PDA

View Full Version : IMHO "Blue and Yellow Don't Make Green" Opinion


mickeyw3340
01-19-2011, 09:37 AM
I assume many painters like to get into the higher level details of this art. I usually like to get technical, but My Goodness!!! I thought "Hand Print" on the web was detailed. If I waded through this book, I would never get to paint.
Using a discount coupon and a gift card I ordered Michael's book and had it shipped to me. Cost me nothing, and I'm glad. My method of mixing..... Buy singlew pigment paints only. Mix colors and if you make one you like and want to get back to at some point, make a color chart with detailed notes.
For those who have read the book and studied it cover to cover, I would like to hear what it has done for you.
My $.02 only!

Einion
01-19-2011, 10:07 AM
Glad you felt the book was worth what it cost you Mickey :D

There have been more than a couple of threads on this already; you might like to check in the Hall Of Fame, there's one only three down from the top. It has links to I think all the others.

I thought "Hand Print" on the web was detailed. If I waded through this book, I would never get to paint.
Have you read the whole of the Handprint site Mickey?? It is vastly more detailed than BAYDMG! In addition it's much more reliable and better written.

Most of the content of BAYDMG is just the same basic info reinforced by specific examples; I got the gist of it reading it standing in a library. Shouldn't take much more than an afternoon to digest it, unless you wanted to reproduce the mixing tables in which case you'd need to set aside a few weeks or months.

It's not really at all technical. As is covered in previous discussions much of the technical stuff, and there's not a lot of it to begin with, is just abstractions or conceptualisations of incident and reflected light and how it behaves in paints films, and in many respects it's incorrect and/or fundamentally misleading.

Einion

mickeyw3340
01-19-2011, 10:29 AM
I love Hand Print. I graduated from graphite and colored pencil to watercolor and that is when I found Hand Print. I've done a few acrylics and am now about to dabble in oil. So much to do, so little time!

oddman99
01-19-2011, 04:24 PM
If you loved Handprint you'll probably love The Dimension of Colour, too. Check it out at http://www.huevaluechroma.com/index.php

Gigalot
02-15-2011, 04:40 AM
Thank you for sharing this link! Such a useful information there!
Alex

willemo
02-16-2011, 12:15 AM
This might be a little off-topic, even if it looks on-topic with regards to the title of this thread...

But when I mix Blue and Yellow together, I most definitely get Green. Is this just because paints/pigments behave irregularly?

willemo
02-16-2011, 12:29 AM
I'll answer my own question... the handprint site describes how colors behave in surprising ways when mixing paints. This link describes the problems quite nicely: http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color14.html

For example: The blue/yellow mixing line is not really a line, it's actually a curve. See the link above.

timelady
02-16-2011, 04:35 AM
Thanks for that Briggs link! More fun reading. :)

Einion
02-16-2011, 10:00 AM
This might be a little off-topic, even if it looks on-topic with regards to the title of this thread...

But when I mix Blue and Yellow together, I most definitely get Green. Is this just because paints/pigments behave irregularly?
The title is about one of the principles explained in the book, that it's the green light reflected by the yellow and blue paints that result in the green seen in mixtures of the two (rather than the yellow and blue mixing to become green).

Einion

nola276
03-06-2011, 05:37 AM
When I read this book for the first time I had an "Ahhhhhhh" moment. For me, this is the moment when understanding dawns, penny drops and formula for working out future colour mixing kicks in.

"Blue and Yellow Don't Make Green" saved my colour mixing life. I found it easy peasy to understand, and I am no genius I assure you. It is my bible now, and whenever I need to review or revisit colour mixing, I read it again. As you can probably tell, I loved it, and truly, I am not the guy's mother:lol:.

Cheers, Nola.

Richard Saylor
03-06-2011, 07:41 PM
I cordially loathe gimicky book titles. In the art world, blue and yellow usually refer to paint colors, and mixing blue and yellow paint generally produces some sort of green. It is common knowledge that if pure blue and pure yellow pigments existed, their mixture would not produce green, but such pigments do not exist in the real world.

sidbledsoe
03-07-2011, 10:13 AM
I cordially loathe gimicky book titles
I agree, he could have named it "Blue and Yellow make Black" but it would have scared many that their green colors would all be killed! :lol:

sidbledsoe
03-08-2011, 08:48 AM
BTW, I am going to be honest about this, I do apologize for this heresy, but I have trouble believing that this concept that any real world pigments, (if they could be obtained somehow) of blue and yellow will make black when mixed. The brighter and purer and clearer and less adulterated the real world pigments are, then the resulting green mix also becomes brighter and more chromatic and more green, now add some adulterating red pigment and you will get close to black. I am not saying I can disprove the theory he presents, I am just saying that I don't believe in it fully, or perhaps there is more to it than is known or theorized to be. ( I read the book too, you can try to explain it to me but you will necessarily have to do a better job at it than he did. I can accept the fact that pigments that don't and won't ever exist could make anything you want them to).

Einion
03-08-2011, 01:41 PM
BTW, I am going to be honest about this, I do apologize for this heresy, but I have trouble believing that this concept that any real world pigments, (if they could be obtained somehow) of blue and yellow will make black when mixed.
No, that's the point - it's only theoretically that this would happen. It requires that the blue reflects only blue light and the yellow to reflect only yellow light.

In reality if pigments like this could be manufactured to order in the future, they would be nearly black to begin with anyway since they'd reflect so little of the total incident light; so it's really quite a silly thought exercise anyway.

Einion

sidbledsoe
03-08-2011, 07:51 PM
Good explanation Einion, I can pretty much accept that! hmm this makes that title even more annoying :D

Einion
03-09-2011, 07:56 AM
I think the title is a good one, since it's intended to be thought provoking and does exactly that; the text of the book then does elucidate what the author is getting at - that it's the amount of green reflected by the blue and yellow paints that make for the finished green colour. While this isn't explained with the right technicalities (possibly the book's main failing) the underlying principle is a good thing for people to know.

Einion

Gigalot
03-09-2011, 12:30 PM
1 Which pigment is green? It is green if it reflects green part of spectrum and or also reflects cyan and yellow light because cyan+yellow combination forms green in our mind and absorbs other light.
2. Which pigment is yellow? It is lemon yellow if reflects green & yellow, neutral yellow (green, yellow & orange) and deep yellow (yellow & orange)
3 Which is blue? It is blue when reflects cyan, blue & violet; deep blue when reflects blue & violet (and often a part of deep red)

What we need to make black instead of green in theory? We need ideal deep yellow pigment which absorbs completely cyan, blue and violet & we need ideal deep blue which absorbs most of green, yellow and orange part of spectrum.

