PDA

View Full Version : Looking for a new paint to replace extinct one


marielizabeth
02-05-2008, 02:54 AM
I have less than a half tube of Grumbacher's Finest Naples Yellow left. I have been looking for a couple of years for another color to take its place. Is Antimony the same thing? I've just been collecting yellow tinted paints I probably will never use. Can you help me ? Thanks

'becca

Einion
02-05-2008, 09:01 AM
Hi Becca, most Naples Yellow paints made in recent years are hues (and really should be named that way to avoid confusion). Unless there's pigment information on the label of the Grumbacher Finest tube you have it's hard to know what to suggest as a replacement, particularly since both the real thing and the various commercial mixtures sold under the name can vary quite a bit in colour - from quite bright yellows through to deeper earthy yellows (even nearly orange) as well as some salmon or 'pinkish' types.

Now personally I don't find the colour of a typical middle-of-the-road Naples Yellow necessary on the palette (since I have yellows, white and earth colours already it's easy to mix around it) but if you like it and rely on it, and would prefer not to have to use a mixture of other things to get similar results, there are many versions now available; the only problem you face being finding one of the colour you're looking for.

Genuine Naples Yellow, lead antimonate, has some nice properties in oil paint (including very good opacity) and if you'd like to try it there are a couple of sources now for this, including WC! sponsor Natural Pigments (http://naturalpigments.com/rublev_oil.asp) and Michael Harding, both of which are high-quality lines.

If you don't want to use the real thing due to any toxicity concerns a few modern replacements are made using PBr24, a lovely deeper, slightly earthy, yellow that mixes very nicely. Not as opaque as the real thing but not as transparent as many of the older hues. Examples of this include Naples Yellow Deep from W&N and Naples Yellow Italian from Williamsburg.

If you can post a picture of a swatch of the paint you have (a tint would be useful as well) some of the Oil Painting regulars may be able to help you with specific recommendations geared to its colour, although bear in mind they are judging from individual monitors and each could show the colours differently, which is also a problem when viewing the swatches on makers' website.

Einion

marielizabeth
02-05-2008, 10:40 PM
Thanks Einion, I would mix the color myself, but nothing I have tried has worked so far, the back of the tube says "zinc oxide and cadmium sulfide in finest quality linseed oil." Where are you getting the numbers from? There is a cat. # F146 on the front of the tube and after unrolling the tube I found one on the bottom, backside 2303-A7657, neither of which sound like the numbers you are giving.
Thanks also for your reply to my other post, Rose Dore/Madder question. I've heard for years about Rose Dore in skin color, and there has been a lot of talk lately about Aliz Crimson not being permanent, not good, etc. but I've used it for years, although red a good bright red
has been missing in my paintings, so much so that I will change colors sometimes because I can't get a good red. So when Speed mentioned the Dore instead of the Aliz Crimson , I thought that could have been my problem, I saw the post on the ruby pyrol here and believe I may try that, unfortunately I ordered the Dore before I read that post,. I am also trying to find a substitute for Opera in Holbien's H2Oils, Love the color, hate the paint. Any suggestions?

dbclemons
02-06-2008, 08:52 AM
Grumbacher has a Naples Yellow "Hue" on their catalogue (http://www.grumbacherart.com/pdfs/PretestedOils_CC.pdf), but I don't see a genuine naples. Their hue is a combination of different pigments, looks like cadmium yellow and red light, zinc white, plus yellow ochre I'm guessing. PY 41 is the color code for lead antimonate, I believe.

Brian Firth
02-06-2008, 03:32 PM
…the back of the tube says "zinc oxide and cadmium sulfide in finest quality linseed oil."…

This would mean the paint is a mix of Cadmium Yellow and zinc white. You can try mixing those two colors to see if you can match it. However, it could be any shade of cadmium yellow (lemon, light, medium, deep, etc), so you will have to experiment to match the shade you are looking for.

You might want to try Gamblin's Naples Yellow Hue, it is a mix of cadmium yellow, yellow ochre, and zinc oxide. It could be close to what your are looking for.

Andy23
02-06-2008, 09:37 PM
I personally like the Grumbacher Naples Yellow, although like Einion I ususally just mix the equivalent. Grumbacher's is, I believe, a mix of these pigments: PBr7, PR108, PY35:1, PW4. It's a good middle of the road Naples Yellow - not to far to any of the extremes.

gunzorro
02-07-2008, 04:13 PM
Marielizabeth -- Grumbacher is using the chemical names of the pigments. Most often manufacters use the pigment numbers, which stand for the chemical names of pigments, which is what Einion was referring to.
As Brian said, you have a ******* (damn! I've been bleeped! "illegitimate male child") on your hands (maybe I'm paraphrasing?). Your "Naples Yellow" is a hue, or an imitation, and should be easy to mix up depending on which shade of Grumbacher Cadmium Yellow they are using.
Why don't you make us a sample against either neutral white or grey, take a good photo and post it here, then we'll see about recommending a close replacement.

BTW -- current thinking is to avoid zinc white pigment as much as possible because of evidence of delaminating, cracking and chipping, so you might want to look for a genuine lead or titanium white (or mix both!) as your new white.

Regarding Rose Dore -- this is a simple, very, very weak tinted mixture of pigments, not a stand-alone color. You would be far better using a stronger color and weakening it, like a Quinacridone Magenta (PV19). I like convenience color mixes, but even I think Rose Dore is going too far for too little. Much as I love genuine Alizarin, it is not the best long-term choice, so I would also recommend a substitute like Williamsburg Permanent Crimson (PR177). (See -- some substitutes are GOOD! Confusing, huh?) ;)

Einion -- My experience with PBr24 and PY41 seems to be different than yours. If find PBr24 to be far more opaque with much better covering power and tinting strength than genuine Naples Yellow, either the Light or Deep versions (and more still than Lead Tin Yellow, or genuine lead Jaune Brilliant). Being lead-based the genuine Naples handles better and mixes more subtly, and might be a better choice for skin tones, etc. But I find I really like the power of the "imitation" Naples Yellow Deep of PBr24. :) My favorites are Vasari's Tuscan Yellow and Naples Orange, OH's Naples Yellow Deep Extra and Harding's "Naples Yellow" (confusing because he also make the two genuine Naples Yellows!).

marielizabeth
02-07-2008, 07:09 PM
Gunzorro,
Of course you realize this is all making me want to hang myself with my panty hose, right? But, enough about me..
I've just loaded up with lead whites from several manufacturers (thought that would give me an idea who I liked and didn't), and I can always use the white as ground if nothing else. So far I love the Natural Pigments
Rublev Lead white, not the least of which because they named it lead white and it doesn't have zinc in it. (would you believe, silver white, ceramic white, crimnitz white, flake white, but beware, like the snowflake, no two are the same). I'm having a hard time believing someone is making this just as confusing as possible deliberately to trick people. The illegitimate male children! (could we shorten to IMCs?):).
As to the dore, I ordered Gamblin's quinacridone
magenta, but as luck would have it, it's number is PR122. Wouldn't you just know it? I am making note of the color you recommend for Aliz Crim so I can replace it when I run out.
I will make a picture of a dab of the naples yellow I am speaking of, when I can. Besides typing and shopping I am also painting and running a household, but should be able to do it this weekend.
How hard is it to load pictures here, do I need to use photo bucket to do so?
Thanks so much for your help I do appreciate it. 'becca

gunzorro
02-07-2008, 08:26 PM
becca -- photobucket is best, then just copy the IMG code and paste into your WC text and the picture appears there. I would keep the width down to 800 max, and the rez below 200k (around 100k is better when possible). You have Photoshop Elements (or higher)? If so, just select "Save for web" in the file menu and make your size/rez adjustments there.

Sorry for all the color blather and pigment numbers. ;) PR122 is fine, and I'm sure you'll like it. As Einion said on another of your threads, using this and a blue, yellow and white (maybe a black or dark brown, like burnt umber) will get you started doing blends and test paintings to get the hang of it. You can slowly add paints as you progress.

GH-Mongo
02-13-2008, 10:53 AM
Regarding Rose Dore -- this is a simple, very, very weak tinted mixture of pigments, not a stand-alone color. You would be far better using a stronger color and weakening it, like a Quinacridone Magenta (PV19). I like convenience color mixes, but even I think Rose Dore is going too far for too little. Much as I love genuine Alizarin, it is not the best long-term choice, so I would also recommend a substitute like Williamsburg Permanent Crimson (PR177). (See -- some substitutes are GOOD! Confusing, huh?) ;)

From what I have seen and read, Anthraquinone PR177 may have lightfastness issues.

gunzorro
02-13-2008, 03:19 PM
Not according to Virgil Elliot, who has conducted long term tests, that seem to verify industry standards of lightfastness. This is supposed to be one of the best reliable substitute pigments from Alizarin Crimson.

Virgil Elliott
02-13-2008, 11:40 PM
Not according to Virgil Elliot, who has conducted long term tests, that seem to verify industry standards of lightfastness. This is supposed to be one of the best reliable substitute pigments from Alizarin Crimson.

Gunzorro,

I appreciate being quoted as a source, but in this instance I think I might be being misquoted. Sorry to be such a nitpicker.

