PDA

View Full Version : Applications and limitations of colour theory **split off**


Einion
02-27-2007, 06:35 AM
Debate from Who developed our modern color theory? (http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=404735) split off to new thread.

There are today many interpretations of colour theory so I think it's a mistake to think of it as being one homogenous thing; formal colour systems as a rule focus more on one aspect than another - those confining themselves to light and measurement being more commonly the accurate ones, those written by and intended for artists usually being the superficial and/or inaccurate ones.

The usual problem in the latter is that all aspects of what can loosely be grouped under 'colour theory' cover a great deal of territory and has many things within it that are technical and deep, so, as with anything complex, it's difficult to understand without real study. This of course doesn't lend itself to a simple, easy-to-digest theory, which is what many people actually look for. On top of that there are a number of things that are apparently contradictory when you get down to specifics of subtractive mixing (which obviously has to be a cornerstone of something intended for artists) and this does not help make it seem any easier!

Here's a good quote that sums up many of the problems neatly:It is impossible to create a subtractive color wheel where every color combined with the color opposite it on the wheel will mix to gray. This type of color wheel, which is found in many books for artists, (1) can only be approximate; (2) applies only to complex subtractive mixture, not to color vision; and (3) precludes understanding many other things about color.

Einion

LGHumphrey
02-28-2007, 02:17 PM
How does the Munsell system stack up?

FriendCarol
03-01-2007, 07:31 PM
Munsell, like CIELAB & other models, is only an approach to mapping colors in a 3-D (or multidimensional) colorspace. Pigments may be mapped to the space, but that does not help artists mix color, or design a palette for particular effects within a painting.

I know traditionally we speak of simply mapping colors (especially the spectrum or spectral colors) as if that's some sort of "theory," but technically, this is in no way a theory for artists. It has practically no predictive or explanatory power of any sort. Even the concept of visual complements (which can be identified to a significant extent by this mapping) is not particularly useful, artistically speaking -- some complements clash, some heighten each other, etc. :D

Einion
03-02-2007, 01:55 PM
How does the Munsell system stack up?
In what way?


Even the concept of visual complements (which can be identified to a significant extent by this mapping) is not particularly useful, artistically speaking -- some complements clash, some heighten each other, etc. :D
And this will vary with taste too.

Einion

LGHumphrey
03-02-2007, 05:18 PM
Some people take the Munsell system as being THE system to define and differentiate colours/chroma/value and I was wondering if anyone here is of that persuasion.

Einion
03-02-2007, 06:12 PM
Munsell has some very good features (many of which, despite its age, make it valuable to know about) as well as some inherent flaws.

First off it's a perceptual colour system, that should never be forgotten. But because the Munsell data for paints is now based on measurements it is potentially very useful to painters for determining the relative qualities of one paint versus another (even if just for chroma and value if one can't handle the hue system).

But the colour wheel upon which it is built is not one that would generally be recognised as correct, so the hue definitions are very problematical in a couple of ways - fine if you're sticking to the Munsell framework, although they take a lot of getting used to, but trying to use it in conjunction with other colour systems is very tricky to say the least.

One of the key things Munsell helps us to understand is that chroma varies inherently with hue, making it easy to visualise that it's not possible to have a blue that equates with a brilliant yellow, or orange, or scarlet, in chroma; it's just outside the scope of what can be. Therefore one can see immediately that any of the many colour models/systems/wheels that place colours equally far from the central point are telling us fibs. It can also help one see that chroma and value are inextricably linked for some hues, e.g. you can't have a dark yellow that's high in chroma, simple as that.

As Carol already mentioned it's also a three-dimensional model; the issues surrounding this have been covered in a couple of previous threads but this understanding is absolutely vital when considering colour fully, since colour does have three dimensions; so obviously a 3D model is the only thing that can show accurately where a colour lies. Now most colour wheels we're used to only have two dimensions since a wheel is flat, but that's not to say that they're wrong (most in fact are, just not for this reason! :D) but they can only show two of the three dimensions. These are generally hue and chroma, which are the two most important to show as a rule since value is a little easier to grasp intuitively - pretty easy to see that Cadmium Lemon is light, Dioxazine Purple is dark, Chromium Oxide Green is somewhere in the middle.

If one takes the information in Munsell data, for example from Liquitex and Golden, how does this help? I'll ignore hue since I'm not familiar with that part of it myself having never read a proper outline that would help, even if I did want to know, but the numbers shows the relative brilliance of one colour versus another, very accurately. So you can use them to help train your eye to judge chroma. It gives us the value, again very accurately, which helps again to train judgement.

Does this help with mixing? Up to a point yes; since you know the starting values of the two paints in a mix, and we're now better at judging value from studying, we can see how the value of the mixed paint compares with the starting pair. The change in chroma can also be assessed fairly accurately. While that's something, consider this:

does knowledge of a three-dimensional model help you paint? It can, but not knowing about it doesn't exactly handicap the artist.
Do the Munsell numbers help us to locate, ahead of time, mixing complements? No.
Can they help us to predict the value of a mix of paint A and paint B? No.
Can they help us to predict the hue of a mix of paint A and paint B? No.
Can they help us to predict the chroma of a mix of paint A and paint B? No.
Do they show you which paints are strong mixers and which are not? No.

As should be only too obvious, only practical experience (sometimes with the exact examples on each palette) will give us that kind of information.

Einion

LGHumphrey
03-03-2007, 02:18 PM
Einion, thanks for that explanation, very clear.

Doug Nykoe
03-04-2007, 08:52 PM
Munsell is okay if you want a cool looking piece of sculpture but that is all its good for concerning the artist.

Now let us say you wanted a certain coloured thread manufactured in India for your new line of winter coats. If both parties had Munsell, this would be very helpful in receiving the right coloured thread from India.

For artist to strict of any formula just gets in the way, in my opinion.

bigflea
03-06-2007, 12:56 AM
It seems to me the past century goes back to about the turn of the 19th century into the 20th century, which is the era in which painters around the world were just beginning to digest the ideas of the Barbizon and Impressionist and Fauvist painters. New pigments, such as the cadmium range produced in the mid 19th century, were not available to painters prior to that era, and an entire system of color conventions developed based on the limitations ( weakness) of pigments that the cadmium range could replace. In effect, painters began to use the new chemical pigments because of the increased effectiveness of the pigments in expressing and describing light effects in strong outdoor lighting.

To me, that marks the beginning of the 'modern' era, in terms of how pigment was used, or how a contemporary painter will conceive of pigment use. Someone may choose to paint with earth pigments in order to create an image similar to a fresco plaster effect. But I doubt if such a painter would be ignorant of the potential for increased brilliance by using 'newer' pigments. Some may contend that somber coloring, in the earth tone range, is adequete to the task of describing natural daylight effects. But that is a different issue to discuss. If we study the historical record, it seems clear that the French painters during the later half of the 19th century opened the door for the contemporary use of color in all different styles of painting that we can see today. New pigments, such as the pthalo range, have emerged, but the interest in stronger pigments began during the mid 19th century, and has not subsided.
Ken

Doug Nykoe
03-06-2007, 03:46 PM
I find it funny that any mention of the development of a kind of artists' 'colour theory' (I use the quotes quite deliberately here) in the 19th century would go by without mention of one of the key figures, Chevreul.

Einion

I also find it funny that we artists are always trying to tame this thing we call colour through some kind of new theory. It is a lot like trying to capture lightning in a bottle. Now I see some are using Munsell as a base and saying we can teach you all about colour and people are buying into it, wow. Whats next?

If we understand colour is an experience instead of a thing (Munsell) we will go farther. How do you teach an experience? Just get busy, explore, and bring forth your own humanity.

Knowing about complements is good and elementary and that is all we can do really. When they break the code for string theory maybe, we will get closer to a definitive answer but until then were on our own.

Einion
03-06-2007, 09:31 PM
I also find it funny that we artists are always trying to tame this thing we call colour through some kind of new theory.
Well many people have some desire to understand the hows and whys of something they are interested in; perfectly natural for some. Others have no desire for this, and the rare few of this group have no need, but in my experience it's rarely of no value whatsoever to know more about something than less.

Now I see some are using Munsell as a base and saying we can teach you all about colour and people are buying into it, wow.
Who? Not even the 'Munsell people' themselves say that! ;)

BTW Munsell has been knocking around for a century now, attempts to apply it in some manner to painting can hardly be new. Some have actually been quite successful - Liquitex's How To Mix & Use Color booklet has quite a bit of value in it (no pun intended) for those seeking a better understanding of mixing patterns/tendencies.

If we understand colour is an experience instead of a thing (Munsell) we will go farther.
That's a matter of opinion - different strokes for different folks. This is often the very point where the artistic of mind and those of a more scientific bent take opposing positions; one issue is though that colour can only be communicated properly by treating it as a thing. There is also an experiential aspect to it without a doubt, so there is a dual-nature thing going on here... interestingly much like photons :)

How do you teach an experience? Just get busy, explore, and bring forth your own humanity.
That's a bit glib - if we go down that road how do we teach anything related to painting other than the physical mixing of colours* and methods of application? Maybe it's true that one cannot teach an experience, but you can pass it on, help others to gain it; we don't stand on the shoulders of our predecessors for nothing.

There is far too often a tendency for those who don't like, or don't understand, a theoretical aspect of art (not just related to colour but also composition) to ignore the need for it, assign it less weight than it should have, or worst, dismiss it as valueless.

*Something theory obviously helps gain a basic understanding of; further along one has to learn where theory must stop and experience takes over. So there's clearly benefit to both theoretical underpinnings and the practical exploration beyond it.

Knowing about complements is good and elementary and that is all we can do really.
The issues surrounding merely this aspect of colour are hardly that simple. Take a poll of 20 artist friends what the complement of red is and I bet money you'll get at least five or ten different answers; and there's a superb chance that at least 90% of them will get it wrong! Particularly if they're not allowed to ask for clarification on what you mean by 'red'.

If just complements were as basic as this might be trying to make it sound I don't think it would have taken until the late-20th century for it to become understood that visual complements do not necessarily equal mixing complements. And what's more, despite irrefutable evidence, some people still won't accept this is true - including one lapsed member and one former member of WC! :cool:

It actually is quite obvious that specific examples of this were known by painters - perhaps for many centuries, I don't know enough about colour use/teaching in the 16th-18th centuries - but it's equally obvious that it was not properly appreciated until quite recently, otherwise the knowledge would be commonplace by now. Similar to the teaching of cyan, magenta and yellow as primaries now taking hold and spreading - come 50 years from now and it'll be archaic indeed to be told that red, yellow and blue are the primaries, in any sort of formal artistic teaching.

Einion

Doug Nykoe
03-07-2007, 03:07 PM
Yes Einion, Hi BTW:) ....I heard and read what you typed many, many, many times before and I get it or should I say been there done that.. Still it does not address the most profound aspect of colour; the very paradox we artist operate within. Therefore, our humanistic rarity can be called into action to address the holes in whatever colour theory; a lot in the same way string theory was a nice attempt to answer that other paradoxical equation between Einstein’s theory and quantum mechanics. So as one paradox cannot be answered as yet neither can colour, as it’s always in flux and transitory and heck that’s what opens the door to originality when you take a good look at it.

As far as complements go… yes if you want a complement of red I can get it right every time because it is so elementary. If I want a complement of red, I use any form of green I want to get that just gray and place whatever slant I want to direct that experienced gray. The gray I want is the gray I have achieved it is that simple and who is going to argue that. I am happy because there is nothing in theory to say that I am wrong. We are free to exploit our rarity as long as we respect the colour paradox in which we operate.

Once understood things like Munsell etc are just air for the fine artist in which we hope there is an answer in the same way a good student would think we are somehow taking an exam and at the end of a semester of school, we go yah we now get colour somehow. Really there is no way we can do this colour cannot be caught it is in flux all the time. So exploit it.

FriendCarol
03-07-2007, 07:55 PM
Really there is no way we can do this colour cannot be caught it is in flux all the time. So exploit it.Even the partial fragments of an artist's color theory are helpful to me when I plan a painting, or even as I paint, so I have to disagree with you. Having read handprint's contributions about our color vision, perception, etc., at least I have a few strategies to try as I seek to re-present some experience visually, using paint. As it is, I am happy not be be reduced to attempting merely to replicate the colors around me, at the time of the experience. That would be not only impossible but also a generally unsuccessful strategy -- probably of sufficient difficulty, too, to distract me from my real goal. :rolleyes:

Richard Saylor
03-07-2007, 09:29 PM
As far as complements go… yes if you want a complement of red I can get it right every time because it is so elementary. If I want a complement of red, I use any form of green I want to get that just gray and place whatever slant I want to direct that experienced gray. The gray I want is the gray I have achieved it is that simple and who is going to argue that.That's fine if you don't mind increasing the ambiguity of the words "gray" and "complement" to the extent that you have destroyed their denotations and thus meaningful discussion of same.

Richard

Richard Saylor
03-07-2007, 10:36 PM
I also find it funny that we artists are always trying to tame this thing we call colour through some kind of new theory. It is a lot like trying to capture lightning in a bottle...On a small scale, capturing lightning in a bottle is precisely what a Leyden jar appears to do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyden_jar

Richard

FriendCarol
03-09-2007, 10:53 AM
It's really good to have this thread to refer to, next time someone comes into a forum called "Color Theory/Mixing" and suggests there's no real need for it. :lol: Meanwhile, thought it might be fun to think about what a real theory for artists might look like.

A good theory should yield explanations for why certain paintings are appealing or otherwise in their use of color. As one example, I enjoyed that page on handprint.com where a painting (fruit & flowers in a market? by Gaugin, perhaps?) is analyzed, which ends by suggesting it works by shifting all the colors as if they're illuminated by something very warm, like a setting sun. Within the putative theory, perhaps this helps as a contribution towards the notion of color harmony: One definition of color harmony might be "Natural colors (within gamut constraints of paints) of recognizable objects as viewed under normal (daylight) or coherent (is that what I mean? unified?) illumination."

Monochrome, or gray-scale with monochrome, should automatically suffice for color harmony, are we agreed on that? Anyone have any other contributions towards a stronger notion of color harmony?

Or perhaps you can suggest other concepts a good artist's color theory would explain in a satisfactory way? Or whether there are times when color disharmony should be employed to express something -- and how this could be achieved? :D

LGHumphrey
03-14-2007, 03:31 PM
If I mix 2 colours of the same value, for example a value 4 blue with a value 4 red, will I always end up with that same value? (in the example, value 4.)

Einion
03-14-2007, 09:03 PM
If I mix 2 colours of the same value, for example a value 4 blue with a value 4 red, will I always end up with that same value? (in the example, value 4.)
Good question; no. You can rely on this type of thing for many mixtures, just not for all.

Einion

Doug Nykoe
03-15-2007, 04:22 PM
These are theories not facts. Why do you need to know the exact complement of a colour? Some of you speak as if a painting is static like the two colour complement you may be speaking of and dissecting the hell out of it.

Maybe we need to adopt an open mind to this flux instead of trying to follow any theory too stringently. In comes originality.

I heard artist are now holding up Munsell chips to the face of a model to get that perfect colour, again the face is not static, its colour is in constant motion and thus effecting the human emotions etc.

I guess it is good to have knowledge of these theories and not trying to undervalue the fact that orange and blue look good in a painting but…:evil:

Einion
03-15-2007, 09:30 PM
These are theories not facts.
No Doug, some of this is not a theory in that sense - something theorised but unproven.

Why do you need to know the exact complement of a colour?
I'm glad you asked:
of a colour (visual complements) - for schematic colour arrangements knowing what opposes what is useful if you want to try to understand any patterns;
of a paint (mixing complements) - some painters value having pairs of pigments that mix linearly toward neutral*.

*While this is by no means vital in palette setups it sure can be useful. Having to mix just one other paint with a starting colour in order to drop its chroma, without changing its hue, saves a lot of time and fussing compared to having to use a three-colour mix to the same end.

Some of you speak as if a painting is static like the two colour complement you may be speaking of and dissecting the hell out of it.
That's not really what's going on. Some people value knowledge of a theoretical framework more than others, simple as that. If you don't then that's fine - different strokes for different folks.

Maybe we need to adopt an open mind to this flux instead of trying to follow any theory too stringently.
I don't believe anyone here is doing this actually, but if they were so what?

I heard artist are now holding up Munsell chips to the face of a model to get that perfect colour, again the face is not static, its colour is in constant motion and thus effecting the human emotions etc.
And....? If that's the way they want to try to paint then that's their business. Seriously, if you want to worry about that go ahead but why are you bringing it up here?

It would be literally impossible for art to be taught (to most people) without some basic rules of thumb, generalities etc. and all of those that refer to colour and paint are part of the generalised idea of 'colour theory'. And the simple truth is that it either has some value or it doesn't, can't have it both ways.

Einion

bigflea
03-15-2007, 11:28 PM
FriendCarol,
Not clear how you can conclude a greyscale suffices for color harmony. A greyscale can clarify the tone value relationships needed to attain a particular effect of form or spatial separation/division/continuiity.

