PDA

View Full Version : Color Temperature


HSargent
05-17-2006, 07:04 PM
So I have just enjoyed a portrait painting video and there was discussion of color temperatures. This time they me told how to use them.

So how about a short list of paint temperatures: (I added my impression)

Ultramarine blue - cool
cobalt blue - cool
cereleun blue -warm
cadmium yellow - warm
yellow ochre
naples yellow
burnt umber - warm
raw sienna - warm
burnt sienna
allizurum crimson
cadimium red - warm
sap green
viridian green

That should do it. I would guess this has been listed before but I could not come up with the proper search words.

Excuse the spelling but I didn't want to chase the spelling down.

jdadson
05-18-2006, 12:33 AM
There's been a lot of discussion here of color temperatures. The word "hooey" leaps to mind. I started to say "piffle," but I'll say "hooey."

skipstah70
05-18-2006, 02:33 AM
I'd beware of classifying your colours as "warm" or "cool" and thinking of mixing colour that way. What's really important about colour temp is it's relativity to adjacent colours in the picture. i.e. you can have a mixture of ultram blue, aliz crimson and white.. and have it be the warmest area of your painting. The surrounding colours would just have to be cooler.

S

Einion
05-18-2006, 08:45 AM
'Colour temperature' has actually been discussed more recently than during any similar period I can recall in the past. I even made a poll on it a short while ago :)

Assuming you use the idea one of the important things to realise is that it really is always relative to other colours/paints - what is warmer, cooler - and there are varied opinions on this but startlingly it seems it actually makes no difference (http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=338592&page=4)!

As usual when this topic comes up I do want to point out that you can paint without thinking in this way; rather, looking at colours as much as possible as their hue, value and chroma. This isn't relative to other colours so it's easier for some people to work in this manner.

There's been a lot of discussion here of color temperatures. The word "hooey" leaps to mind. I started to say "piffle," but I'll say "hooey."
LOL

While I agree I think we should remember one of the Colour Theory & Mixing adages: if it works for you it works.

Einion

Donna A
05-25-2006, 10:29 AM
There's been a lot of discussion here of color temperatures. The word "hooey" leaps to mind. I started to say "piffle," but I'll say "hooey."

Oh, my dear Jive-----piffle! There is sooo much of value in working with Temperature-within-the-Hue! Think most of us generally recognize Color Temperature on the Color Wheel---half and half, so to speak. But----within-the-Hue!!! It's a hugely magnificent opportunity to sense, understand and think about color in a real and vital way that also takes into consideration the issues of the color of the light source(s) as well as so many other relationships that are tremendously important to the creative vision of the artist and/or energy of the subject and subsequent painting! To consider it "hooey" for your own personal use is fine. To write it off all together if you do not see it is a whole different matter. :-)

Here is something that I wrote in another thread: "I had the most wonderful learning experience once with my son, who has some wonderful awarenesses and interests in music. He knows and hears allll the differences in world-class orchestra to world-class orchestra playing some particular piece of Beethoven or another. Ohhhh goshhhhh----they all sound the same to me. He once played some piece of music for me, had me listen, then asked me about it. duh. Then he told me about certain things within the piece, the way the oboe comes in rather hauntingly, to notice when and how the flute began and how it interacted with such and such, the swell of the violins, the other strings, the timphany. He talked about so many lovely nuances and contrasts and unities, accents and undercurrents.

Then he played the piece for me again. Ohhhhhh myyyyyy goshhhhh! Exquisite. The things there were there for me to savor. The richess increased geometrically! Things that "were not there" minutes ago were exciting me with wonder. What a lesson!

It's the same thing I had already been doing and for years have continued to do with artists learning to see color! Just cuz we are staring at it does NOT mean we are Seeing it! His sharing with me added so greatly to my life in my being far-better at Hearing music!!! And many artists have said that to me about Seeing color!!!

Sometimes, it just seems like we have to know what to look for ---or listen for---to trigger our Seeing it. It's always such a joy to turn others on to the wonders of color! It can make our world soooo much richer, so much more delicious and enjoyable!"

So----just because we do not See it----or Hear it----doesn't mean it's not there.

I greatly value having understandings of the relationships between colors. Using four color qualities: Hue—Temperature-within-the-Hue—Value—Intensity let me "nail" colors consistantly. And also sense the relationships in colors in the subject matter and in my paintings. It lets me "translate" colors as needed and push the colors in workable directions when I want to.

Horray for whatever works for each of us----as long as we are able to create paintings which, for us, are strong, successful and satisfying! Very best wishes! Donna ;-}

aszurblue
05-26-2006, 09:41 AM
Oh Donna, your experience with your son, was like mine with my Grandmother.

When doing dishes together, she would have the radio on the classical station. Being a teenager at that time, that just wasn't 'my kind' of music.
But she would tell me story's to it as it played and what do you know... I Saw The Music!!! What a experience, one I carry to this day and it spills over into my art and life as a whole!!

jadadson, do you see, what I hear!! Azure

Richard Saylor
05-27-2006, 02:54 AM
What is the warmest color of all? Why? What are the warmest and coolest colors within the blue sector? Why? Why do other people (presumably intelligent) disagree with your selections?

I'm not contending that there are not feelings (emotional/intuitive or whatever) of coolness or warmth associated with color. However, something as vague as a feeling is not nearly precise enough to serve as a definition of a technical term in color theory; and without a definition, who is to say what's what?

Einion
05-27-2006, 10:40 AM
What is the warmest color of all? Why? What are the warmest and coolest colors within the blue sector? Why? Why do other people (presumably intelligent) disagree with your selections?
And does it matter? Apparently no, surprising as I'm sure that is.

Einion

Richard Saylor
05-27-2006, 08:45 PM
And does it matter? Apparently no, surprising as I'm sure that is.

EinionAgreed. I'm just curious about what the true believers (in color temperature) really believe and whether they have examined their beliefs for logical consistency.

Patrick1
05-28-2006, 12:19 AM
This one will never die... :o.

Richard Saylor
05-28-2006, 12:41 AM
This one will never die... :o......because there are still unanswered questions. :evil:

jdadson
05-28-2006, 01:31 AM
What is the warmest color of all? Why? What are the warmest and coolest colors within the blue sector? Why? Why do other people (presumably intelligent) disagree with your selections?

If you take a flesh tone paint and add gray paint to it, is it cooler? Some artists think that. One preemminent artist said "white is the coolest color," but he neglects to say what "cool" means.

No one will define what those words mean. Could it be ... piffle? I say hooey!

Give me hue, saturation, and value, and leave the thermometer out of it.

Patrick1
05-28-2006, 01:36 AM
Give me hue, saturation, and value, and leave the thermometer out of it.
Classic. :lol:

Classical Vince
06-01-2006, 02:21 AM
If you take a flesh tone paint and add gray paint to it, is it cooler? Some artists think that. One preemminent artist said "white is the coolest color," but he neglects to say what "cool" means.

No one will define what those words mean. Could it be ... piffle? I say hooey!

Give me hue, saturation, and value, and leave the thermometer out of it.

lol, nothing like another passionate thread in colory theory. ;) jdad, ive been studying for four years with a color theorist who would strongly disagree with you, as do I and probably rembrandt too. you dont know what your missing.

Einion
06-01-2006, 09:14 AM
Well Vince you're obviously one of those that think the idea is important but did you check out the link I posted above? That might make you rethink quite how important it is in the grand scheme of things ;)

As for your reference to Rembrandt, do you know that he thought/worked this way? It's perfectly possible to interpret his work, and any other artist's, in different terms than they actually worked, just as it is to like a painting for something other than the painter's main intent, e.g. Constable's eye salve.

I've been exposed to the principle long enough now that I'm well over my initial "Eh?" reaction, but there are still many aspects of the way it's talked about and taught that are a real problem (one we've seen here on WC! dozens of times) and the collection of quotes I assembled for the previous thread highlight many of the inconsistencies.

Einion

jdadson
06-01-2006, 02:38 PM
lol, nothing like another passionate thread in colory theory. ;) jdad, ive been studying for four years with a color theorist who would strongly disagree with you, as do I and probably rembrandt too. you dont know what your missing.

The concept of color temperature did not arise until about 100 years after Rembrandt.

You say I don't know what I'm missing. Well pardon my ignorance. Why don't you do a good turn? Tell me what I'm missing. Define warm and cool. What definitions did your color theorist give you? Surely he doesn't use terms like that without telling you what they mean.

jdadson
06-01-2006, 02:49 PM
I just popped over to Handprint to check something in the section on color temperature. It appears that the section has been updated recently. It's a jolly good read.

http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color12.html

jdadson
06-01-2006, 03:08 PM
As usually, handprint gets to the heart of the matter, although in the case of color temperature in a somewhat (to me at least) roundabout way.

In most hues, a loss of chroma causes a color to shift toward gray while retaining the recognizable hue character of the color. A dull green is still green, and a dull violet still violet.

Among warm hues, the shift is not toward gray but toward a subjectively different color. This is clearly marked by the fact that people do not use the spectral hue labels (yellow, orange, red) to refer to the unsaturated form of the same colors (which are instead called green, ochre, tan, brown or maroon).

But handprint comes up short when attempting to define the terms in a way that is consistent with expert usage. It may be impossible to do so.

I suspect that many who speak in terms of color temperature are not clear on what they mean, if they've even considered whether they know. Frequenty, when accomplished artists speak of cool or cooler colors, particularly as the terms refer to flesh tones, they are not describing hue shifts (red=warm, green=cool). What they mean is lowered saturation in colors that are in the "warm" side of the color wheel. But many people, and I would assert most beginners, think the terms warm and cool apply to hue differences only. Since no one will come forward with definitions, the pervasive use of the words is an impediment to learning.

I have a very good book by Greg Kreutz. At one point he says something like, "Grey is too aggressively cool to be a good neutral color," [paraphrased]. Grey is cool? Grey has an undefined hue, totally unsaturated. David Leffel speaks of "cool flesh tones." The flesh tones he is talking about are lowered saturation flesh tones, not flesh tones shifted toward the nominally cooler hue of magenta. One of the wetcanvas tutorials on painting flesh tones uses the same language. Frequently the "cool" flesh tones have a warmer (more yellow-orange) hue than the "warm" ones. Leffel says white is the coolest color, and yellow is the warmest. It's all unnecessarily confused and confusing. Those two are among my favorite artists. I have struggled mightily to figure out some of their teachings.

Modern science has provided us with a perfectly good way of succinctly describing any color or color shift: hue, saturation, and value. Why cloud the issue with fuzzy words when we have perfectly good words that can be given precise, operational definitions?

Einion
06-01-2006, 04:01 PM
I suspect that many who speak in terms of color temperature are not clear on what they mean, if they've even considered whether they know. Frequenty, when accomplished artists speak of cool or cooler colors, particularly as the terms refer to flesh tones, they are not describing hue shifts (red=warm, green=cool). What they mean is lowered saturation in colors that are in the "warm" side of the color wheel. But many people, and I would assert most beginners, think the terms warm and cool apply to hue differences only. Since no one will come forward with definitions, the pervasive use of the words is an impediment to learning.
That's the nub of the issue for me.

I have a very good book by Greg Kreutz. At one point he says something like, "Grey is too aggressively cool to be a good neutral color," [paraphrased]. Grey is cool?
Oi vey! I hope he doesn't really mean grey as I would understand it; maybe he's referring to a mixture of white and black?

Einion

Classical Vince
06-01-2006, 06:42 PM
The concept of color temperature did not arise until about 100 years after Rembrandt.

I would have to disagree, both Rubens and Rembrandt used temperature. I was lucky enough to tour a local museum with my instructor where he pointed out the shifts in temperature on pieces by both artists. It kind of made things clearer by seeing it directly.


You say I don't know what I'm missing. Well pardon my ignorance. Why don't you do a good turn? Tell me what I'm missing. Define warm and cool. What definitions did your color theorist give you? Surely he doesn't use terms like that without telling you what they mean.

Lol, surely or he wouldnt be teaching for 40yrs ;) Color temperature, like hue, saturation and value further describe a color but is more closely linked with its hue.

Simply put, a color can be more or less like its neighbor. For instance, green can only be green (neutral), blue-green (cool), or yellow-green (warm). The shifts in temperature occur on the shadows edge, core highlight, and deepest shadow depending upon whether there is a warm/cool light source and ots intensity - strong or weak light.

Of course, I have simplified this bc there are exceptions when it comes to reflective surfaces.

HSargent
06-01-2006, 06:43 PM
Boy, I touched some nerves! I would have thought color temperatures would be a fundamental technique in a section called "Color Theory/Mixing".

I have seen what I felt was a sense of temperatures when a color is mixed with white.

Alizarin Crimison is cool, Cadmium Red is warm.

Cobalt Blue is cool, ultramarine blue is warm, cerelium blue is cool.

I viewed a portrait video and the prinicipal was paint the undertones cool on the portion of the face rain would fall on and use warrm tones on the lower surfaces.

This surprised me; I thought where the shadows would be cool and lights would be warm.

I've heard cobalt blue in the mix will bring the surface forward and ultramarine would push back in landscapes and still lifes.

This would be consistent with the portrait instruction.

Do any Believers have comments about usage of temperatures?

Classical Vince
06-01-2006, 06:56 PM
Well Vince you're obviously one of those that think the idea is important but did you check out the link I posted above? That might make you rethink quite how important it is in the grand scheme of things ;)

I havent checked out the link, Im at work right now but will have a look-see when I get home. I'd have agree, in the grand scheme of things it is less important than value and drafting :)


As for your reference to Rembrandt, do you know that he thought/worked this way? It's perfectly possible to interpret his work, and any other artist's, in different terms than they actually worked, just as it is to like a painting for something other than the painter's main intent, e.g. Constable's eye salve.

As I mentioned, I saw it being used on the actual works. I also trust my instructors education as he has studied quite a bit more art first hand than I have.


I've been exposed to the principle long enough now that I'm well over my initial "Eh?" reaction, but there are still many aspects of the way it's talked about and taught that are a real problem (one we've seen here on WC! dozens of times) and the collection of quotes I assembled for the previous thread highlight many of the inconsistencies.

Einion

Gawd, it took me 3yrs of hearing him talk about it before I lost the "eh?". One thing I did notice on my instructors tour of a museum is that most artists didnt use it all. Just goes to prove, theres more than temperature to great pieces of art. :)

jdadson
06-01-2006, 07:02 PM
I would have to disagree, both Rubens and Rembrandt used temperature .

The concept does not appear in the literature until about 100 years after Rembrandt. In other words, there is no recrod that peodple spoke in those terms in Rembrandt's day. You may may look at a Rembrandt painting and say, "See how he used temperature shifts here." I may look at the same painting and say, "See how he used relatively unsaturated colors here." But that's us. There is little record of how he actually conceptualized what he painted. He wrote very little. One or two of his students wrote more. They didn't say anything about warm or cool.

jdadson
06-01-2006, 07:05 PM
Simply put, a color can be more or less like its neighbor. For instance, green can only be green (neutral), blue-green (cool), or yellow-green (warm). The shifts in temperature occur on the shadows edge, core highlight, and deepest shadow depending upon whether there is a warm/cool light source and ots intensity - strong or weak light.