In my test results, the most lightfast alizarin crimson substitutes were Archival Oils' Permanent Alizarine and M. Graham's Quinacridone Rose, neither of which contain PR 177. The Archival Oils paint mentioned is a mixture of PR 122 and PR 175; The Graham paint is PV 19.

The PR 177 oil paint that I tested was not Williamsburg's, but I'd expect the same performance from that pigment regardless of whose brand it was sold under. Whereas PR 177 is rated ASTM Lightfastness I, there is a range represented within that category, and judging by its performance in my tests, I'd rank it near the bottom end of that range, or perhaps question whether it really belongs in that category at all. My test involved a much longer period of exposure to light than the tests prescribed by ASTM. So I'm with GH Mongo on that one. I wouldn't regard PR 177 as optimally lightfast.

Virgil Elliott

gunzorro
02-14-2008, 09:16 PM
Sorry for the misquote, Virgil. Thanks for the correction!

Brian Firth
02-15-2008, 09:52 AM
I have also done side by side testing of Alizarin Crimson PR83 and Winsor and Newton's Permanent Alizarin Crimson PR177 Anthraquinone red. After a year of sunlight exposure, Winsor and Newton's PR177 proved to be very lightfast, while PR83 once again is confirmed as not being near as lightfast. See my attached test samples. The original samples are on the left and the sample exposed to sunlight for a year is on the right. Note the particularly drastic fading in PR83 undertone.

gunzorro
02-15-2008, 02:31 PM
Thanks Brian! I've seen these before, and think I confused your results with Virgil's! We've been having these conversations on the same subject at around the same time on several different forums! :) Virgil had posted some interesting comments on Rational Painting forum.

I took advice from both you and Virgil about substitute colors for Alizarin. So far, I have bought the Williamsburg Peramanent Crimson PR177 and be very happy with (to my chagrin, as I already owned OH Burgundy Wine Red, which is the same pigment!). I'll eventually get the Archival Oils type Virgil recommended.

Virgil Elliott
02-18-2008, 12:01 AM
I have also done side by side testing of Alizarin Crimson PR83 and Winsor and Newton's Permanent Alizarin Crimson PR177 Anthraquinone red. After a year of sunlight exposure, Winsor and Newton's PR177 proved to be very lightfast, while PR83 once again is confirmed as not being near as lightfast. See my attached test samples. The original samples are on the left and the sample exposed to sunlight for a year is on the right. Note the particularly drastic fading in PR83 undertone.

Brian,

If you'll leave those test panels in the sun a bit longer, I expect you'll see more fading from your PR 177 samples. My newest test panel of alizarins and alizarin substitutes has been in my south-facing window in the California sun since July of 2002. There's enough fading in my PR 177 samples to convince me they should not be called "Permanent Alizarin." When I get time, I'll post photos of them so you can judge for yourself. The paints that held up better are the ones I mentioned previously.

Virgil

Einion
02-18-2008, 06:06 AM
Thanks for the extra detail Virgil. From the point of view of comparison, any idea how this stacks up on the Blue Wool scale for example?

I prefer paints on either side of this hue anyway so it's no issue for me but nearly six years of fulltime exposure to strong daylight is a lot of light; compared to typical indoor domestic or museum light I'm thinking it may still fall into the 'acceptably lightfast' category.

Einion

Brian Firth
02-18-2008, 01:52 PM
Virgil,
One year of sunlight exposure is roughly equivalent to a little more than 100 years of average indoor light exposure, so I see no need to further expose the samples. If they show little or no fading in 100 years, that is permanent as far as I am concerned. I am testing for permanence regarding the standard usage of painting materials, not absolute lightfastness under any condition. Cadmium's fade when exposed outdoors in humidity and sunlight, but they are still considered lightfast. To me, your test seem quite excessive unless you are painting outdoor murals. Einion's suggestion of using a bluewool scale would be a good idea for a more relative lightfastness rating.

Virgil Elliott
02-19-2008, 12:54 AM
Virgil,
One year of sunlight exposure is roughly equivalent to a little more than 100 years of average indoor light exposure

Brian,

How did you arrive at that estimate?

Virgil

Brian Firth
02-19-2008, 09:26 AM
Virgil,
I have read it various places and I also extrapolated that the average blue wool scale test is only about six months to reach blue wool scale 7, which is equivalent to about 100 years without fading, so doubling it would be sufficient. If you look at this test from Golden Acrylics http://goldenpaints.com/technicaldata/msapaint.php the samples were exposed for only 3-4 months to achieve relevant results. These are according to ASTM Test Methods for Lightfastness of Pigments Used in Artists' Paints (D 4303), Test Method A. Note the dramatic color shift of the true alizarin sample they tested. So, this would confirm to me that 1 year is plenty of time to fully test the lightfastness of my samples. I do have a blue wool scale and will be using it on my next batch to more accurately.

I would still like to see your results, as any organic pigment that has held up after many years of sunlight exposure would be just about eternally lightfast.

Virgil Elliott
02-20-2008, 03:11 PM
Virgil,
I would still like to see your results, as any organic pigment that has held up after many years of sunlight exposure would be just about eternally lightfast.

Brian,

Here are some pertinent views. The top swatch of each is the color straight from the tube, applied with a palette knife, thinly on top and thickly on the bottom. Below that is the same paint mixed 50/50 with W&N Flake White #1. One side of each was covered by a mask, and the other side was exposed to the sun in a south-facing window since July 22, 2002. It's obvious which side was covered and which side exposed.

Upper left in the first image is PR 177.

The next one down is "real" alizarin crimson, PR 83. To the right, in the center, is M. Graham's Quinacridone Rose (PR 19).

On the bottom of that row is Archival Oils' Permanent Alizarine, their previous formulation.

The second jpg shows Archival Oils' Permanent Alizarine in their more recent formulation, and below that, Winsor & Newton's Rose Madder Deep (since discontinued). Note that it has held up very well in masstone, and in a tint with white it has faded less than their Permanent Alizarin Crimson in the same amount of time.

Virgil

JamieWG
02-20-2008, 03:46 PM
Wonderful samples and examples, Brian and Virgil. I am envious. My samples don't want to change. They've been in my studio's south-facing windows since last March. Maybe I need to angle them toward the sun, instead of just taping them to the window.

Have either of you personally tested perylene red?

Jamie

Virgil Elliott
02-20-2008, 07:03 PM
Brian,


On the bottom of that row is Archival Oils' Permanent Alizarine, their previous formulation.



Bad editing on my part. The Archival Oils' Permanent Alizarine, old formulation, is on the bottom of the row on the left, in the first jpg.

Sorry for the confusion.

Virgil

Virgil Elliott
02-20-2008, 07:45 PM
Virgil,
I have read it various places and I also extrapolated that the average blue wool scale test is only about six months to reach blue wool scale 7, which is equivalent to about 100 years without fading, so doubling it would be sufficient. If you look at this test from Golden Acrylics http://goldenpaints.com/technicaldata/msapaint.php the samples were exposed for only 3-4 months to achieve relevant results. These are according to ASTM Test Methods for Lightfastness of Pigments Used in Artists' Paints (D 4303), Test Method A. Note the dramatic color shift of the true alizarin sample they tested. So, this would confirm to me that 1 year is plenty of time to fully test the lightfastness of my samples. I do have a blue wool scale and will be using it on my next batch to more accurately.

I would still like to see your results, as any organic pigment that has held up after many years of sunlight exposure would be just about eternally lightfast.

Brian,

I do have the lightfastness test kit from Golden. Unfortunately, they've stopped selling it. I have some blue wool cards, too. I used ASTM 5398 test method when I was testing pastels for ASTM, so I'm well familiar with the blue wools, and with ASTM test methods. I wouldn't want to bet the future condition of my paintings on the accuracy of those estimates of time represented by one year's exposure to the sun. Maybe it represents 100 years, and maybe not. In my tests of alizarin substitutes, the objective was to determine which of them held up best compared to the others, so the blue wool cards would not be needed for those purposes.

I no longer think of one hundred years as a very long time, anyway. I don't want my paintings to change, ever, if I can help it!

Virgil

Brian Firth
02-21-2008, 12:50 PM
Wonderful samples and examples, Brian and Virgil. I am envious. My samples don't want to change. They've been in my studio's south-facing windows since last March. Maybe I need to angle them toward the sun, instead of just taping them to the window.

Have either of you personally tested perylene red?

Jamie


Jamie,
I have tested Perylene Red PR149 in W&N Finity acrylics in a thin drawdown to approximate use as a watercolor. I have attached the sample after exposure to one year of sunlight. It darkened in masstone after about 6 months of exposure, although it looks worse in the scan than it does in real life. This is widely known of perylene reds to darken in masstone. They are one of the few pigments, along with PY108 and PO43, that actually increase in lightfastness in tints. Personally, I feel Perylene red is still pretty lightfast and I would rather a pigment darken a little than fade.

Brian Firth
02-21-2008, 01:07 PM
I no longer think of one hundred years as a very long time, anyway. I don't want my paintings to change, ever, if I can help it!


Then you might want to change mediums and switch to acrylics if maximum longevity is your goal! :lol: The drying oils themselves are going to crack and yellow way before most of the modern organic pigments begin to exhibit problems.

