What do you Sketch with-under your oil painting?

[MacTownDave]

I have tried all manner of media: oil pastels wash away, pencil smears around and paint won’t adhere, etc, etc. Finally discovered the perfect layout media in an ancient box of supplies left over from my pre-computer, tech illustrator/graphics days.

This ‘blast from the past’ is (wait for it) 2mm non-photo blue leads in a mechanical pencil.

It is soft enough but not too dark, doesn’t dissolve or muddy when you do your under-wash and remains visible until you are ready to get serious. I was surprised that it stays visible, even after some light scrubbing. Not sure what the binder is in them but have not found anything remotely close.

Caveat: works best on a virgin gesso base. A canvas with a heavy underpainting tint is too slick for non-photo blue leads to work.

Looked on Ebay out of curiosity and they are still available. Whodathunk?

[Ron Francis]

I have tried all manner of media: oil pastels wash away, pencil smears around and paint won’t adhere, etc, etc. Finally discovered the perfect layout media in an ancient box of supplies left over from my pre-computer, tech illustrator/graphics days.

[SIZE=4]This ‘blast from the past’ is (wait for it) [B]2mm non-photo blue leads[/B] in a mechanical pencil. [/SIZE]

It is soft enough but not too dark, doesn’t dissolve or muddy when you do your under-wash and remains visible until you are ready to get serious. I was surprised that it stays visible, even after some light scrubbing. Not sure what the binder is in them but have not found anything remotely close.

Caveat: works best on a virgin gesso base. A canvas with a heavy underpainting tint is too slick for non-photo blue leads to work.

Looked on Ebay out of curiosity and they are still available. Whodathunk?

It looks to me like you may be using graphite.
http://www.jetpens.com/Prismacolor-Turquoise-Non-Photo-Drawing-Leads-2-mm-Blue-Pack-of-12/pd/7436

Ron
www.RonaldFrancis.com

[AnnieA]

I realize I didn’t make clear the age of the painting I spoke about a few posts back. It was titled “Mt. Reinier (sic)–Bay of Tacoma, Puget Sound” and painted by Sanford R. Gifford, in 1875. Here’s the image:

I don’t know if the image below is large enough to clearly see the graphite bleed through, but here’s a close up:

If you look carefully to the right of the (prow? stern?) right end of the canoe, you can see an indistinct graphite outline, where the painter shortened the canoe just a little. The other graphite outlines of where people were planned but not painted in the canoe aren’t visible at this scale (it is quite a large painting), but were pretty apparent IRL.

There may be larger scale images of it someplace online. And here’s a link to more info, in case anyone is intrigued by it, as I was.

[FONT=Arial]C&C always welcome ©[/I] [/font]
[FONT=Palatino]
“Life is a pure flame and we live by an invisible sun within us.” ― Sir Thomas Browne [/size][/font]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/wetcanvas-hdc/Community/images/29-Jul-2007/85002-sig-thumbnail_composite_2.jpg]/img]

[Ron Francis]

Here is a better picture of it.

This isn’t evidence of graphite migration (or bleed through) though.
We don’t know that it is graphite and we don’t know what the painting looked like when it was newly finished.
Titanium wasn’t available when that was painted and most likely he was using lead white and/or zinc, so I suspect the drawing is showing through because the paint has become more transparent.

Here is a statement from Ultrecht that says graphite definitely does not migrate through oil.
(From here.)

Graphite particles don’t migrate through an oil paint
film, but the material is denser than charcoal and can
mix readily with paint, staining light colors in the first
application. Also, as paint ages and becomes
increasingly transparent marks underneath may
become more visible.
…
How do we know graphite doesn’t migrate within a
paint film? Albert Bierstadt used a graphite-based oil
ground for many of his paintings and, while the
pictures may have darkened slightly, the ground color
has not asserted itself through the actual paint.
Unfortunately graphite proved not to provide a very
good surface for oil paint adhesion, and Bierstadt
eventually switched back to lead white grounds.

Note, the Bierstadt painting example at the link above was painted in 1858.
That, and personal experience, is enough evidence for me.

Ron
www.RonaldFrancis.com

[AnnieA]

Well, Ron, it’s certainly possible that what I saw was a case of paint becoming more transparent with time, revealing the drawing below rather than migration. But, having seen it up close, I really do still think it’s graphite pencil that made those marks. They were just too thin and distinct to be charcoal; the line quality did not appear to be ink – the texture just wasn’t consistent with ink. And, it just seems logical that those early Americsn landscape painters would use the simplest and most easily transported drawing implement to carry with them for their trips into the wilderness. That would be a pencil, I think. Or are you aware of some other drawing material/method that was employed back then?

Perhaps there are historical documents that describe typical painting methods of the time…I’m curious about this now!

The Utrecht article also said this:

Unfortunately graphite proved not to provide a verygood surface for oil paint adhesion, and Bierstadteventually switched back to lead white grounds

…so perhaps it could be a case of the paint immediately on top of the graphite lines wearing off due to poor adhesion?

