PDA

View Full Version : what makes naturals vs synthetics so beautiful


shawn gibson
07-20-2001, 02:22 PM
Probably one of the wierder questions...:

I avoid the dye/coal-tar colours, especially the reds, because the madders from organic sources, etc., are always so much more...alive, less homogenous, warmer, earthier...non-plastic looking in direct comparision.

But what makes the old colours so amazing? I mean from a <b>material point of view...</b>

I know this is a personal thing, but in general I think some of you have to agree the vibrant colours today lack the life of the vibrant colours of yesterday...

The reason I'm asking, I would like to be able to buy paint from the paint stores downtown, not from half-way around the globe, not in six weeks, and not at ridiculous prices.

See guys...I'm learning...

Do you think a little mud in alizarin would make it more like madder:)

shawn

Titanium
07-23-2001, 08:24 PM
Shawn ,

The Old Master Palette uses RICH colour .

The Modern Organic Palette uses BRIGHT colour.

The Old Master work is built off of a Tonal Base.

The Impressionism as practiced today is often
a Colour Base .

My checking into the Old Master pigments shows
colours that harmonise well together , though the
copper resin green does punch out .
The Lead Tin yellow , sits well with earth colours
as does Real Vermilion . [ possibly because these
colours were mixed with earth colours and only
appear to be pure in the top coat ??? ]

The Organics and Cadmiums , well - they are loud.

Chew on this -

If painting Life Size , earth colours become very
powerful .

Would this be possible with Organics and Cadmiums.
Or would eyestrain and eventual sunglasses be needed.

The smaller the painting , the brighter the colours
permissible .
[ What about the Sistine Chapel ? ]
Titanium

Scott Methvin
07-23-2001, 09:25 PM
Good post!

Too much color spoils the painting.

I have to do a huge painting (6x8 feet) and I am a bit concerned about the overall effect. You can bet I will be dull early and tease the colors up at the end.

Taking it slow.

I may even use and earth color or two. (big deal for me)

My un-natural quinacridone and thalo will be put to the test. The yellow? I don't want to think about it. How much would about 6 tubes of real naples cost?

I do know there will be about 10 pounds of lead white on it after it's all over. Enough to make a car battery.:D

Phyllis Rennie
07-23-2001, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Scott Methvin
How much would about 6 tubes of real naples cost?



$100-$120.:crying:

Scott Methvin
07-24-2001, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by Phyllis Rennie


$100-$120.:crying:


Real
naples yellow
for $20
a
tube?
WOW!
Where?

shawn gibson
07-24-2001, 09:27 AM
Titanium, great points.

I work life size approx (usually, I like a 7inch head for my portraits)...

I use a lot of earth tones, indeed, I find the Mars colours VERY powerful.

I once did a portrait with the whole background done a solid, lightly tinted Cadmium Red Light. It was so loud as to be almost unbearable...especially beside my more muted typical Rembrandt-like palatte (admittedly, alizarin etc.).

BUT NOW: I have a panel with 25 squares and 5 reds: Kremer Vermilion, Holbein Chinese Vermilion, Kremer Cochineal, Kremer Lac Dye, and WN Rose Madder Genuine. Every possible combination exists on that panel...

The brightest is the Vermilion-Vermilion combo, but by far the most beautiful to me are the ones with Kremer Vermilion underneath (not that filler-full Holbein transparent stuff...too bad, it's beautiful colour, just no pigment!), and the lakes over top. My favourite is Kremer Vermilion underneath, WN Rose Madder on top. It is very...RICH. But beside that Cadmium painting, it is dull. Who cares.

That's what I'm talking about...the beauty of the old masters' colours...

and you nailed it by comparing richness to brightness...

shawn:)

ps I still think I should start putting clay into some quina red over the counter and see what happens...!

Phyllis Rennie
07-24-2001, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by Scott Methvin



Real
naples yellow
for $20
a
tube?
WOW!
Where?


OOOPS! Sorry--should have checked the list more carefully. It's $30. per tube @ Robert Doaks. My apologies. Wish I could blame the mistake on his handwriting.:rolleyes:

Scott Methvin
07-25-2001, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by Phyllis Rennie



OOOPS! Sorry--should have checked the list more carefully. It's $30. per tube @ Robert Doaks. My apologies. Wish I could blame the mistake on his handwriting.:rolleyes:

Thanks Phyllis!

