One of the ways I compensate for the heavy-handedness I have with charcoals is to work three or four times up (shrinking the artwork massively so that it comes out looking cleaner). Yes, it is cheating, but most of the uses I have for my art are in print or digital, and nobody knows the difference unless I tell them.
How is that cheating? It sounds great to me. I thought it was industry standard to do artwork much bigger than the reproduction. One of my friends did big, stippled drawings of fish and fossils and bones to be reduced to a quarter the size. And paintings for mass market paperback covers (finished size: 10.5 cm x 17.5 cm) are, or were last I checked, routinely done at 61 x 91.5 cm (that's 24" x 36" for us backwards USers). Comic book pages are, or used to be, drawn almost twice the size of the magazines.
I have a lot of time for mixed media,
this was an ink base (regular art pens) with the blacks filled in with Indian ink, shading with pastels and charcoal, then tweaked in Photoshop. I know it is looked down on by some, but I do each panel individually then piece the page together, cropping some images and opening others out. Takes an incredible amount of patience, but it looks (hopefully) unlike anything which others are doing.
It's very nice. Very atmospheric.
But again, I'm confused. What do you mean "looked down on?" Are there actually people who say there are rules you must follow about making art, rather than whatever works to make it work?
I'm probably jumping to some conclusions here. I'd like to hear more about what you're doing, rather than spout opinions which may be based on my misunderstanding.
Oh -- and what's your opinion on spray fixative? I'm not sure I like it (worried about permanence as well as not breathing the stuff, and it's left a few drawings blodgy). On the other hand, I don't know if one can really use charcoal without it.
BTW, anybody using dust masks when using charcoal? It's not nearly as hazardous as pastels, but charcoal dust can still cause lung irritation.