There were also some (amazing) Bierstadt paintings in that same exhibition, and I didn’t see any indication of any pencil drawing showing through. They did tend to be fairly dark, but I think that was probably deliberate. I wonder if there might be a difference between graphite applied as part of a ground, in which it would be suspended in some sort of liquid medium, versus graphite lines applied directly to the painting surface.

But I guess the real question is whether the paint of today still becomes more transparent? If so, it seems to me it would be better to draw with something less dark and distinct.

This is an aside, but my great-grandfather arrived in Tacoma less than a decade after this work was painted. It’s amazing to think he may have gazed upon this very scene.

[FONT=Arial]C&C always welcome ©[/I] [/font]
[FONT=Palatino]
“Life is a pure flame and we live by an invisible sun within us.” ― Sir Thomas Browne [/size][/font]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/wetcanvas-hdc/Community/images/29-Jul-2007/85002-sig-thumbnail_composite_2.jpg]/img]

[Ron Francis]

But, having seen it up close, I really do still think it’s graphite pencil that made those marks. They were just too thin and distinct to be charcoal; the line quality did not appear to be ink – the texture just wasn’t consistent with ink.

My guess is that it would be graphite as well.
I can certainly make marks on canvas with charcoal that would be indistinguishable from graphite, but charcoal more readily mixes with paint when it’s being applied, so it would be more difficult to maintain the crispness of the line.

…so perhaps it could be a case of the paint immediately on top of the graphite lines wearing off due to poor adhesion?

I wonder if there might be a difference between graphite applied as part of a ground, in which it would be suspended in some sort of liquid medium, versus graphite lines applied directly to the painting surface.

I doubt that the paint had delaminated from above the lines. Remember that Bierstadt was painting on graphite grounds. That is, paint that is primarily made with oil and graphite. That’s a lot of graphite compared to some lightly drawn lines.

I think the difference between graphite bound in oil and painting over drawn graphite would be similar to charcoal bound in oil (carbon black) and painting over drawn charcoal.
In both cases the particles would become incorporated with the paint to some degree, but it would be similar to paint that wasn’t properly mulled in that the particles wouldn’t be properly bound.
This is similar in my view to painting over an initial wash of diluted paint because it would also produce under-bound particles.
But that is acceptable practice, so I wouldn’t be too concerned about loose particles of charcoal or graphite, (although the less the better).

I don’t really know if titanium goes more transparent over time, but I think it’s wise to draw as lightly as practicable regardless just in case, and for the reasons above.

Ron
www.RonaldFrancis.com

[Gigalot]

Sometimes people are deaf and don’t like to read. They love to argue about graphite since 19 century! :grouphug: Graphite is not useful for oil painting and not recommended by experienced people. But most people are thinking, that only their neighbors can make a trouble with graphite pencils, while themselves are so great, that never have any problems because they are far more careful artists than their neighbors!
If you skillfully drive through a red light then nothing can happens! Just fully press accelerator button! Don’t waste time to wait until Green light appears.

[Ron Francis]

Graphite is not useful for oil painting and not recommended by experienced people.

Alex, if you have useful information about the use of graphite pencils then I suggest you link or reference it.

Ron
www.RonaldFrancis.com

[AnnieA]

Alex, if you have useful information about the use of graphite pencils then I suggest you link or reference it.

This is complete!y off-topic, but I was surprised to see you in the Poet’s & Artists magazine article, “50 Memorable Painters of 2015“! It was a great write up! Congrats, Ron!

Was there already a congrats thread that I missed?

[FONT=Arial]C&C always welcome ©[/I] [/font]
[FONT=Palatino]
“Life is a pure flame and we live by an invisible sun within us.” ― Sir Thomas Browne [/size][/font]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/wetcanvas-hdc/Community/images/29-Jul-2007/85002-sig-thumbnail_composite_2.jpg]/img]

[Anonymous]

I did this painting exactly three years ago, and I drew the image with pencil:

I was a bit heavy handed with the pencil and I noted back then that this would be a test for the strike through legend.
and here it is today:

I believe I am seeing some of the pencil around his head and to the right of his shoulder, see this closeups:

I didn’t follow the drawing precisely because I was redrawing with the overlayers of paint.
I honestly can’t say, and I am not saying whether it has striken or struck through (past tense?) or not, but I really think that I would have painted it back then so that is was covered up, especially this part of his hair that I reduced in size when I painted it:

I am pretty sure that I didn’t paint it like that, his hair would not have looked right with that ghost swatch there in the left.
Where I drew darks is where I also painted darks, but where the darkest pencil passages were drawn, the paint in places now looks like a lighter, graphite looking passage and not consistent with the way I painted it.

I just think now that there are too many examples of it out there to not be something going on. Maybe it is not migrating, but it seems like something oft goes awry. Maybe it is just when the pencil is too dark and the paint is too thin, and it looks good at first, but then sinks in or something, IDK.
My path forward is to refrain from anything but very light pencil, and probably just colored pencil drawing henceforth.

