PDA

View Full Version : 2nd Battle of Magenta


donjusko
07-29-2003, 03:20 AM
This is the page that was misplaced by the monitor.
Hi Jamie, Mike, Fabrizo, Larry and Einion
Well you can see I don't agree with a lot of the thinking that goes on here but a lot of people do agree with me and some schools and universities are now teaching my color work. So let the paint wars begin. This will be the 2nd and final 'Battle of Magenta'.

Here is a little background information.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/colorwheel.htm

Yes, two complementary do mix to dark neutrals. Red, Yellow and Ultramarine Blue are not primary colors no matter who says they are.
As a Red-Yellow-Blue six color wheel makes browns not neutral darks.
Yellow and purple make brown.
Red and green make brown.
Orange and blue make brown.
Yellow, Magenta and Cyan are the only primaries.

Yellow and magenta make red, magenta and cyan make blue, cyan and yellow make green.
Here's how my youngest students learned it.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/christmascamp.htm

If you use my crystal based real color wheel all oppositions will make neutral dark colors.
Magenta PR:122 is opposite Thalo Green, they make a very dark neutral that matches the foreground shadows of green objects or magenta objects.
Red is opposite cyan (Thalo Blue by Grumbacher is the cleanest cyan I found). You can make a neutral gray by mixing them... carefully.

Each color I talk about has crystals representing the color and progression to it's natural opposition.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/crystal.htm

Yellow in the crystal element Wavellite,
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/1color.htm#63,%20WAVELLITE,
shows yellow first darkening to brown than blue in a natural progression. Many crystals show yellow darkening to brown like the Rutile crystal of Titanium, the Anatase crystal, Cassiterite and Vesuvianite. It's this darker color of yellow that mixes with ult blue to produce neutral dark. Burnt umber and Ultramarine Blue mix neutral. That is yellow's dark and ult blue's dark.

Some crystals only come in two colors and they are opposite colors that match my Real Color Wheel. Like the lead crystal Pyromorphite making ult blue and yellow. Mixing yellow and ult blue pigment is the first step of neutralizing either color. The second step from the yellow side would be yellow oxide and ult blue, than burnt umber and ult blue. That is how yellow becomes neutral.

I like to distinguish between ult blue and cobalt blue. Orange and Cobalt Blue mix neutral and are opposite on my color wheel. The Red-Yellow-Blue people like to say secondary Orange and primary Blue mix neutral so their color wheel works. Not.. Orange and ult blue will not mix neutral. They would like to call cyan, cobalt blue and ult blue all blue and distinguish them as warm, medium and cool blue, the cool blue as their primary color ultramarine blue.

They say;
Secondary green mixed from ult blue and yellow plus the primary red as the complement color are oppositions. Now way! The opposite of red is cyan, and they don't recognize the color in the red-yellow-blue colorwheel. Blue-green is as close as they can get. Now it gets up close, hand to hand. They have to fit in-beween primary Ult blue and secondary green, the colors of cobalt blue, cyan and turquoise. It's not a working color wheel anymore.

More of why YRB won't work,
Magenta is cool red to them and red is their primary color. with that they say red and green are complements.
you need what they would call warm blue (cyan) to neutralize primary red. Mixing their warm blue and cool red won't work either.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/newcolorwheel.htm

Do you see how far off the red-yellow-blue color wheel is? And we have been teaching it for a hundred years. I has to stop.

About cyan and how it gets darker.
ALUMINUM in beryl excepts a lot of foreign chromates, just as it does in the corundum and spodumene compounds, Here an aluminum light trick is found in aquamarine, light cyan is seen from one direction and deep blue from a 90 degree off angle. Cyan gets darker and becomes Ult Blue, like the sky changes from cyan to ult blue and like the Iceland Spar changes from cyan to ultramarine blue.

If correct color is important to you, never mix gray or black pigment with your local color. It deadens the mixture. Use the correct complement and add some light to your color.
There are 20 pigments each having an exact opposite to mix neutral in my Real Color Wheel, you don't need black.
To open a large page with the full history of the paint wars in medium and paint, go here and browser search the term Paint Wars or Battle.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/final.htm
This battle should I call the 2nd Battle of Magenta. The first Battle of Magenta coincides with the first pigment called magenta.
Don

donjusko
07-29-2003, 03:43 AM
hey Don...glad to hear things are going well for you. I know well your passion for this subject.
Then you know I'm going to take apart some theories and color wheels.

Some have defined physics simply by saying, "it works, because it works"
That doesn't sound too intelligent Larry, I'm going to expect you to do better then that.

you have well represented your theory with consistent insistence that other systems do not work, especially the three color primary system.
The red yellow and blue color theory, right, I say it doesn't work, you say it does. I call this the 2nd Battle of Magenta 2003. 1859, COLOR, Magenta, the year the named color Magenta was born. It got its name from the location of a battle in Italy even though Magenta is not blood red. It was transparent, that was good, but fugitive, too bad. It was also called Solferino.

Yet...I've never really understood how one can say something doesn't work when there is a gazillion final art pieces demonstrating it has worked for countless artists.
Get real. If your trying to say the red-yellow-blue color wheel has every worked for anyone I'd like to see who you are talking about. But be prepared to defend your point.

First of all....I'm not on trial, and to be brought on trial....I'd expect to see the authority of a judge. I don't believe you are such. Don't take that with offense....as I do see you as a good and capable fellow artist. A passionate teacher, as am I. Further, I don't expect you to recognize my authority either...nor do I presume to have authority to judge your efforts/thought processes.

The body of work you put out as well as mine speaks enough for itself. Some of your work I have not cared for, as I cannot relate to the color you use, it does not look natural to me.

Your just not used to seeing thalo green in a painting. I could tone it down a bit by making a green out of ultramarine or cobalt blue and yellow or even make up a batch of green and a little magenta. In the sun I see the brightness and tend to go for it.

I account that to my living and working in my neck of the woods in my corner of the globe. I appreciate your color response though suggesting to my mind what I might find if I were to have the good fortune to travel to Hawaii and see the environment first hand. However, much of your work I have liked, for whatever that is worth to you.

I attached a painting I did this morning on location.

Secondly...my defense is the body of my life's work.
My work is either good...or it is not. Since color is a foundation of painting...the goodness of my work necessarily points to the working of a system as to that system's worth. I don't believe I have to do better than "it works because it works"....for the greater burden is upon you to prove that I've been lucky for the past 25 years in using what doesn't work! It really is that simple!

Don- I like your work Larry. You are not on trial per se. The simple red-yellow-blue color wheel is. You are the spokes person for it. After reviewing this thread I see that you are mainly interested in joining the yellow-magenta-cyan and the red-yellow-blue wheels together, but that won't make an even wheel. Models have shape, mine is a double cone.

Your work looks natural Larry and moderately realistic, well worth saving and it's because you are NOT painting with the complements of red-yellow-blue to make to make darks you ARE using the complements of yellow-magenta-cyan and calling it the red yellow blue basic color wheel though, that's misleading.

I've always left my work open ended on my website...that folks are free to copy and paste/download images here to demonstrate quite clearly why my paintings do not work (because that's all I use is the three color split/primary system) and how another system would prove them to turn out better.

Now that is just what I wanted to here. Let's talk about a three color split/primary system.
Let's see, that's red, yellow and ultramarine blue as the primaries. Would you explain the split/ part? So we can get it straight..

I use Ultramarine blue and phtalo blue, Cadmium Yellow Pale or Hansa Yellow and Cadmium Yellow Medium, An alizarin crimson or rose madder and a Cadmium Red medium or Grumbacher's Red. A cool and warm variation of each. Once again...this is what I have used. These colors and the thought processes I use the only credit I can point to for any "luck" I've had with paintings turning out.

Its possible from here that I anticipate you will suggest I'm not using the original three color wheel system...but then, if I am using another that is working for me...why not promote the "split" primary system then as useful as your own?

Briefly, here is the direction the color wheel has taken.
"1666, Newton, 1642-1727, England.
THEORY, He devised the first color wheel. His theory "Optics" had the right idea, dividing the prism and bringing it back together again. However he chose the wrong primary colors, magenta and cyan were missing. Magenta doesn't show up in a crystal spectrum but it does in the rainbow. "
"1755, Tobios Mayer, THEORY, Color theory by math, but he picked the wrong triad colors, red, blue and yellow. "
"1788, Mosas Harris, English. THEORY, He and Gainsborough made an eighteen color wheel with no Cyan or Magenta in sight. He also placed Ult. Blue opposite Orange, a mistake that was going to continue for awhile. "
"1809, THEORY, Otto Runge, His color wheel has White at the top and Black on bottom, the colors wrap around the middle of the sphere, He also chose the wrong primary colors. Red, Yellow, and Blue opaque plus the pigment Black for shades, a bad habit. "
"1810, THEORY, Goethe made a double intersecting triangle color wheel. A six color wheel without Magenta or Cyan. Blood red was opposite Emerald Green instead of Cyan. Van Gogh was influenced and Matisse used his oppositions. "
"1839, THEORY, Chevreul made a twelve color wheel, Yellow, Red, and Blue again, wrong complements, wrong after images, Yellow is not opposite purple, Ultramarine Blue is not opposite Orange and Red is not the complement of Green. His complements in "Simultaneous Contrast of Color" made mud, he never completed his solid model."
"1905, THEORY, Albert Munsell. He made an eight color wheel with the wrong opposition's, his triad was lopsided, and he had no Cyan. Next he darkened the colors with Black, mixed them with Gray, and tinted them with White, and numbered them all. This is still taught today."
"1916, THEORY, The last color wheel (square) of college record was by Church-Ostwald. It has Yellow, Red, Sea Green and Ult. Blue at the corners. It made way for the new coal-tar colors, all pigments were replaced by there top-tone matching colors. Naples Yellow, Rubins favorite, artist's favorite for two thousand years, was replaced by a mixture of Zinc and Ocher. Pigments were moving from the Iron Age to the Oil Age. Ostwald had no regard for opacity, or raw pigment content. Only the final dried color. This is what todays pigment manufactures make colors with. Clearly, the artists interests are not at heart before 2000 A.D. Today, 2003, I am seeing changes.."
"1950, THEORY, ROYGBIV, was the new answer for 1950 masses, from the old source Newton. These seven colors, out of order no less, dispel the unity of opposition. The color wheel has been misunderstood by every generation since, in and out of college."
"1995, THEORY, Daniel Smith printed a nice color square using the "LAB" color chart. This has the opposition colors, Yellow and Blue, on the top and bottom. Magenta and Green are at the sides. A plus and minus number system relates the square with these colors as the primaries, since White and Black are at the poles, this system is for the photo and printing industries, not the artists who need to work with true opposition's. His new reprint in 2002 has brown color in the center which all colors go to, this is incorrect. Not all colors go to brown."

You will at best only prove what I already know, and that is that your system works for you. I am here to say the world is big enough there is room for different ideas concerning how color works and can be used.

The fact that in roughly 4-5 years you have yet to convince me comes back to the fact that you have failed to prove why my work ought not to work. I have used a system. It has worked. I have advocated others to use it...it has worked for them. Yes..."it works because it works" is simple. Just that simple!

The colorwheel model is just that....a model. To be understood and expanded with maturity.
One does not have to attend art school to know that red is a large category representing many many reds, blue to all sorts of blue, and yellow to all sorts of yellow. It is only a model.

Larry, that's the heart of the problem. You DO have to go to school to learn that red is a large category, and the school system is wrong, magenta is a large category that contains red. Cyan is a large category that contains blue, both ultramarine and cobalt. That is a big difference.

Learning to float and hold air in is basic to swimming. Whatever swim strokes one learns from there, breathing techniques and intentions to take it to a competitive level is personal...yet, floating is essential. However, to float only is not really the ultimate intent and hope. Just as a car is a means...but the journey is the intention.

As an art instructor....I see the model as a starting off point, and that it is not a complete model. Rarely is any learning complete at its beginning point. Red, Yellow and Blue is simply a basic concept. IN fact...you have advanced it beyond its simple model state by naming the blue of the three colorwheel system, "ultramarine blue"... That is a name I've not seen given in any of the books of instruction on the color wheel.

Ultramarine blue is halfway between cyan and magenta, it's the color that was always considered blue even before 1755. Cyan used to be called indigo in India, back when blue was a rock.

Once we begin to speak beyond the model...we are adjusting to our purposes. However...the foundation allows for such building.

Here is your model Larry, I made two, I don't know which you will conceder closer to your idea. The colors magenta and cyan were never meant to be used in the red-yellow-blue triangle, they weren't considered important colors.
I am enclosing my own model to show by comparison you the symmetry that the red-yellow-blue color wheel is missing by adding magenta and cyan to the red-yellow-blue triad.

donjusko
07-29-2003, 03:46 AM
Continued.

One can build a cement or concrete block to support as a foundation what happens above it, even though what indeed does happen above it will vary according to convention and design.

Exactly, that's what I have, with no variances and only perfect symmetry.

Whether I use a warm and cool variation or split system, it is yet built upon the foundation of a three color primary system. As I said earlier....it has worked for eons for many artists, and we need go no further than my own work to discuss whether or not it works.
Since "it works because it works" seems to be a pretty good axiom here....

http://www.artlandishconcepts.org/plein_air_page.htm
there you go...that is my work, and that is my defense. At the same time....I'll invite all others here to look at my work and tell me about whether or not my paintings look natural, since nature has been my work for over two decades.

Let's work on the 'eons' of artists using the RYB colorwheel. This red yellow and blue color wheel was reintroduced in 1838 when most pigments were opaque. The colors we are now talking about were complete 1886 but no colorwheel represented them correctly. The downhill slide in art starts with war in 1870.
THE FIRST AND LAST PUBLIC STANDARD OF PIGMENT COLORS FOR ARTISTS
A. W. Keim, German. "Deutche Gesellschatf zur Forderung rationeller Malverfahren", The German Society for the Promotion of Rational Methods in Painting, 1886.
They set up control for the pigments in colors found best by the artists, to guarantee the color's characteristics and ingredients. These are the colors deemed necessary by the artists in 1886; 1. White Lead, 2. Zinc White, 3. Cadmium Yellow Light, Medium and Orange. Cadmium Red wasn't discovered until 1909, 4. Indian Yellow, 5. Naples Yellow Light and Dark, 6. Yellow to Brown, Natural and Burnt Ochers and Sienna, 7. Red Ocher, 8. Iron Oxide colors, 9. Graphite, 10. Alizarin Crimson Madder Lake (a Magenta colored fugitive pigment) 11. Vermilion, 12. Umbers, 13. Cobalt Blue, Native and Synthetic, 14. Ultramarine Blue, Natural and Synthetic, 15. Paris-Prussian Blue, 16. Oxide of Chromium, Opaque and Transparent Viridian, 17. Green Earth, 18. Ivory Black, 19. Vine Black.

Delacroix was proclaiming not to use black or gray. Corot stared landscape painting. They were both ahead of color theory and were not influenced. From 1900 to 1950 art was nowhere.
The perfect colors we have today started in 1936. The red yellow blue color wheel was being challenged. in 1950 ROYGBIV was the new color wheel, it made no more sense the RYB, both were being taught.. From 1950 to 1975 there were no major artists.

I just don't see where the RYB helped artists at all. My colorwheel started in 1995. The first one to use the new transparent colors and it is being grasped by the new artists who can see more with the new colors available.

It is one thing to adamantly defend why a system works for your methods and way of seeing, way of working and so forth. To say something cannot work for others, however...when apparently it is... is a bold venture. I need not "war" with you on color...for my wmd are simply work I've accomplished thus far.

I'm afraid it has come to a face off Larry, nothing personal. But anyone that is protecting a color wheel I say doesn't work should be ready to go public to defend it, because I'm ready to publicly tear it apart.

I'm not taking it personal...because I have already known your passion and pattern of insistence. That has not lessened my regard for your own abilities. I have appreciated you regardless in the past of differences. Besides...we both love tennis!

I played 4 times this week, one in the day and 3 at night.

My only disappointment (for lack of a better word), is that you have held disdain for a system that has worked as a model for many insisting it cannot work when in fact it has. Without intending to do so...it demeans and diminishes the experiences of others.

If a thing works for another and is plain for all to see, then we hold a responsibility to enlarge our world to make room for what works. Just because a thing does not work for me, does not mean it cannot work therefore for anyone else!


You are free to pile all my existing works up and burn them if you'd like....and that is what it would take at the very least to hide the evidence of my methods. You'd have to do that with the works of quite a few other artists too I'm afraid.

I think you are using a yellow magenta cyan color wheel and trying to make it fit into a yellow red and blue one. Since you had no structured model and all the correct colors are on your palette you paint well. Since you have tossed out the red-green opposition for making darks, and the orange-ultramarine blue and yellow-purple mixtures. All that is left are the correct oppositions which you have been using. You are not using the red yellow and blue color wheel of Chevreul.

If beginning with the basic colorwheel and building and expanding upon it works for me, then that should be recognized. If recognized for me...it should be recognized for others. Again, it is only a simple model to be used.

If you say..."the three color primary system doesn't work, though I know one artist that has used it well with the proper thinking" then the burden rests upon you not to discount or attack the system but to encourage others to continueto think properly about it. Therefore...your system is good, and my system works as well if the right kind of thinking or how to think about it is applied.

In your passion here to lock horns...I too will adamantly insist upon something. You will not be allowed to dismiss a basic theory without leaving my work in the dust. I insist you destroy my work. If you are not able to convince us here why my work lacks merit...if you are not able to demonstrate how my body of work would stand to be greatly improved by your apparently only right and proper system you will in the end have no case. You will have no case.

Your work has nothing to do with this Larry, this is about how you apply your colors or set up your palette, your modern palette has all the correct colors. It's how colors are related to one another that determines how a color wheel works. You have a color palette, not a color system or wheel or model.

You will at best only prove what I already know, and that is that your system works for you. I am here to say the world is big enough there is room for different ideas concerning how color works and can be used.

The fact that in roughly 4-5 years you have yet to convince me comes back to the fact that you have failed to prove why my work ought not to work. I have used a system. It has worked. I have advocated others to use it...it has worked for them. Yes..."it works because it works" is simple. Just that simple!


Since it has no symmetrical structure it is less then simple. It's unduly complicated.

In times past...I have always supported how your work turns out and that you are doing something good for yourself. Your greens and yellows certainly though, do not represent the greens I see in the northern midwest of Wisconsin and Michigan; and we have discussed that before as well. I believe the angle of the sun and atmosphere differences between Hawaii and the northern midwest account for that.

When I see your greens...I give you the benefit of the doubt that these are indeed splendid and what I could expect to see if I were to visit Hawaii. I also love the palette and colors that "Surfer" (Pierre Bournet) of Kauia has and shares with his many many plein airs he shares in the plein air forum. I get the feeling his system is perhaps vastly different from yours. Yet, it works for him.

You might call using black like Pierre as a basic mix to your colors to make shadows working, I don't, I call it a grayed down and colorless. but that is not the point with you. So let's continue.

I have not used black on my personal palette since roughly7 or 8 yeas ago. As an art teacher, I will demonstrate with it for it has historical use in various eras and methods.

I'm surprised based upon past listserv involvement that you have forgotten that. All my darks are made by mixes of my basic simple palette...and lean toward a warm or cool as I choose to enhance the effect of adjacent masses.

Anyone spending any amount of time on WC...reading over my gazillion posts know that I mix all my grays with complementaries. The only exception will be where I might be asked to demonstrate something else for others. However, I do not personally use black...and my shadows do not lack life to them. I do all that mixing and thinking process without black using the basic colorwheel system.


I use...and success persuades me to continue to use a split primary system, a warm and cool blue, a warm and cool red, a warm and cool yellow.


This is where it gets interesting. What you are trying to get is what I already have. Complements that work. Now I would like to know the names of all your warm and cool colors and how they pose as opposites. If you can't give me a list we will just stop there.

No...I am not trying to get anything. What you claim to already have....I've had too for many many years.

No Larry, you still don't know how to use transparent yellow or darken cyan.

That is my point. I have had them using a system you insist does not work. One contrary to yours, yet once again my work speaks for itself.

Since I too am busy....a working artist, if you would like to see all of my warm and cool colors demonstrated....I suggest you might want to consider arranging for me to do a workshop. Otherwise, I might in the future be doing a number of workshops here in the midwest....possibly next year in Montana.

I guess that means you won't name the opposition colors and the war is over.

I suggest you take another tone with me in how you word things, because as is...you are making insistences as though I ought by all means to jump and comply. You are not my father, not my professor, not my superintendent, not head of my plein air association. In short...I don't recognize the authority OVER me.

I do, however clearly see another artist. One that ought to be a comrade and friend.

I get the finest grays...and not the browns you suggest.
Red and green make brown, so does yellow and purple and blue and orange. How are you going to change that? Inquiring minds want to know.

Perhaps you might well suggest I'm using the three color primary system wrong...and that is why my work is turning out. In which case...I'll continue to use and continue to show people how to wrongly use the three primary system the way I do.
Do tell. I think it has something to do with the warm and cool primary colors, right? What are they and how does this work? What are those oppositions that make the finest grays? Without beating around the bush, name the oppositions. It wouldn't be the same colors that are oppositions on my color wheel, would it?

I always have supported and applauded what works for you and those that wish to use your system. I applaud what seems to work for anyone so long as their final results are consistent and excellent.

Our ideas of excellence are different, you approve of black pigment used in a painting, and coping photos. I don't want to change you, but I don't want you to continue teaching that the red-yellow-blue color triad works.

I read your last thing, Don...about the browns. Hey...you know, I take a bit of orange...a bit of the right blue to that orange (which will vary according to value and color temperature) mix them and see the neutral come about. I use a bit of white should I wish to tint that neutral.

[b]The orange and a bit of the right blue is cobalt, oppositions on my color wheel. On your color 'wheel, model, sytem' orange is opposite blue, ultramarine blue.

I'm sorry when you try it, your mixes are turning up brown. I wish I could help, but once again...without getting together to spend a bit of time painting together...I'm at a disadvantage to not be able to show you. I do though use the basic colorwheel as a theory, a model to mix my complementaries. Experience and augmentation helped that understanding mature...but the foundation is yet there.

No, I sorry you misunderstood. In the red-yellow-blue color wheel the oppositions yellow and purple make brown. Red and green make brown, blue and orange make brown. Those are the colors I use to make brown, non of them are true oppositions. True oppositions make gray tints.

I'm done ranting now...but in summing up...you absolutely MUST refer to my art works and make a case why they do not work. You cannot destroy the theory without first destroying my work. It is THAT simple.

[b]Your work stays, your model goes, it is only a palette layout with all the correct colors.

My pre-1996 wildlife paintings used black...and were more tonalistic. Going outdoors to paint on location changed all that forever.

Serve and volley; ball is in your court....
take care!
This thread is up to date. Bring it on..

donjusko
07-29-2003, 04:04 AM
I could'nt find a way to put this color chart I made for Larry in the right place. I made three, two of Larry's and one of mine. For comparison.

donjusko
07-29-2003, 04:10 AM
I like this one better, it's probably closer to a palette serup.

donjusko
07-29-2003, 04:13 AM
Real Color Wheel

LarrySeiler
07-29-2003, 10:11 AM
A response before I go over and respond to the other post/response of yours to me. Help me out here Don....

with your system, if I mix that yellow at the top with that blue at the bottom (opposite) plus degrees of white for tinting...I'm going to get a neutral gray?

I'd pretty much bet it would be greens....and would need a touch of red to tame that green down till it grayed.

but...then, if I added that touch of red to the blue to begin with instead of waiting to add it to the resulting green...it would become that violet I use to gray down yellow.

Since all opposites make neutrals in the use of my traditional system...does yours?

I'll have to be honest too here Don...an age thing, okay? Yesterday I played my first round of nine holes with a new set of golf clubs. Tommy Armour Evo's...and I love 'em. I've used the interlocking grip with the pinky for 27 years, but over the past couple years a bit of arthritis in the knuckle of one particular right hand finger has been hurting and making play difficult. I take ibuprofens and put on salve to help.

I decided to change my grip. I still overlock my right hand on top of the left thumb, but my index finger of the left hand and right hand pinky do not any longer interlock. It seems the pinky was not only making the grip naturally tighter but it was pushing and putting odd pressure on my hurting right hand finger.

It took hitting baskets upon baskets of balls....but surprisingly, it felt good. Doing so at a time I got new clubs was the ideal time to change the grip since I had resolved that I'd have to do a bit of relearning to hit anyway. I hit about 20-25 yard further with each club than my old ones.

Years ago...I changed my racquet grip from the eastern to the Western..and that took a bit of gettin' used to. Now...painting, that is another matter.

I think color, seeing, and mixing become so much a part of who you are. It becomes so second nature, so intuitive...that it would amount to a form of paralysis.

Again...you know from my former participation on your listserv that here in the northwoods of Wisconsin...I don't have the luxury of going back the next day. I don't even have the assurance that very day I'm painting that the scene will for sure remain the same throughout the session much less hope for a close proximity the next day. Thus....I evolved to paint alla-prima.

To accomodate my experience and ability to see what my eyes see and face the challenges...I have come comfortably to the point where I internally switch to auto pilot. I get into a zone, a groove or flow.

My son visited last week....and he wanted to watch me paint a plein air. The weather was very threatening....and he was very amazed how fast I did a painting start to finish. This one....and you can still see the bugs in the paint-
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/29-Jul-2003/532-end_session.jpg
12" x 16" oil...chilly and breezy, 90 minutes

What works for me Don...works for me. There can be no other explanation can there for why my paintings turn out, right? Would you insist I'm just getting lucky?

So...please tell me what I would gain by throwing away my instinct and intuitive zone off for who knows how long to learn a new system? What gained to lose (albeit it how temporary) my ability to approach the subject with confidence to learn a new mixing/color system?

This is what we have always come to in the past. If you could only convince me how my work would improve, thus yes...you'd have to suggest what was wrong with it.

If you feel no such improvements of my work is necessary...than arguably no augmentation of my thinking that is the foundation for my work would be necessary either. Further...if it works for me, then it would promise to work for others. That is the hurdle that has always been difficult if not impossible for me to jump.

As I've said before...I can see this working for you and others, but YOUR ENTIRE BEING evolves to this adjustment.

Its like learning a whole new foreign language well into your later adult years. Easier when you are young...but, still...one would have to first demonstrate what is wrong with work produced from a former theory system to prove convincingly why a new system is absolutely necessary to implement and even start young people on. Why is it necessary?

btw....thanks for your patience and willingness to participate!

Unfortunately my friend...here in the northwoods of Wisconsin where I moved...people are likely to see tennis racquets as something you strap to the bottom of your boots for the winter! I have to travel south a couple hours to find opportunity to play!

take care...

Larry
Larry

LarrySeiler
07-29-2003, 10:57 AM
No, I sorry you misunderstood. In the red-yellow-blue color wheel the oppositions yellow and purple make brown. Red and green make brown, blue and orange make brown. Those are the colors I use to make brown, non of them are true oppositions. True oppositions make gray tints.

Don...do I need to take digital pictures step by step mixing blue and orange, adding white to show I successfully EVERY TIME make gray...and further either a warm gray, neutral, or cool as I wish?

You keep saying they make brown...insisting even. *shaking head, how can you insist what they make. It sounds...I'm sorry, goofy for someone to tell me that the gray on my palette is really brown.

I used blues and oranges, reds and greens to mix the grays you see on the painting above. What more evidence is necessary?

Here....I'll grant you this....I believe sincerely that the RYB color wheel is not for you! I will not convince you to convert to it. If you can't make gray from the opposites, I believe you would be better off to remain with your system. Seeing that I can use it, it makes sense for me to continue to....

*still shaking head....

Larry

LarrySeiler
07-29-2003, 11:08 AM
bottom line...

every crusade for change requires examples to be made of to produce converts.

I use the 3 primary colorwheel. Whether I split it with warm and cool...whatever, the traditional wheel is what I use, teach, and endorse. I do not endorse it ex nihlo over all others...just as a system that works for me. Those that ask me to share, and suggest they like what I'm doing...I teach them.

You insist...it is the wrong system. Convince me why my work turns out using the wrong system.

Without seeking to toot my horn...having some knowledge of those that regard my work highly, prove how my work will improve using your system. You must of course prove from my body of work where they are inferior and failing for me to see the need and room for the change you deem necessary.

If such change is not necessary for me, why should it be necessary for anyone else?

Begin with my work....shall I post another for your exampling and demonstration?

Here is one...
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/29-Jul-2003/532-deadriver.jpg

a closeup for your better scrutiny-
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/29-Jul-2003/532-deadriver_closeup1.jpg

and still one more-
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/29-Jul-2003/532-deadriver_closeup2.jpg
(*note btw...my neutrals throughout those closeups, done with mixing complementaries of my system. Note...they are not browns.)

Please....I'd like to improve this one as well-

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/29-Jul-2003/532-backlit_peshtigo.jpg

or if you wish....a plein air done at a music festival, totally unrelated to my typical outdoor scenes-

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/29-Jul-2003/532-cstone_pleinair1.jpg

please explain how the superiority of your system will bring me assured and definite improvements over my inferior and "wrong" color system. Do that...and you will have won a convert. You will have won over an art instructor that will begin at once to teach a new system to kids K-12; Fail to do that, and I see no reason anyone else can't get just as lucky using the same stinkin traditional 3 primary color wheel as I.

Larry

Wayne Gaudon
07-29-2003, 01:49 PM
.. you take the high road and I'll take the low road and I'll see you in the moring : I think the song goes that way.

Does it really matter how we get there? It doesn't to me. :D

LarrySeiler
07-29-2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Wayne Gaudon
.. you take the high road and I'll take the low road and I'll see you in the moring : I think the song goes that way.

Does it really matter how we get there? It doesn't to me. :D

that is exactly my point, Wayne. If it works for an artist, then it works because it works.

Don calls this a colorwheel battle to end all battles. While I appreciate Don very much, and respect him...I know this has been a major thing for him, and I never really bump into him where he is not on this crusade. Going on perhaps 4-5 years now!

You and I perhaps wear brass underwear...we shrug, and can move on. I think of the guy though where things appear to be working and coming along fine, and a bit of expertise comes along with a major drive of insistence and poor Mr. Wet His-Pants immediately doubts everything he's been doing.

Bottom line...if what I'm doing works for me...if it can and it does work for others, then the insistence that what we and others do is wrong absolutely with the claim there is only one REAL correct way must end.

There has to be respect for the fact that others go about things maybe differently, yet what they do is working for them. Seeing that happening, we can at the very least offer support, and encouragement even though we might not ascribe to their methods.

I hope I have been plain enough myself to be exhorting of Don's work, happy for him he has found a system that seems to be working for him. I don't agree it is the REAL colorwheel. "REAL" as if all others are false, and all others are then working falsely. Phooey on that....!

I encourage Don to share his system. To give up the "all other systems are wrong" approach to market his system, and just let those that find using it a good thing happen.

as I shared in another thread...if I could afford travel Don would be on my "would like to meet in person" lists. I hold no ill will or mallice toward Don. Ever see Don's website? You might think there are websites out there that offer plenty of resources...but wait till you see his!

Larry

Patrick1
07-29-2003, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by donjusko

The perfect colors we have today started in 1936.

Hi Don...
By 'perfect' do you mean for colour mixing...cyan and magenta? Which pigments do you consider perfect?


The red yellow blue color wheel was being challenged. in 1950 ROYGBIV was the new color wheel, it made no more sense the RYB, both were being taught.

I agree that any colour wheel that purports to show all hues and leaves out magenta and cyan (like many of the artists colour wheels we see today) is incomplete at best. But I think the tide is slowly turning, thanks to people like yourself.


You might call using black like Pierre as a basic mix to your colors to make shadows working, I don't, I call it a grayed down and colorless.


Don, although I prefer more lively, high-key paintings like yours, there is nothing 'wrong' with Pierre's use of greyed colours. If he wanted to make cheerful, high-key paintings with coloration similar to yours, I have no doubt he could.

Don, on your Real Color Wheel page, you say:

"To make a dark neutral from any Yellow hue, use it's darker hue Burnt Umber or Raw Umber and mix it with the Yellow's opposite color Ultramarine Blue."

Burnt umber is a darker hue of yellow? It's a darker hue of orange...that's why it mixes with ultramarine blue to make a neutral. Sorry, but yellow and ultramarine blue are not mixing complements.

I admire your effort to try to define, with accuracy, mixing complements that mix to a true neutral (dark grey or black) or close to it. You're absolutely right that many artists colour wheels (even today) don't acheive this, even though they often claim to.

Doug Nykoe
07-29-2003, 04:46 PM
I’ll just chime in here and say I have no need to get all excited over a CMY pallet or in fact to believe there’s something wrong with what I’m doing and I need to correct my ways in a big hurry. I find I get beautiful grays and semi neutrals just fine with my RGB color wheel theory. And I’m quite aware when I mix a brown and I am out of my semi neutral range. Don’t need any specto whatever you call it either…I just use my eyes and some common sense.

donjusko
07-29-2003, 05:37 PM
Patric... Don, on your Real Color Wheel page, you say: "To make a dark neutral from any Yellow hue, use it's darker hue Burnt Umber or Raw Umber and mix it with the Yellow's opposite color Ultramarine Blue."

Burnt umber is a darker hue of yellow? It's a darker hue of orange...that's why it mixes with ultramarine blue to make a neutral.

I'll be making a test of ultramarine blue and orange to show they don't mix neutral, you need cobalt blue.

Sorry, but yellow and ultramarine blue are not mixing complements.

Hi Patric,
That is an good question, but it shows me you haven't read much of my course. So I added a search form to it below. Here is the answer. Colors from yellow to red darken to brown before becoming black. In the orange segment, RCW4, orange darkens first to Burnt Sienna before Burnt Umber. To see how all the colors get dark look at my color wheel and click on the colors.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/tubecolors.htm
To match the colors to crystals and elements, go here.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/crystal.htm

Jamie... "let us know the exact wavelengths in angstrom units to the color model"

Just enter "angstrom" in the search tool below.

The visible spectrum is measured by a spectroscope in wavelengths, light travels 300,000 kilometers per second, each visible color has a different wavelength distance between peaks and valleys. Very small distances are measured in angstroms at 1/100,000,000 of a centimeter.

