Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help    
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  
More Cheap Joe's Art Stuff:  Home Page | Art Supplies | Paint Brushes | Artist Paints | Easels | Canvas | Drawing Supplies

Lightfast replacements for Alizarin C...

Cheap Joe's Artist Forum » Watercolor Artist Topics » Lightfast replacements for Alizarin Crimson--What's Yours? « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pageBottom of page

Drc6207
New member
Username: Drc6207

Post Number: 2
Registered: 5-2007
Posted on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 - 8:35 pm:   Print Post

I am looking at a swatch of Grumbacher Acadamy "Alizarin Crimson" PR83 "Fugitive"

Next to a swatch of Cheap Joe's "Alizarin Crimson" PV19 "Very Good"

I like the "Student grade" better.

Try the comparison yourself.
Tell me what you think.

Dave.
Top of pageBottom of page

Robert
Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 5:24 pm:   Print Post

FWIW:
I needed alizarin crimson recently for a portrait and the quinacridone magenta in my palette that I have used as a lightfast replacement for Alizarin was fine for landscapes but too chromatically intense for a portrait. I needed the Alizarin hue. I used Daler Rowney "Alizarin Crimson Hue" (they also make "Alizarin Crimson," which, of course, is not lightfast). This isa a bneautiful paint, a mix of perylene maroon and quinacridone red. Absolutely lightfast and very Alizarin in hue. The ingredients are a bit more true to the spirit of true alizarin than what is used in other brands.
Top of pageBottom of page

Robert
Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 10:37 am:   Print Post

My personalopinion is that right now Australia is to watercolor what France was to paitning in the late nineteeth Century. I think, personally again, that the guys you mentioned are doing the most significant work in watercolor.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dake
Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 8:05 am:   Print Post

Hey Robert I dreamed once that Bob Wade was my uncle and he visited one day, he gave me some tips but was an abstract artist. I think that was the message. He seems like an uncley kind of bloke. I do like his work. The impressonist watercolour school is very much alive in Australia, esp Melbourne.
Castagnet, Zbukvic, Taylor, Allen, Hyatt....and many more
All awesome painters in the Bravura style.
Yes early morning and evening are the times of art.
Top of pageBottom of page

Robert
Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 6:23 am:   Print Post

Yea--Texas summers are blinding also, but the payoff is the wee early hours with the rising mist are magical. What do you think of Robert Wade?
Top of pageBottom of page

Dake
Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 7:56 pm:   Print Post

Robert, I think no greater mischief was created by nature in making so many green things and so many greens which I think our human seeing apparatus has much difficulty in discerning. There is always more to green than green as far as I can make out.
One ought not to be too distracted by any local colour and rather concentrate on harmonious representations than make for interesting and satisfying tonal patterns.
Umbers,siennas,ultramarine,cobalt, winsor blue indigo,quin gold and indian red make up what I would call the consciously green ingredients on my palette however anything goes and is sometimes randomly included in the heat of the moment.
I have not painted a 1/2 decent landscape in ages. All figurative lately, but a change is needed. I'm not big on Australian summers though, way too bright, although late in the day can bring some nice atmosphere.
BTW that pyriline maroon is rather brown and flat, big shifter in drying.
Top of pageBottom of page

ta
Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 7:23 pm:   Print Post

thanks for the info, john. with all the fugitive talk i had not heard your statement before. now i know.
dake, you make me laugh out loud.
as a woman, feminist, wife, mother, daughter, sister, i have found this conversation among men has been interesting.
Top of pageBottom of page

Robert
Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 6:52 am:   Print Post

Ha ha dake--
Back to a watercolor question--
In your lansdscapes--which, those I've seen, I happen to admire, do you try to match the greens you see in nature or do you have a tried and true manner of muting them to a less pronounced chroma. If so, what is your tried and true method?
Top of pageBottom of page

Dake
Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 10:12 pm:   Print Post

