Art Alchemist

A Little Art Journal LOVE

noreply@blogger.com (DellaLuna) — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:27:00 +0000

ATTENTION: If you subscribed to this blog because of the experiments I was doing, I just want to warn you, this isn't an experiment post (well, unless you consider art journal pages to be experiments, which, I do). It's an art journal page post. Just didn't want you to get to the end of this post and go "Hey, where's the experiment?". :D

Connie over at Dirty Footprints Studio is hosting an art journal LOVE party this week, not only in honor of Valentine's Day, but as a celebration of when she kicked off Art Journal LOVE Letters (her art journaling online workshop), this time last year. To participate in the party, head on over to her blog by clicking on the pic below:

I realize this blog post has nothing to do with experiments - at all. I haven't done a proper experiment in almost a year, and the last post I did was after another year hiatus. I'm thinking I'm done with the experiments phase of my creative development - at least, on a grand scale.

Know what happened? I actually started DOING art, instead of just experimenting with art supplies. And I gotta tell you, I'm so grateful for all those experiments, because those were my baby steps, my way of getting over the paralyzing FEAR over doing something creative. I have a ridiculous streak of perfectionism, and while I mooned and pined and wished I could make beautiful art journal pages, every time I'd pick up a brush, I'd just about hyperventilate from fear. Fear that it wouldn't look good, fear because I don't know what I'm doing, fear of people pointing and laughing (even if I never showed another soul on this planet - no, fear is not rational), fear of the word "art". My fear/perfectionism usually manifests in a "Why bother?" attitude, as in "It won't be good/better/the best art journal page to ever exist, so why bother? You will FAIL!!"

Nice voice, eh? Do you have one, too? If not in art, in other areas?

So, what's a left-brained girl to do? Fall back on her scientific roots and experiment, that's what. Taking online classes definitely helped, too. Uploading my work into those online classes - yup, that started taking the fear down a peg or too. And having the loving support of an artist friend, who frequently reminds me that this is about the FUN of it all, not the outcome, well, that's been absolutely vital and precious to me.

And somehow, in getting to know all of these wonderful materials, in learning and experimenting, the courage to just begin came through.

I realized as I was typing this out, that what it all took was ACTION. I had to actually DO things to chip away at that snotty little "Why bother?" voice. There was no THINKING my way out of this - it took experiments, learning, talking, and sharing, to get me creating art journal pages now.

Methinks that's a life lesson right there. :D

Anyways, I'm sharing a Valentine-y page I'm working on - all pinks and reds and Love - as part of Connie's Art Journal Blog Party. It's not finished - it's at a place where I'm not sure where to go next. But it's also at a stage that I feel comfortable sharing with all of you. Pretty cool, for someone who couldn't even paint a solid-colored background 3 years ago without freaking out. :D

Thank you so much, to those that read and subscribed to this blog. Because I'm changing, the format of this blog will be changing as well. Honestly, I can't see me doing experiments, on the scale I was before. Maybe little ones, like the PanPastel experiment, but no more grand-scale ones. I just want to give anyone that subscribed a heads up about this, in case you start seeing more posts from me, but not the experiments posts you originally signed up for.

A wee experiment with PanPastels

noreply@blogger.com (DellaLuna) — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:13:00 +0000

Well hello all! It's nice to see you, and nice to be blogging again. :D Nothing really happened in the last, oh, year or so that I stopped blogging here, lol - no family emergencies, no mid-life crisis', no life-changing events. I just wasn't doing any experiments. It happens - my need to be an art scientist waxes and wanes. However, with Spring springing, and me learning new art techniques, there are a few things I'm wanting to try out. And of course, when I try something out, I want to share it, in case it will benefit anyone else.

Today, I did just an easy experiment with PanPastels. I've been hearing about these little stacks of wonder from so many places, and they've inspired some serious art supply lust in me. From what I understand, people are enthralled with PanPastels because of the lack of dust and their blendability. I love how Teesha Moore uses them to shade her journal pages. I limited myself to one, and only one, as a tester - at $5 per pastel (and that's at Dick Blick - it was a little over $6 at my local art supply store), this is not an art supply I can just run out and invest in a whole set.

Let me add a couple of caveats before I get started. First, I am not a pastel artist. I cannot even begin to comment on whether this is the right product for the real pastel artists out there. I'm just a beginning crafter/artist, who likes to dabble with lots of art supplies, and so this experiment is geared for folks like me - the dabblers. :D The second caveat is that this experiment was quick and dirty (literally, lol - my hands are a nice shade of grey at the moment), so I've foregone a lot of my usual structure when it comes to this experiment.

Ok, on with the experiment!

I wanted to test a couple of things with this experiment:

1. Are PanPastels really less dusty?
2. Is there any difference in the color intensity, between the PanPastel and the Sennelier soft pastels that I have? Meaning, can I swipe a sponge over a Sennelier soft pastel, and get them to blend like the PanPastel, without losing color intensity along the way?
3. Can I use cheap cosmetic sponges to apply the PanPastels, or is it really better to use the Sofft tools that PanPastel makes for these?

Here's the picture that reveals all:

(click to enlarge)

The Results:

1. Are PanPastels really less dusty?

YES, by far. While I did get some dust using their Sofft tool, and more dust using cheap cosmetic wedges and eyeshadow applicators, it was nothing compared to the Sennelier soft pastel.

2. Is there any difference in color intensity between a PanPastel and a Sennelier soft pastel?

Yes, it seems PanPastels do have more intensity, using the sponge method. But, it's also hard to tell from my experiment, because I don't have a black Sennelier soft pastel, so I'm not comparing black to black. Also, I didn't use the No. 958 Cinereous Grey Sennelier (my darkest Sennelier pastel) as it was made to be used - by drawing with it. So no, it didn't come out as dark, by just swiping the sponge over it, and applying the sponge to the page. However, it may darken up significantly with more layers.

I wanted to see if I could blend a Sennelier pastel like it was a PanPastel (because I already have a set of Sennelier's, and Sennelier also makes glittery, shimmery pastels that are just so beautiful), and it looks like I can - I'm just going to need more layers. Or maybe I should just draw with it and use an eyeshadow sponge to blend it out. See, I told you I wasn't a pastel artist - they'd know how to achieve that soft, blendy look with a Sennelier. :D

3. Can I use cheap cosmetic sponges, or do I really need to use the Sofft tools that PanPastel makes for these?

Well, that's a matter of personal preference. There is a difference between using the Sofft sponge, and using a drug-store cosmetic sponge. With the Sofft tool, there was less dust, and the pastel seemed to blend more, and come out softer. However, with the cosmetic sponge (and subsequently, the eyeshadow sponges), the color is closer to a true black, with harder "lines". It's not quite as "blendy". So, if you want your PanPastel to show up darker, and not be as soft, then use cosmetic sponges. It will certainly save you money!

As a bonus, I also tried to swipe an eyeshadow sponge over some willow vine charcoal, and apply it like I had the Sennelier soft pastel, just to see how the Black PanPastel would compare with the charcoal. Wow, is all I can say - PanPastel has got charcoal beat as far as a true black goes - at least, the way I applied it. If I'd drawn with the charcoal, it might have come out much darker.

So that's it, a quick and dirty experiment with a PanPastel. I'm not sure I'm sold. I love how soft and blendy it looks, but I also wonder if I can achieve that look with my Sennelier's, that I've already invested money in. So for me, the jury is still out.

The Great Pearl-Ex + Mediums Experiment of Ought-Nine - Part Two

noreply@blogger.com (DellaLuna) — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:45:00 +0000

So, here we go, for Round Two of the Great Pearl-Ex + Mediums Experiment of '09. This time, I'm trying out my more unusual acrylic mediums, of the gel and paste variety. For Part One, please see this post. If you'd like to know more about Pearl-Ex, please visit Jacquard's website.

The Products:

For my Pearl-Ex mica powder, I again chose Aztec Gold (Product # 658), to use throughout these experiments. It's a rich, warm yellow gold that reminds me of gold leaf.

Here are the mediums that I mixed with the Aztec Gold for this round of experiments:

Golden's Clear Tar Gel
Liquitex Glass Bead Gel
Golden's Garnet Gel
Golden's Acrylic Ground for Pastels
Liquitex Blended Fibers Gel
Golden Light Molding Paste
Golden Crackle Paste

The Process:

Here, because of the nature of the mediums I was using, I chose a slightly different process than the first experiment. I took the same mini-scooper of Pearl-Ex powder, but used a full scoop of the powder (instead of only the 1/2 scoop in the 1st experiment), and added it to a little Dixie cup. Then, I added about a tablespoon of each medium, one per Dixie cup. It's too hard to pull out these mediums in 1/2 teaspoon quantities, so I opted to increase the amounts, while keeping the ratio of medium/Pearl-Ex about the same.