But can you define warm and cool? The examples you give are hue differences. As I have said repeatedly, many very accomplished artists use "cool" to me "unsaturated" when speaking of flesh tones. Define the words.

jdadson
06-01-2006, 07:09 PM
Boy, I touched some nerves! I would have thought color temperatures would be a fundamental technique in a section called "Color Theory/Mixing".


There was a time when the ego, super ego, and id would have been fundamental in a section on human psychology. As knowledge and understanding change, sometimes the jargon needs an overhaul too.

Classical Vince
06-01-2006, 07:17 PM
The concept does not appear in the literature until about 100 years after Rembrandt. In other words, there is no recrod that peodple spoke in those terms in Rembrandt's day. You may may look at a Rembrandt painting and say, "See how he used temperature shifts here." I may look at the same painting and say, "See how he used relatively unsaturated colors here." But that's us. There is little record of how he actually conceptualized what he painted. He wrote very little. One or two of his students wrote more. They didn't say anything about warm or cool.

Rembrandt aside, I see color temperature everywhere around me in nature. Luckily, I dont have to rely on reading about the subject since my instructor has been painting for over 60yrs and teaching for 40.

Classical Vince
06-01-2006, 07:25 PM
But can you define warm and cool? The examples you give are hue differences. As I have said repeatedly, many very accomplished artists use "cool" to me "unsaturated" when speaking of flesh tones. Define the words.

You're being silly, but ok I'll play.

Cool = A colors relativity to Blue
Warm = A colors relativity to Orange-Red

You're asking for a definition of words when you havent considered it as a concept. I can assure you, I wouldnt confuse a description of saturation or value with the terms warm/cool. Obviously, they describe hue.

jdadson
06-01-2006, 07:32 PM
You're being silly, but ok I'll play.

Cool = A colors relativity to Blue
Warm = A colors relativity to Orange-Red

You're asking for a definition of words when you havent considered it as a concept.

Saying I'm silly or that I haven't considered something does not further your position. I don't even understand the second accusation. I have given the subject considerable thought over the last two years. I believe I have pretty much figured out what I need to figure out.

I got over my Objectivist phase 35 years ago, but what would Rand have said about an argument from authority? "My teacher has been painting for over 60 years and teaching 40."

Classical Vince
06-01-2006, 07:51 PM
Saying I'm silly or that I haven't considered something does not further your position. I don't even understand the second accusation. I have given the subject considerable thought over the last two years. I believe I have pretty much figured out what I need to figure out.

Thats great that you've got it all figured out. For me, Im still willing to learn. I suppose this explains you're phooey comment.


I got over my Objectivist phase 35 years ago, but what would Rand have said about an argument from authority? "My teacher has been painting for over 60 years and teaching 40."

Uh, honestly...I dont care what she has to say, she's dead and never painted. lol.

Richard Saylor
06-01-2006, 09:54 PM
Boy, I touched some nerves! I would have thought color temperatures would be a fundamental technique in a section called "Color Theory/Mixing".If by touching some nerves you mean that some people reject the idea of color temperature because it is undefined, that is true. If you are talking about getting emotional about it, I haven't seen that, although at least one believer got somewhat passionate in its defense.

I have seen what I felt was a sense of temperatures when a color is mixed with white.Yes, I too believe that the addition of white can sometimes change the temperature of a color.

Alizarin Crimison is cool, Cadmium Red is warm.I agree.

Cobalt Blue is cool, ultramarine blue is warm, cerelium blue is cool.I would think that both ultramarine and cerulean are warmer than cobalt, but I refrain from comparing the temperatures of blues because there is so much difference of opinion. A lot of people would say that cerulean is warmer than ultramarine. Not too many use cobalt nowadays because the real stuff is so expensive.

Do any Believers have comments about usage of temperatures?I'm not exactly a believer or non-believer, although I may use temperature terminology where I think it is appropriate, unambiguous, and noncontroversial.

Classical Vince
06-02-2006, 01:36 AM
did you check out the link I posted above? That might make you rethink quite how important it is in the grand scheme of things ;)

LOL, great links einion. the topic is more like fire & ice than discussions about warm & cool. :D

jdadson, btw I thought your project in the classical forum was gorgeous.:thumbsup:

Donna A your descriptions are wonderful.

jdadson
06-02-2006, 03:42 PM
Okay, here's a little quiz. Which color is cooler? - the outside color or the blob in the middle?

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/02-Jun-2006/49618-flesh.jpg

jdadson
06-02-2006, 03:49 PM
Quiz number 2

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/02-Jun-2006/49618-cool2.jpg

jdadson
06-02-2006, 03:57 PM
Number 3

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/02-Jun-2006/49618-cool3.jpg

Patrick1
06-02-2006, 04:29 PM
Okay, here's a little quiz. Which color is cooler? - the outside color or the blob in the middle?What do you mean by cooler?

jdadson
06-02-2006, 05:12 PM
What do you mean by cooler?

Joke, right?

The quiz is for folks who do have a notion of warmer and cooler, however fuzzy that notion may be. Those folks should use their own concept or whatever it is they use when they decide whether a color is warmer or cooler than another.

There's method to my madness.

Classical Vince
06-02-2006, 06:53 PM
Temperature is a relative term. I see value and saturation changes to the colors but the blobs are neutralized. Obviously, by neutralizing a color you also remove its temperature.

Here's a quiz: How do you make red warmer?

lpb
06-02-2006, 08:31 PM
I'll stick my neck out...
1 & 2 inside blob is cooler, by my interpretation, which means closer to blue. 3rd blob, genuinely undecided, but lean towards outside cooler.

I am a pure novice, but in trying to understand why paint manufacturers labled pigments as warm or cool, this was my interp of what they were getting at. Every color will lean more towards blue/green (cool) or more towards red/yellow (warm). That is how you can have a warm blue and a cool red.
:wave:

Patrick1
06-02-2006, 08:49 PM
Joke, right?
I meant it only slightly jocularly, but mostly in seriousness; we must first agree on what that word means; is it determined by hue (which hue?), saturation, maybe value?

The quiz is for folks who do have a notion of warmer and cooler, however fuzzy that notion may be. Those folks should use their own concept or whatever it is they use when they decide whether a color is warmer or cooler than another.Okay. I generally think of a saturated ultramarine blue-like color as coolest, and a bright, high-chroma yellow-orange as warmest. So then:

#1... inner blob is cooler because it's greyer, and about the same actual hue
#2... inner blob is cooler; its hue is a lot warmer, but that doesn't overcome its greyness
#3... about equal.... the inner part is lighter and the warmer hue, but it also looks greyer

Here's a quiz: How do you make red warmer? Take it towards bright orange/yellow, or surround it with c()()ler colors (particulary in the direction of cyan).

Classical Vince
06-02-2006, 10:21 PM
Take it towards bright orange/yellow, or surround it with c()()ler colors (particulary in the direction of cyan).

we have a winner! ;)

jdad, you asked us to compare colors for you. i suspect the nuances of actual "temperature" in your examples to be your way of having us believe that temperature either doesnt exist or that you truly dont have a method to your madness.

This isnt about A compared to B - color temperature as a concept can be applied to harmonize the color within a piece of work. after reading einions links...geez, this topic is a tired read around here. either you get it or you dont.

jdadson
06-02-2006, 11:34 PM
I'll stick my neck out...
1 & 2 inside blob is cooler, by my interpretation, which means closer to blue. 3rd blob, genuinely undecided, but lean towards outside cooler.

I am a pure novice, but in trying to understand why paint manufacturers labled pigments as warm or cool, this was my interp of what they were getting at. Every color will lean more towards blue/green (cool) or more towards red/yellow (warm). That is how you can have a warm blue and a cool red.
:wave:


And the answer is... (answers are) ...

1. The colors have exactly the same hue. The inside blob is less saturated and darker.

2. The inside color has an orange hue, while the inside hue is red. If warm/cool is all about hue, the inside blob is warmer, not cooler.

3. These colors have exactly the same hue also.

You say the inner colors are "closer to blue" in the first two cases. That is certainly not the case if you measure "closeness" alonng the circle of hues. In the second case particuarly, the inside is farther from blue than the outside color. But if you measure "cutting through" color space, then, well maybe.

Starting to see where I'm coming from?

jdadson
06-02-2006, 11:42 PM
Okay. I generally think of a saturated ultramarine blue-like color as coolest, and a bright, high-chroma yellow-orange as warmest. So then:

#1... inner blob is cooler because it's greyer, and about the same actual hue
#2... inner blob is cooler; its hue is a lot warmer, but that doesn't overcome its greyness
#3... about equal.... the inner part is lighter and the warmer hue, but it also looks greyer

I think your answers reflect the way most accomplished artists use the terms. You call the inside colors of the first two "cooler" although in the first case the hues are exactly the same.

In the second case the inner blob is actually more orange than the redish outer square. If they had the same saturation, most people would say the oranger color is warmer, not cooler. But the lowered saturation trumps the hue.

The third is a sort of control. It's supposed to be hard to call. The hues are equal. The inside is less saturated, but not extremely so.

jdadson
06-02-2006, 11:48 PM
we have a winner! ;)

jdad, you asked us to compare colors for you. i suspect the nuances of actual "temperature" in your examples to be your way of having us believe that temperature either doesnt exist or that you truly dont have a method to your madness.



Please quit trying to read my mind. You're not very good at it.

jdadson
06-02-2006, 11:50 PM
I meant it only slightly jocularly, but mostly in seriousness; we must first agree on what that word means.

Well, since my mantra all along has been that folks do not have a working definition of warm and cool, I thought you were giving me a taste of my own medicine.

jdadson
06-02-2006, 11:54 PM
Temperature is a relative term. I see value and saturation changes to the colors but the blobs are neutralized. Obviously, by neutralizing a color you also remove its temperature.



The responses of the others are in keeping with my experience with how most people, including some very good painters, use the words. They judge the less saturated flesh tones as "cooler," ignoring hue similarities or differences.

jdadson
06-03-2006, 12:04 AM
jdadson, btw I thought your project in the classical forum was gorgeous.:thumbsup.

Thanks for the olive branch. That's one of my better efforts to date. I've only been doing this part time for a couple of years. I'm guessing I've done about 35 paintings. I numbered them up to 20, then lost count.

jdadson
06-03-2006, 12:05 AM
I'm going to be away for a few days. When I get back, I expect to see this thread topping 30 pages.

Classical Vince
06-03-2006, 01:48 AM
Please quit trying to read my mind. You're not very good at it.
yet i read exactly what you did is, distort value and saturation. Yes Im good at it.

Classical Vince
06-03-2006, 01:49 AM
The responses of the others are in keeping with my experience with how most people, including some very good painters, use the words. They judge the less saturated flesh tones as "cooler," ignoring hue similarities or differences.
temperature is a further definition of hue. i dont care how most people think.

Classical Vince
06-03-2006, 01:50 AM
Thanks for the olive branch. That's one of my better efforts to date. I've only been doing this part time for a couple of years. I'm guessing I've done about 35 paintings. I numbered them up to 20, then lost count.
i lost count after my first ;)

Classical Vince
06-03-2006, 02:01 AM
The responses of the others are in keeping with my experience with how most people, including some very good painters, use the words. They judge the less saturated flesh tones as "cooler," ignoring hue similarities or differences.
how misfortunate for them and you.

Classical Vince
06-03-2006, 02:18 AM
either you get it or you dont.
jdad, you dont.

jdadson
06-03-2006, 02:23 AM
jdad, you dont.

Can you keep it to the subject matter, and leave your analysis of my thought processes out of it? Asking one more time.

Classical Vince
06-03-2006, 02:27 AM
Can you keep it to the subject matter, and leave your analysis of my thought processes out of it? Asking one more time.
LOL lets keep to it. do you consider warm or cool light in your work? we can end this now.

Classical Vince
06-03-2006, 02:35 AM
you dont do you? and neither do 95% of the painters out there. talk about color temperature and they freak, like you.

Classical Vince
06-03-2006, 02:52 AM
let's shoot for 60 more pages if all I have is you to confront.

Patrick1
06-03-2006, 06:17 AM
The third is a sort of control. ..... The hues are equal...I didn't believe that until I eyedroppered it. It looks more yellow, yet it's only more whitish.

Quite a few people see yellow-orange as the warmest hue, so the inner blob is warmer to our eyes. But there are some accomplished artists who consider white to be the coolest color. So the whiter inner blob is actually cooler. IT'S WARMER-COOLER AT THE SAME TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS AN AMAZING DISCOVERY!!!!!!! I CAN"T WAIT TO SEE HOW MUCH BETTER EVERYON"ES PAINTINGS WILL BE NOW!!!!!

Richard Saylor
06-03-2006, 09:52 PM
Instead of playing games with saturation and value (apparently of interest mostly to portrait painters), how about getting down to the nitty gritty?

Why is ultramarine blue ______ (insert "warmer" or "cooler") than cerulean blue? If it's just a subjective feeling, then please say so. Lots of factors in art are incapable of being objectively quantifiable. There's nothing in the world wrong with that.

However, if color temperature is subjective, then there is no excuse in telling those who disagree with the concept that they just don't "get it." That extablishes only that those who accept the concept think that they have greater understanding (intelligence?) than those who don't.

Donna A
06-04-2006, 05:40 PM
Hi! I'm just back after over a week of internet connection @#$^%&LL! New ISP----and everything ended up @#$$E^^&*----so I have missed you all----and have utterly lost track of where everyone is.

At any rate, have had an interesting observation today looking at some of the WC artists' web site paintings----and in my classes with a couple of newer artists-----and an over-riding issue seems to be lack of awareness and use of variety in Color-Temperature-within-the-Hues.

Fine for those who do not believe that there is a relationship between warmer and cooler qualities within a Hue. Fine for those who do not see it.

And Value and Saturation/Intensity/Chroma are part of the "nitty-gritty," as the above. Extremely useful.

And for those who don't see it/use it/believe in it----just don't! Breath! Hey---people used to KNOW the world was flat! As long as you are making your paintings work for you, what difference can it make?

Seeing and using Hue Temps makes a wonderful, positive difference for me----and for so many of the artists I work with. And so many have been winning national juried exhibit awards, etc! Selling well. Etc. The finest works I see in galleries and museums have a sense of this. Have no idea how they "named" it, but they used it! Were extremely aware of it! So---we can allllll be happy! Best wishes! Donna ;-}

Richard Saylor
06-04-2006, 10:30 PM
And Value and Saturation/Intensity/Chroma are part of the "nitty-gritty," as the above. Extremely useful.Really? I never would have guessed it. I better get back in my playpen and stop bothering the the great knowledgeable masters on this forum.:rolleyes: I was, by the way, referring only to Jive's little color temperature test. I was not commenting on the importance of value and saturation per se. I want a few honest, down-to-earth answers about color temperature in relation to hue, and answers are not forthcoming, only put-downs of those who don't "see it." Whenever convenient, color temperaturists hide behind a smokescreen of elitism.

