Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Acrylic Pour Paint Brands/Ratios
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
Hello, I am planning black/blue as my main colors, and using the dirty pour. I am intending to alternate black and blue with 3 different shades of blue. Example- ultramarine blue / mars black / cobalt blue / mars black / cerulean blue / mars black, repeat. I ordered a sample kit from Arteza, and was using 1 part paint, 3 parts Floetrol as my medium. I felt the paint was a little thick and tough to spread in the first trial, so I added 10% water to thin. I found this to be the consistency I wanted that made tilting easier without running too much. I was able to do one trial with the Arteza paint before my blues ran out, and it came out great. The colors remained well defined, with a bit of cell/lacing.
Then I opted to switch to Liquitex Basics since I was able to source it locally at a JoAnns, it was a bit cheaper, and I was able to get some larger tubes. Everything I read online seemed to suggest Liquitex Basics was one of the best options for pouring, and when I compared it, the consistency was very close to Arteza, so I assumed I would be able to swap paints, and keep my Floetral/water ratios the same. Once the paints were mixed up, it did have a very similar consistency, and flowed about the same.
The thing I noticed right away was how much more mud I got using Liquitex Basics. Even cutting the water down to 5% still resulted in a lot of mud. So my question is, is it possible that the brand really is the issue? Or is more likely that the colors I am using just are not playing well together? I read a lot about using the color wheel and layering colors in a certain order to avoid mud, but I really did not come across anything indicating blue and black did not play nice.
Although I selected similar colors by name (ultramarine blue, cobalt blue, cerulean blue), the colors/shades are not identical from Liquitex and Arteza. So I wonder if it could just be the shades of those colors from Liquitex are more likely to blend with the black than the shades from Arteza.
Ive seen a number of videos online of people using Liquitex Basics and using similar blue/black combos, and seemingly having good results. This makes me wonder if there is something else I am missing that is causing my issues. Since I already have plenty of Liquitex Basics, I would like to try to remedy the issue and use it as opposed to spending another $40 bucks to buy more from Arteza. Any thoughts or incites would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
Posted
Colour names are not reliable indicators of the actual hue. It is better to use the pigment codes that are (generally) available on the labels (or online) e.g. Liquitex ultramarine blue is PB29 (at least in the Heavy Body range).
Even then, if you want to measure paint differences precisely, you would have to use a spectrophotometer. These tools have come down in price recently but still cost several 100 dollars. I have the Spectro 1 from Variable and have found it really useful for tasks such as identifying precise complementary colours or in predicting the effect of mixing (I recently found I could get a close match to Cobalt Teal -- an expensive series 4 paint -- using Brilliant Yellow Green and Brilliant Blue, both much cheaper series 1 paints, so it is starting to pay its way :-)
Posted
Hard for me to answer questions about pouring, because I don't do it (lack of space here would make it likely I'd end up with more paint in my shoes than on the work). However, in general - there can indeed be big differences between colours in different brands of paint - there are some notorious ones: Sap Green, for instance, is a very moveable feast across brands. Cobalts, ultramarine, and cerulean SHOULD be near to each other across brands - but here's where theory and actuality collide, because - they're not. Plus - is the Cobalt and Cerulean you were using the same anyway? I don't use Liquitex Basics, but it would seem likely that in a basic set, they'd use Hue colours; and these are almost invariably variants of Pthalo Blue - a quite different paint, but mixed to look similar (it never, ever does). I also don't use Arteza - it's a relatively new paint on the market; but as with all flow paints designed to mix and react together, I would stick to the one brand.
If you're getting muddy colours, there could be two answers; one is the rather heavy use of Mars Black - it's generally a very good black in both acrylic and oil, but all blacks need care if they're not to dull other colours. The other is the additional stabilizers mixed with each type of paint: they're likely to be broadly similar, but if there's a lot of filler, and it differs chemically even marginally, plus if your colours are not "true" to begin with, e.g. are Hue colours, there's a great deal of scope for mixing mud.
Posted
PS - I concur with Martin Cooke: not that I'd buy a spectrophotometer, although it sounds interesting: just expensive, and expense is something I both want and need to avoid. But about looking for the pigment numbers - if they're shown. If they're not, you have very little guidance at all, and just have to learn by experiencing all the colours available. Much better to buy paint where the numbers are clearly indicated - it's the only reliable way of comparing them unless you have specialized equipment.
Though even then - always important to bear in mind that a great deal lies in the mixing, the grinding, the added materials - extenders, stablizers, bulking agents, resins - all of these are likely to vary, if only in proportions, between manufacturers, and all can affect the purity of the colour.
