Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 43
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    602
    Thanks
    159
    Thanked 535 Times in 219 Posts
    I'd suggest that rather than talking about "warm" colours and "cool" colours, it makes more sense to identify the exact nature of the shifts taking place (or a difference, in comparing two colours), and be specific about them. Do you mean that the colour changes (differs in) hue? ..or chroma? ...or value? - or where the effect is a combination of these, then what exactly is the contribution of each of the three to the overall change.


    Dave


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dcorc For This Useful Post:


  4. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    791
    Thanks
    423
    Thanked 295 Times in 144 Posts
    Well, here's a diagram to clear things up.

    The hues get progressively mixed with white, so value and satuation shifts. If Schmid is right, all the 4s should look cooler than the 1s. It works for the "warm" hues but I just don't see it for the "cool" ones. Are others seeing that or do I have it backwards?

    Of course, I'm not taking into account how some colours in traditional painting changes in hue as white is added, but I think it's close enough.

  5. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    602
    Thanks
    159
    Thanked 535 Times in 219 Posts
    Of what possible use is the term "cooler", here? What meaningful information does it actually contribute?

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to dcorc For This Useful Post:


  7. #19
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Hudson River valley, NY
    Posts
    16,206
    Thanks
    4,879
    Thanked 16,690 Times in 5,022 Posts
    Yes, the problem is that "cooler" can refer to both a chroma shift and a hue shift. Also, warm and cool are strictly relative terms, not absolute ones.
    Either way, I suspect that what you are worrying about isn't actually the source of your problem.

    Tristan Elwell
    **Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial

    "Work is more fun than fun."
    -John Cale

    "Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
    -Marc Maron

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Elwell For This Useful Post:


  9. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    791
    Thanks
    423
    Thanked 295 Times in 144 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by dcorc View Post
    Of what possible use is the term "cooler", here? What meaningful information does it actually contribute?
    Well, I've been working on temperature and its role in lighting environments. The use of the term "cooler" is just so that I can understand the temperature shifts occuring when a hue gets progressively "whiter", ultimately allowing me to see what colours to mix and to avoid when I want a certain temperature shift. I'm asking on the possible temperature shifts when white is used in traditional media or, in the digital realm, decreasing saturation while increasing saturation for a certain hue.

    If this is a question deemed unimportant by the community, I have no problems letting this thread die. Sometimes my mind just wanders on...

    EDIT: Elwell's above post has a point. I have no need to drag this onwards because it's a much bigger problem than I may have anticipated. Thanks everyone and until next time! I'm going to have to do more studying on this before I make myself look worse.

  10. #21
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    874
    Thanks
    202
    Thanked 1,418 Times in 350 Posts
    Alex

    I don't think your question is unimportant, it's just that you should switch to a more helpful frame of reference.

    Try to take on board dcorc's advice to think instead in terms of just hue, value and chroma. Once you do you'll see that trying to analyse colour problems in terms of "warm/cool" is both redundant and confusing.

    In the context of adding white paint, a "cool" shift might refer to the colour becoming more neutral, or it might refer to the subtle hue shift that you see with some pigments of a few degrees, up to at most about 30 degrees, around the colour wheel. For example, adding white paint to ultramarine tends to make the hue less purplish, which I would call making it cooler, but which some people here would call making it warmer (another confusion!).

    In the context of a light/shadow setting, on the other hand, a "warm/cool" shift refers to quite a different thing - a hue shift of 180 degrees. If you just think in terms of warm-cool you are asking to confuse these things. Much better to think more specifically in terms of say a yellow vs blue or a red vs cyan light/shadow setting.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to briggsy@ashtons For This Useful Post:


  12. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,915 Times in 2,547 Posts
    Hmmm...I have a little different perspective on it Alex. The best advice I've always heard is to keep it simple. So to that end I do think "cooler/warmer" are very valid terms - yes, they are also relative terms but color is relative anyway. Color is a very subjective element between people - at least "cooler/warmer" are easy to understand terms and actually more definitive than talking about a particular hue.