To better explain my perspective, I for one am not that concerned with my work changing slightly after hundreds of year. My lightfasts test are more to ensure none of the pigments I am using are incredibly fugitive so that they would show major changes within my lifetime. Beyond that, I am not nearly as concerned with the pigments that hold up well in my test, even if they show some slight changes. I take a more Eastern philosophical approach to the inevitability that everything will fall apart eventually and don't fully concern myself with the all around futility of grasping on to a concept of leaving an unchanging mark on the world. I do take the basic precautions to make my work permanent, but I don't take it to the "it can never change, ever" level. So, for my work, I think the modern pigments are more than lightfast enough and still well beyond what the masters had at their disposal and their paintings are still admired and look great today. I think someone said it best when they said "paint something worth keeping for hundred of years and people will make sure it stays in good shape". A good example of this is Van Gogh's work which was made with many terribly fugitive pigments, but the value of the works ensures that there are teams of conservators working on each one to ensure it stays looking good.

Virgil Elliott
02-21-2008, 02:55 PM
Then you might want to change mediums and switch to acrylics if maximum longevity is your goal! :lol: The drying oils themselves are going to crack and yellow way before most of the modern organic pigments begin to exhibit problems.

To better explain my perspective, I for one am not that concerned with my work changing slightly after hundreds of year. My lightfasts test are more to ensure none of the pigments I am using are incredibly fugitive so that they would show major changes within my lifetime. Beyond that, I am not nearly as concerned with the pigments that hold up well in my test, even if they show some slight changes. I take a more Eastern philosophical approach to the inevitability that everything will fall apart eventually and don't fully concern myself with the all around futility of grasping on to a concept of leaving an unchanging mark on the world. I do take the basic precautions to make my work permanent, but I don't take it to the "it can never change, ever" level. So, for my work, I think the modern pigments are more than lightfast enough and still well beyond what the masters had at their disposal and their paintings are still admired and look great today. I think someone said it best when they said "paint something worth keeping for hundred of years and people will make sure it stays in good shape". A good example of this is Van Gogh's work which was made with many terribly fugitive pigments, but the value of the works ensures that there are teams of conservators working on each one to ensure it stays looking good.

Brian,

There are issues with acrylics just now coming to light that bear on their longevity and raise doubt on the popular notion that they are more long-lasting than oil paintings properly executed, as I've become aware through my participation in ASTM.

The point I raised that began this tangent was that I would not regard PR 177 as optimally lightfast, in response to Gunzorro's post, which point I believe I settled by posting images of the test panels I based that assessment on, showing two alizarin substitutes that faded less over the same period of exposure. Whether or not the optimum degree of lightfastness is important to you, that is a separate issue from what we started out discussing.

On the surface of it, it might seem reasonable and reassuring to believe that if we just make our paintings look good enough, whoever owns them will spend whatever it costs to have them restored to like-new condition whenever the situation might call for it, and all will be well, but that isn't entirely realistic, for several reasons. One important reason is that there are some things that simply cannot be corrected, no matter how much money one wishes to spend. If a Brian Firth painting changes due to a pigment fading, and Brian Firth is no longer around to repaint it, then the only thing that can be done to bring the color back to its original appearance is for someone other than Brian Firth to repaint it. And whereas there might theoretically be someone who could do it and make it look like Brian Firth did it (an improbable proposition, I think you'll agree), the painting would then no longer be 100% the work of Brian Firth, and the risk that its appearance would then differ from the original would be great indeed. There are limits to what can be done in restoration, even by the conservation departments of the top museums in the world. And then there are gallery owners and private collectors who simply will not pay what the best restorers/conservators would charge to restore a painting that they own, instead taking it to the one who bids lowest on the job. The field includes many a shoddy practitioner working at bargain-basement rates and doing poor quality work. And worse yet, I've often spoken of a retired plumber in my acquaintance who inherited a collection of fine paintings, who has ruined several of them by trying to restore them himself, with all the expertise one might expect of a plumber. He ruined a priceless Tintoretto by scrubbing it with alcohol and a shop towel to remove what he thought was darkened varnish, thinking that was why the painting was so dark! In fact it was dark because it was a night scene.

Since you mentioned Van Gogh, I'll relate my observations from my 1985 visit to the museum that bears his name in Amsterdam. Most of the Van Gogh paintings I saw there were very dirty and darkened. As I was told when I asked why the museum did not have them cleaned and restored, they simply did not have the budget for it. His extreme use of impasto created tremendous difficulties in getting the entire surface cleaned evenly. The only method that would work, I was told, would be to go over every square millimeter of the convoluted surface very carefully with a tiny scalpel while looking through a microscope, and this would be prohibitively expensive. Also, some of the yellows in his paintings have changed colors due to the fact that he used chrome yellow, which turns into another color after X number of years, and nothing can be done about it. Whereas Van Gogh's paintings are not even 200 years old, more of Rembrandt's paintings from 200 years before Van Gogh are in better condition today, because Rembrandt had better ideas on how to paint paintings that would not be prone to premature failure. Had Rembrandt not put his paintings together so well, none of us would have been able to see them, appreciate them, and learn from them.

So I do think it's important to choose our materials with an eye to the future. I'm sure our collectors appreciate it, and so will their heirs. The concept of Quality is what compels collectors to pay high prices for paintings, and the concept of Quality includes the materials of which something is made.

Virgil Elliott

JamieWG
02-21-2008, 05:20 PM
Brian, thanks so much for the post with the perylene samples. How interesting that they darken!

Jamie

Daniel_OB
10-14-2008, 09:50 AM
Virgil
You said in another post: “Anyone who believes alizarin crimson (PR 83) is a lightfast pigment needs to take a look at my test panels.”
I took some time to find yours panels. Then I printed it and showed to other painters. They all say “tell to that guy my paintings will not be exposed, as I know, in California facing south window”.
And I ask you: what you (or any painter) can conclude from that “test”?

Not to try to belittle you but to help you, I think you should learn how to test, for as I can see you like to test paints. Swatches you show are not test done. It is not so far simple as you presented it here, or you expect that some painter take your “test” and get it done. Search internet for say design of experiment, or get book Dubbel (German ed. Not English translation). Very helpful book.
And lightfatness has unit, and it is time. It can be say year. So when you wish to express lightfastness of a certain paint than to say no/yes lightfast is the same as someone ask you what is your weight? and you say 1200. What 1200? N, lb, kp, g… The same with lightfastness.

If you say:

Lightfastness of Alizarin Crimson is (you decide) say 23-35 years, under … conditions (UV influence, visible spectrum influence, pigment concentration, mixture reflectance, ….,). For my standards it is not lightfast pigment.
I say thank you.

Where are evidences that A.C is not “lightfast paint”? where? Your “test” (well) is not evidence. It is still nothing, just beginning of the test, as so many are here on wetcanvas. Anyone can drop a swatch in the window.
However, here is evidence that Alizarin Crimson is good paint to use: today many top painter use it and laugh on statement like these above. Here is one example: Marvin M. Do you need more examples as evidence? His paintings sells 24”x30” for around $30,000.

I think frankly that all of that “testers” should learn how to use A.C. rather than to search for the way to blame it, or they do it (“testings”) to find an excuse for their fail as a painter.

As I know
- Beginners and low paid painter (due to not good quality) say: Alizarin Crimson is not lightfast (means not good enough – permanent, to use in oil paintings).
- Experienced and top paid (or excellent but low paid) oil painters say: I use it, or some that does not need it so no comments.

----------------------------
“There are more lightfast substitutes on the market today, and performance varies between them, but they're all better than PR 83.”
It is just a different paint.

------------------

Brian
everything will fall apart eventually and don't fully concern myself with the all around futility of grasping on to a concept of leaving an unchanging mark on the world.

I think the modern pigments are more than lightfast enough and still well beyond what the masters had at their disposal and their paintings are still admired and look great today...
That is the better way to go.

Virgil Elliott
10-14-2008, 02:14 PM
Virgil
You said in another post: “Anyone who believes alizarin crimson (PR 83) is a lightfast pigment needs to take a look at my test panels.”
I took some time to find yours panels. Then I printed it and showed to other painters. They all say “tell to that guy my paintings will not be exposed, as I know, in California facing south window”.
And I ask you: what you (or any painter) can conclude from that “test”?

Not to try to belittle you but to help you, I think you should learn how to test, for as I can see you like to test paints. Swatches you show are not test done. It is not so far simple as you presented it here, or you expect that some painter take your “test” and get it done. Search internet for say design of experiment, or get book Dubbel (German ed. Not English translation). Very helpful book.
And lightfatness has unit, and it is time. It can be say year. So when you wish to express lightfastness of a certain paint than to say no/yes lightfast is the same as someone ask you what is your weight? and you say 1200. What 1200? N, lb, kp, g… The same with lightfastness.

If you say:

Lightfastness of Alizarin Crimson is (you decide) say 23-35 years, under … conditions (UV influence, visible spectrum influence, pigment concentration, mixture reflectance, ….,). For my standards it is not lightfast pigment.
I say thank you.

Where are evidences that A.C is not “lightfast paint”? where? Your “test” (well) is not evidence. It is still nothing, just beginning of the test, as so many are here on wetcanvas. Anyone can drop a swatch in the window.
However, here is evidence that Alizarin Crimson is good paint to use: today many top painter use it and laugh on statement like these above. Here is one example: Marvin M. Do you need more examples as evidence? His paintings sells 24”x30” for around $30,000.