Robert etal, Hey boys keep breathing, maybe a brown paper bag to puff into would help.
Those with Obessional disorders are subject to occassional panic attacks I beleive, however one would require a little more edge to be placed on the blade to before one needs to get so jumpy.
It probably feels like i was not civil because i chose not to share your anxieties, however there was nothing un-civil about, or within my comments. I believe an alternative viewpoint to your comfort zone "shooting the breeze" banter is allowed here.
I don't complain that often about your contributions here so don't complain about mine.
I give you permission to discuss whatever you like but can't guarantee that everyone else must agree, is that OK?
Bob's right Tachee I won't stop checking out this place and popping in when I see something interesting about watercolour.
The gender associations are completely mythical BTW.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dan
Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 5:02 pm:   Print Post

Well...you may want ot "throw in" a couple of "fingers" of good scotch with that combo.
Er...strictly for enhancement now! Ha!
Top of pageBottom of page

Eric
Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 1:33 pm:   Print Post

From an aesthetic point of view, there's nothing better than women and watercolors!
Top of pageBottom of page

Robert
Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 6:22 pm:   Print Post

I went to a Gerald Brommer demo recently. Only guy there besides Gerald.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dan
Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 6:12 pm:   Print Post

Personally...and on a "lighter note"..not "lightfast"...I just love woman...and watercolors!
More woman painting? Freakin fantastic!
What color...what beauty! What a combination!
J.M.H.O.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eugene
Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 5:08 pm:   Print Post

What as strange conversation. Which all began with Robert
asking for an alternative for Alizarin.
My comment.
I like watercolors and don't really care if they're done by men,
women or inbetweens.
Top of pageBottom of page

George
Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 12:57 pm:   Print Post

Eric, yeah, I was a bit surprised when it first came to my attention too.

As for its significance, I donít know that it has any. I only mentioned it in passing and others on the board latched onto it. I would have let it go except, as I suggested in an earlier post, I have a respect for the facts of history.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eric
Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 12:17 pm:   Print Post

I don't think any of us (males) are threatened by the "women historically in watercolor" stuff because I don't think many of us are aware of it nor do we care. It's an insignificant point. The artists I've studied and admired and have been influenced by have been mostly men so this "watercolor as a women's medium" thing has caught me by surprise.
Top of pageBottom of page

George
Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 10:50 am:   Print Post

That should be stereotype!

This page needs an edit post button.
Top of pageBottom of page

George
Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 10:47 am:   Print Post

I should have made that read; the physical character compared with the psychological temperament between watercolor and women as seen by society. I didnít want to leave the impression that I believe the serotype.
Top of pageBottom of page

George
Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 10:22 am:   Print Post

Dake wrote ďWatercolor has never been associated with women, you mean pastel George!Ē

Iím not offended by your comment, actually you seem like a nice guy, and I have no real reason to carry this issue forward except that I find it odd that some people want to ignore history. History tells us that Watercolor has indeed been associated with women. In addition to what the history books say, look at the old photos of watercolor classes (the ones with women in ankle length skirts); the entire class is made up of women. Many families from the leisure class have a painting from great, great, aunt so and so, done in watercolor. The paintings from Great, great uncle so and so are always done in oil.

Not long ago while looking at the books on e-bay I came across a book by the title of; ďWatercolor Women/Opaque Men.Ē I donít know what itís about, but thatís not the point. The point is the title shows that the author understands the connection in history, society, as well as the physical character compared with the psychological temperament between watercolor and women.

However, as I posted earlier - so what? I enjoy doing watercolor, and my manhood is not threatened by the historical realities associated with my hobby.
Top of pageBottom of page

Robert
Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 8:08 am:   Print Post

Disregard that--Dake wants us to get on with our painting lives and not waste our time discussing this stuff. I think his concern for us is genuine. My Bad.
Top of pageBottom of page

Robert
Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 8:06 am:   Print Post

Tachee--
Believe me, Dake will continue to post if he chooses. I however think it's important for him to be civil.
Top of pageBottom of page

Robert
Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 8:03 am:   Print Post

Or for how long--
Please check out the very bottom oif this Rembrandt color chart (scroll down). This is the only place I have seen levels of lightfastness actually quantitatively defined in terms of number of years until the pigment fades :
http://www.talens.com/colour_charts/Rembrandt%20Water%20Colours.pdf
Top of pageBottom of page