Visible light ranges from 3,800 angstroms for Magenta (called Violet) to 7,700 angstroms for Red light on the Magenta side. Very hard to see except on a very bright rainbow. Magenta is the only color that has a warm and cool side. Cobalt Violet transparent and Quinacradone Magenta transparent.
4100 angstroms = Ultramarine Blue,
4500 = Cyan,
5000 = Green,
5700 = Yellow,
6000 = Orange,
7000 = Red,
7600 = Red/side Magenta.
This explains the progression of
colors in the rainbow. It also matches the reflected light in my RCW pigment color wheel.

Another measurement system measures in nanometers, red being 7x10 [-7]m or 760 nanometers, the longest waves.

Red begins at 760nm, it's strongest and most intense at 600nm and ends at 460nm. Green is most intense at 520nm, it reaches from
425nm to 675nm. Blue ends at 380nm, it's strongest at 430nm and starts at 540nm.

"as there are no perfect pigments"
I disagree. With these transparent 6 colors I can paint anything in front of me accurately. Also notice each of these transparent colors have simular tinting strengths.

Quinacradone Magenta
Thalo Blue
Indian Yellow Golden
Indian Yellow Brown
Dioxine Purple
Thalo Green
The next color I would add would be Ultramarine Blue, than, Cad. Red.

Jamie...I agree....and for readers following along, I hope my motives are understood.

larry... A response before I go over and respond to the other post/response of yours to me. Help me out here Don....

with your system, if I mix that yellow at the top with that blue at the bottom (opposite) plus degrees of white for tinting...I'm going to get a neutral gray?

This is quoting from above on this thread.
Some crystals only come in two colors and they are opposite colors that match my Real Color Wheel. Like the lead crystal Pyromorphite making ult blue and yellow. Mixing yellow and ult blue pigment is the first step of neutralizing either color. The second step from the yellow side would be yellow oxide and ult blue, than burnt umber and ult blue. That is how yellow becomes neutral.
Let me add to that..
Yellow and brown are the same hue, yellow darkens to brown in the crystal color wheel and the Real Color Wheel. Here is yellow's progression, 1- Lemon Yellow Chromate. 2- Yellow Light Hansa. 3- Cad. Yellow Lemon. 4- Zinc Yellow. 5- Cad. Barium Yellow Pale. 6- Gamboge. 7- Indian Yellow Orange side. 8- Indian Yellow Brown side. 9- Burnt umber. Each of these colors can be mixed with it's opposite color all of which is Ultramarine Blue. Burnt Umber and blue, that's ultramarine blue, mix to be the darkest neutral.

I'd pretty much bet it would be greens....and would need a touch of red to tame that green down till it grayed. but...then, if I added that touch of red to the blue to begin with instead of waiting to add it to the resulting green...it would become that violet I use to gray down yellow.

No

Since all opposites make neutrals in the use of my traditional system...does yours?

Of course they do. If you like the 2nd wheel I made for you, I do, you have to notice that oppositions cross the middle. The only oppositions on the red-yellow-blue color wheel are; yellow-purple, red-green and ultramarine blue/orange. The rest are not oppositions because there is no way they can cross the middle.

I'll have to be honest too here Don...an age thing, okay? Yesterday I played my first round of nine holes with a new set of golf clubs. Tommy Armour Evo's...and I love 'em. I've used the interlocking grip with the pinky for 27 years, but over the past couple years a bit of arthritis in the knuckle of one particular right hand finger has been hurting and making play difficult. I take ibuprofens and put on salve to help.

I decided to change my grip. I still overlock my right hand on top of the left thumb, but my index finger of the left hand and right hand pinky do not any longer interlock. It seems the pinky was not only making the grip naturally tighter but it was pushing and putting odd pressure on my hurting right hand finger.

It took hitting baskets upon baskets of balls....but surprisingly, it felt good. Doing so at a time I got new clubs was the ideal time to change the grip since I had resolved that I'd have to do a bit of relearning to hit anyway. I hit about 20-25 yard further with each club than my old ones.

When I have a hurt appendage I use DMSO 99% pure. It fixed a jammed thumb that hurt a lot in seconds.

Years ago...I changed my racquet grip from the eastern to the Western..and that took a bit of gettin' used to. Now...painting, that is another matter.

I think color, seeing, and mixing become so much a part of who you are. It becomes so second nature, so intuitive...that it would amount to a form of paralysis.

Again...you know from my former participation on your listserv that here in the northwoods of Wisconsin...I don't have the luxury of going back the next day. I don't even have the assurance that very day I'm painting that the scene will for sure remain the same throughout the session much less hope for a close proximity the next day. Thus....I evolved to paint alla-prima.

To accomodate my experience and ability to see what my eyes see and face the challenges...I have come comfortably to the point where I internally switch to auto pilot. I get into a zone, a groove or flow.

My son visited last week....and he wanted to watch me paint a plein air. The weather was very threatening....and he was very amazed how fast I did a painting start to finish. This one....and you can still see the bugs in the paint-

What works for me Don...works for me. There can be no other explanation can there for why my paintings turn out, right? Would you insist I'm just getting lucky?

I already said there is nothing wrong with your palette, it's your model of what colors are next to each other that is impossible. The red-yellow-blue color wheel was not designed to accept magenta and cyan, there just isn't a logical place to put them.

So...please tell me what I would gain by throwing away my instinct and intuitive zone off for who knows how long to learn a new system? What gained to lose (albeit it how temporary) my ability to approach the subject with confidence to learn a new mixing/color system?

Again I say, you are confusing your palette with a color wheel that does not use oppositions correctly.

This is what we have always come to in the past. If you could only convince me how my work would improve, thus yes...you'd have to suggest what was wrong with it.

Again.. Your work uses your palette not your colorwheel, your work doesn't need improvement.

If you feel no such improvements of my work is necessary...than arguably no augmentation of my thinking that is the foundation for my work would be necessary either. Further...if it works for me, then it would promise to work for others. That is the hurdle that has always been difficult if not impossible for me to jump.

As I've said before...I can see this working for you and others, but YOUR ENTIRE BEING evolves to this adjustment.

Its like learning a whole new foreign language well into your later adult years. Easier when you are young...but, still...one would have to first demonstrate what is wrong with work produced from a former theory system to prove convincingly why a new system is absolutely necessary to implement and even start young people on. Why is it necessary?

Both of are color wheels are new. Mine was first. In your color mixing you use my color wheel and added cyan to your system and palette. Your palette works, your system of where colors have to be placed on a red-yellow-blue doesn't.

btw....thanks for your patience and willingness to participate!

Unfortunately my friend...here in the northwoods of Wisconsin where I moved...people are likely to see tennis racquets as something you strap to the bottom of your boots for the winter! I have to travel south a couple hours to find opportunity to play!

take care..

Don...do I need to take digital pictures step by step mixing blue and orange, adding white to show I successfully EVERY TIME make gray...and further either a warm gray, neutral, or cool as I wish?

[b]Oh yes! Ultramarine blue and orange will not make a neutral. Let's both make the test.. again. Cobalt blue and orange make the neutral. You just can't get away with calling both colors blue, on in your case, cyan being called warm blue, calling all three colors blue.

You keep saying they make brown...insisting even. *shaking head, how can you insist what they make. It sounds...I'm sorry, goofy for someone to tell me that the gray on my palette is really brown.

I used blues and oranges, reds and greens to mix the grays you see on the painting above. What more evidence is necessary?

It's very confusing to call magenta, red. And ultramarine blue, cobalt blue. To be clear you must differentiate between them.

Here....I'll grant you this....I believe sincerely that the RYB color wheel is not for you! I will not convince you to convert to it. If you can't make gray from the opposites, I believe you would be better off to remain with your system. Seeing that I can use it, it makes sense for me to continue to....

[b]I make gray with 20 opposite colors and I can prove it. I am saying your system is flawed, the only opposites you have are yellow-purple, which I use to make brown, cad. red and green, which I use to make another brown. And Ultramarine blue and Orange, which makes a green brown.

*still shaking head....


bottom line...

every crusade for change requires examples to be made of to produce converts.

I use the 3 primary colorwheel. Whether I split it with warm and cool...whatever, the traditional wheel is what I use, teach, and endorse. I do not endorse it ex nihlo over all others...just as a system that works for me. Those that ask me to share, and suggest they like what I'm doing...I teach them.

You insist...it is the wrong system. Convince me why my work turns out using the wrong system.

Your are not using your system's opposites, you are using mine on your palette.

Without seeking to toot my horn...having some knowledge of those that regard my work highly, prove how my work will improve using your system. You must of course prove from my body of work where they are inferior and failing for me to see the need and room for the change you deem necessary.

You keep falling back to your work as proof your system works. Your palette does not represent your system. The oppositions you use are from my system because on my system the color you mix to make grays are opposite. Simple...

If such change is not necessary for me, why should it be necessary for anyone else?

Begin with my work....shall I post another for your exampling and demonstration?
or if you wish....a plein air done at a music festival, totally unrelated to my typical outdoor scenes-

please explain how the superiority of your system will bring me assured and definite improvements over my inferior and "wrong" color system.

Quit confusing your palette with your system that has incorrect oppositions.

Do that...and you will have won a convert. You will have won over an art instructor that will begin at once to teach a new system to kids K-12; Fail to do that, and I see no reason anyone else can't get just as lucky using the same stinkin traditional 3 primary color wheel as I.

Hee hee, you said it, not me.. Your palette stays, your system goes. I think the only reason you are trying to convert the RYB into a working model is that being in the school system you are forced to use the RYB by the School Standards which I am busy correcting. Something that you told me five years ago couldn't be done. One university, one school at a time. I hope Kentucky will be the first state to change, but maybe New York or New Jersey. They are all the running. It will show up in my testimonials for 2003.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/testimonials.htm

[b]Here is tool form to search my site.
</font><table border="0" align="center" width="30%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial"><b>code:</b></font></td></tr><tr><td style="BORDER: #000000 1px solid; FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: #FEFEFE; FONT-FAMILY: Courier, Courier New, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #6699CC;"><pre> <form method="get" action="http://search.atomz.com/search/"><br />
<input size=25 name="sp-q"><br />
<br />
<input type=submit value="Search RCW Color Course"><br />
<input type=hidden name="sp-a" value="00081f17-sp00000000"><br />
</form><br />
</pre></td></tr></table><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"></font></p>

Larry, would you as monitor make a change for me? I can't make changes the next day as you can. Some of the statements from me on the third post down are not in bold text as I wanted them to be. It just seperates our responces. If you can't I have another copy to repost. Thanks.

Patrick1
07-29-2003, 07:11 PM
Don, you make some interesting points, but you aren't using the quote feature properly, so it's hard to tell when & who you're quoting in your replies, and which of the writing is yours. Before you post, click on Preview Reply to preview your post.

talkingbanana
07-29-2003, 08:22 PM
Okay, so maybe I'm just one of the poor stupid kids being taught the RYB system in my high school, but something here doesn't sit quite right. Why does it matter if the color wheel is messed up when the palette works? :confused:

I've always been taught red and blue make purple, blue and yellow make green, and red and yellow make orange. Add orange to blue to dull it down, red to green, yellow to purple - that's all the schools teach. Everything else, I've figured out on my own, by playing around.

The only remotely yellow color I can see mixing with ult blue to make gray is raw umber. Burnt sienna or burnt umber - the more orange earth colors - seem to work better. I'm having a hard time reconciling the notion that cad yellow and ult blue will make gray. I know it won't be the brightest green out there, but it will be green.

I usually end up with a split-primary palette, using ultramarine blue, phthalo blue, cad yellow light, cad yellow medium, quinacradone magenta, and cad red medium in acrylics. I guess you would argue that I'm trying to mix the CMY with the RYB palette, but treating magenta as a cool red seems to work for me. I'm having a really hard time figuring out why I'm wrong, since it works.

Again, maybe I'm just a clueless high school student, but I see it this way: the RYB color wheel won't leave the schools for a long time. It may not be perfect, but neither is the CMY - paint colors are made of pigments, not light, no mixing system will be perfect. The art students in the public schools who actually care will develop systems that work for themselves, and the rest, the vast majority, will simply accept the RYB as fact and leave it at that.

I'm going to shut up now before I say something else that I'm really clueless about except for personal experience. :angel: Excuse me while I go mix some phthalo blue and cad red and see if they make gray or purple.

WFMartin
07-29-2003, 09:54 PM
Wow, This sounds like the kind of discussions I often get into. I'll just make a few points to see how it washes with both Don and Larry.

First, I agree completely with Don regarding Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow being the primary colors of pigment. The triangle that Don has presented is the most "scientifically" accurate model of two dimensions of color (hue/chroma) that I can think of. I have used it in the litho trade for 40 years, and used it to teach color theory on the college level. The same version of a color triangle for the lithographic trade was actually invented by a man named Roy Hensel of GATF (Graphic Arts Technical Foundation) in the early 1960's.

What I don't comprehend, Don, is all this reference to "crystals". Are you referring to the crystalline shapes of the microscopic grains of the pigment itself, or some man-made model that is concocted in a crystalline shape? I'm a little fuzzy about the "crystal" concept. Also, Don, you certainly know a lot more about pigments with big names than I ever will! LOL

Now, to the nitty gritty. Let's explore Don's system and Larry's system, in terms of how color "theory" behaves. Guess what....it behaves the same, in both Don's system, and Larry's system. You both just use it differently.

Larry is contending that he basically uses the Red, Yellow, Blue approach to laying out his palette. But, if I understand him correctly, he mentions that he uses a "warm" and a "cool" version of EACH. Well, I believe that in using that "split primary" type of choices, he is out of necessity, expanding his palette to inadvertantly encompass the REAL primaries of cyan, magenta, and yellow.

One fact we all need to realize is that in nature, very FEW colors require the cyan, magenta, yellow palette in its pure form, simply because in nature, most colors are extremely dirty (grayed/low chroma), compared to the bright, primary colors themselves, or when mixed, adjacently, with each other. The REAL primaries simply AREN'T OFTEN REQUIRED to produce such off-gray colors as nature presents to us. Naples Yellow and Yellow Ochre, for example (as dirty as they really are) are much cleaner in chroma than most of what nature presents to us.

Now, here is where Don's theory might triumph. (I hope so, because it's also MY belief.) Don, to win the argument, you might simply challenge Larry to produce with HIS red and HIS yellow an "orange" to match the chroma of YOUR magenta and YOUR yellow. Then, by all means, challenge Larry to mix a purple/violet (call it what you will, with HIS coice of "blue" and HIS choice of "red". Then, Don, you mix your brightest purple/violet with YOUR magenta, and YOUR cyan. Who will win the "purple" challenge? I'll bet on Don. Remember, we're trying to determine who can mix the cleanest purple! But who will make a more believable lagoon out of his final color? Probably Larry.

Now, who's paintings will triumph? I don't know. I think I actually prefer many of Larry's paintings to those of Don's, simply because they more closely duplicate the colors of nature. But, if I wanted paintings that would knock your eyes out with pure colors, it would have to be Don's. The one advantage that Don has with his choice of colors (besides that he probably is only required to lay out a very few paints on his palette) is that if he wishes to create a dirtier (grayer) color, he can do it. But, if Larry wishes to produce a super-clean (high chroma) color, he may not be able to....Note the discrepancy in the purples which I suggest each to try mixing.

I love the enthusiasm you both have, and you appear to be great friends, to boot!

Please, don't let me interrupt this discussion; let it continue.

Bill:D

DuhVinci
07-30-2003, 12:33 AM
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/30-Jul-2003/11902-Scan0005.jpg
In preparing the above mixtures I noticed two things:

1. With little effort the Ultramarine blue/Cadmium orange mix tended toward an achromatic black (or grey).

2. All mixes of Ultramarine blue/Indian yellow were tinted blue or green. I could not achieve an "achromatic" mix. Using a cooler yellow (than Indian) only exacerbates the problem.

Yes, Ultramarine blue and Cadmium orange do make wonderful browns when the orange dominates, but when balanced with the right amount of blue the mix easily gravitates to black/gray.

bruin70
07-30-2003, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by LarrySeiler
with your system, if I mix that yellow at the top with that blue at the bottom (opposite) plus degrees of white for tinting...I'm going to get a neutral gray?


Larry
Larry

no, larry. with don's color system you get acid colored paintings.:):D:):D:):D

and WF,,,,,,,i didn't read those long drawn out, battle of color essays, because, well, ,,,,why for.
so i only read your last post:)......

the whole arguement and "test" to see who produces a better mix is pointless, because we all see differently and have our own idea of what a good purple etc might be. and quite honestly, if some scientist with a spectrum analyzer came up to me and TOLD me what a true purple should be, i'd take my brush, load it with venetian red+thalo blue, and paint a dirty purple stripe down the middle of his face, and say "what about THIS color?"

don, long ago, came boastfully onto this forum and started telling everyone why their color was bad. very humble indeed. he went to cennini forum, and pretty much got his walking papers. every opinion is welcome at WC if they are respectful of others. anyway,,,i digress.

the problem, as i recall, with DJ's system is that he tried to emulate true color in nature. this, i pointed out, was a wayward effort unless he used a spectrum analyzer to determine every color in a landscape that he wanted to paint. the reply was that "no", he wouldn't do that because he wanted to feel the colors he saw(i am paraphrasing). this, of course, was a contradiction, if he wanted to go so far as to recreate exact color with his exact system, yet rely on his imperfect eyes to do the interpreting.

besides this major flaw,,, that everyone sees every color differently, another flaw is a much more practical one and why don's color curriculum will never fly or will be forgotten by those student learning his color wheel.............don's can teach his system till he turns true purple in the face, but when people go to art stores, and are bombarded by hundreds of delightful colors by dozens of manufactureres, it will be like eye candy to an artist, they will forget who don jusko is, and load up their shopping cart on colors beyond their imagination.....{M}

Doug Nykoe
07-30-2003, 02:02 AM
I’ve seen some examples of CMY paintings and they have nothing tangible about them. Maybe it’s because they think in additive terms and pigments are correctly determined in subtractive terms. Which as you know is the opposite in the way we see. Kind of a simulation of the life that we observe and it seems God was short coming when he offered these pigments for our use. But hey what a surprise, it seems he knew what he was doing all along as some of our greatest artists knew about these shortcomings and they began to use it to their advantage and came out with something called simplification. The elixir of life you might say to an artist who understands his shortcomings and uses this subtraction to his advantage.

I don’t know,,, these colors that are developed from CYM artists all seem to be in a fish bowl where a black light seems to be illuminating the colours in a surprising way but after the short term excitement of viewing them…a novelty. I need to identify or ground myself again with the colours more identified in the human experience….reality. I need that tangible relationship a grounding you might say that seems apparent in RYB for whatever reason….it works.

donjusko
07-30-2003, 04:06 AM
Doug, I caught a good point in your post, red and blue are lights primaries, they were pigments primaries in 1775 they didn't know the difference.

Bill, I took this from the first page of this thread.
This is quoting from above on this thread.
Some crystals only come in two colors and they are opposite colors that match my Real Color Wheel. Like the lead crystal Pyromorphite making ult blue and yellow. Mixing yellow with ult blue pigment is the first step of neutralizing either color. The second step from the yellow side would be yellow oxide and ult blue, than burnt umber and ult blue. That is how yellow becomes neutral.
Let me add to that..
Yellow and brown are the same hue, yellow darkens to brown in the crystal color wheel and the Real Color Wheel. Here is yellow's progression to dark matching crystals on my colorwheel, 1- Lemon Yellow Chromate. 2- Yellow Light Hansa. 3- Cad. Yellow Lemon. 4- Zinc Yellow. 5- Cad. Barium Yellow Pale. 6- Gamboge. 7- Indian Yellow Orange side. 8- Indian Yellow Brown side. 9- Burnt umber. Each of these colors can be mixed with it's opposite color all of which are Ultramarine Blue. Burnt Umber and blue, that's ultramarine blue, mix togather to make the darkest neutral of that set of oppositions.

http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/crystal.htm
This is my crystal page. Some elements produce color, each element makes a crystal.
These crystals not only show the high chroma aspect but also how the color becomes darker. This is the progression to dark that I use in my color wheel. It is what makes my wheel original and why I can get 20 opposite pigments to mix neutral.

Both Larry's palette and mine work the same because the colors are the same, except for the greens. Larry uses Veridian and I use Thalo Green. It's the color wheel layout that is what the discussion is about. At least it is for me.

Because Larry and I both use basicly the same colors we can mix the same dirty colors from our palettes. The colors we end up with are our personal choices. It's where the colors are placed on the color wheel that is the basis of this thread. Using my color placement on the wheel I'm sure I would win the red, orange, green and purple challenge if we both used our primary colors.

There is a recent program out there called the Color Wheel Pro. It uses the standard YMC color wheel, yellow darkens to yellow/green and cyan darkens to cyan/green. Not very artist friendly and far from the colors that natural crystals change into.

I have a free high resolution ZIP bmp that prints out to a 5" RCW. If you want one just email me with the request. I fill over 100 requests a month and am happy to offer it to Wet Canvas readers.

LarrySeiler
07-30-2003, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by WFMartin
Larry is contending that he basically uses the Red, Yellow, Blue approach to laying out his palette. But, if I understand him correctly, he mentions that he uses a "warm" and a "cool" version of EACH. Well, I believe that in using that "split primary" type of choices, he is out of necessity, expanding his palette to inadvertantly encompass the REAL primaries of cyan, magenta, and yellow.


...and I eluded to that, that indeed I might be encompassing such, but still doing so Bill....based upon augmentation of using the basic RYB model. It is only a model. A theory. There is no tube of paint that is thee "red" thee "blue" thee "yellow"...so, anyone with reason referring to the RYB model understands it to be a model.

I will argue that the CYM model is really in a sense semantically the RYB model. Let's see...

Okay....what is cyan? Its a type of ________? (blue....yes, the answer is blue!)
What is magenta? Its a type of _________? (red....yes, the answer is red!)

and we see yellow shall still be yellow, so how about that!

CYM has borrowed the basic model, and has been expanded upon, IMHO

Those complementaries don't jive with me though....but, they might if I spent the next how many and what for years re-learning to mix. Why should I if what I have evolved to now already works?

I don't want to think in technical terms...hold up some specto what ever ma jiggy. And, as Milt points out...if Don says in the end he'd rather "feel" it...then what's the point. You learn with any system in time to adjust and become intuitive. If you don't learn to be intuitive, your painting methods will never flow, never find a zone...and I absolutely insist that when seeking to paint alla-prima plein airs if you can't zone...you just ain't gonna cut it. The finicky fickle existing light will beat you every time!


Now, here is where Don's theory might triumph. (I hope so, because it's also MY belief.) Don, to win the argument, you might simply challenge Larry to produce with HIS red and HIS yellow an "orange" to match the chroma of YOUR magenta and YOUR yellow.

the only problem with this challenge Bill, is I'm not seeking to match Don's chroma. I'm painting from nature and am seeking to match what I see in nature. I only give benefit of doubt that Don's colors represent what he sees in Hawaii. I would think he to have failed the honesty and integrity of plein air, should he paint otherwise. (for those whose mouth just dropped, no I'm not saying there is no room in art for creative interpretation....I'm talking about imitating what one sees).

ON the other hand....I see such brilliant color in some of Don's work that it appears more like graphic design than from life. Almost an animated caricature. AS I said...I like many of his works, but some just don't imitate life to me at all as seen thru his color.

I have no reference point personally to Hawaii...but to see thru the eyes of other artists living there. But...then, there is Pierre Bouret whom I have come to highly regard. Thru his paint, I see color that I more relate to. Makes me wonder if there is such a dramatic difference. If I would see Hawaii as Don portrays it, or more as Pierre does. *(Pierre is known as "Surfer" in the plein air forum, and I've grown to be a fan of his efforts). Pierre too is a member, associate...of my association NAPPAP, and not surprised!

Here is Pierre's site-
http://www.artkauai.com/


Now, who's paintings will triumph? I don't know. I think I actually prefer many of Larry's paintings to those of Don's, simply because they more closely duplicate the colors of nature. But, if I wanted paintings that would knock your eyes out with pure colors, it would have to be Don's.

Hey...I'm not painting to knock eyes out with color. I am attempting to share the joy of my experience encountering the outdoors...to transfer that celebration in paint to the viewers. I am first pressing into nature to understand why I'm attracted to a scene...then having discovered it, hope the viewer sees an honest approach to what I saw. Not being able to look into the future, I am satisfied at this time to go no farther with color than what is natural.


The one advantage that Don has with his choice of colors (besides that he probably is only required to lay out a very few paints on his palette) is that if he wishes to create a dirtier (grayer) color, he can do it. But, if Larry wishes to produce a super-clean (high chroma) color, he may not be able to


If I ever tire of painting where such change is needed, I might have need or cause to change. That is once again why I insist that if something works...if its not broken, there is no need to fix it.

Larry

LarrySeiler
07-30-2003, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by donjusko


Both Larry's palette and mine work the same because the colors are the same, except for the greens. Larry uses Veridian and I use Thalo Green. It's the color wheel layout that is what the discussion is about. At least it is for me.

Because Larry and I both use basicly the same colors we can mix the same dirty colors from our palettes. The colors we end up with are our personal choices.

but...what then Don is the point? Why the great energy as a crusade? Why the arduous insistence that all education change to accomodate your system?

The layout...is yet only a model.

You know what this argument is like Don? Those that understand music will understand the metaphor I think.

It is like saying Jazz....is better than blues.

Okay...now...really? Jazz...is a form that is sophisticated, but its foundation and basis for expansion grew from what? Blues...!!!!

What is modern rock an roll based upon? C'mon....?

Yes...once again, blues!

In its simplist forms...it comes back to the blues.

In Don's model....we see in its simplist form the RYB model.

Now...maybe I can represent myself clearer. You folks that share admiring my writing don't often realize what a struggle it is for me to feel as though I am adequately expressing myself. I am amazed sometimes how someone can come in....with a short paragraph and sometimes say it all.

Let us say just for argument's sake...that what I'm doing with split primaries and all happens in my head, and is essentially what Don is doing...but with more technical consideration, maybe on paper and charts.

Maybe one advantage of the RYB model...is that it gets to stay in your head and frees you in time and experience to have such a grasp of color relationships that you act intuitively. You simply see, respond, and imitate. Why....should I want it to be on chart? Why would I want it laid out more complicated and technically and bring what is now part of me intuitively out so that perhaps now I have to think about every thing I'm doing???

Sure....that might be fine if I were to go back to a location 4-5 days in a row to work on painting, but I'd like to see any of you out there with charts and head voices working thru stuff with a window of less than two hours start to finish on a painting.

If Don using his system, and me using the old mix as Don admits brings basically the same color....I see no reason for hitting artists over the head with this stuff.

Why not emphasize results....and be satisfied, than layout?

Again...most people are absolutely amazed at what even my 2nd graders understand about color. By the time they are in high school....they will not even have to think twice about what makes what, what makes warm or cool, how to get a value. They will simply see a thing....and will know.

Even my high school kids that have only had me for a few years have seen amazing growth with basic RYB understanding. Their former art teacher didn't teach anything. What a waste.

Check out their stuff....!!! Kids first paintings....
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84110
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29782
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70213
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29910
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29645

these kids unfortunately had to play catch up...for they should have understood basic color in elementary grades. I'm excited that if these kids with only a couple years exposure did these what the kids coming up 4-6 years from now will do. Using the basic RYB model. Some...going on to paint will no doubt expand their color to be personal, just like my son learning guitar from me (me, a blues player) went on to play guitar and write songs for a Grammy nominated punk band!

Larry

LarrySeiler
07-30-2003, 01:43 PM
I certainly agree Milt......marketing and buying habits of people, artists can't be much different.

I'd like to summarily eliminate 60% of the colors available at art stores!!! Maybe people would learn to understand color.

Larry

bruin70
07-30-2003, 02:26 PM
wf,,,here's a better test. i don't think larry bases his palette on the primaries. like most sane artists, he buys what he likes , and mixes to get what he wants. your case is different, however.

so here's a more appropriate "test".....:):):):):)

howz about i send you a sample of my favorite color, which i can just simply go down to my local store and BUY, and you match with your system. see if you can come up with an exact match that retains the same intensity and tinting characteristics of my color. :)

Patrick1
07-30-2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by bruin70

...the whole arguement and "test" to see who produces a better mix is pointless, because we all see differently and have our own idea of what a good purple etc might be.

But if your goal (as Bill's was) is to see who will produce the cleanest (highest chroma) purple, then it's not pointless at all. Some people do want to be able to mix the cleanest colours possible from a limited palette for when they need it.

LarrySeiler
07-30-2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Domer


But if your goal (as Bill's was) is to see who will produce the cleanest (highest chroma) purple, then it's not pointless at all. Some people do want to be able to mix the cleanest colours possible from a limited palette for when they need it.

you make a valid point Patrick...that is...if artists find they need that purple.

So, I can only speak for myself and anyone interested in how I paint. I have not yet seen such purples in nature, thus have had no compulsion to imitate it.

For me then...it is personally pointless as I am not ever likely to need such color...at least evidently I haven't needed them in the past 25 years or so. If I felt I needed them, logically I would have evolved to solve that issue.

IF one day, nature hits me square in the face with something I can't mix, then I suppose off to the art store I'll go. "Hhhmm, excuse me maam...you got Backwater Canyon Quiet Pool Green?"

Again...if what works for others works, then great. Just please please...Puuuuuh lEEEEEZE for heavens sake don't refer to it as thee REAL....colorwheel! That infers most insistently that everything else by comparison is false!


What is false for me...would be to use any device or theory that deceives my own senses and judgments as to adequately portray what I see and feel! Everyone should be able to relate to that!!!!

Ssheesh....

Larry

pampe
07-30-2003, 04:52 PM
*taking a tylenol*


ok.....I am not learned in this.....can someone TEL me in simple terms


WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT??????????????


when I mix a color, whether I use CMY or RGB......if it works, it works


I am so confused......

go on about your business while I take my pill

bruin70
07-30-2003, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Domer


But if your goal (as Bill's was) is to see who will produce the cleanest (highest chroma) purple, then it's not pointless at all. Some people do want to be able to mix the cleanest colours possible from a limited palette for when they need it.

ahhhhh,,,but as that is not larry's goal, then the contest makes no point. i like my challenge.....wf can try to match one of my fave commercial brand colors, and if his mix can scale to light and dark as well as mine:):):)

i can only think of a couple of scenarios when someone would want to mix the "cleanest color possible".

1...when there are only those three color left in the world.
2...when mr. neiman wants to add a blazing purple to his seragraphs. :D:D:D

bruin70
07-30-2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by pampe
*taking a tylenol*


ok.....I am not learned in this.....can someone TEL me in simple terms


WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT??????????????


when I mix a color, whether I use CMY or RGB......if it works, it works


I am so confused......

go on about your business while I take my pill

EXACTLY!!!
those who like to make color mixing laborious, are trying to make everyone else work too.:):):)

surfer
07-30-2003, 07:44 PM
Just for the record, I do not have any black in my palette nor have I ever used black... Don't even own a tube of black. However, I sometimes paint with Ken Auster, here in Hawaii and when I am visiting my home town, Laguna Beach, and he, interestingly, uses it on his palette.

Patrick1
07-30-2003, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by bruin70

i can only think of a couple of scenarios when someone would want to mix the "cleanest color possible"...

1...when there are only those three color left in the world.
2...when mr. neiman wants to add a blazing purple to his seragraphs. :D:D:D

I can think of more than a couple:

What about if one is not trying to portray the colours of nature accurately (impressionism, expressionism)? Abstract? What about fantasy or sci-fi art? What about if you do want to paint nature accurately? I've never been to the tropics, but in some of the pictures I've seen of the most exotic locales, the water looked like close to the highest chroma cyan or mixed cyan possible in pigments. Example:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/30-Jul-2003/2769-tahiti.jpg

I don't know if it really is as high chroma as it looks here, but you gotta admit, it looks like a very clean cyan. You can find lots of pictures like this.

Florals? Some flower blooms have such high chroma that cannot be matched by any pigment mixture or even any pure pigment. If you want to paint such flowers as accuratley as possible, you need a maximum chroma mixture.

How about Larry's work? It looks to me like there are instances where he does use maximum chroma possible, like brilliant, sunlit foliage highlights; it looks like just about the highest chroma yellow-green colour mixture you can get with pigments, or close to it. For example, the brilliant yellow-green foliage highlights in his "Presque Isle" paintings.

Larry, I even remember you saying that you like to use a painting knife becasue it allows you to put on highlights without leaving ridges that brushes often do, thus retaining maximum chroma. Am I right Larry? :)

surfer
07-30-2003, 07:48 PM
Get the right color in the right shape in the right place.......

I paint what I see..... mixing the colors to match the colors that I see.

Simple......

LarrySeiler
07-30-2003, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by pampe
*taking a tylenol*


ok.....I am not learned in this.....can someone TEL me in simple terms


WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT??????????????


when I mix a color, whether I use CMY or RGB......if it works, it works


its not...Pam. IF its working for you...then that's what counts! That is my whole point of taking issue, to preserve the right to say just that without baggage of one's methods being called something other than "REAL"... It works because it works...! That's good....!

Larry

LarrySeiler
07-30-2003, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by surfer
Get the right color in the right shape in the right place.......

I paint what I see..... mixing the colors to match the colors that I see.

Simple......

I agree with your Pierre...it works, keep it simple...capture the spirit of what you see! Your work shows well your capability to do just that!

Larry

LarrySeiler
07-30-2003, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Domer


I can think of more than a couple:

What about if one is not trying to portray the colours of nature accurately (impressionism, expressionism)? Abstract? What about fantasy or sci-fi art? What about if you do want to paint nature accurately? I've never been to the tropics, but in some of the pictures I've seen of the most exotic locales, the water looked like close to the highest chroma cyan or mixed cyan possible in pigments. Example:

yes...and this is why I said several times I give Don the benefit of the doubt that perhaps such intense color is how Hawaii looks thru his eyes. I can't say, I have never had the good fortune of visiting.