What we have? Cad yellow deep is good candidate to be an ideal yellow but blue pigments available are much more "poor" because reflects a part of green and even yellow and big part of red light and so is not an ideal candidate.

But, anyway deep semitransparent cobalt spectral blue (pure cobalt aluminate ) + cadmium yellow deep (close to orange) mixture must be close to deep brown and not a "green".
:)

Einion
03-09-2011, 02:22 PM
1 Which pigment is green? It is green if it reflects green part of spectrum and or also reflects cyan and yellow light because cyan+yellow combination forms green in our mind and absorbs other light.
Uh-uh - we have R, G and B receptors in the eye; there's no need take a step away from this in order to describe why things appear to be one colour or another*. Things that are green mostly stimulate the G receptor (although there is a lot of overlap here, which is one reason for the great problem with discrimination in greens, because we are maximally sensitive to colour in this area).

Yellow = some balance between R and G input. Which is why, odd as it seems initially, the reflectance spectra of all yellow paints contain so much orange and red (i.e. practically all of it).

But, anyway deep semitransparent cobalt spectral blue (pure cobalt aluminate ) + cadmium yellow deep (close to orange) mixture must be close to deep brown and not a "green".
:)
Anyone with a version of Cadmium Yellow Deep want to try this mixture?

*This is my long-standing objection to trying to figure out mixing behaviour based on the CMY purity of paints - it's essentially irrelevant.

Einion

llawrence
03-09-2011, 04:53 PM
The title is catchy, but for me the clearest example is red and blue. I get intro students come in the first week who know that blue and red make purple (after all, what schoolchild doesn't?); that's when I get them to mix their ultramarine and cad red to get a nice black. That gets the discussion started off nicely. :)

Gigalot
03-09-2011, 07:00 PM
I am agree with Einion, yes, yellow pigments mostly reflect a big part of red and orange light. But it is good because red is complementary color to green.
And if blue pigment reflects red as UMB and Cobalt we can attack "green" with red to make something if not a pure black but gray or brown must have!

Richard Saylor
03-09-2011, 11:31 PM
I think the title is a good one, since it's intended to be thought provoking and does exactly that;.....Einion
Well, it's true that if a yellow which is near orange is mixed with a blue which is near violet, you don't get much of a green. It makes for a very messy explanation of how mixing works with the so-called RYB primaries. By contrast, CMY theory is neat and simple, and an understanding of how it works goes a long way toward getting a handle on mixing in general. (I know there are at least two other people on this forum who would agree with this. :wave: )

Gigalot
03-10-2011, 10:42 AM
RYB model does not work according to color theory but in spite of it. According CMY theory C + M + Y = Black, R = M + Y, B = C + M is OK? And what have when we mix R + B:
M + Y + C + M = M + Y + C = Black!
What we have when mix B + Y: M + C + Y = Black!
And only R + Y = Orange :)

And it is alive because we haven`t an ideal pigments which forms not a Black in practice but "something like" Violet or Green

Einion
03-10-2011, 02:22 PM
The title is catchy, but for me the clearest example is red and blue. I get intro students come in the first week who know that blue and red make purple (after all, what schoolchild doesn't?); that's when I get them to mix their ultramarine and cad red to get a nice black. That gets the discussion started off nicely. :)
I can imagine! :)

Mixed violets are the very thing that bugged me most early on in art school, where there was no good explanation forthcoming for why they could be so awful, when as most of us now know there are some very simple reasons for good and less-good results (which of course immediately begs the question of how well the tutors know the subject).


Well, it's true that if a yellow which is near orange is mixed with a blue which is near violet, you don't get much of a green. It makes for a very messy explanation of how mixing works with the so-called RYB primaries.
(Not just about primaries) but what's messy about the idea of the more green reflected by each paint the more green the result? It's a pretty neat summation of an underlying principle, even though it does come with certain issues (not the least of which is finding out the real reflectance of various paints).

And any outline of mixing is inherently just a starting point, since paint mixtures can be so variable compared to what their basic appearance suggests will happen.

By contrast, CMY theory is neat and simple, and an understanding of how it works goes a long way toward getting a handle on mixing in general.
Could you expound a bit on what you mean by 'CMY theory' here?

Einion

Richard Saylor
03-10-2011, 09:42 PM
I.....Could you expound a bit on what you mean by 'CMY theory' here?

Einion
Just the basics of color perception and additive and subtractive mixing. It makes it obvious why, for example, magenta and yellow make red. This generalizes fairly easily to reflectance properties of more complicated mixtures. There's no need to get into geometric color models such as CIELAB, especially since most artists seem to hate maths.

Einion
03-11-2011, 02:00 AM
Okay, that's not what I thought you meant so I'm glad I asked!

Einion

Nonno
03-11-2011, 02:58 PM
The title is catchy, but for me the clearest example is red and blue. I get intro students come in the first week who know that blue and red make purple (after all, what schoolchild doesn't?); that's when I get them to mix their ultramarine and cad red to get a nice black. That gets the discussion started off nicely. :)

Oh, yes! But then you get an art "teacher" who doesn't know this happens,
and tells the student he is doing something wrong not to get a purple.
Said student then found this book under discussion in the library which explained the mystery.
The discussion which ensued the next class, was very interesting to say the least!
The really amazing thing was that this person had been running this course for years using exactly the same paints each time, so this must have happened often. They seemed to assume that all the students couldn't mix paints, or that every year the students just happened to buy faulty paint.

Jonathan.

llawrence
03-11-2011, 07:10 PM
That's too bad Jonathan, though I know it happens a lot, and not just in color theory classes either. Any teacher of any subject should be obsessed with learning all she can about it (or at the very least, should have a healthy fear of being humiliated in front of the class!).

Richard Saylor
03-12-2011, 03:49 AM
That's too bad Jonathan, though I know it happens a lot, and not just in color theory classes either. Any teacher of any subject should be obsessed with learning all she can about it (or at the very least, should have a healthy fear of being humiliated in front of the class!).Five stars for that observation, llawrence! I am a retired college teacher (mathematics). If you don't know what you're talking about, sooner or later you're going to get a student who may nail you to the wall.

Gigalot
03-12-2011, 05:55 AM
I think, the problem stem from the fact that many people (and teachers ) have mixed concepts about additive mixing of light and subtractive mixing of pigments. This is not the same thing! This is a biggest mistake.

