color

You are currently browsing the archive for the color category.

Paint strings

14 December 2008 in art materials, art technique, color by David | 1 comment

Michael writes,

Dear David,

My ques­tion is in ref­er­ence to “Paint Strings”. I’ve never heard this term before. Is this an oil paint­ing tech­nique? (I’m just learn­ing to paint and I’m using slow dry­ing acrylics if that makes a dif­fer­ence.) Can you one day do a blog post­ing about mak­ing paint strings.

Thanks, Michael. “Paint string” is an oil paint­ing term because other kinds of paint dry too fast for it to be prac­ti­cal. What it means is to pre-mix a series of col­ors in a gra­da­tion from one color to another. Usu­ally, the string goes from high value to low value at a sin­gle hue. Typ­i­cally, chroma is high­est in the mid­dle of the range, because that mim­ics the pro­gres­sion of chroma across objects in the real world, and because that’s eas­i­est to mix.

You can use paint strings in a cou­ple of dif­fer­ent ways. At one extreme is to just mix one or two strings that you think you’re likely to use. For exam­ple, you could have a string of neu­tral grays that you use to decrease chroma in mix­tures (the best way to decrease chroma with min­i­mal effect on other aspects of chroma is to mix in a neu­tral gray of the same value). You could also mix a string of “aver­age” flesh color in prepa­ra­tion for work­ing on a fig­ure. Per­son­ally, this is usu­ally how I work with paint strings.

At another extreme is a “set palette.” This means that you care­fully plan out the col­ors you will be using and mix them all out before you begin paint­ing. That way, you don’t worry about mix­ing as you work because the col­ors are right in front of you. Frank Reilly, for exam­ple, was a 20th cen­tury artist who taught a set palette method. Artists who work with set palettes often tube a bunch of their most com­monly used mix­tures so that they don’t have to spend so much time at the begin­ning of each paint­ing session.

You can pre-mix color with water media, but you need to do some­thing to pre­serve them over the course of your paint­ing ses­sion. I have not tried the new slow-dry acrylic paints and have no real sense of how they behave. With oil paint, it just works that way naturally.

Tags: , , ,

Question about glazing

29 November 2008 in art technique, color, oil painting by David | No comments

In com­ments, Julius writes:

David: In the beau­ti­ful work you show on your gallery, are most of the effects achieved with your “thick glaz­ing” tech­nique? I have been exper­i­ment­ing with thin glazes and have run into prob­lems at every turn. For exam­ple: How to achieve an intense red or orange, since cad­mium col­ors are out? How to glaze thinly and be able to do fab­rics and table­cloths — espe­cially in light col­ors? How to do a light color ceramic bowl (as in one of yours)? Maybe you could speak in detail about the work in your gallery…

Thanks for the kind words, Julius. Glaz­ing is not my pri­mary oil paint­ing tech­nique.* I tend to paint fairly opaquely most of the time, attempt­ing to achieve the final look of each pas­sage before mov­ing to the next. I’m not dog­matic about that, how­ever, and will go back over a pas­sage, opaquely or trans­par­ently, if I didn’t get it right the first time.

I do use glaz­ing for spe­cific pur­poses. For exam­ple, the back­ground of the self por­trait in the gallery is yel­low ochre glazed over white. Although YO is usu­ally thought of as rather dull, its under­tone has a very dif­fer­ent character—much higher in chroma and value. That’s one great use of glaz­ing: to avoid “chalk­i­ness” (low­ered chroma) at high values.

As far as intense red or orange, here’s how that was done his­tor­i­cally. Start by paint­ing that spe­cific pas­sage in a flat opaque color sim­i­lar to your desired final hue. For exam­ple, you could use cad­mium red light (his­tor­i­cally, this would have been ver­mil­ion, which behaves sim­i­larly to cad red). Let it dry. Then glaze over it with a sim­i­lar trans­par­ent color such as alizarin crim­son (which is fugi­tive) or pyrol ruby (which is not). Make this sec­ond color thick where you want it dark and thin where you want mid­tones or lights. If desired, paint into the lights with the same or sim­i­lar col­ors mixed with white. Let it dry. If the darks are not dark enough, apply another layer of glaze to those areas, per­haps dark­ened with another trans­par­ent color such as ultra­ma­rine blue. Over two or three lay­ers, you can get the darks as strong as you like, in a higher chroma than you can get with­out glaz­ing. I’ve tried this, and it works. For orange, you are lim­ited in glaz­ing col­ors, but hansa yel­low mixed with any of the mod­ern trans­par­ent organic reds or crim­sons can work.