I don't like Don's marketing crusade thrust that this system must replace the traditional color wheel as though we are all seeing things wrongly throughout the rest of the world. Perhaps this system best teaches artists to paint what they see in Hawaii....I don't know.

Its the insinuation of belittling the body of work and knowledge of other artists for what works for them because they don't agree on the need to change, that I don't much care for. Again...call it the Don Jusko Colorwheel.....but, not the "REAL" colorwheel as though all others are false.


Larry, I even remember you saying that you like to use a painting knife becasue it allows you to put on highlights without leaving ridges that brushes often do, thus retaining maximum chroma. Am I right Larry? :)

Yes...I'm not going to backpedal and act as if I didn't say that and don't believe it. Obviously though... I am satisfied to be able to imitate the color intense chromas I see here in the upper northern midwest with the palette I'm using. When I need them, I can mix them. I need not develop another working model or add other pigments because my model is not the "REAL" one.

I agree...from seeing some of Don's paintings that some of his color appears more intense than mine. If that is how Hawaii looks to him and how color appears there....that's fine! I've always been all for it. In support of his system for him and those he influences. Just don't agree to needing to trash another system to make his system valid. Let's respect what all artists have been able to accomplish by their experience, and once again the proof is in the pudding. The body of work speaks for itself.

I hope people are hearing what I'm saying. I applaud what works for Don, you or anyone. IF someone likes my work, recognize that something must be working right for me too. No need to self-promote by degrading others. Suggesting one's system is thee "REAL" colorwheel does just that by inference.

Don has consistently over the past years of my association told me my system doesn't work....can't work....misleads people....is very bad to teach children...and as yet Don will not and has yet to use my work as an example to demonstrate or explain how his system will improve my work. He has publically come out and shared his respect for my work and abilities on other internet venues. So...is it just me, or does not anyone else see some contradiction and dichotomy to this?

If Don would simply change his approach. Isn't that all we are asking? If he'd only recognize the world is big enough for his system too...but not at the exclusion necessarily of all others.

If he would simply say..."my system is a method I found works very well for me...a system that works well for many, and you might want to look it over...see how it works, and consider using it!" ...and leave out all the mud slinging of the RYB system and insistence that it can't work. Drop the "REAL" colorwheel slogan of his marketing.

*shaking head and muttering to myself....

am I weird or something? Seeing something no one else sees?

Larry

Patrick1
07-30-2003, 09:42 PM
Don is right when he says that many colour wheels that purport to show mixing complements opposite each other are incorrect.

For example, you almost always see middle yellow opposite purple or violet. Most yellows + most violets will make a brownish colour far from neutral grey. But you always hear the mantra "purple is the complement of yellow", when it usually isn't.

At least Don's RCW shows specific pigments that he says mix to neutral, not just generic colour names. One major problem I can see with Don's wheel is, again, his placement of ultramarine blue opposite yellows. To my knowledge, burnt umber is not a darkened yellow, as his explanation says it is. So, unlesss I'm not getting something, his RCW is not a perfect complementary mixing wheel either. Add to that the fact that it's impossible to make a mixing wheel with many pigments where opposites always make neutral, any mixing wheel is approximate at best. But I do give Don credit for what he's trying to do...very few, if any people have put so much effort into trying to define complementary mixing relationships with accuracy.

But...
Many people don't need or even want opposites to mix to neutral or near-neutral, and their 'incorrect' colour wheels are fine for them. If they want a perfect neutral, they can always add a touch of another colour to bring it to neutral.

Patrick1
07-30-2003, 09:57 PM
Larry, I think your use of high chroma yellow-greens to show foliage highlights in direct sunlight are perfect...I like it just as it is.

In fact I think that it's the most effective way to give the illusuion of strong sunlight, especially since, as we both know, pigments fall way short of being able to reproduce the brilliance of sunlight. I see nothing wrong with you upping the chroma in selected places to give the illusion of bright sunlight.

I was just commenting on Milt's comment than one would rarely need high chroma colour mixes.

LarrySeiler
07-30-2003, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by Domer

But...
Many people don't need or even want opposites to mix to neutral or near-neutral, and their 'incorrect' colour wheels are fine for them. If they want a perfect neutral, they can always add a touch of another colour to bring it to neutral.

Sure...fair enough Patrick...but go back a page or so where I posted a number of my paintings usings the RYB color wheel as my basic foundation of thinking. The long horizontal. See the closeups? See those grays? The neutrals?

Or the plein air above those done on a gray day? Made from complementaries of the RYB model. Don says such turns out brown. Do those look brown to you? He insists a thing can't be done...am I a miracle maker???

As I said...with cheap Crayola Tempera powder paint....I have 3rd graders showing proficiency at mixing intentional browns.... intentional neutrals and grays...all with the RYB teaching.

Once again... just cut the "REAL"...out. Don is welcome to believe something doesn't work for others...but how, just because it doesn't appear to work for him?

Stand next to me by my easel....I'll mix you up a neutral as easy as you can imagine...put any color temperature slant on it you want, no problemo!

Larry

WFMartin
07-30-2003, 11:16 PM
I think some of you are missing the point, or maybe I am. The object of learning the primary colors of light and the primary colors of pigment, and how each behaves is not to limit your choices of pigments to only three, and to make unnecessary work of mixing from the "scientific" primaries. Far from it. I am working on a portrait right now, and am not using a single primary color, except probably Pthalo Blue (my idea of cyan).

What the knowledge of the scientific primary colors offers in the way of practicality is that once you understand how a color got to be the color it is, you can mix it again and again without much guessing as to what it takes to make it. And, instead of reaching for half a dozen "blues" to make a particular green you are seeking, with a given yellow, you may need only try one or two. That's what a bit of color knowledge can accomplish for the practical artist.

I can truthfully say that with the knowledge of color that I gained in the lithographic trade, I encountered very few "surprises" when I came to mixing oil or watercolor paints, or in the selection of convenience colors. The application of paints, the mediums, the substrate (canvas/paper), the selection of the proper brushes were all challenges, but the mixing of color simply (as modestly as I can say) WAS NOT much of a challenge for me from my first attempt with artist pigments.

Milt, I would be pleased to accept your challenge, provided that I understand your requirements exactly.

I'd like to try to mix whatever color it is that you have, using my choice of cyan (Winsor Blue Red Shade), magenta (Winsor Permanent Rose), and yellow (Winsor Transparent Yellow). However, I'd like to reserve the right in matching your tints and shades of whatever color you put up as a test, that I be allowed to use whatever quantity of each of those colors to make the "match". And, of course, I must be allowed to use white. My choice would be either Flake White, or Permalba White. Also, if you then present to me the task of mixing your unique color into some given OTHER color that you might have in mind, then I'd like to reserve the right to simply make that resulting color from my original tube colors of cyan, magenta, and yellow, rather than being handicapped by the use of any selected OTHER color.

But, as you seem to infer, it's purely academic whether it can be done or not. However, I'll be willing to give it a shot. How can we best do this? I'll be happy to get to it. It's time for me to put my "mix where my mouth is", I suppose. What is this unique color that you feel I can't match with cyan, magenta, and yellow? I'm quite intrigued.

Bill:)

Doug Nykoe
07-31-2003, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by LarrySeiler




Stand next to me by my easel....I'll mix you up a neutral as easy as you can imagine...put any color temperature slant on it you want, no problemo!

Larry


HOLD ON LARRY!!! Give me at least a week or a chance to get organized. I’m smelling money here! We need to sell tickets and move in some grand stands. I don’t think anyone would want to miss this gray mixing event.

Let’s see, maybe we could call this event something snappy like…Grays, Greys, and still… well Grays. Notice how I switched up the a’s and e’s in gra/ey. Hmmm I thought it was a nice touch…oh well, needs work.

Boy… I’m having second thoughts though… Not sure how the heck were going to sell this since just about 99.9 percent of the population of artists can mix a gray with complements. Maybe some dancing girls in the background will spruce up the show a bit.

Do you think were making this harder than it really is… or hmmmm [The Twilight Zone music playing in the background] Maybe the RYB wheel is weird and has some sort of curse when we mix a semi neutral. Oh sure WE see a beautiful grays when we mix but others viewing our work only see dirty browns. Don are you sure you’re not into some voodoo cult thing and sticking pins in our RYB wheel? :mad:

Oh well got to have some fun with this but I do think making grays just does not present much of a challenge and yes I guess you can make grays with Dons wheel too. It’s how the grays intermingle or how there placed is where it amounts to some thought and challenge.

LarrySeiler
07-31-2003, 02:20 AM
I think we're all gettin' worked up....and still, if what you are doing works for you....more power to you!

It works because it works....it really is that simple.

peace...I think I'll bow out while I hope to have all of you here still as friends!!! hahaha...take care everybody,

Larry

donjusko
07-31-2003, 04:25 AM
Hi All,
Larry, Ssheesh.... You keep getting yourself personally involved. This is not how you or I perceive color as we are painting, we both perceive it closely. I think.
This is about you attempting to bring in magenta and cyan into the basic red yellow blue primary color wheel.
That's the basic color wheel that must be taught in all schools according to the State's School Standards. It's the same way here in Hawaii where the grass is greener. You have to teach what you are told to teach by the States School Standards.

The grass is pretty green in N.J. too. I painted this picture at my cousins last year. I think the colors look natural, maybe I overstate the greens, maybe not. I did notice a pink tinge in the clouds all over the Northern East Coast.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/31-Jul-2003/1201-corvette400wide.jpg

You have been doing good in bringing in the pigments magenta and cyan into the lives of your students. But you are doing it outside the guide lines of that yellow-red-blue color wheel.

There is no way this RYB color wheel can accommodate the light's secondary colors of magenta and cyan. Combining the two different sets of primaries has can't be done on one colorwheel using the same yellow for both.

Not to say they can't be added colors to the yellow-red-blue palette of pre-made colors. In fact the two togather are rather nice, if only the blue was ultramarine blue.

In doing so though you probably wouldn't need the color red-violet which you would replace with magenta, blue-violet which you would replace with ultramarine blue, violet which you would replace with purple. Blue-green would now be made with cyan and green so you wouldn't need it either. Turquoise is sometimes called Blue-Green by some brands.

What I'm saying is by adding cyan and magenta to the palette you could make neutral colors but it would not by any stretch be the same yellow-red-blue color theory. So why keep this old theory in the schools? The YMC Crystal Color Wheel is a more accurate colorwheel.

Here are both color wheels, your's as you have to teach it and mine which is original. http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/othercolorwheel.htm

In the Chevreul RYB 12 color wheel above blue-green can not replace today's pure cyan.

The Red-violet hue would have to equal magenta. But red and violet don't even come close to making magenta. You could not even come close mixing those primaries of cobalt blue and red.

Primary blue would be cobalt blue hue, this change came with the 12 color wheel. 1839, Chevreul His complements in "Simultaneous Contrast of Color" made mud and he never completed his solid model (because it didn't work).

This cobalt blue would than be opposite orange and make a good neutral, not the darkest opposition but still having plenty of scale. This is the only correct opposition on the yellow-red-blue colorwheel.

Cyan would than be blue-green, a dull combination of green plus Chevreul's primary blue (cobalt blue hue). Dull because cobalt blue has magenta in it and green has yellow in it, mixed together no one today would ever call it cyan.

Yellow-orange would have to be the primary yellow if blue-green and red-violet represented cyan and magenta in this color shift to include yellow, magenta and cyan.

Yellow-orange and blue-violet are opposites on the yellow-red-blue colorwheel and they do not mix neutral. Blue-violet is the deepest blue on the Red Yellow and Blue 12 color wheel, equal to ultramarine blue. On the 3 and 6 color wheels blue was always ultramarine blue.

On the RYB 12 color wheel.
Red would be opposite green and make either brown hues or close to neutral hues.
Yellow would be opposite violet making more brown hues.
The dirty cyan hue made with blue and green would be opposite red-orange and make a green-brown mixture. Cyan should be opposite red as in the copper element's sediment and crystal colors.

Red-violet hue and yellow-green, are opposites on the basic RYB colorwheel. They mix brown.

On the 12 color Real Crystal Color Wheel all oppositions mix to neutral. You ask not to call it the Real Color Wheel because it implies others are wrong and this is the only correct one... I think it is. I hope you like the name Crystal Color Wheel better, it's the Artists' Pigment Color Wheel by any name.

"1550, Michelangelo, 1475-1564, High Renaissance Italy. He was in a class by himself, He didn't like Ad Vance, fought with Raphael, and took no students. He was a sculptor until 1503 when he first picked up a brush, already the most famous artist alive. He made his own gilded frames and always did prefer sculpting."

"THEORY. Although he never professed it, Michelangelo's first painting "The Holy Family" when he was 28 years old was divided into three colors, Yellow, Cyan, and Magenta. The cyan could have been Azurite, Blue Vitriol or Pompeiian Blue Lake, a Ferris-cyan, Indigo, or Bremen Blue or a native Cobalt Blue. It wasn't Ultramarine Blue in the highlights. What ever it was he had the primary colors looking right."

"TECHNIQUE, Doreen says, Rembrandt premixed a warm and cool white which he laid on in layers, one over the other. Rembrandt's final glaze was with asphaltum, a yellow-brown transparent oil tar. He understood the color theory that yellow darkened to brown and red was half yellow, so it too darkened to brown. A problem arises when the brown is darkened with black instead of its opposite color Ultramarine Blue. The National Gallery of Art Washington, DC said Rembrandt didn't use Asphaltum even though it was a popular color at the time."

Talking about brown and how you make it.
These color oppositions all came from the 12 color Chevreul colorwheel. The basic yellow-red-blue colorwheel. Except the top one, yellow-green and magenta, it makes a useful brown also.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/31-Jul-2003/1201-makebrowns300.jpg

This page has all important color mixes on it.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/mypigments.htm

I think this 2nd Battle of Magenta is over. We will let time decide which are the proper primary colors and which States if any should be allowed to teach which color wheel.

There is a search form on the first page to find terms or words in my color course.
Aloha, Don

donjusko
07-31-2003, 04:34 AM
The last two posts are almost the same, The first post is the extra one if it can be removed. It timed out in less then an hour. It seems :) Sorry about that. Don

Patrick1
07-31-2003, 05:16 AM
Larry, if you're still reading this, I think you're right...that a RYB colour wheel can be made so that the oppositions mix to neutral grey.

When I thought about it, I couldn't think of any reason why it couldn't work, provided the oppositions are correct, which you obviosly have, since you can mix neutral grey or near neutral grey no problem.

Compared to a CMY mixing wheel, some of the colours will be smushed closer together, others pulled a bit apart, but, unless I'm mistaken, it should still work...in theory and in practise.

donjusko
07-31-2003, 05:29 AM
Patrick, did you see the image I just posted. It show the mixtures of all the color oppositions in the RYB color wheel that mix to brown.

Patrick1
07-31-2003, 06:31 AM
Hi Don,

Yes, I saw it and I thank you for posting it. Yes, the oppositions you have there do mix to different forms of brown. But if you shift the colours a bit, it can work...within a RYB framework. You just have to make sure the oppositions are correct.

LarrySeiler
07-31-2003, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Domer
Larry, if you're still reading this, I think you're right...that a RYB colour wheel can be made so that the oppositions mix to neutral grey.


I've done a poor job of adequately expressing or putting the right words together...but I've been trying to say that the RYB colorwheel exists as working model; a model that exists more as an idea.

Its sorta like what scientists came up with to describe atoms. They've constructed models...and have found principles that are working principles from that model to build nuclear energy. Whether we could truly photograph an atom and blow it up large enough to see if it really looks like the model or not...mankind has been able to harness its use. The model....works because it works.

It would be like insisting that to grow up with talent, one needs absolutely one parent that is motivated and excels as a musician or artist. Mother representing one color, dad the complementary and BLOOP out pops this neutral who now has a chance to be creative.

A nurturing environment could produce a talented child. On the other hand....an abusive home where neither parent is creative nor cares to nurture such in their kids where reigns rejection, shouting and screaming, and hitting... might find the kid hiding in the safety of his or her own room with closed door...discovering a secret world they can run off to by sketching and doodling, or with a chord book teaching themselves to play guitar.

Seems though...that the idea of a family has sat for eons as the basis for a thing kids need. Not every family functions as it should...but whether they do or not...some kids still turn out creative.

I'm reading a book right now. A very well written book by two extremely talented individuals. They come from an atelier school background and are attempting to establish or argue for a standard that was lost...but could be recovered to once again produce works that are excellent.

I found myself struggling in parts of the book, because part of the imperative is that each artist must be schooled in a capable school by competent master artist teachers.

Okay. That costs a little money. So evidently....the inference is, if you are born to a family that cannot afford this opportunity to attend an atelier, then that is a sign you are not meant to be an artist and therefore should quit before you threaten to lower the excellence standard for the common good with more mediocrity!

I just cringe when people say things adamantly, with the air of absolute ex nihilo what can and can't be, work or can't work! The possibility of human potential when the heart fixes its hope and intention with passion and obsession is near endless.

I have come up the ranks the hard way. A father as a police officer whom until I won our state's wildlife artist of the year competition...thought my making art was irresponsible. A factory mill job is a sign of maturity. I attended a university during the anti art era where squirting paint in cow manure and whipping it at the canvas was a sure "A" in painting classes.

I have fought adversity every step of the stinkin' way..and am basically 99.9% self taught. To tell me what can or can't be done with the idea of a basic model?

The colorwheel does not actually exist. There is no official "red" pigment that responds to an idea ideally; no blue, no yellow. Minerals ground and in an oil binder stuffed in a tube. The stuff is not light. You can't shove the paint thru a prism...

...but with that idea...an abstract notion, you are free to discover relationships.

One meets a woman and is consumed with her. He has all these notions and ideas about her. His head swims with her fragrance, and he falls in love. It will now take the next 30-40 years to truly get to know her if even not more. He discovers that the notions of romance will go thru some changes.

Sure....now these 30 years later he'd like to have a class to talk about the "REAL" man and woman relationship. He wants all these young wet behind the ear males to attend...but you know what? Those guys don't want to hear it. They instead want to experience it.

Color needs to be experienced to truly know it....but the notion or a model of boy meets girl seems to have proven a lasting driving force.

I assure you...any painter that has started with a model will discover the true nature of pigment, what it can or cannot do. But such will illuminate other possibilities with that model and will expand upon it. Make it personal and theirs. How they will use that paint and apply it will become their style signature.

Its a foundation. That's it. An idea...thus, when it begins working everyone can say..."hhmm, I dunno...it works. I guess it works because it works!"

Larry

LarrySeiler
07-31-2003, 10:24 AM
btw....I'm working on a demonstration to illustrate that the power of the will, that talent... can win out by executing a plein air painting done entirely with different thicknesses of branches. Tree branches...whose ends are pounded down with a hammer. Smashed into crude fibers. I've not done it...I just believe it could be done.

I've wearied over the insistence that learning to paint and to produce excellent works requires the best of materials. Oh sure, to have interlocking hog bristle hairs is nice....but not necessary. Frustrated somehow that we have forgotten about those persons who have not had the convenience of ideal situations and opportunities.

My intent will be to relieve the frustration of other artists not able to afford the best, but yet encourage them that if this guy can paint with tree branches...I guess painting with the brushes I can afford is alright after all!

(I used to carry a Chrissy Evert Wilson wood racquet in my vehicle when someone proved to be a bit too cocky for his own good, and I'd pull that out to beat his butt. He and his several over priced graphite racquets and designer racquet tote bags which they'd princey prance around with to suggest their being "REAL" tennis players)

Its a journey. We might get to that destination in a plush expensive luxury car....but, maybe even hitch hike and still get there. Ride an old Schwinn bicycle and still get there.

Oh...been told ya can't learn to play the blues either living in northern Wisconsin! hahahah.....

Larry

WFMartin
07-31-2003, 11:12 AM
I am realizing that what this discussion amounts to is that an artist may as well call any color he/she wishes a "primary", if that makes him/her feel better, and it helps him/her get paintings accomplished.

Those artists who work with a limited palette, often only use an ochre, a blue, and some sort of an earth red. For them, they may as well label those colors "primaries", for in their use, they are.

However, I would feel guilty and lie awake at night were I to teach to my college level students that anything but Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow were the primary colors of pigment. I can prove that a dozen ways, but just not easily on the internet.

I can produce paintings using all the earth colors and convenience colors in the world, calling them primaries, if I see fit, but the reason they all work is because at the ground floor level they are all dependent upon how cyan, magenta, and yellow behave within those colors.

Bill

:)

LarrySeiler
07-31-2003, 11:29 AM
I'd be disappointed too Bill, if having the passion and knowledge you were to hold back from teaching what you could and pull what potential was possible from your college students!

I also understand your background in printing where these inks are crucial to understand, and you know that I appreciate your knowledge on these things.

However...I believe I'm living proof...that paintings, and not too bad of paintings at that...can be produced with okay...inferior less accurate models of theory.

Somehow....I've been able to take an inferior system, teach it to kids...and watch them grow.

One day perhaps...they'll start with a whole new crop of young art teacher graduates who'll teach it right. I don't personally get it. Don't feel the need to have to get it...and recognize I'm a dinosaur whose species is slowly dying out.

hahaha...I always get a kick out of attending a museum's show, you know where an artist's life body of work is on display. One of the more recent for me was Carl Rungius with 110 works.

They'll have a number of staff that spend time studying the individual, his biographical background, and painting methods. Its always interesting standing near to one person explaining to kids how such and such an artist worked.

I remember once such a staffer telling people about a deceased wildlife artist sculptor and painter. Talking about him as though near sainthood...his orderliness, and so forth.

This was a guy many of us knew...and his art area was a mess. Things he was working on lost under piles of other stuff and so on. I couldn't help but laugh as I walked away imagining a heavenly sigh, roll of the eyes and a smile. I gave a wink heavenwards.

Someday...when all the new teachers are in place teaching the proper CMY...they'll have a staffer using just the right particular tone of voice for effect at some obscure museum explain how I used the old RYB method and dared to think it appropriate and adequate. Hearers will drop their mouth, gasp...and wrinkle their noses.

Perhaps on the back of my stretcher frames in addition to the gps coordinates of my plein air location, I should include a disclaimer. "Caution...RYB model used"

Just funnin' with ya Bill....and everyone. I have nothing but highest regards for each and everyone of you.

Now you want to really get scared? I'm working toward a masters in painting and then eventually upgrading to an MFA... hoping to teach possibly yet at a university level someday!

Lookout, "Seileraures Rex" on the loose...

Larry

JamieWG
07-31-2003, 12:02 PM
I have a funny little anecdote to share. A long time ago, I needed to paint some purple phlox. I didn't have so many colors to choose from at the time. I pulled out every red I had, and every blue, and did a huge chart of color mixes that included all the usual suspects----cadmiums, alizarins, ultramarines, cobalts, ceruleans, and some different brands too. Not one of them made a rich, vibrant, phlox-like purple!

Totally baffled, I went to an art teacher, explained my color battle, and showed my chart. I told him, "I mixed and mixed and mixed, every red and blue I could find, and all I could come up with was mud. Why don't any of these colors mix to purple? And why does the red in each mix seem to matter more than the blue? Whatever happened to red + blue = purple? Where's the purple?"

He looked at me and laughed, saying, "What a worthwhile experiment you've done. These are all beautiful, useful colors, so please don't call them 'mud'; but in order to get purple, you'll need magenta!"

I considered that to be my first lesson in color theory!

Jamie

LarrySeiler
07-31-2003, 12:26 PM
Okay...tell me what you see here? Don't get complicated...what do you see?

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/31-Jul-2003/532-ryb_graphic.jpg

what do all the colors in the top row have in common? They are all basically forms of what symbolic idea? The idea...."red"

the middle row...? "Yellow"


the third row...? "Blue"

now...in each row....beginning with the "Red" row...you see influence of a bit of blue added to a red, or a bit of yellow added. This will make some reds warm or cool. If we arrive where we can't quite sense the blue or yellow component, we toss our arms up in the air and think...geez, this must be close to some kinda pure red.

In each yellow row....you see some that have a bit of influence of red learning toward orange and staying warm. In some, the influence of blue and leaning toward being cooler. Where we sense no presence of red or blue...egads, once again we imagine it must be near to a pure yellow.

In the blue row....you see some influence of the hint of the presence of yellow leaning toward a green. In some...blue that has a hint of red's influential presence leaning toward violet.

Its is not that I don't see magenta or know it makes a purple.

If you think in terms of warm and cool....you simply learn to "see it"

yet...by virtue of the categorical defining letter at the end of each row....I think we can agree there is enough presence in the red row to sense it being accurate enough to be categorized as "red"

and so forth with the others....

again...the model is an idea. Within that idea or family...is room for its offspring.

we just know that if you attempt to use a red-orange to make a purple....that the yellow of the mix is going to mix with the blue of the purple mix and produce a green that is going to mudify and cancel out the attempt. You can see the presence of the yellow in the red-orange...and that is simple logic. You can see more the blue influence of a magenta...and just know that is going to work appropriately with the right blue.

Now...you wouldn't pick a greenish blue, that is a blue with a bit of yellow's influence....because the green of that mix is going to mudify the attempt to make a nice purple.

Its done by seeing....and its easily understood by thinking in terms of warm and cool. Thinking in terms of warm and cool will keep the mud under control....yet, it is done easily enough with a RYB model. Not saying other models won't work, but explaining why it works just fine with RYB.

Larry

JamieWG
07-31-2003, 12:32 PM
Larry, yep to the yellows and blues....not sure about that magenta though.....I have to say that the magenta in the first row certainly stands out like a sore thumb on my monitor---more than I thought it would and definitely of a different ilk than the other reds...or maybe it's just because I've been thinking about it so much lately!

Edit: Well, now that I look again, one of those yellows looks more like an orange and another looks more like a green. I think I need to go take a nap! LOL...... Blues are still looking like blues so I won't look again!

Jamie

LarrySeiler
07-31-2003, 12:41 PM
if the color is not pure...within the RYB system the other two primaries....that is, one or the other...will have an influential presence. A primary will lean one way or the other because of another primary's presence.

You have to look...you have to sense the presence in a color.

I can look at any color and sense the influence. Its so simple, that I immediately see looking at nature the influence and mix it up without thinking.

Based on "seeing"....and it becomes second nature or near intuitive.

I'll bet everyone here can look at each color one by one in each row and sense what other primary is responsible for it looking the way it does. I'll bet near everyone has the ability to see a color that seems to least have an influential presence and recognize it as more pure.

With experience and mixing....painting...these things just work themselves out. It works....because it works.

Larry

WFMartin
07-31-2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by JamieWG
I have a funny little anecdote to share. A long time ago, I needed to paint some purple phlox. I didn't have so many colors to choose from at the time. I pulled out every red I had, and every blue, and did a huge chart of color mixes that included all the usual suspects----cadmiums, alizarins, ultramarines, cobalts, ceruleans, and some different brands too. Not one of them made a rich, vibrant, phlox-like purple!

Totally baffled, I went to an art teacher, explained my color battle, and showed my chart. I told him, "I mixed and mixed and mixed, every red and blue I could find, and all I could come up with was mud. Why don't any of these colors mix to purple? And why does the red in each mix seem to matter more than the blue? Whatever happened to red + blue = purple? Where's the purple?"

He looked at me and laughed, saying, "What a worthwhile experiment you've done. These are all beautiful, useful colors, so please don't call them 'mud'; but in order to get purple, you'll need magenta!"

I considered that to be my first lesson in color theory!

Jamie

Jamie,

Oh, my gosh! Somebody gets it! Thank you, Jamie, thank you, thank you.

And, Jamie, would it not have been advantageous for you to have known that fact about magenta through some sound prior color knowledge rather than having to have done all that mixing and experimenting to no avail? You happened to have gained that knowledge through a bunch of trial and error attempts, and eventually consulting with another artist. And, who even knows just how he might have eventually gained that knowledge.

That's all we color "theorists" are trying to do--to make life easier on artists. The fact of the matter is that sound color "theory" principles can be taught in a matter of an hour or two. It doesn't take 20 years of experimentation mixing the wrong colors and by chance stumbling upon the correct mix to produce the color you're aiming for.

I think that many artists like to feel they've somehow "paid their dues", so to speak, by mentioning the time spent through their trial and error mixings, in order to appear more as an expert artist. What a waste of time. If an artist never uses cyan, magenta, and yellow on their palette, and never intends to, I believe they should still have the knowledge of the primaries in order to be able to predict how colors will behave without the drudgery of trial and error mixing of the wrong colors. I have always felt that I have better things to do in creating art without having to learn things by trial and error that can so easily be learned in a couple of hours.

Thank you, Jamie, for posting this comment. You have truly made my day, as well as my point!

Bill :D

LarrySeiler
07-31-2003, 12:58 PM
don't forget though Bill...that the RYB model is also a color "theory" albeit one you might not agree with....and everyone no matter what model will have to do their homework, their practice...and pay their dues.

RYB, also a color theory....looks at the influence of primaries and concerns itself with warm or cool....and warm and cool is exactly what I deal with looking at sunlit areas and shadows for what I paint.

Magenta. See the hint of blue as an influence in it? Blue- that would be another primary in the RYB model...

name any color and see if another primary is not involved as an influence.

Again...not suggesting the RYB to be THEE theory, but a working model that has served artists well....and as "REAL" ...and, if my paintings are working...please tell me if its all a result of just dumb luck?

gotta fly folks, headin out of town for a day, back tomorrow then up to Michigan for awhile to our cabin to paint, trout fish...and so forth. Take care...

Larry

WFMartin
07-31-2003, 01:20 PM
Larry,

Your top row pretty much represents "reds", with one exception: the one that is third from the left. It appears to be magenta, to me. The other colors more or less reflect their own third of the RGB spectrum, whereas the magenta reflects as much of the blue third as it does the red third, making its use in mixing entirely different than most of the other in that row. It should not even be labeled as a "red", as its behavior is different. The color you've presented, here is rather a weak version of magenta, and, in fact, is reflecting slightly more red light than blue.

The row of yellows: really represents a hodgepodge of yellow-related colors with various hues and chromas. 1. an orangey yellow, 2. A very orangey yellow, 3. a very dirty yellow, 4. a greenish yellow, 5. the closest to being a primary yellow (but very light in value), 6. a very light, but orangey yellow. The second from the right seems to be representing equal reflectance of red and green light a bit more than the others do. (That makes it yellow.)

Blues: They all seem to be pretty much varying blues with differences in hue and chroma. The one outstanding color that is third from the right appears to be cyan. Cyan (if in fact it is true cyan) reflects as much green light as it does blue light, and should not even be labeled a "blue", because it is no more blue than it is green. Don't take my word for it--PUT A 10X TO 20X LOUPE TO YOUR COMPUTER MONITORS AND SEE FOR YOURSELVES! It ain't rocket science.

This is a truer "cyan" than the magenta above is a true "magenta". The magenta represented here is very nearly a "red".

That's my opinion, an' I'm stickin' to it, as they say. LOL

Bill :D

Doug Nykoe
07-31-2003, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by JamieWG


He looked at me and laughed, saying, "What a worthwhile experiment you've done. These are all beautiful, useful colors, so please don't call them 'mud'; but in order to get purple, you'll need magenta!"

I considered that to be my first lesson in color theory!

Jamie

To make this sillier why didn’t you state that all you had was Cad yellow and Permanent Green. And no matter what you did you could not mix purple. Okay so common sense says red and blue will get you closer to purple. So go further then and yes the RYB colour wheel does include the bottom colors where you can achieve purple. Its just that simple.

If you wanted a blazing purple why didn’t your teacher advise you to just buy dioxine purple and cut to the chase?

pampe
07-31-2003, 01:49 PM
Larry

I just started the Wilcox book and your example seems very close to where he starts,.......am I getting it?

LarrySeiler
07-31-2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by WFMartin
Larry,

Your top row pretty much represents "reds", with one exception: the one that is third from the left. It appears to be magenta, to me.


I understand...and believe it or not...it is enjoyable for me having this discussion and seeing how others see.

I have no problem seeing magenta in this red family. It certainly is not a yellow....and I don't see it a blue. I see it as a red with a very overbearing blue relative!


That's my opinion, an' I'm stickin' to it, as they say. LOL

Bill :D

no problem with me, Bill...

just cause I don't work it that way doesn't mean your view is not legit with me. It insists upon my conscience to support other artists whose ways different from mine work for them.

Larry

LarrySeiler
07-31-2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by pampe
Larry

I just started the Wilcox book and your example seems very close to where he starts,.......am I getting it?

I'd say so Pam....

keep it simple. See the influence of other primaries on one.... and think in terms of warm and cool. You'll "see" it on your palette. You'll see it in nature. You'll find your paintings work.

I keep a warm and cool variation of each primary "idea" on my palette...plus I like Naples Yellow, and veridian. I have no problem seeing or mixing yet...um, er....as I know. hee heee...

take care....

Larry

JamieWG
07-31-2003, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Doug Nykoe
So go further then and yes the RYB colour wheel does include the bottom colors where you can achieve purple.

Exactly, Doug.....but I was never taught that you need to go all the way to the "bottom colors" to get something that would yield a decent purple. I was taught "red and blue". Even going to the very end of what I considered to be red at the time did not yield an adequate result. It didn't even occur to me that I'd have to use a magenta. Same thing with the color "pink". It is really magenta and white that lead to what I considered pink my whole life, not red and white. Red and white = light red. Magenta and white = pink.

No, the teacher did not mention dioxazine because our discussion was based on color mixing and theory, not tube colors. Diox and I have been inseparable for years. I even gave up ultramarine to keep diox!

Glad you liked the story, Bill. Doing the chart was a very worthwhile experience for me, even if it did add years to my life. ;)

Jamie

Doug Nykoe
07-31-2003, 04:42 PM
I’m now starting to wonder though how much of colour is intellectualized by an individual artist and how much is felt. Granted we do grind our brains into this stuff but do most artists feel they need to intellectualize it to death or do we simply feel it. If were hesitant to rely on our own feelings towards colour do we feel a rigorous scientific understanding of color will change things for the better.

Take water for instance…You know how these darn scientists will analyze water with models and chemical bonds, atomic structure…etc. but I think in the most part artists should stick to simply seeing water as wet.