I then mixed each medium with its Pearl-Ex with a popsicle stick. Then, I painted all of the Pearl-Ex mixtures onto pre-labeled 3 inch x 4 inch black cardstock, so we could see how vibrant the Pearl-Ex would turn out. Each piece of cardstock only got one layer, although some of the layers are thicker than others, due to the nature of the medium (Light Molding Paste, Blended Fibers and the Crackle Paste). The only medium I didn't paint right away was the Clear Tar Gel - I waited about a half an hour before painting with it. Clear Tar Gel gets air bubbles in it very easily when it's stirred up, so I had to wait for some of the air bubbles to come to the surface.

After all of the mediums had dried, I taped them all together onto a larger piece of black cardstock, and photographed the results. I took two sets of pictures - one with flash, and one without. Because of the metallic nature of Pearl-Ex powders, it's easier to see their properties when you can view them in two different sets of lighting. It's kind of a virtual way of being able to "tilt the card", like you would in real life.

The Results:

Here are the mediums I used, labeled 1-7, as they correspond to the pictures:

Golden's Clear Tar Gel
Liquitex Glass Bead Gel
Golden's Garnet Gel
Golden's Acrylic Ground for Pastels
Liquitex Blended Fibers Gel
Golden Light Molding Paste
Golden Crackle Paste

Here are the results, from a picture taken with my Sony DSC-F828, without flash:

(click to enlarge)

Here are the results, from a picture taken with my Sony DSC-F828, with a low flash (higher levels of flash, on my camera, tend to wash everything out):

(click to enlarge)

Conclusions:

Again, the Pearl-Ex Aztec Gold mixes beautifully with every medium I've thrown at it (no clumping or non-mixing, which has happened with some Pearl-Ex powders on me - namely "Flamingo Pink", "Brilliant Yellow" and "Turquoise").

Now I have another keyword to add to my "These Don't Do Well with Pearl-Ex" list - Opaque. So, "Matte" and "Opaque" - got it. The Crackle Paste and the Light Molding Paste are both opaque (I assume they have some Titanium or Zinc White added to them), and the vibrant metallic color of the Aztec Gold Pearl-Ex just disappeared in them. The same thing happened with the Acrylic Ground for Pastels, although, I can see what looks like a glittery-shimmer mixed into the medium (not obvious in the photo, but I can see it in real life). I think a wash of Pearl-Ex over these mediums will show up beautifully, just not mixed in them.

It's hard to tell in these photos (and I'm not sure why), but the Clear Tar Gel and Glass Bead Gel are just as vibrant as the results I got with Liquitex's Gloss Medium and Varnish (now my favorite Pearl-Ex medium paint-maker, besides Gum Arabic). I'm not really sure what to do with the Glass Bead Gel, and haven't been since I first got it, but I love the effect of the Aztec Gold in it. The Garnet Gel showed a more muted effect, but there's just enough shimmer with the Pearl-Ex to make it interesting. I can see adding one of the darker, more bronze colors of Pearl-Ex, to make this look like authentic rust.

The Blended Fibers is interesting - it looks a bit like paper on the page, and with the Pearl-Ex, it looks old and slightly shiny at the same time. There is some opacity to the Blended Fibers, so I believe a wash of Pearl-Ex would do much better than it being mixed in. I'm glad I did this experiment, as prior to this, I had no idea what to do with Blended Fibers, but now, I think I can add it to molds, and it will look like a tissue paper cast.

Next up will be the last part of this experiment, where I show you how Pearl-Ex and things like Linseed Oil, Minwax's Polycrylic, Dorland's Wax Medium and Isopropyl Alcohol look.

The Great Pearl-Ex + Mediums Experiment of Ought-Nine - Part One

noreply@blogger.com (DellaLuna) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:58:00 +0000

We're going to take a little break from image transfers, and focus on Pearl-Ex mica powders, made by Jacquard. Pearl-ex mica powders are finely-ground metallic powders that can be used on just about any surface, in just about any medium.

If you're anything like me, the first thing you think, when you see one of the sets of 12 small pots of these metallic powders, is "What do I do with them?" Well, Jacquard's website, and Google, can answer that question better than I can, but one of the properties that drew me to them is that you can make them into a paint, using just about any paint medium out there. Well, I wanted to put that theory to the test, and try out Pearl-Ex with every paint medium I have.

Yes, you read that right; EVERY paint medium I have. And I have a ton, because I'm an art supply junkie. 95% of the mediums are for acrylics, but I'll be throwing in a watercolor and oil based medium in there, too.

This experiment is being run in 3 parts. This first part focuses on one watercolor medium (Gum Arabic) and 8 liquid and gel acrylic mediums. Part two will focus on unusual gel mediums (like Garnet Gel by Golden, and Blended Fibers by Liquitex). Part three will focus on things like Linseed Oil and Isopropyl Alcohol (I just have to see if they will blend with alcohol...how cool if these could be added to alcohol inks!), and anything else I may have left out by then.

Just as an FYI, Ranger makes a product that is similar to Pearl-Ex called "Perfect Pearls". The difference is that Perfect Pearls are mica powders with a binder already in them. All you have to do is add water to make the Perfect Pearls into a paint. But, if you Google "Perfect Pearls Techniques", you'll find a whole slew of additional techniques that you can also try with Pearl-Ex powders. Just know that you may need to add some kind of painting medium for some of those techniques to work.

The Products:

For my Pearl-Ex mica powder, I chose Aztec Gold (Product # 658), to use throughout these experiments. It's a rich, warm yellow gold that reminds me of gold leaf.

Here are the mediums that I mixed with the Aztec Gold for this round of experiments:

Liquitex Matte Medium
Liquitex Gloss Medium & Varnish
Liquitex Glazing Medium (Gloss)
Golden GAC 100
Golden Soft Gel - Matte
Golden Regular Gel - Matte
Liquitex Gloss Gel
Liquitex Iridescent Medium
USArtQuest Gum Arabic (Powdered)
Winsor & Newton Gum Arabic (Liquid)

The Process:

I took out a 10-well plastic mixing palette, and labelled each well with a Sharpie, with what medium I'd be putting in it. I took a half-scoop of the Aztec Gold Pearl-Ex, using a tiny scooper I have (see middle of palette in picture below), and placed it in each well. I then filled the rest of the well with the chosen medium (1/2 teaspoon of medium per well). I wanted the concentration of Pearl-Ex to Medium to be the same throughout, so that I truly see what difference the medium itself made, in how the Pearl-Ex then looked.

For the USArtQuest Powdered Gum Arabic, I added 1/2 scoop of Gum Arabic to the 1/2 scoop of Pearl-Ex Aztec Gold, then filled the rest of the well with tap water. This is a higher concentration of Gum Arabic than the Jacquard website calls for - they call for a 4:1 Pearl-Ex: Gum Arabic mix. I wasn't about to try to measure out 1/16 of a scoop of Gum Arabic, and I've mixed higher concentrations of Gum Arabic to Pearl-Ex before, with no ill results (in fact, it seems to bind better to the paper).

I then cut out 10 - 3" x 4" squares of black cardstock, and labelled each piece of cardstock with the medium/Pearl-Ex mixture I'd be painting on it. Metallics such as Pearl-Ex are their most vibrant over dark colors. After I'd mixed up all of the mediums, I painted on one layer of Pearl-Ex "paint" per piece of cardstock, one for each medium.

Once dry, I scanned in each piece of cardstock, and then realized I had a problem: metallics don't scan well, at all. This is something I hadn't considered when I set out to blog this experiment: metallics are very hard to capture with digital technology. So, what I'm going to show you isn't quite as vibrant as they are in real life. Here, I can tilt the metallics into the light, to see all of their properties, and I can't quite show you that. So, after the scans turned out so poorly, I took pictures of the results, both with flash and without flash, to try to approximate, as close as I can, what they look like to me. They're pretty close, I think.

The Results:

Here are the mediums I used, labeled 1-10, as they correspond to the pictures:

Liquitex Matte Medium
Liquitex Gloss Medium & Varnish
Liquitex Glazing Medium (Gloss)
Golden GAC 100
Golden Soft Gel - Matte
Golden Regular Gel - Matte
Liquitex Gloss Gel
Liquitex Iridescent Medium
USArtQuest Gum Arabic (Powdered)
Winsor & Newton Gum Arabic (Liquid)

Here are the results, from a picture taken with my Sony DSC-F828, without flash:

(click to enlarge)

Here are the results, from a picture taken with my Sony DSC-F828, with a low flash (higher levels of flash, on my camera, tend to wash everything out):

(click to enlarge)

Conclusions:

All of these mediums blended well with the Pearl-Ex Aztec Gold. Just an FYI, I've found that some Pearl-Ex powders don't mix well with acrylic mediums, which is an experiment to show you, down the road. But this particular one, Aztec Gold, mixed in beautifully with all these mediums. Prior to painting, I just had to re-stir up the liquid mediums, to ensure the pigment was evenly distributed.

I learned that using anything with "Matte" in its name is just not going to work with Pearl-Ex. Manufacturers add mattifying agents to their products, which is basically particles of "white stuff", to help tone down gloss. That white stuff and Pearl-Ex apparently cancel each other out. You can see how the color of the Pearl-Ex is imparted, but the metallic sheen is almost gone.

