Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Traditional Oils v Water Mixable Oils
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 have spent a very pleasant day experimenting further with monoprinting. Bought a few Caligo Relief Inks and Oil to thin them down a bit. Still found it very "gloopy" but managed to produce a reasonable print (which will go on gallery when dry). Got into quite a mess so decided to try my traditional oils. Forgot how wonderful they feel. I first started painting with traditional oils (Georgian) because they were good but relatively cheap. Loved them. Used low-odour thinner with them, but I had 2 problems - l had very dry hands, from the thinner, and I suffer from dry skin anyway and the 2nd prob. was that they just took too long to dry and I haven't the room to store all the paintings meantime. I decided to try water mixable oils and bought Holbein Aqua Duo. They just didn't give the same results and I found it difficult to wash the brushes in soap and water. Eventually used Golden Open Acrylics, which are great but you have to build the intensity more as they are thinner. I also tried my water mixable oils for the monoprinting, but I found I had the same problems with them. I don't know how artists get on with them. Perhaps they have improved over the years since I first got them. They are a good make which is such a pity.
Posted
They're not the same as traditional oils - they have their adherents, some of whom (eg, Murray Ince, who visits us now and then and is by way of being a friend of mine) achieve minor miracles with them; but they're not traditional oil paints and nothing is ever going to make them behave the same way, so far as I can see.
You can limit the adverse effects of oils - use low-odour thinners, Zest-It products, avoid white spirit, wear latex gloves - but if you want the flexibility and resourcefulness of traditional oil paint, in my view (and I also love acrylics) you really have no alternative other than traditional oil paint, because nothing else compares. For those that way inclined, it's like comparing polyester with wool and cashmere, premium cigars with Kensitas cigarettes, polyvinyl with leather, silk with rayon, quorn with roast lamb - it's just not the same.
Obviously, I now await the deluge of criticism, but there it is: I just don't think water-soluble oils hold a candle to the real thing, even though I accept that brilliant artists can achieve brilliant results with them. But then truly brilliant artists can achieve results with wax crayons and school pencil stubs - it doesn't mean that I want to limit myself to them.
http://www.isleofwightlandscapes.net
http://www.wightpaint.blogspot.co.uk
Posted
Thank goodness Robert - I thought it was just me. I love traditional oils and I keep saying that water-mixable ones do not give the same results. I do know that Artisan oils are used and loved by lots of people, and some say that they are just the same, but they are not! It is true though that a lot of artists can do wonders with different mediums, I am just not one of them.
Posted
That's about right, I think - I use water-based oils now and then, not in order to facilitate cleaning up but just because they can work with normal oil paint quite happily, and I like some of the colours. I'm not so keen on the feel of them on the brush or the way the paint transfers from brush to canvas (what Martin Kinnear, who occasionally visits here, would call the rheology). There are some things they're not so good at doing as conventional oils, but it's quite possible that these aren't things everyone would necessarily want to do.
Some like to use Artists' quality oils; some professional artists use the Georgian or Winton ranges quite happily; some use water-solubles; some use alkyds - given everything is a chemical, even water, I'm not troubled by those used in traditional mediums: but then, I do take appropriate care with the more obviously hazardous ones.
http://www.isleofwightlandscapes.net
http://www.wightpaint.blogspot.co.uk
Posted
I have watched the video and have a better understanding of the paints. Also I watched a video showing how to clean the brushes afterwards which may explain why I was having problems in that area. I haven't noticed a difference in the finished works Syd only of the application of the paints, so I may have another go with my water-mixable oils.
Posted
See Murray Ince's paintings - he sometimes shows here, and I've seen him paint and seen his paintings in the flesh, executed with Artisan oils. Indeed, we've exhibited together (though I don't think either of us sold! But that wasn't our fault....)
No, I don't think you could tell any difference - you make allowances for the paint you use, and can become expert in its use: certainly, I couldn't normally look at an oil painting and say ah, that's obviously been done using high quality (and expensive) oil paint. I can look at a painting though and tell if it's used cheap and nasty paints, or even expensive and nasty paints, of which there are very few on the market; but there are some. There's a particular sticky and thick brand which puts me in mind of coal tar more than anything else - it comes from the USA (and it can stay there so far as I'm concerned: it ISN'T cheap, either).
Sometimes, though, the quality of the paint, and the hand of the artist, do combine unmistakably. Ken Bushe, who came from Syd's neck of the woods, died, tragically, earlier this year - his paintings can still be seen online because his partner has maintained his websites. There are, particularly, sky paintings on that site which I don't believe could have been accomplished without very high grade paint - and wouldn't have been easy to do however good the paint might have been. There are also comments he left on the quality of the paint he used which are well worth reading. Just Google Ken Bushe, Scottish Artist, and see for yourselves.
It remains true though that paint won't make a picture, only an artist using the paint can do that: and many professionals use so-called student grade paints - so I think Syd's right; and I'm right; and Adele's right - and we're all right together.
Which is nice for us, isn't it? :rolleyes:
http://www.isleofwightlandscapes.net
http://www.wightpaint.blogspot.co.uk
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2