| Author | Message | ||
  Darlene |
I am learning a great deal from the messages, too. Hope you feel well soon Robert! | ||
Eugene |
Robert-- Alas, I'm abed with the flu and amusing myself by reading all these posts. Must thank you for your info on Holbein's yellows. Will order some soon. This group is wonderful. I've learned so much! | ||
Anonymous |
HI JUST STUMBLED ON THIS SITE-IT'S GREAT I DO VARIOUS SUBJECTS IN WATERCOLOR AND LOOKING FOR REFEFERENCE PHOTOS ON MANY SUBJECTS THAT I CAN USE THAT ARE NOT COPYRIGHTED. WOULD ANYONE HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF WHERE I CAN OBTAIN THEM. THANKS | ||
Robert |
Oh well--this has been a learning experience for me on several levels. Thanks all for the commradery. | ||
Eric |
Robert, I didn't have an opinion on the subject, since I'm somewhat ignorant about pigments. | ||
Robert |
Well these Holbein's are definately in the opaque territory if used thickly but they are no less transparent than Hansa yellow or some of their supposedly more transparent replacements. The Holbein color swatch sheet even places a T for transparent beside them. Be that as it may, I am in love with their hues and handling. | ||
jdaneman |
Believe me, that "transparent" comment jumped RIGHT out, but I was too polite to go "nyah" --besides, the only cad's I tried were quite opaque compared to other pigments. | ||
Robert |
If you read my constant effusings (is that a word?) about Holbein cadmiums you will notce I admitted they can be transparent. I was wrong about this issue of cadmiums being only opaque. I am eating crow. I owe a big "my bad" to Eugene and maybe Eric (I'm not sure now if we disagreed). Anyway--you guys were right and i was wrong (much to my happy surprise). Blah, blah, blah. | ||
Robert |
Beware--More priase for Holbein Cad. Yellow Light and Cad. Lemon: Last spring I posted an ongoing narrative about my search for the perfect yellow. I was trying to find a rplacement for Cad. yellow becaue I found it difficult to work with (opacity). The Holbein cadmium Yellow Light and Lemon I discovered yesterday through Pete seem like totally different cadmiums than I am used to. While not transparent they are soi finely ground and not chaulky that they wash out incrediby thin layers that become transparent whole still chromatically exciting. They are the ONLY cadmium yellows make of pure cadmium sulfide and that may be the reason they mix such natural greens over the other cads I've tried. I've done anothe rpainting today with them and am in heaven. I feel my palette is truly an extension of my brain for the first time. Thanks again Pete. I also began using Holbein Raw and Burnt Siennas and they compelment the cads. nicely--a little more on the yellow side, less on the orange side than other other siennas. In all the Holbein colors mentioned above are more solid yellow, less orange, which makes everything I paint seem more natural and subtle. | ||
Robert |
Wow- Pete-- Just finsihed a landscape--a painting of a mission in the studio--using the Cad. Lemon and Cad. Yellow Light --holbein--as my two yellows. These handle so beautifually and for the first time ever I feel like I and the yellow paint are working together! What a great find. Thank you so much Pete!!!!!!!!!!!! I take back my prasie of W/N--These are better for my uses--perfect. I feel inspired. | ||
Robert |
Pete- I had never tried Holbein cadmiums so, based upon your recognition (and handprint's claim that they are "beautiful"), I drove the few miles to Jerry's this morning, and bought a tube of cad. yellow light and cad. lemon by holbein. I must say you were right. These are subtly different--handle better--mix better greens--just as you said. I think I may switch. Thanks so much for the tip. | ||
Pete |
I have found that the Holbein Cadmiums are very easy to work with and dilute down to a near transparent or semi transparency. The thing about winsor newton is their yellows seem too warm for my use, esp.Cad Yellow which is just too far toward orange. The Holbeins, besides being of a great consistency to work with, are less orangey. The effect is that they mix beautiful greens. I've swithced my lemon to Cad. Lemon--Holbein, and Holbein Cad Yellow Light is my main yellow. These are really special..trust me. | ||
Eugene |
Erika, DO try t paint outdoors, Join up with a group of artists and make a picnic out of it. If you're paintings aren't perfect - so what - you're learning. Simplify, simplify, simplify! Get Mel Stabin's book. He explains it better than I can. In my other post I made a mistake of telling you to look for details. What I meant was to select just a section of the landscape. I used my thumbs and forefingers as a viewfinder or make one by cutting a 2" x3" hole in a piece of cardboard and frame a scene in it as you would in the viewfinder of a camera | ||
Erika |
Eugene When I go outside to paint I seem to hurry more, work less carefully and "settle" for less quality. I go inside and it looks terrible. How do you recreate the attention and focus you can have in the studio outdoors? Is it hard to focus outdoors for anyone else or just me. | ||