Edited
by Robert Jones, NAPA
Posted
Thank you Martin and Robert! I was curious how well black actually worked as a neutral color in between the blues, so I appreciate the idea that the high level black could be an issue of dulling others. I did another trial and alternated black and gray between the blues instead of just black, and I did see improvement. I think I will just go ahead and purchase some more paint from Arteza, and continue testing, see if I can really can notice a difference in brands.
The Cerulean and Cobalt were actually noticeably different both from Arteza and Liquitex. The Cerulean looked to my eye have a lot more greenish tones in both brands, and the Cobalt seemed to be, for lack of a better term, more true blue. Strangely enough, the Cobalt from Arteza is quite a bit lighter than the Cobalt from Liquitex.
Posted
The curious thing about spectrophotometers is that they measure the light is absorbed. What you see when you look at a painting is the opposite, the light that is reflected, not absorbed. They are great for identifying the composition of a material. Predicting what you get when you mix two pigments?
Posted
I did a lot of experiments some years ago with acrylic pours, because I wanted to use as backgrounds. Weight of pigments plays a big role. If there is no variation in your pigment weight the colours mix instead of forming cells. The bigger a difference you can get between the heavy layer and the lighter trapped layers the more success you will have. The heavy weight, mars black or titanium white should be at the bottom of the cup. When the cup is flipped that colour will be at the top and the lighter weight colours will push through it and create cells. You can add water, Floetrol and or silicone to the lighter weight colours, don't add to the heavy base colour. The paint I used was Winsor & Newton Galeria. No matter what brand use a scale and note the weight for a known volume. Make the lightweights lighter, remember similar weights mix. These are not in my gallery I'll put some here. 
Edited
by Collette Hughes
Posted
Useful contribution from someone who has actually done this.
I have looked at Liquitex Basics in the meantime, and they do indeed use Hue colours in their range, so that what is labelled Cobalt Blue (Hue) has nothing in common with Cobalt Blue, other than an approximation to the shade. The difference between it and genuine Cobalt Blue is likely to be significant - the same is true of the Cadmiums, and Cerulean Blue. This reinforces the point that you should stick to one brand, and preferably a higher specification than the ones you've been using to get the best out of this effect.
Collette uses or used Galeria - a Winsor and Newton product, which is good paint: it doesn't suit the way I use acrylics, but should be fine for this approach (as has been shown) and given its quality is reasonably priced. The higher grades of Liquitex, and Golden Acrylics flow formula, should also work well; as should the Daler-Rowney Graduate range, or, higher up the quality scale, System 3. I know very little about Arteza; will endeavour to research it.
I must say that it had never occurred to me to weigh pigments - I can see that it would make sense with this technique, though. One learns a little more each day!
Posted
Quick look at Arteza - they seem to have a high satisfaction rate, but they're not of professional quality (which may not matter) and do not identify the pigment number on their tubes - which is a pity, because you don't know what you're getting; they don't even differentiate between single pigment colours and convenience mixes & Hue colours.
On the other hand, they do have a range designed for pouring techniques specifically; which most brands don't, although many can still be used for that purpose. Prices are quite low, but I'm not tempted, because a) I have my favourite and long-established brands, which I trust; and b) if I use ready-flowing acrylic, it's only because I've run out of the heavy-bodied variety. I admire Collette's work, but have never wanted to try a pouring technique - if that's the way you want to go right now, Darren, Arteza might be just the brand for you, with Galleria as an alternative.
Posted
Thanks Robert glad you think it's useful. I don't use galeria anymore. This technique you end up pouring half the paint away so it's a good balance between economy and quality. The 250ml tubs are great value. I didn't realise how long ago it was I last used them until I looked for photos, I bet they have gone off hard.
Darren: You can increase the weight of your heavy layer by adding a bit of gesso to it. Use black gesso if using a Mars black layer. You can also help the paint flow by having a wet white or black layer on the canvas before tipping the cup.
I'm glad you posted this question Darren. You've made me consider some more experiments. I'm wondering if clear gesso would work as a heavy layer and whether I could combine with a painting underneath the pour rather than painting on top of the pour. If I do I'll post it in WIP in case anyone is interested.
Posted
The curious thing about spectrophotometers is that they measure the light is absorbed. What you see when you look at a painting is the opposite, the light that is reflected, not absorbed. They are great for identifying the composition of a material. Predicting what you get when you mix two pigments?Spectrophotometers provide an output in terms of the degree of reflectance at various frequencies. Here's some measurements I made of my Liquitex acrylics
