PDA

View Full Version : Values???


Loretta7
11-19-2008, 07:00 AM
I'm really having trouble getting my mind around the idea of "values". What I'm stuck on is ... how to make many colors the same value.

Example: Take yellow and blue, or red and yellow, etc, etc. From what I've read, adding black or white to a color will change its value. But how do I know when I've reached the same "value" of both colors? Is there an easy way to do this?

I can change the value of one color, but how can I achieve that same value in another?

If I have an underpainting and glaze two separate colors over an area that is of a similar black and white area, does that make them the same value? But if I don't have an underpainting to begin with, how do I know the colors I've mixed are the same value?

I need help grasping this idea!!!

Loretta

Einion
11-19-2008, 08:06 AM
Hi Loretta, thanks for your question. First off, value is hard for lots of us to get a good handle on so you're not alone.

I'm really having trouble getting my mind around the idea of "values". What I'm stuck on is ... how to make many colors the same value.

Example: Take yellow and blue, or red and yellow, etc, etc. From what I've read, adding black or white to a color will change its value. But how do I know when I've reached the same "value" of both colors? Is there an easy way to do this?
We have to learn to judge this by eye. It helps a lot if you have a value scale to compare to, although it can still be tricky (see final point).

Just to mention, it's not just by adding black or white - value can change doing a number of other mixtures, including when blending mixing complements, and it's important to realise or notice when this happens and compensate if necessary. In the case of some complementary mixtures this would often involve lightening the mix by adding a little white - this is one common method for mixing halftones - although sometimes you'll need to use more than just white, also adding a touch of yellow for reds or greens for example.

I can change the value of one color, but how can I achieve that same value in another?
By judgement/comparison, mixing the second colour with something as required.

If I have an underpainting and glaze two separate colors over an area that is of a similar black and white area, does that make them the same value?
This is a good question. Glazing unfortunately complicates things, which is one reason some good painters recommend opaque painting initially until you've grasped value well.

But anyway, the simple answer is no, not really; it depends on the values of the two glazing colours though :) If you imagine a dark blue and a brilliant red applied thinly over one other colour you'll end up with something darker with the blue, other things being equal, because the blue is darker to begin with. But a thinner coat of the blue and a thicker coat of the red could result in the same value if that's what the goal is.

One thing to mention is that value judgement is difficult for brilliant colour; this previous post has some more info and links on to other previous threads that should provide more help:
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6883685#post6883685

Einion

Loretta7
11-19-2008, 10:18 AM
Thank you so much for pointing me in the right direction with the listed link. I see that others were seeking an answer to the same problem.

I see that yes I can produce a value scale by creating a chart for each color, adding other colors to change its value and then check it by greyscaling it in photoshop to have a permanent numbered value colored reference. Well now, I find that quite an interesting project.

Thanks again :wave: .

gunzorro
11-19-2008, 03:02 PM
Keep in mind that colors can be lightened and darkened with the same type of color from a different pigment. For example, Yellow can be darkened with a Raw Sienna (upper-middle value) or Raw Umber (darker value), and the mix tends to be partially between the two, depending on proportions. Keep in mind when adding black that yellow tends toward green as it approaches the middle values and becomes more strongly green-colored the darker it becomes -- this is normal.

The three usual colors many painters choose to start with, yellow, red and blue (assuming bright colors), are of different values to start with -- they will not equalize in value until changed from the brilliant color that comes from the tube. A "pure yellow" is always high in value (close to white) and never descends to the mid values at full strength. Red, on the other hand, is a mid-valued color and won't be as vivid at either end of the value scale. Similarly, blue is a darker mid-value and can never get into the lighter values and still be vivid blue.

The short answer is that there is no direct value parallel between colors (hues), and is partially the reason the color space for pigments (Munsell) is oddly shaped, not a perfect sphere (chroma also is stronger for some colors than others) -- it bulges out at the top values for yellow, and bulges out on the bottom darker values for blue-purple.

dbclemons
11-19-2008, 06:21 PM
A helpful technique is to have a printed strip with a value range of gray squares on it. Nine shades between white to black is useful. You can trim it so the values are on one edge of the strip, or use a hole punch to poke a hole in each value, and hold that up to the two colors you are trying to match. Shift the squares next to the color and see which shade blends with it the closest.

Loretta7
11-20-2008, 02:37 AM
Thanks Dave and Gunzorro - I guess I have a lot to learn. I'll work on your suggestions.

Thanks again,
Loretta

LVPainter
11-24-2008, 12:56 AM
Hi Loretta, I have found a couple of ways to help make value judgements in working with colors.
First by mixing equal amounts of your white and black together, you will get your starting value gray. It's good to see the tinting strength of your white and black, it's a good test.
Next use a little of that mix and add an equal amount of white, see how much lighter (higher in value) it becomes.
Continue mixing (equal amounts) of both white to lighten and black to darken until you have a dark which is just lighter than your tube black and a light value gray which is just darker than your tube white. You will have created your value scale. Keep record of your mixes.
You can then use the scale to evaluate each of the colors on your palette to determine their starting or tube value and lighten or darken according to your needs.
As you train you eye to see value you will naturally move from the gray scale to mixing values using more colors.
Hope this basic information will be helpful for you,
Sharon

Loretta7
11-24-2008, 04:08 AM
Thanks Sharon for the good advice. Yes, I plan on keeping a record of mixes.

Loretta

mr.wiggles
11-26-2008, 11:24 AM
Jim is right find lower value colors from the same family.
Raw Umbra however will make a green when mixed with Yellow.
I would use Raw Sienna( as suggested) and Yellow Ocher.
Experiment and take notes of the mixtures.

If you mix just White and Black you will get a gray that is moving towards blue. You need to add a Raw or Burnt Umbra to bring them towrds neutrals. This is hard stuff, it takes a lot of work but it is worth it.

The best way to learn to paint values is to paint plaster casts.
If you can afford a good one buy a head, a hand, and a foot.
However they are not cheap, but if you really want to get good at this painting black and white value studies is my recomondation.

I would advise investing in a Munsell Gray Scale booklet, they are about $55 but the are accurate for neutrals and they are in quarter tones which is nice so you gage how off you are. The only downside to the booklet is that it's sensitive to light, so you need to keep them out the sun or strong light sources for prolonged periods or they will fade. There is a warning on the back about this.

Dave Hawk
11-26-2008, 12:59 PM
Hey Dude a good old technic to use while mixing

If you hold the 2 colors up to each other and squint the darker value color will disapear 1st. Work the other color so that they both will fade together when you squint.
Once you can see colors disapear together that's a big part of the battle it will become easer with out having to squint all the time.

Einion
11-26-2008, 04:12 PM
As far as using darker colours of the same general type to darken yellows, if we assume the earths are the right hue for the starting yellow they might not be the kind of colour that's really needed. Here's an example picture that was posted in a prior thread:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/05-Aug-2003/3842-Yellow_Examples.JPG

Plus, as soon as you mix the yellow with something that shifts its hue toward green or orange those carefully-selected earths wouldn't match any more.

This aside, it would be very hard to pick a palette where you're sure they'd be the right hue anyway - earths vary across a surprisingly large range and one person's Raw Umber would be a very different hue to their Raw Sienna, while someone else's could be much closer; more detail in this (http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=391648) prior thread where there are some Munsell hue definitions posted for a range of earths.

Einion

Loretta7
11-27-2008, 04:12 AM
Well all that y'all are saying is still not penetrating my thick skull, so maybe I need some hands-on experimenting to help it sink in.

My MGraham colors arrived the other day - burnt sienna, burnt umber, yellow ochre, black ivory, white, ultramarine blue. Maybe these colors were a poor choice, but that's what I'll be beginning to learn with. Also bought a canvas pad which I thought would be appropriate to practice on as I'm sure I'll be wasting a lot of material. I want to stay with a limited palette at this beginning stage.

I have been deliberately looking about at the colors I see and I'm seeing subtle changes more and more - maybe that's good. Also, I'm very much surprised when I'm watching older movies on tv and notice how the colors in a scene were distinctly used to achieve an artistic palette. This is really an awakening to me. Anyway, I'm on my journey to understand color at last. Goodness, but it's not as easy as I thought it would be!

Thank you all for sharing your comments.
Loretta

mr.wiggles
11-28-2008, 10:34 AM
Your right it's not easy. I would start with doing gray scales and painting some black and white paintings. Also you could use two colors and white, Burnt Sienna and Ultramarine Blue. This is a good transition from black and white into some color. Learning how to paint values is easer in black and white. Also by doing it this way you concentrate only on the values.

Good luck!

gunzorro
11-28-2008, 05:46 PM
Loretta -- I think you have chosen a very nice set to get started. It is definitely not student grade -- it is higher quality artist grade paint. And I like that you kept the colors simple, but still a nice range.

I agree with mr. wiggles -- try some exercises first making the value scales from black to white with black and white, then try mixing addtional strings of Burnt Sienna + Ultramarine Blue, and another of Burnt Umber + Ultramarine Blue to give you two variations of "neutral grey". You'll be wanting neutral grey to knock back the color as it comes from the tube.

Try something and let us know your results.

Ribera
11-29-2008, 02:52 PM
Loretta,
As far as creating a value gradation for a single hue, technically impossible.
Every color has, what I've heard referred to as it's home level: it's most chromatic value. All hues ascending or descending therefrom are, hence, very importantly, less bright. For example, should one choose to manufacture a string of yellows, once one has descended into the lower values, it's no longer just a true yellow. This is so for all colors. Strings are a thing the human race invented, and they may work well, but, officially, as far as each string being but one chroma- wrong.

Again, if you were mixing up a string of oranges, whence you got to the darker versions, you must use browns- comprised of more than just yellow and red; -You Must!! In fact, the pair of hues that make orange are mid-value at darkest to begin with. Just use some common sense here.

You also enquired of how one would match the value while glazing, although I'll get some argument here, a glaze, by definition, is deeper than what it's layed atop, as a scumble, higher, so, if I gather you correctly, it seems you essentially misunderstand exactly what a glaze is, i.e. they should never match the value of the underpainting, per se- by glazing/scumbling you're intentionally adjusting the values.
As far as learning to mixing values correctly, practice makes perfect.
r.

mr.wiggles
11-29-2008, 09:37 PM
Ribera are you saying that doing value strings are wrong?

I have to beg to differ and the information your giving here is misleading. Studying values and using controlled palettes has a long history in painting. People can do what they want, but I strongly advocate at least a year of serious value studies if one wants to paint using any kind of value based technique.
I also recommend getting Harold Speeds book on painting and Juliette Arstides book Classical Painting Atelier. There is enough information and exercises to keep you busy for about 3 years or more.

Ribera
11-29-2008, 10:56 PM
Mr. Wiggles,
Just wanna clear up a few things:
Misleading?!- What I wrote was actually spot-on.
Examine exactly what I wrote before writing: I never said, or would say, doing value strings is wrong.
In fact, in my training I've done strings. I said the exact hue of a string cannot ever be the same from top to bottom, a fact one whose done 'em would know quite well.
I'm aware strings have been taught historically, although for the most part, frankly, they weren't.
'Read both of Speeds' books ages ago.
And, eh, exactly what did I write that was "misleading"?

dcorc
11-29-2008, 11:06 PM
I said the exact hue of a string cannot ever be the same from top to bottom, a fact one whose done 'em would know quite well.

Actually, it can. This is one of the advantages of doing strings matched to Munsell chips.

Ribera
11-30-2008, 09:22 AM
Dcorc,
Please tell me your mixing combination for any string you use.
I guarantee it employs a number of colors, whether
even you know it or not.
Now, I'm not sayin' strings are hence, bad, just that they're not
comprised of one color; Impossible Scientifically.
Oh, and I did the Munsell color-chip thing ages ago.
If one disagrees with me, please spare me the opinions.
Some raw data?!

dcorc
11-30-2008, 09:29 AM
Ribera, spare me the condescension and aggressivenes.

I haven't the slightest interest in how many "colours" (i.e. pigments) are involved. The fact of the matter is that it is possible to produce mixes that are stepped in value, and hold both hue and chroma. Having produced such a string, one may then paint with it.

WFMartin
11-30-2008, 10:22 AM
There is enough information and exercises to keep you busy for about 3 years or more.

Yes, it surely should, if that's one's goal!.:wink2:

dcorc
11-30-2008, 10:28 AM
Bill, have you ever read either Harold Speed's book, or Juliette Aristides'?

mr.wiggles
11-30-2008, 12:17 PM
I'm getting a sense of Déjà vu here.

I did read your post Ribera, this is your statement: "As far as creating a value gradation for a single hue, technically impossible." I find this to a very misleading statement. If I take Cad Yellow light and I want to decrease the chroma and lower the values I will have to use lower chroma paint. While on face value, no pun intended, your right, I can't lower the value of Cad Yellow Light with Cad Yellow Light, but I could with Cad Yellow deep. However I will still have a high chroma color. In making value strings one has to lower the chroma to go down. The whole point of the idea is to have control over what your trying to paint. You can't paint the sun or the sky because it's values are a lot higher than paint goes. So you need to have a system that can create a balanced illusion of that particular reality. Hence learning to master values by what ever means is one of the ways to do this.

Bill your entitled to your own ideas and beliefs, however in the case of this subject and the books I mentioned do you have any solid evidence that can be documented to back up your ideas?

Speed is dead but Juliette is very much alive and from I have seen of her students she is doing something right. Her methods are proven and the results of her education is validated by hundreds of years of practice and results.

If you want to become a better realest painter learn to draw well and do values studies. If you can paint a good black and white then you can paint a good one in color. These are my suggestions to the question that was asked by Loretta in relation to values and learning how to get better at understanding how they relate to painting form. You can't learn this in a month or two, some people see it faster then others but time and practice is the only way that this can be mastered. There is no other way and patience is a virtue in this case.

Virtue: In its widest sense, virtue refers to excellence, promoting individual and collective well-being.

In classical Greek, virtue is more properly called ἠθικὴ ἀρετή (ēthikē aretē), or "habitual excellence", something practiced at all times. The virtue of perseverance is itself a necessary adjunct to each and every individual virtue, since, overall, virtue is a species of habit which, in order to maintain oneself in virtue, needs to be continuously sustained.

This can be applied to the study of art, all art.


Thank you Wikipedia...

WFMartin
11-30-2008, 08:12 PM
Actually, Wiggles, I agree with you. One cannot darken a color in value, without also decreasing its chroma, as well, if only a small bit. But that is only true if one begins with a color that is at the MIDDLE of the VALUE scale.

The reason is simply that the shape of a theoretical, 3-dimensional color "model" is basically double-conical, as if one were to stick two empty, ice-cream cones together, opening to opening, with neutral, white being at one pointed end (the top, for those to whom that seems to make a difference), and neutral black being at the other pointed end (the bottom, in such a case). If one were to begin with what is a light color, already, and darken it, it is essentially decreasing the amount of white. That, in effect, quite literally increases chroma of that color. Whereas, if one begins with a color in the center of that model (around its girth), any further "darkening" of the color adds neutrality, by the simple reason that the absolute limit of any "darkening" of a color is, by pure logic, black.

The same can be said for lightening a color, but in that case, the lightest limit to which you can progress is white. Since both black AND white exhibit the same degree of neutrality, it is quite safe to state that either lightening OR darkening a color that occurs at the exact center girth of the color model will cause it to become more neutral.

One does not need a full-fledged, color model mock-up in front of them to understand this. One only needs to have some knowledge of color behavior.
So, wiggles, I am most certainly not against the understanding of color. In fact, I'm not even against doing a few exercises in mixing to create an understandig of a few concepts of it. In fact, I recommend certain "exercises" to others, quite often. However, once a simple "concept" is learned, I do not feel that it needs to be continually re-substantiated by doing the same "exercises" over and over, but each time using a different color. The learning of the concept is useful, but the continual re-establishing of the concept is pure nonsense.....in my opinion.

Bill

mr.wiggles
11-30-2008, 09:14 PM
Bill I'm not advocating doing the same exercises over and over again.
I am simply saying that the best way to understand how to control values is to paint a lot of black and white studies. Using plaster casts does two things; you can work on the values and drawing forms. As far as starting in the middle of a color model that seems odd to me for the simple reason that a color at it's highest chroma or strength is as high as it can go before adding white.

If I have Cobalt Blue and Cadmium Yellow they are both at full chroma coming out a tube, but at different values. Adding black or white will lower and raise the value but the color will shift so will the chroma. This is not easy stuff, at least for me it's not. Getting colors to move in and out of color space is hard, at least doing it well is.

WFMartin
11-30-2008, 10:41 PM
I am simply saying that the best way to understand how to control values is to paint a lot of black and white studies. Using plaster casts does two things; you can work on the values and drawing forms.

***I agree with that. When you are finished, you at least have painted a subject with some degree of reality and form, rather than a bunch of squares of colors.


As far as starting in the middle of a color model that seems odd to me for the simple reason that a color at it's highest chroma or strength is as high as it can go before adding white.

***I think that's pretty much what I said, except that I would also add, "before adding black", as well.

If I have Cobalt Blue and Cadmium Yellow they are both at full chroma coming out a tube, but at different values.

***Well, they may be at "full chroma" for that particular tubed color (in other words, as "full chroma" as that particular tubed color can get), but they are surely not necessarily considered a "full chroma color", based upon a full-chroma hue of "Cobalt Blue", for example. A true, full-chroma Cobalt Blue would plot at the exact outer ring of the color wheel, and I'm quite sure that a tubed Cobalt Blue will not do that.


Adding black or white will lower and raise the value but the color will shift so will the chroma.

***Adding black or white will surely lower or raise the value, and, because both white and black are neutrals, will most certainly lower the chroma (whether it is black OR white that is being added), but whether the color actually shifts when doing this is based upon a couple of manageable phenomenon--one of them being overtones. Not all colors exhibit this hue change when either black or white are mixed with them, but only some of them. An overtone is rather an anomaly, and does not occur with every color. Yes, this is one phenomenon that is a bit unpredictable, but still quite understandable, once one is aware of it.

However, the primary colors DO exhibit a decided hue shift when darkened, yellow being the most prone to doing so. The reason is that the primary colors, Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow each reflect TWO THIRDS of the RGB (while light) spectrum. When each is darkened, the OTHER third simply begins to show itself, and to become more prominent. Please notice I said "darkened", and not "mixed with black". It is for this reason that a primary yellow becomes green (or, at least, green-ISH) when darkened, and with almost ANY darkening "agent". Yellow (to truly be considered "primary yellow") reflects an equal amount of red and green light. When darkened, it begins to exhibit its other component.....green. It is for this reason that even when mixing what some consider to be a "warm black" or even an umber, such as Raw Umber with yellow, it still exhibits a greenish cast. This phenomenon is nothing very extraordinary, and it occurs with each of the 3 primary colors. It simply needs to be understood, and accounted for, when it begins to manifest itself. It is no secret. But, it must be understood in order to manage it, when mixing colors.

Cyan and Magenta exhibit this tendency, as well-- Magenta to a greater extent than Cyan. Magenta begins to exhibit its blue-ness when darkened, and Cyan, to a much lesser extent, its green-ness.

Those primary colors, such as yellow that come the closest to plotting on the optimum location on the color wheel as a true primary, exhibit this tendency the most, while Magenta and Cyan exhibit it less, simply because they do not do their jobs of reflecting their two thirds as well as the yellow does--Magenta being a bit more likely to exhibit this phenomenon than Cyan, simply, because it, like yellow, is a bit more of a true primary color in its location on a color wheel than Cyan.

Most secondary colors really do not change their hues when darkened--at least not as much as the primary colors do. One can mix a neutral black with a blue (a scondary color), for example, and watch it become darker and darker with each addition, until it finally becomes "Black", without exhibiting much of a hue change, as the primary, Yellow, would. The closer your initial color is to being a true, scientific secondary color, the less hue shift you can expect to experience when adding black.

This is not easy stuff, at least for me it's not. Getting colors to move in and out of color space is hard, at least doing it well is.

***More seems to be continually made of this than should be. And, pigment colors cannot ever move "out" of "color space", simply because they are trapped within their own gamut of possibilities. However, they most certainly CAN move WITHIN their gamut of color space. But, I do not wish to parse your words of such a good-sounding phrase as "in and out of color space".

The learning of a few important concepts, and applying them seems to fairly well balance out against the cranking out of huge color charts and exercises. The problem seems to be that most would rather do the exercises than to understand the concepts behind the causes of the resulting colors. I can see where one might consider that to be fun, but just not very productive. I find it much easier to use what small knowledge I may have to PREDICT the colors of my resulting mixes before I begin them, rather than to mix dozens of colors, in order to be able to select the most appropriate one(s). When I first began painting, I knew that when I mixed black with yellow I'd most likely achieve a dirty green, and without bothering to test it out. That sort of color management comes wtih knowledge, and not by doing endless exercises to prove it. But, of course, that's just my opinion and method of operation. I truly DO realize that others may not wish to work in that manner.

Bill

Einion
12-01-2008, 09:02 AM
Misleading?!- What I wrote was actually spot-on.
Actually, no it wasn't for reasons I'll go into below.

And, eh, exactly what did I write that was "misleading"?
This part:
As far as creating a value gradation for a single hue, technically impossible.
Every color has, what I've heard referred to as it's home level: it's most chromatic value. All hues ascending or descending therefrom are, hence, very importantly, less bright.
A range of values of the same hue can be made quite easily with the right paints and a little care and attention.

You also use the term hue erratically here - it reads as though you're using it to mean hue in the first line, but in the last sentence you are clearly referring to colours.

Additionally, it seems you're saying that when you make a range of values from a given paint the chroma always goes down.

You also enquired of how one would match the value while glazing...
I think you need to re-read what was asked in the opening post.

...although I'll get some argument here, a glaze, by definition, is deeper than what it's layed atop, as a scumble, higher, so, if I gather you correctly, it seems you essentially misunderstand exactly what a glaze is, i.e. they should never match the value of the underpainting, per se- by glazing/scumbling you're intentionally adjusting the values.
Why can't a glaze be the same value as the colour over which it's being applied? You can use a glaze of a transparent paint to raise chroma without altering value if needed, for example.

Just because a thin layer of, or thinned, paint or mixture of paints is the same value as what it is being applied to doesn't make it not a glaze.

Einion

Einion
12-01-2008, 09:23 AM
I said the exact hue of a string cannot ever be the same from top to bottom, a fact one whose done 'em would know quite well. Actually, it can. This is one of the advantages of doing strings matched to Munsell chips.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/20-Aug-2003/3842-thumbsup.gif

The fact of the matter is that it is possible to produce mixes that are stepped in value, and hold both hue and chroma. Having produced such a string, one may then paint with it.
Had to think about this for a few moments - chroma's the same for each column while the value changes as you go up and down. So yep, there can be a range of values of one hue all with the same chroma and it's probably easiest to visualise this using the Munsell model.


The reason is simply that the shape of a theoretical, 3-dimensional color "model" is basically double-conical, as if one were to stick two empty, ice-cream cones together, opening to opening, with neutral, white being at one pointed end (the top, for those to whom that seems to make a difference), and neutral black being at the other pointed end (the bottom, in such a case).
A 3D colour solid could take that form, but it would be incorrect.

The Munsell solid is essentially the correct shape. You might remember this illustration in a thread from a long while back:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/08-Aug-2003/3842-Munsell.JPG

Any thoughts about the way that colour attributes change as you go in different directions that are predicated on a colour model of the wrong form could be off. For example it is possible to take 'a colour' (i.e. a specific point) in the middle values where darkening could - not necessarily will - increase chroma, as should be easy to see from the above image.

One does not need a full-fledged, color model mock-up in front of them to understand this.
Actually a lot of people would benefit from having something at hand to help visualise some of the things you talked about. It's very difficult for many people - even some who have been painting for a long while - to visualise colour well in their heads; I've tested this many times with friends and colleagues :)

One only needs to have some knowledge of color behavior.
One also needs to keep in mind that colour behaviour (theory) and paint behaviour (practice) don't necessarily coincide as neatly as one would prefer.

Einion

sidbledsoe
12-01-2008, 09:30 AM
Some glaze different colors with same values, for example a light blue glaze over a darker value yellow underpainting to get an optically mixed green rather than an opaque, palette mixed green. The purpose would be to adjust the color, not the value, though the final value may be slightly different than the underpainting.

WFMartin
12-02-2008, 10:22 AM
To a color measuring instrument, the color, Yellow, for example, is just as "dark" in its value as the color, Blue, or the color Red. Hence, there is no need for such a skewed model, with Yellow and Blue being given such different accomodations, in a theoretical model. The Munsell Model tends to be more of a "visual" model, rather than a scientific model. It is "scientific" in that is has arrays of precisely (almost "super-precisely") calibrated chips of color (and, that is primarily the purpose for which it was designed), but it is not necessarily so scientific in terms of actual plotting of colors (I'm referring to the "skewed" appearance of the model, between Yellow and Blue). The calibrating has obviously been done quite scientifically, but I'm not sure that it has even assigned Cyan or Magenta positions on its wheel, and they are primary colors.

Munsell rather intermixes the two atributes or dimensions of color Hue and Value, and, because Yellow simply LOOKS as though it's "lighter" than Blue, for example, gets assigned a different amounts of space on the model. That's one reason the Munsel Model seems to be so popular among artists--because it is more of a VISUAL model than a scientific model.

To a theorist, the color, Yellow, truly exhibits no more unique properties than any other color on the color wheel (other than its hue, of course, which makes it a different "color" than Red, Cyan, Magenta, Green, or Blue), and, as such doesn't truly deserve to be assigned any particular special consideration regarding its placement on a color model.

So, the theoretical "model" of a color pretty much follows a double-cone, rather than this skewed presentation that Munsell proposes.
________________________________________________________________
"One also needs to keep in mind that colour behaviour (theory) and paint behaviour (practice) don't necessarily coincide as neatly as one would prefer."

Actually, after working with printers' inks (over 40 years), oil paint, watercolor, and acrylics, for over 20 years, I have not found that to be true. The theory and the practice have always seemed to work out VERY neatly for me, in terms of predictability and desired results. I have never been one to invent problems where there don't seem to be any. There are a couple of pesky anomalies, such as overtones, that creep in, once in awhile, but I believe those to be the exception to the basic rules of color behavior, rather than the "rule", and they are easily managed.

Bill

dcorc
12-02-2008, 10:40 AM
Value measures reflectance

Munsell Value 9 = 78.66% reflectance
Munsell Value 7 = 43.06% reflectance
Munsell Value 5 = 19.77% reflectance
Munsell Value 3 = 6.555% reflectance

From "The New Munsell Student Color Set", p5:
All colors that have the same Munsell value, regardless of what hue they are, reflect the same amount of light

gunzorro
12-02-2008, 11:07 AM
Bill -- I have to disagree as well to several of your points.

The Munsell scale of notation was developed as a scientific color model.

Regarding colors at their strongest chroma presentation, Yellow is clearly higher in value (reflecting more light) than any of the other hues. These hues are not equal in value, except some around the mid section of the color sphere.

The Munsell model is far more accurate demonstration of the color space of pigments than the double cone concept.

Did you not read the Handprint reference on the Munsell thread, describing in detail Munsell color theory and the scientific difficulty in trying to develop the "ultimate" scientific color space??

The personal experience you continually point to as definitive proof of your knowledge of color theory keeps coming across as "close enough" and not based on in-depth studies or exercises in the various color and mixing theory debates you enter into.

mr.wiggles
12-02-2008, 02:09 PM
Why on earth do people insisit that a workable color model such as Munsell is not valid? I'm baffeled by this and the statements that are based on hearsay instead of facts. Munsell is a proven color model. I wont go on anymore as don't want to cause this thread to shut down or argue.

I don't know what add here, I am kind of giving up and grow tired of trying to argue with people who think that hard work and study is not the path to take to make good paintings. I am baffled by this, really.