I think frankly that all of that “testers” should learn how to use A.C. rather than to search for the way to blame it, or they do it (“testings”) to find an excuse for their fail as a painter.

As I know
- Beginners and low paid painter (due to not good quality) say: Alizarin Crimson is not lightfast (means not good enough – permanent, to use in oil paintings).
- Experienced and top paid (or excellent but low paid) oil painters say: I use it, or some that does not need it so no comments.

----------------------------
“There are more lightfast substitutes on the market today, and performance varies between them, but they're all better than PR 83.”
It is just a different paint.

------------------

Brian
everything will fall apart eventually and don't fully concern myself with the all around futility of grasping on to a concept of leaving an unchanging mark on the world.

I think the modern pigments are more than lightfast enough and still well beyond what the masters had at their disposal and their paintings are still admired and look great today...
That is the better way to go.

Daniel,

It seems you're including me in with "beginners and low-paid painters," which I find amusing. I'm not the only one who has tested PR 83 and found it to be of poor lightfastness; it is an established fact, despite not being known as such or accepted as such by poorly-informed individuals and people whose personal preferences compel them to be more skeptical of science based on evidence than on unsubstantiated opinions based on their own wishful thinking.

What my tests show is which paints, of the ones included in the test, fade soonest and worst in relation to the others exposed to the same amount of light for the same amount of time on the same panel in the same window, applied thinly in masstone (glaze thickness), thickly in masstone (impasto thickness), thinly in 50/50 mixture with the same white, and thickly in 50/50 mixture with the same white (impasto thickness). What faded quickest and worst in all instances was alizarin crimson PR 83, without exception.

Since you presume to admonish me for being, in your view, unscientific, I'll point out to you that scientific method precludes the placing of any credence whatsoever in points that are irrelevant to the matter being investigated. If you feel how much money people might have paid for this or that painter's work, or how many people believe something, should add weight to your argument, you simply do not understand scientific method, and therefore have no business laying that charge on anyone else. To do so places you in a ridiculous light in the eyes of everyone who does understand scientific method and logic. What you are attempting to advance in the guise of logic is actually rhetoric, sophistry that does not hold up to logical scrutiny. If that's the best you can do, it would be wiser for you to seek actual knowledge than to try to find ways to defend your assumptions when the evidence is against them. If you truly understood scientific method, you'd know enough to be embarrassed over having brought such irrelevancies into the discussion. Conclusions of science and logic can only be refuted by showing better science, better logic.

But if you do count experience as something to validate a person's ideas, as it seems you do, then you should know better to mention it in arguments with me, an artist who has been painting for over fifty years and drawing for more than that. And yes, I know Marvin M and he knows me; we are contemporaries with mutual respect. We both sell paintings for well into the five-figures range and have portraits hanging in Washington D.C., as well as (in my case at least) non-portrait paintings in collections on at least three continents. Perhaps you also didn't know that I wrote a book, Traditional Oil Painting, published by Watson-Guptill Publications. If you didn't know that, or haven't read it, I suggest you might learn something from reading it. If nothing else, you'd get a better idea with whom you're arguing, if you choose to persist in arguing with me.

I have no objection whatsoever to your paintings changing colors in 100 years or less. That might seem like forever to you. For me, at my age, it does not. What is important to me is to go to great lengths to make sure the information that I give people with the intention of helping them is not going to lead them into folly. I recognize that as a responsibility that should attend and precede speaking with authority on any subject. I encourage you to give serious consideration to that point especially.

Virgil Elliott

Virgil Elliott
10-15-2008, 12:00 AM
Virgil
You said in another post: “Anyone who believes alizarin crimson (PR 83) is a lightfast pigment needs to take a look at my test panels.”
I took some time to find yours panels. Then I printed it and showed to other painters. They all say “tell to that guy my paintings will not be exposed, as I know, in California facing south window”.
And I ask you: what you (or any painter) can conclude from that “test”?

Not to try to belittle you but to help you, I think you should learn how to test, for as I can see you like to test paints. Swatches you show are not test done. It is not so far simple as you presented it here, or you expect that some painter take your “test” and get it done. Search internet for say design of experiment, or get book Dubbel (German ed. Not English translation). Very helpful book.
And lightfatness has unit, and it is time. It can be say year. So when you wish to express lightfastness of a certain paint than to say no/yes lightfast is the same as someone ask you what is your weight? and you say 1200. What 1200? N, lb, kp, g… The same with lightfastness.

If you say:

Lightfastness of Alizarin Crimson is (you decide) say 23-35 years, under … conditions (UV influence, visible spectrum influence, pigment concentration, mixture reflectance, ….,). For my standards it is not lightfast pigment.
I say thank you.

Where are evidences that A.C is not “lightfast paint”? where? Your “test” (well) is not evidence. It is still nothing, just beginning of the test, as so many are here on wetcanvas. Anyone can drop a swatch in the window.
However, here is evidence that Alizarin Crimson is good paint to use: today many top painter use it and laugh on statement like these above. Here is one example: Marvin M. Do you need more examples as evidence? His paintings sells 24”x30” for around $30,000.

I think frankly that all of that “testers” should learn how to use A.C. rather than to search for the way to blame it, or they do it (“testings”) to find an excuse for their fail as a painter.

As I know
- Beginners and low paid painter (due to not good quality) say: Alizarin Crimson is not lightfast (means not good enough – permanent, to use in oil paintings).
- Experienced and top paid (or excellent but low paid) oil painters say: I use it, or some that does not need it so no comments.

----------------------------
“There are more lightfast substitutes on the market today, and performance varies between them, but they're all better than PR 83.”
It is just a different paint.

------------------

Brian
everything will fall apart eventually and don't fully concern myself with the all around futility of grasping on to a concept of leaving an unchanging mark on the world.

I think the modern pigments are more than lightfast enough and still well beyond what the masters had at their disposal and their paintings are still admired and look great today...
That is the better way to go.

Daniel,

Let me try again to understand your questions and address them. The lightfastness of many pigments is listed in the 2008 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 06.02, on pages 300-303, in with Standard D 4302-05. Alizarin crimson PR 83 is listed on page 303, in Table X1.1. The rating given is III. Here is an excerpt from the introductory paragraph on page 302 regarding Table X1.1:

The pigments in Table X1.1 are not sufficiently lightfast to be used in paints that conform to this specification.

Pigments are classified in ASTM Lightfastness Category III when they show changes of from 8 to 16 Delta Es when tested in conformance with the methods specified in D 4303-06. A Delta E is a unit of change measured by a spectrophotometer, abridged spectrophotometer, or colorimeter capable of excluding specular reflectance in its measurement.

The book I just mentioned can be bought from ASTM International for $75.00, if I'm not mistaken. Or you can buy the individual standards referenced here for something like $35.00 each. The language is technical, but if you really want to understand the issue of lightfastness of pigments, I suggest you get these standards and study them.

I have been involved in testing with ASTM, and have been present at meetings where testing was discussed that I did not personally participate in, over the past twelve years or so that I've been an active member of ASTM, on the Subcommittee of Artists' Paints and Materials D01.57. I make no claim of being an expert on the subject, but have been and continue to be in contact with those who really are experts in that field, and I've learned a lot from them, including many things that most painters are not aware of. That "most painters" includes many painters of high renown.

Prior to my involvement with ASTM I had been testing art materials on my own for quite a few years, and was engaged to test the entire line of Liquitex oil painting products in the 1980s by Russell Woody at Binney & Smith.

So it is interesting that you assert that I don't know how to test.

I recognize the possibility that I might have misunderstood you, because your English is not always clear. Perhaps it is not your first language. If I have misunderstood you, and have responded inappropriately because of it, I apologize.

Virgil Elliott

Einion
10-15-2008, 07:31 AM
Since this topic has been resurrected I do want to post a reminder of the following from the last thread:
Alizarin Crimson is NOT LIGHTFAST by the commonly-accepted definition of the term. Until such time that there is some evidence posted to the contrary I'm not going to let anyone say otherwise.

I'm tired of unsubstantiated claims in regard to a pigment generally recognised to be of poor lightfastness or actually fugitive, depending upon medium. And I know I'm not the only one. Yes you can use it thickly in oils, by itself and in dark mixtures, and it will stand up much better than in other types of applications, that is not the same as it actually being lightfast; if you don't agree I'm sorry, you don't understand lightfastness properly (or, if you'd prefer, in the way it is commonly understood).

If there is another post, by anyone, claiming the pigment is lightfast without presenting some actual proof it will be deleted.

...

Those who are happy with its performance can continue to use Alizarin Crimson all they want, nobody is going to stop you.

But don't try to sell a personal belief in its stability as anything other than an opinion, in the face of overwhelming amounts of evidence to the contrary.

And really, with so many alternatives available today I am nonplussed that anyone would be so hung up on it that they can't make a switch - lots of painters don't use a paint of this colour at all and their work is not the poorer for it.

And many painters in recent years having acknowledged that it's not good enough and have made a switch to other paints, either in the same colour category or moving to a rose or magenta paint instead; ask yourself why you won't, or can't, do the same.

