advice would be very appreciated!

[dpcoffin]

Gelatin is already in most commercial watercolor papers as the main sizing ingredient, so I wouldn’t worry about adding some more, tho I would personally hunt down some pharmaceutical-grade, rather than food-grade, gelatin. But that’s just caution speaking, not experience.

But messing about with the sizing seems like both asking for trouble and over-solving the problem, especially for a beginner. You’re much more likely to learn what you need to know about watercolor materials by experimenting with what already exists, compared to getting sidetracked into sizing experiments up front. I don’t mean to discourage experimentation at all; most artists wind up wanting to customize their materials in various ways as they zero in on the effects they’re after. I’ve gotten some results I like using diluted acrylic mediums as surface sizing additions on a variety of hot and cold-pressed papers. But at least as you’re getting started, I’d suggest you focus on learning about the different staining characteristics of the available pigments before you start manipulating the surface of your papers, which will effect all aspects of how the paint responds and flows, not just how easily it lifts. Working, at least for a while, with the standard, unaltered supplies will give you access to good advice from others who are using the same tools as well.

Nonstaining pigments, for example, will pick up quite well from most CP and HP papers while strongly staining pigments will not easily lift from any paper surfaces. (Here’s a good pigment list that can be sorted by staining characteristics.) The downside is that most nonstaining pigments aren’t very intense; the most intense colors tend to be the most staining.

Different brands of paper respond quite differently to lifting efforts, too, even if they are all CP, or HP. All the surface types of Arches paper, for example, are renowned for being very well sized (with gelatin) to facilitate lifting and resist pilling.

Well, that’s a start...HTH!
dc

[Neobie]

I had no idea how off track I was til today - thanks so much for the advice, DC! You got me onto the right track now, I believe. BTW, I assume that when you say "pilling," you are referring to when paper fibers roll up and the paper gets damaged(?)

Anyway, A rainy day outside allowed me to gather the discipline to do this idea that your suggestion gave me (see below), and I thought I'd post my findings here today. A lot may be old news to most people, but maybe true newbs like me might find it helpful.

After creating the chart posted below, I realized a lot that I didn't understand:

1. "Permanent" does not necessarily mean "Staining" and vice-versa. I thought that if paint was permanent, then it was also staining.

2. Liftability of paint freshly put onto dry paper and liftability of dried paint that was earlier put onto dried paper is about the same.

3. Lifting Preparation (WN) really works! Especially 2-3 coats of it!

4. Gum arabic as a medium helps slightly less than Lifting prep. in terms of making paint liftable. But when it all dried, I could see just how shiny Gum arabic made the swatches in comparison! Nice...

5. Making these charts really is a pain - but worth it IMHO.

6. Just making the chart actually made me memorize an ideal method (for me) of lifting paint without damaging the paper. FYI: The paper wasn't Arches, it was Canson montval 185gsm (I think that's 150lb??)

7. Making the chart also helped me realize how far I can and can't go in terms of lifting.

8. And finally (off the subject) - I remember acrylic liquitex Cerulean being chalky sky bluish - wow, how different Schminke watercolor Cerulean is!!!

Info on the chart: All swatches were pure color, and 1:1 ratio if I mixed with Gum arabic. The leftmost column, I painted swatches on dry paper, then let the swatch completely dry before lifting. All other columns, I let the paint sit for several seconds (just so that some "sheen" was still showing), before doing a couple rounds of very gentle circular brushing with a slightly damp brush, and dabbing with pieces of paper towel.

Anyway, I'd say that people should indeed try it themselves - as you probably can't make out what it says on the scan.. (lol).

Thanks again, DC, and any more advice from wiser watercolorists would still be most welcome...

[dpcoffin]

Originally Posted by Neobie

I assume that when you say "pilling," you are referring to when paper fibers roll up and the paper gets damaged(?)

Right.

2. Liftability of paint freshly put onto dry paper and liftability of dried paint that was earlier put onto dried paper is about the same.

Hmm. My experience is slightly different; see below.

3. Lifting Preparation (WN) really works! Especially 2-3 coats of it!

Interesting; never occurred to me to try multiple coats!
It’s too expensive/proprietary (ingredients hidden) for me, tho. I prefer acrylic mediums as lifting enhancers: Known substances, widely available and made by many different companies. But equally important is how does the extra sizing affect all your other techniques, like laying smooth washes, or the textures of your quick strokes? I generally prefer to mess with the paper as little as possible, so I get to know what it does and can’t do, every time. Try some Arches...

5. Making these charts really is a pain - but worth it IMHO.

They’re invaluable, tho, if you ever plan to know what you’re doing. Good notes are as important as a good charting concept/procedure; looks like you’re off to a good start! I bet you’ll come to kinda enjoy making them; I certainly have.