Speaking of water… the Blue Danube River is well a dirty brown yucky colour. Why in the world would you call it The Blue Danube? Well it seems Straus knew and it seems couples who are madly in love seem to curiously see it as blue. Ya I can just see the scientist lining up to prove it is not blue with their spectro what ever you call it…. And screams of “those damn artists and their feelings”!!! :rolleyes:

BTW JamieWG - I agree that Diox is a nice colour.

WFMartin
07-31-2003, 09:07 PM
I think just a TAD of intellectualizing on Jamie's part when she spent hours trying to mix a clean purple by using red with blue, instead of magenta might have actually helped, wouldn't it?

And, it wouldn't have taken a spectrophotometer (oh, pardon me--a spectrothingamajig!) to do it. I'm really sorry to be such a bore. Just thought some scientific logic might be of some help. I guess not.

I don't believe I'll bother again.

Bill

JamieWG
07-31-2003, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by WFMartin
I think just a TAD of intellectualizing on Jamie's part when she spent hours trying to mix a clean purple by using red with blue, instead of magenta might have actually helped, wouldn't it?
Bill

Bill, I didn't even have a magenta back then. This was for one of my very first paintings! I used everything I had at the time. I could see that alizarin was getting me closer though.

Jamie

Patrick1
07-31-2003, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by JamieWG


Exactly, Doug.....but I was never taught that you need to go all the way to the "bottom colors" to get something that would yield a decent purple. I was taught "red and blue". Even going to the very end of what I considered to be red at the time did not yield an adequate result. It didn't even occur to me that I'd have to use a magenta.


Heh heh...this eerily reflects my first foray into the world of colour theory. It was grade six. Art teacher said: "Red and blue makes purple". So why didn't that mix to a clean purple?...it was more like burgundy or black. Was I doing something wrong?

Many years later I tried alizarin crimson and quinacridone red. A little bit better. But wait a minute...this is getting farther away from red...so how come it's mixing cleaner purples? When I finally tried Quinacridone Magneta...finally...success! I learned that it was mostly the fault of the red.

It was my quest to mix a clean purple that got me interested in colour theory in the first place. I've been loving it ever since.

Patrick1
07-31-2003, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by WFMartin
I think just a TAD of intellectualizing on Jamie's part when she spent hours trying to mix a clean purple by using red with blue, instead of magenta might have actually helped, wouldn't it?


Of course it helped...Some people are just naturally curious, and aren't satisfied until they know how and why something works or doesn't work.
Others aren't as curious, and are just happy to use what works. That's fine too.


And, it wouldn't have taken a spectrophotometer (oh, pardon me--a spectrothingamajig!) to do it. I'm really sorry to be such a bore. Just thought some scientific logic might be of some help. I guess not.

I just wish I had a spectamathingamajiggy. So I could see which pigments give me the cleanest opaque yellow-green! Bill, I value the scientific perspective you bring to this forum. Art is still an art, but no harm can come from knowing the science at work which explains why we see what we see.

donjusko
08-01-2003, 02:54 AM
However...I believe I'm living proof...that paintings, and not too bad of paintings at that...can be produced with okay...inferior less accurate models of theory.

Hi Bill,
Well I guess I've known it all along. Not many people 'get it'. Behind the scenes they might, but out in the open they are fighting to protect what they were taught and want to be right.

We both see the fallacy in the RYB and would never teach it to our students. It's hard when the other side is screaming so loud on every soapbox. They say they are right and at the same time say it's 'just a starting point, yada yada" and explain why they are right even in the face of being wrong. They use 10 times the words just to bait and switch to confuse the opposition. They seem to be here to talk not learn.

Well, we are the opposition and we have more knowledge of the facts and we will prevail. Our model is a double cone with white on top and black in the middle and at the bottom. It is a solid model with a solid core. It's not really fair to call something that can't be made solid a model because it isn't.

For some people it's more important to be right then to accept a change. This is what I see happening here. It would be fair to teach both color wheels accurately and let the students decide, I have show that they can not be joined.

I'm glad someone of your stature recognizes this Real Crystal Color Wheel Bill, it's natural, simple, and works because it's proven to work.

It's based on solid facts. One can't just add two new colors, magenta and cyan to a color wheel that even the original theorists knew didn't work. The fact is they can't be added to the RYB color wheel because they won't fit. These new colors can't be made with the old system but the old system colors can be made with the new system. Magenta isn't an improvement on red, it's a color that never was.

There are only three primary points in a triangle. When red, yellow and blue occupy those points there is no logical space for what we conceder the true primaries. Our thinking of the of the primaries being yellow, magenta and cyan easily accepts the location of red, yellow and blue. All the reds and all the blues. Something that RYB just won't allow.

Calling magenta red is wrong, since red can be made with magenta and magenta can't be made with red. Magenta is the primary and should be taught so. Of course the same applies to cyan and blue. It's simple and I would really dislike having to be on the RYB side of the debate. Larry is forced to, the States School Standards force him to.

What I am bringing here is how all colors get darker in their natural crystal elements and how that relates to pigments.

This month a college professor that has been teaching for 35 years is now using my Real Crystal Color Wheel because it works. This will filter down to the high school and elementary teachers whether the School Standards are changed or not.

It's my plan to change these standards as quickly as possible in all states. I look at Larry's work as slowing me down. With your help and other's we will prevail, in the end there is no other way. Don't give up. As is said, the truth always comes out.

This debate by the opposition is not solid enough to withstand the pressure of the truth. Oh they can whine loudly but in the end they can't make the RYB colorwheel work because it never has.

There is no such thing as a 'split primary', it defeats the purpose of a primary and leads to the thinking that any two colors mixed together to form another color can be called a primary.

A primary is one that is basic, three primaries in a triad make all colors. That's REAL. To work best, those primaries should be transparent and have no hint of a secondary color present. The mixing of two primaries should make the secondary color, secondary colors can not be primary.

Larry has been on this group talking his warm and cool split primary RYB for a couple of years now, talking down all opposition with words and works of his students. All the while saying all theories are alright, making room for his idea.

Three times in this thread he brought up the NAPPAPC. Well I'm a member also. I'm not a 'Pro' because I didn't pay the extra $15 membership. I submit our location workshops here on Maui to the group, just for our visitors.

This group is adamant about only painting on location which I am 100% behind. Why then would any member teach painting from a reference photo in their class? I really don't think the NAPPAPC would approve, if they did I wouldn't be a member.

Sorry Larry, I think this forum needs a new approach to painting.

donjusko
08-01-2003, 05:18 AM
Well the way they perceive color anyway.

Wayne Gaudon
08-01-2003, 06:48 AM
donjusko .. if a person wanted to paint using only the 3 primaries and white, what colors (Pv numbers) would you suggest.

Would this even be a good idea? Can the secondaries be made as clean as a store bought secondary?

Perhpas this has been hashed already but I'm basically too lazy to read the whole thread.

JamieWG
08-01-2003, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Wayne Gaudon
Can the secondaries be made as clean as a store bought secondary?


Nope! This is why I carry CMY plus three pure secondaries. In my case, Wayne, I formulated my palette by starting out with the CMY colors, and added the colors I couldn't mix cleanly. I ended up with:

CMY:
Permanent Rose PV19 (or other-named equivalent)
Cadmium Yellow Pale PY35
Phthalo Blue GS (Don't remember the pigment number...PB15???)

then ended up adding:
Carbazole Dioxazine Violet
Cadmium Orange
Phthalo Green (more for darks and convenience than purity)

From these six, I feel I can get everything I need, except that I occasionally need a hit of cad yellow lemon.

Don, I noticed in your 6-color list you posted to me that they are all transparent pigments. My 6-color palette list seemed to match up almost exactly to yours, though I use the two cads for opacity while maintaining high-chroma, and I see you didn't choose a true orange. I am curious as to why you feel an ultramarine would be the next one to add, since the Phthalo blue plus dioxazine gives nearly identical hue and chroma. I have been thinking myself of adding ultramarine, but:
1. I can't find one I like and
2. 'Not sure why I need it!

Jamie

Wayne Gaudon
08-01-2003, 09:08 AM
Permanent Rose PV19
Interesting .. my Quin Red is PV19 yet it isn't rose colored in comparison to any Permanent Rose I've used. It is warmer.

JamieWG
08-01-2003, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by Wayne Gaudon
Permanent Rose PV19
Interesting .. my Quin Red is PV19 yet it isn't rose colored in comparison to any Permanent Rose I've used. It is warmer.

Wayne, there are three PV19s....that I know of:
Red
Rose
Violet

Sometimes they are misnamed too! For example, the Classic Artist Oils Quinacridone Red is _definitely_ the rose, as I've compared it side-by-side with both the Rembrandt Quinacridone Rose PV19 and the WN Permanent Rose PV19. It should really be called Quinacridone Rose instead. Yours is obviously correctly named at least!

Jamie

WFMartin
08-01-2003, 10:28 AM
Jamie, Wayne, Don,

Usually the secondaries that one attempts to mix cannot be made as pure as some of the tubed versions that you can buy off the shelf. I'm sure that if Milt accepts my challenge, he will undoubtedly confront me with some pure, knock-your-socks-off purple or orange just to prove me wrong. (I'll probably make it, if he presents me with a green of some sort, but not if he hands me a purple/violet or an orange; you see, I can already predict my end results.) And, he'll probably succeed. The reason he will succeed is that pigments can never be made as pure as the colors of light which they are supposed to reflect. So, as one color containing a color impurity gets mixed with another color containing another color impurity, the impurities get added right along with the base colors and the resulting mix is not as pure as we might prefer it to be. It'll be grayer, dirtier, closer to the center of the color wheel.

Again, it's not the theory which will be at fault, but the pigments. It's quite difficult to convince a red, yellow, blue primary advocate that the reason our cyan, magenta, yellow technique does not meet all the tests is that pigments are not as clean as the colors of light which they are supposed to emulate. However, the cleaner the cyan, magenta, yellow pigments are that we select, the more success we are able to have, and the closer we come to making whatever color is demanded of us. The fact of the matter is that the red, yellow, blue advocates can't make these colors, either, nor even as well as we cyan, magenta, yellow advocates. Their choice is to go out and buy a tube of some secondary that meets their requirements. That's ok, in practicality, but it does absolutely nothing to further their idea that red, yellow, and blue are the primary colors of pigment.

The placing of cyan, magenta, yellow, red, green, blue on a color wheel or triangle is something I've been doing scientifically for 40 years or so. It's based upon calculated facts, and not a bunch of hunches or terms such as "warm", "cool", "acid" (I really LOVE that totally meaningless term), etc. It works, it's scientific, and it's the truth. What's more, it works with any medium to which you might choose to apply it. Watercolors, oils, printers' inks, acrylics, etc. Once again, color is color, and it will be forever. It doesn't suddenly change its rules or laws to accomodate different mediums.

The truth regarding the behavior of color will prevail, and I think the computer age (as much as I distrust computers) will help it to prevail. When any interested person takes a magnifier to a computer screen to see just how a color gets made with only three colors of light, a "light" just might go on in many persons' heads, as well, and the truth will then be apparent. When we can get artists to observe just how colors get created on a computer or TV monitor, and begin asking, "Why does that work that way?" and then decide to listen to those who offer the scientific reasoning behind it, many questions will become instantly clear in their minds. No more will an artist be reaching for a tube of red paint to mix with their cyan to produce purple; they'll hopefully reach for their magenta, instead.

The knowledge of the rules governing the behavior of color is not rocket science, and can be quite easily taught in an hour or two, with several examples to prove it, as well. Don, if the main objection to your color wheel is that you have called it "real", you should, perhaps choose to call it "scientific", instead, because that's what it truly is, and I've been workin' with it for years. It's never failed me yet.

talkingbanana
08-01-2003, 11:00 AM
This really is ridiculous. If it works, it works. Who says anyone has to be right?

I use RYB because that's what I've been taught, and beyond my very limited teaching (color theory isn't big in the public schools year), I've experimented and found that it's what works for me. No, I don't pay much attention to the color wheel; by experimentation I've found out how to get pretty much everything I want.

No, I can't get everything from cad red, cad yellow light, and ultramarine. I know that - that's why I use phthalo blue and perm rose from time to time too. Maybe I'll use cad yellow medium (acrylics) or new gamboge (watercolors) if I need a different yellow. But isn't that the beauty of color mixing? Knowing what you need to get the cleanest mixture of what you want, avoiding mud?

Personally, I find phthalo blue and perm rose all but useless in my watercolor portraits. Burnt sienna, burnt umber, new gamboge, winsor or cad red, and ultramarine blue pretty much cover it. Phthalo only comes in when mixing certain hair or eye colors, and I don't think I've ever used a magenta. I don't see the point in mixing a magenta with a "primary" yellow to get the medium red I need to add to burnt sienna to get the blush on someone's cheek just right. Doesn't that sound kinda silly?

Likewise, I find cad red all but useless in painting a pink rose. Cad yellow light isn't very helpful in a setting where new gamboge does the job (actually, in watercolors, new gamboge does everything I need a yellow to do so that's not the best example for me). A magenta doesn't help me paint an umbrella that just happens to be straight-from-the-tube cad red, so why use magenta - especially when I already have the cad red?

If it works, it works.

WFMartin
08-01-2003, 02:13 PM
I guess it does seem ridiculous to those who have come by their knowledge the hard way, so to speak, or to those who simply choose not to gain useful knowledge relating to the application of color behavior in art.

Throughout my career in lithography, I have also often encountered those who really have chosen not to become involved in knowing why their tools (light, color, etc.) work the way they do. But, I must admit, the teacher instinct in me surfaces once in awhile, and I sometimes become inspired to have another try at it, in hopes that someone might use my advice to produce a color they may not have been able to produce before, or to produce some color with less effort.

Sorry. I don't mean to be making this a ridiculous endeavor. I thought it might be helpful to someone. My goal has always been to inspire others with some scientific facts, and let them prove to themselves if what I'm stating is right or wrong. I didn't mean it to be a contest. It makes very little difference to me who is right or wrong. I already feel quite confident in my knowledge of color behavior, and I only wish to help others with it.

Bill

JamieWG
08-01-2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by WFMartin
Sorry. I don't mean to be making this a ridiculous endeavor. I thought it might be helpful to someone. My goal has always been to inspire others with some scientific facts, and let them prove to themselves if what I'm stating is right or wrong. I didn't mean it to be a contest.

Bill

Bill, you have never ever been anything less than helpful and an inspiration to others in any forum I've ever seen you post in. I can't tell you how valuable I've found your input to be, and your professional knowlegde is a wonderful resource for all of us. You have such a nice way of communicating too; you are one of the gems of the WC community. Don't you dare go thinking otherwise! :angel:

Jamie

WFMartin
08-01-2003, 02:30 PM
Jamie,

A little mutual admiration, here, I sense. I thank you. You're a gem!

Bill:)

Chuck Levitin
08-01-2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by donjusko
"as there are no perfect pigments"
I disagree. With these transparent 6 colors I can paint anything in front of me accurately. Also notice each of these transparent colors have simular tinting strengths.

Quinacradone Magenta
Thalo Blue
Indian Yellow Golden
Indian Yellow Brown
Dioxine Purple
Thalo Green
The next color I would add would be Ultramarine Blue, than, Cad. Red.

Don, I think you already know your term "accurate" is a little bit of an overreach. The range of values, hues and chromas that can be achieved from paint pigments is less than the range of values, hues and chromas that occur naturally in nature. While it would be possible to setup a still life with objects that have values, hues and chromas that could be "accurately" matched with paint pigments. You can't say that is true as to "anything" in front of you.

donjusko
08-01-2003, 05:13 PM
Wayne,
After the hours it took me to write it you can't spend a quarter of the time and read it? Read it, it has info you need to know.
Jamie,
Nice going.
If you were not going to use oil Indian Yellow Golden and Brown so you can make an orange and red, green and a good dark, than I would add orange and red, thalo green, ult. blue, bt. sienna and bt. umber, yellow ocher, Naples yellow, Venitian red, cobalt blue, green gold.
Red Light was the more important color because it would mix orange plus deepen with magenta. Ultramarine Blue can be made but the balance point is hard to maintain. Purple is indispensable and easier to make, purple and green make the shadow color in the middle and near background, before it changes to blue. Since it's a very needed tertiary I want the tube.
PR:122 Magenta is a better pigment to make neutral darks. I tried everything available and this was the winner. That took a long time because at that time D.S. was the only company using it. At that time it was call Acra Violet, they have since change it to Magenta. PV:19 is a specialty color. They have a new color named Permanent Yellow Deep W/C that is made of Isoindoline that is the original Indian yellow hue. They and Grumbacher are very forward companies. Bocour makes the best opaque colors in W/C.
Bill,
Nice going, and thanks.
I went through a lot of names before choosing 'Real'.
It does match crystals, it is scientific, and it is the only real color wheel for artists out there. I'll probably stick with real, it says it all.

CHOSEN PIGMENTS USED AND DESCRIBED ON MY 36 REAL COLOR WHEEL

RCW1a, Light
Chrome Yellow Light, Lead Chromate, PY34
RCW1a, Light
Yellow Light Hansa, Arylamide, PY3, Translucent
Cadmium Lemon, Cadmium Zinc Sulfide, PY-35, Opaque
RCW1b,
Aureolin, Potassium Cobaltinitrite, PY40, Opaque
New Gamboge, Nickel Dioxin, PY153, Translucent
Hansa Yellow, Moons Yellow, PY74, Translucent
As Yellow, Moons Yellow, PY151, Translucent
RCW1c,
Indian Yellow-Orange Lake Extra, Dioxin Nickel Complex, Isoindoline, PY153, PR260, Transparent
RCW1d,
Indian Yellow-Brown Lake Extra, Dioxin Nickel Complex, Synthetic Iron Oxide, PY153, PY42, transparent
RCW1e,
Asphaltium Extra, PBr7, PR101, BBC, PG17, Transparent Brown tint to Yellow
Raw Umber Brown, Natural Earth, Hydrated Iron Oxide, PBr7, PY42, Translucent
RCW2a, Tint,
Naples Yellow, Titanium Dioxide, Rutile-Nickel-Tin-Titanium, Chromium-Antimony-Titanium Yellow, PWA, PY53, PBr24, Opaque
RCW2b,
Chrome Yellow Orange Lead Chromate, PY34, Opaque
RCW2c,
Yellow Ochre, Natural Hydrated Iron Oxide, PY43
RCW3a,
Naples Yellow, Lead Antimonate, PY41, Opaque
RCW3b,
Raw Siena, Natural Iron Oxide, PBr7, Opaque
RCW4,
Benzimidazolone Orange, Benzimidazolone, PO62, Transparent
Cadmium Orange, Cadmium Sulfo-Selenide, PO20, Opaque
RCW5,
RCW6,
Chinese Vermilion, Mercury Sulfide, Translucent
Vermilion Extra, Isoindoline, PR 260, translucent
RCW7b,
Light Oxide Red Warm, Synthetic Iron Oxide, PR101, Opaque
RCW8,
RCW9,
RCW10,
Light Portrait Pink tint, Naphtha Red AS-D, Titanium White, Derailed Yellow, PR122, PWA, PY83, Opaque
Naphtha Crimson, Naphtha AS, PR170, Translucent
Permanent Rose, Quinacridone, PV19, Transparent
RCW11,
RCW12,
Light Magenta tint, Naphtha AS, Quinacridone Violet, Titanium Dioxide, Zinc Oxide, PR188, PR122, PWA, Opaque
Medium Magenta tint, Quinacridone Magenta, Titanium Dioxide, PR122, PWA, Opaque
ACRA Violet, Quinacridone Magenta, PR122, Transparent Warm Magenta
RCW13,
Cobalt Violet, Cobalt Phosphate, PV14, Transparent Cool Magenta
RCW14,
RCW15,
RCW16,
Dioxazine Purple, Crabapple Dioxazine, PV23, Transparent
RCW17,
RCW18,
Ultramarine Violet, Alumosilicate of Sodium, PV15, Transparent
RCW19,
King's Blue Deep, Tint, Zinc Oxide, Titanium Dioxide Retile, Synthetic Ultramarine B29, PWA, PWA, PB29, Opaque
Light Blue Violet tint, Ultramarine Blue, Titanium Dioxide, PB29, PWA, Opaque
RCW19c,
Ultramarine Blue, Complex Silicate of Sodium and Aluminum with Sulfur, PB29, Translucent
RCW20,
RCW21,
RCW22a,
Cobalt Blue, Oxides of Cobalt and Aluminum, PB28, Opaque
RCW23,
RCW24,
RCW25, Cerulean Blue, tint, Oxides of Cobalt and Chromium, PB36, Opaque
Phthalo Blue, Phthalo Blue, PB15, Transparent
RCW26,
RCW27,
RCW28,
Bright Aqua Green tint, Phthalocyanine Green, Phthalocyanine Blue, Titanium Dioxide, PG., PB15, PWA, Opaque
RCW29,
Opaque Green Light, Phthalocyanine Green, Moons Yellow, Cobalt-Titanium-Nickel-Zinc-Aluminum-Oxide, Phthalocyanine Blue, Titanium Dioxide, PG., PY3, PG50, PB15:1, PWA, Cool Opaque
RCW30,
RCW31,
Tint, Emerald Green, Brominated Copper Phthalocyanine, Titanium Dioxide, PG36, PWA, Opaque
Phthalo Green, Phthalocyanine Green, PG., Transparent
Phthalo Green, YES, Brominated Chlorinated Phthalocyanine, PG36, Translucent
RCW32,
RCW33,
Permanent Green Light, Phthalo Green, Moons Yellow, PG., PY3, Opaque
RCW34,
Chrome Oxide Green, Chrome Oxide, PG17, Opaque
RCW35a,
Yellow Green Organic, Opaque
RCW35b,
Sap Green, Arylamide Yellow GX, Phthalocyanine Green, Trans. Red Oxide, PY73, PG., PR101
RCW36a,
Halo Yellow Green tint, Chlorinated Copper Phthalocyanine, Arylide Yellow 10G, Zinc Oxide, PG., PY3, PWA, Opaque
RCW36b,
Indian Yellow-Green Extra, Dioxin Nickel Complex, Methin Copper Complex, PY153, PY129, Transparent
Green Gold, Nickel Chelated As, PG10, Translucent
Green Gold, Azomethine Copper Complex, PY129, Transparent

Chuck, I did mean to say "accurately".

LarrySeiler
08-01-2003, 05:38 PM
Okay...

saw in Barnes & Noble books store today Wilcox book...and I saw what he said was time to abandon the RYB colorwheel....which should make some of you smile.

Interestingly....he went on to promote his Color Bias Wheel....

It was the split primary color wheel....which basically is what I'm using. Interestingly also...he yet had the word red, yellow, and blue between each split grouping.

Instead of abandoning....it was pretty obvious he was only expanding it...

I guess I can see why all the confusion, when the author illustrates his model...still has yellow, red, and blue labelled inbetween the splits...talks of abandoning, yet really is expanding.

He did say what I said in early pages....that there is no true red, yellow and blue. Once again...I think we all knew that. Yet the question logically has to be asked why the RYB all this time then if we all knew that?

I think because perhaps we want to make something more of it today? I don't know....

Here's somewhat...and crudely, (I'm in a hurry heading to upper Michigan tonight)... Wilcox's version...which really is mine, but I see it based on the concept or "idea" of RYB

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/01-Aug-2003/532-splitprimary_graphic.jpg

In fact...though I have abbreviated by only putting the letter, he spells out Red, Yellow, and Blue between his splits.

He explains each version is biased toward warm or cool...which is what I've been sayin.

I don't see why it bothers folks so much to see the foundational concept or idea is yet RYB....such as Wilcom talking about abandoning it...when he really only modified it or expanded it.

Also...Wilcox has not officially gone the cyan route I suppose...but I didn't bother paying out the $27 for the book to find out if he does eventually in the book. Since Don...and Bill are not really talking warm & cold as the deciding factors as I have been, probably not. However... Wilcox's model is how in essence I paint, whether we wish to attribute its existence to the RYB model or not.

If it will make ya'lz happy...I'll call it the split primary wheel... as RYB seems to be a stumbling block. If someone asks me what it is though, I'll just say...."hhmm...familiar with the RYB model? Well, its that...but just a warm and cool version of each primary."

Like I'zzz been sayun.

later folks...

Larry

Einion
08-01-2003, 05:39 PM
In addition to waiting for clarifications from Don in the other thread I was having so fun watching Larry lay waste to the patently incorrect assertion that only using his colour wheel could one make successful neutrals :evil: Larry, you have my genuine admiration, I wouldn't have been half as magnanimous as you have been here.

And Doug, you're cracking me up here! FWIW I think the dancing girls are a great idea but then shouldn't we also have a Chippendales marquee for the ladies? :D

I'm glad to see that others are interested enough in this to give their input, it would be very sad if this was just a two-way or three-way debate. There's a lot of ground covered here and before I get to Don's posts I want to state a few things of my own.

First, it is undeniably important to know that cyan, magenta and yellow are the true subtractive primaries. I think this should always be taught to students, regardless of whether they will ever use it practically it's important to know the subtractive colour relationship embodied within the human visual system - which only uses red, green and blue to see all colours. It's not a complex idea to learn from a theoretical standpoint and even a single day spent playing with the colours, doing some painting and maybe even looking at printed magazines* will show its amazing range. It's so simple it can, and is, taught to young children. And isn't it great, three tubes of watercolour for an entire class!

Now this said, I for one wouldn't want to have to paint using only these colours. I suspect the overwhelming majority of artists would agree once they'd tried it. For me at least this is mainly because of their transparency and the approach one is forced to adopt, as I've mentioned in previous threads. Not so much of a problem in watercolours but I'm not a watercolourist. There are other practical limitations also: the reflectance profiles of available cyan, magenta and, to a lesser extent yellow, paints are far from their ideals, giving less-than-sterling results when mixing some colours. These are minimised if overlaying transparent layers of colour it must be said (as the printing industry does) but I don't want to have to paint this way; nice to know about all the same. Another issue is the endless, sometimes tricky mixing to get every other colour; worse still would be glazing in layers (using the colours in order on separate layers) as you can't really preview the end result so it takes a lot of experience to get exactly the result one is looking for. Related to this is the different characters of the individual pigments to worry about, primarily (sorry, no pun intended) centred on the phthalo blue. As we're all aware, the phthalos are among the strongest of pigments so they easily overwhelm mixes if one is not careful. And in water-based medium the pigments can tend to separate, the blue rising to the top because it's so light for example. In watercolours, or acrylics used thinly, this can lead to washes drying irregularly on the paper; this might be a desired result for textural reasons but it frequently wouldn't be.

Since we'll want to use other colours we have to learn how to use them. One approach is to bypass theory almost completely, learn all the simple interactions of a limited palette: one each of the RYB primaries, a couple of secondaries, some earths, black and white for example. There's at least one book that teaches just this sort of approach and I'm sure there are countless courses around the world that still do too. There's nothing to say one couldn't then paint for the remainder of one's life in only this way with exactly these colours - just as many painters who trained in an atelier probably do. This isn't satisfactory either - although it does have something valuable to offer in the systematic, rigorous, hands-on mixing experience one has to begin with - since it would leave the student knowing almost nothing applicable in other circumstances: different colours, other media etc. This is even before any thought to the limited gamut of such a palette compared to the real world which obviously isn't suitable for everyone.

So we have to teach some theory in order to provide a practical basis for further exploration and artistic scope. Which brings us to a fundamental dilemma at the heart of all art instruction: there is no universally-applicable colour theory that fully explains how colours actually work in combination. This shouldn't really come as a surprise. If paint interactions could be explained fully and simply, there wouldn't be so many books on colour mixing published, one principle would have swept away all that came before, everyone would use it (since it's all you would need) and artists wouldn't have to explore colour for years, decades even, looking for patterns and underlying rules, building up preferred mixing routines that suit their artistic ideals. And hey, we wouldn't be having this discussion! Given this fact it's obvious that whatever we teach it won't be all-encompassing, but it should be equally obvious that it should be a theory that as fully as possible encompasses what one will experience when mixing paint - all paints, not any tailored set that happen to work nicely together. The why and how is important, since it's what gives the beginning artist a framework to build upon. Knowing why one mix gives the results one wants and a similar mix doesn't is incredibly useful and I think it can be difficult for experienced artists to remember how frustrating, and what a major stumbling block to progression, it is not knowing anything really concrete about colour interactions. I'm sure we'd all agree that technically perfect mixing doesn't make one a good artist, it's certainly a key skill for those interested in accurate colour, but alone it won't make you anything better than a technician. Issues of artistic merit aside, thinking about things as accurately as possible is the best route to developing this key ability. By best here I mean the most efficient, with the least wrong turns and dead-ends.

The simplest kind of RYB model is out as a basis since it is so far off the mark in most cases and doesn't explain variation, but that doesn't mean we have to discard the essence of the idea in its entirety. As Larry correctly points out above cyan and magenta are contained within the basic structure - if you imagine the wheel's circumference encompassing all hues then cyan is between blue and green and magenta is between violet and red. We're getting closer to something more accurate when we do this since every possible colour is a variations of value for these hues and including magenta and cyan begins to lay out the correct colour oppositions: yellow with blue-violet and magenta with green for example. At this point I'm not going to go into a rambling wander over the colour theory landscape as it's covered far better than I could in the applicable sections of the Handprint site. I strongly advise anyone interested in getting a thorough grounding in this issue to go through it, it's free and I doubt you can find a better overview of the history, flaws and applicability in 'colour theories' and colour wheels. Before I move on some cornerstones to bear in mind.

Important fact #1: some colour relationships are inherent to the visual system. They are independent of any theory, artistic or otherwise; among these are the visual complements. One doesn't have to like them, they are what they are.
Important fact #2: visual complements do not necessarily work as mixing complements.
Important fact #3: pairs of colours that are not visual complements can function as mixing complements (sometimes very well).

I'll sidestep to actual colour mixing for a moment. For my money the basic principle of colour-bias is one of the most important things one can learn from a practical standpoint. Again it's a very simple idea, it almost always works reliably and, importantly, predicts simple mixing outcomes with some accuracy even with colours one has no prior familiarity with. It requires work on behalf of the student to get a good feel for (no bad thing) but fundamentally the concept can be learned in a single sitting - I grasped it reading Michael Wilcox's book standing up in the library, it really is that simple. Regardless of whether it is thought of in these terms, colour-bias theory is embodied in the twin-primary or split-primary system. This is what Larry uses and teaches and, importantly, is fundamentally what many realist painters come to use, by varied routes, because it provides a very good range of possible mixed colours - a wide gamut - using a fairly small palette. To be clear, I'm talking about a palette based on twin primaries, not solely consisting of them - it might contain earths, a number of secondaries and even black, plus white of course in oils or acrylics. This is not a colour model per se, but a framework for mixing that wide range of colours.

As Larry has consistently pointed out, since it works so well in practice and since it is used successfully by so many good painters I can't see any reason not to use it! The gamut of a good split-primary palette is wider than just CMY (since it will contain these colours within it) and will additionally provide a range of working characteristics, including opacity, which I think is incredibly important from a practical standpoint, in oils and acrylics at least.

Now there's a big but coming and it's a doozy unfortunately. Because this is not a colour theory but a colour-mixing approach it doesn't teach any theoretical basis for complements unless it's combined with a wheel that includes cyan and magenta. This is a problem since neutralising is so vital in representative painting. Lower-chroma colours are very common in reality and in the simplest terms just knowing how to drop the saturation of any colour you have, or might mix, by even a small amount requires some theoretical knowledge. This is especially important with today's high-chroma paints. You might think that you could record and learn all the possible interactions of your palette via experimentation, much like with the first example I gave, but this isn't really possible. You could certainly do colour tables of every two-colour mix but when you get to three-colour mixes the sheer volume of paint required becomes prohibitive, not to mention the time it would take. If you're good with numbers try and work out how long it would take for six primaries, two secondaries, three earths and white in three-colour combos. It's quite a shock even with only three steps between each colour, which isn't really enough (seven is ideal but it should be an odd number of steps). Then if we think about four-colour mixes it really starts to get quite terrifying.

So where does that leave us? Well if we consider that colour wheel I allude to above that includes magenta and cyan this will show hues in roughly correct oppositions so if we position our paint colours around this wheel, with reasonable accurately, one can plot the hue of its mixing complement right? So for example we see that an red-orange like Cadmium Red Light or Cadmium Scarlet, instead of being opposed by green as the traditional wheel would suggest, is actually facing cyan so this is the correct mixing complement in theory. It practice it works quite well**. If we extrapolate from this, imagining any hue you mix in the course of painting, identifying its opponent colour is simplicity itself. I'll give a number of examples for clarity since I know this is hard to picture without diagrams. Moving further around from Cadmium Red Light to a mid-orange, the opposing colour swings in the same direction (counter-clockwise in this case) towards violet, so it moves from cyan to blue. So in this case we have orange opposed by blue, an example of a traditional opposition that can work. You have to be careful to select the right hues - i.e. as accurately as we did choosing cyan and red-orange - but again it gives reasonable results. Swing in the other direction, a middle red is opposed by a colour closer to green from cyan, a blue-green. So we have red plus green, essentially a traditional opposition, and it can work quite well. Now let's go a bit further afield and move more towards 'noon' on the colour wheel, take a middle yellow. The opposing colour will swing in the same direction, moving towards violet, making it violet-blue. Here's where the house of cards I've been building crashes down around my ears - Important fact #2. Violet-blues don't neutralise yellows well. In fact no single colour neutralises the bulk of yellows properly. I'm talking true yellow here, not an earth like Raw Umber of that hue. Don gets around this sort of problem by opposing specific colours with other specific colours - not hues but actual paints. Which highlights what his wheel is - a colour-mixing wheel - a good one at that, but this doesn't make it any more 'real' than a number of others and like all wheels it can't satisfy all artists' needs. And let's not lose sight of Important fact #3, some complement pairs totally ignore this nice theory and work anyway (you can just imagine them going na na na na na! can't you?)

