MUNSELL´s SCALE SYSTEM

[Alex Sunder]

This copy of thread has been trimmed down so as to present a clearer viewpoint on Munsell. The original thread contains a lot of dissenting opinions interspersed, which makes it harder going for readers unfamiliar with the core concepts. The original, unedited thread (also well worth reading!) is on the main Oils forum here: http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=527396
Dave (dcorc)

Hello there everybody!

Have been reading about this very rational method of painting, based on the Munsell´s scale of colors (rationalpainting.org). I would like to know the opinions of those who already tryed to paint with this system.

I was considering, as a try out, try to use the value scale, and study this system with just values first...

I tryed to talk more about this on this other website, but people over there are way too much enthusiastic about it, so... well, what the hell, i still think WC! is my place after all... i feel more comfortable here, thats all...

Any input would be really great!

Thanks!
ALEX

[Ribera]

Pardon any inaccuracies herein, but I beleive Munsell was an artist/color-theorist from Boston who derived a method of codifying colors more systematic than the heretofore, and still popular, Spectrum Method.

His color theories became popular consequently, and in the last century, at the Art Students' League, a very popular teacher, Frank Reilly, also a renowned illustrator, came along. He taught respectively, both his own method of drawing and painting: the "Reilly Method". In his painting teachings, students employed a controlled palette, or pre-mixed one, values 1-9. It had rows of grays, reds, and yellows, so ideal for mixing flesh. Obviously, these many piles can only be maintained by adding clove oil to 'em. I know one of Reilly's erstwhile students who actually had his students instead tubing 'em. Whatever one's views on his means, Reilly was an incredibly succesful teacher.

This class was immensely popular, so doubtless you may find a number of his students, or students of his students teaching even today. There are a number of books by his past pupils out too. If you really wanna learn more about Frank Reilly, search him out on any Search Engine. Don't worry, you'll find stuff, easy.

[Einion]

Hi Alex, there are many prior threads that mention Munsell that would be worth hunting down.


Munsell's system uses black to tone down the colour.

I believe your better off add a complimentary to get the tone.
Munsell isn't a mixing system (I agree that using mixing complements is best, most of the time BTW). At its heart it's just a way to define colours accurately - at a fixed hue, what's the chroma and value? - by comparison. This is what makes it fundamentally too cumbersome for most people.

You do find users who think of colour in Munsell terms using neutral greys for neutralising, rather than mixing complements. A few of these will claim that using greys is a better way of working but overall this is a philosophical position, since there are clear exceptions.

Essentially if you can get to the colour you're aiming for in an efficient way it doesn't really matter how.

Einion

[Alex Sunder]

Hey guys!

Einion:
Essentially if you can get to the colour you're aiming for in an efficient way it doesn't really matter how. That seems to answer it in a rather "time saving" way. Thanks for your input.
I saw some people doing this value exercise where they try to paint this MDF´s wooden balls with the exact munsell value in each ball. They use it as models for painting, and also, use some MDF´s strips, also painted with the exact munsell values to help them SEE the values theorically in a more accurate way. It´s very interesting. I guess this is the method invented by Frank Reilly, as Ribera mentioned... The problem is the PRICE of the Munsell books, and the time you spent tubing these values and making all these stuff... you could very well be painting instead of that... i dont know... anyway, thanks for your input, always very useful and clear!

Ribera:
Thanks for all the info on Frank Reilly! Really interesting!

[gunzorro]

Bill -- I was going to stay out of this, but I feel the need to rebutt a few points about the RP forum and practical uses of the Munsell color theory.

Bill, I know you are a very atypical artist, coming from a commercial printing background, and as such have a wealth of first-hand information on colors, dyes, inks and such. I also know your personal painting style, and that is most commonly high chroma paintings featuring glazes, not the opaque method presented in the Munsell-based techniques presented on RP.

As Einion correctly stated, "Munsell" is a system of notation for identifying colors in the medium of paint/pigments. This could be considered the definitive "color space" of pigment and and paints, and the accepted industry standard.

The system has been employed by various artists to create strings of color along the color axises of Hue, Value and Chroma. Usually these strings are limited to the main subjects of the painting at hand, spanning the range of values from dark to light -- within that painting or small section of painting.

Painters who specialize in certain subject matter, such as portraits, may wish to mix up large amounts of their most commonly used strings, which center along the fleshtone range. Very, very rarely does a painter attempt to tube a wider range of colors in values strings. As I mentioned earlier, most strings are limited and created at the time of use, and don't take much time to prepare. I haven't read any advocacy for "busy work", only mixing strings as needed (with the exception of a few enthusiasts).

Most painters can immediately benefit by mixing and tubing a value string of neutral greys, for later mixing into colors on the palette. Here again, having the accurate Munsell pre-made color chips is invaluable to create consistent color (even neutral grays) without introducing color shifts, which would taint all future use after going through the trouble and expense of tubing your custom set of paints.

I have the relatively inexpensive Munsell Student Color Book and am about 1/2 way though. I've previously read the pamphlet-type book "A Color Notation:. . .". The Student book provides a limited range of color chips, but enough to have a basic reference. The large Munsell book is pretty expensive, but somone serious about their color should have it, and I plan to eventually get it myself, as I do consider myself pretty serious about color and its presentation. So far, I am more of an explorer myself in the Munsell world, and not coming here to make you all into believers. But misconceptions abound, and I feel the presentation should be balanced to give a clear idea of the overall subject and it potential usefulness in painting.

Here are the two introductory books mentioned above. The Color Notation book is from 1941, but Student book is the Second Edition from 2001 and goes into extensive detail about all color theories and science, including computers and monitors. The Student book has plenty of exercises, including attaching all the color chips to the pages for reference. I think the value can be seen from looking at these pages of various hues, without even breaking into the color theory:

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_5149web.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/IMG_5150web.jpg

The point is really what works for you and what is most economical of your efforts as an artist. If painting transparently appeals to you, the Munsell system of notation, and techniques of opaque painting, may not appeal to you. But I do think all artists can benefit from the method and doing execises in mixing and value strings of colors.

The two books mentioned above are fairly inexpensive and can often be found on eBay.

I advise all artists to investigate the source materials for themselves and come to their own conclusions regardless of the pros and cons presented here. For those more serious painters, I would suggest applying to join the Rational Painting forum for more information on how the Munsell color notation is being put into practical terms by artists.

[gunzorro]

Bill -- the Student Book is an advanced studying course in color and color theory. It not only covers the Munsell notation, but more importantly explores the evolution of color theory, color and art history as it applies to pigments, scientific conclusions, and a great deal more than "color mixing", as you would know if you had bothered to crack the book open.

The book is full of practical exercises, rather than being restricted to airy theories and opinions. The reader/student can have practical hands-on learning at every chapter. It is not a piece of fiction one can simply skim through, so taking time to comprehend and interegrate the knowledge is not something I am taking lightly. I have been on the periphery of much of this Munsell information for quite some time now, slowly warming to the concepts. I would say the paintings I've done over the last two years have been influenced by my studies in Munsell as well as Faber Birren, Josef Albers and M. E. Chevreul.

What is the point of studying art and color theory? I would think improving one's understanding and gaining practical results would be self-evident.

Having read quite a few books on color theory, as well as art history and technique, and I can easily say this Munsell Student Book is one of the most clear-cut, accurate and least opinionated I have come across.

Regarding tubing your own custom set of neutrals: My point is that it is an easy and worthwhile venture to mix a set of neutral greys in the range of values used in normal painting. But doing so without a reference guide is most likely to result in disaster, producing a bias set of near-neutrals, which can thereafter taint any colors they are mixed into. For that reason, the Munsell neutral chips are a simple and practical cross-check as you do your mixing, before tubing. I don't think it is too eccentric to make 8 or 9 tubes of neutral grey paint that will always be on hand and remain consistent for any blending needed. Why that seems like a unusual investment of effort, I can't imagine.

On the same subject of a string of neutral greys: I learned one time saving point already on that in the Student Book -- to make the mid and lighter valued greys, it is recommended to add Burnt Sienna (naturally different brands vary, as well as coming from genuine earth color or synthetic pigment). This was perfect in matching the grey chips. Otherwise my mixtures would have been too bluish (Blockx Mars Black). I already knew from reading postings by Graydon Parrish that the dark greys and black needed to have Burnt Umber added, which I did to positive result. A whole thread could easily be developed in this subject alone.

The point of my suggestion to pre-mix a set of neutral value scale is not directed to a specific painting I am doing. The concept is no different than the asset of having a good set of paints -- allowing a specific paint to be used when needed. Is that more clear? If I were painting portraits, I'm sure I would have a tubed series of values for two or three hues constantly needed for fleshtones. But I am not a portrait painter and so haven't invested that time. But if I were, to tube them in advance of continual use would be an important time saving device.

"Plenty? Exercises? Attaching color chips to the pages, for reference? How much more "busy" with "busy work" can it get? "
The Student Book is not a class or seminar being driven by the blah-blah-blah of some painter/instructor's opinions and anecdotes. It is composed of theory chapters, with summary, followed by practical exercises at the end of each chapter. I'll admit, attaching the chips is somewhat a drudgery, but the chips need to be attached, and I would rather do it as an exercise, than pay a higher cost for the book by having it done at a factory. The systematic approach and color chips sorting is not all drudgery, more like doing a crossword puzzle for mental stimulation, which I didn't mind at all. There seems to be a benefit from such repetitious hands-on work that can't be gained by reading or hearsay. Or a droning instructror. ;)

I've been spending a short period each day for the last week or so reading and working through some the assignments. I'm under no pressure to finish in record time, and I have no one to please with my understanding, other than myself (and a desire to communicate coherently about the subject).

Your comments make it sound as though I don't paint or incorporate my understandings into my paintings. And I know for a fact you've seen my work, so I can only take your comments as belligerently rhetorical. There are certainly paintings to see on my website if anyone cares to look www.jimharrisart.net
I think it will be clear to anyone looking for the first time that I am fairly acquainted with color and color theory and put the knowledge to practical use in my own way.

The Munsell books are not a be-all-end-all of practical color theory, but they are an important contribution that all artists should be familiar with. And -- it is the title of this thread. ;)

[dcorc]

Does the mentioned student book go into the actual mixing and pigments?

Yes and no - by which I mean that there is a great deal of useful information in the student book (see Gunzorro's more in-depth report, above), including information on approaches to mixing paint. However, the concepts which Graydon Parrish has proposed, and is developing and exploring together with others at RP, are not covered by the Student book. If you want to see whether the ideas are of interest to you, you might like to take a look at my friend Paul Foxton's blog at http://www.learning-to-see.co.uk which provides a lead-in to some of the concepts.

in what (important) ways does the Munsell color system differ from the NCS (Natural Color System)

That's a very good question. The Munsell pages are organised by hue, and on each page, each horizontal row maintains a specific value, and each vertical column maintains a specific chroma (see the pics Gunzorro posted).

There's a UK site for NCS here:
http://www.ncscolour.co.uk/

which is informative about their system, including a glossary of their terminology:

http://www.ncscolour.co.uk/information/glossary.html

I ordered the Munsell-NCS conversion manual, as it seemed to me that was the easiest and most inexpensive way to get a comparison of the two systems. The book consists of two parts - the first is a table listing all the Munsell chips and their exact NCS values, followed by the nearest actual NCS chip in the set and the delta-E between them. The second part is a set of diagrams that map out the munsell chip positions in relation to the NCS pages.


The NCS hues are arranged in the opposite order circumferentially (so the NCS hue numbers go down as the Munsell hue numbers go up ! )

http://rationalpainting.org/gallery/1_12_07_08_7_47_49.jpg

and the relationships between the pages is not straightforward. For example, the pages are broadly, but not completely aligned to a Munsell hue.

http://rationalpainting.org/gallery/1_12_07_08_7_49_18.jpg

Also, while the chip interval-step sizes are broadly comparable, and they do seem to correlate pretty well to the Munsell chromas, the relationship to constant value varies with hue. For example in Y40R the NCS chips series do not maintain constant value (the constant value 5YR Munsell chips here are horizontal in NCS space, but the NCS chips are in series which slope diagonally down in value). However, the G80Y NCS chips do correlate pretty well with Munsell 10Y chips. I think this has to do with the way they have forced the colourspace to have a flat horizontal perimeter associated with highest chroma (a flat horizontal slice through the equator is effectively a prismatic colour-wheel), as compared with Munsells recognition that highest chromas vary in value for different hues)

In short, while it would be possible to work between them, and they could offer help in assessing chroma steps, the varying relationship of the NCS chips to constant-value series, is to my mind, problematic.

I also note that the cheaper index-fan book for the NCS chips, as well as not presenting the geometry of the colourspace well, also are manufactured to a lower colour-accuracy standard than their book-format products (which are similarly, or higher priced, than the Munsell products).

While the NCS system is very well-designed, I think its not so well-suited to this specific purpose.

Part of the idea of using the chip set is that it acts as a calibration set (a sort of GPS, if you like) for colourspace. It provides a scaffolding by which you can actually quantitate (and navigate) where you are in colourspace, and how different colours relate to each other (both in terms of out of the tube pigments, and for example, within subjects, as form is turned), and provides workarounds for problems to do with accurate assessment of value and of simultaneous contrast (a little like the colour-spotting approaches used by photorealists, but taken into painting from life).

It is a tool, and if you are not interested in, or do not need, ways of achieving tight and accurate colour analysis and control, it is probably not something that would interest or be of use to you.


Dave

[bugbiter]

Thank you, Dave. This is very helpfull. I already know the NCS system pretty well, and I have had a color chip set for years. It is arranged in the triangles indicated in your illustrations.
I think maybe this Also, while the chip interval-step sizes are broadly comparable, and they do seem to correlate pretty well to the Munsell chromas, the relationship to constant value varies with hue. For example in Y40R the NCS chips series do not maintain constant value (the constant value 5YR Munsell chips here are horizontal in NCS space, but the NCS chips are in series which slope diagonally down in value). is what I need to check into a bit more. I don't really know the Munsell system very well. At first glance they seemed to be very similar.

[gunzorro]

Dave did a pretty good explanation of the the two systems.

I'm not as familiar with the NCS system, but a couple things mentioned by Dave, jumped out at me as I reviewed NCS:

As indicated, the actual pigment relationships in Munsell start from a bedrock of neutral, then expanded indefinitely along the horizontal axis of chroma. This results in a color sphere that is not so much a sphere as a mis-shapen "potato", with bulges out near the top values for yellow and abbreviated depth at lower value for blues. The red chroma bulge is more central and extends a greater distance. The NCS system has chosen an arbitraty maximum chroma depth for all pigments, and that is not a real-world or mixing reality. Since the Munsell steps are all exactly equal to HVC, intermixing or finding direct "cousins" among the hues is simple.

The second point I notice is that the use of only four hues in NCS is a bit unrealistic as to the overall range of pigments and their use, weighting the hue wheel and chroma trianges too far toward yellow-green mixes and too little toward purple-blue. Although on the surface this seems a minor point, it has a great effect on finding proper complimentary colors and more complex color mixing. In this regard, the Munsell system is more exact and harmonious with how the paints interact.

I will say the NCS system is an elegant development and its symmetry and logical approach will appeal to a great many people. It seems quite useable, if not a paradigm of color theory.

***********
With regard to color mixing: If I am reading this question correctly, no, Munsell is a system based on pigment arrangement and the exact notation of position within the real-world reflectances. It offers no step-by-step advice on mixing one tubed paint with another do produce a target color. All that is learned by the individual trial and error of mixing and accumulating proper paints that are consistent in their reaction with other pigments.

I don't know if you've seen any of my color comparisons between different paint brands, but depending on many factors, the same pigment from different sources or different manufacturing techniques can result in quite diffenent colors or mixing qualities. You are probably familiar with this phenomenon, as it affects all painters to some degree.

There are some suggestions in the Munsell Student Book on a limited 6-color (plus black and white) split primary palette that can produce the bulk of colors represented in the Munsell chip set, but to achieve the complete duplication, upwards of 20 carefully selected tubes of paint are needed. Besides the basic six warm/cool range, the book also suggests a high chroma green and purple to expand the coverage to its greatest extent with limited tubes of paint.

If people could sit down with the Munsell Student Book, they would find a great deal that corresponds to what they already know, or theories they are familiar with -- it's not all alien territory. But as well read and experienced as I am, I was constantly impressed (and re-learning a number of things!) with the simple and scientific proposals put forward in the book and the straightforward exercises to demonstrate these principles: everything from cutting colored paper to designing colors on the computer for comparison. This Second Edition is from 2001 and revised to include great ideas dealing wth computers and monitors. In other words, it's not your Grandpa's Munsell anymore. ;)

[bugbiter]

I am well aware about the many factors that go into mixing a particular hue with paint. The lighting situation is also very important, though that would be a big subject in itself.
Like I said I need to check out the Munsell system further. Is there an online source that goes a bit more in depth than the wiki page?
Meanwhile I would appreciate a few comments on the realcolorwheel.com system of aligning pigments in the color wheel. I am aware that this is not a very "developed" system like the Munsell or NCS systems, but the idea to place pigments that mix to neutrals oposite in the wheel seems like a good one...?