And for those who don't see it/use it/believe in it----just don't! Breath! Hey---people used to KNOW the world was flat!Not believing in color temperature is like knowing the earth is flat. Uh, sure.:confused:

Seeing and using Hue Temps makes a wonderful, positive difference for me----and for so many of the artists I work with. And so many have been winning national juried exhibit awards, etc! Selling well. Etc. The finest works I see in galleries and museums have a sense of this.If artists can't even agree about which blues are warm and which cool, then how can one possibly conclude anything from their paintings about their sense of color temperature? You're obviously projecting your own pet theories into their paintings.

bigflea
06-05-2006, 12:15 AM
One thought to interject about color temperature, is the degree to which we associate a certain color with an actual physical experience. Eg., we all know the adage re. the child learning that the fire is hot only after sticking their hand in the flame. Prior to the actual experience, the child may not have any concept of a flame, which on a stove is usually some kind of yellow/orange, being hot. Or we associate the heat of sunlight with the color of the sun, as a yellow. By contrast, we learn to associate a cold feeling with snow, and with the diminished sunlight of winter.

So, I think my short winded point here is that, I cannot subscribe a reason why there is the conception of warm for some colors and cool for others, except perhaps for what is ingrained in our associations and our visceral sensations from previous experiences. And our experience can defy these associations and expectations, eg. learning that the hottest part of the welder's torch is not the yellow flame, but where the flame turns blue.
Ken

Richard Saylor
06-05-2006, 12:46 AM
.....So, I think my short winded point here is that, I cannot subscribe a reason why there is the conception of warm for some colors and cool for others, except perhaps for what is ingrained in our associations and our visceral sensations from previous experiences.....At last, an honest explanation which makes perfectly good sense. Thank you, Ken!

Classical Vince
06-05-2006, 02:36 AM
However, if color temperature is subjective, then there is no excuse in telling those who disagree with the concept that they just don't "get it." That extablishes only that those who accept the concept think that they have greater understanding (intelligence?) than those who don't.
i've come to the conclusion that either you consider it in your work or you dont. if you dont...good for you, carry on. if you do consider temperature, than this thread is for you. give it a rest, i've read the links.

Richard Saylor
06-05-2006, 02:56 AM
i've come to the conclusion that either you consider it in your work or you dont. if you dont...good for you, carry on. if you do consider temperature, than this thread is for you. give it a rest, i've read the links.Is it too much to ask whether you think temperature is a subjective determination? Instead of simply responding, you change the subject and advise me to drop the subject. Just answer the question, please.

Classical Vince
06-05-2006, 02:58 AM
Is it too much to ask whether you think temperature is a subjective determination? Instead of simply responding, you change the subject and advise me to drop the subject. Just answer the question, please.
temperature is subjective because it is relative within the piece you are working on among many other factors. you would like a yes or no? ok, yes. now what.

Richard Saylor
06-05-2006, 03:09 AM
temperature is subjective because it is relative within the piece you are working on among many other factors. you would like a yes or no? ok, yes. now what.Thank you.

Classical Vince
06-05-2006, 03:11 AM
np

Classical Vince
06-05-2006, 03:21 AM
its called tolerance. get off of us who consider this as a part of our work and focus on your own. i wished you luck with yours so own it. geez.

Einion
06-05-2006, 11:54 PM
temperature is a further definition of hue. i dont care how most people think.
Okay that's fine: that's how you think. But speaking from experience it's extremely varied how artists consider this (as we can see from the quotes) and that is a very important part of the issue.

The responses of the others are in keeping with my experience with how most people, including some very good painters, use the words. They judge the less saturated flesh tones as "cooler," ignoring hue similarities or differences.how misfortunate for them and you.
You might want to rethink that position. Many fine painters think of temperature in this way (which isn't wrong as far as I'm concerned but see more below*) so it's a mistake to dismiss it out of hand and it's highly relevant what exactly are seen as changes in 'temperature'.

jdad, you dont.
You need to reexamine this too believe me.

*What is wrong, and this is something that jdadson picked up quickly, is that they don't realise that it's very often varied saturation that they're identifying, not a change in hue, which is what they think they're seeing, and will often say outright is the case. And what's worse perhaps is you'll even see someone say that the hue changes from the highlights through the halftones to the shadows... but without consciously realising it they mix the colour quite accurately so it's not actually much different in hue!

you dont do you? and neither do 95% of the painters out there. talk about color temperature and they freak, like you.
And neither did thousands of painters historically; and yet it didn't stop them from painting well. This is still the case today.

temperature is subjective because it is relative within the piece you are working on among many other factors.
Okay, that's fair enough; we can all see that. But there are still open questions when absolute questions are asked. Please note I'm not putting the onus on you to answer them (since we already know there will be more than one answer) just pointing this out.

let's shoot for 60 more pages if all I have is you to confront.
You don't :D

its called tolerance. get off of us who consider this as a part of our work and focus on your own. i wished you luck with yours so own it. geez.
Achem, Vince, this is rather ironic given you're showing a fair amount of intolerance for the opposing view yourself here ;)

This does not have to be a confrontational thing - you think one way, others think another way. Both positions are right from a chosen perspective, please don't anyone forget that.

Einion

Einion
06-05-2006, 11:58 PM
Fine for those who do not believe that there is a relationship between warmer and cooler qualities within a Hue. Fine for those who do not see it.
The thing is Donna that people who don't think in terms of 'temperature' can still see the changes in colour, they just describe it differently.

At any rate, have had an interesting observation today looking at some of the WC artists' web site paintings----and in my classes with a couple of newer artists-----and an over-riding issue seems to be lack of awareness and use of variety in Color-Temperature-within-the-Hues.
That's just one aspect of weak painting, which won't in any way be confined to people who conceptualise colour in one way. In a similar vein to what I said to Vince earlier in relation to interpreting Rembrandt's work a given way, you see certain failings in the colours in the way you see colour. Assuming someone like me would agree with your assessment of a specific piece, that the colour was weak (unrealistic) in certain ways I'd just think of/describe the differences in a different way; it doesn't necessarily preclude me seeing them as well as someone who thinks as you do.

And Value and Saturation/Intensity/Chroma are part of the "nitty-gritty," as the above. Extremely useful.
Extremely useful to those who like to think that way though. The 'un-artistic' way of thinking about colour, almost exclusively in terms of hue, value and chroma, is just as useful to those that use it... and just as un-useful, and alien, to those that don't ;)

As for it being part of the nitty-gritty I don't think anyone should gloss over the very varied way in which 'colour temperature' is interpreted by artists; this is one of the primary sources of confusion for those that do want to learn this (I've seen it enough here and elsewhere to assure anyone on that). And in addition there are incidences where artists are not even internally consistent, which anyone should see could be a source of additional head-scratching.

Einion

Patrick1
06-06-2006, 12:07 PM
...people who don't think in terms of 'temperature' can still see the changes in colour, they just describe it differently. Yes; If you get the color right, you automatically get the temperature (however you define it) right. So why not just think in terms of hue, saturation and value? ...you're not missing out on anything.

bigflea
06-06-2006, 10:43 PM
Re. Patrick's point,

The main reason that comes to mind (for not limiting the verbal/ conceptual associations for color recognition) and based on understanding how people conceive of forms and color, is that often a person cannot see hue differences very well, or they have no real conception of brightness, and if they can see differences between somethings based on their conception of warm/cool, ( no matter how they acquired it, or how non descriptive it is in terms of the actual hue,chroma,value differences, it is something to work with, or a way to go at the problem.

I doubt if someone like R.Schmid (or Monet for that matter)spend much time thinking about the temperature differences of colors simply because they learn to recognize hue and chroma relationships quickly (and include value in the chromatic mixing equation). But for learning, and for analyzing when we are stumped, something like an association of warmth with a particular group of colors and coolness with a different group may be a way for a person to continue learning, to get to a point where the essential character of a color area is visually understood.
Simply a means to an end, is how I see it being useful.
Ken

Donna A
06-07-2006, 05:15 PM
Whoops---double post. Sometimes it just looks like nothing is happening for a good while so I tap the button again! Pardon! Donna ;-}

Donna A
06-07-2006, 05:16 PM
Yes; If you get the color right, you automatically get the temperature (however you define it) right. So why not just think in terms of hue, saturation and value? ...you're not missing out on anything.

Well, I would miss something!!!---and a number of other accomplished artists I know, too. Looking at my subject matter, H-S-V are three/forths of the visual pie for me.

I absolutely agree with those who make their paintings work beautifully and are accomplished with their colors and don't use the same terms that I find so extremely useful, but to those who say the particular quality does not exist, LOL. However, I'm not at all invested in anyone not being aware of the quality----or whatever they may call it should be they aware of it and make use of.

And of course, Einion, full seeing and use of color is indeed only one of the issues that can render a painting weak or strong. It's just that I've seen the issue of not making use of temp-changes-within-the-hue to be an issue I so often see. There are just soooo many other ways of making things work/not work! :-) Yes!!!!

From Einion: In a similar vein to what I said to Vince earlier in relation to interpreting Rembrandt's work a given way, you see certain failings in the colours in the way you see colour. Assuming someone like me would agree with your assessment of a specific piece, that the colour was weak (unrealistic) in certain ways I'd just think of/describe the differences in a different way; it doesn't necessarily preclude me seeing them as well as someone who thinks as you do.

And that makes sense to me, as well. We are so blessed these days to have such a deliciously broad range of wattages and temperature spectrums in lighting sources available; large clear windows well insulated; perhaps easlier interior options in space and color, heating/cooling, etc; lightfast pigments, etc! that put us in a different situation for the working situations for many of us compared to the Old Masters. Rembrandt and others lived in darker rooms with often different lighting than so many of us (not that it can not be replicated, but....) That had an effect on their subject matter, of course. It was so much more effective for them to rely greatly on Value as the primary carrier of the image, even though they did have some lovely, powerfully rich colors that they could employ. But they were not in the same position as we current-day artists to pull all the stops on the Colorist excitement so many of us relish. They or their apprentices mixed the fresh oil each day or so----and that was also a far way from squeezing out at any whim all the plethora of ready pigments we have today!

Their work was gorgeous, delicious, inspired and inspiring. And thank goodness we are not working with some of the limits they had to work with. Still, they created masterpieces. But they did not "play with" color in the same way that many of us do. Did not have a lot of the visual treats that I can create in my studio---and they typically did not paint out of doors. Perhaps sketches----but, most often, no painting plein air by the Old Masters where there was a different light!

So any "inaccuracies" some might sense in some of their works might re-feed their judgements through the realities of the world in which they lived and worked----and the limits of light and therefore color qualities which were readily visible to the eye. I suspect that the Old Masters used a combination of their Style, what they could see and then how they chose to translate it to create their wonderful works. Take good care! Donna ;-}

LarrySeiler
06-07-2006, 06:26 PM
Yes; If you get the color right, you automatically get the temperature (however you define it) right. So why not just think in terms of hue, saturation and value? ...you're not missing out on anything.

It is quite relative isn't it, and perhaps says more about us as artists and individuals that any way best to approach solving a painting issue.

I see this say relationship, Patrick...with values.

If a person sees color rightly, they are seeing the values as they should. Every color carries inherently its level of light or dark. Problem though as I teach artists in workshops is I discover so many artists are NOT seeing color rightly, and I think accounts for why so many calling themselves "colorists" (as though better representing and judging the color of nature) are creating works not at all convincing as that which should represent nature. So, I immediately assign such an individual to a smaller value study painting...that will observe dark, mid, and light and halftones...and then try again. As a rule, I tend to start my workshops with such assignments.

I can see your point...if you see color right, you will be seeing temperature right in its relative nature to all surrounding masses and color. Yet, one can be sensitive to a trait of color.

Myself...I am very aesthetically attuned to temperature of color AND see value right. It is my sensitivity to color temperature that helps me tweak and get the most (especially) from a more limited palette. Of course awareness of values and so forth helps as well...

Some ride a bicycle to get somewhere. Some ride to exercise. Some to forget things and allow their mind some rest. In all cases, the bicycle is yet being ridden and to say that only one way qualifies that ground has been covered in a ride would show itself a silly argument to those standing by the way.

If I accomplish a good painting sensitive to the relationships of color, and you by hue and value...then we can both sit around the cafe and lift a drink to toast a good day! :thumbsup:

Classical Vince
06-07-2006, 08:33 PM
Not believing in color temperature is like knowing the earth is flat. Uh, sure.:confused:


and all this time you thought there were only three dimentions of color...hue value and saturation. lol. go figure.

Classical Vince
06-07-2006, 08:43 PM
Achem, Vince, this is rather ironic given you're showing a fair amount of intolerance for the opposing view yourself here ;)

This does not have to be a confrontational thing - you think one way, others think another way. Both positions are right from a chosen perspective, please don't anyone forget that.

Einion

Yes, however, as your links have shown, the naysayers seem to knock these types of discussions out. I'd like to see the few of who do use this in our work, to be allowed to talk about it without all the negativety. Instead we waste text defending it. Right or wrong isnt my point.

Richard Saylor
06-07-2006, 09:42 PM
Yes, however, as your links have shown, the naysayers seem to knock these types of discussions out. I'd like to see the few of who do use this in our work, to be allowed to talk about it without all the negativety. Instead we waste text defending it. Right or wrong isnt my point.Maybe you're being unnecessarily defensive. In this thread I think only one individual has been openly hostile to the concept of color temperature. Some of us are merely curious about the ontological status of the concept. The other three dimensions of color are quantifiable, but I do not believe that color temperature can be so parametrized, although the term 'temperature' suggests the potential for numerical measurement.

I believe in color temperature; I use it to some extent in painting; and I use the terminology (without being dogmatic, I hope). Still I believe it is a highly nebulous concept, which in some of its essentials varies from one artist to another. Thus it is impossible for Photoshop to have a numerical temperature scale for its color picker. I.e., temperature is apparently of a different order of reality than hue, saturation, and value. It is more of a 'feeling' than a parameter.

Einion
06-07-2006, 10:07 PM
Yes, however, as your links have shown, the naysayers seem to knock these types of discussions out.
That's not entirely true but I'll concede that at least recently it's more true than not.

I'd like to see the few of who do use this in our work, to be allowed to talk about it without all the negativety. Instead we waste text defending it.
It's not necessarily negativity to try to pin something down, much less to disagree outright, and any perception of this can have as much to do with the way things are read as with the way they're worded/intended.

And it's only a waste if you consider it a waste - the bulk of the questions asked are legitimate attempts to get to the heart of the matter from what I can see, not mere sophist traps. And answers to hard questions often get across concepts that aren't clear otherwise to people following along and can really help them grok something that they're having trouble getting a handle on.

Right or wrong isnt my point.
Okay fine, but it is to some people. There is something wrong about many ideas/conventions in art, some concepts of 'temperature' are no exception, and it may be as valuable to the believers to debate it as it is to other readers curious about the topic.

Einion

LarrySeiler
06-08-2006, 07:49 PM
is[/i] something wrong about many ideas/conventions in art, some concepts of 'temperature' are no exception, and it may be as valuable to the believers to debate it as it is to other readers curious about the topic.

Einion

on a highly public site (Vince) with 78,000 members...it is really hard to have what amounts to a controlled private conversation to assure discussion is for adherents only. I mean...I use and teach color temperature...but one has to be realistic about a virtual community...

secondly...I as recently as today responded to a post Einion because it was titled as an "Impressionist" painting of Johnny Depp.