    For example - you could tell a student "That purplish, royal blue note has to go more toward a sky-aqua" or somehting like that - they may have different notions of what those "hues" are. Whereas if you just say "You need to cool and push that blue note back and raise the value a bit" it is a more definite, and easier to follow statement. I hope that makes sense.

    In your example the 4s are all definitely cooler to my eye. So I guess my advice is to not get too wrapped up in the technicalities - focus instead on observation and push your interpretation to get the results you're after.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to JeffX99 For This Useful Post:


  14. #23
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Hudson River valley, NY
    Posts
    16,206
    Thanks
    4,879
    Thanked 16,690 Times in 5,022 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffX99 View Post
    For example - you could tell a student "That purplish, royal blue note has to go more toward a sky-aqua" or somehting like that - they may have different notions of what those "hues" are. Whereas if you just say "You need to cool and push that blue note back and raise the value a bit" it is a more definite, and easier to follow statement. I hope that makes sense.
    I agree with you about simplicity, and often fall back on warm/cool terminology when I'm talking to someone about a specific case. But your example actually points out the problems with it, since which blues are "warm" and which blues are "cool" depends on where you're placing the warm/cool axis, and there's no universal consensus on that. And even if you did agree on which blue was the "coolest," then shifting it towards purple, towards green, or towards neutrality would all be "warming" it. So, in your example, I would say, "that blue needs to be lighter, greener, and more neutral." Or, if we were dealing with paint, I might refer to specific pigments. J. Crew-style goofy color names aren't what anybody here means when they say "hue."
    (see http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color12.html and http://www.huevaluechroma.com/077.php)
    Last edited by Elwell; December 20th, 2009 at 11:40 AM.

    Tristan Elwell
    **Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial

    "Work is more fun than fun."
    -John Cale

    "Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
    -Marc Maron

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Elwell For This Useful Post:


  16. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,915 Times in 2,547 Posts
    You're right - Elwell - because the next question is generally, "How do I gray that color?..." And you talk about mixing in a little complementary color, green, orange, etc. That's the problem with talking about this stuff instead of showing it- and why I was saying keeping it simple helps.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to JeffX99 For This Useful Post:


  18. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,028
    Thanks
    1,349
    Thanked 1,950 Times in 776 Posts
    Interesting inputs from everyone here.
    I'd like to pick up on something dpaint touched on regarding the painting as a totality and something Elwell said about there being no absolutes, only relatives in painting:

    Bringing a painting together, so that it feels 'right' (and we all recognise that elusive moment when it comes) can be thought of as the point at which you understand the DNA of what is making everything tick within all the painting's elements. At this moment the painting seems to take charge and you willingly fall into its arms whereupon they carry you to the finishing line.
    In terms of colour and its function as light organisation in the painting, i.e. luminance, questions of how colours 'turn' or modulate (a purple gradually feeling like its got green in it for example) will always be dictated by the engine governing the colour scheme as a complete entity. How colours behave is dictated by the scheme of the painting as a whole, not by any 'rules' outside it. This is what I mean by the painting's 'DNA'. Problems and difficulties arise when there are two or more DNA systems going on at the same time and the painter has either failed to realise it or, more commonly, unable to decide which one to put their creative money on.
    Last edited by Chris Bennett; December 20th, 2009 at 05:09 PM. Reason: typo
    From Gegarin's point of view
    http://www.chrisbennettartist.co.uk/

  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chris Bennett For This Useful Post:


  20. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,330
    Thanks
    3,061
    Thanked 6,406 Times in 2,671 Posts
    This is devolving into semantics but there are some things worth observing in all this for future reference.
    The problem with the Munsell system is, it doesn't help you when you are working, it does help to build a vocabulary for teaching and study though. I swear by it. Its what Frank Reilly used and I have taught it in my workshops for years, but telling someone your chroma needs to be adjusted by ten percent and your hue five percent, is still an opinion, better to say "cool that color" because the decision then becomes cumulative and relative as opposed to painting it exactly as it is measured by an instrument or anothers observation.
    I like to say the weight of all your decisions determine the outcome of your painting. Every stoke every color has to be judged in total and the problem with Munsell is people get caught up in the numbers and that doesn't get you art. This happens to allot of the DuMond Theory students who are also using a Munsell/ derivation for fine art landscapes, and spend most of their time mixing color strings, but their landscapes don't look any better than people who don't use it. The legacy of that system then fails, if it produces no better result in the same time frame.
    On the other hand the Reilly method has produced more successful illustrators than any other US method in the last hundred years. Guys like Jeff Watts and Glen Orbik are continuing the method with the same results. So what is different? I think Reilly was more flexible, and so his students often morphed the system Munsell started and produced high caliber painters across many disciplines.
    So to wrap up my rambling; Munsell is great but it produces better results when the theory and terminology stays flexible because in reality it is just information and that information has to be used in practice. And in practice
    there is an emotional component to art that must be recognised. What is the right mixture of science and emotion is left for us to decide individually with the market place the final arbiter.

  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dpaint For This Useful Post:


  22. #27
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    874
    Thanks
    202
    Thanked 1,418 Times in 350 Posts
    Thanks very much for that opinion on Munsell dpaint. There are of course strongly held opinions in either direction from it, so I hope this thread isn't about to "devolve" any further.

    Putting aside the idea of "percentages", do you really believe it's better to just say "cool that colour" than to say specifically either "make that cooler in hue" or "more neutral" or both?

  23. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,330
    Thanks
    3,061
    Thanked 6,406 Times in 2,671 Posts
    No I don't . As I said, I believe in, and teach Munsell theory, it is the best and most accurate theory out there. But in my experience some very fine artists who have passed through my classes respond to a lesser version than the by the numbers approach, I don't know why, but they do and they have become fine painters. So as I have gotten older, I have mellowed, I start with Munsell and the people that want it, I give it to them, but the people that get that blank hundred yard stare... I find another approach to reach them. Something not so absolute. Afterall it is about getting people to see and be the best artist they can be. It is not about making them think like me. You disagree?

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to dpaint For This Useful Post:


  25. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,915 Times in 2,547 Posts
    I'm not sure if you were asking dpaint specifically but thought I'd share my experience (I think this is all still positive, good discussion - the same as we'd have if we were all sitting around). Anyway, Jim Gurney is the guy who finally got me to go out and start painting - with the advice to keep it simple - that really worked for me and is what I try to communicate to my students.

    So for me the answer would be yes - to using both. But I'm talking about fairly limited situations that occur when helping beginning/intermediate students painting en plein air.

    I think it is completely appropriate and useful to be as specific as possible - given the level of the student or even peer. One should actually push them a bit and challenge them to grow by presenting them with theory and approach somewhat beyond their current level. On the other hand I think it is best to not over-complicate things, especially to the point where the beginning student becomes overwhelmed.

    Just my two cents - I'm sure it works differently for other situations, mediums and digital vs. traditional as Elwell pointed out.

  26. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Manhattan, NY
    Posts
    737
    Thanks
    347
    Thanked 288 Times in 256 Posts
    This thread is awesome. I just wanted to come here and say thank you guys, these kind of threads are what make CA a great place.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Colour theory and lighting?
    By Gesturing Stream in forum Art Discussions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 6th, 2011, 02:50 PM
  2. Colour/Lighting advice?
    By Sulphur in forum Art Critique Center
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: February 9th, 2011, 07:34 PM
  3. Reference of lighting colour
    By Whirly in forum Art Discussions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 27th, 2010, 08:52 AM
  4. need help with lighting and colour
    By zeo-x in forum Art Critique Center
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 15th, 2006, 03:28 PM
  5. Ambient Occlusion in Real Life - Lighting Question
    By dfacto in forum Artist Lounge
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: August 30th, 2006, 03:27 PM

Members who have read this thread: 7

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Developed Actively by the makers of the Best Amazon Podcast