Micron vs. rest of the world

barto

Gravity Guru
I still struggle with fine lines on hard surfaces. I own Iwata Hp-C+ 0.2 and I can paint really fine lines on traditional paper, but when surface is not absorbent my fine lines goes splatter. I know about paint reduction and psi reduction. I heard that Micron has better atomisation at low psi. Does the Micron make a significant difference on hard surfaces?
 
Are you able to post a short video of trying to pull some fine lines? You’d be amazed how much people can pick up just from sound and picture. I can get pretty fine lines from my Eclipse CS when everything so dialled in just right. The Micron does make this a little easier. But the HP-C s a pretty capable brush. What paint are you using?
 
It is not an airbrush problem it is learning paint reduction and air pressure and trigger control.
One of the old long almost forgotten mods that was here named Seamonkey aka Josh Seaman use to practice on glass, If you can paint with out skating on clean glass you can paint on any surface.
While a micron does atomize better you can also look into the PS770 which is exactly like the CM-C+ micron with a .18 nozzle set up vs the .23 the Micron CM-C+ comes with standard.

 
Why I use the micron the most.
Is not to be able to make the fine lines.
It's about the other benefits.

Removable head. (The nozzle can be left in place when cleaning)

The hole to adjust your o ring is also an added security to see if paint is leaking.

You can release your spring tension and still screw the back fully on.

The only thing that can help with the fine lines is that a micron does well with low pressure.

But the difference between another good airbrush is very small.
 
I use CI paints at home, urethanes seems a lot easier but not usable at home.
When I paint fine lines with overreduced CI the psi is knocked down to about 10 psi. Than I pull the trigger slowly... long dead zone, not enough psi. As soon as I reach the point wnen paint flows smoothly, my fine lines goes splatter, blown by air. When psi is enough to make paint flow, it is high enough to blow the lines at the same time. I think I need lower psi, but my airbrush needs more psi than I do. Or maybe larger distance/angle is the key?
 
20200505_192119-01.jpeg left: Yupo (even sanded 2000), right: normal paper
CI, 13 psi, hp-c+
 
Last edited by a moderator:
left: Yupo (even sanded 2000), right: normal paper
CI, 13 psi, hp-c+
What is your paint reduction?
Yupo is very smooth and susceptible to spidering.

I was able to get somewhat consistent results with 3:1(Reducer:paint). It does take quite good trigger control though.
The paper lines are slightly darker due to the paper absorbing more paint.

The lines would need to be built over many passes.
eadadefa3e06f49c9cc1e8228acf7dde.jpg


Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk
 
Another note on Yupo. I've found a reducer with more alcohol worked better for me in the past. The alcohol evaporates and the paint dries faster than reducers with more water.

Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk
 
This will sound counterintuitive - but, for fine lines reduce the paint less. If you need a transparent color, use trans base rather than reducer to get what you are after. CI will spray through a brush a lot thicker than you think it should be. I know there a lot of people that use CI unreduced - I do, however, need to add just a drop or two of reducer to it to get good flow... I have in the past reduced it like crazy - 10 parts reducer to 1 part paint, etc... still do at times, but for fine work i try to leave it thick as I can.
 
This will sound counterintuitive - but, for fine lines reduce the paint less. If you need a transparent color, use trans base rather than reducer to get what you are after. CI will spray through a brush a lot thicker than you think it should be. I know there a lot of people that use CI unreduced - I do, however, need to add just a drop or two of reducer to it to get good flow... I have in the past reduced it like crazy - 10 parts reducer to 1 part paint, etc... still do at times, but for fine work i try to leave it thick as I can.
I was able to pull some lines with no reduction. Super fine lines and detail work do require some kind of reduction. As you said, I generally use a combination of reducer and trans base to get what I want.
I've also really given up on pulling super fine details freehand, it's just so much cleaner and less dangerous to use shields and masks for fine details.

Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk
 
This will sound counterintuitive - but, for fine lines reduce the paint less. If you need a transparent color, use trans base rather than reducer to get what you are after. CI will spray through a brush a lot thicker than you think it should be. I know there a lot of people that use CI unreduced - I do, however, need to add just a drop or two of reducer to it to get good flow... I have in the past reduced it like crazy - 10 parts reducer to 1 part paint, etc... still do at times, but for fine work i try to leave it thick as I can.
I found an SBS from Marcus Eisenhuth, he also avoids reduction on synthetic paper.
 
At the risk of respectfully contradicting some people here, the brush is somewhat at play in this case. I also have an HP-CH+ that used to be my go to brush many years ago. I rarely use it now, using either my Microns or my Eclipse. The reason is that for some reason or another the HP-C throws a lot more paint, and takes more pressure to make it "go". It is a fantastic brush for all around use, and is great at fine lines on porus surfaces, but the volume of air needed to get the paint moving on hard surfaces ALWAYS caused me problems.

