PDA

View Full Version : Color Wheel In Motion


Wayne Gaudon
08-07-2003, 09:48 AM
With all the hoopla about the RCW and the RYB and the CMY color wheels, I was wondering how much they are in use.

I personally can't see a use for one when painting a scene that is before your eyes but I could see it having value if you were just making up a color scheme. Maybe I just don't understand.

How about you .. do you use one and if so, how and why?

WFMartin
08-07-2003, 11:00 AM
Wayne,

In my humble opinion, a color wheel is of no use whatsoever, if the colors of pigments are simply located on the wheel where we think they ought to be, based upon our intuition. If I, for example squeeze out a spot of Cadmium Red Light, and plunk it down in the "red" position of the color wheel, I have arbitrarily assigned that color a position on the wheel which may or may not be the true, scientific location it deserves.

A densitometer analysis of the hue and grayness of a color is the only way that I know of properly assigning any color a positiion on a color wheel. That way, you don't suddenly find the need to "shift" your placement over whenever another purer or "redder" color is encountered, thereby creating a need to virtually replace your already assigned color with a more appropriate one.

I'm truly sorry that most artists don't have the ability to do that, but a color reflection densitometer is quite expensive, and I would not have developed the experience (or trust) with one if not for years of experience with one at my workplace.

One of the things that plotting a color's position on the wheel, correctly does is that you can study some interesting color characteristics that might not be readily or visually apparent, such as the experiment I did using Cad. Orange and Flake white a while ago.

I fully expected Cadmium Orange to get grayer with more and more addition of Flake White, as most artists seem to agree that the addition of white has that effect on colors, in general. So, I decided to test that assumption. I was surprised to learn, through densitometer analysis, that as increasing amounts of Flake White got added to Cadmium Orange, instead of color plots swinging in closer to the center of the wheel (gray), that they stayed rather pure in chroma, but swung decidedly toward red! I found this to be extremely interesting both from a theoretical and a practical application standpoint. I now know that when Cadmium Orange gets mixed with Flake White, it swings toward the color, red. A tint of Orange is redder than the masstone of orange. Isn't that an interesting fact to know? The color wheel displayed this phenomenon.

While the mathematical results of these densitometer calculations could have been used, in a "raw" form, to indicate what was happening to the color as white got added to it, it was quite graphic to observe the progressive plots on a color wheel. It just simply displayed the effect better.

That's how I use a color wheel, to learn some facts about colors and their mixes, without guessing about the results.

Bill:)

bobreeves
08-07-2003, 11:08 AM
Wayne,
I am new to this game. When I started I had no idea of a color wheel, mixing colors, or anything else for that matter. I had to use the wheel (RYB like everybody else) to get any thing close to the scene I was observing. Largly through reading in this forum I realized the way different hues , CYM mainly, came even closer to what I saw. I have retained enough of this knowledge that I don't need the chart now, but without it I would be nowhere.

Patrick1
08-08-2003, 08:40 AM
Wayne, this is a good question. I use a mixing wheel (with proper placement of colours) as a rough guide to show me how to mix up a certain colour.

Example: on the colour wheel, burnt umber is roughly somewhere between burnt sienna and black. So this implies that you can mix up an approximation of burnt umber using b. sienna + black, if you get the proportions right. Of course opacity might or might not be the same, but at least the colour should be reasonably close.

Another example: you need a greyish blue to paint very distant trees. You don't have such a pigment on hand, but on the colour wheel you see that a line connecting dioxazine purple with phthalo green, at the halfway point, should give a blue that's closer to the center of the wheel; a greyed blue (if you get the proportions right). You mix these two colours, then add a bit of white to get the colour to show. I want to try this combo to make distant trees...see how well it works in practise.

Helen Zapata
08-08-2003, 09:24 AM
I found a good CMY color wheel to be invaluable when I was trying to learn to mix truly beautiful grays.

It's all become intuitive now, but was a great deal of help while I was learning.

Helen

JamieWG
08-08-2003, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Domer
Wayne, this is a good question. I use a mixing wheel (with proper placement of colours) as a rough guide to show me how to mix up a certain colour.


Patrick, which wheel do you use?

Jamie

Patrick1
08-08-2003, 10:51 AM
Jamie, right now, I mostly use Handprint's visual colour wheel, although it's not a mixing wheel, so when I need to mix neutrals, I usually use my Quiller Wheel, although the placing of some the pigments on it is questionable. I don't place much value in generic colour wheels that simply have "red" opposite "green" or "yellow" opposite "violet", as so many do, since it depends on the specific pigments whether or not it mixes to neutral. Many generic colour wheels also don't have cyan or magenta on them (let the 3rd Battle Of Magenta begin! :D).

When I get more colours, I want to do a good mixing wheel, with the some of the most commonly used pigments, kind of like Don's RCW. But I can't find phthalo cyan (PB17) in oils or acrylics...maybe I'll have no choice but get it in watercolour instead. When I do it, I'll post it in this forum. Colour wheels are fun to do.

Patrick1
08-08-2003, 11:20 AM
Here's 3 colour wheels I've done, from a few years ago. The two on the left have brown in the center, since I saw Jerry Yarnell do it that way.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/08-Aug-2003/2769-colorwheels.jpg

The oppositions are often incorrect. Notice on the top left wheel there's no magneta; it's a dull maroon/burgundy, since it was mixed from a middle red + ultramarine blue. Come to think of it, there is no clean cyan in any of them. These wheels are just for entertainment value now.

Einion
08-09-2003, 04:49 AM
Now that the finger I use for poking holes isn't occupied I can use it for typing again and get on to other threads :D

Wayne, colour wheels are a useful educational tool, especially in the early stages of learning: they lay out colour in a pattern that is easy to grasp and help point to some basic colour relationships and mixing behaviours (orange lying between yellow and red for example). Most painters of course soon outgrow them as they gain experience, as they should, because of their limitations from a practical standpoint and because they don't usually show anything really complex or useful about colour relationships and composition. So in general I think colour wheels should be thought of as jumping-off points for colour exploration.

This isn't to say that one can't learn something useful from a colour wheel at more advanced stages. Given the very approximate nature of most published wheels, if you had learned certain basic rules early on, inherent to what they showed - red being opposite green for example - and was then introduced to one that was more accurate - i.e. was based on the correct primary, secondary and tertiary colours - you would then have a more useful framework to work from, like seeing that specific reds were opposite specific blue-greens/green-blues, which could open up new vistas of colour expression. But like all learning devices they are just tools, one generally doesn't let a brush determine how a painting turns out and by the same token a colour wheel shouldn't dictate it either, unless you want it to of course.

A good point about the usefulness of a wheel for understanding colour relationships is this: when you realise that yellow and red, on either side of orange, can be used to mix the colour between them it should become apparent that this same principle works with any pair of colours. So if we take two paints on either side of the cyan position, the correct blend of them will fall on the hue of cyan... so who sez ya can't mix primaries?! :)

Originally posted by Domer
I use a mixing wheel (with proper placement of colours) as a rough guide to show me how to mix up a certain colour.
Patrick raises another good point, sometimes referred to as mixing geometry. As he says, when colours are plotted accurately, a wheel can be a fairly good indicator of the colour outcome of mixes. And if one carefully selects which colours one considers as options you can tailor the opacity and other characteristics of the mix to boot.

Mixing geometry also shows that the further apart two colours are the duller their mixing result generally - Quin Magenta + Cadmium Yellow Medium versus Cadmium Red Medium with the same yellow for example.

Originally posted by Domer
These wheels are just for entertainment value now.
But think about all they taught you :)


The slim Liquitex booklet on colour which I was pleased to discover you can still buy shows some good basics ideas about colour composition and is actually surprisingly sophisticated with regard to mixing geometry. When you realise, in a 'grid' of colours like it has, that two pairs of paints at the points of an 'X' will mix to approximately the same result at the centre it makes one see the 'interconnectedness' of colour which most mixing guides overlook and many artists have never formally noticed for themselves.

One could certainly learn to paint without a colour wheel (as artists did before we had them) but I certainly wouldn't have liked to!

Einion

ginatec
08-09-2003, 06:49 AM
I have to admit to having two color wheels, one I made for entertainment value and the other is a RCW wheel which I downloaded from the Internet. I don't use either of these!
I find my own color mix charts are more use and worth the time I spent making them. I also use a 9 step black to White tone strip with holes in. This is invaluable for checking out tones i am not sure about.

Gina

Wayne Gaudon
08-09-2003, 06:08 PM
thank you all for your replies .. interesting points to consider. I have a color wheel, just haven't used it and it is the CMY wheel or dare I call it The Real Color Wheel .. I had made a set of color charts for 11 colors but have since changed manfacturer of paints and am not considering using only 7 colors so I will have to do another set of charts as I think they are very useful in studio and as well for learning what your colors do when mixed with each other.

ginatec
08-10-2003, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Wayne Gaudon
thank you all for your replies .. interesting points to consider. I have a color wheel, just haven't used it and it is the CMY wheel or dare I call it The Real Color Wheel .. I had made a set of color charts for 11 colors but have since changed manfacturer of paints and am not considering using only 7 colors so I will have to do another set of charts as I think they are very useful in studio and as well for learning what your colors do when mixed with each other.

Charts can be your best friend in the studio...I don't use them all the time, but now and again I consult them.
Wayne did you mean to say that now you are considering using only 7 color from 11. If that is the case what colors and brand are you going for?

Gina

Einion
08-10-2003, 01:24 PM
Wayne, one thing you might like to do is position your colours around the wheel as accurately as you can in terms of hue and value and/or chroma. Should give you a good basis for predicting the mixing behaviour of the paints, within certain limits, which you can then compare to the actaul results you get.

Einion

Wayne Gaudon
08-10-2003, 01:51 PM
ginatec
I am thinking (before value and chart studies) of these seven

Quin Red
Quin Magenta
Cad Yellow Light
Cad Yellow Lemon
Thalo Blue
Ultramarine Blue
Thalo Green
White (I use a mixture of Titanium & Zinc)

Einion .. thank you

JamieWG
08-10-2003, 02:09 PM
Wayne, I am so interested in seeing how these colors play out for you. It is nearly identical to my seven-color landscape palette with just two slight shifts. I also selected both of those yellows; one just didn't cut it!

My biggest debate, after resolving the orange vs. red issue, was in choosing between dioxazine violet and ultramarine. That issue will resurface if I ever find a French ultramarine that I'm happy with!

Jamie

Patrick1
08-10-2003, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by JamieWG

I also selected both of those yellows; one just didn't cut it!

I want to have the highest chroma possible in the orange-yellow, yellow, and yellow-green range for landscapes. I want to experiment to see if one yellow will cut it for me, or if I have no choice but to have two.

So far, the two middle yellows I have (slightly orangy in masstone, middle yellow undertone) simply cannot mix clean yellow-greens. They look brassy. And my lemony yellows make oranges that are greyish. So yup, it looks to me too that one yellow just won't cut it when I need maximum chroma on the orange and green side of yellow. But I still hope to find that 'perfect' yellow. I'd like to try Hansa Yellow (PY 97) or Benzimidazolone Yellow (PY 154), which Handprint recommends as sole yellows.

arlene
08-10-2003, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Domer

Another example: you need a greyish blue to paint very distant trees. You don't have such a pigment on hand, but on the colour wheel you see that a line connecting dioxazine purple with phthalo green, at the halfway point, should give a blue that's closer to the center of the wheel; a greyed blue (if you get the proportions right). You mix these two colours, then add a bit of white to get the colour to show. I want to try this combo to make distant trees...see how well it works in practise.

or just take blue and add a bit of the compliment.

arlene
08-10-2003, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by Einion
Wayne, colour wheels are a useful educational tool, especially in the early stages of learning: they lay out colour in a pattern that is easy to grasp and help point to some basic colour relationships and mixing behaviours (orange lying between yellow and red for example). Most painters of course soon outgrow them as they gain experience, as they should, because of their limitations from a practical standpoint and because they don't usually show anything really complex or useful about colour relationships and composition. So in general I think colour wheels should be thought of as jumping-off points for colour exploration.



exactly...I don't teach from a color wheel...I make my beginning students do a color wheel themselves using the colored pencils to get an idea of how the colors will blend.

for someone with very little training, it's invaluable for them to see it in front of them after doing it themselves..

mpopinz
08-10-2003, 09:39 PM
Wayne, thank-you for starting this thread!!

I thought I was a hapless artist in progress because I never use the complicated color/theory/stuff.

I paint what my eyes like to see. I never want my paintings to be that complicated or it wouldn't be fun anymore.

gnu
08-11-2003, 01:42 AM
interesting!!
I mostly use the CYM wheel at the moment for using complementaries(important to me for CP work..)
this is so I can either take the direct opposite (I haven't learnt the wheel yet), or go a tad to the side (either way) for a different colourway mix for the finished object.
Once I become more experienced I will prob not need it..
the RGB wheel is automatic for me, I found little difficulty with colour, and experimented with (for example your orange Experiment Bill) mixing from a very young age....a particular pretty peachy pink was my very favourite colour..
Often though, I will just do the colour (s) I see..(or even better...the colours I WANT!!:D:D)

LarrySeiler
08-11-2003, 06:41 AM
To me its all about seeing.

The RYB model by itself I don't think ever was intended to be an end all...and as I have said, it is only a model. I have expanded it as does Wilcox to be a split primary wheel...or rather I think it all in terms of warm and cool.

Why?

Because...painting out of doors dealing with sunlight, I see the sun warm up color that it falls upon...and see shadows cool color where sun lacks. In overcast skies of even lighting, I see more neutrals.

So...I want to see that a color is warmer in nature, or cooler.

If I see a red in nature...that is warmer...I can see it. With a split primary wheel that is based on warm and cool....common sense leads you to see it as well. I don't have a physical chart to look at, but just keep it in my head.

One learns in time to recognize a red that is not quite as warm in nature...and learns to see that the warm red sitting there on one's palette will work perfectly if it just weren't quite so warm.

One learns by practice that it can be brought down a few degrees in temperature and there are several ways to do it. You can add some of the cooler red to that red. In fact...you could add any cooler color than that red and if done by small degree reduce its warmth. You learn to observe though that particular cooler colors will also neutralize as red's opposite green shows up to play ball, and thus affect chroma intensity.

In my thinking...a warmer red has a bit of yellow in it. The yellow within the warmer red thus will respond more quickly when a warm blue comes in contact. The warms siding up and ganging up on that poor lonely purer red, and will bring on the green quicker. The color will neutralize quicker, the chroma intensity drop faster and if not careful be lost in its handling.

On the other hand....adding a bit of cool blue denies the excitement of the yellow existing within the warmer red to gang up and dominate/take over the red.

on the other hand...you add more yellow to warm up a warm red still more.

There are warm yellows to consider adding....and cooler yellows to consider adding. Warmth and cool always playing against each other.

Its an entirely different way of thinking about color than I'm hearing anyone talk about...yet, where consideration of how subjects appear in light, it all is quite relative.

Some shadows are warmer than others depending upon reflective light bouncing about....some are cooler, and learning to think about color in terms of temperature as a priority teaches your eyes to be quite sensitive.

I think of the colorwheel more as a temperature wheel.

Even more simply put....I think more and more of a painting as one spot of color put down next to another. When observing the subject and painting, it is a comparitive process...and I think okay...this area needs to be warmer by comparison....this spot needs to be cooler and so forth.


In this 16" x 12" plein air I did of a local falls area, I was impressed by the drama of value from the lowered position of the sun coming from behind my shoulder looking at the scene. I think the image might help demonstrate what I'm saying about how I prioritize areas according to temperature-

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/11-Aug-2003/532-twelvefoot_falls2.jpg

the shadow on the rock behind the tree is cooler and has violets and blues. Skylight is permitted from directly above to influence the shadow with the sun having been denied access, and the blues help pull that sky down into the shadow. Blue is cooler and works to cooperate with that shadow.

The muted greens of the pine trees behind the lit up tree have a bit of red added to the green to neutralize, yet they are green nevertheless. The lower value using the red to neutralize suggests those trees are in shadow. Though the red is warm, I do not mind its warmth to be sensed in adding it to the green. (It is still cooler in comparison to the lit up foreground trees). To be just enough to darken and to neutralize the intensity of the green which would happen in shadow, yet allow some reds to be felt throughout to work as a unifying factor; color rhythm and notation to produce harmony. An overall warm theme.

I've also snuck some violets in areas in and around that muted green which will contrast with the yellower purer pigment I used to represent the branches hit by pure sunlight. Thus...the yellower/green branches appear brighter for several reasons. One...a cooler color in muted green and violet; two...by being lower value; three...by violet acting as a complementary;

You might see the reds of the far distant trees and wonder how that represents cooler color to produce a sense of distance, however a lower sun often colors the green of pine to appear red or orange. Secondly...the yellows of the local color appearing cooler would walk down the colorwheel thus, oranges and reds would be cooler than yellow. Thirdly....the red was just too convenient of a vehicle as a complementary to set off the green of the pine to the far right.

It is difficult to understand the extreme darks here in this smaller image presented....but I did not use black. I made my own dark leaning toward and allowing the hint of crimson and violet to come thru to push those foreground trees even more foreward and appear warmer.

Just one example.

I wonder...am I alone...or does anyone else paint with color temperature as perhaps a major guiding priority?

Larry

jackiesimmonds
08-11-2003, 11:07 AM
Larry, years ago a tutor once told me that warm light gave me warm colours, and that the shadows therefore would be the opposite - cool. And often - vice versa applied... cool light = warmer shadows. He said I could use almost any COLOUR I liked, provided I kept true to a) the value and b) the temperature, according to the prevailing light.

I have stuck to that simple bit of advice for years, and it seldom lets me down. I think it relates very closely to what you say and do.

I use the colour wheel only to organise my painting as the masters did - to select, as the primary force for my painting, either colour harmony, or colour complements.

Perhaps this is partly because I work with pastels, and do not have to physically mix colour on a palette. I have to pick up appropriate sticks of colour, the right value, and the appropriate hue. I do not have the luxury of "creating" an exact colour. In a way, this pushed me to do what I what I do now, which is to organise colour purely so that the painting eventually holds together as a harmonious whole, rather than the painting being an accurate literal copy of the colours in nature.

I feel colour wheels are useful, provided the artist knows what he wants from them. If you need, and want, a mixing guide, that is a whole different thing, in my opinion. Even if you learn, Wayne, how to mix exactly the colour you what you want, I bet your bottom dollar that you will often find, when you put it down on your canvas, that it changes somehow, according to what is next to it, or around it.

Jackie

Wayne Gaudon
08-11-2003, 12:22 PM
I started this thread to see how and why other people use a wheel and I have some interesting replies. Thank you all for your time and explanations as I think they will be of interest and help to a lot of artist.

I personally don't try to make an exact duplicte but rather to get in the general area of a color. I think that if I am close to the color I am close in value and temperature for the simple reason that you cannot have a cold and warm shade that would look equal for obvious reasons. This is not a perfect world so exactness is not a factor for me as I think it pretty much unobtainable anyway. Everything is so relative to all else that all is everchanging.

Color wheels and charts will enable you to learn what your set of colors will do for you in a shorter time and with less headaches than trial and error so for that reason a wheel and charts are invaluable tools to the beginer. Eventually, one has the information stored as second nature and that point the charts and wheels are nothing more than wasted space.

Later,

LarrySeiler
08-11-2003, 12:28 PM
yes Jackie...precisely...

A cool light will call for warmer shadows, a warm light cooler shadows. It allows for the convenience of contrasts to help the viewer's eye come back again and again to where you want.

