[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Smeary Speedball
- To: Multiple recipients of list BOOK_ARTS-L <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Smeary Speedball
- From: I am not Kevin <afn13679@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 03:45:20 -0500
- Message-id: <199701010909.BAA09415@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "The Book Arts: binding, typography, collecting" <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you, Joyce! And here I thought I'd completely lost my printmaking
touch (as it is, which I admit isn't much to speak of) when, after a few
years off, I tried playing with the Speedball waterbase inks. Nice to
know I can blame my lack of success on the inks, not on my own sudden
inability to print ...
Joyce Jenkins wrote:
> You're absolutely right when you say Speedball waterbase inks smear. I
> first tried some a couple years ago and found that the least
> moisture--like glue on the backside, was enough to cause smudges and
> dirty places. I set them in the bottom of the pile and in experimenting
> later I found that some seemed to have cured with time, esp. the colors,
> but others were as bad as ever and I had to throw them away as unusable.
> I was using them for end sheets and covers and little projects.
> Daniel Smith and Speedball oil base work fine. I haven't tried others.