I downgraded to my eclipse for any fine work on hard surfaces until years later I bought a micron. I don't think it's a matter of atomization, as the atomization of paint off the HP-C was always smooth as silk and let me do some of the best subtle color control work of my life, but absolutely, to get the paint flowing well, I had to push up the pressure to about 18 to 22 psi in order to get air volume, which is just too much for any close detail work on hard surfaces.

Note that I am talking about volume of air, and not pressure exactly, but volume. They are related, but not quite the same thing. If you have a good tank compressor that can move a lot of air at low pressure, then this isn't a problem. But if you have a smaller compressor that has to up the pressure to move the same amount of air in the same time, this can be tricky.

I think that the inner cavity behind the nozzle cap is greater in the HP-C series, or at least that is my impression. It is fantastic for atomizaton, but trickier for control.

Now, you can mitigate it to a large degree by really over-reducing the paint, but that comes with it's own risk of spidering. With time, and a lot of practice, you certainly can tame the unruly beast and get fine lines on hard surfaces as a few have said above, but the learning curve for it on an HP-C is a LOT harder than with an eclipse or micron.

In my opinion being the proud owner of a lot of different Iwata guns, the HP-C are really optimized for medium density paints on traditional fine arts or illustration surfaces. You can get them to perform reasonably well on hard surfaces, but it will take a lot of practice with trigger control and experiments with paint reductions and pressures to get the detail you want. Honestly, I can say I found that easier with my eclipse.

The micron is great for fine lines on just about any surface, but even then, you need really good trigger control to take advantage of that, and you need to use very reduced paints, which means a lot of passes for coverage.

With the right surface, paint, and pressure the HP-C brushes can perform like a micron, but they are much more finicky about the conditions they need to get there.

It will come with practice. It just takes some patience.
 
At the risk of respectfully contradicting some people here, the brush is somewhat at play in this case. I also have an HP-CH+ that used to be my go to brush many years ago. I rarely use it now, using either my Microns or my Eclipse. The reason is that for some reason or another the HP-C throws a lot more paint, and takes more pressure to make it "go". It is a fantastic brush for all around use, and is great at fine lines on porus surfaces, but the volume of air needed to get the paint moving on hard surfaces ALWAYS caused me problems.

I downgraded to my eclipse for any fine work on hard surfaces until years later I bought a micron. I don't think it's a matter of atomization, as the atomization of paint off the HP-C was always smooth as silk and let me do some of the best subtle color control work of my life, but absolutely, to get the paint flowing well, I had to push up the pressure to about 18 to 22 psi in order to get air volume, which is just too much for any close detail work on hard surfaces.

Note that I am talking about volume of air, and not pressure exactly, but volume. They are related, but not quite the same thing. If you have a good tank compressor that can move a lot of air at low pressure, then this isn't a problem. But if you have a smaller compressor that has to up the pressure to move the same amount of air in the same time, this can be tricky.

I think that the inner cavity behind the nozzle cap is greater in the HP-C series, or at least that is my impression. It is fantastic for atomizaton, but trickier for control.

Now, you can mitigate it to a large degree by really over-reducing the paint, but that comes with it's own risk of spidering. With time, and a lot of practice, you certainly can tame the unruly beast and get fine lines on hard surfaces as a few have said above, but the learning curve for it on an HP-C is a LOT harder than with an eclipse or micron.

In my opinion being the proud owner of a lot of different Iwata guns, the HP-C are really optimized for medium density paints on traditional fine arts or illustration surfaces. You can get them to perform reasonably well on hard surfaces, but it will take a lot of practice with trigger control and experiments with paint reductions and pressures to get the detail you want. Honestly, I can say I found that easier with my eclipse.

The micron is great for fine lines on just about any surface, but even then, you need really good trigger control to take advantage of that, and you need to use very reduced paints, which means a lot of passes for coverage.

With the right surface, paint, and pressure the HP-C brushes can perform like a micron, but they are much more finicky about the conditions they need to get there.

It will come with practice. It just takes some patience.
I'd agree about the HP-CH. I haven't used mine that much, but do recall that it did like higher psi to spray properly.

Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk
 
Interesting observations on the use of the HP-C(+). I am not discounting anyone's firsthand experience, just looking to quantify it. If there is a real difference rather than perceived, I would like to document it.

To that end, I ran into the studio to do a quick comparison. I grabbed a well used .3 HP-C Plus off the shelf, and my most trusted .2 HP-BH out of the holder on my desk. I used 4 drops of E'tac PS Shading Black in each brush. I also added 1 drop of E'tac 2050 solution (3 2050/2 water) and 1 drop of water to each brush. I have a digital air pressure gauge on my set up that allows .5psi adjustments. I set the pressure to 12.5psi and connected the HP-C Plus to the QC at the end of my hose, and initiated spray, and then pulled the thinnest line I felt I could maintain, and did a bunch of squiggles, as well as a few start line, stop, repeat. I then disconnected the HP-C Plus from the QC, and connected the HP-BH with no other adjustments. I performed the same squiggles and start/stop lines. I repeated the test upping the pressure, and did not see enough of a difference between the spray patters produced by either to conclude there was enough difference to determine one would have to use a higher pressure to produce the same results over the other.