At the same time...you can opt for a color temperature theme to run throughout to pull everything together.

It becomes second nature after awhile.

Also...as for the difficult of getting a particular color you want from what you palette is not offering....I've learned from experience concurring with Joseph Itten's color studies that you can influence a color to appear other than it is by what surrounding colors you put adjacent.

Thus...for example if I want a particular violet or purple and say my warm and cool blues and reds might not mix exactly what I want...I can make it appear to be precisely the purple I want by what adjacent colors I surround it with.

In fact...I have discovered that by using surrounding color and being aware of surrounding color's properties to affect a note of color, putting not necessarily the precise accurate color down but forcing the viewer's eye to think it sees the precise color creates an effect such as flickering light. It imitates the light of nature even more accurately.

Light does not sit statically...as nature moves. Leaves moving about in the wind on branches, clouds passing along...many changes of types of light bouncing around. A color does not sit absent of this constant shifting. Thus, I look for opportunities to play with this effect which I think brings more imitation of life I "feel" observing nature.

Terms of color temperature and the influence of adjacent/surrounding color is key to everything I do.

Since I believe color carries inherently value...I don't separate my judgment of color from value. Its pretty obvious to me something is light, lighter...dark or darker...and by degree. Pure color mixes plus possibly white, use of temperature work all that out for me.

Larry

LarrySeiler
08-11-2003, 12:40 PM
your saying everything is relative...and that you look to see things that are for "obvious reasons"...is spot on, Wayne!

If artists get too technical with head knowledge...it becomes a form of legalism that interferes with personal relationship.

It would be like adding up throughout the day and at the end of the day everything you and your spouse agreed to about what a marriage would be before you got married. Check this...check that. So busy with the form and outward appearance of things that the relationship itself never gets off the ground. Love never fully develops.

You have a "love if..." and possibly a "love because of..." but you miss the mark of growing a "love inspite of..."

I want to get this head stuff so far behind me...that all I do is react to nature. Respond in the most natural flowing manner. Let my sense of aesthetic inside take over as though I were to trust my growth and experiences to be empowered to do just that. To develop a painting relationship with nature rather than a check list to mark each thing off.

In the beginning...such a list or chart might help grasp what should happen. Its like preparing for a foot race. The proper meals, the rest, and so forth...but come day of the race, your mind focuses on the goal ahead. That is what painting has now after all these years come to be for me. Just pure joyful focus...and getting into that wonderful zone.

The more charts, mixes, chemicals and chatter I read through here as a concern for everyone..the more distant that personal hushed whisper of creation wishing to reveal mysteries becomes.

Larry

Einion
08-11-2003, 01:36 PM
And in a related point to Larry's, if your palette isn't capable of giving you exactly what you're looking for, nailing the value is much more important anyway (unless you're a colourist).

Since the average working palette will mix any hue all you really need to concern yourself with then is accurate value judgement. Separating out the issue of hue from colour I've found frees you from being overly worried about it and helps one to progress.

Einion

Wayne Gaudon
08-11-2003, 01:38 PM
Totally agree Larry .. one needs to learn how to walk before one can run but once you can run, then by all means run and don't look back because you've already seen what is there. :D

LarrySeiler
08-11-2003, 01:39 PM
points well made Enion!!!

And...to me...the subtlest value ranges possible measure the true worth of a palette...and I attain whatever neutrals I need for those overcast days.

..and Wayne, again spot on. If its working for you....not broken, why fix it? Keep your eyes ahead, and respect your foresteps/past.

Larry

jackiesimmonds
08-11-2003, 05:49 PM
No matter which colour wheel or chart you use, colours are affected dramatically by what is alongside them. Have a look:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/11-Aug-2003/1805-ct-3-4.gif

Hard tho it may be to believe, the centre rectangle is the same colour in each case.

Also look at these red squares, they are all the same:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/11-Aug-2003/1805-ct-4redsq.gif

So guys, whatever "system" you use, watch what happens when you put the colour on the canvas!!

J

Wayne Gaudon
08-11-2003, 06:30 PM
jackiesimmonds
.. without a doubt .. I've ruined a piece or two along the way by changing one color only to find out that by changing one I've changed the whole mood and texture because the surrounding colors changed too. :D

Good point and I'm sure you saved someone some agony with it. thank you.

Later,

LarrySeiler
08-11-2003, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by jackiesimmonds
No matter which colour wheel or chart you use, colours are affected dramatically by what is alongside them. Have a look:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/11-Aug-2003/1805-ct-3-4.gif

Hard tho it may be to believe, the centre rectangle is the same colour in each case.

So guys, whatever "system" you use, watch what happens when you put the colour on the canvas!!

J

This has been a point of my contention Jackie, and glad you put them here for us to see. Here...experience, human convention and need converge such that genuis can take over. When someone says a color can't be made with a limited palette...one can learn with adjacent surrounding color to manipulate the viewer's eye to think they are indeed seeing such a color.

Color mixing is not a process of isolating one spot of color accurately and then expect that it must work. A sense of the whole painting must be the undercurrent impetus, and how a color will work with everything else relatively.

Looking at your model here Jackie...the inner rectangle on the left appears to be a warm violet that was made. The surrounding cooler blue forces that phenomena. That same color appears cooler on the right. AGain...I've seen little discussion on this capability of color in the hands of the gifted artist. All this chatter on color wheels...but, its what one spot of color does next to another in the final analysis that matters.

LarrySeiler
08-11-2003, 06:57 PM
Hey...note the double illustration of the quote here surrounded by this larger blue quote box. That cooler violet in your center right box Jackie once again appears a bit warmer due to the overwhelming amount of quote blue that surrounds it.

I think I am compelled since so much discussion tends to focus on mixing this color to that to get this...that I will more and more emphasize Itten's findings and importance of surrounding color.

Further...in my discussions elsewhere on judging color while painting from nature....I cite something Kevin MacPherson said in his book on light. That you will see another color peripherally when judging a larger mass by not looking directly at that mass but instead off to its side.

For example...looking at the sky and near foreground will cause your eyes peripherally to sense one color as concerns the middle ground. Suddenly, looking at the middle ground you do not sense that color so much...but instead see the local color and sun's influence directly.

I observed this phenomena last late summer at our camp in Michgan's UP....

I was walking out to the dock and suddenly was struck with this Peters and Remington posters of old tinge of green in the atmosphere/sky. Anyone remember those old calendar paintings?

I often wondered how they could paint green skies and pink/red rock peaks.

Well...walking out to the dock with my eyes lowered, peripherally I saw this green tinge in the sky. I immediately looked up, and the green was gone.

Remembering what MacPherson had said, I looked down and studied the sky peripherally. Sure enough, that greenish tinge came back again.

Now one artist might argue there is no such color in the sky...and if they look at every area directly to judge and if they are aesthetically less sensitive, they are right to think so. However, I have learned more color can exist in other ways of seeing than many might at first imagine.

Technically...if you see it looking directly, or see something else not looking directly...your integrity is still in tact to paint it. It is still something seen, something experienced and witnessed.

Sometimes a clue to what first catches our inspiration is found in that peripheral impression but lack of understanding about THAT phenomena many artists would miss it.

I now always judge areas by looking above, below...off to the side.

There is more to color understanding than the mineral content of pigments and charts IMHO. Peace....

Larry

Doug Nykoe
08-12-2003, 03:06 PM
I find the colour wheel to be what it is…a wheel of opposition and balance. The colour wheel is there to teach and give you an approximation. I do not paint what I see … in that very statement or essence of it, to me is silly. To me it’s as silly as thinking colour and value is the same intensity as what’s in my paint box. I paint what I want to see because the limitations that don’t allow me to paint what I see anyways. So I have fun born out of experience what I can get away with,,, but still ground in a theory I chose.

What makes painting so wonderful is playing with everything contained in its short comings. You can not achieve the same values in nature or colour …so why not screw with the whole process and do something worth while.

Nature to me is like the colour wheel a guide that can be idealized or stylized. Its whack ..O you know what I mean, there’s so much manipulation to be had its like running a political career.

jackiesimmonds
08-29-2003, 11:46 AM
Ok, I am now somewhat confused.

I always thought that for painters, there was one main colour wheel - the Red, Yellow, Blue one. I realise this is somewhat limiting, since there are various blues, and various reds, in particular, but nevertheless, I still thought that even an expanded version of this, to include both warm and cool versions of each of the primaries, was all that an artist needed to know about.

Then, I started to read this thread, and read about CMY wheels etc. Curious, I looked this up, and found this:

"ADDITIVE COLOUR. Rays of light are direct light, whereas the colour of paint is reflected light. colour from light combines and forms new visual sensations, this is additive colour. Lights projected from different sources mix according to the additive method. Overlapping, thus mixing, the three primaries, red, green, and blue in this manner results in white, yellow, cyan, and magenta. Absence of light results in black. Cyan, magenta and yellow are the photographic primary colours and are used to create separations for photographic and ink colour printing

SUBTRACTIVE COLOUR. Pigments combine in the subtractive system. Blue paint is "blue" because when light hits its surface the pigment absorbs (or "subtracts") all of the colour spectrum except the blue that is reflected to our eyes. Artists that work with physical media are concerned with the subtractive method since we work primarily in pigments"

If we are artists, then why are we even beginning to think about a CMY wheel, which is used to "create separations for photographic and ink colour printing", instead of the regular colour wheel, which depends on pigments, which is what we are all using, whether we are watercolourists, pastellists, acrylic or oil painters.

Why all the discussion? Isn't one colour wheel enough?

I'd be curious to know the benefit of the others. (Simply, please!)

J

LarrySeiler
08-29-2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by jackiesimmonds
Ok, I am now somewhat confused.

Why all the discussion? Isn't one colour wheel enough?

I'd be curious to know the benefit of the others. (Simply, please!)

J

YYyiikes!!!!

Well...just look up the couple closed threads of Don Jusko and see where this discussion leads to Jackie!

Art is a form of communication, and our preferences and nuances as varied as verbal language, formal and cliches. IT has to do much with one's enculturation, one's vocational background and so forth.

I object only when one method is described as "THEE" color theory ex nihilo verbatum absolutimum.

The final determinant to the success of what is working for an artist is the work itself.

The materials and their handling is a progressive evolution for us which ultimately has to first effectively translate to understand in our own minds before we can produce that which is understood and accepted by others.

Its funny when something is working for an artist and succeeds in its intended efforts to communicate for others to say, "sorry...can't work. Impossible to work!"

It requires some open minds.

Personally....I don't understand what is so threatening for minds to remain open. For example...though I used black for near 20 years instudio...I have no further use for it on a plein air palette. It no longer speaks to my aesthetic to adequately represent color/value in REAL life.

I am not on a crusade however...to convert people from its use. And why should I? Art is for one thing interesting to look at for what it means and how it is used by artists to express themselves.

If someone asks frankly why I have a problem with it personally, I will tell them. The risk is someone coming late into a conversation and assuming one is on the crusade.

Some Jackie...however, are definitely on a crusade to suggest only one color wheel is proper and best.

While there are many artists that use the RYB, and many of our countries former great painters of history such as John Carlson, those Cape Cod era painters, Buck County and so forth...many also as you know have developed that theory to include a warm and cool variant of each primary. Known as the split primary color wheel.

If you check out Michael Wilcox's book, "Blue and Yellow Don't Make Green"....he does an excellent job promoting the benefits of this split primary system.

If you read the arguments between Don and I....I have argued that CMY is yet RYB...because after all...there is no official "red" pigment....no official "yellow" pigment or official "blue" pigment, thus providing logical argument that use of the term "RYB" is a basic concept in theory from which to use and build from.

Cyan is technically yet "blue"....Magenta certainly appearing more red than yellow or blue....so yes, still a "red"....and so what do you have?

For some artists...holding onto some knowledge and understanding of how light works has helped them get a grasp of pigment. For me...I have a mental block with that as I don't see any connection between minerals/pigments and light itself. HOwever, if the CMY thing helps them then I say more power to them.

I trust Bill Martin's background in the printing industry as worthy of respect, and can see how and why such understanding has been important in his experience. I think they would sum it up as more CMYK.

While it is interesting to read thru Don's and Bill's thoughts on it, I as yet fail to see any change in my own thinking to adapt theirs to result in what might be better paintings produced for myself.

In fact....I would even fear such effort because I have at long last after so so many years of painting been able to switch to total "auto mode" painting plein air alla prima in often fragile challenging lighting situations.

I would have to be incredibly absolutely astonished and whole heartedly converted to risk at this time any radical changes in thought as concerns theory, and I just don't see it happening.

Larry

donjusko
08-29-2003, 09:22 PM
Larry. Well...just look up the couple closed threads of Don Jusko and see where this discussion leads to Jackie!

Don. Hi Jackie, That thread leads to a color wheel base on the YMC crystal color wheel. Crystals are uncrushed pigments. Elements make sets of colors, like the lead crystal making only yellow and blue and copper making red and cyan. These are correct oppositions on my color wheel but not the RYB color wheel. That's important an that's why RYB colorwheel must be updated, it has no place for cyan or magenta either. The YMC crystal color wheel can make red and blue but the RYB color wheel can not make cyan or magenta. This new color wheel will teach you how to mix dark neutrals with opposition colors. Simple.. This will be the next color wheel taught, some colleges are already doing it, it's just a matter of time until the lower grades and the old school catch up.

I object only when one method is described as "THEE" color theory ex nihilo verbatum absolutimum.

Don. That's Larry take on it. I have collected over 1800 names of artists who downloaded, commented on and are using my colorwheel because it shows correct color oppositions. If you would like one as a 300 dpi bmp format to print out for yourself, email me at [email protected]

Some Jackie...however, are definitely on a crusade to suggest only one color wheel is proper and best.

Don. One color wheel is the best Jackie, especially in my opinion, this page will explain the differences. You decide.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/newcolorwheel.htm

While there are many artists that use the RYB, and many of our countries former great painters of history such as John Carlson, those Cape Cod era painters, Buck County and so forth...many also as you know have developed that theory to include a warm and cool variant of each primary. Known as the split primary color wheel.

Don. Larry calls it the split primary system... catchy I know. No one else ever did and it's not a wheel, you can't make a circle with an isosceles triangle. And I think Parkhurst's document on the net is flawed in transgression in several places. There always was a name for those colors, warm and cool red was just the incorrect description given by those thinking red and blue were primaries. Actually the pigments are called magenta and red. See the 2nd Battle of Magenta thread for when, why and where magenta was named.

The colors of magenta and cyan were never pure enough to be used as primaries and they weren't permanent until the 1950's. Knowing that you can see how warm and cool primaries never included magenta or cyan, instead they included Strontium Yellow and Cad Yellow, Cad Red and Madder Carmine or Alizarin Crimson, Prussian Blue, Ultramarine Blue and Cobalt Blue.

If you read the arguments between Don and I....I have argued that CMY is yet RYB...because after all...there is no official "red" pigment....no official "yellow" pigment or official "blue" pigment, thus providing logical argument that use of the term "RYB" is a basic concept in theory from which to use and build from.

Don. Classically, red and yellow were vermilion and arsenic. Blue was lapis lazuli. The azurite crystal could be found in all these colors both transparent and opaque: cyan, cobalt blue and blue. About this Crystal Azurite :

AZURITE, Cu3[CO3]2[0H]2, H3.5, SG-3.7, monoclinic. COPPER, Standard Azure color, #8, [MCCC]. Cyan to 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. Cobalt Azurite is common, the color was called Azure, combining both of the analogous colors of cobalt blue.

Don. So the three colors do have a historical names and backgrounds. They looked like cad red and cad yellow and ultramarine blue. They are the "official" red yellow and blue colors. Ask Newton, he knew.
Here are the best colors in 1886.
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.

Cyan is technically yet "blue"....Magenta certainly appearing more red than yellow or blue....so yes, still a "red"....and so what do you have?

Don. Yes indeed, what do we have? We have cyan making blue with magenta. Cyan is the primary color in pigments and printing inks. Red is made with a yellow and magenta in pigments and printing inks.

I would have to be incredibly absolutely astonished and whole heartedly converted to risk at this time any radical changes in thought as concerns theory, and I just don't see it happening.

Don. I'm intrested in what <i>you</i> think Jackie, maybe you are not so set in your ways and do want to paint what you see in front of you and learn how to use complement pigment colors to make shadow colors. Just like the photo color process, without black.

Don

jackiesimmonds
08-31-2003, 04:48 AM
Can I just say that I am not actually "set in my ways", or on any kind of crusade at all..................I am simply trying to understand the differences between the two systems!!! :) All i wanted was an explanation, and thanks, guys, for going to so much trouble.

I was fascinated by the terminology here in this thread, went to the truoble of investigating a bit, found that answer about the YMC system being "for printers", and wondered why artists would bother with it. Clearly, there is a reason, and now I have it, which was just what I was after! I shall certainly look at this further. I am always keen to learn, and consider myself a perpetual student! In fact, my paintings have to date always been rather "literal", and they depend, for their success, more on the drama of the light on the subject, than on colour for its own sake. I do use a certain amount of colour theory as I work, tho, and it may be helpful to add to my existing knowledge. If you are at all interested, here is one of my pics in a showcase of pastel work:
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Articles2/19147/360/

I am now going to look at that link you've posted, Don - thanks.


Jackie

jackiesimmonds
08-31-2003, 07:10 AM
well, Larry and Don - WOW!!!! I did go to look at some of your posts, particularly the Battle of Magenta, but have to admit that I really do not have the patience to plough through the lengthy to's and fro's, there are so many of them! I got through a couple of pages, and just had to give up. It was like reading a book but without the comfort of an armchair! My back aches now! You guys have so much patience!

Don, you asked me to compare the two colour wheels side by side, and on the website it actually says "Each color opposition on the RCW mixes to a dark neutral that tints a neutral gray." While I imagine that Magenta mixed with green might make a grey, and cobalt blue mixed with orange might make a grey, I cannot for the life of me see that Yellow mixed with Ultra blue makes a grey.

I know that you went on to explain it in the Battle thread, and there really is no need at all to do that again, because I realised what you were saying..........nevertheless, I think I fall into the camp of someone who wants a very simple, straightforward system to work with. I am intelligent enough to be able to recognise that there are versions of blue, versions of red, etc etc and that a basic Red, Blue, Yellow idea is just TOO simple, and I can better relate to Michael Wilcox's Colour Bias Wheel, which does not offer "primary" colours at all.

Sorry, Don, but although I can feel your passion, and can understand and relate to much of what you show on your website, I find it rather too complex right now. Perhaps when I get into more oil painting rather than working with pastels, I might look at it again and try out some mixes, but the "yellow/Ultra makes grey" idea doesn't sit comfortably with me.

Like Larry, I have to say that the RYB basic idea has worked for me over the years, I do have it fixed in my head now and use it fairly instincitvely, and I may be a bit too long in the tooth to change!!

But I am always game to try new ideas, so I will re-read all you have to say Don, and will bear it in mind.

LarrySeiler
08-31-2003, 10:20 AM
Larry calls it the split primary system... catchy I know. No one else ever did and it's not a wheel, you can't make a circle with an isosceles triangle.

Well....first of all thank you Don for crediting me with giving the name "split primary system" to this wheel...but I didn't unfortunately. Its been used by many artists, and an actual picture of the wheel with a very indepth description of its use is in Michael Wilcox's book, "Blue and Yellow Don't Make Green"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0967962870/qid=1062337803/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/102-5165741-0025710?v=glance&s=books

There always was a name for those colors, warm and cool red was just the incorrect description given by those thinking red and blue were primaries. Actually the pigments are called magenta and red. See the 2nd Battle of Magenta thread for when, why and where magenta was named.