CharM
03-12-2011, 09:00 AM
Hi Colour Theorists! This is my first post to your forum... I have been reading, reading and then, doing a little more reading here. I find myself thinking that you have invented a new form of artspeak regarding colour! I'm pretty easily confused!

I have no formal art education whatsoever. I have begun teaching workshops at my local Art Gallery and want to make sure I lead my Students in the right direction.

I have been, after painting in watercolour since 2003, finally begun studying my colour theory. Recently, a friend and I have been working our way through Jeanne Dobie's book Making Color Sing. But, we've also been referencing Hilary Page, Zoltan Zsabo, Michael Wilcox, Stephen Quiller and Nita Leland.

They all use similar semantics in describing their versions of the various approaches to colour theory... and just understanding the lingo itself is something of a trial. I'm sure there are truisms and absolutes that will become second nature to me as I absorb all this information.

So... this little diatribe brings me to the subject of this thread.

When mixing colour, it's important to be aware of temperature and colour bias. So, mixing a warm and cool colour with a bias that becomes a mixing complement, the resulting mix will be dull and boring. In essence, then, is this what Wilcox is attempting to convey to us? Because Jeanne Dobie is advocating essentially the same theory. In fact, she coins her bright mixes "Octanic Color"...

I read in another thread here that "temperature" is a confusing term and we should be more concerned with hue, value and chroma...

I appreciate your patience and indulgence... I hope to bring many more questions to you for guidance...

llawrence
03-12-2011, 11:40 AM
Thanks Richard. I spend quite a bit of my "free" time trying to make sure it doesn't happen to me! Even with subjects I think I know well, there's always a mistake I could be making, or just more out there to put a spin on what I think I already know. I guess that's one reason why some of the other teachers seem bored with teaching color theory as a "basic" subject, but I continue to be fascinated by it. I teach it very differently now than I did the first time. Teaching is a challenging profession, and I wind up learning more than the students do!

Hi CharM. I'm one of the proponents of color temperature around here, but I think color temperature is best used when discussing color contrasts, especially in compositions (where it can be crucial), and not as helpful when discussing questions of mixing. In mixing, it can get confusing. For instance, this quote:
So, mixing a warm and cool colour with a bias that becomes a mixing complement, the resulting mix will be dull and boring.... I don't know what this means. It would be clearer to break things down into three components of color - either hue value and chroma, or hue saturation and brightness (or even a, b and lightness, to get a little esoteric) - and use that model to aim for a particular color, rather than applying broader principles of color temperature.

Finally, dull colors can be very useful! Welcome to the forum!

CharM
03-12-2011, 12:32 PM
Thanks llawrence... Honestly, I feel like I'm drowning in information and I'm trying to sort it all out.

Ok... I thought that I understood the effects of temperature when mixing secondary and tertiary colours. In order to keep my work clear and bright, I also appreciate that dulled or neutralized colour should be placed adjacent to those bright hues. Dobie calls them "mouse" colours.

I'll try to explain what I though I understood about bias. If I mix a cool red that has a blue bias with a cool blue that has a green bias, the "green" could dull the resulting purple, because red and green are mixing complements.

So, it's not enough to consider temperature alone when mixing colour. We must also be aware of the hue bias in order to mix "Octanic" or clear, bright colours.

Does that make even a modicum of sense? It's what I think I've learned from Jeanne Dobie's book...

oddman99
03-12-2011, 02:36 PM
CharM, like llawrence, I, too, believe that colour "temperature" has a place in painting and that it is in such things as colour evaluation for visual impact, lighting autheticity, harmony, etc., of compositions. However, when it comes to colour mixing against a target colour, the notion of colour temperature is truly wrong headed and counter productive. You need only consider hue, value and chroma and nothing else to arrive at the correct mixture.

For example, refer to your explanation of mixing red and blue and see if dropping the adjective "cool" makes any difference to its clarity.

CharM
03-12-2011, 03:01 PM
:lol: I was just reading an article by John Lovett and he explains the colour bias in mixing as follows:

"Using a warm yellow like cadmium or a warm blue such as ultramarine would introduce a slight trace of red into the green resulting in a compound colour."

Oh yay... another term!

Wilcox and Dobie are trying their best to tell me that blue and yellow don't make green because of something... they use temperature as one of the considerations in their mixing vernacular.

I really appreciate you're trying to help me with this. I'll refrain from using temperature as a factor. But, on a traditional colour wheel, do I place my pigments on it according to hue? If that's the case, how are they ordered? How do I decide what pigment follows the next? Would this be relative to the chroma? And where do I begin? And how in heaven's name do I avoid compound colours? Maybe I'm trying to kill two birds with one stone and they aren't necessarily related????


CharleneWho'sStillConfused

p.s. Restating this paragraph:
If I mix a cool red that has a blue bias with a cool blue that has a green bias, the "green" could dull the resulting purple, because red and green are mixing complements.TO:

If I mix a red that has a blue bias with a blue that has a green bias, the "green" could dull the resulting purple, because red and green are mixing complements.

Will the temperature EVER matter when mixing colour?

oddman99
03-12-2011, 06:25 PM
CharM,

With regard to straight colour mixing, temperature never matters. It's strictly getting the right combination of hue, value and chroma that counts.

As to your colour wheel, the long answer goes to Newton's light experiments some three hundred years ago. He found white light (sunlight) to comprise seven colour families - red, orange, yellow, blue, indigo (long since dropped or ignored) and violet. They appear in that order as they are refracted through a glass prism. Being a wise man, Sir Isaac quickly noted that if the red and violet were mixed together the non-spectral hue of purple resulted. Thus, he joined both ends of the spectrum so as to form a circle, with purple as the linking colour family. Voila, you have the makings of a colour wheel, the order is fixed, ROYGBIV, as I learned, years ago, in high school physics.

Back to colour temperatures - this is an arbitrary term used primarily to group the colour families. It has a global, or overall connotation, as well as a local one and that is where some confusion steps in.

In the global sense if orange is the epitome of hot (some may say it's red) then its complement, blue, is the coolest cool. If you go to your colour wheel, arranged in Newtonian order (forget indigo, most of us can't see it anyways), hues nearer to orange are considered as warm and those nearer to blue as cool. Locally, thing are a little different. A green hue, for example, could be either warm or cool within the hue family, depending on whether it was near to orange or blue. In a similar fashion most of the other hues can be considered as being either warm or cool within their respective families.

The problem comes in with blue and orange. If blue is the coolest of the cool, say it's cobalt blue, then any other blue, be it ultramarine blue (red bias) or pthalo blue (yellow bias), must both be warm blues. But, each of these blues lie on either side of the cobalt blue in the spectrum, and one may expect that one be designated warm and the other cool, thus the confusion.

