Ivory or Lamp Black

[nit-wit]

The blacks are with the cheaper pigments, so why not treat yourself to a tube of each - even if you buy an expensive brand, you'll get change from a tenner.

The fundamental difference between ivory and lamp is transparancy - ivory leaning towards transparent - lamp towards opaque (MH's anyway).

Andrew

[Addy]

Originally Posted by nit-wit

The blacks are with the cheaper pigments, so why not treat yourself to a tube of each - even if you buy an expensive brand, you'll get change from a tenner.

The fundamental difference between ivory and lamp is transparancy - ivory leaning towards transparent - lamp towards opaque (MH's anyway).

Andrew

Unless you're in Brazil, in which case you have to factor in a x2.1 exchange rate, shipping and 60% taxes over both. That kinda makes you want to choose.

[rltromble]

But George is in the UK, W&N are made there and well Holland is just a hop and a skip away.

[Addy]

Lucky man.

[hal_s]

In the W&N line at least, Lamp black is a much more powerful black than Ivory black, which is weak and somewhat transparent.

Ivory is an easier color to mix with because it doesn't overpower what you're mixing it into. Lamp is better if you want really dark blacks or dark browns.

Both of these blacks are cool in color, which doesn't cause a problem when mixing greens and blues (and black plus cadmium yellow light makes an olive green), but mixing black into yellow/orange/red to make browns will shift the color, which is why it's easier to use the various earth tones (the two umbers, yellow ochre, burnt sienna, indian red) rather than try to mix these shades from red/yellow and black.

[Hannu1]

Originally Posted by gunzorro

I was initially bowled over by Lamp (also called Carbon) Black when I first tried Old Holland's version several years ago. It is also called Intense Black by Williamsburg, and for good reason! A little goes a long way and it is the deepest black. My favorite, and the darkest I've found so far, is Maimeri's Puro version.

I'm trying to find a black which has lowest value. Is there big differences in value between different blacks?

[Einion]

Originally Posted by Hannu1

I'm trying to find a black which has lowest value. Is there big differences in value between different blacks?

Nope.

Often you'll find Lamp Black has the lowest value in masstone but once the paint dries value is greatly dependent on the surface finish, the same colour will have a lighter value when matt and a darker value when more glossy (hence why maximum depth is achieved via gloss varnishing).

Einion

[h_ruukki]

This thread, all in all, gave me a spark for starting my next painting with blacks and browns. At first it looked like useless trivia as far as I'm concerned - but looking at the grey samples gave me inspiration. Thanks!

Henri

[Trond]

Speaking of blacks. Has anyone here any experience with vine black? (I can see it in Gunzorro's picture). As far as I understand it, it should be ground charcoal in oil, which sounds nice and simple to me (and, I suspect, transparent).

[sidbledsoe]

trond, i think gigalot (alex) makes it all the time.

[querin]

I make my own transparent black with Pthalo green and Perm Alizarin crimson they are both staining pigments so they can go very dark I can warm it up adding more red or cool down with a touch of Pthalo blue if I want a softer black I use quinacridone red with the Pthalo green.
querin

[Hannu1]

Originally Posted by Einion

Nope.

Often you'll find Lamp Black has the lowest value in masstone but once the paint dries value is greatly dependent on the surface finish, the same colour will have a lighter value when matt and a darker value when more glossy (hence why maximum depth is achieved via gloss varnishing).

Einion

I have another question, is it in theory possible to achieve lower values than todays paints can offer, or is this the limit? I was thinking about some old master paintings, which seemed to me to have very low value black color areas. Even blacker than my blackest paints. On the other hand, it is very difficult to make comparisons because lighting etc. changes between museums etc. Or maybe they just used simultaneus contrast effects very skillfully to produce the effect. Those days they usually made their own paints, is it possible that they had something in their paint cocktail which made it possible to go lower values than modern paints?

I want that some wetcanvas member immediately goes in to a museum with appropriate electrical equipment and measures the amount of light reflected from the paintings! (beware of the guards)

[llawrence]

I think Einion's got the answer with the gloss varnish. I read that Turner even varnished some of the darks in his watercolors to achieve that same depth. (He'd be banned from watercolor societies today!)

The darkest black I've got on my palette is my Rublev bone black; the lightest is Da Vinci's Magnetite Genuine. It seems like a pretty big difference on the palette; but after reading Einion's post, I'll have to test them directly, along with lamp, vine and Mars blacks, and compare them when dry. That would be a useful thing to know.