[JeffG]

...Meanwhile I would appreciate a few comments on the realcolorwheel.com system of aligning pigments in the color wheel. I am aware that this is not a very "developed" system like the Munsell or NCS systems, but the idea to place pigments that mix to neutrals oposite in the wheel seems like a good one...?

In theory, yes, it would be a good idea. I have a copy of the Quiller wheel, which is also a pigment-based color wheel. Although I have found it handy in some cases that enable me to quickly find complements or interesting near-complements to certain pigments, I've also found that it is usually way off.

[bugbiter]

I took a quick look at the Quiller wheel, and from what I can see (http://www.quillergallery.com/art_supplies/sq_wheel.htm) it seems wrong to me. I.e. yellow and ultramarine should be oposite, not purple. The red primary should be (quinachridone) magenta; it looks red in the picture. Though I have never seen it in person, so it's hard to tell. I'm no color system expert, anyway, so all this may be proven wrong..

What you need to know is that when mixing to pigments, each with their specific hue, you will never (?) get linear movement from one to the other in any of these color systems. It's more like a guideline to find suitable mixing colors, not a mixing bible.

Back to the initial subject: the Munsell value scale. How does that differ from the NCS value scale? Apart from the numbering, of course. I just thought, if I were to do a few value studies similar to those mentioned in Paul Foxton's blog, what should stop me from using the NCS greyscale color chips I already have?

[dcorc]

What you need to know is that when mixing to pigments, each with their specific hue, you will never (?) get linear movement from one to the other in any of these color systems.

Indeed - that is a very important observation - and one of the reasons why knowing where you are in the colourspace with a particular mix can, in itself, be useful.

It's more like a guideline to find suitable mixing colors, not a mixing bible.

Again - correct. If one is painting directly, opaquely, the interest is in how to hit "the right colour for that patch there" - though which particular pigments you mix to get to it is a lot less important than people often think. If you are painting in a representational/realism style, it is important to realise that a lot of the scene consists of "greyed-down", or low-chroma, colours - and there are a lot of ways that these could be mixed (a principle of "parsimony" kicks in, though, in order to avoid a problem due to the phenomenon of metamerism - or in brief - if you have two patches of similar but slightly different colour, it makes more sense to mix them from the same pigments as far as possible, rather than choose completely different ones, so that their relative appearances do not change unexpectedly under different lighting conditions). Specific pigment choice becomes more important with higher-chroma colours.

I just thought, if I were to do a few value studies similar to those mentioned in Paul Foxton's blog, what should stop me from using the NCS greyscale color chips I already have?

As far as I can see, nothing should stop you from using the NCS neutral scale for this, and indeed those exercises would be very valuable to carry out using any evenly-spaced stepped neutral greyscale. I'd draw attention to the fact that in practice, most black+white paint mixes end up rather bluish-greys, and addition of a little brown will help swing them back to neutral. As Graydon has pointed out in several places, the most accurate way of doing this would be to mix a black+white set and an umber+white set to the different values, and then mix these together, at each value, in whatever proportion gives you best true neutral. (the first time you carry out such an exercise, it can take quite a while to do, but its a valuable practical experience in its own right, just trying to hit a set of specific values).


Dave

[Einion]

Meanwhile I would appreciate a few comments on the realcolorwheel.com system of aligning pigments in the color wheel. I am aware that this is not a very "developed" system like the Munsell or NCS systems...
I have to caution people about the author's tunnel-vision here. The implied idea is that paints mix based on their colour, but really it's built around the carefully-chosen palettes he uses.

I won't recommend you hunt up the epic battles with the author on this site but I can precis it for you: colour-mixing is not about colours interacting it is about pigments interacting.

...the idea to place pigments that mix to neutrals oposite in the wheel seems like a good one...?
This is what the goal of many colour wheels was, but unfortunately it starts out with a faulty premise - that this is possible.

The Handprint site, the best guide to the entire subject in English as far as I'm aware, has this:
color can be conceptualized simply, or accurately, but not both.

From the New Munsell Student Color Set:
It is impossible to create a subtractive color wheel where every color combined with the color opposite it on the wheel will mix to gray. This type of color wheel, which is found in many books for artists, (1) can only be approximate; (2) applies only to complex subtractive mixture, not to color vision; and (3) precludes understanding many other things about color.

Bottom line is you have to actually try mixtures to see what'll result. Sometimes, due to variation in many properties of pigments & paints, they don't mix the way we think they will ("should") or the way other similar colours do; sometimes even paints made with 'the same' pigment don't mix alike.

If you'd like me to go into more detail please start a thread in Colour Theory and I'll go through all the points I can think of.

Einion

[WFMartin]

I believe that one of the misconceptions regarding the mixing of complementary colors to produce gray (neutral), as they should, is that quite often we are led to believe that for every tube color of, for example, "Yellow", there is also some tubed version of its exact complement, "Blue". That may be perhaps Don Jusko's philosophy with all his "crystal" theories. I really don't know, or care very much.

In practicality, finding a single tubed complement is not the case. Well, I suppose there actually MAY be some tubed color that is a perfect complement for a few given colors, but the great majority of true complements must be mixed.

Now, with all due respects to that color wheel that Dave posted, the color, Red, is not the complement of Green. Magenta is. Red is the complement of Cyan. And, that is one reason that Don Jusko's wheel seems the most accurate for practical use. It is the wheel that I use for teaching my classes in color behavior and mixing. Not only do they seem to have the correct colors placed correctly, but they also have them NAMED as such, which can hardly EVER be found on an "art" color wheel. While Don's "crystal" concept totally escapes me, and I don't appreciate his art work, I find his color wheel to be the most accurate one for practical understanding and mixing.

Please realize there are those who claim that there may be several complements to a given color. I don't believe this to be true. This mistaken concept may be caused by the sheer VOLUME of a particular color being used in the mix. For example, one may maintain the belief that the color, Burnt Umber, is the "complement" to, let's say, French Ultramarine Blue. The fact of the matter is that if you add enough Burnt Umber (or Raw Umber, or Black) to ANY color, the result will, from sheer volume, end up being Burnt Umber, or Raw Umber, or Black, with just enough of the initial color to bias it toward the neutral that you were seeking. This is not a bad thing to do, and many of us mix colors such as these in combination quite routinely, but that does NOT make them "complements" of each other. In other words, mix enough Black with Red, and you'll eventually end up with "black", by the sheer volume of it.

Complementary colors are best represented by PURE colors--those that exist on the outer ring of the color wheel. Now, the selection of another pure color as a complement of any specific color needs to be a little bit more precise. And, as I mentioned, most of those need to be mixed.

I took some time one day, and because I was weary of hearing all about how "blue and yellow should make green", when I knew for a fact that real Blue and real Yellow produce neutral, I set out to mix a real, practical, functional complement of Winsor & Newton Transparent Yellow 653. This Yellow is about as pure as one can get, in terms of a primary color, in my opinion.

I began with Grumbacher French Ultramarine, Blue, as I recall, and commenced to mix with it, Winsor & Newton Permanent Rose 502. I would mix and test, mix, and test, etc., until I had created a "blue" that, when mixed with this Yellow would produce neutral, or as near neutral as I could determine without the use of a color measuring instrument.

Here is the result of that test:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/06-Nov-2008/13079-Yellow_Blue_Yield_Gray.jpg

Since I'm a results person, rather than a "recipe" person, I could not begin to tell you what proportions of Fr. Ultramarine Blue and Permanent Rose I mixed to produce this blue, because I don't consider such things important, as they vary from day to day, and batch to batch.

Oh,....these WERE mixed with a bit of white, in order to make these transparent paints more opaque.

Now, this sort of "blue" is what it truly requires to produce a neutral of this yellow. They are complementary colors, pure an simple, or else they would not do this--the production of gray.

Whether you choose to call it Purple, Lavender, Violet, Blue, or something else, it is this color that produces gray, when mixed with this yellow.

The point to keep in mind is that this complement did not come out of a single tube--it had to be mixed.

Now, I could have done this with each primary color, but I simply didn't because I don't feel that I need to prove such a fact to myself, when I already am quite convinced of the fact. For those artists who seem addicted to performing other nonsense color mixing exercises, I would recommend doing this one, instead. Not only is it an eye-opener, but it can be applied to real live work, almost immediately. Try mixing a green that will complement Magenta, and try mixing a red that will complement Cyan. I can almost guarantee you will never be confused regarding complementary colors again.

Bill

[Van der Hayden]

"Now, this sort of "blue" is what it truly requires to produce a neutral of this yellow. They are complementary colors, pure an simple, or else they would not do this--the production of gray."

Bill, colors do not have their own neutrals, but they do have low-chroma variations. In your example the neutral does not look neutral; it looks fairly blue, although that could easily be the jpeg.

It is much easier, and more controllable, to mix neutrals from burnt umber, black and white than from compliments and the results are identical (assuming one can hit the neutral with compliments!) I watched Graydon mix a 5th value neutral with BU, B & W in about one minute; he also mixed the same color from diox purple and lemon yellow and it took more like 15 minutes. Again, the results were the same. Mixing compliments does not give a magical aspect to the result.

[Einion]

In practicality, finding a single tubed complement is not the case. Well, I suppose there actually MAY be some tubed color that is a perfect complement for a few given colors, but the great majority of true complements must be mixed.
Yes, it's absolutely true that for a lot of palettes a tubed mixing complement is not available for some or even most of their paints, simply because most people don't choose palettes for this.

However it is quite possible to build a palette based around complementary mixing pairs if one choses to and was willing to experiment to find them, or by using known complements other people have found.

Example pairs:
Cadmium Red Light + Phthalo Turquoise
Quinacridone Rose + Phthalo Green Yellow Shade
Dioxazine Purple + Chromium Oxide Green
As a rule there are no single-pigment mixing complements for the majority of yellow paints, so a mix of some sort is almost always required (or a tweak to the not-quite-neutral one does get from violet + yellow).

Please realize there are those who claim that there may be several complements to a given color. I don't believe this to be true.
Sorry Bill, ample evidence that this is the case.

The very simplest example is one I've mentioned a number of times before and it's something that many painters already knew without realising its significance: that certain red earths will neutralise more than one blue. There's all the evidence one needs - those blues are all complements to that earth, ergo several complements to a given colour is possible.

But not only is it possible it's actually quite common (proof here (http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/mixtable.html)).

And it's not just with single-pigment paints, it's also true of mixed complements and split-complementary mixing, where a multitude of colours could be used to mix with the first paint. Additionally with any three painter's primaries - neutral is always possible since neutral (the centre of the wheel) falls within the triangle they form on a colour wheel; that's a truism of mixing.


It is much easier, and more controllable, to mix neutrals from burnt umber, black and white than from compliments and the results are identical (assuming one can hit the neutral with compliments!)
That's often true, if the goal is just to get a neutral grey.

But the point with complementary mixing pairs is that each one drops the chroma of the other in a straight line toward neutral, so all the lower-chroma colours of the same hues as both starting paints are achievable in a straightforward manner.

I watched Graydon mix a 5th value neutral with BU, B & W in about one minute; he also mixed the same color from diox purple and lemon yellow and it took more like 15 minutes. Again, the results were the same. Mixing compliments does not give a magical aspect to the result.
First off, the low-chroma midpoint mixed with most green-yellows and Dioxazine Purple are not completely neutral. Assuming that one wants to dull the yellow down (rather than the other way around, where a number of greens would actually be better choices) it's a good idea to tint the Diox before one begins for a couple of reasons.

Mixing pairs completely sidestep the issue of a shift in hue that can happen with the addition of neutral grey. Only requires two or at most three paints (the third being white, to adjust value if necessary) and no prior mixing, although of course it does suppose one has the paired paints to begin with. The neutral midpoint between them would require the same, or less, time to mix as with an umber, black and white.

Einion

[Van der Hayden]

That's often true, if the goal is just to get a neutral grey.

But the point with complementary mixing pairs is that each one drops the chroma of the other in a straight line toward neutral, so all the lower-chroma colours of the same hues as both starting paints are achievable in a straightforward manner.

All colors shift in hue as they are brought to neutral, and some more than others. I suspect that your compliments are not shifting as much as other pairs, and that you would see the shift if you had a way of measuring it.


First off, the low-chroma midpoint mixed with most green-yellows and Dioxazine Purple are not completely neutral. Assuming that one wants to dull the yellow down (rather than the other way around, where a number of greens would actually be better choices) it's a good idea to tint the Diox before one begins for a couple of reasons.

The point was that Graydon hit the target color by using neutrals much faster than when using compliments. In the end the target mixes were identical, but the compliment mix was very tricky to hit.


Mixing pairs completely sidestep the issue of a shift in hue that can happen with the addition of neutral grey. Only requires two or at most three paints (the third being white, to adjust value if necessary) and no prior mixing, although of course it does suppose one has the paired paints to begin with. The neutral midpoint between them would require the same, or less, time to mix as with an umber, black and white.
Einion

Again, I have not found a color that does not shift in hue as value and/or chroma are adjusted.

[Einion]

All colors shift in hue as they are brought to neutral, and some more than others.
With complementary mixing pairs the change in colour is a straight line toward neutral; this is shown in the link in my previous post (done by measurement :))

The point was that Graydon hit the target color by using neutrals much faster than when using compliments. In the end the target mixes were identical, but the compliment mix was very tricky to hit.
Yes we see that. My point was that it is an extreme example due to the great value difference and because PV23 is an immensely strong tinter - it tends to obscure that other complementary mixing pairs are much easier to manage than this one, as well as other benefits.

For mixing lower-chroma colours (not pure grey, which is rarely needed on the canvas itself) it's really more a matter of philosophy or outlook rather than a right/wrong thing - as long as the desired end result is achieved that can be all the matters. However if speed and efficiency come into play then the two methods do need to be pitted directly against each other in a broad range of examples to more fairly compare their strengths and weaknesses.

In terms of seeing a shift in hue when two complements are mixed I think there are two possible explanations, the first being that the two paints are not exact mixing complements.

Let's look at it schematically (in 2D for simiplicity). If we take it that the midpoint mixture is completely neutral, not just close, in order for there to be a shift in hue the mixing line would have to curve off to one side and then curve back in toward the centre. This would require the line to curve twice (like a very flattened McD's M) in many cases. While many mixing lines are curved they aren't curved twice as far as I know.

This may seem needlessly geekish but the underlying point is important: in many cases shadows are just low-chroma versions of what we loosely call the local colour and for those painters that want to depict them that way the best method to mix them is important for ease and efficiency.

The second possibility is just that the hue appears to change but has not. For those that don't know, for many hues darker value and/or lower chroma often makes colours appear to be different hues to the 'parent colour' of the high-chroma paint we started with. Yellows for example are particularly noted for this as when darker and duller they appear to be quite greenish to most people:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/13-Oct-2004/3842-Yellow_Examples.JPG

Similarly turquoise or cyan can look more greenish in dull examples. Dull red, crimson or rose appears to be much more violet. And for some colour categories the low-chroma versions are hard to pin down as to hue - few of us, without knowing it's the case already, can see milky coffee as orange.

Coupled with this, the closer we get to grey the harder it is to accurately distinguish hue, even for trained observers. This is especially true in context where simultaneous-contrast illusions are very prevalent.

Einion

[Alex Sunder]

I´m trying to follow you guys... too much info.

The point was that Graydon hit the target color by using neutrals much faster than when using compliments. I wanna make sure i got that right: If i have a huge area of flesh (im painting a portrait), lets say, in yellow ochre. I wanna subdue and make a more neutral yellow ochre. So, instead of mixing a little bit of some blue (complimentary), I would mix with what? The combination you´re talking about of BU, W + BK (gray)?

I really wanna understand this...

[Einion]

Hi Alex, previous thread you might like to look at Complement to yellow ochre (http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=391648)

Because you probably don't have a paint or paints that will work as mixing complements for your Yellow Ochre you have two basic options:
mix a complement using a blue and red, crimson or rose, then adjust value as necessary with a little white;
mix in a neutral grey of the right value, then adjust the hue if necessary (as it may go greenish).

It's worth looking at the number of pigments used in either method.
1 + 1 + 1 + 1
1 + 3 (+ 2, possible red + white)

Einion

[gunzorro]

Einion -- I just wanted to expand your statement of: "Coupled with this, the closer we get to grey the harder it is to accurately distinguish hue, even for trained observers."

This is also true when we get to the extreme values -- it's very hard to distinquish the hue in a near-white or near-black color.

[Van der Hayden]

"This may seem needlessly geekish but the underlying point is important: in many cases shadows are just low-chroma versions of what we loosely call the local colour and for those painters that want to depict them that way the best method to mix them is important for ease and efficiency."

Einion, I have not found this to be true.

[winecountry]

OK I've been lurking, and I'm coming out of the shadows just this once to speak to Alex since he seems to be open minded in asking about Munsell

First I have to say I started right where Bill is and agreed with all he says. But over time looking at other's works who use Munsell and listening in, my true nature of skeptic showed, ie I neither believe nor disbelive, I want to try it out for results. So I bought the student book $24, and glued in the chips and read the exercises, tho only did a few so far...I thought I knew a lot about color, I've worked with some really difficult and esoteric theories, as well as the usual ones taught in University, and some by other artists.