John Preston
Posted on Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 10:02 pm:   Print Post

tachee,
All these questionable colors are different. Some get lighter, some darken, some change hue. The varying degrees of change witnessed by various posters to this board leads me to believe there are other factors involved than just exposure to sunlight: Like how much, how often, whether it's behind glass, what kind of windows you have etc. I too, have paintings with alizarin (19 years old) and aureolin (16 years old) which show no discernible change. I did tape a swatch to a south window and it showed some lightening but that's a far cry from how I would display work. That's the rub, though...we can't always know how they'll get hung.
Top of pageBottom of page

tachee
Posted on Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 9:07 pm:   Print Post

dake, don't you quit posting! i enjoy your point of view. you have made me re-think mine often. the more there are differing sides, the more i learn. there is a direct correlation between age and the pain you feel when confronted with a new idea.
Top of pageBottom of page

tachee
Posted on Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 8:59 pm:   Print Post

i have a question about fugitives. how long does it take for this dissapearing act to occur? i have some old paintings- went to my mother's house, she has ancient ones of mine and i know those are fuggies and they still look fine. i can't tell any damage. which is too bad on a lot of my old ones. they could have used a little eradication assist. hmmmm....how about the watercolors i have done on claybord and sprayed? will the finish stop the fuges?
has anyone actually witnessed any damage?
Top of pageBottom of page

Eric
Posted on Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 4:20 pm:   Print Post

Dake, the fugitive argument might be a bit over-played as you say, but what's wrong with talking about it? Some don't know that it might fade. I didn't know it when I started painting. As to how much it will fade, if at all, I don't know. Maybe it's not significant. And maybe we should all be painting instead of worrying about pigments.
I don't really have much interest in pigments and I don't really want to become an expert, but I'm glad there are some here who know a lot about it. And sometimes painters just like to shoot the breeze with other painters and this forum allows that.
Top of pageBottom of page

Robert
Posted on Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 1:28 pm:   Print Post

Okay--disregard the former. But I do take exception to the notion that life's too short to worry about imperanent pigments. The root of this discussion was in the ethics of knowingly selling someone else a painting know to fade. Of coure it will all be dust in a thousand years. But people usually expect a painting to last long enough to be abloe to pass it down to their children. If you think we should not be thalking about this, why not just ignore it?
Top of pageBottom of page

Robert
Posted on Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 1:24 pm:   Print Post

If we stopped dicussing and kept painting, there would be no watercolor discussion forum. But given that nobody paints for 24 hours a day without a break, perhaps this is a better distraction than some other things I could name. I find it curious Dake, that you thought it necessary to even read a thread clearly labeled as lightfastness of alizarin, not to mention entering into the discussion.
Shouldn't you not waste you time on such pointless discussions? Isn't life too short to be doing anything other than painting?
Top of pageBottom of page

Robert
Posted on Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 1:19 pm:   Print Post

Dake--
Thanks for your insight into what is and is not important to discuss. Happy painting.
Top of pageBottom of page

judy
Posted on Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 12:02 pm:   Print Post

Daniel Smith has a color called Anthraquinoid Red which is its
permanent equivalent to alizarin. I can't tell the difference. (to
revert to the original topic)
Top of pageBottom of page

Dake
Posted on Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 12:33 am:   Print Post

Heh, Yeah curiosities for sure.
I just couldn't see the point in labouring the old fugitive argument again.
I think it's a bit over-played. But as a long time user of W&N pigments i simply choose Permanent Alizarin but will have a dip into some fugutive pigments sometimes if they suit the moment. Eg RMG. Now if PA is "marginal" I'm happy. I'm not going to head off into an obsessive tangent seeking a truly permanent cool red, I have art to make and precious little time in which to do it.