Einion
12-02-2008, 05:10 PM
To a color measuring instrument, the color, Yellow, for example, is just as "dark" in its value as the color, Blue, or the color Red.
Wha? You are talking about reflectance here right, not spectral light? Nobody needs a measuring device to know that Yellow is lighter than Blue :confused:

Munsell rather intermixes the two atributes or dimensions of color Hue and Value, and, because Yellow simply LOOKS as though it's "lighter" than Blue, for example, gets assigned a different amounts of space on the model. That's one reason the Munsel Model seems to be so popular among artists--because it is more of a VISUAL model than a scientific model.
I'm sorry Bill but this reads to me like you don't properly understand what a 3D colourspace is really like. Because a model is built around visual data doesn't mean it's not scientific - you seem to be saying that the two are mutually exclusive? Just look at CIE L*a*b*!

To a theorist, the color, Yellow, truly exhibits no more unique properties than any other color on the color wheel (other than its hue, of course, which makes it a different "color" than Red, Cyan, Magenta, Green, or Blue), and, as such doesn't truly deserve to be assigned any particular special consideration regarding its placement on a color model.
This should be prefaced by IMO or it should be worded "To this theorist..." because lots of people won't agree with this statement.

Again, assuming you're not talking about spectral light in addition to being different hues they are different values and they're different chromas; so how can each one not be considered unique?

So, the theoretical "model" of a color pretty much follows a double-cone, rather than this skewed presentation that Munsell proposes.
The double-cone is the skewed model; this can be demonstrated in multiple ways.

But by all means show why a double-cone is accurate Bill, the onus is on you anyway.

One also needs to keep in mind that colour behaviour (theory) and paint behaviour (practice) don't necessarily coincide as neatly as one would prefer.
Actually, after working with printers' inks (over 40 years), oil paint, watercolor, and acrylics, for over 20 years, I have not found that to be true.
:rolleyes: Want links to a few examples we've covered before?


Why on earth do people insisit that a workable color model such as Munsell is not valid?
Unfamiliarity or lack of understanding?

One can certainly have reservations about aspects of it - e.g. the hue nomenclature or that it's built around equal perceptual spacing - but the basic structure is obviously sound. The fact that you can get concrete data about a paint's colour that can be compared to similar data about another paint is so very useful, even if one doesn't use the model much more widely than that.

Einion

Ribera
12-02-2008, 05:28 PM
'Been away a while now, but I will try to respond to some of the counter-points:
Originally Posted by mr.wiggles
it is possible to produce mixes that are stepped in value, and hold both hue and chroma.
Does even one of your strings maintain the same hue, top to bottom?!
If so, please give me that string and it's mixtures; again, I think not.
again: mr.wiggles, quoting me:
As far as creating a value gradation for a single hue, technically impossible. . .and then mr. wiggles following upon this:
I find this statement to be very misleading. If I take a Cadmium Yellow Light and want to decrease the chroma, and lower the value, I will have to use lower-chroma paint.
-They simply cannot be the same hue though.

Einion, as ever, your responses are much appreciated, but I must own, I don't exactly understand all your meanings, so I can't respond.

again, mr. wiggles,
You mistake me. I'm no opponent of Munsell or his methods, which I acknowledge as peachy (and studied). My so-called "arguments" aren't even remotely based on hearsay. When I see so-called proponents espousing (non-) facts though. . .

dcorc
12-02-2008, 05:58 PM
Originally Posted by mr.wiggles
it is possible to produce mixes that are stepped in value, and hold both hue and chroma.
Does even one of your strings maintain the same hue, top to bottom?!
If so, please give me that string and it's mixtures; again, I think not.

Ribera - that was not posted by Mr Wiggles. It was posted by me. It is clear you didn't understand it when I said it the first time, so I'll say it again, and a bit more clearly.

If you look at a page of the Munsell book, it gives you a set of chips which are all the same hue, and which vary in value vertically, and in chroma from left to right.

If you select one such column, and mix paints to match each of the chips as accurately as you can, then what you will have at the end of the process is a set of paints which are all the same hue, and all the same chroma, but which vary in a stepwise manner in value. You can then use this "string" to paint with.

Now you can continue to disbelieve this if you wish, but it is true, whether you believe it or not.


Dave

gunzorro
12-02-2008, 07:58 PM
Ribera -- I'd like to add that hues in a value string, can, and must, often be made using additional pigments besides black and white. This doesn't mean the hue has changed only that the original pigment is not capable of exteneding to the outer values -- notably Yellow, not going into the deep values without a deep yellow like Raw or Burnt Umber (depending on brand).

There are other incidences where a pigment will shift in hue as black or white are added in value strings, in which case a touch of the proper additional pigment is needed to bump the string back into an exact hue/value graduation.

Some pigments will produce a the correct hue and extend from dark values to light values without additions or alterations, but this is by no means a rule of color. Commonly, slight adjustments are needed to produce an accurate hue string.

Patrick1
12-02-2008, 08:18 PM
it is possible to produce mixes that are stepped in value, and hold both hue and chroma.
Does even one of your strings maintain the same hue, top to bottom?!
If so, please give me that string and it's mixtures; again, I think not.
Circled in red is one example of a string of colors of varying values but constant hue and chroma, taken from Einion's previous illustration. You can choose any vertical column as you like.

stoney
12-03-2008, 12:14 AM
I have been deliberately looking about at the colors I see and I'm seeing subtle changes more and more - maybe that's good. Also, I'm very much surprised when I'm watching older movies on tv and notice how the colors in a scene were distinctly used to achieve an artistic palette. This is really an awakening to me. Anyway, I'm on my journey to understand color at last. Goodness, but it's not as easy as I thought it would be!

Thank you all for sharing your comments.
Loretta

No, it isn't easy. You're also learning to *observe* rather than simply seeing. A narrower focus, if you will. As time goes on you'll be able to 'see' much more than now.

stoney
12-03-2008, 12:43 AM
[]

I also recommend getting Harold Speeds book on painting and Juliette Arstides book Classical Painting Atelier. There is enough information and exercises to keep you busy for about 3 years or more.

Harold Speeds book is available online. Copyright ran out long long ago.

WFMartin
12-03-2008, 12:57 AM
Did you not read the Handprint reference on the Munsell thread, describing in detail Munsell color theory and the scientific difficulty in trying to develop the "ultimate" scientific color space??

The personal experience you continually point to as definitive proof of your knowledge of color theory keeps coming across as "close enough" and not based on in-depth studies or exercises in the various color and mixing theory debates you enter into.

I ceased reading McEvoy's Handprint site when he once said that there were no such things as primary colors of pigment, and another instance in which he claimed that ANY color could be considered a primary. I'm sorry, but I simply know better. Although, I won't bother explaining it here. That obviously destroyed his credibility, as far as I was concerned. He DOES, however, offer some good advice regarding the techniques of watercolor painting.


Y’know, Jim, I believe you’re correct. I am a person of practicality, and, although I enjoy understanding color and its attributes and behavior, and have worked with color successfully for over 40 years, I am not one who wishes to delve into the intricacies of it, beyond that which will allow me to create paintings in an efficient manner. Granted, there is a whale of a lot about “color” that I don’t “know”, as could be said of many others, but I have made it a point to learn those attributes which can lead to easier and more effective ways to paint--hue, value, and chroma being the most important.

Once, when I was in the litho trade, working as a color cameraman on a huge, copy camera, doing color separations, the company for which I was working had purchased a “GAM” color exposing timer for their camera. This is a device that is basically a light integrator, meaning that as the illumination fluctuated, the time got automatically adjusted by this unit, to compensate for the fluctuation in light. That’s a good thing, within reason.

This unit would measure exposure in density units to the third place after the decimal point. I actually had to laugh at that presumed “accuracy”, simply because the shutter speed of a copy camera was, by far, less accurate to a greater extent than that which could be controlled by that GAM unit.

It was simply OVERKILL, and completely unnecessary for a copy camera—any copy camera—whose sluggish shutter was traditionally by far less accurate than such an intergrator could ever possibly control. Undue technology was spent creating it, and good money was spent buying a unit whose true purpose could not even be realized by the operator of the machine. It neither made our work any "better" nor any "faster", nor more "accurate".

So, I suppose it is this way with my feeling toward this Munsell enthusiasm. There’s nothing “wrong” with it, or in mixing colors to match pieces of it, and I’ll certainly be the first to admit that it is “accurate”. But, it is “accurate” like that GAM light integrator I used so long ago was, in that is WAY too accurate for anything that the browsing public will critique in a painting. No one takes a color measuring instrument to the surface of a painting, when looking at it. Not one person in a thousand could care whether a person’s face color hue matches the values on a color model from the highlight through the shadow. In fact, the actual, super-accurate “matching” of hues from highlight to shadow in the case of a flesh color might actually be counterproductive and rather unpleasant, and unrealistic to view.

The color (hue) of the base color of an object is quite likely to change as the subject is modeled in 3 dimensions, and the strict, regimented, maintaining of the precise hue throughout the scale from highlight to shadow might actually be a DETRIMENT to the actual realistic appearance of the image. There are optical illusions, reflected colors, colored “bumps” where highlights meet shadows, and other factors that often require that an object be painted in different hues throughout the value scale.

So, I suppose what I’m saying is that although I certainly admit that this Munsell Model is “accurate” for that which it is intended, I’m skeptical regarding whether all this “overkill accuracy” is actually required to create a painting. And, my opinion, YES, OPINION, is that it is probably not. And, with all the added mixing and exercises, and charts required to match chips, as well as the high cost of the model/book, or whatever, that this “method” seems to require in order to gain a bit of simple knowledge of basic color behavior, I simply am not interested in committing that much time to it, to be brutally honest.

Yes, it is my OPINION that this is “overkill”, that this is “busy work”, that it takes unnecessary time away from the creation of marketable paintings, and that there ARE other ways to learn the basics rather than this way.

Just an explanation of my feelings. They are not “right” or “wrong”—just my opinions.

The real beauty of forums such as this is that over 160,000 people browse through this material, and I’ve discovered that some actually respond favorably toward the various opinions that are offered. A lot of it truly gets through, and those browsers can make up their own minds regarding the practicality, feasibility, expense, and effort of these various learning methods.

So, now that I’ve explained my true positon, I’ll back out of this discussion. I’ve got a commission painting to do--really.:thumbsup: :D

Take care,

Bill

stoney
12-03-2008, 02:30 AM
One does not need a full-fledged, color model mock-up in front of them to understand this.
Bill

A full-fledged, color model mock-up? What/where is that?

stoney
12-03-2008, 02:50 AM
[]

So, I suppose it is this way with my feeling toward this Munsell enthusiasm. There’s nothing “wrong” with it, or in mixing colors to match pieces of it, and I’ll certainly be the first to admit that it is “accurate”. But, it is “accurate” like that GAM light integrator I used so long ago was, in that is WAY too accurate for anything that the browsing public will critique in a painting. No one takes a color measuring instrument to the surface of a painting, when looking at it. Not one person in a thousand could care whether a person’s face color hue matches the values on a color model from the highlight through the shadow. In fact, the actual, super-accurate “matching” of hues from highlight to shadow in the case of a flesh color might actually be counterproductive and rather unpleasant, and unrealistic to view.

The color (hue) of the base color of an object is quite likely to change as the subject is modeled in 3 dimensions, and the strict, regimented, maintaining of the precise hue throughout the scale from highlight to shadow might actually be a DETRIMENT to the actual realistic appearance of the image. There are optical illusions, reflected colors, colored “bumps” where highlights meet shadows, and other factors that often require that an object be painted in different hues throughout the value scale.

[]

Bill

About a month ago I took the 'Shy Peasant' painting to a commercial print shop to have it scanned. They said the scan would cost 'x' then another 2.5 hours at cost 'y' to color correct. The total would have been about 250 USD.

It seemed to me the 'color correction' would have been major overkill. Was I correct or thoroughly confused?

dcorc
12-03-2008, 06:45 AM
Not one person in a thousand could care whether a person’s face color hue matches the values on a color model from the highlight through the shadow. In fact, the actual, super-accurate “matching” of hues from highlight to shadow in the case of a flesh color might actually be counterproductive and rather unpleasant, and unrealistic to view.

Not what's actually being suggested (that is, maintaining a single hue) - more akin to what you describe in the quote below...

The color (hue) of the base color of an object is quite likely to change as the subject is modeled in 3 dimensions, and the strict, regimented, maintaining of the precise hue throughout the scale from highlight to shadow might actually be a DETRIMENT to the actual realistic appearance of the image. There are optical illusions, reflected colors, colored “bumps” where highlights meet shadows, and other factors that often require that an object be painted in different hues throughout the value scale.

And one of the points about the Munsell approach is that it enables this to be precisely mapped.

So, I suppose what I’m saying is that although I certainly admit that this Munsell Model is “accurate” for that which it is intended, I’m skeptical regarding whether all this “overkill accuracy” is actually required to create a painting. And, my opinion, YES, OPINION, is that it is probably not.

It is useful for certain sorts of painting, where one wishes to have great control. It is not then "overkill". Think about Bougeureau-style skintones, where the modelling requires very precise control of colour, to turn form under very diffuse lighting conditions.

Einion
12-03-2008, 07:00 AM
Ribera -- I'd like to add that hues in a value string, can, and must, often be made using additional pigments besides black and white. This doesn't mean the hue has changed only that the original pigment is not capable of exteneding to the outer values -- notably Yellow, not going into the deep values without a deep yellow like Raw or Burnt Umber (depending on brand).

There are other incidences where a pigment will shift in hue as black or white are added in value strings, in which case a touch of the proper additional pigment is needed to bump the string back into an exact hue/value graduation.

Some pigments will produce a the correct hue and extend from dark values to light values without additions or alterations, but this is by no means a rule of color. Commonly, slight adjustments are needed to produce an accurate hue string.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/20-Aug-2003/3842-thumbsup.gif http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/20-Aug-2003/3842-thumbsup.gif


it is possible to produce mixes that are stepped in value, and hold both hue and chroma.
Does even one of your strings maintain the same hue, top to bottom?!
If so, please give me that string and it's mixtures; again, I think not.Circled in red is one example of a string of colors of varying values but constant hue and chroma, taken from Einion's previous illustration. You can choose any vertical column as you like.
Thanks for that Patrick, seeing it highlighted that way will obviously help those who can't visualise this when it's stated in words.


I ceased reading McEvoy's Handprint site when he once said that there were no such things as primary colors of pigment, and another instance in which he claimed that ANY color could be considered a primary.
As I've said before, reading what he has to say on the matter, in full, makes it quite clear what he's getting at.

I'm sorry, but I simply know better.
Opinions vary ;)

Y’know, Jim, I believe you’re correct. I am a person of practicality, and, although I enjoy understanding color and its attributes and behavior, and have worked with color successfully for over 40 years, I am not one who wishes to delve into the intricacies of it, beyond that which will allow me to create paintings in an efficient manner.
Okay then. But please realise that those things you don't want to delve into any further are some of the very subjects we're talking about here!

Merely having a certain weight of knowledge doesn't mean anything, it's what that knowledge is and how it's applied that are important. When you make statements that other people who aren't ignorant of the subject just can't understand, particularly in the same post or on the same page as you again mention your long experience in colour, it highlights this. Statements like
...the color, Yellow, for example, is just as "dark" in its value as the color, Blue...
When, as I say above, nobody needs a measuring device to know that Yellow is lighter than Blue.

So, I suppose it is this way with my feeling toward this Munsell enthusiasm. There’s nothing “wrong” with it, or in mixing colors to match pieces of it, and I’ll certainly be the first to admit that it is “accurate”. But, it is “accurate” like that GAM light integrator I used so long ago was, in that is WAY too accurate for anything that the browsing public will critique in a painting. No one takes a color measuring instrument to the surface of a painting, when looking at it. Not one person in a thousand could care whether a person’s face color hue matches the values on a color model from the highlight through the shadow. In fact, the actual, super-accurate “matching” of hues from highlight to shadow in the case of a flesh color might actually be counterproductive and rather unpleasant, and unrealistic to view.
Again you're giving your impression of how Munsell is applied to painting that may not having anything to do with the way that it's actually utilised - one of its primary uses is as a training tool. This was spelled out at fair length in the recent thread in Oil Painting.

Just an explanation of my feelings. They are not “right” or “wrong”—just my opinions.
Oh good grief, opinions can be right and wrong Bill. There are still people of the opinion that the world is flat (no kidding) and they're wrong, obviously.

The reason it's important to make the distinction in discussions is because if you state something as a fact you can expect to be asked to back it up with something, if it's an opinion you can just say it's one and leave it at that. This of course doesn't mean that others can't still try and correct an opinion based on faulty knowledge or thinking :heart:

Einion

gunzorro
12-03-2008, 10:54 AM
Bill -- Carrying on a bit of what you said, and Einion's response:

I agree that everyone needs to draw a line in the sand at some point, and say there is knowledge they won't be able to obtain -- there isn't enough time or inclination to do so. There is nothing wrong with simply mastering the tools you have and remaining at a certain plateau, especially if that is satisfying.

The main point of contention here is that you continually discuss color theory, and in particulay Munsell, without the thinnest veil of personal knowledge of the material being discussed. This goes beyond giving an opinion, to the realm of being asked to accept your ideas as fact when you haven't done the necessary research or reading. Imagine how anyone's opinions would sound if each time, before being presented, the author stated, "Bear in mind I have read none of the source material or theory being discussed, and am only familiar with the subject through second and third hand conjecture and discussion, which may or may not be true. I don't feel the need to consult the materials under discussion to form an opinion on the subject."

I don't think anything following such a disclosure could be taken seriously on that subject.

If you want to continue offering your opinion and experience in the subjects of color theory, paint mixing, and paint selection, you will at some point have to personally sit down and do the proper research and some practical exercises (proving or disproving the theories) to be able to properly enter into a discussion. It might seem like busy work, but many of us have put in the time and are now discussing the specifics of these matters.
And honestly, it doesn't take that long! I took my time with the Munsell Student Book, reading chapter sections mostly during cigarette breaks, and did only a few of the exercises due to accumulated experience. It took maybe two weeks to finish at my leisure and achieve a new mental color outlook. And I must say, it is one of the most uncontroversial presentations of color I have ever read -- particularly the historical and scientific evolution of color and vision.

Regardless of "Munsell", some of us are trying to weed out the opinion and false information surrounding Color Theory and Mixing, and focus on proven and predictable color management, as well as selection of pigments/paints to produce colors and effects.

mr.wiggles
12-03-2008, 01:41 PM
Originally Posted by WFMartin
I ceased reading McEvoy's Handprint site when he once said that there were no such things as primary colors of pigment, and another instance in which he claimed that ANY color could be considered a primary.
Originally Posted by WFMartin
I'm sorry, but I simply know better.
Mr. Martin claims to know better. This statement sums it up for, as well as the one above. As I said before it is baffling how some people act when presented with information that might topple their house of cards.

How does 40 years in the print industry make you a master on color in relation to oil paint? Color in print does not work the same way it does in painting. So how can understanding CMYK have any baring on this subject other than that you understand how printing inks work.

The understanding of hue, value and chroma is what makes a better painter. Not using CMYK, a full spectrum palette or RGB or the Zorn palette or any other esoteric palette for that matter.

Without a good solid understanding of this how are you going to be able to make a good painting? I'll rephrase this without a basic understanding of HVC how does one expect to make a good painting?

sidbledsoe
12-03-2008, 03:17 PM
Bill, you did spell practicality right!
(I also value your opinions!)

WFMartin
12-03-2008, 10:39 PM
Y'know, I was going to exit this discussion but just to prove that I do often speak with at least SOME degree of credibility, for those who may be paying a wee bit of favorable attention to my comments, please check out the following links:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.booksmartstudio.com/color_tutorial/images/hsbmodel.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.booksmartstudio.com/color_tutorial/colortheory4.html&usg=__dyxkYl5SeqSPgxLcC58FbfVd5l0=&h=567&w=300&sz=11&hl=en&start=152&tbnid=w1iaqBw_RxAD3M:&tbnh=134&tbnw=71&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcolor%2Bmodels%26start%3D147%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D21%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_model

These links show examples of the conical-shaped color model of which I spoke.
Granted, it may not be the model with which you have become enamored, nor may it be the model you consider to be the most scientific, but it IS an ACCEPTED COLOR MODEL, and not some concocted, pipe dream of mine. It just happens to be the "theoretical model" with which I agree. You may not agree with that particular model, just as I may not agree with the revered Munsell Model, but as I mentioned, it is a color model, and not one which I somehow "made up" in my mind.

Heck, ONE of these is even SPHERICAL in its shape, but it is SYMMETRICAL, which the Munsell Model is not. So, you may disagree with my interpretation of an accurate color model (regarding its symmetry), but in so doing, you will also need to disagree with those who created these models.

I seldom maintain some unpopular concept, without exhibiting at least SOME way to back it up. There's certainly nothing wrong with believing in the concept of the Munsell Model, but there's also nothing wrong with my concept, either. And, I simply prefer it over an irregular, assymetrical shape displayed by the Munsell Model.

Be well, keep paintin'.

Bill

Patrick1
12-03-2008, 11:41 PM
Bill ... could the reason for the symmetrical, conical shape of those color models (as opposed to the irregular Munsell shape) be because they portray the dimensions of emitted color ? (colored lights as opposed to reflective pigments).

The difference being that any color made from colored lights is limited in brightness only by the brightness of the lights themselves. So a bright enough blue certainly could be brighter than a yellow. Whereas pigments exhibit color by removing some of the light falling on their surface, and under the same illumination, some hues at high/maximum chroma are intrinsically darker than others (i.e. high chroma blue and violet paints will always be darker than high chroma yellow or yellow-green paints). Thus the uneven lightness at which different hues reach maximum chroma in Munsell color space as opposed to the symmetrical ones you talk about. Just speculating as to the reasoning behind a symmetrical, conical color model.

mr.wiggles
12-04-2008, 01:08 AM
Your reason for not liking the Munsell model, it's non cone shape or lack of symmetry seems strange to me. How does this effect ones understanding of color space?

It seems to me those models are mostly for TV's, computers and projected light.

If I mix red, blue and green with oil paint I will not get white; we all know that.

All three models are related to Photoshop and it's color correction tools as well.

That cone model is for HSB which is describes how Photshop deals with saturation and brightness. I don't think these are valid models for painting myself.

The Handprint web site goes into these models and has a very comprehensive break down on all these models.

gunzorro
12-04-2008, 01:26 AM
I agree that these are all proposed color models, and invented by someone, for some purpose.

The double cone is certainly an improvement on the 2D color wheel, but still extremely limited in its representation of pigments.

As Patrick pointed out, some of the examples shown are special to emitted (additive) light or other purposes, and even those designed to represent subtractive light (reflected light, as from pigments and dyes) do not bother to address specific artists needs in pigments and mixing.

It is not a matter of believing Munsell to be a superior representational system for color notation -- it is easily provable, as you would learn if you take the time to familiarize yourself with the principles.

monkhaus
12-04-2008, 01:51 AM
Okay, so for the Munsell crew a good way to learn value would be the Grayscale book, the Student Book, paints and practice. There would be relatively clear steps for accomplishing this as long as one was willing to put the time and effort into it. Correct? Anything I'm missing?

Okay, for the non-Munsell crew what would you recommend? I realize paints & practice, of course, but what concrete steps could be taken to improve my understanding of value and hue and chroma? What should I read and use as a reference and why?

I'm not at a point where I can take classes so I'm having to learn as best I can on my own and, frankly, Munsell sounds like a reasonable means of doing so but I continue to not understand why it gets the reaction that it does. It's a successful, well-regarded tool for learning about color space. Correct? It's not the work of someone ignorant of color? Correct? Munsell doesn't deny the possibility of the happy color "accident" does it? And I assume it's not a cult with "dues" either. Great. Awesome. But just in case I'm wrong about all of the above and find myself wanting to write checks to Graydon Parrish then give me something else.... honestly maybe that something else that's a non-Munsell concrete way of learning (I like books and exercises) has been mentioned but I'm just skimming the arguments now.

Not meaning to be rude but I think the original questions in these threads are being lost to competing agendas.

Einion
12-04-2008, 06:49 AM
I'm glad you came back to this Bill as the shape of a 3D colourspace is important and I didn't want it to fall by the wayside so I would have returned to it anyway.

Granted, it may not be the model with which you have become enamored, nor may it be the model you consider to be the most scientific, but it IS an ACCEPTED COLOR MODEL, and not some concocted, pipe dream of mine. It just happens to be the "theoretical model" with which I agree.
So what does the double-cone model show?
HSL and HSV are two related representations of points in an RGB color space, which attempt to describe perceptual color relationships more accurately than RGB, while remaining computationally simple. HSL stands for hue, saturation, lightness, while HSV stands for hue, saturation, value.
I wasn't aware we were discussing RGB colour Bill.

Perhaps the effort should already have been made to be clear we're talking about reflected light here, given the nature of the discussion. I did ask you above, in relation to the odd statement about Yellow and Blue being just as dark, whether you were talking about reflectance but you ignored that.

...

The Munsell model's shape is a representation of reflected light, essentially about what can be represented with pigments. This shows hue, value and chroma. The distinction between chroma and saturation is very important, just as the distinction between visual complements and mixing complements has to be reinforced because they don't necessarily coincide.

So for anyone reading along that doesn't already know this, please consider the following questions:

What's the chroma of an intense orange, something like Cadmium Orange?
What's the chroma of an intense blue, something like Cobalt Blue?

We don't have to guess these, as readings for a few manufacturer's paints are available online so I'll just pick the numbers from one source:

Cadmium Orange - 14.99 (at value 6.86)
Cobalt Blue - 11.43 (at value 3.33)

It's not that complicated - chroma varies with differences in hue, and maximum chroma for different hues is at different values - hence a model showing chroma must be irregular; by looking at these two paints only we have a real-world illustration of why. If one buys the idea of chroma in the first place then the irregular shape is a given, just as one accepts that there have to be three dimensions in the first place, it really is as fundamental as that.

Einion

mr.wiggles
12-04-2008, 10:14 AM
It's not that complicated - chroma varies with differences in hue, and maximum chroma for different hues is at different values - hence a model showing chroma must be irregular; by looking at these two paints only we have a real-world illustration of why. If one buys the idea of chroma in the first place then the irregular shape is a given, just as one accepts that there have to be three dimensions in the first place, it really is as fundamental as that.

Thank you Einion for a straight forward description of the why the Munsell works and why it is not symmetrical.

Monkhaus,
I would at least read up on color at Handprint if you don't want ot spend money on the Munsell student book.
http://www.handprint.com/LS/CVS/color.html

Next I would at least invest in the Munsell grayscale booklet. If you want to learn how make good neutrals you will need something to check them with.

The best thing to do if you don't want to invest in any Munsell products is to do a lot of drawing with basic shapes (spheres, cubes) in different lighting and background conditions. You can do this with pencil and charcoal.
I would also use middle tone gray charcoal paper and do them using charcoal and white charcoal. The idea is understand how to control values in any kind of setting. Once you get a good handle on this you move on to self portraits, your a free model and your always available. Do small head studies, say no bigger than 8 x 10 or 9 x 12 inches.

You can then move on to painting the same exercises.
This should keep you busy for about a year or two.

gunzorro
12-04-2008, 11:22 AM
Einion -- Excellent description! :)

Wiggles -- Very good points as well.

monkhaus -- (to add my 2 cents) wiggles' point is well made -- just read that nice write up in Handprint to get an understanding of Munsell. Take your time -- it might take 15 minutes to understand. You don't need to do any exercises or say any prayers -- just reading and understanding the theory of the notation system is enough. The only "Munsell exercises" I am familiar with are those in the Student Book, and many, or most, of those are not related directly to Munsell notation -- they are exercises in vision and color theory from many sources other than Munsell.