A harmony of colors (meaning differing chromatic hues/pigments) will not always translate( directly) into a greyscale, monochromatic scheme. A harmonic relationship follows its own inherent scale. Reducing it to a grey scale may require changing the inherent values of the chromatic harmonies in order to have a greyscale that works for the purpose of form/spatial continuity and diescription.

So I , for one, would disagree with your premise.
Ken

FriendCarol
03-16-2007, 01:40 AM
So in your opinion, Ken, it would be possible to have a painting entirely in shades of gray that somehow violated someone's sense of 'color harmony?' Sounds impossible to me, such a painting couldn't violate my sense of 'color harmony.' Nor could anything in monochrome, regardless of the hue chosen. Could be completely unintelligible, but couldn't scream at me re colors. (Although I might not like the hue of the monochrome, it couldn't actually repel me, or 'clash.') That's really all I meant.

You are apparently using 'harmony' as a jargon term within a larger context, not in its normal English-language meaning, but I'm just talking about the normal sense of 'color harmony.' Do you know what I mean -- if you walked into a room decorated entirely in vivid greens & reds, wouldn't you have to shut your eyes, and back out? :lol:

Richard Saylor
03-16-2007, 02:37 AM
To preserve the analogy with musical harmony (a relationship between two or more different pitches), color harmony should describe a relationship between two or more different hues.

A monochromatic painting would be analogous to monotonic music (consisting of a single pitch). The colors in a monocromatic painting could vary in chroma and value but not hue. Likewise the tones in monotonic music can vary in rhythm and intensity but not pitch. (In case you are not familiar with monotonic music, there is a humorous side drum solo in the second movement of Bela Bartok's 'Concerto for Orchestra'.)

Just as monotonic music contains no harmony, the same is true for monochromatic pictures. No?

Richard

FriendCarol
03-16-2007, 02:48 AM
Yes, Richard, that makes sense. :thumbsup: Instead of saying 'monochrome suffices for color harmony' I should have said 'monochromatic schemes cannot violate color harmony.'

Btw, I was just searching for a post you wrote (I thought) in which you described an usual mix to create Prussian blue. I meant to try the recipe someday (think it comprised Winsor, phthalo, green BS and one other pigment I have), but have forgotten the other color and someone asked in another thread... Of course, I couldn't turn up the post in a search. :rolleyes:

FriendCarol
03-16-2007, 02:53 AM
Actually, will have to think this through more thoroughly: Sometimes there is a strong subjective sense of hue shift merely from chromatic/value changes, and then I often have a subjective sense of fine color harmony. Since we define color as the result of all three attributes, I'm not certain the concept of harmony of color precludes identical hue angles.

P.S. To illustrate, orange & brown would be described as 'harmonious' by some, and we know these may be the exact same hue.

Einion
03-16-2007, 09:07 AM
Achem, could I remind people of the title of this thread? *points*

I don't want the topic to drift off again ;)

Einion

FriendCarol
03-16-2007, 05:36 PM
...but the title includes 'applications.' Color harmony, or disharmony, would seem to be a very useful concept within any artist's color theory, if only we could achieve one. :p

Einion
03-16-2007, 10:55 PM
Yes, your initial point is fine. But the debate following on from it? Not so much. Since this is already a split-off thread I didn't want the topic to wander again.

Perhaps I should have said: let's try to frame any debate about something mentioned above in light of the thread's topic.

Einion

bigflea
03-17-2007, 02:00 PM
For color theory purposes, or for applying theories to producing color works, seems to me the meaning of 'harmony' is specialized in the way Richard has stated it. Granted, it also has a general meaning (to get along)when not used in reference to color use perse, which could compound any discussion.

If monochromatic works follow a particular color theory in the development of tones, then 'harmony' or 'harmonic' may fit as a way to characterize one group of tones as opposed to another. In monochrome work there is no division of form by hue contrast, so no need to have a color theory.

But a group of tones may be too jarring in contrast, eg. a black to white checkerboard pattern on the walls of a small space, for most. To me, that is not a harmonic effect, but one of too much contrast of tones. So, to some degree, it depends on what a person means by the use of the word.

Seurat followed the color theories of Chevruel, and Rood as well, in a strictly interpreted way. I doubt a greyscale of a scene would give one any clue to the color harmonies(of pigment/hue variations) Seurat used for his painting of the scene.

And his work shows the limitations of the theory, viz., he had to limit the size of the pure color dots in order for the effect of the dot theory to work. Ie., for the pure dots to combine optically. And the effect is altered by the distance from which the work is viewed.

Ken

FriendCarol
03-17-2007, 03:09 PM
Yes, that size issue for b/w is almost analogous to the context issue in color work (context as in simultaneous contrast, for example). One of the interesting things is how detail turns to texture; noticed that again yesterday while looking at some of Escher's work (in a book).

Detail becomes texture at a certain distance for color paintings as well, of course, and the transition is interesting. There's usually an overall color shift if one is painting, apart from effects of atmospheric perspective: a tendency to blend previously distinct colors. Escher's prints in the book showed transitions from distinct b&w figures (or figure/ground, in his fascinating style) to tiny b&w patterns, rather than to gray -- but at a more distant point, we should simply see gray.

bigflea
03-21-2007, 11:46 PM
"Details" is one of those words that brings to mind factual information, such as, how many windows are there in the side of that particular rustic hotel the painter is trying to paint. In terms of painting, that kind of detail can be seen as irrelevent to the essential problem of painted masses of color. One window may serve as well as 10 for the painter to grasp the visual difference between the mass of color around the window, and how the window is different from the mass around it.

Color theory, it seems to me, is a departure from the theory of linear construction, and linear perspective of space, to a theory of spatial dimenision articulated by color variation of masses, where masses represent aerial placement of forms in a 2 dimensional format. In that sense, all color theory from Chevruel forward is a departure from the pictorial conventions of the French Academy, in which the local object color, and value gradations of local color sufficed for form rendering, were the accepted standard for painting.

Color theory led to the concept of color masses, and how light and atmospheric conditions effect the perception of a color mass of form. Prior to the development of modern pigments, painters were more limited in their description of the brilliancy of light effects on form.
ken

gunzorro
03-22-2007, 10:04 AM
Doug, stop, you are making my brain hurt. You need to start your own paint-based religion and be free of all our claptrap. ;)

FriendCarol
03-22-2007, 01:01 PM
Thing is, Ken, you may not have noticed that you're working within a relatively small area within color theory -- that related to portraying, representationally, objects in space. Afaic, color theory for an artist has to be much, much larger in scope.

Artist's color theory should also cover how to design a palette to achieve a certain effect in painting (sculpture, etc.). The effect can be something simple and concrete, such as "How do I make the clover blossoms as bright and noticeable against the greens of this field in my painting as they are in real life?" Here, the answer should be very similar for most people (not the blind or color-blind, of course), because the answer will be based on the realities of perception (psychology) and available pigments/paints, both science.

But the effect sought by the artist can be very nebulous or abstract, such as a palette design to emphasize the oneness of the Universe, despite its biodiversity. Or an artist, particularly certain abstract artists, might ask, "What sort of palette will help portray the shock and alienation of feeling alone in the normal world when something horrible has just happened to someone?" This abstract (perhaps expressive, with idealized forms, and utilizing some depth conventions) might try to express the experience of a girl who's been raped, or a young man who's seen his best friend shot to death, on returning to school the next day.

So, it's one thing to say 'here is a tree and as I portray the volume I'm going to shift the color in this way because of the season, the weather, the location.' It's quite another thing to say 'here is alienation, shock and horror felt completely out of the existing, surrounding social and physical context.' The color theory that covers the first is only a small part of a whole artist's color theory. Obviously, no theory can cover everything, but even a slightly more complete theory would be a lot more useful than the few fragments we have now!

Doug Nykoe
03-22-2007, 06:34 PM
Doug, stop, you are making my brain hurt. You need to start your own paint-based religion and be free of all our claptrap. ;)

Jim we are all right in context because it is only theory. Make your own theory and see if some will follow… maybe a book. :evil:

The problem as I see it is there are too many following instead of picking up where all the theorists have left us… mere elementary facts and then its all up to us to forge ahead. But some still need to follow someone because of lack in faith. No book or man can give us this except a few insights and that is about it. If you understood, the very nature of colour you would then give up this notion you can learn colour in its fullment to complete a painting. The very fact this is an experience and not a thing has the theorists hands tied.

You know as an artist, this is very good news. The good news is that we are free to create colour to suit whatever we feel is appropriate.

Ask yourself where does colour reside and you will find your answer.

Doug Nykoe
03-22-2007, 06:37 PM
The color theory that covers the first is only a small part of a whole artist's color theory. Obviously, no theory can cover everything, but even a slightly more complete theory would be a lot more useful than the few fragments we have now!

but even a slightly more complete theory

To me at least, this is going to be a very long wait.

Richard Saylor
03-22-2007, 10:24 PM
Actually, I don't quite understand what you are getting at, Doug. It's true that some color theorists seem to think that they know it all, but I don't see them forcing their ideas on people (except on their paying students perhaps). As for color being an experience rather than a thing, let's please not go the tired old route of redefining perfectly good terms. Granted that color has important subjective aspects which all too often are overlooked (sometimes deliberately, I suspect), this does not justify tossing out its objective, quantifiable reality.

It really seems that some artists have a disdain (fear?) for anything concrete and scientific which may prove to be somehow relevant to their art. Strange that I have never noticed a reciprocal disdain for art among scientists.

Doug Nykoe
03-22-2007, 11:24 PM
Actually, I don't quite understand what you are getting at, Doug. It's true that some color theorists seem to think that they know it all, but I don't see them forcing their ideas on people (except on their paying students perhaps).

The theorists are very helpful for the beginner and as well for the seasoned artist to revisit at times but again all elementary. You see if we could hold colour still then we could go farther in our attempts at extending theory for the artist.

As for color being an experience rather than a thing, let's please not go the tired old route of redefining perfectly good terms. Granted that color has important subjective aspects which all too often are overlooked (sometimes deliberately, I suspect), this does not justify tossing out its objective, quantifiable reality.


Sorry not following your line of thought here but will try.

Is it hard to understand the difference between a thing and an experience? Theory tries to move colour into a thing for examples sake which gives us a glimpse or to prime the mind but once primed we move to experiencing colour which is much different.


It really seems that some artists have a disdain (fear?) for anything concrete and scientific which may prove to be somehow relevant to their art. Strange that I have never noticed a reciprocal disdain for art among scientists.

A fear… not at all. I love science and have learned to separate the two. But there is nothing concrete about colour and the artists cerebral interpretations. There’s no science for that and that’s a good thing or we would all be doing the same thing and redundancy would kill us all off. Thank god colour is transient and always in flux. So enjoy its many possibilities.:thumbsup:

Richard Saylor
03-23-2007, 01:49 AM
... But there is nothing concrete about colour and the artists cerebral interpretations...Nothing concrete about color?

Doug Nykoe
03-23-2007, 02:10 AM
Nothing concrete about color?

No, I said nothing concrete about colour and the cerebral interpretations. Alternatively, I might reword it as there is nothing concrete between the object, colour and cerebral interpretations.

Richard Saylor
03-23-2007, 02:41 AM
No, I said nothing concrete about colour and the cerebral interpretations. Alternatively, I might reword it as there is nothing concrete between the object, colour and cerebral interpretations.That may be a true statement, but it conveys no information. You can say that about any object, property, and cerebral interpretations. It doesn't really matter, however. If someone finds it advantageous to utilize some sort of color theory in their art, they shall do so. Otherwise not. The color police don't care.

Doug Nykoe
03-23-2007, 03:18 AM
That may be a true statement, but it conveys no information. You can say that about any object, property, and cerebral interpretations. It doesn't really matter, however. If someone finds it advantageous to utilize some sort of color theory in their art, they shall do so. Otherwise not. The color police don't care.

You missed my point almost entirely. You were close when you stated… but it conveys no information. I wonder if you could elaborate on why you stated that. Weird :)

Again, with this statement, the colour police don’t care. Man you are all over it. You keep this up and a door might open to how Cézanne thinks, Picasso etc.

Einion
03-23-2007, 04:36 AM
Theory tries to move colour into a thing for examples sake which gives us a glimpse or to prime the mind but once primed we move to experiencing colour which is much different.
I see what you're saying here - yes, a theory of some kind is the starting point for many aspects of painting (art in general) and yes, the majority of artists move on from that to develop their own personal vision - but I think you're trying to consistently play down the importance of theory, not just at the beginning but later on too*.

I suspect from reading what you've posted recently that you don't value theory much and therefore you think that other people should think similarly or can, while still developing nicely. That's fair enough as far as it goes, if you do indeed feel that way and you want to promote thinking/working in a like manner that's fine - although I think you should make a practical alternative clearer - but it should be obvious from this thread alone (although there is plenty of other evidence nearly every day around the site) that many other learning artists, perhaps the majority, want to have a grounding in a framework of some kind, be it colour theory/mixing theory, composition and basic guidelines on method and materials (which are theoretical until they have been put into use).

Focussing just on colour theory, thinking with an eye to it can be something that stays with someone permanently; I've painted for about 25 years so I'm hardly a neophyte but still, doing a small study last night during colour mixing I relied on theoretical knowledge (quite consciously in some cases). Lightening a brown mix using TW dulled the colour too much, as I knew it would because of how I'd mixed the brown, so I added a transparent yellow to increase the chroma (the change in hue wasn't critical in this case, otherwise I would have used a yellow-orange instead). Later I had to quickly drop the chroma of Cad Red Light again to touch up an area because the original mix I'd done (local colour + the red) had dried; there was some Cobalt Teal still wet in my palette so I used that instead. I knew directly from theory that this should work.

But there is nothing concrete about colour and the artists cerebral interpretations. There’s no science for that...
Nothing concrete about colour and the artist's cerebral interpretations??? There is a vast amount of study done on vision and perception, it's just not read much by artists Doug. And a large part of instruction by artists** on painting focuses directly or indirectly on how to see, how to interpret. So that's two different perspectives on much the same area.

*There have been plenty of painters on the site with far more hands-on experience painting than I have who have had difficulty in trying to mix a certain colour, and knowledge of theory in many cases is what equipped me to answer many of them. Sometimes there was no satisfactory answer, which would actually have been evident to the questioner in a number of cases had they known more colour theory - e.g. out-of-gamut colour zones, higher chroma of undercolour v. the masstone, limitations of their existing palette.

**One simple example is to look at the nature of impressionistic work and the teaching exercises that its proponents use to change/develop the way students see, and the verbal instruction that goes along with it.

Einion

Richard Saylor
03-23-2007, 01:54 PM
You missed my point almost entirely. You were close when you stated… but it conveys no information. I wonder if you could elaborate on why you stated that. Weird :)...

If by by 'cerebral interpretations' you mean 'perceived color,' then the mechanism is understood and could be termed 'concrete.' If you are referring to nebulous 'properties' ascribed to colors by the imagination (such as temperature), then there certainly does appear to be a lack of concreteness between colors and their 'cerebral interpretations.' Therefore the truth or falsity of the statement, '...there is nothing concrete between the object, color, and cerebral interpretations,' depends on what is encompassed by the term 'cerebral interpretations.' The statement about concreteness conveys no information about this. My apologies if you have clarified this elsewhere in the thread.

Doug Nykoe
03-23-2007, 05:53 PM
To Richard and Einion. I am not knocking colour theorists at all. They have done a great job but the jobs they have done are only clues to what an artists is capable of doing.

Look it must be frightening when the flight instructor says okay kid you are going to fly solo tomorrow and this is a lot like the artist and his theories he holds so close. Fear of the unknown drives him back to theories … I think at least that is what happened to me repeatedly in the past. However, something profound has happened since those early days.

Science tells us there is no taming of colour so get out there and fly solo….gulp. No I want my theories. It is a hell of a balancing act but it has to happen before you reach those personal heights. Therefore, I understand where you are coming from Einion.

My thinking is colour is somewhat of a problem for artist and will always be this way because it is the measure of light. For instance, one part of the journey could be like this. Say we have and for the sake of simplicity a geometric object, okay let us say a red pyramid. Its about 10 inches high and enough said… what colour is the pyramid?

Once you understand this journey of light, something else happens you begin to harvest an aesthetic appreciation for all art. Yes Einion you will begin to enjoy Cézanne.:D You see Cézanne represents this freedom and why he was called the father of modern art. Its not his art I was after in all of my exhausted study of this man but how did he think which was the most important to me. Of course to study Cézanne means to study Pissarro and then Ogden Rood etc. Therefore, I have been in the trenches sort of speaking.

Anyways what colour is that pyramid? I know you know the answer but the journey starts there. Your conclusions should set you free to explore colour and not be so afraid of it and stop you from seeking so many systematic approaches from others. Although I do enjoy hearing about others approaches to colour its just that mine is the most important to me when flying solo.