The Munsell student book was a real education, and in the process it trained my eye to see in a painless natural way. I then bought the Munsell value scale $60, and did the spheres and blocks mentioned on one of the posts. This is by far the most valuable painting exercise I've ever done, tho I've painted plenty of scales, doing the Munsell was much harder and far more rewarding in training my eye and understanding.

The proof of worth of Munsell, to me, is that my painting suddenly improved several levels in a few weeks, not just my assesment either, but of fellow artists who noticed it too. I told no one, why? most people just want agreement with their own ways, and I'd heard that mentioning Munsell lift the lids off of some people.

So this is for Alex, for under $100 I got the best training, that paid off in spades in my work. I did not have to travel to a seminar, take a class or spend for a whole new set of paints. I don't know if it will do that for you, you'd have to try it yourself. Will I buy the big book($400) maybe not, unless I have to start producing a lot of work for some gallery and efficiency is paramount.

I did buy Multi-Brand Color Chart by Huechroval, one of the partners of WC,($40) which has the entire "color space" of Munsell colors printed in "flights" laid out like the student book in Jim's post, but far more extensive and the pages have the value and chroma # listed with the hue# from the Munsell. It is a way to see all the relationships, I purchased it as I work in pastel and this book lists the HVC and all the brands of pastel, a correlation to all the colors so I don't needlessly buy colors I don't need. I've already saved the cost of the book. It was written for this purpose. I use it for more than that, and do mix colors sometimes like people use the Big Book. Since it cost 1/10th the cost of the Big Book, is readily available here on WC, and can be shipped etc. maybe that might work for you as a way into the realm of Munsell. They have a site you can go look. But I recommend the Student book or if you can only do one thing then I suggest the Value Scale fan,if you can afford it, its small about 3x8 and can be mailed, get the glossy one and you can mix and test color right on it and wipe off with oil. the RP site has all the information where to get it, I did amazon.com for the student book, I don't know if you can get it for what I did last year, $24 I have the old edition.

So lots of people here have chimed in, but it might be good to listen most to the people who have actually used the system and applied actual experience to their work. Sort of like someone talking on and on about apples and how they taste and look, compared to what you find out if you just bite into one for yourself.;)

[Paul F]

my true nature of skeptic showed, ie I neither believe nor disbelive, I want to try it out for results. I think that's absolutely the right way to aproach anything like this. It's the approach I took too. I think sometimes we're too inclined to take other peoples' word for what works and what doesn't, partly because painting is so difficult. In a world where we have access to so much information, the only way to sift the good from the bad, the useful from the not-so-useful, is through direct experience.

Munsell is a tool, one that I believe can be a great aid in investigating what we see and finding ways to translate it into paint. It won't be for everyone perhaps, but personally I've found it extremely useful. I believe that the most important and effective tool we can have is an open and enquiring mind. Opinions which don't reflect that and which don't stem from practical, first hand experience of the topic in hand should be treated with a certain amount of circumspection I think.

I then bought the Munsell value scale $60, and did the spheres and blocks mentioned on one of the posts. This is by far the most valuable painting exercise I've ever done, tho I've painted plenty of scales, doing the Munsell was much harder and far more rewarding in training my eye and understanding.

The proof of worth of Munsell, to me, is that my painting suddenly improved several levels in a few weeks, not just my assesment either, but of fellow artists who noticed it too. That was exactly my experience too.


it might be good to listen most to the people who have actually used the system and applied actual experience to their work. Well said. But the only way to know for sure is to get the paints and brushes out. It's not terribly difficult to try out this stuff, the Student book is enough to get you started and doesn't require a huge investment. I worked with it for months and learned an awful lot about relative value, value compression, how light affects colour on forms. I only got the 'big book' after I'd figured out a practical way to work with it and was convinced of its usefulness to me. I'd urge anyone to get their hands dirty with it before coming to any conclusions on its usefulness or otherwise. Knowledge can only ever be a good thing, and tools can be used in whatever way suits you.

[Van der Hayden]

The proof of worth of Munsell, to me, is that my painting suddenly improved several levels in a few weeks, not just my assesment either, but of fellow artists who noticed it too.


My experience also.


So lots of people here have chimed in, but it might be good to listen most to the people who have actually used the system and applied actual experience to their work.

I often wonder why there is so much condemnation without experience of it. I understand that for many the expense of the book is too great a barrier, but I jumped in just on Graydon's recommendation (as well as his ability to paint!) and the book has paid for itself many times over. I am now getting ready to buy my second set.

The other effect that I continue to experience is now that I am seeing color correctly, and mixing it correctly, I am freed up to challenge myself to more ambitious, deeper, more beautiful work because I am no longer struggling with color. Since my goals are to make the maximum number of the best paintings I can, and exhibit in the best galleries, practical mastery of color has been a critical component. And although I still have far to go in terms of ambition, I am now exhibiting in my dream gallery and my work is on an evolutionary fast-track.

[gunzorro]

Thanks for these last three posts, as they parallel the experience I'm still having going through the Student Book. It is well written and concise, but so packed with theoretical knowledge it demands practical exercises of some kind to keep it aligned and not turned into hodge-podge of words.

I found mine for about $27 on eBay, which I thought an exceptionally good deal for a new Second Edition.

It seems part of the Munsell theory resistence comes from two areas:

1) "Know best" people assume they already know the Munsell work or are already possessed of superior knowledge and don't pursue Munsell with a genuine desire to understand, and

2) Genuinely interested people, that get bogged down in the terminology and concepts, don't do the exercises, or skimming through the book, rather than buckling down and ensuring complete comprehension and mastery of the concepts.

This doesn't mean the "experts" don't know anything -- they do. But if their knowledge is a closed door to new ideas, it is limited knowledge.

And it doesn't mean that people who truly want to learn and have difficulty intergrating the theory and practice have ADD or something! ;) It is hard work getting all this stuff straight, and presupposes some knowledge of color theory on a basic level.

All that said, it isn't really terribly hard to get through the Student Book. That gives us all a commonly held set of foundation principles and nomenclature, and clears the decks of many unnecessary debates/discussions, and on to more practical matters. Like color choice . . . and . . . painting! :)

[Alex Sunder]

Gunzorro, yes I did.

To find the RIGHT complementary was really hard, and all the ones I tried seemed to change the value in some way.

Tried the neutral grey, using black, white... turned out immediatly in something kinda greenish... poured some burnt umber... took my digital camera and shooted my yellow ochre and this neutral grey in the black and white mode... found out that the grey needed more white (the value were not matching the yellow ochre)... after that, the result misture of both was very nice, a duller yellow ochre, kinda greysh, but definetly NOT a dead color.

So, at the end, it was kinda faster and easyer to use the neutral grey.

Im sure I would have ended with the same result if I had a better comprehension of color, knowing the exact complimentary for this particular yellow ochre i have...

Thanks for everyone in this thread and all the suggestions guys!

[sidbledsoe]

This is also true when we get to the extreme values -- it's very hard to distinquish the hue in a near-white or near-black color.
This supports something I read regarding real paint colors, "Ivory black is not black, it is a very dark value of a blue, white is not white it is a very light value of blue."
Do you agree with that? thanks

[Van der Hayden]

Different blacks tend toward different hues, as do different whites. Lead White is a yellow-orange, not blue. Ivory Black is more of a purple-blue than blue. I should say that the above is true of the Williamsburg paints I use. Other brands may have different hue tendencies.

[gunzorro]

Sid -- Be careful of the sources of the knowledge you pick up! ;) Both those statements are untrue, or true in only the widest oversimplified sense of "cool/warm" color theory.

Black is a cool color generally, but still overall accepted as a neutral. To achieve a true Munsell neutral from black, a bit of burnt umber is needed for the darker values.

Zorn used black occasionally in paintings of water and sky to give the effect of a blue. But part of this perceived "blueness" is an aspect of simultaneous contrast -- other colors within the scene making the black appear a blue when it is not.

White, added to colors to form tints and elevate their value, make it appear somewhat cooler, when in fact (if proper chroma is added to compensate for the shift when adding white) the color has not changed in color temperature. Adding white to a color raises its value, while at the same time diminishing its chroma. Any time chroma is diminished (greyer) the color looks "cooler" compared to a more intense chroma example of the same color.

This "rule" that black and white are actually blue is not correct in any genuine sense, but makes an interesting remark for an up-and-coming color theorist in a field that is pretty well completely covered by boring actual facts. ;)

[bugbiter]

Adding white to a color raises its value, while at the same time diminishing its chroma. If I get this quote right, you mean that when adding white you always get a lower chroma..? This is actually not always the case from what I have heard.

http://bsing.ing.unibs.it/~zkovacs/color/colori.html
http://bsing.ing.unibs.it/~zkovacs/color/EFX500_E.htm

[Einion]

Most any black will actually be neutral. In undercolour they can vary, but in masstone the reflectance profiles are flat enough to be considered truly neutral.

An umber is needed to mix neutral greys because of the black + white hue shift, not due to the inherent neutrality or not of the two starting paints. If we take a black and white that are definitely both neutral - Titanium White and Carbon Black - it's very common for a mixture of the two to be decidedly blueish.

White, added to colors to form tints and elevate their value, make it appear somewhat cooler, when in fact (if proper chroma is added to compensate for the shift when adding white) the color has not changed in color temperature.
If we take it that here 'temperature' is hue only, adding white changes it sometimes, not others. Where it does change the hue the shift is mostly toward blue* but not always - hence the previous threads where it's been pointed out that "white cools" is not a rule; often true, but not always.

*Important: if looking at this in colour-wheel terms this is circumferentially (clockwise or anticlockwise) not in a straight line toward blue.

From a post from 2004:

To pick two colours that look very similar, a common colour used in Cadmium Red Hues is a naphthol red, PR112, and superficially it looks very close to a medium shade of Cad Red. But if you check the undercolours you can see that Cadmium Red's looks much like its masstone (sometimes shows a small move to orange), while PR112 shifts in the direction of magenta; when you add white the difference is more obvious, Cadmium Red's tints keeping to about the same hue, PR112's markedly more magenta.

Adding white to a color raises its value, while at the same time diminishing its chroma.
From the same post as the above excerpt:
...the tints of Cobalt Blue are relatively dull, while those of Phthalo Blue GS are much more vivid, the phthalo colours being members of a rare group of paints where the chroma increases as you add white (up to a certain point) and consequently remains higher for a given value.

Any time chroma is diminished (greyer) the color looks "cooler" compared to a more intense chroma example of the same color.
Depends on the hue and especially in context of course (where grey surrounded by blue for example will always appear more reddish).

This "rule" that black and white are actually blue is not correct in any genuine sense, but makes an interesting remark for an up-and-coming color theorist in a field that is pretty well completely covered by boring actual facts. ;)
:lol: http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/20-Aug-2003/3842-thumbsup.gif


http://bsing.ing.unibs.it/~zkovacs/color/colori.html
http://bsing.ing.unibs.it/~zkovacs/color/EFX500_E.htm
Thanks for those links, the second one is excellent; great to have readings from another source showing the effect.

The very bottom part is especially germane, given some of the previous discussion re. hue shifts or not when adding grey.

Einion

[sttaffy]

for transparent colors, sure! it's easy to test, put a thick stroke of ultramarine next to a thin one with a little white added and you can see which is more 'blue.' same with thalos and quinacridones and viridian and transparent red oxide and etc etc.

i think it's a question of when you leave the masstone behind. you can lighten the transparent paint and it will intensify, but once you are seeing the undertone further additions of white will reduce chroma.

any sense does this make?

[gunzorro]

Einion and bugbiter (do consider changing your name!) -- Excellent points!

I was speaking too broadly. Sorry.

In the case of dark transparent colors of high tinting strength, such as phthalos, diox purple, many quins and pyrols, and even transparent oxides (to name a few), which exhibit very low value and chroma in their natural/unthinned states, adding white boosts their chroma terrifically. Once the color has become diluted with white and raised in to the mid-values, it generally performs along the same lines mentioned.

Generally speaking, with most opaque colors, the adding of white raises value and reduces chroma, and may make the color appear cooler.

Whew!! That is a minefield!!

Open to other clarifications, suggestions and corrections! :)

[winecountry]

Best way to understand that is through the practical experience with pigment use under many different conditions.
which is exactly what Munsell practice provides:lol: a very expedient way of understanding color under varying conditions,
a) you will still have to understand each pigment and what it does,
b) you won't waste so much paint with mixes that don't work

[Kong]

b) you won't waste so much paint with mixes that don't work

I never have a problem finding the correct colour. First time every time five second analysis is all it takes.

But one should realize that to establish the correct result , one needs to be able to evaluate how multiple layers of colour effect each other, as they show through others.

And all those layers of colour have multiple transitions of varying degree in their own right.

One doesn't just mix one solid compound conglomerate colour and slap it on unless you're making a big hard edge painting or doing a lot of solid stripes.

In fact most solid mixing of any colour on the palette is poor technique.

This is the " ART " of palette mixing not the science.

[winecountry]

Mark
I bow to your extraordinary gifts and awesome talent and and eye that never makes mistakes, for someone of only small talent like me Munsell is a blessing, tho I don't make it an obsession. I'm neither a champion of this nor a detractor of any other method that works for anyone. I thought this thread was started because someone wanted to know how it worked for people, for me it works. Mark Carder's little color checker works for me too, I like having tools in my paintbox. Just like my real tool box some I use a lot and others now and then.

I'm now stepping out of target range and fading back into the shadows forever:wave:

[mr.wiggles]

I actually understood that point, unlike other posts here (no fault of the writers but mine, as I am *not* a color theorist by any means). But all of your enthusiasm with the Munsell System has made me very curious. I may have to pick up the Student book and try to decipher it for myself. Can anyone recommend some painters who have used the system well?

Thanks everyone for keeping my brain turning...

Frank Reilly developed his palette from the Munsell color book.

Jack Farigasso(Reilly Student)

Frank Covino(Reilly Student)

Marvin Mattelson ues his own version that is a combination of Reilly and Paxton.

Graydon Parrish.

Richard Murdock.

I have heard that Jacob Collins is into it as well.

I have been using it on and off. Mostly for color study and grayscales.

I have a few paintings that I used the chips to find the locals for the high, middle and lower hues, values, and chroma .
Peaches and Plumes and a few others.

It works for me. I don't always use it as I like to see how my eye has developed. It's an interesting book and for $65 it's well worth it to get a good handle on color.

[Ben Sones]

I have to admit, I have a hard time understanding some of the chafing that people have over Munsell. And also at some of the misconceptions, though many of them clearly stem from ignorance about what Munsell is all about. It's not a "restrictive" system because it's not actually a system at all (though a number of painters have developed systems that make use of Munsell). It's just a tool--a reference for identifying hue, value, and chroma. If one wants to thumb their nose at Munsell, then why not also thumb your nose at value scales and color wheels or gray card value checkers, because Munsell is exactly the same sort of animal--a reference to help artists understand what they are looking at. I'd argue that it's more useful than any of those things, since it also teaches you how to evaluate things like chroma, which is something that an awful lot of artists (even many successful professional artists) are not very good at. But hey, reference is for the weak, right? Why not thumb your nose at drawing reference as well, while you are at it. A real artist shouldn't have to look at a model in order to paint a figure, right? Just fly by the seat of your pants.

Personally, I think that learning to make good use of reference is the foundation of all representational art. There's a whole universe of different ways that you can use the reference material in the process of picture-making, but the reference itself does not make those choices--you do. Munsell is just another piece of reference material. It doesn't make you paint like a 17th century artist or have anything to say one way or another about the philosophy of painting or sociology or any of the other ridiculous baggage that kong is trying to pin on it. He clearly has some issues with a few artists that use Munsell, but the stuff he's complaining about doesn't have anything to do with Munsell. He might just as well say that hog bristles make you a bad artist because he dislikes Graydon Parrish's choice of subject matter or philosophy, and he knows that Graydon uses hog bristles. The connection is really that nonsensical.

The Munsell Student Book, FWIW, isn't even about painting, specifically--it's just a textbook about how light and color and human vision work. Is that useful information for painters? I think it is. But I guess I'm just not a "seat-of-the-pants" sort of guy. I'll take understanding over intuition any day of the week, and authorial intent over random flailing in the hope of happy accidents.

[WFMartin]

It all seems to be about whether an artist should mix to match colors on a bunch of chips on some color model (Munsell being only ONE of them), or whether an artist should mix to match a color or colors of the original subject before him.

That seems to be the real core of this discussion, and it is simply a decision. There are some of us who would simply rather learn about the behavior of color in other ways than by trial and error mixing to match color chips of a model.

As a teacher of color “theory” (behavior, as I prefer to term it), please believe me when I say much of this mixing of color paints can be accomplished without all the trial and error that seems to be so popular among artists (please take note of the number of times the term, “exercise” has been used by those favoring this Munsell system) , and, by so doing, have a completed, real painting as a result, instead of a group of matched chips. As some have mentioned, my background is in the printing trade, where I was a color separator for over 40 years, having taught 4 years of color theory and application at ASU. Now, I believe I can truthfully state that when I began painting in oils over 20 years ago, I never had to do one, single “test”, “exercise”, “color chart”, “mixing diagram”, etc., etc., so often prescribed by those who prefer the experimental or exercise approach.

