Pardon my stupidity, but whats the difference between these two?
besides one being pastels and the other pigments ! LOL
One is cleverly marketed, and the other isn’t?
Thanks, now its beginning to make sense! LOL … wish id thought of doing that and was into marketing. LOL
Thanks, Bill! You took the words right out of my mouth! [(-D]
Well, somebody had to come out and say it!
And for the Meatloaf fans among us, it was NOT while I was kissing him! [yuck]
The Mig pigments is actually acrylic paint pigment, it just does not have the binder that makes it paint. Pastels are more like chalk, they are not as concentrated as the Mig pigments are. Thats why when you add paint thinner with the Mig Pigments you get paint. Hope this makes since.
Paint solvent is not binder. What you get when you add solvent to pigment is wet pigment. However, if you add a binder (like Future or another clear coating) and solvent, then you have a paint.
As for the difference in concentration, the pastels might actually make paint that is more opaque, since they also contain what are essentially opaquing and flatting agents, which are necessary with many pigments for just those purposes.
The Mig pigments probably are finer, which may be an advantage, but probably one it would be hard to see. I do grind my pastels in a small mortar and pestle, however.
If you think they’re the same your wrong. Try this…thin the MIG powder with water, stir it real good and spray it on some sheet plastic.
Then do the same with pastel chalk…trust me they’re not the same!
Of course, they’re different, one’s a pigment and one’s chalk, but the USE is the same, and you can get very similar results weathering from either.
Here’s an excerpt from Steve Kubik’s review of MIG Pigments on Missing-Lynx (emphasis mine):
Clever marketing has convinced many people that they need MIG pigments to properly complete their kits. I disagree. Chalk pastels properly ground up can do just as effective a job.
I happen to disagree with the review. Perhaps the reviewer was using them for a single purpose…dusting. I find them use full for white washes (never be able to get the same effect a with a white pastel chalk stick) as well as mixing them with other mediums that pastel chalk will never stand up to. Just a few examples are plaster for dio bases, elmers glue for ground effects, future for wet mud.
Sure if your using them ONLY for dusting, then you’ll get the same effect, but MIG (and MMP) powders are MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more versitile then pastel chalk.
That’s okay, you’re allowed to disagree. Perhaps they cost MUCH MUCH MUCH more for the reasons you list?
perhaps…and maybe they cost MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, more because they last MUCH, MUCH, MUCH longer…
IYAAYAS, you are using them as a coloring agent for other mediums. As true pigments, rather than pigmented material (such as pastels), they will work better for those purposes.
For dusting and washes, however, one is better off with pastels for the reasons mentioned previously, not least of which is cost.
There is another reason to use pastels for dusting and washes. Some pastels come in colors that you would never think of using for either purpose, but which add greatly to the effect. This is because most “weathered” materials in nature contain an astonishing variety of colored materials. For example, when I experimented with these techniques on my P-39, which was olive drab on top, I found the pale yellows and pale, saturated greens to be very useful.
As far as cost is concerned, many artist’s supply stores sell dry pigments. I haven’t compared prices, but it would be worth doing so. I haven’t compared them with tempera paints, either, but I’ll bet they will do nearly as good a job at considerably lower cost. Again, worth investigating.
I continue to agree with Bill about clever marketing, but I’ll give them credit for thinking, too. After all, we willingly spend hundreds of dollars per gallon for our paints. Someone realized that we would probably chuck out a similar amount for just the pigment. [|(]
Wet pigment is paint. A binder is " Something, that creates uniform consistency, solidification, or cohesion." You can buy pigment at a good art store for a fraction of the price of Mig or similar pigments, the only downside is that they come in the primary colors only usually, so when you mix to get the color you want you end up with alot of mixed pigment.
Try applying wet pigment as paint without binders, you’ll find that it suffers from a lack of uniform consistency, solidification or cohesion.
Paint is pigments (calcium carbonate, clays, blood, titanium dioxide, etc.) mixed with a vehicle (solvents, can include water which is a natural solvent, see erosion) and a binder (resins, both natural: Oils or synthetic: Acrylics, Epoxies, or Polyurethanes).
The Pigment imparts color and opacity, the binder is the film forming part and provides adhesion & the vehicle controls flow (viscosity) and is the carrier for the pigments and paint. It is volatile (dries) and does not become part of the paint.
Pastels are pigments mixed with a binder. Chalk pastels use more pigment and less binder (such as chalk or Gypsum) and require a fixative. Oil pastels are pigments mixed with a non-drying oil.
MIG pigments are unmixed pigments.
Egg Tempera is pigments mixed with egg yolks, which is a natural binder. Milk paint is pigments mixed with milk (another natural binder, as well as a vehicle). Barns are traditionally red, as farmer’s had blood (pigment) and milk (binder/vehicle).
guys your making a simple question into a science lesson…the orginal quetion is what is the difference
simple answer they are much more versitile and can be used for much more than just the dusting effect that you acchieve with pastel chalk.
sure the price is kinda high for what you get, but so is the price of breakfast cereal, but you buy that don’t you?
Thanks, Bill. You saved me a pithy reply… [swg]
No worries. I can pith people off real well! [;)]
Thank God for pith helmets!!!
[(-D]