It looks like if the medium is glossy, then it and Pearl-Ex are going to get along the best. I love how vibrant and shiny the Liquitex Gloss Medium & Varnish, and the Liquitex Gloss Gel, came out. Those two are truest to what this Aztec Gold looks like in its jar.

The Golden GAC 100 and the Liquitex Glazing Medium (Gloss) toned down the metallic sheen just slightly. They're not supposed to have any matting agents, but something in these mediums is "hiding" some of the metallic shimmer.

Liquitex Iridescent Medium is a pearl medium, meaning, it's a white pearl color. That white almost took away the metallic of the Pearl-Ex, but because the medium itself has a metallic sheen to it, what resulted was still shiny and metallic, only much lighter. I can see using this as a way to lighten any Pearl-Ex powder, without taking away the shimmer.

And I have to say, I'm in love with Gum Arabic and this Pearl-Ex Aztec Gold. Both the powdered and the liquid versions turned out so rich and deep. I'm not sure what chemical property Gum Arabic has, that it causes Pearl-Ex to show off its darker undertones (while still retaining the metallic shimmer), but I love the effect.

That's it for this round. Stay tuned for Part Two, where I try out all kinds of unusual gel and paste mediums, and Pearl-Ex Aztec Gold.

Rub-on Transfers - Laser Printed Transparencies

noreply@blogger.com (DellaLuna) — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:55:00 +0000

Now it's time to see if these rub-ons I've been experimenting with work with laser prints.

The Products:

Apollo Color Laser Printer Transparency Film (CG7070)
Samsung ML2010 Black & White Laser Printer

The Process:

Again, pretty simple. I just printed off my images onto the Transparency Film, using my laser printer this time, cut out my image, and then rubbed it onto my surface. I tried this in my art journal, which had a coat of gesso on it. I just wanted to see if it would work, so I wasn't worried about following the procedure I used in the 1st experiment, where I transferred an inkjet print onto a piece of plain copy paper.

This time, I went ahead and tried my transfer right away. I do believe that the sooner you make the transfer, from the time of printing, the easier it is to rub-off. I forgot to mention that the transfer I made in the 1st experiment, with inkjet prints, was done within one hour of printing, while the transfers I did for the 2nd experiment were done over 2-3 days after I'd printed them. It seems I had to rub much harder on those 2nd experiment transfers. Just a word to the wise, if you're going to try this.

The Results:

(click image to enlarge)

It worked!

Conclusions:

I think it worked even better than the inkjet prints I tried, in that it's clearer and darker (i.e. more ink came off of the transparency). However, the image itself printed more clearly with the laser printer (which makes sense, as the transparencies are made for laser printers). I also did this transfer within 5 minutes of printing it, so it's hard to tell if it's the laser toner that's making the difference, if it's the time factor that's making the difference, or if it's both.

I will be re-running the same experiment that I did with acrylic mediums, using these laser prints, over this next week. I want to see, again, how well they stand up to abuse and wet mediums. Because the prints will be older by the time I transfer them (I printed off a bunch of the same image on the same transparency), maybe we'll be able to tell if time makes a difference in how much ink comes off the transparency and onto the surface.

ETA: From some of the comments and emails I've been getting, I realized I wasn't being clear about something on these rub-on transfer experiments. I've been printing on the "right" side of the transparency, the side that's a little bit rough to the touch. This is the side that has the coating, that allows the ink to stay put on the film, without it beading right off. This is also the side that's recommended when doing Leslie Riley's technique for inkjet transfers. That's why I was so surprised that it worked - I didn't need a wet medium for me to be able to rub the print right off the transparency.

I do know that there is a technique where you can print on the "wrong" side of the transparency, the smooth side with no coating, and then immediately do a transfer onto your substrate. I've had problems with this in the past, where the ink would just bead up way too much for me. I have yet to try that technique with these printers, but I've added it to the list. But, it's another reason why I was so excited that these worked - the need to transfer immediately seemed to be taken away. Of course, I've noticed that it's easier, when it comes to the rubbing, to do it sooner than later, but it's not necessary. I was able to print off a whole slew of images onto one transparency that I can save for later.

Just wanted to make sure I'm being clear. :D

Rub-on Transfers - Results of some experimenting

noreply@blogger.com (DellaLuna) — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:39:00 +0000

In my last post, I was prompted by Zom (from Pinch Me to See if You're Dreaming...fabulous blog, go check her out) to ask the question "Ok, how well do these rub-on transfers hold up to abuse, or being painted over?" So here is the experiment to answer that question. Because I use mostly acrylic and craft paints, the experiment is focused on how well these transfers do with acrylic mediums.

The Products:

I transferred my rub-ons onto 4 different acrylic painted surfaces, and then one set of images I transferred onto uncoated paper. These were all done on the back of a piece of Canson Acrylic Paper (my pad of paper looks like what's in the link, but Canson has changed it to look like this now).

Here are the four acrylic mediums I used:

The Process:

(This is lengthy, so if you want to skip it, I recommend heading to the Results section, and looking at the pictures.)

I wanted to see if transferring these rub-ons to various acrylic mediums would alter how well they stood up to abuse. So, I tried a craft paint, a high-quality acrylic paint, gesso, and matte medium. I chose to try craft paint vs. a high-quality acrylic paint, because craft paints use fillers and non-pure pigments, and I wanted to see if that made any difference in how well the transfers held up. Again, like in my previous post, I also transferred the rub-ons onto plain paper, with no medium under-coating, to see if that made a difference as well.

First, I printed out the same, highly-detailed image onto one Apollo Color Laser Printer Transparency Film (Product Number CG7070), 20 times (so I would have extra), using my Epson Workforce 500 all-in-one printer. Then, I painted three swatches of each acrylic product onto the back of a piece of Canson Acrylic Paper. Canson Acrylic paper has a canvas-like texture embedded in the paper, and the front is coated with a gelatin-like substance. I used the back of this paper, so the gelatin coating wouldn't interfere with the results. I wanted a thick, canvas-like paper that would withstand the "wetness" of acrylic mediums, to prevent any wrinkling when I painted on the mediums. Plus, I wanted to see what these transfers would look like on a rougher surface, while I was at it. :D

I cut out each individual image, and rubbed one onto each of the three acrylic-coated surfaces, as well as rubbing three transfers onto the plain, uncoated paper. So, we have a total of 15 transfers to examine.

For each acrylic medium, and the ones on plain paper, I left one of the transfers alone, so we could see what it looks like if it's not touched. I smudged the 2nd transfer on each medium with my finger, to see how much ink would come off. You should know, I rubbed VERY hard with a clean finger, because I really wanted to put these transfers to the test. I painted the 3rd transfer with matte medium, to see how well these transfers behave with a very wet acrylic medium.

Ideally, it would have been better to use one transfer, and then smudged it (and then taken before and after pictures), and then used another transfer, and then painted it with the Matte Medium (and then taken before and after pictures), but I just didn't think of it at the time I did this experiment. Just wanted to mention that. :D

This is all easier to understand when you see the pictures, I promise.

The Results:

Here is the image that I used, as it looked printed out onto the transparency film:

And here is the first set of results, on the Delta Ceramcoat Fleshtone, the Golden Heavy Body Titan Buff, and the Plain, Uncoated Canson Acrylic Paper:

(click on image to enlarge, to really see how these turned out)

And here are the second set of results, on Golden White Gesso, and on Liquitex Matte Medium:

(click on image, please)

There are two transfer results for the "Plain paper, Matte Medium Undercoat, Matte Medium Overcoat", in the first results image, because my first transfer came out so light. I just wasn't rubbing hard enough to get it transferred. So, I did a second rub-on transfer, and did the experiment on both, just to see what would happen.

As far as rubbing on the transfers, it was easier to get the ink off the transparency on the Delta Ceramcoat paint, the Golden Heavy Body Titan Buff and the Golden Gesso, with the Gesso being the easiest. I had to rub hard on all of these transfers, but it seemed I didn't have to rub as hard, or for as long, to get the ink on to those three mediums.

Here are the results for which transfers looked the best when just left alone (not smudged and not painted over with Matte Medium), ranked from best to worst:

Golden Gesso - White
Delta Ceramcoat - Fleshtone
Golden Heavy Body - Titan Buff
Plain, uncoated side of Canson Acrylic Paper
Liquitex Matte Medium

These results are a bit skewed, because what really mattered was how well I held the transfer still, and how hard I rubbed. Therefore, the Plain, uncoated paper looks all smudgy, but that's because the transfer moved while I was rubbing. So, take those results with a grain of salt. While I think the Golden Gesso really did outperform the rest, how hard you rub and how still you hold the image while you're rubbing, THOSE are the things that matter the most.