Does this method allow you to get any color you wish? No, it does not. You are lim­ited to avail­able shades of trans­par­ent pig­ments. But the Old Mas­ters were even more lim­ited, and they didn’t make junk.

As for fab­rics, this method works quite well if you have the patience for it. Be pre­pared to go back into the lights, while the glaze layer is still wet, with opaque col­ors mixed with white.

Ceram­ics are easy. For a white ceramic glazed with blue, just paint the object with­out the blue and allow to dry. Ultra­ma­rine or other semi-transparent blues glazed on top are quite con­vinc­ing (that’s how I did the ceramic cup in the “Three Cher­ries” paint­ing in my gallery).

This would be eas­ier to show than to tell, but I hope this is helpful.

*In part that’s due to the influ­ence of my teacher, Den­nis Cheaney. Den­nis is a stu­dent of Ted Set Jacobs, who long ago rejected glaz­ing in his own paint­ing method, because he believes it makes it more dif­fi­cult to pre­cisely con­trol hue, value, and chroma. I don’t paint the same way that Den­nis and Ted do (nor nearly as well), but the vast major­ity of my for­mal instruc­tion has been in a direct paint­ing style.

Tags: , , , , ,

Mixing pairs: cadmium red and lamp black

27 May 2008 in art materials, color, painting by David | No comments

M. Gra­ham cad­mium red (a cad. red light), M. Gra­ham lamp black, and Rem­brandt tita­nium white.

I posted a swatch yes­ter­day with ver­mil­ion and lamp black. Although ver­mil­ion and cad. red look very sim­i­lar, they mix quite dif­fer­ently with black. When mixed with black, cad. red makes dull pur­ples rather than dull mauves as ver­mil­ion does.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Duane Keiser on Velazquez

30 March 2008 in color, oil painting, painting by David | No comments

Many years ago I dis­cov­ered in one of Velazquez’s early paint­ings his thumbprints in the paint (at least I thought it was a thumbprint—who knows really?) The thumbprint was used to describe a piece of reflected light on the bot­tom half of a lime. There was some­thing won­der­ful about how his thumb had lifted off some paint to reveal the warm ground under­neath, and how that warmth acted as the glow of light from the sur­face the table on which the lemon sits, and how, in addi­tion to it’s rep­re­sen­ta­tional finesse it still remained a thumbprint like you’d see a five year old make while fin­ger paint­ing. When I put an actual lime in front of me I could see how he saw it and why he came to the con­clu­sion that his thumb was the best tool for the job. I sud­denly wanted to paint a lime but not just because of the color or shape or tex­ture but rather I wanted to paint a lime because of how Velazquez moved the paint when he painted one. For a long while I would “see” that thumbprint in all limes… I was chan­nel­ing Velazquez through a lime!

I don’t think I have any­thing I could add to that. Go read the whole thing.

Tags:

Color mixing for beginners

8 March 2008 in art technique, color, painting by David | 10 comments

It seems, from read­ing the occa­sional email that peo­ple send to me and look­ing over posts at inter­net art fora, that quite a num­ber of less expe­ri­enced painters have trou­ble learn­ing the basics of color mix­ing. They often com­plain about mix­ing “mud” or feel­ing like the just don’t have any con­trol over the mix­ing process.

That’s not too sur­pris­ing, because color mix­ing is kind of com­plex. I have a whole arti­cle on the sub­ject, but it’s pretty long and not really some­thing a new painter is going to be able to digest eas­ily. So here I’ll try some­thing a lit­tle dif­fer­ent. This arti­cle is about how to start learn­ing how to mix paint. It’s for peo­ple just start­ing to paint and peo­ple who may have learned some other aspects of paint­ing, but find mix­ing paint to be an exer­cise in frustration.