Well...considering I paint from life and outdoors often...and know how important seeing light and painting impressions of the results of light is to Impressionists...I wanted to open up the thread. As was my suspicion...the name was wrongly used. The artist presumed attempting to paint more painterly was the equivalent to being an Impressionist. Couldn't help after making some positive comments about his effort taking time to correct his mistake. Part of being human is to defend or correct what one believes to being true....

skipstah70
06-08-2006, 10:28 PM
colour temperature has nothing to do with individual colours... it has to do with relativity. If one colour spot looks wrong in your painting... you could make it "right" by finding and putting in the right colour.... or you could change all the adjacent colours in the piece and make it the "right" colour that way. Semantics like cool / warm or even the names "blue" "red" or any colour for that matter are inthemselves problematic because we begin to classify items we see this way ("red" apple, "yellow" bus etc... stick the red apple on a crimson scarf.. and tell me which is red? Look at the shadowed side of a yellow bus in daylight.. and tell me it's "yellow"?) If you paint from life.. you don't have to think cool or warm.. just think "right or wrong" colour. When you COPY the colour relationships you see... you will intuitavely learn colour temperature without ever even thinking about it. Colour temperature isn't a concept... it's a LAW OF PHYSICAL LIGHT... If you really want to know what it is... look at something outside in sunlight and take a photo.. and then look at the photo and look at the real thing again... the reason the photo doesn't come close to looking like what you are seeing is it failed at capturing "temperature".

Richard Saylor
06-09-2006, 12:26 AM
....Colour temperature isn't a concept... it's a LAW OF PHYSICAL LIGHT....I followed you up to this mysterious remark.
If you really want to know what it is... look at something outside in sunlight and take a photo.. and then look at the photo and look at the real thing again... the reason the photo doesn't come close to looking like what you are seeing is it failed at capturing "temperature".You may be onto something here. A photo may have very accurate color, but when it is off, it generally has color shifts which may be described as a temperature shift. I need to think about this. (I am a photographer, but I usually do black and white, not color.)

Classical Vince
06-09-2006, 01:08 AM
colour temperature has nothing to do with individual colours... it has to do with relativity.
well said.
Semantics like cool / warm or even the names "blue" "red" or any colour for that matter are inthemselves problematic because we begin to classify items we see this way ("red" apple, "yellow" bus etc... stick the red apple on a crimson scarf.. and tell me which is red?

semantics-shemantics lol.

If you paint from life.. you don't have to think cool or warm.. just think "right or wrong" colour.

so simple i bet it hurts.


When you COPY the colour relationships you see... you will intuitavely learn colour temperature without ever even thinking about it. Colour temperature isn't a concept... it's a LAW OF PHYSICAL LIGHT...

which also creates another contrasting aspect of light to exploit in a painting.

Classical Vince
06-09-2006, 02:26 AM
on a highly public site (Vince) with 78,000 members...it is really hard to have what amounts to a controlled private conversation to assure discussion is for adherents only. I mean...I use and teach color temperature...but one has to be realistic about a virtual community...
shall I make reference to herding cats or converting the disbelievers? either way, what comes out is a peace of my mind. Pun intended.


secondly...I as recently as today responded to a post Einion because it was titled as an "Impressionist" painting of Johnny Depp.

Well...considering I paint from life and outdoors often...and know how important seeing light and painting impressions of the results of light is to Impressionists...I wanted to open up the thread. As was my suspicion...the name was wrongly used. The artist presumed attempting to paint more painterly was the equivalent to being an Impressionist. Couldn't help after making some positive comments about his effort taking time to correct his mistake.

i think bc we both work from a limited pallete and from life and we will agree on more than just what qualifies a work as an impressionstic.


Part of being human is to defend or correct what one believes to being true....

hence, im here.

skipstah70
06-09-2006, 04:01 AM
which also creates another contrasting aspect of light to exploit in a painting.

Which is???

Classical Vince
06-09-2006, 04:02 AM
Which is???
hello, color temperature. lol

Einion
06-09-2006, 09:04 AM
on a highly public site (Vince) with 78,000 members...it is really hard to have what amounts to a controlled private conversation to assure discussion is for adherents only. I mean...I use and teach color temperature...but one has to be realistic about a virtual community...
Yep, nice as it would be at times :)


colour temperature has nothing to do with individual colours...
Could you explain that in more detail? Certainly relativity is most important - cooler, warmer - but the basic warm/cool divide for colour generally is quite well understood and generally agreed upon.

If one colour spot looks wrong in your painting... you could make it "right" by finding and putting in the right colour.... or you could change all the adjacent colours in the piece and make it the "right" colour that way.
Yep, that's how I'd put it.

Semantics like cool / warm or even the names "blue" "red" or any colour for that matter are inthemselves problematic because we begin to classify items we see this way ("red" apple, "yellow" bus etc... stick the red apple on a crimson scarf.. and tell me which is red?
That's simple: both. Gimme a harder one :D

Look at the shadowed side of a yellow bus in daylight.. and tell me it's "yellow"?
It's yellow, but not as we know it Jim. Coffee is orange, beige is scarlet... there are lots of linguistic problems when describing colour.

If you paint from life.. you don't have to think cool or warm.. just think "right or wrong" colour.
Sounds good to me...

When you COPY the colour relationships you see... you will intuitavely learn colour temperature without ever even thinking about it.
That sounds good to me too. But it's a lot easier to say than to do, just like the common (good) advice to paint what you see. Most people need a framework to build on, irrespective of their goals in relation to colour when they paint but particularly if they're aiming for a really accurate facsimile.

Colour temperature isn't a concept... it's a LAW OF PHYSICAL LIGHT...
Colour 'temperature' is an artistic convention, nothing more. To quote another source, "[temperature is] a colloquial term used by artists to indicate the colour relative to red (warm) and blue (cold)."

It has nothing whatever to do with the actual temperature of light (since blue light is hotter than red light) and all about an interpretation people make, usually in relation to other things as I think everyone agrees. Most true physical laws are not in relation to other things, they're absolutes. As far as a given colour goes the hue is an absolute, the value is an absolute, the chroma is an absolute; which is why I think it's a better way of thinking about (and, no question, describing) colour. But different things work for different people.

If you really want to know what it is... look at something outside in sunlight and take a photo.. and then look at the photo and look at the real thing again... the reason the photo doesn't come close to looking like what you are seeing is it failed at capturing "temperature".
If I put that in other terms, "...the reason the photo doesn't come close to looking like what you are seeing is it failed at capturing colour accurately." it works just as well. I'd debate the photos not coming close part although I don't think we should get sidetracked by talking about photography but there have been a number of mentions of its accuracy/inaccuracy in various threads over the past year or so.

Einion

skipstah70
06-09-2006, 11:45 AM
Einon.... colour temperature isn't a convention either... it's simply the way humans see.. and also the reason a camera will never come close to pickup this information I might add. If you can't see it.. you're not trying hard enough. Focus on an object in daylight and without moving your focus "think" of the adjacent colours in your peripheral field of vision... become VERY aware of the general difference in hue and value of these nondescript blocks of colour.. and you will be well on the way to seeing "temperature". The reason it's hard for people to grasp is that the eye sees too much information when we look at things.. to learn good colour sense/ see temperature.. you want to see LESS information. Go do Soduko puzzles... this will really sharpen the way you have to think when judging accurate colour.. it's the employment of "if this, then that" ad infinitum.

Skips

Patrick1
06-09-2006, 01:51 PM
colour temperature isn't a convention either... it's simply the way humans see..No; it's the way some people choose to subjectively describe color, or color relationships/contrasts, nothing more. And nobody's saying there's anything wrong with doing so. (If you don't think it's subjective, have a look at all the contradictions from accomplished artists pointed out in Einion's earlier post).

But it's not a dimension of color perception the way hue saturation and lightness are. If it were, then any artist who doesn't think/see in tems of 'temperature' couldn't paint paintings with realistic coloration.

skipstah70
06-09-2006, 03:15 PM
No; it's the way some people choose to subjectively describe color, or color relationships/contrasts, nothing more. And nobody's saying there's anything wrong with doing so. (If you don't think it's subjective, have a look at all the contradictions from accomplished artists pointed out in Einion's earlier post)..

... how come if I take a picture of something (especially in daylight)with something "unsubjective" like a camera.. it won't look like the real thing?... did I forget to tell the camera about the concept? There might be some variation in acuity amongst humans... but the fact that there is a definite relationship between the colours we see (which when transposed into reflective paint is termed temperature) is a definite reality.

But it's not a dimension of color perception the way hue saturation and lightness are. If it were, then any artist who doesn't think/see in tems of 'temperature' couldn't paint paintings with realistic coloration.

Of course it is... and it's all three of those things. understand that no colour can exist without being compared with another colour.. that's colour perception at the core. You don't have to be aware of what it is called to practice it. i.e. I don't understand how a car works mechanically... but does that mean I can't drive it?

S

LarrySeiler
06-09-2006, 04:10 PM
No; it's the way some people choose to subjectively describe color, or color relationships/contrasts, nothing more. And nobody's saying there's anything wrong with doing so. (If you don't think it's subjective, have a look at all the contradictions from accomplished artists pointed out in Einion's earlier post).


I'll submit also that one purpose of education is to bring to light what is...and might be- that which we do know...and in the light of that of which we know we learn that there is yet that we acknowledge we do not know. We cannot know as yet what we do not know...thus, it is wise to state what we think we do know in such a way that demonstrates our finite uncertainty.

For example...until it was really brought to light that seeing peripherally is one other way of the eye seeing, I yet was seeing peripherally though unaware.

one problem is that we attempt to speak authoritatively as though speaking a truth...and yet presume a subjective position to do so. Is there true truth? Are we always too close to a thing to see objectively?

When a class of students is asked to put their heads down and point to north...one will see arms and fingers pointing any number of directions. That might be argued as an example of each having their own subjective truth, or might be said there are no absolutes.

Of course...for jest one might ask if it is a TRUE statement there is no true truth. Are we ABSOLUTELY sure there are no absolutes. Of course, one can see even constructing statements thus is a self-canceling argument.

So...with that...it is presumptin for any of us to insist how it is another must see. We all presume one particular red looks a certain way...but really, unless we can get into someone's very being looking thru their eyes and experiencing the signals sent to their brains, we cannot most certain presume authority.

Yet...if we were to pull out a compass, indeed we would see that there is a TRUE north proving NOT that the answer is subjective though those with their heads down might insist upon it...and so, the argument and the debate goes on...and on...and on...and on...and on...and on...and on...



...and on...

Donna A
06-09-2006, 04:14 PM
Well, actually a True North and a Magnetic North. The later has shifted over the eons. But---gets us close enough to function in most cases. :-) Donna ;-}

Richard Saylor
06-09-2006, 04:57 PM
...how come if I take a picture of something (especially in daylight)with something "unsubjective" like a camera.. it won't look like the real thing?...Let me take five shots (in order to bracket exposure) of something with my vintage Leica M3 loaded with Kodachrome film, and chances are I can get you a photo with very accurate color. (I probably would not be able to do that with color negative film or a digital camera, but that's due to equipment limitations; it's not intrinsic to photography itself.)

Patrick1
06-09-2006, 05:46 PM
... how come if I take a picture of something (especially in daylight)with something "unsubjective" like a camera.. it won't look like the real thing?There are several reasons for the differences in color between the photo and the real scene (and not just due to the camera) and yet they can all be explained just fine without the concept of color temperature.

There might be some variation in acuity amongst humans... but the fact that there is a definite relationship between the colours we see...(which when transposed into reflective paint is termed temperature) is a definite reality.Of course; color relationships (as opposed to absolute color) is what really matters in paintings, and these relationships are a reality. Nobody is denying that. Some people/artists choose to describe some (though not all) of these color relationships or contrasts in terms of 'temperature', and if it works for you, that's good...keep doing what works for you. But the crux is that not all artists think in terms of temperature, and yet they can see and paint with color no less accurately or well than one who chooses to think in terms of temperature. So what does that say about the essential-ness of the concept of temperature?

Thinking in terms of hue saturation and value doesn't in any way preclude one from seeing the relationships which you seem to be saying can only be seen or appreciated if you think in terms of temperature.

Einion
06-09-2006, 08:32 PM
Einon.... colour temperature isn't a convention either... it's simply the way humans see..
Explain it to us then. I've seen at least five different theorisations of the origin of various aspects of the warm/cool divide.

Focus on an object in daylight and without moving your focus "think" of the adjacent colours in your peripheral field of vision... become VERY aware of the general difference in hue and value of these nondescript blocks of colour..
Judging colour outside of the zone of sharp focus - especially areas actually in peripheral vision - is not a good way of getting an accurate reading of colour (for multiple reasons). It's one way of working, one we've seen recommended here a few times, but it's not the way all painters work and I'd be willing to wager that high-realist painters won't view this way as a rule.

The reason it's hard for people to grasp is that the eye sees too much information when we look at things.. to learn good colour sense/ see temperature.. you want to see LESS information.
I could reword this statement, leaving the reference to temperature out, and it would make just as much sense. I think you're forgetting something here: some people don't think this way! And as I've said a number of times before, it doesn't stop them from painting well.

... how come if I take a picture of something (especially in daylight)with something "unsubjective" like a camera.. it won't look like the real thing?...
If we take something like the green cast if lit by standard fluorescents or the yellow/orange under tungsten light it's called white point adjustment. Film can't do this but the human visual system does all the time and we're usually unaware of it happening.

There are many prior threads where some of the limitations of photographs are mentioned to one degree or another. There is much more to the nature of typical photographic reproduction than simply an overall colour cast though - the overall appearance of detail in a single exposure doesn't match what a person can see if viewing the scene in person; it is actually not too far off what you see if you stare at a single part of the image (looking into deep shadow in a sunlit scene for example) but this isn't the way we generally look at things and we build the image within our minds from the many 'snapshots' as our eyes jump around.

Of course it is...
Of course it's not. See? I can say the same thing, it didn't to much to convince you did it? ;)

understand that no colour can exist without being compared with another colour.. that's colour perception at the core.
That's one way of looking at it but it can lead to problems if you paint what you think you see, there being a host of simultaneous-contrast problems. Again, there are a lot of prior threads that mention this if you need a basic intro.

Colour relationships while painting are very important, but you can paint in a very different way - keyhole viewing and building the image meticulously from these observations - which in practice makes for incredibly accurate colour rendition, but relies on no observations of relationships at all!


colour temperature isn't a convention either... it's simply the way humans see..No; it's the way some people choose to subjectively describe color, or color relationships/contrasts, nothing more. And nobody's saying there's anything wrong with doing so. (If you don't think it's subjective, have a look at all the contradictions from accomplished artists pointed out in Einion's earlier post).

But it's not a dimension of color perception the way hue saturation and lightness are. If it were, then any artist who doesn't think/see in tems of 'temperature' couldn't paint paintings with realistic coloration.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/20-Aug-2003/3842-thumbsup.gif

Einion

bigflea
06-09-2006, 08:40 PM
Just to interject, the way I see, as a human, is in color, not in temperature. In my brain I may connect a temperature to a color I see, but that can be dangerous, (eg. expecting a blue flame to be cool).

