Category Archives: Reviews

Review – Crayola Crayons (120 Crayon Box Part 1 – White, Pinks, Reds, and Purples)

Posted on by
1

When it comes to crayons there is one brand that immediately comes to everyone’s mind (right before “and Roseart? Is that their name?”): Crayola. They’ve been making crayons for more than a century, and seem to really know what they’re doing. Their products are pretty close to ideal for school use, and can be used, in good hands, to even make fine quality art.

photo-173

They’re simple and sturdy, with just a traditional paper wrapper that is almost instantly recognizable to anyone who was raised in the United States. They’re harder to make a mess with than markers and easier to use than colored pencils. Still, they don’t lend themselves well to more advanced techniques, like any type of blending really. But to solve that, Crayola has a (relatively inexpensive) box of their 120 “standard” colors (excluding metallic, sparkling, and retired colors) available to give you as many different shades as you need. I roughly organized this set and split it into 4 parts of 30 crayons each. Where I will go through and evaluate each color and whether or not getting the 120 is really that much better and the 64 or 96.

photo-174photo-175(2)

White – White is white, and on white paper, virtually invisible. There isn’t much of an off-white look either; it really does look like white paper on another color. It’s probably everyone’s least used crayon, but it’s good for highlighting, and covering an entire page without being able to see what your doing.

Piggy Pink – And very quickly we get to one I’m not really a fan of. Piggy Pink is a next-to-impossible-to-see color that, based on all of my observations, might actually be a pink hue. Maybe it’s for highlighting, but how often do you see that with crayons? I think it’s close to useless.

Salmon – Next up is a Salmon, which does look like the fish, though darker. Like most of the pinks it doesn’t cover well and is quite pale, but its still a pleasant color that could find a variety of uses.

Shocking Pink – Shocking pink is one of those fluorescent colors. It is easily the brightest pink and since the set has no “hot pink” it is a suitable replacement. It’s good for coloring 80’s clothing and aliens, but I suspect some could find more creative uses for it.

Radical Red – The name of this one is a bit of a swap, I think. It’s not really a red, much more of a pink (even with pink being weird as far as the light our eyes see and everything). I would best describe it as a darker, and more subdued, version of hot pink. Think the 90’s version of Shocking Pink up there, with much the same uses.

Wild Watermelon – Wild watermelon is quite an apt name for this one: it does look like a ripe (perhaps a bit overly so) watermelon. It’s a bright spring or flower color that unfortunately doesn’t cover well and has limited use.

Razzle Dazzle Rose – A color very similar to shocking pink, but with slightly different coverage properties (less even, but darker in spots). It is a bit darker and does give off a hint of the classic rose color, but it isn’t very spectacular.

Carnation Pink – This pink does resemble a carnation, but of course flowers range hugely in colors. It is a good flower color and covers well, but it’s too light to have many other applications.

Pink Flamingo – Despite the name being slightly misleading (it doesn’t really look like a flamingo, it’s quite a bit darker) this is one of my favorite pinks. It has a nice easy-to-see color, that covers alright, and has a versatile (for pink) range, from flowers, to berries, and even flamingo shading.

Tickle Me Pink – Lacking any knowledge about what color “Tickle Me” is I will say that this pink is a very similar one to the Pink Flamingo, it covers better and is a more “blueish” color. Filling many of the same roles, but being just a hint different.

Cotton Candy – Cotton Candy is one of the last “It is really hard to see this” colors we’ll have for a while (until lavender, and then not until yellows) but by virtue of it being one of those I am not a fan. It does cover surprisingly well, but it isn’t the color of cotton candy (at least what I’ve eaten) nor much else.

Mauvelous – Mauvelous is a wonderful pun and a nice-looking color. It isn’t the best covering one, but it is a light, purple-ish pink that is nice too look at. The one problem though is that the color isn’t mauve. It might be in the same realm (as in purple) but it wouldn’t have nearly the same uses.

