Ultramarine Blue - Genuine vs French?

[Horsa]

Is there a colour difference (or chemical difference) between Genuine Ultramarine Blue and French Ultramarine Blue?

I know that genuine Ultramarine blue comes from lapis lazuli from Afghanistan, and French ultramarine blue comes from a synthetic process, but have never seen a comparison between the two. Is there any real difference for painters?

[yellow_oxide]

My only sample of lapis lazuli is an old tube from daniel smith from probably 10ish years ago and not necessarily a reflection of their current offering.

The full process for extracting the pigment from the stone is more involved than simply grinding up the stone, mixing it with oil, and putting it in a tube. From what I've read there's multiple grades of lapis lazuli pigment produced from the extraction process, and what you get in a <$30 tube of paint is pretty much guaranteed to not be the highest grade or anywhere near, even though any company making it can correctly claim their paint to contain "100% genuine lapis lazuli."



In this order it's Winsor & Newton French Ultramarine, M Graham Ultramarine Blue, Rembrandt Ultramarine Deep, Old Holland Ultramarine Blue, and Daniel Smith Lapis Lazuli.

Note the sharp difference in both chroma and tinting strength.

My experience is that the genuine lapis lazuli is very transparent and that alone is its only good point. Actually, if it were a $10-12 tube of paint that wasn't suppose to be this famous/legendary paint of wonder that in reality falls far, far, far short of the marketing department's poetic ballads about it, then I'd actually be really interested because there just aren't a huge ton of blue pigments to begin with and it's nice to have some variety in my collection.

[yellow_oxide]

I forgot I had these watercolor try it cards from Daniel Smith (which are really nice by the way) and so this should, I would expect, represent their current offering of both these colors. Note that my scanner might not have gotten the colors perfect, but they're pretty close.



As you can see watercolor has an extra factor - texture - that set these two apart. This factor may be enough of a selling point to redeem lapis lazuli, at least in watercolor, but it's worth noting that smalt (also from Daniel Smith) is the same price and has the same texture but a stronger and purer color.

I'm actually tempted to get smalt, and would have on my last order but skipping it I was able to add two other paints to the order and still be at a lower total.

[llawrence]

There ain't no better blue for glazing than natural ultramarine IMO. It's very weakness is its strength. Modern overchromatic blues often have to be thinned out for glazing (for me) if I don't want to be blasted off the canvas, but lapis goes on smooth, true and beautiful as it is. Lovely stuff for glazers.

That's for oil paint. In watercolors I found it nice but not exciting.

[JPQ]

Originally Posted by yellow_oxide

I forgot I had these watercolor try it cards from Daniel Smith (which are really nice by the way) and so this should, I would expect, represent their current offering of both these colors. Note that my scanner might not have gotten the colors perfect, but they're pretty close.



As you can see watercolor has an extra factor - texture - that set these two apart. This factor may be enough of a selling point to redeem lapis lazuli, at least in watercolor, but it's worth noting that smalt (also from Daniel Smith) is the same price and has the same texture but a stronger and purer color.

I'm actually tempted to get smalt, and would have on my last order but skipping it I was able to add two other paints to the order and still be at a lower total.

some french ultramarines are more grainly like w&n.
ps. in watercolour there is reason use it i think when i look these pictures.

[flowerfan]

Wow! Are you saying that PB29 (Ultramarine Blue) really has the natural pigment Lapis Lazuli in it? Wouldn't that be really expensive? Maybe it is in oils? I'm curious if anyone would like to weigh in on that.
On Bruce MacEvoy's Handprint website, he says ultramarine blue is "the modern replacement and color match for the historical pigment lapis lazuli" I assumed that meant it was of entirely different composition. He also says French Ultramarine is the reddish shade of UM Blue.
I have Daniel Smith's Primatek tube of Lapis Lazuli, BTW, and it is very disappointing. I even tried evaporating out the binder like Handprint suggests and I find it unusable- very faint- in watercolor.

[llawrence]

Lapis pigment is not very expensive right now. There's a big vein of the stuff in Chile, and we're benefiting from the temporary glut.