Richard Saylor
03-23-2007, 06:54 PM
Look it must be frightening when the flight instructor says okay kid you are going to fly solo tomorrow and this is a lot like the artist and his theories he holds so close. Fear of the unknown drives him back to theories ....... Science tells us there is no taming of colour so get out there and fly solo….gulp. No I want my theories.…For the life of me, I can't imagine what kind of color theories you are talking about. Color theory as a crutch? :confused: :confused: :confused:


My thinking is colour is somewhat of a problem for artist and will always be this way because it is the measure of light.Yes, each spectral color is a specific wavelength of light, and every color can be represented as a superposition of spectral colors. Spectral theory and Fourier analysis is fascinating mathematics, but I have no idea how it might impact painting, nor do I care.

Anyways what colour is that pyramid? I know you know the answer but the journey starts there. Your conclusions should set you free to explore colour and not be so afraid of it and stop you from seeking so many systematic approaches from others...Who is afraid of color, and why? What kind of color theory are you talking about? There's some kind of major communications problem here.

FriendCarol
03-23-2007, 09:08 PM
Who is afraid of color, and why? What kind of color theory are you talking about? There's some kind of major communications problem here.Here, here. :rolleyes: Some of us seek to understand better how, in general, people (or people in our culture) respond to colors scientifically (i.e., simply the science of perception -- how can we help them see the colors we're trying to emphasize). Some of us seek to understand the psychological effects of color (although others argue there is no such thing). We do this in service of art, not as a crutch.

To understand how things work, if there are things that work, is simply basic technique, or mastery of what may be known in one's field. It's normal in all fields I know of, not just for artists but for all trades.

Carvers, like carpenters, need to know the difference between soft and hard woods. Painters need to understand, at a minimum, what to do with the pigments on their own palettes to mix the color they want next. Even existing color theory helps with that (at least somewhat -- Einion gave you good examples!).

Beyond that, of course we could paint experimentally, or proceed in an 'intuitive' sort of fashion, allowing the painting to direct our next moves. That's not how I want to paint myself, but different strokes, as they say... People differ, and that's fine. Some artists like to just play with paint on canvas until they like the result or give up. That's okay. Others of us seek specific re-presentations, and use whatever tools we can to help speed our journey... Often the latter are working in series, each a small failure on the road to succeeding -- the failure may be perfectly acceptable to some viewer or buyer, but it's still a failure in the sense we haven't yet achieved our goal.

If you belong to the group who just wants to dive in and use color and experience it and work on from there, that's fine. Doesn't mean we all have to use the same approach. ;)

Einion
03-23-2007, 10:05 PM
I am not knocking colour theorists at all.
I didn't say you were. I said it appears you're knocking colour theory, and/or its importance or benefit. If it's not to you, on an ongoing basis, fair enough but opinions vary.

They have done a great job but the jobs they have done are only clues to what an artists is capable of doing.
The later reference to Cézanne for context makes this a bit clearer; I've laid out the case from my viewpoint pretty extensively by now so all I can say at this point is fine, if that's your view then that's your view, there are thousands of ways of thinking about and using colour.

Now, since the title I chose for this portion of the previous debate is "applications and limitations of colour theory" if you want to continue with this, could you actually get down to some specifics? You keep saying that there are limitations, theory is elementary but..., one can go further, and so on but so far I haven't read what that alternative is, just repeated mentions there is one. Given this is now the fourth page I think it's time to get down to brass tacks or we're just spinning our wheels here, especially since we are in the Colour Theory & Mixing forum, not a Philosophical Discourse class ;)

Einion

bigflea
03-25-2007, 01:35 AM
FriendCarol,
Color theories, in the historical context, pertain to various scientific analyses of light, and the color of light waves. Artists like Seurat, and some abstract artists in the 1950's and 1960's, made works based on color theories of light. Some work, such as Albers, demonstrated how carefully related colorings can create illusions within a flat surface.

Other painters, such as the German Expressionists, attempted to use color as description of emotional and psychological states. No doubt there is a relationship between color and emotion, or feeling. For that reason, artists continue to use color in ways that are entirely subjective, personal, or without any specific objective or scientific reference. Paul Klee isan example of one artist using color relationships in a very skillful but non objective way to portray an emotive and spiritual theme.

I do not feel color theory defines or proscribes a limitation on how painters use color. It has served as a means for painters to enlarge the way color relationships are used to describe visual experience. In the distant past, conventions of pictorializing limited visual description.
Ken

Yet

LarrySeiler
04-04-2007, 10:27 AM
Well...just picked up on the last few pages here....*whew...

I'll just mention this, Doug....since like you, I too like metaphors or similies.

There are many ways, theories...models for writing a book as well, and like your suggestion coinciding with color theories, one could basically be accused that their efforts to understand and study an approach for a book they wish to write (looking at the theories in writing) must be founded on fear rather than just letting it happen.

So...perhaps it is best to stack about a dozen dictionaries together with an explosive, and trust that when the dust settles...the words and letters will simply have fallen back to earth, coming together to form the book you had hoped for.

Understanding is liberation...and what one does not understand one often fears. I've painted near 30 years...but I have never been so interested in ideas of color as I have this past 2 years, and as I explore and put to test ideas from Emile Gruppe and Edgar Payne (I know folks are tiring of hearing of those two from me...but, there it is...), I feel I am the most fearless I've EVER been in all my years of painting. My method outdoors from students that watch me teaching a workshop has been described as quite bold, confident...agressive, FAST!!!! In a word...FEARLESS !!!!

Look...even to paint and just "let it happen"...like taking over the plane to solo, will lead to understanding...but it will be piece meal, happen stance, come in tidbits here and there. When one discovers one is gaining ground another might inadvertently ask..."hmm...I like that harmony you've got there, how'd you do that?"

The moment you answer...you have put forth a concept, an idea...a "theory" and as such it can be replicated, tried out...and thus finding it useful made personal.

This is no less a legitimate way to gain control over the painting process than it is to look at a map to get an idea on a direction to somewhere you are planning to drive. You might say..."ah heck..just get in the car and drive, see where the road takes you" and if gas were 17.9 cents per gallon (as when I first pumped gas as a kid) with money we earn today that would be no problem, but as gas is near $3 per gallon...you now develop greater wisdom that it would be prudent to have a better sense of directions.

The mere simple logic of this is why there is credibility to understanding the working methods of good or even great artists. No need to reinvent the wheel if one need not, as life is precious and each and everyday full enough of challenges. Life is getting well past that $3 per gallon with each year we add on...if you know what I mean. :thumbsup:

bigflea
04-06-2007, 11:14 PM
Seems to me an aspect of this thread is a differentiating between a purely intuitive approach to coloring and a theoretical/scientific/study approach. Richard, being the mathematician, is a third side to the equation.

I suspect any painter is capable of both a methodical/scientific approach and an intuitive approach. I feel both are necessary. The relationship that may exist between music, math, and color is also very interesting, and not explored, enough imo. Some may say if we have intuitive insight, then what need is there for a theory of coloration? The reality is, we do not always have intuition in regard to a problem of color. A color theory may be a starting place for experience..

Ken

Velatura
04-07-2007, 04:31 PM
I employ a color system that enables me to mix each color I desire, with total control. It liberates me to spend my energy considering concept and composition. It's not a theory, it does not limit me in any way, and could be used by painters of any style or approach.

Einion
04-07-2007, 05:58 PM
I employ a color system that enables me to mix each color I desire, with total control. It liberates me to spend my energy considering concept and composition. It's not a theory, it does not limit me in any way, and could be used by painters of any style or approach.
Could you elaborate? Details would be very appreciated by a large number of people I'm sure.

Einion

Velatura
04-07-2007, 06:04 PM
I cannot reveal the method, as the originator has requested confidentiality. If anyone has questions that deal with what it can do, and not how it does it, I would be happy to answer them. It does what I describe, with perfect accuracy, and is repeatable. Hmmm, sounds like science to me...

Einion
04-07-2007, 06:38 PM
I cannot reveal the method, as the originator has requested confidentiality.
If you cannot actually discuss the system with others, to explore its potential strengths/weaknesses, there is little point in posting the claim here.

For instance the first thing I'd want to know is what's the palette size, but presumably that's a secret. Then there is, does it deal equally well with the entire range of transparency (which would imply a very large palette)? Masstone mixtures only? What standard is actually used for "perfect accuracy", good enough for direct side-by-side comparison with the original in the same light or just good enough to work in context within a painting? And related to the previous point, how big's the gamut in masstone mixtures (compared to something else if necessary) and/or in undercolour? Any issues with metamers? All media or just one? If it's claimed to work equally well in all media then I'd want some evidence, given the obvious differences in easily-achievable colour between watercolour and oil paint for example. Does it require the use of a single brand (key question that)? If not then again, proof is required.

If anyone has questions that deal with what it can do, and not how it does it, I would be happy to answer them.
Well you've already said all that's necessary on that score: it can, supposedly, allow the user to mix any colour desired, "with total control".

It does what I describe, with perfect accuracy, and is repeatable. Hmmm, sounds like science to me...
And I can do a one-arm pushup with my off hand, supported only by my pinkie ;)

Einion

Velatura
04-07-2007, 06:48 PM
If you cannot actually discuss the system with others, to explore its potential strengths/weaknesses, there is little point in posting the claim here.

Doug Nykoe seems to think color can be no more scientific than an "experience", which my work refutes, hence my reason for posting it here.

For instance the first thing I'd want to know is what's the palette size, but presumably that's a secret. Then there is, does it deal equally well with the entire range of transparency (which would imply a very large palette)? Masstone mixtures only? What standard is actually used for "perfect accuracy", good enough for direct side-by-side comparison with the original in the same light or just good enough to work in context within a painting?

There is no set palette size, and it deals equally well with all color. It is perfectly accurate, and side-by side is preferred. "Context" is useless as a measuring standard. Might as well stick with Doug's experiential approach.

And related to the previous point, how big's the gamut in masstone mixtures (compared to something else if necessary) and/or in undercolour? Any issues with metamers? All media or just one? If it's claimed to work equally well in all media then I'd want some evidence, given the obvious differences in easily-achievable colour between watercolour and oil paint for example.

I've only used it with oils, and have no interest in other media.

Does it require the use of a single brand (key question that)? If not then again, proof is required.

Not only does it not require single brands, identical color mixes can be acheived by using wildly different starting colors.


Well you've already said all that's necessary on that score: it can, supposedly, allow the user to mix any colour desired, "with total control".

And I can do a one-arm pushup with my off hand, supported only by my pinkie ;)

Einion

I thought you monitors didn't like irrelevant commentary? Or perhaps you still see my post as bragging?

stoney
04-07-2007, 11:22 PM
Doug Nykoe seems to think color can be no more scientific than an "experience", which my work refutes, hence my reason for posting it here.

Not only does it not require single brands, identical color mixes can be acheived by using wildly different starting colors.


Refutes? [gentle laughter] Sorry, but unsupported assertions aren't worth the electrons to display them-much less a 'refutation.' I couldn't help but notice you were quick to claim confidentiality and provided no information to be able to contact the 'source' of this 'system.' I'm sure you understand why folks won't believe you.

bigflea
04-07-2007, 11:41 PM
Velatura,
Who cares how your miracle works anyway? Just give us all the thrill we long for and show us what you can do with " IT".

Later, after we all have been initiated and become true believers, we can fight among ourselves and argue about the mechanics and physics and science of "IT", and invent the rationale for why "IT" works better than the other one we had.

The old adage goes, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Doug Nykoe
04-07-2007, 11:48 PM
To me at least, if one can understand colour behavior and achieve a fundamental base in colour then I do not think it is possible to hate any art in the cannon from the past to the present. For instance, if anyone was to say I hate Cézanne, Van Gogh etc. I would think this attitude is telling and it would be impossible to harbor this kind of thinking if one has acquired this base in colour fact. This base leads one to a direct aesthetic appreciation, which also allows one to be as innovated as one wants because the colour paradox allows this to happen.

This colour paradox is a scientific fact and not a theory. This is something you all know, but some chose to ignore. Thus, you will always be chasing someone else’s theory on how to handle colour and will become unable to face our own ideas.

Colour is a human interaction and yes can be systematic but then becomes a form of robotics, which I guess some are well suited too. However, if you have the heart of let us say a Cézanne then this systematic method cloaked in secrecy talked about earlier would become counter intuitive. At least to me it is...

Einion
04-08-2007, 12:07 AM
Doug Nykoe seems to think color can be no more scientific than an "experience", which my work refutes, hence my reason for posting it here.
Yes, and lots of people, myself included, would similarly disagree.

What I was getting at is that unless some information could be supplied on the how, it's of little benefit to make the claim. Just as saying one can do one-arm pushups on the pinkie of one's off hand would usually me met with cries of "Prove it!"

In painting the results speak for themselves to some extent of course, but what you said about how well, and how extensively, this system works is entirely separate from the results achieved by a single painter. Painting with CMYK is a similar topic - Chuck Close's work is, as far as I'm aware, the very best we've seen of this type but you can't simply point to those pieces and say "See, CMYK are clearly the best four pigments to paint with." as individual results vary quite a bit in quality. Plus of course there's no mention of how Chuck worked, which would immediately put off virtually anyone considering emulating his method.

There is no set palette size, and it deals equally well with all color.
Interesting.

Not only does it not require single brands, identical color mixes can be acheived by using wildly different starting colors.
Yep, colour-mixing geometry shows this is absolutely feasible; any point that falls within the gamut can be mixed and there can be large areas of overlap from one set of pigments to the next. The potential for metamers has to be watched though.

I thought you monitors didn't like irrelevant commentary?
Entirely dependent on the context. Lots of forums and threads are very chatty (some are devoted entirely to that) while some threads - those with repeated instructions for example - should be confined to a stated topic (although, as in the case of the thread you're referring to, there is some leeway).

Or perhaps you still see my post as bragging?
Nobody - but you just now :) - said anything about bragging.

P.S. Apologies for addressing you as Robert in my last PM: mild case of word blindness.


For instance, if anyone was to say I hate Cézanne, Van Gogh etc. I would think this attitude is telling and it would be impossible to harbor this kind of thinking if one has acquired this base in colour fact.
Now now Doug, you know I hate Cézanne's work ;)

Einion

Doug Nykoe
04-08-2007, 12:19 AM
Now now Doug, you know I hate Cézanne's work ;)

Einion

Ha ha ha :D Yes I know, but I wasn't going for that. Promise

Patrick1
04-08-2007, 03:20 AM
I employ a color system that enables me to mix each color I desire, with total control.
Just to be clear, do you mean you can mix any color you will use in your work, or are you saying you can match the color of any other artists' paint out there? Does this system use commonly available artists' oil colors, or does it require using fugitive pigments?

Velatura
04-08-2007, 10:48 AM
Yeah, I'm not surprised that so many of you don't believe me, and I truly don't care if you do. I posted for one reason: there is a way to do exactly what I've described, using readily available paint, to mix any color desired or called for, depending on your style, and too many inexperienced artists are listening to you BSDs rant about color, and you're all wrong.

Doug got into this with me on Cennini. He has no exposure to the system, yet he is certain it doesn't work. That's pretty ignorant thinking, and there seem to be plenty of others here who share that. Well, fine. Pearls before swine, eh? Fine, stick with your own methods and we'll see what we see.

But yes, it works, and I'm using it. My work is much better, and proceeds much faster than ever before. And I am just scratching the surface. A year from now I will be using color in ways I can't conceive of right now. This is science applied to art. Why that scares some people I don't know?

I am not hawking this, or selling anything. As a matter of fact, none of you can buy your way into this course. So don't worry about my motives, they are nothing but a desire to respond to ignorance and falsehood.

Here's what really confuses me though. I've seen the level of work on this forum and generally speaking, there are plenty who need help with color. My question is how is believing that there is no way to master color, that it can only be an experience as Doug puts it, how does that serve you? Do you want to make better art, ot is it just a form of personal expression?

My last point: I've noticed a direct correlation between a person's ability to draw, just draw, and their ability to perceive how this system will change the way one can paint. No insult intended, but if you don't get this, or don't believe it exists, work on your drawing some more.

FriendCarol
04-08-2007, 11:41 AM
For all artists painting representationally ('realistically'), if all colors could be replicated in paint, there would be no need for an artist's color theory. Now we have someone seriously claiming all colors can be replicated in paint (unless he doesn't understand he's saying that).

We know all colors in paintings can be replicated in paint. All colors in photos or any other reproductions (I assume) can also be replicated. But to claim all colors in the paintable Universe (the visible world around us) can be painted is easily disproved. (Or proved. :lol: ) I am quite confident it cannot be done, and could come up with a handful of in-the-world scenarios (colors) which cannot be reproduced accurately in paint. Of course, it will not be possible to provide the proof/disproof online.* :rolleyes:

Back to basics for just a moment... A scientist's color theory is, largely, a theory about how light is colored, or colors things, can be broken into colors, etc. An artist's color theory isn't related to that very closely at all. Previously, some artist/scientists attempted to apply Newton's scientific discoveries to the mixing of color for artists (where it doesn't have all that much relevance), and apparently called this 'color theory.' Extended from this we also had various suggestions about primary colors, complementary colors (in mixing and in design), and various palettes.

