Re: Marshall's Photo Paints?

Marilyn Dalrymple <marilyn160@xxxxxxxxxxx> · Sun, 09 Sep 2007 14:09:32 -0700

Thank you, Louie.  I've tried the pencils, and 
you are right - they are effective.  I have a difficult time, though, when 
trying to cover a large area.  I should just use smaller photographs, 
huh?  {:->

Marilyn
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"It is never too late to be what you 
might have been."  George Eliot

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: 
  Louie 
  Powell 
  To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - 
  Professionals - Students 
  Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 1:25 
  PM
  Subject: RE: Marshall's Photo 
  Paints?

  Marilyn ? 

  Ordinary oils are opaque and can obscure 
  the underlying photograph.  However, if they are applied with a very 
  light hand, they can result in very pleasant pastel colors with enough of the 
  underlying image still showing through.  Also, there are transparentizing 
  gel additives that supposedly make them less 
  opaque.

  I share your frustration with Marshall?s oils. 
   Actually, I have found that pencils are a much easier 
  solution.

  Louie 

  From: 
  owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marilyn 
  Dalrymple
Sent: Sunday, 
  September 09, 2007 3:45 PM
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - 
  Professionals - Students
Subject: Marshall's Photo 
  Paints?

  Can anyone here give me a reason 
  why I shouldn't use a good brand of regular artist's oil paints 
  instead of Marshall's Photo Oils for hand coloring 
  photographs?

  The tiny tubes of Marshall's, that split 
  open and squirt paint everywhere when I try to twist off a stuck tube lid, 
  have caused me to run out of patience.

  Marilyn

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"It 
  is never too late to be what you might have been."  George 
  Eliot