Here is how the transfers performed when I rubbed them with my finger, ranked from best (no smudging) to worst (look at all that smearing!):

On plain, uncoated side of Canson Acrylic Paper (tiny smudges)
On Golden Heavy Body - Titan Buff (tiny smudges)
On Golden Gesso - White (obvious smudging)
On Delta Ceramcoat - Fleshtone (total grey halo, lots of smudging)
On Liquitex Matte Medium (total grey halo, lots of smudging)

And here is how they are ranked, from best to worst, when painted over with Liquitex Matte Medium:

Golden Heavy Body - Titan Buff (no smudging -those greyish lines in the picture are a shadow, created by the brushstrokes, since the paint wasn't totally smooth)
Delta Ceramcoat - Fleshtone (no smudging)
Golden Gesso - White (no smudging)
Liquitex Matte Medium (some streaking)
Plain, uncoated side of Canson Acrylic Paper (wow, now there's some serious smudging)

Conclusions:

Personally, I was surprised with how well these transfers held up. Yes, painting matte medium over the plain transfer resulted in a smudgy, grey mess, but otherwise, overall, they did pretty good. Of my results, I was also surprised to see how poorly these transfers did over Matte Medium, in just a plain transfer, in being smudged and in being re-painted with more Matte Medium. I can't even begin to fathom why that would happen, but, ok, lesson learned. Don't do these transfers over Liquitex Matte Medium.

It looks like your/my best bet is to try these transfers over an acrylic paint or gesso, and then paint over them with matte medium (or perhaps another acrylic sealer, like gel medium or gloss medium), to ensure no smudging. I honestly don't know how well other sealers will work, but if I try a different medium, I'll let you know (I'm a Matte Medium kinda girl).

Ok, so will some of you go out, and try these rub-ons with the transparencies that you have, on your printers, to see if this works with other brands? I'm really curious if other combinations of inkjet transparency film and inkjet printers will let you do rub-ons. Heck, I'd love to see if this would work with laser transparencies and printers as well. Come Play with Me!

ETA: From some of the comments and emails I've been getting, I realized I wasn't being clear about something on these rub-on transfer experiments. I've been printing on the "right" side of the transparency, the side that's a little bit rough to the touch. This is the side that has the coating, that allows the ink to stay put on the film, without it beading right off. This is also the side that's recommended when doing Leslie Riley's technique for inkjet transfers. That's why I was so surprised that it worked - I didn't need a wet medium for me to be able to rub the print right off the transparency.

I do know that there is a technique where you can print on the "wrong" side of the transparency, the smooth side with no coating, and then immediately do a transfer onto your substrate. I've had problems with this in the past, where the ink would just bead up way too much for me. I have yet to try that technique with these printers, but I've added it to the list. But, it's another reason why I was so excited that these worked - the need to transfer immediately seemed to be taken away. Of course, I've noticed that it's easier, when it comes to the rubbing, to do it sooner than later, but it's not necessary. I was able to print off a whole slew of images onto one transparency that I can save for later.

Just wanted to make sure I'm being clear. :D

Rub-on Transfers - Happy Accident

noreply@blogger.com (DellaLuna) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:51:00 +0000

So, I was messing around with my Epson printer the other day, trying to get it to print on a transparency, and made a new discovery (well, new to me, maybe not new to others) - the transparencies I have make great rub-on transfers. Read on for the story, as well as some pictures of the results.

See, the folks at the inkjet_transfers Yahoo Group, per artist Leslie Riley, recommend that you print your transfer onto Apollo Inkjet transparencies, instead of on paper. These transparencies have a special coating on them, that not only allows the inkjet ink to settle down on a surface (without smearing), but also will let you transfer the image cleanly. You lay down your transfer medium (I've seen Golden's Soft Gel medium, Golden's Matte Medium and Elmer's Squeeze n' Caulk- Clear all mentioned) on the surface you want to transfer to, lay down your image printed on the transparency over the medium, burnish, and then lift. Much easier than using paper, because you don't have to wait hours for the medium to dry all the way, and there's no rubbing and removing paper.

Only, it's not quite as easy as it sounds. It takes a lot of practice. You have to find the right amount of medium to use - enough so that the image will transfer, not so much that your image will slide right off when you're burnishing (although some recommend using a brayer, to prevent slipping). The amount of medium has been likened to the amount you use to butter toast, but, heh, I use a LOT of butter, lol.

Then you need the right transparency film, and these aren't cheap. I've seen people recommend whatever version they make for your printer (from Apollo - and NOT the quick-drying kind), as well as, specifically Apollo Inkjet Transparencies CG7039 (can't find this particular product on the ACCO website, so this is a link to a store. This may not be in production anymore). Some people also recommend 3M's Multipurpose Transparency Film #CG6000 for inkjet transfers (still in production, it looks like).

I think my problem is that I have the wrong kind of transparencies. I decided to try Apollo's Color Laser Printer Transparency Film (CG7070), because it was on major sale at Office Depot. I bought this about 2 years ago, and on ACCO's website, the product number is now CG7070E, so the formula may be different now.

Now, I used to be able to get transfers to work, via Leslie's method, with my old Canon printer, with these transparencies. But I couldn't get them to work with my HP printer - the inks would slide all over the place, and if my surface had any kind of bump, anything around the bump wouldn't transfer. Since I didn't have the "right" transparencies to begin with, I just figured that was my problem, and didn't do much more experimenting. I just stuck with the old tried-and-true paper methods.

But, the other day, I was having a discussion with someone on the inkjet_transfers Yahoo group, about how I couldn't get transparencies to print on my Epson anyway, and this prompted me to try again. See, my Epson (and possibly all Workforce Epson All-in-One's), won't read transparency film coming through your printer. It thinks you're out of paper. So, you need to tape a carrier page (just a piece of plain copy paper) to your transparency, and then your Epson will "see" your transparency, and print on it.

Well, the last time I tried to print on one of these transparencies I have (after having taped it to a carrier page), back in October, the ink smeared horribly. I had told it to print on "Glossy Photo Paper", figuring a transparency was a glossy surface, and it printed it on it's 2nd highest ink setting. I didn't think about it at the time, but that was using a LOT of ink. And the other day, I wondered if I tried it on the "Plain Paper Setting" (uses less ink), on high-speed (so it wouldn't smear), if it would print out correctly. I figured it would be good to test it, on transparencies that didn't work for transfers anyway, to see if I could even get a decent print.

And it did, it worked! Eureka! Now, if I could only get it to do a transfer? Well, that wasn't working so well, again. I think I need to use a lighter touch with my medium, because it was smearing again. And because there are bumps in my art journal (I glue in a lot of paper), it slid all the more easily. The transfer won't lay down completely flat, because it's a plastic film. Arg!

But then I noticed something. The ink on my transparency image looked like those rub-on tattoos and rub-on transfers you see. I wondered if the ink would just rub-off the transparency, if I burnished along the image with a popsicle stick.

And wouldn't you know it, it worked! Here's some pictures as proof:

Ornament on Apollo Color Laser Printer Transparency Film (CG7070), pre-transfer

Ornament on new sheet of paper after transfer

How the ornament looks now on the Transparency Film, post-transfer

You do have to rub pretty-hard, and as you can see, not every bit of ink is going to transfer. I also recommend cutting your image out from the rest of your transparency, if you have multiple images printed. As you can see, some of the ink from the other ornaments transferred to the new sheet of paper.

I've only tried this with black-ink images, so I don't know how well color inks will work for a rub-on transfer. Also, the product I have, CG7070, is now CG7070E on ACCO's website, so the formula may be different now. And this is from my Epson Workforce 500, with Durabrite inks. So, while I can't really say "Oh, go out and buy these transparencies, it will work for you and on your printer", I can encourage you to try this out, with the printer and transparencies you already have. It may work the same for you.

In case you're wondering, those images are free Photoshop brushes from various sites, that I have gathered over the years. Photoshop brushes are a great way to find free clip-art images, that you can resize and recolor to any size and color you want.

ETA: From some of the comments and emails I've been getting, I realized I wasn't being clear about something on these rub-on transfer experiments. I've been printing on the "right" side of the transparency, the side that's a little bit rough to the touch. This is the side that has the coating, that allows the ink to stay put on the film, without it beading right off. This is also the side that's recommended when doing Leslie Riley's technique for inkjet transfers. That's why I was so surprised that it worked - I didn't need a wet medium for me to be able to rub the print right off the transparency.

I do know that there is a technique where you can print on the "wrong" side of the transparency, the smooth side with no coating, and then immediately do a transfer onto your substrate. I've had problems with this in the past, where the ink would just bead up way too much for me. I have yet to try that technique with these printers, but I've added it to the list. But, it's another reason why I was so excited that these worked - the need to transfer immediately seemed to be taken away. Of course, I've noticed that it's easier, when it comes to the rubbing, to do it sooner than later, but it's not necessary. I was able to print off a whole slew of images onto one transparency that I can save for later.

