Watercolors & Stonehenge

By Stonehenge, I mean the PAPER, of course. So, me and Kelly were at Blick's the other day and walked past these watercolors. She commented that they were pretty expensive and my response was "Ah, let's get a couple and play with them." Now, anyone who's ever met me (or especially been shopping with me), knows this is SO unlike me. I'm the "it's too expensive" queen. But that crown gets heavy, and look how pretty these colors are!

Of course, us being us, we tested them out in a journal to see which colors we actually wanted and settled on these.

Something I've seen Milliande and Jane Davenport both do is put ink in a waterbrush and use it that way - genius, right? So I figured, why not try it with the watercolors? So I did!

Then I played with them on a little chunk of Stonehenge. Here is something interesting about Stonehenge paper. First, this isn't the watercolor paper. I absolutely HATE Stonehenge watercolor paper. It is PRINTMAKING paper. It's 90 pound, but it feels like 140 pound watercolor paper. It's smooth, but not creamy like Arches or Fabriano. And the weirdest thing is - the paper sucks up EVERYTHING. This is watercolor, every bit of it:

Here I'm using a regular brush and water to try and reactivate it. You can SEE the water on the fuschia, and you can also see that it's not moving.

Personally, I think this is FANTASTIC! I like the translucency of the colors, but I hate then stuff reactivates! Happy Goog!!