As for the oil comparison, let us not forget that AC is just as fugitive in oil as watercolour, as are the other fugutives.
Manufactuers should simply state "This colour fades in sunlight".
I'll go for the tube that doesn't say that regardless of whether it's mearly a relative measure. However there are countless other ways to destroy a painting. None of us are better than marginal in the permanence rating either so get on with making art and take a rest rest on the pinickety concerns of permanence. Nothing's permanent.
Top of pageBottom of page

Robert
Posted on Friday, February 3, 2006 - 10:23 pm:   Print Post

Dake--I too believe that painting (as well as literature) has seen its cultural hey day. My son is a top video game designer and their team employs visual artists, creative writers, musicians, and engineers. Sort of a operatic amalgum of arts. That's where it is now--artists coming together from various media to create electronic entertainment. The rest of us are just over the hill hangers on--curiosities -- kind of like the last civil war soldier to die in the age of jets.
Top of pageBottom of page

Robert
Posted on Friday, February 3, 2006 - 10:16 pm:   Print Post

Dake: "Robert, I too hold an ideal for watercolour however I will not die a martyr for the sake of making it an equal of other media."

My point in saying that I wanted to work to elevate watercolor was to emphasize that selection of lightfast pigments would serve to enhance the perception of watercolor while markleting work that fades would help lower it's esteem. A very simple concept, actually.\
Top of pageBottom of page

Dake
Posted on Friday, February 3, 2006 - 8:49 pm:   Print Post

The medium is of little significance, the quiality of the work, the idea and it's execution rule above all else.
Turner, Sargent, Homer, Wyeth etal (we all know who they are) do hang in major gallery collections but not due to any particular watercolour they produced. They're significant for their body of work, their influence and their reflection of society in their lifetimes.

It's only those how would buy a cheap print anyhow who hold to the misconceptions you list.
Educated buyers know the truth about watercolours.
Your points are largely mythological, however the artist out not be ideologically trapped within the confines of any medium. One does not paint or make art for the purposes of commerce.
If that is the primary goal then suffer, because the art will be thin and not worth anything anyhow.
Robert, I too hold an ideal for watercolour however I will not die a martyr for the sake of making it an equal of other media.
Painting will never again hold the place it once did as the primary voice of visual expression.
Film, TV and other digital media have taken over.
We paint in watercolour for our own reasons, some aesthetic, some for practical or health reasons. I'm not sure watercolour would ever be painted wih the motive for having it hung in a state or national gallery however.
Had Sargent never painted in oil would we remember him today? I doubt it.
My philosophy is to consider an idea then decide on whether it would be best presented in watercolour or another media. I like to use metalpoint, oil, and charcoal as alternatives.
Let someone else decide whether it has the quality to be preserved after i am gone.

Watercolour has never been accociated with women, you mean pastel George!
Top of pageBottom of page

Eric
Posted on Friday, February 3, 2006 - 1:47 pm:   Print Post

Okay, thanks George. I'm not even close to being an expert on the history of watercolor, so I'll take your word for it. As Johnny Carson would say, "I did not know that". (gotta say that in the Johnny Carson voice, or the Dana Carvey doing Johnny Carson voice.)
Top of pageBottom of page

George
Posted on Friday, February 3, 2006 - 10:38 am:   Print Post

Robert, I agree with you 100%, In fact I only use the most lightfast pigments, thatís why I use Caput Mortuum as my violet red mixer.

Eric, the "watercolor has always been associated with women stuffĒ, is from history books. Some number of years ago I read a four volume set of books on the topic of The History of English Watercolor. It seems that when watercolor paint was first put into the tube, the numbers of amateurs exploded. The majority were women. This was true by such large percentages that the practice of watercolor painting became associated with amateurs and women. The trend spread to America. Even today, you can look up the member lists of the many watercolor societies and find the majority are women. Attend any watercolor class and the majority of attendees are women. I took one large watercolor workshop where I was the only man in the class, except for the man teaching it. This was true for all of watercolor history.

As for Turner, Homer, Sargent, etc, they were professional oil painters who worked in watercolor as a side line. Their fame in oil painting brought recognition to their watercolors. Burchfield was an exception, but that was a historically recent example.