The same potential confusion exists with orange and trying to state which variant is warmer or cooler.

Trying to denote a colour temperature in describing the quality of a particular light or the appearance of a shadow vis-a-vis the adjacent lighted surface can be helpful. Several valid painting rules relate to those terms. As long as artists understand each other when referring to colour temperature there's no need to throw the baby out with the bath water by banning its use.

I hope this long winded explanation helps.

CharM
03-12-2011, 08:06 PM
Your long winded answer actually did help! And I thank you for that. :clap:

I was reading Bruce McEvoy's commentary (talk about long winded) concerning temperature. And, the truth is that I couldn't decide if he condoned its use in mixing colour, or not. Appreciating that this paragraph is taken out of context from the entire article:

"It's always helpful to anchor the logic of this abstract color labeling in physical color mixing effects. Thus, the fact that hooker's green is warmer than viridian indicates that we can get a color equivalent to hooker's green by mixing viridian with an orange yellow or orange paint; the fact that it is cooler than green gold indicates that we can get hooker's green by mixing green gold with phthalo turquoise."
This suggests that temperature is somewhat useful in selecting pigments for mixing. However, it isn't as dependable or as simple as deciding what's warm and what's cool.

Again, taken out of context from the same article, the following paragraph reinforces (for me) what you've just posted above:

"However, any color can be relatively warmer or cooler in relation to any other color, depending on which color is closer to the arbitrarily chosen warmest (or coolest) color around the hue circle. These judgments must be made in context with the other colors in the image or scene, including the scene illumination, and not as abstract comparisons between color wheel locations."

This link to the Handprint (http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color12.html) page that discusses temperature.

Your indulgence with my difficulty has been very much appreciated. And I must ask you another question or three. Would the term "bias" be used correctly in deciding upon the hue of a particular pigment... or would that be chroma? Is compound colour a good descriptive when teaching my Students about taking care with the bias? They are abject beginners and I want them to be excited about their art, taking home something that is beautiful, clear and bright...

My next 6-week Workshop will be covering 6 different primary triads and how to mix their secondary and tertiary colours. I feel that I need to be able to articulate with confidence the theory behind the results of these mixes.

Now it's me who's long winded! :)

sidbledsoe
03-12-2011, 09:35 PM
For me color mixing is always done with the consideration of temperature. I never consider which variant of a color is either the warmer or cooler shade, that is, which blue is cool and which is warm. That doesn't exist for me, I couldn't do it if I tried, and I have tried. I just consider which way they lean, thus no confusion.
But every time I paint a picture, I analyze warm and cool areas or passages and construct the color composition of every painting I make accordingly. It is in the forefront of my thinking and that is where my paintings are first made. For me it is extremely simple, basically, cools lean blue, green, and violet, warms lean red, orange, and yellow, whatever the chroma or value may be.

Richard Saylor
03-13-2011, 12:36 AM
Orange is warm; blue is cool; but trying to distinguish between two different blues (such as ultramarine and pthalo) by means of color temperature is meaningless. The same goes for the oranges.

Of course, it's perfectly okay to think of pthalo as warm and ultramarine as cool (or vice-versa) if it helps with one's color choices in painting, but this is a personal matter, not an objective fact, and is best avoided in written communication.

CharM
03-13-2011, 08:46 AM
Thanks sidbledsoe and Richard! I understand that we really cannot distinguish "temperature" of our pigments in a very technical sense. But visually, it occurs to some degree in the sense that yellow is warmer than blue.

And then, to Wilcox's point... if I mix hansa yellow which has a green bias with ultramarine blue which has a red bias, the resulting mix will be a dull green because the bias of both pigments acts as a mixing complement. And this is what Lovett is calling a compound colour.

However, if I mix the same hansa yellow with phthalo blue gs which, of course, has a green bias, the resulting green mix is beautifully bright and clear. The reasoning is that both colours have a green bias. And that is what Dobie is calling an Octanic colour.

So, is Jeanne Dobie saying essentially the same thing as Wilcox? I think (I hope) I might be on the right track...

oddman99
03-13-2011, 10:16 AM
CharM, "bias", as it is usually used in connection with colour mixing, refers to hue rather than chroma. Of course, the word has its intrinsic meaning in language and as such can be used in any applicable context.

As to what Sidbledsoe and Richard Saylor just posted about colour temperature, I couldn't agree more.

CharM
03-13-2011, 12:01 PM
Ok... putting "temperature" to bed... (you should just see the gorgeous "Cool vs. Warm Primaries" Wheel in Jeanne Dobie's book that started all this, though... :lol: )

As a sidenote... Hilary Page does not use temperature as a guide in the creation of her colour wheels and charts... I think I probably need to shift gears...

Michael Wilcox states that his approach is based on a "colour bias wheel" because every red is either a violet red or an orange red and every blue is either violet blue or green blue. All yellows are either green yellow or orange yellow. I know that you all know this... it's my revelation... and you're helping me get there.

But I guess that it supports your discussion in this thread and the concepts in his book are, indeed, truisms!

Richard Saylor
03-13-2011, 04:08 PM
.....Michael Wilcox states that his approach is based on a "colour bias wheel" because every red is either a violet red or an orange red and every blue is either violet blue or green blue. All yellows are either green yellow or orange yellow. I know that you all know this....Oh, I suppose he deliberately chooses colors that are biased one way or the other. There are, of course, colors which may be regarded as unbiased, particularly in the yellows.

sidbledsoe
03-13-2011, 07:36 PM
The closest RYB colors to being unbiased (closest, not absolute middles) that I have found (and are my opinion only) are:
red- napthol pr112
blue- cobalt pb28
yellow- hansa py1

Gigalot
03-14-2011, 05:41 PM
Filters
Rex Hayman
Focal Press
London & Boston 1984

This book saved my life and kept me out of terrible artist`s metaphysics. :D
Color photography show me a good way to learn much more about colors and free of "boring" "octanic" "killed colors" "yellowish violet" e.t.c terminology. :)

robertsloan2
03-15-2011, 07:03 AM
CharM,

With regard to straight colour mixing, temperature never matters. It's strictly getting the right combination of hue, value and chroma that counts.

