PDA

View Full Version : Having it all with a split primary palette


DuhVinci
11-08-2003, 11:32 PM
There has been much discussion here of RBG versus CMY as primaries for a color mixing palette. It occurs to me that those who use a split primary palette are actually using both .

Cool: pthalo blue (cyan), magenta, lemon yellow

Warm: ultramarine blue, cad. red, cad. orange
(or warm yellow)

The above assumes green-leaning blue to be cool and red-leaning blue to be warm.

Those who find the rules of split primary color mixing useful also have the CMY primaries available as part of their palette.
I personally think that the RBG colors are useful in mixing the more muted, neutral colors found nature. The CMY is there for mixing the brighter colors where necessary. Together, I think you can more quickly get to any color you want than with either RBG or CMY alone. Can't we all just get along?

Alan Cross
11-09-2003, 02:32 AM
LOL I use 11 colors but I always say was whatever turns you on..
Alan :)

Eugene Veszely
11-09-2003, 04:20 AM
Using both sounds like a good idea to me :)

So long as I get the desired effect I don't really care what colours I use!! :)

LarrySeiler
11-09-2003, 05:00 AM
In essence....this is right on!

To me....RYB is only a model. A concept. An elusive idea for some, but a principle to be built upon. If we were going to be more precise with what you have discovered, the flip side to CMY would be UB/CRM/CYM or Ultramarine, Cadmium Red Medium, and Cadmium Yellow Medium.

These then are those color value/chroma personalities of RYB.

Just as you benefit from the dark values to better understand and shew the light values, areas of smooth texture for the impasto to stand out..and so forth...CMY works more completely with its mate UB/CRM/CYM. It is making oneself more fully armed.

Going along solely with the CMY palette minus the UB/CRM/CYM side would account for the browns that Don insisted complementaries would make while I responded with assurance I could create pleasing grays and neutrals every time!

Also....by thinking in terms of color temperature one gives the means for the RYB model not only to discover that opposites of color make grays, but that a cool temp color cools down a warm temp color such that the warm color is no longer AS warm and has thereby had its warmth tamed down or neutralized and likewise a warm temp color may have its warmth tamed down with the cool.

Working with both sides of the RYB coin as you have pointed out provides solid basis for thinking and responding to color and the subject being painted in terms of warm and cold, not just neutrals in terms of value.

Larry

LarrySeiler
11-09-2003, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by 1chameleon
Using both sounds like a good idea to me :)

So long as I get the desired effect I don't really care what colours I use!! :)

the thing is though....as DuhVinci is making more plain the obvious, the CMY palette used by itself is warm color deprived.

In Don's "REAL color wheel", he would be relying on all cool colors to represent subjects bathed in warm light. If followed along logically, this would not be possible. Thus, if ultramarine blue, cadmium yellow medium and cadmium red medium were to be found space on his palette, Don would not be using the CMY palette exclusively...but rather relying on both twins of the RYB model.

It does matter if you paint with a sensitive eye to that which is warm versus cool....

You won't get the desired effect without the colors you need. You need warm colors to imitate warmth with cool colors adjacent for contrast.

Many landscape painters will point out that if you have a cool light, you'll have warm shadows; and a warm light will produce cool shadows. That would require a full palette and this is where the split primary palette comes in......

thanks DuhVinci for succinctly pointing out the obvious!

Larry

JamieWG
11-09-2003, 09:15 AM
Interesting point of view, duh vinci! I never thought of it that way. I do think that most using a CMY palette are using a mid-yellow and not lemon. Also, many consider phthalo blue (green shade) to be a warm blue, not cool.

But I agree with you in any case about the usefullness of the other colors! I would personally swap the cad orange in your palette list for a cad yellow pale when carrying cad red/cad red light in my palette. You can mix the orange from the other cads, and I found the cad lemon alone wasn't ideal for an only yellow.

Just my two cents, of course!

The last two times I went plein air painting I brought about 20 colors already laid out on my palette and had the time of my life. I only used perhaps 7-10 of them on any given painting, but having them all at my disposal was a truly wonderful thing.

Jamie

Eugene Veszely
11-09-2003, 09:18 AM
And thanks Larry for reiterating it :)

LarrySeiler
11-09-2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by JamieWG
Also, many consider phthalo blue (green shade) to be a warm blue, not cool.


Jamie

I'm one that has taught pthalo is warm...and not totally persuaded one way or the other.

Wilcox makes a pretty fair argument for ultramarine being warm...

When I consider it...pthalo is blue plus yellow....
ultramarine is blue plus red....

and as a painter wholly versed in color temperature, in my thinking yellow is warmer than red, thus by default pthalo would be warmer.

In our skies here in the northern midwest...pthalo would appear warmer...and I find myself reaching for it on my palette again and again to imitate it.

Knowing there is debate on it has helped me though to see both sides of it.

Larry

WFMartin
11-09-2003, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by DuhVinci
There has been much discussion here of RBG versus CMY as primaries for a color mixing palette. It occurs to me that those who use a split primary palette are actually using both .

Cool: pthalo blue (cyan), magenta, lemon yellow

Warm: ultramarine blue, cad. red, cad. orange
(or warm yellow)

The above assumes green-leaning blue to be cool and red-leaning blue to be warm.

Those who find the rules of split primary color mixing useful also have the CMY primaries available as part of their palette.
I personally think that the RBG colors are useful in mixing the more muted, neutral colors found nature. The CMY is there for mixing the brighter colors where necessary. Together, I think you can more quickly get to any color you want than with either RBG or CMY alone. Can't we all just get along?

DuhVinci,

I don’t believe that anyone is trying to force anyone else to use any particular set of colored paints. I believe most of us are enjoying theses discussions for the sake of learning, and I do believe most of us “get along” with each other quite well.

The only effort in trying to convince anyone that I usually put forth is toward the goal of a sound understanding of color primaries. Primaries actually do behave in a unique manner, compared to other colors, such as secondaries. They can do things that secondaries cannot do, nor should even be expected to do. There is a big difference in saying, “These are the primary colors,” and in saying, “These are the colors with which I primarily paint.” The former identifies a specific scientific set of color behavior which one can expect to take place; the latter simply represents one’s choice of paint colors placed on the palette.

Even though I am a firm believer in the primaries being cyan, magenta, and yellow, at any given time you’ll find mostly earth colors, umbers siennas, cadmium colors and ultramarine blue on my palette. Understanding the charactistics of primary colors does not preclude using other colors on one’s palette. On the contrary; a firm understanding of how primary colors behave aids one in understanding just how all these other convenience colors work, and why they operate as they do, and most importantly, what to expect when they’re mixed with each other.

By the way, I firmly agree with your assessment of the colors which probably ought to be on most palettes, and you’d find that I often use that approach, as well.

Larry,

I'll have to disagree with your statement that the cmy palette is "warm color deprived." Sometime, mix Winsor Newton's Permanent Rose 502 (my version of magenta), with Transparent Yellow 653 (don't be afraid to add some white to these transparent primaries), and give us an opinion on its "warmth". Add a touch of almost anybody's Pthalo Blue, and you can mix nearly any "warm yellow", "orange", "red", "brown", "burnt sienna" color you'd care to. I think this represents a virtual cornucopia of "warm colors".

Paint on!

Bill:D

LarrySeiler
11-09-2003, 05:50 PM
well this might prove more what I was originally saying when I considered pthalo blue a warm color, Bill...

but in essence, if Cyan is considered cool...if magenta is cool, and if yellow hansa or light is the cool of the yellows...relatively speaking using just those colors you'd be able to create an assemblance of what appears to be warm, but a warmth that would not be as warm as with a full split primary palette.

Magenta perhaps with the cyan creates a close proximity to ultramarine...however...if you consider the yellow content of the pthalo mixing with the red of the magenta, mixing a form of orange that then would act as a neutral to the blue content of pthalo...rather than a warm one would lean more towards a neutral.

The relative nature though of using three colors will create an area that is warm.

I agree you can create warms with CYM if that indeed is all that Jusko uses. However, I consider the warmth of many of his paintings almost unnatural and Disney animation-like.

By the same token....in fairness, neutrals can be mixed well with ultramarine...and Surfer's (Pierre Bouret) work is testament to that.

Your observation though of nice warms possible with CYM might suggest well though that pthalo is not necessarily a cool blue. That yellow content in pthalo is more influential than many might recognize. IF pthalo is not then the cool blue....ultramarine is the essential other.

...if not warm deprived, having half a palette deprives elsewhere...

btw....FWIW...this is I think quite an interesting discussion, and so Bill, I would agree...
Larry

bigflea
11-10-2003, 10:25 AM
Reading through the debate over the color temp, both of the cmyvsrby, or ub vs pthalo, and so on, one thing stands out, which is that no color can be seen in isolation, that is, we decide what the qualitative character of a pigment is based mainly on how it appears in relation to what colors are around it.

This is true in fine art, interior color design, and house painting. It is especially more of a consideration where lighting is strong and the least perceptible differences between pigments are more noticable.

It all points to the recommendation for what is being called a "full palette" at your disposal, so you can get the result you believe is present in the composition or motif visually.

It may not be important where the goal is to have a particular mannerism of color. For example, there was a time when it was in fashion to oppose any version of orange and green, as a means of making a pleasing color combination for a painting to hang on the wall. There have been many renditions of complementary schemes for coloration, based on what is preferred rather what color quality is present in a light situation, or key. In that sense, all color choices of palette and observation are based more on subjective preferences and stylistic mannerism, than on observation of color variations in natural light as presented to your eye.
bigflea

LarrySeiler
11-10-2003, 11:31 AM
you make a good point bigflea, and one that I have argued with Don a great deal.

Johann Itten's work with adjacent influence on color demonstrates we can surround a color with other colors to force and fool the eye to see a color not painted, but a color we want them to see.

If a gray square inside a larger red square takes on red's complement of green and appears to have a greenish tinge...we can put the not so ideal red we might have access to on our palette to the painting of the subject and by strategically placing the right complement and neutrals nearby cast the hint of the red we want the viewer to see.

This is complicated but becomes apparent thru a number years of painting and experience.

When someone says, no...when someone insists I cannot get a certain affect without a particular, one is thinking in terms only of what you see on the palette is what you get on the painting. We know...or many more should know that this is not true.

Part of the craft of painting is to fool the eye. There are many devices for doing so...and those using a more limited palette learn in time to fool the eye to see a thing that is not. If they do not...they will tire and become frustrated not to be able to imitate nature adequately.

So many of our color theory arguments seems to revolve around what happens in mixing paint on the palette...but it is what happens to the color spot put on the painting that matters in the end, and how the painting works together as a whole. This is one of those things that by focusing on a tree, you might miss the forest....

Larry

bigflea
11-10-2003, 10:06 PM
J. Itten's illustrative tables show that very well. Also the work of modernist painters such as Josef Albers, and others. While not focusing on representation from nature, the work of Albers and others during the 40's thru 60's demonstrated many of the visual optical principles of color relationships, which when understood, allow for a great range of color development in any work.

Those experimental paintings showed in an abstract, non figurative manner, what the science of color vision had found to be true as the visual principle underlying all color perception and relationships.

Just as you are saying, it is the complete context of colors together that determines how any one color is seen, and together any group of colors makes a specific harmonic arrangement. A color that is blue on a white board, may become a red blue when another spot is place next to it. A third color will alter the first two.

Seurat's pointillist work was also demonstrative of some of the optical principles of color. He used very small dots of pure chromatic notes, which when seen together have the effect of canceling each other out, and creating a visual greying of the entire mass in which they are painted.

Interestingly though, large patches of pure chroma do not cancel each other out and create a neutral grey tonality, but do something more like create a color chord similar to a chord in music, I suppose one could say.
bigflea

donjusko
07-28-2004, 01:24 AM
I just couldn't go along with cyan being said to contain yellow. Cyan is a primary PG15. It's wrong to think yellow is involved.

And while I'm at it.. yellow is the opposit of blue, yellow and blue mixed is the first step of graying either color. Because they are both usually not transparent they will not neutralize past this first stage. Transparent yellow PY8 nickel complex will take them closer to neutral.

Yellow darkens to brown in crystals, chemical colors and bananas. Brown and Ultramarine mix neutral.

Cyan darkens to Ultramarine blue. You can see this in the shadow on any common cyan colored tarp and in the sky from the azmuth to the horizon line.

PR122 magenta is also called violet. Whatever name is given to it, PR122 will make the best blue and red, not that I don't think those colors shouldn't be included in a normal palette, just know a full color painting can be made without them.

Don Jusko

PS
I'm painting a large buon fresco in Upper NY now, it's a 3 month project. I'm doing it to show how the RCW works in any medium.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/fresco1mural.htm

Einion
07-28-2004, 12:40 PM
Don, what purpose does it serve to dredge up this thread after so long just to disagree with a point Larry made (especially since you're wrong)? You're well aware of the approximate nature of the cyan and especially magenta primaries we're forced to use; I've mentioned this at great length in the debates we've had before, even if you choose to ignore it.

PB15 most definitely reflects some yellow light; whether this is significant in mixing terms is debatable, that all phthalo blues do reflect it is not. This clearly illustrates the difference between paints and their spectral counterparts - which, with the exception of Magenta, are monospectral while paints are not and cannot be - which highlights a major limitation of considering them in any directly relational way as I've pointed out before.

Apart from PB15 not being the best cyan analogue, despite your continued insistence to the contrary, the hue Cyan doesn't in any real way darken to ultramarine, any more than I could say that yellow darkens to grey (although in many real-world situations it is actually more accurate than saying it darkens to brown, as I've clearly illustrated and as anyone can observe for themselves). Both statements are correct for given observational conditions but are NOT absolutes so they shouldn't be stated as such.

As for magenta, compared PR192 yet? What about any of the magenta versions of Quin Violet? Since I doubt you know this let me tell you that both are more lightfast than PR122, considering your recommendation of painting transparently this should be significant.