The first time I mixed a color with two oil paints, I got what I wanted. That was not by mistake, a "happy accideent", or by trial-and-error. On the contrary, it was from my having learned color behavior, based upon the sound, scientific facts behind the phenomenon. This way, nothing (or very little) is a surprise, when switching from one medium to another. And, my understanding of the facts of color (hue, value, and chroma) did not come from 40 years of trial-and-error attempts at reproducing color subjects (to which some color lithographers actually subscribed), but from my having been taught, and having learned from persons who approached color from a scientific standpoint. To me, it made sense,....and it still does. The concepts are outrageously simple, and can be learned quite easily.

Color mixing, using the subject, itself, as a guide, is most definitely NOT an operation that needs to be based upon a “seat of the pants” approach, once a few simple facts of color behavior of hue, value, and chroma are understood. And most of those facts can be learned rather academically. And, by “academically”, I mean reading about it, and not necessarily having to do it.

And, once again, if I’m going to literally “do it”, I’d much rather be “doing it” toward the creation of a painting rather than toward the creation of a bunch of color chips.

Just my take on this.

Bill

[gunzorro]

Bill -- I'm sorry to have to say, but again you have missed the point completely. This talk of matching paint to chips is no where found in the Munsell student book.

I do so wish you would break down and buy and thoroughly understand at least this small part of the Munsell system of color notation before you start debates you can't possibly win. It isn't even sporting to try to argue with you. ;)

To throw you a bone -- I have read nothing in the student book to suggest anything "wrong" with the hands-on approach you suggest. But you would know that, if you read the book instead of trying to argue non-existent points.

I know you have learned plenty of color knowledge in your career. Imagine someone told you it was all nonsense -- and they completely refused to learn even a small part of what you know from long experience. How would you feel about their position in a debate? Would you even bother to debate with them?

[WFMartin]

It is those who are advocating this system who recommend all this matching of chips, to the extent of applying paint to the actual chips (I didn't "invent" this recommendation), doing these exercises, etc., with whom I disagree; I have just read it within all these previous posts; I am not imagining it. I have no argument with the book, I simply don't agree with those who believe that the only effective way to "learn color" or to "learn the effect of chroma" is to do these exercises.

I honestly don't care whether the book recommends that these exercises be performed, or not. I am taking exception with the IDEAS of those PERSONS who are recommending the learning of color by THIS METHOD. If I am, indeed, wrong in believing this, then please show me what is "right", instead of simply telling me, and a few others who agree with me, that I'm (we're) wrong. Please don't tell me that these "exercises" and "matching-of-chips" aren't being advocated, because all one needs to do is to read the previous posts to prove otherwise. Perhaps the book doesn't recommend doing this, but someone surely is!

It is simply my opinion that there are much better and straightforward ways (minimal trial-and-error) of "learning color" for those who may be new to it, and they can be accomplishing real, live, acceptable paintings while doing it.:D :D

[gunzorro]

First of all, you are disagreeing with the way individuals are promoting the method they find most expedient in their work. That is fine to not care for what you have read by non-official Munsell sources. You would first need to learn the basis of the subject from official sources, then decide on your personal approach -- why shouldn't your approach be just as valid as the people telling you theirs?

But first you would need to be in possestion of the actual data underlying any exercises.

If it makes you feel any better, I haven't done any major color matching exercises to date, but that doesn't invalidate my understanding of the officially presented materials on Munsell as found in the Student Book.

If you would take the time to read the book, you could learn all the theory behind the subject, and several other important references on human vision, lighting and optics, besides outside reading on color theory by numerous authors.

If nothing else, it would assist your debate skills to have the actual information to make your points more accurately.

[Ben Sones]

I have never put paint on a color chip, nor do I see any particular need to do so. As I said in my post, Munsell is not a system or a method--it's just a point of reference (and, in the case of the student book, a very comprehensive text about the nature of color). The fact that someone advocates using that tool in one particular way that you do not like does not mean that the tool is flawed. Here's an analogy: I personally think the idea of first rendering a subject entirely in monochrome, and then afterwards painting over it with color, is a pointless waste of time. No offense intended to folks who work that way, but I just don't see the point. But I don't think that the general principle behind that method (evaluating and considering your subject in terms of value) is pointless. I just think that there are easier ways to do that. That's the difference between a tool and a specific application of that tool that may be bad or good or perhaps it's a perfectly valid approach that just doesn't happen to be suited to my temperament or working method. Either way, the fact that someone might use a tool to do something that you think is silly does not necessarily mean that the tool is broken.

Again, I'd ask: why is Munsell any more objectionable than referencing a color wheel to understand the relationships of hues, or a value scale to understand the range of values that can be represented in paint, or a middle gray card with a hole in it to understand whether a particular value in your model is lighter or darker than that middle value? Because in a general sense, that's all that the Munsell "system" is: a chart of the full range of hues, values, and chromas that can be represented in paint, and their relationship to each other. I don't think that it's necessary to dab paint on color chips in a Munsell book any more than I think it's necessary to dab paint on a value scale. But I still keep a value scale around for reference. Ditto for the Munsell charts. And I'd be lying if I said that I've never held my brush up to a value scale--or held a value scale up to my subject--in order to double-check a value. I mean, is there anyone that has honestly never done that? Not ever?

And I'm not sure that I'd agree that there are better ways to learn some of this stuff, because frankly, I think that a lot of artists never learn it. I just see so much art out there--even right on these boards--that makes me think "This person is really not even thinking about chroma." Or hue. Or sometimes even value. As far as I'm concerned, the more tools there are to encourage painters to think about that stuff when they are trying to decide how to mix a color to represent something in paint, the better.

I will also say that, insofar as pointing out that Munsell is "only one" of many color models, I think it's fair to point out that it is the accepted color model on which pretty much all modern color science is based. The CIELAB model that computers use to process and display color is based directly on Munsell. The color systems used by the publishing industry are based on Munsell. The systems of color charting and analysis used by the sciences and food industries are Munsell. Kong's post about Munsell advocates being stuck in the past is kind of ironic, because whatever you may think of their art, they are some of the only artists that are not stuck in the past when it comes to color theory. Most of the stuff that painters are taught about color in school today is based on work by Rood and Goethe and other color theorists whose theories are centuries old, and just as riddled with errors as any other scientific theory from two to three hundred years ago. That's what I call being stuck in the past. If art really is "a force in lockstep with humanity's evolution," then wouldn't it be sensible to at least take an open-minded look at the current standard for color science before writing it off as useless?

[WFMartin]

Well,....as I said previously, it is a "decision", and I'm sure that everyone who's been following this thread will make theirs. We all offer our points of view, based upon experience, and that is merely what I've been doing.

Keep paintin'.:D :D

Bill

[Kong]

The art of reading reference material is just a small part of making a good piece of art Ben so don't go off the handle too soon !

We aren't just talking about the Munsell map, we are talking about how this map is being touted as a panacea for colour perfection.

For the most part, what you see in real life can't be reproduced in paint as it actually is.
Painting is about creating an illusion of the real. And in that attempt to do so, you must find ways to trick the viewer into thinking they're seeing the real thing.

We can't paint the sun, we can only elude to it.

We are governed by the expressive limitations of the medium .
The mediums limitations of light mimicry are a very real obstacle.
These limitations effect colours as well.

A little more about your reference argument Ben. . . . . A word of advice about colour. Never become a slave to colour. Or for that matter, any reference you might think to completely rely on.

As for Graydon, I think that the choices people make say a lot about who they are, and in the end , effects the product of there efforts.


I have to admit, I have a hard time understanding some of the chafing that people have over Munsell. And also at some of the misconceptions, though many of them clearly stem from ignorance about what Munsell is all about. It's not a "restrictive" system because it's not actually a system at all (though a number of painters have developed systems that make use of Munsell). It's just a tool--a reference for identifying hue, value, and chroma. If one wants to thumb their nose at Munsell, then why not also thumb your nose at value scales and color wheels or gray card value checkers, because Munsell is exactly the same sort of animal--a reference to help artists understand what they are looking at. I'd argue that it's more useful than any of those things, since it also teaches you how to evaluate things like chroma, which is something that an awful lot of artists (even many successful professional artists) are not very good at. But hey, reference is for the weak, right? Why not thumb your nose at drawing reference as well, while you are at it. A real artist shouldn't have to look at a model in order to paint a figure, right? Just fly by the seat of your pants.

Personally, I think that learning to make good use of reference is the foundation of all representational art. There's a whole universe of different ways that you can use the reference material in the process of picture-making, but the reference itself does not make those choices--you do. Munsell is just another piece of reference material. It doesn't make you paint like a 17th century artist or have anything to say one way or another about the philosophy of painting or sociology or any of the other ridiculous baggage that kong is trying to pin on it. He clearly has some issues with a few artists that use Munsell, but the stuff he's complaining about doesn't have anything to do with Munsell. He might just as well say that hog bristles make you a bad artist because he dislikes Graydon Parrish's choice of subject matter or philosophy, and he knows that Graydon uses hog bristles. The connection is really that nonsensical.

The Munsell Student Book, FWIW, isn't even about painting, specifically--it's just a textbook about how light and color and human vision work. Is that useful information for painters? I think it is. But I guess I'm just not a "seat-of-the-pants" sort of guy. I'll take understanding over intuition any day of the week, and authorial intent over random flailing in the hope of happy accidents.

[Ben Sones]

The art of reading reference material is just a small part of making a good piece of art Ben so don't go off the handle too soon !

On your first point, I agree. On your second, I don't think I've gone off the handle, unless polite disagreement qualifies as going off the handle. For what it's worth, I've not seen even the hardcore advocates of Munsell (like Graydon) suggest that it is a comprehensive guide to making art. It's just a tool for working with color, which is, obviously, only one small part of the process of making art.

We aren't just talking about the Munsell map, we are talking about how this map is being touted as a panacea for colour perfection.

This is a false dichotomy. It is possible that Munsell is neither of those things; the fact that it is not a panacea does not mean that it is therefor useless. That statement is also not consistent with what you said in your prior posts. You were talking about Munsell in a general sense (and not just in the sense of how some painters use it or promote it) when you said "Munsell is irrelevant," or that the nature of Graydon's work is "evidentiary value against the Munsell System," or that "The Munsell system is apt to dislodge you from your primary effort to develop a deeper relationship with colour palette mixing." I have two problems with those statements, and some others made in this thread, the first and foremost being that a lot of you seem to be arguing from ignorance. I don't mind debating the merits of Munsell or any of the information about color in the student handbook, but it's hard to debate when one side clearly lacks even a passing familiarity with the thing that they are criticizing. When you say that Munsell is a hindrance because "One needs to be able to evaluate how multiple layers of colour effect each other" and the "best way to understand [color ranges] is through the practical experience with pigment use under many different conditions," I can't think of much to say other than "Yeah, that's what the Munsell Student Handbook says, too."

If you aren't interested in even taking a look at some of the stuff that Munsell has to say about color, that's cool. But if so, then perhaps you should recuse yourself from the discussion? Alternately, why not read the thing you are criticizing, so that you can criticize what it actually says rather than what you think it says?

For the most part, what you see in real life can't be reproduced in paint as it actually is.

Absolutely. How is this inconsistent with anything that Munsell has to say about color?

Painting is about creating an illusion of the real. And in that attempt to do so, you must find ways to trick the viewer into thinking they're seeing the real thing.

True enough.

We can't paint the sun, we can only elude to it.
We are governed by the expressive limitations of the medium .
The mediums limitations of light mimicry are a very real obstacle.
These limitations effect colours as well.

Pages 12, 24-28, and 77-82.

A little more about your reference argument Ben. . . . . A word of advice about colour. Never become a slave to colour. Or for that matter, any reference you might think to completely rely on.

I agree.

As for Graydon, I think that the choices people make say a lot about who they are, and in the end , effects the product of there efforts.

Well, now you are back to saying that Graydon's (or Richard's, or whomever's) paintings are a referendum on the value of Munsell, after chiding me for attributing that argument to you based on what you said in your earlier posts. So, which is it?

[gunzorro]

Mark -- in reply to a few of your points:

"We aren't just talking about the Munsell map, we are talking about how this map is being touted as a panacea for colour perfection."
I don't think this has been a point made by anyone posting on this thread. Please try to keep your comments relevant to the thread at hand.

"For the most part, what you see in real life can't be reproduced in paint as it actually is.
Painting is about creating an illusion of the real. And in that attempt to do so, you must find ways to trick the viewer into thinking they're seeing the real thing."
I agree, and these points (interpreting reality, or even conveying emotional response via color) are covered in detail in the Munsell Student Book, if you would only. . . But that would spoil the argument, to find you already agree with basic Munsell-esque concepts, wouldn't it? ;)

"We can't paint the sun, we can only elude to it."
You're not hiding from the light, right? (allude) ;)

"We are governed by the expressive limitations of the medium .
The mediums limitations of light mimicry are a very real obstacle.
These limitations effect colours as well."
Very true -- you have described very clearly a major reason for the Munsell system of color notation's existence -- to create and manage a comprehensive color space capable with pigments.

The more remarks you make, the stronger your case for Munsell, as it is obvious you already embrace some of the theory.

[Kong]

Now who's going off topic. Why all the talk about colour codes and value ratings etc. . . " Just Paint "

Mark -- in reply to a few of your points:

"We aren't just talking about the Munsell map, we are talking about how this map is being touted as a panacea for colour perfection."
I don't think this has been a point made by anyone posting on this thread. Please try to keep your comments relevant to the thread at hand.

"For the most part, what you see in real life can't be reproduced in paint as it actually is.
Painting is about creating an illusion of the real. And in that attempt to do so, you must find ways to trick the viewer into thinking they're seeing the real thing."
I agree, and these points (interpreting reality, or even conveying emotional response via color) are covered in detail in the Munsell Student Book, if you would only. . . But that would spoil the argument, to find you already agree with basic Munsell-esque concepts, wouldn't it? ;)

"We can't paint the sun, we can only elude to it."
You're not hiding from the light, right? (allude) ;)

"We are governed by the expressive limitations of the medium .
The mediums limitations of light mimicry are a very real obstacle.
These limitations effect colours as well."
Very true -- you have described very clearly a major reason for the Munsell system of color notation's existence -- to create and manage a comprehensive color space capable with pigments.

The more remarks you make, the stronger your case for Munsell, as it is obvious you already embrace some of the theory.

[gunzorro]

Carey -- thanks so much for reopening the thread.

I'm glad we will focus on the practical aspects of the Munsell system of color notation.

Having just completed reading the "Student Book" this week, much of the material is still fresh in my mind. So, if anyone has questions (you don't need to be an expert in this subject, or any other, to ask questions), perhaps I can supply reference.

One thing I will say about learning the color space of paints/pigments and what they can and can't do, is that it sort of expands your mind into three dimensions, instead of the flat two dimensional world of most color wheels. This is essential for properly understanding the relationships of colors -- their relative lightness and darkness (value), brilliance or saturation (chroma) and specific color designation (hue). Not only does Munsell supply a common language and use for these factors, but understanding it assists in color mixing, both simple and complex.

The Student Book also bridges into computers, telling you how to set up a common word processing program, like MS Word, to produce results that mimic the Munsell color space to aid in mixing and color comparisons, and getting an overall view of the color space.

[kazucks]

I have been painting for many years and have some familiarity with the Munsell theory of color and particularly some of the past proponents of this theory including Reilly. Knowledge is not really a bad thing, intuitive painting is fine but learning about color can help shape and give form to intuition and improve one's overall efforts.

I like what Gunzorro has said about this Munsell student book on color and have ordered one for myself. I may or may not use it in my daily painting activities but certainly if there is this level of enthusiasm, I would like to research it more closely.

[E.Tutt]

I am definately thinking about all this Munsell stuff - though the last exercises I did were 20 years ago (I may have said already). Everyone's mind works in different ways, so whatever works is useful (even Munsell). I've dipped into some of the links on this thread and I agree that learning how to paint is equivalent to learning how to see. My first teacher asked me to bring a glass bottle to class which he then spay painted grey and said paint that. After I did that, I scraped of the paint and then was instructed to paint the clear bottle. The color we see is not always (usually maybe never) the color we use to achieve the illusion of 3D reality.

I think Munsell color knowledge can be very useful to whatever style of painting that one does - realism to .....? I have been accused of being a hyper real painter, however I think I am turning into an impressionist and this is why I have been particularly thinking about color recently. I have a book on Itten, I have all the color exercises I did way back, I may end up buying a Munsell book.

I find that doing research and exercises quite irritating, it is busy work compared to the satisfaction of painting a regular piece , it sure makes me grumble and scowl. The whole idea of it seems off-putting. However, it may cause you to advance in a leap (that is what I'm looking for) in a way you didn't imagine before (I hope). But Hey, don't forget to squint - best way to determine value relationships - right?

[stoney]

I find that doing research and exercises quite irritating, it is busy work compared to the satisfaction of painting a regular piece , it sure makes me grumble and scowl. The whole idea of it seems off-putting. However, it may cause you to advance in a leap (that is what I'm looking for) in a way you didn't imagine before (I hope). But Hey, don't forget to squint - best way to determine value relationships - right?