Sinopia.com sells it for $10 (reddish) 100grams dry pigment. That's about an average tube's worth.
So that would be around $110 when you add the oil and my hourly rate.
:D

Phyllis Rennie
07-25-2001, 08:59 PM
And I thought $30 was pricey--shows you how much I know!

Pen
07-25-2001, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Phyllis Rennie



OOOPS! Sorry--should have checked the list more carefully. It's $30. per tube @ Robert Doaks. My apologies. Wish I could blame the mistake on his handwriting.:rolleyes:

On "real" Naples yellow... I thought what made it "real" was the lead it contained, and that it was hard to come by. I just bought a tube of Winsor Newton Naples yellow, and it contains "basic lead carbonate, zinc oxide, oxide of chromium, antimony and titanium PW1, PW4, PBr24, vehicle, safflower oil." Is it "real?" If it isn't, what makes a "real" Naples yellow?

Einion
07-26-2001, 05:06 PM
While I agree that if one is working to achieve something of a traditional feel many modern inorganic pigments can be a bit OTT in intensity (i.e. very high chroma) but isn't that what complementary colours are for?! :)
Like so much of the work necessary for the serious artist working today colour use fundamentally comes down to knowing your materials and how to use them successfully. Some mixes you might like to try Shawn:
Quinacridone Violet with Quinacridone Gold Ochre;
Phthalocyanine Blue with Quinacridone Burnt Orange;
Quinacridone Red with Phthalocyanine Green.
I think you might be surprised at the results. As for the cadmium colours if you don't think you can use them successfully for portraiture take a look at John Howard Sanden's work.

No offense to Titanium, but as for older palettes being 'richer', I personally think a lot of this is intellectualising versus being truly based on the colours within a painting. It is also a very vague term in relation to colour - fundamentally there is only hue, chroma and value - but relationships of one to another on a canvas is paramount: Red Oxide can look quite brilliant surrounded by greens, Yellow Ochre can look intense on subdued violets. And of course a lot has to do with which 'old master' you're referring to, anyone seen a cleaned Rubens in the flesh??? Compared to a Rembrandt they’re almost fluorescent! Unless you have had the chance to study great works first-hand you can't even begin to imagine an understanding of the subject.

Shawn, you do realise that one of the main reasons for synthetic pigments being offered is as lightfast alternatives to unreliable or downright fugitive older pigments? Let's not forget the 'old masters' actively sought out the brightest colours they could lay their hands on (plenty of documented evidence for this) sometimes without knowing how reliable they would prove over time. If they were alive today you can bet your *** they would embrace the synthetic pigments, instead of having to rely on isolating varnishes, being forced to glaze instead of mix and let's not forget the help of future conservators! :)

Vermillion is a lovely hue but is not really suitable for artists as it can age badly for poorly understood reasons; there are alternatives available if you are hooked on the specific hue, have a look for Benzimidazolone Orange HL, PO36 (not to mention avoiding a pigment with mercury in it). Dyes and lakes have notoriously poor lightfastness (this is understating things). Even Alizarin Crimson ages poorly: put a light tint and glaze of this in daylight and watch it disappear (apparently this works in the dark as well). You should definitely try accelerated lightfastness test on those colours you mention to see for yourself...

Einion

Mario
07-26-2001, 10:47 PM
Great post, Einion! I will print it out and refer to it from time to time....It's really hard to find someone who has made friends with the Organic dyes and has come up with a useful approach to them...many thanks

shawn gibson
07-27-2001, 09:11 AM
>>Quinacridone Violet with Quinacridone Gold Ochre;
Phthalocyanine Blue with Quinacridone Burnt Orange;
Quinacridone Red with Phthalocyanine Green.


OK, I'm a fan of history, not an artifact myself, and I don't even own a Harris Tweed...anymore (sigh...).

I am willing to give you every point, but something that really leaves me...afraid to even try...is the lack of opacity in organics I keep kearing abot. Especially where they are replacing Vermilion.

Any thoughts/advice on that?

