Re: oil-print-glyoxal??

From: Katharine Thayer ^lt;>
Date: 12/26/04-03:30:43 AM Z
Message-id: <>

henk thijs wrote:

> But I am happy with the comments you made; but what about the ARCHES
> papers. I have the impression that the  Rives BFK of some years ago
> isn't the same I use now a days. (or my notes are clumsy...)
> It is maybe the same as the Fabriano-papers; but at least they give
> new names to changed papers.

I am very much in agreement with you that papers have changed and the
manufacturers don't always tell you that they've done something to the

There is a magazine about watercolor painting that I pick up every now
and then; a couple of months ago there was a note in it that said
someone would be testing watercolor papers for the magazine and
reporting the results soon; the suggestion was that this article would
provide support for concerns among watercolor painters that watercolor
papers have been changing and not necessarily for the better.

The Arches watercolor paper has undergone two major changes during my
familiarity with it. I printed on it happily for years; it made great
tricolors unsized and was just generally a lovely paper, except for the
odd smell, of course. Then it started being very unpredictable; some
sheets would print well, others would have weird patterns in them as a
result of anomalies in the internal size. And then it started always
making speckles in the print. So I stopped using it.

More recently, it seems to have undergone another change, that made the
paper thinner and crisper, the hot-press surface smoother, and
eliminated the smell altogether, but didn't do anything to fix the

But you're exactly right; through both of these changes there wasn't a
hint from the manufacturer that the paper hadn't been exactly the same
paper throughout.
Received on Sun Dec 26 11:26:45 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 01/03/05-09:29:44 AM Z CST