As to your colour wheel, the long answer goes to Newton's light experiments some three hundred years ago. He found white light (sunlight) to comprise seven colour families - red, orange, yellow, blue, indigo (long since dropped or ignored) and violet. They appear in that order as they are refracted through a glass prism. Being a wise man, Sir Isaac quickly noted that if the red and violet were mixed together the non-spectral hue of purple resulted. Thus, he joined both ends of the spectrum so as to form a circle, with purple as the linking colour family. Voila, you have the makings of a colour wheel, the order is fixed, ROYGBIV, as I learned, years ago, in high school physics.

Back to colour temperatures - this is an arbitrary term used primarily to group the colour families. It has a global, or overall connotation, as well as a local one and that is where some confusion steps in.

In the global sense if orange is the epitome of hot (some may say it's red) then its complement, blue, is the coolest cool. If you go to your colour wheel, arranged in Newtonian order (forget indigo, most of us can't see it anyways), hues nearer to orange are considered as warm and those nearer to blue as cool. Locally, thing are a little different. A green hue, for example, could be either warm or cool within the hue family, depending on whether it was near to orange or blue. In a similar fashion most of the other hues can be considered as being either warm or cool within their respective families.

The problem comes in with blue and orange. If blue is the coolest of the cool, say it's cobalt blue, then any other blue, be it ultramarine blue (red bias) or pthalo blue (yellow bias), must both be warm blues. But, each of these blues lie on either side of the cobalt blue in the spectrum, and one may expect that one be designated warm and the other cool, thus the confusion.

The same potential confusion exists with orange and trying to state which variant is warmer or cooler.

Trying to denote a colour temperature in describing the quality of a particular light or the appearance of a shadow vis-a-vis the adjacent lighted surface can be helpful. Several valid painting rules relate to those terms. As long as artists understand each other when referring to colour temperature there's no need to throw the baby out with the bath water by banning its use.

I hope this long winded explanation helps.

I remember getting very confused by ROYGBIV as a kid, because Indigo is a green-cast blue and having it come between blue and purple rather than between green and blue did not make sense to me. I wonder if the indigo dye came out different in Newton's time, resulting in a strongly purple-cast blue like French Ultramarine.

Indigo being the dye for blue jeans, that's a muted green-leaning blue if I ever saw one.

I also wonder what the spectrum looks like to the rare but real people who see Ultraviolet. My sister describes it as "like purple but more so, more in that direction." She can see it, she's one in a hundred thousand or something like that, which is how I found out there were people who could.

llawrence
03-15-2011, 05:36 PM
I wonder if the indigo dye came out different in Newton's time, resulting in a strongly purple-cast blue like French Ultramarine.I know in the Middle Ages "indigo" lent its name to all sorts of blue vegetable inks and paints; Newton was a bit later of course, but perhaps the word simply meant any sort of dark blue.

CharM
03-15-2011, 06:04 PM
The synthetic pigments manufactured today can vary by manufacturer. Typically a blue such as prussian (PB27), indanthrone (PB60) or phthalo (PB15) are mixed with lamp black. So, depending on the blue that's used in the mix, how finely it was milled and heated, the resulting colour can lean to green or violet!

I didn't know that people could see ultra violet... wow...

sidbledsoe
03-16-2011, 09:22 AM
I didn't know that people could see ultra violet... wow...
man I was there back in the sixties, R Crumb's truckin' posters glowing through the hazy black light! far out man :thumbsup:

Richard Saylor
03-16-2011, 01:58 PM
I painted a few pictures with day glo colors back in the day. I still have my black light.

Gigalot
03-17-2011, 02:10 PM
390 nm UV light emitted by UV LED diode is visible but quickly tired my eyes. Especially well seen this light in the darkness. (Chinese lighters often has such LED inside)

Einion
03-17-2011, 07:31 PM
I was reading Bruce McEvoy's commentary (talk about long winded) concerning temperature.
It's nearly impossible to talk about any aspect of colour briefly and still cover all the bases, which is what he seeks to do in each section. I'm glad you've read that, as it's one of the best discussions on the permutations and applications of 'temperature' that I'm aware of.

And, the truth is that I couldn't decide if he condoned its use in mixing colour, or not.
Different strokes for different folks. Bruce is obviously not against the concept (as I pretty much am) but he's unusual in having integrated it fully with an understanding of hue, brightness and chroma/saturation.

Would the term "bias" be used correctly in deciding upon the hue of a particular pigment... or would that be chroma?
Bias, in Wilcox's way of using it, is about hue. It's also about mixing tendency, but primarily it's his way of describing differences in hue relative to a basic colour point.

Chroma relates to intensity or vividness - high chroma = vivid, lower chroma = duller or less vivid, low chroma = close to grey.

Is compound colour a good descriptive when teaching my Students about taking care with the bias?
I wouldn't use it. I wouldn't teach the idea of bias either, not as a cornerstone at least. It's one thing to make offhand references like, "That red is biased towards orange." But it's another to pin some concept on this sort of observation.

Mixing is about far more than basic colour appearance anyway; that's the concept to get across at the end of the day.

Michael Wilcox states that his approach is based on a "colour bias wheel" because every red is either a violet red or an orange red and every blue is either violet blue or green blue. All yellows are either green yellow or orange yellow.
As I think was brought up in one or more of the previous discussions of the book, this is one of the major flaws in it - any promotion of the idea that this is the case.

In reality things are the hue they are, irrespective of a pre-set theoretical outlook or structure - just compare the idea with the plotted colour positions of pigments on Handprint for example, or the Munsell hue designations given by some of the paint manufacturers.

The synthetic pigments manufactured today can vary by manufacturer. Typically a blue such as prussian (PB27), indanthrone (PB60) or phthalo (PB15) are mixed with lamp black.
:confused: This would not be typical; most makers would offer single-pigment versions of all the major blues.


Orange is warm; blue is cool; but trying to distinguish between two different blues (such as ultramarine and pthalo) by means of color temperature is meaningless. The same goes for the oranges.

Of course, it's perfectly okay to think of pthalo as warm and ultramarine as cool (or vice-versa) if it helps with one's color choices in painting, but this is a personal matter, not an objective fact, and is best avoided in written communication.
Nicely put.


I remember getting very confused by ROYGBIV as a kid, because Indigo is a green-cast blue and having it come between blue and purple rather than between green and blue did not make sense to me. I wonder if the indigo dye came out different in Newton's time, resulting in a strongly purple-cast blue like French Ultramarine.
Indigo is a colour concept rather than 'a colour'; these tend to vary anyway - from place to place, person to person - and many have shifted greatly over the years.

In terms of the dye, depending on mordant and dye strength it can produce shades that are not green-blue, as can be seen in denim today even though it's dyed with the synthetic version.

