Careful about what you find online about photo encaustic.
A few months ago I received an email from a well-respected encaustic instructor I hadn’t met in person. She wrote that students often ask her about incorporating photography into encaustic work, and she routinely refers them to me. She also shared a concern: many teachers are recommending substrates for wax that aren’t truly appropriate—non-absorbent surfaces that give the illusion of success until the work fails later.
This sparked a larger conversation about misinformation spreading in photo-encaustic workshops. I’m not here to gatekeep—anyone can teach—but I do believe teachers must apply critical thinking before opening their doors. We all learn by experimenting, but when techniques are shared without testing or context, harmful practices can become accepted.
Here’s how this often happens: someone tries a shortcut, it doesn’t delaminate right away, they post it in a Facebook group, and others adopt it as “tried and true.” Over time, questionable methods spread.
So what should you do as a student or a maker?
-
Check your sources. Who is teaching this technique? Do they have a consistent practice, gallery representation, or sales history?
-
Seek reliable communities. Join forums and groups known for sound, tested information.
-
Prioritize archival practices. Use high-quality materials, follow tested substrates, and avoid shortcuts that risk your work’s longevity.
-
Respect copyright and ethics. Don’t cut corners with images or permissions.
-
Ask questions and verify. If you don’t know, research and consult multiple trusted sources before adopting a new method.
In short: be curious, but be careful. Your work—and its longevity—depends on it.
When have you been excited to learn something online only to realize it might not be the best practice to use it in your work? Would love to know what you have seen online that has lead you astray.
Be well….be creative,
Yesssss!!!! Amen and Amen and Amen!!!!
Thanks Shelley. Glad the post struck a chord with you:)
So true, Clare.
It’s a bit concerning what I see practiced out there… some of which are, no ventilation at all (not even open windows), fusing over cold wax/oil application OVER encaustic, to knowingly using incorrect gesso. Another one is using gamsol to add to a pigment stick for thinning it down. Yikes.
Thanks for reminding everyone that safe practices and archival work is important.
Thanks Patty….fusing over cold wax medium is really scary to me…..as well as adding gamsol thinner and then fusing. I even see an occasional teacher who doesn’t know what they are doing. My main goal is to teach people how to think about the process and the materials they are using…..not just see that someone else is doing/using and copy.
When this artist mentions absorbency, it’s not super clear to me what exactly is being referred to. At first I thought it meant the surface the entire piece is built on, but I know you use panels which I (with my oil painting background) wouldn’t consider to be absorbent. Unless of course the gesso on the panel is porous enough to count?
So my guess, as a total noob to this technique, is that the person who contacted you was referring to the material on which the photograph is printed. Is that what she meant? I could definitely see how some kinds of modern photo papers, which seem to include a layer of some sort of plastic, might not do well over the long term if embedded in wax.
Hi Tracy, it’s a little different than you are thinking. The first layer of wax needs to melt into the substrate so that the second layer can be fused to the first, etc. Although in your world you wouldn’t consider wood panels to be absorbent they indeed they will accept a layer of wax to be fused into them. The material in which the photo is printed becomes the new ground when being mounted to a board, and that too has to be absorbent. But working directly on wood panels is acceptable…..however, glass, plastic, metal and various other materials don’t allow the wax to absorb into them and therefore have a risk of delaminating over time….I tell my students to think about it as the wax and the substrate become one.
Clare, as always, I appreciate your sound wisdom. Thank you for your constancy!
Thanks Robin!
Thank you. A good reminder. I still refer back to your class notes for solid studio practice. One thing I saw in a video last week which seemed questionable was using Yes paste on top of encaustic to adhere a photograph to the surface.
I’ve even seen strange practices in demos in Art supply stores.
Glad I got the basics from you.
Yikes, don’t tell me someone was actually telling people to use YES paste on top of wax! Why??? Nevermind. It’s not my place to understand the way people think. It warms my heart to hear that you still go back and refer to the class notes. Just today a student asked a question in class that has never been asked and I didn’t know the answer to…..but logically thought through it and doing a little research we came up with an answer. It brings me back to how important it is to knowing your materials.
Making archival work that is sound is so important. This conversation leads me to pose a question. I have an image that was printed 30×40 on watercolor paper by a local lab. A couple of years ago, I used Yes paste and glued it down to a wooden cradle. I’m not satisfied with this image and am wanting to recoup my wooden cradle. I’m thinking about gluing down another image (that’s printed on watercolor paper) on top. I’m thinking that I should paint over the original print with tempera paint (or encaustic gesso?) before gluing down the second image on top? Do you think that this will still be an archival piece?
Thanks.
There would be no need to paint over the original piece unless your new piece is really light and you don’t want to image underneath to show through. Watercolor paper seems to be really thick though…..but if you want to be safe….then yes, put a layer of white tempera paint down as a visual barrier. If you use all archival material then you still have an archival piece.
So glad I am in your class and learning from someone who knows and respects the use of archival materials and methods in. I have questioned a couple of mixed media artists in the past as to whether their work was archival and they didn’t know. Their prices were high enough that they should have been. I lost respect for them right there and certainly didn’t make any purchases.
Thanks for your comment Sara. I’m such a huge believer in honoring your work and honoring your customer, that I would never think to use something that isn’t archival. I want people to love the work that I make and part of that, for me, is using the best materials on the market. My work isn’t cheap…..so why would I use cheap or inferior materials? Just never makes sense to me.
Thanks for the information. I often see alcohol ink used in encaustic. I’ve checked with the makers of the ink who say it’s not archival so I don’t use it but I know some well respected artists using it so of course others use it. Yes, it is vibrant but that doesn’t mean one should sell it.
I agree with you Mary. If I am selling your work, I believe it’s my responsibility to use the highest quality archival materials that I can afford. Alcohol inks are not lightfast and will fade over time and are not considered archival. As an educator, I feel it’s important to teach people how to think through their process and not just follow along with what someone else has done. We need to understand the materials we are using and if selling our work, both honor the work and the purchaser by using archival products.