Scarlet – Scarlet has always been one of my favorite colors. It’s a nice very bright red that looks good in highlighting, flowers, and anything that is generally a red color. It doesn’t cover as well as some of the other colors unfortunately. But it does draw the eyes while not being too overbearing.

Brick Red – Another apt name, this color is very much like a new brick wall with perhaps a dash of purple. It works for brick, obviously, and some older red items, like old fire hydrants and the like. Like most reds it’s all right in coverage, but lets the white show through here and there.

Razzmatazz – If I had to tell you what a Razzmatazz was, I wouldn’t be able to. I might guess that it would be a similar color to a raspberry, which this color is. It is also very much unlike Razzle Dazzle Pink, being a fairly dark pink/purple-y red that covers well enough. It’s good for berries and flowers and such, but I couldn’t pick it out in a lineup.

Red – A classic color there really isn’t much to say about. With coverage being much smoother than all of the pinks or pink-likes, and a pigment suitable for fire trucks, or apples it is an indespenable one.

Pink Sherbert – An interesting spelling choice on this one, but an apt description. This color would be very usable for frozen fruity treats. It is darker and covers better than most of the pinks and is quite soothing and cool looking.

Wild Strawberry – Wild Strawberry does look like a wild berry, but I’m not sure a strawberry would be the one I’d pick. It is a bit more purple/blue than most strawberries I’ve seen, but perhaps that’s just because I haven’t seen them in the wild. It is a nice raspberry or grape color as well, but like most reds it lacks good coverage.

Violet Red – This color is very hard to differentiate from the previous wild strawberry. It’s a little lighter, and a little more purple, but it has much the same use and properties.

Maroon – Maroon is one of my favorite colors in general, but it is generally a redish-brown-purple. And this version is distinctly less brown than is typical. I’d almost call Brick Red a more standard maroon color. It’s still a very nice, deep, satisfying color here, that gives the best coverage out of any of the reds. Unfortunately its uses are limited to shading, bruises, some clothing, and Texas A&M paraphernalia.

Cerise – Another color I am mostly unfamiliar with, but the name is quite accurate here. A purplish red, cerise doesn’t have many uses, save berries again. But it is a pleasant, lighter color that covers decently when applied.

Jazzberry Jam – Crayola seem to really like adding “z’s” to their color names, a theme that another color will follow before we’re through this first part. Jazzberry Jam is a lighter purplish-red and is indeed like many types of jams, jellies and berries. It’s got good coverage and is nice on the eyes.

Blush – Another good color name, Blush is exactly what I would have expected this color to be, or at least one of the variations. It’s a medium tone red-purple that covers very well and could be used as an actual blush color, unfortunately, despite it being nice looking, there isn’t much else to do with it.

Lavender – A fairly accurate representation of the flower, lavender is a light purple that is one of the more difficult crayons to see, and doesn’t cover very well, but is also one of the most interesting to look at. Not much to use it for, though.

Hot Magenta – This color is very similar to Razzle Dazzle Rose, with a dash more purple and some of the “atomic” glow taken out. I’m not a fan, and it doesn’t cover well, but it is seeable and not too hard on the eyes.

Purple Pizzazz – The final of the various “azz” colors, Purple Pizzazz is pretty unspectacular. It’s a light purple suitable for light purple things that covers all right. It’ll get use as an in-between color, but I can’t see reaching for it that often.

Magenta – Taking time off from Blues Clues magenta makes a good showing here. It covers well, looks very much like magenta, and because of that is nice too look at. Other than again flowers, berries, and the character, I’m not sure where it would be used, though.

Fuchsia – The hardest to spell color is also one of the hardest for people to pin down what exactly makes it (like chartreuse). Fortunately to that end it is a flower, and this color isn’t quite like the examples of the flower I’ve seen. But it would still work for other flowers and has good properties.

Red Violet – Another good color name, it is basically purple with a bit more red mixed in. Getting into these true purples though, means fewer and fewer uses, but better coverage, which this one has.