Also, consider that women were excluded from becoming a professional artist by social custom and therefore did not have the support (professional, financial, social, etc.) to develop the skills to become a Homer or Sargent.
Top of pageBottom of page

greg
Posted on Friday, February 3, 2006 - 10:28 am:   Print Post

there are some exceptions like you mentioned, but
generally speaking, sketch in watercolor, then
produce an oil masterpiece. You don't get the
glare off the glass at Sotherby's.....:)

maybe if we could mount them in a frame 10 inches
wide that would help.....:)
Top of pageBottom of page

Eric
Posted on Friday, February 3, 2006 - 9:03 am:   Print Post

George, I'm still not sure where you get this "watercolor has always been associated with women" stuff. When I think of the watercolor greats in history(Turner, Homer, Sargent, Burchfield, etc.) it's all men.
Top of pageBottom of page

Robert
Posted on Friday, February 3, 2006 - 7:10 am:   Print Post

Alizarin Crimson is an issue only because a pallete usually requires a violet biased (cool) red as a mixer. What do some of you use as a violet red mixer if not Alizarin?
Top of pageBottom of page

Robert
Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 6:17 pm:   Print Post

All of this is probably true or at least has been at some poin but most of it I do not have any control over. I go into watercolor knowing it's status but I WANT TO IMPROVE THAT STATUS!!!!! I do have control over 2 things. Whether or not I paint in watercolor. Assume I choose to then I can choose whether or not to use lightfast pigment.

In the final analysis if I have a painting that someone is in love with and it will kill the deal if i tell them it will fade. Either a don't use fugitive colors, loose the sale, or I lie. I choose to use lightfast colors.
Top of pageBottom of page

George
Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 3:25 pm:   Print Post

On the issue of why watercolors don't sell as well as oil paintings, there are many reasons.

In no special order;
1. The belief that watercolor is fugitive.

2. Many buyers donít want something behind glass. They think of it as cheap, like prints.

3. History has always given top status to the oil boys, in large part because the kings of old hired the oil boys as court painters, thus pumping up the price on the open market.

4. Watercolor has always been associated with amateurs.

5. Gallery owners will make more on an oil painting, so why give up scarce space to something that will bring a lower commission for the same wall space.

6. The big time buyers have always wanted to impress their guests and if the house looks like a museum all the better, and as we all know oils dominate in the museums.

7. The museums (many do) hang the watercolors in the gallery with the drawings, because that is how they are classified, not as paintings.

8. Many museums donít hang watercolors at all because the old ones were done with the fugitive pigments.

9. Watercolors have always been associated with women, and women have always held second class status, thus their production has often been held as second class, even when equal in quality to the production of men.

10. Watercolor is often seen (historically) as a first stage sketch for the higher quality oil painting.

11. Watercolor is often thought of as kindergarten or grade school activity for children, not as a professional art form.


I could go on but I think you have the idea.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eric
Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 11:55 am:   Print Post

John, I agree, the paper is the reason for the second class status of watercolors. Tom Lynch is now painting watercolors mostly on canvas and his paintings are in at least one gallery I know of that has never carried watercolors until now and that's because the watercolors aren't on paper, behind glass. And the price of these canvas watercolors are definitely not a second class price.

As for your second point, I'm not foaming because I'm not sure what you mean.
Top of pageBottom of page

John Preston
Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 11:04 am:   Print Post

To answer Roberts question: " the fact that watercolors that fade give the entire medium a bad name and relegate it to very low demand by galleries and collectors." IMHO it's not the potentially fugitive nature of the material that's causing the problem. I see the blame coming from 2 places: 1. the buying public perceives oil on canvas as "status"(FWIW I've never heard of watercolor per se being relegated to lesser status at a gallery. The problem seems to be the support:"works on paper"). 2. From the artist's side, "watercolorists" are SEEN to have a higher level of interest in their materials and methods than in what they're trying to express artistically and "serious artists" look down their nose at that. I'm not saying it's true...just that people think that. I'm from the "if it's wonderful, so what" camp. This ought to get everybody foaming.
Top of pageBottom of page

marie
Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 9:52 am:   Print Post

Hi Michael, welcome to the group! I lurked for about a year before I got up the nerve to post anything.