I have a hard time understanding the resistence to people accepting the Munsell model of "color space". It is funny to see the peasants stomping up the hill with their pitchforks and torches, time after time, to slay the foul ghost of Munsell. ;) But the undercurrents are somewhat alarming that seemingly sane and intelligent (and one supposes, friendly) people can become so defensive over simply seeking out the truth of the matter. Have we as a society stopped reading anything that is not conversational?

It does require some concentrated thought to understand the Munsell system of notation, and one should also understand a minumum of related history and science of color and vision to see its importance. But it is far from entering a secret society or cult! :) It is simply knowledge, and that is presumably why we come to Wet Canvas and other art forums.

Perhaps the flat-worlders with their pitchforks will triumph in the end. (Put another heretic on the barbie, Marge.)

ajm60
12-04-2008, 01:08 PM
Dear Monkhaus,

Coming in a bit late I see some very good advice has been given already and some of what I wrote will be duplicate to this. Which in itself strenghtens the importance of it!

I need to split my response because I can not post the URL's yet, this being my first post.

ajm60
12-04-2008, 01:13 PM
Einion's explantion of the interesting shape of the Munsell shape is very good and worth giving some extra attention to.

ajm60
12-04-2008, 01:14 PM
Dear Monkhaus,

While responding to your questions I’d like to clear a few things up as well:
The Greyscale book: is not a book but more like a fan shaped guide to judge the true neutrals:
The Munsell Neutral Value Scale is a 31-step gray scale fan deck with values of 0.5/ to 9.5/, in quarter step intervals. ...
it looks like this: www.goestores.com/catalog.aspx?storename=cinemaquestincn&DeptID=91913&ItemID=3693218&detail (move mouse over picture to enlarge)
And more here: www.munsellstore.com/index.cfm/MenuItemID/491.htm
The Neutral scale is exceptionally useful for everyone working with design, composition and offcourse colour. It is not just for the Munsell crew.

Of foremost importance is having one’s work done in correct values for this creates the form and the 3-dimensionality on the flat surface you work on.
For this a value scale is an exceptionally good tool to have on hand, or even pinned on the easel. However it is pretty handy to have a values scale that actually represents pure neutrals and that’s what this Munsell value scale stands for.

Yes, one can make a value scale but without a visual reference is it pretty hard to get dead on neutrals and mixing just a black and white give a bluish grey.

The student book has a simplified neutral scale which can be used as a good guide to make a value scale and also little chips for the hues in the middle range i.e. 5R-5YR ----5RP, with all their values and chromas (intensity/brightness). However is it not a colour sample book!!
It is a very good text book, not large by any means and it won’t take long to read through it. The full comprehension of the text between the covers may and probably will take somewhat longer.
The exercises can be carried out with the chips from the book, coloured paper, computer and paint. And one does not have to be a level A student to be able to do these exercises, after all what could be more difficult than placing a few colour chips on a piece of paper (just one of the exercises).
The whole idea of the book is to give one a solid idea of how colours comes to be and get to be seen by human eyes, the difference between colour created by light and colour created by pigments, how colours interact and how they can play with our perception of them. How colours can be used in paintings and design to create pleasing harmonious works. Just to name a few topics.

**They idea of having to tube massive of paints to start with is so far of the truth that it is not funny.

I have come to see that there are as many ways to use this colour identification system as there are painters, designers and other colour users on this planet.

Knowing colour really remains the main goal though.

Another exceptionally useful thing to do is finding out where on the colour wheel the tubes of paints (=pigments) one uses on a regular basis are positioned, and to record their hue, value and chroma, independent of whether or not one uses Munsell. Knowing the paints (pigments) you use makes it much easier to mix the desired colour.

You ask for advice to the non-Munsell people:
Get yourself a value scale, a true neutral, not just any gray scale and keep it with you. Compare anything and everything you look at against this scale, and ask the question: is this item lighter or darker than this section of the gray-scale I am looking at.
Squint when looking at the subject and you’ll see when something is of the same value. All hard edges disappear when something is of the same value and there will be no difference between the subject and the gray-scale.

When looking at your subject ask simple questions like what hue is this; is this red, is this blue, green, yellow? And then the next question: is this a bright hue or a dull (more gray) hue.

Go to the hardware store and pick up some of the paints sample cards and note what you see, what value is this hue, what is this hue, how bright or dull is this hue. Find a few cards that are of the same hue, same value but different in chroma and also some of the same hue, different value and same chroma.
Then match those with your paint and notice and record the paints/pigments you used to re-create these samples.

Paint a wooden square in one particular colour and see what happens to this colour under different light and when placed against different backdrops etc. Then match those changes with your paint.

Most people have a computer with some sort of graphics program which can be used to study the works of other artists:
Take a painting you think is interesting load into this program and set it to the gray-scale, this will give you the values only. It is a great way to study how others have come to create wonderful works.
Then set the painting back to colours and look at what hues have been used, and make a note of this on the colour wheel.
It will become clear that distinct colour themes were used. Questions can be asked as to what value those hues have, going back to the gray setting could be helpful again.
Then while looking at the full colour picture again look at the brightness/intensity of the hues used.
You could use the colour-picker in Photoshop to compare these intensities.

The same you can do with any object, judge the value; light/dark, the hue; red/yellow/green etc. and the intensity; bright/dull of the colour and then match this with your paints.
Often it is not so much the hue used but its incorrect chroma (brightness/intensity) which is of an issue in a painting and seeing how other painters have solved this problem is really valuable.

Having some sort of reference to give these colours a notation is very helpful: The Munsell chips come to mind.

When looking at your set-up; try to see the large shapes of value, hue and brightness, first before looking at the tiny details, put those shapes in first and add little shapes later.

This is where the time and effort you mention come into play. And whether you use Munsell or not does not matter this type of work takes time and as the saying goes “Brush-mileage”.

You say you have no idea as to why the mention of “Munsell” gets such an intense response.
Let’s say you are not the only one.
It is a mystery to a lot of people.
And yes you are correct, Munsell is a great tool.

One last thing:
I would not be sending Mr Parrish any cheques; he would not know what they were for and would return them to you asap.

Mr Parrish is a very accomplished painter who out of shear desperation while working on an enormous piece of Art featuring many figures threw himself into a search that would hopefully give him a means to quickly judge and mix the colours he needed to proceed with this work.

At the end of his search he found that working with Munsell and the chips from the book he could easy and quickly determine the colours he needed to proceed with this massive work, which took a few years to complete.

Out of the goodness of his heart and the joy he felt to finally being able to just keep going with the painting without having to first trying to match his previous used colours, he wanted to share this knowledge with other painters.
He was asked to show how he uses the Munsell tool, a request he kindly honoured by giving a few colour courses for which he received next to nothing in remuneration.
And that is it.

It became a bit of a long post for which I apologize but I hope it is of some use to you..

mr.wiggles
12-04-2008, 02:21 PM
Buy the Glossy Greyscale book so you can put the paint on it.
I use it and the gray scales from the big book more than anything else.

Don't use water based paints.

Thank you ajm60 for the good clear break down of the current history to all of this. I endorse everything you have said here, it's clear straight forward information.

gunzorro
12-04-2008, 02:39 PM
I agree -- well said! :)

WFMartin
12-04-2008, 05:25 PM
Okay, for the non-Munsell crew what would you recommend? I realize paints & practice, of course, but what concrete steps could be taken to improve my understanding of value and hue and chroma? What should I read and use as a reference and why?
Actually, very few "paints", and very little "practice". Knowledge and application can, instead, be the goals.

CONCRETE STEPS:

I recommend the study of the true behavior of the primary colors of paint (pigment), and then applying that knowledge to mixing colors that, indeed, appear on the subject, itself.

I recommend that you read (and carefully study) the following links:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=330741

http://www.artandartistry.com/index.php?showtopic=6149

http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=362343

I believe that you will find them to be AT LEAST as credible and practical as those articles written by people who claim that there are no primary colors of pigment, or that one can legitimately select any colors one chooses to use as primary colors, or that Red and Blue are primary colors, and by those who feel that an appropriate middle value for painting a subject is automatically a "No. 5" on a Munsell scale, simply because it occurs, numerically "midway" between the lightest light, and the darkest dark.

If you read the article on values with an open mind, you may encounter a few interesting things that you may actually want to try out for yourself, to assess the value (no pun intended) of them.

...frankly, Munsell sounds like a reasonable means of doing so but I continue to not understand why it gets the reaction that it does. It's a successful, well-regarded tool for learning about color space. Correct?
Most surely there's nothing wrong with the Munsell Model in terms of its intended use. It gets the reaction that it gets because we "non-Munsell" advocates feel that much better time would be spent in learning the basics of color behavior so that such knowledge can be applied to the mixing of colors to match areas of THE ORIGINAL, and that the mixing of color to match unrelated targets, instead, is time wasted.. In other words, I recommend using the subject as the target for color matching.

It's not the work of someone ignorant of color? Correct?
Correct. Although I'm not sure that Cyan and Magenta are even represented on the model, and those two colors are primaries. That could make it a bit questionable.

Munsell doesn't deny the possibility of the happy color "accident" does it?
My work is usually quite well-planned, and I don't anticipate many "happy" accidents. The only accidents I've had have been very unhappy. But, no, I don't suppose Munsell either causes or prevents such occurences.

And I assume it's not a cult with "dues" either. Great. Awesome. But just in case I'm wrong about all of the above and find myself wanting to write checks to Graydon Parrish then give me something else.... honestly maybe that something else that's a non-Munsell concrete way of learning (I like books and exercises) has been mentioned but I'm just skimming the arguments now.
Not too sure about the "cult" aspect, as of late. So, if you prefer to pay Graydon for his "secrets" of the mysteries of Munsell, or of the Masters, etc., etc., by all means do that. You can also buy the book, buy the targets, etc. if you choose. And, as I understand, he also swears one to secrecy, as well. That rather smacks of "cult-ism", in my opinion. even though there quite truly are no "secrets" to understanding and employing colors of appropriate chroma.

There are non-Munsell ways of learning, and with very few exercises. Those links I recommended do, indeed, contain a few actual "exercises, regarding the behavior of color, and of values (the hint regarding the PROPER use of "spotters" is one that very few people, and almost NO artists are aware of) that, if followed, have the potential to teach you a few, basic CONCEPTS, that you can then, hopefully, apply to EACH AND EVERY mixing situation you may encounter. The first 2 articles present a new way of THINKING about color behavior and mixing. It is a method of predicting, based upon knowlege of color behavior.

And, the beauty of THESE articles is that they are FREE. There is absolutely nothing invested but a small amount of time, and a bare minimum of effort with these interesting and practical "exercises". No one is sworn to "secrecy", and every bit is applicable to real, live work.

And, since you have nothing invested in the reading and studying of these quick articles, if you then choose not to adopt any of their concepts to the creation of painted images, nothing has been lost--not even much time.

If, on the other hand, you choose to put even one or two of these concepts to work for you in your daily work, it will certainly have been worth it, primarily because you have invested so little in it--especially your valuable time.

Bill

mr.wiggles
12-04-2008, 06:22 PM
Oh boy...
Bill Cyan and Magenta are on the Munsell color model.
I have the book and it has 1500 colors, they are there.

You don't get it do you. It's not about the primaries; it's about understanding color through Hue, Value and Chroma.

You mention the primary colors of Red and Blue; which Red, and Blue? Is it a blue that is moving towards green like Cyan, or is it a Purple Blue like Ultramarine Blue.

Is it Cadmium Red or is it a Pyrol Red ?

What happens if one brand of Magenta or Cyan is not the same value or hue one you used before? How do control the palette with arbitrary colors? Cyan is a blue green, what if one brand is moving towards green than another? What if you buy the same brand but the mix is different? How do you deal with the shifting value, hue and chroma?

You speak in absolutes a lot. As if what your saying is better than what we who are into Munsell are advocating. As if we waste our time mixing paint finding the right values and so on. I am sorry but this kind of mindset is not helpful. Your not showing any examples of how your system of ad hock mixing is better.

By the way when I use Munsell I am using the object I am painting to find the local. Have not read anything that people have been posting here?

It seems to me that your making these assumptions based on guessing about it or just skimming through the posts.

Also please stop saying things that are not true about Mr. Parrish.
He has been very generous and free with his ideas and knowledge on Munsell and many other subjects. There is no secret society; people are not in some esoteric branch of the masons. In fact everyone I know who is into Munsell uses it in a different way. It's a tool, that's all it is.

It's in bad form to talk about and disrespect people who are not here to defend themselves as well. So please have little respect for him, he is a master of his art.

Everything you have said seems to based on a lack of knowledge and understanding of what we are talking about. If anyone cares to read the exchanges you can see that your making assumptions based on guessing.

You’re not into Munsell or learning how to mix good neutrals that's fine, but why try to give out information on it that is not based in any knowledge of how it works. Why?

The question was about getting better at understanding values.
I think ajm60, Jim and Enion and others have done a great job giving first-rate information on how to deal with learning to use values to become a better painter. That is the thesis of this thread, not if Cyan is a primary color.

Matt Sammekull
12-04-2008, 06:26 PM
Very well put ajm60.

//Matt

Matt Sammekull
12-04-2008, 06:35 PM
Bill, with all do respect; open up your mind a little bit okay?

If you have any desire what so ever to develop and to become a good, or at least better painter than I suggest your really listen to what people have to say here. Really.
I so far have only some experience with Munsell, but can already say without any doubt it is a system which gives me help, offers me alternatives and freedom, and ultimately makes me a better painter. I welcome such opportunities, you should as well.

Don't be that old dog who refuses to learn how to sit. :)

//Matt

mr.wiggles
12-04-2008, 06:43 PM
woof!

ajm60
12-04-2008, 07:52 PM
Mr Martin, sir,
It seems that you find it more beneficial to the readers of this thread to post distruptive statements that hold no truth than to pass on information that holds simple straightforward facts.
What is there to gain from confusing people would it not be far better to provide everyone interested in this topic with simple truths??

From your expressions of doubts as to whether or not Cyan and magenta are represented in the book, however it appears that you do not quite know what is actually on the pages between the covers of the Munsell Book.
I found a sample:
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/04-Dec-2008/156701-Munsell_Colour_Chart.jpg
You will most likely find the colours you are looking for when looking at the pages 5B and 10RP or even 2.5R.

Knowing where your colours are and not having to guess about your next step offcourse eliminates accidents. Knowledge does that.

Knowledge straight and simple would also have prevented you from making the rather accusational comments directed to Mr Parrish.
Did you read my post from earlier today at all???
Maybe you should do that now!!!

Furthermore: If you insist on making claims like the ones you are making towards repeatedly, you have to make sure you can back them up with evidence.
Can you??
Can you prove that Mr Parrish has demanded secrecy?
Can you prove that he demands money for his secrets??
Can you prove that there is a cult.
(how laughable and pathetic this idea really is)

No?

Well, I did not think so!!!
For the simple reason that those statements you made, which are more accusations than anything else really, are completely and utterly FALSE Mr. Martin.
There is not one miligram of thruth in them at all.
They are false statements.

Why do you insist on posting statements that are so wrong in all aspects.

WFMartin
12-04-2008, 10:50 PM
[QUOTE=mr.wiggles]You mention the primary colors of Red and Blue; which Red, and Blue? Is it a blue that is moving towards green like Cyan, or is it a


Moderator note: Content removed which is akin to potential false allegations, gossip, and against the User Agreement we have all agreed to follow as members. Please refrain from any more comments of this nature...


Take care, guys. Paint up a storm. Buy your books, and enjoy!:D :D
You have verbally beaten me into submission by sheer force. Just, please, those who may be interested, read the information in those 3 links I provided.
If only one person gets some practical use from it, I will be pleased. And, YES, one of those links WAS most certainly about values (the subject of this thread), and not about "Cyan being a primary color".

Bill

mr.wiggles
12-04-2008, 11:59 PM
I remember that, and I know the guy your talking about. I was also at that color class. Graydon asked all who attended not to post the information on forums as he was still developing his ideas based on Munsell. I think the issue was this chap posted without asking. We all paid to go to this class. He put a lot of time and energy into it and I don't blame him for being pissed.
He was not threatened and in fact he apologized for the misunderstanding.
Which is what it was. This is how bad rumors get started, so please don't pass on second and third hand information.

This point I was making about Red and Cyan was related to paint, oil paint in particular. I can go out tomorrow to Blicks and buy 6 brands of Cadmium Red and I bet a fair amount of them will not be the same hue, or value of red.

As for being beaten into submission by sheer force, I think not sir.
You presented an argument against the ideas being put forth.
Your arguments were questioned and the evidence presented, while being related to color was not related to the plastic arts. All the color models you presented were for digital media. So lets be honest, you put up a link to something related to the subject but not useful in pratice for oil painting.
These are not wrong, it's just in context to the subject the fall short of being viable as color models when deealing with paint as well as Munsell does.

As I said your ideas are valid for you, from what I have been studying about color they seem to come from the world of offset printing. Nothing wrong with using a CMYK palette. I don't care what palette one uses.
My thesis is one should understand how hue, value and chroma work and how these relate to creating the illusion of pictorial space. There are many Reds in this world...

Values need to be messured against a good sorce, like the Munsell Neutral booklet. That's my answer to the original question.

Patrick1
12-05-2008, 12:48 AM
Getting back to the symmetrical double-cone color model; what I got is that it requires all hues to be able to achieve the same maximum chroma level, and all at the same (middle) value. Which is why it (or a spherical model) is a far less accurate representation of color space possible with pigments than the Munsell model. Okay I got it.

Earlier it was mentioned that value measures the percentage reflectance of incident light. Let's say you have a blue paint that reflects 60% of all incident light in the blue general region and little elsewhere, and another paint that reflects 60% of light in the green general region and little elsewhere ...such that both reflect the same percentage of total incident light energy. By that definition of value I'd expect they 'should' be of equal value, but I'm sure the blue paint would look noticeably darker due to our eyes lower sensitivity to light in the blue region ...so what gives?

Einion
12-05-2008, 06:17 AM
Gents, I have to insist that people use the quote feature as it's provided - it's built into forums to make it easy for participants and readers to follow who is saying what and which portions are a response.

Einion

Einion
12-05-2008, 10:38 AM
If anyone is experiencing problems with getting the Quote feature to work I'd recommend Firefox; if you're already using an up-to-date version of Firefox try clearing your cache, see if that helps. If it still doesn't work then the only option is to quote 'manually'.

The fastest way of doing this is to use the Wrap Quotes button, which should be visible in the row of tools above the text-entry window when you're posting. The icon is like a cartoon speech bubble, third from right; click on it and it'll pops in [QUOTE ][/QUOTE ] wherever the insertion point is (without the spaces before the closing bracket). Then simply copy and paste each relevant section between them.

If you don't see the Wrap Quotes button go to Edit Options (http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/profile.php?do=editoptions), right down at the bottom in the Miscellaneous Options section you'll probably see Basic Editor, switch to Standard Editor instead.

Einion

mr.wiggles
12-05-2008, 01:09 PM
Getting back to the symmetrical double-cone color model; what I got is that it requires all hues to be able to achieve the same maximum chroma level, and all at the same (middle) value. Which is why it (or a spherical model) is a far less accurate representation of color space possible with pigments than the Munsell model. Okay I got it.

Earlier it was mentioned that value measures the percentage reflectance of incident light. Let's say you have a blue paint that reflects 60% of all incident light in the blue general region and little elsewhere, and another paint that reflects 60% of light in the green general region and little elsewhere ...such that both reflect the same percentage of total incident light energy. By that definition of value I'd expect they 'should' be of equal value, but I'm sure the blue paint would look noticeably darker due to our eyes lower sensitivity to light in the blue region ...so what gives? It depends on the Blue and the Green.
If you take Cerulian Blue and put it next to Phthalo Green(Yellow or Blue) the Green is a lot lower in value than the Cerulian. It'a all relative which is why you need to study it and work with it. Your preseption is not the same as the next persons due to how our eyes work.
Get the New Student Munsell book, read as much as you can on Handprint.
Granted some of the information on Handprint is higer math, he uses a lot of math to explain color models.

I'm not good at math so I kind of get lost in some of those, but there is enough information on that site to keep me coming back.

No, that is not "proof" as someone asked for, but, my friends, it IS the TRUTH.
This is the kind absolutes I was talking about. All hail Caesar...:rolleyes:

LarrySeiler
12-06-2008, 07:17 AM
The understanding of hue, value and chroma is what makes a better painter. Not using CMYK, a full spectrum palette or RGB or the Zorn palette or any other esoteric palette for that matter.



It is painting...and the commitment to paint that makes a better painter, one obsessed of heart, and the palette is a key to start the engine and get things moving. A palette is an angle to view an aspect or character trait of hue, value and chroma which enables and empowers the artist to get a handle on the nature of paint, and develop a fuller understanding.

This is the nature of much of learning, a subject being too complex to take it in as a whole context, is better understood bit by bit. I think our human tendency toward impatience believes we ought to be able to understand paint and its complex property potentials by simply endeavoring to take it in as a whole...but out of respect, an angle on it is a labor of dues required to build such a knowledge base.

Speaking for myself only...I believe what could be learned and understood about the potential for pigments can be naively avoided where too broad open ended indulgences exist. By narrowing or targeting/pinpointing particulars, removing potentials for greater complexities one gets a chance to know such.

Heck...even in relationships the same. You don't get to know someone well in a crowd, but get a few or even one person off alone and much more develops. This "much more" is a fuller understanding, and I would argue that after near 27 years of painting...by assigning myself a limited palette three years ago...I have learned more and grown more as a painter than ever. I would have called myself an artist all these years, but now I much prefer being called a painter and find that a greater compliment. Whether to what degree my work is deemed to have attained anything is to be argued of course by my critics, and my work exists to be examined...but it is only to my painter's heart where my own concern rests.

Having said all this, and now contributing to the complex discussion going on here myself, I will say as an art educator that I would fear most artists seeking to understand values better confronted with discussions that have developed as they have. It would scare the )#&%!# out of many.

I would love to hear past painters response to this discussion...like Sargent, Gruppe, Payne all who would seemed much simpler men but were arguably great painters!

It seems to be in all our nature to make something much more difficult than it need be, and I'm not sure why that tends to always be the case. Good instruction however attempts to simplify so that the lesser educated or less convergent analyzer can even understand.

Squint the eyes...see the masses, ask what general color and how light or dark? Mix it up and put it down trusting the eyes. Make a value scale with holes punched out to see the value of the subject area you are judging by holding up if need be...and compare. I don't care which palette system you use (and I use about a half-dozen possible strategies as taught by Payne), or what pigments...if you hold and judge them all to a value's scale prior to mixing (either in your head/eye or using a valu'ator), then the painting will work for reasons paintings work...

...but is it a greater intelligence at operation that leads us to debate again and again...? Perhaps an intelligence I cannot lay claim to myself, yet in my teaching for a couple decades now...I've observed that children/youth of all ages as well as adults in workshops seem to get it...so, if I may ask since it is difficult to wade thru this, what in very simple terms here are we trying to understand and prove??? Can we clarify because its scaring the $)(&%)[email protected]! out of me!

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/confused/confused0024.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/free-scared-smileys.php)

mr.wiggles
12-06-2008, 01:12 PM
Good instruction however attempts to simplify so that the lesser educated or less convergent analyzer can even understand.
A good student will ask questions and be diligent, however not everyone can become a painter. What can be simpler than telling the student to do value studies?

The simple answer is that to get better at understanding how value works, you should do a few gray scale paintings. Studying values in black and white is the best way to learn how to control them. As one does not have to deal with color relationships. The student can concentrate on drawing and form and values.

You cherry picked one of my statements and it seems this is not sitting well with you. How is it that understanding the very essence of how color works is to complicated to be studied? This is how I am reading what you are saying. Correct me please if I am wrong. If one understands HVC then whatever palette they chose will be enhanced by an increased vocabulary of how what's on the palette works in color space.

By the way have you read the Munsell student book?

I have to say it seems to me that the people who are the up in arms over this are all the ones who have not read any of this to date. If one person who did read the Student Munsell book came on here and said, "I read it, I did some of the exercises and it's not for me." I could respect that and at least would be an educated decision.

You mention Sargent, he knew color, he spent years studying this in the French Academy and later in Durand's atelier. I have too ask how do you know for sure that Sargent, Gruppe, Payne were simple men compared to now? I would argue that they were anything but. However neither of us know for sure because we did not know them. We do however have the work and in some cases books.

I've read Paynes book and he does touch on the subject of color, not as much I would have liked as it is a book on composition. He does have a diagram of a color wheel that comes right out of Munsell. It would seem by this evidence that he was aware of Munsell as the diagram is very close.
Payne goes on about using complementaries and how they don't really give you a true neutral, that you have adjust to get them. Paynes color ideas are not easy to grasp, he talking about tints and using purple and yellow and creating harmonies. If a beginner was to try to do what Payne writes in his book I think most would get a lot of mud.

Other painters who used controlled palettes were Henri, Bellows, Reilly, and all of Reilly's former students.

Richard Schmid has very detailed color studies in his book that are designed to get a better understanding on how HCV work in relation to his palette.

Understanding Hue, Value and Chroma is essential to making better paintings. Sargent knew this and studied it. It was not on the level of WA Bouguereau who in my view was one of the best painters of fles. He took it to another level altogether. WA Bouguereau came out of the tradition of the French Academy and it is clear that this kind of intense study the plastic arts worked.


There is a quote attributed to Peter Paul Rubens:
"In order to attain the highest perfection in painting it is necessary to understand the antique*, nay, to be so thoroughly possessed of this knowledge that it may diffuse itself itself everywhere"

antique*: Rubens talking about cast drawing and painting here. Value studies.

mr.wiggles
12-06-2008, 04:23 PM
For those interested here is a good website for the study of color:

http://www.huevaluechroma.com/index.php

LarrySeiler
12-06-2008, 07:45 PM
I have to say it seems to me that the people who are the up in arms over this are all the ones who have not read any of this to date. If one person who did read the Student Munsell book came on here and said, "I read it, I did some of the exercises and it's not for me." I could respect that and at least would be an educated decision.


I have done color studies in the past, values as well...and have been doing my share of pigment soup studies...where I take a random color from my limited palette pigments that I make up, add each to my primary colors I use

Here is one example...

I mixed up a random color....and here a neutral bluish-green...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/08-Aug-2007/532-pigmentsoup_colorwheel2.jpg

After painting in the mother color (as Ted Goerschner calls it...same concept as Edgar Payne's "pigment soup" however)...then I painted the primaries as the color comes out directly from the tube...and next mixed those up for my secondaries, and you see them surrounding now the dominant soup color. I'll be working my way outward.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/08-Aug-2007/532-pigmentsoup_colorwheel1.jpg

Next I mixed a bit of the bluish-green neutral soup/mother color and with the primary or secondary to get the next color, and finally to finish off this colorwheel...that last color mix will have white (as a tint) added to it.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/08-Aug-2007/532-pigmentsoup_colorwheel3.jpg

Thing is...I'm not up in arms against the studying by ANYone of ANY system...but what I'm talking about is the tendency for our threads to come to debate making what should be easy enough explained and understood so very difficult. It would discourage many attempting to wade thru it. That was my point.

I am sure each individual here is a very generous soul...and extremely talented. The sharing of knowledge much appreciated.

I apologize...it just gets old after awhile and I'm perhaps too idealistic thinking it doesn't have to be like this. I mean, I know as artists we tend to wear our emotions on our sleeves...

You know...as an educator that is paid by a district, I don't have the right to lock horns, debate, berate...but am obligated toward civility and respect. After many years it becomes habitual...

I appreciate your understanding, and thanks for taking time...!


You mention Sargent, he knew color, he spent years studying this in the French Academy and later in Durand's atelier. I have too ask how do you know for sure that Sargent, Gruppe, Payne were simple men compared to now?

A fair question...and I perhaps would have done justice to have worded my thought better.

By simple...I don't mean lacking intelligence or the habit of thought. I guess I see them so committed to painting and also based on their model of teaching I have familiarized myself with would have risen above the temptation to endlessly banter such debate. In other words, if someone doesn't get it...fine, they don't get it. Allow them their state of being wrong, or ignorant. By simple...perhaps I meant I doubt the opinions of others would have rattled their cages. We tend to make such big issues of things.

