Re: Why Winsor & Newton?

From: Dave Rose ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 05/31/05-09:25:29 PM Z
Message-id: <005601c56659$8f5f30f0$26cc9045@dave6m4323wvj7>

Greetings from Big Wonderful Wyoming,

An interesting discussion on paints and pigments. This is just what we
needed after a period of relative inactivity on the list.

Am I the only one who's using powder pigments instead of watercolor tube
paint for gum printing? I've used both and prefer the powder pigment. It's
much less expensive, easy to weigh, not much more difficult to mix into gum
solution and yields excellent results. I've used many different brands of
powder pigment, including Winsor & Newton.

I agree with the observation that W&N (tube paint) is more popular due to
availability more than any other factor. Their powder pigment was not so
easy to get. It required a special order from dealer. It works fine but so
do other brands at less cost.

Best regards,
Dave Rose
Powell, Wyoming

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert M" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: Why Winsor & Newton?

> > It seems to me I gave a long, detailed, fact and history-filled
> > explanation of why Winsor Newton has been preferred, or was. Did you
> > it?
> Yes Judy, I read what you said. Stop being so defensive . . . I simply
> a question. Is this not the reason for the list? I have read other
> explanations, so forgive me, but it is your opinions vs. someone else's
> opinions. We do not need to argue. Let's stop playing the mine is bigger
> game because it does not serve either of us specifically or the list in
> general.
> You mentioned some problem on the list because the question was
> asked before. I think you mentioned the "list minder" as I recall; the
> suggested the question was off limits or perhaps arguments broke out. I
> accept I might have taken your tone wrong and I will accept I did not read
> the archives. Again, all I did was ask a simple question.
> I also said we should be able to discuss the question because some might
> want to know why W/N is preferred. So I asked why the topic (apparently)
> off limits. I will accept I might have missed some minor point.
> > It is my opinion, though you may disagree, that every discussion
> > should be "hearted." Either way, you claim to have "managed to avoid" --
> > perhaps what you avoided was the information you request again.
> I am not sure what you mean. Educate me offline if you wish. By
> do you mean always nice and never disagreeable? I agree, let us be nice.
> for not being disagreeable, I disagree. Experts arrive on every list and
> some "amateurs" actually know more than the self-proclaimed experts know.
> Just because someone says something on the list, has an "alt "web site or
> publishes a magazine, this does not make the presented information true. I
> am always up for a discussion when I post my thoughts and opinions; every
> post is liable to be discussed and expanded by other readers. This is how
> should be. When I am incorrect, I'll say so. Again, part of the reason for
> this list is so we can discuss Alt and Alt materials. So I ask questions.
> > > So my next question is this: if "you" are concerned about vehicles and
> > > carriers that may or may not affect the process or the longevity of
> > > print, why not forget commercially manufactured colors and compound
> > > own? There are a few good sources for pure pigments and the "simple"
> > > requirements of the gum process/Tri-Color Carbo make compounding quite
> easy.
> >
> > Because in my considerable experience in gum printing, a well
> > documented & labelled paint is far better to work with and infinitely
> > quicker. If you've ever seen a movie of rollers preparing a tube
> > you will understand why it gives a smoothness not reached by hand
> > unless that is your preferred long-term passtime & probably not even
> I might not have the day to day "experience" with gum you have, but I do
> have extensive experience with pigments and dyes. My first gum prints were
> made when I was in high school, in 1973, and periodically in our lab at
> Shipler Photo. I also have Dye Transfer, Color Carbo, and Color Vectograph
> experience and knowledge. I have experience with processes most here never
> knew existed. Including you, Judy. When I put "you" in quotes, I did not
> mean you personally. I meant the readers. Sorry if I was not clear, my
> fault.
> You assume it is too hard to make your own paints and it takes too much
> time. Not true. OK, perhaps for you and others it is simply too much
> and if you like the results you obtain using squeeze tubes, I see no
> to bother with pigment/paint/dye formulations or worries about photo
> chemistry. For people like me, I do indeed think making paints is
> and not a bother. I also think if you were to experiment, you might
> that some very cheap paints will work as well or better than W/N.
> You mentioned "a well formulated, documented & labeled paint . . ." I
> the only way to be sure is by compounding your own paint. Despite whatever
> W/N tells the world, chances are, they add other materials to their
> formulations. I doubt that most readers will not bother making paints
> because there are workable alternatives. That does not change the fact
> when you make your own pigments, you know exactly what is in the compound.
> This also speaks to your point: about "a well formulated, documented &
> labelled paint."
> By the way, powered pigment colors eliminate much of the work involved in
> making paints. Some powdered pigments are as finely ground as the pigments
> used by commercial manufacturers. Or available special order.
> As for seeing a movie of the process, I do not need to. I know people in
> business and I understand how paint is manufactured. I have written about
> the manufacturing process for a well known manufacturer of artist's
> I have toured more than one plant in my day. Paints and pigments are
> something I understand. You are not the only "expert" on this list, Judy.
> > Meanwhile, I didn't say good paints are not available, in fact quite the
> > contrary. I said some paints are bad. That hardly means I need to make
> > own paint, rather that I have to know what I'm buying,the parameters and
> > the variables.
> Not the point I was trying to make. Commercial paints do work and
> they work quite well. No arguments from me. So you can forget the scales,
> dangerous chemicals, and binders/vehicles. My point was, if you make your
> own paints, you know exactly what is in the mix.
> > > You put "realistic" in quotes. Are you interested in true color or
> > > approximate fidelity to sooth your vision? I am just asking. True
> is
> > > "easy" because you can easily obtain the proper dyes used to make dye
> > > transfer prints. They should be easy to change to suite the needs of
> most
> > > workers on this list.
> >
> > I wouldn't sooth my vision or soothe it either with paint. In fact my
> > vision doesn't need soothing, quite the contrary. If I wanted fully
> > "realistic" color or "realistic" anything else, however, I would make
> > c-prints.
> So, in other words, you do have a vision. You do not want realistic
> Many "artists" talk of their vision and some like muted and unrealistic
> colors. My vision, for lack of a better word is absolute color accuracy or
> as close as I can get. This is why dye transfers appeal to me. But that is
> just me.
> Bob
> ..
Received on Tue May 31 21:24:21 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 06/02/05-10:12:03 AM Z CST