That or, if its a photo, shift it to gray scale.

[Virgil Elliott]

Regarding color in painting, the important thing is to understand color, how it works, how to orchestrate it effectively in the creation of works of art. The path one takes to arrive at that understanding is of less importance than the understanding itself.

The Munsell system is helpful. Its terminology is helpful not only in art, but in other fields where color must be described in writing; science especially. It doesn't hurt anyone to learn it.

Of course, artists were painting masterpieces in color for hundreds of years before Albert Munsell was born and before he published his method of classifying color, so anyone who considers his system absolutely essential is mistaken.

I offer the following for perspective: there is, or can be, a great deal more to art than just copying what we see. The ability to do that is important, and a painter who cannot do that is hindered by that handicap, to be sure, but after one has mastered that elementary skill, there is an infinite universe of possibilities, challenges, other abilities to master, problems to address, etc., and the artist who can think on his feet is better equipped to go far than one who depends too much on formulaic approaches to painting. At some point, what one has learned becomes committed to second nature, logged into the memory banks indelibly, and then it operates on a sense level at least as much as it does on a conscious level. From there, an artist is limited only by the scope of his imagination and creativity.

Virgil Elliott

[sidbledsoe]

Consider the future for a minute. Think way beyond the munsell system. You don't have to think very far. There are now computers that can read a small sample of a color and spit out a formula. You take the formula and mix up a batch and there you have it. I have done it at the hardware store. Now when we get the future hand held version that does it automatically you wont even need to mix up your paint, it will be able to do it on the spot. Point at your subject matter, press the button and bam, lay it down on canvas. It will just be another tool right, a new and better way to paint. This is just a thought and this thread got me thinking. It isn't a comment on munsell, just one of my crazy ideas you guys gave me. It is not an opinion either, I have used a zerox machine to do a self portrait before. I figured that after 135 posts that I can stray a tiny bit.

[gunzorro]

Virgil -- Are you recommending that people study Munsell, so that it becomes second nature along with many other painting concepts, in addition to practical experience?

Sid -- What if the subject matter is in your imagination? Or you wonder about possible combinations of colors? Or looking for a complement or teriary color group of the same value and chroma? Or how you might shift away from reality to a more harmonious mixture?

I think a special color meter would be great, but I can imagine its practical limitations, like color matching at the house paint store.

Color identification is one aspect. Color mixing is another. But general color theory and decision making are the big ideas the color reader would not be as valuable for.

On that topic, it is an interesting point I learned in the discussion of the Carder System, that the light falling on the subject, palette (paint mixing), paint sample, and canvas, all needed to be extremely controlled to arrive at legitimate conclusions reading colors.

[CareyG]

Sid, actually I think that would be a nifty tool to see color in some aspects as often the color you think you see is not the color you are actually seeing. I think such a tool would be beneficial, much like the "eye dropper" tool in an image editing program is helpful only you wouldn't have the disadvantage of having the image removed from reality!

But it would not be so good to see how color is changed by its surroundings and such things. (Or maybe it would be helpful in seeing that it *is* changed but not "necessarily" *how* it is changed.) And I think many of us have favorite paintings where the color is not "realistic" though it still poses the illusion of being so. And so on and so forth.

I am still not to where I would like to be regarding how I see color and how I see the relationship of color and I admit I am getting very intrigued about what I might learn reading Munsell. I can see a painting I like and know that the colors work spectacularly together, but I can't always say why that is so. I don't expect Munsell to have any answers like that, but I would expect that learning more about hue/chroma/value relationships and such things would throw some bulbs on.

~!Carey

[Virgil Elliott]

Virgil -- Are you recommending that people study Munsell, so that it becomes second nature along with many other painting concepts, in addition to practical experience?


Gunzorro,

I'm not recommending anything, necessarily, just stating that artists working in color need to know color and how to use it effectively. Plenty of artists are already able to read and use color effectively, and it isn't my place to recommend a certain kind of study for anyone who isn't one of my students. In my teaching I use the Munsell value scale, and teach what hue, value and chroma mean, but I don't get too much into numbers for chroma because I'm teaching people to be artists, not scientists. They learn to understand color, and how to use it intelligently, and that's what's important, along with many, many other things.

I liken training aids to the booster rockets on the space shuttle. They help it get off the ground and reach a certain altitude, and then at some point they're no longer needed, and become ballast that must be jettisoned, otherwise they'll prevent the shuttle from going any higher.

Virgil

[stoney]

Virgil -- Are you recommending that people study Munsell, so that it becomes second nature along with many other painting concepts, in addition to practical experience?

Sid -- What if the subject matter is in your imagination? Or you wonder about possible combinations of colors? Or looking for a complement or teriary color group of the same value and chroma? Or how you might shift away from reality to a more harmonious mixture?

I think a special color meter would be great, but I can imagine its practical limitations, like color matching at the house paint store.

Color identification is one aspect. Color mixing is another. But general color theory and decision making are the big ideas the color reader would not be as valuable for.

On that topic, it is an interesting point I learned in the discussion of the Carder System, that the light falling on the subject, palette (paint mixing), paint sample, and canvas, all needed to be extremely controlled to arrive at legitimate conclusions reading colors.

Of course. Things are dynamic, not static. That said, there's always going to be a percentage of error at various points in the process-including a viewer of the completed work. The question becomes; "Does it matter?"

[stoney]

Sid, actually I think that would be a nifty tool to see color in some aspects as often the color you think you see is not the color you are actually seeing. I think such a tool would be beneficial, much like the "eye dropper" tool in an image editing program is helpful only you wouldn't have the disadvantage of having the image removed from reality!

But it would not be so good to see how color is changed by its surroundings and such things. (Or maybe it would be helpful in seeing that it *is* changed but not "necessarily" *how* it is changed.) And I think many of us have favorite paintings where the color is not "realistic" though it still poses the illusion of being so. And so on and so forth.

Look at, for instance, Nightwatch. There can be vast differences in how it displays from website to website.


I am still not to where I would like to be regarding how I see color and how I see the relationship of color and I admit I am getting very intrigued about what I might learn reading Munsell. I can see a painting I like and know that the colors work spectacularly together, but I can't always say why that is so. I don't expect Munsell to have any answers like that, but I would expect that learning more about hue/chroma/value relationships and such things would throw some bulbs on.

~!Carey

I see Munsell as a tool to train the eye to see slight differences in colour. Sensitivity training, per se.

As for colour relationships; 'Navigating Color Space' on the Gamblin site might be of some assistance.

[sidbledsoe]

Gunz, no problem, slap on the optional virtual viewing glasses, dial in the imaginary colors in your mind you want with the wireless joystick and press the go button.

[CareyG]

Mark, your post about colors being related to each other is very interesting and well-put, thanks. Also, thanks for that detail shot of your painting! It shows a great color harmony and it's always good to see an example of what you're talking about. (And, by the way, really neat to see your brushwork which is lost on the larger views of your paintings.)

However, we do need to take care not to compare apples with oranges. (I want to be clear, I'm just talking as part of the conversation--not with my "moderator hat" on--I don't mean what you are saying is irrelevant to what we're talking about. I just mean that not everyone is talking about the same type of practical application of the theories or ideas.)

For myself, I find great value in studying things "academically" to help me understand a new way of looking at something or thinking about something. (I always did like school. :D) I have learned a great deal from reading about others' opinions and approaches and ideas. But of course that can only take a person so far. Eventually it's about playing with the paint yourself, of course, and learning first-hand. But I do like having places to "jump from", so to speak, and after that I can either incorporate the academic knowledge or toss it out.

Mark, from your detail shot, I see that you actually have a good bit of "unrealistic" color which combines to form a pleasing and realistic whole. Actually reminds me a bit of Larry Seiler's work. There are artists who could spend their whole life looking at "reality" and not see what you have captured here. So it does seem to me that some knowledge of color can go far...even if you have learned it through a more intuitive method than an academic one.

~!Carey

[Café LoLa]

Beginners might spend more time trying to identify color if they haven't done the recommended exercises and practice found in the Student Book. That is true of any new technical venture.
This is true of any colour systems, whether it be Munsell, or any other colour wheel theories. If you don't spend any time doing some colour wheel theory studies, and by that I mean doing more than just looking at pretty colour wheels, you are going to spend more time trying to match up the colours you're trying to paint, and either get frustrated, or just fool yourself and say, I meant to do that. I know I do! I call it ' happy accidents ' - but deep down inside, I know it's a cop-out for me.

In fact I dont' see how Munsell is any more difficult than say, doing mixing exercises based on the warm/cool colour wheel (ie warm red, cool red, warm blue, cool blue, warm yellow, cool yellow). Alone, these wheels are often just pretty to look, but they come to life when you apply exercises based on these wheels/spheres.

[Dirt Dude]

Mark, I appreciate your comments and do not find them to be improper. Jim, I believe the person who started this thread asked about what folks thought of the Munsell color system, therefore Mark's comments are on topic and I find it hard to find fault with his point of view.

I still don't understand how the rational painting study of Munsell helps one to make paintings better. I do understand that it is good to know how colors are categorized how chroma changes with value depending on the hue, etc.

Am I correct in assuming that Mr. Van der Hayden is Richard Murdock? If so, Richard, it would be nice if you were to explain how mixing and matching color chips has helped you. I honestly cannot tell a difference in the color of your work from when I met you in Haverhill a few years ago and now. If you could tell us the difference and how Munsell helped you achieve this goal, it would clarify the issue for me. Is it used to reproduce local color exactly? Does it help in achieving simultaneous contrasts and other illusions to enhance form and give paint the artificial boost to mimic light?

[gunzorro]

Thanks Donn and Carey. Besides today, there may be people wanting to read this thread in the future, so it is in all our interests to make it as rewarding to them as possible.

Hi Howard! I am glad to hear from you. A lot of Mark's comments have been good and on-topic -- I wasn't trying to say he didn't have something worthwhile to contribute.

But since Alex started this thread wondering about the Munsell notation, similar to your questions, it seems views from people who have already read and understood the system would provide some of the keenest insights to the system. Otherwise, curious people are capable of posing excellent questions about the system, but deriding criticism doesn't provide much sound basis for continued discussion.

That's why I try to bring up the need to read for oneself and do the practical exercises -- go to the horse's mouth. Next best would be consulting people who have read and understood the system and put it into practice in some way.

Yes, Richard was Van der Hayden.

[gunzorro]

Kitty -- Thanks -- you've made some excellent points. I'm sorry the overview of Munsell hasn't been clear -- I hold myself chiefly responsible for that aspect of this thread.

Perhaps I can learn something to improve my method of presentation for future postings.

To summarize: The Munsell System of Notation is a scale system of three axes: Hue, Value, Chroma. The combination of the three "scales" creates the color space of all possible combinations of opaque colors in paint.

The Hue aspect is similar to a color wheel, divided into ten color segments, circumferentially round the color globe representing this color space.

Value is the up and down scale of lightness/darkness, with white on top and black on bottom, divided into ten equal sections based on light reflectance.

Chroma is the degree of color intensity or saturation, which extends radially from the center (white-gray-black central area with no chroma) -- each hue has a different length of chroma "reach" away from the center, some more, some less.

That is the basic concept. The overall "Munsell System" is like a dictionary of paint color.
How to use this system of color identification is the subject of a number of approaches to painting, paint comparison and paint mixing.
Much of its use depends on the artist being fluent in a number of color theories and the attributes of light/color/vision, all of which is treated in the "Student Book" with references for further reading.

There is no doubt that it takes some work to understand Munsell, as well as the various other reference materials by authors with regard to the physics of light, the neurology of human visual process, and color demonstrations. Additionally, the "student" will need to do extensive exercises in paint and/or computer to become proficient in these points, if a comprehensive knowledge is to be gained. (Some of which may already have been accomplished by experienced painters -- this isn't all unknown, secret knowledge)

I don't expect most people want a comprehensive knowledge of painting or art supplies and their use -- I don't think most people have the time or determination to do so. That is fine, even learning a little is better than learning nothing, if one has an interest in improving one's skill and knowledge.
Few people will strive for that "champion level".

I refer to the "champion level" in regard to my experience in competitive shootings sports (the "gun" in Gunzorro). In these sports, the game gets down to simple factors of judgement, control and equipment. To achieve a champion status (winning tournaments), incredible dedication is involved to gain control of one's physical approach, tremendous willpower is needed to overcome making bad decisions due to pressure, and superbly accurate equipment (guns and ammo) are needed to even have a chance to win. To provide the opportnity to win, continual practice, equipment testing and ammunition making (almost all the guns become customized to the highest precision and all the ammo is custom build by the shooter after testing all the manufactured components).
At the end of all this incredible work and precision, only a handful of people remain who might be capable of winning the prize on any given day -- out of the millions who have expressed an interest in shooting accurately during some point of their lives.

Out of the millions, the few remain.

I think there is a a parallel here -- many people are interested in painting, art and design, but few are willing to sacrifice all to achieve their vision in the arts. There are plenty of pressures in life to distract us from painting (or shooting), making it difficult to go the distance or make significant in-roads exploring new areas. Admittedly, schools (high schools, higher education and private art institutions) leave something to be desired, but once the student leaves their halls, and the burden of investigation, research and practice fall to an individual confronted with surviving and getting ahead in life. Sometimes artistic expansion takes a back seat or limited role in one's life. Or techical research is bypassed competely and personal expression is emphasized. That's just mathematics, folks -- few will reach that champion level, but we are all better for having made the attempt.

Although the Munsell system and its associated scientific references require some work to get through, the approach is straight-forward, not based on voodoo or someone's bias. In the long run, it is a much shorter path to understanding color than reading a wide range of books by authors with their own pet theories, which are most often based on opinion and some fact.

My involvement in this thread is with the hope of interesting some of the future champions here at WC to read the actual Munsell Student Book and do some of its exercises. If I have failed to communicate this clearly, or in an interesting way, I am disppointed, but will try to improve my approach. If I have reached anyone with the enthusiam I have for this humble little book, then all this effort is not in vain.

[Dirt Dude]

Hi Jim:

Thanks for your response. While he may appear a bit harsh, Mark has been very well behaved as compared with his posts (and mine, for that matter) on the old unregulated J. Gold forum. I hope he continues to post here as he is quite knowledgeable.

I am also that Richard will continue to contribute. His past advise to me regarding reference books on design were very very helpful for painting and in understanding nature in general.

I still am in the dark about the utility of doing the exercises and other tasks. Can you expound on what they are, what you do with them, how long do they take and what specifically do you get out of them. I feel pretty comfortable with the system nomenclature, etc. Rob has a nice, well organized cliff-notes version of Munsell with professional quality color graphic teaching aids made by Munsell that was presented at his bootcamp.

Having seen a little of the rational blog (I'm not qualified to join the closed forum since I'm just a Sunday dabbler) and it seems that folks are making Munsell pages of color chips by mixing paint with neutrals and mixing up hundreds of tubes of specific hue/chroma/value mixtures. I've done a bit of that type of work following up on the color charting recommended by R. Schmid and found that to be useful, but very pain-staking (because I tried to hit specific values) and have no desire to do more of that type of work. I have also mixed up my own tubes of gray values and have found little use for them.

I feel there is something I am missing from those of you who are so enthusiastic about doing the exercises, making the color chip pages in paint and filling up numerous tubes of very specific paint mixes.

[gunzorro]

Howard -- there are the exercises in the Munsell Student Book at the end of each chapter -- those are the ones I am referring to. Many of them are designed so you can do then on your computer using the color palettes in most word processing programs. Some are designed for pushing paint around.

For example: the First Chapter "The Vocabulary" is followed by the major exercise of the book -- assembling the supplied chips to make your own Value/Chroma Chart, and the abbreviated Munsell Color Charts (all chips supplied) for each of the ten hues.

Otherwise each chapter is designed with classroom-style exercises at its end, that (in a classroom) would be turned in as assignments. I think using this book in an advanced art curriculum would be terrific. For individuals these become self-assignments.

The chapter titles in the Student Book are:
1) The Vocabulary
2) Science, Color, and Art
3) Light and Color
4) Vision and Color
5) Color Anomalies, Preference, and Emotional Response
6) Additive Color Mixture: Mixing Light
7) Subtractive Color Mixture: Mixing Paints
8) Relationships among Colors
9) Combining Colors
10) Color in Designed Products, Installations, and Printing

As I said, each chapter of this 135 page book has topic-specific exercises.

I defy anyone looking over the chapter listings to say these are not interesting subjects, well worth learning more about! :)

The other "exercises" or activities you refer to regarding tubing paint and making chips, etc. are all independent exercises or common sense approaches, either spontaneously done by those exposed to Munsell color space or following the advice of various Munsell proponents.

Some exercises on Rational Painting are based on recommenedations by Graydon Parrish, or Richard Murdock and others, as a way to unify paintings and having exact reference colors at hand. I don't think the massive tubing Graydon has done has been copied by anyone else to that extent. Most people tube a few strings (or partial strings) of paint colors they use the most.

Nothing wrong with any of these personal approaches to paint via Munsell. Rather than being restrictive, Munsell is by its nature inclusive.