Einion

Virgil Elliott
10-18-2008, 02:23 AM
Brian,

Here are some pertinent views. The top swatch of each is the color straight from the tube, applied with a palette knife, thinly on top and thickly on the bottom. Below that is the same paint mixed 50/50 with W&N Flake White #1. One side of each was covered by a mask, and the other side was exposed to the sun in a south-facing window since July 22, 2002. It's obvious which side was covered and which side exposed.

Upper left in the first image is PR 177.

The next one down is "real" alizarin crimson, PR 83. To the right, in the center, is M. Graham's Quinacridone Rose (PR 19).

On the bottom of that row is Archival Oils' Permanent Alizarine, their previous formulation.

The second jpg shows Archival Oils' Permanent Alizarine in their more recent formulation, and below that, Winsor & Newton's Rose Madder Deep (since discontinued). Note that it has held up very well in masstone, and in a tint with white it has faded less than their Permanent Alizarin Crimson in the same amount of time.

Virgil

I think a bit more explanation of my test panels shown on Page 2 of this thread might be helpful in clarifying things. Each swatch is approximately a horizontal rectangle. One side of each swatch was exposed to the light while the other side was protected from the sun by a heavy black paper mask, separated from the paint by glassine paper to prevent acid transfer from the paper to the paint swatch. The covered half of the first row is the right side. The second row is the opposite, with the left side covered and the right side exposed to the light. On the swatches where there was fading on the exposed side, there is a noticeable difference in the color and value. The color on that side is duller and lighter from fading, in the swatches where the color was mixed with white. The degree of change in each swatch is easily read by comparing the right side to the left side.

The top swatch on the second row is PR 83 (Yarka St. Petersburg Madder Lake Deep). The second swatch down from the top in the first row is PR 83 (Winsor & Newton's Alizarin Crimson). The swatch just above it is PR 177 (W&N's Permanent Alizarin Crimson). The bottom swatch on the second row is PR 83 (Old Holland Alizarin Crimson Lake Extra).

In the middle of the second row is M. Graham's Quinacridone Rose. On the bottom of the first row is Archival Oils' Permanent Alizarine. Note how little these two have faded, compared to the PR 83 samples and the PR 177 sample.

Virgil

gunzorro
10-18-2008, 02:28 AM
Thanks Virgil! :)

WFMartin
10-19-2008, 02:39 AM
Far be it from me to make an unsubstantiated claim regarding the permanence of Alizarin Crimson, but I would like to pose a question.

What particular tests have been made, by anyone, showing the fugitive nature of Alizarin Crimson, when mixed with other materials, such as different oils, and especially different paint pigments. Artists seldom use tube colors as they are, directly from the tube. They are almost always mixed with SOME other color or colors in the process of painting a subject.

I am unsure whether a test of these pigments alone can be considered a legitimate test, for duplicating the conditions under which the paint will actually be used--that is, mixed with other colors, and mediums.

Are these fugitive Alizarin Crimson pigments still as non-lightfast, when mixed with other colored pigments? What particular tests have been performed for the purpose of determining this?

Bill

Virgil Elliott
10-19-2008, 03:55 AM
Far be it from me to make an unsubstantiated claim regarding the permanence of Alizarin Crimson, but I would like to pose a question.

What particular tests have been made, by anyone, showing the fugitive nature of Alizarin Crimson, when mixed with other materials, such as different oils, and especially different paint pigments. Artists seldom use tube colors as they are, directly from the tube. They are almost always mixed with SOME other color or colors in the process of painting a subject.

I am unsure whether a test of these pigments alone can be considered a legitimate test, for duplicating the conditions under which the paint will actually be used--that is, mixed with other colors, and mediums.

Are these fugitive Alizarin Crimson pigments still as non-lightfast, when mixed with other colored pigments? What particular tests have been performed for the purpose of determining this?

Bill

Bill,

In my test, each color is tested mixed with flake white as well as alone. Alizarin crimson fades more rapidly when mixed with white. Pigments that are not lightfast fade in mixtures with other colors at least as badly as they do alone, as my tests have shown in both oil paints and pastels. There isn't any other color one could mix any of them with to keep them from changing.

Many colors in pastels are mixtures of more than one color, and as the least lightfast pigment in the mixture fades, what remains is the color of the more lightfast pigment(s).

The type of oil binder has no effect, one way or the other, on the lightfastness of the pigment. UV-filtering additives in some varnishes help somewhat, for a few years, but their effectiveness diminishes after that. I don't consider it a satisfactory solution to the problem. The thing to do is to just use pigments that hold up better. There are several that serve very well as substitutes for alizarin crimson, so there isn't really any great need to stick with PR 83. It was developed as a synthetic substitute for natural madder lake, but it actually fades worse and sooner than natural madder, as my test panels show.

Many great paintings were painted without PR 83 before it even existed, for several hundred years.

Virgil Elliott

WFMartin
10-19-2008, 12:11 PM
Virgil,

Thank you for your answer. I appreciate that.

Bill

sidbledsoe
10-19-2008, 01:46 PM
Here is a example of some colors I wanted to test, Winsor Newton versus Holbein.
The top row are tints in the dark and below are tints in the sun for just two months (equal to about 17 years indoors according to what I have read here). The two that faded so far are Holbein Permanent Yellow Pale and Permanent Green.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/19-Oct-2008/112587-IMGP1236.JPG
The perm green is a mixture of their permanent yellow and pthalo blue. The mix has been reduced to a blue bias and that jives with the corresponding fading of the permanent yellow. I don't know why companies are ok with claiming and naming some of their colors permanent. As I have said before in another thread, all you need to do is look up the websites of the best paint makers in the world and read how wonderful their pr83 is. I have determined my own opinions regarding the colors I want to use and don't claim any special expertise in my evaluations, the tests I do are for my own purposes.

Brian Firth
10-19-2008, 04:19 PM
It is incomprehensible why Holbein uses PY14 or PR48 in any of their paints. There are plenty of pigments in the same color position that are much more lightfast. I like many of Holbein's oil paints, but avoid the mixes with these cheap pigments.

Einion
10-20-2008, 10:24 AM
What particular tests have been made, by anyone, showing the fugitive nature of Alizarin Crimson, when mixed with other materials, such as different oils, and especially different paint pigments. Artists seldom use tube colors as they are, directly from the tube. They are almost always mixed with SOME other color or colors in the process of painting a subject.

I am unsure whether a test of these pigments alone can be considered a legitimate test, for duplicating the conditions under which the paint will actually be used--that is, mixed with other colors, and mediums.
This is the main reason for also testing tints and glazes, as has been recommended here a few times recently and elsewhere on the site more than once, in addition to as a masstone swatch of a paint (which can appear to not change for extended periods of time even with extensive light exposure).

Are these fugitive Alizarin Crimson pigments still as non-lightfast, when mixed with other colored pigments? What particular tests have been performed for the purpose of determining this?
Further to what Virgil said, in a mixture the least-lightfast component is taken as the lightfastness of the mix. As a rule no pigment is considered to protect a weaker pigment in a mixture and testing seems to support this is true in practice as well as theory.


The thing to do is to just use pigments that hold up better. There are several that serve very well as substitutes for alizarin crimson, so there isn't really any great need to stick with PR 83.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/20-Aug-2003/3842-thumbsup.gif It's a shame this simple message is sometimes so difficult to get across.


It is incomprehensible why Holbein uses PY14 or PR48 in any of their paints. There are plenty of pigments in the same color position that are much more lightfast.
It's a head-scratcher all right! Similar issue with some L&B paints too.

Einion

sidbledsoe
10-24-2008, 10:39 AM
I posted the example of Holbein permanent green above in response to the question about lightfastness of pigments in mixes. I believe even Old Holland has claimed that their pr83 is more lightfast in mixes. One test isn't conclusive. Does anyone have any other mixes that show biased fading? Another question for anyone, lightfastness is generally much improved in oil media versus watercolor for instance, anyone have an explanation of why?
I can only think that the oil provides some kind of protection. If that is true then why couldn't other components provide similar protection?, be it opaque pigments or resins like copal, etc.
I don't know what the mechanism of pigment degradation upon exposure to light is but I think that information would be instrumental in fully understanding the subject. In other words, what actually happens to the paint on a molecular level due to the light exposure.

Einion
10-24-2008, 11:37 AM
I believe even Old Holland has claimed that their pr83 is more lightfast in mixes.
Yes, they did make this claim (without proof I must point out) right here on the site. This was just before a revamp of their range, in which all of the Alizarin-containing colours were reformulated without it! :smug:

Does anyone have any other mixes that show biased fading?
I've seen a number in books and posted online; I've seen one in person. For example in a blue + yellow convenience green, made with a fugitive yellow, the colour changes to blue in time (somewhat like magazines or similar, which when left for years in the light typically fade to leave just a blue ghost of the image).

Another question for anyone, lightfastness is generally much improved in oil media versus watercolor for instance, anyone have an explanation of why?
The dried oil is a better protective medium basically, possibly in part due to its resistance to water in the atmosphere; watercolour fades the worst because the pigment grains are nearly naked to the air.