Just wanted to make sure I'm being clear. :D

Inket Transfer Experiment #3b - Transfer Goop Revised

noreply@blogger.com (DellaLuna) — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:01:00 +0000

In my last post, I put up the results of the Transfer Goop experiments that I had performed last October. I had inadvertently used two different images, and realized that without a proper control (using the same image each time), an experiment is somewhat useless. In art land, there are no mistakes - only learning and happy accidents - and while this is true here (I did learn, and I can still use the transfer), it doesn't do much good as an experiment to not have a control. You just can't tell the difference between how well Transfer Goop does on different papers, or how Transfer Goop compares to different transfer mediums, if the images are different.

The Products:

So, I repeated my experiment today, the same image on three different papers:

Staples Multipurpose Copy Paper (aka, Plain Copy Paper)
HP's Everyday Matte Photo Paper
JetPrint's Matte Imaging & Photo Paper

and ugh, Transfer Goop! Seriously, the smell! It's this odd combination of latex-rubber with lamp oil smell. I used a charcoal-lined mask while I was working with it, and my windows are all open, but it's still lingering in my apartment (and in my nose). If solvent-y smells get to you, then don't use this stuff.

The Process:

I used my heat gun to heat all 3 transfers from a beige-glue look to a glossy, clear finish, and it took about 3 minutes per transfer. I'm surprised I didn't burn out my heat gun - I don't think stamp embossing guns are meant to be run for 10 minutes at a time. You can bake your transfer in the oven at 300 degrees Fahrenheit, per the website's instructions (you have to click through to the instructions), but I just didn't want that smell ending up in my food later. If you have a dedicated toaster oven for things like polymer clay baking, I recommend you use that to bake your Transfer Goop transfer, instead of using your heat gun. It only goes for about 3 minutes, and you have to check for when it changes from a powdery beige to a clear, glass finish. But that's better than risking a $20 heat gun. :D

The Results:

Here are the scans of each transfer. The images on the Left started out on the Plain Copy Paper, the images in the Middle on the HP Everyday Matte Photo Paper and the images on the Right started out on the JetPrint Imaging & Photo Paper.

(As always, you can click on the image to enlarge it, and really get all the details)

Again, the plain copy paper did not perform so well. It was hard to get all of the paper off, and when I was rubbing the paper off, some of the black ink smeared around on the transfer. A lot of the ink came right off with the paper.

The HP Everyday Matte Photo paper and the JetPrint Matte Imaging & Photo Paper both did equally well, with the HP paper being slightly easier to get off the transfer. Very little ink came off with either paper.

I still had trouble with browning this time around, too, although not nearly as much as I had before. It seems to happen on the edges more, and could be because I was using a heat gun and not an oven. I would have to heat an area to change it from powdery-opaque to glass-clear, but the heat would inadvertently keep heating an area that had already changed to clear. Thus, some browning.

I also had a problem with air bubbles. Tons of tiny air bubbles:

(click to enlarge)

They tell you to stir it well prior to brushing the Goop onto your transfer, which you need to, as it separates out into this thick, latexy substance with a top coat of clear, oily stuff. You're then supposed to either bake or heat your image first, for about 3 minutes, to remove any humidity from your image. Humidity can cause air bubbles in your transfer, per the website. Immediately after heating your image, you need to brush your well-stirred Transfer Goop onto it.

I only heated my images for about 1 1/2 minutes each, because I live in Colorado, where it is notoriously dry (although we have been having a rainy season this year - finally!).

It's possible that's why I got so many air bubbles - I didn't heat them long enough. I'm inclined to think it was all the stirring I had to do, prior to brushing it onto my images. The contents separate out pretty quickly, so I didn't see a way to stir it all up, and then let it sit for 15 minutes, until all the air bubbles rose to the surface. So, there are many, tiny air bubbles baked right into the transfer.

Conclusions:

I'm pretty much never using Transfer Goop again - I don't care how strong, stretchy and clear the transfer skin is (which I must say, it is). It's too smelly, and since I'm not going to bake it, it's too much of a pain to use a heat gun on it. There's also the need to bake your image before you coat it, and any brush you use to slap on the stuff is now a Transfer Goop-only brush. I can get similar results with Gel Medium, with no baking, no smell, and no dedicated brushes. Better results, actually, since there's no browning or air bubbles.

But your results may vary. Transfer Goop was made to be ironed onto things, and with how strong it is, it might be a product of choice for you, in the art you do. It is a clear transfer (barring air bubbles and/or overheating) and very strong. Your photos will come out very clear, versus other ways of doing inkjet transfers. But for me, a paper-arts girl, the smell and time it takes makes other methods for image transferring much more fun.

ETA: I just checked, and our humidity is a whopping 39% right now. That's pretty high, if it's not raining here. So it really is possible that I didn't bake the water out of my images enough, and that's why I have the air bubbles. Now, don't all you folks in humid states want to come to Colorado? *grin*

Inkjet Transfer Experiment #3 - Transfer Goop

noreply@blogger.com (DellaLuna) — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 07:07:00 +0000

Now I'd like to show you the results of my experiment with Transfer Goop transfer medium by Artisan's Choice, as well as do a little review of the product.

The Product:

Transfer Goop is a transfer medium designed to be used with inkjet prints, laser prints, newspapers, and/or magazine clippings. It usually comes in a kit called "Transfers Unlimited", and costs about $15 for the whole kit at Michael's, the last time I checked. The Transfer Goop is sold separately as a refill for about $8. You can buy the release paper separately, as well.

Transfers Unlimited is packaged as a complete transfer system, taking you from making the transparent transfer off of your image, through to ironing it onto fabric, leather or wood. The transfer has a stretchy, rubbery quality to it, and is quite thick and durable. The Transfers Unlimited package is sold with the Transfer Goop, 6 sheets of Release Paper (for ironing your transfer onto your surface), a sheet of clear Transfer Film, 4 pieces of white backing cloth and a bristle brush for painting on the Transfer Goop.

The Process:

I'm not sure how Artisan's Choice is doing as a company, because their website only has a front page, and all of their instructions and project ideas aren't up on their site anymore. They have a note saying "Our Website is being revised to serve you better, for now please email artistanschoice@comcast.net", and has been saying that for at least 9 months. I bought the Transfer Goop separately, and as it didn't come with instructions, I had to look the directions up via the Internet Wayback Machine. The instructions are listed there.

Transfer Goop comes in a little jar 4 oz. jar that needs to be stirred extremely well prior to use. You spread the Transfer Goop on your image, but instead of waiting for it to dry, you either bake it, or heat it with your heat gun. It acts almost like an embossing powder, in that you heat it until the surface turns glassy and completely clear. Then, you just let it cool, and soak your paper off of the back. From there, you can then use more Transfer Goop to glue your image onto your surface, and iron the transfer down, using their special release papers to do so.

The Results:

Here's how my two transfers with Transfer Goop came out. The one on the Left was printed on HP's Everyday Matte Photo Paper, and the one on the Right was printed on JetPrint's Imaging & Photo Matte Paper. Both were printed from an Epson Workforce 500 with Durabrite Inks.

(click the image to enlarge)

Conclusion & Review:

Working with Transfer Goop is a bit of a trying process. First of all, the odor of the stuff isn't pleasant at all, and gave me a headache. I can smell some kind of petroleum distillates in there. The jar also has a tendency to leak on me, so I have it double-bagged in Ziplocs, to stop the leaking and the smell. Then, I had trouble heating the Goop with my heatgun, without then turning it slightly brown (burning it). Also, when I went to remove the paper from my transfers, I learned quickly not to use my finger-nails to scratch the paper, at all, because it removed the ink clean off of the surface of the transfer (those white dots in the transfer on the left).

I do like how thick and stretchy the transfers are, though. These are tough transfer skins, and would probably hold up quite well on a well-loved and well-used homemade handbag. I like how vibrant the colors came out on the HP Everyday Matte Photo paper transfer, and might have had a perfect transfer if I hadn't used my nails to get the paper off. With a bit of practice, I can probably get the heating part right, without turning the transfer brown.

But I won't be trying that anytime soon, as it's just not worth it to me, for the solvent smell (this is why I didn't bother with trying this on plain copy paper).

Next up - Pearl-Ex pigments and trying out different paint binders (like Gum Arabic and Matte Medium).

ETA: Zura made a good catch. I actually used two different images on the two different transfers. The one on the left, printed on the HP Everyday Matte Photo paper, has an extra orange, leafy border that wasn't in the one on the right. Because we always need a control to make a proper experiment, and my image was my control, I'll be redoing this experiment. This will give me a chance to try this on plain copy paper, too. :D

Inkjet Transfer Experiment #2 - Using an Epson Workforce 500 printer

noreply@blogger.com (DellaLuna) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:35:00 +0000

And now I’m finally posting the results of the same inkjet transfers experiment I did before, only I used my Epson Workforce 500 inkjet printer instead of the HP PSC 1350 inkjet printer. :D The difference in the printers is that the Epson uses Durabrite inks, which are pigment-based inks, while the HP uses dye-based inks. If you compare the results of both experiments, you can see that using the Durabrite inks makes all the difference.