Einion

donjusko
07-29-2004, 09:18 AM
E. We don't agree, leave it at. Take a break. Paint something, learn that in pigment cyan contains no yellow. Take a look at a cyan object, see the ultramarine hue as it turnes into shadow.

Yellow, magenta and cyan are primary, they can't be mixed from other hues.
Stating that they can be mixed from other colors is "knowingly false and inaccurate" in my opinion.

Marc Sabatella
07-29-2004, 03:21 PM
I just couldn't go along with cyan being said to contain yellow. Cyan is a primary PG15. It's wrong to think yellow is involved.


This is a pretty gross oversimplification. The idealized cyan, defined as a color that reflects blue and green regions of the spectrum 100% and the red region not at all, would indeed not reflect any yellow, assuming one drew the line between red and green such that the yellow wavelengths were considered to be part of the red region.

But absolutely nothing in the real world has a reflectance pattern even remotely close to that. In the real world, apparently cyan-colored objects are simply objects that reflect a good deal of blue and green and appear to have an average wavelength somewhere between there. And all such objects will reflect some yellow light - as well as some red.

Then there is the matter of mixing. It is true an idealized cyan cannot be mixed perfectly from existing pigments. It isn't particular special in that regard - there are a practically infinite number of reflectance patterns that cannot be mixed - an idealized blue (reflects 100% blue region, 0% green and red) cannot be mixed either from real world pigments. Probably more colors cannot be mixed than can, if you need to match an exact reflectance pattern. Even if we leave the real world and talk about the theoretical world, cyan is perfectly mixable - take a color that reflects 100% blue, 100% green, plus some of the red wavelengths at the infrared end of the spectrum, and mix it with a color that reflects 100% blue, 100% green, and some of the red wavelengths closer to yellow. Hey, if you get to define a color by some arbitrary, physically non-existent reflectance pattern, so do I.

But in the sense that what we perceive as cyan is just a light blue green, it most certainly be mixed as easily as any other color, and one way to do so would be to mix a blue pigment that had a decent amount of green reflectance with a yellow pigment that reflected into the cyan range as well. Realistically, most pigments perceived as yellow don't reflect these wavelengths particularly well, meaning you end up with a rather duller color than a true cyan, but fortunately, the eyes are not as sensitive to this loss of intensity as they would if you mixed a red, orange, or yellow that was as dull.

donjusko
07-30-2004, 11:59 AM
Thanks Mark,
May I call on you again sometime? Sometimes I tend to answer a bit crudely as I am mainly on the painting end of art.
Don

donjusko
07-30-2004, 12:12 PM
On with it.
The CYM/RGB palette is warm deprived. Every shade below the full hue is minus warmth. The RCW palette does not darken to the cool black as does the CYM. It contains every color made in it's correct position by darkening to brown in the yellow to red range, and ultramarine blue in the cyan range. By the RCW darkening to blue it removes the green tinge imposed by adding black as in the CYM color wheel. The CYM is not a painting or plotting colorwheel, but it does give correct analogious colors.

Marc Sabatella
07-30-2004, 12:49 PM
May I call on you again sometime?

Sure - and you can start by telling me what you mean by the "RCW palette". I was trying to figure it out from your recent posts on this thread, but I get the impression there is some sort of back story I'm missing...

Einion
07-30-2004, 08:44 PM
E. We don't agree, leave it at.
You should be so lucky.

Let me repeat something I've said before, if you're unwilling to debate the things you state as facts don't post in a public forum! Especially if you're going to be so opposed to the least dissenting view.

Now back to our regularly-scheduled programming...

...learn that in pigment cyan contains no yellow.
I use process colour every single working day of my life so don't presume to lecture me about the nature of subtractive primaries.

Anyhoo, I'm sorry Don but this is absolutely false. As I said above the yellow (both actual yellow wavelengths and perceptual 'yellow' light) than any phthalo blue paint reflects may not be significant but they all reflect some. I can explain how and why there is, and Bill for one could attest to the validity of the explanation; I can show proof and Michael can independently show you similar evidence, so come on, let's see you try to prove otherwise.

Take a look at a cyan object, see the ultramarine hue as it turnes into shadow.
I'm a keen observer of colour obsessively interested in accurate perception and as a result keep my eyes open to colour every day Don. In a nice example of synchronicity I was in fact looking at wool skeins dyed with indigotin that were close to cyan in hue just last week, discussing possible indigo and woad dye colours with a friend. And what do you know, the shadows were not 'ultramarine' - they were darker in value and lower in chroma, just as they should be, but clearly around the same hue.

You show us any evidence to support this statement and I'll post photographs to show that it sure isn't always true.

Yellow, magenta and cyan are primary, they can't be mixed from other hues.
Stating that they can be mixed from other colors is "knowingly false and inaccurate" in my opinion.
You're the one being knowingly false and inaccurate. How many times do we have to cover the same ground? You're mixing up hue and colour again; I can't believe you continue to do this and expect to get your point across accurately to others since that appears to be your raison d'être.

Cyan, yellow and magenta in one respect are merely hue positions - just like red or green - and exactly like them they can be mixed from flanking colours. If you're referring to spectral primaries, well one only need take a moment's look at what Magenta is composed of for a start!

As for doing this in paint - which is probably the only thing that should really concern us - the yellow is going to be pretty awful of course, no way around that, but you can mix an ochre-like colour with a decent undercolour with many palettes. The cyan is a snap, even starting with a blue as apparently unsuitable as French Ultramarine you can mix a pretty good one. Magenta isn't so bad when you compare it to the single-pigment colours we have available, and many of us have two good colours that bracket the right hue, so this is not exactly rocket science either.


Thank you for jumping in on this Marc.

...absolutely nothing in the real world has a reflectance pattern even remotely close to that. In the real world, apparently cyan-colored objects are simply objects that reflect a good deal of blue and green and appear to have an average wavelength somewhere between there. And all such objects will reflect some yellow light - as well as some red.
Absolutely correct, just what I was getting at.

But in the sense that what we perceive as cyan is just a light blue green, it most certainly be mixed as easily as any other color,
Exactly so. What consistently boggles me is that Don has a larger working palette than all of us so he's better able to do this than just about anybody out there.

Einion

donjusko
07-30-2004, 11:44 PM
E
It took me awhile but I think I see your problem.
Your talking about opaque paint colors, I'm talking about transparent paint colors.
There is no reason to bring up anything to do with printing, it's not really connected with painting and just confuses the issue.

Any cyan you mix with any other colors won't be as clean as the transparent pigment because you can't make primaries. Period.
3 transparent primaries will paint a full color painting. That's transparent yellow, magenta and cyan.
Close doesn't count, dirty colors don't make it in an artist's book. If you want you can tell us what pigments you use to make cyan, magenta and yellow. I could use a good laugh.

Like I said and you ignored.
Look at a cyan colored tarp, if you don't see the ult blue in it's shadows, I can't help you.
Do you even paint?

Mark,
Here are some links to my RCW and palette.
You could do a search for Don Jusko to find past posts.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/newcolorwheel.htm
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/tubecolors.htm
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/complementsneutral.htm
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/RCWDS.htm
Let me know how you like it.
Don

donjusko
07-31-2004, 10:45 PM
I'm currently painting a fresco mural in Mexico, NY.
Here is the page and a quote from it.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/fresco1mexico82x155.htm

This is a test with alcohol medium on lime mortar with 3 colors. The only way to get a cyan hue is with alcohol as the medium, lime water makes a more blue color.
D.S quinacridone PM202 magenta can be made with D.S. PR19 quinacridone red and PR122 quinacridone violet, quinacridone red is on the warm side for your only magenta but is still able to make reds and neutral darks with green to turquoise. It will also make an exceptable blue but not as good as quinacridone violet or quinacridone magenta will.

The colors will show up a lot better when the mortar dries. Notice how you can see the titanium white tint in the PV19 magenta against the gray mortar. The difference would not be noticeable on white crushed limestone mortar, which is a lot whiter.

PY108 Nickel Complex transparent yellow Br/s and PB15 cyan round out the palette shown.
This mural will be made with the white sand available here on the East Coast, it's not as white as crushed limestone but better then brown sand.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/fresco1mexico.htg/F1-3colors-2-alcoholtest500.jpg

Marc Sabatella
08-01-2004, 05:41 PM
Your talking about opaque paint colors, I'm talking about transparent paint colors.
There is no reason to bring up anything to do with printing, it's not really connected with painting and just confuses the issue.

Any cyan you mix with any other colors won't be as clean as the transparent pigment because you can't make primaries. Period.


While there are indeed practical differences between opaque and transparent media in terms of color mixing, they aren't really relevant here. Regardless of medium, it remains the case that if we consider cyan to simply be a light bluish green hue, it is exactly as mixable as any other hue. As I said before, the only thing unmixable about cyan is the theoretical ideal cyan, which is just as impossible to obtain in a tube as it is to mix. It is hardly unique in that - there are an infinite number of theoretical spectral patterns which cannot be mixed or bought in a tube.

It is of course true than any mixed cyan will lack intensity compared to a tube cyan, but the same is true of blue, red, green, and any other spectral color.


3 transparent primaries will paint a full color painting. That's transparent yellow, magenta and cyan.


It is true that these are the best three colors to have if your goal is to get the widest gamut of colors, but it is still going to be the case that there are a many possible colors you cannot mix, include full intesity reds, blues, oranges, violets, and greens.


Close doesn't count, dirty colors don't make it in an artist's book. If you want you can tell us what pigments you use to make cyan, magenta and yellow.


Yellow is pretty damn hard to mix unless you start with two yellows iun the first place, simply because the eye is so sensitive to the loss of value and intensity in that range of the spectrum. But the cyan that can be mixed from, for example, ultramarine blue and viridian, is about as convincing an approximation of cyan as any approximation of ultramarine blue you'd get out of any cyan and magenta pigments of your choosing. Same for the approximation of magenta that can be made from, say, naphthol red and ultramarine blue.


Here are some links to my RCW and palette.


Thanks. Looks similar to the Munsell wheel. I agree, the biasing of hues in a wheel like that makes a lot of sense compared to the traditional biasing.

donjusko
08-01-2004, 10:04 PM
While there are indeed practical differences between opaque and transparent media in terms of color mixing, they aren't really relevant here. Regardless of medium, it remains the case that if we consider cyan to simply be a light bluish green hue, it is exactly as mixable as any other hue. As I said before, the only thing unmixable about cyan is the theoretical ideal cyan, which is just as impossible to obtain in a tube as it is to mix. It is hardly unique in that - there are an infinite number of theoretical spectral patterns which cannot be mixed or bought in a tube..

Would you consider this relevant?
Wet Canvas only has one Category for Color Theory.
It should be two.
One for photomechanical, one for optical painting.

In photo RGB, cyan is read as simply a mix of green and blue. That doesn't work in pigments, pigments are additive and you would get mud.

In pigments cyan contains no yellow.
In CYMK that converts the RCW to print there is no yellow in cyan, either in the ink or in the print.
Here is my yellow plate, the bottom left white space is cyan. No yellow.

To keep saying cyan contains yellow is reverting back to the RGB system. Two separate color theories that give the same color two different ways. Never the twain shell meet.

It is of course true than any mixed cyan will lack intensity compared to a tube cyan, but the same is true of blue, red, green, and any other spectral color.

I don't agree, as in the full color photo using dry pigments in the fresco post above.
I have no trouble making clean blues, reds and greens with transparent yellow, Magenta and cyan

It is true that these are the best three colors to have if your goal is to get the widest gamut of colors, but it is still going to be the case that there are a many possible colors you cannot mix, include full intensity reds, blues, oranges, violets, and greens.

Maybe our monitors are not matched but I see a great green, violet, orange, blue and red. These colors are no problem to make. Would you like to see colorwheels made by my students using just these primaries.? They show the full gamut. I'll have them email you to convince you if you think they can't do it.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/kiheiworkshop1.htm

Yellow is pretty damn hard to mix unless you start with two yellows in the first place, simply because the eye is so sensitive to the loss of value and intensity in that range of the spectrum. But the cyan that can be mixed from, for example, ultramarine blue and viridian, is about as convincing an approximation of cyan as any approximation of ultramarine blue you'd get out of any cyan and magenta pigments of your choosing. Same for the approximation of magenta that can be made from, say, naphthol red and ultramarine blue.

I hope you like our ultramarine blues in the class color wheels.
Magenta and yellow are primaries, and it can't be made with other primary pigments.

Thanks. Looks similar to the Munsell wheel. I agree, the biasing of hues in a wheel like that makes a lot of sense compared to the traditional biasing

1905
THEORY, Albert Munsell. He made an eight color wheel with the wrong opposition's, his triad was lopsided, and he had no Cyan. Next he darkened the colors with Black, mixed them with Gray, and tinted them with White, and numbered them all. This is still taught today.

1916,
THEORY, The last color wheel (square) of college record was by Church-Ostwald. It has Yellow, Red, Sea Green and Ult. Blue at the corners. It made way for the new coal-tar colors, all pigments were replaced by there top-tone matching colors. Naples Yellow, Rubins favorite, artist's favorite for two thousand years, was replaced by a mixture of Zinc and Ocher. Pigments were moving from the Iron Age to the Oil Age. Ostwald had no regard for opacity, or raw pigment content. Only the final dried color. This is what todays pigment manufactures make colors with. Clearly, the artists interests are not at heart before 2000 A.D. Today, 2004, I am seeing changes..

The Real Color Wheel is completely original. Made by a artist taking notes and painting every day for 30 years, me.

Thank you for being so cordial and understanding of my feelings.

Richard Saylor
08-01-2004, 10:47 PM
I just couldn't go along with cyan being said to contain yellow. Cyan is a primary PG15. It's wrong to think yellow is involved.

In pigments cyan contains no yellow.

