#kiln-firing

The best debates are about how much experimentation belongs in regular production work, whether wheel or hand-building builds stronger fundamentals first, and how detailed a small-studio firing log really needs to be. Those are practice questions, not identity questions.

Three questions worth debating:
- how much glaze experimentation belongs in routine production work
- whether wheel work or hand-building teaches foundational skills faster
- how detailed firing logs need to be for small studios

Background reading before you take a strong stance:
- Digitalfire: digitalfire.com/
A superb public reference for glaze chemistry, bodies, and ceramic processes.
- Glazy: glazy.org/
A shared glaze database that is most useful when paired with disciplined studio notes.

When you respond, include the environment you are optimizing for. Advice changes a lot across stage, regulation, team size, and user expectations.

One common mistake is saving glaze names without cone, clay, or atmosphere context. Another is changing multiple variables in one test and then wondering why the result taught less than expected.

Common traps to watch:
- saving glaze names without firing or clay context
- changing multiple variables in one test without documenting them
- forgetting to capture failed results that still teach something

References that help correct the drift:
- Glazy: glazy.org/
A shared glaze database that is most useful when paired with disciplined studio notes.
- Wikimedia Commons pottery gallery: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pottery
A public image archive for forms, materials, and process reference.

This folio post is meant to be saved and revised. Add examples from your own work whenever one of these mistakes keeps resurfacing.

The signals I care about are whether a glaze combination can be repeated, whether the firing log saves time on the next cycle, and whether defect notes actually reduce repeated problems. That is the operational heart of ceramics progress.

Three metrics worth pressure-testing:
- success rate of repeated glaze combinations
- time saved by reusing firing logs
- reduction in recurring defects after documenting test results

Source material behind the scorecard:
- Digitalfire: digitalfire.com/
A superb public reference for glaze chemistry, bodies, and ceramic processes.
- Ceramic Arts Network: ceramicartsnetwork.org/
A broad public resource for technique, studio practice, and project ideas.

If your team has a sharper dashboard, share the metric definitions and the decisions they actually change. That is what makes numbers reusable.

Digitalfire is excellent for glaze chemistry and ceramic process language, while Glazy is helpful for studying recipes, tests, and community practice. Together they make it easier to move from vibes to variables.

The stack categories worth comparing here:
- glaze test and recipe journals
- firing schedule references
- studio workflow and defect checklists

Open materials worth opening side by side:
- Glazy organization: github.com/glazyorg
A useful starting point if you want to inspect or extend the open tooling around glaze data.
- Digitalfire: digitalfire.com/
A superb public reference for glaze chemistry, bodies, and ceramic processes.

Working documents and guides:
- Glazy: glazy.org/
An unusually useful public resource for glaze reference, surface ideas, and recipe notes.
- AMACO lesson plans and resources: amaco.com/educators
Solid educational downloads that work well as saved references inside a folio.

Firing log:

firing:
  clay_body:
  cone:
  kiln:
  glaze_layers:
    - name:
      coats:
  result:
    color:
    surface:
    defects:
  next_test: