Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Watercolour worked - but I wish I'd used better paints...
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 don't often paint in watercolour, and I would be the very first to admit that I don't always get them right (or even viewable). I was pretty absurdly pleased with myself yesterday though: I painted a watercolour (I'll show it later) which, while not a work of genius, did what I wanted it to do. I just wish I hadn't used Reeves student quality watercolour, but that probably did remove a bit of the anxiety factor (they're perfectly pleasant paints to use; made in China, which probably means Taiwan, but I'm not sure about their lightfastness; and some of the colours, eg burnt sienna, are a bit on the sedate and under-powered side).
Don't know if this might help anyone else, for whom watercolour is not a first choice, but as well as my usual fix of Alan Owen, I also watched one of Charles Evans' videos; and - this may be a small point, but it seemed to help me - I ensured the paper was set at a steeper angle than I normally employ: I hadn't done that before because I was worried about paint dripping down and "bleeding", but Charles shows that's nothing to worry about at all, because his board is almost upright. I'm sure I could see better, and it felt a far more natural pose, the kind I'd use for oil and acrylic painting.
This is probably the height of the b. obvious to those who do work in w'colour, but I was a lot happier with the result than I've been with a lot of my watercolours. So - happy day! AND - I managed to beat the online chess computer programme I've been practising with - it does help if you choose your digital opponent wisely, mind you, but he's always beaten me before, so yes: Saturday was most pleasing; and it's given me confidence to try watercolour more often. Unlike most people, I didn't start with it - my first painting experiments were in oil, then in acrylic; I used to draw a lot, used inks and coloured pencils, but steered as clear from watercolour as I possibly could for my first 45 years or so of painting; took up watercolour, hesitantly, around 5 years ago and then didn't stick to it.
You'll wonder what I'm making a fuss about when you see the painting, but - I was expecting failure and it didn't happen: so mild glee has ensued.
Posted
I know that a lot of people think you can only work with watercolours the flat or a near flat surface , I work with my eagle quite upright. I will take some shots tomorrow and post then it will be much easier than trying to explain. I find working flat that I often get the perspective wrong , the quality of paper does help as a decent quality paper will hold the paint much better .
Will experiment a bit at different angles to see what works best. Looking forward to seeing your watercolour Robert .
Posted
I've not tried Arches Robert. I tend to use Winsor & Newton cold or hot pressed. I've got big sheets of the Fabriano, rough and I can cut them to size. I might have tried a couple of others but tend to prefer what I have mentioned. I did start with watercolour as I thought it would be the easiest. Of course, knowing nothing about anything regarding art at the beginning, that's just what I thought, I didn't research it before hand. I was in a shop and thought, yes, I'll have a few of them a bit of paper and a couple of brushes. What I have found is that I tilt the paper in all manner of angles and sometimes use an easel. I still don't know what my favourite medium is because, I really do love them all. One thing I do know for certain, they are all wondrous in their own right and each project, different effects. You should continue with watercolours along with your other media, as with watercolour, you will achieve effects only possible and true to this medium that will not be possible with others.
Posted
Arches is an excellent paper, I’ve used it for years, although for no particular reason I switched to Fabriano Artistico a year ago.
I don’t, or rarely, stretch paper these days, I spend more money and buy the 300lb stuff, I’ve also got some 400lb Fabriano somewhere in the ‘stores’.
As for specialising in just one medium like many artists tend to do, I embrace all, or certainly most medium… what’s the saying… ends in master of none, but I like to have a challenge.
So Denise, keep doing what you’ve been doing, try new ideas and materials/medium and so on, its worked for me!
Posted
Yes Alan, the Fabriano, It's the 300lb, I have. You can throw anything at it. It takes multiple washes, scratches really hold the water well. A super paper to work on. I've only got the rough, I've not tried the other textures. Oh yes, I know that Jack of all trades. It is a great saying but we can all be masters of our destiny. That's my outlook on life. I guess I'm much like you Alan, in agreeing, artists should embrace the great choice before us and not be stifled by what we think are limitations, the fact we can't expand, experiment, try new mediums. Everything is to be gained by doing such I feel.