Egg Plant – And finally for this first part one of my (and certainly my mother’s) favorite colors (really just because it’s a goofy name) eggplant looks a lot like an eggplant. And it covers well enough that if you wanted to color an eggplant or shade some other purple color it would work perfectly.

And that’s all for the first 30 colors. Next time I’ll look at another 30 going from the purples to in the greens.

Book Review – Getting Things Done (By: David Allen)

Posted on by
Reply

Getting Things Done is one of the most popular books By David Allen (not that he’s written that many) and from what I can tell one of the most popular books in the “self-help”/organization genre. I’m reviewing here the older copy (pre-2015) and I don’t know what, if anything, has been revised in the new edition.

Getting things done cover

The book is mainly a set of structures and guidelines to the “art of stress-free productivity”. Allen details how to get things out of your mind and into a medium (be it paper or electronic) and then to organize it all to be processed. The idea behind this is to allow for decisions to be made easier, and thus actions taken faster to get in control of the work you are doing, while eliminating your mind as a container for remembering, (to-do lists, shopping lists, dates, reference material, etc.) so more, if not all, of your brain power can be devoted to creative thinking and problem solving, instead of simpler tasks.

The guidelines in the book are fairly robust, and seem like they would work quite well, though I feel like a complete implementation of his system would be far too cumbersome to allow you to go about your regular life or have some relaxation time. He does continue to tell you throughout the book, though, that only full implementation will yield the best results. I feel though that this is more of a tactic to get you doing any of the things at all, and it probably works on a lot of people but I personally found it redundant and slightly annoying. I’m not sure anyone could possibly fully implement this system and have a way to capture ideas close at hand and usable at all times (unless there is someone else with you in the car, nothing will be {or should be} written down).

David does balance that point out, though, with his own experiences of using his systems. He doesn’t claim to be a robot and do it all. He relates times when he was slipping in his work and keeping track of his system, or how in many cases he was doing work less to get it done and out of his mind, but more to mess around with his new digital gadget. But he does use his own system, and its core is so simple and so versatile that it can easily be rebuilt after slipping. (As one of my {Teachers, Friends, Collaborators} once said {Roughly paraphrased} “Life is just creating one system that works and then watching it slowly fall apart and burn down, then moving on to the next system”)

The central philosophy is essentially:

  • Have a way to capture ideas, projects, and actions to take with you whenever possible
  • Transfer these notes and all of the other “paper” (digital files, office supplies, etc.) and put it in to an “inbox”.
  • Process this inbox every day and sort things into things you need to do, things someone else needs to do (either through delegation or they need to get back to you with info), things that will need reviewing the future, and things that can be easily done right now.
  • Do the simple things right now (or ASAP) and then add the other items to various checklists to review at appropriate intervals.

While it is not the simplest thing ever, it is quite easy to understand and do. It just takes the startup investment time and then one could be off and running. Even if it breaks with only a few of the core elements around, the others can easily be added. Some of the ideas might even be so simple you’ve figured them out yourself and have been using them for some time. For those that this applies to, the book aims at coordinating and making these systems you’ve created more effective by integrating it with the “getting things done” method. With stress being on the point that it will take time now, but it will save you way more in the future.

That idea is hard enough to get into people’s heads already, and I’m guessing if more people figured that out we’d all be more productive. But to combat this inherent laziness and constant “mind numbing” from thinking about all the things we have to do, the “getting things done” method emphasizes breaking big tasks into little ones that can be done right away, and riding the ‘I got something done’ wave on to being more productive in the next project. With “what is the next action?” being a core part of the process. Deciding on what the next action is is getting quite a bit of the way to getting it done, and makes one feel more confident and accomplished.

For all the time the book spends hammering in the rules above and how to get things ordered on the lower, every-day level, there isn’t much talk about the larger picture. I will say this book does better than some, which focus only on the immediate or the big picture. But it has much less of a plan for how to shape your big picture plans and where to go with them. Perhaps this is a good thing, as you don’t want some random book guy telling you how to run your life, but I found the last few chapters which were dedicated to this to be a redundant slog.