Keyboarding perhaps is a very poor substitute for whatever kind of comradery could potentially come about here, and I'll bet sitting around a cafe hoisting a beverage or too...maybe walking around, seeing your work...seing mine...seeing the works of others would be a different thing. Our level of patience and respect would be different I think. Just seems there is something about hitting that "send" button...no?



There is a quote attributed to Peter Paul Rubens:
"In order to attain the highest perfection in painting it is necessary to understand the antique*, nay, to be so thoroughly possessed of this knowledge that it may diffuse itself itself everywhere"

antique*: Rubens talking about cast drawing and painting here. Value studies.

I love quotes...and fill many pages with them. Yes....excellence is not an accident.

Thing is...we are so complex and uniquely individual. One needs to obsess after determining a direction they are to go...but, I believe in my direction and believe also in the importance of the direction you have chosen for yourself. That we differ perhaps in little or big things (hard to say) perhaps is important in setting the distinctions of our work.

I am getting where I want to go with the limited palette I have assigned myself...and just this simple little pigment soup exercise that Payne taught shows me how broad the potential is of what is judged by many as so limiting. I'm discovering how unlimiting the limited palette is for my needs. But that is no argument of such being ideal thereby for you and your work...

Again...I'm not up in arms...but THAT IS THE POINT of what I'm saying. No one here should be up in arms. For Pete's sake, let us celebrate whatever energizes and empowers any artist to work, and let us encourage them on to excellence. Work hard...

I like a couple more quotes...

Winston Churchill said, "success is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm"

Degas- "painting is very easy when you don't know how, but very difficult when you do"

We all understand the difficulty in seeking to paint well...but we need not be difficult with each other...

peace

MikLNjLo
12-06-2008, 08:25 PM
...frankly, Munsell sounds like a reasonable means of doing so but I continue to not understand why it gets the reaction that it does. It's a successful, well-regarded tool for learning about color space. Correct?
Most surely there's nothing wrong with the Munsell Model in terms of its intended use. It gets the reaction that it gets because we "non-Munsell" advocates feel that much better time would be spent in learning the basics of color behavior so that such knowledge can be applied to the mixing of colors to match areas of THE ORIGINAL, and that the mixing of color to match unrelated targets, instead, is time wasted.. In other words, I recommend using the subject as the target for color matching.

WFMartin,

Are you advocating learning on the fly as opposed to focusing on a subject such as "Values" or "Color" in order to fully understand it then venturing into application?

From what I have read the people using Munsell deal exclusively with the original/subject when they create mixture strings.

You appear to be confused in your explanation on the advantages of learning using any organized approach.

MikLNjLo
12-06-2008, 08:43 PM
I like a couple more quotes...

Winston Churchill said, "success is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm"

Degas- "painting is very easy when you don't know how, but very difficult when you do"

We all understand the difficulty in seeking to paint well...but we need not be difficult with each other...

peace

I understood what you intended (I think :) ) yet it is interesting that you like those two quotes and included them within that particular post. Going from failure to failure with enthusiasm leads one down a path of successive failure. The second quote combined with the first encourages stumbling through the process of painting without incentive to seek knowledge or risk taking the fun out of it.

LarrySeiler
12-06-2008, 09:29 PM
I understood what you intended (I think :) ) yet it is interesting that you like those two quotes and included them within that particular post. Going from failure to failure with enthusiasm leads one down a path of successive failure. The second quote combined with the first encourages stumbling through the process of painting without incentive to seek knowledge or risk taking the fun out of it.

knowing the magnitude of the character Churchill was, being also a painter while he was prime minister during the Battle of Britain, we can surmise his point was that one should NEVER give up...and keep trying against what seems all insurmountable odds. That is good advice for painters, and especially in this day in age with what I see in many youth that misbelief that if it doesn't come right away and easily, then that is a sign it is not meant to be.

The second by Degas was the observation that the layperson tends to undervalue the arts and believes one has a "gift" of talent and thus comes easily, yet for the artist fairly new to painting and finding discouragement with so much to learn (surprisingly)...it may come as a relief to hear the difficulty recognized and spoken of by Degas, a master painter...proclaiming such as a common reality to us all...

I guess I'm simply not following your line of thought...as though critical or finding some irony in these two amazing person's quotes, but I'm tired. Perhaps you have a gem of a thought in there somewhere...

please be patient that I'm not getting it just now...

take care

mr.wiggles
12-06-2008, 10:54 PM
Degas was trained in the French Academy, it was rigorous and extremely competitive. Churchill was a good amateur with a passion for painting.
His work as a statesmen is not really the issue in context to his painting.

It is interesting that after studying Munsell for a while and rereading the Payne book I had a whole different take on how he was talking about color.
For instance Larry, your neutrals in the center of your color wheels look very blue to me, could be the photo, but they do not look like a true neutral grays. Not sure if this was the target of the exercise as well.
However this is a good example of what I am talking about. What was the target value? If those colors do not make a neutral then why is that? How do get the mix to pull towards a neutral? Is it too blue or green, or yellow?

A good question on how to get better at dealing with values was posted.
I answered it with good solid advise that is used by countless painters.
I added that it's a good idea to obtain a Munsell gray scale booklet.
This is good advice as it gives you something to mix to to train your eye.
I was not arguing with anyone, Mr.Martin made claims that were based on hear say instead of sound knowledge.

The Munsell color model is sound and all the information was given in good faith without any nasty BS. From what I have read it was mostly pretty straight forward. Martin kept it up, why I don't know. Some kind of agenda other than the study of values. I asked if one is not into then why bother to get involved in this thread. This is not esoteric stuff. You can't mix good neutral values without a something to gage it by. If you want to do proper value studies you need to get this right.

Mixing greenish grays and bluish grays is fine but these are not true neutrals. It's hard to train you eye without learning to mix neutrals. Nothing wrong with complimentary grays, but in context to the original thesis that idea is not very useful when trying to learn about how to control values. You need to learn to mix and see whole steps and half steps, how to bracket for the locals and so on.
I use blue grays to pull things back into space, but I feel by studying and mixing neutral grays using the Munsell guide I have been able too hit what I want and I do it quicker. It's actually very hard at first to mix good neutral grays, which took me by surprise, it takes a fair amount of practice.

Seems to me anytime Munsell gets mentioned people lose it.
It's only a tool to help you see how color works in relation the different families of colors. It's very simple.

If you read most of the posts by Jim, Enion, ajm60 and a few others they are very well presented with good solid information on the subject.

MikLNjLo
12-07-2008, 12:50 AM
knowing the magnitude of the character Churchill was, being also a painter while he was prime minister during the Battle of Britain, we can surmise his point was that one should NEVER give up...and keep trying against what seems all insurmountable odds. That is good advice for painters, and especially in this day in age with what I see in many youth that misbelief that if it doesn't come right away and easily, then that is a sign it is not meant to be.

The second by Degas was the observation that the layperson tends to undervalue the arts and believes one has a "gift" of talent and thus comes easily, yet for the artist fairly new to painting and finding discouragement with so much to learn (surprisingly)...it may come as a relief to hear the difficulty recognized and spoken of by Degas, a master painter...proclaiming such as a common reality to us all...

I guess I'm simply not following your line of thought...as though critical or finding some irony in these two amazing person's quotes, but I'm tired. Perhaps you have a gem of a thought in there somewhere...

please be patient that I'm not getting it just now...

take care

I'd like to explain what I was getting at. In your post you did a good job of being very nice about being nice even though people may disagree about an idea or two. I will attempt to match that civility. Also within your post you explained that you basically preferred your take on Payne's approach over an approach that uses Munsell. It provided sufficient experience or knowledge to suit your needs.

Here you seem to be advocating a simple approach to suit personal preferences:

Thing is...we are so complex and uniquely individual. One needs to obsess after determining a direction they are to go...but, I believe in my direction and believe also in the importance of the direction you have chosen for yourself. That we differ perhaps in little or big things (hard to say) perhaps is important in setting the distinctions of our work.

I am getting where I want to go with the limited palette I have assigned myself...and just this simple little pigment soup exercise that Payne taught shows me how broad the potential is of what is judged by many as so limiting. I'm discovering how unlimiting the limited palette is for my needs. But that is no argument of such being ideal thereby for you and your work...
Some quotes lose their original meaning when removed from their context. Although knowing the source and history of the two people you quoted lends to their meaning, the actual words quoted depict something else. Taking the words on their own they echo, "success is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm" "painting is very easy when you don't know how, but very difficult when you do" ...going from failure to failure with enthusiasm leads one down a path of successive failure although not without a smile on your face ;) while stumbling through the process of painting without incentive to seek knowledge or risk taking the fun out of it.

You are creating a custom curriculum for yourself. You decide how difficult the path will be and how far you aim to get with it. My point is that if you are interested in painting for the enjoyment foremost and you are satisfied learning only as much as will maintain a level of enjoyment then this philosophy may provide you with the fruits of the labor that you have in mind. If you are interested in being the best painter you can be it will require abandoning an easier road for one that is uncomfortable and many times difficult with ever increasing challenges. This too has its payoff but it is of a different nature.

Maybe none of this really fits you and it is only coincidental that it happened within one post. It was interesting to me. At least it could be ironic if it is contrary to what you believe.

mr.wiggles
12-07-2008, 01:38 AM
I have been studying Munsell for a while now. I have also read Paynes book.
I found that almost everything Payne said about color related to my studies with Munsell. As I said before Paynes diagram color wheel is almost exactly like Munsell's. He takes a few liberties but it follows the same idea of moving through color families, Yellow, Yellow/Red and so on.

I have always used controlled palettes and my ideas in this area came more into focus when I started to use some of the Munsell tools. Such as the gray scale booklet. Before I mixed them to fit the values of my colors. They were also not neutrals as I was mixing them with Ivory Black and Titanium White. I no longer do this as I think it's wrong. I mix the 9 values plus White and Black.

As far as threads being closed down, well that is a shame, but when you get a guy who is bent on being a troll and people give him the time of day, well it goes south real quick.

Patrick1
12-07-2008, 02:26 AM
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/08-Aug-2007/532-pigmentsoup_colorwheel3.jpg

Larry, when you paint using a mother color as you've shown, do all the colors you apply to the canvas have at least some amount of the mother color mixed in with them, or do you in some places use 'pure' colors (i.e. one of your primaries or mix of two primaries, maybe + white) where needed...without any mother color added?

Do you use the mother color like some would use a pre-mixed neutral grey or a black - choosing how much of it you add to a color in order to modulate how much darkening and greying you want to impart?

When painting with a mother color, when you want to darken any color, do you still use the mixing complement, or do you prefer to mix in a black made from your three primaries? Thanks.

MikLNjLo
12-07-2008, 02:46 AM
Larry,

I reread part of my last post and it was too late to make some corrections.

Hopefully this is clearer:

"Success is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm"
Echo: Success is being enthusiastic about consistent failure.

"Painting is very easy when you don't know how, but very difficult when you do"
When this is combined with being enthusiastic over a chain of failures where is the incentive to learn how to paint?

Truth: Success is generating a chain of wins while maintaining a hunger to improve. Painting looks easy when you don't know how to paint but in reality it involves a lot of work yet not without its pleasures.

:)

mr.wiggles
12-07-2008, 03:47 AM
What's a mother color?

There are no neutral grays in that color wheel.

This is a Munsell color wheel it's a digital reproduction so the values might not be spot on. However I like this because it gives me more variations of compliments and you can see how the color families relate and the color space is worked out. Mixing this wheel is very hard.


http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/07-Dec-2008/99881-MunsellColorWheel.jpg


Gray Scales:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/07-Dec-2008/99881-munsell-grayscales.jpg

Patrick1
12-07-2008, 05:59 AM
What's a mother color?

There are no neutral grays in that color wheel.

Do you mean Larry's color wheel? Unless I missed it, he didn't say his mother color is a neutral grey by the strict definition of neutral (achromatic - i.e. colorless). By neutral, he just means low-chroma, greyed. Much like fashion/interior designers consider 'neutrals' to encompass greys, near-greys, beiges, taupes, browns, ochres, olive, etc.

LarrySeiler
12-07-2008, 09:46 AM
You are creating a custom curriculum for yourself. You decide how difficult the path will be and how far you aim to get with it. My point is that if you are interested in painting for the enjoyment foremost and you are satisfied learning only as much as will maintain a level of enjoyment then this philosophy may provide you with the fruits of the labor that you have in mind. If you are interested in being the best painter you can be it will require abandoning an easier road for one that is uncomfortable and many times difficult with ever increasing challenges. This too has its payoff but it is of a different nature.

It is interesting you should say this, which I think is quite subjective. My aim has always been excellence, but I see what is excellent to some as lifeless benign static works, and to be fair I look at some of my past reputation building award winning works the same.

I do know there is a lot of labor of love going into those works, with the reflection I put 200-300 hours into my typical works way back when...but I see lifeless shadows and color implying a frozen moment but not color that exists in a period of continuum. Inspite of all the argument of correct values, correct color etc.,

It is subjective, and those that will find appeal to our particular work perhaps subjectively find such appeal as well.

I established myself early on...in 1984 winning Wisconsin's Wildlife Artist of the Year...and over the course of the next 17 years was a finalist, runner-up or winner of state and national competitions 24 of 34 times entered. I know something of what was required of me to measure up and be found excellent by they...and NEVER was I questioned on my palette. The judgment was on the finished works.

For the past 14 years now...I have decided to pursue painting not just as a hobby nor just for entertainment...but saw how much of my painting was directed by those holding the reins to my success, which precludes a particular faith that THEY know best. It would be like conforming my painting to what you folks here believe is best.

Excellence should and ought to drive us all...and married to painting as a form of celebrating living just this side of the grave, i.e. "enjoyment" is not that which one has to divorce themselves from.

Its a matter of opinion...but I believe for near 20 years I was more an artist caught up in the profession, but for the past decade have been consumed less with being somebody approved, and being more a painter. Excellence, has never been out of my sight. I consider myself less an artist per se, today...and more a painter.

Never before did I work to exhaust what a palette might offer...whereas, by limiting myself, such has been part of what I've done to gain at this late stage of my painting career a greater insight.

Thing is...wherever you make comparisons between Munsell with Payne, it may do us well to note one's different path in getting there and how it affects the act of painting. What bothers me is the EX NIHILO presumption that one way is THEE way at the exclusion of all others.

Some may find some cause to acknowledge evidence of my disqualifying ineptness by my admission that my education at the university in the 70's having two majors in the visual arts was during an era of the "anti-art" era. One I fought hard against and was branded the black sheep...because I wanted to learn to paint and rejected ideas like squirting paint in cow manure and throwing it at a canvas. In spite of having poor education, thus no models such as Munsell's...I yet got to where I competed, and to where I am today.

What did all artists do before the advent of the internet for Pete's sake? I did not have the luxury of such painting in the NW northwoods of Wisconsin in those early 80's-90's...and knew only a hand full of artists all painting different directions than I...and yet I was competing regionally and nationally.

Does that mean then one's potential to become a painter is cancelled because a preferred manner is avoided? Values can yet be learned and practiced...and it might not have to be so complicated. The good news today though, is one does not have to work isolated and frustrated, and there is much to be learned even here in this thread.

I celebrate that we have the internet now. How fortunate for artists who would otherwise be cast to learn and practice in isolation to have a network of artists to confer to. Its great to have access to systems for learning, and if I didn't believe that I wouldn't be much an educator. My idealism wishes we could do so with greater civility, but that is perhaps my undoing right there, and it would be better were I to apologize for that.

I have Schmid's book on "Everything I Know About Painting"...and being satisfied with that which I'm continuing to learn painting, I was not compelled at the immediate to do all kinds of color value studies when I saw his presented in the book. One has to see perhaps a deficit in their practice and results I suppose to be so motivated to do what is necessary to change. We all know that if one always does what one always has done, one will continue to have what they have always had.

So, if we can make it very clear the benefits of a system...some will choose to their advantage to explore and learn from it. We can do so without an aire of superiority. I understand the value of such learning...and a reason we teach, so that others need not bang their heads against a wall trying to figure it out alone. I continue to emphasize we encourage serious effort without arguing which way it must be. That we argue for the best way is one thing, in a way that we can see why an artist's work turns out as it does, but if we come across arguing that which "must" be...another. After all...it might well be possible we don't like the collective results.

Individuals are not all made up of the same kind of "stuff"...and one of the burdens of teaching is to come to know that all learn differently. This perhaps was the crux of why Monet and his comrades quit their schooling to instead pursue nature as their teacher. Right or wrong, best or better...we cannot argue a person's spiritual makeup, their convergent leanings toward learning or their divergent leanings.

If we recognize people learn different, we then have good cause to applaud various ways of learning even about color and value. The rigid step by step model works well for one type of personality, but not another...and the elusive "let's see what happens when we do this..." less guided grided method suits another personality.

My banter I guess...is an attempt to remind us we have all types here, that all learn best differently, and there needs for the sake of community to be found room...thus I implore we celebrate the paths and diversity of how artists might get there. We can do this...less combatantly. :)

Anyone that truly knows me over the past here at WC would know I've walked away from a reputation and comfort of being one thing as an artist I worked very hard for, to push experimenting...challenge myself to ideas I thought would open doors for me I had not walked thru before. My work today is quite painterly, yet aims for a particular realism.

My thrust on enjoyment in painting, which comes thru in a lot of my writing is for so many today that work so hard at becoming an artist there is very little joy in painting itself. Their only solace is a finished "product" and perhaps as you get older as I am getting...you sense some greater tragedy there. Life is too short, it wouldn't hurt to get over ourselves a bit...and learn what a privilege it is to paint, to live and find celebration not just in the end product but in the doing. That is the enjoyment I promote, but not to abdicate the pursuit of excellence still.

I appreciate the dialog, thank you...but I fear now I have become guilty of taking this off topic, and perhaps we need to get back to the discussion of helping artists understand values. Again...I celebrate what education everyone gets from Munsell...or any other way that helps an artist get a handle on seeing...

:wave:

mr.wiggles
12-07-2008, 11:51 AM
No one said Munsell was the only way. It's a proven color model that is used by a wide a lot of industries, designers and artist.
Originally Posted by LarrySeiler ]
Thing is...wherever you make comparisons between Munsell with Payne, it wmay do us well to note one's different path in getting there and how it affects the act of painting. What bothers me is the EX NIHILO presumption that one way is THEE way at the exclusion of all others. My comparison of Munsell to Payne was not negative. I found a lot similarities in how Payne dealt with color to the Munsell model. I never said it was the only way. I only said that if you want to make good neutrals you needed something to match it to. I learned this from my own experience.

Larry the question asked was how to study values and my thesis was that there is a proven method of doing it if one so desires to take that route.
As far a having fun and painting, well sometimes I do and sometimes I don't. For me the joy comes from getting the drawing, effect and painting to a point that it sits well in the picture plain. The more I understand how color works the better my work has been getting that is for sure.

I'm not a big fan of the Impressionists, the landscape artist that I look to are Inness, the Hudson River school and the Barbizon painters particularly Charles-François Daubigny. Peder Mork Mønsted is in my humble opinion one of the finest landscape painters ever to walk the earth.

Larry you said you have Schmid's book but was never compelled to do those color studies. From what I have seen of that book and what he advocates I would have done them as it seems to me it's at the heart of his ideas on color and how he uses it, but hey that's just me.

You also mention the past before the internet. Well people who wanted to learn to paint sought out painters who taught. In your neck of the woods that would have been Richard Lack. Or they got it together and went to New York to study at the Art Students League. When I was at the ASL many years ago I remember this guy from Alaska who worked the fishing boats in the summer, save up and came to New York for the year.

In some ways the internet has made people lazy if you ask me, I've seen some examples of it on this forum and others.

People want quick and easy solutions so they can do it better and faster.

The thread was on how to paint better values, you know get a handle on learning how to see them and make them work for the painting.
There is no easy way to do this, on respondent thought my suggestion was a waste of time. That taking a year or two to learn this through studies was to long. This kind of mentality is what is messed up in my view. The internet fosters it and embraces it.

If I ever said that to my teacher at the ASL I would have been out of his class in a flash. He would have kicked me out. He would have been right too, as this kind of mentality shows contempt for what artist of the past did to become the painters we now admire.

LarrySeiler
12-07-2008, 11:51 AM
Dang...you have one of those days where you type a thing out, nearly all done and a cpu glitch wipes it out? Well...no glitch here, it was me grabbing and dragging something off the desktop when I was reaching for the scroll bar. I swear...its got to be getting older or something!!! Ssheesh!!! :eek: ;)



http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/08-Aug-2007/532-pigmentsoup_colorwheel3.jpg

Larry, when you paint using a mother color as you've shown, do all the colors you apply to the canvas have at least some amount of the mother color mixed in with them, or do you in some places use 'pure' colors (i.e. one of your primaries or mix of two primaries, maybe + white) where needed...without any mother color added?


I wish I could answer such easily.

For one...let me premise that all this began three years ago when impressed with the results of Scott Christensen's use of his limited palette as well as our own Marc Hanson's, I decided to challenge myself to try it. That challenge was to be for about a month...but the experiment as said has gone on over three years now.

I presumed a limited palette would have very little mystery about it, and would be quick to figure out...but as I would come to learn reading Edgar Payne and Emile Gruppe...there are a good number of strategies or concepts that impress you as an unlimited nonlimitation.

Initially learning sticks to the restrictive directives, but as Payne implores, the purpose of learning well the principle foundations of painting is for all artists to aim at a time of working from a gut hunch...or intuitively. Thus, I could say...do this and this...but then as a paint student, one might see me in the zone suddenly deviate and become confused.

One has to come to trust their gut hunch with paintings that are good paintings, but this takes time.

In short...yes, Patrick...since working with the limited palette my practice has become to always premix my color in line with my chosen strategy. With the mother color or pigment soup concept, I premix by having a bit of the color or the neutral I have an abundance of made up...pulled over and mixed into each color I put out on my palette.

This imbues a will into each color to take on a working harmony that can be seen on the palette ever before beginning to paint.

About a year ago...my gut hunch led me to block in my main masses with a pile of premixed paint soup directly onto the bare support in the form of a midgray neutral...and then mix the color wet on wet directly into it, thereby mixing on the canvas rather than on the palette. I call that a midgray neutral mud blockin technique...and here is one painting done on location using that method-

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/07-Dec-2008/532-nippylastlight150.jpg

To vary...I add my darks and lights wet in wet as well...and it has proven to be one of the most efficient fastest ways for me to paint a last day's light, less than say an hour...

For lurkers following along, when I begin to paint outdoors knowing that nature likes to throw a lot of lumber (endless visual information) and knowing what NOT to paint is as important if not more than what to paint, I acknowledge to myself that every good location could easily call for a half-dozen different paintings to be executed. Novices tend to try and paint 3-4 of those at once, and lose the sense of what is important in their subject.

It is at that moment I'll ask myself if my spirit is responding to the light and mood of the moment, or to spatial juxtapositions of say verticals against horizontals and so forth.

This is important because now over the past three years I have learned which palette strategy I can anticipate to best express what is causing my excitement to paint. It could be a split-complementary palette whereby I am then painting with one dominant color and its two split complements only, plus white....mixing ALL color variations from those pigments only. This imbues a powerful mood. It could be a neutral gray driven palette, as nature often displays a good deal of neutrals to the educated eye. It could be the pigment soup where color, mood and harmony are important, or as in my version speed and mood are essential.

But...

Do you use the mother color like some would use a pre-mixed neutral grey or a black - choosing how much of it you add to a color in order to modulate how much darkening and greying you want to impart?

Yes...the soup source is not limited to being a pure color only. It can be a neutral, and I probably use a neutral more than a pure color for my mother color as a matter of practice. Out in the field, I do not carry and use black in my box. In studio I have fun playing with its possibilities, but black simply doesn't jive with my observing senses outdoors. Thus, one nature of gray well known that comes from white and black is not my neutral. I typically make my neutrals from complements, and then I can lean that neutral toward a warmer or cooler nature if I so choose.

I favor taking left over paint from a previous paint session all scraped over to one side of the palette, which is essentially a neutral mud because of its content of all left over paint...and use that to drive my next painting. I'll tend to add a color to cause the mud to hint a specific color leaning, yet neutral. Then, I'll either add that to each color on the palette with the direct pigment soup approach, or my variation applying it as a midneutral directly to the board as I describe for a wet on wet method.


When painting with a mother color, when you want to darken any color, do you still use the mixing complement, or do you prefer to mix in a black made from your three primaries? Thanks.

Outdoors, again...I do not carry black...in studio to some limited degree. But, I average perhaps about 200 paintings per year...and initially you push an idea to gain some hindsight anticipation. That is...I have come now to anticipate I'll need a dark and premix it. I'll anticipate that I'll need a darker green that I might want to add later to my red...and premix that.

Its not a problem of course to stop the painting process, and mix up more of what you need...but when I paint outdoors, time is everything. I usually find a small window of opportunity presenting itself to me to get a thing down before the light changes. Premixing lets me fly...and those paintings you get behind you give the hindsight to what you anticipate in future paintings to put out on your palette.

Those that paint along with me are often surprised how quickly I get to the jugular of a moment while they are yet making decisions. That comes of experience...and a palette strategy gives you a platform of anticipated control that allows the gut hunch to develop more quickly.

hope that helps...but please feel free to ask further questions. Thanks again Patrick...
:wave:

Larry

LarrySeiler
12-07-2008, 12:23 PM
Larry the question asked...


Hey so you know I value your input, don't want you to think I'm ignoring you.

I've been on this computer half the day, but do have some snowblowing to do of our long driveway, that and I want to watch some football as well today. So, until my next opportunity...take care..

Larry

mr.wiggles
12-07-2008, 01:03 PM
Call me old fashioned but I don't see any simple answer to the question.
One thing I think is being misinterpreted is that while one is doing value studies, that does not mean you don't paint. You can do both at the same time. I don't see anything wrong with taking a few months to master drawing a white sphere and cube lit in different situations in charcoal and pencil. Then doing some still life paintings with these would be a real benefit. You can use those plastic blank Christmas balls and spray paint them. Or buy some wooden shapes from a hobby store.
Golden Acrylics makes a series of neutral grays that are done to the Munsell scale. You can paint wooden shapes with this and practice the different value scales in still life settings.

Again I am just making suggestions and I am not clicking my heels and saying "this is the only way of doing this!" It's up to individual to make the choice of choosing a path that fits them.

Here is a link to one young artist that I think shows me that this path of study is valid. Dorin Iten is about 20 or 21 and I think he is an extraordinary talent. He is just starting to paint after two years of doing nothing but drawing. Amazing work for one so young.

http://www.dorian-iten.com

MikLNjLo
12-07-2008, 04:40 PM
It's interesting.....I celebrate what education everyone gets from..........any......way that helps an artist get a handle on seeing...

:wave:

:thumbsup:

mr.wiggles
12-07-2008, 07:04 PM
Scott Christensen was mentioned in regards to the use of a limited palette.
His palette posted below is hardly limited. There are 8 custom mixed grays and other hues that he uses, which seems to me to point to a controlled palette. I would argue that the grays are for the control of his higher chroma paints. In other words he is using a string of lower chroma grays.
The names are interesting, I don't know what a dark warm value is in relation to the rest of the palette. Is it close to Black?
All told he is using 11 colors plus white.

I am not sure were the anti-black thing comes from but you can't mix neutrals without it.

Titanium White
Ultramarine Blue
Permanent Bright Red
Cad Yellow Lemon

Scott's greys are:
Ship Rock - a warm grey light
Bluff - a light flesh color
Adobe - yellow-orange warm grey
Shale - dark warm value
Jaspar - dark warm green-grey
Silver Point - medium value, cold silvery grey
Cedar - warm olive green
Bice - a light cool blue

LarrySeiler
12-07-2008, 07:41 PM
Scott Christensen was mentioned in regards to the use of a limited palette.
His palette posted below is hardly limited.