  • Prac­tice. Lots of artists have learned how to mix paint with­out any clue about color the­ory, through sim­ple per­se­ver­ance. Keep paint­ing and over time you’ll get bet­ter at mixing.
  • Sim­plify. Cut down on the num­ber of paints on your palette. Try two or three. That won’t let you mix any color you want, but that’s a good thing. Until you can con­trol three or four col­ors, it won’t help to squeeze out 20 col­ors that you don’t know what to do with. (And by the way, many of the great­est old mas­ter paint­ings were done with six or seven pig­ments. Total.) Only add col­ors to your palette after you’ve learned to con­trol those that are already there.
  • Sim­plify some more. As a begin­ner, you will learn more by spend­ing five hours paint­ing five small sim­ple paint­ings than by spend­ing five hours muck­ing around with one big com­pli­cated paint­ing. Don’t try to make the kinds of paint­ings you want to be doing a year from now, make small paint­ings of just one or two things. No portraits.
  • Throw away ref­er­ence pho­tos and work only from life. It’s hard enough learn­ing to mix the right value, chroma, and hue with­out the dis­tor­tions intro­duced by pho­tos. Later on, once you really know what you’re doing, you may be able to paint con­vinc­ingly from pho­tos. I’m still pretty bad at that, myself.
  • Learn to see color. Any color has three prop­er­ties: value (light­ness or dark­ness), chroma (inten­sity), and hue (where the color falls on the color wheel). Always think about col­ors in terms of those three prop­er­ties. If you don’t know what color some­thing is, you can’t mix a color that matches it. Value is most impor­tant, then chroma, then hue (that’s not an aes­thetic opin­ion, it’s how your brain pri­or­i­tizes color infor­ma­tion). If you’re hav­ing trou­ble mix­ing the right color, stop chas­ing the hue. Get the value right, then the chroma. It’s OK for now if the hue is only approx­i­mately correct.
  • Avoid pretty col­ors. Go for dull earth col­ors. Pretty, high-chroma col­ors are harder to con­trol. You want to start with easy col­ors, then work you way up to the pow­er­ful ones. Espe­cially avoid pthalo col­ors and other mod­ern high-intensity organic pigments.
  • Before you start a paint­ing, you should know what the color scheme is going to be. It’s a great idea to do a very small, very loose color sketch before­hand. Only paint the big masses and don’t try to make a pretty color study. Don’t blend—just paint flat areas of color. Ted Seth Jacobs calls these “poster stud­ies.” They make the final paint­ing much eas­ier, because once you’ve done the study, you know how to mix 90% of the col­ors you are going to use in the final painting.
  • Mix slowly and delib­er­ately. Much of the time spent paint­ing is obser­va­tion, think­ing, and mix­ing. Appli­ca­tion is a small por­tion of the time you spend painting.
  • Fig­ure out what color you want and have a plan for how to get it. If you have no idea how to mix a color, then stop work­ing on your paint­ing and fig­ure out how to get an approx­i­ma­tion of the desired color. Again, if you can’t get it exactly right, go for the right value.
  • As soon as the mix goes wrong (turns to “mud,” becomes some­thing you never expected, etc.) then scrape it off your palette. Think again, then start over. Don’t keep chas­ing the color.
  • Learn what the paints on your palette do. If you don’t have a good idea what color you will get when you mix two of your paints together, you aren’t ready to make a paint­ing. Prac­tice mix­tures until you under­stand your paints.
  • Mix with a palette knife, not a brush. Keep your paint piles uncontaminated.
  • Add small amounts of paint at a time.
  • Most of the world is lower in chroma than the paints that come out of your paint tubes. Get used to adjust­ing the chroma down­ward unless you have a spe­cific need for high chroma in a par­tic­u­lar pas­sage. For­tu­nately, when you mix two paints together, the result is usu­ally lower in chroma.
  • Don’t be afraid of strong value con­trasts. Let your dark­est dark be very dark and your light­est light be very light. A strong con­trast of val­ues allows strong mod­el­ing and con­vinc­ing depic­tion of dimensionality.

I could go on and on, but I’m try­ing to keep this very sim­ple. Per­haps later I’ll post some more suggestions.

Related posts and articles

Tags: , ,

What’s the difference between chroma and saturation?

22 February 2008 in color by David | 8 comments

In the Mun­sell color sys­tem, and in paint­ing gen­er­ally, the word for color inten­sity is “chroma.” Another word that means almost the same thing is “sat­u­ra­tion.” Sat­u­ra­tion is com­monly used in com­puter graph­ics to describe color inten­sity. They don’t have quite the same meaning.

Sat­u­ra­tion runs on the same scale (often 1–100) regard­less of the hue or the value. So the most intense blue, no mat­ter what, is a sat­u­ra­tion of 100. The most intense yel­low, sim­i­larly, has a sat­u­ra­tion of 100. That’s very con­ve­nient for peo­ple who design soft­ware inter­faces. And if you don’t really under­stand color, it makes per­fect sense. What it doesn’t do is model color accurately.