I also wonder what the spectrum looks like to the rare but real people who see Ultraviolet.
The same as regular people, just a little longer on one end :)

Einion

CharM
03-17-2011, 08:16 PM
Thanks for such a comprehensive response, Einion... I did not correctly articulate my comment about the mixes that manufacturers offer as Indigo. It is not unusual for a tube of indigo to include lamp black PLUS prussian, or indanthrone or phthalo... The paint that we purchase today is not made from plant material any more.
Originally Posted by CharM
The synthetic pigments manufactured today can vary by manufacturer. Typically a blue such as prussian (PB27), indanthrone (PB60) or phthalo (PB15) are mixed with lamp black.
:confused: This would not be typical; most makers would offer single-pigment versions of all the major blues.

I re-read your post and I feel as though I'm still not *getting it*, though. If I purchased a tube of indigo paint, it wouldn't be a colour concept. It would be a mixture of pigments that I want to use in my paintings. And the fact that some tubes have a green cast or some have a blue cast is important in the appearance of my painting and/or how I mix this colour with another.

Einion
03-18-2011, 09:23 AM
...I did not correctly articulate my comment about the mixes that manufacturers offer as Indigo. It is not unusual for a tube of indigo to include lamp black PLUS prussian, or indanthrone or phthalo... The paint that we purchase today is not made from plant material any more.
Ah right, yes, nearly all Indigo paints these days will be a mixture of that kind.

Re. the colour concepts thing, these are terms that only give a rough idea of the colour that's meant, like beige or lavender or taupe, none of which are clearly defined.

Einion

llawrence
03-18-2011, 12:01 PM
In terms of the dye, depending on mordant and dye strength it can produce shades that are not green-blue, as can be seen in denim today even though it's dyed with the synthetic version.I've never heard of a mordant being used with indigo, it being a substantive dye. Perhaps there are adjuncts that can be used, or a secondary dye?

Kremer Pigments carries an "Indigo Red-Violet." I have no idea how they do it, I've never gotten anything from indigo other than the greenish blue.

I'm curious about it, but not $93 curious...

Gigalot
03-18-2011, 12:28 PM
Yes, we have many different hues under the name "Indigo","Electric Indigo", "WEB Indigo" e.t.c.
But, real Indigo is a pure chemical product (not a color concept like Lavender) which has chemical formula, crystalline structure and I guess has it`s own predictable color.:cool:

Einion
03-22-2011, 10:37 AM
I've never heard of a mordant being used with indigo, it being a substantive dye. Perhaps there are adjuncts that can be used, or a secondary dye?
Yes you're quite right, it wouldn't commonly have been used with a mordant! It was done in the east, I wonder if perhaps this was to help achieve certain vivid shades (similar to how tin is used with madder). I'm thinking of the intense cyan-like blues that are sometimes seen on silk, although I'm pretty sure that is possible by just using the right example of indigo.


But, real Indigo is a pure chemical product (not a color concept like Lavender) which has chemical formula, crystalline structure and I guess has it`s own predictable color.:cool:
And we know that chemical products ...like pigments... never vary :D Dye colour is anyway subject to the same type of colour variation that we tend to overlook when we talk about 'the colour' of paints:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/22-Mar-2011/3842-Indigo_Dye_Variation.JPG

(Anyone with access to any image-editing software might like to examine how the hue shifts toward violet as the colour gets darker.)

Einion

Gigalot
03-22-2011, 05:44 PM
Looks like prussian blue in tints but it can reflect a small part of red in dark like ultramarine. Prussian blue absorbs red. :)
Once I had a pill of indigo dye and it was dark blue with red undertone as in picture.

If pigment has a different crystals (alpha, beta, gamma crystals) its color can vary greatly. But less vary in hue if only pigments particle size is different (i hope so :D )

Einion
03-23-2011, 04:27 AM
Looks like prussian blue in tints but it can reflect a small part of red in dark like ultramarine. Prussian blue absorbs red. :)
Much like phthalo blues too - the green shades are notable for how great the shift in hue is from masstone to undercolour/tint*.

Once I had a pill of indigo dye and it was dark blue with red undertone as in picture.
This shows up quite well in photos of it online too.

*I'm sure this is the largest for any blue, I wonder if it's the largest for any pigment?

Einion

wetbob
03-24-2011, 05:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Saylor
Orange is warm; blue is cool; but trying to distinguish between two different blues (such as ultramarine and pthalo) by means of color temperature is meaningless. The same goes for the oranges.

Of course, it's perfectly okay to think of pthalo as warm and ultramarine as cool (or vice-versa) if it helps with one's color choices in painting, but this is a personal matter, not an objective fact, and is best avoided in written communication.

Nicely put.


Wasn t this one of the essences of the book???:confused:
Mixing a warm or cool orange for example

Einion
03-24-2011, 03:27 PM
Wasn t this one of the essences of the book???:confused:
Mixing a warm or cool orange for example
No, he might have come up with the term temperature bias rather than colour bias if he'd been framing things that way. I can't remember for sure but I think there's no mention of 'temperature'.

Einion

wetbob
03-24-2011, 05:32 PM
No, he might have come up with the term temperature bias rather than colour bias if he'd been framing things that way

I cant say which page, and say it out of memory, but i thought he gives an example of a painting, and he thought it was nice/great because it was only mixed with a variety of warm oranges (maybe greys?).

I just ask because it s a little confused, maybe also for others.

llawrence
03-24-2011, 08:56 PM
I don't think that was the general language used in the book, though it's been a while. I remember back when I was in Wilcox mode, and just beginning to learn about pigments, I actually had some trouble communicating with folks who were using the temperature terminology. I'd ask someone at the art shop, "Is the red in this tube yellowish or bluish?" (or something like that). They'd look confused as say, "It's a warm red." I'd say, "What's a warm red? Is that yellowish or bluish?" Etc...

Of course, I have a much better understanding of color temperature now... :D

CharM
03-24-2011, 09:56 PM
Actually, he uses a variety of terms to explain and describe his methods of subtractive colour mixing. When suggesting a basic palette, he advises the use of cool and warm colours. He discusses colour bias, and also "reflectors" as a possible reason for dulled mixes...

Einion
03-25-2011, 02:46 AM
Bob, most of the descriptions are based on hue - orange-red, green-blue, green-yellow etc.

He does use 'warm' and 'cool' in the basic descriptions of some colours, but then explains in hue terms what this means, e.g. "a warm red, leaning toward orange" for Cadmium Red, "a warmish blue, biased towards violet" for French Ultramarine.