By his own admission it is...and note his only few colors (therefore the limited palette), he used to mix his own grays and from those colors...but he adds commercial grays to save time only. I have one of his painting dvds, and he proves he mixes grays easily enough without black...but again, its a time saver for him.


I am not sure were the anti-black thing comes from but you can't mix neutrals without it.

The anti-black thing comes from outdoor painters mainly...stepping outside the studio and most having been accustomed to using black, but then not seeing it happen in the light of nature. The realization that black tends to suck the life out of color and the painting. It surprises us, we compare notes with others that paint outdoors and discover we have the same experience in common.

I have been playing with black again after 14 years not using it, but in a limited way, in studio...and always adding color into it. It just reads dead to me otherwise...

As for mixing neutrals...I won't argue with you on this, for it is quite obvious we both come from two different sides of the conceptual world. I'll admit to surprise at your insistence of "CAN'T"...for my understanding is a world apart from yours. I'll explain my position...but tell you up front I see no need to argue it.

I do not need black to create neutrals...and most outdoor painters I know do not use a black and yet think in terms of neutrals, and mix neutrals all the time. Study my paintings outdoors...and you might well detect them.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/07-Dec-2008/532-nippylastlight150.jpg

In fact, this one I posted appearing last page. You detect no presence of neutrals nor neutrals used to gray color down??? I assure you, I used NO BLACK.

I'll help support your position by sharing a traditional model. Isn't that nice of me??? :D

It is a model I call a tonewheel...it represents a tradiational way of thinking that would necessarily believe black is necessary. The model identifies TONE but I would argue not neutrals.

If you think of all neutrals as grays in the traditional sense, then this model would support your thinking.

However...I argue that another traditional way of thinking of neutrals is the basic RYB colorwheel...where opposites meet, and at the point where each color loses its specific identity it becomes a neutral. Thus many RYB colorwheel models will show gray as its center...but note, no black is in the model...

Lets see the model...the tone wheel...

From the History of Color in Painting by Faber Birren, 1965...and borrowing from my own painting book, comes this model on the tone wheel-

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/28-Mar-2008/532-tonewheel_illustrated.jpg

Note the first two artist models...the first Turner, the second Rembrandt..

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/28-Mar-2008/532-turner_tonewheel_illustrated.jpg

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/28-Mar-2008/532-rembrandt_tonewheel_illustrated.jpg

My own work the first 17 years mirrored more that of the tonalists, but after taking the easel outdoors painting nature directly, it evolved. I had little to no need of the use of black. Mine appears more thus...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/07-Dec-2008/532-mytonewheel.jpg

We obviously must define neutrals differently...and I have no problem with that...

I believe the model supports the traditional way of thinking, but in actual experience, I believe my painting above shows the existence of neutrals and color affected and controlled by neutrals.

Let me elaborate further going back to what I said above...thinking in terms of the simple RYB colorwheel...

White and black are opposites. Because they are opposites they neutralize each other. They de-power or gray. As I teach my youngest students...gray made from white and black is just one form of gray. The problem is many think of gray in terms of just black and white.

However...if you use the simple logic further...there are colors opposite and will thereby have the same effect. To de-power and de-emphasize the presence of each hue's nature. They neutralize and become ANOTHER form of gray.

I mix grays or neutrals all the time, on the fly...with n'er hardly a thought, control color effectively thinking along the lines I have spelled out, and again with no black.

So, I think while the model is interesting to study the works of painters and see where they fit on the model. I would have to question the full power of this model to represent "gray"...

Perhaps if a color isolated in and of itself from other colors were to have white or black added to it, we'd see this model play out. But where the model struggles to explain is if two or three colors are mixed prior to white being added, the black and the combination of all three.

In other words...I can mix colors to behave as does black and when white is added arrive at my neutrals and grays. This thus aptly bypasses the need for black on my palette....

mr.wiggles
12-08-2008, 12:51 AM
I use black all the time when I paint outdoors. Only for accents.
However I have a very different approach to landscape painting than what your doing. John Osborne uses strings like this as does John Traynor.
Joseph Paquet does not use them but he studied with Osborne so he must have at one point.

I premix all my value strings, Blue, Violet, Green (if it's Spring or Summer)
and neutral grays. I have 9 steps of each.

I also have some high and low chroma paints such as Cad Yellow Light and Yellow Ocher and some earth reds. It also adds up to 9 colors.

I know some people will say that's a lot of paint! Well it is, I have box I made with shelves and it hangs on my FE. It fits in the freezer so I can keep the paint fresh for a few days. One mixing session is enough paint for about three or four days of painting, based on doing about two or three sketches day. The thing I like about doing this is all the values are there, it cuts down on the mixing a lot on the spot. More time to paint!

gunzorro
12-08-2008, 01:05 AM
Here are the Vasari paints based on Christensen's specifications. Notice there is quite a bit of variation and these colors are not really greys, but reduced chroma colors.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_0349web.jpg

Here are some color samples of the Christensen colors, along with other Vasari paints:

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_9928_edited-1web.jpg

stoney
12-08-2008, 02:09 AM
[]

...then give me something else.... honestly maybe that something else that's a non-Munsell concrete way of learning (I like books and exercises) has been mentioned but I'm just skimming the arguments now.

Not meaning to be rude but I think the original questions in these threads are being lost to competing agendas.

Perhaps this will help.
http://www.gamblincolors.com/navigating.color.space/index.html

stoney
12-08-2008, 03:11 AM
knowing the magnitude of the character Churchill was, being also a painter while he was prime minister during the Battle of Britain, we can surmise his point was that one should NEVER give up...and keep trying against what seems all insurmountable odds. That is good advice for painters, and especially in this day in age with what I see in many youth that misbelief that if it doesn't come right away and easily, then that is a sign it is not meant to be.

Agree with both items. The second is the 'misbelief.'


The second by Degas was the observation that the layperson tends to undervalue the arts and believes one has a "gift" of talent and thus comes easily, yet for the artist fairly new to painting and finding discouragement with so much to learn (surprisingly)...it may come as a relief to hear the difficulty recognized and spoken of by Degas, a master painter...proclaiming such as a common reality to us all...


Even I've had to deal with the 'gift' rubbish. I indicate no gift is involved. I tell them what's involved is a lot of hard work over a good course of time. I ask them if they were good at whatever they do or enjoy from the start or if it took time to learn. All have indicated the things took time to learn. They understood then art was no different.

Einion
12-08-2008, 08:33 AM
Just need to touch on this:
I am not sure were the anti-black thing comes from but you can't mix neutrals without it.
You certainly can. It can be more work (even sometimes a lot more work) but neutrals can be mixed with any complementary mixing pair; that's a tautology but deliberate - if the two paints don't mix a perfect neutral then they're not mixing complements strictly speaking.

One can also mix neutrals with all primary sets, or indeed any well-spaced triad of paints - a trio of paints form a triangle on a colour wheel, if the centre of the wheel is inside it they can of course mix a neutral.

I touched on related points in the Munsell thread in Oil Painting, pages 3 and 4. Post #50 on page 4 I think is especially worth a second look.

Einion

LarrySeiler
12-08-2008, 09:23 AM
First thing I did coming into my art studio this morning was grab my palette, and I mixed a gray/neutral with Liquitex Ivory Black and Titanium white, and a gray/neutral from Utrecht French Ultramarine Blue, W&N Bright Red, and Utrecht Cadmium Lemon Yellow plus the same white...

can you tell which of these two grays/neutrals came from which???
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/08-Dec-2008/532-palettegrays.jpg


If you were even lucky to guess (you have a 50/50 chance after all), are you still going to tell me you cannot make a neutral/gray without black? Secondly, if I can do this without black, please tell me again why I necessarily should have black on my palette? (*note...in studio, as I have said...I have been using black once again to a limited degree...but for the sake of convenience, or for playing with a Zorn palette).

Thirdly, is it possible that prospective painters lose something of the ability to understand the potential of color to mix at will and understand relationships by coming to depend on the easy way?

I know Scott can make grays and neutrals without black, and I understand with his large in studio canvases and the volume of paint he goes thru that using premixed grays is a convenience to him. I don't believe he finds it necessary to bring all those grays with him when he goes out to paint oil studies (plein air) on location.

Again...this strikes me odd to hear you can't make neutrals without black, but I'm willing to consider I'm just an oddball out...

Lastly, here are my three primaries that comprise my limited palette...with that same neutral/gray added to each...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/08-Dec-2008/532-palettecolorgrays.jpg

...surely anyone could see these colors have been grayed down, by degree neutralized???? ....and, without black I must stress.

- - - - Now a Note to Lurkers/Beginning and Intermediate painters
One advantage I would stress ...is that by mixing your own darks from primaries you become very sensitively aware of the power you have to tweak and lean any neutral/gray or dark to feel warm or cool, thus implement or project another form of contrast into the work.

As Payne points out...the color of nature seen in nature's light is perhaps 200 to 300 times more intense than what pigment can imitate. He thus suggested we all start painting at a deficit, and it is this deficit acknowledged that I then argue we are all then at the crux of it...abstract painters. The best of the realists among us creating that which yet holds deficit to the truth is a finer more refined abstractist than the next perhaps.

Thing is...once you agree with Payne on the deficit, you see that his palette strategies are designed to push certain things in an attempt to recover some ground and up the ante on that deficit. Thus...if you can do more to a dark than just make an area/plane dark...say tweak it cool if the light is warm, or tweak it warm if the light is cool...then you increase the effect/contrast.

My contention working with students (adults and youth) over many years is that by human nature many are lazy. They go with what seems to work, work right away...and promises to resolve the issue. Secondly, many work from photos and see thru the lens metering systems shut shadows down, are prejudice against showing color existing because they capture reflected and indirect light very poorly.

By mixing your own darks...and denying one's prone tendency toward the easy out, one's awareness of indirect and reflected light grows. Color temperature awareness increases, and you see additional means to push and empower your painting.

This is not to argue what is art...what is not. What is good art or what is not. It is to argue that special little extra something that is often observed lacking even in the most labored realistic works, utilized can bring a life to the work that feels more like you could actually be standing there experiencing it. If one does not have the eye for that...one might not understand what I am saying. That perhaps is why we sound like such goofballs by some. If you do have the eye, then you know what I mean.

After experience pushing...I think one is aware of the danger of black reliance, and one like an addictive nature can risk using it again but always watchful for rising tendencies of dependency without alteration.

peace

LarrySeiler
12-08-2008, 09:44 AM
I use black all the time when I paint outdoors.

well...I am not well familiar with your work...or memory of your outdoor work for the moment escapes me...

I have seen a book little known to many on controversial Thomas Kinkade...surprised that he began as a plein air painter. His outdoor work is tonal...and quite apparent he used black. It is quite easy to distinguish as color carries a death nil to it.

Not saying they weren't good paintings, I was actually impressed to think that indeed Kinkade could paint if he wanted to. However, they did not IMO represent the light of nature accurately. Didn't project the feeling of light...and black sucked the life right out of most of his color.

It is subjective, no doubt some would see them as ever much as good as any other plein air modern master, but they lacked the evidence of life light carries to my eye.

...but, you still did not respond to my surprise that you say neutrals cannot be made without black??? :eek: :confused:

I do believe my post above demonstrates indeed the artist can...

gunzorro
12-08-2008, 10:53 AM
Larry -- I can see that one, or both, the neutrals are not truly neutral. You would need to show a "control" grey so we could see where they actually stand with regard to hue.

I think there is a wide acceptence of the definition of "neutral" to include almost anything that is greyed-down chroma. This seems to be one area of friction between those who accept a broad definition of neutral and those who have been trained to match to perfect neutral and note the difference in very low chroma colors that are not actually grey.

Einion -- Good point! I agree that neutrals can be made without black and white. I would just add that in theory the idea is that perfect complements mix to neutral. But in reality, many opposing pigments will not quite hit that dead grey tone. I know I'm splitting hairs! ;)

(On this subject, but directed to Einion) Also, some pigments are so delicately balanced against each other (usually strong tinters), that a tiny proportional difference swings the mix from one hue to the other. This is an occasion where using black and white (with a little burnt umber or burnt sienna, depending on the value), makes mixing neutrals so much easier.

LarrySeiler
12-08-2008, 11:47 AM
Larry -- I can see that one, or both, the neutrals are not truly neutral. You would need to show a "control" grey so we could see where they actually stand with regard to hue.

I think there is a wide acceptence of the definition of "neutral" to include almost anything that is greyed-down chroma. This seems to be one area of friction between those who accept a broad definition of neutral and those who have been trained to match to perfect neutral and note the difference in very low chroma colors that are not actually grey.

If you don't mind my saying, it would seem by "control" we are reducing painting to a scientific lab process...but in practice, as painters...as practicioners of the aesthetic...what I demonstrated works and differs in degree only subjectively to what we might argue superior or better.

I have heard a basic simplistic definition of physics is that which works, because it works.

As a painter...I am after excellence, but I do not believe we are obligated to refrain from the potential results we could achieve because others do not concur on a control group. I see in other words, no cause for this "friction" you speak of. Only a mutual respect that we have different means and concepts which lead to the results we arrive at. I do recognize the importance of your requirement for such, as it no doubt accounts for the work you accomplish.

There is too long an established painting history whereby painters have painted masterful works mixing their own neutrals, worry n'er at all if the scientific community would consider their grays pure.

For one thing...paintings work within their relative environment with the constraints we assign. If the painting works compositionally with balance, intrigue, variation etc., and if the painting works with color finding harmony, cohesive unity in the whole...and if our knowledge base justifies anatomy, subject content...we can say the painting works. That it works to any lesser or greater degree to our own preferences of appeal is more subjective, no?

Really...all we can come to agree at best is your work is your work, my work is my work...we get to the results that we call our work following our manner of understanding and manipulations, and it is subjective in the end.

Its not one way...but a number of ways a problem is resolved, and the novice/intermediate need understand that one's manner of working versus another's manner of working will produce varying end results.

If one should discover that a whole genre or a movement in art produces one kind of painting that has great appeal, it might be illuminating to see what differences separate that result from the works of another painting direction. Again...subjective.

I think its great to have these discussions...because it is interesting to see how artists differ in their manner of thinking and working, and how it influences the end results...and it goes largely unsaid, but what I think is inferred by debate when we insist on one thing are we are not implying one will be a better painter to consider the argument presented, and then change?

So, a fair question might be asked in such discussions...how will this change therefore make my paintings better, myself a better painter(?)...presuming therefore that something is quite apparently lacking in a body of work.

If the case is not made, then ultimately where lies the power for debate? If the result is subjective and thus the case can NOT be made, then it simply becomes a discourse to help us appreciate and better understand each other as painters pro-offering insights to what makes our work uniquely our work.


peace :wave:

sidbledsoe
12-08-2008, 01:29 PM
Challenge I would like to see, use the munsell system gray scale, hold it up next to the two grays Larry mixed and tell us which one or if both are not a true neutral notwithstanding the white balance of digital photos. I would suspect the ivory black mix leans towards blue as they do, then mix a true neutral with the munsell system using similar red, yellow, and blue colors as Larry used, put next to a gray scale and a ivory black gray and show us the results.

gunzorro
12-08-2008, 02:25 PM
Sid -- Thanks, that's basically what I was trying to say. Without some known "control," or in this case, an agreed upon neutral, we can't tell how neutral Larry's greyish colors are. I'm not saying it particularly affects anyone's work to have greys that aren't neutral, but it is very easy to make genuine neutral greys if one has a measure to mix against. A few of these can then be tubed up for immediate use without bothering to mix them to the standard. ;)

Many painters make or buy a grey scale of values and put it under a plate glass studio palette for immediate reference for not only correct value, but also correct neutral when mixing. Regardless of Munsell theory, it is a very common practice to use a grey scale in this manner, of take a neutral value strip into the field for landscapes.

For photos illustrating colors and procedures, especially greys, it is almost a rule to include such a yardstick for anyone that might seriously consider the published results -- it takes any personal bias of author and reader out of the equation.

This sort of "busy work," as Bill Martin has called it, that starts to become contagious after a while -- once you start working to standards, you start incorporating those standards into your procedure in a way that becomes almost unconscious each time you implement. The mind starts adapting to these standards of color and better overall accuracy results, even without consulting some reference color.

sidbledsoe
12-08-2008, 02:57 PM
Yes, and when you guys are refering to neutrals (plural) I assume you mean non biased grays of different values. I have considered taking a black and white photo near the end of a painting and evaluating the relative values minus color then tweaking as I think it needs. Is that a good idea? It seems that the colors can skew your perception of the real relative values?

LarrySeiler
12-08-2008, 04:55 PM
It seems that the colors can skew your perception of the real relative values?


In the structured critique forum, over a good number of years...I have converted images to grayscale to show where the illusion of depth has been hampered from a poor use and understanding of values. Its not a bad idea...

But...at the same time, do not forget that a color mixed has a value inherently. I'm not so sure color "skews" this "perception" so much as a lack of general understanding.

For example for the landscape painter...reading and absorbing a good book like John F. Carlson published in 1929...teaches well the relationship of color as it appears near versus farther away, and values near as versus farther away and so forth.

Building the knowledge, then painting while observing I think especially from life will develop an awareness that stays tuned in and in gear.

Some...have used a piece of reddish cellophane to look at their painting thru. I have not done this, but I understand it more or less converts the painting to see the power of your values.

Again...you can make yourself a valu'ator as well...which I have my high school level paint students make. Punch a hole thru so that it can be held up against the painting...and squinting the eyes...you can judge the value. You can judge the value of the subject you are looking at by holding it up...judge the paint mixed up...and so forth-

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/08-Dec-2008/532-evaluator_demonstrated1.jpg

Here you see...squinting the eyes, the grays match up against the painting about where the red arrow is pointing. Here the painting...40"x 50"...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/08-Dec-2008/532-paintingevaluator_demonstrated1.jpg

Einion
12-08-2008, 05:10 PM
Einion -- Good point! I agree that neutrals can be made without black and white. I would just add that in theory the idea is that perfect complements mix to neutral. But in reality, many opposing pigments will not quite hit that dead grey tone. I know I'm splitting hairs! ;)
Not splitting hairs at all, this is an important point that we've had to reinforce many times in discussions here. As Bruce MacEvoy's extensive investigation showed so well, mixing complements don't in reality have to be opposing at all - a paint will either be a mixing complement to another or it won't, simple as that. It's not related to theoretical ideas of complements as in reality many complementary pairs are not opposing hues.

(On this subject, but directed to Einion) Also, some pigments are so delicately balanced against each other (usually strong tinters), that a tiny proportional difference swings the mix from one hue to the other.
Yep, that's why I made sure to add the parenthetical comment in the first sentence.

This is an occasion where using black and white (with a little burnt umber or burnt sienna, depending on the value), makes mixing neutrals so much easier.
This was also touched on in that thread in Oil Painting - doesn't this assume the goal is an actual neutral, as opposed to mixing lower-chroma versions of something?

If one needs to mix neutral greys then yes, black + white + an earth is probably the simplest way of getting them. It's also very likely to always be cheapest, I certainly can't think of any alternate route that would cost less.

However, often the goal is the general painting task of achieving a variety of greyer colours, to match lower-chroma areas in the subject, for halftones and shadows mainly. And there are many ways of approaching this kind of mixing. If you don't purchase the neutral greys, or mix up enough to tube/store, then there's a lot to be said for using one or two complementary routes, as well as deliberately choosing widely-spaced starting points when the palette allows.

Einion

Einion
12-08-2008, 05:23 PM
I have considered taking a black and white photo near the end of a painting and evaluating the relative values minus color then tweaking as I think it needs. Is that a good idea?
In theory this is a great idea if one wants to try to impartially look at the value structure. In reality unfortunately it doesn't work out quite as accurate as we'd hope - different cameras have differing sensitivities to varying wavelengths of light.

Taking the shot in colour and converting to greyscale in Photoshop or another program of its type is also a problem as there are a number of different ways of going to B&W and all of them give different results.

However, if you're photographing the painting and the subject, to compare them, then this is much less of an issue.

It seems that the colors can skew your perception of the real relative values?
Yes, this can happen often. The colours can also skew our perception of the colours!

Einion

mr.wiggles
12-08-2008, 05:59 PM
one of Larry's grays has a blue tone to it, the one on the left. I was most likely Titanium and Black. The one on the right has a yellow tint so it was the other mixture. The are not real neutrals. What I meant by not being able to mix neutral without black is that it not easy or prudent to mix them with complementaries as Jim has stated it's very hard to get it right.

I find it easer to use Titanium and Ivory Black and Raw Umbra or Burnt Umbra to help control the mix.

Larry I said I use Black as an accent. I don't use it to mix that much. I do have 9 gray scales on my palette so I can lower chroma using them.
I never thought I would live to see the day of being mentioned in the same paragraph as Kinkade...:) of all the cheek.

As far as seeing my work well click on my link at the bottom of the page.

Anyway this discussion is going around in circles or is it me?
It seems the definitions being used are not being interpreted the same way by people. People are not on the same page here on what control means. It's starting to sound like a Cole Porter tune.

It sounds to me that some are saying that yes there are many ways to arive at solutions, BUT! this is the WAY when at the same time admonishing those who are advocating for a way of studying values that is pretty sound. I'm not saying my way is the "WAY". I am only making suggestions. If one wants to mix grays from complementaries I see no problem with this. A question was asked; and it seems like years ago as I have now grown a beard, it was on the subject of getting better at painting and I assume drawing values. We are going down this path to color wars, with one guy posting large diagrams and paintiings to prove a point that has nothing to do with the original question. Munseel is a proven color system, period. If you don't like it it's fine lets agree to disagree.
It's only paint, no one is going die fomr not mixing perfect neutrals.
Well your painting might. but that's another issue.

sidbledsoe
12-08-2008, 06:25 PM
It was going in circles earlier in this thread for me, now it is making some practical sense to me (someone who spent their life in a lab instead of in art classes and in front of an easel), thank you Larry for that value scale comparing strip example, I have Carlson's book but have only begun to read it. Thanks einion also.
Don't mind learning all about the things here and will employ what I want for my own use so that someday I may be mentioned someday along side any successful painter of light, :eek: lol

LarrySeiler
12-08-2008, 06:32 PM
one of Larry's grays has a blue tone to it, the one on the left. I was most likely Titanium and Black. The one on the right has a yellow tint so it was the other mixture.

or...I could add more Fr Ultramarine blue to the mix on the right to accomplish the same, and tweak up the blue tone. That is the thing...the ease with tweaking...


The are not real neutrals.


Real enough...to dialog with most painters and have a common ground of understanding that does not raise questions. In the 5 years or so the Plein Air forum has been around and I've moderated it...not once have I seen a question of what was meant by anyone talking about neutral or graying down, or grays. Only here...is it an apparent issue. But, that's okay too...just making a point on that...



What I meant by not being able to mix neutral without black is that it not easy or prudent to mix them with complementaries as Jim has stated it's very hard to get it right.

First of all..."right" is subjective. If it works...it works...and if it is hard perhaps it is hard only only to some, or those too impatient to see its advantages thru into that mode of intuitive application that comes of routine and constant frequent use. But...hard...ease is never an argument in and of itself against something working. It come down to the value of its worth to learn. If one sees little value in it, fine...if one understands the advantages of it, that too is fine. Like anything...dues are required to acquire a knack or skill...but after that comes fair sailing.



I find it easer to use Titanium and Ivory Black and Raw Umbra or Burnt Umbra to help control the mix.

And thus...the argument ends for you on this point alone, and that is fine. One way of working.. :thumbsup:



Anyway this discussion is going around in circles or is it me?


I think it can be burdensome developing relationships, arriving at clarity and my whole initial point was that we recognize there are any manner of approaches and best we discuss why one way might well and good be our choice, and be careful to not come across as though all other ways are folly or errant. Not pointing fingers...but look at the work of an artist, and if the work is working there are ideas at play that answer why.

It is excellent that in this forum those searching for answers or ways to grow can find a number of options...and that which might suit learning in a way that suits their personality.

Since it may seem arduous and points have been made such that we can avoid now going in circles, I believe it may well be time for me take my leave. Perhaps this discussion or my end of it has run its full measure.

Its been enjoyable...and I thank everyone for patience demonstrated toward me, what I've learned of you...

peace

:wave:

gunzorro
12-08-2008, 06:32 PM
Einion said: "However, often the goal is the general painting task of achieving a variety of greyer colours, to match lower-chroma areas in the subject, for halftones and shadows mainly. And there are many ways of approaching this kind of mixing. If you don't purchase the neutral greys, or mix up enough to tube/store, then there's a lot to be said for using one or two complementary routes, as well as deliberately choosing widely-spaced starting points when the palette allows."

This is an excellent observation! I thought many times about tubing up a set of neutrals, and have in fact, pulled the empty paint tubes to start the project! ;) I don't have a lot of use for such tubes, but I'm sure I'll find more reasons once they are staring at me.

I like how you said within this quote that the goal is greyer colors. As we know that can be done a number of ways, but with premade neutral values one can expect nearly identicial colors every time, painting to painting. That's what I don't like about trying to spontaneously mix neutral values -- even with black it is sort of a crap shoot to get it just right, let alone complements. But complements are less bulky than more tubes. . . six of one, half a dozen of the other. But I'm sure I will soon mix up some standardized neutrals.

LarrySeiler
12-08-2008, 06:36 PM
It was going in circles earlier in this thread for me, now it is making some practical sense to me (someone who spent their life in a lab instead of in art classes and in front of an easel), thank you Larry for that value scale comparing strip example, I have Carlson's book but have only begun to read it.
Don't mind learning all about the things here and will employ what I want for my own use so that someday I may be mentioned someday along side Kinkade, :eek: lol

my pleasure, and glad I could contribute...

take care now...

:wave:

mr.wiggles
12-08-2008, 10:10 PM
Jim I have tubed the neutrals it's a lot of work.
It was two afternoons, about 8 hours total.
You will need a lot Titanium White. I used a Titanium/Flake mix.
I also ended up using some raw pigment as I ran out of White and had a kilo of Titanium. So that added to my time frame, grinding about 200ml tube worth of White paint. It was hard work but worth it. I use them every day myself. Also the process of doing it, mixing and testing for so many hours does you some good.

I don't recommend this for the faint of heart...

stoney
12-08-2008, 11:10 PM
First thing I did coming into my art studio this morning was grab my palette, and I mixed a gray/neutral with Liquitex Ivory Black and Titanium white, and a gray/neutral from Utrecht French Ultramarine Blue, W&N Bright Red, and Utrecht Cadmium Lemon Yellow plus the same white...

can you tell which of these two grays/neutrals came from which???
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/08-Dec-2008/532-palettegrays.jpg

I can't.

[]


Thirdly, is it possible that prospective painters lose something of the ability to understand the potential of color to mix at will and understand relationships by coming to depend on the easy way?

Lose something? Something a person never had can't be lost. Following this line of inquiry, I'd suggest the 'easy way' is just the opposite. Much time could be lost and, possibly, an apt solution never found.


I know Scott can make grays and neutrals without black, and I understand with his large in studio canvases and the volume of paint he goes thru that using premixed grays is a convenience to him. I don't believe he finds it necessary to bring all those grays with him when he goes out to paint oil studies (plein air) on location.

Again...this strikes me odd to hear you can't make neutrals without black, but I'm willing to consider I'm just an oddball out...

Lastly, here are my three primaries that comprise my limited palette...with that same neutral/gray added to each...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/08-Dec-2008/532-palettecolorgrays.jpg

...surely anyone could see these colors have been grayed down, by degree neutralized???? ....and, without black I must stress.

As I understand it, nature itself lends itself to often being neutralized.


- - - - Now a Note to Lurkers/Beginning and Intermediate painters
One advantage I would stress ...is that by mixing your own darks from primaries you become very sensitively aware of the power you have to tweak and lean any neutral/gray or dark to feel warm or cool, thus implement or project another form of contrast into the work.

