Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Oils or Acrlics
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
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Posted
I paint in both oils and Acrylics. If I am painting a major piece I use oil because they give a rich sense of depth like no other paints. Acrylics always seem flat to me. I know you can add mediums to boost them. But that just seems to be a surface effect, tell me if I am wrong. I do have all the mediums. This actually makes acrylics much more expensive. The reason you get big tubes is because they are not ment to be diluted, and that is why you have all these mediums to work with the paint. Actually just adding water degrades the paint, the water breaks down the emulsion weakening the strength of the colour. The big difference between oils and acrylics is that Acrylics deflect the light, oils do not. Just some notes what’s your take on oils and Acrylics. Yet having said all that I have seen some terrific art done in Acrylics.
Thank you. 🎨👍
Edited
by John Graham Inkson
Posted
There are so many brands of acrylic that it's hard to generalize, but - to generalize..... I think acrylics come into their own with knife painting; it brings out the depth of colour in the better brands, at least, in ways that thinner paint diluted with water struggles to do. The advantages of acrylic are otherwise fairly obvious and don't need to be recited, except perhaps for one: they can applied to almost any non-oily/greasy surface and can be applied thickly or thinly on all of them.
Looking around me here in the Batcave, I have oils and acrylics on the walls - I can tell the difference right enough; but I don't think my acrylics are flat - though nearly all (other than the knife paintings) are varnished, which does help to bring out the colour and counteract any dullness. I think there are those who consider acrylic "easy", by comparison with oil and watercolour; and that may be why there's a fair amount of rather pedestrian work out there in the acrylic medium; it's a lot less easy if you know what you're doing with it, though, which after nearly 60 years of painting with it, I probably do.
You can do things with oil that are much harder to achieve with acrylic, I'd certainly agree with that; but my preference is for heavy-bodied acrylics, especially Cryla by Daler-Rowney, and the Winsor & Newton professional range - so the scuptural qualities of paint are still available to us, without any need for special mediums (which I don't use); if you prefer to use acrylic thinly, like watercolour, there is a danger of achieving flatness - but as Mr Hockney pointed out, they come into their own with the glazing technique. Good for scumbling, too.
In short - I wouldn't want to sacrifice either medium, though I suppose, if you got the local thugs to back me into a corner and force a choice, I'd keep the oils, sneak in a watercolour here and there, and paint in acrylic when no one's looking.
This post has been removed as it violates our forum rules and guidelines.
Posted
That’s all good Robert. But I protest, put an oil along side an acrylic and the acrylic seems flat in comparison. Having said that good acrylic paints have come on leaps and bounds in resent years. If you are talking about thickly applied paint well I agree they will look the same. I use W&N professional acrylics they are good strongly pigmented paints. Thank you Robert for your impute always appreciated. I use the flow improver which I originally though oh you do not need that but trying it out it does extend the paint rather that weakening the paint if you use water. I think what we painter do not realize is Acrylics are far more expensive that oils. You will soon get through an acrylic tube, but with oils your grand children will still be squeezing out the oil paint in years to come.
Posted
Just instinct I suppose; bear in mind that I'm still pretty much a novice with oils. If a picture is going to be very free like the top one I'll use acrylic, for a more controlled portrait I'll do it in acrylic first and then overpaint in oil as I did here. There would be no way of overpainting the top picture though, it would ruin it.
Posted
The art group I belong to, use watercolour or acrylic. I did oils with them last year, but of course I never finished a painting, when the rest of the cohort did. We often choose a theme or subject each week, so my unfinished oils piled up. Having said that, our theme last Friday, was a Hockney. I tried alla prima and failed...kept picking up the paint below/adjacent. Should have done it in acrylic.
I've been trying pan pastels there, it sometimes works, depends on the subject.
At home, I would choose oils most of the time. I'm a slow worker.
Posted
The cost per tube squeeze is certainly one to consider; I do have a few quite elderly tubes (mostly of Cryla, which doesn't dry out as much as some acrylics, always provided you ensure the cap is replaced); but far more very old tubes of oil paint - as in, 30 years older than the oldest acrylic. It's true that one doesn't tend to think about that when comparing prices of tubes; it's what a friend in gents' outfitting calls value for wear: you can spend £100 on a jacket, or £500 - you might get a bargain at the cheaper price, or might get something that will fall to bits after a couple of years, whereas you could leave the more expensive item to your grandson (who probably wouldn't wear it, but that's not the point).
Looking around me at my personal collection, and thinking of those paintings I've sold, I suppose the work is 50% oil, 40% acrylic, 10% watercolour - in the liquid media, at least. I'd go so far as to say there's more complexity to the oils - in the paint surface rather than the subject; at a bit of a guess, though, I think I've probably sold more acrylics and watercolours than oils .... which is one way of judging the impact, I suppose; I dunno! Physically, acrylics are likely literally to be flatter than oils, unless you're using a texture paste or knife; that's the way the paint dries unless you make a conscious effort to really build up the paint - oils tend to do that for you: so I can look at a painting and think 'By Jove, Jones, you've done a grand job there!' (you are not to imagine this is a frequent exclamation..), whereas in fact the paint itself has given you more than you necessarily intended. I'm confused now....
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2