jdaneman |
Hi Eugene: Your comment on working from photos is very interesting. I did a picture of a Korean lady in full costume, striding down our small town street. This was years ago, when I was growing up in a small Pennsylvania town and we'd gotten an influx of Korean immigrants. (as an aside, though our town was rather racist and provincial, the Asian immigrants were greeted rather positively, possibly because they revitalized a lot of the town shops that had been languishing.) I got the shadows on her blue silk hanbok just right--I thought, for me as a kid, but I did the her shadow on the street in pure black. Oh, yuck. Even today, I look at that painting which my parents have in the livingroom in their house and I grimace. It's great EXCEPT for that idiocy. SO IRRITATING, as there are things I like in the painting, like the windows of the shop which are reduced to shapes as they recede, but again, there is more BLACK in the fence in the background. The shadow really did look black in the photo but of course it would have been nice to paint it in a color that read properly on the painting. As a result of that painting, I have banned black from my palette. I cannot be trusted with it! The other thing about photos, which sadly I also work from now, being too busy to get out much, is that the perspective can be shifted due to parallax and other lens distortions when 3-d gets rendered as 2-d. When I look at a book of paintings, or at a watercolor mag, I can instantly tell who has worked from a photo if they are doing some ultra-realism. There is a kind of twist to the roundness of the shapes. Joanna | ||
Eugene |
Erika-- I work from photos now. I learned by painting plien air, but I'm now 80 and cannot scramble around outside as I used to do. However I know that I would not be able to paint from photo references without having had the plein air experience. I now know what happens in the shadow areas that in photos look black. I NEVER copy a photo, but use it only as a reference. I usually change the composition and nearly always change the colors so that there is one dominate color. It all comes from 50 years of painting watercolor, and a lot of painful mistakes. Don't be intimidated by the great outdoors. Go for some of the smaller details-- don't try for the panorama. DO try to paint on location, it's the best way to learn-- also makes you loosen up, because you can't be too picky when you're fighting the elements. | ||
Robert |
I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. 147,00 dead and counting in the tsunami and I'm griping about transparent vs opaque (when it really is, as Eugene said, all in how you use it). Again, sorry. | ||
Erika |
Okay Dake, Eugene--please disregard anything I said. I think I just got wrongly swept up in the analysis and forgot about the fact that we are artists discussing art. And again, I love Eugene's landscapes. And Dake, interesting convergence-- I use Cadmium Yellow and Indian Red (with a touch of cerulean) to create my flesh tones as well. | ||
Dake |
Sorry EriKa | ||
Dake |
Hi Erica, it more a matter of it not being an issue as far as my experience tells me. | ||
Erika |
Sorry Eugene--you certainly did nothing wrong. So, I looked back and saw you posted some beautiful landscapes. Are these painted outdoors on location or from photos? Also, how do you go about deciding upon a composition. I find this a difficulty in plein air work. In fact I am intimidated by all that scenery without a frame around it. | ||
Eugene |
I never dreamed that I would cause such an uproar by saying that I thought cadmiums were transparent when used for lighter values with plenty of water. I've already apologized. What do I do for penance, throw away my cadmiun red and mix alizarin with yellow? Enough--Please let's start a new Subject! | ||
Erika |
I have to agree with Dake on matters of painting. When it comes to human interaction Robert may have gone off half cocked but as I read the postings again it seems that some people feel Robert more or less attacked them or if not, he is at least seen as guilty of not valuing differing opinions. It seems to me that the issue of stating "Cadmiums are transparent" in the same way one would say that, for instance, "pthalo blue is transparent," is a no brainer. It is a obvious as, pardon the cliche, the nose on your face that if pthalo blue is a transparent pigment, cadmiums are opaque or nealy so. A true no brainer!! The fact that instead of seeing Robert's hard logic on this as necessary to prevent breakdown of the meanings of words, we see him as being a problem personality for not trying to "get along" bothers me. However, if we all agree that the main thing is to paint and not worry about the science, that's fine. But that's merely circumventing the issue. | ||
Dake |