As Payne points out...the color of nature seen in nature's light is perhaps 200 to 300 times more intense than what pigment can imitate. He thus suggested we all start painting at a deficit, and it is this deficit acknowledged that I then argue we are all then at the crux of it...abstract painters. The best of the realists among us creating that which yet holds deficit to the truth is a finer more refined abstractist than the next perhaps.

Thing is...once you agree with Payne on the deficit, you see that his palette strategies are designed to push certain things in an attempt to recover some ground and up the ante on that deficit. Thus...if you can do more to a dark than just make an area/plane dark...say tweak it cool if the light is warm, or tweak it warm if the light is cool...then you increase the effect/contrast.


Yes. I'd also indicate quite often this ability makes the overall work faster and smoother.


My contention working with students (adults and youth) over many years is that by human nature many are lazy. They go with what seems to work, work right away...and promises to resolve the issue.

Lazy or they see their current avenue to be more efficient? It may be that as their knowledge and experience grows they'll come to the conclusion it is stifling.


Secondly, many work from photos and see thru the lens metering systems shut shadows down, are prejudice against showing color existing because they capture reflected and indirect light very poorly.

By mixing your own darks...and denying one's prone tendency toward the easy out, one's awareness of indirect and reflected light grows. Color temperature awareness increases, and you see additional means to push and empower your painting.

Yes. I've been testing some new, to me, techniques. With 'Fantail' {final touchups needed} the gallery wrap {not used before} and a reddish base coat have furthered the overall punch.

With 'Legs' {initial stages} I'm using thinned paint in layers over gessoed canvas. I've not used any black or white.


This is not to argue what is art...what is not. What is good art or what is not. It is to argue that special little extra something that is often observed lacking even in the most labored realistic works, utilized can bring a life to the work that feels more like you could actually be standing there experiencing it. If one does not have the eye for that...one might not understand what I am saying. That perhaps is why we sound like such goofballs by some. If you do have the eye, then you know what I mean.


I don't have the 'eye.' Yet. I have seen how something small and subtle can develop one heck of a difference.


After experience pushing...I think one is aware of the danger of black reliance, and one like an addictive nature can risk using it again but always watchful for rising tendencies of dependency without alteration.

peace

gunzorro
12-08-2008, 11:16 PM
I will probably stock up on more titanium, but I could proceed with what I have on hand, I just hate to use all my Blockx on this. ;) I also have two pounds of the SP titanium pigment, which is top-notch -- so, like you, I could really put in a lot of work. :)

What do you think of just doing values 3 or 4 through 9? Values 1, 2 and 3 seem pretty easy to mix as needed.

Actually, I think anyone would be in pretty good shape with an accurate Value 5 grey on hand. It would be nice if some paint maker made it easy on us and had an accurate set! Maybe Blue Ridge will get interested?

I'll wait until after I get a copy of the Munsell Big Book with all the chips. Then we'll see!

stoney
12-08-2008, 11:54 PM
Challenge I would like to see, use the munsell system gray scale, hold it up next to the two grays Larry mixed and tell us which one or if both are not a true neutral notwithstanding the white balance of digital photos. I would suspect the ivory black mix leans towards blue as they do, then mix a true neutral with the munsell system using similar red, yellow, and blue colors as Larry used, put next to a gray scale and a ivory black gray and show us the results.

Why? What Larry did was mix two equal neutrals via two different approaches. The 'control' was the first one he mixed. Put both against a gray scale and compare.

I see your injection of 'true' as a red herring.

/cue *True* Scotsman. /cue *True* Christian.

See also: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html


http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=No_True_Scotsman

No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing.

The term was coined by Antony Flew, who gave an example of a Scotsman who sees a newspaper article about a series of sex crimes taking place in Brighton, and responds that no Scotsman would do such a thing. When later confronted with evidence of another Scotsman doing even worse acts, his response is that no true Scotsman would do such a thing, thus disavowing membership in the group "Scotsman" to the criminal on the basis that the commission of the crime is evidence for not being a Scotsman. However, this is a fallacy as there is nothing in the definition of "Scotsman" which makes such acts impossible.

A modern example may be found at the would-be Conservative encyclopedia, Conservapedia. The founder of the site, Andrew Schlafly, has repeatedly used this fallacy to defend his personal concept that Conservatives, by definition apparently, do not practice deceit. When confronted with examples of deceit on the part of Conservatives, he routinely disavows that these individuals are not Conservatives at all, on the basis that Conservatives do not practice deceit.[1] He instead assigns them to the group liberal, regardless of evidence to the contrary. The use of this fallacy is underlined by the fact that prior to revelations of deceit, the same individuals would have been hailed as good Conservatives.

Phrases such as "un-American", "unChristian" or "inhuman" are widely used in politics and media to distance onself from a subject, defining them as outside the bounds of what the speaker considers to be truly 'American', 'Christian' or 'human' behaviour. These phrases strongly suggest the No True Scotsman fallacy, since the use, for example of "un-American" to describe specific political activities by some American citizens implies some special definition of "American" beyond mere nationality.

Broadly speaking, the fallacy does not apply if there is a clear and well-understood definition of what membership in a group requires ("no honest man would lie like that!"). [/quote]

Or;
"Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say "Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. This is an example of an ad hoc change being used to shore up an assertion, combined with an attempt to shift the meaning of the words used original assertion; you might call it a combination of fallacies.

The NTS Fallacy, then, is a fallacy of equivocation whereby the correspondent shifts meanings in mid-argument."

kentmatt
12-09-2008, 01:20 AM
Why? What Larry did was mix two equal neutrals via two different approaches. The 'control' was the first one he mixed. Put both against a gray scale and compare.

I see your injection of 'true' as a red herring.

/cue *True* Scotsman. /cue *True* Christian.

<much verbiage snipped here>

Holy overkill Batman. An entire philosophy lecture misdirected.:)

There's a large disconnect between concepts here. Larry is referring to low-chroma colours as "neutrals". Jeff (wiggles) is referring to "true" neutrals, and yes, they do exist. What people refer to as 'warm' greys and 'cool' greys are not truly neutral - they are biased towards other colours (red-orange-yellow or green-blue-purple).

Larry has demonstrated that one can mix "neutrals" by either means. This is absolutely true.

However, Larry's own description of the mixtures is interesting. One mixture was made with black and white. The other was made with red, blue, yellow, and white. Anyone see the difference in complexity? Although it seems "only" two more colours, it compounds the complexity enormously. Every colour's proportion must be measured against every other colour in the mix to achieve the target. I'm sure that mixing that grey took more steps than mixing black and white.

Back to the concept of "True" Neutrals - those which have no bias - they are not slightly yellow, red, blue, or any other colour - they are perfectly neutral grey.

This is important for accurate mixing. If one is using greys to neutralize other colours, then it is important that they be truly neutral so as not to introduce hue shifts when added to the other colour.

The use of truly neutral grey for mixing what Larry generically refers to as "neutrals" (ie low-chroma colours) is again a practical and time-saving approach. To intentionally achieve a specific value blue-grey such as Larry showed in some earlier posts (the ones with the 'home' colour) by mixing yellow, blue, red, and white is very finicky. As I stated earlier, each colour in the mix must be added in correct proportion to every other colour - in other words, it's a precise recipe that has to be reached by adding a little of this, a little of that, adjusting as one goes until the target is reached.

To achieve a specific blue-grey using neutral grey would be to mix a blue close in hue to the intended target with one other paint to shift it towards either purple or green (eg start with pthalo blue and add a little ultramarine or add a little pthalo emerald). Then add white to raise it to the value intended. Now we have a blue of the exact hue needed at the correct value. All that is needed now is to add a neutral grey of the same value until the intended low-chroma blue is achieved.

The difference is mixing four paints in round-robin fashion until the correct colour is reached vs mixing two pigments to reach the hue, adding white to achieve the value, and grey to neutralize - three specific steps. Each step is very easily measurable - ie you know when you are right at each step, and then can confidently proceed to the next.

Using neutrals that are not truly neutral can botch the final step - if a warm grey is added, for example, it could shift the hue (towards purple or green, depending on if it was a reddish 'warm' grey or a yellowish 'warm' grey). This is the reason behind mixing specific true neutral strings.

stoney
12-09-2008, 02:50 AM
Holy overkill Batman. An entire philosophy lecture misdirected.:)

Oh Oh.


There's a large disconnect between concepts here. Larry is referring to low-chroma colours as "neutrals". Jeff (wiggles) is referring to "true" neutrals, and yes, they do exist.

He brought that in later-as a way to discount Larry's example. That was what I objected to.

As for a 'true' neutral....well....the same aspect which he used against Larry also applies to him, as well. :) Granted the amount of deviation is smaller, but it is there. Bill's example of GAM machine overkill applies.


What people refer to as 'warm' greys and 'cool' greys are not truly neutral - they are biased towards other colours (red-orange-yellow or green-blue-purple).

These are paintings and things deliberately get skewed for a purpose. Again, the 'truely' aspect applies to the 'truely neutral' and so it fails. Once again, the whole objection is a red herring. The thread from the start was dealing with real world stuff, not sterile academics.

The point Larry made about seeing his prior award winning stuff being pretty much sterile could be seen as the academic aspect. Some movies have the people in the setting getting their particular meal via swallowing a pill or two. Such is fine and well, but I'd much prefer a sizzling steak, baked potato, corn, and a good stout beer.


Larry has demonstrated that one can mix "neutrals" by either means. This is absolutely true.

However, Larry's own description of the mixtures is interesting. One mixture was made with black and white. The other was made with red, blue, yellow, and white. Anyone see the difference in complexity? Although it seems "only" two more colours, it compounds the complexity enormously. Every colour's proportion must be measured against every other colour in the mix to achieve the target. I'm sure that mixing that grey took more steps than mixing black and white.

Of course mixing that gray took more steps. Larry's points were to show there was more than one avenue to a destination. His other point was increased sensitivity to subtle differences.


Back to the concept of "True" Neutrals - those which have no bias - they are not slightly yellow, red, blue, or any other colour - they are perfectly neutral grey.

Not at all. The tolerances will be tighter, but there will still be a margin for error. :) Perfection doesn't exist.


This is important for accurate mixing. If one is using greys to neutralize other colours, then it is important that they be truly neutral so as not to introduce hue shifts when added to the other colour.

GIGO again, I'm afraid.


The use of truly neutral grey for mixing what Larry generically refers to as "neutrals" (ie low-chroma colours) is again a practical and time-saving approach. To intentionally achieve a specific value blue-grey such as Larry showed in some earlier posts (the ones with the 'home' colour) by mixing yellow, blue, red, and white is very finicky. As I stated earlier, each colour in the mix must be added in correct proportion to every other colour - in other words, it's a precise recipe that has to be reached by adding a little of this, a little of that, adjusting as one goes until the target is reached.

Not 'precise.' The proportions must be 'X' +/- some factor{s}. One also has to take into account the influence of other colours, direction and amount of light. The artist matches things according to his/her eyes. There's no way to compensate for myriad viewers' eyes or differing light and/or light angle, among other things.


To achieve a specific blue-grey using neutral grey would be to mix a blue close in hue to the intended target with one other paint to shift it towards either purple or green (eg start with pthalo blue and add a little ultramarine or add a little pthalo emerald). Then add white to raise it to the value intended. Now we have a blue of the exact hue needed at the correct value. All that is needed now is to add a neutral grey of the same value until the intended low-chroma blue is achieved.

Exact. Correct. Truely. Other verbs. Sounds good but means nothing in this area of non-digital painting. Good diversion attempts though.


The difference is mixing four paints in round-robin fashion until the correct colour is reached vs mixing two pigments to reach the hue, adding white to achieve the value, and grey to neutralize - three specific steps. Each step is very easily measurable - ie you know when you are right at each step, and then can confidently proceed to the next.

'Measurable' in a sloppy sight evaluation, yes. The desired result is reached; the amount of steps is irrelevant.


Using neutrals that are not truly neutral can botch the final step - if a warm grey is added, for example, it could shift the hue (towards purple or green, depending on if it was a reddish 'warm' grey or a yellowish 'warm' grey). This is the reason behind mixing specific true neutral strings.

You're not going to get 'specific true neutral strings.' One can get an approximate neutral string and/or one can shift a gray's bias towards a needed aspect.

Once again Williams' GAM unit example comes into play. The effort is sabotaged by a dodgy 'shutter' unit.

Cheers

dcorc
12-09-2008, 05:25 AM
Stoney - the tolerances (I'm using tolerance in the engineering sense here, before it gets misunderstood by anyone) we are talking about, in terms of Munsell neutrals, are far smaller than the sorts of tolerances implicit in the range of colours Larry is using the term "neutrals" to describe. I know you have the Munsell student book, Stoney (from reading another thread here), so I'd point out that the Scott Christensen Vasari "greys" appear to have chromas in some cases which seem to go as high as 4.

Now one of the major interests of many of us who are involved in Graydons ongoing project to explore the application of Munsell to oilpainting, is the creation of skintones which are akin to those we see in 19thC works such as those by Bouguereau. Here we know that the maximum chroma we are typically seeing is around 4. Much of the skintone colouration is of lower chroma than that, and we are interested in the sort of tight control of colour which allows us to turn form and model under these conditions. Often, this means being able to consistently and controllably "hit" very subtly different colouration which lies well within the range of "wobble" typically found in mixing with open-palette strategies (the sort of variation which people painting in impressionistic styles often describe as "lively greys").

I am well-aware that Bouguereau's work predates Munsell, but my point is that Munsell gives us an analytical tool we can use. Furthermore, we do know that many 19thC painters did use premixed "strings" on their palette.

The sort of accuracy we are talking about may well be "overkill" for the sort of Plein Air painting that Larry does, but that does not mean that the toolkit and approaches may not be of interest to others here, doing other sorts of work.

Dave

LarrySeiler
12-09-2008, 08:06 AM
The difference is mixing four paints in round-robin fashion until the correct colour is reached vs mixing two pigments to reach the hue, adding white to achieve the value, and grey to neutralize - three specific steps.

I like your writing style, Kent...you seem like a good humor kinda guy, and fair too...

I've explained it nearly ad nauseum, I suppose. One...a confession...I paint outdoors perhaps 90% of the time and I RARELY see a consistent color or value of ANYTHING...

We learn to interpret things in a way that brings us control and confidence, and fall into a working system, fall into a tendency of useful generalities. Little by little that system expands as we paint and grow trusting ourselves to not let lumber get the upper hand. Lumber? Its been said nature throws a lot of lumber at you. That refers to information overload. The novice feels immediately lost, attempting to paint everything, the mature painter learns to discriminate...more concerned with what NOT to paint.

I painted with black for 17 years in studio...mixing grays with black plus white. Now...not everyone will be me, but for novices I think its worth learning from my misgivings...

I've shared this before, but here is a painting that earned me a reputation building title and a lot of money back in 1984...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/09-Dec-2008/532-snowyowl150dpi.jpg

I would greatly struggle to paint this today because twenty-five years later I see how lifeless and benign the color and suggestion of light is in this painting, and due mainly to my tonal addiction to black.

Outdoors...I rarely see any gray the same. Every gray has some hint of color or color temperature in it, and it is so easy to slide into what has worked before, again and again.

Secondly...if you hike in anywhere carrying gear and sometimes I hike 1-2 miles in the northwoods to get to various waterfalls and so forth, you learn to take essentials.

Primaries are essential, no? Here is the thing. Can't represent too many colors with black...but you CAN represent black with color.

Lastly, it is the understanding that comes of the discipline and learning of being able to mix darks and tweak them. It takes no more time really for me to mix up what I need than the time to properly observe where a neutral or dark is leaning. My contention is that use of black for most artists to make darks or their neutrals seems to undermine or negate the time to learn more accurate observation. If one has an addiction also to photos as a reference to paint from, that accurate observation may never come...and the artist has no idea how black is using them!

Now...I submit many many and perhaps most artists can be less addicted and more educated to using their black and neutrals properly than I was...and if painters are consistently cognizant of implanting color and temperature into their darks to REDEEM them...then fine. But, see...there is the EXTRA step committed there by the two pigment- white + black mixing painter, no? To implant and influence that neutral and dark with the proper hint and presence of color.

Painting outdoors is about seeing light, which is revealed in color and undergirded with value.

Painting stilllifes or figures indoors requires another mindset yet still seeing directly (unless copying a photo reference) but painting an outdoor subject instudio requires PRETENDING you are outdoors.

I'm simply confessing what my addiction was, what it cost me (lifelessness) and what I see happening in majority of the students and adults I work with as well as most the members of WC I've helped, critiqued and worked with over the past decade.

It seems that MOST artists do not use black well. Black uses them!

To my thinking, that life that comes thru paint avoiding black is worth the time and extra step in mixing. Once artists have the education of the importance of getting color into the shadows, color temperature and so forth (and also into the darks) then perhaps most artists would use black properly. Took me 17 years before I was even aware such an education or knowing would be important. :rolleyes:

I will presume everyone here that has demonstrated a good knowledge would so use black properly. I wonder however how many here are art educators, workshop instructors and such? You tend to be somewhat like a father or guardian when you see time and again something to be injurious.

Again...one last emphasis. If I saw pure gray outdoors that doesn't lean toward ANY color or any temperature...surely such as a pigment would be of value on my palette. I don't see it...so it would require that extra step regardless to supplant color to redeem it.

I believe I've demonstrated I can mix gray...so if I need a pure one, I'll get it I'm sure. Thus far nature has thrown a lot at me over the past decade to the tune of about 200 paintings per year, so nature's had a lot of opportunity to convince me to get some pure gray. Just haven't seen the need yet.

For artists like Scott...his knowledge of color in darks and shadows is mature. He knows how to get his grays without gray...so, he also understands putting his color into the grays to lean them. He paints very large instudio...puts out a ton of paint, and perhaps can trust himself more than I've come to trust myself.

I am beginning to trust myself...having this past year played with Zorn's palette thus using black...and using more on my limited palette. For convenience...but like any addict reintroduced to their substance, I exercise constant vigilance and caution. When I use black...I will intend to use it rather than let it use me...and note, for those that will come back at me, I have not said do not use black. My word is a caution from a confessed addict to use black if you will, but do not let black use you!

(I said I'd back off some, please pardon me as I see reference to things I've said, and the subject is fascinating...but I'll try to refrain ;) )...

sidbledsoe
12-09-2008, 09:56 AM
The black thing is very interesting. Back to my question about a b&w photo for reference in value judgement or for that matter the question of changing to gray scales with photoshop or whatever, here is my first try at this, I took a b&w digital pic with my camera and at first thought wow I don't have enough variations in my values and maybe I don't but look at the difference. Starting with the sky, in the color pic you can clearly see a gradation top to bottom darker blue to lighter blue but in the b&w pic it is lost.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/09-Dec-2008/112587-beach.jpeg
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/09-Dec-2008/112587-bw_beach.jpeg
I see the same thing in the ocean and a blurring elsewhere that I don't see in the original painting. Anyway, it makes me unsure of this grayscale conversion business in general now.

mr.wiggles
12-09-2008, 11:00 AM
Stoney - the tolerances (I'm using tolerance in the engineering sense here, before it gets misunderstood by anyone) we are talking about, in terms of Munsell neutrals, are far smaller than the sorts of tolerances implicit in the range of colours Larry is using the term "neutrals" to describe. I know you have the Munsell student book, Stoney (from reading another thread here), so I'd point out that the Scott Christensen Vasari "greys" appear to have chromas in some cases which seem to go as high as 4.

Now one of the major interests of many of us who are involved in Graydons ongoing project to explore the application of Munsell to oilpainting, is the creation of skintones which are akin to those we see in 19thC works such as those by Bouguereau. Here we know that the maximum chroma we are typically seeing is around 4. Much of the skintone colouration is of lower chroma than that, and we are interested in the sort of tight control of colour which allows us to turn form and model under these conditions. Often, this means being able to consistently and controllably "hit" very subtly different colouration which lies well within the range of "wobble" typically found in mixing with open-palette strategies (the sort of variation which people painting in impressionistic styles often describe as "lively greys").

I am well-aware that Bouguereau's work predates Munsell, but my point is that Munsell gives us an analytical tool we can use. Furthermore, we do know that many 19thC painters did use premixed "strings" on their palette.

The sort of accuracy we are talking about may well be "overkill" for the sort of Plein Air painting that Larry does, but that does not mean that the toolkit and approaches may not be of interest to others here, doing other sorts of work.

Dave

Frank DuMond, Arthur F. Maynard, John Philip Osborne, Frank Mason,
and everyone who ever studied with these painters use controlled palettes in the field. I have a painting box, which I have mentioned before that has 6 shelves for my pre-mixed strings.

Using a controlled palette in the field is hard at first, once you get better at using it you can't go back. At least that's my experience. I do paint without it sometimes but I notice that I spend a lot more time mixing on the spot then when I have my pre-mixed palette.

LarrySeiler
12-09-2008, 11:15 AM
what does come of such analysis converting to grayscale, Sid...is to see where differences in value would have led to greater believable depth illusion...

In your work grayed here, for example...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/09-Dec-2008/532-darkssid.jpg

darks outdoors typically are darker nearer to the viewer's eye and lighten going back (Carlson, "Landscape Painting" 1929) ...

The blue arrow shows your dark beneath the forward wave curl/crest the same value as the distant values...the red arrows show the foreground shadow the same dark as distant, green as well...

By darkening the foreground values, taking Payne's deficit observation to practical terms and pushing for effect, and making distant values lighter you would increase the depth illusion, and the grayscale would show that accomplished as well...

gunzorro
12-09-2008, 11:28 AM
Kent -- Very well written post!

Larry -- Meaning no disrespect, but I prefer your owl painting to the broken color landscapes I've seen you do. The owl is wonderfully detailed and colored, and I enjoy the contrast -- you have an excellent range from white to black, making it very punchy. I like the limited colors as well for this subject and surroundings. Very nicely done. :)

Stoney -- You are getting too argumentative. Kent is doing a good job of consolidating both points of view. There is certainly a place and reason for mixing generalized greys from colors, just as there is for a set of truly neutral greys to mix into colors. There is no big fight here.

Einion
12-09-2008, 12:08 PM
one of Larry's grays has a blue tone to it, the one on the left. I was most likely Titanium and Black. The one on the right has a yellow tint so it was the other mixture. The are not real neutrals. What I meant by not being able to mix neutral without black is that it not easy or prudent to mix them with complementaries as Jim has stated it's very hard to get it right.
Might want to check on that; I think the apparent difference in bias is a contextual illusion.

Anyway this discussion is going around in circles or is it me?
Always a danger of that when points are reiterated.


Back to the concept of "True" Neutrals - those which have no bias - they are not slightly yellow, red, blue, or any other colour - they are perfectly neutral grey.
Thank you for the clarification for those reading along who might not know.

This is important for accurate mixing. If one is using greys to neutralize other colours, then it is important that they be truly neutral so as not to introduce hue shifts when added to the other colour.
Hue shifts happen anyway with certain colours (particularly those in a specific hue range) regardless of the neutrality of the grey that is added. I do wish this very obvious problem wasn't brushed under the carpet so often by proponents.

The specific results are partly due to pigment interactions so this does vary somewhat with the starting paint and the ingredients of the neutral grey but generally, with yellows in particular and some oranges too, there is an inevitable real shift in hue (not merely apparent) toward green. In the case of yellows this usually makes actual greens. In the case of oranges this makes duller yellows and green-yellows, not usually as far as truly greens, although a shift that far can occasionally happen with black by itself.

Tweaking mixtures is part and parcel of painting. It really shouldn't be a surprise that a little tweak here and there is needed; in these cases the neutralising component in the neutral grey is not there in sufficient quantity to adjust for the shift in hue that the black causes.

Some mix types aren't that sensitive - in neutralising flesh colours for example there's little or no visible difference between using a simple black + white grey, a neutral grey or Cerulean Blue (particularly when the colour is used as-is, not thinly). This is partly because the proportion of the neutraliser is low in the mix of course, but clearly, given the huge difference in colour between Cerulean and neutral grey, the effect can be much less dependent on colour that we might think.

Just want to touch on this bit too, in part because it relates to the tweaking point above:

To achieve a specific blue-grey using neutral grey would be to mix a blue close in hue to the intended target with one other paint to shift it towards either purple or green (eg start with pthalo blue and add a little ultramarine or add a little pthalo emerald). Then add white to raise it to the value intended. Now we have a blue of the exact hue needed at the correct value. All that is needed now is to add a neutral grey of the same value until the intended low-chroma blue is achieved.
Many people use a green-shade phthalo blue; with those, adding white shifts the hue toward green already, quite significantly (examples here (http://www.goldenpaints.com/products/color/heavybody/colors/1255infopg.php) and here (http://www.dickblick.com/items/00607-5753/)) although it's more pronounced with some versions than others. The cyan-like underbelly shows in tints and when used thinly.

The same hue shift occurs to a lesser extent with blue-shade phthalo blues.

Einion

gunzorro
12-09-2008, 12:30 PM
Einion -- Excellent points about the hue shift. Although Graydon Parrish and Richard Murdock have posted a number of times on RP forum on this issue of correcting for hue shift, it does seem to get overlooked or not given a strong emphasis.

Even adding white or light greys can cause some hues to need tweaking to stay on the hue path.

A note for readers: The common method for making neutral greys is to use black and white, adding burnt umber in the darker values, and adding burnt sienna in the medium to light values to correct for the slight natural blue that occurs with simple black and white mixing. I learned the burnt umber part from Graydon's posts (not that he invented it, but he found it useful to distribute), and the burnt sienna part came right from the Munsell Student Book. In small amounts, both colors work like a charm. It is necessary to have accurate Munsell grey chips to match for the various values.

sidbledsoe
12-09-2008, 12:31 PM
Thanks a lot Larry, I see what you mean, and I can also see that without the gray scale now that I am aware of it.

LarrySeiler
12-09-2008, 12:42 PM
Larry -- Meaning no disrespect, but I prefer your owl painting to the broken color landscapes I've seen you do. The owl is wonderfully detailed and colored, and I enjoy the contrast -- you have an excellent range from white to black, making it very punchy. I like the limited colors as well for this subject and surroundings. Very nicely done. :)

thank you...

its like winning a gold medal, can never take it away..

I take it as no disrespect, and there is a reason it won...

Its a matter of taste and preference...but to me, spending so much time outdoors hunting, fishing...hiking here in a national forest...the broken color feels so much more like REAL life.

Perhaps you spend a good deal of time outdoors, but if like many that purport to like art...more live in metros and their idea of an owl in a corn field would meet an agreeable report with my painting. Myself...I practically live outdoors...here 1200 lakes and streams, and I often strapping a Blackhawk 44 to my waist. I eat, nearly breath the outdoors.

Leaves do not freeze motionless still and broken color attempts to capture not just what a thing looks like but how it behaves in real time. That too is an aspect of realism. I believe this is one reason we are so disappointed to see the remains of one we knew so well laid out in a casket. The nicest thing said is, "oh..they look just like they are sleeping!" The still frozen body fails to represent our experience with that once very real relationship we had. Life does not exist in a moment but sessions of ongoing continuum, and a frozen highly detailed realistic image today feels more like looking upon a corpse, a shadow of what is and was.

If I took a photo of an owl sitting in a broken corn field, then the painting would capture that experience...that is, the experience of encountering a photograph.

I can assure you encountering the owl in the field feels nothing like encountering a reference photo.

I'm trying to paint today that which more aptly represents my real experiences outdoors.

I have lost one clientele due to my change...but I have gained another, that that other understands and experiences the same feelings outdoors.

There is room for everyone and every idea in the art world. That is a marvelous thing when you think of it...

thanks again though, I take it as a compliment of a former important chapter in my life!!!