Don, you don't seem like the sort of person who believes in the flat earth theory or thinks that pictures of astronauts on the moon were faked. So what is that bright little band between green and red in the spectral reflectance of PB15 (http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/IMG/RC/rcPB15.jpg)?

donjusko
08-02-2004, 01:40 AM
Hi Richard,

That chart is for PB15.3 which is closer to coblt blue hue pigment transparent than cyan's transparnet pigment. That would be adding blue in light, magenta in pigment.

I don't know. But I'll bet the low level of the yellow and red compaired to high level of cyan has something to do with reading the graph as to what is visible to the eye.

It is the RGB color system saying green and blue make cyan, but that's in light, not pigments. Why would you want to bring that to an artist using additive pigments? They wouldn't see the yellow or any yellow effect in their work.

When I look at Myer's graphs they show the visible spectrum. I don't have my book with me so it's hard to talk about it, but I think they mention how to read the read-outs to conform to what you see.

Yellow isn't visible in the pigment when it's read by eye, and is visable using an RGB converter.

Two different systems giving two different read-outs..

There is no yellow while printing the cyan color or painting it.
The ayes have it if your an artist painting with the pigment, yellow pigment in cyan would move it to the green side, which of course it isn't.

The element copper making blue to green pigment will not make yellow pigment no matter how much you want it to or how you read it.

So you tell me why the spectrometer should have anything to do with painting color theory, that's why I say there should be two Color Theory Topics, one for pigments one for light.

Richard Saylor
08-02-2004, 02:50 AM
...So you tell me why the spectrometer should have anything to do with painting color theory, that's why I say there should be two Color Theory Topics, one for pigments one for light.
Because all you can actually see is the light reflected by the pigments. It's true that you don't see the yellow as such in PB15, but that doesn't mean it's not there. To say that there is no yellow in PB15 is like saying there is no green (or red or yellow) in white light, merely because you don't see it as such. Yes, this is in the realm of additive color mixing, but it's not rocket science to distinguish when one is talking about light and when one is talking about the subtractive mixture of pigments.

The colors (light) reflected by the pigments determine to a large extent how they will behave in mixtures. For example, if a pigment has a very low blue reflectance, then it will tend to attenuate the blue in other pigments with which it is mixed. This is the essence of the subtractive theory. It can explain, for example, why red + blue (pigments) sometimes makes purple and sometimes makes mud.

It seems rather artificial to talk about any aspect of color without reference to light, since the only thing you see is light. If people confuse additive with subtractive mixing, then that is their problem, which can be corrected with a bit of education.

Patrick1
08-02-2004, 07:46 AM
Looking at the curve for PB15:3, there's not much yellow above the 'baseline white'...so I doubt this yellow will be of much significance in paint mixing...it's a chromatically clean near-cyan (at least in mid-tone or undertone)...that's why it's such a versatile mixer compared to other blues & 'cyans'.

Richard Saylor
08-02-2004, 08:50 AM
Looking at the curve for PB15:3, there's not much yellow above the 'baseline white'...so I doubt this yellow will be of much significance in paint mixing...it's a chromatically clean near-cyan (at least in mid-tone or undertone)...that's why it's such a versatile mixer compared to other blues & 'cyans'.
True. However, I'm trying to give up using any of the Pthalo Blues in a CMY palette for landscapes. The greens are way too intense, and toning them down with just the right proportion of Magenta is a monumental headache.

I have just about settled on Arylide Yellow Lt., Ultramarine Blue, and Quin. Rose for my primaries. It's easy to use, makes natural greens, and I believe that the narrower gamut contributes to better color harmony (the main reason I like using only three colors).

Einion
08-02-2004, 09:35 AM
It took me awhile but I think I see your problem.
Your talking about opaque paint colors, I'm talking about transparent paint colors.
It's you're by the way ;) and oh, you'd love it to be that simple wouldn't you? Where did I say I was concerned with opaque colour only? Come on, point it out to me. I didn't use the word opaque, or refer to opacity in any way in actual fact, so I don't know where you got this from.

However, since just about everyone else here paints with opaque colours, or in a largely opaque manner, it does rather call into question any ideas centred so heavily on transparency... hmm, that sounds familiar, I wouldn't have had the chance to make that point before would I? :D

There is no reason to bring up anything to do with printing, it's not really connected with painting and just confuses the issue.
No reason? Not connected? Process printing was the first practical adaptation of the scientific investigations into human vision that led to the clear proof of the real primaries, both additive and subtractive. This was long before any painter used the concepts.

I've covered this before but for anyone unfamiliar with it, process printing is done transparently (over a white ground for maximum effectiveness) using cyan, magenta, yellow and black inks, just like in the inkjet printers most of us have at home now. The black is necessary for various reasons, many of them to do with just how thin the films of ink are. Considering Don is constantly touting transparent painting, on a white ground, how could full-colour printing NOT be related? ;)

On a parallel note, Don offered to send a "300 dpi, 5" RCW that you can print out" in another thread. Since this will be printed out using the CMYK inks in one's printer, and since the black will be added automatically to darker areas, if you want a laugh take the black ink cartridge out, print it again and compare the results.

Like I said and you ignored.
Hahahaha, oh that's rich. ROFLMAO. Look at virtually every substantive thing in my post you ignored because actual facts are too difficult to counter with supposition and opinion. Even better, look back at our previous discussion and see the legion of points you let slide because you were unable to counter them - because there is so much in other people's working practices and in real-world conditions that doesn't fit into any neat little model of colour.

And while we're on the subject of our previous debates, I'm still waiting for payment on that bet you welched on Don.

Look at a cyan colored tarp, if you don't see the ult blue in it's shadows, I can't help you.
Oh so you're going to stick to a sole example are you? What about something else coloured cyan... anything else coloured cyan? They don't count because they don't fit into a neat little box (or wheel in this case) is that it? As for me not seeing it, well, as we established in our previous debates Don my colour perception is better than yours - pink shadows near the cup, battleship grey being a "perfect neutral", etc.

Do you even paint?
Despite the pointed innuendo in this question I will answer it. Not as much as I would like to because in addition to my digital illustration I've been learning to sculpt for the last nine or ten months.

3 transparent primaries will paint a full color painting. That's transparent yellow, magenta and cyan.
<sigh> We're well aware of that Don, if you bother to check you'll see we've discussed the relative merits of using the true primaries more than once, as I've pointed out to you before. And to remind you yet again, most people don't want to be forced to use transparent colour only; even many watercolourists like some variation in opacity in their paints.

What I continue to find interesting is contrasting this sort of comment of yours - focussing on how brilliant and effective only three primaries are in practice - with what you actually prefer to paint with, you recommend two yellows by choice, you're now suggesting at least two colours that flank the actual hue of magenta... this amounts to splitting the primary positions, something you've criticised at no end before. We've covered this ground previously as well.

Close doesn't count, dirty colors don't make it in an artist's book.
They don't count do they? Okay, one, you're ignoring (again) all the painting done over the centuries without resorting to any of the primaries - Supper At Emmaus must be a figment of our collective imagination then. Two, many people want lower chroma in their paintings - you can't get a much 'dirtier' cyan than French Ultramarine! - so regardless of why they choose them, sub-optimal 'primaries' are what they prefer to use because it makes achieving their desired results easier.

If you want you can tell us what pigments you use to make cyan, magenta and yellow. I could use a good laugh.
I get a good laugh every time I read anything you write since I don't recall a single thing without a glaring mistake somewhere in it. But let me start by quoting you:
Quinacridone Red is also called PR19 or PR192. Mixed with quinacridone violet PR19 they can be mixed to make PR122.
Ignoring the obvious error, it sure seems like one can mix a primary, since that's just what you've described here - supporting the simple truism that any hue can be achieved from bracketing colours.

Now, if I had to mix primaries the cyan can be mixed in a bunch of different ways, but for practical painting Cobalt Blue, Phthalo Green BS and a little white makes a good useful cyan with reasonable opacity. If you wanted a transparent one then simply mix a little PG7 into any phthalo blue. For magenta, again there are many pigment choices but one of the best options would be Quinacridone Rose mixed with the average Quinacridone Violet. For a little greater opacity Naphthol Crimson mixed with Dioxazine Purple isn't bad; although the resulting colour is a little dark in value for my taste it's useable and you can always add a smidge of white (since both colours are synthetic organic pigments the chroma rises with a small addition of white). Not rocket science as I said.

Any mixed yellow will be relatively dull, but if you have access to colours I don't an okay one could be mixed from Green Gold and Diarylide Yellow. Technically you could use Cadmium Yellow Medium as the second colour - since this is generally to the orange side of true Yellow - but I'm illustrating that you can start with a much more obvious orange-yellow and still get to the right hue, just at a lot lower chroma. I'm limiting myself to single-pigment colours here, you can actually start with any convenience green that's not too dark, like Sap Green, but the yellow pigment inside the green paint could be considered sort of cheating :)

And just a reminder, we're all waiting for some proof that there's no yellow reflected light in cyan-like pigments, that there are 'ultramarine' shadows in cyan objects and that "primaries can't be mixed from other hues".

Einion

Einion
08-02-2004, 12:20 PM
Thanks for weighing in on this guys.

As I said before, the only thing unmixable about cyan is the theoretical ideal cyan, which is just as impossible to obtain in a tube as it is to mix. It is hardly unique in that - there are an infinite number of theoretical spectral patterns which cannot be mixed or bought in a tube.

It is of course true than any mixed cyan will lack intensity compared to a tube cyan, but the same is true of blue, red, green, and any other spectral color.

It is true that these are the best three colors to have if your goal is to get the widest gamut of colors, but it is still going to be the case that there are a many possible colors you cannot mix, include full intesity reds, blues, oranges, violets, and greens.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/20-Aug-2003/3842-thumbsup.gif http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/20-Aug-2003/3842-thumbsup.gif http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/20-Aug-2003/3842-thumbsup.gif

But the cyan that can be mixed from, for example, ultramarine blue and viridian, is about as convincing an approximation of cyan as any approximation of ultramarine blue you'd get out of any cyan and magenta pigments of your choosing.
Absolutely right.


It's true that you don't see the yellow as such in PB15, but that doesn't mean it's not there. To say that there is no yellow in PB15 is like saying there is no green (or red or yellow) in white light, merely because you don't see it as such.
Exactly.

The colors (light) reflected by the pigments determine to a large extent how they will behave in mixtures. For example, if a pigment has a very low blue reflectance, then it will tend to attenuate the blue in other pigments with which it is mixed. This is the essence of the subtractive theory.
Good point.

...I'm trying to give up using any of the Pthalo Blues in a CMY palette for landscapes. The greens are way too intense, and toning them down with just the right proportion of Magenta is a monumental headache.
Yes indeed, one of the main reservations I've expressed about using them solely. All of the complementary mixing tasks tend to be tricky in actual fact, none more so than additions of the 'cyan' to make ochres, tans and dark browns from yellows, oranges and reds.


Looking at the curve for PB15:3, there's not much yellow above the 'baseline white'...so I doubt this yellow will be of much significance in paint mixing...it's a chromatically clean near-cyan (at least in mid-tone or undertone)...that's why it's such a versatile mixer compared to other blues & 'cyans'.
Yes that's true Patrick, but you wouldn't argue that it's not there. For Don to simply insist that there isn't because he says so, well...

Whether or not it is in fact significant is something none of us know enough to answer with certainty, but I personally doubt it has no effect in any circumstances. The flat reflection profile of blacks and the results they give when mixed with yellows is a clear illustration that mixing results don't always give results that are immediately predictable.


That chart is for PB15.3 which is closer to coblt blue hue pigment transparent than cyan's transparnet pigment.
Anybody else see a problem with this statement?

Einion

Marc Sabatella
08-02-2004, 04:20 PM
In photo RGB, cyan is read as simply a mix of green and blue. That doesn't work in pigments, pigments are additive and you would get mud.


This is quite simply false. For one thing, in usual terminology, pigment mixing is subtractive, not additive, but I'll assume that was either a typo or that you are using terminology in some non-standard way. But terminology aside, I work in oils and mix blue & green all the time. I absolutely assure you I don't get mud, by any definition. Your religion might tell you that blue and green should make mud, but facts say otherwise. And a basic understanding of subtractive mixing should show *why* this is the case - blue pigments will tend to reflect in the cyan hue range, as will green pigments, and when you mix then, those will be the wavelengths most strongly reflected. Not as strongly as a cyan pigment, of course - but strongly enough for the eye to identify it as the same hue. And roughly as strongly as the red or blue you can mix from CMY.

My palette, BTW, is similar to Larry's - a neutral yellow, ultramarine blue, a warm red - except I add phthalo green. I can absolutely assure you that ultramarine mixed with phthalo blue does not produce mud, but rather, an only slightly reduced intensity cyan hue. I do this all the time in mixing colors for sky, tropical waters, etc.

Also, as an aside - you say you wouldn't be happy with the darks you get with this palette, and indeed, just about all of us who have tried this palette start with that assumption. But most of us end up being surprised by the variety of darks you can actually get using these pigments, and my addition of phthalo green increases this range even more.


In pigments cyan contains no yellow.


It all depends on what you mean by "contains" here. As I pointed out before, any real cyan-like pigment does indeed *reflect* some yellow. In that sense it would be perfectly correct to say it "contains" some yellow. And a decent approximation of cyan can be made from a blue and a yellow, meaning the mixed cyan will indeed "contain" yellow pigment. Both of these are absolutely incontrovertible facts.

But it is of course trivially true that if you are using the CMY pigments to mix colors, no yellow needs to be used in "mixing" a cyan, so in that sense, the "mixed" cyan will contain no yellow pigment. Then again, it would be just as accurate to say that naphthol red "contains" no magenta by this measure.