Great response, Einion. Thanks.

shawn:)
ps., if I recall Titanium has tried to get me into some organics a number of times, too...I would be surprised if your response offends him!!!

shawn gibson
07-27-2001, 09:17 AM
Einion etc.:

Earlier I wrote (and in probably 100 other places!!!): <i>I have a panel with 25 squares and 5 reds: Kremer Vermilion, Holbein Chinese Vermilion, Kremer Cochineal, Kremer Lac Dye, and WN Rose Madder Genuine. Every possible combination exists on that panel...</i>

Kremer vermilion: orangy vermillion
Holbein vermilion: scarlet/reddish vermilion
Cochineal: very carmine/crimson, fairly dark, a lake
Lac Dye: orangy lake, similar to Krem vermilion but darker and completely transparent.
WN Rose Madde--familiar to everyone. neutral red (to my eye), weak tinting, lake, beautiful 5 coats later...

<b>If I want to re-create this panel with organics, in order to compare with my panel of Archaics, could you recommend a replacement for each of the colours above...don't hold back!!!:)</b>
shawn:)

Pen
07-27-2001, 12:11 PM
On "real" Naples yellow... I thought what made it "real" was the lead it contained, and that it was hard to come by. I just bought a tube of Winsor Newton Naples yellow, and it contains "basic lead carbonate, zinc oxide, oxide of chromium, antimony and titanium PW1, PW4, PBr24, vehicle, safflower oil." Is it "real?" If it isn't, what makes a "real" Naples yellow?

shawn gibson
07-27-2001, 12:16 PM
pen--I believe it is not merely lead, but lead antimoniate. These above are probably just mixtures containing lead white. My guess.:)

Titanium
07-27-2001, 01:48 PM
Hello Shawn ,

I was amused .

Einion doesn't seem to have read any of the other posts
that have been put up in the past . Guess he just jumped
in .

It has been suggested what the Old Master's would have
really died for is a good Stable Green .

Organics are very big now . I would still suggest handmulling.
Seen the cost on Kremer for the pigments.
How much is really in the commercial tubes ?

I would usually only use the Organics for expensive sports car paint.


Hello Pen ,

Lead Antimonate Yellow - Lead / Antimony - Pb3[S04]2
[ as stated by Shawn ]

but this one is the brighter Old Master Yellow -

Lead-Tin Yellow - Lead / Tin and sometimes with Silica
the silica type is more translucent .

But don't stay in the dark , read - Artist's Pigments , 3 volumes
at your library .

No Organic colour information though .

Hope this helps ,
Titanium

shawn gibson
07-27-2001, 02:15 PM
>>a good green

I've been making verdigris for a few months. a BAD green, but the basis of many of their good greens (copper as a metal).

It is nice as a green. It went from blue in ground form, turned blue-green when I ground it in egg yolk, turned greener in a few days when I dispersed it in oil (NO resin--not a copper resinate, still just verdigris...). And now, on panels and an earing on a painting...it is just green, green, green. It hasn't moved from there though.

Gave up. Wanted blue. That's why I left the resins out.

:)

Einion
07-27-2001, 07:05 PM
Thanks Mario, I hope it is of some help.

Although you could substitute other pigments for the modifying colours (Raw Sienna, Burnt Sienna and Viridian) I wanted to make the point that just with modern synthetics you can get very close matches to valued older colours, in this case Alizarin Crimson, Prussian Blue and a red lake. If one is lucky in the specific examples you might have of each pigment, the resulting colour should be very close in transparency, masstone and even undercolour although the value might be a little off (adding a little transparent black should shift the valued down successfully).

Originally posted by Dru
You're a brave one to post such opinions in this forum, Einion! Next you'll be telling people that acrylic primer provides a better substrate for oil paint than oil primer. Or that paintings don't have to be representational.
Well, better here than in the 'other' forum! At least here you might find someone ;) agreeing with you...
Brave? Moi? Seriously, it doesn't take much courage to recommend those particular six pigments :)

Actually I have my reservations about whether oil over acrylic primer is a good idea but I don't know enough about the subject. The primer itself is probably going to prove very stable but the bond between it and the oils (especially if you use a lean underpainting) I have doubts about. And rest assured, I would never argue that paintings don't have to be representational - representational and realistic if possible!

If the 'other' forum you refer to is the one I'm thinking of, I'm sure you're right. I got the impression the few times I had a look at it that if one doesn't use pigments pre-1850 they dust off the crucifixes and prepare stakes! :D


Shawn, Vermillion is a tough pigment to match from all accounts. If you get the masstone right the undercolour is usually off and vice-versa. Look for the orange I mentioned, it is apparently a good match for the more orange Vermillions and it's possible modifying it with a transparent red will yield good matches for the redder forms. By reputation, W&N's Vermilion Hue is very close to some versions too.