I’m not going to go into too much detail about the mediums, papers or printers I used, because I already did so in my 1^st inkjet experiment post (linked above). Please refer to it if you’d like to know more; there’s some good information there. If you’d like to know more about image transfers in general, I have posted several links to tutorials and information in this post.

On with the experiment!

The Papers:

Staples Multipurpose Copy Paper (aka, plain ole printer paper)
Jet Print’s Imaging and Photo Paper – Matte (no longer in production, but available at the link)
HP’s Everyday Matte Photo Paper

The important thing to know is that both the Jet Print and HP Matte photo papers have a clay coating on them that is said to aid in transferring ink into various mediums.

The Transfer Products:

The Technique:

I used the same technique for all four mediums. I just brushed on a layer of each medium, let it dry, and then did it again. I did this for a total of three layers. These have been drying for about 8 months now (:D), but of course, you don’t need to wait that long. Just let each layer dry thoroughly (an hour or so, depending on humidity) before adding a new coat, and then let the transfer sit overnight after the final coat. This is specifically for making these “skin” type transfers, and different drying times are recommended when you’re doing a direct inkjet transfer.

Once your medium is completely dry, you just soak the back of the paper with water, and peel and rub it off. I ran my transfers under running water in the kitchen sink, to help facilitate the paper coming off (just make sure a strainer is in the drain to catch the bits of paper. That's an expensive plumbing bill waiting to happen otherwise). When the paper is removed, just set your transfer aside to dry. Once it’s dry, it’s ready to be used in whatever way your imagination comes up with!

The great thing about these skin transfers is that they'll keep for years (see my June 14th post for an example). So if you have an image that you really want to use over and over again, you can make up a sheet of transfers, do all the work at once, and have some waiting for your next project. That's a great way to save on transfer papers, as well.

The Results:

Here are the scans of each transfer. The images on the Left started out on the Plain Copy Paper, the images in the Middle on the HP Everyday Matte Photo Paper and the images on the Right started out on the JetPrint Imaging & Photo Paper.

Click on each image, to see larger, clearer versions.

Wherever you see a white cast, that’s where I couldn’t get the paper all the way off of the transfer. It's the white fuzz left behind.

Here's the original image:

Golden's Regular Gel - Matte:

Liquitex Gloss Medium & Varnish:

Elmer's Squeeze 'N Caulk-Clear:

Omni Gel:

Conclusions:

Wow, Wow, WOW! The folks at the Inkjet Transfers Yahoo group weren’t kidding. The Epson Durabrite inks are superior in every way when it comes to inkjet transfers. I was able to run these transfers under the sink to get the paper off without losing the whole transfer, which has happened to me with my HP printer. The ink *did* run from the plain copy paper transfers, but not from the JetPrint or HP papers.

I was surprised to see how poorly the plain copy paper did. I’ve been using it for inkjet transfers in my art journal, and just assumed the ink would always run, no matter what paper I used. Not true, as you can see. No ink ran off from the transfers I did on the JetPrint and HP papers, when I was rubbing and rinsing the paper off.

I also didn’t realize just how much paper was being left behind on plain copy paper, until I did this experiment. In my art journal, I usually end up slapping some kind of medium over the whole page anyway, so the paper fuzz “disappears” somewhat. Now I know that I can have much clearer, more vibrant transfers by using either the JetPrint or HP Matte photo papers.

I was also surprised to see that the HP Everyday Photo Matte paper did slightly better than the JetPrint Imaging & Photo paper. It’s not a huge difference, as you can see, but the colors are slightly darker and the paper seemed to come off more thoroughly.

And to my complete surprise, with the Epson Durabrite inks, it doesn’t seem to matter which medium I used. They all turned out pretty much the same across the board. With my old HP PSC 1350, I had to use Golden's Gel Medium with the JetPrint paper to get a good inkjet transfer. So that was a nice surprise, to see that they all work.

My only caveat would be that if you're going to use Elmer’s Squeeze n’ Caulk, you need to know that the transfer is super-super sticky, and remains that way, even 8 months later. You would need to glue it sticky-side down, and handle the transfer carefully, so it doesn’t stick to itself. It won't unstick from itself without ripping the transfer. I had purchased the caulk based on a recommendation by Claudine Hellmuth in her book Collage Discovery Workshop, so wanted to test it, but after these experiments, I can't really recommend it. While it's cheaper at $5/8 oz. bottle, the other mediums are just easier to work with.

So, my conclusions, based on this experiment and the one I ran with the HP PSC 1350, is that it’s worth it to use an Epson printer that uses Durabrite inks, if you’re into inkjet transfers (but only with Durabrite inks. Other Epson inks won’t work as well, from what I understand). Not only will you have a clearer transfer that won’t run when you use a water-based medium, the Durabrite inks are resistant to fading from UV light. While printers are a pretty expensive art supply to go a' gettin', the Epson Stylus 88+ runs about $80-$90, and gets rave reviews from the Inkjet Transfer Yahoo group. Epson's All-in-One printers are pretty reasonable as well. The ink is more expensive, but it does last a good while, I've found.

I can also now heartily recommend HP’s Everyday Matte Photo Paper when using the Epson Durabrite inks, which is great, because it’s still in production. You can find it on Amazon.com for $10/100 sheets.

And as far as mediums go, with the Epson Durabrite inks, use whichever medium you’re going to use the most in your other art projects. It’s always great when a product is multi-purpose. :D I'm usually not a big fan of glossy, but I really like how clear the Liquitex Gloss Medium & Varnish's transfer came out, and will probably be using that more frequently than the Golden's Regular Matte Gel in the future.

For my next post, I’m going to show you what happened when I tried out Transfer Goop on the JetPrint Imaging & Photo Paper and the HP Everyday Matte Photo paper.

It's been awhile...

noreply@blogger.com (DellaLuna) — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:55:00 +0000

...and that's a bit of an understatement. 8 months, phew. And now, after all these months, I finally have all of my art stuff in one place (it had been in storage for the past 4 months), and got a hankering to finish my Epson inkjet transfers experiment. They've been printed on their respective papers, had their mediums applied, for months now, and were just waiting for me to get the paper off. Last night, I worked on the plain copy paper transfers, and from my preliminary results thus far, the Epson Durabrite inks totally rock. Not a lot of ink running, like I had with the HP PSC 1350. Those pigment inks make all the difference.

One reason for the hiatus was a move that put most of my art supplies in storage, but the other reason was more personal, and in my opinion, important. I began doing art, and so experimenting, as its own process, has fallen by the way-side. Let me explain why that's so important for me.

When I got sick 4 years ago, I took a trip to Michael's, just wandering the aisles, trying to figure out what I'd like to do. I figured that some kind of art or craft would help keep my mind off of the pain. I had done crafts off and on for years, but it's not like I was intimate with all that was out there to do in the arts & crafts world.

Well, I found their tiny little section for collage art, and found the book "Altered Books 101". If I could of, at that moment, I would have done a hop and a skip. "This is it! I love books, I love the art I'm seeing here, I'm doing it!" I bought the book, and some of the collage papers in the aisle, and went home.

I proceeded to make a very cool collaged card for my sister's birthday, and felt like "I'm on my way!" I loved the whole process, and how it really did take me away from my pain, from everything, for those joyous hours. And I had this wonderful gift to show for my hours of escape, versus watching TV or just surfing around the Internet. I felt productive, for once.

Then the Great Internet Mixed-Media Technique Hunt began. I started with the alteredbooks Yahoo group, and branched out from there. I wanted to learn it all! But very soon, I became overwhelmed. My joy turned to trepidation, and suddenly, I found that I needed to learn so many new terms, and so much about art supplies. With each new technique I saw and wanted to copy, there was one more dang art supply I needed. Mediums and paints, gesso, Lumiere's, metals, ephemera, books, watercolor crayons, die-cutters, pencils, pens, rubber stamps, stamp pads, stencils, beeswax, brushes, punches, special scissors, fabrics, ribbons, pastels, polaroid camera and film...it's so overwhelming to someone new to mixed media, who wants to try it all. This is a problem I've seen in the mixed-media world, one that I would like to address in a post, but for now, I just remember how I felt like I couldn't do anything until I'd attained this or that supply. It's a problem because no one really tells new people that a magazine, a glue stick, some craft paints and a brush is totally enough to get started, and that the rest is just gravy.

And then there was the issue of seeing all that gorgeous artwork, and how these weren't crafters, these were artists. Artist - that can be such a loaded word for so many of us. "I'm no artist", I would think. "I have no right to even try collages or altered books or art journals. I'm not an artist." This wasn't a completely conscious thought, but looking back, I can see that's exactly what I thought - that I had no right to make anything.