I have no trouble making clean blues, reds and greens with transparent yellow, Magenta and cyan


Indeed, as evidenced by the charts you referred to, they end up being clean enough for practical purposes. But they are quite obviously not as intense as pigments of these hues. And the same is absolutely true of mixed cyan and magenta. I can mix a cyan or magenta that is clean *enough* for practical purposes, but it indeed won't be as clean as a more overtly cyan or magenta pigment.


Maybe our monitors are not matched but I see a great green, violet, orange, blue and red. These colors are no problem to make.


Indeed, those are great example of what I mean by close enough for practical purposes. None of those mixed colors is as intense as single pigments of those hues can be - there is no warm red anywhere on the page you posted as intense as naphthol, no blue as intense as cobalt - but you almost never *need* that sort of intensity, so it's fine. And the same is true of mixed cyan and magenta. If you've never personally mixed a cyan or magenta you consider clean enough, my guess is at least one of the following is going on:

1) You have already bought into this particular religion, so you never really tried very hard to mix a good cyan or magenta, because you were already convinced it couldn't be done.

2) Your standard for a "clean enough" cyan or magenta is unreasonably high compared to your standard for a clean enough red or blue, presumably because you are wanting them to be clean enough to actually serve as primaries, not to serve a practical value in a painting.


THEORY, Albert Munsell. He made an eight color wheel
with the wrong opposition's, his triad was lopsided, and he had no Cyan. Next he darkened the colors with Black, mixed them with Gray, and tinted them with White, and numbered them all. This is still taught today.


The is a pretty bad summary of the Munsell wheel. For one thing, the version of the Munsell system taught most today identifies five primaries, not three or eight. Any summary that doesn't reference this is pretty misleading. And since his wheel was based on human perception, not mixing per se, it makes sense that cyan didn't get a special label, as most humans don't identify it as strongly as the Munsell primaries. The labelling of the hue positions is not what I am talking about, it is the hue positions themselves. Also, I was specifically referring to the hue positions on the wheels, not the modelling of value or intensity.


The Real Color Wheel is completely original. Made by a artist taking notes and painting every day for 30 years, me.


Oh, I agree it differs from Munsell's in significant ways, that have a lot to do with the fact that yours is based on color mixing, not color perception. This does indeed affects the biasing as well as the labelling. Still, when you actually look at the three wheels - the standard RYB wheel, the Munsell wheel, and yours, I see a stronger correlation in the actual hues between the Munsell and yours than between any other two - hence my comment.

Marc Sabatella
08-02-2004, 04:39 PM
I have just about settled on Arylide Yellow Lt., Ultramarine Blue, and Quin. Rose for my primaries. It's easy to use, makes natural greens, and I believe that the narrower gamut contributes to better color harmony (the main reason I like using only three colors).

FWIW, I used exactly that combination for a while, and did indeed find it quite useful, especially for landscape painting. Eventually I started to feel it was difficult to control mixed oranges and added naphthol, but I've since come to accept that the quinacridone was perfeclty adequate and could be made easier to use simply by premixing a good quantity of orange before commencing a painting. But I continued to find occasions to want a more intense green than one I could mix in this way - a traffic light, a street sign, water in the Bahamas - so I added phthalo green. It also helped mix better clear skies. But I use it extremely sparingly, and I generally use only one red for a given painting.

donjusko
08-03-2004, 02:55 AM
E. it does rather call into question any ideas centred so heavily on transparency... hmm, that sounds familiar, I wouldn't have had the chance to make that point before would I?
I'm still waiting for payment on that bet you welched on Don.
Funny, I thought I won.
Things I don't respond to I don't deem necessary or reverent, like some of this post.
this amounts to splitting the primary positions,
No, it's simply the positions magenta takes, magenta, warm and cool.
you can't get a much 'dirtier' cyan than French Ultramarine!
How can I answer this statement of your facts? French Ultramarine isn't cyan, not even close. Originally Posted by donjusko
Quinacridone Red is also called PR19 or PR192. Mixed with quinacridone violet PR19 they can be mixed to make PR122.
Ignoring the obvious error, it sure seems like one can mix a primary, since that's just what you've described here - supporting the simple truism that any hue can be achieved from bracketing colours.
Where are you coming from? There is no error, quin red and quin violet both have the same Pigment Color Number. This can only be done with transparent magentas. There is a warm and cool magenta because all three colors are in the same chemical on the same path. Not so with cyan's chemical path, adding yellow is foreign and pigments can't subtract it out when they are mixed.
but for practical painting Cobalt Blue, Phthalo Green BS and a little white makes a good useful cyan with reasonable opacity.
Maybe your are trying to make a cerulean because you didn't make a cyan. That's how you lost that bet, but it just goes right over your head.
If you wanted a transparent one (cyan) then simply mix a little PG7 into any phthalo blue.
It's hard to keep talking to you, green has yellow in it, cyan doesn't. An artist using cyan in their palette knows this, you don't seem to get the point but talk like you know otherwise even though you don't paint. Your mixtures for yellow are ridicules. Reflected yellow color in cyan that you can't see but that you can prove is there, and you think that's helpful in mixing colors. More like it's trying to make your ideas work. They don't.
And just a reminder, we're all waiting for some proof that there's no yellow reflected light in cyan-like pigments, that there are 'ultramarine' shadows in cyan objects and that "primaries can't be mixed from other hues".
You should stick to sculpturing and printing.
Anybody else see a problem with this statement?
Yea, you don't like interchanging the words hue with color, I do.

Mark
This is quite simply false. For one thing, in usual terminology, pigment mixing is subtractive, not additive, but I'll assume that was either a typo or that you are using terminology in some non-standard way.
Add red and green in pigment and you get a darker color, that's additive. Add red and green in light and get a lighter yellow, that's subtractive.
Your religion might tell you that blue and green should make mud, but facts say otherwise.
Not as strongly as a cyan pigment, of course - but strongly enough for the eye to identify it as the same hue. And roughly as strongly as the red or blue you can mix from CMY.
How can you say that when I gave you an image that shows the strength of the mixed reds and blues. CM=B YC=G, B+G=CMYC CMY=white leaving cyan. That's CMY/RGB all right, not for pigments. Who are you trying to confuse with your slipping back and forth between systems, the two are separate, each with it's own rules.
I can absolutely assure you that ultramarine mixed with phthalo blue does not produce mud, but rather, an only slightly reduced intensity cyan hue. I do this all the time in mixing colors for sky, tropical waters, etc.
What you are getting is a color closer to cobalt blue. You wouldn't start reducing intensity until you added the third primary.
And a decent approximation of cyan can be made from a blue and a yellow, meaning the mixed cyan will indeed "contain" yellow pigment. Both of these are absolutely incontrovertible facts.
An approximation color to be sure, but not a very good one, and not one good enough to use. Well I wouldn't use it, and I want artists to get to my level and learn to mix pigments correctly. My mixed red, orange, green and blue are very satisfactory and strong colors, don't demean them in trying to make your point.
The is a pretty bad summary of the Munsell wheel. For one thing, the version of the Munsell system taught most today identifies five primaries, not three or eight. Any summary that doesn't reference this is pretty misleading. And since his wheel was based on human perception, not mixing per se, it makes sense that cyan didn't get a special label, as most humans don't identify it as strongly as the Munsell primaries. The labeling of the hue positions is not what I am talking about, it is the hue positions themselves. Also, I was specifically referring to the hue positions on the wheels, not the modeling of value or intensity.
It seems you are aware of the changes being made to the Munsell color theory, yes they are scrambling but they are doomed from the start.
Still, when you actually look at the three wheels - the standard RYB wheel, the Munsell wheel, and yours, I see a stronger correlation in the actual hues between the Munsell and yours than between any other two - hence my comment.
There has never been another color wheel that takes how the colors themselves darken, the CMY/RGB darkens to black, we have the same rim colors but it stops there, the Munsell is just wrong all over.

Richard Saylor
08-03-2004, 10:04 AM
Add red and green in pigment and you get a darker color, that's additive. Add red and green in light and get a lighter yellow, that's subtractive.
Is this just a mistake (like using PR19 instead of PV19 for Quinacridone Violet and PG15 instead of PB15 for Pthalo Blue), or are you trying to appear clever and innovative?

Marc Sabatella
08-04-2004, 12:23 AM
green has yellow in it, cyan doesn't


OK, here's a chance to quantify justy what you mean by "green has yellow in it". There is absolutely no sense in which a single wavelength of green light has yellow in it. It is green, pure and simple, incapable of being broken down further. In theory, there might be some pigments that reflect green wavelengths of light and no yellow wavelengths, although in practice none exist. If they did, those pigments could also not reasonably be said to contain yellow. Now, real world existing green pigments will reflect some yellow light, to be sure - but so do real world cyan pigments. Not as much, perhaps, because the cyan wavelengths are further from yellow than the green wavelengths are, but still, the difference is only of degree, and is not a qualitatively difference of the sort "one contains yellow, the other doesn't".

Now, it is true that greens can often be mixed from a blue and a yellow, if they both reflect enough green wavelengths so that the end result reflects those wavelengths most strongly. But again, the same is true of cyan - if you have a yellow pigment that reflects strongly enough in the cyan range, and mix it with a blue, you'll get something that is just as cyan as the former mixture was green. Which is to say, the perceived hue will be cyan or green, but the intensity will be less than that of a single pigment that reflected mostly in either of those wavelengths.



Reflected yellow color in cyan that you can't see but that you can prove is there, and you think that's helpful in mixing colors.


In what sense can you not see the yellow? If those wavelengths are reflected your eye is most certainly responding to them. If you aren't *conscious* of yellow wavelengths being there, that's another matter, but then again, how *conscious* are we we of the yellow wavelengths in green? We "see" yellow in green mostly because we've been taught since childhood that green is blue + yellow.

But anyhow, whether you can "see" the yellow in a given cyan or green pigment or not is beside the point. Knowing the reflectance of different pigments *is* helpful in mixing colors, if you know how to make use of that info. Actually, the fact that cyan pigments will reflect some yellow isn't particularly useful in mixing a cyan. What is useful is knowing how much cyan is reflected by the yellow you plan to use in mixing your cyan. The more cyan in the yellow, the better. But, again, you won't be conscious of seeing that cyan in the yellow.


you don't like interchanging the words hue with color
[/QUOTES]

That's because as these terms are traditionally defined and understood by the vast majority of artists, they are *not* the same thing. Hue is but component of color. You can of course invent your own language where they are interchangeable; this would be akin to me arbtrarily deciding to use the word "fruit" interchangeably with "apple". Sure, I *could*go around talking about the apples they make Merlot wine from, or the apples that are so rich in vitamin C that a lot of people juice and drink for breakfast, or the apples that people like to squeeze into their Mexican beers or their margaritas, but why would I want to confuse people like that by using the term "apple" differently than virtually everyone I might talk to?

[QUOTE]
Add red and green in pigment and you get a darker color, that's additive. Add red and green in light and get a lighter yellow, that's subtractive.


You have this exactly backwards. Check any reference on the matter whatsoever. Additive mixing is what light does, subtractive is what pigment does.


How can you say that when I gave you an image that shows the strength of the mixed reds and blues.


It showed the strength, indeed - it showed the strength to be considerably less than single pigments of those hues. They were strong enough to read as red or blue for most practical purposes, but if you can't see how much intensity they've lost, then your vision is not as acute as mine.


CM=B YC=G, B+G=CMYC CMY=white leaving cyan. That's CMY/RGB all right, not for pigments. Who are you trying to confuse with your slipping back and forth between systems, the two are separate, each with it's own rules.


I've read the above several times, and have no response to it simply because I have no idea what you are talking about. That is, I have no idea what I might have said that the above would have been a relevant response to.

Earlier, I had said: "I can absolutely assure you that ultramarine mixed with phthalo blue does not produce mud, but rather, an only slightly reduced intensity cyan hue. I do this all the time in mixing colors for sky, tropical waters, etc."

You responded:


What you are getting is a color closer to cobalt blue. You wouldn't start reducing intensity until you added the third primary.


Here, I must apologize - I meant to say I mix ultramarine blue with phthalo *green* (not blue) and get a perfectly adequate cyan hue.


An approximation color to be sure, but not a very good one, and not one good enough to use.


Depends on what you want to use it for. If you want to use it as a primary for mixing other colors, you're right - it's going to be pretty weak. But why would I want to do that, since if I want to mix other colors, I can do so directly from the colors on my palette? I mean, it is going to a close enough approximation to cyan to actually use in a painting when I want to paint an object that has cyan hue. Absolutely nothing that has ever existed on this planet, or is ever likely to exist, is actually true cyan in color - nothing reflects even remotely like that particular reflectance pattern. Objects that appear cyan in hue are nowhere near as intense as true cyan, and can be painted quite adequately using the mixed cyan.

Conversely, the red you get by mixing magenta and yellow would be as useless as the mixed cyan if you wanted to use that as one of your primaries for mixing other colors. But it's more than sufficient for painting real world objects that appear to be red.


My mixed red, orange, green and blue are very satisfactory and strong colors, don't demean them in trying to make your point.


Oh, I don't mean to demean them. At least, no more than you demean the cyans I can mix from blue and green. In fact, I can go further - the *only* thing in the whole world the mixed cyan would not be able to represent completely convincingly would be an object that itself was painted with a cyan pigment. Similarly, about the only thing the mixed red would not be able to represent completely convincingly would be an object that itself was painted with a red pigment. And even so, so what? There are all sorts of things we cannot paint completely convincingly. It is physically impossible to get the same value range we see in real life into a painting. Assuming we have a painting being viewed under incandescent light, absolutely nothing in that painting will be as bright as a white object seen in direct sunlight, and absolutely nothing will be as dark as a black object see in shadow. We rely on approximations all the time. So I'm not saying that failure of real life CMY pigments to make perfect reds is an insurmountable problem. But similarly, the failure of real life blue, green, or yellow pigments to make perfect cyans is no real problem either.

donjusko
08-04-2004, 01:01 AM
Richard said, Is this just a mistake (like using PR19 instead of PV19 for Quinacridone Violet and PG15 instead of PB15 for Pthalo Blue), or are you trying to appear clever and innovative?
Sorry about that..
Don said, D.S quinacridone PM202 magenta can be made with D.S. PR19 quinacridone red and PR122 quinacridone violet, quinacridone red is on the warm side for your only magenta but is still able to make reds and neutral darks with green to turquoise. It will also make an exceptable blue but not as good as quinacridone violet or quinacridone magenta will.
My Correction, Quin red is named PV19, quin violet is both called PV19 and PR122 by Senopia and Liquitex, then Liquitex changed it to quin magenta. Quin magenta is both called PR122 and PM202 by D.S. One is their w/c, the other their dry pigment. Just to add to the confusion of the lame Pigment Color Number system.

