Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 0chre
Is it possible to combine tonal and coloristic qualities in such a way that both contribute to the whole, without losing any strength and power (or rather even gaining power and strength), or are they two different worlds that can't be brought together without weakening the result?
In other words, do you HAVE to choose to get the most powerful results? (I don't meaning choosing to be a colorist or a tonalist, but choosing to use tone or color as your main instrument for a particular painting.)
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by R00TER
forms can be made to turn and create a sense of volume through use of value-assigned colour rather than tonal depth.
|
...This kind of 'tonal colour' painting requires colour-values to be arranged as a series of planes, describing the surface of the subject. To my mind it's the only way of successfully modelling space and creating volume using a single layer, without a tonal underpainting. However, it has to be precise or the colour-values will fail to describe the surface sufficiently. (ie. Colours cooling in darker areas, only being fully intense at the lightest points, weakening as the space receds etc.)
To try it out:
Mix up a range of 9+ values from white to black on your pallette, then mix the colour needed into the designated value (corresponding to the subject design) and you're away...
(you can practise by mixing cascades of the same colour in value steps.)
Be careful of colours that naturally have a light or dark value (ie. Blues being dark, yellows being light.) To get the right value you might have to compensate and juggle a bit (ie. A [mid] 5 value may appear to be a [dark] 2 value when mixed with the naturally dark blue, this will need to be tuned up with white.)
The colour means more in the way that it is unequivocally linked to the tonal value, the tones mean more as they are enforced and described in coloured value. It combines the two truths, rather than setting them against one another.
?
.
Linear Mode
