Arches vs Fabriano Artistico: tested across washes, wet-in-wet and lifting

The choice between Arches vs Fabriano Artistico comes up constantly among painters who have outgrown student paper and are spending serious money for the first time. Both are 100% cotton. Both are made to last. The question is not which one is premium and which is not. It is which one works the way you work.

What the tests measure

Paper behaviour changes with water load, brush size, pigment choice, drying time, and room humidity. A result that holds for a loose, wet-in-wet sky may not hold for a dry-brush passage on rough. The comparisons below were conducted on cold press sheets at both 300gsm and 640gsm, using a consistent set of pigments across identical painted passages.

The test pigments included ultramarine blue (PB29), raw sienna (PY43), and burnt umber (PBr7). These were chosen because they span a range of behaviours: PB29 granulates, PY43 is a transparent staining colour, and PBr7 lifts relatively easily compared to many earth pigments. If you want to understand how sizing affects paper performance, these are useful pigments to test with.

Flat washes: Arches holds its edge

On a graded wash from full saturation to near-dry, Arches Aquarelle produced a consistently even bead and allowed more time to work before the leading edge dried. The natural gelatine sizing, which Arches confirms penetrates the sheet rather than coating only the surface, keeps the paper from absorbing water too quickly. On a 300gsm cold press sheet, this translates to a longer working window. For painters who lay large, even washes and need time to correct the bead, that window is not a small thing.

Fabriano Artistico on the same wash produced good results but dried slightly faster on the 300gsm sheet, which required a more decisive hand. On 640gsm, the difference was less pronounced. Whether that matters depends on how large you paint and how quickly you work. Painters who move fast and paint in smaller formats will not notice the difference much.

Wet-in-wet: a more complex picture

This is where the two papers diverge most clearly, and where it is most important to separate results rather than declare a winner.

Arches wet-in-wet is forgiving. A second colour dropped into a wet passage on 300gsm cold press spreads in a controlled, predictable arc. The gelatine sizing slows absorption enough that you have genuine working time, and blooms form cleanly rather than feathering into unwanted edges. On 640gsm, this behaviour is amplified. The sheet stays wet longer and the pigment moves with the water rather than sinking immediately into the paper.

Fabriano Artistico behaved differently. The first colour absorbed slightly faster, which meant the working window for a second drop was shorter. On the fine grain surface, blooms formed well but with less spread. On the soft grain, the result was almost indistinguishable from Arches at the same weight. This matters: the surface you choose affects the outcome as much as the brand does.

For painters who rely on wet-in-wet as a primary technique: loose skies, soft foliage, wet backgrounds. Arches 300gsm cold press remains the stronger choice. Fabriano 640gsm fine grain is a genuine alternative if you prefer a slightly more contained spread.

Arches vs Fabriano Artistico: lifting

Lifting is where common wisdom most often misleads. The claim that one paper always lifts more easily than another is usually based on a single test with a single pigment, which proves very little. PY43 is a moderately staining pigment and came away cleanly from both papers on first lift, within ten minutes of drying. PBr7 lifted easily from both surfaces. PB29 – always the more demanding test – lifted better from Arches cold press, particularly on the 300gsm sheet, where the gelatine sizing seemed to keep more of the pigment sitting above the surface rather than bonded into the fibre.

On Fabriano Artistico, PB29 lifted adequately on first pass but left a stronger residual tint. This is not a flaw, necessarily. For painters who want soft, final lights lifted with a damp brush, Arches gives a cleaner result. For painters who lift only occasionally and accept a slight tint remaining, either paper performs acceptably.

One variable worth naming: paper that has been wetted and dried multiple times lifts differently from paper that has been worked once. On Arches, the sizing held up noticeably better across multiple wettings. This is consistent with how the sheet is constructed. It matters most for painters who rework passages, or who paint in multiple sessions on the same area.

For a broader look at how paper construction affects watercolour performance, the Jackson’s Art Supplies guide to watercolour paper offers a useful technical overview. A related article on choosing between 300gsm and 640gsm paper is worth reading alongside this one.

Hot press: a note

Cold press was the primary test surface for this comparison, but both papers are worth a brief note in hot press. Arches hot press is very smooth, almost glassy, and rewards confident drawing and controlled washes. It does not forgive overworking. Fabriano Artistico in satin is slightly less austere and more forgiving on first contact. Painters moving to hot press for the first time will probably find Fabriano satin easier to learn on. Painters who already know hot press well may prefer the harder, more demanding character of Arches.