PG15 was wrong, PB15 is correct for Phthalo cyan. Pthalo is spelt wrong, we all make mistakes.

Larry said,
(1)Magenta perhaps with the cyan creates a close proximity to ultramarine...however...if you consider the yellow content of the pthalo mixing with the red of the magenta, mixing a form of orange that then would act as a neutral to the blue content of pthalo...rather than a warm one would lean more towards a neutral.

(2)By the same token....in fairness, neutrals can be mixed well with ultramarine...and Surfer's (Pierre Bouret) work is testament to that.

(3)Your observation though of nice warms possible with CYM might suggest well though that pthalo is not necessarily a cool blue. That yellow content in pthalo is more influential than many might recognize. IF pthalo is not then the cool blue....ultramarine is the essential other.

(4)When I consider it...pthalo is blue plus yellow....
ultramarine is blue plus red....

(5)I'm one that has taught pthalo is warm...and not totally persuaded one way or the other.

and as a painter wholly versed in color temperature, in my thinking yellow is warmer than red, thus by default pthalo would be warmer.

(1)You are talking about the YMC/RGB light color system here. It is not the same as the pigment system. I have said Wet Canvas need another Color Theory section, one for light and one for pigment. Over time artist have been made confused, it doesn't help when the term YMC is used by itself. YMC is a light color wheel, when used as a pigment color wheel yellow, and all colors go to black. Yellow should not only darken to green as in light, it should darken to red in pigments. Then it will contain ochers and browns. Yellow-green, the color to the left of yellow would then darken to green, well it would darken to raw umber which is greener before going black.
(2)Ultramarine blue is opposite yellow, dark yellow is burnt umber, burnt umber and ult. blue mix neutral. Hawaii has a lot of good artists.
(3)Yellow is present in cyan only in light's YMC/RGB color wheel. So what if a photo mechanical device reads some yellow in cyan, that's the light system it's based on.
(4)The light system again, the two cannot be interchanged. Blue and red in pigments is mud, blue and yellow is dirty or grayed green, whichever way you prefer to look at it.
(5)Yellow is the warmest color, blue is the coolest. Cyan and magenta are both cooler then yellow. Either cool color can be made to look warm next to blue, but that only changes their relative temperature.

Richard Saylor
08-04-2004, 02:03 AM
(3)Yellow is present in cyan only in light's YMC/RGB color wheel. So what if a photo mechanical device reads some yellow in cyan, that's the light system it's based on.
You are confused. There is no yellow in cyan in the light color wheel, but there is yellow reflected by the pigment PB15.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/23-May-2004/31398-wheel.gif

Consider the light color wheel. RGB are the light primaries, and YMC are the light secondaries. Each secondary is flanked on either side by it's primary components. Since green + blue = cyan, there is no red in cyan. (In fact, cyan is the light complement of red.) If cyan contains no red, then it also contains no yellow, since yellow contains red (red + green = yellow).

It follows that if PB15 were a perfect cyan pigment, it would reflect only blue and green, no yellow at all. However, most (all?) pigments reflect at least a little of each of the spectral colors, and PB15 is no exception. It still makes an excellent cyan, however.

donjusko
08-04-2004, 10:07 PM
Ok, i thought you were saying because green in pigments is a mix yellow and cyan and
in light cyan is green and blue and because green has yellow in it, cyan must have yellow in it too.
This of course is wrong.

Reading cyan pigment by eye has no yellow in it, artists paint by eye.
Reading cyan with an RGB based optical instrament will show some yellow, I agree. But as this can't be seen by eye it doesn't matter much to the artist, although it might to a printer matching the color with RGB.

The two should not be confused as one system, do you agree with that?

Do you think it would be important to have to Color Theory topics?

donjusko
08-04-2004, 10:48 PM
Hi Mark,

"how *conscious* are we we of the yellow wavelengths in green? We "see" yellow in green mostly because we've been taught since childhood that green is blue + yellow."

We were all taught wrong, green is cyan and yellow, knowing this it's easy to see the yellow in cyan.

" You have this exactly backwards. Check any reference on the matter whatsoever. Additive mixing is what light does, subtractive is what pigment does."

Additive in pigments is adding two pigments together, both pigments can be seen as the result.
In light color is subtracted of intensity and color, green saturated and blue saturated make cyan unsaturated. No saturated blue or green is visible because light is subtractive.

"Absolutely nothing that has ever existed on this planet, or is ever likely to exist, is actually true cyan in color - nothing reflects even remotely like that particular reflectance pattern. "

10,000 high on my mountain looking at the sky toward the horizon is the perfect cyan. What's more, when I look directly overhead I see the perfect royal blue. This is the chemical path of phthalocyanine, cyan to blue, PB15 to PB15.3.

" Conversely, the red you get by mixing magenta and yellow would be as useless as the mixed cyan if you wanted to use that as one of your primaries for mixing other colors."

Red in pigments is not a primary. We were taught wrong an this must be changed. With the three correct primaries red is just another mixture as blue or brown.

"But similarly, the failure of real life blue, green, or yellow pigments to make perfect cyans is no real problem either."

That is unless you were trying to make a transparent cyan to wash another color with, which I do all the time with my transparent colors. Now I'm not saying I don't use pre-made opaque colors, or change the transparent to opaques.
I'm saying transparent cyan is a major color you should not be without.

Richard Saylor
08-04-2004, 11:46 PM
Reading cyan pigment by eye has no yellow in it, artists paint by eye.
Reading cyan with an RGB based optical instrament will show some yellow, I agree. But as this can't be seen by eye it doesn't matter much to the artist, although it might to a printer matching the color with RGB.

The two should not be confused as one system, do you agree with that?

Do you think it would be important to have to Color Theory topics?
Is the photospectrometer an RGB instrument? I thought it measures wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum.

When we look at a pigment, the only thing we can see is the light which it reflects. It is impossible to discuss color (in pigments or otherwise) without referring explicitly or implicitly to light, and RGB theory is relevant to that. There are not two separate color theories, one for light and another for pigment. All visible color is light, including the color we see in pigments.

There's nothing wrong with color theory topics. They are kinda fun.

Einion
08-05-2004, 08:18 AM
You should stick to sculpturing and printing.
I thought I should start with this point. In all seriousness Don, are you actually suggesting that being a painter is the only thing that qualifies someone to talk about colour?

Yea, you don't like interchanging the words hue with color, I do.
That's one of the main problems - colour and hue are two different concepts. This isn't my opinion or anything else you can dismiss out of hand, it's just the way it is. This is fundamental stuff, it's one of the first distinctions taught in many colour guides and courses for crying out loud.

No, it's simply the positions magenta takes, magenta, warm and cool.
Magenta is one hue and one hue only, not a range of hues roughly in that position on the colour wheel.

Maybe your are trying to make a cerulean because you didn't make a cyan. That's how you lost that bet, but it just goes right over your head.
And you wonder why so many of us don't agree with the things you say. For the first cyan mix I was aiming for opacity, not for dark value in masstone, but the correct hue can be achieved. Regardless of your view, the chroma of Cerulean Blue is far lower than either of the two mixes I mentioned (and the wrong hue) but that's not the point, the HUE was. I'm not suggesting for a moment that anyone take my word for this, they can confirm it for themselves in a few moments at the palette.

As for the second mix using a phthalo blue and Phthalo Green Blue Shade, how could that not be pretty decent? Its masstone is dark in value and it has a high-chroma undercolour and tint, as anyone familiar with the two starting colours would expect.

Reading cyan with an RGB based optical instrament will show some yellow, I agree.
Since this is finally some headway on this point I won't belabour this, but a spectrophotometer is not an RGB device, many use the CIELAB colourspace, which encompasses the entire visible spectrum, not the relatively small gamut of RGB.

Your mixtures for yellow are ridicules.
I said they would be dull straight out of the gate (although Green Gold and Cad Yellow Med isn't that bad) but they are the correct hue. That's all I said they would be. Anyway, you described the mixing of a primary yourself.

Reflected yellow color in cyan that you can't see but that you can prove is there, and you think that's helpful in mixing colors. More like it's trying to make your ideas work. They don't.
Dumping what I originally said in response to this I'll point out two things, first let me repeat again I didn't say it was significant, I just said it was there. Second, I'm not promoting any one colour-mixing concept and 'trying to make it work'.

An approximation color to be sure, but not a very good one, and not one good enough to use.
Not good enough to use eh? You may not consider it good enough but you can't ignore the fact that people paint successfully with whole palettes you don't think are good enough to use, including virtually everyone else here.

This is the chemical path of phthalocyanine, cyan to blue, PB15 to PB15.3.
Didn't I just inform you that this is not the case (http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2567401#post2567401)? Talk about something going right over one's head, sheesh.

Einion

Marc Sabatella
08-05-2004, 02:44 PM
We were all taught wrong, green is cyan and yellow, knowing this it's easy to see the yellow in cyan.


It is *not* wrong to say blue and yellow make green. They do. Even a moment's experience with actual paint will prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Of course, green can *also* be mixed from cyan and yellow, and since cyan is closer to green on the color wheel, you're likely to get a purer green. Still, not as good as if you mixed two colors that were even *closer* to green on the color wheel, like say a bluish green and a yellowish green.


Additive in pigments is adding two pigments together, both pigments can be seen as the result.
In light color is subtracted of intensity and color, green saturated and blue saturated make cyan unsaturated. No saturated blue or green is visible because light is subtractive.


All I can do is repeat what I said before. You are using the terminology incorrectly. Every reference that has ever been written on the subject of color mixing uses "subtractive" to refer to what pigments do, "additive" to refer to what light does. If you want to be taken at all seriously in this forum, it would behoove you to look it up in any of these sources at all and start using the terminology correctly.


10,000 high on my mountain looking at the sky toward the horizon is the perfect cyan.


Not likely at all. Have you actually performed as spectroscopic analysis to see if it is putting out equal amount of all wavelengths in the blue and green regions of the spectrum, and 0% of the rest of the spectrum? *That's* a perfect cyan. Anything else - sky included - is just a color that happens to be more or less the same hue as cyan, but are often different in value and always of less intensity. And that's exactly the sort of thing than can be mixed - not perfect cyans, but cyan-hued colors of different value and lesser intensity.

There is another issue


Red in pigments is not a primary.


Depends on how you define "primary". Many red pigments are incapable of being mixed exactly, and the same is true of many blues, yellows, oranges, greens, and violets. Furthermore, red can be used as one of a set of three colors than mix a whole lot of other colors, just as cyan can. It so happens that the triad you consider the primaries can mix a larger gamut of colors than any other triad. But no set of three colors can mix everything. Not in the real world, not even if we leave the real world and start talking about the theoretically perfect magenta, cyan, and yellow. All colors made from these would end up containing the exact same reflectance everywhere within the blue region, and the exact same reflectance everywhere within the green region, and the exact same reflectance everywhere within the yellow region. There would be a literally finite number of reflectance patterns that could not be generated from this.


"But similarly, the failure of real life blue, green, or yellow pigments to make perfect cyans is no real problem either."

That is unless you were trying to make a transparent cyan to wash another color with, which I do all the time with my transparent colors.


Well, you can certainly create a transparent mixed cyan, but of course, it's characteristics in a wash will differ from those of a more intense single pigment cyan. Similarly, your mixed transparent red will have different wash characteristics from a more intense single pigment red. Now, if your personal painting style happens to be such that it is more valuable to you to have as intense a cyan wash as possible and you are willing to sacrifice the intensity of your red wash, that's your business, but you have to realize that's a personal choice and has nothing to do with one's ability to actually represent the colors of nature. CMY will indeed give you the largest gamut of any three colors, but it is trivially easy to exceed that gamut within using cyan or magenta if one is allowed more than three colors on one's palette. This is what I mean when I say there is really no great loss in not having the world's best approximation of cyan on your palette.

Marc Sabatella
08-05-2004, 03:02 PM
Reading cyan pigment by eye has no yellow in it, artists paint by eye.
Reading cyan with an RGB based optical instrament will show some yellow, I agree. But as this can't be seen by eye it doesn't matter much to the artist, although it might to a printer matching the color with RGB.


As I said before, if there is yellow there, you can see it. you mighyt not be 8aware* of seeing it, but you can see it. Cyan pigments are absolutely, positively, no different from green pigments in this respect, except in degree: green pigments will typically reflect *more* yellow than cyan ones will. But if it is theoretically possible for there to exist a cyan pigment that reflects no yellow, it is just as possible to have a green pigment that reflects no yellow. It realloy just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say green contains yellow and cyan doesn't, because there is no real practical sense in which there is a qualitative difference.


The two should not be confused as one system, do you agree with that?

Do you think it would be important to have to Color Theory topics?

I don't see why that would be necessary. Color theory is color theory. The fact that color behaves differently when we use light sources rather than pigment are two sides of the same coin. So far in this discussion, it has been perfectly clear that everyone participating is talking about subtractive pigment mixing; no one has gotten the least bit confused and started talking about additive light mixing, unless you count your misure of the terminology (and even so, it is clear from context what you are talking about).