Warm and cool...are simply temperatures which are seen and felt and which better describe one form of red over another, one yellow over another, and one blue over another. An approach to painting subjects in natural light that heightens senstivity to shadows and light, as well as atmospheric light bouncing about.

While a child can understand "warm...ahhh, and cold...brrr" they do not always understand chemical properties and names. Art as well as certain math concepts invites abstract thinking which we all know works quite well...and the technical need not be embraced in order to be a masterful artist.

The painting process itself is a reactionary response to one's aesthetic confrontation with beauty. Gee Don...while leaning in to whisper sweet nothings to a lovely woman, should he point out the wonderful sweet fragrance and how it is so fitting to remind him of a beautiful flower....or, should he say, "Ooohhh, I recognize that...let's see, Ambergis from sperm whale intestinal tract with jojoba as a carrier oil and about 75% alchohol!"

Gee...that ought light up the moment, huh? hahaha

His focus was supposed to be on her...

The artist's focus, is to be zealously on the subject.

Now if the subject is benial, static, going no where...and time is of no consequence thus challenges are at their minimal allowing for every circumstance to be under the ideal control of the artist... yeah I can see some leaning toward this science lab art studio approach.

I love this quote from John Carlson's book on landscape painting, copyright 1929....

"An exaggerated idea of the importance of the handling of the pigment is often the cause of artistic shortcoming. Common sense or the fitness of things is most uncommon in art. Some painters are so interested in methods of painting that even good taste is often wanting in their systhesis. They seldom analyze their feelings, but merely look."

Don, you not only are attempting to revolutionize how color is thought, but you often speak as though painting were just now developing as a master's craft and requires you to now finally bring its culmination. Carlson and many many before him produced wonderful paintings without thinking CMY, and many artists today are producing masterful works as well.

When you do read those threads Jackie...I know you will do so with common sense and reason taking in the whole conversation. The bottom line is if one method works for you and enables/empowers you to aesthetic reaction to your visual world about you then continue with it, for that is your legacy.

If you find your present system NOT working for you, then by all means do seek out other theories and discover if perchance a breakthru is not out there. I am not against Don's wheel. It works for many as he suggests. What Don won't reciprocate with is how the RYB as likewise worked for many artists....artists like John Carlson, painters of the late 1800's whom discovered glorious color in nature..and so forth.

I've been working and building upon the RYB model for years, and only see changing as personally repulsive. It would be like taking my eyes off a gorgeous woman's beauty to find the analytical properties of her perfume a greater attraction. Give me a break!

Larry

LarrySeiler
08-31-2003, 10:22 AM
Here...a simple search engine query brought up Nita Leland's Split Primary color mixing page....

http://www.nitaleland.com/articles/split.htm

In light of Don saying no one else every did call it the split primary system, didn't take me long....

Remember...the magic in a painting- and the difficulties in color mixing - arise from the richness and complexity of the color materials, not from the abstract experience of color itself. It's important not to let "color theory" or an abstract mixing method distract you from thinking in terms of specific paints and their unique effects when combined. Bruce MacEvoy

That distraction is the greatest thing I see being promoted here.

We ought to be applauding where we see it, the continuity and genius of one's methods that allow them to be in tune and attuned to nature.

There are many reasons paintings work, and color is just one of them. Also...monochromatic paintings work for specific reasons.

If the artist working with a limited palette remembers the importance of color notation leading to well dispersed and crafted color rhythm, such that color in the sky can be found in the foreground of foliage, that color in the shadows of a rock can be found in the clouds and such....the painting will pull together and work as a painting. It will be the overall unifying force that cumulatively affects the viewer.

Thus near any system used with consistency recognizing the importance of art elements, design, sound composition, ordering and harmony will produce a work that works, and I'm back to saying once again....that "it works because it works."

Larry

LarrySeiler
08-31-2003, 11:02 AM
Probably one of the best treatments of color theory online is this page from Bruce MacEvoy...who breaks much of it down.
http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color5.html#mixmethod

What I like, and Don...you should take note...is that interspersed with what Bruce thinks as concern which wheel is ideal, which is not are his comments of common sense as concerns a painter to keep his priority and focus on what it is we do as painters.

He does not even give the highest appraisal of the split primary system, (which Don you WILL like), but when he puts up the full potential of the split primary system next to the secondary system (even with all the benefits of the secondary system explained), there is not a quantatively big enough difference that I see to convince myself that I should no longer think in terms of warm and cool.

Warm and cool is what I feel and see outdoors, and I prefer to respond to the color I see that way. Some people like ice cream and some don't because their teeth are too sensitive to cold. I am sensitive to color temperature standing before nature. It is convenient and altogether proven now with my body of work, to work for me.

I like some of what Bruce says here, like this point, what he refers to the Color wheel falicy-

Now, you can often demonstrate comparable mixing effects by using paints instead of lights. The mixture of quinacridone magenta and pyrrole red makes a saturated deep red, and quinacridone magenta and hansa yellow deep makes a dull scarlet.

But the mixture of quinacridone magenta and permanent green light does not make a dull yellow orange, but a disappointing brown. And this brings us to a basic problem. Using the "color wheel" to predict paint mixtures as if they were light mixtures involves a basic fallacy: that additive and subtractive color mixing are essentially the same. Unfortunately they are not, and the differences between them explain why the color wheel is relatively poor at predicting paint mixtures.

[/b]

I agree...the colorwheel is poor....certainly not as good and comforting as confidence built in past experiences and a long body of work to point to. When something is not broke, don't bother attempting to fix it!

Another wonderful quote of Bruce's-
the solution to this falacy he spoke of above....

The solution to the color wheel fallacy is not to throw away the color wheel, but to use it as a rough guide — as a compass to color improvisation.
It's really very simple: let the color wheel help you choose the mixing paints and approximate paint proportions you need ... then rely on your eye (and your color mixing intuitions) to get the mixture just right.


Trust that your eye is seeing and learning from observing nature. Trust that using the color wheel only as a compass, pointing you in a general direction you can rely upon your eye to get it just right.

Keep it that simple. Simple enough a child can get it...because the greatest detriment to painting I believe is anything that threatens to distract. You need to get in that zone and groove, and that requires many works behind you so that you no longer think but just do. You are not just doing with all attention upon nature if your mind is elsewhere breaking down components and theory.

Anyone that has put together demos knows full well that thinking of how you did something comes typically as an afterthought and in hindsight.

Larry

LarrySeiler
08-31-2003, 11:06 AM
Wow....read what Bruce has to say about "Substance Uncertainty" about half the page down....
http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color14.html#subprobs

this is part of it....

Substance uncertainty means that a subtractive or mixing color wheel can never be defined precisely: the actual mixing relationships among pigments or paints are just too variable. It also means, no matter which pigments we are talking about, that the location of a single paint in a color wheel cannot accurately predict the colors that result from mixtures of that paint with every other paint on the wheel — because some of the paints will be opaque, while others will be transparent, some will be intense, and others dull.

This then brings me back to reflect on what John Carlson once again said, which now seems to have even greater meaning-

"An exaggerated idea of the importance of the handling of the pigment is often the cause of artistic shortcoming. Common sense or the fitness of things is most uncommon in art. Some painters are so interested in methods of painting that even good taste is often wanting in their systhesis. They seldom analyze their feelings, but merely look."

This, John said back in 1929....and was true then, and is still true today!

Larry

jackiesimmonds
08-31-2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by LarrySeiler

If the artist working with a limited palette remembers the importance of color notation leading to well dispersed and crafted color rhythm, such that color in the sky can be found in the foreground of foliage, that color in the shadows of a rock can be found in the clouds and such....the painting will pull together and work as a painting. It will be the overall unifying force that cumulatively affects the viewer.

Thus near any system used with consistency recognizing the importance of art elements, design, sound composition, ordering and harmony will produce a work that works,

Larry

I'm certainly with you here, Larry.:clap: :clap: I am absolutely, totally convinced that colour is only ONE of the important elements of a beautiful painting, perhaps the most expressive one (arguably) but it doesn't stand alone. Here are the words of a British Royal Academician, who I believe will be remembered as a very great painter of his day

"A picture can be thought of as something like a delicate machine or living organism. Every shape, line, tone or colour, is a force, which pushes or pulls one way or another, or acts as an anchor, so that the whole structure is held in balance".

I'm not sure about "it works because it works" . This is too simple. It works because of all the things in the quote above being RIGHT. There is an absolute rightness about a really good painting, something that sets it apart from an adequate painting. Call it magic. But usually, that magic comes about through an artist's understanding of his methods and materials, not simply by accident. Just understanding a colour theory - any colour theory - isn't gonna be enuff.
Thanks for all the links - am off to read them , even tho I find it all a bit academic and prefer the idea of trusting my instincts!!!

LarrySeiler
08-31-2003, 03:02 PM
good things said, Jackie...

for clarification- when I say, "it works because it works" I mean...the results are proof enough of an artist's efforts, and if those proofs are indeed excellent, his means needs no justification.

One can say all they want that such and such cannot work...citing their own position in theory, but if an excellent work has indeed proven the contrary...then quite simply, it worked....and it did so because for that artist what s/he did and does works!

take care...

Larry

Einion
08-31-2003, 11:11 PM
Ah Don, nothing like an overly-complex answer to make someone's eyes roll back into their heads. :D

Just because someone chose specific pigments as examplars for a colour system at one point in history doesn't make them the "official" ones for crying out loud. Classically, red and yellow were vermilion and arsenic were they? Apart from anything arsenic what? I presume you're referring to Orpiment but what about Lead-Tin Yellow? I'm pretty certain it was used a lot more, for a great deal longer, in painting. Sure cinnabar and later vermilion were an important red, arguably the most important, but one can't ignore Red Lead in oil painting either.

Originally posted by donjusko
Larry calls it the split primary system... catchy I know. No one else ever did and it's not a wheel, you can't make a circle with an isosceles triangle.
For God's sake Don, what amounts to a split-primary palette has been used for centuries and the term itself has been around for at least the past twenty years or so, so please spare us the misleading rhetoric of "no one else ever did". It's also no more an isosceles triangle than any primary system (and just how a six-colour system could make a triangle in the first place... :rolleyes: ). And FWIW a split-primary palette can still be modelled on an accurate wheel, as can any palette layout; regardless of whether they're based on flawed foundations or not it doesn't change anything about the actual nature of the colours themselves or their utility.

By the way cyan, magenta and yellow are not immune from this line of reasoning. Even though they are true subtractive primaries there're only three of them and, in paints, they're only very approximately equally spaced around a wheel showing all hues. They could just as easily be dismissed as being 'merely' a triangle but this would be as misleading.

Originally posted by donjusko
That's Larry take on it. I have collected over 1800 names of artists who downloaded, commented on and are using my colorwheel because it shows correct color oppositions.
I'm sure if we take a poll of the tens of thousands of working artists today (including most of the members of WC) the vast majority of them won't have even heard of your system. So I'm very happy for you but your point is? If you're implying that once one has seen your system its obvious superiority to everything that came before will instantly convert you to its use and make one paint better, well, I'm afraid you're deluding yourself. I've known about your site for roughly four years and it had no more impact on my way of using colour in painting than my primary school RYB teachings. And it's not just me, I know a number of WC members and other friends who know of your site and use nothing whatsoever of it for various reasons.

As I said to Wayne earlier, most painters soon outgrow them as they gain experience. You might like to ignore or gloss over the limitations of colour wheels from a practical standpoint but that won't make the problem disappear! No wheel is capable of showing any of the really complex subtractive colour relationships and your system is no exception. As I also said, I think colour wheels should be thought of as jumping-off points for colour exploration and nothing more.

Don, you would do well to seriously ponder Bruce MacEvoy's comments on aspects relating to colour theory and modelling as he highlights many of the fundamental issues your wheel consistently ignores as I've been at pains to point out previously. In fact if anything your wheel made me more certain than ever that no colour wheel or mixing system can possibly be anything more than a rough framework for practical colour usage, despite some of its admirable qualities.

Originally posted by donjusko
...and do want to paint what you see in front of you and learn how to use complement pigment colors to make shadow colors. Just like the photo color process, without black.
Oh please! Larry uses complementary colours as do almost all realist painters to some extent, including the throngs that don't know you, and he has shown time and time again that working his way he can produce neutrals just fine. Just because someone doesn't use a palette built on mixing complementary pairs does not, never has, and never will actually prevent them from making realistic paintings. Yes it certainly helps to have good mixing pairs, but you can work without them quite easily and you absolutely do not need to use a palette as large as you recommend either.

Don, donning my WC guide hat, if you are interested in participating constructively a number of people have been waiting patiently for answers to questions in the last thread you opened. And could you please use the proper quote system! It's there for a reason.

Originally posted by jackiesimmonds
If we are artists, then why are we even beginning to think about a CMY wheel, which is used to "create separations for photographic and ink colour printing", instead of the regular colour wheel, which depends on pigments, which is what we are all using, whether we are watercolourists, pastellists, acrylic or oil painters.
Jackie, I'll try to answer your question as succinctly as possible. Red and blue are not primary colours as we understand them. Cyan, magenta and yellow are the correct subtractive primaries (subtractive primaries are those of paints, inks, pastel; any coloured matter). The reason that CMY is used for most colour printing is because they mix the widest possible range of colours from only three. Printers' inks are actually almost like oil paints by the way, and use the same or very similar pigments that are used to make our paints, so it's not that much of a stretch to consider them for painting :)

But unfortunately painting is vastly more complex than colour printing, so at the most the CMY system is a useful primary basis for a working palette and nothing more.

Originally posted by LarrySeiler
What Don won't reciprocate with is how the RYB as likewise worked for many artists....artists like John Carlson, painters of the late 1800's whom discovered glorious color in nature..and so forth.
Exactly.

Originally posted by LarrySeiler
Wow....read what Bruce has to say about "Substance Uncertainty" about half the page down...
Precisely the point I've made to Don more than once in various ways. A simple illustration of this is something many many painters have discovered for themselves while experimenting with their palettes. Investigating your blues and earths to find those that make nice neutrals together you discover that more than one earth will neutralise the same blue and that more than one blue will neutralise the same earth... this I know can be confusing but once one accepts this is the way colours can be you can go, "hey, that's neat," and move on.

It also makes one immediately wary of any system that fundamentally ignoring this unquestionable fact - paints don't behave in a predictable, reliable way based purely on their hue. Remember these:
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).
Don is on the one hand only too willing to sell the idea that his theoretical framework is 100% reliable and applicable across all mediums but then is at pains to specify not just colours but specific maker's colours which should raise more eyebrows than just mine :D

Originally posted by LarrySeiler
One can say all they want that such and such cannot work...citing their own position in theory, but if an excellent work has indeed proven the contrary...then quite simply, it worked....and it did so because for that artist what s/he did and does works!
Amen, a good point to leave on - if it works for you it works http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/20-Aug-2003/3842-thumbsup.gif

Einion

donjusko
09-01-2003, 01:13 AM
Hi Wayne, you said. With all the hoopla about the RCW and the RYB and the CMY color wheels, I was wondering how much they are in use.
I personally can't see a use for it on trees...see when painting a scene that is before your eyes but I could see it having value if you were just making up a color scheme. Maybe I just don't understand.
How about you .. do you use one and if so, how and why?

Don. This is how I use my own color wheel. Any color on it can be made neutral by adding it's complement. Split complements are more obvious. I can match the any local color of any tree in nature and immediately find the name and pigment of it's complement to make it's shadow color or split complement to mix it warmer or cooler.

Hi William, you said.
I now know that when Cadmium Orange gets mixed with Flake White, it swings toward the color, red. A tint of Orange is redder than the masstone of orange. Isn't that an interesting fact to know?
Don. Yes! I would like to add that info to this page of mine if you don't mind. I would like to point out this confirmed change of observation. The mass-tone of an opaque usually has no duel-toned qualities, and yet here it's top-tone is closer to magenta. You said it swings to red because you are working both RGB and CMYK. CMYK is closer to pigments so I'll say magenta. You used a red filter, you can say closer to red and be correct for the (densitometer) light color wheel reading pigment.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/rcwcadorange.htm
Being duel-toned as a paint quality is more noticeable in transparent darker colors like the purple's top and under-tones.
Grumbacher Dioxazine Purple, Transparent. This color is close to a duel-toned color in as much as adding white warms the outcome.

http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/rcwpurple.htm
Transparent Purple and white will swing to cooler cyan and look bluer, transparent purple and clear medium make a warmer tint. If the mass color and it's tint are two different colors, it's duel-toned.
Isoindolin yellow is orange in mass-tone and yellow in under-tone and top-tone, like Indian Yellow Original was, duel-toned.

William said;
While the mathematical results of these densitometer calculations could have been used, in a "raw" form, to indicate what was happening to the color as white got added to it, it was quite graphic to observe the progressive plots on a color wheel. It just simply displayed the effect better.
That's how I use a color wheel, to learn some facts about colors and their mixes, without guessing about the results.
Don. That's perfect William, but that only works for the pigment's tint of the RGB pure color. The shade colors on the RGB have the equivalent to adding black pigment to the pure pigment colors, they don't match pigment crystals getting darker at all. In the end, yellow becomes a cool dark green. Green and ultramarine blue do not mix neutral as a warm dark yellow brown matching yellow crystals does. Element=Crystal=Color

Patrick, you said. Another example: you need a greyish blue to paint very distant trees. You don't have such a pigment on hand, but on the colour wheel you see that a line connecting dioxazine purple with phthalo green, at the halfway point, should give a blue that's closer to the center of the wheel; a greyed blue (if you get the proportions right). You mix these two colours, then add a bit of white to get the colour to show. I want to try this combo to make distant trees...see how well it works in practise.
Don. Hi Patrick, It's going to work great! Transparent Thalo Green and purple are a split complement of green and magenta transparent. Toward the cyan side on a three color YMC wheel making the combination bluer. This is the basic shadow color in the middle ground. Transparent magenta and green make the basic shadow color in the foreground in the afternoon.
Patrick. When I get more colours, I want to do a good mixing wheel, with the some of the most commonly used pigments, kind of like Don's RCW. But I can't find phthalo cyan (PB17) in oils or acrylics...maybe I'll have no choice but get it in watercolour instead. When I do it, I'll post it in this forum. Colour wheels are fun to do.
Don. PB15 is a cleaner sky color.
Patrick. The oppositions are often incorrect. Notice on the top left wheel there's no magneta; it's a dull maroon/burgundy, since it was mixed from a middle red + ultramarine blue. Come to think of it, there is no clean cyan in any of them. These wheels are just for entertainment value now.
Don. They are excellent examples of the RYB color wheels, can I use them and give you credit for doing them? I'll mention Jerry Yarnell also, he was on the right path.
Patrick. I'd like to try Hansa Yellow (PY 97) or Benzimidazolone Yellow (PY 154), which Handprint recommends as sole yellows.
Don. Good choices .. How about Strontian or Strontium Yellow. CELESTINE crystal, SrSO4, H3.5, SG-4, orthorhombic, ore of strontium.
STRONTIUM, blue or yellow, idiochromatic, opposites. It's a cool yellow better then zinc yellow and was very popular in 1870.

Hi Arlene, you said, or just take blue and add a bit of the compliment.
Don. That works with the RCW but not the RYB. I guess you knew that.

Hi Jackie, When you get into your re-reading, notice how my color wheel is based on crystals and the way color elements get darker.
Transparent dark brown is light yellow in transparent colors. Like the burnt beechwood bark fugitive pigment and others used through out time. Brown (dark yellow) is mixed with blue (ultramarine blue) to make it's dark neutral color.