The actual chemical/structural explanation is probably partly or fully covered in industrial references, which a colourman in one of the paintmakers might be able to pass on in outline if you enquire with them.

If that is true then why couldn't other components provide similar protection?, be it opaque pigments or resins like copal, etc.
Because light itself, the UV portion primarily, is the main factor in colour changes/bleaching; only by hiding the pigment from light can one prevent fading entirely.

In a mixture with opaque pigments a fugitive pigment is partly shielded within the body of a thick dab of paint, but at or near the surface each pigment grain gets lots of light so you can get surface fading which shows up clearly.

With transparent mixtures, dark ones, they appear to hold up because we're seeing through to the paint deeper within the paint film* but it's clear from the wording used by authoritative sources in this area that this is just an appears to thing - the fading pigment is not actually resisting the effect of light. And this can be confirmed easily by testing of a thinner film of the same paint.

*It occurs to me that surface reflections might give away what colour the paint surface has become.

Einion

sidbledsoe
10-24-2008, 02:39 PM
Thanks for the info, after I thought about the opaque pigment particles I thought what you just related must make sense. Maybe another reason that watercolor is more labile is because it is also a much thinner layer of pigment.
Full color swatches of thick oil colors never seem to fade, only the thinned out diluted tints.

sidbledsoe
10-24-2008, 02:40 PM
Thanks for the info, after I thought about the opaque pigment particles I thought what you just related must make sense. Maybe another reason that watercolor is more labile is because it is also a much thinner layer of pigment.
Full color swatches of thick oil colors never seem to fade, mostly the thinned out diluted tints.

Brian Firth
10-24-2008, 05:31 PM
Here is a sample exposed for one year of Rowney's Sap Green PY100, PR83, and PG7. Basically, they PY100 and PR83 has completely faded out of the mix and left the PG7. Obviously, the PG7 did not provide any protection to the other less lighfast pigments.

PY100 should have never found its way into artist's colors and should be absolutely avoided.

sidbledsoe
10-25-2008, 02:29 PM
Thanks Brian, nice test and example of another artist quality color that leaves you wondering what they were thinking.

Einion
10-28-2008, 08:34 AM
Thanks Brian, perfect example.

Einion

Aires
10-29-2008, 10:25 PM
If you are still looking for the real Naples Yellow, Michael Harding carries it as PY41 and Winsor&Newton carries it as PBv24. I think my notes say that Schminke and Old Holland also carry it. Both are variations of Antimony Titanate and, like lead white, rather hard to find because of health issues.

Smokin
10-30-2008, 12:53 AM
A book worth checking out, jam packed with actual scientific information.
http://www.getty.edu/bookstore/titles/accage.html (free pdf)

With respect, there are some here who lack some of the more fundamental understandings of photochemical deterioration to be claiming to be an authority.

gunzorro
10-30-2008, 10:51 AM
Aires -- I think a little clarification is called for. You are talking about two completely different colors and pigment make-ups in discussing PY41 and PBr24.

PY41 is genuine Naples Yellow (Lead Antimonate), tubed paints come in two yellow versions, Light and Dark (sometimes available in a "red" pigment as well). Available from Vasari, Michael Harding and Robert Doak. Genuine Naples offer a smooth blending mild tinting yellow that works in more delicate situations, like portraiture.

Here is a comparison of both Michael Harding genuine Naples Yellows along with others similar colors, including OH's PBr24 imitation Naples Yellow Extra. The lower mixes show the colors tinted with white above, and black below.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_8870web.jpg

PBr24 is often called imitation Naples Yellow or hue as it looks like the darker version of the genuine lead-based pigment. Old Holland lists its pigment as Chrome Titanate, as does Vasari. Harding calles it Titanium Antimony Chromiumoxide. This is a deep yellow-orange color, somewhat brighter and with better tinting strength than Yellow Ochre.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_0127web.jpg

sidbledsoe
10-30-2008, 11:16 AM
Winsor Newton PBr24 is just labelled Naples Yellow and should probably be labelled as a hue, hence the mistaken impression that it is the real thing.

marielizabeth
11-22-2008, 10:44 PM
Aires, Gunzorro, thanks I got the Michael Harding PY41 (Genuine Naples Yellow Light) and it appears to be the exact same color as the Grumbacher's Naples Yellow Finest, but have not used it in a flesh tone yet. Unfortunately the paint consistentcy is quite different Grumbacher's Finest were more like Old Holland in that reguard. BTW, a little trivia, the price tag is still on the Grumbacher's tube $2.25. (And those were the expensive paints back then). But thanks to everyone I think I have found the right replacement. This is just so much more complicated and difficult than I imagined, so thanks to everyone who is doing research and posting their findings for us, I really appreciate it. And I will post my findings as to the mixing and practical handling of this paint. I will be posting the painting on the "what's on your easel" thread on the oil painting channel.

gunzorro
11-23-2008, 02:04 AM
It might be good to post your results here as well, since this is where we are looking. Personally, I seldom look at the "Easel" threads.

marielizabeth
11-23-2008, 10:45 AM
Okay, didn't know if it would be appropriate to post it here.
The original is by Daniel Ridgeway Knight and it is a companion to one I did 30 years ago which I will post as well when this one is finished. A side by side to compare.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/23-Nov-2008/101240-IMG_0295.JPG

I will list colors, brands, and numbers when I post the side by side, Not using Alizarin Crimson in this one.

Virgil Elliott
11-23-2008, 01:29 PM
Real Naples yellow, lead antimoniate, PY 41, is avoided by most paint manufacturers because of its toxicity. Its color is not difficult to approximate with other pigments, but its other properties are not shared by the pigments usually chosen to serve as substitutes or composents of substitute mixtures. Lead-based pigments generally dry better and require lower percentages of oil to turn them into paint.

I note that the color of Vasari Genuine Naples Yellow Light is significantly brighter (higher in chroma) than any other Naples Yellow I have seen, very close to cadmium yellow light. It has earned a place in my #1 paintbox.

Virgil Elliott

gunzorro
11-23-2008, 06:36 PM
I agree with Virgil's endorsement of the Vasari Naples Yellow Light. It is in my top tier of tubes to reach for in painting. Expensive, but worth it to me.
I like the Michael Harding version as well, but the Vasari is so wonderfully opaque, with better tinting and slightly brighter.
Another point, the genuine stuff has a certain subtle mixing quality that is not found with other yellows like cadmium or hansa, just like lead white handles and mixes differently from other whites.

AnnieA
11-28-2008, 05:38 PM
I want to thank all of you for a fascinating discussion. I learn so much when I visit the Color Theory Forum. I do have an additional question, a bit OT from Marielizabeth's original one (hope you don't mind, Marielizabeth :)).

Virgil mentioned that as far as lightfastness is concerned, the M.Graham Permanent Alizarin is a particularly good paint. I'm a newbie and still working out a palette. I like the handling qualities of the M.Graham paints generally, but I read someplace that as far as actually replacing the hue characteristics of original alizarin, the permanent alizarin offering by Gamblin was outstanding. I do notice that the M.Graham paint, in the tint in your experiment, seems a tiny bit blue-pinker, compared to the original alizarin sample. At any rate, the hue does appear somewhat different. I think the Gamblin paint is made from the same pigment as the M.Graham one. Any thoughts on this, anyone?

I'm obviously getting way ahead of myself - since I'm so new to oil painting such fine distinctions are unlikely to make a difference in any painting I produce at this point :lol: - but since the question occurred to me upon reading this thread, I thought I might as well ask it.

Many thanks again for the wealth of information that all of you - Virgil, enion, gunzorro, brian firth, sidbledsoe, frank, bill martin (hope I didn't overlook anyone!) - provide to us newbies! :)

gunzorro
11-28-2008, 05:58 PM
Annie -- That example of Virgil's showed M. Graham's Quinacridone Rose (PR 19), which is not really a good choice as a substitute for Alizarin. You are right -- the color is quite a bit different. If you have a Graham paint that is called "Permanent Alizarin" I'm sure it will be very satisfactory for you.

The main interesting thing from Virgil's example is how much better the Quinacridone Rose holds up to sunlight compared to the Alizarin and others. But that doens't mean it is the color you want for your particular subject.

Virgil Elliott
11-28-2008, 06:12 PM
Virgil mentioned that as far as lightfastness is concerned, the M.Graham Permanent Alizarin is a particularly good paint. I'm a newbie and still working out a palette. I like the handling qualities of the M.Graham paints generally, but I read someplace that as far as actually replacing the hue characteristics of original alizarin, the permanent alizarin offering by Gamblin was outstanding. I do notice that the M.Graham paint, in the tint in your experiment, seems a tiny bit blue-pinker, compared to the original alizarin sample. At any rate, the hue does appear somewhat different. I think the Gamblin paint is made from the same pigment as the M.Graham one. Any thoughts on this, anyone?

I'm obviously getting way ahead of myself - since I'm so new to oil painting such fine distinctions are unlikely to make a difference in any painting I produce at this point :lol: - but since the question occurred to me upon reading this thread, I thought I might as well ask it.