Most of this isn't an artist's color theory. Some authors actually tell students to use a specific (geometric) selection of colors (based on their color wheel) for all paintings, or use a set of selections for different paintings. That's a color theory for artists, but a rather poor one, imo.

* After all, monitors won't be using the magick system, right? :D

Velatura
04-08-2007, 12:05 PM
Carol, please go back and read my posts more carefully. I stated that I could paiint any color I wanted or needed. I never said that all colors can be painted. "We" do not know that all colors in photos can be replicated. Photos are off in three main ways, which is why they are so dangerous to use. One of the most deceptive things about photos is they can represent chroma that is far beyond that possible with paint.

You are incorrect in your statements ofwhat this system is, and what it can do. It is not a scientist's color theory. It is not a theory at all, but rather a system to analyze and reproduce the colors we see, in paint. And to be able to do it with total control and accuracy, as describe by the user's ability to see and to mix colors. In it's analysis and control, as well as its repeatable results, it is scientific, not artistic.

Richard Saylor
04-08-2007, 01:18 PM
The claims made in Velatura's most recent post are not unreasonable. Starting with an adequate palette and color wheel, it is not particularly difficult to mix any hue desired. The maximum intensity/saturation depends on the palette.

I think this forum was to be treated to a good, practical color mixing method except that misunderstandings arose among the readership which put a damper on the plans. Some wanted to discuss their favorite pretty little color wheels. Others were concerned that the method might be too technical or theoretical or involve an unacceptable set of primaries. Some of the pettiness exhibited among the readership was surprising. Oh well...

Richard

Velatura
04-08-2007, 01:35 PM
Wow, at least one open mind here. That's excellent. I'm not trying to convert anyone, but just letting you know there are ways to approach color mixing that will bring you the results you want, consistently. This is the Holy Grail for me.

FriendCarol
04-08-2007, 01:40 PM
I could paiint any color I wanted or neededWell, there ya go. Many painters using a 3-color (or a 5-6 color) palette can easily make the same claim, and be equally truthful. So your claim is not at all unusual. In fact, every person satisfied with his/her own palette (no matter how large or small) makes this claim (that's what it means to be satisfied with one's palette)! Therefore, I'm not sure I understand your attitude, since you seem to think you are saying something unusual.You are incorrect in your statements ofwhat this system is, and what it can do. It is not a scientist's color theoryMy post was about 2 different subjects. Initially (not understanding your actual claim) I said we know we cannot paint all colors visible to us; first 2 paragraphs.

In the following paragraphs, I made an attempt to get the thread back to its supposed topic (as I understood it, which is not how others understand it).it is not particularly difficult to mix any hue desired [emphasis added]Don't think most people in this forum dispute this.a good, practical color mixing methodOops, I hadn't realized we were still supposed to be talking only about color mixing (or at least, not as in, 'I know what color I want, now how should I mix it?').
Anyway, Happy Easter or Passover (for those celebrating) :wave:

stoney
04-08-2007, 01:53 PM
Yeah, I'm not surprised that so many of you don't believe me, and I truly don't care if you do. I posted for one reason: there is a way to do exactly what I've described, using readily available paint, to mix any color desired or called for, depending on your style, and too many inexperienced artists are listening to you BSDs rant about color, and you're all wrong.

Stuff it! And children natter about the whole Santa Claus/North Pole mythos as if it is actually existant. You, a BSD'er, and those children are equal footing. You don't like it, tough. You made unsupported assertions then got all pissy when you were called upon them.

Is it possible those discussing {which you classify as 'ranting' {laughing at you}} have things all wrong? Certainly. However, until you objectively show this you're merely another fool passing gas.


Doug got into this with me on Cennini. He has no exposure to the system, yet he is certain it doesn't work. That's pretty ignorant thinking, and there seem to be plenty of others here who share that. Well, fine. Pearls before swine, eh? Fine, stick with your own methods and we'll see what we see.


Sadly, you consider little balls of excrement to be 'pearls.' You drool copiously about some 'system' and demonstrate pretty ignorant 'thinking' because people aren't buying your BS, and it irritates you.



But yes, it works, and I'm using it. My work is much better, and proceeds much faster than ever before. And I am just scratching the surface. A year from now I will be using color in ways I can't conceive of right now. This is science applied to art. Why that scares some people I don't know?

I am not hawking this, or selling anything. As a matter of fact, none of you can buy your way into this course. So don't worry about my motives, they are nothing but a desire to respond to ignorance and falsehood.

The only ignorance and falsehoods are generated by you. I see you're now flat lying about things via the insertion of a strawman 'motives' aspect. No one here has said a word about 'motives.' That is of your creation. In short, your creditability just vanished, which won't bother you.

I don't know why you're trolling, nor do I care. Ciao.


[snip the rest]

Velatura
04-08-2007, 01:54 PM
Carol, we seem to be dancing around a very fine point. Let me try to clarify. I am not talking about subjective satisfaction, ie, "Oh yeah, I meant to paint that color."

I mean seeing the actual color, in say the shadow of a cloth, analyzing it and mixing it exactly. Correct value, correct chroma and hue. Total control and accuracy.

There are many, many colors that cannot be mixed with three color palettes, or five-six color palettes. Midranges are simpler, but to control chroma -- either low chroma or high -- requires knowing how to hit it right. Without doing that harmony becomes spotty at best.

I recently finished a painting of three magnolia blossoms. The petals are very low chroma purples and oranges, except where the high-chroma purple veins run through. Without knowing what target I am trying to hit with my mixes -- given that the difference between a low-chroma purple and low-chroma orange is quite subtle -- I doubt I could have pulled the painting off, and certainly not in the short time I spent on it!

Another example is a high-chroma flower like a red rose. There are only two or three reds that will keep their chroma high when the values are adjusted. After working with this system for only a short time, and selling every piece I've produced using it, I am a convert.

Happy holiday to you as well.

Velatura
04-08-2007, 02:00 PM
Stoney,

Really, you're ignorance is glaring. You cannot claim that because I have not demonstrated this system to you that it doesn't exist. It's a flawed argument, as is your ad hominem attack.

Fine, you don't want any more from me, no problem. Apparently the moderators who are so quick to edit my posts because they don't like the content are content to let you attack me personally.

That shows the general tenor of this place, and the people who frequent it. It doesn't surprise me a bit that the level of work here is so bad. Listen to the fear in your responses. **** it.

BTW, you missed the meaning of BSD.

Stuff it! And children natter about the whole Santa Claus/North Pole mythos as if it is actually existant. You, a BSD'er, and those children are equal footing. You don't like it, tough. You made unsupported assertions then got all pissy when you were called upon them.

Is it possible those discussing {which you classify as 'ranting' {laughing at you}} have things all wrong? Certainly. However, until you objectively show this you're merely another fool passing gas.



Sadly, you consider little balls of excrement to be 'pearls.' You drool copiously about some 'system' and demonstrate pretty ignorant 'thinking' because people aren't buying your BS, and it irritates you.




The only ignorance and falsehoods are generated by you. I see you're now flat lying about things via the insertion of a strawman 'motives' aspect. No one here has said a word about 'motives.' That is of your creation. In short, your creditability just vanished, which won't bother you.

I don't know why you're trolling, nor do I care. Ciao.


[snip the rest]

Einion
04-08-2007, 02:11 PM
Didn't you say you were done here?

I posted for one reason:
Yes, you made your actual reasons for joining here and posting abundantly clear last night and it had nothing whatsoever to do with a desire to help others.

...too many inexperienced artists are listening to you BSDs rant about color, and you're all wrong.
Some things work independent of the scope of others. It's easy to judge from some of the sweeping generalisations you've made that you're not familiar with the forum and its active membership, probably you're familiar with our reputation, because I can tell you for a fact that lots of the information provided here is factually accurate despite yours, or anyone else's, opinions to the contrary.

...there is a way to do exactly what I've described, using readily available paint, to mix any color desired or called for...
Within the gamut. This is one of the things I refer to in the previous point; nothing works outside of certain fundamental rules of pigments/palettes.

Doug got into this with me on Cennini. He has no exposure to the system, yet he is certain it doesn't work. That's pretty ignorant thinking, and there seem to be plenty of others here who share that.
You should be fully cognisant that doubt about the claim is to be expected, irrespective of whether it works exactly as you've described (which would be great) and whether it works equally for a range of people (even better) which is one of the specific things I'm most curious about - how much is down to the skill of the user, as in most any other way of working.

Well, fine. Pearls before swine, eh?
This is an instruction: as I said to you via PM last night, either take the rules here seriously or don't post. Your general tone, as well as your insults, veiled and direct, is entirely inappropriate( especially for a new member). This kind of thing may be perfectly fine on another forum, but this is not that forum; it can't be made any plainer than that.

Fine, stick with your own methods and we'll see what we see.
Nobody here has any option but to stick with 'our methods' since you won't tell us anything about the method/system you're talking about. And you make a point a few lines down of saying that we can't buy into the course even if there were a desire to! So that's a pretty silly thing to say.

This is science applied to art. Why that scares some people I don't know?
Not me; sounds great in principle as far as I'm concerned.

I am not hawking this, or selling anything. As a matter of fact, none of you can buy your way into this course.
Which again begs the question about the motivation for mentioning it in the first place. And presumably it's also why you've been so careful not to mention the name of the person who came up with it, so that they don't get swamped with contacts?

So don't worry about my motives, they are nothing but a desire to respond to ignorance and falsehood.
Well that's an interesting claim given something you said last night. Who's being coy now?

My question is how is believing that there is no way to master color, that it can only be an experience as Doug puts it, how does that serve you?
That's a question for specific members.

No insult intended, but if you don't get this, or don't believe it exists, work on your drawing some more.
Well I'm all for greater drawing skills so that recommendation sure works for me, regardless of any ancillary benefit. But this advice won't really help anyone in this context will it, since there's zero information provided about any aspect of how it works?

You are incorrect in your statements ofwhat this system is, and what it can do.
As you keep saying. And without any information to go on incorrect judgements or assessments - guesswork - are inevitable.

In it's analysis and control, as well as its repeatable results, it is scientific, not artistic.
As are other methods, some of which have been discussed here, as you'd know if you actually had read through any significant portion of the archives.

Wow, at least one open mind here. That's excellent.
More than one. As anyone who supposedly has half again as much brain as I should have been able to see without any effort ;)

...just letting you know there are ways to approach color mixing that will bring you the results you want, consistently.
In a way that helps nobody.

Einion

Einion
04-08-2007, 02:16 PM
I apologise to the members - the actual members - for some of the posted opinions we've had to endure here over the past couple of days, in other threads and in now in this one. Rest assured, this is now at an end.

Einion

NHyde
04-08-2007, 02:56 PM
Hmmm...so that likely means Velatura was banned? *sigh* Well, that's too bad, I was interested in what he/she had to say. Oh well.

I apologise to the members - the actual members - for some of the posted opinions we've had to endure here over the past couple of days, in other threads and in now in this one. Rest assured, this is now at an end.

Einion

Einion
04-08-2007, 03:40 PM
Hmmm...so that likely means Velatura was banned?
His membership was revoked; you can see why by just looking above, although there was plenty more from yesterday and last night.

*sigh* Well, that's too bad, I was interested in what he/she had to say. Oh well.
He had noting constructive to add; shown with clarity by the consistent vagueness and evasion - read the comments/questions and the replies - coupled with the pretty consistent insults, of the site, the membership (which of course includes you) and of individual members.

Einion

NHyde
04-08-2007, 03:43 PM
I read the thread in its entirety. I didn't feel insulted.

But its all moot now anyway.

His membership was revoked; you can see why by just looking above, although there was plenty more from yesterday and last night.


He had noting constructive to add; shown with clarity by the consistent vagueness and evasion - read the comments/questions and the replies - coupled with the pretty consistent insults, of the site, the membership (which of course includes you) and of individual members.

Einion

Richard Saylor
04-08-2007, 04:10 PM
Hmmm...so that likely means Velatura was banned? *sigh* Well, that's too bad, I was interested in what he/she had to say. Oh well.What could he say? He was sworn to secrecy.

Incidentally, there is no Freemasonry of color, whose arcane secrets are revealed only to worthy initiates. All the color information one needs is readily available, the only problem being that there a few crackpot color 'experts' whose wacky theories can lead people astray.

Richard

Doug Nykoe
04-08-2007, 04:22 PM
I mean seeing the actual color, in say the shadow of a cloth, analyzing it and mixing it exactly. Correct value, correct chroma and hue. Total control and accuracy.



This does not exist in your and our scientific communities. There is no seeing the actual color, in say the shadow of a cloth, analyzing it and mixing it exactly. This does not exist. That is why we have Renoir, Cézanne, and Pissarro etc. Artists began experiencing colour in new ways calling on intuitive responses to colour utilizing elementary aspects of it.

It is interesting how Degas art changed after he put away with his put downs of Cézanne work all those years. He came into the gallery one day with Mary Cassatt and said,” How could I have underestimated this man all these years.” Very telling of what was happening in the new approach to art in those days. Colour was the hub and extended into a pondering, was reality felt or seen. Does this sound familiar to colour?

Einion
04-08-2007, 05:28 PM
I read the thread in its entirety. I didn't feel insulted.
Even were you the object of a direct attack how thick your skin was isn't really relevant - admins and mods are the arbiters. This is a practical necessity as some people are sensitive and will take offence at a comment that is well within what's allowed, while others have hides like rhinos, so their Plimsoll line for insult would be such that they wouldn't sweat something well outside the rules.


There is no seeing the actual color, in say the shadow of a cloth, analyzing it and mixing it exactly. This does not exist.
Actually it kinda does Doug. One can mix colour with really amazing fidelity, but the majority of painters simply don't aim for this kind of colour accuracy - it's not a requirement for most since contextual colour (within the painting) is all that matters to them.

A lot of us couldn't perfectly match the blue of our jeans, the brown of a wooden tabletop, the colour of the skin on the back of our hands; not because these colours are outside the gamut of our paints but because we lack the experience to mix that accurately (and let's be honest, most of us don't care to). This degree of accuracy is achievable though, just by having a good grasp of the mechanics of colour mixing, familiarity with your chosen paints and being willing to compare your results with the colour(s) you're aiming for, adjusting as much as necessary until you get a match.

Remember here that the gold standard would be that the person doing the mixing cannot distinguish between the mixed colour and that of the original. But this kind of thing can be checked independently (using technology) to test whether it is as close as it's perceived to be, and this can show that the perception is correct.

There's a great past thread where Patrick took up a challenge to accurately match something to this kind of degree, so he has a good appreciation of what this is like in practice. Because most of us don't normally use colour in this way it can be surprisingly difficult (particularly for unsaturated colours where the precise hue is hard to identify) but it's well worth trying sometime as a test for anyone interested in colour mixing.

Einion

kaitiema
04-08-2007, 05:37 PM
This does not exist in your and our scientific communities. There is no seeing the actual color, in say the shadow of a cloth, analyzing it and mixing it exactly. This does not exist.

I do this very thing, all day, everyday... it absolutely DOES exist... if you ever actually tried, you might just learn something...

Richard Saylor
04-08-2007, 06:03 PM
...Remember here that the gold standard would be that the person doing the mixing cannot distinguish between the mixed colour and that of the original. But this kind of thing can be checked independently (using technology) to test whether it is as close as it's perceived to be, and this can show that the perception is correct...A realist painter would not necessarily want to match the mixed color to the original.

If a painting of a hand in sunlight is to be viewed under, say, incandescent lighting, but the artist wishes the hand to look as if it is bathed in sunlight, then the color of the actual hand and the color of the painted hand will not match when viewed under identical lighting.

This could be especially tough for the artist if s/he is painting the sunlit hand outdoors, with the canvas under an umbrella. There would be a tendency to overcompensate for the cool, bluish light under the unbrella, which could result in a hand which is much too warm in color under an incandescent lamp indoors.

It's more a matter of creating convincing illusions than of exact color matching.

"Art, always someone's private truth, is the final conceit, an optical deceit, like horizons..." --John V. Chard

Richard

Doug Nykoe
04-08-2007, 06:50 PM
Einion you will have to ask yourself why this is so hard. This I believe is where the profoundness of colour for the fine artist lies. For instance, pure colour is as much an impossibility as a static work of art.

Doug Nykoe
04-08-2007, 06:54 PM
I do this very thing, all day, everyday... it absolutely DOES exist...

Nope. I wish it did in some respects because then painting would be easy but then, would it be worth it???

kaitiema
04-08-2007, 07:31 PM
Doug... I kinda feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, but, then again, what's new in that? You sound like you're stuck on a small bit of semantics and have no desire to get off... so stay there if you like... I have no desire to debate with you. At the end of the day, we seem to believe similarly in the strength of the artist's eyes over the use of any "system" too strictly.

As I said, my day is spent matching colors... specifically, matching paint to photographic ink... I examine the color, and then I match it... one pixel at a time. You keep saying I can't possibly do what I spend 40 hours a week doing for someone else, then another 20 hours a week doing for myself... :rolleyes: Ok... if YOU say so...!!! :lol:

The method is simple... You compare the color you're making to the color you're looking for and adjust it until you get the one you want. Is it easy? Hell no. Sometimes it's just a single pigment plus a bit of white... sometimes it's white plus a bit of this or that pigment, plural or singular. Some colors take 10 minutes, some take hours... days even.