Cochineal should be easy to match with modern transparent pigments. A couple of the quinacridones (PV19, PV42, PR122, PR202) might be close straight from the tube depending on the specific character you are looking for.

Checking my references I see W&N class their Rose Madder Genuine as lightfastness A, which is good (same ballpark as French Ultramarine and the cadmiums to name two). If this is correct it should be fine although it sounds very weak. Out of curiosity what's the Colour Index Number on the tube?

Titanium, I'm glad you're amused, after all that's what smileys are for :p As you can see I've only been a member for a short time and have only been able to backtrack on a limited number of the previous threads. Any other issues with my post I would be only too happy to discuss.

Einion

P.S. Shawn, there's copper in phthalocyanines too ;)

Pen
07-27-2001, 09:39 PM
Thank you, Shawn and Titanium!

Mario
07-28-2001, 08:12 AM
I was hoping that I wouldn't need a degree in chemical engineering in order to be a skilled painter. That hope is rapidly fading. For myself and others like me, I request that posters spell out the bottom line of their investigations. in other words, just what are you saying? Are you saying that the Organic dyes are NOT lightfast, are not VERY lightfast, will fade in a few or in several years, we will live to see them all turn green, or they will never be green, or what? thanks

Titanium
07-28-2001, 10:35 AM
Mario ,

I have exposed py154 and irgazine scarlet to our Tropical
sun for over 6 months and still going .
I have a duplicate glass panel indoors to compare for
fading . So far no problems.

I have also made a pale pink of the irgazine scarlet , with
a zno / tio2 white. No fading thus far.

Py 154 is my substitute for Cad.Yellow Light , if we ever
lose that colour to Toximania.
Irgazine Scarlet is for a vermilion type red . Same reason
as above.

Please note that if you go to Kremer or Sinopia.com , and
see the $$$$$$ .

Py154 = $11.75 per -------- 20 gms .

Irgazine Scarlet = $ 11.75 per ------- 20 gms .

Also [ these are my preferred Organic Colours ]
as well as .
Indanthrone Blue [ Pb 60 ] = $11.75 per ----- 20 gms .

Now what's the cost of the Purest , Brightest , Cleanest Iron Oxides
Mars = $3.25 per 100 gms .

Question ?????????

Which commercial tube of paint is going to have 100 % Organic
colours [ less say 2 to 5 % for some needed stabiliser ].

Or are they going to try and cut the colour , using the high staining quality of Organics to hide this ?

AND the cost of commercial Organic Colours , and we are not
looking at the cheap poorly lightfast napthol or hansa yellows ?

Lastly , these Organics are also constantly being " refined " to
be commercially cheaper and least toxic. So you had better buy
Kilos of the stuff . It may not be the same when you buy the
second time around.
This is commercial use domain .

The Phthalo series comes in 15 - 15.3 - 15.6 ......
which do you choose and why ?

To use Organics you need to stay on your toes.

Then there are the transparent , semi-transparent , and opaque
types.
But we touched on much of this before.
Titanium

Mario
07-28-2001, 11:21 AM
Thanks Titan..then the Hanza yellow and Napthol reds are not lightfast. You are saying don't use them because they are not as lightfast as they are proported to be...that is what I'm getting..a pity, because I use them..OK I will begin looking for the other pigments.

Midwest Painter
07-28-2001, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Dru
You're a brave one to post such opinions in this forum, Einion! Next you'll be telling people that acrylic primer provides a better substrate for oil paint than oil primer. Or that paintings don't have to be representational.
Well, better here than in the 'other' forum! At least here you might find someone ;) agreeing with you...

Regards,
Dru

I've always used acrylic primers. I even do my underpainting in acrylic. I have not seen any problems, nor do I see any chemical facts that would suggest a possible problem. To each his/her own. But to me art is about breaking rules.


I doubt if Monet or Van Gogh worried about the lightfast qualities of their paints. They were more concerned about where their next meal was coming from.

Einion
07-29-2001, 05:22 AM
Originally posted by Dru
Honestly, I can't figure out why the obsession with matching some older pigments. Imagine a scenario in which the cadmium reds were discovered first. Then came vermilion and people started to complain about how difficult it was to match the hue of the lovely 'older' reds with this new dull and heavy pigment...
Hehe, yep I agree with you!