Edited
by Denise Cat
Posted
Denise - and indeed Alan: Fabriano, Arches, great papers. Quite agree - especially in the heavier weights.
Some while ago, though, one art magazine (blush - may not have been ours....) included a selection of watercolour papers with their magazines. I was particularly taken with a German paper, which may have been either Schoerleshammer or Hahnemuele (there should be Umlauts there, but it's not easy to locate them, i.e. the two dots over the vowel). I thought both superb - one of them, a torchon paper, enabled hard edges, which could still be manipulated, and fantastic flow of paint - and I've not been able to find it since, because I just don't paint enough in watercolour and can't afford to try every paper that's offered.
Of the traditional English papers, I've tried Saunders Waterford, Whatman, when it was available, and in the wood pulp ranges Cotman, Bockingford and - is it wood-pulp? Someone help - Fabriano........ I have got myself thoroughly confused (well, we're not as young as we were...). I've used The Langton; Canson; Lord alone knows how many more.....
If one of the really expert watercolourists among you - and a) I know you're there, and b) I'm not one of you - could recommend a really good paper: well, now, here's your chance. Get stuck in. My Arches paper is running out: I've found it very rewarding - but I've still had to have a bit of a fight with it (maybe because I think I like rough surface, but am not sure it's the best for me).
Hit me, as it were, with your rhythm stick: if you're an expert watercolourist (which I'm not) and would like to suggest the perfect, or near perfect paper for you: well, c'mon - do! There's so much out there, but - I'm getting on a bit: the search for the perfect paper could take a fair bit longer than I've got left.
For me - it's been Bockingford and The Langton for the basics, Hahnemuele, Schoerleshammer, Arches for the very best. Although, that may not be in entirely the right order - because the German papers seemed to offer something the traditional papers couldn't.... sharper edges; discrete washes.....
It's just not EASY this, is it?
Posted
I’m not sure if Bockingford is a wood pulp, I’d have to check it out! I don’t think it is…
Edit:
This is what Google is telling me…
‘Manufactured at St Cuthberts Mill in the UK, Bockingford is a beautiful watercolour paper made from 100% woodfree bleached chemical pulp. Cylinder mould made and internally sized, Bockingford watercolour paper has natural woolen felts which give it a distinctive random texture.’
So now we all know!
I think that you would benefit from using a good quality hand-made paper. It doesn’t come cheap but it’s worth every penny in my opinion…
I’m not saying for absolutely every painting that you do, but it’s lovely stuff to work on… well I think so.
Arches and Fabriano form the backbone of my paper stock, mostly Fabriano as I said in an earlier post, but we all need a change sometimes and it’s great to experiment with a top quality hand made paper.
Why not try Two Rivers Paper Mill down in Somerset? I’ve selected this from their website. I haven’t put the price on, but you can check it out for yourself if it’s of interest!
Hand~made Rag Watercolour Paper
Cotton & Flax ~ Tub Sized
Eight Sheets 15 x 11” 300lb Not
630 gsm
Edit: I’m pretty sure that Jackson’s stock a range of TR papers!
Edited
by Alan Bickley
Posted
Interesting about Bockingford - I've always liked it as a good value paper, and most of my difficulties with watercolour started after I - for some reason: special offer from Ken Bromley's, probably - changed brands. Arches constitutes my present stock - I've also done OK with The Langton. I did bookmark the Two Rivers page a while ago, but haven't yet used it.
I shall investigate.
Posted
I always use Saunders Waterford (100% cotton) watercolour paper in High White in the 300 lb weight which is very robust and really nice to paint on. It is expensive in that weight, but you can use both sides of it and it saves the performance of stretching. This is a description from the Ken Bromley site -
Edited
by Jenny Harris
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2