Einion

sidbledsoe
03-25-2011, 06:48 AM
Whenever I read about a warmish blue, it sounds quite humorous to me because it is an oxymoron, as is a cool orange. But for temperature, I rely only upon my own aesthetic response to colors.

Einion
03-25-2011, 08:44 AM
I don't think it's an oxymoron Sid, it just means relatively warm or relatively cool.

Anyway, very simple solution to any terminology issues and other confusions surrounding 'temperature'... :cool:

Einion

sidbledsoe
03-25-2011, 09:24 AM
I should have said an oxymoron for myself only.
Yes, I agree that it attempts to describe a relative aspect of color but for myself, it just doesn't do the job. That is because I don't see violet blue as any different from green blue in terms of temperature. That is what I meant in saying I don't detect it in my own response to these colors. So when I read these things like "you need to have a warm and a cool blue" I am like :confused: in that I know what they mean, but I really don't know which is which, I feel left out in the cold, in a manner of speaking of course.:D

Richard Saylor
03-25-2011, 10:57 AM
I should have said an oxymoron for myself only.
Yes, I agree that it attempts to describe a relative aspect of color but for myself, it just doesn't do the job. That is because I don't see violet blue as any different from green blue in terms of temperature. That is what I meant in saying I don't detect it in my own response to these colors. So when I read these things like "you need to have a warm and a cool blue" I am like :confused: in that I know what they mean, but I really don't know which is which, I feel left out in the cold, in a manner of speaking of course.:D
Those are exactly my sentiments. If the coolest color is a middle blue (arguably cobalt), then any deviation from that will be warmer, whether towards green or violet. Color temperature within the blue sector just doesn't compute in my feeble brain.

Gigalot
03-25-2011, 01:15 PM
That means, Richard, that real color temperature (in Kelvins) is absolutely different than different artists call warm or cold.

In Temperature scale violet has higher temperature than blue. And yellow has higher temperature than orange and red. And what some of artist`s are talking about "warm" blue or "warm" orange is so far from temperature has nothing similar to any temperature or any logic! They must decide at first high temperature is warm or cold and also low temperature is warm or cold :D

Richard Saylor
03-25-2011, 01:31 PM
That means, Richard, that real color temperature (in Kelvins) is absolutely different than different artists call warm or cold.That is 100% correct, Gigalot. I have tried to correlate artist's temperature with the idea of infrared as heat, but that conflicts with the idea of orange being the warmest color. Moreover, beyond the other end of the visible spectrum, high-frequency, short-wavelength ultraviolet is by no means cool, as it can burn one to cinders.

Einion
03-25-2011, 02:56 PM
I should have said an oxymoron for myself only.
Yes, I agree that it attempts to describe a relative aspect of color but for myself, it just doesn't do the job.
So with you there Sid.

So when I read these things like "you need to have a warm and a cool blue" I am like :confused: in that I know what they mean, but I really don't know which is which...
Ditto! And anyway, there isn't one right answer to which is which, a pretty big obstacle IMB (insurmountable in fact).

Much of the time when I read or hear 'temperature' talk I'm left frustrated in that whatever is being said could be expressed so much more clearly; and occasionally I have to admit to being completely lost, having no idea what was trying to be conveyed.

Einion

P.S. I'm currently collecting 'temperature' quotes to illustrate the problem.

Gigalot
03-25-2011, 04:50 PM
Eh, Richard, warm "color" is true infrared (!) only and other colors can be warmer or cooler depending on the content of infrared light. Orange - is a primitive man`s fire color which said "warm!" :)

sidbledsoe
03-25-2011, 07:27 PM
According to wikipedia:
Color temperatures over 5,000K are called cool colors (blueish white), while lower color temperatures (2,700Ė3,000 K) are called warm colors (yellowish white through red).
These kelvin units are only measurements derived from what a black body light emits, tying them into, and thus relating them to the aesthetic psychological response humans sense when looking at colors only confuses the issue further, like it needs any more :confused: :D .

Doug Nykoe
03-25-2011, 08:49 PM
Warm and Cool are human friendly attributes that help us immensely with colour.:grouphug:


Life is really simple, but men insist on making it complicated. (Confucius)

Gigalot
03-26-2011, 04:45 AM
Helps just as well as roll over and walk on head is good for our health :D

Einion
03-26-2011, 07:56 AM
Warm and Cool are human friendly attributes that help us immensely with colour.:grouphug:
Well that's a matter of opinion! It adds unnecessarily to the confusion in an area that is already tricky to get a grasp on... as, I would have thought, is obvious from this thread. As well as countless others.

'Temperature' is fine for basic colour distinction into broad groups or families, but it is manifestly unsuited for finer colour distinctions, which is unfortunately how artists insist on trying to use it.

Life is really simple, but men insist on making it complicated. (Confucius)
Colour is really complex, but men insist on trying to make it simple. (Einion)

:cool:

Einion

sidbledsoe
03-26-2011, 12:36 PM
And if it was simple, then blue and yellow would make green.:D

Doug Nykoe
03-26-2011, 02:44 PM
Hello Einion

Sure everything to do with art has a complexity and diversity to it all but we humans sure can add to that complexity.

Which blue is warmer or cooler has been discussed and we know how to determine that. Nothing seems to live on its own concerning this two dimensional surface we work on and as Hans Hoffman says take a piece of paper and draw a line on the paper. Now ask yourself how long is this line? It strikes me that we are asking the same question here >>> which blue is warmer and itís not until we draw another line down on the paper will we know how long that other line really is by comparison in which to measure it by. We also have tension to deal with from the four sides of the paper as we do with the canvas.

Nothing is in isolation or by itself so itís easy to determine the warm blue by introducing the opposite or near opposite as if we were placing the smaller line to determine the length of the first line. This is a visual calculation of simultaneous contrasts and once we are able to feel and understand these differences by way of comparison and tension, then a whole bunch of understanding begins to unravel itself to us.

Once we start to get the concept of warm and cool then it gets easier to determine other similar concepts down the road like clutter and non-clutter, heavy line and softer lineÖ thereís no hardline without a soft line to tell us how hard that particular line really is. So once we become familiar with this process and or concept and realize no colour stands alone then it might be in our best interests to become familiar with warm and cool to appease this two dimensional surface we work on.

It is complex this two dimensional surface but I would rather give it up to my innate abilities I have been honing my whole life to help me navigate rather than to outside interests like scientific analyzes of a single colour alone. Okay some science is good or letís say very good but in no way would I give science priority over my innate abilities like temperament, sensibilities etc. Anyways just another opinion I guess and a reflection on how I paint but there are other ways people like to go and thatís fine, this is just how I see it. Just trying to keep it fun and trying not to over think everything.