Just as in the ability to see form, the ability to see color is an acquired skill... The human brain is very tricky, and you need to understand how to isolate and resolve the issues so that you can identify the correct pigments required to get to the color you want...

Color is what it is... and part of what it is can be analyzed, defined and re-created because we CAN SEE IT for what it is... If you can't... I suggest you work on your seeing skills... :D

Also, I do not believe that the identification of these colors means that the painting then becomes easy... only that you can then concentrate on the application of said paint, and the message of the overall painting, instead of wondering if the blue is the right blue, or if the value is right, or whatever... Having the ability to easily identify the correct color is only the first step in the very, VERY long journey of learning how to paint.

Oh, and for what it's worth... Munsell is, IMNSHO, basically a language that allows folks to define a color... using that language as a base, some folks have been shown a method, one that actually, apparently works, to identify the color required to paint their paintings... which then allows them to mix it... How can that be a bad thing?

Doug Nykoe
04-08-2007, 08:00 PM
kaitiema I do understand the passion/fear we artists have, so no problem here. We believe what we want to believe but I hope for me anyways that stubbornness does not become a virtue. Crossed fingers.

Richard Saylor
04-08-2007, 08:28 PM
Kaitiema, without detracting in the least from your expertise, or the difficulty of your work, somehow I feel that the immediate effects of light (both direct and reflected) and shadow on local color in three dimensions (actually four, for the poor, harassed plein air artist in his/her race with Old Sol), not to mention complementary color effects and such, pose a different color problem for the artist than matching photographic ink colors with paint colors.

Richard

FriendCarol
04-08-2007, 09:47 PM
Doug, I'm not sure why you think measurable color (hue, chroma, value) doesn't exist, or in what sense it doesn't exist. There are those spectronometer-thingies (sp?), after all. But it really doesn't matter. Knowing the exact color of a thing at one moment doesn't in any way make the artist's work easier. The artist is not transcribing reality, after all. What would be the point of that? When you look at something you intend to paint, you see it in a way no one else sees it, with all your history forming your impression. If you are a good or great artist, you share that impression with us, not by showing us a facsimile of the original.

It's as if you're standing next to someone and you see something. You say, "Look at that!" The person looks, and doesn't understand what you have seen, although s/he is looking at the same scene. So you explain what you are seeing. If you're going to be a great artist, that's your job: not just to point at the scene and say look, but also to 'explain.'

Like Georgia O'Keefe... she saw a tiny flower, and wanted everyone to look at it. How could she make them see what she saw? The macro floral may be almost a cliche now, but it was her original and inventive explanation of what she wanted to show us, just that small flower.

An artist's color theory should inform my choices as I explain what I see. To some extent, I have a few elements -- as in learning to subdue most colors so the ones that matter will stand out.

P.S. The term BSD was something I heard working on Wall Street, though not often abbreviated. It's a boy thing... :rolleyes:

NHyde
04-08-2007, 10:17 PM
Even were you the object of a direct attack how thick your skin was isn't really relevant - admins and mods are the arbiters.

Of course it's relevant. You were the one to specifically cite me in your quote.

He had noting constructive to add; shown with clarity by the consistent vagueness and evasion - read the comments/questions and the replies - coupled with the pretty consistent insults, of the site, the membership (which of course includes you) and of individual members.

Doug Nykoe
04-09-2007, 01:59 AM
Doug, I'm not sure why you think measurable color (hue, chroma, value) doesn't exist, or in what sense it doesn't exist. There are those spectronometer-thingies (sp?), after all. But it really doesn't matter. Knowing the exact color of a thing at one moment doesn't in any way make the artist's work easier.

They do exist as scientific identifiers [1] (thing) but remember colour is a human experience [2] These two must be separated at some point to effectively experience colour.

Bottom line colour is something of a problem because we try hard to make it measurable when we can only glimpse at its transient movement on differing levels of science and human experiences. For instance can one measure something as transient as love. However, I bet some of you have colours that could fit into this transient moment but be quick, it is as fleeting as colour. Therefore, we then have to hook into life experiences because it is this fleeting and this is what I want to see from an artist as you said so well about Georgia O’Keefe.

But since you asked can I throw this back at you… How in the world can you measure the colour of a shadow in the fold of a blue dress draped on a beautiful woman with long hair of an angel with Munsell chips or whatever? How as fine artists who undoubtedly seeks beauty accounting for the lovely woman and yes her beauty affects the colour of the fold. You see science allows us to do this because not even science can measure colour for the artists if your catching on to what I am saying.

Like you said above Carol… The artist is not transcribing reality, after all. What would be the point of that? When you look at something you intend to paint, you see it in a way no one else sees it, with all your history forming your impression. If you are a good or great artist, you share that impression with us, not by showing us a facsimile of the original. Yes and science is on your side to do this very thing. Again understanding colour in this way leads to aesthetic appreciation.

Patrick1
04-09-2007, 03:51 AM
To bad about Velatura; I was open to learning about his mixing system/method, whatever it is, and then judge for myself. But I don't undertand the point of him coming here to tell everyone about It and how great It is, but refusing to tell anyone what It even is. What a waste of time for everyone.

Einion
04-09-2007, 05:03 AM
Einion you will have to ask yourself why this is so hard.
Achem, read what I actually said. "Because most of us don't normally use colour in this way it can be surprisingly difficult..."

If I wanted to paint in an Impressionist manner I couldn't just do a single painting and hope to get it right, others could but I don't have the facility to pick up a style and don it like a suit of clothes. However, after four or five I'm confident I'd be doing quite well thank you very much, because I already know how to physically paint quite well, I know how to use my palette; all that's required then is a shift in the manner of mixing colour (with a possible adjustment in style too, seeing as how most neo-impressionist work isn't tightly rendered).

Back to the issue at hand: as I said, most of us don't require this kind of colour; if you (not you personally) require this then you work towards it specifically. Just like with learning and practicing any skill, you do something maybe six hours a day on average for a few years and it's hard not to get a lot better at it. And there are a great many painters working today - at least a handful on this site incidentally - with many different palettes and who have arrived at the point they're at by very varied paths, but they are achieving colour that's around this level.

Nope. I wish it did in some respects because then painting would be easy but then, would it be worth it???
Doug, similar to what I asked you previously in this thread: either provide some evidence to support what you're saying or don't, but please stop simply repeating yourself and saying no.

This forum is mostly, for practical reasons, about real-world issues surrounding colour. While there's a long history of debates about colour in the abstract and things not directly related to painting and other visual arts this thread is very much centred on a practical issue - the applications and limitations of colour theory. It was split off deliberately so that a discussion on that theme would not get lost within the thread it originated in.


A realist painter would not necessarily want to match the mixed color to the original.
Yep.

It's more a matter of creating convincing illusions than of exact color matching.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/20-Aug-2003/3842-thumbsup.gif I'm not sure if that's a given but I certainly agree.


To bad about Velatura; I was open to learning about his mixing system/method, whatever it is, and then judge for myself.
As we've seen you're not the only one.

But I don't undertand the point of him coming here to tell everyone about It and how great It is, but refusing to tell anyone what It even is. What a waste of time for everyone.
Aye.

Einion

Einion
04-09-2007, 05:09 AM
Of course it's relevant.
No, it's not relevant, for the reason I expounded upon immediately after.

You were the one to specifically cite me in your quote.
I was addressing you, so I was pointing out that you're included in any sweeping denigration of the membership of the site. I would have said the same thing regardless of which member had raised the issue; and as I say, any individual member's offence threshold is not the determinant.

...

I'm not going to cut off discussion on this if anyone wants to explore it a bit, but do make sure you read and understand this part of the User Agreement - agreement, notice - before you post (my emphasis):
We reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove posts and to close threads without notice.
We have the right, in our sole discretion, to terminate the user account of anyone who violates the User Agreement or whose use of, or behaviors in connection with, the site we deem to be unacceptable. We have tried to create a fair set of rules and very much dislike having to remove members; however, we have done so in the past to protect the community and the atmosphere of the community.
Also while these rules cover most common situations, they cannot anticipate everything. Consequently we reserve the right to take any actions we deem appropriate to ensure these forums are not disrupted or abused in any way. We also have the right, in our sole discretion, to revise and update all of our policies, including this User Agreement from time to time, without prior notice.


Einion

Patrick1
04-09-2007, 07:04 AM
"We" do not know that all colors in photos can be replicated. Photos are off in three main ways, which is why they are so dangerous to use. One of the most deceptive things about photos is they can represent chroma that is far beyond that possible with paint.

[I'm going a bit off-topic here]. Is Velatura saying that the color gamut in color photographs is larger than possible with with artists' paints? A well-chosen moderately-sized palette (at least in oils & acrylics) can mix a wider range of colors, no? I'm often disappointed with the dullness of reds and violets when I get photos developed.

Richard Saylor
04-09-2007, 09:31 AM
Fresh chemicals are the key to good color (film) photography. Labs seem to be getting more slack about that nowadays. Proper exposure is important too, which is why I always do that manually. (Auto exposure gives at best a rough approximation to optimal exposure.) The highest saturation color films I've used are Fuji Velvia (slide film) and Kodak Ultra Color (print film). They are certainly capable of vivid color. I wouldn't know how to compare them to paints, however.

FriendCarol
04-09-2007, 05:23 PM
Seems so to me, too, Patrick. On occasion I have used old Kodachrome slides (shot/developed in '79 through early 80s) as references to paint, shown on a rear projection screen (frosted mylar). Kodachrome was famous (or even infamous) for its high-chroma colors, as in the Paul Simon song, but I've never seen anything even in the florals I couldn't match. Perhaps it's only because of exposure constraints (which I gather the newest digital cameras don't have -- some actually expose/display the lights & darks differently!), but it seems to me paints have at least as wide a gamut, even w/c paints.

Actually, the part I'm most curious about is k's claim that it might take hours or even a day to match a single color in a photo with paint. :D Never had anything like that experience myself!

stoney
04-09-2007, 06:15 PM
Stoney,

Really, you're ignorance is glaring. You cannot claim that because I have not demonstrated this system to you that it doesn't exist. It's a flawed argument, as is your ad hominem attack.

Projection, strawman, and another bald-faced lie noted. Good thing then I didn't make the claim you indicated, nor put forth that 'argument.' Please note observation(s) aren't ad hominem attack(s) . I must admit I find you quite amusing but tiresome.


Fine, you don't want any more from me, no problem. Apparently the moderators who are so quick to edit my posts because they don't like the content are content to let you attack me personally.

Grow up. It doesn't matter to me one bit if you continue to 'pass gas.' The moderators will indicate their displeasure with you just as fast as they would with me. Articulating observations and facts aren't 'personal attacks.' If you don't like the observations and facts being pointed out the solution is a simple one-change your tactics. As I indicated in my last post, your creditability was zero and now I see you're well into negative numbers.

What 'more?' Your vapid posts haven't provided anything but amusement. Such doesn't add anything to the discussion, but then substance was never part of your game plan. [shrug]


That shows the general tenor of this place, and the people who frequent it. It doesn't surprise me a bit that the level of work here is so bad. Listen to the fear in your responses. **** it.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHH.
So laughter is 'fear,' in your 'book.' You continue to insist on 'running on empty.' [shrug] That's your personal problem. Don't forget to declare victory before you leave.


BTW, you missed the meaning of BSD.

Who said I was utilizing your meaning of BSD?

I find trolls like you mindnumbingly boring and well 'overpriced' at a pence per gross. I've looked over my reply and made some adjustments. I don't see anything a moderator would object to, so I guess that's it.

Reply or not, as you wish. Be aware though I won't see it as after I post this you will enter 'yea olde killfile.' Declare 'victory' as you will, or not. And now I bid you 'adieu.' [flush]

stoney
04-09-2007, 06:24 PM
There's a great past thread where Patrick took up a challenge to accurately match something to this kind of degree, so he has a good appreciation of what this is like in practice. Because most of us don't normally use colour in this way it can be surprisingly difficult (particularly for unsaturated colours where the precise hue is hard to identify) but it's well worth trying sometime as a test for anyone interested in colour mixing.

Einion

No need for me. I've got enough difficulty with colour mixing now. I'll get better with time and practice.

stoney
04-09-2007, 06:27 PM
Doug... I kinda feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, but, then again, what's new in that? You sound like you're stuck on a small bit of semantics and have no desire to get off... so stay there if you like... I have no desire to debate with you. At the end of the day, we seem to believe similarly in the strength of the artist's eyes over the use of any "system" too strictly.

As I said, my day is spent matching colors... specifically, matching paint to photographic ink... I examine the color, and then I match it... one pixel at a time. You keep saying I can't possibly do what I spend 40 hours a week doing for someone else, then another 20 hours a week doing for myself... :rolleyes: Ok... if YOU say so...!!! :lol:

The method is simple... You compare the color you're making to the color you're looking for and adjust it until you get the one you want. Is it easy? Hell no. Sometimes it's just a single pigment plus a bit of white... sometimes it's white plus a bit of this or that pigment, plural or singular. Some colors take 10 minutes, some take hours... days even.

My eyes just screamed in sympathy.

stoney
04-09-2007, 06:48 PM
To bad about Velatura; I was open to learning about his mixing system/method, whatever it is, and then judge for myself. But I don't undertand the point of him coming here to tell everyone about It and how great It is, but refusing to tell anyone what It even is. What a waste of time for everyone.

Velatura had no 'method.' It was a common and very simple troll. The duplicious and constant avoidance tactics with a hefty addition of red herrings and straw storms made that clear within three or four posts.

Richard Saylor
04-10-2007, 02:00 AM
Seems so to me, too, Patrick. On occasion I have used old Kodachrome slides (shot/developed in '79 through early 80s) as references to paint, shown on a rear projection screen (frosted mylar).Kodachrome can be very accurate. That's why it was so popular with National Geographic photographers. Also it has the somewhat unexpected property that slight underexposure actually boosts color saturation (rather than the opposite), which is a help in low light shooting.
Actually, the part I'm most curious about is k's claim that it might take hours or even a day to match a single color in a photo with paint. :D Never had anything like that experience myself!With low chroma colors it can be difficult (at least for me) even to determine whether it is on the warm (red...yellow) or cool (blue...green) side of the color circle.

FriendCarol
04-10-2007, 09:40 AM
slight underexposure actually boosts color saturation (rather than the opposite), which is a help in low light shooting.I knew that... that's why I generally underexposed my shots (Olympus OM1). :D My slides of Central Park in spring just scream 'color!' Twenty years on, that's a good thing. :lol:With low chroma colors it can be difficult (at least for me) even to determine whether it is on the warm (red...yellow) or cool (blue...green) side of the color circle.Two points here: First, k was working on a PC and therefore presumably had access to an 'eyedropper' sort of function... This should help in mixing unknown colors, at least somewhat. Am I missing something?

Second, when we mix, we use scrap paper (canvas?), right? (I do, anyway!) So mix, scrape a bit of color onto the scrap, pick it up level with the eyes and glance back and forth from 'target' to scrap, or even take in both at once. This tells us which direction to go, even if we still don't have an absolute take on the color, doesn't it? Like the difference between absolute and relative pitch -- you don't have to know what the note is, just whether you need to aim higher or lower. :)

ccreed50
04-10-2007, 12:26 PM
Velatura did not disclose the methods that have led to his recent results (which are quite breathtaking) at the request of the artist who taught him, the eminent painter Graydon Parrish. Mr. Parrish developed his insights into the handling of color in response to the challenges of painting his magnum opus, The Cycle of Terror and Tragedy, now hanging in the New Britain Museum of American Art. Mr. Parrish acknowledges the Reilly and Munsell systems as instrumental to refining his approach. While he is generously willing to share the insights he has gained (at considerable trouble and expense,) he prefers that they be communicated directly, in context and with examples, to avoid needless confusion and misrepresentation.


The Munsell system is not prescriptive, but rather, descriptive. It is a system of nomenclature enabling the accurate description and specification of color hue, value and chroma. In this it is indispensible to professionals working with color worldwide. With it, for example, an AD in New York can specify colors to pressmen in Hong Kong with assurance of them getting it right, without being dependant on a proprietary system like Pantone's.


It is misleading to describe it simply as a 'color wheel'. It is exceedingly, perhaps infinitely, fine-grained, permitting the description of any color now in existence (i.e. the entire colorspace,) or to be developed, to the limit (and beyond) of the resolving power of the human eye.


There is nothing in the Musell system that tells you what colors you have to use. It simply permits and encourages a finer degree of understanding of the colors you see and work with. In this, it's not a straitjacket, more like rocket boots. In any case, the jump to a new level shown in Velatura's most recent results is testimony enough to its effectiveness as a tool, like any tool, properly used and understood. Whatever Kool-Aid he's drinking, I want some.


The Munsell system is available in a student version covering 10 hues¹ and the 'Big Book' for professionals.


