I need somebody to rephrase Loomis' words (Colour Theory)

[Alex Chow]

Pardon the large image but I figured I need to put the entire page down to avoid confusion.

The reason why I'm perplexed is because he used the word "primary" so many times on this page and then, near the end, defines two different types of primaries; the chosen ones and the spectrum primaries.

The orange boxed passage is the first passage I'm confused about. He describes how artists can use a certain colour as influence on the entire picture in order to relate the colours. Then, he states that the dominant colour must "be mixed from standard primaries" and something about the "four-colour process". Does standard primaries mean the chosen primaries of the picture or the spectrum primaries, and what is this "four-colour process"; three primaries and the influential colour?

The second passage is confusing for me as well. Is it still describing the triad colour scheme like the previous paragraph, or is choosing my own three primaries a general "rule of thumb"? And the number of times he uses the word "primary" to describe two different things has got my head all over the place. Funny how Loomis says "if you will understand this, you will never have to worry about relating color" on the concept that confuses me the most.

If anybody has time and understands this stuff, can you rephrase and explain what Loomis meant? Thanks in advance.

[kev ferrara]

Loomis is talking about the four color printing process. As a pro who was doing work for magazines, which use the four color print process (4 colors = CMYK = cyan, magenta, yellow, black) he wanted to make sure that the colors he used in his painting would be reproducible using the standard magazine printing process. He's just saying don't use any exotic color that has no analogue in CMYK as your "tone" color or else that exotic color will be approximated poorly in print and will ruin your masterpiece. For instance, the standard 4 color CMYK process has a hell of a time getting deep rich blues without becoming purple or greyed out because the base blue color is Cyan, which is a very light blue, which you can only darken using magenta or black (thus changing the hue or saturation, respectively).

On the second passage I think he's saying if you tone your canvas to, say, cadmium red light, a strongly saturated cad red light will look fine. But a strongly saturated alizarin crimson, for instance, will look garish. Or out of scheme. There's no reason alizarin crimson can't still be used in a picture toned to cad red light. I would just gray the crimson down or brown it down using a mixture of your "average" tone.

That's my take on these passages anyhow. Loomis is just offering you one way to do color. A way to keep things harmonious and beautiful by his estimation. It works. But it's not the only way to do things. Sometimes a shock of out of scheme color is just what a composition calls for. Pyle used to say "if you use a color that is out of scheme, use it one place only and don't repeat it." For instance the green splotch in this Frazetta: http://static.zooomr.com/images/533430_a9b80c8744_o.jpg

Anyhow...

kev

[Bowlin]

I agree with Kev's post. I think that second passage is talking about harmonies from color gamuts. Here's a post by Gurney (http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2008/02/from-mask-to-palette.html) about it. You can find some more about it if you look under "color" in his blog too.

[Alex Chow]

Thanks for the explanations, kev and Bowlin. Helps to get rid of my misunderstood ideas now or else I'll repeat the same problems over and over again.

And Gurney's Journey is a gold mine of information! This (http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2008/02/shapes-of-color-schemes.html) is especially awesome because I've only been taught making "hue schemes" without consideration of the satuation, which causes my saturation to go all over the place.

[Bowlin]

This painter's color wheel goes back for centuries, and was influenced by the theories of Goethe and Newton. Two of the astute commentators on this blog, ZD and Painterdog, correctly pointed out that the traditional painter's color wheel is technically obsolete and even somewhat arbitrary and dogmatic, but I still have a fondness for it.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_Eiwce13X738/R6VtX5YiuxI/AAAAAAAABfM/Xz1IYul7a0M/s400/Color_Wheels.jpg

On the right is a mathematically correct digital color wheel based on the red-green-blue “additive” primaries of light. Spaced halfway between RG and B are cyan, magenta, and yellow, the subtractive colors used in printing inks.





Amaranth, that was the other blog I was thinking about. But that post has had me so confused. The wheel on the right has the additives and subtractive colors all together.

I've often thought an artist should have two color wheels, the additive wheel to help understand what your looking at in life so you can see how light, reflected colors and so on are made. And then the subtractive wheel to help mix colors with paint. But the traditional wheel on the left works better for mixing paint, even though in theorie it's off, but works because of pigment properties.

So wouldn't an additive color wheel work better in determining color harmony, a color scheme than a subtractive wheel?