Goldeelocks
03-26-2011, 07:39 PM
I cordially loathe gimicky book titles. In the art world, blue and yellow usually refer to paint colors, and mixing blue and yellow paint generally produces some sort of green. It is common knowledge that if pure blue and pure yellow pigments existed, their mixture would not produce green, but such pigments do not exist in the real world.
I think that's why I never bought the book. Because I see this when I mix mine:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/26-Mar-2011/204698-blueandyellow.JPG
So obviously his title is referring to something else, but why confuse people like this. I guess he's referring to ideal mixing and not pigment mixing?

But then a better title would have been: "Yellow and black make green" or something. Oh well, there's enough confusiong being thrown around I feel sometimes you know.

sidbledsoe
03-26-2011, 09:44 PM
I guess he's referring to ideal mixing and not pigment mixing?
The title does not refer to real pigment mixing.
But the sub-title on the cover indicates that the subject of the book is about real pigment mixing:
How to mix the color you really want, every time
My issue with the title is that I would like to see at least one concrete demonstrable example as evidence of proof.

Richard Saylor
03-27-2011, 02:44 AM
....My issue with the title is that I would like to see at least one concrete demonstrable example as evidence of proof.I suppose in one sense he is correct. However, yellow and blue pigments which reflect no green have not yet been discovered, so he has only a theoretical basis for the title. It is just a gimmick.

llawrence
03-27-2011, 11:26 AM
... that's the reason I think Red and Blue Don't Make Violet would have been a more demonstrative, if less catchy, title. Loads of concrete examples there...

Gigalot
03-27-2011, 05:25 PM
But red light reflection masking a part of green color therefore reddish blue (umb and spectral cobalt) with deep yellow can make poorest "green".
But we know that black + yellow makes green. That means blue+yellow makes black but with an excess of yellow we actually have green and it`s hue must be very close to yellow-black mixture. (It is my logical decision.)

Einion
03-28-2011, 08:43 AM
Which blue is warmer or cooler has been discussed and we know how to determine that.
Er, no we don't :cool: That assemblage of quotes I've posted the link to more than once should have made it clear to anyone that it's not at all a given which is which - even people who do think this way don't agree. Ergo, adds unnecessarily to the confusion is a fair comment.

'Colour temperature' is only a sidelines issue to this thread. If you want to start a thread to argue its benefits then please, feel free; long as it centres on concrete issues and doesn't stray off into philosophical tangents it's more than welcome here.

Anyways just another opinion I guess and a reflection on how I paint but there are other ways people like to go and thatís fine, this is just how I see it.
Yes of course, I'm just arguing their relative worth or value (especially to new and developing painters who haven't developed a vested interest yet).

Just trying to keep it fun and trying not to over think everything.
Okay that's fair enough, but what about under-thinking things? ;)


And if it was simple, then blue and yellow would make green.:D
:D

Seriously though, why do black + yellow make green? This and numerous other "Huh?" mixtures (e.g. the various directions tints take) show that the overall subject is complex, although one doesn't have to go beyond the practical level if you don't want to - this works, this doesn't work; this and that make this etc. But some theory can be helpful, especially initially.

The title does not refer to real pigment mixing.
It does. He's referring to the green in the blue and yellow paints, rather than a mixture of blue and yellow becoming green.

Einion

sidbledsoe
03-28-2011, 09:29 AM
The title does not refer to real pigment mixing.
my thoughts were that the title refers to a theory of pigment mixing vs real pigment mixing. The theory it represents says that pure blue and yellow will make black, as you said earlier:
that's the point - it's only theoretically that this would happen.Einion

Einion
03-28-2011, 01:42 PM
Maybe both interpretations are right and the title is intended to have a double meaning - he does talk about a pure blue and a pure yellow (stressing that they're theoretical) mixing to neutral rather than the green one would expect, but this leads directly on to the point about real-world paints having green reflectance, and that it is this that survives the mix and results in the green we see.

Einion

sidbledsoe
03-28-2011, 02:31 PM
That is the best way to look at it, I think. I just have these lingering reservations that prevent me from buying into it 100%!

Richard Saylor
03-29-2011, 12:57 AM
The title was cleverly designed to attract the attention of people who don't understand how subtractive color mixing works. There's nothing wrong with making money, but to say that blue and yellow don't make green, while technically true if the terms are suitably defined, goes against common English usage.

Here is a true sentence, in which proper semantic usage is not ignored. (The phrases in parentheses are explications of ordinary usage and may be omitted.)

If blue (i.e., a color which is recongizably blue because of its reflectance properties) is mixed with yellow (i.e., a color whose reflectance properties make it recognizable as yellow), then the mixture will very likely be green (i.e. a color whose reflectance properties make it appear green).

Someone should write a book entitled, Red and Green Make Yellow.

Einion
03-29-2011, 03:35 AM
Someone should write a book entitled, Red and Green Make Yellow.
LOL (literally)

That sir is an excellent idea!

Einion

sidbledsoe
03-29-2011, 09:22 AM
I have a question, according to the theory, then even real world, impure blue and yellow pigments will be making some black when they are mixed, right?

Einion
03-29-2011, 02:52 PM
I have a question, according to the theory, then even real world, impure blue and yellow pigments will be making some black when they are mixed, right?
Technically yes, but it's more that they make some 'background grey' (can't remember if there's a proper name for this) hence the drop in chroma in mixtures.

Einion

Goldeelocks
04-01-2011, 08:16 AM
Someone should write a book entitled, Red and Green Make Yellow.


They want titles that confuse you: "The earth is flat!"...page 1: "Well, not really, but that's what they used to think...anyhow..."

It's common in books though, I think publishers want titles like this to attract buyers ><.

Gigalot
04-02-2011, 08:37 AM
Red and Green makes Yellow very easy.
All we need to do that is an additive mixing. And you are sure it is impossible with real pigments because all pigment mixing are subtractive ??
Just take good fluorescent red pigment, mix it with good fluorescent green - yellow appears! :D :)

The Earth is always flat but if you really try it will become round :smug:

wetbob
04-11-2011, 03:36 AM
No, he might have come up with the term temperature bias rather than colour bias if he'd been framing things that way
I cant say which page, and say it out of memory, but i thought he gives an example of a painting, and he thought it was nice/great because it was only mixed with a variety of warm oranges (maybe greys?).

I re read it. It was there, but he didn t say warm/cool!