| Author |
Message |
 
marie
| | Posted on Friday, July 7, 2006 - 9:45 am: |  |
I agree, A.N. The whole transparent/opaque, staining/non-staining, "don't mix an opaque and a stain" argument has never especially fit into my way of thinking about watercolor.
I do, however, have my own rough classification of handling characteristics as follows:
* Earth pigments -- siennas, umbers, venetian red, and such -- tend to be relatively unsaturated , warm, and easy to lift.
* Cool synthetic inorganics -- ultramarines, cobalts (including cerulean), manganese violet/blue, and viridian -- have mid-level saturation, are reasonably easy to lift, and often have a distinct texture or granulation.
* Warm synthetic inorganics -- cadmiums -- are very saturated, tend toward the opaque side, and can get overworked easily.
* Synthetic organics -- phthalos, quinacridones, azos, and such -- are good for glazing and for tinting other pigments, can have a very high tinting strength, and tend to be difficult to lift and rework. (The names also tend to be impossibly difficult to spell.)
This is a broad way of classifying pigments, and there are, of course, exceptions. I consider it a rule of thumb, not an immutable law. For example, I treat prussian blue as a synthetic organic, even though it's not. I treat chromium oxide green as an earth pigment, even though it's not. Some of the synthetic organics have more tinting strength that others and some of the the inorganics have more texture than others.
I use this classification to figure out which pigments I can substitute for others. For example, I can use cerulean instead of cobalt blue . The color and the value will be different, but the basic handling characteristics will be similar. On the other hand, I would handle Holbein's peacock blue (a form of thalo blue) quite differently from cerulean blue, even though they are similar in hue and value. There are wet-in-wet techniques I simply would not try with a an unmixed synthetic organic. As another example, I will generally avoid cadmiums for glazes.
I suppose the bottom line is that different pigments do have different handling characteristics, and there's more to consider than just the color when selecting a pigment. At the same time, I try to avoid rigid labels about whether a pigment is transparent or opaque or staining or non-staining. |
A.N.
| | Posted on Friday, July 7, 2006 - 7:13 am: | |
Personally I have never found it very useful to classify pigment combinations as transparent, opaque, staining, etc. In fact, I have found that mixing opaque and transparent--such as indian red and pthalo blue, makes a very good combo. Also, and most importantly, most paints are not either /or but are on a continuum that is ignored by such rudimentary classifications. |
Rekha
| | Posted on Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 11:22 am: | |
Sorry, read rose madder genuine for alizarin crimson
For staining there are two triads
Winsor yellow, alizarin crimson, winsor blue
and
Winsor yellow, winsor red, winsor blue |
Rekha
| | Posted on Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 11:12 am: | |
In Christopher Schink's Mastering color and design in watercolor (1981) is described a number of triads based on transparency, opacity, and staining properties:
Transparent: aureolin, alizarin crimson, cobalt blue
Opaque: yellow ochre, indian red, cerulean blue
Staining: cadmium yellow, cadmium red, french ultramarine.
I am finding this book quite interesting. Has anyone read it? |
marie
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 7:32 pm: | |
I have been wondering what happened to Greg, too. |
Eugene
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 6:39 pm: | |
Anyone know what happened to Greg, who used to post regularly? Greg. if you're out there, we miss you and want to hear from you |
Suzy
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 7:42 am: | |
My fine art is my hobbie...Commercial my livlihood. When I first starting doing art full time I started to hate it all because it quickly became all work and no play. I now draw a very deep line in the sand and it has made all the difference. I now enjoy both for what they are.
Many times people have said to me how lucky I am to make a living at my hobbie. Although I am very grateful that I can make a good living on my commercial art, I don't consider it my hobbie but rather my CHOSEN profession. Im glad I chose it, just like my son who CHOSE to be a lawyer or my daughter who CHOSE to be a Nurse... LAw is not my sons hobbie or nursing my daughters hobbie..it is their passion, but not their hobbie. There is a difference.
In my work I see the line in the sand but when I "talk shop" sometime they overlap. |
Raliegh
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 10:32 pm: | |
There is difference to painting commercially rather than for the pure joy and experimentation. Of course, when you do get a chance for fine art it means so much more! |
Suzy
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 12:19 pm: | |
I do agree that I have seen some really great work done in limited pallettes. I keep forgeting that 99% of my work right now is commercial and not fine art and that makes a big difference. I should have been in a 'fine art'frame of mind when I replied to the post. Sorry. |
A.N.
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 7:23 pm: | |
I agree--I have seen some beautiful paintings done in violet, blue and green, for instance. |
Raliegh
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 3:55 pm: | |
personally, I think analgous color schemes give a very harmonious feel to paintings. I really like a small accent added of a complimentary color. |
R.C.
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 12:30 pm: | |
I like Hansa Yellow Medium, Quinacridone Rose and
Thalo Blue. But I must admit, I always have trouble limiting
myself to one blue. There are so many blues that are good
for different occasions. |
A.N.
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 12:28 pm: | |
I am thinking of particular triads for a specific one off painting.