The third issue I had was that of a talented but cruel woman who claimed to be an art teacher, taking a look at the few cards and techniques I had tried. She told me that nothing I did had any heart or soul, and that I must be a scrapbooker (saying that as if it was a derogatory term). She claimed to be helping me, because she wanted to see me loosen up and try art, but any critique that isn't specific, that's nebulous and cutting like this is not helping, and isn't a critique anyway. It's a way of cutting the toes off someone as they are just entering the water. I've been reading "The Artist's Way" by Julia Cameron, and she has a section that addresses people like this, which helps now, but at the time, I couldn't get past it. She just confirmed what my own inner critic had been saying - "You're no artist, so don't even bother trying".

So, I didn't, I didn't bother trying. I quit. For about two years, pretty much. Oh, I'd paint one color on a background page, and try to journal over it. I'd try an inkjet transfer, since I fell in love with those before I'd even known what mixed-media was. But there was no art. The cool and funny part is, though, is that I kept buying art supplies. I'd budget out my meager income, gather coupons, and slowly, I began amassing all the supplies I'd read about and wanted to try. It was hope. Hope that someday, I'd want to use them, want to try them. Hope that one day, I would be able to recapture that pure joy that came in making that card for my sister.

And one thing that I discovered that I could do, without the scathing judgments of my inner critic, were experiments. Experiments were just about me seeing how a technique worked, and what mediums worked the best. There's no pressure in that. I'm not making art, I'm just messing around, in a quite controlled way, lol. And because I was doing them anyway, I wanted to share my results.

Well, it's 4 years later, with a lot of work on quieting my inner critic, I'm doing art again. It started about 9 months ago, when I went to visit my friend Zura. She was my first introduction to art journaling, and has been my champion in working through my own issues with art. During my visit with her, I saw how easy and freeing an art journal could be. I saw her just sit down with a blank page, and just start painting, or gluing, or whatever, and she's let the page take her where it went. She didn't wait for inspiration, she didn't wait for some wonderful idea - she just sat down and went with it. So, I tried it that way, and there it was - that same joy and flow I'd had when doing my sister's card. It was all right there. So many of my preconceived notions about how you're "supposed" to do an art journal just fell away on that trip.

And four months ago, on moving in with my sister, I took up my art journal again in a big way, and finally, FINALLY, feel like I'm finding my style, my way. I'm finding that I like linearness, blocky neatness in the background, mixed in with some messy, swirly, flourishy-ness on top. I'm still in love with sepia's, and use it even over bright colors. I love to gather up potential images for a spread, and keep them in a Ziploc, knowing I won't use 99% of them. I love making everything matte. I love making pockets to stuff relevant receipts and pictures. I love documenting my week, which is, in turn, me documenting my life.

So, that's the big reason why the experiments have been on hold...I've been plunging ahead with art. That's not to say that I won't be posting experiments I do. I still have several huge posts ahead about how the Epson Durabrite inks inkjet transfers came out. But my posts will probably be sporadic, like they've already been, and only as I do experiments. I'm not too keen to make this an art journal or personal blog.

Just wanted the 5 people or so who might read this to know. :D

PS. Here's one of the first inkjet transfers that I did, about 6 years ago. This was a digital image I put together using Gimp, as a way to learn the program and layers. It was printed with my old, OLD HP PSC 750 on HP Matte Photo Paper (which is now their Everyday Photo Paper, although I think they changed the formula), and I used Omni-Gel as the transfer medium.

Inkjet Transfer Experiment #1 - Using an HP PSC 1350

noreply@blogger.com (DellaLuna) — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:10:00 +0000

This is the experiment that inspired me to start this blog. This is the first of many experiments to come.

Before I show you the results, I wanted to tell you a little bit about the printer I used, the technique I used, the products I used, as well as the conditions I work under. If you just want to see the results without all the "theory", just scroll down to where the pictures begin. :D

The Printer:

It's an HP PSC All-in-One 1350. This experiment is the only time I'll be using it from here on out. There's something wrong with it, where the printer's not reading that there's a color cartridge in it, and after 2 color cartridges failing, I don't want to invest any more money into it. So, after this, my experiments will be done on my new Epson Workforce 500 (It has a document feeder for scanning! But, it doesn't print on transparencies...well, not yet anyway *rubs hands with glee and laughs evilly*).

The most important thing to know is that most inkjet printers from HP, Canon, Lexmark, and others, use dye-based inks. Dye-based inks are water-soluable, and that's what makes it so hard to achieve easy, good results with inkjet transfers. That's the whole reason we need special papers, special products and lots of practice. The HP 1350 uses dye-based inks.

Epson, and now Kodak, make printers that use pigment-based inks (HP makes some, too, but for now, they're for their high-end printers. The name of the ink is Vivera, but, heh, there's Vivera dye inks for their low-end printers, and Vivera pigment inks for their high-end printers. Confused yet?). This means the inks aren't water-soluable. Using pigment inkjet prints means your options open up considerably when it comes to transfers, because you don't have to worry about the inks running from water-based media (like acrylic gels and mediums).

From what I understand, pigment-based inks also last longer when it comes to inkjet prints, and aren't subject to the considerable fading that happens with dye-based inkjet prints. If you'd like to know more about this, you can visit Wilhelm Imaging Research, where you'll find extensive tests done on numerous brands and printers.

The Papers:

I used both JetPrint's Imaging & Photo Paper and HP's Everyday Matte Photo Paper to print my images on. Both papers have clay coatings on them, and so the ink rests in the clay coating, and not so much in the fibers of the paper (from what I understand). That makes it easier to release the inks off of the paper and into your medium, without having the inks all wash away when you try to remove the paper.

Jet Print's paper is the old Great White Imaging & Photo Paper, and per rumors on the Inkjet Transfers Yahoo Group, may no longer be in production. Because I can't find the JetPrint Imaging & Photo paper in stores in a Google search (and the company's website is down), I think it really may be gone.

The Products:

Product 1: Golden's Regular Gel - Matte. Originally made for artists to extend and mattify their acrylic paints, this medium has shown a variety of different uses. It's basically heavy-body acrylic paint without any pigment, or clear acrylic paint. It's acid-free, and makes a great collage glue, too. There's not a lot of moisture in it, so it doesn't warp and wrinkle paper as other glues do. It also turns out to make a great transfer medium.

You can visit the Golden Paints website for more info on the varieties of gels & mediums they have. Also, their instructions for image transfers are here: http://www.goldenpaints.com/artist/directransfer.php.

Most places tell you to use the Glossy version of this gel for image transfers, because the colors show through much better in the glossy versions. That's true, I've found...the colors are more vibrant. That's because acrylic gels are glossy by design, and in order to make an acrylic gel matte, the manufacturer has to add "matting agents", which is basically itty-bitty specs of "white stuff". So, when you use a matte gel, it will dry more translucent than transparent, and thereby, tone down the colors in your image transfer. However, I'm not a big fan of glossy, so I got the matte version.

Product 2: Liquitex's Gloss Medium & Varnish. Basically, this is a glaze medium, thinning agent and acrylic varnish, all rolled into one. It's glossy and pretty liquidy...about the consistency of liquid starch. I tried using one of the Liquitex's gel mediums for a transfer, with horrible results (the inks just washed away), and when I read their website, I found out why. They don't recommend their gels for image transfers, but instead recommend this medium. The instructions for image transfers are here: http://www.liquitex.com/techniques/transfer.cfm

Product 3: Elmer's Squeeze 'N Caulk - Clear. Claudine Hellmuth recommended this product for laser/toner print transfers in her book, Collage Discovery Workshop. It's relatively inexpensive, at $5 for 8 oz. I've found it makes a great collage glue, too, because it's got some latex in it, so the paper remains flexible, with minimal warping. However, I can't tell you if it's archival or not, since caulk makers don't seem to worry about whether they're acid-free on paper *grin*. It dries to a glossy finish.

I can't link to the technique, because it's in Claudine's book. But, I did the exact same technique I used for the Golden Gel and Liquitex GM&V, which was to brush a coat onto my printed image, let it dry, brush another coat on, let that dry, wet the back of the transfer to remove the paper more easily, and peel and rub away. What's left is a transparent "skin" with the image embedded into it. You can then glue the image onto whatever substrate you want.

The Conditions:

I live in Colorado, which is a very dry climate. Everything here dries super quick. Just wanted you to know that, because results may vary depending on humidity.

The Results:

Here are the scans of each transfer. The images on the left started out on the HP Everyday Matte Photo Paper and the images on the right started out on the JetPrint Imaging & Photo Paper. You can click on each image, to see larger versions.

Here's the original image:

Golden's Regular Gel - Matte:

Liquitex Gloss Medium & Varnish:

Elmer's Squeeze 'N Caulk-Clear:

Just a little note...the transfer on the right has a whitish cast because I laid the transfer down on a page of my art journal that had gesso on it, and the caulk picked up some bits of gesso. That stuff is STICKY! So if you try the Elmer's caulk, you shouldn't have that whitish cast.

Conclusions:

I would say so far, JetPrint's Imaging & Photo Paper outperformed HP's Everyday Matte Photo Paper, in it's ability to release the ink into the medium. It was also easier to get off, since it's not as thick as HP's paper. I didn't really like how the green spread all over the transfers, but it's better than a lot of it washing away, which is what happened with HP's paper.