[mr.wiggles]

My post was removed.
Anyway I think Jim's posts have pretty much covered anything I would say on the subject.

There is a long history in painting of artist using controlled palettes to help in the creation of the work. Munsell is not about how you make a painting, it's about understanding color and then developing controlled palettes based on this understanding.

Frank Reilly was a very influential teacher who produced some of the finest painters and illustrators in the not to distant past and he based his palette on his study of Munsell.

Other very accomplished painters who use controlled palette systems are Marvin Mattleson who developed a palette based on Paxton and Reilly.

Richard Schmid has his students mix up scores of swatches for every color on his palette. While it is not the Munsell the idea is similar in a small way.

Jack Faragasso is another former Reilly student who is still teaching this at the Art Student League in NYC.

In my own work with this I have learned that the eye is not always right when dealing with values. Objects that seem high in value are not as high as one would think. This is something that I learned when using the chips to find locals. Something I do just for practice in seeing how close my eye can find the average for a given object. Such as a plumb or peach. It is amazing how many steps below what I perceived to be the middle tone of mass facing the light. In the case of a peach I mixed one average without Munsell and one using it. I was off by about two whole steps in value.

[Ron Francis]

Doug,
Are you speaking from experience here. Have you read the book?
All I see in those titles is information about light and colour.
Surely you wouldn't recommend painting without any knowledge and just going by feel?
Surely when one has knowledge, one can use it as one wishes.
You make Munsell sound like it is painting with numbers, so if you have read the book, I would like to know specifically how it is a mechanical process.
Even if it does prescribe a mechanical way of painting (which I doubt), if it helps you see and paint what is really in front of you, and that makes a sleeping dog look dead, then people would see a dead dog when looking at a photograph of it as well. Obviously that's not the case.

Jim,
I would be interested in knowing what some of the exercises in the book are.
How does it let you see the hue, value and chroma of what you are looking at?

Laurie,
Have a look at this
http://www.purveslab.net/seeforyourself/
There are examples how how humans are fooled with both value and hue when these colours are placed in different contexts.

[mr.wiggles]

Click on my link it leads to my blog.
Scroll down to the still life of the turnips. The egg shells. Then the two plumb's and peaches further down the page. I also used both Munsell chips and my palette knife for the two Yellow tomato's. I mixed the averages or local of the high, middle, and shadow tones using Munsell chips. I then mixed strings moving up and down the value scales. I also paid attention to how the chroma shifted across the objects in relation to the values.

Before I started to use Munsell I would use my palette knife.
I would mix a hue, then put it up the object to see how close I was.
Then go back and mix again until I got it right. With the Munsell chips I can do this with out mixing paint. I also have the added advantage of seeing the other HVC relationships laid out. I find it quicker.

[mr.wiggles]

Making comments based on nothing more than your own conclusions based on your 'feelings' about Munsell and no practice experience is not helping your argument. If you knew more about it then you would know it has nothing to do with the making art. It's about studying color using a three dimensional model to describe hue, value, and chroma.

That's all it is, the only other thing that is different is that Munsell divided the color wheel up in tenths. Other than that it's a book of color that moves from Red to Red Purple around the afore mentioned color wheel that represents the 10 hue families. I'm not sure what the big deal is here. If you don't like it then don't use it. I'm not saying it's going to instantly make you a better painter. However anyone can benefit from studying color, and for me Munsell fit into the way I already had my palette set up. I always used strings moving from light to dark in value. I always had gray scales that related to my palette. Now I use 9 plus black and white. When I paint landscape I have 9 blues, 9 Violets, 9 greens and the grays. They all relate to each other in value. Is there a lot of mixing, yes. Does this stop me from painting or expressing myself. No.

Having all these pre-mixed strings saves time when painting outdoors as I have to mix that much less on site to find the right notes.

[gunzorro]

Ron -- One of my favorite areas and persons often referred to in the book is physicist and color theorist James Clerk Maxwell. And coolest exercises and inventions is the Maxwell Wheel and Disks (although I didn't make one myself), in Chapter 6, Exercise 6.2. Google this device -- really amazing what Maxwell accomplished in color theory!

Regarding indentification of HVC, the first chapter "Vocabulary" has a great deal of text devoted to these subjects, as well as several exercises in addition to putting together the various hue pages.

"Exercise 1.1: This assignment contains instructions for assembling The New Munsell Student Color Set Hue Value/Chroma Chart. . . " (fairly lengthy explanation and instructions)

"Exercise 1.2: Use black and white paint to make individual color samples that match the gray scale of the Hue Value Chroma chart. . . . "

"Exercise 1.3: Determine Munsell value for a few colors.
A. Choose a fabric or lart part of a painting or photography with a grayed color (not a Munsell chip). . .
B. Choose a stronger color, one with higher chroma. . .
C. Practice making this value judgement with several colors, marking each on the back with its Munsell value. . . "

"Exercise 1.4: Place the color chips in correct order on the Hue charts. . ."

So, it starts right into the relevancy of HVC and some initial practice. But the book is by no means a complete rote drilling of HVC numbers. They are cited only as needed, and not with any long strings of disassociated coordinates.

I hope that helps, despite my lack of desire to copy pages of the book! ;)

[Ron Francis]

Jim,
Yes, it does give me an idea of how it can train you to recognise where colours fit into the Munsell chart and therefore into the colour spectrum as a whole etc.
And knowing the physics of how colour and light work are essential to what I do.

But I'll get a little more specific here, because it is more relevant to me.
Considering hue, value and chroma appear different depending on the colours surrounding it, (see the Perveslab link above for examples), does Munsell provide a way to isolate those colours so you can see then correctly?

Also, given a local colour of an object, does Munsell provide a way to calculate what colour something will appear under a specific light source?
Example: I am painting a person outside under sunlight, and the shaded side is lit by a blue sky. What colour will the skin appear under the blue light?
Note: This would be a construction rather than painting from life.

I may be asking way too much of Munsell here, and I know these questions are not all that relevant to your painting style anyway, but I thought I would ask.
Maybe Jeffrey being a realist will have some input?

[mr.wiggles]

Hey Ron,
Yes, Munsell can help with this. You can also use your palette knife and mix.
Munsell is very helpful in finding the local or avarages for shadows and how they move towards the middle tone.

If you had the large book Ron, you could have your model stand outside and use the chips to make color notes on a drawing. Then you could go back to your studio and mix the exact color for the differant parts of the flesh.

You can plot as much or as little as you want. I just go for the high, middle and shadow averages and then adjust through the scales I mix from those averges.

Some people paint basic shapes to do excersizes, shperes, cubes and so on. I have only done gray scales but you can do the 5 and 7.5 Yellow/Red family as most of the flesh tones are in this group.

You can paint them in differant light situations and it's good pratice for paintng form.

At the very least I think one should paint cubes and spheres in the 9 gray scales plus black and white. Good for drawing excersizes as well.

[gunzorro]

Ron -- those are great questions.

First the second scenario, with blue side lighting -- no. You need color measuring devices (possibly a good photo color meter, like Minolta) to get an exact reading in K temps. That can be done, but converting K temp readings in pigments to Munsell . . . come on, I only have one brain, not a quad duo brain! :) You might be best off with a reference photo in High Dynamic Range to compress the contrast, then take color comparisons off the photo for an approximate starting point. As you know, reality will probaby make that blue side lighting too blue for believablility, so some decision making will be needed.

Regarding surrounding colors, there is a lot of great info on Metamerism (how colors/pigments shift under different lighting), various light source and wavelength effects, besides stuff on simultaneous contrast, color assimilation, spreading effect (which you once demonstated so well with a square of yellow and blue checks, wasn't it?).

I am sorry, but you are really pushing the limits of my comprehension and fast accessability of the reference data. I'm shocked how well I am regurgitating for you! But you really are the perfect candidate to read this book, even if only part of it is news to you. I know you are a bright guy, and I'm afraid I'll fall if you keep asking too many detailed questions and me with no net. ;)

Damn -- if only I could earn a degree based on forum quizzes! ha-ha-ha! :)

[Ron Francis]

Thanks Jim, Jeffery, I knew I was pushing it a bit.
I'm considering the student book, but can't justify the price of the big one.

I wondered about isolating a colour from its surrounds because it has been mentioned before in this thread and wasn't expounded on.
I know that the Carder method deals with this with a little gizmo that you compare directly to what you're painting, but that would fail if painting something from life with back lighting etc. (You can't paint the sun was mentioned I think.)
I thought maybe a grey card with a hole in it, or something similar.

I have read that Munsell notation is an industry standard now. Is that true?
If it is, that alone is reason enough not to be flippant about it.
Anyway, your replies are much appreciated.

Don and Carey,
You are doing a great job and I don't envy your position.

[gunzorro]

CIELAB and CIELUV are really the industry standards now, but Munsell had been. It still holds a prominent position in industry.

The Big Book is ONLY the mass of color chips in two binders. Very comprehensive, but no text or theory accompanying it. Odd, I know! Maybe an opportunity for a Jim Harris First Edition! ;) The Student book is the comprehensive guide and introduction to Munsell practical applications. So look for it on eBay or Amazon in the $25-30 US price range for a new Second Edition.

[Ron Francis]

Jim,
I thought that CIELAB was only for digital, that is, if I had a colour mixed on my palette, I couldn't convert it to CIELAB but I could use Munsell's HVC.
The advantage of this is we could talk the same colour even though we are half way around the world from each other.
This begs another question, is there a conversion between HVC and CIELAB?

Jeffery,
Ron you should post the questions on RP.
Well, part of the reason for posting here is to try to get this thread back on track. By extracting some information from you guys, hopefully it will inspire more relevant questions and criticism.
Also, there have been questions here that I didn't believe were answered very well, so I'm expanding on them.

While I'm here I have another question for you Jeffery, if you don't mind.
I gather that when painting a still life, you compare Munsell chips, or paint on a palette knife, with the object in front of you and this will give you the HVC at a particular point of the object.
Now what happens when you have specular reflection?
That reflection (say a metal spoon) will probably be lighter in value than your chip or paint will go.
Now say you had a tomato next to the spoon, would you get the HVC of the tomato with a chip and decrease its value to allow for the 'out of gamut' reflection?
Or else, how would you deal with it?

[CareyG]

Terrific discussion, guys, thanks! :) I know that you are helping me to understand things much better.
If you had the large book Ron, you could have your model stand outside and use the chips to make color notes on a drawing. Then you could go back to your studio and mix the exact color for the differant parts of the flesh.
A lightbulb just went off in my head! For myself, I would love to be able to do more plein air, but unfortunately I often have to rely on quick sketches and referring to photos later. That can get me 'round about where I can work and do what I'd like, but having exact color notes that I can refer to back home could be of immense value to me. (If I were much better at watercolor than I currently am, then my sketches might be enough, but I've a long ways to go before I can be somewhere I feel comfortable in that medium.) From Jeffery's explanations, I could also see a lot of value in using the chips for "lazy" color excercizes...practicing finding the right local colors for an object, etc. Sometimes I just don't have time or motivation to put brush to canvas but would still love to work to develop my "eye".

~!Carey

[gunzorro]

Ron -- Sorry, I meant to imply CIELAB is the industry (all industries, internationally) standard for color notation and identification, now replacing Munsell. You are right -- CIE isn't applicable to fine arts oil painting.
From the Student Bookk, p. 116:
"The Munsell color system was unsuitable for use as a universal standard because it is based on human color judgements while the new system (CIELAB) had to be based on instrumental measurement of reflection (or transimission) from a color sample, and had to include numbers representingthe light source and the standard observer. However, colors specified by the CIE methods can be converted to Munsell notations, and a Munsell notation can be obtained from an instrumental measurement of any color."

[Ron Francis]

So theoretically, if you had an image on your computer, you could sample pixels as CIELAB using Photoshop, convert them to Munsell's HVC, and use that to reproduce it in paint?
Now, that would really be painting by numbers.
Thanks Jim, much appreciated.
The big Munsell book has many more chips than the student book. Can you tell me what range of chips the student book has? That is, what has the big book got that the student book hasn't.

For those of you who may think that comparing something in front of you with a Munsell chip is an easy way out and doesn't teach you anything, I can compare it to perspective.
As an example, I would have a row of shops running off into the distance and at one point I would want to paint a door.
To test myself, I would try to guess how wide the door would be, but I found that my guess was up to 20 times wider than it should be.
By comparing in this way, over years of experience since, my eye has become much better honed and much more intuitively accurate.
I imagine that this would also be the case in being able to accurately determine a colour in front of you.

[bugbiter]

Now what happens when you have specular reflection?
That reflection (say a metal spoon) will probably be lighter in value than your chip or paint will go.
Now say you had a tomato next to the spoon, would you get the HVC of the tomato with a chip and decrease its value to allow for the 'out of gamut' reflection?
One has to compress value scale (and somtimes chroma) to be able to paint many things the eye can see. Does the student book discuss any methods for approaching this task?

[mr.wiggles]

From life.
I never work from photos.

The paintings in which I used Munsell I was attempting to keep the the subjects as near to nature as possible. This was part of the problem I set up when I did thoses paintings.

I change values all the time in some paintings to help create the desired light effect.

What I found out, and this was a surprise to me, was off my eye could be.
The interesting thing is that this would shift. Some days I was spot on. On others I was off by two steps. I found this fascinating as it proved to me anyway that my eye by way of my brain is not as consistent as I thought.

[mr.wiggles]

Jeffery,
While I'm here I have another question for you Jeffery, if you don't mind.
I gather that when painting a still life, you compare Munsell chips, or paint on a palette knife, with the object in front of you and this will give you the HVC at a particular point of the object.
Now what happens when you have specular reflection?
That reflection (say a metal spoon) will probably be lighter in value than your chip or paint will go.
Now say you had a tomato next to the spoon, would you get the HVC of the tomato with a chip and decrease its value to allow for the 'out of gamut' reflection?
Or else, how would you deal with it?

I am looking for the averages of the masses when I use the chips or the palette knife as you know. For something like a reflection of a metal spoon
I would do the same thing and as I already know that white is as high as I can go I can play with the values to create a more harmonic effect.

[gunzorro]

Carey -- Yes, you've got it! That is just one aspect, but a legitimate one. Also, it is possible, once familiar with the Munsell notation shorthand, to make rough notes of your estimate of the colors, and develop them later in studio.

Ron -- The charts for the Student book are abbreviated and attenuated. I especially see the chroma not extenting as far as it could into the bright areas. Chroma 14 is the highest the Student Book goes,and it is divided into step of 2, so Chroma goes: /2, /4, /6, etc. Values range from 2.5 at the lowest, to 8 at the highest.
It certainly covers the majority of uses for color matching. But the chips are smaller than the Big Book, and matte surface only, so you need to keep paint off them.

bugbiter -- Unfortunately, nothing directly addresses this area. That is certainly a hole that could be filled in with its own chapter! We all know that scenes in nature frequently extend beyond the value range of 10 steps when direct sunlight and full shadows are involved. There have been various methods to compress the light range into the pigment range. I agree that it would be an excellent addition to the Student Book!

[Kong]

One has to compress value scale (and somtimes chroma) to be able to paint many things the eye can see. Does the student book discuss any methods for approaching this task?


I think that's another area that one learns to orchestrate over years of experience just painting. Because of those value limitations, sometimes the artist needs to develop/orchestrate disproportionate ways to apply values in order to compensate. Like I said before, " you can't paint the sun you can only allude to it." The artist often needs to decide whether to concentrate everything towards the mid tones, or perhaps leave the mid-tones shallow and emphasize the polar extremes of the value spectrum.

[dcorc]

I think that's another area that one learns to orchestrate over years of experience just painting.

I'm sure that is true, Mark. But.....

Has it ever occurred to you that there may be ways to somewhat, and at least in part, shortcut those years of experience a bit? That instead of relying on the intuition trained by 20 years of experience, it might actually be possible to analyse some of these factors, and explicitly teach them?

Some of us don't have 20 years - if someone takes up painting at 60, isn't it rather cruel to tell them "just build experience, and you ought to be fairly good by the time you're 80", when in fact there are teaching approaches which could speed them along the learning-curve?


Dave

[donn_granros]

dcorc.. what you say is true but often it is the trial and errors, starts and stops, haps and mishaps that define what we become as artists. Hard to tell, someone might learn quicker using a system, some might not. Fortunately there is choice and no shortage of opinions one way or the other. <g>

[dcorc]

Well, Donn, that comment about choice, I think, is core to why these Munsell discussions keep getting so contentious, here and elsewhere.

Because I think people like Mark and Doug Nykoe, who have made the most repeated and vociferous denunciations of the Munsell approach both here and at other sites, over the past two years or so, are effectively arguing that the only true way is to get that 20 years of experience. I am not questioning the sincerity of that belief, but I do not agree with it. I think it is mistaken.

I have no doubt that of course experience is a great teacher, and everyone is to be encouraged to get as much "brush mileage" as they can.

What bothers me though, about threads like this is - well, lets take an analogy - we have a group of people here who have knowledge and experience of a particular approach, and are prepared to share it - why is it regarded as a "balanced discussion" to have people come in and relentlessly knock the attempt at doing a presentation, within the thread? If Bill Martin is doing one of his demo-threads on glazing, our great alla-prima afficienado Larry Seiler doesn't come into Bill's thread and tell everybody that they've got it all wrong and ought to be doing it alla-prima - and similarly, Bill wouldn't do that to one of Larry's threads, either.