I did some experiments a while back to try to figure out reasonable alternatives to Rose Madder and Aureolin, and genuine gamboge. Basically, I mixed each pigment with about 15 - 20 other pigments that I might be likely to use. Here's what I came up with:

* Quinacridone Rose, PV19 (I use the Daniel Smith version) came closest to the W/N Rose Madder Genuine. The handling characteristics are quite different -- quinacridone rose is much stronger, but it mixed a similar range of values and hues.

* Winsor Yellow (PY154, benzimidalone yellow) came closest to W/N Aureolin. I couldn't distinguish Winsor Yellow from Aureolin on the warm side of the palette, but Winsor Yellow was a little garish for mixing greens. M. Graham Azo Yellow (PY151) was a little warmer than Aureolin. Winsor Lemon (PY175) was too cool, and it was not a good mixer. Everything I mixed with it looked dull.

* I couldn't get a real match for the genuine gamboge. My recollection is that the genuine gamboge was somewhere between New Gamboge (nickel dioxine yellow) and nickel azo yellow.
Top of pageBottom of page

marie
Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 9:37 am:   Print Post

Handprint rates the lightfastness of W/N Permanent Alizarin as a 6,6, which is marginal.

I think convenience mixtures are fine if they get the job done for you and you understand that you are using mixed pigments for convenience. I do get a little bothered when artists don't pay attention to the pigments they are using. For example, when I ask artists what pigment they are using and they respond with "bubble gum pink" or "sea turtle green," and they have no idea what actual pigment they are using, I cringe a bit.

I usually advise students to start by reading the labels on their paint tubes and learning how to handle single pigment paints. Later, if they find a convenience mixture that makes their life easier, then it's okay to use it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Michael
Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 9:28 am:   Print Post

I think W/N "permanent alizarin crimson" is a mixture of several
of the quinacridones. I wanted to add that in the lightfast debate
what's missing is that the single pigment fugitive colors like
alizarin, aureolin, rose madder, etc. etc. are actually beautiful,
unique colors that are hard to beat, despite all the lightfast
substitutes available. I've sought them out, used them to see
what they can do, but couldn't justify a painting that might fade.
BTW, this is my first post to this lively & informative board-I
check it often, along with Handprint.com
Top of pageBottom of page

greg
Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 9:00 am:   Print Post

what is the lightfastness rating on the permanent version? What would be the problem with using it
if it won't fade. I love aliz.....but I can also deal with change. I just am finally beginning to
know exactly what it will do and react with my
mixes. It is a love-hate relationship.
Top of pageBottom of page

Anonymous Painter
Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 1:09 am:   Print Post

My substitute is the W/N "permanent alizarin crimson"; it seems to mix just like the real stuff. Also on my palette, however, is PV 19 ("Permanent rose") and I just bought a 5ml tube of PR 122 (quinacridone magenta) in case I like that.

I know one ought not use 'mixed' pigments (according to the estimable Mr. MacEvoy), but the perm.AC is the only one on my palette, and it is very useful.
Top of pageBottom of page

Robert
Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 8:21 pm:   Print Post

It is raed as the A IV out of IV by the ASTM. It is fugitive. It WILL fade. Not, it MIGHT fade. To use it for art that is supposed to be around for people to appreciate for decades is , to put it tactfully, problematic. Most people use Aliz. Crimson as a mixer to mix muted oranges with yellows and bright violets with blue. In both of these counts quinacridone rose or quinacridone violet (both PV 19) do a better job and have a lightfastness rating of I. (Permanent Rose, Permanent Magenta, etc).