In real­ity, the most intense yel­low is far more intense than the most intense blue. And the high­est pos­si­ble inten­sity varies depend­ing on how light or dark the color is. The most intense yel­lows are found at a rel­a­tively light value. The most intense blues occur at some­what darker val­ues. At very high and very low val­ues, max­i­mum chroma goes way down. But you can always set the sat­u­ra­tion to 100 to get the most intense color at the hue and value you have cur­rently selected.

Chroma runs on a dif­fer­ent scale. In Mun­sell, the most intense chroma for yel­low runs up to about 18. The most intense blue is more like 12. (I’m doing this from mem­ory, so these num­bers might be a lit­tle off.) Those num­bers change with hue and value, so that the Mun­sell color space is an irreg­u­lar, lumpy cylin­der. That is a much more accu­rate depic­tion of human color vision than the sat­u­ra­tion model. It helps to think about color in this way when you’re try­ing to under­stand actual color relationships.

Update and Correction

28 Feb­ru­ary 2008:

David Briggs, in com­ments to this post, writes:

To clar­ify, David, my objec­tion is that you seem to be judg­ing sat­u­ra­tion as if it was meant to be a mea­sure of colour inten­sity. It isn’t, it’s a mea­sure of colour purity. The term for inten­sity of colour of light is “col­or­ful­ness”, the prod­uct of the sat­u­ra­tion of a light stim­u­lus and its brightness.

Many colours reflect light of high sat­u­ra­tion, but only those that reflect light of high col­or­ful­ness (high sat­u­ra­tion AND BRIGHTNESS) have high chroma. RGB colours that emit max­i­mum sat­u­ra­tion red light range from very low chroma (nearly black) through mod­er­ate chroma (dark ruby reds) to very high chroma (bright red or R 255). The impor­tance of this con­cept of sat­u­ra­tion for painters comes from the fact that when a coloured sur­face turns from shade into light, the colours of the light reflected from it tend to fol­low a uni­form sat­u­ra­tion series such as this.

And darn it, he’s right. Thanks, David. As this Wikipedia entry on col­or­ful­ness puts it:

col­or­ful­ness is the per­ceived dif­fer­ence between the color of some stim­u­lus and gray, chroma is the col­or­ful­ness of a stim­u­lus rel­a­tive to the bright­ness of a stim­u­lus that appears white under sim­i­lar view­ing con­di­tions, and sat­u­ra­tion is the col­or­ful­ness of a stim­u­lus rel­a­tive to its own brightness.

I, with my obvi­ously very small brain, still find it most use­ful to think about color using the char­ac­ter­is­tics of value, hue, and chroma. But sat­u­ra­tion does not mean what I said it does. I apol­o­gize for any confusion.

Tags: , ,

More on chroma

21 February 2008 in color, painting by David | No comments

Decker Walker posted a thought­ful com­ment on my recent tongue in cheek post on Chroma Clue­less­ness Syndrome.

I agree that indis­crim­i­nate reliance on high chroma leads to dis­cor­dant, brassy, loud paint­ings. But the alter­na­tive of match­ing the chroma of nature is not, in my opin­ion, the best solu­tion. Since paints have such a lim­ited range of value and chroma com­pared to nature, painters who try to match nature’s col­ors exactly wind up with a dull, dim pic­ture. This is most evi­dent in a clear blue sky. No paints can mix a blue that is as intense and yet as light in value as that sky. Only by selec­tively and art­fully exag­ger­at­ing the chroma rela­tion­ships and value dif­fer­ences observed in nature can a painter approach the color rela­tion­ships we see in nature. I’m not speak­ing here of the expres­sive exag­ger­a­tion of color for emo­tional effect, but sim­ply of paint­ing a real­is­tic pic­ture of the scene before you.

I don’t think there’s much dis­agree­ment between us. My objec­tion is to artists who use high chroma thought­lessly, because they think that a paint­ing that con­sists entirely of intense col­ors is “pret­tier” or more “excit­ing” than one that is more mod­u­lated, or because all of the paints they own are high in chroma and they never learned how to mix them to get a desired chroma.