Furthermore, within the realm of subtractive pigment mixing, there is no different "CMY theory" versus "RYB theory" or anything like that. Subtractive mixing is subtractive mixing, regardless of what colors you use as inputs.

Richard Saylor
08-05-2004, 06:12 PM
Additive in pigments is adding two pigments together, both pigments can be seen as the result.
If yellow is mixed with blue...excuse me...yellow is mixed with cyan to make a middle green, I don't see the yellow and cyan unless they aren't mixed very well. I see green, which is reflected light with a wavelength in the vicinity of 510nm.

This is subtractive mixing. Here's a rough (and imprecise) explanation in terms of reflected light, but it illustrates the basic idea. Cyan absorbs (subtracts) its complement, red, from white light. Likewise yellow absorbs blue from white light. Therefore, when cyan and yellow are combined subtractively, both red and blue are subtracted from white light, leaving only green to be reflected by the mixture.

Richard Saylor
08-06-2004, 06:49 PM
All I can do is repeat what I said before. You are using the terminology incorrectly. Every reference that has ever been written on the subject of color mixing uses "subtractive" to refer to what pigments do, "additive" to refer to what light does. If you want to be taken at all seriously in this forum, it would behoove you to look it up in any of these sources at all and start using the terminology correctly.
Alas, Mark, the problem is conceptual, not terminological.
Additive in pigments is adding two pigments together, both pigments can be seen as the result.
Don is saying that pigment mixing is really additive, that when we mix magenta and yellow, what we see is magenta and yellow. This essentially reverses the known fact that when magenta and yellow pigments are mixed, then red or orange appears because the other colors in white light are attenuated so that red or orange becomes the dominant wavelength reflected by the mixture. In fact, magenta and yellow lose their identities when they are mixed, because both the blue in magenta and the green in yellow are attenuated.

In the same way, cyan and yellow lose their identities when they are mixed to make green. Therefore it is impossible to see cyan and yellow in the mixture.

donjusko
08-06-2004, 09:25 PM
Richard is right. If I'm using only three colors I see green as yellow and cyan, or a dull green as yellow, red and cyan.

I wrote this last night off line, it's rather a compileation of this thread from where I came in. I hope no one minds my text way of doing it. Comments are in quotes.


"how *conscious* are we we of the yellow wavelengths in green? We "see" yellow in green mostly because we've been taught since childhood that green is blue + yellow."

DON, We were all taught wrong, green is cyan and yellow, knowing this, it's easy to see the yellow in cyan. Yellow and blue start to neutralize

"You have this exactly backwards. Check any reference on the matter whatsoever. Additive mixing is what light does, subtractive is what pigment does."

DON, Additive in pigments is adding two pigments together, both pigments mixed can be seen as the result.
In light, color is subtracted of intensity and color, green saturated and blue saturated make cyan unsaturated. I have said, no saturated blue or green is visible because light is subtractive.

"All I can do is repeat what I said before. You are using the terminology incorrectly. Every reference that has ever been written on the subject of color mixing uses "subtractive" to refer to what pigments do, "additive" to refer to what light does. If you want to be taken at all seriously in this forum, it would behoove you to look it up in any of these sources at all and start using the terminology correctly.


DON, Somewhere over the years additive and subtractive have become confused. It's time to straighten it out. Transparent additive mixes two colors and they become a third color as with pigments, Subtractive adds two colors and they becomes lighter and less saturated like with light. As simple as that, no double talk, straight on facts.

"If yellow is mixed with blue...excuse me...yellow is mixed with cyan to make a middle green, I don't see the yellow and cyan unless they aren't mixed very well. I see green, which is reflected light with a wavelength in the vicinity of 510nm."

"This is subtractive mixing. Here's a rough (and imprecise) explanation in terms of reflected light, but it illustrates the basic idea. Cyan absorbs (subtracts) its complement, red, from white light. Likewise yellow absorbs blue from white light. Therefore, when cyan and yellow are combined subtractively, both red and blue are subtracted from white light, leaving only green to be reflected by the mixture."

DON,
-Additive as light goes this way.
Newton experiments dispersed white light through a prism and made all the colors of the spectrum. If the colored rays were again combined they would make white light. This is know as additive color mixing because more light us being added with each additional color.
-Subtractive as light goes this way.
In light, green's light is saturated and blue is saturated, together they make a lighter cyan which is called unsaturated. No saturated blue or green is visible in cyan because light is subtractive. I think that is a better explanation then the one currently in use.
I'll also say only a transparent colored substance will absorb colors from white light as it passes through the colored substance. An opaque colored substance reflects it's own color and no others from white light. No color is absorbed because the white light was never devided, white light is only reflecting a color it contains.
-Subtractive as pigments mixed goes this way.
The addition of color pigment subtracts from the light reflected.
-Additive in pigments goes this way. Yellow, magenta and cyan are the pure mixing colors. Adding two together produces a third color equally as strong. It doesn't subtract any color. Adding all three together produces a black color. The darker color has to be strong to see dark in white light.

"Absolutely nothing that has ever existed on this planet, or is ever likely to exist, is actually true cyan in color - nothing reflects even remotely like that particular reflectance pattern. "

DON, 10,000 high on my mountain looking at the sky toward the horizon is the perfect cyan. What's more, when I look directly overhead I see the perfect royal blue. This is the chemical path of phthalocyanine, cyan to blue, PB15 to PB15.3 and on to a purple.

"Conversely, the red you get by mixing magenta and yellow would be as useless as the mixed cyan if you wanted to use that as one of your primaries for mixing other colors."

DON, Red in pigments is not a primary. We were taught wrong an this must be changed. With the three correct primaries red is just another mixture as blue or brown are.

"But similarly, the failure of real life blue, green, or yellow pigments to make perfect cyans is no real problem either."

DON, That is unless you were trying to make a transparent cyan to wash another color with, which I do all the time with my transparent colors. Now I'm not saying I don't use pre-made opaque colors, or change the transparent to opaques.
I'm saying transparent cyan is a major color you should not be without and it can't be mixed.

DON, Reading cyan pigment by eye has no yellow in it, artists paint by eye.
Reading cyan with an RGB based optical instrament will show some yellow, I agree. But as this can't be seen by eye it doesn't matter much to the artist, although it might to a printer matching the color with RGB.

DON, The light and pigment systems should not be confused as one system, do you agree with that? I think the two systems are different and shouldn't be joined together, one has nothing to do with the other.

Is the photospectrometer an RGB instrument? I thought it measures wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum.

When we look at a pigment, the only thing we can see is the light which it reflects. It is impossible to discuss color (in pigments or otherwise) without referring explicitly or implicitly to light, and RGB theory is relevant to that. There are not two separate color theories, one for light and another for pigment. All visible color is light, including the color we see in pigments.
There's nothing wrong with color theory topics. They are kinda fun.

DON, Everything we see is from reflected light. Artists match what is seen by reflected light with pigments. It's easy when you have a correct triad palette, large or small. It's impossible when using red, blue and yellow as the triad unless cyan and magenta are added. Since I say cyan and magenta can't be mixed with red, yellow and blue, magenta and cyan have to be added from outside that incorrect triad. Doing that will give you all the correct oppositions. Even then the yellow should be transparent to work with the transparent magenta and cyan.

"I thought I should start with this point. In all seriousness Don, are you actually suggesting that being a painter is the only thing that qualifies someone to talk about colour?"

DON, The artist mixes pigments to make new colors, there is no substitute for that.

DON, I like interchanging the words hue with color.

"That's one of the main problems - colour and hue are two different concepts. This isn't my opinion or anything else you can dismiss out of hand, it's just the way it is. This is fundamental stuff, it's one of the first distinctions taught in many colour guides and courses for crying out loud."

DON, so you say. Most color guides I have seen are wrong in more then one respect. Oh, and lets not forget hue as the fake original color.

DON, Runge said Hue was the color itself, Ostwald and Munsell also used relationship. Runge said Saturation or Chroma was the intensity of each color and Value was the relative lightness or darkness to a fixed gray scale

"As for the second mix using a phthalo blue and Phthalo Green Blue Shade, how could that not be pretty decent (cyan)? Its masstone is dark in value and it has a high-chroma undercolour and tint, as anyone familiar with the two starting colours would expect."

DON, cyan PB15 doesn't have to be mixed with anything to be cyan.


"It is *not* wrong to say blue and yellow make green. They do. Even a moment's experience with actual paint will prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Of course, green can *also* be mixed from cyan and yellow, and since cyan is closer to green on the color wheel, you're likely to get a purer green. Still, not as good as if you mixed two colors that were even *closer* to green on the color wheel, like say a bluish green and a yellowish green."


DON, 10,000 high on my mountain looking at the sky toward the horizon is the perfect cyan.

Not likely at all. Have you actually performed as spectroscopic analysis to see if it is putting out equal amount of all wavelengths in the blue and green regions of the spectrum, and 0% of the rest of the spectrum? *That's* a perfect cyan. Anything else - sky included - is just a color that happens to be more or less the same hue as cyan, but are often different in value and always of less intensity. And that's exactly the sort of thing than can be mixed - not perfect cyans, but cyan-hued colors of different value and lesser intensity.

DON, Visual cyan, spectroscopic cyan, transparent chemical pigment cyan all represent the same color. Transparent pigment cyan from mass to tint will match the visual cyan. RGB cyan only matches the pigment's tint. Mix made cyans containing colors other then cyan are only close.

DON, Red in pigments is not a primary.

Depends on how you define "primary". Many red pigments are incapable of being mixed exactly, and the same is true of many blues, yellows, oranges, greens, and violets.

DON , This is going down the wrong trail. Most colors can be mixed with transparent magenta, transparent cyan and transparent yellow. More then with any other set of colors, many more. They are primary. No other set of colors can come even close. Just because you can't get match a color exactly doesn't make it a primary.

Furthermore, red can be used as one of a set of three colors than mix a whole lot of other colors, just as cyan can.

DON, it can't make magenta, but magenta can make red. Red is secondary.

"It so happens that the triad you consider the primaries can mix a larger gamut of colors than any other triad. But no set of three colors can mix everything."

DON, somethings wrong here, the statements you are making sound slanted. The minor limitations of yellow, magenta and cyan are nothing compared to any other combinations limitations, yet you are trying to make them seem equal.

"Not in the real world, not even if we leave the real world and start talking about the theoretically perfect magenta, cyan, and yellow. All colors made from these would end up containing the exact same reflectance everywhere within the blue region, and the exact same reflectance everywhere within the green region, and the exact same reflectance everywhere within the yellow region. There would be a literally finite number of reflectance patterns that could not be generated from this."

DON, Wow, I give you a link to a painted color wheel made by 15 serious artists, and you tell me it's not a good color wheel because the reflectance patterns are limited. So much for reflectance patterns. We paint by eye and match colors by eye but you say we are not getting the colors we see.. because the reflectance patterns are limited.
That is double talk to me an artist and a waste time listening to.

"But similarly, the failure of real life blue, green, or yellow pigments to make perfect cyans is no real problem either."

DON. That is unless you were trying to make a transparent cyan to wash another color with, which I do all the time with my transparent colors.

"Well, you can certainly create a transparent mixed cyan, but of course, it's characteristics in a wash will differ from those of a more intense single pigment cyan."

DON, more double talk. You speak saying you can certainly mix a transparent cyan but you can't. Then give excuses for the color you make having limitations. Not much meat here.

"Similarly, your mixed transparent red will have different wash characteristics from a more intense single pigment red."

DON, That's true but there is no connection between the the mixed red which is accurate and the mixed cyan is not. The mixed red can do everything red is supposed to do, I couldn't paint the clearest sky which does contain the cyan color without it. But I could paint a tomato by mixing the reds.

"Now, if your personal painting style happens to be such that it is more valuable to you to have as intense a cyan wash as possible and you are willing to sacrifice the intensity of your red wash, that's your business, but you have to realize that's a personal choice and has nothing to do with one's ability to actually represent the colors of nature."

DON, How can anyone compare a transparent cyan glaze or sienna glaze wash with an opaque red thinly applied. One is major and the other is very minor. Even the transparent red would make a better glaze then the opaque cad red.
.
"CMY will indeed give you the largest gamut of any three colors, but it is trivially easy to exceed that gamut within using cyan or magenta if one is allowed more than three colors on one's palette. This is what I mean when I say there is really no great loss in not having the world's best approximation of cyan on your palette."

DON, no great loss you say. Add more colors and you can get more so having the right three colors isn't important. I say it is important to have the right three colors as the basis of the palette, add any other colors you want but don't loose the basic triad.

DON. Reading cyan pigment by eye has no yellow in it, artists paint by eye. Saying it does have a yellow in a spectroscopic analysis is saying cyan is not primary. I think this thinking belongs in the light theory category, it's not pigment color theory.


"As I said before, if there is yellow there, you can see it. you might not be aware* of seeing it, but you can see it. Cyan pigments are absolutely, positively, no different from green pigments in this respect, except in degree: green pigments will typically reflect *more* yellow than cyan ones will. But if it is theoretically possible for there to exist a cyan pigment that reflects no yellow, it is just as possible to have a green pigment that reflects no yellow. It really just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say green contains yellow and cyan doesn't, because there is no real practical sense in which there is a qualitative difference."

DON, double talk says, I can't see it the yellow in cyan but it's there, I'm just not aware that it's there.
Yea, right.. My PB15 has yellow in it, I can't see it but it's there and you can prove it. So I'm wrong. Something is wrong here. You can't make a cyan with yellow pigment, I'm not concerned with what I or anyone else can't see, and I don't think this is a shortcoming.
I said green contains yellow and blue contains red, you say mix them together and you get cyan as good as the red I get mixing yellow and magenta. Is someone supposed to believe this double talk?

DON, The two should not be confused as one color system, do you agree with that?
Do you think it would be important to have two Color Theory topics?