I also agree with you about manufacturer's lightfastness ratings to a point, and the separation of the most lightfast pigments into AA and most of the rest into A is a bit suspect on the face of it. But from my reading on the Handprint site and elsewhere, if you are really worried about lightfastness you should do your own lightfastness tests as Titanium has done. Remember the ASTM ratings should not be taken as gospel, some pigments apparently vary enormously from one supplier to the next and rigorous tests on some paints show excellent lightfastness where the ASTM gave a poor rating (even in watercolours where there is essentially no protection from the primer). So sometimes the ratings on the tube are to be trusted... of course which you can trust and which you can't is a probably a bit of a crap-shoot!

The Handprint site is also a good reference for pigments that offer pretty good but not superb lightfastness as if it rates well in watercolours you can bet your granny it will do much better in oil.

It's funny that you mention PY3 and PR170, as I have both and they are two of the best pigments in their families. The ASTM (1999) rating for PY3 in watercolours is I and PR170 is ASTM II, which remember is still "very good".

Originally posted by Mario
I was hoping that I wouldn't need a degree in chemical engineering in order to be a skilled painter. That hope is rapidly fading. For myself and others like me, I request that posters spell out the bottom line of their investigations. in other words, just what are you saying? Are you saying that the Organic dyes are NOT lightfast, are not VERY lightfast, will fade in a few or in several years, we will live to see them all turn green, or they will never be green, or what?
Mario, you don't need a degree in chemical engineering although it might help! The organic pigments can be lightfast: some are, some aren't. You just need to check, see above about PY3 and PR170 for example. The benzimidazolone family are all apparently excellent which includes the yellow (PY154) Titanium mentioned he's doing lightfastness test for.

Originally posted by Titanium
...and we are not looking at the cheap poorly lightfast napthol or hansa yellows ?
While you are obviously very knowledgeable and it is obvious you care deeply about permanence one needs to be very careful with sweeping statements like this, as like all generalities they are often wrong in specifics (see above).

You are right about needing to stay on your toes with the organics, as you mention they may not be the same because of manufacturing concerns. But has been true for painters for a long time, Viridian and Prussian Blue to name two, could apparently vary quite a bit in reliability (hence their varied reputations).

For anyone not familiar with pigment production, in artists' paints (I use the term broadly) manufacturers essentially get to choose from what is produced for industrial reasons - car paints, plastic colouring, household paints etc. are the primary markets for pigment production worldwide. For this reason Benzimidazolone Maroon may have been, or will be, soon unavailable because of a fall in demand in industry.

Originally posted by Midwest Painter
I've always used acrylic primers. I even do my underpainting in acrylic. I have not seen any problems, nor do I see any chemical facts that would suggest a possible problem. To each his/her own. But to me art is about breaking rules.

I doubt if Monet or Van Gogh worried about the lightfast qualities of their paints. They were more concerned about where their next meal was coming from.
Unfortunately the jury is out on the issue of oils over acrylics. Personally I have always been a bit wary of the idea and recent research has suggested that the 'slick' microsurface of acrylic gessoes (and this is probably even more true of the paints) does not provide a good surface for the drying oil to bond to, mechanically.

You're dead right about some painters not worrying about the lightfastness of their paints, or for that matter in some cases how well their work would last. Anyone who has visited the Impressionist Gallery in the NG in London can see first-hand what this means in practical terms for both the artists you mention. To give a related example, Cézanne was fond of Emerald Green (the real stuff also used as a pesticide) which is a little unreliable, to put it mildly! :)

Einion

Titanium
07-29-2001, 07:20 AM
Einion ,

Ray Smith - The Artist's Handbook

has PY3 and PY1 both listed as
ASTM 2
[ has there been an upgrade ?

Also remember that this is an Oil forum
and discussions concern organics in oil ]

His book also has a note on Naphthol ,
drawing attention to the fact that you must
know exactly which one you want
to get the ASTM 1 rating .

Naphthol AS-D PR 112 = ASTM 2
Naphthol Carbamide [ Crimson ] PY 160 = ASTM2 in oil

Yet Naphthol Red AS PR 188 = ASTM 1
Listed as reasonably opaque , but as an oil colour with
W and N , is transparent .
[ I will test this for lightfastness as well ]

What are the chances in oil of getting an affordable
Organic , that is in the state needed to be used
for decent lightfastness ?