Older picture of my in-line gauge, not the setting I used -
adjustment3.jpg

psi-comparison1.jpg

My thoughts go back to the original posters explanation of the brush he is using. An HP-C+ with a .2 nozzle. Are you using the original nozzle cap that was on the .3? And, what needle are you using? The nozzle cap from the HP-BH will fit on the C+, and help to create a better suction on the .2 nozzle, along with a steeper stripping angle for the needle. It should aid in lowering your air pressure, and keeping your line edges cleaner. If you are not using the .2 needle, go ahead and get that also. While they are tapered the same (.2 and .3) the thinner needle fits the .2 nozzle better.
 
Last edited:
Interesting observations on the use of the HP-C(+). I am not discounting anyone's firsthand experience, just looking to quantify it. If there is a real difference rather than perceived, I would like to document it.

To that end, I ran into the studio to do a quick comparison. I grabbed a well used .3 HP-C Plus off the shelf, and my most trusted .2 HP-BH out of the holder on my desk. I used 4 drops of E'tac PS Shading Black in each brush. I also added 1 drop of E'tac 2050 solution (3 2050/2 water) and 1 drop of water to each brush. I have a digital air pressure gauge on my set up that allows .5psi adjustments. I set the pressure to 12.5psi and connected the HP-C Plus to the QC at the end of my hose, and initiated spray, and then pulled the thinnest line I felt I could maintain, and did a bunch of squiggles, as well as a few start line, stop, repeat. I then disconnected the HP-C Plus from the QC, and connected the HP-BH with no other adjustments. I performed the same squiggles and start/stop lines. I repeated the test upping the pressure, and did not see enough of a difference between the spray patters produced by either to conclude there was enough difference to determine one would have to use a higher pressure to produce the same results over the other.

View attachment 62575

My thoughts go back to the original posters explanation of the brush he is using. An HP-C+ with a .2 nozzle. Are you using the original nozzle cap that was on the .3? And, what needle are you using? The nozzle cap from the HP-BH will fit on the C+, and help to create a better suction on the .2 nozzle, along with a steeper stripping angle for the needle. It should aid in lowering your air pressure, and keeping your line edges cleaner. If you are not using the .2 needle, go ahead and get that also. While they are tapered the same (.2 and .3) the thinner needle fits the .2 nozzle better.
I note that you are testing on what looks like paper. I'd be interested to see the same comparison done on a hard surface. Skating of paint at low pressures is much easier to see there.

I noted above that on porus surfaces the HP-C performed much like a micron, but the amount of paint it was throwing at a pressure high enough to get good atmoization it would skate or spider for me on hard surfaces too easily.

I would be interested to know if you find anything similar.

With my eclipse with .3 setup and low pressure. (10psi) I can get good consistent fine lines on a hard surface (plastic or aluminum), and with the micron of course. With the HP-CH .2 at that pressure I would get stuttering unless I thinned the paint to nearly unworkable levels. I brought the pressure up to about 18 and I was fine doing hairs breadth lines on paper and I got excellent atomization but it would spider too easily on non porus supports.

The media of choice was golden high flow or wicked. Wondering if that plays into it as well.

Sent from my SM-N920W8 using Tapatalk
 
I'll repeat the test again on Yupo so you can see the results, but I have been doing this long enough to know based on what I have already seen. Yes, the paint has a TON to do with it, as does the reduction, and the relative humidity in your work environment.

You indicate you have your HP-CH as a .2; or was that a typo? If you are using the stock .3 nozzle cap, you have handicapped the brush. The nozzle cap opening on the .2 is @0.68mm vs. 0.81mm on the .3. A larger gap between nozzle and nozzle cap will require a higher air pressure to achieve the same paint draw.

Oh, and paint skating on any surface is either too much air, or too much paint...
 
Yeah, I was using a 0.2 setup needle and nozzle. I don't remember swapping out the cap tho. But it was a lot of years ago, and I haven't used it in ages. I bet that your conjecture is right, and that I am using the original cap, pulling it out and looking, it appears to be the original. So that's why it takes more air to atomize well. It would easily explain the behavior I saw. It would take more air to push paint, and that made it far more likely to skate when up close to the surface. I never thought to consider the change in needle and nozzle would create a bigger cavity than stock.
 
Yeah, I was using a 0.2 setup needle and nozzle. I don't remember swapping out the cap tho. But it was a lot of years ago, and I haven't used it in ages. I bet that your conjecture is right, and that I am using the original cap, pulling it out and looking, it appears to be the original. So that's why it takes more air to atomize well. It would easily explain the behavior I saw. It would take more air to push paint, and that made it far more likely to skate when up close to the surface. I never thought to consider the change in needle and nozzle would create a bigger cavity than stock.

I don't think Iwata ever offered the cap as part of a conversion - but it does make a BIG difference. The cap would be the same one used on the HP-BH. The .2 cap that fits the C has a line cut through the knurling - like that on the HP-BH I posted a pict of earlier.
 
Back
Top