:thumbsup:

gunzorro
12-09-2008, 01:28 PM
Larry -- Like you, I love the outdoors, although most of my time there is spent at outdoor shooting ranges! ;) I spent last weekend at a shooting match, sleeping nights in my VW camper at the range in Fresno -- foggy, cold and damp -- I was the only shooter to sleep there for two nights. Nice campfire and plenty of solitude and quiet -- only cows and coyotes.

I'm so glad you were able to transistion successfully from one style to the other -- that is a tremendous challenge, and a risk. Congrats! :)

mr.wiggles
12-09-2008, 01:30 PM
I did the one on the left is bluer in tint to the one on the right.
Einion how do you see them?
Anyway my point is, was in context to mixing neutrals the mixes presented were not. They are grays, but not neutrals.

If you want to learn this then it seems to me that doing it once or twice is a good idea. If want to say this does not work then I would think it would be prudent to learn this as well. It only takes a few hours to learn, however you will need a good neutral guide or you have 99.9% chance that you'll be off.

Einion
12-09-2008, 04:56 PM
I did the one on the left is bluer in tint to the one on the right.
Einion how do you see them?
To me they look slightly different too (probably to all viewers, to some degree) but checking them they are remarkably consistent.

The image is a JPEG, so colour jumps around a bit on a small scale; that aside, the right is marginally more saturated and darker (1-2%) overall but the hue angle is pretty uniformly 70° (variation is only about 3° in spots, which is small enough anyway but negligible for colours as dull as this).

Einion

LarrySeiler
12-09-2008, 05:15 PM
These are paintings and things deliberately get skewed for a purpose.


This is a gem, Stoney...in my book. Quotable...and purpose is all that flies when the gut hunch especially kicks in. It is high gear, and best get out of the way when the paint starts to fly!!! :thumbsup:

I remember a time when I was most concerned with what the market would accept, what the judges would give thumbs up to, and agents well pleased.

Now...I ask myself, why am I so compelled to paint this particular scene or subject? To explore and nail sometimes the smallest thing really...and to be so aesthetically attuned. Such a purpose often takes me a direction that might rattle a few cages.

For fun...since so many tend to argue the ideal necessary to imitate. Try not imitating. Try seeing the scene as a resource, but totally supplant your own mood.

Mix up a dominant color...put out its split-complements plus white. Whoever tries this will be greatly challenged if your main purpose has been each mix of the palette knife, each dab of the brush to see precise imitation as the necessity. But...oh how fun!

let me share what I mean...

I have used the split-comp a good deal of time outdoors, this one was by choice to play with in studio. I took a reference photo of a place I painted at a couple winters ago. I converted it to grayscale and said, okay...let's forget about the color that was natural with the light of that day, and let's see if we can inbue or project a different mood.

My palette I constrained myself to was this-
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/09-Dec-2008/532-orangedominant_palette.jpg

I chose orange as my dominant...thus blue being the complement the splits would be on either side thus, blue-green and bluish-violet. Plus white. No black...no other colors.

I mixed up my blue-violet and blue-green from my few main primaries of Fr Ultramarine blue, Cad Lemon yellow and W&N Bright red...

Here was my set up...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/09-Dec-2008/532-532-fictsnow_setup.jpg

I gave myself a warm undertone...and wiped away a sense of where shapes and masses would lay...

Here was the painting when finished about two hours later...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/09-Dec-2008/532-ficticioussnowcreek_donewc.jpg

a couple close ups...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/09-Dec-2008/532-ficticioussnowcreek_closeup.jpg

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/09-Dec-2008/532-ficticioussnowcreek_closeuptwo.jpg

Now...here's the thing, and Stoney's quotable quote then comes to mind. This scene with this color did not exist. I brought it into existence, and the split-comp palette I chose devised the enabling or empowerment to infuse the mood. There is really nothing but "skewing" going on here...

With a palette strategy...you do not introduce a gray because a gray is a pure one. That is not part of the constraint or the game you have committed to...and still, it is possible to mix neutrals or grays (now get this...) that is RELEVANT TO THE PICTORAL ENVIRONMENT you have created.

A pure gray with such a strategy would be out of sync, out of touch with the harmony. However...a gray that carries the flavor of the tone or hint of color and color temperature would read as a PROPER gray because the mind believing the relevant created environment is casting a legitimate mood would see it thus.

It is sorta like the mind giving permission to use pinkish red on the top of pine trees that the mind might otherwise believe as a pine should be green. That the tops of the pines are pinkish red, the mind imagines it to be a particular mood, the fall and late last light time of day.

The mind so imaginatively engaged is not looking for evidence of the existence of a PURE gray, anymore than it would demand the evidence of a green ordinarily associated with that of pines.

This is why such an academic argument is redundant, and why I thank you Stoney for that one slice of a quotable thought on your part! We skew...for good reason, and a knowledge that allows you to skew without hindrance becomes appreciable.

:thumbsup:

LarrySeiler
12-09-2008, 06:00 PM
I'm so glad you were able to transistion successfully from one style to the other -- that is a tremendous challenge, and a risk. Congrats! :)

hahaa....love it!!!

I've shot a lot of skeet over the years, trap...and I'd like to get set up to load for my 45/70...which is a fun piece to shoot. Marlin 18" barrel ported...LOUD!!

Thanks...it was a risk...and you submit yourself willingly thru the death and dying stages (Kubler Ross)...because I spent 17 years carefully building and then guarding a reputation. Lots of money...time, investments, reps & agents...and I could have just kept it going.

Thing that really pushed me over the edge though...and I think you'll smile at this, was that I was painting 16 hours a day INDOORS about what I loved about being outdoors. INDOORS...loving the outdoors!

Dang...I had divorced myself from my life blood flow having made the conscious decision that nothing is more important in life that being a somebody!

What helped was experiencing many of the middle men/people that are necessary to keep it happening, and losing over $250,000 from getting ripped off over a period of short years.

When I saw what men were made of trying so hard to get the approval of such men, I lost the interest to work so hard to please them any longer. If you sour on the payback of interest from those that no longer impress you, you lose the impetus.

I needed to regain a greater purpose...and it meant divorcing myself from what so many define as enjoying success.

I was an artist...and now, I care less to paint for others. Was an artist, but I see myself now more a painter in touch with the outdoors, the Creator and see paint as a means to engage the moment and celebrate one more day this side of the grave. Reputation and fifty-cents, as I would learn...might get you a cup of coffee...

I am reminded every so often who I was, what I could have continued to be...but for what? The next opportunity for someone to prove what an !)#%!! they were, ripping me off and hurting my family?

Let's face it. If I quit posting here I may come up in discussion tomorrow. By next week, hardly...a month from now, not at all. Painting and reputation is like that if we accept the reality of it. Painting to prove something, for others...yet fifteen minutes after they kick the dirt onto our lowered casket, life goes on.

Its too short. Don't fear change. Don't hold back trying something and discovering the surprises in life. Find a cause not dependent on the world, or the approval of others to celebrate, and if you find you celebrate with brush in hand best....paint on!!! :thumbsup:

peace

mr.wiggles
12-09-2008, 06:33 PM
What does a painting from a photograph have to do with making good educated value studies from life?

Now we are on to split complimentary palettes. You are bent on proving people with more academic mind sets wrong. Why? What do you find so scary in what is being said by the more academic painters?
Is this some kind of anti-intellectual thing?

It's becoming very subjective. What your saying is all subjective and is not based on anything that I can find the least bit tangible. It now seems that this is landscape painting demo.

I don't care if anyone wants to paint a true neutral or not. A question was asked and I attempted to answer it. The fact that you don't see a certain gray is not the issue, nor is it an issue if I can see it. For some reason people are equating this area of study to doing a finished work. The purpose of doing studies is too get better at understanding values and color. They are designed too let an individual grow and to develop a set of skills so they can do a good painting. It has nothing to do with limited palettes or split compliments or any of these esoteric painting ideas that really don't help you make a painting if you are able to understand the basics.

Drawing and understanding form and how to mass is more important then what kind of palette you use. If you can draw and understand form you can make a painting out to two pigments or a piece of charcoal. If your good at that you can use any kind of palette. I like controlled palettes, but that's just me. If you get the values and drawing right I would wager that ones work will be more successful. If you don't you can have great color sense but boy is that painting going to look like a dog. A very pretty dog, but a dog all the same. My apologies to my dog Miles for using his noble species as a negative.

LarrySeiler
12-09-2008, 07:22 PM
What does a painting from a photograph have to do with making good educated value studies from life?

Now we are on to split complimentary palettes. You are bent on proving people with more academic mind sets wrong. Why? What do you find so scary in what is being said by the more academic painters?
Is this some kind of anti-intellectual thing?

It's becoming very subjective. What your saying is all subjective and is not based on anything that I can find the least bit tangible. It now seems that this is landscape painting demo.

my apologies...and of course, you are right. My thoughts, my points invalid and all over the place. I'll unscribe the thread...helps resisting responding that way. :)

peace

stoney
12-09-2008, 11:38 PM
Stoney - the tolerances (I'm using tolerance in the engineering sense here, before it gets misunderstood by anyone) we are talking about, in terms of Munsell neutrals, are far smaller than the sorts of tolerances implicit in the range of colours Larry is using the term "neutrals" to describe.

Certainly. However, the points Larry demonstrated were ignored and dismissed based on criteria which had nothing to do with what he was showing.


I know you have the Munsell student book, Stoney (from reading another thread here),

Yes, and it just 'resurfaced.' I wondered where the silly thing was.


so I'd point out that the Scott Christensen Vasari "greys" appear to have chromas in some cases which seem to go as high as 4.
Now one of the major interests of many of us who are involved in Graydons ongoing project to explore the application of Munsell to oilpainting, is the creation of skintones which are akin to those we see in 19thC works such as those by Bouguereau. Here we know that the maximum chroma we are typically seeing is around 4. Much of the skintone colouration is of lower chroma than that, and we are interested in the sort of tight control of colour which allows us to turn form and model under these conditions. Often, this means being able to consistently and controllably "hit" very subtly different colouration which lies well within the range of "wobble" typically found in mixing with open-palette strategies (the sort of variation which people painting in impressionistic styles often describe as "lively greys").

Certainly. Again, that was an entirely different subject than those Larry was addressing.


I am well-aware that Bouguereau's work predates Munsell, but my point is that Munsell gives us an analytical tool we can use. Furthermore, we do know that many 19thC painters did use premixed "strings" on their palette.

The sort of accuracy we are talking about may well be "overkill" for the sort of Plein Air painting that Larry does, but that does not mean that the toolkit and approaches may not be of interest to others here, doing other sorts of work.

Dave

Certainly. Larry indicated;
"I can mix colors to behave as does black and when white is added arrive at my neutrals and grays. This thus aptly bypasses the need for black on my palette...." and demonstrated that.

He also addressed; "Originally Posted by mr.wiggles
I am not sure were the anti-black thing comes from but you can't mix neutrals without it. "

These actions of his were ignored and the dodging verbage 'not a true this, that, and the other' was what I objected to. I wouldn't have said a word if people had acknowledged Larry supported the objectives he said he would.

Does the Munsell stuff interest me? Yes. That's why I picked up a student set. I see it, for now, primarily as a tool to teach my eyes to better see subtle differences. Other aspects of it will come in later.

mr.wiggles
12-10-2008, 01:41 AM
Stony we are talking about neutrals not low chroma variations.
If you have the Student Munsell book than why is there a problem with understanding that what was being mixed by Mr. Seiler was not what was being discussed. The thing is the Black one mixes is not the same value as say Ivory Black which is about .05 on the Munsell scale. The darkest Blue is Phthalo and Prussian which are about 1 or 1.5; not as low in value as Ivory Black or Mars.

If people want to paint without black that's fine. I think everyone should learn how to control all colors as this can't hurt.
Mixing neutrals is hard enough without trying to alter mixes of many colors.
The thing is that I am talking about a specific thing and not lower the chroma of various mixes until you get a gray. I am all for doing that, don't get me wrong. The Munsell color charts have all these great low chroma grays that move through the color wheel. I look at this as a different kind of aspect of value study.

I fully understood what Larry was doing, it's a valid way of mixing for what he wants to do. It is not what I was talking about as a study, that is making neutrals that are based on Munsell. I think I worded my answer in the wrong way however.

Your contradicting yourself are you not? On the one hand your telling me that I'm using verbiage to dodge an issue when the issues was subtle differences in mixing... then at the end of your comment you say: "primarily as a tool to teach my eyes to better see subtle differences" I'm talking about the same exact thing. Training your eyes to see the subtle differences in mixing neutrals. Which is very hard I might add.

sidbledsoe
12-10-2008, 07:45 AM
Phthalo blue being higher in value than black doesn't matter, when mixed even with a higher value complement, a phenomena occurs in that the mix is lower in value than either component. This is essentially what black is a single pigment that exhibits the behaviour, that of absorbing all colors:
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/10-Dec-2008/112587-IMGP1356.JPG
a perfectly utilitarian black, artists do it all the time, gamblin makes a chromatic black, I will await my explanation of why this is either wrong or not pertinent.
btw, I prefer to use mars black, and thanks Larry for the b&w photo demo showing the value of just values.

Einion
12-10-2008, 08:14 AM
The point under discussion in a thread can go off on various tangents. In this case the starting topic was values, seeing them and replicating them, and there was ample coverage of this in prior pages, enough that the original question could be considered asked and answered. I think so and that is our call, Larry's and mine, to make, nobody else's.

I didn't see anyone registering any objection when the subject diverted to the shape 3D models should take! That alone could easily have been split off as a subject for another thread entirely and there were others.

Einion

Ron Francis
12-10-2008, 08:29 AM
Sibledsoe,

That seems like a pretty good black on my monitor, (although the blue is very close to black as well except for the transparent edges).
I would like to see white added to it (and the ivory black) to more easily compare hue.

Even if you managed to mix an orange that was a direct complementary to the phthalo blue, the resulting black could still have and orange or blue hue.
I know that you could adjust your mixture to make it more neutral, but why would you want to if there is already a black pigment that will always be the same colour, (at least from the same batch), and therefore, mixing with other colours would be predictable?
Personally, I would be concerned with getting the same hue each time when mixing your chromatic black.
Of course a tubed black would be constant.

The most common argument against using black that I have heard is that it kills colour, but looking at Larry's two greys a few pages back, they seemed pretty identical.
Tests that I have have done have been similar in that viewers couldn't tell the difference between colours mixed with complementaries and those mixed with black and white.

Personally, I find using black to mix colours easier and more controllable.

Einion
12-10-2008, 08:42 AM
Good points Stoney, thanks.

It's becoming very subjective. What your saying is all subjective and is not based on anything that I can find the least bit tangible.
Painting is inherently subjective; no matter how objective we think we're being - like the judgement of two greys ;)


Phthalo blue being higher in value than black doesn't matter, when mixed even with a higher value complement, a phenomena occurs in that the mix is lower in value than either component.
...
I will await my explanation of why this is either wrong or not pertinent.
No, you're right on target. It is of course possible to mix something darker than the paint straight from the tube because of the nature of subtractive mixing; in most mixes the resulting colour is darker than one of the two starting points and in complementary mixing the result is darker than both*.

I do subscribe to the school that if you want black then why not just buy it? Quite apart from it being cheap in almost all cases it's good to be able to just instantly have some on hand if you want black, for use by itself or in mixes. And if one wants a coloured dark - black or very close in masstone but with tints or undercolour being visibly coloured - then one of the simplest ways of getting them is modifying a black paint, by mixing in a transparent colour. There are other issues too: for oil painters, making a black that's low in oil would be hard or impossible by mixing; and although blacks will tend to cover well because of their low value it's good to be able to have a truly opaque black if you want it (i.e. Mars Black).

*I should point out that this is one of the arguments for using greys for neutralising, although it's not a simple area.


Even if you managed to mix an orange that was a direct complementary to the phthalo blue, the resulting black could still have and orange or blue hue.
You're quite right. But really 'direct complement' is a bit of a misnomer in this context, there are mixing complements and visual complements and they may not be the same hue.

Incidentally the hue of the midpoint between the two might actually be neither blue nor orange!

The most common argument against using black that I have heard is that it kills colour, but looking at Larry's two greys a few pages back, they seemed pretty identical.
Tests that I have have done have been similar in that viewers couldn't tell the difference between colours mixed with complementaries and those mixed with black and white.
The "black kills" thing has been shown in numerous previous discussions not to stand up to any real scrutiny - the people who doggedly hold this view tend to be colourists, who require very little, if any, low-chroma colour (all of which would be thought of as "killed", regardless of how it were mixed).

Einion

sidbledsoe
12-10-2008, 10:35 AM
Thanks Ron and Einion,
Ron the only point I addressed was that you can add a higher value pigment to another pigment and it does not raise that value in the mix, it in fact lowers the value, lower than either one. This is subtractive mixing or in munsell value terms: 1 + 2 = some number less than 1 (valuewise).

sidbledsoe
12-10-2008, 04:05 PM
But here you go Ron, with white added to the phthalo so you can detect it and white added to both the chromatic black and the ivory black.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/10-Dec-2008/112587-IMGP1357.JPG
It is not hard to do. The Golden acrylic site devotes a page to doing it. The black I made may be a 0.15 or a 0.08 by munsell scale but I don't care because it is well below my visual detection limit. The thing it does is; allows black avoidance syndrome sufferers to feel really good about it. I have many problems but that isn't one of them. A tube black is like a convenience color to me, like a green or a violet. Greens can easily be made plus you can see them easier for tweaking, there are people who avoid using tubed greens and highly prefer to mix their own. Color mixing is fun! I still remember first doing it as a child and being in awe. Sid
I just read your response below and agree with you about the chromatic black, that's why Larry must have the most saturated ultra blue he can find.

Ron Francis
12-10-2008, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by sibledsoe.
Ron the only point I addressed was that you can add a higher value pigment to another pigment and it does not raise that value in the mix I agree and think Jeffrey was mistaken on that point.
Thanks for the extra image with the added white.
Interesting that comparatively, your mix is slightly bluer than the ivory when the pixels are analysed, (ivory is more cyan), but they are very close in chroma strength.
One of the problems with mixing a chromatic black is that paint isn't purely subtractive, that is light will reflect directly off a blue particle back out of the film as well as directly off the red and yellow particles. This extra light is averaged and added to the final mix, making it lighter.
Subtractive will work better with transparent colours, as phthalo is, but the averaging will still happen no matter how transparent the pigments are.
This is evidenced by the fact that printers have to use black in addition to CMY to get the darkest values.

Originally posted by Einion.
But really 'direct complement' is a bit of a misnomer in this context, there are mixing complements and visual complements and they may not be the same hue.
Incidentally the hue of the midpoint between the two might actually be neither blue nor orange! OK, I meant compliments that would make a neutral when mixed.
I'm not sure what a visual complement is to you, but I would look to light theory for that and would say that they are vastly different.
Given that you can mix an orange that would make a neutral with phthalo, I would be interested to know what other hues you would get as one was mixed into the other?

sidbledsoe
12-10-2008, 09:09 PM
Sorry, sometimes I try to say flip funny things and they may come off offensive to some. I see no problem whatsoever in avoiding black. People have different reasons for everything. Many times I have read people say that a mixed black is more lively, or colorful, or richer than using a tube black and I think I know what they are talking about. Part of that may be that it really does look different, slightly less saturated or biased cool or warm and that is a desirable thing for them. Others claim the deadening or dirtying or whatever, it doesn't matter, it's all good whatever you do. I used to avoid black also because I read that you should so many times, now I use a bit here and there.

Richard Saylor
12-11-2008, 02:39 AM
.....OK, I meant compliments that would make a neutral when mixed.
I'm not sure what a visual complement is to you, but I would look to light theory for that and would say that they are vastly different.
Given that you can mix an orange that would make a neutral with phthalo, I would be interested to know what other hues you would get as one was mixed into the other?Here is a color circle in which the diametrically opposite colors are visual complements. Yes, it is based on the RGB light theory. Mixing complements are not too far removed from visual complements. Visual complements probably are most useful for the effects produced when they are juxtaposed or used in close proximity in a painting.

mr.wiggles
12-11-2008, 02:41 AM
Constable is quoted as saying that painting is a science and should be pursued as an inquiry into the laws of nature.

Richard Saylor
12-11-2008, 02:55 AM
Constable is quoted as saying that painting is a science and should be pursued as an inquiry into the laws of nature.Hear! Hear! Whether or not Constable is correct, as a scientist it gives me a good feeling. :clap:

Richard Saylor
12-11-2008, 03:18 AM
Thanks Ron and Einion,
Ron the only point I addressed was that you can add a higher value pigment to another pigment and it does not raise that value in the mix....This is fun to see in action. I often paint with a three-color palette (plus white). In order to get black, I mix quinacridone rose and pthalo blue gs until the mixture is as dark as possible. This gives a very dark purple. Now, if a touch of yellow (!) is added, it gets even darker and becomes a perfectly acceptable black.

Ron Francis
12-11-2008, 07:05 AM
Richard,
Yes, they are the visual complementaries I would suggest as well.
But I would disagree with you in this following statement...
Mixing complements are not too far removed from visual complements.
There isn't one complementary pair that is repeated with pigments.
Although some use the word blue when talking about cyan and likewise red with magenta which can make it confusing.

mr.wiggles
12-11-2008, 10:09 AM
For anyone wishing to get more information on color David Brooks' web site http://www.huevaluechroma.com/ is full of excellent information on color both traditional and digital.

He also has a book on the subject. My disclaimer, I don't know him at all but his work in the area is some of the best.

Last night I tried to mix the chromatic black using the exact colors Sid used.
It worked sometimes and others leaned towards blue or towards orange.
It was pretty hard to control and keep consistent. I concluded it's me as I don't mix black from compliments very much. It was to inconsistent as the the slightest addition one color or another would pull the hue out of black. The value was the same, the hue was not.

I mixed it as I would in painting session trying not to spend to much time on it. However I could not replicate Sid's mix exactly every time. I'll try again. Nothing wrong with making a black this way, I only use it for accents myself. So if it was leaning towards blue that would be fine. I often use a Ultramarine Blue and Permanent Alizarin mix for accents.

I would not use this black for mixing my neutrals as I noticed it pulled to blue more than Ivory Black. I'm not saying you can't this is just a personal preference.

Blacks I use: Ivory, Mars, and WB Black Roman Earth which makes great neutrals in the middle range with out the need for adding any Umbras.

sidbledsoe
12-11-2008, 11:02 AM
That is neat mr. wiggles, I concur with your findings, btw, you guys seem to have better eyes than me and more computer savy, like Ron's pixel evaluation. If it is not too much trouble could you analyse this:
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/11-Dec-2008/112587-rsz_11IMGP1359.jpg
and tell me what you can about the relative hues, cool, warm, whatever.
top row or row A is lamp, middle or row B is ivory, and bottom or row C is mars.
I have these three blacks and I like to use mars mainly but it would be interesting to me to get your take on them. I know this is going astray but didn't want to start another thread just to do this, thanks a lot.
sorry if it is too dark, I can make lighter shades if you want.

mr.wiggles
12-11-2008, 02:25 PM
I don't use Lamp Black. Very interesting that it seems to be pulling more towards blue than Ivory.

The Mars seems to be the stronger in tinting strength I gather you used the same volume in all the mixes. All the values you mixed with it are about a whole step lower.

I use Mars as well but for the my neutrals I only use Ivory. I know the properties of it the best so I can control the mixes better.

I always thought of Ivory as a low chroma blue, but the Lamp makes it look more towards neutral which shows you how ones eyes can be fooled by the environment. Which is why I use a Munsell gray scale guide when I want to mix neutrals.

If I wanted to mix a Blue/Black I think I might use Lamp.

Einion
12-11-2008, 02:29 PM
This is subtractive mixing or in munsell value terms: 1 + 2 = some number less than 1 (valuewise).
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/20-Aug-2003/3842-thumbsup.gif


One of the problems with mixing a chromatic black is that paint isn't purely subtractive, that is light will reflect directly off a blue particle back out of the film as well as directly off the red and yellow particles. This extra light is averaged and added to the final mix, making it lighter.
Subtractive will work better with transparent colours, as phthalo is, but the averaging will still happen no matter how transparent the pigments are.
This is evidenced by the fact that printers have to use black in addition to CMY to get the darkest values.
Your core point here is dead on and that's why you can't mix very dark mixtures with opaque pigments. But there's no, or practically no, surface scattering of the type you describe with transparent pigments mixed together with the right surface finish - the same problem does also occur where there's a matt surface though, regardless of how dark the mixed colour truly is inside.

With process printing - CMYK - the reason that black is required is because of the very thin layer of each of the primaries (usually over a white paper, which shines through) as well as, to a lesser extent, the fact that their colours aren't perfect so they don't interact exactly as theory would suggest.

OK, I meant compliments that would make a neutral when mixed.
Yep, that was clear, just wanted to reiterate an important point for readers, that there's no one complement for something.

The visual complement is one colour only (or one hue if we just look at hue) and that's what is directly opposite on a proper colour wheel.

But with mixing complements there's nearly always more than one for a single colour - since we've already looked at phthalo blue it's a great example as a number of them can work with Perinone Orange, Cadmium Red Light and a red earth of one type or another. Plus of course a mixed orange as in sidbledsoe's example (and there are numerous ones of those possible - ANY other two primaries can do the same, always).

Given that you can mix an orange that would make a neutral with phthalo, I would be interested to know what other hues you would get as one was mixed into the other?
That's a good question - if you make a mix that blends with the phthalo blue to make a true neutral then the hues should always be either blue, neutral or orange as the proportions of the two colours are varied - this is the mixing line between the starting points (easiest to visualise, if you're having trouble, with a colour wheel in front of you).

What I was getting at is if the mixed orange was a bit off, so that it didn't mix neutral with the blue, then the mixing line would pass by the centre of the colour wheel (instead of going through it), passing through low-chroma areas near to the neutral point; for example, violet, magenta and red.

Einion

gunzorro
12-11-2008, 03:03 PM
mr. wiggles -- it should be kept in mind that these conclusions about blacks are only valid for this set of blacks shown here. I've found wide variation in hue and tinting strength among pigments and brands, supposedly the same pigment.

For example, I've seen Ivory and Mars look warm. In one brand Mars is the strongest and most opaque, but generally that is reserved for Lamp (or Carbon) Black made from soot, the deepest black pigment available, and usually the strongest tinter.

Drying times and color also vary dependent on the type of oil used and the quantity, both of which vary be manufacturer.

A couple rule of thumb points regarding blacks:
Ivory is the weakest and most transparent of these three.
Mars is the fastest drying, and often the most opaque.
Lamp is the darkest.

sidbledsoe
12-11-2008, 03:53 PM
Thanks a lot guys, here is a much better pic I think. adding to gunz, you can mix say mars with ivory, utrecht sells a tubed mix, this takes the strength of mars down a notch, increases the slow drying of ivory, makes it fine for underpaintings etc.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/11-Dec-2008/112587-blacks.jpg
also this lamp is pbk6, ivory is pbk9, mars pbk11

mr.wiggles
12-11-2008, 04:14 PM
Yes Jim I should have known better. I have two Cadmium Oranges, one by WB and one OH. The OH is a step below the WB. The WB by the way is a spot on with 2.5YR, 6/16.

It is interesting to me how what's next to hue can influence how you see it with the naked eye. Which gets me back to controlled values studies as a valuable way to train the eye. Just a thought...

Ron Francis
12-11-2008, 04:50 PM
Einion,
But there's no, or practically no, surface scattering of the type you describe with transparent pigments mixed together with the right surface finishHmm, I would have thought that surface scattering was from the surface of the medium rather than off individual particles, but if you're right, you should be able to get a good black by glazing, especially with transparent pigments? Interesting.
What I was getting at is if the mixed orange was a bit off, so that it didn't mix neutral with the blue, then the mixing line would pass by the centre of the colour wheel (instead of going through it), passing through low-chroma areas near to the neutral point; for example, violet, magenta and red.Good, that's exactly how I understand it.

sibledsoe,
OK, this is what I came up with.
Keep in mind that your white canvas is not neutral and has a slight orange hue, more so in the bottom left corner.
I'm finding it hard to believe that this is accurate though, maybe because of the camera and JPEG compression. It's not what I expected.
I thought that lamp black was supposed to be bluer than ivory and that mars was a warm black.