I think skipstah 70 your statement could read, " temperature is a way humans conceptualize the color they see.." and be a reliable statement.

I don't know how it would be to see "in temperature", but I think some movies have been made on that premise.
ken

bigflea
06-09-2006, 09:01 PM
The only problem with painting what you think you see is that your concept, or your thinking, may interfere with your awareness of what your eyes are seeing, or perceiving. That was the jist of the difference between french academic painting and french impressionism. The former established a convention of coloring and narrative themes for the depictions of objects and ideas unrelated to the visual experience perse. The latter was the movement toward using color relationships to describe the full range of a visual experience in everyday life.

Skipstah 70's point about the relative relationships of color is accurate in terms of how we gauge/assess/adjust/perceive several million color relationships that occur in nature. The study of color relationships is in part a study of the problems associated with interpreting what is seen with pigments; simultaneous contrast and other optical effects are part of the problem the painter has to resolve.

Keyhole viewing and other ways that isolate one area of color from another do not lead to paintings that are more descriptive of the visual effects of light on form. But they may produce works that the artist thinks are more accurate than the work of another painter. IOW, that is purely and simply, an Einion opinion, imo.

I have never seen that technique used to produce lifelike color qualities, but have seen alot of rhetoric promoting its infallibility.
Ken

Classical Vince
06-09-2006, 09:51 PM
The only problem with painting what you think you see is that your concept, or your thinking, may interfere with your awareness of what your eyes are seeing, or perceiving. That was the jist of the difference between french academic painting and french impressionism. The former established a convention of coloring and narrative themes for the depictions of objects and ideas unrelated to the visual experience perse. The latter was the movement toward using color relationships to describe the full range of a visual experience in everyday life.

hmmm....I'd have to disagree, the academic painters were well aware of color temperature as seen in the works of artists like Gerome and WB among others. The impressionists abandoned the concept altogether. They made cold messes of their shadows - they wore the hell out of blue...yawn.

Sadly, they're thinking lives on in the academic teaching of color today. Flat-cold shadows are hardly what I would consider the full range of visual experience in everyday life. They could paint light but not life.

skipstah70
06-09-2006, 10:12 PM
you guys are right. colour temperature is BS

Classical Vince
06-09-2006, 10:12 PM
No; it's the way some people choose to subjectively describe color, or color relationships/contrasts, nothing more. And nobody's saying there's anything wrong with doing so. (If you don't think it's subjective, have a look at all the contradictions from accomplished artists pointed out in Einion's earlier post).

But it's not a dimension of color perception the way hue saturation and lightness are. If it were, then any artist who doesn't think/see in tems of 'temperature' couldn't paint paintings with realistic coloration.

LOL, color has little to do with painting realistic. A solid value orchestration and attention to saturation takes care of that. Hues are variables - I could paint a blue apple and make it look real through value and saturation alone.

Classical Vince
06-09-2006, 10:14 PM
you guys are right. colour temperature is BS
oh good. one down.

FriendCarol
06-09-2006, 10:43 PM
I could paint a blue apple and make it look real through value and saturation alone.For some, perhaps, not for me, though! :lol:

The world is "buzzin' boomin' confusion." We think about the world using concepts we've been taught, largely in our learning to use a verbal language. One can use the concept of temperature -- lots of painters do, and use it productively. Or one can work with other concepts instead. The concept isn't changing anything about the reality, it's only changing (to a limited but definite degree) our ability to remember, utilize, or notice it regularly.

Before anyone used the concept 'gravity' (as defined by Newton, redefined by Einstein, etc.), there was still this apparent tendency of most things (heheheh) to drop towards the earth. :D Once we had the concept, some folks used it in useful ways, others never needed it. Same with color temperature -- I've seen Tony Couch (in a videotape) refer his ongoing work back to this as an overriding touchstone to get the feeling he wanted to evoke. I've never consciously used it myself, though I know about it and can explain it to others. If it's useful to you, use it. It's only a concept, like gravity, a knight fork, or childhood. Okay? :)

Donna A
06-09-2006, 10:44 PM
Just to interject, the way I see, as a human, is in color, not in temperature. In my brain I may connect a temperature to a color I see, but that can be dangerous, (eg. expecting a blue flame to be cool).


LOL! Darlin'---if you don't think cool can be "dangerous," too, go plant your tongue on a nice big super-frozen, lovely bluish glacier. And you are discussing apples and oranges now, anyway.

And when I SEE color----I see temperature as an intergal part. Not disconnected or separate, but a "compartment" so to speak. One of the qualities. I actually SEE it. Ya wanna say I don't???? Hmmmm. :-) Heh heh heh. Be happy, however you can! :-)


I think skipstah 70 your statement could read, " temperature is a way humans conceptualize the color they see.." and be a reliable statement.

I don't know how it would be to see "in temperature", but I think some movies have been made on that premise.
ken

Oh----seeing WITH temperature as part of the seeing is delicious and whole. Certainly it is a way we verbally, etc. share the impression of what we are seeing. There are sooo many artists around me who understand exactly what I'm talking about when I use this term as part of the description of a particular color. You can say it doesn't mean anything to us but it would not be true. Again----if it is something that does not resonate with you----or others----that is not because it does not exist! Ho hum! Donna ;-}

Classical Vince
06-09-2006, 11:00 PM
For some, perhaps, not for me, though! :lol:

OMG, My Friend Carol! How ya been! I think we last bumped into eachother in AC.


The world is "buzzin' boomin' confusion." We think about the world using concepts we've been taught, largely in our learning to use a verbal language. One can use the concept of temperature -- lots of painters do, and use it productively. Or one can work with other concepts instead. The concept isn't changing anything about the reality, it's only changing (to a limited but definite degree) our ability to remember, utilize, or notice it regularly.

Most recently, I find myself infatuated with observing organic-shadows produced by rustling leaves in a tree or bush, they sing with color shifts. I notice them everywhere.


Before anyone used the concept 'gravity' (as defined by Newton, redefined by Einstein, etc.), there was still this apparent tendency of most things (heheheh) to drop towards the earth. :D Once we had the concept, some folks used it in useful ways, others never needed it. Same with color temperature -- I've seen Tony Couch (in a videotape) refer his ongoing work back to this as an overriding touchstone to get the feeling he wanted to evoke. I've never consciously used it myself, though I know about it and can explain it to others. If it's useful to you, use it. It's only a concept, like gravity, a knight fork, or childhood. Okay? :)

OK! Ironically, without Newton...we still can point to which way is UP ;)

FriendCarol
06-09-2006, 11:30 PM
Wonderful to see you, too, Vince! Yes, it's been a long time. I meant to try to track you down, after various Abs/Con things went down, but life has been middlin' full to busy. :D (That's my excuse, and I'm stickin' to it.)

I'm still coming around to pink. :lol: Yeah, organic shifting shadows... who was that artist sometimes posted spooky contemporay works (in Abs/Con) with the most marvelous foliage? Can't remember her name, but the shadows in her trees could seem so threatening! I did a little plein air stuff earlier this spring (finally managed to build myself a folding kneeling chair, though it is still terribly heavy), and reminded myself all over again about my old trick of 'stamping' foliage with a small natural sponge. Specially fun with slightly wet paper (watercolor). Where are you posting these days, and can I see some? (How about a link?!)

Richard Saylor
06-10-2006, 12:06 AM
LOL lets keep to it. do you consider warm or cool light in your work? we can end this now.you dont do you? and neither do 95% of the painters out there. talk about color temperature and they freak, like you.Oh----seeing WITH temperature as part of the seeing is delicious and whole. Certainly it is a way we verbally, etc. share the impression of what we are seeing. There are sooo many artists around me who understand exactly what I'm talking about when I use this term as part of the description of a particular color.It is interesting that Donna and Vince meet with such different reactions when talking with other artists about temperature. Maybe they're just being extra nice and agreeable to Donna because she's a lady. After all, men probably still open doors for women in Kansas (and Missouri).:D

Classical Vince
06-10-2006, 12:11 AM
It is interesting that Donna and Vince meet with such different reactions when talking with other artists about temperature.

oh you noticed that. well maybe it has to do with us being different persons which of course, express themselves differently. Contrast is another aspect of color temperature.

Maybe they're just being extra nice and agreeable to Donna because she's a lady. After all, men probably still open doors for women in Kansas.:D

LOL, if you only knew. ;)

Classical Vince
06-10-2006, 01:03 AM
whatta freakin waste to argue this concept with any of you. Feel It and See It. Or react accordingly.

bigflea
06-10-2006, 10:00 AM
Sorry Donna, but have to point out that seeing colors is not seeing temperature. Associating a color with a temperature concept of warm/cool is not unusual, and its ordinary for painters who are learning to analyze color differences to use the concept to one degree or another (scuse the pun).

And I would disagree with CV too in his boast re. a blue apple. His blue apple might look good to him, but to another painter, who is not easily deceived by value renderings of colored forms, it might simply look like a blue apple, cleverly painted. The point being, that, one can propose a concept in which every aspect of color is a matter of warm/cool values of whatever color you want to use, but that doesn't make it a worthwhile or meaningful concept to anyone else necessarily, and particularly not to someone who can see the actual colors in front of them, no matter how much the artist insists that they have made blue appear red to everyone else.

Interesting thought on the Impressionist idea though. I wonder if CV has actually seen any paintings done by them, since they are full of shadow colors other than blue? It seems like a case of believing a simplistic idea that was written in a text book somewhere without actually studying the works of these painters.
Ken

Donna A
06-10-2006, 01:20 PM
From bigflea: Sorry Donna, but have to point out that seeing colors is not seeing temperature. Associating a color with a temperature concept of warm/cool is not unusual, and its ordinary for painters who are learning to analyze color differences to use the concept to one degree or another (scuse the pun).

bigflea-----you are pointing out to me what and how I see color????? Would you please also let me know the next time I'm thirsty. That would be ever so kind. Thank you. :-)

From bigflea: And I would disagree with CV too in his boast re. a blue apple.

Oh, bigflea----bless your heart! "Boast???" How about "Comment?" And something to toss around considering some day when you have a bit of free time is to look deeper into understanding the IDEA someone is intending to communicate. There are wonderful new openings in awareness we can gain sometimes. Sometimes that awareness can be simply a better sense of our own viewpoints, grounding them even better by hearing the other's viewpoints and understanding even more fully how they differ from ours. Doing a bit of experimenting with their viewpoint can be extremely useful, too. But to say that They are wrong and You are right about their personal perception and ways of making use of them-----Hmmmm. Perhaps could verge on the naive. :-) At best.

My two kids love licorice. I love mushrooms. We do not share each others' particular interest in this regard. When they were in early grade school, we had a great opportunity for them to learn about varying viewpoints. They had trouble not understanding at first why licorice did not taste good to just absolutely EVERYONE/ANYONE, including their mom. They thought it bizarre that I could stand to put mushrooms in my mouth! (yummm!) :-) But did not want to eat licorice. (Remeber my twins were 6 or 7 at the time.) So this was a marvelous opportunity to begin seeing beyond our own personal issues where taste or perception and such things were concerned. And they found this fascinating and then exciting! And everytime something came up that was like this, we had an easy code for this----licorice/mushrooms! I was NEVER discomforted by their loving the taste of licorice. I only cooked enough mushrooms for me. We certainly did try each other's favorite. We TRIED! Examined. Decided. Differed. And respected. It works.

From Richard Saylor: It is interesting that Donna and Vince meet with such different reactions when talking with other artists about temperature. Maybe they're just being extra nice and agreeable to Donna because she's a lady. After all, men probably still open doors for women in Kansas (and Missouri).

Dear Richard----do you REALLY want to go there??? Oh, my.

I must say that your thought that probably men still open doors.... is absolutely correct. Add to that that very often, many women here, including me, open doors for men. Go figure. Respect. Kindness. And there is NO way I'm going to sit in some car waiting for someone to come scurring around it to come open the car door for me (unless I have a broken right arm. Then I would be delighted----and would do the same for another. Duh!) I have not time or interest in pretending to be frail or whatever. :-) Too busy to play games----other than the odd game of Cribbage or Bridge, now and then!

Let's just enjoy talking about the richness of color and all the delicious ways there are to use it. And we can relish our differences and celebrate them---rather than attempting to impale others for not having the very same viewpoint. Ho hum. And we can learn more about what there is that people are seeing or experiencing when they are seeing things that we are not.

Jabs and such just don't seem all that interesting and useful. And---after a while just get really BORING. :-) LOL! Donna ;-}

WaltWally
06-10-2006, 01:21 PM
Mind if I jmup in here? I've been following this thread, and I believe I can contribute to the confusion! (Wait, let me restate that phrasement.......)
Seriously, I see a parallel here to the way we tell time.
[All together now: "HUH????"]
Bear with me. Many years ago, the owner of the art store we frequented gave us a clock for a wedding gift. It was in the shape of a pallette, the traditional oval shape, with the notch at 12 o'clock, and three brushes sticking up at the notch from behind.
The other hours were marked by blobs of "paint."
I can't find the clock right now, but I'm sure the colors were not in color wheel order. But it made me think of the color wheel as being like a clock face. If you use the tertiary color wheel, then each color marks an hour.
Look at MacEvoy's
http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/IMG/cw12.gif
most of the swatches correspond to a generic color name (I'd call the three o'clock color "aqua" but that's just me?)
With each hue name equalling an hour, then temperature within a hue would be the minute.
Now, WHY is this useful. Hey, I never said it was! :lol: Actually, it points out that the color names are conventional and somewhat arbitrary, and one could just as well have a clock with only minutes, 1440 in a day. Or just divide the day into decidays (2.4hrs) and centidays (14.4secs) and millidays(1.44secs) But we're used to hours/minutes/seconds, so we're not going to do that, right?
Likewise, we are used to color names ("hours") and modifying them with either "warm/cool" or "ish" (orangISH red, bluISH green, etc)
I propose we each use whatever terminology helps us 'home in' on the exact color we are after, which is NOT WORDS, but a non-verbal perception that we mean to emulate with paint.
--Well, I don't know if this helps anyone, but I feel better!! :lol:

bigflea
06-10-2006, 01:59 PM
Sorry Donna,
I'm not saying you should change your conception for understanding colors.

Only saying that if we actually see temperature, it probably wouldn't look like nature the way it is generally seen. Point being that "temperature" as you use it, and the way every other painter uses the term, is simply to suggest warmth/coolness associated with certain color differences. I don't see anyone misunderstanding that conception, and almost every painter I know has used it at times to analyze color relationships if they cannot see the hue or contrast differences well.

Also know alot of painters who do not need to think in that conception but who see color and paint it very well. Also know of painters who have used the warm/cool conception in such a way that it actually interfered with their seeing color relationships, since they had a false conception of what a color area is expected to be, rather than what it is. To me, warm/cool relationships are already understood as part of hue, chroma, value analysis of color.
Ken

skipstah70
06-10-2006, 03:29 PM
hmmm....I'd have to disagree, the academic painters were well aware of color temperature as seen in the works of artists like Gerome and WB among others. The impressionists abandoned the concept altogether. They made cold messes of their shadows - they wore the hell out of blue...yawn.


interesting statement... I think you'd be at odds with every art historian out there on this one. Listen to BigFlea... he speaks the truth.