An instructive exercise is to prepare Munsell charts for everything you've got in your paintbox. Another is to then paint a simple object, (a cube or ball) one color, say 5YR 7/4 and then render that as a still life.


Cheers--


--CR


¹ 5R, 5YR, 5Y, 5GY, 5G, 5BG, 5B, 5PB, 5P, 5RP

FriendCarol
04-10-2007, 01:46 PM
Dear new member,

I doubt there is one person who posts regularly in this forum who is not familiar with Munsell (and other systems). We all know it describes a 3-D space; we all know the inadequacies of 2-D colorwheels. If your friend had read the thread of which this is a spin-off, s/he would have known that.

In general, we get many new members who come in here -- this forum -- telling those who regularly post in this forum about new systems. How they can improve our color-mixing abilities, etc. Many of those are selling a new system or form of instruction. Others are simply underestimating the color sophistication of those who frequent this forum in particular.

As Mr. MacEvoy (author of handprint & formerly a regular poster in this forum) says, color seems to attract freaks or nuts. I'm not saying you, your friend, or Mr. Parrish are freaks or nuts, but we do tend to see more than our share! You are very welcome to tell us all about the new system, if you like. Or Mr. Parrish could join and do that. Or you can perhaps find or start other threads on this very large site where you would enjoy posting your work, or discussing how you mixed colors in it.

We didn't like it that your friend came in to announce that (1) our color-handling was poor, (2) he had a system that would fix everything, but (3) he couldn't tell us anything about it. I think you can probably understand that. ;)

Richard Saylor
04-10-2007, 02:40 PM
Velatura did not disclose the methods that have led to his recent results (which are quite breathtaking) at the request of the artist who taught him, the eminent painter Graydon Parrish. Mr. Parrish developed his insights into the handling of color in response to the challenges of painting his magnum opus, The Cycle of Terror and Tragedy, now hanging in the New Britain Museum of American Art. Mr. Parrish acknowledges the Reilly and Munsell systems as instrumental to refining his approach. While he is generously willing to share the insights he has gained (at considerable trouble and expense,) he prefers that they be communicated directly, in context and with examples, to avoid needless confusion and misrepresentation.Why didn't Mr. Murdock (or whoever it was) communicate these facts to us rather than condemn us for not having blind faith in his claims (the veracity of which no evidence was produced or appeared to be forthcoming)? He could have told us as much as you have without violating Mr. Parrish's wishes. Instead, he chose to be confrontational. What was the point in trying to stir up trouble?

paintfool
04-10-2007, 03:24 PM
Lets' please stay on topic & refrain from guessing at or discussing the intentions of another poster. That will only cause this thread to stray too far to be of any real value to those who wish to learn.

Thanks.

stoney
04-10-2007, 11:59 PM
Velatura did not disclose the methods that have led to his recent results (which are quite breathtaking) at the request of the artist who taught him, the eminent painter Graydon Parrish.

If there's been a hefty increase in Velatura's work, more power to him.



Mr. Parrish developed his insights into the handling of color in response to the challenges of painting his magnum opus, The Cycle of Terror and Tragedy, now hanging in the New Britain Museum of American Art. Mr. Parrish acknowledges the Reilly and Munsell systems as instrumental to refining his approach. While he is generously willing to share the insights he has gained (at considerable trouble and expense,) he prefers that they be communicated directly, in context and with examples, to avoid needless confusion and misrepresentation.

Mr. Parrish (who I had never heard of so I looked him up) is very very good.
I understand the possibilities of miscommunication.


The Munsell system is not prescriptive, but rather, descriptive. It is a system of nomenclature enabling the accurate description and specification of color hue, value and chroma. In this it is indispensible to professionals working with color worldwide. With it, for example, an AD in New York can specify colors to pressmen in Hong Kong with assurance of them getting it right, without being dependant on a proprietary system like Pantone's.


It took me a few moments to realize an 'AD' was an art dealer.


It is misleading to describe it simply as a 'color wheel'. It is exceedingly, perhaps infinitely, fine-grained, permitting the description of any color now in existence (i.e. the entire colorspace,) or to be developed, to the limit (and beyond) of the resolving power of the human eye.

I trust you're still talking about the Musell system here.


There is nothing in the Musell system that tells you what colors you have to use. It simply permits and encourages a finer degree of understanding of the colors you see and work with. In this, it's not a straitjacket, more like rocket boots. In any case, the jump to a new level shown in Velatura's most recent results is testimony enough to its effectiveness as a tool, like any tool, properly used and understood. Whatever Kool-Aid he's drinking, I want some.


So, Mr. Parrish is utilizing some sort of modified Munsell system?



The Munsell system is available in a student version covering 10 hues¹ and the 'Big Book' for professionals.


An instructive exercise is to prepare Munsell charts for everything you've got in your paintbox. Another is to then paint a simple object, (a cube or ball) one color, say 5YR 7/4 and then render that as a still life.


Cheers--


--CR


¹ 5R, 5YR, 5Y, 5GY, 5G, 5BG, 5B, 5PB, 5P, 5RP

I'm not familiar with the Munsell system, although I've heard of it. I'll have to do some digging on it. Thank you.

FriendCarol
04-11-2007, 07:30 AM
Stoney, the Munsell system has been around for quite awhile -- maybe as long as a century. It was, I believe, the first of its kind (that is, first to describe color in a 3-D space), but has generally been superceded now by more recent systems. Einion could no doubt tell you the specifics of why most printers now use the more modern versions, such as CIELAB (and all the CIE-something versions!). ;)

If you look at handprint.com, for example, you'll note that printable colormaps there generally compress two planes of the 3-D CIELAB (or related) space, as in 'the a-b plane') in locating the coordinates. The 3 dimensions are the usual hue (expressed as hue angle, 0-360), chroma, and value. Unless the specific measurement system is normalized (some are, some aren't -- analogous to using normalized or z-scores in statistics), the whole space is not a globe, but irregular, since different hues can only achieve certain chroma or lightness (not just in pigment, but even potentially).

All these systems simply allow us to specify particular color as hue, value, and chroma.

Your ordinary PhotoShop hex or decimal values (for three channels, in this case RGB) accomplish the same general goal of precisely measuring color, of course. But these are not laid out as hue, value, chroma, but as values (in the sense this time of varying measurements) from black to whiteof three potential color channels (RGB). The PS values are certainly normalized, since they can only range from black to white, originally with 255 values -- in the other sense! -- for each of the three channels.

Nevertheless, you and I can agree on a color by specifying its RGB value, too. The precision of the human eye is huge, in comparison with using only, say, 8 bits to convey the value of R, G, and B. (Iirc, the human eye can discriminate billions of colors!) That is why later monitors & OSs went to 16-bit, then 32-bit, etc. "color" -- it simply allows greater precision in specifying the exact location in color space.

The GIF (early, Compuserve copyrighted) format is an indexed color system developed for the Web in which only 255 colors, total, can exist in an illustration on any given page (HTML page). The JPG (Joint Photographers Group) format is not limited in this way, but allows each channel (R red, G green, or B blue) to be specified by a value ranging from 0 to 255 (I believe).

Einion will correct any errors in my mini-explanation, I'm sure. ;)

gunzorro
04-11-2007, 11:08 AM
Carol is right -- there are a lot of methods for measuring and indicating colors. But there are few practical methods to take those measurements or estimations and convert them into the pigmented tube paints we have available to apply to canvas. Even the touted Munsell system is limited in choosing "X" color/brand and applying it without direct comparison of the "control" which are the color chips. As far as I know (which is from an outsider's perspective), Parrish's system, or advance, introduces a solid practical control for painters.
The subject has been covered frequently, if not in depth, on the SP forum for those willing/interested to do some reading. Those seriously interested have been attending "bootcamp" seminars for detailed and practical explanations.
It seems a very valuable advance in painting approach, and I'm sorry to have seen the topic reach critical mass so quickly on WC based on suspicion and past bad experiences. The back and forth animonsity serves only to limit the availability of valuable information and discussion of paint and techniques.

Stoney -- AD usually stands for Art Director in an advertising agency. The second most common meaning is Assistant Director in film or video.

FriendCarol
04-11-2007, 12:51 PM
Hi, gunzorro :) Everyone here will be happy to hear of any kind of advance in painting, I'm sure. I must say, it's hard for me to imagine how referring paint to standard meaurements will assist in that... but then, I also should point out that Handprint.com has already accomplished that (at least for w/c painters), a few years ago. As I said previously, Mr. MacEvoy provides a printable (PDF format as well as on the HTML page) version of every pigment from almost all the major manufacturers, for each paint they produce -- in watercolor. He used a spectronometer (sp?) for accuracy, and as I also said previously, plots each dab of color on the collapsed plane by projecting one dimension on the others.

For example, have a look at (HTML page) http://handprint.com/HP/WCL/earthc.html which plots the a & b planes of the CIELAB model for just the earth tones -- again, just for watercolor.

If you could briefly explain how being able to specify (as precisely as anyone could wish) the location of a pigment in any 3-D color space assists the painter in some way, we would all, I'm sure, be happy to hear about it. Does it help you mix color? Does it help you design your palette? I'm just not getting the big picture here. Not asking for any details, just an overview of what it is that has some painters all excited. ;)

Btw, I suspect for Stoney as for myself AD most commonly means "Alternating Current!" :lol: Also incidentally, is SP studio products? I hadn't read that thread because I assumed it referred to acrylic paints, which I don't use.

FriendCarol
04-11-2007, 01:14 PM
Is this sort of calculation (hue purity) related to whatever it is you're trying to accomplish? http://handprint.com/HP/WCL/huepurity.html Since I'm not seeking a minimal palette, and I suspect it's related to effieiency in color mixing, I haven't tried to figure out much about why it's on the site. (Me "slacker" with regard to color, at last until I understand the relevance for practical painting. :D )

mad mike
04-11-2007, 01:28 PM
AD most commonly means "Alternating Current!"

Uh, that would be "AC." Maybe Anno Domini for "AD?"

I've come to the conclusion that "color theory" has too much in common with politics and religion for me to get involved in. :p

I'll happily ask questions from time to time when I get stuck on something, and I do read most of the threads on the subject.

After all, I am here to learn!

But the heat that gets generated over this is just plain ridiculous.

Some of the best answers I've seen to questions posted were those that included a picture of the solution, demonstrated in paint. Too bad that can't be done more often, but who would have the time?

Mike S.

Einion
04-11-2007, 01:47 PM
ccreed50, thanks for the addition details.

For those curious, the painting referred to, The Cycle of Terror and Tragedy (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=24404&stc=1&d=1158543007), adjusted by someone to "make the colors more accurate.... it's much closer to the original now."

...he prefers that they be communicated directly, in context and with examples, to avoid needless confusion and misrepresentation.
Makes sense.

It is misleading to describe [the Munsell system] simply as a 'color wheel'.
Yes (http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5432789#post5432789), indeed (http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5342552&highlight=colourspace#post5342552).

It is exceedingly, perhaps infinitely, fine-grained...
In basic structure yes. But just to be clear, not in its current form; unless it's been modified since the last time I saw it?

...permitting the description of any color now in existence (i.e. the entire colorspace,)
Again, not in its current form.

...the jump to a new level shown in Velatura's most recent results is testimony enough to its effectiveness as a tool, like any tool, properly used and understood.
I'm glad you mentioned this so I'd have the opportunity to say this: yes it does. Although I say this is in the context of the points I make below.


Even the touted Munsell system is limited in choosing "X" color/brand and applying it without direct comparison of the "control" which are the color chips. As far as I know (which is from an outsider's perspective), Parrish's system, or advance, introduces a solid practical control for painters.
Yes, it would have to, since the basic system doesn't allow one to identify colour accurately in the first place, except by comparison - as you mention - which seems impractical for many painters, and then provides no mixing methodology to achieve the desired result (although the understanding of this, at least in outline, is common to all realistic painters of some skill especially if you know where you starting points actually lie).

These two things are what gave me the most pause. It's not that I don't accept that this kind of colour matching isn't possible - I'm a fan of high realism and great colour is a feature of most of it - it's the repeatability of the system, by multiple users that is the real crux of the matter.
It does what I describe, with perfect accuracy, and is repeatable.
In the context of a previous statement:
...could be used by painters of any style or approach.
Which I took to mean could be learned and used by any painter; and speaking for myself, that's where my doubts stemmed from.

This strikes me as like a number of physical skills: someone with a facility for it thinks it's teachable and might even have a lack of perspective on the ease with which others can pick it up (contradictory in this case, so unlikely as an explanation). You shoot Jim, right? I don't know if you learned to be a great shot or had a good knack for it from the start but you know that there are some people out there whose shooting is pretty bad. Now could they get better with instruction? Sure. Could they get to your standard? I don't think so (curious if you agree though).

And that's the crux of a lot of things concerning art instruction: practice and dedication (particularly if there is good instruction along the way) will take anyone further - it's hard not to get better if you do something a lot - but they won't lift some of us beyond a modest skill level. There's no shame in this, it's just the way things are, and we can't all be good at everything. But just as I think we each have to be realistic about how good we are, and will get with experience, one also has to be realistic about how much it's possible to develop others, even with good teaching of a great system.

There's a whole nature v. nurture argument here obviously - are great artists born or made? - and there are of course opinions on both ends of the spectrum. But I've seen plenty of evidence over the years to suggest that what I've said above is right, not just with regard to art instruction but other more mundane skills, if that's the right term.

It seems a very valuable advance in painting approach...
If it works as advertised, absolutely.

Stoney -- AD usually stands for Art Director in an advertising agency. The second most common meaning is Assistant Director in film or video.
I notice nobody is touching BSD with a bargepole :lol:

...

These last two points are important and I want to address them in closing, for all the good it will do with certain parties.

...and I'm sorry to have seen the topic reach critical mass so quickly on WC based on suspicion and past bad experiences.
Again, speaking for myself, there was no a priori position taken here. I didn't know that the poster was 'from another forum' Jim, and hence there was no filtered judgement based on suspicion; I wasn't aware of who this was until informed of it by others. On the other hand this forum, its members, and I, were well known to the poster (with a well-established set of biases and prejudices attached like a remora - not a guess, as you well know).

The back and forth animonsity serves only to limit the availability of valuable information and discussion of paint and techniques.
Let's be frank here: the animosity - the outright hostility - the consistent lack of respect and denigrating commentary, is almost entirely one way. And it ain't from here.

Anyway, we don't need to discuss this here but that had to be said. If you want to go into it more please feel free to PM me.

Einion

Einion
04-11-2007, 01:53 PM
Einion will correct any errors in my mini-explanation, I'm sure. ;)
Aye :) JPEG - Joint Photographic Experts Group. Just because the crappy Microsoft OS legacy has forced us to use three-letter extensions... *grumble grumble*

In relation to RGB being used to spec reflective colour: it has a gamut problem and other issues - multiple colours map to the same spot or vice versa - hence the need for CIELAB or CIELUV (which map all colour, to single spots).


I've come to the conclusion that "color theory" has too much in common with politics and religion for me to get involved in. :p
Regrettably that is often the case. Which is why we drew up our own forum's guidelines (in the sticky second from top) to try to stem some of it.

Some of the best answers I've seen to questions posted were those that included a picture of the solution, demonstrated in paint. Too bad that can't be done more often, but who would have the time?
Exactamundo.

Einion

gunzorro
04-11-2007, 02:32 PM
Einion -- that's a lot to cover!
Shooting -- yes, I am the winner of several NRA National championships and have set a few "world records" in my specific small niche of amateur marksmanship.
And, yes, I know what you mean -- not all people are created equal when it comes to specific talents. Some people will never achieve any satisfaction at all, some may be entertained, and very few will become proficient enough to be called "pros" -- in any field requiring skill and talent. Everyone can improve, but everyone will not improve to the same level, regardless of time, effort or desire.
Let me say again that I am not privy to the details of the Graydon Parrish's method, having only read what is available on SP and puzzling a few things together. I haven't attended one of the bootcamps yet, so there is plenty I am ignorant of.
The main points, seem to be the establishing of value strings for a variety of hues, and using these to produce beautiful traditional realist paintings. Graydon has commented to having personally tubed over 800 tubes of graduated colors to make that masterpiece! The palette prep is said to be extensive for each painting session, but the results are remarkable, taking the Munsell and Reilly information into very practical application. Graydon's (Ebauche on SP) and Velatura's (CTpainter on SP) results are splendid, as are the improvements I've seen in several other painter's works since embracing the method in whole or part.
I'm speculating here, but it would seem that even for those not devotedly following the procedures, the educational experience of compiling and using the strings and other practical exercises of the bootcamps fundamentally shifts their perception and working habits.
So, despite our personal limitations, the new method seems to be one that benefits color mixing, color matching with previous passages, tonal steps and color harmony. I am probably scratching the surface on that, but as I say, I'm not really in the know as to all the practical aspects.
The proof of the pudding seems to have been the huge 18' painting, where colors needed to match from one far section to another, painted at quite different stages or times in the overall process. Anyone who has ever worked large and couldn't finish a passage in one session, knows the difficulties of seamlessly continuing.
Further validation: Parrish was paid handsomely for work, and it hangs in a museum for which it was commissioned. Few of us can claim such verification of our artistic beliefs or practices! ;)
And, yes, it is hard to ask people to accept a concept or statement without illustrations or understandable description of the process.

