Paint review: WIlliamsburg Raw Umber

As I have explained before, returning to painting after a prolonged break has left me with a lot of investigating to do and this includes exploring different paints. One brand that caught my eye straight away was Williamsburg who are based in Brooklyn. Its a similar story to Michael Harding, one slightly obsessive person being seduced by the craft of traditional paint making and things growing organically from local roots. In some respects their philosophies seem similar too, being about mixing as much high quality pigment as possible in as little high quality oil as possible. There appear to be differences though; Harding's paints are remarkably consistent across every colour I've tried whereas Williamsburg make a virtue of each paint being different because it reflects the different qualities of each pigment. In practice, I was expecting this to mean paints of a similar quality to Harding, but with more character.

So, Raw Umber.

First impressions is that this is an incredibly stiff paint which is difficult to get out of the tube. Second impressions were "This is not Raw Umber!" Third impression, after reading the label and comparing with other brands is "This is actually Raw Umber, the other things I've used aren't." In fact, the fine print declares the pigment to be PBR7, Natural Iron Oxide with Manganese. I am used to PBr6, Synthetic Iron Oxide. The difference isn't noticeable when first squeezed onto the palette but very noticeable in use.

It is the coldest, dirtiest, muddiest umber I have used, and for my purposes this is a good thing. In use, it is more opaque than I was expecting and is not as stiff as the tube fooled me into believing - it holds marks well but brushes out fine when required - with the caveat that it works better with stiff brushes than soft ones. The difference in pigment is most noticeable when mixing colours. I like to use umber mixed with ultramarine to give a rich pseudo-black for some of the silty, composty riverbank mud because it is very dark but when brushed out very thinly it takes on the colours of indian ink. This is useful for me because under the black layer of silt here there is usually clay. With the Williamsburg paint, this no longer works. To get the same effect, I have found it necessary to switch to Prussian Blue. I can't quite work out whether that is due to the slight difference in hue or whether the Williamsburg actually affects a mix more intensely so needs a more powerful blue to have the same effect. I suspect from the stiffness it is just incredibly densely loaded with pigment.

So where does that leave us? I think there is room for both the Harding and the Williamsburg versions in my paintbox. At this level, better and worse don't apply, things are just different from each other and more or less suited to particular situations. The Harding is smoother, maybe even more forgiving and is easier to use on smooth surfaces and gradations of colour. The Williamsburg is gnarlier, earthier and more interesting. I will use the Harding lower down in the painting, for traditional underpainting, for areas where it will peek through and modify subsequent layers of paint and for areas of flat colour. I will save the Williamsburg for higher layers in the painting, for texture and for playing in the mud.

Looking through the colour charts, Williamsburg appear to have an unrivalled range of earth colours; I look forwards to trying these; but I confess I am wary and unsure about how the approach evident in this tube would play out in the brighter colours - could they be too extreme? I hope to find out some time in the next couple of months.