Additional opinion not purely in response to the question:
Beyond one's personal choice, is the fact that watercolors that fade give the entire medium a bad name and relegate it to very low demand by galleries and collectors. If we are to establish watercolor as a prominent medium, we must be able to say with certainly that watercolors do not fade (not just this particulkar painting, but watercolor as a medium. In fact wartercolors don't fade unless the artist is using only about 3 or four pigments. Elimination of Aliz [and rose madder, aueolin, and opera] is essential for this (despite the criminally irresponsible advice of Jenne Dobie to the contrary!]. Ie, one person's irresponsible choice affects us all.
Top of pageBottom of page

John Preston
Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 8:15 pm:   Print Post

There's been widely varying experience with that on this board. Bruce from Handprint has posted badly faded samples. I've taped a sample in a south window and seen minor fading. Suzy has a picture using ultra-fugitive Opera that she claims is quite pristine. There are many variables that might account. Bruce lives in sunny California, I think. I live in Iowa. Suzy's picture is probably behind glass and light is reaching it through a window that may even be double or triple glazed. If normal window glass filters 85% of UV and the next piece of glass on the frame filters 85% of what's left (and so on) I can see why Suzy's Opera may be fine. Still, we never know how our work might be framed or hung.
Top of pageBottom of page

greg
Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 5:25 pm:   Print Post

Won't alizarin outlive all of us anyway?
or does it really fade that fast?
even with UV glass?
Top of pageBottom of page

marie
Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 12:32 pm:   Print Post

You're right, John. Perylene Maroon is not an exact replacement for alizarin. I almost always have quinacridone rose on my palette in addition to perylene maroon.

Actually, I don't know why I'm commenting on substitutes for alizarin because I have have never used the real pigment enough to have a good feel for how it handles. When I started doing watercolor, I read that alizarin wasn't lightfast and immediately scratched it from my list of pigments.
Top of pageBottom of page

marie
Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 12:15 pm:   Print Post

I like Perylene Maroon because it's dark. I am interested mainly in figures, and Perylene Maroon gives me a nice dark that's not too cool or muddy. I tend to have trouble when I want really dark shadows on flesh. Burnt Umber and Raw Umber tend to get chalky and muddy. Black tends to be dull. By the time I get a blue or green as dark as I want, I often get into a very undesirable temperature shift. Lots of dark blues and greens (ultramarine blue and the thalos) can make people look dead or like space aliens. The dark cools can be especially problematic with female models, who can easily wind up looking like they have 5 o'clock shadows. Cobalt and cerulean work okay for mid-valued shadows but not for really dark shadows.

Of course, I don't always want really dark shadows and I don't always use perylene maroon. At the same time, it sure comes in handy sometimes.
Top of pageBottom of page

Robert
Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 11:50 am:   Print Post

I guess which substitution one prefers depends on they way you would have used the alizarin. For me I would uise it primarily a violet-red mixer (not as a red color), thus quinacridone rose or violet PV19 is a beautiful mixer and is utterly lightfast. However, if one wanted the Alizarin "look" , which is more of a blood red than a pink violet red, perylene maroon might be more in the blood color direction. Daler Rowney does an interesting take on this with thier Permanent Alizarin--it is a mix of (blue biased) quinacridne red (PR209) and perylene maroon--thus including a bit of both aspects of alizarin (it's blueness and it's bloodiness). Genuine Caput Mortum BTW was made from ground up Egyptian mummies!
Top of pageBottom of page

John Preston
Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 11:06 am:   Print Post

I found Perylene Maroon very different from Alizarin, closer to a Cadmium Red Deep. Robert is right, all the usual PV19 substitutes look bluer to me and they need to be mixed with something to look close to Alizarin.
Top of pageBottom of page

George
Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 10:16 am:   Print Post

How about Winsor and Newtonís Caput Mortuum! Itís a bit more blue than the other pigments suggested here but has a beautiful, soft, blue red hue. It's more permanent than the other pigments listed here too.
Top of pageBottom of page

marie
Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 8:38 am:   Print Post

Perylene Maroon or Benzimidazolone Carmine. More details are in the previous thread on lightfastness.
Top of pageBottom of page

Robert
Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 7:19 am:   Print Post

Those of you who have been bothered by the fugitive (non lightfast)rating for genuine Alizarin Crimson -- what permanent lightfast alternative have you found? Please list. [Most alternatives do not have to look like Alizarin but will have to be in the category of blue biased ( aka "cool") reds].
Such a list might be of service to some.

My replaement is Rembrandt Permanent Red Violet (PV 19)

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Password:
E-mail:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page