I just dropped back as I do from time to time, I enjoy the more intelligent conversation that usually happens here. Sometimes one or two of us do get p'd off but that's part of the fun IMO. I don't really see what uspet Bob. He should have been here in the days of Lex(god where is that guy, maybe he did snuff it?) We had some firey biffos that would take drollere himself to set matters straight. As for cadmiums, and the argument over transparency, it's academic really. I agree pretty much with Eugene if it works it works. I use cad yellow pale for childrens skin tones but only about as much as will fit on a single kolinski hair for a face about the size of an average fist mixed with some other very opaque pigments like indian red,I will also put a drop of rawsienna and scarlet lake in too. The results are always glowing and light filled, yet with texture created by granulation of these so called opaque pigments. It's how you use the pigment that influences how opaque it is. With great respect to Bruce to whom all watercolouists are indebted, most paintings are not made with swatches of pigment in their raw, naked form. Tests are comparitive, I find real life painting quite a different thing. The science of pigments doesn't really interest me provided I know they're permanent. David | ||
Erika |
Hi-- I am a regular reader and have posted before but not for a long time. Robert's announced exit aside (a separate issue-he is a valuable contributor but will decide for himself whether or not to return). Here's the issue in my mind: If we start making it okay for people to hold varying opinions about facts then the whole notion of real communication breaks down over some misguided effort to be (as Robert put it) nice. Let me give an example: Person A says Black is White. Person B says no white is white and black is black and I have scientific tests to back this up. Person C says if I dilute black enough it becomes white Person B says that's cheating, black and white lose thier properties in extreme dilution. Person D says "Can't we all get along. Everyone is entitled to his opinion. Some people have the opinion that white is black and that's okay." My proplem is not with person A, B or even C. It is with person D because they are obfuscating the truth in the interest of niceness. Niceness and inclusiveness have no business turning black into white or opaque into transparent. The facts are the facts and the truth is truth. The implications go far beyond watercolor. | ||
victoria |
I agree that Robert is a wonderful addition and source of information to the forum. I do think however, that he needs to remember that this is a discussion: an exchange of ideas which may or may not be open to total agreement. Everyone gets to give their take on the subject at hand and everyone gets to do their own deciding as to what to do with the information they have derived from the discussion. Robert seems to want to be both judge and jury and expects everyone to fall in line with his adjudication of the matter which I find irritating in the extreme. He knows a lot (I agree) and he has every right to express his feelings on any subject that comes up but he doesn't have the right to make others feel that their consideration of the matter is any less valid than his. That's all I have to say. Victoria | ||
jdaneman |
I'm sorry he's going also. Yeah, he's passionate or sensitive but so much valuable information. I also changed my palette. Robert, don't be a sulk! Com'on back. | ||
Raliegh Timmins |
Robert, I don't like to see you stomp off mad. Back in Oct 25, you stated this Newsgroup has potential. At the time I didn't come forward and identify myself as I cannot separate myself from my religion. I didn't participate but found your post extremely helpful in forming my own palette and watercolor style. I like concrete terms such as opaque vs. translucent. I feel it is important to understand these terms while communicating w/c topics. Sorry to see you give up the forum. | ||
Sid |
Don't worry guys, he'll no doubt be back to share with us again. He's quit several times before. And your right! We all have a right to our opinions and no one else has to like or accept all of them! I'll keep reading your posts, Eugene. Sid | ||
Eric |
Wow..what an overreaction by Robert...I've appreciated his posts and the knowledge he's shared but, c'mon Robert, don't be so overly sensitive. Isn't this the purpose of the board? To toss ideas back and forth? To DISCUSS? | ||
Eugene |
Sorry, if I upset anyone, but this IS a discussion board and that was what I was doing-- expressing my opinion. If anyone doesn't like my postings, I suggest that you just don't read anything posted by EUGENE. | ||
Sid |
Jeez! Talk about silly games!!! | ||
Robert |