If I might be indulged in quot­ing myself, here’s what I wrote in an arti­cle on color mixing:

Let me give you an exam­ple. I was brows­ing through art books in a book­store the other day and found one about the paint­ing tech­niques of the impres­sion­ists. It’s a very well writ­ten book, based on lots of research on the indi­vid­ual meth­ods of many 19th cen­tury artists. There are a num­ber of demon­stra­tions in which the author copies a sec­tion of an impres­sion­ist paint­ing, using the meth­ods of the orig­i­nal artist. In every sin­gle case, through­out the entire book, the author gets the chroma badly wrong and pretty much every­thing else right. In par­tic­u­lar, almost every color is one or two chroma steps higher than the cor­re­spond­ing color in the orig­i­nal. Impres­sion­ists were not known for mak­ing dull pic­tures, but the author felt the need to “improve” the orig­i­nals by bump­ing the chroma, even though she was clearly mak­ing a seri­ous attempt to use the same or sim­i­lar pig­ments and tech­niques. What’s more, I don’t think she knew she was doing it. I think she believed she was doing pre­cise copies, but failed to see chroma dif­fer­ences right in front of her face. That’s just a guess on my part; some of the pig­ments used in the typ­i­cal impres­sion­ist palette were fugi­tive, so she might have been delib­er­ately com­pen­sat­ing for their ten­dency to fade. But if that’s the case, I couldn’t find where she told us that, and she was cer­tainly increas­ing the chroma even in areas cor­re­spond­ing to those painted with light­fast pig­ments. So either the repro­duc­tions in the book are badly messed up (and no one caught it) or this artist has a remark­able insen­si­tiv­ity to chroma.

I see sim­i­lar errors on inter­net forums in which ama­teur artists post copies of old mas­ter works. The chroma is usu­ally too high—often much, much too high. That might have some­thing to do with how the work has been pho­tographed, dig­i­tized, and pre­sented on com­puter mon­i­tors, but in case after case, the posted copy appears con­sis­tently more chro­matic than the orig­i­nal, even when the artist has shown them side by side. The artists usu­ally seem unaware of this dif­fer­ence, and some­times have trou­ble see­ing it even when it is pointed out to them.

Decker’s exam­ple of push­ing the chroma in the sky because you just can’t cap­ture the chroma and value in paint at the same time is an excel­lent one. It makes me think of Max­field Par­rish, who painted skies with high chroma, but never cluelessly.

Tags: , , ,

Updated article on color

17 February 2008 in art materials, art technique, color, painting by David | No comments

When I wrote my arti­cle here on color and color mix­ing, I did a pretty poor job of edit­ing it. I’ve now fixed a num­ber of prob­lems and made the whole thing a lot more coherent.

It’s long, but I think it’s pretty good. You can find it here.

Chroma Cluelessness Syndrome

14 February 2008 in art technique, color by David | 9 comments

Severe Chroma Clue­less­ness Syn­drome affects about 32% of artists. It is char­ac­ter­ized by mak­ing paint­ings with uncon­trolled high chroma (inten­sity). Symp­toms include:

  • High chroma col­ors make up most of the patient’s paintings.
  • The patient might agree that a sym­phony that con­sists only of high notes would be excru­ci­at­ing to lis­ten to, but thinks that a paint­ing that con­sists only of high chroma col­ors is “col­or­ful” and “exciting.”
  • The patient doesn’t actu­ally know how to adjust the chroma of mixes. In severe cases, the patient may apply only straight tube col­ors to your paint­ings, with­out ever mixing.
  • The patient never uses earth colors.

Please give gen­er­ously to the Inter­na­tional CCS Insti­tute. CCSI doc­tors are work­ing tire­lessly, day and night, to develop new and inno­v­a­tive treat­ments for this debil­i­tat­ing disorder.

Related arti­cle

Color and Color Mixing

Tags: , , ,

Color blog

3 October 2007 in color by David | 4 comments

A group web log about color for painters. Check it out.

Update

23 March 2008: Please note that the Ratio­nal Color blog has been tran­si­tioned to a forum. Mem­ber­ship is lim­ited: you must apply and be approved. If you are a seri­ous stu­dent of art you may want to do that. It is def­i­nitely a place for seri­ous dis­cus­sion of painting.

Tags: ,

Munsell resource

22 April 2007 in color by David | No comments

Any painter who is seri­ous about color would find it very valu­able to study the Mun­sell color sys­tem. I’ve described it here in this long arti­cle on color mixing.

