Blog

Brief comparison of two sanded pastel papers

LuxArchival and Fisher 400

I recently found out there is a new (to me) pastel paper called LuxArchival. I got interested as it is a) white, and b) on 300 gsm/140 Lb watercolour paper.

So far, I’ve mostly used the UK made Fisher 400, which has a beige tone, and the paper is really card.

I tried out the LuxArchival with this painting, expecting the paper to be very similar to Fisher 400:

 

(20x40 cm, Bullfinches)

 

I noticed a few different features of the white LuxArchival:

 

• It took more effort for the first layers to cover the paper.
• The pastel marks tended to be slightly more visible, as in more striated.
• The paper behaved a bit like the coated papers, like Canson MT Touch and ArtSpectrum

 

Otherwise, the two papers were very similar. I only applied pastel sticks and did not do a wet underpainting.

 

Next, I decided to test them side by side. First, I made a vertical strip of a lighter blue Rembrandt pastel stick, applied with a firm touch (see image below, LuxA to the left, Fisher to the right). Then I added various colours of the same brand, starting each colour lower down on the strip than the previous one. Each new colour got its own mark beside the long mark. I did this for two reasons: To test how the papers interacted with harder pastels, and, to see how many layers they would take.

 

 

When I had a total of 14 layers, I stopped, and gently blended the whole strip of colour, in order to regain some tooth. Both papers allowed for finger blending at the fourth layer, while one to three layers were a bit hard on the fingertips. (No image of the blending.)

I then proceeded to add warm colours on top of the first ones, using the same manner. (See image below.)

After only two more applications of pastel, I decided that the papers were so saturated that I needed to switch to a softer brand, namely Unisons. In all, I got a total of 23 firmly applied layers onto both papers.

 

 

As you can see in the image above, the ‘look’ of the two stripes are not identical. It seemed to me like the LuxArchival would allow for even more layers, when the Fisher 400 was quite saturated. Normally, I never apply 23 layers when painting, so that is of no great importance.

 

Just for fun, I took some macro photos of the marks (see images below).

 

The first image shows the ‘naked’ papers side by side:

 

 

The below picture shows layer 23. While it is hard to see in real life, the macro photos show that the orange on top of (mostly) violet is less blended with the underlying layers on the LuxArchival, than on the Fisher 400. The surface of the LuxArchival is slightly less even, while the Fisher 400 is a bit smoother.

 

 

 

Finally, below, there is a macro photo of the single blue layer I started with. LuxArchival have more spaced aggregates of pastel than the Fisher 400 does. The white paper (left) is much more noticeable than the 3 values darker one (right). This effect disappears with many layers and a heavier application of pastel pigments.

 

 

 

 

Conclusion:

The two papers are very similar, with some idiosyncratic features. Both are comparable to Uart, which has a grain that is slightly more striated. I like both papers very well and will test them for how they handle wet underpaintings.