"I don't see why that would be necessary. Color theory is color theory. The fact that color behaves differently when we use light sources rather than pigment are two sides of the same coin. So far in this discussion, it has been perfectly clear that everyone participating is talking about subtractive pigment mixing; no one has gotten the least bit confused and started talking about additive light mixing, unless you count your misuse of the terminology (and even so, it is clear from context what you are talking about)."

"Furthermore, within the realm of subtractive pigment mixing, there is no different "CMY theory" versus "RYB theory" or anything like that. Subtractive mixing is subtractive mixing, regardless of what colors you use as inputs."

DON, CYM/RGB is one complete theory and set of colors. On the rim both show the same colors, they become darker using the same color, black or no light. Yellow and cyan are both mixed with black, as are all the rim colors. This dark cyan does not match the pigments dark mass-tone. The CYM/RGB color wheel can not be used to mix accurately throughout the wheel unless you include black pigment. That would match the CMY/RGB color wheel but not nature.
The CYM and RGB are useless for painting.

DON,
The greatest artists the world ever knew never heard of wavelengths or how to measure them. On this forum lately it is considered to be a pigment mixing tool and it's not, it only gives reflective graphs reading the pigment and categorizing them. It is not a 'what you see is what you get' platform. Making people think cyan has some yellow mixed into it is wrong. They are joined together with this reflectance talk.


DON, If this is a an accurate representation of what is in this thread I'm going to spread it around off this forum to get outside opinions. I won't use any names, just the thoughts that are pervasive here. I will say some of the statements are from none painting artists in related fields. Any objections or additions?

Richard Saylor
08-07-2004, 03:08 PM
The greatest artists the world ever knew never heard of wavelengths or how to measure them. On this forum lately it is considered to be a pigment mixing tool and it's not, it only gives reflective graphs reading the pigment and categorizing them. It is not a 'what you see is what you get' platform. Making people think cyan has some yellow mixed into it is wrong. They are joined together with this reflectance talk.
So it is inappropriate to appeal to the physics of color when discussing color? I don't suppose it would be because physics substantiates the conventional additive and subtractive mixing theories, is it? I feel an almost irresistable urge to make a rather strong ad hominem remark, but I don't want to cause Larry any trouble.

LarrySeiler
08-07-2004, 06:59 PM
thanks Richard...! ;)

one question on the comment of "hue" criticizing those that refer its meaning to be a false pigment.

Yes..we know that hue is another name for color,

from what I've read, as far as manufacturers putting the word "hue" after a color name on the tube...they put in on only some tubes, not all. If hue means only color...why not include the word "hue" behind the name of every color on a tube?

My understanding is that if I want to use a lead opaque good Naples Yellow, I pick the labelling of "Naples Yellow" believing that the tube that sames "Naples Yellow Hue" is not the same..perhaps then not the same covering mixing strength...

comments..??

Larry

blondheim12
08-07-2004, 07:22 PM
from what I've read, as far as manufacturers putting the word "hue" after a color name on the tube...they put in on only some tubes, not all. If hue means only color...why not include the word "hue" behind the name of every color on a tube?

My understanding is that if I want to use a lead opaque good Naples Yellow, I pick the labelling of "Naples Yellow" believing that the tube that sames "Naples Yellow Hue" is not the same..perhaps then not the same covering mixing strength...

comments..??

Larry

Larry,
That has been my understanding as well. It will be interesting to see if we are correct.
Love,
Linda

JamieWG
08-07-2004, 07:26 PM
Hi Larry and all.

My understanding is that the word "hue", when used in that context (affixed to a color name on a paint tube), means that the genuine pigment of the color is not used, but rather a (usually less expensive) substitute.

In other words, when Winton sells Cobalt Blue Hue, it is a mix of less expensive colors that mimics the color of cobalt blue, but actually contains no cobalt blue at all. Sometimes these "hue" mixes are actually stronger than the color they substitute. This would be especially true in a student grade line, where their true Cobalt Blue (not hue) contains so little cobalt blue pigment that the tinting strength is very low.

Some companies make those substitutions without adding the word "hue". Maimeri Classico does this. :evil: So one would purchase a tube of Cadmium Red that actually contains no cadmium red whatsoever.

Edit: Hi Linda! (We cross-posted)

Jamie

Einion
08-07-2004, 09:20 PM
Yep, that's what hue means in that context - a substitute colour, or mix of colours, in place of something else for cost, rarity or lightfastness reasons. Alizarin Crimson hues are fairly common now for higher lightfastness; hues of Indian Yellow were first made because production of the original pigment was banned; in student and studio paint ranges we see hues of the expensive cadmium and cobalt colours, to keep the cost at a reasonable level, and so on. As someone pointed out before technically French Ultramarine is a hue, a replacement for genuine Ultramarine which is made from powdered lapis lazuli... and thank goodness given the staggering cost, over 15,500 Euros per kilo, or $8,700 per pound!!

Unfortunately the habit of leaving out the word hue from the names of replacement colours is all too common, even brands with a good reputation for their naming practice are sometimes guilty of this <wags finger reprovingly at Winsor & Newton>


In the other meaning that we were on about above, hue is the general colour name - orange, red, blue, green, yellow. As Bill and I were explaining in the thread "value=luminance,saturation=chroma,?" colour has three dimensions: hue, saturation and value. So a colour is much more specific, as it describes a hue at a specific value and saturation.

This is easy to understand if you consider that coffee with milk in it is technically an orange, just one at a medium value and low saturation. Another example that I like is Raw Umber; this can be around the same hue as Yellow Ochre and a number of true yellows, but you can't just say it's yellow and expect to be understood unless you also mention the other two dimensions in some way. For this sort of reason hue and colour can't be used interchangeably.

In relation to the primaries, Cyan, Magenta and Yellow are hues and any colour at these hues are still technically cyan, magenta and yellow. So in the same way that Raw Umber is a yellow, a dark green-blue could be cyan, albeit at low value and low saturation, and a light pinkish violet could be magenta, just unsaturated and at a high value. This is no different than a powder blue ribbon and cobalt blue glass maybe being the same hue, just with different values & saturations.

Gobble gobble,
Einion

LarrySeiler
08-08-2004, 01:39 AM
I am a volunteer...like all staff here, meaning by default of being human I will not catch much beyond that which is reported I'm sure. Having said this, I do appreciate when posts are reported...which makes my job easier.

Understand...I am going to get heavier handed on the adminstrative/moderator editing powers I have to delete threads that shew blatant intents to make sport of other members, name call, refer to others as lacking intelligence (thus insinuating one's own superiority)...and further, will begin awarding out strikes as warnings.

As a reminder, members that receive three strikes will have their accounts/memberships here at Wetcanvas revoked, and thereby summarily banned from the community.

It is one thing to attack an opinion...but never in a way that plainly is attacking the opinionATOR!

...thus saith the bad moderator guy! :mad:

Larry

Richard Saylor
08-08-2004, 06:17 PM
If this is a an accurate representation of what is in this thread I'm going to spread it around off this forum to get outside opinions. I won't use any names, just the thoughts that are pervasive here. I will say some of the statements are from none painting artists in related fields. Any objections or additions?
Don, you may quote me all you wish, including my name. However, I don't quite understand why you are soliciting opinions. Traditional additive and subtractive color mixing has a sound scientific basis. It can be verified objectively. It is not a matter of opinion. A billion people can swear that the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle is exactly 22/7, but that doesn't make it so.

Please read the following excerpt from another post http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2058961#post2058961

With regards to color theory:

When opinion and theory made from thin air is touted as research it raises the specter of foolish thinking and misplaced logic. This seems to come from one pattern of thought.

For the overly zealous, there seems to be some glee at toppling established knowledge and replacing it with their own version of the truth. They seem to proclaim that established color science somewhere got it all wrong, that the theorems and mathematical models that are in use by companies today are nothing but smoke and mirrors. It is no wonder that you cannot get expert color scientists to participate in forums like these. So many of the comments are so off the wall that member of this community do not wish to bother with forums like this one. I do not state this to mock anyone for ignorance. However, totally home-grown color theory or painting theory is unsettling to those with even the most rudimentary knowledge of color theory and practical mixing of color.

Bottom Line: One needs to do a bit of homework before coming to class. Ignorance is not a sin, but sticking to a faulty notion when a huge body of literature exists to refute it does smack of the foolishness that I spoke of in a previous post.

donjusko
08-09-2004, 12:51 AM
I remember back in 1959 while I was going to college the terms Additive and Subtractive were just being tossed about. People were on both sides of the fence, we all felt Additive should be for pigments and look what happened. Back then Liquitex and Grumbacher made acrylics that wouldn't mix togather, thalo blue and green were concidered too strong to use and Pacasso was all over the place. Opinions change and I'm making mine known. Additive for pigments makes more sense. Maybe you don't agree, maybe you should. It's not written in stone. The terms don't help or hurt anything, they just show there is a difference. The explanations given today of those differences are riddled with holes and carried on as if it didn't matter. Maybe it doesn't, I think it does.

By the way, I'm also on the side the yellow and blue mixed togather is the start of graying both colors. Because yellow is usually thought of as being opaque, but it doesn't have to be, and ult blue is simi-transparent, they will never mix a dark. A transparent yellow on the brown side and transparent blue will make a much darker neutral color. A dark yellow, burnt umber or raw umber and ultramarine blue will make a dark neutral. Opposits do that.

So some may call yellow and blue a dirty mix, others may call it a grayed mix, both are right.

By the way, when is the Pigment Color System going to be free to all artists, not just the one's with enough money to buy the books? It's a lousy system to start with and should be changed to colors matching a wheel that makes sense to an artist painting. Matching a wheel will spread out one chemical class to the colors made in the tube, not lump them all into one chemical class. If it was done that way, the compounds on the lable would make all the difference and artists would not be lost by seeing just the Pigment Color Names and Numbers. Index Numbers don't seem to help that much either.

Is this the right place to put this thought? i think it is. You don't have to agree, but the seed is planted in plain sight.

Einion
08-09-2004, 01:09 PM
I don't want to get into a long and completely pointless debate about additive and subtractive as colour terms, especially with an intransigent opponent, but the entire of the rest of world use them in one way - light mixing is additive, pigment mixing is subtractive. The explanations for why make perfect sense because you lose light (i.e. it is subtracted) when you mix two coloured materials together. Don even gives a perfectly clear example of this in his post - Burnt Umber and French Ultramarine mixing a dark; so why he's seeking yet another windmill to tilt at, to add to all the other things people don't agree with him on, just make it harder to focus on important issues like the original point of this thread. We're not going to change his mind by arguing about it, just as with every other point, so let's just drop it shall we? It is the way it is, he can choose to think about it any way he chooses and he's not going to change anything by doing so.


Opinions change and I'm making mine known.
The problem is Don that you don't tend to state your opinions as opinions, you almost always state them as though they were facts and, as we've seen more than once you can be wrong.

somethings wrong here, the statements you are making sound slanted..
Slanted? The point to which you're referring actually admits that the CMY triad has a wider gamut than anything else and then merely mentions that it can't mix everything. Where's the slant in that? Besides, you admit this yourself in the same post for crying out loud so what's the point in arguing about it!!
Most colors can be mixed with transparent magenta, transparent cyan and transparent yellow.

Visual cyan, spectroscopic cyan, transparent chemical pigment cyan all represent the same color.
They are approximately the same hue, not ever remotely the same colour. Pigment reflection can't even get close to spectral colours except in yellow Don.

it can't make magenta, but magenta can make red. Red is secondary,
Red is indeed secondary and it can't make a high-chroma magenta but it can make a magenta. Again, hue, not colour.

By the way, I'm also on the side the yellow and blue mixed togather is the start of graying both colors.
How can you reconcile this comment with the following Don:
My mixed red, orange, green and blue are very satisfactory and strong colors, don't demean them in trying to make your point.
Especially in light of the fact that you've gone out of your way to emphasise just how high in chroma the mixes with the right primary triad are on every conceivable opportunity in the past.

Don't try to use the 'reasoning' that cyan isn't a blue because we're talking about actually paints here, not the theoretical model where a clear case could be made for this.

A dark yellow, burnt umber or raw umber and ultramarine blue will make a dark neutral. Opposits do that..
We've covered this point before in a previous discussion, Burnt Umber is not a dark yellow. You may wish to consider it as such Don, and we can see the basis for your viewpoint, but the hue of Burnt Umber is NOT yellow, just as the hue of ultramarine is not the same as cyan; the two colours may fade into each other in certain real-world situations but that does not make them the same hue. Raw Umber is a dark yellow, Burnt Umber is not.

If Burnt Umber were a dark yellow you could mix a simulation using its mixing complement and I know you're not even going to try to suggest that this is the case ;)

So some may call yellow and blue a dirty mix, others may call it a grayed mix, both are right.
A mix of Phthalo Blue Green Shade and a good light yellow is dirty is it? Interesting definition of the word I wasn't previously aware of. Seems to contradict yourself too!

By the way, when is the Pigment Color System going to be free to all artists, not just the one's with enough money to buy the books?
Much good information can be gleaned from study of layman's books and free sources, certainly enough to learn that PB15 doesn't move from cyan to middle blue as the number increases.

It's a lousy system to start with...
It's not perfect but it's a good starting point at least, certainly better than what we had before: nothing. The CI name can indeed be misleading but the CI number makes things a bit clearer in some cases.

...and should be changed to colors matching a wheel that makes sense to an artist painting
That's never going to happen for reasons you should already know. If you don't I can explain it to you.

If this is a an accurate representation of what is in this thread I'm going to spread it around off this forum to get outside opinions. I won't use any names, just the thoughts that are pervasive here. I will say some of the statements are from none painting artists in related fields. Any objections or additions?.
No actually it's not but you're free to do this and you didn't have to ask about it beforehand. As I pointed out to someone in a note the other day who are the non-painting artists you're referring to? I'd like to suggest, FWIW, that you don't do this only on your own site for obvious reasons; try the Colormatters bulletin board, there at least you'll get some input from impartial colour professionals. And if you're really lucky drollere might add some input.