In the past, however - and presumably sometime in the future as well - natural ultramarine was prohibitively expensive for most artists. Not only was it very rare and only to be found in lands distant from Western Europe ("ultramarine" means "from over the sea"), but it also required a very time-consuming and laborious process to prepare as a pigment. (You can't just grind up the rock, or all you get is a bluish-gray. I'm guessing that's what Daniel Smith is doing, or maybe they're just using a particularly low grade of the mineral.) At one point in history, the high-quality processed pigment literally traded its weight in gold, right over the counter, ounce for ounce. Use of ultramarine in a painting was explicitly built into the contract.

Are you saying that PB29 (Ultramarine Blue) really has the natural pigment Lapis Lazuli in it?

Tubes of paint that are labeled "Ultramarine" do not contain the natural material, but an inexpensive synthetic version. Interesting that synthetic ultramarine is manufactured with very common materials, and can be made using ancient technologies. If only they'd known how...

[karenlee]

PB 29 is synthetic. It is sold by the ton in China. It is not Lapis. Google ultramarine blue and you will see all the sellers. I have read somewhere here on wetcanvas that this synthetic ultramarine is used in everything from hair dye to cake frosting. And artist paints. No, it is NOT Lapis!!!
Here is info on BP 29 from the Dick Blick website:

http://www.dickblick.com/items/01595...#colorpigments

Check out Natural Pigments website for genuine Lapis:

http://www.naturalpigments.com/detai...UCT_ID=410-15S

[halthepainter]

If you're concerned about granulation with your watercolors, it would appear that the lapis lazuli is the way to go.

Good subject.

[llawrence]

Just to nitpick: Natural lapis is PB29 too.

[karenlee]

re: just to nitpick

I wrote to Natural pigments about PB29-- is it Lapis? Here is their answer:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technically, there is no actual number or name assigned by the UK Society of Dyers and Colourists and the American Association of Textile Chemists, the organizations that maintain the Colour Index, for the natural blue mineral lazurite found in lapis lazuli stone. The Colour Index name and number, Pigment Blue 29 (PB 29), 77007, is assigned to ultramarine, which is the synthetic analog of the natural mineral lazurite (lapis lazuli), and is used by several manufacturers to identify the natural color as well as the artificial.

Customer Service
Natural Pigments
www.naturalpigments.com

[llawrence]

Ha! Well, George would certainly know. Learn something every day. Thanks for the correction.

[sidbledsoe]

Understandable, George (Natural Pigments) sells genuine Lapis Lazuli and also lists it as Pigment Blue 29 here.
Others that sell Lapis also designate it as PB29, as does most all other sources. So while the society may not have technically assigned it this number, that is how it is being used.

[karenlee]

I think it is a stupid practice to label both synthetic ultramarine and lapis/lazurite as PB29; it obviously leads to the kind of confusion we witness in this thread--just because they are labeled the same does not mean they are the same. I'm kinda surprised that George jumped on that bandwagon.

[sidbledsoe]

Is there a colour difference (or chemical difference) between Genuine Ultramarine Blue and French Ultramarine Blue?

Chemically the artificial ultramarine is difficult to distinguish from the pigment made from lapis lazuli. The synthetic pigment, however, is easily detected by microscopic examination in that it is seen as a mass of blue particles, whereas the lapis lazuli pigment is seen as blue particles dispersed in a field of white particles. The white particles are the calcite which can never be completely removed by the refining of the lapis. The presence of this calcite, which acts as an extender, gives the natural ultramarine a more transparent look that the artificial pigment in both oil and water media. It also has a slightly greener hue, closer to the mid-blue of the solar spectrum, than the violet synthetic pigment.
Here are comparisons between two shades of synthetic ultramarine, French and green shade. Natural would have even bigger particles than the French version shown there.
Synthetic ultramarine matches the genuine ultramarine in terms of chemical composition, structure, hue and performance and provides an entirely appropriate equivalent to the ancient pigment. The genuine pigment carries a certain romance, but unless only the highest grade of stone is used, arguably has no discernable benefit over its synthetic variant. I think it is fairly easy to obtain lesser quality natural lapis or natural ultramarine oil or watercolor paint but not so easy to get very high quality material. Ultramarine ash will increase the transparency. The price probably reflects what you are getting, it may contain ultramarine ash and still be called natural ultramarine or 100% genuine lapis lazuli, so I agree that:

$30 tube of paint is pretty much guaranteed to not be the highest grade or anywhere near, even though any company making it can correctly claim their paint to contain "100% genuine lapis lazuli."