And to that end the book falls into the traps that many “self-help” books do, it becomes a slog to get through. Too much information is covered in every chapter, meaning that it needs to be constantly re-gone over. Even then there are numerous callbacks to earlier parts of the book. Information is repeated again and again to ingrain it in the heads of readers who retain less information than ones like me and quite frankly I get bored of it. Fortunately for this book multiple times when I was beginning to think Mr. Allen hand run out of things to say I was proven wrong, I just wish he could have been a little more concise about it.

I don’t want to give the impression that I disliked the book. Quite the contrary, I very much liked it and have used many of the ideas presented to improve my own personal productivity. They really have helped me, and while I think a “full” implementation of the process might be impractical for me, I will be adding more of the ideas as I can until I feel the diminishing returns aren’t worth it. It’s still a lot to tackle personal productivity in your mind, though, as I proved when, even though I liked the book, it took me the better part of a year to get all of the way through it (I got ¾ of the way through and then didn’t read a page for probably half a year) (My total read time was probably only in hours, though). It has the aforementioned problem of falsely inflating itself to be worthy as a “book”, where I think it could have easily been done in far fewer pages, but people might have dismissed it then as we tend to think of bigger as better. Still, I could consider this book essential reading, along with “People Skills” on this list of “self-help books that actually have good points”.

Review – Alvin Isometric Graph Paper (8½ x 11)

Posted on by
Reply

One of the hardest things in art and design is getting perspective down. And while many organic things can be fudged to look fine, there are some times where a more precise and technical perspective must be used. That’s where isometric graph paper comes in (at least for 2-point perspective), with rulings that serve as guides for simple-but-precise shapes rotated at 45 degrees (or hexes). The particular brand I’m looking at today is Alvin.

large2-87

The paper comes in a pad of 30 sheets with a cardboard back and cardstock cover. The “spine” is simply glue that allows pages to be easily torn off. The paper itself is a pretty standard 20 lb weight that resists bleed-though on ballpoints and smaller felt tips. Rollerballs, larger felt tips, Sharpies, and the like will bleed, but not terribly. Show through is pretty bad, and the second side has no graph so I can’t recommend the back for use.

photo-172

The graph has a ¼ to ½ inch border around the edge with some basic information printed on it. The graph is just under 10 ½ inches by 8 ¾ inches, with lines coming from the border at 30, 90, and 120 degrees every quarter inch. The lines are a light blue and will not show up on simple scanner, and very faintly on more modern scanners when set to greyscale. Still, they can be easily removed and don’t photocopy well, meaning the drawing or diagram can stand on its own.

The grid is very helpful in creating simple outlines for 3D shapes and places, or hexes for board games and tile patterns. The paper is pretty unspectacular but it’ll get the job done. I have no clue about its archival properties, but since they aren’t advertised I’d say they’re minimal at best. They’re a fun thing to mess around with and a useful classroom tool, but they might be left behind for more serious art and design.

Review – Staedtler Mars Plastic Eraser

Posted on by
Reply

Interesting tidbit with this review; I was ordering a replacement for this product (because spoiler: I liked it) and I ended up with something that I wasn’t expecting. While my original Mars Plastic eraser came in a humble card sleeve (as most still do) my new ones came in a fancy plastic swivel case. So this review will really be two parts. One for the eraser itself, and another for the upgraded container they can come in.

photo-168

The eraser is a standard seeming white plastic/rubber rectangular prism that measures about 2½ x ¾ x ½ inches and is marked in a regular pattern subtly with the Staedtler logo on two sides; the four smaller sides are essentially flat. Since it is an eraser there isn’t much more to say about the looks, but how does it work? Well, I really like it. I go back and forth between hard and soft (kneaded rubber) erasers. I’ve currently moved back to the hard erasers because I can see when their ability to erase starts to be diminished more clearly (by being shorter rather than slightly darker). In my experience it has erased almost every pencil line I’ve asked it to, and it is better than the ones usually found at the store (save Magic Rub), but comparing higher end erasers is very difficult. They all do their jobs well and it’s mostly a matter of personal preference (and sometime pencil choice) as anything else, but that’s where a fancy plastic case might stand out and make a difference.