Hi Larry, you said,
Well....first of all thank you Don for crediting me with giving the name "split primary system" to this wheel...but I didn't unfortunately its been used by many artists, and an actual picture of the wheel with a very indepth description of its use is in Michael Wilcox's book, "Blue and Yellow Don't Make Green"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=glance&s=books

Don.
This is the page where Wilcox says the red, yellow and blue color only makes mud.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0967962870/ref=lib_rd_ss_TT01/103-7890128-7137432?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader&img=4#reader-link
Is that what you want? Of course not, no one does, not when you want a dark. The neutral blacks and grays pure primaries make can be made on either side of warm and cool, not just neutral. Take magenta and green, The dark produced is can be warm or cool and is the shadow color of either a green object or a magenta one. This idea is unheard of in the RYB color theory but it is the the way the RCW works for all colors.
Wilcox uses cerulean blue which is a tint of cyan, pure cyan like pure magenta should be transparent when mixed to make other colors. Transparent yellow is best also. There is no room for cerulean, cyan or magenta in Wilcox basic RYB colorwheel either. And there is no mention of split primaries.

As far as Nita Leland work is concerned, and it's updating every day so it's a little harder to keep up. Originally she didn't call it the split complementary system, she got that from you in the past two years. She got the transparent yellow from me. She sets cyan and blue next to each other, cyan being closer to yellow and eliminates colors between them. The red is next to magenta closer to yellow. In that configuration magenta mixes with ultramarine blue to make three purples and no cobalt blue, except in her illustration which is wrong (magenta and ultramarine blue do not mix into a cobalt blue hue).

Don. I feel the three of you are in the same barn beating a dead horse. The RYB color wheel won't work no matter how you spin it.

Larry said Bruce MacEvoy said;
But the mixture of quinacridone magenta and permanent green light does not make a dull yellow orange, but a disappointing brown. And this brings us to a basic problem. Using the "color wheel" to predict paint mixtures as if they were light mixtures involves a basic fallacy: that additive and subtractive color mixing are essentially the same. Unfortunately they are not, and the differences between them explain why the color wheel is relatively poor at predicting paint mixtures.
Don. I don't know why Bruce would use Permanent Green Light and magenta and expect a dark opposition mix. Opaque colors won't do it like transparent colors will.
Bruce and I agree on the color placement of color and disagree on how each color gets darker.

Like Larry said, "Some Jackie...however, are definitely on a crusade to suggest only one color wheel is proper and best."
Don. I guess that's me. I'm the one that say's red and green make brown too.
See the color chips.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/mypigments.htm

Einion said. For God's sake Don, what amounts to a split-primary palette has been used for centuries and the term itself has been around for at least the past twenty years or so, so please spare us the misleading rhetoric of "no one else ever did".
Don. Excuse me, would you point out where the incorrect term 'split-primary' ever appears.
Einion. It's also no more an isosceles triangle than any primary system (and just how a six-colour system could make a triangle in the first place...
Don. If the RBG/YMC shows YMC as primaries in an equilateral triangle, it also shows RYB as an isosceles triangle. And yes, lead red is red, madder was magenta and ultramarine was blue.

LarrySeiler
09-01-2003, 10:10 AM
Nita got that from me???? hahaha....well, I'm honored!

Now...scratching my head...I'm going to go nuts to try and remember who I got that from, or if in truth I'm simply a genuis?

Nah....not a genuis..

You say you agreed with some of Bruce's color placement...but, didn't say whether or not you agreed with his caution as concerns the color wheel falicy? You know....use this stuff only as a rough guide...and in the end use and trust your eyes???

IMO, your crusade is overkill, the emphasis unnecessary drivel and as John Carlson says, An exaggerated idea of the importance of the handling of the pigment ...

You need some balance Don....try and go out and paint a scene, and just let it happen. Enjoy the moment. Lighten up. Trust your senses. Smell the sweet fragrance! Leave the chemistry at home....

Larry

jackiesimmonds
09-01-2003, 01:24 PM
It is rather interesting, kind of sitting on the sidelines and listening to all the discussion back and forth.

What comes out of it, to someone less involved, is that while Larry seems happy for there to be lots of different approaches to colour theory and mixing, Don seems to be determined to prove that his way is the one and only one that works, and that the other methods are either wrong, or defunct.

Not a good place to be coming from Don. By all means, stand up for your beliefs. Offer out your ideas. But it isn't necessary to put others down in the process. The world would be a much happier place, if everyone would allow others THEIR belief systems, rather than try to insist that they are wrong, and should change. Too much blood has been, and is being, spilt, today, because there are those who are determined that THEIR WAY should be the only one.

And hey, Larry - maybe you AREa genius and don't realise it!
Taken an IQ test recently?

LarrySeiler
09-01-2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by jackiesimmonds
And hey, Larry - maybe you AREa genius and don't realise it!
Taken an IQ test recently?

actually I did...a few months ago...scored higher than I thought I would; amazed myself! hahahaha....

from what I've read about what the numbers indicate...it falls short of genuis!

(probably just this side of stupid too if I share the score) hahaha...

I was amazed how many abstract visual posited questions there were actually...
take care

Larry

impressionist2
09-01-2003, 04:19 PM
This is an interesting thread. I just wanted to ask you all if learning color isn't really more of a visual thing?

I mean I read all the information, but when it comes down to actually painting, I am winging it on intuition. It's more "what it should look like" than whether I can identify all the numbers and chemical names.

I am not saying you don't need to learn the basics in the beginning, or that those of you with this knowledge aren't impressive, but shouldn't gut instinct kick in at some point?

I have two color wheels, one a RYB and one a CMY. Both of them are there in my taboret drawer. They almost never come out to play.

I know in my mind what color I need. I just keep mixing till I get it right.

Renee

LarrySeiler
09-01-2003, 10:13 PM
Renee...

what looks right to the eyes is essentially how Bruce MacEvoy sums it up as does John Carlson.

It is what I've been saying as well in my metaphor of romancing nature and smelling the sweet fragrance insisting on leaving the chemistry at home....and insisting it works because it works; that the proof in the pudding is the body of work done, and therefore needs no justification.

Larry

jackiesimmonds
09-02-2003, 03:33 AM
Renee - just one thing - your comment "I just keep mixing till I get it right". Some knowledge of colour theory will mean that you might be able to mix that colour more quickly!

Which system you use is up to you. And if you are happy to mix away for ages until you get the "right colour", that's fine too.

The problem with all these wheels and theories and stuff, is that when you are painting, and the passion is hot, and you are frantic to get it down before the light changes, the last thing you want to do is dive into your bag for the colour wheel, and then discover that darn it, you don't have the right manufacturer's colours to make the exact colour that you see before you.........and even if you do, when you put that colour down, you discover that darn it again, it looks completely different because of the colour that is alongside it!!

I believe that colour theory is fine as bedtime reading or as an academic exercise - you can delve deeply and learn like crazy, or you can pick up tips and hints that might help you when in action. You can, for instance, learn that some manufacturer's colours might be cleaner, or more transparent, or whatever, than others. You can make a mental note of how to create a more interesting shadow colour, or a really rich dark.

But when in action, particularly when painting on the spot, you HAVE to trust your instincts, and work with the palette you have with you. And the important thing to be aware of is, even if you get your mixes more by accident than by design, the picture may STILL turn out to be a goodie! In fact, I often find that when I turn off the brain, and start to "freewheel" a bit, my pictures start almost to paint themselves, and unplanned marks, or colours, bring the image to life in an unpredictable and special kind of way.

Listen to these words of Arthur Maderson, I love this:

"Early morning, a few inviting panels, the room full of dazzling sunlight, my head swimming with strong black coffee and masses of ideas, feeling in love and on top of the world. Such days are made for letting rip. No force is capable of bringing me down to earth. The carefully considered, well-made picture will have to wait, for tommorrow is a different story. today I shall fly. Hovering like a violet, between pain and pleasure, anxiety and elation, painting for me begins with a surge of adrenalin. Initially, lemon yellow adrenalin born of high expectation as to what might happen, then the blood-warm adrenalin of sheer and absolute panic when your painterly world starts to fall apart, and on rare occasions honey sweet adrenalin when for a few moments, you feel the gods are with you. The end product, or picture, remains as tangible evidence of this act. The debris of struggle".

This kind of passion, I believe, is what painting should be all about. It shouldn't be about the cold calculation of the rightness of this mix, or that mix. Too much time spent on THAT, will stifle the passion.



Jackie

jackiesimmonds
09-02-2003, 03:40 AM
And Arthur also wrote:

"What is "wrong" anyway? Imagine telling Bonnard that whilst his bathroom tiles are modified by changes in light conditions, they do not swing from blue, through orange to green. Bonnard himself said "the faults are sometimes what give life to a picture".

and

"whilst all knowledge flows from experience, without increased sensibility such knowledge is of little use to the painter. To feel is more important than to know. Bonnard's percetion of reality is coloured by his glorious ability to see and to paint with heart and soul. A figure in a bathroom can become paradise on earth or a collection of cold facts. The choice is truly ours".

and

"rather than passively expect to receive answers from those who "know", we hold within ourselves the solutions to our own problems. We alone must assume responsibility for developing within outselves our capacity to respond more sensitively, more creatively, and more affectionately, if we are to paint with heart and soul."


I love this man.

J

impressionist2
09-02-2003, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by jackiesimmonds
Renee - just one thing - your comment "I just keep mixing till I get it right". Some knowledge of colour theory will mean that you might be able to mix that colour more quickly!

Listen to these words of Arthur Maderson, I love this:

"Early morning, a few inviting panels, the room full of dazzling sunlight, my head swimming with strong black coffee and masses of ideas, feeling in love and on top of the world. Such days are made for letting rip. No force is capable of bringing me down to earth. The carefully considered, well-made picture will have to wait, for tommorrow is a different story. today I shall fly. Hovering like a violet, between pain and pleasure, anxiety and elation, painting for me begins with a surge of adrenalin. Initially, lemon yellow adrenalin born of high expectation as to what might happen, then the blood-warm adrenalin of sheer and absolute panic when your painterly world starts to fall apart, and on rare occasions honey sweet adrenalin when for a few moments, you feel the gods are with you. The end product, or picture, remains as tangible evidence of this act. The debris of struggle".

This kind of passion, I believe, is what painting should be all about. It shouldn't be about the cold calculation of the rightness of this mix, or that mix. Too much time spent on THAT, will stifle the passion.



Jackie


Jackie,

Please note that I did say in my earlier post:" I am not saying you don't need to learn the basics in the beginning". ;)

I probably should have made the type bolder and said it in the positive , not the negative. A good Solid foundation of color knowledge is a must. I was just saying that after the "learning", the "instinct" should take over.

Arthur couldn't have said it better.

I don't spend all that much time mixing, because I have a limited palette, which was formulated based on all the color discussions here in the color forum, plus the books I own. Btw, my limited palette would serve as both ( if divided) a CMY and a RYB , as it contains the colors necessary for both.

It makes me smile to see Arthur refer to Bonnard, one of my all time favorites.

Renee

Wayne Gaudon
09-02-2003, 09:26 AM
This is how I use my own color wheel. Any color on it can be made neutral by adding it's complement. Split complements are more obvious. I can match the any local color of any tree in nature and immediately find the name and pigment of it's complement to make it's shadow color or split complement to mix it warmer or cooler.

Interesting but I personally don't want to burden my soul with a color wheel and what mfg sells what pigment to create what. I use 8 colors and did my charts of these 8 and I love being able to look on the wall and find the family of 2 colors that will give me a quick kick start on the mix I am looking for. However, because of the discussions in this formum on the color wheel, I have included Quin Violet Magetna on my palette and I love it.


if you are happy to mix away for ages until you get the "right colour", that's fine too.
Probably why a lot of plein air works suffer .. little knowledge of the palette and how to quickly find the color one looks for. With experience that comes and the plein air improves, so learning the basics will never hurt anyone.

A good Solid foundation of color knowledge is a must. I was just saying that after the "learning", the "instinct" should take over.

Using maps forever will, in my opinion, do more harm than good as one who travels light properly, travels fastest and further, while experiencing more.

Outside, until I get a lot of my mixes ingrained in my brain, I am on my own to find them but that is ok too because sometimes accidents are better than science. :D

I'm with Larry .. get the facts, absorb what you can and feel you must, and get busy painting.

jackiesimmonds
09-02-2003, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by impressionist2



Please note that I did say in my earlier post:" I am not saying you don't need to learn the basics in the beginning". ;)



Renee - I know you did ... did I sound like I was being critical of your comment? It wasn't meant that way AT ALL. Gosh, words are so easy to misinterpret. In fact, I was simply agreeing with you !!! and pointing out, for the benefit of others, that a knowledge of colour theory sometimes simply makes the mixing quicker!!!

Of course I agree it is good to learn the basics....every bit of knowledge adds to your arsenal of tools. And, I believe, with you, and with Arthur, than instinct should be allowed - no, ENCOURAGED - to kick in at some point, and with Wayne that accidents are sometimes more effective than science!

Jackie

LarrySeiler
09-02-2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by jackiesimmonds

accidents are sometimes more effective than science!

Jackie

you know....this is timeless, ageless...and precious!

Some would criticize and insist on more regimen in public art education...at a time when television and digitalization does much of the thinking for the masses already.

Many have forgotten that art is also play time and in playing children often most intimately explore and discover their world.

I do teach color theory...primaries, secondaries tertiaries, neutrals, opposites or complementaries and warm and cool...but, at younger ages and sometimes to be encouraged with the older it is cool...fun even, to put lots of paint out and just let kids explore.

Splash about, push, dab, run, wipe...see what happens when one color runs into another and so forth. The mind, even if it does not memorize formula, has an incredible amazing ability to remember how one thing led to another to get what one gets.

I never tire to hear those younger children OOoooooing and AAaahhing with wide eyed excitment and wonder during such play times.

Unfortunately...it saddens me that somewhere along the line we get too sophisticated that we forget exploration has a liberation to it. It is inviting and invigorating. We need our times of OOoooohhh and Aaaahhhh as well!

"Unless one enters as a little child...."

Larry

JamieWG
09-02-2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by LarrySeiler

Unfortunately...it saddens me that somewhere along the line we get too sophisticated that we forget exploration has a liberation to it. It is inviting and invigorating. We need our times of OOoooohhh and Aaaahhhh as well!

"Unless one enters as a little child...."

Larry

Larry, I took a class with a portrait teacher who did that all the time. He'd mix a gorgeous flesh tone, let out all kinds of ooooohs and aaaaahhhs, and follow it by saying, "Am I in the right profession or what?!!!" We'd all crack up. That teacher is *definitely* in the right profession!

Jamie

impressionist2
09-02-2003, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by jackiesimmonds


Renee - I know you did ... did I sound like I was being critical of your comment? It wasn't meant that way AT ALL. Gosh, words are so easy to misinterpret. In fact, I was simply agreeing with you !!! and pointing out, for the benefit of others, that a knowledge of colour theory sometimes simply makes the mixing quicker!!!

Of course I agree it is good to learn the basics....every bit of knowledge adds to your arsenal of tools. And, I believe, with you, and with Arthur, than instinct should be allowed - no, ENCOURAGED - to kick in at some point, and with Wayne that accidents are sometimes more effective than science!

Jackie

Jackie, You wrote:did I sound like I was being critical of your comment? It wasn't meant that way AT ALL.

Jackie, No, I knew that!

You wrote: "Gosh, words are so easy to misinterpret."

Boy, aren't they ever! I just wanted to be crystal clear that I meant one cannot just "wing it" nor do I advocate that, Without a good solid background of color theory.

There's some landmines seems like, on WC today ( not necessarily in this forum) . Just trying to side step most of them. :D

Renee

Einion
09-02-2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by donjusko
Good choices .. How about Strontian or Strontium Yellow...
Strontium Chromate Yellow, PY32, is available in which acrylic or oil brands? If it's not available why bother even mentioning it as a possibility?

Originally posted by donjusko
PB15 is a cleaner sky color.
PB15:3 might be a colour closer to that of the certain skies but that doesn't make it a better match to cyan, which is what Patrick wants to investigate.

Originally posted by donjusko
Originally she didn't call it the split complementary system, she got that from you in the past two years.
Good grief Don, when did you completely stop reading stuff? The term split-primary palette is far older than Larry's or my use of it, it dates from at least the 1950s! If you're going to continue to state things as facts the onus is on you to at least make an effort to be accurate.

Originally posted by donjusko
She got the transparent yellow from me.
Oh really? Do you know this for a fact or are you making another unfounded self-centred allegation like that about Quiller's wheel? I think you'll find Nita Leland got transparent yellows from the paint manufacturers actually since they've expanded the available colours quite a bit in recent years and she eventually gets around to using all of the significant ones.

Originally posted by donjusko
If the RBG/YMC shows YMC as primaries in an equilateral triangle...
I'm so glad you said that Don. Spectral cyan, magenta and yellow make an equilateral triangle but pigments do not and CANNOT.

You know on your wheel, the highest-chroma ring? Is this where you say cyan, magenta and yellow paints actually fall in terms of hue and chroma? Well our best magenta is nowhere near that ring (even in undercolour) and your choice of cyan isn't that close either. Both the positions and the chroma of available magenta and cyan pigments are only approximations to their ideal locations - meaning primary paints don't make anything even close to an equilateral triangle. As I've stated previously, only a colour model that ignores some fundamental facts about actual paints can be made to be symmetrical.

Originally posted by donjusko
Bruce and I agree on the color placement of color and disagree on how each color gets darker.
Ooo, this is a change! Please note everyone, Don is finally acknowledging that spectrophotometer readings of paints do actually plot colours to their correct hue positions (like there was any doubt).

Since this is the case one would do well to examine these accurate positions and compare them to approximated positions in a positional colour wheel. Notice in particular where PB15:3 falls in relation to the correct plot for cyan (and how it compares both in terms of hue and chroma with PB17, hence my questions to Don in the previous thread about why he continues to insist that the Grumbacher pigment is the best, or as he puts it "I like how Grumbacher did it") and also where PR122 is in relation to magenta (!) and how it compares to PV49.

Originally posted by donjusko
Excuse me, would you point out where the incorrect term 'split-primary' ever appears.
I've become curious myself about when the term first made an appearance and I'll continue searching for the earliest example I can find.

As for what I said, I was very specific to say "what amounts to a split-primary palette" - any painter who used a palette based on two blues, two reds and two yellows was essentially using just this, I've used a palette built around this from before I even know the name for it! With all the research you've done you must know that using what we now refer to as colour-bias has been a stock-in-trade of painting for probably as long as the profession has been around: any dedicated craftsman learns the basic effect through observations of trial-and-error mixing.

So let me see... Vermeer used genuine Ultramarine and smalt, Vermilion and a madder lake and Lead-Tin Yellow and Indian Yellow. Is that far back enough for you or do you want me to go back further?

Originally posted by donjusko
This is the page where Wilcox says the red, yellow and blue color only makes mud. .
Well he's using rhetoric, just like you Don. Everyone here, apart from you, knows that you can make a perfect neutral with a RYB triad which I can prove ten ways to Sunday. It might not be as dark-valued as we'd like but it will be neutral.

Originally posted by donjusko
The neutral blacks and grays pure primaries make can be made on either side of warm and cool, not just neutral.
Come on Don! The work of centuries of artists shows you can mix warm or cool 'neutrals' at will without using your system! I'll say it again, it is undeniably useful to be have matched complementary pairs but it is NOT essential! I'm getting sick of you consistently obfuscating and "stating facts not in evidence" as they'd say in a court. Not once have you been able to show, demonstrate or in any way meaningfully argue that systems other than yours are incapable of mixing 'neutrals' - the examples of Larry's work he's posted and every single other realist painter out there who doesn't use your system are ample proof of this.