S

Richard Saylor
06-10-2006, 06:20 PM
If we take something like the green cast if lit by standard fluorescents or the yellow/orange under tungsten light it's called white point adjustment. Film can't do this but the human visual system does all the time and we're usually unaware of it happening.Film photographers use special optical filters to correct for fluorescent or incandescent lighting.

Classical Vince
06-11-2006, 10:29 PM
interesting statement... I think you'd be at odds with every art historian out there on this one. Listen to BigFlea... he speaks the truth.

S
art historians? history is an opinion. whats that saying about opinion? i think we both know we both er uh...have one.

Classical Vince
06-11-2006, 10:42 PM
And I would disagree with CV too in his boast re. a blue apple. His blue apple might look good to him, but to another painter, who is not easily deceived by value renderings of colored forms, it might simply look like a blue apple, cleverly painted. The point being, that, one can propose a concept in which every aspect of color is a matter of warm/cool values of whatever color you want to use, but that doesn't make it a worthwhile or meaningful concept to anyone else necessarily, and particularly not to someone who can see the actual colors in front of them, no matter how much the artist insists that they have made blue appear red to everyone else.

Well bring it on. You are talking yourself in circles. Perhaps we should both paint a blue apple and find...how little hue has to do with realist work.

Classical Vince
06-11-2006, 10:43 PM
Interesting thought on the Impressionist idea though. I wonder if CV has actually seen any paintings done by them, since they are full of shadow colors other than blue? It seems like a case of believing a simplistic idea that was written in a text book somewhere without actually studying the works of these painters.
Ken

Well by all means, point to the text. My ideas are mine...and yours? Yours are what you've read.

Classical Vince
06-12-2006, 12:46 AM
Geez Im so excited. Cmon, lets call it a collaboration. I'll explain what Im doing with temperature and you explain you're own color theory in your work and how it differs from mine. Let's both post working shots of our paintings and explain our thought process' in regards to color temperature throughout. Wow, we could really educate ourselves.

Einion
06-12-2006, 07:24 AM
Given the tone of some of the recent posts it seems a good time to remind certain people of something I posted above.

This does not have to be a confrontational thing - you think one way, others think another way. Both positions are right from a chosen perspective, please don't anyone forget that.

Einion

Einion
06-12-2006, 07:39 AM
This thread, in common with all threads in this forum, should be about discussing matters, hopefully helping other members and lurkers following along to understand the subject through the varied viewpoints and opinions on it. If you keep an open mind the participants themselves might learn something useful too; even if you don't accept the arguments from the opposing camp the process of discussing something can often provide valuable insights into things. So discussions should never be considered a waste of time - even if it's wasted on someone it might be of value to you, and to others.

We have a long history here in the Colour Theory & Mixing forum of contentious debates where people get hot under the collar when someone disagrees with something they say, for this reason we drew up the ****Starting tips and posting guidelines**** (http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=298912) thread which is stuck near the head of the forum and highlighted so it's hard to miss ;)

I'd ask anyone who is new to the forum to please read it through, paying particular attention to the section Debates on colour theory and its application. I'm going to repeat the last sentence here: if you don't wish to continue a debate at any point we ask that you just retire from posting.

Einion

LarrySeiler
06-12-2006, 09:34 AM
Sorry Donna, but have to point out that seeing colors is not seeing temperature. Associating a color with a temperature concept of warm/cool is not unusual, and its ordinary for painters who are learning to analyze color differences to use the concept to one degree or another (scuse the pun).Ken


I would agree with this...
color temperature is a compare and contrasting gauge...
one instance a reddish orange would be warm...but compared to a orange-yellow mass in another situation , it would read as cooler...

The color in and of itself...it has no specific degree, and yet in concept as a stand alone color...(that is, its position on the colorwheel), even my kindergardners and younger elementary art students understand the warm colors (in general) and the cool colors (in general), and their ability to cause a subject to contrast and stand out thinking in terms of light being warm...shadows being cool is really remarkable.

By the time they are in junior high or high school (I teach K-12) this stuff is near second nature.

I often get comments about the work my high school students are putting out, (has led to some awards at the state level actually for my teaching) ...and in part it is understanding these simple concepts that has given these students such a grounding and foundation. So simple...a first grader gets it...

LarrySeiler
06-12-2006, 09:42 AM
Given the tone of some of the recent posts it seems a good time to remind certain people of something I posted above.

This does not have to be a confrontational thing - you think one way, others think another way. Both positions are right from a chosen perspective, please don't anyone forget that.

Einion


I'll second what Einion is saying here...and in fact, if its an issue I'll ask a number here to go back and re-read the user agreement.

I moderated the Debate Forum for its first three years, and the most common reminder I used there I will use here...and, its in the user agreement. It is simply this...

feel free to attack an opinion, but NOT the opinion'ATOR!

To not observe that distinction of what is fair game to attack, then as a user/member you would be in violation of the cite rules for participation.

I think we can all as adults choose a bit of etiquette and class, opting to read over our posts before hitting send, edit out and change/alter so that what we say is not in an attacking nature; and still essentially get our point across. That in my opinion is also a thing that might be called...class....bearing distinction.

thanks for everyone's cooperation...

Larry

bigflea
06-12-2006, 12:56 PM
CV,
I agree with your point that "hue has little to do with realist work." Ofcourse it is a generalization, which in my mind simply refers to the importance of value scale and linear drawing as the foundation for realist work. That is, hue is given less initial importance than value relationships and drawing.

For some painters who consider themselves to be realists, hue may be more important in their modeling of forms than it is for others. To me there seems to be a great range of difference between realist painters in how they introduce variations of hues to model forms. A painter such as Nelson Shanks, for example, would probably disagree with the generalization of hue having little to do with his works, and I believe he considers them to be realist (as opposed to colorist or impressionist or other adjective).
Ken

Classical Vince
06-13-2006, 02:10 AM
CV,
I agree with your point that "hue has little to do with realist work." Ofcourse it is a generalization, which in my mind simply refers to the importance of value scale and linear drawing as the foundation for realist work. That is, hue is given less initial importance than value relationships and drawing.

The study is invaluable.


For some painters who consider themselves to be realists, hue may be more important in their modeling of forms than it is for others. To me there seems to be a great range of difference between realist painters in how they introduce variations of hues to model forms.

Thats exactly what Im talking about...variations in hues. How do you measure and relate variations within a hue? Through describing its temperature and creating relativity within a piece.

A painter such as Nelson Shanks, for example, would probably disagree with the generalization of hue having little to do with his works, and I believe he considers them to be realist (as opposed to colorist or impressionist or other adjective).
Ken

I think his rendering is gorgeous but my gut tells me his colors are overly saturated. He uses temperature throughout his work so yes, he'd be one to say that hue has a major part in his work.

LarrySeiler
06-13-2006, 12:52 PM
I think his rendering is gorgeous but my gut tells me his colors are overly saturated. He uses temperature throughout his work so yes, he'd be one to say that hue has a major part in his work.

Took a look at his work just now...very lovely work indeed...but, much of it has that painted from photographs look to my eye. Artificial to some degree, with exception to those enculturated to live in a photo defined world...

I don't say "artificial" to be negative...as there is a lot of copied from photos fine work out there, but I mean artificial in the sense as it does not look like the light and color witnessed and then painted from life.
To my eye anyway...

...and when work has that look, it loses some of the energy for me that paintings from life itself in real time carries...looking more illustrative, commercial...

Einion
06-13-2006, 04:14 PM
Interesting quote from Shanks:Squint to see overall values; open your eyes and focus to see the color.

Vince, please have a look at the edit to your signature.

Einion

skipstah70
06-13-2006, 04:22 PM
I think his rendering is gorgeous but my gut tells me his colors are overly saturated. He uses temperature throughout his work.

Just because Shanks (and a million others more offensively) uses / or even abuses "temperature" in their painting still doesn't mean that the phenomenon this doesn't exist in reality. I could abuse tone in my drawing.. and if I employ it in this way one could argue that this is just as much of a "concept" as temperature... after all I wouldn't be drawing what as I see as much as rationalizing about it right?.. but you wouldn't then tell me that tone doesn't really exist.. would you? What's the difference with temperature?

Skips

madster
06-14-2006, 06:26 AM
You are all arguing the semantics, without addressing the issue...And, unfortunately, not even using the semantics right!

Depending upon one's usage and knowledge of the English language, as well as one's artistic education, the term "temperature" is perfectly acceptable, as well as factually sound. Read this article (http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color12.html#warmeffects) for an in-depth, but fairly straightforward explanation, and then kwitcherbellyachin' about "temperature" terminology, and instead, try to focus on the color comparisons, which is the actual point of "cool" and "warm" hues, as well as the original point of this thread, as I read it, at least... It's not "hooey," it IS based on science, but, like so many other things in Life, everyone has their own opinions regarding its usefullness. If you don't know what you are talking about beyond a "how it appears to my eye" mentality, you are not actually contributing anything to this discussion, because as color-blind people will readily tell you, they not everyone sees colors the same. Some of us have over-acute color perception, and are able to see very subtle differences in hue and chroma that many people don't. The usage of temperature terminolgy is merely at attempt to reach a "common" communications level, using well established, and scientifically based concepts.

Also, this article (http://www.wetcanvas.com/Articles2/1201/363/[/url) here in the Color Theory/Mixing Channel, is a fairly comprehensive discussion about artistic color selections...Why this is not a sticky at the top of the forums is, and always will be a mystery to me...A simple horizontal line between sections 27/28 and 9/10 provides the visual delineation between “warm” and “cool” from a pure color scale. Artist pigments cannot duplicate some of these colors physically, but there are pigments that come close.

~M

Einion
06-14-2006, 01:24 PM
You are all arguing the semantics, without addressing the issue...And, unfortunately, not even using the semantics right!
Achem, speak for some people.

If you take the time to review the thread in its entirety not everyone is trying to evade actually talking about the issue so they can stick to their staked-out territory ;)

Also, this article (http://www.wetcanvas.com/Articles2/1201/363/[/url) here in the Color Theory/Mixing Channel, is a fairly comprehensive discussion about artistic color selections...Why this is not a sticky at the top of the forums is, and always will be a mystery to me...
How many reasons do you want?

Einion

WaltWally
06-14-2006, 04:26 PM
Larry wrote:feel free to attack an opinion, but NOT the opinion'ATOR!
This reminds me of a saying we have here in the South:

Y'all can disagree with the allegation, but yáll shouldn't be disagreeable with the alli'GATOR!

skipstah70
06-14-2006, 04:57 PM
Larry wrote:
This reminds me of a saying we have here in the South:

Y'all can disagree with the allegation, but yáll shouldn't be disagreeable with the alli'GATOR!

(which of course would be a republican)

LarrySeiler
06-14-2006, 05:05 PM
Larry wrote:
This reminds me of a saying we have here in the South:

Y'all can disagree with the allegation, but yáll shouldn't be disagreeable with the alli'GATOR!

that's classic!!!! Love it!!! :clap: :D

WaltWally
06-14-2006, 06:54 PM
that's classic!!!! Love it!!!Thanks, Larry! And thanks for your efforts to keep the level of civility high here.

(which of course would be a republican)
Ummm...Okay, I don't get it. Is it that only Republicans allegate, or only in the South only Republicans allegate??

Or is it that Republicans are so scarce in the South (no longer true) so only alligators are Republicans??

See, I need to know, so I can decide if I should take offense, and, if so, how?? :lol:

Richard Saylor
06-14-2006, 08:40 PM
I thought he meant that the alligator is a republican, but I still don't get it.

bigflea
06-14-2006, 08:58 PM
CV,
any difference "within" a hue, (presuming I understand your meaning) still comes down to a recognition of a hue variation. (Eg. we have an overall blue or red, but we have a variation which is yellow). The concept of temperature, while being helpful analytically, is simply a generalization, in terms of what the pigment mixture has to be to get the effect that the painter is attempting to describe. What I want to determine, when trying to solve the mixture problem, is what pigment to add to the mixture. Telling myself it is warm or cool really does not tell me what I want, and need , to know.

The point I would like to make is simply that temperature conceptions are generalizations about hue and chromatic variations. If a painter can ask themselves, "what hue is it", they are able to get more specific about the problem solving.

Have to agree with Larry about the photographic quality of Shanks' works. That is, nature looks different. Ofcourse, he is doing alot of portrait work, and I do not know any portrait painter who can work from life these days. No matter how good they are at working from life, the buyers want something that has the facsimili of a photograph, and will pay way too much money for it. (imo).
Ken

Richard Saylor
06-14-2006, 09:35 PM
...and then kwitcherbellyachin'...That wording is inflammatory, madster.

Some of us have over-acute color perception, and are able to see very subtle differences in hue and chroma that many people don't.Bully for you, madster. It must be loads of fun to live in 'a higher state of consciousness.' However, I'm sure it also must involve a lot of responsibility, such as the unpleasant task of reminding others of their ignorance.

LarrySeiler
06-14-2006, 10:12 PM
CV,
I do not know any portrait painter who can work from life these days. No matter how good they are at working from life, the buyers want something that has the facsimili of a photograph, and will pay way too much money for it. (imo).
Ken

well...there are some very good ones...and the Chicago American Art Academy and Chicago Palette & Chisel Academy had a good reputation for turning out just such artists....
from Richard Schmid to Scott Burdick...and a half-dozen others I have book marked on my other computer at school.

Also...I believe Jeremy Lipkin does his fair share from life, a young excellent painter already reaching a state of mastery-

http://www.lipking.com/

Scott Burdick has some wonderful demos on his page too using model...
http://www.burdicklyon.com/

bigflea
06-14-2006, 10:42 PM
I would hope that a portrait painter could convince his client of the reason for working from live sittings. Of the several professional portrait painters I know personally, the great majority of work is done from photo references, and some time is alotted to sittings. Which work is more important? I guess the portrait artist would have to tell us. Back in school days, alot of painters worked on the street doing commercial pastel portraits. Most of this work was done from live sittings, and the session would last less than 2 hrs. And, imo, alot of the work done in these sessions is superior in lifelike quality to the more commercial finished work that we see in "official" portraits, (eg. the Shanks portrait of one of the Catholic Popes. We all got to read about that commission, since some art magazine published an article on it. How much time was the Pope willing to spend sitting for Nelson Shanks.? Probably not much, being the Pope.)

The commercial portrait business, now ,is an entirely different tier where 10 or 20 thousand $ is not an unusual amount of money to be paid. The people buying these portraits often are unwilling to devote much time to live painting sessions, at least from what I have seen. Often the painter has to work from photos because they have no other source available as they need it, unlike in landscape painting, where we can only complain about the weather conditions.

It would be great to see patrons insisting on live sittings and willing to do their part. I know alot of painters who would be very happy to work that way exclusively. But then can we really expect people to be happy if their nose is painted as long as it really is, or their unusual proportions make them stand out in a way they do not feel comfortable with? Patrons select photos that make them, ito, look really good, imo, and that is the curse of portrait painting. No wonder the prices are high.
Ken

bigflea
06-14-2006, 11:14 PM
Larry,
I understand how the Shanks works could be seen as too photographic, but, I would have to make the same comment re. the Lipkin work. To me, the Lipkin work is well done and very evocative and "moody", but the coloring is very limited, and not descriptive of what comes to my mind when I think of the situation he is portraying. Yet the way he develops the work is much more suggestive and atmospheric than a photograph, especially a "snapshot" would be.