What this brings us to is that it requires the correct theoretical framework to avoid this kind of problem when possible and if (when!) it does one needs to know how to remedy it. Traditional painters who mix colour well have the experience to deal with mixes that aren't quite right and adjust as necessary, without even thinking about it I would guess - the "I know if I mix these two colours and tweak it with this other colour I'll get exactly what I need" approach. Many many painters do this sort of thing all the time (listening Don?) they have to since they don't have palettes full of ideal complements. But with teaching of the correct oppositions this job would be made a lot easier for the student and will benefit their development; and I think fundamentally it will help them to paint better in the long run. One still needs hand-on experience with the actual paints because of #2: and #3: so we still need to work at things, but at least we have a head-start over someone labouring under the simplistic notions at the heart of traditional colour teaching.

Einion

*For those who don't know, magazines are generally printed with cyan, magenta and yellow inks (with the addition of black for added depth and other reasons).

**Interestingly so does Ultramarine (as different a blue as we can get!) and it's a lot easier to control the balance.

LarrySeiler
08-01-2003, 06:07 PM
Thanks Einion!!!!

I can't believe though..I almost spent $27 on a book today just to cite a known author that put it down in a model what I am already doing.

This thread must have got to me.....!!!! hahahaha....

I still say its the RYB model...each primary send part of itself sunbathing in Florida, the other shivering in thermals in upper Canada!

..and, its so simple my 2nd graders get it!

I think this discussion here though...would send most my high schoolers runnin' for cover!

Yes....we learn t tweak our mixes till we get it. We learn a lot of things doing a lot of paintings. As I've said many times, it takes 120 bad paintings to learn something about painting!

What about the painters that didn't get apprenticeships in the academies and master's studios? They still figured it out by imitating nature when paint was possible to bring afield portably.

Sometimes I think we want to make it so darned difficult that it frightens enough people away and we look so extremely gifted as a result.

Just think warm and cool....see the warm and the cool...and pay attention to values. Mix and tweak...and it will come.

Larry

Einion
08-01-2003, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by donjusko
I answered those questions on the thread that replaces this one, the 2nd Battle of Magenta, go there if you don't mind.
Hmmm, not that I saw and I was monitoring it but as Patrick said it became increasingly difficult to follow. I'll look through it again to be certain... okay, done that now and some of my important queries remain unanswered.

Originally posted by donjusko
Correct complements mix neutral, that's any dark that tints neutral gray.
Okay, fair enough that's how I would define a mixing complement. Not necessarily particularly dark in value but the neutral part is what's important. So given that, you just can't say that none of the traditional oppositions work. Orange and blue, if chosen carefully, work so mixes of yellow and red, with the same blue, can work also!

The traditional theory doesn't specify a blue, it just says 'blue'. It's very inaccurate of course, I've said as much myself on many occasions, but using a colour wheel that positions pigment colours accurately by hue still doesn't give working oppositions in a great many cases. Even if we take one that does work, cyan and orange-red, small variations in the characteristics of either colour can have a fairly large effect on the success of the neutralising reaction.

Your are consistently mixing up (not in the sense of being confused but rather throwing together) the functioning of a palette with the flaws in the underlying theory. Even moderately skilled painters can handle the situations where their incorrect oppositions don't give perfect results. I'd be the first to agree that they'd be better served not having to do this but it's a basic tenet of painting that any intermediate hue can be mixed with colours that bracket its position. This isn't to say that any colour can be mixed, just the hue since it must lie between two colours around the radius. Since hue is the most important factor in the functioning of a mixing complement to the best of my knowledge, this means that a decent working palette with colours moderately-well spaced around the wheel can be used to mix any needed complementary colour.

Originally posted by donjusko
Every color I talk about is in a tube.
Okay, here's a point where I would have issue, since one can mix any intermediate hue one requires one doesn't need to already have a hue at that position. Besides, has to mix complements to some extent anyway for any colour that has been mixed that isn't opposed by a colour already present on the palette... RCW15 for example?

There's a fundamental flaw in your a priori assumption that a working palette must consist of opposing colours as I see it. I like the idea myself and use it as much as possible, as I've said previously having two colours readily available that mix to a perfect or near-perfect neutral is efficient and very helpful, but I wouldn't recommend a 20-colour palette to get this in practice and I would prefer to stick to single-pigment colours as do many others.

Originally posted by donjusko
Cobalt Turquoise and Naphthol Crimson are unnamed oppositions on my colorwheel. Unnamed because I don't use those colors much. But if you use them, they are recognizable and opposite.
Then how is a student, with limited understanding of hue, supposed to find them? How exactly does one find 'unnamed oppositions' on your wheel? There are accurate colour wheels out there that list the bulk of useful available colours, not a chosen set, which I can see a good argument for using since they allow the student to use the colours they either have already or want to use and not be pinned down to colours that they don't necessarily care for.

Originally posted by donjusko
Red begins at 760nm, it's strongest and most intense at 600nm and ends at 460nm. Green is most intense at 520nm, it reaches from
425nm to 675nm. Blue ends at 380nm, it's strongest at 430nm and starts at 540nm.
This is interesting from an academic point of view but it's all smoke and mirrors since coloured surfaces (the world) and pigments (our paint) don't reflect monospectral light. Just take the reflectance curve for the average yellow for example, it's a huge shock for anyone seeing one for the first time since they reflect the complete spectrum of red light, often as much as a red pigment, and green to boot.

Originally posted by donjusko
Your work has nothing to do with this Larry, this is about how you apply your colors or set up your palette, your modern palette has all the correct colors. It's how colors are related to one another that determines how a color wheel works. You have a color palette, not a color system or wheel or model.
I think it's fatuous to state that a poor model doesn't work outright even though I agree on the underlying issue. The fact that one can use a flawed basic outlook (and much inferior palettes to a split-primary+secondaries) and still make good, worthwhile art shows this only too clearly.

Think this argument is wrong? Then how could all the great painting produced over the centuries have been done? True it might have been produced more efficiently (and certainly it could have been taught more efficiently) with a clearer understanding but that didn't stop it from being produced. You bring up an example yourself for crying out loud! Incidentally azurite is hardly a good cyan, any more than his 'magenta' was (probably a madder lake?) so essentially he was still using RYB, just closer examples to the ideals.

Going on from this point, your tactic of spewing out the important dates of various colour theories does nothing to further your arguments because you're not using them to make specific points. It comes across as trying to 'buy the pot' at best and arrogance at worst*. I realise you said you were giving a brief overview but what about the landmarks you didn't include? Is this because they're less important or just that you don't consider them pertinent? Most people don't have the educational background or references to see flaws or omissions in a list like this and although I don't really either I spotted one immediately. I'm not pointing it out to be vindictive but mistakes can tend to lessen the trust one might have in your veracity:
1788, Mosas Harris, English. THEORY... Moses Harris was dead in 1788!!

Originally posted by donjusko
I just don't see where the RYB helped artists at all. My colorwheel started in 1995. The first one to use the new transparent colors...
Perhaps the first sentence is the point. You don't see it.

And then... splutter... your colour wheel was the first to use the 'new transparent colours' was it? Oh wow, that's amazing because before I ever had access to the Internet I saw colour wheels that included phthalo blues and greens, azo yellows, quinacridones, Dioxazine Purple. Wilcox, Kosvanec, Quiller, Page and others' books include these and many other synthetic organic pigments, all prior to 1995. Sorry for the sarcasm but you're asking for it here.

Some more factual errors, these are just ones that leapt out so it's not a comprehensive list:

Originally posted by donjusko
magenta is a large category that contains red. Cyan is a large category that contains blue, both ultramarine and cobalt.
I'll rein in my knee-jerk response which was an Axel Foley quote. You might prefer describing things this way but it's very confusing, especially to beginning artists and anyone without a solid grounding in the science of colour and/or prior familiarity with your wheel. Cyan is defined by physics, not you, it is a very specific colour designation with a given wavelength, using the term widely to describe the span of blues in your descriptions does your model no service. Ditto with magenta, perhaps even more so.

Originally posted by donjusko
The Red-violet hue would have to equal magenta. But red and violet don't even come close to making magenta. You could not even come close mixing those primaries of cobalt blue and red.
Hmm, smoke and mirrors again. Given that all magenta pigments fall far short of the ideal reflectance for this colour (including those used in colour printing where lightfastness isn't as important so they can ignore it and just go for hue) they aren't true magentas either. You are mixing together colour and hue in your descriptions - available primaries can have the right hue but not be exactly the right colour. This quote of yours ...since red can be made with magenta and magenta can't be made with red serves to highlight this since the red made with magenta isn't as good a colour as a single-pigment example even if it was an exact match on hue (and is incapable of equalling other desirable characteristics to boot).

Originally posted by donjusko
Cyan would than be blue-green, a dull combination of green plus Chevreul's primary blue (cobalt blue hue). Dull because cobalt blue has magenta in it and green has yellow in it, mixed together no one today would ever call it cyan.
I'm surprised Bill didn't spot the flaw in this. You're discussing reflectance in very general terms here, which doesn't say anything meaningful about the true spectrum of a colour. To say Cobalt Blue 'has magenta it it' and yellow 'has green in it' is misleading since all blues reflect red light in addition to violet, so therefore 'contain' magenta, and all yellows reflect green light (in fact this is actually necessary for the perception of yellow as you must know). Even your beloved 'magenta' pigment, PR122, reflects blue, green and orange light in addition to the red and violet we want.

Don't even try to argue this is wrong unless you have something concrete like a reflectance profile to back up your argument. But if you have those they'll show exactly what I say above so... See, you're talking with the big boys now, you can't skate past with simplifications any more than the RYB model can.

Originally posted by donjusko
Blue-violet is the deepest blue on the Red Yellow and Blue 12 color wheel, equal to ultramarine blue
This isn't accurate. Blue-violet is the darkest-valued blue hue yes but Ultramarine is a violet-blue, not a blue violet. Ultramarine Violet is a blue-violet but Ultramarine Blue or French Ultramarine are not.

Originally posted by donjusko
Models have shape, mine is a double cone.
Models have shape... and...? Why is this significant? You can't just throw out something like this without explaining why it's important. Sure it's elegant and satisfies the human liking for symmetry but since when does a model have to be symmetrical or even? Just because yours is that doesn't make it an underlying principle of scientific modelling. It's easy for your wheel to be symmetrical because you constructed it that way. I could choose a palette that would be eminently symmetrical and would work almost as well as yours when mixing but only use nine colours (although it would require a lot more mixing effort it must be said) anyone want to know what it is?

Don, with all due respect, know the expression about catching more flies with honey? I think you would do well to remember it. This might sound like the kettle calling the pot black coming from me but as I'm not trying to sell a product it's no skin off my nose if people tune out when I go on about something. You really should consider what Milt says on page two about how you come across, consistently I might add, but that's just my opinion which I'm certain you don't care anything about from prior conversations we've had.

I'd like to end by asking you if you've read the Handprint site, especially the two links I provided for Fabrizio in the other thread. Obviously you should have otherwise it was an assumption on you part that more information was required on the subject, so given this please tell me what is wrong with ANY of the information posted on those two pages.

And last but by no means least:
Originally posted by donjusko
I went through a lot of names before choosing 'Real'... it is scientific, and it is the only real color wheel for artists out there...
http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/IMG/cwheel.gif
Yours is not the only wheel where cyan and magenta are represented.

Now as enjoyable an intellectual workout as this has been, adieu.

Einion

*THE FIRST AND LAST PUBLIC STANDARD OF PIGMENT COLORS FOR ARTISTS... what bearing does this possibly have on the current discussion? And it's also factually incorrect - there was a British standard for colours in the early part of the last century which I've held in my hands. Didn't know about that or are you just ignoring it?

Einion
08-01-2003, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by bruin70
the problem, as i recall, with DJ's system is that he tried to emulate true color in nature. this, i pointed out, was a wayward effort unless he used a spectrum analyzer to determine every color in a landscape that he wanted to paint. the reply was that "no", he wouldn't do that because he wanted to feel the colors he saw(i am paraphrasing). this, of course, was a contradiction, if he wanted to go so far as to recreate exact color with his exact system, yet rely on his imperfect eyes to do the interpreting.
Milt makes a very good point here.

Given that Don didn't answer my question about how he makes determinations of hue and of achromacity (how neutral something is) one has to assume he does so by eye. Since a good artist can have a reasonably good eye for this (and I know the hue positions he uses are correct in some cases even if not based on measurements of his own) we can trust their accuracy up to a point. Because of the variability of pigments and manufactured paints his colour wheel is based on specific colours usually from specific makers. This is fine as far as it goes but what if you don't have or don't want to use these colours? You're in a real pickle aren't you? I have Cadmium Orange in acrylics and as we discovered in a previous thread it is obviously very different from the Grumbacher colour that Bill has since it doesn't work the same way in some mixes. It can't be too terribly different and still be orange yet this small difference is enough to throw off mixing outcomes.

Speaking of Grumbacher, Don says their phthalo blue (GS presumably) is the best cyan he's found. But compared to what? He doesn't say so we're apparently relying on his judgement and having to take on trust that that's good enough. I'm interested in this as I now have three to compare and with other data to go on I have to wonder if it's as green-biased as it could be. Or better still, why he doesn't use Phthalocyanine Cyan which is a better match (quite significantly) to the theoretical ideal for this hue.

Originally posted by WFMartin
Don, to win the argument, you might simply challenge Larry to produce with HIS red and HIS yellow an "orange" to match the chroma of YOUR magenta and YOUR yellow. Then, by all means, challenge Larry to mix a purple/violet (call it what you will, with HIS coice of "blue" and HIS choice of "red". Then, Don, you mix your brightest purple/violet with YOUR magenta, and YOUR cyan. Who will win the "purple" challenge? I'll bet on Don. Remember, we're trying to determine who can mix the cleanest purple!
Bill, I'm afraid this is a challenge with an inbuilt flaw (apart from dooming Don to failure from the outset!) Don wouldn't use his magenta and yellow to mix orange since he already has a colour at this hue. If he did want to mix orange he wouldn't select those two colours to do it either, since I'm sure he's familiar with saturation cost he wouldn't choose two colours that far apart. As Patrick has pointed out mixes of magenta and yellow, even using the undercolour of both pigments for maximum chroma, are pretty dull which you and I are only too familiar with from process printing with its fairly crappy oranges.

Originally posted by WFMartin
The fact of the matter is that the red, yellow, blue advocates can't make these colors, either, nor even as well as we cyan, magenta, yellow advocates.
Sorry Bill, not true. If we consider violet then again I'm sure Don wouldn't use cyan and magenta to mix with Ultramarine at his disposal, knowing that it mixes better violets in practice. If one did go ahead and do this for comparison, as I've done, you can't even get close to the colour of Ultramarine + a good magenta (PR122 for example) with a mix of PB15:3 and PR122. It would be even worse with PB17, despite it being a better match to the ideal. Milt's point:
howz about i send you a sample of my favorite color, which i can just simply go down to my local store and BUY, and you match with your system. see if you can come up with an exact match that retains the same intensity and tinting characteristics of my color.
Is right on the money. Mixing works up to a point but you cannot match the characteristics of certain colours no matter how good the reflectance profile of your starting colours is because of saturation costs. If you want a colour that you think is a better possibility then Cadmium Orange and Phthalo Green BS - try and match those with any cyan, magenta and yellow. You just might be able to get the masstone of the green but the tint and undercolour? Without glazing it's hopeless. And as for the orange... well you compare 0, 15, 100, 0 with PO20 and see what you think. I know, I was shocked when I discovered this in practice too but facts are facts as you say.

Originally posted by bruin70
those who like to make color mixing laborious, are trying to make everyone else work too
Milt, to be fair to Don he is trying to do the reverse, make it as simple and predictable as possible. It may seem complex on the face of it but underlying it is a sound structure that will give better results.

Originally posted by bruin70
i can only think of a couple of scenarios when someone would want to mix the "cleanest color possible".
Patrick makes a good point that one might want to mix the highest-chroma colour one could because of the nature of one's work. And although in realistic art this need is rare, his example of that incredible water is a good case and there are others. Staying with landscape painting, which generally does require moderately low-chroma colour, if you had to capture sunlight coming through the leaves of a number of different trees during different seasons you would need to both have paints capable of mixing very clean yellow-greens, greens, oranges and reds and the knowledge of how to achieve it in practice. In still life floral painters could frequently need pretty intense colour. And then there's man-made objects like plastic toys, automotive art, portraiture where people are wearing modern dyed fabrics etc.

Originally posted by WFMartin
I am working on a portrait right now, and am not using a single primary color
Well if we think about it there's nothing remarkable about not painting with any primaries (no insult to your work intended, you'll see where I'm going with this). Given what Larry has said above and I've defended, that you can paint quite well without the real primaries, essentially that meant one is painting without primaries at all! The average RYB palette, before the advent of a good cyan or magenta colour, could at best have only one primary, yellow, so people were really using secondary palettes and it just goes to show what one can do with them doesn't it? :D

Just noticed something while checking stuff for these replies Bill, Cobalt Blue reflects more red light than Ultramarine so its magenta reflectance probably totals out higher. Interesting that it doesn't mix as good violets despite this don't you agree?

Don made some other points I wanted to touch on.

Originally posted by donjusko
If correct color is important to you, never mix gray or black pigment with your local color. It deadens the mixture. Use the correct complement and add some light to your color.
Interesting point in light of the fact that you mistakenly assumed the work of two artists included black when in fact they don't. As I've observed before, it makes for an intriguing observation on the supposed problems associated with the 'killing effect' of black in painting. Incidentally Don, Larry would agree with you 100% about this!

What this comment implies is that no colour produced from a mix including neutral gray or black is correct in practice. Despite being a die-hard proponent of using black I'd be the first to admit that you can use it badly but if you imagine a given colour mixed using black as just a colour at a specific hue, value and chroma it isn't a bad or wrong colour unless it's used in the wrong context. One of my favourite mixes for a common European soil is Raw Umber, Mars Black and Titanium White for example. This is a flawless match to the real thing to my eye. If one can match it without using black fair enough, more power to you, but if you get the exact same colour then that's what you have... the exact same colour. No better, no worse, but the same. So why not just use the mix with black and achieve it more easily? It will certainly require more time and skill to mix this exactly by another route, especially without an earth as a starting point.

Originally posted by donjusko
There are 20 pigments each having an exact opposite to mix neutral in my Real Color Wheel, you don't need black.
This is fine as far as it goes but I'm curious about the value one actually gets compared to a good carbon black in practice.

Originally posted by donjusko
Red and green make brown.
Orange and blue make brown.
Naphthol Red, PR112, plus Phthalo Green BS mix to neutral.
Naphthol Crimson and Phthalo Green BS mix to neutral.
Quin Rose and Phthalo Green BS mix to neutral.
Cadmium Red Deep and Phthalo Green BS mix to neutral.
Pyrrole Red, PR254, plus Phthalo Green BS mix to neutral.
Quinacridone Carmine plus Phthalo Green BS mix to neutral... useful colour that phthalo green!

Viridian probably works very similarly with each of these reds.

Well Don gave an example himself where orange and blue does work. Here's another: Benzimidazolone Orange, PO62, and Ultramarine mix to neutral. And if we include Burnt Sienna in the definition of orange many of us are aware of the range of blues this neutralises. Additionally I've found that in practice Phthalo Blue GS can be neutralised with an orange mixed from just about any yellow/red pair which should come as no surprise to Bill or Don. :)

Originally posted by JamieWG
Nope! This is why I carry CMY plus three pure secondaries.
You're completely right you can't mix secondaries as good as single-pigment alternaties. BTW, to be accurate Jamie it's three primaries plus three tertiaries! :D

Last point to Larry:
Originally posted by LarrySeiler
Instead of abandoning....it was pretty obvious he was only expanding it...
Absolutely. The moderate middle ground will prevail I am certain for eminently practical reasons.

Chuck, good to see you here. Back posting at Stupiodproducts by now I'm sure since Rob "holds a grudge about as long as he can hold a bucket of sand at arm's length" ;)

Phew! Finished at last. Hope it proves useful for somebody.

Einion

JamieWG
08-01-2003, 08:28 PM
Einion said:
"I could choose a palette that would be eminently symmetrical and would work almost as well as yours when mixing but only use nine colours (although it would require a lot more mixing effort it must be said) anyone want to know what it is?"

You bet your paintbrushes I want to know what it is! :D

Jamie

Patrick1
08-01-2003, 08:43 PM
Don, the way crystal colours darken is fascinating and beautiful. But as I'm sure you know, with pigments it's different.

On your RCW, one example is how yellow darkens to a burnt umber. In crystals, it might be this way...I'm sure you're right.

In pigments, when you blacken a yellow without changing its hue, it becomes greenish, not brownish. I don't have a perfetcly neutral black (maybe Spinel Black or soem other would be perfectly neutral?) but I'm sure even a perfectly neutral black will darken yellow to a dull green, not brown. I mixed some Neutral Grey Value 5 into a middle yellow (probably was PY 73 by the looks of it...it didn't list the pigment). It turned that middle yellow into, no surprise to me, a dull green.

I will admit that burnt umber might, to some people, look like the same hue as yellow, but your RCW is a complementary mixing wheel, not a visual harmony wheel. Yellow and burnt umber behave as very different hues in colour mixing. One is not even close to the mixing complement of ultramarine blue, the other is an excellent one.

So how does the knowledge of how crystals darken (as neat as that may be) relate to pigment mixing, since pigments darken differntly? It's a fair question.

Chuck Levitin
08-01-2003, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by Einion
Chuck, good to see you here. Back posting at Stupiodproducts by now I'm sure since Rob "holds a grudge about as long as he can hold a bucket of sand at arm's length" ;)

Naw, I'm banned for life. You really had me laughing when you typed, "STUPIODproducts". If that wasn't intentional, Freud was certainly correct about the inner workings of the subconscious mind!

Patrick1
08-01-2003, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Einion

...all blues reflect red light...

Einion, based on the reflectance curves I've seen on Hanprint and Hilary Page's Guide To Watercolours book , I've found three blue pigments which do not relect any significant amounts of red above the 'background white' reflectance:

-Phthalo Blue GS (which I'll admit is
so close to cyan it maybe shouldn't be called blue...bit it still is called blue)
-Prussian Blue
-Indanthrone Blue


Even your beloved 'magenta' pigment, PR122, reflects blue, green and orange light in addition to the red and violet we want.

Yes, magenta pigments reflect a lot of unwanted wavelenghts in practise, but you seem to be implying that blue and orange should not be reflected in the ideal magenta, only red and violet, right? (this is what it sounds like you're implying).

Going from the diagram of the ideal primaries on Handprint, the ideal magenta would reflect everything from ultraviolet, violet, blue, and appearently up to cyan at the blue 'third' of the spectrum, and on the red 'third', it would reflect everything from yellow, orange, red, all the way into infrared (scroll down until you get to the ideal reflecatance diagrams):

http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color14.html#theorysub

Yes, this does sound very surprising that all these other colours must be reflected in the ideal magenta, but I think the reason for this is to get the maximum value out of the reflectance; you could make it purer by reflecting less 'unwanted' wavelenghts, but it would make a darker colour, which would mean lower appearent chroma. It's very surprising what wavelengths must be reflected to make the ideal magenta.

Patrick1
08-01-2003, 11:03 PM
Einion writes:

Despite being a die-hard proponent of using black I'd be the first to admit that you can use it badly but if you imagine a given colour mixed using black as just a colour at a specific hue, value and chroma it isn't a bad or wrong colour unless it's used in the wrong context. ...So why not just use the mix with black and achieve it more easily?


I always suspected that the mantra "using black makes dirty, lifeless paintings"...was, at best, an oversimplifiaction, at worst, bunk.

WFMartin
08-02-2003, 01:57 AM
Einion,

You have done a superb job of rather boiling down this discussion to some really practical applications. I appreciate that, and thoroughly agree with it. There are a few comments you made that I'd like to clarify for anyone who might be interested in it.

First the color cyan is not a single wavelength of light; it is composed of two wavelengths of colors of light--blue and green. Spectral cyan is a very insignificant part of the color "cyan" that we see.

Second, the color, magenta, is not a single wavelength of light; it is composed of two wavelengths of color--red and blue. Magenta is not a spectral color at all. Magenta is non-existent in the natural spectrum. The reason is that the wavelengths of colors which produce it (red and blue) are located at the opposite ends of the spectrum. I'm sure this will cause a bunch of retaliation, but just to help prove what I say is at least credible to some people, go to Google, and type in "magenta in the spectrum" or "spectral magenta", and simply read what others have to say about it. Now, please don't misunderstand me. I did not say the color, magenta, does not exist, because it certainly does--in inks, paints, dyes, etc. I did not say that it does not occur in man-made color wheels, triangles, and color models, because it does. It is a real color. It just does not exist in the natural spectrum. That does not make it any less real or usable to artists and craftspeople.

There are numerous other things, Einion, that I'm not in firm agreement with, but you have put most everything in a practical and usable form. That's what important, and anything which makes an artist's work easier, in my opinion, is worth considering and learning. I just couldn't let that "cyan/magenta wavelength" thing go uncorrected. Sorry.

Bill :)

donjusko
08-02-2003, 03:37 AM
Wilcox has 9 colors, there for it has no oppositions which I think makes it useless.

Hand print's oppositions don't mix neutral. Red should be opposite cyan. Orange should be opposite cobalt blue, Yellow should be opposite ult. blue.
I think the reference point this color wheel uses is RGB. It's better than LAB though.

phthalocyanine blue can be many PB numbers, different brands, different numbers. They choose how to represent their colors. I like the way Grumbacher did it best. When you line up different brands side by side it's not hard to tell which has no red or green in them.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/mypigments.htm

Don, Einion, Visual complements and pigment complements are the same to me and my wheel. They also are mixing complements.

Don, The split or twin primary system won't fit into a RYB color wheel even enough to call it a wheel or a model. Wilcox's or Larry's. They will fit on your palette tough. The rest of the colors on a RGB wheel just can't be made using it's analogous colors. You need the transparent YMC wheel to do this with any accuracy.

Don, When three color can make six, why would you call them 6 primaries?
Don, Violet-blue's, blue and blue-violet do neutralize yellow, a little. It's the first step of graying yellow. After that first step of graying the rim color yellow starts getting browner, like crystals show and Rembrandt said, red and yellow both darken to the same brown.

Larry, "its so simple my 2nd graders get it!".
Don, My children get it also, using the primary Easter Egg dyes. Transparent yellow, magenta and cyan mix all colors and together they make black, not brown.

Larry, "Just think warm and cool....see the warm and the cool...and pay attention to values. Mix and tweak...and it will come."
Don, I like that, it works that way on the YMC colorwheel also. Except it's not called warm magenta, it's called red. Red warms magenta, cyan cools it.

Einion, "Orange and blue, if chosen carefully, work"
Don, I guess I took the guess work out of it, orange and cobalt blue mix neutral and they are opposite on my color wheel.

Einion, "Even if we take one that does work, cyan and orange-red, small variations in the characteristics of either colour can have a fairly large effect on the success of the neutralizing reaction.
Don, You say red-orange, I say cad red light. They both work.

Einion, "this means that a decent working palette with colours moderately-well spaced around the wheel can be used to mix any needed complementary colour."
Don, True, but a well spaced on the wheel set of colors works even better.

RCW15 = Manganese Violet is opposite Green Oxide, I don't understand the question

Einion,"I would prefer to stick to single-pigment colours as do many others."
Don, I like double pigment colors personally, and can mix closely any color with two colors. Sometimes three is necessary but not often. It's all in using the correct opposition.

Don, "Cobalt Turquoise and Naphthol Crimson are unnamed oppositions on my colorwheel. Unnamed because I don't use those colors much. But if you use them, they are recognizable and opposite.
Einion, "Then how is a student, with limited understanding of hue, supposed to find them?"
Don, Glad you asked. Take my laminated $10 RCW and smear some of the color paint on it. When it matches up, use the opposite color as the neutralizer.

Einion, "Incidentally azurite is hardly a good cyan"
Don, Azurite can be found in the colors cyan transparent and opaque, cobalt blue hue transparent and opaque and ultramarine blue hue opaque.

Einion, "1788, Mosas Harris, English. THEORY... Moses Harris was dead in 1788!! "
Don, So what.
He and Gainsborough made an eighteen color wheel with no Cyan or Magenta in sight.
You want the date they made this color wheel, look it up.

Originally posted by donjusko
I just don't see where the RYB helped artists at all. My colorwheel started in 1995. The first one to use the new transparent colors in correct oppositions.
This is still a correct statement and I would like you to show me otherwise.
Einion, Wilcox, Kosvanec, Quiller, Page and others' books include these and many other synthetic organic pigments.
Don, None of the above has a color wheel with correct oppositions. Yea, I'm asking for it, you show me one that does.

Originally posted by donjusko
magenta is a large category that contains red. Cyan is a large category that contains blue, both ultramarine and cobalt.
Don, Cyan is the primary blue, I see nothing wrong with naming it as the category containing all the mixes of blue. I do see something wrong with calling one of the mixes the name of the category.

Einion, available primaries can have the right hue but not be exactly the right colour.
Don, Talk about smoke and mirrors...
This quote of yours Don ...since red can be made with magenta and magenta can't be made with red serves to highlight this since the red made with magenta isn't as good a colour as a single-pigment example even if it was an exact match on hue (and is incapable of equalling other desirable characteristics to boot).
Don, If you want a good red, use a good transparent yellow like OH Indian Yellow Golden transparent with magenta transparent. If you want an opaque red use cadmium red. What's your problem anyway?

Originally posted by donjusko, describing the colors or the RYB opaque color wheel.
Cyan would than be blue-green, a dull combination of green plus Chevreul's primary blue (cobalt blue hue). Dull because cobalt blue has magenta in it and green has yellow in it, mixed together no one today would ever call it cyan.
Einion, To say Cobalt Blue 'has magenta it it' and yellow 'has green in it' is misleading since all blues reflect red light in addition to violet, so therefore 'contain' magenta, and all yellows reflect green light (in fact this is actually necessary for the perception of yellow as you must know). Even your beloved 'magenta' pigment, PR122, reflects blue, green and orange light in addition to the red and violet we want.
Don, Re-read what you wrote. I said "green has yellow in it", not yellow has green in it.
Don, When magenta paint is viewed by eye you don't see anything but magenta. A reflectance profile is not necessary for the painting artist. And who said it was?

Einion, This isn't accurate. Blue-violet is the darkest-valued blue hue yes but Ultramarine is a violet-blue, not a blue violet. Ultramarine Violet is a blue-violet but Ultramarine Blue or French Ultramarine are not.
Don, Whatever.. I should have said close to ultramarine blue, very close.

Einion, Models have shape... and...? Why is this significant? You can't just throw out something like this without explaining why it's important.
Don, all color theories of merit have a three dimensional model to tint and tone. The most popular were the double cone, sphere, cube and pyramid.
The successful ones had oppositions, the most successful has oppositions that mix to the center dark. You will just have to read into color theory.

Einion, there was a British standard for colours in the early part of the last century which I've held in my hands. Didn't know about that or are you just ignoring it?
Don, I didn't know about it, I don't doubt it though and I'll bet Indian Yellow was missing. I talk about the Paint Wars a lot and I don't doubt it's existence in the least. England and Germany were stealing color patents from each other and it caused big trouble. In 1918 WW1 started, I think the paint wars just got larger.

Einion, Speaking of Grumbacher, Don says their phthalo blue (GS presumably) is the best cyan he's found. why he doesn't use Phthalocyanine Cyan which is a better match (quite significantly) to the theoretical ideal for this hue.
Don, Phthalo Blue, Thalo Blue and Phthalocyanine Cyan are all the same color. I like Grumbacher's best by comparing them to the clean sky colors I could make. Again, http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/mypigments.htm

Einion, I'm sure Don wouldn't use cyan and magenta to mix Ultramarine
Don, No I wouldn't use Pr:122, That's a warm magenta, I would use a cool magenta, Cobalt Violet Light Phosphate, [Cool Magenta], and Thalo Blue will make Violet, Purple, Ultramarine Blue, or cobalt blue.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/02-Aug-2003/1201-3colorelip.jpg

Originally posted by donjusko
There are 20 pigments each having an exact opposite to mix neutral in my Real Color Wheel, you don't need black.
Einion, This is fine as far as it goes but I'm curious about the value one actually gets compared to a good carbon black in practice.
Don, I would rather feel color in my deepest shadows then see no light at all. I'm painting nature where everything I see has color in it.

Einion, Naphthol Red, PR112, plus Phthalo Green BS mix to neutral.
Naphthol Crimson and Phthalo Green BS mix to neutral.
Quin Rose and Phthalo Green BS mix to neutral.
Cadmium Red Deep and Phthalo Green BS mix to neutral.
Pyrrole Red, PR254, plus Phthalo Green BS mix to neutral.
Quinacridone Carmine plus Phthalo Green BS mix to neutral... useful colour that phthalo green!
Don, PR:122 and Thalo Green mix neutral, and a better neutral then all the combinations above. However, the others will do if your not picky. I use the unique color combination of magenta and green in my green foreground dark shadows. That's what I see.

Einion, You're completely right you can't mix secondaries as good as single-pigment alternates. BTW, to be accurate Jamie it's three primaries plus three tertiaries!
Don, Am I missing something here, Yellow, magenta, cyan, red, blue and green are 3 primaries and 3 secondaries.

Patrick, In pigments, when you blacken a yellow without changing its hue, it becomes greenish, not brownish. I don't have a perfectly neutral black (maybe Spinel Black or soem other would be perfectly neutral?) but I'm sure even a perfectly neutral black will darken yellow to a dull green, not brown. I mixed some Neutral Grey Value 5 into a middle yellow (probably was PY 73 by the looks of it...it didn't list the pigment). It turned that middle yellow into, no surprise to me, a dull green.
Don, Yes Patrick, when you add black to yellow pigment it turns green, when you subtract light from yellow light it turns green. When yellow crystals get darker they turn brown. Pigments are made from elements like crystals are, Yellow is brown as far as the coloring element is concerned, light and dark.
Pigments are more friendly when yellow ocher is the darker yellow as opposed to yellow-green. I look at the shadow of my yellow ocher based skin and see it turn brown, not green.

Chuck, I like you more already! I banned myself for similar reasons. Big dumb mouths shouting.