Donning my guide hat again, If you'd like to make yourself useful instead of just plugging your system and denigrating all others there is a practical question on the treatment of yellows in the value vs. temperature thread where your expertise in painting from life would be appreciated.

Originally posted by jackiesimmonds
What comes out of it, to someone less involved, is that while Larry seems happy for there to be lots of different approaches to colour theory and mixing, Don seems to be determined to prove that his way is the one and only one that works, and that the other methods are either wrong, or defunct
Yep, how true. People on a crusade generally are like this - intolerant of different views regardless of how little difference there might be.

What I've been at pains to point out is that Don's system, while it may work up to a point, cannot be universally applicable and consistently ignores many fundamental things about paints, perhaps the most significant given Don's position being that more than one colour can effectively neutralise another.

Einion

LarrySeiler
09-02-2003, 06:54 PM
So let me see... Vermeer used genuine Ultramarine and smalt, Vermilion and a madder lake and Lead-Tin Yellow and Indian Yellow. Is that far back enough for you or do you want me to go back further?

wow....and again, I say...."wow!"

You're good Enion....something I had not considered, and am now intrigued to consider...

I had a weird thought. Artists get those from time to time...so, here goes.

I mix this color and that to get something else. It appears as one thing to my eye in the end.

Now...unless I can crawl inside another's skin and look thru their eyes, what presumption other than assumption do we have that every color familiar and useful to our eye appears the same, is understood the same and reacts the same to every other person's eye?

I've never looked thru a person's eyes that were color blind. What presumption do I have what normal appears like to another?

I imagine the intensity of a red I see is what another sees, but do we not really assume such?

So...its even possible that one viewer's eyes might be taken in by one artist's work and be mesmerized by it. Their imagination might find liberation to read between the lines and think they see all manners of things. Another might see the same painting and wonder what all the fuss is about.

If I can respond to nature....and another is moved by my having made a painting then not only was that to be a good fortune for the two of us but is an indictment against those that would insist such ought not to happen. Why...it can't happen if it doesn't look this way or that.

If Don can't figure out how to mix a neutral working with the same paints I do....perhaps our eyes, our seeing, our souls, our needs to respond are all different.

In the same way that genetically some have shoulders with greater muscle mass yet poorer space in the shoulder bones to support the Australian Twist serve thus ending in torn rotator cuffs leading to surgery; therefore not having been the beneficiary of perferred genetics...is it also not a possiblily we might not always see alike either?

okay...weird or not....?? I might be wrong....but how artists saw their world is one of the reasons we enjoy our time at the museum.

Larry

donjusko
09-03-2003, 12:13 AM
Einion. So let me see... Vermeer used genuine Ultramarine and smalt, Vermilion and a madder lake and Lead-Tin Yellow and Indian Yellow. Is that far back enough for you or do you want me to go back further?
Let me help you with a link. If you want the dates and all the important colors used from early B.C. to 1970 plus the artists that first were recorded using them, go here and search or Find In This Page, COLOR.
Why this subject was even brought up is because I wanted to show how the primaries transparent cyan, magenta and yellow were always important colors while the theorists knew less then the artists.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/final.htm
Einion. Strontium Chromate Yellow, PY32 (thank you), is available in which acrylic or oil brands? If it's not available why bother even mentioning it as a possibility?
Five years ago O.H. was the only paint manufacture making Indian Yellow and that was only in oil PY32. My site was unique in talking about color and I feel it influenced the Indian Yellow available today. We need strontium yellow and in five years we should have it, but first artists must know about and want it.
Einion. I'm so glad you said that Don. Spectral cyan, magenta and yellow make an equilateral triangle but pigments do not and CANNOT.
I remember you saying something like this before. Are you saying that no one can make the cyan or magenta printing ink chip colors with oil, acrylic or watercolor pigment?
Einion. Ooo, this is a change! Please note everyone, Don is finally acknowledging that spectrophotometer readings of paints do actually plot colours to their correct hue positions (like there was any doubt).
It's not a change, only the rim colors are accurate in placing the colors on an RGB, when intensity is subtracted it's like adding black pigment to the rim pigment and that shifts where the pigment colors are positioned. PR122 is the pigment I found best in it's tint and dark mixing qualities, other colors make good tints but bad darks, like Permanent Rose not having tinting strength. Thalo Crimson is another good primary pigment. I think you missed this explanation earlier.
Einion. I've become curious myself about when the term first made an appearance and I'll continue searching for the earliest example I can find.
Good luck.. It's a misnomer and would never have been used, IMHO.
Larry. I object only when one method is described as "THEE" color theory ex nihilo verbatum absolutimum.
This is the only color wheel that includes all the colors on the CYM, RGB and matches the way pigment elements get darker, like iron oxides, yellow, yellow ocher, yellow ocher deep and umber's. Red, Venetian Red and Burnt Umber, etc.. Instead of using the RGB that doesn't match natures dark progression to plot the colors getting darker. So it is THEE only one like this for artists.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/rcwmap.htm
This url will also show the 36 color devisions, notice that quinacradone magenta transparent is #12 and cobalt phosphorous magenta transparent is #13, 13 is opposite green 31, either one will mix dark neutral.
Larry. If Don can't figure out how to mix a neutral working with the same paints I do....perhaps our eyes, our seeing, our souls, our needs to respond are all different.
I know you are talking about red and green making brown as opposed to mixing neutral. Just what colors are you using? Is it red as in red lead or what you are calling cool red, magenta.

LarrySeiler
09-03-2003, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by donjusko

so it is the only one like this...

the only one LIKE this
hhhmmm.....

there you go Don! I consider this progress and a positive step on your part.

Its one thing to say "my color wheel is the REAL colorwheel" inferring others are therefore disqualified of consideration...to saying as you did here that your theory/method is the only one like yours.

I can live with that!

Larry

jackiesimmonds
09-04-2003, 02:41 AM
It is all about semantics...........and respecting other people's views and opinions, isn't it. Allowing others to say what they want to say, and believe what they want to believe.

(Even if you think they are wrong.)

!!

Jackie

Einion
09-04-2003, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by LarrySeiler
wow....and again, I say...."wow!"
You're good Enion...
Thanks boss :)


Don, thank you for using the quote feature.

Originally posted by donjusko
Let me help you with a link. If you want the dates and all the important colors used from early B.C. to 1970 plus the artists that first were recorded using them, go here and search or Find In This Page, COLOR.
Thanks, but I'd prefer to do my own primary research.

Since you mention it let's look at a few points:
"They matched the dried color chips with new cheaper elements without regard to its native natural characteristics. Rubins would have had them flogged if they tried that while he was alive."
Rubins? Anyway, this is amusing coming from someone who doesn't use genuine Naples Yellow.

"Lead, no other element dries as fast or is as opaque."
Well a block of lead would be very opaque... oh you're referring to a pigment, so which one? If you're referring to Lead White, well sorry, Titanium White is far, far more opaque - you should know how much the pigment is let down by the manufacturers if your references are as good as you imply they are - and it's still more opaque than Lead White.

And last but not least:
"In fact with a cobalt violet, [the cool magenta], you don't need Ultramarine Blue, you can make it. "
But you also say
"Each element, in it's natural and calcined state is capable of making and reflecting only a select portion of the color wheel. Some carry the whole spectrum. They also have painting characteristics unlike any other element, so if you like a color for its characteristics, it cannot be replaced."
Which seems just a tad contradictory to me. And incidentally what you say here about reflection is just plain pseudo-science, which anyone with a copy of The Artist's Handbook or Hilary Page's book can see for themselves.

At some point you're going to learn to stop pointing me to your site Don, because I'll only continue to find inconsistencies and mistakes (and that's without talking about typos and grammatical errors!)

Originally posted by donjusko
Why this subject was even brought up is because I wanted to show how the primaries transparent cyan, magenta and yellow were always important colors while the theorists knew less then the artists.
And as for 'magenta' and 'cyan' historically, the mixed colours I referred to using myself (that you were so quick to dismiss) are far closer to the correct colour than anything available prior to the aniline dye industry! The only two colours of significance in the violet-red range were natural madder and carmine, both of which are much too red (and impermanent). The historical 'cyans' you refer to might have been close to the correct hue (as close as we generally use today) but were far too low in chroma to be seriously referred to as cyan.

Artists used and understood colour bias long before we used this term, any split-primary, twin-primary or multi-primary palette (as used by most painters for the last five hundred years) essentially used it. I realise that anything other than cyan, magenta and yellow aren't actually primaries so the name is misleading but this is the common terminology. You yourself constantly refer to more than one paint as being a given hue so you're just as guilty of this to some extent.

Originally posted by donjusko
Five years ago O.H. was the only paint manufacture making Indian Yellow and that was only in oil PY32.
Exsqueeze me? Geez where do I start? Winsor & Newton have had an 'Indian Yellow' in their ranges continuously since the outlawing of the genuine pigment, that's what, 100 years and change? Ditto with Rowney. Blockx could well have had one for as long, their current incarnation of the colour is at least as old as the last update of their range, in the mid 90s if I recall correctly. Indian Yellow is a name held on to for the same sentimental/marketing reasons just as with other traditional names like Gamboge, Van Dyke Brown, Indigo, Sepia etc. At least ten manufacturers had one in their ranges prior to 1991. And what's with the mention of PY32? Are you implying that's what the Old Holland colour was? It's the most opaque of the chrome-based lemon yellows so I find this dubious.

I've refrained from going into this previously because I had so many other fish to fry but now seems as good a time as any. The most significant point here is that you are referring to a colour concept, not any actual colour any more - as you constantly imply when referring to it simply as Indian Yellow (and you have two for crying out loud... but only in oils, you ignore it apparently for watercolour and acrylics, despite constantly stressing its importance). Old Holland don't offer Indian Yellow any more than anyone else still does, they offer Indian Yellow HUES which are only vaguely similar to the genuine article - the real thing fluoresces slightly which is one of the primary reasons it was valued so highly in Persian and Moghul miniatures.

About the specific OH colours, they have a dual character yes, but they are far from unique in this respect - any paint based on Nickel Dioxine Yellow will be. They may be useful in painting yes, but they are nothing more sophisticated than convenience mixtures of Nickel Dioxine Yellow (PY153) and various other pigments: Indian Yellow-Brown Lake Extra with a transparent yellow iron oxide (PY42), Indian Yellow-Orange Lake Extra with Isoindoline Scarlet (PR260) and Indian Yellow-Green Lake Extra with Azomethine Yellow 5GT (PY129). Any of which a painter of talent could figure out for themselves and replicate on their palette with the appropriate single-pigment colours.

Since we're talking only about oils apparently Schmincke's Indian Yellow in their Mussini line is the Nickel Dioxine Yellow used alone, which Old Holland don't appear to offer for some inexplicable reason. Talens offer Azomethine Yellow 5GT as their Transparent Yellow Green in their Rembrandt range and also have Transparent Oxide Yellow, Transparent Oxide Red and Transparent Oxide Brown, all of which could make fabulous transparent mixes with an appropriate yellow. Their Stil de Grain Yellow (PY110) and Aureoline (PY150) would be worth testing too if one is looking for duochrome colours with a yellow undercolour.

Originally posted by donjusko
My site was unique in talking about color and I feel it influenced the Indian Yellow available today.
Well we can see above how valid that might be. Of the forces governing pigment availability the most significant is the industries that command the lion's share of them in the first place. Except for small-scale pigment production like Kremer's, industrial applications like plastics are almost solely responsible for the availability of pigments for use in artists paints - which is why Benzimidazolone Maroon will likely not be available for much longer because of a fall in popularity of the colour in the industrial coatings sector.

Originally posted by donjusko
We need strontium yellow and in five years we should have it, but first artists must know about and want it.
As for Stontium Chromate Yellow, it's obsolete (check Feller). We have plenty of superb green-biased yellows today, almost all of which are more lightfast and most are more transparent so why do exactly do we need it back? If it's for opacity at this colour point what's wrong with Cadmium Lemon? It is also highly toxic, which is another reason it is highly unlikely to make a reappearance in artists' paints.

Originally posted by donjusko
I remember you saying something like this before. Are you saying that no one can make the cyan or magenta printing ink chip colors with oil, acrylic or watercolor pigment?
I said exactly what I meant - spectral cyan, magenta and yellow make an equilateral triangle but pigments do not and CANNOT. See the word spectral? Go on, let's see some proof that CMY paints make an equilateral triangle because I have my counter all prepped and ready to go.

Anyone even remotely familiar with printing inks knows they're not even in the ballpark of their spectral counterparts. And as for what you refer to as "chip colour", whether they are matched by artists' paints is irrelevant, even the very best cyan and magenta printing inks are nowhere near to even their theoretical subtractive ideals much less the spectral colours. That you even hold other pigment samples up as the correct landmark to match is laughable - if you ever bother to compare 255, 0, 255 and 0, 255, 255 on your monitor (after you get it calibrated) to glazes of PB15:3 and PR122 you'll finally see this is true, although I'm not going to hold my breath.

For precisely the same reason as above I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge you can't provide a masstone mix that is even remotely close to the RGB colour I picked at your challenge - 0, 255, 0 - you rashly said you could match any RGB colour, which I know is impossible since huge areas of the SMPTE gamut are outside what is possible with pigments, so I would like to collect my winnings please, ante up. Or are you once again going to ignore this and hope it goes away?

Originally posted by donjusko
It's not a change, only the rim colors are accurate in placing the colors on an RGB, when intensity is subtracted it's like adding black pigment to the rim pigment and that shifts where the pigment colors are positioned. PR122 is the pigment I found best in it's tint and dark mixing qualities, other colors make good tints but bad darks, like Permanent Rose not having tinting strength. Thalo Crimson is another good primary pigment. I think you missed this explanation earlier.
First it's an LAB plot, not RBG, and you previously said that the plots on Handprint weren't correct because the oppositions weren't correct but as I've argued, this is not relevant, a colour's hue is what it is; whether it fits a model like one would like it to or not changes nothing. Second, what's that about subtracting intensity? Who brought that up? Third, I'm well aware of the tinting strength differences between PV19 gamma and PR122, I have more than one example of both and another magenta pigment you've never tested, PR192.

Originally posted by donjusko
Good luck.. It's a misnomer and would never have been used, IMHO
Yep, it's not very accurate unfortunately. But then so is referring to two very different colours as magenta, or all blues as cyan, or Indian Yellow Hues as Indian Yellow, or Naples Yellow Hue as Naples Yellow, or the midpoint between PG37 and PR122 as being a perfect neutral... :rolleyes:

Einion

donjusko
09-05-2003, 06:10 AM
Don.
Five years ago O.H. was the only paint manufacture making Indian Yellow and that was only in oil PY32.
Einion.
Exsqueeze me? Geez where do I start? Winsor & Newton have had an 'Indian Yellow' in their ranges continuously since the outlawing of the genuine pigment, that's what, 100 years and change? Ditto with Rowena. Blockx could well have had one for as long, their current incarnation of the colour is at least as old as the last update of their range, in the mid 90s if I recall correctly. Indian Yellow is a name held on to for the same sentimental/marketing reasons just as with other traditional names like Gamboge, Van Dyke Brown, Indigo, Sepia etc. At least ten manufacturers had one in their ranges prior to 1991. And what's with the mention of PY32? Are you implying that's what the Old Holland colour was? It's the most opaque of the chrome-based lemon yellows so I find this dubious.
Five years ago Indian Yellow Golden and Brown side were only available from O.H. That's as far as the art catalogs were concerned. I suppose I still have them around someplace. I would rather have you quote the manufactures then just guessing. "Ten manufactures in 1991".. I believe you are way off. If you can find even one other manufacture in 1995 that made Indian yellow I will gladly change my site to reflect my error and thank you.

Indian Yellow is far more than sentimental/marketing, it was a transparent yellow concept, Indian Yellow Golden is the transparent yellow that looks like transparent orange and was used for the hues light yellow to orange, mixed it could make red and all colors in between. With ultramarine blue, cobalt blue and Prussian blue (the best cyan hue at the time) it made the best greens.
Indian Yellow Brown was used for the darker combinations of yellow. We needed them both but forgot how to use them.

I don't know where the 'PY32' in my quote came from.. maybe it was late at night and I was tired.

PY153 dioxine nickel complex + PR 260 isoindolin = Indian Yellow Golden.
PY83 stable di-arylide HR = Indian Yellow
PY153 dioxine nickel complex + PY42 synthetic iron oxide = Indian Yellow Brown.
I would love to try PY153 dioxine nickel complex + PY83 stable di-arylide.
Einion.
The most significant point here is that you are referring to a colour concept, not any actual colour any more - as you constantly imply when referring to it simply as Indian Yellow (and you have two for crying out loud... but only in oils, you ignore it apparently for watercolour and acrylics, despite constantly stressing its importance). Old Holland don't offer Indian Yellow any more than anyone else still does, they offer Indian Yellow HUES which are only vaguely similar to the genuine article - the real thing fluoresces slightly which is one of the primary reasons it was valued so highly in Persian and Moghul miniatures.
We need the Indian yellow brown side in both acrylics and water colors but they are not here yet. Danial Smith made a new water color called Permanent Yellow Deep of isoindolin that takes care of the golden side.
Of course we are talking about hues here, the Original Indian Yellow was highly revered in the 1800's for it's transparent duel-tone quality. Then we sort of lost that painting knowledge when the wars came.
Einion said, quoting my link, "Lead, no other element dries as fast or is as opaque."
Well a block of lead would be very opaque... oh you're referring to a pigment, so which one? If you're referring to Lead White, well sorry, Titanium White is far, far more opaque - you should know how much the pigment is let down by the manufacturers if your references are as good as you imply they are - and it's still more opaque than Lead White.
Titanium white is more opaque then Zinc white but less opaque then Lead white, Fuller agrees. As you implied, titanium is ground much too fine to be at it's opaque best, so is lead white. As it stands today, lead white has better hiding power then titanium white and won't react to the cadmium's. Titanium and zinc is the best paint compound, I believe.

I'm quoting a little more from my site, so it won't be out of context.
"Any reflected color has the energy of reflected light radiating off the colored element or composition making that color.

Light is a painters element, it has shape when it is confined and its intensity and mass can be measured. Full sunlight weight is equal to the weight of a single grape, spread out over an entire football field, and that is constant weight! This light reflects off the primary and compounded elements we see around us. Permanent pigments are made of these elements, either organic, inorganic or synthetic. Each element, in it's natural and calcined state is capable of making and reflecting only a select portion of the color wheel. Some carry the whole spectrum. They also have painting characteristics unlike any other element, so if you like a color for its characteristics, it cannot be replaced.

Three examples are; 1, Lead, no other element dries as fast or is as opaque. 2, Cobalt natural, (cobalt aluminate blue spinel is just another opaque pre-made color for you to buy), and 3, antimony Naples yellow, probably the artist's most favored color before Church-Ostwald.

They matched the dried color chips with new cheaper elements without regard to its native natural characteristics. Rubins would have had them flogged if they tried that while he was alive. It's trend that hasn't stopped. But we are getting better transparent colors! Cyan (Thalo Blue) is the best thing that ever happened to an artist.