photo-169

The case is slightly larger in every dimension (duh) than the eraser. The top and bottom are made to resemble the traditional card-wrapped eraser, with a white bit extending from the blue eraser identification part. A larger Staedtler logo covers the pivot on one side in this white area. On this white end attached to the pivot on the inside is a cut-out box that is about an inch on one side and an inch and a quarter on the other. This box has eight small ridges on the inside to grip the eraser, and it pivots 180 degrees from having the eraser tucked inside the rest of the case to being fully exposed. It can go farther, but at risk of breaking the back of the case. This allows for easy dispensing of the eraser with one hand and provides a nice sturdy handle when erasing. It also protects the eraser from getting gunky or gunking up other things (the inside does get a bit dirty/gunky sometimes, though). I’m a fan of the case (but being nitpicky the two smallest ends are rounded off and the eraser will not want to stand up on them).

photo-170

photo-171

So in the end the Staedtler Mars Plastic is a good, but not exceptional, eraser. It’s not like it erases every pencil line in one stroke, or is virtually crumb-less, but it does get most pencil lines with relatively few crumbs. It works well, and I really like the case for the convenience and protection it provides. I’ve been using it (and flipping it open compulsively) for a bit and it doesn’t show any signs of breaking soon. Though it does make the eraser a considerable bit larger and limits use of about half of it. It’s a nice change of pace and experiment if one wants to spice up their eraser life.

Review – Sterling Studio 4-Piece Synthetic Brush Set SS-117

Posted on by
Reply

One of the problems with painting miniatures (doll houses, dioramas, war game pieces, etc…) is that it’s difficult to find brushes in the right sizes, and even then, brushes can be expensive. But if you’re not going to be doing a whole lot of work with them, how well would an inexpensive brush set like the Sterling Studio SS-117 work? Let’s take a look.

photo-165

Just a bit of a disclaimer, I’m not sure if this set is available anymore or even where one would get it. I got it at an outlet store at a considerable discount and waited to use it a few times before making this review.

photo-164

The bodies of the brushes are quite simple. They are a thin piece of wood painted a dark blue with “Sterling Studio” and the brush size written on the side in white. This is followed by a very cheap piece of crimped silver metal, which holds the orange synthetic bristles. The set include a round, two brights, and a spotter. The brights being flat-ish and semi-rectangular while the other two are rounder and pointier. The differences in the round and spotter are very little save one feels a bit stiffer, but I don’t know if that’s from other factors.

photo-167

The sizes are quite small, 10/0 (0000000000) and 2/0 (00) {Side note: paint brush sizing is weird sometimes} but they aren’t massively different. While the double zero (2/0) is noticeably larger I’m not sure how much of a difference it will make. The bristles are a pretty cheap synthetic material that is quite springy (which I hear is a bad thing, but my painting skill is not fine enough to really notice) save for one which is very stiff. They seem to wear quickly, but they are quite a small surface area so it stands to reason they wouldn’t take much abuse. I know they aren’t the best quality but I’d say they’re about medium seeing as I’ve used much worst brushes. Since they are so small they don’t hold a lot of paint, but they do work well for very fine detail or fine highlighting. I believe the common wisdom among mini painters is use the largest brush you can get away with, and these in most cases aren’t. And while I have used them, I can’t imagine too many scenarios where I would need to.

photo-166

They are quite a cheap set, the wood is weightless, the finish is far from perfect (though fortunately the crimping is not loose), and the brushes will wear out quick. But for the amount of times a brush of these sizes would be applicable (unless you were doing 6mm minis, all of the detail in an already small scale doll house, or all of the detail in an N scale train set) they will do just fine. I can’t say I’d recommend them, but if you might need to paint some fine detail every once in a while, I’d say pick them up if you run across them.