Hence my sweeping dismissal of Napthol . Apologies.

This is the reason why , I selected for use only
2 Organics and mostly in my outdoor sketches ,
preferring to hand mull , than purchase a commercial
tube.

Working with [ Mars ] Iron Oxides is much simpler
on the nerves, allowing me more time to paint and
not have to be a chemist .
Titanium

* You do realise that there is a UV factor with oil
when testing .
It is not just lightfastness , it is also how much
the pigment protects the oil .

Irgazine and PY 154 lasted as coats , there were
a few other Organics , that didn't , when I did my
last tests.

I believe watercolours and acrylics are different
are they not ? I am asking as I have no experience
with either .

Einion
07-30-2001, 04:52 PM
Hi Titanium, I am always mindful that this is an oil forum ;)

Don't get me wrong, I am completely on your side with regard to the lightfastness issue and I applaud your very high standards. Being so much closer to the equator than most of us, the sunlight must be significantly more intense than many places so any paint that holds up there must be absolutely top-notch. I too prefer to use only ASTM I pigments (only have two or three II's) although to be honest considering the nature of my work this is not for any archival requirement; but might as well use the best I always say. I'm going to keep an eye out for PY154 in acrylics as it may be the best pigment for that hue position. Do you have the CIN for Irgazine Scarlet that you recommend?

About the naphthols, just like the azo yellows these are not reliable as a whole yes, but I was only referring to PR170 specifically, one of the best, or the best, example in the family (and even then you have to be careful as it can vary). As to the dates it's ASTM (1999).

There is a difference between pigments in oils, acrylic and watercolour - almost all pigments perform better (usually best) with the protection of an oil binder, so those are fairly safe guesses. Handprint's own lightfastness tests are aggressive, like yours, taking into account heating which the ASTM do not (and real UV exposure) and Daniel Smith's came in with an excellent rating (I). Now obviously this is again for watercolours but the pigment should perform better in oils or acrylics.

Einion

Titanium
07-30-2001, 07:39 PM
Einion ,

Kremer has it as PR255 .

Additionally from the Ciba-Geigy site -

requires 41 gm of oil to 100 gm pigment
P.C.B = 2mg per kilo .

I got those outdoor tests from various
Commercial Paint Technology books
and this was also mentioned in Levison's
work .

Well more or less that's all I know on Organics
, as I spent most of my time with Mars Colours
and Zno/Ti02 whites.
Titanium

Einion
07-31-2001, 03:11 PM
I knew the number looked familiar, I know it as Pyrrole Scarlet - diketo-pyrrolo pyrrole (DPP). I was already considering it for that hue position in the future.

If anyone is interested other members of this chemical group apparently share its "very good lightfastness". The numbers to look for are PO71, PO73, PR254, PR255 and PR264.

Einion

shawn gibson
08-01-2001, 09:32 AM
I have so much to respond to!!! Been away.
This is a...(valley-girl) 'AWESOME' post!!!

I have been looking for PR255 to start. And I believe PO36 is also an Irgazine, correct? Blockx sells...conveniently enough... a pigment known as (I forget the exact name) a vermillion hue...it is PR255, the Irgazine Scarlet I have been most hopeful to try...OH doesn't sell it.

Anyone used the Blockx stuff (PR255)? Is it OPAQUE?

I have decided to create a complimentary panel with Organics, to my panel of Archaics. I'll post them all when done.

I will respond in detail once I write this out and digest it.

shawn:)

Mario
08-01-2001, 09:39 AM
Shawn, what would being opaque tell you? How are organic dyes made opaque in a tube? What is something added? thanks

shawn gibson
08-01-2001, 10:30 AM
Oops, not for testing purposes...I just like opaque reds more than any other thing on my palatte...Vermilion...etc.

I spend a large time getting a dense flesh palatte (I would give my...anything...to get somewhere between Rembrandt and Freud!!!), a solid base of colour for glazes, and I am very 'aware'(?) when I am flipping between transparent and opaque...they're tools to me...distance, corporeality, etc.

And I just love a red I can't see newprint through!!! Don't know why, just my desire...

Also, (and maybe most importantly), my coats are <b>very, very thin</b>, a semi-transparent red just doesn't cover!!!

sorry if this is a useless post:):(
shawn