Of course if you dilute any pigment enough light will pass between the particles and transparency is thus achieved. But if used at any level of strength the pigments take on their natural diverse characteristics . Opaqueness / transparency tests are done with the pigment normal concentrations. But really --why is this an issue? Villseed siad "...Cadmiums are transparent." Either he is right or wrong. He's clearly wrong by any standards used to discuss such issues. If you say he is right becasue any pigment diluted enough is transparent, then you are also saying any objective information on the qualities of anything can be altered with silly semantic games. I really feel that people are so brainwashed by the requirement to place "niceness" over honesty that it threatens the very dispersal of truth in our society. It looks as if political correctness even rears its sanctimonius head in discussions of scientific descriptions of pigments. I want you to notice that I , Robert, will have become permanently absent. I have seriously actually had enough. I am not even going to sign in and read any responses, so save your breathes. Bye. | ||
Eugene |
I believe that most watercolors can be called transparent,(including the cadmiums) when used as lighter values (with plenty of water). It is only in the darker values that they become opaque. Even then they are not as opaque as gouache. Artists who are really into the transparent colors should check out Jeanne Dobies book "Making Watercolors Sing". She doesn't use earth colors at all and gives a lot of rules about glazing. I must say that I don't agree with all her theories, but she presents many good thoughts. I don't like rules! What works for one doesn't work for everyone. | ||
Robert |
No quarrel with eugene. But please be aware the only reason that we are discussing this is that villseed posted cadmiums are transparent. Cadmiums are not transparent. End of issue. | ||
victoria |
I think Eugene is right. You can think yourself into a corner pretty easily and get so paranoid that you are afraid that you haven't researched things enough to go ahead with that next swipe. Just jumping in and doing it is often the best approach. If it gets goofed up; it is, after all, just a piece of paper and the fate of the nations doesn't hang on its completion. Victoria | ||
Robert |
Well, for example, if you know in advamce that a pigment is opaque, it should make a difference if you are considering glazing over another pigment. True, go by what looks good. Also true, there are no "do overs" in watercolor so a little knowledge of what to expect from a pigment is essential to make it "look good," as Eugene requires. Disinformation as per villseeds post will do nothing but harm. Posting that a certain cadmium is transparent should not go unchallenged. At least in my world. | ||
John Preston |
He's right ya know... | ||
Eugene |
You're all too complicated for me. Transparent or opaque-- I just paint. If it looks good, it IS GOOD! | ||
Robert |
More-- Staining pigments like the quins,as I understand it, are dyes and as such and do not precipitate out but fully bind to the water and go where the water goes. Particulate pigments precipitate out on the top of the paper. It's a question of the chemistry more than particle size per se. | ||
Robert |
But the Ultrecht cads aren't transparent. Semi-Opaque is not at all transparent but very close to its opposite. The poster claimed they were transparent. A lot of brands have semi-opaque (rated 2 on handprint) cadmiums. No amount of grinding will create the chemical and electrostatic conditions necessary for a cadmium to sink into the fibers rather than sit on top. Villseed made an irresponsible claim (if you trust handprint's ratings of semi opague which I do) and to use the word transparent in describing a cadmium paint is simply wrong. Pure and simple. No equivocation or trying to fit such a statement into acceptable language is possible. | ||
John Preston |
Are any pigments really transparent? I'll bet its a function of particle size: cads, earths, etc. sit on top because they're bigger. They block our "sight " of the paper and read opaque. Quins sink further down into the paper, or sit farther apart so we see more paper. Maybe the Utrecht cads are more "tranparent" because the pigment is ground smaller. I think particle size must affect liftability/ staining, too. | ||
jdaneman |
I want to second that idea, Robert, that cads. cant' be totally transparent. In fact, I did a color swatch test, mixing red-browns and golden colors, first from cadmium red and yellow mixed with burnt sienna and then with the equivalents of quinacridone colors from AJ and DS. I got the same colors, but the cadmium mixes lie on the paper, semi-opaque, and the quins are more transparent. It was an interesting exercise. | ||
Robert |
villseed-- FYI I haven't tried Utrecht, but I did seek to verify your statement that the Cads are transparent. 'A priori' this would be essentially impossible since transparency in cadmiums is a function of the pigment, not the brand. A paint containing less pigment might become semi-opaque though. I checked the handprint.com website on his tests on the Utrecht cadmiumns. They are each rated as 2, ie. "semi-opaque." I have found all of his ratings on paints that I have been able to directly verify to be 100% correct. | ||