Hope that helps a bit.

Okay, so what is BSD (compared to BFD!)? :)

FriendCarol
04-11-2007, 04:14 PM
The main points, seem to be the establishing of value strings for a variety of huesAha! Yes, I can now understand why some painters would be excited about the system. Thanks for the vital clue. ;)

It probably won't matter so much to people like me who work relatively small, and aren't strong realists. (How big could the largest w/c painting be, after all? Well, about 11 yards by 52" if one used an entire roll, but only if one built some sort of huge or long studio to handle it, with table to match!)Joint Photographic Experts GroupRight -- couldn't remember what the E stood for!

P.S. Okay, remember what Nixon was sometimes called? Remove the descriptor. Prefix with 'big swinging.' :rolleyes: I did say it was a boy thing, and most often used (to my knowledge) among the little boys of Wall Street (as in Mr. Wolfe's "Master of the Universe" of Bonfire of the Vanities). :D

gunzorro
04-11-2007, 04:51 PM
Carol -- I'm glad that helped! :)
I should think the whole system is really geared toward working in oils, and making that clear would avoid some confusion. Oils are especially good for this approach because of the open time needed to set-up and work with an extensive palette of values, even if only one or two colors at a time. Hence the "value" (intended) of pre-tubed sets of commonly used hues. Even using a pre-tubed value/hue is an "oil thing", not really something you could do in watercolor, acrylic or most other media.
Really quite interesting, and I think it could be explained in better detail for the benefit of attracting interest. I wish I knew more, but even the portion I have learned has exciting implications.

stoney
04-11-2007, 06:05 PM
Stoney, the Munsell system has been around for quite awhile -- maybe as long as a century. It was, I believe, the first of its kind (that is, first to describe color in a 3-D space), but has generally been superceded now by more recent systems. Einion could no doubt tell you the specifics of why most printers now use the more modern versions, such as CIELAB (and all the CIE-something versions!). ;)

If you look at handprint.com, for example, you'll note that printable colormaps there generally compress two planes of the 3-D CIELAB (or related) space, as in 'the a-b plane') in locating the coordinates. The 3 dimensions are the usual hue (expressed as hue angle, 0-360), chroma, and value. Unless the specific measurement system is normalized (some are, some aren't -- analogous to using normalized or z-scores in statistics), the whole space is not a globe, but irregular, since different hues can only achieve certain chroma or lightness (not just in pigment, but even potentially).

All these systems simply allow us to specify particular color as hue, value, and chroma.

Your ordinary PhotoShop hex or decimal values (for three channels, in this case RGB) accomplish the same general goal of precisely measuring color, of course. But these are not laid out as hue, value, chroma, but as values (in the sense this time of varying measurements) from black to whiteof three potential color channels (RGB). The PS values are certainly normalized, since they can only range from black to white, originally with 255 values -- in the other sense! -- for each of the three channels.

Nevertheless, you and I can agree on a color by specifying its RGB value, too. The precision of the human eye is huge, in comparison with using only, say, 8 bits to convey the value of R, G, and B. (Iirc, the human eye can discriminate billions of colors!) That is why later monitors & OSs went to 16-bit, then 32-bit, etc. "color" -- it simply allows greater precision in specifying the exact location in color space.

The GIF (early, Compuserve copyrighted) format is an indexed color system developed for the Web in which only 255 colors, total, can exist in an illustration on any given page (HTML page). The JPG (Joint Photographers Group) format is not limited in this way, but allows each channel (R red, G green, or B blue) to be specified by a value ranging from 0 to 255 (I believe).

Einion will correct any errors in my mini-explanation, I'm sure. ;)

Thank you, kindly. :)
Cheers.

stoney
04-11-2007, 06:47 PM
Carol is right -- there are a lot of methods for measuring and indicating colors. But there are few practical methods to take those measurements or estimations and convert them into the pigmented tube paints we have available to apply to canvas. Even the touted Munsell system is limited in choosing "X" color/brand and applying it without direct comparison of the "control" which are the color chips. As far as I know (which is from an outsider's perspective), Parrish's system, or advance, introduces a solid practical control for painters.

Understood.


The subject has been covered frequently, if not in depth, on the SP forum for those willing/interested to do some reading. Those seriously interested have been attending "bootcamp" seminars for detailed and practical explanations.
It seems a very valuable advance in painting approach, and I'm sorry to have seen the topic reach critical mass so quickly on WC based on suspicion and past bad experiences. The back and forth animonsity serves only to limit the availability of valuable information and discussion of paint and techniques.

Why are you 'blaming the victims?' Velatura's actions from the start were designed to cause and amplify problem(s). Post after post to myraid individuals demonstrates this. Any animosity was on his part-as his posts demonstrate. People were asking questions which were sidestepped, ignored, changed to meet his agenda (whatever that was), and invented. He wasn't important enough to be angry at. As I stated a troll was a troll was a troll and was overpriced at a pence per gross. In short, he was a waste of time so I put him in the 'bozo bin.' Below, Einion puts things to light in one post.

SP was hauntingly familiar, but I couldn't place it for a good while. Then it came to me it was short for Studio Products.

Einion's comment in post 71:
This is an instruction: as I said to you via PM last night, either take the rules here seriously or don't post. Your general tone, as well as your insults, veiled and direct, is entirely inappropriate( especially for a new member). This kind of thing may be perfectly fine on another forum, but this is not that forum; it can't be made any plainer than that. [/quote]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velatura
Fine, stick with your own methods and we'll see what we see.

Einion:
Nobody here has any option but to stick with 'our methods' since you won't tell us anything about the method/system you're talking about. And you make a point a few lines down of saying that we can't buy into the course even if there were a desire to! So that's a pretty silly thing to say. [/quote]

Stoney -- AD usually stands for Art Director in an advertising agency. The second most common meaning is Assistant Director in film or video.[/QUOTE]

Thank you. My background is directly opposite the art worlds' and I don't pretend this 'world' is familiar to me.

I bounced onto Studio Products' website and cruised the Techniques forums. Nothing caught my eye as pertaining to Mr. Parrish's findings. Would you please point me to the proper thread(s)?

stoney
04-11-2007, 06:50 PM
Hi, gunzorro :) Everyone here will be happy to hear of any kind of advance in painting, I'm sure. I must say, it's hard for me to imagine how referring paint to standard meaurements will assist in that... but then, I also should point out that Handprint.com has already accomplished that (at least for w/c painters), a few years ago. As I said previously, Mr. MacEvoy provides a printable (PDF format as well as on the HTML page) version of every pigment from almost all the major manufacturers, for each paint they produce -- in watercolor. He used a spectronometer (sp?) for accuracy, and as I also said previously, plots each dab of color on the collapsed plane by projecting one dimension on the others.

For example, have a look at (HTML page) http://handprint.com/HP/WCL/earthc.html which plots the a & b planes of the CIELAB model for just the earth tones -- again, just for watercolor.

If you could briefly explain how being able to specify (as precisely as anyone could wish) the location of a pigment in any 3-D color space assists the painter in some way, we would all, I'm sure, be happy to hear about it. Does it help you mix color? Does it help you design your palette? I'm just not getting the big picture here. Not asking for any details, just an overview of what it is that has some painters all excited. ;)

Btw, I suspect for Stoney as for myself AD most commonly means "Alternating Current!" :lol: Also incidentally, is SP studio products? I hadn't read that thread because I assumed it referred to acrylic paints, which I don't use.

Hmmm...first time I've heard 'AD' as 'alternating current (AC)' [wicked grin].

stoney
04-11-2007, 07:02 PM
ccreed50, thanks for the addition details.

For those curious, the painting referred to, The Cycle of Terror and Tragedy (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=24404&stc=1&d=1158543007), adjusted by someone to "make the colors more accurate.... it's much closer to the original now."

I take it the url goes to Velutra's work? If so, its very nicely done, although I don't pretend to understand it.

[]


And that's the crux of a lot of things concerning art instruction: practice and dedication (particularly if there is good instruction along the way) will take anyone further - it's hard not to get better if you do something a lot - but they won't lift some of us beyond a modest skill level. There's no shame in this, it's just the way things are, and we can't all be good at everything. But just as I think we each have to be realistic about how good we are, and will get with experience, one also has to be realistic about how much it's possible to develop others, even with good teaching of a great system.

There's a whole nature v. nurture argument here obviously - are great artists born or made? - and there are of course opinions on both ends of the spectrum. But I've seen plenty of evidence over the years to suggest that what I've said above is right, not just with regard to art instruction but other more mundane skills, if that's the right term.


If it works as advertised, absolutely.


I notice nobody is touching BSD with a bargepole :lol:

With all the imaginative active minds here? Such is *very* understandable. :evil:

gunzorro
04-11-2007, 08:18 PM
Stoney -- the link was for Graydon Parrish's 18' painting commemorating the loss of 9/11. Look for the thread on SP http://forums.studioproducts.com/showthread.php?t=27214
Scanning that thread should keep one occupied for a good long while!

Richard (Velatura) is no troll, I can vouch for that. While I can't explain or clarify anyone's postings or approach but my own, I know there were tensions already developed from the Studio Products thread here, which came into play.

I say we start out with a clean slate and let the technical ideas flow, as they should.

Mario
04-11-2007, 08:48 PM
Ok, I've read a lot of this thread and found it very interesting and exhausting (I'm tired)...anyway, I wish that I had a lot to add but I don't...(and I'm sure someone will point this out, later.).. I do, however, appreciate the posts of Doug Nykoe because they are trying to treat a very hard-to-nail subject matter and they are what kept me coming back for more.
As for vellatura's claims, I wish him well and that his painting progresses. As for the giant 18 foot painting that had to have 800 tubes of pre-mixed gray paint in order to be gray from one end to the other..I don't get it. It captured some of the agony of the event pictured and Graydon is good at that but the color leaves me cold to say the least. Maybe that is what was called for but Gray is Gray and it looks like a Gray painting to me. So, if hunkering down with the low chroma gives me subtle changes in Gray..ok..great. I like grays.
Now, back to the Doug syndrome. I think that what Doug was talking about was "Learning theory" and "Being theory" and "Robot theory" and...and..How the hell do you do it, theory.
It reminds me of the quote " I am a Verb " ...who said that? anyway, I am VERY interested in HOW we learn things and HOW we become verbs who personalize the very things that we have learned. Doug is saying that a theory is ok..and as Larry pointed out, a complete stranger needs a road map to get going towards where he wants to go..but then Doug points out that it took a Cezanne etc. to actually move that theory into something New and into the Next Color Experience..it took a complicated human being with all of his/her imperfections and experiences to take that THEORY and make it something NEW and ALIVE...it took a VERB to make it HAPPEN.... to paint an EXPERIENCE and not a THING.
I saw Doug's posts as pretty brave stuff and with no one helping him much..some even taking pot shots at him. As for the polemic....Let's just see it as the different approaches of right-brain, left-brain...if it applies or not..it's a useful concept...apples and oranges is another. Doug is saying that a Robot can apply a theory (and a scientist can too?) but words can only go so far..and some other more immense richness is what is called for in discovery and attainment. This is the human being an underestimated ingrediant.
Einion's sceneario of how he applied theory the night before to solving a color problem does not ring true to me. Let me explain where I'm coming from...I am a second language coach and one of the phenomena that most interests me is how people will attribute their 'learning' or their 'method' to something that really is not what is/was happening in 'reality'. I would rather bet that what Einion was doing was applying his 'experience' with color without ever thinking about it nor consulting any remembered color theory during his color mixing...but rather just reaching out and 'feeling' his way thru the task...what does this have to do with anything? ...good question...and that's what makes all this so hard to talk about. Einion had 'learned' something in the past and rather than forlmulating it into a concrete, perfect, mistake-proof, codified system (as Velatura 'believes' he has) ....something else happened...it's called 'human being ..being human' ...lol I haven't a name for it, yet. Graydon feels that there are reactionary types who don't want scientific proof nor systematic methods of arriving at predictable results....maybe, he's right but I don't think that that is the question. There is something else happening that is both beautiful and chaotic and is worthy of it's own thread.. the intrinsic dynamic nature of the human being in learning and expression.... I, myself, am ready to become a believer and follower .......so, just call me a Nykoist.

FriendCarol
04-11-2007, 09:12 PM
how he applied theory the night before to solving a color problem does not ring true to me.Well, it certainly rang true to me... I haven't had such a complicated experience, but on my last plein air outing, when I checked I could see my grass was too blue. (Almost always my greens are mixed from a base of PG 7, phthalo green BS.) How did I fix it? Added more yellow, of course. Not the very transparent & slightly green yellow, nor the orangey yellow, but the slightly less transparent & much less green yellow. (I'm a w/c painter, btw.)

Why yellow? Because it was too blue. :lol: I reasoned my way to the solution -- if green is yellow and blue (and despite the funny title of that book it usually is), if I need 'less blue' that really means I need 'more yellow.' Simple as that. It wasn't experience, it was analysis, and I was relieved to see it worked. (Sometimes it doesn't, or so I'm told :evil: , paint being chemical stuff with some unpredictabily to its interactions.)

Anyway, if you're a teacher, you ought to understand that different people have different learning styles. Some of us learn from experience. Some of us learn by reading -- we really do. Some of us over-emphasize analysis, others, synthesis.

I used to work out a minimum palette for every painting I planned (from a much larger complete w/c palette), and did it from a rational and theoretical basis (which I initially tested with color circles, but after my first few paintings, I would just plunge in with it). My tendency is to think instead of flounder around 'trying' things, and I'd rather benefit from others' experience (read) than waste time doing everything myself.

In short, just because you would not approach painting from a theoretical perspective doesn't mean everyone else takes an experiential approach, too. Doug's approach is valid for Doug, your approach is valid for you, or you can adopt his approach... Doesn't mean everyone else should do the same!

Now all I have to work out is why I think "alternating current" when I read AD. Been peering too much at small print in the innards of old PCs, I expect... :confused:

P.S. Is this what you looked at?
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=24404&stc=1&d=1158543007
What I'm seeing (with calibrated LCD monitor) is not gray throughout, not at all. If you looked at a different online version, try this one; it has lots of color, very subtle. I find this painting very, very moving, and I'm actually off to the Art History forum to ask (new thread) why -- what allusions are getting under my skin?

Mario
04-11-2007, 09:29 PM
Well, it certainly rang true to me...
Anyway, if you're a teacher, you ought to understand that different people have different learning styles. Some of us learn from experience. Some of us learn by reading -- we really do. Some of us over-emphasize analysis, others, synthesis.?

Great post FriendCarol..but, (hee hee) that is EXACTLY where you and I DISagree not "you ought to..". ..There are NOT many different learning styles and contrary to what the Education Industry would have you believe..we do NOT learn by reading!...so, there.:rolleyes:

Anyway, in all seriousness, I do NOT agree with your take on what is obvious in different learning styles.

Richard Saylor
04-11-2007, 09:52 PM
...Graydon feels that there are reactionary types who don't want scientific proof nor systematic methods of arriving at predictable results....maybe, he's right but I don't think that that is the question.A systematic approach to color which produces predictable results can eliminate a source of frustration. It seems that this should be an asset to creativity. It would at least reduce hair pulling. There is something else happening that is both beautiful and chaotic and is worthy of it's own thread.. the intrinsic dynamic nature of the human being in learning and expression.... I, myself, am ready to become a believer and follower .......so, just call me a Nykoist.I agree. I just can't see how a systematic knowledge of color could negatively affect this non-verbal creative activity.

Don't toss out the Apollonian (form/structure, including color structure) for the sake of the Dionysian (energy/ecstasy); both are essential to artistic expression.

Richard S.

stoney
04-11-2007, 10:36 PM
Stoney -- the link was for Graydon Parrish's 18' painting commemorating the loss of 9/11. Look for the thread on SP http://forums.studioproducts.com/showthread.php?t=27214
Scanning that thread should keep one occupied for a good long while!

Ah. Thank you. I'm still a tad confused due to Einion's comment: "For those curious, the painting referred to, The Cycle of Terror and Tragedy, adjusted by someone to "make the colors more accurate.... it's much closer to the original now.""


Richard (Velatura) is no troll, I can vouch for that. While I can't explain or clarify anyone's postings or approach but my own, I know there were tensions already developed from the Studio Products thread here, which came into play.

I say we start out with a clean slate and let the technical ideas flow, as they should.

Fair enough, I'll take your word that he isn't a troll. I've no problem with someone having a bad day or two or simply 'getting off on the wrong foot.' It happens.

I've got no 'dog' in any disagreements. I had a couple of questions and was looking to get pointed to a source where they could be answered. Velatura's continuing actions and tactics set off my 'troll and BS detector.' It's a simple as that.

Having started reading about the painting and its commisioning I've got a basis for understanding.