Sigh...too bad they seemed to have stopped making it. I encourage you to join the Inkjet_Transfers Yahoo Group, though, because people there are testing all kinds of papers, looking for a substitute. If anyone's going to find it, it's those folks. :D

It should be noted, however, that the HP paper was developed to work on HP's printers, where the main goal is for the inkjet print to stay in the inkjet paper. So, the HP paper may work better on a printer not made by HP, when it comes to inkjet transfers. Also, because the paper is thicker than the JetPrint paper, it took more water and more time to rub the paper off, which may have allowed more ink to wash away.

And among the three mediums, Golden's Regular Gel - Matte, outperformed the other two mediums, as far as its ability to retain the color in the medium. All three transfer mediums made strong skins, all were easy to apply, and they all dried at about the same rate, so all other things being equal, the ability to retain the bright colors of the original image made the Golden's Gel come out ahead.

The Liquitex GM&V did about the same as the Elmer's Caulk, as far as color retention goes, but I like the Liquitex medium itself a lot better. I like how the Elmer's caulk is stretchy and strong, but it is seriously, seriously sticky. I did this experiment about two months ago, and the Elmer's transfers still have an ultra-sticky surface (FYI, they've been sitting in my art journal, though, so it's possible they just need to be out in circulating air for a lot longer). If I wanted to use these transfers, I'd have to coat the caulk with another medium, just to tone down the dust-magnet-ness of them. Plus, I like the Liquitex medium because it's so multi-purpose (glaze, varnish, Pearl-Ex medium, thinner) and I can get it easily at Michael's.

I'll be repeating this experiment in my next post, only this time, I'll be using my Epson Workforce 500, with Durabrite pigment inks. I'm also going to add transfers from a piece of plain ole copy paper, to see if that makes a difference. Stay tuned!

Image Transfers...

noreply@blogger.com (DellaLuna) — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:09:00 +0000

...ephemeral, lovely, mysterious…

And dang hard to master.

There seems to be at least 20 different transfer techniques that I've run across and at least 30 different products to try, ranging from the ultra-cheap (clear packing tape) to the ultra-expensive (Lazertran). It all varies, depending on where the image came from (inkjet printer? laser printer? magazine?), where it’s going (paper? fabric? metal? clay?), and what you want to use it for (collage? T-shirt? art quilt?).

Sheesh, huh?

My own journey into the world of image transfers started about 6 years ago, when I was wandering the aisles of Michael’s, looking for inspiration (Do you ever do that? Roam the aisles of a craft store, not to buy anything, but just seeing what the possibilities are?). In the glue aisle, I came across Omni-Gel by Houston Art, made specifically for image transfers (makes a great collage glue, too). I read the bottle, and thought “Image transfers? What the heck is an image transfer?”

Oh-ho-ho, was I in for a surprise. I came home, Googled it, and found the Art-E-Zine web page all about them. Suddenly, this whole new world opened up to me, and my wheels began turning. I immediately went back to Michael’s, got the Omni-Gel, printed off some images on my HP Inkjet PSC 750, and set to work.

First, I tried printing off my images on just regular copy paper, and then followed the Omni-Gel process of making a gel “skin” of that image. But, when I wetted down the paper to remove it, the ink ran off of the transfer something fierce. I ended up with a grey-green ghost image, where it had originally been black.

So, next, I tried printing off my images on some HP Matte Photo paper* I had, and wow! It worked! The transfers came out beautifully. The ink ran a bit, but not nearly as bad as it had before. I still have one of my practice ones, shown below, from 5 years ago, and it's still as if I made it yesterday (but it's been in a drawer...hence, the wrinkles…I’ve since learned that HP ink fades considerably in UV light).

However, as beautifully as it finally worked, it bothered me how much it all cost. The Omni-Gel was $10 for an 8 oz. bottle (which I used most of in my practice tests), and the HP Matte Photo paper was $15/50 sheets at the time. I’ve since learned that’s not too bad at all, as far as costs go, but at the time, it bugged me. It also bothered me that it was so hard to get inkjet images to transfer, where you needed special paper, special products, and lots of practice, while there were so many ways to get laser, toner and magazine images to transfer easily. On top of this, just looking at all the image transfer techniques on that Art-E-Zine page just made my head swim with possibilities. I wanted to try them ALL.

So, I set out on a quest, to find my own Holy Grail of Inkjet Image Transfers: the One True Process that would be reasonably priced, relatively easy, and could be used with my inkjet printer.

I’ve learned so much on this quest, the main one being that it doesn’t really exist, the One True Way to the Perfect Inkjet Image Transfer, lol. There are just WAY too many considerations for there to be only one True Way. There’s only the process that works best for what you have, what you need, and what you can afford. But, now I’m hooked, and I wanna know how each process works, when stacked against other processes/products.

And so, because I’m going to test this stuff anyway (especially Inkjet Transfers), I wanted to share the results with you. These experiments aren’t meant to be how-to’s, because there are gazillions of tutorials out there that can explain it far better than I can. Whenever I can, though, I’ll give links to tutorials that I used to run my experiments. My main idea is just to show you the results. It’s helped me so much to be able to compare different products and methods, side-by-side, and I’m hoping that it will help you, too.

But, before I jump into my 1st big Inkjet Transfer experiment, I wanted to point out a few places that have helped me tremendously in learning about inkjet transfers.

Inkjet Transfer Yahoo Group - A group started by fabric artist Lesley Riley, with detailed instructions in their Files section for all kinds of different ways to transfer inkjet images to your fabric, metal, paper, etc. This is the group that taught me about why my HP inks ran so horribly in my first inkjet transfer (because they’re dye inks, and therefore, water-based), as well as why my HP Matte Photo paper worked better than regular copy paper (it’s the clay-coating on the paper). There's continual discussion and advice about printers to use, types of papers or transparencies to print your image on, as well as information about laser and toner copier transfers. Very active, helpful group with no posting requirements.

Art-E-Zine's List of Image Transfer Techniques - This is the list that got me started on this path 6 years ago, when I made my 1st successful image transfer using Omni Gel. Includes techniques for several different mediums, like Polaroid film transfers (expensive medium, but gorgeous results), polymer clay and laser/toner transfers.

Heart-A-Day's Squidoo Lens on Image Transfers - Another excellent resource. She has a great list of tutorials, books and videos that show how to make transfers, step-by-step.

In the next post, I’m going to show you the results of my 1st big Inkjet Transfer experiment, where I compare 2 different papers with 3 different mediums, from images printed on an HP PSC 1350.

*As an aside, HP has changed the packaging on the original Matte Photo paper I used, so now it’s called HP Everyday Matte Photo Paper. I can’t tell you, though, whether it’s the same formula they originally used. It feels the same to me, but because I no longer have my HP PSC 750, I can’t do a true comparison between my 1st transfer with the old paper, and this newly-packaged paper.

Introduction - Let the Experiments Begin

noreply@blogger.com (DellaLuna) — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:08:00 +0000

Hello there. I'm Kristina, a 36 year-old chic who decided to try a more heavy hand at creative endeavors after I got sick almost 4 years ago. Sick with what, you ask? Well, it's a long story, but the highlights are that it involves chronic pain, isn't deadly, and involves "female troubles". Yeah, enough said, eh?

So, I've been taking this crash course in mixed-media art ever since, with the Internet, books and some very kind online friends as my guides. Because of that, I've spent a lot of time trying out different supplies and techniques, in this effort to find out what I enjoy, artistically. And after all this trial and error, I've found that it's become its own means to an end, its own niche, for me.

Meaning, I like to experiment. A lot. With everything I can lay my hands on.

I blame it on my previous, short-lived career as a scientist. Actually, I'm not even sure I can claim that title, scientist, since really, I was a research assistant. That basically means I did the grunt work in a lab, but, for simplicities sake, let's just call that close enough.

After sharing a lot of my technique experiments with a close friend, she recommended that I put this all into a blog. It's a good idea. I don't claim that it's original, though. A lot of these products and techniques, you'll find reviewed and demonstrated on ScrapFriends, on Yahoo Groups like arttechniques, and in various instructional books and DVDs. Probably with better pictures, too. :D

But, I figure, since I'm going to do these experiments anyways, I might as well share them with others. Maybe then, you won't have to shell out quite the cash that I have.

LOL, who are we kidding? You're going to buy supplies anyways, right? Ok then, well, maybe you'll know a little bit more about what works, what doesn't, and maybe you can tell me why something worked for you that didn't work for me.

So, that's why I chose the title "Art Alchemist" for this blog, because these are my early experiments, fumbles and foibles. Plus, "Art Scientist" just didn't sound as catchy or romantic, and "Crafty Scientist" and "Art Alchemy" were already taken, dangit (both blogs that I really enjoy...I mean, where else can you get Western Blot Earrings??? Are those not the coolest things you've ever seen?).

I look forward to sharing what I learn with you, and look forward to hearing about your own experiments as well.