jdaneman |
It's a good box, Robert. I decided to get one in case I take a workshop this spring (outdoors) Has that vintage feel--very nice in that. The palette is white enameled steel, with dams for the paints and a wide mixing area. The weight, as you said, would keep it from flying around. My current travel palette was plastic and quite light; this one can lay on the ground or in your lap with not much problem of blowing. A good point. | ||
villseed |
have you ever tried Utrecht watercolor? all their colores are transparent even cad colores. www.utrecht.com villseed | ||
Robert |
It's an interesting little box. The palette is enameled steel which makes it heavy but resistant to wind, which I like. Schmaltz draws out how he arranged his colors on this palette in chapters 2 or 3 of "Watercolor Lessons from E. O'H." | ||
jdaneman |
I decided to try your classic O'Hara palette for my travel box. I am not enamoured with Hansa yellow, either. I've tried a bunch of these new colors, but I often use a basic palette (made up by my aunt for me back in the Sixties, and still pretty utilitarian: aliz crimson, cad yellow, cad red, prussian blue--I use phthalo now, ult blue, yellow ochre--or raw sienna which I like better, burnt sienna and burnt umber, also hooker's green dark for which I now use AJ true green, I think.) | ||
Robert |
Gee--did I mistype that one. I meant to say: "Cool: equals green leaning in a yellow so any "cool" green is by definition Green leaning. W/N Cad Yellow pale is a yellow yellow. W/N Cad. Yellow is a school bus yellow. For my "cool" yellow I use Maimeriblu Perm Yellow Lemon (or W/N Winsor lemon--same pigment. Most of the Lemons are Hansa light PY3 which I find too powerful and opaque by comparison. W/N Cad Yellow pale is a yellow yellow. W/N Cad. Yellow is a school bus yellow. Not green leaning at all but not school bus yellow. Maybe that will work for you. W/N Cad. Yellow is a school bus yellow. W/N Cad Scarlet is very bright and on the orange side of red. Very useful. It is better than any of the Cad. red lights I've used. I have found that the old school palette (Eliot O'Hara's for instance) mixes nicely without that "hot" overly bright look inherent on many of the newer pigments. I used to be attracted to those, but when everyone and his dog started going brilliant, I statred naturally going the other way, toward the nuances of color in nature. It's all a matter of taste and personal perception. It's funny how much the really bright paintings strike me as repulsive. Maybe it's because the whole thing has been overdone or maybe its because overly brilliant, hot coloration is so often employed by commerical artists in advertising. I'm becoming more and more old school in my painting and don't mind at all. Funny it feels like this is more rebellious and avant garde than forging ahead like in the direction of brighter and brighter; I feel like the preppoy kid all alone in a school where the other kids all have orange punk hair and green tatoos and body piercings. Just who is an individual in that situation? | ||
Robert |
Well Cad green is far fron "cool" though cad. lemon is. W/N Cad Yellow pale is a yellow yellow. W/N Cad. Yellow is a school bus yellow. W/N Cad Scarlet is vry bright and on the orange side of red. Very useful. For my "cool" yellow I use Maimeriblu Perm Yellow Lemon (or W/N Winsor lemon--same pigment. Most of the Lemons are Hansa light PY3 which I find too powerful and opaque by comparison. | ||
jdaneman |
I just picked some up last week on your palette recommendation, Robert. I am also searching for that pure un-green but coolish yellow. I am not fond of many of the oranges--so maybe Cad. Orange will work for me. Bemz. Orange is odd. Can't say exactly why--seems "brownish" even when pure orange. And my shortlived experiement with a napthol red instead of scarlet cad. is also over. Yes, you are probably right; the old skool maybe the right skool! | ||
Robert |
I spent about a year trying to get rid of cad yellow for a transparent yellow I literally tried every pigment on the market, some like quinopthalone yellow most haven't even heard of. I am still using Cad. Yellow. The one thing great about it is that it does not "go green" at the touch of any blue as other yellows do. It retains its integrity as a yellow to a great degree. I have found that the W/N Cad. Yellow is much more trasparent and less chaulky than other brands. I am learning how to use it more skillfully. I also use cad, Scarlet W/N and find it is actually essentially semi transparent (handprint confirms this)--go figure! What a great tool in the palette it is. Old school is the good school I guess. I have replaced my indian yellow with W/N Cad. Orange. Though opaque, it carries just the right amt. of green in mixes. It is also more apricot while most cad. oranges are bright orange. Easily mixed, but great as a convienance color for quick uses. |