Patrick, -Phthalo Blue GS (which I'll admit is so close to cyan it maybe shouldn't be called blue...but it still is called blue)
Don, Although the term cyan has been used by printers since the get-go, it has only been used by artists since about 1995. Soon you will see a manufacture calling it Cyan. The same way Acra Violet changed to Magenta after it was recognized as the best magenta out there.

Don, This was way too much work, I hope it's over.

impressionist2
08-02-2003, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by bruin70
wf,,,here's a better test. i don't think larry bases his palette on the primaries. like most sane artists, he buys what he likes , and mixes to get what he wants. your case is different, however.

so here's a more appropriate "test".....:):):):):)

howz about i send you a sample of my favorite color, which i can just simply go down to my local store and BUY, and you match with your system. see if you can come up with an exact match that retains the same intensity and tinting characteristics of my color. :)

This was the biggest problem we found over in color theory when we discussed and tested the CMY palette. Low intensity.

No matter how we tried, the intensity was never up to par.

Actually, both cad. yellow light and magenta are on my palette now. But, I still have a hard time with thalo blue. Will never give up ultra.

Larry, your paintings are looking really fine.

Renee

donjusko
08-02-2003, 03:48 PM
Patrick, I always suspected that the mantra "using black makes dirty, lifeless paintings"...was, at best, an oversimplifiaction, at worst, bunk.
Don, Painting with black has no place in a nature painting, It can be useful in a decorative one though.

Renee, Actually, both cad. yellow light and magenta are on my palette now. But, I still have a hard time with thalo blue. Will never give up ultra.
Don, Don't give up ultramarine unless you have a cool magenta on your palette.

I didn't say which colors made this color circle.
<img src="http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/02-Aug-2003/1201-3colorelip.jpg" border="0" alt="">

Bocour Cobalt Violet, a cool transparent magenta, warm magenta will do but it's harder to make Ult. Blue.
Grumbacher Thalo Blue and Old Holland Gamboge. If I had wanted a brighter red I would have used OH Indian yellow orange/side and the warm magenta.

WFMartin
08-02-2003, 04:02 PM
I'm still waiting for Milt's sample, just to determine whether I can do what I said I could. Milt, all you need to do is to tell me just what that tube color is that you have in mind, and I'll go to the art supply store, and buy a tube, just to compare my mixes to. You don't literally have to send me a sample. It will be worth the effort to do the experiment. Besides, if it's that good a tube color, I'll use for my work until it's gone.

I'll do my mixing to match Milt's sample, and I will then publish the results here on this forum. As I stated earlier, there certainly are some unique and unusual tube colors that I can't match with cyan, magenta, and yellow, but those three fill the need for matching most tube colors.

Whether I will be able to accomplish this or not is up for grabs, but I'd surely like the opportunity. I'd be glad to follow Milt's recommendations for the "tint" version of it, also. Please give me the opportunity.

Bill:)

donjusko
08-02-2003, 07:14 PM
Hi Bill,
That's a good Challenge.

You will need my tube of Cobalt Violet Light Phosphate, Bocour's transparent cobalt violet to cover the blue range.

Or, write to Bocour and ask them if they still make it to get your own tube.

You will need that cool magenta if you accept a challenge to make any color on the RGB color wheel also. I would like a burnt umber too just to save a lot of pigment, but you can do without it.

But brown is dark yellow, just as the Natural Burnt Beechwood Bark pigment goes from brown to yellow in washes. And soy sauce as was so cleverly pointed out. So you should be able to add that pigment and still be considered to be using 3 colors.

Holbein has a Cobalt Violet Light Hue that has the same chip color as an undertone wash but I think it is an opaque pigment, which won't do.

The same goes for Gamblin's and W/N's Cobalt Violet Light and Dark. I don't know about Grumbacher's Cobalt Violet or Da Vinci's but I but I'd guess not, they don't mention the compounds in their ads.

This tube came from an era before it was decided which color was going to be called magenta. circa:1958. This phosphate pigment bled through clear a little and no company ever tried to match the color with today's pigments.

Let anyone print out the color that matches their choice of tube color or any color at all, and mail it to you. You can match it.

What color blue a Kindergarden teacher to buy for their classroom. Is it transparent cyan or ultramarine blue. Because if you don't teach them they will buy the manufacture's suggestion, ultramarine blue opaque. We know how much transparent cyan means to us, don't you think our new students deserve some transparent primaries that can make any color also?

I guess the Paint War's are not over yet.

On another front.

What was the opinion of this group about alkyd oil painting.

I thought, "If you like painting with lacquer this is a good step." Instead of slowing drying with castor oil you would use linseed oil or poppy or what ever oil you choose. I liked using it straight and being able to touch and paint an area after 3 hours of drying.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/alkydpaintingonlocation.htm

That heat drying paint gave me a moment of pause, but I haven't started a time test yet and it would be already 7 years behind my other oil tests.

donjusko
08-03-2003, 12:53 AM
"1860, COLOR, Cobalt Violet, Cobaltous Crystalline Phosphate, calcined cobalt oxide and phosphorus oxide, German, a great discovery, a cool Magenta color, necessary to make colors between Magenta and Cyan including Ult. Blue and Azure, no other element can make this color.

It sometimes contains arsenic and darkens, Cobaltous Oxide Arsenate, The French version."
Don

COBALT salts with potassium nitrite make the color aureolin yellow. I just through that in..

Renee "This was the biggest problem we found over in color theory when we discussed and tested the CMY palette. Low intensity."
Don. Low color saturation because half the color was removed from cyan and magenta. You have to follow the color farther with it's related crystal.
Know the element, know the compound, know the color, know the crystal.

bruin70
08-03-2003, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by WFMartin
I'm still waiting for Milt's sample, just to determine whether I can do what I said I could. Milt, all you need to do is to tell me just what that tube color is that you have in mind, and I'll go to the art supply store, and buy a tube, just to compare my mixes to. You don't literally have to send me a sample. It will be worth the effort to do the experiment. Besides, if it's that good a tube color, I'll use for my work until it's gone.

I'll do my mixing to match Milt's sample, and I will then publish the results here on this forum. As I stated earlier, there certainly are some unique and unusual tube colors that I can't match with cyan, magenta, and yellow, but those three fill the need for matching most tube colors.

Whether I will be able to accomplish this or not is up for grabs, but I'd surely like the opportunity. I'd be glad to follow Milt's recommendations for the "tint" version of it, also. Please give me the opportunity.

Bill:)

bill,,,,:):) hiya...nope....i won't tell you the brand or name. i will send you a sample. just pm me with your address....

you send me your mix result, and i will use some of it as i would the real color just to see if your sample has similiar mixing properties....{M}

donjusko
08-03-2003, 03:22 AM
Don't do it Bill, you could never match the properties of Naples Yellow Original which is denser than Flake White, or many others.

You can match the chip colors and mess with the medium but you can't add pigment volume. You can't add graineness, you can't add opaqueness.

Bad Contest. Go for the RGB color number and concede that pigments of different elements handle differently.

donjusko
08-03-2003, 03:59 AM
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/rcwcobaltviolet.htm
I forgot I made a page about this color.

lorelou
08-03-2003, 04:07 AM
Don Jusko, saw your site...very interesting....you have a lifetime supply of brushes for 10 people!!!

bruin70
08-03-2003, 06:53 AM
bill...you don't have to bother, buddy.:)
impressionist2 has made my point.^^^

but let me add my last note to this. limiting yourself to color as you have, limits you creativity. while nature provides us with an infinite # of colors, yours is limited in that you try to achieve those colors with a small palette. ie,,,you see the world in CMY.

and being so deeply involved in the print process, i think you HAVE TO see with your eyes more than your heart. seems to me, the very nature of CMY is to analyze and mix. a key factor in creativity is to be natively imperfect. imperfection allows one to be creative. in simpler, lay terms, i call this "style"....and i embrace the concept.

what this has broken down to is the difference in approach. some are in awe of nature and seek to reproduce it. others are governed by an inner beauty. when i see a color i like, i don't try to copy it, i try to understand its essence so that i can build OFF of it.....{M}

Patrick1
08-03-2003, 07:29 AM
Bill, yes most cyan we see is not spectral cyan. But it's important to make the point that it's not just blue and green wavelengths of light: it's violet, blue, cyan, green, and maybe even a bit of yellow-green (and I don't think near ultraviolet would hurt either). You're right that it's the blue and green thirds of the visible spectrum, but I think it's an oversimplification to say it's only blue and green wavelengths of light. Similar with magenta: it's more that just red and blue wavelengths. If you already know this, I apologize...I just think it's an importnat point to make.

I don't have much experience with pigments, but I'm sure Don is right. In your challenge with Milt, even if you could match the hue, chroma, and value, there's many other characteristics you probably won't be able match:

-colour difference in masstone, midtone and undertone,
-tints with white
-opacity (adding white might add opacity, but lose chroma, change hue)
-physical characteristics like handling, granularity, staining/nonstaining for watercolours

not to mention:

-lightfastess
-cheapness (example: Jamie and I both independently 'discovered' that orange + dioxazine purple makes a rich brown that looks much like burnt sienna, but then an important realization: burnt sienna is way cheaper, and more lightfast...so what's the point ? :confused: )

Don writes:
Einion, Visual complements and pigment complements are the same to me and my wheel. They also are mixing complements.

Don, you might consider them the same thing, but as Einion mentioned before, visual and mixing complements are not the same thing. Visual and subtractive (mixing) complemntary relationships are not subjective like colour harmony or warm/cool.

Take my laminated $10 RCW and smear some of the color paint on it.

Does it list the pigments on it? If it does I might order one.


Phthalo Blue, Thalo Blue and Phthalocyanine Cyan are all the same color.

Phthalo cyan is PB 17, a different pigment than the phthalo blues. It's a true cyan (well probably as close as there is), while the others aren't.


I look at the shadow of my yellow ocher based skin and see it turn brown, not green.

That's because caucasian skin is generally orange to scarlet in hue. Of course it darkens to brown.


This was way too much work, I hope it's over.


You started it. ;)

impressionist2
08-03-2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by bruin70

and being so deeply involved in the print process, i think you HAVE TO see with your eyes more than your heart. seems to me, the very nature of CMY is to analyze and mix. a key factor in creativity is to be natively imperfect. imperfection allows one to be creative. in simpler, lay terms, i call this "style"....and i embrace the concept.

what this has broken down to is the difference in approach. some are in awe of nature and seek to reproduce it. others are governed by an inner beauty. when i see a color i like, i don't try to copy it, i try to understand its essence so that i can build OFF of it.....{M}


I agree and what about artists who use limited "unreal" palettes to create mood? Sally Strand uses warm dark backgrounds with cool light and all of her paintings have mystery.

Dan McCaws beaches are purple and orange, but his paintings have Mood.

Give me atmosphere over reality and I am a happy puppy.

What about Alex Powers? Pure mood.

Renee

Sally Strand:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/03-Aug-2003/4924-Strandplayerseries6.jpg

Dan McCaw:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/03-Aug-2003/4924-mccaw_day_at_the_beach.jpg

donjusko
08-03-2003, 06:56 PM
DON, Take my laminated $10 RCW and smear some of the color paint on it.
Patrick, Does it list the pigments on it? If it does I might order one.
Don, it plots and names 40 of my favorite pigments.

Don, Bill, you couldn't make the dual-tone quality either. I know you don't just use three colors Bill, It's just that you can use just three colors to paint anything in front of you. The rest is gravy.

Don Jusko, saw your site...very interesting....you have a lifetime supply of brushes for 10 people!!!
Lorelou, Don Jusko, saw your site...very interesting....you have a lifetime supply of brushes for 10 people!!!
Don, Maybe, I was testing a lot of synthetic hair. When I bought these brushes Langnickle was still in business. They made the standard lettering brush with a round ferrule and a flat end. THEE most important and useful style of brush I use. From the 1/4 inch #8 to the signature size #1.

Today, not one manufacture in any catalog offers this style brush. Not only are the manufactures out of touch but the artists are at a great loss. And me? I can't replace any of them :( So I take the best care of them. Here's a tip. When acrylics build up at the furrule of my brush, and it does, I bring the brush back to clean with isopropyl alcohol.

Don writes:
Einion, Visual complements and pigment complements are the same to me and my wheel. They also are mixing complements.
Patrick, Don, you might consider them the same thing, but as Einion mentioned before, visual and mixing complements are not the same thing.
Don, They are on my color wheel.
Patric, Visual and subtractive (mixing) complementary relationships are not subjective like colour harmony or warm/cool.
Don, You lose me here Patrick. I see a color, I make it. nature sets the complementary aspects, I see 'em and paint'em. Warm/cool, it doesn't matter, I see it and mix the paint. Color harmony It happens in nature, I see it, I paint it.

Don, Phthalo Blue, Thalo Blue and Phthalocyanine Cyan are all the same color.
Patrick, Phthalo cyan is PB 17, a different pigment than the phthalo blues. It's a true cyan (well probably as close as there is), while the others aren't.
Don, I don't think that how it works, Phthalocyanine is the pigment, It has a range of color. Manufactures choose the color in the range to call their own and then name it as they will. They can't trademark the color because that's available to everyone, they can however make a name for themselves. Thalo in the USA, Pathalo in Europe, and Cyan is a nickname for the color Phthalocyanine. Grumbacher choose the cleanest mix in the range to my eye.

Here is some history of the color cyan I took off my CD.
STONE WARE = heated over 1800∞, copper cyan colored frit glaze was heated 1500∞ to 2600∞ in Egypt.
Yes, it can be found transparent in some azurite rocks.
AZURITE is another hydrated salt of copper carbonate, this one's a deep cyan color that resembles ult. blue, it was also used as a pigment all throughout the ancient years. Soak azurite long enough and it will turn green, ammonia turns copper blue. Azurite colors range from cyan to Ultramarine Blue. I usually use the color term to represent Cobalt Blue, between the two.
CYAN to BLUE, Grown in India, the "Indiagofera tinctoria" thrives in the tropical climate, the active ingredient is found in the leaves, an indol derivative is fermented from a sugar, this precipitation is insoluble in water. Alkalis dissolve it and form the sodium salt indigo white, which oxidizes into many shades of blue. Aniline blue has the same chemical composition and replaced it in 1870. This cyan blue was the most important color dye in Chinese rugs.
PB15 copper phthalocyanine = Cyan (Thalo Blue) to Green Y/S, Y/S would be a different Pigment Color number not a different pigment.
PHTHALOCYANINE is copper with one of it's atoms removed to make a non-metallic pigment. This pigment doesn't react to sulfur as metallic copper does, it's transparent and covers from yellow-green to cyan. This is perhaps the most important color ever discovered. PB60 anthraquinone is transparent ultramarine blue.
COPPER. "Azurite" natural, blue to cyan, Egypt 3000 B/C, "chessylite", hydrous copper carbonate.
IRON. Pompiian blue lake, a ferris-cyan, Roman 100 B/C.
COPPER. Verdigris, hydrated copper acetate crystals, water or resin soluble. This color is usually listed under green, [vert] means green. Since this was the first artificial color made by the Romans, I made some. Using materials I knew they had I put copper in ammonia, this turned the ammonia blue, a few drops of acetate acid [vinegar] and the color changed, it precipitated a light cyan-green salt. Mixing the salt with damar, I painted with it, and, well it does go a little farther, I mixed the salts in sulfuric acid and it turned clear. I was stirring the mix with my steel palette knife and it put a copper plating on it! I wonder if the Romans ever rust proofed any of their iron. I remember reading once, that at an Egyptian excavation they found some clay pots with holes in them for wires, the archaeologists thought they were using them as storage batteries for plating, I believe it.
ORGANIC-PLANT. Indigo, India. Woad, England. Both transparent cyan dyes, Indigo was the better.
ORGANIC-PLANT. Check out an interesting article in Scientific American's Archeology Magazine August 2000 about Mayan fresco and the cyan pigment they were using. It was Indigo (a plant based dye) bonded to clay through a process of baking the indigo and clay at a specific temperature. The indigo was then permanently bonded to the clay and the indigo-clay powder was used as a permanent blue color for fresco. This magazine is currently at Barnes and Noble, if you want to check out the article.
CYANOGEN- A gas with a univalent radical, added to iron gives ferricyanide salt or Prussian blue.
DICHROMIC- A color exhibiting two color phases, usually a transparent color that looks different when white is added as opposed to adding water. This is called, Dual-Toned.
VAT PIGMENTS include, puerileness, Isoindolines, indanthrones, phthalocyanines, and quinacridones. Plus others.
IRON is ferric oxide, iron and the gas cyanogen make ferrocyanide, a salt of ammonium ferrocyanide makes Prussian blue.
2000 B/C, MYCENAEANS, from the city in Argous State on Peloponnesus Island were Pre-Greek and were a rich culture for the last thousand years, as Homer said, over a ton of gold was retrieved from the Heinrich Schliemann excavations. He was a merchant for the color indigo from India. The finest indigo was transparent cyan in color, rivaling the opaque copper cyan frit of Egypt, both were distributed by the Phoenicians.
COLOR, Prussian Blue, a dual-tone transparent color that was getting close to cyan in its transparent undertone. It's deep mass color has a black-green quality that makes a dirty purple, nice green's though. Iron and the gas cyanogen.

1800, England, COLOR, Indian Yellow, the best and very permanent transparent yellow was brought to England from India, where it had been used as a pigment for as long as India had cows. The raw product is called Monghyr, magnesium euxanthate natural organic, after a city in Bangal. England made this in oil and kept its ingredients a secret for eighty years. It was in brown to yellow and orange to yellow, two dual-toned colors.
The artist's had it made in 1800, a transparent triad palette in tubes for the first time. 1.Transparent dual-toned Indian Yellow. 2.Transparent dual-toned Madder Lake, which was close to Magenta. Treating Madder Lake in a sulfur acid bath made it "New and Improved" Alizarin in 1826, and 3.Prussian blue, an iron based transparent color close to Cyan. The three mixed into a neutral dark that could be pushed warm or cool. This is part of a color theory that had not been written down. They had a YMC color wheel in 1800, we lost a lot of the colors in the wars because we lost the artists that used them. New written theories became the standard, RYB :(

These artist's painting from 1800 to 1909 had access to YMC colors and made use of this Indian Yellow pigment until it was abruptly removed from access by the maker Winsor Newton; Vigee-LeBrun, David, Friedrich, Ingres, Carot, Delacroix, Rousseau, Millet, Courbet, Whistler, Manet, Monet, Pissarro, Sisley, Renoir, Eakins, Dagas, Cezanne, Seurat, Gauguin, Van Gogh, Sargent, Ostroukhov, Ripin, Serov, Matisse, Vlaminck, Derain, Bellows, Savrasov, Pukirev, Perov, Shishkin, Vasilievich, and Polenove.

1935, England,
COLOR, Cyan Blue, Copper Phthalocyanine, alpha crystal or metal free Phthalocyanine, with a metallic atom removed from copper. THIS WAS A MOST IMPORTANT COLOR DISCOVERY, THE INERT PRIMARY BLUE, CYAN TRANSPARENT.

Cyan does darken to the green side in the computer's RGB color system. Just as yellow darkens to the green/side dark. Those darker areas of the RGB/YMC light and print color wheel are the the areas that are incorrect for the pigment artist. The pigment artist should not use the RGB/YMC color wheels like the Color Wheel Pro.

The pigment itself does not change hues, the shadow color on a cyan object does.

Here is how that translates into pigments for painting on location. Look at a Cyan colored object. I'm looking at a cyan blue tarp crumpled in a pile, from the hardware store. Looking into the darker shadow folds to match the color by making it with with pigment I see Magenta being used to make the dark. This means adding transparent Purple or translucent Ultramarine Blue or transparent Anthraquinone PB60 color to the Thalo Blue to make the shadow color. This hue shifts in light as dual-toned pigments shift. I use this transition in the Real Color Wheel for Cyan by using Ultramarine Blues dark as the dark of Cyan, this keeps it cool.
To match pigment to light, Cyan dark uses blues dark, and Yellow dark is the same as reds dark. Yellow passes through Brown before becoming black and Cyan passes through Ultramarine Blue before turning black. The Real Color Wheel for artists really works well.
PB60 Anthraquinone is Ultramarine Blue transparent.

A Neutral Dark is made by mixing complementary pigments anywhere on the Real Color Wheel. For the pigment artist the pigment Opaque Yellow graduates into the color of the pigment Burnt Umber Brown before turning into a Neutral Dark (with an equal mix of Ult. blue). Red graduates to this Brown naturally in light and pigment, while Yellow graduates to Green than Black in light. Neutral Dark colors can be made by mixing the complementary colors in light or pigment. The RCW makes it possible to join the light and pigment color wheels. They are the same color wheel if you make the adjustment to Neutral Dark in the yellow to red-orange colors and cyan, and don't use the pigment Black to mix any color. The Crystal, Real Color Wheel is for all artists!

Renee, I agree and what about artists who use limited "unreal" palettes to create mood.
Don, I agree also. Any artist is free to use any color they want. I get my colors from nature. Today I'm just passing on how to do it with a better working colorwheel, In my opinion. I guess that's why it's original.

And the two paintings, I've seen Sally's style before, and liked it then also. In Trenton's State Museum next door to where I went to college in '63, and in Jacksonville in '65. I haven't looked lately, are there a lot of highlight and deepest shadow painters now. It's a real fast way to paint on location. Red oxide in the ground was popular in Venice, Rembrandt used a dark gray background, El Greco use this method with a Green-blue wash. TI find the problem with this style is that it traps you into covering the whole canvas with new paint because you never had a white background to work with in the first place. So some just settle for a pleasing layout.

Perhaps you were asking about her choice of colors and medium.

A, Looks like pastel on ocher paper with white, orange, magenta and black colors. Her choice of colors is very effective. Analogous colors from orange to magenta on a dark yellow base. The thing I like about it most is that it was done on location.

F, Dan's use of black disturbs me. Why would he paint a big hole in the picture. Forcing me to look hard into nothing. That kind of eye-image abuse was at it's peak in 1948, Rouault.
I don't like depths that deep, it looks un-natural. He's the kind of artist that doesn't really know how to draw a body or paint a good face.
He should go back to nature.

to ? About my "So what" remark.
I was dating the popularity of their theory. Since there were two of them and the search word THEORY was finding the date of the theory.

impressionist2
08-03-2003, 07:30 PM
Don wrote: Maybe, I was testing a lot of synthetic hair. When I bought these brushes Langnickle was still in business. They made the standard lettering brush with a round ferrule and a flat end. THEE most important and useful style of brush I use. From the 1/4 inch #8 to the signature size #1.


Don, I was a hand letterer for twelve years prior to my fine art career. Langnickle was all we used. That was the first brush I chased down, when I switched to fine art, and now am sorry to see them out of business.

Squirrel hair, wasn't it on the lettering brushes?

Renee

WFMartin
08-03-2003, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by bruin70


bill,,,,:):) hiya...nope....i won't tell you the brand or name. i will send you a sample. just pm me with your address....

you send me your mix result, and i will use some of it as i would the real color just to see if your sample has similiar mixing properties....{M}

Milt,

Oh, no, no. Remember, I believe I mentioned that I reserved the right to achieve not only your sample color with a mix of CMY, but also to produce the same color of whatever your further mix is by mixing it my way (still using CMY, by the way).

I can't give you the opportunity to add any ol' tube color you'd like to my already "matched" mix. Of course what I mix won't likely work for you--it's not the same pigment (overtones, undertones, opacity, etc.) As I said before, let me mix (my way, using CMY) to match your further mixed version, as well.

If you allow me that, you've got a deal. If not, deal's off. You must realize that you've already got a tremendous advantage over me, in that my palette will only contain Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and White, while you, sir, get to pick any color/colors you'd like. Please, give me at least that much of a break.

I realize Don mentioned something in the interim here, but I actually have not read his comments, yet. Except, that he told me not to "fall" for it, or something like that, and mentioned Naples Yellow, I believe. Naples Yellow doesn't scare me much, BTW, as I've mixed that color before. All that I'm asking is that you allow me to mix whatever color/colors you'd like, using nothing but Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and White.

My guess would be that if I'm fortunate enough to be able to mix your "secret" tube color, then I most certainly should be able to mix any color that could be mixed with your "secret" tube color and any other "unnamed" tube color of your choice.

If you can see your way clear to give me at least that much of a break, you've got a deal.

If you agree, my next move is to mail you my address. You want my snail-mail address? If so, let me know if you agree with my offer.

This is interesting, and a lot of fun. Hope I don't get shot down too awfully bad. But, I'm willing to give it a shot.

Bill :)

WFMartin
08-03-2003, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by bruin70


bill,,,,:):) hiya...nope....i won't tell you the brand or name. i will send you a sample. just pm me with your address....

you send me your mix result, and i will use some of it as i would the real color just to see if your sample has similiar mixing properties....{M}

Milt,

Oh, no, no. Remember, I believe I mentioned that I reserved the right to achieve not only your sample color with a mix of CMY, but also to produce the same color of whatever your further mix is by mixing it my way (still using CMY, by the way).

I can't give you the opportunity to add any ol' tube color you'd like to my already "matched" mix. Of course what I mix won't likely work for you--it's not the same pigment (overtones, undertones, opacity, etc.) As I said before, let me mix (my way, using CMY) to match your further mixed version, as well.

If you allow me that, you've got a deal. If not, deal's off. You must realize that you've already got a tremendous advantage over me, in that my palette will only contain Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and White, while you, sir, get to pick any color/colors you'd like. Please, give me at least that much of a break.

I realize Don mentioned something in the interim here, but I actually have not read his comments, yet. Except, that he told me not to "fall" for it, or something like that, and mentioned Naples Yellow, I believe. Naples Yellow doesn't scare me much, BTW, as I've mixed that color before. All that I'm asking is that you allow me to mix whatever color/colors you'd like, using nothing but Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and White.

My guess would be that if I'm fortunate enough to be able to mix your "secret" tube color, then I most certainly should be able to mix any color that could be mixed with your "secret" tube color and any other "unnamed" tube color of your choice.

If you can see your way clear to give me at least that much of a break, you've got a deal.

If you agree, my next move is to mail you my address. You want my snail-mail address? If so, let me know if you agree to my minor stipulation.

This is interesting, and a lot of fun. Hope I don't get pounded too awfully bad. But, I'm willing to give it my best effort.

Bill :)

WFMartin
08-03-2003, 10:05 PM
Milt,

Please forgive the double-post.

Also, I didn't read YOUR post between Don's and my last post, or I would have commented on it.

I try not to "see the world" through cyan, magenta, yellow eyes. But, my feeling is that a great deal of artistic floundering around and buying unneccessary tubes of colors for, shall we say, that "one shot time" when you actually NEED a unique color, can be saved by simply knowing a bit more about the scientific facts of color. That is all.

I don't use cyan, magenta, and yellow as a basis for my actual paint palette, any more often than most other artists, but I do use the knowledge of the scientific primaries in helping me to achieve the resulting colors that I may be seeking. That's really what it's all about.

You've made some good, practical points, here, Milt, and I agree with your philosophy in seeing art.

The "challenge" is still on, provided you would care to agree to my stipulations.

Bill :D

Einion
08-03-2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by JamieWG
You bet your paintbrushes I want to know what it is!
Hehe, thought you might. I don't have to bet all my brushes do I? They're mostly kolinskys... and I have so many... :D

Anyway:
Hansa Yellow Light
Cadmium Yellow Medium
Cadmium Red Medium
Quinacridone Magenta
Phthalo Blue GS
Ultramarine
Phthalo Green BS
Perinone Orange
Dioxazine Purple

Gee, looks awfully similiar to many people's palettes doesn't it? ;)

There are options for some of the colour points but I like having a range of opacities in mediums other than watercolours if possible so these are the ones I'd go with for oils and acrylics. Perinone Orange is chosen over redder Cadmium Oranges because mixes of Cad Yellow and Red are so similar to the single pigment colour and it provides a high-chroma but transparent paint for this hue that you can't get from mixing PY3 and PR122.

In watercolours a classic 'secondary palette' wouldn't be hugely inferior (in colour terms alone) and would use only six colours:
Hansa Yellow or Isoindolinone Yellow R
Quinacridone Rose or Quinacridone Magenta
Phthalo Blue GS or Phthalocyanine Cyan
Phthalo Green BS
Perinone Orange
Dioxazine Purple

Einion

donjusko
08-03-2003, 11:19 PM
I hope you read everything Bill, even my cyan rant :) I thought he misread you. Your last was post was really good.

The term 'chip color' is given to the dried color state. You will match any chip color of any media or medium with YMC.

Renee, Squirrel hair, wasn't it on the lettering brushes?

Don, Sure! some to them, quills, it's a bit too soft for painting pictures with acrylics or oils but great for a long even curve or straight line! There are some quill photos on that brush page,
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/mybrushes.htm

I like the sable, it's just right. Not as long as the quills but the same shape with shorter, stiffer hair.

Like I said, the most important brushes I have and no one's selling them. Let's give the manufactures a hand to get them started.

The main thing is.. we are talking about the shape of the ferrule and the blunt flat end shape of the hairs. The standard lettering brush.

There always was a flat furrule with flat end hairs. Like a soft 'long'. It was used for lettering also but not by the pros. Plus it was usually made with a stiffer cheap 'camels hair'.

Today all you can buy is this useless type made out of good hair. Because there were no artists supplying information to the manufactures.

The big companies are still out of touch on brushes, their learning and doing good with color though...

Once I get the cool magenta from cobalt or magnesium...

It took years to get the move on transparent yellows, one reason was because it was dropped from the printing business in favor of an opaque yellow in about 1964. In '64 we were still calling Pacasso and ilk great.

Picasso, 1881, Italy, Cubist. this ... said this, "Enough of Art. It's Art that kills us. People no longer want to do painting: they make art. People want Art. And they are given it. But the less Art there is in painting the more painting there is." (Parmelin, Picasso Plain, 1964, p. 30)</b>

Today it's back in but artists haven't been trained in using it, that era ended in 1900 when W/N stopped making it, after it had replaced all the other transparent yellows on the market for 25 years they stopped making it!

Then the wars took mind and bodies off the finer art of painting. By 1920 were at ground zero with Picasso starting all over again.

It usually took civilizations 200 years to recover lost ground in art. We, with our correct colors will produce the greatest artists that ever lived. And the internet is helping.

Pretty exciting stuff..

donjusko
08-03-2003, 11:26 PM
Those are great palettes Einion.
Simultaniously I'm using up tubes of Thalo Green B/S and Y/S.

I'm leaning way to the side of Y/S because it makes warmer yellow-greens. Cyan and yellow PY-3 make a cool yellow, very handy in the fog and distance. but usually I like my yellow's warm. Why do you like the B/S?

Einion
08-04-2003, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Domer
Einion, based on the reflectance curves I've seen on Hanprint and Hilary Page's Guide To Watercolours book , I've found three blue pigments which do not relect any significant amounts of red above the 'background white' reflectance:
Yes yes I know but I was just making the point that they still reflect some red light which ideally we'd like them not to in many cases, especially in 'cyans'. And beyond that <blockquote>"this 'background' reflectance is present in all watercolors — in masstone paints, about 5% to 15% of the light from all wavelengths ('white' light) is reflected from the painted surface. This is why watercolors always have a slightly dull and unsaturated appearance: it's as if bit of dark gray paint (low reflectance across all wavelengths) is mixed with the dominant pure color." </blockquote> to quote Bruce, so we can't draw wider conclusions for paint as a whole.

Yep, know what magenta should reflect too - zero green ideally. Again just making a point that commenting on the magenta reflectance of a blue isn't necessarily meaningful. Sure it's true, but all actual paints reflect unwanted light (and less of the desired ones!) than we would like.

As an aside, it's my opinion that a case could be made for pigment primaries whose reflectance is much more closely modelled on their spectral counterparts, despite what Handprint says about ideal reflectances. There would be problems for acrylic or oil painters - as you know they would all be very dark in masstone because of the small proportion of incident light being reflected - but think of how superb a glaze or wash would be... and the mixed darks, ooooo.


Bill, yep I did mix up spectral cyan and its pigment counterpart a bit but in either case it's plain misleading IMB to refer to the nearby hues using the primary name. With cyan, apart from anything it's directly between blue and green - I can hardly see people being comfortable with using it for blue-greens exactly as far in the opposite direction from cyan as Ultramarine is!

As far as magenta is concerned because it's such a unique colour in appearance I'm barely comfortable describing Quin Rose as magenta so once we move around to middle red it seems just plain silly.

Originally posted by WFMartin
There are numerous other things, Einion, that I'm not in firm agreement with, but you have put most everything in a practical and usable form.
First off thanks Bill, but feel free to bring them up. I could well be wrong about certain things or have made errors. If you'd prefer not to muddy the discussion any more with tangential points PM me.

Einion

bruin70
08-04-2003, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by WFMartin
..... But, my feeling is that a great deal of artistic floundering around and buying unneccessary tubes of colors for, shall we say, that "one shot time" when you actually NEED a unique color, can be saved by simply knowing a bit more about the scientific facts of color. That is all.


Bill :D

i like floundering,,,,,,,,methodical floundering with a purpose. unique opportunities arise in this state.

"one shot time" when you actually NEED a unique color"......i am never in a search for a color. this is not how i approach color. this is like becoming a slave to the color you "need". the "unique" colors i use are colors i use in principle, colors i use to inspire.

some of the colors i get would not have been gotten if i knew how to get 'em.......if one of my favorite colors was a surprising mix of unique colorA and unique colorB,,, you would not have thought of it. you would say "yes, i can mix that in CMY", but you wouldn't have thought of it.

and that is the inspiration of using unique color.

oh,,,,and i'm not going to get into a semantic debate on the rules of my color challenge:):D:):D.....{M}

donjusko
08-04-2003, 05:44 AM
I wouldn't have bet against you either Bill. I know you can make any color there is and you are not the only one.

impressionist2
08-04-2003, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by Einion

Hehe, thought you might. I don't have to bet all my brushes do I? They're mostly kolinskys... and I have so many... :D

Anyway:
Hansa Yellow Light
Cadmium Yellow Medium
Cadmium Red Medium
Quinacridone Magenta
Phthalo Blue GS
Ultramarine
Phthalo Green BS
Perinone Orange
Dioxazine Purple

Gee, looks awfully similiar to many people's palettes doesn't it? ;)



Einion

Einion, Having read your posts lo these many years and having a great deal of respect for them, I printed this out and will systematically add those that are missing to my palette and give them a whirl. Ofcourse, Jamie who has four times the energy I have, will ofcourse, test them first!:D

May I ask your manufacturer preference? If you don't wish to share that info, I understand, as I do in Milt's case.

