[Aquanet] stain v:s dye

[patchapin at mindspring.com]

Aargh; if I had to be restricted to a single one, I'd say "No, doesn't 
matter."  Heavens Forefend I should argue with Daniel Smith who got fairly 
long-winded on the subject of paint, but:

Pigments originally were dirt or other materials that coloured things; dyes 
were one of the things people made trying to get colours that wouldn't wash 
away again, before someone realized that a mordant (I suspect the original 
one was salt in dye water, and I like to think someone came to this 
conclusion because whelk's purple 'dye' doesn't come off your hands or your 
clothes, and you find them in salt water)was necessary.

Think about the old saw that you can remove ball point pen stains from a 
white shirt using tomato juice: forty years back, that was quite true, but 
ball point ink changed, so did the fabric the shirt was made of, while the 
tomato remains pretty much the same thing.

I will leave to others the technical parts; there are some good tables at, 
among other places, www.Handprint.com.  So, my answer to this question is 
perhaps simple-minded:

1. If we are talking a paint colour that stains the paper and won't come 
out, that's really any of them, depending on what kind of paper (brand, 
type, colour and weight) you are using as a ground, and how enthusiastically 
you applied paint. Transparent and opaque matters (at least to me) at bit 
more, but is so subject to change (see brands of paint).  Back in the Dark 
Ages when I was in school, I was told that before the advent of the pthalo 
and Cad colours, the only paint colour admittedly based on a dye was 
Prussian, supposedly derived from the blue that country used on its military 
uniforms.  But I have found that all kinds of paint stain things.

Another issue would be are you using a crummy paint, a student paint (Cotman 
or Academy) or a 'good' paint (Graham, Smith or a bunch of others), always 
keeping in mind your paper counts but not the same way. Add to that the idea 
that unless we all want to spend a fair amount of time becoming a quick 
study in paint chemistry, you could spend years at a store reading the 
ingredients of a tube of paint and then deciding if it was made of the 
attributes you felt were truly 'it'.  For me at least, this is taking away 
from time I'd rather spend doing other things. Like painting, which is where 
you mostly learn lessons you keep anyway, even if they are the hard way, 
sometimes.

2.  I laugh at the idea of anything as perishable as a watercolour painting 
being totally 'lightfast', depending on both of the above issues and adding 
how it was framed.  You now have the added press of things like the new clay 
and canvas grounds for watercolour, and the idea of sealant.  Anyone who is 
painting with the idea that their work has to last 100 years shouldn't be 
painting in watercolour anyway, unless he or she plans a sealed, 
light/temperature controlled room for them. After all, daVinci's Last Supper 
is going down, and the Sistine Chapel you see has been repainted. We are 
talking about a piece of paper, usually, behind some wood with glass, 
sandwiched between some plastic and some cardboard.  Meant to hang on a 
nail.

I am a great believer in using good materials, as they make it easier for 
you to address the watercolour image itself (which, as we all know, is more 
than enough to have to think about), but even then, that's not the same for 
everyone,or even every piece.  But (there always is one, isn't there?) I use 
a particular brand of cheaper watercolour brush and for certain pieces, I 
still use a Cotman turquoise, since nobody seems to be able to make the 
qualities it displays for me in a 'professional' turquoise.  I came by the 
knowledge the hard way but what was to me the fun way and the way that stays 
with you, trying different mixes and different brands of paint and paper and 
seeing what it would do. Those folks who have success more than failure used 
to call these things "happy accidents", but the smart should remembers what 
worked.

Since I was in school, all kinds of people have come out with books on 
colour, colour theory, paints and such, and I have read and enjoyed quite a 
few.  But some of their favourites are not mine, and vice versa. So if it 
matters at all, it only matters to the painter as it affects him or her 
personally.  If I'm using 250 lb. Fabriano hot press, I might make a 
different choice in paints than if I'm working on a luscious piece of 
Twinrocker.

All that said, I try to stay away from paints labeled 'Fugitive', although 
all my images go out with a printed piece on how to hang them out of the 
direct sunlight, etc. (mine is called Care & Feeding of Your New 
Watercolour, and I'll be happy to post it if you guys don't already have 
your own version -- buyers from shops love to get them). But things change 
frequently, and new paint mix colours are constantly springing up, so not to 
be too Fogey on trying something new. After all, it is only (gulp) a piece 
of paper.

pat chapin
www.patchapin.com




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "pat davis" <peedee at nucleus.com>
To: "aquanet" <aquanet at thedigitalbraintrust.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 11:38 AM
Subject: [Aquanet] stain v:s dye


> Hi, gang.
>
> Another question or two. First, what is the difference between a
> transparent, staining pigment and a dye? Is there really one?  I keep
> hearing that dyes are not colourfast, but is it true? Second-or is it
> third or fourth... for our purposes, does it matter?
>
> So many questions, so little time... left
> Pat the Fogey
>
> Aquanet mailing list
> Aquanet at thedigitalbraintrust.net
> http://lists.thedigitalbraintrust.net/mailman/listinfo/aquanet
>
> Check out the Aquanet web site:
> http://www.aquanetart.com