So, simplifying your choices is the name of the game here, what colors and what characteristics are most needed to complete a full color painting. Use the http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/picturatranslucida2.htm transparent pigments that are available and be selective in choosing the opaque ones."
Don.
We need strontium yellow and in five years we should have it, but first artists must know about and want it.
Einion. As for Stontium Chromate Yellow, it's obsolete (check Feller). We have plenty of superb green-biased yellows today, almost all of which are more lightfast and most are more transparent so why do exactly do we need it back? If it's for opacity at this colour point what's wrong with Cadmium Lemon? It is also highly toxic, which is another reason it is highly unlikely to make a reappearance in artists' paints.
PY32 is Ultramarine Yellow, Strontium yellow and Citron Yellow, 1963 colors (Feller 1986).
So it's not that obsolete. It mixed the famous Green Cinnabar and is paler and was paler than Cadmium Lemon.
Toxic..?! Chrome Yellow, Strontium Yellow and Cadmium Yellow PY34, are all deadly, Feller did say there was one remaining source of permanent Calcium Chromate Yellow, PY33, Frank D. Davis in LA. but that was in 1986.
Einion.
I said exactly what I meant - spectral cyan, magenta and yellow make an equilateral triangle but pigments do not and CANNOT. See the word spectral? Go on, let's see some proof that CMY paints make an equilateral triangle because I have my counter all prepped and ready to go.
For precisely the same reason as above I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge you can't provide a masstone mix that is even remotely close to the RGB colour I picked at your challenge - 0, 255, 0 - you rashly said you could match any RGB colour, which I know is impossible since huge areas of the SMPTE gamut are outside what is possible with pigments, so I would like to collect my winnings please, ante up. Or are you once again going to ignore this and hope it goes away?
We are on different pages here Einion, Pigments make the same chip colors as ink colors. I never use the word spectral unless I'm talking about light. I can make a triangle with pigment colors that is an exact match to the printed RGB/YMC chip colors. That's my perfect equilateral triangle in pigment chip colors relating to pigments. So you can shut down your counter (whatever that is :)
Originally posted by donjusko.
It's not a change, only the rim colors are accurate in placing the colors on an RGB, when intensity is subtracted it's like adding black pigment to the rim pigment and that shifts where the pigment colors are positioned. PR122 is the pigment I found best in it's tint and dark mixing qualities, other colors make good tints but bad darks, like Permanent Rose not having tinting strength. Thalo Crimson is another good mixing primary pigment. I think you missed this explanation earlier.
Einion.
First it's an LAB plot, not RBG, and you previously said that the plots on Handprint weren't correct because the oppositions weren't correct but as I've argued, this is not relevant, a colour's hue is what it is; whether it fits a model like one would like it to or not changes nothing. Second, what's that about subtracting intensity? Who brought that up? Third, I'm well aware of the tinting strength differences between PV19 gamma and PR122, I have more than one example of both and another magenta pigment you've never tested, PR192.
Right, L.A.B., my mistake, I had it right the first time while I was re-researching it. It does not match the RGB, YMC or RCW, not even at the rim. It does not make a primary triangle and in my opinion I believe it is useless to a painting artist. It also does not match color elements in crystals getting dark.
Einion.
But you also say,
"Each element, in it's natural and calcined state is capable of making and reflecting only a select portion of the color wheel. Some carry the whole spectrum. They also have painting characteristics unlike any other element, so if you like a color for its characteristics, it cannot be replaced."
Which seems just a tad contradictory to me. And incidentally what you say here about reflection is just plain pseudo-science, which anyone with a copy of The Artist's Handbook or Hilary Page's book can see for themselves.
I love the Artists Handbook, Max didn't use the term reflective color as I remember. That's a today term, I had trouble believing the instruction that a green object was only reflecting back green wavelengths and absorbing the rest. The absorbing part gives me trouble.
Einion.
At some point you're going to learn to stop pointing me to your site Don, because I'll only continue to find inconsistencies and mistakes (and that's without talking about typos and grammatical errors!)
Whatever.. your comments are always welcome.
Don.
Good luck.. It's (the split-primary term is) a misnomer and would never have been used, IMHO
Einion.
Yep, it's not very accurate unfortunately. But then so is referring to two very different colours as magenta, or all blues as cyan, or Indian Yellow Hues as Indian Yellow, or Naples Yellow Hue as Naples Yellow, or the midpoint between PG37 and PR122 as being a perfect neutral...
True, cobalt phosphorus transparent violet and Quinacradone PR122 are warm and cool magentas. Cyan plus Magenta can make all blues and Thalo Green and Magenta PR122 do mix a very dark neutral. And don't forget that dark yellow is brown and dark cyan is ultramarine blue, just like the crystals.

I'm going painting tomorrow and I'm not sure when I'll get to a phone line again, we have some remote areas here on Maui.
To see my latest painting with painting tips go to;
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/end.htm

LarrySeiler
09-05-2003, 08:18 AM
I checked out the latest painting with tips Don....

this one sorry to say, (because you've had some I felt were wonderful), doesn't seem to work compositionally for me, and color distracts rather than pulls the work together.

The more I see how you are using this color palette of yours of late...the more I am actually beginning to appreciate Pierre Bouret's simpler plein air oil palette. His thinking I believe is similar to mine, and his fewer pigments impart a harmony that is easy to look at.

IN fact...until Bouret's plein air work...my thoughts were that perhaps because of your work the sun and lighting were very foreign to me (my never having traveled to Hawaii)...but looking at Pierre's work...I get the feeling I too could paint there easily enough and the sun not so unfamiliar as I might have thought.

Again...you have had some wonderful works...so I'm not saying your painting abilities are poor (just don't like this one)...but I point this out because for all the hoopla and crusading you do on this marvelous color wheel I think Pierre's simpler palette and color thinking appears more natural and that his work is consistently so.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on his work. Would you say his paintings do not represent color and atmosphere in Hawaii well in your opinion and that by using your color wheel they would? He goes by "Surfer" here at WC...his website is-
http://www.artkauai.com/

take care

Larry

donjusko
09-05-2003, 03:29 PM
Well I donn't like this one either, but it's finished. The wind blew the easel over and the chair scratched the paper, thus the small center tree to hide it. All in all, it's a bust. I lost it in the drawing, doing it with out a pre-drawing was a mistake. It happens.. it just did. I won't toss it just because I don't like it, it has a nice portrait that I could cut out...

Pierre uses black in his paintings, yes, he would do better without it, as is they are lacking in good color. All of them. And yes, given the correct encouragement he would love making darks with complements.

If you are proposing a painting contest for our next works, the three of us. Ok. I'm sure the comments will get messy but so what. What should the minimum size be? What medium or should we include all four oil, water, acrylic and pastel.

JamieWG
09-05-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by donjusko
Pierre uses black in his paintings, yes, he would do better without it, as is they are lacking in good color. All of them. And yes, given the correct encouragement he would love making darks with complements.

Ummmm.....Pierre does not use black.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1410561#post1410561

Jamie

donjusko
09-05-2003, 07:48 PM
Oh, Sorry about that Pierre. I don't know why I thought that. I guess it was those workshop painters you talked about and gave me links to.

Thanks for correcting me Jamie. It was a bad accusation to a man that doesn't even have black in his palette.

How did you get the address of that post to come up when I clicked it? That was very cool.

I guess this is the time to get his palette colors, do you know them? Pierre, are you up and about?
Don

LarrySeiler
09-05-2003, 08:46 PM
Based on my asking him last July...here is what Pierre said-

Here is what is on my pallette

Ultramariine blue
sevres blue
Cad yellow med
Cad yellow lite
Alizarin Crimson
Cad REd med
titanium white

I will sometime add another color depending on what I am looking at.

To put it very simply: I paint all the shadow colors in first. Then, paint all the llight areas. I make sure all the shapes are big shapes. I now have the canvas covered. At this point I clean my pallette and brushes and begin to refine each of the big shapes, moving around the canvas all the time. I use my hog bristle brushes like shovels at times, picking up big juicy piles of color and laying it thickly on the canvas.

reference- "Poipu Tide Pools"
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=122007



If you are proposing a painting contest for our next works, the three of us. Ok. I'm sure the comments will get messy but so what. What should the minimum size be? What medium or should we include all four oil, water, acrylic and pastel.

I don't think that is necessary. I think we can reasonably assume that various works and styles appeal to various eyes for different reasons. I'm sure you have plenty of folks standing in line for your work, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt of that.

I'm simply saying that between your work and his, his work is a presentation of natural color and light familiar to my eye and preference. That says more about me, Don...then it does you. You have to follow your heart. Nothing wrong about that. I don't suggest what appeals to my aesthetic is the defining ought that ought to be everyone's choice.

Its just that in the discussion of what colors are necessary, and as I'm sitting here contemplating on what this necessity might be I find Pierre's limited palette personally more appealing and agreeable, and am inclined to feel this necessity does not apply to me as indeed it also does not apply to Pierre. OUr limited palette and color thinking is working for our purposes just fine.

I acknowledge that what you are doing apparently is pleasing in the final analysis to your eye and others with your eye. That is all very good, and is what continues to make our world with its vast differences unique and interesting.

I'm just wondering though in your opinion (and you don't have to like Pierre's work nor mine....) but you do live in Hawaii, Don...not I. In that light...judging with your own eye is Pierre's work an interpretation that does not represent the true light of Hawaii?

Is your painting more an attempt to correctly represent the light and color of Hawaii or a design/aesthetic consideration? Or do you think its possible that there is room for both because things will look differently to different eyes as does color and mixing for that matter?

See, if there is room for other interpretations aesthetically of what the eye sees....then there is room for various and different color thinking in mixing to arrive at one's aesthetic vision.

Don't be offended Don...that is not my intent. As I've said, I've really liked a number of your works, and what I share not liking or liking comes from me...and is not the rule of that which is ideal.

You should post that bananna bunch and leaves painting you did that one time...its extremely well done and many might appreciate your skills from that one. One of my favorites!

Larry

JamieWG
09-05-2003, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by donjusko
How did you get the address of that post to come up when I clicked it? That was very cool.Don

Don, below every post, there is a row of buttons. One says "Search". If you click on that button at the bottom of somebody's post, it will give you a list of their most recent posts. Clicking to see a particular post from that list will take you directly to that post on the thread. Then, by copying the URL which contains the post#, you can create a link directly to a specific post. Is that totally unclear? :D

Don, since you're here in this thread, may I ask you an unrelated question? You've done so many tests with various vehicles....What is your opinion of walnut oil as a vehicle? I've never tried any paint made with walnut oil, but I've been curious. Einion and anybody else with an opinion on it, I'd appreciate the benefit of your wisdom!

Also Don, on a more related subject...BLACK :D.....I am wondering what you think of this painting:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=128481

Don, I'd love to see the banana painting!

Jamie

donjusko
09-05-2003, 10:36 PM
Jamie.
Linda, I use ultra/BS a lot for a black. (Not anymore in landscapes though, because I've taken BS out of my landscape palette.) I don't run into the problems with that combination that I run into with black. It's a strange thing. As that ultra/BS combination lightens into greys, it does not seem to affect the other colors it comes into contact with in the same way as black, probably because I can separate out the colors of the mix and let it lean one way or the other, whereas black is always.....black. When I look at the shadows of the dress on that first painting you posted here, I long to see some violet and blue tones in them to set off the salmon color.

So far in this painting I agree with you. As it is I would think it is still in the layout stages. Very similar to Rembrandt in this stage. Today we have better colors so I expect his finished painting will be of his usual very high quality.

Thanks for that 'search tip' for one's posts. It will come in handy.

As far as Walnut oil is concerned.. I tried it in oil and alkyd oil, as you might suspect things dried slower. That was not an advantage for me in alkyd and a hindrance in oil. When working day after day in oil I like my paint dry the next day by the same time or a couple hours earlier. Siccitives are the worst browner's of all, too much is needed for walnut oil and poppy oil so I dropped them. I found 5 drops off the end of a painting knife in 2.5 ozs. of my medium worked best.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/mediumtable.htm

Larry.
I don't think that is necessary. I think we can reasonably assume that various works and styles appeal to various eyes for different reasons. I'm sure you have plenty of folks standing in line for your work, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt of that.
That is certainly true, every style has it's merits. I haven't sold any of my works for 5 years now. I'm saving them for something?
Larry.
I'm just wondering though in your opinion (and you don't have to like Pierre's work nor mine....) but you do live in Hawaii, Don...not I. In that light...judging with your own eye is Pierre's work an interpretation that does not represent the true light of Hawaii?
For some color reason Pierre's work doesn't have a lot of life in them. As it is,
Ultramarine blue
sevres blue (a tint of cyan)
Cad yellow med
Cad yellow lite
Alizarin Crimson (has a less then clean mass color)
Cad REd med
titanium white
The yellow and ultramarine blue mix for green is fine, but because they are opposits they do lean toward gray.
Limited palette are limiting, and in this case they lead to an all over graying effect.
Larry.
Is your painting more an attempt to correctly represent the light and color of Hawaii or a design/aesthetic consideration? Or do you think its possible that there is room for both because things will look differently to different eyes as does color and mixing for that matter?
I don't think different eyes see things differently. We are perfect and that goes for our sight too. I tend to go for the color nusences, I know what colors I see and how to mix them and try not to exaggerate.
Keeping a full palette is the most rewarding experience to me. The other end, only three colors is exciting also, but more work. The above palette would have so many short comings it would seem a chore to work with. I wouldn't use it unless there were no other colors, but that's not possible. Burnt Sienna is very lacking here, as well as a clean green.

LarrySeiler
09-06-2003, 12:46 AM
Appreciate your opinion Don...thanks.

I don't really have the same opinion...as my palette is pretty much like Pierre's, so for obvious reasons I'd disagree.

It is neat to go to concerts where there are eight or nine musicians, but.... there is nothing like a tight three piece band where the talent is obvious with what is done. I think of Stevie Ray Vaughn, or Rush...and so forth.

I like how fewer colors and a good sense of neutrals seems to cause what color is there to sing. Less is more kinda thing... not a short coming...but a chance to know beauty in simplicity.

It is a matter of taste.

btw...if you've got that banana painting of yours to share, do...

peace

Larry

donjusko
09-06-2003, 03:44 AM
"The system is down for some quick maintenance. "
Here are some banana paintings. The last link is all acrylic painting.

http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/kulabananalycheetree.htm
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/kulabananahat.htm
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/nahikunewporch.htm
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/01.htm
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/acrylicpaintingonlocation.htm


Capriati and Henin-Hardenne are battling away, I can't keep my eyes off them. :clap: Every point is so close. I can't believe these shots, one after an other. Give them an inch and they put it away. My orders are falling behind, how can I work.. I'm glad when I go on the road to paint I don't have a TV. Justin's backhand is incredible. Oh my, now it's a final set tiebreak.
6-4,5-7,6-7 Justine wins it in 3hours +
I wasted a whole day but just couldn't help myself. And tomorrow, more of the same. 17 straight wins for Andy so far, and it just goes on and on.

This link is to all my paintings and color course.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/sitetree.htm

Einion
09-06-2003, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by donjusko
Five years ago Indian Yellow Golden and Brown side were only available from O.H. That's as far as the art catalogs were concerned. I suppose I still have them around someplace. I would rather have you quote the manufactures then just guessing. "Ten manufactures in 1991".. I believe you are way off. If you can find even one other manufacture in 1995 that made Indian yellow I will gladly change my site to reflect my error and thank you.
Lefranc & Bourgeois, Paillard, Sennelier, Rowney, Winsor & Newton, Maimeri, Grumbacher, Talens Rembrandt, Holbein, Schmincke. Did you think I was making it up? :D I was actually going to list them previously but since it's not a comprehensive list (it didn't include Old Holland who I'm sure must also have had the colour back then) I didn't feel it was required. Besides, some makers have had the colour name continuously in their ranks since the 1890s, in various pigment incarnations. How good these colours were at simulating the specific character you're talking about was very variable I'm sure, but they all had a paint with this name.

In addition Schmincke had a Green Pink (!) which would be a good simulation of the brown type and Holbein had a Greenish Yellow which would be a decent choice for the greener varieties.

Originally posted by donjusko
I don't know where the 'PY32' in my quote came from.. maybe it was late at night and I was tired.
Thought that might have been it but didn't want to assume.

Originally posted by donjusko
We need the Indian yellow brown side in both acrylics and water colors but they are not here yet.
Well whether the colour is needed is a moot point, painters seem to be doing just fine without it to me. However, the 'new' transparent yellow iron oxides are a fine starting point for achieving something similar on the palette. The red and brown varieties are also good for admixture, making colours even more transparent than virtually all synthetic organic pigments available in artists' paints.

Originally posted by donjusko
Titanium white is more opaque then Zinc white but less opaque then Lead white, Fuller agrees. As you implied, titanium is ground much too fine to be at it's opaque best, so is lead white. As it stands today, lead white has better hiding power then titanium white and won't react to the cadmium's.
I didn't imply anything about its grinding, 'letting down' refers to the addition of inert fillers (as they do with the phthalos) to lower tinting strength to acceptable levels.

All guides I've read (I'm sure both Mayer and Fitzhugh state it) are universal in ranking the whites in oil as titanium, lead, zinc in descending order of opacity (in actual fact at least one source I've read has said that titanium dioxide is the most opaque pigment of all, whether that's true or not I'm not sure). Anyway, everyone I know who uses oils has confirmed this is true in practice. Some quotes:
"It {Titanium White} possesses the highest tint resistance of any white {and} is the most opaque..."
Ron Sanders, from his site.

"I'm increasingly turning to traditional Flake White for my paintings. It handles wonderfully, has interesting body and dries quickly. Because of the small scale of this painting I mixed Permalba {a mix of titanium and zinc, so therefore lower in opacity than straight Titanium White would be!} with my Flake White for added opacity."
William Whitaker, from his site.

"Of all white pigments, titanium white is the most opaque."
Knut Nicolaus, The Restoration Of Paintings

"Titanium White. The most opaque, highest tinting white."
Winsor & Newton, from their product literature.

Is that enough?

Could you provide the quote from Fuller please? I don't have a copy here but I'll check it the next time I'm in the library.

Originally posted by donjusko
PY32 is Ultramarine Yellow, Strontium yellow and Citron Yellow, 1963 colors (Feller 1986).
So it's not that obsolete. It mixed the famous Green Cinnabar and is paler and was paler than Cadmium Lemon.
Toxic..?! Chrome Yellow, Strontium Yellow and Cadmium Yellow PY34, are all deadly...
PY32 is still being manufactured Don, you should know that. It just hasn't been used in artists materials for a long long time (the early 20th century?) I thought it was paler than Cadmium Lemon, I know it's not as opaque, so I'm still wondering why it's so desirable! Cadmium Lemon + a dab of Zinc White et voila! you should have almost exactly the same thing! :D As for toxicity, strontium is classed quite a bit above cadmium (which is not "deadly") this isn't really relevant to us as consumers of made-up paint though, but it will be to the paint manufacturers because of health and safety regs for their workers. Considering how draconian they are becoming in the US (and there is a new batch of regulations in the European Union you won't be aware of yet but they will affect paint production in a few years) I am extremely doubtful you'll see it from any big maker again. Maybe a mom-and-pop operation might make some, but if you value it so highly I think you'll need to buy in a supply and make your own.

Originally posted by donjusko
We are on different pages here Einion, Pigments make the same chip colors as ink colors. I never use the word spectral unless I'm talking about light.
Yes we certainly are! Your colour wheel is supposed to be for light and pigments, you say so yourself. But you constantly ignore or gloss over the difference in saturation possible between the light-defined primaries and the achievable results in paints - virtually no paints, even in undercolour, are anywhere near the saturation of that high-chroma ring on your wheel.

If one imagined that our best cyan and magenta paints were the exact dead-on hue they should be (which they aren't) they would still be far in from the circumference of the circle, while the yellow would be very close to being exactly where it's supposed to be - so they don't make an equilateral triangle by any stretch of the imagination unless you ignore both their actual hue and chroma!