Milt's reluctance to reveal color and brands at this stage in his career is understandable. Milt has been copied, in many cases by his own students, more times than Xerox. Not as well as Milt certainly, but occasionally, recognizably close. So close, in fact , that two of them, that I stumbled upon on the net, and wrote to ask Milt if he ever taught them. Turns out he did.

Renee

Patrick1
08-04-2003, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by Einion :

Anyway:
Hansa Yellow Light
Cadmium Yellow Medium
Cadmium Red Medium
Quinacridone Magenta
Phthalo Blue GS
Ultramarine
Phthalo Green BS
Perinone Orange
Dioxazine Purple

Gee, looks awfully similiar to many people's palettes doesn't it? ;)

Very much like mine, except I'm still looking for good non-cadmium replacements for the two yellows. This looks like a split-primary palette + the three secondaries thrown it (well maybe theyre tertiaries...they're semowhere in between the primaries, that's all that matters to me).

I'd think that this palette is so potent that there's probably very little that adding any other colour could add (at least in terms of gamut). Sure, you'd want to add burnt umber or sienna, but I guess this is about as good as it gets in terms of colour mixing.

Don...Phthalo Green YS or BS that is the question. The YS seems to be slightly higher chroma, but I'd think they're very close in their ability to mix clean yellow-greens (I should do a test to be sure). It's maybe more important to choose the one that'll be more useful as a mixing complement. Since there are so many reds out there, BS might be the better choice, but I don't think you can go wrong either way.

Bill, if there are some things I said that you don't agree with either, don't hesitate to let me know too. I'm probably delusional and don't know what I'm talking about :eek:.

Patrick1
08-04-2003, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by bruin70

and being so deeply involved in the print process, i think you HAVE TO see with your eyes more than your heart...

what this has broken down to is the difference in approach. some are in awe of nature and seek to reproduce it. others are governed by an inner beauty. when i see a color i like, i don't try to copy it, i try to understand its essence so that i can build OFF of it.....{M}

Milt...I now know why you don't exactly reproduce a colour you see...I never really thought of that.

I have a suspicion that artists' colour development works this way:

-when someone first starts to paint, they just paint the colour they think they should be seeing; they see grass, and they think it should be a bright emerald green since that's the image in their head, a clear blue sky should be pure ultramarine blue (I'm certainly guilty of both those infractions a few years ago).

-they later learn to paint what they see, not what they think they should be seeing; their colours are now far more accurate.

-you seem to have went further still; you use what you see as a starting point, and build off it, as you said.

bruin70
08-04-2003, 08:51 AM
pretty much so, patrick. i know this discussion has digressed, sorry guys, but after all, we ALL want produce good art, yes?...no matter how we envision it, we each have our own way.

thing is too, we all see differently, so formulas elude me. maybe i just paint instinctively.

and i'm somewhat of a darwinian with art too. we all take the path of least resistance. so when i step into an art store i see all this great color...........who can resist!! :):):)

WFMartin
08-04-2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by bruin70


oh,,,,and i'm not going to get into a semantic debate on the rules of my color challenge:):D:):D.....{M}


Milt,

Well, I guess, then, that the "challenge" is off. However, I do want to let you know that I deeply respect your approach to art, and I, as well as many others on this forum, have learned some good ideas from you.

I don't think any more needs to be hammered to death between us, as I can see your points, and am taking them for what they are--a wonderful, successful, professional artist's views on how he approaches his work.

I am always glad to take note of your ideas.

Bill:)

donjusko
08-04-2003, 09:58 PM
Yes, this thread has digressed, the battle is over.
Thank you all for your impute.
Don
Go to, Second Battle of Magenta, conclusion.

Einion
08-05-2003, 09:16 PM
I've revamped this post *argh* since Don has lost interest in defending his position so imagine any questions are rhetorical.

Hand print's oppositions don't mix neutral. Red should be opposite cyan. Orange should be opposite cobalt blue, Yellow should be opposite ult. blue.
Bruce's wheel doesn't purport to show neutral opposition, it is "based on visual complementary colors, with some special adjustments." Anyone who wants to geek out on why please look <A HREF=http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color7.html>here</A>. Bruce goes on to explain why visual and mixing complements are not necessarily equivalent in paints and those two links I provided to Fabrizio give specific guidance to colours that do work as complementary mixing pairs. So instead of dumbing down the idea, forcing a mixing model to fit the visual model by various means, it explains why this is not always possible and then goes on to provide information on how to understand why and work around it.

Don keeps on saying simply 'red' as the opposition to cyan, which implies something closer to middle red (which it should be according to theory) but actually uses Cadmium Red Light which is not red but a scarlet colour - orange-red. I'll return to this point again.

I think the reference point this color wheel uses is RGB. It's better than LAB though..
Er, why? Please explain what is 'wrong' with L*a*b* plotting? The gamut of CIELAB is far wider than RGB for a start and since both are wider than pigments are capable of either is sufficient. Assuming the readings are accurate L*a*b* gives the correct hue for any given reflective surface and their true relationships, i.e. showing correct visual oppositions. If you look <A HREF=http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/IMG/labwheel.gif>here</A> you'll see paints plotted to their actual hues without tweaking so you can see why Bruce does that for the other wheel.

phthalocyanine blue can be many PB numbers, different brands, different numbers. They choose how to represent their colors. I like the way Grumbacher did it best.
Wow, neat sidestep on the question. Which one is the Grumbacher colour at least? When readers realise that you haven't compared PB17, which is a better cyan than any PB15 variant, this puts your perference into an interesting light. And you still haven't even told us which other manufacturers' paints you compared it with for anyone to do comparisons for themselves. One of the fundamentals of the experimental principle is the recording of the method, as well as the results, to allow independent corroboration.

Einion, Visual complements and pigment complements are the same to me and my wheel.
Only because you made your wheel to function with specific pigments. That doesn't mean that visual complements work correctly, Important fact #2, as I'll demonstrate.

If we take yellows for example Don forces them to work by altering them to brown prior to neutralising this with Ultramarine if I understand correctly. From a practical standpoint this is because PB29 works with Burnt Umber, or a similar hue, but doesn't with yellows as Patrick has questioned above. Why this is a superior method to taking a blue-violet (with most palettes this would be a mix since few people have an appropriate colour) adding it to the yellow and adjusting the resulting mix as necessary to counter the resulting bias is beyond me. Don is essentially doing a similar thing via a different route!

If we take cyan and red as mentioned above, Don calls the opposing colour red when in fact it's a distinctly orange-biased red. If we select reds closer to middle red like PR112, PR254 or PR209 the results aren't nearly as good. Yet they are closer to what should work, highlighting that visual and mixing complements do not necessarily match. Anyone looking at the correct visual complements will see that Don has distorted the true relationships of one hue to another by tweaking his wheel to make individual colour oppositions, in much the same way as other wheels have done before. To repeat what I said before, Don's wheel is a colour-mixing wheel, a good one at that, but this doesn't make it any more 'real' than a number of others and like all wheels it can't satisfy all artists' needs.

...red and yellow both darken to the same brown.
Just to show that yellow doesn't necessarily darken to anything even remotely resembling Burnt Umber (and note just how greyish the shadows can look):

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/05-Aug-2003/3842-Yellow_Examples.JPG

Patrick, check out the differences in the circled areas A and B in each flower - showing the effect of transmitted light on the chroma (and hue too come to think of it) of petals.

RCW15 = Manganese Violet is opposite Green Oxide, I don't understand the question
Sorry, my mistake. I assumed that since that list you posted didn't actually name a colour for this position that it was mixed from flanking colours as one would with any palette missing a required intermediary hue.

True, but a well spaced on the wheel set of colors works even better.
Moot point.

Einion,"I would prefer to stick to single-pigment colours as do many others."
Don, I like double pigment colors personally, and can mix closely any color with two colors. Sometimes three is necessary but not often. It's all in using the correct opposition.
I think you mistook what I said, I meant single-pigment palette colours. I don't doubt with a palette as large as yours you could closely mix most colours with two paints but most people would prefer a smaller palette and accept the mixing necessities this forces upon them. Every professional painter (sorry, every other professional painter) whose palette I know of uses a far smaller palette than yours and there are sound practical reasons for selecting and using smaller palettes for the student and early painter.

Glad you asked. Take my laminated $10 RCW and smear some of the color paint on it. When it matches up, use the opposite color as the neutralizer.
I'm presuming this is not a 36-colour spot printing job so it's process printed yes? And you think this is accurate enough on hue? Patrick, anyone with a hand-painted colour chart like Golden's, compare the paint swatches with their printed equivalents, they're pretty bad representations aren't they?

Einion, "1788, Mosas Harris, English. THEORY... Moses Harris was dead in 1788!! "
Don, So what.
So what? So what? You're the one spewing out 'incontrovertible' facts, you made a mistake (actually two, you misspelled his name) deal with it.

You want the date they made this color wheel, look it up.
Natural System of Colours, published in 1776. How do you think I knew he was deceased in 1788, guesswork? Your arrogance is showing again.

Cyan is the primary blue, I see nothing wrong with naming it as the category containing all the mixes of blue. I do see something wrong with calling one of the mixes the name of the category.
Yes we're aware you don't see anything wrong with it. What about all the greens that 'contain' cyan?

Re-read what you wrote. I said "green has yellow in it", not yellow has green in it.
Sorry, mea culpa.

When magenta paint is viewed by eye you don't see anything but magenta.
Yeah that's true, but then we don't 'see' the magenta in Cobalt Blue either, any more than we see the cyan. I'd wager almost anyone would see it as simply 'blue'. Don asks why are spectrographic measurements important to the artist? This seems like an odd point from someone proposing that the observed colours of crystals is important but anyway, reflectance curves teach a lot about the true nature of colours and like a lot of the underlying science can form the basis for some useful inferences on colour mixing outcomes.

Whatever.. I should have said close to ultramarine blue, very close.
Whatever? Hmmm, it's okay to be vague is it? Only when you do it right? Okay, just so we're clear on that.

So that others know, Ultramarine is approximately 20° off from the correct hue.

all color theories of merit have a three dimensional model to tint and tone. The most popular were the double cone, sphere, cube and pyramid. You will just have to read into color theory.
First off, gee thanks for the implication that I haven't.

I'm perfectly well aware of the three-dimensional colourspace inherent in a colour model (for those who aren't with me value is the third dimension). I'm also well aware that they are NOT all symmetrical as apparently you are not. Well I know you know this so let's assume you're just conveniently ignoring it shall we?

The Munsell colourspace, sometimes wrongly described as cylindrical, is in fact a very irregular shape because of the different possible chromas for different hues in paint. Important face #4: only a colour model that ignores this central fact of reflected light and instead assumes consistent intensity - as is only possible with spectral light - can be entirely symmetrical. As the Handprint site puts it, CIELAB (which plots all possible colours of reflective surfaces) "has no arbitrary geometric shape, apart from the three dimensions, to distort true color relationships." Seems like I've read enough to spot and counter oversimplifications like this...

PR:122 and Thalo Green mix neutral, and a better neutral then all the combinations above. However, the others will do if your not picky.
Okay, please be specific, how is it better? Since Don is using his eyes then I'd be very interested in him trying to 'prove' this for a start and much more to the point unless he has actually compared all of these mixes himself (preferably in all media since he insists his wheel works equally with all paints) how can he possibly state this as a certainty? Which phthalo green is he referring to by the way, PG7 or PG36? They are very different colours.

By better Don has to mean least saturated here so I was going to ask him to define the level of achromacity he considers sufficient for one colour to be better than another but he can't since he's using his eyes just as I am. From reading and experience I'd say anything below about 4% saturation is an acceptable neutral at medium values since it's impossible for almost all of us to determine any hue at these levels. For mixes with very low value you don't need to be near this low, saturation can be as high as around 23% and one might not be able to see it. Four of the red/green pairs I listed I have verified myself in acrylics or watercolour and for the other two there are quantitative results listed on the Handprint site so it's very interesting that Don assumes/thinks his mix is better when in fact the most it might be is equal.

Am I missing something here, Yellow, magenta, cyan, red, blue and green are 3 primaries and 3 secondaries.
Yes, apparently so! Jamie listed Cadmium Orange, Phthalo Green and Dioxazine Purple in addition to cyan, magenta and yellow primaries remember? Any colour other than CMYRG and B is by definition a tertiary.

Before someone says, "hey wait a sec, Phthalo Green BS is a green isn't it?" It's a blue-green not a middle green so it falls between the hue position for green and cyan, making it a tertiary colour within the theoretical framework. It may function well in the secondary position but that highlights the point about theory v. practice not necessarily coinciding - Important fact #3.

Soon you will see a manufacture calling it Cyan.
Since Don doesn't know there are numerous cyan paints on the market, have been for quite a while. Probably all are based on phthalo blues, although many have added fillers or whiteners to more closely match the other two primaries in tinting strength and/or value making them easier to balance. Since this strongly affects their effectiveness it's a shame.

Painting with black has no place in a nature painting, It can be useful in a decorative one though.
I don't want to argue any other points needlessly since there's so much going on here but come on! All the paintings using black from the renaissance, baroque and latter periods are 'decorative' are they? Rembrandt's work is decorative apparently.

I'm perfectly willing to accept a painter's desire to have perceptible hue in halftone and shadow areas but not every shadow has apparent hue and even if used merely for featureless black holes (caves, deep depressions in anything really) surely a case could be made for using black for that sort of negative shape. Given how Don's work looks it's fairly obvious how much he stresses colour, at the expense of value usually, so it's no surprise that this is his position but notice he didn't address my example in any way. No answer for it is there? There are no 'wrong' colours - any colour one can mix using black, any black, can be matched with almost precisely using other colours (particularly with a CMY triad available) so ipso facto that colour isn't in any way 'deader' than it should be. And if I choose to simulate a flesh halftone with Titanium White, Red Oxide, Yellow Ochre and Mars Black, similarly to how Titian or Caravaggio might have, and it's a precise colour match I defy anyone to tell me a good reason why I shouldn't!

Let anyone print out the color that matches their choice of tube color or any color at all, and mail it to you. You can match it.
Let me see, Don is saying that a printout of a colour (on a CYMK printer no less!) can be matched by Bill using CMY paints... oh that's a stretch! The problem is you can't print out a colour that's even close to the chroma of a light glaze of Dioxazine Purple or Phthalo Green BS and any number of a range of paints. Saturation costs demonstrate this quite clearly even if the inks/paints were absolutely flawless matches to the ideals.

Einion

Einion
08-05-2003, 09:23 PM
You still reading Larry? You're going to love this one! :D

Bill, with regard to the mixing challenge, Don states you would need a 'cool' magenta to do this. Cobalt Violet, which typically has a hue about 20-30 degrees different from that of Quinacridone Magenta (about as far apart as Cadmium Yellow Medium and Cadmium Orange or Phthalo Blue GS and Ultramarine are for comparison folks!) Don't you think it's a bit of a swizz selecting a 'primary' for a given mixing outcome? This is utilising colour bias...

Another example, Don says, "If you want a good red, use a good transparent yellow like OH Indian Yellow Golden transparent with magenta transparent" I think he implies elsewhere he'd choose Gamboge for other mixes so what is he doing, he's splitting the primaries!! So he's not actually supporting your thesis at all Bill.

And if we look at the colour Old Holland Indian Yellow-Orange Lake Extra - which is what Don meant to write above - this is a convenience mixture of Nickel Dioxine Yellow and Isoindoline Scarlet (gee I love my references) which is actually orange in masstone for crying out loud! It's no more a yellow than Cadmium Orange is, check the swatch on his wheel if you don't believe me (first ring, rightmost colour touching the yellow at 12 o'clock on the central circle). So let's recap, he's saying a mix of an orange-biased yellow, scarlet and magenta make a good red. Wow, what a stretch.

I'm trying desperately to keep dripping sarcasm out of my replies Don but you're making it very hard.

Einion

Einion
08-05-2003, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by donjusko
The term 'chip color' is given to the dried color state. You will match any chip color of any media or medium with YMC
Exsqueeze me? Not with single primaries you won't!

I've already shown the silliness of the 'challenge' of matching a printed swatch with paint but this related point would be a revelation to the print industry if it was true, they could throw out their spot inks. If I understand correctly Don is saying that cyan, magenta and yellow can exactly match the colour of any other pigment. This is nonsense as Bill, William (Cloud Drifter) and anyone else with experience in the printing industry can confirm. For those without professional experience, here's a simple illustration: compare a paint you have with its printed equivalent in a product brochure or even a swatch on a website (which theoretically could be more accurate being an RGB representation). Not even close in most cases is it?

Originally posted by donjusko
PR:122 and Thalo Green mix neutral, and a better neutral then all the combinations above.
Beware of opinion dressed as fact! Since I wrote my last post I've now looked at the page that shows your result and it appears decidedly on the blue side to me, even more so than black+white tints (<A HREF=http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/complementsneutral.htm>check for yourself peeps</A>). I have a calibrated monitor so unless the picture is pretty far off your 'neutral' is nothing of the sort. This doesn't in fact surprise me since I've tried PG7 with both magentas I have and found this to be the case, plus the averaged results listed on Handprint don't show PR122 to be a complement for either the blue or yellow shade of phthalo green. Given Don's stated preference for perceptible colour in his darks should perhaps we shouldn't have expected it to be correct.

Originally posted by donjusko
Talk about smoke and mirrors...
Okay, let's talk about it. Anyone else see a problem with what I said, "You are mixing together colour and hue in your descriptions - available primaries can have the right hue but not be exactly the right colour"? I can mix a magenta, I'm sorry if you don't know how Don. Remember this:
Originally posted by Einion
...it's a basic tenet... that any intermediate hue can be mixed with colours that bracket its position. This isn't to say that any colour can be mixed, just the hue since it must lie between two colours around the radius.
ANY hue can be achieved in a mix, even that of cyan, magenta or yellow. They won't be very chromatic of course, especially with the yellow for reasons that should be obvious, but it is possible.

Have a careful think about this folks, come back to me if you can't see how you would go about it.

And looking through some of the links Don provided these two quotes from his site make an interesting counterpoint:
It takes two transparent oppositions to mix neutral colors, or one transparent and one translucent color. Two translucent colors, or one transparent and one opaque color. Two opaque colors just won't do it.

Opaque Cadmium Orange and Opaque Cobalt Blue make an opaque neutral dark. It's not the darkest combination of colors making a neutral dark but it has the widest latitude.
That's just the kind of contradictory, fuzzy thing that makes your writing so confusing to others Don.

My colorwheel started in 1995. The first one to use the new transparent colors in correct oppositions.
This is still a correct statement and I would like you to show me otherwise.
Tsk tsk *shakes head*. For those without eidetic memories:
NOT originally posted by donjusko
My colorwheel started in 1995. The first one to use the new transparent colors in correct oppositions.

Originally posted by donjusko
The first one to use the new transparent colors and it is being grasped by the new artists who can see more with the new colors available.
Please don't be revisionist! If that's what you meant to state, but didn't, then say so, instead of trying to make it look like I took a comment of yours out of context.

I'm going to end my arguments here because it so clearly illustrates a point:
Originally posted by donjusko
None of the above has a color wheel with correct oppositions. Yea, I'm asking for it, you show me one that does.
You asked for it! I'll begin with these:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/05-Aug-2003/3842-HSV+Photoshop_Wheels.JPG

For anyone still at all curious, compare them to Don's wheel. Look awfully similar don't they? This is where I first got an inkling I needed to know more about complements, long before I even knew what a website was. These two colour wheels, because they don't ignore cyan and magenta, correctly position hues in opposition (independent of Don's 'crystal colours' idea) and were out long before Don 'invented' them, noticed them or whatever it is he claims. That's because they're based on scientific colour modelling principles started prior to WWII and published, in essentially the finished form we're concerned with, in 1976.

And as for mixing wheels, not his, with transparent synthetic organic pigments:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/05-Aug-2003/3842-Quiller+_Kosvanec.JPG

Apologies to Messrs Quiller and Kosvanec. At this size you won't be able to read the colour names on the Quiller wheel but essentially magenta, cyan and yellow are at the primary positions. Since correct opposition wasn't originally at issue it's a bonus so I won't conveniently ignore it; this wheel is not perfect but is fairly good in practice (allowing for variations in specific colours from different makers). Note that although the position on the circumference for Quinacridone Magenta is different it faces a convenience green mix, Permanent Green Light, which it also does on Don's wheel. Quinacridone Rose (an alternative 'magenta' for some people) faces Viridian directly but phthalo green is just to the side. Phthalo blue faces Cadmium Scarlet, exactly as on Don's. Dioxazine Purple faces yellow green, as on Don's. Beginning to notice a pattern here? Also note that yellow faces Ultramarine Violet, not Ultramarine, as I state above it should both theoretically and in practice if one is looking for single-colour paired oppositions. It's not perfect but it's the best colour available. Most painters would of course just mix this hue if necessary or add the closest thing they have and adjust the mix as necessary as Larry suggests. Either method works and notice they both use three colours... just like Don's route. Jim Kosvanec's wheel is entirely composed of transparent colours, the oppositions may not be perfect but they aren't terrible. I think that's fairly comprehensive evidence.

One final point from the New Munsell Student Color Set: <blockquote>It is impossible to create a subtractive color wheel where every color combined with the color opposite it on the wheel will mix to gray. This type of color wheel, which is found in many books for artists, (1) can only be approximate; (2) applies only to complex subtractive mixture, not to color vision; and (3) precludes understanding many other things about color.</blockquote>
Which I think says it all, doesn't it?

I hope people have found this educational.

Einion

Einion
08-05-2003, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by impressionist2
Einion, Having read your posts lo these many years and having a great deal of respect for them, I printed this out and will systematically add those that are missing to my palette and give them a whirl. Ofcourse, Jamie who has four times the energy I have, will ofcourse, test them first!
May I ask your manufacturer preference? If you don't wish to share that info, I understand, as I do in Milt's case.
Thank you :)

I should start by saying one doesn't need to have all these colours, but if I wanted a palette of only ten tubes, plus black in my case, that provided the widest range these are what I would choose. This is the core of the palette I've used for twenty years (couldn't live without my earths). BTW if you want to maximise opacity in your mixed greens a Cadmium Lemon can be substituted for the Hansa Yellow Light (PY3) with little cost in colour-mixing terms. Since you're unlikely to need the absolute best mixed violets in general painting Quinacridone Rose could be substituted for the Quin Magenta and is easier to find in oils.

I'm not in Milt's enviable/unenviable position so I'm only too willing to recommend things but I have limited experience actually using oils so any brand preferences I would have aren't necessarily worth much. There are a lot of manufacturers you can choose from and these colours are unlikely to be poor from anyone reliable.

From American makers M. Graham is a possibility, as are DaVinci, Grumbacher, Williamsburg of course and I shouldn't forget Daniel Smith or Utrecht (who offer colours you might not find elsewhere).

From European makers Winsor & Newton has a deserved reputation for the quality of their pigment selection so they shouldn't be overlooked if their body and cost are acceptable. In independent tests they often offer the best colour - most saturated, cleanest undercolour, that sort of thing. I'd give Schmincke Mussini a miss because of the unnamed resin used in their makeup although they are supposedly very good paints. Talens Rembrandt don't offer many of these colours (at least the ones I imagine you don't have already) so skip them.

Of the really pricey brands there's Blockx, Old Holland and Michael Harding to choose from. From the more reliable things I've read about Blockx they should be very good paints usually, if you don't mind the poppy oil vehicle which I would be cautious about myself. Old Holland and Michael Harding are known for maximising pigment load (perhaps over handling). Considering Michael determined that Old Holland pump up their Ultramarine with another pigment, probably a phthalo blue, taken with my other worries about their consistency, I'd go with Michael Harding myself if it's an option.

Give me a shout if you have trouble locating any colour, I'll see if I can help.

Einion

donjusko
08-06-2003, 06:26 AM
Einion,
I didn't leave because of lack of interest, I just feel all the discussion points were met.
I haven't had to add anything new to this thread, just tell you where to find the answers.

Einion.
Don keeps on saying simply 'red' as the opposition to cyan, which implies something closer to middle red (which it should be according to theory) but actually uses Cadmium Red Light which is not red but a scarlet colour - orange-red. I'll return to this point again.
Don. Yea, I keep saying red and gave the explanation why.. because Red Light is harder to make, it gets chalky after adding yellow opaque. Medium and Dark Reds are easy to make with magenta. That doesn't effect it's dark neutral mixing qualities though, Red Light works just fine. By the way, scarlet is on the magenta side of red, not the yellow side.

Einion,
Bruce's wheel doesn't purport to show neutral opposition, it is "based on visual complementary colors, with some special adjustments."
Don. No adjustments are needed on my color wheel. Everything is laid out to the 'T'. That is not the case with the LAB wheel, which would not make a useable 3D model either. I said it is based on the RGB colorwheel because as you can see, yellow goes to yellow green. I don't conceder that artist friendly or pigment accurate. It's RGB accurate. Magenta is the only correct opposition.

Einion. Which one is the Grumbacher colour at least? When readers realize that you haven't compared PB17, which is a better cyan than any PB15 variant, this puts your perference into an interesting light. And you still haven't even told us which other manufacturers' paints you compared it with for anyone to do comparisons for themselves.
Don. PB:17 and PB:15. I think we are splitting thin hairs here. Do you have the Pigment Color Books? I didn't think so. I already explained which and when I compared pigments. I guess you didn't go there, be my guest.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/mypigments.htm
I did make the tests before Pigment Color Numbers were popular. I want a cyan that will make a good sky. PB:15 is working very well thank you.

Einion. Only because you made your wheel to function with specific pigments. That doesn't mean that visual complements work correctly, Important fact #2, as I'll demonstrate.
Don. The crystal color wheel was made first. The pigments, all pigments, fit on the wheel.

Einion, If we take cyan and red as mentioned above, Don calls the opposing colour red when in fact it's a distinctly orange-biased
Don has distorted the true relationships of one hue to another by tweaking his wheel to make individual colour oppositions,
Don. Ha ha, That's so distorted it's funny. Cyan is the primary, red is the secondary. Any questions?

Einion. Just to show that yellow doesn't necessarily darken to anything even remotely resembling Burnt Umber. See photos.
Don. I don't know what to tell you Einion. Look at the yellow cup, the better of the two examples. See the colors making the inside of the cup. Now what colors do you think one would use to make them? I see an Indian Yellow Brown/s or a yellow medium and burnt sienna. You can tell by the foreground white (pink) that the light was not white. If it was, I see some photo tweaking here.

Einion. I'm presuming this is not a 36-colour spot printing job so it's process printed yes?
Don. Yes, and I did it myself so I know it's accurate.

Einion. So what? So what? You're the one spewing out 'incontrovertible' facts, you made a mistake (actually two, you misspelled his name) deal with it.
Don. Again, this was answered but not read by you. 1788 was when the theory was popular. 1788, Mosas Harris, English.
THEORY, He and Gainsborough made an eighteen color wheel with no Cyan or Magenta in sight. He also placed Ult. Blue opposite Orange, a mistake that was going to continue for awhile.

Don. "Cyan is the primary blue, I see nothing wrong with naming it as the category containing all the mixes of blue. I do see something wrong with calling one of the mixes the name of the category."
Einion. What about all the greens that 'contain' cyan?
Don. Like turquoise? What about them? They fit right in on my color wheel. But not on the RGB I might add.

Einion. Yeah that's true, but then we don't 'see' the magenta in Cobalt Blue either, any more than we see the cyan. I'd wager almost anyone would see it as simply 'blue'.
Don. The simple people would call Cobalt Blue simply blue. We're better then that, are we not?

Einion. Don asks why are spectrographic measurements important to the artist?
Don. I give more info than I needed to know about spectrographic measurements here.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/final.htm#RAINBOWS_AND_SPECTROSCOPES
I stopped when it came to reading pigments. I am concerned with what the eye sees and not what can be read off the pigment with mechanical optics. I see it in the tube and match the tube to the subject. That's not simplistic, it's realistic. It's what an artist does.

Einion. So that others know, Ultramarine is approximately 20° off from the correct hue.
Don. Now your going too far. I said Ultramarine blue is opposite Yellow and it is. The test.. I matched the 4 color process blue-violet filter with Ultramarine Blue. They are a perfect match. I don't know where you get 20° off but you can take it with you.

Einion. Well I know you know this so let's assume you're just conveniently ignoring it shall we?
Don. Just like I ignored the lopsided theories, I didn't conceder them as important as you may. Show me a non-symmetrical color model that you think is worth looking at.

Einion. only a colour model that ignores this central fact of reflected light and instead assumes consistent intensity - as is only possible with spectral light - can be entirely symmetrical.
Don. A photo of a painting has no extra reflected light. The painting has no extra reflected light either. Given in w/c the paper and the transparency of the pigment have some bearing on the intensity of some colors but if those colors are plotted correctly you know what you are working with. Every color on the LAB example can be plotted on the crystal color wheel, and in a better position to see what other colors are related to it.
1905, THEORY, Albert Munsell. He made an eight color wheel with the wrong opposition's, his triad was lopsided, and he had no Cyan. Next he darkened the colors with Black, mixed them with Gray, and tinted them with White, and numbered them all. This is still taught today.
The problem with Munsell is that he only used 8 colors and that makes 0 oppositions. A worthless artist color wheel. Just as the LAB colorwheel is worthless with it's incorrect oppositions. Not that it doesn't make a decent sales tool but there are better.

Einion. Since Don is using his eyes then I'd be very interested in him trying to 'prove' this for a start and much more to the point unless he has actually compared all of these mixes himself (preferably in all media since he insists his wheel works equally with all paints) how can he possibly state this as a certainty?
Don. I gave this before, I think you talk more then you read. Here they are again, all my pigments and Pigment Color Numbers. PG36 Thalo Green y/s is my preferred green. It makes my foreground dark shadows, PG7 has more cyan in it and is used for shadows in the middle ground. And yes, I did make the comparison test for w/c and acrylics also.
RCW1a, Light
Chrome Yellow Light, Lead Chromate, PY34
RCW1a, Light
Yellow Light Hansa, Arylamide, PY3, Translucent
Cadmium Lemon, Cadmium Zinc Sulfide, PY-35, Opaque
RCW1b,
Aureolin, Potassium Cobaltinitrite, PY40, Opaque
New Gamboge, Nickel Dioxine, PY153, Translucent
Hansa Yellow, Monoazo Yellow, PY74, Translucent
Azo Yellow, Monoazo Yellow, PY151, Translucent
RCW1c,
Indian Yellow-Orange Lake Extra, Dioxine Nickel Complex, Isoindoline, PY153, PR260, Transparent
RCW1d,
Indian Yellow-Brown Lake Extra, Dioxine Nickel Complex, Synthetic Iron Oxide, PY153, PY42, transparent
RCW1e,
Asphaltium Extra, PBr7,PR101, BBk11, PG17, Transparent Brown tint to Yellow
Raw Umber Brown, Natural Earth, Hydrated Iron Oxide, PBr7, PY42, Translucent
RCW2a, Tint,
Naples Yellow, Titanium Dioxide, Rutile-Nickel-Tin-Titanium, Chromium-Antimony-Titanium Yellow, PW6, PY53, PBr24, Opaque
RCW2b,
Chrome Yellow Orange Lead Chromate, PY34, Opaque
RCW2c,
Yellow Ochre, Natural Hydrated Iron Oxide, PY43
RCW3a,
Naples Yellow, Lead Antimonate, PY41, Opaque
RCW3b,
Raw Siena, Natural Iron Oxide, PBr7, Opaque
RCW4,
Benzimidazolone Orange, Benzimidazolone, PO62, Transparent
Cadmium Orange, Cadmium Sulfo-Selenide, PO20, Opaque
RCW5,
RCW6,
Chinese Vermilion, Mercury Sulfide, Translucent
Vermilion Extra, Isoindoline, PR 260, translucent
RCW7b,
Light Oxide Red Warm, Synthetic Iron Oxide, PR101, Opaque
RCW8,
RCW9,
RCW10,
Light Portrait Pink tint, Naphthol Red AS-D, Titanium White, Diarylide Yellow, PR122, PW6, PY83, Opaque
Naphthol Crimson, Naphthol AS, PR170, Translucent
Permanent Rose, Quinacridone, PV19, Transparent
RCW11,
RCW12,
Light Magenta tint, Naphthol AS, Quinacridone Violet, Titanium Dioxide, Zinc Oxide, PR188, PR122, PW6, Opaque
Medium Magenta tint, Quinacridone Magenta, Titanium Dioxide, PR122, PW6, Opaque
ACRA Violet, Quinacridone Magenta, PR122, Transparent Warm Magenta
RCW13,
Cobalt Violet, Cobalt Phosphate, PV14, Transparent Cool Magenta
RCW14,
RCW15,
RCW16,
Dioxazine Purple, Carbazole Dioxazine, PV23, Transparent
RCW17,
RCW18,
Ultramarine Violet, Alumosilicate of Sodium, PV15, Transparent
RCW19,
King's Blue Deep, Tint, Zinc Oxide, Titanium Dioxide Rutile, Synthetic Ultramarine B29, PW4, PW6, PB29, Opaque
Light Blue Violet tint, Ultramarine Blue, Titanium Dioxide, PB29, PW6, Opaque
RCW19c,
Ultramarine Blue, Complex Silicate of Sodium and Aluminum with Sulfur, PB29, Translucent
RCW20,
RCW21,
RCW22a,
Cobalt Blue, Oxides of Cobalt and Aluminum, PB28, Opaque
RCW23,
RCW24,
RCW25, Cerulean Blue, tint, Oxides of Cobalt and Chromium, PB36, Opaque
Phthalo Blue, Phthalo Blue, PB15, Transparent
RCW26,
RCW27,
RCW28,
Bright Aqua Green tint, Phthalocyanine Green, Phthalocyanine Blue, Titanium Dioxide, PG7, PB15, PW6, Opaque
RCW29,
Opaque Green Light, Phthalocyanine Green, Monoazo Yellow, Cobalt-Titanium-Nickel-Zinc-Aluminum-Oxide, Phthalocyanine Blue, Titanium Dioxide, PG7, PY3, PG50, PB15:1, PW6, Cool Opaque
RCW30,
RCW31,
Tint, Emerald Green, Brominated Copper Phthalocyanine, Titanium Dioxide, PG36, PW6, Opaque
Phthalo Green, Phthalocyanine Green, PG7, Transparent
Phthalo Green, Y/S, Brominated Chlorinated Phthalocyanine, PG36, Tranparent
RCW32,
RCW33,
Permanent Green Light, Phthalo Green, Monoazo Yellow, PG7, PY3, Opaque
RCW34,
Chrome Oxide Green, Chrome Oxide, PG17, Opaque
RCW35a,
Yellow Green Organic, Opaque
RCW35b,
Sap Green, Arylamide Yellow GX, Phthalocyanine Green, Trans. Red Oxide, PY73, PG7, PR101
RCW36a,
Thalo Yellow Green tint, Chlorinated Copper Phthalocyanine, Arylide Yellow 10G, Zinc Oxide, PG7, PY3, PW4, Opaque
RCW36b,
Indian Yellow-Green Extra, Dioxine Nickel Complex, Methin Copper Complex, PY153, PY129, Transparent
Green Gold, Nickel Chelated Azo, PG10, Translucent
Green Gold, Azomethine Copper Complex, PY129, Transparent

Don. "PR:122 and Thalo Green mix neutral, and a better neutral then all the combinations above.
Einion. so it's very interesting that Don assumes/thinks his mix is better when in fact the most it might be is equal.
Don. I know what gray is and this combination tints to a great gray. Magenta and Thalo Green make what looks like a Battle Ship Gray to me. Perhaps you wanted a warm gray, use Cad Orange and Cobalt Blue or Burnt Umber and Ultramarine Blue.
Don. I don't need some one to argue every point, especially one that adds nothing and doesn't read whole posts. Nothing of your reply was worth reading. IMHO

Einion. Before someone says, "hey wait a sec, Phthalo Green BS is a green isn't it?" It's a blue-green not a middle green so it falls between the hue position for green and cyan, making it a tertiary colour within the theoretical framework.
Don. Yes Thalo Green b/s is a green. A hair's breath next to y/s. Yes they could be plotted next to each other but it would take a 72 color wheel to show the new position.