Einion
04-12-2007, 02:47 AM
Shooting -- yes, I am the winner of several NRA National championships and have set a few "world records" in my specific small niche of amateur marksmanship.
I was hoping you were that good, so that you'd have an appreciation of the same point about those at an advanced stage and those, like me, who'll never get to it (despite a desire to).

And, yes, it is hard to ask people to accept a concept or statement without illustrations or understandable description of the process.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/20-Aug-2003/3842-thumbsup.gif

Okay, so what is BSD (compared to BFD!)? :)
Why don't you ask the source?
...and too many inexperienced artists are listening to you BSDs rant about color, and you're all wrong.
;)


Einion's sceneario of how he applied theory the night before to solving a color problem does not ring true to me. Let me explain where I'm coming from...I am a second language coach and one of the phenomena that most interests me is how people will attribute their 'learning' or their 'method' to something that really is not what is/was happening in 'reality'. I would rather bet that what Einion was doing was applying his 'experience' with color without ever thinking about it nor consulting any remembered color theory during his color mixing...
Fair enough, I'll accept your analysis as a general statement but this is me we're talking about; as an ex-guide and now moderator in a colour theory forum I've been immersed in the subject for a long time. And I'm the proud owner of a Colour Theory Nut t-shirt and Pedant jacket to prove it :cool: Yes, like any user of paint (I'm not a painter as I've stated in the past) I have learned specifics for pigments and utilise them, but the example I gave was very specific for a reason - I only recently acquired Cobalt Teal and I haven't used it more than once or twice.

So I was doing exactly as I described: applying theory. Now there's no guarantee that theory will predict results accurately (as covered here often enough) although in this kind of mix you'd rarely be too far off and I only needed to drop chroma, not go to neutral. I was actually painting with an entirely-new set of paints in fact (a score of the new Quiller acrylics that I got from Richeson) with many pigments new to me - PY110, PBr25, PG50, PO73 - so I had to rely on theory more than one would normally, seeing as how experience ain't worth a hill of beans comparing two superficially-similar pigments and how they'll act, q.v. tints of Cad Red Light v. a good Vermilion if you were new to either, regardless of any ability to adjust for unexpected results.

Einion

gunzorro
04-12-2007, 02:55 AM
Stoney -- I'm so glad some of these issues are clearing up for all of us. I hate to see such misunderstandings or hurt feelings among artists.
If you take a look at some of Richard's recent paintings, you'll see he is a commited artist and normally very generous in sharing his info. Post #264 shows his most recent WIPs. http://forums.studioproducts.com/showthread.php?p=276831#post276831

gunzorro
04-12-2007, 03:09 AM
Einion -- You know, it's all relative, on the ability/talent spectrum. As well as I have occasionally done, I am rapidly reminded (by being beaten later!) there are competitors who are better than me, no matter how much I practice or how hard I want it! I just have to be ready to sieze the brass ring when my opportunity comes and be satisfied with the quest to do the best I can.

BSD -- it's back to me! :)

Mario -- there is nothing wrong with spontaneity or loose control (I even enjoy types of "unconscious" painting). When you want unpredictable or random elements, these are fantasitc. So is intuition and serendipity. But when you have a vision to duplicate or a scene to copy, you want some method of accomplishing it without too much fiddling around wandering amongst the daisies.
There is room for both approaches, but the practical methods will be favored in traditional genres.

Doug Nykoe
04-12-2007, 04:40 AM
Mario--- First, I would like to thank-you for your kind words and I am happy to be able to share knowledge with a kindred spirit. As far as realists painting goes without naming names, it is not really their fault that the colour might appear lacking or cold in some ways as you say. Realists cannot effectively breach that visual threshold to be more creative with colour. Nevertheless, I feel if they were to understand other approaches towards colour, I am sure it would help to expand their horizons.

Gunzorro--- you assume too much. Those who choose to bend reality so as to accommodate colour needs, are not relying on serendipity or any of the other opinions you expressed.

Richard Saylor
04-12-2007, 07:45 AM
...Realists [bold face mine -RS]cannot effectively breach that visual threshold to be more creative with colour. Nevertheless, I feel if they were to understand other approaches towards colour, I am sure it would help to expand their horizons...This is the first time I have seen the word 'realist' brought into this discussion. Maybe I missed it. Anyhow, I think this explains a lot. Realists (in your view) attempt in their paintings to match what they perceive to be the colors of the 'real world' (whatever that is), whereas non-realists are not so restricted. I'm sure there must be more to it than that, but am I anywhere near being on the right track?

Richard

gunzorro
04-12-2007, 11:00 AM
Doug -- Congratulations on your Inscrutable Non-Theory of Color! ;) It seems truly unique in its ability to defy understanding or interpretation. :)
Please forgive my previous misunderstanding and assumptions.

FriendCarol
04-12-2007, 11:02 AM
Just to refer back for a moment to the 'technical advance' suggested earlier, I read most of the thread about the great mural (Cycle of Terror and Tragedy) last night. The artist himself, Parrish (finally making an appearance around p. 13!), speaks of "chroma strings."

Value strings may have entered into it somewhere also, but just wanted to note that the 'pre-mixed & tubed colors' scheme focused on altering chroma, as well as (or instead of?) values. This makes sense to me, since one of the striking things about that amazing painting is the way the upper part of the twins becomes lifeless (white/gray), while the lower part is still lifelike (flesh tones). In fact, some of the figures are 'colorful,' while others aren't. I imagine careful control over both value and chroma were essential.

Btw, the pix in the thread are quite poor, Einion's link earlier in this thread is greatly superior. And if you skip the first 12 pages of the thread in that site's forum, you're missing nothing at all. :rolleyes:
As always, every opinion I express, unless attributed to another, is MY opinion -- how could it be otherwise? :D

Richard Saylor
04-12-2007, 11:43 AM
Doug -- Congratulations on your Inscrutable Non-Theory of Color! ;) It seems truly unique in its ability to defy understanding or interpretation. :)
Please forgive my previous misunderstanding and assumptions.Where is the attempt to facilitate understanding or interpretation? Did I miss that too? What are the 'other approaches to color' which do not hinder creativity?

Recently there have been two (apparently) opposing theories of color hinted at in this forum. Unfortunately, one of them is secret, and the other is too profound to be expressed by the written word.

What's going on here?

Richard

stoney
04-12-2007, 12:19 PM
Stoney -- I'm so glad some of these issues are clearing up for all of us. I hate to see such misunderstandings or hurt feelings among artists.
If you take a look at some of Richard's recent paintings, you'll see he is a commited artist and normally very generous in sharing his info. Post #264 shows his most recent WIPs. http://forums.studioproducts.com/showthread.php?p=276831#post276831

The work can't be seen if you're not registered. That's alright. I had no problem with taking your word on it. Then I noticed he had a website which I took a look at. He's got some good stuff there.

gunzorro
04-12-2007, 01:20 PM
Richard -- I believe we are crossing over into the Land of Smoke & Mirrors of color theory! Rod Serling will be posting soon. ;)

Carol -- That is simply my mistake -- chromatic strings, yes, that is what I meant! That is why there are so many variations, with each hue being graduated into values. Thanks for taking a look and getting closer to the actual info. It is hard when material is interpreted, and that interpretation re-interpreted countless times -- much is muddled and lost.

Stoney -- thanks for looking as well! :)

Richard Saylor
04-12-2007, 01:33 PM
Richard -- I believe we are crossing over into the Land of Smoke & Mirrors of color theory! Rod Serling will be posting soon. ;)LMAO :lol:

Doug Nykoe
04-12-2007, 02:36 PM
Gunzorro---You appear to be catching on… the twilight zone is a bend in reality to accommodate some weird story telling. The same is happening when the artist bends reality to effectively announce intelligent emotional colour of or set the stage for more expressive colour.

Realist must adhere to the strong force of reality in their colour ie lower chroma. When a realist pushes the colour two strong forces begin to oppose each other, something has to give before one of them is called into question. This might be perceived as the three stooges making an appearance in the Sound of Music movie. That might be funny but the movie would need to be set for it or it would be a shock. These balances become easier to notice once we allow the human to control colour over theories.

Like I said before do not let stubbornness become a virtue we are exploring different viewpoints here. None of this will kill your art and it might even improve it.

stoney
04-12-2007, 03:22 PM
Richard -- I believe we are crossing over into the Land of Smoke & Mirrors of color theory! Rod Serling will be posting soon. ;)

Carol -- That is simply my mistake -- chromatic strings, yes, that is what I meant! That is why there are so many variations, with each hue being graduated into values. Thanks for taking a look and getting closer to the actual info. It is hard when material is interpreted, and that interpretation re-interpreted countless times -- much is muddled and lost.

Stoney -- thanks for looking as well! :)

Why am I hearing:
http://mythemes.tv/series/outerlim.htm

Richard Saylor
04-12-2007, 04:08 PM
These balances become easier to notice once we allow the human to control colour over theories...For the umpteenth time, to what theories are you referring? This is exasperating! Apparently you are carrying over to this forum a feud which started in the 'other' forum. You are calling into question an approach to color with which I am not familiar. I know of no color theory which would forbid me to paint a magenta cow with cyan stripes should I so desire.

Richard

Doug Nykoe
04-12-2007, 04:47 PM
Sorry Richard but I am giving my opinions on Applications and limitations of colour theory, nothing more.

Richard Saylor
04-12-2007, 05:03 PM
Sorry Richard but I am giving my opinions on Applications and limitations of colour theory, nothing more.What applications and what limitations of what color theory?

Mario
04-12-2007, 05:32 PM
Realist must adhere to the strong force of reality in their colour ie lower chroma. .

Just what is 'reality'? and do 'real' colors change with culture and time? ..are the 'real' colors that we (you?) see today the same 'real' colors that were seen 500 years ago in Madagascar? Europe? China? Philadelphia?
Last nite, I was especially relaxed due to my having completed a long term project, drank a fine cognac and having had some great sex. In this liberated moment (before the sex) I was seeing my bedroom as though it was a foreign land. The incadescent light was throwing a warm reddish light across the green bedspread and the orangey curtains were waxing chromatically in the wind. Everything seemed 'foreign' as if I were watching a beautifully filmed movie..Was this 'reality' and were these 'real' colors? Not if you are academicaly 'trained' into thinking that the ghosts of 'realists' past were sitting on your right shoulder and the ghost of Matisse (with horns) on your left. This would indeed have created a 'problem' for the 'realist' painter.. but for Gaugin, it was all just another day in paradise.:evil: :thumbsup:

gunzorro
04-12-2007, 06:55 PM
Mario -- So you were alone, right? :) LMAO now too!!!!!

Richard -- Please cue the Twilight Zone theme song! :)

Einion -- please forgive us -- this is SO colorful! :)

Doug Nykoe
04-12-2007, 07:28 PM
Einion -- please forgive us -- this is SO colorful! :)

Gunny your Freudian slips are getting better and better.

Doug Nykoe
04-12-2007, 07:38 PM
That’s right Mario --- The very colour an object is said to possess is the very colour it does not have. This is why they are a product of the mind and present us with a paradox. We can think this through more but you will begin to see why Matisse and our present day contemporaries are able to take these liberties. The colour Paradox I mentioned above allows for this.

This is problematic for colour theorists as well as the landscape artist et all as you can probably imagine. The good news is that there is a human at the end of that brush quite capable to lock in on many aspects the mind will allow and it allows us permission to be very creative.

Colour is the sensations, the brain interpretation of those light waves, which work on the cones of our retina because, remember it does not belong to the object but the mind. These light waves are rejected by the object so they offer us an opportunity to be creative or a license to be creative. One might say colour is now airborne. Therefore, what does that mean for us, do you sense a form of freedom developing here?

Just one example in measuring colour would be to use Munsell chips. Take a Munsell chip, place it beside a fold, and calculate its colour. Now move back to your easel. The problem as I see it is in the square root of distance, which would affect a change in colour not to mention the dust particles or even our breathing which causes movement. Colour is in a constant flux because of the molecular forces that play on it as it makes its way to the eye. Even a wall is not the same colour at three feet as it is at six feet.

There is more concerning the human condition at work here, which is a good thing, like having further adulteration taking place to colour when it is translated to the brain. There are things like how our associative system intervenes and labels colour with a name and connotation. Our emotional system makes judgment calls as well, like is it a pleasant or unpleasant colour, warm or cold etc. These are all there for our enjoyment and more so, we can manipulate to whatever our desire is because nothing is written in stone as you can see. Colour is not sitting in the fold as mentioned before as one might think but I will allow you to think about that on your own and expand on it, as you desire. Therefore, when I say a woman’s beauty can affect the colour of her dress why not. A system would tell me differently and stop me from enjoying the afferent sensory colours.

Okay will stop for now but I think you might see some possibilities with personal colour here if thought of in an exploratory way. There really are many possibilities but systems I think destroy the human factor to a large degree. Colour is always in flux (remember AIRBORNE) and this is to please the human sensory in all of us, so enjoy colour….your colour.

FriendCarol
04-12-2007, 08:08 PM
FYI (hi, Richard :D ): It seems the advance via Munsell model earlier referred to so mysteriously is that, in order (primarily) to create a very large, figurative (and allegorical) mural, a very fine young painter (Parrish) mixed, then "tubed," colors which correspond exactly to a given hue, but sequentially reduced in chroma. Thus he ended up with, for example, a premixed series of reds from a given brightness down to gray (or as far as he needed that particular color) with which he could quite easily reproduce the exact same color 4 feet and 6 months away from its previous use, and also take any color he chose to use this way from highest used chroma to gray, repeatedly.

They put all these colors together referencing some version of Munsell, or from a model starting with Munsell. So we're talking about a fine method for stabilising/replicating a palette, not about some new theory of color. :)

Now, as to Doug, I suspect he is of the (ahem) 'school of thought' to which our friend Ken subscribes. To wit, throw out that scientific approach! It's simply not artistic to use any 'color theory!' :lol:
The problem as I see it is in the square root of distance, which would affect a change in colour I suspect the next step is to affirm that we can't, however, use the square root of distance in any practical way -- to tell us to what the color modulates, for example. ;)

Are we having fun yet? :lol:
Well, I've learned a few things (mostly technical advances I can't use, but what else is new?), and it's been fun, mostly.

stoney
04-12-2007, 10:35 PM
FYI (hi, Richard :D ): It seems the advance via Munsell model earlier referred to so mysteriously is that, in order (primarily) to create a very large, figurative (and allegorical) mural, a very fine young painter (Parrish) mixed, then "tubed," colors which correspond exactly to a given hue, but sequentially reduced in chroma. Thus he ended up with, for example, a premixed series of reds from a given brightness down to gray (or as far as he needed that particular color) with which he could quite easily reproduce the exact same color 4 feet and 6 months away from its previous use, and also take any color he chose to use this way from highest used chroma to gray, repeatedly.

They put all these colors together referencing some version of Munsell, or from a model starting with Munsell. So we're talking about a fine method for stabilising/replicating a palette, not about some new theory of color. :)

Now, as to Doug, I suspect he is of the (ahem) 'school of thought' to which our friend Ken subscribes. To wit, throw out that scientific approach! It's simply not artistic to use any 'color theory!' :lol:
I suspect the next step is to affirm that we can't, however, use the square root of distance in any practical way -- to tell us to what the color modulates, for example. ;)

Are we having fun yet? :lol:
Well, I've learned a few things (mostly technical advances I can't use, but what else is new?), and it's been fun, mostly.

Is a difference which makes no difference really a difference?

Richard Saylor
04-12-2007, 10:35 PM
Now, as to Doug, I suspect he is of the (ahem) 'school of thought' to which our friend Ken subscribes.I dunno. Ken seems more objective somehow.

However, we do seem to be in the presence of an idealist or two. You know, sorta like those who believe that a tree which falls in the forest makes no sound unless someone is there to hear it. Likewise an idealist might say that color is a subjective response to light waves.

A realist would say that a wavelength of light between 570 and 590 nm has the color yellow. An idealist might say that the color yellow is what one sees if one looks at a lightwave having wavelength between 570 and 590 nm. I.e., color depends on the presence of a human observer.

Most of us are so used to thinking objectively about color that Doug's subjective perspective seems a bit mysterious.

Richard

Einion
04-13-2007, 02:29 AM
Sorry Richard but I am giving my opinions on Applications and limitations of colour theory, nothing more.
But you're also forgetting what I asked you, as mod, to do.

That’s right Mario --- The very colour an object is said to possess is the very colour it does not have.
Doug, you need to do some research on colourimetry/colorimetry. And then we all need to take classes on formal debate, semantics and philosophy, to adequately prepare us to discuss this kind of thing on your terms ;)


However, we do seem to be in the presence of an idealist or two. You know, sorta like those who believe that a tree which falls in the forest makes no sound unless someone is there to hear it. Likewise an idealist might say that color is a subjective response to light waves.

A realist would say that a wavelength of light between 570 and 590 nm has the color yellow. An idealist might say that the color yellow is what one sees if one looks at a lightwave having wavelength between 570 and 590 nm. I.e., color depends on the presence of a human observer.
I think that's as good a summation as any we're likely to get here.

Einion