So, in terms of mood or suggestion, the work is not simply a description of facts, and attempts to evoke emotion about a subject and the setting, distinguishing it from a photograph. But in terms of coloration, there is, to me, a greater resemblance to what is typical in photography.


One other distinction you have made is about working with a model of your choice vs. doing a commissioned portrait. Lipkin is (it appears) showing us work he is doing with models he has hired. In this kind of work the painter can do a great deal more than in the commercial portrait situation where the buyer is, in effect, dictating what limitations the painter is going to have to work with.

Working with a live model is ofcourse an ideal situation where the painter can strive to go further than in a commercial portrait situation.
Ken

Classical Vince
06-15-2006, 02:54 AM
Just because Shanks (and a million others more offensively) uses / or even abuses "temperature" in their painting still doesn't mean that the phenomenon this doesn't exist in reality. I could abuse tone in my drawing.. and if I employ it in this way one could argue that this is just as much of a "concept" as temperature... after all I wouldn't be drawing what as I see as much as rationalizing about it right?.. but you wouldn't then tell me that tone doesn't really exist.. would you? What's the difference with temperature?

Skips
Hey Skip,

I think Im a little confused by your question but let me try to answer it.

If you are saying that temperature doesnt exist in nature then I would invite you, on a day when there's a light breeze, study the effects of direct sunlight when filtered through the leaves of a tree and observe the edges of the shadows they create - they sing with shifting color temperature.

You dont need temperature if you have successful tone - yet abuse of tone is horribly obvious in a piece. Abuse of temperature...most people wouldnt notice. Temperature is another dimention of color to consider, if you choose to use it.

Classical Vince
06-15-2006, 03:08 AM
CV,
any difference "within" a hue, (presuming I understand your meaning) still comes down to a recognition of a hue variation. (Eg. we have an overall blue or red, but we have a variation which is yellow). The concept of temperature, while being helpful analytically, is simply a generalization, in terms of what the pigment mixture has to be to get the effect that the painter is attempting to describe. What I want to determine, when trying to solve the mixture problem, is what pigment to add to the mixture. Telling myself it is warm or cool really does not tell me what I want, and need , to know.

Excellent question. We use a split-complimentary problem solving scheme. First you decide on the lighting condition - warm or cool. If its warm light, for shadows, you use the colder of the split-compliment to both darken and dull the original hue. I am simplifying this bc there are variables and other considerations but basically, you flip that rule for cold light. When you take a step back, you'll see its a beautiful balance in nature.


The point I would like to make is simply that temperature conceptions are generalizations about hue and chromatic variations. If a painter can ask themselves, "what hue is it", they are able to get more specific about the problem solving.

I disagree. Generalizations like the one I just made, can help someone to digest the concept...once thats swallowed, we can move on to specifics.

Have to agree with Larry about the photographic quality of Shanks' works. That is, nature looks different.

Its the peripheral vision that gets lost in enormous detail.

Ofcourse, he is doing alot of portrait work, and I do not know any portrait painter who can work from life these days. No matter how good they are at working from life, the buyers want something that has the facsimili of a photograph, and will pay way too much money for it. (imo).
Ken

Cough, cough...um, they can never pay too much. lol. ;)

skipstah70
06-15-2006, 11:03 AM
Hey Skip,
I think Im a little confused by your question but let me try to answer it.

don't worry.. my question wasn't meant to be answered.. merely making a point.

If you are saying that temperature doesnt exist in nature then I would invite you, on a day when there's a light breeze, study the effects of direct sunlight when filtered through the leaves of a tree and observe the edges of the shadows they create - they sing with shifting color temperature..
ummm.. no i definitely haven't been saying that temperature doesn't exist

You dont need temperature if you have successful tone - yet abuse of tone is horribly obvious in a piece. Abuse of temperature...most people wouldnt notice. Temperature is another dimention of color to consider, if you choose to use it.
no.. you don't need to have an understanding of temperature to have successful tone.. they are two seperate things of course. I'd have to disagree with your second point strongly however... someone with a tuned colour sense will definitely be able to spot bad/wrong colour (lack of temperature understanding), abuse of temperature etc. and find it just as offensive or more so than abuse of tone..

S

Einion
06-15-2006, 08:01 PM
CV,
any difference "within" a hue, (presuming I understand your meaning) still comes down to a recognition of a hue variation.
Difference within a hue would have to be variations of value and/or chroma, by definition, hence: a recognition of colour variation ;)

(Eg. we have an overall blue or red, but we have a variation which is yellow).
Eh?

Einion

bigflea
06-15-2006, 08:38 PM
CV,
The use of the split-complementary system, or , neutralizing the local surface color of a light plane with split complements as coloring for shade planes doesn't address the first question about color the painter wants to address (imo).

The initial statement of color for a light plane does not necessarily equate to the object's local color. That is, the pigment mixture for the light planes of a form do not necessarily equate to what would be called the local color of the object. Instead, a color descriptive statement may attempt to show how the local object color is changed in the light condition in which it is seen. This initial statement may be a complex pigment mixture, that is a tertiary color mixture, which is determined in part by its visual comparison to the shade plane coloring.

This shade plane coloring may also be a tertiary color mixture, which is itself a specific mixture of hues, not merely a neutral complement mixture to what has been used as the light plane coloring.

What you are describing is an approach to coloring that assumes the dominance of a local color hue for form, in both the light and shade planes. At least that is what it seems to be to me. In such a system, it is a simple distinction of temperature between warm sunlight and cool shade that is used to develop the pictorial form. That is a system of representing direct light effects in contrast to shade that has been in use prior to the development of modern pigments, and their increased chromatic power.

Some painters, maybe even me, question the basic underlying premise of local color dominance, and the subsequent use of warm and cool distinctions, and of split complementary neutralizing formulas, as an approach to color modeling forms.

In a pragmatic sense, as painters, work proceeds from what is a generalization about a color relationship to the specific differences that the painter is able to make with the pigments. In terms of warm/cool distinctions, that is a very wide sweep of a generalization, imo, and does not solve the question of what pigment to add to a mixture in order to describe a particular color relationship effect.

If a painter presumes local color dominance, it would follow that value and then temperature distinctions are their means of modeling form. However, to make this presumption, a painter would have to ignore the way any form will be altered in differing light and atmospheric conditions, or only paint forms in one light condition, such as interior, indirect lighting.

My question, if I have one, is really about your underlying assumptions in regard to local color dominance, and how that assumption determines your conception of temperature.
Ken

WaltWally
06-15-2006, 08:51 PM
Einion wrote:Difference within a hue would have to be variations of value and/or chroma, by definition, hence: a recognition of colour variation
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are using "hue" here to indicate a specific point on the color wheel, not just a color name ('blue', 'red' etc.) representing a wedge of the color wheel. I believe this is the technically correct usage, but it is not being applied here, at least not uniformly.
In my previous post here, I compared the color wheel to a clock face, with color names corresponding to 'hours' and specific hue values to minutes or seconds. What Donna would call "temperature within a hue" I would call "minute within the hour" or precise hue within a color name/range. This is very similar to the way the Munsell system has the spectrum divided.

Richard Saylor
06-15-2006, 09:11 PM
Difference within a hue would have to be variations of value and/or chroma, by definition, hence: a recognition of colour variation ;)
However, many artists use the word "hue" to to refer to the common color designations, such as red, orange, yellow, etc. I.e., hues are regarded as certain families of colors occupying segments or sectors of the color circle. Blue-green and yellow-green are then described as temperature variations of green. However, one could also regard them as hue variations (or variations of hue).

bigflea
06-15-2006, 09:16 PM
Einion,

In terms of decorative color schemes, a change in hue is likely a value/chromatic change. But I do not feel that concept describes what a painter is attempting to do in describing the visual quality of daylight and atmosphere on forms.

Generally, color massing of forms, by their light and shade plane differences, excludes some of the hue characteristics, and attempts to arrive at a visually meaningful, (descriptive) general, overall color mass. Such a mass will fall into a hue family by comparison to the surrounding masses. That is, presuming one is developing the color massing of light and shade planes for their differences in hue, and not assuming a local color dominance for both, where value/chromatic changes are used to express a light effect.

In the former, where a hue difference between light and shade is stated, a painter may also see and (with difficulty perhaps), mix a hue distinction within the overall mass hue.

For example, a light plane may have an overall general mass coloring that is yellow/orange. Within it, there may be a highlight area where the coloring is chromatically brighter, but also bluer, greener, or violet. The value distinctions may be very close, but the hue and chromatic change between the mass of the light plane and the variation within it have a greater effect than the value shift alone.

In landscape painting the situation often presents itself where the overall mass color, and hue , quality, is one thing, but within it, there is a hue distinction, which is not simply a mixture of two different hues. For example, a distant form may have a blue/violet coloring overall, but within that, a painter may also see yellow/orange hue variations. The problem is, the entire mass does not appear green, which is what you get if you mix blue/yellow/violet/orange in some mixture. No, you have a visual sensation of blue and yellow simultaneously, and without pertaining to plane changes in the particular forms one is observing.


This kind of effect occurs from atmospheric conditions, such as forest fires and ground haze combining to make a new strange painting problem. If you think in conventional terms, such as, blue+yellow= some greenish note, then you fail, for that day, to solve the descriptive color problem.

Sometimes this kind of a mixing problem can be solved by not "overmixing" the pigment mixtures. That is, a general mass color can be stated, and some hue variations can be mixed into it without losing the distinctions between either hue. It is the kind of problem that has been referred to as using "broken color" for massing of forms.
Ken

bigflea
06-15-2006, 10:04 PM
WaltWally,
I understand what your logic is, re. minutes/hours = coolwarm distinctions/hue family (Correct me if I am wrong). But then, it becomes a question first, imo, of what are the distinctions, visually, a painter can see between the hue of a light plane and a shade plane, in the same form. IOW, the initial color distinction, between light and shade planes of a form, may fall into a different hue family. In addition, variations of color within the light or shade mass may , first, fall into a different hue family, than the mass to which this variation belongs.

So the point of my comment is that, the question of a temperature distinction does not go far enough, since what occurs visually is often a change in hue family, within a mass of light or shade. A variation of color which we want to solve as a warm/cool variation of an overall mass color may in actuality be first a variation in hue, or a change from one color family, to another.

A mass of color, for light or shade, generally has a hue and chromatic value that establishes the spatial position of the form, or what is sometimes referred to as atmospheric perspective, (as different than linear perspective).

Munsell used the terminology of chromatic value, I believe, as a reference to the way hue distinctions define a spatial relationship. In monochromatic work, we use value alone for that purpose.

What do you think?
Ken

Einion
06-16-2006, 01:43 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are using "hue" here to indicate a specific point on the color wheel, not just a color name ('blue', 'red' etc.) representing a wedge of the color wheel. I believe this is the technically correct usage, but it is not being applied here, at least not uniformly.
I'm using hue to mean what it should mean :)

It is tricky how finely one wants to slice the pie - or the clock face - because of the limitations in language, without having to get into something more technical about which exact hue the local colour of this is (let's say it's something red) but that's not necessary to talk about any variations of colour within it, and whether they involve any change in hue or not, e.g. are highlights more toward yellow, halftones the same hue, shadows the same hue or are they more toward magenta? And so on.

Einion

Classical Vince
06-16-2006, 02:02 AM
CV,
The use of the split-complementary system, or , neutralizing the local surface color of a light plane with split complements as coloring for shade planes doesn't address the first question about color the painter wants to address (imo).

But it did address your comment about knowing how to actually mix a colors progress through a shadow. Please repeat the question I should have addressed.


The initial statement of color for a light plane does not necessarily equate to the object's local color. That is, the pigment mixture for the light planes of a form do not necessarily equate to what would be called the local color of the object. Instead, a color descriptive statement may attempt to show how the local object color is changed in the light condition in which it is seen. This initial statement may be a complex pigment mixture, that is a tertiary color mixture, which is determined in part by its visual comparison to the shade plane coloring.

im lost lol. its much simpler than this.


This shade plane coloring may also be a tertiary color mixture, which is itself a specific mixture of hues, not merely a neutral complement mixture to what has been used as the light plane coloring.

I only spoke of the shadow, but i can discuss the light plane if you'll simply accept, as a theory, what I've said this far.


What you are describing is an approach to coloring that assumes the dominance of a local color hue for form, in both the light and shade planes.

If it hasnt been discussed please dont assume. There is always an area of a form where the color shines through, identifying it and working with it is a theme of this discussion I havent even touched on.


At least that is what it seems to be to me. In such a system, it is a simple distinction of temperature between warm sunlight and cool shade that is used to develop the pictorial form. That is a system of representing direct light effects in contrast to shade that has been in use prior to the development of modern pigments, and their increased chromatic power.

We agree on a lot.


Some painters, maybe even me, question the basic underlying premise of local color dominance, and the subsequent use of warm and cool distinctions, and of split complementary neutralizing formulas, as an approach to color modeling forms.

Its good to question. I can only speak for what I've been taught, I was lucky enough to learn to see.


In a pragmatic sense, as painters, work proceeds from what is a generalization about a color relationship to the specific differences that the painter is able to make with the pigments. In terms of warm/cool distinctions, that is a very wide sweep of a generalization, imo, and does not solve the question of what pigment to add to a mixture in order to describe a particular color relationship effect.

I thought I had explained how to mix a shadow. Cmon.


If a painter presumes local color dominance, it would follow that value and then temperature distinctions are their means of modeling form.

Nay. Value is dominate in any realist painting.


However, to make this presumption, a painter would have to ignore the way any form will be altered in differing light and atmospheric conditions, or only paint forms in one light condition, such as interior, indirect lighting.

we havent even gone beyond the first theory I tried to explain about shadows...I have lots more to say about all the topics you mention.


My question, if I have one, is really about your underlying assumptions in regard to local color dominance, and how that assumption determines your conception of temperature.
Ken

I wouldnt say my responses were assumptions because I could point to examples in life as I did with my response to skip and pointing to direct sunlight is filtered through a tree. I have no assumptions, just confidence in what I've been taught because I see it everday, around me.

skipstah70
06-16-2006, 02:34 AM
vince... do you have a webpage or any colour work online? I'd like to see your colour understanding in practice.. the proof is in the pudding as they say....

Skips

Classical Vince
06-16-2006, 03:11 AM
Im going to decline posting my work bc this topic isnt about me, its about Life. If you so choose, you can find my pudding by having a look at my posting history. Beleve it or Not. On a personal level, IM me and I'd be happy to share my color studies.

bigflea
06-16-2006, 10:19 AM
CV,
The question which seems most basic, to me, re. modeling a form in any light condition, is what color differences do I see, between the mass of the light plane compared to the mass of the shade plane? Are they both the same hue, but differing in value and chroma only? Or, are they different hues, with different chromatic effects?

The object color, or what is referred to as the local color, is not assumed to be the dominant hue in the pigment mixture for the modeling of planes.