So, why is it that some topic areas, such as Munsell (and also, the in some ways related Carder method), get such a rough ride? - when those of us interested in exploring them are only trying to share our information for everyone's benefit.

Dave

[Kong]

I'm sure that is true, Mark. But.....

Has it ever occurred to you that there may be ways to somewhat, and at least in part, shortcut those years of experience a bit? That instead of relying on the intuition trained by 20 years of experience, it might actually be possible to analyse some of these factors, and explicitly teach them?

Some of us don't have 20 years - if someone takes up painting at 60, isn't it rather cruel to tell them "just build experience, and you ought to be fairly good by the time you're 80", when in fact there are teaching approaches which could speed them along the learning-curve?


Dave

Oh I absolutely agree with you Dave. . . I trying to break any red tape I come up against. As you might have guessed already.

I'm not really a no person. I'm a " Yes We Can " person at heart. But I wasn't talking about taking twenty years. I think Quantum leaps can be made with the right frame of mind, and the right catalyst. The question I guess is , what are the right catalysts etc. . .

I was only responding to this question about above about compressing any system we might come up with so that it can conform to the limitations of , lets say the" Value spectrum " for example.

With every painting we do we must decide what to give up and what to emphasize tonally according to the original intent against the limitations of the medium. We have atmospheric conditions to think about like barometric pressure or humidity etc. . . And all colour become collaterally effected by these conditions.

Don't get me wrong, I love Mr. Munsell's work and have for many years used that model to visualize colour relationships. I just found out how many tricky variants come into play. making good old experience paramount. Some of my paintings involve no reference at all. And many involve very few references because I've painted similar content in so many conditions before. I seem to be able to recall enough to only require a little reminder here and there be it a visit to the sight or a small photo and thumbnail. Arguably the world always has more secrets to reveal to us so I don't always make a habit of it.

Perhaps you can build a system that can house solutions to all these variables. I would like to see it when that life time of work of yours is done. Truly I would. For me the biggest secret is ridiculously the simplest .

It's all about being in a constant state of analytical observation of absolutely everything you see at all times, regardless of the circumstances.

Anyway, I wish you all good fortune in your quest.

Never give up, but try not to get too defensive about other peoples ideas.

Cheers

[bugbiter]

I think that's another area that one learns to orchestrate over years of experience just painting. Because of those value limitations, sometimes the artist needs to develop/orchestrate disproportionate ways to apply values in order to compensate. Like I said before, " you can't paint the sun you can only allude to it." The artist often needs to decide whether to concentrate everything towards the mid tones, or perhaps leave the mid-tones shallow and emphasize the polar extremes of the value spectrum. Can I ask how you go about this in your paintings? (I am not asking this with irony, but with interest in other painters working methods.)
Is this a completely intuitive task for you?
I can say, for myself, that I would definitively analyze the situation and from this select a method. With method, I mean I would set out with a plan. Do you make a plan conciously? Or not?

[dcorc]

Mark, I see we have just cross-posted. My concern originates from wanting to improve my own painting skills, but also, as I have a somewhat analytical frame of mind, I am keen to try to pin down aspects explicitly where I can - I certainly believe in intuition, but I take the viewpoint that intuition is not mystical (not suggesting there that you think it is, either), but is simply assimilated information.

The problem with intuition, however, is that it is unteachable. If we can analyse things explicitly, we can lay out an approach which others can follow - imagine the professor of surgery who said "ah, my boy, its all intuition, just keep practicing and you'll get there"! No, there are training programs for surgeons, which teach core knowledge, some of which may seem very theoretical and removed from actual clinical practice, but which in fact crucially underpins it. There's aptitude, and dexterity, and experience that comes with practice under supervision too.

I see no reason why many aspects of art cannot be taught similarly, in an organised fashion. In fact, I thought it was one of the founding principles of sites such as this one.

[donn_granros]

dave.. I good friend of mine is an excellent painter and has been an Art teacher for over 40 years. He maintains that he can teach anyone to be a decent painter. He also maintains that he cannot teach anyone to be an Artist. Maybe this alludes to the skill/ intuition issues that seem to be present out here. However one gets there it is my opinion that one needs to develop a skill set so that it becomes second nature and then intuition and more 'artistic' judgements can be made.

[kentmatt]

To use an analogy: Would you try to produce a champion tennis player to "play a lot of tennis"? And that's it? It'll develop the skills, it's hard work, so they'll get in shape, etc. right?

Or would you have them doing conditioning, strength training, coordination exercises, drills, endless repetitive practicing of serves, endless practicing of backhands, modification and correctionof their technique, etc.

Painting should be no different, and colour is just one aspect. Painting lends itself to training just like any other skill.

[kentmatt]

I What is Munsell?

(first of 5 posts)

The Munsell Colour Model is a means of describing
colour. It defines every colour in terms of three
measurements:

1. Hue: (red, yellow-red, yellow, yellow-green, green,
green-blue, blue, blue-purple, purple, purple-red)
Within each of these 10 hues, it is broken down into 10
divisions. A Red at 1 would tend towards purple-red, and
a red at 10 would tend towards yellow-red

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/25-Nov-2008/68671-Munsell_hue_circle.gif

2. Value: how light or dark it is on a scale from zero
(perfect black), or 10 (perfect white).

3. Chroma (how intense the colour is), from 0 (perfect
grey) to well, as high as pigment might go - not normally
more than 16 Chroma in paint for most hues.
This is how Munsell would display the range of colours
for 7R:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/25-Nov-2008/68671-7Rgrid.GIF

The way in which Munsell arranges colours is easy to
visually process: each page of the Munsell Book of
Colour has one Hue, with every variation from light to
dark and dull to intense, in a logical grid pattern.

[kentmatt]

Munsell II: How does this apply to painting?

7R happens to be very close to most brands of cadmium red. Cad red in Munsell Notation (Hue Value/Chroma) is roughly 7R 4/16, which translates to:
"Red, at the 7th position on the wheel, at a value of 4, with a chroma of 16."

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/25-Nov-2008/68671-7Rgrid.GIF

OK, so what? We know where cad red fits, what does that do for us? The numbers themselves matter little, unless one is verbally (or online) communicating colours to another. But locating a specific colour on a page of the Munsell Book of Colour has very practical applications.

The illustrator Frank Reilly leveraged the arrangement of the Munsell system to create a palette designed for flesh (one of the more difficult things to paint accurately in terms of colour).

Reilly's palette included strings of colour used in flesh, such as cadmium red, in a string from light to dark (and using some other colours, such as Burnt Umber mixed with the cad red for the lower values 1-3). In parallel, he included a string of neutral greys, from light to dark. In Munsell terms he mixed his hue in Munsell Values 1 to 9, and then neutral grey from 1 to 9.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/25-Nov-2008/68671-reilly.jpg
(image shows the whole Reilly palette, not just the red string)

A 16 chroma colour like cadmium red is far too intense (far too much Chroma in Munsell terms). Reilly used the neutral greys to reduce the chroma, by mixing the neutral grey of the same value as the red. This mixing across the strings has the advantage that it maintains the value and reduces hue shifts when reducing chroma. This is a distinct advantage over using complements to achieve the desired colour.

With this two string arrangement, one would be able to paint the entire grid above - precisely.The alternative to reducing the colours through strings of neutral grey is complementary mixing. Using complements to neutralize colour is a contentious area. The problems with complementary mixing are that few pigments are direct complements of each other. This means that two pigments must be mixed just to create the complement. Even with seeming perfect complements, the hue may only be accurate for one mixuture - a less chromatic or more chromatic mixture may still shift hue, making reaching the accurate target difficult.

Complements are frequently much darker or lighter than the base colour, and so this must be compensated for with white, which reduces the chroma further. Neutralizing cad red with Viridian, for example - not only will the colour likely not grey down without shifting hue at least somewhat, but it will definitely reduce in value).

So one application of Munsell in painting is how Reilly used it: strings of colour values and strings of grey values to facilitate accurate mixing.

[kentmatt]

Munsell III: Using the Chips

The colour chips in the Munsell Book are removable. It is simple to guesstimate the hue by glancing from the subject to the pages, and select a chip. Holding a chip up to the subject allows the artist to compare and evaluate his guess. Is the value right? If not, in which direction is it off? Should the hue go left or right along the colour wheel? And is the chroma too intense?

Once these questions are answered, it is a simple matter to return to the book and make a second guess in the directions indicated. The correct chip can be quickly targeted, and the correct colour is now available for reference to the paints.

Once a chip is found, it is a simple matter to determine which two paints fall closest to either side of it on the Munsell colour wheel. From there the two can be mixed until the right hue is achieved, the value and chroma can then be adjusted as well. During mixing process, the colour can be dabbed directly on the glossy surface of the chip, until it fades invisibly.

(Note: the assortment of paints necessary to achieve the entire range of Munsell is only 20 or so. It is a small matter to have pre-determined the Munsell colours of one's paints. )

How does this differ from normal mixing?

Normal mixing requires evaluating the colour with eye along - something that can be very error-prone and subject to optical illusions such as Simultaneous contrast. Low-chroma colours are especially difficult to evaluate accurately by eye alone (a common error in the work of new painters is excessive chroma). Mixing directly on the palette with only one's 'memory' of the colour requires the artist to repeatedly hold his palette knife up to the subject to evaluate the colour, then adjust the mixture and try again.

Using the chips means knowing the accurate colour before the palette knife is used, having a physical reference in hand that paint can be applied to, and knowing which two pigments (plus grey) are necessary to reach the colour. It is much more accurate and direct than other methods.

[kentmatt]

Munsell IV: Bracketing Colours

Another application is bracketing.

Again we go back to Reilly. The colours of human flesh fall into the range between Yellow and Red. So in addition to mixing a string of Red, Reilly mixed a string of Yellow or Yellow Orange (again using Cadmiums) as well. What he was doing was bracketing the range of flesh in terms of Munsell Hue (yellow-orange to red), which could be mixed back and forth at the same value to get the various hues necessary, which could be reduced in chroma with the neutral greys.

Painting Flesh

Graydon Parrish's training with Michael Aviano included the Reilly Palette, but with modifications. One problem with the Reilly palette was the high chroma paints that were used for the strings: Cadmium yellow-orange and burnt umber for the yellows, and cadmium red for the red string. Aviano recommended using lower-chroma earth colours for the yellow-orange paints, and alizarin crimson. This facilitates easier mixing, as the colours are closer to the target to begin with, and also minimized hue shifts (which still occur with greys, but to a much lesser extent than complements).

Parrish took Aviano's idea of using lower chroma strings to it's logical conclusion: creating strings of fleshtones at the actual chroma range (high and low) of flesh.

Therefore, one string from dark to light is at the far Red-range of flesh at it's highest chroma, and one string is the same hue, but at flesh's lowest red chroma. Strings are also mixed for the middle of flesh's hue range - orange, and for the yellow end of flesh's range - one at low chroma, and one higher chroma. What this gives you is a set of paints that bracket the boundaries of what flesh colours are in nature, as well as one in the middle (the orange strings)

I am afraid I have no picture for this palette, but instead of the 3 strings of Reilly, imagine 4.

This method of bracketing colours can be used for painting anything, expecially where subtle shifts and variations are necessary.

[kentmatt]

Munsell V: Summary and Misconceptions

The advantage of what I refer to as the Munsell-Reilly-Parrish system is:

1. knowing and seeing the target colour clearly in advance
2. having a specific path to reach the colour
3. needing fewer adjustments necessary due to hue shifts
4. needing fewer adjustments necessary due to value shifts.

these are directly related to the disadvantages of traditional complementary mixing:

1. the specific colour target cannot be clearly seen on the model due to many factors such as the smallness of the target, as well as apparent shifts in hue and value due to surrounding colours
2. Having to rely on memory to visualize the colour as it is mixed on the palette.
3. Requiring adjustiment with further colours to compensate for hue shifts
4. complements are frequently much darker or lighter than the base colour, and so this must be compensated for with white, which reduces the chroma further.

From an accuracy standpoint, the Munsell-Reilly-Parrish system is demonstrably clearer and faster, and is particularly helpful for beginners with colour and colour mixing. Experienced artists through many years of working with the same palette, will get a more intuitive feel for mixing, as they know exactly what a given mixture will produce. However, this is still less accurate than using the Munsell-based methods.

Pre-mixing and Tubing

One thing that is advocated is that artists pre-mix value strings of hues. There are very solid reasons behind this tedious practice.

The first is the advantage in having pre-mixed strings of neutral grey. One of the key concepts of the system is using a neutral grey of the same value to reduce chroma. This requires a lot of grey paint, and it is far more tedious to accurately mix a string of greys every time one paints.

Pre-mixing the 4 bracketing strings for flesh can be very useful. The work of mixing so much paint in advance may only be advantageous for the serious portraitist/figurative painter. However, by pre-mixing and tubing these mixtures, it seriously streamlines the painting process thereafter.

Some Common Misconceptions about Munsell

Many artists state that they prefer to 'feel' colour, or that they mix it intuitively, or they find that "happy accidents" inject more life than precise copying of subject.

In the experience of most art students, if not experienced artists, is that most accidents (i.e. errors in mixing colour) result in UN-happy accidents. Or to put it another way, trial and error requires a lot of error to reach a target. And many so-called "happy accidents" are perhaps a way of covering up for "close enough" due to frustration/laziness.

Munsell is not about memorizing numbers (as I said the numbers matter very little in practice). Munsell is about organizing colour in a way that facilitates colour identification and colour mixing, with an accurate, physical guide that can be compared to both the subject matter and the paint of the palette. It is not busy work, it is a means of being more accurate, and doing so quickly, directly, and confidently.

Conscious Intent

The Munsell-Reilly-Parrish system does not preclude an artist's intuitive colour sense, it simply changes the approach.

If for example, an artist decides to alter the colour of what they see - for reasons of aesthetic balance, harmony, or what have you, then this implies that they make a deliberate colour choice. If they alter a colour, then they are doing so with intent to hit a specific colour different than what they see. Using the Munsell-Reilly-Parrish method to reach that colour is still more direct and faster. The intended alternate colour indeed, can be selected from the Munsell colour chips - comparing chips to the painting and the model before mixing, allowing the artist to see in advance the effect they are aiming for, and giving them a specific colour target to mix.

This is something that strikes at the core of being an artist vs. being a camera - using Munsell increases accuracy, not for accuracies' sake alone (although this may be the goal of some), but rather it allows the artist to be accurate in an easier, faster, more direct way so that decisions to depart from accuracy for the sake of artistic vision can be attended to - to alter the chroma, or value, or hue of your painting because you know exactly what is in front of you and can reproduce it and therefore change it in the way in which you intend. It minimizes the busy work of trying to mix colour while painting, and allows the focus to be on conscious artistic direction.

[kentmatt]

No guns, why is there no orange on the color wheel?

Munsell apparently was prejudiced against it - said that colours should not be named after fruit.

I think that's apocryphal. Likely he felt that there were not enough different hues between yellow and red to warrant the insertion. It would require replacing the Yellow-Red section with Red-Orange, Orange, Orange-Yellow.

It would also mess up Munsell's apparent preference for decimals (11 hues instead of 10 ).

[Ron Francis]

Jeffery and Jim,
Thank you both, I now have a much better understanding of what is in the student book.

Regarding learning by trial and error as opposed to being taught, I think there is merit in both.
If you re-invent the wheel, then you really know how a wheel works, but you have to give up valuable time in the process while you could have been learning something else.
Our knowledge is built up empirically over many generations and it would be foolish to dismiss it or not question it.

I generally don't paint still lives, but I think it would be rare that the value and chroma range of a scene wouldn't have to be compressed.
Of course a carefully lit scene with matte objects would do it and this could be good practice.
Just on the chips, it seems you could find the HVC in two ways.
You could mix a colour and then compare it with a chip to see how close you got.
Or you could hold up the chip directly over the object to find the colour, then match your pigment to it.
I see much less benefit in doing it the latter way.

[Edit]
There have been quite a few posts since I composed this, so it is now way out of context.

[kentmatt]

Thanks, in terms of wavelength of light, the shortest interval is between yellow and orange, the largest is between orange and red. Does munsell refer to wavelength of light as a benchmark for colors?

No. Munsell is primarily about human perception of colour. From a paint and mixing standpoint, I don't think that the wavelength interval would be particularly important, unless it has a particular effect on the human visual system (which gets a fair amount of treatment in the Student Book).

I have a number of questions myself regarding some aspects of Munsell - how were chroma steps arrived at for example? Also, the grouping of 10 hues seems fortuitous - are the differences between each hue step even in terms of visual perception? Or just close enough and convenient for the system?

However, these are minor technical questions, that don't really have any bearing on the practical aspects that I have noticed.

[mr.wiggles]

10 Red is moving towards Yellow Red. It's closer towards Yellow Red than Red. Why the OH Cad Orange came out to this Red is beyond me, it does have a deeper red over tone than the WB Cad Orange. Some Cad Yellow deeps are more Cad Orange than yellow.

