More thoughts on Stonehenge paper.
Above: A sketch of Gert on the first spread of my new Stonehenge journal (approx. 8 inches square). Pentel Pocket Brush Pen and gouache.
On Wednesday, February 3 I posted a more extensive review of how I am finding Stonehenge as a paper for visual journaling.
With the above image I would like to address a couple additional points.
1. I think this paper takes fluid acrylics well (that's what the background is), though, as with watercolors you have to closely monitor your flow on this paper (it is not a watercolor paper). This has the advantage of allowing you to maintain streaks and lines, but if that is not your intention know that you'll have to watch how quickly you work and apply paint. (It could be just the exciting, breath-taking fun you've been looking for or very tiresome indeed.)
2. I found that with simply washing on of the color with a Niji waterbrush portions of the paper developed a look of pilling—seen in the dark portion of Gert's body. It did not take repeated brushwork for this to occur.
3. In general I find watercolors, gouache, and acrylic to look flatter on this paper than on other printmaking papers I've painted on. Flatness of color is to be expected on a printmaking paper when using watercolor inks as the paper isn't sized to hold the ink floating in the sizing like a watercolor paper. I don't think this "flat" look is necessarily bad, but it does require me to think about my working method and process as I go, so that I don't start to get fussy with over-compensations. It makes judging values a bit more difficult.
As I work more in this journal I will post additional reactions to the paper.