[Ron Francis]

This is complete!y off-topic, but I was surprised to see you in the [I]Poet’s & Artists[/I] magazine article, “[URL=https://indd.adobe.com/view/b4c9dbd3-efb9-4d16-9cc9-00c2a5ae72e6]50 Memorable Painters of 2015[/URL]“! It was a great write up! Congrats, Ron!

Was there already a congrats thread that I missed?

Thanks Annie.
That story was a little odd. I saw a facebook post asking to submit paintings and I thought it was just some random guy with a blog, so I submitted one just for fun then promptly forgot about it.
When it was accepted, I started getting emails asking for a bio, artist’s statement and studio photos, and I was starting to think it was more trouble than it was worth. I had no idea it was so popular until the day after it was published and I started getting feedback from unexpected places.
Thanks for noticing.

Sid, I think it’s wise to draw as lightly as possible no matter what you’re drawing with. I often use chalk midway through a painting.
I would be wary of anything containing wax.

Ron
www.RonaldFrancis.com

[Artyczar]

I’ve always used light (hard) graphite pencil sketching underneath my oil paintings. Never a soft pencil. I never knew I was doing anything wrong, but I often come to this forum to find out a number of things I have been doing incorrectly.

At least I know that the things I have done from 25 years ago (or more) have been lasting so far.

I usually paint over each pencil mark in a light acrylic paint, but I have heard that acrylic under oil is not that great of an idea either.

I think the only “correct” way is to sketch in oil, or to not sketch at all. You should just know exactly where to put your paint ahead of time at all times and the process should never allow for mistakes or joy. Ha! …I’m kidding of course.

I know I have tried Sharpie in the past. Don’t ever do that. It will bleed through the oil. That was a “trial and error” experiment that went terribly wrong. Unless you’re planning on caking it on super thick, I highly un-recommend it. I wouldn’t recommend any sort of pen or ink.

H pencils have worked well for me though, with a light touch. Pencil will also smear in with any medium you use, to the softer the pencil, the bigger the mess within your color.

I have also used a clear acrylic polymer over my pencil before when there was a lot of detail. It acts as another layer of gesso, but it is slicker, and on canvas, it will take away the tooth unless you give it a little sanding. However, it at least stops the pencil marks from blending in with the oils.

These are just some things I’ve done. Granted, they are probably all the wrong way to do things.

[Michael Lion]

I have seen evidence that graphite [I]definitely does[/I] eventually show through subsequent paint layers. Several years ago, I went to a show at Seattle Art Museum … there was a canoe, and showing very clearly (only when standing quite close to the canvas) were the outlines of several painted-over figures; the artist had relocated the figures in the canoe. The thin lines were clearly made with graphite – there was that distinctive texture of a graphite pencil line.

1. We don’t know what the painting looked like when it was brand new, so we have no idea if anything changed over time.

2. If the painting did change over time, then you already pointed out the explanation that the paint became more transparent, a more logical explanation than mysterious graphite migration. It’s an established oil painting observation that oil paints, especially lead white, becomes more transparent over time.

3. The presence of these pencil marks showing through on close inspection hasn’t caused the painting to be kicked out of the museum, so if you are worrying that a graphite underdrawing will prevent your painting from hanging in a museum a hundred years from now, this story demonstrates that you don’t have to worry.

[AnnieA]

1. We don’t know what the painting looked like when it was brand new, so we have no idea if anything changed over time.

Yes and no. I think it’s safe to assume there weren’t intended to be outlines of people not painted as figures but painted over as part of the water. And the same goes for the appendage off one end of the boat.

2. If the painting did change over time, then you already pointed out the explanation that the paint became more transparent, a more logical explanation than mysterious graphite migration. It’s an established oil painting observation that oil paints, especially lead white, becomes more transparent over time.

I’m not sure it matters if it’s a question of paints becoming more transparent or the graphite migrating. Either way, there are unintended marks within the painting associated with the use of graphite.

3. The presence of these pencil marks showing through on close inspection hasn’t caused the painting to be kicked out of the museum, so if you are worrying that a graphite underdrawing will prevent your painting from hanging in a museum a hundred years from now, this story demonstrates that you don’t have to worry.

I think paintings of this era of the early American wilderness are pretty rare. And this is an unusually skilled painted as well, so I don’t know if the same standards would apply for a contemporary work. At any rate, it probably depends a lot on the style of the painterand genre in question. A realistic portrait with pencil marks showing might be less desirable, for instance.

[FONT=Arial]C&C always welcome ©[/I] [/font]
[FONT=Palatino]
“Life is a pure flame and we live by an invisible sun within us.” ― Sir Thomas Browne [/size][/font]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/wetcanvas-hdc/Community/images/29-Jul-2007/85002-sig-thumbnail_composite_2.jpg]/img]

[Ron Francis]

I’m not sure it matters if it’s a question of paints becoming more transparent or the graphite migrating. Either way, there are unintended marks within the painting associated with the use of graphite.

The main point about paint going more transparent is that any darkness underneath, whether graphite, charcoal, pen or paint, will show through eventually if it is painted over the top.

Michael,
Your 1st and 2nd points were covered back in post #49.

Ron
www.RonaldFrancis.com

[Author]

Posts