8. And finally (off the subject) - I remember acrylic liquitex Cerulean being chalky sky bluish - wow, how different Schminke watercolor Cerulean is!!!

This is really NOT ot; it's central to what you need to know about your paints, and shows the benefit of testing. According to Schmincke’s published color chart, they make three ceruleans: 479 helio c., 481 c. blue tone, and 499 cobalt c. The first two are made with phthalocyanine, one of the most staining of all WC pigments and one of the cheapest; these two paints are series 1 (least expensive), while the cobalt version is made with cobalt pigments, usually quite nonstaining, and quite expensive; it’s a series 4 (most expensive). This is a very common practice among paint manufacturers, creating a simulation with modern dyes of the color of a more expensive mineral-based pigment, for those who aren’t as concerned about the working qualities of the paint as with its color, and it invariably confuses beginners who don’t know about pigment qualities, and still think that “cheaper” is more important than “works well”. Try WN, Holbien or Daniel Smith cerulean for the lighter sky-blue cerulean you’re used to... And avoid paints with “tint” in the name: that means “made to look like...”

There are plenty of exceptions, but generally, modern organic pigments are cheap, intense, non-granulating and staining, compared to mineral pigments which have been in use forever, cost more (they’re mined as a rule, not cooked up in a lab) are less intense, settle out of a wash in interesting textures, and don’t stain.

Confusingly, the Schminke chart lists all 3 cerulean paints as “semi-staining,” further proving the value of doing your own test, and studying pigment qualities. Lots of recent w/c books do a good, quick job on this (I like this one, but there are MANY others), but the ultimate 900lb-gorilla resource is handprint.com... IF you’ve a got a free month or two

Here’s my typical, quick new-pigment test for texture, ease of rendering and liftability. I make a small graded wash to see how it granulates, and while that dries (after which I’ll try to lift it with a stiff wet brush) I put down a little oval of wet, dense pigment. I let this sit (but not dry) for at least 30 seconds, then soften the edge with a clean damp brush, which is a very common technique for me for creating a shaded, modulated color passage. If I can’t easily blend away the stain left by the initial oval stroke even so quickly after making it (see the green swatch, 2nd from the right), I know this paint will be very difficult to manipulate when doing slow, careful rendering. It needs to be laid down quickly and not messed with...usually NOT my preference.



dc

[rcollege]

Different Brands will result in different lifting abilities as well.
Holbein, Rembrant and Old Holland stain less quickly giving more time for lifting.
They also lift easier after drying whereas M. Graham, Maimeri, WN, Daler Rowney Artists and Sennelier stain faster. Daler Rowney has Ox Gall that penetrates the sizing and stains aggressively- honey also stains quickly.

Rembrant is formulated to sit on top of the paper- I think more gum arabic as well as Old Holland.

I'm going to try Stratmore Gemini 300# tonight. It is very stiff and has a good deal of sizing- If you like, I'll let you know how it comes out.

[dpcoffin]

Excellent info, Roger; thanks! I love the OH paints I’ve tried; what’s your favorite source for them?
dc

[FriendCarol]

DC, it seems there is one trick you missed. (I can hardly believe it! ) Some months ago, a w/c painter discovered a way to lift even the most staining pigments: Use a brush developed for gum care... The name is usually 'Proxa,' by Butler.

This brush has very tiny stiff bristles, much smaller than a toothbrush. It seems to lift paint almost the way a razor can flick it off the surface. If you search for the thread with Proxa in it, the original poster (I've forgotten who, sorry ) did a demo page. Amazing results.

[Neobie]

Wow, what great information you all are sharing! Thank you so much! I am so busy the next few days but will Definitely be getting back to the thread and try out some of the stuff you have suggested! Until then...

[dpcoffin]

Originally Posted by FriendCarol

The name is usually 'Proxa,' by Butler.

I keep forgetting to pick one of these up; thanks for the reminder!

dc

[Yorky]

Hi Neobie, welcome to the forum, you'll get tons of help here.

I'm, moving your thread to the Watercolor Workshop where questions like this are usually dealt with.

Doug

[VeronikaB]

One thing which Neobie mentioned in the original post was getting the paints stay on the surface so that they stay clearer. I think the latter does not necessarily follow from the former. I once tried a paper (it must have had heavy external sizing, I suppose) and the paints just pooled on the surface. Yes, they could be lifted easily, but it was impossible to add new washes because the older ones would be lifted in the process (I did let it dry thoroughly). In addition, the colours were really bleached out. So IMO having the paint stay on the surface is not necessarily what one would for to get brighter colours.

I would also add that not only different pigments behave differently, but the same pigment can behave - and look - differently on different papers, so that's another thing to consider - and test.