The issue of what three colors to take as a traveling palette for a series of paintings to me is a totally different issue. If that were the question, I would possible go for light red, ultramarine, and raw sienna. |
Suzy
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 11:19 am: | |
A non-primary triad is just not very appealing to me. It is way to limiting for my taste. A primary triad gives the artist far more options, especially for travel. I do not generally paint any picture usng only a triad other than on the road. |
A.N.
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 9:51 am: | |
How about non-primary trids, such as analgous colors-orange, red, and violet, for instance?
I recently completed a painting using permanent yellow deep, cadmium red and quinacridone magenta. |
Suzy
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 6:35 pm: | |
My favorite triad is Aueolin, Colbalt and Quin Rose.
I can make so many neat colors from those three...if I have too. That is my travel trio. In the studio I don't usually limit myself too much. I have about 20 colors I use regularly! |
A.N.
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 12:54 pm: | |
Watercolour triads with which I have had success:
1. Pthalocyanine blue, Cadmium red, Indian yellow
2. Pthalo Blue, New Gamboge, Quin. Magenta
3. Pthalo Blue, venetian red, naples yellow (very naturalistic effects).
4. Ultramarine blue, light red, raw sienna (Light red--or indian, English, or venetian red--are redder than the orange burnt sienna and form a truer primary triad with raw sienna and ultramarine, thus giving a better subdued color range). |
Eugene
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 12:48 pm: | |
Having worked for and with printers for most of my working career, I feel qualified to say that most color printing is composed of three colors, magenta, cyan, and yellow, plus black. This combination can give you almost any color.
Marie and I agree that the triad of raw sienna, burnt sienna and ultramarine blue, plus a few convenience colors as needed, are adequate for doing a good watercolor.
It is worth trying other combination of reds, yellows, and blues to find one that suits your painting best. |
Rekha
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 9:59 am: | |
As I wrote earlier, Anonymous, the choice of triads is a personal preference. I haven't read any other of Wilcox's books but the clips of some of the mini books I have seen reinforces the point people are making here that one should restrict the number of pigments to a very few in any one painting, whether it is a 'triad' or 'quad' or whatever. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 8:42 am: | |
Rekha--
I too am a fan of Wilcox's Blue and Yellow Don't Make Green and understand your comment that triads do not exist. I think though, there is a disconnect here between theory and application. Theortically there is no pure red, yellow or blue. Any given red will have a leaning towad one of the other side of the color wheel (warm or cool; orange or violet). The same is true for the other primaries. Thus there is no such thing as a set of three pure primaries.
However, though that is true theoretically, it does not negate the practice of, *in any given painting* limiting the palette to three primaries. These three primaries will (according to Wilcox) give only a limited and partial range of colors. but in any given painting that could be a good thing. If you look at some of the Wilcox practical books such as "Painting water" or "Painting trees and foliage" you will notice that many of the paintings are actually executed mainly with ultramarine, raw sienna, and burnt sienna, a triad suggested in this thread. Thus, though one must have a split primary palette (two reds, two yellows, two blues) to be able to get all of the colors, a simple triad will work to give color harmony within a painting by actual virtue of the fact that it cannot produce discordant colors. Triads yield harmony through their limitaions. |
Rekha
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 7:02 am: | |
Reading Michael Wilcox's Blue and yellow don't make green has been a revelation (thank you Robert). As a consequence I shall not be having any favourite triads because such a thing does not exist and is usually a personal preference. I'm sorry if this offends anyone |
Raliegh
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 9:22 pm: | |
I've been using triads (as much as possible) in my landscapes, Ultramarine blu, cerulean, cad red for my skies and mtns,with maybe a little raw sienna & lighter yellows in the fields. I live in Hawaii where the sky is very clear. |
Eugene
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 6:35 pm: | |
I also use burnt sienna, raw sienna and ultramarine. To get interesting light neutrals, I like to use the combination of raw sienna, cerulean blue and permanent rose, but you can't get darks with these. And let them mix on the peper, not on the palette. |
marie
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 3:06 pm: | |
Yes, quinacridone rose and W/N permanent rose are the same thing. |
maidensmith
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 2:27 pm: | |
Marie,
Is quinacridone rose the same as Winsor Newton's Permanent Rose? |
marie
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 12:49 pm: | |
My favorite triad is raw sienna, burnt sienna, and ultramarine blue. This combination gives you a wonderful range of value, temperature, and texture. It's also very easy to handle. Most of my paintings are based on these three pigments, with other pigments thrown in as necessary.
Another popular combination is quinacridone rose, thalo blue, and a primary yellow such as Winsor yellow (PY154). Although this combination gives you a wider range of hues, I find it a little to time-consuming to get good neutrals. Some folks swear by it, however. |
Lisa
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 12:34 pm: | |
As an oil painter, I tend to utilize three pigment trids to complete a painting. Now that I am undertaking watercolor I have been thinking about initially painting with triads only, to get a feel for the medium and not be overwhelmed with color mixing nuances. What are some useful triads in watercolor? |
|