Many thanks again for the wealth of information that all of you - Virgil, enion, gunzorro, brian firth, sidbledsoe, bill martin (hope I didn't overlook anyone!) - provide to us newbies! :)

Annie,

It wasn't M. Graham's Permanent Alizarin that I mentioned, it was M.Graham's Quinacridone Rose. The Gamblin Alizarin Permanent is a mixture of three pigments, one of which is PV 19, quinacridone red, according to the information on the tube. M. Graham Quinacridone Rose is PV 19 quinacridone violet. There are different varieties of PV 19, and the performance may well differ from one to the next. On my panel, the M.Graham Quinacridone Rose has held its color better than everything else on the panel.

If, as you day, you are new to painting, then lightfastness need not be a primary concern for the time being, because if you have talent, you'll be doing work in a few years that's so much better than what you're doing now that you won't want anyone to see the early stuff anyway. So for the time being, proceed with whatever colors suit you, and don't worry too much about how long it will last. After you have more years of experience and are selling your paintings for good prices, then is when it will be important to become concerned with lightfastness.

Virgil Elliott

gunzorro
11-28-2008, 06:40 PM
"you won't want anyone to see the early stuff anyway"

Oh, Sensei, ouch! :)

Tough, but true!

AnnieA
11-29-2008, 01:46 PM
If you have a Graham paint that is called "Permanent Alizarin" I'm sure it will be very satisfactory for you. Actually, I don't have a Permanent Alizarin from M.Graham - I just now discovered that their Permanent Alizarin is only produced in watercolor paints (http://www.mgraham.com/html/technical.asp).

What I'm using right now is an old Permanent Pigments Alizarin that I've had forever - I was just asking because I know I'll need to find a good replacement. The Permanent Pigments' Alizarin is beautiful; I hope to find something like it. Maybe I'll eventually try the Gamblin one.

If, as you day, you are new to painting, then lightfastness need not be a primary concern for the time being, because if you have talent, you'll be doing work in a few years that's so much better than what you're doing now that you won't want anyone to see the early stuff anyway. So for the time being, proceed with whatever colors suit you, and don't worry too much about how long it will last. After you have more years of experience and are selling your paintings for good prices, then is when it will be important to become concerned with lightfastness.
I had to chuckle too at the "not wanting people to see the early stuff" thing...:lol: I'm actually not planning to sell, but I still want to proceed in the most professional manner possible in my work. I get the feeling that the search for the perfect alizarin replacement is one that will continue for many years to come. But as you say, it's probably not terribly relevant at the level I'm at now. It's just that, as I said, I really love the beauty of the old alizarin I've been using.

Thanks again for your input, guys...

Brian Firth
11-29-2008, 06:39 PM
I disagree. I think the idea that you should not worry about lightfastness when starting to paint is the very reason people still use pigments that are less than lightfast. You tend to use the pigments you learned to paint with for the rest of you life. If you learned to mix with alizarin crimson, you will be very reluctant to ever replace it because no other pigment exactly matches it's performance. However, if you never used it in the first place you would never have the need to change and adjust to a new pigment. It is better to, and frankly very easy in this day and age, to start out using very lightfast pigments to begin with and never expose yourself to the sinful pleasures of fugitive pigments.

sidbledsoe
11-29-2008, 11:33 PM
Right Brian, I fell in love with and used good ol pr83 back in the eighties, didn't know anything about it's lightfastness. Now that I have read all the horror stories on the net it just irks me that I can't use it now and feel comfortable. Plus every maker still sells it and it isn't expensive either! It is on every shelf at the stores and I am like a recovering addict being tempted by every tube. Just tried the gamblin perm aliz hue, like Doug says, it is not the same. My early stuff, though it may be lousy, is among my most treasured artifacts.

Virgil Elliott
11-30-2008, 02:02 PM
Archival Oils Permanent Alizarine is very close to PR 83 in color, and it's almost as lightfast as M. Graham's Quinacridone Rose. I find it replaces alizarin crimson PR 83 very well.

I, too, learned to paint using PR 83, starting in the 1950s, and I used it for many years, but I had no trouble whatsoever adapting to painting with more lightfast replacements once they became available.

Virgil Elliott

AnnieA
12-04-2008, 04:23 PM
Brian: You make good points, but this old tube of alizarin was one that I've had probably since I was at university, back in the late 60s (I'm ancient! :lol:). It makes better sense, as a newbie, for me to use that tube up at this point, rather than run out and get a new one, which may be what Virgil was responding to. If I were starting out from scratch that might be a different thing.

Sid: Oh, I'm so disappointed to hear that about the Gamblin Permanent Alizarin Hue. I was planning to use that as the replacement for what I have now when it gets used up. :sigh:

Virgil: Thanks for the tip about Archival Oils. Who knows, maybe I'm worrying unreasonably and will find the switch relatively easy as well.

sidbledsoe
12-04-2008, 04:30 PM
annie, that was just my opinion, it doesn't look the same in light tints which is where I use it, in skies, other painters much better than me say it is great so maybe you will like it. The switch I am sure is a head thing and many don't give it a second thought whereas silly people like me develop this nostalgic attachment!

marielizabeth
02-12-2009, 05:08 PM
Archival Oils Permanent Alizarine is very close to PR 83 in color, and it's almost as lightfast as M. Graham's Quinacridone Rose. I find it replaces alizarin crimson PR 83 very well.

I, too, learned to paint using PR 83, starting in the 1950s, and I used it for many years, but I had no trouble whatsoever adapting to painting with more lightfast replacements once they became available.

Virgil Elliott

Virgil, what is the pigment number, please.

marielizabeth
02-12-2009, 05:54 PM
Now I am looking for pr264. I thought I'd look through this thread and see if it was mentioned. I need a name brand and color name, please. I have been looking on Dick Blick's site and googling it, but so far no luck.
BTW, I have several substitutes for Aliz Crimson now, with a little tweaking winsor newton's permanent carmine, pr176. is the one I like best right now, is not the same, however. Next would be Schmicke Norma pr177, then Cennini, Pyrrole Irgazine Ruby mainly because the cennini is very wet, however i would have to say that Pr177 by any other name is not necessarily the same color.
I painted two very similar pictures, one 30 years ago and one finished in January. The one I painted 30 years ago I still remember how hard it was to get the reds to pop, and did it more with laying darks and complimentary colors next to it. I had no such problems this time, so I know the paints are better covering. I am also sure the old one has faded some, although I didn't think so before painting the newer one. I could post pictures if anyone is interested.
BTW am really pleased with the Michael Harding naples yellow substitute, Genuine Naples Yellow Light Py 41, although I hated ( I'm using the word hate here) his lead white Creminentz White in Walnut oil, which threw up walnut oil all over my pallete and is way too oiled down, I use it instead of oil to thin the Rublev Lead white, which I really do like, but it is a little warmer, it dries quicker and the consistencey suits me better.
These are my preferences, only, but thought I should report on my findings.
Thanks to everyone who has helped me find the paints I'm looking for. 'becca

Virgil Elliott
02-12-2009, 06:10 PM
Virgil, what is the pigment number, please.

Marie Elizabeth,

M. Graham's Quinacridone Rose is PV 19.

Archival Oils Permanent Alizarine is a mixture of PR 122 (quinacridone) and PR 175 (benzimidazolone maroon).

Virgil

oilpainter98
02-26-2009, 01:50 PM
naples yellow is PY41 and i think how its made is by heating lead and antimony, so antimony will be very close. I know my naples yellow is not genuine made by winsor and newton although it contains high amounts of lead. i do see on blick that the grum oils naples yellow are listed as a hue, and looks like the closest to it is unbleached tit. white, which you could mix with a little cad. yellow or hansa yellow and get something relative to naples yellow. I dont see anything wrong with using the hue though.

oilpainter98
02-26-2009, 01:52 PM
try mixing iron oxide, which is i think raw siena or yellow ochre ( not sure) with tit. white

dcorc
03-03-2009, 05:39 AM
BTW am really pleased with the Michael Harding naples yellow substitute, Genuine Naples Yellow Light Py 41

:confused: That's not a "naples yellow substitute", that's the real thing! And one of very few manufacturers who still make it.


, although I hated ( I'm using the word hate here) his lead white Creminentz White in Walnut oil, which threw up walnut oil all over my pallete and is way too oiled down..

Hmm - usually, when you get a lot of oil out of the top of a premium-grade paint, it is because the paint has settled out, in the tube. I find that putting the top back on the tube and gently massaging the tube for a while (for example while reading online) tends to help.


Dave

marielizabeth
03-03-2009, 05:51 AM
Finally posting the two paintings I painted from pictures of original paintings done by Daniel Ridgeway Knight.
The one on the left was done in 1974 using Grumbacher Pretest paints including Alizarin Crimson and Cad Red light as the two reds.
The one on the right finished 2009 using WN permanent carmine, Pr176, Schmicke Norma Pr177, and Cennini, Pyrrole Irgazine Ruby also Pr177 and Grahm's Cadmium Red light Pr108 as the reds.
The painting done in 1974 has hung across from eastern glass doors for 14 years where it is drenched in light every morning until noon-1 o'clock every day.
Prior to living here the painting was in a room with southern glass door with UV film to block rays and north window.
And from the time it was finished until then it was on a western wall in a room with a southern window and glass doors and while not exposed to direct sun light it was in a light -filled room.
Until I saw the paintings side by side I didn't believe the old painting had faded, but now it is obvious that it has. I know the flowers were never as brilliant; I remember trying to make them appear to be, but the woman's clothes were as dark originally as the new painting.