Originally posted by donjusko
I can make a triangle with pigment colors that is an exact match to the printed RGB/YMC chip colors. That's my perfect equilateral triangle in pigment chip colors relating to pigments.
Yes of course you can can match them, that's simply because you're using much the same pigments, or the exact same pigments, as I've said before. They still don't make an equilateral triangle! If you tried to match the colours on a calibrated monitor on the other hand you'd see just how far off they are - PB15:3 is too blue and too dull and PR122 is much too red and way too dull (and yes, I am talking about in a glaze, not in masstone). Bill has mentioned this before in relation to the readings they routinely took to see how far off their printing inks were to where they should be, so they could compensate for it as much as possible.

And since you ignored it again:
Originally posted by donjusko
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.
It's clear I've won, so come on, cough up.


Originally posted by JamieWG
What is your opinion of walnut oil as a vehicle? I've never tried any paint made with walnut oil, but I've been curious. Einion and anybody else with an opinion on it, I'd appreciate the benefit of your wisdom!
Depending on which source you believe, walnut is either better or worse than linseed oil! Helpful ain't it? :) One reliable source I have states categorically that it yellows less than linseed oil in made-up paint (which is the only consideration worth knowing about - samples of oils 'naked' don't necessarily point to anything useful). Another source I read a while ago mentions that it's noted for yellowing, cracking and wrinkling more than cold-pressed linseed oil which just goes to show you how careful you have to be about your references.

It's worth knowing that Caravaggio used it and I can tell you from first-hand viewing that some of his paintings are in spectacularly-good condition considering their age (much better than one or two Hals's for example). Do you remember the new painting of his that was discovered in Dublin a decade or so ago? Presuming the attribution is correct, and again presuming the binder is walnut, this picture wasn't stored in anything like ideal conditions for a good chunk of the last two centuries and I can attest to how well it has stood up. Although there is some regrettable pentimento the basic structure is more than sound, it is in nearly as good a condition as "Supper At Emmaus" which does help reassure one of its basic soundness as a binder.

If you want to go the whole hog for whatever reason - walnut-based paints and using walnut oil, in some form, as a medium - I would paint on panel only and use the least amount of added oil that I could. There does seem to be a consensus that walnut is both more prone to wrinkling and cracking (not by a lot I would say, to be fair) and this reduces the tendency for both. One of the problems with walnut oil as a medium is getting good supplies of it and having it not go rancid, which is a bit of a conundrum. This is just my opinion based on reading, but for my money nothing will surpass good linseed oil and its derivatives from a medium standpoint, so you might want to consider walnut-based paint combined with linseed stand oil as a medium.

Einion

donjusko
09-07-2003, 04:50 AM
Hi Einion,
I agree with all you have said except four points.

1. The RGB/YMC can make a perfect triangle, pigments are not as perfect but I think I have made the best pigment choices. They may never get any better but as they are, they will do.

2. Titanium is ground too fine to be as opaque as the courser old lead white was. The new lead whites are ground too fine. Lead white effects cadmiums so should not be used in that combination. Titanium white in acrylics is also ground to fine. I added extra titanium to my acrylic white plus a water thin medium by Liquitex and it made a better and more opaque white.

3. Cadmium is a deadly metal.

4. You said these manufactures made Indian Yellow in 1995. Lefranc & Bourgeois, Paillard, Sennelier, Rowney, Winsor & Newton, Maimeri, Grumbacher, Talens Rembrandt, Holbein, Schmincke.

I was painting everyday in '95 and did not find one other brand. Obviously something is wrong. Pick one of these brands and we will talk directly with them as to when they started selling it. Today OH is still the only manufacture of the other important translucent yellow, Gamboge. What do you say about that, besides the fact that you don't use or need it? OH rocks.

Einion.
Well whether the colour is needed is a moot point, painters seem to be doing just fine without it to me.
Indian Yellow Brown Lake Extra is important in transparent painting, a technique that has been forgotten since Church/Oswald defined color in dried chip forms. I predict that today's artists will again grow to use these old transparent yellows. Both brown side and golden side are needed to make yellow's progression to dark. Today OH is still the only brand to include brown side and since the two were used in tandem, it's hard for me to believe all those manufactures made Indian Yellow Golden and not brown side. Which brand do you choose to bring into this? If you don't want to choose, I will.

Einion
09-07-2003, 10:25 PM
Thanks for that Don. You're right, pigments may not get any better than what we currently have available for cyan, magenta and yellow choices. But I'm sorry there is a much better match to the ideal for cyan than Phthalo Blue GS. It's regrettable it's not more widely available in paints, but that doesn't stop it from being better. I'm still waiting, and I'm sure others are too at this stage, for any proof that available pigments make anything resembling an equilateral triangle. Simply restating time and again that they do doesn't make something so.

As for the opacity question in relation to whites, we're talking about what is the case in available paints, where it's clear you were wrong! There's no point in talking about greater opacity at larger particle sizes (a basic truth of paint physics that many of us know already) since it's essentially irrelevant - in what's available today opacity goes titanium, lead, zinc in that order. If the titanium dioxide and lead carbonate were ground less fine they would still rank the same way.

Originally posted by donjusko
You said these manufactures made Indian Yellow in 1995. Lefranc & Bourgeois, Paillard, Sennelier, Rowney, Winsor & Newton, Maimeri, Grumbacher, Talens Rembrandt, Holbein, Schmincke. I was painting everyday in '95 and did not find one other brand. Obviously something is wrong. Pick one of these brands and we will talk directly with them as to when they started selling it.
No, I said at least these ten manufacturers made a colour of this name - there would have been others too. I'm sorry if you weren't aware of any of them but again it seems your research wasn't, and isn't, as thorough as you think it is. What's the point in saying "If you can find even one other manufacture in 1995 that made Indian yellow I will gladly change my site to reflect my error and thank you" if you're not going to believe me when I tell you?

Go ahead and contact any of them if you feel it's necessary, I don't need to since I've seen the comparisons in print. FWIW Grumbacher would be the easiest one to start with, a representative will respond to a query on their forum in a reasonable timeframe. Knock yourself out.

Incidentally DaVinci have an 'Indian Yellow' in their current range so they could well have been another supplier in 1991. The current colour is a mix of Arylide Yellow FGL and Benzimidazolone Orange H5G.

Originally posted by donjusko
Today OH is still the only manufacture of the other important translucent yellow, Gamboge. What do you say about that, besides the fact that you don't use or need it? OH rocks.
:rolleyes: Gamboge HUE Don. What do I say about it? How's this: there were at least 13 manufacturers with a colour of this name in 1991! I thought you'd like that :D I'm not going to bother to list them since you apparently won't believe me anyway.

As for the Old Holland hue of this colour, Gamboge Lake Extra, I think you incorrectly list the pigment for this as it's a convenience mix of PY153 and PY3 according to their listings. Again you could do this on the palette if one had the single-pigment colours (notice peeps, same base as their 'Indian Yellows'). In watercolours at least five manufacturers have colours made using PY153 as a single pigment, three of them listed as Indian Yellow and two as New Gamboge incidentally to show just how arbitrary the definition of these colour concepts can be.

As far as the name gamboge goes, Anthrapyrimidine Yellow, PY108, is a good match to the original colour - Schmincke's Gamboge Gum Modern in watercolours is this in a single-pigment colour. PY150 is, according to Handprint, even closer - it has a dull orange-yellow masstone and a higher-chroma yellow undercolour. Talens Rembrandt have a 'Gamboge', a mix of PY150 and PO48. Daniel Smith and Schmincke offer PY150 as single-pigment colours. DaVinci Gamboge (Hue) is a mix of PY3 and PY42, which strikes me as a very good and simple way to simulate the original on the palette.

Winsor & Newton still offer the genuine article in watercolours if anyone is remotely interested in running comparison tests with other pigments or combinations.

Gee Don, I'm going to ask for a research fee if you keep this up.

Originally posted by donjusko
OH rocks.
As for Old Holland rocking, well concerning oils only, I'd prefer to rely on paints from a maker that doesn't spike their Ultramarine with phthalo blue, doesn't use unspecified amounts of an unspecified 'hydrogenated oil' as a stabiliser, doesn't offer so many needless convenience mixes and doesn't lie about their cold-pressed linseed oil, but that's just me. :mad:

Originally posted by donjusko
Indian Yellow Brown Lake Extra is important in transparent painting, a technique that has been forgotten since Church/Oswald defined color in dried chip forms. I predict that today's artists will again grow to use these old transparent yellows.
Yes, we've read your opinion on this before Don, but I have to point out that watercolour artists never forgot and I'm sure there have never stopped being oil painters who used traditional glazing techniques in this big world of ours. The new transparent iron oxide colours and mixes (like Gamblin's asphaltum hue) seem to point to manufacturers wanting to increase the transparent painting options for the painter FWIW.

Originally posted by donjusko
Both brown side and golden side are needed to make yellow's progression to dark. Today OH is still the only brand to include brown side and since the two were used in tandem, it's hard for me to believe all those manufactures made Indian Yellow Golden and not brown side.
Who said every 'desirable' colour had to be available in a tube? Raw Sienna, Transparent Yellow Iron Oxide and other colours can be mixed with yellows just fine on the palette if certain effects are desired. And again I'll say loads of painters seem to be doing just fine without them: I don't see any gaping holes in Schmid's, Whitaker's, Sanden's, Weistling's, Bateman's, Bama's, Ching's, Silverman's or Freud's colour, or Larry's, Verdaccio's or Cobalt Fingers' for that matter!

Einion

donjusko
09-08-2003, 06:33 AM
Thanks for that Don. You're right, pigments may not get any better than what we currently have available for cyan, magenta and yellow choices. But I'm sorry there is a much better match to the ideal for cyan than Phthalo Blue GS. It's regrettable it's not more widely available in paints, but that doesn't stop it from being better. I'm still waiting, and I'm sure others are too at this stage, for any proof that available pigments make anything resembling an equilateral triangle. Simply restating time and again that they do doesn't make something so.
It's sorry you can't see the triangle that is obvious to me. Matching the RGB triangle's chip colors with pigment chip colors is closer today then it has ever been. The colors mixed with these primaries are good enough to paint with and still have a natural looking painting. Much better then with any other colorwheel's set of colors.

I'm sorry if you weren't aware of any of them but again it seems your research wasn't, and isn't, as thorough as you think it is. What's the point in saying "If you can find even one other manufacture in 1995 that made Indian yellow I will gladly change my site to reflect my error and thank you" if you're not going to believe me when I tell you?
You didn't know what you were talking about with printing inks and just gave bad information. I find that happens with you often. This month and last months ASW only had one Gamboge hue available, OH. Also in 1995 ASW only had one Indian Yellow golden and one Indian Yellow brown, OH.

Yes, we've read your opinion on this before Don, but I have to point out that watercolor artists never forgot and I'm sure there have never stopped being oil painters who used traditional glazing techniques in this big world of ours.
Now just what sales catalog was it that sells Indian Yellow brown/side original or hue watercolor? Or is this just your rationalization as I suspect. Indian Yellow Original was not just used as a glaze as you infer, it was and is a mixing color as well as a glaze.

Who said every 'desirable' colour had to be available in a tube? Raw Sienna, Transparent Yellow Iron Oxide and other colours can be mixed with yellows just fine on the palette if certain effects are desired.
I would like every desirable color in a tube. Transparent Yellow Iron Oxide is not transparent, it is translucent as is Raw and Burnt Sienna. Indian Yellow brown side is transparent and I would prefer to have it that way for my use and effects.

JamieWG
09-08-2003, 12:24 PM
Don and Einion, I just want to say, "Thank you" to both of you for your very helpful comments on walnut oil as a vehicle. I think I'll pass for now! You know that old saying, "If it ain't broke...."

Don, that painting with black....it sounded from the description of it like the artist was considering leaving it "as is". :confused: I too hope he finishes it!

Jamie

Einion
09-08-2003, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by donjusko
Matching the RGB triangle's chip colors with pigment chip colors is closer today then it has ever been. The colors mixed with these primaries are good enough to paint with and still have a natural looking painting. Much better then with any other colorwheel's set of colors.
Yes all three points here are certainly true. Nobody can argue that the gamut of a CMY-only palette isn't the widest of any three colours.

Originally posted by donjusko
It's sorry you can't see the triangle that is obvious to me.
Hey, anyone can see a triangle Don, it's just not equilateral which is my point! You claim time and again that it is and consistently fail to provide any proof. This isn't really that important (especially given the first point above) except from an esoteric POV but it does point to the larger issue of your contention about your model being symmetrical, which is why I'm focussing on it.

Originally posted by donjusko
I would like every desirable color in a tube. Transparent Yellow Iron Oxide is not transparent, it is translucent as is Raw and Burnt Sienna. Indian Yellow brown side is transparent and I would prefer to have it that way for my use and effects.
Yes Don, we're aware you would like all your colours already tubed, anyone promoting a 30-odd colour palette obviously would. :D

There are levels of transparency yes, genuine Raw and Burnt Sienna are really more accurately described as translucent yes. But I'm sorry, real siennas are not even in the same class as the synthetic transparent iron oxide colours - from this it's clear you've never tried them yourself but it sounds like you've never even looked at swatches for crying out loud! Did you stop doing any more research in 1995? That "Indian Yellow brown side" you're constantly lauding relies on the transparency of this form of PY42 Don, have you forgotten it's a mix?

Patrick, and anyone else with a Golden hand-painted colour chart, will attest to the fact that their Transparent Red Iron Oxide and Transparent Yellow Iron Oxide are perhaps the most transparent colours on it. At the very least they are in the same class as Nickel Azo Yellow (yoo hoo, PY150, in acrylics Don!). I have these two colours and they among the most transparent I have ever seen. Maybe you should make an effort to get up to date, visit your local art store and pick up a chart to see for yourself.

Originally posted by donjusko
You didn't know what you were talking about with printing inks and just gave bad information. I find that happens with you often.
Now you're just getting nasty. Which bit of information was bad Don? Please be specific since I'm a trained industry professional working in that industry, not a painter of some talent with a dilettante's approach to the subject. Sorry to be shirty but my patience is running thin where you're concerned. If you want to talk about bad information let's review all the mistakes on your site shall we?

It's been my experience that the more unpleasant someone gets in discussions the shakier the ground they're on is Don. As the expression goes, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Originally posted by donjusko
This month and last months ASW only had one Gamboge hue available, OH. Also in 1995 ASW only had one Indian Yellow golden and one Indian Yellow brown, OH.
Are you calling me a liar now? I cannot believe you're using only one source and assuming it's comprehensive (when it's clear it's not!) Here's a thought, actually visit the websites of the companies I mentioned for yourself and do some new RESEARCH!!!! I expect an apology when you do.

Originally posted by donjusko
Now just what sales catalog was it that sells Indian Yellow brown/side original or hue watercolor? Or is this just your rationalization as I suspect. Indian Yellow Original was not just used as a glaze as you infer, it was and is a mixing color as well as a glaze.
I didn't say anything about the brown side specifically. I listed the makers of 'Indian Yellow' paints that you incorrectly state didn't exist then and don't now. Long past time for you to update your website... I see you're still recommending a Liquitex oil paint Don!

I also didn't infer anything about Indian Yellow being used just as a glaze (in actual fact I didn't say anything at all about it just being used as a glaze!) I implied it's grossly inaccurate to say that - how did you put it? - transparent painting has been forgotten since Church/Oswald. As I said, watercolourists have continuously painted transparently (obviously) and I know for a fact that some ateliers have taught traditional oil painting technique continuously through the 20th century, which obviously includes transparent colour and glazing.

Einion

LarrySeiler
09-08-2003, 10:00 PM
I am addressing no one in particular...but, one thing strikes me odd....as I read point, counter point and the determination of what all the CMY color wheel offers as for a color gamut and that is we need to remember use of color no matter how much is available, how pure...how good, how wide the range is no guarantee of talent.

I've beaten the pants off guys that strutted around in their designer tennis outfits, best racquets that technology at the time offered...and did so intentionally with a Chrissy Evert Wilson wood racquets. That to prove a point....that a tennis player a racquet does not make nor guarantee.

I submit that the likes of John Singer Sargent could have commanded more results with the charred end of a stick as a drawing implement than many artists with the fullest of palettes could.

Let us not forget genuis, mastery, skill, vision, passion, experience and so on.....

Don't let a master work done with limited palette or worse...one done with a RYB path of thinking rattle your cage. And, if such works have been done in the past....such are yet possible in the future.

Larry

donjusko
09-09-2003, 04:08 AM
Well I checked Einion,
Rembrandt didn't even have Indian Yellow on their site.
Schmincke didn't have Indian Yellow brown side.
W/N also didn't have brown side. Of course there hues, they have been since 1900.
I stopped there, if they don't have them now, they didn't have them 1995.

I'm wasting time here, you are just a problem, a mental problem I think.
I believe I also left Cennini because of you over 2 years ago.
No one else enters threads when your about.
The only reason I was continuing was to correct your influence, it's not worth it.

LarrySeiler
09-09-2003, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by donjusko

The only reason I was continuing was to correct your influence, it's not worth it.

gee....and here I thought maybe it was because you were intrigued and maybe even baffled as to how masterful works have been and continue to be produced by RYB and other color thinking systems...

Lighten up Don....some of us have continued for the same reason...

Younger lurking readers need to hear too that there is not only one way to paint, one way to see and use color. That too would be an improper influence and unbalanced perspective as well...

IF you are truly ending this one, Don....let's wrap all this up. Don has a system for mixing color that is based on CMY. It is one system, and a good system that will work for the artist. It is a system among others that also will work, but it is up to you the reader to ultimately decide what will work best for you.

Don has a recent article on his system that may be of interest to you...and be sure to check it out.

Larry

Einion
09-09-2003, 02:20 PM
Rembrandt don't have an 'Indian Yellow' on their site? Gee, sure looks like it to me:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/09-Sep-2003/3842-Rembrandt_WC_Section.JPG

And look, what's that beside it? Oooo a gamboge hue too, wowza, break out the martinis.

Originally posted by donjusko
Schmincke didn't have Indian Yellow brown side.
W/N also didn't have brown side.
Didn't say they did dude.

Originally posted by donjusko
The only reason I was continuing was to correct your influence, it's not worth it.
Ditto on the first point.

As for the second, I think it was certainly worth it - since in this thread alone others now know the pigments used by OH in their convenience mixes, and some of the places they can locate them as single-pigment colours, if they want or need something similar they now know how to mix for it (useful for acrylic painters at the very least).

Originally posted by donjusko
...you are just a problem, a mental problem I think.
Tsk tsk. Dem's fightin' words, oh to be back in Rubens's day where a glove to the face would be my response.

Originally posted by donjusko
I believe I also left Cennini because of you over 2 years ago.
Now you're just being delusional. Seriously, that would be an amazing effect I have Don since I've posted on Rob's site exactly ONCE.

Originally posted by donjusko
No one else enters threads when your about.
See the search button at the top of the page Don? I suggest you use it to see just how wrong you are.

Just because I'm one of the only members with the free time, necessary interest and references to debate with you at the length and in the detail that I can doesn't say anything else but that I'm lucky enough to have the time, interest & references. Check out the number of thread views if you think that lack of participation = lack of interest.

Einion

donjusko
09-11-2003, 02:40 AM
Five years ago Indian Yellow Golden and Brown side were only available from O.H. That's as far as the art catalogs were concerned.
I guess oil paint was only implied, although that's all we talked about.
I see you were including watercolors, which I wasn't. My statement still stands and I'm glad to see the renewed interest in Indian Yellow even though it's just a hue of many variables. I still would like to see more brands than just OH carrying Indian Yellow brown/side... in oil.