Ron if you look at the color wheel 5 is the center of each color family.
The wheel posted just shows the 5 and 10 steps there are also 2.5 and 7.5 inbetween.

For example, I'm moving towards Yellow from Yellow Red: 5YR, 7.5YR, 10YR, 2.5YR, 5Y, 7.5Y, 10Y, 2.5Y.
The wheel below is from the Student book.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/25-Nov-2008/99881-munsell_color_wheel.jpg

[sidbledsoe]

Just a curiosity, not important. When you look at this wheel you see five big circles, three primaries plus two secondaries. Then you have five small circles,
four tertiaries and one secondary (orange or yellow-red as it is called here) The two tertiaries, yellow-orange and orange-red don't get equal billing. I am sure you can find them and in practice do get the coordinates for any color with this system. If it isn't easily answered don't fret it and move right along with the important stuff. This is my first look at this information.
btw here is one of my oldest tubes of liquitex cobalt blue, this should bring back fond memories for Gunzorro, it gives you the munsell info:
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/25-Nov-2008/112587-IMGP1292.JPG

[mr.wiggles]

Sid the way that wheel is laid out is not quite right. All the color families are equal. The key is that the wheel illustrates how to move through the color space From Red through Red/Purple.

Liquitex used to put the Munsell notaions on all the colors.
6.2PB, 2.1/10, that is interesting. The closest I can get from the book is 7.5 PB, 2/10. The 5PB does not go to 2/10.

[Kong]

Sid the way that wheel is laid out is not quite right. All the color families are equal. The key is that the wheel illustrates how to move through the color space From Red through Red/Purple.

Liquitex used to put the Munsell notaions on all the colors.
6.2PB, 2.1/10, that is interesting. The closest I can get from the book is 7.5 PB, 2/10. The 5PB does not go to 2/10.

I have a Munsell question for you in three parts . . .(1) once you have arrived at the proper colour for any given area of your painting, and you establish the colours required to mix that colour, do you then mix them all together and then apply them, or apply each one separately to the area in question ?

(2) And the second part of my question is . . . do you then follow that same procedure incrementally as light, chroma and colour changes around an object ?
Say an apple for example. And if so, in what increments ?

(3) And how do you establish the colours you use for shadows considering the fact that one can't just add black in order to illustrate that same colour in shadow ?

[gunzorro]

Mark -- Perhaps someone else can tell you more of their experiences, but there are so many options and variables for how to use the information once you have established the color or colors you will be using.

I know you are playing Devil's Advocate here, but I'll play along if it helps illustrate a more effecient and economical approach to paint mixing. ;)

1) Are you asking whether you would mix the needed colors to produce your target color, or add them side by side in hopes of achieving a pointillist effect?
Also -- the colors used to produce a target color are not necessarily the same or similar HVC -- you could be using a dark and light value to make a middle value, so placing unmixed colors next to each other would not produce the same effect.
If you are asking if Munsell could be used to establish balanced colors which when seen close up reveal distinct lower chroma primaries, which when viewed from a distance produce a vibrating "gray" effect (as in your recent "Porch Light" painting) -- the answer would be resounding yes.
You could shift the color group to any balanced position and easily establish the exact associated colors, with all the associated precision of equal HVC.
It would be very easy to establish these combinations using Munsell chips and notations, to find the proper mixing colors, and then add any improvisation you might like -- the system of color identification and notation doesn't rule out spontaneity or innovation.

2) If you were working with strings, yes, you probably would use them as the basis for blending. Are you asking how to blend colors? ;) Munsell isn't an incremental color blending system, unless you figure something out that could be a scientific principle.
It seems quite simple to take the apple and determine its predominant Hue(red, in this case), determine the main Value range represented within just the red color as well as the general overall Chroma range, and mix a specific small string on the palette to lay down on the drawing (maybe only four value steps). Notes would also be taken as to other related colors and their values, so they could be blended into the associated reds in the string -- like yellow-green markings in the apple, or brown of stem and bruises, etc. It's simply common sense and a controlled mixing to speed the painting process along. This approach presupposes the artist already knows more or less the desired effect before starting the painting process -- a goal would be in mind, and the painting session would be arranged to achieve that goal, not flounder around, or do some experimental painting.

3) As we know, shadows are not "black" (although black may be used in a shadow color along with the other approriate pigments). Shadows are usually composed of the local color of the subject and lit by a light other than the main light on the subject. Additionally, the shadows will contain reflections of colored surfaces of surrounding objects, so simply adding black to the predominant local color is not a precise solution to create a realistic shadow. The local color + the shadow illumination color + reflected color = the shadow color. Color matching with the Munsell chips can help establish this correct color in the shadow, by direct comparison inside the shadow, as well as comparing to the surrounding colors to determine the components of the paint mixing. Obviously, a sophisticated and experienced eye is also very important to estimate the color in shadows. (And as experience increases, the chips would be used less and less, and as more of a confirmation.)

I would like to convey a reason for using the chips, based on my photography background.
I am a pretty experienced photographer, able to estimate the lightness and darkness of a scene, as well as its color make up. Despite that experience and keen eye, I rely on the camera's metering system for an overall reading of the subject brightness. When I have time on a set-up shot, I will go further and use a "gray card" and/or a hand-held spot meter to confirm exactly what the exposure is to be. Even with all this preparation, I am still sometimes dissatisified with the overall exposure and color of the final image, and the image gets minor adjustment via conversion software.
My point is: here is a simple, mechanical, scientific process of photography, and still it has many variables and some surprises for someone after nearly 30 years! I know how much more variable my visual impressions of subject are for painting -- why wouldn't I avail myself of some sort of "meter", a known color or value standard to use as a gauge for color accuracy?

[Virgil Elliott]

3) As we know, shadows are not "black" (although black may be used in a shadow color along with the other approriate pigments). Shadows are usually composed of the local color of the subject and lit by a light other than the main light on the subject. Additionally, the shadows will contain reflections of colored surfaces of surrounding objects, so simply adding black to the predominant local color is not a precise solution to create a realistic shadow. The local color + the shadow illumination color + reflected color = the shadow color.



Jim,

I don't think it should be expressed as an absolute that shadows are not black. A shadow could be black in the absense of secondary light and with nothing to reflect light back into the unlit areas. The only example I can think of is the dark side of the moon on a clear night, but that's enough to change the statement from an assertion of absoluteness to a "usually." Otherwise, your explanation is pretty good.

Virgil Elliott

[gunzorro]

:)
Point taken!
Dark side of the Moon - check!

Black can validly be a major portion of the paint mix for shadows of neutral color subjects without a lot of secondary colored fill light on the shadow areas. But seldom are any shadows truly black.

[mr.wiggles]

To answer question 1, yes I mix according to how I am going start the painting. After establishing the drawing I mass the shapes. Put down the shadow value, mid tones and the high lights are left for last, I don't put them on until the last stages of a painting.

Question 2, it depends what I'm painting. If I'm painting something that is not going to last, like grapes I have to work on those and leave nonperishables to later. I am aware however of how the light is reflecting off the object and on as well as the overall environment.

The shadows are lower in chroma so I figure out what the value is then chroma and the hue is last. If I get the value and chroma right and it reads well the hue wont mater as much.

I don't plot every inch of an object I just have used the chips to find the locals and mix them. I then mix strings from the locals moving up and down in values. One this that is the hardest is controlling all three dimensions at the same time. As you paint and model the form you can get the value right and the chroma but sometimes the hue will off. Adjust the hue and the chroma shifts and so on. That's the fun part finding ways to solve the problems the subject presents.

[mr.wiggles]

So someone could utilize the Munsell keys and still get the transition into shadow wrong.
Not if you do it right. Anything can go wrong when your painting, it does not take much to make a mistake. That's the painter not Munsell.

Some people are not into prepared palettes. I find it helps me to paint it was the way I was taught. Other people have there own thing such only using the three primaries plus white and black. Some people don't use black, why they don't beets me as it's a very useful hue.

Some people are more precise then me and take this amazing levels.
I know of one painter who has tubed up 300 colors based on Munsell.
The palette is set up with a grid, much like Reilly's except it is designed like the Munsell color grid. Values are moving up vertically from dark to light, and the chroma moves across horizontally from left to right as you move towards the right the chroma increses.

[CareyG]

I would like to point out....as with *any* tool in *any* endeavor, to properly utilize a tool, a skill set is still involved. Even a simple hammer requires skills and I can tell you, I can hang a picture much straighter than my local dental assistant. :)

I remember in elementary school doing those puzzles where the picture was cut up into squares and rearranged. The student was required to put the picture together by redrawing each small piece into the appropriate square on a grid. Though usually the resulting image ended up looking like the original picture, to achieve a truly cohesive likeness, a level of skill/practice was still involved. And that is much simpler than what we are talking about here.

~!Carey

[Kong]

So please let me ask you this . . . is it so far outside the parameters of this conversation to suggest that the practice of mixing with an open palette, ( where the craftsperson often needs to be able to reproduce the same identical mix many times per session,) is a skill set that offers the artist more flexibility, and greater opportunities to install the creative improvisational poetry of art making ?

Giving the Art Work itself, the opportunity to simultaneously heel to the inspiration of the original poetic ideal, as it's being felt during the process. Rather than seeing it languish in the process of manufacturing many strings of colour; taxing the artists attention away from the creative intent ?

[donn_granros]

mark, maybe what you have written is true for some and not true for others. For some this Munsell system may be drudgery for some it may provide a direction and a foundation for to produce some high quality work.

The important part is that it is a legitimate system which an painter can choose to employ or not. Imagine trying to teach a method to "simultaneously heel to the inspiration of the original poetic ideal as it's being felt during the act" as you wrote.

I am not an painter that will use Munsell as I have my own procedures but I can respect the fact that there is something of value here for those that choose to use it. Good enough for me.

[Kong]

Imagine trying to teach a method to "simultaneously heel to the inspiration of the original poetic ideal as it's being felt during the act" as you wrote.


I agree with you Donn, you just can't teach that .

But the skill set of open palette mixing is a better prerequisite for that aspiration.
In other words , aren't we all trying to embed something into our Art beyond a lavish display of our technology ?

Are we not channeling the muse as it were ?

-

Anyway. . . I'll say no more.

Cheers

[CareyG]

But the skill set of open palette mixing is a better prerequisite for that aspiration.
You are, of course, welcome to your opinion. However, no one can claim one opinion is universally "better" than another. Such a thing simply does not exist. That's why it's an opinion. :) Even the opinions of the greatest artists in history were still just...opinions. They might have made great use of those opinions, but then arguably so did people on the opposite spectrum.

~!Carey

[mr.wiggles]

For those interested this site handprint.com has a lot information on the history of color theories and how Munsell developed his ideas on the subject.

I think this link can help more than me trying to explain it, as it's very well researched and written.

http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color7.html#MUNSELL

[gunzorro]

Mark -- you are arguing against individuals who have taken the Munsell system of notation, and made their own improvisations to it. That topic is endless (all manner of innovations would need to be addressed) and should have its own thread, such as "How to personalize Munsell" or "Painting methods based on Munsell".

The official Munsell "system" is one of color notation, color comparison and color identification. NO WHERE DOES THE MUNSELL SYSTEM RECOMMEND OR ENDORSE A PROCEDURE OF MAKING STRINGS OF PAINT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAINTING. Like many other concepts, Munsell doesn't rule this out, but it is only one possible uses based on this scientific system. I don't know how to make that statement simpler or easier to understand. ;)

The "System" you and many other people are at odds with is really a generalized interpretation by a number of artists and teachers who have incorporated the true Munsell system into their work. You need to take up your confusions or disagreements with those proponents, not Munsell.

As I've said before, arguing against Munsell in its official form, is like arguing with dictionaries because you find fault with the English language. Munsell is the generally accepted language of pigment color, and nothing will change that until something better and more precise comes along.

I hope you find some relief in the fact that to understand and use Munsell, you don't have to abandon any cherished ideas or procedures you are already using successfully. Palettes, color mixing, paint brands -- these things and more are left completely to the artist to determine.

[gunzorro]

mr. wiggles -- The Handprint overview of Munsell is terrific, as is the further examination of color space and the difficulties of scientifically designing color space and identification. Thanks!

[sidbledsoe]

Jim, Alex started this thread directly asking opinions about using the system for the express purpose of painting. No?

[gunzorro]

Sid -- If we had stuck to Alex's original questions, this would have been a very short thread. ;)

As I said, there is no express procedure within Munsell to do such a thing as implement in painting technique.

Which doesn't keep anyone from developing technique based on Munsell, or calling it anything else. But really it becomes "The Reilly Method" or "The Parrish Method", not the Munsell Method of Painting. That seems to be the hard part for people to accept, that Munsell is a system of notation for color identification, and as a bonus, has some super-spiffy sheets of color graduations! :)

Obviously, based on all the permutations we've seen, the Munsell system is mind-expanding and leads artists to explore a number of ways to enhance their painting procedure.

[LGHumphrey]

Jim, you've hit the nail on the head--all of us are using "Munsell" for two completely different things. What about using "Munsell" just when referring to the 3 dimensional colour theory he elaborated and using "Reilly-Parrish," abbreviated to RP, for the system of painting entailing colour chips, strings of paint, grey for reducing chroma, the possibility of tubing paints, etc.

Agreed?

[ChipDouglas]

You seem to enjoy setting up false heirarchies. I don't think anyone is claiming any system is superior or inferior. You're the only one who keeps repeating such things.

I also don't see you dispelling any "myth" either? There would have to be a myth to dispell in order for you to dispell it in the first place.

No one is claiming any palette is "the way" or "superior." People are debating for the understanding of color in a deeper way. Just as Michelangelo developed his knowledge of structure by their recents developments in biology, Munsell advocates are debating for a deeper understanding of color through the past centuries developments in color science. That understanding can be used in many many ways.

There's a lot of color theory that has been passed down to us from the impressionists. Hawthorne and a few other schools influenced the important NYC degree programmed schools (Pratt, Parsons, etc), and after the GI Bill was signed, the rest of the USA's degree programs formed their curriculum's off of these few NYC schools. Whereas Reilly and the few academically trained artists stuck to ASL, NAD, and small ateliers. So now the open palette seems the norm.

Yet even the Golden Age illustrators of USA used controlled palettes. Howard Pyle, Rockwell, Leyendecker, Harvey Dunn, Frank Reilly, Dean Cornwell, etc etc etc. All of these guys had access to open palettes, but used controlled palettes.

And prior to the impressionists, most painters used controlled palettes or limited palettes. One could assume that, if the colors were available to earlier artists, they would have used a large open palette, but that is just an assumption that can never be proven. All we have is the historical record.

The reality is that many of the higher chroma colors were available in the 19th century to the academic and romantic artists, yet most of them still used a controlled palette. Including Delacroix, Ingres, David, Gerome, Courbet, Bouguereau, and many many more. Just as the open palette is the norm today, the controlled palette was the norm back then.

Impressionists developed the open palette with a theory of "color notes." Very different than the ideas before then. Again, after the GI Bill, this became the norm to us, though it wasn't how artists thought of color and form for 500 years before Monet. These impressionists defined the visual fields highest chroma color note, and related all the lower chromas off of that... pushing all of the chromas higher relative to nature, but correct relative to eachother on the painting. That's a perfectly valid way for a small 30x40 inch painting from observation, from a photo, or an imaginative painting with exaggerated beautiful color. But that wasn't the thought process of artists prior to Monet. Try grabbing an open palette and painting The Birth of Venus, where all the chromas on all the figures must be lower than Venus, but the value heirarchy must be set up so Venus has the higheset contrast poster averages, and the cherubs at the top don't take away from the rest of the composition, and you're going to have a very difficult time.

Instead, one can plan ahead and define where they are at in color space, to define the large poster averages to help guide your eye around the composition, and control the painting like their original concept intended.

Or... they can step back 75 feet after every brush stroke and see the "color note" within the composition, to hope that they didnt accidently go too dark or too red after each brush stroke and cause competition between elements. All while doing this on a super realistic large scale composition that can't be observed, of course.


But the largest you go is 30x40 inches, with a simple set up, maybe one or two figures at most. Try something your way that's as big as the Raft of the Medusa, or with as many figures as the Birth of Venus, and you'll see why Delacroix and Bouguereau used a controlled palette over an open one.

(Of course, a controlled palette can be used for more simple paintings also. And open palettes can be used for any type of painting, too.)

Both approaches are valid. There's intelligent reasons and ways to use a limited, controlled, or open palette; and it's used by understanding.
There's also infinitely more ways to use those same palettes with a lack of understanding. The key is understanding, not application; so debating one persons use of an understanding is kind of missing the point.

Happy painting.

[MikLNjLo]

I think of premixed strings as the equivalent of a finely tuned vocabulary for a passage.

Do you invent words as you express your thoughts or do you pull upon a preexisting vocabulary?

When speaking about painting do you use words that describe painting or do you use the vernacular of plumbers or doctors?

You can make up your own slang and pull upon anything on the fly. The odds are you will end up with something closer to Will Smith than William Shakespeare. Without knowledge, control and some form of compass to define your position you don't know up from down and your potential is limited.