Walking Leaf-Peeping Tour (Plus Hahnemühle Paper Issue)

10/15/24 Amelanchier trees,
Maple Leaf neighborhood 
(This is the side of the block paper that I prefer)

10/16/24 Japanese maple,
Maple Leaf neighborhood

My walking leaf-peeping tour is in full swing. Although not as brilliant as in some years, the trees have not disappointed me. Some have seemed later than usual; others earlier (and already past peak), but the staggered coloring makes every walk exciting.

I learned from my plant-knowledgeable friend Mary Jean that the block of beauties at left are Amelanchier trees. The rest of the year, they are non-descript street trees, but in the fall they turn brilliant red.

At right is one of my favorite Japanese maples within walking distance. It’s not quite at peak yet. Behind it stands a huge maple of another variety, already in the red/purple stage.

Paper notes: Putting these two sketches in the same post gives me an opportunity to complain again about a discovery about this Hahnemühle paper that I had mentioned in a recent post. When I first bought a block of 100 percent cotton Hahnemühle paper for a hand-binding experiment, I assumed it would be the same paper that Hahnemühle uses in the sketchbook that has become my favorite for wet media.

Initially I had noticed that the block paper had slightly more tooth than its bound counterpart, but I was fine with that. What I didn’t realize until I made that full-spread sketch was that the two sides of the paper are significantly different. (Signatures folded with all the sheets facing the same direction would put opposing sides next to each other on a spread.) The difference is especially apparent when I use the aggressive dry-on-wet technique that I love to use with watercolor pencils when sketching foliage because the colors go down more vibrantly than if I apply them dry-on-dry and then apply water afterwards.

I thought I could tolerate this paper anomaly if I simply avoided full spreads that would make the difference apparent. But the more I use the “wrong” side (from my perspective; I’m not sure which side is considered the “right” side), the more it annoys me. The texture on the side I prefer and even its sizing seem to take watercolor pigments more easily or better, or something. It seems less absorbent.

Because I’m a geek, I made some swatch tests using the two opposing sides of the handbound book and a store-bought Hahnemühle book. The purchased book’s paper is definitely the same on both sides, and it’s different from either side of the block paper. While making the swatches, I realized I prefer the paper in the purchased book.

Hahnemuhle 100% cotton block paper (handbound; the two pages show opposite sides of the paper)

Hahnemuhle 100% cotton commercially bound sketchbook (facing pages)

I’m going to have to think about this for the future – whether having the economy and slimmer size of a handbound book is worth the inconsistency of the paper.

Pencil notes: For the early part of leaf-peeping season, I used Caran d’Ache Museum Aquarelles for most of my fall palette. Using my typical dry-on-wet technique for trees, however, I really missed the quick intensity of the Derwent Inktense I had replaced with the Museums.

What??! Am I forsaking my long-beloved Museum Aquarelles for – gasp! – Inktense pencils that I had looked askance at for years? No, of course not. For almost all water-soluble colored pencil techniques, I still favor Museums, which I believe are unquestionably the best. For example, Museums are creamier and more pleasant to apply dry-on-dry, and activation with water is easier to control. But for the specific technique I use for trees, Inktense pencils are more efficient. In terms of color intensity, you probably can’t see much difference between these (done mostly with Inktense) and the ones from September, like this one, done mostly with Museums. It’s more about how they feel to work with.