Anyway here goes.
I sampled as many pixels within the grey areas as possible to get an average for each.
The blue squares are maps of the hue and the little grey squares in them are where sample lies within that map. You can see that they are all close to each other. Mars has the highest chroma.
The coloured strip on the right shows where the hue lies in the spectrum.
Again, all pretty close.
Lamp is the bluest, then mars is slightly more cyan, followed by ivory which is slightly more cyan again.

Following that is the RGB notation for each sample and for anyone Munsell aware, that is there as well.
(I have just downloaded a program that converts between RGB and Munsell and I don't know how accurate it is.)

sidbledsoe
12-11-2008, 05:17 PM
That is awesome Ron, just what I wanted! I know it isn't a perfect situation but that is something I can't do, thanks very much. Now I think you must consider what Jim said in the variations that brands exhibit. The lamp is by Shinhan (korean copiers of holbein, cheap and really not bad), the ivory is winsor newton artist grade, the mars is grumbacher pre-tested. I know that lamp can range all the way from a brown to a blue undertone. I absolutely get a blue shift when I use any of these blacks but I have read that they were supposed to be different. that was really neat, thanks. Sid

gunzorro
12-11-2008, 05:29 PM
Ron -- Awesome cool examples! I love the RGB and Munsell notes. I will have to get more standardized in my paint comparisons or you'll leave me in the dust! :)

Regarding the question you asked about glazing -- yes. If you have a slightly matte black surface, you can glaze over it (even wetting with oil will darken it) with any transparent color like Diox Purple or the deep Phthalos blue and green, and if the surface dries to a gloss finish, you will have the deepest black. You wouldn't get as good a result if you did multiple transparent dark layers over a white surface, as some reflection would still come through the paint if the light is very strong and directional. This is the sort of color tech that custom automobile painters are completely familiar with.

stoney
12-12-2008, 10:48 PM
Kent -- Very well written post!

Stoney -- You are getting too argumentative.

Argumentive? Pointing out several folks here took Larry to task about something which had zip, nada, to do with what he was pointing out and objectively supported is argumentive? Please. Get real.


Kent is doing a good job of consolidating both points of view. There is certainly a place and reason for mixing generalized greys from colors, just as there is for a set of truly neutral greys to mix into colors. There is no big fight here.

You missed it. Again. Don't know if its deliberate or not. Go back and read what Larry said before he showed things in pictures. Again, Larry didn't say 'word one' about 'both points of view.' You're doing the same thing you took Bill to task for-not listening and responding to what was said.

stoney
12-12-2008, 10:53 PM
Hue shifts happen anyway with certain colours (particularly those in a specific hue range) regardless of the neutrality of the grey that is added. I do wish this very obvious problem wasn't brushed under the carpet so often by proponents.

Thank you.

stoney
12-12-2008, 11:04 PM
Einion -- Excellent points about the hue shift. Although Graydon Parrish and Richard Murdock have posted a number of times on RP forum on this issue of correcting for hue shift, it does seem to get overlooked or not given a strong emphasis.

Even adding white or light greys can cause some hues to need tweaking to stay on the hue path.

A note for readers: The common method for making neutral greys is to use black and white, adding burnt umber in the darker values, and adding burnt sienna in the medium to light values to correct for the slight natural blue that occurs with simple black and white mixing. I learned the burnt umber part from Graydon's posts (not that he invented it, but he found it useful to distribute), and the burnt sienna part came right from the Munsell Student Book. In small amounts, both colors work like a charm. It is necessary to have accurate Munsell grey chips to match for the various values.

Interesting tweaks. Thank you.

stoney
12-12-2008, 11:10 PM
thank you...

its like winning a gold medal, can never take it away..

I take it as no disrespect, and there is a reason it won...

Its a matter of taste and preference...but to me, spending so much time outdoors hunting, fishing...hiking here in a national forest...the broken color feels so much more like REAL life.

Perhaps you spend a good deal of time outdoors, but if like many that purport to like art...more live in metros and their idea of an owl in a corn field would meet an agreeable report with my painting. Myself...I practically live outdoors...here 1200 lakes and streams, and I often strapping a Blackhawk 44 to my waist. I eat, nearly breath the outdoors.

Leaves do not freeze motionless still and broken color attempts to capture not just what a thing looks like but how it behaves in real time. That too is an aspect of realism. I believe this is one reason we are so disappointed to see the remains of one we knew so well laid out in a casket. The nicest thing said is, "oh..they look just like they are sleeping!" The still frozen body fails to represent our experience with that once very real relationship we had. Life does not exist in a moment but sessions of ongoing continuum, and a frozen highly detailed realistic image today feels more like looking upon a corpse, a shadow of what is and was.

Interesting and apt metaphor. I've been aware of the difference, but hadn't analyzed the difference {no reason to before}.

stoney
12-12-2008, 11:14 PM
Larry -- Like you, I love the outdoors, although most of my time there is spent at outdoor shooting ranges! ;) I spent last weekend at a shooting match, sleeping nights in my VW camper at the range in Fresno -- foggy, cold and damp -- I was the only shooter to sleep there for two nights. Nice campfire and plenty of solitude and quiet -- only cows and coyotes.


Sounds delicious. What's even quieter is to sit on the fantail of a warship at night. Wave whispers and a unspoiled celestial light show. I was able to do that a few times for ten or fifteen minutes then had to get some rack time.

stoney
12-13-2008, 01:06 AM
Originally Posted by stoney

These are paintings and things deliberately get skewed for a purpose.


This is a gem, Stoney...in my book. Quotable...

Thank you, and go ahead. ;)

My oils instructor's {http://www.gemcmahanartist.com/} indicated it takes longer to copy something than to do your own stuff. Even with "The Shy Peasant" by Ilya Repin (1885) there were some little things I did differently. Put my own 'take' in there a wee bit.


and purpose is all that flies when the gut hunch especially kicks in. It is high gear, and best get out of the way when the paint starts to fly!!! :thumbsup:


Indeed. Some times I'll be in 'the zone[tm]' and a 'hmmmm, I wonder' or 'what if' comes to mind and I'll usually shift to follow that avenue.


I remember a time when I was most concerned with what the market would accept, what the judges would give thumbs up to, and agents well pleased.


Sure. You were doing what you were taught to do. I've heard/read of people who did what they were supposed to do in industry then, on their own time, they'd metaphorically unfurl their wings and FLY!


Now...I ask myself, why am I so compelled to paint this particular scene or subject? To explore and nail sometimes the smallest thing really...and to be so aesthetically attuned. Such a purpose often takes me a direction that might rattle a few cages.

Someone having their 'cage rattled' can be 'eye opening.'


For fun...since so many tend to argue the ideal necessary to imitate. Try not imitating. Try seeing the scene as a resource, but totally supplant your own mood.

Like I did with attached 'Entropy?' I saw lots of intrigue in it. The fragility was something I wanted to amplify and I wanted more contrast between the rock and bridge and the surroundings. Its pretty close to being done, but I'm going to give it a few days before giving it another look. I guess I should mention I used no black.


Mix up a dominant color...put out its split-complements plus white. Whoever tries this will be greatly challenged if your main purpose has been each mix of the palette knife, each dab of the brush to see precise imitation as the necessity. But...oh how fun!

let me share what I mean...

I have used the split-comp a good deal of time outdoors, this one was by choice to play with in studio. I took a reference photo of a place I painted at a couple winters ago. I converted it to grayscale and said, okay...let's forget about the color that was natural with the light of that day, and let's see if we can inbue or project a different mood.

[]

Now...here's the thing, and Stoney's quotable quote then comes to mind. This scene with this color did not exist. I brought it into existence, and the split-comp palette I chose devised the enabling or empowerment to infuse the mood. There is really nothing but "skewing" going on here...

With a palette strategy...you do not introduce a gray because a gray is a pure one. That is not part of the constraint or the game you have committed to...and still, it is possible to mix neutrals or grays (now get this...) that is RELEVANT TO THE PICTORAL ENVIRONMENT you have created.


Exactly. That was the main point people have been pretty insistent on ignoring, and trying to divert attention from :D. So much work and bandwidth when all that was necessary is acknowledge your point. Such has zip to do with the Munsell system itself.


A pure gray with such a strategy would be out of sync, out of touch with the harmony. However...a gray that carries the flavor of the tone or hint of color and color temperature would read as a PROPER gray because the mind believing the relevant created environment is casting a legitimate mood would see it thus.

It would be like something spotlit at night.


It is sorta like the mind giving permission to use pinkish red on the top of pine trees that the mind might otherwise believe as a pine should be green. That the tops of the pines are pinkish red, the mind imagines it to be a particular mood, the fall and late last light time of day.

The mind so imaginatively engaged is not looking for evidence of the existence of a PURE gray, anymore than it would demand the evidence of a green ordinarily associated with that of pines.

This is why such an academic argument is redundant, and why I thank you Stoney for that one slice of a quotable thought on your part! We skew...for good reason, and a knowledge that allows you to skew without hindrance becomes appreciable.

:thumbsup:

The 'academic argument' wasn't redundant, ime. It was a diametric opposite. It had nothing to do with what you were showing. It was nothing more than a total dismissal of what you were showing. It was, ime, a total lack of [sic] common courtesy and respect for the speaker.

Heh. My engineering past rearing its head again. :wave:

stoney
12-13-2008, 01:54 AM
hahaa....love it!!!

I've shot a lot of skeet over the years, trap...and I'd like to get set up to load for my 45/70...which is a fun piece to shoot. Marlin 18" barrel ported...LOUD!!

Thanks...it was a risk...and you submit yourself willingly thru the death and dying stages (Kubler Ross)...because I spent 17 years carefully building and then guarding a reputation. Lots of money...time, investments, reps & agents...and I could have just kept it going.

Thing that really pushed me over the edge though...and I think you'll smile at this, was that I was painting 16 hours a day INDOORS about what I loved about being outdoors. INDOORS...loving the outdoors!

Dang...I had divorced myself from my life blood flow having made the conscious decision that nothing is more important in life that being a somebody!

Ah, yes, the 'guilded cage' aspect of things. {No offense intended} And, if you take things further along that path the greater the danger of losing your freedom. How many people are so well known they need bodyguards and an entourage? Its a major operation to even get a lousy hamburger in peace and quiet.

Several years ago I read John F. Kennedy Jr. was ecstatic about landing at Portland International Airport {Oregon} and was able to walk around without being mobbed! For him, that was a delightful and unexpected 'breath of fresh air.'


What helped was experiencing many of the middle men/people that are necessary to keep it happening, and losing over $250,000 from getting ripped off over a period of short years.

When I saw what men were made of trying so hard to get the approval of such men, I lost the interest to work so hard to please them any longer.


:) It can be interesting to see how things change when they're looked at from another angle.


If you sour on the payback of interest from those that no longer impress you, you lose the impetus.

I needed to regain a greater purpose...and it meant divorcing myself from what so many define as enjoying success.

I was an artist...and now, I care less to paint for others. Was an artist, but I see myself now more a painter in touch with the outdoors, the Creator and see paint as a means to engage the moment and celebrate one more day this side of the grave. Reputation and fifty-cents, as I would learn...might get you a cup of coffee...

You're unfettered now and you can 'soar hither and yon on the air currents.'

I'm curious. Not looking back at that time now, but memories from that time. How did you, in the main, feel? I guess what I'm wondering is if, then, you got a feeling of the painting being drugery.


I am reminded every so often who I was, what I could have continued to be...but for what? The next opportunity for someone to prove what an !)#%!! they were, ripping me off and hurting my family?

Let's face it. If I quit posting here I may come up in discussion tomorrow. By next week, hardly...a month from now, not at all. Painting and reputation is like that if we accept the reality of it. Painting to prove something, for others...

To prove something or to provide an avenue for another persons enrichment/profit?


yet fifteen minutes after they kick the dirt onto our lowered casket, life goes on.

You found out how fast things changed when you changed painting focus.


Its too short. Don't fear change. Don't hold back trying something and discovering the surprises in life. Find a cause not dependent on the world, or the approval of others to celebrate, and if you find you celebrate with brush in hand best....paint on!!! :thumbsup:

peace

The only constant is change. Now if only one knew 'zen' what they know now! :)

For myself, I'm having a ball. I've the freedom to explore avenues I'm curious about or catch my fancy. I've no reason not to expect that what I find intriguing or horrifying comes out in one's painting. I know darn well either come out when writing. The 'death sentence' is when you paint/write something neutral for you.

Cheers

stoney
12-13-2008, 02:28 AM
Stony we are talking about neutrals not low chroma variations.

Not in this thread subset. Monkhaus in post 53 on page 4 had asked a question;..."Okay, for the non-Munsell crew what would you recommend? I realize paints & practice, of course, but what concrete steps could be taken to improve my understanding of value and hue and chroma? What should I read and use as a reference and why?..."

That was dealt with and was followed up with other questions from other people. This variant has been on its own track since then.


If you have the Student Munsell book than why is there a problem with understanding that what was being mixed by Mr. Seiler was not what was being discussed. The thing is the Black one mixes is not the same value as say Ivory Black which is about .05 on the Munsell scale. The darkest Blue is Phthalo and Prussian which are about 1 or 1.5; not as low in value as Ivory Black or Mars.

Yes the mix was still being discussed.


If people want to paint without black that's fine. I think everyone should learn how to control all colors as this can't hurt.

Certainly. There are many paths to reach a goal.


Mixing neutrals is hard enough without trying to alter mixes of many colors.
The thing is that I am talking about a specific thing and not lower the chroma of various mixes until you get a gray. I am all for doing that, don't get me wrong. The Munsell color charts have all these great low chroma grays that move through the color wheel. I look at this as a different kind of aspect of value study.

Agreed again.


I fully understood what Larry was doing, it's a valid way of mixing for what he wants to do. It is not what I was talking about as a study, that is making neutrals that are based on Munsell. I think I worded my answer in the wrong way however.

The subject remained on that other tangent. So, the situation was a metaphorical 'oranges and orangutang' situation. Screwing up wording bites us all from time to time. :eek:


Your contradicting yourself are you not? On the one hand your telling me that I'm using verbiage to dodge an issue when the issues was subtle differences in mixing...

That part of my reply dealt with the subtangent which was initiated by Monkhaus and carried forward by multiple posters. Such as: :)


Certainly. Larry indicated;
"I can mix colors to behave as does black and when white is added arrive at my neutrals and grays. This thus aptly bypasses the need for black on my palette...." and demonstrated that.

He also addressed; "Originally Posted by mr.wiggles
I am not sure were the anti-black thing comes from but you can't mix neutrals without it. "


then at the end of your comment you say: "primarily as a tool to teach my eyes to better see subtle differences" I'm talking about the same exact thing. Training your eyes to see the subtle differences in mixing neutrals. Which is very hard I might add.

Here I was speaking of my reasons and goals for the Munsell system. Now I understand the confusion. The 'split' was very apparent to me. I see it wasn't the case for you and some others. It happens. The tangent is now dropped.

Ron Francis
12-13-2008, 07:18 AM
Stoney,
I was amazed to see how much you posted, most of it quotes.
Amazed and overwhelmed.

Richard Saylor
12-13-2008, 08:27 AM
Stoney,
I was amazed to see how much you posted, most of it quotes.
Amazed and overwhelmed.I thought it was like listening to a private conversation. Not particularly interesting.

sidbledsoe
12-13-2008, 10:04 AM
Stoney and gunzorro are level pegging at 18 posts each, Larry is just ahead of them with 19, Mr. Wiggles has a commanding 33 post lead.

mr.wiggles
12-13-2008, 02:18 PM
Well Sid good luck with your work.
Tried to help, was shot down so many times I feel like a Luftwaffe pilot on DDay.

sidbledsoe
12-13-2008, 02:44 PM
Thanks, with you and the others with far more experience than me, I have actually learned a lot so far in this thread weaving my way through the flac and the gang wars. I am still grinning from Ron's analysis of my blacks, here I was wondering what was wrong with my eyes, I was supposed to have three different blacks and he confirmed that I wasn't crazy, I could have just bought one! Some posts I do just skip over, then I throw in those wry comments actually thinking I might make someone smile and think and smooth some ruffled feathers, it probably is counterproductive though. We artists types should be on the same side. Also let me tell you that I have read your blog and I like your art a lot and think it is really great work.

mr.wiggles
12-13-2008, 03:12 PM
Thanks Sid, is that your name?
I am into controlled palettes, others are not. My humble advise is if your into learning to get better at values paint simple shapes in all hues, and in different lighting situations. Spheres and cubes, most forms are one or the other or a combination of the two. I used to have this drawing teacher who said what's the point of drawing the model if you can't draw the model stand. I think Reilly said that. Sound advice if you ask me. I also think one can learn everything they need know about how to make a painting form doing still lives.


I read an account recently about the Art Students League in NYC
on how the Reilly and Brackman students came to blows about this very subject. I think this was in the 50's or early 60's. Personally I like both painters, but their ideas were very far apart in how to paint and draw.
So in retrospect we have been very tame.

sidbledsoe
12-13-2008, 03:57 PM
Yes, I am painting from my computer right now, so it is easy to check on WC in between stuff, it is a pic from the library, an elk in repose in the snow. I am putting in the darkest darks and the lightest lights and then everything must fall between, one way to go about it, or so I have read!
That is some good advice and I will hopefully start that by doing still lifes inside now that it is winter both drawing and painting. Thanks again very much.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/13-Dec-2008/112587-resting_elk_.jpg
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/13-Dec-2008/112587-IMGP1363.JPG
I change things as I want, any thoughts, have at it, Sid

Ron Francis
12-13-2008, 04:28 PM
Sidbledsoe,
Did you go through and count all the posts? LOL.

I honestly can't understand the contention.
I have developed certain techniques to help me paint what I want to paint, and if that helps someone else achieve what they want then I'm happy to share what I know.
Conversely, if someone has different techniques that help someone else then that's fine too.

Some people just like fighting I guess.
Sadly, it seems like human nature to fight, even if you're on the same side.

stoney
12-13-2008, 04:29 PM
Constable is quoted as saying that painting is a science and should be pursued as an inquiry into the laws of nature.

So? That's Constable's opinion. Painting is not a science. Painting is subjective. Painting is anything but objective.

sidbledsoe
12-13-2008, 04:41 PM
Ron, if you click on the number of posts count in the forum list, you get a tally list for each person, my comment was meant to be more uninteresting than the least interesting one so far.

stoney
12-13-2008, 04:43 PM
Blacks I use: Ivory, Mars, and WB Black Roman Earth which makes great neutrals in the middle range with out the need for adding any Umbras.

WB? Possibly Williamsburg?

BTW I used 'WB Black Roman Earth' and got this site-which might be interesting:
http://underpaintings.blogspot.com/2008/06/mattelson-palette.html

mr.wiggles
12-13-2008, 04:56 PM
WB= Williamsburg. Yes I know that site.
Matthew D. Innis' blog is very good. lot's of good topics and he does good research.
This segment is good as well:

http://underpaintings.blogspot.com/2008/07/frank-vincent-dumond-and-prismatic.html

stoney
12-13-2008, 05:08 PM
mr. wiggles -- it should be kept in mind that these conclusions about blacks are only valid for this set of blacks shown here. I've found wide variation in hue and tinting strength among pigments and brands, supposedly the same pigment.

For example, I've seen Ivory and Mars look warm. In one brand Mars is the strongest and most opaque, but generally that is reserved for Lamp (or Carbon) Black made from soot, the deepest black pigment available, and usually the strongest tinter.

Drying times and color also vary dependent on the type of oil used and the quantity, both of which vary be manufacturer.

A couple rule of thumb points regarding blacks:
Ivory is the weakest and most transparent of these three.
Mars is the fastest drying, and often the most opaque.
Lamp is the darkest.

What a zoo! :eek: Everything depends on 'fifty million' different factors.
[chuckling]

stoney
12-13-2008, 05:25 PM
Stoney,
I was amazed to see how much you posted, most of it quotes.
Amazed and overwhelmed.

Not sure if that's good, or bad. ;)

Threads fragment and drift as posts go on. What I try to do, in instances like this, is assemble and compile the sequencing to show the main progression. Yes, it takes some time but its the only way I know to try and enhance communication.

/cue 'Communication Breakdown' by Led Zepplin :wave:

stoney
12-13-2008, 05:26 PM
Stoney and gunzorro are level pegging at 18 posts each, Larry is just ahead of them with 19, Mr. Wiggles has a commanding 33 post lead.

LOL. Is the race in the home stretch? :D

stoney
12-13-2008, 05:38 PM
Thanks Sid, is that your name?
I am into controlled palettes, others are not.


My humble advise is if your into learning to get better at values paint simple shapes in all hues, and in different lighting situations. Spheres and cubes, most forms are one or the other or a combination of the two. I used to have this drawing teacher who said what's the point of drawing the model if you can't draw the model stand. I think Reilly said that. Sound advice if you ask me. I also think one can learn everything they need know about how to make a painting form doing still lives.

I agree on all points in the above separation. My drawing instructor suggested, when applicable, to draw the eyes first and get them right before continuing on.



I read an account recently about the Art Students League in NYC
on how the Reilly and Brackman students came to blows about this very subject. I think this was in the 50's or early 60's. Personally I like both painters, but their ideas were very far apart in how to paint and draw.
So in retrospect we have been very tame.

Why would the students come to blows? What were the differing views of the two gentlemen? {Investigating Brackman now}

Ron Francis
12-13-2008, 06:01 PM
So? That's Constable's opinion. Painting is not a science. Painting is subjective. Painting is anything but objective. Stoney,
How can you say that it's Constable's opinion and in the same breath state that it's not a science?
Surely the same applies to you and it is only your opinion as well.
It's GOOD that we have different opinions but I don't believe it is good to bicker about it.

Regarding all your posts, I didn't find it helpful but rather it seemed as though the thread was flooded.
It's not so much the number of posts, but the amount of quoting in them.
Also, because you fragment your replies into different posts, your avatar and signature get repeated and takes up more space.
I do understand your reasoning though.

stoney
12-13-2008, 06:31 PM
Yes, I am painting from my computer right now, so it is easy to check on WC in between stuff, it is a pic from the library, an elk in repose in the snow. I am putting in the darkest darks and the lightest lights and then everything must fall between, one way to go about it, or so I have read!
That is some good advice and I will hopefully start that by doing still lifes inside now that it is winter both drawing and painting. Thanks again very much.

I change things as I want, any thoughts, have at it, Sid

A good solid start.

stoney
12-13-2008, 06:35 PM
WB= Williamsburg. Yes I know that site.
Matthew D. Innis' blog is very good. lot's of good topics and he does good research.
This segment is good as well:

http://underpaintings.blogspot.com/2008/07/frank-vincent-dumond-and-prismatic.html

Thank you for the reply. I've noted the second url to be investigated.

mr.wiggles
12-13-2008, 07:03 PM
Originally Posted by stoney
I agree on all points in the above separation. My drawing instructor suggested, when applicable, to draw the eyes first and get them right before continuing on. hmmm drawing the specific first... well each to their own.

You going to argue with Constable???
Man he's the great, great, great granddaddy of outdoor painting.
Have you no shame sir?

stoney
12-13-2008, 07:04 PM
Stoney,
How can you say that it's Constable's opinion and in the same breath state that it's not a science?

Easily. What equation(s) quantify art? What are the measureable and objective factors which result in one person 'cheering' one work while another considers it to be horrid? What equation(s) would allow every work an artist does to be a smashing success?


Surely the same applies to you and it is only your opinion as well.


You're welcome to hold that point of view. I'd be ecstatic if you could answer the two questions above. There's a means whereby the statement can be falsified.


It's GOOD that we have different opinions but I don't believe it is good to bicker about it.

Bicker? Not so much. I may disagree with something but that doesn't mean I insist others accept my statements. I'd like to point out opinions can be wrong. /cue the earth is flat for an example.


Regarding all your posts, I didn't find it helpful but rather it seemed as though the thread was flooded.
It's not so much the number of posts, but the amount of quoting in them.
Also, because you fragment your replies into different posts, your avatar and signature get repeated and takes up more space.
I do understand your reasoning though.

When possible I do eliminate non-essential paragraphs-to save bandwidth.
Understanding my reasoning is what I look for. Whether we agree-or not-is another matter entirely. Vice Versa as well. :)

It turns out the bit with Larry was miscommunication. It happens, and once that was determined there wasn't a problem.

The overall discussion's been quite enjoyable and very interesting. I've archieved those posts/sections for later reference. Lots of 'meat' there.

Cheers

Ron Francis
12-13-2008, 07:22 PM
Easily. What equation(s) quantify art? What are the measureable and objective factors which result in one person 'cheering' one work while another considers it to be horrid? What equation(s) would allow every work an artist does to be a smashing success? You're only talking about the appreciation of art there.
There are laws governing colour, light, pigment mixing, structure of mediums and oils, perspective, composition etc, and the studying of them is a science.
From my dictionary:
Science = Ability to produce solutions in some problem domain.
Excerpt from Wikipedia:
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works.
From Wiktionary:
"A particular discipline or branch of learning, especially one dealing with measurable or systematic principles rather than intuition or natural ability."

stoney
12-13-2008, 09:54 PM
You're only talking about the appreciation of art there.
There are laws governing colour, light, pigment mixing, structure of mediums and oils, perspective, composition etc, and the studying of them is a science.
From my dictionary:
Science = Ability to produce solutions in some problem domain.
Excerpt from Wikipedia:
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works.
From Wiktionary:
"A particular discipline or branch of learning, especially one dealing with measurable or systematic principles rather than intuition or natural ability."

Good points. :) I saw the overall picture and forgot about the 'underpainting.' I couldn't help but chuckle at your 'only.' You're correct, but you've got to admit that's a hefty 'only.' :wave: Ironic, I think.
Cheers

Ron Francis
12-13-2008, 10:46 PM
Good points. I saw the overall picture and forgot about the 'underpainting.' I couldn't help but chuckle at your 'only.' You're correct, but you've got to admit that's a hefty 'only.' Ironic, I think.
Cheers I did think twice about using that word but didn't omit it.
It wasn't intended to be humorously sarcastic or mocking but to point to the fact that it was only part of the picture. (Excuse the pun).
This site is primarily for artists and I imagine that most here are interested in the mechanical process to help them produce their appreciatable art.

stoney
12-13-2008, 10:56 PM
I did think twice about using that word but didn't omit it.
It wasn't intended to be humorously sarcastic or mocking but to point to the fact that it was only part of the picture. (Excuse the pun).
This site is primarily for artists and I imagine that most here are interested in the mechanical process to help them produce their appreciatable art.

Oh, I understood how you intended it. Its one of those inadvertant times and its nice when it can be amusing, ironic, and accurate at the same time. :D

Several years ago I, literally, stumbled over this site. I looked around, saw people giving assistance and encouragement to each other. Metaphorically, I dove off the cliff and haven't looked back since.

It's quite a change from engineering career fields. I was quite astonished to find that art, in its own way, was as complex as electronics. As the old saw goes; "things look easy until you try it."

It was quite a bit of time until I learned enough to begin to know what questions to ask.

monkhaus
12-19-2008, 09:27 PM
Whoo, coming back late due to vacation. Thanks all for all of the comments and ideas from about 7 pages ago up. I'll read through them, but have purchased the Munsell Student Book and am saving for the Grayscale set.

stoney
12-19-2008, 10:23 PM
Whoo, coming back late due to vacation. Thanks all for all of the comments and ideas from about 7 pages ago up. I'll read through them, but have purchased the Munsell Student Book and am saving for the Grayscale set.

Work [n.] the place you go to have a vacation from your vacation.... ;)