I just want to add that it appears the old painting has yellowed some as well, Titainium white was the white I used to paint it and linseed oil and oil of turps. Several brands of lead whites and walnut oil and OMS used on the new painting.

marielizabeth
03-03-2009, 06:04 AM
[QUOTE=dcorc]:confused: That's not a "naples yellow substitute", that's the real thing! And one of very few manufacturers who still make it.


I started this thread looking for a paint to replace the old Grumbacher's Finest Naples Yellow of which I have about 1/2 tube left. That's what I meant by substitute. The fact that it's the real deal is probably why I'm so happy:wink2: :lol: :clap: :wave:

gunzorro
03-03-2009, 10:11 AM
Besides the beautiful color, I expect you will like the Harding Naples' handling -- very smooth and nice blending.

Einion
03-03-2009, 03:15 PM
Thanks for posting those EmmyBee, great to be able to compare then side by side http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/20-Aug-2003/3842-thumbsup.gif

Until I saw the paintings side by side I didn't believe the old painting had faded, but now it is obvious that it has.
Do you see noticeable fading in the tints that you know contain Alizarin Crimson?

I just want to add that it appears the old painting has yellowed some as well...
Slight yellowing is quite normal for oil paintings.

Is it varnished do you remember?


Hey Jim, perfect time to ask - you have PBr24 in oils too yes? How does it compare in oils to PY41 in terms of opacity, handling? I know the natural pigment varies a lot so a single example is just that (unless you have others), but was curious if you had any specific observations from direct comparisons.

Einion

gunzorro
03-03-2009, 08:08 PM
Einion -- I posted some examples included in the recent thread on Oil: http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=548950

The photos on this above thread are for the most part from my Photobucket inventory of the past year or two, with a new one on Yellow Ochre Natural and Synthetic comparison.

Of the Naples Yellow PY41 and "Naples Yellow" imitation PBr24 there is quite a bit of difference. I really as sorry that PRr24 has become labeled as a "hue" because it is an outstanding stand-alone single pigment, with only a similarity to the real thing, but not really a imitation in intent.

I have both Harding types of the genuine stuff, the Light and Dark. I also have Vasari's Naples genuine, as well as their two versions of PBr24: Naples Orange and Tuscan Yellow, as well as their Naples Yellow (hue). ;) The Vasari are not shown except one PBr24 in a photo further down.

I have recently received small sample tubes, courtesy of Jacques Blockx, of Blockx version of four of their special and extremely expensive Historical Paints, including the Light and Dark versions. Also included by Jacques were the other two Historical Paints: Vermilion and Lapis Lazuli. (Yes, the Light version is slightly greenish! Very unusual!)

Here is a color sheet showing the Blockx colors, in various intermixing, along wtih comparison to the Harding genuine Naples, and other similar colors. (apologies --the red in the Vermilions is slightly oversaturated in the photo)

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_6086web.jpg

I don't like to do redundant posts between the various forums here at WC, but this example of some PBr24 will be convenient to contrast to the genuine Naples above.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_5164web.jpg

In opacity, all the genuine Naples I have tried are to be considered semi-opaque: they are opaque, but their tinting strength is not very powerful. Vasari is the most opaque, most powerful and also a bright yellow. The Harding Light version has the most vibrant bright yellow -- similar to an anemic version of Cadmium Yellow Light. The very lack of opacity and strength is a plus, for the uses geniune Naples will most commonly be put to -- portraiture, and secondarily, landscape painting.

In consistency/handling, Vasari is the thickest, but not pasty. All the genuine Naples have the consistency range of its primary components lead and antimony, being most similar in handling to lead white paint -- in other words, quite smooth and creamy.

The PBr24 paints have a tremendous covering power, being very opaque and very strong tinters. Quite similar to what you might imagine a "cadmium earth" would be like. They have a some variation in hue, the most extreme probably being the Vasari Naples Orange and Tuscan Yellow, hence the brand's desire to provide both. PBr24 is fairly close to the Dark versions of genuine Naples, but lacks its subtley and transluscency. A very useful pigment, that I dare say I've used more often than genuine Naples -- which I have a natural aversion to using up! :)

The following sheet shows my comparisons at the time I had received the Vasari Naples, along with their Capucine Red Light and their new (last year's introduction) of Transparent Oxides --the five colors center-left of the sheet.

To the right of the Vasari Naples is Harding's Light verson for direct comparison. The Harding is the brightest of the Naples I have tried with the strongest chroma.

Down the left, center and right sides are various mixes. The left side shows how UMB mixes into the five Vasari colors shown. The central (yellow) column, shows Vasari Naples mixed into the four other Vasari earth colors. On the right side are two similar columns showing the five Vasari colors mixed into Venetian Red in the left-hand column, and Capucine Red Deep on the right-hand side.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/Vas-Transp-Ox-web.jpg

Einion
03-04-2009, 08:02 AM
Wow, thanks Jim - I was hoping to get just a few sentences!

I don't like to do redundant posts between the various forums here at WC...
Perfectly understandable, thanks a mil for all the info.

Of the Naples Yellow PY41 and "Naples Yellow" imitation PBr24 there is quite a bit of difference.
PY41 can vary across quite a range (not just towards lighter, yellower types), I have seen samples that are much more of an earth orange, seemingly very similar to a typical PBr24, although without direct comparison it's hard to be sure. But Chrome Titanate can apparently vary hugely too!

I really as sorry that PRr24 has become labeled as a "hue" because it is an outstanding stand-alone single pigment, with only a similarity to the real thing, but not really a imitation in intent.
Yep. Thankfully it is provided in a few paint lines under different names so it won't be 'unfairly cast' everywhere; artists are generally getting more informed so the hue designation won't be automatically thought of as a negative as much as it used to be, I hope.

I have it in acrylics in one range as Gold Ochre (which is a great name for it IMO, given the colour). I though it was offered under its real name too although I can't recall which brand or medium

Einion

gunzorro
03-04-2009, 03:07 PM
Thanks Einion!

Due to your interest and continued encouragement, I've done something special -- a direct comparison of all the undiluted PRr24 in my collection, as well as -- a comparison of all the genuine Naples Yellow in my collection. Pretty interesting results! :)

Although I doubt it will be a hot topic of discussion, I'm putting it on its own thread so it will be easier to find.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7653960#post7653960

Brian Firth
03-05-2009, 02:41 PM
Hey Jim,
How about throwing a swatch of the Blockx Vermilion in the California sun and letting us know how it does! :)

gunzorro
03-05-2009, 07:28 PM
Ha-ha!! Brian -- You know me pretty well!!! ;) It's been out there for about 3-1/2 weeks, next to an earlier section of Harding Vermilion (which has darkened quite a bit). I put the Blockx on the existing canvas as wet paint without covering a portion, and let it dry outdoors -- I can simply add some fresh paint when ready for photos. I'm pretty certain the Blockx is beginning to darken as well.

If so, that would make it Harding, Blockx and Holbein all darkening in bright light, and only Doak not doing so -- which would seem to cast more suspicion on the Doak Vermilion being genuine. Even if we find Doak is not genuine, I still love it, and it must be cadmium-based, with possibly Pyrol Orange mixed in -- which wouldn't be a bad combo.

Brian Firth
03-06-2009, 12:29 PM
Ha-ha!! Brian -- You know me pretty well!!! ;) It's been out there for about 3-1/2 weeks, next to an earlier section of Harding Vermilion (which has darkened quite a bit). I put the Blockx on the existing canvas as wet paint without covering a portion, and let it dry outdoors -- I can simply add some fresh paint when ready for photos. I'm pretty certain the Blockx is beginning to darken as well.

If so, that would make it Harding, Blockx and Holbein all darkening in bright light, and only Doak not doing so -- which would seem to cast more suspicion on the Doak Vermilion being genuine. Even if we find Doak is not genuine, I still love it, and it must be cadmium-based, with possibly Pyrol Orange mixed in -- which wouldn't be a bad combo.

Great Jim, looks like all real vermilion darkens in sunlight, except Doak's. I am getting ready to test RGH and Blue Ridge's genuine vermilion, which all look like the Doak color and will keep everyone posted on the results. RGH is apparently the source for Doak and Blue Ridge's pigment and I called them and the guy said he was "pretty sure" it was genuine mercuric sulfide. I agree that whatever the Doak pigment is, it is beautifully unique, and very lightfast. So, it's hard not love it! :)

Brian Firth
03-07-2009, 02:15 PM
UPDATE- Yesterday I got the RGH and Blue Ridge vermilion and neither one is the same shade as the Doak vermilion I have, with the Blue Ridge being considerably oranger in masstone and in tints. Possibly Blue Ridge grinds theirs finer to make it more orange? The RGH vermilion has the strong metallic smell that all cadmium reds do, so that makes me think it's not even real vermilion. The Doak and Blue Ridge do not have a noticeable smell. So, this kind of shoots a hole in the "RGH being the source of Doak and Blue Ridge's vermilion" theory. I am testing them both to see if they darken. In my opinion the Blue Ridge paint was the most pigmented and beautiful of the three. As soon as they dry I will scan and post images of what I am seeing.