Einion

Richard Saylor
08-09-2004, 05:30 PM
There has been much discussion here of RBG versus CMY as primaries for a color mixing palette. It occurs to me that those who use a split primary palette are actually using both .

Cool: pthalo blue (cyan), magenta, lemon yellow

Warm: ultramarine blue, cad. red, cad. orange
(or warm yellow)

You didn't intend for your "warm" primaries to constitute a good stand-alone RBY palette, did you? If so, the greens would be dismal, and the violets would be unacceptable. A cooler red, maybe Napthol or Quinacridone Rose, would give much better violets, and a lemon yellow would make better greens.

In case your "cool" primaries are for a CMY palette, lemon yellow is too cool to make really good reds and oranges with magenta. If you substitute a warm yellow for lemon you will get better reds, and the greens will still be vibrant due to the strong green component in Pthalo Blue GS.

I'm not sure about the "warm" and "cool" designations anyhow, since there is no general agreement about how they apply to different blues.

In Golden acrylics, here would be my choices.

CMY:
Pthalo Blue GS (PB15:4)
Quinacridone Magenta (PR122)
Hansa Yellow Medium (PY3)

RBY:
Quinacridone Red (PV19)
Ultramarine Blue (PB29)
Hansa Yellow Light (PY3).

For the opaque people, suitable Cadmiums can be substituted for the Hansa Yellows. If Quinacridone Red is too cool, Napthol Red would work, with a sacrifice in the saturation of mixed violets.

Together, the CMY and RBY palettes make an extremely versatile split primary system.

Richard Saylor
08-09-2004, 06:55 PM
Hansa Yellow Medium (PY3)

Correction: PY73, not PY3.

donjusko
08-09-2004, 11:27 PM
Good choices Richard, I would add a transprent yellows on the brown side and orange side to go with the rest of the transparents. They give me a bigger veriaty of greens, reds, ochers and browns.

Richard Saylor
08-11-2004, 09:33 AM
Good choices Richard, I would add a transprent yellows on the brown side and orange side to go with the rest of the transparents. They give me a bigger veriaty of greens, reds, ochers and browns.
Thanks. Yes, a couple more colors in the hue sector from yellow to red could be really helpful. My biggest problem, especially with the CMY palette, is controlling the greens.

Mike Finn
02-03-2006, 12:14 AM
Ok so this is a VERY old thread..but lets drag it up again :)

My question is.. What is wrong with Cerulean Blue as the cyan?

I am a beginner!!! (Two years acrylics, one month oils) and I came upon this thread searching for info about the cmy/rgb palette.

I have settled on Cad yellow light, Permanent Rose, Cerulean Blue (WinsorNewton Alkyds) as my core colours. Works for me... :) I do mostly Landscapes.

I am at this time trying to figure the RGB part... I dislike/avoid the Phthalos (Way too unatural to my eye) So for me it's French Ultramarine, Cad red light, Perm sap green.

Throw in Cad yellow Med, Ivory Black and Mixing white..... I do like mostly opaque colours... But I digress..the real question is... Am I making a technical mistake with the Cerulean Blue???... considering it's such a wonderful colour all by itself ;)

Mike Finn

donjusko
02-03-2006, 05:17 AM
Ok so this is a VERY old thread..but lets drag it up again

My question is.. What is wrong with Cerulean Blue as the cyan?

Nothing is wrong with Cerulean blue, or Svenagin? blue (Old Holland I think). There is nothing wrong with an opaque cyan, Thalo blue makes those hues when you add white. You should first learn to make any color with the transparent primaries.

[Edit: Please see Don't IP forum for more info]

I am a beginner!!! (Two years acrylics, one month oils) and I came upon this thread searching for info about the cmy/rgb palette.

You can't really call it a cmy/rgb pallet. RGB is is a light palette. CMY refers to cyan, magenta and yellow, the secondary colors of the light palette and primary pigments. In the RGB palette these colors get dark by subtracting light, basically the same as adding black to pigment. Just as yellow has a green tinge when you add black, other colors also get dark incorrectly, according to the physical way nature darkens colors.

I have settled on Cad yellow light, Permanent Rose, Cerulean Blue (WinsorNewton Alkyds) as my core colours. Works for me... I do mostly Landscapes.

They will work, no doubt. But the colors you can mix are limited. An opaque yellow makes poor oranges and reds. Cerulean blue, being both a tint and opaque limits the darks it will mix. Permanent Rose is a warm magenta, not the transparent magenta you need to make both blues and reds.

So there is nothing wrong with those colors, I'm sure I could paint a fine painting with them. Having used most of the colors manufacture in my lifetime, there are a lot I just dropped because they were easier to make then carry around.

I am at this time trying to figure the RGB part... I dislike/avoid the Phthalos (Way too unnatural to my eye) So for me it's French Ultramarine, Cad red light, Perm sap green.

Pure sugar doesn't agree with my tastes, but I like a little with my coffee.
Sap green sticks out anywhere you use it, like Payne's gray in water colors.
Veridian isn't much better, dirty. Some people never get away from dirty colors, it's just their way. Not bad, but you can do better.

Throw in Cad yellow Med, Ivory Black and Mixing white..... I do like mostly opaque colours... But I digress..the real question is... Am I making a technical mistake with the Cerulean Blue???... considering it's such a wonderful colour all by itself


Black is just another color that is easier to make then carry. Mixing black pigment with any color gives it a dull dirty casting. Talk about unnatural.
As far as Mixing white goes, I don't think the regular whites are opaque enough to begin with. I add a little dry titanium white to my jar white acrylic.

I hope this helps and doesn't cause an argument.
As far as the topic of this thread goes. A split primary palette would be a warm and cool transparent magenta, a neutral transparent yellow and a neutral transparent cyan. Those pigment will mix any color.

Don

Mike Finn
02-03-2006, 06:49 AM
You should first learn to make any color with the transparent primaries.


<Some interesting stuff snipped>


I hope this helps and doesn't cause an argument.

Don

No argument from me Don... I only stand toe to toe when I know something :)

I am going to try what you suggest regarding transparent colours...
I do have a transparent magenta (Winsor Newton Alkyd mix of PR122 + PB15)
I also have a WN Alkyd Indian Yellow..but its pigment is PY139.

So I'll get some Phthalo blue and have a play :)

With regard to the black... I mainly use it to make a dark green that mixes in nicely with the sap... The cad yellow with the cerulean makes the lighter green and all my foliage looks pretty natural. This is New Zealand ... everything is green here :)

I have tried to make a Cerulean from Phthalo blue.. got close but it didn't have the same class/style/pizazz as the true Cerulean...I'll try again though as that was with acrylics.

Thanks Don..... I guess one learns by doing.. so I'll go do :)

Mike Finn

Patrick1
02-03-2006, 07:00 AM
My question is.. What is wrong with Cerulean Blue as the cyan? Cerulean blue mixes decently bright greens, but greyed purples. Phthalo cyans and blues can mix cleaner greens and purples. Cerulean is not very dark as Don mentioned, so it'll be a lot more limited in the darkness of the mixes you can get with it. But its opacity might be an asset.

I came upon this thread searching for info about the cmy/rgb palette. Do you mean the so-called 'secondary palette' ? (three primaries + three secondaries) ?

I have settled on Cad yellow light, Permanent Rose, Cerulean Blue (WinsorNewton Alkyds) as my core colours. Works for me... :)If Cerulaen works for you, along wth the others, then keep at it...learning to do more with a simpler palette will make you a better color mixer and you'll also learn to see and take advantage of subtler color relationships.

Mike Finn
02-03-2006, 07:33 AM
Do you mean the so-called 'secondary palette' ? (three primaries + three secondaries) ?



Thanks Patrick... Maybe my terminology is all wrong :)

What I am trying to arrive at is a limited palette that takes into account the colours I mostly see (New Zealand Landscapes) So... I don't need to mix the full spectrum. I am willing to trade some colours for ease of painting :) Looking at it again I probably could call it a mongrel palette... yellow, magenta and cyan with orange, green and violet (the compliments of the primaries Blue, Red and Yellow).... They are not the pure colours but a touch of one into another and they work quite well.... I will try Dons thoughts on the transparents as I was labouring under the illusion than with oils, high opacity was a desirable thing. I used mostly transparents with acrylics but that was because I did lots of glazing with sponges.

For what it's worth I just bought a French easel for Plein Air and the drawer only has so much room :) Hence my desire to limit my tubes.

Mike Finn

Einion
02-03-2006, 07:57 AM
Ok so this is a VERY old thread..but lets drag it up again :)
But the corpse is long past its best-before date!

My question is.. What is wrong with Cerulean Blue as the cyan?
Depends Mike, do you want your 'cyan' to be the wrong hue and have limited mixing potential? :) If you wanted it as a sole blue for this rough position it's fine as long as you're aware of the restriction it imposes.

I am a beginner!!! (Two years acrylics, one month oils) and I came upon this thread searching for info about the cmy/rgb palette.
That's a secondary palette, which is very good in colour-mixing terms (what's called gamut - the entire range of colour a palette is capable of producing).

I have settled on Cad yellow light, Permanent Rose, Cerulean Blue (WinsorNewton Alkyds) as my core colours. Works for me... :) I do mostly Landscapes.
Well if it works for you that's really all that matters - feel free to ignore any and all advice if you're happy with your results.

I am at this time trying to figure the RGB part... I dislike/avoid the Phthalos (Way too unatural to my eye) So for me it's French Ultramarine, Cad red light, Perm sap green.
These three paints are good choices for those rough hue positions. Permanent Sap Greens vary but it should be fine, especially if you don't like using a phthalo pigment.

Throw in Cad yellow Med, Ivory Black and Mixing white..... I do like mostly opaque colours...
Personally I would like to have a couple of earth colours on hand for ease but palette choices are very personal - look at the great work being produced these days by painters using RYB primaries, only five or six tubes total with no earths.

Einion

Mike Finn
02-03-2006, 08:14 AM
Personally I would like to have a couple of earth colours on hand for ease but palette choices are very personal.

Einion

Einion... Thanks for your comments.... I have thought about the earths, they do make life easy. I am thinking Light or Indian Red and Yellow Ochre.... or maybe burnt sienna and raw sienna.... or maybe......oh I'll just buy the whole range and play..... It's raining anyway :)

I despise the phthalos but will give them one more chance.... I know a bit more now.

Mike Finn

Einion
02-03-2006, 08:23 AM
You should first learn to make any color with the transparent primaries.
That's a matter of opinion Don - to illustrate, Virgil Elliot recommends almost the complete opposite.

Just as yellow has a green tinge when you add black, other colors also get dark incorrectly, according to the physical way nature darkens colors.
That's not quite accurate - the colour that yellow goes when darkened (i.e. while maintaining the same hue) is 'green' not green. This whole area is a subjective minefield so please post your views as opinions Don, not statements of fact.

An opaque yellow makes poor oranges and reds.
That depends on what it is mixed with - Cad Red Light and Cad Yellow make excellent high-chroma oranges, practically indistinguishable from Cadmium Orange in fact. Those mixed from the medium shades of Cad Red aren't as good true, but they can be better than those of a light yellow and a colour close to magenta.

Permanent Rose is a warm magenta, not the transparent magenta you need to make both blues and reds.
It's actually better at mixing red-side colours than paints that are more magenta because as a rule the further apart two colours are the duller the mixtures between them. Many painters favour Quin Rose over Quin Magenta for precisely this reason because they want to favour higher-chroma oranges due to the lesser need for saturated mixed violets.

Sap green sticks out anywhere you use it, like Payne's gray in water colors.
LOL, and Phthalo Blue GS or YS don't? :D

Mixing black pigment with any color gives it a dull dirty casting. Talk about unnatural.
Very dark neutral mixes make almost precisely the same colours that using certain black pigments would when mixed with a given paint. And there are lots of dull, 'dirty' colours in nature anyway ;)

As far as unnatural goes, look at the undercolour of many synthetic organics - way higher in chroma that most subjects at temperate lattitudes.

As far as the topic of this thread goes. A split primary palette would be a warm and cool transparent magenta, a neutral transparent yellow and a neutral transparent cyan. Those pigment will mix any color.
No, a secondary palette by definition will have a wider gamut because of saturation costs; this is not a matter of opinion - q.v. the hexachrome gamut compared with that of process colour. The difference in certain areas is slight it must be said (and it does depend on how you use the paint - masstone mixtures or as thin glazes).

Einion

FriendCarol
02-03-2006, 08:17 PM
Hi, Mike... Since you're more of a beginner than me (I recall what it was like better than most here!), I'll tell you one of the most important things I've learned about color and palette design: It really doesn't matter whether you like the pigment's hue -- it's all about the mixtures.

Yes, Winsor green BS is powerful (hard to control), unnatural, strongly staining -- but it makes a terrific range of colors, including very good greens. There's no better single green, imo, for mixing. (Same goes for Winsor blue, though I haven't used it in awhile, just because of recent changes in subject.) The one color that almost always shows up in my palette for each painting is Winsor green BS; just never unmixed. ;)

Einion
02-03-2006, 09:56 PM
Hi, Mike... Since you're more of a beginner than me (I recall what it was like better than most here!)
Hey, don't be too sure of that; I remember being a complete ignoramus like it was yesterday... hey, maybe it was only yesterday? :eek:

I'll tell you one of the most important things I've learned about color and palette design: It really doesn't matter whether you like the pigment's hue -- it's all about the mixtures.
Good observation.

Yes, Winsor green BS is powerful (hard to control), unnatural, strongly staining -- but it makes a terrific range of colors, including very good greens. There's no better single green, imo, for mixing.
I agree. Really in the grand scheme of things I think PG36 could work just as well overall but I just have a natural affinity for the blue shade myself for whatever reason.

Einion