The type of light and atmospheric condition (working outdoors), is considered in the differences in coloring between the light and shade planes of forms, and not as something separate from the objects or forms. So the basic question, to me, is to address the hue and chromatic differences in the plane modeling of forms in the initial color statement, with the goal of describing the way light and atmosphere alter the coloring of forms.


I was not suggesting anything for you to do, only attempting to phrase comments in a way that might elicit a straight forward answer.

Re. your comment about " ... mix a colors progress through the shadow..", clarifies your entire theory about color seeing and mixing. Your statement indicates you conceive of object color as a constant, which is the foundation for value modeling. That approach relies on warm/cool distinctions between the object color as part of the form modeling.

Impressionist painters abandoned the use of local color as a constant, but not the use of warm and cool colorings, as your earlier comments claimed. Instead, these painters attempted to establish forms and spatial planes by contrasts of hues that could be seen in the forms.
Ken

skipstah70
06-16-2006, 11:42 AM
Im going to decline posting my work bc this topic isnt about me, its about Life. If you so choose, you can find my pudding by having a look at my posting history. Beleve it or Not. On a personal level, IM me and I'd be happy to share my color studies.

I don't think that cuts it... I had plenty of teachers in school who could talk to the earth's end on art principles they themselves couldn't seem to employ in practice. (They were often taught by others who had the same prob). I think one artist can tell anothers understanding of colour in about 5 seconds looking at a piece.. and since everyone here is visually oriented.. it might be more productive than debating an endless tautology. Also since we are all artist here wanting to understand AND create... doesn't the end manifest in an accurate REPRESENTATION of life instead of life itself (hence the pudding comment).

S

Classical Vince
06-19-2006, 05:13 AM
I don't think that cuts it... I had plenty of teachers in school who could talk to the earth's end on art principles they themselves couldn't seem to employ in practice. (They were often taught by others who had the same prob). I think one artist can tell anothers understanding of colour in about 5 seconds looking at a piece.. and since everyone here is visually oriented.. it might be more productive than debating an endless tautology. Also since we are all artist here wanting to understand AND create... doesn't the end manifest in an accurate REPRESENTATION of life instead of life itself (hence the pudding comment).

SThen lets stop eating pudding and start talking. Its all about painting. If you have a piece of mine in mind that you'd like to discuss, pm me. I trust my instincts.

Classical Vince
06-19-2006, 05:27 AM
i dont claim to be an expert on any level but if all you have to offer is critique, i'd like to see you're own usage of color theory. Talk is cheap.

Einion
06-19-2006, 01:16 PM
i dont claim to be an expert on any level but if all you have to offer is critique, i'd like to see you're own usage of color theory. Talk is cheap.
Oh dear, it's a nice phrase and all but it really doesn't mean much most of the time. Do all sports critics have to have been past sports stars? Do movie critics have to be accomplished directors? Do trainers of top tennis stars have to be superb tennis players? No, no and no.

And even were they that doesn't mean they'd be qualified to do those jobs either! You can do and not be able to teach as well as not be able to do but be able to teach - no lesser a painter than Sargent thought so too.

Not being skilled in a given area doesn't automatically devalue one's insights into something... after all, we're not all car designers but ya know an ugly car when ya see one ;)

Einion

Classical Vince
06-20-2006, 12:50 AM
Oh dear, it's a nice phrase and all but it really doesn't mean much most of the time. Do all sports critics have to have been past sports stars? Do movie critics have to be accomplished directors? Do trainers of top tennis stars have to be superb tennis players? No, no and no.

And even were they that doesn't mean they'd be qualified to do those jobs either! You can do and not be able to teach as well as not be able to do but be able to teach - no lesser a painter than Sargent thought so too.

Not being skilled in a given area doesn't automatically devalue one's insights into something... after all, we're not all car designers but ya know an ugly car when ya see one ;)

Einion
I happen to strongly disagree. I wouldnt study with a teacher whose artwork stinks. Talk is cheap, give me some pudding ;)

edit - dare I say this? LOL. Yes. Those who CAN do, those who CANT teach. It's a joke ok? lol.

skipstah70
06-20-2006, 01:32 AM
I happen to strongly disagree. I wouldnt study with a teacher whose artwork stinks. Talk is cheap, give me some pudding ;)

edit - dare I say this? LOL. Yes. Those who CAN do, those who CANT teach. It's a joke ok? lol.

Vince great.. I think we finally agree!! Those words are closer to the mark than most would care to admit.. and nothing worse than listening to a chef talk about a pudding he can't make! As for my stuff... I have a link at the bottom of every post with various puddiliscious pieces online..... now... what was your webpage addy?

S

Richard Saylor
06-20-2006, 04:01 AM
This is not an exact analogy, but the best French horn teacher I ever had was a trumpet player who would not touch the French horn, knowing that if
he tried to play it, the sound emitted from the instrument would be more like methane vented from an orifice in the derriere than a musical note.

Classical Vince
06-20-2006, 04:39 AM
This is not an exact analogy, but the best French horn teacher I ever had was a trumpet player who would not touch the French horn, knowing that if
he tried to play it, the sound emitted from the instrument would be more like methane vented from an orifice in the derriere than a musical note.
I dont know if Im more sorry for the student or the teacher.:eek: :D

Classical Vince
06-20-2006, 04:52 AM
Vince great.. I think we finally agree!! Those words are closer to the mark than most would care to admit.. and nothing worse than listening to a chef talk about a pudding he can't make! As for my stuff... I have a link at the bottom of every post with various puddiliscious pieces online..... now... what was your webpage addy?

S

I already PMd you. ;)

skipstah70
06-21-2006, 01:39 PM
Vince ... why so precious?.. just stick it out there so everyone in the forum can have a look.. it's really no different than making a post that everyone can read?

Skips

skipstah70
06-21-2006, 01:56 PM
Hey Vince .. I had a look at your PM.. and I see your teachers work.. but I asked if I could see YOUR work. I am familiar with David Hardy's work.. and while this person can certainly draw and understands form very well.. he does not have the same understanding of colour (which seems naive).. even if it has taken him 60 years. If you really want to learn to paint what you see I'd advise you to get some real colour training either from learning to see cololur temperature in your subjects.. or if you want to save about 10 years of your life.. buy "Alla Prima" by Richard Schmid.. the bible on painting what one sees.

Skips

bigflea
06-21-2006, 08:48 PM
David Hardy is "naive" as a colorist?

Skips, care to elaborate on that comment? When looking at Hardy's works, I get the idea he is what he claims to be, viz., a realist in the "classical" style.

In looking at his interior still life and figure work, there is a particular richness and variety in the coloring, which is used to model plane changes in forms.

In looking at his outdoor work, one can see a difference in his use, and perhaps his understanding' of color modeling form. However I doubt that this difference amounts to a temperature understanding.
Ken

skipstah70
06-21-2006, 11:56 PM
David Hardy is "naive" as a colorist?

Skips, care to elaborate on that comment? When looking at Hardy's works, I get the idea he is what he claims to be, viz., a realist in the "classical" style.

In looking at his interior still life and figure work, there is a particular richness and variety in the coloring, which is used to model plane changes in forms.

In looking at his outdoor work, one can see a difference in his use, and perhaps his understanding' of color modeling form. However I doubt that this difference amounts to a temperature understanding.
Ken

I understand that he is painting in the classical genre... I only wish people would stop calling this "realism". My idea of realism is to represent what we see in colour as accurately as in form... and the colour understanding demonstrated in that type of painting is plain wrong. Shadows and darks on different objects do not all fade to one non descript dark value.. even though they may be subordinate to higher key values on the lit sides. The hue on individual objects also varies much more than sticking to an assigned "local colour" way of painting an object as is taught in this manner of painting I believe. Penumbras in cast shadows would not have heavy chroma as is evident in some of his out door stuff. Whether genre "realists" chose to paint this way as a choice or they are adhering to some colour standards and established systems (rigid training = rigid systems?), I have no idea.. but it is not found in true observational painting IMHO. I think the key thing making the colour look flat is lack of temperature understanding. Many "realists" may hate or discredit impressionism.. but it truly did break the last frontier in understanding the way colour behaves.. don't be fooled by the slapdash brushwork. It is not just the colour/light relationship between the lit side and shadowed side of an object.. it is the colour/light relationship between EVERY lit and shadowed side between EVERY object in the painting. I find this understanding completely missing in "classical realism" (prob because historically they painted inside under crappy lighting conditions, didn't have great pigments, never painted outdoors, and established a rigid system of training that did not promote and incorporate new ideas?)

Classical Vince
06-22-2006, 03:02 AM
If you really want to learn to paint what you see I'd advise you to get some real colour training either from learning to see cololur temperature in your subjects.. or if you want to save about 10 years of your life.. buy "Alla Prima" by Richard Schmid.. the bible on painting what one sees.

Skips
LOL, he and David studied in NYC at the same time and understand the same color theory. Save the bible thumping for your own work.

btw - I've seen your artwork. I barely scratched the surface on color temperature, I had hoped there were people actually interested in discussing the topic instead of arguing it. As I suspected, you had ill intentions by even asking me to post my work so you went after my instructors. Let me put it this way, I would never study with you.

bigflea
06-22-2006, 09:34 AM
Skips,
Seems to me what you are really talking about is the limitations within a particular genre, and how the "concept" effects the use of coloring?

One "concept" at work in the "realist" tradition is the dominance of a local object color, in both light and shade planes. Studio painting, and interior lighting, reinforces this conception of local color dominance, especially where reflected color from secondary light sources is minimized. In effect, study of form in interior lighting gives a painter a limiting idea of the way form/object color is changed, by comparison to outdoor light and atmospheric conditions for painting. Because Barbizon and Impressionist painters began working exclusively outdoors, they abandoned the classical realist techniques, and developed new methods of painting that better suited the visual effects. IOW, painting outdoors, in much stronger lighting conditions, which varied greatly throughout the day, became a new artform.

Someone trying to apply the conceptions, and the realist "vision" to form in outdoor lighting, may find it difficult to get the chromatic intensity and subtlety of outdoor coloring. Hardy's outdoor work looks, to me, like he really doesn't understand where color changes are, or how to color model the forms in outdoor lighting. But that is not simply, or limited to warm/cool differences, and is more a visual understanding of chromatic shifts occuring according to the greater amount of reflecting light around forms. Eg., ground planes reflect light, and hue variations, up into shaded masses, and sky reflection, and atmospheric effects can be seen in the light planes of forms. Light planes are not all warm hues, nor are shade areas simply cool. Nor is a local object color necessarily dominant in the hue mixture for either the light or shade mass. IMO.
Ken

skipstah70
06-22-2006, 07:06 PM
Ken.. I completely agree.... so can they stop calling it and thinking it is "realism" (bacause it isn't).

S

skipstah70
06-22-2006, 07:07 PM
Vince.. thanks for the scathing personal IM.. very mature

S

bigflea
06-22-2006, 09:46 PM
Skips,
I think, if we look at the terminology from a historical viewpoint, it is possible to understand what the term means as a concept. What we term realism is a result of scientific materialism, which was a movement toward quantifying experience, ie., gathering objective facts and data. Most of the fact gathering, for painting purposes, has to do with form and proportional relationships, which reached a high point in Greek sculpture. Painters rely on accuracy in proportion (drawing), while no emphasis was put on studying the effect of outdoor daylight and atmospheric conditions on the object color of forms, (and the modeling of color planes), until the emergence of impressionism. Up until that period, outdoor painting was not even considered necessary to the development of a painting.

Painters in the classical realist tradition have based techniques on sculptural form, but have not attempted to study form in differing light conditions. Sculptural form really does not have to solve the problem of light, and from that pov., painters have to develop a different language than a sculpture needs to express form.

So, rather than debate terminology, why not recognize that there is a visual color quality to form in daylight that is not a part of the classical realist conception of form?

We can look at the works of painters like Inness, eg., who hated the impressionists, and we can see beauty in his work. He could be classified as a tonal realist painter, who relied on the conception of local color dominance throughout light and shade planes. His work, for me, does not express or describe daylight (and its effect on form as I see it), but I know what he is feeling when I see his works, ie., I know what is moving him, (or so I think).

R. Schmid seems to have more of a visual color awareness in landscapes ( to me) than Hardy, but then I can see areas of his forms where they also appear flat due to ( imo) a missing color change, or a generalization that in nature is actually more specific as a color.

Terminology will always fall short of our visual experience, presuming we are cultivating a full color experience of nature. A painter should never hope that the written language can better describe what their own color mixtures could potentially describe. This makes for difficult (or impossible) communication via language, but there is always the outside chance that one's use of color relationships will say something that words only fail to describe.
Ken

Classical Vince
06-23-2006, 03:23 AM
Vince.. thanks for the scathing personal IM.. very mature

S

my pleasure. just let me know if I missed anything bc I held back.

Classical Vince
06-23-2006, 03:55 AM
Skips,
I think, if we look at the terminology from a historical viewpoint, it is possible to understand what the term means as a concept. What we term realism is a result of scientific materialism, which was a movement toward quantifying experience, ie., gathering objective facts and data. Most of the fact gathering, for painting purposes, has to do with form and proportional relationships, which reached a high point in Greek sculpture. Painters rely on accuracy in proportion (drawing), while no emphasis was put on studying the effect of outdoor daylight and atmospheric conditions on the object color of forms, (and the modeling of color planes), until the emergence of impressionism. Up until that period, outdoor painting was not even considered necessary to the development of a painting.

nice quote from what you've read but I fail to see it in action between your words and surrounding your work. blah blah blah.


Painters in the classical realist tradition have based techniques on sculptural form, but have not attempted to study form in differing light conditions.

How many classical realists have you studied with? By the weight of your remark I think i know the answer.


Sculptural form really does not have to solve the problem of light, and from that pov., painters have to develop a different language than a sculpture needs to express form.

My instructor encourages us to study sculpture and I'd say you dont know Bernini - a painter and sculpturist who would laugh at your comment.


So, rather than debate terminology, why not recognize that there is a visual color quality to form in daylight that is not a part of the classical realist conception of form?
Better yet, why not recognize that you havent studied with a classical realist.


We can look at the works of painters like Inness, eg., who hated the impressionists, and we can see beauty in his work. He could be classified as a tonal realist painter, who relied on the conception of local color dominance throughout light and shade planes. His work, for me, does not express or describe daylight (and its effect on form as I see it), but I know what he is feeling when I see his works, ie., I know what is moving him, (or so I think).

All I have to say, is paint and do better.


R. Schmid seems to have more of a visual color awareness in landscapes ( to me) than Hardy, but then I can see areas of his forms where they also appear flat due to ( imo) a missing color change, or a generalization that in nature is actually more specific as a color.

Again, do better before you have the guts to critique.


Terminology will always fall short of our visual experience, presuming we are cultivating a full color experience of nature. A painter should never hope that the written language can better describe what their own color mixtures could potentially describe. This makes for difficult (or impossible) communication via language, but there is always the outside chance that one's use of color relationships will say something that words only fail to describe.
Ken
I have to agree, ones own use of color relationships speaks volumes.

Einion
06-23-2006, 08:34 AM
Thread locked, possibly temporarily, while under mod review.

Einion