This is a site with exten­sive infor­ma­tion on Mun­sell. I’ve stumbed across it sev­eral times, but hadn’t thought to post a link until now. It con­tains a reprint of a short book on Mun­sell pub­lished in 1921. While the Mun­sell ref­er­ence color chips have changed since then to take into account more pre­cise color mea­sure­ment tech­nol­ogy and new pig­ments, the basic struc­ture of Mun­sell color nota­tion has not changed; nor does it need to. It’s still the most use­ful way for artists to under­stand and describe color.

There’s some stuff on the site about mag­netic ther­apy and other mis­cel­la­nia which you should prob­a­bly ignore. But do check out the stuff on Munsell.

Tags:

Ultramarine in tempera and oil

4 February 2007 in art materials, color, oil painting, tempera by David | 4 comments

Ultramarine in tempera and oil

Here are two swatches of ultra­ma­rine blue. The one on the left is in egg tem­pera. The one on the right is Doak’s ultra­ma­rine blue medium oil paint. Both are mixed with tita­nium white at the bot­tom. It’s not as obvi­ous in this photo as it is in real life that the tem­pera is lighter and higher in chroma. A num­ber of pig­ments, espe­cially earths, are brighter in tempera.

Tags: , , ,

Wow.

28 January 2007 in color, personal by David | 7 comments

I just got back from a lec­ture on color by Gray­don Par­rish. He’s one of the great mod­ern Amer­i­can real­ists (here are a cou­ple of links, plus a bad, and unwar­ranted, review of his lat­est paint­ing by the New York Times).

I’m still digest­ing what Gray­don had to say; more about it later. Gray­don is a great pro­po­nent of the Mun­sell color sys­tem. If I didn’t already have a decent under­stand­ing of Mun­sell color ter­mi­nol­ogy, I would have got­ten much less out of the lec­ture. He lives and breathes it, even to the point of using color chips from the Mun­sell set to directly deter­mine col­ors on a model or object as the start­ing point for his color mixes. Of the 1600 color chips in the Mun­sell set, Gray­don says that he’s mixed and tubed about 800. Yes, he’s that hard core.

I also got to meet a num­ber of peo­ple whom I had pre­vi­ously inter­acted with only online, includ­ing Jeff Freed­ner (who some­times com­ments here as Pain­ter­dog) and Rob Howard, the mod­er­a­tor of the Cen­nini Forum and the pub­lic face of Stu­dio Products.

I had a great time. Much to think about.

Tags: ,

More swatches

14 January 2007 in color, oil painting by David | 4 comments

Here are some more swatches of oil paint.

Top row (L to R): virid­ian (Doak), cad­mium green (Williams­burg), earth green (WB), pthalo green (M. Gra­ham), Turkey umber (WB), French ochre extra pale (Doak), lead tin yel­low (Doak), Bris­tol yel­low (Doak), pyrol ruby red (Doak), cad­mium red medium (Doak).

Swatches

Bot­tom row: cad­mium red (Gra­ham), alizarin crim­son (Gra­ham), quinacridone vio­let (Gra­ham), diox­azine pur­ple (Gra­ham), azo yel­low (Gra­ham), stil de grain, (WB), warm sepia extra (Old Hol­land), unbleached tita­nium (WB), trans­par­ent yel­low oxide (Doak), Naples yel­low (WB)


Related post

Tags: , , , ,

Color swatches

13 January 2007 in color, oil painting by David | 2 comments

Here are some oil paint swatches. For each paint, the pure color is on top and that color mixed with white is below. There is no way for me to take a pic­ture, post it on the web, and have you see it accu­rately on your com­puter mon­i­tor. But this gives some idea of what the color looks like. I find this to be a use­ful ref­er­ence when I’m search­ing for just the right color to add to my core palette.

Top row (left to right): Red ochre (Williams­burg), Ital­ian burnt sienna (WB), ver­mil­ion gen­uine (Doak), yel­low ochre (WB), Ital­ian raw sienna (WB), raw umber (Old Hol­land), burnt umber (WB), terre verte (WB), ultra­ma­rine blue (Stu­dio Prod­ucts), Ger­man earth (WB).

Swatches

Bot­tom row: Flo­ren­tine lake (Doak), Bohemian green earth (WB), Tus­can red (Stu­dio Prod­ucts), Poz­zuoli earth (WB), Indian yel­low (Doak), Fra Angelico blue (Doak), Alger blue (Doak), trans­par­ent blue oxide (Doak), milori (Pruss­ian) blue (Doak), indigo (WB).

Related post

Tags: , , , ,

« Older entries