Gee, we are getting a lot of hits, still, I dare say I'd be happier without your sharp remarks. I would rather have your help then your "poking holes" as you say.

Another good thing did come from you, I started my own forum. Painting on Location with Color.
http://www.mauigateway.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/donjusko/PoL/YaBB.cgi

LarrySeiler
09-11-2003, 08:11 AM
Considering your new addition of a forum to your site, "Painting on Location with Color"...causes me to wonder and ask Don...

Is there ever over emphasis on color or the danger of too much of its consideration that values, composition, brushwork, good design are impeded?

What of the person whose intention it is to be touched by nature, finds within the compulsion to paint it because another drivenness within than paint itself spurs them on?

One of the purposes of a limited palette is to put greater emphasis or focus on one's subject. OF course...presuming all the necessary color can be relied upon to be at one's disposal.

I use a limited palette...and find chatter about the necessity of certain colors interesting. I feel there is a danger and deficit of falling more in love with the chemistry and knowledge of paint...than painting.

Larry

donjusko
09-11-2003, 02:09 PM
I feel we have been backward about color for a very long time. We have lost a lot of possible young artists because it didn't take long for them to discover that the color wheel they were being taught didn't work.

They were told the primaries were red, yellow and blue, they were told that mixing them together made black. When in fact they didn't. That's discouraging.

Oh they played with color, because it was fun. But.. they couldn't take it seriously. Right from the get-go it didn't work.

They got encouragement from the museums that showed work they could do, and were told that was good. They grew up thinking it was good. The whole generation behind them agreed it was good.

All because their basis was flawed. You have come a long way improving that basis. Adding the true primaries, or at least acknowledging they were there and showing how they could be assimilated.

I'm after a new generation of artists. Young artists that will have all the correct tools to farther their art. They won't forget red, yellow and blue, but they will put them in a different perspective.

The will see mixing color and matching nature's colors in a different light. They will see shadows as mixed complements. That's a new way of teaching art to the young, they will be encouraged to continue because it is a system they can understand and work with.

I appreciate the feedback from the old school, it gave me a chance to explain the differences to a lot of people.

I can see the influence all over Wet Canvas. This new thinking is happening faster then I had hoped. Twenty years ago I would have had to have written a best seller to reach as many people... and made a lot of money. But.. it would have cost me a lot of money too, which i didn't have.

All in all, I'm happy with the outcome. The Internet did it, I couldn't have done it without it.

So thanks Larry, you were and are important. You were a ground breaker in getting students that were taught the wrong primary colors to use today's new pigments in their palette. By whatever means, that was good.

Larry.
Is there ever over emphasis on color or the danger of too much of its consideration that values, composition, brushwork, good design are impeded?

I don't think so, those are elements that need a good foundation in color and a lot of work after that.

By the way, I have a new last painting, another w/c. A little better then the last, but still rough. It takes awhile to get back into the swing of a medium. Like tennis, take off a month and it takes a week to get back up to speed.

http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/end.htm
Thanks for stopping by my new forum. Today I'm putting in a new 'Mod' to upload images, then a spell checker. It's hard to just paint...

Einion
09-13-2003, 06:32 PM
So I guess you weren't finished again... Since when were we talking only about oils - this isn't the oil painting forum is it? This is the colour theory forum... you said your model is equally applicable to all media so I included all of them. I even stated what medium I was referring to in at least three cases if you bother to read carefully.

Originally posted by donjusko
I dare say I'd be happier without your sharp remarks.
Geez, just how little introspection do you have? You have some gall saying this to me.

Originally posted by donjusko
I would rather have your help then your "poking holes" as you say.
You've received plenty of help - from me and others. I found at least a half-dozen mistakes on your site and told you about them, plus I've informed you of a bunch of paints you weren't aware of and didn't think existed, not to mention telling you something very important about the transparent mars colours you apparently had no knowledge of. Whether you choose to ignore all this is completely up to you.

There's an Indian Yellow Hue in acrylics now too, from a very prominent maker, maybe you'd like to search for it.

Originally posted by donjusko
Another good thing did come from you, I started my own forum.
I was going to suggest as much, it's apparent you'll be happier where you will be free to limit the level of scrutiny your theories will receive.

Einion

Bill J
09-15-2003, 12:01 PM
The biggest thing I got from the color wheel was in an early Walter Foster book containing a color wheel was his explanation that you use white paint to make tints with oils but when you are using water colors you use water (the more water the lighter the tint). This alone helped me greatly when I switched from oils to water colors.



bill

jackiesimmonds
09-16-2003, 05:28 AM
[i]I can see the influence all over Wet Canvas. This new thinking is happening faster then I had hoped. Twenty years ago I would have had to have written a best seller to reach as many people... and made a lot of money. But.. it would have cost me a lot of money too, which i didn't have.

[/B]

Don - just a thought - art instruction publishers are ALWAYS on the lookout for authors who are a) artists and b) can write.

Have you considered approaching such a company, and instead, then, of putting all your hard-won knowledge out there for free via the internet, you could, in fact, be paid a nice fat fee for reproducing what you know so well, in the form of a book, which could not only be rather a nice project to do, but would have the potential to earn you royalties on top of the original fee, if it turns out to be popular. One of my books is in its third reprint, and still bringing in royalties, much to my surprise. Yes, I know there are lots of books on colour theory out there.........but yours would have a slightly newer, and different, slant.

Seems a shame not to capitalise on all the hard work you have done so far.

J

WFMartin
09-17-2003, 01:56 PM
Hi, All,

I haven’t posted on this thread since my initial comments, which were the first in answer to Wayne’s question regarding color wheels.

This thread has evolved into quite an interesting discussion, and, color theorist that I am, feel like I should make a couple of more statements. First, I believe that we as artists and users of color would certainly agree on one thing. And, that is that color behaves in only one, predictable way, and by a given set of rules. For example, no matter which one of us mixes a given two colors together, we’ll get the same resulting color. As a teacher of color theory, I prefer not to even complicate that concept by introducing the “additive” vs. the “subtractive” behavior of color, as if they represented different laws of color in different situations. Color only behaves one way, and the two “theories” can be easily explained as one—the behavior of color. I believe I have effectively imparted a scientific knowledge of color to many students while seldom (if ever) mentioning “additive” or “subtractive” theories of color.

Second, I believe that we all are in different catagories, so to speak, regarding our curiosity in understanding the why’s and wherefore’s of color behavior.

Larry’s philosophy is “If it works, it works.” Let me use as an analogy the operation of an automobile. Taking Larry’s philosophy of color, and comparing it to that of the successful operation of an automobile, he gets into this “automobile of color”, adjusts the seat, turns on the switch, presses on the gas pedal, and away he goes. He feels that the real importance is that of getting from point “A” to point “B” in his “automobile of color, and really couldn’t care less just why it works that way. “If it works, it works.”

My philosophy is that after I turn the switch and step on the gas in this “automobile of color”, I’d like to know just a tad more regarding how my internal combustion engine operates, so that in case I’m faced with having to fix a problem (or supervise the fixing of it), I’ll be able to make better decisions regarding the operation, which will inevitably manifest itself in my having a better working “automobile of color”, and will, finally, get me from point “A” to point “B.”

Don’s philosophy goes a step or two even further. While he, too, turns the switch, steps on the gas, and takes off in his “automobile of color”, he, like I, also desires to know just what makes his internal combustion engine operate. And, he has developed an even further interest in the chemical composition of his gasoline, as well as the crystalline structure which makes up the steel of the pistons. When he steps on his gas, he, too, will get from point “A” to point “B.”

Of course, my point is that Larry, Don, and I will each get from point “A” to point “B” in our “automobile of color”, and with nearly equal success. The difference simply lies in the degree of curiosity we each have in understanding just what makes our tools work.

Let me describe for you my concept of a color wheel. A color wheel to me is a blank form, depicting at its extremities, the identifications of the names of cyan, magenta, yellow, red, green, and blue. The outside ring of this color wheel displays the exact location s of the above 6 colors I mentioned, with all their theoretical and unattainable hues and purities. NO pigments made, as yet, are as pure at those required to be located at the absolute outside ring of the color wheel, although some yellows come very close! THAT is what makes “color theory” a theory, and not absolute fact. The fact is that pigments won’t ever plot on the exact outside ring of the color wheel in their purity. Theory simply explains what would result if they WERE capable of plotting in those positions.

This placing or “plotting” of colors around this blank color wheel form can only be done with a densitometer analysis or a spectrophotometer analysis of each and every color. But, it is the only way that is logical, provided you wish to have every color located where it truly belongs. As I mentioned before, to squeeze a Cadmium Red Light or an Ultramarine Blue out of their respective tubes, and simply plop them down where “blue” or “red” are identified on the wheel is really quite unreliable. It’s no wonder, then, that we have to concoct “theories” involving “mixing complements” and “visual complements”. If placed precisely where they belong, a “visual” and “mixing” complement would be one in the same thing. Predicting of color mixes is made easier when the blank form is in the shape of a triangle rather than a circle. Mixes tend to fall more on straight lines between the two mixing components, as compared to the undulating and sometimes erratic positioning of the actual plots on the circle, when plotting the actual positions of the resulting color mix.

Now, to respond to Larry’s and Jackie’s mentioning of how colors get affected by the juxtaposition of other colors. For the most part, these represent optical illusions, and are just as “real” regarding the behavior of color as is the solid understanding of the plotting of colors on the wheel. But, one HECK OF A LOT less measurable and quantifiable and, yes, even less predictable. When I taught my college course in color theory, after dispensing all the scientific information regarding the analytical behavior of color, my final class always dealt with the topic, “So, you think you know everything about color!”, in which I provided sample upon sample of all the anomalies of color. These things were like Larry’s “green sky” phenomenon, and “warm light/cool shadows” phenomenon , as well as countless others. These are real, sensory phenomena,and we, as artists need to be aware of them.

I don’t believe that we color “theorists” should minimize the effect of optical illusions when it comes to dealing with color. After all, it’s a real effect, and, as such, certainly needs to be considered as a real, practical, application of color But, I also don’t believe that the artists who prefer to “wing it”, so to speak, should minimize the importance of understanding just how color behaves scientifically either. I really feel that some understanding of BOTH aspects of color is quite desirable to have, and, most importantly, for the ways they can assist us in the practical application of producing our art work.

Bill

LarrySeiler
09-18-2003, 12:57 PM
enjoyed your perspective Bill.....

Oh...I've become pretty good at fixing cars and trucks. I have a 1985 Plymouth Voyageur and a 1983 Ford Ranger 4whl drive. Both have rebuilt motors. The truck I purchased from my nephew whom basically built a new truck out of it...all new sides and such.

I never attended tech school or engine repairs courses. I went to school for art and didn't have the time really...but like many, we go thru the school of hard knocks. Bit by bit...circumstance and consequence forces you to dish out money to someone else to fix it...which permits you to continue to keep your attention elsewhere by costs you...or you spend time fixing that one thing.

Over the years...you fix this, that and a number of other things to get it going.

The thing is...I can either determine ahead of time I will probably run into problems and take courses on mechanics and such, or do so when the problems arrive and deal with them then.

As concerns painting...all I know is people that watch me paint usually have the same reaction and cannot believe how quickly I move and nail a thing down.

When I run into problems, I am not one that runs the other way, I work thru them.

I've had only one problem I can remember...one was to match a man made red on a coastguard station...the other a unique green I witness from above looking out over a cove of shallow waters at Lake Superior.

I realized I was dealing with a unique pigment related to the sun itself and the effect it had on the subject. I took a few days of emailing with the paintings set aside to get a couple recommendations. I bought several tubes...seemed to work and thus, moved on.

Since that day....perhaps 1-1/2 years ago now....I have painted about 150-200 more paintings. Those paintings have been painted without any fret or glitch. The 30 years of painting experience continues to work and handles what nature throws at me. Yes..when the alternator on my palette goes out next...I'll figure it out.

thus far...my simple split primary palette has handled it all. Sorta like those old 80's truck engines where there is room enough under the hood to yet get inside next to the engine and work. I just hate those newer engines where you open the hood and there is junk consuming every inch! Takes four hours to remove parts just to get at rear spark plugs!

To me...filling my head with unnecessary information for the sake of "what if?" is like what goes on beneath the modern hood of cars.

To me as an art educator...its not all that difficult to figure out what color cyan makes with magenta and so forth...but, why?

My point to Don was simple. If he insisted as he did what could not be done with my palette...then his burden would be to point out where my work demonstrates lack. If his REAL and better system could not provide REAL and better Larry works...then what I'm doing must be working. In that case if its working...let it continue to work.

So my "it works because it works" is not so much a philosophy as it was a coy cynicism to one that insisted my work could not possibly work with the palette I was using. So, I relinquished in the end...that I simply work miracles.

I want my attention ON THE SUBJECT 110%...with a clear head. I don't want chemistry going on in my head. I only want a love affair with the subject compelling me to respond. I've already paid my dues, studied my palette to get where I am now. Unless I see the need clearly to change, I'll continue to work with what works.

AGain...its simple. People should come and paint alongside with me. Show me how their palette produces better paintings. Show me what really works

Personally...I don't like a lot of the color I see in some CMY paintings. They appear animated and Walt Disney'ish to my eye. I don't see the proof there that makes me gasp and say, "Holy cow...my work is at a deficit with my present directions and I need conversion ASAP!"

If I did see such, I'd believe for whatever reason those works worked, they were working better than what was working for me. See, I'm just trying to keep the logic simple. I do what I do...because it is working. If others ask what I'm doing that works, I'll tell them.

Hey...not fightin' with ya Bill...you're one of my favROtist most likeable guys 'round these here parts!!! Just tryin to clarify...I'm not interested in being a car mechanic nor a pigment chemist. I'm glad those guys are there though when I need them. Frees me from the burden of it...

Larry

WFMartin
09-18-2003, 04:10 PM
Larry,

Nor was I "fighting" with you, buddy. You clarified your position on this last post quite well. Your points are well taken, at least by me. I was just using the automobile analogy to try to explain to all concerned our different approaches to the understanding of color, as well as to further clarify my actual use of a color wheel. This was not intended in any way to cast reflections upon your knowledge of cars! I tried to show by analogy, much as you did to your HS class with the dog painting to show the drinking/driving concept. Only, in this case my analogy was in using the auto mechanics concept to explain each of our differing interests regarding color behavior..

To me, a useful color wheel is one which is inherently a blank form, upon which an artist places colors which, for whatever reason are under scientific investigation. My main point is that colors inadvertantly and intuitively placed on a color diagram without being placed precisely where they belong (by color analysis) is quite useless. On the other hand, colors placed where they truly deserve a location really do represent the beginning of some useful, interesting, concrete, as well as practical application.

And, Larry, by the way, about the time in my life I was actually having some success at understanding how my car worked, and becoming somewhat adept at diagnosing my minor problems, cars suddenly went into this "modern" mode, in which I actually don't recognize much of what's under my hood, any more! How 'bout you?

Bill ;)

LarrySeiler
09-18-2003, 11:52 PM
cars suddenly went into this "modern" mode, in which I actually don't recognize much of what's under my hood, any more! How 'bout you?


hahaha....exactly!

I know you are comfortable with the chemistry discussion as concerns paint and color, and I know that there are those that seem nearly as interested in what makes up paint as painting itself. Some I might believe to be even more so...

....to me...these many many pigment discussions seem to be like trying to work under the modern hood with all their emission's devices, fancy schmancy fuel ejectors, hoses, this and that. I remember the simplicity of space to work, parts that were understandable.

Hey...guess I'm a simpleton, but split primary is an old Ford F150 with room to spare under the hood. I'll let the complicated things be the pleasure of young whipper snappers!

Besides...when I drive, I tend to look more out the window at the scenes passing by than admire the vehicles ahead or behind me, or the shine off my hood!

take care....!!!!

Larry

WFMartin
09-19-2003, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by LarrySeiler


hahaha....exactly!

I know you are comfortable with the chemistry discussion as concerns paint and color, and I know that there are those that seem nearly as interested in what makes up paint as painting itself. Some I might believe to be even more so...

....to me...these many many pigment discussions seem to be like trying to work under the modern hood with all their emission's devices, fancy schmancy fuel ejectors, hoses, this and that. I remember the simplicity of space to work, parts that were understandable.

Hey...guess I'm a simpleton, but split primary is an old Ford F150 with room to spare under the hood. I'll let the complicated things be the pleasure of young whipper snappers!

Besides...when I drive, I tend to look more out the window at the scenes passing by than admire the vehicles ahead or behind me, or the shine off my hood!

take care....!!!!

Larry

Larry,

Very well said. I gotta' admire your approach. And, let's not ignore the fact that you are a very successful artist. Sometimes when we all get somewhat intense with our discussions, we often tend to minimize that important fact.

Go for it, buddy!

Bill:)

donjusko
08-26-2004, 02:36 AM
Thanks Jackie,
it seems like you read farther into my color theory then just the rim colors.
Don

I just finished a little work on some pigments and pigment retailers, I'll share it with you.

Dry pigments.

CYAN,
phthalocyanine, no wonder this color has been causing confusion among artists.
The suppliers aren't exactly in step.

Daniel Smith calls all these transparent phthalocyanine colors PB15 in their dry pigments.
Manganese blue hue, Phthalo blue, Green side and Red side.
The manganese blue hue is the cyan.

Liquitex acrylic.
PB15 is their cyan.

Grumbacher
PB15 is their cyan.

Senopia
Phthalocyanine colors.
PB15, transparent cobaltish hue
PB15.3, Senopia calls it Royal Blue, Maybe because they are German, maybe it's a mistake, but it is what I got in the mail 08-22-04. It is there true cyan color.
PB15.6 reddish. A transparent ultramarine blue hue.

These Senopia colors are good colors but there order is wrong. If you follow the color path of the AZURITE crystal, Cu3[CO3]2[0H]2, H3.5, SG-3.7, monoclinic. The phthalocyanine chemical should follow the same path. They are both colored by copper.
The numbers should go up as magenta side is added starting with PB15.1 as cyan.
COPPER, Standard Azure (cobalt hue) color, #8 on a correct 12 colorwheel, [MCCC]. Cyan to blue, transparent to opaque, shows blue in mass. This was a popular ancient pigment color, crushed, rare. Copper mixed with lead white or vermilion 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 range from an opaque ultramarine blue, cobalt blue and an opaque or transparent cyan, all effected by oil in a bad yellowing way.


Zecchi
Phthalo blue has a small bit of the magenta side in it bringing it closer to a cobalt hue. I would say, PB15.2, but they don't use the Pigment Color Chart.

MAGENTA,

Daniel Smith dry pigments, Quinacridone Red PV19, Quinacridone Magenta PR202 their pigment information chart says PR122 but they give you PR202 dry because they don't have PR122 dry, Quinacridone Violet PV19 is close in some colors but not as good as PR122. Alizarin Crimson PR83 is a dirty color but you can use it.

Senopia has two magentas, Quindo Red and Quindo Rose, no Pigment Color Chart numbers, no color winners.

Liquitex acrylic.
PR122, Acra Magenta formally Acra Violet is by far the best true magenta, making reds and blues with ease.

YELLOW

Senopia
Indian Yellow Br/s duel-tone, synthetic. PY10
Paliotol Yellow-Orange, duel-tone, PY139
Bismuth Yellow, opaque, PY184

Zecchi
Indian Yellow Br/s duel-tone, synthetic. PY10

Would you like to see the color photos of these tests?