Einion. I'm perfectly willing to accept a painter's desire to have perceptible hue in halftone and shadow areas but not every shadow has apparent hue and even if used merely for featureless black holes (caves, deep depressions in anything really) surely a case could be made for using black for that sort of negative shape.
Don. I'm sure you could make a case for black and I'm sure I can make one against it. I like color in my darks, all my darks. I see no black and if you tried I don't think you would either. There is no black in nature. Not even the shadows on a black car.

Einion. And if I choose to simulate a flesh halftone with Titanium White, Red Oxide, Yellow Ochre and Mars Black, similarly to how Titian or Caravaggio might have, and it's a precise colour match I defy anyone to tell me a good reason why I shouldn't!
Don. We have better and cleaner colors today, I think those artists would agree with me, not you. And I would question Titian using black in his figures.

Einion. Let me see, Don is saying that a printout of a colour (on a CYMK printer no less!) can be matched by Bill using CMY paints... oh that's a stretch!
Don, You pick the RGB color and I'll match it. No problem. Since RGB can make any color in nature you should have no problem. Neither will I.

Einion. Bill, with regard to the mixing challenge, Don states you would need a 'cool' magenta to do this. Cobalt Violet, which typically has a hue about 20-30 degrees different from that of Quinacridone Magenta (about as far apart as Cadmium Yellow Medium and Cadmium Orange or Phthalo Blue GS and Ultramarine are for comparison folks!)
Don. I said I would prefer a cool magenta, that's 10 degrees difference or less, to make batches of ultramarine blue.
Cyan g/s is 70 degrees away from ultramarine blue and there are 10 degrees between Cad Yellow Medium and Cad Orange. I don't know who's color wheel you are using but it is real wrong.

Einion. Another example, Don says, "If you want a good red, use a good transparent yellow like OH Indian Yellow Golden transparent with magenta transparent" I think he implies elsewhere he'd choose Gamboge for other mixes so what is he doing, he's splitting the primaries!! So he's not actually supporting your thesis at all Bill.
Don. I'm not 'splitting primaries Einion, there is no such thing as splitting primaries as in two different colors being primary. Indian Yellow Original which OH has done a good job of duplacating, is a transparent orange in mass, and yellow as a tint. Since it can be used both ways it is a very useful color. Gamboge as I already said makes a better triad for a full range of darks. If you want darks with Indian Yellow you should add the second stage of that transparent set, Indian Yellow br/s.

Don. "The term 'chip color' is given to the dried color state. You will match any chip color of any media or medium with YMC."
Einion. For those without professional experience, here's a simple illustration: compare a paint you have with its printed equivalent in a product brochure or even a swatch on a website (which theoretically could be more accurate being an RGB representation). Not even close in most cases is it?
Don. Einion, I have done the color balancing on my own Giclee prints. On a 1:1 painting to print I can't and no one else can tell the difference from 3 feet away. Just like you won't be able to tell the difference from the side by side photos of your color or code printed and my matched pigment color. Do we have money riding or are you just talk. Let's see I have 5 colors in my primary yellow section, a warm and cool magenta and cyan. Bring it on big boy.

Einion. plus the averaged results listed on Handprint don't show PR122 to be a complement for either the blue or yellow shade of phthalo green.
Don. Sorry Charlie, The LAB chart just doesn't show correct oppositions.

Einion. I can mix a magenta, I'm sorry if you don't know how Don. Remember this:
Don. No, you can't mix a magenta, your fooling yourself if you think you can. I'll give you a magenta code, you match it in pigment. I'll give you money, any amount you are willing to bet that you can't do it. Now watch how fast you back down. I conceder hue and color interchangeable. Hue perhaps being slightly broader or a pigment mix matching an element's color.

Einion. The Macintosh Color Picker and Photoshop both show the RGB color wheel.
Don. My color wheel and the RGB color wheel are the same only at the rim. My colors get dark differently then RGB. The RGB color wheel makes a ugly dark cyan, a cyan-green and green dark yellows. Like LAB.
Here you can see those RGB color wheels progressed from light to no light in the middle.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/colorwheel.htm

Einion. Phthalo blue faces Cadmium Scarlet, exactly as on Don's. Beginning to notice a pattern here?
Don. Quiller changed his wheel after mine was on the web, that's the pattern if any.
No, cyan is not opposite red in the Quiller Wheel, don't say that it is, it's three clicks up, in fact, on the Original Quiller Wheel which I still have on my other computer, there is no cyan I could see. Ask him. And that which you called cyan looks more like Cobalt Blue to me.

Einion. Jim Kosvanec's wheel is entirely composed of transparent colours, the oppositions may not be perfect but they aren't terrible. I think that's fairly comprehensive evidence.
Don. I don't even conceder this one a color wheel, more like a list of colors. Mine is original, and it works. Everything that you have shown doesn't work.

Einion. Munsell - It is impossible to create a subtractive color wheel where every color combined with the color opposite it on the wheel will mix to gray. This type of color wheel, which is found in many books for artists, (1) can only be approximate; (2) applies only to complex subtractive mixture, not to color vision; and (3) precludes understanding many other things about color.
Which I think says it all, doesn't it?
Don. It does as far as Munsell's 8 color wheel is concerned, It never worked in the first place, why bring up anything they would say. It was and is a bad color wheel.

Einion. I hope people have found this educational.
Don. I think most others read my material much better then you and that you are argumentative.
Now I have stated my opinions and you have responded. You have stated your opinions and I have responded. We should be finished. I am.

talkingbanana
08-06-2003, 12:59 PM
Question from the lost high school student here:

Don, if you can mix any color under the sun with cyan, magenta, and yellow, why do you need all those colors on your palette?

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the issue, but I would like to know why you need Phthalo Green or Ultramarine Blue or Cadmium Orange if the CMY wheel can mix everything . . .

donjusko
08-06-2003, 03:06 PM
It just makes painting easier.

It takes time to mix batches of colors.

Pre-made colors of other element compositions usually are stronger colors.

Often you need opaque colors.

It just makes painting easier.
The important thing is to know how to make any color. I keep a full palette all the time. Take all your ammunition all the time. I like it that way.

WFMartin
08-06-2003, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by talkingbanana
Question from the lost high school student here:

Don, if you can mix any color under the sun with cyan, magenta, and yellow, why do you need all those colors on your palette?

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the issue, but I would like to know why you need Phthalo Green or Ultramarine Blue or Cadmium Orange if the CMY wheel can mix everything . . .

talkingbanana,

If I may be so bold, as to answer that question for you, even though it was addressed to Don,. It all has to do with convenience.

I am a staunch supporter of cyan, magenta, and yellow as being the primary colors of pigment. But, you'll find many earth colors and convenience colors on my palette, as well. In fact I rarely actually use the primaries, cyan, magenta, and yellow alone or mixed. However, there is one exception. I mix all my own greens. I use mostly cadmium yellows and Pthalo Blue to do this. I then dirty them up with Cadmium Red Deep or some similar color, often using Alizarin Crimson or Rose Madder. I own a couple of tubes of green, but they are aging in my paint box, as I rarely use them at all. I got the idea of mixing my own greens from a very well-known wildlife artist who has a feeling that most tube greens are fugitive in their nature. I have since decided that this idea of tube greens not being permanent might be a little far-fetched, but my habit of mixing greens involves the mixing of each unique green by hand, and I'm not sorry for having done that in the slightest.

Now, the crux of the matter is that no matter how many tubed, convenience colors you or I may use, the primaries of cyan, magenta, and yellow exhibit their individual behaviors within these convienience colors, and that is why I have always chosen to do my utmost to understand how these primaries of cyan, magenta, and yellow behave in a scientific and logical manner. I have tubes of colors which I consider to be as close to primary cyan, magenta, and yellow as is practically possible which I rarely use, but more importantly, I equate all other mixes of colors (earth, convenience, opaque, etc.) to how the CMY primaries are behaving with each other. That is the science of understanding the behavior of the primariy colors of pigment.

No one should bother laboriously mixing various combinations of cyan, magenta, and yellow to produce the color, let's say, Raw Sienna, when all you need to do is reach for a tube of Raw Sienna. But....it can be done!

And what about the case where you might wish to create a color somewhere between Burnt umber and Raw Sienna. Well, one way is to take the already existing Burnt Umber, and then add enough Raw Sienna or some other combination of yellow and red to it to produce the color halfway between the two. Well, that involves mixing of at least two, and perhaps three colors together to do that. My feeling is that if you're going to mix two or three colors anyway, it's really no harder to mix cyan, magenta, and yellow together in the proper amounts to create your desired color. It certainly isn't any more difficult in terms of time or number of paints being mixed. But, it requires a little bit more color knowledge, perhaps.

The more you understand about the behavior of cyan, magenta, and yellow in creating other colors, the more you automatically understand about how earth and convenience colors contribute to producing the colors you might wish to make.

Nobody is telling anybody else they should necessarily be using cyan, magenta, and yellow on their palettes, but only to encourage others to develop an understanding of how they behave when mixed with each other.

And, keep in mind that, as Einion stated, although you can mix any color (hue) under the sun with cyan, magenta, and yellow, you often cannot achieve the purity (chroma) that you might desire. After all, these are man-made pigments, and not colors of light. That's where the "theory" part comes in. Theory says it can be done, but the pigments available sometimes limit our efforts. The theory is correct--the pigments are less than perfect. And, that's why it appears not to work, sometimes.

Bill :)

djstar
08-06-2003, 03:49 PM
I have learned to love beautiful mud.
Life is full of mud. I feel this sort of discussion is all about my head. Where the rubber meets the road is on my palate. I must say I get MORE colors than I expect working from instinct and SEEING what I want than formulating them IN MY HEAD first. Eye and hand and the action of laying down the paint make a much better resource than the wheel. It is all tools. As an art chaneller... that being I see it, it moves into my eyes and out my hands onto the canvas... It is going to turn out how it turns out so I let it.
The mistakes are often the excitement.
Funny enough, what I learned from Milt MOSTLY was in the forums which don't directly relate to his subject or style. What I have tried to resist it mimicing his "Kobayashi-ness" and always feel like I missed the lesson if anyone describes my work as such. He has been a marvelous teacher, by inspiration and knowlege. It is a shame his classes did not allow the sort of demo and description that we can find in the forums. He did a post about light and showed me a work by Sargent in here that KNOCKED my socks off. NOT how he does it... but how it is done!

A teacher that tell the rules is restricting a student. A teacher that shows the options is opening them up. The thread is a great opening up as long as nobody here expects a winner!!!
dj*

WFMartin
08-06-2003, 11:29 PM
Einion,

I really don’t know how to use that multi-quote thingy that you guys toss back and forth, so I’ll just paraphrase your statements, and include my responses. In one of your past posts, you asked me to indicate several things on which you and I did not agree, so I’ll state a few, as well as one or two items on which we definitely do agree.

Here goes: You remarked something regarding visual as opposed to mixing complements.

My response: The only sure way I know to test whether 2 colors are exact complements is to analyze each with a color densitometer, and then plot each color on a color wheel or triangle. I consider a complement to be a complement, and mixing the two alleged complements to determine the neutrality of the color produced is one way to tell. This concept of “visual complements” just doesn’t seem valid in my book. Perhaps someone who truly believes in this concept could please explain to me the criteria for one color to be considered a “visual complement” to another color. Simply stated, just what are the requirements?

You mentioned: The LAB gamut of colors is wider than RGB.

My response: I don’t know about that. They’re BOTH based upon colors of light, and, as such, have a much greater gamut of possible colors than does pigment.

You mentioned: What about all the greens that contain Cyan?

My response: Well, what about them? They’re NOT cyan. Cyan is a primary color of pigment which plots at a given position on a color wheel or triangle. It is a primary because it subtracts the red third of the spectrum, and reflects, EQUALLY, the blue and green thirds. That “EQUALLY” word is what makes it cyan and not some form of green, or greenish blue, or bluish green, or whatever terms may get used.

You mentioned: Ultramarine Blue is approximately 20 degrees off the correct hue.

My response: Off what corrected hue—cyan? 20% (rather than degrees) might be a better way to describe a color’s shift toward another color. I can’t think of a color wheel in terms of degrees, like a protractor.

You mentioned: The Munsell color space is irregular because of different chromas.

My response: I believe that the Munsell color model’s irregularity is due rather to its differences in color values. (A pure yellow is LIGHTER in value compared to a pure violet or blue, for example.) They both may be equal in chroma, but it is their respective values that cause the irregularity in the shape of the model.

You mentioned: Don says that a printout of a color in CMYK can be matched by me (Bill), using paints, and you are inferring that I shouldn’t be able to, I guess.

My response: I beg to differ with you, but that’s the ONE thing I probably COULD do, because both the inkjet material and oil paints are pigments. What’s more, I might stand a pretty good chance of matching the colors with oil paint of any color appearing on an inkjet printout.

You mentioned: Compare a paint with a printed equivalent in a product brochure. Not even close, is it?

My response: If not, you’ve been going to the wrong printer. LOL Granted, once in awhile we lithographers are unable to match a product with a “build” of CMYK, but very seldom—perhaps one out of 100 jobs. Most times it can be done quite effectively.

You mentioned: Any hue can be achieved in a mix, even that of cyan, magenta, or yellow. They won’t be very chromatic, of course, especially with the yellow for reasons that should be obvious.

My response: Yep! This one we are in firm agreement on. Only at a tremendous loss of chroma, as you say. That’s why artists who claim to be able to mix “magenta” by using some form of blue and some form of red are missing the point. Any primary, to be at all useful must plot along the outside of the color wheel. And, the mix of a red and a blue will eventually mix to produce the “hue”, magenta, but at a at a chroma plot of nearly gray (or black)—not very useful as a primary.

You mentioned: Don keeps saying red is the opposition to cyan. Actually, uses a cad. Red light, which is not red, but a scarlet color (orange-red).

My response: Well, sorry, my friend, but that IS red—much “orangier” appearing than one might first expect. A Kodak #23A filter is used in separation cameras to produce the cyan printer negative, and when examining it, the average artist would term it “orange” in its color. Artists tend to think of red as being a ruby-wine type of red. Not so. Scientifically, “red”, to plot in the red position of a color wheel or triangle, does appear to one with artistic leanings to be “orange”. “Scarlet”, “orange”, “vermilion”, are all just invented NAMES. It’s where a color plots by scientific color analysis on a wheel or triangle that truly indicates what hue it is—not some arbitrary name we might assign to it. And, oh, yes, “red” is definitely the complement of cyan. If this were not a fact, we color separators could not for nearly a century have used a red color filter to produce the cyan separation for a set of 4-color process litho plates.

Well, that's about all that I have to say on this rant. Thanks, all, and especially you, Einion. Sorry to have picked so many of your points apart, but perhaps others may gain a bit of useful information out of our conversations.

Bill:)

donjusko
08-07-2003, 02:53 AM
Yes Bill, exactly. You can speak for me anytime.
Thanks for staying abreast.

I do brake the color wheel into degrees. 10 for each color, 360 degrees, 36 colors. 120 degrees for a 3 color wheel. Each color has 10 devisions to it's darkest color, before it turns black. Matching the color activity in the pure or compounded element's crystal.

Did you know that?

WFMartin
08-07-2003, 09:05 AM
Don,

I'm just not tuned into the concept of a color wheel in degrees instead of percentages--my lithographic training, I guess.

The concept of percentage goes something like this: Magenta, to be a true Magenta hue, should plot exactly on the "M" position (the designated "magenta" position) on the color wheel. This plotting would represent a "hue error" of 0%. In the lithographic trade, Magenta is the color that is traditionally the furthest "off" in terms of being a true primary, and plots on the wheel (by densitometer analysis, of course) at about a 40 % "hue error", toward red. This means that a "Magenta" with a 100% "hue error" toward red would, in fact, be pure red, and logically will plot in the "red" position around the color wheel, midway between magenta and yellow. Cyan is traditionally the next cleanest color with a hue error around 15 or 20% toward magenta, and yellow, the truest and cleanest primary with a hue error close to being 0%, a tiny, tiny bit toward red, if anything.

Each primary has its own grayness (chroma) percentage, also, with magenta and cyan being around 10 to 20% gray with yellow, again near 0% grayness. And, of course, 0% grayness means that a color plots on the outside of the wheel, and 100% grayness would plot in the exact center of the wheel, which represents black or gray.

For those who may have difficulty understanding my terms regarding a color wheel or triangle, I'm often referring to "where a color plots" on a color diagram. A "plot" is based upon a scientific analysis of that color's hue and grayness--not an approximation of its location based upon where every other color is located. Now, often I refer to where I IMAGINE a color might plot from some experience I might have had, but a real plot is an actual location on the wheel based upon the densitometer analysis.

For what it's worth, the color triangle is by far the most accurate method of plotting hue and grayness (chroma) of pigments, as it lays all color mixes on straight lines with each other, unlike a wheel in which predictions of mixes can't be straight-lined like that, in most cases.

Don, I still don't quite understand your "crystal" concept, but your knowledge of color behavior seems, for the most part to be quite sound, to me. You've made a few Freudian Slips, as most of us have, at times, but for the most part I'm having very little trouble understanding your concept of color.

Bill:)

bobreeves
08-07-2003, 10:46 AM
Thanks to all of you; Larry, Don, Enion, and Bill. I have read every word of this long and sprited thread. I am sure my poor brain won't retain 10% of this combined knowledge, but if I can retain that much it will increase what I know about color theory and mixing 1000%. Thanks again.

WFMartin
08-07-2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by bobreeves
Thanks to all of you; Larry, Don, Enion, and Bill. I have read every word of this long and sprited thread. I am sure my poor brain won't retain 10% of this combined knowledge, but if I can retain that much it will increase what I know about color theory and mixing 1000%. Thanks again.

bobreeves,

I can't speak for the rest of us who are having this intense discussion, but I, for one, am extremely pleased if some of you artists are picking bits and pieces of information out of this discussion which can in any small way be helpful to you. That's what it's all about. It may not seem like it, but those of us involved in this discussion actually agree on many things, and we're always inspired to discuss some of the "small stuff". LOL There are a lot of really good ideas, opinions, and approaches being discussed, here. And, I'm proud to be part of it, in my small way.

Glad to hear your comments, bobreeves.

Bill :)

donjusko
08-09-2003, 05:29 AM
Bill, I wanted to post this days ago but it took some time to compile it.

My Crystal Real Color Wheel for Artists is different.
The RYB colorwheel has no triad place for the YMC colorwheel, the YMC can't plot oppositions but does contain RYB colors.
My color wheel contains the RYB colors with their correct oppositions and the YMC colors and oppositions according to natures elements of color.

I call blue, Ultramarine Blue not blue-violet or Cobalt Blue. Red is red not orange-red and Yellow is yellow. The RGB/YMC and Hand Print darken with the RGB system of removing light to get darker. Their colors are plotted on this shift to dark. The RCW doesn't, instead, it matches the element's physical crystal colors and element compound crystal colors as they get darker.

This is unlike any other color theory. My rim colors are the same as the RGB, but colors darken differently. I conceder yellow and all other hues to be having 10 different colors in it as it gets darker. It doesn't matter if anyone disagrees with me. This system is artist friendly and it is easy and logical mixing darks with it's oppositions.

Here are the transparent opposite crystal element colors from yellow to red and blue to cyan. They can be crushed and used as transparent pigments. Those transparent pigments are pigments in the Crystal Real Color Wheel. I've matched CMYK colors, the artist's tube colors and crystal colors to the RGB/YMC rim colors. The rest of the color crystals can be found here.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/crystals.htm

On the ELEMENT PERIODIC TABLE, #'s 22 through #30 are the coloring elements that give color to crystal compounds. Element crystals color in harmonies. Analogous and complementary. Notice these elements making the complementary sets of yellow and blue, and cyan and red.

AN ALL COLOR CRYSTAL.

BERYLLIUM, magenta, cyan, yellow, all pale and transparent.
BERYL, Be3Al2[Si03]6, H7.5,SG-2.7, hexagonal crystal system.
BERYLLIUM element in Beryl crystal, cyan, yellow, idiochromatic.
ALUMINUM element in Beryl crystal, yellow-orange, idiochromatic,
IRON, green, yellow-green, yellow, orange, red, scarlet, magenta purple, blue, azure, cyan, turquoise, iron at it's best will display the whole spectrum in Beryl. Allochromatic.
CHROMIUM, green standard, #11, [CCYY] and red, allochromatic.
MANGANESE, red, allochromatic.
Double elements in yellow #1,[YYYY], cyan #9,[CCCC], red #3, [YYMM], and green #11,[CCYY], all standard colors. Yellow [heliodor], magenta [morganite], cyan [aquamarine] and green [emerald].
ALUMINUM in beryl excepts a lot of foreign chromates, just as it does in the corundum and spodumene compounds, Here an aluminum light trick is found in aquamarine, light cyan is seen from one direction and deep cyan from a 90 degree off angle.


YELLOW-GREEN AND YELLOW

NICKEL, yellow-green standard color, #12, [CYYY], chrysoprase. Quartz has a complete range of colors except for ultramarine blue. All allochromatic with foreign elements, giving color to the crystal. Brittle, easy to crush into pigments.

DIOPSIDE, CaMgSi2O6, H6, monoclinic.
MAGNESIUM, yellow-green or purple crystals [opposites], internal coloring.

SIDERITE, FeCO3, H4.0,SG-3.9, trigonal, rare gemstones.
IRON, yellow-green to brown, centering colors in different crystals, transparent or translucent. This crystal is the cool side of the Yellow scale to neutral dark.

WITHERITE, BaCO3, H3.5, SG-4.3, orthorhombic crystal system with twinned hexagonal pyramids, that's like the four sided pyramid the Egyptian's were so fond of. Light-translucent, colorless or centering yellow-green to brown, allochromatic. Ore source of barium, found with lead. Pigment extender.

SPHALERITE, Zn,S, H3.5, SG-3.9, zinc blend, ore of zinc, cubic system, idiochromatic colors.
ZINC, yellow-green, standard color #11, [CYYY], transparent.
IRON, Idiochromatic colors from, yellow, tan, brown, black, orange and red. High dispersion showing the spectrum like a diamond.

SPHENE, CaTiSiO5, H5.5, SG-3.5, monoclinic wedged shaped crystals and masses.
TITANIUM, yellow-green or yellow, to brown with neutral dark areas, in a transparent crystal. Centering yellow to neutral dark, through warm brown, is a common trait observed with titanium and iron. This is the way my coloring wheel works with yellow going to Brown before Black. Idiochromatic.

LEGRANDITE, Zn2[AsO4][OH],H20 H5, SG-4, monoclinic family.
ZINC, yellow, cool, transparent, idiochromatic.
ARSENIC, standard yellow, #1, [YYYY], transparent, idiochromatic. Bright yellow idiochromatic, with zinc and arsenic. Arsenic taking it to the warm side in it's luminous shadows. Probably the strongest yellow color in crystal form.

SCHEELITE, CaWO4, H4.5, SG-6, tetragonal, forming octahedra crystals or masses, ore of tungsten.
TUNGSTEN, colorless, yellow, orange, brown, transparent, crystals. Idiochromatic. Tungsten has very unique spectrum of colors, it's a curve to neutral dark. THIS CRYSTAL HAS THE SAME COLOR PATH AS THE PIGMENT INDIAN YELLOW GENUINE.

VESUVIANITE, Ca10Mg2Al4[SiO4]5[Si207]2[OH]4, H7, SG-3.3,
MAGNESIUM, wants to go dark and opaque, or transparent, either way, it does it with flair.
ALUMINUM, yellow, transparent, standard #1[YYYY], and blue, transparent, standard #7 [MMCC], centering to neutral. Crystals in the tetragonal system, some masses in the orange or azure range. By centering yellow to brown, the three analogous colors of this gem, yellow-green, yellow and orange go to brown. On the other side of this analogous range is blue, blue crystals were found in Norway. Idiochromatic.

CHRYSOBERYL, BeAl2O4, H8+, SG-3.74, orthorhombic crystal.
BERYLLIUM, [YYYY] standard yellow centering to brown crystal.

CASSITERITE, Sn02, H6, SG-6.9, ore of tin, tetragonal, metallic. The crystals are clear, yellow, red-brown or black. A one trick pony. This is the yellow pigments natural trip to neutral dark.


CORUNDUM, Al2O3,H9 STANDARD MOHS', SG-3.99, trigonal system, transparent.
IRON, makes crystals in blue, cyan, dark-green, yellow, orange, red and magenta. All transparent, all brittle, and all expensive as crushed pigments.
Sapphire blue is the standard transparent blue, #7. [MMCC].
Sapphire yellow is the standard transparent yellow, #1, [YYYY].
Sapphire pink deep is the standard magenta, #5, [MMMM].
Ruby is the standard transparent red, #3, [YYMM].
MANGANESE, standard purple, #6, [MMMC], transparent, amethyst crystals are from magenta to purple.

WAVELLITE, Al3 [PO4]2[OH,F]3.5H2O, H3.5, SG-2.36, orthorhombic crystal system, acicular, like the needles of Rutile suspended in clear crystal, only these needle crystals form a dense rocklike mass.
ALUMINUM, yellow, brown, blue, centering standard, transparent. Aluminum really does it big this time, each needle starts at the center radiating outward, concentrical ringed bands form around the center, each band ending as a cleavage line, twenty or so bands per complete needle crystal. The band itself can change from clear transparent to opaque white while in the center, the second band range is transparent yellow crystal, than brown, than blue. From brown to blue, the crystal can change into an aggregate and lose it's crystal properties. THIS MINERAL PHOSPHATE SHOWS THE CENTERING OF YELLOW TO BROWN AND BROWN TO BLUE, LIKE MY REAL COLOR WHEEL FOR ARTISTS

CELESTINE, SrSO4, H3.5, SG-4, orthorhombic, ore of strontium.
STRONTIUM, blue or yellow, idiochromatic, opposites.


OPPOSITE YELLOW

LEAD, standard ultramarine blue color, #7,[MMCC], opaque, idiochromatic. Cumengeite.

LAPIS LAZULI, H5-6, SG-2.8, or higher if yellow pyrite is included. This is the Standard Color for ultramarine blue opaque, #7, [MMCC], an ancient pigment. A rock of many compounds. Lazurite, a sodium aluminum silicate with sulfide, deep blue crystals. Hauyne, Sodalite, [a sodium aluminum silicate with sodium chloride that occurs in crystals and masses], and Nosean. Lapis lazuli is a contact metamorphic mineral found in limestone and granite, the best is found in Afghanistan, from ancient times until today.


OPPOSITE RED

COPPER, "Iceland Spar", Cyan, allochromatic, polarizing filter. In this crystal light cyan turns into dark ultramarine blue, like in the the Real Color Wheel.
COPPER, "Boleite crystals" standard cyan color, #9,[CCCC], opaque, idiochromatic. .

AZURITE, Cu3[CO3]2[0H]2, H3.5, SG-3.7, monoclinic.
COPPER, Standard Azure color, #8, [MCCC]. Cyan-blue transparent to opaque, shows blue in mass. This was a popular ancient pigment color, crushed, rare. Copper Blue and lead white or vermilion and lead white mixed or touching unmixed will turn black, so there must be a painting isolation layer. It was usually applied with egg and varnished over and never mixed with other colors. The many hues and opacities of azurite ranging from an opaque ultramarine blue, cobalt blue to a opaque or transparent cyan, all effected by oil, in a bad yellowing way.

VIVIANITE, Fe3[P04].8H20, Hardness 1.5, SG-2.68, monoclinic.
IRON, standard color for cyan, #9,[CCCC], transparent, idiochromatic. Cyan to green crystals.

ORANGE CRYSTALS

ORPIMENT,As23, H1.5, SG-3.4, monoclinic, transparent to opaque.

ARSENIC di-sulphide, orange standard color, #2, [YYYM], yellow to orange pigments, crushed, idiochromatic pigment.

GROSSULAR, Ca3Al2[SiO4]3, H7, SG-3.5, cubic, garnet group.
ALUMINUM, standard color orange, #2,[YYYM], yellow to orange, centering to brown, idiochromatic, transparent,
CHROMIUM, green, allochromatic.
ALMANDINE, Fe3Al2[SiO4]3, H7, SG-4, cubic, transparent, Garnet.
ALUMINUM, yellow-orange, added to the red of iron, idiochromatic.
IRON, red, idiochromatic, transparent.
CHROMIUM, red, transparent, allochromatic. These two elements together make a transparent red and transparent red deeply saturated. This red is so deep and spectrum dark it has to be very thinly sliced to see any color at all. "Deeply saturated" means a transparent to opaque color skipping translucent.

RED CRYSTALS

CINNABAR, HgS, H2, SG-8.09, sulphide of mercury ore.
MERCURY, red, standard color #3, [YYMM], opaque, vermilion-red to brown is the color scale for the mass crystal, and transparent scarlet is the color for the transparent crystals. Cinnabar has internal coloring, idiochromatic coloring, because the color comes from the element that's crystallizing, in this case mercury, the liquid metal. The amorphous mass is crushed and used as the pigment vermilion, it's a heavy and a fast drier. Precious and rare.

CUPRITE,Cu20, H3.5, SG-6.14, cubic, crystals found on copper.
COPPER, crimson, standard color #4, [YMMM], transparent. Crimson cuprite crystals are opposite in color to the turquoise colored copper sediment, Chalcocite. Idiochromatic.

RHODOCHROSITE, MnCO3, H3.5, SG-3.7, scalenohedral crystals in the trigonal system, opaque and transparent.
MANGANESE, red standard color, #3, [YYMM], idiochromatic.

REALGAR, AsS, H1.5, SG-3.56, monoclinic crystal system.
ARSENIC sulphide, red standard color, #3, [YYMM], transparent to opaque. Realgar was crushed as a pigment by the ancients as the first red. It's an idiochromatic crystal pigment.

VANADINITE, Pb5[VO4]3C1, H3, SG-6.8, hexagonal system.
VANADIUM, scarlet, transparent, idiochromatic.
LEAD, standard red, #3, [YYMM], transparent, idiochromatic. Vanadium, a rare metallic element, compounded with lead makes a red transparent crystal.


These crystals show the color oppositions from yellow to red and how the elements get dark with color. That's how the Real Color Wheel for Artists works.

donjusko
08-10-2003, 01:20 AM
I do feel sorry for anyone having to pick through this thread to find out what the 2nd Battle of Magenta was about.

I saw it as an attempt to defuse what I had to say.
To make the waters murky.
Attack everything, make room for doubt.
Change the subject and ridicule.
Make others feel they are inadequate to join in.
Take the thread off topic any way you can, never agree.

It's happened before in these public forums, it will happen again I'm sure. Any time the current ideal is challenged.

Here is an example of the feedback I received.

Hi Don,
I totally support you and am combing through the posted archives....my limited experience has me way down on the power curve from where you have taken a stance. Unfortunately there are too many folks who are reluctant to embrace rational thought such as yours when they have dedicated their lives following a different course....they feel they are losing something when really they have everything to gain by accepting the challenge to change - too much pride to overcome for some, too many thought processes to alter even if ever so slightly....I imagine it wouldn't be so difficult to accept if they had an inkling of what you are saying during their development OR if having the inkling they had courage to pursure it........it is kinda sad if you ask me....but certainly a factor in all our lives. You are on the pointy end of the spear...
Best regards,
James Klinger


The culmination of crystals as pigment being the basis for the Real Color Wheel is four posts back.

It is pure exampled proof of pigment oppositions.

An element makes two crystals, opposite colors on my color wheel. The RYB can not make the primary colors cyan or magenta. Yellow, magenta and cyan can make any color. The RYB color wheel should not be taught in schools because there is no room for two sets of primaries on one triangle, it doesn't work, never has.

This is for those of you who read the last post first, and this will be the last post even if I have to post this and the crystal post again because, this is my thread and readers have the right to see it and what I had to say.
Don